While American troops were threading the mountain passes and the
morasses of the Philippines, scaling the walls of Pekin, and sunning
themselves in the delectable pleasances of the Forbidden City, and while
American Secretaries of State were penning dispatches which determined
the fate of countries on the opposite side of the globe, the old
diplomatic problems nearer home still persisted. The Spanish War,
however, had so thoroughly changed the relationship of the United States
to the rest of the world that the conditions under which even these old
problems were to be adjusted or solved gave them entirely new aspects.
The American people gradually but effectually began to take foreign
affairs more seriously. As time went on, the Government made
improvements in the consular and diplomatic services. Politicians found
that their irresponsible threatenings of other countries had ceased
to be politically profitable when public opinion realized what was at
stake. Other countries, moreover, began to take the United States more
seriously. The open hostility which they had shown on the first entrance
of this nation into world politics changed, on second thought, to a
desire on their part to placate and perhaps to win the support of this
new and formidable power.
The attitude of Germany in particular was conspicuous. The Kaiser sent
his brother, Prince Henry, to visit the United States. He presented the
nation with a statue of Frederick the Great and Harvard with a Germanic
museum; he ordered a Herreshoff yacht, and asked the President's
daughter, Alice Roosevelt, to christen it; he established exchange
professorships in the universities; and he began a campaign aimed
apparently at securing for Germany the support of the entire American
people, or, failing that, at organizing for German purposes the
German-born element within the United States. France sought to revive
the memory of her friendship for the United States during the Revolution
by presenting the nation with a statue of Rochambeau, and she also
established exchange professorships. In England, Cecil Rhodes, with
his great dream of drawing together all portions of the British race,
devoted his fortune to making Oxford the mold where all its leaders of
thought and action should be shaped; and Joseph Chamberlain and other
English leaders talked freely and enthusiastically of an alliance
between Great Britain and the United States as the surest foundation for
world peace.
It need not be supposed, however, that these international amenities
meant that the United States was to be allowed to have its own way in
the world. The friendliness of Great Britain was indeed sincere.
Engaged between 1899 and 1901 in the Boer War, she appreciated ever
more strongly the need for the friendship of the United States, and she
looked with cordial approbation upon the development of Secretary
Hay's policy in China. The British, however, like the Americans, are
legalistically inclined, and disputes between the two nations are likely
to be maintained to the limit of the law. The advantage of this legal
mindedness is that there has always been a disposition in both peoples
to submit to judicial award when ordinary negotiations have reached
a deadlock. But the real affection for each other which underlay the
eternal bickerings of the two nations had as yet not revealed itself to
the American consciousness. As most of the disputes of the United States
had been with Great Britain, Americans were always on the alert to
maintain all their claims and were suspicious of "British gold."
It was, therefore, in an atmosphere by no means conducive to yielding
on the part of the United States, though it was one not antagonistic to
good feeling, that the representatives of the two countries met. John
Hay and Sir Julian Pauncefote, whose long quiet service in this country
had made him the first popular British ambassador, now set about
clearing up the problems confronting the two peoples. The first question
which pressed for settlement was one of boundary. It had already taken
ninety years to draw the line from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and now
the purchase of Alaska by the United States had added new uncertainties
to the international boundary. The claims of both nations were based on
a treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia. Like most attempts
to define boundaries running through unexplored territories, the treaty
terms admitted of two interpretations. The boundary line from Portland
Channel to Mount St. Elias was stipulated to run everywhere a distance
of ten marine leagues from the coast and to follow its sinuosities. This
particular coast, however, is bitten into by long fiords stretching far
into the country. Great Britain held that these were not part of the sea
in the sense of the treaty and that the line should cut across them ten
marine leagues from the outer coast line. On the other hand, the United
States held that the line should be drawn ten marine leagues from the
heads of these inlets.
The discovery of gold on the Yukon in 1897 made this boundary question
of practical moment. Action now became an immediate necessity. In 1899
the two countries agreed upon a modus Vivendi and in 1903 arranged an
arbitration. The arbitrating board consisted of three members from each
of the two nations. The United States appointed Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge, ex-Senator George Turner, and Elihu Root, then Secretary of
War. Great Britain appointed two Canadians, Louis A. Jette and A.
B. Aylesworth, and Lord Alverstone, Chief Justice of England. Their
decision was in accordance with the principle for which the United
States had contended, though not following the actual line which it had
sketched. It gave the Americans, however, full control of the coast and
its harbors, and the settlement provided a mutually accepted boundary on
every frontier.
With the discovery of gold in the far North, Alaska began a period of
development which is rapidly making that territory an important economic
factor in American life. Today the time when this vast northern coast
was valuable only as the breeding ground for the fur seal seems long
past. Nevertheless the fur seal continued to be sought, and for years
the international difficulty of protecting the fisheries remained.
Finally, in 1911, the United States entered into a joint agreement with
Great Britain, Japan, and Russia, which is actually serving as a sort of
international game law. The problems of Alaska that remain are therefore
those of internal development.
Diplomacy, however, is not concerned solely with sensational episodes.
American ministers and the State Department are engaged for the most
part in the humdrum adjustment of minor differences which never find
their way into the newspapers. Probably more such cases arise with Great
Britain, in behalf of Canada, than with any other section of the globe.
On the American continent rivers flow from one country into the other;
railroads carry goods across the border and back again; citizens labor
now in one country, now in the other; corporations do business in
both. All these ties not only bind but chafe and give rise to constant
negotiation. More and more Great Britain has left the handling of
such matters to the Canadian authorities, and, while there can be no
interchange of ministers, there is an enormous transaction of business
between Ottawa and Washington.
While there has of late years been little talk of annexation, there have
been many in both countries who have desired to reduce the significance
of the boundary to a minimum. This feeling led in 1911 to the
formulation of a reciprocity agreement, which Canada, however, was
unwilling to accept. Yet, if tariff restrictions were not removed, other
international barriers were as far as possible done away with. In 1898 a
commission was appointed to agree upon all points of difference. Working
slowly but steadily, the commissioners settled one question after
another, until practically all problems were put upon a permanent
working basis. Perhaps the most interesting of the results of this
activity was the appointment in 1908 of a permanent International
Fisheries Commission, which still regulates that vexing question.
Another source of international complication arose out of the Atlantic
fisheries off Newfoundland, which is not part of Canada. It is off
these shores that the most important deep-sea fishing takes place. This
fishery was one of the earliest American sources of wealth, and for
nearly two centuries formed a sort of keystone of the whole commercial
life of the United States. When in 1783 Great Britain recognized
American independence, she recognized also that American fishermen
had certain rights off these coasts. These rights, however, were not
sufficient for the conduct of the fisheries, and so in addition certain
"liberties" were granted, which allowed American fishers to land for the
purpose of drying fish and of doing other things not generally
permitted to foreigners. These concessions in fact amounted to a joint
participation with the British. The rights were permanent, but the
privileges were regarded as having lapsed after the War of 1812. In 1818
they were partially renewed, certain limited privileges being conceded.
Ever since that date the problem of securing the additional privileges
desired has been a subject for discussion between Great Britain and the
United States. Between 1854 and 1866 the American Government secured
them by reciprocity; between 1872 and 1884 it bought them; after 1888
it enjoyed them by a temporary modus vivendi arranged under President
Cleveland.
In 1902 Hay arranged with Sir Robert Bond, Prime Minister of
Newfoundland, a new reciprocity agreement. This, however, the Senate
rejected, and the Cleveland agreement continued. Newfoundland, angry at
the rejection of the proposed treaty, put every obstacle possible in the
way of American fishermen and used methods which the Americans claimed
to be contrary to the treaty terms. After long continued and rather
acrimonious discussions, the matter was finally referred in 1909 to the
Hague Court. As in the Bering Sea case, the court was asked not only
to judge the facts but also to draw up an agreement for the future. Its
decision, on the whole, favored Newfoundland, but this fact is of little
moment compared with the likelihood that a dispute almost a century and
a half old has at last been permanently settled.
None of these international disputes and settlements to the north,
however, excited anything like the popular interest aroused by one which
occurred in the south. The Spanish War made it abundantly evident that
an isthmian canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific must be built.
The arguments of naval strategy which Captain Mahan had long been urging
had received striking demonstration in the long and roundabout voyage
which the Oregon was obliged to take. The pressure of railroad rates on
the trade of the country caused wide commercial support for a project
expected to establish a water competition that would pull them down. The
American people determined to dig a canal.
The first obstacle to such a project lay in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty
with Great Britain. That obstacle Blaine had attempted in vain to
remove; in fact his bungling diplomacy had riveted it yet more closely
by making Great Britain maintain it as a point of honor. To this subject
Hay now devoted himself, and as he encountered no serious difficulties,
a treaty was drawn up in 1900 practically as he wished it. It was not,
however, popular in the United States. Hay preferred and arranged for a
canal neutralized by international guarantee, on the same basis as the
Suez Canal; but American public sentiment had come to insist on a canal
controlled absolutely by the United States. The treaty was therefore
rejected by the Senate, or rather was so amended as to prove
unacceptable to Great Britain.
Hay believed that he had obtained what was most desirable as well as all
that was possible, that the majority of the American people approved,
and that he was beaten only because a treaty must be approved by
two-thirds of the Senate. He therefore resigned. President McKinley,
however, refused to accept his resignation, and he and Lord Pauncefote
were soon at work again on the subject. In 1901 a new treaty was
presented to the Senate. This began by abrogating the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty entirely and with it brushing away all restrictions upon the
activity of the United States in Central America. It specifically
permitted the United States to "maintain such military police along
the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness
and disorder." By interpreting this clause as allowing complete
fortification, the United States has made itself the guardian of the
canal. In return for the release from former obligations which
Great Britain thus allowed, the United States agreed that any canal
constructed should be regulated by certain rules which were stated in
the treaty and which made it "free and open to the vessels of commerce
and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire
equality," in time of war as well as of peace. This time the treaty
proved satisfactory and was accepted by the Senate. Thus one more source
of trouble was done away with, and the first obstacle in the way of the
canal was removed.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was, however, only a bit of the tangled jungle
which must be cleared before the first American shovel could begin its
work. For over twenty years a contest had been waged between experts
in the United States as to the relative merits of the Panama and the
Nicaragua routes. The latter was the more popular, perhaps because
it seemed at one time that Panama was preempted by De Lesseps' French
company. This contest as to the better route led to the passage of a
law, in 1902, which authorized the President to acquire the rights and
property needed to construct a canal by the Panama route, on condition
that he could make satisfactory arrangements "within a reasonable time
and upon reasonable terms." Otherwise, Nicaragua was to be chosen.
Theodore Roosevelt was now President and, though at one time not
favoring Panama, he decided that there the canal should be constructed
and with his accustomed vigor set himself to the task.
The first difficulty presented by this route was the prior right which
the French company still retained, although it had little, if any, hope
of carrying on the construction itself. It possessed not only rights but
also much equipment on the spot, and it had actually begun excavation
at certain points. The purchase of all its properties complete for
$40,000,000 was, therefore, not a bad investment on the part of the
Government. By this purchase the United States was brought directly into
relation with Colombia, through one of whose federal states, Panama, the
canal was to be cut.
While the French purchase had removed one obstacle, the De Lesseps
charter alone would not suffice for the construction of the canal,
for the American Government had definite ideas as to the conditions
necessary for the success of the work. The Government required a zone
which should be under its complete control, for not otherwise could
satisfactory sanitary regulations be enforced. It insisted also on
receiving the right to fortify the canal. It must have these and
other privileges on a long time grant. For them, it was willing to pay
generously. Negotiations would be affected, one could not say how,
by the Treaty of 1846 with Colombia, * by which the United States
had received the right of free use of the isthmus, with the right of
maintaining the neutrality of the district and in return had guaranteed
to Colombia sovereignty over the isthmus.
* Then known as the Republic of New Granada.
Hay took up the negotiations with the Colombian charge d'affaires, Dr.
Herran, and arranged a treaty, which gave the United States a strip of
land six miles wide across the isthmus, on a ninety-nine year lease,
for which it should pay ten million dollars and, after a period of nine
years for construction, a quarter of a million a year. This treaty,
after months of debate in press and Congress, was rejected by the
Colombian Senate on August 12, 1903, though the people of Panama,
nervously anxious lest this opportunity to sit on the bank of the
world's great highway should slip into the hands of their rivals of
Nicaragua, had urged earnestly the acceptance of the terms. The majority
of the Colombians probably expected to grant the American requests in
time but were determined to force the last penny from the United States.
As Hay wrote: "The Isthmus is looked upon as a financial cow to be
milked for the benefit of the country at large. This difficulty might be
overcome by diplomacy and money."
President Roosevelt at this point took the negotiations into his own
hands. Knowing that the price offered was more than just, he decided to
depend no longer on bartering. He ordered the American minister to
leave Colombia, and he prepared a message to Congress proposing that the
Americans proceed to dig the canal under authority which he claimed to
find in the Treaty of 1846. It was, however, doubtful if Congress
would find it there, particularly as so many Congressmen preferred the
Nicaragua route. The President therefore listened with pleased attention
to the rumors of a revolution planned to separate Panama from Colombia.
Most picturesquely this information was brought by M. Philippe
Bunau-Varilla, a former engineer of the De Lesseps company, who glowed
with the excitement of coming events. Roosevelt, however, relied more
upon the information furnished by two American officers, who reported
"that various revolutionary movements were being inaugurated."
On October 10, 1903, the President wrote to Dr. Albert Shaw, of the
"Review of Reviews":
"I enclose you, purely for your own information, a copy of a letter of
September 5th, from our minister to Colombia. I think it might interest
you to see that there was absolutely not the slightest chance
of securing by treaty any more than we endeavored to secure. The
alternatives were to go to Nicaragua against the advice of the great
majority of competent engineers--some of the most competent saying that
we had better have no canal at this time than go there--or else to take
the territory by force without any attempt at getting a treaty. I
cast aside the proposition made at the time to foment the secession of
Panama. Whatever other governments can do, the United States cannot go
into the securing, by such underhand means, the cession. Privately,
I freely say to you that I should be delighted if Panama were an
independent state; or if it made itself so at this moment; but for me
to say so publicly would amount to an instigation of a revolt, and
therefore I cannot say it."
Nothing, however, prevented the President from keeping an attentive eye
on the situation. On the 16th of October he directed the Navy Department
to send ships to the Isthmus to protect American interests in case of a
revolutionary outbreak. On the 2d of November, he ordered the squadron
to "maintain free and uninterrupted transit.... Prevent the landing of
any armed force with hostile intent, either government or insurgent,
at any point within fifty miles of Panama." At 3:40 P.M., on the 3d of
November, the acting Secretary of State telegraphed to the Isthmus for
confirmation of a report to the effect that an uprising was in progress.
A reply dated 8:15 P.M. stated that there had been none as yet, but
that it was rumored one would take place during the night. On the 4th of
November independence was proclaimed. The only fatality was a Chinaman
killed in the City of Panama by a shell from the Colombian gunboat
Bogota. Its commander was warned not to fire again. On the 6th of
November, Secretary Hay instructed our consul to recognize the new
republic, and on the 13th of November, President Roosevelt received
Bunau-Varilla as its representative at Washington.
This prompt recognition of a new state, without waiting to allow the
parent Government time to assert itself, was contrary to American
practice. The United States had regarded as a most unfriendly act
Great Britain's mere recognition of the belligerency of the Southern
Confederacy. The right of the United States to preserve the neutrality
of the isthmus, as provided by the Treaty of 1846, certainly did
not involve the right to intervene between the Government and
revolutionists. On the other hand, the guarantee of possession which
the United States had given to Colombia did involve supporting her
Government to a reasonable extent; yet there could be little doubt that
it was the presence of American ships which had made the revolution
successful.
The possible implications of these glaring facts were cleverly met by
President Roosevelt in his message to Congress and by the Secretary of
State in the correspondence growing out of the affair. The Government
really relied for its justification, however, not upon these technical
pleas but upon the broad grounds of equity. America has learned in the
last few years how important it is for its safety that "scraps of
paper" be held sacred and how dangerous is the doctrine of necessity.
Nevertheless it is well to observe that if the United States did, in
the case of Panama, depart somewhat from that strict observance of
obligations which it has been accustomed to maintain, it did not seek
any object which was not just as useful to the world at large as
to itself, that the situation had been created not by a conflict of
opposing interests but by what the Government had good reason to believe
was the bad faith of Colombia, and that the separation of Panama was
the act of its own people, justly incensed at the disregard of their
interests by their compatriots. This revolution created no tyrannized
subject population but rather liberated from a galling bond a people who
had, in fact, long desired separation.
With the new republic negotiation went on pleasantly and rapidly, and
as early as November 18, 1903, a convention was drawn up, in which
the United States guaranteed the independence of Panama and in return
received in perpetuity a grant of a zone ten miles wide within which to
construct a canal from ocean to ocean.