tutions, in which the Department of Panama has always been expressly mentioned, having had representatives in the bodies which have framed those constitutions. If, as His Excellency Mr. Fish said in a note of May 27, 1871, the principal object of New Granada (to-day Colombia) in negotiating the treaty was, as is believed, the conservation of her sovereignty against exterior attacks, the recognition which the Government of your excellency has made of the independence of Panama creates a new legal situation which obliges it to prevent the so-called new Republic from making attacks against the sovereignty and property of Colombia on the Isthmus, because in virtue of such a recognition, those attacks are exterior according to the opinion of the United States; but if, instead of preventing those attacks, it favors them until the destruction of the sovereignty and property of Colombia in that section, the proceeding can not be more contrary to the word, spirit, and interpretation which Mr. Fish gave to the treaty and which the present Government of the United States gives in the mention it makes of the passage of the note of the honorable Secretary of State. From the preceding observation the inevitable logical conclusion is deduced that the United States can not assume toward Panama the obligations of the treaty of 1846 since the dominion and sovereignty of the Department over itself, and those of the Republic of Colombia over the Department of Panama simultaneously, would exclude one another; for which reason, the Isthmus has not acquired title to enjoy the rights nor is subject to the obligations of the treaty. On the other hand, Hall's doctrine is not applicable to the point in question, because Colombia had not contracted the local obligation of allowing to the United States the construction of the canal, a work which is in no way related to the adjustment of a river bed, which he cites as an example. For the same reason the opinion of Rivier is not applicable either, because article 35 of the treaty of 1846 does not deal with limits, nor running water, nor ways of communication which did not exist then nor at present. The interpretation given to the agreement by your excellency's Government does not agree with these doctrines, for it can not carry out with the de facto government of the Isthmus the duties which it contracted with the Republic of Colombia. The Government of Colombia differs in opinion with the Government of the United States as to its claims being of a purely political nature, and judges that special circumstances place them among those which come under the dominion of judicial decisions. The claims of Colombia are founded: First. On the violation of the treaty of 1846 by the Government of the United States. According to the doctrine explained by Piédelièvre in his International Public Law, second volume, page 76, questions of this kind are of judicial character, susceptible of being decided by arbitration, all the more so when others originate from them, such as that of the great direct damages caused to this Republic, which is undeniably of the same nature. Second. In the violation of the neutrality rules established by international law. Concerning claims founded on violations of neutrality, the United States themselves contributed in a decisive manner the precedent of which I will make Iention. They established the claims known as "Alabama claims," in which Great Britain, represented by its Government, had neglected to carry out the obligations of neutrality which had been placed upon it by international law to such a point that it had given to the United States an ample and just cause for war. Lord Russell denied the principle of the claims, and refused peremptorily the proposition of arbitration in 1865, but Mr. Seward persevered in maintaining it as prudent and honorable for the two Governments. At the initiation of the English Government the negotiations were renewed, and on May 8, 1871, the treaty was adjusted by which it was agreed to submit said claims to an arbitration tribunal. Article 6 of this agreement stated that the arbitrators should, in the questions submitted them, be guided by three rules relative to the neutrality, which the Government of the United States proposed and sustained, and which served as a model, notwithstanding the declaration which the same article contains, that "Her Britannic Majesty had requested her high commissioners and envoys extraordinary to declare that her Government could not admit that the preced ing rules be considered as an exposition of the principles of international law in force at the moment in which the claims of the United States mentioned in article 1 were set forth; but that, in order to give a proof of its wish to strengthen the friendly relations between the two countries and to take useful measures for the future, Her Majesty's Government consented that when the questions which those claims have caused shall be decided the arbitrators should consider that the English Government has not intended to withdraw from the principles mentioned in the preceding rules.” The high contracting parties bound themselves to observe those rules in their mutual claims in the future, to piace them in the knowledge of other maritime powers and to invite them to adhere to them. The doctrine comprised in the three rules received the very important indorsement of a corporation of representative scientific men. The Institute of International Law approved the resolution which I copy: "The three rules of the treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, are only the application of this principle recognized by international law: that the neutral state, wishing to remain in peace and friendship with the belligerents and to enjoy the rights of neutrality, has also the duty to abstain from taking any part whatever in the war there by granting military help to one of the belligerents or to both of them, and to keep watch in order that there should not be committed within its territory any acts by anybody which consitute a cooperation in the war." The Government of Colombia, relying in such a notorious and in all respects worthy precedent, invokes the very authority of the United States and that of the Institute of International Law in maintaining that violations of neutrality do come under the dominion of arbitration judgments. Third. In the celebration of a treaty with the titular Republic of Panama, for the opening of the Interoceanic Canal, notwithstanding that there is in force a treaty of peace, friendship, navigation, and commerce between New Granada (to-day Colombia) and the United States of America. The Government of your honor gives an interpretation to article 35 of that treaty which the Government of Colombia judges contrary to the rules of interpretation generally admitted; to which point may be applied the arbitration proceeding which Klüber gives in his Law of Nations, page 235, thus: "When a public treaty presents a doubtful sense, it can not receive authentic interpretation except by a declaration of the contracting parties or of those to whose arbitration they have appealed. The same preliminary question to know if the sense is doubtful, can only be decided by a similar convention." In the present case the first question arising is the preliminary one as to the doubtful sense of the treaty, notwithstanding that the opinion of Colombia is that its clearness is complete, as understood by both Governments, an interpretation from which the United States have now departed. The present chargé of the Colombian legation in Washington has informed me by cable that the Senate of the United States has approved the treaty with Panama for the opening of the canal. That treaty, as I have already expressed it, contains in its first clause the engagement of the United States to maintain the independence of Panama, a clause, which is, by itself, a declaration before the world that Panama can not subsist independent of Colombia without military aid from the Government of your Excellency. con As said treaty is in opposition with that of 1846, in the supposition, admitted by the Government of your Excellency and denied by Colombia, that Panama should be a member of international society, the coexistence of the two agreements determines the application of the doctrine which Vattel states that " trary treaties to those in existence can not be made" and which G. F. Martens in his Law of Nations gives, page 167, first volume, in these terms: "Of two treaties concluded with different nations, if they are incompatible, the oldest ought to be preferred, save the indemnification which ought to be given to the other nation if the collision can be foreseen and if it can be presumed that the contracting party ignores it." If the Isthums of Panama were really a republic, the United States, who were not ignorant of the clash, would be in position, perhaps, of having to grant an indemnity, because they can not lawfully evade the fulfilling of the treaty of 1846. If they do not recognize the justice of the preceding doctrine, they would inaugurate the precedent that a nation, making itself judge in its own cause, can withdraw from carrying out treaties by only making an agreement in a different sense with a rebel section of the other contracting country or with a third power; a practice which would be the beginning of the end of the guaranty of public treaties as a safeguard to right. The Government of Colombia, considering that the treaty for the opening of the canal which the United States have made with the government de facto established in the Colombian Department of Panama, is in violation of the one celebrated with this Republic in 1846, protests against the validity of the first and claims the observance of the second, especially in the part in which said States bind themselves to guarantee the property and sovereignty of Colombia in the Isthmus of Panama. I have had the honor to refer to the Presidential messages and to the said note of His Excellency Mr. Hay, who in two later notes addressed to General Reyes confirmed the declaration of his Government and his own arguments. The approval of the treaty with Panama by the Senate, and the ratification and exchange of that document were acts subsequent to the date on which that diplomatic agent left the United States. The observations which he made strengthen in a decisive manner the conclusion that it would be honorable for both parties to adopt an equitable and conciliatory way for the solution of their differences, which would be in true harmony with the wish, many times manifested by the Government of the United States, not to cause any damage to this Republic. I have the honor, furthermore, to express thanks for the very important offer which the North American Government presents of their good offices to make an arrangement between Colombia and Panama, an offer made doubtless in the belief that this Government would accept as decisive the situation created by the separating rebellion. Once more I renew, etc., Mr. Hay to Mr. Snyder. LUIS CARLOS RICO. No. 68.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 302 of the 26th ultimo, stating that the Panama question has practically subsided. Your dispatch has been read with much interest. The Department desires to be kept fully informed of the situation in Colombia, and requests you to advise it promptly as to the successful candidate for the Presidency. I am, etc., FRANCIS B. LOOMIS, TRANSFER OF THE NEW PANAMA CANAL COMPANY'S PROPERTY TO THE UNITED STATES. No. 311.] Mr. Snyder to Mr. Hay. AMERICAN LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor to send you herewith copies and translations of further correspondence from the Colombian foreign office relative to events connected with the formation of the Republic of Panama. SIR: I have to inform your honor that at the beginning of November of last year the Government of Colombia, through its agent in France, informed the New Panama Canal Company that, according to article 21 of the contract celebrated in Bogota on March 20, 1878, between said company and the Colombian Government, it was absolutely prohibited from ceding any of its rights to a foreign nation or government. Therefore the Government of Colombia does not accept the transfer which may be made in violation of that article. This ministry would be pleased if your honor would inform the Government of the United States as soon as possible that Colombia has not given its consent to the transfer of these rights, and firmly insists on the fulfilling of said article of the treaty of 1878. AMERICAN LEGATION, (Mr. Snyder reports that General Reyes is declared elected Presi dent.) Mr. Hay to Mr. Snyder. [Telegram.-Paraphrase.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 12, 1904. (Mr. Hay instructs Mr. Snyder to convey to General Reyes congratulations on his entrance upon the Presidency.) No. 357.] Mr. Snyder to Mr. Hay. AMERICAN LEGATION, Bogotá, August 18, 1904. SIR: Referring to Department's telegram of August 12, 1904, I have the honor to inform you that to-day I personally presented to General Reyes the congratulations therein contained. He seemed greatly pleased and requested me to convey to you his hearty appreciation of your kind message. I am, etc., FR 1904 M- --15 ALBAN G. SNYDER. REESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH VENEZUELA AND ITALY. No. 330.] Mr. Snyder to Mr. Hay. AMERICAN LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith copy and translation of decree No. 375 of 1904, reestablishing, on the part of the Government of Colombia, diplomatic relations with the United States of Venezuela. ALBAN G. SNYDER. I am, sir, etc., [Inclosure.] Decree No. 375 of 1904 (April 30), by which is abrogated the decree which declares interrupted the diplomatic relations with the United States of Venezuela. The vice-president of the Republic, charged with the executive power, in exercise of his legal functions, considering 1. That the Republics of Colombia and Venezuela, united by traditional bonds, have the duty to maintain and cultivate their fraternal relations. 2. That for reciprocal convenience and as a homage to the memory of the Liberator Bolivar and the soldiers who founded the great Republic of Colombia, the nations which formed it ought, in cordial intelligence, to attend to the defense of their interests, welfare, and security, decrees: Sole article, Abrogates decree No. 1287 of 1901 (16th of November), by which the diplomatic relations between Colombia and the United States of Venezuela were declared broken. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith copy and translation of the decree issued on the part of the Government of Colombia reestablishing diplomatic relations between the Governments of Colombia and Italy. I am, etc., ALBAN G. SNYDER. [Inclosure.] Decree No. 489 of 1904 (May 30), by which is abrogated that which declared interrupted the relations between Colombia and the Kingdom of Italy. The vice-president of the Republic, in charge of the executive power, considering 1. That the differences have disappeared which produced the interruption of the friendly relations between Colombia and Italy; and |