Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1904-01-07

spirit and of imperfect development tc
Dar the work, was past The United
States had assumed in connection with
4 the canal, certain responsibilities not
i only to its own people, but to the civ
illzed world, which imperatively de
manded that there should no longer be
delay in beginning the work
| Second While it was settled that
the canal should be built without un.
necessary or improper delay, it was no
less clearly shown to be our purpose
to deal not merely in spirit of justice
but in spirit of generosity with the
people through whose land we might
build it. The Hay-Herran treaty, if
it erred at all. erred in the direction of
over-generosity towards the Colombian
government. In our anxiety to be
fair we had gone to the very verge of
yielding to weak nations demands
what that nation was helplessly unable
to enforce from us against our will.
The only criticisms made upon the ad-
ministration for the terms Of the Hay
Herran treaty were for having grant
ed too much to Colombia, not for fail
ure to grant enough. Neither in the
congress nor in the public press. at
the time that this treaty was formulat-
ed was there complaint that it did not
in the fullest and amplest manner
guarantee to Colombia everything that
she could by any color of title de-
mand.
Nor is the fact to be lost sight of
that the rejected treaty, while gener-
ously responding to the pecuniary de-
mands of Colombia, in other respects
merely provided for the construction
of the canal in conformity with the ex-
press requirements of the act of the
congress of June %. 1902. BY that act
as heretofore quoted the President
was authorized to acquire from Col
ombia, for the purposes of the canal,
perpetual control of certain strip
of land; and it was expressly requir-
ed that the control" thus to be obtain
ed should include jurisdiction" to
make police and sanitary regulations
and to establish such judicial tribun.
ais as might be agreed upon for their
enforcement. These were conditions
precedent prescribed by the congress;
and for their fultillment suitable stip-
ulations were embodied in the treaty.
1t has been stated in public prints that
Colombia objected to these stipuIa-
lions on the ground that they involved
a REIMBURSEMENT of her Sovereignty"
but in the light of what has taken
place this alleged objection must be
considered as an afterthought.
Treaty Favored Colombia.
In reality, the treaty, instead of re-
quiring cession of Colombia's soyer-
eighty over the canal strip, expressly
acknowledged, confirmed and presery-
ed 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 nego-
tiations the exercise of the United
States, subject to the paramount rights
OF the local sovereign, of a substantial
control over the canal and the imme-
dlately adjacent territory, has been
treated as fundamental part of any
arrangement that might be made. 1t
mas formed an essential feature of all
our plans, and it's necessity is fully
recognized in the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty The congress, in providing
that such control should be secured,
adopted no new principle, but only in
corporated in it's legislation condi-
ton the Importance and propriety Of
which We're universally recognized.
During all the years of negotiation and
discussion that preceded the conclu-
sion of the Hay-Herran treaty. Colon
bia never intimated that the require
ment by the United States of control
over the canal strip would render I'm
attainable the construction of a canal
by way of the Isthmus of Panama; nor
We're we advised, during the months
when legislation of 1902 was pending
before the congress, that the terms
which it embodied would render nego-
tiations with Colombia impracticable.
1t is plain that no nation could con-
struct 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 necessari-
ly a refusal to make any practicable
treaty at all. Such refusal therefore,
squarely raised the question whether
Colombia was entitled to bar the tran
sit of the worlds traffic across the
isthmus
Panama Favors Canal.
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 it's construction I'M
der American control, are shown by
the unanimity of action in the new
Panama republic. Furthermore, Co.
lombia, after having rejected the trea-
ty in spite of our protests and warn
ings when it was in her power to accept
it has since shown the utmost eager
ness to accept the same treaty if only
the status quo could be restored. One
of the men standing highest in the Of
fetal circles of Colombia, on Novem-
Der 6, addressed the American minis
ter at Bogota, saying that if the gov
eminent of the United States would
land troops to preserve Colombian SOW
ereignty and the transit, the Colombo
an government would declare martial
law; and by virtue of vested constitu-
tlonal authority, when public order is
disturbed, (would) approve by dercee
the ratification of the canal treaty as
- 4,