New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-09
THE NEW CANAL TREATY.
ARGUMENTS FOR NEUTRALITY
ADVANTAGES THIS COUNTRY WOrJr,n
GAIN FROM FREE WATERWAY.

u
To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: The isthmus canal treaty viii be rnisun-
derstood by those who have genius for GETTING
on the wrong side OF every question and resist
ing every step in the progress Of the American
Republic. Some of them. without doubt in all
sincerity Of purpose urge that the United States
ought to secure exclusive ownership and control
of this highway between the oceans. at least for
military naval purposes, that it could not
only use that highway in the concentration Of
forces for the defence OF either seacoast. but
could bar ii from the of any ether Power
for the purpose of attack The simplest answer
is in this perhaps the most conclusive. No
one can fail to that the United States would
be immeasurably more powerful for defence or
for attack in either ocean IL there were open
and neutral channel between them But nobody
can name a nation which would be stronger
against the United States with such free chan
mel than it is now. Any other now reach
our Pacific Coast with a hostile fleet not max
ing known it's size or force time OF arrival.
But If any other should use isthmian canal
for such purpose. it's cOaling necessities in the
West Indies would first call guard all the
American fleet in Atlantic waters TO dispute the
approach to the canal. il that were deemed best
or cause the concentration Of all the American
fleet in Pacific waters to resist departure OF
hostile vessels beyond the immediate neighbor-
hood OF the exit.
In any conceivable circumstances the United
States would have decided advantages which It
has not now If the canal were free to ALL But
it needs little attention to disclose the weaken
irg effect of any highway which any other
nation. If strong enough at the right point and
moment. could seize and hold against this coun-
try That sort OF highway the United States
would be forced to defend and fortify at any
cost. Enormous fortiheations would be neces-
sary and the constant presence Of a strong land
force, besides powerful naval force in either
ocean, to guard against attack by hostile ma
tons. An outlay actually smaller would enable
this country 10 add a naval force much more
powerful than any other nation is likely TO send
across the Atlantic and that floating force
could be used anywhere else. while the fortifica-
tons could be used nowhere else. No matter
how strongly fortified, the canal would always
be liable to a form of attack against which. IN
the wfIds of Central America, il could scarcely
be protected a few men could blow up one Of
it's locks with dynamite and close the highway
completely against the United States. at least
until a strong and we'll equipped force for con-
struction could be sent thither. For National
defence therefore. such highway held and
used by the United States exclusively would be
Of certain and enormous cost but of most uncer-
tain benefit.
The highway free to all would be Of greater
advantage to the United States than to any OF
all other countries. merely because OF its posi-
ticn No other Power could ever so quickly con-
centrate a naval force near either entrance.
whether for passing into another ocean or TO
prevent the passage of hostile feet The pos
session of ports in the West Indies now renders
it weIlnigh certain that the United States would
have ample warning Of the approach or any
hostile fleet across <he Atlantic. and time TO at
tack it there before it could complete the neees-
sary coaIing and refitting after such voyage
and get away fer the voyage across the IuiI Oh
the Pacific side coaling operations Tor a nos
tile fleet would be possible without giving amps
warming to American vessels in both oceans.
and our own vessels could reach and pass
through the canal before a hostile neet OF m
nortance could make itself felt The mere prox-
frnitv of United States vessels and coallng poEls
in both oceans would secure to this Nation q
greater and more lasting advantage IN the use
of neutral canal than its ownership ana e4-
elusive use could possibly give.
Ii is not necessary to dwell upon the meal
culabIe benefit of such a highway between tina
oceans to the commercial interests or this coon-
try Those all men now recognize 1t IS only on
the side of National defence in case OF war that
the neutral highway is likely to be seriously
criticised by any one But the wisdom or tne
Administration in relying upon proximity o.
American fleets and stations in both oceans ana
not upon an empty title to exclusive use, VIII oe
the more clearly recognized as discussion OF me
subject continues. u NJ W.
New-York, Feb. Z, 1901