Evening star., 1911-01-19

vital strategic point. We can leave At
lantic City and Coronado to the protection
of The Hague agreement. but not New
York or San Francisco, and least OF all
the Panama canal.
The second reason assigned why we
should not foftify is that while the Hay-
Pauncefote treaty does not prohibit fortf-
ncatioD Ii was the original intention of
this government to prohibit: The Clay
ton Rulwer treaty made the United States
and Great Britain joint protectors and
guarantors of the neutrality Of any future
canal. and forbade Notifications. The
vital result of the treaty. of 1902 was
to relieve Great Britain from joint re-
sponsibilit.- as a guarantor and protec-
tor of the canals neutrality, and TO
relieve the United States from certain
restrictions upon its action, which were
reasonable only while the joint protec-
torate existed. 1t is not now seriously
contended that the United States Is
under any treaty obligation to refrain
from fertilization. 1t is conceded that
the question. is one Of eXpediency, to
be decided on it's merits.
The third reason is that the Suez canal
and the Straits of Magellan are neutral
Suez canal was constructed largely with
French money in territory under the
jurisdiction Of Egypt with Great Britain
later as protector) and of Turkey,
Egypt's nominal overlord. The condi-
tions. both of jurisdiction and stock own
ership, were SO complicated that nothing
but an International neutralized water
way could result. The Panama canal is
built on American soil. and entirely
with American money. 1t is domestic
waterway, connecting the Atlantic and
Pacific sections Of the United States. as
well as an International waterway by
grace Of the United States and Panama
for the benefit of the commerce of the
world.
The fourth reason is that the United
States has never been and probably
never will be attacked by a foreign op-
ponent and that IL it should be attacked
its enemy would not dare to violate its
naturalization pledge for fear of inter-
national boycott in punishment. The
fifth reason is that fortification would be
inconsistent with our policy of century
favoring the substitution of arbitration
for war. Both these reasons are affil-
lated with the first reason, and stand or
fall with it. The stronger the United
States is made by exclusive control OF
the canal and the greater the injury
through exclusion from the canals bene-
fits which will be suffered by an enemy
of the United States, the more powerful
the impulse to continued peace with the
United States among the nations OF tine
earth. The United States fayors the SUD-
stitution OF arbitration for war. Canal
fertilization. which is purely defensive IN
its nature, is an assurance of peace rather
than declaration or indication OF bel
liycrency. 4 battleship may be used for
attack as we'll as in defense; ana the
fifth reason would. il accepted, cause us
to get rid of our navy before it applied
TO coast fortitications.
Tne sixth and last reason is that forti-
fication would be expensive. The canal
Is itself costly. If the fortificatfon en-
pcnditure makes practically available to
meet the vital military necessities OF the
United States the four hundred millions
10 be spent on the canal, and constitutes
insurance protecting four hundred mil
lions of property and is in the nature or
assurance of continued peace for the
republic, then the outlay is not expensive,
but economical and WISE