CONTROVERSY WITH COLOMBIA
Seldom in the history of international relations has a controversy
afforded more grounds for honest difference of opinion than the issue
between the United States and Colombia, growing out of the revolution
and formation of the new Republic of Panama. The most careful and
unprejudiced study still may leave room for doubt as to the real
merits of the case.
In 1903, after the United States had decided to build an Isthmian
Canal, preferably at Panama, but if that route were not available at
Nicaragua, a treaty was entered into at Washington between the
Governments of the United States and Colombia. This Hay-Herran treaty,
as it was known, in simple terms provided that the United States would
pay Colombia $10,000,000 in cash, and $250,000 a year after the
completion of the canal, if the Republic of Colombia would agree to
permit the New Panama Canal Company to sell its concession and
property to the United States. This treaty, according to President
Roosevelt, was entered into under negotiations initiated by the
Republic of Colombia. The treaty was ratified by the United States
Senate, and was then sent to Colombia for its ratification.
At the time the treaty was pending in the Colombian Congress, the
President of the Republic was a man who had been elected Vice
President, but who had kidnapped the President with a troop of cavalry
and shut him up in an insanitary dungeon where he soon died. The Vice
President thus became the head of the Government. Anyone who knows
conditions in such countries as Colombia, understands that a President
has no use for a Congress except to have it register his own will. The
President of Colombia at first advocated the negotiation of the
treaty, but he repudiated it after it had been signed, and then
declared that if the Colombian minister to Washington were to return
to Colombia he would be hanged for signing it. The result of this
change of front was that the treaty was rejected by the Colombian
Congress. All sorts of stories were put abroad in Colombia to arouse
opposition to it. One was that the United States would make
$180,000,000 out of the canal deal the minute the treaty was ratified
by Colombia. It was claimed by the Colombian Government that the
constitutional prohibition of the cession of territory to a foreign
state would have to be changed by amending the Constitution before the
Congress could legally ratify the treaty.
[Illustration: S. B. WILLIAMSON
THE LOWER GATES, MIRAFLORES LOCKS]
[Illustration: H. O. COLE
MIDDLE GATES, MIRAFLORES LOCKS]
How little the President of Colombia respected the laws of his country
is shown by a dispatch received by the Government at Washington after
the secession of Panama, in which it was promised that if the United
States would assist Colombia in putting down the Panama revolution,
the next Colombian Congress would ratify the rejected treaty. Or,
failing that, the President would declare martial law, by virtue of
vested constitutional authority when public order is disturbed, and
ratify the canal treaty by presidential decree. If the Washington
Government did not like such a proposal, the President of Colombia
would call an extra session of Congress and immediately ratify the
treaty.
The real cause of the failure of the Hay-Herran treaty is not
difficult to discover. The concession of the New Panama Canal Company
under one of its renewals expired October 31, 1893. It was then
extended for a year, and, in 1894, was extended again for a period of
10 years. Still another extension was granted, which carried the date
of expiration to October 31, 1910. This last extension was granted by
the President without the consent of the Colombian Congress. In 1903,
when the Hay-Herran treaty was pending, the validity of this last
extension was denied, and the assertion made that on October 31, 1901,
all of the rights and property of the New Panama Canal Company would
revert to the Colombian Government.
The United States had agreed to pay to the New Panama Canal Company
$40,000,000 for its concession and property. According to
Representative Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, who for years led the
attack in the United States Congress on the acts of President
Roosevelt in connection with the Panaman revolution, the purpose of
Colombia in defeating the treaty was to wait until the expiration of
the concession, when all of the property of the canal company would
revert to Colombia, and it could then sell it to the United States
and get the $40,000,000, or any other amount it could persuade the
United States to pay.
Of course, the New Panama Canal Company did not look upon such an
arrangement with any degree of complacency. It felt that it was a
deliberate scheme upon the part of the Colombian Government to mulct
it out of its property and its rights. As a result it was naturally
ready to lend aid and encouragement to any movement which would
circumvent this purpose of Colombia. It found conditions in Panama
just what it might have wished.
The people of Panama felt that they had the same sort of grievance
against Colombia that the people of the American colonies felt they
had against England in 1776. The governors of the province were, with
few exceptions, sent there from Bogota, and were entirely out of
sympathy with the people of Panama. The taxes collected at Panama were
carried to Bogota, as a rule, and the voice that the people of the
Isthmus had in the Government of Colombia was negligible. Furthermore,
they felt that they were entitled to their sovereignty.
After the countries of tropical America had thrown off the yoke of
Spain, Panama found itself too small to stand alone, and accepted an
invitation from Bogota to put itself under the Government there with
the understanding that it was to retain its sovereignty. It soon found
that this agreement was not respected at Bogota. Almost immediately
there were attempted revolts and, in 1840, the Isthmus again won
complete independence. The Confederation of New Granada promised that
the people of the Isthmus should have better treatment, and it was set
forth in the constitution of New Granada that Panama was a sovereign
state, and that it had full right to withdraw and set up an
independent government at any time. In 1885 a new constitution was
proclaimed by Colombia, which had succeeded New Granada, and this
constitution deprived Panama of all its rights as a sovereign state,
and made it a province under the control of the Federal Government at
Bogota. Upon these grounds Panama claimed that she was a sovereign
state temporarily under the duress of a superior government. After the
defeat of the Hay-Herran treaty the inhabitants of Panama knew that if
the treaty failed and no other steps were taken, the Nicaraguan route
would be followed and Panama would become almost a forgotten region
instead of a land of great opportunity.
The consequence was that the Panamans lent willing ears to the
suggestion of the representatives of the New Panama Canal Company that
they should undertake a revolution to be financed by the canal
company. Two representatives of the New Panama Canal Company working
along independent lines were trying to bring about the revolution. One
of these was Philippe Bunau-Varilla, formerly chief engineer of the
Old Panama Canal Company, but who had become estranged from the New
Panama Canal Company. The other was William Nelson Cromwell, for years
general counsel of the Panama Railroad Company, and who, in his suit
against the New Panama Canal Company for an $800,000 fee, claimed to
have engineered and directed the revolution. M. Bunau-Varilla had some
stock in the canal company and a great deal of pride in seeing
realized the undertaking to which he had committed the best years of
his life.
Coming to New York on another mission, he met Dr. Amador, who was one
of the Panamans desiring the independence of his country. According to
the testimony of M. Bunau-Varilla, which is borne out by documentary
evidence, he and Dr. Amador worked out the plan for the revolution. He
declares that the documents were drawn in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
and as far as they were written in Spanish, they were copied letter by
letter by an English stenographer who knew no Spanish, in order that
there might be no possibility of the secret leaking out. He declares
that the whole project of the revolution as it was carried out was
conceived by him in cooperation with Dr. Amador, and that William
Nelson Cromwell, the other factor in the situation, knew nothing about
what was going on. He also asserts that William Nelson Cromwell had
promised to introduce Dr. Amador to Secretary of State John Hay, but
that later Dr. Herran, the representative of Colombia, found out what
was going on and wrote a letter of warning to Mr. Cromwell as to the
consequences which would come to the Panama Railroad, of which Mr.
Cromwell was the representative, if that organization should give aid
or comfort to the projected Panama revolution. Thereupon, according to
M. Bunau-Varilla, Mr. Cromwell turned his back upon Dr. Amador,
although it has been claimed by some that this was only a ruse on the
part of Mr. Cromwell to shield himself and his company from
responsibility. About this time M. Bunau-Varilla borrowed $100,000 in
France to finance the revolution, pending the recognition of the new
Republic by the United States. Other money was forthcoming later.
The revolution itself, which took place in November, 1903, was
bloodless. The world knows that President Roosevelt forbade the
Colombian troops to move across the Isthmus, while at the same time he
would not allow the revolutionists to make any move. A similar
situation had arisen in a former revolution in 1902. At that time the
Colombian troops were disarmed, and three days later insurgent troops
were prevented by United States marines from using the railroad and
were actually compelled to leave a train which they had seized and
entered. The principle was enunciated and maintained that no troops
under arms should be transported on the railroad, no matter to which
party they belonged. That was because to permit such transportation
would be to make the railroad an adjunct to the side using it, and to
subject it to attack by the other party. In this way, if the Colombian
troops used it, the insurgents would have attacked, and the United
States would either have been forced to permit such an attack, which
might suspend traffic on the transit, or to prevent it with force,
which would make this country an ally of Colombia against the
insurgents. On the other hand, if the insurgents were permitted to
use the railroad, Colombia would attack it, and in that case the
United States would have to help repel the attack and thus would
become the ally of the insurgents. It was, therefore, held that the
only way to make the road absolutely neutral was to allow neither
party to use it.
This was the doctrine under which President Roosevelt proceeded in
1903. Of course, the world knows that this was tantamount to
preventing Colombia from reconquering the Isthmus, if that were
possible. It is claimed by some that if President Roosevelt had
allowed the insurgents to use the railroad in 1902, Colombia would
have been defeated in that revolution.
At the time of the revolution it is said that the Colombian garrison
which espoused the cause of the Panamans was bribed to do so; that
their commander two days afterwards was paid $12,500 for his services,
and that he is to this day drawing a pension of $2,400 a year. It is
also charged that some of the troops who could not be bribed were sent
into the interior to repel an imaginary invasion from Nicaragua. It is
asserted that when the governor of the State of Panama telegraphed the
Colombian Government that Nicaragua was invading Panama, the Bogota
authorities sent additional troops to the Isthmus to help fight
Nicaragua, and that this accounted for the arrival of the gunboats
from Cartagena on the eve of the revolution.
At the time of the _coup d'etat_, the United States was living under a
treaty made with Colombia in 1846, guaranteeing the sovereignty of
that country over the Isthmus in return for the recognition of the
rights of the United States, under the Monroe doctrine, in connection
with the building of a canal. Under this treaty it was mutually agreed
that the United States should keep the Isthmian transit free and open
at all times. It was contended by President Roosevelt that he was only
carrying out this provision when he refused to allow the
revolutionists and the Federal troops to fight along the line of the
Panama Railroad, although this was almost the only ground on the
Isthmus on which military operations could be prosecuted. He admitted
the justice of the contention of the Colombian Government that the
United States undertook to guarantee the sovereignty of Colombia over
the Isthmus so far as any alien power was concerned, but denied that
it was ever intended that the United States should be called upon to
guarantee it against the people of the Isthmus themselves.
Once the revolution was started three courses were left open to the
United States: One was to force the Panamans back under Colombian
rule; the second was to let the two sides fight to a finish; the third
was to recognize the independence of the Republic of Panama and forbid
Colombia to land troops on the Isthmus. President Roosevelt took the
last course. A breezy Western congressman remarked in defense of that
course: "When that jack rabbit jumped I am glad we didn't have a
bowlegged man for President!" The result of the revolution, and the
recognition of the independence of the Republic of Panama, was that
Colombia, which had tried to grasp everything and to get possession
of the assets of the New Panama Canal Company, now found itself
without anything.
Colombia ever since has contended that the United States was under a
solemn obligation to protect the Colombian sovereignty over the
Isthmus--an obligation that has been assumed in return for valuable
considerations--and that it had been despoiled of the Isthmus of
Panama under the very treaty that had guaranteed its permanent control
of that Isthmus. It further asserted that President Roosevelt had been
a party to the revolution for the purpose of circumventing the stand
of the Republic of Colombia. It made a long plea against the action of
the United States and urged that in the event the two countries could
not come to any agreement, the pending questions should be submitted
to The Hague for adjudication. Secretary Hay at one time proposed that
a popular election should be held on the Isthmus to determine whether
the people there preferred allegiance to the Republic of Panama or to
the Republic of Colombia, but Colombia would not agree to that.
Secretary Hay rejected the plea of Colombia for arbitration, upon the
ground that the questions that Colombia proposed to submit affected
the honor of the United States and that these matters were not
arbitrable.
[Illustration: EDWARD J. WILLIAMS
THE PAY CAR AT CULEBRA]
[Illustration: UNCLE SAM'S LAUNDRY AT CRISTOBAL]
After Elihu Root became Secretary of State, he declared that the real
gravamen of the Colombian complaint was the espousal of the cause of
Panama by the people of the United States. He said that no arbitration
could deal with the real rights and wrongs of the parties concerned,
unless it were to pass upon the question of whether the cause thus
espoused was just--whether the people of Panama were exercising their
just rights in maintaining their right of independence of Colombian
rule. "We assert and maintain the affirmative upon that question," he
declared. "We assert that the ancient State of Panama was independent
in its origin, and by nature and history a separate political
community; that it was federated with the other States of Colombia
upon terms that preserved and continued its sovereignty, and that it
never surrendered that sovereignty and was subjugated by force in
1885." Mr. Root further asserted that the United States was not
"willing to permit any arbitrator to determine the political policy of
the United States in following its sense of right and justice by
espousing the cause of the Government of Panama against the Government
of Colombia."
When Mr. Taft became President it was his desire to adjust our
controversy with Colombia. His Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox,
just before leaving office, declared that he had spared no efforts in
seeking to restore American-Colombian relations to a footing of
complete friendly feeling, but that these efforts had been rebuffed by
the Colombian Government. He declared that it was undeniable that
Colombia had suffered by its failure to reap a share of the benefits
of the canal, and that the Government of the United States was
entirely willing to take this consideration into account, and endeavor
to accommodate the conflicting interests of the three parties by
making a just compensation in money. In pursuance of this idea three
treaties were negotiated: One between the United States and the
Republic of Columbia, one between the United States and the Republic
of Panama, and one between the governments of Columbia and Panama, all
three being interdependent, to stand or to fall together. These
treaties were negotiated at the instance of Columbia and were framed
with every desire to accommodate their terms to the just expectations
of that country. They were accepted by the Columbian Cabinet but were
not acted upon by the Columbian Congress.
In the Knox treaty negotiated with Columbia in 1910 that country
proposed to agree to a popular election upon the separation of Panama
and to abide by the result. The United States offered to sign an
additional agreement to pay to Columbia $10,000,000 for a permanent
option for the construction of an interoceanic canal through Columbian
territory, and for the perpetual lease of the Islands of St. Andrews
and Old Providence, if Columbia would ratify the treaties with the
United States and Panama. This proposition was refused. It was then
proposed that in addition to the $10,000,000 the Unites States would
be willing to conclude with Columbia a convention submitting to
arbitration the question of the ownership of the reversionary rights
in the Panama Railroad--rights which the Columbian Government asserts
that it possesses. In addition to this the United States offered its
good offices to secure the settlement of the Panama-Columbian boundary
dispute.
All of these propositions being rejected, the Republic of Colombia was
asked if it would be willing to accept $10,000,000 outright, in
satisfaction of its claims against the United States. This was also
refused.
Acting upon his own authority, the American minister then inquired if
Colombia would accept $25,000,000, the good offices of the United
States in its boundary controversy with Panama, the arbitration of the
question of the reversionary rights in the Panama Railroad, and the
gift of preferential rights in the use of the canal--all these in
satisfaction of its claims. The Colombian Government replied that it
would not do this and that it did not care to negotiate any further
with the Taft administration, preferring to deal with the incoming
Wilson administration.