Government to involve a distinct departure from the principle which has until now found acceptance with both Governments the principle, namely, that in time of war as well as in time of peace the passage of the canal is to remain free and unimpeded, and is to be so maintained by the power or powers responsible for its control.

Were this amendment added to the convention the United States would, it is presumed, be within their rights, if at any moment when it seemed to them that their safety required it, in view of warlike preparations not yet commenced, but contemplated or supposed to be contemplated by another power, they resorted to warlike acts in or near the canal-acts clearly inconsistent with the neutral character which it has always been sought to give it, and which would deny the free use of it to the commerce and navies of the world.

It appears from the report of the Senate committee that the proposed addition to Article II was adopted from Article X of the Suez Canal convention, which runs as follows:

Similarly, the provisions of Articles IV, V, VII, and VIII,1 shall not interfere with the measures which His Majesty the Sultan and His Highness the Khedive, in the name of His Imperial Majesty, and within the limits of the firmans granted, might find it necessary to take for securing by their own forces the defense of Egypt and the maintenance of public order.

In case His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, or His Highness the Khedive, should find it necessary to avail themselves of the exceptions for which this article provides, the signatory powers of the declaration of London shall be notified thereof by the Imperial Ottoman Government.

It is likewise understood that the provisions of the four articles aforesaid shall in no case occasion any obstacle to the measures which the Imperial Ottoman Government may think it necessary to take in order to insure by its own forces the defense of its other possessions situated on the eastern coast of the Red Sea.

It is, I understand, contended in support of the Senate amendment that the existence of the above provisions in the Suez Canal convention justifies the demand now made for the insertion of analogous provisions in regard to the proposed Nicaragua Canal.

But the analogy which it has been attempted to set up fails in one essential particular. The banks of the Suez Canal are within the dominions of a territorial sovereign, who was a party to the convention, and whose established interests it was necessary to protect, whereas the Nicaragua Canal will be constructed in territory belonging not to the United States, but to Central American States, of whose sovereign rights other powers can not claim to dispose.

Moreover, it seems to have escaped attention that Article X of the Suez Canal convention receives most important modification from Article XI, which lays down that "the measures which shall be taken in the cases provided for by Articles IX and X of the present treaty shall not interfere with the free use of the canal." The article proceeds to say that "in the same cases, the erection of permanent fortifications contrary to the provisions of Article VIII is prohibited." The last paragraph of Article VIII, which is specially alluded to, runs as follows:

They [i. e., the agents of the signatory powers in Egypt] shall especially demand the suppression of any work or the dispersion of any assemblage on either bank of

1 Article IV guarantees that the Maritime Canal shall remain open in time of war as a free passage even to the ships of war of belligerents, and regulates the revictualing, transit, and detention of such vessels in the canal.

Article V regulates the embarkation and disembarkation of troops, munitions or materials of war by belligerent powers in time of war. Article VII prohibits the powers from keeping any vessel of war in the waters of the canal.

Article VIII imposes on the agents of the signatory powers in Egypt the duty of watching over the execu• tion of the treaty, and taking measures to secure the free passage of the canal.

the canal, the object or effect of which might be to interfere with the liberty and the entire security of the navigation.

The situation which would be created by the addition of the new clause is deserving of serious attention. If it were to be added, the obligation to respect the neutrality of the canal in all circumstances would, so far as Great Britain is concerned, remain in force; the obligation of the United States, on the other hand, would be essentially modified. The result would be a one-sided arrangement under which Great Britain would be debarred from any warlike action in or around the canal, while the United States would be able to resort to such action to whatever extent they might deem necessary to secure their own safety.

It may be contended that if the new clause were adopted, section 7 of Article II, which prohibits the erection of fortifications, would sufficiently insure the free use of the canal. This contention is, however, one which His Majesty's Government are quite unable to admit. I will not insist upon the dangerous vagueness of the language employed in the amendment, or upon the absence of all security as to the manner in which the words might, at some future time, be interpreted. For even if it were more precisely worded, it would be impossible to determine what might be the effect if one clause permitting defensive measures, and another forbidding fortifications, were allowed to stand side by side in the convention. To His Majesty's Government it seems, as I have already said, that the amendment might be construed as leaving it open to the United States at any moment, not only if war existed, but even if it were anticipated, to take any measures, however stringent or far-reaching, which, in their own judgment, might be represented as suitable for the purpose of protecting their national interests. Such an enactment would strike at the very root of that “general principle" of neutralization upon which the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was based, and which was reaffirmed in the convention as drafted.

But the import of the amendment stands out in stronger relief when the third proposal is considered. This strikes out Article III of the convention, under which the high contracting parties engaged, immediately upon the convention being ratified, to bring it to the notice of other powers and to invite their adherence. If that adherence were given, the neutrality of the canal would be secured by the whole of the adhering powers. Without that adherence it would depend only upon the guarantee of the two contracting powers. The amendment, however, not only removes all prospect of the wider guarantee, but places this country in a position of marked disadvantage, compared with other powers which would not be subject to the self-denying ordinance which Great Britain is desired to accept. It would follow, were His Majesty's Government to agree to such an arrangement, that while the United States would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time of war, or apprehended war, and while other powers could with a clear conscience disregard any of the restrictions imposed by the convention, Great Britain alone, in spite of her enormous possessions on the American continent, in spite of the extent of her Australasian colonies and her interests in the East, would be absolutely precluded from resorting to any such action, or from taking measures to secure her interests in and near the canal.

I request that your excellency will explain to the Secretary of State the reasons, as set forth in this dispatch, why His Majesty's Govern

ment feel unable to accept the convention in the shape presented to them by the American ambassador, and why they prefer, as matters stand at present, to retain unmodified the provisions of the ClaytonBulwer treaty. His Majesty's Government have, throughout these negotiations, given evidence of their earnest desire to meet the views of the United States. They would on this occasion have been ready to consider in a friendly spirit any amendments of the convention, not inconsistent with the principles accepted by both Governments, which the Government of the United States might have desired to propose, and they would sincerely regret a failure to come to an amicable understanding in regard to this important subject.

Your lordship is authorized to read this dispatch to the Secretary of State and to leave a copy in his hands.

I am, etc.,

[Inclosure in No. 2.]

LANSDOWNE.

Articles I and VI of convention between Her Majesty and the United States of America relative to the establishment of a communication by ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, signed at Washington, April 19, 1850:

ARTICLE I.

The Governments of Great Britain and the United States hereby declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal; agreeing that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rico, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which either has, or may have, to or with any State or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same. Nor will Great Britain or the United States take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence that either may possess with any State or Government through whose territory the said canal may pass for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the subjects or citizens of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal, which shall not be offered, on the same terms, to the subjects or citizens of the other.

ARTICLE VI.

The contracting parties in this convention engage to invite every State with which both or either have friendly intercourse to enter into stipulations with them similar to those which they have entered into with each other to the end that all other States may share in the honor and advantage of having contributed to a work of such general interest and importance as the canal herein contemplated; and the contracting parties likewise agree that each shall enter into treaty stipulations with such of the Central American States as they may deem advisable, for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the great design of this convention, namely, that of constructing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication between the two oceans for the

benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all, and of protecting the same; and they also agree that the good offices of either shall be employed, when requested by the other, in aiding and assisting the negotiation of such treaty stipulations; and should any differences arise as to right or property over the territory through which the said canal shall pass between the States or Governments of Central America, and such differences should in any way impede or obstruct the execution of the said canal, the Governments of Great Britain and the United States will use their good offices to settle such differences in the manner best suited to promote the interests of the said canal, and to strengthen the bonds of friendship and alliance which exist between the contracting parties.

CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE TREATY SIGNED AT WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 18, 1901, RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNICATION BY SHIP CANAL BETWEEN THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC OCEANS.

[Printed in British Blue Book. "United States, 1902, No. 1.”]

No. 1.

Lord Pauncefote to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

WASHINGTON, April 25, 1901. MY LORD: Since the rejection by His Majesty's Government of the amendments introduced by the Senate in the Interoceanic Canal Convention of the 5th of February, 1900, Mr. Hay has been engaged in framing a new draft, which, as I understand, he has drawn up after consultation with prominent Senators, and which he trusts will be acceptable to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hay has handed me a copy of the draft, which I have the honor to forward herewith for your lordship's consideration.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure in No. 1.]

PAUNCEFOTE.

Draft of convention relative to the construction of an interoceanic canal. The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, being desirous to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and to that end to remove any objection which may arise out of the convention of the 19th April, 1850, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the Government of the United States, without impairing the "general principle" of neutralization established in Article VIII of that convention, have for that purpose appointed as their plenipotentiaries:

The President of the United States, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States of America:

And His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, the Right Honorable Lord Pauncefote, G. C. B., G. C. M. G., His Majesty's ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the United States;

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE I.

The high contracting parties agree that the present convention shall supersede the aforementioned convention of the 19th April, 1850.

ARTICLE II.

It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to individuals or corporations, or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present convention, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal.

ARTICLE III.

The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralization of said ship canal, the following rules, substantially as embodied in the convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal; that is to say:

1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise.

2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.

3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not 1evictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service.

Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war of the belligerents.

4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal except in case of accidental hinderance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch.

5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal within 3 marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent.

6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purpose of this convention, and in