The Clayton-Bulwer treaty, made between the United States and Great Britain in 1850, after the two countries had been brought to the brink of war by their conflicting claims to the control of the trade-routes across Panama and Nicaragua, and, particularly, of any canal that might be built across either isthmus, provided that neither country should have exclusive control of such a canal, nor erect fortifications along it, but that they should jointly control it, and guarantee its neutrality. This treaty barred the way to the canal for fifty-one years, for neither country was anxious to build a canal that was to be for the equal benefit of the other country, whether the other country helped or did nothing. In 1901, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was replaced by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, in which Great Britain withdrew from the partnership, leaving the United States in full control. At first, Great Britain held out for a neutralized canal, that was to be open to the merchant ships and war ships of all nations at all times. But that meant that if a foreign country went to war with the United States, we should have to let the enemies' fleet pass unmolested through our own canal to attack our sea-ports, and the storm of popular disapproval was so great that this clause was withdrawn. No express permission was given the United States to erect fortifications, but neither was it expressly forbidden. Great Britain insisted, however, before yielding up her rights under the old treaty, that the merchant ships of all countries be guaranteed the same treatment in time of peace. This is the basis of the English protest against letting American ships in the coastwise trade pass through the canal without paying toll. The American rejoinder is that these ships are engaged in a purely domestic trade, and therefore it is a purely domestic question. It is very unlikely that the United States will withdraw from this position.
