The Washington herald., 1914-05-23
THE OPEN FoRUll
Correspondent Compares Two State
ments of Roosevelt On Canal.

~r~os SosAPetes ~
ments Of Roosevelt On Canal.
To the Editor: LEST ws forget" it
may not be amiss to remiad the gentle
readers Of your valuable Journal that
Col. Rooseyelt's. let us say. Blast from
| Para." is by no means the frst utter
ance Of the doughty colonel upon the
principles Of internatioaal isw which Sn-
derlie the Panama Canal question and
imbrogiio. Lives Of great men all re-
mind US" not only that tls colonel was.
erstwhile. himself the President Of the
United States. but that. as such. and %
late as January 4. 1904. he took occasion
to send special message TO Congress.
the subject-matfer whereof was mainly a
dissertation of great merit upon the
CESSATION and all 90 sudden birth Of the
republic of Panama. that beautiful dole,
far niente land of the mo Spikka Dee. :"
This does not. however. Of itself con-
stitute ''the milk in the cocoanut" at
bar. the which either stands. or lies. in
the terminology of the special message
aforesaid. In that message, Theodore
Roosevelt. as President OF the United
States. quoting and supporting arguendo
the words Of John Quincy Adams. as
Secretary of State. says:
By a treaty between the United
States and Spain concluded at a time
when Colombia was a part of the Span
1sh dominions . the principle that
free ships make free goods was ex-
pressly recognized and established. II
Is asserted that by her declaration Of
Independence Colombia has been entirely
released from all the obligations by
which, as a Part of the Spanish ma
t'tion. she was bound to other nations
This principle Is not tenable. To all the
engagements of Spain with other nations,
affecting their rights and interests, Co.
| lombia, SO far as she was affected by
them, remains bound in honor and in
Justice"
And then. in his said message, Mr.
Roosevelt goes on to say: THE prin-
ciple thus asserted by Mr.. Adams was
afterwards sustained by an information
al commission" etc. He then goes or
with great force and eloquence: But In
the present case II Is unnecessary to gn
as far. Even IL IL be admitted that
prior treaties of political and COM
mercial complexion generally do not
bind new state formed by separa-
tion. II Is undeniable that stipulations
having a local application to the tern
tory embraced in the new state continue
in force and are binding upon the new
sovereign Thus /: is on all hands con-
ceded that treaties relating to boundaries
and to rights CT navigation continue in
force without regard to changes in gov
ernment or In sovereienty. This principle
obviously applies to that part of the
treaty Of 1876 which relates to the 18TH
mus of Panama"
In other words, the colonel as Presi-
dent Of the United States, and not bereft
In the preparation of his message of the
wise counsel of John Hay and Elihu
Root. as was the case upon the occasion
OF the alleged Illumination Of the BLAST
from Para" here lays down, in effect
that Is to say, In his own unique and
inimitable language, to an admiring
Congress, the fundamental and automatic
principles Of public international law
l. That ''the new State is saddled with
local obligations. such as that to regu-
late the channel of a river, or to levy
no more than certain dues along its
course" and. 2. that treaties relating
to boundaries, to water courses. and to
ways of communication. constitute obliga-
tions which are connected with the ter
ritory and follow It through the muta-
tlons OF natonal ownership.
Hall. 9Th, ed. 9s, Riviere, !. T2-7a
A fortiori must the foregoing principles
apply where sovereignty over the situs
of a treaty-bound waterway is subse-
quently acquired by either one OF the
signatories thereto. That Is, exactly the
principle Of international law upon which
President Roosevelt stood. in sending in
his message to Congress In 1904: and
IL is precisely. the principle of interna-
tional law, coupled with the express Ian
guage Of the Hay-Pauncefote and Hay
Bunau Varilla treaties. upon which Presi-
dent Wilson stands. in recommending to
Congress the repeal of the tolls exemp-
ton clause Of the Panama Canal act.
There is not a scintilla OF difference.
But circumstances alter cases. and
the attitude Of the same man. as Presi-
dent, and as an avowed candidate for
the Presidency. may we'll be inconsis-
tent
There Is nothing to arbitrate. nor is
there the slightest prospect of the sue
cess Of our contention upon an arbitra-
ton. We can. without relinquishing or
''surrendering'' anything whatsoever, re-
cede from an internationally untustifiable
position, by ourselves repeating statute,
or the part of 1t which violates the
solemn provisions of a treaty. Just as
Great Britain receded,-confessedly with
reluctance and only in the face Of our
protest against Canadian violations of
our rights in the welland Canal-by the
voluntary revocation of her Orders in
Council
Great Britain has never formally admit
ted that her orders in council were un-
justifiable, nor are we obliged to formally
admit that our statute was unjustifiable.
EDMUND B. BRIGGS.
Washington ID. c. MAY q, 1914.