New-York tribune., 1911-01-18
URGES FORTS ON CANAL
Lewis Nixon Says Nothing in Ex.
isting Treaty ForbidS It.
John HAYS PURPOSE CLEAR
Quotes Text of Agreements and
Says American Interests De-
mand Fortifications.

There has been so much discussion o
the expedency Of Panama Canal fortiica.
ton that Lewis Nixon. who introduced an,
supported the resolution of the New York
Board Of Trade and Transportation rec
ommendng such fortincation. was asket
his opinion OF the criticism OF the Londo,
press as to America being bound by treaty
not to fortify.
Mr. Nixon said:
Now that Mr. Hay is no longer with us
We find an effort to interpret the Hay.
Pauncefotc treaty FOR him. saying that II
Is equivocal and giving the impression that
were he alive he would say that this treaty
was supplemental and forbds fortincations
Happily. We can cite his exact words
i'm support OF the American Interpretation
OF this treaty, clearly showing that when
the Clayton Bulwer treaty. which did for
bid fortidcations. was supplanted by the
Hay-P Pauncefote treaty. which did not for
bid them, the omission was to enable ~ to
fortify.
"The treaty with Panama, concluded No
vember is. 1908, was written and proclaimed
shortly after the proclamation OF the Hay
Paunccfotc treaty. February q. 1902. This
treaty, in other words, was made after the
way was prepared through the Hay
Pauncefote treaty
This treaty with Panama states, in Ar
ticle I, that: The United States euaran-
tees and will maintain the independence
OF the Republic Of Panama
article XVIII SAYS: 'rhc canal when CON
structed and the entrances thereto shall bc
neutral I'm perpetuty and shall ne opened
upon the terms provided for by Section ]
Of Article III, and in conformity with all
the stipulatiOns Of the treaty entered into
by the governments of the United States
and Great Britain on November IS, 1901
with the obligations Of this much
quoted HayPauncefotc treaty fresh in his
mind We have stated in Article XNIU:
IF 1t should become necessary at any
time TO employ armed forces for the safety
or protection of the canal or OF the ships
that make use Of the same or the railways
and auxiliary works. the United States
shall have the right at all times and IN it's
discretion to use its police and its land
and naval forces or 10 establish fortihca-
tions for those purposes
But we have even a stronger assertion
showing comprehension Of the need of
naval stations AT each end Of the canal.
and TO remove this from the field of con-
troycrsy we need only quote Article XIV:
" For the better performance Of the en-
gaEements of this convention and 10 the
end of the efficient protection Of the canal
and the preservation of its neutrality. the
government Of the Republic Of Panama will
sell or lease TO the United States lands
adequate and necessary for naval or coal
ing stations on the Pacific Coast and on
the Western Caribbean coast of the rcpub-
lie at certain points to be agreed upon with
the President of the United States.
THE attempt TO say that in effect Mr..
Hay tricked Great Britain in leaving out
the provision against fertilization and that
there was a sort Of good faith agreement
not TO fortify it is by this later treaty COM
pletely exploded
1--WE know that the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty is fully understood in Downing
Street as well as the Panama treaty,
where the former is so frankly alluded to,
and the Hay Interpretation is not de-
nounced by Great Britains statesmen.
Those OF US who feel that knowledge
Of the commercial history of our country
can only be had by a thorough understand
ing OF our various treaties and the intiu-
ences leading up to them must conclude
that IL comes with poor grac" to attempt
to interpret treaty by impugnjng the good
faith Of Mr. Hay.
"Fortihcations are not means 10 avoid
our responsibilities and obligations Of neu-
traIity, but the one way by which We can
observe them.
I'VE see how lightly the Berlin treaty Is
thrust aside when self-interest demands.
Nothing stands in the way of our right
to fortfy the canal and our interests and
welfare demand il"