The consequence was that the Panamans lent willing ears to the suggestion of the representatives of the New Panama Canal Company that they should undertake a revolution to be financed by the canal company. Two representatives of the New Panama Canal Company working along independent lines were trying to bring about the revolution. One of these was Philippe Bunau-Varilla, formerly chief engineer of the Old Panama Canal Company, but who had become estranged from the New Panama Canal Company. The other was William Nelson Cromwell, for years general counsel of the Panama Railroad Company, and who, in his suit against the New Panama Canal Company for an $800,000 fee, claimed to have engineered and directed the revolution. M. Bunau-Varilla had some stock in the canal company and a great deal of pride in seeing realized the undertaking to which he had committed the best years of his life.

Coming to New York on another mission, he met Dr. Amador, who was one of the Panamans desiring the independence of his country. According to the testimony of M. Bunau-Varilla, which is borne out by documentary evidence, he and Dr. Amador worked out the plan for the revolution. He declares that the documents were drawn in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and as far as they were written in Spanish, they were copied letter by letter by an English stenographer who knew no Spanish, in order that there might be no possibility of the secret leaking out. He declares that the whole project of the revolution as it was carried out was conceived by him in cooperation with Dr. Amador, and that William Nelson Cromwell, the other factor in the situation, knew nothing about what was going on. He also asserts that William Nelson Cromwell had promised to introduce Dr. Amador to Secretary of State John Hay, but that later Dr. Herran, the representative of Colombia, found out what was going on and wrote a letter of warning to Mr. Cromwell as to the consequences which would come to the Panama Railroad, of which Mr. Cromwell was the representative, if that organization should give aid or comfort to the projected Panama revolution. Thereupon, according to M. Bunau-Varilla, Mr. Cromwell turned his back upon Dr. Amador, although it has been claimed by some that this was only a ruse on the part of Mr. Cromwell to shield himself and his company from responsibility. About this time M. Bunau-Varilla borrowed $100,000 in France to finance the revolution, pending the recognition of the new Republic by the United States. Other money was forthcoming later.

The revolution itself, which took place in November, 1903, was bloodless. The world knows that President Roosevelt forbade the Colombian troops to move across the Isthmus, while at the same time he would not allow the revolutionists to make any move. A similar situation had arisen in a former revolution in 1902. At that time the Colombian troops were disarmed, and three days later insurgent troops were prevented by United States marines from using the railroad and were actually compelled to leave a train which they had seized and entered. The principle was enunciated and maintained that no troops under arms should be transported on the railroad, no matter to which party they belonged. That was because to permit such transportation would be to make the railroad an adjunct to the side using it, and to subject it to attack by the other party. In this way, if the Colombian troops used it, the insurgents would have attacked, and the United States would either have been forced to permit such an attack, which might suspend traffic on the transit, or to prevent it with force, which would make this country an ally of Colombia against the insurgents. On the other hand, if the insurgents were permitted to use the railroad, Colombia would attack it, and in that case the United States would have to help repel the attack and thus would become the ally of the insurgents. It was, therefore, held that the only way to make the road absolutely neutral was to allow neither party to use it.

This was the doctrine under which President Roosevelt proceeded in 1903. Of course, the world knows that this was tantamount to preventing Colombia from reconquering the Isthmus, if that were possible. It is claimed by some that if President Roosevelt had allowed the insurgents to use the railroad in 1902, Colombia would have been defeated in that revolution.

At the time of the revolution it is said that the Colombian garrison which espoused the cause of the Panamans was bribed to do so; that their commander two days afterwards was paid $12,500 for his services, and that he is to this day drawing a pension of $2,400 a year. It is also charged that some of the troops who could not be bribed were sent into the interior to repel an imaginary invasion from Nicaragua. It is asserted that when the governor of the State of Panama telegraphed the Colombian Government that Nicaragua was invading Panama, the Bogota authorities sent additional troops to the Isthmus to help fight Nicaragua, and that this accounted for the arrival of the gunboats from Cartagena on the eve of the revolution.

At the time of the coup d'etat, the United States was living under a treaty made with Colombia in 1846, guaranteeing the sovereignty of that country over the Isthmus in return for the recognition of the rights of the United States, under the Monroe doctrine, in connection with the building of a canal. Under this treaty it was mutually agreed that the United States should keep the Isthmian transit free and open at all times. It was contended by President Roosevelt that he was only carrying out this provision when he refused to allow the revolutionists and the Federal troops to fight along the line of the Panama Railroad, although this was almost the only ground on the Isthmus on which military operations could be prosecuted. He admitted the justice of the contention of the Colombian Government that the United States undertook to guarantee the sovereignty of Colombia over the Isthmus so far as any alien power was concerned, but denied that it was ever intended that the United States should be called upon to guarantee it against the people of the Isthmus themselves.

Once the revolution was started three courses were left open to the United States: One was to force the Panamans back under Colombian rule; the second was to let the two sides fight to a finish; the third was to recognize the independence of the Republic of Panama and forbid Colombia to land troops on the Isthmus. President Roosevelt took the last course. A breezy Western congressman remarked in defense of that course: "When that jack rabbit jumped I am glad we didn't have a bowlegged man for President!" The result of the revolution, and the recognition of the independence of the Republic of Panama, was that Colombia, which had tried to grasp everything and to get possession of the assets of the New Panama Canal Company, now found itself without anything.

Colombia ever since has contended that the United States was under a solemn obligation to protect the Colombian sovereignty over the Isthmus—an obligation that has been assumed in return for valuable considerations—and that it had been despoiled of the Isthmus of Panama under the very treaty that had guaranteed its permanent control of that Isthmus. It further asserted that President Roosevelt had been a party to the revolution for the purpose of circumventing the stand of the Republic of Colombia. It made a long plea against the action of the United States and urged that in the event the two countries could not come to any agreement, the pending questions should be submitted to The Hague for adjudication. Secretary Hay at one time proposed that a popular election should be held on the Isthmus to determine whether the people there preferred allegiance to the Republic of Panama or to the Republic of Colombia, but Colombia would not agree to that. Secretary Hay rejected the plea of Colombia for arbitration, upon the ground that the questions that Colombia proposed to submit affected the honor of the United States and that these matters were not arbitrable.