The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1904-01-05
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
President Roosevelt Transmits His
Views to Congress.
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
SAYS There Was No Completely on Part
of This Government in Revolution
Charges Colombia with Greed
All Interests Demand Canal.

+
velts special message to congress on the
subject of the Panama canal treaty treats
largely Of the Panama rebellion, the in
ciCents leading UP TO it and the part of
The United States in il.
He refers tC the previous legislation au-
thorizing the president TO conclude
treaty with Colombia fer the building OF
the canal, and If after reasonable lapse
Of time it was found impossible to secure
rhe necessary territory from Colombia to
revert to the Nicaraguan route for the
construction of the canal. The later
alternative, he says. is now unnecessary,
as the control of the necessary territory
al Panama has been secured. Referring
10 the rejection of the treaty with Co
Iombia by that nation. he says:
This act marked the climax of the eff
fort on the part of the United States to
secure, SO TAR as LEGISLATION was con
Cerned, an interOceanlc canal across the
fsthmuS. The effort to secure a treaty
for this purpose with one of the Central
American republics did not stand on the
same footing with the effort to secure
treaty under any ordinary conditions
Under the Hay-PauncefOte treaty it
was explicitly provided that the United
States should control police and protect
the canal which was to be built, keeping
IL open for the vessels of all nations on
equal terms. The Dhited States thus as
sumed the position of guarantor Of the
canal and or its peaceful use by all the
world. The guaranty included as a mat
Jer of course the building OF the canal
The enterpriseN was recognized as re-
spending to an international need; and it
would be the veriest travesty. en- right and
justice to treat the governments in pos
session of the isthmus as having the right
to close the gates of intercourse on the
great highways of the world, and justify
the act by the pretension that these ave-
uues of trade and travel belong to them
ard that they choose to shut them
Position of United States.
when this government submitted to
Colombia the Hay-Herran treaty three
fvoc q
"One was that the canal should be
built. The time for delay, the time for
permitting the attempt to De MADE by
private enterprise, the time for permitting
any government Of antt-SOcial spirit and
of imperfect development to bar the work,
was past. The United States had assumed
in connection with-the canal certain re-
possibilities not only to its own people,
out to the civilized world, which impeTa-
lively demanded that there should TO
longer be delay in beginning the work.
''Second-While it was settled that the
canal should be built without unnecessary
or improper delay, 1t was no less clear
merely in a spirit Of justice but in a spirit
of generosity with the people through
whCGH land we might build it. The Hay
Herran treaty. If 1t erred at all, erred In
the direction Of an Over-generoSity to-
wards the Colombian government. In our
anxiety to be fair we had gone TO the very
verge in yielding to a weak nations de-
mands what that nation was helplessly
unable to enforce from US against our
will The only criticisms made upon the
administration for the terms Of the Hay
Herran treaty were for having granted too
much TO Colombia, not for failure to grant
enough. Neither in the congress nor in
the pubic press, at the time that this
treaty was formulated, was there COM
plant that it did not in the fullest and
amplest manner guarantee to Colombia
everything that she could by any color of
title demand.
Nor is the fact to be lost sight of that
the rejected treaty. while generously re-
spending TO the pecuniary demands of Co
lcmbia, in other respects merely provided
for the construction of the canal in con-
formity with the express requirements of
the act OF the congress OF June e, 1902.
BY that act as heretofore quoted the
president was authorized to acquire from
Colombia, for the purposes OF the canal,
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 or
for their enforcement. These were con-
diuons precedent prescribed by the con-
gresS: and for their fullhilment suitable
stipUlations were embodied in the treaty.
It has been stated in public prints that
Colombia objected TO these stipulations,
on the ground that they involved relln-
-auishment of her 'sovereignty;' but in the
light Of what has taken place, this alleged
objection must be considered as an after
thought. In reality, the treaty, instead
Of requiring a cesSion Of Colombias SOW
ereignty over the canal strip. expressly
acknowledged. confirmed, and preserved
her sovereignty over IL. The treaty in this
respect simply proceeded on the lines on
which ali 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 CT the local sovereign, OF sub
-stantial control over the canal and the
immediately adjacent territory, has been
treated as a fundamental part OF any ar
arrangement that might be made. 1t has
formed an essential feature of all our
plans and its necessity is fully recognized
~ the -Pauncefote treaty. The con-
sgresE in providing that such control
should be secured adopted no new princi~
ME but only Incorporated in its legisla-
ton a condition the importance and pro-
priety Of which were universally recog-
.nlzeG. During all the years Of negotiation
and discussion that preceded the conclu-
sion OF the Hay-Herran treaty, Colombia
never intimated that the require ment by
the United States of control over the ca
nal strip would render unattainable the
construction of a canal by way OF the
Isthmt1S of Panama: nor were we advised,
during the months when legislation Of 1902
was bending before the congress, that the
terms which IL embodied would render ne
gOtiations with Colombia impracticable-
1t is plain that no nation could construct
and guarantee the neutrality OF the canal
with a less degree of control than was
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty.
a refusal to grant such degree or controI
was necessarily a reIuSaI 20 maze 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
isthmus
That the canal itself was eagerly de-
nanded by the people of the locality
through which il was to pass, and that
the people of this locality 20 less eagerly
ionged for its construction under Amer
scan control, are shown by the unanim-
5tY of action in the new Panama repub-
hc. Furthermore. Colombia, after having
rejected the treaty IN spite Of our pro-
tests and warnings when it 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
vember 6. addressed the American min
lister at BogOta, saying that II the gov
erument of the United States would land
troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty
and the transit the Colombian govern
ment would declare martial law; and,
by virtue Of vested constitutional author
ity. when public order is disturbed,
Iwculdl approve by decree the ratifica-
ton Of the canal treaty as signed: or.
If the government of the United States
prefers, iwouldl call extra session OF the
c0ngreSs-with new and friendly menu
bers-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 treaty