Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1903-12-09


A considerable number of weak
Democrats are up in the air about the
Panama affair. They are quite will
ing, even anxious, to fay the Presi-
dent and his party. but on the other
hand they are afraid to take a side
that may be unpopular at the polls.
The President ought to be attacked,
yet the canal, ought to be built.
How can both things be managed?
These are the horns Of the dilemma.
For our part we do not see the neces-
sity for any shilly -shallying, any weak
kneed, namby pamby fence climb
ing. The Presidents message clears
the atmosphere and offers an excel
lent whip handle to his adversaries.
Mr.. Roosevelt holds that, although
Congress directed that we should take
the Panama route under treaty with
Colombia, yet Congress did not mean
what il said. What Congress kreaf1y
meant, according to Mr.. Roosevelt's
ingenious view, is that we should
make the treaty with Colombia, or
with any other republic, govern
ment, principality, sovereignty or au-
thority which might happen to control
the canal territory when the time for
signing the treaty arrived
This is specious argument, closely
allied TO chicanery. When Colombia
refused to ratify the treaty, the re-
public of Panama was separated
and organized--the bloodless revolut-
ion took place, negotiations with the
new republic were entered into and
the new treaty was signed-so quick
as TO make ones head swim. Wheth-
er or not the United States was guilty
Of trickery and connivance in aiding
and abetting the formation of the Re-
public of Panama is of no Consequence;
the subsequent proceedings were of
character sufficient to put Uncle
Sam in the humilating attitude of the
big boy who has forcibly appropriate
ed the sweetmeat from his younger
brother. The administration con-
duct of the affair places the Republ-
can party in the position of a cheat.
No matter how sordid the motives
may have been that actuated Colon
bia in refusing to ratify the treaty.
there cannot be the slightest doubt in
the mind of any fair minded man that
she was practically defrauded, not
only of her canal rights. but also OF
the whole province Of Panama. She
had perfect right to turn down"
the treaty, no matter what concessions
the United States may have made in
the effort to bring about satisfactory
convention.
What stand, then, are the Democrats
to take? Oppose the Canal? Not .
bit Of 1t. Oppose the administration
and the Republican, party? Most
afflrmatively, yes Denounce them, ex-
pose their treachery, hold them up to
ridicule, lay bare the miserable artitice
Of the President in pulling wool over
the eyes of the voters, but everlastingly
dig the canal.
Inconsistent? Not much. The Pres
ident himself declares that the ques-
ton as to the route of the canal has
been irrevocably decided. 1t is cor
rect. The Democrats can do moth
ing to recall the acts by which the
Government has pledged its honor, how
ever much it may condemn the meth
DDS by which that honor has been
pledged. 1t is uncomfortable that
thoughtful men Of the party should
waste their time and weaken their
position before the country by opposing
the canal on account of acts which can
not be recalled. The clue has been given
by the opposition. Down with the
means, but on with the end The
Panama canal forever