The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-01-09

RIGHT RESERVED.
SA VS. f Or A K Err
Former Senator Writes Letter to
Taft in Which He Reviews
Treaty History-Advised
With John Hay While
Negotiations Were
Under Way.

N5ShinEton, ID. C., January S-A
contribution designed TO clarity the
confused situation which has arisen
over the question of the right of tn:
United States 10 fort!fy the Panama
Canal. was submitted to-day by former
Senator Foraker. OF Ohio, to Prcsiden,
Taft. who made it public.
Throughout tho period during which
the HAY Paunccfotc treaty was ne:so.
tiatcd and ratified by both the Ilni.eJ
states AMI Great Britain, senator f',r-
aktr advised with John Hay. then
secretary OF state. and made many vi
the suggestions which were incor.
poratcd in the treaty. preserving 10
this government the right to take such
means as II deemed necessary TO pro
tcct the canal property and shipping
without specifically authorizing 1orti-
iications.
Scnatc's Acts Reviewed.
senator forakcr's letter to President
Taft, which is made public now, ap.
parently because IT undertakes 10 dis
pose or the question of the right ot
ms government 10 construct such for
tihcations as IL may deem nccessar,
Tor the protection of the canal prop
crty. reviews the acts OF the Senat,. in
connection with treaty making with
England and laws passed subsenueu
10 the ratification of the existing Hay
Paunccfote treaty. The letter tells -,
the ratification of n treaty py the
senate December 20. 1900. which was
rejected hy tho British govcrnma,,
When that treaty was presented to thu
senate, 1t contained n provision ag linst
ioruncation Of the canal and there was
great deal of criticism of Secretary
Hay because OF that fact
ft,r de-
the Whole subject Senator Foraker ana
Secretary Hay, ii appears. agreed that
u would be iSle TO undertake TO secure
inc ratification of any treaty that dat.
~ prohibited fertilization by the C,,ite.,
states or involved this government in
any obligation 10 consult any other
government as 10 tho protection Of its
own property. Senator Foraker sug-
Sested several changes from the con
vention which had been rejected nv
Great Britain. among them new matter.
and some transpositions that would
soften the effect They include the fol,
lowing provision:
Tho canal shall never he blockaded.
nor shalt any right OF war be cXer-
cised, nor any act of hostility be com
united within st.. The United State
tam such military police along this
canal as may be necessary TO protect
against lswlcssness and disorder"
senator Foraker said he marked
these changes I'm a copy of the mrs,
Hay Pauncefotc treaty which was
handed To him by MIR. Hay, who took
II away with him and in the fall OF
inc same year. on August %. 1901.
wrote 20 the Senator in confidence thar
he hoped 10 conclude new treas
with England in line with "all the sur
Sestions which you kindly made TO
me. That treaty was negotiated and
sent TO the Senate In December, 1901.
and was ratified without amendment.
ana In due time was ratified by Great
bfltain ana became binding agree
mcnt
In his letter to the President, sena-
tor Foraker shows that. he had no
doubt that tho United States was re-
serving the right TO fortify the canal.
As Matter of Course.
From the treaty provision for the
establishment OF a military force on
the canal. Senator Foraker says i.
would follow as q matter of course.
that such military force would have
Il right to do whatever WAS ncces sary
In the way of intrenchinE itself for In
palmer words. fortifyinG itself against
attack. He adds that the idea was
that with the canal constructed 1t :,
cost of hundreds of millions OF d,;y-
IhrS' no one would ever question our
right TO do whatever might bc neces-
sary in our judgment 10 uphold our
authority A. d protect our property ard
commercial rights
Quoting from the Spooncr law pro
viding for tho construction of the canal
and from the treaty with Panama.
Senator Foraker shows it TO have oeen
set forth clearly that il was the In
tention of the United States to protect
the canal and harbors. The Panama
treaty uses the words the United
states shall have tho right to estab-
lish fortiioations." lie cites tho fact
that the British government did not
raise any question as to tho Spooner
law or the Panama treaty being con
prevention of the Hay Pauncefote
treaty.