Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: CHAPTER III NEUTRALITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT AND THE SUEZ RULES We find that by the preamble to the Hay-Paunce- fote Treaty its object is To remove any objection which may arise out of the Convention of 1850, commonly called the Clayton-Bul- wer Treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the United States, without impairing the general principle of neutralization, established in Article VIII of that Convention. The American people very clearly were determined that a participation by other nations in a canal built by us would not be permitted. Some of our statesmen strongly recommended the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer Convention and we had ample reasons for doing so, the Treaty having been violated in letter and spirit. This would doubtless have given rise to bad feeling as firm assertion of American rights for' some reason seems unpopular with a part of our people. Unquestionably the new treaty was executed to "save the face" of Great Britain for otherwise it must have been abrogated. So in order not to impair the general principle of neutralization we adopt certain rules in Article III of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty as a basis for such neutralization. It is stated that these rules are substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal. Much light will be thrown upon the controversy over the meaning of the Treaty by an examination of this convention which is given in the Appendix. For what is omitted is just as important as what is retained in clearing up the intention of the rules. The British contention is that under the rules as appearing in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, they are entitled to equal treatment because in a former treaty equal treatment was secured by joint protection an...