Page images
PDF
EPUB

about to be constructed], but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulation's, to any other communications, whether by canal or railway, across the Isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama.

It is to be here observed that the Government of the United States has a treaty with New Grenada, now a part of the United States of Colombia, entered into in 1846, by which free transit is guaranteed to the citizens of the United States across the Isthmus of Panama upon any mode of communication that may be constructed, subject to no duties or burdens but such as may be imposed upon citizens of New Grenada, and by which, in order to secure the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, the United States guaranteed, positively and efficaciously, the perfect neutrality of the Isthmus, with the view that free transit from sea to sea might not be interrupted or embarrassed, and also guaranteed the rights of sovereignty and property which New Grenada (now the United States of Colombia) had and posesses over said territory.

By this treaty with New Grenada the United States claim to occupy a peculiar relation to the means of transit by railroad or canal across the Isthmus, within the territories of the United States of Colombia, a relation which cannot justly be superseded by the intervention of other States without the consent of the United States, duly and properly obtained. A protectorate of this kind is, like government, necessarily exclusive in its character, and implies a right and duty to make it effective. There may be a joint protectorate engaged in by mutual convention of different states, but the protectorate itself must be a unit. The treaty with New Grenada of 1846 still remains in full force. If Great Britain should desire to be united with the Government of the United States in that guaranty, of course it would require the consent of the United States of Colombia and of this Government, and a convention to that end, the terms of which should be made agreeable to the parties.

Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty relates only to those projects now [1850] proposed to be established; and expressly contemplates some further,,treaty stipulation" on the part of Great Britain with the United States of America and New Grenada, now the United States of Colombia, before Great Britain can join the United States in the protectorate of the canal or railway by the Panama route. No such treaty stipulation has been made or has been proposed by Great Britain. Since the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, for thirty years the United States, under the treaty of 1846 with New Grenada, has extended protection to the transit from sea to sea by the Panama Railway.

Should Her Majesty's Government, after obtaining the consent thereto of the United States of Colombia, claim under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the right to join the United States in the protection of the existing Panama Railway, or any future Panama canal, the United States would submit that experience has shown that no such joint protectorate is requisite; that the

Clayton-Bulwer treaty is subject to the provisions of the treaty of 1846 with New Grenada, while it exists, which treaty obliges the United States to afford and secure to it the sole protectorate of any transit by the Panama route; and if Great Britain still claimed the right to join in the protectorate the United States would then determine whether the,,treaty stipulations“ proposed by Great Britain regulating that joint protectorate were just; and, if so, whether the length of time during which Great Britain has concurred in the protection of the Panama route under the treaty with New Grenada has or has not relieved the United States from any obligation to accept a proposal from the Government to join in the guaranty.

I may then state the President's views on the whole subject, which I do with an assurance that they will meet with a candid consideration from Lord Granville, and with the hope that they may be substantially concurred in by Her Majesty's Government.

The Clayton-Bulwer treaty was concluded to secure a thing which did not exist, and which now never can exist. It was to secure the construction of a canal under the grant of 1849 from Nicaragua that the United States consented to waive the exclusive and valuable rights which have been given to them; that they consented to agree with Great Britain that they would not occupy, fortify, colonize, or assume dominion over any part of Central America, and that they consented to admit Her Majesty's Government at some future day to a share in the protection which they have exercised over the Isthmus of Panama.

The Government and people of the United States, though rich in land and industry, were poor in money and floating capital in 1850. The scheme for a canal, even without the complications of the Mosquito protectorate, was too vast for the means of the Americans of that day, who numbered then considerably less than one-half of their numbers to-day. They went to England, which had what they had not, surrendered their exclusive privileges, offered an equal share of all they had in those regions in order, as expressed in the seventh article of the treaty,,,that no time should be unnecessarily lost in commencing and constructing the said canal". Through no fault of theirs time was unnecessarily lost, the work was never begun, and the concession failed.

The President does not think that the United States are called upon by any principle of equity to revive those provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty which were specially applicable to the concession of August, 1849, and apply them to any other concession which has been since or may hereafter be made. The conditions of 1882 are not those of 1852. The people of the United States have now abundance of surplus capital for such enterprises, and have no need to call upon foreign capitalists. The legislative branch of the Government of the United States may also desire to be free to place the credit of the United States at the service of one or more of these enterprises. The President does not feel himself warranted in making any engagement or any admission respecting the extinct provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty which would prevent or interfere with such a purpose.

On the contrary, frankness requires him to say that as the persons who held the grant which the United States understood to be accepted by the two Governments under the provisions of the treaty have not carried out the proposed enterprise", the United States esteem themselves competent to refuse to afford their protection jointly with Great Britain to any other person for company, and hold themselves free hereafter to protect any interoceanic communication in which they or their citizens may become interested in such way as treaties with the local sovereign powers may warrant and their interests may require.

There are some provisions of the treaty which the President thought might be advantageously retained. With this purpose the present correspondence was opened by the note to you of the 19th November last, in which these points were indicated. The President is still ready on the part of the United States to agree that the reciprocal engagements respecting the acquisition of territory in Central America, and respecting the establishment of a free port at each end of whatever canal may be constructed, shall continue in force, and to define by agreement the distance from either end of the canal where captures may be made by a belligerent in time of war, and with this definiton thus made to keep alive the second article of the treaty. He hopes that Lord Granville on further consideration may not be averse to revising his opinion that such agreements would not be beneficial.

To the suggestion made by Lord Granville, at the close of this note of January 7, that the United States should take the initiative in an invitation to other powers to participate in an agreement based upon the convention of 1850, the President is constrained, by the considerations already presented, to say that the United States can not take part in extending such an invitation, and to state with entire frankness, that the United States would look with disfavor upon an attempt at a concert of political action by other powers in that direction.

It is not necessary to observe that there is no provision of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty which authorizes Great Britain to invite, or obliges the United States to accept, the aid of other nations to protect or to guarantee the neutrality of the Panama route.

Fortunately the want of harmony in the views of the two Governments can have at present no injurious influence. No canal yet exists across the Isthmus, and in the natural course of events some time must elapse before one can be constructed; meanwhile the points of divergence between Her Majetsy's Government and that of the United States may disappear. The President hopes that long before the subject becomes one of practical importance Her Majesty's Government may be brought to see that the interests of Great Britain and of the United States in this matter are identical, and are best promoted by the peaceful policy which he has marked out for this country.

In the meantime the diversity of opinion which now exists will not in any wise impair the good understanding happily existing between the people and Governments of the United States and Great Britain.

You will read this dispatch to Lord Granville, and if he desires to have a copy of it you may leave one with him.

I am, sir, your obedient servant.

7. Botschaft des Präsidenten Cleveland vom 17. Dezember 1895 betreffend den Venezuela-Genzstreit.1)

To The Congress:

In my annual message addressed to the Congre on the third instant I called attention to the pending boundary controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of Venezuela and recited the substance of a representation made by this Government to Her Britannic Majesty's Government suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to arbitration for settlement, and inquiring whether it would be so submitted.

The answer of the British Government, which was then awaited, has since been received and, together with the dispatch to which it is a reply, is hereto appended.

Such reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the British Prime Minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador at this Capital. It will be seen that one of these communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new and strange extension and development of this doctrine is insisted on by the United States, that the reasons justifying an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are generally inapplicable,,to the state of things in which we live at the present day“, and especially inapplicable to a controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain and Venezuela.

Without attempting extended argument in reply to these positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our national life, and can not become obsolete while our Republic endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the governments of the old world, and a subject for our absolute noninterference, none the less is an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our people and their Government.

Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to ,,the state of things in which we live", or any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may not be invoked in the present controversy.

If a European power, by an extension of its boundaries, takes possession of the territory of one of our neighboring Republics against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to that extent such European

1) vergl. hier besonders oben S. 160 ff.

power does not thereby attempt to extend its system of government to that portion of this continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action which President Monroe declared to be ,,dangerous to our peace and safety", and it can make no difference whether the European system is extended by an advance of frontier or otherwise.

It is also suggested in the British reply that we should not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute because it does not embody any principle of international law which,,is founded on the general consent of nations", and that ,,no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into the code of international law a novel principle which was never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted by the Government of any other country“.

Practically the principle for which we contend has peculiar if not exclusive relation to the United States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the code of international law, but since in international councils every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to it, if the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly claim it has its place in the code of international law as certainly and as securely as if it were specifically mentioned, and where the United States is a suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law the question to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.

The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles of international law which are based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights protected and its just claims enforced.

Of course this Government is entirely confident that under the sanction of this doctrine we have clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the British reply. The Prime Minister, while not admitting that the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present conditions, states:,,In declaring that the United States would resist any such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the English Government of that date". He further declares: ,,Though the language of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of objects which most Englishmen would agree to be salutary, it is impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any adequate authority in the code of international law". Again he says:,,They (Her Majesty's Government) fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained, that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in the hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of any European State, would be a highly inexpedient change."

In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was clear and definite, that it was founded upon substantial considerations and involved our safety and welfare, that it was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the state of the world's progress and that it was directly related to the pending controversy and without any conviction as to the final merits of the dispute, but anxious to learn in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain sought, under a claim of boundary, to extend her

« PreviousContinue »