Show I I J FORMER fORAKER SAYS OUR RIGHT RIGI TO FORTIFY PANAMA CANAL IS BEYOND QUESTION STION WA WASHINGTON ln Jan 9 A J.-A A contribution designed to clarify rih the confused situation that hat has arisen over the tho right of or the United States to fortify the Panama Canal ca- ca nal has been submitted by former Senator Senator Sena- Sena tor or Foraker of Ohio to President Taft who made It public P Throughout tho the period in which I the lay tJay treat treaty was vas negotiated and ratified Senator Foraker advised John Ha Hay then secretary of state stat and made many of the Iho suggestions that were Incorporated Into the treaty preserving to o this government go the tho right to take tako such means as it deemed necessary to protect the th h canal and tho the shipping without specifically spa spa- authorized fortifications Senator Foraker's letter latter to President aft reviews the acts of or the senate senata In connection with the treaty making with England and laws passed subsequently to o the ratification of tho the existing Hay- Hay treaty The letter tells tells' of tho the ratification of ofa ofa ofa a treaty by the tho senate December Dec mb r 20 U. U 1900 which was rejected by the tho British government When hen it was waa presented Inthe in inho inthe the ho senate it contained a provision pro against fortification and there was much criticism of the secretary because e of that fact act Rejected by Britain The Tho convention con n was amended In accordance accord- accord anee ance with wilh public sentiment nt and after Great Britain's Britain rejection of it harsh and i I severe criticisms of Mr Ir Hay were r re I I Mr Hay Flay wa was greatly disturbed by the tho attitude of newspapers and Senator Forker For- For ker I ker said Bald ho he received a call calt from him One no Sunday morning and he seemed distressed d and discouraged Ho showed Senator Foraker a letter lotter from Lord Lansdowne Indicating that It would not be worth to make an effort to negotiate another canal treaty unless a provision were made therein for forthe forthe the he settlement of the tho pending treaty be between between between be- be tween the United States and Canada Mr Hay regarded such a treaty as im impossible impossible Im- Im possible and thought it barred further progress with respect to the canal Drifting Drift Drift- ing ng ngo into a g general n ral slon of the whole subject Senator Foraker and Secretary Ha Hay It appears agreed that It would be 30 idle to undertake to secure the ratification rati of any treaty that flatly tally prohibited prohibited pro pro- fortification by the tho United States or Involved this government in any obligation gation gatlon t to th consult any oth other r power regardIng regarding regard- regard In Ing protection of ot Its ita own property Senator Foraker sug suggested several changes from the convention which had been rejected by Great Britain among amon them n new malter and some transpositions that would soften the effect affect Changed to Suit Lansdowne The They included the tho following The Thie canal shall never be blockaded nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within It The United States however shall bo be at liberty to maintain such police along the canal as may bo be necessary to j protect against lawlessness lawless Jawless ness neu and disorder Senator rILl r saId eald that ho he marked these chang tt ija Copy py of the Hay Hay- treat treaty which ch was hand handed d to toMm him Mm by by Mr Jr Hay who took It away with him and In the fall taU of the tha same year on Au August 23 23 1901 wrote to tho the senator in confidence that he had hod hoped to to conclude conclude con con- clude dude a tI new treaty trealy with England In line with wilh all the suggestions which you kindly made to me That t treaty was negotiated end and sent to the senate enate In December 1901 an and was ratified without amendment and In duo due time was as ratified by Great Groat Britain and b became becam cam a binding agreement In hl his letter to the president Senator Foraker shows that thal he had no doubt that thai the tho United States was WM reserving the right to fortify the cana canar From the treaty provision pro for the es- es s- s nt of a military force foree on the canal Senator Foraker says it would follow as ft a matter of or course that such Buch sucha Bucha a military force would have a right to todo todo todo do whatever was necessary in tho the way ay of entrenching Ih Itself elf or in plainer words fortifying Itself against attacks attack He adds that thai the thc idea was that with their canal constructed at a cost of or hundreds hun bun of or millions of ot dollars dollar no ono opo would woul t ever question our right to do whatever might be bo necessary In our oui judgment to uphold our authority and prot protect ct our property and commercial rights Must Mast Protect Canal CanaI Quoting from the Spooner la law providIng providing providing provid provid- ing for the construction of the cana canal and from the treaty with Panama Senator Sen ator Foraker shows It to have been beez sot set forth clearly that It was the Intention of the United States Slates to lo protect the canal canoJ and harbors The Tho Panama treaty uses the words the United States shell h have havethe havethe ve the right to establish fortifications fortification He HI cites the tho fact that tho the British gOVernment government gov gOV- did not raise any question as to the Spooner law or to tho the Panama treaty trealy being In contravention of tho the Hay- Hay treat treaty He said ho he supposed and he thought other senators were of the tho same opinion that tho the British gov- gov ov- ov recognized d and understood that when th thi second Hay lIa treaty treat was wan ratified It was a a. matter left wholly to the discretion of the tho United d States to o determine to what extent the nation would employ military power and resort resor to fortifications to protect our rights Senator Foraker said further An explicit stipulation to this effect was not Insisted upon because silence on tho the subject of or Itself left us free to do doas doas doas as wo we ml might ht see fit nt Mr Foraker closed his hla letter Jetter with the following There were several senators and many p persons ons who were of tho the opinion then and am are probably of or the tho opinion no now that it would have been good policy for the tho United States Stales not nol to lo fortify or ordo ordo ordo do anything else that would invite an attack I on the Ine canal anal or make that a theater the Iho- aler ater of hostilities In case case- of war wart but bul however that tho t may Y be it was 1 I II know know the purpose of or the tho great majority ml of or tho the senate enate and ands as s to the second treaty at least the tho purpose of Mr Hay alHO also to preserve to tho the United States an unquestioned unquestioned unquestioned un un- un- un questioned right to do with Ith respect to all such matters mailers whatever In Its Us Judg- Judg mont ment It might at any ony time lime think its Hs best Int interest required |