New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-27
THE AYT0V- -RITI,WER TREATY.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2G.--In the mass Of diplo-
maize correspondence submitted to the Senate by the
President and the Secretary OF State today were letter
from Lord Granville to Mr. Hoppn aud letter from
the Secretary OF State to Minister Lowell WIN regard 10
the ClaytOn-ijulwcr treaty.
The letter Of Lord Granville s i'll reply 10 Secretary
Blaine letter June 2l which has already been pub
Ished After acknowledging the receipt of this letter,
and xplaiainr that the failure Her Majesys Govern
mcnt to answer promptly mainly due TO the
long suspense which followed the sad tragedy OF the %
of July Lord Granville notes tie especial stress laid by
Mr Blaine upon the objection made by the Government
OF the United States any concerted action of the
European Powers for tho purpose of guaranteeing the
neutrality the Canal determining the conditions OF
its use ana says:
do not now propose TO enter into n detailed argu-
Inent in rerly to Mr Blainc's observations. should
wish therefore, merely t. point out TO you that tho po-
ston of Great Ertain and the United states with refer
encc TO the canal. irrespective of the magnitude
of the commercial relations OF the former
Power with countries to and from which, II
completed 1t will form the highway, is determined by
the engagements entered in:o by tacm respectively In
the convention which signed at Washington on
April 49, 1.jO commonly known a. tho Ciayton3nlwe
Treaty. and Her Macsty's Government rely with con-
ndcnce upon the observance all the engagements OF
thai treaty.
BIr Baine's letter in reply to this communication is
dated November 20 1851 II is 10 The words of tue
TO the Clayton Iiulwer Treaty, and of the very
decided differences Of opinion hetwccn the
two Governments to which is Interpretation has given
rise. Beginning with tho opposition which mani
tested 10 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 10 the
meaning and scope Of that treaty began to aris" very
soon. and that the Interpretation MI upon II by the
Government Great Britain regarded AS unfair and
unjust by many, If not majority OF American states
men. ,
dent Bucandn Denounced II as "one which lad been
faught with 1Crsandng and mischief from the
beginning" and a general feeling prevailed, even
early as SJ7 that "ii inadequate TO reconcile the
opposite ot Great Britain ana the United states
toward Central America"
Mr. Blaine then reviews ut length the mission of Sir
William Ousccy to the United States the proposal 0f
the British Government submit the questions dis
pate to arbitration, aud the failure OF the
Clarendon Dallas treaty, giving throughout copous
quotations from the diplomatic correspondence Of that
time to show that the United States dsappr"ycd from
the beginning of the inter- rotation put upon c CayOu
Bulwer Treaty hy the BTishGOvcrnment In summing
his OF The gotta Nr. Blame says: II
frankly admitted both sides that the engagements of
the treaty overwhelmingly entered into, i'm
perfectly comprchend,d contradictoriIy interpreted,
and mutually vcXItlOus'
Nj Blaine tACu concludes as follows:
II viii be that from the time OF the conclusion
OF this treaty in the end OF 1898 It's provisions
were thrice made tie basis Of proposal 10 arhrac
their meaning, thai modification and abio2atOn have
been alike cOntlngenty considered ana that lis NeAat0us
and lmuericct character has been repeatedly
recognized both sides. The present proposal OF this
Government is to free II from those embarrassing Tea
lures and leaves Us It's trainers ended II should be-
issues between the United and Great Britain with
regard to Central America.