The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1912-11-20
OUR RIGHT To
F0RTIFY CANAL
StImson Shows That Panama
DefenSGS Are a Necessity.
NO VIOLATION OF TREATY.
American and British Stateomen Who
Negotiated It Recognized Our lnten.
tions, Says Secretary of War In a
Magazine Article.

In an article in the Scientific Amer
ican Secretary of War Stimson takes
strong ground not only on the absolute
right of the United States to fortify
the Panama canal but on the need for
such defenses as a matter of great ma
tional expedicncy.
Secretary Stimson denies that the
fortiication of the canal would be a
violation of this countrys obligation to
Great Britain under the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty. He thus summarizes the
legal situations:
"ln the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of
1880 the United States and Great Brit
tain expressly agreed not to fortify or
assume any dominion over any part of
Central America where the canal
might be made. The first draft of the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty of Feb 5. 1900,
contained similar prohibition to the
effect that no fortiication shall be
erected commanding the canal or the
waters adjacent This proposed treaty
In this form was rejected by the senate
for the very reason that it did not give
the United States sufficient liberty of
action in regard to the canal. The
present Hay-Pauncefote treaty was
then negotiated, which in its first ar
ticle entirely abrogated the old CLAYTON
Bulwer treaty and also omitted the
restrictions against fortification which
had been contained in the first pro-
posed Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
THE memorandum which Mr.. Hav
sent to the senate with the second
Hay-PauncefOte treaty, containing the
correspondence between himself and
Lords Pauncefote and Lansdowne.
shows that these changes were made
Tor the express purpose of permitting
the United States to fortify and de-
fend the canal and that Lord Lans.
doWne fully understood and recogniz.
ed this right on our part.
Lansdowne's Statement.
"As to this Lord Lansdowne express
ly said:
ut is most important that no doubt
should exist as to the intention of the
L
stand that by the omission of all refer
ence to the matter of defense the United
states government desires to reserve the
power or taking measures to protect the
canal at any time when the United States
may be at war from destruction or dam
age at the hands of an enemy OF enc
mics.
The congress Of the United States
then proceeded the following year in
the Spooner act (section 81 to authorize
the president to enter into the con-
tracts for the construction of the ca
nal and its 'defenses.' And in the fol-
lowing year, 1908, Mr.. Hay, the same
statesman who had negotiated the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty, negotiated a
treaty with the republic of Panama by
which Panama granted to the United
States for the purpose of the canal the
use, occupation and control of the pres
ent Panama canal zone and also grant
ed to the United States for the protec-
ton of such canal the right to use Its
land and naval forces and to establish
Notifications. Bunau Varilla treaty,
article 23)
The Hay-Pauncefote treaty and the
Bunau Varilla treaties are the only ex-
istng treaties entered into by the Unit
ed States which affect its rights over
the Panama canal. 1t Is perfectly
clear, therefore, from the foregoing
facts that none of the statesmen, Ell
ther of Great Britain or Panama or
the United States, who were concern
ed at the time in the negotiation of
these treaties or the enactment of leg
islation to make them effective had
any doubt as to the right or purpose of
the United States to defend and forti.
fy the canal"
Necessity For Fertilization.
AS to the necessity for the fortihca-
ton Of the canal for the protection of
the United States in time of war Sec
retary Sdmson is fully convinced. He
says:
1T has been earnestly argued that
the safety of the canal can be better
and more cheaply assured by an agree
ment between the leading nations.
making it neutral waterway and for
bidding 1t from ever being blockaded
or seized in time OF war 1t is argued
that such a course will relieve us from
the expense and burden of defending
the canal and that it will at the same
time accomplish every result which we
could accomplish by defending 1t our
selves.
"This is an entire misconception. 1t
loses sight of the vital difference be-
tween an American canal and an inter-
national canal. 1t loses sight OF the
fact that 1t is of vital Importance to
this country not only that the canal
shall be open to our feet in case OF
war, but that 1t shall be closed to the
feet OF our enemy. An international
canal, kept open and defended by
agreement between the powers, from
Its very nature would have to be open
TO our opponent as well as to our
selves"