FRELINGHUYSEN AND GRANVILLE

93

regarded as applying to entirely new projects which had originated since that time. Finally he argued, with much cogency, that the United States treaty with Colombia, of 1846, giving this country exclusive rights over the Isthmus of Panama, had been concluded before the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and was not superseded by the latter; and therefore, whether or not the United States was to remain bound by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in Nicaragua, it certainly was not so bound at Panama, but had a free hand under the Colombian treaty of 1846.

Lord Granville replied by denying that Great Britain had violated the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. He pointed out that that treaty was by its own terms applicable not only to then existing canal schemes but also "to any other" which might at any time be put forward, and especially to any at Tehuantepec or Panama. As to the colony of British Honduras, he defended it with Mr. Frelinghuysen's own argument of priority, on the ground that it had been established before the negotiation of the treaty. He would not even concede that the treaty had lapsed in respect to its first object, of securing a canal at Nicaragua, because no time had been stipulated in which that canal was to be built. Finally, he neatly argued that the United States ought not to bring up the Monroe Doctrine as a reason for abrogating the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, since that doctrine had not been regarded as a bar to the making of that treaty. The correspondence between Mr. Frelinghuysen and Lord Granville finally ceased, leaving the whole controversy about where it had been before. The United States was hopelessly handicapped by the blunderings of Mr. Buchanan's time, and by Mr. Blaine's inept attempt to reopen them, and settlement of the vexatious matter was deferred to a later date and to the hands of a more diplomatic statesman.

From these fruitless debates American attention was turned back to the schemes and operations of De Lesseps. That ambitious and resourceful promoter went rapidly and resolutely forward with his great undertaking. Actual

construction work was begun on February 1, 1881, and announcement was made that within a year thousands of men would be busy all along the line, and that the canal would be open to commerce in 1888. So well did he succeed in arousing interest, enthusiasm, and confidence in the enter prise that when the first subscriptions for $60,000,000 capital were called for, $120,660,900 was promptly offered. Of these offerings, $99,450,800 were from French people, mostly in small lots. The original share-holders were 102,230 in number, about 16,000 of them being women in their own names. Of them, 80,839 had from one to five shares each, 19,143 from six to twenty shares, and 3,028 from twenty-one to fifty shares.

The work was "inaugurated" on February 1, 1881. In emulation of the gala performance of Verdi's "Aïda" at the opening of the Suez Canal, Sarah Bernhardt went to Panama and presented a drama in the wretched little box of a playhouse which was then the only theatre of the city. In October of that year about three hundred Europeans went to the Isthmus to prepare for extensive operations, and in 1882 thousands of men were at work from Colon to Panama. Money was spent lavishly. Enormous salaries were paid to directors and engineers. Thousands of buildings were erected, for hospitals, hotels, warehouses, and what not. Elegant private mansions were built for the directors of the work. Machinery and other supplies were purchased in vast quantities, largely untried and unsuited to the work. An army of gamblers and harlots invaded the Isthmus. Neglect of sanitation gave opportunity for pestilences to run riot and to sweep off thousands of victims. A great amount of effective work was done, but at far too great a cost. The general state of affairs was scarcely exaggerated by Froude, when he wrote that "in all the world there is perhaps not now concentrated in any single spot so much swindling and villainy, so much foul disease, such a hideous dungheap of moral and physical abomination." Meantime, De Lesseps remained in France, probably unconscious of half that was

"LE GRAND FRANÇAIS"

95

going on at Panama. Glowing reports came of what was being done, and his fame steadily rose to the climax of heroworship. In 1884 he was elected to the French Academy as the successor of Henri Martin, who had been the successor of Adolphe Thiers, and was saluted by Léon Gambetta with the title of "Le Grand Français," which ever afterward clung to him. On April 23, 1885, he was formally seated among the "Immortals," Victor Hugo being his sponsor and Ernest Renan delivering the oration of welcome.

Behind all this brilliance, the shadows were gathering. In 1885 a serious insurrection occurred on the Isthmus, largely promoted, if not incited, by French intrigues. The city of Colon was looted and burned, and Panama was saved from a like fate only by the intervention of a United States naval force, which went thither under the provisions of the Treaty of 1846. Against this perfectly lawful action of the American Government the French consul bitterly protested, and French sympathy with the insurgents was further shown by the asylum given to the insurgent chief, Aizpuru, on board the French flagship. Two years later came the beginning of the end. Far more money had been spent than the total original estimates, yet the work was scarcely twofifths done. The Congress of 1879 had reckoned a tide-level canal twenty-eight feet deep could be completed for $114,000,000, in seven or eight years. By 1887 it was concluded that a lock canal, only fifteen feet deep, would cost $351,000,000 and would take twenty years to build. The seven construction companies which had been working under contracts withdrew from the field, and in November, 1887, the whole job was turned over to M. Eiffel, the French engineer, who had had the contract for building the locks. Efforts were made to raise more money, which met with little sucGovernment aid was sought, through the wholesale bribing of Ministers, Senators, and Deputies. A popular petition, signed with 158,000 names, asked for the licensing of a national lottery for the raising of funds. This was granted, but proved ineffectual.