it does not derive from the authority of that government. The right to use lands, to invest its money there, to change the water-courses, to occupy the territory and collect tolls, to regulate all its affairs, and to enjoy all the franchises and privileges that pertain to a corporation in the exercise of a grant, are derived from this concession or charter, and not from the general law of France. So I was illustrating my meaning by reference to the Panama Railroad Company. That Panama Railroad Company was chartered originally under a law of the State of New York (whether a general or special law, I do not know). It derived its general powers from that law, and was capable of suing and being sued in the United States for all its contracts. But all these rights, franchises, and privileges were enjoyed under the law of the Republic of Colombia. That is, it enjoyed its original organization for certain definite purposes in the United States. But no law that could be enacted in the United States, or that could be enacted in France, or anywhere else, could confer upon a company any right of property, or any franchise whatever, within the limits of the Republic of Colombia. For all its franchises it must look to Colombia alone. So that, in the enjoyment of all the rights or privileges which the company may acquire by the use of the money subscribed abroad, the company is answerable to the law of the Republic of Colombia, both as regards the execution of its concession and its terms, as well as the effect of its violation. That is, the concession confers upon the supreme court of New Granada the power to declare the contract forfeited, or the concession forfeited, in the event of the company attempting to confer any of its rights upon any foreign government.

She

Now, if any foreign government should undertake to exercise political or other control over that canal, the great question is what relations do the United States bear to that country (whether France or not). As to the question about how France has heretofore sought to accomplish this thing, I have not anything to say, for it may be admitted that the entire civilized world has been engaged in the solution of the great problem of an interoceanic canal. But suppose that one of the governments of Europe should undertake to interfere with the rights of this company down there, or with the rights of New Granada or Colombia, by attemping to destroy the neutrality of the canal, or by attémping to control it, or establish a protectorate over it, what relations do the United States bear to that question? By our treaty of 1848 with New Granada (which now stands as the treaty with Colombia) we have guaranteed, first, the neutrality of the canal, and, second, the sovereignty of New Granada over her own territory. That treaty is now in force. If a European government should undertake, therefore, to intervene with the sovereign of New Granada, what would be our relations to it? The Republic of Colombia is sovereign; just as sovereign as we are, and has as much right to build a canal within her jurisdiction as we have within ours. cannot be shorn of her authority over her own domestic affairs without a violation of the Monroe doctrine, because it was to protect that sovereignty that the Monroe doctrine was announced. What relations, then, would the United States bear to Colombia if any foreign government should undertake to control her affairs? We have guaranteed her independence; we have guaranteed the neutrality of the canal. Therefore, if the neutrality of the canal should be sought to be destroyed by any foreign government, or if any foreign government should undertake to attack her sovereignty, she would have the right, under that treaty, to call upon us to interfere and we would interfere. I go a step farther than that, and say that because of the peculiar phraseology of that section of the treaty of 1848, and because of our own relations to the South American States, we may of ourselves interfere without waiting to be called upon by the Government of Colombia. So that we have the key to the entire situation in our own hands, and the whole problem is solved. It does not become necessary, therefore, in this particular crisis of our affairs that we should reassert any doctrine specially on the subject; but inasmuch as we are in a position to avenge whatever insult may be offered to Colombia, and to maintain her rights whether we shall he called upon or not, we have, as I say, the complete key to the entire situation in our own hands. So that if France or England or any other government should seek to obtain political control on the isthmus, we have the right and power to resist the attempt.

Mr. KING. Yesterday before the Committee on the Interoceanic Canal a joint resolution was presented to you and read by you, and I understood you to say that you did not antagonize it at all.

Mr. THOMPSON. I did not antagonize the first section of the resolution. (Reading.) "That the establishment of any form of protectorate by any one of the powers of Europe over any of the independent states of this continent, or the introduction from any quarter of a scheme or policy which would carry with it a right to any European power to interfere with their concerns, or to control in any other manner their destiny, or the transfer to any such power, by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way, of any of those states, or any portion thereof, is a measure to which this government has, in the declaration of President Monroe in his message of December second, eighteen hundred and twenty-three, and known as the Monroe doctrine, avowed its opposition, and which, should the attempt be made, it will regard and treat as dangerous to our peace, prosperity, and safety."

I am not sure that you will find the declaration of President Monroe covering that ground.

Mr. RICE. You have referred to the declaration of Mr. Monroe as referring to these South American States; but is there not a principle underlying that declaration which comes into the consideration of this question? It was not because the United States were allies of the South American States that President Monroe announced that doctrine, but it was because the influence of the allied powers of Europe, as asserted on this continent, would be dangerous to the preservation and independence of our government. Now, does not that principle which underlies the Monroe doctrine come into the consideration of this question? If a foreign company, or a corporation, under the control and protection of a foreign government comes here and takes possession of a strip of land across the Isthmus of Panama, and proceeds to build a canal there, does not that bring up again the principle that underlies the Monroe doctrine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I have been endeavoring to draw a distinction between a private corporation and a foreign government.

Mr. RICE. But is not the corporation protected by the government that gives it life? Mr. THOMPSON. I do not think that any corporation created anywhere is protected anywhere else, in regard to rights of property, than where it enjoys its property.

Mr. RICE. Here is a French corporation which comes to Colombia and receives from Colombia certain concessions. The legal person that receives these concessions is a French person created under French law; is not that person entitled to the protection of the French Government?

Mr. THOMPSON. So would any individual citizen be entitled.

Mr. RICE. Suppose that Lieutenant Wyse himself had undertaken to build a Panama canal, not as a corporation but as an individual, he would have been a French citizen and subject to French law.

Mr. THOMPSON. Undoubtedly; and if you or I were to enjoy rights of property in a foreign country, under a concession from a foreign government, our government would undoubtedly protect us in the enjoyment of those rights if they were invaded. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. MORTON. I understood you to say that the Panama Company, organized under French law, had authority only to receive subscriptions for stock?

Mr. THOMPSON. It had power, necessarily, to get money and to take it to Colombia. Mr. MORTON. Do you mean to say that its authority is limited to that of a bank of issue?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think not.

Mr. RICE. The concession made to Mr. Wyse provided, in the fourth section, as follows:

"4th. The grantees shall then have a period of two years to organize a universal joint stock company, which shall take charge of the enterprise, and of the construction of the canal. This term shall commence from the date mentioned in the preceding paragraph."

That company, as I understand it, is a French company, organized under French law; am I right in that?

Mr. THOMPSON. You and I misunderstand each other in the terms that we use. My idea is this: There was an organization calling itself the International Interoceanic Canal Association, presided over by Mr. Turr, which sent its deputy or agent, Lieutenant Wyse, to Colombia to get this concession.

Mr. RICE. The company to which you refer was a French company?

Mr. THOMPSON. Undoubtedly. Then a new corporation was created by virtue of that concession or charter, which is the Universal Interoceanic Canal Association. Then this new corporation got such power under the general law of France as enables it to carry out the object of its creation by subscription of stock.

Mr. RICE. It first having acquired all the rights conceded to Lieutenant Wyse.
Mr. THOMPSON. Undoubtedly so.

Mr. KING. I would like you to answer my question as to the joint resolution reported from the Select Committeee on the Interoceanic Ship Canal.

Mr. THOMPSON. As far as the first section of the joint resolution is concerned, I have not the slightest objection to it in the world; but when I come to see the second section, I should say that it would be more expressive and perhaps less troublesome if it were to assert that it would be desirable for the Government of the United States to obtain control and protectorate over the canal, and that the President of the United States be requested to obtain that control by diplomatic action.

Mr. KING. I wish to correct an impression that was made on my mind yesterday, and on the minds of other members of the committee. We received the impression from you that you did not antagonize the joint resolution.

Mr. THOMPSON. Not the first section.

Mr. KING. I mean as a whole.

Mr. THOMPSON. I did not state that the second section was fully approved by me in its broad terms. If I had to commit myself to that second section, I would rather sug

gest some alteration in its phraseology. I undoubtedly hold the position that whenever a foreign government shall undertake to interfere or to acquire political control over any canal on the isthmus, it is the duty of the United States to intervene to protect its own rights.

Mr. KING. What would be the effect of a company, having a charter or concession from Colombia, with its headquarters in France, and subject to the laws and control of French courts, investing a capital of from two to four hundred millions of dollars in the Republic of Colombia, employing perhaps from ten to twelve thousand men, and thereby establishing, as it were, a power or propagandism?

In

In

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not think that that would necessarily follow by any means. the first place, do not suppose that any such sum of money will be spent there. the second place, I do not suppose that any political protectorate or control of the canal by any foreign government would necessarily follow. If the Government of the United States possesses the power, as I think it does under the treaty of 1848, to protect the neutrality of the canal and the sovereignty of New Granada, then the whole question is solved, because then we are in a position to say to all the nations of the earth, "You shall not interfere to destroy this neutrality." All the other nations, as well as ourselves, are interested in the neutrality of the canal, and under the treaty of 1848 we hold in our own hands the key to the situation. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty does not apply to the Panama Canal, but has reference to a canal in Central America.

Mr. RICE. Why does it not apply to the Panama Canal?

Mr. THOMPSON. Because the treaty is confined to Central America, and Panama is not in Central America, but in South America.

Mr. RICE. You are mistaken about that. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty applies “to any canal across the isthmus, which connects North and South America." Adjourned to Thursday, 20th instant.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 20, 1881

Present, the Chairman, Messrs. Wilson, Bicknell, Hill, King, Rice, and Killinger.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMPSON CONTINUED.

Mr. Thompson resumed his argument before the committee. He said: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: You will all recollect the position which I took at the last meeting of the committee in reference to the Monroe doctrine. I stated that it was designed simply to resist the encroachments of the allied powers on the independent republics of the American continent; that we had no right, and claimed no right on our part to interfere with the domestic concerns of these republics; but that, in view of the fact that they had become independent in imitation of our example, we felt that (being in our neighborhood) any attempt to destroy or interfere with their rights of self-government would be a menace to our institutions. I stated that in that sense it had become, not the policy of the government (because an executive department cannot itself establish a policy), but it had become a fixed sentiment in the public mind of this country that such an aggression on the rights of independent republics ought not to be tolerated. The allied powers of Europe were then supposed to be omnipotent. They were controlling, in a great degree, the affairs of Europe. They had driven Napoleon from power, and were supposed to be powerful enough to shape and control the destinies of the entire world. And while we were weak and not strong enough to resist them in their efforts, perhaps, in the field of battle, we were at least disposed to guard our interests by declaring to the world what we would do in the event of their attempting to disturb or to destroy the independence of those republics. It is said (and I do not know whether it is precisely true or not) that the suggestion that we should take that position came from Mr. Canning, prime minister of England. If it did, it was undoubtedly an effort on his part not to advance our interests or the interests of the South American republics, but to shield the Government of Great Britain against the possible aggressions of the allied powers of Europe-England not being then one of those allied powers. Whether these utterances were in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Canning or not, we first find them among our state papers in the diplomatic correspondence of Mr. Adams, while Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe; and I propose now to call your attention to the view which Mr. Adams himself took of the declaration which is contained in Mr. Monroe's message of 1823, Mr. Adams being at that time Secretary of State. I do not know that any other members of Mr. Monroe's cabinet have ever undertaken to state their views of this declaration of the President, except Mr. Adams himself, through his Secretary of

State (after he became President), and Mr. Calhoun in the debate on the Yucatan matter.

On the 25th of March, 1825, while Mr. Clay was Secretary of State, under Mr. Adams, he instructed Mr. Poinsett, then American minister to Mexico, to bring to the notice of the Mexican Government the principles asserted in 1823 by Mr. Monroe. He stated them to be (and I take it that this statement was authoritative), first, "that the American continents will not henceforth be considered a subject for future colonization by any European powers"; and, second, " that, whilst we do not desire to interfere in Europe with the political system of the allied powers, we should regard as dangerous to our peace and safety any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere." And, referring to what the administration of Mr. Monroe had done towards the establishment of these principles, Mr. Clay says, "The President, who then formed a part of it, continues entirely to coincide in both." And, in a letter communicating these instructions, Mr. Clay set forth the views of Mr. Adams's administration, as follows: "If, indeed, an attempt by force had been made by allied Europe to subvert the liberties of the southern nations on this continent, and to erect upon the ruins of their free institutions monarchical principles, the people of the United States would have stood pledged, in the opinion of their Executive, not to any foreign state, but to themselves and their posterity, to resist to the utmost such attempt.”

That is the definition of what is understood to be the Monroe doctrine by Mr. Adams himself, speaking through his Secretary of State. England may have had, at that time, an interest in having that doctrine again announced, for the reason that she supposed that the French Government was then seeking to acquire possessions in the West Indies, and thus (by having the key to the Gulf) to control the destinies of Mexico, and ultimately to acquire possession of that country. And the fact that such a scheme as that was in contemplation was brought to the notice of Mr. Poinsett by the British chargé d'affaires at the city of Mexico, which resulted in his communication to the State Department at Washington of the supposition entertained by Great Britain; and these instructions were the result.

Now the whole doctrine culminates in this: that the independence of the South American states is to be preserved, and that there shall be no attempt on the part of any European power or government to interfere with their right of self-governmentin other words, with their right to manage their own affairs in their own way. We therefore stand to-day in precise accordance with the Monroe doctrine, on the ground that those states are independent. We treat with them. We have diplomatic relations with them. They exercise their jurisdiction over their own domestic affairs; they pass such laws as they regard necessary for the promotion of their own interests and for their general welfare; and they are just as independent in the government of their own domestic affairs as we are ourselves. Now, for their own protection as well as our own, it is our duty to see that they are not disturbed by any foreign government, and I apprehend that (whether with or without a policy) there is no diversity of sentiment on that subject; and that if there should be an attempt to plant the European system anywhere on the American continent, either by direction or by indirection, it would be our duty to say to the governments of Europe, not only that they should not endanger our free institutions, but that they should not disturb the independence of the States of any portion of the American continent. Hence I insist that, in any view which we may take of this matter, the Monroe doctrine culminates and settles itself in the entire absolute sovereignty and independence of the South American states. The Republic of Colombia is among them. I said the other day that that republic, in the exercise of her sovereign right over her own affairs, had granted what I call a charter to certain parties to build a canal. Why did she do it? There has been a good deal of diplomatic intercourse in regard to this matter between the Government of the United States and the Government of New Granada-now the Government of Colombia. Heretofore it has been a great object of the Government of the United States to preserve the neutrality of any transit route, whether it be constructed at one or the other of the places between the two continents. There has been a good deal of diplomatic intercourse between the two governments on the subject, and we have more than once expressed our desire to put ourselves in a position in which we would be able to control that neutrality, so that by no sort of possibility could possession, jurisdiction, protectorate, or control of that canal be acquired in the future by any foreign government. That is the position which we have always taken. So, when we entered into the treaty stipulation with Great Britain in 1850, in what is called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, we took especial care to provide that neither the Government of Great Britain nor the Government of the United States would undertake to acquire any exclusive jurisdiction or control over any part of Central America, especially over the Nicaragua Canal. You recollect that I stated the other day that I understood that treaty as applying to Central America and not to the entire isthmus. I am right, I think, in saying that its main feature (for I recollect the circumstances entirely well which caused the treaty to

be made) was to secure the absolute immunity of Nicaragua and all parts of Central America from any interference, either on the part of Great Britain or the United States. In the geographical position of Central and South America the Isthmus of Panama is not put as belonging to Central America, but to South America-Colombia, or New Granada, being a South American state. The difficulty in regard to that treaty grew out of a declaration which was made before the treaty was exchanged, and after its ratification, by the British minister, who, in communicating the result to his government, said that it was understood that the Government of Great Britain had under that treaty authority to enlarge what was known as British Honduras. Our Secretary of State, Mr. Clayton, became very much incensed at that, and threatened at the time that there should be no exchange of the treaty, because he regarded that statement of Mr. Bulwer's as taking advantage of him; but finally he made the exchange on the basis of a counterdeclaration of his own; so that the causes of complaint on our part, which arose out of the conduct of Great Britain subsequently to that time, grew out of the fact that Great Britain attempted to enlarge her dominions within territory which was inhibited to her by that treaty-I mean Central America-by extending her jurisdiction over Samana Bay and the Bay Islands. But the clause of the treaty which had reference to the whole isthmus, extending down to Panama, was a clause going farther than the one I have mentioned.

The fourth article of the treaty requires that both governments shall give a protectorate over any canal or railroad that shall be built outside of Central America, either in Tehuantepec (in Mexico) or in Panama, at the Isthmus of Panama. I have always thought that that treaty should have been abrogated long ago, for the reason that it puts us in a position of enjoying with England (if we enjoy it at all) à joint control; whereas, in my opinion, if we are entitled to any control at all, it is to be our own control, and is not to be shared with anybody else. For I favor, to the greatest possible extent, the control and protection of any scheme of internal improvements on the isthmus, and by the United States, to such an extent that they might be enabled at all times to protect the neutrality of the work, so that if ever, in the course of time, it shall come to pass that the flags which float there now shall float there no longer, then our flag shall float in their place, and that, if there shall be any protectorate or control ever acquired over that isthmus by any of the nations outside of the independent ones who now possess it, that control shall be ours. It may be obtained either by consent or by force. We are not ready for war, but the future may be saved by our still continuing to preserve and uphold the independence of those sovereign states. We are strong; we are powerful; we can afford to be just to them. From that they will infer our friendship. And then, whensoever the time shall come that any of the nations of Europe shall undertake to interfere with the rights of sovereignty of any of those South American states, or to control their domestic affairs, they will find a friend in us on whom they can rely for the enforcement of all our guarantees in the treaty, as well as for our own protection. Until that time comes, we have no right, unless we occupy the position of absolute guardians over them, to interfere with their domestic affairs.

I stated the other day that the Government of Colombia, exercising her power of sovereignty, had granted what I understood to be a charter to some gentlemen to construct a canal. She had asked the United States of America, in 1869 and 1870, to build this canal. There are two treaties to be found in the communication from the Secretary of State, one made in 1869 and the other in 1870, in which there is conceded to the United States the right to build that canal; and in one of them-the first-that right is not only conceded to the United States, but it is absolutely made its duty to build the canal, if it should be found practicable. That treaty is found in the message from the President of the United States-Executive Document No. 112, Forty-sixth Congress, second session, commencing at page 34. That treaty was communicated by Mr. Johnson, as President, to the Senate on the 15th of February, 1869. I will not read the treaty, but will refer to its contents. The United States of Colombia agree and consent that the United States of America shall make, and the United States of America agree to make, the necessary survey for such ship canal, and, if they ascertain the same to be feasible, then to locate the same, together with all the necessary appendages, appurtenances, &c. In article 3 the United States of Colombia stipulated and agreed not to undertake or allow the opening of any other interoceanic canal or of any other new railway through or across their territory. Then, in article 5, the United States of America agreed to construct said canal, and to establish a tariff of tolls-the political sovereignty, however, of Colombia being retained by that government. Article 9 provides that the United States of America shall have the right to use the canal for the passage of troops, munitions, and vessels of war in time of peace-a right which is conceded to no other government but ours. Then it is provided in article 13 that the United States of America may by law devolve all their rights, franchises, duties, property, and obligations, &c., upon any individual citizen or association of citizens of the United States. That treaty was signed by the minister resident and plenipotentiary of the United States of America, and by the two