The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1904-01-07
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
President Roosevelt Transmits His
Views to Congress. y
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
Says There Was No Completely ON Part
of This Government I'm Revolution
Charges Colombia with Greed
-AlIInterests Demand Canal.

= 4
Washington, Jan. 4-President Roose-
velt's special message 10 congress on the
subject of the Panama canal treaty treats
argely of the Panama rebellion, the in
eidents leading up to Il and the part of
The United States in it,
he refers to the previous legislation aus
thoriztng the president to conclude a
Leaty with Colombia for the building of
me canal, and II after a reasonable lapse
q time It was found impossible to secure
Inc necessary territory from Colombia to
NVert to the Nicaraguan route for the
construction Of the canal. The later
alternative. he says. Is now unnecessary.
IS the control Of the necessary territory
1t Panama has been secured. Referring
10 the rejection of the treaty with CO.
lombia by that nation. he says:
This act marked the climax of the ef-
Tort on the part of the United States to
secure, SO far as legislation was con-
eerned, an tnteroceanic canal across the
lsthmus. The effort to secure treaty
Tor 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 1t
was explicitly provided that the United
States should control. police and protect
the canal which was to be built, keeping
I open for the vessels of all nations on
equal terms. The United States thus as
sumed the position of guarantor of the
sanal 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; and it
would be the veriest travesty on right an0
Justice to treat the governments in pos
session of the isth1nus IA having the right
to close the gates Of intercourse on the
great highways OF the world, and justify
the act by the pretension that these ave-
Oues of trade and travel belong to them
ana tnat they choose to shut them.
~ Position of United states.
'swhen 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 permitting
Of f m sSTfe deveiopment to bar the WORK
YVES past The United States had assumed
In connection with the canal certain re-
outg Ihe civilized world, which impefa-
tive r demanded that there should no
loAlsS e delay in beginning the work;
canal should be built without unnecessary
Of improper delay. 1t was no less clear
Y to s5 81 our OF to dsa
whose land we might build It. The Hay
k1eItdn treaty. II II STTeQ at dlib GTT6u III
the direction of an over-generosity to-
wards the Colombian government In our
anxiety to be fair we had gone to the very
=. maud " at that nation was helplessly
unable to- enforce from US against our
will. The only criticisms made upon the
administration for the terms OF the Hay
Herran treat were for having granted too
much to Colombia. not for failure to grant
s psn6e press at the fe a h0f this
treaty was formulated, was there COM
plant 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 re-
spending to the pecuniary demands of Co
lombia, in other respects merely provided
for the construction of the canal in con.
formity with the express requirements of
the act of the congress of June rs, 1902.
BY that act, as heretofore quoted, the
Colombia, for the purposes Of the canal
perpetual control of a certain strip Of
land; and It was expressly required that
include Jurisdiction to make police and
sanitary regulations and to establish such
judicial tribunals as might be agreed on
ditions precedent prescribed by the con-
gress; and for their fullfillment 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 a relin-
QutShment or cher S0Veretgntyt' but In the
light of what has taken place. this alleged
objection must be considered as an after
thought In reality, the treaty, instead
: of requiring a cession, of Colombia'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 SUBJ
stantial control over the canal and the
Immediately adjacent territory, has been
treated as fundamental part of any ar
rangement that might be made. 1t has
formed an essential feature of all our
plans, and Its 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-
ton a condition the Importance and pro-
priety of which were universally recog-
nized During all the years Of negotiation
and discussion that preceded the conclu-
sion of the Hay-Herran treaty, Colombia
never intimated that the requirement by
the United States of control over the ca
AaI strip would render unattainable the
construction of a canal by way of the
Isthmus of Panama; nor were we advised,
during the months when legislation of 1902
was pending before the congress, that the
terms which IL embodied would render me-
gotiations with Colombia impracticable
1t IS plain that no nation could construct
and guarantee the neutrality OF the canal
with a less degree of control than was
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty.
A refusal to grant such degree Of control
was necessarily q refusal to make any
practicable treaty at all. Such refusal
therefore sduarely 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 in spite of our pre-
tests and warnings when it was in her
power to accept it, has since shown the
utmost eagerness to accept the same
treaty II only the status quo could be re-
stored. One of the men standing highest
IN the official circles OF Colombia, on No
vember g. addressed the American min
lister at Bogota, saying that II the gov
ernment of the United States would land
troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty
and the transit, the Colombian govern
ment would declare martial law; and,
by virtue of vested constitutional author
ity when public order is disturbed
Iwouldl approve by decree the ratifica-
ton of the ce0al treaty as signed; or.
II the government OF the United States