close all possible grounds of dispute between Panama and Colombia, the United States some time ago agreed to a triparty treaty between herself, Colombia, and Panama, by which, as a simple matter of grace and not of right, adequate and generous compensation would have been given Colombia for whatever damage she had suffered; but Colombia refused to agree to the treaty. On this occasion, in my judgment, the United States went to the very verge of right and propriety in the effort to safegaurd Panama's interests by making Colombia feel satisfied. There was not the slightest moral obligation on the United States to go as far as she went; and at the time it seemed to me a grave question whether it was not putting a premium upon international blackmail to go so far. Certainly nothing more should be done. There is no more reason for giving Colombia money to soothe her feelings for the loss of what she forfeited by her misconduct in Panama in 1903 than for giving Great Britain money for what she lost in 1776. Moreover, there is always danger that in such cases an act of mere grace and generosity may be misinterpreted by the very people on whose behalf it is performed, and treated as a confession of wrongdoing. We are now so far away from 1776 that this objection does not apply in that case, and there would be no particular reason why any sentimental persons who feel so inclined should not agitate to have Great Britain paid for the nervous strain and loss of property consequent upon our action in that year and the immediately subsequent years. But we are still too near the Panama incident to be entirely certain that base people would not misunderstand our taking such action in her case; and as there was literally and precisely as much moral justification for what we did in Panama in 1903 as for what we did in our own country in 1776—and, indeed, even more justification-it is as foolish now to claim that Colombia is entitled, or ever has been entitled, to one dollar because of that transaction as to claim that Great Britain is entitled to be compensated because of the Declaration of Independence.

Not only was the course followed as regards Panama right in every detail and at every point, but there could have been no variation from this course except for the worse. We not only did what was technically justifiable, but we did what was demanded by every ethical consideration, national and international. We did our duty by the world, we did our duty by the people of Panama, we did our duty by ourselves. We did harm to no one save as harm is done to a bandit by a policeman who deprives him of his chance for blackmail. The United States has many honorable chapters in its history, but no more honorable chapter than that which tells of the way in which our right to dig the Panama Canal was secured and of the manner in which the work itself has been carried out.

ROOSEVELT.

[From Theodore Roosevelt's Autobiography, published by The Macmillan Co.]

From the beginning to the end our course with Colombia was straightforward and in absolute accord with the highest standards of international morality. Criticism of it can come only from misinformation, or else from a sentimentality which represents both mental weakness and a moral twist. To have acted otherwise than I did would have been on my part betrayal of the interests of the United States, indifference to the interests of Panama, and recreancy to the interests of the world at large. Colombia had forfeited every claim to consideration; indeed, this is not stating the case strongly enough; she had so acted that yielding to her would have meant on our part that culpable form of weakness which stands on a level with wickedness. As for me personally, if I had hesitated to act, and had not in advance discounted the clamor of those Americans who have made a fetish of disloyalty to their country, I should have esteemed myself as deserving a place in Dante's Inferno beside the faint-hearted cleric who was guilty of "il gran rifluto."

The facts show that from the beginning there had been acceptance of our right to insist on free transit, in whatever form was best, across the Isthmus, and that toward the end there had been a no less universal feeling that it was our duty to the world to provide this transit in the shape of a canal-the resolution of the Pan-American Congress was practically a mandate to this edict. Colombia was then under a one-man government, a dictatorship, founded on usurpation of absolute and irresponsible power. She eagerly pressed us to enter into an agreement with her as long as there was any chance of our going to the alternative route through Nicaragua. When she thought we were committed, she refused to fulfill the agreement, with the avowed hope of seizing the French Company's property for nothing, and thereby holding us up. This was a bit of pure bandit morality. It would have achieved its purpose had I possessed as weak moral fiber as those of my critics who announced that I ought to have confined my action to feeble scolding and tampering until the opportunity for action passed. I did not lift my finger to incite the revolutionists. The right simile to use is totally different. I simply ceased to stamp out the different revolutionary fuses that were already burning.

When Colombia committed flagrant wrong against us, I considered it no part of my duty to aid and abet her in her wrongdoing at our expense, and also at the expense of Panama, of the French company, and of the world generally. There had been 50 years of continuous bloodshed and civil strife in Panama. Because of my action, Panama has now known 10 years of such peace and prosperity as she never before saw during the four centuries of her existence-for in Panama, as in Cuba and Santo Domingo, it was the action of the American people against the outeries of the professed apostles of peace which alone brought peace. We gave the people of Panama self-government and

freed them from subjection to alien oppressors. We did our best to get Colombia to let us treat her with a more than generous justice; we exercised patience to beyond the verge of proper forbearance. When we did act and recognized Panama, Colombia at once acknowledged her guilt by promptly offering to do what we had demanded, and what she had protested it was not in her power to do. But the offer came too late.

What we would gladly have done before it had by that time become impossible for us honorably to do, for it would have necessitated our abandoning the people of Panama, our friends, and turning them over to their and our foes, who would have wreaked vengeance on them precisely because they had shown friendship to us. Colombia was solely responsible for her own humiliation; and she had not then, and has not now, one shadow of claim upon us, moral or legal; all the wrong that was done was done by her. If, as representing the American people, I had not acted precisely as I did, I would have been an unfaithful or incompetent representative; and inaction at this crisis would have meant not only indefinite delay in building the canal, but also practical admission on our part that we were not fit to play the part on the Isthmus which we had arrogated to ourselves. I acted on my own responsibility in the Panama matter. John Hay spoke of this action as follows:

The action of the President in the Panama matter is not only in the strictest accordance with the principles of justice and equity, and in line with all the best precedents of our public policy, but it was the only course he could have taken in compliance with our treaty rights and obligations.

I deeply regretted, and now deeply regret, the fact that the Colombian Government rendered it imperative for me to take the action I took; but I had no alternative, consistent with the full performance of my duty to my own people, and to the nations of mankind. I am well aware that the Colombian people have many fine traits; that there is among them a circle of high-bred men and women which would reflect honor to the social life of any country; and that there has been an intellectual and literary development within this small circle which partially atones for the stagnation and illiteracy of the mass of the people; and I also know that even the illiterate mass possess many sterling qualities. But unfortunate in international matters every nation must be judged by the action of its Government. The good people in Colombia apparently made no effort, certainly no successful effort, to cause the Government to act with reasonable good faith toward the United States; and Colombia had to take the consequences.

If Brazil, or Argentina, or Chile had been in possession of the Isthmus, doubtless the canal would have been built under the Government control of the nation thus controlling the Isthmus, with the hearty acquiescense of the United States and of all other powers. But in the actual fact the canal would not have been built at all save for the action I took. If men choose to say that it would have been better not to build it than to build it as the result of such action, their position, although foolish, is compatable with belief in their wrong-headed sincerity. But it is hypocrisy, alike odious and contemptible, for any man to say both that we ought to have built the canal and that we ought not to have acted in the way we did act.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 5, 1904.

SIR: The Government of the United States has carefully considered the grave complaints so ably set forth in the "statement of grievances" presented on behalf of the Government and people of Colombia, with your note of the 23d ultimo.

The Government and people of the United States have ever entertained toward the Government and people of Colombia the most friendly sentiments, and it is their earnest wish and hope that the bonds of amity that unite the two peoples may forever remain unbroken. In this spirit the Government of the United States, mindful that between even the most friendly nations differences sometimes unhappily arise, has given to your representations the most deliberate and earnest attention, and in the same spirit it will employ every effort consistent with justice and with its duty to itself and to other nations not only to maintain but also to strengthen the good relations between. the two countries.

At the present moment the questions which you submit can be viewed only in the light of accomplished facts. The Republic of Panama has become a member of the family of nations. Its independence has been recognized by the Governments of the United States, France, China, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Norway, Belgium, Nicaragua, Peru, Cuba, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica, and Switzerland. These solemn acts of recognition carry with them international obligations which, in peace as in war, are fixed by the law of nations and which can not be disregarded. A due appreciation of this circumstance is shown in your admission, made with a frankness and fairness honorable alike to your Government and to yourself, that "Panama has become independent has organized a government."

The action not merely, as you observe, of a "few powers," but of all the so-called "great powers" and many of the lesser ones, in recognizing the independence of Panama, leaves no doubt as to the public opinion of the world concerning the propriety of that measure. The law of nations does not undertake to fix the precise time at which recognition shall or may be extended to a new State. This is a question to be determined by each State upon its own just sense of international rights and obligations; and it has rarely happened, where a new State has been formed and recognized within the limits of an existing State, that the parent State has not complained that the recognition was premature. And if in the present instance the powers of the world gave their recognition with unwonted promptitude, it is only because they entertained the common conviction that interests of vast importance to the whole civilized world were at stake, which would by any other course be put in peril.

The independence of the Republic of Panama being an admitted fact, the department will proceed to consider the complaints presented by you on behalf of your Government as to the manner in which that independence was established. In performing this task I desire to avoid all appearance of recrimination; and if I shall not be wholly successful in so doing, it is only because I am under the necessity of vindicating the conduct of this Government against reproaches of the most grave and unusual character. The department is in duty bound to deal with these charges in a spirit of the utmost candor; but in performing this duty it will not seek in unofficial sources material for unjust and groundless aspersions. It is greatly to be regretted that your duty to your Government could not, in your estimation, have been discharged within similar limitations.

With every disposition to advance the purpose of your mission, the department has read with surprise your repetition of gross imputations upon the conduct and motives of this Government, which are said to have appeared in "reputable American newspapers." The press in this country is entirely free, and as a necessary consequence represents substantially every phase of human activity, interest, and disposition. Not only is the course of the Government in all matters subject to daily comment, but the motives of public men are as freely discussed as their acts; and if, as sometimes happens, criticism proceeds to the point of calumny, the evil is left to work its own cure. Diplomatic representatives, however, are not supposed to seek in such sources material for arguments, much less for grave accusations. Any charge that this Government or any responsible member of it held intercourse, whether official or unofficial, with agents of revolution in Colombia is utterly without justification.

Equally so is the insinuation that any action of this Government prior to the revolution in Panama was the result of complicity with the plans of the revolutionists. The department sees fit to make these denials, and it makes them finally.

The origin of the Republic of Panama and the reasons for its independent existence may be traced in certain acts of the Government of Colombia, which are matters of official record.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the quest of a way to the westward, across the sea, from Europe to Asia, led to the discovery and settlement of the American continents. The process of colonization had, however, scarcely begun when the adventurous spirits of that age, not to be balked in their undertaking by an obstacle that seemed to be removable, began to form projects for a canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. As early as 1528 a proposal was laid before the Emperor Charles V for the opening of such a way across the Isthmus of Panama. From that day to the present the project has continued to occupy a place among the great enterprises yet to be accomplished. It remains unfulfilled only because the experience of 400 years has demonstrated that private effort is wholly inadequate to the purpose, and that the work must be performed, if at all, under the auspices of a government of the largest resources. There was only one such government in a position to undertake it. By a well-settled policy, in which all American nations are understood to concur, the assumption of the task by any of the great Governments of Europe was pronounced to be inadmissible. Among American Governments there