"The two Governments will enter into arrangements for the prompt transit of troops and munitions of the United States, which that Government may have occasion to send from one part of its territory to another, lying on opposite sides of the continent.

"The Mexican Government having agreed to protect with its whole power the prosecution, preservation, and security of the work, the United States may extend its protection as it shall judge wise to it when it may feel sanctioned and warranted by the public or international law."

Art. VIII., treaty between the United States and Mexico, Dec. 30, 1853, commonly called the Gadsden treaty.

As to the Louisiana Tehuantepec Company, see Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marshall O. Roberts, Dec. 7, 1866, 74 MS. Dom. Let. 484.

See, also, same to same, Dec. 13, 1866, id. 522, enclosing copy of the charter
of the "Tehuantepec Transit Company."

As to the claim of the Tehuantepec Ship-Canal and Mexican and Pacific R. R.
Co. against Mexico, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 3132.

In October, 1870, the minister of the United States at Mexico was instructed
to propose that the stipulations of the foregoing article be revived in
behalf of the Tehuantepec Railway Company, and also enlarged so as
to be applicable to a ship canal, for the construction of which the com-
pany contemplated applying for a concession. (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State,
to Mr. Nelson, min. to Mexico, Oct. 22, 1870, MS. Inst. Mexico, XVIII.
189.)

As to joint American and Mexican surveys, see For. Rel. 1871, 630.

"The views of the President with respect to the transit routes across the Isthmus were sufficiently explained in your instructions of 2d January last, and need not be repeated now. While, however, our policy concerning them is of the most liberal character, and contemplates their free enjoyment by all the nations of the world, there are obvious reasons why we should prefer to have them under the control and management of American companies, and the United States could not look with indifference upon any attempt to change this result at the sacrifice of the rights of our own citizens. Should such an attempt be made by the Government of Nicaragua, with respect to the transit through that country, it will then be for this Government to determine what measures are required of it for the just protection of its citizens in the enjoyment of their rights. In your intercourse with the Nicaraguan authorities you will bear in mind these considerations, and while you will not undertake to commit your government to the absolute enforcement of any contract, you will take care to point out to to the Nicaraguan Government the dangerous consequences which may ensue should its plighted faith be disregarded on a subject so important as the route from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by the river San Juan."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lamar, min. to Cent. Am., June 3, 1858, MS.
Inst. Am. States, XV. 312.

This instruction is referred to in Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Body, Sec.
Am. Atlantic and Pacific Ship Canal Co., March 3, 1860, 52 MS. Dom.
Let. 11.

In a later letter to Mr. Body, March 22, 1860, acknowledging receipt of a
translation of a new contract between the Nicaraguan Government and
his company, Mr. Cass, in reply to a request for comments on the con-
tract, said: “Although this government takes a proper interest in
measures which may tend to secure or facilitate the transit across Nic-
aragua, any parties who may enter into a contract for that purpose,
must do so upon their own responsibility and cannot expect an opinion
from this Department upon the subject in advance of any occasion on
which the Department might deem itself warranted in acting." (52
MS. Dom. Let. 64.)
As to the conflicting claims of the Central American Transit Company and
the New Jersey and Pacific Transportation and Nicaraguan Railroad
Company, see Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morris, April 28, 1868,
78 MS. Dom. Let. 396.

"In reply the undersigned feels called on simply to reiterate the doctrine which has been made public in the dispatch which he addressed to General Lamar, on the 25th July, 1858, on the subject, and which is embraced substantially in the following sentences:

"Nor do they [the United States] claim to interfere with the local Governments in the determination of the questions connected with the opening of the routes and with the persons with whom contracts may be made for that purpose. What they do desire and mean to accomplish is that the great interests involved in this subject should not be sacrificed to any unworthy motive, but should be guarded from abuse, and that, when fair contracts are fairly entered into with American citizens, they should not be wantonly violated.' And again: There are several American citizens who, with different interests, claim to have formed engagements with the proper authorities of Nicaragua for opening and using the transit routes, with various stipulations defining their privileges and duties, and some of these contracts have already been in operation. This Government has neither the authority nor the disposition to determine the conflicting interests of these claimants. But what it has the right to do, and what it is disposed to do, is to require that the Government of Nicaragua should act in good faith towards them, and should not arbitrarily and wrongfully divest them of rights justly acquired and solemnly guaranteed.'

"Where one of the parties to a contract proceeds by an arbitrary act to annul it, on the ground that the other party has failed to comply with its conditions, and by a process which precludes any investigation, the plainest principles of justice are violated. What the United States require is not that their citizens should be maintained in rights they have forfeited, but that they should not be deprived of H. Doc. 551-vol 3-17

rights derived from the Government of Nicaragua without a fair examination by an impartial tribunal."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jerez, May 5, 1859, MS. Notes to Cent.
Am. I. 154.

"The contract of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua was declared forfeited by the Nicaraguan Government on the 10th of October, on the ground of nonfulfillment within the ten years' term stipulated in the contract. The Maritime Canal Company has lodged a protest against this action, alleging rights in the premises which appear worthy of consideration. This Government expects that Nicaragua will afford the protestants a full and fair hearing upon the merits of the case."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899. (For. Rel. 1899, p. xvii.)

"The all-important matter of an interoceanic canal has assumed a new phase. Adhering to its refusal to reopen the question of the forfeiture of the contract of the Maritime Canal Company, which was terminated for alleged nonexecution in October, 1899, the Government of Nicaragua has since supplemented that action by declaring the so-styled Eyre-Cragin option void for nonpayment of the stipulated advance. Protests in relation to these acts have been filed in the State Department and are under consideration. Deeming itself relieved from existing engagements, the Nicaraguan Government shows a disposition to deal freely with the canal question either in the way of negotiations with the United States or by taking measures to promote the waterway.

"Overtures for a convention to effect the building of a canal under the auspices of the United States are under consideration. In the meantime, the views of the Congress upon the general subject, in the light of the report of the Commission appointed to examine the comparative merits of the various trans-Isthmian ship-canal projects may be awaited."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 3, 1900. (For. Rel. 1900, p. xxv.)
As to the incorporation of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua by
the United States, see H. Report 211, 46 Cong. 3 sess.; S. Report 368, 47
Cong. 1 sess.; H. Report 1698, 47 Cong. 1 sess., parts 1 and 2; S. Report
952, 47 Cong. 2 sess.; S. Report 1628, 49 Cong. 2 sess.; S. Report 221, 50
Cong. 1 sess.

For the certificate of incorporation, see S. Doc. 400, 56 Cong. 1 sess.
For a list of stockholders and an account of work done, see S. Rep. 2234, 51
Cong. 2 sess.; S. Rep. 1262, 52 Cong. 2 sess.

"The Nicaraguan authorities having given notice of forfeiture of their con-
cession to the canal company on grounds purely technical and not em-
braced in the contract, have receded from that position." (President
Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 3, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, p. xiii.)
For the renewed notice of proposed forfeiture, see For. Rel. 1897, 417-419.

Message of President Cleveland, transmitting the report of a board of engineers on the Nicaragua Canal, H. Doc. 279, 54 Cong. 1 sess., parts 1 and 2, vol. 89.

For the award of President Cleveland, March 22, 1888, on the boundary dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1945, 1964.

March 27, 1896. Costa Rica and Nicaragua concluded a treaty for carrying into effect the award of President Cleveland in their boundary dispute. The two Governments agreed each to name a commission, composed of two engineers or surveyors, and it was stipulated that whenever the two commissions should disagree, the disputed point or points should be submitted to the judgment of an engineer to be appointed by the President of the United States. (For. Rel. 1896, 100-102.)

The award of General Alexander, thus designated as engineer-umpire, is printed in For. Rel. 1897, 113-116. See, also, For. Rel. 1896, 100-102; For. Rel. 1897, 111, 330, 419-421.

Correspondence in relation to the boundary between Colombia and Costa Rica will be found in Foreign Relations 1893, 202, 216, 266, 270, 281, 286, 287, 289, 294. The discussion is continued in Foreign Relations 1894, 180, 192. It is also discussed in a report of the Colombian minister of foreign affairs, which was communicated to the Department of State by the American minister at Bogota, in October. 1894. (For. Rel. 1894, 193.)

June 14, 1897, Mr. Baker, United States minister to Nicaragua, enclosed a copy of a contract between that Government and the Atlas Steamship Company, a British corporation, for the exclusive navigation of the San Juan river and lake Nicaragua. Mr. Baker observed that while the contract assumed to protect the concession of the Maritime Canal Company, it made no provision for a future treaty with the United States. December 17, 1897, the minister of the United States at Nicaragua was instructed to examine the concession and report his views upon it, but to take no other action until he was further instructed. (For. Rel. 1897, 421, 425.)

"Pim, Forwood & Kellock, steamship agents of 17 State Street, who formerly handled the business of the Atlas Steamship Company, and at present have charge of the Atlas service of the Hamburg-American Line, deny the report that the Hamburg-American Packet Company, as successor of the Atlas Steamship Company, an English corporation, has the exclusive rights of steam navigation of the Silaco Lagoon, Nicaragua, for thirty years from Sept. 30, 1897, and the exclusive right for the same period of constructing tramways and railways along the line to avoid obstacles in the lower part of the San Juan River. They say that this concession was granted to the Nicaragua Mail Steamship Company and afterwards acquired by the Atlas Steamship Company. The exclusive rights and concessions, however, were not included in the purchase by the Hamburg-American Packet Company, but were disposed of to the Caribbean and Pacific Transit Company, another British corporation, which will have to be reckoned with before the canal can be built." (New York Times, Dec. 20, 1901.) "The best authorized map of Nicaragua, according to Mr. Hall's No. 646, is attached to a work entitled Notas Geograficas Economicas, sobre La Republica de Nicaragua. Por Pablo (Paul) Levy. Paris, 1873.' This work was subsidized and approved by the Nicaraguan Government

and may therefore be considered authoritative." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Whitney, Sec. of Navy, June 3, 1887, 164 MS. Dom. Let. 310.)

As to the Panama and Nicaragua canal routes, see the following documents:

Report of Isthmian Canal Commission, Nov. 16, 1901, S. Doc. 54, 57 Cong. 1 sess., parts 1 and 2.

Report of the Isthmian Canal Commission, Jan. 18, 1902, advising acceptance of the proposition of sale of the New Panama Canal Co., S. Doc. 123, 57 Cong. 1 sess.

Mr. Morgan, S. Rep. 1, 57 Cong. 1 sess.

Mr. Morgan, S. Rep. 783, 57 Cong. 1-sess.

Messrs. Kittredge and Pritchard, S. Rep. 783, 57 Cong. 1 sess., part 2.
Mr. Morgan, May 26, 1902, S. Rep. 1663, 57 Cong. 1 sess.. adverse to S. Bill
5676, leaving the choice of the route to the President.

Mr. Hepburn, H. Report 15, 57 Cong. 1 sess.

Hearings before the Interoceanic Canals Committee, S. Doc. 253, 57 Cong.
1 sess.

As to the New Panama Canal Company, see S. Doc. 188, 56 Cong. 1 sess.
For further discussions as to the interoceanic canal, see:

A reprint of the document of 1885 (comprising S. Ex. Docs. 112, 46 Cong. 2
sess; 194, 47 Cong. 1 sess.; 26, 48 Cong. 1 sess.). with other correspond-
ence not previously communicated to Congress, S. Doc. 237, 56 Cong. 1

sess.

Interoceanic Canal; Mr. Morgan, Com. on Interoceanic Canals, May 16,
1900, S. Rep. 1337, 56 Cong. 1 sess., parts 1 and 2.

Mr. Morgan, Com. on Interoceanic Canals, June 4, 1900, on the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty, S. Report 1649, 56 Cong. 1 sess.

Mr. Hepburn, Com. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Feb. 17, 1900, H.
Report 351, 56 Cong. 1 sess. Correspondence and other papers relating
to the proposed Interoceanic Ship Canal, S. Doc. 161, 56 Cong. 1 sess.
An Isthmian Canal, S. Doc. 230, 56 Cong. 1 sess.

Cotton trade of the United States and an Isthmian Canal, S. Doc. 406, 56
Cong. 1 sess. Documents relating to the Interoceanic Canal, S. Doc.
357, 57 Cong. 1 sess.

List of books and articles in the Library of Congress, relating to the Interoceanic Canal, S. Doc. 59, 56 Cong. 1 sess.

As to particular routes and surveys, see:

Report of Lieut. Michler, July 14, 1857, on surveys for an interoceanic
canal, S. Ex. Doc. 9, 36 Cong. 2 sess., 2 pts.

Report of Admiral Davis, July 11, 1866, on interoceanic canal and railway,
S. Ex. Doc. 62, 39 Cong. 1 sess.

Message of President Fillmore, July 27, 1854, respecting a right of way
across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. S. Ex. Doc. 97, 32 Cong. 1 sess.
Lecture by Mr. Corthell, on Tehuantepec route, S. Doc. 34, 54 Cong. 1 sess.
Reports of Lull and Collins Expedition of 1875, with maps, S. Ex. Doc. 75,
45 Cong. 3 sess.

Report of Lieut. T. A. M. Craven, dated Feb. 18, 1859, of a survey made of the Isthmus of Darien. Mar. 18, 1880, H. Ex. Doc. 63, 46 Cong. 2 sess. Report of historical and technical information relating to the problem of interoceanic communication by way of the American Isthmus, by Lieut. John T. Sullivan, U. S. N., with plates and maps, April 28, 1883, H. Ex. Doc. 107, 47 Cong. 2 sess.