Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1904-01-07
President Roosevelt Tells Congress
All About Isthmian Matters.
POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES.
The Charges of Completely Of This Gov
ernment in the Revolution In Panama
Declared Unfoundsd--Shall or Shall
We Not Build the Canal?

washington, jan A-President Rooss.
Belts special message to congress on the
Iubject Of the Panama canal treaty treats
..krgely Of the Panama rebellion, the in.
Geidents leading up to 1t and the part Of
he United States in It. e.
He refers to the previous legislation au-
horlzing the president to conclude q
featy with Colombia for the building Of
q time Il was Hound impossible to secure
the necessary territory from Colombia to
4 construction Of the canal The later
alternative, he says, 10 now unnecessary,
as the control Of the necessary territory
At Panama has been secured Referring
iombia BY thaf nation, he says:
\ This act marked the climax Of the ef-
fort ON the part OF the United States to
secure. 90 far as legislation was con-
cerned, an tntAroceanio canal across the
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 q
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
J 1t open for the vessels Of all nations on
sumed the position Of guarantor Of the
/canal and OF its peaceful use by all the
J world. The guaranty included as mat
| ter Of course the building Of the canal.
The enterprise was recognized as re-
spending to an International need; and It
lwould be the veriest travesty on right and
(5ust1ce to treat the governments In posJ
session Of the isthmus AZ having the right
to close the gates Of intercourse on the
lgreat highways of the world and Justify
Itha act by the pretens1on that these ave-
hues OF trade and travel belong to them
hind that they choose to shut them"
7 Position of United states.
"when this government submitted to
Erolombia the -Herran treaty three
hlngs were. therefore already settled:
Il One was that the canal should be
5uilt. The time for delay, the time for
ermitting the attempt TO be made BY
Erivate enterprise, the time for permitting
pny government OF anti-soclAl spirit and
Of Imperfect development to bar the work,
was past. The United States had assumed
Nm connection with the canal certain re-
possibilities not only to. its own people,
put to the civilized world. which ifnpefa-
lively demanded that there sh<lld no
Second -While Ii was Setfied Nat tlhS 4
Aeanal should be built without unnecessary |
k1r improper delay, It was no less clear.
" shown to be our purpose to deal not |
'of generosity with the people through |
whoa land we might build It, The Hay
Herran treaty, II 1t erred at all. erred I'm |
the direction of an overJgeneroaty to-
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 70 enforce from US against n our oSr
administration for the terms OF the Hay
Kerran treaty were for having granted too
uch to Colombia, not for failure to grant
ough, Neither in the congress nor In
featy was formulated, was there COM
4int that It did not In the fullest and
vutplest manner guarantee to Colombia
erything that she could by any color Of
k"Nor Is the fact to be lost sight Of that
Ne rejected treaty, while generously re-
bonding to the pecuniary demands Of Co
/ Ior the construction Of the canal in con-
ormity with the express requirements Of
= be act Of the congress Of June 2s, 1904
t3y that act, as heretofore quoted. the
'igiombia, for the purposes Of the canal,
,erpetuel CONTROL Of certain strip of
and: and Il was expressly required that
the control thus to be obtained should
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-
itIlpulations were embodied In the treaty.
"a has been stated in public prints that
Riombia objected TO these supulations,
the ground that they involved reiin-
hishmSnt Of her 'sovereignty:' but In the
.ght Of what has taken place. this alleged
Dbjection must be considered as an after
shought. In reality, the treaty. inEtead
i requiring q cessicn Of Colombia's SOW
sreignty over the cansl strin exnra96ly
Ter sovereignty over Il. The treaty in this
respect simply proceeded on the lines on
which all the negotiations leading up 10
he pY esent situation have been conducted.
In those negotiations the exercise by the
fights OF the local sovereign. Of a sub
,tantlal control over the canal and the
adjacent territory. has been ,
.reated as fundamental part OF any ar
that might be made. II has ,
80 80 ~----sf-' fe~an-4 ~ ell 49, ,