ing him that in all probability an attempt would be made to override the rights of the French company and to call in question the validity of the extension of time granted to it. To this he received no reply beyond the mere acknowledgment of his message, and his only instructions have been not to move in the matter at all. He therefore concludes, so he told me, that the United States Government and the French company have arrived at some satisfactory understanding.

I desire to take this opportunity to state that my position during the whole course of the canal negotiations has been a most embarrassing one. I have thoroughly realized what must have been the anxiety of the Department to be well informed of the progress of events. And yet, although it is nearly four months since Congress met, there have been but four or five days during which the canal question was considered, from the initiation of the discussion up to the present time. I have kept in touch with the principal members both of the Government and Congress, and whenever I have succeeded in getting any reliable news, which has not been often, I have reported it. During the long intervals between the days above mentioned there was really nothing to report, except street gossip and wise people's predictions. I have, therefore, had to choose between adopting the attitude of the newspaper reporter and forward such as news, or limit myself to the scanty facts I was able to gain from authentic and official sources. I chose the latter course. When I did obtain information which I deemed of sufficient importance to cable, I have had the misfortune to have some of my most important messages mutilated in transmission. During the long interims, when the canal treaty was buried with inactive committees, there was apparently an absolute lack of interest in the matter on the part both of the Government and Congress. One would have thought that the question was some matter of trivial or temporary importance to judge by the attitude in official circles. During one of these periods, when Congress was devoting its attention to resolutions concerning prominent individuals who were killed in the late revolution, the Liberal daily El Comercio said:

"Cover with laurels dead heroes, praise the memories of your illustrious men, make panegyrics over those who have served in your cause; all this is very well, and we do not wish to discuss it; but, Mr. Legislators, why sing songs of love to God over these things when you ought to consider the great questions which compromise the tranquillity and life of the Republic?

Except then, on the few days heretofore mentioned, there was no reliable or satisfactory information to send to the Department.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay.

[Telegram.]

A. M. BEAUPRÉ.

UNITED STATES LEGATION,

Bogotá, October 15, 1903. (Received 6.20 p. m., 18.)

The report of the committee referred to in my telegram of the 10th has been read in the Senate, was ordered printed, and will probably be discussed next week. It is true that the committee proposes a project for law ratifying the time extension granted canal company,

but the tone of report clearly gives to understand that Colombia would greatly benefit by the canceling of the extension, and states that in that case Colombia would next year obtain possession of all the rights and properties of the canal company [and] thereby be free to come to terms with Government of the United States under most advantageous circumstances. The committee provides for the case of the annulment of time extension by recommending the appropriation of the necessary sum for the repayment with interest of the 5,000,000 francs paid by the French company.

In view of developing sentiment, my opinion of final result is less decided than stated in my telegram of 10th.

Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay.

BEAUPRÉ.

No. 179.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Bogota, October 16, 1903.

SIR: I have the honor to report that in compliance with the request contained in a newspaper article written by Dr. Emilio Ruiz Barreto, that the candidates for the presidency should publicly express their views on certain named questions of national interest, Gen. Joaquín F. Vélez publishes a signed communication in to-day's issue of El Nuevo Tiempo.

It is apparent that General Vélez will be the candidate for President to be named in opposition to the one selected by the Government, for he has demonstrated far more strength than anyone else mentioned. As the election will take place on the first Sunday of December next, it becomes interesting to know General Vélez's views on the Panama Canal question, and I inclose herewith a copy and translation of that portion of his communication dealing with this subject.

General Vélez has some very remarkable ideas concerning public instruction, the duties of foreigners, etc., some of which he very freely expressed when he was governor of the Department of Bolivar in a letter addressed to Mr. George Colvig, United States consul at Barranquilla, on February 11, 1902.

A copy of this letter was sent to this legation by the Department in its No. 385 of March 26, 1902," as one of the inclosures in a letter from the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, dated March 19, 1902, and I respectfully refer to it. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

A. M. BEAUPRÉ.

[Translation.]

Overcoming numerous difficulties, I have assisted at the late sessions of the Senate with the main, if not the sole, object of voting against the Hay-Herran treaty, as I was rejoiced to do at the celebrated session of August 12, a session at which that august body rejected that treaty in first debate and by a unanimity of votes. That treaty was a violation of our fundamental institutions, of the sovereignty of our nation. I say; therefore, that any other project respecting the building of an interoceanic canal presented to the Senate, and having implicitly or explicitly any of the numerous mistakes which rendered the treaty in question unacceptable to the coma Published in Foreign Relations, 1902, p. 293,

mon sense and dignity of Colombia, will always receive my adverse vote. The integrity of its territory, the attributes of independence and sovereignty, and other important points which form the principal constituents of a civilized country are absolutely inviolable. This is a universal and unalterable canon which may not be altered out of false considerations of worldly or territorial purposes, and still less for a certain kind of pessimism engendered by errors and false views in governments or by vile speculation. Nations, like families, in their development and growth, must use their own forces without defiling the natural laws of growth with exotic stimulants, which paralyze or unnerve even when they do not ruin. Foreign aid will be beneficial under our own intelligent and well-supported direction. Our beautiful country will surely acquire in epochs that are, who knows, not far off the tranquillity and maturity, the practical spirit and the political wisdom, which nations of all races have been without for long periods of time; nations which, while certainly being models of culture, have been powerless to do good.

Of life-giving wisdom there is more than enough; all that is wanting is a man of superior talents who will put that knowledge into practice. In one word, I desire, as do many of my countrymen, that any canal that shall cross our isthmus shall be for all time, in the rigorous significance of the word, a Colombian canal; and if it is not to be a Colombian canal, that it shall not be constructed. Better times will come which will admit of the carrying out of that gigantic work without detriment to the national existence, and in a way satisfactory to the sentiments of patriotism.

No. 181.]

Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Bogotá, October 16, 1903.

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy and translation of the report of the committee to whom was referred the project of law authorizing the Executive of the Republic to negotiate for the construction of a Panama canal. This report was read in the Senate on the 14th instant.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

A. M. BEAUPRÉ.

[Inclosure with No. 181, October 16, 1903, from Mr. Beaupré-translation.]

MAJORITY REPORT OF THE PANAMA CANAL COMMITTEE.

Honorable Senators:

Colombia desires the construction of a canal via the Isthmus of Panama that will bring the two oceans into communication with each other. Since it became independent our Republic has considered such a work as an enterprise of universal progress. In 1825, at the initiative of this country, an effort was made to organize a company for this purpose. In 1828 and 1829 the liberator president gave wise and precise orders looking to the construction of a canal, and to that end a scientific commission began the work, made a survey of the route, and explored the entire distance between the two oceans.

On the 27th of May, 1835, the congress of New Granada issued a decree for the development of the enterprise, granted a privilege to Baron de Thierri, and in 1838 sanctioned a legislative decree making a concession to the company organized in France and New Granada.

After several years of exploration, the reports of the company were so satisfactory that the Government of France appointed, in 1843, a special commission which finished its examination with the most hearty support of the Government of New Granada.

We deem it unnecessary to enumerate here the successive efforts and concessions which, during seventy years, seconding the initial thought of the liberator, Colombia has made in behalf of the interoceanic canal.

We will recall, in passing, some of the various official acts designed to promote the work.

Decree of Congress in 1835; legislative decree of 1838; decree of Congress in July, 1842; legal convention of 1851; official instructions of 1843; law 60 of 1866; treaty of

January, 1869; Congressional instructions of 1869; treaty of January, 1870; law of approval, July, 1870; law of authorization, 1876; treaty of May, 1876; treaty and law of approval, 1878; extension granted by law 107 of 1890; new second extension granted by law 91 of 1892; contract for extension, April, 1893; legislative decree granting extension in 1900.

As is seen, Colombia, by solemn public acts, has shown that she considers the construction of the canal as a great national work and as a necessity for the commerce of the world. Although the Senate unanimously rejected the Herran-Hay treaty, it did so not with a view to opposing so glorious and necessary a work, but from the fairest and highest motives.

The foreign press affirms our right to reject said tready, and it is recognized by the chairman of the Interoceanic Canal Committee. That remarkable public man who, for more than a quarter of a century, has fought for an interoceanic canal controlled by the United States, hearing of the rejection, expressed his views as follows:

"If the Colombian Congress has rejected the treaty, it is because that country respects its constitution, is mindful of the integrity of its territorial limits, desires to maintain its friendly relations with the United States, and is watchful of its financial interests. All this will raise that Republic in the estimation of other peoples and nations."

We will now examine the bill ratifying the rejection and authorizing the Government to negotiate for the construction of an interoceanic canal via the Isthmus of Panama.

As is seen, the said bill has two objects, viz, to confirm the Senate's rejection of the treaty between the Republic of Colombia and the United States of America, concluded at Washington January 22, 1903, and to invest the President of the Republic with such powers as will enable him to conclude public treaties or conventions relative to the Panama Canal or to contract for the same work with private companies. We consider that the first object is not only superfluous, because the rejection by the Senate is based upon constitutional provisions to which an authentic interpretation has been given and which have constantly been put into practice in the same sense, which interpretation and practice render the rejection sound and correct in the form in which it was made; but also that the new form of ratification which is proposed would introduce a doctrinal theory different from that already established and accepted for seeking to decide a special case of grave import, to which, for this and many other reasons, it would be wholly inapplicable.

In fact, it is a constitutional provision that every proposed law by means of which the legislative houses exercise, or seek to exercise, their powers in conformity with article 76 of the constitution, may be rejected in any of their debates, thereby fulfilling the negative in contrast to the positive form, both of which are the outcome of the twentieth provision of said article.

If this were not so, the members of the houses would be deprived of the necessary freedom in their opinions and votes, and both would cease to be deliberative bodies. The authentic interpretation to which we refer is contained with great clearness in article 323 of the rules of the Senate, identical with article 322 of those of the house of delegates, which we here insert:

"As it is not possible for a treaty to be constitutionally approved otherwise than by Congress, with the sanction of the Executive, but as it may be rejected by the Senate or House of Representatives, like any other proposed law, according to the constitution, if any decree should come from the House of Representatives totally and absolutely rejecting a treaty, it shall return it, stating that the Senate is apprised of its rejection."

When the said article 76 of the constitution provided that the Congress should exercise by law the powers enumerated in that article, among which is the power to approve or reject public treaties, it tended to prevent the exercise of those powers, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in paragraph 2 of article 78 of the same constitution, by means of simple resolutions, but it did not pretend to compel the legislators to vote in a determinate sense or to pass laws, even those most necessary. The second object of the proposed law concerning authorizations consists in finding a way to satisfy the desire of the Colombian people regarding the excavation of the Panama Canal in harmony (says the proposition approved by the Senate on the 13th of August last) with the national interests and respect for law, which has been on this solemn occasion the guide of the Senate.

Your committee considers that the proposed law relative to authorizations is unconstitutional. Article 120 of the constitution says:

"It shall be the duty of the President of the Republic, invested with the supreme administrative authority * * * 10. To direct diplomatic and commercial relations with other powers and governments * * * and to conclude treaties and con

ventions with foreign powers. Treaties shall be submitted to Congress for approval and conventions shall be approved by the President during the recess of Congress, with the advice and consent of the ministers and council of state. The proposed law shall not modify the provisions of the constitution."

Besides, that law is not only unconstitutional, but fails to meet its object because the instructions which would be given to our diplomatic agents, instead of being necessarily confidential, would be public, and known to the other Government or to the contracting company, which would consequently have an indisputable advantage

in the case.

Furthermore, the Senate does not overlook the fact that if this law concerning authorizations should be passed, and if the Executive, basing his action upon it as upon a firm basis, should expedite a negotiation and conclude a treaty, he would perhaps give occasion to the power with which the treaty was concluded to complain, subsequently, that a Congress had rejected what this Congress and the Executive branch of the Government had presented as a basis of negotiations.

Moreover, the matter being carefully considered, no negotiations could, in any case, be properly carried on upon the bases that would be presented to this Congress by that law; and the law would not have the serious and efficient character which every law ought to have.

Your committee thinks that this law is not only unconstitutional and ill adapted to meet its purpose, but that it is unnecessary. The constitution which has provided for the independence of the different branches of the Government, thus consecrating a principle which has been recognized since the adoption of the constitution of 1811, has also traced limits for those branches, and although it leaves to the Executive the power to conclude treaties, it makes it absolutely obligatory upon him, at the same time to submit them to the legislative branch for its approval. Article 57 says: "All branches of the Government shall be limited, and shall exercise their respective powers separately." And article 76 says that it shall be the duty of the Congress "to approve or reject such treaties as the Government may conclude with foreign powers.'

Even if a law concerning authorizations should be passed, the treaty that should be concluded in virtue thereof by the Government would necessarily have to be submitted to the approval of another legislature, which might fail to pass it.

What would, therefore, be gained by a law that would give no force to the treaty which would be concluded on the bases and authorizations which it contained?

We present these abstract considerations, and they would all be pertinent even if the Executive were free to conclude treaties looking to the construction of the Panama Canal, but it is known that the Government of Colombia is not at liberty to do so; a contract exists which binds it, and this link has not been broken.

This is, in our opinion, the greatest obstacle to the law in question, which would be premature if not calculated to do eat its own object. We think it useless to demonstrate that the fundamental pɔ ́nt to which the attention of the Senate should be confined is the one relating to the validity of the engagement already contracted by the Government.

The Herran-Hay treaty has ceased to exist, both because of its unanimous rejection by the Senate and because the time for the exchange of its ratifications, the 22d of September, has already expired, without any extension having been provided or asked for. Consequently the state of the case is the same that it was before the conclusion of the treaty. The first condition therein established was the permission granted to the new company to transfer its rights. The Senate having refused to accept this condition, the company has remained under obligations to fulfill its contract, and the Colombian Government is still under obligations to respect all its provisions and to cause them to be respected.

How can it be asked that Congress shall enact a law of authorizations to negotiate with a foreign government when the rights and privileges of the New Panama Canal Company are still in force?

The treaty concluded April 4, 1893, which amended those of March 23, 1878, and December 10, 1890, granted to the New Panama Canal Company an extension of ten years that is to say, until December 31, 1904. Consequently, even without a new extension, the company will be in the full enjoyment of its rights and privileges until October of the coming year. But there is another consideration: The legislative decree No. 721 of 1900 granted to the company a new extension of six years, which begins to be reckoned next year and will end October 31, 1910.

One point now remains to be examined, which has so often been discussed by the press, a point which, now that the matter is under discussion, should be defined. Is the extension granted by that legislative decree valid or not? In the first casethat is to say, if it is considered valid-seven years must elapse before the extension