The New York herald., 1920-12-29
WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 2s. 1920.
American in Peace or War"

The protection of the Panama
Canal by adequate fortifcation is
one of the most obviously necessary
measures of national insurance. 1t Is
also clearly within our rights under
the -Pauncefote treaty with
Great Britain.
In his eagerness to eXtricate this
country from the embarrassing re-
strictions imposed by the old Clayton
Bulwer treaty Of half a century be-
fore, the monumental blunder of
American diplomacy since the Repub-
lies birth, JOHN HAY, Secretary Of
State twenty years ago, undertook to
contract with Great Britain for q
neutralized canal. The first treaty
draft Incorporated Rule Z of the Suez
code, which provided that mo fortif-
cations shall be erected commanding
the canal or the waters adjacent"
We have before us at this time of
writing the original manuscript of
THEoDeRE RoosEvELT's spirited COM
ment on the earlier Pauncefote pro-
posal. Colonel ROOSEVELT was then In
Albany, serving as Governor Of New
York; but wherever he was or what
ever he was doing, his eyes were
open and his brain was active in the
presence of any real or threatened in
fraction Of American sovereignty or
impairment Of American interests.
This is what ROOSEVELT dictated to
help THE SUN in its opposition to the
ratification of the first treaty:
II most earnestly hope that the
pending treaty concerning the 18TH
milan Canal will not be ratified un-
less amended so as to provide, that
the canal when built shall be wholly
under the control Of the United
States alike in peace and war. This
seems to me vital. no less from the
standpoint of our sea power than
from the standpoint of the Monroe
Doctrine"
These president words contained
the kernel of the canal question. 1t
was vital to the national safety in
the strategic sense, and also to the
permanence of the principle which
the Monroe Doctrine embodies, that
the canal should be wholly under the
control OF the United States alike in
peace and war.
1t is not necessary 10 recall the
history of that long and momentous
controversy. The result was the SUBJ
stitution of a new treaty, which Sec
retary HAY negotiated, with the ac-
quiescence and entire good will of
Great Britain, and which was ratified
by the Senate a year or two later.
In the compact which stands to-
day the restriction against fortifica-
tions commanding the canal or the
waters adjacent was entirely eliini.
mated. The original provision which
would have prevented the United
States from closing the canal, even
against an enemy In a war to
which we were n party, disappeared
from the text. The right to defend
our own canal, furthermore, was ex-
pressly recognized In the declaration
that the United States should be at
liberty ito naintain such military DO
lice along the canal as may be neces-
sary to protect 1t against lawlessness
and disorder The significant change,
however, was the deliberate omission,
with England's assent, of the prohi-
bition Of forts commanding the canal
or near its approaches.
All this, as we have said, with the
perfect understanding and friendly
acquiescence Of the British Govern
ment, the one Power on earth that
had the right to say a word about
the matter. and that only because OF
our ENHANCEMENT in the foolish Clay
Bulwer convention of 1850.
How exact was Col. RoosEvEIT's
previsionl Senator HARDING must
have been impressed with 1t on his
recent visit to and inspection Of the
American canal--Amerlcan alike In
peace and war.