The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-01-20
AIabamian Answers Argu- ment of Keller In House
NEUTRALITY OF NO AVAIL
Hobson Declares That Panama Canal Is Too Important to Be Left Un- fortified By tie United States
 Government

Washington. January 19.-The opening gun in the fight for the fortihcation of the Panama canal was fired in the House of Representatives today. Although the postoffice appropriation bill ostensibly was under consideration, Representative Keller of Ohio spoke for an hour in favor of the naturalization of the canal. He was answered by Representative Hobson of Alabama. General Keller asserted that the latest estimate of s13,O0OO0O for the fortification of the canal would not be sufficient. And that it would cost at least s10O, O,o00000 to so fortify the canal that it could be held against an attack of the frst-class powers of the world.
 General Keller asserted that the Clay ton-Bulwer treaty which is still in effect, specifically provides for the naturalization of the Isthmian waterways.
 "For 100 years.' he said, 'the United States has been committed by treaties to the naturalization of the canal across the isthmus, regardless of the nation that built it."
 The importance commercially to the United States of the continued use of the canal during the time of war, l-~ said, should not be overlooked. General Keller declared that during the consider ation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty in the United States all amendments look ing to the striking out of the neutraliza- tion clause were voted down.
 HObson Takes Issue MT. Hobson took issue with him on many points. Tn the question of any important event in the history of civilized nations" he said, 'can the gentleman cite one case where any nation having vital interest at stake ever undertook to guard and protect it through naturalization"
 Tn connection with what he would term the validity of naturalization through treaties or through international law, I would refer to the question of the latest and most binding treaty In the world, namely, the treaty of Berlin, which neu- tralizes and guarantees the integrity of the Balkan provinces. This was nego- tiated in 1878 and is still in full effect and yet only two years ago Austria un- dertook to violate 1t and annex some of those provinces without even a protest
 Sues Canal Project
 "He refers to the Suez canal. The Brit fish distinctly refused to let the word 'A>arantee enter the treaty under which it's neutraiizaton was effected. In that treaty the word is that the contracting powers agreed and not guaranteed The British had it stricken out and it had not been in effect but few years when tine English themselves violated it and a If came the sovereignty or sem-sovereignty of Egypt. And then the British in 1S7S in the Russo-Turkish war; said: We will permit no act of war They controlled that canal and have ever since and that they have put up Notifications along the source of it which with their control of the sea gives them absolute control of that canal as much as we could possibly get of the Panama canal
 Effect of Panama Canal
 With the building of the suez canal communication between Europe and Asia was settled. The communication between Europe and Asia is not affected by the Panama canal, but the Panama canal will put every foot of coast line on the west ern shores of all the Americas at the mercy of Eupropean powers. It will put every foot of coast we have on the At lantic and the gulf coasts of the Amer icas at the mercy of any Asiatic power, which they were not before It puts the east and west coasts of the Americas into communication. It is essentially an Amefican proposition It Is a proposition of the western hemisphere Our fore fathers with the instinct of their day felt that in questions that are essentially American we should not be voted down or overcome by combinations of European nations. That is the foundation of the Monroe doctrine, and if we now invite
  join us in this purely American affair we shall simply abrogate the Monroe doc trine
 "If you have a war, and this has been worked out by the war games, and I am not guessing, if you have a war in which the Panama canal is not involved, and fin which no enemy could seize it. a war with an Asiatic nation with our fleet in the Atlantic, then the war will be on American shores involving an occupation of the Pacific coast. But if you have the Panama canal, through which the Amer ican ships can pass and come out and form on the Pacific the war games show that the war operations will take place on the coast of Asia.
 Neutrality Worthless
 'In case of war between two states of Europe, where the fleet of one was superior to the other and the inferior 
 the Panama canal or near there, do you suppose the superior fleet would recog- nize the neutrality of the canal? It would go in and destroy the other fleet. You will find wherever the superior powers are engaged in war they are not bound by international treaties. Take the case of Corea and Manchuria The war be- tween Russia and Japan was waged in Manchuria. It was not a party to the war The war was between Russia and Japan, two foreign powers, and yet two wars were fought out on neutral terri tory.
 Here was America guaranteeing the neutrality of Corea and when Corea ap- pealed to this country we would not even allow the delegates audience with the President of the United States History is filled with precedents showing that you cannot get security through an in- ternational treaty or international obli- kation upon which you can rest vital interests of America, particularly where they are not according to the policies of other nations
 Marriage Licenses Issued
 Tbe following marriage licenses have