of that territory. It is therefore on those who seek to cut down the plain and ordinary meaning of the words of Art. III to show that some restriction was intended; if no such evidence is given, the words must be read as meaning what they say. But the evidence is all the other way, for the history of the bargain between the two parties proves, as I have submitted to you, that equality of treatment was intended, from the first up to the last, to be the paramount and fundamental condition of both Conventions, and there is no reason for holding that the purpose of the Article is limited to neutralization in time of war.
In further support of Mr. Taft's argument it is contended that the remaining rules of Article I, those for instance which deal with blockade and revictualling and the embarkation of troops and the like, do not apply to the United States, since the Canal is now in their territory and they can do what they please on it; it follows that Rule i must be applied in the same way and be read as referring to all nations other than the United States. But here again the answer made by His Majesty's Government appears to be complete. The Rules were adapted from those applied in the Treaty of Constantinople of 1888 to the Suez Canal, but they were adapted at a time when it was not contemplated that the United States would be the practical sovereign of the territory through which the Canal passed, as they have since become. Read in that light the whole of the Rules did apply to the United States, but in the Suez Convention there are further Articles reserving the right of Turkey and Egypt as the territorial sovereigns, and if the present condition of affairs in Panama had been anticipated similar reservations would have been added to this Treaty of 1901. The American argument on this point could not have
