The Panama Canal Conflict between Great Britain and the United States of America: A StudyOppenheim, L. (Lassa)
History
The Panama Canal Conflict between Great Britain and the United States of America: A Study
Oppenheim, L. (Lassa)
Great Britain. Treaties, etc. United States, 1901 Nov. 18; Panama Canal (Panama)
II. The claim of the United States that she has granted the use of
the Panama Canal under a conditional most-favoured-nation clause, pp.
11-14--The United States has never possessed the power of refusing to
grant the use of the Panama Canal to vessels of foreign nations on
terms of entire equality, p. 15--Such use is the condition under which
Great Britain consented to the substitution of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty for the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, p. 16.
III. If the use of the Panama Canal by vessels of foreign nations
were derived from most-favoured-nation treatment, the United States
would not be bound to submit to the rules of Article III, Nos. 2-6, of
the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, p. 17--The Panama Canal would then lose its
neutral character and would be in danger of eventually being made the
theatre of war, p. 18--But it is the intention of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty permanently to neutralise the Panama Canal, p. 18--The three
objects of the neutralisation of an Inter Oceanic Canal, pp. 19-20--Is
the United States, under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, subjected to more
onerous conditions than Turkey and Egypt are under the Suez Canal
Treaty?, pp. 20-22.
IV. Six reasons for the untenability of the American interpretation
of Article III, No. 1, of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, p. 23--The
stipulation of Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, p. 23--The
motive for, and the condition of, the substitution of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty for the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, p. 24--The rules of the Suez
Canal Treaty which serve as the basis of the neutralisation of the
Panama Canal, p. 25--Literal meaning of the words "all nations," p.
26--Importance of Article IV of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, p. 26--The
various contingencies contemplated by Article II of the same treaty, p.
27.
V. The American contention that the exemption of American coasting
trade vessels from the payment of canal tolls does not discriminate
against foreign vessels, p. 29--Every vessel shall bear a proportionate
part of the cost of the Panama Canal, p. 30--Meaning of the term
"coasting trade" as upheld by the United States, pp. 30-33--Coasting
trade vessels of the United States can trade with Mexican and South
American ports, p. 33--Any special favour to a particular nation
involves discrimination against other nations, p. 34.
VI. Is the United States prevented from refunding to her vessels the
tolls levied upon them for use in the Panama Canal?, pp. 34-35--Difference
of such refunding from exempting the vessels concerned from the payment
of tolls, p. 35.
VII. Prominent members of the Senate and many American newspapers
condemn the special privileges granted to American vessels by the
Panama Canal Act, p. 36--The defeated Bard Amendment of 1900, p. 37.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account