The Cooperstown courier. (Cooperstown, Griggs Co., N.D.) 1902-1913, 1904-01-07
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
president Roosevelt Transmits His
Views to Congress.

President Roosevelt Transmits His
Views to Congress.
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
saysSThere was No CSnplieity 81 Fart
81 This Government In Revolution
-Chsrees Colombia with Greed
-Au Interests Demand Canal.
Washington, Jan. 4.-President Roose-
velts special message to congress on the
subject OF the Panama canal treaty treats
ciuenis leading up to, it and the part Of
the United States in 1t.
He refers to the previous legislation au-
Nth me for the Of
the canal. and 1t after reasonable lapse
of time 1t was found impossible to secure
the necessary territory from o wGlo fnr the he
construction of the canal. Inc !ater
alternative, he says. Is now unnecessary.
IS the control Of the necessary terrrtGry
to the rejection Of the treaty with Co
lombia by that nation. he says:
This act marked the climax Of the e..
secure. so far as Legislation vas. con on,
cerned. an interoceanic canal across the
isthmls. The effort to secure re- q c treaty
American republics did not stand on the
same footing with the effort to secure
treaty under any ordinary conditions itsnts. =.
was explicitly provided that the United
States should control, police and protect
the canal which was to be built. keeping
equal terms The United States thus as
sumed the position Of guarantor OF the
canal and OF its peaceful use by all the
ter Of course the building Of the canal.
The enterprise was recognized as re-
spending to an International need: ana It
would be the versst travesty On s'g ~ ano
session Of the istnmus as having the rignt
to close the gates Of intercourse on the
great highways OF the word, ana 1us. ..s
nues of trade and travel belong to them
and that they choose to shut them.
Position of United states.
Colombia the Hay-Herran treaty three
things were. therefore. already settled;
Zone was that the canal should be
p parr the da. attempt 10 be made by
private enterprise the time for permitting
any government of antf-social spirit md
W. Vas sn past The tinted. States had assumed
in CONNECTION with the canal certain re-
sponsbilities not only to its own people
but to the sIe fbs wor there shond
longer be delay in beginning. the work:
::second-While it was. settled that the
canal should be built without unnecessary asSay
or improper delay. it was no less clear.
mer sayT in spirit Of Justice but in spirit
Of eros With n the Su geGpe The aay
Mer une treaty, if It erred at all, erred in
the direction Of an over-generosdty to-
wards the Colombian government: IN our
verge in yielding to q weak nations de-
mands what that nation was helplessly
unable to enforce from us against our
administration for the terms Of the Hay
Herran treaty were for having granted too
much to Colombia, not for failure to grant
the public press. at the time that this
treaty was formulated, was there com.
plant that 1t did not in the fullest and
amplest manner guar na1d e., 10 INV cnInr ~
title demand.
'Nor is the.faot, to be .lost sight Of that
the rejected treaty: T,e of CO.
lombia, in other respects merely provided
for the construction Of the canal In con.
formity with the express requirements 800 o.
BY that act, as heretofore quoted, the
president was authorized to acquire from
Colombia for the srf 81 the sten Of
the the control thus to be obtained should
include Jurisdiction to make pS oiGse and
sanitary regulations and to establ1sh sucn
for their enforcement. These were con-
ditions precedent prescri9ea oy the coz cp1a
stipulations were embodied in the treaty.
It has been stated in public prints that
Colombia objected to these stigulations.
auishment of her 'sovereignty;' but IN tie
light Of what has taken place. this alleged
objection must be considered as an after,
Of oao RECURRING cessicn Of colombia's SOW
ereienty over the canal strip expressly
ackno9ledged confirmed and ,1sI pres Sc ,n,a
respect simply proceeded on the lines on
which ali the negotiations leading up to
the present situation have been conducted:
United States. subject to the paramount
rights Of the local sovereign. OF sub
stantial control over the canal and the
treated as Fundamental part of any ar
rangement that might be made; II has
formed an essential feature OF all our
plans la NE ana FREDERICKSBURG treaty The
eress. in providing that such control
Should be secured, adopted no new prinei-
ton a condition the Importance and pro
priety of which were universally recog-
nized During all the years Of negotiation
and discussion that preceded the conc.u-
sion of the Hay-Herran treaty, Colomb.a
never intimated that the requirement by
the United States of control over the ca
nal strip would render unattainable the
construction of a canal by way Of the
Isthmus of Panama; nor were we adVlsed:
during the months when legislation of 1902
was pending before the congress, that the
terms which it embodied would render ne
gotiations with Colombia impracticable
It is plain that no nation could construct
and guarantee the neutrality OF the canal
with less degree of control than was
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty:
A refusal to grant such degree OF control
was necessarily a refusal to make any
practicable treaty at all: Such refusal
therefore squarely raised the question
whether Colombia was entitled to bar the
transit of the worlds traffic across the
That the canal itself was eagerly de-
manded by the people OF the LOCALITY
through which it was to pass. and that
the people of this locality no less eagerly
longed for its construction under Amer
lean control. are shown by the unantm-
fty of action in the new Panama repub-
lie. F,urthermore. Colombia. after having
rejected the treaty in spite of our pro-
tests and warnings when 1t was In her
power to accept it, has since shown the
utmost eagerness to accept the same
treaty IL only the status quo could be re-
stored One of the men standing highest
in the official circles of Colombia, on NO
vemberH6. addressed the American min
s.%o ofo SavinO that IF the gov.