Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1903-12-24
|IfE PANAMA CASE,
IL ACTION or, OUR GOVERNMENT
;: ..-;tFultY JUSTIFIED.

be Mooted Treaty of 1916 and Our
position. Under. lt-Timely Refer
succs to Changes In the Control
and eloyerument of japan, ss
The more thoroughly all the facts of
asst history and present action in the
aananla matter are examined the more
,learly is the attitude of our govern
Hcnt vindicated.
Take the first proposition, that the
treaty goes with the land" 1t is no
ere;pretended that the treaty of 1876,
under which the United States is charg-
cd with the right and duty ofakeeping
the .isthmian transit free and unob-
4 Ist2lcted has ever lapscd. The power 1t
confers has. always been exercised
Whenever there has been any occasion
for it. ,!fhe ruling government of Pan
anna has several times changed. The
original treaty was made with New
Granada. In 1857 Panama withdrew
from the Granadian confederation, as
she had 4 Ti&ht~under the constitution
to do For four years she remained an
independent sovereignty, but our rights
and powers in Panama under the
treaty OF 1916 went on just the same.
In 1861 New Granada reorganized as
tho United States of Colombia, and
Panama voluntarily. resumed the polit-
ical association, reserving the right to
withdraw again at pleasure. The treaty
was not affected, but remained valid
whEA. Colombia had the sovereignty OF
the Iand: as. when first New Granada
and then Panama had it. Panama now
again establishes her sovereignty, and
the obligations of the treaty continue
unbroien.. They have been in force
whateyer government has been in con
troll, and the power of the United States
il tho matter. of transit has never been
challenged The flag which floats at
Panama has several times been chang
cd .hut the rights of the United States
have not. "....
Again, the critics of the administra-
ton liave contehded that under the
treaty the United states was bound to
main ain tho sovereignty iof Colombia
over panama> They have insisted that
this was the equivalent for the con
cession of our power over transit But
it was plain To common sense that this
guarantees applied only to the main
tenange. of Colombian sovereignty as
agaspst foreign attack. IT was repug-
nant TO all reason to suppose that the
Unitod states would Bind itself to in
terfere in a domestic conflict This
obvious conclusion is supported by de-
ciaiVp, authority. The New York Trib-
une brings out the fact that in 1860
Colombia claimed the aid Of the United
States under the treaty against in
sur@nnts in Panama. The construction
Of the treaty was referred to Attorney
General Speed, whose opinion was en-
bodied in letter of. instructions hy
Secretary Seward. He said, "rhe pur'
pose of the stipulation was to guar
antcc the isthmus against seizure or in
vasion by asforegn power only" That
confirms. the plain dictate of common
scnse., and it disposes of, vast deal of
unrefecting criticism.
Tho only ground left for complaint is
the -allegdti6n.that the recognition was
too hasty and that Colombia was not
allowed to use force TO defend her SOY
ereignty.. =. If. the. recognition. was
prompt, so was the full establishment
Of the authority of Panama. AS to Co.
lomijia'S self defense, her little squad
was. IlasTaed to the guardheuse and
her sovereignty distinguished in one
blow. She was helpless After her
shameless conduct, what claim. legal
or moral could, she make? The action
of tln United States was for peace
Philadelphia Press,