718 



PANAMA CANAL. 



purpose of maintaining these forts and sta- 

 tions in order. It was agreed that United 

 States ships of war and convoys should pass 

 the canal in time of peace without pnyiiK-nt 

 of toll. In case the neutrality of the canal 

 should he threatened, the United States would 

 be at liberty to take possession of it by means 

 of ships of war and troops, and the Govern- 

 ment of Colombia would co-operate in such 

 military and naval occupation. Ships of war 

 and military expeditions of other nations 

 should have no right to pass in time of peace, 

 but the United States of America and the 

 United States of Colombia might permit the 

 innocent use of the route for such purposes. 

 Colombia agreed to enter into no negotiations 

 concerning the canal, and to make no altera- 

 tion of the rules and regulations governing it, 

 without the accord of the United States. 

 This protocol was very generally denounced 

 in Colombia, and failed to receive the ap- 

 proval of the Senate of that nation. 



The general subject of the relation of the 

 Government to the canal enterprise appears to 

 have received the early consideration of the 

 new Administration. On the 24th of June Mr. 

 Elaine, the Secretary of State, addressed a cir- 

 cular letter of instructions to the American 

 Ministers at the principal courts of Europe, in 

 which he set out with the statement that it had 

 "fallen under the observation of the President, 

 through the current statements of the European 

 press and other usual channels of communica- 

 tion, that the great powers of Europe may pos- 

 sibly be considering the subject of jointly guar- 

 anteeing the neutrality of the interoceanic 

 canal now projected across the Isthmus of 

 Panama." The United States, he said, recog- 

 nized the necessity of a proper guarantee, but 

 it had been abundantly provided for in the 

 treaty with New Granada, concluded in 1846. 

 He maintained that the United States had as- 

 sumed the obligations and responsibilities of 

 this guarantee, and was prepared to carry it 

 out, and that nothing more was needed. 



The copy of the letter, addressed to Mr. 

 Lowell at London, directed him to bring the 

 treaty of 1846 to the attention of Lord Gran- 

 ville, and to " intimate to him that any move- 

 ment in the sense of supplementing the guar- 

 antee contained therein would necessarily be 

 regarded by this Government as an uncalled-for 

 intrusion into a field where the local and gen- 

 eral interests of the United States of America 

 must be considered before those of any other 

 power, save those of the United States of Co- 

 lombia alone, which has already derived, and 

 will continue to derive, such eminent advan- 

 tages from the guarantee of this Government." 

 In re-enforcing this position, Mr. Blaine dwelt 

 upon the policy of the United States in refrain- 

 ing from all complication with the affairs ot 

 Europe, and declared that European nations 

 were equally bound not to interfere with af- 

 fairs on the American Continent. The United 

 States claimed no exclusive privileges and no 



discrimination in its favor in the commercial 

 use of the canal, but would " insist upon her 

 right to take all needful precautions against the 

 possibility of the isthmus transit being in any 

 event used offensively against her interests 

 upon the land or upon the sea." The extent 

 of her possessions and interests on the Pacific 

 coast made the projected canal at Panama vir- 

 tually a part of her coast-line, and " as truly a 

 channel of communication between the Eastern 

 and far Western States as our own transconti- 

 nental railways." Reverting to the guarantee 

 contained in the treaty of 1846, the Secretary 

 said: "Any attempt to supersede that guaran- 

 tee by an agreement between European powers, 

 which maintain vast armies and patrol the sea 

 with immense fleets, and whose interests in the 

 canal and its operation can never be so vital 

 and supreme as ours, would partake of the 

 nature of an alliance against the United States, 

 and would be regarded by this Government as 

 an indication of unfriendly feeling. It would 

 be but an inadequate response to the good-will 

 we bear them, and our cheerful and constant 

 recognition of their own rights of domestic 

 policy, as well as those resulting from proxim- 

 ity or springing from neighborly interests." 



This communication was made public in the 

 latter part of October, and excited some criti- 

 cism in London. The "Times "made use of 

 the following language : 



No one will question the right of the United States 

 to take precautions so that the canal shall not be used 

 in any way hostile to them. So far as Mr. Elaine's 

 letter is an argument for the neutrality of the canal, 

 it is unanswerable ; but we fail to see why there 

 should be any repugnance to allow England or France 

 to join in a guarantee, and why it should he contended 

 that an efficaciously perfect neutrality was provided 

 by the treaty with Colombia. Mr. Elaine's assump- 

 tion that the American possessions on the Pacific 

 coast would supply the larger part of the traffic which 

 would seek advantage of the canal, is very question- 

 able. Indeed, it scarcely admits of doubt that the 

 great bulk of the vessels which for some vcars to come 

 would pass through the canal would be English. At 

 all events, the dues paid by the American mercantile 

 marine, in its present unhealthy state, are not likely to 

 form at an early date a considerable part of the share- 

 holders' receipts. Great though the interests of 

 America are in this matter, and necessary though it is 

 for her that there should be free communication be- 

 tween her Atlantic and Pacific States, this does not 

 efface the fact that England also is at once an Atlan- 

 tic and Pacific power, and that she is bound to have 

 regard for the welfare of her subjects in British Co- 

 lumbia, and to think of securing free access to her 

 Australian colonies. The neutralizing of the canal 

 would be for the benefit of all the states in the world, 

 and we fail to gather from this communication any 

 solid objection to allowing European powers to loin in 

 a work universally desirable. Every additional guar- 

 antor would strengthen the guarantee. Every new 

 party to the treaty would be a fresh security that the 

 canal would not be blockaded or used as a basis for 

 hostile operations in tune of war ; and it seems a little 

 inconsistent in one and the same breath to argue for 

 a guarantee, and to insist that the bill shall not be 

 backed by more than two names. Were England to 

 concede formally that she had no locus stanai in re- 

 gard to such a guarantee, it would be difficult for her 

 to reply to any American statesman who might choose 

 to say hereafter : " The governments of the two re- 



