The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-01-22
C1aytOn-Bulyyer Treaty

Tn 1850 we. made the Clayton Bulwer treaty with England, which contemplated a canal built by somebody other than the contracting parties, and probably by pri- vate enterprise, across Central America or the Isthmus of Panama By that trea- ty we agreed with England that we would neither of us own any part of the land in which the canal was to be built and we would neither of us fortify it, and we could unite together in guaranteeing it's neutrality and would invite the rest of the nations 10 become parties to the agreement.
 '"rhe canal was not built under that treaty. The French attempted it and failed. We had a Spanish war The cruise of the Oregon of 2,09o miles along the seacoast of two continents from San Francisco to Cuba at a time when the seat of war was in the West Indies fas- tened the attention of the American peo- ple upon the absolute necessity for canal a military instrument for dou- bling the efficiency of our navy and for preventing a division of our forces of de- Tense and attack which might in the fu- ture submit us to humiliating defeat.
 Effort to Modify Treaty
 This lesson brought about the effect to modify the Clayton Bulwer 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 to be built, was to construct the canal it. self and to regain the power to fortify the canal, which it had parted with In the treaty of 1850 under other conditions. The correspondence between Lord Lans- downe and MT. Hay as well as Mir. Hays statement to the Senate in Transmitting the treaty. which was finally ratified, show beyond peradyenture that it was recognized by both parties to that treaty, first. that the canal be built, should be one to be built by the United States to be owned by the United States, to be | managed by the United States, and. that | the neutrality of the canal was to be maintained by the United States. second. | that nothing in the treaty would prevent | the United States from fortifying the 1 canal and In case of war between the United States and England or any, other country nothing in the treaty would pre- vent the United States from closing the canal to the shipping of an enemy
 National Sovereignty
 l Tn the absence of treaty restriction
 Of course these rights sinhere in the sov- ereignty of the United States and the control of it's own. It is perfectly pal pablo that this was insisted upon by the Senate for the reason that the main motives in the construction was the ex- tension of the coast line of the United States through the canal and the use of l the canal in time of war as an instru-
 ment of defense. The guaranty of neu- trality in the treaty is subject and neces- sariy subject to this construction. | "The purpose and the assertion of the ! right of the people of the United States | to fortify the canal are shown again in the passage of the Spooner act In 1902 di- I recting the President to build the canal and to make proper defenses.
 "The treaty with Panama reaffirms the treaty with England made in 1900 and expressly gives to the United States the power of fortification. How then can anyone dispute the rights of the United States to fortify the canal when the English treaty was amended for the very purpose of regaining 1t, when it is ex- pressly given in the treaty made with Panama that granted us the land on