The principle thus asserted by Mr. Adams was afterward sustained by an international commission in respect to the precise stipulation to which he referred; and a similar position was taken by the United States with regard to the binding obligation upon the independent State of Texas of commercial stipulations embodied in prior treaties between the United States and Mexico when Texas formed a part of the latter country. But in the present case it is unnecessary to go so far. Even if it be admitted that prior treaties of a political and commercial complexion generally do not bind a new state formed by separation, it is undeniable that stipulations having a local application to the territory embraced in the new state continue in force and are binding upon the new sovereign. Thus it is on all hands conceded that treaties relating to boundaries and to rights of navigation continue in force without regard to changes in government or in sovereignty. This principle obviously applies to that part of the treaty of 1846 which relates to the Isthmus of Panama. In conclusion let me repeat that the question actually before this Government is not that of the recognition of Panama as an independent republic. That is already an accomplished fact. The question, and the only question, is whether or not we shall build an Isthmian Canal. I transmit herewith copies of the latest notes from the minister of the Republic of Panama to this Government, and of certain notes which have passed between the special envoy of the Republic of Colombia and this Government. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. WHITE HOUSE, _January 4, 1904_ EXTRACTS FROM THE MESSAGES OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK MESSAGE OF THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO THE LEGISLATURE, JANUARY 2, 1899 STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, _January 2, 1899_ _To the Legislature_: