The Washington times., 1903-11-07
NO OTHER COURSE OPEN, SAYS SECRETARY HAY

never forfeited by any laxity of our
own, eitheFin the assertion or our rights
or in the performance of our duty under
the treaty. In 1853 Mr.. Everett assured
the Peruvian minister that we should
not hesitate to maintain the neutrality
Of the isthmus in the case of war be-
tween Peru and Colombia.
In 1854 Colombia. which has always
been vigilant TO avail itself of its privi-
leges conferred by the treaty, expressed
its expectation that in the event OF war
between Peru and Spain the United
States would carry into effect the guar
antee OF neutrality.
Historic Incidents.
There have been few administrations
Of the State Department in which this
treaty has not either by the one side or
the other, been used as a basis OF more
or less important demands. 1t was said
by Mr.. Fish in 1871 that the Department
Of State had reason to believe that an
attack upon Colombian sovereignty on
the isthmus had, on several occasions,
been averted by warning from this Gov
ernment. In 1856, when Colombia was
under the menace of hostilities from
Italy in the Cerruti case. Mr. Bayard
expressed the serious concern that the
United States could not but feel that
European power should resort to force
against a sister republic of this hemis-
phere as to the sovereign and uninter-
rupted use of a part of whose territory
we are guarantoTs under the solemn
faith of q treaty.
The United States has not only con-
stantly protected Colombia from foreign
-,
and the duties created by the treaty OF
1876. but has time and again interviewed
to preserve the freedom of traffic from
disturbance in the course Of domestic
dissensions. In these cases we have in
tervened sometimes at the suggestion
OF Colombia. sometimes on our own i'm
preston OF the necessities of the case,
but always to the profit of Colombia
well as of universal commerce. The
position OF the United States was clear
ly set forth by Mr.. Seward in these
words:
To Maintain Neutrality.
The United States have taken and
viii take no interest in any question
OF internal revolution in the state of
Panama, or any state Of the United
States Of Colombia, but will maintain
a perfect neutrality in regard to such
domestic controversies. The United
States. will, nevertheless, hold them
selves ready to protest the transit trade
across the isthmus against invasion of
either domestic or foreign disturbers
OF the peace of the state of Panama.
There was never any doubt OF the
validity OF the treaty of 1916 10 guar
antee free and open transit either for
American citizens or for the Govern
ment of the United States. We have
used the isthmus for the transit of
troops and Of fugit.ves from justice. and
protocol was signed at Bogota on
February p. 1879. acknowledging this
right of transit for troops anu ex-
tradited fugitives belonging TO the
United States, a right, as is declared in
the protocol. which is established in
compensation for the guarantee Sf the
mus. to which the same government is
bound
It's Validity Unchanged.
''It must not be lost sight of that this
treaty Is not dependent sor its efficacy
on the personnel OF the signers or the
.,a-.Ie Of the territory it affects. 1t is a
covenant. as lawyers say. that runs
with the land The name OF New tf-a-
nada has passed away; its territory has
been divided. But as long as the isth-
mus endures. the great geograp plical
fact keeps alive the solemn compact
which binds the holders of the territory
to grant us freedom OF transit, and
binds US in return to safeguard for the
isthmus and the world the exercise Of
that nestimable privilege.
1T Is, therefore, too clear for a.scus-
sion that when. at the repeated solicita-
ton Of the government OF Colombia, a
treaty was entered into between that
government and the United States for