This presupposition in no way agrees with the historical facts. When the conclusion of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was under consideration, in 1901, the United States had not made the Canal, indeed did not own the territory through which the Canal has now been made; nor was the United States at that time absolutely unfettered with regard to the projected Canal, for she was bound by the stipulations of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850. Under this treaty she was bound by more onerous conditions with regard to a future Panama Canal than she is now under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. Since she did not own the Canal territory and had not made the Canal at the time when she agreed with Great Britain upon the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, she ought not to maintain that she granted to foreign nations the privilege of using _her_ Canal under a conditional most-favoured-nation clause, she herself remaining unfettered with regard to the conditions under which she could allow her own vessels the use of the Canal. The historical facts are five in number:-- Firstly, in 1850, Great Britain and the United States, by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, agreed that neither of them would ever obtain or maintain for herself any exclusive control over a future Panama Canal, or fortify it, or occupy or colonise any part of Central America; that the Canal should be neutralised, should be open to the vessels of all nations under conditions of equality; and so forth. Secondly, in 1901, the two parties to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty agreed to substitute for it the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, Article II of which expressly stipulates _inter alia_ that the Canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States and that the said Government, _subject to the provisions of Articles III and IV_, shall have the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the Canal. Thirdly, the parties agreed--see the preamble of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty--that the general principle of the neutralisation of the Canal as established by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty should not be impaired, and that, therefore, the United States--see Article III of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty--agrees to adopt as the basis of the neutralisation of the Canal certain rules, substantially the same as those embodied in the Suez Canal Convention of 1888, and amongst these a rule concerning the use of the Canal by vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality without discrimination against any such nation, or their citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise, such conditions and charges to be just and equitable. Fourthly, the parties agreed--see Article IV of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty--that no change of the territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the future Canal should affect the general principle of the neutralisation or the obligation of the parties under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.