Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-01-12
What Neutrality Means.


Let us consider for a moment exactly
what neutrality means with reference to
| the canal-the kind Of neutrality that
| embraces the United States But before
doing SO, let me state that until l came
to proper understanding of the mat
ter L was one of those who most warmly
advocated neutrality. When we rob the
proposition of all its verbiage, neutrality,
| as applied to vessels Of war, simply
| means this: Either we must, in case of
| a war with another nation, deny our
selves the use of the canal We have built
| for military purposes, at the most tre-
mendous outlay of energy and treasure
| in the history of national defenses, or
else We must open the big waterway to
our enemy upon identically the same
| terms accorded our own ships. We Will
then not only lack any advantage over
| our enemy because We possess the canal,
but will be handicapped because We
will be forced to police it and protect
| it from any damage the enemy might
| see fit to mice upon 1t. In other words,
we will be forced to defend it and yet
permit its equal use by our enemy.
am not one of those that believe
there is ony likelihood of our having
| TO fight war with Japan, but for the
purpose of illustrating just what would
| happen in case We became involved in
| war with any country, let us for the
moment suppose that Mr.. Hobson is a
true prophet. In such a case, according
to the British Interpretation of the treaty
we would either from beginning to end
! have to keep our battleships out of the
| canal or else We would have to allow
Japans war vessels to use 1t on terms
| Of entire equality Think of it. Denied
the right to use the greatest military de-
| Tense ever erected by human hand. De
| MED the right to use the big waterway
| FOR the very purpose that led to its con-
struction and made its building possible.
or II not denied its use by our own
battleships. We must accord to Japan
| the privilege of using it on terms of
| entire equality with us. Think of it.:
! Two thousand loyal Americans at Pana-
| ma compelled by the terms of a treaty
| with England. to commit a sort of Ie-
| galized treason against their own gov
| eminent by helping the Japanese fleets
to go through the canal in an attempt to
| Shell our cities and to destroy our sea
| power Think of 1t. Compelled by the
| terms of treaty to see the great mill
| tary asset planned and wrought out
! with unexampled patience and fidelity
by the American people transformed into
waterway in which our enemy has just
| as much right and just as much adyan-
| tage as We have
| 1 maintain that the Hay-Pauncefote
| treaty never was negotiated with such
an idea in view. Did not the whole
world witness the development of the
sentiment of the American people in
| FAVOR OF the construction of the Panama
canal? Were not the eyes of a waiting
! civilization focused upon the gallant
| oregon as she made her trip around
| the Horn, and taught America that her
| military situation rendered imperative
| the building of the canal? Was any
| nation with an interest in the matter
| so far removed that it could not see
| the lesson of the Oregon taking root
and growing into the legislative voice
| of the nation and authorizing the work
| to be undertaken? Was there any ma
| ton so blind that it could not see that
| great were the commercial reasons
for building the canal. they were scarce
! ly considered as compared with the
military reasons? 1t is history, known
and read of the chancelleries Of all ma
| tons that the United States undertook
the building of the Panama canal as
military measure primarily, and that the
people of this country would not have
| undertaken it but for that considera-
| ton.
Shall It Be Bread or a Stonep
| Could any government reasonably have
made a mistake as to the feelings of
| the American people on this subject?
Was there a single member of the
diplomatic corps in Washington with an
ear so slow as to catch the voice of a
national sentiment that he could not
discern why we were undertaking to
build the canal? Then. / say, the world
huc" We were uoluS IL UTSt OF all as
a measure OF defense. And no nation
ought to be permitted to construe
a treaty as to transform our bread of
! defense into stone of weakness At
the time the treaty was negotiated no
| nation could have believed that such a
construction would have been acceptab BILE
| to a people who were undertaking the
! mightiest project of history mainly in
order to strengthen their military situa-
ton. How then does England insist
that the treaty shall spell a stone to us
| when she knew We were building the
canal for bread?
There arises the issue of whether the
question of tolls is an arbitrable one or
| not If the ultimate bearing of tine
question as raised by England reached
no further than the matter of tolls.
am free to confess that the issue would
seem an open one. But when We remem-
Der that the whole question hinges upon
that clause of the treaty which declares
| that the canal shall be open to the YES
sells of commerce and of war of all ma
tons ION terms of entire equality and
when we realize that any construction
We accept with reference to ships OF
commerce must. perforce. be accepted
with reference to ships of war, then Ger.
tainlv tho question is not arbitrable.
Will YOU tell me that our right to shut
out our enemy from using the canal i,
case of war is not vital Interest,"
| tort n az tn