Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A SUDDEN CHANGE

129

Colombia did not reach a satisfactory agreement. But, by a dramatic turn of events, which, however, was surprising to none but those who were wilfully or needlessly blind, the United States was enabled, with little delay, to attain its end without such an agreement, and on terms actually more advantageous to it than had been expected.

CHAPTER IX

NEGOTIATIONS WITH COLOMBIA

A LAW for the construction of a canal was at last enacted and in force. It was next necessary, in fulfilment of the provisions of that law, to effect a valid purchase of the French canal company's rights and property, and to make a suitable treaty with Colombia. The first thing to be considered was whether the laws of France, under which the canal company was incorporated, would permit such a sale. The officers of the company, and the company's legal counsel in this country, were confident that they would. But some further assurance was necessary for the satisfaction of the United States Government, and this the Attorney-General of the United States, Philander C. Knox, undertook to secure. After a thorough investigation in France, he gave his opinion, on October 25, 1902, that the French laws would permit the sale, and that the French company could make the sale and give the United States a valid and indisputable title to the property thus conveyed-at least, so far as France was concerned; Colombia was to be reckoned with separately.

This opinion was based upon the revelations and results of legal proceedings in Paris. The offer of the stockholders of the company to sell to the United States had been referred for consideration to the Civil Tribunal of the Seine, which, under a special law enacted in 1893, had jurisdiction over the matter, and had been approved by it. From that approv ing decision a dissenting stockholder had made appeal to the Court of Cassation, the supreme tribunal of French justice, and the latter instead of reversing had affirmed it, on August 5, 1902. We need not here review, even in epitome,

THE TERMS PROPOSED

131

the intricate legal arguments, pro and contra, which were involved in the case. It is sufficient to say that after an elaborate and painstaking consideration of it the highest court in France decided that the transfer could legally be made; that after a detailed personal observation and inves tigation by the Attorney-General, the opinion above mentioned was given, and that no serious attempt was made thereafter to challenge the validity of the transaction.

The next step was much more difficult and more tedious. It was necessary to secure from Colombia a treaty giving to the United States perpetual control of a strip of territory, from sea to sea, and Colombia promptly exhibited an inclination not to make such a grant. It had long been the characteristic practice of both Colombia and Nicaragua to play a somewhat capricious part. Each was ready

to offer all sorts of concessions in order to entice canal projectors to it and away from its rival, but the moment it felt pretty sure its route was to be chosen it would increase its demands to an extortionate degree. So it was with Colombia in 1902-3. During the long duel with Nicaragua, Colombia had been profuse in its invitations to the United States to go thither and build a canal. Now that the duel was practically ended in its favour, it began to demand terms which it should have known the United States would not and could not grant.

The terms proposed by the United States and accepted by Colombia in a preliminary protocol were in brief as follows: That Colombia should approve the sale of the French company's rights and property to the United States; that the United States should have the sole and exclusive right to construct, operate, and control the canal; that a Canal Zone five kilometers (3.105 miles) wide should be established, to be under Colombian sovereignty but under United States administration, its neutrality to be guaranteed by the United States, and the sanitary and police services to be jointly maintained by the two governments; that the United States should construct all necessary ports, light

houses, hospitals, etc., the ports to be free and the canal tolls to be equal to all nations; that damages arising from the construction of the canal should be appraised by a joint commission and be paid by the United States; that no taxes should be levied upon the canal property; that Colombia should not cede nor lease to any foreign power any lands or islands adjacent to the canal; that the canal should forever be neutral; that Colombia should provide the forces necessary for the policing and protection of the canal, but if she were unable to do so, she might call upon the United States for aid; that the United States should begin work upon the canal within two years after the ratification of the treaty, and should complete it within twenty-four years; and that the United States should pay to Colombia a bonus of $7,000,000 in cash and after fourteen years a reasonable annuity, the amount of which, it was at first proposed, should be fixed by mutual agreement or by arbitration, but which was afterward set at $250,000.

These terms were widely regarded in the United States as too liberal to Colombia, and as not sufficiently safeguarding the vast interests of the United States in the canal. It was thought that the Canal Zone should be wider, if indeed it did not include the whole State or Department of Panama, and that it should become outright the property of the United States. This latter idea was not perhaps held by a majority of the American people, but the feeling was practically universal that the terms proposed set forth the maximum of what the United States could afford to offer Colombia, and the minimum of what it could afford to accept in return. Colombia, however, affected to regard them as entirely too illiberal toward her, and on November 25, 1902, the Colombian Minister, Señor José V. Concha, informed Secretary Hay that he could not accept them in behalf of his government. Whether in assuming that attitude he was acting upon his own judgment and initiative, or in response to instructions from Bogotá, did not appear. Subsequent revelations, however, gave much colour to the belief that he

HARD TIMES AT BOGOTÁ

133

was in entire accord with his home government, and that both were intent upon either the extortion of extreme terms from the United States or the defeat of the American project altogether in favour of some other interest.

The Colombian Republic was at that time in a bad way. Its government was of revolutionary origin and of disputed validity. Dr. Manuel Sanclemente, elected President on July 4, 1898, had been violently deposed and thrown into prison by a coup-d'état on July 31, 1900, and had been succeeded as "Acting President" by the Vice-President, Dr. José Manuel Marroquin, a man of fine literary and scientific attainments, but not gifted with the genius of government, who had established a dictatorship at once absolute and inefficient. The treasury was depleted, the silver peso was worth only 38 1-2 cents instead of 50 cents, and the paper currency, of which 350,000,000 pesos were in circulation, was so debased that gold was at 2,500 per cent. premium. In 1901-2 revenues were less than 29,000,000 pesos, while expenses, swelled by the chronic state of war, were more than 40,000,000 pesos. The public debt, both domestic and foreign, was large and was increasing rapidly, and could not be stayed by the activity of the printing presses, which were producing reams of depreciated paper currency.

In such circumstances, what must have been the covetousness with which the politicians of Bogotá regarded the $40,000,000 which the United States proposed to pay in cash to the French Canal Company for its concession and unfinished works! It occurred to them that the canal was on Colombian soil, that the concession for its construction had been granted by the Colombian Government, that the whole enterprise thus naturally belonged to Colombia, and that, therefore, Colombia ought to have that money, or at least a large share of it. Why, indeed, should not Colombia have it all? Nothing could be simpler. The French company's concession had only until October, 1910, to run. Indeed, it had not so long, but only until October, 1904, for the extension of it beyond the latter date, though made by the Colombian

« AnteriorContinuar »