definite, and binding than it was before. The idea "change of sovereignty," of course, relates to the report of an intention on the part of the United States to acquire a strip of territory on each side of the canal, and "other change of circumstances" is aimed at the argument in some future epoch against the continuance of this treaty that has often been directed against the continued binding force of the C.-B. treaty that "change of circumstance" since 1850 has put an end to it.

Lord Lansdowne's object in insisting upon Article III-A is to be able to meet the objectors in Parliament by saying that although they have given up the C.-B. treaty they have saved the "general principle," and have made it immediately effective and binding upon the United States as to all future routes, and have dispensed with future "treaty stipulations" by making it much stronger than it was before. I think his all-sufficient answer is that by giving up the C.-B. treaty, which stood in the way of building any canal, he has insured the building of a canal for the benefit of Great Britain at the expense of the United States, relieved Great Britain of all responsibility about it now and forever, and imposed upon the United States stringent rules of neutrality as to Great Britain and all mankind.

Assuming that some such article must be retained, how would this do?

In view of the permanent character of this treaty, whereby the general principle established by article 8 of the C.-B. treaty is reaffirmed, the United States hereby declares (and agrees) that it will impose no other charges or conditions of traffic upon any other canal that may be built across the Isthmus (or between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) than such as are just and equitable, and that such canals shall be open to the subjects and citizens of the United States and of all other nations on equal terms.

Lord Pauncefote's expectation is now that you will in due time answer Lord Lansdowne's paper, and that he and Lord L. will give full consideration to the matter in time to enable him to bring back an agreed instrument when he returns in October, which I sincerely hope may be the case.

Yours, very truly,

JOSEPH H. CHOATE.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate,

[Telegram.]

DEPARTMENT of State, Washington, August 22, 1901.

Lord Lansdowne's counter draft received with very few changes.' I await some intimation of tenor of your conversation with Lord Lansdowne before answering Lord Pauncefote.

1 See Marquis of Lansdowne's note, Aug. 3, 1901. Ante.

HAY.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate.

[Extracts from private letter not of record; original not on department files.]

NEWBURY, N. H., September 2, 1901.

MY DEAR MR. CHOATE: I went to Canton immediately on receiving Lord Lansdowne's memorandum and consulted the President about it. You can understand my satisfaction, on returning to Washington and receiving your letter containing your conversation with Lord Lansdowne and Lord Pauncefote, to find that you had arrived at the same conclusion which the President and I had reached and that you saw a possibility of our views being taken into favorable consideration by the British Government. I have written a brief letter to Lord Pauncefote, of which I inclose you a copy. Your views are so clear and definite and so entirely in accord with my own, that I find it unnecessary to give you any extended instructions as to this very important matter. I have, as you will see, requested Lord Pauncefote to confer freely with you, and I hope you will be able to go into the business pretty thoroughly with Lord Lansdowne. What we should wish, best of all, would be to have them accept our project just as it stands. But this is a counsel of perfection and probably unattainable. They have treated the matter in a friendly and generous spirit, and we must do what we can to meet them.

If they will not accept our clause 1, Article III as it is, then I think your proposition-" observing "-is an excellent suggestion. I do not see how they could object to it, and it would help us greatly

here.

As to the additional article, we must try to get it modified. It is cumbrous, vague, and mischievously far-reaching. The suggestion I make to Lord Pauncefote is satisfactory to the President and was virtually presented to me by Lord Pauncefote himself last spring. I would rather have nothing at all of the sort, but if we must concede something of that nature, I imagine we could stand what I have suggested.

You know the line to take better than I can tell you. The necessity of the canal; the interest England has in it; the advantage to her of our building and managing it; the desire of the President to get rid of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty not only without impairment of our good relations with England, but, if possible, in such a way as to make them more intimately friendly. Press the considerations you have already brought forward as reported in your letters to me. do not think they can fail to impress Lord Lansdowne; he is too intelligent not to see that the briefer and simpler the treaty can be made the better.

I am profoundly gratified at the way the matter now presents itself. Even with all Lord Lansdowne's suggestions accepted, it would be a treaty. But we must do our best great success to have gained such to improve it still further. If we can clean up that Article IV, it will be a great piece of work well done.

If Lord Pauncefote brings it back next month in the form we have indicated, I shall be ready to intone my nunc dimittis.

Yours, faithfully,

JOHN HAY.

Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote.

[Private letter; original not on files of department.]

NEWBURY, N. H., September 2, 1901. DEAR LORD PAUNCEFOTE: Immediately on receipt of your letter transmitting Lord Lansdowne's letter to you of the 3d of August,' and his private memorandum on the canal treaty, I proceeded to Canton and laid the papers before the President. He regarded, as I had done, the consideration accorded by Lord Lansdowne to my draft of a new treaty as in the highest degree friendly and reasonable, and he charged me to express to you his appreciation of it.

As to the changes suggested by Lord Lansdowne, while they may not be in themselves objectionable, we are forced to regard them in the light of the previous action of the Senate, and of the probable discussion to which they would give rise. And although this is a consideration which we have no right to bring forward in discussing a matter of principle with a friendly power, we ourselves must always bear in mind the conditions under which we labor, through that provision of our Constitution which permits one-third of the Senate, plus one, to veto the action of the Executive and the will of the majority of their own body in treaty matters.

I am apprehensive that the first amendment proposed to clause 1 of Article III, amounting, as it virtually does, to the restoration of Article III of our former treaty, which was stricken out by the Senate because of the strong objection to inviting other powers to become contract parties to a treaty affecting the canal, would meet with great opposition. If His Majesty's Government find it not convenient to accept our draft as it stands, they might, perhaps, consider favorably the substitution for the words italicized after "vessels of commerce and of war of all nations" of the words "observing these rules," and instead of "any nation so agreeing," the words "any such nation." This, it seems to me, would accomplish the purpose aimed at by Lord Lansdowne, with less likelihood of hostile discussion on this side. The second amendment in the same clause, providing that conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable, is acceptable to the President.

Coming to the article numbered III-A, which might, perhaps, as well be called Article IV, I can not help seeing in it a formidable obstacle to the acceptance of the treaty. I considered the adoption by the Senate, without change, of the preamble of our former treaty, by which it was declared that the general principle of neutralization established in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer convention was not impaired thereby, a fortunate circumstance, as it enabled us, in passing a new draft, to retain the important utterance in the preamble in the same form to which the Senate had already given its assent. To reiterate this in still stronger language in a separate article, and to give to Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty what is, in my opinion, a wider application than it originally had, would, I fear, gravely endanger this treaty. I doubt if it would pass the Senate without amendment.

See Ante, from British Blue Book; not on State Department files.

When I had the pleasure of conversing with your excellency on this subject in the spring, you made a suggestion to the effect that some clause should be inserted providing for the contingency of a change in sovereignty. It did not seem to me necessary, and for that reason I hoped that it might not be insisted on. But if it should seem indispensable to His Majesty's Government that such an article should be inserted, would it not be sufficient to cover the point in some brief and simple way like this:

ARTICLE IV.

It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligations of the high contracting parties under the present treaty.

I should be greatly obliged if your excellency would talk over these matters freely with Mr. Choate, who is in possession of our views, and of whose good will I need not assure you. I beg you also to express to Lord Lansdowne my sincere appreciation of the friendly and magnanimous spirit he has shown in his treatment of this matter, and my hope that we may arrive at a solution which may enable us to start at once upon this great enterprise which so vitally concerns the entire world, and especially Great Britain, as the first of commercial nations. I am, my dear Lord Pauncefote,

Faithfully, yours,

Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.

[Extract.]

J. HAY.

LONDON, September 3, 1901.

DEAR COL. HAY: The more I reflect upon it the more confident I feel that striking out "which shall agree" and "so agreeing," in clause 1 of Article III, and a very slight modification of Article III-A to bring it back to the real meaning of Article VIII of the C.-B. treaty, will produce a result that will suit everybody or at least ought to. I saw a recent notice that Lord Salisbury would go to the Continent for his autumn holiday about the third week of September which probably means a month's absence, and October, as you know, is quite a holiday month here, but such slight changes should, I think, be easily settled by correspondence unless their plan requires a cabinet meeting.

*

*

*

The Marquis of Landsdowne to Mr. Lowther.1

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 12, 1901.

SIR: I have to inform you that I have learned from Lord Pauncefote that Mr. Hay has laid before the President the memorandum, a copy of which was forwarded to you in my despatch of the 3d August.

1 British Blue Book "United States, 1902, No. 1."

Mr. McKinley regarded, as did Mr. Hay, the consideration shown to the last proposals of the United States Government relative to the interoceanic canal treaty as in the highest degree friendly and reasonable.

With regard to the changes suggested by His Majesty's Government, Mr. Hay was apprehensive that the first amendment proposed to clause 1 of Article III would meet with opposition because of the strong objection entertained to inviting other powers to become contract parties to a treaty affecting the canal. If His Majesty's Government found it not convenient to accept the draft as it stood, they might perhaps consider favourably the substitution for the words "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations which shall agree to observe these rules" the words "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules," and instead of "any nation so agreeing" the words "any such nation." This it seemed to Mr. Hay, would accomplish the purpose aimed at by His Majesty's Government.

The second amendment in the same clause, providing that conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable, was accepted by the President.

Coming to article numbered III-A, which might be called Article IV, Mr. Hay pointed out that the preamble of the draft treaty retained the declaration that the general principle of neutralization established in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer convention was not impaired. To reiterate this in still stronger language in a separate article, and to give to Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer convention what seemed a wider application than it originally had, would, Mr. Hay feared, not meet with acceptance.

If, however, it seemed indispensable to His Majesty's Government that an article providing for the contingency of a change in sovereignty should be inserted, he thought it might state that:

It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country traversed by the before mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligation of the high contracting parties under the present treaty.

This would cover the point in a brief and simple way.

In conclusion, Mr. Hay expressed his appreciation of the friendly and magnanimous spirit shown by His Majesty's Government in the treatment of this matter, and his hope that a solution would be attained which would enable the United States' Government to start at once upon the great enterprise which so vitally concerned the whole world, and especially Great Britain, as the first of commercial nations. I am, etc.,

LANSDOWNE.

Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.

Confidential.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

London, September 20, 1901.

(Received 5.40 p. m.)

Have had long interview with British ambassador at Washington. British minister for foreign affairs still absent in Ireland. British