New-York tribune., 1911-01-22
TAFT SAYS FORT|FY CANAL
Continued from arst pse-.

Continued from fr.t pee-
teeing its neutrality and would invite the
rest Of the nations 10 become parties 10
the agreement
The canal was not built under that
treaty. The French attempted il and
failed. We had a Spanish war. The
cruise of the oregon of twelve thousand
miles along the seacoast of two CONT
nents from San Francisco TO Cuba at a
time when the seat of war was in the
West Indies, fastened the attention Of
the American people upon the absolute
necessity for canal as military in
strument for doubling the efficiency OF
our navy and for preventing a division
Of our forces OF defence and attack
which might in the future subject us 70
humiliating defeat
This lesson brought about the effort 10
modify the Clayton -Buwer treaty for the
very purpose Of securing the right on the
part of the United States TO own the
land through which the canal was 10 be
built, to construct the canal itself and
to regain the power to fortify the canal
which it had parted with in the trestv
Of 1850 under other conditions.
Tic correspondence between Lord
Iansdowne and Mr.. Hay, as well as
AIr Hays statement to the Senate in
transmitting the treaty which was final
iy ratified, show beyond peradventure
that u was recognized by both parties
10 that treaty, first that the canal to
Dc built should be one TO be built hv
.he United States, to be owned by the
United States, 10 he managed by the
United states, and that the neutrality Of
the canal was TO he maintained by the
H..
the treaty would prevent the United
States from fortfying the canal, and
that in case Of war between the United
states and England or any other coun-
try nothing In the treaty would prevent
The United States from closing the canal
u the shipping Of an enemy.
The Rights Of Sovereignty.
IN the absence Of treaty restriction, Of
course, these rights inhere I'm the SOW
ereignty OF the United States and the
control Of its own. II is perfectly palpa
bic that this was insisted upon by the
Senate for the reason that one OF the
main motives i'm the construction of the
canal was the extension Of the coastline
Of the United states through the canal
and the use of the canal in time of war
as an instrument of defence. The guar
anty Of neutrality in the treaty is sub
'eCt, ard necessarily subject 10 this
construction,
The purpose ard the assertion OF the
rlSht Of the people OF the United states
to foTtify The canal are shown again IN
The passage Of the Spooner act in 1900,
directing the President 10 build the
canal, and to make proper defences.
The treaty with Panama reaffirms the
treaty with England, made in 1900, and
expressly Giyes to the United States the
power Of fortifcation.
How then. can any one dispute the
right Of the United states 10 fortify the
canal when the English treaty was
amended for the very purpose OF regain
ing il, when il is expressly given In the
treaty made with Panama that granted
us the land on which to build the canal,
and when not a single foreign nation
including in this England, who has made
o treaty with US on the subjeCt-has ever
seen fit TO suggest a lack ot power 10 do
that which an act of Congress nine years
old directed the President 10 do, and on
the faith Of which $500000,00O are being
expended?
The right of the United States to for
tif- the canal and 10 close IL against the
use OF an enemy in time Of war being
es.a bl!shed, what should be It's policy
We huild the canal TO help us DEFEND the
country, not 70 help an enemy TO attack
IL. Even If certain and practical neu-
of the canal by agreement OF
all nations could be secured to us Wheh
engaged III war, An enemy could then
use the canal for transit 10 attack US ID
butn oceans. as we purpose 10 use IL 10
defend ourselves.
After expending S5OO,QO0,000 thus to
make our national defence easier are We
to surrender half the military value OF
the canal by giving the benefit OF 1t to
q nation seeking TO destroy us? II seems
TO me that the very statement OF the
carries its refutation.
But it is said that we ought TO defend
the canal By our navy. l am not
I am not military or naval
expert, but il seems to me as plain as
that one and one are two that navy is
for the purpose of defence through Of
fence, for the purpose Of protection by
attack, and that IL we have TO retain a
part of our navy IN order to defend the
canal on both sides, then the canal be-
comes a burden and not an instrument
Of defence at all.
Quotes Captain Mshan,
The canal ought 10 defend itself, and
we ought TO have fortitications there
which will be powerful enough 10 keep
off the navies Of any nation that might
possibly attack Ne. / am glad 10 see
that Captain Mahan, one Of the greatest
naval strategists, in a communication 10
This mornings Tribune, confirms this
view.
Again, under our treaty with England
and other countries, IL is we who guar
antee the neutrality of the canal. Il is
not the other countries that guarantee Il
to us, and we are bound, If we conform
to the treaty with England, TO put our
selves in such condition that we can
perform that guarantee
Suppose England is at war with some
other country that is not bound to US
by treaty rights at all; isn't It essential