CHAPTER IV

I. That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island.II. That said government shall not assume or contract any public debt, to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinking fund provision for the ultimate discharge of which, the ordinary revenues of the island, after defraying the current expenses of government shall be inadequate.III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property,and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.IV. That all acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.V. That the government of Cuba will execute, and as far as necessary extend, the plans already devised or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the island....VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty.VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.[135]

II. That said government shall not assume or contract any public debt, to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinking fund provision for the ultimate discharge of which, the ordinary revenues of the island, after defraying the current expenses of government shall be inadequate.

III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property,and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.

IV. That all acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.

V. That the government of Cuba will execute, and as far as necessary extend, the plans already devised or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the island....

VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty.

VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.

VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.[135]

These articles, with the exception of the fifth, which was proposed by General Leonard Wood, were carefully drafted by Elihu Root, at that time Secretary of War, discussed at length by President McKinley's cabinet, and entrusted to Senator Platt of Connecticut, who offered them as an amendment to the army appropriation bill. In order to allay doubts expressed by members of the convention in regard to the third article, General Wood was authorized by Secretary Root to state officially that the intervention described in this article did not mean intermeddling in theaffairs of the Cuban government, but formal action on the part of the United States, based upon just and substantial grounds. With this assurance the convention adopted the Platt amendment June 12, 1901, and added it as an appendix to the constitution.

On May 20, 1902, Tomas Estrada Palma was inaugurated as first president of the Republic of Cuba, and General Wood handed over to him the government of the island.[136]The Americans left a substantial balance in the Cuban treasury. The total receipts for the entire period were $57,197,140.80, and the expenditures $55,405,031.28. The customs service, which furnished the principal part of the revenues during the period of military occupation, was ably administered by General Tasker H. Bliss.[137]

While the Platt amendment determined the political relations that were to exist between Cuba and the United States, there had been no agreement on the subject of commercial relations. The sugar industry, which had been almost destroyed by the insurrection, was dependent upon the willingness of the United States to arrange for a reduction of its tariff in favor of the Cuban product. Otherwise Cuban sugar could not compete with the bounty-fed beet sugar of Europe or with the sugars of Porto Rico and Hawaii, which were now admitted to the American market free of duty. President Roosevelt had hoped to settle this question before the withdrawal of American troops, and he had urged upon Congress the expediency of providing for a substantial reduction in tariff duties onCuban imports into the United States, but a powerful opposition, composed of the beet-sugar growers of the North and West and of the cane-sugar planters of Louisiana, succeeded in thwarting for two years the efforts of the administration to do justice to Cuba. All attempts to get a bill through Congress failed.[138]

In the meantime a reciprocity convention was agreed upon in the ordinary diplomatic way December 11, 1902, under which Cuban products were to be admitted to the United States at a reduction of twenty per cent. As the Senate failed to act on this treaty before the 4th of March, 1903, President Roosevelt convened an extra session of the Senate which ratified the treaty with amendments, and with the very unusual provision that it should not go into effect until approved by Congress. As the House was not then in session, this meant that the treaty had to go over until the fall. The Cuban situation grew so bad that the President finally convened Congress in extra session November 9, 1903. In a special message he urged prompt action on the treaty on the ground that the Platt amendment had brought the island of Cuba within our system of international policy, and that it necessarily followed that it must also to a certain degree come within the lines of our economic policy. The House passed the bill approving the treaty November 19 by the overwhelming vote of 335 to 21, but the Senate, although it had already ratified the treaty, permitted the extra session to expire without passing the measure which was to give the treaty effect. When the new session began December 7, the Cuban treaty bill was made the special order in theSenate until December 16, when the final vote was taken and it passed. Under the reciprocity treaty commercial relations with Cuba were established on a firm basis and the volume of trade increased rapidly.

In August, 1906, President Palma was reëlected for another term, but the Cubans had not learned the primary lesson of democracy, submission to the will of the majority, and his opponents at once began an insurrectionary movement which had for its object the overthrow of his government. About the middle of September President Roosevelt sent Secretary Taft to Havana for the purpose of reconciling the contending factions, but Mr. Taft's efforts proved unavailing and President Palma resigned. When the Cuban Congress assembled, it was found impossible to command a quorum. Under these circumstances Secretary Taft assumed control of affairs on September 29 and proclaimed a provisional government for the restoration of order and the protection of life and property. A body of United States troops under command of General Franklin Bell was sent to Cuba to preserve order and to uphold the provisional government. On October 3, 1906, Secretary Taft was relieved of the duties of provisional governor in order that he might resume his duties in Washington, and Charles E. Magoon was appointed to take his place at Havana.[139]In his message to Congress December 3, 1906, President Roosevelt declared that while the United States had no desire to annex Cuba, it was "absolutely out of the question that the island should continue independent" if the "insurrectionary habit"should become "confirmed." The second period of American occupation lasted a little over two years, when the control of the government was again restored to the people of the island and the American troops were withdrawn.

[77]H. A. Washington, "Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Vol. V, p. 443.

[78]"Madison's Works," Vol. II, p. 488.

[79]Niles's "Register," under date November 8, 1817.

[80]For a full discussion of the question see the pamphlet by J. Freeman Rattenbury, entitled, "The Cession of the Floridas to the United States of America and the Necessity of Acquiring the Island of Cuba by Great Britain." London, 1819.

[81]Niles's "Register," March and April, 1823.

[82]H. Ex. Doc. No. 121, Thirty-second Cong., First Sess.; also Brit. and For. St. Pap., Vol. XLIV, pp. 114-236.

[83]H. A. Washington, "Writings of Jefferson," Vol. VII, p. 288.

[84]"Official Corresp. of Canning," Vol. I, p. 265.

[85]Ibid., Vol. I, p. 275.

[86]Am. St. Pap., For. Rel., Vol. V, p. 855. Also "Wharton's Digest," Sec. 60.

[87]Stapleton, "Political Life of Canning," Vol. III, p. 154.

[88]Mr. Clay to Mr. King, October 25, "Wharton's Digest," Sec. 60.

[89]Canning to Earl of Liverpool, October 6, 1826.

[90]Am. St. Pap., For. Rel., Vol. V, p. 863.

[91]Benton's "Abridgment," Vol. VIII, pp. 427, 428, and Vol. IX, pp. 90, 218.

[92]H. Ex. Doc. No. 121, Thirty-second Cong., First Sess.; also "Wharton's Digest," Sec. 60.

[93]"Wharton's Digest," Sec. 60.

[94]Mr. Upshur, who succeeded Mr. Webster as secretary of state, wrote to Mr. Irving to the same effect, October 10, 1843.

[95]Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Saunders, June 17, 1848. H. Ex. Doc. No. 121, Thirty-second Cong., First Sess.; also Brit. and For. St. Pap., Vol. XXVI.

[96]"Messages and Papers of the Presidents," Vol. V, p. 7.

[97]J. F. H. Claiborne, "Life and Corresp. of John A. Quitman," Vol. II. pp. 55-56, and Appendix, p. 385.In June the Grand Jury of the United States Circuit Court at New Orleans found a bill against John A. Quitman, John Henderson, Governor of Louisiana, and others, for setting on foot the invasion of Cuba. Quitman's view of state sovereignty did not admit the right of the United States Courts to proceed against the chief executive of a sovereign state. He sought the advice of friends throughout the South as to what course he should pursue. None of them admitted the right of the United States Courts to indict him and several of them advised him that it was his duty to assert the principle of state sovereignty even to the point of calling out the state militia to protect him against arrest. Others advised him to submit under protest so as to avoid an open breach. This course was finally adopted, and when the United States marshal appeared on the 3rd of February, 1851, to take him into custody, he yielded, causing at the same time an address to be issued to the people of Mississippi, in which he resigned the office of governor. After proceedings which lasted two months, Henderson was acquitted and the charges against Quitman and the others dismissed.

[97]J. F. H. Claiborne, "Life and Corresp. of John A. Quitman," Vol. II. pp. 55-56, and Appendix, p. 385.

In June the Grand Jury of the United States Circuit Court at New Orleans found a bill against John A. Quitman, John Henderson, Governor of Louisiana, and others, for setting on foot the invasion of Cuba. Quitman's view of state sovereignty did not admit the right of the United States Courts to proceed against the chief executive of a sovereign state. He sought the advice of friends throughout the South as to what course he should pursue. None of them admitted the right of the United States Courts to indict him and several of them advised him that it was his duty to assert the principle of state sovereignty even to the point of calling out the state militia to protect him against arrest. Others advised him to submit under protest so as to avoid an open breach. This course was finally adopted, and when the United States marshal appeared on the 3rd of February, 1851, to take him into custody, he yielded, causing at the same time an address to be issued to the people of Mississippi, in which he resigned the office of governor. After proceedings which lasted two months, Henderson was acquitted and the charges against Quitman and the others dismissed.

[98]Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 41, Thirty-first Cong., Second Sess.

[99]H. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Thirty-second Cong., First Sess.; also 2d Annual Message of Fillmore, December 2, 1851. "Messages and Papers of the Presidents" Vol. V, p. 113.

[100]H. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Thirty-second Cong., First Sess.

[101]Mr. Crittenden to Comte de Sartiges, October 22, 1851. See also Pres. Fillmore to Mr. Webster and Mr. Webster's reply. 2 Curtis's "Life of Webster," p. 551.

[102]Brit. and For. St. Pap., Vol. XLIV, Lord Howden to Earl Granville, January 9, 1852.

[103]Comte de Sartiges to Mr. Webster, April 23, 1852. Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 13, Thirty-second Cong., Second Sess.

[104]Mr. Webster to Comte de Sartiges, April 29, 1852. To Mr. Crampton, same date, to same effect.

[105]H. Ex. Doc. No. 93, Thirty-third Cong., Second Sess., p. 3.

[106]Mr. Soulé to Mr. Marcy, November 10, and December 23, 1853, and January 20, 1854.

[107]The correspondence relating to theBlack Warriorcase and to the Ostend conference is contained in H. Ex. Doc. No. 93, Thirty-third Cong., Second Sess.

[108]Sen. Report No. 351, Thirty-fifth Cong., Second Sess., Vol. I.

[109]Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 7, Forty-first Cong., Second Sess.

[110]Ibid.

[111]House Ex. Doc. No. 160, Forty-first Cong., Second Sess.

[112]C. F. Adams, "The Treaty of Washington," in "Lee at Appomattox and Other Papers," p. 119.

[113]Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 113, Forty-first Cong., Second Sess.

[114]Private journal of Mr. Fish, quoted by Prof. J. B. Moore in theForum, May, 1896.

[115]Congressional Globe, Forty-first Cong., Second Sess., p. 4438.

[116]"Treaties and Conventions of the United States" (Malloy's Ed.), Vol. II, p. 1661.

[117]The correspondence relating to the case of theVirginiusis in Foreign Relations for the years 1874, 1875, and 1876.

[118]Foreign Relations, 1874-75, p. 859.

[119]House Ex. Doc. No. 90, Forty-fourth Cong., First Sess.

[120]House Ex. Doc. No. 100, Forty-fourth Cong., First Sess.

[121]Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 213, Fifty-fourth Cong., First Sess.

[122]Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 79, Forty-fifth Cong., Second Sess.

[123]Sen. Doc. No. 25, p. 125, Fifty-eighth Cong., Second Sess.

[124]Spanish Dipl. Corresp. and Docs. (translation, Washington, 1905), pp. 7, 8.

[125]Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 568.

[126]Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 1025.

[127]Foreign Relations, 1898, pp. 1007-1020.

[128]Sen. Doc. No. 207, Fifty-fifth Cong., Second Sess.

[129]Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 731.

[130]Richardson, "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," Vol. X, p. 147.

[131]"U. S. Statutes at Large," Vol. XXX, p. 738.

[132]Spanish Dipl. Corresp. and Docs., p. 206; Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 819.

[133]Senate Doc. No. 62, Fifty-Fifth Cong., Third Sess.

[134]Report of the Military Governor of Cuba, 8 vols., 1901.

[135]U. S. Statues at Large, Vol. XXXI, p. 897.

[136]Documentary History of the Inauguration of the Cuban Government, in Annual Report of the Secretary of War, 1902, Appendix A.

[137]Documentary History of the Inauguration of the Cuban Government, in Annual Report of the Secretary of War, 1902, Appendix B.

[138]Senate Docs. Nos. 405 and 679, Fifty-Seventh Cong., First Sess.

[139]Secretary Taft's report on the Cuban situation was sent to Congress December 17, 1906.

The cutting of the isthmus between North and South America was the dream of navigators and engineers from the time when the first discoverers ascertained that nature had neglected to provide a passage. Yet the new continent which so unexpectedly blocked the way of Columbus in his search for the Indies opposed for centuries an insurmountable barrier to the commerce of the East and the West. The piercing of the isthmus always seemed a perfectly feasible undertaking, but the difficulties in the way proved greater than at first sight appeared. There were (1) the physical or engineering problems to be solved, and (2) the diplomatic complications regarding the control of the canal in peace and its use in war. The weakness of the Spanish-American states, whose territories embraced the available routes, and their recognized inability either to construct or protect a canal made what might otherwise have been merely a question of domestic economy one of grave international import. In this respect, as in others, the problem presented the same features as the Suez canal. To meet these difficulties three plans were successively developed during the nineteenth century: (1) a canal constructed by a private corporation under international control, (2) a canal constructed by a private corporation under the exclusive control of the United States, and (3) a canal constructed, owned, operated,and controlled by the United States as a government enterprise. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty provided for the construction of a canal in accordance with the first plan; several unsuccessful attempts were made to raise the necessary capital under the second plan; while the third plan was the one under which the gigantic task was actually accomplished.

The comparative merits of the Nicaragua and Panama routes long divided the opinion of experts. American engineers generally favored that through Nicaragua. The length of the Nicaragua route, from Greytown on the Atlantic to Brito on the Pacific by way of the San Juan river and through Lake Nicaragua, is about 170 miles. The elevation of the lake above the sea is about 110 feet. Its western shore is only twelve miles from the Pacific, with an intervening divide 154 feet above the sea. From the southeast corner of the lake flows the San Juan river, 120 miles to the Atlantic, with an average fall of about 10 inches to the mile. The serious objections to this route are: (1) the lack of harbors at the terminals, Brito being a mere indentation on the coast, rendering the construction of immense breakwaters necessary, while at Greytown the San Juan broadens out into a delta that would require extensive dredging; and (2) the enormous rainfall at Greytown, exceeding that known anywhere else on the western continent—nearly 25 feet.

The Panama route from Colon on the Atlantic to Panama on the Pacific is about 50 miles in length, with a natural elevation nearly double that of Nicaragua. There are natural harbors at each end which are capacious and able to accommodate the heaviestshipping. The Panama Railroad, built along the line of the proposed canal, in 1850-55, gave this route an additional advantage. There were, however, certain disadvantages: (1) the unhealthfulness of the vicinity, rendering labor scarce and inefficient; (2) the heavy rainfall, 10 to 12 feet at Colon; and (3) the treacherous character of the geologic structure, due to its volcanic origin, through which the cut had to be made. The impossibility of making even approximate estimates of the cost of the work in such a deadly climate and through such an uncertain geologic formation was one of the greatest difficulties to be overcome. The De Lesseps plan provided for an open cut throughout at the sea-level, at an estimated cost of $170,000,000. The work was begun in 1884 and prosecuted until 1888, when the gigantic scheme collapsed, after the company had expended about $300,000,000 and accomplished less than one-third of the work.

Great as the engineering problems of the various canal schemes have been shown to be, the importance to the world's commerce of the object in view would, in all probability, have led to their solution and to the construction of a canal long before the United States undertook the Panama enterprise, had it not been for difficulties of an altogether different character, complications arising out of the question as to the status of the canal in international law. The diplomatic difficulties in the case of an interoceanic canal are very great. It cannot be regarded as a natural strait, like the Dardanelles, the Danish Belts, or the Straits of Magellan, which were for a long time held under exclusive jurisdiction, but are now free to all nations. Nor, on the other hand, could anisthmian canal be compared to the Kiel canal, which is within the territory of Germany, and which, although open to commerce, was specially designed to meet the needs of the German navy. Such canals as this are built by the capital of the country through which they pass, and are protected and controlled by its government.

No one of the republics to the south of us, through whose territory it was proposed to build a canal, could raise the capital for its construction or insure its protection when completed. No company chartered by one of these governments could have raised the necessary capital without some further guarantee. Hence it was that all companies organized for this purpose had to secure their charters from some more powerful nation, such as the United States or France, and their concessions from one of the Central American states. This rendered necessary a treaty between the state granting the concession or right to construct a canal through its territory and the state chartering the company. The claims of other states to equality of treatment in the use of such a canal constituted another element that had to be considered.

With the establishment of the independence of the Spanish-American republics the question of the construction of a ship canal across the isthmus became a matter of general interest, and it was one of the proposed subjects of discussion at the Congress of American Republics summoned by Bolivar to meet at Panama in 1826. In the instructions to the United States commissioners to that congress, Mr. Clay authorized them to enter into the consideration of that subject, suggesting that the best routes would likelybe found in the territory of Mexico or of the Central Republic. As to the diplomatic status of the canal, he said:

If the work should ever be executed so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels from ocean to ocean, the benefits of it ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe upon the payment of a just compensation or reasonable tolls.[140]

In 1835, and again in 1839, the United States Senate passed resolutions authorizing the President to enter into negotiations with other nations, particularly Central America and New Granada, for the purpose of protecting by treaty either individuals or companies who might undertake to open communication between the two oceans, and of insuring "the free and equal navigation of the canal by all nations." Presidents Jackson and Van Buren both commissioned agents with a view to carrying out these resolutions, but without success.

While a prisoner at Ham in 1845, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte secured from the government of Nicaragua a concession granting him power to organize a company for the construction of a waterway to be known as "Le Canale Napoléon de Nicaragua." After his escape from Ham, he published in London a pamphlet entitled "The Canal of Nicaragua, or a Project for the Junction of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by means of a Canal."[141]

Although the United States government was a party to endless negotiations in regard to an inter-oceanic canal, there were only three treaties of any practicalimportance prior to the close of the nineteenth century, by which it acquired rights and assumed obligations on that account.[142]These were (1) the treaty with New Granada (Colombia) of 1846; (2) the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with England of 1850; and (3) the treaty with Nicaragua of 1867. We shall proceed to examine these in detail.

The treaty with New Granada was signed at Bogota, December 12, 1846, and ratified by both governments in 1848. It did not differ materially from the general draft of treaties, except in the thirty-fifth article, which was of a special character and related to the Isthmus of Panama. By this article "the government of New Granada guarantees to the government of the United States that the right-of-way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama, upon any modes of communication that now exist or that may be hereafter constructed, shall be open and free to the government and citizens of the United States," for the transportation of all articles of lawful commerce upon the same terms enjoyed by the citizens of New Granada.

And in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and for the favors they have acquired by the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of this treaty, the United States guarantee positively and efficaciously to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists; and, in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty andproperty which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory.[143]

This treaty was to remain in force for twenty years, and then, if neither party gave notice of intended termination, it was to continue in force, terminable by either party at twelve months' notice. This treaty was in full force when the Panama revolution of 1903 took place. Under the protection of this treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed mainly of citizens of the United States, secured a charter from New Granada, and between 1850 and 1855 constructed a railroad across the isthmus along the line of the proposed Panama canal. In consequence of the riot at Panama in 1856, efforts were made by the United States to modify this treaty so as to give the United States greater control and power to protect the means of transit, but without success.[144]Other attempts to modify it in 1868 and 1870 likewise failed.[145]

In 1862 the Granadian government, through its representative at Washington, notified the United States that a revolutionary chief, who was then trying to subvert the Granadian confederation, had sent an armed force to occupy the Isthmus of Panama, and the government of Granada called upon the United States to enforce its guarantee. Simultaneously the same information was received from the United States consul at Panama, and the President instructed the United States naval commander at that port to protect at all hazards and at whatever cost the safety of the railroad transit across the isthmus.

The Granadian government, however, was not satisfied with this action, and urged the United States to land a body of troops at Panama, suggesting that it consist of 300 cavalry. Under the circumstances, President Lincoln hesitated to take such action without consulting Great Britain and France, and Mr. Seward instructed our representatives at London and Paris to seek an understanding with those governments in regard to the matter. He declared:

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 for the benefit of all nations. But if it should do so it would incur some hazard of becoming involved in the revolutionary strife which is going on in that country. It would also incur danger of misapprehension of its object by other maritime powers if it should act without previous consultation with them.[146]

In a conference between Mr. Adams and Lord John Russell, the latter declared that he did not consider that the contingency had arisen which called for intervention; that so far as he could learn, no attempt had been made to obstruct the free transit across the isthmus. The French government took substantially the same view.[147]In questions of a similar nature that arose later, the attorney-general of the United States expressed the opinion that the guarantee by the United States of Granadian sovereignty and property in the territory of the isthmus was only against foreign governments, and did not authorize the United States to take sides with one or the other party in the intestine troubles of that nation.

In April, 1885, the Colombian government, which was embarrassed by civil war, called upon the United States for the fulfillment of the treaty of 1846, to secure the neutrality and sovereignty of the isthmus. President Cleveland at once sent a body of troops to the isthmus with instructions to confine their action to preventing the transit and its accessories from being interrupted or embarrassed. As soon as peace was reëstablished, the troops of the United States were withdrawn.[148]

Four years after the signature of the above treaty with Colombia, and two years after its ratification by the Senate, the United States and Great Britain executed what is popularly known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. It is of great importance to understand clearly the circumstances under which this treaty was negotiated.

For very obvious reasons, the Isthmus of Panama was for many years the objective point of all canal schemes, but as the engineering difficulties of this route began to be fully appreciated, attention was directed more and more to that through Nicaragua. The occupation by Great Britain, under the assumption of a protectorate, of the territory about the mouth of the San Juan river, which belonged to Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and in which the Atlantic terminus of the canal would fall, was a source of no little uneasiness and perplexity to the United States. In June, 1849, Mr. Hise, chargé d'affaires of the United States in Central America, negotiated without the authorization or knowledge of his government, a treaty withNicaragua which gave the United States exclusive rights in the construction of a canal through the territory of that state.[149]This treaty was not submitted to the Senate, but was made use of in the negotiations that were opened shortly thereafter with Great Britain for the purpose of ousting her from her position of control over the mouth of the San Juan. A few months later, September 28, 1849, Mr. Squier signed with Honduras a treaty which ceded Tiger Island, in the Bay of Fonseca, to the United States, thus giving us a naval station on the Pacific side of the isthmus. This treaty, like that negotiated by Mr. Hise, was unauthorized and never submitted to the Senate.[150]Both treaties were used, however, in bringing England to the signature of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. This activity in treaty-making was occasioned by the acquisition of California and the rush to the gold fields by way of the isthmus.

During the period that elapsed between Mr. Bancroft's withdrawal from London and Mr. Lawrence's arrival as the representative of the United States, Mr. Clayton instructed Mr. Rives, who was on his way to Paris, to stop in London and hold a conference with Lord Palmerston on the Central American question. At this date the United States was striving simply for equal rights in any waterway that might be opened through the isthmus and not for any exclusive rights. Mr. Rives declared to Lord Palmerston "that citizens of the United States had entered into a contract with the state of Nicaragua to open, on certain conditions, a communication between the Atlantic and Pacificoceans by the river San Juan and the Nicaragua lake; that the government of the United States, after the most careful investigation of the subject, had come undoubtedly to the conclusion that upon both legal and historical grounds the state of Nicaragua was the true territorial sovereign of the river San Juan as well as of the Nicaragua lake, and that it was, therefore, bound to give its countenance and support, by all proper and reasonable means, to rights lawfully derived by their citizens under a grant from that sovereign." He further said:

Back to Index Next