F 
 
 1569 
 
 C2C88 
 
 CROMWELL 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 7 
 3 
 4 
 4 
 7 
 
 
 
 ; o 
 : en 
 : o 
 
 So 
 
 : 33 
 
 ! -< 
 
 lETlER OF WIVl NELSON 
 CROMWELL TO HON i VAN 
 VECHTCN OLCOTT
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 LETIER 
 
 OF 
 
 WM. NELSON CROMWELL 
 
 TO 
 
 HON. J. VAN VECHTEN OLCOTT, 
 
 Member of Congress from New York, 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 Panama Canal Matters. 
 
 Dated February 4, 1909.
 
 
 ? 
 
 LETTER 
 
 OF - 
 
 WM. NELSON CEOMWELL 
 
 TO 
 
 HON. J. VAN YECHTEN OLCOTT, 
 
 Member of Congress from New York, 
 
 CONCERNING PANAMA CANAL MATTERS. 
 
 JVeiv York, February 4f/>, 1909. 
 . My Dear Sir : 
 
 A few days ago, RepreseDtative Rainey of Illiuois, deliv- 
 ^^ ered on the floor of the House an address coucerniuo; Panama 
 c*V^ Canal matters and the Republic of Panama, slanderous in 
 ' character, aifectiug not only myself and other citizens in pri- 
 *? vate life, but the President of the Republic of Panama and 
 :t<. distinguished officials of the United States. 
 
 Barricaded safely behind the walls of Congress, Mr. 
 Rainey is immune under the Constitution from prosecution 
 for his false statements. But the relations of the United 
 States to the Panama Canal and to the sister Republic of 
 Panama are of such national and international concern that I 
 consider it my duty to place before you, as a Representative 
 in Congress from my home city, the facts of the case in refuta- 
 tion of the statements referred to for such use as you may con- 
 sider advisable. 
 
 During the recent national election, and with the manifest 
 purpose of injuring the Republican Administration under 
 which the Panama Canal had been acquired, various malicious 
 stories concerning the acquisition of the Panama Canal b}^ the 
 United States were offered for sale to, and considered by, the 
 National Democratic Committee as campaign material, and were 
 hawked about for sale to various newspapers. Finally certain 
 newspapers gave them libellous currency, and it was 
 announced in The New' York World of October 23, 1908, 
 that " Under an agreement reached with Democratic leaders 
 to-day, Representive Rainey of Illinois wall, on the first
 
 2 
 
 day of the session (of Cougress) introduce a resolutiou 
 calling for the appointment of a special committee to 
 investigate the matter " and Representative Eainej is quoted 
 as saying : 
 
 " I am sorry the President's letter to Secretary Knox did 
 not clear up the mjstery surrounding the Panama Canal 
 deal. He ought to be able to tell whether or not his 
 brother-in-law Douglas Robinson and the brother of the 
 Republican candidate were interested in the American 
 Syndicate which succeeded in getting control of the 
 securities of the Panama Canal Company just before the 
 Nicaragua Route was mysteriously abandoned." 
 
 The gentleman carried out this pre-arranged plan and 
 immediately upon the opening of the session introduced a 
 resolutiou of inquiry-. 
 
 The authors of these infamous stories are now under inves- 
 tigation in the criminal courts of the District of Columbia 
 and of New York. 
 
 During the past decade no subject has been 
 more prominently before the American public, more 
 thoroughly investigated and discussed, more under the 
 scrutiny of Congress and the investigations of its com- 
 jnittees than the question of the selection of the Canal 
 route and the acquisition and purchase of the Panama 
 Canal. It was to be anticipated that such a vast 
 affair, requiring such enormous expenditures, would be more 
 or less the subject of criticism, but every citizen should be 
 proud of the fact that not a single improper charge has been 
 substantiated and that there is no basis whatever for criticism 
 against the Government, its officials, any one in public life or 
 any one in any way identified with the negotiations for the 
 acquisition of the CanaL The whole record is one of which 
 the American people and every one identified with the subject 
 matter may feel sincere pride. 
 
 As to myself, I have already made, in an extended answer 
 before Congress and in other public statements complete 
 refutation of these unworthy stories, and in which I have
 
 stated, and ap;ain repeat, tli;it not a dollar of the $40,000,000 
 l)aid to the French Companies or the $10,000,000 paid to the 
 Republic of Panama was ever received, directly or indirectly, 
 by me, save moderate professional compensation officially 
 audited and approved and a matter of official record ; and, 
 furthermore, that I never have had a penny's interest in any 
 business affair in the Republic of Panama, save only a minority 
 interest in the shares of a local light company in the City 
 of Panama, which investment I made iii cash, at par, a few 
 years ago, upon the earnest invitation of citizens of Panama to 
 encourage a local enterprise, and which affair has nothing to 
 do with the United States. As the unsupported statements 
 of the gentlemen from Illinois are mainly a rehash, in cheap 
 imitation, of speeches made by others and of the libellous 
 articles of the New York World, and as all these have been 
 exjoloded as fallacies, it ought not to be necessary for me to 
 again expose them, but I shall do so later on in this communi- 
 cation. I am unwilling, too, as counsel of the Republic of 
 Panama, to ])ermit the fair name of the eminent President of 
 that Republic to be brought in question, without ]iersoually 
 bearing testimony to the facts, and calling attention to this 
 injustice and this breach of international propriety. 
 
 Don Domingo De Obaldia has lived his sixtj-four years in 
 the public eye of his country, Colombia and Panama, as a 
 gentleman of the highest accomplishments and refinement ; 
 he comes of a family which for generations have sat in the 
 councils of their nation ; and is universally recognized by his 
 countrymen as the highest type of personal honor and political 
 purity and patriotism. He is a very rare type of gentleman 
 and would do honor to any country in the world and is uni- 
 versally beloved and respected by his people. He is also a 
 sincere admirer of this nation and its institutions. It was 
 his independence and patriotism which made him stand out 
 alone as the only Senator in th*^ Colombian Congress who had 
 the courage to vote in favor of the Hay-Herran Treaty, as an 
 open and courageous advocate of the interests of the 
 Isthmus. It was he who thrice in public speeches in 
 the Senate at Bogota, in the course of that debate, 
 warned his fellow countrymen that if the treaty were rejected 
 the Department of Panama wouhl revolt. It was doubless in 
 recognition of his devotion to the Isthmus and his lofty char-
 
 acter that he was selected as First Vice-President of the new 
 Republic, and that justified the general expectation that he 
 would be the natural successor to President Amador, whose 
 advanced age precluded the possibility of his re-election. It 
 was this gentleman wlio was made Minister at Washington a 
 few months after the independence of the Republic, and whom 
 all official life in Washington will remember for his charms 
 of person and character. He was called home in Ma}-, 1907, 
 to become acting President during the six months vacation of 
 President Amador, but in general expectation of his succeed- 
 ing to the Presidency. In this expectation there was at that 
 period no public difference and President Amador himself 
 openly stated it at that time, as his individual preference for 
 his friend of forty years intimacy. However, not long before 
 the date fixed for the national election another distinguished 
 citizen, holding the ofiice of Secretary of State, Mr. Arias, 
 became a candidate and questions ai-ose as to the validity of 
 the proceedings upon the approaching election. Sworn rep- 
 resentatiwS^ere made to Secretary Tat't, bj- various com- 
 mittees, of both political parties, indicating that if the validity 
 of the election should b« brought in question, public disorder 
 would follow, endangering the property of the Canal and the in- 
 terests of the United States, as well as the peace of the Republic. 
 This was the leason for the necessarj- consideration of the 
 subject by Secretary Taft. 
 
 As a result of friendly conferences between the highest 
 ofiicials of both Governments, a hapj)y solution was found in 
 the proposal by the Panama Government to itself establish a 
 Commission of Electoral Inquiry, and to invite the United 
 States to have representatives, without any judicial functions, 
 accompany that Commission in its investigations. By this 
 means the crisis was averted and the national election pro- 
 ceeded in an orderl}^ manner. Mr. Arias, for reasons of his 
 own, withdrew his candidacy on the eve of the election, and 
 Mr. Obaldia was elected. 
 
 Protocols for treaties between the United States, Panama 
 and Colombia had been signed at Washington in August, 1907, 
 but in preparing the treaties certain questions arose requiring 
 examination on the Isthmns relating to bouudar}^ etc. In 
 May, 1908, Secretary Taft was going to the Isthmus upon 
 Canal matters and his visit was availed of to arrange for con-
 
 ference upon certain treaty subjects. AccorcliDgly, Minister 
 Araiigo, then at Washington, and myself as Panama Counsel, 
 proceeded to the Istlimus in advance of Secretary Taft and 
 when he arrived conferences were held between him and tlie 
 American Minister on the one part and the officials of the Re- 
 public of Panama and myself on the <jther, concerning certain 
 treat}- subjects. It was while there on this treaty mission and 
 without any anticipation in advance, that the question of the 
 national election arose, and was happily solved, as I have 
 stated. 
 
 It is apparent, therefore, that President Obaldia was not 
 forced upon the people of Panama by this Government or by 
 any other agency ; and that he was the free choice of his 
 conntrymen ; that the action of Secretary Taft was states- 
 manlike, prudent, friendly and greatly beneficial to both coun- 
 tries ; and that any statement to the conti'ary by whomsoever 
 made, on or off the floor of the House, is unqualifiedly false 
 and unwarranted. 
 
 To give some color of truth to his remarks, the gentle- 
 man from Illinois states that President Obaldia and I have 
 been closely identified with each other for ten years past. I wish 
 to sa}^ that it would have been an added pleasure if I had 
 known him that long, but this statement, like the others, is 
 untrue. I never had the honor of President Obaldia's ac- 
 quaintance, or any communication of any kind wath him, either 
 while he was at Bogota or on the Isthmus, either before the 
 Independence or after it, until lie came to Washington as the 
 Minister of that Republic in June, 11)04. 
 
 Of the gross impropriety and international discourtesy of 
 statements upon the floor of Congress affecting the esteem 
 of the people of the United States for the Chief Magistrate of 
 a sister Republic, and the confidence of the people of that 
 country in the Government of this country, no American 
 citizen can have any doubt, and when beside, such allega- 
 tions have no foundation in fact, no w^ords of condemnation of 
 such conduct can be too severe. And further wdien that sister 
 Republic is the grantor of the concessions under which the 
 Canal is being constructed, and when that great highway lies 
 in the territory of that sister Republic and to an important 
 degree under its protection, the offense becomes a direct injury 
 a,nd peril to the property and interests of the United States, as
 
 6 
 
 calculated to impair the confidence of the people of that Ee- 
 piiblic iu the friendship and good will of our people. I have 
 frequently stated that in my judgment the good will, friend- 
 ship and support of the Kepublic of Panama is the best guar- 
 anty of the safety and protection of the Canal. The continua- 
 tion of such good-will and friendship is of paramount import- 
 ance to this country, and anyone who Avillfully does anything 
 calculated to impair it becomes a public enemy. 
 
 II. 
 
 Keferring to the statement made upon the floor of the 
 House that; the Republic of Panam? is entertaining proposi- 
 tions for the construction of a railroad within its territory, and 
 the sale of timber from public lands, it is proper to say that 
 these sul)jects are exclusively within the business and juris- 
 diction of the Republic of Panama and are not the subject of 
 action by the Congress of any other nation. The Republic 
 of Panania is fully competent, acting through its Executive 
 and through its own Congress, to deal with such affairs which 
 concern itself alone. The consideration of the Congress of any 
 other country of any such questions local to Panama, is not 
 justified by any principle of international law or any rule of 
 international courtesy or ethics ; but for the information of 
 yourself and my fellow citizens, I wish to declare that I have 
 not and never have had, any interest or participation, directly 
 or indirectly, in either of the propositions referred fo, nor am 
 I professionally or in any wa}^ a party to or interested in 
 either of the proposed affairs and have taken no part in them ; 
 and to make this a matter of unquestionable knowledge on the 
 Isthmus I forwarded the following cable to President Obaldia : 
 
 " New York, Jan. 29, 1909. 
 President Obaldia, 
 
 Presidencia, Panama. 
 In view of statements made in Congress by Represen- 
 tative Rainey of Illinois respecting railroad and timber propo- 
 sitions recently under consideration by the Panama Govern- 
 ment and Legislature, I beg leave to state that I am not and 
 never have been iu any manner directly or indirectly, presently 
 or prospectively interested iu eitlier of the proposed affairs or
 
 auy other railroad or timber proposition whatsoever in the 
 Republic of Panama. 
 
 Please do me the favor to give this statement the fullest 
 pul)licity. 
 
 Wm. Nelsox Cromwell." 
 
 It was i)ublished at Panama. 
 
 I do not wish to be understood as in any way dealing with 
 the merits of these subjects concerning which, moreover, I 
 have no information or knowledge of any kind, one way or the 
 other. But the gentleman from Illinois bases his unwarranted 
 introduction of my name (and those of others) in ccmnection 
 with said railroad and timber propositions, upon alleged state- 
 ments by Mr. John Elirman (a well known banker of Panama) 
 or of President Obaldia, at a certain conference at the Palace 
 on the night of December 27, 1907. The gentleman makes the 
 following specific statement in his speech of January 26. 
 
 " On Sunday night, the 27th day of December, Obaldia 
 called to his pahxce certain members of the General Assembly, 
 and they then and at that time time demanded of him to know 
 who the men were back of John Ehrman, representing that 
 John Elirman had no particular financial standing ; and at that 
 time they were told that the men who were back of this in- 
 famous, outrageous scheme were William Nelson Cromwell, 
 Eoger L. Farnharn, his confidential clerk, W. S. Harvey, and 
 Charles P. Taft." 
 
 He regards this as a vital and conclusive point in the case 
 he manufactures by again repeating it word for word on the 
 floor of the House, on the 29th of February, as well as in his 
 interviews in the press. 
 
 I shall show in a moment that this is a complete fabrica- 
 tion, unworthy of any member of such a distinguished body. 
 
 This is made out of whole cloth and is false. 
 
 The conference in question was participated in by the 
 President, his Cabinet and seventeen members of the Assem- 
 bly. I present the following cables from every gentleman 
 present at that conference, and also one from Mr. John 
 Ehrman, which shows 
 
 First. That Mr. John Ehrman was not present at all at said 
 conference and consequently did not make the statement quoted. 
 
 Second. That no American or other outsider was present at 
 the conference.
 
 8 
 
 Third. That at said conference no mention was ever made 
 by the President or any other person of the names of myself 
 and the other gentlemen mentioned. 
 
 Fourth. That Mr. Ehrmau himself specifically declares 
 that not only did he not make the statement quoted by Mr. 
 Eainey, but that in fact myself and the others named were not 
 connected with the parties interested with him in the affair. 
 
 The cables are as follows : 
 
 Panama, January 31, 1909. 
 
 Manuel Obaldia, 
 
 Hotel Latham, N. Y. 
 
 I was not present at conference at Presidencia December 
 27th therefore have never made statement to Diputados re- 
 lating to parties interested in timber proposition who have no 
 conuection with Charles Taft, Cromwell or Faruham. So I 
 have never mentioned them to anybod}-. 
 
 (John) Juan Ehrman. 
 
 Jany. 31, 1909. 
 
 Manuel OBALorA, 
 
 Hotel Latham, N. Y. 
 
 My attitude while in Colombian Congress in 1903 and my 
 entire public life are far beyond the reach of slanderers. 
 
 Amador Arias government was not overthrown but after 
 expiration of constitutional term was defeated in free elections 
 Avhich freedom of suflfrage was due to the presence of the 
 Americans at polls specially invited to do so by Amador Arias 
 government as it is shown by official communication published 
 and in accordance with article 136 of Panamanian constitution. 
 
 At conference at Presidencia December 27th were present 
 the members of the cabinet and seventeen diputados. Neither 
 Ehru)an nor any other outsider was present and no mention 
 was ever made by me or by any other person of Charles Taft, 
 Cromwell or Farnham in regard to timber proposition which 
 was brought betore them for consideration. Railway proposi- 
 tion presented by Ward to assembly was considered and rejected. 
 Assembly passed a law authorizing to construct railroads with 
 public funds said roads to be national property. 
 
 Timber contract with Ehrman was rejected by Assembly 
 and there is a bill under consideration regulating forest exploi- 
 tation on the Atlantic Coast between Eive Concepcion and 
 Costa Rica including the entire Chagres valley. 
 
 (President) Obaldia.
 
 Panama, February, 1, 1909. 
 
 Manuel Obaldia, 
 
 Hotel Latham. 
 
 We, the nudersigued, Diputados to the National Assembly 
 of Panama, declare that we were present at the conference that 
 took place at the Presidencia on the 27th of December last and 
 affirm that in said conference neither President Obaldia nor 
 anybody else stated that Messrs. Taft, Cromwell or Farnham 
 had any interest or participation in the timber aifair proposed 
 to the Government of the Republic. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 Pablo Aeosemena 
 
 Julio J. Fabrega 
 
 Hector Conte B 
 
 Corll\no Guardia 
 
 Antonio Burgos, (President of 
 
 Assembly) 
 R. AizpURU 
 S. Sucre 
 
 GoNZALo Santos K 
 Isaac Delgado 
 Jose D. Guardia 
 Jose E. Lefevre 
 E. A. Morales 
 Demetrio Dutaey 
 Jeronimo Garcia 
 Simon Esquivel 
 Jose M. Sotomayer 
 Ignacio Quinzada 
 
 This disposes of the personal question. 
 
 But it also is shown how the Railway and Timber jDroposi- 
 tions were in fact dealt with by the Panamanian Congress. 
 
 1st. That Mr. Ward's railroad proposition was rejected by 
 Congress and that Oongress passed a law for the construction 
 of a raih'oad as Government property. 
 
 2nd. That Mr. Ehrman's timber proposition was rejected 
 by Congress and that Congress has under consideration a bill 
 regulating forest exploitation in the national interest 
 
 Thus not only is the gentleman from Illinois convicted of 
 making statements which are uutrue in fact, but it is clearly 
 shown how conservatively the Nation has acted.
 
 10 
 
 III. 
 
 lusinuations made against the financial integrity and 
 metiiods of the Republic of Panama are made by the 
 geotleman referred to. 
 
 I remind ^-on that by Article 138 of the Constitution of 
 Panama, it is provided that : 
 
 " In order to guarantee to posterity a part of the pecuniary 
 benefits derived from the negotiation for the opening of the in- 
 teroceanic canal, the sum of six million dolhirs is to be reserved 
 which wj]] be inverted into securities producing a fixed annual 
 revenue. The law will regulate this inversion." 
 
 I presented to the Senate Committee in February. 1906, a 
 detailed memorandum showing the investment and disposition 
 of the entile .$10,000,000 paid by the United States to the Re- 
 public of Panama, and I am glad of the opportunity to state 
 that the investment of .$6,000,000 in first mortgages upon high 
 class improved property in the City of New York, remains 
 intact. All these funds are caied for and safe-guarded in the 
 most scrupulous manner, and there is now thus invested and 
 on deposit in the Trust Companies in New York City, at inter- 
 est, the aggregate sum of $7,249,014.23, in addition to its cash 
 in Panama. Every dollar of this stands in the name of the 
 Republic of Panama. No disbursements are made from these 
 funds without the direct order of the Government of Panama. 
 The accounting betw^eeu New York and the Repuolic of Pan- 
 ama is systematic and perfect, and the disbursement of every 
 dollar of these funds is published at regular and frequent inter- 
 vals by the Minister of Finance of the Government of Panama 
 in the Official Gazette, and is thus made known to all the 
 citizens of that countrj'. 
 
 The management of the Panama Government is prudent 
 and the ]}ational funds are zealously guarded. It is proud of 
 the position which it occupies at being perhaps the only civil- 
 ized country which has not a dollar of debt and which has a 
 substantial cash reserve. It has also placed itself upon a gold 
 basis by voluntarily creating a cash fund now on deposit with 
 the trust companies of the City of New York, in the name of 
 the Republic, representing the difierence in value betw^een the
 
 11 
 
 silver currency and the ^okl coin. No people could manifest 
 naore clearly their high standard of financial honor and their 
 worthy ambition to be ranked among the best of the world. 
 The young republic is worthy the respect, confidence and 
 praise of their American brethren, and improper insinuations 
 against its conduct on the floor of the House are not only im- 
 proper as a matter of international courtesy, but grossly false 
 in fact. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The pendii'g treaties between Panama, Colombia and the 
 United States have been referred to as furthering in some 
 mysterious way an improper purpose. As counsel for 
 the Republic of Panama, permit me to say that 
 after the independence four fundamental questions 
 remained for adjustment between Panama and Colombia, 
 as is usual in cases of separation of territory ; 
 as was the case between United States and Great Britain, be- 
 tween Colombia and other South American Rejjublics sep- 
 arated from Spain, and many other well known instances. 
 These involved the establishment of the precise boundary be- 
 tween Panama and Colombia ; the ascertainment of the pro- 
 portion of the foreign debt of Colombia which should be 
 borne by the separating republic and the adjustment of other 
 pecuniary relations ; commercial, extradition, postal arbitra- 
 tion and other relations, as well as the formal recognition by 
 Colombia, itself, of the Independence of Panama as had been 
 done by all other civilized nations. The United States, was 
 of course, deeply concerned in promoting these ends and by 
 request of Colombia and Panama lent its good offices as 
 mediator. These negotiations were, with much vicissitude, 
 pursued for over two years, when, on August 17, 1907, proto- 
 cols for treaties were formally signed at Washington. But 
 fresh differences arose in the preparation of the treaties them- 
 selves and it was only on the 9th day of January, 1909, com- 
 plete accord was reached and the treaties were signed. 
 
 This happy result is one of portentious significance in 
 United States and South American affairs. It re-establishes 
 cordial diplomatic and commercial relations ; it determines 
 vexatious questions of boundary lines and pecuniary obliga-
 
 12 
 
 tious ; and furuishes to all South America a practical illustra- 
 tion of the fraternal attitude and friendly disposition of the 
 United States. 
 
 When the Hay-Herran Tieaty was pending before the 
 Colombian Congress in 1903 and when that Government 
 demanded of my French clients the equivalent of $20,000,000 
 in cash as the price of its consent to the sale of the Company's 
 property to the United States, it was my duty to oppose that 
 demand, and I did so ; but since the Independence I have been 
 earnestly devoted to the establishment between Panama and 
 Colombia of the relations embodied in these treaties. 
 
 It is this beneficent result which constitutes to the mind of 
 the member from Illinois an inscrutible and unfathomable 
 depth of mystery and mischief. 
 
 V. 
 
 iVlthough the jiurchase of the Panama Canal properties was 
 fully and satisfactorily concluded in May, 1904, and although 
 every step has been reported to Congress, the heat of party 
 conflict in the recent national campaign induced the publica- 
 tion of the false stories to wliicli I first alluded concerning the 
 _ j)^^i'chase of the Canal. I made this the subject of an explicit 
 ]3ublic statement on December 11, 1908, which was transmitted 
 by the President to Congress in connection with his message 
 on December 15, 1908. Permit me emphatically to reiterate 
 every statement by me therein made, and for that purpose I at- 
 tach a copy hereto. There is no obscurity or uncertainty 
 about any aspect of the Canal purchase. The indubitable 
 records exist and are open to all who are entitled to see them. 
 
 You are aware that prior to 1899 the peoi:)le of the United 
 States had not given the Panama Canal serious consideration, 
 although work upon it was steadily progressing by the French 
 Company, with several thousand laborers. But in March of 
 that year Congress created a new Commission (the Walker Com- 
 mission) and then for the first time an examination was made 
 of the Panama Route and the concessions, work, plant and 
 other affairs of the Panama Canal and railroad. This exam- 
 ination was made during six weeks daily sessions in 
 Paris by the Commission as a body, and subsequently by
 
 13 
 
 many moiatlis exauiinntiou on the Tstlniuis with a corps 
 of eiigiueei'S. I can state without fear of contradiction 
 that the menjbers of the Commission were greatly sur])rised 
 and most favorably impressed with the result of their 
 investigations and the superiority of the Panama Route over 
 that of Nicaragua, which had theretofore been popularly con- 
 sidered the preferable one. No unprejudiced person can read 
 the Commission's reports and the subsequent testimony of its 
 members before the Committees of the Senate and House 
 without being satisfied that the Commission were of this 
 opinion. But the law under Avhich they acted required them 
 to recommend the route " most practical)le and feasible " and 
 which could be " under the control, management and owner- 
 ship of the United States." This included, therefore, not only 
 technical superiority and feasibility, 1)ut also the practicability 
 of the United States controlhng, managing and owning the 
 same. In other words, that while the Panama Route might be 
 the superior and "feasible" route from a technical stand- 
 point, it would not be a practicable one for the purposes of 
 the United States, if it could not be acquired upon satisfac- 
 tory terms and ])laced under the " control, management and 
 ownership of the United States " ; and that therefore the two 
 elements, fecmhility and practicability, must co-exist. 
 
 For this reason, as their reports state, the Commission 
 requested the Panama Canal Company, in September, 1899, to 
 state the price and terms upon which it would sell the Canal 
 properties in case the United States should adopt the Panama 
 Route. 
 
 The French Company, while furnishing every facility in 
 France and upon the Isthmus for the most minute inspection 
 of its plans and work was reluctant to sell upon any terms, or 
 to abandon the completion of the Canal as a French enter- 
 prise. The correspondence reported to Congress by the Com- 
 mission shows a series of letters upon the part of the Commis- 
 sion addressed to the Panama Canal Company urging a reply 
 to the request that the Company declare whether it was will- 
 ing at all to sell, and if so the price at which it would sell. For 
 more than a year and a half the Company steadily refrained 
 from making any definite rejDly to this request. The Company 
 sent to this country its President, who thereafter personally 
 conducted the conferences with the Commission and furnished
 
 14 
 
 appraisements and valuations of $109,000,000 as a basis for 
 discussion. Finall}', in November, 1901, the Commission an- 
 nouncing that it was unable to procure a definite offer from the 
 French Company, closed the debate by re-making a report 
 (November 16, 1901) in favor of the Nicaragua Route, upon 
 the ground that it was not " practicable " to acquire from the 
 French Company the Panama Canal and bring it under the 
 " control, management and ownership of the United States,' 
 and they set forth the voluminous correspondence with the , 
 President of the Comj)any describing their efforts in that 
 regard. 
 
 Upon Page 103 of their report the Commission fixed the 
 sum of%Jf.O,000,000 as the value to the United States of the 
 Panama Cnmpanijs properties (including about 98% of the 
 Railroad shares) as it then stood, giving the items thereof in 
 detail, but taking no account of the valuable concessions 
 owned by the Company and which cost the Company alto- 
 gether over $3,000,000, nor the vast amount of locomotives, 
 cars, tools, machinery, supplies, dredges and other plant 
 which cost many millions of dollars and considerable of which 
 has since been utilized by the United States. 
 
 At this point I call attention to another misstatement of 
 the gentleman from Illinois. He says that when the Colombian 
 Congress was demanding from the Canal Company some por- 
 tion of the $40,000,000, the franchise granted to the Canal 
 Company expired in less than a year and at that time the 
 entire French holdings on the Isthmus would be forfeited to 
 Colombia. This, too, is false. The Canal franchises had at 
 that time (October, 1903) still seven years to run (Oct. 31, 
 1910) and the Railroad Concessions had sixty-six years to 
 run (1969). 
 
 In view of the Commission's report recommending the 
 Nicaragua Route and the state of legislation in Congress, the 
 Panama Company cabled to the Commission on January 4,. 
 1902 (confirmed January 9, 1902) as follows : 
 
 u * * * The Company declares itself ready to transfer 
 to the Government of the United States on payment of forty 
 million dollars its properties and concessions estimated at that 
 amount by the Isthmian Canal Commission in its last Report, 
 Page 103, in conformity with the terms and conditions of said 
 Report."
 
 1 
 
 ft 
 
 The reference to \yv^e 103 of the ('oiiiuiission's Report was 
 the vahiation of $40,000,000 vin//e by the Cointnission. Upon 
 demand of the United States, the Com[)aiiy by cable of Janu- 
 ary 11, 1902 also included in the sale "all maps and archives 
 in Paris." It is manifest, therefore, first, that the Frencii Com- 
 pany was reluctant to surrender the completion by itscdf of the 
 Canal enterprise and had resisted h)r over a year and a half 
 the efforts of the Commission to procure au offer of sale ; 
 second, that it finally made the sale under pressure of the 
 circumstances referred to ; and third, that the price was fixed 
 not by the French Ci>iapnn]i but by the Government of the United 
 States in the Commission's report referred to. 
 
 I make this rehearsal of the records of the ease to refute 
 the loose and unwarranted statements that the Frencli com- 
 panies in any sense imposed a price upon the United States ; 
 and also to make it clear that the price was fixed by the 
 United States itself and included millions of dollars of prop- 
 erly in addition to that valued in the appraisal made by the 
 United States. As, at last, an offer had been procured by 
 them from the French Company, the Commission promptly re- 
 convened and by their further report of January 19, 1902, 
 recommended the acceptance of the offer, and subsequently, 
 Congress, after exhaustive debate, adopted the so-called 
 SpoonerBill on June 28th, 1902, authoriziuj^ the consummation 
 of the purchase under conditions of an approved title and a 
 satisfactory treat}' with the sovereign of the territory. 
 
 The transaction was concluded and the sale consum- 
 mated May 10, 1904, and payment made to the liquidators of 
 the two French companies direccly from the Treasury 
 of the United States into the Bank of France, 
 through Messrs. J. P. Morgan k Company as 
 fiscal agents of the United States. The expense 
 of the transmission of the fund from the United States to 
 France was borne by my clients, the Frencli Company. 
 Messrs. Morgan k Company received compensation measured 
 by the difference in exchange, of about $35,000 only, in res])ect 
 of the $40,000,000 gold transmitted. No part of this expense 
 was borne by the United States. The receipts of the Liqui- 
 dators of the old company and of the Panama Canal Company 
 for the entire sum of 140,000,000 are on tile in the Treasury of 
 the United States and show, as any citizen can see, that the
 
 16 
 
 $40,000,000 was paid directly into the Bauk of France to the 
 credit of the Liquidators of the old and the new French Com- 
 panies, in the proportions approved by the French Tribunal. 
 
 In my public statement of December 11 last, above referred 
 to, I explained how this sum of $40,000,000 was distributed 
 by the Liquidators to the beneficiaries of each company, and 
 I also stated, as I now repeat, that there was no American 
 syndicate which ^had previously acquired the Canal and then 
 sold to the United States and that the whole story to that effect 
 was a falsehood and concoction. 
 
 VL 
 
 Now a word as to the account for additional construction 
 work performed by the French Company : 
 
 BetAveen the date of the appraisal by the Commission and 
 the date of the closing of the transaction (April 1900-May 
 1904), the French Company continued the work upon the 
 Isthmus with a \iivs[,e force of engineers and employees, and 
 actually expended thereon the additional sum of $'2,251,808.47. 
 
 After the oflfer of sale the daily execution of this work upon 
 the Isthmus was, by direction of the President, supervised, in- 
 spected and reported upon by United States engineers especi- 
 ally delegated for that purpose, so that the account thereof 
 was contemporaneously examined as the work progressed. 
 
 During this period and before closing the purchase, the 
 Company communicated to the United States its expectation 
 that re-imbursement for such additional actual cash outlay 
 would be made as part of the purchase and as a part of the 
 concluding details of the transfer. The subject of this addi- 
 tional construction work was accordingly (and as a part of the 
 closing of title by written agreement) referred to President 
 Boosevelt, as sole arbitrator, w^ith the understanding that his 
 decision should be conclusive. 
 
 Through the Attorney General the duty^ of examining into 
 and reporting upon the facts was delegated to the Commission, 
 reserving to the Attorney General the questions of law. The 
 Commission performed its duty and reported that the amount 
 had, in fact, been actually so expended. Subsequently, as sole 
 arbitrator, the President rendered a decision to the effect that
 
 17 
 
 he considered tliat the purchase price of $40,000,000 should 
 embrace the additional expenditures. There was at no time 
 anj' question as to tlie fact of the expenditures and as to the 
 amount thereof, nor as to the fact that the United States re- 
 ceived the benefit of it. It is manifest, therefore, that the 
 presentation of this claim by the French Company was war- 
 ranted b}' the conditions and was a part of the transaction, 
 while conclusively adversel}' disposed of by the decision of the 
 agreed arbitrator. 
 
 Thus the United States received this additional work cost- 
 ing the French Company $2,251,808.47, as a part of the 
 $40,000,000 purchase. To characterize this account for further 
 construction work as fraudulent is, therefore, a manifest 
 wrong to the Freneh Company and only aggravates their sense 
 of loss. 
 
 During the pendency of the offer, also, the Panama Rail- 
 road Company continued in opeiation under control of the 
 French Company, and under the circumstances of the case, it 
 was legally entitled to the net earnings of operation. This right 
 was unquestioned. The management of the Kaih'oad Company 
 was otficially passed upon in behalf of the Government by a 
 sub-committee of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com- 
 mittee of the House, appointed under lesolution approved by 
 the House, January 12, 1905, and which, after investigation 
 at New York and in Washington of the affairs, earnings and 
 condition of the Panama Railroad Company, rendered its 
 unanimous report to the House, which, among other things, 
 stated : 
 
 " The testimony shows that the management by the officers 
 and directors of the Panama Railroad has been conspicuously 
 able, progressive and business-like." 
 
 Further, an exhaustive report by the Secretary of War to 
 the Committee on Interoceanic Canals of the Senate on the 28th 
 of June, 1906, especially dealt with and disposed of the subject 
 of dividends. In that report, presenting exhaustive analyses 
 of accounts, he stated : 
 
 " The figures show, therefore, that instead of the Panama 
 Canal Company, as a stockholder in the Railroad Company, 
 depriving the United States, as its transferee of stock, of the 
 benefit to it, of assets of the Company by the declaration and 
 payment of dividends in excess of net earnings, there was left
 
 18 
 
 in the Treasury of the Compauj $109,344.36 of undivided 
 profits." 
 
 Not oulv were the French companies entitled to the net 
 earnings for the reasons stated, but by other considerations as 
 well. Ill tlie first place, no interest was allowed to them upon 
 the purchase price of $40,000,000 between the date of the offer 
 (Januarv, 1902) and the transfer to the United States (May, 
 1904), which, at the rate of four per cent., would have 
 amounted to over $3,200,000, as against dividends of less than 
 $1,000,000; and second, the}' expended (as it turned out) 
 $2,251,808.47, several hundred thousand dollars of which were 
 actually expended between January, 1902 and May, 1904, and 
 for which, through the decision of the President, it received no 
 additional allowance. 
 
 Every account aud transaction of the Railroad Company 
 was audited and approved by the Governmeut officials after 
 full examination. 
 
 This l)riugs me to state a consideration of great moment to 
 this Couutiy, and that is that both the Panama Canal 
 and the Panama Railroad were turned over to the United 
 States well equipped, well managed, in active operation, and 
 with a symi^athetic aud energetic force that enabled the 
 great work to go on through both branches of that service 
 without interruption from the moment of the transfer. This 
 fact in the construction of the Canal will be appreciated as an 
 element of tremendous advantage in the prosecution of the 
 undertaking and has been an important factor in enabling the 
 United States to reach the advanced stage of construction 
 which its energetic officials have attained. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Permit me now to make allusion to the brief continuance of 
 myself aud some of my associates in the Board of the Panama 
 Railroad Company after the consummation of the purchase. 
 Pursuant to the authority of Congress, the responsibility 
 of this great affair was placed in the hamls of the 
 secretary of war, acting more directly through the Isthmian 
 Canal Commission. The affair was so vast and the experience 
 which had been acquired by the officials and counsel through 
 their many years previous association with it was deemed so
 
 1<) 
 
 valuable that they were asked to continue for a while in their 
 respective relations and give the Government the benefit 
 thereof. Pursuant to this expressed wish, I with others of 
 the old board, continued as director and my firm as counsel of 
 the Railroad Company until April 1, 1907, when I terminated 
 every relation with the Compali}-. 
 
 The Panama Government had invested $1,000,000 in the 
 first mortgage bonds of the Panama Railroad Company and 
 in recognition of the fact that it was the largest single owner 
 of its bonds, and in token of friendliness to that nation, Mr. 
 Obaldia, then Minister at Washington, was invited by this 
 Government to a seat in the Board. Nevertheless, he, with 
 Mr. Farnham, retired from the Board when I did, on April 1, 
 1907. 
 
 Therefore, the statement by the gentleman from Illinois 
 that myself, Mr. Obaldia and Mr. Farnham are members of 
 the Panama Railroad Company, or that either of us has since 
 April 1, 1907, had any ofiicial or professional relations to the 
 Company is untrue as the records of the Company and of the 
 Government will instantly leveal. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The speech referred to is so full of untrue statements that 
 it is difficult to follow them all, but among them I note the 
 statement that while I was counsel for the Panama Railroad 
 Company I acted as counsel for the Transcontinental Railroad 
 under Mr. Harriman's control. This also is untrue. 
 
 I have thus disposed of every material criticism or state- 
 ment made on the floor of the House concerning the acquisition 
 by the Government of the United States of the Canal and 
 Railroad properties. 
 
 IX. 
 
 I would not have felt ju^^tified in dealing with these matters 
 at such length and with so much particularity were it not for 
 the fact that a member of the House of Representatives has 
 chosen to avail of his privilege as a member of that distin- 
 guished body to make the unwarrantable and false statements 
 to which I have referred. By reason of his position the state-
 
 20 
 
 ments thus made by him have received a currency aud a pub- 
 licity which otherwise would have been impossible. They 
 have appeared in the records of Congress, have been circulated 
 through the press throughout the country, aud although in 
 many material respects categorically denied and disapproved, 
 have in effect, been reiterated by him on the floor of the House, 
 Protected as he is by his constitutional privilege, there is no 
 means within my power legally to call him to an account for 
 the wrong which he has perpetrated. Had the statements been 
 made in good faith, or been founded upon facts, he might 
 plead this in extenuation of the wrong committed by him. 
 But it appears from what I have said, from the records of 
 Congress, from the history of the case, and from the indisput- 
 able facts that not a single statement of fact made by him was 
 either in spirit or letter justified or in any respect consistent 
 with the truth. 
 
 No course is left me as a self-respecting citizen but to brand 
 his statements as maliciously false aud his purpose and motive 
 as absolutely nnw^orthy, and this I do as a matter of justice to 
 the President of Panama aud to those who have so ably and 
 conscientiously co-operated iu bringing about and consum- 
 mating this great undertaking, as w'ell as a matter of justice 
 to me and to the modest part which I have played in the 
 Panama Canal. 
 
 Having devoted many years of my life to the achieving of 
 this — the greatest work of mankind — and having done so with- 
 out a penny of gain or profit of any kind from any source, 
 beyond stricth' professional compensation ; and having since 
 the acquisition by the United States served my country upon 
 many occasions at the request of the Executives, without the 
 thought of reward, prizing more than all else their official 
 thanks in behalf of the Government, I feel that I am entitled 
 to the protection of the House of Representatives against mis- 
 representation, malice and slander w'ithin its protected walls. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 Wm. Nehon Cromwell. 
 
 Hon. J. Van Yechten Olcott, 
 
 House of Bepreseniatives, Washington.
 
 21 
 
 Statement of Mr. Crom-well, December 11, 1008, 
 Transmitted to Congress by the President 
 "Witli His Message of December 15, 1908, and 
 Referred to in the Foregoing Letter. 
 
 My attention lias been called to a statement issued by the 
 editor of The Indianapolis News in which he attempts to reply 
 to the charge made by President Roosevelt that certain state- 
 ments made in The Indianapolis News, both before and since 
 the recent election and relating to the purchase of the Panama 
 Canal by the United States were false and untrue. 
 
 The President said : 
 
 " The News gives currency to the charge that the United 
 States bought from American citizens for |40,0U0,000 property 
 that cost these citizens only $12,000,000. The statement is 
 false. The United States did not pay a cent of the $40,000,000 
 to any American citizen, etc." 
 
 From the statement issued in reply by the editor of The 
 News, I quote the following : 
 
 " The only man who paid any attention to them [that is, the 
 criticisms referred to, &,c.,\ was Mr. Charles P. Taft, who did 
 deny that he was in any way related to the affair. We had no 
 word from the President or Mr. Taft. The other men, such as 
 Cromwell and Morgan, who were believed to have full infor- 
 mation in regard to the business, said nothing." 
 
 And he attempts to justify the publication of the false 
 statements appearing in his paper by saying that they 
 
 " were based largely on statements of The New York World, 
 criticisms which were made over and over again during the 
 campaign, and were utterly ignored until to-day." 
 
 The reply to the editor of The News furnishes another 
 proof of the President's characterizations, for in the very 
 journal under whose sheets it now takes refuge, namely, in 
 The New York World of Oct. 3, 1908, appears an explicit and 
 unqualified denial by me of the storj- referred to and in which 
 I used the following language : 
 
 " We may expect during a heated political contest all kinds 
 of stories, which are not worthy of notice, but this one I wish to 
 denounce in the strongest terms as a lying fabrication without
 
 22 
 
 a sbiidow of truth in it. Neither I nor any one allied with me^ 
 either directly or indirectlj', at any time or in any place in 
 America or abroad, ever bought, sold, dealt in, or ever made a 
 penny of profit out of any stocks, bonds, or other securities of 
 either the old Panama Canal Company or the new Panama 
 Canal Company or ever received for the same a single dollar of 
 the forty millions paid by the United States. I make this the 
 most sweeping statement that language can conve}'. 
 
 As everybody connected with the affair knows, I abstained 
 from receiving the forty millions in my own hands at Wash- 
 ington or New York as the general counsel of the company, 
 and myself arranged for the payment of the entire forty mill- 
 ions direct from the Treasury of the United States through 
 the bankers of the Government into the Bank of France at 
 Paris to the credit of the liquidators of the two companies. 
 There it remained subject to the order of the liquidators until 
 distributed by them to the hundreds of thousands of bene- 
 ficiaries, and not one dollar of it ever came to me or any one 
 in any wise connected with me. Of course, I do not refer to 
 our regular compensation as counsel." 
 
 I wish to call attention to the fact that upon the first day 
 of the hearings before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals 
 of the Senate of the United States in February, 1906, I volun- 
 tarily made an explicit and detailed statement showing how 
 the $40,000,000 was paid by the United States through Messrs. 
 J. P. Morgan & Co. as their agents to the Bank of France at 
 Paris for account of the new Panama Canal Company, and also 
 explaining Ihe subsequent payment of the full amount to the 
 liquidators of the New Panama Canal Company and to the 
 liquidator of the old Panama Canal Company, who in turn dis- 
 tributed the same to their respective stock and bond holders, 
 numbering hundreds of thousands of persons. 
 
 I further submitted to the Senate committees with the 
 permission of the Panama Government, a detailed statement of 
 the disposition by tlie Kepublic of Panama of the $10,000,000 
 paid by the United States to Panama in 1904, accounting for 
 the payment of the whole amount and showing the investments 
 and disposition by the Panama Government of every dollar. 
 
 Upon the same public inquiry I further stated with 
 reference to the proposed Americanization of the Panama 
 Canal Company in the year 1899 and the proposed formation
 
 23 
 
 ■of a syndicate for that i)urpose iu that year, that the proposed 
 plan never matured into anything. It was never consummated 
 either by subscription or by assent, and it is obsoh^to and an 
 impracticable thing — i)roved so to be. It has no life or force 
 of being, did not exist, and never has existed and is as dead as 
 a door nail. 
 
 That was a fruitless suggestion of the company, which 
 came to naught and under which I acted as their counsel 
 solely. 
 
 The testimony taken by the Senate Committee is a public 
 record and was available to the editors of The News and The 
 World, and had either of them been as interested in publish- 
 ing the truth as they were to create a jiolitical sensation, they 
 doubtless would have taken the pains to have published the 
 above facts, which I quote. 
 
 I again denounce the statement wherever published or by 
 wh'omsoever made that there was a sj-ndicate formed by Ameri-" 
 nan citizens to purchase the Panama Canal and to sell it to 
 the United States as absolutely and unqualifiedly false and" 
 untrue. The Americanization plan was an entiiely different 
 matter. It was a project proposed by the company to the 
 Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House and to President 
 MrKinley on Feb. 27, 1899, and was formally authorized by 
 the Board of Directors Oct. 10, 1899, subject to the necessary 
 approval of stockholders. 
 
 The initial steps were taken by me in October, Novem- 
 ber, and December, 1899, and a company formed for the pur- 
 pose under the laws of New Jersey for carrying out the in- 
 structions of my client. While the certificate of incorporation 
 of the Panama Canal C(jmpany of America was tiled in New 
 Jersey, no capital stock, except the nominal capital of $5,000 
 set forth in the certificate of incorporation was ever issued and 
 nothing further was ever done by that company, as the records 
 in the office of the Secretary of State of New Jersey will show. 
 
 The project adopted by the Board of Directors failed of 
 approval by the stockholders in December, 1899 ; the Board 
 of Directors in consequence resigned in a body, and the plan 
 then and there forever ended. The period covered by this 
 project was less than three months; not a dollar was paid in 
 under it nor a transaction conducted by the New Jersey com-
 
 24 
 
 pany for the reason stated. The plan was dead and abandoned 
 over two years before the company finally yielded to the pres- 
 sure of the American Government to sell at $40,000,000. 
 
 Now, with regard to the distribution of the $40,000,000,^ 
 it has been made to appear in newspaper comments that there 
 was some mystery connected with the disposition of this 
 money. There is no mystery and never has been. The fund 
 in question paid into the Bank of France by the United States 
 produced the net sum of 200,000,000 francs, the sum of 128,- 
 000,000 francs being placed to the credit of the liquidator of 
 the old Panama Canal Company and 77,400,000 francs being 
 placed to the credit of the new Panama Canal Company ia 
 liquidation, and by said Bank paid over to said liquidators, 
 respectively, pursuant to a decision of arbitration at Paris 
 Feb. 11, 1902, confirmed bv the Civil Tribunal of the Seine. 
 
 To the Senate Committee I stated that I did not know 
 what distribution of the fund had been made, and that I was 
 in no way concerned, or interested therein. That statement 
 by me was true. I had no pecuniary interest in the canal, and 
 it was none of my business, personally or professionally, who 
 were the stockholders or bondholders of the company. 
 
 Since the recent publications I have made inquiries in 
 Paris and am informed that the distribution of these moneys 
 is a matter of public record ; that the amount received by the 
 liquidator of the old Panama Canal Company has been dis- 
 tributed by him as an ofKcer of the court to the holders of the 
 obligations of the old company ; that these persons appeared 
 in person at the office of the liquidator to receipt for the 
 moneys paid to them ; that they numbered 226,296, the largest 
 number of individuals probably ever appearing in person 
 upon a single business affair, and that the average amount 
 paid was $156. 
 
 The complete and detailed record of these payments, to- 
 gether with the name and receipt of every person to whom 
 payment was made and the amount of such payment, is in the 
 hands of the liquidator at his offices, at 50 Eue Etienne Mar- 
 cel, Paris, which is in a prominent and frequented part of the 
 city, near the Bourse, easily found by anyone desirous of 
 doing so.
 
 25 
 
 As to the fund paid to the new Panama Canal Company, 
 that company at the time of the sale of its property to the 
 United States went into liquidation, and I am likewise recently 
 informed that the distribution of its assets among its share- 
 holders was made through four leading banks of Paris, the 
 Credit Lyonnais Hoci^te Generale, Coraptoir National d'Es- 
 compte de Paris, and Cr<5dit Indnstriel et Commerciel, in 
 three separate payments, (July 15, 1904 ; Feb. 3. 1908, and 
 June 15, 190s), covering a period of four years, and was com- 
 pleted in June, 1908. This liquidation took place at the regu- 
 lar offices of the company, 19 Rue Louis le Grand, Paris, 
 readily found by anybody who honestly sought to find 
 them. 
 
 The facts concerning the liquidation are a matter of pub- 
 lic report to the shareholders of the company, (this company 
 had no bond issues), and were the subject of official publica- 
 tions ftom time to time, covering a period of four years in the 
 offiicial papers under direction of the courts. The amount so 
 paid to the shareholders of the New Panama Canal Com- 
 pany, as I am informed by the liquidators, is approximately 
 129. 78f. on each share of the j)ar value of lOOf., that is, they 
 merely received back only the capital originally invested, with 
 interest, less than 3 per cent, per aunum. I am informed by 
 the liquidators that the shareholders to whom distribution was 
 made numbered 6,796. 
 
 Neither I nor my law firm nor any one connected Avith 
 me ever owned, directly or indirectly, any share of stock in 
 the new Panama Canal Company, nor any of the obligations 
 or securities of the old Panama Canal Company, nor ever 
 bought or sold any of the shares or securities of either one 
 of said companies, nor were directly or indirectly interested in 
 them. 
 
 I am also positive that not a man in public life in 
 America, in or out of Congress, ever had the least pecuniary 
 interest in the Panama Canal. 
 
 I do not know and never have known of any American 
 citizen who has ever dealt in any of the shares of the new 
 Panama Canal Company or the shares or bonds of the old 
 company.
 
 26 
 
 A further iustance of the unwarranted attitude of The 
 Indianapolis News and of other jourmily repeating the state- 
 ments is furnished with resi3ect to Mr. C. P. Taft and Mr. 
 Douglas Robinson. In the same issue of The World (Oct. 3, 
 1908) I said : 
 
 " The mention of the names of Mr. Taft and Mr. Douglas 
 Robinson is another evidence that this is a fake story. No 
 member of the Taft family or Mr. Douglas Robinson ever had 
 the remotest connection with Panama Canal matters directly 
 or indirectly, and I never saw one of them on this subject 
 before the United States acquired the canal. I never saw Mr. 
 Douglas Robinson in my life. The names of Caesar and Napo- 
 leon might as well have been used, for it could not be more 
 impossible. All this except the dragging in of new names was 
 thrashed out before the United States Senate Committee by 
 the bite Senator Morgan. 
 
 " Out of respect for the dead I refrain from comment upon 
 that proceeding, but I feel warranted in saying that it was pur- 
 sued with unparalleled energy and skill. It was, however, 
 conipletely exploded and refuted by the facts in the case, and 
 endeil in complete discomhtuie. There is not a word of truth 
 in it, and T would not notice it at this time if it did not con- 
 cern others." 
 
 The introduction of these gentlemen iu the Panama affairs 
 is like the creation of a character in a work of fiction. They 
 did not exist in the sense of having any relation to the canal 
 matter. Neither of them ever had the least pecuniary interest 
 in the business. It is a matter of public history that the 
 President-elect never had any official connection with the canal 
 until months after it had been acquired by this Government. 
 He was in the Philippines as Governor during all the years in 
 question. 
 
 Equally perverted is the fact concerning the records and 
 accounts of the two companies. They were not delivered to 
 the United States, because they were records of the companies' 
 transactions with which the United States had no concern. 
 But as a matter of fact the records and files of the liquidation 
 of the old company are in the hands of the liquidator at 50 
 Rue Etienne Marcel, Paris, and those of the new company were, 
 on the final payment in June, 1908, deposited with the Credit
 
 27 
 
 Lyoanais, Boulevard des Italiens, to be preserved, in accord- 
 ance with French custom, for a period of twenty years. That 
 corporation has the custody of the records, as is well known 
 to all parties in interest. 
 
 The whole story of Americans or some American syndi- 
 cate buying up the Panama Canal securities at a low price, or 
 at any price, and then turning them in upon liquidation at a 
 profit, is a fiction and a concoction. The money of tlie United 
 States went to France, and was distributed to the hundreds of 
 thousands of foreign owners, none of whom, so far as I know, 
 were Americans. 
 
 [1553]
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 HtCO LO-UWI 
 
 MAY 
 
 i^ < 
 
 41584
 
 3 1158 010 
 
 /C/ 
 
 
 • <■<< 'iiii Jlir l|[ll IIMI lllll li'li I IIIIII 
 
 AA 000 573 4