The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-01-05

| upon the administration for the terms
of 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 complaint that 1t did not in the
fullest and amplest manner guarantee to
| Colombia everything that she could by
| any color of title demand.
Perpetual Control.
| Nor is the fact to be lost sight of that
| the rejected treaty, while generously re-
| spending to the pecuniary demands of
| Colombia, in other respects merely pro-
| vided for the construction OF the canal
| in conformity with the express require
ments of the act of the congress of June
| 2S, 1902. By that act. as heretofore quoted,
| the President was authorized to acquire
from Colombia, for the purpose of the
canal, perpetual control" of a certain
strip of land; and it was expressly re-
| quired that the control thus to be OBJ
tanned should include jurisdiction to
make police and sanitary regulations and
to establish such judicial tribunals as
might be agreed on for their enforcement.
These were conditions precedent pre-
| scribed by the congress: and for their full
fllment suitable stipulations were
bodied in the treaty. It has been stated
in public prints that Colombia objected
| to these Stipulations on the ground that
! they involved REIMBURSEMENT of her
sovereignty but in the light of what
| has taken place, this alleged objection
must be considered as -afterthought- In
| reality, the treaty. instead of requiring
a cession of Colombia's sovereignty over
the canal strip, expressly acknowledged,
confirmed, and preserved her sovereignty
| over It, The treaty in this respect sim
| ply proceeded on the lines on which all
the negotiations leading up to the pres
; ent 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 a fundamental part of any
| arrangement that might be made. 1t has
| formed an essential feature of all our
| plans, and its necessity is fully recognized
in the -Pauncefote treaty. The con-
gress, In providing that such control
should be secured, adopted no new prin-
! ciple, but only incorporated in it's legis-
| lation 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 canal
| strip would render unattainable the con-
struction of canal by way of the isthmus
| of Panama; nor were we advised, dur
| ing the months when legislation of 1902
was pending before the congress, that the
terms which it embodied would render ne
gotiations with Colombia impra cticable. 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 HayHerran treaty.
| A refusal to grant such degree of control
was necessarily refusal to make any
practicable treaty at all. Such refusal,
| therefore. squarely raised the question
whether Colombia was entitled to bar the
transit of the worlds traffic across the
isthmus
Canal Eagerly Demanded.
That the canal itself was eagerly de-
manded by the people of the locality
through which it was to pass, and that
| the people of this locality no less eager
| ly longed for its construction under Am
erican control, are shown by the unani-
nifty of action in the new Panama re-
public. Furthermore. Colombia, after hav-
ing rejected the treaty in spite of our
protests and warnings when it was in her
power to accept 1t, has since shown the
utmost eagerness to accept the same
treaty if only the status quo could be re-
stored. One of the men standing highest
1 in the official circles of Colombia on No
vember 6. addressed the American min
lister at Bogota, saying that If the gov
eminent 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,
| (would) approve by decree the ratifica-
ton of the canal treaty as signed; or If
the government of the United States pre-
fers (would) call extra session OF the
congress-with new and friendly members
next May to approve the treaty" Hav-
ing these facts in view, there is no
shadow of question that the government
of the United States proposed a treaty
| which was not merely just but generous
to Colombia, which our people regarded
as erring. II at all. on the side of over
generosity: which was hailed with delight
by the people of the immediate locality
through which the canal was to pass.
who were most concerned as to the new
order of things. and which the Colombian
authorities now recognize as being so good
that they are willing TO promie its I'M
conditional ratification If only we will de-
sert those who have shown themselves
our friends and restore to those who have
shown themselves unfrienly the power to
undo what they did. I pass by the uues-
ton as to what assurance we have that
they would now keep their pledge and not
again refuse to ratify the treaty If they
had the power; for. of course, will not
for one moment discuss the possibility
of the United States committing an act
Of such baseness as to abandon the new
republic OF Panama.
Decided on Panama.
Third. Finally the congress definitely
settled where the canal was to be built.
1t was provided that q treaty should be
made for building the canal across the
isthmus of Panama; and II, after reas-
enable time. 1t proved impossible to secure
such treaty, that then we should go to
Nicaragua The treaty has been made;
for It needs no argument to show that
the intent Of the congress was to insure