I received last night the following in reply: "I have received your despatch of to-day in which you convey to me that in the name of the United States, and in the most formal manner, you protest against the insult to the American flag, and the illegal act of firing on the steamer Costa Rica on the 6th instant, and demand disavowal of this act by the government, and satisfaction. In answer and by direction of the President, I inform you that this government has already disavowed, and does so now, the acts referred to, not having caused them, nor ever having had the least intention of causing any offence to the government of the United States, with which the President always wishes to preserve the best relations. This government became aware with great pain of such an unfortunate incident, whose details I hastened to transmit by telegraph to you on the 6th instant. As regards the satisfaction, it would be desirable before offering it to know the terms in which you ask it.. 99 This seems to answer demands so far. Shall I remain here longer? YOUNG. The fact was that this firing took place by order of President Vazquez himself, with Villela, the Comandante of Honduras, in command at Amapala, in charge of the guns. Yet the Honduras Minister of Foreign Affairs coolly informs the American minister that "this government became aware with great pain of such an unfortunate incident," and that the "government has already disavowed, and does so now, the acts referred to"; and the American minister pretends to believe it! Does the "government" offer to dismiss the Comandante from the service, and punish him for this outrage on helpless men, women, and children? Or does it promise that similar cases of savagery shall not occur in the future? Not at all. It simply sheds a few crocodile tears- enough to "stand off" the American war-ship. Minister Young's despatch was answered immediately by Walter Q. Gresham, Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, November 12, 1893. You may answer Honduras Minister that, having reported his reply, you are instructed to say that the President accepts these frank expressions of disavowal and regret as sufficient, and will waive further formal apology in the interest of friendly feeling. GRESHAM. Truly a most forgiving and indulgent President! If you were in Latin America, with such a régime at Washington, would you feel proud of being an American? Or would you decide on expatriation, even if your only alternative were joining the Hottentots ? Like produces like. When a government is afflicted with a reactionary, fossilized head, ossification sets in throughout its entire body. Minister Young, in his report dated November 22, 1893, pays a welldeserved compliment to Captain Dow in these words: "I cannot close this despatch without calling your attention to the admirable conduct of Captain J. M. Dow, Commander of the Costa Rica, who under the most trying circumstances preserved the dignity of his command and the honor of his flag in preventing the violent seizure on his ship of a gentleman who had quietly entered the ship, paid his fare to a point on the voyage, and was entitled to a first-class passage and a safe convoy to that point." But he adds (behold the hopeful logic of his sanguine temperament!): "With the earnest hope that this episode may tend to strengthen the sentiments of amity between the United States and the Government of Honduras, I am," etc. The hand of American diplomacy in those days was indeed gloved in velvet! If a bombardment by Honduras of one of our passenger steamers, with women and children aboard, should tend "to strengthen the sentiments of amity" between the United States and Honduras, might it not be expected that something truly bloody would arouse real genuine love between them? CHAPTER XIV COLOMBIA. AN AT THE PANAMA CANAL AND COLOMBIA. T HE diplomatic history of the various Isthmian canal projects is voluminous. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of April 19, 1850, between the United States and England, may be set down as the most foolish of the strange things done and permitted by the United States government in relation to the canal. This treaty was signed by John M. Clayton, Secretary of State, and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, and provided that neither contracting party should ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over such canal, or erect fortifications commanding the same, or occupy or colonize any part of Central America; that each party should have the use of the canal on equal terms, and jointly with the other should guarantee its neutrality, etc. This treaty practically eliminated the United States as a factor in the construction of the canal; it tied our hands behind us for fifty years. A French canal company, headed by De Lesseps, was formed in 1881, and obtained a concession from Colombia authorizing it to construct the canal. After using up about $300,000,000, at least $200,000,000 of which were stolen or wasted, it failed, and work was practically suspended. A new company was organized in 1894. On February 5, 1900, President McKinley submitted to the United States Senate for ratification a treaty signed by Secretary John Hay and Lord Pauncefote. Designed to supersede the ClaytonBulwer Treaty, and cancelling most of its objectionable features, the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty authorized the construction of the canal under the auspices of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or through such corporate or other organizations as it might elect to employ. This treaty was highly creditable to England as an exhibition of fair-mindedness and liberality, and cemented firmly the friendly feelings between England and the United States. Its terms were found satisfactory to the United States, and it was duly approved by the Senate. The Oregon's journey from San Francisco to Santiago de Cuba via the Horn, during the Spanish-American war, had brought home to the American people the absolute need for this canal, as a factor in rapidity of mobilization. Its great commercial usefulness had long been recognized. The chief obstacle to progress having been removed by the new treaty, the United States initiated the measures preliminary to the work of canal construction. The Isthmian Canal Commission, Rear Admiral John G. Walker, U. S. N. (retired), chairman, was appointed to examine the respective merits of the Panama and Nicaragua routes. By act approved June 28, 1902, Congress authorized and directed the President in behalf of the United States to negotiate with Colombia for, and acquire, the right to construct the Panama Canal (to be constructed in accordance with certain provisions set forth in said act), and to acquire by purchase property of the New Panama Canal Company, of France. The President was further directed, should he be unable to accomplish these projects within a reasonable time, to proceed with reference to the Nicaragua route. A satisfactory understanding had in the mean time been arrived at between the United States and the New Panama Canal Company that, should the Panama route be decided upon, the company would receive for its property some $40,000,000; and this amount was the maximum cost authorized therefor by the Act of 1902. I Colombia's chieftains now thought that a shower of gold was about to fall; that the long-coveted El Dorado was theirs at last. Months were spent in "dickerings" and negotiations; while schemes of "milking" hundreds of millions of dollars from the Great Republic filled the frenzied imaginations of the Bogotá Jefes. In March, 1903, a proposed treaty was ratified at Washington, known as the Hay-Herran treaty. In this document Secretary Hay seems to have offered all that a reasonable nation could ask, and a great deal more. Colombia was to receive $10,000,000 cash, and the sum of $250,000 yearly, this annuity to begin nine years after the date of the treaty. The United States in return was to receive a lease of the canal strip for one hundred years, with the privilege of renewals at its pleasure. The sovereignty of Colombia was specifically conceded and guaranteed by the United States. Article 4 of this convention provided that: "The rights and privileges granted to the United States . . . shall not affect the sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over the territory within whose boundaries such rights and privileges are to be exercised. The United States freely acknowledges and recognizes this sovereignty, and disavows any intention to impair it in any way whatever, or to increase its territory at the expense of Colombia, or any of the Sister Republics in Central or South America, but, on the contrary, it desires to strengthen the power of the Republics on this continent." Why Secretary Hay chose to use these words of disavowal does not readily appear. They were plainly surplusage, and they suggest the obiter dictum of the judge. Neither the Secretary of State nor the President has any power to dictate or forestall the policy of succeeding administrations. II Dictator Marroquin pretended to favor the Hay-Herran Treaty (it had been signed by Colombia's representative in Washington), but the terms offered by the United States aroused the Colombian leaders generally to anger and fine scorn. They waived aside the ten million dollars as a miserable trifle a mere bagatelle. Let us note here, in passing, some views which may have conduced to this "exalted" state of mind. Señor Samper, Colombian agent in Paris on the Administration Council of the Canal Company, estimated, early in 1902, that Colombia should demand $20,000,000 gold from the United States immediately, to be followed by annual payments beginning at $2,000,000, and increasing at the rate of $100,000 a year, so that at the end of ninetynine years the annual payment would be $12,000,000. Colombia would retain her sovereignty over the Canal strip, the United States merely enjoying an easement. Señor Carlos Martinez Silva, Colombian Minister at Washington, wrote, on January 8, 1902, that a fixed annuity should be secured from the United States and used in redeeming Colombia's paper money, paying interest on the national debt, and "calming down the susceptibilities of the political parties." Just how much it would take to "calm down" these "susceptibilities," Mr. Silva did not state. Señor Climaco Iriarte wrote, on February 15, 1902: "The property to be ceded does not belong to the French Company exclusively. The Colombian government has a legal right to decide whether the cession shall take place or not. . . . Before definitive steps can be authorized, the government and the company must reach an agreement as to the price to be paid for the transfer, and the quota to be assigned to each." Señor Francisco Groot, Member of the Junta, writes on February 19, 1902: "If Colombia takes the first steps, which her historical antecedents and geographical position authorize her to take, to increase the intimacy of her union with the Great American Republic, she will regain on the instant the prestige lost through her frequent disorders, and through ineptitude in the management of her finances, since she will derive from a perfect alliance with the United States an |