so as to be bound by its terms. It protested against being bound by what it regarded as stringent rules of neutrality which should not be equally binding upon other powers.

Lord Lansdowne accordingly proposed the following amendment, viz:

To insert in rule 1 of Article III, after the word " nation," the words, "which shall agree to observe these rules," and in the following line, after the word "nation," the words "so agreeing," so as to make the clause read:

1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations which shall agree to observe these rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any nation so agreeing," etc.

The President, however, could not consent to this amendment, because he apprehended that it might be construed as making the other powers parties to the contract, and as giving them contract rights in the canal, and that it would thus practically restore to the treaty the substance of the provision which the Senate had struck out as Article III of the former treaty. He believed also that there was a strong national feeling against giving to the other powers anything in the nature of a contract right in an affair so peculiarly American as the canal; that no other powers had now any right in the premises or anything to give up or part with as consideration for acquiring such a contract right; that they are to rely on the good faith of the United States in its declaration to Great Britain in this treaty; and that it adopts the rules and principles of neutralization there set forth. These rules are adopted in the treaty with Great Britain as a consideration for getting rid of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and the only way in which other nations are bound by them is that they must comply with them if they would use the canal.

It was also apparent that the proposed amendment, if accepted, would make rule 1 more objectionable than the third article of the former treaty, which was stricken out by the Senate's amendment, for that only invited other powers to come in and become parties to the contract after ratification, whereas the proposed provision would rather compel other powers to come in and become parties to the contract in the first instance as a condition precedent to the use of the canal by them.

Upon due consideration of these suggestions, and at the same time to put all the powers upon the same footing, viz, that they could use the canal only by complying with the rules of neutrality adopted and prescribed an amendment to Lord Lansdowne's amendment was proposed and agreed upon, viz:

To strike out from his amendment the words, "which shall agree to observe" and substitute therefor the word “ observing," and in the next line to strike out the words "so agreeing," and to insert before the word "nation" the word "such."

This made the clause as finally agreed upon and found in the treaty as now submitted for the consideration of the Senate:

The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, etc.

Thus the whole idea of contract right in the other powers is eliminated, and the vessels of any nation which shall refuse or fail to observe the rules adopted and prescribed may be deprived of the use of the canal.

One other amendment proposed by Lord Lansdowne was regarded by the President as so entirely reasonable that it was agreed to without discussion. This was the insertion at the end of clause 1 of Article III the words: "Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable," and the word "convention," wherever it occurs, has been changed to "treaty."

It is believed that this memorandum will put the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in full possession of the history of all changes in the treaty since the action of the Senate on the former amendment.

No. 2316.]

Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 16, 1901. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor, as well as the pleasure, to inform you that, by its resolution of the 16th instant, the Senate of the United States gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the convention between the United States and Great Britain to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which I signed with you on the 18th ultimo.

Congratulating you on this successful outcome of our labors,
I have, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

Lord Pauncefote to Mr. Hay.

No. 49.]

BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, February 18, 1902.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have received from His Majesty's Government the King's ratification of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States for facilitating the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which was signed at Washington on the 18th of November last.

I have consequently the honor to state that if you will be good enough to appoint a day and hour for the exchange of the ratifications, it will give me much pleasure to attend at the State Department for that purpose.

I have, etc.,

PAUNCEFOTE.

Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote.

No. 2372.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 20, 1902. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 49, of the 18th instant, informing me that you have received from His Majesty's Government the King's ratification of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain for facilitating the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which we signed on November 18 last.

If you will kindly call at the department to-morrow (Friday) morning at 10 o'clock, it will give me pleasure to effect with you the exchange of ratifications.

I have, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

PART II.

PAPERS SUBMITTED.

Mr. Root to Mr. Bryce.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 8, 1909.

DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: I send you confidentially a memorandum regarding an arrangement which we are proposing to bring about between Panama and Colombia and the United States, and which we consider of importance as enabling the United States to execute peaceably the purposes of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on November 18, 1901.

Very sincerely, yours,

ELIHU ROOT.

[Inclosure.] Memorandum.

In 1903, in settling with Colombia the terms upon which the United States might obtain the opportunity to construct the Panama Canal, as contemplated in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of November 18, 1901, Mr. Hay included in the Hay-Herran treaty of January 22, 1903, a provision under which the war vessels of Colombia might pass through the canal free of duty. The United States has now, by the use of good offices and additional concessions on its own part, brought the Governments of the two sections which at that time constituted the Republic of Colombia-namely, Colombia and Panamato the point of entering into an agreement under which Colombia will recognize the independence of Panama and confirm the title which Panama undertook to give to the United States to construct the canal, by renouncing all Colombia's claims. The proposed agreement will adjust the relations of the two to the public debt of Colombia, arrange for the settlement of the boundary, and provide for the exercise of election as to citizenship, and will constitute in general a treaty of separation.

As a part of this same arrangement of separation and to help bring it about, the United States is about to agree to the continuance of the right of passage on the part of Colombia which was formerly stipulated in the Hay-Herran treaty. The United States has not been unmindful of the provision of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty under which the Suez rules were adopted as bases for the neutrality of the canal, including the rule against discrimination between different nations; but we have assumed that that rule had no relation to the terms by means of which the title to the site of the canal and the opportunity to build might be obtained.

The Government of the United States will communicate a copy of the different treaties immediately upon the final settlement of their terms, and hopes that the accomplishment of this very important step toward executing the purposes which the United States and Great Britain have shared for so many years, and an expression of which is embodied in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, will be received by Great Britain with special satisfaction.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 8, 1909.

Mr. Bryce to Mr. Root.

BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, January 8, 1909.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have to acknowledge the receipt of, and to thank you for, your letter of this day's date inclosing a memorandum relating to the treaty contemplated with the Republic of Colombia, and have communicated the substance of it by cable to my Government.

I note that the privilege proposed to be given to the Republic of Colombia of passing vessels through the Panama Canal without payment, to which the memorandum refers, is therein stated to apply to vessels of war only.

I am, dear Mr. Secretary of State,
Very, truly yours,

JAMES BRYCE.

Mr. Root to Mr. Reid.

[Telegram.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 9, 1909.

Following memorandum was sent yesterday to Ambassador Bryce:1

The proposed treaty with Colombia referred to is not yet signed, but when signed copy will be forwarded you. Meantime, as soon as practicable, explain situation to Sir Edward Grey as described in the memorandum. Tell him we are making very considerable sacrifices, including payment of a million and a quarter dollars, to clear the title and secure peaceable possession of canal site. Discreetly give him to understand that we should be both surprised and put out if there were any objection from Great Britain under Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the purpose of which we are making sacrifices to accomplish.

Mr. Reid to Mr. Root.

[Telegram.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, January 11, 1909. (Received 11.15 p. m.)

No. 350. Confidential. January 11-11 p. m.]

Saw Sir Charles Hardinge, in the absence of Sir Edward Grey, with reference to Panama arrangement summarized in your memorandum to Mr. Bryce, as stated in your cipher telegram to me of January 10.

He was familiar with memorandum, and moment I mentioned it said: "We shall have to enter a protest."

I hastened to present to him the considerations you mentioned, sacrifices made, and surprise and disappointment felt that objections should now be made under Hay-Pauncefote treaty.

I ventured to urge also that the very thing they now protested against, the free passage of Colombian war vessels, had been agreed to in the Hay-Herran treaty, with the full knowledge and assent, as we understood, of the British Embassy at the time.

He did not deny this, but said the circumstances were entirely changed, and that this consideration was given solely because the canal was then to pass through Colombian territory.

I pointed out that nevertheless this had been the foundation agreement under which we were enabled to build the canal, and that the consideration now given was the same.

He said, "Yes; but the country that gets it is not now the country through which the canal runs," and insisted that for the sake of the precedent they should be compelled to enter their protest.

In that case, I urged that it should be worded so as to cause as little embarrassment as possible. He assured me that we need have no apprehensions on that score, but insisted tenaciously that, with a view to the future, it was their duty to protest against any inequality in the treatment accorded foreign nations in the use of the canal, and that Colombia was now as much a foreign nation as any other.

REID.

Mr. Reid to Mr. Root.

[Telegram.]

No. 352. Confidential. January 15-7 p. m.]

Learned at the same time that protest in Colombian matter is not likely to be of a nature to create much embarrassment.

REID.