Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1904-01-14
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
President Roosevelt Transmits Hi:
Views to Congress.
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
Says There Wns No Completely on Fart
of This Government I'm Revolution
Charges Colombia with Greed
All interests Demand Canal.

velt's special message to the senate on the
subject of the Panama canal treaty treats
largely of the Panama rebellion. the in
cidents leading up to it and the part Of
the United States in 1t.
He refers to the previous legislation au-
thoriZing the president to conclude
treaty with Colombia for the building of
the canal, and If after a reasonable lapse
OF time it was found impossible to secure
the necessary territory from Colombia to
revert to the Nicaraguan route for the
construction OF the canal. The later
alternative, he says, Is now unnecessary,
us the control of the necessary territory
at Panama has been secured. Referring
to the rejection of the treaty with Co.
lombia by that nation, he says:
This act marked the climax of the ef-
fort on the part of the United States TO
secure, so far as legislation was con-
cerned, an interoceanic canal across the
isthmus. The effort to secure a 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 HayPauncefote treaty It
was explicitly provided that the United
States should control. police and protect
the canal which was to be built, keeping
1t open for the vessels of all nations on
equal terms. The United States thus as
sumed the position of guarantor of the
cana! and of its peaceful use by all the
world. The guaranty included 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 and
justice TO treat the governments in pos
session Of the istnmus as having the right
TO close the gates OF intercourse on the
great highways Of the word, and justify
the act by the pretensIon that these ave-
nues 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 HayHcrran treaty three
things were. therefore. already settled
built. The time for delay the time for
permitting the attempt TO be made by
private enterprise. the time for permitting
any government Of anti-soca! spirit and
OF Imperfect development TO oar the work,
was past. The United States had assumed
In connection with the canal certain re-
but to the ciynized world. which iinpefa-
lively demanded that there should no
"Second-While it was settled that the
canal should be built without unn ccessary
or improper delay, 1t was no less clear
merely in a spirit OF justice but in a spirit
Of generosity with the people through
whose land we might build it. The Hay-
Herran treaty, II it erred at all, erred in
the direction OF an oVer-generosty to-
wards the Colombian government. in our
ubNlSAS 70 Dt ld4I We laU gone 10 the very
verge in yielding to weak nations de-
mands what that nation was heIplessly
unable to enforce from US against our
viii. The only criticisms made upon the
administration for the terms Cf 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
paint that 1t did not IN the fullest and
amp.est manner guarantee to Colombia
every thing 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 10 Cuniary demands of Co.
Lombia, in other respects merely provided
Tor the construction of the canal in con-
iormity with the express requirements OF
the act OF the congress of June rs 1902.
BY that act, as heretofore quoted, the
president was authorized to acquire from
Colombia, for the purposes Of the canal,
perpetual controP 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
Tor their enforcement. These were con-
oitonS precedent prescribed by the con-
gress; and for their fullfiment suitable
stpu!ations 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 reln-
QuiShment of her 'SOvereignty;' but in the
light Of what has taken place this alleged
objection must be considered aS an after
tIlDuEHt. IN Tc6IltN, the treaty, instead
OF requiring Cesson Of Coiombias SOW
ereignty over the canal strip, expressly
acknowledged, confirmed, and preserved
her sovereignty over 1t. The treaty in this
respect simply proceeded on the lines on
which all the negotiations leading up 10
the present situation have been conducted
In those negotia tions the exercise BY the
United States, subject TO the paramount
rights Of the local sovereign. of sub
faia sGH'p9 a9 oyeF the canal and the
treated as a fundamental part of any ar
fanSement that might be made. 1t has
formed an essential feature Of ali our
plans. and its necessity is fully recognized
In the Hay-Paunceiote treaty. The con-
g gress in providing that such control
PIE, but only incorporated in it's legisla-
tion condition the Importance and pro
PREY 9t Mh!ch were universally recog-
nizeG During all the years of negotiation
and discussion that preceded the c0nclu-
sion Of the Hay Herran treaty, Colombia
never intimated that the requirement by
the United States of control over the ca.
nal strip would render unattainable the
GGohslructoh OF a canal by way of the
during the months when legislation Of 1902
was pending before the congress, that the
@ terms "h4ch ! embodied would render ne
soUauons with Colombia iE practicable
II Is plain that no nation could construct
ana guarantee the neutrality of the canal
with a less degree of control than was
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty,
refusal to grant such degree of control
was was necessarily refusal to make any
-
therefore sduarely raised the question
whether Colombia was entitled to bar the
isthmus. ''Ne
That the canal itself was eagerly de-
mahded by the people of the locality |
throuSh which it was to pass, and that
the people of this locality no less eagerly !
longed for Its construction under Amer
ican control. are shown by the unanim- |
ity of action in the new Panama reDuh-
he. Furthermore, Colombia, after having |
rejected the treaty in spite of our pr6e !
tests and warnings when it was in her /
power to accept it, has since shown the |
utmost eaSerneSS 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 /
yember 6, addressed the American min /
iSter at Bogota, saying that If the gov
ernment of the Uniled States would land
troops to preserve Colombian suyereieutv |
ana the transit, the Colombian govern |
inent would declare martial law; and
by virtue of vested constitutional author
ity when public order is disturbed.
!Wouidl approve by decree the ratfca- |
tto9 Of the canal treaty as signed; or.
II tEe> government OF the United States
prefers, lwouldl call extra session of the
COngreS&-with new ard friendly mem
bers-neNt May to approve the treaty. /
Having these facts In view. there is no
sF