commencing labor, etc., in the construction of said canal, is to have
priority of claim to construct the same, and will be protected therein
by the parties to this treaty.

Art. 8. Both governments agree that protection shall be extended by
treaty stipulations, hereafter to be made and entered into, to other
communications or ways across said isthmus.

Art. 9. Treaty to be ratified by both governments and ratifications
exchanged at Washington within six months."

This treaty bears date April 19, 1850, and is still in force in all its
provisions.

Is there anything in the terms, conditions, or effect of this treaty,
which in any way tends to militate or conflict with the declarations of
the "Monroe Doctrine?"

To answer this question satisfactorily, and give a careful analysis of
the treaty, in all its details, would take more time and space than I am
at liberty to use; but I may be pardoned if I trespass a little and give
a few reasons why I am come to the conclusion that the effect of the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is to abrogate and annul to a great extent the
cardinal principle of the "Monroe Doctrine."

In the first place the "Monroe Doctrine" was the accepted policy of this
government as to all foreign intervention from 1823 to 1850, and with
some of the leading minds of the country it has never ceased to be the
paramount creed in the national catechism. During these twenty-seven
years the project of building an inter-oceanic canal had been