Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-09-04
London Newspaper Criticises Roose-
velt's Attitude on Panama Canal
Fertilization.
ADMIT HIS POSITION IS SOUND
Suggests to Former President that
America Should Employ Diplomacy.
SURPRISE AT WASHINGTON
Officials Think Britons Do Not
Appreciate Conditions.
TREATY ITSELF GIVES RIGHT
Hay-PauncefOte Agreement Contains
No Authorization for Enemy OF
United states 10 Use Canal
90 Its Detriment.

LONDON, Sept. 8-Mr. Roosevelts de-
mand that the United States fortify the
Panama canal. set forth In his speech at
Omaha yesterday, is characterized by the
Westminster Gazette today as direct re-
lection of the terms Of the American and
British agreement OF 1901 under which the
naturalization Of the canal is guaranteed.
The carrying out Of such a plan, the Ca
zette says, would mean the tearing up of
the agreement
The paper admits II to be reasonable that
the United States should assume some mil
itary control over the new waterway, but
suggests TO the former president that the
United States should secure any alteration
of the terms OF the agreement through
diplomatic methods and not by the repudi-
alton of its engagements"
Ofnciais Are Surprised,
WASHINGTON. Sept. 3--Officials both
of the State department and Of the army
expressed surprise today that any question
. had been raised at this time to the re-
port OF the United States TO erect fortifi-
cations along the Panama canal. They re-
gard the unfavorable comment in the Eng
lish press on Colonel Roosevelts remarks
about the necessity for fortifying the canal
as lack of appreciation both of the action
OF the American government and OF the
self BY implication, it is declared by
American officials that the American and
British agreement of 1901. known as the
Hay-Pauncefote threaty gave the United
States the right to fortify the canal.
The Implication Is drawn from several
clauses It is pointed out This treaty set
forth that the United States adopted az
the basis Of the naturalization of the canal.
the rules go-erning the Suez canal. with
certain notifications. In contrast with the
suez canal rules. the Panama canal rules,
1t is contended, contain no specific author
ization for an enemy OF the United States
% usc tho-Sahal TO the detriInent OF the
latter's interests. II is therefore claimed
by the United States that its guarantee o
neutraiize the canal only refers to bellg-
erents not enemies OF the United States.
Furthermore, 1t is added, no express pro-
vision was Incorporated in the rules for
bidding the United States to fortfy the
canal, as was done with Turkey in the case
OF the Suez canal
Omissions Significant.
:. These commissions are regarded as par
g tIeularly significant because of the fac
Athat the Lord Pauncefote who drew tn,
treaty Of 1901 with Secretary OF State Hay
was one OF the negouators OF the treat,
that provided for the Suez rules. In thi.
connection according to the understanding
by the State department, the view OF tn,
British government was expressed in {
memorandum by Lord Lapsdowne. OF
August 81 1901, communicated TO secretar,
Hay through Lord Pauncefote
II understand that by the omission O.
all reference to the matter of Defense" h,
aaid. the United States government de
sres TO reserve the power OF taking meas
ures to protect the canal at any rate whel
the United States may be at war. From
destrhction or damage at the hands OF al
enemy or enemies. l am not pre-
paree'to deny that contingencies may arls
when. not only from national point o
view, but on behalf OF the commercial in
terests OF the whole world, IL might be o
supreme Importance to tho Uaited State
that they should be free to adopt measure
for the defense of the canal at a momen
when they were themselves engaged il
hostilities"
The American government, II Is elaine,
here. has been openly acting on the theor
that It had the rish to forutfy the canal.