Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-02-26
WILL FORT|FY CANAL
House Appropriates $3,000,-
900 to Begin the Work.
TAWNEY AND KEIFER OBJECT
Warm Debate Precedes Final Action
Upon the Question.
COST WILL BE MILLIONS
REPRESENTATIVE From Minnesota
Says $50, 100000 Will Be Ulti-
mate Cost of Project.
TAWNEY AND KEIFER OBJECT
COST WILL BE MILLIONS

The Panama canal is to be fortified.
BY an overwhelming vote the House oi
REPRESENTATIVES last night expressed its
will on the subject. and appropriated 3D.
100000 to begin the construcuoh oi '''e
great waterways defenses. rs there is
no question but that the Senate Will con-
cur without amendment or delay II IS
evident that the United states VIII soon
formally have gone on record as deciai :
ing that the Panama canah RECLAIMED
from the jungle by American BRAIN anu
Drawn. and built with American money
will be defended with American guns.
The total cost of the fortifications when
completed. is estimated by the special
fortification board appointed to plan the
defenses at S12,o0n. .0G5, but Representa-
tive Tawney of Minnesota, chairman OF
the House appropriations committee, de-
clared last night in opposing the propcsi-
ton, that the ultimate cost would he at
least sGo.OO0.oG1. and the annual cost OF
maintenance SoS,C00,0op. Representative
keifer OF Ohio. general by title. ana
distinguished veteran of two wars, went
even further than this. insisting that the
land and naval deferSes OF the canai
would cost at least S10OOO.0OO with an
sary for maintenance.
But while Messrs Tawney and keifer.
who think the canal should be protected
by international neutrality agreement.
made an admittedly gallant fight. they
had no chance. 1t was demonstrated last
night that sentiment in the House is
overwhelmingly in favor of the fortihca-
ton scheme, no matter what 1t may event
ualy cost.
Incidentally. some of the best speeches
of the session were made last night on
this canal defense item. Representatives
Tawney. keifer. Smith OF Iowa and Sher-
ley of kentucky are held particularly TO
have distinguished themselves.
Tawney Made Forcefu1 Speech.
The real test in the House came on an
amendment proposed by Representative
Tawney. chairman of the committee on
appropriations. Mr.. Tawney has been op-
posed to fortifying the canal from the
first. and made forceful speech against
that policy near the close of debate. He
then offered an amendment which pro-
vided that no part of the money set aside
for fortitication should be used until the
President of the United States had at
tempted to negotiate treaties with all OF
the leading maritime nations guarantee
ing the neutrality and international pro-
lection of the canal.
Representative Sherley bitterly attack
ed this amendment and warned men,
bers that it had been introduced for the
sole purpose of defeating the appropria-
ton.
The Tawney amendment then was vot-
ed down by $50 to IS. \ motion by
Representative keifer to strike out all
provision for the fortification of the canal
was lost by vote of 13o to 51
The real interest in the debate seemed
to center In the Tawney amendment and
the speeches made for and against it by
Mr.. Tawney and Mr.. Sherley. Mr.. Taw-
ney, stalwart republican. looked to the
democratic side for sympathy and ap-
plause and received both. Mr.. SherIey,
one of the democratic leaders of the
House, was accorded an ovation by the
republican members. When it came to
the voting the republicans generally sup
ported the fortification of the canal and
the democrats opposed it. The detection
of about twenty republicans from the
general policy of fortificaton was offset
by similar detection on the democratic
side in favor of fortification.
Debate Began Early.
The fortifcation of the canal was pro-
vided for in the sundry civil bill, but
was considered in the House practically
as d separate measure and after all Of
the other features Of the bill had been
disposed of. The debate began shortly
after ) o'clock. Representative Walter
l. Smith of Iowa led off In favor
of fortification and was Immediately fol-
lowed by Representative keifer, who led
the forces opposed to the provision.
When the canal is completed" said
Mr. Smith. I'VE will have spent $780,
100000 chiefly for the purpose of in
creasng the power of the American navy,
and yet an utterly insignificant force
at one end of the canal could absolutely
preclude our passage through it unless
we should be in a position to defend the
ends of the canal and keep the enemy at
Il distance until our fleet could form
| after it had passed through the water
way.
shall we take all the pains to get a
treaty excluding the prohibition of for
tfication; shall we proudly repudiate an
adherence of other nations and proclaim
our purpose of keeping the canal in our
strength and then break our solemn
pledge to the world that nobody shall
be permitted to blockade this great ocean
| highway?
of the canal upon what ground they
please. Some may assert that We would
be justified even in violating treaty
in time of emergency in defending our
selves as best we could. 1 am here to
insist that we have the right to fortify
that, in fact. we have contracted to
preserve its neutrality and to protect
it against blockade
Not Justified, Says Keifer.
When Gen. keifer had concluded his
speech against fortification, which fol-
lowed the general line Of an extended ad-
dress he made to the House on the sub
ject several weeks ago, he made a point
OF order against the appropriation for
fortification, declaring it was not JUS
titled by existing law.
Representative Mann of Illinois was
| in the chair and overruled the point
Mr.. Mann declared that the last Hay
| Pauncefote treaty which was ratified
superseded and abrogated the Clayton
| Bulwer treaty, in which there was q
| provision against fortification. The
| Spooner act. he declared, distinctly gave
| the United States the right to construct,
maintain and protect the canal.
a number of the democrats who spoke
| and voted against the fortiication de-
| clared that they were in favor of forti-
! flying the canal after it was completed.
but they did not think that the work
had progressed far enough TO do SO at
| this time. Representative Smith exl
| planned that If the fortifications were not
! begun and carried on while the present
effective construction force was on the
isthmus the work would cost several
! million dollars more.
| Representative Tawney, in opposing
] fortification, declared that if such prop
4