Evening journal., 1904-01-04

this treaty was formulated, was there
complaint that It did not in the fullest
and amplest manner guarantee TO Co
lombia everything that she could by
any color OF title demand.
Hay Horran Treaty.
Nor is the fact 10 be lost sight Of that
the rejected treaty. while generously
responding 70 the pecuniary demands
OF Colombia. in other respects merely
provided for the construction OF the
canal in conformity with the express
requirements Of the act OF the con-
gress Of Juns 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
it was expressly required that the
control" thus 10 be obtained should
include jurisdiction" TO make police
and sanitary regulations and to cstab-
fish such judicial tribunals as might be
agreed on for their enforcement These
were conditions precedent prescribed
by the congress. and for their fulfill
ment suitable stipulations were EN-
bodied in the treaty. II has been stated
in public prints that Colombia objected
to these stipulations on the ground that
they involved n REIMBURSEMENT Of her
Sovereignty" but In the light of what
has taken place this alleged objection
must be considered as an afterthought.
colombia's Sovereignty Confirmed.
In reality the treaty, instead of re-
curing a cession OF Colomba's sovcr-
eighty over the canal strip, expressly
acknowledged, confirmed and preserved
her sovereignty over 1t. The treaty in
this respect simply proceeded on the
lines on which all the negotiations lead
ing up to the present situation have
been conducted In those negotiations
the exercise by the United States, sub
ject to the paramount rights of the To-
cal sovereign, of n substantial control
over the canal and the Immediately ad-
iacept territory has been treated as a
fundamental part Of any arrangement
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
gross in providing that such control
should be secured adopted no new prin-
ciple. but only Incorporated in Its leg
islation condition the Importance and
propriety OF which were universally
recognized During all the years Of
negotiation and discussion that proceed
ed the conclusion Of the Hay-Herran
treaty Colombia never intimated that
the requirement by the United States
OF control over the canal strip would
render unattainable the construction Of
canal by way Of the isthmus of Pana-
ma. nor were we advised during the
months when legislation Of 1902 was
pending before the congress that the
terms which It embodied would render
negotiations with Colombia impractical
BILE. 1t is plain that no nation could
construct and guarantee the neutrality
of the canal with a less degree Of con
troll than was stipulated for in the
Hay-Herran treaty. A refusal TO grant
such degree of control was necessarily
a refusal to make any practicable treaty
at all. Such refusal therefore squarely
raised the question whether Colombia
was entitled to bar the transit Of the
worlds traffic across the isthmus.
Demand For Canal
That the canal itself was eagerly de-
handed by the people Of the locality
through which II was to pass and that
the people Of this locality no less eager
ly longed for it's construction under
American control are shown by the
unanimity of action in the new Pan
anna republic. Furthermore, Colombia.
after having rejected the treaty in
spite of our protests and warnings
when it 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 restored. One OF
the men standing highest in the official
circles of Colombia on Nov 6 address.
cd the American minister at BOgota,
saying that II the government Of the
United States would land troops to pre-
serve Colombian sovereignty and the
transit tho Colombian government would
declare martial law, and by virtue OF
vested constitutional authority, when
public order is disturbed. would ap.
prove by decree the ratification OF the
canal treaty as signed, or il the gov
eminent Of the United States prefers
would call extra session Of the con.
eress, with new and friendly members
next May TO approve the treaty" Hav
ing these facts in view. there is nc
shadow OF question that the govern
irent OF the United States proposed O
treaty which was not merely Just. but
generous. 20 Colombia. which our PEG
pie regarded rs erring. II M all. on the
side OF overgenerosity. which was hail
ed with delight by the people OF the i'm
mediate locality through which the ca
nal was TO pass who were most con
. cerned as to the new order OF thing.
! and which the Colombian authorities
I now recognize IS being so GOOD tina
they are willing 10 promise its uncon
ditional ratification if only we win de
sert those who have shown themselve
our friends and restore 10 those Wilt
I awe shown themselves unfIiendly III
: power 10 undo what they did pas
o by the question as 10 what assuranc
o we have that they would now lsee
). their pledge and not again refuse I
> raiify the treaty II they had the powe
7 Tor. OF course. I viii not for one m,
Il ment discuss the possibility Of the Uni
n eO States committing an act OF sue
nr