¹ Neutralization, by Cyrus French, Wicker Google Scholar, M. A., LL.B., B. C. L., Oxon. Henry, Frowde , Oxford University Press, London, New York and Toronto, 1911 Google Scholar.

² A Handbook on Public International Law, by Dr.T. J., Lawrence, Part IV, p. 140 Google Scholar.

³ A Handbook on Public International Law , by Dr.T. J., Lawrence, p. 141 Google Scholar.

⁴ Ibid. For an instructive discussion of Neutrality and Neutralization, see Chapter XIV of Dr.Holland’s, Studies in International Law, entitled “The International Position of the Suez Canal.” Google Scholar

⁵ Malloy’s Treaties and Conventions, Vol. I, p. 312.

⁶ Malloy’s Treaties and Conventions, Vol. II, pp. 1354–1355.

⁷ Senate Ex. K, 57th Congress, 2d Session, January 24, 1903 (injunction of secrecy removed), p. 5.

⁸ Senate Ex. K, 57th Congress, 2d Session, January 24, 1903 (injunction of secrecy removed), p. 6.

⁹ Ibid., p. 6.

¹⁰ Malloy’s Treaties and Conventions, Vol. I, p. 783.

¹¹ Moore’s Inter. Law Dig., III, p. 10.

¹² Richardson’s Presidents’ Messarres, Vol. IV, pp. 511–513.

¹³ Richardson’s Presidents’ Messages, Vol. IV, pp. 511–513.

¹⁴ ”Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and Monroe Doctrine,” Senate Ex. Doe. No. 194, 47th Congress, 1st Session, p. 192.

¹⁵ See the rules for the neutralization of the canal printed in the margin, infra, p. 37.

¹⁶ Reports of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1789–1901, pp. 639,640.

¹⁷ Article III. The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralization of such ship canal, the following Rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that is to say:

1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.

2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.

3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the services.

Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war of the belligerents.

4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch.

5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal, within 3 marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time, except in case of distress, and in such case, shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent.

6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all work necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes of this treaty, and in time of war, as in time of peace, shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents, and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of the canal. — Malloy’s Treaties and Conventions, Vol. I, pp. 782–783.

¹⁸ Moore’s Inter. Law Dig., III, p. 3.

¹⁹ On the question of fortifying the canal, see the following articles which have appeared ,in this JOURNAL: “Neutralization of the Panama Canal,” by Peter C., Haim, Vol. 3, p. 354 (April, 1909)Google Scholar; “Fortification at Panama,” by George W., Davis, Vol. 3, p. 885 (October, 1909)Google Scholar; “The Real Status of the Panama Canal as Regards Neutralization,” by H. S., Knapp, Vol. 4, p. 314 (April, 1910)Google Scholar; “Fortification of the Panama Canal,” by Richard, Olney, Vol. 5, p. 298 (April, 1911)Google Scholar; “The Right to Fortify the Panama Canal,” by Eugene, Wambaugh, Vol. 5, p. 615 (July, 1911)Google Scholar; “The Canal Fortifications and the Treaty,” by Crammond, Kennedy, Vol. 5, p. 620 (July, 1911)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Moore’s Inter. Law Dig., Vol. III, p. 2.

²¹ Richardson’s Presidents’ Messages, Vol. V, p. 370.

²² Views of the Minority, signed John T., Morgan, and reprinted in Reports of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1789–1901, Vol. VIII, pp. 668–670 Google Scholar.

^22a Senate Document No. 268, 56th Congress, 1st Session, p. 35.

²³ Reprinted in Reports of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1789–1901, Vol. VIII, p. 637.

²⁴ ”Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and Monroe Doctrine,” Senate Ex. Doc. No. 194, 47th Congress, 1st Session, p. 174.

²⁵ Senate Document, No. 85, 57th Congress, 1st Session, injunction of secrecy removed, p. 16.

²⁶ Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and Monroe Doctrine,” Senate Ex. Doc. No. 194, 47th Congress, 1st Session, p. 113.

²⁷ Ibid,pp. 137, 138.

²⁸ “Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and Monroe Doctrine,” Senate Ex. Doc. No. 194, 47th Congress, 1st Session, p. 138.

²⁹ ”Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and Monroe Doctrine,” Senate Ex. Doc. No. 194, 47th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 145, 146.

³⁰ Reports of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1789–1901, Vol. VIII, pp. 641. 642.

³¹ Moore’s Inter. Law Dig., III, p. 215.

³² Senate Document, No. 54, 57th Congress, 1st Session.Report of the Isthmian. Canal Commission, 1899–1901, p. 254.