in paying the $40,000,000 appropriated by Congress to make this purchase. As a matter of fact, the negotiations with the company were long delayed, but there was never at any time reason to doubt that they would end, as they did, to the complete satisfaction of the United States.

The negotiations carried on at Washington with a view to framing a treaty acceptable alike to the United States and Colombia did not proceed so smoothly. It was not until January 22, 1903, that Secretary Hay and Dr. Herran, Colombian Charge d'Affaires, signed a treaty by which the United States Government agreed to pay Colombia $10,000,000, and an annual payment of $250,000 a year beginning in 1910, for a renewable lease for 100 years of a strip of territory three miles on either side of the canal route, and for all the rights originally granted to the French Canal Company. The sovereignty of Colombia over this territory was expressly admitted; she was left in control of the cities of Colon and Panama, and the sole provision of the treaty which in any sense invaded Colombia's sovereignty over the territory involved were those which provided for extra-territorial courts for the trial of cases in which American citizens were concerned, and for the joint policing of the canal strip by the United States and Colombia. The only criticisms aimed at the treaty were based on the belief that we had conceded too much to Colombia's sensitiveness in regard to her sovereignty.

IV

The same criticisms, and others brought forward by steadfast advocates of the Nicaragua route, delayed ratification of the treaty throughout the regular session of the Fifty-Seventh Congress. Promptly upon the expiration of this session, however, President Roosevelt called an extra session of the Senate to meet on March 5. Opposition to the treaty continued, but the treaty was finally ratified, March 17, by a vote of 73 to 12.

For the first time in all the years during which an Isthmian canal had been talked of, the United States seemed in a position to begin actual constructive work. It was known that the Hay-Herran treaty was not altogether satisfactory to the Colombian Government, but it was hoped that the material benefits she would gain from the canal would turn the scales in favor of ratification of the treaty at Bogotá. How

CRITICISMS OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT

81

and why these hopes were dashed by the action of the Colombian Senate has already been set forth, and with this outline of the history of the negotiations preceding the rejection of the treaty, and the revolution on the Isthmus brought about by this act, the policy of the United States Government following the revolution may be considered.

Terms of the Treaty With Panama

Having recognized the Republic of Panama and received M. BunauVarilla as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic, no time was lost in the negotiation of a treaty with the new State to open the way for the construction of a canal by the Panama route. Such a treaty was signed by the Secretary of State and the Minister from Panama on November 18, 1903. Article I of this treaty, which was ratified without amendment on December 2nd by the provisional junta of the Republic of Panama and subsequently by the Senate of the United States, provided that the "United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.” In Article II Panama "grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of the zone of land and land under. water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of said canal of the width of ten miles, extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the canal to be constructed." The cities of Panama and Colon, and adjacent harbors, although included within the boundaries just described, are expressly excluded from the grant, but to emphasize the nature of the title conferred upon the United States in Article II, Article III provided: "The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power, and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliaries, lands, and water mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and water are located in the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, and authority."

Other articles to the number of twenty-five dealt with various details respecting the division of the powers to be enjoyed by the contracting parties, stipulated that the canal, when constructed and the

entrance thereto should be neutral in perpetuity, secured to the United States all the rights which the Republic of Panama might acquire on the Panama Canal Company and the Panama Railway Company, authorized the new Panama Canal Company to sell its rights to the United States, and fixed the compensation for the right to use the zone granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States at the sum of $10,000,000 in gold and an annual payment of $250,000 during the life of the convention beginning nine years after date.

Criticisms of the Administration's Policy

The course of the Administration, first in recognizing the new republic against the protest of Colombia and then in hastily proceeding with the negotiation of the treaty just outlined did not pass without criticism. The words "infamous," "dishonorable," and " "ignoble were applied to the Administration's policy, while one responsible organ of public opinion declared that "it was the most ignominious. thing in the annals of American diplomacy." These views, however, did not generally prevail, nor did they have the slightest apparent effect upon the determination of the Administration to derive every possible advantage from the turn of events on the Isthmus.

Foreign commentators accepted the view of the situation which was held by the Government and even by those who were not normally its supporters, but who wished above all things that work upon the canal should not be further retarded. The London Times said: "Whatever may have been the action of individual American partisans of the Panama canal in fomenting the rebellion, there is no reason whatever to suppose that President Roosevelt's Government took the least part in working for the overthrow of Colombian rule upon the Isthmus. . . But, the revolution having once broken out, his Government occupied an extremely strong position. It had merely to observe the letter and spirit of the treaty [of 1846] and wait to see if the new state had sufficient vitality to establish itself, and could command the general adherence of its people. Mr. Hay's vigilant and skillful diplomacy turned the opportunity to full account, and without any transgression of the law of nations, the United States Government comes in sight of the fulfillment of its cherished scheme for building the canal."