residence, functions and privileges, shall be placed on the footing of the most Nr. 8194. favoured nation. Grossbritannien und Portugal. Art. XI. Every assistance shall be given by the local authorities in all the African possessions of Portugal to vessels wrecked on the coasts or in the 26. Febr. 1884. rivers, or forced into the ports or the entrance of rivers by stress of wheather. Such vessels and their cargoes shall be exempt from all customs duties, charges, fees, fines, and other imposts whatever, except as regards any goods landed therefrom for purposes of sale or barter. || Information of such wrecks shall be given, without delay, to the nearest British Consular officer, who shall be authorized to interpose for the protection of the ship, its merchandize and effects. Art. XII. The Portuguese legislation for the complete extinction of slavery and the Treaties for the suppression of the Slave Trade shall, from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty, be effectively applied to the territory specified in Article I. || The High Contracting Parties bind themselves to use all possible means for the purpose of finally extinguishing slavery and the Slave Trade on the eastern and western coasts of Africa. || His Most Faithful Majesty agrees to grant, from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty, permission to Her Britannic Majesty's ships employed in suppressing the Slave Trade to enter the bays, ports, creeks, rivers, and other places in the eastern African Colonies or possessions of Portugal where no Portuguese authorities shall be established, and to prevent the Slave Trade from being carried on in such places. British vessels employed in this service shall exercise all the powers conferred on Her Majesty's vessels by the Slave Trade Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal of the 3rd July, 1842. || Similar powers shall be given, if required, for similar purposes to Portuguese vessels in Her Britannic Majesty's South African dominions. Whenever the Commander of a cruizer of one of the High Contracting Parties shall have occasion to act under the provisions of this Article in the territorial waters of the other High Contracting Party, such Commander shall, whenever practicable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, invite a naval or other officer of the other High Contracting Party to accompany the expedition, in order to represent the national flag in such territorial waters. The provisions of this Article shall come into force immediately on the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty, except as regards any provision which may be found to require legislative sanction in either country, and as regards such provision, it shall come into force from the date when such legislative sanction shall have been obtained and duly notified by the High Contracting Party requiring the same to the other High Contracting Party. Art. XIII. The provisions of the present Treaty, affecting the territory specified in Article I, shall be fully applied to all territories adjoining the same in Africa that may hereafter be brought under the sovereignty of His Most Faithful Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves Nr. 8194. Gross und Portugal. Art. XIV. His Most Faithful Majesty the King of Portugal and the Albritannien garves engages for himself, his heirs and successors, that if at any time it shall be the intention of Portugal to withdraw from the fort of St. John the 26. Febr. 1884. Baptist of Ajudá, on the coast of Mina, due notification of such intention shall be given to Great Britain, to whom the cession of the fort, and of all rights appertaining to its possession, shall be offered; and no arrangement shall be made for the cession of the fort to any other Power without the previous consent of Great Britain. || This engagement shall apply in all its terms to the abandonment or cession by Portugal of any rights which may be claimed by her between 5o east and 5o west longitude on the same coast. Art. XV. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at London as soon as possible. In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms. Done in duplicate at London the twenty-sixth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four. Granville. Miguel Martins D'Antas. Panama-Canal.*) Nr. 8195. VEREINIGTE STAATEN. Staatssecretair des Ausw. (Frelinghuysen) an den amerikanischen Gesandten in London (Lowell). Der Clayton-Bulwer-Vertrag ist ungültig geworden, weil er sich nur auf die Nicaragua-Route bezog und weil inzwischen die ehemalige britische 'Niederlassung' in Bélize eine britische Colonie geworden ist. Sir, Department of State, Washington, May 5, 1883. Vereinigte I inclose herewith a copy of an instruction from Lord Granville to Nr. 8195. Her Britannic Majesty's Minister in Washington, dated the 30th December, 1882,*) a copy of which was handed to me by Mr. West, aud which is a 5. Mai 1883. reply to the argument contained in my despatch to you of the 8th May. 1882, on the subject of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. You will remember, that my above-mentioned despatch showed that the first seven Articles of the Treaty related to a particular canal then in contemplation, to aid the construction of which the Treaty was signed; that the United States, being then without the means to build the canal, for which they had secured an exclusive grant from Nicaragua, naturally turned to England for capital, to secure which they were willing to surrender some of their exclusive privileges, and that, the canal never having been built, the reason for the surrender of privilege has ceased, and the Treaty with Great Britain is voidable, being without consideration or any object to which it is applicable. Lord Granville, in his instruction to Mr. West, in substance concedes that the first seven Articles of the Treaty related to what was then known as the Nicaragua Canal, but intimates an uncertainty as to the route. In this he is in error, for the line of the canal was definitely fixed soon after the conclusion of the Treaty and accepted by both Governments. || His *) Vgl. Staatsarchiv Bd. XLII. Nr. 7993. 7994 und Bd. XL. Nr. 7644-7650. Vereinigte Staaten. Nr. 8195. Lordship, however, practically confines himself to an assertion of rights under Article VIII, by which the parties, ,,after declaring that they not only desired 5. Mai 1883. in entering into the Convention to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, agreed to extend their protection by Treaty stipulations to any other practicable 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 Panamá," and he claims, that this provision is in effect an agreement that all the prior provisions with reference to the particular ship-canal-the Nicaragua route-then in contemplation should be applied to any other canal thereafter constructed. Citing Treaties between the United States and some of the Central American States, he contends that this Government, having, since the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, entered into Treaties which harmonize with the general principle," is estopped from denying that the VIIIth Article has the construction and effect he contends for. || Lord Granville further holds, that Article VIII is none the less an agreement because it provides for further. Treaty stipulations to carry it into effect. This argument has already been anticipated in my above-mentioned despatch, in which it was shown that, while the parties interested agreed, in Article VIII, to extend by future Treaty stipulations their protection over other communications across the isthmus, the immediate object of the Article was the protection of the communications ,,now" (1850) proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panamá. None of the proposed communications having been established, the reason for the agreement has disappeared. || Further, the Article provides for carrying out the general principle“ by additional stipulations which have not been even discussed. Nor is there anything in the VIIIth Article which makes applicable to any other route the provisions of the first seven articles, covering the ,,particular object,“ viz., the Nicaragua Canal. || The VIIIth Article, therefore, is simply a declaration of the intention entertained more than thirty years ago by two nations to take up, at some subsequent period, the negotiation of a Treaty on a particular subject. In order to carry out this purpose Treaties must be made by the United States and England with each other and with each of the Central American States through which a canal may be built, defining in detail the stipulations necessary to execute the general principle. || It cannot be successfully contended, as is suggested by Lord Granville, that the separate Treaties made by this country with some of the Central American States, by which this Gouvernment agrees to guarantee neutrality, show an agreement to guarantee it jointly with Great Britain, for that would involve the admission that an express agreement to guarantee singly is, in effect, an implied agreement to guarantee jointly. Nevertheless, it is not denied that the Uni Nr. 8195. Vereinigte ted States did for many years try to induce Great Britain to fulfil her part of the Agreement of 1850, and it was only when it became impossible for Staaten. Her Majesty's Government to perform the promises which had led the Uni- 5. Mai 1883. ted States to make the Treaty that the position now maintained was assumed. If it be contended that, even if the Treaty may be considered as lapsed so far as it relates to the specific route by Nicaragua and the routes named in the VIIIth Article as contemplated in 1850 (by Panamá and Tehuantepec), yet the Treaty is binding so far as it relates to other isthmian communications not specified and not then contemplated, the answer is that the Treaty must be considered as a whole, and that the general stipulations of the VIIIth Article would never have been made but for the stipulations as to the specified routes then contemplated, and, that part of the Treaty having lapsed, the general stipulation as to any interoceanic communications fails for want of consideration. To reach the construction his Lordship seeks to put on the VIIIth Article, its plain language must be disregarded, and the consideration must be ignored that the Article is as applicable to the Panamá Railroad as to any other means of isthmian transit, and that, by acquiescence for many years in the sole protectorate of the United States over this railway, Great Britain has, in effect, admitted the justice of the position now maintained by the President. Passing the interpretation of Article VIII, you will remember that I contended that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is voidable, because, while by Article I the two nations expressly stipulated that neither of them would occupy, colonize, or exercise any dominion over any part of Central America, Great Britain at this time has a Colony, with executive and judicial officers, occupying a defined territory nearly equal in area to three of the smaller States of the Union. It is true, as was shown in my above-mentioned despatch, that, after the Treaty had been ratified by the Senate in the form in which it now appears, and on the 4th July, 1850, Mr. Clayton did exchange with Sir Henry Bulwer Memoranda stating that the stipulation in Article I should not apply to the ,,Settlements" in British Honduras (Belize); and it is also true, that Mr. Clayton declined to affirm or deny the British title in this,,Settlement" or its alleged dependencies. Lord Granville now claims, that Honduras was then already (and to the knowledge of this Government) a British „possession," or Colony, by conquest from Spain through successful resistance by settlers to a Spanish attack. The stipulations of the Treaty, as well as the Memoranda exchanged by Mr. Clayton and Sir Henry Bulwer, relative to a British Settlement, appear to be inconsistent with any such claim, for nowhere in them can be found any statement which expresses or implies that Great Britain claimed, or the United States admitted, any such Governmental control in the former over Belize as is now advanced, and as is necessarily implied in the word ,,possessions." || The date of the conquest of Belize, alluded to by Lord Granville, is not stated; but the incident to |