Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Senate "almost with ferocity." His sayings reported by tale bearers did not help his cause with the senators and he was never popular with the Senate. Yet much more than anything of the sort, the ideas which lay at the bottom of Roosevelt's friendly criticism affected the Senate's action in regard to the Treaty and they made amendments to it which embodied tacitly these objections. The British Government did not accept the amendments. Hay resigned his position as Secretary of State in the following words: "Dear Mr. President: The action of the Senate indicates views so widely divergent from mine in matters affecting, as I think, the national welfare and honor, that I fear my power to serve you in business requiring the concurrence of that body is at an end. I cannot help fearing also that the newspaper attacks upon the State Department, which have so strongly influenced the Senate, may be an injury to you if I remain in the Cabinet." McKinley, in a very manly letter, refused to accept his resignation.2

Hay did not let his irritation prevent his going ahead with the project, and he took steps toward the negotiation of a new Treaty. Meanwhile Roosevelt had become President and the new Treaty, which is known as the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, was signed by Hay and Pauncefote on November 18, 1901, was ratified by the Senate on December 16 by 72: 6 and concurred in by the British Government. Under this Treaty, the canal was built. It provided that it should supersede the convention of 1850 and that the canal might be constructed

[blocks in formation]

either by the United States or by corporations that it might aid. A clear statement of its meaning on one disputed point is given by Shelby M. Cullom, who was then a member and soon to become chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. "The first and second Hay-Pauncefote treaties must be construed together; the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty contained a prohibition against fortifications; the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty neither prohibited nor in terms agreed to fortifications, but was silent on the subject; therefore, the legal construction would be that Great Britain had receded from the position that the canal should not be fortified." 2

The canal was fortified. James Bryce wrote: "The visitor who sees the slopes where these forts and batteries are to be placed, asks who are the enemies whom it is desired to repel. Where is the great naval power that has any motive either of national enmity or of selfinterest sufficient to induce it to face the risks of a war with a country so populous, so wealthy and so vigorous as the United States?" The peace-loving American who gazes at the forts on the cliffs of Gibraltar might put pari passu the same question.

Public sentiment had decided that there should be an inter-oceanic canal and that it should be constructed by the United States. The question was should it go by Nicaragua or across the Isthmus of Panama? When Hay wrote on January 15, 1900, "The canal is going to be built, probably by the Nicaragua route," he expressed

1 Digest of International Law. John Bassett Moore, iii. 219. The Treaty is printed in full and the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty is given on p. 210. 'South America, 32.

Fifty Years of Public Service, 381. 'Life of Hay, Thayer, ii. 222.

the popular opinion. The Nicaragua canal "has become a sentiment," said Senator Hanna in his great speech advocating the Panama route. Three commissions had decided in favor of it. "I want to confess," declared Hanna, "that in common with all my fellow citizens I shared in that feeling and belief and, as the necessity seemed to grow and demand an isthmian canal [through Nicaragua], I would have been prepared, under the influences which then existed, to give my hearty support to that project."

The advantage of Panama over Nicaragua was well put forward by Hanna in this speech. "The Panama Canal route," he said, "is 49 miles long as against 183 miles of the Nicaraguan route." The New Panama Canal Company (French) which had previously offered to sell its plant, rights, privileges, franchises and concessions for 109 millions had now come down to 40 millions. Included in this offer were all of the existing shares of the Panama railway except about 1100; the total was 70,000 shares. The last Commission had, on receiving the new offer of the French company, made a supplementary report (January 18, 1902) recommending the Panama route. The question of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, of the cost of construction and operation was all in favor of the canal by way of Panama.2

This was Hanna's greatest effort in the Senate. According to Senator George F. Hoar, no mean judge, he was eloquent as he discussed the question in all of its

1 Jan. 9, 1902.

* Hanna's speech was made June 5 and 6, 1902, is reported in the Congressional Record, 6317 et seq.; see also Life of Hanna, Croly, 379 et seq.

bearings. "He changed the whole attitude of the Senate," wrote Cullom, "concerning the route for an interoceanic canal. We all generally favored the Nicaraguan route. Senator Hanna became convinced that the Panama route was best and he soon carried everything before him to the end that the Panama route was selected."

A bill providing for the construction of the Nicaraguan canal had passed the House almost unanimously and to the bill as it came to the Senate, Spooner had added an amendment providing for the purchase of the rights, privileges, franchises, concessions, right of way, unfinished work, plants and property of the New Panama Canal Company of France for 40 millions, and the construction of the canal across the Isthmus of Panama, but if "the President be unable to obtain for the United States a satisfactory title to the property of the New Panama Canal Company and the control of the necessary territory of the Republic of Colombia within a reasonable time and upon reasonable terms," then the President

1 Fifty Years of Public Service, 281. "The United States had been committed for thirty years to an isthmian canal by the Nicaragua route. It came to be considered as 'the American line.' The resolution in its favor had passed the House. Senator Hanna gave to the study of the question, which was purely a business one, a mind long trained in construction contracts. He came to the conclusion that we should build on the Panama route. . . . He accomplished that rarest of triumphs, the command of a listening Senate." - Senator C. M. Depew. Senator Charles Dick who succeeded Hanna in the Senate said: "His greatest achievement in this body was in converting a hostile majority to favor the route for an isthmian canal which his judgment declared was the best. He came to this conclusion only after most thorough investigation. When he entered upon this contest few of the Members of Congress agreed with him. . . . He was told that his efforts would be futile. He entered upon the contest with all the zeal and energy of his strong nature. By personal appeals, by labors in committee and on this floor he urged his views." Memorial addresses, 104, 131.

"might fall back to the Nicaragua route." This passed the Senate by 42 to 34,2 was accepted by the House, signed by the President and was entirely satisfactory to public opinion.

On the basis of this act Hay negotiated what is known as the Hay-Herran Treaty, signed January 22, 1903. Dr. Herran was the chargé d'affaires of Colombia in Washington. Colombia's executive officer was Marroquin, a usurper who had been Vice-President and now assumed to be acting President. He was called a dictator by Roosevelt and those who supported his action, but his word was far from being law. At first really in favor of the Treaty, he succumbed to a popular sentiment, which was excited by the Finance Minister and the press of Bogotá, and did not advocate strongly the Treaty before the Colombia Congress as Roosevelt and Hay thought he should have done. The Treaty was not valid unless approved by the Colombia Congress and the popular feeling, at least in Bogotá, the capital, was that the ten million bonus and the $250,000 per year after nine years, which was what the United States had agreed to pay by the Hay-Herran Treaty, was not sufficient compensation for that which Colombia was conceding to the United States. It was thought that the provision of the Spooner Act that, unless proper arrangements could be made with the Republic of Colombia and the French Canal Company, the United States was empowered to construct the Nicaraguan Canal, was a mere bluff to make better terms with Colombia which looked upon the Isth

1 Acts of Congress relating to the Panama Canal, 27. This included 68,863 shares of the Panama Railroad Company out of a total of 70,000 shares.

* Life of Hanna, Croly, 384.

« PreviousContinue »