The times., 1900-12-21
Circulation statement.
The Hay-pauncefote Treaty Ratified.

The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. amended to
some extent, was ratified by the Senate
in executive session yesterday by vote
Of ffty-five to eighteen.
When we come to analyze the results Of
a long struggle of patriotism against an
attempt TO destroy cur freedom of action
and our primacy, il not paramountcy, in
the Western Hemisphere, We are bound to
confess that there has been much cry
and little wool" OF all the amendments
offered with view to clip the lions claws
in the convention, but two-known as the
Foraker amendments-were adopted yes
terday before the vote of ratification, the
Davis amendment having been previously
Incorporated. AS the case stands the treaty
is less vicious than it was In its original
form, but it is still vicious. As amended
it declares the supersession of the
Clayton -Bulwer Convention, omits the
third clause in the draft of Mr.. Hay and
Lord Pauncefote, which invited the adher
ence of the Concert of Europe, and vaguely
gives the United Statesa right to safeguard
its national territorial integrity through
Its own forces, and TO maintain public or
der. This last provision, the Davis amend
ment, is a close paraphrase of Article Y
of the suez Canal Convention, which was
insisted upon by Great Britain at the time
that agreement was made.
Probably We shall be assured today by
Administration organs, and by that sec
tion of the press which does not give
close attention to international matters
that the vote of yesterday satisfies every
objection to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty
and brings its terms completely into ad-
justment with national thought and de-
sire. careful study of the convention,
as ratified, will not bear out any such
theory. To begin at the beginning, the
first Foraker amendment simply recites
a fact that would have been equally man
ifest without it. The statement that the
HayPauncefote Treaty supersedes the
Clayton Bulwer is superiuity. The
Hsy-Pauncefote Treaty was intended to
supersede the old violated and dead con-
tract and in its original form did So. as
completely as ii now does in the form
ratified by the Senate. II was also intend
ed TO re-enact the anti-Ameriean pro-
visions of the Clayton Bulwer compact,
which. if ever binding upon us, had ceased
10 be so. through British bad faith. The
amended and ratified treaty does so no
less. The preamble to the treaty, which
has in no wise been changed, says:
The United States OF America and Her Majesty
the Queen of the United Kingdom and Ireland
Empress Of India, being desrous to facilitate
aHaaVrf - H..
Atlantic and Pacific oceans and TO that end 20
remove any objection which may arise out of
the convention Of April -, 1850 commonly called
the Clayton -Bulwer Treaty. to III. construction
OF such canal under the auspices OF the Govern
ment Of the United States. without impairing the
general principle OF naturalization established in
article VII of that convention. have for that
purpose appointed IS their plenipotentisries--''
And so on
A careful study of the two documents
Will convince anybody that the amended
Hay -Pauncefote Treaty. in spite of its
declaration that the Clayton BuIwer Con
vention Is hereby superseded stlll binds
the United States to the general princf-
pie" of naturalization established in the
latter. We have only TO keep the pre-
ambIe in mind, and then 10 read The ar
ticle in the Clayton Bulwer Convention
which established the general principle
OF naturalization to fully appreciate the
truth of this proposition. Article VII Of
the Clayton -Bulwer Convention was as
follows:
The Governments Of the United states and
Great Britain, having not only desired in en-
tering into this convention, to accomplish a
particular object, but also TO establish general
principle they hereby agree 10 extend their
protection. BY treaty stipulations. TO any other
prDcticable communications, whether By canal or
railway. across the isthmus which connects North
and South America, and especially to the inter
oceanic communications. should the same prove
10 be practicable, whether by canal railway,
which proposed TO be established by the
way OF Tehusntepec or Panama.
1t has often been said that the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty could only be held to ap-
ply to the canal schemes. which, in 1850,
were proposed TO be established by the
way OF Tehuantepec or Panama" The Hay
Pauneefote Treaty as ratified, puts an end
TO that contention in recognizing the gen
erel principle OF Article VIII of the Clay
ton-Bulwer Convention. That article. un-
der the construction which publicis,s are
sure to give it. refers to all the preceding
articles. as explanatory of what the high
contracting parties meant when they
agreed that their intention was TO accom-
plish particular object and TO "establlsh
general principle of naturalization"
This brings us TO the consideration of the
Clayton -Bulwer Article l. which reaus
The Governments of the United States and
Great Britain hereby declare that neither fhc nne
the ather will ever obtain or maintain for e.
self any exclusive control over the said shin
canal; agreeing that neither viii erect or
maintain any Notifications commanding the SAM
or in the vicinity thereof. or occupy, foTtiiy,
colonize, assume exercise shy dominion
over Nicaragua. Costa Rica the Mosquito Coast,
ur any part Of Ceatrsi Aiuerica," etc.
This is the British idea of the ''neutrali-
zation' OF the canal, under the general
principle established In the Claytoa-Bul-
wer Article VIII. and undoubtedly :e.sr-
ring 10 the antecedent Article / of the
game convention, the material part of
which is last above quoted We have
bound ourselves never to obtain or main
tain dominion over any part OF Central
America, wherein, by a fragrant and de-
structiye violation of the Clayton -Buiwer
Treaty. Great Britain exercises dominion
10 British Honduras.
The second Foraker amendment was
nitro TO the purpose, since 1t eliminated
Continental Europe from the equation,
and left US to deal only with Great
Britain. The Davis amendment, as we
have stated, is vague ard ambiguous in its
language. II leaves an opening for dis
pute as TO what the United States may
Or may not do on the line Of the canal