Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1903-12-17
PANAMA QUESTION
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE is NOT
QUITE CANDID.
In Referring to the Treaty Of 1916. the
President Omits a Very Important Pro-
vision. Action of Administration Opposed
to Doctrine Of Secretary Seward.

to Doctrine Of Secretary Seward.
In dealing with the Panama question
In his message to congress. Mr.. Roosevelt
is not entirely candid. 1t is not Difficult
to learn from his treatment of the subjec
that he takes great pride in the part hi
administration has played in that sorry
affair; aud yet he lacks candor becaus,
while he gees into such details as may
suit his purpose, directing attention even
to every riot that occurred on the isthmus
he deliberately ignores in his statement
OF the treaty OF 1916, the guarantee by
the United States of Coombia's (then
New Granada) sovereignty over the
isthmus; and while ignoring this iui
portant guarantee, Mr.. Roosevelt pushes
to the front our guarantee Of "the perfect
neutrality" Of the isthmus.
For instance, pretending to describe
the treaty of 1916, Mr.. Roosevelt says:
"In the year 1915, this government en-
tered into treaty with New Granada,
the predecessor upon the isthmus Of the
republic of Colombia, and of the present
republic of Panama, by which treaty it
was provided that the government and
ways have free and open right of way
across the isthmus of Panama, by any
modes or communications that might be
constructed, WHILE IN RETURN our gov
eminent guaranteed the PERFECT NEU.
TRALITY OF the above mentioned isthmus
with the view that the free transit from
the one to the other sea might not be
interrupted or embarrassed"
l@oly -
that treaty, after the government Of
Colombia (then New Granada) had guar
anteed to the government OF the United
States the right Of way across the isthmus,
and certain other privileges, which our
government had eagerly sought for, ii
was said:
''And in order to secure to themselves
the tranquil and constant enjoyment of
these advantages and as an especial COM
pensation for certain advantages and for
the favors they have acquired by the
fourth, fifth and six articles OF this treaty,
the United States GUARANTEE POSITIVELY
AND EFFICACIOUSLY to New Granada by
the present stipulation the perfect neu-
trality OF the before mentioned isthmus,
with the view that the pre-transit from
the one to the other sea may not be in
time while this treaty exists; and, IN
CONSEQUENCE, THE UNITED STATES ALSO
GUARANTEE IN THE SAME MANNER THE
RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY AND PROPERTY
WHICH NEW GRANADA (now COLOMBIAN
HAS AND POSSESSES OYER THE SAID
TERRITORY"
Not one word, in Mr.. Roosevelt's de-
scrlption OF the treaty OF 1916, to show
that the United States "positively and
efficaciouslv" guarantee to New Granada
(now Colombia) the right OF sovereignty
and property which New Granada (now
Colombia) has and possesses over the
said territory.
That in emitting this very important
provision from his description OF the
treaty of 1916, Mr.. Roosevelt acted DELHI
erately, Is plainly to be seen when it is
observed that he goes to the trouble of
quoting from Secretary OF State Seward
in 1865 and from Attorney General Speed
in 1865, and all to the effect that the
guarantee of New Granada's sovereignty
did not mean that the United States
would become a party to Colomb ia q
domestic troubles, but that this guarantee
was meant rather to protect the Colon
ban government as against other and
foreign governments.
But how do these quotations from
Messrs Seward and Speed help Mr..
Roosevelt?
Mr.. Seward said: "The United States
has taken and will take no interest in
any question of the internal revolutions
in the state OF Panama or any state of
the United States Of Colombia, but will
maintain perfect neutrality in connec-
ton with such domestic alterations;
and when the president of the United
States of Colombia had called upon the
American government for force to pro-
tect the isthmus Of Panama from a body
OF insurgents Of that country, Mr.. Sew.
ard said that "neither the text nor the
spirit OF the stipulation in that article
impose an obligation on this government
to comply with the requisition."
But, il the insurgents at that time in
Panama had called upon Mr.. Seward for
a force to protect them from the parent
government, what would Mr.. Seward
made that the United States govern
half of the insurgents and against the
parent government, what would Mr..
Seward have said?
OuYuCctiOhoUiyS ihc duoWcI WOulu
have been the same as the answer quo
ted by Mr.. Roosevelt in his message.
Mr.. Seward would have said to the in.
snrgents that "The United States has
taken and will take no interest in any
question OF intelna revolution in the
Colombian government" He would
have said that "the United States will
maintain perfect neutrality in connec.
ton with such domestic alterations. /"
Because every intelligent man knows
that he would have said it, because the
very language used by Mr.. Seward and
quoted by Mr.. Roosevelt justiies that
belief, the Seward quotation employed
by Mr.. Roosevelt in his message to Con-
gress stands as rebuke to the policy OF
the Roosevelt administration. In carry
ing out that policy, the Roosevelt admin
istration is doing just what Mr.. Seward
said should not be done. 1t is embroil-
ing this government in the revolution in
Colombia; it is depriving this govern
ment Of its perfect neutrality in connec.
ton with such domestic alterations