Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-05-18
Vast Needless Expenditure.


up for discussion
Representative Mondell said:
Vast Needless Expenditure.
II base my opposition to the fortifca-
ton of the canal on the ground that it
| involves vast and needless expenditure,
running SO long as time shall last. and
that instead of being benefit and a
defense. Notifications will be in time of
war. whether we are engaged or not, a
source of endless trouble and embarrass-
ment, and if We are engaged. of weak
ness and disaster. Notifications invite
bombardment: unfortified places are ex
empt from bombardment by the laws OF
war
Taking up the cost of fortification he
said:
"Fortifcation of the canal means, there
fore. an outlay. even though we have no
war. of a sum sufficient TO build four
Panama canals every century. and this
must. under the plan of fertilization. go
on forever. How vast the outlay would
be IN case of war no one can estimate,
and how fruitless it would be l will at
tempt to point out later"
The War Scare.
He secuted the idea of war with Ger
many and England. and then said:
1t may be said that we might have
war with some other nation with less
powerful fleet than ours, and without suf-
ficient landing forces to make a success
tablish a blockade which it would be nee
essary to break, and this could only be
done by our feet and if our fleet de-
stroyed or dispersed the enemy's fleet. the
Notifications would again be useless.
There still remains for consideration
the oriental power which our rampant
militarists love to scare us with whenever
large naval appropriation is desired
the alleged yellow peril, Japan: therefore
il is incumbent upon us to plan a war
with Japan with Panama fortified.
THE ghost dancers. who develop fine
frenzy at the thought OF this friendly
power 5000 miles away, solemnly assure
us that Japan could most any day
be true. the canal would be easy picking;
Japanese fleet could blockade and rem
der it useless. and the landing of force
sufficient TO take the canal would be a
summer picnic.
But. assuming that no attempt were
made by any power with which we
might be at war to do more than block
ade the canal. we would be unable to get
a fleet through it. or If we did We would
be compelled to accept the gage of battle
with conditions as Instantaneous as
those which surrounded Cervera's fleet
when it issued from the harbor of San
tiagO.'
Proposed Naval Stations.
"Of late a new scheme has been hatch
ed by military ambition in connection
with the canal. 1t is now proposed to
establish fortified naval base or station
at Oen or both ends of the canal. and this
means an additionl expenditure of fifty
or one hundred million dollars. depend
ing on whether we are to have one or
two. l have purposely avoided discussing
at length our right to fortify the canal.
but II we have any such right 1T can
only be for the purpose of defense. 1t is
clear that neither, our treaty with Pana-
man or Great Britain authorizes the use
of the Canal Zone military base, in
dependent of the needs of protection.
IN our silly aping of the fortified
ca mps of Europe. in our foolish ambition
to keep abreast or in the lead in the
mad race for ornaments which is bank
rupting Europe, In our sinful vanity
to make a vulgar display of our power as
some people do of their wealth. we have
entirely overlooked and forgotten our real
purpose in building the great waterway.
Two Large Fleets Cheaper.
DO We realize what our miitarists are
leading us into in this matter? / fear not
For time we are assured that the build
the effective force Of our navy. Now we
are told that we must spend as much as
ten battleships would cost to make this
doubling of naval strength effective Next,
We must spend as much as ten more bat
tleships would cost to supply a base at
the point where the doubling of effective
ness is supposed to be accomplished. Fol-
lowing that. we must. according to these
same military experts, spend at least
$a.,OOOOO0 per annum for the upkeep of
Notifications and for men to insure the
doubling of effectiveness. and lastly the
navy now informs that as the control
of the sea a the ends Of the canal is =
essary to it's protection in time of war.
which is true, We must increase the size
of our navy. After having followed. as
we'll as ! am able this tangled maze of
alleged military and naval necessities
growing out of the canal. / am convinced
that 1t would be infinitely cheaper and
NOR effective to keep goodly fleet on
| both oceans and forget We have a canal
at Panama. The fact is, however, as l
have already pointed OFT. that the canal
| will be of real service to our navy. both
| in war and peace, without spending
dollar to protect ii. and only In this way
| can 1t be of service in war;
Force of International Agreement.
Continuing. he spoke of the improb-
ability Of nations disregarding a neutral
| ty agreement:
Does the most pessimstic and doubt
| ing soul believe that the nations would
brook the violation by any one or two
| of them of a pledge to which the honor
of all were bound and in the keeping of
which all were benefited? To put it in
concrete form, If all the civilized nations
joined in a pledge that the canal was to
| remain neutral and unforttfed for all
time. free from seizure and blockade,
does any one believe they would allow
Germany. for instance, or Japan to seize
| the canal or blockade it? And IL such or
any other power did SO. would not the
world Join in demand for complete res
| toration? And do we not force upon any
| nation that attempted to fiout the pledge
| of all the world final settlement which
| would fix the neutrality of the canal for
all time?
LAS a matter of fact. the canal is now
neutralized and will remain SO without
+! any further treaties If We do not commit
| the stupendous biunder of fortifying it,
| Our treaty with Great Britain neutrailzes
1t. unless we forfeit that naturalization by
an act of war. The formal and official
assent of the civilized nations. as l have
suggested. would be wise. but would not