The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-03-26
WHY TREATY WAS REJECTED
Continued From First Page.)

sions," Lord Lansdowne says, was the
treaty which Mr.. Hay handed to Lore
y Pauncefote in January, 1899. The Brit
& ish government was not yet prepared
to accept the treaty, as serious difficult
ties had arisen in seeking to arrange
affairs then pending before the joint
high commission, and Lord Salisbury
did not see how her majesty's govern
ment could sanction any convention
for amending the Clayton BulWer
treaty, as the opinion of this country
would hardly support them in making a
concession which would be wholly 10
the benefit of the United States, at q
time when they appeared to be so little
inclined to come to q satisfactory set
Element in regard to the Alaskan from
tier
Later the introduction of the Nicara-
guam bill in congress revived attention
to the treaty and it was accepted, LORD
Lansdowne saying: Her majesty
government after due consideration, de-
termined to accept the convention I'm
conditionally as >%~signal proof of their
friendly disposition and of their desire
not to impede the execution of a project
declared to be of national Importance to
the people of the United States"
Lord Lansdowne then discusses the
right of the United States to annul the
Clayton Bulwer treaty, saying: "The
Clayton Bulwer treaty is an interna-
tional contract of unquestionable valid
ity; contract which, according to well
established international usage ought
not to be abrogated or modified. save
with the consent of both the parties to
the contract"
Lord Lansdowne then considers the
Senate amendments declaring that the
Clayton Bulwer treaty is hereby super
ceded," opposing this contention. He
lays most stress, however, upon the
other Senate amendments and says they
present more formidable difficulties. On
these he says:
1.-THE first of them, which reserves
TO the United States the right of taking
any measures which they may find nee
essary to secure by their own forces the
defense of the United States, appears
to his majesty's government to involve
distinct departure from the principle
which has until now found acceptance
with both governments; the principle,
nancy tnas IN tllne OIL war as wen as
in time of peace the passage of the
s canal - 70 remain Tree ana uhlmpeded'
and is to be so maintained by the power
NOr powers responsible for it's control
Were these amendments added to the
convention the ohlteu states would, II
az presumed ne Wlthln their rishts' H.
- any moment Wheh IL seemed TO tnem
tnat tneir sa1ety required IT, IN view Oh
Wariihe preparations not yet com
q menceo' put concentrated or supposed
20 De contemplated py announcer power,
1ney resorteu TO Warilhe acts IN or near
ane cah cana clearly inconsistent with
.iie neutrai character Whicn IL mas al
Ways peen Sought 10 give IT, ana Whlcn
iWouiu ueny .lle Tree use OF " 20 the
commerce ana naVles OF the Worio.
takes issue Win the proposition
6 tnat tue oehale amendment IS analo-
n sous 70 provlsioii VI ,ne ouez canal
convention ana ne also points out that
SOME ol the articies ol the ouez con-
;vAllt!oii seem 10 nave escaped attention
and ne quotes those providing that per-
iiiinent ,oltl,.ca'ions are prohlniteu'
LIZ iol Tug uispefsioli VI ass''eliplases
.iSai 'iie oaiidi iiNeiy " iiieelleie WIFI
~ use. rroceeulns ne says
tne new CLAUSE were 10 De aodeo,
tne opiisaeion " respect the heutraity
81 tne caHal III an circumstances WOULD
so iar az .1reat brltalh y concerned re-
uIlalL IN lorce' the opi!satioh ol tne
unlteo otates' on the otner mana, Would
pe essehtialiy hiouliieu. Inc result
would pc one-sloeo arrangement I'M
DER wnlch Great brltaln Would be
barred from any Warilke actlon IN or
GROUND the canal. whie the united
Slates Woulu pc Haple 10 resort TO such
Rctlon TO Whatever extent they might
deem necessary 10 secure thelr own
6arety.
4 Respectlng the contention that there
Is speclnc prohlpltion IN the nay
Paunce1ote treaty against the erectlon
or fortlncatlons ana that thls wouio
Sufilclently insure the free use OF the
canal, Lord LansooWhe says:
This contention is one whlch MS
ma1esty's government are uhaple 10 ad-
nit
After calling attention TO the DANGER
Gus vagueness OF tine language en-
ployed IN the amendment, ne says
Even IT 1t were more precisely word
ed, 1t would be Impossible 10 determine
what might be the erect II one clause