Subject: Ought the United States Government to construct an interoceanic canal?

Brief for the Affirmative.

E. J. Blossom, C. H. Burdett.

I. An inter-oceanic canal is highly desirable.

"Nicaragua Canal," by General Grant.

North Am. Rev., vol. 132.

II. There is no likelihood of a canal being built unless by the U. S. Government.

Unratified Treaty with Nicaragua. See N. Y. Semi-Weekly Tribune, Dec. 19, 1884.

III. There are positive advantages of a canal under the U. S. Government.

IV. The people of the U. S. should be guided by the principles of the "Monoe Doctrine"-to wit, a canal under American control.

Pres. Hayes' Message, Mar. 8, 1880; Correspondence of Sec. Blaine and Sec. Frelinghuysen with Lord Granville, For. Rel. 1882.

I. The provisions of the proposed treaty of 1884 with Nicaragua are in harmony with this policy.

Text of the Treaty, N. Y. Semi-Weekly Tribune, Dec. 19, 1884; Tucker's

Monroe Doctrine, chapt. 1; The Inter-Oceanic Canal and the Monroe Doctrine in House Reports, 3d Session, 46 Cong. Rep., 224.

II. The Bulwer-Clayton Treaty is not an obstacle to the U. S. control of an inter-oceanic canal. This treaty is now voidable.

Wheaton's Digest of Int. Law, Vol. II, 15 of; When treaties become voidable see Int. Law, Hall, p. 294-297; The Bulwer-Clayton Treaty; Treaties and Conventions of the U. S., p. 377; Lawrence's Essays on Mod. Int. Law, Essay III, Part I.

(a) The constant disputes which the interpretation of the treaty has occasioned show that there never can be an agreement as to the meaning of its provisions.

(b) England has persistently violated her agreement.

(c) The event provided for by the treaty never took place.

(d) The circumstances that gave rise to the treaty have materially changed, rendering its provisions ineffective.

(e) The additional treaties called for were never contracted.

Brief for the Negative.

F. H. Bottum, J. M. Gitterman.

I. Such a canal is forbidden by the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty:

Treaties and Conventions of the U. S. (Great Britain 1850), Clause VIII; Buchanan's message, Dec. 3, 1860; Hall's Internaitonal Law, 2nd ed. 111, 1, 5, note 2, pp 212, note 2, 214, note 2, 328, 329, 330, note 2. Blunschli 116, 5, 6, Page 321; Grotius, de Bello, etc. lib. II, cap. XV. 15; Lawrence's essays in International Law, 101, 111-115, 106, 120-132; Holland on Neutralization in Fortnightly Review for July, 1883; Pres. Taylor's message, Dec. 1, 1849, on Neutralization.

I. The treaty applies to any practicable canal.

II. The treaty is binding on the U. S.

III. Great Britain will not release the U. S.

(a) Because of importance to Great Britain.

(b) As an American power.

(c) As a maritime power.

Lawrence Essays, pp. 139-147, 124, 129-132, Essay III; Great Britain Bluebook. U. S. No. 1, 1882: (Blaine and Frelinghuysen) U. S. 1858. (Napier to Cass). Frelinghuysen to Lowell, U. S. No. 5, 1882 Dana's Wheaton, Int. Law. note 105; Clayton-Bulwer treaty (cit. ut sup.) 5.

II. It would seriously complicate our foreign relations.

I. (a) With interested European powers.

(b) With American powers in general;

(c) With Colombia or Nicaragua in particular.

II. Probable development of a coast line.

(a) Possibility of interference by European powers.

III. Difficulties of neutralization by European and American powers: Taylor's message Dec. 1, 1849.

IV. Consequent discarding of Monroe doctrine.

III. A canal is already assured without the interference of the United States.

I. The Panama canal is a certainty. Rodriques' Panama Canal, 153-58; Nation, XLV, 3.

II. No other canal can be remunerative.

(a) The only remaining route is the Nicaraguan.

Rodriques, 18-30; Ammen, the Certainty of the Nicaraguan Canal.

III. The Tehuantepec ship railroad would be cheaper and shorter

N. Am. Rev., 122.223-38; Corthell's "Errors and Fallacies in Rear-Admiral Ammen's Pamphlet."

IV. The economic effects on the United States would be evil.

V. It would lead to an extension of control over the Central American States.

Cong. Record, Dec.2, '79; Nation, XXXIX, 538.