The evening times., 1900-02-14
SENATORS DELAY ACTION
The Hay-PaancefOte Treaty Allow
ed to Remain In Statu Quo.
The Foreign Relations Committee
Meets, But Fails to Call Up the Con-
Vention From the subcommittee
for observation-disclosures OF English
COHcessiOns-RepuBI Opinions.

AoF DiSS iSSoSstoh-tusnOrs OF English
COHcessiOns-Repub Opinions.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee
al its regular meeting today did not take
up the Hay Pauncefote Treaty, for dis
cussion, allowing it to remain in the hands
Of the subcommittee 10 which it was re
ferred.
About dozen Senators are outspoken in
their opposition to the treaty. But there
are as many more and they are Senators
OF the greatest influence. who are earnest
ly working in behalf OF an amendment
which VIII give to the United States the
right 10 control the canal at all times and
20 close il 10 hostile ships in time OF wa.
To DO this and al the same time maintain
the provision for neutrality is a yexatious
and embarrassing problem.
A report was anoat in the Senate today
that not only would the treaty not be
withdraw, but that Great Britain had
through some confidential channel com
muni1ated 10 certain Senators the assur-
ance that she would be willing TO accept
an amendment 10 the treaty giving the
United States complete control at all
times No Senator could be found able to
o. Wiling 10 substantiate this report.
The State Department is now express
ing satisfaction over the fact that every
foreign Government except that Of France
has sent congratulations 10 the United
States on the negotiation OF the treaty.
but 10 use the words Of a Republican
Senator the compliment contained in
those congratulations is at best a very
doubtful one"
a Republican Senator and a member Of
the committee. who. while willing 70 freely
discuss the treaty. was unwilling TO be
quoted in advance OF the report Of the
committee, said today that 81 was his be-
lief thai the treaty would fail 10 receive
the two-thirds vote necessary 10 ratify
American sentiment he said lis solidly /
against European interference in Western
a1sirs and as solidly in support OF The !
Monroe Doctrine. II the Clayton Bulwer 1
Treaty still binds It should be abrogated. /
II Il does no. bind, Sc ought not 10 be re-
yived- II the treaty Of 1880 is not dead the |
Hay-Pauncefote agreement invigorates il; /
II the treaty Of 1850 is dead. the present !
treaty vitaliZes IL.
Il am sure that the great weight OF opin- |
ion is that the ClaytOn-BuIwer Treaty is
now Of no effect continued the Senator.
In the discussions between the Govern |
ment Of the United States and Great Bri- |
tain Which attended the failure Of the
Clarendon Dallas Treaty. the attitude OF the 4
United states with respect 10 the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty was amply set forth.
.t..'.-' Vf----
"On Mar . ..-.... ... ...
Secretary O ... ..r--. .. . ...
ference win ... F--.. ... ...r. ..
the trea.s - @
so. / belize .- .s-
ventiou on n.--
american ,,...,v.y. -, -,..,.-- ~-.-.-.
ment put a different construction on the
treaty. l regret that as Senator l voted
TO confirm IT,.
president Buchanan on May 6. 1857. in
an audience given 10 Lord Napier. and in
response 20 his lordships suggestion that
II the attempted adjustment Of the differ
ence between the Governments as to the
ClarendJn-D Dallas Treaty. should fail. the
Clayton Bulwer Treaty remained to fan
back upon, characterized that instrument
in much stronger terms than General Cass
had done. To quote Lord Napier's words
" Tie President denounced the Clayton
Eulwer Treaty as one which had been
fraught with MISUNDERSTANDING and mis-
chief from the beginning II was cOnciud-
ed under the most opposite constructions
had imagined that IL could obtain the in
terpretations placed upon IL by Great
Britain. IL would not have passed.
These views are more explicitly and
formally repeated in a note addressed BY
Secretary Cass to Lord Napier, on May %.
1857. He says: The Clayton-BuIwer
Treaty concluded in the hope that IL would
put end 20 the differences which had
arisen between The United States and
Great Britain concerning Central Ameri-
can affairs. had been rendered inoppera-
tive in some Of its most essential pro-
visions by the different constructions
which had been reciproCalIy given 10 il
by the parties
In his annual message to Congress IN
December. 1891. President Buchanan. after
narratiug the negotiation and failure Of the
Clarendon Dallas treaty said
." The fact is that when TWO nations
like the United States and Great Britain
mutually desrous as they are OF main
tanning the most friendly relations with
each other. have unfortunately concluded
treaty which they understood in senses
directly opposite, the wisest course is 10
abrOgate such a treaty by mutual consent
and TO commence anew.
Secretary Frelinghuysen. on May S,
1882 IN letter 10 James Russell Lowell
at London said:
q" The Clayton-B Bulwer Treaty was con-
ciudeu 10 secure lhing which did not eX-
ist. and which now never can exist
The President does not think that the
United States is called upon by any prin-
ciple of equity to revive those provisions
OF the Clayton BulweT Treaty which we're
specially applicable to the concession of
August. 1919. and apply them to any other
concession which has since or which may
hereafter be made
should BE Fortified.
A member Of the Committee on Naval
Affairs Of the Senate said that under the
provisions Of the proposed treaty the Nj
caragua Canal might as well be built by
any European power as by the United
States In fact, it might be better to turn
the enterprise over to a private company.
The leading reasons set forth why this
Government should build il were that this
Government might then own il, and own
ing it, control IT, II was advocated as
means for bringing our Atlantic and Pa
cifc coasts into eontiguity and that the
basin Of Lake Michigan would furnish
depot where American ships Of war might
lie in fresh water. To cut canal through
Central America and then be unable to
close II or defend il in time Of war would
be 20 uncover our Pacific Coast 10 an enemy
having a base of operations in the West
Indies
TO prevent England from controlling
the canal in time OF war. it would be nee
essary that we should possess a Navy
stronger than the British. The value OF
forts as against ships was demonstrated
in the late Spanish-Amcrican war. The
American fleets veDfurpd M aftrLs on The