The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-01-16
ARGUMENT AGAINST
 F0RT|FYING CANAL
Prominent Persons Issue Sig
 nificant Statement
REASONS FOR ACTION
Six Particular Reasons Are Lnid Down i'm the Statement ns to Why the Canal Should Not He Fortified

l Boston, January 15.-A statement em-
 bodying six reasons why the Panama
 canal should be neutralized, bearing the signatures of men and women prominent l in the United States and abroad, was
 made public today, Richard Olney for ! mer Secretary of State; David Starr Jor- dan, president of Leland Stanford. Jr, | university; William Dean Howells. au- thor; Charles P. Anderson Protesta mt Episcopal bishop of Chicago; William H. P. Faurce, president of Brown university
 Jane Addams of Hull house, Chicago; George B. Holt, justice of the United States district court. and George Foster Peabody, the New York banker, are
 among the sponsors of the document. The statement follows:
 Why the Panama canal should be
 neutralized not fortified:
 q. Because the canal would be safer in wartime without fertilization. Ac- cording to the agreement signed by The
 Hague conference in 1907, unfortihed coast places cannot be bombarded.
 .2. Because the original intention of our government, as distinctly expressed in 1900, and previously, was to prohibit for tifications on the canal. Though this prohibition was omitted in the finally re- vised Hay-Pauncefote treaty, signed in | 1902, this in no wise implies that we ought to fortify it, nor was it's construction
 proposed as primarily a military under taking.
 Precedent in suez Canal
 "3. Because, though the Suez canal
 was built with English money, England agreed to its naturalization. The Straits of Magellan are also neutralized, and the | Interpariamentary union, in 1910, declared | In favor of the naturalization of all in- teroceanic waterways.
 "A. Because the United States in all It's history has never been attacked and be- gan every foreign way it ever had, and is | too important a customer for any great nation at this late day to wantonly at | tack. Though an enemy might in stress of war be tempted to break its pledge | to us, no nation would dare break it's naturalization pledge with the combined powers, as the penalty of non-intercourse, which could be included in the general | treaty, would involve commercial ruin. Should Not Be Insincere
 "5. Because. with the experience of near ly century's peace with England, in-
 sured by our undefended Canadian bor- der line, until we have asked for com plete arbitration treaties with all possible future enemies and have been refused,
 we should be insincere in increasing our
 war measures. This Is especially true in view of the facts that, since 1902, the | nations have signed 100 arbitration treat | ies and President Taft has made the i'm pressive declaration that he sees no req 1 son why any question whatever shouts not be arbitrated: that the second Hague conference in various ways diminished the | likelihood of war that not only the prize | court but the court of arbitral justice is | practically assured; and that in the sum-
 mer of 1910 Congress unanimously passed resolution asking the President to ap- point commission of five to consider the utilization of existing agencies to limit the armamentS of the world by mutual agreement of the nations and to constitute the world navies an interna- tional force for the preservation of uni versal peace and to consider other means to diminish expenditures for military pur- poses.'
 Cost of Fortifcations
 "6. Because, in the words of Hop. David
 J. Foster, chairman of the committee of foreign affairs in the House of Repre- senta tives The initial expense of the necessary Notifications would not be less than S25, ,000, 900; In all probability 1t would not be less than $5O,000,0 600. The annual eX- pense of maintaining such Notifications 2000
 miles from home would probably amount to s5,0O0,0OO With all the Notifications possible, it is still apparent that in order
 that the canal might be of military ad-
 vantage to the United States In time of
 war a guard of battleships at each of its entrances would be an absolute neces- sity. It is equally apparent that with such a guard the fortfications would be unnecessary. if not entirely useless. We are bound by solemn treaty obligations to see to it that the canal shall be and remain forever open to British ships in time of war as well as in time of peace, and while it is probably true that no other nation could claim any advantage by virtue of this treaty, it Is also true that we have thereby placed ourselves under moral obligations to maintain an open. canal for the ships of all nations at all times, in war as well as in peace " Other signers of the statement are Hen- ry Wade Rogers. dean of the Yale law school; John Graham Brooks, lecturer on economies: Francis Lynde Stetson, attor- ney of New York; Ida Tarbell. historian;
 N. O. Nelson, manufacturer St. Louis: D.
 P. Wheeler, attorney of New York; Sam uel P. Capen, president of the American sIons, Boston: Marcus M. Marks and Thomas Mott Osborne, manufacturer, Au- burn, N. Y.