The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-01-13
FORAKER ON FoRTIFYING.

The argument of former Senator For.
aker of Ohio in favor OF the right of
the United States 10 fortifv the 18th.
mlan Canal appears to be conclusive
so far as the understanding between
Great Britain and the United States is
concerned. The first treaty with Great
Britain was rejected because Great
Britain assumed too much as a corol-
larry Of the Clayton Bulwer treaty of
1880 in interfering with the canal It
was necessary for the United States,
before beginning the work OF con
structing the canal, to throw Off any
special obligation TO Great Britain
with respect TO it. This was done in a
way satisfactory to the Senate And
while Mr.. Foraker 8 argument is com.
plcte so far as our obligations to Great
Britain arc concerned that argument
docs not touch the question of the gen.
eral relation Of tho United States With
respect 10 this canal as regards the
other nations Of the earth
SO far as the relation of the different
nations 10 the canal is concerned, we
do not sec how the United States can
recognize any special obligation to
Great Britain any moro than to Ger
many. to France. or TO Russia. The
United States must play no favorites
IN the canal but whatever is done or
conceded 10 one nation must be done
and conceded TO the other nations. For
ii would he humiliation to the United
States to 60 before the nations of the
world admitting special obligations TO
Great Britain, and the right of Great
Britain TO say what we shall do with
respect TO the canal as 10 fortifying
II. or as to any other matter concern
ing IT, any more than tho like oblga
other nations.
With respect TO our fortifcation of
the canal, the right 10 do as we please
about that, rests in the nature of the
case. We built the canal; We have a
right to maintain it., aud to protect
it in any way that we see fit. 1t is
not the right Of France, of Germany.
of Russia. Of Great Britain, or of any
other power, to step in and say what
We shall do with respect to these mat.
ters, We cannot concede any more
right to Great Britain than to any other
nation with regard to 1T, nor our ob-
legation to listen to the voice of Great
Britain any more than to that Of any
other government The right 10 for
tify, or not TO fortifv. is inherent IN
the case, 1t is our canal; 1t is our
right to protect it in any way that we
consider necessary, or advisable. 1t
is our right to fix the tolls that will
be charged, to adopt such regulations
as we think best for operating the ga
nal, and in general to do what we
please with our own property, making
1T serviceablc to the commerce cf the
world IN our own way, and under our
own direction and supervision. 1t is
not in the least likely that Great
Britain would assert any claim of CO.
operation or CO jurisdiction with the
United States If it should, it would
be our duty at once TO reject any such
claim of right to interfere. Our inter
ests there arc too vast, onr direct re-
sponsibility is too plain to admit of
any cavil or quibbling about this mat
ter We have the undOubted right to
fortify, and if we do proceed to fortIfy,
it is no other nation s business. and
no other nation has the right to object.
or is in the least likely to say word.