New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-28

| now England, Ill 1913, was ready To con sent
to the modification of the treaty or TO it's ab-
rogation, on account of its perplexing charac-
ter and because of the disputes which wero
continually growing out of it.
TIE CORRESPONDENCE.
WAsHrNGToN Jan. 27.-The following messag,
| and accompanying correspondence were sent TO the
Senate to-day:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, Jan. ~ 1882.
To The Sepatrof the Unitcd suites.
In further answer to the resolution Of the Senate
of December II, 1851, | herewith transmit the re-
mainder Of the correspondence touching the de-
sired modification of the Clayton-Buwer Treaty.
The dispatch of the Secretary Of State of November
20. 1881. not sent to the Senate with the for
tner dispatches, because at that time advice had
been received that its contents hal been cOmmuni-
Gated to the British Government
CHESTER 4. AgTHUR.
MR. H0PPIS TO MR. BLAINE.
LEGATION TIE UNITiD STATES,
SIR: Referring to yogr instruclions No IS7 OF ths
2ih OF June last ana No. 1sa Of the 25 June
MI Lowell In relation 10 the proposed guarantee by En-
across the IsthmGs Of Panama, have toe honor to
acquaint yOn that Mr.. Lowell agreeab the sGgZes-
crn Office on the I2Lh of July last have to-day re-
ceived letter froTn Lord Granville in reply to that IN
WITH fhayc ave eGc Tss 10 ''''' copy u " W. % ISrS %
LORD GRANVILLE TO MR.. HOPPIN.
e,,.. vo, .uo ,,l,' FOREIGN OFFICE E.y TO- ISL.
with this department the l2tb of July last a cOpy u
i diSpatGh wi TSh had been been hddes1td TO him BY Ar
state calls attention to the lght aud uy which irn
s:ned 1916 between the United states of America
| aud tue Republic Of New-Grenada--n0w known as tho
the intcroccanc canal which I, projected across no
Isthnus Of Panama; Mr. Blaine further points out The
special interest which the United states have Ia the
preservation Of this neutrality. aud in preventing the
use OF iHe caual III manner eiIn'1th 10 themseNe.
CoIomDia might be party. But the point
Sn Gch especial oSircsn SiIcss iai IN S
tie Government Of the UmGei states to any copceriei
antccing the ncutrsity Of the canal determining tho
conditions OF it's Use have now the honor 10 state TO
nat although some time has elapsed since the views
the United states Government tbI, question
communicated to Her Maesty's Governments they have
not aIied n the meanwhile 10 beSiOw upon IL all tho
consideration 10 which the importance ~ the subject
recognition. the delay been mainly caused by tho
suspense w1ch 80 long existed 10 the termination OF
the sad tragedy Of July 2
Majesty Government have noted with sastac-
ti0n the statement made by Mr.. Hiaine that
ernment Of the United states to initiate any
di,cn'';on upon tins subject, ana. II me % saais
| mcnt reply to Mr. Baine's observations should
position OF Great Britain and the United States with
reference to the cana irrespective OF the magnitude OF
tries 70 and rom which. il completed, It viii form tue
high Say; is determined by IAe engagements entered
signed at Washington on April 10, 1850 commonly
Government rely with confidence upon the Observance
OF ali the engagements OF tnat treaty have, etc:
Mr.. BLAINE To MR.. LOWELL
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
washington, u. L, Nov. 20, 1881.
SIR One week after mailing my instruction you,
the 18Th INST, touching the presentation Her MAJ
fIe convention between the two countries OF April 10
1870 better known as tue C.aytOn BuNcr Treaty,
cciycd Mr. H"ppn's No 2lS u the llth is,, connuI
eating tie resi- of Lord Granville my circular note
CT IN" 24th Oi jane last, IN relation to the neutrality Of
Mr.. Hoppm should not have advised me by telegraph Of
the purpOr Of his LOrdsnp's reply, IL would have
enabled present the argument my dispatch Of
the 18th INST N am0rc specific form, meeting post
subject which for thirty bas been regarded but
one t by the public opinion of the United States IL
proper now, however In reply to his Iorishps
Of November 10, 10 give summary of the historical
objections To the Clayton Bu@er Treaty ard tlr very
decided differences of opinion between the two Govern
ments To winch it, Interpretation has gwen rise
need hardly point OUT TO the well known clrcum-
stance that, even at the time Df the conclusion OF tho
Clayton uiwcr Trea.y, very considerable opposition
was shown thereto the par Iarss shted men pu0-
lie life who correctly estimated the complications which
the uncertain term. OF that compact might occasion
ably cOiendcd In Congress That the provisions did
not even then, suffice 10 meet the great points at S'ue
wG respec t. ne guarantee OF te neutrality ot .se @
whcc American lsthMuS on oases COMFORTING Wlt thc
National interests OF the United States and the differ
eHces Of Interpretation became soon alter marked
TO warrant the extreme proposal o. her Mi0esys Gos-
ernDient to refer them to the arbitration oi friendly
Power.
The justice OF these doubts became still evident
six later when the prcensIons put forth by Her
absolute control Of portions OF Nicaragua and Gf tao
outlying bay Islands brought up the precise question OF
how tar The provisions OF the Clay iOnulwer compact
operated 10 restrain the projected movement and there
upon TIE interpretations ectycy pat upon that
strumcnt by tie Uutcd States aud Great Britain
perceived 10 lie IN open conflict The attept m0deln lhe
Clarendon Dallas Treaty, which wa negotiated On mo
l7th October l>Jj, 10 reconcile these opposing
tenons and To place the absolute ant independent
crnty Nicaragua IT'S territory an unmistIk
able footing aras The United states ana Great Britain
concerned, tailed to De completed by Of the
rejection by Her Majesy's Government OF an amend
introduced by senate into the lar, ndon- Dallas
project From tnat time onward the inabIiy OF tho
ton OF the and spirit the clay Bulwer Treaty
may be accepted rs historirie fa,;.
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF TuE CAsH.
In the discussions between the twO Governments
which attended the failure Of the Carondon Dallas
Treaty, the attitude of tho United with cspcc; 70
the Clayton Bulwer Treaty was amply defined As carly
the 18th OF March, 1857. GuG that General Cass,
with Lord napier Her MUosty's representative.
Passed some reflections on the C" ton nlwer treaty;
he had voted for IT, and IN dOiug 30 De- believed tbat
Central American territory Tie british Government
regretted the vote he Lad gwen IN IS ayO. lDsiaich
OF Lord Napier to Tie Earl OF Clarendon, aarch ~,
on the 9th Of May, 1857, President Ruchauan. in an
audience given to Lord Eupicr aud In response 10 hs
Lordsp's suggestion thIt II the attempted "Dusineas
OF the difference between the Cow tnntula a. 70 no
Treaty remained to fa back upon, ci-rae'erze4 thst
ih much stronger terms INN 1eheid Nass
had done. To quote Lord Aapiers Woies
'rhc Pre,id ehl denounced the Clly ton,bl"es !icay
and mischief from tn beginning II wa, concluded un-
der the most opposite constructions Dy The contracting
parps II the senate had imagined thJt n could OhtaR
The Interpretation pace! upon Il by Great Bu,aH, H
youl nor nave pass ifAe had been the senate &C
the time that treaty would haN teen sanctioned"
-IDspalch OF Lord Napier to the Earl VI CLARENDON,
May Is, lSjIl
These views are more explicitly and formally repeated
in note addressed o Secretary Cass to Lord Napier
on the 10Th of May, 1897. lie BayB:
tine Claytou-Bulwcr treaty, concluded IN tho hope
thatit woad put AZ end 70 the differences which had
between the United states and Great Britai
Central American atairr had been rendered IN