sanitation, or protection of the Canal or of any auxiliary canals, or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, or protection of said enterprise. XI This agreement shall not be construed to modify the rights of the authorities of the Canal Zone to employ citizens of the Republic of Panama residing in the territory of the Republic as provided in section V of the above-mentioned agreement of June 15, 1904, and for which purpose the Government of the Republic granted the permission required by paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Panamanian Constitution. XII The civil and criminal cases pending in the courts of the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama at the time of the execution of this convention shall not be affected hereby but the same shall be proceeded with to final judgment and disposed of in the courts where they are now pending as though this agreement had not been entered into. XIII The exhibits accompanying this agreement are signed by the representatives of the respective governments for identification. This convention, when signed by the plenipotentiaries of the high contracting parties, will be ratified by the two governments in conformity with their respective constitutional laws, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Panama at the earliest date possible. In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their respective seals. Done at the City of Panama, the second day of September, in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and fourteen. [SEAL.] [SEAL.] WILLIAM JENNINGS PRICE, OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS NOTES OF AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND PRUSSIA ΤΟ THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE TRENT AFFAIR, 1861 1 Sir: Mr. Thouvenel to Mr. Mercier PARIS, December 3, 1861. The arrest of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board the English packet Trent by an American cruiser has caused, in France, if not the same feeling as in England, at any rate the utmost astonishment and no little sensation. Public opinion immediately concerned itself with the legality and the consequences of such an act, and not for an instant has there been any doubt as to the impression made upon public opinion. The affair seemed to be so out of harmony with the ordinary rules of international law that the public mind has been pleased to lay the whole responsibility at the door of the commanding officer of the San Jacinto. We are not in a position to know whether this supposition is correct, and the Government of the Emperor has therefore been obliged to examine the question raised by the removal of the two passengers from the Trent. The desire to aid in preventing a conflict, which is perhaps imminent, between two Powers, for both of whom it entertains the same friendly sentiments, and the duty to maintain certain principles essential to the security of neutrals, in order to protect from violation the rights of its own flag, have convinced it, after careful reflection, that it could not remain wholly silent under these circumstances. If the Washington Cabinet were, to our great regret, disposed to approve the conduct of the commanding officer of the San Jacinto, it would do so by considering Messrs. Mason and Slidell as enemies or by holding them to be merely rebels. In either case, it would be most unfortunately forgetful of principles upon which we had always found the United States in accord with us. On what grounds, in the first instance, could the American cruiser have arrested Messrs. Mason and Slidell? In treaties between the two 1 Printed in Bernard, The Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War, pp. 196-200. The Austrian and French notes have been translated from the French by George D. Gregory, of Washington, D. C. countries, the United States has joined with us in recognizing that the freedom of the flag extends to persons on board a vessel, even though they be enemies of one of the two parties, unless they are actually in the military service of the enemy. Messrs. Mason and Slidell were, therefore, by virtue of this principle, which we have never had any difficulty in having inserted in our treaties of amity and commerce, absolutely free, under the neutral flag of England. It surely will not be contended that they might be considered contraband of war. It is true that it has not yet been definitely determined what constitutes contraband of war, and that all Powers have not set the same limits in this respect. However, in so far as individuals are concerned, the special provisions to be found in treaties relating to military persons define those who may be seized by belligerents. Now, it is not necessary to show that Messrs. Mason and Slidell could not be considered as belonging to that category. Hence there would remain only one pretext that could be urged in explanation of their capture, namely, that they were bearers of despatches of the enemy. In this connection it is not out of place to recall a circumstance which dominates this whole case and which renders the conduct of the American cruiser unjustifiable. The Trent was not bound for a point belonging to either of the belligerents. It was conveying its cargo and passengers to a neutral country, and it had embarked them in a neutral port. If it were admissible that, under such conditions, a neutral flag did not completely cover the persons and cargo on board, its immunity would be merely an empty word. The commerce and navigation of third Powers would constantly have to suffer for their innocent or even indirect relations with one or the other of the belligerents. The latter would consider not only that they had the right to require complete impartiality of a neutral, to forbid his taking part in hostile acts; but they would likewise hamper his freedom of commerce and of navigation with restrictions, whose legality modern international law has refused to admit. In a word, there would be a return to vexatious practices, against which in times past no Power has more loudly protested than the United States. If the Washington Cabinet were inclined to look upon the two arrested individuals merely as rebels, whom it might rightfully seize at all times, even this change of ground could not justify the conduct of the commanding officer of the San Jacinto. Such a stand would involve disregard of the principle that a vessel is part of the territory of the nation whose flag it flies and violation of the immunity, as a result of which a |