New-York tribune., 1911-02-20
OLNEYS VIEWS ON CANAL
Ex.Secretary of State Tells Why
He Is Against Fertilization.
SEES NO JUSTIFICATION
Bays Hay Memorandum Shows
No Attempt to Anticipate
Exigencies of War"

| boston, y ca. IS-tNlCIdIu OlhSss AOAAhSN
eecretary of State. made public to-day a
statement giving in some detail his views
In opposition to the fortifcation of the
Panama Canal. The statement amplfes
opinions previously expressed in brief. In
1t Mr.. Olney says:
In the Clayton Bulwer treaty of 1850 the
United States and Great Britain agreed
that neither would ever erect or maintain
any fortifcations commanding the canal
or the vicinity thereof. The Hay-Paunce-
sote treaty of February 5, l9V, by clause q
stipulated follows:
NO fortifications shall be erected COM
snsndng the canal or the waters adJacei';;
The United States. however. snail pe at
liberty 10 maintain such military ponce
along the canal as may be necessary 10
protect it against laNlessness and dis
order" .,,,
Though this treaty did not get through
the Senate. 1T is important 10 reIer 10 ~
because il so clearly dlstlnguisnesd tba
military policing OF il against lawleSsnesss
and disorder The former was prohibited,
while the. latter was allowed. Upon ne .se
failure of this treaty, new one %aS
Framed which was sent 10 the Senate De
cember f. 1901. and which was raufed py
she Senate and became law December
How does this treaty deal with the foru-
6cation topic? II was undoubtedly a mat
ter of careful negotiation between the par
Iies-vith the result that on the one manu-
the United States made no assertion OF
-. sight to fortify. and that on the other
iand. Great Britain gave its consent 10 tue
maintenance OF such military police along
the canal a. may be necessary 10 prOIecI
j. against lawlessnesS and disorder. II III
This regard there had been any intent 10
20 back on the principle ana pOllcN OF pre-
s'iouS trcatic>-Of tho treaty of 1870 ana OF
the draft treaty OF February .. l%l-Sure-
j. the right to iortify the canal would iaNS
been conceded I'm express terms, lnsteau OF
rot being mentioned at all. Nor can III DC
,airly arSued that the United states mas a
sight in its discretion TO determine loiu-
.caticn 10 he part of the military pom
.ng Of the canal and TO fOrtty accordihs!'
What Fortifcation Means.
Fortdcations mean solid. permanent and
expensive structures. manned with SUIT
able artillery and continuously sarrlSoned
fv considerable bodies OF uoops-tnlngS
10y no fair CONSTRUCTION TO be lhcIuded
.vithn military policing OF the canal
against laNlessness and disorder. ~ j. a.
,possiblc suggestion that. as the lnhibiton
of fertilization contained IN Inc rtIea4H, tIeaH VI
$3.50 and the proposed treaty or IeDruaIy'
1901 * omitted from the treaty OF Oecen,-
Der 1901 fortiicatiOn is by implication al
lowed But to adopt that suggestion III
emitting TO secure permission 10 lortlly
4he canal the United States IN tdcI Sc
cured both The right TO fGutE ana ule
,ight to maintain military police ON me
canal conclusion 80 extraordinary as u
10 inadmsslble. . .-..e
,ios o' drnn,eJ +Gc subject of fortification
altogether and substituted the liberty 20
unaintain such military police alonS tlie
canal as may be necessary 10 P.otec' i
against lawlessness and disorder. A. ,.
That view is supported by all me sur sur
rounding circumstances. Inc pdrleS Ilau
IN mind the case of the Suez Canal as
being a precedent TO be foHoWeu, anu, III
deed expressly adopted as the basis OF hSu-
,raHzation of the Panama Canal tne ruleo
annlicable 10 the SueZ Canal under the
@onstantinople Convention of 1883. But
those rules do not reserve or give 10 we
owner of the Suez Canal any rlght 10 l0ru,,
~ it-anV light TO treat it as mainland
or coast line and as held in absolute ana
,lnouaJiied sovereignty and to be delehueu
or otberwise dealt with accordingly.
such owner, in effect, is constituted
trustee of an international water highway
for the use and heneht OF an 1 na.iors' anu i
IS thus left without any lnduceIneIlt anu ~
leved of any necessity to forufy the cahal.
II * not too much TO contend-nueeu, ~
bonors the United States To- cohtenu- siIhI
io conclude that il meant to assume SUD
.tantialIv the same flduCiaTy pOSluOn rs
,esDects the Panama Canal ana oN holl-
;nsistence upOn anything more thah me
,ieh, to maintain military police upon the
canal 10 assure and satisfy the World thdt
81 meant 10 hold and control the CARA a. a.
g trustee in the interest ana IOi thc OcheHt
Of all mankind.
"But One Rational Construction
IT. therefore. the treaty he Judged by It's
express terms. but one ldtlohdl co.sstiu ~
lion can bc given to II. Any claim thdt IL
leaves the United states with a free Ilauu
a TO the WAYS and means of defending the
canal is completely disposed of by the eN-
1,ress grant 10 the United states OF the
Hower TO use military police 10 pIOtect Ile
canal ~ f. a. grant Whlch rest1c'S llS
peneral uovver the United states Wouu
otherw1sC nave As tho owner OF inc Cdnal.
The parties negotiated with each olneI
ON tlfo footing that Great Britain hdd II
wight to he consulted on That Suplect. not,
.yithstan ding tho ownership OF the Unlteu
Stefes XIth the result that Great Britain
nd limited States accepted
a limited power i'm view Of the Senelai
,,oUer il would have had but for the treaty.
Tho ONLY answer to the foregoing lntet-
1retation Of the treaty appears TO pe iou.u
In the HAY memorandum sent 10 the senate
"a memora udum which purports 10 De d
brjef account Of negotiations preceding tne
freatv and To- give Mr.. Hays view OF some
rf tho reasons for it's provisions. Inc oD-
Sections to constituting written agreement
Inv tho reCo1ectons of one or both or the
PARTIES 10 Il are too obvious 10 need Ilen-
lion and find apt illustration in the case
under consideration. If the negouator OH
INC side may have thought the express pro-
1,ibitiou arairst fortfcation was dropped
'becausc unfair 20 the United States, the
,ycgotiator on the other Slde may nave
'.b0upht n WAS dropped because needless
and. In effect. superseded by the express
l1ermission 20 protect the canal by military
,1olice The Hay memorandum wholly falls
40 explain The military polce cause OF ,t' 70
show why, if the inhibition against fortll-
.ratjon was not repeated in terms, tne
limited Stutes accepted the grant OF ris.t
10 DrOtcct the canal DN DllnldIy ponce j t1'
I,f Mr, Havss view was that the treaty left
Itho United States with al the Ordinary
rights of an owner OF the canal; which
would include the right 10 police by mill
'1arv force why was the express grant OF
!that right allowed TO stay in the treaty?
Rv the first canal treaty-the Clayton
12ulwer treaty-the canal was TO be protect,
- hv general agreement between all civilized
mowers BY the first Hay treaty, though
Sortifcation was debaTred and military
lpolice authorized. it was also to be de-
Tended in time OF peace as in time OF war
nv the forces of the United States. BY
it6e second and successful Hay treaty, de-
fence Of the canal by the United States
I}orces was dropped fortihcation as
,,neans of such defence was not mentioned,
and military policing of the canal alone
Temained as the agreed mode OF the de-
fence of the canal as against lawiessness
end disorder. ., -..,.,.
WHY was the United States content with
-bis Droyision-which. it will be observed,
,ooks 10 the defence Of the canal as
AGAINST lawlessness and disorder only ana
not against war? Because; In the view OF
Mr Uay. as his memorandum states, war
setween the parties TO the treaty or be
,v,een the United States and any other
.ar,,, would have the usual effect upon