Meanwhile Colombia was under a dictatorship.  In 1898 M. A. Sanclamente was elected President, and J. M. Maroquin Vice-President, of the Republic of Colombia.  On July 31, 1900, the Vice-President, Maroquin, executed a “coup d’etat” by seizing the person of the President, Sanclamente, and imprisoning him at a place a few miles out of Bogota.  Maroquin thereupon declared himself possessed of the executive power because of “the absence of the President”—­a delightful touch of unconscious humor.  He then issued a decree that public order was disturbed, and, upon that ground, assumed to himself legislative power under another provision of the constitution; that is, having himself disturbed the public order, he alleged the disturbance as a justification for seizing absolute power.  Thenceforth Maroquin, without the aid of any legislative body, ruled as a dictator, combining the supreme executive, legislative, civil, and military authorities, in the so-called Republic of Colombia.  The “absence” of Sanclamente from the capital became permanent by his death in prison in the year 1902.  When the people of Panama declared their independence in November, 1903, no Congress had sat in Colombia since the year 1898, except the special Congress called by Maroquin to reject the canal treaty, and which did reject it by a unanimous vote, and adjourned without legislating on any other subject.  The constitution of 1886 had taken away from Panama the power of self-government and vested it in Columbia.  The coup d’etat of Maroquin took away from Colombia herself the power of government and vested it in an irresponsible dictator.

Consideration of the above facts ought to be enough to show any human being that we were not dealing with normal conditions on the Isthmus and in Colombia.  We were dealing with the government of an irresponsible alien dictator, and with a condition of affairs on the Isthmus itself which was marked by one uninterrupted series of outbreaks and revolutions.  As for the “consent of the governed” theory, that absolutely justified our action; the people on the Isthmus were the “governed”; they were governed by Colombia, without their consent, and they unanimously repudiated the Colombian government, and demanded that the United States build the canal.

I had done everything possible, personally and through Secretary Hay, to persuade the Colombian Government to keep faith.  Under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, it was explicitly provided that the United States should build the canal, should control, police and protect it, and keep it open to the vessels of all nations on equal terms.  We had assumed the position of guarantor of the canal, including, of course, the building of the canal, and of its peaceful use by all the world.  The enterprise was recognized everywhere as responding to an international need.  It was a mere travesty on justice to treat the government in possession of the Isthmus as having the right—­which