still further than that, the idea of not impairing the general principle of neutralization is carrried into the treaty itself, for in Article IV It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of 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. "That is, repeating in the fourth article as being a part of the treaty itself, the words of the preamble that the obstacles of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty are to be removed without impairing the general principle of neutralization established in Article VIII of that convention. "This preamble, sir, which refers to the general principle of neutralization in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and which manifestly is designed to preserve in the HayPauncefote treaty something of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, has been treated in discussion as being a matter of not very much importance. Not so the view of the negotiators of the treaty. Not so the view of anybody connected with our Government at the time the treaty was made, for you will perceive, in the first place, that in the letters of transmittal of the treaty special pains are taken to have it understood that this treaty preserves unimpaired something which is called the general principle of neutralization. “Mr. Hay, in transmitting the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to the President, writes: * the I submit for your consideration * * * * * a convention * to remove any objection which may arise out of Clayton-Bulwer treaty without impairing the "general principle" of neutralization established in Article VIII of that convention. "President Roosevelt, in transmitting the treaty to the Senate, says: ** * * * * * I transmit, for the advice and consent of the Senate to its ratification, a convention signed November 18, 1901. to remove any objection which may arise out of the convention of April 19, 1850, 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. "That feature of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is dwelt upon and made extraordinarily prominent, and there is a manifest feeling that the Senate ought not to lose sight of it in considering whether it shall advise the ratification of the treaty. "The only two things in Article VIII are the equality of service and of charge between the vessels of the United States and those of Great Britain and the extension of that to other countries that come in and the obligation of protection. The great object of the negotiation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was to take over to the United States alone the duty and the right of protection. That was the difference between the Hay-Pauncefote treaty and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty that Great Britain was to surrender the right of protection, to be relived from the duty of protection, and no other countries were to be permitted to come in and exercise the right of protection. The United States was to put itself on the platform that Blaine laid down in 1881 as the sole protector of the canal. What, then, was there to be preserved unimpaired in the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty? Nothing except the basis of equality, equality between the United States and Great Britain, equality measured by the treatment of the nationals of one country for the nationals of the other. Nothing else was left to be preserved unimpaired. "Mr. Hay, in his letter to Senator Cullom at the time the treaty was under consideration by the Senate, says: He (the President) not only was willing but earnestly desired that the “general principle" of neutralization referred to in the preamble of this treaty and in the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty should be perpetually applied to this canal. This, in fact, had always been insisted upon by the United States. "There was no change in policy. He recognized the entire justice and propriety of the demand of Great Britain that if she was asked to surrender the material interest secured by the first article of that treaty, which might result at some indefinite future time in a change of sovereignty in the territory traversed by the canal, the "general principle" of neutralization as applied to the canal should be absolutely secured. "Whatever else the Hay-Pauncefote treaty means, it means to secure absolutely the general principle of neutralization contained in the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which was, according to the understanding of the makers of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the absolute equality of the ships, the citizens and the subjects of all nations with the ships and the citizens of the United States and of Great Britain; and we are not at liberty to spell out any different meaning of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. "The third article of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty provides: 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 twenty-eighth of October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal. "Article XII of the Suez Canal convention provides that dues are to be levied without exception or favor upon all vessels under like conditions. "That was a fundamental basis under which the Suez Canal was to be operated. The convention proceeds: The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag. "This convention which makes that declaration of absolute and universal equality of tolls a basis of its agreement was made after Great Britain had become the chief owner and arbiter of the canal. Now, I come back to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. 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, etc.: 1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing the rules on terms of entire equality. "An entire equality' substantially as embodied in the Suez convention. You are bound to say that the equality was substantially the same. When these negotiators at that very instant were appealing to the Suez convention and declaring the treaty they were making was substantially the same in the rule of equality which it prescribed, when they were declaring that what they were doing was substantially like what the Suez convention did-you are not at liberty to say that at that very instant they meant something entirely different. If you do that, you say they were dishonest, they were disingenuous, they were deceiving Great Britain. "Ah, the worst thing about it is that our Government has said from generation to generation it was going to treat all the world alike in whatever it did about this canal; that the makers of our treaty declared that they were preserving unimpaired the equality established in the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty; that the makers of our treaty declared that the provision for equality was substantially the same as that in the Suez treaty; that that was the uniform, the unvarying attitude of the United States in every step which we took to acquire title to the Canal Zone and to get the unrestricted right to own and operate the canal; and not until after we got it, not until after we were secure, did any American ever broach the idea that we were to use the canal for selfish advantage commercially; that to the political control, to the military control, to the power of ownership and regulation and management we were to add a discrimination against all the rest of the world for the purpose of enabling our merchant ships to outdo them in competition." We will now use excerpts from an able speech by Senator Burton: "OUR DEMANDS IN RELATION TO CANADIAN WATERWAYS IN 1888 TO 1892. * "The Canadian Government in council had in substance decreed that while the tolls on cargoes carried through the Welland Canal should be twenty cents per ton on eastbound freight, yet if the boat went as far as |
