Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

House of Representatives adopted by the overwhelming vote of 223 to 25, Mr. Hepburn's bill authorising the President to proceed to the construction of a canal at Nicaragua, at a cost of $180,000,000, and appropriating $10,000,000 on account for immediate use. An amendment was proposed to this bill, leaving the choice of routes to the discretion of the President, but it was rejected by a vote of 120 ayes to 170 nays. Briefly stated, the argument against Panama and in favour of Nicaragua, which prevailed at this time and which brought about this vote, was that the Panama route was the further from the United States, making the voyage from our Atlantic to our Pacific coast much longer than by way of Nicaragua; that Panama was the less desirable for sailing vessels on account of the prevailing calms in the Bay of Panama; that the "Panama lobby" was not to be trusted; and that it would not be possible to make as satisfactory arrangements with Colombia as with Nicaragua and Costa Rica. There was also the general sentiment that Nicaragua was the "traditional American route," while Panama was a French route.

When this bill was reported from the House to the Senate, vigorous opposition was promptly manifested toward it. It is true, Senator Morgan had long been distinguished as the foremost advocate and champion of Nicaragua. But there were other Senators almost equally resolute in their advocacy of Panama, and their number was much increased and their position was greatly strengthened by the supplementary report of the Commission, showing how cheaply the Panama Canal could be purchased. An amendment to the Hepburn bill was therefore offered by Senator Spooner, which amounted practically to a substitute measure. It authorised the President to purchase the rights and property of the Panama company for not more than $40,000,000, to secure by treaty with Colombia perpetual control of the strip of land, not less than six miles wide, through which the canal was to run; and then to proceed with the work of constructing the canal. If, however, he was unable in a

DARIEN RESURRECTED

127

reasonable time to make the necessary bargain with Colombia and with the Panama Canal Company, then he was to make terms with Nicaragua and construct the canal there.

A long and earnest debate followed, during which all the old arguments for and against each of the routes were rehearsed, while the lobbyists of both sides were indefatigable in their efforts to influence Senatorial votes. In addition, the old Darien route was once more brought forward. It was said that a site had been discovered at which a sea-level canal could be constructed with only twenty-nine and a half miles of cutting, or nearly twenty miles less than at Panama, and with no curves, dams, or locks. There would, it was true, have to be a tunnel nearly five miles long through the mountains, but the scheme of making a rock tunnel five miles long and three hundred feet in diameter, these ardent propagandists affected to regard as an inconsiderable trifle, nor did they fear the possible results of an earthquake shock upon such a passageway. It was shrewdly observed, however, that the most vehement advocates of this chimerical project were the very men who had been most opposed to the construction of any canal at all, to wit, the agents of certain transcontinental railroad lines. The game was quite obvious; too much so to delude any Senator or Representative who did not desire, for a consideration, to be deluded. It was, first, to oppose any canal at all; and then, failing that, to set the Government off on a wild-goose chase after some entirely impossible though at first sight plausible route. In this way, if the canal was not ultimately defeated, it would be greatly delayed, and every year's delay meant a year's profit to the railroad monopoly. It was actually proposed that if the Government would guarantee the bonds, a private corporation would supply the capital and do the whole work at Darien in four years at a cost of $100,000,000. This precious lure was, however, disregarded or relegated to the limbo of fantastic follies.

There was a long fight over the so-called Spooner bill in the Senate, and there were many rumors of "abhorrent and

forbidden forces" employed by lobbyists for and against it, most of which probably had their origin in nothing more than imagination or desire. The result was, however, generally regarded as doubtful until the vote was actually taken. That incident occurred on June 19, 1902, when the measure was adopted by the overwhelming vote of sixtyseven to six. It was supposed by many that the House of Representatives would offer strenuous objection to this complete transformation of its own measure, but such proved not to be the case. The very same House which only a few months before had voted overwhelmingly in favour of Nicaragua, and had strongly voted against giving the President any option in the matter, now, on June 26, by a still more overwhelming vote-259 to 8-accepted the Spooner amendment, giving the President a certain discretion in the matter but directing him to make his first choice at Panama!

The measure thus passed by Congress was signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, and thus became law--the law under which the world's desire is now being fulfilled at Panama. (See Appendix IV.) It was the ending of a controversy which had lasted for nearly four hundred years. It was, in fact, the death warrant of the Nicaragua project, which had for so long and at so great expense been kept before American attention. It is true, the advocates of Nicaragua for a time regarded it, or affected to regard it, as a victory for them, on the ground that the President would find it impossible to make satisfactory terms with Colombia within the "reasonable time" prescribed by Congress, and would, therefore, eventually turn to the Nicaragua route; and indeed, this expectation came very near to fulfilment. The moment the Spooner bill became law, the tactics of the Nicaraguans, and of the enemies of any canal, were changed, and their energies were directed toward the creation of obstacles to a satisfactory agreement between the United States and Colombia. There is reason to believe, too, that some alien influences were exerted to the same end. In a measure these were successful. The United States and

A SUDDEN CHANGE

129

Colombia did not reach a satisfactory agreement. But, by a dramatic turn of events, which, however, was surprising to none but those who were wilfully or needlessly blind, the United States was enabled, with little delay, to attain its end without such an agreement, and on terms actually more advantageous to it than had been expected.

CHAPTER IX

NEGOTIATIONS WITH COLOMBIA

A LAW for the construction of a canal was at last enacted and in force. It was next necessary, in fulfilment of the . provisions of that law, to effect a valid purchase of the French canal company's rights and property, and to make a suitable treaty with Colombia. The first thing to be considered was whether the laws of France; under which the canal company was incorporated, would permit such a sale. The officers of the company, and the company's legal counsel in this country, were confident that they would. But some further assurance was necessary for the satisfaction of the United States Government, and this the Attorney-General of the United States, Philander C. Knox, undertook to After a thorough investigation in France, he gave his opinion, on October 25, 1902, that the French laws would permit the sale, and that the French company could make the sale and give the United States a valid and indisputable title to the property thus conveyed at least, so far as France was concerned; Colombia was to be reckoned with separately.

secure.

This opinion was based upon the revelations and results of legal proceedings in Paris. The offer of the stockholders of the company to sell to the United States had been referred for consideration to the Civil Tribunal of the Seine, which, under a special law enacted in 1893, had jurisdiction over the matter, and had been approved by it. From that approv ing decision a dissenting stockholder had made appeal to the Court of Cassation, the supreme tribunal of French justice, and the latter instead of reversing had affirmed it, on August 5, 1902. We need not here review, even in epitome,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »