CORRESPONDENCE SUBMITTED APRIL 23, 1914. LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL. To the Senate of the United States: I transmit herewith, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, in relation to the negotiation and application of certain treaties on the subject of the construction of an interoceanic canal. WOODROW WILSON. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, April 24, 1914. To the PRESIDENT: The undersigned, Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate adopted April 14, 1914, requesting the President if not incompatible with the public interest, to cause to be transmitted to the Senate all information, papers, correspondence, messages, dispatches, and records in the Department of State relative to the superseding of the ClaytonBulwer treaty by the so-called Hay-Pauncefote treaty (signed November eighteenth, nineteen hundred and one), from the beginning of negotiations to this date, and also relative to said Hay-Pauncefote treaty; and also similar information, papers, correspondence, messages, etc., relative to the Hay-BunauVarilla treaty between the United States and Colombia has the honor to submit herewith a selection of correspondence, comprising all matters of record in the Department of State pertaining to the negotiation and interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as well as a copious selection of unrecorded personal letters bearing upon the provisions thereof which were exchanged between the Secretary of State and the negotiators of that treaty. In adding this unofficial correspondence it has been the desire of the undersigned to make the present compilation as completely as possible a full response to the wish of the Senate by furnishing to that body all accessible information tending to show the motives of the negotiators and their understanding of the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. As it appears from the proceedings in the Senate when the foregoing resolution was adopted that it was contemplated by that body that it should also be possessed of whatever correspondence took place between the United States and Great Britain in connection with the negotiation of the treaty between the United States and Colombia, there has been included in the subjoined collection of papers a selection of the documents of record concerning the attempted negotiation of a conventional adjustment of all matters pending between the United States and the respective Republics of Colombia and Panama. With respect to the treaty negotiations with Colombia, thus called for by the resolution, a brief summary of the situation may not be amiss. The convention commonly known as the "Hay-Bunau-Varilla " treaty was signed between the United States and Panama November 18, 1903, for the purpose of providing for the construction of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama. By its nineteenth article that convention stipulated the right of the Panaman Government to transport over the canal its vessels and its troops and munitions of war in such vessels without paying charges of any kind. This stipulation followed, mutatis mutandis, the text of article 17 of the unperfected Hay-Herran convention of January 22, 1903, with Colon bia, it being appropriate that Panama, having succeeded to the territorial control of the canal route, should, as grantor, be given the privileges theretofore rightly due to Colombia when occupying the position of grantor. Neither the Hay-Herran convention with Colombia nor the HayBunau-Varilla convention with Panama called forth at the time any remonstrance from Great Britain on the score of the privileges offered originally to Colombia and subsequently granted to Panama in respect to the use of the canal by their Government vessels. It was not until six years later, when three treaties between the United States and the Republics of Colombia and Panama, respectively, and between Panama and Colombia, were negotiated with a view to the settlement of all differences growing out of the separation of Panama, that the Government of Great Britain gave attention to a provision found in article 2 of the Root-Cortes treaty of January 9, 1909 (unperfected), stipulating that: The Republic of Colombia shall have liberty at all times to convey through the ship canal now in course of construction by the United States across the Isthmus of Panama the troops, materials for war, and ships of war of the Republic of Colombia without paying any duty to the United States, even in case of an international war between Colombia and another country. The foregoing provisions of this article shall not, however, apply in case of war between Colombia and Panama. This Root-Cortes treaty with Colombia received the advisory consent of the Senate March 3, 1909, but was not ratified by Colombia, and died at the expiration of the term fixed within which to exchange ratifications. The correspondence herewith submitted had with Great Britain in regard to the exemption proposed to be granted to Colombia by the uncompleted treaty of 1909 shows the ground of the British objection, as well as the answer made thereto by Secretary Root, which elicited the declaration on behalf of Great Britain that His Majesty's Government consider that they can forego the making of such a protest as they had formerly contemplated and that they accept the assurance contained in your (Mr. Root's) note. To the end of making the present compilation as complete as is practicable and with a view to the convenient examination of the subject in its entirety there are added copies of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of July 5, 1850, and of the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, signed February 5, 1900, which latter was subsequently replaced by the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty of November 18, 1901, negotiated in conformity with the amendments advised by the Senate with regard to the first treaty of the year before. Copies of other pertinent documents and correspondence are added, as listed below, including the recent correspondence with Great Britain in regard to the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty in connection with the levying of canal tolls. Respectfully submitted." DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 23, 1914. W. J. BRYAN. LIST OF PAPERS. PART I. Telegram. No. 518. Mr. Hay to Mr. White, December 7, 1898. No. 976. No. 479. Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate, February 16. 1901. Telegram. Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay, February 19. 1901. Telegram. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Pauncefote. February 22, 1901. Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate, March 13, 1901. Telegram. Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate, March 15, 1901. Telegram. Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote, March 25, 1901. No. 2119. Lord Pauncefote to the Marquis of Lansdowne, April 25, 1901. Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate. April 27. 1901. Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay, June 24, 1901. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Lowther, August 3, 1901. Telegram. The Marquis of Lansdown to Mr. Lowther, September 12, 1901. Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay, September 20, 1901. Telegram. Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay. September 27, 1901. Telegram. Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate, September 29, 1901. Telegram. Telegram. Telegram. Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate, October 2, 1901. Telegram. Telegram. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Pauncefote, October 23, 1901. Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote, November S, 1901. Lord Pauncefote to the Marquis of Lansdowne, November 18, 1901. Lord Pauncefote to Marquis of Lansdowne. November 19, 1901. Mr. Hay to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. History of the amendments proposed. Printed January 18, 1911. Public Document, Sixtyfirst Congress, third session, No. 746. Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote, December 16, 1901. No. 2316. Lord Pauncefote to Marquis of Lansdowne, December 16, 1901. Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote, February 20, 1902. The British ambassador to Secretary of State, February 3, 1909. Mr. Bryce to Mr. Bacon, February 24, 1909. PART III. Mr. Innes to the Secretary of State July 8, 1912. Mr. Innes to Mr. Knox, August 27, 1912. Mr. Wilson to Mr. Innes, August 30, 1912. Mr. Phillips to Mr. Knox, October 11, 1912. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain to Mr. Bryce, November 14, 1912. Mr. Knox to the American chargé d'affaires at London, January 17, 1913. Mr. Bryce to Mr. Knox, February 27, 1913. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE PANAMA CANAL. No. 976.] PART I. PAPERS SUBMITTED. Mr. Hay to Mr. White. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 7, 1898. SIR: You are probably aware that the commission appointed some time ago, under the chairmanship of Admiral Walker, to examine into the subject of the Nicaragua canal is approaching the completion of its labors and will soon be ready to report. They have gone into the subject with more care, patience, and accuracy than any preceding body which has examined it, and it is to be hoped that when the report is presented it will contain the elements for a final decision of the material problems involved. There is also a bill before the Senate, the result of great pains and research, which, if accepted by both branches of Congress, will open the way for the Government of the United States to take a more efficient part in the execution of this great enterprise than has hitherto been practicable. At the same time there is a growing conviction throughout the country that some definite action of the Government of the United States has now become necessary if the labors of the past are to be made useful and the linking of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans by a practicable waterway is to be realized. The events of the past year have made it more than ever necessary that some means of communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific should be at once accomplished. Such means of communication seem at this moment indispensable both for our commercial and national interests. Thus far the results which have been reached, both by way of research and experiment, are not such as to have convinced the President that the canal can be built by any private corporation unassisted by national encouragement or aid; nor is it evident as yet that the returns from the commercial use of such a waterway will for some time to come be adequate for its maintenance and for anything like sufficient interest on the vast amount of capital involved. The intervention of the Government seems, therefore, to be necessary if any practical result is to be achieved. There has been, as you are aware, a great deal of discussion as to whether the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty actually stand in the way of any practical action by the Government of the United States in the construction and control of the canal. It is even held by many of our public men that the treaty is already obsolete and that it has been so treated and regarded by the action of both the 42112-S. Doc. 474, 63-2-1 1 |