rangement upon the Government either of Great Britain or France. That either of these Governments would embrace the offer can not be doubted; because there does not appear to be any other effectual means of securing to all nations the advantages of this important passage but the guarantee of great commercial powers that the Isthmus shall be neutral territory. The interests of the world at stake are so important that the security of this passage between the two oceans cannot be suffered to depend upon the wars and revolutions which may arise among different nations.

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.

April 19, 1850, Mr. John M. Clayton, Secretary of State, and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, British Minister at Washington, signed at that capital a treaty, the object of which was in the preamble declared to be to set forth and fix in a convention the "views and intentions" of the contracting parties "with reference to any means of communication by ship canal which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by way of the river San Juan de Nicaragua, and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean."

By Article I of the treaty it was provided as follows:

The Governments of the United States and Great Britain hereby 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 will either make use of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have to or with any State or people for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same; nor will the United States or Great Britain 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 said 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.

The contracting parties further engaged (Article V) when the interoceanic canal was completed, to "protect it from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation," and to "guarantee the neutrality thereof, so that the said canal may forever be open and free, and the capital invested therein secure." It was, however, expressly understood that the guarantee of protection and security was given conditionally and might be withdrawn by both governments or either government, if both or either of them should consider that the persons or company undertaking or managing the canal had established regulations concerning traffic contrary to the spirit and intention of the convention, either by making unfair discriminations or by imposing oppressive exactions or unreasonable tolls.

By Article VI of the treaty the contracting parties entered into the following engagements:

The contracting parties in this convention engage to invite every State with which both or either have friendly intercourse to enter into stipulations with them similar to those which they have entered into with each other, to the end that all other States may share in the honor and advantage of having contributed to a work of such general interest and importance as the canal herein contemplated. And the contracting parties likewise agree that each shall enter into treaty stipulations with such of the Central American States as they may deem advisable for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the great design of this convention, namely, that of constructing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication between the two oceans for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all, and of protecting the same; and they also agree that the good offices of either shall be employed, when requested by the other, in aiding and assisting the negotiation of such treaty stipulations; and should any differences arise as to right or property over the territory through which the said canal shall pass, between the States or Governments of Central America, and such differences should in any way impede or obstruct the execution of the said canal, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain will use their good offices to settle such differences in the manner best suited to promote the interests of the said canal, and to strengthen the bonds of friendship and alliance which exist between the contracting parties.

*

*

*

*

ARTICLE VIII. The Governments of the United States and Great Britain having not only desired, in entering into this con

vention, to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama. In granting, however, their joint protection to any such canals or railways as are by this article specified, it is always understood by the United States and Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford.

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty has been superseded by the HayPauncefote Treaty, but it will be found in the preamble of the latter that the motive and the only motive given for this supersession was to remove any objection which may arise out of the convention of the 19th April, 1850, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the Government of the United States, without impairing the "general principle" of neutralization established in Article VIII of that convention, and hence the equal treatment of vessels of all nations as established by Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty still remains. As to the Suez Canal Treaty of 1888, which is adopted by the United States as the basis of the rules of neutralization, it must be remembered that the Suez Canal Treaty states in Article XII, that:

The high contracting parties in application of the principle of equality concerning the full use of the canal, a principle which forms one of the bases of the present treaty, agree, etc., etc.

Certainly no exception is made in favor of vessels of Turkey or Egypt, the owners of the territory through which the Suez Canal passes. Hence the term "all nations" means "all nations" in both treaties.

The simple, natural and honest meaning of the words "all nations" means every nation without exception. It has been well said that if

an exception had been contemplated, the words "all nations" could not have been used, and if all foreign nations only were contemplated the words "all foreign nations" would naturally have been made use of.

As to the question of the effect of the change of territorial sovereignty with respect to the term "all nations," let me read Article IV of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty:

It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries 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.

The Republic of Panama was recognized by the United States November 13, 1903. On November 18, 1903, a treaty, commonly known as the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, was concluded between the United States and Panama, which after ratification, was proclaimed on February 26, 1904. Article XVIII of this treaty states that "the Canal, when constructed, and the entrances thereto shall be neutral in perpetuity, and shall be opened upon the terms provided for by Section 1, of Article III of, and in conformity with ALL the stipulations of, the treaty entered into by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain on November 18, 1901," which, of course, was the treaty commonly known as the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, one of the stipulations of which in Article III, I will again repeat:

"The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable."

Let me close by asking

Shall we sell our birthright in the family of nations for a mess of pottage? Shall we lose ourselves and our standing among other civilized countries of the world by violating our obligations as commonly understood at the time of the treaty in order to secure a veiled subsidy for our coastal trade?

I believe that our best jurists consider that we have violated and are violating two treaties at the present time:

(1) The treaty of 1846 with Colombia; and

(2) The Fur Seal Treaty with Great Britain, Russia and Japan. Shall we add a third violation and with the "dirt" that flies at Panama add a flight of the principles of good faith and honorable dealing?

The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, we will have the pleasure of hearing from Mr. Lewis Nixon, of New York City, who will address us upon some questions of interest.

DOES THE EXPRESSION "ALL NATIONS" IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES?

ADDRESS OF MR. LEWIS NIXON, of New York, Delegate of the United States to the Fourth Pan American Conference.

There seems to be an impression that the contention respecting the right of the United States to remit toll charges on its own vessels is an academic question, and that such contention is simply a battle of wits. As a fact, it is the most serious determination that has been asked of our people for half a century.

Our foreign trade is in the hands of our commercial rivals, and if the Panama Canal policy is not determined aright it will remain there with ever strengthening control. Surely no one will deny that a policy of preference for our own vessels inaugurated by Jefferson and Madison built up our marine and that it would do so again if revived. Does any one think for an instant that Great Britain is protesting for form's sake and that she will not reap advantage by the destruction of such preference?

We have read only a short time ago what is tantamount to an abandonment of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in Great Britain's protest, which hies back to the superseded Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and clings to it because in that sixty-two year old document we abandoned the Monroe Doctrine and made concessions not to be found in the later treaty.

Great Britain's claim, cleared from a mass of verbiage, is that the consideration for the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was to secure equality of treatment for her vessels with those of the United States in ordinary commerce. While there is no such consideration expressed in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, nor in the cor