or included in the words "all nations." All who obey the rules are included, and all who disobey are excluded.

It may be said that our nation is not disobeying, and that the rules are not applicable to us. All have the right to use on equal terms until the rules are violated by some nation, then it will be compelled to pay the penalty. Why did the United States adopt the rules in advance if they were put in at her instance alone? If England has no interest in them why can we not change them at pleasure? Did both England and America draft them into the treaty?

In these days, laws prohibit almost everything; but everybody does not violate all of them. Some nations might come under the condemnation of one or more of these "Suez rules," and so might the United States perhaps. All nations that observe them may use the canal on equal terms. On equal terms with what standard? Perhaps with a standard fixed by the operator. Would the United States be compelled to give free tolls to her citizens whether she desired it or not? We are now going by "precise rules," and it would not do to have too many different rates. There is only one rate prescribed by the rules.

These rules relate almost entirely to belligerents; but nations are not always in war. This being so, all nations, including the United States, would not be under the rules only when at war, and this, with some nations, might never arise. We gain but little by attempting to prove what countries are included in the words "all nations" by resorting to any abstruse reasoning about the "six rules." The nations observing the rules get through; those breaking them are excluded. When a vessel comes to the canal there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If there were no war, all

would be innocent and ought to be able to pass at the one specified rate.

It has been said that the preamble is no part of the treaty and may be disregarded. This would be impossible in this particular case because no canal is specified in the articles of the treaty, and we are bound to refer to the preamble to define the canal or the treaty might be wholly void. The preamble says: The construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by whatever route may be deemed expedient.

The preamble is no part of a statute but it is often an all important part of a contract or treaty. It is an admission of a vital fact relating to the contract or treaty, and acts as an evidentiary estoppel and is regarded as admitted truth. Little vs. Watson 32 Maine 214.

By securing the new treaty America was delighted and immediately set about to negotiate for a canal strip and franchise; for no land was yet purchased. The struggle in New York, Paris, Colombia and Nicaragua went on at times almost violently. The question had to be threshed out before a final award was given. Circumstances so directed that the inchoate French canal along the Chagres was adopted. Americans took the place of Frenchmen and the work went on most systematically and courageously to full completion.

Note: England and America made the treaty, and it provides that all nations "observing the rules" shall have equal tolls. Whatever rate-high or low-that America sets for her private citizens, must be the rate for all other nations who keep the rules. The lowest rate becomes the standard.

CHAPTER VI.

FRANCE AND THE ISTHMUS.

As far back as 1836, a French Company secured a concession to establish roads and a canal across Panama; and Louis Philippe sent his chief engineer, Napoleon Garella, to survey a canal route; he selected Limon Bay as the Atlantic entrance. This grant was allowed to lapse.

Bonaparte Wyse much later acquired a grant from Colombia for a canal by the Atrato river. This did not appeal to the late French builders so Wyse hastened to Bogota, and on May 18, 1878, permission was granted him to build "anywhere across the isthmus.”

De Lesseps having opened the Suez Canal in 1869 under a blaze of glory, France believed that he was the man for the occasion and could easily solve the Panama problem; so what was termed an International Congress of Engineers was called at Paris in 1879 to pass on plans and schemes for building a canal. Only a fraction of the delegates were engineers. The Congress was presided over by de Lesseps himself and was largely under his control. It rejected all proposals except two; a lock canal at Nicaragua and a sea-level canal at Panama.

Godin de Lepinay, a member of the Congress expressed the idea which has been followed since by the American government; erect a dam across the Chagres river near its mouth on the Atlantic side and another across the Rio Grande on the Pacific side. Then let the water from the rivers rise behind these dams to the height of 80 feet above sea level. Then cut a channel

through the Culebra hill sufficient to cause the water to stand between the dams at all points deep enough to float the desired ships. This plan was not even thought worthy of discussion by the Congress.

The French wanted a sea-level canal and even gave some thought of tunnelling the mountain. This was inconceivable to many people and justly so. On October 20, 1879 the Universal Inter-oceanic Canal Company was organized at Paris by de Lesseps. Bunau-Varilla says that de Lesseps was not an engineer and did not like engineers. He had no trouble in getting the amount of stock subscribed, mostly in small lots and many subscribers being women. The original subscriptions amounted to $120,000,000, with 102,000 stockholders. Work was begun February 1, 1880, and within two years an army of workmen were engaged from ocean to ocean. Glowing reports were circulated in France and de Lesseps who remained in France was worshipped as a hero.

The question is often asked, how could the French people build the canal in the face of the Monroe Doctrine and against the wish of the United States? They had a private grant from Colombia, the sovereign; and France, the nation, had no jurisdiction over the enterprise; hence it was not colonizing or controlling territory in America against the Monroe Doctrine. If the French people had succeeded in completing the canal it would, to a limited extent, come under the control of the United States by virtue of the grants to us under the New Granada treaty of 1846. The de Lesseps grant being subsequent to 1846 was taken subject to our right and control, under our treaty unless we expressly waived our control in favor of the French grant. It never got to this critical stage for the reason that the French Company did not complete the canal; and we,

purchasing their rights for $40,000,000 merged their claim into ours and all questions were thus happily eliminated.

The French had performed an enormous amount of excavation which fell to us by the purchase, so we were a long way on the road with the task when we began our part of the work. New plans however had to be made, new machinery secured and greatest of all, sanitation had to be installed and, generally, order to be brought forth out of chaos. Government engineering has now practically completed a canal, but who can say that it has been economically done? Or vice versa? $400,000,000 is a tremendous sum; but the American people wanted the canal; they wanted to own and control it. It is no time now to regret the outlay; but the nation should take all proper economic steps to regain it.

The Clayton-Bulwer treaty required England and America to protect any canal across the Isthmus, built by any persons. This made it lawful for de Lesseps to take rights from Colombia and build the canal, and so long as England was in harmony with de Lesseps, she had the right to call upon us to help protect the canal. Our hands were tied; but de Lesseps would have had to operate the canal under the protection of England and America. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty and our treaty of 1846 would have governed, otherwise war might have resulted.

The French Company got into financial difficulty in 1888. A receiver was appointed in 1889. He had new plans drawn to complete the work. These called definitely for a permanent lock canal without provision for deepening to sea level. The report was submitted in 1890. These plans seem to have been criticised by