The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-31

recent negotiations at Bogota: which,
if they had had sufficient time and warn
ing, might have defeated the negotiation
which cventuated in the treaty now under
consideration; which, should we repudi-
ate this treaty and go to Nicaragua
might indefinitely delay and ultimately
defeat our necessary negotiations with
that country or Costa Rica, one or both;
which sought, with sinister designs, to
| lure us to Nicaragua when we were about
to go to Panama, and which now. should
we start to Nicaragua, would with like
motive seek to lure us back to Panama;
which, in divers and sundry ways,
through many and long years, nave sue
ceeded in confusing and dividing our
counsels and bringing to naught our ne
gotiations for the construction OF this
great enterprise, will have finally met
irretrievable defeat and the last obstacle
| in the way of the accomplishment OF
the long cherished aspirations of our peo-
| pie for canal connecting the two oceans
will have been removed.
Shall we refuse to ratify this treaty
and enter again upon the long aud weary
struggle, with all it's vexations, difficult
| les, and uncertainties?
| Mr.. President, do not intend to discuss
the provisions of this treaty. 1 am pro
tibited from doing that in open session of
| the Senate, but the treaty has been or
dered published and I think it is not i'm
proper for me to say, generally, IN pass
| ing that in nearly every way this treaty
is much more favorable to the people
of the United States than the one nego
tated with Colombia and which was rat
fled, but which failed of ratification BY
e LnA
| l have heard of no contention nor in
timation that Panama did not have the
| Il gal right to make this treaty Some
question has been made about the author
| ity of the President, under the Spooner
Act, to make it on behalf of this Govern
ment, but none has been made, and. in
my Judgment, none can be made, to Pan
ama's right in the premises, for when
We recognized the independence of Pan
anna, and shortly thereafter practically
all of the other great nations of the
world including Nicaragua, her compel
! itor for the canal, joined us in that re
cogniton, whether that recognition was
! rightful or wrongful whether in accord
ance with international law or in contra.
vention OF it, Panama became an inde,
pendent and sovereign state, with all the
rights and powers which sovereignty ina.
plies, including, of course, the treaty-mak
/ ing power.
| But. Mr.. President, the opponents of
| this treaty, admitting that 1t is highly
| favorable to US and that Panama is a
| free State possessed with full right to
! make it, still contend that it should not
| be ratified-frst, because. they say, the
| President had no right under the SpOonel
! Act to contract with Panama for the
right of way across the Isthmus, the Ian
| guage of that law restricting his authori-
| ty to negotiations for that purpose to
| Colombia; secondly, because, they say,
the President unlawfully and In violation
| of our treaty obligations with Colombia
! melted and promoted the revolution in
Panama, and recognized her independence
| in violation of the principles of interna-
tional law.
Mr.. President, can not agree, in view
of the present ownership by Panama of
! the territory to be acquired, with the
contentious that the Spooner law does
not confer upon the President full au-
thority to acquire the right across the
Isthmus from Panama. In the construc-
ton of every legislative act the intent
of the lawmakers and the objects and
purposes of the law furnish the rule for
determining its meaning.
If it had been any part of the intention
and purpose of the Spooner Act to in
directly confer a bounty upon Colombia
by buying from her a specific thing" at
a greater price than its actual value,
then the President undoubtedly would
not have had, by virtue of the powers
vested in him by this act, authority to
buy that Specific thing" from another
who had in the meantime succeeded to
it's own ownership, because that would
have contrayened and defeated a material
purpose of the law.
But it was no part of the purpose of
the Spooner Act to confer a bounty upon
Colombia;. the sole object of that law
was to authorize this Government to ac-
uuire the right of way to construct a
canal across the Isthmus. and Colombia
was named as the nation with which the
President should negotiate for this right
solely because at that time she was the
owner of the territory over which we
sought to acquire this right of way.
To deny to the President authority un-
der this act to acquire this right OF
way from Panama. its present owner,
would be to hold that the letter OF the
law respecting non-essentlal is OF more
Importance than its letter respecting its
main object. 1t would be to defeat the
main intention of the lawmakers, as
we'll as the only object and purpose of
the law itself. And in that event, Mr..
President. who would be benefitted what
public policy would be promoted by this
straied construction of that statute?
Surely we would not be benefited.
Surely no policy of this country would
be advanced, for we have declared our
preference for the Panama route. Col
ombia would not be benefited, because
she no longer owns the territory. and can
Continued on Third Page)