on foot to construct a canal through Nicaragua through private enterprise. As early as 1880 an association was formed, composed of leading men, mostly of New York, and a concession was obtained from the government of Nicaragua; but owing to opposition and delays, the concession finally lapsed in 1884. On the failure of the treaty, mentioned above, this canal association was revived. On the 20th of October, 1886, a meeting of prominent men was held, and an organization was formally completed on the 3d of December. Mr. A. G. Menocal, who had been the active agent in the affairs of the former association, was again dispatched to Nicaragua, and succeeded in obtaining a new concession, which was ratified by the government of that State on the 24th of April, 1887.

On the 10th of January, 1888, Senator Edmunds introduced a bill in the Senate for the incorporation of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua; it was not till the 20th of February, 1889, however, that it passed both Houses and became a law. The association had, in the meantime, caused to be incorporated a Construction Company, under whose direction the final surveys and the preliminary work were carried on.

On the 10th of January, 1891, a bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Sherman, empowering the United States to guarantee the principal and interest at four per cent. per annum, of an issue of $100,000,000 of canal company bonds to be issued for construction purposes. The President of the United States was empowered by the bill to name six of the directors of the company, and $70,000,000 of the capital stock of the company was to be placed in the custody of the Secretary of Treasury, as a pledge and security for the repayment to the United States of any amounts advanced in pursuance of the guarantee. The duty was to be conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury, to vote upon the stock at his discretion, and an option was reserved to the United States to purchase the same at any time before the maturity of the bonds. This bill, although debated, did not come up for final action; and in January, 1894, Senator Morgan introduced a similar bill.

Since the failure of the Panama project, and scandal connected therewith, and perhaps also on account of a more or less widespread distrust in this country of "stock-jobbing" schemes, it has been difficult to inspire confidence in this Panama company

sufficient to induce investors to take its bonds. Hence we have these pressing appeals to the government of the United States to shoulder the burden of the undertaking. It is set forth as the patriotic duty of Americans to construct the canal in order to prevent its falling into the hands of Europeans.

It will be noted that, during the period from 1825 to 1880, American Statesmen of all parties were for the most part intent only on procuring the construction of an isthmian canal which should be free to all the world, and neutralized by the joint guarantee of all; but since then, with the exception of Mr. Cleveland's administration, the government of the United States has constantly insisted upon the exclusive control of such canal by the United States. We shall see that this is but one part in a greater American system which appears generally in our foreign policy.1

YUCATAN, 1848.

In 1848, the white population of Yucatan, a province of Mexico, called upon the United States for aid against the Indians, who were waging war against them; and offered, if aid should be granted, to transfer the dominion of the peninsula to the United States. It was stated that similar appeals had been made to the Spanish and English governments.

In a special message on the 29th of April, 1848, President Polk said:

1 See, on the subject of the Isthmian Canal and the the Clayton-Bulwer treaty: "Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Inter-oceanic Canal, the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and the Monroe Doctrine," being a reprint of Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 112, 46th Cong. 2d sess; No. 194, 47th Cong., 1st sess.; and No. 26, 48th Cong., 1st sess.; "The Panama Canal," by J. C. Rodrigues, L. L. B. 1885; "Le Canal de Panama," by Lucien N. B. Wyse, 1886; Wharton's Digest of International Law, II., pp. 184-244; J. F. Rhodes' "History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850," p. 199; Tucker's" Monroe Doctrine;" Cinq Aus à Panama, par Wolfred Nelson, 1890; Curtis' Buchanan, II., 76 et seq.; Seward's Works, I., 385, V., 5, 33; "The Inter-oceanic Canal of Nicaragua," published by the Canal Construction Company, 1891; Debate in the Senate, 1856, Cong. Globe, 1st sess. 4th Cong.

"While it is not my purpose to recommend the adoption of any measure with a view to the acquisition of the dominion and sovereignty' over Yucatan, yet, according to our established policy, we could not consent to a transfer of this dominion and sovereignty' to either Spain, Great Britain, or any other European power. In the language of President Monroe, in his message of December, 1823, we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.' In my annual message of December, 1845, I declared that near a quarter of a century ago the principle was distinctly announced to the world, in the annual message of one of my predecessors, that the American continents, *** are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power. This principle will apply with greatly increased force, should any European power attempt to establish any new colony in North America. In the existing circumstances of the world, the present is deemed a proper occasion to reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe, and to state my cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound policy."

As a member of the House of Representatives, in 1826, Mr. Polk had been one of the most strenuous opponents of the Panama Mission. "We are," he then said, "about to depart from our ancient and plain republican simplicity, and to become a great and splendid government; new projects are set on foot; we are called upon by the President to change the whole policy of the country, as adopted by our fathers, and so happily pursued by their posterity down to the present period."

In 1845, Mr. Polk, as President, inaugurated a war of conquest; and at the date of his message (quoted above), the United States had just wrested from their southern neighbor the provinces of California and New Mexico. And now he proposed to proceed in this policy, and annex Yucatan.

A bill to enable the President to take temporary military possession of that province was introduced in the Senate; but before any definite conclusion had been come to, news was received that the whites and Indians of Yucatan had settled their differences by treaty.

The most noteworthy feature of the debate in this Yucatan

bill was the speech of Calhoun in opposition, May 15, 1848.1 As a member of Monroe's Cabinet in 1823, he related his recollections of the circumstances under which the "declaration" was made, and stated his opinion of its meaning and scope. His idea was that the famous declaration was made under circumstances peculiar to that time, and that there was no intention of settling a policy for all future generations. "They were but declarations--nothing more; declarations announcing in a friendly manner to the powers of the world that we should regard certain acts of interposition of the allied powers as dangerous to our peace and safety. * * * We are not to have quoted on us, on every occasion, general declarations to which any and every meaning may be attached. There are cases of interposition where I would resort to the hazard of war with all its calamities. Am I asked for one? I will answer. I designate the case of Cuba." *

CUBA.

At the time of the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, Spain had virtually lost all her colonies on the continent of America, but there still remained to her the important islands of Cuba and Porto Rico; it was a question, however, whether, in her weakened condition, she would be able to retain them in the war of aggression, commenced against her by France in the spring of 1823. A rumor had indeed reached the United States that France intended to take possession of Cuba. This island lies very near our southern coast and commands the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico; it was natural therefore that the United States should feel a lively interest in its fate. On the 28th of April, 1823, Mr. J. Q. Adams, Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. Nelson, United States minister in Spain, that:

"In the war between France and Spain, now commencing, other interests, peculiarly ours, will in all probability be deeply involved. Whatever may be the issue of this war as between those two European powers, it may be taken for granted that the dominion of Spain upon the American continents, north and

14 Calhoun's works, 455; Wharton's Digest, I., 283.

south, is irrevocably gone. But the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico still remain nominally, and so far really, dependent upon her, that she yet possesses the power of transferring her own dominion over them, together with the possession of them, to others. These islands, from their local position, are natural appendages to the North American continent, and one of them (Cuba) almost in sight of our shores, from a multitude of considerations has become an object of transcendent importance to the commercial and political interests of our Union. Its commanding position, with reference to the Gulf of Mexico and the West India seas; the character of its population; its situation midway between our southern coast and the island of San Domingo; its safe and capacious harbor of Havana, fronting a long line of our shores destitute of the same advantage; the nature of its productions and of its wants, furnishing the supplies and needing the returns of a commerce immensely profitable and mutually beneficial, give it an importance in the sum of our national interests with which that of no other foreign territory can be compared, and little inferior to that which binds the different members of this Union together."***

Mr. Adams thought that Cuba would, in the course of events, be annexed to the United States, but he believed that we were not yet prepared for the adoption of a policy of annexing territory beyond sea.1

The government of the United States felt no immediate concern so long as the island remained in the possession of Spain; but that it should never come under the dominion of any other European power has been the fixed policy of this country from that day to the present time.

On the 17th of October, 1825, Mr. Clay was directed by the President (Mr. Adams) to announce to European governments, by instructions to our ministers, "that the United States, for themselves, desired no change in the political condition of Cuba; that they were satisfied that it should remain open as it now is, to their commerce, and that they could not with indifference see it passing from Spain to any (other) European power." And in instructions to Mr. Brown, minister to France, October 25, 1825, Mr. Clay wrote, "you will now add that we could not consent to the occupation of those islands (Cuba and

1 Wharton's Digest, I., p. 361.