Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1904-01-13
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
President Roosevelt Transmits His
Views to Congress.
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
says There Was No Completely ON Fart
OF This Government In Revolution
-Charges Colombia with Greed
All Interests Demand Canal.

ALI Interests Demand Canal.
Washington, Jan. 4-President Roose-
Vets special message to the senate on the
subject of the Panama canal treaty treat.
largely Of the Panama rebellion. the in
cacents leading up to it and the part of
the United States in 1t.
lie refers to the previous legislation au-
tnorlzlng the president to conclude a
greatly with Colombia for the building of
the canal, and if after a reasonable lapse
OF time it was found impossible to secure
.ne necessary territory from Colombia to
revert 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
at fanama has been secured. Referring
20 the rejection of the treaty with Co.
1omola oy that nation. he says:
This act marked the climax of the ef-
LORI on the part OF the United States to
secure. SO far as legislation was con-
cerned. an 1nteroceanic canal across the
1stnmus. The effort to secure treaty
Tor this purpose with one of the Central
american republics did not stand on the
same 1ootlng with the effort to secure q
treaty under any ordinary conditions
Cnoer the Hay-Pauncefote treaty it
vas explicitly provided that the United
states should control. police and protect
tne canal which was to be built keeping
It open for the vessels of all nations on
equal terms. The United States thus as
sumeo the position Of guarantor of the
cana! and OF its peaceful use by all the
world: The guaranty included as a mat
yer OF course the building of the canal.
Inc 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 isthmus as having the right
10 close the gates Of intercourse on the
u 0f no v.1S
the act by the pretension that these ave-
oues Of trade and travel belong to them
ana that they choose to shut them"
Position of United States.
When this government submitted to
Colombia the .HayHerran treaty three
One was that the canal should be
built The time for delay. the time for
prvae 1ne EN- t 70 be made by
any government Of anti-social spirit and
1 OF. mps,fecf 80 deYsiopmsnt TO oar the work
IN connection with the canal certain re-
butt but to the civilized worla. which impefa.
as. rssco oRd,,y it vas settled that the
ana Sa1Ga pc punt without
merely in spirit Of justice but in a spirit
Herran treaty. If it erred at all. erred in
tn me-. aire &c on OF an over-generoaty to-
anxiety to be fair We had gone to the very
H Ina gGs IN yielding to weak nations de-
unable to enforce from US against our
VIII. The only criticisms made 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
treaty was formulated, was there COM
plant that it did not in the fullest and
amplest manner guarantee to Colombia
title demand.
Nor is the fact to be lost sight Of that
the rejected treaty. while generously re-
lombia. in other respects merely provided
Tor the construction of the canal in con-
36a Win IT. the express of
BY that act. as heretofore quoted, the
president was authorized to acquire from
perpetual control Of a certain strip e o.;
i Ihs and It vas vas expressly required that
sanitary regulations and to establish such
}}oac ba as might be agreed on
ditions precedent prescribed by the con-
gress: and for their fullfllment suitable
stipulations were embodied In the treaty.
Colombia objected to these these stip , eaa.
on the ground that they involved relin-
& n %ht s has pae Rs s
objection must be considered as an after
thought; In reality. the treaty, Instead
ereisnty over the canal strip. e expressly sSfy
and
Which ali the negotiations leading '' up t to
the present situation have been conducted.
tinted States. Subject to the para% ny Int
rights of the local sovereign, of a SUBJ
stantial control over the canal and the
treated as Fundamental part of any ar
rangement that might be made. 1t has
plans, and its Necessity IS fully reca az osd
in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The CON
gres9, in providing that such control
pie. but only Incorporated in its legisIa-
ton a condition the Importance and pro-
priety Of which, were universally recog-
nlzef: During all the years of negotiation
and discussion that preceded the conclu-
sion Of the Hay- He treaty, Colombia
tt 3 United States of control over the ca
nal strip. would render unattainable the
conStruction of a canal by way Of the
during the months when legislation of 1902
was pending before the congress, that the
With
1t 10 plain that no nation could construct
and guarantee the neutrality of the canal
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty.
A refusal to grant such degree Of control
was necessarily refusal to make any
practicable treaty at all Such refusal
therefore souarely 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 it 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-
1ty of action in the new Panama repub-
lie: Furthermore, Colombia. after having
tests 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
in the official circles of. Colombia, on NO
ve1nber s, addressed the American min
lister at Bogota, saying that If the gov
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,
(wouldl approve by decree the ratihca-
ton Of the canal treaty as signed: or,
II the government of the United States
prefers, [wouldl call extra session Of the
congress.with new and friendly mem;
Having these facts in view. there: is no
shadow of question that the government
OF the United States proposed treaty
which was not merely just. but generous
to Colombia, which our people regarded
% erring, II at all. on the side OF over