was fought out in the Senate in 1902. Bunau-Varilla secured an invincible champion when Senator Hanna came over to the Panama side. While Senator Morgan was plausible, and dealt in rhetoric and ancient history, his arguments did not convince like the strong, business-sense arguments, and clear, terse philosophy of Senator Hanna. The $40,000,000 offer and a partly built canal, caught the business men of the nation. The Spooner bill was substituted for the Hepburn bill, and after a stormy contest the Spooner Law was passed by the Senate, and later accepted by the House and was approved by the President, June 28, 1902. Under this law all the rights at Panama were secured and we now have in operation the channel connecting the two oceans--one of the world's most remarkable accomplishments. There is now a single canal-an American Canal-controlled by America, and to be operated for the civilized world on terms of equality.

On July 16, 1915, the three American dreadnoughts, the Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin passed through the Panama Canal from Colon to Balboa in the space of 9 hours. They moved in single file about onefourth of a mile apart, and were in command of Rear Admiral Wm. F. Fullam. These were the first large battleships to navigate the canal; a small fleet of American submarines passed through in February, 1915. It is stated that the 3 battleships paid tolls to the amount of $45,000. It is now demonstrated that the nation has attained one of the main purposes in constructing the canal-pass its fleet through this waterway and thus protect either coast in case of an emergency.

ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY.

In 1904 Panama raised a serious question-that

of "Titular Sovereignty." She claimed that this remained in her even considering the broad language of Article 3, of the Hay-Varilla treaty. Panama claimed the right to a part of the postal receipts, and to certain custom dues collected near the canal zone, and other rights. These matters were taken up diplomatically and on Aug. 11, 1904, Mr. Obaldia, Minister for Panama, addressed a letter to Sec'y Hay making a strong legal argument, that Panama did not by the treaty divest herself of all Sovereignty in the Zone; if this had been true he said that one or two articles would have been sufficient and the other qualifying articles would not have been necessary.

Mr. Hay on Oct. 24, 1904 answered, at length, with a strong plea, that the treaty was a grant of territory and not a mere concession or privilege; and that full sovereignty was conferred and that it "could not be divided."

The issue being directly joined, President Roosevelt in Oct. 1904 asked Sec'y Taft to proceed to Panama and try to secure an adjustment; saying in his letter, that however far a just construction of the treaty would enable us to go.. ..in asserting the equivalent of sovereignty over the Canal strip, the rights that we intend to exercise shall be with proper regard for the people of Panama.

At the end of November Mr. Taft arrived in Panama and about Dec. 3, 1904, made with Panama an arrangement called a modus vivendi, a temporary compact by which the nations could "live together" until a definite provision could be made. So far as we are informed the two nations still are operating under it. Mr. Taft in reporting to the President, Jan. 12, 1905, expressed his view of the technical question of "Titular Sovereignty." He believed that we had

sovereignty to hold and operate the canal, and that so long as we had full police and judicial control there was "no use quarreling over what was dear to those people, but of no value whatever to us."

A treaty, if fairly doubtful, should be construed in favor of the grantee; hence all real doubt must be decided against Panama; still we should be bound to the true meaning of the treaty as a whole.

A mortgage, in the premise, conveys the absolute fee title; yet it is by subsequent provisions made only a conditional title. In all legal documents an antecedent positive provision may be modified by a subsequent condition. Treaties necessarily fall under these rules; still there can be no question but what the United States has all the sovereignty necessary for controlling and operating the canal, and may do everything in the Zone to make the canal efficient. We went there to build and operate a canal, and the treaty must be liberally construed to that end.

In the Senate investigation (1906) some Senators concluded that we own the Canal Zone precisely as we do the Peninsula of Florida or Porto Rico. Some of the witnesses were not willing to go to this extent. They seemed to think, if for any reason we were unable to operate the canal and it was permanently suspended, that the rights, perhaps might revert to Panama.

Little can be gained by following up these highly technical problems. We are operating, by virtue of Panama's granted consent, a canal for all mankind and we ought not to be bound by a too narrow construction.

WAR PROBLEMS..

We learn from experience. The European war

brings to our vision many problems that may attend the operation of the Panama Canal in case of an American war. The canal would invite attack and perhaps would be the first territory to feel the shock of battle. It is isolated and is the slender tie binding our two coast lines. It is now observed that even treaties do not restrain a desperate nation in time of

war.

The two canals, Suez and Panama, must be protected by military power rather than by neutrality treaties. Take the situation of the Suez Canal today: It would be instantly destroyed if certain belligerent armies could reach it, although solemn treaties pledge its protection.

It is a highway for the world, yet no neutral nation feels any obligation to police or defend it. Have neutrals no duty or responsibility there? Why have they not? They look to the Allied Powers to guard it, and nations at peace hold aloof as if it were none of their affair. The Panama Canal would be subject to the same hazard under similar circumstances.

These great international channels while primarily under the protection of their owners should, in case of disability of the owners, come under the temporary guardianship of the world powers, to prevent their destruction. International law should preserve them, for they are more than national rivers, they are connecting links of the oceans, and being for the world's use, the world should stand sponsor for their safety. It is now plain, that airships could destroy the locks of a canal in a single night raid; and perhaps a small submarine could find its way into a canal and torpedo the lock gates.

This war has brought forward the question of the right to declare a "war zone" in the high seas adjacent

to an enemy's coast. If a war zone can be lawfully declared, then the seas at both ends of the canal could be made a zone of war and all ships going to the canal would be subject to destruction with all on board. International law grows from precedent and usage. If in 1915, the world concedes the legal right to establish a war zone, it would be cited as authority in a later war in which our nation might be engaged.

A war zone around our canal would stifle traffic there, for merchant ships would not seek transit under threat of certain destruction.

A declaration of war between nations makes as between their war forces the whole world a zone of war. They may battle in their own domain or by permission on neutral land, or on the high sea, but they cannot designate any part of the sea, as a delimited zone of war.

The declaring of a war zone cannot change the sacred rules of international law. No belligerent can war against neutral ships, or against merchant ships of the enemy, in the common domain. The rights of non-combatants are commensurate with the sea itself, subject however, to the well-known right of "search and seizure." But this must be done with due regard for human life, whether those on board be neutral or enemy non-combatants. War, by custom, may be waged on the high sea and non-combatants must keep out of range of "shot and shell." But after the battle the whole sea becomes common property. The taking of an enemy's merchant ships and the "search and seizure" of neutral ships relate wholly to property rights and do not permit the taking of the life of noncombatants. In war the taking of human life to be legal, must be on the actual field of battle. There can be no war zone as to non-combatants; their common