New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-08
THE PRESIDENT ON PANAMA.

The Presidents discussion of the Panama
business is entirely simple. and should be en-
tirely convincing, even to those who have not
already been convinced of the correctness of
the governments conduct and attitude. His
logic is briefly this: Congress authorized him
to arrange for building a canal at Panama, if
he could; If not, at Nicaragua The essence of
that authorization was that he should make
treaty with the sovereign of the isthmuS within
a reasonable time. That he has done, since he
now lays a completed treaty before Congress
for its ratification. II is true that treaty is not
with the power that was sovereign Of the 18TH
mus when Congress gave that authorization.
Congress had in mind a treaty with Colombia,
while this is treaty with Panama. That, how
ever does not matter THE essence Of the con-
"dition referred not to the government, but to
1.-The route itself; TO the territory across which
1.-THE route lay, not TO the name which for the
moment the territory bore on the map. The
purpose of the law was TO authorize the Presi-
dent to make treaty with the power in actual
control of the Isthmus of Panama. This pur-
pose has been fulfilled
The whole matter turns, then, upon the point
which Secretary Hay tersey set forth at the
beginning Of the controversy when he said that
the treaty between the United States and New
Granada not dependent for efficacy upon
the personnel of the signers or the name of the
territory. 1T is a covenant which runs with
the land In that pregnant phrase is the gist
of the whole matter. If that principle is sound,
then the Presidents argument, based upon ii,
is sound What are the facts? Everybody
knows that the Treaty Of 1916 with
New-Granada But New Granada passed away.
Its territory was parttioned, its government
changed and its name ObIiterated from the
map The treaty did not, however, lapse. 1t re-
manned binding upon the territory to which it
referred and upon whatever power governed
that territory. Colombia inherited it from New
Granada. So, assume if Colombia had rati-
fed the Hay Herran Treaty, and then Panama
had seeded the treaty would have remained
in force, binding upon Panama as the successor
of Colombia, just as it was binding upon Colon
bia when she was the successor of New-Gran-
ada. Certainly ii seems logical that if a treaty
thus runs with the land" the instructions and
authorizations of Congress TO the President do
the same 1t would be supreme folly to say
Make a treaty with Colombia, and with no one
else for a Panama canal" when Colombia did
not might not own control the territory
through which that canal must run. 1t was not
Colombia, represented at BOgOta, that Con
gresS and the nation wanted a treaty with. but
the government that possessed sovereignty and
We suppose that if Colombia had coded Panama
TO the Akhoond of Swat and the cession had
been legal the President would have been obey
ing the spirit of the Congressional instructions
in making n treaty with that picturesque po-
tentate.
II there are any who still question the sound
ness of this major premise of the Presidents
gument we beg to refer them TO the recognized
authorities on international law Wheaton, for
example divided treaties into two classes, per-
snnal and real. The former relate exclusively
TO The persons of the contracting parties such
"as family alliances and treaties guaranteeing
the throne to a particular sovereign and his
family" Obviously, the United States treaty
Of 1876 with New Granada was no such thing,
and neither will be its canal treaty. The lat
ter. the real treaties, relate solely 10 the sub
"tect matters Of the convention, independently
''of the persons of the contracting parties. They
continue to bind the State. whatever interven-
ling changes may take place in its internal
constitution" They bind the contracting par
ties independently OF any change in the SOW
"ereignty or in the rulers of the State" Wool
sey, Also declares that rights and obligations
survive a change OF government or a revolu-
ton When nation separates into parts, or
''unites with another State to form a new
whole. il cannot even by such a process divest
itself of its obligations" the case in hand
furnishes an admirable example of the working
OF this rule. We made the treaty OF 1886 with
New-Granada. Presently New Granada was in
WOolsey's words separated into parts. But the
treaty did not perish. 1t continued to apply
with full force to the part of the former State
which was involved in its provisions. Now
that part. Colombia, has i'll turn been separated
into parts, and the treaty in turn applies TO
the part concerning which4t was made To say