arisen if the conditions had continued as they were at the time the Treaty was negotiated and as both parties contemplated they would always remain. The fact that Rules 2 to 6 have now a changed effect, owing to the unexpected change in these conditions, cannot be an argument on the construction of Rule 1. And it is important to observe here that the analogy of the Suez Canal Convention can only support the argument for equality of tolls, for it has never been suggested that either Turkey or Egypt could be in a different position with regard to Suez tolls from that of any other nation.
In my judgement, therefore, the contention of the United States, so far as it has been yet developed, is not a sound contention; it is a contention based on too narrow a reading of the words of the Treaty, and can be maintained only if previous history and the negotiation between the parties are put out of sight. Diplomatic agreements must not be interpreted by the same strict rules of construction as are applied to legal documents; it is the intention of the parties which must govern treaties rather than the particular form in which effect is endeavoured to be given to that intention; and in this case, as I submit to you, the intention of both parties has been throughout manifest beyond doubt.
Acquisition of the Canal Territory by the United States.
We must now turn to the events which have occurred since the ratification of the Treaty. And first as to the change of route. The Nicaraguan route had held the field until after the completion of the Treaty of 1901; the French Company under M. de Lesseps had been working for some years in Panama, but it was evident
