not question its title to exercise belligerent rights for its protection.

And let us not forget that in Article I of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty the "United States; guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama."

The change of territorial sovereignty referred to in the Treaty did not contemplate ownership resting in one or the other parties to the Treaty.

Of course Senator Root's arguments as to coasting trade are far fetched and as we have full right to prefer all classes of our vessels they are not material. As far back as the Treaty of 1815 between the United States and Great Britain where equality of treatment of vessels was very clearly provided for we find coasting trade preferred as to each country.

Following the argument we see an attempt to justify the concession in the Grey protest that we may protect the Canal, by attempting to square the Suez rules with the Panama rules, of course omitting the presentation of such parts of the rules as make their claims impossible. Basing his premise upon the validity of the British 、 claims Senator Root draws certain conclusions as to matters in dispute that are in no sense definite. Then he goes into the question of the arbitration of the Treaties. An effort has been made to separate such arbitration disposal from the Senate. It is to be hoped this may not be done.

Think what we should have had were the first treaty now in force as it would be but for submission to the Senate.

The writer has not the space to go fully into this question. The interpretation of the Treaty as challenged by Great Britain does affect our independence, our honor and interest of third par

ties.

It is a question whether land belonging to us shall be subject to limited sovereignty. Whether having acquired sovereignty over it such sovereignty is fraudulent. If another nation can enforce its decrees over the Canal it can enforce them over bodies of water in Central and South America and so jeopardize the Monroe Doctrine. It is not an arrogant refusal if we are within our rights in choosing not to go before a tribunal controlled by judges representing antagonistic interests.

The remainder of the speech is an appeal to arbitrate because if we do not, even though clearly within our rights, we may be charged with sharp practice an international game of dare, which has worked well of late and nearly to our undoing but which will end with our people's awakening.

CHAPTER VII

THE BRITISH PROTEST

THIS protest is based just as Senator Root's was upon an attempt to read Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Convention into the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

The protests and Mr. Knox's reply are given in the Appendix.

The answer of Mr. Knox is so conclusive and convincing that but little need be said.

But I find well informed men writing to the papers that we can grant subsidies equal to the tolls. They have not read the protest. For if we heed it we find very clear intimation that we must not do so.

There is some very devious reasoning indulged in by Sir Edward Grey. He says Article VIII does not mention belligerent action at all. But the Treaty recognizes that it covers neutrality and it is not mentioned except as a principle established. And what is protection for except to guard against possible harmful belligerent operations?

The earlier chapters cover this phase of the contention and the reader can now grasp the subtlety of the argument.

We find quoted in the protest other treaty pacts calling for equal treatment in language clearly expressed and because we managed to get it in Canada after twenty-one years of protest equal treatment explicitly provided we are told we must now accord equal treatment because an instrument 64 years old and now superseded called for it under conditions not now holding.

We again find stated that we surrendered the right to build by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and recovered it by the Hay-Pauncefote.

Sir Edward says:

The case cannot be put more clearly than it was put by Mr. Hay himself, who, as Secretary of State, negotiated the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, in the full account of the negotiations which he sent to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Senate Document 746, 61st Congress, 3d Session).

He quotes Mr. Hay as follows:

These rules are adopted in the Treaty with Great Britain as a consideration for getting rid of the ClaytonBulwer Treaty.

Since he undoubtedly had the document before him there was no excuse, except that of grasping at straws, for failure to put this quotation as given; there is no period after treaty. The actual statement is:

These rules are adopted in the Treaty with Great Britain as a consideration for getting rid of the Clayton

Bulwer Treaty, and the only way in which other nations are bound by them is that they must comply with them if they would use the Canal.

The finishing of this sentence disposes of Sir Edward Grey's contention.

No one could assume the protest anything other than a policy of desperation with which to capitalize the great tory sentiment which seems now to be so prevalent in our land.

Sir Edward Grey threatens another protest in case we treat the vessels of all nations on terms of equality by barring railroad owned vessels from the Canal. He says in effect, "Apply your laws to your own vessels but do not treat the vessels of other nations in the same way."

Sir Edward Grey says he cannot see how the principle "which provides for equal treatment of British and United States ships has been maintained." No one else can, because it is not maintained. In so far as Article VIII secured neutrality it has been incorporated in principle. He cannot see what was obtained by England. If he will read Lord Lansdowne's communications he will see that she was relieved from the whole responsibility of "upholding the rules and maintaining the neutrality of the Canal"-the saving surely of a tidy sum.

Here is a definite acceptance by Lord Lansdowne of the fact that neutrality is secured through maintaining the rules of Article III.