It would undoubtedly be offensive to the Republic of Panama to be placed before the world as having been induced to consent "to the entire exclusion *** of any sovereign rights" in the territory of the Canal Zone by the payment of money or because of a want of ability to maintain its independence. It would, however, be highly honorable and entirely justifiable to consent to such exclusion of sovereign right when the moving cause or inducement is "the construction, sanitation, maintenance, operation, and protection" of a work of such stupendous magnitude and world-wide importance as the isthmian canal.

The grant to the United States provided for in said treaty included also property other than the territory of the Zone. Article VIII stipulates that—

"The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all rights which it now has or hereafter may acquire to the property of the New Panama Canal Company and the Panama Railroad Company, as a result of the transfer of sovereignty from the Republic of Colombia to the Republic of Panama over the Isthmus of Panama ***"

If the grant is subject to the condition and limitation contended for by the Panaman authorities, and the United States is not entitled to the revenues or benefits of the territory of the Zone, or to regulate its commerce with foreign nations, or to control its international relations, it also follows that the United States, while it may use the Panama Railroad "for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of said canal," is not at liberty to regulate the use of said railroad by foreign commerce, and such revenue as is received by virtue of the rights conferred by the treaty, excepting for local traffic, belongs to the Republic of Panama. The proposition refutes itself.

The great object sought to be accomplished by the treaty is to enable the United States to construct the canal by the expenditure of public funds of the United States-funds created by the collection of taxes and moneys derived from the revenue measures of the United States. For many years after the adoption of our Constitution the belief prevailed that the funds of the National Government could not be expended in the construction of public improvements, excepting those required for the use of the National Government, such as the Capitol, Executive Department buildings, arsenals, forts, custom-houses, post-offices, etc. The construction of highways, railroads, etc., the improvement of rivers and harbors, etc., the protection and improvement of water powers, construction of canals, and similar undertakings for the use and convenience of the general public and private enterprises was considered to be outside the competency of the National Government, although said works were to be constructed in territory subject to the national sovereignty.

Finally it was established that the National Government had the authority to enter upon the construction of public works of the character referred to, and to devote the public funds of the nation thereto; and the reasons inducing such determination are all predicated on the fact that such public works are to be situated in territory subject to the national sovereignty. It is quite probable that this phase of the situation is not considered by the Panama authorities, and that they do not distinguish the difference between the Government of the United States and the French canal company. The French company was a private enterprise and derived its funds from individuals who voluntarily devoted their private means to promoting the endeavor. Such funds could be expended anywhere and for any purpose sanctioned by the contributors.

But the Government of the United States in building the canal does not expend private funds, but public moneys derived by public taxation for public purposes. Moneys so realized may be used for national purposes outside the territory subject to the national sovereignty, such, for instance, as the promotion of a war in foreign territory, for in time of war the war powers of the nations are called into activity, and those powers are coextensive with the nation's necessities, and the conduct of war is especially enjoined upon the National Government by our Constitution; so also these funds may be expended for the purchase of ground for the erection of embassies, coaling stations, etc., for those are instrumentalities of the National Government; but the isthmian canal is an instrumentality of commerce, a measure for the promotion of the purposes of peace. Commerce is the life of a nation, but it is conducted by individual citizens in a private capacity and not as a governmental institution.

That the plain and obvious meaning of Article III was the one originally intended by the parties to the treaty is further shown by the provisions of Articles IX, X, XII, XIII.

97-565 - 78 - 17

For the proper understanding of the provisions of said articles it is necessary to bear in mind that the city of Colón, on the Atlantic, and the city of Panama, on the Pacific, each has a harbor in which are constructed wharves and piers suitable for landing cargoes and passengers. Both of these cities are in territory of the Republic of Panama. On the Pacific side the canal pierces the Isthmus at a point nearly 5 miles distant, following the shore line, from the ships landing in the harbor at Panama, and about 21⁄2 miles distant straight across the peninsula. On the Atlantic side the canal pierces the Isthmus at a point half a mile across the bay from the piers in the harbor of Colon.

At the Pacific entrance to the canal the French company erected a large pier and dredged out a channel, so that vessels of deep draft might come up to this pier. This point is called La Boca. A branch of the Panama Railroad connects said pier with the main line. Vessels, however, continue to enter the harbor at the city of Panama and discharge their cargoes. The waters of this harbor are shallow, and deep-draft vessels anchor offshore and lighten their cargoes, as they did for more than a century before the pier was built and the channel dredged at La Boca.

On the Atlantic side of the Isthmus the harbor and piers of the city of Colón are the ones of more convenient access to vessels. The entrance to the canal on the Atlantic side is called Cristóbal, at which point there is a small temporary wharf, recently constructed, but a channel has not been dredged out. Consequently, practically all vessels sailing the Atlantic from the United States and elsewhere land at the Colón piers. The Panama Railroad Company has a line of steamers between Colón and New York, and there is also a steamship line between Colón and New Orleans. By far the greater portion of the commerce of Colón is with the United States, and it was obvious at the time the treaty was negotiated that a large quantity of materials and supplies and a large number of employees for the canal construction and the government of the Zone would arrive at Colón from the United States. Two piers in the Colón harbor belonged to the Panama Railroad Company and are now owned by the Government of the United States, but between said piers and the line of the Canal Zone there is a strip of land subject to the sovereignty of the Republic of Panama.

The provisions of Articles IX, X, XII, and XIII are intended to provide for the proper exercise of governmental authority under these conditions of fact. Article IX relates to the exercise of authority by both Governments. When separated the provisions read as follows:

"The United States agrees that the ports at either entrance of the canal and the waters thereof shall be free for all time, so that there shall not be imposed or collected custom-house tolls, tonnage, anchorage, light-house, wharf, pilot, or quarantine dues, or any other charges or taxes of any kind upon any vessel using or passing through the canal, or upon the cargo, officers, crew, or passengers of any such vessels, except such charges as may be imposed by the United States for the use of the canal or other works."

If it were intended that the United States should not secure the right to regulate foreign commerce entering the Zone, why was it required to stipulate that it would not impose or collect custom-house tolls, tonnage, anchorage, lighthouse, wharf, pilot, or quarantine dues, or any other charges or taxes of any kind upon the cargo, officers, crew, or passengers of ships entering the canal? If the Republic of Panama is the sovereignty exercising jurisdication over foreign commerce within the Zone, why was the exception respecting tolls and charges for the use of the canal and other works made in favor of the Unite States?

The stipulations of said Article IX respecting the exercise of authority by the Republic of Panama are as follows:

"The Republic of Panama agrees that the towns of Panama and Colón shall be free for all time, so that there shall not be imposed or collected custom-house tolls, tonnage, anchorage, light-house, wharf, pilot, or quarantine dues, or any other charges or taxes of any kind upon any vessel issuing or passing through the canal or belonging to or employed by the United States, directly or indirectly, in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the main canal or auxiliary works, or upon the cargo, officers, crew, or passengers of any such vessels, except tolls and charges imposed by the Republic of Panama upon merchandise destined to be introduced for the consumption of the rest of the Republic of Panaina, and upon vessels touching at the ports of Colón and Panama and which do not cross the canal."

The expression "the rest of the Republic of Panama” must be held to refer to that portion of the territory of the Republic as existing at the time the treaty was negotiated, lying outside the boundaries of the proposed Canal Zone, unless it is insisted that it refers to that portion of the Republic which is not included in the towns of Colón and Panama―a contention that would hardly find favor with the authorities of the Republic. Why this exception in favor of the Republic of Panama if that Government possesses the right to regulate foreign commerce with the territory of the Zone?

Article IX contains the further provision:

"The Government of the Republic of Panama shall have the right to establish in such ports [the ports at either entrance of the canal] and in the towns of Panama and Colón such houses and guards as it may deem necessary to collect duties on importations destined to other portions of Panama, and to prevent contraband trade."

Why this provision if the right existed?

For the proper understanding of Article X it is necessary to bear in mind that the French Canal Company owned and the United States purchased from it a large amount of real estate situated in the towns of Colón and Panama, which towns are subject to the sovereignty of the Republic of Panama. Among other pieces of property, the canal office building, a large structure in the center of the town of Panama, the railroad station and terminals at Colón and Panama, the large piers in the harbor at Colon, the steamships, tugs, and other water craft belonging to the Panama Railroad, and the canal company's warehouses filled with machinery, materials, and supplies.

Practically all the employees working in and around these structures, and many other employees of the government of the Zone, the Panama Railroad and the canal construction department, reside in Colón and Panama. To meet this situation the treaty provides as follows:

"ARTICLE X. The Republic of Panama agrees that there shall not be imposed any taxes, national, municipal, departmental, or of any other class upon the canal, the railways, and auxiliary works, tugs, and other vessels employed in the service of the canal, storehouses, workshops, offices, quarters for laborers, factories of all kinds, warehouses, wharves, machinery and other works, property and effects appertaining to the canal or railroad or auxiliary works, or their offices or emplo, ees situated within the cities of Panama and Colón, and that there shall not be imposed contributions or charges of a personal character of any kind upon officers, employees, laborers, and other individuals in the service of the canal and railroad and auxiliary works."

Attention is directed to the fact that by the foregoing article the Republic of Panama foregoes the right to impose "any taxes, national, municipal, or departmental," on the property of the United States and its employees situated in the cities of Panama and Colón. If it had been contemplated that the Republic of Panama retained sovereign rights in the Zone or was at liberty to exercise those rights in that territory the United States would certainly have required the same exceptions for the large amount of its property in the Zone as it required for its property in the cities of Panama and Colón.

Perhaps no more complete refutation of the claims advanced by the Republic of Panama is necessary than to propound the inquiry. Is the Republic of Pamana authorized to impose national, municipal, and departmental taxes on the property of the United States situated in the Canal Zone?

So well understood was it that the exercise of sovereign powers by the Republic of Panama was to be confined to the territory remaining to the Republic that in at least three articles referring to such exercise of power the territory of the Republic is not mentioned, although manifestly no other territory was under consideration.

The articles referred to are X, XII, and XIII.

Article X provides "that there shall not be imposed contributions or charges of a personal character of any kind upon officers, employees, laborers, and other individuals in the service of the canal and railroad and auxiliary works." Article XII provides: "The Government of the Republic of Panama shall permit the immigration and free access to the lands and workshops of the canal and its auxilliary works of all employees and workmen of whatever nationality, under contract to work upon or seeking employment upon or in any wise con⚫ nected with the said canal and its auxiliary works, with their respective families, and all such persons shall be free and exempt from the military service of the Republic of Panama."

It is perfectly plain that these stipulations relate to the exercise of governmental authority in the territory outside of the Canal Zone.

Let it be supposed that this treaty did not contain the provision "all such persons shall be free and exempt from the military service of the Republic of Panama." Would anyone contend, after reading Article III of the treaty, that a citizen of the United States employed on the canal and residing in the Zone owed such temporary allegiance to the Republic of Panama as to be liable to military service for that Government?

Article XIII must also be considered as relating to the territory of the Republic of Panama. That article provides that "the United States may import" (pass through the territory of the Republic) "into the Zone and auxiliary lands, free of customs duties, imports, taxes, or other charges and without any restrictions," certain designated articles, respecting which further provision is made, as follows:

"If any such articles are disposed of for use outside of the Zone and auxiliary lands granted to the United States and within the territory of the Republic, they shall be subject to the same import or other duties as like articles imported under the laws of the Republic of Panama."

Manifestly it is not until the goods are "outside the Zone" and "within the territory of the Republic" that they are subject to "import or other duties under the laws of the Republic of Panama."

The Panamanian authorities insist that it is by virtue of Article XIII that the property of the United States acquires the right of free entry into the Zone. Such contention is not warranted. Said article is intended to give the right of free transit across the territory of the Republic of Panama for goods belonging to the United States. The right of the United States to take its property into the Zone results from the provisions of Article XIII. The construction contended for by Panama makes Article XIII contradict, if not nullify, Article III, for by the terms of Article III the Republic of Panama grants to the United States "all the rights, power, and authority of a sovereign to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, or authority" in the Canal Zone.

When due consideration is given to Article III it is apparent that Article XIII relates to the exercise of sovereign powers by the Republic of Panama in territory wherein such exercise is contemplated by the treaty, to wit, the territory of the Republic.

Under the construction of Article XIII contended for by Panama the right of that Republic to tax the goods in question depends upon the ownership of the property without regard to the place of final destination; if the goods are the property of the United States they enter free and remain exempt from tariff imposts so long as they continue to be the property of the United States; if, however, the United States parts with the ownership the sovereignty of Panama may impose on said goods the customs duties prescribed by the laws of that Republic.

If the Republic of Panama is authorized to exercise sovereign powers in the Canal Zone, and the sovereign right to impose customs duties is restrained only by the fact of ownership by the United States, it would follow that if the United States transferred the ownership of property deposited in the Canal Zone such property would be subject to said right, whether it remained in the Zone or not. But said Article XIII expressly declares that the right to impose customs duties on such property is to be exercised in the event only that "such articles are disposed of for use outside the Zone and auxiliary lands granted the United States and within the territory of the Republic."

Clearly the exercise by the Republic of Panama of the sovereign right to impose customs duties on goods of the character under consideration is dependent upon two facts: First, that the goods are owned by some one other than the Government of the United States; second, that the goods are to be used outside the Zone and within the territory of the Republic of Panama by some one other than the United States.

A careful examination of the provisions of Article XIII discloses that they combine definite description of specific articles and indefinite classification of property in general.

The article under consideration (XIII) reads as follows:

"The United States may import, at any time, into the Zone and auxiliary lands, free of customs duties, imports, taxes, or other charges, and without any restrictions, any and all vessels, dredges, engines, cars, machinery, tools, explo

sives, materials, supplies, and other articles necessary and convenient in the contruction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the canal and auxiliary works, and all provisions, medicines, clothing, supplies, and other things necessary and convenient for the officers, employees, workmen, and laborers in the service and employ of the United States and for their families." Read by the light of contemporaneous history, it is difficult to see how this article can be considered as relating to the exercise of authority anywhere except in the territory of the Republic of Panama.

That the grant accomplished by the treaty was a grant of land and sovereign right thereover, and not a mere concession or privilege, is shown by the granting clauses and also by the references to the grant in subsequent clauses of the trenty; for instance, Article XIII employs the expression "outside the Zone and auxiliary lands granted to the United States and within the territory of the Republic."

In support of the contention advanced by the Government of the Republic of Panama, you quote Article IV of the proposed treaty with Colombia. The first stipulation of that article is as follows:

"The rights and privileges granted by the terms of this convention shall not affect the sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over the territory within whose boundaries such rights and privilages are to be exercised."

No such provision as the foregoing appears in the convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama; on the contrary, Article III of the convention with Panama provides that—

*

"The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, powers, and authority within the Zone * * which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign, * * * to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, or authority."

This stipulation is plain and its purpose manifest. If the powers of sovereignty are to be exercised in that territory the right to exercise them belongs to the United States.

Permit me to call your attention to certain official acts of the Government of the Republic of Panama which evidence that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of that Government have heretofore accepted and acted upon the theory that the convention of November 18, 1903, conveyed the territory of the Canal Zone and sovereign jurisdiction thereover to the United States.

The constitution of the Republic of Panama was formulated during the time the treaty between the United States and Panama was pending before the Senate of the United States. The constitution was adoped on February 13 and proclaimed February 15, 1904. The Senate recommended the ratification of the treaty on February 23, and the President carried out the recommendation on February 25, 1904.

The constitution of Panama described the boundaries of that Republic as follows:

"ART. 3. The territory of the Republic is composed of all the territory from which the State of Panama was formed by the amendment to the Granada constitution of 1853 *** together with its islands and of the continental and insular territory. *** The territory of the Republic remains subject to the jurisdictional limitations stipulated or which may be stipulated in public treaties concluded with the United States of North America for the construction, maintenance, or sanitation of any means of interoceanic transit."

What is meant by "jurisdictional limitations" if it were intended that the pending treaty should convey nothing but rights of property? Why was this limitation placed upon the extent of the national domain, if the United States was to be a mere concessionaire subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Panama?

The legislative branch of the Government of the Republic of Panama has recognized the right of the United States to exercise the sovereign authority to regulate foreign commerce with the territory of the Zone and has enacted two statutes with reference to such exercise of authority by the United States.

Law No. 65, enacted by the National Assembly of Panama on June 6, 1904, "conferring certain authority upon the Executive," is as follows:

“ARTICLE 1. Authority is given to the Executive to reduce, as may be convenient, those duties, the collection of which, at the rates established by the present law, ordinances, or decrees, would be prejudicial to commerce and to the public because of great differences there might be between them and those established by the United States Government for the Canal Zone.