152 ' / AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



-. \ 



Here then was an estoppel to Mr. Elaine's "historical 

 arguments." 



The Garfield administration soon after coming to a tragic 

 end, President Arthur's Secretary of State, Mr. Frelinghuy- 

 sen, resumed the controversy with Lord Granville. His 

 first letter upon the subject (to Mr. Lowell, May 8, 1882) is 

 a state paper of considerable strength. 



\ Mr. Frelinghuysen maintained that the construction of an 

 I isthmian canal, open to all ships, at all times, would expose 

 lour Western coast to attack, destroy our isolation, oblige us 

 Ito improve our defences, increase our navy, and compel us, 

 Icontrary to our 'traditions, to take an active interest in 

 Puropean affairs. The physical conformation of this con- 

 tinent is one of our greatest safeguards, and any change 

 made in it might most injuriously affect the interests 

 of the Republic ; hence the severance of the isthmus must 

 be -effected in harmony with those interests. Relating to 

 the canal, there is no conflict between American political 

 claims and the material interests of other nations. The 

 Panama Railroad and the Suez Canal, without any inter- 

 national pledges of neutrality, have remained open and in 

 service during the most turbulent times. If no protectorate 

 were found necessary for them, it can scarcely be required 

 for the Isthmian Canal. He therefore considered it " un- 

 necessary and unwise, through an invitation to the nations 

 of the earth, to guarantee the neutrality of the transit of 

 the isthmus, to give their navies a pretext for assembling 

 in waters contiguous to our shores, and to possibly involve 

 this republic in conflicts from which its natural position 

 entitles it to be relieved." Such international agreements 

 calling for interference by force are apt to breed dis- 

 sension and trouble. In times of peace they are harmless 

 and useless, and in times of war they often cannot be 

 enforced. Besides this, such an agreement would lead to 

 foreign intervention in American affairs, which the tradi- 

 tional policy of the United States would make it impossible 

 to tolerate. A protectorate of European nations over the 

 isthmus transit would be in conflict with the Monroe Doctrine. 



