the Monroe doctrine to the question of a canal across the Isthmus, merely oppose the construction of such a canal, or assert their intention to control the canal by whomever built, without making any effort to promote the construction of such a work. The President, therefore, as an affirmative policy, negotiated December 1, 1884, a treaty with the Government of Nicaragua, by which the United States obtained from that Republic the right to build a canal, railway, and telegraph line across the Isthmus by way of the San Juan River and Lake Nicaragua, upon such conditions as would give the absolute and exclusive control of the transit to the two Republics, would exclude European interference, and would completely vindicate the Monroe doctrine. The treaty was submitted to the Senate during the session of 1884-'85, but being opposed by the Democrats, especially by Senator Bayard, then about to become Secretary of State, it failed to receive a two-thirds vote; but a motion to reconsider its rejection was entered.

On the 12th day of March, 1885, however, without giving an opportunity for final action by the Senate, President Cleveland withdrew the treaty, refused to resubmit it, and it has never since been heard of. In his message of December 8, 1885, he gives his reasons for hisaction. They are somewhat obscure, but may be stated in his own language, as follows:

That the treaty involves

A policy of acquisition of new and distant territory and the incorporation of remote interests with our own

The assertion of

Paramount privileges of ownership or right outside of our own territory, coupled with absolute and unlimited engagements to defend the territorial integrity of the State where such interests lie

And the combination of

The construction, ownership, and operation of such a work by this Government with an offensive and defensive alliance for its protection with the foreign state whose responsibilities and rights we would share.

It seems clear that these propositions of President Cleveland are inconsistent with adherence to the Monroe doctrine as applicable to the canal. If European nations are to be excluded from any control of the canal and from any guaranty for its neutralization, such control must be exercised and such neutralization must be guarantied by the local State through which it runs, or by the United States in connection with such local State.

It will not for a moment be pretended that the control and guaranty of such local State alone will be sufficient either to insure the neutralization of the canal or to protect the paramount interests of the American people.

The United States, then, must exercise a certain control of the canal, and must in connection with the local State guaranty its neutralization. But this will be impossible without either acquiring territory and incorporating the interests of the other nation with our own, or making engagements to defend the territorial integrity of that other nation, or forming an alliance with the foreign State for the protection of the canal.

It is absolutely impossible to conceive of the maintenance of the Monroe doctrine in connection with the Isthmus canal and of an enforcement of the paramount interests of the United States therein which will not violate the conditions laid down by President Cleveland. Although the message contains the vague declaration that

We should be jealously alert in preventing the American hemisphere from