before there was an opportunity for another reaction, and before there was any real discussion of the merits of the treaty, it was presented and rejected. While this latter period lasted it seemed impossible to get the expression of the real opinion of any of the senators, with the exception of Obaldia, Perez y Soto, and Velez. It is a positive fact that some of the most prominent senators avoided me because of the charges, frequently made, that bribery was being resorted to by the United States, and the consequent fear that if seen in conversation with the American minister they would be under suspicion. This was admitted to me after the rejection of the treaty. Mr. Enrique Cortez was one of the two men who defended the treaty in public articles. Because I was seen making a social call at his residence, he was openly accused the next day of being in the pay of the United States minister. He afterwards intimated to my sonin-law that for the above reason he could not see as much of me and my family as he wished. Of course these matters are unimportant, except that they show the annoyances and difficulties one has to contend with in this country, where, after all, the little things so greatly affect and influence the great ones. The minister for foreign affairs was evidently as reluctant as others to express any opinion, and it was very apparent that he did not wish to discuss canal matters. About all I could get from him was that conditions were "very bad" or "a little better." I found the President much more inclined to tell me his hopes and fears on the question. General Reyes said to me that he had advised the Government against forcing the ratification of the treaty in the early days of Congress, thinking it best to influence public opinion into a more favorable state before taking such action, and that this had been the Government's view. He realized that this course had been a serious mistake, for the reaction that they had anticipated had not come. His own actions had been influenced by these views, and it was only a few days before the rejection of the treaty that he came out in the open and advocated its ratification. I believe that he did the best he could after that, but it was too late. It was in these last few days that the idea presented itself to members of the Government, General Reyes, and others, that it would be best to have the treaty rejected at the first debate, in the hope that such precipitous and unusual action would arouse the coast departments into vehement protests, send exchange up enormously, and so disturb the country that there would be a reaction of public sentiment which would enable them to either have the treaty reconsidered or to pass a law authorizing the President to complete the negotiations. But their plans and anticipations were built upon sand. The reaction they hoped for did not come. The mere announcement that a joint Congressional committee had been appointed to provide ways and means for the construction of a canal was enough to calm the public pulse, for the public has continued in the secure belief that the United States would never seriously consider any other route for a canal than that through Colombian territory; that she was abundantly able and would in the end concede to Colombia a much greater recompense in money and more favorable concessions generally; that whatever proposals the new committee would make would be accepted by the United States. With this belief abroad, the opposition to the terms of the proposed treaty has intensified rather than otherwise, culminating in the report of the joint committee now before the Senate. With all this shifting and changing of plans and sentiments, it has been most difficult to forward to the Department reliable information. I have several times been about to telegraph news which came to me from what should be absolutely authoritative sources, when further investigation convinced me that it was a myth; a theory of one day which would be abandoned the next. In connection with the unreliability of the information given out by people in high places, I might mention that one day a prominent Senator told me very confidentially of a plan concerning the treaty that was to be carried out. Within an hour afterwards, a friend came to the legation, fresh from an interview with the same Senator, who had told him that a plan would be proposed in all respects different from the one explained to me. When I informed my visitor of my conversation with the Senator, he said: "Mr. Beaupré, am I going mad! or have these people all lost their senses? There is nothing but lies and lies! I walk two blocks to hear an important bit of news, and in the next two hear an entire contradiction, both coming from the same source." I should add that neither of the plans were ever acted on. And so it has been from the beginning. I am, sir, your obedient servant, A. M. BEAUPRÉ. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. September 27, 8 p. m. [Telegram.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Bogotá, September 27, 1903. (Received September 28, 1.12 p. m.) No change in canal matter. Second debate of projected law will probably be decisive, and this will occur within a few days. Additional amendments practically certain. BEAUPRÉ. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Bogotá, September 30, 1903. (Received 10.55 p. m.) September 30, noon. The Senate commission appointed at the first debate on canal committee's report of September 12, to prepare the matter for second debate, have prepared their report, and it will be presented in a few days. It approves rejection of the treaty August 12, but disapproves the proposed law authorizing the executive to negotiate for the construction of a canal under mentioned conditions. The object is to leave the Government at liberty to negotiate a new treaty without restriction. There is a prospect that it will be adopted. BEAUPRÉ. No. 164.] Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to report that I have succeeded in obtaining from Senator Rivas G., chairman of the committee to whom was referred the report made to the Senate by the canal committee ou September 12, the substance of the report which he will make in the next day or two. As I telegraphed to the Department to-day, he will recommend the approval of the action of the Senate on August 12 in rejecting the Panama Canal treaty with the United States. He will also recommend the disapproval and rejection of the proposed law authorizing the President to make treaties or contracts for the construction of an Isthmian canal. This law was embodied in the committee's report made on September 12, and contained many provisions binding the President to a certain line of action, and prescribing the concessions which could be made, of which I have previously informed the Department. Senator Rivas said that by simply rejecting this proposed law, and adding no further legislation, the Government would be left at full liberty to negotiate, without restrictions, on such terms as could be obtained, and as would be honorable and just to the contracting parties. He felt confident that his plan would be accepted by the Senate and confirmed by the Chamber of Representatives. If the Senate takes this step, and there seems to be a reasonable probability that it will, the canal matter will stand just as it did the day after its rejection on August 12; or, in fact, as it did before the treaty was signed in Washington on January 22, 1903. It is said, and generally believed in this city, that there is a project on foot among certain Senators to annul the arrangement entered into by the Colombian Government and the French Canal Company in 1900, extending the franchise and privileges of that company. Even men good enough to be candidates for President are advocating this action with all seriousness and solemnity. It is urged that Congress has full power to either annul or ratify the action of the Government in this matter, and that if the arrangement made extending the contract is declared null and void, the French company's rights and interests on the Isthmus cease to exist, and Colombia could then arrange with the United States to receive not only the $10,000,000 offered her, but the $40,000,000 offered the company. The good or bad faith of such a movement is not of sufficient consideration to prevent an attempt being made to carry it out, and were it not for one important element in the situation, it is quite among the possibilities that it would be successful. Senator Caro and his followers are powerful factors in the present Senate. Senator Caro was an intimate friend and advisor of President Sanclemente, under whose administration the franchise of the French company was extended, and it is quite certain that he will defend that administration to the extent of his ability. He would probably favor any investigation or action tending to the detriment of the present Government, but not any retrospective measure censuring the previous Government. As the situation now is, any project seriously opposed by him would stand little chance of success. I am, sir, your obedient servant, A. M. BEAUPRÉ. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Bogotá, October 9, 1903. (Received October 14, 2.10 p. m.) The report of the committee referred to in my telegram of September 30 will be presented this afternoon. Informed the principal recommendation will be to annul the arrangement made with the canal company in 1900 extending its concession. By such action Colombian Government evidently hopes to renew the negotiations without any reference to company, and by this means United States of Colombia would be enabled to accept the money compensation otherwise accruing to the company. Will advise further as soon as I can see report. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] UNITED STATES LEGATINON, BEAUPRÉ. Bogotá, October 10, 1903. (Received October 14, 2.59 p. m.) October 10, 1 p. m. Presentation of the committee report postponed until 12th. My telegram of September 30 states the first two clauses of the report. The third and last presents a project for law approving extension in time granted canal company. Apparently this is proposed with the expectation that the Senate will negative the project and annul extension, thus accomplishing the object stated in my telegram, 9th. However, I think in case most of them vote, extension in time to the company will be annulled. The probability is that Congress will adjourn without taking conclusive action on this report. BEAUPRÉ. No. 176.] Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to make reference to my telegrams of yesterday and to-day concerning the probable terms of the report to be presented by the commission of three Senators to whom the project of law authorizing the Government to negotiate for the construction of an interoceanic canal across the Isthmus of Panama was referred. I had been given to understand that this report was to be presented and discussed yesterday, the 9th instant. On sending to the Senate, however, I was told that the canal question would not be brought up, and several Senators informed me that they were not even aware of. the terms of the report, but that the question would in all probability be brought before the Senate on Monday next, the 12th instant. My only source of information was therefore of an entirely private nature. Through I obtained a summary, the substance of which was contained in my telegram to the Department. As I telegraphed the commission has decided that there is no need for the rejection of the treaty to be reaffirmed by the Senate; that neither is it advisable to pass the special law authorizing the Government to conclude a fresh treaty for the construction of an isthmian canal on certain basis, thinking it best not to tie the hands of the Government with hard and fast conditions. Lastly, the commission suggest that the Senate should settle the question of the extension of time to the New Panama Canal Company and present a project of law approving the action of the Colombian Government in this matter. With regard to this extension of time, known as "proroga," there is no doubt that many people high in authority have cherished the hope that some means might be found to undo this act of the Sanclamente Government. The feeling of the Bogota public on this question is, moreover, very patent. They have been led to believe through the medium of the press that, could the "proroga" be annulled, Colombia would thereby inherit the whole of the money compensation otherwise accruing to the French company. However, as I reported in my No. 164 of September 30, 1903, I am informed that there is no danger of this taking place. Such men as Senators Caro, Pedro Nel Ospina, and even Perez y Soto thoroughly realize that the preceding Government and this one are equally involved in the "proroga." The Sanclamente Government agreed upon the grant of an extended time limit, while the Marroquin Government received the 5,000,000 francs, the price paid for that extension. Besides, it is the view of these senators that the "proroga" was a contract concluded in good faith between the Colombian Government and the canal company, and to rescind this contract will need the consent of both parties to it. It is, therefore, thought that while the "proroga" may be used as a means of bringing up a discussion in Congress with the view to censuring the Government, no act of that body can have the effect of annulling the extension contract without the consent of the other party to it-the New Panama Canal Company. Because of the attitude of these and other senators, there is decided ground for believing that this project of law approving the extension will be passed. Monsieur Mancini, the local agent of the canal company, is taking an active interest in this matter, and takes every opportunity to impress upon the Senators the fact that even should the contract now held by the French Company lapse, the Colombian Government would be no better off than they are at present, for the reason that, in such event, all the material would remain the property of the French Company, leaving the Colombian Government merely in possession of the ditch itself. The Panama Railroad, however, remains. Since the French Canal Company owns the majority of the shares in that railroad, it has practical control of the undertaking. Now, the canal works have been carried on within the zone of territory controlled by the railroad company, and could only be continued subject to the consent of that company. Therefore, even though the concession held by the French Company lapse, that company nevertheless retains control of the territory, and its previous consent would be required before the Colombian Government could dispose of its rights over the canal zone. Monsieur Mancini informs me that he had made this point clear to the principal members both of the Government and of Congress, and that many concur in his views. Moreover, that some time before the rejection of the Hay-Herran treaty, he wrote to Mr. Cromwell inform |