treaty, the necessary measures for insuring which are to be taken by the Egyptian government. In case the Egyptian government should not have sufficient means at its disposal, it is to call upon the Imperial Ottoman Government, which is to take the necessary measures, giving notice to the signatory Powers of the Declaration of London of the 17th March, 1885 (and, apparently, in accordance with a diplomatic understanding, to the Netherlands and Spain) (u), and concerting, if necessary, with them on the subject. The provisions as to belligerent vessels and the landing of troops, the stationing of war vessels, and superintendence, are not to interfere with the measures which the Sultan and the Khedive may find it necessary to take for securing, by their own forces, the defence of Egypt, and the maintenance of public order, or 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 defence of its other possessions situated on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. Though measures to be taken in either of these respects are not to interfere with the free use of the canal, none of the contracting parties are to endeavour to obtain, with respect to the canal, territorial or commercial advantages or privileges. The rights of Turkey as the territorial Power are reserved, and, with the exception of the obligations expressly provided by the treaty, the sovereign rights of the Sultan, and the rights and immunities of the Khedive, are in no way affected. The signatory powers agreed, by a prior interchange of notes, that the prohibition to disembark troops (troupes), in Article V. of the convention cannot be interpreted as depriving unarmed invalid soldiers of access to the military hospitals at Suez and Porte Said (x). § 205e. The idea of constructing a maritime canal across the isthmus that Panama Canal. joins North and South America is by no means a new one. M. de Lesseps cannot claim to be the originator of the scheme, although he is, as yet, the only person who has endeavoured to carry it out in practice. In 1846, a treaty was ratified between the United States and the Republic of Colombia (then called New Granada), by which a right of transit over the Isthmus of Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit over the Isthmus "from the one to the other sea" guaranteed by both the contracting powers. As a consequence of this treaty, the Panama Railroad was built by American capital, and completed in 1855. In 1849, the United States entered into another treaty with Nicaragua for the construction of a ship canal from Greytown (San Juan) on the Atlantic side to the Pacific coast, by way of the lake of Nicaragua; and the idea of carrying out this work appears to have been seriously entertained at the time. But the question was complicated by England claiming a protectorate over the Mosquito Indians, in whose territory the Atlantic end of the (u) [Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. 2 (1889). This point is left unsettled in the correspondence as published.] (x) [Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. 1 (1888).] canal would of necessity be placed. The United States declined to admit the validity of this claim, but disputes were for the time being avoided by a treaty (known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty) being agreed to, whereby the proposed canal was placed under the joint protection of England and the United States. By Article I. of this treaty, both these governments 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 Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America." Nor were either government to "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 canal may pass for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or subjects 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 citizens or subjects of the other." By Article II., it was provided that, in case of war between the contracting parties, vessels of either traversing the canal should be exempt from blockade, detention, or capture by the other. By Article V., the contracting parties further engage that when the said canal shall have been completed, they will protect it from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and that they will guarantee the neutrality, so that the said canal may for ever be open and free, and the capital invested therein secure." But this protection might be withdrawn after six months' notice by either party, if either or both were of opinion that the Canal Company were making vexatious regulations, or unduly favouring the trade of one party to the prejudice of the other. By Article VIII., Great Britain and the United States also agreed to extend their protection to any other communications across the isthmus, whether by railway or canal. This treaty was never satisfactory, and gave rise to many disputes, even though no step was ever taken towards commencing to make the canal. But it laid down the principle that any inter-oceanic routes across any part of Central America should remain under the sovereignty of the States through which they ran, and be neutral and free to all nations alike. And although this treaty could only bind the actual parties to it, both Great Britain and the United States undertook to invite every State with which either had friendly intercourse to enter into similar stipulations. The policy of the United States, however, as authoritatively declared, is to obtain and keep for the United States the sole control of any canal constructed across Central America; and the government and people of the Republic are, it would seem, disinclined to acquiesce in the state of things lawfully resulting from the above treaties (y). (y) [Page 94, ante.] "On several occasions the United States, at the instance and always with the assent of Colombia, has, in times of civil tumult, sent its armed forces to the Isthmus of Panama to preserve American citizens and property along the transit from injuries which the government of Colombia might at the time be unable to prevent . . . . but has expressly disclaimed the duty of protecting the transit against domestic disturbance" (z). (*) [Sec. of State Rep. to House, 19th Feb. 1887. Wharton, Dig. § 145.] PART THIRD. INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OF STATES IN THEIR PACIFIC CHAPTER I. $206. Usage of permanent diplomatic missions. RIGHTS OF LEGATION. THERE is no circumstance which marks more distinctly the progress of modern civilization than the institution of permanent diplomatic missions between different States. The rights of ambassadors were known, and, in some degree, respected, by the classic nations of antiquity. During the middle ages they were less distinctly recognized, and it was not until the seventeenth century that they were firmly established. The institution of resident permanent legations at all the European courts took place subsequently to the Peace of Westphalia, and was rendered expedient by the increasing interest of the different States in each other's affairs, growing out of more extensive commercial and political relations, and more refined speculations respecting the balance of power, giving them the right of mutual inspection as to all transactions by which that balance might be affected. Hence the rights of legation have become definitely ascertained and incorporated into the international code. Every independent State has a right to send public tion to receive ministers to, and receive ministers from, any other sovereign State with which it desires to maintain the relations of peace and amity. No State, strictly speak § 207. Right to send, and obliga public ministers. ing, is obliged, by the positive law of nations, to send or receive public ministers, although the usage and comity of nations seem to have established a sort of reciprocal duty in this respect. It is evident, however, that this cannot be more than an imperfect obligation, and must be modified by the nature and importance of the relations to be maintained between different States by means of diplomatic intercourse (a). legation, to § 208. How far the rights of legation belong to dependent or Rights of semi-sovereign States must depend upon the nature of what States their peculiar relation to the superior State under whose belonging. protection they are placed. Thus, by the treaty concluded at Kainardgi, in 1774, between Russia and the Porte, the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia, placed under the protection of the former power, have the right of sending chargés d'affaires of the Greek communion to represent them at the Court of Constantinople (b). So also of confederated States; their right of sending public ministers to each other, or to foreign States, depends upon the peculiar nature and constitution of the union by which they are bound together. Under the constitution of the former German Empire, and that of the Germanic Confederation, this right was preserved to all the princes and States composing the federal union (c). Such was also the former constitution of the United Provinces of the Low Countries, and such is now that of the Swiss Confederation. By the Constitution of the United States of America every State is expressly forbidden from entering, without the consent of Congress, into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, with any (a) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iv. ch. 5, §§ 55-65. Rutherforth's Institutes, vol. ii. b. ii. ch. 9, § 20. Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, liv. vii. ch. 1, §§ 187-190. (b) Vattel, liv. iv. ch. 5, § 60. Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, st. 2, tit. 2, ch. 3, § 175. Merlin, Répertoire, tit. Ministre Publique, sect. ii. § 1, No. 3, 4. [Roumania, as these united provinces are now called, has now acquired complete independence, |