"That while they aim at no exclusive privilege for themselves, they could never consent to see so important a communication fall under the exclusive control of any other great commercial power.

*

"In the origin of our claim to the right of way for our people and our produce, armies, mails and other property through the canal, we offer to dedicate the canal to the equal use of mankind. *

"No American statesman speaking with official authority or responsibility has ever intimated that the United States would attempt to control this canal for the exclusive benefit of our government or people. They have all with one accord declared that the canal was to be neutral ground in time of war and always open on terms of impartial equity to the ships and commerce of the world. *

"To set up the selfish motive of gain by establishing a monopoly of a highway that must derive its income from the patronage of all maritime countries would be unworthy of the United States if we owned the country through which the canal is to be built.

"That our government or our people will furnish the money to build the canal presents the single question whether it is profitable to do so. If the canal as property, is worth more than its cost, we are not called on to divide the profits with other nations. If it is worth less, and we are compelled by national necessity to build the canal, we have no right to call on other nations to make up the loss to us.

"The Suez canal makes no discrimination in its tolls in favor of its stockholders, and, taking its profits or the half of them as our basis of calculation, we will never find it necessary to differentiate our rates of toll in favor of our own people in order to secure a very great profit on the investment. *

"The Suez canal is in the same situation, and none of the European powers would have it otherwise, because it is to the interest of all nations that war shall not exist in or near the canal, and it is made a national crime for any nation to violate the neutral ground. No nation is willing to incur universal hostility by violating the sanctity of waters in which all have equal right.

"But the canal is not dedicated to war but to peace, and whatever shall better secure just and honorable peace is a triumph."

Mr. Blaine's clear and positive declaration of 1881 fortified by the incontrovertible doctrine in the Davis report, set the pace for Theodore Roosevelt and John Hay in 1903 in the negotiations for the Bunau-Varilla treaty made on the behalf of Panama.

The President in his message December 7, 1903, spoke thus: "Panama has done her part. All that remains is for the Americn Congress to do its part and forthwith this republic will enter upon the execution of a project colossal in its size and well nigh incalculable possibilities for the good of this country and the nations of mankind."

And January 4, 1904, the President sent a special message to Congress and went even to far greater length in asserting our unselfish motives in building the proposed canal, from which we quote:

"I confidently maintain that the recognition of the Republic of Panama was an act justified by the interests of collective civilization. If ever a government could be said to have received a mandate from civilization to effect an object the accomplishment of which was demanded in the interest of mankind, the United States holds that position with regard to the interoceanic canal. Since our purpose to build the canal was definitely announced there have come from all

quarters assurances of approval and encouragement ** and to general assurances were added specific acts and declarations. In order that no obstacles might stand in our way Great Britain renounced important rights under the Clayton--Bulwer treaty and agreed to its abrogation, receiving in return nothing but our honorable pledge to build the canal and protect it as an open highway. It was in view of this pledge and of the proposed enactment by the Congress of the United States of legislation to give it immediate effect, that the second PanAmerican Conference at the City of Mexico on January 22, 1902, adopted the following resolution: "The republics assembled at the international conference of Mexico applaud the purpose of the United States government to construct an interoceanic canal and acknowledge that this work will not only be worthy of the greatness of the American people, but also in the highest sense a work of civilization, and to the greatest degree beneficial to the development of commerce between the American States and the other countries of the world.'

"The powers have one after another followed our lead in recognizing Panama as an independent state. Our action in recognizing the new republic has been followed by like recognition on the part of France, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Norway, Nicaragua, Peru, China, Cuba, Great Britain, Italy, Costa Rica, Japan and Austria-Hungary."

"There have been many revolutionary movements for the dismemberment of countries which were evil, tried by any standard. * * * * The people of Cuba have been immeasurably benefited by our interference in their behalf, and our own gain has been great. So will it be with Panama. The people of the isthmus and as I firmly believe of the adjacent parts of

Central and South America will be greatly benefited by the building of the canal and the guarantee of peace and order along its line; and hand in hand with the benefit to them will go the benefit to us and to mankind."

We have one more source of information of what John Hay's opinion was, about equal rights of all nations in the use of the canal; it has not been brought out before in our American arguments. Bunau-Varilla and Secretary Hay held private conferences about the contents of the treaty with Panama; only one of the parties is now living. By referring to the Varilla book on Panama at pages 373 and 376 will be found a full statement of what Secretary Hay said about the purpose of the United States in building the canal and the reason why Section 18 was put into the treaty with Panama and why the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was engrafted into and made a binding part of the same treaty. The Varilla statement seems to confirm just what Mr. Hay had always said about the neutrality and equality of use of the canal by all customers.

Our country joined in the English treaty of 1901 and the Panama treaty of 1903 and whether these pledges were in substance carried into the treaties or not we should show our good faith to the world and voluntarily respect them.

Note: President Grant contended for an "American canal," still, in 1870, he authorized Gen'l Hurlbut, at Bogota, to sign a treaty for "equal tolls to all nations," and sent the same to the Senate for ratification. President Johnson (1869) sent a similar treaty to the Senate to be ratified. American officials, by urging "American control," meant merely the "political" control. Economically they all demanded "toll equality."

CHAPTER XVI.

ABSTRUSE PHRASE "ALL NATIONS."

From the Morning News, Wilmington, Del., April 29,

1914.

To the Editor: Many Americans in the Panama controversy are willing to stand on the epigram that, "It cannot be reasonably argued that in fixing the terms for customers that our nation looked upon itself as one of the customers." This may be a convincing statement, but it is not conclusive.

It is not a question of what Congress thought when laying the tolls, but what England and America both thought and had a right to think when the treaty was made. America was extremely anxious for the treaty and in it agreed that there should be "entire" equality as to all nations. If "customers" is substituted for nations it would read "equal to all customers." Every user of the canal ought to be a "customer" and not a "mendicant." It sounds better. Again, the word customer should not be determined by nationality alone— customer means user. Even if the nation could prefer itself, still one individual, or even a class, is not the whole nation.

We lose ground by standing on the epigrammatic statement. We get back in the end to the old question, did we include our own people by the words "all nations"? As only two nations were contracting, the words must of necessity include both of these parties. The "other" nations were oblivious to the compact.

If "all nations" included England why did it not