THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEM 141 



Thus the idea that the interoceanic canal should be con4 

 structed, owned, and then solely controlled by the United; 

 States, came so generally to be accepted by all political' 

 parties that it may be said in 1880 to have become crystallized] 

 into a definite national policy. 



The most formidable obstacle, however, which stood just 

 in the way of realizing this ideal was the Clayton-Bulwer 

 treaty. Consequently each administration, since that of 

 President Grant, has in turn made some attempt to remove 

 this obstruction. With the general acceptance of the more 

 radical theories of American monopoly of the canal route, it 

 has been difficult for many legislators to comprehend how 

 their predecessors could have entertained dissimilar views 

 upon the subject ; for this reason the Clayton-Bulwer treaty 

 has been frequently denounced in Senatorial debate withini 

 the last twenty years, as a monument to American imbecilityjj 

 These critics are apparently unmindful of the conditions 

 under which the treaty was originally made and of the 

 diplomatic negotiations which followed its ratification. Act- 

 uated by the conviction that the agreement is a prejudicial 

 one, senators have for twenty years periodically sought to 

 abrogate it. 



Prior to 1880, however, no systematic effort, because of its 

 supposed antagonism to American interests, had been made 

 to repudiate the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, for although the 

 growing sentiment in the United States, calling for American 

 control of the canal, conflicted with the provisions of that 

 treaty, up to that year the instrument itself was generally 

 accepted as a binding agreement, and no actual attempt was 

 made by those who regarded it with disfavor to abrogate or 

 otherwise avoid it. On the contrary, great solicitude was 

 at times manifested lest Great Britain should violate its 

 provisions. When Belize was transformed from a British 

 settlement to a colonial possession, American protests were 

 made predicated upon the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer 

 treaty. Upon other occasions as well, when Great Britain's 

 motives in "adjusting" her Central American boundary 

 lines were brought into question, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty 



