The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-03-11
CALHOUN TELLS ONLY PART.

We sec that Mr.. Patrick Calhoun is
paying TO tho United States of Colom-
bia big sum OF money by way of
damages for the loss of Panama. He
recltes what purports TO he the history
of the loss of Pauama TO Colombia. the
| action OF the French Canal Company
therein, and the supposed action OF the
United States in support of the seces-
SION OF Panama. But he does not rive
thc whole story. il is true, as he
states, that the French company had
GOOD deal to do with the secession
OF Panama, for the reason that without
that secession, and without the obtain
ing by the United States of the Pan
anna Canal concession. that company
would have been unable In sell its Pan.
anna canal property, Its mana gers were
bopIng to receive, and actually did re.
ceive, some $40, 100000 from the Unit
ed States for that property. But Col
omhla was eagerly waiting until the
expiration Of the term of the conces-
SION to the French company in the hope
OF taking the whole work over for moth
ing, and then selling it 10 the United
States for 4 good deal more than tho
French company was asking for it.
Mr. Calhoun says that in this con.
nection "a treaty was negotiated by
which Colombia would have been paid
SlO,000.D00; she got nothing - But
why did she get nothing? And why
speak of that treaty. since it WAS Col.
ombia that refused to ratify it? The
United States ratified the treaty all
right. and was willing to pay Colombia
the $4,000, ,000; but the Colombia Con
greSs refused ratification. having an eve
to the French company s property on
the isthmus, and expecting TO contscate
it and sell it to the United States for
a huge sum Of money. Colombia was
on one side Of sharp deal the French
company on the other. The United
States of course, would not buy from
the French company unless il could get
concession 10 complete the canal
Therefore, since Colombia refused the
concession and declined the $4,000.
VOO IN the hope Of concentrating stu
pcndous robbery on its own account,
the French company stirred mp the agi-
tation which led 10 the secession OF
Panama. and on that secession the
United States recognized the new re-
public, closed its deal with the French
company, and paid it the $4,000. 900
required, and paid the 100000 900 for
the concession privilege to the new re.
public of Panama
That, in brief, is the true statement
of the whole transaction. it is idle TO
speak Of the treaty that was uegotis-
ted as Mr.. Calhoun does, without stat
ing the facts in regard 10 that treaty
The United States was perfectly can !
did throughout this whole business, was
willing 10 deal with Colombia, but Col |
ombla was not willing TO deal with us, |
Therefore the French company, in or.
der to get the $40, 100000 and not be |
robbed by Colombia Of its work and |
fomentcd the revolution al |
Panama. and the United States made
due recognition and prevented Colom-
bIa invading the country 10 the dis |
Lurbance cf The initiation Of canal
work. The French company fought for |
It's property and TO save the $4,000, 900 |
involved. The United States was ready |
TO purchase, aa soon as the concession |
10 build the canal could he obtained |
from any rightful authority. Panama
asserted its independence as a republic.
he French company backed the Sc
'ession, and it was shown TO the United
states that the new republic was &C
.ually established and on firm basis
The United States recognized it, lust |
as it has more recently recognized the
republic of China.
1t is quite natural that the Coom-
hians should have been enragcd about |
his. bur. as matter Of fact. Colombia
lost nothing in the secession Of Panama
worth while except the chance TO per
petuate the robbery that il had plan
ned. There is no reason whatever why
the United States should submit any
hing 10 arbitration on this account, be
cause the United States had nothing
10 do with it until the secession of
Panama was actually accomplished
The truth Is. further, that the whole
transaction was passing into oblivion.
and the Colombians were about TO
,lose new treaty of amitv and friend
ship with the United States, when all
at once Roosevelt, in his speech at
Berkeley, California, last year. threw
fresh oil on the slUmbering fires by
bis statement that he took tine ca
nal zone, leaving Congress 10 debate
as long as ii would on the question
His statement was not true, but it
gave Colombia the handle which it de-
sired for the purpose of new weep
over its grievance. Aud that IL all
there is about it.