In 1869 an event occurred which was to have a very decisive effect on isthmian affairs—the opening for traffic of the Suez Canal. These two isthmuses in the eastern and western hemispheres have some obvious features in common. They both link two vast continents and form a barrier between two oceans or oceanic systems. They are fairly equal in breadth—Suez, sixty miles, and Panama about fifty-four. The shortest line across each runs almost exactly north and south. And they were both until recent times uninhabited country. But there are many dissimilarities. The isthmus at Suez is a flat and sterile desert; that at Panama is hilly and covered with an almost impenetrable jungle of tropical vegetation. Again, Suez is a healthy district, whereas Panama was, until recent years, a pest-house as deadly as Sierra Leone or the Guinea coast.
Mr. Bryce in his charming book on "South America" compares these two inter-continental causeways from a more historical point of view. He writes:—
A still more remarkable contrast, between these two necks of land, lies in the part they have respectively played in human affairs. The isthmus of Panama in far-off prehistoric days has been the highway along which those wandering tribes whose forefathers had passed in their canoes from North-eastern Asia along the Aleutian Isles into Alaska found their way, after many centuries, into the vast spaces of South America. But its place in the annals of mankind, during the four centuries that have elapsed since Balboa gazed from a mountain top rising out of the forest upon the far-off waters of the South Sea, has been small indeed compared to that which the isthmus of Suez has held from the beginning of history. It echoed to the tread of the armies of Thothmes and Rameses marching forth on their invasions of Western Asia. Along the edge of it Israel fled forth before the hosts of Pharaoh. First the Assyrian and afterwards the Persian hosts poured across it to conquer Egypt; and over its sands Bonaparte led his regiments to Palestine in that bold adventure which was stopped at St. Jean d'Acre. It has been one of the great highways for armies for forty centuries, as the canal cut through it is now one of the great highways for commerce.
The turn of the isthmus of Panama is now come, and, curiously enough, it is the isthmus of Suez that brought that turn, for it was the digging of a ship canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, and the vast expansion of Eastern trade which followed, that led to the revival of the old designs, mooted as far back as Philip II. of Spain, of piercing the American isthmus. Thus the comparison of the two isthmuses becomes now more interesting than ever, for our generation will watch to see whether the commerce and politics of the Western World will be affected by this new route which is now being opened, as those of the Old World have been affected by the achievement of Ferdinand de Lesseps.
It will be seen from this quotation how the completion of the Suez Canal affected the Panama project. Lesseps, fresh from his success at Suez and not contented with his great achievement there, was easily attracted by the schemes which were afoot for constructing a ship canal at another land-barrier which, like the isthmus at Suez, had obstructed the quickest lines of communication between East and West. In 1876 a corporation was established, called "La Société Civile Internationale du Canal Interocéanique," for the purpose of promoting canal schemes on the lower isthmus. Its head was Lieutenant Lucien Napoleon Bonaparte Wyse, who easily obtained a canal concession at Bogotá from the Colombian government. In 1879 an International Engineering Congress was assembled at Paris by Lesseps, whose partisans compelled a decision in favour of the Panama route.
But the United States, determined by this time to construct a canal for themselves without any joint control or international guarantee of neutrality, opposed the French scheme from the outset. No amount of bluff from the French promoters affected this opposition. The American people had indeed some right to complain. The Colombian concession to the French was quite inconsistent with the treaty of 1846 between this South American republic and the United States. This treaty Lesseps tried to induce Colombia to abrogate, and every effort, fair and foul, was employed to overcome the American objection to the scheme. In 1880 Lesseps was fêted at a public banquet at New York, but even the personal presence of the great man failed to have the desired effect. President Hayes addressed a strong message to the Senate on the subject, a few passages of which are interesting as showing the very decided views now held by the American government and people:—
An interoceanic canal across the American isthmus will essentially change the geographical relations between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States, and between the United States and the rest of the world. It will be the great ocean thoroughfare between our Atlantic and our Pacific shores, and virtually a part of the coastline of the United States. Our mere commercial interest in it is larger than that of all other countries, while its relation to our power and prosperity as a nation, to our means of defence, our unity, peace, and safety, are matters of paramount concern to the people of the United States. No other great Power would, under similar circumstances, fail to assert a rightful control over a work so closely and vitally affecting its interests and welfare.
Without urging further the grounds of my opinion, I repeat, in conclusion, that it is the right and the duty of the United States to assert and maintain such supervision and authority over any interoceanic canal across the isthmus that connects North and South America as will protect our national interests. This, I am quite sure, will be found not only compatible with, but promotive of, the widest and most permanent advantage to commerce and civilization.
The reader will see that all this is inconsistent with the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, under which the United States had actually undertaken to claim no such exclusive control as was now desired. Lengthy negotiations were now set on foot with England for the abrogation of a treaty which forbade the United States to build a canal of their own and prevented them from effectually opposing the French scheme. Lord Granville, however, saw no reason why England should abandon the treaty solely in the interests of the United States, and the negotiations were fruitless.
Meantime the French persisted in their undertaking. Their canal was to be tide-level, twenty-eight feet deep, costing £26,400,000. A corporation entitled the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique de Panama was formed in 1881, and in the same year the work of construction was begun. So it looked as though the Americans were to lose all chance of constructing an isthmian canal under their own control. Events, however, were to decide otherwise.