The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-01-05

<rHfnents, even IT aumln1stered with more regard to the just demands of other na- tons than they have been. would be per- mitted. in a spirit of Eastern isolation. to close the gates of interc purse on the the act by the pretension that these ave- nues of trade and travel belong to theml and that they choose to shut them. orS what is almost equivalent, to ercumbeE 1 them with such unjust relations as wouid prevent their general use."
 ] The principle thus enunciated by Secrf : tary Cass was sound then and 1t IS sounp now novs; The United States has taken t9e build the canal. In 1889. when Erance proposed to come to the aid of the Fre.fh Panama Company by ar anteelng tatir ] bonds, the Senate of the United statesl1n I executive session, with only some thfee votes dissenting, passed a resoiutionj as | follows:
 States will look with serious concern and disapproval upon any connection or fny European government with the constYuc- | tion or control of any ship canal acfoss America, and must regard any such con- | nection or control as injurious to the just | rights and interests of the United States and as menace to thelr welfare. ,.I | explicitly provided that the United States should control, police and protect the | canal which was to be built, keeping 1t equal terms The United States thus as | stunned the position of guarantor of the canal and of its peaceful use by all the of course the building of the canal. The enterprise was recognized as responding to an international need; and it would be the veriest travesty on right and justice the Isthmus as having the right. in the Language of MT. Cass, Ito close the gates of intercourse on the great highways of the world, and justify the act hy hn fNrn hot trade and travel belong to them and that they choose to shut them"
 When this Government submitted to Co., lombia the Hay-Herran treaty three things were, therefore, already tiled.
 One was that the canal should be built. The time for delay, the time for permit enterprise. the time for permitting any government of anti-social spirit and of imperfect development to bar the work, was past. The United States had assumed responsibilities not only to its own people. but to the civilized world. which imper- atively demanded that there should nc
 Se WSe in fns tSst canal should be built without unneces- sary or improper delay it was no less clearly shown to be our purpose to deal not merely in a spirit of justice but in a spirit of generosity with the people through whose land we might build 1t The Hay-Herran treaty. if 1t erred at all
 
 ity towards the Colombian Government In our anxiety to be fair we had gone to the very verge in yielding Ito a weak nations demands what that nation was against our will The only criticisms made upon the administration for the terms of the Hay-Herran treaty were fol having granted too much to Colon ia not for failure to grant enohgh. Neither in the Congress nor in the public press at the time this treaty was formulated was there complaint that it did not in the fullest and afnplest manner guarantee tc Colombia everything .iat she could by tany color of title demand.
 Nor is the fact to be lost sight of that spending to the pecuniary demands ot Colombia. in other respects merely pro vided for the construction of the canal ir conformity with the express requirement. of the act of the Congress of June 28 1902 By that act. as heretofore Qu Nted the President was authorized to acquire from Colombia, for the purposes of tht canal, perpetual control Of certain quifed that the control thus to be ob tained should include 'jurisdiction' tC make police and sanitary regulations and to establish such judicial tribunals as might be agreed on for their enforcement These were conditions precedent pre- scribed by the Congress: and for their full bodied in the treaty. It has been stated in public prints that Colombia objected to these stipulations. on the ground that they involved relinquishme1t of her ''sovereignty:" but in the light of what has taken place. this alleged obiecti n must be considered as an afterthougnt. In reality. the treaty. instead of requir- ing a cession of Colombias sovereignty edged. confirmed. and preserved her sov- ereignty over it. The treaty in this re- spect simply proceeded on the lines on which all the negotiations leading up to the present situation have been con 4uct- ed. In those negotiations the exercise by the United States, subject to the para mount rights of the local sovef ei9n. of a substantial control over the canal and the immediately adjacent territory. has | been treated as a fundamental part Of any arrangement that might be made. It has | formed an essential feature of all our plans, and it's necessity Is fully recog- | nized in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The Congress in providing that such control should be secured adopted no new prin- ciple, but only incorporated in its legis- lation a condition the importance and propriety of which were universally rec ognized. During all these years of nego- tiation and discussion that pre"eded the | conclusion of the Hay-Herran treaty, Co., lombia never intimated that the require- ment by the United States of control over | the canal strip would render unattainable the construction of a canal by way of the | Isthmus of Panama; nor were we ad- vised, during the months when 'egisl'tlon of 1902 was pending before the Congress. I render negotiations with Colombia im- practicable. It Is plain that no nation | could construct and guarantee the neu- trality of the canal with, less d gree of control than was stipulated for in the Hay-Herran treaty. A refusal to grant such degree of control was necessarily refusal to make any practicable treaty at all. Such refusal therefore souarely 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 it's construction under Ameri- can control are shown by the unanimity of action in the new Pan7ma Republic. Furthermore Colombia, after having re- jected the treaty in spite of our protests and warnings when it was in her power to accept it, has since shown the utmost leagerness to accept the same treaty if only the status quo could be restored One of the men standing highest In the official circles of Colombia. on November e. addressed the American minister at Bogota saying that if the Government of the United States would land troops to lpreserve Colombian sovereignty and the transit. the Colombian Government would l declare martial law and by virtue of vested constitutional authority, when pub 4 lie order is disturbed, (woud) approve by decree the ratification of the canal treaty as signed; or. if the Government of the United States prefers (would) call extra session of the C1ngress-with new and friendly memhers-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 a treaty which was not merely just, but generous to Colombia. which our people froo rfad at