Page images
PDF
EPUB

Isthmus was kept open. In 1861, in 1862, in 1885, and in 1900, the Colombian Government asked that the United States Government would land troops to protect its interests and maintain order on the Isthmus. Perhaps the most extraordinary request is that which has just been received and which runs as follows:

“Knowing that revolution has already commenced in Panama [an eminent Colombian) says that if the Government of the United States will land troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty, and the

transit, if requested by Colombian chargé d'affaires, Latest proposition

this Government will declare martial law; and, by of Colombian Government.

virtue of vested constitutional authority, when

public order is disturbed, will approve by decree the ratification of the canal treaty as signed; or, if the Government of the United States prefers, will call extra session of the Congress—with new and friendly members—next May to approve the treaty. [An eminent Colombian] has the perfect confidence of vice-president, he says, and if it became necessary will go to the Isthmus or send representative there to adjust matters along above lines to the satisfaction of the people there."

This dispatch is noteworthy from two standpoints. Its offer of immediately guaranteeing the treaty to us is in sharp contrast with the positive and contemptuous refusal of the Congress which has just closed its sessions to consider favorably such a treaty; it shows that the Government which made the treaty really had absolute control over the situation, but did not choose to exercise this control. The dispatch further calls on us to restore order and secure Colombian supremacy in the Isthmus from which the Colombian Government has just by its action decided to bar us by preventing the construction of the canal.

The control, in the interest of the commerce and traffic of the whole civilized world, of the ineans of undisturbed transit across the Isthmus of Panama has become of transcendent importance to the United States. We have repeatedly exercised this control by intervening in the course of domestic dissension, and by protecting

the territory from foreign invasion. In 1853 Importance to Mr. Everett assured the Peruvian minister that United States of we should not hesitate to maintain the neutrality control of means of

of the Isthmus in the case of war between Peru undisturbed transit across Isthmus.

and Colombia. In 1864 Colombia, which has

always been vigilant to avail itself of its privileges conferred by the treaty, expressed its expectation that in the event of war between Peru and Spain the United States would carry into

effect the guaranty of neutrality. There have been few adıninistrations of the State Department in which this treaty has not, either by the one side or the other, been used as a basis of more or less important demands. It was said by Mr. Fish in 1871 that the Department of State had reason to believe that an attack upon Colombian sovereignty on the Isthmus had, on several occasions, been averted by warning from this Government. In 1886, when Colombia was under the menace of hostilities from Italy in the Cerruti case, Mr. Bayard expressed the serious concern that the United States could not but feel, that a European power should resort to force against a sister republic of this hemisphere, as to the sovereign and uninterrupted use of a part of whose territory we are guarantors under the solemn faith of a treaty.

The above recital of facts establishes beyond question: First, that the United States has for over half a century patiently and in good faith carried out its obligations under the treaty of 1846; second, that when for the first time it became possible for Colombia to do anything in requital of the services thus repeatedly rendered to it for fifty-seven years by the United States, the Colombian Government peremptorily and offensively refused thus to do its part, even though to do so would have been to its advantage and immeasurably to the advantage of the State of Panama, at that time under its jurisdiction; third, that throughout this period revolutions, riots, and factional disturbances of every kind have occurred one after the other in almost uninterrupted succession, some of them lasting for inonths and even for years, while the central government was unable to put them down or to make peace with the rebels; fourth, that these disturbances instead of showing any sign of abating have tended to grow more numerous and more serious in the immediate past; fifth, that the control of Colombia over the Isthmus of Panama could not be maintained without the armed intervention and assistance of the United States. In other words, the Government of Colombia, though wholly unable to maintain order on the Isthmus, has nevertheless declined to ratify a treaty the conclusion of which opened the only chance to secure its own stability and to guarantee permanent peace on, and the construction of a canal across, the Isthmus.

Under such circumstances the Government of the United States would have been guilty of folly and weakness, amounting in their sum to a crime against the Nation, had it acted otherwise than it did when the revolution of November 3 last took place in Panama. This great enterprise of building the interoceanic canal can not be held up to gratify the whims, or out of respect to the governmental impotence, or to the even more sinister and evil political peculiarities, of people who, though they dwell afar off, yet, against the wislı of the actual dwellers on the Isthmus, assert an unreal supremacy over the territory. The possession of a territory fraught with such peculiar capacities as the Isthmus in question carries with it obligations to mankind. The course of events has shown that this canal can not be built by private enterprise, or by any other nation than our own; therefore it must be built by the United States.

Every effort has been made by the Government of the United States to persuade Colombia to follow a course which was essentially not only to our interests and to the interests of the world, but to the interests of Colombia itself. These efforts have failed; and Colombia, by her persistence in repulsing the advances that have been made, has forced us, for the sake of our own honor, and of the interest and well-being, not merely of our own people, but of the people of the Isthmus of Panama and the people of the civilized countries of the world, to take decisive steps to bring to an end a condition of affairs which had become intolerable. The new Republic of Panama immediately offered to negotiate a treaty with us. This treaty I herewith submit. By it our interests are better safeguarded than in the treaty with Colombia which was

ratified by the Senate at its last session. It is

better in its terms than the treaties offered to us treaty with new Republic of Panama.

mame by the Republics of Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

At last the right to begin this great undertaking is made available. Panama has done her part. All that remains is for the American Congress to do its part and forthwith this Republic will enter upon the execution of a project colossal in its size and of well-nigh incalculable possibilities for the good of this country and the nations of mankind.

By the provisions of the treaty the United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama. There is granted to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation,

and control of a strip ten miles wide and extendProvisions of treaty. ing three nautical miles into the sea at either

terminal, with all lands lying outside of the zone necessary for the construction of the canal or for its auxiliary works, and with the islands in the Bay of Panama. The cities of Panama and Colon are not embraced in the canal zone, but the United States assumes their sanitation and, in case of need, the maintenance of order therein; the United States enjoys within the granted limits all the rights, power, and authority which it would possess were it the sovereign of the territory to the exclusion of the exercise of sovereign rights by the Republic. All railway and canal property rights belonging to Panama and needed for the canal pass to the United States, including any property of the respective companies in the cities of Panama and Colon; the works, property, and personnel of the canal and railways are exempted from taxation as well in the cities of Panama and Colon as in the canal zone and its dependencies. Free immigration of the personnel and importation of supplies for the construction and operation of the canal are granted. Provision is made for the use of military force and the building of fortifications by the United States for the protection of the transit. In other details, particularly as to the acquisition of the interests of the New Panama Canal Company and the Panama Railway by the United States and the condemnation of private property for the uses of the canal, the stipulations of the Hay-Herran treaty are closely followed, while the compensation to be given for these enlarged grants remains the same, being ten millions of dollars payable on exchange of ratifications; and, beginning nine years from that date, an annual payment of $250,000 during the life of the convention.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT. WHITE HOUSE,

December 7, 1903.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1902. Señor Luis M. Drago to | Dec. 29 Monroe doctrine and diplomatic claims of EuroSeñor Martin Garcia Mé

pean powers. Argument against the use of rou. (Transmitted to the

force in collecting the latter as a violation of Department of State by

the former. the Argentine minister.)

1903.
Mr. Hay to Señor Mérou ... Feb. 17 Same subject. Position of the United States is

announced in quoted passages of the Presi-
dent's messages to Congress of 1901 and 1902.
The United States will be glad to see the de-

cision left to an impartial arbitration.
555 Mr. Ames to Mr. Hay....... May 5 Same subject. Reports gratification of the min-

ister for foreign affairs at the favorable com-
ments of the press of the United States on bis
note of December 29, 1902, and improvement

of public sentiment toward the United States. 257 Same to same........ ... May 6 Message of the President of the Argentine Re

public to Congress. Transmits copies and
translation.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

14

15

1903.
7 Mr. Storer to Mr. Hay...... Jan. 23 Commercial agents of the United States. Point

raised by the Austrian Government that the
consular convention does not provide for offi-
cers styled " commercial agents" has been re-
linguished, the term being accepted as synono-

mous with “consular agents."
$, Mr. Hay to Mr. Storer...... Feb. 19 Same subject. Commercial agents of the United

States enjoy the same powers and privileges as
other principal consular officers. They differ
in that respect from officers described in inter-
national law by that title and for whom recog-

nition is not asked.
19 Mr. Rives to Mr. Hay... Mar. 1 Same subject. Commercial agents will be recog-

nized and permitted to discharge their official

duties, but no exequaturs will be issued. 2. Mr. Hay to Mr. Storer....... Apr. 9 Recognition accorded by the Austro-Hungarian

Government to Commercial Agent John Steel

Twells at Carlsbad is regarded as sufficient. 53 Same to same............... Nov. 14

Nov. 14 | Admission of United States corporations to en

gage in business in Austria-Hungary. Incloses
letter from Charles Strauss stating that before
he is allowed to open a branch office at Vienna
he will be obliged to file a certificate that Aus-
trian subjects are admitted to trade in the
United States. Instructs to ascertain about the

requirement and the form of the certificate.
56 Same to same............... Nov. 23 Same subject. Incloses letter of November 19

from Charles Strauss. * Mr. Storer to Mr. Hay....... Dec. 14 Same subject. Certificate not required. States

requirements to be fulfilled by Mr. Strauss.
Mr. Hengelmüller to Mr. | Dec. 15 Renunciation of American citizenship. Asks

whether the Hungarian Government may re-
store their original nationality to Hungarians
who declare their renunciation before a Hun-
garian magistrate. Cites the case of Joseph

Fuchs.
19 Mr. Loomis to Mr. Hengel. Dec. 23 No provision is made by the laws of the United
müller.

States for issuing a certificate of renunciation
of citizenship, and the United States interposes
no obstacle to the Austro-Hungarian Govern-
ment to admit American citizens as subjects of
that Government.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »