ctions or unreasonable tolls upon passengers,
vessels, goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles,--neither party to
withdraw such protection and guaranty without first giving six months
notice to the other.

Art 6. Treaty stipulations maybe made with the Central American States,
and states with which either or both parties have friendly intercourse;
and settle all differences arising as to the rights of property in the
canal, etc.

Art. 7. Contract to be entered into without delay, and the party first
commencing labor, etc., in the construction of said canal, is to have
priority of claim to construct the same, and will be protected therein
by the parties to this treaty.

Art. 8. Both governments agree that protection shall be extended by
treaty stipulations, hereafter to be made and entered into, to other
communications or ways across said isthmus.

Art. 9. Treaty to be ratified by both governments and ratifications
exchanged at Washington within six months."

This treaty bears date April 19, 1850, and is still in force in all its
provisions.

Is there anything in the terms, conditions, or effect of this treaty,
which in any way tends to militate or conflict with the declarations of
the "Monroe Doctrine?"

To answer this question satisfactorily, and give a careful analysis of
the treaty, in all its details, would take more time and space than I am
at liberty to use; but I may be pardoned if I trespass a little and give
a few reasons why I am come to the conclusion that the effect of the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is to abrogate and annul to a great extent the
cardinal principle of the "Monroe Doctrine."

In the first place the "Monroe Doctrine" was the accepted policy of this
government as to all foreign intervention from 1823 to 1850, and with
some of the leading minds of the country it has never ceased to be the
paramount creed in the national catechism. During these twenty-seven
years the project of building an inter-oceanic canal had been
considerably agitated, in Congress and out, and had enlisted to some
extent the sympathies of foreign powers who desired a shorter passage to
the Pacific Ocean, the East Indies, and the markets of Cathay, than the
stormy ones around the southern capes of either hemisphere.

This agitation finally culminated in diplomatic correspondence between
the representatives of Great Britain and the United States relative to
the construction of such a means of communication and the ri