« ÎnapoiContinuați »
attention to the various amendments which had been suggested in the draft interoceanic canal treaty, communicated 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,” etc., 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, which 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 ClaytonBulwer treaty a wider application than it originally possessed.
In addition to those 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. I am, etc.,
Lord Pauncefote to the Marquis of Lansdowne.
WASHINGTON, November 18, 1901. MY LORD: I have the honor to transmit to your lordship herewith a copy of a communication from Mr. Hay, dated the 8th November, formally placing on record the President's approval of the various amendments made in the draft of the new interoceanic canal treaty in the course of the negotiations, and particularly set forth in your lordship’s dispatch to me of the 230 October. I have, etc.
[Inclosure in No. 5.)
WASHINGTON, November 8, 1901. EXCELLENCY: Upon your return to Washington, I had the honor to receive from you a copy of the instruction addressed to you on the 23d October last by the Marquis of Lansdowne, accepting and reducing to final shape the 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 sig. nature at such time as may be most convenient to you. I have, etc.
WASHINGTON, November 19, 1901. MY LORD: I have the honor to report that, by appointment with Mr. Hay, I yesterday went to the State Department, accompanied by Mr. Wyndham, and signed the new treaty for the construction of an interoceanic canal. I have, etc.
WASHINGTON, December 16, 1901. Canal treaty ratified by 72 votes to 6 in Senate to-day.
FIRST BRITISH PROTEST
Chargé d'Affaires Innes to the Secretary of State.
July 8, 1912. Sir: The attention of His Majesty's Government has been
called to the various proposals that have from time to time been made for the purpose of relieving American shipping from the burden of the tolls to be levied on sels passing through the Panama Canal, and these proposals together with the arguments that have been used to support them have been carefully considered with a view to the bearing on them of the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of November 18th 1901. The proposals may be summed up as follows:
1. To exempt all American shipping from the tolls,
2. To refund to all American ships the tolls which they may have paid,
3. To exempt American ships engaged in the coastwise trade,
4. To repay the tolls to American ships engaged in the coastwise trade. The proposal to exempt all American shipping from the payment of the tolls, would, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, involve an infraction of the treaty, nor is there, in their opinion, any difference in principle between charging tolls only to refund them and remitting tolls altogether. The result is the same in either case, and the adoption of the alternative method of refunding the tolls in preference to that of remitting them, while perhaps complying with the letter of the treaty, would still contravene its spirit.
It has been argued that a refund of the tolls would merely be equivalent to a subsidy and that there is nothing in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty which limits the right of the United States to subsidize its shipping. It is true that there is nothing in that treaty to prevent the United States from subsidizing its shipping and if it granted a subsidy His Majesty's Government could not be in a position to complain. But there is a great distinction between a general subsidy, either to shipping at large or to shipping engaged in any given trade, and a subsidy calculated particularly with reference to the amount of user of the Canal by the subsidized lines or
vessels. If such a subsidy were granted it would not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be in accordance with the obligations of the Treaty.
As to the proposal that exemption shall be given to vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, a more difficult question arises. If the trade should be so regulated as to make it certain that only bona-fide coastwise traffic which is reserved for United States vessels would be benefited by this exemption, it may that no objection could be taken. 'But it appears to my government that it would be impossible to frame regulations which would prevent the exemption from resulting, in fact, in a preference to United States shipping and consequently in an infraction of the Treaty. I have the honor to be,
With the highest consideration,
A. MITCHELL INNES.
SECOND BRITISH PROTEST
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain
to Ambassador Bryce. [Handed to the Secretary of State by the British Ambassador
December 9, 1912.]
FOREIGN OFFICE, November 14, 1912. Sir: Your Excellency will remember that on the 8th July, 1912, Mr. Mitchell Innes communicated to the Secretary of State the objections which His Majesty's Government entertained to the legislation relating to the Panama Canal, which was then under discussion in Congress, and that on the 27th August, after the passing of the Panama Canal Act and the issue of the President's memorandum on signing it, he informed Mr. Knox that when His Majesty's Government had had time to consider fully the Act and the memorandum a further communication would be made to him.