The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-05

action was for. che peace both of Colombia
land OF Panama. 1t is earnestly TO be
hoped that there will be no unwise con
duct on our part which may encourage
Colombia to embark on war which can
not result in her regaining control OF the
lsthmus but which may cause much
bloodshed and suffering
i hesitate TO refer to the injurious IN
situations which have been made OF com
plicity by this government in the revolu
tionary movement in Panama. They are
as destitute of foundation as Of pro-
pliety. The only excuse for my mentions
/ ing them is the fear lest unthnkirg per-
sens might mistake for acqulesccnee tho
silence oil mere self-respcct think
proper 10 say, therefore, that no onr
connected with tnis government had any
part in preparing, melting, or encour
aging the late revolution OH the lsthinua
CT Panama, and that save from me re-
ports Of our military and naval officers.
gwen above, no one connected with this
! government had any previous knowledge
of the revolution except such as was ac-
cessible TO any person OF ordinary intel
ligence who read the newspapers and
kept up current acquaintance with pub
lie affairs.
BY the unanimous action of its people,
without the firing OF shot--with
unanimity hardly before recorded in any
similar case-the people Of Panama dc.
claTed themselves on independent repun.
lie Their recognition by this govern
Iuent was based upon state OF facts In
no way dependent for It's qualification
uron our action in ordinary cases.
have not denied, nor do ] wish to deny.
either the validity or the prcnriety Of
the general rule that a new State should
not be recognized as Independent till il
has shown ability 10 maintain It's inde-
pendence. This rule il derived from the
principle of nonintervention, and as a
ccrollary Of that principle has generally
been observed by the United States. But,
like the principle from which 1t 10 de-
ducod, the rule is subject TO exceptions;
and there are in my opinion clear and
imperative reasons why departure from
It was justified and even required in the
present instance. These reasons embrace,
first, our treaty rights; second. our IA
tional interests safety; and, third. the in
terests of collective civilization.
l have already adverted to the treaty
Of 1916, by the thirty-ffth article of which
the United States secured the righ1 % Il
free and open transit across the Isthmus
of Panama, and to that end agreed to
guarantee to New Granada her rights of
sovereignty and property over that ter
ritory. This article IS sometimes dis
cussed as if the latter guarantee constI-
tuted its sole object end bound the Uni
ted States to protect the sovereignty of
New Granada against domestic reyolu-
| ton. Nothing, however, could be more
erroneous than this superstition. That
our wise and patriotic ancestors, with
all their dread of entangling alliances.
would have entered into q treaty with
New Granada solely or even primarily for
the purpose of enabling that remnant of
the original Republic of Colombia, then
resolved into the States oil New Granada,
Venezuela, and Ecuador, to continue from
Bogota to rule over the Isthmus OF Pan
anna, is conception that would in itself
be incredible, even if the contrary did
not clearly appear 1t is true that since
the treaty was made the United States
has again and again been obliged forcibly
10 intervene for the preservation of or.
der and the maintenance of an open tran
sit. and that this intervention has usually
operated to the advantage of the titular
Government OF Colombia, but it il
equally true that the United States in
| intervening, with or without Colombia's
consent for the protection of the tran
| sit, has disclaimed any duty to defend
| the Colombian government against dome
tic instruction or against the erection
0f an independent government on the Ist-
| mus of Panama. The attacks against
which the United States engaged to pro-
| tect New Granadian sovereignty were
| those of foreign powers, but this engage
ment was only a means to the accom-
| plishment Of a yet more important end.
The great design of the article was to as
sure the dedication of the Isthmus to the
purposes of free and unobstructed inter-
oceanic transit. the contamination OF
which would be found in an intercceanic
canal. To the accomplishment of this
object the Government Of the United
States had for years directed ito diplo-
macy. 1t occupied a place in the in
structions to our delegates to the Pan
ana Congress during the administration
Of John Quincy Adams. 1t formed the
subject of a resolution of the Senate in
1885, and of the House of Representatives
in 1899. III 1876 its Importance had be-
come still more apparent by reason OF
the Mexican war If the treaty of
1916 did not in terms bind New Granada
70 grant reasonable concessions for the
construction of means Of interoceanic
communication, it was only because il
was not imagined that such concessions
would ever be withheld. AS II was ex-
rressly agreed that the United States. in
consideration of its onerous guarantee Of
New Granadaian sovereignty, should pos
sess the right of free and open transit
OH nay modes of communication that
might be constructed, the obvious intent
OF the treaty rendered it unnecessary. if
not superfuous, in terms to stipulate that
permission for the construction OF such
modes of communication should not Do
| denied.
Long before the conclusion of the Hay
Herran treaty the course OF events had
shown that canal to connect the Allan
tic and Pacific oceans must be built by
the United States or not at all. Exper
fence had demonstrated that private eu-
terprise was utterly inadequate for the
purpose; and fixed policy declared by
the United States on many memorable
occasions. and supported by the practi-
cally unanimous voice of American op;n-
ion, had rendered it morally impossible