194 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



With such a future of expansion in mind, it would be 

 unwise, they believe, to hamper the government by pledges 

 of neutrality or promises against fortifying the canal. Sup- 

 pose, for instance, that Jefferson had been confronted by a 

 previous agreement never to acquire territory west of the 

 Mississippi River, or that Polk had been prevented by some 

 former treaty stipulations from establishing full American 

 sovereignty over the narrow entrance to San Francisco Bay. 



Let there be no future mistakes such as the Clayton-Bulwer 

 treaty. The parting of the ways is at hand ; there can be 

 reconciliation between the doctrine of American control of 

 tEecanal as dictated by self-interest, and enjoined upon us by 

 the Monroe Doctrine, on the one hand, and the doctrine 

 of canal equalization as demanded by European interests on 

 the other. The United States, therefore, must abandon all 

 its treaties which call for international control of the channel. 

 It should acknowledge its breach of faith, and take the con- 

 sequences, whatever they may be. This action would prove 

 less serious than to abandon the Monroe Doctrine, and accept 

 European dictation in any part of the Western Hemisphere, 

 and open a convenient passageway to the fleets of Europe. 



The advocates of a policy of neutralization hold, on the 

 ""contrary, that the greatest good demands the entire freedom 

 of commercial transit. They found their theory upon the 

 broad principles of mare liberum, and in accordance with 

 the development of international law. The inviolability of 

 the canal is a condition contemplated in all fairness by the 

 world at large, and it is also a condition wholly consistent 

 with the best interests of the United States. It is a policy 

 dictated by practical wisdom. 



Wars are not the outgrowth of open and free competition, 

 but too often result from trade restrictions of one kind or 

 another. The tendency of modern times is to remove as far 

 as possible, all barriers to free and untrammelled commerce. 

 The progress of international law has been in the direction of 

 securing and safeguarding the common interest of the whole 

 family of nations in opposition to the tendencies of local 

 greed and aggression. The same policy that calls for an 



