Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

citizens and property, the right of transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the territory of that Republic, on any route of commurication, natural or artificial, whether by land or by water," on the same terms as it should be enjoyed by Nicaragua and its citizens, "the Republic of Nicaragua, however, reserving its rights of sovereignty over the same." By the next article, the United States agree to extend their protection to all such routes of communication as aforesaid, and to guarantee the neutrality and innocent use of the same. They also agree to employ their influence with other nations to induce them to guarantee such neutrality and protection."

[ocr errors]

Treaty Volume (1776-1887), 779, 784-786. The treaty of peace and friend-
ship between Spain and Nicaragua of July 25, 1850, provides (Article
XIII.) that the former power shall “enjoy on the transit the same
advantages and exemptions as are granted to the most favored nation,"
and shall, on the other hand, guarantee its "neutrality," in order “to
keep the transit thereby free" and "protect it against all embargo
or confiscation;" and the treaty between Spain and Costa Rica of May
10, 1850, grants (Article XIII.) to the Spanish flag and merchandise
"free transit upon any canal through the territory of Costa Rica
on the same terms as "the vessels, merchandise, and citizens" of
the latter country. (39 Br. & For. State Papers, 1345; 42 id. 1210.)
By Articles XXVII.-XXXIII. of the treaty of amity, commerce.
and navigation, between France and Nicaragua, of April 11, 1859,
the neutrality and free use of the canal are amply guaranteed.
(50 Br. & For. State Papers, 363, 373.) The treaty of commerce between
Great Britain and Nicaragua of February 11, 1860, contained similar
stipulations; but it expired June 11, 1888, on notice given in conformity
with its terms. (78 Br. & For. State Papers, 562.) The treaty between
Italy and Nicaragua of March 6, 1868, provides for most-favored nation
treatment in respect of “navigation,” as well as of commerce.
& For. State Papers, 546.)

(58 Br. See Mr. Cárdenas, Nicaraguan min., to Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, Jan. 25, 1877, referring the foregoing treaties. (Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (Washington, 1885), 134, 135.)

6. NEGOTIATIONS OF MR. FISH.

$358.

"You are fully aware of the great interest which this Government has already taken in the question of a water communication across or near the Isthmus of Darien, and of the large expenditure it has made in the surveys for ascertaining the most practicable route. The President has taken the most lively interest in this object, and I am safe in saying that scarce any one object has more earnestly engaged his sympathy. He has encouraged and authorized the prosecution of official surveys, and, as you are no doubt aware, referred all the reports of the various surveys to a board consisting of General Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, United States Army; Commodore Ammen, Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, United States Navy; and Captain Patterson, Superintendent of the Coast Survey. He personally and care

fully examined all these reports, and that of the board; which latter reached the conclusion that the Nicaragua route presented the most practicable if not the only feasible means of accomplishing the desired object. . .

"The interest of the President and of the people of the United States in the construction of a canal connecting the two oceans is, however, so great that, although it cannot entertain the irregular suggestions reported in your interesting despatch, should a proposition or request be authoritatively made by the Maritime Powers, or by any of the prominent ones, requesting the United States to unite by the appointment of an engineer to cooperate with others officially appointed or recognized, in the survey of the alleged route, the President will not hesitate to respond to the request. It is possible that he might also authorize the Navy to render such aid as may be within its power; the decision on this point, however, is reserved until the question arises. But in the present aspect of the subject, and under the presentation in which it is brought to the attention of this Government, it is simply a private enterprise, not without the suspicion of being brought forward in antagonism and for the purpose of embarrassing and of delaying the execution of a canal, on the plan which the official reports of the surveys, and of the very elaborate and scientific explorations made by this Government, had indicated as practicable.

"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. The successful construction of the Darien canal will really add to the glory of the originator of the Suez Canal. . . .

"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. In this connection I would call your attention to the fact that the mere guarantee of neutrality of a canal and of a belt of contiguous territory will be of little practical value, unless the waters of the high seas, for a radius of reasonably large extent around the termini on either ocean, be also made neutral waters, so far as relates to vessels navigating or designing to enter the canal are concerned, in order to prevent a blockade at the mouth, by one belligerent of vessels belonging to another belligerent, and to allow a reasonable chance for the vessels of a belligerent to enter, or to escape from the canal, at a distance beyond the mere limits of jurisdictional waters."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, min. to France, Nov. 13, 1876,
MS. Inst. France, XIX. 413-414, 418-420.

The enterprise above referred to was that of Mr. de Gogorza.

Circular of 1877.

[ocr errors]

In the closing months of President Grant's Administration a step was taken in the direction of effecting a final adjustment of the canal question on the lines of perfect neutralization. As appears by a circular of Mr. Fish, then Secretary of State, to United States ministers, of February 28, 1877, a draft treaty was prepared, "to which it was proposed to obtain the accession of the principal maritime powers." The negotiations failed owing to certain views of Nicaragua, which were neither satisfactory to the United States nor calculated to obtain the cooperation" of those powers. By the draft treaty, every power becoming a party to its "stipulations and guarantees" was "at all times, whether in peace or war," to have "the right of transit" through the canal when constructed, as well as "the benefit of the 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;" and "the vessels of war and other national vessels" of such powers were to have "the right of transit through the canal."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to United States ministers, circular, Feb. 28, 1877, Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (Washington, 1885), 134-151, where correspondence with the Nicaraguan minister at Washington and drafts and counterdrafts of the proposed treaty may be found. Mr. Fish's original draft is at p. 146.

In certain remarks accompanying a note to the Nicaraguan minister of Feb. 16, 1877, Mr. Fish, commenting on a counter memorandum of Nicaragua, said:

"The obligations of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, including that which provides for an invitation to other powers to join in guaranteeing the neutrality [of the canal], are still subsisting. This Government has hitherto abstained from making a proposition on the subject to other powers, because there has been no prospect of a completion, or even of a commencement of the canal. Having already entered into the stipulation with Great Britain, and that still being in force, its repetition in a treaty with Nicaragua might imply a doubt of the good faith of the United States on the subject." (Id. 145.)

In 1876, Mr. Fish entered into negotiations with Mr. Peralta, the Costa Rican minister at Washington, with a view to conclude a treaty on the subject of a ship canal, and to that end presented to the minister a memorandum embodying as the basis of an agreement the same general principles as were afterwards laid down in the negotiations with the Nicaraguan minister. June 26, 1876, Mr. Peralta indicated that the continued misunderstanding between his country and Nicaragua in regard to their boundary was likely to delay any arrangement with regard to the work in question. (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peralta, March 28, and July 11, 1876, MS. Notes to Costa Rica, II. 14, 17.)

64

We have made several attempts at negotiation with both Nicaragua and Colombia on the subject of an interoceanic canal. They have failed mostly through the indisposition of the governments of those countries to grant terms which would command the confidence of capitalists. This policy on their part tends to confirm the opinion which you express that Nicaragua at least does not desire a canal through her territory." (Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Williamson, min. to Costa Rica, Nov. 27, 1878, MS. Inst. Costa Rica, XVII. 383.)

7. MESSAGES OF PRESIDENT HAYES.

§ 359.

"The question of an interoceanic canal has recently assumed a new and important aspect and is now under discussion with the Central American countries through whose territory the canal, by the Nicaragua route, would have to pass. It is trusted that enlightened statesmanship on their part will see that the early prosecution of such a work will largely inure to the benefit, not only of their own citizens and those of the United States, but of the commerce of the civilized world. It is not doubted that should the work be undertaken under the protective auspices of the United States, and upon satisfactory concessions for the right of way and its security by the Central American Governments, the capital for its completion would be readily furnished from this country and Europe, which might, failing such guarantees, prove inaccessible."

[ocr errors]

President Hayes, annual message, Dec. 1, 1879. (Richardson's Messages and Papers, VII. 569.)

The policy of this country is a canal under American control. The United States cannot consent to the surrender of this control to any European power, or to any combination of European powers. If existing treaties between the United States and other nations, or if the rights of sovereignty or property of other nations stand in the way of this policy-a contingency which is not apprehended-suitable steps should be taken by just and liberal negotiations to promote and establish the American policy on this subject, consistently with the rights of the nations to be affected by it.

"The capital invested by corporations or citizens of other countries in such an enterprise must, in a great degree, look for protection to one or more of the great powers of the world. No European power can intervene for such protection without adopting measures on this continent which the United States would deem wholly inadmissible. If the protection of the United States is relied upon, the United States must exercise such control as will enable this country to protect its national interests and maintain the rights of those whose private capital is embarked in the work.

"An interoceanic canal across the American Isthmus will essentially change the geographical relations between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States, and between the United States and the rest of the world. It will be the great ocean thoroughfare between our Atlantic and our Pacific shores, and virtually a part of the coast line of the United States. Our merely commercial interest in it is greater than that of all other countries, while its relations to our power and prosperity as a nation, to our means of defense, our unity, peace, and safety, are matters of paramount concern to the people of the United

States.

No other great power would, under similar circumstances, fail to assert a rightful control over a work so closely and vitally affecting its interest and welfare.

"Without urging further the grounds of my opinion, I repeat, in conclusion, that it is the right and the duty of the United States to assert and maintain such supervision and authority over any interoceanic canal across the isthmus that connects North and South America as will protect our national interests. This I am quite sure will be found not only compatible with, but promotive of, the widest and most permanent advantage to commerce and civilization.”

President Hayes, message of March 8, 1880, S. Ex. Doc. 112, 46 Cong. 2 sess.; H. Ex. Doc. 47, 46 Cong. 2 sess.; Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (Washington, 1885), 3. See, also, the report of Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, accompanying the President's message, and expressing similar views. Mr. Evarts refers to the Wyse concession, at Panama, as the occasion for considering the relation of the United States to the subject of interoceanic communication across the American Isthmus.

Mr. Blaine's instructions to Mr. Lowell.

8. DISCUSSIONS OF 1881-1883.

§ 360.

Mr. Blaine, in an instruction to Mr. Lowell, minister to England, June 24, 1881, referring to a report "that the great powers of Europe may possibly be considering the subject of jointly guaranteeing the neutrality of the interoceanic canal" then projected across the Isthmus of Panama, declared that, in the opinion of the President, the guarantee given by the United States to New Granada, by Art. XXXV. of the treaty of 1846, did not require "reinforcement, or accession, or assent from any other power," and that any attempt to "supersede" it, by "an agreement between European powers," would "partake of the nature of an alliance against the United States, and would be regarded by this Government as an indication of unfriendly feeling." Mr. Lowell was further instructed to be careful, in any conversations which he might have, not to represent this position as the development of a new policy or as the inauguration of any advanced, aggressive steps to be taken by the United States, since it was "nothing more than the pronounced adherence of the United States to principles long since enunciated by the highest authority of the Government, and now, in the judgment of the President, firmly interwoven as an integral and important part of our national policy."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, June 24, 1881, Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (Washington, 1885), 322. See the text of the instruction more fully given, supra, § 339.

The foregoing instruction was prompted by a report, by the United States minister at Bogota, that it had privately but with every appearance of

« ÎnapoiContinuă »