The age-herald., 1900-03-17
Nicaraqua Canal Obstacles.

Senator Morgan does not believe that
 right to fortify the Nicaragua canal is at all needful; neither does the Age Herald;
 for whoever holds the sea in case of war will command the canal, and a single dyn-
 amite bomb can hold the canal against all
 corners better than forts along it's banks would hold 1t. The senate committee on | foreign relations has, however, added this
 section to the -Pauncefote treaty: | Tt is agreed, however, that none of the l immediately foregoing conditions ana | stipulations in sections Nos. l, ?, 8, 1, , of | this article shall apply to measures which the United States may find it necessary to
 take for securing by its own forces the de-
 fense of the United States and the main- tenance of public order.
 This section would nullify in case of war
 the Neutrality sections of the treaty; and
 the country, forgetting the terms of the
 C1ayon-B Bulwer treaty seems to demand it.
 The chances are that England will not ob- treaty. The London Spectator thus dis cusses the case:
 We see that yet another attempt is be- ing made in America to stop the ratifca- tion of the qualifications of the Clayton
 Bulwer treaty, on the ground that Great
 Britain forb.ds the foriification of the
 canal. In other words, certain over ve-
 hement persons are trying to persuade
 the American people that Great Britain is forcing the clauses foroidding fortihca- tions upon an unwilling government. The whole thing is. we believe, a pure delu sion. British interests are entirely on the side of the fortifcations of the canal by the United States. Any one who takes the trouble to think the matter out will see | this at once What we want Is the com plete and absolute naturalization Of the | Nicaragua canal We want our ships to | be able to pass freely through the canal | in case of war with any of the. continental | powers, and we want to our enemies | prevented from converting the canal and | its entrances into hostile ports. But there | is only way to secure the absolute | neutrality of the canal-to place 1t in the I hands of a power strong enough to en-
 force that neutrality against all corners. | '1But. though we see very clearly good | and sound reasons why President McKin- l ley should have been anxious to see | an standardization clause in the treaty, | in order to prevent foreign opposition, we | admit that the question is one for Amer l ica and not for us. If America like to 1 risk foreign friction by claiming the right | to fortify, it is not for us to object If, l then, America asks us to give up the | clause forbidding Notifications we ought | to. and most certainly should at once agree. But unless are greatly mistaken, | the United tSates will not care to stir up l a hornets nest"
 The truth probably is, this entire lbusi-
 ness is another device of the interests that
 are fighting the construction of any isth-
 milan canal. The fertilization issue has been
 raised to confuse the situation. We must l in any event depend upon our ships; and
 what is needed is a speedy construction of | the canal. What the country desires is a 1 speedy confirmation of the Hay-Paunce- ] fote treaty, and like speedy passage of | the Nicaragua canal bill. The country | wants the canal, and will have it, and the | fertilization clause is really an immateral | matter. It is not a practical matter It is | not a needful matter, as Senator Morgan 1 has explained. Our defense will depend, as
 it depends now, upon our sea power We | cannot use the canal in case of war unless | we can command its approaches.