The Evening critic., 1882-01-27
The CIaytOu-BuIver Treaty.

In the mass of dlp,om2tic correspondence
submitted to the Senate by the President
and the Secretary of State yesterday were
letter from Lord Granville to Mr.. Hoppin
and letter from the Secretary of State to
Minister Lowell with regard to the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty.
The letter of Lord Granville is in reply
to Secretary's Blaines letter of June 2i,
which has already been published. After
acknowledging the receipt of this letter
and explaining that the failure of Her
Majesty's government to answer it more
promptly was mainly due to the long sus-
pense which followed the sad tragedy of
the I'd of July, Lord Granville notes the
especial stress laid by Mr. Blaine upon the
objection made by the Government of the
United States to any concerted action of the
European Powers for the purpose of guar
anteening the neutrality of the canal or
determining the conditions of its use, and
says:
l do not now propose to enter into de-
tailed argument in reply to Mr.. Blaine's
observations. / should wish, therefore,
merely to point out to you that the position
of Great Britain and the United States
with reference to the canal, irrespective of
the magnitude Of the commercial relations
of the former power with countries to and
from which, if completed, it will form the
highway, is determined by the engagements
entered into by them respectively in the
convention which was signed at Washing
ton on April 10, 1880, commonly known as
the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and Her Majes-
tys government rely with confidence upon
the observance of all the engagements of
that treaty.
Mr.. Blaine's letter in reply to this COM
munication is dated November 90, 1881. 1t
is, to use the words of the Secretary, a
III .kz - -.
Clayton Bulwer Treaty, and of the very
decided differences of opinion between the
two governments to which its interpreta-
tion has given rise. Beginning with tho
opposition which was manifested to the
treaty at the time of its adoption. Mr..
Blaine follows the course of public discus
sion and of diplomatic negotiation down
= through successive Administrations, to show
that differences OF opinion with regard to
the meaning and scope of that treaty began
to arise very soon, and that the interpreta-
tion put upon it by the government of
Great Britain was regarded as unfair and
unjust by many, if not a majority of Amer
lean statesmen.
Secretary Cass disapproved ofthe conven-
tion, President Buchanan denounced it as
one which had been fraught with misun-
derstanding and mischief from the begin
ming" and a general feeling prevailed,
even as early as 1857, that sit was made
quate to reconcile the opposite views of
Great Britain and the United States to-
ward Central America
Mr.. Blaine then reviews at length the
mission of Sir William Ouseley to the
United States, the proposal of the British
government to submit the questions in
dispute to arbitration, and the failure OF
the Clarendon Dallas Treaty, giving
throughout copious quotations from the
diplomatic correspondence of that time to
show that the United States disapproved
from the beginning of the interpretations
put upon the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty by
the British government. In summing up
his review of the negotiations Mr.. Blaine
says at was frankly admitted on both
sides that the engagements of the treaty
were misunderstandingly entered into, im.
perfectly comprehended, contradictorily
interpreted and mutually yexatious."
Mr.. Blaine then concludes as follows:
1t will be seen that from the time o.
the conclusion of this treaty in 1850 unit
the end Of 1858 its provisions were Lhric,
made the basis of q proposal to arbitrate a
to their meaning, that modification anC
abrogation have been alike contingent,
considered, and that its yexatious and i'm
perfect character has been repeatedly recog
nized on both sides. The present propose
of this Government is TO free it from thos
embarrassing features, and leave it as il
trainers intended it should be, a full ant
perfect settlement for all time of all pos
sible issues between the United States an,
Great Britain with regard to Central Amer
tca