DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



279 





the Central American states, he contends that the 

 Government, having, since the Clayton-Bulwer Trea- 

 ty of 1850, entered into treaties which harmonize 

 with the "general principle," is estopped from deny- 

 ing that the eighth article has the construction and 

 effect lie contends for. 



Lord Granville further holds that Article VIII is none 

 the less an agreement because it provides for further 

 treaty stipulations to carry it into effect. This argu- 

 ment has already been anticipated in nay No. 368, in 

 which it was shown that while the parties interested 

 agrecd,in Article VIII ; to extend by further treaty stip- 

 ulations their protection over _other communications 

 across the isthmus, the immediate object of the arti- 

 cle was the protection of the communication " now " 

 [1850] proposed to be established by the way of Te- 

 nuantepec or Panama. None of the proposed com- 

 munications having been established, the reason for 

 the agreement has disappeared. 



Further, the article provides for carrying out the 

 "general principle" by additional stipulations, which 

 have not been even discussed. Nor is there anything 

 in the eighth article which makes applicable to any 

 other route the provisions of the first seven articles, 

 covering the "particular object," viz., the Nicaragua 

 Canal. 



The eighth article, therefore, is simply a declaration 

 of the intention entertained more than thirty years ago 

 by two nations to take up, at some subsequent period, 

 the negotiation of a treaty on a particular subject. In 

 order to carry out this, further treaties must be made 

 by the United States and England with each other 

 and with each of the Central American states through 

 which a canal may be built, defining in detail the stipu- 

 lations necessary to execute the general principles. 



It can not be successfully contended, as is suggested 

 by Lord Granville, that the separate treaties made by 

 this country with some of the Central American states, 

 by which this Government agrees to guarantee neu- 

 trality, show an agreement to guarantee it jointly with 

 Great Britain, for that would involve the admission 

 that an express agreement to guarantee singly is in ef- 

 fect an implied agreement to guarantee jointly. Nev- 

 ertheless, it is not denied that the United States did 

 for many years try to induce Great Britain to fulfill 

 her part of the agreement of 1850, and it was only when 

 it became impossible for her Majesty's Government 

 to perform the promises which had led the United 

 States to make the treaty that the position now main- 

 tained was assumed. 



If it be contended that even if the treaty may be 

 considered as lapsed as far as it relates to the specific 

 route by Nicaragua and the routes named in the eighth 

 article as contemplated in 1850 (by Panama and Tc- 

 huantepec), yet the treaty is binding so far as it relates 

 to other isthmian communications not specified and 

 not then contemplated, the answer is that the treaty 

 must be considered as a whole, and that the general 

 stipulations of the eighth article would never have 

 been made but for the stipulations as to the specified 

 routes then contemplated, and, that part of the treaty 

 having lapsed, the general stipulation as to any inter- 

 oceanic communication fails for want of consideration. 



To reach the construction his lordship seeks to put 

 on the eighth article, its plain language must be dis- 

 regarded, and the consideration must DC ignored that 

 the article is as applicable to the Panama Kailroad as 

 to any other means of isthmian transit, and that by 

 acquiescence for many years in the sole protectorate 

 of the United States over this railway, Great Britain 

 has in effect admitted the justice of the position now 

 maintained by the President. 



Passing the interpretation of Article VIII, you will 

 remember that I contended that the Clayton-Bulwer 

 Treaty is voidable because, while by Article I the two 

 nations expressly stipulated that neither of them would 

 occupy, colonize, or exercise any dominion over any 

 part of Central America, but Britain, at the same time, 

 has a colony, with executive and judicial officers, oc- 

 cupying a defined territory nearly equal in area to 



three of the smaller States of the Union. It is true, 

 as was shown in my No. 368, that after the treaty had 

 been ratified by the Senate in the form in which it 

 now appears, and on the Fourth of July, 1850, Mr. 

 Clayton did exchange with Sir Henry Bulwer memo- 

 randa stating that the stipulation in Article I should 

 not apply to the " settlements in British Honduras 

 (Balize!," and it is also true that Mr. Clayton declined 

 to affirm or deny the British title in this " settlement" 

 or its alleged dependencies. Lord Granville now 

 claims that Honduras was then already (and to the 

 knowledge of this Government) a British "posses- 

 sion" or colony by conquest from Spain through 



wer relative to a British settlement, appear to be in- 

 consistent with any such claim, for nowhere in them 

 can be found any statement which expresses or im- 

 plies that Great Britain claimed or the United States 

 admitted any such governmental control in the former 

 over Balize as is now advanced and as is necessarily 

 implied in the word " possession." 



The date of the conquest of Balize alluded to by 

 Lord Granville is not stated, but the incident to which 

 he refers is supposed to be the repulse by a ship of the 

 royal navy and the settlers of an attempt in 1798 on 

 the part of Spain to take possession of the Honduras. 

 As the British settlers held under grants from Spain, 

 it seems hardly necessary to consider whether the suc- 

 cessful resistance of a tenant to an attempt to oust by 

 force, changes the tenure to one of full possession. 

 His lordship, however, meets this point by a plea of 

 possession through abandonment, saying, when peace 

 was signed, " most of the British conquests from Spain 

 were restored to her, but the settlement in Honduras, 

 like that of the Falkland Islands, was not given up, 

 and continued 011 the same footing as any other pos- 

 session under the British crown." 



By the third article of the Treaty of Amiens of 1802 

 Great Britain engaged to restore all Spanish possessions 

 occupied or conquered by British forces. Balize was 

 not given up, because it was not a conquest, but a 

 settlement under Spanish grants and Spanish sover- 

 eignty. The parallel with the Falkland Islands does 

 not seem convincing, for these islands were ceded by 

 France to Spain in 1763. By Spain they were in 

 turn ceded absolutely to Great Britain in 1771, but 

 their possession was not abandoned until 1820. Buenos 

 Ayres occupied the islands as derelict and colonized 

 them later in 1831. After a difficulty between the 

 settlers and American sealing- vessels the United 

 States ship-of-war Lexington broke up the settle- 

 ment and removed the settlers to Buenos Ayres, and 

 it was not until 1883 that Great Britain enforcea her 

 claims under the cession of 1771. 



As to Balize, however, there was no cession. If 

 the sovereignty of Spain was annulled by conquest in 

 1798, it was restored by the Treaty of Amiens in 

 1802, and while after this treaty and during the Bona- 

 parte occupation hostilities were renewed, the treaty 

 of 1803 provided that there should be peace between 

 Spain and Great Britain, and " also an entire ob- 

 literation of all hostilities committed during the late 

 war." Since the conclusion of this treaty Spain and 

 Great Britain have been at peace, and it is riot imagined 

 that Earl Granville will seek to show that a lawful 

 possession could be thereafter created for Great Brit- 

 ain by a violation of that treaty in time of peace. No 

 conquest of any part of Honduras is known to have 

 occurred after 1802; but if there were, the perpetua- 

 tion of this conquest would hardly comport with -the 

 reciprocal agreement of 1809 to. restore the status quo 

 ante bellum. 



On the other hand it is known that the settlements 

 in the Balize were made under certain limited grants 

 from Spain, subject to her sovereignty, and that long 

 after the treaty of 1809 the occupation was generally 

 regarded simply as a " settlement," and was so called 

 by Lord Clarendon as late as 1854 in a note to Mr. 



