« PreviousContinue »
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 Sec
retary, to Mr. Lowther, chargé, Aug. 3, 1901, Parl. Pap., United States,
No. 1 (1902), 2. “I have to inform you that I have learned from Lord Pauncefote Lord Lansdowne
that Mr. Ilay has laid before the President the memto Mr. Lowther, orandum, a copy of which was forwarded to you in Sept. 12, 1901.
my despatch of the 3rd August. “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 Ilis Majesty's Government, Mr. Ilay 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 Ilis 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 IIis 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. Ilay 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
States, No. 1 (1902), 7.
“I informed the United States' chargé d'affaires to-day that
His Majesty's Government had given their careful Lord Lansdowne attention to the various amendments which had been to Lord Pauncefote,
suggested in the draft Interoceanic Canal Treaty, Oct. 23, 1901.
Comunicated 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
States, No. 1 (1902), 8. “Upon your return to Washington, I had the honour to receive
from you a copy of the instruction addressed to you Mr. Hay to Lord
on the 23rd October last by the Marquess of LansPauncefote, Nov. 8,
downe, accepting and reducing to final shape the 1901.
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,
Parl. Pap., United States. No. 1 (1902), 9.
The following record indicates the action of the Senate:
Committee on Foreign Relations and, together with the message, ordered
to be printed in confidence for the use of the Senate.
amendments and votes thereon, and vote of ratification.
ments; and the treaty of Nov. 18, 1901, with proposed amendments and the votes thereon, see S. Doc. 85, 57 Cong. 1 sess., second corrected print, April 3, 1902.
“The United States of America and IIis Majesty Edward the
Seventh, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Treaty of Novem
Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the ber 18, 1901.
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 IIonourable 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 IIigh 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, or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal.
“ARTICLE III. The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralization of such ship canal, the following Rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that is to say:
“1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.
“2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.
“3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the Regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service.
“Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same Rules as vessels of war of the belligerents.
“1. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch.
“5. The provisions of this Article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal, within 3 marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time, except in case of distress, and in such case, shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent.
“6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes of this Treaty, and in time of war, as in time of peace, shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents, and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of the canal