The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 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 Part
of This Government In Revolution
Charges Colombia with Greed
All Interests Demand Canal.

Charges Colombia with Greed
All Interests Demand Canal.
Washington, jan 4.-President Roose-
velts special message to congress 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 it.
He refers to the previous legislation au-
thoriZing the president to conclude a
treaty with Colombia for the building OF
the canal and If after a reasonable lapse
of time il was found impossible to secure
the necessary territory from Colombia to
| revert to the Nicarasuan route for the
| construction of the canal. The later
| alternative, he says, is now unnecessary,
Rs 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 eff
fort on the part of the United States to
secure, so far as legislation was con-
isthmus. The effort to secure 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 Hay-Pauncefote 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
canal and OF its peaceful use by all the
world. The guaranty included as 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 isthmus as having the right
to close the gates of intercourse on the
| great highways of the world, 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 limited States
| when this government submitted to
! Colombia the Hay-Herran treaty three
things were, therefore, already settled:
'One was that the canal should be
| permitting the attempt TO be made by
| private enterprise, the time for permitting
| any government of anti-social spirit md
| of imperfect development to bar 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 impeIa-
| lively demanded that there should no
longer be delay in beginning the work:
"Second-While it was settled that the
canal should be built without unnecessary
or improper delay, it was no less clear
ly shown to be our purpose to deal not
merely in a spirit of justice but in spirit
whose land we might build it. The Hay
Herran treaty, If 1t erred at ALL erred in
| the direction of an over-generosty to-
wards the Colombian government. In our
anxiety to be fair we had gone to 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 of the Hay
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
plant that it did not in the fullest and
amplest manner guarantee to Colombia
everything that she could by any color of
Nor is the fact to be lost sight of that
the rejected treaty, while generously re-
spending to the pecuniary demands of Co
lombla, in other respects merely provided
for the construction of the canal in con-
formity with the express requirements 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,
land; and it was expressly required that
the control thus to be obtained 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 con-
ditions precedent prescribed by the con-
stipulatons were embodied in the treaty.
1t has been stated in public prints that
Colombia objected to these stipulations,
on the ground that they involved relin-
Quishment of her sovereignty but in the
light of what has taken place this alleged
objection must be considered as an after
thought. In reality the treaty, instead
of requiring cession of Colombia's SOW
ereignty over the canal strip, expressly
acknowledged, confirmed, and preserved
her sovereignty over it. The treaty in this
respect simply proceeded on the lines on
which all the negotiations leading up to
the present situation have been conducted.
In those negotiations the exercise by the
United States subject to the paramount
rights of the local sovereign, of sub
imme diately adjacent territory, has been
treated as a fundamental part of any ar
rangement that might be made. 1t has
formed an essential feature of all our
plans, and its necessity is fully recognized
in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The con-
gresgs in providing that such control a3
pie, but only incorporated in its legisla-
tion 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 ca
nal strip would render unattainable the
construction of canal by way of the
during the months when legislation of 1902
was pending before the congress, that the
terms which it embodied would render ne
gotiaions with Colombia impracticable
1t is plain that no nation could construct |
and guarantee the neutrality of the canal |
with less degree of control than was
stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty. |
A refusal to grant such degree of control |
was necessarily a refusal to make any |
treaty at all Sucn refuSal
therefore squarely 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-
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 1t was in her
power to accept it, 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
vember g. 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 |
Iwouldl approve by decree the ratifica-
ton of the canal treaty as signed; or,
if the government of the United States
prefers, [wouldl call extra session of the
new and friendly MEM
bers-neXt May to approve the treaty.
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
as erring, if at all, on the side of over
which was hailed with de-