THE NICARAGUA CANAL.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] have read with much interest the article on the above in the Spectator of May 11th, but while I cannot help feeling that your way of looking at the whole question is the better way, it appears to me that the Foreign Office could hardly have taken up a different attitude when they refused to ratify the Treaty submitted by the Senate. You say that if we take our stand upon the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, either the canal will not be dug, or the Americans will tear up that Treaty and let us do our worst. I agree with you that it is better to have the canal constructed on the Americans' own terms than not all, but at the same time we should not put a premium on the abrogation of treaties. If they are allowed to abrogate the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with impunity, what is to prevent their taking the same course with any new treaty, should circumstances make it convenient for them to do so ? That, it appears to me, is the danger entailed in following the course suggested by you. The Senate have shown them- selves to be unmannerly and ignorant of diplomatic usages, and the sooner they are made aware of this the better, both for themselves and for other nations. Were it possible to obtain sufficient guarantee of good faith in connection with any fresh treaty, our Government should let it be understood that they have no desire to act the dog-in-the-manger, and *at they are quite willing to come to a mutual understand- ing. To have accepted the altered Hay-Pauncefote Treaty would have been to accept an indignity as well as to create a dangerous precedent. There is no reason, however, with the guarantee above referred to, why the two Governments should not come to a mutual understanding on the lines sug- gested by you, in such a way as to retain our dignity, while acting magnanimously towards our cousins across the water.
—I am, Sir, &c., ALISTER J. FRASER. 106 Thirlestane Road, Edinburgh,
Previous page
