Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-03-26

any measures which It may find neces-
sary 10 secure by lis own forces the de-
Tense OF the United States appears TO
her majesty's government TO involve
distinct departure from the principle
which has until now found acceptance
with both governments, the principle,
namely that In time OF war, as well as
I'm time OF peace, the passage Of the
canal Is 70 remain free and unimpeded
and Ia 10 be SO maintained by the pow
err or powers responsible for It's control,
Were this amendment added TO the
convention, the United States would, II
is presumed be within their rights II, at
any moment when II seemed 10 them
that their safety required Il, IN view or
warllke preparations not yet COM
menced, but contemplated or supposed
10 be contemplated by another power,
they resorted to warllke acts IN or
near the canal--acts clearly lneonslst-
ent with the neutral character which y
has always been sought TO give II, ana
which would deny the free use of Il 20
the commerce and nayles Of the world
He tnkes issue with the proposition
that the Senate amendment Is an,
alogous TO provision Of the suez canal
convention, and he also points OUT
some OF the articles IN the Suez con-
vention seemed to have escaped az
tentlon, and he quotes those proVidMs
that permanent Notifications are pro-
hiblted, and for the dispersion OF as
semblages near the canal likely 10 IN
terfere With It's use.
proceeding, he says: III the new
clause were 10 be added, the obliga-
lion 10 respect the neutrality Of the
canal In ali circumstances would, so
FAR as Great Britain Is concerned, re-
main In force: the obligation OF tne
United States. on the other hand
would be essentially modified The re-
suit would be one-sided arrangement
under which Great Britain would De
debarred from any warlike action IN
or around the canal, while the Uniteu
states would be able to resort to sucn
action 10 whatever extent they might
deem necessary TO secure their own
safety" a.. .n.ra
Respecting the contention that there
is n specific prohibition In the hay
pauncefote treaty against the erection
NJ fortlncations, and that this Wouiu
sufficiently insure the free use OF the
canal Lord I.ansdowne says, rms
contention is one which his majesty
government are quite unable 10 au-
nit" ,ao.-
After calling attention to the danger
ous vagueness of the language en-
Moved in the amendment, he says,
EVEN II il were more precisely wornen
II would be Impossible to determine
what might be the effect If the clause
permitting defensive measures ana
another forbiddlng Notifications We're
allowed to stand side by side IN tne
conventlon. TO his ma1esty's gov
eminent, II seems, as | have already
said that the amendment might De
construed as leaving II open to the
United States at any moment, not ohiy
II war existed, but even II II were
anticipated, to take any measures
however stringent or far-reachlng
which In their own judgment might
he presented as suitable for the pur-
poses of protecting their national IN,
teYests. Such an enactment Woulo
strike out the very root of that gen
eral principle of naturalization upon
which the clayton Bulwer treaty was
based and which was reafiirmed IN
the convention as drafted
The third Senate amendment struck
out the provisions inviting the ad-
herence OF other powers. AS to inns
Lord Iansdowne says: 1.-THE amend
ment not only removes all prospect OF
the wider guarantee Of the neutrality
of the canal. but places this country
in a position OF marked disadvantage
compared with other powers which
would not be subject to- the self-de.
nyiug ordinance which Great Britain
Is desired to accept. II would follow,
should his majesty's government
agree to such an arrangement, that
while the United States would have
a treaty right to interfere with the
canal in time Of war OF apprehended
war and while other powers could,
with clear conscience, disregard any
Of the restrictions imposed by the
convention. Great Britain, In spite OF
her enormous possessions on the
American continent. In spite of the ex-
tent OF her Australian colonies and her
interests in the east, would be abso-
lutely precluded from resorting to any
such action, or from taking measures
to secure her interests in and near the
canal"
Having thus expressed his objections
to each of the three Senate amend
ments. Lord Lansdowne concludes as
follows: II request that your ex-
cellency will explain to the secretary
Of state the reasons as set forth In
this dispatch. why his majesty's |
government feels unable TO accept the |
convention In the shape presented to |
them by the American ambassador, |
and why they prefer. as matters stand
az present, TO retain unmoditied the |
provisions OF the Clayton Bulwer |
treaty. His majestay's government |
have, throughout these negotiations, |
given evidence Of their earnest desire !
TO meet the views Of the United States
They would on this occasion have |
been ready TO consider in a friendly |
spirit any amendments Of the conven- |
ton not inconsistent with the princi- |
pies accepted by both governments |
which the government OF the United |
States might have desired 10 propose, |
and they would have sincerely re- /