New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-19
THREE DOCTORS ON PANAMA.

DIR. Schurman. of Cornell University, does not
approve the Panama policy OF the United States
any more than its Philippine policy. Address
ing the Economic League of Lockport, y. Y. he
says: 1--WE went further than was warranted
''by the treaty Of lS46. or by international law
lin declaring that there shall be no fighting In
1.-The whole Of Panama, and that Colombian
troops shall not step upon Panama territory
with hostile intent" Also he expresses the
belief that war will ensue between the United
States and Colombia. which viii result in the
conquest of Colombia and its annexation by
this country.
DR.. Woolsey, Of Yale University in 1.-THE
Green Bag" expresses the belief that the
United States recognized Panama prenaturely,
indeed with Indecent and unnecessary haste"
But he inquiries, If our recognition Of Panama
twas warranted neither by law nor by treaty,
lis it any the less sovereign State for all
that" To that he himself unhesitatingly re-
plies in the negative. Premature or wrongful
recognition may violate the rights Of the parent
state, but nevertheless accomplishes its OBJ
''ject" Panama, then, is in fact a sovereign
State. But Ii is says Or. Woolsey, our duty
Ito let Colombia recover Panama II she cam
that is, to wage war against Panama and sub
due it.
DR.. Morey. of the University Of Rochester,
addressing the Rochester Bar Association. takes
different ground He argues that one nation
has right 10 recognize condition OF facts ex-
listing in another without examining into the
claims of justice set forth by contending fac
tions: that, in Stewards words. 1.-THE question OF
recognition is one exclusively for the Execu-
tive; and that therefore "the charge Of pre-
''cipitancy MADE against the government of the
United States has no legal foundation" AS
for the treaty Of 1916. IT did not and could not
guarantee Colombia against loss OF Panama by
domestic revolution. fer any State putting itself
under such guarantee by another would prac-
tlcalIy forfeit its own sovereignty That treaty
he continues grants the United States the right
OF way as "predial servitude' an ease
ment passing with the land and remaining a
burden upon the territory without regard TO
changes OF preprietorship. On the other hand
1.-THE correIative duty rests upon the United
States to protect from foreign invasion the
sovereignty Of this territory, whoever may be
Its proprietor. This right of way and this
duty Of protection are correlative and coexst
''ent" What then? Let us quote Dr. Morey's
exact words:
II we assume that Panama Is now indie
pendent republic possessing the sovereignty
this territory-as certainly must from
its recognition by foreign powers-then
the United States is under the obligation TO
maintain the sovereignty of Panama over tkls
territory against foreign encroachments. But
s the result of the recent revolution and the
recognition Of the republic. Colombia Is
placed in the position OF a foreign power
and hence the United States has not simply the
right. but is under obligation. to protect the
sovereignty of Panama against any encroach-
ments the part OF her previous sovereign
and her foreign neighbor. This obligation
is not simply moral, but legal. obligation
having been established by treaty, and Is so i'm
peratiye that It must be fulfilled.
Or. Mercy himself calls this "a very inter
estng aud important point" 1t is 1t will
seem novel to most and startling to many
But Ii is not to be brushed aside as speclous
reductie ad absurdum. If Dr. Woolsey
is right in holding that recognition OF Panama.
whether right or wrong, entities that State TO
be regarded as sovereign. 1t is difficult TO see
how any one can escape DR.. Morey's conciu-
sion that we are bound to defend II against Co
lembia. For the treaty binds us to defend the
isthmus against Aliens aud IL Panama Is n
sovereign State then Colombia is an alien
power; and II we are 10 guarantee the isthmus
we must guarantee the whole State of Panama
for 1t is all isthmus. DIR. Schurn,an is Tins
contradtcted in his contention that we went fur
Their than was warranted by treaty or by inter-
national law; fc- II appears that we did only
what we were both permitted and required hv
treaty TO do, and Of course the fulflment of