of the Colombian people, withdraw the conditions which have been set forth with respect to Article I.

B.

Seeing that the United States accept the suppression of the term "in perpetuity" in Articles II and III of the project of a treaty, it is not necessary to discuss this point, and it is merely proper to remark that in the constitution of Colombia "territory" is not synonymous with "national property" (bienes nacionales), as is shown by Article IV of that constitution; but the alienation of a part of the territory would require a change in the boundaries of the nation, and as such boundaries are fixed in Article III of the same fundamental charter, a change thereof would require the amendment of the constitution itself.

C.

Article III of the original memorandum was not objected to by the Government of the United States when it was presented, nor was it said, as it is now said, that it would "embarrass or limit the action of the United States in the construction of a canal," a point which certainly would not have escaped the notice of the Department of State at that time. No amendment has been formulated in this regard, as was said in the memorandum to which reply is made, and it is only asked that an article of the original project may be conserved intact. Consequently Colombia is not disposed to make any change in Article III of the memorandum of the 18th of April.

The same is said with respect to Article VII, since the same reasons exist therefor.

D.

Although the part relative to lighthouses is stricken out, it should be stated that, when the memorandum of the 18th of April was published, a certain lighthouse concessionary in the department of Panama presented to the Government of Colombia a memorial (hereto annexed in copy) in reservation of his rights. Although there is an article of the treaty in which indemnification is tacitly comprised it has been sought to make the matter clear, and in that respect also no new matter is introduced. It is proper to note that by suppressing lighthouse dues in Panama, Colombia loses a relatively important revenue for its treasury and that it would not have been equitable if, in renouncing these resources for the future, it would also have to be burdened with the payment of the rights of the concessionaries.

E.

The memorandum to which reply is now made, in speaking of matters concerned with Article XXV of the treaty project. states that the offer of payment on the part of the United States of a total sum of $7,000,000 "has no connection with the matter of an annual payment during the first 14 years.'

The textual and clear terms of Article XXV of the memorandum of the 18th of April are sufficient to answer this remark. It is there

clearly stated, after much insistence, in order that it may appear that the seven millions which Colombia is to receive were an advance payment, an advance for the 14 first years of the use of the zone, and of the other concessions which the United States were to receive from the Government of Colombia. Before the termination of these 14 years an accord was to be reached conformably to the cited article, concerning the rate of the further annual payments, and to that end were mentioned the data upon which the estimates should rest beginning with the amount of the annual payment as calculated for the first period. But if, as to this, doubt should still exist it should be now stated with due precision that at the time the former minister of Colombia in Washington began the discussion of the preliminaries of the treaty with the members of the Isthmian Commission, it was stated clearly, expressly, and insistently that Colombia would ask an annual payment for the right to use the zone of the canal, as the proprietor thereof, and also the equitable price of the other concessions. In this regard, as in respect to the rest of the treaty draft, the conduct of Colombia has been absolutely frank from the beginning, and any other proceeding would have been destitute of reasonable motive.

The Government of the United States has thought it proper to modify the text of Article XXV of the memorandum which it accepted in its two notes of the 18th of April and 18th of July, and has proposed to Colombia an alternative between the payment of ten millions in cash and $10,000 of annual rental, or an initial payment of $7,000,000 and an annual discountable revenue of $100,000. The undersigned minister has no written authority of his Government to accept either of the two aforesaid alternative terms.

If the indemnification which is to be given to Colombia for its vast concessions has to be reduced to either of the two terms of the alternative proposed by the United States, the result would be that Colombia, having first ceded the usufruct and afterwards the full ownership of the Panama Railway; having ceded to the United States a zone for the canal 25 times greater than that which the concessionary company now enjoys; having renounced the expectation that the constructed canal shall become in 99 years the property of the Republic; having abstained from asking 8 per cent of the revenues of the enterprise as stipulated in the contract with the company; having obligated herself to suppress in a considerable extent of territory all imposts and contributions which might help to meet the increasing expenses of the public service; having given the free use of all the navigable waters and many public lands of Panamawould in exchange receive only in the first period of 100 years a sum which, distributed among all those years, would not amount in any one year to the half even of the sum which the Republic and the Department of Panama to-day receive from the rental of the Panama Railway alone.

The United States have given on distinct occasions before the world, and in fact to other Governments, examples of high and noble equity. So that, giving a little consideration to the real proportions of the indemnity which is offered to Colombia, it can not fail to be seen that this offer is very wide of what such equity would require.

F.

With respect to Article XXVI of the original memorandum, the undersigned has no authority to eliminate it from the text of the

G.

No formal proposal has been made concerning the terms of an article in which shall be established the manner of settling the doubts or difficulties which may arise in the application of the treaty in case it be perfected, but, this being the last provision of the compact, its examination may be postponed..

Washington, D. C., November 22, 1902.

JOSÉ VICENTE CONCHA.

BOGOTA, August 27, 1902.

His Excellency the MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Present:

I, Dionisio Jiménez, a Colombian citizen, a resident of the city of Cartegena and transiently in this capital, make to your excellency, with all due respect, the following statement:

1. That I am the holder of the privilege for the establishment and exploitation of the lighthouse on Isla Grande, situated on the Atlantic coast of the Department of Panama, 32 miles from the port of Colon, which lighthouse has been in use for more than seven years, during which time it has worked with absolute regularity.

2. That the aforesaid lighthouse now yields to the national treasury an income of not less than $6,000 per annum, by reason of the share of the said treasury in that enterprise, which will become the exclusive property of the Government when the privilege expires.

3. That the privilege, which I acquired by purchase (made with the approval of the Government) from Don Aureliano Gonzalez Toledo, the original holder of the concession, gives me the right to collect from all vessels that pass by said lighthouse, whencesoever they may come and whithersoever they may be going, remuneration for the service that they receive from said lighthouse, without any exception save the war vessels of nations that are friendly to Colombia,

4. That in article 7 of the draft of a treaty with the Government of the United States of America for the construction of the Panama Canal, which draft was prepared by Don Carlos Martínez Silva when he was in charge of the legation of Colombia at Washington, there is offered to vessels about to pass through that canal, among many other and various concessions, exemption from the payment of light dues. This is done in so broad a manner that it might readily be believed that the exemption offered had reference to all lighthouses on the seacoast of the Republic, and not merely to that in the port of Colon, which is the only one to which that act of disinterestedness and generosity can refer.

5. That in the privilege granted to the Universal Panama Canal Co., which it is proposed to transfer to the American Government, the right was granted to that company

to establish and collect for passage through the canal and the ports belonging to it lighthouse, anchorage, transit dues, etc.

But no exemption whatever was granted to vessels going to the canal for the services that they should receive in other ports or from coast lighthouses not belonging to the Panama Canal Co.

6. That as the point now under discussion was left obscure when the final contract was concluded between the Government of Colombia and that of the United States, erroneous interpretations might afterwards occur which might disturb the exercise of the rights that I have acquired in connection with the concession of the lighthouse on Isla Grande, said lighthouse being situated 32 miles from the port of Colon, or from the entrance via the Atlantic to the projected Panama Canal, in which enterprise more than $50,000 have been invested, I have thought proper, without further delay, to address your excellency to the end that if that treaty should finally be collected. [meaning concluded], you may be pleased to consider the rights which I represent as the holder of the concession to exploit the coast lighthouse on Isla Grande, and to protect them by giving it to be understood, with all clearness, that vessels about to pass through the canal are to be exempt from the light dues of the port of Colon, but that, in accordance with the established schedule, they must pay for the service which they receive from the lighthouse on Isla Grande, which is the point of orientation of all vessels passing along the coasts of the Isthmus of Panama.

7. That this explanation interests the Government more than it does the undersigned, who is simply the usufructuary for a limited time of one-half of the income yielded by that lighthouse, whereas the Government is not only the usufructuary of the other half, but when the privilege expires it will be the exclusive owner of the enterprise, and consequently of the entire income yielded by it.

8. That if, owing to any unforeseen circumstance, or to any circumstance over which your excellency has no control, the rights of the enterprise which I represent shall be annulled, I now enter a formal protest on account of the damage that may be caused, reserving the right to claim compensation therefor by due process of law if the case shall arise.

I earnestly beg your excellency to be pleased to order the receipt of this memorial to be acknowledged.

Mr. Minister.

DIONISIO JIMÉNEZ.

[Republic of Colombia. (L. S.) Ministry of Foreign Relations.]

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Bogota, September 2, 1902.

The foregoing is a copy, which is transmitted with a communica tion of this day's date, No. 7078, to the honorable legation of Colombia at Washington.

A true copy.

FRANCISCO RUIZ,

Assistant Secretary.

J. V. CONCHA, Minister of Colombia.

APPENDIX.

LIST OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.

1. Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Signed at Washington April 19, 1850. Proclaimed July 5, 1850. 2. Hay-Herran (Panama Canal) treaty. Signed at Washington on January 22, 1903. Approved by the United States Senate March 17, 1903. Never acted upon by the Colombian Congress. (57th Cong., 2d sess., S. Ex. K.) 3. First Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Signed February 5, 1900. Amended by the United States Senate and never ratified. (56th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 160.)

4. Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Signed at Washington November 18, 1901. Proclaimed February 22, 1902.

5. Hay-Bunau Varilla Convention (Panama Canal treaty). Signed at Washington November 18, 1903. Proclaimed February 26, 1904.

6. Treaties with Panama and Colombia relating to the Panama Canal. Signed with Panama (Root-Arosemena) January 9, 1909. Signed with Colombia (Root-Cortes) January 9, 1909. Treaty between Panama and Colombia (Cortes-Arosemena). Signed January 9, 1909. Consented to by United States Senate and by Panaman Congress. Never acted upon by Colombian Congress. (60th Cong., 2d sess., confidential. Ex. N.)

7. President Taft's message. August 19, 1912. The Panama Canal. (62d Cong., 2d sess., H. Doc. 914.)

8. Panama Canal act. Approved August 24, 1912. (Public, No. 337, H. R. 21969.)

9. Memorandum to accompany canal act. Signed by President Taft August 24, 1912.

10. President's proclamation Panama Canal toll rates. November 13, 1912. 11. President's message giving correspondence relating to the revolution on the Isthmus of Panama, November 16, 1903.

12. Second message giving further correspondence on the same subject, November 27, 1903.

13. President's message giving correspondence between the United States and Colombia.

14. President's message giving correspondence showing relations between the United States, Colombia, and Panama, January 18, 1904.

15. Hay-Concha protocol and correspondence between the United States and Colombia.

16. President's message giving correspondence showing relations of the United States with Colombia and Panama, December 8, 1908. 271