Page:The Panama Canal Controversy.djvu/21

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
THE PANAMA CANAL CONTROVERSY
13


equality for all. That the United States would not, if they could, obtain any exclusive right or privilege in a great highway which naturally belonged to all mankind.'

Lord Palmerston intimated in reply that Her Majesty's Government concurred in this condition.[1] This was followed at a later stage by a letter from Mr. Abbot Laurence to Lord Palmerston, dated November 8, 1849,[2] in which he formally asks whether the British Government would unite with the United States in guaranteeing the neutrality of a ship canal, railway, or other communication, to be open to the world and common to all nations. The answer of Lord Palmerston is dated November 13 and the material passage is in these words:

'With regard to the second part of your inquiry I beg to say that Her Majesty's Government will feel great pleasure in combining and co-operating with the Government of the United States for the purpose of assisting the operations of any company which may be formed with a view to establish commercial communication by canal or railway between the Atlantic and Pacific across the isthmus which divides the Northern from the Southern portion of the American continent, both by obtaining local security for the works while in progress and when completed and in use, and by placing such communication through the means of political arrangements beyond the reach of molestation, disturbance, or destruction by reason of international disputes which may at any time unfortunately arise, upon the condition, moreover, that such communication should at all times be open and accessible for the commerce of all nations upon equal terms for all.'[3][4]

I call your particular attention to this last condition, which was, in effect, an acceptance of the terms proposed by Mr. Rives on behalf of the United States.


  1. Blue Book, p. 7.
  2. Ibid., p. 6.
  3. Ibid., pp. 7, 17.
  4. Note. The italics in this and subsequent passages are not in the original.