The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-12
Text of the British Answer Withheld
for the Present, but Its Tenor
Made Known at Washington.
NO COUNTER PROPOSITION
BUT NO BAR PUT UP IN THE WAY OF
REOPENING THE QUESTION.
Britnin's Reply Mainly of an Argu-
mentative Nature-Comment of
the London Morning Press.

WASHINGTON, March 1.-THE long-ex-
pected answer from the British govern
| nient to the State Departments communi-
cation reciting the action of the Senate
upon the Hay-Pauncefote treaty,
turned at noon to-day. Lord Pauncefote,
| the British ambassador already had ac-
quainted Secretary Hay with the fact that
he had received a communication from his
government on the SUBJECT and it is be-
lieved it had been in his possession for
several days. Secretary Hay had acquired
| general knowledge of the character OF
the British response.
Lord Pauncefote came to the State De-
partmenr at noon by appointment. He
brought the answer with him and read
it to Secretary Hay 1t was, in form, an
instruction from Lord Lansdowne, the
British minister of foreign affairs to Lord
Fauncefcte, and of the instruction he lef-
a copy with Secretary Hay The secretary
| and the ambassador were closeted for half
an hour. At the conclusion of the con-
| ference it was stated that the instruction
| to Lord Pauncefote was to notify the gov
| ernment of the United States that the
| British government did not see its way
| clear to its acceptance of the Senate
amendments. The amendments were treat
| ed in detail at some length, in argumenta-
| tive fashion, the purpose of the British
| government being to show that il had
| sound reason for declining to accept them.
| After disposing of the details the note
/ concluded with an expression of regret
that such course was forced upon the
| British government. There was nothing
| in the nature of a counter-proposition
nor was any opinion left for further action
| by the British government. 1t was stated
| that If there is to be a further attempt
| tc amend the Clayton-Buwer treaty, so as
| to authorize the United States to construct
a. waterway across the isthmus, then it is
| for the United States to make the over
| ture; the British government simply drops
the matter at this point.
NO ACTION YET TAKEN.
| Secretary Hay carried the communica-
| tion to the White House to talk with the
| President as to the future action of the
| department No opportunity, however,
offered this afternoon for a conference
| between the President and Secretary Hay,
| therefore it cannot yet be stated what
| action, If any, will be taken by our gov
| ernment. 1t is stated that there is no
| hurry, even in the event that il shall be
| decided to invite Great Britain to join in
| fresh negotiate as to an isthmian canal
| Congress not being in session to consider
a treaty if one should be framed. The
| belief seems to be warranted that there
will be no further negotiations ION the
| subject in the immediate future, unless
some event not now foreseen by the Of
fcials causes radical change in the sit
/ nation For the nreSant fba text Of tho
British answer will be withheld from pub
| lication, on this side of the water at
least. though it is said that after the
President has thoroughly considered the
matter some general statement may be
made as to the points developed
| The British answer is quite long, as such
documents go. and would make about two
newspaper columns. The tone of the reply
is distinctly friendly throughout, particu-
larly so in the concluding assurances of
! good will and a desire to cooperate in the
realization of this undertaking. Although
the text is withheld. it is understood that
the answer takes up each of the three
amendments made by the Senate and pre-
sents the difficulties in the way of asserting
| TO them. AS to the amendment which
struck out all that clause of the treaty in
| Nltlng Olner nations 10 concur
in the neutralizing of the canal the British
view is that while the United States and
/ Great Britain can bind themselves by
treaty to neutralize the canal they cannot
make this action binding on all other gov
ernments unless these governments concur
| AS to the entire abrogation of the Clay
| ton-Bulwer treaty as provided by one Of the
| Senate amendments it appears to be the
| British view that such step is too far
reaching to be taken without some negotia-
| tion in which the British side of the case
| Is presented. The so-called Davis amend
ment appears, however, to be the chief OBJ
stacle in the way of an agreement. and
while the British answer makes no sugges-
| ton of any further negotiation, IL seems 10
be a fair inference from its general tenor
| that If a modification of this amendment
| could be secured there probably could be
| an adjustment upon the other points of
differences. a reading OF the answer also
| makes plain that while IL does not make
| counter propositions or propose further
action. yet IL does not preclude such action
| by laying down a course which will be ad-
| hered 10 without the slightest deviation
| on the contrary. the answer takes the
form OF an argument tending to show that
the amendments proposed by the Senate do
| not fairly consider the various British in
terests involved and that for that reason
| they cannot be accepted in the form pre-
sented There is nothing peremptory in the
| tone OF the answer.
IN PROGRESS OVER TWO YEARS
The Hay-Pauncefote negotiations have
| been in progress for something over two
years. and owing TO the great interests in
volved they have constituted the chief in
ternational question at issue before the