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.
Pages:
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78