| OCR Text |
Show iy h q a 9 1 Q Lb WASHINGTON, Jan. 8. A contribution contri-bution designed to clarify tho confused con-fused situation that has arisen over tho right of the United States to fortify forti-fy the Pnnuma canal was submitted today by Former Senator Foraker of Ohio to Prosldcut Taft, who mado It public. Throughout the period In which the Hay-Pauncofoto treaty was negotiated and ratified Senator Fornkor advised villi John Hay, then secretary of btate, and made many of the suggestions sugges-tions which were Incorporated into the troaty preserving to this government govern-ment the right to tako such menns as It doomed necessary to protect the canal and tho shipping without specifically spe-cifically authorized fortifications. Reviews Acts of Senate. Senator Foraker's letter to President Presi-dent Taft reviews the acts of the senate In connection with the treaty-making treaty-making with England and laws passed subsequently to the ratification of tho elstlug Hay-Pauncefotc treaty. The letter tolls of tho ratification of a treaty by tho senate December 20, 1900, which was rojected by the British Brit-ish government. When it was presented In the senate sen-ate It contained n provision against fortification, and there waB much criticism of tho secretary because of that fact The convention was amended In accordance ac-cordance with public sentiment, and after Great Britain's rejection of It. harsh and severe criticisms of Mr. Hny were icnewed. Mr Hay was greatly disturbed by the attitude of the newspapers, and Senator Foraker said ho received a call . from him ono Sunday morning, when ho seemed "distressed and discouraged dis-couraged " To Negotiate Another Canal Treaty. He showed Senator Fornkor a letter from Lord Lansdowno, Indicating that It would not be worth while to mako an effort to negotiate another canal treaty unless a provision were maJo therein for the settlement of tho pending troaty 'between tho United States and Canada. Mr Hny regarded such a treaty as Impossible, and thought It barred further fur-ther progress with respect to the canal Drifting Into a general discussion of the wholo subject, Senator Forakor and Secretary Hay, It appears, agreed that It would be Idle to undertake to secure tho ratification of any treaty that flatly prohibited fortifications by the United States or 'nvolrcd this government In any obligation to consult con-sult any other power regarding pro tection of lis own property. Senator Foraker suggested several changes from the convention which had been rejected by Great Britain, among them new mnttor and some transpositions transposi-tions which would soften the effect. They Include the following: Military Police Along Canal. ''The cannl shall never be blockaded nor shall any right of war bo exercised, exer-cised, nor any act of hostility Jjo committed com-mitted within It. Tho United States, howevor. shall be at liberty to maintain main-tain such military police along tho canal as may be necessary to protect against lawlessness and Jisorder.'' Senator Forakor said that ho had marked these changes In a copy of the Hay-Pauncefoto troaty. which was handed to him by Mr. Hay. who took It away with him In the fall of the same year, on August 23, 1901. wrote to the senator In confidence that ho had hoped to conclude a new treaty with England in line "with all the suggestion which you kindly made to mo " The treaty was negotiated and sent to the senate In December, 1901, was was ratlfieJ without amendment, and In duo tlmo was ratified by Great Britain and became a binding agreement. agree-ment. Reserves Right to Fortify Canal. In his letter to the President, Senator Sena-tor Foraker shows that ho had no doubt that tho United States was reserving re-serving the right to fortify the c.inal. From tho treaty provision for tho establishment of a military force in the canal, Senator Foraker says, It would follow as a matter of course, that such a military force would havo a. right to do whatever vns necessnry In the way of entrenching "Itself "or. in plainer words, fortifying Itself against attacks." He adds that the Idea was with their canal construction at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, "no one would ever question rjur right to do whatever might be necessary in our judgment to uphold our pulhorlty and protect our property and commercial commer-cial rights." Left Wholly to Discretion of U. S. Quoting from the Spooner law providing pro-viding Mr the construction of tho canal, and from the treaty with Panama, Pana-ma, Senator Foraker shows It to have been sot forth clearly that It was the lutontlou of the United States to protect pro-tect the canal and harbor3 The Panama Pana-ma treaty uses the words "The United States shall have tho right to establish estab-lish fortifications." He cites the fact that tho British government did not niise aiiy questions ques-tions as to tho Spooner law or to tho Panama treaty being in contravention of the Hay-Pauncofoto treaty. He said that he supposed, and he thought other senators wero of the same opinion, opin-ion, that the British government lecognized and understood that when the second Hay-auncofote treaty was ratified it was a matter left wholly to tho discretion of the United SUtea "to determlno to what extent we wonld employ military power and ro-sort ro-sort to fortifications to protect our righto." Senator Forakor said further: "An explicit stipulation to this effect ef-fect was not insisted upon because silence on tho subject of Itself loft us freo to do as wo mlgh't sco fit." Invites Attackc on Canal. Mr. Foraker closdd his letter with tho following: "There were several senators and many parsons who were of tho opinion opin-ion then, and are probably of tho some opinion now, that lt'would havo boon good policy for the United States not to fortify or do nnythlng else that would Invite an attack on the canal or make that a theater of hostilities In case of war, but however that may be, t 'it wan, I know7 the" purpose" of'thl! great majority of tho senate, and as to the second treaty, at least, the purpose pur-pose of Mr. Hay, also, to preserve to tho United States an unquestioned right to do with respect to all such mailers whatover In its judgment it might at any time think Us best In-torosi In-torosi required." |
