280 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Buchanan, and so remained until May 12, 1862, when 

 by royal commission it was erected into a full colony 

 and subordinated to the Government of Jamaica. 



If Great Britain has turned the " settlement " main- 

 tained for the cutting of logwood and mahogany into 

 an organized British colony and this is admitted 

 or if that settlement has encroached beyond the line 

 occupied by the settlers in 1850 and the reports from 

 Guatemala and Mexico tend to show that this has been 

 done the action has been taken in contravention of 

 the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and in violation of one 

 of its most important provisions. The insufficiency 

 of this part of Lord Granville's argument is shown 

 by the contention that through a postal convention 

 this Government has recognized the British position. 

 The negotiation of a postal convention in 1869 can 

 not be held to involve any admission of the political 

 status of the Balizc district. It is a strained con- 

 struction of such an agreement to hold that it works 

 an estoppel as to a matter not in the mind of either 

 party to the negotiation, and as to which both parties 

 were endeavoring to reach a satisfactory conclusion 

 through other and different channels- nor does the 

 Post-Office Department act politically in its dealings 

 with similar departments of other governments. 



If, however, the United States had submitted to the 

 conversion of the Balize to a colony by her Majesty's 

 Government in violation of the treaty, that is by no 

 means a recognition of the binding force of the treaty 

 on the United States when thus violated. 



In the conviction, thereforej that the arguments 

 heretofore presented by the United States remain un- 

 shaken, the President adheres to the views set forth 

 in the instruction to you of May 8, 1882. 



Lord Granville concludes by saying in effect that 

 he does not answer that part of the instruction to you 

 which relates to the Monroe doctrine, because of my 

 observation that it is not necessary for her Majesty's 

 government to admit or to deny that doctrine. As 

 his lordship placed the claim of her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment on the continued binding force of the Clay- 

 ton-Bulwer Treaty, limiting that doctrine, as we con- 

 tend, I ^think my remark was logical, and so far as 

 the United States are concerned their views on that 

 doctrine are sufficiently manifest. 



You will assure Lord Granville that this Govern- 

 ment shares the sincere desire of that of her Majesty 

 to arrive at that amicable adjustment of the question 

 which can not fail to promote harmony and good-will 

 between the two countries, and which it is my duty 

 and pleasure, equally with his lordship, to do all in 

 my power to perpetuate and increase. 



You will take an early occasion to read this in- 

 struction to Lord Granville, and, if he should so de- 

 sire, to leave a copy with him. 

 I am, etc., 



FREDERICK T. FRELINGHUYSEN. 



The following is presumed to close the dis- 

 cussion for the present : 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) 

 WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 1883. } 

 James Russell Lowell, Esq., etc., London. 



SIB: I inclose herewith a copy of an instruction 

 from Lord Granville to her Britannic Majesty's Min- 

 ister at Washington, dated Aug. 17, 1883, a copy of 

 which was handed me by Mr. West, and which is in 

 reply to my 586 to you of May 5, 1883, on the subject 

 of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. You will observe that 

 Lord Granville says that "Mr. Frelinghuysen still 

 contends that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is voidable 

 on two grounds first, because the first seven articles 

 of the treaty related to a particular canal by the Nic- 

 araguan route only; and, secondly, because Great 

 Britain has. at the present day, a colony instead of a 

 settlement at Balize." Lord Granville's attention 

 should be called to the fact that this Government not 

 only holds the position to which he has referred, but 

 also holds, as stated to you in my instructions of May 



8, 1882, and May 5, 1883, that for the purpose of ob- 

 taining the then needed capital to construct an inter- 

 oceanic canal by the Nicaraguan route, the United 

 States were willing to surrender a part of their exclu- 

 sive privileges in a canal by that route, and were also 

 willing to agree that, by subsequent treaty stipulation, 

 they would join with Great Britain in the protection 

 of the then proposed Tehuantepec, Panama, or other 

 interoceanic communication, and that the consider- 

 ation having failed, the treaty is voidable as to the 

 Nicaraguan route and as to the other routes. 



Lord Granville raises the point that no time was 

 fixed by the convention within which such inter- 

 oceanic communications were to be made. While this 

 statement is correct, it is also true that it was contem- 

 plated that the canal was about to be constructed at 

 the time the treaty was negotiated, and that the sur- 

 vey therefor was then made, and that thirty-three 

 years have elapsed without Great Britain rendering 

 the consideration on which the treaty was based, and 

 this failure, we think, affects the treaty in the same 

 manner that a failure by Great Britain to give the con- 

 sideration within a definite time, had one been fixed 

 by the convention, would have affected it. The treaty 

 provides that neither the United States nor Great 

 Britain shall colonize or exercise any dominion over 

 any part of Central America. This was a most im- 

 portant provision. It is one of a cluster, restraining 

 one nation from Laving any advantage over the other 

 in regard to the police of the canal, such as the pro- 

 vision against alliance, against occupation and fortifi- 

 cation, and against taking advantage of any intimacy 

 or influence, and yet it is claimed that the treaty does 

 not prohibit the existence of a large, regularly organ- 

 ized British colony in Central America, while it does 

 prohibit the United States from having any pos- 

 session or colony^ there The color for this claim is, 

 that while the stipulation that neither of the two Gov- 

 ernments should colonize any part of Central America, 

 is most conspicuous, the declaration of Sir Henry Bul- 

 wer, prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the 

 treaty, states that "her Majesty does not understand 

 the engagements of that convention to apply to her 

 Majesty's settlement at Honduras or its dependen- 

 cies." This declaration can not be held to authorize 

 the subsequent colonization by her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment of a territory as large as three 'of our smaller 

 States. The declaration was made, not to change or 

 vary the treaty, but of abundant caution that it might 

 not be misunderstood. The meaning of the declara- 

 tion, we think, is that a mere settlement of British 

 subjects for the purpose of cutting mahogany and log- 

 wood at Honduras, under Spanish- American sover- 

 eignty, was not to be considered a British colony, 

 and thus be a violation of the treaty, and I fail to see 

 how, since the exchange of the ratifications of the 

 treaty, the organization of a colony with a full colonial 

 government, under the British sovereignty, can be 

 looked upon as authorized or allowed either by the 

 treaty or by Sir Henry Bulwer's declaration. The 

 two contracting powers are equally bound not to colo- 

 nize any part of Central America, and the declaration 

 itself of Sir Henry Bulwer, not being the exception of 

 any territory in Central America from the operation 

 of the treaty, but providing in effect that the settle- 

 ment should not be considered a British colony, tend- 

 ed to strengthen and not to destroy the mutual obliga- 

 tion not to colonize in Central America. 



Lord Granville is correct hi saying that I stated in 

 my instruction to you of May 8, 1882, that her Majes- 

 ty's Government was not called upon either to admit 

 or deny the views therein expressed as to the Monroe 

 doctrine, and this was so for the reason there given, 

 to wit, because her Majesty's Government placed its 

 claim to join in the protection of the interoceanic 

 canal on a treaty which, if binding, certainly modified 

 the Monroe doctrine. But the fact that this Govern- 

 ment, for a promised consideration, modified by treaty 

 what is called the Monroe doctrine I think does not in 

 any manner affect that doctrine after the treaty has 



