Thus, at last, the United States owns and controls its Canal Zone. We will now state precisely the position in which that nation stands in reference to this matter, and then we may leave the work of the diplomats to consider the task of the engineers. _The National Status of the Canal._ The position which will be held by the United States in relation to other Powers is foreshown in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty with Great Britain and in Article XXIII. of the treaty with Panama. The Hay-Pauncefote treaty is in supersession of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. The latter stipulated that no fortifications should be erected controlling the Canal. In the Hay-Pauncefote treaty this clause is omitted. On the other hand, it is stated in Article III., § 2, that "the Canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it." Hence, the reader may have remained in doubt whether the United States Government had intended to reserve to themselves the right to fortify. However, the terms of the subsequent treaty with the Republic of Panama answer this question, for after stating in Article XVIII. that the Canal shall be opened in accordance with all the stipulations of the treaty of 1901 with Great Britain, Article XXIII. states that "the United States shall have the right to establish fortifications." As a matter of fact, such fortifications are to be constructed, and the plan of the Canal has been adjusted to the requirements of military defence. There have been, among public men in the United States, two schools of thought on the vital question of the defence of the Canal. One school has held that the best safeguard was to be obtained by leaving the Canal unfortified (as is the case with the Suez Canal), and by the establishment of a general Convention, by which all the Powers, including the United States, should bind themselves to respect the neutrality of the Canal and leave it inviolate. Other public men preferred forts, guardships, and a garrison. The general public in the United States, on the other hand, appears to have unanimously held that an international guarantee would be ineffectual and, moreover, derogatory. As we have seen, the popular view has prevailed, but traces of the antagonistic and incompatible notion of internationalisation remain in the language of the treaties. This is not surprising when we recollect that the first draft of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was drawn up with a view to neutralisation, according to the precedents afforded by the Suez Canal. Thus we find that Article III. commences with the words: "The United States adopts as the basis of the neutralisation of the Canal ..."; and in Article XVIII. of the treaty with Panama we find: "The Canal when constructed, and the entrances thereto, shall be neutral in perpetuity...." [Illustration: CHAGRES RIVER NEAR BABACOES.] [Illustration: CHAGRES RIVER NEAR OBISPO.]