ations of the committee was the
work of the full committee. I do not think it necessary to restate
here the position of the committee, as no definite action has been
taken by Congress on the bill reported. The report was signed by
each member of the committee, as follows: John Sherman, Chairman,
Geo. F. Edmunds, Wm. P. Frye, Wm. M. Evarts, J. N. Dolph, John T.
Morgan, Joseph E. Brown, H. B. Payne, J. B. Eustis.

There are, however, questions connected with this subject which
are of vital interest to the United States, and not presented in
that report. By the treaty negotiated in 1884, between the United
States and Nicaragua, the canal was to be built by the United
States. This treaty was sent to the Senate on December 10, 1884,
by President Arthur, who, in strong and earnest language, recommended
its ratification. It had been frequently debated, but was still
pending in the Senate when Mr. Cleveland became President. I do
not feel at liberty to state the causes of delay, nor the ground
taken, nor the votes given either for or against it, as the injunction
of secrecy in respect to it has not been removed, but I have regarded
as a misfortune its practical defeat by the want of a two-thirds
vote, required by the constitution to ratify a treaty. The terms
granted in it by Nicaragua were liberal in the broadest sense.
The complete control of the canal and its appurtenances, and the
manner of its construction, were invested in the United States.
The conditions proposed would have made it an international work
of great importance to all commercial nations, while ample authority
was reserved on the part of the United States to protect its
investment with tolls sufficient to pay the interest and refund
the principal.

At the called session of March, 1885, Mr. Cleveland withdrew the
treaty, not from opposition to its general purposes, but because,
as he stated in his annual message in December, 1885, it was "coupled
with absolute and unlimited engagements to defend the territorial
integrity of the states where such interests lie." He held that
this clause was an "entangling alliance inconsistent with the
declared policy of the United States." This objection to the treaty
could have been easily removed by negotiation, as Mr. Bayard, a
Member of the Senate when the treaty was pending, and Secretary of
State under President Cleveland, very well knew. Thus, by an
unfortunate division in the Senate and the action of the