Ohio History Journal

OHIO

and the

PANAMA CANAL

by CHARLES D. AMERINGER

"Uncle Sam digging under the influence of the Sons of Ohio at the right

place." So ran a toast proposed at the twenty-second annual banquet of

the Cincinnati Commercial Club at the Queen City Club on November 13,

1902. The reference was to the role Ohioans had played in the decision

of the United States to construct an interoceanic canal in Panama, and

the man who offered the toast was in a position to know whereof he spoke.

He was Philippe Bunau-Varilla, a French engineer who had served the

De Lesseps enterprise in Panama in the 1880's and, when the French ven-

ture failed, had kept faith with the project and eventually turned to the

United States to rescue it. His speech-making and lobbying activities in

the United States in 1901 and 1902 were legend.¹ And from that night he

would go on to participate in the Panama revolution of 1903, become

Panama's first minister to the United States, and negotiate the treaty

under which the United States secured the right to construct the Panama

Canal.

Bunau-Varilla's tribute was not limited to Senator Mark Hanna, who,

everyone knew, had successfully led the fight for the selection of the

Panama route in the United States Senate the preceding June, but included

a large number of Ohioans who played important, though less publicized,

parts in Panama's victory. Moreover, this was not Bunau-Varilla's first

visit to Cincinnati; he had been there in January 1901, when, at the invi-

tation of three Cincinnati businessmen, he launched his crusade in behalf

of the Panama route. It was these Cincinnatians and the many Ohioans

whom he met between January and April 1901, to whom he directed his

toast, and they included the following: Edward Goepper, Cincinnati in-

dustrialist; Harley T. Procter, of Procter and Gamble, Cincinnati; Jacob

G. Schmidlapp, president of Cincinnati's Union Savings Bank and Trust

Company; William Watts Taylor, president of the Rookwood Pottery

Company of Cincinnati; William Worthington, Cincinnati attorney; Lucien

Wulsin, president of the Baldwin Piano Company of Cincinnati and Chi-

cago; Major William Henry Bixby, A. O. Elzner, and G. W. Kittredge,

engineers and members of the Engineers Club of Cincinnati; Senator

NOTES ARE ON PAGES 69-70

4                                                OHIO HISTORY

Hanna; Myron T. Herrick, Cleveland businessman and "member of Sena-

tor Hanna's machine,"² who became governor of Ohio (1903) and United

States ambassador to France (1912); James Parmelee, president of the

National Carbon Company and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Com-

pany; and Francis B. Loomis, career diplomat from Springfield and Cin-

cinnati, who became United States minister to Portugal (1902) and as-

sistant secretary of state (1903). Bunau-Varilla's relationship with these

men and the nature of their influence in the struggle for the Panama

Canal may be found among the correspondence, manuscripts, and papers

of Philippe Bunau-Varilla deposited in the Library of Congress in

Washington, D. C.3

These papers reveal how Bunau-Varilla met Procter, Taylor, and Wul-

sin in Paris in the summer of 1900 and how the Cincinnatians came to

invite him to the United States the following winter. There were many

Americans in Paris in 1900, for that was the year of the famed Inter-

national Exposition, where visitors marveled at the exhibits and delighted

in dining at Parisian restaurants. According to Wulsin, on one occasion

Procter and Taylor were taken to a new restaurant by Lieutenant Com-

mander Asher Baker, an American naval officer attached to the United

States Commission to the Paris Exposition, and there they met Bunau-

Varilla.⁴ Wulsin described the meeting as accidental, and there is no

reason to doubt his sincerity, but Baker had acted as Bunau-Varilla's

paid lobbyist in the United States during the congressional session of

1898-99,5 and it was possible that Bunau-Varilla and Baker had set up

the meeting. Nevertheless, Bunau-Varilla impressed the Cincinnatians

with his knowledge of Panama. They dined together again the next day,

and several days later they met for lunch, where, at Taylor's invitation,

Wulsin was also present. Everyone in America was convinced that the

proposed isthmian canal should go through Nicaragua, so when Bunau-

Varilla pointed out the disadvantages and dangers of the Nicaragua route

and extolled the superiority of Panama, Wulsin asked Bunau-Varilla if

he would come to the United States and present his arguments, in the

event arrangements could be made. Bunau-Varilla said he would, but

nothing specific was settled, and shortly afterwards the Americans left

for home. Bunau-Varilla heard no more about the matter, and he later

stated he had forgotten about it until he received an invitation on Decem-

ber 11, 1900, to come to Cincinnati and address the Commercial Club.6

Bunau-Varilla accepted the invitation on December 12, but owing to

previous engagements he was unable to leave before early January.7

Despite the apparent suddenness with which the invitation was made,

Bunau-Varilla had been contemplating a trip to the United States in

advocacy of the Panama scheme. Several other American friends8 had

been urging him to come, because the time for a decision on the isthmian

canal was approaching. For several years the representatives of the

French Panama Canal Company--with whom Bunau-Varilla had no con-

nection--had employed tactics of delay, that is, they exploited the ob-

6                                                OHIO HISTORY

first public address in English,13 and he spoke on "The Comparative Value

of the Nicaragua and Panama Routes of the Isthmian Canal." While his

comparison of the relative merits of the two routes concerned technical

features, he excited general interest by pointing out the danger of vol-

canoes at Nicaragua, and Taylor afterwards assured him the address "was

in every way a success."¹⁴ The people of Cincinnati, Taylor wrote, "felt

at once as we did on our first meeting in Paris not only your grasp of the

subject but the intensity of conviction which inspired all your utterance."15

The success of the talk may be measured by the demand that Bunau-

Varilla repeat it the next day before the Engineers Club of Cincinnati,

and the intensification of efforts on the part of Bunau-Varilla's Cincinnati

sponsors to secure additional hearings for him.

At a small luncheon on January 17, the discussion concerned the means

by which Bunau-Varilla might take his case to President William Mc-

Kinley, and it was suggested that it might be achieved through "the

President's friends in Cleveland."¹⁶ Jacob Schmidlapp telephoned Myron

T. Herrick in Cleveland, and it was arranged for Bunau-Varilla to talk

to an informal group at Cleveland's Union League Club the following

day.17 After a twelve-hour train ride, Bunau-Varilla arrived in Cleveland

on January 18, where he apparently converted Herrick and began with

him a long and warm friendship.18 Senator Hanna was not in Cleveland

at the time, but Herrick took steps to arrange an interview.19 Wulsin and

Taylor also took measures to have Bunau-Varilla meet Hanna.20 But be-

fore Bunau-Varilla went to Washington to see Hanna, he renewed his

lecture tour.

During the next several weeks Bunau-Varilla spoke in Boston, Chicago,

Princeton, and New York. His talk in Boston on January 25, 1901, had

been arranged through William Worthington of Cincinnati. He was re-

ceived politely there, but apparently did not excite the kind of interest

he had in Ohio. In Chicago, James Deering was his host, and Bunau-Varilla

delivered a public lecture under the auspices of the National Business

League on February 1. Baker accompanied the Frenchman to Chicago,

where he met Marshall Field, Robert Lincoln, and Cyrus McCormick.21

An effort to schedule an address before the Chicago Commercial Club in

mid-February failed, but McCormick was instrumental in enabling Bunau-

Varilla to speak at Princeton University on February 28.22 Bunau-Varilla

had difficulty in obtaining a hearing before the Chamber of Commerce

of the State of New York, but it was finally arranged through his friend

and attorney, former New York state senator Frank Pavey, and Gustav

Schwab, the representative in America of the North German Lloyd Steam-

ship Company.23 Throughout these weeks Bunau-Varilla was in touch with

his Cincinnati friends, and when he undertook to publish a pamphlet,

Nicaragua or Panama, which was the substance of his lectures in Amer-

ica, Taylor of the Commercial Club and A. 0. Elzner of the Engineers

Club supplied him with membership lists in order to distribute the pam-

phlet. Elzner stated that Bunau-Varilla's paper was the ablest argument

OHIO AND THE PANAMA CANAL                                       7

he had seen,24 but when Taylor praised it, Bunau-Varilla protested, "If

the light is at last thrown on this question, I may perhaps be credited

for the gas that gave light, but you with Mr. Proctor [sic] and Mr. Wulsin

have given me the match to burn it, and it is quite as important as the gas

to have light."²⁵ On March 17, Taylor informed Bunau-Varilla that the

time looked right for a visit to Washington to confer with Hanna.26

Bunau-Varilla went to Washington on March 19, but after waiting six

days to see Hanna, he returned to New York, where he "bumped into"

the Ohio senator. In Washington on March 20, Bunau-Varilla wrote to

Hanna and requested an interview. He mentioned his Ohio friends, and

told Hanna, "I came to this country to expose publicly what I think is the

technical and scientific truth about the transisthmian canal question, in-

dependently of any material interest whatever."²⁷ This note brought no

reply from Hanna, but if Bunau-Varilla was disappointed he did not

waste his time. Friends in Washington invited him to dine at the Metro-

politan and Cosmos clubs, and Bunau-Varilla secured the membership lists

to use in distributing his pamphlet. He also dined with Colonel Oswald

Ernst and George Morison, members of the isthmian canal commission

and corresponded with Deering in Chicago, who agreed to mail copies

of his pamphlet to the members of the National Business League.28 Ar-

rangements were also made for Bunau-Varilla to deliver his lecture to

the Philadelphia Bourse on April 3. Delays in additional printings of the

pamphlet Nicaragua or Panama caused Bunau-Varilla to return to New

York on March 26, but the following day he received a note from the

banker Isaac Seligman, who told him Hanna was in New York and was

staying at his same hotel, the Waldorf. Seligman stated, "Senator Hanna

came in to see me to-day, and I spoke to him about you. He will be glad

to see you at the hotel (Waldorf) any time at your convenience. I believe

that he leaves tomorrow night for Washington."²⁹ That same evening, late,

Bunau-Varilla went down to the Waldorf lobby for "a breath of air," and

came upon a group of returning theater-goers. Breaking away from the

party to greet Bunau-Varilla was Myron T. Herrick, who immediately in-

troduced him to another member of the group, Senator Mark Hanna.30

Thus, capping months of effort to bring the engineer and the senator to-

gether, another "chance meeting" brought the desired result. Hanna

apologized for his failure to answer Bunau-Varilla's letter and explained

that unexpected business had taken him from Washington, but he immedi-

ately invited Bunau-Varilla to call upon him.

After speaking in Philadelphia on April 3, Bunau-Varilla went to

Washington, where he met with Hanna and President McKinley. Bunau-

Varilla regarded his interview with Hanna as the turning point in the

Panama struggle,31 and Taylor reported that he believed Bunau-Varilla

had made "a most favorable impression upon Senator Hanna."³² There is

evidence, however, that Hanna was leaning towards the Panama solution

before he met Bunau-Varilla.33 While there is some question about who

was responsible for Hanna's conversion to Panama, the fact is that Hanna

8                                                 OHIO HISTORY

was the key figure in Panama's adoption by the senate the following year

and, in bringing this about, he relied greatly upon Bunau-Varilla.34 On

April 7, Bunau-Varilla had a five-minute audience with President Mc-

Kinley, but Bunau-Varilla considered this sufficient, since he felt no need

to repeat the lengthy argument he had presented to Hanna, the president's

friend and advisor.35 On April 9, Bunau-Varilla returned to New York

and made preparations to sail for France two days later. In summarizing

his lecture tour, Bunau-Varilla cabled Ferdinand de Lesseps' son, Charles,

in Paris, "Nicaragua est mort."³⁶ This was an optimistic appraisal, but

certainly Bunau-Varilla's visit to the United States initiated by the Cin-

cinnati Commercial Club had gone a long way towards reversing the

popular feeling that the canal would be built at Nicaragua. At almost

every milestone in the future struggle for Panama, Bunau-Varilla would

pause and pay tribute to his friends in Ohio. Perhaps this phase of the

campaign for Panama was best summed up by Francis B. Loomis in an

address before the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, on Sep-

tember 12, 1901, in which he said there had been "within the last year a

very considerable display of interest in the Panama route," and much

of it could be attributed to Bunau-Varilla's addresses before the Commer-

cial Club and the Engineers Club in Cincinnati.37

Things had gone well for Bunau-Varilla, but why had Ohio's leaders

been so helpful to him? There is not a shred of evidence that any of them

had a vested interest in the Panama route, nor did their names come up

later when it was charged that the Panama Canal affair involved a stock

speculation.38 It appears that they acted out of a desire to see the United

States build the canal at the best site and that they were sincerely capti-

vated by the personality of Philippe Bunau-Varilla. Lucien Wulsin ex-

pressed his feelings to Bunau-Varilla in February 1902 as follows:

Let me again assure you of the great interest with which I have

followed your practical yet high-minded and patriotic course in the

Panama matter. From my first meeting with you I was convinced

of the soundness and honesty of your views. I could therefore do no

less than I have done from my own standpoint as an American.39

And Taylor told Bunau-Varilla, "I love a man who loves a great cause

--to whom it is in a way a religion, to which he consecrates without stint

all his devotion and all his finest powers."⁴⁰ The numerous letters between

Herrick and Bunau-Varilla reveal their cordial friendship, and Bunau-

Varilla stated to Herrick's wife that he was able to secure support for

Panama because Herrick gave him "the credit of his friendship and of his

confidence."⁴¹ There was, however, one slight shadow that fell across this

picture.

Philippe Bunau-Varilla, through his brother Maurice, a Paris news-

paper publisher, seemed to have some influence in the awarding of prizes

and decorations connected with the Paris Exposition. As a mark of re-

OHIO AND THE PANAMA CANAL                                      9

spect and appreciation for their participation in the exposition many

Americans were decorated by the French government and named to the

Legion of Honor. Herrick, Taylor, and Wulsin were appointed to the rank

of chevalier in the Legion of Honor, and Wulsin's Baldwin pianos re-

ceived the "Gran Prix" award at the fair. There is no evidence that Bunau-

Varilla had anything to do with these honors, but with reference to awards

received by Chicago manufacturer James Deering, Bunau-Varilla definitely

had an influential part. With Bunau-Varilla's help, Deering was decorated

a knight in the Legion of Honor,42 and his firm received the "Merite

Agricole."⁴³ However, when Deering wanted Bunau-Varilla to help him

prevent his competitors from obtaining similar decorations, Bunau-Varilla

indicated that there were limits to what he was willing to do in this re-

gard. He told Deering that he had been able to secure the Merite Agri-

cole through his brother, but that his brother disliked using his "great

political influence" for private aims and that he had made an exception

because of the excellent reputation of the Deering firm. Bunau-Varilla

stated it would be useless to convey to his brother Deering's latest re-

quest, and he concluded as follows:

I appreciated dear friend as a demonstration of your friendship

to me to make known to me what would correspond to your desire

and I feel very worried to be incapable of being of any service to

you, but I hope you will appreciate as another proof of the friendly

confidence I have in your judgement to avoid any of these polite lies

people use with strangers to conceal their unwillingness or their in-

ability of doing what they are asked for.44

This letter revealed a frank honesty on the part of Bunau-Varilla, and

Deering was gracious in his response. "I understand perfectly," Deering

wired, "and if possible cherish you more than before. Don't fail to come

to Chicago again if any way possible."⁴⁵ This was probably an isolated

affair, but it has been cited as a demonstration of the possible practical

value of Bunau-Varilla's friendship. There was no further mention of

these matters after the spring of 1901.

Bunau-Varilla returned to the United States in November 1901 in order

to participate in the decisive congressional session of 1901-2. He now

came as a lobbyist rather than as a lecturer. For over six months, in alli-

ance with William Nelson Cromwell, the New York attorney who was

representing the French Panama Canal Company, Bunau-Varilla worked

closely with Mark Hanna in the senate. This effort, climaxed by Hanna's

dramatic speech on the senate floor on June 5 and 6, 1902, resulted in the

adoption of the Panama route. Bunau-Varilla did not visit Cincinnati

during this time, although Wulsin had invited him to come.⁴⁶ However,

Wulsin continued his efforts in Bunau-Varilla's behalf and to this end he

wrote to Ohio congressman Jacob H. Bromwell in February 1902.47 Bunau-

Varilla met several of his Ohio friends on March 1, when, with Hanna,

10                                                OHIO HISTORY

he attended the sixteenth annual banquet of the Ohio Society of New

York at the Waldorf-Astoria. During parts of April and May, Bunau-

Varilla did some sightseeing with his brother Maurice, who had come

to America for the first time, and one of the places they visited was Cleve-

land. In Cleveland the brothers were the guests of Myron T. Herrick,48

and there they also met Liberty Emery Holden, president of the Cleveland

Plain Dealer, who confessed that he was "a staunch friend of the Panama

route."⁴⁹ In late May and June 1902, Bunau-Varilla returned to the con-

gressional battleground and, as one of his tasks, he revised his pamphlet

Nicaragua or Panama into a shorter version with graphs and drawings.

On June 14, Bunau-Varilla wrote to Herrick and asked him to forward

the new pamphlet to President Theodore Roosevelt, because "the only

man who can do it is yourself. . . . You are the only man whose recom-

mendation will be sufficient to obtain that the President reads it."⁵⁰ It

was at this point also that Bunau-Varilla distributed to each senator his

famous Nicaraguan postage stamp, which showed a Nicaraguan volcano

in eruption. When the vote finally came in favor of Panama, Bunau-

Varilla's first step was to wire Wulsin and Taylor and to state, "I shall

remember forever that the triumph of Panama is due to the invitation of

the Commercial Club of Cincinnati . . . which allowed me to begin in your

country the campaign for the truth."⁵¹ Not too many months later, Bunau-

Varilla expressed his feelings in person, when, in November 1902, he

addressed and toasted the Cincinnati Commercial Club.

The adoption of the Panama route by the American congress in June

1902, did not end the Panama affair, and Bunau-Varilla was destined to

play another and more spectacular role in the history of the Panama Canal.

In these events an Ohioan also had a key part. The construction of the

Panama Canal was contingent upon the satisfactory negotiation of a

treaty with Colombia, the sovereign over the Panama route. This proved

a futile task, and leading citizens on the Isthmus of Panama decided that

they would secede from Colombia before they would risk losing the canal.

In September 1903, Bunau-Varilla was drawn into this conspiracy and

he became the movement's principal contact man in the United States. It

was hoped he could secure assurances that the United States would pre-

vent Colombia from retaliating against the rebels. Fortunately for Bunau-

Varilla, Francis B. Loomis was the assistant secretary of state. On October

10, Bunau-Varilla called at the state department to see Loomis, who took

him to the White House to meet President Roosevelt. On October 16,

Bunau-Varilla visited Loomis again and on this occasion he was intro-

duced to Secretary of State John Hay. In these meetings Bunau-Varilla was

completely open about the possibility of a Panama Revolution and he

expressed the need for the United States to fulfill its treaty obligations

to prevent bloodshed. The American leaders denied that any pledges of

assistance were given Bunau-Varilla, but as early as October 15, 1903,

United States naval vessels began to move towards the Isthmus.52 Bunau-

Varilla later avowed that he guessed the intentions of the United States,53

OHIO AND THE PANAMA CANAL                                     11

but said his fellow conspirators in Panama wanted tangible evidence that

the United States would intervene in their behalf and they demanded on

October 29 the sending of an American warship to Colon harbor. This

caused Bunau-Varilla to rush to Washington, where on October 29 and 30

he saw Loomis and warned him of the seriousness of the situation in

Panama. Loomis made no promises, Bunau-Varilla stated, but his show

of concern convinced the Frenchman the United States had formulated

a plan of action. Bunau-Varilla asserted he was able to infer that this

action involved the American cruiser U. S. S. Nashville when he read a

news dispatch of October 20 that the Nashville had departed Kingston,

Jamaica, for an undisclosed destination. Bunau-Varilla cabled the Isthmus

that a United States warship was on the way, and, as he predicted, the

Nashville arrived at Colon on November 2. The Panama Revolution took

place the next day.54 Bunau-Varilla's version of the Panama secession

movement has never been disproved, but Loomis raised certain questions

by cabling the Isthmus at 3:40 P.M. on November 3, "Uprising on Isthmus

reported. Keep department promptly and fully informed."⁵⁵ The over-

anxious Loomis, who on that day was the acting secretary of state, had

anticipated the movement by slightly over two hours. Panama became an

independent nation on November 3, 1903; on that same day Myron T.

Herrick was elected governor of Ohio. Perhaps it was no coincidence that

the Panama Revolution occurred on election day in the United States,

because the election returns almost pushed events at Panama off the front

page.56

Only three days after Panama's birth, Bunau-Varilla was named the

new republic's minister to the United States. In this capacity he nego-

tiated the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty and assured the construction of the

Panama Canal. There was criticism of the hasty manner in which Bunau-

Varilla negotiated this treaty, as well as the role the United States played

in the Panama Revolution. Loomis defended the actions of both Bunau-

Varilla and the United States in an address before the Quill Club of New

York on December 15, 1903, and he collaborated closely with Bunau-

Varilla during the latter's tenure as minister.57 On February 26, 1904,

Bunau-Varilla and John Hay exchanged ratifications for the canal treaty;

Bunau-Varilla's long fight for the Panama Canal was over, but even in

this final phase he did not fail to acknowledge the assistance of his Cin-

cinnati friends. On November 9, 1903, he telegraphed Taylor and Goepper,

"The center of the storm which you started three years ago in Cincinnati

with Wulsin and Proctor [sic] has traveled since to Washington and on

to Panama, where it just died after violent explosion [sic]. Fair weather

sure now."⁵⁸ And on New Year's Day, 1904, he asked Wulsin and Taylor,

"Do you recollect about three years ago who could foresee what would

grow of the seed you planted there with Procter?"⁵⁹ Thus, there was an

uninterrupted history of interest and participation on the part of Ohioans

in the Panama Canal affair. It started with the promotion by a group

of Cincinnatians of Bunau-Varilla's lecture tour in the United States in

12                                                    OHIO HISTORY

1901, continued with Hanna's advocacy of the Panama route in the United

States Senate in 1902, and culminated with the action of Loomis in the

Panama Revolution of 1903. As Bunau-Varilla expressed it, thanks to these

men the "beautiful Ohio" could trace its course to the Pacific.60

THE AUTHOR: Charles D. Ameringer

is an associate professor of history at

Pennsylvania State University and a spe-

cialist in Latin American history. He for-

merly was a member of the history faculty

at Bowling Green State University,

Bowling Green, Ohio.

NOTES

OHIO AND THE PANAMA CANAL

1. See the author's "The Panama Canal Lobby of Philippe Bunau-Varilla and Wil-

liam Nelson Cromwell," American Historical Review, LXVIII (1963), 346-363.

2. Henry F. Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt: A Biography (New York, 1931), 305.

3. Philippe Bunau-Varilla Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., Manu-

scripts Division. The author has made extensive use of these papers in the preparation

of this article. All references to manuscripts in the notes are to this collection.

4. Lucien Wulsin to Robert Batcheller, May 28, 1906. This is a copy of a letter

written to the secretary of the Commercial Club of Boston, in which Wulsin described

his association with Bunau-Varilla. Another copy of this letter was recently found

among the papers of the son of Lucien Wulsin. With annotations and an introduction

by Professor George B. Engberg of the University of Cincinnati, it was published

in the Bulletin of the Cincinnati Historical Society, XXII (1964), 186-192.

5. This fact is revealed in a series of letters exchanged between Baker and Bunau-

Varilla in 1898 and 1899.

6. Philippe Bunau-Varilla, Panama: The Creation, Destruction, and Resurrection

(New York, 1914), 174.

7. Bunau-Varilla to Wulsin and William Watts Taylor, December 12, 1900. There

is no record of any correspondence in the Bunau-Varilla Papers between Bunau-

Varilla and the Cincinnatians before December 11, 1900.

8. These included Baker, John Bigelow, former American minister to France,

who met Bunau-Varilla in Panama and became a close friend, and Frank Pavey, a

New York attorney.

9. Taylor to Bunau-Varilla, December 13, 1900.

10. Professor Engberg reaches the same conclusion from a study of the minute

books and correspondence files of the Cincinnati Commercial Club. Bunau-Varilla

was a man of some means, and, although he was a stockholder in the French Panama

Canal Company and profited from its sale to the United States, the author is convinced

that money was not the primary concern in Bunau-Varilla's campaign for the Panama

route.

11. Asher C. Baker to Percy Peixotto, February 7, 1901. Peixotto was a mutual friend

in Paris to whom Baker described these events.

12. Bunau-Varilla, Panama, 179.

13. Bunau-Varilla to Sir Edwyn Dawes, December 24, 1900. Bunau-Varilla lamented

that he would have to express his ideas in a foreign tongue, but, in fact, his English

was quite good.

14. Taylor to Bunau-Varilla, January 28, 1901.

15. Ibid.

16. Wulsin to Batcheller, May 28, 1906.

17. Ibid.; Bunau-Varilla to John Bigelow, January 17, 1901.

18. Several mutual friends noted Bunau-Varilla's success: Wulsin to Bunau-Varilla,

January 25, 1901, and Bigelow to Bunau-Varilla, April 25, 1901.

19. Wulsin to Batcheller, May 28, 1906; Bunau-Varilla, Panama, 181.

20. Wulsin to Bunau-Varilla, March 15, 1901.

21. Baker to Peixotto, February 7, 1901.

22. Cyrus McCormick to Bunau-Varilla, February 14, 1901.

23. Gustav Schwab to Bunau-Varilla, February 28, 1901.

24. A. O. Elzner to Bunau-Varilla, April 14, 1901.

25. Bunau-Varilla to Taylor, March 20, 1901.

26. Taylor to Bunau-Varilla, March 17, 1901.

27. Bunau-Varilla to Hanna, March 20, 1901.

28. James Deering to Bunau-Varilla, March 23, 1901.

29. Isaac Seligman to Bunau-Varilla, March 27, 1901.

30. Bunau-Varilla, Panama, 184.

31. Ibid., 187.

32. Taylor to Bunau-Varilla, July 25, 1901.

33. U. S. House of Representatives, 62 cong., 1 sess., Committee on Foreign Affairs,

The Story of Panama: Hearings on the Rainey Resolution (Washington, 1913), 150-157;

Thomas Beer, Hanna, Crane, and The Mauve Decade (New York, 1941), 596-600.

34. Ameringer, "The Panama Canal Lobby," passim.

35. Bunau-Varilla, Panama, 187.

36. Bunau-Varilla to Charles de Lesseps, April 9, 1901.

37. Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, September 13, 1901.

38. On October 3, 1908, the New York World published a story which said that a

"Wall Street syndicate" was behind the United States acquisition of the Panama

70                                                          OHIO HISTORY

Canal, and one of the alleged participants in the syndicate was Charles P. Taft, the

brother of William Howard Taft. These allegations were never satisfactorily proven

and they were regarded by some as a maneuver to embarrass Taft's candidacy for

president. Concerning Bunau-Varilla's activities in Cincinnati, the author has not found

any mention of a member of the Taft family.

39. Wulsin to Bunau-Varilla, February 3, 1902.

40. Taylor to Bunau-Varilla, January 28, 1901.

41. Bunau-Varilla to Mrs. Myron T. Herrick, June 14, 1902.

42. Philippe Bunau-Varilla to Maurice Bunau-Varilla, March 15, 1901.

43. Deering to Bunau-Varilla, March 30, 1901.

44. Bunau-Varilla to Deering, March 30, 1901.

45. Deering to Bunau-Varilla, April 1, 1901.

46. Wulsin to Bunau-Varilla, February 25, 1902.

47. Jacob H. Bromwell to Wulsin, February 26, 1902.

48. Bunau-Varilla to Myron T. Herrick, June 2, 1902.

49. Liberty E. Holden to Bunau-Varilla, June 6, 1902.

50. Bunau-Varilla to Herrick, June 14, 1902.

51. Bunau-Varilla to Wulsin and Taylor, June 21, 1902.

52. Miles P. DuVal, Cadiz to Cathay (Stanford, Calif., 1940), 303.

53. Bunau-Varilla, Panama, 318-319.

54. Ibid., 329-336.

55. DuVal, Cadiz to Cathay, 327.

56. Ibid., 310, 332.

57. Bunau-Varilla to Loomis, December 31, 1903. Loomis was particularly helpful

in Bunau-Varilla's efforts to secure the recognition of Panama by the nations of the

world.

58. Bunau-Varilla to Taylor and Edward Goepper, November 9, 1903.

59. Bunau-Varilla to Wulsin and Taylor, January 1, 1904.

60. Bunau-Varilla to Taylor, June 11, 1901.

THE OHIO ROAD EXPERIMENT

1. The Signal, December 17, 1914. The bulk of the material for this article was taken

from the National Archives, Washington, D. C. I should like to thank the College Research

Institute of Texas Western College for making my research in Washington, D. C., pos-

sible. Microfilm of the Signal, one of Zanesville's daily newspapers, was made available

to me by the Ohio Historical Society, for which I wish to express my appreciation.

2. Work on the "West Pike" was begun in August 1829. The first section of twenty-one

miles west of Zanesville was substantially finished and opened to regular travel in 1831.

By 1833 work on the remainder was sufficiently advanced to permit mail service over the

whole length of the road, though it was not fully completed until late in 1835. Reports of

the Secretary of War, Senate Executive Documents, 21 cong., 2 sess., No. 17, p. 16; 22

cong., 1 sess., No. 58, p. 2; 23 cong., 1 sess., No. 1, p. 81; 24 cong., 1 sess., No. 1, p. 194.

For vivid descriptions of the old National Road, see the following: Thomas B. Searight,

The Old Pike: A History of the National Road, with Incidents, Accidents, and Anecdotes

Thereon (Uniontown, Pa., 1894); Archer Butler Hulbert, The Cumberland Road (Historic

Highways of America, X, Cleveland, 1904); R. Carlyle Buley, The Old Northwest: Pio-

neer Period, 1815-1840 (Indianapolis, 1950); Philip D. Jordan, The National Road (In-

dianapolis, 1948).

3. Hulbert, The Cumberland Road, 123, 174-187.

4. Jordan, The National Road, 169, 175; see also Senate Executive Documents, 23

cong., 1 sess., No. 1, p. 170.

5. Wayne E. Fuller, "Good Roads and Rural Free Delivery of Mail," Mississippi

Valley Historical Review, XLII (1955), 67-83.

6. Ibid., 81-82; United States Statutes at Large, XXXVII, 551-552.

7. Joint Report of the Progress of Post Road Improvement, no date, Records Relating

to Federal Aid Road Acts, Records of the Post Office Department, Record Group 28,

National Archives (hereafter referred to as Postal Records).

8. State of Ohio certification of money available for post-road improvement, March

20, 1914; Muskingum County certification of money available for post-road improvement,

March 13, 1914; Licking County certification of money available for post-road improve-

ment, March 13, 1914; Second Economic Study, Ohio Post Road, 2 (the date this report

was written is unknown, but the study was made May 11-22, 1916); Clinton Cowen to

L. W. Page, June 5, 1915, all in Correspondence, Reports, and Studies Relating to Post

Roads, Records of the Bureau of Public Roads, Record Group 30, National Archives (all