The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-03-26

ANSWER IS MADE PUBLIC
SENATE CHANGES IN THE CONvEN.
TION ARE HELD UNFAIR
TO ENGLAND
NEUTRALITY OF THE CANAL
Not Sufficiently Guaranteed by the
Document as Altered-His Majes-
ty's Government Adheres to
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

WASHINGTON, March 25-The answer
of the British government, expressing it's
inability to accept the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty in the form amended by the United
State senate, was made public today 1t
is in the form of a communication from
Lord Lansdowne, British minister of for
eign affairs, to Lord Pauncefote, and
asks the latter to read the dispatch to
the secretary of state and to leave q
copy in his hands. Lord Lansdowne be-
gins by showing there was no desire on
the part of the British government to
change the Clayton -BulWer treaty. But
some of it's provisions, he says, had been
regarded with disfavor by the govern
ment of the United States and in the
presidents message of December, 1888, it
was urged that the national policy called
more imperatively than ever for the
control of the projected highway by
the government of the United States.
Lord Pauncefote made inquiry of the sec
retary of state. as to this attitude of the
president, the result being summarized
by Lord LansdoWne as follows:
MKINLEY'S S ATTITUDE IN 1883.
'In reply the views of the United
States government were very frahkly anu
openly explained You were most en-
phaticallly assured that the president
had no intention whatever of ignoring
the Clayton BulWer convention, and that
he would Loyalty observe treaty stipula-
tions But in view OF the strong ma
tionaI feeling on the construction of the
Nicaragua canal, and the 1mproba b1l1ty
of the work being accomplished by prl-
vate enterprise the United States gov
ernment were prepared TO undertake II
themselves upon obtaining the necessary
sanction from congress. For that pur-
pose however, they must endeavor, by.
friendly negotiations tic Obtain the con-
1O,.t4 in fN I1Ch
ton of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as,
without affecting the general principle
therein declared, would enable the great
object in view to be accomplished Tor the
benefit of the commerce of the world /"
The rusult of the discussions, however,
Lord Lansdowne says, was the treaty
which Mr. Hay handed to Lord Paunce-
fote in January, 1S99 The British gov
ernment was not yet prepared to accept
the treaty. as serious difficulties have
arisen in seeking to arrange affairs then
pending before the Joint high commission
and Lord SALISBURY "dd not see how
her majesty's government could sane
ton any convention for amending the
Clayton Bulwer treaty, as the opinion OF
the country would hardly support them
in making a concession which would be
wholly to the benefit of the United States
at a time whey they appeared to be SO
settlement in regard to the Alaskan
frontier
Later the introduction of the Nicarauga
canal bill in congress revived attention
to the treaty, and it was accepted, Lord
Lansdowne saying:
ACCEPTED BY BRITAIN.
'sHer majesty's government, after due
consideration determined to accept the
convention unconditionally as signal
proof of their friendly disposition, and OF
their desire not to impede the execution
of the 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:
'"rhe Clayton-Bulwer treaty is an in
ternational contract of unquestionable
validity; a contract which, according 20
we'll established international use, ought
not to be abrogatod or modified save
with the consent Of both the parties to
the contract"
Lord LansdCwne then considers the
senate amendments declaring the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty is thereby suspend
ed,' opposing this contention, and says
they present more formidable difficulties
On these he says:
SENATE AMENDMENTS
'"The first of them, which reserves to
the United ST tates the right of taking any
measures which it may find necessary to
secure by it's own forces the defense of
the United States, appears to his majes-
tvs government to involve a distinct de-
parture from the principle which has un-
til now found acceptance with both gov
ecnments; the principle, namely, that in
time of war, as we'll as in time of peace,
the pasSa ge of the canal is to remain free
and unimpeded, and is to be 50 maintain
ed by the power or powers responsible
for it's control.
"Were this amendment added to the
convention the United States would, it is
presumed be within their rights if at
any moment when it seemed to them
that their safety required it, in view of
Warlike preparations not yet commenced,
but contemplated or supposed to be con-
templated by another power, they re-
sorted to warlike acts in or near the
canal-acts clearly inconsistent with the
neutral character which it has always
been sought to give it, and which would
deny the free use of it to the commerce
and navieS of the world
He takes issue with the proposition that
the senate amendment is analogous to a
provision of the Suez canal convention
and he also points out that some of the
articles of the Suez convention Seem to
have escaped attention, and he quotes
those providing that permanent fortifica-
tions are prohibited and for the disper-
sion of assemblages near the canal likely
to interfere with its use. Proceeding,
he says:
NOT FAIR TO BOTH SIDES.
eff the new clause were to be added,
the obligation to respect the neutrality of
the canal in all circumstances would so
far as Great Britain is concerned, remain
in force the obligation of the United
States on the other hand would be es-
sentially modified. The result would be
a one-sided arrangement on which Great
Britain would be debarred from any war
like action in or around the canal, while
the United States would be able to resort
to such action to whatever extent they
might deem necessary to secure their own
safety
Respecting the contention that there is
a specific prohibition in the Hay-Paunce-
fcte treaty against the erection of for
tifications and that this would sufficiently
insure the free use OF the canal Lord
Lansdowne says this contention is one
which his majesty's government is quite
unable to admit
After calling attentions to the danger
Gus vagueness of the language employed
in the amendment, he says:
LANGUAGE IS AMBIGUOUS.
Gwen if 1t were more precisely word
ed it would be impossible to determine
what might be the effect if one clause
permitting defensive measures and an
other forbidding Notifications were al