Arizona republican., 1911-01-22

hs tonight began in earnest his campaign for the fertilization of the Panama canal His enl:re speech at the annual banquet of the Pennsylvania Society of New York was devoted to this subject. He has high hopes that congress at this session will declare in EIs favor to ap- appropriate S5,00O,OOO to begin the work In the senate, the president has been told, the sentiment for fOrtification IS almost to l. The house seems pretty evenly divided but nor along party lines. Most members appear of an open mind. however, willing to be convinced by the side hat makes the better pre- sCntatiOn of the case. Mir Taft will bring his influence to bear in favor of Qualifications
 In his speech tonight he said no treaty obligations were in the way and that the United States had every right and reason to protect what was purely an American waterWay
 The presidents visit to New York Was flying one. He left Washington shortly after neon and will be back in the capital early tomorrow His first trip under the North river through the new tubes keenly interested him, as well as the huge new station on seventh avenue. Fr0-l the station he went direct to the Hotel Astor for the Pennsylvania society dinner. At the conclusion of his address there he looked in at the annual dinner of the New York Press club at the Hotel Mar unique and made his second address. this time informal, and then hurried to his train.
 At the banque of the Pennsylvania society MT. Taft spoke as follows:
 I am going to invite your attention to question now pending in congress as to whether the Panama canal ought to be fortified. I cannot think that any careful person will read the record of historical facts, the treaties and acts of congress, and diplomatic negotia- tions, without concedin,s the full right of the United States to fortify the ca / nal
 But memories are short, records are not always at hand and without in inc slightest degree, conceding that the ex- istence of the full right of the Tinted states to fortify her own property on the isthmus is in the slightest doubt l venture before considering the aues ton of the policy of fortifying the ca nal, to refer to the history which makes the right incOntestable. In 1s5O we made the Clayton -Bulwer treaty with England, by which We agreed with England that neither of us would own any part Of the land in which the canal was built and we would neither of LIS fortify 1t, and we would unite together Tn guaranteeing its neutrality and would invite the rest of the nations to become parties to the agreement
 But the canal was not built under that treaty. The French attempted if and failed. We had the Spanish-Amer- ican war. The cruise of the oregon of 12.00O miles from San Francisco to Cuba at 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 instrument for doubling the efficiency of our navy.
 This lesson brought about the effect of modifying the Clayton Bulwer trea- ty for the purpose of securing the right on the part of the United States to own the land through which the canal was built, construct the canal itself and gain the power to fortify it with which We had parted in the treaty of 1850.
 The correspondence between Lord Lansdowne and MT. Hay, as well as Mir Hays statement to the senate trans mitting the treaty which was finally ratified. showed beyond peradventure that it was recognized by both parties to that treaty. first that the canal to be built should be owned and managed by the United states, and that the neu- trality of the canal was to be main tained by the United States.
 Second. that nothing in the treaty would prevent the United States from fortifying the canal an1 that in case of war between the United States and England or any other country nothing in the treaty would prevent the Unit ed States from closing the canal to the shipping of the enemy.
 '1n the absence of treaty restrictions, these rights invest sovereignty in the United States. IL is perfectly palpable that this was insisted upon by the sen ate for the reason that one of the main motives in the construction of the canal was the extension of the coast line of the United states through the canal and the use of the canal Tn time of war as an instrument of defense. The guaranty of neutrality n the territory is subject. necessarily subject to this costruction.
 The purpose and assertion of the right of the Unted states to fortify the