President of the United States. The President of the United States sent no agent to Panama. It was not necessary. Panama was acting in her own interest. She was exercising her right to object to the action of her Government, and her Government persisting in wronging her, she had a right, if she saw fit, to go into rebellion.

In other words, weeks before she declared her independence it became known that she would take that step-not officially, but it became known to every man who studied the situation and considered what human nature would do under such circumstances. The clouds were gathering. Should the United States, through its Administration at Washington, be unmindful of that fact? Not at all. It was our duty to be watchful with respect to it under any circumstances, but particularly so in view of our obligations to preserve that transit free from interruption.

Ever since 1846, when the treaty between this Government and New Granada, as that country was then called, was entered into, we have been under that obligation. Time and again we have landed our marines to preserve order and to protect that transit from interruption and embarrassment. Repeatedly we have done that at the request of Colombia; we have done it in a number of instances on our own motion. The President of the United States, seeing the storm coming, seeing the action that was threatened, remembering his obligation to preserve peace and order and protect that transit from interruption, but did his duty in taking all preliminary necessary steps to preserve order when such a contingency should arise.

Mr. President, as is suggested to me, suppose he had not done it; suppose the rebellion had come; that secession had been accomplished; that war had ensued, and all the results that accompany war had followed, what would have been the criticism then of our friends on the other side? It would have been a criticism, not that the President had acted precipitately, not that he had acted without cause, but that he had not acted at all; that he had lost the canal after the United States had expressed her preference for it, and after the people of the whole country, without regard to party and without regard to section, had demanded it.

But, Mr. President, it was in view of just such a contingency, not knowing what might happen, but to be prepared for the worst and to discharge our duty in any event, that the President took the steps indicated by the telegrams read by the Senator from Massachusetts, from which he derives such criticising conclusions.

We are given the date when the secession occurred; we are given the date when the recognition was accorded, and we are asked to believe, if we agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, that there was inordinate haste, indecent haste, in granting that recognition.

What are the facts? What are the precedents, first? In 1871, when the Republic of France was established, we recognized it immediately. We did not wait a day, or two days, nor three days, nor five days, or any other length of time. It was established one day. The date of our cablegram instructing Minister Washburne to recognize the Republic of France was dated the next day. That apparent delay of a day was only because of the difference of time. It was sent in the evening. It

was already the next day when it got here and was answered. France had no Constitution, but it was not a humming bird (as Mr. Hoar had said of Panama) or any other thing of a diminutive character, but a great, mighty people, forty millions or more, who had set up a Republic dedicated to freedom and to human liberty, and this great Republic at once responded with recognition.

MR. ALDRICH: We did not even ask France, as I remember, whether the Government which had been overthrown consented.

MR. FORAKER: No.

Now, in 1878 they established a Republic in Spain. There was no delay. Immediately our minister there, General Sickles, was advised by our Government to recognize, and he did recognize, the Republic of Spain. Later, when the Emperor of Brazil was deposed, the Republic that followed him was instantly recognized, and other examples might be cited.

Mr. President, there was no reason in the case of France or Spain or Brazil for precipitate or hasty action; we had no special duties there; but in the case of the Republic of Panama it was different. What are the conditions, according to international law, that are sufficient to justify us in instantly recognizing a new government, as we did in the case of France, Spain and Brazil?

The only condition necessary-and it does not make any difference, in the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, whether it be brought about in five minutes or five days or five months-is that the new government shall be the sole authority throughout the region over which it undertakes to govern, and that there is no contention and no disputed authority. It is not necessary to go that far. But when those conditions exist to that extent, then according to all international canons of law a recognition is in order at the option of the recognizing government. In the case of France I say there was no special necessity for haste, but these conditions existed, as we understood, and we recognized it.

It was the same as to Spain, and the same as to Brazil in a general way. But in the case of Panama it was not only true that the Republic of Panama was the only authority there of a governmental nature, that that authority was supreme throughout her borders, but it was also true that there was not even a policeman representing Colombia within the Department of Panama. They had a little army there when the trouble commenced-400 men, with some generals and colonels-and they were all quietly picked up, without the shedding of one drop of blood, and put on a transport and sent back to their own home. That completed the revolution.

But, Mr. President, there was a necessity in the case of Panama which required prompt action on our part, as there was no necessity in the other cases to which I have referred. These conditions existing, we would have been without excuse if we had halted in recognition. The necessities to which I have referred are these: Under the treaty of 1846 we had a duty at that time incumbent upon us, as it has been ever since the ratification of that treaty down to the present moment, to preserve that transit free from interruption.

War being threatened, a condition of things being threatened that promised an interruption, it was the duty of this Government to be pre

pared to prevent it; and instead of criticising President Roosevelt for the action he took, he ought to receive and he will receive from the American people their unqualified approbation for that which he did in this respect, because that which he did was but to redeem the promises and obligations of our Government, just as other Administrations have done the same thing over and over again.

We do not have to wait until there is actual war. We do not have to wait until there is a hostile force landed and engagements actually commence and blood is being actually shed. It is much better, Mr. President, foreseeing the situation of which all have common knowledge, to take steps to prevent these conditions that would have followed but for our intervention.

Mr. President, other nations have recognized the Republic of Panama. I do not remember how long they delayed. It was quite natural, perhaps, as the Senator from Massachusetts suggested, as I understood him, that France should promptly recognize, but I do not know of any reason why Germany should recognize or Russia should recognize or China should recognize the Republic of Panama, except only the reason that according to international law, as I have stated it, the conditions existed that warranted and justified recognition, and they recognized at their option.

Mr. President, no Senator on this side, I am sure, has the slightest objection to all possible information being given with respect to this whole transaction; no Senator on this side has the slightest objection to all the light being had on this transaction that can be shed on it, but there is a time and there is a place for Senators to discuss propositions of this character. Here in this open session is not the time nor the place. I have undertaken to say enough only in answer to the Senator from Massachusetts to show that the President in this matter did not act hastily; that he did not act without precedent or without the warrant and authority of international law, and that he did not act contrary to, but strictly in conformity with, his official obligation, charged as he is, as the head of this nation, with the faithful execution of all our treaty obligations.

I have no hesitancy in saying, Mr. President, that I have the profound conviction that when this matter is thoroughly understood even our Democratic friends will hesitate to criticise him. Certainly they will hesitate, at any rate, when they make their nonpartisan speeches, of which we have heard so much, and then give their nonpartisan votes.

But, Mr. President, as I have already intimated, I do not want to discuss the question at any greater length than I have. I do not think it proper to do so. I have undertaken to say just enough to express the view I entertain with respect to it and the view which I believe my brother Senators entertain and the view which I believe the American people have and will approve with respect to it, and with that, for the present, I am content.

It seems to me now, as it did then, that neither our Government nor President Roosevelt did anything in that whole matter that was the subject of legitimate criticism. On the

contrary, I feel now, in the light of subsequent events, as I did then, that President Roosevelt's action was entitled to the highest commendation as not only wise and patriotic, but as absolutely necessary to the protection and advancement of American interests in connection with an Isthmian Canal.

As I dictate these lines a rather amusing incident comes to mind. The claim Colombia is now making is not now made for the first time. She commenced making the claim immediately after we recognized the independence of Panama, and entered into a treaty with her under which she gave us a canal zone, upon which we commenced the construction of the canal.

At the beginning she claimed only ten millions of dollars, but that she claimed very vigorously and very industriously. The Colombian Minister then in Washington in some way had hope that the Congress expiring March 4, 1904, would make an appropriation of that amount for her benefit. It seems that in connection therewith he had a number of interviews with Mr. Hay as Secretary of State.

The day after Congress adjourned I had occasion to call upon President Roosevelt. He told me, with much appreciation of the humor involved, that he had heard from Secretary Hay that the Colombian Minister had visited the Department of State; that he was greatly disappointed because the Congress had not made the appropriation he desired and expected. He wanted Mr. Hay to advise him what he should do, and Mr. Hay, according to his report, told him to "be patient and trust in the Lord." Mr. Hay added that he left with a despondent look on his face that "plainly enough indicated that in his opinion ‘trust in the Lord' was a poor substitute for an appropriation."

IN

CHAPTER XXXIX.

CAMPAIGN OF 1904

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.

N 1904 I was chosen by the State Republican Convention of Ohio to be for the sixth time in succession a delegate-at-large to the National Republican Convention held that year in Chicago.

In that convention, as in a number of the previous conventions, I served as the Ohio member of the Committee on Resolutions, and in that capacity assisted in the framing of our platform.

Long before the convention assembled it was evident that President Roosevelt would be nominated. In fact, there had been no reasonable doubt in the mind of any one, subsequent to his indorsement in 1903 by the Republican State Convention of Ohio.

A few days after the convention I took a short vacation with my family. We visited Yellowstone National Park. All of us enjoyed greatly the outing.

After my return I commenced active campaign work in Ohio, but was called upon to participate in the campaign in other states. In the course of the campaign I spoke in New York, Pennsylvania, several of the New England States and a number of the Western States.

One of the first of these speeches was made under the auspices of the Hamilton Club of Chicago on the 17th day of September, 1904, and one of the last speeches was made in Music Hall, Cincinnati, October 29, 1904.

My speech at Chicago was widely published in the Republican press of the country as one of the keynotes of the campaign. I had many beautiful letters of congratulation