East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1910-09-22
PROBLEMS IN CANAL DEFENSE
Continued from page 1.)

pose. From these positions the bat
teries or mortars and big guns will
command a stretch of water large
enough for the fleet to maneuver in.
The guarding of the canal at in
terror points is not so difficult prob
lem. A garrison will be maintained
within the zone which can patrol the
route. The vulnerable points will be
the locks which could easily be dis
abled by the explosion or stick of
dynamite and serious damage might
be done at the same way at one of
the dams.
Precautions will also be taken in
time of war between any nations to
prevent the sinking of a ship in the
channel to obstruct the passage of a
fleet
There is little doubt OF the ability
of the United States to fortify the ca
nal effectively. Whether or not it
has the right to do so according to
the agreement with Great Britain is
a more involved question.
Apart from treaty considerations
the right of the United States cannot
be questioned The United States con-
trolls the ten-mile strip through which
the canal runs as much as IT controls
the Philippine islands. This country
spent hundreds of millions of dollars
to dig the waterway. The right of the
United States to erect what fortifica-
tions it pleases within its own terri
tory and defend it's own possessions
cannot be questioned.
Those who object to the fortifica-
ton are either the militant advo-
Gates of universal peace, notably
Gen. J. Warren Koifer, of Ohio, whose
reasons We're based on anti-war senti-
ment, or persons who hold that 1t Is
contrary to the spirit of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty with Great Britain.
Among the peace advocates there
IS only one argument-whether it is
wise or foolish to promote the cause
of universal peace by exposing to the
attacks of belligerant country or the
Vaccinations of an individual with
a stick of dynamite, the waterway
which has cost hundreds of millions
and which will be of incalculable val
ue to the commerce of the world.
The Treaty.
AS to the treaty itself-there Is no
clause which stands in the way of the
fortification of the canal. The treaty
embodies some of the International
treaties regarding the Suez canal but
not all Of them and as the circum-
| stances under which it will have been
built and administered are quite diff
ferent from those affecting the Suez
route, it is not contended that all the
regulations adopted in the case of the
| latter canal apply to the Panama ca
nal.
The treaty itself therefore. does
not specify whether or not the canal
shall be fortified. It does. however,
stipulate that it shall be neutral. This
was the purpose of the framing of the
treaty. The object of Great Britain
was to obtain from the United States
assurance that the control of the ca
nal would not be exercised by the
United States for the benefit Of any
country as against another country in
time of war. AS an example II Ger
many were to fight Japan the United
states was not to open the canal to
| Germany and close it to Japan or
vica versa nor was 1t to allow either
country to secure an advantage over
the other by bottling up the canal.
This being the case, army and navy
experts point out, It is not only the
privilege but the obligation of the
United States to fortify the canal In
order that its provisions may be guar
anteed and that the provisions of the