Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

its own vital interests and its elemental duties should arise, so it should refuse to enter into any treaty obligation which it is morally certain would be disregarded under the stress and strain of war.

In time of war any administration would be derelict to its duty which failed instantly to prevent the Canal from being used by an enemy, and which failed to use it in the interest and for the protection of the United States. Since such a course would have to be pursued immediately upon the outbreak of war, it would be an iniquity for the nation in time of peace explicitly or implicitly to promise the reverse.

We said that we would leave Cuba, and do what we could to make Cuba an independent nation. We kept our word. Forced again to interfere in Cuba, we still treated the word as a continuing obligation, and kept it. Wisely, we refused to make any such promise in the Philippines, and in the Philippines it could not have been kept. England, unfortunately for itself, adopted the opposite policy in Egypt. She promised definitely to get out of Egypt. It was a thoroughly unwise promise to make. It would be infinitely to the harm of Egypt, of England, and of civilization if it were kept. But no small part of England's difficulty in Egypt arises from the fact that this foolish promise was made; and that, while it would be a great wrong to keep it, the fact of having made it puts England in the wrong when assailed for having failed to fulfil the promise.

The Canal Zone is United States territory. The Canal itself is, to all intents, a part of the coast line of the United States. We may well agree that all nations may use it for peaceful transit on equal terms; but we have no right to agree that a nation at war with us may use it in attacking us; and, if such an agreement were made, no administration could or would keep the agreement. It is inconceivable that, had the Panama Canal been in ex

istence during the Spanish War, the United States would have allowed a Spanish fleet to pass through it for the purpose of attacking our Pacific coast. Nor has the nation any right, by a policy of fatuous optimism, to prohibit itself from preventing the use of the Canal by a foreign power, if the attempt should ever be made so to use it with hostile intent.

In view of the fact that it is only between England and the United States that any serious controversy can arise over the American policy of fortification, the attitude of the London Spectator is significant. The Spectator, which reflects the most intelligent opinion in Great Britain on public questions, thinks that "armed control of the Canal by the United States is the simplest solution of the difficulty, not only for the United States, but for the whole world."

FORTIFYING THE CANAL 1

Six sound and unanswerable reasons for not fortifying the Panama Canal have been advanced by such men and women as John Graham Brooks, Richard Olney, President Jordan of Leland Stanford University, Ida Tarbell, Jane Addams, and many others, including one of the ablest of our United States judges, George C. Holt. The first alone ought to convince the country that to expend millions for guns and forts at Panama would be a criminal waste. It is a simple reminder that under the laws of war, as fixed by the Hague Conference in 1907, unfortified coast places cannot be bombarded. Warships could not lie off Panama and Colon and shell these towns, because to do so would be to place their crews in the category of those who poison wells and deliberately kill women and children-acts expressly forbidden to the troops of all civilized nations. Lack of fortification would thus of itself become a protection to the canal zone. 1 From the Nation, January 19, 1911.

The signers of the protest then point out that it was the original intention to prohibit the fortification of the canal, and this pacific intent was not affected by the failure to mention it in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Nor was the Panama Canal proposed primarily as a military undertaking, although the voyage of the Oregon in the Spanish War did focus public opinion upon the desirability of building the inter-ocean waterway. The Suez Canal was neutralized by England, the nation which built it; the Strait of Magellan is neutralized, and the very important Inter-Parliamentary Union declared itself only last year in favor of the neutralization of all inter-ocean waterways. Moreover, as the protestants point out, we have pledged to England by the most solemn treaty obligations that the Panama Canal shall always be open to British warships in times of peace or of war. Again, the whole spirit of fortification is against the modern tendency of settling matters by international arbitration and makes a mockery of President Taft's "impressive declaration that he sees no reason why any question whatever should not be arbitrated." As for the cost, as Congressman Foster has pointed out, it will in all probability be not less than fifty millions of dollars with an annual cost of maintenance of at least five millions.

Naturally, the signers of this remarkable statement do not overlook the question of the denunciation or violation of treaties made both for arbitration and other purposes. This is a stock argument of those who believe in fortification. "Why," they ask, "do you put your faith in treaties when almost every war has been preceded by a violation of treaties? If you fortify the canal, you do not need treaties, and you are safe for all time." To this the reply is that if an international agreement for neutralization should carry with it the penalty of non-intercourse with the offending nation by all the other signatory Powers, there would

be an effective check upon any attempted violation of the treaty. Again, that treaties have been broken is no more a reason for refusing to make new ones than the fact that some men and women violate the marriage law is an argument against the contract of marriage. If some treaties have been violated, many others have stood the test of time, notably that far-sighted agreement with England which prevented the erection of fortifications and the housing of large garrisons along our Canadian boundary. What vast sums would have been wasted along that line if the militarists had had their wish!

In his splendid address at the peace meeting in this city on Friday, Congressman Foster, who occupies the highly important position of chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, laid stress upon what we owe to future generations in this Panama matter. We are placing upon them, as it is, the duty of paying for the canal, and now some propose to put upon them, too, the cost of fortification and the standing army that is to be banished to the Isthmus. Again, as Mr. Foster put it, to fortify the canal, after having given assurances to Great Britain and the Republic of Panama before ever a spade of earth was turned up there, that the canal would be neutralized, "would be equivalent to saying to a foreign government, You have bound yourselves to observe our rules of neutrality, but we do not trust you, and, therefore, beware of our guns." As for neutralizing and fortifying, too, when has a neutralized territory been violated? Not Switzerland, certainly, amid all the upheavals in Europe; and plainly the excellent militia which Switzerland has was no deterrent in 1870-71. Why is it that such repeated proposals are made for the neutralization of Holland, except that the neutralization of Belgium has so successfully protected that little country from all fear of annexation by either Germany or France? It is unthinkable that any nation would dare in these

times to violate neutrality-least of all in the case of such a great work of man as the canal at Panama, which is primarily for the benefit of the commerce of the entire world.

But, whether there is or is not such a danger, the policy of fortification is the policy of reaction and retrogression, and therefore particularly to be shunned by a forwardlooking nation like the United States. It gives the lie to our avowals of a desire to be let alone and to live in peace. It means that when the time comes, as come it must, for an appeal to the nations to neutralize the Philippine Islands, we shall be met with suspicion and distrust and contemptuous references to our policy in Panama. In the direction of neutralization and non-fortification, we can only repeat once more, lies the path to fame and glory, as well as humanity, both for Mr. Taft and for his country.

THE INCOME TAX AMENDMENT 1

The American Constitution, with its fifteen amendments, completes the labors of the American people in an effort to build for their Government its foundation. Gladstone

said of it:

"As the British Constitution is the most settled organism which has proceeded from progressive society, so the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of

man."

Gladstone was right. It is the greatest document containing the simplest plan for a self-governing people ever framed. It leaves in the hands of the people to whom the government belongs all the machinery of government. Under it public policies are determinable alone by the peo

By Senator Norris Brown; see the Outlook, January 22, 1910.

« AnteriorContinuar »