National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-01-28
CENTRAL AMERICA,
More OF tho clay Treaty Cor
rcapoudence.


In the mass of diplomatic correspondence sub
mtted to the Senate by the President and the See.
Rotary Of State Thursday were letter from Lord
Granville TO Mr.. Hoppin aud letter from the
Secretary OF State to Minister Lowell with regard
to the Clayton. Bulwer treaty. The letter OF Lord
Granville Is in reply 10 Secretary Baine's letter OF
June a. which has already been published. After
acknowledging the receipt of this letter and eN-
planning that the failure Of Her Mnjesty's
government TO answer Il more promptly was
mainly due to the long suspense 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 guaranteeing
ditions OF its use, and says: | do not now pro-
pose 10 enter into detailed argument in reply to
Mr.. Blaine's observations. l should wish there
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
II completed, II will form the highway, is deter
mined by the engagements entered into by them,
respectively, In the convention which was signed
ut Washington on the 10Th Of April, 1850, com
| monty known ms the Clayton. Bulwer tre9>
and Her MaIesty's government rely ,vi,
The engagements Of that treersof AL
Blainc's letter in reply TO this eG5miynnication
| IS dated November ~, lool hnu very long mai.
ing seven or eight thousand II IL IN ,he
main, and to use the word " % ~ y ~, We
summary Of the HISTORIC obicctions IN he f,iov
ISn bU ,r lTeS' "a OF the very decided differ
| which its Inter- tween the two governments, to
| rotation has given rise"
| nnSNfNG WITH THE OPPOSITION
~ al as mani tested 10 the treaty Mt the time Of
AZ. option, Mr.. Blaine follows the course of public
| S5ussion and Of diplomatic negotiations down
through successive administrations TO show that
o
and scope of that treaty began to arise very
soon, and that the Interpretation put upon 1t by
the government of Great Britnin was regarded
us unfair and unjust By many, IL not majority, of
American statesmen. Secretary Cass dsproved of
the convention; President Buchanan denounced
II as lone which had been fIaught with misun-
derstanding and mischief from the beginning"
and general feeling prevailed even as early rs
1871 that it was inadequate to reconcile the OPP
poste views of Great Britain and the United States
toward 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 question in dispute to arbitration, and
the failure of the Clarendon Dallas treaty, giving
throughout copious quotations from the dplo-
United States disapproved from the beginning of
the Interpretation put upon the Clayton. Bulwer
treaty by the British government.
In summing up his review Of the negotiations,
Mr.. Blaine says: ut was frankly admitted on
both sides that the engagements Of the treaty were
misunderstgndingly entered into, impeTfeetly
comprehended, contradiCtorily interpreted, and
mutually vexatious." Mr.. Blaine then
CONCLUDES AS FOLLOWS:
at will be seen that from the time Of the con-
clusion Of this treaty, in 1850, until the end of
1858, its provisions we're thrice made the basis of
II proposal to arbitratc as to their meaning; that
modification and abrogatiOn have been alike con-
tingently considered, and that its yexatious aud
imperfect character has been repeatedly recog-
niaed on both sides. The present proposal of this
Government Is 10 free 1t from those embarrassing
features and leave IL as its trainers intended IL
should be-a full and perfect settlement for all
time of all possible issues between the United
States and Great Britain with regard to Central
America"