Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-22

2
sidering the question Of the policy OF tor
tifying the canal to refer to the histof'
which makes the right incontesuDae.
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
'Tn 1850 we made the Clayton-Bulwe'
treaty with England, which contemplated
a canal built by somebody other thar
the contracting parties. and probably oS
private enterprise, across Central Ameri
ca or the Isthmus OF Panama. BY tna'
treaty with England we agreed that we
would neither of US own any part OF
tho land In which the canal was to be
built, and We would neither OF us fortify
IL and we would unite together in guaran-
teeing its neutrality and would invite the
rest of the nations to become parties 10
the agreement.
"The canal was not built under that
treaty. The French attempted 1t and
failed. We had a Spanish war. The
cruise OF the Oregon OF 12.OOO miles aions
the sea coast Of two continents, from
San Francisco to Cuba, at time Wnen
the seat of war was in the West Indies,
fastened the attention of the Americas
people upon the absolute necessity LOT
a canal as a military instrument 10.
doubling the efficiency of our navy. ana
for preventing a division of our forces
Of defense and attack which might in the
future subject us to humiliating defeat.
Effort to Modify Treaty.
This lesson brought about the effort 10
modify the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, LOT
the very purpose OF securing the right on
the part of the United States to own the
land through which the canal was 10 oe
built, to construct the canal itself. ana
70 regain the power to fortify the canal
which II had parted with in the treaty OF
1880.
ssThe correspondence between Loro
Lansdowne and Mr.. Hay. as well as M.
Hays statement to the Senate IN Trans
uniting the treaty which was hnaiiy rat..
fed, shows beyond peradventure that ~
was recognized by both parties TO that
treaty, first, that the canal TO De pun.
should be one to be built by the Cnlteu
States, to be owned by the unltea s'aeT nS
10 be managed by the United states anu
that the neutrality Of the canal was 70
be maintained by the United States sec
ond. that nothing in the treaty Houiu pre-
vent the United States from yfo Mar has
tween the United States and England or
any other country nothing III the treaty
would prevent the United States from
closing the canal to the shipping VI an
enemy In the absence OF treaty restIic-
sovereignty of the United States and the
control of its own. 1t Is perfectly par
pable that this was insisted upon by the
Senate for the reason that one OF tne
main motives for the construction o. IN, tae
canal was the extension of the coast line
OF the United States through the canal
and the use of the canal In time OF war as
an instrument of defense. Inc suaraiily
of neutrality in the treaty is subject: ana
necessarily subject, to this constructor.
Right Shown in spooner Act.
"rhe purpose and assertion Of the right
of the people of the United States to
fortify the canal are shown again in the
passage of the Spooner act in 1902 direct
ing the President to build the canal and
to make proper defenses. The treaty
with Panama reaffirms the treaty with
England, made in 1850. and expressly
gives to the United States the power OF
fertilization. How, then, can any one
dispute the right of the United States to
fortify the canal when the English
treaty was amended for the very purpose
of regaining 1t. when 1T is expressly
given in the treaty made with Panama
that granted us the land on which TO
build the canal, and when not single
foreign notwithstanding in this England.
who has made a treaty with us on the
subject-has ever seen fit to suggest a
lack of power to do that which an act
President to do and on which S5UO,OOo,OOO
are being expended.
THE right of the United States to
fortify the canal and to close 1t against
the use of an enemy in time of war be-
ing established. what should be it's pol
icy? We build the canal to help us de-
fend the country, not to help an enemy
to attack II. Even if certain and
practical naturalization OF the canal by
agreement of all nations could be secured
to us when engaged in war, an enemy
could then use the canal for transit to
attack us In both oceans as we propose to
use IT to defend ourselves. After. ex-
pending S0o,0OO.O0O thus to make our
national defense easier, are we to sur
render half the military value of the
canal by giving the benefit of 1t to ma
ton seeking to destroy us? 1t seems to
me that the very statement OF the propo-
sition carries its refutation.
Opposes Defense by Navy.
But It is said that we ought to defend
the canal by our navy. I am not a
strategist. i am not a military or
naval expert, but 1t seems to me as plain
as that one and one are two that a navy
is for the purpose Of defense through Of
tense. for the purpose of protection by
attack. and that il we have to retain q
part OF our navy in order to defend the
canal on both sides, then the canal be-
comes q DurOen ana not an instrument
OF defense at ALL The canal ought to
defend itself, and we ought to have forti-
f1cations there which will be powerful
enough to keep OF the navies of any
nation that might possibly attack us. I
am glad to see that Capt. Mahan, one Of
the greatest naval strategists, in a COM
munication TO this mornings Tribune
confirms this view
"Again. under our treaty with Eng
lano and other countries, it Is We who
guarantee the neutrality of the canal.
1t il not the other countries that guar
antee 1t to It's. and we are bound, II we
conform to the treaty with England, to
put ourselves In such a condition that We
can perform that guarantee. Suppose
England Is at war with some other coun-
try that is not bound to us by treaty
rights at all, isn't 1t essential that we
should have Notifications to protect the
canal. not only for our own use and for
the worlds commerce, but for the use of
England and her warships. as a means
of passage? In other words, we have to
preserve that canal as a means OF transit
to belligerentS In time of war as long
as we are ourselves not engaged in the
controversy.
But il is said that we could induce
all the powers to come in and con-
sent to the neutrality OF the canal as
. treaty obligation. 1 should be glad
to do this II possible, but even If we