El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-01-16
MAKE STRONG PLEA
FOR NEUTRAL CANAL
Six Reasons Advanced Why
Panama Canal Should
Not Be Fortified.

Boston. Mass. Jan. ia statement
embodying six reasons why the Pana-
ma canal should. be neutralized, bear
ing the signatures of men and women.
prominent in the United States and
abroad. has ben made public. Rich
ard Olney, former secretary of state;
David Starr Jordan. president OF Lee
land Stanford, jr., university; William
Dean Howells. author: Charles z. An
derson, Protestant Episcopal bishop or
Chicago; William H. P. Faurce, presi-
dent of Brown university; Jane Ad-
dams of Hull house. Chicago; George
B. Holt. justice of the United States
district court, and George Foster Pea
body, the New York banker. are among
the sponsors of the document The
statement follows:
why the Panama canal should be
neutralized, not fortified:
81 Because the canal would be safer
in wartime without fertilization Ac-
cording to the agreement signed by
The Hague conference in 1907, unforti-
fled coast places cannot be bombarded-
'.2 Because the original intention Of
our government. as distinctly express
ed in 1900, and previously, was to pro-
hibit fortifications on the canal
Though this prohibition was omitted in
the finally revised Hay-Pauncefotet
treaty, signed in 1902. this in no wise
implies that we ought to fortify 1t,
nor was its construction proposed as
primarily a military undertaking.
49, Because. though the Suez canal
was built with English money, Eng
land agreed to its naturalization. The
straits of Magellan are also neutral
lied and the nterparliamentary union,\
in 1910. declared in favor of the neu-
tralization of all interoceanic water
ways.
a. Because the United States in all
its history has never been attacked
and began every foreign war it ever
had and it is too important customer
for any great nation at this late day
to wantonly attack. Though an enemy
might in stress of war be tempted to
break its pledge TO Us, no nation would
dare break its naturalization pledge
with the combined powers, as the pes-
atty Of non-intercOurse. which could &c
included in the general treaty, would
involve commercial ruin.
"5. Because. with the experience Of
nearly century's peace with England.
ensured by our undefended Canadian
border line until we have asked for
complete arbitration treaties with all
possible future enemies and have been
refused, we should be insincere in in
creasing our war measures. This is
especially true in view Of the facts
that since 1902, the nations have sign
ed 100 arbitration treaties and presi-
dent Taft has made the impressive
declaration that he sees no reason why
any question whatever should not be
arbitrate that the second Hague con-
ference in various ways diminished the
likelihood Of war. that not only the
prize court, but the court of arbitrsl
Justice is practically assured; and that
in the summer OF 1910 congress unani-
mously passed a resolution asking the
president TO appoint a commission Of
five to consider the utilization of ex-
listing agencies to limit the afmaments
of the world by mutual agreement Of
the nations and TO constitute the world
navies an International force for the
preservation of universal peace and
to consider other means TO diminish
expenditures for military purposes.
Sc Because. in the words of Hon
David J. Foster. chairman of the com
mittee of foreign affairs in the house
of representatives: The initial expense
of the necessary Qualifications would
not be less than SIS, 600, coo; in all prob
ability it would not be less than $780,
O00. 600. The annual expense of main
tanning such Notifications 1000 miles
from home would probably amount to
SIS, 900. 900. With all the Notifications
possible, it is still apparent that in
order that the canal might be Of mill
tary advantage TO the United States in
time of war a guard of battleships at
each of it's entrances would be an ab5o-
lutte necessity. 1t is equally apparent
that with such a guard the fortifica-
tons would be unnecessary. if not en-
tirely useless We are bound by sol
emn treaty obligations to see to it that
the canal shall he and remain forever
open to British ships in time of war
as we'll as in time OF peace, and while
1T is prOhaly true that no other ma
ton could claim any advantage by vir-
tue of this treaty. it is also true that
we have thereby placed ourselves I'M
der moral oligation to maintain an
open canal for the ships of all nations
at all times. in war as well as il
peace.