s himself a belligerent. If the canal were not
neutralised, it could be blockaded, militarily occupied, and
hostilities could be committed there.

With these points in mind one may well ask whether it was worth while
to agree at all upon the five rules of Article III, Nos. 2-6, of the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty if the United States were not to be considered
bound by these rules. That two years after the conclusion of the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty the United States acquired sovereign rights over
the Canal territory and that she is at present the owner of the Canal
has not, essentially at any rate, altered the case, for Article IV of
the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty stipulates that a change of territorial
sovereignty over the Canal territory should not affect the obligation
of the contracting parties under that treaty.

If this is correct, it might be maintained that the United States is,
under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, subjected to more onerous conditions
than Turkey and Egypt are under the Suez Canal Treaty, for Article X of
the latter stipulates that Egypt and Turkey shall not by the
injunctions of Articles IV, V, VII, and VIII of the same treaty be
considered to be prevented from taking such measures as might be
necessary to ensure the defence of Egypt and Turkey by their own armed
forces. But this opinion would not be justified because in this respect
the case of the Panama Canal is entirely different from that of the
Suez Canal. Whereas the Panama Canal is an outlying part of the United
States, and no attack on the main territory of the United States is
possible from the Panama Canal, an attack on Egypt as well as on Turkey
is quite possible from the Suez Canal. There is, therefore, no occasion
for the United States to take such measures in the Panama Canal as
might be necessary to ensure the defence of her main territory. Indeed
there might be occasion for her to take such measures in the Canal as
are necessary to ensure the defence of the Canal and the surrounding
territory, if a belligerent threatened to attack it. Although this case
is not directly provided for by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty--in
contradistinction to Article XXIII of the Hay-Varilla Treaty--there is
no doubt that, since, according to Article II of the Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty, the United States shall have and enjoy all the rights incident
to the construction of the Canal as well as the exclusive right of
providing for the regulation and management of the Canal ther