Lord Pauncefote to Marquis of Lansdowne. November 19, 1901. History of the Mr. Hay to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations amendments proposed. Printed January 18, 1911. Public Document, Sixtyfirst Congress, third session, No. 746. Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote, December 16, 1901. No. 2316. Lord Pauncefote to Marquis of Lansdowne, December 16, 1901. The British ambassador to Secretary of State. February 3, 1909. Mr. Bacon to Mr. Bryce, February 20, 1909. Mr. Bryce to Mr. Bacon, February 24, 1909. PART III. Mr. Innes to the Secretary of State. July 8, 1912. Mr. Innes to Mr. Knox, August 27, 1912. Mr. Wilson to Mr. Innes, August 30, 1912. Mr. Phillips to Mr. Knox, October 11, 1912. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain to Mr. Bryce, November 14, 1912. Mr. Knox to the American chargé d'affaires at London, January 17, 1913. Mr. Bryce to Mr. Knox, February 27, 1913. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE PANAMA CANAL. PART I. PAPERS SUBMITTED. No. 976.] Mr. Hay to Mr. White. DEPARTMENT of State, Washington, December 7, 1898. SIR: You are probably aware that the commission appointed some time ago, under the chairmanship of Admiral Walker, to examine into the subject of the Nicaragua canal is approaching the completion of its labors and will soon be ready to report. They have gone into the subject with more care, patience, and accuracy than any preceding body which has examined it, and it is to be hoped that when the report is presented it will contain the elements for a final decision of the material problems involved. There is also a bill before the Senate, the result of great pains and research, which, if accepted by both branches of Congress, will open the way for the Government of the United States to take a more efficient part in the execution of this great enterprise than has hitherto been practicable. At the same time there is a growing conviction throughout the country that some definite action of the Government of the United States has now become necessary if the labors of the past are to be made useful and the linking of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans by a practicable waterway is to be realized. The events of the past year have made it more than ever necessary that some means of communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific should be at once accomplished. Such means of communication seem at this moment indispensable both for our commercial and national interests. Thus far the results which have been reached, both by way of research and experiment, are not such as to have convinced the President that the canal can be built by any private corporation unassisted by national encouragement or aid; nor is it evident as yet that the returns from the commercial use of such a waterway will for some time to come be adequate for its maintenance and for anything like sufficient interest on the vast amount of capital involved. The intervention of the Government seems, therefore, to be necessary if any practical result is to be achieved. There has been, as you are aware, a great deal of discussion as to whether the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty actually stand in the way of any practical action by the Government of the United States in the construction and control of the canal. It is even held by many of our public men that the treaty is already obsolete and that it has been so treated and regarded by the action of both the 42112-S. Doc. 474, 63-2- -1 1 British and the American Governments. I do not wish at this moment to revive or to entertain any controversy upon these points. The President thinks it is more judicious to approach the British Government in a frank and friendly spirit of mutual accommodation, and to ask whether it may not be possible to secure such modification of the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as to admit such action by the Government of the United States as may render possible the accomplishment of a work which will be for the benefit of the entire civilized world. 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. You will therefore take an early opportunity of conversing with Lord Salisbury upon this matter, of inviting his views in regard to the general situation, and of ascertaining whether he would prefer to let us know the inclinations of the British Government through you or empower Sir Julian Pauncefote to confer with me in regard to it, and, if possible, to come to an agreement which will be satisfactory and profitable to both countries. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. Mr. White to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, December 21, 1898. Prospects of agreement promising. Principal secretary of state for foreign affairs favorably impressed. Gratified by your dispatch which he pronounced admirable. He seems personally friendly, as I know Balfour is, to the construction of the canal, and admitted in strict confidence during our conversation that a work of such magnitude can only be understaken by and under the auspices of a government; also that it is better such a canal should be under protection of a single power such as the United States than two or more. He willingly assented to negotiations being conducted through you and Pauncefote. Upon hearing that, I thought you would prefer it. Dispatch and private letter next Saturday bag. Mr. White to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] WHITE. AMERICAN EMBASSY, I had an interview to-day with British minister for foreign affairs on the subject of your dispatch No. 976, which I read to him. He reciprocates very heartily the sentiments it contains; will confer with the board of trade and other departments concerned, and will instruct the British ambassador at Washington to confer with you with t a view to ascertaining the wishes and proposals of our Government and to meet them if possible. He said nothing indicative of opposition, much less hostility, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the construction of the canal, and I do not believe if it is to be open to all nations on equal terms that there will be any serious difficulty in effecting an agreement satisfactory to both nations. Mr. White to Mr. Hay. WHITE. No. 613] AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, December 22, 1898. SIR: Referring to your instruction numbered 976, of the 7th instant, relative to the proposed Nicaragua Canal and the ClaytonBulwer treaty, I have the honor to inform you that I had an interview yesterday with the Marquis of Salisbury on the subject. I read your instruction to his lordship, but did not leave a copy with him. He was evidently gratified at the frank and friendly spirit of mutual accommodation in which you had instructed me to approach Her Majesty's Government, and requested me to inform you that he reciprocated your sentiments very heartily. Upon my asking him for an expression of his views in the matter, Lord Salisbury said that before complying with my request he would like to know the wishes and proposals of my Government, and exactly what modifications we should like brought about in the ClaytonBulwer treaty. He added that in any case it would be necessary for him, before expressing an opinion on the subject in behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to consult the board of trade and other departments concerned. I suggested that the best and most expeditious way to ascertain the views of my Government would be for him to authorize Her Majesty's ambassador at Washington to confer with you in reference thereto, an opinion in which he concurred, and said that he would communicate immediately by telegraph with Sir Julian Pauncefote, which, later in the day, he informed me he had done. A brief informal conversation followed, during which Lord Salisbury said nothing to lead me to suppose that he is unfavorably disposed-much less hostile-to the construction of the canal under our auspices, provided it is to be open to the ships of all countries on equal terms. I am inclined to think that the construction of the Nicaragua Canal will be viewed with favor by the people of this country, and consequently that we are not likely to encounter any serious difficulty on the part of the British Government in respect to such modifications as may be necessary, to enable us to make it, in the ClaytonBulwer treaty; the more so, as, since the construction of the Suez Canal, that of Nicaragua will no longer have the same importance for the British Empire which it had when the treaty in question was negotiated. In this connection I inclose an article which appeared in the London Spectator of the 10th instant, and which embodies the opinion, I think, of a very considerable majority of those who have given the matter their attention in this country. I inclose also the translation of a cablegram which I sent you in cipher yesterday after my interview with the Marquis of Salisbury. I have, etc., HENRY WHite. [Inclosure to No. 613.] [From the Spectator, December 10, 1898.] THE NICARAGUA CANAL. We pointed out at the end of last summer that it could not be long before our statesmen would have to bring their minds to bear upon the question of the Nicaragua Canal and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and this is exactly what has happened. The assertion by the President of the United States in his message to Congress that "the construction [of the Nicaragua Canal] is now more than ever indispensable, and our policy more imperatively than ever calls for its control by this Government," has at once brought the matter within the region of practical politics. We make no claim to any special prescience in the matter. The Americans have always longed for an interoceanic canal, and it was evident that directly they had acquired possessions in the West Indies opposite the coasts of Central America, and also an island empire in the Pacific, they would desire to link them by water communication. A revival of interest in the Nicaragua Canal was thus an inevitable sequence of the war. But the Americans can not obtain that control over the Nicaragua Canal which they desire unless we are willing to abandon our rights under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty-an instrument under which both powers bound themselves not to obtain an exclusive control over any interoceanic canal. We and the Americans, that is, agreed some 48 years ago that a canal should only be made and controlled by the two powers acting together, and in no case by either power singly. Thus, if we choose we can no doubt veto the making of the canal and prevent the Americans doing what they so very much want to do. The people of this country have, therefore, to consider whether they will or will not veto the canal. We are glad to see already a good many indications that we do not intend to exercise our right of veto. The Times in its leading article on the President's message uses words which will, we believe, be indorsed not only by the Government but by the majority of English people. The Times says, most reasonably, that "if the freedom of the waterway were secured to ships of all nations, as in the case of the Suez Canal, we do not see what object we should have in standing strictly upon claims which originated when the circumstances were altogether different." Not less statesmanlike has been the tone adopted by the St. James Gazette. It has, however, been suggested by the Daily Mail, on the other hand, that we ought not to give up our rights, and that we should insist upon a joint control of the waterway. We do not think, however, that this contention will, if it is carefully examined, find favor here. Joint control, in the first place, means joint guaranties and joint expenditure, and we do not believe that the people of this country are prepared to spend money in Nicaragua. We have plenty of objects nearer home on which to |