which is also included in the official edition of the Geography of T. C. de Mosquera, published in London, 1866, as follows: From the Atlantic, a line from Cape Tiburon 8° 41' north latitude, 3° 8' west longitude from Bogota to the head of the Rio de la Miel, and following the Cordillera by the hill of Gandi to Sierra de Chugargun and Sierra de Mali, going down by the hill of Nique to the heights of Aspave and thence to the Pacific, between Cocalito and La Ardita; 7° 12′ north latitude, 3° 37' west longitude from Bogota. This line we are ready to accept. B. We are perfectly willing and anxious to enter into an arrangement by which the citizens of both countries should enjoy civil and political rights in each of them as the natives. Likewise we are ready to enter into an arrangement facilitating the declaration of nationality of the citizens of the two countries residing in the other. There will be no difficulty on this matter, which we consider advantageous for the close union of the two countries. C. We believe that a stipulation should be mentioned in the treaty by which Panama declares, in accordance with her action before the French tribunals, that she does not claim any rights to the property of 50,000 new Panama Canal shares granted to Colombia by the company in payment of the extension granted to it for the time to finish the canal. As I have mentioned above, all the matters relating to commerce, navigation, postal extradition, etc., which require a good many details, will be a matter of arrangement between Colombia and Panama, once the tripartite treaty, as above mentioned, is duly signed. Colombian Minister to Mr. Buchanan. LEGATION OF COLOMBIA, Washington, D. C., March 4, 1907. MY DEAR MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to inclose two memorandums relating, the one to our question with Panama, and the other to our agreement with the United States. They embody the totality of the points at issue and may be considered as our final decision especially in regard to the amount to be paid by Panama. I beg of you to consider them carefully, giving particular attention to my argument in Clause VIII of the Panama memorandum, by which I emphasize the position assumed that is to say, that I refrain from dilating on each of the four points, throwing on the general consideration of justice and fair dealing whatever may be wanting in strength in each particular point. Mr. Root mentioned that he should like to have a concrete statement of the whole of our demands; my memorandums contain it, and I hope they will receive his own and the President's due consideration. As far as I can make out your opinion is favorable to my point of view as expressed in the said memorandums. I entertain the hope therefore that they will form the basis of the action to be taken by the American Government toward Panama, and that the matter will arrive at a speedy termination. If Mr. Root and yourself still consider advisable the intervention of Mr. Cromwell, I expect that the matter will be taken up in earnest on his arrival from Europe. I see by the newspapers that Panama will send Mr. Arango as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, with full power to act in accordance with Mr. Obaldia on the matter. The newspapers mention under date of the 2d instant from Panama, that Mr. Arango will start next month. As his presence here might avoid the necessity of Mr. Cromwell's journey to Panama, I venture to suggest that a cable should be sent to Panama urging the departure of Mr. Arango as soon as possible, thereby gaining time. This is an important matter as the Colombian National Assembly will meet in April next, and it will be very desirable that the treaty should reach Bogota before the assembly adjourns. Hoping that you will give your very kind consideration to this matter, and with renewed assurance of my highest esteem, I remain, sir, Your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM I. BUCHANAN, ENRIQUE CORTES. Washington. [Inclosure 1.] Memorandum relating to a treaty between Colombia and the United States. Between Colombia and the United States there are two subjects for the celebration of a treaty. The first of them is the scope covered by the treaty of December, 1846, which must be abrogated and replaced by a similar one comprising only that part of it which does not refer to matters connected with the Isthmus of Panama and the guaranty of integrity of our nationality. The second subject refers to the stipulations which have been under examination and exchange of ideas between the two countries, as mentioned in the Cartagena memorandum (a copy of which is in the hands of Mr. Root), and all other points as derived from the separation of Panama. In case the celebration of a tripartite treaty is considered feasible, as I believe it should, the second subject might properly be inserted in the treaty with Panama as developed in my memorandum on the Panama treaty of even date. If the tripartite treaty is abandoned, the whole matter might be embodied in a single instrument. I believe, however, that it will be rather awkward to properly fit in a general treaty with the United States many of the clauses pertaining to the second subject, especially if there are any respecting guaranty or assumption of payment by and through the United States of a part of the sum we claim from Panama. In a tripartite treaty, the intervention of the United States would appear as a natural development of the double character that they would assume in the instrument; on the one side as protectors of Panama, on the other, as sincere friends of Colombia. Assuming that we may carry on the idea of a tripartite treaty, 1 beg to state the stipulations which would appear in it referring to the United States and Colombia. I would refrain from argument, as the matter seems to have been accepted on principle by the United States, it remaining still in doubt the consent of Great Britain to some of its clauses, a matter which Mr. Root thinks will offer no difficulty. II. First. The Government of Colombia will have at all times the right to convey through the canal its ships, troops, and materials for war, even in the case of an international war between Colombia and another country, without paying any duty to the United States. While the interoceanic canal is in construction, Colombia will have the right to transport on the railway between Ancon and Cristobal, or any other railway substituting that one, her troops, ammunitions, and materials for war, at all times, even in the case of an international war between Colombia and any other country, under the same conditions that this service is rendered to the United States. The Colombian national employees transmitting through the Isthmus will be entitled to a free passage in the railway. The above stipulations will be suspended in case of, and during a state of, war between the Republic of Colombia and either of the other two high contracting parties, the United States and the Republic of Panama. III. Second. National Colombian provisions and other national products such as mentioned in paragraph No. XIII of my memorandum of even date respecting the Panama treaty, will enter free of any special duty to the Canal Zone, with the exception of the duties paid by similar American products in equal conditions. The Colombian laborers employed in the zone, who may desire that their own families supply them with provisions for their own personal use, shall declare them before the commissariat in order to obtain a previous permit of entry, and will enter free of any duty, provided it should be a bona fide operation to the discretion of the commissariat. IV. Third. All mail matter and post parcels will have a free passage through the Panama Railway and Canal Zone, and through the post office of Ancon and Cristobal, paying only such duties as those paid by the United States' mails. V. Fourth. Colombian products and goods of any kind passing through the Panama Railway, or any other connecting the two oceans within the Canal Zone, and destined to or coming from any Colombian port, will pay the same freight as was charged to Colombian goods in the same position by the Panama Railway up to the 2d of November, 1903. When the said products and goods from and to the same destination are transported through the Panama Interoceanic Canal, the charges for said transportation will be only the actual cost of transportation from one ocean to another deducting from the general tariff whatever amount that may represent in it, interest on the capital, profit, or contingent depreciation, or losses in that transporting vehicles. When the canal should be open to the commerce a special agreement on the subject fixing the actual rates to be charged as above, will be concluded by a commission of two persons appointed one by each Government. On Colombian produced salt, sent per account of the Government from any Colombian port on the Atlantic to any Colombian port on the Pacific Ocean, the above charges shall be diminished 50 per cent. VI. Fifth. The Government of the United States shall instruct the Canal Zone commissionaires, or the respective authorities on the Canal Zone, to avoid all unfavorable discrimination on salaries paid to Colombian laborers or employees in the canal work, in such a way that in equal circumstances, Colombian laborers and employees earn the same salaries as are earned by those belonging to other nationalities. WASHINGTON, D. C., March 4, 1907. [Inclosure 2.] LEGACION DE COLOMBIA, I. Both the President of the United States and his worthy Secretary of State, in recent documents, have emphasized the necessity of justice and fair dealing in international relations, just as it is necessary in individual relations. In our differences with Panama, there are weighty considerations of abstract and overspreading justice which cover and invigorate the whole ground of our claims. These considerations may be summarized as follows: (a) That the secession of Panama was not the result of misgovernment or tyranny exercised on the Panamenos by Colombia. (b) That it was not obtained like the independence of Cuba, of the American or the Spanish-American colonies, after years of struggle and sacrifices. (c) That there does not appear any bona fide and trustworthy instrument or concerted action of long standing from the majority of the people of the Isthmus in favor of secession. (d) That the movement was suddenly prompted, after the rejection of the Hay-Herran treaty by Colombia, by the action of the garrison of Panama, then in the pay of the Colombian Government, reenforced by a few influential persons in the Isthmus and by the expected protection of the United States. (e) That the Colombian Government was prevented by the action of the agents of the United States from attacking the rebel forces. (f) That there has never appeared in the Isthmus any show of opinion of any importance in favor of secession. So much so that even now there is a respectable mass of opinion favorable to the reinstatement of the old condition of things. (g) That the real motive for the secession was the expected benefit to be derived by the seizure of the canal and railway works, and that therefore there is no consideration of intrinsic justice which may justify, under a moral point of view, the forfeiture by the Colombian Government of its prosperity on the Isthmus or any prospective rights of property acquired by the Colombian Government by previous instruments of long standing. (h) That the efforts made successfully in Washington for the adoption of the Panama route for the canal, and the whole train of negotiations for the delimitation of boundaries with Costa Rica, have resulted in the exclusive benefit of Panama. The above is mentioned as facts to bear on the points at issue and to show that they are unique in the history of the dismemberment of nationalities. II. Our differences with Panama are of two kinds, the one regarding future commercial and friendly relations, the other regarding actual claims on our part of a financial kind, which must be treated as a previous question to our recognition of their independence. The former will be a matter of future negotiations. The latter is to be settled at once, if we may come to terms. III. Our financial claims come under four heads: 1. The external debt. 2. The interior debt. 3. Claim for seizure and sale of the canal works and the Panama Railway. 4. Claim for expenses in the arbitration for boundaries with Costa Rica. IV. EXTERNAL DEBT. The external debt of Colombia, contracted at the time of the war of independence, with the object of reimbursing the expenses incurred therein and the carrying on of the independent Government of the original nationality of Colombia, was divided among three nationalities, in the year 1834, in the proportion of 50 per cent to New Granada, 21 per cent to Ecuador, and 28 per cent to Venezuela, or in approximate proportion to the population of each nation. Panama has manifested that she is willing to accept payment of a share of the external debt on the above proportion. With this point of view Colombia entirely disagrees, considering it at variance with equity and justice, for the following reasons: It is pertinent to remark that the division of the foreign debt of the old Republic of Colombia, as finally agreed upon, was far from being accepted in an easy and speedy manner. In 1833, New Granada invited Venezuela to send an agent to Bogota for the purpose. The Venezuelan representative, D. Santos Michelena, proposed the proportion of population; the New Granada minister of |
