other? Can the rules of any treaty or even of international law compel a belligerent to sell war material or commissary stores to its enemy? Such a thing would be altogether absurd. A nation would be guilty of offence against itself, if it passed the opponent's warships through the canal and thus gave comfort and aid to its enemy. Such a proceeding would be wholly impossible. And no treaty could legally provide for such a requirement. A duel is fought on a chosen field, but war is fought wherever destiny appoints. The treaties with England and Panama merely permit "vessels of war of all nations to use the canal." The term vessels of war here could not mean hostile ships really "engaged in war" against the canal.

The treaty provision is (and this we could do without treaty) that our nation may "maintain such military police as may be necessary to protect the canal against lawlessness and disorder." And further: that in time of war the canal shall "enjoy complete immunity from attacks and injury." Here is granted full right to maintain and protect the works and all property. Our nation could be neutral between any other nations engaged in war, but there could be no neutrality between nations at war. Therefore neutrality could only apply to the operating nation when it was at peace; if it was engaged in war the other hostile nation could not be neutral and could not use the canal.

But some may say how could we use the canal if at war? On this clear legal and logical ground; that the use of the canal by us would be for the protection of the sovereignty and perpetuity of the nation, hence the protection and perpetuity of the canal itself.

While we are at peace, neutrality requires us to use all nations alike. We are at peace with them and may freely enter into civil contract to carry their war ves

sels through the canal. But when we go to war we cannot be neutral to our antagonist, and there is no known way to compel it until international power is asserted to this end. Neutrality means peace, not war!

A battleship of a friendly nation is not to be distinguished from a merchant ship so far as our relations with them extend; but a ship of war, hostile to the canal would be a moving fortification and a danger to the canal, to our nation and to the world's interest. The canal could only be used for a legal purpose, war against the canal would in every way be illegal and criminal. The very law of necessity and the right of self-protection demand the exclusion of all hostile ships.

GEORGE A. TALLEY.

CHAPTER XVIII.

NEUTRALIZATION.

The words neutrality and neutralization have become of momentous importance in the Panama canal controversy. Heretofore neutrality, as applied to nations was generally supposed to relate only to a state of war, and meant that a non-combatant should not aid either belligerent nor allow its property to be used for such purpose. For instance: Belgium was made neutral ground between France and Germany. Hostile armies cannot wage war within the territory or waters belonging to a neutral. Neutrality means "attend strictly to your own business and do not intermeddle."

But the Clayton-Bulwer and the Hay-Pauncefote treaties have given an extended meaning to the term neutralization. These apply the word to both peace and war. Many of our ablest diplomats, and those of other countries, construe the word to mean that the users of the canal, individually, should stand on the same footing, no matter what nation or port they hailed from. By using the word neutrality in its full literal sense, and by applying it to both war and peace, there should be little difficulty in finding the meaning, when used in national treaties. It would be thus: All nations are battling for trade, and when they approach a neutral waterway they should find it neutral in fact, not aiding or favoring one above another. Hence neutrality means equality of rights and privileges. When we stop to consider, this has been the common acceptance among English speaking people; for often when persons are engaged in any contest or controversy, a bystander, if

appealed to, will reply: "I have nothing to say; I am neutral."

John M. Clayton, Delaware's renowned statesman and lawyer, and compeer with Daniel Webster; and John Hay, one of the world's most famous diplomats, used the word neutralization, both accurately and scientifically.

There can be one neutrality between nations in commercial warfare and another kind when nations are engaged in mortal conflict. The canal must be neutral in both cases. If we, being owner and operator, are engaged in war, ships hostile to us would not be allowed to enter the canal. But the canal being under our jurisdiction and in a sense our property we could pass our warships through, both for the protection of the canal and our nation in general. To the extent of our ownership in the canal, it is a part and parcel of the nation. To protect this part we must protect the whole.

How could the canal be neutral if we were engaged in war? How could our property be neutral when our guns and army were hostile? How could we observe any treaty about canal property when desolating, hysterical war is engaged in pillage, burning, the annihilation of property and the wholesale destruction of human life?

The word neuter is Latin in origin; that is, ne not and uter either; not either, for one side or the other, in any controversy, contest or dispute, whether it be business, commerce, war or otherwise. A neutral will not aid or favor the one or the other; he will accord like treatment to all.

Neutrality is generally inactive. And nationally, is created through neutralization-by the act of neutralizing; it is created by acts or contracts of nations. Lands and territory are neutral and passive remain

in a quiet state; while a railroad, a canal, or a ship is in action and should be neutral in its activity, if it is by any legal requirement, so restricted and charged.

A canal is constructed for service-is bound to be active, and should be neutral to all ships-to all whom it is under obligation to serve. A public, operated canal should serve all equally in time of peace, whatever may be the rule in time of war.

At last the touchstone has been found, that will give a full definition to the ominous phrase "all nations," and this is the word neutralization.