190 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



American canal companies. In most of these instruments a 

 neutral waterway is called for. Indeed, neither Nicaragua 

 nor Colombia could grant the exclusive right to control a 

 canal through her territory without violating treaty stipula- 

 tions with European powers. 



Thus it appears that the doctrine of canal neutralization 

 is the traditional policy of the United States, as well as of 

 Great Britain, the European nations, and the Central Ameri- 

 can states ; that the doctrine changed in American diplomacy 

 to neutralization as secured by American guarantee alone; 

 and it further appears that the theory of sole control as op- 

 posed to neutralization is of comparatively recent origin. 



To-day the idea seems to prevail that the geographical 

 position of the United States in connection with its commer- 

 cial interests, its safety in time of war, its political relations 

 with its neighbors, and lastly, its obligations to its commer- 

 cial marine, all combine to warrant a disregard of precedent 

 and to justify the demand for complete political control of the 

 Central American canal. In other words, American interests 

 in the isthmian canal are so great that the United States 

 cannot afford to be governed simply by precedent. In de- 

 termining, therefore, the political attitude toward the pro- 

 jected canal, the elements of self-interest will no doubt figure 

 far more prominently than considerations of precedent. 



It is not unreasonable to assume that in the development 

 of national needs and conditions, cases may arise where it 

 would be unwise to adhere to ancient customs merely for the 

 sake of consistency. The mind is apt to cling, as by instinct, 

 to the traditions of the past. Well-grounded precedents in 

 law have often so effectually blinded the eyes to reason that 

 a century of progress has scarcely been sufficient to efface 

 them from the statute books. Hoary abuses, when dignified 

 by age, have defied correction for centuries. 



Precedents cease to have validity when the circumstances 

 on which they are based cease to exist. The obligations to 

 follow them are purely theoretical. In this particular case 

 there may be special reasons why the past should be dis- 

 regarded. As observed, the subject of ship canals connecting 



