The news & observer., 1901-03-12
OPPOSED TO ALL THREE
But the Davis Amendment is Particu-
larly Objectionable.
THIS GAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND CANAL
Great Britain Makes No Counter Proposition.
She Argues that the Senate Has Not
Fairly Considered Her Interests
in the Matter.
CBy the Associated Prcss.)

Washington. March 1.-THE long ex-
pected answer from the British Govern
ment to the State Departments COM
munication declining the action of the
Senate upon the Hay Pauncefote Treaty,
was received.
Lord Pauncefote came to the State De-
partment 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 Pauncefote, and Of this instruction
he left a copy with Secretary Hay. The
Secretary and the Ambassador were
closeted for half an hour. AT the con-
clusion of the conference, it was stated
that the instruction to Lord Pauncefote
was TO notify the Government OF the
United States that the British Govern
ment did not see it's way clear to the ac
Ceptance of the Senate amendments. The
note concluded with an expression Of re-
gret that such a course was forced upon
the British Government. There was
nothing in the nature of a counter propo-
sition, nor was any opening left for furth-
er action by the British Government. It
was stated that if there was to be a
further attempt to amend the Clayton
Bulwer 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 overture; the
British Government simply drops the
matter at this point. The impression pre-
walls that there will be no immediate ac-
tion looking toward the negotiation of a
treaty.
For the present the text of the British
answer will be withheld from publication
on this side of the water at least though
it is said that after the President has
considered the matter some general
statement may be made as to the various
points developed
The British answer is quite lengthy as
such documents go, and would make about
two newspaper columns. The tone of the
reply is distinctly friendly throughout.
particularly so in the concluding assur-
ances of good will and a desire to CO.
operate. in the realization of this under
taking. Although the text is withheld it
is understood that the answer takes up
each of the three amendments made by
the Senate and presents the difficulties in
the way of asserting to them as to the
clause of the treaty inviting other mari
time nations to 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 neu-
tralize the canal, they cannot make this
action binding on all other Governments.
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 a step is too
far reaching to be taken without some
negotiation in which the British side of
the case is presented. The so-called
Davis amendment appears. however. to
be the chief obstacle in the way Of an
agreement, and while the British answer
makes no suggestion Of any further ne
gotiation, there seems to be fair in
ference from the general tenor that if a
modification of this amendment could be
secured, there probably could be an adj
justment upon the other points of differ
ences.
4 reading of the answer also makes
plain that while it does not make counter
propositions or propose further action, yet
it does not preclude such action by laying
down a course which will be adhered to
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. and that they cannot for that
reason be accepted in the form presented
But there is nothing peremptory in the
tone OF the answer.
The Davis amendment to the Treaty
while in terms it did not give the United
States right to fortify tho canal. in
general language expressed the right Of
this country to adopt such measures in
regard to the canal as were deemed
necessary for the proper maintenance Of
American authority, The other two
amendments abrogated the Clayton Bull
wer Treaty and struck out tho provision
of the treaty, which invited other foreign
Governments to express their approval
Of it,
ike Oliver Twist clil,irot, f,,,. ,,,..,.