for determining on what basis they should be fixed do not appear to His Majesty's Government to affect the general issue as to the meaning of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty which they have raised. In their view the act of Congress, when it declared that no tolls should be levied on ships engaged in the coasting trade of the United States and when, in further directing the President to fix those tolls within certain limits, it distinguished between vessels of the citizens of the United States and other vessels, was in itself and apart from any action which may be taken under it, inconsistent with the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for equality of treatment between the vessels of all nations. The exemption referred to appears to His Majesty's Government to conflict with the express words of rule 1 of article 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and the act gave the President no power to modify or discontinue the exemption. In their opinion the mere conferring by Congress of power to fix lower tolls on United States ships than on British ships amounts to a denial of the right of British shipping to equality of treatment, and is therefore inconsistent with the treaty, irrespective of the particular way in which such power has been so far actually exercised. In stating thus briefly their view of the compatibility of the act of Congress with their treaty rights His Majesty's Government hold that the difference which exists between the two Governments is clearly one which falls within the meaning of Article I of the arbitration treaty of 1908. As respects the suggestion contained in the last paragraph but one of your note under reply His Majesty's Government conceive that Article I of the treaty of 1908 so clearly meets the case that has now risen that it is sufficient to put its provisions in force in whatever manner the two Governments may find the most convenient. It is unnecessary to repeat that a reference to arbitration would be rendered superfluous if steps were taken by the United States Government to remove the objection entertained by His Majesty's Government to the act. His Majesty's Government have not desired me to argue in this note that the view they take of the main issue the proper interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty-is the correct view, but only that a case for the determination of that issue has already arisen and now exists. They conceive that the interest of both countries requires that issue to be settled promptly before the opening of the canal, and by means which will leave no ground for regret or complaint. The avoidance of possible friction has been one of the main objects of those methods of arbitration of which the United States has been for so long a foremost and consistent advocate. His Majesty's Government think it more in accordance with the general arbitration treaty that the settlement desired should precede rather than follow the doing of any acts which could raise questions of actual damage suffered; and better also that when vessels begin to pass through the great waterway in whose construction all the world has been interested there should be left subsisting no cause of difference which could prevent any other nation from joining without reserve in the satisfaction the people of the United States will feel at the completion of a work of such grandeur and utility. I have, etc., JAMES BRYCE. CORRESPONDENCE SUBMITTED MAY 7, 1914. REPORTED BY MR. HITCHCOCK. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Resolved, That the President is hereby requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to cause to be transmitted to the Senate all papers, correspondence, messages, and dispatches in the Department of State, not heretofore communicated to Congress, having relation to certain tripartite agreements or conventions, concluded between the United States and the Republic of Panama, the United States and the Republic of Colombia, and the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Panama, all dated the ninth day of January, nineteen hundred and nine, together with all correspondence relating to the Hay-Concha protocol not included in the House document six hundred and eleven, Fiftyseventh Congress, first session. Attest: JAMES M. BAKER, Secretary. 103 PART IV. LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL. To the Senate of the United States: In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 29th ultimo, calling for certain correspondence relating to the so-called tripartite conventions concluded in 1909 between the United States, Colombia, and Panama, and for correspondence not heretofore communicated relating to the "Hay-Concha protocol," I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State communicating the correspondence called for. WOODROW WILSON. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, May 7, 1914. To the PRESIDENT: The undersigned, Secretary of State, to whom was referred a resolution reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations and adopted April 29, 1914, by which the President was requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to cause to be transmitted to the Senate all papers, correspondence, messages, and dispatches in the Department of State, not heretofore communicated to Congress, having relation to certain tripartite agreements or conventions concluded between the United States and the Republic of Panama, the United States and the Republic of Colombia, and the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Panama, all dated the ninth day of January, nineteen hundred and nine, together with all correspondence relating to the Hay-Concha proctocol, not included in House Document Numbered Six hundred and eleven, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session has the honor to submit the following report: The resolution calls for papers and correspondence under two heads, apparently distinct, but in fact relating to different stages of one and the same protracted negotiation, namely, that which culminated in the signature of the conventions, generally known as the tripartite treaties of 1909, between the United States, Colombia, and Panama. The latter part of the resolution, relating as it does to correspondence earlier in point of time than the first part of the resolution, may be first considered. This correspondence is, in part, contained in House Document No. 611, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, to which the resolution refers. It was appended to a letter addressed, under date of May 15, 1902, by the then Secretary of State, to the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com merce of the House of Representatives, and was described by Mr. Hay as comprising— copies of letters from the Colombian minister, dated the 31st of March and the 18th and 23d of April, accompanied by the letter of exposition and the letter of William Nelson Cromwell, both dated the 31st of March, referred to in the minister's letter of that date; and also a memorandum of a convention which the Government of Colombia is ready to sign with that of the United States of America, respecting the completion, maintenance, control, and protection of an interoceanic canal over the Isthmus of Panama together with pertinent correspondence relating, not alone to the contingent offer to the United States of title and rights in respect to the Panama Canal, but also to the alternative title and rights in respect to the previously proposed canal by the Nicaraguan route, the latter comprising, among other papers, copies of protocols entered into between this Government and those of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, December 1, 1900. The hitherto unpublished correspondence in connection with the Hay-Concha negotiations is herewith submitted in order to meet the request of the Senate. There was not in May, 1902, nor at any time, a "Hay-Concha protocol," such as is specified in the resolution. House Document No. 611 contains substantially all the material correspondence antecedent to the formulation of the original Hay-Herran treaty, signed January 22, 1903. The negotiation taken up with Minister Concha got no further than the submission of the draft convention (printed in H. Doc. No. 611) and the announcement made by Mr. Hay to Minister Concha that he would be ready to sign with him the proposed con vention as soon as the Congress of the United States shall have authorized the President to enter into such an arrangement and the law officers of this Government shall have decided upon the question of the title which the New Panama Canal Co. is able to give of all the properties and rights claimed by it and pertaining to a canal across the Isthmus and covered by the pending proposal. The conditions thus prescribed by Mr. Hay precedent to the conclusion of a canal treaty with Colombia were not effected until several months later. After a prolonged discussion of the relative merits of the Nicaraguan and the Panaman routes, the Congress, by the act approved June 28, 1902, preferentially approved the construction of a ship canal over the Isthmus of Panama. The title offered by the New Panama Co. was later pronounced to be good and sufficient. By this time Minister Concha had quitted Washington. The Colombian negotiation was then taken up at the point where Minister Concha had left it, and carried to a conclusion with his. successor, Minister Herran, January 22, 1903. Although its ratification was advised and consented to on the part of the United States Senate, it failed to receive approval at Bogota. The secession of Panama followed, changing the conditions of the isthmian problem and necessitating negotiations de novo with the actual sovereign power of the Territory of Panama. The history of the negotiation of the present Hay-Bunau Varilla canal treaty with Panama, and of the position then assumed by Colombia has been abundantly recorded in the voluminous correspondence heretofore communicated to the Congress. Many of the papers in regard to these events have been printed in the annual volumes of diplomatic correspondence entitled "Foreign Relations of the United States," and cover the period between the separation of Panama and the initiation of the negotiation which culminated in the signature of the tripartite treaties of 1909. The course of this latter negotiation, stretching over a period of some three years, is reviewed in the report made by Secretary Knox to the President February 20, 1913 (H. Doc. No. 1444, 62d Cong., 3d sess.), but the corre spondence incident to the conduct of the negotiations was not submitted therewith. It would seem that the request of the Senate for information, not heretofore communicated to the Congress, having relation to the described tripartite conventions, will be met by the communication of a concordant selection of hitherto unpublished correspondence, of record in the Department of State, showing the course of the negotiatiens which led up to the signature of the three treaties mentioned in the resolution. With this view the accompanying collection of papers is laid before the President. In the opinion of the undersigned, their communication to the Senate would not be incompatible with the public interests. Respectfully submitted. Washington, May 6, 1914. (List of papers follows.) W. J. BRYAN. |