Evening star., 1915-02-07
Comment on Poindexter
Query Regarding Proposed /
hicaraguan Waterway. !!
VIEWS OF H. w. VAN DYKE,
COUNSEL FOR COSTA RIGA
Absolute Control by U. S. Not Bar
red BY Hay-Pauncefote Agree
ment, Is Contention.

Senator Miles Poindexter of Washing
ton has offered a resolution IN the SEN
ate calling upon the State Department
for tho administrations understanding
as to the Jurisdiction of the United
States over the proposed Nicaragua
canal, the right to build which is
given the United States in the pending
Nicaraguan treaty and which would be
further assured by a treaty now being
negotiated with Costa Rica.
Senator PoindeXter wants to know
whether the HayPauncefotc treaty un-
der which the Panama canal was built
can be interpreted as applicable to the
Nicaraguan waterway, and whether the
United States might reserve the canal
in Nicaragua, il constructed. exclusive
ly for American citizens.
H. w. Van Dyke. counsel for the
Costa Rican legation here. has prepar-
ed an opinion in which it is held that
operated exclusively for American COM
merce and American warships.
Discusses the Points Raised.
He says, in part:
There would be some measure OF
justification for Senator Poindexters ap-
prehensoins If the language in the Hay
Pauncefote treaty alone were considered.
The history Of the negotiations and rati-
fication proceedings will. however. con-
vince that neither the general principle
as to neutrality nor any of the stipula-
| tions in that compact survives to affect
or control any canal or other communica-
tion across the Central American isthmus,
whether undertaken by the United States
or any other nation.
Nothing in any existing treaty be-
tween the United States and Great
Britain stands in the way to prevent
our government from negotiating for con-
strucnng snS or operating a canal via the
San Juan river and Lake Nicaragua
route, or any other route, for its exclusive
use in commerce and war. Such a canal
could be lawfully used by us as a private
thoroughfare for the passage. maneuver-
ing and protection of the United States
vessels of war. just as exclusively and
privately as the kiel canal is used by
the German government
IN the Clayton-Bulwer treaty Of
June 1S. 1850. with Great Britain the
United States binds itself, with other
things, not to obtain or exercise eN-
elusive control over any isthmian canal
or to fortify the same. and both par
ties agree. in article VIII. to the estab-
lishment of the general principle Of
neutrality for such canal wherever.
across the isthmus. it may be con-
structed.
General Principle Reafarmed.
"In the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of No.
vember IS. 1901, between the same par
ties. this general principle is reaffirmed
and in language that would seem to
make II apply for all time to all
isthmian canals"
After citing the paragraphs in ques-
tion. Mr.. Van Dykes opinion con-
tinues:
But these stipuIations relate ex-
clusively to a single canal-the first
one to be built-and now that the
waterway has been constructed and
the terms Of the past strictly adhered
to by our government, We are at
liberty to construct and operate as many
more canals across the isthmus as our
national needs may call for. unham-
tralization' that is binding upon the
Panama canal, or any other stipula.
tions in the Clayton-Bulwer and Hay
Pauncefote treaties.
Made Clear in Hay Statement.
This is made perfectly clear in tn.
authoritative History of the Amend
ments Proposed and Considered Since
the Action OF the Senate on the For
mer Canal Treaty With Great Britain.
and Which Have Resulted in the Treaty
Now Submitted (Hay-Pauncefote)' pre-
pared and sent to the Senate committee
on foreign relations by John Hay,
whose name is signed to the last
named convention. (Senate document,
No. 746. Sixty-first Congress. third ses-
sion.)"
Mr.. Van Dyke. in his opinion, quotes
from treaties and the proceedings of
various Senate foreign relations COM
mittees to prove his argument that
the Hay-Pauncefote convention can
not be extended to apply to any other
waterway across the isthmus than the
Panama canal.