96 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



correspondence upon the subject was opened with Mr. Merry, 

 the United States Minister at Costa Rica, there being at that time 

 no diplomatic representative from Washington at Managua. 

 The company's claim to an extension of time, under the terms 

 of its concession, was based upon the assertion that the revo- 

 lutions in Nicaragua within the last ten years in reality a 

 protracted reign of political disturbances and enforced 

 cessation of work caused by the investigations of the 

 various governmental commissions, together constituted 

 " events of main force," that are " duly justified and sufficient 

 to impede the progress of the work." Negotiations looking 

 to the settlement of the company's grievances progressed 

 slowly, and the 9th of October arrived before the formal protest 

 of the company, as set forth and required in the bond, reached 

 the Nicaraguan capital. By the company's failure to make 

 proper and due protest, and to present its case before the 

 time limit set upon the company's franchise had expired, the 

 Maritime Company lost its right to a tribunal ; but in def- 

 erence to an expressed interest in the company, shown by the 

 United States Government, Nicaragua waived her rights in 

 the premises and agreed to arbitrate. She at once appointed 

 two natives of Nicaragua to serve as jurors, and invited the 

 company to name two arbitrators ; the company selected two 

 men who were personally interested in the company, and 

 whom Nicaragua challenged, coupling her challenge with a 

 demand that all four arbitrators be Nicaraguans. To this 

 the company firmly objected, and with this hitch in the pro- 

 ceedings the- matter remained unsettled. 1 



The future of the Maritime Canal Company was far from 

 bright. It did not seem likely that, if a tribunal of arbitra- 

 tion were agreed upon, its decision could be otherwise than 

 adverse to the company. Senator Morgan warmly champi- 

 oned its cause in 1899, but the following year Congress 

 showed a more decided tendency to sever itself from all 

 private or corporate canal schemes, and to retain a free hand 



1 A tribunal was eventually agreed upon which decided, in the autumn of 

 1900, adversely to the company. Against this decision the company excepted 

 and lodged a protest iii the Department of State. 



