« PreviousContinue »
HEARINGS ON THE RAINEY RESOLUTION
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone 230. Meets on call.)
HENRY D. FLOOD, Virginia, Chairman.
EDWARD W. TOWNSEND, New Jersey.
B. P. Harrison, Mississippi.
CHARLES BENNETT SMITH, New York.
WILLIAM B. MCKINLEY, Illinois.
HENRY A. COOPER, Wisconsin.
Ira W. Wood, New Jersey.
RICHARD BARTHOLDT, Missouri.
N. E. KENDALL, Iowa.
J. HAMPTON MOORE, Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pavey, you may proceed.
Mr. PAVEY. Mr. Chairman, in the way of slightly qualifying myself as a witness, I wish to say I held the official position of counsel of the legation of Panama from the 10th of November, 1903, to the 14th of February, 1905, when I tendered my resignation. My active work during that period was only during the period of four months, when Philippe Bunau-Varilla was minister of Panama accredited to the Government at Washington, and after his resignation and the appointment of his successor, although I had some relations with him, there was no very active work for me to do, and yet I continued officially to be the counsel of the legation until February 14, 1905, when I resigned, and soon afterwards Mr. William Nelson Cromwell was appointed as my successor to that position.
Prior to November 10, 1903, I had been an intimate personal friend of Philippe Bunau-Varilla for a period of more than four years, and had been one of his advisers and counsel in the United States in connection with the campaign in favor of Panama which he conducted in the United States. In the examination of the testimony which has been taken already before the committee under the Rainey resolution in regard to the revolution in Panama, I find that only one witness, I think, has been examined, and that was Mr. Hall, and his testimony to a very large extent is a résumé in his own language of material which was obtained by the World in an investigation which it made to defend itself against a libel suit brought by the Government, and the other document upon which he particularly relies for his facts is what he has designated as a plea for fees filed by Mr. Cromwell before the Board of Arbitration in Paris, which was examining into the question of the payment of his fees as counsel of the New Panama Canal Co. I draw attention to that fact to show that his sources of information were for all practical purposes from such sources as the plea for fees filed by Mr. Cromwell with the board of arbitration in regard to his fees in Paris.
Now, it is not surprising in the presentation of an account, a long, detailed account of his services extending over six or seven years, that Mr. Cromwell should have at least put the best foot foremost and attributed the result as much as possible to his own efforts. It was also perfectly natural that he should not give any notice or any credit to any other influences that were at work in the United States in