only "a reasonable time" for the conclusion of satisfactory arrangements with Colombia, and would then be bound to turn to Nicaragua, but these warnings were unheeded.

At the same time offers of purchase of the canal by other parties were renewed with redoubled zeal, and the pressure upon the unhappy company to accept one of them became almost irresistible. The American counsel for the company, William Nelson Cromwell, who had been most active and efficient in promoting negotiations thus far, was put almost at his wits' ends to restrain his clients from such action. The Atlantic cables were kept busy with appeals, arguments, remonstrances, and what not, and finally a hurried trip was made to Paris, with successful results. The company was persuaded to be patient and to expect, through some means, the consummation of its bargain with the United States. In pursuing this course it was justified by the event. What certain prescience of the coming event Mr. Cromwell had, is matter for conjecture. There is reason to believe that he had no part in the revolution which so soon thereafter occurred. Indeed, he is said on at least one occasion to have discouraged and opposed it. But he naturally shared the knowledge which many had, in New York, in Washington, at Panama, and at Bogotá, of the movement then in progress and of the warnings which had already been given to the Colombian Government of the inevitable result of its rejection of the treaty. So the company declined all other offers for its property, and patiently, though anxiously, awaited the result of the American negotiations with Colombia.

The Colombian Government persisted in its fatuous course. In accordance with its policy of delay, it proposed to the United States further negotiations, for the modification of the treaty, on the lines of the extortionate demands made by it and reported by Mr. Beaupré on July 12. As Secretary Hay had already with the utmost positiveness declared those conditions entirely inadmissible, he naturally

KILLING THE TREATY

147

declined this proposal. Strenuous warnings to Colombia were repeated. On August 5, Mr. Beaupré told the Colombian Foreign Minister that occurrences which had already taken place with respect to the canal treaty had been of such a character as fully to warrant the United States in considering any modification of the conditions stipulated in the treaty a violation of the compact between the two governments, which would produce most serious complications in the friendly relations which had thitherto existed between the United States and Colombia.

The only reply to this and other like utterances was a declaration that Colombia had a right to do as she pleased in the matter. Then, on September 8, 1903, the Colombian Government "confidentially" informed the Washington State Department that, despite its rejection of the proposal for further negotiations, it intended to propose a reopening of negotiations, upon bases which it judged would be acceptable "to the Congress of next July." That is to say, the HayHerran treaty was to be killed, and then Colombia would. ask for the negotiation of a new treaty which would be acceptable to a new Congress the next year! This characteristic bit of jugglery did not meet with favour at Washington.

A few days later, on September 12, the treaty automatically lapsed, through the expiration of the time allotted for ratification. Still, a single, solitary, infinitesimal hope remained. The Colombian Congress was still in session, and it might yet reconsider its unfavourable action and ratify the treaty, and then request the United States Government to accept it, though ratified at technically too late a date. Whether the United States would or could have done so is an open question. But what is certain is that the Colombian Government had no thought of taking such action. On the contrary, it emphasised its intention of killing the HayHerran treaty, and of blocking the whole canal scheme until it could command success in its extortionate demands. On October 14 a committee of the Colombian Senate reported

to the Senate a recommendation that Colombia should not negotiate any canal treaty with the United States until after the time granted in the concession to the French Company had expired and its franchise had lapsed. The object of this was obvious, and was two-fold. It would enable Colombia to secure the whole price paid by the United States, since she would then have confiscated the company's property, and it would enable Colombia to insist upon less favourable terms in her new concession to the United States than she had granted to the original De Lesseps Company. This recommendation was not acted upon by the Colombian Senate, but neither did that body direct or authorise the government to seek the negotiation of a new treaty. A show was made of generosity to the French company, in a proposal to ratify the prolongation of the time of its concession from 1904 to 1910. This proposal is said to have met with the unanimous approval of the Senate when it was first presented. It was then, however, deftly inserted into a convenient pigeon-hole and was never heard of again and, of course, was never acted upon.

In the face of these things, the inexorable predetermination of President Marroquin's government to kill the treaty of its own making, unless extortionate and oppressive conditions were adopted, seems beyond question, and it is evident that there never was any real hope that the HayHerran treaty would become operative. The United States Government, however, was patient. The President interpreted the "reasonable time" provision of the Spooner law as permitting him to wait a little while, even after the time allowed for ratification had expired, before abandoning negotiations with Colombia for a canal at Panama and going to Nicaragua. So he waited patiently until the end of the Congressional session at Bogotá. That came on October 31. On that day the Colombian Congress adjourned without any favourable action upon the treaty, and the American Minister at Bogotá received a leave of absence, though he remained at Bogotá, or at least in Colombia, until

THE END AT BOGOTÁ

149

November 24 following. On October 31, therefore, our relations with Colombia, in connection with an Isthmian canal, ceased. There was apparently nothing to do but to turn to Nicaragua. But before that could be done, there came a revolution.

CHAPTER X

THE PANAMA REVOLUTION

THE Colombian Congress adjourned on October 31. November 3, occurred the Panama Revolution. It was by no means unexpected. As I have said in the preceding chapter, the menace of it and the preparations for it had been known for months in New York, at Washington, at Panama, and at Bogotá. In order, however, to understand its causes and its justification perfectly, we must turn back to the time of Bolivar himself. Colombia, or New Granada, was one of the first Spanish provinces of South America to establish its independence from Spain, in 1819. At the same time it showed itself one of the least worthy of such a state. In the words of Quijano Otero, a historian of that time, "Colombia had lived so fast in her years of glory and great deeds that, though still a child, she was already entering a premature decrepitude." It was actually proposed to establish a monarchy, and the plans to that end were so strongly pushed that Bolivar was moved to seek for aid in preventing their consummation. With the monarchical scheme and with the general turbulence and lack of progress, the more orderly and enterprising people of Panama were disgusted. While Colombia, or, rather, the provinces of New Granada, Venezuela, and Quito, or Ecuador, became independent in 1819, it was not until November 28, 1821, that the two Isthmian provinces of Panama and Veraguas made their Declaration of Independence. Thereupon they voluntarily allied themselves with New Granada. But in a few years much dissatisfaction arose, and in 1830 many of the foremost Isthmians regarded the union as a grievous mistake and began agitating for its repeal.