#15. President Hayes' Message of March 8, 1880*

"The policy of this country is a canal under American control. The United States cannot consent to the surrender of this control to any European power, or to any combination of European powers. If existing treaties between the United States and other nations, or if the rights of sovereignty or property of other nations stand in the way of this policy-a contingency which is not apprehended-suitable steps should be taken by just and liberal negotiations to promote and establish the American policy on this subject, consistently with the rights of the nations to be affected by it.

"The capital invested by corporations or citizens of other countries in such an enterprise must, in a great degree, look for protection to one or more of the great powers of the world. No European power can intervene for such protection without adopting measures on this continent which the United States would deem wholly inadmissible. If the protection of the United States is relied upon, the United States must exercise such control as will enable this country to protect its national interests and maintain the rights of those whose private capital is embarked in the work.

"An interoceanic canal across the American Isthmus will essentially change the geographical relations between the Atlantic and Pacific rest of the world. It will be the great ocean thoroughfare between our coasts of the United States, and between the United States and the Atlantic and our Pacific shores, and virtually a part of the coast line of the United States. Our merely commercial interest in it is greater than that of all other countries, while its relations to our power and prosperity as a nation, to our means of defense, our unity, peace, and safety, are matters of paramount concern to the people of the United. States. No other great power would, under similar circumstances, fail to assert a rightful control over a work so closely and vitally affectconclusion, that it is the right and the duty of the United States to "Without urging further the grounds of my opinion, I repeat, in assert and maintain such supervision and authority over any inter

ing its interest and welfare.

oceanic canal

America as will protect our national interests. This I am quite sure will be found not only compatible with, but promotive of, the widest and most permanent advantage to commerce and civilization."

across the isthmus that connects North and South

John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law. Washington, Govt. Print. Off.,

1906, 56th Congress,

2d

session, House Document No. 551. JX237.M7, v. 3, pp. 188-189.

#16. United States-British Discussions, 1881-1883*

Mr. Blaine, in an instruction to Mr. Lowell, minister to England June 24, 1881, referring to a report "that the great powers of Europ may possibly be considering the subject of jointly guaranteeing th neutrality of the interoceanic canal" then projected across the Isth mus of Panama, declared that, in the opinion of the President, th guarantee given by the United States to New Granada, by Art. XXXV of the treaty of 1846, did not require "reinforcement, or accession, o assent from any other power," and that any attempt to "supersede it, by "an agreement between European powers," would "partake of the nature of an alliance against the United States, and would be regarded by this Government as an indication of unfriendly feeling. Mr. Lowell was further instructed to be careful, in any conversations which he might have, not to represent this position as the development of a new policy or as the inauguration of any advanced, aggressive steps to be taken by the United States, since it was "nothing more than the pronounced adherence of the United States to principles long since enunciated by the highest authority of the Government, and now, in the judgment of the President, firmly interwoven as an integral and important part of our national policy.'

Referring to his instruction of June 24, 1881, Mr. Blaine addressed to Mr. Lowell, Nov. 19, 1881, a further instruction specifically relating to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, a treaty made, said Mr. Blaine, "more than thirty years ago, under exceptional and extraordinary conditions which have long ceased to exist-conditions which at best were temporary in their nature, and which can never be reproduced." Mr. Blaine objected to the "perpetuity" of the treaty on the ground (1) that it bound the United States "not to use its military force in any precautionary measure," while it left "the naval power of Great Britain perfectly free and unrestrained; ready at any moment of need to seize both ends of the canal, and render its military occupation on land a matter entirely within the discretion of her Majesty's Government;" (2) that it embodied "a misconception of the relative positions of Great Britain and the United States with respect to the interests of each Government in questions pertaining to this continent," and impeached "our right and long-established claim to priority;" (3) that it gave the same right through the canal to. a war ship, bent upon an errand of destruction to the United States coasts, as to a vessel of the American navy sailing for their defense, and that the United States demanded, for its own defense, the right to use only the same prevision as Great Britain so emphatically employed,

*Moore, A Digest of International Law (1906), v. 3, pp. 189–196.

"9 such an

in respect of the Suez route, by the possession of strategic and fortifed posts and otherwise, for the defense of the British Empire; (4) that, only by the supervision of the United States, could the Isthmian canal "be definitely and at all times secured against the interference and obstruction incident to war;" (5) that "a mere agreement of neutrality on paper between the great powers of Europe might prove ineffectual to preserve the canal in time of hostilities," and that if, in the event of a general European war, one of their naval powers should seize it, the United States might be obliged to enter upon a “defensive and protective war" in order to support her own commerce; (6) that, while the European powers had often engaged with one another in war, "in only a single instance in the past hundred years" had the United States "exchanged a hostile shot" with any of them, and that, as it was improbable that "for a hundred years to come incident would be repeated, the "one conclusive mode" of preserving the neutrality of the canal was to place it under the control of the United States, as the government "least likely to be engaged in war, and able, in any and every event, to enforce the guardianship which she shall assume;" (7) that, since the treaty was made, the number of French and German vessels frequenting the Central American coasts had greatly and relatively increased; (8) that the expected aid in the construction of the canal from British capital, which the treaty was designed to secure, had not been realized, and that, owing to the great development of the United States, foreign capital could not in future enter as an essential factor into the determination of the problem. In conclusion, Mr. Blainė said:

"It is earnestly hoped by the President that the considerations now presented will have due weight and influence with Her Majesty's Government, and that the modifications of the treaty desired by the United States will be conceded in the same friendly spirit in which they are asked. The following is a summary of the changes necessary to meet the views of this Government:

fortifying the canal and holding the political control of it in conjunction "First. Every part of the treaty which forbids the United States with the country in which it is located to be canceled. "Second. Every part of the treaty in which Great Britain and the America to remain in full force. As an original proposition, this GovUnited States agree to make no acquisition of territory in Central ernment would not admit that Great Britain and the United States should be put on the same basis, even negatively, with respect to territorial acquisitions on the American continent, and would be unwilling to establish such a precedent without full explanation. But the treaty

contains that

United States should seek its annulment, it might give rise to erroneous and mischievous apprehensions among a people with whom this Gov

Provision with respect to Central America, and if the

ernment desires to be on the most friendly terms. The United State has taken special occasion to assure the Spanish-American republics t the south of us that we do not intend and do not desire to cross thei borders or in any way disturb their territorial integrity, and we shal not willingly incur the risk of a misunderstanding by annulling th clauses in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty which forbid such a step with Central America. The acquisition of military and naval stations nec essary for the protection of the canal and voluntarily ceded to the United States by the Central American States not to be regarded as ɛ violation of the provisions contained in the foregoing.

“Third. The United States will not object to maintaining the clause looking to the establishment of a free port at each end of whatever canal may be constructed, if England desires it to be retained.

"Fourth. The clause in which the two governments agreed to make treaty stipulations for a joint protectorate of whatever railway or canal might be constructed at Tehuantepec or Panama has never been perfected. No treaty stipulations for the proposed end have been suggested by either party, although citizens of the United States long since constructed a railway at Panama, and are now engaged in the same work at Tehuantepec. It is a fair presumption, in the judg ment of the President, that this provision should be regarded as obsolete by the nonaction and common consent of the two governments. "Fifth. The clause defining the distance from either end of the canal where in time of war captures might be made by either belligerent on the high seas was left incomplete, and the distance was never determined. In the judgment of the President, speaking in the interest of peaceful commerce, this distance should be made as liberal as possible, and might, with advantage, as a question relating to the high seas and common to all nations, be a matter of stipulation between the great powers of the world.

"In assuming as a necessity the political control of whatever canal or canals may be constructed across the Isthmus, the United States will act in entire harmony with the governments within whose territory the canals shall be located. Between the United States and the other American republics there can be no hostility, no jealousy, no rivalry, no distrust. 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 rights and privileges, 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. And equally in time of peace, the harm