Page images

Copies of these three treaties were officially communicated to the United States Government, with the expression of a hope on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they would "finally set at rest the questions respecting the interpretation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which had been the subject of so much controversy between this country and the United States."

And in his message to Congress of the 3d December, 1860, Presi dent Buchanan says the dangerous questions arising from the ClaytonBulwer treaty "have been amicably and honorably adjusted. The discordant constructions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty between the two governments, which, at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this Government."

I have been forced to give the above extracts at considerable length, and I refrain from adding other passages which would tend to illustraté and confirm them. A perusal of them, however, will, I think, suffice to show

1. That the differences which arose between the two Governments in regard to the treaty, and which occasioned at one time considerable irritation, but which have long since been happily disposed of, did not relate to the general principles to be observed in regard to the means of interoceanic communication across the Isthmus, but had their origin in a stipulation which Mr. Blaine still proposes in great part to maintain. He wishes every part of the treaty in which Great Britain and the United States agree to make no acquisition of territory in Cent a America to remain in full force, while he desires to cancel those portions of the treaty which forbid the United States fortifying the canal and holding the political control of it in conjunction with the country in which it is located.

2. That the declarations of the United States Government during the controversy were distinctly at variance with any such proposal as that just stated. They disclaimed any desire to obtain an exclusive or preferential control over the canal. Their sole contention was that Great Britain was bound by the treaty to abandon those positions on the mainland or adjacent islands which in their opinion were calculated to give her the means of such a control. Nor did they in any way seek to limit the application of the principles laid down in the treaty so as to exclude Colombia nor Mexican territory, as Mr. Blaine now suggests, nor urge that such application would be inconsistent with the convention between the United States and New Granada of 1846. On the contrary, they were ready to give those principles their full extension.

3. That at a time when the British Government had been induced by the long continuance of the controversy to contemplate the abrogation of the treaty, they were only willing to do so on the condition of reverting to the status quo ante its conclusion in 1850; a solution which was at that time possible, though, as the United States Government justly pointed out, it would have been fraught with great danger to the good relations between the two countries, but which is now rendered impossible by the subsequent events.

4. That a better and more conciliatory conclusion, which for twenty years has remained undisputed, was effected by the independent and voluntary action of Great Britain. The points in dispute were practically conceded by this country, and the controversy terminated in a manner which was declared by President Buchanan to be amicable and honorable, resulting in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to the Government of the United States.

You are authorized to read this dispatch to the United States Secretary of State, and to offer him a copy of it if he should desire, in the same manner in which a copy of Mr. Blaine's dispatch was offered to me.

[blocks in formation]

No. 376.]


76.—Mr. Lowell to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, June 1, 1882. (Received June 13.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your instruction No. 368, of the 8th of May last, stating the position of the Government of the United States in relation to questions growing out of the (so-called) Clayton-Bulwer treaty. It arrived on the 27th ultimo, when the members of the Government were leaving town for the Whitsuntide holidays. I have had no opportunity of seeing Lord Granville until yesterday, when I had an interview with him, by appointment, at the foreign office. I read the dispatch to him and left a copy of it with him, at his request, agreeably to your directions. I have already informed you of this by cable.

I have, &c.,


[S. Ex. Doc. No. 26, 48th Congress, 1st session.]

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting, in response to the Senate resolution of the 18th instant, a report of the Secretary of State and accompanying papers relating to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed April 19, 1850.

DECEMBER 19, 1883.-Read and ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit here with, in response to the Senate resolution of the 18th instant, a report of the Secretary of State and accompanying papers relating to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed April 19, 1850.


Washington, December 19, 1883.

To the President :


The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 18th instant, requesting the President, "if in his opinion it is not incompatible with the public interest, to furnish the Senate

* Same as Document No. 14.

with copies of the correspondence in relation to the treaty between the Ünited States and Great Britain, signed the 19th day of April, 1850, which has passed between the two Governments not heretofore communicated," has the honor to lay the accompanying correspondence before the President for transmission to the Senate in response to the resolution.

[blocks in formation]

SIR: You have already received, with my dispatch No. 186 of the 17th of June last, a copy of the dispatch addressed by Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Lowell on the 8th May, by whom it was communicated to me on the 31st of that month, in which the views of the Government of the United States are expressed in great detail respecting the traditional continental policy of that Government, and the provisions of the ClaytonBulwer treaty.

Her Majesty's Government have not failed to give their most careful consideration to the important questions discussed in Mr. Frelinghuysen's communication, and I now proceed to convey to you the following remarks upon some of the principal points.

You will have observed that three questions are raised by Mr. Frelinghuysen:

1. The meaning and effect of Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty;

2. Whether such acts have been committed by Great Britain in British Honduras in violation of the treaty as would entitle the United States to denounce it; and

3. The proposed conclusion of a fresh agreement between the two countries, having for its object the retention and renewal of certain provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and the definition of the distance from either end of the proposed canal beyond which captures might be made by belligerents in time of war.

As regards the first point, Mr. Frelinghuysen renews Mr. Blaine's contention, that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had reference only to the interoceanic routes then in contemplation, and that Article VIII of that treaty must be read subject to the provisions of the earlier treaty of 4909 CONG23

1846 between the United States and New Granada, which, as he alleges, secures to the United States the sole protectorate of any route across the Isthmus of Panama.

Her Majesty's Government are unable to accept that view. The routes in contemplation at the date of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty were those by way of the river San Juan, and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua and Managua; and Article I of the treaty no doubt applied only to those routes. By that article it was declared that neither the one nor the other of the high contracting parties would ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over any ship-canal which might be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean. But by Article VIII the high contracting parties, after declaring that they not only desired in entering into the convention to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, agreed—

To extend their protection by treaty stipulations to any other practicable communications (that is to say, other than those mentioned in Article I), whether by canal or railway, across the Isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama.

This is in effect an agreement that all the prior provisions with reference to the protection of the particular ship canal then in contemplation shall in principle be applied to any interoceanic ship-canal thereafter constructed. The contention of Mr. Frelinghuysen that Article VIII "relates only to those projects now (1850) proposed to be established" is opposed to the terms of the article, which expressly refers to any communications other than those mentioned in Article I, and especially to those then projected. It is also contended that Article VIII " templates some future treaty stipulation." But it is none the less an agreement because its application to any canal thereafter made is to be carried into effect by treaty stipulations.


The general principle established by Article VIII of the ClaytonBulwer treaty was that all communications by canal or railway between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, "across the isthmus which connects North and South America," should be established on the broad basis that they should be for the general benefit of mankind, and that no country should, on any pretense whatever, reap an advantage which was not enjoyed by all who should be willing to extend their protection to such enterprises.

This "general principle" was not only fully admitted by General Cass in his note to Lord Napier of the 20th October, 1857, as pointed out to you in my dispatch of the 14th January last, and in which General Cass said that "the United States demanded no exclusive privileges in the interoceanic passages of the Isthmus," but would always exert their influence to secure their free and unrestricted benefits both in peace and war to the commerce of the world, but it was actually carried out both by Great Britain and the United States in their subsequent treaties with Honduras and Nicaragua, in which they respectively agreed to extend their protection and guarantee to the interoceanic communi. cations therein mentioned, in order to insure equal treatment to all nations across those public highways, and to prevent the imposition of unfair discriminating duties in matters of commerce or of unequal transit dues.

I refer to the treaties between Great Britain and Honduras of the 27th of August, 1856, and between Great Britain and Nicaragua of the 11th February, 1860, and to the treaties between the United States and Honduras of the 4th July, 1864, and between the United States and Nicaragua of the 21st June, 1867, which show that Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had reference to the protection and guarantee to be extended to all interoceanic communications, and not to any one particular scheme or schemes.

Moreover, the United States, in their treaty with Nicaragua, not only "agreed to extend their protection to all such routes of communication (between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans), and to guarantee the neutrality and innocent use of the same," but did further "agree to employ their influence with other nations to induce them to guarantee such neutrality and protection."

The Government of the United States having therefore, since the conclusion of its treaty of 1846 with New Granada, entered into treaties of a more recent date with Great Britain and other powers, carrying out the "general principle" established by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which is opposed to all idea of exclusive advantages in any interoceanic communication which may be constructed, they can hardly now appeal, without inconsistency, to their treaty with New Granada, as giving them exclusive rights of protection over the projected canal across the Isthmus of Panama.

Moreover, there is nothing in the terms of the treaty of 1846 which confers on the United States any exclusive right of protection, or which is inconsistent with the joint protection of Great Britain and the United States; and in the view, therefore, of Her Majesty's Government, the guarantee given by the United States to New Granada in the treaty of 1846 meant no more than the guarantee given by the United States, jointly with this country, in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, or the guarantees given by this country, by France, and by the United States in their separate treaties with Honduras and Nicaragua.

I now pass to the second point raised by Mr. Frelinghuysen, namely, whether such acts have been committed by Great Britain in British Honduras in violation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as would entitle the United States to denounce it. It is alleged that Great Britain has violated, and continues to violate, its provisions by exercising sovereignty over British Honduras, and treating that territory as a British colony. On this point it is important to refer to the following correspondence on the subject which took place at the time between Sir Henry Bulwer and Mr. Clayton.

On the 29th June, 1850, Sir H. Bulwer handed to Mr. Clayton the following declaration in writing:

In proceeding to the exchange of ratifications of the convention signed at Washington on the 19th April, 1850, between her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, relative to the establishment of a communication by ship-canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiary, has received Her Majesty's instructions to declare that Her Majesty does not understand the engagements of that convention to apply to Her Majesty's settlement at Honduras, or to its dependencies. Her Majesty's ratification of the said convention is exchanged under the explicit declaration above mentioned. Done at Washington the 29th day of June, 1850.


To this Mr. Clayton replied, on the 4th July, as follows:

Washington, July 4, 1850.

SIR: I have received the declaration you were instructed by your Government to make to me respecting Honduras and its dependencies, a copy of which is herewith subjoined.

« PreviousContinue »