New-York tribune., 1911-01-09
RIGHT TO FORT|FY CANAL
Foraker Says 1t Was Mr.. Hays
Intention to Preserve This.
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
Former Senator Declares Coun.
try Has Power to "Intrench"
It's Military Force There.

Washington Jan. s.---A contribution d.
signed 10 clarity the question as 10 the right
Of the United states TO fortify the Pansms
Canal was submitted to-day by ex-senator
Foraker, OF Ohio, 70 President Taft. vho
made II public. Throughout the period dur
ing which the Hay PaUncefote treaty was
negotiated and ratified by both the United
states and Great Britain Mr.. Foraker N
his letter says he advised with John Hay,
then Secretary Of state and made many
OF the suggestions which were Incorporates
in the treaty preserving 30 this government
TIE right 70 take such means as u deemed
necessary 20 protect the canal property and
shipping without specifically authorizing
fortihcations
Mr.. Foraker's letter 20 President Tar,
which Is made public now. apparently be-
cause II undertakes to dispose Of the dues-
ton Of the right 81 this government 20 cor
struct such fortifcations It may deem
necessary for the protection of the canal
property. reviews the acts of the Senate 10
connection with treaty making with Eng
land and laws passed subsequent 20 IN.
ratification of the existing Hay Pauncefots
treaty II tells Of the ratification OF o
treaty bv the Senate on December 20. 1909.
which was rejected by the British govern
ment When that treaty was presented 10
| the Senate II contained provision against
| fortifca tion Of the canal and there was
| great deal Of criticism Of Secretary Hay be-
! cause Of that fact. The convention was
| amended in accordance with public sentt-
| rnent and after Great Britsins rejection
! OF Z criticisms OF Mr. Hay were removed.
| Mr. Foraker said he received call from
| Mr. Hay. who showed him letter from
Lord Lansdowne indicating that IT would
| not be worth while to make an effort 20 re-
| gotiate another canal treaty unless pro-
vision was made therein for the settlement
Of pending controversies between the United
States and Canada. Mr. Hay regarded such
a treaty as impossible, and thought IL
barred further progress with respect TO the
canal.
Mr. Foraker and Mr.. Hay, II appears.
agreed that Il would be idle 10 undertake
10 secure the ratification OF any treaty that
fatty prohibited fortihcation By the United
States or involved this government in any
obligation 10 consult any other government
ss 10 the protection Of its own property.
Mr.. Foraker suggested several changes from
the convention which had been rejected by
Great Britain. among them new matter,
and some transpositions that would soften
the effect They included the following pro
vision
The canal shall never be blockaded, nor
shall any right OF war be exercised no.
any act Of hostility be committed within
1T The United States, however. shall Do
at liberty TO maintain such military police
along the canal as may be necessary 10
protect II against lawlessness and disor-
der"
Mr. Foraker said that he marked these
changes in a copy OF the first hay-Paunce-
fote treaty which was handed 20 him Dy
Mr.. Hay, who took it away with him. and
IN the fall OF the same year. on August z,
1901, " rote 10 the former Senator in CON
fdence that he hoped 10 conclude new
treaty with England I'm line With al thA
suggestions which you kindly made TO me-
That treaty was negotiated and sent 20
the Senate in December, 1901, and WAS
\ ratified without amendment, and in due
} time was ratified by Great Britain and be-
came a binding agreement. In his letter
10 the President Mr.. Foraker shows that
he had no doubt that the United states
was reservng the right to Sortify the canal
;, From the treaty provision for the ss
tablishrnent Of military force on the
n canal. Mr. Foraker says. II would follow
a.
t force would have a right 10 do whateye-
. was necessary In the way Of intrenching
Y Itself. or. "in palmer words. Certifying
r itseIr against attack" He adds that the
d idea was that, with the canal constructed
at a. cost OF hundreds of millions Of dollars
d no one would ever question our right 70
do whatever might De necessary in our
. Judgment TO uphold our authority and pro-
j tect our property and commercial rights"
$ Quoting from the Spooner law providing
;. for the construction of the canal and from
6 the treaty with Panama, Mr.. Foraker
s shows Il tn nave been set forth clearly
o that It was the intention OF the United
q states to protect the canals and hsrbors.
The Panama treaty uses the words tho
!. United States shall have the right 10 estao-
n lisb tortiicatiors" Mr.. Foraker said fur
l. ther: AN explicit stipulation 10 this ef-
}" feet was not insisted upon in the second
Hay-Pauncefote treaty because silence on
/ the subject Of itself left US free TO do as
we might ht.'
/ Mr.. Foraker closed his letter with the
y following: There were a number OF Sen
J ators and a great many people who we're
y OF the opinion then. and are probably stil
NJ Of the opinion. that It might not Be good
. policy 'or tho Ihlted states 70 io'pig "
C. do anything else that would invite an al
~ tack on the canal or make that theatre
- OF hostIities i'm case OF war; but, however
that may be. il was. I know, the purpose
Of the great majority os the Senate, ani
as 10 the second treaty, at least the pur-
pose Of Mr. Hay also. 10 preserve 70 ths
. United States an unquestioned right 10 do
;, with respect to all such matters whatever
= I'm its Judgment II might at any time think
~ Los, ipt.raS,s ranuirei -