(Feb. 14, and Mar. 13, 1896); T. S. Woolsey in Yale Review, vol. IV, p. 246 and 357, (Nov., '95, and Feb., '96); Nation, vol. 62, p. 208, (Mar. 12, 1896); Forum, vol. XXI, p. 21, (Mar., 1896).
I. The completion of the canal by the United States would be unwise.- (a) Labor and cost would be excessive: Springfield Rep., Mar. 13, 1896, Report of the Ludlow Committee.- (1) The estimated cost is $135,000 000.- (b) The canal would not pay expenses: Forum for March, p. 21, ff.- (1) Competition of the Panama Canal.- (2) Competition of thirteen railroad lines.- (3) The smallness of the traffic would raise the toll to a height which would be prohibitory.- (c) The canal would be disadvantageous to the United States in time of war: S. Webster in Harper's Mag., vol. 87, p. 608, (Sept., 1893).- (1) If neutral, it would facilitate the operations of a hostile navy.- (2) If controlled by the United States, that control could not be maintained in time of war.- (x) The canal would be at the mercy of the strongest of the contesting powers.
II. Control of the canal by the United States would be inexpedient.- (a) It would involve a breach of the Clayton. Bulwer treaty: L. M. Keasby in Annals of the Am. Acad. of Pol. Science, Jan., 1896, p. 21.- (b) No rights of exclusive control have been conceded to the United States by Nicaragua: S. Webster in Harper's Mag., vol. 87, p. 608, (Sept., 1893).- (1) The treaty of 1867 gave only the right to build the canal.- (c) European powers would not permit exclusive control by the United States: Woolsey in Yale Review, (Feb., '96).- (1) As is shown in England's tenacity in holding to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.- (x) Pres. Arthur's request to modify the treaty was refused.- (d) It would bring the United States no advantages not to be gained from a neutral canal.- (1) The only possible advantage not to be gained from a neutral canal would be its control in case of war.- (2) The United States could not maintain this control in case of war: Woolsey in Yale Review, (Feb., 1896).- (e) It would force the United States to abandon her long settled foreign policy.- (1) It would tend to embroil her in disputes with European nations.- (x) They would not submit to our arbitrary interference in assuming exclusive control of an inter-oceanic water-way.- (y) The Suez Canal has set the precedent for the neutrality of such a water-way.- (2) It would force her to maintain, at immense expense, a large standing army and navy.