Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay.
Bogotá, October 10, 1903.
Sir: I have the honor to make reference to my telegrams of yesterday and to-day concerning the probable terms of the report to be presented by the commission of three Senators to whom the project of law authorizing the Government to negotiate for the construction of an interoceanic canal across the Isthmus of Panama was referred.
I had been given to understand that this report was to be presented and discussed yesterday, the 9th instant. On sending to the Senate, however, I was told that the canal question would not be brought up, and several Senators informed me that they were not even aware of the terms of the report, but that the question would in all probability be brought before the Senate on Monday next, the 12th instant.
My only source of information was therefore of an entirely private nature. Through —— I obtained a summary, the substance of which was contained in my telegram to the Department.
[Page 207]As I telegraphed the commission has decided that there is no need for the rejection of the treaty to be reaffirmed by the Senate; that neither is it advisable to pass the special law authorizing the Government to conclude a fresh treaty for the construction of an isthmian canal on certain basis, thinking it best not to tie the hands of the Government with hard and fast conditions. Lastly, the commission suggest that the Senate should settle the question of the extension of time to the New Panama Canal Company and present a project of law approving the action of the Colombian Government in this matter.
With regard to this extension of time, known as “proroga,” there is no doubt that many people high in authority have cherished the hope that some means might be found to undo this act of the Sanclamente Government. The feeling of the Bogota public on this question is, moreover, very patent. They have been led to believe through the medium of the press that, could the “proroga” be annulled, Colombia would thereby inherit the whole of the money compensation otherwise accruing to the French company. However, as I reported in my No. 164 of September 30, 1903, I am informed that there is no danger of this taking place. Such men as Senators Caro, Pedro Nel Ospina, and even Perez y Soto thoroughly realize that the preceding Government and this one are equally involved in the “proroga.”. The Sanclamente Government agreed upon the grant of an extended time limit, while the Marroquin Government received the 5,000,000 francs, the price paid for that extension. Besides, it is the view of these senators that the “proroga” was a contract concluded in good faith between the Colombian Government and the canal company, and to rescind this contract will need the consent of both parties to it. It is, therefore, thought that while the “proroga” may be used as a means of bringing up a discussion in Congress with the view to censuring the Government, no act of that body can have the effect of annulling the extension contract without the consent of the other party to it—the New Panama Canal Company. Because of the attitude of these and other senators, there is decided ground for believing that this project of law approving the extension will be passed.
Monsieur Mancini, the local agent of the canal company, is taking an active interest in this matter, and takes every opportunity to impress upon the Senators the fact that even should the contract now held by the French Company lapse, the Colombian Government would be no better off than they are at present, for the reason that, in such event, all the material would remain the property of the French Company, leaving the Colombian Government merely in possession of the ditch itself. The Panama Railroad, however, remains. Since the French Canal Company owns the majority of the shares in that railroad, it has practical control of the undertaking. Now, the canal works have been carried on within the zone of territory controlled by the railroad company, and could only be continued subject to the consent of that company. Therefore, even though the concession held by the French Company lapse, that company nevertheless retains control of the territory, and its previous consent would be required before the Colombian Government could dispose of its rights over the canal zone.
Monsieur Mancini informs me that he had made this point clear to the principal members both of the Government and of Congress, and that many concur in his views. Moreover, that some time before the rejection of the Hay-Herran treaty, he wrote to Mr. Cromwell informing [Page 208] him that in all probability an attempt would be made to override the rights of the French company and to call in question the validity of the extension of time granted to it. To this he received no reply beyond the mere acknowledgment of his message, and his only instructions have been not to move in the matter at all. He therefore concludes, so he told me, that the United States Government and the French company have arrived at some satisfactory understanding.
I desire to take this opportunity to state that my position during the whole course of the canal negotiations has been a most embarrassing one. I have thoroughly realized what must have been the anxiety of the Department to be well informed of the progress of events. And yet, although it is nearly four months since Congress met, there have been but four or five days during which the canal question was considered, from the initiation of the discussion up to the present time. I have kept in touch with the principal members both of the Government and Congress, and whenever I have succeeded in getting any reliable news, which has not been often, I have reported it. During the long intervals between the days above mentioned there was really nothing to report, except street gossip and wise people’s predictions. I have, therefore, had to choose between adopting the attitude of the newspaper reporter and forward such as news, or limit myself to the scanty facts I was able to gain from authentic and official sources. I chose the latter course. When I did obtain information which I deemed of sufficient importance to cable, I have had the misfortune to have some of my most important messages mutilated in transmission.
During the long interims, when the canal treaty was buried with inactive committees, there was apparently an absolute lack of interest in the matter on the part both of the Government and Congress. One would have thought that the question was some matter of trivial or temporary importance to judge by the attitude in official circles. During one of these periods, when Congress was devoting its attention to resolutions concerning prominent individuals who were killed in the late revolution, the Liberal daily El Comercio said:
“Cover with laurels dead heroes, praise the memories of your illustrious men, make panegyrics over those who have served in your cause; all this is very well, and we do not wish to discuss it; but, Mr. Legislators, why sing songs of love to God over these things when you ought to consider the great questions which compromise the tranquillity and life of the Republic?”
Except then, on the few days heretofore mentioned, there was no reliable or satisfactory information to send to the Department.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,