The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1894-01-16

both sides. The territorial jurisdiction, OF
the sovereign is modified Fs% by the sea pu Rf
sage is itself modified by the right Of the
sovereign through whose territory the chan
mel passes. He may prescribe such rules
and regulations he may deem necessary
to his own safety, and this, under certain
contingencies, may amount to a positive
prohibition. Thus, although open and free
to all private merchant vessels of what
ever nationality, the channel could be de;
cared closed, as a matter of right, to all
public armed vessels whenever this should
become necessary to the safety of the state tat
ecesSarily implies the right of the state %
enter into alliances, offensive and defensive,
But this is precisely what the sovereign
state of Colombia - did as early as
1875 4 by artG ns Still of Of ort the with treaty 4
United States.
Another rule, applicable in such cases. is
that the sovereign, through whose territory
the channel passes may exempt his own
subjects from payment of tonnage other
like duties. without thereby invalidatins his
right to Internationally withhold such priv
ileges from the subjects or citizens of other
nations. 1t logically follows that he may
likewise exempt the subjects of citizens of
his ally. and thus place them upon an equal
footing with his own, without thereby i'm
pairing his right to withhold such privileges
from the subjects or citizens of all other
nations. But this, again, is precisely what
Colombia did by the treaty of 1916 when.
she guaranteed to the citizens Of the United
States AL the exemptions; privileges and
transit Present and prospeeti Se enjoyed
or to be enjoyed by Colombian citizens
Nor was this all: In article 80, of the
treaty already cited, Colombia guaranteed
Ito the government of the United States
the right-of-way or transit across the 18TH
mus of Panama, upon any modes of COM
munication" then in existence or that might
thereafter be constructed. free of all encum-
brances or restrictions whatsoever. In
other words, with respect to the govern
m Of fhn ITy,ifn tnf tI,n i,r,{ Of
passage is absolute. and it's war vessels may
pass and repass without restrictions, while
with respect to ''ctizens' of thg United
States, their right of passage is limited
only by the conditions imposed upon Colom-
>bian citizens: the consideration in both
cases being the efficient guarantee by the
United States of the neutrality of the tran
sit and of Colombia's sovereignty and do
minion over the isthmus.
III.
1t was readily seen, therefore, that, in
case the canal should be completed, no mat
ter by whom, this treaty would stand in the
way of French dominion on the isthmus
1t would have been the most natural thing
in the world for the two signatory powers
Colombia and the United States) to de-
clare the passage closed, "as a matter of
right, to the public armed vessels of all
other nations; in which case, not even
France could have justified a formal pro-
test. For no two principles are more per-
manently incorporated into the public
law Of Europe than that which
excludes all foreign armed vessels
from straits which pass through the ter
ritory of some sovereign state; and that
which admits to the free navigation of
such straits, all private merchant vessels
of whatever nationality. Thus. by the
treaty of Adrianople, of 1929, Russia and her
allies Were admitted to the free and I'M
restricted navigation of the Black sea,
while the entry to the straits of Con-
or,tj nn1n nd hn arlap oil c
pressly prohibited to 1.-The war vessels of
all other nations" And by the treaty of
London, in 1871, tie entry of foreign armed
vessels was prohibited, while yet those
waters were declared open and free to mer-
chant vessels Of all nations And later on,
when, by the treaty of Paris, of 1856. the
Rlack sea was declared neutral, the
straits leading to it were declared closed
"aj matter of right to the war vessels
of all nations except only those of the
allied powers. So also in 1871, when this
treaty was modified by the London con-
ference, the two principles-closure to war
vessels and freedom to merchant vessels
We're reasserteG. And this declaration was
further emphasized by the admitted right
OF the allies 20 agree to the harmless use''
of the straits by the public armed vessels
of the other powers.
In his clandestine efforts to induce the
Colombian congress to abolish or modify
the 35th article of the treaty of 1916, an
agent GS the De Lesseps Canal Company
once pointed out that, under the provisions
of the Sa1gar-Wyse contract, of 1878. a like
closure of the Panama canal would be such
a violation of the vested rights of the COM
pan4 as would compel the French govern
ment to interfere. Shrewd as he was he
had overlooked the fact that nowhere in
that contract had Colombia assumed
obligation to permit the free passage of
public armed vessels. All that Colombia
had stipulated that when such vessels
4 10
right "to fix toll rates." etc. 1t was still
competent to Colombia, acting in concert
with her ally. to- declare that when" In
other words, the special privilege of fixing
tolls ard establishing regulations of public
armed vessels IN the canal could have no
existence whatever until after the right of
massage by those vessels had been SpeCi-
ficaIly granted. But, aside from this, even
if Colombia had incautiousy obligated her
self, in advance, to allow such vessels to
pass, the obligation would have been a
nullity in view of the prior grant to the
United States in the treaty of 1876.
1t was during this discussion, and wherl
Count de Lesseps and his associates had
salaried agents in the United States, that
the suggestion somehow originated in
Washington that off the treaty of 1916
to be construed alliance with a weak
and impecuneous South American state,
the best thing to do would be to modify
article 50, or else abolish it entirely" No
one seemed to know just how this SuggeS-
ton originated but it was favored by moro
than one very influential New York news
paper 1t was argued very learnedly by
some of these half-American journals that
we could not afford to disregard the trad-
tons of the country by entering into EN-
tanglinG alliances even for tie purpose Of
controlling the isthmean transit, and Wash
ington's farewell address was freely 1ited in
support of this position.
All this may now be considered ancient
history" Still, it is not without interest as
showing the real nature of the DeLeSSepS
canal baubie. Those who were in Il posi-
ton to know had every reason to doubt his
sincerity when he undertook the enter
prise. He may have been Over-persuaded
by impecuneous parties who had lost posi-
ton and influence by the downfall of the
expire, and who saw in this scheme the
means of replenishing their private for
tunes. If so. it may have been part Of the
scheme to ultimately unload the enterprise
upon the new government. Be that as it
many, that DeT4esseps did at one time enter
tertain the hope that the French govern
ment might become compromised as to
be forced to take the job off his hands,
hardly admits of reasonable doubt. Hence
the systematic effort to get the treaty of
1916 out of the way.
".
But a word in this connection about Cen