While on the Canal Zone in 1907 on an official visit I came into close contact with the officials of Panama, particularly President Amador, the first President of the Panama Republic, and General Arrias, who held the combined offices of Secretary of State and War for the new republic. At a dinner given by the American Minister, being placed beside General Arrias, I took occasion to inquire of him the reasons why the Hay-Herran treaty was refused ratification by the Senate of Colombia, after it had been tentatively agreed to by the Colombian authorities. General Arrias’ explanation was to the effect that there were four reasons why the Hay-Herran treaty was refused ratification on its return to the Colombian Senate. The first was that the German influence was strong in Colombia, and the German merchants and diplomats were very much opposed to the extension of American influence down the west coast of South America, particularly in the Colombian Republic. The German merchants, seeing the collapse of the French Canal Company near at hand, hoped that a German company might purchase the wreck of the French enterprise and carry the canal to completion, realizing that this course would mean much in the way of German aggrandizement. The second influence, according to General Arrias, was that of the old transcontinental railroad management of the United States. Popular demand for an isthmian canal having swept away all obstruction at Washington, D. C., the scene of operations was shifted to Bogota, and railroad influence and railroad money were probably used to induce some of the Senators to refuse to vote for the ratification of the treaty. The third influence was that of patriotism. Some of the Colombian Senators were opposed to a transfer of any portion of Colombian soil to a foreign power, more especially as the Colombian constitution contained a clause making it treason for any Colombian subject to become a party to the alienation of any part of Colombian territory to another country. The fourth and the most potent influence was the fact that the French Panama Canal Company had failed in every respect to keep the terms of their contract with the Colombian Government. Not only had they failed to complete the canal at the time specified in their franchise, but having obtained an extension of that time, had failed to observe the terms by which the extension had been secured. Therefore the Colombian Government might very properly proceed to a forfeiture, which could be obtained through due process of law in something less than ten months’ time.