we were beginning to be restive under our obligations by reason of that treaty, we undertook to secure a modification of it from Great Britain. In the course of that undertaking there was much discussion and some difference of opinion as to the continued obligations of the treaty. But I think that was finally put at rest by the decision of Secretary Olney in the memorandum upon the subject made by him in the year 1896. In that memorandum he said:"

Under these circumstances, upon every principle which governs the relation to each other, either of nations or of individuals, the United States is completely estopped from denying that the treaty is in full force and vigor.

If changed conditions now make stipulations, which were once deemed advantageous, either inapplicable or injurious, the true remedy is not in ingenious attempts to deny the existence of the treaty or to explain away its provisions, but in a direct and straightforward application to Great Britain for a reconsideration of the whole matter.

The views of our representative men in the interim of 1850, when the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was adopted, and 1901, when the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was concluded, are of interest as they throw light on what the authors intended to incorporate in the latter treaty. The more important of these views are the following:

Secretary of State Cass said to Great Britain in 1857:

"The United States, as I have before had occasion to assure your Lordship, demand no exclusive privileges in these passages, but will always exert their influence to secure their free and unrestricted benefits, both in peace and war, to the commerce of the world."

Secretary of State Seward in note to Minister Adams, 1862, said:

"This Government has no interest in the matter different from that of other maritime powers. It is willing to interpose its aid in execution of its treaty and further equal benefit of all nations."

In a note to the Colombian minister, January 18, 1869, Secretary Seward expressed himself in the same

manner.

Secretary of State Fish:

"A Darien Canal should not be regarded as hostile to a Suez Canal; they will be not so much rivals as joint contributors to the increase of the commerce of the world, and thus mutually advance each other's interests. *

"We shall * * * be glad of any movement which shall result in the early decision of the question of the most practicable route and the early commencement and speedy completion of an interoceanic communication, which shall be guaranteed in its perpetual neutralization and dedication to the commerce of all nations, without advantages to one over another of those who guarantee its assured neutrality. *

* *

* * * the benefit of neutral waters at the ends thereof for all classes of vessels entitled to fly their respective flags, with the cargoes on board, on equal terms in every respect as between each other."

Mr. Blaine said in his instructions to Mr. Lowell on June 24, 1881, directing Mr. Lowell to propose to Great Britain the modification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty:

"The United States recognizes a proper guarantee of neutrality as essential to the construction and successful operation of any highway across the Isthmus of Panama,

* *

and in the last generation every step was taken by this Government that is deemed requisite in the premises. The necessity was foreseen and abundantly provided for long in advance of any possible call for the actual exercise of power. * Nor, in time of peace, does the United States seek to have any exclusive privileges accorded to American ships in respect to precedence or tolls through an interoceanic canal any more than it has sought like privileges for American goods in transit over the Panama Railway, under the exclusive control of an American corporation. The extent of the privileges of American citizens and ships is measurable under the treaty of 1846 by those of Colombian citizens and ships. It would be our earnest desire and expectation to see the world's peaceful commerce enjoy the same just, liberal and rational treatment."

In another place, Secretary of State Blaine said in his instructions to Mr. Lowell:

"Nor does the United States seek any exclusive or narrow commercial advantage. It frankly agrees, and will by public proclamation declare at the proper time, in conjunction with the Republic on whose soil the canal may be located, that the same rights and privileges, the same tolls and obligations for the use of the canal, shall apply with absolute impartiality to the merchant marine of every nation on the globe; and equally in time of peace the harmless use of the canal shall be freely granted to the war vessels of other nations."

Lord Granville's reply thereto was:

* * such communication concerned not merely the United States or the American continent, but, as was recognized by Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty,

the whole civilized world, and that England would not oppose or decline any discussion for the purpose of securing on a general international basis its universal and unrestricted use."

said:

President Cleveland, in his annual message of 1885,

"The lapse of years has abundantly confirmed the wisdom and foresight of those earlier administrations which, long before the conditions of maritime intercourse were changed and enlarged by the progress of the age, proclaimed the vital need of interoceanic transit across the American Isthmus and consecrated it in advance to the common use of mankind by their positive declarations and through the formal obligations of treaties. Toward such realization the efforts of my administration will be applied, ever bearing in mind the principles on which it must rest and which were declared in no uncertain tones by Mr. Cass, who, while Secretary of State in 1858, announced that 'What the United States want in Central America next to the happiness of its people is the security and neutrality of the interoceanic routes which lead through it.'

* Whatever highway may be constructed across the barrier dividing the two greatest maritime areas of the world must be for the world's benefit-a trust for mankind, to be removed from the chance of domination by any single power, nor become a point of invitation for hostilities or a prize for warlike ambition.

* * *

66* * * These suggestions may serve to emphasize what I have already said on the score of the necessity of a neutralization of any interoceanic transit; and this can only be accomplished by making the uses of the route open

to all nations and subject to the ambitions and warlike necessities of none."

In the foregoing public declarations, by the solemn asservations of our treaties with Colombia in 1846, with Great Britain in 1850, we presented to the world the most unequivocal guaranty of disinterested action for the common benefit of mankind and not for our selfish advantage.

The Hay-Pauncefote treaty must be construed in the light of that historic background and the statements of those who are in a position to vouch for the understanding reached by the two State Departments which drafted the treaty. So construed, our so-called American coastwise trade, from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico ports to Pacific ports, and vice versa, must pay the same rate of toll for identical units of traffic as other commerce using the canal.

THE HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY

The intent of the framers of the treaty is naturally of first importance. Neither Mr. Hay nor Lord Pauncefote are now living, but evidences remain. Joseph H. Choate was then American Ambassador to the Court of St. James and had to do with the negotiations.

CHOATE TO SENATOR McCUMBER

"Dear Senator McCumber: I have your letter of March 25, in which you ask me to answer two questions in regard to the negotiation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901.

"First. Was it understood by the State Departments of the two countries that the words 'vessels of commerce and war of all nations' included our own vessels?