Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Address of the President to Congress December 8, 1914
File No. 819.032/14.
Minister Price to the Secretary of State.
Panama, September 4, 1914.
Sir: I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of the annual message sent to the National Assembly by the President of Panama on the occasion of its inaugural session September 1, 1914.* * * The message, as will be noted, is conservative in tone and has not excited much comment from the opposition party.
I have [etc.]
[Untitled]
The relations of our country with the other nations are of the friendliest character, except with Colombia, with which neither communication nor commerce has been established since the Isthmian people separated themselves from its rule eleven years ago.
Recently there was made public the treaty celebrated in Bogota between the said Republic and the United States of North America, in which, in exchange for very liberal concessions on the part of the Government at Washington to Colombia, this country recognizes the independence of Panama and its existence as a sovereign nation. In the negotiations relative to that treaty Panama has had no intervention, which is regrettable because important interests are affected in that convention and in a certain manner the honor of our Republic, which cannot view indifferently any act which voluntarily or involuntarily disregards the significance of our sustained efforts for emancipation from Colombia and the efficiency of its resolve to obtain the benefits of autonomy. Moreover, it is just to wish that no compromise be made which may restrict our means of defense in the question of boundaries and of pecuniary obligations to Colombia.
The treaty to which I refer has been approved by the Colombian Congress but not yet by that of the United States, by which modifications may perhaps be made which may delay the conclusion of that negotiation and place us in a better position to protect our rights.
Special care has been and is taken to make pleasant and easy here the mission of the diplomatic agents, of other nations and to attend to and entertain those who merely pass through to other posts. Particular effort has been made, as far as possible, in making our hospitality friendly and sumptuous when treating of the visit of the President of the United States and its Secretaries, to whom we owe the greatest deference for the known cordiality and importance which the close relations of Panama with the American nation have.
During the present two years the Government of the Republic has celebrated with the United States an arbitration treaty identical with those made by that great nation with other countries, in which the pacific and noble ideas of President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State William J. Bryan have been collected and given form.
[Page 983]With no friendly power has the Government of Panama so many and varied matters to treat as with that represented by the authorities at the capital of the American Union and in the Canal Zone—the execution of the great inter-oceanic work across our Isthmus, now practically finished and utilized for commercial purposes, although it will not be solemnly and officially placed in universal service until next year; the necessities of the administration of our Republic and the Zone; the nature of the ties between Panama and the United States, obliging constant contact between the officials of both jurisdictions. It is pleasing to be able to inform you that such is the spirit of cordiality and good will existing between Panamans and Americans invested with official powers that, notwithstanding the importance of the interests handled by them, all negotiations are transacted without friction by the two Governments, taking into consideration in all cases the ruling object that bound the two countries: the opening, conservation, and defense of the Canal between the two oceans.
As a proof of that reciprocal consideration for matters interesting both nations and the deference we show the North American nation, I can point out, among other important arrangements concluded, the acquisition at an equitable price of the valuable building in this city in which the Canal Administration offices were formerly located, and which our nation needs to conveniently locate many of the public offices, scattered today in buildings rented from private parties; and also the enlargement of the area of the city of Panama, for which it has been necessary to modify the existing convention on provisional limits of this city and Colon. The new convention has already been signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States; the boundaries of the Canal Zone are definitely fixed therein from one end to the other; the territory under Panaman jurisdiction in Colon has been slightly modified, and that same jurisdiction is extended to all territory giving access to Panama and departure from this city on the eastern side, independent of the Canal Zone; and at the same time the north boundary is withdrawn leaving the Sabanas road entirely to Panama.
The Mixed Commission created by the treaty of November 18, 1903, charged with valuing and indemnifying for damages and expropriations caused by the canal work, has worked recently with some interruptions caused, first, by the absence in the past year of the two members named by the Government of the United States and later by the recent lamentable death of one of the Americans composing this tribunal, whose successor has not yet arrived. In spite of these interruptions the work done by the said commission is large and there remains only a small part to do if compared to the great amount of claims for damages and expropriations of private property to which the formation of the vast Gatun lake and other secondary ones and still other works complementary to the Interoceanic Canal gave rise.
One of the questions of greatest importance which our Republic has pending is the boundary controversy with Costa Rica.1 The country knows the history of the events which induced us to make an arbitration treaty with that neighboring nation, in order to submit to the final decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States the differences existing between the two countries on boundaries, in spite of the fact that these had been definitely defined in 1900 in the decision pronounced by the President of France. There is also known, because the Government informed the National Assembly of 1910 thereof, the value and importance of that pact to the two contending nations, and the gravity of the situation to be faced in order that we might not lose the position in which the arbitration award placed us. I will always consider it one of the highest honors of my life to have defended, as attorney of Panama, and placed the interests of my country, endangered in that memorable epoch, in a secure position. Because the desire of Costa Rica was that the old dispute on all points examined and decided by the Arbitration of 1900 be reopened and that the entire question be submitted again to a new arbitration through the auspices of the Department of State of the United States. The attitude assumed by me, approved and applauded by the Panaman Government, and the arguments employed [Page 984] to resist those designs of Costa Rica, resulted in the convention signed in Washington, March 17, 1910, very different from that proposed and hoped to be secured by the illustrious and able representative of our opponent, Doctor Luis Anderson. What was agreed upon to be submitted to the Chief Justice of the United States in this pact is only the following question: What is the boundary between Panama and Costa Rica which most nearly conforms to the meaning (intention) of the decision of the President of France of September 11, 1900?
The controversy resulted in the convention I have mentioned; the parties presented their arguments within the time fixed; our distinguished Minister Plenipotentiary in Washington, Doctor Eusebio A. Morales, assisted by Mr. Edward B. Hill, a talented and sagacious lawyer who knows the question perfectly, have argued before the arbitrator all the reasons which should move him to sustain the decision in so far as it favors our rights and to maintain the same within the well-defined jurisdiction fixed by the arbitrator in the arbitration convention of 1910. In referring to this important point the attorney of Panama thought it opportune to place with his own allegation the exposition which I left written and printed before being replaced as attorney in the boundary litigation, in which I made a complete study of that question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
Everything induces the hope that the arbitrator will appreciate at their just value our reasons, and that his decision, which should be pronounced before the 18th of September, will be inspired by the strictest justice.
As you know, exclusion laws exist in our country against the immigration of Chinese and Turks of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The new law, which required individuals of those nationalities resident in our Republic to reregister in books specially kept for them, caused a movement of rebellion and protest among the Chinese, who tried to avoid the obligation required of them which has its justification in the frequent and secret entry of Chinese which has taken place in spite of constant effort of the authorities to prevent it.2
I must state that my convictions in the matter of human liberty and equality do not accord with the exclusion measures which prohibit entry in some countries to certain foreigners for commercial or industrial reasons, for race prejudices or ethnic aversions. It seems to me that the same necessities of progress demand facilities and guaranties for the movement and voluntary radication of all men, without, exceptions save those of objectionable individual character, for the preservation of morality and the health of society. Notwithstanding that, before my social and philosophical principles come my duties as agent of the Panaman people, and on that account, without vacillation but on the contrary with decision and energy, I have fulfilled the precepts of the immigration law, without those evils predicted by opponents of the action of the Government having occurred.
- See post.↩
- See For. Rel. 1913, pp. 1105–1139.↩