The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-27

treaty permanent IN is nature, leaving
IL open to question whether. in the event
OF war with Us, the canal should become a
facility afforded BY Us and at our cost for
nm attack upon us. IL would seem TO be
wise IL 1t was our purpose TO close the
canal against A fleet hostile to us to say
SO. I'm order to exempt u. il we exercise
that right hereafter, from the well founded
charge OF having violated a solemn treaty
obligation
.Second-At the time the Davis amend
rnent was proposed and adopted Article J
was in the treaty. That article bound both
Great Britain and the United States TO Sc
cure the adherence OF other governments
TO the terms of the Hay-pauncefote treaty
Every power which 'adberes' to a treaty
or, what Is the same thing. becomes 4
party to IL by accession Is entitled TO the
benefits OF It's s~tipulauons. and wltnou.
the Davis amendment or an equivalent
many think that If we closed the canal az
least against any adhering power hostile
70 us we wouId. thereby afford foundation
for the claim by all the adhering powers
hat we had violated the treaty and furnish
them with a casus beili agains. Us which
might lead 10 a combination against VI
hostile I'm character or might at least be
taken TO JUSTIFY a refusal to enforce the
neutral rules Of international law. This
could not be true with the Davis amend
ment adopted because every adhering ma
ton would become "A party with knowledge
OF this reserved right of self-defense. Later
the third article for the adherence OF other
nations was stricken out.
with these three amendments the treaty
was ratified. and IL leaves the United States
agreeing with Great Britain upon broad
ruiss for international use of it upon terms
OF equality In peace and in war, subject to
our right TO close IL against an enemy
where such action is necessary 70 our ma
tsonal defense.
"As originally drawn with provision for
unqualified neutrality the legislative de-
partment could not be justly criticised for
It. as 1t was IN harmony with the policy
which had prevailed up TO the time of the
passage Of the Hepburn bill through the
House.
'It IS not surprising that the executive
department should not feel at liberty TO
reverse the broad policy of neutrality. Many
reasons could be given for this. which |
cannot now take the time to indicate We
wish the canal to be used by the vessels OF
all nations. We have under the Hay
PaYncefote treaty. as II was drawn. the
right 10 maintain such military police along
the canal as We see fit TO protect 1t from
lawlessness and disorder. The power to
fortify IL at either end. many have thought,
would Indicate too much a purpose &c make
of Ii a military rather than a commercial
CANA; and furnish motive and interest to
other governments to complete or secure
the completion of q competitive canal,
which woplG be detrimental to the interest
OF the United States in many ways in peace
and in war. 1t is a large subject and much
needs TO be thought of in connection with
It by those who act for the people in the
matter.
zone thing is certain, It seems to be set
tied thar there must be a canal: that the
United State shall build ii. and maintain il.
Nothing in the amendments was intended
70 be offensive TO Great Britain or should
be considered offensive by Great Britain. l
hope and believe the amendments will re-
ceive the approval Of that government. If
II should be otherwise / am quite certain
that the Claytos Bulwer treaty will not be
permitted by the United States much longer
10 prevent the construction by the United
States OF a waterway connecting the At
1antic and Pacific oceans. But in attain
ing that end. we will not. / am very sure,
be led into any breach of national honor or
international courtesy"