complished fact. The first president of the Republic of Cuba was inaugurated on May 20, 1902. Thus, in the most striking instance of intervention to be found in its history, the United States, fulfilling the pledge which it had given to the world, kept faith with the object of its solicitude by relinquishing to the people of Cuba the government and control of the island, subject only to such conditions as were essential to the maintenance of its independence and the exercise of orderly self-rule.

CHAPTER IV

INTERVENTION IN THE REVOLUTION AT PANAMA, 1903

WITH the express exception of the case of Cuba, the outstanding instance of American intervention is that of the United States in the revolution at Panama in 1903, resulting in the establishment of the republic of Panama. This intervention, and the controversy with Colombia which followed, has a distinct relation to the treaty of 1846 between the United States and the republic of New Granada, article 35 of which provides that "the United States guarantee, positively and efficaciously, to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned Isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists; and, in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory." President Polk, in a message to the Senate, February 10, 1847, transmitting the treaty of 1846 to that body, observed that the conditions inducing him to lay the document before the Senate were: (1) that the treaty did not propose to guarantee a territory to a foreign nation in which the United States should have no common interest with that nation; (2) that the guarantee was confined to the single province of the Isthmus of Panama, and did not extend to the New Granadan territories generally; (3) that

1 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc., vol. i, p. 312.

66

it would constitute no alliance for any political object, but for a purely commercial one, which would command the interest of all maritime nations; and (4) that in entering into the mutual guarantees proposed in Article 35 of the treaty, neither of the parties had entertained any narrow or exclusive views, but were moved to secure to all nations the free and equal right of passage over the Isthmus.” 1 Moreover, he contended that such a guarantee was necessary to secure for the world this passage, independent of wars and revolutions which might arise among different nations, and was indispensable to effect its construction, either by sovereign states or by private enterprise.

2

1

The treaty of 1846, therefore, embraces a guarantee of the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, with a view to maintaining a free and open transit, and a guarantee of New Granadan rights of sovereignty and property over the territory. The guarantee of neutrality and sovereignty has in several instances been defined and interpreted by the United States under circumstances which seemed to justify it. We have taken the position that the United States could tender to New Granada, unsought, such advice as was necessary, in her relation with other powers, to protect the Isthmus under the treaty. The Peruvian government inquired as to the measures which the United States might take in case the neutrality of the Isthmus should be threatened, and suggested that New Granada might make the Isthmus a seat of hostile preparations against Peru, and thus make of the guarantee of neutrality in effect a defensive alliance between New Granada and the United States. Mr. Everett, as Secretary of State, replied that the action taken would be controlled by the magnitude of

3

'Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. iv, pp. 512-513~ 2 Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, vol. iii, p. 24.

3 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 25.

American interests, and in the event of a conflict between Peru and New Granada, the good offices of the United States would be offered to prevent it.

It was the opinion of Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, that the United States was under no duty to explain to Colombia the means which it might take to effect the guarantee of Colombian sovereignty. The action of both governments, he observed, should be regulated by the treaty and the law of nations, should the emergency arise. Mr. Fish, as Secretary of State, declared that "a principal object" of New Granada in signing the treaty of 1846 was to maintain her sovereignty over the Isthmus against any attack from abroad. Secretary of State Evarts expressed the view that the American guarantee of neutrality did not extend to the duty of restraining the transportation of munitions of war to belligerents in a war during which the United States was neutral. He directed Mr. Dichman, American minister to Colombia, that the neutrality of the Isthmus, as guaranteed by the United States, should in no sense be confused with the rules which Colombia should be called upon to enforce within her territorial jurisdiction as a sovereign state, as towards all belligerent states. The construction of the American guarantee was reserved for a situation which might require it.

In a convention between the republics of Colombia and Costa Rica, it was agreed to refer certain boundary differences which affected the territorial limits of the State of Panama to the King of the Belgians, and in case of his declination, successively to the King of Spain and the President of the Argentine Republic. Mr. Blaine, Secre

1 Richardson, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 26-27. 'Foreign Relations, 1871, pp. 247, 248.

'Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, vol. iii, p. 27.

tary of State, declared that the United States would not be bound by any arbitration where its rights or interests were concerned, and where it had not been consulted as to the subject or method of the arbitration, or as to the choice of the arbitrator. This position was substantially reaffirmed by Secretaries of State Frelinghuysen and Bayard. By a supplementary convention between Colombia and Costa Rica, concluded January 20, 1886, it was stipulated that the judgment of the arbitration should be confined to territorial limits as set forth in the supplementary convention, and it was further provided that the judgment should not affect the rights which any third party, not having participated in the convention, might claim to the "ownership of the territory in question. This formal assurance was accepted by the United States, with the understanding that the term "ownership" was used in no restrictive sense, but included all possessory or usufructuary rights, easements, or privileges which the United States or its citizens may possess in the territory under dispute, both as regards the relation of the United States to the contracting parties, and its relation and that of its citizens to any third government not a party to the arbitration.

The guarantee of a free and open transit, in its relation to domestic disturbances which have taken place on the Isthmus. is equal in importance to the guarantee of neutrality and sovereignty. The Isthmus became in due course an important highway of commerce and transportation. In the celebrated Panama riot of 1856, resulting in the loss of life and the destruction of property, the government of New Granada, by a convention concluded at Washington, September 10, 1857, agreed to adjust all claims of American citizens against that government presented before a certain date, and especially such claims as were caused by the riot of 1856. By this convention, New Granada rec

1 Moore, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 34-35.