Chapter X: Preface: To the Sixth Volume (9)

In his Message to Congress the next December, President
McKinley stated: "The contract of the Maritime Canal Company
of Nicaragua was declared forfeited by the Nicaraguan
Government on the 10th of October, on the ground of
nonfulfillment within the ten years' term stipulated in the
contract. The Maritime Canal Company has lodged a protest
against this action, alleging rights in the premises which
appear worthy of consideration. This Government expects that
Nicaragua will afford the protestants a full and fair hearing
upon the merits of the case." But another company had been put
into the place of the Maritime Canal Company, by action of
President Zelaya, of Nicaragua, who, in 1898, granted to
Edward Eyre and E. F. Cragin, who represented an American
Syndicate, the right to construct the canal when the contract
with the Maritime should have lapsed. This transaction,
however, lacked confirmation by Costa Rica and the United
States.

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1893-1900.
The Panama Canal Concession twice extended.
Formation of new company.

See (in this volume)
COLOMBIA: A. D. 1893-1900.

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1899 (December).
Transfer of the Panama Canal to an American company.

The transfer of the Panama Canal from the later French company
to an American company, chartered in New Jersey, was
accomplished in December, 1899. The new company received all
the property, rights, and powers of its French predecessor,
the consideration to be paid to the latter being mainly in the
form of shares in the American company.

[Image: Map of Central America showing the Isthmian Canal Routes]

{67}

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1900 (November).
Preliminary report of the Isthmian Canal Commission in
favor of the Nicaragua route.

The preliminary report of the Isthmian Canal Commission,
appointed under the Act of March 3, 1899, was presented to the
President on the 30th November, 1900, and communicated to
Congress at the opening of the session. The Commission
reported in favor of the Nicaragua route, essentially on the
lines laid down by the previous Nicaragua Canal Commission, as
defined above. It found that the choice of routes lies between
this and the route of the partly constructed Panama Canal, and
its discussion of the question presented the following views:

"(a) Between New York and San Francisco, the Nicaragua Canal
route would be 377 nautical miles shorter than the Panama
route. Between New Orleans and San Francisco 579 miles would
be saved, and, in general, the distances between the Atlantic
and Pacific ports of the United States are less by way of
Nicaragua. Between our east coast and Yokohama and Shanghai
the Nicaragua route is somewhat shorter, but for the trade of
our eastern ports with the west coast of South America the
Panama route is not so long as the Nicaragua.

(b) A part of the saving in distance effected by using a
Nicaragua canal instead of one at Panama would be offset by
the longer time of transit at Nicaragua. An average steamer
would require twelve hours to make the passage through the
Panama Canal, and thirty-three through one across Nicaragua.
For a 10-knot steamer this difference of twenty-one hours
would be equivalent to 210 knots difference in distance, and
for a 13-knot steamer, the difference in time of transit would
be equivalent to 273 knots.

(c) The Nicaragua route would be the more favorable one for
sailing vessels because of the uncertain winds in the bay of
Panama. It would not be impossible for sailing vessels to use
the Panama Canal, but for average voyages between the two
seaboards of the United States, a sailing vessel would require
about nine days additional time to make the passage by way of
the Panama Canal. However, neither route would be much used by
sailing vessels, because of their inability to compete with
steamers. They would certainly not be able to compete with
steamers, both using the Panama Canal.

(d) For the promotion of the domestic trade of the United
States, the Nicaragua route would possess advantages over the
Panama route, because the distance between our two seaboards
is less. For our trade with Japan, China, the Philippines, and
Australia, the advantages of the two routes are nearly equal,
the distance by way of the Nicaragua route being slightly
less. For our trade with South America the Panama route is
shorter and more direct.

(e) The industrial changes which the Nicaragua Canal would
produce in the countries through which it will pass would be
great. Nicaragua and Costa Rica comprise a region capable of
producing a large amount of tropical products for which there
is a demand in Europe and the United States. A canal across
their territory would give a great impetus to their economic
development.

"A careful examination has been made of all the rights,
privileges, and franchises held and owned by corporations,
associations, and individuals at the different canal routes.
This necessarily included a study of the treaties relating to
the establishment of an interoceanic communication made by the
Republics, whose territory is to be occupied, and by the
United States, with one another, and also with foreign
governments. The treaties heretofore made exclude all idea of
a relinquishment of sovereignty over any of the proposed
routes. In most of them the right of transit and the innocent
use of the communication, whether by railway or canal, is
granted to the other contracting party, its citizens and
subjects, to be enjoyed upon equal terms with other
governments and people; and the leading commercial nations of
the world have committed themselves to the policy of
neutrality at the different routes, and some of them have
obligated themselves to use their influence to induce other
nations to agree to the same policy. No existing treaties
between the United States and the Republics of Nicaragua and
Costa Rica, or of Colombia, give our Government the right to
excavate and operate a maritime canal through any of these
countries. The concessions granted by the different Republics
through whose territory the lines of the projected canals
extend, in terms, exclude the right of the companies holding
them to transfer them to any foreign government, and further
treaty rights must be acquired to enable the United States to
undertake the excavation of a navigable waterway between the
two oceans in a governmental capacity. The only prior
obligations to corporations, associations, or individuals in
the way of a direct agreement between the United States and
Nicaragua authorizing our Government to construct a canal
across the territory of the latter, to be under its control,
management, and ownership, have been eliminated by the
forfeiture and termination of the contracts with the Maritime
Canal Company of Nicaragua and the Interoceanic Canal Company.
In view of this declaration the Commission has not made any
effort to ascertain the cost at which the concessions of these
companies can be purchased, for if these forfeitures are final
the rights formerly granted to these companies are not in the
way of diplomatic negotiations with the Government interested
to acquire the consent and authority necessary for the
construction of a canal by this route. The situation in Costa
Rica is practically the same.

"The situation at Panama is different. The Republic of
Colombia first granted a concession to the Panama Railroad
Company, giving it exclusive privileges on the Isthmus, which
will continue according to modifications afterwards made for
ninety-nine years from August 16, 1867. A later concession to
the Panama Canal Company required it to enter into some
amicable arrangement with the railroad company under which the
former might occupy the territory along or near its line. The
canal company acquired by purchase a majority of the railroad
stock, and the necessary arrangements were made. This stock is
now under the control of the New Panama Canal Company, which
gives it a directing influence in both organizations. The
canal concession is to continue according to its latest
extension for ninety-nine years from the day on which the
canal shall be wholly or partially opened to public service,
and the date fixed for this in the contract is October 31,
1910. Should it fail and the concession be forfeited the
company will still have exclusive control of the territory
through which its line extends till 1966 under the railroad
concession. The canal company is absolutely prohibited to cede
or mortgage its rights under any consideration whatever to any
nation or foreign government under penalty of forfeiture.
{68}
The contract with the railroad company contains a like
prohibition and declares further that the pain of forfeiture
will be incurred by the mere act of attempting to cede or
transfer its privilege to a foreign government and such an act
is declared absolutely null and of no value or effect. These
concessions, if acquired by the United States, would not give
to the Government the control and ownership evidently
contemplated by the law, that is, an absolute ownership in
perpetuity. The right under the contract with the railroad
company is designated as 'the use and possession' of the
property for ninety-nine years, and it is provided that 'at
the expiration of the term of the privilege' and by the sole
fact of the expiration, the Government of Colombia shall be
substituted in all the rights of the company and shall
immediately enter into the enjoyment of the line of
communication, its fixtures, dependencies and all its
products. The right of the canal company is substantially of
the same character. … An examination of the charter rights of
the New Panama Canal Company under the general incorporation
laws of France and the special legislation in its behalf
resulted in finding an enactment, included in a law passed
June 8, 1888, requiring that all the plant necessary for the
construction of the canal shall be manufactured in France and
that the material must be of French origin. This being the
situation, it was manifest that, even if the privileges of the
companies could be purchased by and transferred to the United
States, they were encumbered with charges and conditions that
would not permit this Government to exercise all the rights of
complete ownership over a canal constructed by it at the
Panama route. A new arrangement is necessary if the United
States is to undertake such a work. The relinquishment by the
canal company, with the consent of Colombia, of the privileges
it has under existing concessions, for a consideration to be
agreed upon with the United States, would leave the way open
for treaty negotiations between the two governments to
ascertain whether Colombia will consent to the occupation of
its territory by the United States for the construction of a
canal to be under Government control, management, and
ownership, and, if so, whether they can agree upon terms
mutually satisfactory. The situation is peculiar, as there are
three parties in interest. The United States can enter into no
agreement with Colombia that does not have the approval of the
company, and the concessions do not permit the company to
transfer or attempt to transfer its rights to a foreign
government.

"The Commission has, however, attempted to ascertain the views
of the New Panama Canal Company with reference to a
disposition and transfer of its rights. Interviews were had
with its president and other officers during the visit to
Paris and on several occasions from time to time since then,
and on the 10th day of April last a formal letter was
addressed to Mr. Maurice Hutin, the president and
director-general, asking whether he was in a position to name
terms upon which the company would dispose of its property and
interests to the United States. At different times since then
the subject has been discussed by the representatives of the
company with the Commission and its committee on rights,
privileges, and franchises, but no formal reply to the letter
was received until this report was being closed. These
conferences and correspondence have resulted in no offer to
dispose of the property and privileges of the company to the
United States upon any terms, even with the consent of the
Colombian Government, nor has the company expressed any desire
or wish to enter into any negotiations with the United States
with reference to such a disposition of its property and
rights. It was proposed by President Hutin that the United
States might obtain control of the canal scheme as a majority
stockholder of a new organization to which the present company
could contribute its concession, plant, unfinished work, and
other property, at a valuation to be determined by
arbitration, and he expressed the opinion that such an
arrangement could be made without violating the concessions.
But this must include some plan for the protection of the
minority stockholders in the financial management, for they
would favor a policy that would realize liberal dividends in
proportion to the commercial value of the canal, while the
policy of this Government might be to reduce tolls and charges
to the cost of maintenance or even below it, if the interests
of the people would be thereby advanced. The plan, however,
which the company prefers is that outlined in its letter of
February 28, 1899, addressed to the President of the United
States, which has been published in Senate Document No. 188,
Fifty-Sixth Congress, first session, pages 41 and 42. This was
to reincorporate under the laws of New York or some other
State, and accord to the United States such representation in
its board of directors and such opportunity to acquire an
interest in its securities as its concessions permitted. And
an assurance was added to the effect that if the United States
should desire to perpetuate or enlarge its existing rights and
privileges acquired under the treaty of 1846, the company
would conform to such supplemental treaty as might be entered
into between the United States and Colombia. The Commission
having no other authority than to make investigations and
obtain information submits this result of its efforts to
ascertain upon what terms the rights and privileges at the
Panama route can be obtained. It is proper to add that the
examination of the title of the present company to the canal
property under the laws of France and Colombia has satisfied
this Commission that the New Panama Canal Company has the
entire control and management of the canal property. …

"The estimated cost of building the Nicaragua Canal is about
$58,000,000 more than that of completing the Panama Canal,
leaving out the cost of acquiring the latter property. This
measures the difference in the magnitude of the obstacles to
be overcome in the actual construction of the two canals, and
covers all physical considerations such as the greater or less
height of dams, the greater or less depth of cuts, the
presence or absence of natural harbors, the presence or
absence of a railroad, the exemption from or liability to
disease, and the amount of work remaining to be done. The New
Panama Canal Company has shown no disposition to sell its
property to the United States. Should that company be able and
willing to sell, there is reason to believe that the price
would not be such as would make the total cost to the United
States less than that of the Nicaragua Canal. … In view of all
the facts, and particularly in view of all the difficulties of
obtaining the necessary rights, privileges, and franchises on
the Panama route, and assuming that Nicaragua and Costa Rica
recognize the value of the canal to themselves and are
prepared to grant concessions on terms which are reasonable
and acceptable to the United States, the Commission is of the
opinion that 'the most practicable and feasible route for' an
isthmian canal to be 'under the control, management, and
ownership of the United States' is that known as the Nicaragua
route."

_United States, 56th Congress,
2d Session, Senate Doc. Number 5._

{69}

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1900 (December).
The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between the United States and
Great Britain, to facilitate the construction of the Canal,
as amended by the United States Senate.

In his annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1900, President
McKinley had the following to say on the subject of the
Interoceanic Canal: "The all important matter of an
interoceanic canal has assumed a new phase. Adhering to its
refusal to reopen the question of the forfeiture of the
contract of the Maritime Canal Company, which was terminated
for alleged non-execution in October, 1899, the Government of
Nicaragua has since supplemented that action by declaring the
so-styled Eyre-Cragin option void for non-payment of the
stipulated advance. Protests in relation to these acts have
been filed in the State Department, and are under
consideration. Deeming itself relieved from existing
engagements, the Nicaraguan Government shows a disposition to
deal freely with the canal question either in the way of
negotiations with the United States or by taking measures to
promote the waterway. Overtures for a convention to effect the
building of a canal under the auspices of the United States
are under consideration. In the mean time, the views of the
Congress upon the general subject, in the light of the report
of the Commission appointed to examine the comparative merits
of the various trans-isthmian ship canal projects, may be
awaited. I commend to the early attention of the Senate the
convention with Great Britain to facilitate the construction
of such a canal, and to remove any objection which might arise
out of the convention commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty."

On the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty:

See, in volume 4,
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

The Convention thus referred to was negotiated by the
Secretary of State of the United States. Mr. John Hay, with
the British Ambassador to the United States, Lord Pauncefote.
It was signed at Washington on the 5th of February, 1900, and
communicated by the President to the Senate on the same day.
The action of the Senate on the Convention was not taken until
after the opening of the session of Congress in December. It was
then ratified (December 20), but with three amendments which
seriously changed its character. The following is the text of
the Convention as ratified, with the Senate amendments
indicated:

"ARTICLE I.
It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the
auspices of the Government of the United States, either
directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to
individuals or corporations or through subscription to or
purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the
provisions of the present Convention, the said Government
shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such
construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for
the regulation and management of the canal.

"ARTICLE II.
The High Contracting Parties, desiring to preserve and
maintain the 'general principle' of neutralization established
in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer Convention, [Added by
the Senate] which convention is hereby superseded, adopt, as
the basis of such neutralization, the following rules,
substantially as embodied in the convention between Great
Britain and certain other Powers, signed at Constantinople,
October 29, 1888, for the Free Navigation of the Suez Maritime
Canal, that is to say:

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

2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of
war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within
it.

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 service. 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 despatch.

5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters
adjacent to the canal, within three 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. [Added by the Senate] It is
agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing
conditions and stipulations in sections numbered one, two,
three, four and five of this article shall apply to measures
which the United States may find it necessary to take for
securing by its own forces the defense of the United States
and the maintenance of public order.

6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works
necessary to the construction, maintenance and operation of
the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes
of this Convention, 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.

7. No fortifications shall be erected commanding the canal or
the waters adjacent. 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.

"ARTICLE III.
The High Contracting Parties will, immediately upon the
exchange of the ratifications of this Convention, bring it to
the notice of the other Powers [and invite them to adhere to
it].
[Stricken out by the Senate.]

"ARTICLE: IV.
The present Convention shall be ratified by the President of
the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and by Her Britannic Majesty; and the
ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at London
within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if
possible."

_United States, 56th Congress, 1st Session,
Senate Document Number 160._

{70}

Anticipating the ratification of the above Treaty with Great
Britain, the President of the United States, in December,
1900, concluded agreements with the governments of Costa Rica
and Nicaragua, both of which were in the following terms:

"It is agreed between the two Governments that when the
President of the United States is authorized by law to acquire
control of such portion of the territory now belonging to [Costa
Rica and Nicaragua] as may be desirable and necessary on which
to construct and protect a canal of depth and capacity
sufficient for the passage of vessels of the greatest tonnage
and draft now in use from a point near San Juan del Norte, on
the Caribbean Sea, via Lake Nicaragua, to Brito, on the
Pacific Ocean, they mutually engage to enter into negotiations
with each other to settle the plan and the agreements, in detail,
found necessary to accomplish the construction and to provide
for the ownership and control of the proposed canal. As
preliminary to such future negotiations it is forthwith agreed
that the course of said canal and the terminals thereof shall
be the same that were stated in a treaty signed by the
plenipotentiaries of the United States and Great Britain on
February 5, 1900, and now pending in the Senate of the United
States for confirmation, and that the provisions of the same
shall be adhered to by the United States and [Costa Rica and
Nicaragua]." No action on these agreements was taken in the
Senate.

CANAL, Interoceanic, A. D. 1901 (March).
Rejection by the British Government of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty as amended by the U. S. Senate.

Early in March, soon after the adjournment of Congress, a
communication from Lord Lansdowne, the British Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, declining with courtesy and in
friendly terms to accept the Senate amendments to the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, was received by Lord Pauncefote, the
British Ambassador at Washington. The objections urged most
strongly are against those amendments which touch the
neutrality of the proposed canal and its unimpeded use in time
of war as well as in time of peace. "The first of them," said
Lord Lansdowne, "which reserves to the United States the right
of taking any measures which they may find necessary to secure by
their own forces the defence of the United States, appears to
His Majesty's government to involve a distinct departure from
the principle which has until now found acceptance with both
governments; the principle, namely, that in time of war, as
well as in time of peace, the passage of the canal is to
remain free and unimpeded, and is to be so maintained by the
power or powers responsible for its control. Were this
amendment added to the convention the United States would, it
is presumed, be within their rights, if, at any moment when it
seemed to them that their safety required it, in view of
warlike preparations not yet commenced, but contemplated or
supposed to be contemplated by another power, they resorted to
warlike acts in or near the canal—acts clearly inconsistent
with the neutral character which it has always been sought to
give it, and which would deny the free use of it to the
commerce and navies of the world. … If the new clause were to
be added, the obligation to respect the neutrality of the
canal in all circumstances would, so far as Great Britain is
concerned, remain in force; the obligation of the United
States, on the other hand, would be essentially modified. The
result would be a onesided arrangement, under which Great
Britain would be debarred from any warlike action in or around
the canal, while the United States would be liable to resort to
such action to whatever extent they might deem necessary to
secure their own safety."

To the contention that there is a specific prohibition in the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty against the erection of fortifications,
and that this would sufficiently insure the free use of the
canal, Lord Lansdowne replies that this "contention is one
which His Majesty's government are quite unable to admit." He
notes the vagueness of language in the amendment, and says:
"Even if it were more precisely worded it would be impossible
to determine what might be the effect if one clause permitting
defensive measures and another forbidding fortifications were
allowed to stand side by side in the convention. To His
Majesty's government it seems, as I have already said, that
the amendment might be construed as leaving it open to the
United States at any moment, not only if war existed, but even
if it were anticipated, to take any measures, however
stringent or far-reaching, which in their own judgment might
be represented as suitable for the purpose of protecting their
national interests. Such an enactment would strike at the very
root of that 'general principle' of neutralization upon which
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was based, and which was reaffirmed
in the convention as drafted."

As to the third Senate amendment, which struck out the
provision inviting the adherence of other powers, Lord
Lansdowne says: "The amendment not only removes all prospect
of the wider guarantee of the neutrality of the canal, but
places this country in a position of marked disadvantage
compared with other powers which would not be subject to the
self-denying ordinance which Great Britain is desired to
accept. It would follow, were His Majesty's government to
agree to such an arrangement, that while the United States
would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time
of war, or apprehended war, and while other powers could with
a clear conscience disregard any of the restrictions imposed
by the convention, Great Britain alone, in spite of her
enormous possessions on the American Continent, in spite of
the extent of her Australasian colonies and her interests in
the East, would be absolutely precluded from resorting to any
such action or from taking measures to secure her interests in
and near the canal."

The British Minister closes his communication to Lord
Pauncefote as follows: "I request that your excellency will
explain to the Secretary of State the reasons, as set forth in
this dispatch, why His Majesty's government feel unable to
accept the convention in the shape presented to them by the
American Ambassador, and why they prefer, as matters stand at
present, to retain unmodified the provisions of the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. His Majesty's government have
throughout these negotiations given evidence of their earnest
desire to meet the views of the United States.
{71}
They would on this occasion have been ready to consider in a
friendly spirit any amendments of the convention not
inconsistent with the principles accepted by both governments
which the government of the United States might have desired
to propose, and they would sincerely regret a failure to come
to an amicable understanding in regard to this important
subject."

CANAL, The Kaiser Wilhelm Ship.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (JUNE).

CANAL, Manchester Ship.

On the 1st of January, 1894, the ship canal from Liverpool to
Manchester, which had been ten years in course of construction
and cost £15,000,000, was formally opened, by a long
procession of steamers, which traversed it in four and a half
hours.

CANAL: The Rhine-Elbe, the Dortmund-Rhine, and other Prussian projects.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1890 (AUGUST);
and 1901 (JANUARY).

CANDIA: A. D. 1898 (September).
Fresh outbreak.

See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897-1899.

CANEA: Christian and Moslem conflicts at.

See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).

CANOVAS DEL CASTILLO, Antonio:
Formation of Spanish Cabinet.

See (in this volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1895-1896.

CANOVAS DEL CASTILLO, Antonio:
Assassination.

See (in this volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1897 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

CANTEEN, The Army.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER), THE PROHIBITION PARTY;
and 1901 (FEBRUARY).

CANTON: A. D. 1894.
The Bubonic Plague.

See (in this volume)
PLAGUE.

CANTON: A. D. 1899.
Increasing piracy in the river.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899.

CAPE COLONY.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE COLONY).

CAPE NOME, Gold discovery at.

See (in this volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1898-1899.

CAPE SAN JUAN, Engagement at.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).

CARNEGIE, Andrew: Gifts and offers to public libraries.

See (in this volume)
LIBRARIES;
and LIBRARY, NEW YORK PUBLIC.

CARNEGIE COMPANY, Sale of the interests of the.

See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.

CAROLINE and MARIANNE ISLANDS:
Their sale by Spain to Germany.

By a treaty concluded in February, 1899, the Caroline Islands,
the Western Carolines or Pelew Islands, and the Marianne or
Ladrone Islands (excepting Guam), were sold by Spain to
Germany for 25,000,000 pesetas—the peseta being equivalent to
a fraction less than twenty cents. Spain reserved the right to
establish and maintain naval and mercantile stations in the
islands, and to retain them in case of war. Spanish trade and
privileges for the Spanish religious orders are guaranteed
against interference.

CARROLL, Henry K.:
Report on Porto Rico.

See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (AUGUST-JULY).

CASSATION, The Court of.
The French Court of Appeals.

See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899.

CASTILLO, Pedro Lopez de:
Letter to the soldiers of the American army.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (AUGUST 21).

CATALOGUE, International, of Scientific Literature.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

CATALONIA: Independent aspirations in.

See (in this volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

CATASTROPHES, Natural: A. D. 1894.

Late in December, the orange groves of Florida were mostly
destroyed or seriously injured by the severest frost known in
more than half a century.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

On January 8, a severe earthquake shock was felt at Meshed,
Kelat and other Persian towns, causing over 1,100 deaths.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

In March, the Tigris overflowed its banks, causing
incalculable loss of life and property in Mesopotamia.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

A succession of earthquake shocks in March, 1896, did great
damage at Santiago, Valparaiso, and other parts of Chile.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

On May 15, a cyclone destroyed part of the town of Sherman, in
Texas, killing more than 120 persons, mostly negroes. The same
day a waterspout burst over the town of Howe in the same state,
killing 8 people.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

On May 27, a fierce cyclone swept the city of St. Louis,
Missouri, completely devastating a large part of the city, and
causing great loss of life and property.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

A destructive wave swept the Japanese coast in June.

See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1896.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896.

On July 26, a tidal wave, 5 miles in width, inundated the
coast of Kiangsu, in China, destroying many villages and more
than 4,000 inhabitants.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1896-1897.

A severe famine prevailed in India from the spring of 1896
until the autumn of 1897.

See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1896-1897.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1897.

A severe earthquake occurred at the island of Kishm in the
Persian Gulf, in January, causing great loss of life.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1897.

In March and April of this year the floods along the
Mississippi river and its tributaries reached the highest
level ever recorded. In extent of area and loss of property
these floods were the most remarkable in the history of the
continent. The total area under water on April 10 was about
15,800 square miles, containing about 39,500 farms, whose
value was close upon $65,000,000. The loss of life was small.
Congress gave relief to the extent of $200,000, besides
appropriating $2,583,300 for the improvement of the
Mississippi.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1897.

Extensive floods occurred in Galatz, Moldavia, in June,
rendering 20,000 people homeless.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1897.

The islands of Leyte and Samar, in the Visayas group, were
swept by an immense wave caused by a cyclone, in October,
thousands of natives being killed, and much property
destroyed.

{72}

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1897.

On October 6, the Philippine Islands were swept by a typhoon,
which destroyed several towns. The loss of life was estimated
at 6,000, of whom 400 were Europeans. This was followed on
October 12 by a cyclone which destroyed several villages and
caused further loss of life.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1897.

By an eruption of the Mayon volcano in the island of Luzon,
Philippine Islands, four hundred persons were buried in the
lava, and the large town of Libog completely destroyed.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

A series of earthquake shocks in Asia Minor during the month
of January occasioned considerable loss of life and property.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

In January, Amboyna, in the Molucca Islands, was almost
destroyed by an earthquake, in which about 50 persons were
killed and 200 injured.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

On January 11, a tornado wrecked many buildings in Fort Smith,
Ark. The loss of life was reported as 50, with hundreds
injured.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

A disastrous blizzard occurred in New England, January 31 and
February 1. Fifty lives were reported as lost, and the damage
in Boston alone amounted to $2,000,000. Many vessels were
driven ashore or foundered, with further loss of life.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

Floods on the Ohio river in March and April caused much loss
of life and property. Shawneetown, Illinois on the Ohio river,
was almost entirely destroyed by the flood, more than 60 lives
being lost.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

On the night of September 10, the island of Barbados was swept
by a tornado which destroyed 10,000 houses and damaged 5,000
more. Three-fourths of the inhabitants were left homeless, and
about 100 were killed. The islands of St. Vincent and St.
Lucia also suffered great losses of life and property.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1898.

A typhoon swept the central provinces of Japan in September,
causing heavy floods, and destroying 100 lives.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899.

Severe floods on the Brazos river, in Texas, occasioned the
death of about 100 people, and property losses to the extent
of $15,000,000.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899.

A destructive tornado in Northern Missouri, in April, did much
damage in the towns of Kirksville and Newtown. Over fifty
persons were killed.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899.

An almost unprecedented failure of crops in eastern Russia
caused famine, disease and awful destruction of life.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899.

A terrific hurricane visited the West Indies August 7 and 8.
Of the several islands affected, Porto Rico suffered most,
three-fourths of the population being left homeless. The total
loss of life in the West Indies was estimated at 5,000.

See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899 (AUGUST).

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899.

About 1,500 people lost their lives in an earthquake around
Aidin, Asia Minor, September 2.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899.

The island of Ceram, in the Moluccas, was visited by an
earthquake and tidal wave, November 2. Many towns were
destroyed, and 5,000 people killed.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1899-1900.
Recurrence of famine in India.

See (in this volume)
INDIA A. D. 1899-1900.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1900.

The city of Galveston, Texas, was overwhelmed and mostly
destroyed, on the 9th of September, by an unprecedented
hurricane, which drove the waters of the Gulf upon the
low-lying town.

See (in this volume)
GALVESTON.

CATASTROPHES, Natural: 1901.
Famine in China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

CATHOLICS, Roman:
Protest of British peers against the declaration required from
the sovereign.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).

CATHOLICS, Roman:
Victory in Belgium.

See (in this volume)
BELGIUM: A. D. 1894-1895.

See, also, PAPACY.

CEBU: The American occupation of the island.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).

CENSUS: Of the United States, A. D. 1900.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CENTRAL AFRICA PROTECTORATE, British.

See (in this volume)
BRITISH CENTRAL AFRICA PROTECTORATE.

CENTRAL AMERICA, A. D. 1821-1898.
Unsuccessful attempts to unite the republics.

"In 1821, after numerous revolutions, Central America
succeeded in throwing off the yoke of Spain. A Congress
assembled at Guatemala in March, 1822, and founded the
Republic of Central America, composed of Guatemala, Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. The new Republic had but
a short existence; after numerous civil wars the Union was
dissolved, October 26, 1838, and the five States of the
Republic became so many independent countries. Several
attempts toward a reorganization of the Constitution of the
Republic of Central America remained fruitless and had cost
the lives of certain of their authors, when, through the
influence of Dr. P. Bonilla, President of the Republic of
Honduras, a treaty was concluded between Nicaragua and
Salvador, according to which the three Republics constituted a
federation under the name of the Greater Republic of Central
America. The three Republics became States, and the
sovereignty of the federation was exercised by a Diet composed
of three members, one for each State, and which convened every
year in the capital of the Federal States.

"On the invitation of this Diet, the three States appointed a
delegation which met as a Constituent Assembly at Managua,
Nicaragua, and established a constitution, according to the
terms of which the three States took the name of the United
States of Central America, November 1, 1898. This
Constitution, grand and patriotic, which, in the minds of
those who had elaborated it, meant a complete consolidation of
the three Federal States and a speedy realization of a
reorganization of the Grand Republic of Central America,
dreamed of by Morazan, had a sad ending. The day after the
meeting of the Constituent Assembly a revolutionary movement
hostile to the new federation broke out in Salvador and gave a
new administration to this State. Its first act was to retire
from the Union, and this secession brought about the
dissolution of the United States of Central America; for,
following the example of Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua took
back their absolute sovereignty."

_H. Jalhay,
quoted in Bulletin of American Republics, March, 1899._

{73}

The secession of Salvador was brought about by a revolutionary
movement, which overthrew the constitutional government of
President Gutierrez and placed General Tomas Regolado at the
head of a provisional government, which issued the following
manifesto on the 25th of November, 1898: "Considering—That the
compact of Amapala, celebrated in June, 1895, and all that
proceeds therefrom, has not obtained the legitimate sanction
of the Salvadorean people, and, moreover, has been a violation
of the political constitution of Salvador; That in the
assembled Constituent Assembly of Managua, reunited in June of
the present year, the deputies of Salvador were not directly
elected by the Salvadorean people, and for that reason had no
legal authority to concur to a constituent law that could bind
the Republic; That the union with the Republics of Honduras
and Nicaragua under the contracted terms will seriously injure
the interests of Salvador: Decrees. ART. 1. The Republic of
Salvador is not obliged by the contract of Amapala to
acknowledge any authority in the constitution of Managua of
the 27th August of the current year, and it is released from
the contract of union with the Republics of Honduras and
Nicaragua. ART. 2. The Republic of Salvador assumes in full
its self-government and independence, and will enter the union
with the sister Republics of Central America when same is
convenient to its positive interests and is the express and
free will of the Salvadorean people."

_United States, 55th Congress, 3d Session,
Senate Document Number 50._

CENTRAL AMERICA, A. D. 1884-1900.
Interoceanic Canal measures of later years.

See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC, with accompanying map.

CENTRAL AMERICA, Nicaragua: A. D. 1894-1895.
Insurrection in the Mosquito Indian Strip.
The Bluefields Incident.

In his Annual Message to Congress, December, 1894, President
Cleveland referred as follows to disturbances which had
occurred during the year at Bluefields, the principal town of
the Mosquito district of Nicaragua, and commonly known as "the
Bluefields Incident:" "By the treaty of 1860 between Great
Britain and Nicaragua, the former Government expressly
recognized the sovereignty of the latter over the strip, and a
limited form of self-government was guaranteed to the Mosquito
Indians, to be exercised according to their customs, for
themselves and other dwellers within its limits. The so-called
native government, which grew to be largely made up of aliens,
for many years disputed the sovereignty of Nicaragua over the
strip and claimed the right to maintain therein a practically
independent municipal government. Early in the past year
efforts of Nicaragua to maintain sovereignty over the Mosquito
territory led to serious disturbances, culminating in the
suppression of the native government and the attempted
substitution of an impracticable composite administration in
which Nicaragua and alien residents were to participate.
Failure was followed by an insurrection, which for a time
subverted Nicaraguan rule, expelling her officers and
restoring the old organization. This in turn gave place to the
existing local government established and upheld by Nicaragua.
Although the alien interests arrayed against Nicaragua in
these transactions have been largely American and the commerce
of that region for some time has been and still is chiefly
controlled by our citizens, we can not for that reason
challenge the rightful sovereignty of Nicaragua over this
important part of her domain."

_United States, Message and Documents
(Abridgment, 1894-1895)._

In his Message of 1895 the President summarized the later
history of the incident as follows: "In last year's message I
narrated at some length the jurisdictional questions then
freshly arisen in the Mosquito Indian Strip of Nicaragua.
Since that time, by the voluntary act of the Mosquito Nation,
the territory reserved to them has been incorporated with
Nicaragua, the Indians formally subjecting themselves to be
governed by the general laws and regulations of the Republic
instead of by their own customs and regulations, and thus
availing themselves of a privilege secured to them by the
treaty between Nicaragua and Great Britain of January 28,
1860. After this extension of uniform Nicaraguan
administration to the Mosquito Strip, the case of the British
vice-consul, Hatch, and of several of his countrymen who had
been summarily expelled from Nicaragua and treated with
considerable indignity, provoked a claim by Great Britain upon
Nicaragua for pecuniary indemnity, which, upon Nicaragua's
refusal to admit liability, was enforced by Great Britain.
While the sovereignty and jurisdiction of Nicaragua was in no
way questioned by Great Britain, the former's arbitrary
conduct in regard to British subjects furnished the ground for
this proceeding. A British naval force occupied without
resistance the Pacific seaport of Corinto, but was soon after
withdrawn upon the promise that the sum demanded would be
paid. Throughout this incident the kindly offices of the
United States were invoked and were employed in favor of as
peaceful a settlement and as much consideration and indulgence
toward Nicaragua as were consistent with the nature of the
case."

_United States,
Message and Documents (Abridgment, 1895-1896)._

CENTRAL AMERICA, Guatemala: A. D. 1895.
Mexican boundary dispute.

See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1895.

CENTRAL AMERICA, Nicaragua: A. D. 1896-1898.
Revolutionary conflicts.

Vice President Baca of Nicaragua joined a revolutionary
movement which was set on foot in February, 1896, by the
Clericals, for the overthrow of President Zelaya, and was
declared Provisional President. The rebellion had much support
from exiles and friends in Honduras; but the government of
that State sustained and assisted Zelaya. The insurgents were
defeated in a number of battles, and gave up the contest in
May. During the civil war American and British marines were
landed on occasions at Corinto to protect property there. In
1897, and again in 1898, there were renewed insurrections,
quickly suppressed.

CENTRAL AMERICA, Costa Rica: A. D. 1896-1900.
Boundary dispute with Colombia settled by arbitration.

See (in this volume)
COLOMBIA: A. D. 1893-1900.

{74}

CENTRAL AMERICA, Nicaragua—Costa Rica: A. D. 1897.

A dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, as to the eastern
extremity of their boundary line, was decided by General
Alexander, a referee accepted by the two republics. The
boundary had not been well defined in a treaty negotiated for
its settlement in 1858. According to the terms of the treaty,
the line was to start from the Atlantic at the mouth of the
San Juan river; but changes of current and accumulation of
river drift, etc., gave ground for dispute as to where the
river actually made its exit. President Cleveland in 1888,
acting as arbitrator at the request of the two countries,
decided that the treaty of 1858 was valid, but was not clear
as to which outlet of the delta was the boundary. Finally, in
1896, an agreement was reached for a final survey and marking
of the boundary line, and President Cleveland, on request,
appointed General Alexander as arbitrator in any case of
disagreement between the surveying commissions. The decision
gives to Nicaragua the territory upon which Greytown is
situated, and practical control of the mouth of the canal.

CENTRAL AMERICA, Guatemala: A. D. 1897-1898.
Dictatorship of President Barrios.
His assassination.

In June, 1897, President José M. Reyna Barrios, whose six
years term in the presidency would expire the next March,
fearing defeat in the approaching election, forcibly dissolved
the National Assembly and proclaimed a dictatorship. Three
months later a revolt was organized by General Prospero
Morales; but Barrios crushed it with merciless energy, and a
veritable reign of terror ensued. In February, 1898, the
career of the Dictator was cut short by an assassin, who shot
him to avenge the death of a wealthy citizen, Don Juan
Aparicio, whom Barrios had executed for expressing sympathy
with the objects of the rebellion of the previous year.
Control of the government was then taken by Dr. Cabrera, who
had been at the head of the party which supported Barrios. A
rising under Morales was again attempted, but failed. Morales,
in a dying condition at the time, was betrayed and captured.
Cabrera, with no more opposition, was elected President for
six years.

CENTRAL AMERICA, Nicaragua—Costa Rica: A. D. 1900.
Agreements with the United States respecting the control of
territory for interoceanic canal.

See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC, A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).

CENTURY, The Nineteenth:
Date of its ending.
Its character and trend.
Comparison with preceding ages.
Its failures.

See (in this volume)
NINETEENTH CENTURY.

CERVERA, Rear-Admiral,
and the Spanish Squadron at Santiago de Cuba.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JUNE);
and (JULY 3).

CHAFFEE, General Adna R.:
At Santiago.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).

CHAFFEE, General Adna R.:
Commanding American forces in China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE-AUGUST);
(JULY); and (AUGUST).

CHAFFEE, General Adna R.:
Report of the allied movement to Peking
and the capture of the city.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST 4-16).

CHAKDARRA, Defense of.

See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.

CHALDEA, New light on ancient.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Appointed British Secretary of State for the Colonies.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895; and 1900 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Conference with Colonial Premiers.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Controversies with the government of
the South African Republic.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896 (JANUARY-APRIL);
1896-1897 (MAY-APRIL), and after.

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Testimony before British Parliamentary Committee
on the Jameson Raid.
Remarks in Parliament on Mr. Rhodes.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Instructions to the Governor of Jamaica.

See (in this volume)
JAMAICA: A. D. 1899.

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Reassertion of British suzerainty over
the South African Republic.
Refusal to arbitrate questions of disagreement.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (MAY-OCTOBER);
and 1898-1899.

CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph:
Declaration of South African policy.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1901.

CHANG CHIH-TUNG, Viceroy:
Admirable conduct during the Chinese outbreak.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

CHEMICAL SCIENCE, Recent advances in.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.

CHEROKEES, United States agreement with the.

See (in this volume)
INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1894.
Destruction of the Columbian Exposition buildings.

By a succession of fires, January 9, February 14, most of the
buildings of the Exposition, with valuable exhibits not yet
removed, were destroyed.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1896.
Democratic National Convention.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

CHICAGO: A. D. 1899.
Significance of the municipal election.

The municipal election of April 4, 1899, in Chicago, resulted
in the reelection of Mayor Carter H. Harrison, Democrat, by
149,000 votes, against 107,000 cast for Zina R. Carter,
Republican, and 46,000 for Ex-Governor Altgeld, radical
Democrat, running independently. In the opinion of a
correspondent of the "Review of Reviews," "The campaign
disclosed three interesting results—namely: (1) the growth of
independence and of attention to local issues; (2) the
dominance of the street-railroad issue; and (3) the growth of
sentiment in favor of municipal ownership. Nearly two-thirds
of all the votes cast were against the Republican candidate,
and our correspondent regards this as largely due to the
belief that he, more than any of the others, represented the
interests of the street-railroad corporations." This writer
holds that "in all probability any practical proposition for
municipal ownership and operation of the street-railroads
would to-day be approved by a popular vote in Chicago."

{75}

CHICAGO: A. D. 1900.
Opening of the Drainage Canal.

An extraordinary public work was brought into use early in the
year, by the opening of what is known as the Chicago Drainage
Canal. This was constructed for the purpose of turning the
natural flow of water in Chicago River backward, away from
Lake Michigan, its natural embouchure, into the small Des
Plaines River, which runs to the Illinois, and the Illinois to
the Mississippi,—the object being to carry the sewage of
Chicago away from the Lake, where it contaminates the water
supply of the city. Part of the city sewage was already being
sent in that direction by a pumping system which carried it
over the divide; the purpose of the canal is to take the
whole. The work was begun in September, 1892, and practically
finished, so far as concerns the canal, in little more than
seven years, at a cost of about $34,500,000. Changes in the
city sewage system, to fully utilize the object of the canal,
were still to be completed. When the full use is realized,
there is said to be provision in the canal for a maximum
discharge of 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute. Some have
anticipated that such an outflow would seriously lower the
level of the lakes; but there were no signs of that effect in
the season of 1900. Nor did it seem to appear that the sewage
then passing by river flow westward was doing harm to towns on
the Illinois and Mississippi, as they had apprehended; but the
discharge was, as yet, far short of what it is intended to be.
It is possible that ultimately the Chicago Drainage Canal may
become part of a navigable water-way from the lakes to the
Mississippi, realizing an old project of water transportation
in that direction to compete with the rails. The canal has
been constructed upon a scale to suffice for that use; but the
river-improvement called for is one of formidable cost.