Produced by Stephen Hope and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
THE PANAMA CANAL CONFLICT
BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
London: FETTER LANE, E. C.
C. F. CLAY, Manager
Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET
London: STEVENS AND SONS, Ltd.,
119 and 120, CHANCERY LANE
Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
_All rights reserved_
THE PANAMA CANAL CONFLICT
BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A STUDY
BY
L. OPPENHEIM, M. A., LL. D.
Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge
Honorary Member of the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence at Madrid Member
of the Institute of International Law
SECOND EDITION
Cambridge:
at the University Press
1913
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M. A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
To my great surprise, the publishers inform me that the first edition
of my modest study on the Panama Canal conflict between Great Britain
and the United States is already out of print and that a second edition
is at once required. As this study had been written before the
diplomatic correspondence in the matter was available, the idea is
tempting now to re-write the essay taking into account the arguments
proffered in Sir Edward Grey's despatch to the British Ambassador at
Washington of November 14, 1912--see Parliamentary Paper Cd. 6451--and,
in answer thereto, in Mr Knox's despatch to the American Charge
d'Affaires in London of January 17, 1913--see Parliamentary Paper Cd.
6585. But apart from the fact that the immediate need of a second
edition does not permit me time to re-write the work, it seemed
advisable to reprint the study in its original form, correcting only
some misprints and leaving out the footnote on page 5. It had been
written _sine ira et studio_ and without further information than
that which could be gathered from the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, the Hay-Varilla Treaty, the Panama Canal Act,
and the Memorandum which President Taft left when signing that Act.
Hence, the reader is presented with a study which is absolutely
independent of the diplomatic correspondence, and he can exercise his
own judgment in comparing my arguments with those set forth _pro et
contra_ the British interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in
the despatches of Sir Edward Grey and Mr Knox.
L. O.
Cambridge,
_February 15, 1913_.
CONTENTS
I. Article III, No. 1 of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 and
Section 5 of the American Panama Canal Act of 1912, pp. 5-6--The
Memorandum of President Taft, pp. 7-9--The interpretation of Article
III of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty preferred by the United States, pp.
9-11.
II. The claim of the United States that she has granted the use of
the Panama Canal under a conditional most-favoured-nation clause, pp.
11-14--The United States has never possessed the power of refusing to
grant the use of the Panama Canal to vessels of foreign nations on
terms of entire equality, p. 15--Such use is the condition under which
Great Britain consented to the substitution of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty for the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, p. 16.
III. If the use of the Panama Canal by vessels of foreign nations
were derived from most-favoured-nation treatment, the United States
would not be bound to submit to the rules of Article III, Nos. 2-6, of
the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, p. 17--The Panama Canal would then lose its
neutral character and would be in danger of eventually being made the
theatre of war, p. 18--But it is the intention of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty permanently to neutralise the Panama Canal, p. 18--The three
objects of the neutralisation of an Inter Oceanic Canal, pp. 19-20--Is
the United States, under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, subjected to more
onerous conditions than Turkey and Egypt are under the Suez Canal
Treaty?, pp. 20-22.
IV. Six reasons for the untenability of the American interpretation
of Article III, No. 1, of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, p. 23--The
stipulation of Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, p. 23--The
motive for, and the condition of, the substitution of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty for the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, p. 24--The rules of the Suez
Canal Treaty which serve as the basis of the neutralisation of the
Panama Canal, p. 25--Literal meaning of the words "all nations," p.
26--Importance of Article IV of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, p. 26--The
various contingencies contemplated by Article II of the same treaty, p.
27.
V. The American contention that the exemption of American coasting
trade vessels from the payment of canal tolls does not discriminate
against foreign vessels, p. 29--Every vessel shall bear a proportionate
part of the cost of the Panama Canal, p. 30--Meaning of the term
"coasting trade" as upheld by the United States, pp. 30-33--Coasting
trade vessels of the United States can trade with Mexican and South
American ports, p. 33--Any special favour to a particular nation
involves discrimination against other nations, p. 34.
VI. Is the United States prevented from refunding to her vessels the
tolls levied upon them for use in the Panama Canal?, pp. 34-35--Difference
of such refunding from exempting the vessels concerned from the payment
of tolls, p. 35.
VII. Prominent members of the Senate and many American newspapers
condemn the special privileges granted to American vessels by the
Panama Canal Act, p. 36--The defeated Bard Amendment of 1900, p. 37.
VIII. Two schools of thought concerning the relations between
International and Municipal Law, p. 38--The maxim that International
Law overrules Municipal Law, p. 39--The doctrine that International and
Municipal Law are two essentially different bodies of law, p. 39--The
two maxims of the practice of the American Courts, pp. 40-42--President
Taft's message to Congress suggesting a resolution which would have
empowered the American Courts to decide the question as to whether