CHAPTER XV.

HISTORIC PLEDGES.

America has been discussing the question of canals and ways of transit across the historic isthmus for more than three-quarters of a century; and we quote the following, from public documents and history.

Henry Clay declared as early as 1826: "that if a canal be opened across the isthmus for sea vessels *** its benefits should be extended to all parts of the globe upon payment of a just compensation or reasonable tolls."

In 1835 a senate resolution spoke with reference to an isthmian canal and among other things used the words "free and equal right to all."

To the same effect was a house resolution in 1839.

Mr. Root in his speech in the Senate, May, 1914, cites Rives as saying to Palmerston: That the United States would not if they could obtain "any exclusive right or privilege in a great waterway which naturally belongs to all mankind." This was said in 1849 and related to the pending Clayton treaty.

In 1846 we made a treaty with New Granada by which she bound herself that the transit across the isthmus shall be free to the government and citizens of the United States and no other tolls shall be levied upon her citizens passing over any road or canal made by New Granada or under her authority than is laid on the Granadian citizens.

Then in 1850 the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was made with England and the two nations agreed that if any canal is built from the Atlantic to the Pacific that

neither will seek any advantage in navigation through the canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of the other.

Secretary Cass in 1858 had discussion with England about the Clayton treaty and wrote as follows: "While the declared object of that convention had reference to a ship canal by the way of San Juan * yet it avowed none the less plainly a general principle in reference to all practicable communications across the isthmus ***The principle was that the inter-oceanic routes should remain under the sovereignty of the states through which they ran and be neutral and free to all nations alike. *** So far as the United States and Great Britain are concerned these stipulations were expressed in unmistakable terms. *

"What the United States wants in Central America next to the happiness of its people, is the security and neutrality of the interoceanic routes, which lead through it." A few days later in 1858 he stated: "The general policy of the United States concerning Central America is familiar to you, we desire to see the isthmian routes opened and free to the commerce and intercourse of the world."

There was a shade of change in our statements, under Grant's administration and that of Hayes. We then began to talk of an American canal for Americans; and that our interests would not allow a canal to be under the control of any foreign power. About this time the French people were negotiating for a route for a canal. Mr. Everts, secretary, made one statement in 1880 worthy of close consideration: He said all the treaties in the world fail to be a safeguard in a time of great conflict. What he forsaw was the fact that treaties are for peace; and "do as you can" is the rule for

war.

President Hayes, however, said: that a canal under American control, he was "quite sure will be found not only compatible with, but promotive of, the widest and most permanent advantage to commerce and civilization."

Mr. Cleveland coming into office found a treaty signed with Nicaragua, which was pending before the Senate for ratification. He withdrew it; the main reason being that he did not favor buying distant territory and entering into unlimited engagements to defend the territory of the state where such interests lie. In his message of 1885 he gave his view as follows: "Whatever highway may be constructed across the barrier dividing the two greatest maritime areas of the world must be for the world's benefit, a trust for mankind, to be removed from the chance of domination by any single power nor become a point of invitation for hostilities or a prize for warlike ambition. *

"These suggestions may serve to emphasize what I have already said on the score of the necessity of a neutralization of any interoceanic transit; and this can only be accomplished by making the uses of the route open to all nations and subject to the ambitions and warlike necessities of none."

Lincoln and Seward had also ideas about a canal. Seward in 1861 spoke thus: That the United States does not demand anything of Nicaragua only that it so conduct its affairs as to permit and favor the opening of an interoceanic navigation which shall be profitable to Nicaragua and "equally open to the United States and to all other nations. *** Seeking only such facilities for our commerce as Nicaragua can afford profitably to herself, and yield, at the same time to other commercial nations."

Mr. Blaine in 1881 comes boldly into the negotia

tions for the modification of the Clayton treaty. He finds it a handicap to our country, and insists that our interest in a canal far exceeds that of any other nation; that we should have a free hand in both peace and war in control over the canal, that the canal in time of war should not be used to throw a hostile fleet against either of our coasts. In this he was to the full limit, representing the welfare of his country; but with it all he could not forget the time worn pledge of American equality and neutrality.

He emphasized strongly and reiterated what others had promised most solemnly: "This government entertains no design in connection with this project, for its own advantage, which is not also for the equal or greater advantage of the country to be directly and immediately affected. Nor does the United States seek any exclusive or narrow commercial advantage. It frankly agrees and will by public proclamation declare at the proper time in conjunction with the republic on whose soil the canal may be located, that the same tolls and obligations for the use of the canal shall apply with absolute impartiality to the merchant marine of every nation on the globe." He most correctly draws the line on the use of the canal for any wrongful or evil purpose. It is emphatically for "peaceful purposes.'

Mr. Blaine far exceeded all, in his declaration about the equality of user, when he not only promises it, but would by "public proclamation declare it." And what shall we think of his power of definition, when he says that the tolls shall apply impartially to "every nation on the globe."

The lamented McKinley also gave expression to the general sentiment that an isthmian canal to be built or controlled by Americans should be open to all nations; for on December 7, 1898, Secretary Hay wrote to Henry

White, charge d'affaires at London: "The President hopes he may take it for granted that the British government not only have no wish to prevent the accomplishment of this great work but that they feel a lively interest in it and appreciate the fact that the benefits of its successful achievement will be to the advantage not only of England and America but of all commercial nations." In this the President and Mr. Hay jointly spoke.

The Bard Senate amendment offered to the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty was in the following language: Article III. "The United States reserves the right in the regulation and management of the canal to discriminate in respect of the charges of traffic in favor of vessels of its citizens engaged in the coastwise trade." This was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 43 against and 27 in favor.

In 1900 the foreign relations committee of the Senate, of which the extremely able Senator Davis was chairman, made a report amazingly explicit in its declaration regarding this Hay-Pauncefote treaty and our Altruistic purpose and motive in building any canal across the isthmus. The following extracts from that report are taken from the printed report of the proceedings before the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals of 1914:

"That the United States sought no exclusive privilege or preferential right of any kind in regard to the proposed communication, and their sincere wish, if it should be found practical, was to see it dedicated to the common use of all nations on the most liberal terms and a footing of perfect equality for all.

"That the United States would not, if they could, obtain any exclusive right or privilege in a great highway which naturally belongs to all mankind.