Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-02-07

oIdSlOA OI LIS present SeSSlOIl VI CoA
gress, and 1t is one that not only in
terests the people of this generation.
but also concerns the future welfare OF
the nation. At the last session 1t was
pointed out that not only was the de-
Tense advisable from a military point
Of view, but that in the interests OF
economy the Notifications should be
begun at once, while the labor and ma
terial for their construction was still
available in the Zone. Fourteen million
dollars was estimated as the cost OF
the work. No appropriation was made.
Now, the subject is presented In q
way requiring prompt and decisive
measures, for Colonel Cocktails has re-
Gently reported that he expects the
canal to be completed one year earlier
than at first planned: in December,
1918, instead of January. 1915.
Should we leave the canal unforti-
fed, and uncovered by treaties with all
the great powers, the risk Of It's loss
through seizure by an enemy would be
neither more nor less than the risk, of
war with a naval power. In such
war it would be decidedly, perhaps
to the advantage Of the
enemy to seize and hold this important
waterway, far more important to us
strategically, than any harbor on our
coast. The risk of war may be small,
but it is, nevertheless, worthy Of our
most earnest consideration, to put the
matter en- it's lowest basis, In, safe
guarding the s350,O00,00O we have put
into the canal. But we have bound that
small strip Of territory to us by ties
far stronger than those Of dollars and
cents, Into it has gone the best Of
American energy and genius. At the
ed the plague district Of the western
hemisphere into healthful region. We
have picked up the wreck Of the great
French disaster and carried it forward
to success. The canal will be mOnu-
ment for all time to the enterprise and
patriotism Of the people OF the great
republic.
Prudence. as well as honor, demands
that we give 1t ample protection. Not
to do so would be like building great
treasury and sub-treasury buildings
for the safekeeping of our national
treasure, and neglecting the matter Of
locks and bolts. To the military mind
the Importance Of maintaining control
Of the canal in time OF war with
naval power transcends any other con-
Second only in force In war
many channels Of Communication
center at one point, the strategic value
of that point becomes most important.
Possessing the canal, our fleets and
could move freely from one
ocean to the other; losing 1t, we. are,
so far as all shipping is concerned, di-
vided,--a most dangerous condition.
Either coast is then open to attack
without marine support from the other.
The question Of our diplomatic right
to fortify the canal Is no longer urged.
We have now to choose between fortt-
fcation and an attempt to secure our
valuable possession by treaties which
with such foreign powers "as may be
willing to join the United States" In
securing the neutrality of the Canal,
and Ito protect the United States in
Its ownership, possession, control. san
itation, right to police and to perpetu-
ally maintain said canal" Il quote
from a recent resolution in the house
of representatives,. Put 1t as we will,
we really ask the nations to guarantee
our possession OF the canal and to re-
lieve us OF our burden of holding tall
for the doubtful benefit to them OF be-
ir- able to use it in time Of war. say
doubtful benefit" because, as an able
soldier, In advocating neutrality, has
pointed out, no nation with whom we
would have any occasion to use 1t for:
the passage Of war fleets, even II It
were neutral. @!s
France, for instance, II victorious on
the Atlantic, would hardly send her
fleets into, the Pacific ocean
the Panama canal, and
leave our Atlantic seaboard. japan,
similarly, would not invade the Allan
tic even If she had destroyed our Pa
ciflc fleet. Nor would either Of those
nations, II at war with us, find it con-
venient to use neutral canal for their
merchant ships; for, while their ships
might be safe In passing through the
canal, mo- treaties could insure them
protection on the high seas. It would
indeed be brave merchant who would
send his ships through, and subject
them to the danger Of capture ON seas
so near our shores. Therefore, no no
with us, would benefit by q neutral
canal, so far as the passage Of its
own ships was concerned. A foreign
power would only benefit by the neu-
trality Of the canal II that power wels
itself neutral in war between the
United States and another power. In
that case. it could feel little more
certain Of passage for Its merchant
vessels, because as long as the neutral
the canal could not be damaged or de-
stroyed. Possibly this benefit would not
be considered sufficient to weigh
against the advantage, In case OF war
with us, OF being able to cripple us by
a blow at the canal.
This, 1t seems to me, Is the real point
of the question; that the canal is vital
to us, not to our enemies. 1t is curious
to read in the arguments in favor OF
neutrality that foreign nations at war
with us would not be apt to use the
canal, even If 1t were neutral No man
can anticipate what the conditions,
possibilities and national requirements
may be, between two nations involved
in great war; but the point Is not
what an enemy may do with his own
ships, but how we can prevent the pos.
sibility Of any enemy closing the canal
to us. We are the divided nation. Ours
is the fleet that must have free pas
sage il 1t Is not to be cut in two.
France, Germany, Japan, at war with
us, might not want to send their own
warships through, but it would be vital
to them to prevent our doing so. Now,
we might be able to insure our own
ership, possession, control" etc, by
inducing the world to sign neutrality
treaties, go -sidedly favorable to us.
But, even then. the question arises.
as this The time in the progress OF
at which we can trust a
most valuable possession into the
safekeeping of other nations, other
races?' Has that millennium really