As I still continued to hear of President Mosquera’s repeating his
admiration and friendship for Great Britain, and of which I spoke in my
No. 244, with an occasional disparaging remark of the people of the
United States, it seemed desirable to ascertain the President’s real
sentiments if possible, before giving an answer, and to withhold it for
the present, or at least the declaration contained in the concluding
paragraph of despatch No. 139, in case it should turn out that he is
really hostile to our country. To this end I had a confidential
interview with a government official, not the foreign secretary, but of
much greater influence in the administration, a former adviser of
General Mosquera and friend of our country, in which I said, that this
course of General Mosquera since his return from Europe had given me no
concern whatever except so far as it might be calculated to make wrong
impressions among Colombians. That the United States cherished the most
fraternal feelings towards this country, and their highest interest in
it was its well being; but at the same time were prepared to dispense
with the friendship of any country which they could not have on terms of
mutual interest and respect; and if General Mosquera was really sincere
in his declarations in this respect, and which it seemed to me he had
taken pains to repeat on unnecessary occasions and with unnecessary
frequency of late, and Colombia following his lead should choose to go
after strange gods, the United States, although her natural friend and
ally, could have no other interest than to conform their conduct to the
exigencies of an emergency so unnatural, unexpected, and unwelcome.
He answered that he had deeply lamented this uncalled-for and unwise
conduct of General Mosquera, but that he was sure that it did not
proceed from any unkind feelings for the United States entertained by
the general; that his late course here and in England was the result
purely of the cupidity of old age; that from one of the most generous
and unselfish of men he had become one of the most sordid and
avaricious; that it was humiliating to know that his whole late
proceedings in England had been dictated by selfish and unworthy
motives; that he really believed his mind was unsettled, and that the
Colombian people would resist by revolution before the ruinous and
unauthorized contracts entered into by the general in London should be
imposed upon the nation; and further, that a revolution would be the
sure consequence of a policy on the part of the national administration
which might justly interrupt the present good understanding between the
two countries.
I believe this gentleman was correct in the foregoing opinions.
On the same day of this conversation the British minister called to speak
with me about an unacceptable note addressed him by the foreign
secretary. In the course of the interview he said that “Mosquera is
putting on airs, affecting the ways and style of an emperor. He pretends
to be very much in love with everything British about this time, because
he wants more money. Should the congress confirm his London loan
contract not a single shilling could be raised on it. I am very much
inclined to believe all his London contracts mere shams.”
I am disposed to think the minister was sincere in this statement and
that it has some foundation.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I decided to send in my
reply containing the whole of the despatch No. 139, and I believe its
acceptance by the Colombian government has justified my decision. See C,
hereto annexed.
Two days after receiving the acknowledgment of my note, I called on the
President and was flatteringly received. He expressed himself much
gratified at the stand taken by the United States, and requested me to
say that he had
[Page 560]
written the
answer to my note with his own hand. He said he would reprimand the
President of Panama as he deserved. The interview was quite
satisfactory.
Although General Mosquera’s opponents generally, and a considerable
number of his well-informed friends, have repeatedly asserted to me that
he is certainly unfriendly to our country, I have not yet felt that I
would be justified in adopting this conclusion; and moreover, if he
holds such sentiments, circumstances are not favorable to his allowing
them to influence his action. Be his feelings or purposes what they may,
however, his late proceedings in England, if carried out, must be
prejudicial to us. In connection with this subject I beg to refer to my
Nos. 249, 250, 251, 252, and 253.
B.
Mr. Burton to Señor
Garrido
Legation of the United States of
America, Bogota,
June 22,
1866.
The undersigned, minister resident of the United States of America,
being instructed as to the views of his government concerning the
matters treated of in the communication addressed him by his
excellency the secretary of the interior and foreign relations of
the United States of Colombia, under date of October 16, 1865,
touching certain proceedings at Panama in the month of September of
that year, by Rear-Admiral G. F. Pearson, on the occasion of the
burial of Alexander R. McKee, esquire, late United States consul in
that city, has now the honor to reply to the observations which his
excellency was then pleased to make. In proceeding to do so, it may
be useful to recur briefly to the facts connected with the occasion
referred to, as presented in the note of his excellency and its
accompanying papers.
Alexander R. McKee, esquire, late consul of the United States at
Panama, departed this life on or about the 1st of September last.
His death appears to have been profoundly lamented by the
authorities of the United States of Colombia at that place, as well
as by the citizens and naval agents of the United States who were
residing there, or were on duty in
[Page 561]
the vicinity. A stranger in a foreign country,
it was natural that his countrymen who were thus sojourning there
should be moved to pay to his remains the customary duties of
tenderness and respect.
So far as the facts can be ascertained from the papers just
mentioned, it does not appear that the public authorities of
Colombia, or those of the State of Panama, assumed to themselves the
performance of any duties whatever in relation to the funeral
obsequies of the deceased. The supposition is to be indulged that
the preliminary arrangements for those obsequies were made
exclusively by private and unofficial parties who had been
acquaintances of the consul. It does distinctly appear that the
authorities of Colombia, or those of Panama, made no communication
whatever concerning the occasion to Rear-Admiral Pearson, who was
then on board of the ship Lancaster in the port of Panama, and in
command of the United States squadron on the Pacific.
The funeral was appointed for the 4th of September. In the morning of
that day, at the hour appointed, Admiral Pearson landed from his
flag-ship, attended by a small marine guard provided with cartridges
without balls, and an unarmed band of music, which unarmed band and
practically unarmed guard were attached to the naval service on
board the flag-ship. The rear-admiral’s object in landing the
marines was to pay the customary naval honors to the remains of the
deceased consul. The admiral, however, had given no notice to the
authorities at Panama, State or federal, of his purpose or desire to
pay those honors in that form. The obsequies proceeded; the naval
honors were paid by the admiral, together with the marines and band,
and all are understood to have returned quietly to the flag-ship. It
is not alleged that any disorder or disturbance occurred, or any
offence was committed, or that there was menace otherwise than what
was constituted by the fact of the landing of these naval mourners
on the shores without permission previously given by the national or
State authorities at Panama.
Upon this state of facts, the President of the State of Panama, one
of the constituent States of the republic of Colombia, on the 6th of
September addressed a note to Rear-Admiral Pearson. In that note the
President of Panama stated, that on the day of the funeral he, (the
President,) with the other public superior functionaries, national
and State, residing in the city of Panama, were prepared to attend
the funeral obsequies of the late consul, whose death was so justly
deplored, when the President perceived that a party of armed people
belonging to the United States marine had disembarked, together with
a band of music, to do honor to the civil and military rank of Mr.
McKee. This discovery, the President said, placed him under the
painful necessity of declining, and causing the other authorities to
decline, attending the obsequies, because no permission for such
disembarcation had been asked of him, he being the first authority
in the State of Panama. The President in his note alleged that it
would have been very natural for him to have granted such
permission, especially in consideration of the fact that neither the
national nor State authorities in Panama had there any band of
martial music, nor any body of troops to contribute in giving new
gravity to the ceremony.
The President then argued that the disembarcation of the marines with
a musical band, without permission being first solicited, might be
understood unfavorably if it should pass unnoticed; that his silence
on the occasion might be taken as an agreement, thereafter, for
neglecting the correct usages of the law of nations.
Having made the explanation, the President closed with saying that he
expected, therefore, that in case it should be necessary to
disembark armed naval forces in future, it would not be done without
the consent of the authority at Panama, which represented the
sovereignty and independence of the nation.
Rear-Admiral Pearson replied to the President on the 8th of September
to the effect following, viz: After reciting the facts in the case,
the rear-admiral said that he regretted that the President had not
attended the funeral services of a consul so much beloved; that he
could do no less than to express also the impressions which had been
made on his mind by the President’s statement of his objections to
the presence of the marine guard and the marine band at the funeral
ceremony.
The admiral having adverted to the facts that the marine guard were
furnished with cartridges only, without balls;, that the band of
music was unarmed: that their only object was to honor the remains
of the consul, then took notice of the complaint of the President
that the disembarcation was contrary to the rights of nations.
The admiral said he knew perfectly well that armed troops should
never put foot on the territory of a friendly government without
special permission from its chief; but in the present case he added:
“All the city was mourning the loss of a friend, and it never
occurred to me that anything I might do in honor of his memory would
be taken in any other sense than joining in the general grief of
all, including the President, and the other employés of the
government.” “Besides,” continued the admiral,” at the time the city
was overhung with a cloud of sadness, which prevented lending
attention to little forms, no one thinking of anything but in
contributing to the deceased, the much loved Colonel McKee, the
melancholy homage, whose remains were to be immediately buried.”
Passing from that point, as it would seem to the conclusion of the
President’s letter, the admiral said: “I will here take the liberty
to assure your excellency that, in conformity with my orders to the
squadron of my command, armed troops will land immediately whenever
[Page 562]
it is necessary to
fulfil the stipulations of the treaty between the United States of
Colombia and the United States of America, and especially when the
railroad and its passengers are in danger.”
“You inform me,” the admiral continues, “that for the future you hope
when it may be necessary to land armed troops, it will not be done
without the consent of your excellency. There is not the least
objection to asking this permission; but I believe it to be my duty
to give you notice that in case of alarm the required force of the
squadron for an immediate service would probably be detained from
arriving in Panama at least two hours, waiting to communicate with
the city and receive permission from your excellency. In
consideration of the conditions of the treaty, it is believed that
armed troops may be landed at any moment; and our late consul and
others anxiously desiring it, I have ordered the marine troops to
land when there was any danger, to protect the consulate and the
naval depot, without permission from the authorities, and I am
disposed to do the same again, convinced that such conduct will not
only be agreeable to the consul and naval storekeeper, but also to
the President of the State, since it will contribute to the
promotion of good order.”
The admiral concludes with saying to the President: “Do not think fox
a moment, however, that I dispute your legitimate right to wish that
permission be asked, by means of an officer, to disembark armed
troops in time of necessity, or to do the customary funeral honors
at the death of an employé of the United States, or to land a band
of unarmed musicians. All this, besides being your lawful duty, it
would give me pleasure to carry out, by means of an order to the
commanders. I shall also remit to the government of the United
States a copy of your communication, and a copy of my answer, to the
end that if at any time the force under my command shall be delayed,
in case of any emergency, in consequence of my awaiting your consent
to the disembarcation, it may not be attributable to me.”
Having now set forth the material facts of the correspondence which
took place in September last between the President of Panama and the
acting rear-admiral of the United States, concerning the occurrence
referred to, it is proper, in the next place, to allude to the
representations which that correspondence elicited from his
excellency Señor Santiago Perez, then secretary of the interior and
foreign relations of the republic of the United States of
Colombia.
In his excellency’s communication of the 16th of October last,
already referred to, the secretary wrote in effect these words: “The
neutrality of the isthmus, or of the sovereignty of New Granada (now
the United States of Colombia) over it, guaranteed by the United
States of North America, in the thirty-fifth article of the treaty
of 1846, are rights pertaining to Colombia—rights the effectiveness
of which it belongs to her to demand at the time and under the
circumstances which may be convenient to her and equitable. But that
guarantee of the neutrality of the isthmus, and its sovereignty to
Colombia, does not oblige her to submit to the measures which the
United States of North America, or any agent of theirs, may pretend
to impose on her in derogation of the national dignity, and not only
without the requirement of the local authorities, but in spite of
them.”
The secretary proceeded to write further, to the effect that “the
local authorities of the State of Panama, or as agents of the
national government, respectively, in virtue of their powers, and in
the fulfilment of their duties, have to maintain on the isthmus the
public security, and the guarantees due its inhabitants and persons
who may be transiently there. In the discharge of their duties said
authorities would employ the means at their command, and require
such assistance as they may find necessary, and to which they may be
entitled, provided it can be so given as stipulated.”
The secretary continued his argument in substance in these words:
“Otherwise, assistance would not be assistance, and the employment of
a foreign force, although under alleged necessity or convenience,
would be rather to have it imposed than asked; an act inadmissible
by the legitimate authorities of that territory, and unacceptable
according to the most primitive notions of public law.”
The secretary proceeded to write further, as follows:
“Agreeably to the said 35th article, said guarantee is expressly
declared to be an especial compensation for favors acquired by the
United States of North America in that State. The guarantee is,
therefore, not a right pertaining to them, but an obligation, a
service contracted by them—a service, it is true, which redounds to
their interest, but which cannot take the character of a power or
jurisdiction. But by giving to said guarantee the interpretation
implied in the pretensions of Rear-Admiral Pearson would be to
convert it into an additional favor to the United States of
America—a favor which would require on the part of Colombia the
abdication of her dignity. The propriety of opportunely appealing to
the necessary measures to preserve in all cases security on the
isthmus must be decided by the power intrusted with its
preservation—a power which represents the national sovereignty, and
at the order of which, within the respective limits, agents are to
be maintained whose duty it is to lend effective assistance.
“Who has borne the responsibility arising from a want of order or
security on the isthmus when disorders have occurred? The use,
therefore, of the forces the United States of North America for the
preservation of order and the maintenance of the sovereignty of
Colombia on the isthmus has to be determined by the Colombian
authorities themselves, and not by the
[Page 563]
chiefs of those forces, whatever may be the
apparent inconvenience in any case to the latter, inconveniences to
be foreseen and removed by him who is responsible for the
disturbances.
“Such is the understanding and the grounds taken by the Colombian
government with respect to the part in question of the treaty with
the United States of North America. It is sure that such is the
understanding and views maintained by the minister resident, whom
the undersigned has the honor to address, and to request of him an
express opinion on the point. The way of transit across the isthmus
shall be opened to the citizens and government of the United States
of North America agreeably to said article 35, but neither this nor
any other article of the treaty implies the right to disembark
troops in that territory without previous notice, and then subject
to the conditions of the treaty. Much less does it imply the right
to disembark North American forces in order that they may go through
exercises on Colombian territory or occupy it in organized bodies or
regiments in any operation whatever. The right to disembark and of
transit will always be subject to the compact between the two
nations, and in eases of resistance, to the judgment and demand of
the local authorities, who in this particular act as the agents of
the national government.
“In this sense, instructions have been given to the government of the
State of Panama, and it is hoped that the minister resident of North
America, finding all the foregoing in strict accordance with the
existing treaty, and with the well understood interests of both
countries, he will be pleased to communicate his orders accordingly
to the agents of his nation on the isthmus that they may desist
from, and put an end to, whatever pretences they have manifested or
that they may manifest to the contrary.”
Having thus recited the various points in this extraordinary
correspondence, it only remains for the undersigned to communicate
the opinion of his government concerning the same.
The government of the United States is of opinion that the entire
controversy is uncalled for by any proceedings which have been taken
by Admiral Pearson or by any exigency that has arisen in its
relations with the government of Colombia, and, therefore, that the
discussion is entirely unnecessary.
The United States of America are sincere friends of the United States
of Colombia. The former are not now under any necessity to confess
the obligations or to claim the benefits which result from that most
interesting relation.
When the circumstances of the death of the late esteemed consul at
Panama, Mr. McKee, are considered, it does seem that Admiral Pearson
might reasonably have expected, in view of the relations which he
sustained to both countries, that the national State authorities at
Panama would first communicate with the admiral in regard to that
lamented event. It is, however, not to be wondered at, that,
impressed by the general and overwhelming sense of the calamity
which had befallen both countries, the authorities at Panama omitted
to make such a communication. In the absence of such a communication
it is admitted that it was the duty of the admiral to address
himself to the national and State authorities at Panama, and to
express his desire to attend the funeral obsequies of the deceased,
giving notice of the form of ceremonial which he had adopted. The
government of the United States of America regrets his failure to do
so, though it thinks criticisms upon that omission by the federal
and State authorities at Panama, under the peculiar circumstances of
the case, are uncalled for, and unkind. It is thought that when
Admiral Pearson appeared on the wharf attended by a detachment of
marines, furnished only with cartridges, and with the ship’s band of
music, for the purpose of attending the funeral of Mr. McKee, it was
the right of the President of Panama, or other representative of the
national government of Colombia, to ask of the admiral an
explanation of the character and object of his landing. It is now
manifest that such an explanation as would have been entirely
satisfactory could and would then have been given. It is exceedingly
regretted that it was not asked. No complaint, however, is made
against the Colombian authorities for omitting to ask the
explanation. On the other hand, it is believed that a review of the
whole subject would satisfy the friendly government of Colombia that
the President of Panama, on that occasion, took a jealous attitude
which would have better become an agent of a party holding relations
different and more unfriendly than those which at present exist
between the United States of Colombia and the United States of
America.
It would have been entirely proper for him to ask of the admiral in a
friendly manner an explanation of his proceedings in landing with
the marines and musicians on the occasion referred to, and to have
limited his demand to that subject alone. Had the President of
Panama thus addressed the admiral, there can be no doubt that he
would have given an unobjectionable and satisfactory reply.
It is understood that the reason why the subject was brought by his
excellency the secretary of the interior and foreign relations of
Colombia to the notice of the government of the United States is
that in this regard the reply which was given by the admiral to the
letter which was addressed him by the President of Panama was
unsatisfactory. With a view to remedy this impression, it is
cheerfully admitted by the government of the United States that it
was the duty of the admiral in the first instance, on that occasion,
to ask leave for landing the marines and musicians, and having
omitted to perform that duty, it was then incumbent on him to tender
a satisfactory explanation to the authority. The President of
Panama, however, was not content to ask merely such explanations as
have already been supposed;
[Page 564]
but, on the contrary, he preferred to enter a protest before the
admiral against his proceedings, as if, in the President’s judgment,
they admitted of no explanation.
The President followed up that protest with a notice to the admiral
to the effect that he (the President) expected that in case it shall
be necessary to disembark armed naval forces in future, it will not
be done without the consent of the authority in Panama which
represents the sovereign independence of the United States of
Colombia. The reply of the admiral to this gratuitous announcement
made by the President of Panama was unsatisfactory and seems to have
been construed as disrespectful.
His excellency the secretary of the interior and foreign relations of
Colombia presents this reply of Admiral Pearson as a subject of
complaint to the government of the United States. It is to be
observed as to this part of the transaction, that in the opinion of
the government of the undersigned no occasion had arisen and no
proceeding had been taken by the admiral which called for the
notification thus given to him by the President of Panama. No
necessity had arisen or was pretended by the admiral to have arisen,
or to be about to arise, for such a landing of armed naval forces as
is contemplated by the treaty between the United States and
Colombia.
The admiral was not the person to be addressed for explanations of
his purposes, or of the purposes of his government, in vague and
unfounded anticipation of such a contingency. He was simply a
subordinate of his government, which is directly amenable in law and
courtesy to make such explanations to the government of the United
States of Colombia as may become due to that government
The President of Panama is a local magistrate at that place. He
neither pretends to have had nor could have had any authority
whatever from the United States of Colombia to demand explanations
from the government of the United States of America in such a
hypothetical case as he conceived, much less to demand them from an
authorized agent of the United States.
The government of the United States of America does not now think
itself bound, on a review of the whole correspondence, to give
explanations to the government of the United States of Colombia in
regard to the form of proceedings which it might suppose proper, in
case the necessity contemplated by the treaty for the landing of the
land or naval forces of the United States should arise for
guaranteeing the sovereignty of Colombia upon the route of the
Panama railroad. The treaty and the law of nations must regulate the
action of both governments, should such an emergency unhappily
arise. It is not to be treated of in advance, because it is a mere
vague possibility.
A government cannot justly be expected to give explanations and
guarantees in regard to the course it will adopt in hypothetical
cases, where it has neither itself done, nor suffered its agents to
do, any act which implies a want of fidelity to its treaties and
other international obligations.
For a government to give pledges voluntarily that it will not do what
is forbidden by those obligations to do, or will not do in an
improper manner what it lawfully may do in a proper manner, would be
to admit that it had given just grounds for jealousy, or suspicion
of its good faith. It is sincerely hoped that the prevalence of
peace, law, order, and loyalty on the isthmus may be such as to
render the stipulations of the treaty for the guarantee to remain
forever a dead letter. The United States of America desire nothing
else, nothing better, and nothing more in regard to the States 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, co-operating with the government and their ally, to maintain
and defend them. Such co-operation will be in accordance not merely
with the terms of the treaty, but also in accordance with the
respect which is due to the sovereignty of that ally, and to the
courtesies which friendship inspires, and which are invariably
practiced between enlightened and friendly nations.
The undersigned avails himself of this opportune occasion to renew to
his excellency the assurances of his highest consideration.
His Excellency Señor José M. Rojas Garrido, Secretary of the Interior and Foreign Relations.
