New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-17
COLOMBIA'S PROTEST.


One of the most extraordinary incidents OF
the whole Panama business is the addressing
of a protest, appeal demand or what not Dy
the President of Colombia TO the Onlteo o'a'eS
Senate through the president OF the latter
hodv Tt seems strange that so accomplished
scholar as Or. Marroquin should be unaware OF
the uroyision of the United States Constitution
which makes the conduct OF negotiations with
foreign mowers an executive function, 10 be
performed bv the President. How the senate
will deal with the communication remains 10
be seen 1t is difficult to perceive anything but
Improperly in the addressing OF such q COM
munication TO the Senate, and IL VIII De inter
eSting to see upon what grounds II any, men,
bers of that body can regard 1t something
nroperly 10 be received and considered. we
have heard much in recent years about the
Senate's alleged usurpaton Of Presidential
power in dealing with treaties. For the Senate
to enter into direct correspondence with the
heads OF foreign governments over the head OF
the President would certainly be striking new
departure.
The Colombian protest TO Europe against the
action of the United States in Panama is not TO
no we'll taken. We can scarcely suppose the
authors of it expected it to be. If they did
they should have kept it a little more free from
proundless imputati0ns and unwarranted as
sunrtioas It is rash to say that the main re-
'.spopsibilitv for the secession of Panama lies
with the United States government" when the
world knows we'll that such responsibility lies
with Colombia herself in goading Panama TO
revolt by her dilatory and extortlonate policy
concerning the canal, and in neglecting to take
preca utions against a revolt which she knew
was iuopending. 1t is worse than rash it is
trifinC with the truth to say that there seems
20 be clear evidence that the United States
government has been "fomenting the separa-
fist spirit AS for our preventing the Colom-
'.bian government from using the proper means
TO repress the rebellion" we thought IL was
the Panama revelutionists who did that when
they marched the Colombian army and its gen.
erals to the calaboose Did the Colombian gov
eminent expect the United States TO bail those
warriors out:
The Colombian government is no more happy
when it makes appeal to the treaty of 1916, and
contends that under il the United States was
bound TO suppress the revolution and restore
Panama to Colombia. IT is far too late in the
day for any such claim. That point was raised
and disposed of thirty-eight years ago. In the
fall Of 1865 the Colombian government asked
the United States 10 help it against the isthmian
insurgents The matter was referred to the At
torney General Of the United States. James
Speed and his opinion was announced by the
Secretary of State. William H. Seward. Said
Mr. Seward in his instructions to the American
Minister TO Colombia:
His opinion is that neither the text the
shirt OF the stfpulation in that article article
81 Of the treaty of 1916 nv which the United
States engages 20 preserve the neutrality of the
Isthmus Of Panama imposes an obligation upon
this government TO comply with reQuisltion ike
That referred to. The purpose of the stipulation
10 guarantee the isthmuS against seizure or in
udSioH by foreign poiCer only. II could not have
been contemplated that were 10 become
party to any civil war I'm that country.
Mr. Seward adopted Mt. Speeds opinion as
the policy of this government, and that policy
was maintained and repeatedly reasserted. If
such Interpretation of the treaty Of 1S46 was
not satisfactory TO Colombia. she should have
protested against It then instead Of waiting a
third Of a century. Nor is her case improved by
her reference to the frequency with which she
has given various people permission to cut
canal at Panama. 1t does not escape remem-
brance that the most noteworthy Of such per-
missions was made, was sought by her TO be
made, in violation of her treaty obligations with
u.s. In 1SSO-'s1 our Secretary Of State. William
NJ. Evarts. was compelled by Colombia's in
trigues with European powers 10 remind her
very directly and plainly that the consumma-
ton Of those intrigues would be looked upon
"by the government of the United States as in
producing interests not compatible with the
treaty relations which we maintain with
Colombia" The incident reviewed by
President Arthur in his annual message of 1881
as follows:
This government learned that Colombia had
proposed 20 the European powers to join in
guarantee Of the neutrality Of the proposed Pan
anna Canal-a guarantee which would be in d.
rect cOntravention of obligation sole
guarantor of the integrity Of Colombian terri
tory and Of the neutrality OF the canal itself.
Neither is It to he forgotten that at that same
time, in 1SS0-'S1, the question Of revising the
treaty Of 1916 arose, with view TO making
more explicit the powers and duties of the
United States guarantor Of isthmian neu-
trality. The negotiations we're brought TO n
satisfactory conclusion at Washington. But
then Colombia disavOwed the powers OF her
minister and refused 10 ratify his work. as she
this year refused 10 ratify Mr. Herran's work,
while at the same time intriguing with France
and England in contravention of her treaty
with us. Her record OF attempts 20 evade treaty
obligations has eliminated in failure TO
maintain her own sovereignty. For that she
herself must pay the penalty.