River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1904-01-07
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
President Roosevelt Transmits HIS
Views to Congress.
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
Saws There Was No Completely on Part
of This Government in Revolution
Charges Colombia with Greed
All Interests Demand Canal.

veIt;s spec:aI nneggage to congress on the
subject OF the Panama canal treaty treats
largely of the Panama rebellion, the m
cidents leading up TO 1t ana the part oA
the United States in 1t.
He refers to the previous legislation au-
thorizing. the, president TO conc.uGe d
treaty with Colombia for the bulldlng OIL
the canal, and if after reasonable lapse
OF time it was found impossible to secure
the necessary territory from Colombia 10
revert 10 the Nicaraguan route Tor the
construction of the canal. me later
alternative, he says, is now unnecessary,
rs the control Of the necessary territory
at Panama has been secured. Rel erring
to the rejection of the treaty with CO.
Iombia by that nation. he says:
This act marked the climax OF the ell
fort on the part of the United States TO
secure, so far as legislation was con-
cerned, an tnteroceanlc canal across tne
isthmus. The effort to secure 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 y
was explicitly provided that the Unlted
States should control, ponce ana ,p lotiSC ~
the canal which was to be built, Keeping
Il open for the vessels of all nations on
equal terms. The United States thus as
sumed the position of guarantor OF the
canal and OF its peaceful use by all the
world The guaranty included as a mat
ter Of course the building Of the canal
The enterprise was recognized as re-
spending to an international need; ana II
would be the veriest travesty on right ano
Justice TO treat the governments in pos
session Of the isthmus as having the rlght
TO close the gates Of intercourse on the
great highways Of the world, ana justify
the act by the pretension that these ave
uues Of trade and travel belong TO them
and that they choose to shut them.
Position of United States.
when this government submitted, to
Colombia the HayHerran treaty three
things were, therefore, already settled:
zone was that the canal should be
built The time for delay, the time for
permitting the attempt to be made by
private enterprise the time for permitting
any government of ant1-social spirit ma
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 it's own people,
but to the civilized world which lmpela-
lively demanded that there should no
longer be delay in beginning the work;
'Second-W hile it was settled that the
canal should be built without unnecessary
or improper delay, it was 10 less clear
~ shown to be our purpose to deal not
merely in spirit of justice but in spirit
of generosity with the people ~, through QUIZ.
whose land we might build it. The Hay
Herran treaty, if it erred at all, erred in
the direction of an over-genero1ty 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 helpiessly
unable to enforce from us against our
will. Tie 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 public press, at the time that this
treaty was formulated, was there com,
plant that it did not in the fullest ana
ampIest manner guarantee to Colombia
everything that she could by any color OF
title demand.
the rejected treaty, while generously re-
spending to the pecuIiary demands of Co
lombia, in other respects merely provided
FOR no -tTIIn If
formity with the express requirements OF
the act of the congress of June 2S, l9O2.
BY that act, as heretofore quoted, the
president was authorized to acquire from
Colombia, for the purposes 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
for their enforcement. These were con-
ditions precedent prescribed by the con
gress; and for their fulfil ment suitable
Stipulations were embodied in the treaty.
1t has been stated in public prints that
Colombia objected to these stipulations
on the ground that they involved relln-
uuishment of her 'sovereignty;' but in the
light of what has taken pace. this alleged
objection must be considered as an after
thought. In reality, the treaty, instead
of requiring a cesSion of Colomba's SOW
ereignty over the canal strip, expressly
acknowledged, 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 a sub
stantial control over the canal and the
treated as a fundamental part of any ar
rangement that might be made. 1t has
formed an essential feature of all our
plans. and it's necessity is fully recognized
in the hay-Pauncefote treaty. The con-
gress. in providing that such control
should be secured, adopted no new princi-
pie, but only Incorporated in its legisla-
tiQE a condition the Importance and pro-
prtsty of which were universally recog'
nizeG- During all the years Of negotiation
and discussion that preceded the conc!u-
sion of the Hay-Herran treaty, Colombia
never minated that the requirement by
the United States of control oyer the ca
nal strip would render unatFainable the
construction of a canal by[way OF the
1sthmus of 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 ne
gotiations with Colombia impracticabie
1t is plain that no nation could construct
and guarantee the neutrality of the canal
with a less degree of control than was
stipulated TOR 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
isthmus.
THAT the canal itself was eagerly de-
manded by the people of the locality
through which 1t 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 unanim-
ity of action in the new Panama repub-
lie. Furthermore. Colombia, after having
rejected the treaty III spite of our pro-
tests and warnings when it was in her
power 10 accept it, has since shown the
utmost eagerness to accept the same
treaty if only the status quo could be re-
stored. One of the men standing highest
in the official circles of Colombia, No
Vember 6, addressed the American min
lister at BCgota, saying that If the gov
eminent of the United States would land
troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty
ment would declare martial law; and,
ity when public order is disturbed,
[wouldl approve by decree the ratifica-
ton of the canal treaty as signed: or,
if the government of the United States
prefers [wouldl call extra session of the
congress-with new and friendly MEM
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 a treaty
which was not merely Just. but generous
to Colombia which our people regarded
as erring, if at all, 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 most concerned as to the
new order of things. and which the CO.
louobian authorities now recognize as be-