CHAPTER II. MODERN REALITIES. During the 16th century Spain enjoyed almost a complete monopoly of American colonization. There were at that time only four important naval and maritime powers-Spain, England, France and Holland. At the close of this century these nations were all struggling for conquest-on this side of the Atlantic. England secured islands in the Caribbean Sea and on continental America made settlements at Jamestown and at Plymouth. The French secured Canada, and the Dutch settled at New York and on the Delaware. The French, Dutch and English afterward divided Guiana. During this time attention was centered on a canal to the Pacific either at Panama, Nicaragua or Tehauntepec; but no one was, in the early days, able to accomplish the work. The canal was wanted but physical and mechanical ability was lacking; still, negotiating and treaty-making went on respecting a wholly imaginary canal. But the dawning of the nineteenth century brought definite ideas about the making of a strait connecting the two oceans. Alexander von Humboldt came to America in 1799 and remained in Mexico and the Isthmian district until 1804, and freely speculated about a canal to the Pacific. He believed this would "immortalize a nation occupied with the true interests of humanity." He examined nine different routes and believed a canal entirely feasible, but seems also to have been living in dreamland when he suggested a canal by way of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, connecting with the Columbia; and when he would build through Mexico by the Rio Grande del Norte into the Gulf of California; and even when he suggested the Tehauntepec route. His idea about the height of the mountain ranges on the isthmus seemed to have been distorted and amusing. Nothing definite came from his canal work, it was all ideal. It can serve no useful purpose here to tabulate all proposed canals across the isthmus, from Humboldt down to the making of our treaty with New Granada. By this time the canal enterprises were all centered in three nations-France, England and the United States; all others seem to have withdrawn from the field. Our nation having secured the whole Northwest territory by the Louisiana purchase in 1803, began to take interest in the Pacific coast traffic, and in 1846 made a treaty with New Granada for rights of transit across the isthThis treaty was based on the guarantee of the United States to New Granada of the "perfect neutrality" of the isthmus with the view that free transit from one sea to the other might not be interrupted; and there was a like guarantee of "the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory." mus. New Granada guaranteed to the United States that the right of way or transit across the isthmus 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 and for the transportation of any article of produce, etc.; that no other tolls or charges be levied upon the citizens of our nation, thus passing "over any road or canal that may be made by New Granada or by the authority of the same, than is under like circumstances levied upon the Granadian citizens." This, perhaps, was the first neu tralization of ways and transit across the isthmus. It seems that general sovereignty was not only retained by New Granada but that the United States guaranteed to maintain that "sovereignty" and all "property," and also the "neutrality" of the isthmus transitand this meant freedom and perfect equality. We must have received a small share of sovereignty or what right had we to interfere on the lands of another? Under this treaty we secured the right to use any mode of transit lawfully installed across the isthmus under the authority of New Granada; but we find no authority for America to construct and own any road, railroad or canal, although there was expressly given the right of "protection." This treaty was to continue for twenty years and thereafter until notice by either party was given for its abrogation. It was not abrogated and it passed over to Panama after she became a state. CHAPTER III. CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. The first railroad in America to be operated with a locomotive was laid in South Carolina about 1826. The traffic across Panama so demanding, a company of Americans with American capital in 1855 put in operation the Panama railroad. The canal stage had not yet been reached, although our nation in 1849 had entered into a treaty with Nicaragua to build a canal by the Nicaragua route. This treaty could not be made effective without conflict with England, because she claimed interest in the Mosquito coast and this was in the line of the proposed canal. It became absolutely necessary for America to agree with England; so John M. Clayton, then Secretary of State, signed with England the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in 1850. It is quite popular these days to censure our nation for making the treaty; but John M. Clayton was not accustomed to do frivolous acts in government. He had a situation to meet and without doubt secured all that was possible under the conditions then existing. America was not so great as it is today, and was seeking rights outside of its own territory; there was no way to obtain these isthmian rights except by war or by contract. The canal was too large a task for us then, without our also going to war to secure the bare franchise. No doubt the Clayton treaty was the sum total of the favors then obtainable; at least we have the right now to so believe. If Nicaragua did not have absolute sovereignty, how could she grant us a complete legal franchise? It thus appears, in 1850, that our nation began to seriously at tempt to conquer the isthmus by the way of a canal. But what were the difficulties created by this treaty? And what were the difficulties and prospects of building the Nicaragua canal if the treaty had given us a full and free hand without any restriction whatever? The treaty provided for a ship canal to the Pacific by way of the San Juan river. Article I declared that neither nation "would ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal;" and that neither would build "any fortification commanding the same;" and would not exercise any dominion over any part of Central America; and that neither will use any alliance, connection or influence with any state through whose territory the canal may pass for the purpose of acquiring directly or indirectly for the citizens or subjects of the one any advantages through the canal "which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens and subjects of the other." There is nothing abstruse about this! Article 2 provides that the vessels traversing the canal shall, in case of war between these parties, "be exempt from blockade or capture by either belligerent;" and this privilege was to extend from the ends of the canal as may hereafter be found expedient to establish. This section has no significance, for war itself would supersede this article. Article 3 provides that when any parties began the building of any such canal the two nations would jointly protect the work so begun until its completion. Article 5 says that both parties engage that when the canal is completed they will protect it from seizure or confiscation and they will guarantee the "neutrality” thereof, so that it may forever be kept open and free and the money invested be secure. The right to withdraw from the "protection" obligation is reserved to |