Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay.
Bogotá, September 25, 1903.
Sir: I have the honor to report some further details relating to the Panama Canal treaty.
A resident of the United States, and one not thoroughly familiar with the people of Colombia and especially of Bogotá and the interiors, can not understand the embarrassments and trials experienced by this legation during the course of the canal negotiations.
The difficulty of getting reliable information of the status of affairs has been almost insurmountable, because public opinion and the ideas of the leaders on both sides have varied and shifted with the succeeding days.
When Congress convened and the first votes taken in the Senate indicated that the Government had been sustained and that its friends were in the majority, most people believed that the treaty would be ratified.
As time went on and the Government did not use its influence in favor of the treaty and the committee to whom it had been referred were twice given an extension of time for their deliberations, the long wait and inaction lessened public interest in the main question, and there was little discussion of it.
Then Senator Caro appeared upon the scene and commenced his violent assaults upon the Government, and the executive power began certainly and surely to lose ground. Again the public was aroused into vehement opposition to the treaty. During this period, and [Page 203] before there was an opportunity for another reaction, and before there was any real discussion of the merits of the treaty, it was presented and rejected.
While this latter period lasted it seemed impossible to get the expression of the real opinion of any of the senators, with the exception of Obaldia, Perez y Soto, and Velez. It is a positive fact that some of the most prominent senators avoided me because of the charges, frequently made, that bribery was being resorted to by the United States, and the consequent fear that if seen in conversation with the American minister they would be under suspicion. This was admitted to me after the rejection of the treaty.
Mr. Enrique Cortez was one of the two men who defended the treaty in public articles. Because I was seen making a social call at his residence, he was openly accused the next day of being in the pay of the United States minister. He afterwards Intimated to my son-in-law that for the above reason he could not see as much of me and my family as he wished.
Of course these matters are unimportant, except that they show the annoyances and difficulties one has to contend with in this country, where, after all, the little things so greatly affect and influence the great ones.
The minister for foreign affairs was evidently as reluctant as others to express any opinion, and it was very apparent that he did not wish to discuss canal matters. About all I could get from him was that conditions were “very bad” or “a little better.” I found the President much more inclined to tell me his hopes and fears on the question.
General Reyes said to me that he had advised the Government against forcing the ratification of the treaty in the early days of Congress, thinking it best to influence public opinion into a more favorable state before taking such action, and that this had been the Government’s view. He realized that this course had been a serious mistake, for the reaction that they had anticipated had not come. His own actions had been influenced by these views, and it was only a few days before the rejection of the treaty that he came out in the open and advocated its ratification. I believe that he did the best he could after that, but it was too late.
It was in these last few days that the idea presented itself to members of the Government, General Reyes, and others, that it would be best to have the treaty rejected at the first debate, in the hope that such precipitous and unusual action would arouse the coast departments into vehement protests, send exchange up enormously, and so disturb the country that there would be a reaction of public sentiment which would enable them to either have the treaty reconsidered or to pass a law authorizing the President to complete the negotiations.
But their plans and anticipations were built upon sand. The reaction they hoped for did not come. The mere announcement that a joint Congressional committee had been appointed to provide ways and means for the construction of a canal was enough to calm the public pulse, for the public has continued in the secure belief that the United States would never seriously consider any other route for a canal than that through Colombian territory; that she was abundantly able and would in the end concede to Colombia a much greater recompense in money and more favorable concessions generally; that whatever proposals the new committee would make would be accepted by the United [Page 204] States. With this belief abroad, the opposition to the terms of the proposed treaty has intensified rather than otherwise, culminating in the report of the joint committee now before the Senate.
With all this shifting and changing of plans and sentiments, it has been most difficult to forward to the Department reliable information. I have several times been about to telegraph news which came to me from what should be absolutely authoritative sources, when further investigation convinced me that it was a myth; a theory of one day which would be abandoned the next.
In connection with the unreliability of the information given out by people in high places, I might mention that one day a prominent Senator told me very confidentially of a plan concerning the treaty that was to be carried out. Within an hour afterwards, a friend came to the legation, fresh from an interview with the same Senator, who had told him that a plan would be proposed in all respects different from the one explained to me. When I informed my visitor of my conversation with the Senator, he said: “Mr. Beaupré, am I going mad! or have these people all lost their senses? There is nothing but lies and lies! I walk two blocks to hear an important bit of news, and in the next two hear an entire contradiction, both coming from the same source.” I should add that neither of the plans were ever acted on.
And so it has been from the beginning.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,