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 Vereinigte Nr. 8195. which it refers is supposed to be the repulse by a ship of the Royal Navy Staaten. and the settlers of an attempt in 1798 on the part of Spain to take posses6. Mai 1883. sion of Honduras. As the British settlers held under grants from Spain, it seems hardly necessary to consider whether the successful resistance of a tenant to an attempt to oust by force changes the tenure to one of full possession. His Lordship, however, meets this point by a plea of possession through abandonment, saying, "When peace was signed, most of the British conquests from Spain were restored to her; but the Settlement in Honduras, like that of the Falkland Islands, was not given up, and continued on the same footing as any other possession under the British Crown." || By the IIIrd Article of the Treaty of Amiens of 1802, Great Britain engaged to restore all Spanish possessions occupied or conquered by British forces. Belize was not given up, because it was not a conquest, but a Settlement under Spanish grants and Spanish sovereignty. The parallel with the Falkland Islands does not seem convincing, for these islands were ceded by France to Spain in 1763; by Spain they were in turn ceded absolutely to Great Britain in 1771; but their possession was abandoned until in 1820 Buenos Ayres occupied the islands as derelict and colonized them. Later, in 1831, after a difficulty between the settlers and American sealingvessels, the United States' ship of war „Lexington" broke up the Settlement and removed the settlers to Buenos Ayres, and it was not until 1833 that Great Britain enforced her claim under the cession of 1771. || As to Belize, however, there was no cession. If the sovereignty of Spain was annulled by conquest in 1798, it was restored by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802; and while, after this Treaty and during the Bonaparte occupation, hostilities were renewed, the Treaty of 1809 provided that there should be peace between Spain and Great Britain, and „also an entire obliteration of all hostilities committed during the late war." Since the conclusion of this Treaty Spain and Great Britain have been at peace, and it is not imagined that Earl Granville will seek to show that a lawful possession could be thereafter created for Great Britain by a violation of that Treaty in time of peace. No conquest of any part of Honduras is known to have occurred after 1802, but if there were, the perpetuation of this conquest would hardly comport with the reciprocal engagement of 1809 to restore the status quo ante bellum. || On the other hand, it is known that the Settlements in the Belize were made under certain limited grants from Spain, subject to her sovereignty, and that long after the Treaty of 1809 the occupation was generelly regarded simply as a Settlement," and was so called by Lord Clarendon, as late as 1854, in a note to Mr. Buchanan, and so remained until the 12th May, 1862, when by Royal Commission it was erected into a full Colony and subordinated to the Government of Jamaica. || If Great Britain has turned the ,,Settlement" maintained for the cutting of logwood and mahogany into an organized British Colony-and this is admitted or if that Settlement has encroached beyond the line occupied by Vereinigte the settlers in 1850-and the reports from Guatemala and Mexico tend to Nr. 8195. show that this had been done the action has been taken in contravention Staaten. of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and in violation of one of its most important 5. Mai 1883. provisions. The insufficiency of this part of Lord Granville's argument is shown by the contention that through a Postal Convention this Government has recognized the British position. The negotiation of a Postal Convention in 1869 cannot be held to involve any admission of the political status of the Belize district. It is a strained construction of such an agreement to hold that it works an estoppel as to a matter not in the mind of either party to the negotiation, and as to which both parties were endeavouring to reach a satisfactory conclusion through other and different channels; nor does the Post Office Department act politically in its dealings with similar Departments of other Governments. || If, however, the United States had submitted to the conversion of the Belize to a Colony by Her Majesty's Government in violation of the Treaty, that is by no means a recognition of the binding force of the Treaty on the United States when thus violated. || In the conviction, therefore, that the arguments heretofore presented by the United States remain unshaken, the President adheres to the views set forth in the instruction to you of the 8th May, 1882. Lord Granville concludes by saying, in effect, that he does not answer that part of the instruction to you which relates to the Monroe doctrine, because of my observation that it is not necessary for Her Majesty's Government to admit or to deny that doctrine. As his Lordship placed the claim of Her Majesty's Government on the continued binding force of the. ClaytonBulwer Treaty, limiting that doctrine as we contend, I thing my remark was logical, and, so far the United States are concerned, their views on that doctrine are sufficiently manifest. || You will assure Lord Granville, that this Government shares the sincere desire of that of Her Majesty to arrive at that amicable adjustment of the question which cannot fail to promote harmony and good-will between the two countries, and which it is my duty and pleasure, equally with his Lordship, to do all in my power to perpetuate and increase. You will take an early occasion to read this instruction to Lord Granville, and, if he should so desire, to leave a copy with him. || I am, &c. Nr. 8196. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Fredk. T. Frelinghuysen. den engl. Gesandten in Washington (West). Die Foreign Office, August 17, 1883. Nr. 8196. Sir, On the 29th May last Mr. Lowell communicated to me a copy of a further despatch, dated the 5th of that month, which he had received from Gross britannien. 17.Aug. 1883. Gross britannien. Nr. 8196. Mr. Frelinghuysen respecting the projected Panamá Canal, of which a copy was forwarded to you in my despatch of the 16th June last. || By my 17. Aug. 1883. despatches of the 7th and 14th January and 30th December, 1882, which were written in answer to several lettres addressed by the United States' Secretaries of State to the American Ministers at this Court, and with the contents of which I had been made officially acquainted, you were informed of the views which Her Majesty's Government entertained on that important subject. Mr. Frelinghuysen, however, in his letter to Mr. Lowell of the 5th May last, after commenting upon the contents of my last despatch to you of the 30th December last, says that the President still considers that the arguments which have been presented to Her Majesty's Government by the United States upon this subject remain unshaken, and that he adheres to the views set forth in the instructions, which were given to Mr. Lowell on the 8th May, 1882, a copy of which was communicated to me on the 31st of that month. This further despatch from Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Lowell has been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. They have not failed to remark, that Mr. Frelinghuysen still contends that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is voidable on two grounds first, because the first seven Articles of that Treaty related to a particular Canal by the Nicaraguan ronte only; and, secondly, because Great Britain has at the present day a Colony, instead of a Settlement, at Belize; but, with regard to the first of these contentions, I explained to you, in my despatch of the 30th December last, why Her Majesty's Government were unable to accept that view, bearing in mind the VIIIth Article of the Convention. I pointed out to you, that it was expressly recorded in that Article that the High Contracting Parties, in entering into that Convention, had not only the desire to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, and that, with that view, they agreed to extend their protection by Treaty stipulations to any other" practicable communications, whether by Canal or railway,,,across the Isthmus" which connected North and South America, and especially" to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, wheter by Canal or railway, which it was then proposed should be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panamá. No time was fixed by the Convention within which such interoceanic communications were to be made; and Her Majesty's Government consider that it would be putting a false construction on the Convention to say that the stipulations contained in the VIIIth Article had sole reference to the Canal schemes which were actually under consideration at the time of the conclusion of that Convention, for had such been the intention of the Contracting Parties, they clearly would not have made use of the expressions,,especially" or any other," when speaking of the Canals which it was then contemplated might be made across the Isthmus. With regard to Mr. Frelinghuysen's further contention, that the Clayton ' |