eign Powers. . . . The theory on which the 'statement of grievances' proceeds, that the treaty obliged the Government of the United States to protect the Government of New Granada against domestic insurrection or its consequences, finds no support in the record, and is in its nature inadmissible."

Thus we see that the intent of this second obligation was clearly to take effect only as a part of the policy of the Monroe Doctrine in protecting Colombian territory from outside aggression.

THE OBLIGATION TO KEEP TRANSIT
UNDISTURBED

We pass now to the first obligation under the Treaty of 1846, that of maintaining the neutrality of the line of transit across the Isthmus. President Roosevelt in his annual Message to Congress of December 7, 1903, said: "In 1856, 1869, 1873, 1885, 1901, and 1902 sailors and marines from United States warships were forced to land in order to protect life and property and to see that the transit across the Isthmus was kept open. In 1861, 1862, 1885, and 1900 the Colombian Government asked for the landing of troops by the United States Government to protect its interests and maintain order on the Isthmus." The traditional policy of the United States since the coming into force of the Treaty of 1846 has been the guarantee ing of the strict neutrality of the line of transit across the Isthmus. Nothing more clearly defines this policy than the telegraphic instructions from Secretary of the Navy Moody to the U. S. S. Ranger, dated September 12, 1902: "United States guarantees perfect neutrality of Isthmus

and that transit from sea to sea be not interrupted or embarrassed. Any transportation of troops which might contravene these provisions of treaty should not be sanctioned by you, nor should use of road be permitted which might convert the line of transit into a theater of hostility."

On November 2, 1903, when it was evident that an outbreak was coming, and, in fact, as was proved later, the very day before the revolution took place, instructions were sent to the U. S. S. Nashville, Boston, and Dixie, then in Southern waters, which read in part: 'Maintain free and uninterrupted transit. If interruption is threatened by armed force, occupy the line of the railroad. Prevent landing of any armed force, either Government or insurgent, within fifty miles of Panama. Government force reported approaching Isthmus in vessels. Prevent their landing if, in your judgment, the landing would precipitate a conflict."

THE UNITED STATES OBSERVED THESE OBLIGATIONS EXACTLY

We thus see how the two obligations of the United States under the Treaty of 1846 were defined by diplomatic correspondence and Governmental action. When on November 3, 1903, forty sailors and marines were landed from the U. S. S. Nashville at Colon, for the purpose of protecting the lives of the American inhabitants which had been threatened by the commander of over four hundred Colombian Government troops and for the purpose of maintaining the neutrality of the line of transit, the United States was simply acting in accordance

with its. first obligation under the Treaty of 1846.

The events which occurred from November 2, 1903, until November 4, the day when the Republic of Panama was declared an accomplished fact, have been completely reported by Commander Hubbard, of the U. S. S. Nashville. This report shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the United States maintained a strictly correct attitude in compliance with her treaty obligations. No troops of either side were permitted to be transported by the Panama Railroad, although the revolutionists in Panama City, having good reason to believe that the Government troops in Colon would take sides with them, as had those in Panama City, requested the American authorities to permit these troops to be transported across the Isthmus:

Thus in refusing to allow the Colombian troops at. Colon to join the revolutionists in Panama the United States was in effect hampering the latter party. The commander of the Government forces, apparently realizing the danger of defection among his troops, embarked them on a passenger vessel and set sail on November 5, 1903, for Cartagena. This left the Isthmus entirely unoccupied by Government forces, as of the three warships in the harbor of Panama City two had gone over to the side of the revolutionary government, while the other, after demonstrating a hostile attitude, had been driven away by gunfire from the shore batteries, and never returned. COLOMBIA UNABLE TO ASSERT SOVEREIGNTY

Two points should be particularly noted here: first, that the Colombian

Government forces withdrew from the Isthmus of their own free will, and under no duress by the United States forces, who were outnumbered ten to one; second, that, although the United States was obligated by its responsibility under the Treaty of 1846 to maintain the neutrality of the line of transit, and therefore prevent any disorder within the vicinity of this line, it did not attempt a show of force on any other part of the Isthmus, notwithstanding which the Government of Colombia made no attempt to subjugate any other part of this extensive territory. From these two facts only one logical deduction can be made, and that is, that the Colombian Government found itself too weak to support the vantage-points it already held on the Isthmus and dared not take the offensive even where it was unopposed.

That this view accurately gauges the facts in the case is definitely proved by the subsequent action of the Bogota Government, which immediately after the revolution by which Panama obtained its independence made another request of the United States to land troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty. This request was made through General Reyes, afterward President of the Republic. President Marroquin (the then President), in making the request, offered, if we would grant it, "to approve by decree" the ratification of the Hay-Herran Treaty as signed, acting thus "by virtue of vested constitutional authority," or, if the Government of the United States preferred, to call an extra session of Congress, "with new

A

SECTION

OF THE PANAMA RAILWAY

This railway necessitating expense of

double transshipment

was the best means of transit for international trade across

the Isthmus before the Canal was

completed

and friendly members to approve the treaty."

These facts were brought out by President Roosevelt in his annual Message to Congress of December 7, 1903. This request is not only an admission on the part of the Colombian Government that all along she had within her power the means to ratify the treaty, but in view of the fact that the request was sent on November 6, 1903, the day after the voluntary withdrawal of the Colombian forces, is also a positive confession of her inability to regain her sovereignty through her own exertion.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON RECOGNITION OF

NEW STATES

The recognition of a new state is a matter of national policy. This policy, however, has been guided more or less by circumstances and the principles enunciated by leading authorities on international law.

Oppenheim says: "The granting or the denial of recognition is not a matter of international law but of international policy. . . . Since, however, the granting of recognition is a matter of policy, and not of law, nothing prevents an old state from making the recognition of a new state dependent upon the latter fulfilling certain conditions. . . .

"In spite of the importance of the question, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the time when it can be said that a state created by revolution has established itself safely and permanently. The characteristic of such safe and permanent establishment may be found either in the fact that the

revolutionary state has utterly defeated the mother state, or that the mother state has ceased to make efforts to subdue... or even that the mother state ... is apparently incapable of bringing the revolutionary state back under its sway."

On the same subject Wheaton lays down the principle that "when a sovereign state, from exhaustion or any other cause, has virtually and substantially abandoned the struggle for supremacy. it has no right to complain if a foreign state treat the independence of its former subjects as de facto established."

THE COURSE OF THE UNITED STATES
IS SANCTIONED

That the action of the United States received general approval among the great nations of the world and many of the lesser ones is demonstrated in Mr. Hay's note of January 5, 1904, to General Reyes, when he states that the following nations had already recognized the Republic of Panama: France, China, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and Norway, Belgium, Nicaragua, Peru, Cuba, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan. It is interesting to note that three of these early recognizers of the new American state were LatinAmerican countries.

When in 1836 Texas won her freedom from Mexico and was later recognized by the United States, the same charges of having instigated the revolt were made against President Jackson as were later made against President Roosevelt in the recognizing of Panama. Von Holst, in his "Constitutional and Political History of the United States," wrote with regard to the recognition of Texas: "It has been objected that at this time It was not yet certain that Texas would be able to perform the duties of an independent state, but the same was true of the United States in 1778 and of the Spanish-American republics when we recognized them, and evidently must often be true in such cases." Does any one to-day think that France should make reparation to Great Britain for having recognized the United States, or that we should make reparation to Spain for having beeh the first country to rec

ognize the independence of the LatinAmerican republics, or to Mexico for having recognized Texas after that state had captured the Mexican President and thus gained its freedom?

GENERAL INTEREST VERSUS SPECIAL

INTEREST

We have thus established on the grounds of international usage and precedent as practiced by the so-called Society of Nations and by its treaty obligations the correctness in attitude and action of the United States in recognizing the new Republic of Panama.

This position is supplemented by a principle in national and international relations which by itself would be sufficient to substantiate the justice of our Government's action with regard to Panama; the great principle which holds that the good of the mass supersedes that of the individual, the principle on

The fact that Panama was satisfied and that the bargain made was legal is witnessed by her prompt ratification of the treaty.

Our three questions have been answered. And by the answers the question as to whether we have done Colombia a wrong, and consequently owe her a money reparation and an apology, has in turn been clearly answered in the negative.

IS FRIENDSHIP FOR SALE?

With regard to the definitive settlement of the Panama matter, another side of the question might be expressed as follows: Although the United States has done Colombia no wrong, and consequently owes her no apology, would a payment of money made to her in recompense for a loss due entirely to her own actions increase true friendship between the United States and Colombia. and between the United States and all other Latin-American states?

True friendship between nations might be defined as a feeling of confidence and respect, which engenders a spirit of international co-operation.

History affords us a clear record of the actions of Colombia in refusing to ratify the treaty which she had agreed to through her accredited representative, Mr. Herran.

Although the reason given by the Colombian Senate for its refusal to ratify the treaty was because it was felt that Colombia would thereby lose sovereignty over a narrow strip of territory across the Isthmus, the real reason is known to be that she decided she wanted more money than the Hay-Herran Treaty allowed her. This has been definitely proved by the course she took when it was apparent that the United States would not accede to an amend ment of the treaty.

The next best thing that suggested itself was to attack the French New Panama Canal Company, which had already signified its willingness to sell to the United States its rights and property on the Isthmus for a certain sum.

The resident agent of the company in Bogota was informed on June 10, 1903, that it would be necessary to pay Colombia $10,000,000, otherwise the treaty would not be ratified, the Canal would not be built, and the holdings of the company would consequently not be bought by the United States.

The New Panama Canal Company with praiseworthy spirit refused to give in to this demand, whereupon a report was submitted, October 14, 1903, to the Colombian Senate suggesting the cancellation of the last extension of time which had been granted, April 26, 1900, to the New Panama Canal Company under the Wyse Concession, and for which the company had paid Colombia a bonus of 50,000 shares of stock valued at $1,000,000.

This would have the effect of causing the company's rights to lapse the following year, at which time they, together with all property owned on the Isthmus by the company, would automatically revert to Colombia. This country would then be in a stronger position to bargain with the United States and could expect to obtain the sum of $40,000,000 which was to have been paid by the United States to the New Panama Canal Company together with the sum named in the Hay-Herran Treaty.

The conclusive proof that Colombia's purpose in withholding ratification was to get a higher price is brought to light in her offer to the United States immediately after the declaration of independence by Panama to ratify the treaty, as it showed beyond a shadow of question that the Colombian administration had had it always within its power to effect ratification.

Certainly this record does not give Colombia the title of having acted according to true friendship in the light of the definition given. On the other hand, it can be said with equal force as regards

the United States that confidence and respect could hardly be felt for it if, having the strength to defend itself, it supinely gave in to another nation when that other nation refused to live up to its agreement simply because it felt it could obtain more money by not doing so.

A SOP OF DISHONOR

The principle of obliging individuals to abide by their agreements is upheld within our country by the contract laws of the different States. This principle in this case is upheld with forceful lucidity by President Wilson when, in replying to an attack made by Colonel Roosevelt on the Administration bill proposing a payment of $25,000,000 to Colombia, he said: "I would be ashamed of this flag if it ever did anything outside of America that we would not permit it to do inside America."

The record clearly shows that the United States has steadfastly abided by its international agreements, while it equally shows that Colombia wished neither to abide by her agreement with the United States under the Hay-Herran Treaty nor to abide by her agreement with the New Panama Canal Company.

The opinions of the Latin-American nations on the justice of the position maintained by the United States was shown in their early recognition of Panama as an independent state.

Bearing all these facts in mind, the only just conclusion that can be arrived at is: That it would be a dishonor to the United States under the circumstances for it to offer a sum of money to Colombia as a sop to her feelings, that it would be dishonorable of Colombia to accept it, and that such action would endanger to both nations the respect and confidence, not only of the Pan-American nations, but of all the civilized nations of the world.

C

ERTAIN good people go to church

from a sense of duty; others, a little less worthy, perhaps, go from habit; but the elect go because they love it. Our mother belongs to this last class, which I am sure I can prove without much difficulty.

It is as well to explain that I speak advisedly when I say "our" mother, rather than "my" mother, for there are five of us, and we have been brought up with such a fine impartiality that it would be arrogance on my part to insinuate for a moment that the other four did not have an equal part in her. We are fortunate in being so united that we share our possessions, our friends, our relatives, and our memories in common. While this necessary explanation was being made our mother has been left-in slang parlance-at the church.

It would be an interesting study to determine whether our mother's passion for church-going is the result of heredity, environment, training, or an innate love of spiritual things. I am inclined to think that all these influences enter in, for in reading our family tree I find that in the seventeenth century certain of our ancestors were hunted over the hills of Scotland as Covenanters; that, being hard pressed by the followers of Claverhouse, our great-great-great-greatgreat-grandparents took refuge in a marsh where the water reached to their necks, while a kindly bush protected their heads from sight.

"I am going to scream," huskily whispered our great-great-great-great-greatgrandmother.

"If you do, I will choke you," firmly, if not gallantly, replied our great-greatgreat-great-great-grandfather, and, as it was before the days of woman's suffrage, she instantly held her peace.

The blood of such ancestors-who sacrificed so much for the sake of going to church-coursing through our mother's veins must surely have been one element in developing our mother's character. As for environment and training, her father and his two brothers were all elders in the old Scotch Church; thirteen members of the family had pews in the same church; one attended regu larly or was asked the reason why. Lastly, at that period church-going was considered a privilege, not a burden. Modern thought lays stress on the power of mental suggestion particularly in the training of children; our grandparents used it, emphasizing it sometimes with the point of a slipper.

I would not perjure myself by affirming that at the early age when our mother was first conducted to church she sat entranced by the firstly, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, and finally, my beved brethren, of the eloquent Scotch

theologian in the pulpit. Like the taste for olives, love for church grew with the sampling. Our mother now confesses that her attention often wandered, so, to pass the weary moments, she named the family who sat in front of her Mr. and Mrs. Sippi and Miss Ourri; this game became so real that in after years she learned with surprise that they had some quite ordinary name, like Smith or Brown, and she was proportionately disappointed.

Brought up in the midst of such surroundings, what was more natural than that she should marry a minister? No mere man could resist the subtle charm of such a listener,, who was wont to say with David, "I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go unto the house of the Lord." For fifteen happy years our mother lived under the shadow of the church on the hilltop, and only illness or the care of a young baby kept her from regular attendance there. In those days church-going became a duty, a habit, and a pleasure, so that instinctively she felt for her hat-pins at the first peal of the church bell.

When the home in our village was broken up and our mother was forced to go out and meet the world with her fatherless children, one great principle was adhered to in our training: illness was the only excuse that was allowed to keep us from church. No matter where we were in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the islands of the sea-to church we went, and if any recreant sea captain failed to read the morning service on one Sunday he did it the next, and did it willingly. I would not for a moment infer that our mother is one of those managing women who fifteen minutes after they enter a hospital or ocean liner attempt to show those who are in charge how it should be run. Hers is a timid, retiring nature, but when one of her principles is involved she becomes as bold as a lion and her manner of asking is so pleasing, so convincing, that her desire is quickly accomplished.

Thanks to her habit of church-going, our mother has given to us a store of recollections that the large majority of travelers never gather. Who that has attended the military service at St. Giles's Cathedral in Edinburgh, or heard the even-song at Canterbury in the twilight, when the arches spring upward into the darkness and the organ rolls forth its great chords, or seen a mass held in Notre Dame with its incense and its candles, or wended his way through the meadows blue with forget-me-nots to the little church at Chamonix under the shadow of the snow-crowned monarch, or sought out the primitive church at Athens which looks upward to the Acropolis, can ever forget it? If these

associations are pleasant, what about the more sacred ones in the Holy Land when on the shores of the Sea of Galilee a little handful of Christians turn their thoughts backward to the first perfect sermon preached to waiting expectant crowds? What a contrast in India to go down to the Ganges and see the burning ghats, the bathing lepers, the pilgrims drinking beside them, the filthy mire of the Golden Temple, and then to attend the orderly, dignified service held in the English Church; in China to brush against the ragged, dirty mobs that crowd the narrow street and be ushered into a clean although plain building, where the very expression of the worshipers seems to set them apart from the throng outside; or in Japan to sit on the hard benches that serve as pews and listen to the roar of the river as it rushes past the statues of the hundred Buddhas or the music of the bells as they boom forth from the temple court near by, and then hear the voice of the clergyman repeat, "Be still and know that I am God." Yes, thanks to our mother, we have many beautiful memories.

All this is true, but it does not prove the point that our mother goes to church because she loves it, and not from habit or a sense of duty. I must turn to still another rustic church to do that.

Years ago we were accustomed to spend our summers at an attractive mountain village in New England. We stayed at a farmhouse situated on a gem of a lake surrounded by lovely wooded hills. The village where the tiny church stood lay on the far side of the lake and could be reached most directly by a boat or more circuitously by a pretty road that bordered the water. Our mother held, as always, to the belief that it was right to attend not only church but Sunday school, for she felt in this way we could encourage the efforts of our country friends, who were having a hard struggle to keep up the services.

On the last Sunday of our stay, one matchless autumn day when the foliage was at its height and all nature lured one into the open, our brother dutifully asked our mother if he could take her to church in the canoe. She jumped at the chance and, arrayed in her best, walked down to the wharf, where our brother was waiting in his canoe. No one ever knew exactly how it happened, but as our mother stepped on board the canoe slipped aside and she sat down quickly, not in the canoe, but in the chilly water. Fortunately, it was not deep, and she was able to walk to shore, but in such a state that it was impossible for her to proceed. After seeing that she was safe, our brother, being absolutely sure in his mind that her ardor for church was thoroughly damp

ened for one day, paddled gayly off in order not to be late. At the church door he explained what had happened, and we filed in, certain in our minds that the incident was closed. But it was not, oh dear, no! Just before the sermon there was a stir in the back of the church, a well-known step was heard coming up the aisle, and before our astonished eyes our mother walked into the pew. She had changed her raiment from head to foot and then, late as it was, walked the distance around by the lake. If ever any woman had an excuse for staying home from church, our mother had that day. When she did not avail herself of it, we were finally and forever convinced that she went to church because she loved it.

The day had a fitting climax, as some days do.

"I am going to put a five-dollar bill in the collection," our mother announced to us before Sunday school. "I feel that they are a struggling, worthy people and they need encouragement." Our mother sometimes found it necessary to announce moves like this in advance, for her hilarious offspring, if taken unawares, were apt to nudge each other or cough or otherwise draw undesirable attention to the modest lady's deeds of charity.

All went well; but when the collection Iwas taken up I, for one, could not forbear watching what happened. After the bill had been placed in as inconspicuous a place as could be found on a very bare plate, the usher proceeded up the aisle, and in each class where he stopped there was a pause and then a stir. When the time arrived for the counting of the offering, I saw the heads of the treasurer, secretary, and superin

tendent close together in earnest conversation. At length the moment came to announce the amount.

"The collection to-day is five dollars and sixteen cents," proclaimed the superintendent in a ringing voice.

"P-H-E-W-!" came in a long low whistle of surprise from the entire infant class. "I think it would be a desirable thing to give a vote of thanks to our city visitors who have helped us so much this summer," he continued.

The vote was taken, all hands going up except, of course, those of the blushing summer visitors.

"The vote is almost unanimous," the worthy superintendent announced.

I do not know what happened after that or how we got down the aisle or out of the church without disgracing ourselves. It required more self-control than we have used before or since, but when we reached the quiet wood road, free from hearers of our unholy mirth, the forests rang. Throughout the day whenever our laughter had subsided for a few moments all one had to do to bring it on again was to murmur quietly, "The vote was almost unanimous."

In reviewing our mother's passion what has impressed me most is the fact that it has increased with her years. She might allow her children to remain at home on the plea of ill health, but never herself; and it has required threats, entreaties, and sometimes even tears to keep her from church when she ought to have been in bed.

This last summer has given a forceful illustration of this fact. One July Sunday she dressed early for church, as is her wont, and, looking very sweet in her gray dimity, she sallied forth with her

granddaughter as her companion. At the top of the porch steps her foot slipped and she fell headlong, hanging there head downwards until she was rescued by the frightened household. They helped her up and placed her in a chair, sending a messenger for her son, who is a surgeon, to come at once. He was there almost on the instant, and found her an alarming spectacle. A large bruise was fast closing one eye, the blood streamed down her face from a cut on the nose that had gone through to the bone, and her arm was also cut and bruised almost to the bone. Not a groan did she utter while her wounds were being dressed, but when she pulled herself together she looked anxiously up into her son's face.

"You will let me go to church, will you not?" she pleaded.

"You wouldn't want to go, mother, if you could see yourself," was the reply. When she had looked into a mirror, she didn't.

"Your mother is a good sport," is how our brother-in-law, in his terse British way, summed up the situation.

Yes, she is that, and a great many other things as well. She is the haven of refuge for all who are in distress; no one ever comes to her for comfort and turns way unsatisfied. I do not want to be pedantic nor a dry moralist of the ancient order, and yet there is something in me that somehow knows that the strength and encouragement that my mother gives so freely to others she gets herself in the quiet hours spent in church, where she so dearly loves to go; and I am sure that William James himself-if he could be consulted-would concur in this opinion.

HAD heard a good deal about the world's contempt for the young col

actually hunting my first position did I see the picture clearly and in focus. I even smiled as I walked down C Street at a cover of the "Saturday Evening Post" depicting a terribly young, slender boy wearing a cap and gown and a supercilious expression as he placed one possessive hand on a globe of the world beside him, and the other on his hip.

"All mine," he seemed to be saying. But I smiled simply because the picture was So untrue that it was funny. "Surely people don't think that because we have spent four years training our minds and earning our degrees we are therefore conquerors of the world, in our own estimation," I thought. But I was soon to learn.

And, oddly enough, the first place to show me was an employment office for college women. Here advice was given me by a very clever white-haired, youngeyed woman. And the gist of the advice was simply that I would find it

difficult to get a job in the business world if I said anything about my B.A. I was to try, first of all, to sell my services; last of all to mention the fact of my four years' study in college. I was told the story, which I had heard many times before, of the antagonism aroused by the young person who thinks he knows it all, who wants to begin at the top, who is overconfident and bold and tactless because of his degree. This person always had interested me, because I had never met him. I have not met him to this day. Where is he?

I accepted the advice and acted accordingly. Never a bold, brazen pirate in any case, as an observer with half an eye could see, I now concealed my B.A. as though it were a bomb. And after I had had a few conversations with business men and employers I concealed it as though it were two bombs! A convict couldn't have kept his four years in Sing Sing in the shadow of silence any more than I hid my four years in college. And I got my job.

Leaning back in his swivel chair, Mr.

Jones surveyed me. The deal had been closed. I was to report on Monday. Gripping my courage to the sticking point, I said: "Mr. Jones, there is one thing I ought to tell you."

"What is it?"

I dropped the bomb. "I am a college graduate."

He frowned and asked me to be seated once more.

"I would like to tell you a little story," he began. "It may be useful to you. I knew a young fellow once. Just out of college. Thought he knew about all there was to know. Looked around to select the profession he would honor by his toil, and finally chose the lumber business because he knew a man in it who was making millions. He went to this man and told him he'd consider taking a job in his plant. Told him all his qualifications, saving his greatest attraction for the last. Said, 'Besides all this I am a college graduate. I've just finished R. The lumberman was silent for some time. Then he said: 'I'll hire you, anyway, my boy. You may