use our spare cash. When we can get all we want out of an interoceanic canal controlled by America, why should we burden ourselves in the matter? The United States, as the power most nearly and vitally interested, may think it worth while to construct or help construct the canal, but our interests do not extend so far. All we I want is that the canal shall be made, and that when it is made it shall be open and available to our merchant ships and ships of war as freely as to those of the United States or of other powers. We merely want an open waterway that no one will be able to tamper with. Now, our contention is that we secure this object better through American control than by any other means. Indeed, if America holds the canal it will be of more use to us in time of war than if we held it ourselves. Supposing the canal ours or merely the property of Nicaragua. a hostile power might block it in the first instance as our property, and in the second, in defiance of a weak State. If, however, it is controlled by America, we need have no fear of being unable to use it, for it will be in hands strong enough to defend it. Take the case of a war with France, Russia, and Germany, and the canal in the hands of the United States. In such a case we might be hard pressed and should find it most convenient to be able to pass our ships through the canal without having to guard its two mouths by protecting squadrons. The canal would be a great neutral harbor with two outlets. Only in the case of war with the United States would American control be anything but a benefit.

But even in that case we doubt whether American control would be worse than joint control. The command of the sea would have to be fought out, and the canal would fall to the victor as the prize. We fail, then, to see why we should make ourselves disagreeable to the Americans by vetoing the canal. Rather we hold that we ought to look with the greatest possible satisfaction upon its construction. What is meant by "control" is a matter which requires attention. An able American publicist, Prof. Woolsey, of Yale, in his work on America's Foreign Policy, recently published by the Century Co., of New York, has argued, and with considerable force and ingenuity, that America would gain nothing by exclusive control, and that she had much better claim no more rights in the canal than those given to any other power. Possibly he is right in theory, but in practice some one power will always have the control of any piece of territory, and so of every artificial waterway. It was intended, it will be remembered, that the Suez Canal should be neutralized, and Mr. Woolsey, making a most pardonable blunder, imagines that it was neutralized. In reality the neutrality convention was never brought into force and is now a dead letter, as the Spaniards found when they tried to coal their fleet at Port Said. They claimed to regard the Suez Canal as an international piece of water, but Lord Cromer insisted, and maintained his point, that it was part of the waters of a neutral power. The Suez Canal is not internationalized but is under the control of the power that controls Egypt. It is this kind of control, we take it, that America intends to exercise. What we suppose will happen is something of this kind: Congress will refuse to vote money to be used anywhere except in United States territory, and accordingly a narrow strip of land on each side of the proposed

waterway will be granted by Nicaragua and Costa Rica. If this is the plan ultimately adopted there will, of course, be no need of a protectorate treaty with Nicaragua. The canal will be made in United States territory.

We come now to the practical side of the question. What answer are we to make to America if, or rather when, she asks us to agree to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty? It has been suggested that we should ask for compensation elsewhere or try to make a bargain for trade facilities. Possibly the plan might succeed, but we confess we dislike such huckstering between nations, especially when they involve demands upon a nation's internal fiscal policy. We hold that it would not only be more dignified, but also more beneficial to us in the long run, to ask for no payment for giving up what has as a matter of fact proved merely a sort of doublebarreled agreement by England and America to play dog in the manger to each other. We would rather abrogate the treaty out of good will and good feeling than for any direct quid pro quo. Let us show the world that, though in the case of foreigners we shall be tenacious of our treaty rights to the last iota, we can in the case of our own kith and kin think of their interests and wishes as well as of our own. The only conditions which we would make should concern the canal itself. We would abrogate the treaty on the following terms:

(1) That within the next 10 years the United States should make or obtain the making of an interoceanic canal; (2) that she and no other power should exercise control over the waterway and banks of the canal; (3) that if the United States ever abandoned her power of control it should be offered first to Great Britain; (4) that the canal should be open at all times to all nations at peace with the United States: (5) that the dues charged should be the same in the case of American and other vessels. If the United States were to agree, as they believe they would, to such terms as these we could have no possible ground for refusing to give up our rights under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. That treaty was, no doubt, sincerely meant on both sides to be an act of friendship. It has turned out to be at the best an instrument of mortmain; at the worst, a troublesome cause of friction: and it should, therefore, be got rid of.

The force of circumstances" is often the most ironical of goddesses, but sometimes she brings about things which are curiously fitting and appropriate. When one-half of the Anglo-Saxon race holds the waterway between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, what could be more appropriate than that the other half should hold that between the Atlantic and Pacific? When the Americans hold Lake Nicaragua as we held Lake Timsah the wheel will have come full circle. It is not for us to delay but to hasten that auspicious hour.

No. 518.1

Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Washington, December 22, 1900.

SIR: I have to inform you that the Senate by its resolution of December 20, 1900, has given its advice and consent to the ratification of the convention signed at Washington on February 5. 1900, by

the respective plenipotentiaries of the United States and Great Britain, to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and to remove any obstacle which might arise out of the convention commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, with the following amendments:

1. After the words "Clayton-Bulwer convention" and before the word "adopt," in the preamble of Article II, the words "which convention is hereby superseded" are inserted.

2. A new paragraph is added to the end of section 5 of Article II, in the following language:

It is agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing conditions and stipulations in sections numbered one, two, three, four, and five of this article shall apply to measures which the United States may find it necessary to take for securing by its own forces the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order.

3. Article III, reading

The high contracting parties will, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, bring it to the notice of the other powers and invite them to adhere to it

is stricken out.

4. Article IV is made Article III.

I inclose a printed copy of the convention as signed and a typewritten copy of it showing its reading as amended by the Senate.

You will bring the amendments to the notice of the British Government, and express the hope that they will be found acceptable to it. You may at the same time state that the supplementary convention which I signed with Lord Pauncefote May 5 last, prolonging the time within which the ratifications of the convention of February 5, 1900, shall be exchanged, for a period of seven months from August 5, 1900, has been consented to by the Senate without amendment. I am, sir, etc.,

Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote.

JOHN HAY.

No. 2013.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 22, 1900. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to inform you that the Senate, by its resolution of December 20, 1900, has given its advice and consent to the ratification of the convention signed at Washington on February 5, 1900, by the respective plenipotentiaries of the United States and Great Britain, to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and to remove any objection which might arise out of the convention commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, with the following amendments:

1. After the words" Clayton-Bulwer convention" and before the word "adopt," in the preamble of Article II, the words "which convention is hereby superseded" are inserted.

2. A new paragraph is added to the end of section 5 of Article II, in the following language:

It is agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing conditions and stipulations in sections numbered one, two, three, four, and five of this article shall apply to measures which the United States may find it necessary to take for securing by its own forces the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order.

3. Article III, reading

The high contracting parties will, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, bring it to the notice of the other powers and invite them to adhere to it

is stricken out.

4. Article IV is made Article III.

I inclose a printed copy of the convention as signed and a typewritten copy of it showing its reading as amended by the Senate.

I have instructed Mr. Choate to express to the Marquis of Lansdowne this Government's hope that the amendments will be found acceptable to that of Her Majesty.

The supplementary convention which I signed with you on May 5 last, prolonging the time within which the ratifications of the convention of February 5, 1900, shall be exchanged, for a period of seven months, from August 5, 1900, has been consented to by the Senate without amendment.

I have, etc.,

No. 379.]

Lord Pauncefote to Mr. Hay.

JOHN HAY.

BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, December 26, 1900. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 2013 of the 22d instant, apprising me for the information of my Government that the United States Senate, by its resolution of December 20, has given its advice and consent to the ratification with certain amendments of the convention signed at Washington on February 5 last by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and the United States to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and to remove any objections which might arise out of the convention commonly called the "ClaytonBulwer treaty"; and inclosing copies of the treaty as originally signed and as amended.

I have the honor to express to you my thanks for this communication, a copy of which, with its inclosures, I forwarded by yesterday's mail to Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs. I have, etc.,

Confidential.]

Mr. Hay to Mr. Choate.

[Telegram.]1

PAUNCEFOTE.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 29, 1900.

The British press and a portion of ours seem to think the prohibition fortification was stricken out of the treaty. This is altogether erroneous. The clause forbidding fortification remains intact, as well as the provisions for neutrality.

HAY.

1 This refers to the first convention, which was amended by the Senate and never ratified.

Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.

[Telegram.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, January 11, 1901.

Have seen Lord Lansdowne, and told him I was instructed not to press further proposals regarding indemnity and commercial treaties. He fully concurs with you as to danger from delay and in desire to conclude negotiations. I communicated to him on the 4th Senate's amendments to Nicaraguan treaty; expressed hope that they would be found acceptable, and, in furtherance of that hope, asked that when ready to take them up for consideration he would give me an opportunity to confer with him fully. He has named Monday next for that purpose. Have you any further suggestions?

No. 479.]

Mr. Choate to Mr. Hay.

CHOATE.

AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, January 12, 1901.

SIR: With reference to your instruction No. 518, dated the 22d ultimo, relating to the Nicaragua canal treaty, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of my note to Lord Lansdowne, dated the 4th instant, and also a translation of my cipher telegram to you, dated the 11th instant.

A copy of my note to Lord Lansdowne should have gone with last Wednesday's dispatch bag but was inadvertently omitted.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure to No. 479.]

JOSEPH H. CHOATE.

Mr. Choate to Lord Lansdowne.

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

London, January 4, 1901.

MY LORD: I have the honor to bring to your lordship's attention the fact that the Senate of the United States has given its advice and consent to the ratification of the convention signed at Washington on the 5th of February, 1900, by the respective plenipotentiaries of the United States and Great Britain, to facilitate the construction of a ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and to remove any obstacle which might arise out of the convention, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, with the following amendments, viz:

1. After the words "Clayton-Bulwer convention" and before the word "adopt," in the preamble of Article II, the words "which convention is hereby superseded" are inserted.

2. A new paragraph is added to the end of section 5 of Article II, in the following language:

It is agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing conditions and stipulations in sections numbered one, two, three, four, and five of this article