less, in view of the great importance of the Senate's amendments, taken together, it was deemed more expedient by Lord Lansdowne to reject them, but to leave the door open for fresh negotiations, which might have a more happy issue; and he earnestly deprecated a final failure of the parties to agree, and emphatically expressed the desire of his Government to meet the views of the United States on this most important matter.

The principal substantial objection to the Senate's amendment, completely superseding the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, was that if this were done, the provisions of Article I of that treaty, which had been left untouched by the original Hay-Pauncefote treaty, would be annulled, and thereby both powers would, except in the vicinity of the canal, acquire entire freedom of action in Central America, a change which Lord Lansdowne thought would certainly be of advantage to the United States, and might be of substantial importance.

AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE NEUTRAL RULES ADOPTED BY THE TREATY, TO DEFEND ITSELF BY ITS OWN FORCES, AND ΤΟ SECURE THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER, COVERED BY WHAT WAS GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE DAVIS

AMENDMENT.

His Majesty's Government criticized the vagueness of the language employed in the amendment, and the absence of all security as to the manner in which its ends might at some future time be interpreted; but thought that, however precisely it might be worded, it would be impossible to determine what might be the effect if one clause permitting defensive measures and another clause (which has now been omitted) prohibiting fortification of the canal were allowed to stand side by side in the same convention.

This amendment was strenuously objected to by Great Britain as involving a distinct departure from the principle of neutrality which had theretofore found acceptance by both Governments, inasmuch as it would, as construed by Lord Lansdowne, permit the United States in time of peace as well as in time of war to resort to whatever warlike acts it pleased in and near the canal, which would be clearly inconsistent with its intended neutral character and would deprive the commerce and navies of the world of the free use of it.

It was insisted that by means of the amendment the obligation of Great Britain to respect the neutrality of the canal under all circumstances would remain in force, while that of the United States, on the other hand, would be essentially modified, and that this would result in a one-sided agreement, by which Great Britain would be debarred from any warlike act in or near the canal, while the United States could resort to any such acts, even in time of peace, which it might deem necessary to secure its own safety.

Moreover, it was, insisted that by this amendment, in connection with the third amendment, which excluded ether powers from becoming parties to the contract, Great Britain would be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with all other powers, inasmuch as she alone, with all her vast interests in the commerce of the world, would be bound under all circumstances to respect the neutrality of the canal, while the United States, even in time of peace, would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal on the plea of necessity

for its own safety, and all other powers not being bound by the treaty could at their pleasure disregard its provisions.

AS TO THE AMENDMENT STRIKING OUT THE ARTICLE IN THE TREATY
AS SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE, WHICH PROVIDED FOR AN
TION TO THE OTHER POWERS TO COME IN AND ADHERE TO IT.

INVITA

This was emphatically objected to because if acquiesced in by Great Britain she would be bound by what Lord Lansdowne described as the "stringent rules of neutral conduct" prescribed by the treaty, which would not be equally binding upon the other powers, and it was urged that the adhesion of other powers to the treaty as parties would furnish an additional security for the neutrality of the canal.

In the hope of reconciling the conflicting views thus presented between the former treaty as amended by the Senate and the objections thereto of the British Government, the treaty now submitted for the consideration of the Senate was drafted.

The substantial differences from the former treaty are as follows: First. In the new draft of treaty the provision superseding the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as a whole, instead of being parenthetically inserted, as by the former Senate amendment, was made the subject of an independent article and presented as the first article of the treaty. It was thus submitted to the consideration of the British Government in connection with the other substantial provisions of the treaty which declared the neutrality of the canal for the use of all nations on terms of entire equality.

Second. By a change in the first line of Article III, instead of the United States and Great Britain jointly adopting as the basis of the neutralization of the canal, the rules of neutrality prescribed for its use as was provided by the former treaty, the United States now alone adopts them.

This was regarded as a very radical and important change and one which would go far toward a reconciliation of the conflicting views of the two Governments.

It relieves Great Britain of all responsibility and obligation to enforce the neutrality of the canal, which by the former treaty had been imposed upon or assumed by her jointly with the United States, and thus meets the main stress of the objection which seemed to underlie or be interwoven with her other objections to the former Senate amendments. The United States alone as the sole owner of the canal, as a purely American enterprise, adopts and prescribes the rules by which the use of the canal shall be regulated, and assumes the entire responsibility and burden of enforcing, without the assistance of Great Britain or of any other nation, its absolute neutrality.

It was also believed that this change would be in harmony with the national wish that this great interoceanic waterway should not only be constructed and owned, but exclusively controlled and managed by the United States.

Third. The next important change from the former treaty consists in the omission of the words "in time of war as in time of peace" from clause 1 of Article III.

No longer insisting upon the language of the Davis amendmentwhich had in terms reserved to the United States express permission to disregard the rules of neutrality prescribed, when necessary to secure its own defense, which the Senate had apparently deemed necessary because of the provision in Rule I, that the canal should be free and open "in time of war as in time of peace" to the vessels of all nations-it was considered that the omission of the words "in time of war as in time of peace" would dispense with the necessity of the amendment referred to, and that war between the contracting parties, or between the United States and any other power, would have the ordinary effect of war upon treaties when not specially otherwise provided, and would remit both parties to their original and natural right of self-defense and give to the United States the clear right to close the canal against the other belligerent, and to protect it and defend itself by whatever means might be necessary.

Fourth. In conformity with the Senate's emphatic rejection of Article III of the former treaty, which provided that the high contracting parties would, immediately upon the exchange of ratifications, bring it to the notice of other powers and invite them to adhere to it, no such provision was inserted in the draft of the new treaty.

It was believed that the declaration that the canal should be free and open to all nations on terms of entire equality (now that Great Britain was relieved of all responsibility and obligation to enforce and defend its neutrality) would practically meet the force of the objection which had been made by Lord Lansdowne to the Senate's excision of the article inviting the other powers to come in, viz, that Great Britain was placed thereby in a worse position than other nations in case of war with the United States.

Fifth. The next change from the former treaty is the omission of the provision in clause 7 of Article III, which prohibited the fortification of the canal, and the transfer to clause 2 of the remaining provision of clause 7, that the United States shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.

The whole theory of the treaty is that the canal is to be an entirely American canal. The enormous cost of constructing it is to be borne by the United States alone. When constructed it is to be exclusively the property of the United States and is to be managed, controlled, and defended by it. Under these circumstances, and considering that now by the new treaty Great Britain is relieved of all the responsibility and burden of maintaining its neutrality and security, it was thought entirely fair to omit the prohibition that "no fortification shall be erected commanding the canal or the waters adjacent."

Sixth. It will be observed that although the words "in time of war as in time of peace" had been omitted from clause 1 of Article III, upon the theory that the omission of these words would dispense with the necessity of the Davis amendment, and that war between the United States and any other power would have the ordinary effect of war upon treaties and remit both parties to their natural right of self-defense, the same words are retained in the sixth clause of Article III, which provides that the plant, establishment, buildings. and all works necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed part of it for the purposes of this treaty, and "in time of war as in time of peace" shall enjoy complete

immunity from attack or injury by belligerents and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness.

It was considered that such specific provision was in the general interest of commerce and of civilization, and that all nations would regard such a work as sacred under all circumstances.

It was hoped that the changes above enumerated from the former treaty would practically reconcile the conflicting contentions of the two Governments and would lead to the much-desired result of an entire concurrence of views between them.

With the exception of these changes care was taken in the draft of the new treaty to preserve the exact language, which had passed both the Senate and the British Government without objection, and, as is believed, without criticism.

The hope that the changes thus made had effectually met the British objections to the former treaty as amended by the Senate was almost realized.

The proposed draft of the new treaty was transmitted to Lord Lansdowne, and after mature deliberation he proposed on the part of His Majesty's Government only three substantial amendments.

He recognized the weighty importance of the change by which Great Britain was relieved of all responsibility for enforcing the neutrality and maintaining the security of the canal, and that all this burden was solely assumed by the United States. He also appreciated the importance of the other proposed changes in the direction of harmony.

Under this modified aspect of the relations of the two nations to the canal, he was not indisposed to consent to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty if the "general principle" of neutrality, which was reaffirmed in the preamble of the new treaty as well as of the former one, should be preserved and secured against any change of sovereignty or other change of circumstances in the territory through which the canal is intended to pass, and that the rules adopted as the basis of neutralization should govern, as far as possible, all interoceanic communication across the Isthmus. He referred in this connection to Articles I and VIII of the ClaytonBulwer treaty.

He therefore proposed, by way of amendment, the insertion of an additional article, on the acceptance of which His Majesty's Government would be inclined to withdraw its objection to the formal abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

The amendment thus proposed by him was in the following language, viz:

In view of the permanent character of this treaty, whereby the general prin ciple established by Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is reaffirmed, the high contracting parties hereby declare that the rules laid down in the last preceding article shall, so far as they may be applicable, govern all interoceanic communication across the Isthmus which connects North and South America, and that no change of territorial sovereignty or other change of circumstances shall affect such general principle or the obligations of the high contracting parties under this treaty.

This proposed article was regarded by the President as too farreaching for the purpose in view, and as converting the vague and indefinte provisions of the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which contemplated only future treaty stipulations when any

42112-S. Doc. 474, 63-2- -5

new route should prove to be practicable, into a very definite and certain present treaty, fastening the crystallized rules of neutrality adopted now for this canal upon every other interoceanic communication across the Isthmus, and as perpetuating in a more definite and extended form, by a sort of reenactment of the eighth article, the embarrassing effects of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, of which the United States hoped to be relieved altogether.

He believed that now that a canal is about to be built at the sole cost of the United States for the equal benefit of all nations, it was sufficient for the present treaty to provide for that one canal, and that it was hardly within the range of possibility that the United States would ever build more than one canal between the two oceans. The President was, however, not only willing, but desirous, that the "general principle" of neutralization referred to in the preamble of this treaty should be applicable to this canal now intended to be built, notwithstanding any change of sovereignty or of international relations of the territory through which it should pass. This "general principle" of neutralization had always in fact been insisted upon by the United States, and he recognized the entire justice of the request of Great Britain that if she should now surrender the material interest which had been secured to her by the first article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which might result in the indefinite future should the territory traversed by the canal undergo a change of sovereignty, this "general principle" should not be thereby affected or impaired.

These views were communicated to His Majesty's Government, and as a substitute for the article proposed by Lord Lansdowne the following was proposed on the part of the United States:

It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligations of the high contracting parties under the present treaty.

Upon a full exchange of views, this article proposed by the United States was accepted by Great Britain and becomes Article IV of the treaty now submitted. It is thought to do entire justice to the reasonable demands of Great Britain in preserving the general principle of neutralization and at the same time to relieve the United States of the vague, indefinite, and embarrassing obligations imposed by the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

During the discussions upon this article it was suggested that although no particular route was mentioned in the proposed treaty as the route to be traversed by the canal, yet as the canal had been so commonly mentioned as the "Nicaragua Canal," and the intended treaty as the "Nicaragua Canal treaty," it might possibly be claimed. that the treaty did not apply to a canal by the Panama route, or by any other possible route. But it had always been intended by the President that the treaty should apply to the canal which should be first constructed, by whichever or whatever route, and to remove the apprehension referred to and to exclude all possible doubt in the matter, it was agreed that the preamble should be amended by inserting in the preamble after the word "oceans" the words "by whatever route may be considered expedient."

His Majesty's Government at first strenuously objected to the absence from the treaty of any provision for other powers coming in.