It settles the whole question; it is equivalent to a confession of guilt.

This new test of veractiy shows the statements made to the company by Mr. Cromwell to have the same spirit which we find pervading every point of the plea for fees if examined with caution and method and placed next to documents as we have seen

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE SPOONER BILL.

I shall not follow in details the description the plea for fees gives of Mr. Cromwell's activities in that period.

It is concentrated in this heading, which we find on page 215: "Great struggle in the Senate on the occasion of the vote which was to decide the selection of Nicaragua or of Panama, our preparations to assure the adoption of the minority report favorable to Panama and our success.'

It is further expressed by this modest conclusion to be read on page "Thus our long fight in the Senate has been won for Panama."

218:

It is a proper time to remember that the fight was engaged on a technical field and that perhaps engineers and not a lawyer might have had some part to play in the demonstration of the superiority of one route over the other.

It is extremely distasteful to me to enter upon this subject, because during all the period from inception to the vote of the Spooner bill I was in America devoting my efforts and my knowledge to the victory of Panama. The documents I produced, the arguments I gave, were said to have some influence on the final result. I was qualified to speak, being the former chief engineer of the Panama Canal during the most active part of its existence, and having more published and publicly spoken about the subject than anybody living.

The plea for fees does not pronounce once my name. It acts in relation to what I did as we saw it has acted in relation to the report of Col. Ludlow of October 31, 1895, in relation with the report of Representative Hepburn of February 13, 1899.

If anything could lead me to believe I had a preponderant action in the events, it would be such silence which is even observed for the treaty of November 18, 1903, which is usually designated, except in the plea for fees, by the name of the signers, the Hay Bunau-Varilla treaty.

However, I may be mistaken. The demonstrated fact that Mr. Cromwell's plea for fees systematically withholds and conceals very important events and substitutes trifling ones for the interest of the plea for fees, does not carry the consequence that all he neglects is of importance.

In order to know which is true, I may be allowed to quote two authoritative statements. They will show if any reference to my acts has been withheld in the plea for fees because they were too important or because they were too unimportant for the plea for fees.

One is by the Sun.

This great New York paper, which had followed with a remarkable intensity and accuracy all the phases of the fight, published on the 19th of March, 1903, an article entitled the "Battle of the routes," from which I extract the following:

"The Senate's nearly unanimous vote for the canal treaty and for the canal by way of Panama may properly be placed in contrast with the previous expression of legislative sentiment as to the preferable route for the waterway.

January 9, 1902. The Hepburn bill for a Nicaragua Canal passed the House of Representatives amid great applause by a vote of 308 to 2.

"March 17, 1903. The Colombian treaty for a Panama Canal was ratified by the Senate by a vote of 73 to 3.

"This remarkable change of policy and of national opinion indicated by these two votes has occurred within fifteen months. * * *

"Many persons, forces, influences, circumstances and accidents have contributed to the fortunate result. If we were asked to catalogue some of the principal factors we should promptly mention President Roosevelt, Secretary Hay, the Hon. Marcus Alonso Hanna, Senator Spooner's genius for doing the right thing at the right time, the monitory eruption of Montombo and the last but not least the former chief engineer of the French work on the Isthmus, Mr. Philippe Bunau-Varilla, who throughout the negotiations has typified the good sense and good faith of the Paris shareholders and has likewise illustrated in his own person a sort of resourceful energy which some people are accustomed to regard as peculiarly American."

Another statement was made by a man of considerable technical eminence, George S. Morison. He was then the greatest of American engineers and had been by far the most prominent personality in the very select body which was the Isthmian Canal Commission of 1899-1901.

In the Volume XXV, No. 1, February, 1903, of the Bulletin of the American Geographical Society can be found the text of a lecture made by George S. Morison in

December, 1902, before the same society. On page 37 the celebrated engineer expresses himself thus, speaking of Lake Bohio: "It will be a beautiful body of water and in it will be an island of about 400 acres, which I have proposed to call the Island of Bunau-Varilla in honor of the brilliant Frenchman who has never despaired of the completion of the Panama Canal and to whose untiring energy we owe much." This what the Sun and Mr. Morison said after the battle of the routes. They were both independent and conscious witnesses. The Story of Panama (pages 120 and 593) speaks of Morison as of the friend of Cromwell. Why did he not mention his name if really his part in the success had any prominence? Why did the Sun forget the name of Cromwell among the great factors of success if it was really a factor at all? Does not the plea for fees say that Mr. Cromwell had influence on the press (p. 161)? The fact that the press was silent is extremely significant at this juncture.

I may be excused to quote an extract of a personal letter written to me from Cleveland by the intimate friend of Senator Hanna, Col. Myron T. Herrick, who afterwards became Governor of Ohio and has been recently appointed ambassador of the United States to France. It was written on the 12th of July, 1902, say 14 days after the Spooner law was approved (June 28, 1902). Here is the end of Col. Myron T. Herrick's letter to me:

"Your success in Washington gave us great delight. We spent the fourth at the Hannas and you were mentioned many times. Senator Hanna is, of course, greatly pleased with your success and spoke in the highest terms of you. "I know that you will excuse this rather informal letter.

"Sincerely yours,

"MYRON T. HERRICK."

I take the liberty of mentioning this letter because it is much more a tribute to Hanna than to myself. This great and generous mind spoke of this historical battle he had won by his admirable will and power as of a success of his collaborator not as of a success of his own.

This allows us to size up the moral elevation of the Senator to whom America is indebted for the selection of Panama.

It is somewhat refreshing to consider it when we have been obliged to bring to light all the adulterations of truth, the tampering of dates, the falsifications of the history of the events with which the plea for fees is filled.

It gives a comforting and happy feeling to see in its true light the real moral face of Hanna after looking at it as it is represented in the plea for fees in conjunction with that of this noble type of the American citizen and thinker, John Hay. Both are depicted as stupid straw puppets either writing under the dictation of Mr. Cromwell or learning the speeches he prepares in order to repeat them in the Senate. The facts demonstrate:

First. The lack of veracity of the plea for fees in what regards the origin of the Spooner law. It was devised by Senator Spooner and not at all inspired as Mr. Cromwell had written in a confidential telegram of which he was powerless after the emphatic statement of Spooner to confirm the contents in the description of his activities as given by the plea for fees.

Second. The lack of veracity of the plea for fees in concealing certain technical interventions of essential importance during the battle in the Senate on the Spooner bill. This lack of veracity results from the concealment of an essential fact contributing powerfully to determine the results. It is established by the testimonies of the Sun, of George S. Morison, of Senator Hanna, through Col. Myron T. Herrick, his most intimate friend.1

This adulteration of truth through omission of facts is entirely in line with the one already demonstrated in the case of Ludlow's and Hepburn's reports, and is shown thereby to be a complete system in the plea for fees.

The consequence of this demonstration of systematic lack of veracity shows an extraordinary persistence in the disfiguration of events. It could be continued on an infinity of points but it is necessary to set a limit if we try to show the truth without too much straining the patience of the reader.

1 Since writing this "Statement," I have received an important book in which the claim of Mr. Cromwell that he converted Senator Hanna to the cause of Panama finds its complete refutation. This book is. Marcus Alonzo Hanna-His Life and Work, by Herbert Croly.

The author expresses the opinion that the selection of Panama by the Senate "constituted the most conspicuous single illustration of Senator Hanna's personal prestige" (p. 385). The importance of his influence on that event causes the author to give a corresponding importance to the true determination of the original of his conversion.

From this history, for which "all of his (Senator Hanna's) political and business associates were asked to contribute full and careful statements covering these phases of his career with which they were familiar" (p. V), I make the following extracts (p. 3817);

"Just when Senator Hanna became convinced that the Government would be making a grave mistake. in case the Nicaraguan route was adopted, I am not sure, but a visit, which M. Philippe Bunau-Varilla

It is to be sure necessary for the dignity of the American Congress, as well as for the respect due to the memories of Hay and Hanna, to establish that the plea for fees does not deserve any credit, that it is a wholly untruthful document. But the untruthfulness is an epidemic plague. When it is diagnosed with certainty in four or five places in a document, one may be sure it is present everywhere. It is therefore superfluous to extend indefinitely the proofs of untruthfulness.

I could therefore limit myself to the demonstrations already made which establish that a document so soiled by repeated lack of veracity is unworthy of any consideration and must be exposed when it has by the fortuitous course of events reached the congressional documentation.

I shall, however, treat a fifth point where facts can be detected which are of greater moment than the ones we have seen.

They prove on the part of men in close intimacy with Mr. Cromwell attempts of the gravest nature which would be, if instigated by him, treasonable acts either from the representative of the New Panama Canal Co. or from a citizen of the United States. In stating them we sincerely wish Mr. Cromwell will clearly establish they have been done against his instructions and contrary to his will.

Before going into them I wish to say that previous to the revolution I am convinced Mr. Cromwell served sincerely the cause of Panama. He acted as a diligent messenger between the men who controlled the situation. His material activity was great, and on that account he deserved the thankfulness of all those who, for different reasons, had the victory of Panama at heart. It is to be greatly lamented that he has not been satisfied with the expression in the plea for fees of the useful but subordinate part he had to play. He forgot that in a great thing like this there is glory for all those who play a part, even if, as was the case, it is secondary. It was impossible without tampering with facts to unduly increase Mr. Cromwell's share. He had the weakness to yield to the tempatation. It could not be done without such injury to facts as well as to the memory of great citizens that justice had to be done.

HOW I BECAME CONNECTED WITH AMADOR AND HOW SOME IMPORTANT FACTS RESULTED THEREFROM.

Before going into the demonstration of the lack of veracity on a fifth point I must give a short exposé of the circumstances, purely accidental, which brought me to the United States in September, 1903, and of some facts which resulted from that.

I intended to come some time in November before the opening of Congress in order to follow the development of the Panama affairs as a result of the rejection of the Hay-Herran treaty by the Senate of Colombia.

A personal question brought me there earlier.

In the course of the summer my wife and myself had had the pleasure of welcoming in our home in Paris our dear friends, Mr. John Bigelow and his daughter, Miss Bigelow. My young son was then afflicted with the hay fever. As nothing could remedy his condition, Miss Bigelow, when her sojourn with her father at our home came to an end, proposed to my wife to take the boy with her to America. She hoped that the sea voyage and the coolness of the Maine seaside resort, where she intended to go, would improve his condition. My wife with great reluctance accepted, for the sake of the health of her dear child, the first separation from him, which the friendly proposal entailed.

The condition she put to her acceptance was that she would go and join him in America not later than September. I accepted and said I would go later in November. When September came my wife engaged accordingly staterooms for herself and her young daughter, but asked the steamship company to reserve a room in case I should decide to accompany her at the last moment.

She pressed me very much to do so. I thought that after all I could go and return immediately afterwards to settle my business and then join my family for a longer stay a couple of months later.

made to the United States early in 1901, had something to do with it. M. Bunau-Varilla had been chief engineer in charge of the work undertaken by the old French company and was peculiarly qualified both by his standing in his profession and by his practical experience in the work of construction at Panama to pass an authoritative opinion upon the comparative advantages of the two routes. He had been induced to come to the United States by a group of Cincinnati business men, whom he met by accident in Paris during the exposition of 1900, and whom he had convinced of the superiority of Panama. The visit was made for the purpose of addressing various commercial associations in the United States on behalf of Panama, and wherever he spoke he left behind him a trail of converts. Among them was Colonel Myron T. Herrick, whose interest was so much aroused that he made a point of introducing M. Bunau-Varilla to Senator Hanna. A series of interviews followed, which had much to do with Mr. Hanna's decision to make a fight on behalf of Panama. This decision had been reached by the Senator before the Canal Commission finally reported in favor of Panama."

I do state upon my word of honor, as everything which is in this paper, that no hint or indication came to me from any quarter whatever which prompted me to go then, outside of the cause I just described. When I left Paris I was convinced that I would be back within three weeks, leaving my family enjoying the delightful hospitality of the Bigelows at Highland Falls on Hudson.

Immediately after I arrived in New York, Amador, knowing of my arrival by a Mr. Lindo, to whom I had paid a flying visit during the day, twice called on me on the 23d of September, 1903, at 9 and at 9.25 p. m., at the Waldorf-Astoria. I was not there. He came back the following day and I received him. He was in a state of intense fury and despair. He told me that he and his friends on the isthmus in the course of a year had sent a man named Capt. Beers, an employee of the Panama Railroad, to see Mr. Drake, vice president of the company, and inquire through him if Mr. Cromwell could obtain for a revolution a positive support in money and in military force from the American Government. He told me that this question, which to me seemed childish, was answered encouragingly both by Mr. Drake and by Mr. Cromwell, who received Beers and promised everything to him. He further said that, in order to comprobate the results of Beers's mission, and to enter into activity if they were true, his friends had delegated him to see Mr. Hay personally through Mr. Cromwell. He told me that, having thus come to carry out that plan, he had been first very cordially received by Mr. Cromwell and by Mr. Drake, who was Mr. Cromwell's confidential man in the intrigue and corresponded with Beers about it. He told me that after this excellent reception, when he was expecting to go and see Secretary Hay with Mr. Cromwell, the latter one had suddenly turned his back upon him.

He considered that as an odious betrayal, exposing himself as well as his friends to be shot and their properties to be confiscated when Colombia would know of it. He spoke to me of the letter of Arango, the translation of which can be found on page 649, as well as on page 317, and the original on page 316.

Here is the first part of the translation of this important letter, reproduced from page 649:

PANAMA, September 14, 1903.

MY DEAR FRIEND: As to-morrow, Tuesday, the Seguranca should arrive at Colon (sailed from New York September 8), I trust that during the day we shall receive your expected letter which will give us the explanation of your discouraging telegram: Disappointed; await letters." Since then we have received the cable saying "Hope," and nothing more; so that we are in a position of fearful expectancy, as we are ignorant of what happened to you over there and of the reasons for the profound silence which Mr. Cromwell maintains.

Tired of so much incertitude, we decided to send the following cables to that gentleman; they are as yet unanswered, but which we trust he will give attention and reply to within two or three days:

On September 10, in cipher:

1

"Confidential. Regret Capt. Beers's letters and cables are not replied. Opportunity now excellent to secure success, provided United States promptly recognizes our independence under conditions with our agent there, who is fully authorized to contract for us. Should Congress concede contract, though improbable, will be through fear of our attitude. Congress controlled by enemies of contract. Answer by wire in cipher through Beers. Tell our agent 3 that to use all discretion possible must send his cables through Beers, not to use Brandon again.-Arango."

1

On the 12th of September, also in cipher:

3

"Our position being critical, we must have immediate answer to act promptly or abandon business."

The recommendation made to you in the first cable set out above not to use Brandon is because your cable "Disappointed" was made quasi public and I suspect that the other one also has been known to several persons, which doubtless comes from the cable having been known to young Brandon and by him communicated to Gustav Leeman, who must have divulged it, but be that as it may, it is better for you to communicate through Capt. Beers even using Arias's or Boyd's cipher.

*

J. A. ARANGO.

! Arango speaks there of the Colombian Congress then in session at Bogota.

* Contract means here the Hay-Herran treaty.

3 Amador.

This letter showed that Mr. Cromwell was no more answering telegrams from the Isthmus and that indiscretions had been committed in the transmission of Amador's cables. Therefore he recommended the use of Capt. Beers, the confidential man on the Isthmus of both Cromwell and of the revolutionists, the same man who had first been sent to New York to obtain through Mr. Drake and Mr. Cromwell the support of the American Government. He was incensed that Mr. Cromwell had not even told him to be on his guard when Mr. Cromwell had been notified to do so by the cablegram inserted in the letter and dated September 10. He was in an indescribable state of fury to have been thus wickedly exposed, by want of a word of information from Mr. Cromwell as to the danger of seeing his communications thus made public and his friends thereby exposed to the death penalty for conspiracy.

He made it plain to me that if such a thing should take place he would consider it a duty to give up his life if necessary in order to revenge his friends on the man whose betrayal in his mind would have been the cause of their fate.

This is how I began again my connection with Amador in 1903. I had not seen him since many years. But I knew him well, he having been an employee as physician of the canal or of the railroad company when I was at the head of the Panama Canal on the Isthmus in 1886.

When he first began to tell me his lamentable story he tried to withhold the name of Cromwell. I interrupted him and said: "Why do you not name Mr. Cromwell? He is the only man in the United States who speaks as if he disposed of the Government and of the Congress. But that is only talk. It is childish to have believed it. There you are now with your imprudence."

I was, however, amazed that Mr. Cromwell, being a lawyer and the direct representative of the New Panama Canal Co., should have engaged in the whole business. It meant, if discovered, the confiscation of the whole property of the canal by Colombia.

I thought of what would be the irritation of the directors of the New Panama Canal Co. if they had suspected their representative's reprehensible action.

They were all men of high standing, directors of great banking institutions, men of weight and some men of wealth, and placing the care of their responsibility above all considerations. If the canal property had been lost by the fault of their representative they would certainly have been held materially responsible. The French law would have there recognized the gross error which entails the personal responsibility of directors. It would have been committed by them in intrusting such a responsible situation exclusively to a man capable of doing without their knowledge such an illegal and dangerous thing.

Amador saw in Cromwell's reversed attitude a betrayal of the worst nature. From the point of view of the victory of Panama and its completion by the United States, I saw in Mr. Cromwell's first encouraging the revolutionists a betrayal of his duty to his employers and in turning suddenly his back upon them, an act which was going to lead to the discovery of the conspiracy and subsequently to the confiscation by Colombia of the canal, thereby entailing the final adoption of the Nicaragua Canal by the United States according to the Spooner law.

The story of Mr. Cromwell's encouragement of the revolutionists and then of his abandoning them cold bloodedly to their fate was told in detail by Mr. José Augustin Arango in a pamphlet entitled "Datos historicos para la Independencia del Istmo." It bears the date of the 28th of November, 1995, and was published in Panama. Mr. Cromwell is designated by the words "La persona respectable (the respectable person). His name, however, is now made public by the publication in the "Story of Panama (p. 649) of the letter sent by the same Arango to Señor Amador on September 14, 1903. It is perfectly accurate in all the details I know except for a trifling detail. Señor Arango, on page 10 of his pamphlet, says that after having cabled the word "Disappointed" on account of the reversal of attitude of “La persona respectable" Amador cabled "Hopes" as soon as he had met me.

There is a slight confusion about the cable "Hopes." Mr. Arango had already received it when he wrote the letter of September 14, as he speaks of it there. I left France on the 16th of September only, and as I was two days before still uncertain whether I should go to the United States with my family or not his cable could not refer to me.

This cablegram had no reference to me, but people, not knowing on the Isthmus the exact date of my meeting Amador, have believed it referred to me on account of the rapid succession of events and of their superposition when seen from a distance.

In fact, the ardent hope of poor old Amador was to see Mr. Hay. He had left Panama with this aim in view. Cromwell had promised him to introduce him himself, and Amador believed victory would be near if he saw Hay. Cromwell very likely learned