nd
edition does not permit me time to re-write the work, it seemed
advisable to reprint the study in its original form, correcting only
some misprints and leaving out the footnote on page 5. It had been
written _sine ira et studio_ and without further information than
that which could be gathered from the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, the Hay-Varilla Treaty, the Panama Canal Act,
and the Memorandum which President Taft left when signing that Act.
Hence, the reader is presented with a study which is absolutely
independent of the diplomatic correspondence, and he can exercise his
own judgment in comparing my arguments with those set forth _pro et
contra_ the British interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in
the despatches of Sir Edward Grey and Mr Knox.

L. O.

Cambridge,
_February 15, 1913_.

CONTENTS

I. Article III, No. 1 of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 and
Section 5 of the American Panama Canal Act of 1912, pp. 5-6--The
Memorandum of President Taft, pp. 7-9--The interpretation of Article
III of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty preferred by the United States, pp.
9-11.

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 V