Panama. Without firing a shot we prevented a civil war. We promptly negotiated a treaty under which the canal is now being dug. In consequence Panama has for eight years enjoyed a degree of peace and prosperity which it had never before enjoyed during its four centuries of troubled existence. Be it remembered that unless I had acted exactly as I did act there would now be no Panama Canal. It is folly to assert devotion to an end, and at the same time to condemn the only means by which the end can be achieved. Every man who at any stage has opposed or condemned the action actually taken in acquiring the right to dig the canal has really been the opponent of any and every effort that could ever have been made to dig the canal. Such critics are not straightforward or sincere unless they announce frankly that their criticism of methods is merely a mask, and that at bottom what they are really criticising is having the canal dug at all.

The United States has done very much more than its duty to Colombia. Although Colombia had not the slightest claim to consideration of any kind, yet, in the interests of Panama, and so as to close all possible grounds of dispute between Panama and Colombia, the United States some time ago agreed to a tri-party treaty between herself, Colombia, and Panama, by which, as a simple matter of grace and not of right, adequate and generous compensation would have been given Colombia for whatever damage she had suffered; but Colombia refused to agree to the treaty. On this occasion, in my judgment, the United States went to the very verge of right and propriety in the effort to safeguard Panama's interests by making Colombia feel satisfied. There was not the slightest moral obligation on the United States to go as far as she went; and at the time it seemed to me a grave question whether it was not putting a premium upon international blackmail to go so far. Certainly nothing more should be done. There is no more reason for giving Colombia money to soothe her feelings for the loss

of what she forfeited by her misconduct in Panama in 1903 than for giving Great Britain money for what she lost in 1776. Moreover, there is always danger that in such cases an act of mere grace and generosity may be misinterpreted by the very people on whose behalf it is performed, and treated as a confession of wrongdoing. We are now so far away from 1776 that this objection does not apply in that case, and there would be no particular reason why any sentimental persons who feel so inclined should not agitate to have Great Britain paid for the nervous strain and loss of property consequent upon our action in that year and the immediately subsequent years. But we are still too near the Panama incident to be entirely certain that base people would not misunderstand our taking such action in her case; and as there was literally and precisely as much moral justification for what we did in Panama in 1903 as for what we did in our own country in 1776-and indeed even more justification-it is as foolish now to claim that Colombia is entitled, or ever has been entitled, to one dollar because of that transaction as to claim that Great Britain is entitled to be compensated because of the Declaration of Independence.

Not only was the course followed as regards Panama right in every detail and at every point, but there could have been no variation from this course except for the worse. We not only did what was technically justifiable, but we did what was demanded by every ethical consideration, national and international. We did our duty by the world, we did our duty by the people of Panama, we did our duty by ourselves. We did harm to no one save as harm is done to a bandit by a policeman who deprives him of his chance for blackmail. The United States has many honorable chapters in its history, but no more honorable chapter than that which tells of the way in which our right to dig the Panama Canal was secured and of the manner in which the work itself has been carried out.

B

Y what legal processes did the United States come to secure possession of the Panama Canal property and what means did it employ to complete the work of construction and to organize the government now in control at the Isthmus?

The story of the pioneers has been told; the brilliant and tragic achievements of the explorers have filled innumerable volumes, and each succeeding story heightens the general interest in the great scheme of uniting the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific in liquid wedlock. More prosaic than the tales of Balboa the discoverer, of Morgan the buccaneer, or of de Lesseps, the promoter, but equally essential to the practical accomplishment of the great dream of the ages, was the work of the statesmen in the American Congress who devised the plan and provided the means for attaining the result on the basis of law. It is easy to sit upon the hilltop and dream of the union of rivers that glisten in the valley below, but the marshalling of the men and the money to engage in so vast an undertaking was anything but a day-dream. To draw the plans by which a given number of cubic yards of earth could be removed from a given area was probably the easiest step in the work

of constructing the canal; it is a vastly different thing to provide the equipment, and to secure the army of workers sufficient to surmount the difficulties existing in so unhealthy an environment, thousands of miles from the base of supplies.

The early surveys afforded every opportunity for individuals or nations to enter into the work of canal construction either at Nicaragua or at Panama. The daring, but unsuccessful, effort of the French company under de Lesseps supplied the American Congress with ample information as to the breakers ahead. It is still a disputed question whether the historic voyage of the Oregon was responsible for the desire of the American people to undertake the work of canal construction. Commercial expansion, or the desire to figure in the world's trade, undoubtedly had much to do with it. Later on, when the question of fortification arose, it was evident that the military and naval advantages of the canal had been considered among the reasons for its acquisition and construction.

When at last the people of the United States were ready to build a canal, the preparation of the necessary legislation was begun in both Houses of Congress. The distinguished Iowan, Colonel William

If the United States was to go into the canal business, it must necessarily have a start warranted by law, and after long discussions in committee and in conference and upon the floor of the Senate and House, the basic law which has since been called the Spooner Act was passed, and signed by President Roosevelt, June 28, 1902. Although induced to some extent by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of February 22, 1902, and modified in certain particulars by subsequent legislation, this act, the title of which is "To provide for the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific

Oceans," may be regarded as the organic

law of the Panama Canal. And it is

worthy of comment that although the estimated sum of money appropriated in the Act of June 28, 1902, for the purchase and construction of the canal, has been greatly exceeded by subsequent appropriations, the object set forth in the Act, to wit, the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, was prosecuted with such intelligence and vigor that in twelve years from the date of the passage of the Act, the

monumental work which had been dreamed

of through the centuries and upon which

other nations had expended years of toil and innumerable lives, had been completed, and, in effect, dedicated to the commerce of the world.

It may be left to others to enlarge upon the controversies ensuing from interpretations of the Clayton-Bulwer and HayPauncefote treaties with Great Britain. They had to be considered by our national legislators in reaching a basis for proceeding

It is generally conceded that without the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, this country must have undertaken to construct a canal such as was contemplated, in violation of the troublesome convention known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, made back in 1850, when conditions were radically different from those succeeding the Spanish-American War. The chief objection to the United States assuming the work, however, was removed by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty when, in Article 2, it was agreed "that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to individuals or corporations, or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present treaty, the said government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal."

This waiver having been obtained from Great Britain, the Congress of the United States was in a position to proceed to negotiate for the property of the Panama Canal Company, or for an alternative route by way of Nicaragua. It is noticeable that while Congress had in mind the taking over of the property of the French Company at Panama, it threw an anchor to windward, so that in the event of the failure of negotiations for the project of de Lesseps, the commission appointed by the Act could proceed to negotiate for "a ship canal and waterway from a point on the shore of the Caribbean Sea near Greytown, by way of Lake Nicaragua, to a point near Brito on the Pacific Ocean.”

Taking the Act of June 28, 1902, as the organic law of the Panama Canal, let us

see what the legislative mind had in view at the inception of the project. First, the President of the United States was authorized to acquire

"for and on behalf of the United States, at a cost not exceeding forty millions of dollars, the rights, privileges, franchises, concessions, grants of land, right of way, unfinished work, plants, and other property, real, personal, and mixed, of every name and nature, owned by the New Panama Canal Company, of France, on the Isthmus of Panama, and all its maps,

plans, drawings, records on the Isthmus of Panama and in Paris, including all the capital stock, not less, however, than sixty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three shares of the Panama Railroad Company, owned by or held for the use of said canal company, provided a satisfactory title to all of said property can be obtained."

That was the first step by which, under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the canal was to be constructed "under the auspices of the government of the United States.' And, after appropriate negotiations, the French rights and titles were turned over to the United States.

The second section of the organic act authorized the President, who at that time was Mr. Roosevelt,

"to acquire from the Republic of Colombia, for and on behalf of the United States, upon such terms as he may deem reasonable, perpetual control of a strip of land, the territory of the Republic of Colombia, not less than six miles in width, extending from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and the right to use and dispose of the waters thereon, and to excavate, construct, and to perpetually maintain, operate, and protect thereon a canal, of such depth and capacity as will afford convenient passage of ships of the greatest tonnage and draft now in use, from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, which control shall include the right to perpetually maintain and operate the Panama Railroad, if the ownership thereof, or a controlling interest therein, shall have been acquired by the United States, and also jurisdiction over said strip and the ports at the ends thereof to make such police and sanitary rules and regulations as shall be necessary to preserve order and preserve the public health thereon, and to establish such judicial tribunals as may be agreed upon thereon as may be necessary to enforce such rules and regulations."

In the third section it was provided

"That when the President shall have arranged to secure a satisfactory title to the property of the New Panama Canal Company, as provided in section one hereof, and shall have obtained by treaty control of the necessary territory from the Republic of Colombia, as provided in section two hereof, he is authorized to pay for the property of the New Panama Canal Company forty millions of dollars and to the Republic of Colombia such sum as shall have been agreed upon, and a sum sufficient for both said purposes is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated to be paid on warrant or warrants drawn by the President."

Thus provision was made for the purchase money, the expenditure of which would clear the track for the actual work of digging and construction. Section 3,

having conferred authority upon the President to acquire the necessary rights and titles, proceeded to direct him through the Isthmian Canal Commission," for which provision was subsequently made,

to

"cause to be excavated, constructed, and completed, utilizing to that end as far as practicable the work heretofore done by the New Panama Canal Company, of France, and its predecessor company, a ship canal from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean."

Then followed legislative instructions indicating that Congress at that time had in mind the construction of a canal equal in dimensions to any in existence, and capable of passing the largest vessels afloat. Here is the exact language of the law:

"Such canal shall be of sufficient capacity and depth as shall afford convenient passage for vessels of the largest tonnage and greatest draft now in use, and such as may be reasonably anticipated, and shall be supplied with all necessary locks and other appliances to meet the necessities of vessels passing through the same from ocean to ocean; and he shall also cause to be constructed such safe and commodious harbors at the termini of said canal, and make such provisions for defense as may be necessary for the safety and protection of said canal and harbors. That the President is authorized for the purposes aforesaid to employ such persons as he may deem necessary, and to fix their compensation."

Having thus mapped out a course of action for the President and having thus supplied him, as it were, with the ways and means to proceed with the great business in hand, Congress wisely set up an alternative course of action. The whole of section 4 of the organic law relates to a possible recourse of the President in the event of the failure of negotiations with the French concessionaires, or with Colombia, or any other country, over the Panama property. What if the French should decline the $40,000,000? was evidently the thought running through the mind of Congress; or What if Colombia, which assumes jurisdiction over Panama, should become obstinate or balk at the terms which the United States shall offer? It is not the purpose of this chapter to deal with the Colombian controversy that arose after the Panama revolution, or to dwell