[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOZ."] Sin,—In the Spectator of
August 31st, in the course of the leading article on "The Panama Canal Act," you say : (1) " For what other reason did Great Britain give up her right to be joint-builder and owner of the Canal with the United States P" There is nothing, so far as I can discover, in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty to show that Great Britain enjoyed or claimed any such right. (2) You continue: " She did not in- struct Lord Pauncefote to draw up the Treaty for the fun of giving something for nothing." In his memoranda on the subject Lord Lansdowne said (August 3rd, 1901) : " It is also to be borne in mind that, owing to the omission of the words under which this country became jointly bound to defend the neutrality of the Canal, and the abrogation of the Clayton- Bulwer Treaty, the obligations of Great Britain would be materially diminished. This is a most important considera- tion." (3) You continue : "It was expressly understood that the considerable changes to which we consented in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty were in return for the complete equality of foreign and American ships in the use of the Canal." But this "equality " was present in the Clayton- Bulwer Treaty in more explicit terms than in the Hay- Pauncefote Treaty, for Article VIII. of the former treaty says: " The same canals or railways being open to the sub- jects and citizens of Great Britain and the United States on equal terms. . . ."—I am, Sir, &a., ROBINSON SMITH. The Lawn, _Tuley, near Oxford.
Previous page
