sight of the fact that when the Suez Canal was neutralized by the Convention of Constantinople fortifications were forbidden, but "neutralization," according to the authorities, it seemed to me, meant a canal that had no fortifications to command it. Now, we are constructing fortifications there. Has the word "neutralization" reached a different meaning today from what it formerly had? If it has, when did it get that new meaning? The word "neutralization" is a comparatively modern word; but I would like to ask if there are any members of this Society who can tell me what "neutralization" means in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty as it stands today, or is it true, as some claim, that the canal is not neutralized at all? I just wanted to ask that question, that is all. The CHAIRMAN. Can someone answer General Hains' question? Can you do so, Mr. Kennedy? Mr. CRAMMOND KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I do not exactly see why you should ask me to answer it, but I will try to do it in a very few words. The CHAIRMAN. The question is, What does the word "neutralization" mean? Perhaps, after Mr. Kennedy answers it, somebody else will desire also to give an answer. Mr. CRAMMOND KENNEDY. To begin with, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not think, from the authoritative definitions of "neutralization," that the Panama Canal can be said to be neutralized in the true sense of the term. Let me read you, from the January number of our Society's Journal, a definition of neutralization by one of our most distinguished publicists, Dr. Thomas J. Lawrence: In ordinary neutrality are involved the two elements of abstention from taking part in an existing war and freedom to engage in it or not at pleasure. In neutralization the first element remains the same; but, instead of the second, there is imposed by international law either an obligation not to fight except in the strictest self-defense or an obligation to abstain from warlike use of certain places and things which have had the neutral character stamped upon them by convention. * * * As neutralization alters the rights and obligations of all the States affected by it, either their express consent, or the agreement of the Great Powers acting as in some sort their representa tives, is necessary in order to give it validity. The word is often used in a loose and inaccurate manner to cover undertakings in abatement or mitigation of war, entered into by one or two States. We must therefore remember that there can be no true neutralization without the complete and permanent imposition of the neutral character by general consent. Thus Argentina and Chile could not impose an obligation on the rest of the world to refrain from warfare in the Straits of Magellan by declaring them neutralized, as they did by treaty between themselves in 1881. That is the end of the quotation from Dr. Lawrence. But an agreement between the States most directly interested may in practice amount to much the same thing, if they are powerful and determined, and covenant for the application of rules which have already received general consent in a similar case. The Treaty of 1901 between Great Britain and the United States for applying to the Panama Canal, when made, the rules of navigation now applied to the Suez Canal, is an illustration. So you see that the word "neutralization" may be used in a qualified sense, and that in such a sense the Panama Canal may be said to be neutralized; but, as General Hains has observed, one of the characteristics of neutralized territory or waterways, although not an absolutely essential characteristic, is freedom from fortifications. Now, that placard which was exhibited here yesterday presented in large type not as it purported "The Treaty that was Rejected by the Senate," but the treaty that was communicated on February 5, 1900 by the President to the Senate, the treaty that was signed by John Hay and Sir Julian Pauncefote; and that treaty expressly prohibited fortifications, and the Senate consented to its ratification, after prolonged debate, with that prohibition in it, but the Senate also adopted the amendment to which Senator Morgan had objected.1 The next treaty, the one that is now in force, instead of re-enacting that explicit prohibition of fortifications, provides for what is really to my mind a more comprehensive neutralization. It ordains that 1This amendment, which caused the rejection of the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty by Great Britain, provided: "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 [II] 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." "the canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it." Now, where have we drifted? We are at the moment constructing fortifications, just as if the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty had never forbidden fortifications-a prohibition, as I said yesterday, which was consented to by the United States Senate-and just as if the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, the one now in force, had never declared that no right of war or act of hostility should ever be exercised in the canal. I want to read to you now just another sentence or two from an article which you will find in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for last January.2 "If a canal had been built and the United States and Great Britain had gone to war, while the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was in force, the neutral state administering the canal would have allowed the public vessels of either belligerent to pass through the canal under the rules prescribed by the states guaranteeing its neutrality, just as the United States would do under the existing treaty, in its administration of the canal during a war to which it was not itself a party.” "But" and here I come to one of the difficulties which probably will be adjusted-"the rules adopted by the United States in the HayPauncefote Treaty, do not seem to have reserved to itself" that is to the United States-"such belligerent rights as the changed conditions might have justified"—the "changed conditions" being our ownership of the canal and our exclusive control of it, subject, of course, to any obligations which we have incurred under the treaty. Let me read this again: But the rules adopted by the United States in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, do not seem to have reserved to itself such belligerent rights as the changed conditions might have justified, but to have left it in the position where it would be bound to allow such free passage to ships of war of its enemy as the neutralized state, being the territorial sovereign of the Canal Zone, would have done under the original plan. There is one thing further that I would like to read from the same number of the JOURNAL-a citation from Mr. Wicker's recent essay on "Neutralization": 2"Neutralization and Equal Terms," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. January, 1913, pp. 47, 48. This treaty with England, which, however, does not amount to complete neutralization, since it is an agreement between two nations only, further provides that the canal is to be safeguarded and maintained in neutrality by the United States alone, and consequently is a compromise between neutralization and complete American control. The earlier Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, as signed by Secretary John Hay and Sir Julian Pauncefote and submitted by President McKinley to the Senate on February 5, 1900, provided for a really neutralized canal. The canal, in the words of this treaty, was to be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations; no fortifications were to be erected commanding the canal or the waters adjacent; and the high contracting parties, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of the convention, were to bring it to the notice of the other Powers and invite them to adhere to it. The trouble is that the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was an attempt to make an adjustment of conditions to fit a plan that had been materially changed. The original conception of the interoceanic waterway was that, however or by whomsoever opened, it should be maintained for the commerce of the world, on equal terms, and perma nently neutralized, like the Suez Canal, by agreement of the great Powers, for the promotion of peaceful trade between mankind. Now, the result is, I think, so far, that it is a very qualified "neutralization," and perhaps it might be said that it is not neutralization at all, in its essential character, as defined by the publicists, that has been provided for the Panama Canal by the existing treaty, although the object of that treaty is declared in the preamble to be "to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by whatever route may be considered expedient * without impairing the 'general principle' of neutralization established in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Convention." The CHAIRMAN. I thought I saw someone else who desired to give a definition of the word "neutralization." I Professor AMOS S. HERSHEY. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: do not believe it is possible to give a definition of "neutralization," so I shall not attempt it. However, I believe that that word appears to be used in various meanings in various senses. I think the use of the term originally applied, of course, to the neutralization of Switzerland and later Belgium and Luxemburg. That term afterwards seems to have been applied, to a certain extent, to international waterways, to certain rivers. I do not know just to what extent it was applied, but it was applied to rivers like the Rhine and Danube, and so forth; but there it seems to me to have meant the common use of such rivers, and I think that seems to be the primary meaning of it as applied to the Suez and Panama Canals. Mr. CRAMMOND KENNEDY. Powers? Under the guarantee of the great Professor HERSHEY. Yes, a certain degree of neutrality is guaranteed. We have some idea of that, of course, in the neutralization of Belgium and Switzerland and so forth. Mr. KENNEDY. That is right. Professor HERSHEY. But I remember that Lord Cromer suggested, in connection with his work on Modern Egypt, with respect to the Suez Canal, that a better term would be "internationalization," that there is a certain freedom of commerce and free use of those waterways by the world, with, perhaps, certain restrictions on belligerent rights. The term has also been used, although I think it is now more or less abandoned, in treaties speaking of neutralization and seeking a bounty in warfare. That is another use of the term that is somewhat different from anything that we have in these other cases. So it seems to me that what we have is simply a word which is used in different senses. It has different meanings, and I do not believe it is possible to give a definition of it. The CHAIRMAN. The whole subject is still open for discussion. Is there any further discussion? Mr. A. S. LANIER. I would like to say in regard to the word "neutralization," Mr. Chairman, that there does not seem to be any definition of it at all, and no one seems to be able to give a definition, |