ad no _de facto_ possessions, while Great Britain had,
the clause binding both not to "occupy" any part of Central America or
the Mosquito Coast necessitated the abandonment of such territory as
Great Britain was already actually occupying or exercising dominion
over; and the United States demanded the complete abandonment of the
British protectorate over the Mosquito Indians. It seems to be a just
conclusion that when in 1852 the Bay Islands were erected into a British
"colony" this was a flagrant infraction of the treaty; that as regards
Belize the American arguments were decidedly stronger, and more correct
historically; and that as regards the Mosquito question, inasmuch as a
protectorate seems certainly to have been recognized by the treaty, to
demand its absolute abandonment was unwarranted, although to satisfy the
treaty Great Britain was bound materially to weaken it.

In 1859-1860, by British treaties with Central American states, the Bay
Islands and Mosquito questions were settled nearly in accord with the
American contentions.[2] But by the same treaties Belize was accorded
limits much greater than those contended for by the United States. This
settlement the latter power accepted without cavil for many years.

Until 1866 the policy of the United States was consistently for
inter-oceanic canals open equally to all nations, and unequivocally
neutralized; indeed, until 1880 there was practically no official
divergence from this policy. But in 1880-1884 a variety of reasons were
advanced why the United States might justly repudiate at will the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.[3] The new policy was based on national
self-interest. The arguments advanced on its behalf were quite
indefensible in law and history, and although the position of the United
States in 1850-1860 was in general the stronger in history, law and
political ethics, that of Great Britain was even more conspicuously the
stronger in the years 1880-1884. In 1885 the former government reverted
to its traditional policy, and the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1902, which
replaced the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, adopted the rule of neutralization
for the Panama Canal.

See the collected diplomatic correspondence in I.D. Travis, _History
of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty_ (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1899); J.H. Latane,
_Diplomatic Relations of the United States and Spanish America_
(Baltimore, 1900); T.J. Lawrence, _Disputed Questions of Modern
International Law_ (2nd ed., C