CHAPTER XV

ISTHMIAN POLITICS

ALTHOUGH auspiciously begun, the career of the Isthmian republic was not destined to be one of unmarred harmony. Within its first year there arose the two serious crises in its affairs which I have already described; one of them an attempt at military revolution and the other a controversy with the United States. There also came a deplorable rise or revival of partisanship and factional animosities in the Republic. At first these were held in abeyance, and were vainly supposed by some to have been extinguished. The stress of the revolution and the fervour of patriotic enthusiasm moved men to sink all party differences, and, as I have said, the composition of the government and the design of the flag indicated a union of hearts and minds. That era of harmony did not long endure, however; nor was it reasonably to be supposed it would. "Cælum, non animum, mutant, qui trans mare currunt." How little do they change their minds, then, who do not even cross the sea and change their scene, but merely pull down one flag and raise another in its place! The people of Panama had for years been subject to the partisan passions which were so marked a feature of Colombian political life. It was simply impossible that they should be intellectually, morally, and spiritually transformed by the act of establishing their independence. A revolution could be effected in a day. Complete conversion of national character would be a matter of years or generations, if, indeed, it were ever effected. Nor should we, the proud, impute to them the fault. Note our own experience. Even in the throes of our Revolution, partisan rivalries and animosities were implacable, savage, and mischievous, and with the return of peace and the complete

269

establishment of independence they rose and raged with a fury unsurpassed in the history of hatreds.

Special reasons for this were not lacking in Panama. There was, for one, the customary ambition of political leaders, and especially of those who at first had made the mistake of taking the wrong side. Let me mention a single example, perhaps the most conspicuous. Dr. Belisario Porras, of whom I have already spoken, was a native of the Isthmus, and a lawyer of ability and standing, who had long been ambitious of political distinction and had been identified with several revolutionary movements. In July, 1900, he was one of the three Liberals who, under General Herrera, led the revolutionary forces to Panama, besieged that city for a time, and inflicted heavy losses upon its defenders. Soon after that incident, however, the Liberal cause collapsed, and Dr. Porras thereafter spent much of his time out of the country. At the occurrence of the final revolution of 1903 he was in Central America, and though notified of what was going on, and strongly urged to return home and aid in the establishment of Panaman independence, he refused to do so. On the contrary, he opposed the revolution, and denounced the separation from Colombia as a violation of "sacred patriotism." He wrote a number of letters to the press to that effect, and especially showed distrust of and animosity against the United States. It is not improbable, indeed, that his opposition to the revolution was based, half upon the fact that the new republic was to enter into close relations with the United States, and half upon the prominence which Dr. Amador and other Conservatives had in the movement.

In time, however, Dr. Porras perceived that despite his opposition the revolution had been successfully effected. Thereupon he accepted the accomplished fact, returned to Panama, and became one of the chief leaders of the Liberal party. In that capacity he showed more hostility toward the administration of President Amador than did any of his colleagues, and was regarded as the most strenuous spirit

DR. BELISARIO PORRAS

271

in the whole Opposition-for despite the fact that the government was formed by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals, the more extreme Liberals soon formed themselves into what was virtually an opposition party. The government seems to have done its utmost to placate Dr. Porras. It made him a member of its Law Committee, and sanctioned his election as President of the Municipal Council. of Panama. He was, however, implacable in his opposition to Conservative policies, and thus became more and more persona non grata to the government. Finally, in 1905, his citizenship was impeached. It was pointed out that under Article 7 of the Constitution citizenship in Panama was forfeited by "being born a Panaman and not accepting the movement for independence of the Nation," and it was argued that by his opposition to the revolution he had incurred this penalty. True, he had afterward repented of his opposition and had accepted the new order of affairs, and so the penalty might properly be remitted. But the same article of the Constitution also provided that "nationality can only be regained by an Act of the National Assembly." Therefore, it was argued, he was not and could not be a citizen until his citizenship had been restored to him by legislative enactment, and that, of course, could not be done until the National Assembly should be elected in July, 1906, and should meet in September of that year.

All this was vigorously contested by Dr. Porras and his friends, and the point was raised with some logical force that by accepting him as a member of its Law Committee and as President of the Municipal Council of Panama, the government had virtually recognised him as a citizen. The case was finally submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic, and it, on November 15, 1905, rendered its decision against Dr. Porras, the conclusion of its detailed review of the case being as follows:

"In view of all hereinbefore expressed and adjudicated, the Court, administering justice in the name of the Republic

of Panama and by authority of the law, decides: That Doctor Belisario Porras has forfeited the right to be a Panamanian citizen which is conceded by Article 6 of the Constitution, in virtue of the provision made in paragraph three of Article 7 of the same document, a right which he has not recovered by not having solicited rehabilitation through the National Assembly."

This decision was fiercely resented by Dr. Porras and his friends, and some deplorable utterances were made in the press and at public meetings. Not only was the action against him described as "malicious persecution," but the court's decision was denounced in savage terms. Thus the Diario de Panama-the organ of the Liberal party, controlled by Dr. Arosemena, First Designate of the Republic, said:

"To the lasting disgrace and eternal shame of this new Republic, and the absolute discredit of its institutions, the Supreme Court of Justice, composed of Judges Fabrega, Guardia, Lombardi, and Villareal-the fifth judge, Benites, withholding his vote-has finally handed down the infamous decision, steeped in political rancour and inspired by personal hatred, which declares Dr. Belisario Porras an alien to his native soil."

A great mass meeting of the Liberal party was held in Santa Anna Park, in Panama, to express disapproval of the court's decision and sympathy with Dr. Porras, at which impassioned addresses were made by Dr. Arosemena and Dr. Mendoza, the First and Third Designates of the Republic, condemning the decision of the court and the action of the government in pressing the case against Dr. Porras.

The reply of the government party was, logically, that the decision of the Court ought to be respected, and that relief should be sought through appeal to the National Assembly to restore Dr. Porras to citizenship as provided by the Constitution. The Liberal retort was to express lack of confidence in the National Assembly as it was to be constituted, on the ground that the government was preparing to carry

APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES

273

the elections, which would occur in July, 1906, by force or fraud. So strenuous were they in this contention that they actually made appeal to the United States Government concerning it, asking whether it proposed to countenance government control of the elections. This appeal was addressed to William H. Taft, the United States Secretary of War, on November 7, 1905, at which time he was visiting the Isthmus. On that day Secretary Taft was visited by Dr. Arosemena, First Designate of the Republic; Belisario Porras, President of the Municipal Council of the city of Panama; General Domingo Diaz, Eusebio A. Morales, and F. Filos, composing the National Directorate of the Liberal party of Panama. They laid before him an elaborate document signed by themselves, which reviewed the relations of the United States to Panama and the protectorate of the former over the latter; arraigned the Panaman Government for all manner of force and fraud, both past and prospective; and then demanded to know what the United States proposed to do about it. Their memorial ran in part as follows:

"The Diplomatic correspondence which, toward the end of 1903, was exchanged in Washington between Secretary Hay and General Rafael Reyes, Envoy Extraordinary of Colombia, on account of the attitude assumed by the Government of the United States with regard to the separation of the Department of Panama and its transformation into an independent republic, demonstrates that the American Government considered itself bound to maintain the established order of things and to prevent that interoceanic traffic should be suspended or impeded by military operations, which might convert the territory of the Isthmus into a battlefield. . .

"The treaty, celebrated on November 18 of that year [1903], contains the above doctrine, although in a more concrete form. The United States thereby guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Panama. This treaty, whose principal object is to facilitate the construction of a canal across the Isthmus, was also bound to make provision for the preservation of public order, so that the universal traffic might not suffer disturbances; and, in fact, this faculty was