Mr. RAINEY. That was her position although she did not demand it all because the negotiations occurred prior to 1904, so she was asking for more of it for herself. After 1904 she would probably have asked for all of it, as she would have had a right to do.

Mr. SHARP. Does any of your evidence tend to show here, Mr. Rainey, what proportion of that $40,000,000 was actually paid over to the French?

Mr. RAINEY. I don't want to go into that, because that doesn't help out this international question. If there is a scandal there, I don't want to uncover it. I don't want to bring up in this investigation this sort of a disgrace nor stir up that kind of a thing. I simply want to present on the highest plane possible before this committee, the most important committee, I think, of the National Congress, the international question, and if anything comes out during the progress of this investigation with reference to the distribution of the $40,000,000 it will come out as a mere incident of the real investigation. I do not expect to ask that that question be investigated by this committee. My resolution does not ask this committee to investigate that question.

Now, our convention of 1846 with Colombia was the most friendly convention we ever entered into with any power.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you insert that treaty in full in the hearings? Mr. RAINEY. Yes; but fearing the committee will not read all of it, I want to read Article I of the treaty and call attention to the conditions existing at that time which made it important for us to negotiate this treaty.

There shall be a firm, perfect, and inviolable peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada (now Colombia) in all the extent of their possessions and territory, and between their citizens, respectively, without distinction of persons or places.

At that time we were preparing to settle up the western coast, and it was important for us to have with Colombia a treaty of friendship, so that our citizens could go across the Isthmus.

Article IV of the same treaty:

If any one or more of the citizens of either party shall infringe any of the articles of this treaty, such citizens shall be held personally responsible for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the two nations shall not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender or sanction such violation.

To show how gross has been our violations of our treaty with Colombia I want to read what Secretary Seward said in a communication to the United States minister at Bogota on April 30, 1866, and I want to show what construction we placed upon this treaty up to the very time we fomented this revolution in the United States. Secretary Seward said in 1866 :

The United States desires nothing else, nothing better, and nothing more in regard to the State of Colombia than the enjoyment, on their part, of complete and absolute sovereignty and independence. If those great interests shall ever be assailed by any power at home or abroad, the United States will be ready, cooperating with the Government and their ally, to maintain and defend them.

The United States did keep the treaty in this particular, and the United States did, later on, on more than one occasion, send troops to the Isthmus of Panama for the purpose a preserving the sovereignty of Colombia on the Isthmus when it was in danger.

On the 9th of October, 1866, Mr. Seward wrote to the minister down there:

The United States has always abstained from any connection with questions of internal revolutions in the State of Panama * * * and will continue to maintain a perfect neutrality in such domestic controversies.

Again, in May, 1856, President Pierce said:

We concluded, in the first place, a treaty of peace, amity, navigation, and commerce with the Republic of New Granada, among the conditions of which was a stipulation on the part of New Granada guaranteeing to the United States the right of way or transit across that part of the Isthmus which lies in the territory of New Granada in consideration of which the United States guaranteed in respect of the same territory the rights of sovereignty and property of New Granada.

President Buchanan, in April, 1860, compared the language of the treaty of 1846 with that of the treaties with the Republic of Honduras, and said:

In one respect it goes further than any of its successors, because it not only guarantees the neutrality of the route itself, but the rights, and sovereignty and property of New Granada over the entire Province of Panama.

Again, in 1880, President Hayes, in December of that year, spoke of—

The treaty obligations subsisting between the United States and Colombia, by which we guarantee the neutrality of the transit and the sovereignty and property of Colombia in the Isthmus.

President Arthur, in December, 1881, said:

This Government has not been unmindful of the solemn obligation imposed upon it by its pact in 1846 with Colombia as the independent and sovereign mistress of the territory crossed by the canal and has sought to render them effective by fresh engagements with the Colombian Republic looking to their practical execution.

Mr. SHARP. What called out these expressions from the Presidents? Mr. RAINEY. Various controversies between the Spanish-American Republics. They were statements of our position with reference to Colombia and with reference to the other Republics.

Mr. SHARP. Has it anything to do with the French Panama Canal scheme?

Mr. RAINEY. No, sir; nothing at all. The Salgar-Weise contract was not entered into until 1878.

Mr. SHARP. You are quoting now from Arthur and Hayes, and I wondered whether it was with reference to that Panama Canal scheme.

Mr. RAINEY. No; these messages referred principally to the Panama Railway Co., which was a New Jersey corporation, and these references grew out of certain other controversies. I am not going into detail as to the other matters which brought about these statements of our policy, but I simply put in the record these statements in order to show what our policy has been from 1846 down to the time we recognized

Mr. SHARP. I just wanted to see whether this had any bearing on the French ownership there.

Mr. RAINEY. I do not offer these declarations for that purpose, but simply for the purpose of showing our construction of the treaty of 1846-it being, of course, the only construction that can be put upon it by any person who understands the English language.

Mr. SHARP. On the face of it I should think there ought to be no controversy as to that.

Mr. RAINEY. There ought to be none. I am showing by putting in the record these excerpts that there were a number of subsequent official statements, as to our relations with Colombia under this convention, which made the treaty so plain that its meaning could not be misunderstood either in Colombia or anywhere in the world.

Mr. LEVY. I believe it was under that the United States was the only power to land troops.

Mr. RAINEY. I think you are right.

Mr. LEVY. We protected even the French at one time by sending our own troops.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEVY. The French couldn't do it?

Mr. RAINEY. No; they couldn't do it; we did it by virtue of the treaty of 1846 and by virtue of the clause in the treaty in which we agreed to maintain the sovereignty of Colombia on the Isthmus.

Mr. SHARP. That is practically a confirmation of the Monroe doctrine in that respect.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes; we protected the French; that is, we had a right to protect them under this treaty. They were operating under a contract which they had with Colombia, and in order to maintain our agreement with Colombia it was necessary for us to land troops, even though by doing so we protected the French, and we did. In 1885 President Cleveland said:

Emergencies growing out of civil war in the United States of Colombia demanded of the Government at the beginning of this administration the employment of armed forces to fulfill its guaranties under the thirty-fifth article of the treaty of 1846 in order to keep the transit open across the Isthmus of Panama. Desirous of exercising only the powers expressly reserved to us by the treaty, and mindful of the rights of Colombia, the forces sent to the Isthmus were instructed to confine their action to "positively and efficaciously" preventing the transit and its accessories from being "interrupted or embarrassed." The execution of this delicate and responsible task necessarily involved police control where the local authority was temporarily powerless, but always in aid of the sovereignty of Colombia.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rainey, as I understand it, you contend that if it hadn't been for the interference of the Government of the United States the Government of Colombia would have been able to put down the insurrection in Panama?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir; there is no doubt about that. Colombia had sent to Colon 500 picked troops, comparing favorably with the troops that can be mustered by any nation in the world. There were only 500 of them, but they were sufficient to preserve her sovereignty on the Isthmus of Panama if they had been permitted by this Government to do so.

Mr. GARNER. I didn't have the privilege of hearing the first portion of your argument, but from the resolution I judge that your position is that the United States Government outraged Colombia in taking forcibly from her a strip of territory now utilized for the canal.

Mr. RAINEY. No. In violating her treaty obligations by making possible a successful revolution against the sovereignty of Colombia on the Isthmus.

Mr. GARNER. So that we might get some of that territory. What was the object of assisting the revolution unless we intended to benefit by it?

Mr. RAINEY. That was the apparent object of it, of course.

Mr. GARNER. Then the object of the interference by the United States was to get possession of that strip of territory across the Isthmus?

Mr. RAINEY. Of course, that was the object.

A MEMBER. His idea is that this committee ought to go into an examination of the question to determine what offense we have given and what we can do toward placing ourselves in status quo, as it were, and what reparation we should make.

Mr. RAINEY. What I am asking is this: That this committee go into this question now for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is an issue between this country and Colombia that ought to be tried by the only competent court that try an issue of this kind, The Hague tribunal; if there is an issue, then I contend we ought to let The Hague tribunal pass upon the question as to whether we have wronged Colombia.

Mr. GARNER. In other words, the United States does not expect to do anything but give Colombia an opportunity to get what she claims from the United States?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, as I look at it, Colombia wants her day in court.

Mr. GARNER. I understand. Her day in court. You are acting for Colombia, as it were?

Mr. RAINEY. No I am not acting for Colombia.

The CHAIRMAN. We should do justice to all.

Mr. GARNER. Your position is this: That we refuse to go to this Hague court for fear that Colombia will get the better of the contention there, you insisting that we shall give Colombia this opportunity. Your position, then, is the attitude of an advocate for Colombia's rights.

Mr. RAINEY. I don't admit that. If my friend had been here during my argument as far as it has progressed he would have understood that is not my position at all.

Mr. GARNER. What good is to be accomplished by the United States what resolution, what legislation is to come from it?

Mr. RAINEY. The good to be accomplished is this: We give to a weaker Republic which can not oppose us in any other place in the world except in The Hague tribunal the opportunity to meet us there. We give them their day in court. We prove ourselves to be in touch with the modern spirit of progress among all the nations, which is in favor of arbitration.

Mr. GARNER. Indeed I agree with you, Mr. Rainey. But I was just coming to that. Your contention is that this Nation through its Executive has refused to give Colombia its day in court at The Hague. And you and the American Congress will say to the world by passing this resolution that we insist that Colombia shall have her day in court?

Mr. RAINEY. That is it exactly.

Mr. GARNER. Then we would be in the position of contending that our Executive has not given Colombia a fair show and the American Congress as its advocate has said that it shall have a day in court?

Mr. RAINEY. No; I wouldn't take that position. I take this position: I insist that The Hague shall pass upon the question as to whether this Government has given Colombia under the treaty of

1846 the recognition it was bound by the law of nations to give Colombia. I will present all of these questions

Mr. DIFENDERFER. Do I understand that the United States of Colombia had granted to this French company a right to build a canal there?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. When did that right terminate?

Mr. RAINEY. It was granted to the company in 1878. They were allowed three years within which to perfect their plans and make their surveys and then two years in which to commence work. They commenced work along about 1880 or 1881. That company collapsed in 1888 and the new French canal company was formed and operated under the old contract. Colombia granted certain extensions. The original contract and all the legitimate extensions expired in 1904.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. And our Government took advantage of the situation at that particular time, on the 3d day of November, 1904; was that it?

Mr. RAINEY. That was in 1903.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. 1903 ?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. That was election time in the United States; that was the reason the date was selected.

Mr. KENDALL. I think the date wasn't selected that the news might be entirely excluded, but that it might be immersed in the election returns and not be noticed?

Mr. RAINEY. It was selected because a revolution on that day was less likely to attract attention in the United States.

Mr. KENDALL. That is the way I understood you. Brother Goodwin suggests that it was done as a matter of political profit to influence the election that year.

Mr. RAINEY. NO. Now, having in mind what I have just said, I want to place in parallel columns something else. Having in mind the extracts that I have read from the treaty of 1846 and these numerous extracts I have read from state papers showing how we always construed this treaty almost down to date showing how we have recognized and defended the sovereignty of Colombia on the Isthmus of Panama-I want to read the confession of the man who was responsible for it all and who admits in this confession that he violated this contract.

Here is Mr. Roosevelt's confession made in a speech delivered before the students of the University of California at Berkeley, Cal., on March 23, 1911. I quote now from his speech on that occasion:

I am interested in the Panama Canal because I started it. If I had followed traditional conservative methods I should have submitted a dignified State paper of probably 200 pages to the Congress and the debate would have been going on yet. But I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate, and while the debate goes the canal does also.

That is the confession and it shows how it was done. This is a carefully worded speech, evidently prepared in advance. If you will examine the wording carefully you will find it to be a most careful and deliberate statement. It was made before an intelligent audience composed of students of the university-the great university of that State.