The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-29
Critics of the Administration Proceed
without knowledge.

without knowledge.
Kansas City Journal.
The facts of the Panama situation are as
clear as anything could make them. Many
years ago we entered into treaty with
New Granada by the terms of which we
were charged with the duty of keeping the
Panama Railroad open to traffic. We en-
forced this treaty in the days Of New Gran
ada's supremacy. We enforced 1t again
when Panama seeded from New Granada
and set up a government of its own. We
continued to enforce 1t after Panama had
Joined with Colombia. And that which we
are doing in Panama now is only that
which we have been doing there ever since
1876!
In an EXPLANATION of the administrations
attitude toward the Panama revolution.
Secretary Hay gave statement to the
press which ought to have siienced the
whisperers and gossipers. He made public
everything the administration had done.
He cited the orders issued to our repre-
sentatives both in Panama and Bogota.
These orders were simply declaration
that, acting under the treaty of 1885, the
United States would not allow fighting or
other troubles in way or at a place
which would impede the free operation Of
the Panama Railroad. There has been no
intimation on the part of our government
that it would prevent Colombia from re-
conquering the province of Panama. There
has been no intimation on the part of our
government that we would recognize Pam
anna as free and independent before 1t
had established it's right to be considered
as a separate government. The "recogni-
ton of which the Democratic papers talk
so much was simply an instruction to our
consular representative to deal with the
new Panama administration de facto
government and to demand from 1t protec-
ton for the persons and property OF citi-
zens of the United States. This kind OF
with long established custom, not only on
the part of our own government, but on the
part of all governments dealing with Gen.
trail American revolutions.
The language of Secretary Hay is strong
and unequivocal. He declares that the
action of the President in the Panama stu
alton is not only in accordance with the
principles of justice and equity, but the
only course he could have taken in COM
pliance with our treaty rights and obltga-
TONS The treaty of 1876 charges the
United States with the duty of preserving
1.-The perfect neutrality of the before-men-
toned isthmus' and conferS the right upon
our government of any required action lin
order that the free transit from one sea to
the other may not be interrupted en-
barrassed in any future time for which this
treaty exists" Under this treaty it is not
to keep the route of the isthmian railroad
and both of it's terminals free from the
threats or the ravages of war.
1t is true enough that in the exercise of
our treaty rights and obligations we have
made it practically impossible for Colombia
to land troops and conquer the rebellion.
But that is the misfortune of Colombia and
has nothing to do with the question of the
regularity irregularity OF what are
| doing in Panama. We did not create the
| condition under which Colombia finds ii
impossible to land troop. and carry a
| war. We have not closed the terminal ports
| of the Panama Railroad because it would
insure the success OF the Panama rebellion.
| but because We are charged by treaty with
| just this thing. Have the critics of the
President forgotten that on more than one
| occasion our gunboats and troops were en-
ployed to preserve these ports and the
route of the railroad from incursions by
revolutionists? On those occasions the en-
= forcement OF the treaty obligations re-
/ bounded to the interests of Colombia and
undoubtedly preserved the province OF
Panama TO the Colombian government. Nc
one questioned the regularity OF what the
United States did those occasions. Ii
/ happened to be in the interests of the Co.
| lombian government them just as IL hap
| pens 10 be In the interests of the reyolu-