dismembering purpose was already accomplished; and, when the second 24 hours was scarce more than half over, had accorded the revolted States the full prerogatives of independent sovereignty. Our patriotic indignation would have known no bounds. Like jealous love it could not have been quenched by many waters nor drowned by floods. The flame of our anger would have "burned to the lowest hell." Life. fortune, sacred honor would have been freely cast into the sacrificial balance. Amazed resentment, "hors'd upon the sightless couriers of the air, would have blown the horrid deed in every eye.

The President naively refers to Panama's secession as but a "resuming of her independence." Such is the phrase in his telegram of recognition. In his message to Congress, of January 4, 1904, he says:

"A third possibility was that the people of the Isthmus who had formerly constituted an independent State, and who recently were united to Colombia only by a loose tie of federal relationship, might take the protection of their own vital interests into their own hands, reassert their former rights, and declare their independence on just grounds."

But in no proper sense of the term was Panama ever an "independent State"; nor was it by a "recent and loose tie of federal relationship" that Panama was united to Colombia. In 1840 the Provinces of Panama and Veragua seceded from New Granada; but so brief and futile was the separation that history simply records the departure and return. In 1857 Panama, availing herself of a new provision of the central constitution, assumed such quasi-independence as was consistent with a federal connection with the central Government-precisely that and not one whit more. Even that quasi-independence under a federal relationship lasted only four years. In 1863 Colombia became successor to New Granada, with Panama as an integral part of the new Government. From 1886 to 1903 the Province of Panama was as absolutely identified with Colombia as Massachusetts with the United States. Not at all the President's loose tie of federal relationship of comparatively recent origin, but a scarcely interrupted integral relationship of almost half a century, and a final absolute identity of nearly a score of years.

To return, the President says:

* *

"I have not denied, nor do I wish to deny, either the validity or the propriety of the general rule that a new State should not be recognized as independent till it has shown its ability to maintain its independence. * But, like the principle from which it is deduced, the rule is subject to exceptions; and there are, in my opinion, clear and important reasons why a departure from it was justified and even required in the present instance. These reasons embrace, first, our treaty rights; second, our national interests and safety; and, third, the interests of collective civilization."

Could there be a more decisive disclosure of the President's personality and development than his invocation of "exceptions to a principle"? Could there be a more significant revelation of his attainments in moral science? It had been taken for granted that a "principle," whether a law of nature or a standard of conduct, was fundamental, having continuous and uniform force, and that exceptions could exist in only the applications of the principle. For instance, veracity as a principle is "good faith between those within the bonds of good faith.' In the relation of speech to fact there are said to be permissible variations. It is affirmed that speech need not conform to reality when one is conversing with the wholly insane or with those whose manifestly malign intent puts them beyond the pale of mutual obligation. Would the author of the Panama policy claim for himself not only exceptions in the practical modes of veracious speech, but also exceptions in the rule inself? In view of the President's acts and utterances as related to the Panama imbroglio of 1903, one might be at least half pardoned for so thinking. The clear terms, the indubitable intent, the time-honored interpretation of the treaty of 1846 he haughtily set aside, substituting therefor his egotistic sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas-"I took the Canal Zone."

But there is a second ardent appeal, and this time to our own "national interests and safety." That also is revelatory of the appellant. Was it perceived by others than the President, at 12.51 midday of November 6, 1903, that our national welfare, even to the verge of national peril, was hinged on the immediate construction of an Isthmian canal? According to the statistics of population and pro rata wealth, of production and trade, of education and religion, we were fairly prosperous and making commendable progress. We were at peace with all nations. Domestic insurrection was not apprehended. It was thought by some that we were already in need of the ancient admonition, "The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, O thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the hill." During the years in which the successful digging of the canal has been going on, has it been generally felt

that we were trembling in the world-power balance, timidly awaiting deliverance? When the canal is finally opened, will our national well-being be suddenly and completely assured? Yet the self-hypnotized Executive who says, "I took the Canal Zone," "I am interested in the canal because I started it," asks us to condone his betrayal of a trustful ally, on the patriotic ground that our own national safety was at stake, and that there was no warrant for another instant's delay. National well-being is not thus secured. He who has established His throne in the heavens and whose kingdom ruleth over all" acquits none who work iniquity and are unrepentant. The Persians have the proverb, "When even one wronged child cries in the dark, the throne of God rocks from side to side."

It remains that we consider the President's excuse of "a mandate of collective civilization." Herein the "mandatary" of progressive humanity rises far above mere patriotic zeal. He sees, as through the mists of apocalyptic vision, an indeterminate and indererminable something which he calls "collective civilization." He appears to have been in such trance as befell the man of the land of Uz

"Now a thing was secretly brought to me,
And mine ear received a whisper thereof;
Then a spirit passed before my face;
It stood still, but I could not discern
The appearance thereof."

It will ever be regretted that the user of the phrase "collective civilization" did not attempt to define it. Is it possible that he adumbrated the slow accretion of human betterments through political and social organization; the fair evolutions of art and literature; the consummate achievements of liberty under law; the infinitely precious fruitage of religious aspiration? May he have dimly seen the endless procession of those who had gone by the crimson path of martyrdom to receive earth's undying gratitude and heaven's unending acclaim? May he, by proleptic realization, have felt what Wordsworth calls "incommunciable ecstasies" as he dreamed of the progress yet to be made, the felicities yet to be won? Let us endeavor thus to suppose. But even so, how could he think that from such high source there had come to him alone the mandate which conferred autocratic power? In what hour of rapt meditation did he hear the voice which bade him move unhesitatingly, unshrinkingly, to the goal of his desire? In connection with what celestial sign did he read the words In hoc signo vinces? "Collective civilization," whatever it may mean, if issuing any kind of mandates, issues mandates utterly at variance with the self-will which "took" the Canal Zone while treaties gasped, and diplomacy stood bewildered, and international jurisprudence averted her astonished sight. It were a moral fatuity, on the very face of it, to imagine that the greatest good of the greatest number could possibly be subserved by flouting good faith and reckoning Providence as a coconspirator against essential justice. Yet the self-appointed protagonist of imperial efficiency still declares:

"We did harm to no one, save as harm is done to a bandit by a policeman who deprives him of his chance for blackmail."

The verdict of history reads, "The policeman himself turned bandit. In the name of equity and under the guise of friendship he smote the innocent and plundered the defenseless."

He who hurried with "Tarquin's ravishing strides" to make irrevocable Colombia's dismemberment still argues that his "position as the mandatary of civilization" was fully recognized by the powers, as witness the promptitude with which, one after another, they followed his lead in recognizing Panama as an independent State." Therein he again takes to himself the sole responsibility, and therein he is in perfect accord with the facts. He adopted the child before it was born. He midwifed its birth. He certified, for what the certificate was worth, that the child was not a bastard. He safeguarded its puny, puling infancy. He lifted it, cradle and all, to the seats of the mighty. He gained for it world-wide recognition. Consequently he might not divest himself of responsibility, even though he would. But the powers, in following his lead, did not thereby approve his act. Their course was not only perfunctory, but also virtually compulsory. They could scarcely do aught else than recognize the new nation on whose political status the President of the United States had set his official, though tarnished, seal.

Finally, the restless, strenuous "doer of things," the seizer of the Canal Zone, asserts his worthiness of the unfading laurel. He triumphantly declares:

"The United States has many honorable chapters in its history, but no more honorable chapter than that which tells of the way in which the right to dig the Panama Canal was secured and of the manner in which the work itself has been carried out." The raid on defenseless Colombia, in the interest of a swift indomitable construction of an Isthmian waterway, made to vie with the heroic settlement of a new continent,

in the interest of civil and religious freedom. The "50-mile order" and its congener of the following day, foredooming a "guaranteed" ally to defeat by secession, ranked with the proclamation which gave freedom to enslaved millions. The coddled Panama "uprising," insured in advance, set in the illustrious category of Lexington and Bunker Hill, Valley Forge, and Yorktown. The recognition of a new sovereignty, after 1 day, 17 hours, and 41 minutes of pampered, flimsy independence, favorably compared with an independence which was won by years of ceaseless conflict and the sacrifice of treasures untold. Such a treacherous rending of one of their number as has awakened dismay and distrust in all the southern republics put on a par with that reconstruction of a northern union which has heartened the friends of democracy in all parts of the world.

Is it possible that there should be condonation of the President's "taking" of the Canal Zone, because inwoven with the plottings of self-centered ambition there was the hastening of a national and international good? Therein is also is there "an exception to the principle" that right is right, sacred, and eternal? Is the end to sanctify the means? Then Ahab's rape of Naboth's vineyard was well, provided he took it for a public park. Then the rich man's seizure of the poor man's one ewe lamb was fair, if therewith he enlarged his feast for the hungry. Then Judas Iscariot may be acquitted with applause, if only he was a thief in order to pay his honest debts, and a traitor that he might quiet disturbance and strengthen "law and order” in the land.

Here let the chapter of national dishonor close its record. Let the final verdict be rendered as required by the law and the facts. Let the prime actor in that national dishonor take his place as determined by that same law and those same facts. Fiat justitia.

Meantime, the treatment of Colombia demands that "just and ample redress" of which Mr. Seward spoke. Our national honor was dragged in the mire. It ought to be rescued from its disgrace. With propriety we might repair to The Hague tribunal, humbly bespeaking such penalty as that high court might declare to be right. Until reparative action is somehow taken, the national reproach abides. Save as we, nationally, make the amende honorable, "great Neptune's ocean " will not remove the stain. The "damned spot" will still persist. There is grim satisfaction in the poet's words:

"Yea, though we sinned and our rulers went from righteousness;
Deep in all dishonor though we stained our garment's hem;

Oh, be ye not dismayed,

Though we stumbled and we strayed;

We were led by evil counselors-the Lord shall deal with them."

Yet the satisfaction is mingled with pity for those same evil counselors, as we recall the inspired declaration:

"And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not."

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF NEW GRANADA.

[Concluded and signed at Bogota Dec. 12, 1846. Ratification advised by the Senate June 3, 1848. Ratified by the President of the United States June 10, 1848. Ratifications exchanged at Washington June 10, 1848. Proclaimed by the President of the United States June 12, 1848.]

A proclamation by the President of the United States of America:

Whereas a general treaty of peace, amity, navigation, and commerce between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada, together with an additional article thereto, was concluded and signed at the city of Bogota by the plenipotentiaries of the two countries on the 12th day of December, 1846, which treaty and additional article are hereunto annexed.

And whereas the said treaty and additional article have been duly ratified on both parts, and the respective ratifications of the same were exchanged at Washington on the 10th day of June, 1848, by James Buchanan, Secretary of State of the United States of America, and Gen. Pedro Alcantara Herran, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Republic of New Granada, on the part of their respective governments:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, James K. Polk, President of the United States of America, have caused the said treaty and additional article to be made public, to

the end that the same may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this 12th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1848, and in the seventy-second year of the Independence of the United States.

[SEAL.]

JAMES K. POLK.

By the President:

JAMES BUCHANAN,

Secretary of State.

A GENERAL TREATY OF PEACE, AMITY, NAVIGATION, AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF NEW GRANADA.

The United States of North America and the Republic of New Granada in South America, desiring to make lasting and firm the friendship and good understanding which happily exists between both nations, have resolved to fix in a manner clear, distinct, and positive the rules which shall in future be religiously observed between each other by means of a treaty or general convention of peace and friendship, commerce, and navigation.

For this desirable object the President of the United States of America has conferred full powers on Benjamin A. Bidlack, a citizen of the said States and their charge d'affaires in Bogota, and the President of the Republic of New Granada has conferred similar and equal powers upon Manuel Maria Mallarino, secretary of state and foreign relations, who, after having exchanged their said full powers in due form, have agreed to the following articles:

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

ART. II. The United States of America and the Republic of New Granada, desiring to live in peace and harmony with all the nations of the earth, by means of a policy frank and equally friendly with all, engage mutually not to grant any particular favor to other nations in respect of commerce and navigation which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same freely if the concession was freely made, or on allowing the same compensation if the concession was conditional.

ART. III. The two high contracting parties, being likewise desirous of placing the commerce and navigation of their respective countries on the liberal basis of perfect equality and reciprocity, mutually agree that the citizens of each may frequent all the coasts and countries of the other and reside and trade there in all kinds of produce, manufactures, and merchandise, and that they shall enjoy all the rights, privileges, and exemptions in navigation and commerce which native citizens do or shall enjoy, submitting themselves to the laws, decrees, and usages there established to which native citizens are subjected. But it is understood that this article does not include the coasting trade of either country, the regulation of which is reserved by the parties, respectively, according to their own separate laws.

ART. IV. They likewise agree that whatever kind of produce, manufacture, or merchandise of any foreign country can be, from time to time, lawfully imported into the United States in their own vessels may be also imported in vessels of the Republic of New Granada; and that no higher or other duties upon the tonnage of the vessel and her cargo shall be levied and collected whether the importation be made in vessels of the one country or of the other. And in like manner that whatever kind of produce, manufactures, or merchandise of any foreign country can be from time to time lawfully imported into the Republic of New Granada in its own vessels may be also imported in vessels of the United States; and that no higher or other duties upon the tonnage of the vessel and her cargo shall be levied or collected whether the importation be made in vessels of the one country or the other.

And they further agree that whatever may be lawfully exported or reexported from the one country in its own vessels to any foreign country may in like manner be exported or reexported in the vessels of the other country. And the same bounties, duties, and drawbacks shall be allowed and collected whether such exportation or reexportation be made in vessels of the United States or of the Republic of New Granada.

ART. V. No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any articles the produce or manufacture of the Republic of New Granada and no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation

into the Republic of New Granada of any articles the produce or manufactures of the United States than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the produce or manufactures of any other foreign country; nor shall any higher or other duties or charges be imposed in either of the two countries on the exportation if any articles to the United States or to the Republic of New Granada, respectively, than such as are payable on the exportation of the like articles to any other foreign country, nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the exportation or importation of any articles, the produce or manufactures of the United States or of the Republic of New Granada to or from the territories of the United States or to or from the territories of the Republic of New Granada which shall not equally extend to all other nations.

ART. VI. In order to prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding it is hereby declared that the stipulations contained in the three preceding articles are to their full extent applicable to the vessels of the United States and their cargoes arriving in the ports of New Granada and reciprocally to the vessels of the said Republic of New Granada and their cargoes arriving in the ports of the United States, whether they proceed from the ports of the country to which they respectively belong or from the ports of any other foreign country; and in either case no discriminating duty shall be imposed or collected in the ports of either country on said vessels or their cargoes whether the same shall be of native or foreign produce or manufacture.

ART. VII. It is likewise agreed that it shall be wholly free for all merchants, commanders of ships, and other citizens of both countries to manage, by themselves or agents, their own business in all the ports and places subject to the jurisdiction of each other, as well with respect to the consignments and sale of their goods and merchandise by wholesale or retail, as with respect to the loading, unloading, and sending off their ships, they being, in all these cases, to be treated as citizens of the country in which they reside, or at least to be placed on an equality with the subjects or citizens of the most-favored nation.

ART. VIII. The citizens of neither of the contracting parties shall be liable to any embargo, nor be detained with their vessels, cargoes, merchandise, or effects for any military expedition, nor for any public or private purpose whatever, without allowing to those interested an equitable and sufficient indemnification.

ART. IX. Whenever the citizens of either of the contracting parties shall be forced to seek refuge or asylum, in the rivers, bays, ports, or dominions of the other with their vessels, whether merchant or of war, public or private, through stress of weather, pursuit of pirates or enemies, or want of provisions or water, they shall be received and treated with humanity, giving to them all favor and protection for repairing their ships, procuring provisions, and placing themselves in a situation to continue their voyage, without obstacle or hindrance of any kind or the payment of port fees or any charges other than pilotage, except such vessels continue in port longer than 48 hours counting from the time they cast anchor in port.

ART. X. All the ships, merchandise, and effects belonging to the citizens of one of the contracting parties, which may be captured by pirates, whether within the limits of its jurisdiction or on the high seas, and may be carried or found in the rivers, roads, bays, ports, or dominions of the other, shall be delivered up to the owners, they proving in due and proper form their rights, before the competent tribunals; it being well understood that the claim shall be made within the term of one year by the parties themselves, their attorneys, or agents of their respective Governments. ART. XI. When any vessel belonging to the citizens of either of the contracting parties shall be wrecked or foundered or shall suffer any damage on the coasts, or within the dominions of the other, there shall be given to them all assistance and protection, in the same manner which is usual and customary with the vessels of the nation where the damage happens; permitting them to unload the said vessel, if necessary, of its merchandise and effects, without exacting for it any duty, impost, or contribution whatever, unless they may be destined for consumption or sale in the country of the port where they may have been disembarked.

ART. XII. The citizens of each of the contracting parties shall have power to dispose of their personal goods or real estate within the jurisdiction of the other, by sale, donation, testament, or otherwise, and their representatives being citizens of the other party, shall succeed to their said personal goods or real estate, whether by testament of ab intestato, and they may take possession thereof, either by themselves or others acting for them, and dispose of the same at their will, paying such dues only as the inhabitants of the country, wherein said goods are, shall be subject to pay in like cases.

ART. XIII. Both contracting parties promise and engage formally to give their special protection to the persons and property of the citizens of each other, of all occupations, who may be in the territories subject to the jurisdiction of one or the other, transient or dwelling therein, leaving open and free to them the tribunals of