CHAPTER I

ORIGINAL ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARDS THE CANAL QUESTION

Soon after the independence of Central America had been assured, interest was taken by this republic in the construction of an interoceanic canal. As early as 1823 Señor Don Manuel Antonio de la Cerda urged the matter upon the Federal Congress; but possibly owing to the exhausted condition of the country in its endeavour to overthrow the former government, no steps were taken in this direction until two years later, when Señor Antonio José Cañas arrived in Washington as Minister of this republic. He at once addresed a note to Mr. Clay, then Secretary of State, drawing the attention of the United States to the importance of uniting the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans by a canal through the country which he represented. He further assured the Secretary of State that his government would be extremely grateful if the United States were to co-operate in such a work, and that “it would be highly satisfactory to have it a participator not only of the merit of the enterprise, but also of the great advantages which the canal of communication must

produce, by means of a treaty, which may perpetually secure the possession of it to the two nations." Mr. Clay was undoubtedly personally interested in the canal project, but he was unable to commit the administration to any specific course with regard to this proposition. Nothing was known at that time of the feasibility of the enterprise. He, however, after consulting with the President, informed the Central American Minister that great interest was taken by the United States in the enterprise, and that he would give instructions to the newly appointed Chargé d'affaires to Central America, Mr. Williams, so that the latter would investigate the facilities which Nicaragua offered, and remit all possible data to the Department of State. It does not seem that the desired information was ever sent to Washington.'

A few months before, the United States had been invited to send representatives to the famous Congress of Panama, of 1826, where the delegates of the young republics would discuss the questions of common interest for the American nations. This invitation was formally accepted after a long debate in the Senate, but the object of the United States mission would have been defeated, even if the delegates had not been sent too late, because of the conditions and restrictions imposed on their powers. In the instructions of the American representatives to that Congress an announcement of the policy of the United States in reference to the canal is made for the first time. "A canal for navigation between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans," Mr. Clay wrote, "will form a proper subject for consideration at the Congress. That vast

1 Cited by Keasbey. The Nicaragua Canal and the Monroe Doctrine. P 142.

2 Sullivan, Report on Interoceanic Communication, p. 19.

object, if it ever should be accomplished, will be interesting in a greater or less degree to all parts of the world, but especially to this continent will accrue its greatest benefits.... If the work should ever be executed so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels from ocean to ocean, the benefit of it ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe upon the payment of a just compensation or reasonable tolls." It is clear from this that Clay's policy was that the canal should be subject to control by none. But we must observe that he did not express an opinion as to the measures that should be taken in order to secure to all nations the usage of the canal and the safety of passage in case of war. It is possible, as is pointed out by M. Achille Viallate, that at that time the United States would have readily acquiesced in an understanding of the countries interested, so that the neutralisation of the canal would be assured if the scheme assumed practical shape. The fact that they were then relatively weak as compared with the great European powers, and that the Monroe Doctrine had not as yet undergone a profound transformation, would have contributed to an easy settlement for the protection of the canal by the more important nations, without any objection on the part of the United States, provided they obtained equality of treatment.

A few years later we find a European power launching a project of a canal across Central America.

The King of Holland, on account of his possessions in Guinea, had taken a keen interest in Spanish American affairs. He therefore sent General Werweer to be present

1 Mr. Clay to Messrs. Anderson and Sargent, May 8, 1826: Wharton. Digest of International Law of the United States, vol. iii p.1.

2 Essais d'Histoire Diplomatique Américaine, p.63.

at the Congress of Panama. The General, while on the Isthmus, showed himself greatly concerned with the canal project. He studied the enterprise on the spot, and on his return to Holland he succeeded in forming a company, with the king as its head, for constructing a canal through Nicaragua. A contract was concluded with this republic, whereby the canal was to be opened on the same terms to all nations at peace with Central America; but armed ships were not to pass without express consent, and this was never to be given to a flag at war with another nation. The government was to use its influence to have the neutrality of the canal, and that of the ocean to a certain extent around its termini, recognised by all the maritime powers.' This seems to have been in accordance with the American view, if indeed the United States had a settled policy on the question of the canal at that period. Mr. Huberich2 is of opinion that the terms of this contract entirely accorded with the views of the Department of State. We know, however, that there was some mild representation on the subject by Mr. Livingstone, President Jackson's Secretary of State. Mr. Jeffrey, the United States Minister to the Netherlands, was instructed to inform the proper authorities that the United States must be entitled to all the advantages accorded to other nations. He was further told to direct his endeavours to obtain for either the people or the government of the United States the majority of the shares of the Holland Company. The Dutch scheme, however, failed. The revolution in Belgium broke out, and the subsequent separation of that state from Holland

1 Sullivan, op. cit. p.20

2 Huberich, The Trans-Isthmian Canal, p.4