the High Contracting Parties under the present treaty.' [This article is referred to as III. A, in the subsequent discussion.] "7. The various points connected with the defence of the canal may conveniently be considered together. In the present draft the Senate amendment has been dropped, which left the United States at liberty to apply such measures as might be found 'necessary to take for securing by its own forces the defence of the United States.' On the other hand, the words 'in time of war as in time of peace' are omitted from Rule 1, and there is no stipulation, as originally in Rule 7, prohibiting the erection of fortifications commanding the canal or the waters adjacent. "I do not fail to observe the important difference between the question as now presented to us and the position which was created by the amendment adopted in the Senate. "In my despatch I pointed out the dangerous ambiguity of an instrument of which one clause permitted the adoption of defensive measures, while another prohibited the erection of fortifications. most important that no doubt should exist as to the intention of the Contracting Parties. As to this, I understand that by the omission of all reference to the matter of defence the United States' Government desire to reserve the power of taking measures to protect the canal, at any time when the United States may be at war, from destruction or damage at the hands of an enemy or enemies. On the other hand, I conclude that, with the above exception, there is no intention to derogate from the principles of neutrality laid down by the Rules. As to the first of these propositions, I am not prepared to deny that contingencies may arise when not only from a national point of view, but on behalf of the commercial interests of the whole world, it might be of supreme importance to the United States that they should be free to adopt measures for the defence of the canal at a moment when they were themselves engaged in hostilities. "It is also to be borne in mind that, owing to the omission of the words under which this country became jointly bound to defend the neutrality of the canal, and the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the obligations of Great Britain would be materially diminished. "This is a most important consideration. In my despatch of the 22nd February, I dwelt upon the strong objection entertained by His Majesty's Government to any agreement under which, while the United States would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time of war, or apprehended war, Great Britain alone, in spite of her vast possessions on the American continent, and the extent of her interests in the East, would be absolutely precluded from resorting to any such action, or from taking measures to secure her interests in and near the canal. The same exception could not be taken to an arrangement under which, supposing that the United States, as the power owning the canal and responsible for the maintenance of its neutrality, should find it necessary to interfere temporarily with its free use by the shipping of another power, that power would thereupon at once and ipso facto become liberated from the necessity of observing the Rules laid down in the new treaty. "8. The difficulty raised by the absence of any provision for the adherence of other powers still remains. While indifferent as to the form in which the point is met, I must emphatically renew the objections of His Majesty's Government to being bound by stringent Rules of neutral conduct not equally binding upon other powers. I would therefore suggest the insertion in Rule 1, after 'all nations,' of the words which shall agree to observe these Rules.' This addition will impose upon other powers the same self-denying ordinance as Great Britain is desired to accept, and will furnish an additional security for the neutrality of the canal, which it will be the duty of the United States to maintain. "As matters of minor importance, I suggest the renewal of one of the stipulations of Article VIII. of the Clayton-Bulwer convention by adding to Rule 1 the words 'such conditions and charges shall be just and equitable,' and the adoption of treaty' in lieu of 'convention' to designate the international agreement which the High Contracting Parties may conclude. "Mr. Hay's draft, with the proposed amendments shown in italics, is annexed." Memorandum, accompanying a dispatch of Lord Lansdowne, Foreign Secretary, to Mr. Lowther, chargé, Aug. 3, 1901, Parl. Pap., United States, No. 1 (1902), 2. Lord Lansdowne "I have to inform you that I have learned from Lord Pauncefote that Mr. Hay has laid before the President the memorandum, a copy of which was forwarded to you in my despatch of the 3rd August. to Mr. Lowther, Sept. 12, 1901. "Mr. McKinley regarded, as did Mr. Hay, the consideration shown to the last proposals of the United States' Government relative to the Interoceanic Canal Treaty as in the highest degree friendly and reasonable. "With regard to the changes suggested by His Majesty's Government, Mr. Hay was apprehensive that the first amendment proposed to clause 1 of Article III. would meet with opposition because of the strong objection entertained to inviting other powers to become contract parties to a treaty affecting the canal. If His Majesty's Government found it not convenient to accept the draft as it stood, they might perhaps consider favourably the substitution for the words 'the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations which shall agree to observe these Rules' the words 'the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules,' and instead of any nation so agreeing' the words any such nation.' This, it seemed to Mr. Hay, would accomplish the purpose aimed at by His Majesty's Government. "The second amendment in the same clause, providing that conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable, was accepted by the President. "Coming to Article numbered III. A, which might be called Article IV., Mr. Hay pointed out that the preamble of the draft treaty retained the declaration that the general principle of neutralization established in Article VIII. of the Clayton-Bulwer convention was not impaired. To reiterate this in still stronger language in a separate article, and to give to Article VIII. of the Clayton-Bulwer convention what seemed a wider application than it originally had, would, Mr. Hay feared, not meet with acceptance. "If, however, it seemed indispensable to His Majesty's Government that an article providing for the contingency of a change in sovereignty should be inserted, he thought it might state that: "It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under the present treaty.' This would cover the point in a brief and simple way. "In conclusion, Mr. Hay expressed his appreciation of the friendly and magnanimous spirit shown by His Majesty's Government in the treatment of this matter, and his hope that a solution would be attained which would enable the United States' Government to start at once upon the great enterprise which so vitally concerned the whole world, and especially Great Britain, as the first of commercial nations." Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Lowther, Sept. 12, 1901, Parl. Pap., United Lord Lansdowne to Lord Pauncefote, Oct. 23, 1901. "I informed the United States' chargé d'affaires to-day that His Majesty's Government had given their careful attention to the various amendments which had been suggested in the draft Interoceanic Canal Treaty, communicated by Mr. Hay to your lordship on the 25th April last, and that I was now in a position to inform him officially of our views. "Mr. Hay had suggested that in Article III., Rule 1, we should substitute for the words 'the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations which shall agree to observe these Rules,' &c., the words 'the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules,' and in the same clause, as a consequential amendment, to substitute for the words any nation so agreeing' the words 'any such nation.' His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept this amendment, which seemed to us equally efficacious for the purpose which we had in view, namely, that of insuring that Great Britain should not be placed in a less advantageous position than other powers, while they stopped short of conferring upon other nations a contractual right to the use of the canal. "We were also prepared to accept, in lieu of Article III. A, the new Article IV. proposed by Mr. Hay, which, with the addition of the words or countries' proposed in the course of the discussions here, runs as follows: "It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under the present treaty.' "I admitted that there was some force in the contention of Mr. Hay, which had been strongly supported in conversation with me by Mr. Choate, that Article III. A, as drafted by His Majesty's Government, gave to Article VIII. of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty a wider application than it originally possessed. "In addition to these amendments, we proposed to add in the preamble, after the words 'being desirous to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,' the words 'by whatever route may be considered expedient,' and 'such ship canal' for 'said ship canal' in the first paragraph of Article III., words which, in our opinion, seemed to us desirable for the purpose of removing any doubt which might possibly exist as to the application of the treaty to any other interoceanic canals as well as that through Nicaragua. "I handed to Mr. White a statement, showing the draft as it originally stood and the amendments proposed on each side." Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Pauncefote, Oct. 23, 1901, Parl. Pap., United Mr. Hay to Lord Pauncefote, Nov. 8, 1901. "Upon your return to Washington, I had the honour to receive from you a copy of the instruction addressed to you on the 23rd October last by the Marquess of Lansdowne, accepting and reducing to final shape the various amendments in the draft of an Interoceanic Canal Treaty, as developed in the course of the negotiations lately conducted in London, through Mr. Choate, with yourself and Lord Lansdowne. "The treaty, being thus brought into a form representing a complete agreement on the part of the negotiators, has been submitted to the President, who approves of the conclusions reached, and directs me to proceed to the formal signature thereof. "I have, accordingly, the pleasure to send you a clear copy of the text of the treaty, embodying the several modifications agreed upon. Upon being advised by you that this text correctly represents your understanding of the agreement thus happily brought about, the treaty will be engrossed for signature at such time as may be most convenient to you." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Lord Pauncefote, Brit. ambassador, Nov. 8, 1901, The treaty was signed Nov. 18, 1901, and submitted to the Senate Dec. 4. DECEMBER 4, 1901.-Read; treaty read the first time and referred to the DECEMBER 16, 1901.—Ratified; injunction of secrecy removed from proposed For the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of Feb. 5, 1900, with the Senate's amendments; and the treaty of Nov. 18. 1901, with proposed ainendments and the votes thereon, see S. Doc. 85, 57 Cong. 1 sess., second corrected print, April 3, 1902. ber 18, 1901. "The United States of America and His Majesty Edward the Seventh, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Treaty of Novem- Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, and Emperor of India, being desirous to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, by whatever route may be considered expedient, and to that end to remove any objection which may arise out of the Convention of the 19th April, 1850, commonly called the ClaytonBulwer Treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the Government of the United States, without impairing the "general principle" of neutralization established in Article VIII. of that Convention, have for that purpose appointed as their Plenipotentiaries: "The President of the United States, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States of America; "And his Majesty Edward the Seventh, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, and Emperor of India, the Right Honourable Lord Pauncefote, G. C. B., G. C. M. G., His Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States; "Who, having communicated to each other their full powers which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following Articles:— "ARTICLE I. The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Treaty shall supersede the afore-mentioned Convention of the 19th April, 1850. "ARTICLE II. It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to individuals or Corporations, |