ognized her "obligation to preserve peace and good order along the transit route." The Department of State, in 1866, with respect to a rumor that the state of Panama would attempt to secure her independence, announced that the United States had made a uniform practice of abstention from any connection with questions of internal revolution in the state of Panama or any other Colombian state, and would continue to be neutral in such domestic disturbances.1 However, in the event of interference with the transit trade due to foreign or domestic invasions in the state of Panama, measures of protection would be taken. Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, significantly observed that the United States had, under the treaty of 1846, undertaken to protect the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama. In addition, he said: "This engagement, however, has never been acknowledged to embrace the duty of protecting the road across it from the violence of local factions; but it is regarded as the undoubted duty of the Colombian government to protect it against attacks from local insurgents." During the insurrection of 1884-1885, and at other times, the United States had employed its armed forces to protect American citizens and their property along the transit route. In most instances, these steps were taken with the assent of the Colombian government. In regard to these measures, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, declared that the United States had always recognized the sovereignty of Colombia and had never acknowledged, but had expressly disclaimed, the duty of protecting the line of transit against domestic disturbance. Due to interference with the line of railway by the Liberals, American forces were landed at Panama, November 4, 1901. A degree of American intervention continued during the period of revolution, which was

1 Moore, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 38.

brought to a close when peace was concluded on November 21, 1902, between the Colombian government and the revolutionary forces in the cabin of Rear-Admiral Casey's flagship.

The incident which led to our intervention to establish the republic of Panama was the revolution of 1903. On November 3, 1903, the commanders of the Boston, Nashville and Dixie were instructed as follows:

Maintain a free and uninterrupted transit. If interruption threatened by armed force, occupy the line of railroad. Prevent landing of any armed force with hostile intent, either government or insurgent, at any point within 50 miles of Panama. Government force reported approaching Isthmus in vessels. Prevent their landing if, in your judgment, the landing would precipitate a conflict.1

The revolution followed the next day, and the independence of the republic was declared a day later. Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, instructed the representative of the United States at Panama to enter into relations with the new government when he was satisfied that "a de facto government, republican in form, and without substantial opposition from its own people" had been established. He was also directed to look to that government for the protection of American citizens and their property, and for the interests of the United States as regards Isthmian transit. On November 13, Mr. Bunau-Varilla was received by President Roosevelt as minister of Panama to the United States.

The Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty was concluded between the United States and Panama on November 18, 1903. Under its provisions, the United States agreed to guarantee and maintain the independence of the republic of Panama.*

'Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 267.

3 Ibid., 1903, p. 233.

Ibid., 1903, pp. 245, 246.

'Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc., vol. ii, pp. 1349, et seq.

[454 On her part, Panama relinquished to the United States the control of sanitation and the maintenance of public order within the cities of Colon and Panama. The United States was given the right to employ measures to protect the canal, and no alterations in government, laws or treaties affecting the rights of the United States could be made without her consent. Panama granted to the United States in perpetuity a zone ten miles wide for purposes of a canal, American control of which was to be virtually sovereign. President Roosevelt discussed the provisions of the HayBunau-Varilla treaty in his annual message of December 7, 1903.1 He cited declarations of policy of earlier statesmen in regard to the canal question, gave a list of revolutions and other outbreaks which had occurred on the Isthmus since the treaty of 1846, and pointed out that American interests under the treaty would be best served by entering into relations with the republic of Panama. He also condemned Colombia for her "contemptuous refusal" to ratify the Hay-Herran treaty, which the Colombian Congress declined to approve on the ground that it infringed national sovereignty and was not in accord with the national constitution and laws.

Colombia immediately protested, invoking article 35 of the treaty of 1846, and the two governments entered upon a controversy which is still unsettled. The question was whether the conduct of the United States in extending recognition at so early a stage of the revolution constituted an act of intervention. General Reyes was sent on a special mission to the United States to present the Colombian case. A capital complaint which he made was that the United States had intervened in a conflict between Colombia and a rebellious province, and had aided in the dismemberment of a portion of Colombia's territory. He

denied that the principle of secession was recognized by the internal law of Colombia, and described what he regarded as the proper conditions of recognition in the following terms:

If the people of Panama, animated by the noble sentiments which induced men of action to seek quicker and more rapid progress, had proclaimed their independence and, without foreign aid, been victorious in battle waged against the armies of the mother country, had organized a government, drawn up laws, and proved to the world that it could govern itself by itself and be responsible to other nations for its conduct, without doubt it would have become entitled to recognition by all the powers.1

He held, however, that none of these things had occurred, and observed that the conduct of the United States was difficult to comprehend in the light of prior American practice. His three main points of complaint included the aid rendered by the United States to the Panama insurrection, the premature recognition of the republic of Panama, and the alleged violation of the terms of the treaty of 1846 between the United States and New Granada. Mr. Hay, as Secretary of State, replied that eighteen governments had recognized the revolution as an "avowed object . . to secure the construction of the interoceanic canal." It was inspired, he said, by the desire of the people to safeguard their own interests and at the same time to secure the canal to its providential uses. Any recognition was due to the conviction that interests of utmost importance to the civilized world would be endangered. As to the American guarantee of the neutrality of the Isthmus, and of the sovereignty and property of Colombia over it, such a step

'Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 292.

"Ibid., 1903, pp. 302-303.

[456 had been taken in the interests of an interoceanic communication and of an uninterrupted transit from sea to sea. Responsibility was laid upon Colombia, and a vigorous exchange of notes followed.

1

In a special message to Congress, January 4, 1904, President Roosevelt set forth, in clear and explicit terms, definite reasons for the policy of his administration in dealing with the situation in Panama. At the outset, he quoted the position enunciated by Secretary of State Cass in 1858, which was in effect that sovereignty has its duties as well as rights, and that the administration of the states in Central America should not be allowed to close the doors of intercourse to the world. Under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, he said, the United States, in engaging to control and police the canal, and to keep it open for the vessels of all nations on equal terms, "assumed the position of guarantor of the canal and of its peaceful use by all the world." At the time of the submission to Colombia of the Hay-Herran treaty, three things, Mr. Roosevelt observed, were settled. One was that the canal should be built, and that the time of allowing impediments to delay its construction was past. A second was that the United States would deal in a fair and generous way with the people through whose land the canal might be built. The Hay-Herran treaty, it was declared, fulfilled these conditions, in that it acknowledged, confirmed and preserved Colombian sovereignty over the strip. No nation could undertake to build a canal with a less degree of control than was provided for in the HayHerran treaty, and a refusal to grant it was a refusal to enter into any practicable treaty, with the result that Colombia would hold up the world's traffic across the Isthmus. Finally, Congress had settled that the canal was to be .built.