The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-01-05

Keeping it open for the vessels of all na- tions on equal terms. The United States thus assumed the position of guarantor of the canal and of its peace ful use by all the world. The guaranty included as a matter Of course the building of the canal. The enterprise was recognized as responding to an in- ternational need; and 1t would be the veriest travesty on right and justice to treat the governments in possession of the Isthmus as having the right, in the language of Mir. Cass, .'to close the gates of intercourse on the great high ways of the world, and justify the act by the pretension that these avenues of trade and travel belong to them and that they choose to shut then.''
 When this government submitted to Colombia the Hay-Herran treaty three things were. therefore, already settled.
 One 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 permit ting any government of anti-social spir- it and of imperfect development to bar the work, was past. The United States had assumed in connection with the ca nal certain responsibilities not only tc it's own people, but to the civilized world, which imperatively demanded that there should no longer be delay iu beginning the work.
 Second While 1t was settled that the canal should be built without unneces- sary or improper delay, it was no less clearly shown to be our purpose to deal not merely in spirit of justice but in a spirit of generosity with the people through whose land we might build it The Hay-Herran treaty, if it erred al all, erred in the direction of an over generosity towards the Colombian gov ernnent. In our anxiety to be fair we had gone to the very verge in yielding to a weak nations demands what that nation was helplessly unable to enforce from us against our will. The only crit icisn made upon the administration fol the terms of the Hay -Herran treaty were for having granted too much tc Colombia, not for failure to grant enough. Neither in the congress nor ir the public press, at the time that this treaty was formulated, was there com plaint 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 responding to the pecuniary demands oi Colombia, in other respects merely pro vided for the construction of the cana in conformity with the express require ments of the act of the congress oi June 2S, 1902 By that act, as hereto fore quoted, the president was author ized to acquire from Colombia, for the purposes of the canal, perpetual con trol' of certain strip of land; and i ] was expressly required that the "con- 1 trol' thus to be obtained should include jurisdiction" to make police and sani- 1 tary regulations and to establish sucf ] judicial tribunals as might be agreed or for their enforcement. These were con 4 ditions precedent prescribed by the i congress; and for their fulfillment suit ] able stipulations were embodied in the treaty. It has been stated In public prints that Colombia objected to these stipulations, on the ground that they 1 involved relinquishment of her "sov- ereignty;" but in the light of what has taken place, this alleged objection mus be considered as an afterthought. IT reality, the treaty instead of requiring d cession of Colombia's sovereignty lover the canal strip, expressly acknowl. edged, confirmed and preserved her sov- ereignty over it. The treaty in this re. spect simply proceeded on the lines or which all the negotiations leading up tt the present situation have been conduc. ] ted. In those negotiations the exercise by the United States, subject to the par. amount rights of the local sovereign, o1 ] a substantial control over the canal an6 l the, immediate adjacent territory, has been treated as fundamental part oi any arrangement that might be made It has formed an essential feature of al our plans, and it's necessity is fully re. cognized in the Hay Pauncefote treaty The congress, in providing that sucE control should be secured, adopted nc new principle, but only incorporated 1T it's legislation condition the ilnpor. tance and propriety of which were uni
 versa1ly recognized. During all thu years of negotiation and discussion that preceded the conclusion of the Hay. Herran treaty, Colombia never irtima. ted that the requirement by the United States of control over the canal stri, would render unattainable the construc tion of canal by way of the Isthmu. of Panama; nor were we advised, dur ing the months when legislation of 19o
 was pending before the congress, tha the terms which 1t embodied would ren der negotiations with Colombia inlprac
 tcable. It is plain that no nation coult construct and guarantee the neutrality of the canal with less degree of con trol than was stipulated for in the Hay Herran treaty A refusal to grant sucl degree of control was necessarily a re fusal to make any practicable treaty a all Such refusal therefore squarel, raised the question whether Colombi, was entitled to bar the transit of tn, worlds traffic across the Isthmus.
 DEMAND FOR CANAL.