The Panama Canal Conflict between Great Britain and the United States of America

The Panama Canal Conflict between Great?by Oppenheim Lassa

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Panama Canal Conflict between Great
Britain and the United States of America, by Oppenheim Lassa This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Panama Canal Conflict between Great Britain and the United States of America A Study
Author: Oppenheim Lassa
Release Date: July 25, 2007 [EBook #22143]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PANAMA CANAL CONFLICT ***

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 Charg�� 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