The Forrest City times., 1904-01-08
SPECIAL MESSAGE
ON PANAMA CANAL
President Roosevelt Transmits His
Views to Congress.
TREATY SHOULD BE RATIFIED
Says There Was No Completely on TIA ri
of This Government In Revolution
Charges Colombia with Greed
All Interests Demand Canal.

Washington, Jan. 4.-President Roose-
velts special message to the senate en- 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 It,
He refers to the previous legislation au-
thorzng the president to conclude a
treaty with Colombia for the building Of
the canal. and II after a reasonable lapse
OF time II was found impossible to secure
the necessary territory from Colombia TO
revert to tie Nicaraguan route for the
construction of the canal. The later
alternative, he says. Is now unnecessary.
as the control OF the necessary territory
at Panama has been secured. Referring
10 the rejection Of the treaty with Co.
iombiaSby that nation. he says.
This act marked the climax of the eff
fort on the part Of the United States to
secure, so far as legislation was con-
eerned, an interoceanie canal across the
isthmus. The effort TO secure treaty
for this purpose with one of the Central
American republics did not stard 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
II open for the vessels of all nations on
equal terms. The United States thus
sumed the position of guarantor of the
canal 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 1t
would be the veriest travesty on right and
Justice to treat the governments in pos
session OF the isthmus 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 Hay Herran 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-socia! spirit and
OF imperfect development TO oar the work,
was past. The United States had assumed
In connection with the canal certain re-
possibilities not only to its own people,
but to the civilized world, which impera-
lively demanded that there should no
longer be delay In beginning the work:
"Second-Wh lille 1t was settled that the
canal should be built without unnecessary
or improper delay, 1t was no less clear
~ shown to be our purpose to deal not
of generosity with the people through
whose land we might build 1t. The Hay
Herran treaty, If ii erred at all. erred in
wards the Colombian government. In our
anxiety to be fair We had gone 10 the very
verge In yielding to a weak nations de-
mands what that nation was helplessly
unable to enforce from us against our
Will The only criticisms made upon the
administration for the terms CT the Hay
Hecran 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 ii did not in the fullest and
amplest manner guarantee 10 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.
lomb!a. in other respects merely provided
for the construction OF the canal in con
formity 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 purposes of the canal
perpetual control OF certain strip of
land, and II was expressly required that
the control thus to be obtained should
include Jurisdiction to make police and
sanitary regulations and to establish such
for their enforcement These We're CON
oitons precedent prescribed by the con-
gress, and for their fulifllment suitable
kupu!atons were embedded in he treaty
1t has been stated in public prints that
Colombia objected TO these StipuIatfone
on the ground that they involved d relin-
qu!shmeHt OF her severe gntY.' but in the
hght OF what has taken place. this alleged
objection must be considered a an after
though. In realty. tho treaty. Instead
or requiring cess ION Ct Colon bias SOW
treignY over the canal strip expressly
acknoW q, confirmed, and preserved
her sovereignty over II. Tre treaty in this
respect simply proceeded on the lines on
which all the negotiations leading IN 20
lhe present situation have been conducted
IN th9se negotiations the exercise by the
IH;ted states. subject 70 the paramount
rights of the local sovereign of a sub
stantla control over the canal and the
Immediately adjacent territory mas hen
treated as a fundamental part OF any ar
Tangement that might be made Ii has
FORMED an essential feature Of ali our
pans ana rs necessity IS fully recognized
In the Hay Pauncefoie treaty. The con-
greSs, IN providing that such control
thouid be secured. adopted TO new princI-
PIE, but only Incorporated in It's legiSIa-
Non condition the importance and rro-
priety Of which were universally reroR
hlzsd during al the years Of negotiation
and discussion that preceded tbs concfu-
sion of the Hay-Herran treaty CoIomb1a
never minated that the requirement. bV
the United states Of control over the Gu
mai strip would render unattainab.e the
lsthmus OF Panama; nor were We advised
during the months when legislation Of 1902
VAS penG!ng before the congress that the
terms which II embodied would render ne
EQUATIONS with Colombia impracticab,s
u IS pain that no nation could construct
ana guarantee the neutrality OF the cana!
with a less degree Of control than was
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty
refusal 70 grant such degree OF control
was necessarily refusal to make any
2Iactleab.e treaty at all. Such refusal
therefore souareiy raised the question
NheIheF colombia was entitled to bar the
transit OF the worlds traffic across the
isthmus "
That the canal Itself was eagerly de
mahded by the people OF the locality
through which II to pass and that
the people OF this locality no less eagerly
longed for its construction under Amer
lean control. are shown by the unaniln-
ity of action in the new Panama repub-
lie. Furthermore. Colombia. after having
rejected the treaty in spite Of our pro-
tests and warnings when II was in her
power to accept II, 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
yember 6, addressed the American min
lister at Bogota, saying that II 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'
lily, when public order is disturbed