whole American continent cannot have a claim to be part of the law of nations. A state cannot issue rules for the regulation of international intercourse, unless all the other members of the family of nations accept such rules. It may be remarked here that at the Hague Conference, 1899, the Doctrine was proclaimed urbi et orbi and in a solemn fashion by the delegates of the United States. They entered a reservation in signing the "Convention for the Peaceful Adjustment of International Differences," whereby they declared that "nothing contained in the convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not entering upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or internal administration of any foreign state, nor shall anything contained in the said convention be so construed as to require the relinquishment by the United States of America. of its traditional attitude towards purely American questions." This declaration was renewed on "1 behalf of the United States at the Peace Conference of 1909. And Mr. Roosevelt, in his annual message to Congress in 1901, comments on the acceptance of such declaration by the Peace Conference of 1899 as an acquiescence of the powers there represented in the Monroe Doctrine.2 But it must be pointed out that, although no protests against the conduct of the North American delegates was made, it is not to be supposed that the Doctrine thereby becomes law. Doctor Higgins, commenting on 1 Cp. Holls, The Peace Conference at the Hague, pp. 267–272. this fact, justly says that "it is difficult to see why the declaration of the United States delegate should be considered to have a bilateral effect, and the principle that 'silence gives consent' be invoked in so important a matter." It is universally accepted, and rightly so, that the Doctrine belongs to the domain of politics and not to that of law. "1 From the foregoing brief sketch of the Monroe Doctrine, it becomes evident that the majority of the utterances of the Department of State in connection with trans-isthmian communication are devoid of legal force. But we have entered into a discussion of the views entertained by certain American statesmen, simply because they may serve as an indication of the ultimate results that may be reached in the subject of a canal across Central America. We have noted, on the one hand, the occasional endeavour of the United States to obtain the use of the waterway for their exclusive benefit as a development of the Monroe Doctrine; while, on the other hand, the interest taken by the other maritime powers, especially by Great Britain, in such communications has prompted them to attempt to counteract that tendency. To find out what has been the result of this controversy, that is to say, what legal principles will be made to apply to the Panama Canal, will be the subjuct of the succeeding chapters. 1 CHAPTER I. NEUTRALISATION IN GENERAL. IN entering into the foregoing historical sketch of the interoceanic canal question, it has been with the intention of discovering the different views that have obtained in connection with the status of this maritime communication. The political aspect of the subject only, therefore, has been studied. It is intended now to attempt the solution of the problem from a purely legal standpoint. As both in the Hay-Pauncefote and in the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaties the words "neutrality' and "neutralisation" are used with reference to the juridical position of the canal, it would be well to define as accurately as possible the meaning of these terms, so that we may be able to avoid the misconceptions and ambiguities that would naturally result if a different course were followed. If absolute truth were not necessarily to be attained in this way, we may at least circumscribe within narrow limits the many possibilities for error that are generally attendant on all questions in which technical terms play an important part. Among the nations of old, belligerents never recognised an attitude of impartiality on the part |