The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-12-30

mast m all cases ssnd lamps fFr h.i purpose
Conccrnin: - "lslot on Our National
Honor
We observe that our contemporary
the Hsrr'Id If II need of Il few more
words of all educational nature.
Our contemporary has not yet with
drawn it, opinion. express. 4 on Monday
last. that TIT SlN is wrong in its asser-
ton that the mt"d States has IA clearly
ard legally established right to fortifv
III" Panama Canal II has not cor
rCCted its own astonishing assertion that
SEQ far from having "A legally rstah-
hsbeh right To fortlfy th" canal W. are
legally pledged not To iortiiy IL. 1t
chaerllIllv resumes ltS mlsrc pr"senta-
ing OF THURSDAY in the face Of IN" evil
demo. already laid before II. that thc
ortification of the canal by the ntcd
States would b. breach Of faith and a
blot OH our national honor
Their" i uo question I'll IN" H'ynId =
privilege ,o contend. II IL So please for
the abandonment IT tn. idea az fnrtify-
in,, TN. canal for h. superiority Of naval
defence over that by means Of land
works on IN" I-rhmI> for tn" sub-titu-
ton nf an International guarantees If
neutrality for thar guarantee which de-
pends on this republics own resources
for thu. surrender now and forever II
our ah-nlut" sovereign control of our
property. We shall listen with interest
10 it, remarks ON any of th"-. subjects.
l.ut il does surprise IL Ia find the Herald
~tll Insisting On TN" utterly unl"nable
proposition that treaty law binds us not
10 fortifv; thar tn undertake" Ia fnrtify
would b. di-honnrable proceeding. a
breach of faith. "A violation ~ IN" ma
tons ple,lg,. recorded in the treaty with
Crsat Britain
This surprises Us all ~" NOR" because
"a the time 81 IN" negotiation and rati-
fication Of IN" second -Pauncefote
treaty the Herald seemed To- understand
clearly enough that the contract left the
Intel states AT perfect liberty TO for
tify. We present for our contemporaries
enlightenment ia own construction "f
the treaty as editori1llv expressed on
November II. 1901, when some knowl-
edge Of the contents of the document
had become public:
10 Is fair 10 Assume that IN. objectionable
points causing the rejection Of the former Hay
Psuneefote treaty have been Withdrawn. and
that our right Is recognized TO control q canal
situated Ia republics Of the western hemisphere
and buiIs with American capital
On November II, 1901. three DAYS
after the conclusion of the negotiations.
tho Herald explained more specifically
the significance OF the treaty which it
now says binds US legally not 20 fortify
the canal:
build own and control the canal To h. open to the
commerce Of the world and neutral in time Of
war except To an enemy Of the United States.
ssssh s,av take ,urh r.sdsurss for Is d.rsnes .,
may deem ddTtsGbis.:
Again the Herald on the same day.
November Il, 1901
Tho treaty Is silent as In fertilization 4,
'st, q not prohtbg,d. m, question you'd sssrI 10
b- lei, 90 the dts, rstDn NJ me ngsd .S,9'sg.-
The second and the third OF the fore
going extracts from the Herdid's cdi-
torial columns convey its own lucid
Interpretation of the Hay Pauncefote
treaty with regard 10 tho absolute
liberty in which that contract leaves US
To- choose our measures Of defence. to
forrify or not to fortify according 10 our
unhampered discretion. II. after having
studied these opinions Of its own, the
Herald persists in maintaining that the
treaty legally pledges d." United States
not 10 fortify the Panama Canal, we are
bound 10 say that we shall scarcely know
how to proceed further to convince our
esteemed contemporary.