The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-01-09
President Taft Receives a Letter from Former Sen-
 ator F0raker
ATTEMPTS ID CLARITY
 CONFUSED SITUATION
land It Was Understood That Canal should Re Fortified Although
 Nof Written in Treaty

Washington, January S.-A contribution
 designed to clarify the confused situation which has arisen over the question of
 the right of the United States to fortify
 the Panama canal was submitted today
 by former Senator Foraker of Ohio to
 President Taft, who made it public.
 Throughout the period during which the
 Hay -Pauncefote treaty was negotiated
 and ratified by both the United States and Great Britain Senator Foraker advised
 with John Hay, then Secretary of State.
 and made many of the suggestions which
 were incorporated in the treaty preserve
 ing to this government the right to take | such means it deemed necessary to protect the canal property and shipping without specifically authorizing fortifca- tions
 Senator Forakers letter to President
 Taft, which is made public now. appar-
 ently because it undertakes to dispose of | the question of the right of this govern ment to construct such Notifications as | it may deem necessary for the protection
 of the canal property, reviews the acts of 1 the Senate In connection with treaty.
 making with England and laws passed l subsequently 10 the ratification of the ex-
 isting Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The let
 ter tells of the ratification of a treaty 1 by the Senate December 70, 1900, which was rejected by the British government. | When that treaty was presented to the Senate it contained provision against fortiication of the canal, and there was
 great deal of criticism of Secretary i Hay because of that fact.
 General Discussion | Drifting into general discussion of the 1 whole subject, Senator Foraker and Sec retary Hay, it appears, agreed that 1t
 would be idle to undertake to secure the | ratification of any treaty that fiatly pro- l hiblted fortheation by the United States l or involved the government in any ohliga- ton to consult any othei government as | to the protection of it's own property. Seu-
 ator Foraker suggested several changes l from the convention which had been re- 1 jected by Great Britain, among them new | matter. and some transpostions that 1 would soften the effect. They include the
 following provisions:
 | .'1he canal shall never be blockaded
 nor shall any right of war be exercised. nor any act of hostility be committed within 1t. The United States, however, l shall be at liberty to maintain such mill | necessary to protect 1t against lawlessness | and disorder"
 | Senator Foraker said that he marked l these changes in copy of the first Hay | Fauncefote treaty, which was handed to | him by Alr. Hay who took it away with him and in the fall of the same year. on | August 23, 1901, wrote to the senator in confidence that he hoped to conclude new treaty with England in line with ali | the suggestions which you kindly made | to me.
 Treaty Negotiated
 | That treaty was negotiated and sent to the Senate in December. 1901. and was | ratified without amendment and in due time was ratified by Great Britain and became a binding agreement. In his let | ter to the President Senator Foraker shows that he had no doubt that the | United States was reserving the right to | fortify the canal
 I From the treaty provision for the estab- | lshment of that military force on the canal Senator Foraker says, 1t would l follow as a matter of course that such | military force would have right to do whatever was necessary in the way of | entrenching itself, "or, in planer words, | fortifying itself against attack" | He adds that the idea was that with the canal constructed at a cost of hundreds | Of millions of dollars. mo one would ever | question our right to do whatever might | be necessary in our judgment to uphold
 our authority and protect cur property and commercial rights
 | Quoting from the Spooner law provid- | ing for the construction of, the canal anu | from the treaty with Panama Senator
 Foraker shows 1t to have been set forth
 clearly that 1t was the intention of the United States to protect the canals ana harbors. The Panama treaty uses the
 words the United States snail have the right to establish fortifications.' He cites | the fact that the British government did
 not raise any question as to the Spooner law or the Panama treaty being con | travention of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Believed England Understood | He said he supposed, and he thought other senators were of the same opinion,
 that the British government recognized nnd understood that when the second
 Hay Pauncefote treaty was ratified it was
 d matter left wholly to the discretion | of the United States to determine to what extent we were to employ military power and resort to Notifications 10 protect our
 rights Senator Foraker said further: l An explicit stipulation to this effect
 was not insisted upon because silence on
 the subject of itself left us free to do
 as we might see fit
 | Mir Foraker closed his letter with the
 following;
 l There were number of senators and
 great many people who were of the opinion, and are probably of the opinion now, that If might be good policy for the United States not to do anything else | that would invite an attack on the canal
 ar make that theatre of hostilities in | case of war: but, however, that may be,
 1t was know, the purpose of the great
 majority of the Senate and as to the sec ond tre.lty. at least the purpose of MT.
 Hay also to preserve to the United States
 an unquestioned right to do with respect | to all such matters whatever in it's judg-
 ment it might at any time think it's best | interests required.'' Decatur Finances Firm Decatur January s.-tSpecial J. Decatur
 has up to this time taken up and retired