Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1904-02-29

IlO0 between the INSTANT UdFlOuS OF the
earth which is doing away with mis-
understanding, with race prejudice
and bigotry, with ignorance of human
rights and opportunity for oppression,
and making all the world kin.
"The Monroe doctrine upon which
we stand so firmly is an assertion of
orr right for n1r own interest to inter
fere with the action of every other
nation in those parts of this hemis-
phere where others are sovereign and
where we have no sovereignty or
claim of sovereignty, and to say if you
do thus and so, even by the consent
of the sovereign, we shall regard it as
an unfriendly act because it will
affect us injuriously. 1t is said that
the Monroe doctrine is not a rule OF
International law. It is not a rule at
all. 1t is an assertion of a right under
the universal rule that all sovereignty
is held subject to limitations in It's
exercise arising from the just in
terests of other nations. BY the
rules cf right and justice universally
recognized among men and which are
the law of nations, the sovereignty OF
Colombia over the isthmus of Panama
was qualified and limited by the right
of the other civilized nations OF the
earth to have the canal constructed
across the isthmus and to have II
maintained for their free and un.
INSTRUCTED passage.
Granada, the predecessor of Colum-
bia, recognized the subordination of
her sovereignty to the worlds ease
ment of passage by railroad or by
canal, and, apprehending that other
nations might seek to exercise that
right through the destruction of her
sovereignty and the appropriation of
her territory, she procure the United
States to assume the -9spOnsibility OF
projecting her against such treatment.
The United States assumed that bur
den. The duties assumed Jy the
United States to maintain neutrality
and free passage were undertaken for
the benefit of all the world.
Colombia stood to profit more BY
the building of that canal than any
other nation upon earth. BY the as
sertion of the Monroe doctrine and
the engagements of treaty we took
the responsibility upon ourselves
alone, to do for civilization what
otherwise all the maritime powers
would have united in requiring; it
was for us alone to act; and l have
no question that our right and duty
were to build the canal. with or with
out the consent of Columbia
THE General Reyes of the dis
patches is now the president-elect OF
Colombia. Upon reading them who
can fail to see that there was no con,
stitutiOnal government in Columbia;
that no government of law protected
the people of Panama and their in
terests against the will of an arbitrary
and foreign power; that the delibera-
tons and unanimous action of the
special congress at Bogota had been
a sham and pretence; that Panama's
rights; that the rights of the United
States; that the worlds rights to the
passage of the isthmus; had been the
subject of disingenuous juggling at
the hands of successful adventures
and not of the fair expression of a free
nations will. When these dispatches
were received the die was not cast on
the isthmus; the United States had
not recognized the new republic OF
Panama; she had assumed no obliga.
tions between the leaders of the new
movement or towards their followers;
Colombia and Panama then both held
out to us the offer of the right and
opportunity to build the canal. Co
lombia said, We will ratify the treaty
we will ratify it by decree, or we
will call a congress selected for the
purpose of ratifying the treaty as the
preceding congress was selected fol
the purpose of rejecting tiff you will
preserve our integrity Panama said,
Recognize our independence, and the
treaty follows of course, for the build.
ing of the canal is our dearest hope
There was no question of interest on
the part of the United States; the
treaty was secure; the canal was
secure; but there was a question of
right. question of justice. a question
of national conscience to be dealt with
What was the duty of the United
States toward the people of Panama
and the dictator at Bogota?
by all the principles of justice
among man and among lations that
we have learned from our fathers and
all peoples and all governments
should maintain, the revolutionists in
Panama were right. the people OF
Panama were entitled 70 be free again,
the isthmus was theirs and they were
entitled to govern it; and it would