PANAMA CANAL. 



find itself called upon to admit a foreign power to 

 construct and garrison on its territory a succession of 

 fortresses of increasing magnitude, designed to oppose 

 such attempts, even though that foreign power bo a 

 neighboring one, and situated upon the same conti- 

 nent ; and when claim to do this is accompanied by a 

 declaration that the United States will always insist 

 on treating the water-way which shall unite two 

 oceans "as part of her coast-line," it is difficult to 

 imagine that the states to which the territory lying 

 between that water-way and the United States be- 

 longs can practically retain as independent a position 

 as that which they now enjoy. These are the conse- 

 quences that, in the conviction of her Majesty's Gov- 

 erumcnt, would almost certainly follow from a claim 

 on the part of the United States to assume the supreme 

 authority over the canal and all responsibility for its 

 control. Her Majesty's Government hold, on the 

 contrary, that the principles which guided the nego- 

 tiations of the convention of 18150 were intrinsically 

 sound, and continue to be applicable to the present 

 state of affairs. Their wish would be that those prin- 

 ciples should receive the practical development which 

 was contemplated at the time, and that effect should 

 be given to that portion of the treaty which provides 

 that the contracting parties shall invite all other 

 states with whom they have friendly intercourse to 

 enter into similar stipulations with them. A certain 

 amount of progress was made in this direction by the 

 conclusion of the conventions with Honduras and 

 Nicaragua by Great Britain in 1856 and I860, and by 

 the United States in 1864 and 1867, and by Nicaragua 

 with France in 1859, with the object of upholding the 

 general principles inserted in the treaty. During the 

 period when there were still matters to regulate with 

 respect to Greytown, the Bay Islands, the frontier of 

 British Honduras, and the protection of the Mosquito 

 Indians, and when the construction of a canal still 

 seemed a contingency more or less doubtful and re- 

 mote, it was strange that the engagement *o address 

 the powers should have been allowed to remain dor- 

 mantj but the project of the canal has now assumed 

 sufficient shape to render such an application reason- 

 able and pertinent. 



Her Majesty's Government believe that the extension 

 of an invitation to all maritime states to participate in 

 an agreement based on the stipulation of the conven- 

 tion of 1850 would obviate any objection that may pos- 

 sibly be raised against it as not being adequate in its 

 present condition for the purpose for which it was de- 

 signed. This course formed the basis of Mr. Fish's 

 proposal to Dr. Cardenas, the Nicaraguan Minister in 

 1877, and her Majesty's Government would gladly see 

 the United States again take the initiative in an invita- 

 tion to the powers, and will be prepared either to join 

 in it or to support and indorse it hi the way that may 

 be found most fitting and convenient, provided it docs 

 not conflict iii any way with the Clay ton-Bui wcr 

 treaty. 



In a subsequent communication, January 

 14th, Lord Granville replied at length to Mr. 

 Elaine's contention in regard to the disputes 

 and disagreements to which the treaty of 1850 

 had given rise in past years. He showed that 

 these related not at all to the provisions in 

 regard to interoceanic communication, ob- 

 jected to by the ex-Secretary, which both par- 

 ties had been anxious to retain. It was dis- 

 tinctly declared during the controversy that the 

 United States demanded "no exclusive privi- 

 leges in these passages [across the Isthmus], 

 but will exert their influence to secure their 

 free and unrestricted benefits, both in peace 

 and war, to the commerce of the world." The 

 dispute, on the other hand, had grown out of 

 Great Britain's territorial interests in Central 



America, which she was indisposed to abandon, 

 and which the United States claimed had been 

 given up by the treaty. All causes of disagree- 

 ment were subsequently removed by treaties 

 which Great Britain had made with Guatemala 

 for the settlement of the question of the Balize 

 boundary, with Honduras surrendering the Bay 

 Islands and the Mosquito protectorate, and with 

 Nicaragua in relation to the Mosquito Indians 

 and British subjects. The settlement of the dif- 

 ficulty had been accepted by the United States 

 as "entirely satisfactory" so long ago as 1860, 

 as would have appeared from the correspond- 

 ence and records quoted by Mr. Blaine, if he 

 had pursued the subject a little further. In con- 

 cluding and summing up his argument, Lord 

 Granville said : 



I have been forced to give the above extracts at con- 

 siderable length, and I refrain from adding other pas- 

 sages which would tend to illustrate and confirm them. 

 A perusal of them, however, will, I think, suffice to 

 show: 1. That the differences which arose between 

 the two governments in regard to the treaty, and 

 which occasioned at one time considerable irritation, 

 but which have long since been happily disposed of, 

 did not relate to the general principles to be observed 

 in regard to the means of interoceanic communication 

 across the IsthmuSj but had their origin hi a stipula- 

 tion which Mr. Blaine still proposes in groat part to 

 maintain. He wishes every part of the treaty in which 

 Great Britain and the United States agree to make no 

 acquisition of territory in Central America to remain 

 in full force, while he desires to cancel those portions 

 of the treaty which forbid the United States fortifying 

 the canal and holding the political control of it in con- 

 junction with the country in which it is located. 2. 

 That the declarations of the United States Govern- 

 ment during the controversy were distinctly at variance 

 with any such proposal as that just stated. They dis- 

 claimed any desire to obtain an exclusive or preferen- 

 tial control over the canal. Their sole contention was 

 that Great Britain was bound by the treaty to abandon 

 those positions on the mainland or adjacent islands 

 which in their opinion were calculated to give her the 

 means of such a control. Nor did they m any way 

 seek to limit the application of the principles laid down 

 in the treaty so as to exclude Colombia, or Mexican 

 territory, as Mr. Blaine now suggests, nor urge that 

 such application would be inconsistent with the con- 

 vention between the United States and New Granada 

 of 1846. On the contrary, they were ready to give 

 those principles their full extension. 3. That at a 

 time when the British Government had been induced 

 by the long continuance of the controversy to contem- 

 plate the abrogation of the treaty, they were only will- 

 ing to do so on the condition of reverting to the status 

 quo ante its conclusion in 1850, a solution which was 

 at that time possible though, as the United States 

 Government justly pointed out, it would have been 

 fraught with great danger to the good relations be- 

 tween the two countries but which is now rendered 

 impossible by the subsequent events. 4. That a bet- 

 ter and more conciliatory conclusion, which for twenty 

 years has remained undisputed, was effected by the 

 independent and voluntary action of Great Britain. 

 The points in dispute were practically conceded by 

 this countrv. and the controversy terminated in a 

 manner whicn was declared by President Buchanan 

 to be amicable and honorable, resulting in a final set- 

 tlement entirely satisfactory to the Government of the 

 United States. 



Frequent reference having been made to the 

 " Monroe doctrine " in the discussion of this 

 subject, it will be useful to recall the purpose 

 and character of the announcement in which 



