THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEM 179 



Whenever the work is actually begun, this question will 

 necessarily become vital; indeed, it has already become so. 

 It cannot be evaded. The commercial powers of the world 

 are too alert to permit their trade interests to be jeopardized, 

 and these interests must be reckoned with. To avoid all 

 future complications in this respect, the political status of the 

 canal should be determined in advance. 



One of the following plans must be adopted : 



1. Exclusive American political control. 



2. An " understanding " with Great Britain to divide the re- 

 ponsibility of maintaining the canal and securing its neutrality. 



3. A treaty or arrangement with the great commercial nations 

 )f the world whereby the absolute neutrality of the canal shall be 

 guaranteed to all ships of trade or war. 



The second of these schemes may be eliminated from the 

 list, for the advantages and disadvantages growing out of 

 dual control in such a waterway are practically identical with 

 those of the first scheme sole American control. This nar- 

 rows the problem of the political character of the canal to the 

 alternatives of exclusive American control or complete neu- 

 tralization. 



There is some confusion as to the true meaning of the word 

 "neutralization." Statements are frequently met in the 

 press, in party platforms, and in the declarations of Congress 

 that the Nicaragua Canal should be a " neutral " waterway, 

 and open to all vessels of any flag, but that the United States 

 should at the same time reserve to herself the right of closing 

 the canal in times of war against the vessels of an enemy. 

 Again, it has been frequently asserted in Washington that 

 the United States is willing to "guarantee the neutrality" 

 of the canal, but for reasons involving her own safety, she 

 cannot consent to the participation of other nations in such 

 guarantee. This position was taken by Mr. Elaine in his 

 correspondence with Lord Salisbury in 1881, when he seri- 

 ously maintained that there was no need of international 

 cooperation to this end because the United States was herself 

 willing and competent " positively and efficaciously to guar- 



