The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-04-18
FoRTIFIcATIoN DEcREED.

FORTIFICATION DECREED.
The Hon. J. Warren Keifer, Repre-
sentative from the Seventh district OF
Ohio. who was not reelected, delivered,
before his term expired, long ''argu'
ment.' much and oft repeated since by
others. in favor of what he called the
naturalization of The Panama Canal
That is, the United States having built
this canal. at cost of something like
$IO0 ,000,000 is to go as a suppllant TO
the nations of the world, asking them
to release it from any obligation to pro-
tect its own property. His idea is,
and that is the idea Of most of those
who urge the naturalization of the
Canal, that the navy would be suffi-
cient TO protect it. That is, we would
need to have a fleet at each end of
the canal permanently stationed there
in time Of danger. i'll order to secure
the safety of the canal. And even
then, it would not be safe from the
semi-barharians Of thai region, who
might revolt and blow up the Miraflores
locks and the navy be absolutely pow
erless TO prevent the destruction.
Besides. navy is not supposed to
be fixed point of defense. The chief
benefit of navy is in its mobility.
1t is useful in warfare because 1T can
be taken to any point where its force
is desired To make of it merely a
coast fortification is absurd; yet that
is the true meaning of the argument
that the canal should be defended by
The navy.
1t is noteworthy that all Of the mill
tary experts tnat we have, from Cen
eral Miles. former commander of the
army, 10 Admiral Dewey, chief officer
Of the navy, favor the fortificatlon Of
the canal President Taft is so thor
oughly convinced OF the adyisabilitv,
and in fact the necessity, of such for
tification, that he makes a special plea
to Congress IN favor of it And 1t
is entirely lust and safe to say that
tke officers of the army and many,
WHO express themselves on this point
have given it more intelligent. expert,
study than any other class OF our peo-
ple can possibly have done. They un-
derstand the problems involved better
than anyone else does. and their opin-
ION is entitled TO more weight than
the opinions OF mere amateurs or non
experts.
The fatal weakness of depending
upon international agreement for the
ga safeguarding CT the canal is evident
when one considers that no such inter.
national agreement is ever enforced.
Suppose that the United States should
get into a war, LET us say with Japan.
following the idea of Gen. Homer Lea
and Representative lIobsan as 20 the
probability of such war. and Japa1
should attack the canal from the Pa
cific side: what army would be raised
to protect il, save only that of the
United Stytes! And if Japan should
destroy both of the locks on that side
United States would intervene TO pro
.cet or restore them? And what ma
tion. on concert of nations, would do
anything by way of Furnishing Japan for
the destruction she had caused3 1T is
idle TO expect any such action on the
part Of the powers, even though they
should guarantee the safety of the
canal. The guarantee that they would
make would amount simply to this, an
agreement en- their part that under or
dinaIy circumstances they would not
themselves make an attack on the canal.
II would never mean that they would
actively intcrpose to protect il in case
il were attacked, much less that
they would undertake TO repair any
damages to 1T caused by the iufraction
of the naturalization agreement. And
30. Representative Keifer is really talk.
ing against the interests of his coun-
Try when he makes the sort of a speech
that he did Others, perhaps less in.
formed than he. commit the sumo error.
And the United States would have cause
TO deeply rue, If it should unwisely
take the advice of those who ask
this nation, after spending such an
enormo{,s sum in building the canal. to