Gilpin observer., 1904-01-07


thu treaty was formulated, was tsi.fo
complaint that 1t did not In the fullest
and amplcs. manner guarantee to Co
lOmbia everything that She could by
any color of title demand.
The Rejected Treaty.
Nor is the fact to be lost sight Of
that the rejected treaty, while gener-
ously responding TO the pecuniary de-
mands of Colombia, in other respects
merely provided for the construction
Of the canal in conformity with the
express requirements of the act OF the
congress Of June 2S, 1902. By that
act, as heretofore quoted, the presi-
dent was authorized to acquire from
Colombia, for the purpose of the canal
perpetual control of a certain strip
Of land; and it was expressly required
that the control" thus to be obtained
should include jurisdiction" to make
police and sanitary regulations and TO
establish such judicial tribunals as
might be agreed on for their enforce,
ment. There were condition precedent
prescribed by the congress-; and for
their fuliilIment suitable stiplations
were embodied in the treaty. 1t has
been stated in public prints that Co
lombia objected to these stipulations,
OH the ground that they involved Il
REIMBURSEMENT of her sovereignty"
but in the light of what has taken
place. this alleged objection must be
considered as an afterthought.
In reality. the treaty Of requiring n
cession of Colombia's sovereignty over
the canal strip, expressly acknowi-
edged. confirmed, and preserved her
sovereignty over it. The treaty in this
respect simply proceeded on the lines
on which all the negotiations leading
up to the present situation have been
conducted. In those negotiations the
exercise by the United States, subject
to the paramount rights OF the local
sovereign. of II substantial control over
the canal and the Immediately adjacent
territory has been treated as Il fun
damental part OF any arrangement
that might be made. 1t has formed an
essential feature of all our plans, and
its necessity is fully recognized in the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The congress,
in providing that such control should
be secured, adopted no new principle.
ptt pAi' iifVi itCi ibttt IA it>
condition the Importance and pro-
priety of which were universally rccog-
nized. During all the years of nego-
tiaticn and discussion that preceded
the conclusion of the Hay-Herran
treaty. Colombia never intimated that
the requirement by the United States
of control over the canal strip would
render unattainable the construction of
Il canal by way of the Isthmus CT
Panama: nor were we advised. during
the months when legislation OF 1902
was pending before the Congress. that
the terms which it embodied would
render negotiations with Colombia i'm
practicable 1t Is plain that no nation
could construct and guarantee the neu-.
| traliiy of the canal with Il less degree
of control than was stipulated for in
the Hay-lIerran treaty. y refusal IN
grant such degree OF control VAS
necessarily n refusal to make an prac-
ticable treaty at all. Such refusal
therefore squarely raised Tie question
whether Colombia was entitled to bar
| the transit of the worlds traffic across
the isthmus.
Demand for the Canal.
That the canal itself was eagerly de-
| manded by the people of the locality
through which it WAS 10 pass, and that
the people of this locality no less
eagerly longed for its construction un-
| der American control. are shown by
the unanimity of action I'm the new
Panama republic. Furthermore. Col
ombia. after having rejected the treaty
| in spite OF our protests and warnings
when 1t was in her power TO accept it.
has since shown the utmost eagerness
| to accept the same treaty If only the
status quo could be restored. One OF
the men standing highest In the official
circles OF Colombia, OH Nov. 6. ad-
dressed the American minister Mt Bo-
gotta. saying that IL the government of
the United States would land troops
| to preserve Colombian sovereignty and
| the transit. the Colombian government
would declare martial law: and by
| virtue of vested constitutional au-
| thority. when public order is dis
turbed (woulD approve by decree the
ratification of the canal treaty as
| signed. or II the government of the
| United States prefers twouldn call eX
ira session of the congress-with new
and friendly menhers--next May to
approve the treaty" Having these
| facts In view. there Is no shadow of
question that the government OF the
United States proposed a treaty which
was not merely just. hut generous TO
Colombia. which our people regarded
as erring. If NJ nll. on the side of over
generosity; which was hailed with de-
light by the people of the immediate
locality through which the canal was
TO pass. who were rost concerned as
to the new order of things, and which
the Colombian authorities row recog-
nizc ms being so good that thcyare will