Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1904-01-04

building of the canal. The enterprise
WIS recognized as responding to an in
trnatiOnal I need; and it would he the
yericSt traVeSty on right and Justice to
treat the governments in possession of
lac isthmus as having the right. in the
language Of Mr.. CaSs. Ito 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 them"
When this government submitted to
Colombia the Hay-He erran 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 per-
mitting any government of anti-sOciaI
spirit and Of imperfect development
10 bar the work. was past. The United
States had assumed in connection with
the canal certain responsibilities not
only 10 its own people. but to the
civilized world. which imperatively de-
manded that there should no longer lie
delay i'll beginning the work.
second. While il was settled that
tha canal should be built without un-
necessary or improper delay. it WAS 10
less clearly shown TO he our purpose
L. deal net merely in spirit of jus
ice but in spirit of generosity with
the people through whose land we
might build it. The Hay-Herrap
rreaty. if it 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 Il weak
nations demands what that nation
was helplessly unable to enforce from
us against our will. The only critic
isms made upon the administration for
the terms of the Hay-Herran treaty
were for having granted too much to
Colombia. not TO failure to grant
enough. Neither in the congress nor
IN the public press. at the time that
shis treaty was formulated. was there
complaint that 1t did not in the fullest
and HmpleSt manner guarantee 10 Co
lombia everything that she could by
any color Of title demand.
The Rejected Treaty.
Nor * the fact to lee lost sight of
that the rejected treaty. while gencr-
OuSly responding TO the pccuniary de
mands OF Colombia. in other respects
merely provided for the construction
of the canal in conformity with the
express requirements of the act of the
congress Of June ~. 1902. by that
act. as heretofore quoted. the prcsi
dent was authorized to acquire from
. 1TnIAp,I,f1 4 l,a nf tho nal
perpetual control of a certain strip
of land: and il was expressly required
that the control thus to he obtained
should include jurisdiction" to make
police and sanitary regulations and to
establish such judicial tribunals as
might be agreed on for their enforce
mCnt. There were condition precedent
prescribed by the congress: and for
their fuItiilIment suitable StiplatiOns
were embodied in the treaty. 1t has
been stated in public prints that Co
lombia objected 10 these stipulatiOnS.
on the ground that they involved Il
rclinpui> >hmCnt of her "sOVCrcigntN.'
hut in the light of what has taken
place. this alleged objection must he
cons idrrcd aS an afTcrthought
In reality, the treaty of requiring a
crSSion Of Colomhia's sovereignty over
the canal strip. expressly acknowl-
edged. confirmed. and preserved her
sovereignty over il. The treaty i'm this
respect simply proceeded on the lines
nn which all the negotiations leading
M To- the present situation have been
conducted. In those negotiations the
exercise 10y the United States. subject
10 the paramount rights of the local
sovereign of n substantial control over
the canal and the Immediately adjacent
territory. has been treated as Il fun
damental part of any arrangement
that might he made. II has formed an
Continued on Page Seven.