THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEM 151 



American continent, but the whole civilized world. . . . 

 Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as that of the 

 United States that, while all nations should enjoy their 

 proper share in the benefits to be expected from the undertak- 

 ing, no single country should acquire a predominating 

 influence or control over such a means of communication." 

 Its universal and unrestricted use should be secured upon 

 an international basis. This, he reminded Mr. Blaine, was 

 the attitude of the United States in the past, and to save all 

 annoyance and trouble, and to subserve the best interests of 

 all alike, this should be their attitude in the future. 



To the historical objections presented by Mr. Blaine, Lord 

 Granville replied at much greater length in his second 

 despatch of January 14. The substance of the letter is con- 

 densed in its closing paragraph, which sets forth that the 

 various differences which arose between the two governments 

 out of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and to which Mr. Blaine 

 refers, related, not to the general principles of the treaty, 

 (neutralization, international control, etc.,) but to that por- 

 tion of the instrument forbidding new acquisitions of terri- 

 tory in Central America. These old quarrels found their 

 origin in allegations that Great Britain was violating the 

 provisions of the treaty by acquiring Central American 

 territory. This portion of the treaty Mr. Blaine does not 

 now attack, but desires, on the contrary, to retain intact; 

 indeed, it was in defence of those very principles of neutrali- 

 zation that the United States objected to Great Britain's move- 

 ments in Central America. In his historical review, Mr. 

 Blaine stops at the very point where the controversy should 

 begin. In 1860, upon the conclusion of the three British 

 treaties with the Central American States, the old disputes 

 between England and the United States were entirely set- 

 tled, and President Buchanan, in his annual message of 

 that year, said : " The discordant constructions of the Clay- 

 ton-Bulwer treaty between the two governments, which at 

 different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, 

 have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to 

 this government." 



