The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-12-28

fertilization vhth 'r. contemporary
supP'-s- To cxk, m ~" -.c"nd The
hrst contained the pledge o. keep open
the ANAL {" IA. war-liI- e all nations.
including enemle- of ~" ultsd Sta'e-s.
in time nf wnr a. IN time at pssC" the
pledge II self -ds-trI'ttnu which dos
trs' treaty Wa rejected Tn" second
treaty wss ratified bat nur contempor-
:" IN" rejected and ,Npunged provisions
# the rejected instrument. II No. the
Heraid Is more obtrlsa to the nature. Of
our contract with Gr.a, Britain than was
the British Foreign Offi'c i'self al the
tim. If the tran-artlou Secretary HAY
then transmitted an official m.moran-
dun explaining that the I'nited State.
reserved IN. right to foriify the canal.
II" wrote. after the rejection Of the first
Hay Pauno efote Treaty and before the
conclusion oi IN. second
In NlcW ~ me enormous COS, ~ the ranH'
and its maintenance by the nItei States q Wa
deem ri fair tn omit the rrohibuon contained IN
n" former treaty forbiidInE me fertilization ~
the canal and it, waters
Tn" exact -ignifi, ancc If the omission
and the reason therefor w"r" under
stood and formally acknrw lodged bv
tn" British Secretary 81 stat" for For
"ign Affairs, Lord lANsDOwNE. who
replied officially a. follows. on August
81. 1891, through Lord PAuNCFforE Ia
SECRETARY HAYS memorandum
understand by the omission 81 all reference
tn tho matter o; dsfencr the ni,ed States ,ol-rn.
meut desires tn reserve the power 81 ,asng
measures 70 protect the canal any rate hen the
nitet States may BE- aiwar frnIr destruction OF
damage at the hands % an enemy enemies
In accordance with the legal right
established by the rejection II the first
Hay -PaunCefnte treaty and the ratiiiCa-
ton Of the second ~ the nations CON
tract with Great Britain-rhe right
clearly recognized in Lord IANsDOwSF'
official memorandum If understanding
at the time IF the negotiations our
Government proceeded Ia avow ~ IN"
whole world its purpose. ThI- was
done in the -Bunau-V arilla treaty
Of November -. 1917, with the Republic
of Panama:
ARTICLE NIiir Rr should become neces-
ssry a. any time employ armed forces for tn.
safety or protection Of the canal or Of the ships
,hst make us- Of inc SANE or the railways ami
auxiliary works the United States shall nave the
isht a, all times and In It's discretion use ~,
police and Its land and al forces SstIsiJh
ior't1cIitOHS for these purposes
These are some Of our reasons for be-
lievlng that IN. Herald contemporary
The SUN Is not wrong. but correct. IN
its assertion that the United States Gov
eminent has clearly and legally ,.stab-
lished right to fortifv II it pleas.ss: and
for believing that IL. HerniJ i aston
lshingly wrong when II holds that the
owner of the Panama Canal is legally
pledged not TO fortify it.
We reprint for our estss;ned cuntem-
porarv = further information what THE
SUN said ten years ago, lacking IA few
days, when that first treaty which sur
rendered the right TO fortify was pend
ing in the senate We may never want
10 fortIfy tho approaches 10 this Amer
lean canal We may never need or car.
TO plant a single gun Their" That IS and
ought TO remain our own business But
formally TO surrender in advance IN.
right TO fight at our own canal in Sc
fence OF our own interests. HAIRS of
our national existence. md 20 become
voluntarily party TO a foreign r-raran-
tee Of -. Use of the canal b. our c'.rules
in Their military and naval operations
against ourselves what Language does
the diplomatic Dictionary supply of suf-
ficient cogency TO characterize such a
stupendous such a suicidal mistake of
policy"