THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEM 148 



Panama. Colombia had again declined to make a treaty 

 with the United States which would bind her to accept the 

 sole guarantee of the latter for the neutrality of the isthmian 

 transit route; the situation in Central America seemed un- 

 satisfactory. President Garfield, in his inaugural address, 

 March 4, 1881, touched upon this question, though with con- 

 siderably more calmness than had been displayed by his 

 predecessor. While declaring that the United States wished 

 to follow no narrow or exclusive policy, nor sought exclusive 

 privileges, yet on the other hand, it was the " right and duty 

 of the United States to assert and maintain such supervision! 

 and authority over any interoceanic canal across the isthmus/ 

 ... as will protect our national interests." 



But the Secretary of State, Mr. Blaine, was more deeply 

 moved by the threatened danger to American interests. He 

 was wholly in sympathy with the popular movement demand- 

 ing the abrogation of the Clay ton-Bui wer treaty ; he felt that 

 the time had arrived for action, and he precipitated a contro- 

 versy with Great Britain by a bold and altogether defiant 

 stroke. On June 24, 1881, quite in disregard of the obliga- 

 tions imposed upon the country by the Clay ton-Bui wer treaty, 

 he issued a circular letter to the powers of Europe, informing 

 one and all that the United States would in future tolerate 

 no foreign interference in the matter of political control of 

 any isthmian canal ; assurance being given, however, that the 

 United States would itself "positively and efficaciously" 

 guarantee the neutrality of any such route ; also, that no 

 assistance or aid from any other power to this end was neces- 

 sary; furthermore, he gave notice to all that any insistence 

 on the part of European nations to have a share of responsi- 

 bility in the neutralization of the canal would "partake of 

 the nature of an alliance against the United States." In 

 further elaboration of this recently adopted and somewhat 

 novel attitude of his country toward the subject of canal 

 equalization, Mr. Blaine especially desired that the various 

 diplomatic envoys of the United States, to whom he had ad- 

 dressed his circular letters, should " not represent this position 

 as a development of a new policy." He alleged, on the con- 



