expires, and therefore any law concerning authorizations seems premature, as three sessions might still be held which would be able to examine the matter and to legislate concerning it with better data and evidence than the present Congress has; and if the extension is not valid, the aspect of the question changes entirely, and the basis of discussion will be quite different. By the 31st of October of next year— that is to say, when the next Congress shall have met in ordinary session-the extension will have expired and every privilege with it. In that case "the Republic will become the possessor and owner, without any need of a previous judicial decision and without any indemnity, of the canal itself and of the adjuncts that belong to it, according to the contracts of 1878 and 1900.” When that time arrives, the Republic, without any impediment, will be able to contract, and will be in more clear, more definite, and more advantageous possession both legally and materially. The authorizations which would then be given by the next Congress would be very different from those that can be given by the present one. It is seen, therefore, that it is the duty of Congress to decide, as a previous question that can not be shirked, concerning the validity of the extension granted in 1900. We venture nothing on the subject, and we respect, in advance, the decision of Congress in so delicate a matter. Supposing that it does not ratify said extension, it is well to observe now that it would be necessary to include in the budget the appropriation that would be necessary to repay to the company the sum of 5,000,000 francs with interest. In view of all the foregoing, we conclude our report by laying before you a draft of a law whereby a contract is approved, and by submitting to your consideration the following: Let the discussion of the draft of a law whereby a rejection is ratified and authority is granted to the Government to negotiate for the construction of an interoceanic canal across the Isthmus of Panama be indefinitely postponed. Honorable Senators: GUILLERMO Quintero CalderON. LUIS MARIA CALVO. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Bogotá, October 17, 1903. (Received October 19–2.20 p. m.) Have received information, confidentially, that there was a meeting of the cabinet yesterday to discuss the question of renewing canal negotiations with the United States and that the adjournment of congress will be followed by the mission of special envoy to Washington for that purpose. The President's message dissolving the congress will be delivered probably before 30th instant. No. 183.] Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. BEAUPRÉ. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to inform you that during the evening of the fateful 12th of August last, on which day the Hay-Herran treaty was rejected by the Colombian senate, I sent the Department three telegrams concerning the matter. Two of these reached the Department with an interval of about a week between them, but the third, the one of most timely import of all, was never received, or at least has not been acknowledged. This telegram was sent at 10 o'clock p. m. of that day and was confirmed in my No. 104 of that date. I beg that the Department will accept the cipher dates of my telegrams as in all cases correct. The open date given by the telegraph office is made to suit its convenience. I am, sir, your obedient servant, No. 185.] Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. A. M. BEAUPRÉ. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to inform you that it would be of great utility and satisfaction to me to be kept posted as to the course of events on the Isthmus, and, if not inconsistent with the rules, I would be glad to have it arranged so that our consular officers at Panama and Colon could send me copies of their dispatches to the Department on the political situation, and that the consul-general at Panama could telegraph me whenever anything of unusual importance occurs. I am, sir, your obedient servant, No. 186.] Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. A. M. BEAUPRÉ. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that there is no disguising the alarm existing as to the possible action of the Government of the United States should the feeling of disaffection undoubtedly existing in the department of Panama find expression in overt acts. This aların took the form of a heated debate in the Senate yesterday when the Government was again attacked for the apointment of Señor Obaldia as governor of Panama. The reply elicited from the minister for foreign affairs was rather significant. He read an extract from the treaty of 1846, in which the United States guaranteed Colombian sovereignty on the Isthmus, and assured the Senate that in case of an insurrection in the department of Panama the United States would be bound to support the Government. In the course of this debate Señor Caro said that the minister for foreign affairs had the notes of the American minister read to the Senate, in secret session, with the object of convincing that body of the necessity of accepting the Hay-Herran treaty, in view of the menacing attitude outlined in those communications. Finding in that secret session that the Senate disapproved the treaty and was determined to act accordingly, the Government, through Senator Lorenzo Marroquin, its spokesman, obtained a resolution demanding that those notes be read in public session, with the object of making it appear that the rejection of the treaty was influenced by a sentiment of indignation at the threatening attitude assumed by the United States minister. This comedy became known to the Government of the United States, and it has resented it. He was not influenced, generally, by what was reported in the newspapers, but the statement universally given expression to in the press of the United States, that the Washington Government resented the criticism made against the United States minister in carrying out the orders emanating both from the President and Secretary Hay can not be without foundation. This was only one instance proving that the Colombian Government had not acted in good faith in these negotiations. The refusal on the part of President Marroquin to sign the treaty before presenting it to the Senate was another. Whatever reasons the Government adduced as to there being no necessity for such a signature was outside the point. The intention was clear that the treaty was not signed because the Government wanted to have a loophole whereby to escape their obligations to the United States. In other words, it did not want to be under the obligation of coming forward to defend and support a treaty which was signed by its order. It was bound in good faith to the United States to do so. It was for Congress alone to accept or reject it. Had such a course been followed there would have been no reason to look forward with alarm to the attitude which the United States might adopt. The Colombian Government had nothing to fear from the United States had it clearly done all in its power in supporting the treaty. No responsibility would then have attached to this country for the rejection of the treaty by Congress, a body which had the perfect right to reject or accept as it pleased. What he feared was that the United States might take the Isthmus from us under the just plea that we had acted in bad faith with them. The only strength which a small nation has is its good faith. In reply the minister for foreign affairs said that the press of the United States was given entire liberty of public discussion, but that the statements made therein were not always to be accepted as entire statements of fact. That he had just received positive information that no resentment was entertained by the Washington Government for this Government's action in having Mr. Beaupré's notes read. The report of the committee on the canal question, which was read in the Senate on the 14th instant, has not yet been called up for discussion. As a matter of fact, the Government and Congress are playing a waiting game. At various times it has been announced authoritatively that the Congress would adjourn at a given date, but thus far there have been timely reconsiderations and other dates fixed. Last week it was said that the President had certainly and definitely concluded that an adjournment must take place on the 30th instant, now that it has been determined that the closing day shall be the 14th proximo. As a matter of fact, the Government and the Congress have waited and are waiting to acertain, if possible, the final attitude of the Government of the United States concerning the canal matter before the life of this Congress is ended. An effort was made by the Government to falsely place the blame for the rejection of the Hay-Herran treaty upon the notes addressed by this legation to the minister for foreign affairs, and the result was awaited in the belief that this view would be accepted by the Government of the United States. This attempt failed; the situation is disturbing; and now the further delay is, quite apparently, for the purpose of awaiting the action of President Roosevelt in his message to the special session of our Congress which is to meet, it is understood here, on the 9th proximo, and the attitude of that Congress upon receiving the President's message. I am, sir, your obedient servant, A. M. BEAUPRÉ. Mr. Hay to Mr. Beaupre. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 22, 1903. Referring to your telegram 17th, if you find disposition on the part of Colombia to ask terms more favorable to Colombia than those heretofore negotiated, you may intimate orally, but not in writing, that it will be useless to send a special envoy. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. HAY. No. 188.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, a Bogotá, October 23, 1903. SIR: Referring to my No. 160 of September 29, 1903, concerning the taxes and charges on shipping at Panama, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy and translation of a note from the minister for foreign affairs on the subject. I am, sir, your obedient servant, A. M. BEAUPRÉ. [Inclosure with No. 188, October 23, 1903-Translation.] MINISTRY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, Mr. MINISTER: On account of the presence of an alarming degree of bubonic plague in various points on the Pacific coast it was determined to use a Government ship for a lazaretto in the Bay of Panama, and in accordance with law 106 of 1892, authorizing the organization of the sanitary service in the marine ports of the Republic in time of peace and placing an extraordinary contribution on the boats which arrive in Colombian ports, the governor of the department using these legal rights, issued the decrees of June 24 and August 4 of this year, by which a tax was temporarily levied on boats of more than 1,000 tons register arriving in the ports of Panama and Colon, proceeds of which were to defray the expenses of that lazaretto. The urgency of the case prevented notice of such police measures being given to the public sooner than their insertion in the official publication. The ports of Panama and Colon being united by rail, the same measures taken in either of these benefit the other and are taken not only to attend to transit sickness and to avoid contagion, but to favor navigation in both oceans. This shows how fair it is that not only the ships arriving at Panama but also those entering Colon should pay the tax for the plague hospital. To facilitate foreign commercial relations as those of importation, exportation, and transit, etc., which are or are not permitted to be executed in the ports of the Republic the law divides these into free and closed ports. The designation of free ports does not come from any international pact, neither does it signify that the vessels arriving in those ports are exempt from the payment of taxes or contributions. In the binding treaty between Colombia and the United States it is stipulated that the citizens of each of the contracting parties may frequent all the coasts and territories of the other, and reside therein and do business in all classes of productions, manufactured goods, and merchandise; that they will enjoy all the rights, privileges, and exemptions in navigation and commerce which the citizens of that country enjoy or may enjoy in accordance with the laws, decrees, and uses established there, and that no other or higher duties will be levied on the tonnage of the respective ships. The free transit of the Isthmus of Panama is conceded to the citizens of the United States and the transport of their products, manufactures, or merchandise of lawful « Not printed. commerce without the imposition of other taxes or contributions other than those placed on the natural products of the country (Panama) under similiar circumstances. There are these advantages of an equal treatment, and there is no other in favor of the ships of the United States. In the polite note of September 29 last, your excellency informs me that you have received a protest from the vice-consul-general of the United States against the taxes and contributions on shipping levied in the port of Panama, and especially against said decree No. 91. In reference to the different points treated of in said note, in which your excellency is also pleased to express the hope that means will be taken in the matter, I have the honor to inform your excellency, in addition to what I have expressed in this note, that according to the information which has been given me in this matter, it is hoped that in a short time all fears of the invasion of the bubonic plague on the Isthmus will have ceased, and immediately the tax levied for the lazaretto will be rescinded. I avail myself of this opportunity, etc., His Excellency A. M. BEAUPRÉ, etc. LUIS CARLOS RICO. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Bogotá, October 23, 1903. (Received October 24, 5.23 p. m.) October 23, 11 a. m. The report of the committee not yet discussed. It appears to me the Congress is playing a waiting game, evidently with the object of ascertaining attitude of the President of the United States in his message to the extra session of Congress and of that body. It is said that Congress will not adjourn until 14th proximo. Minister for foreign affairs gives me private information that at the next meeting the Cabinet will again discuss canal question, it being proposed to send an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary and also a commission of three prominent men to Washington to renew negotiations. BEAUPRÉ. Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Ilay. [Telegram.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Bogotá, October 27, 1903. (Received 10.15 p. m., 29.) October 27, 7 p. m. Report of the committee was discussed to-day in the Senate. Only four Senators spoke. Caro opposed the proposed law authorization as unconstitutional, on the ground that any future action which the Government might take and was free to take was subject to approval of future Congress, and that this Congress has no right to bind the action of the next one. He strongly denounced the treaty itself and the selfish motives of the United States in desiring such a treaty. Senator Groot, one of the authors of the report, spoke in the same tone. Senator Ospina defended the proposed law of authorization. Finally Senator Arango, after pointing out the futility of the proposed law, which was only the treaty with modifications which the Government of the United States has declared unacceptable, |