Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-03-25
Why the Amended Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty Was Rejected.
GREAT BRITAIN At A DISADVANTAGE
Guarantees of BuIwer-CIayton
Convention Given Up.
OTHER NATIONS NOT BOUND

| Lord Pauncefote on the 11th of March de-
| livered to the Secretary of State a copy of
| communication which he had received
| from Lord Lansdowne. giving the reasons
which have constrained the British govern
| ment to decline to accept the Senate amend
| ments of February 5. 1900, commonly
known as the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The
| communication was made public here to-
| day.
| Lord Lansdowne sets forth at some
! length the circumstances under which the
convention was signed by the British am
| bassador and the Secretary of State, show
| ing that the negotiations were initiated by
| the United States, and that the British
government accepted the convention un-
conditionally as signal proof of their friend
| ly disposition and of their desire not to i'm
pede the execution of the project declared
! to, be Of national Importance to the people
! Of the United States.
The ClaytOn-RuIwer Treaty.
Lord Lansdowne then considers separate
ly the three amendments of the Senate. He
begins by saying: 1.-The CIayton-Bulwer
treaty is International compact of un-
questionable validity, a contract which, ac-
cording to the laws of international usage
ought not to be abrogated or modified save
with the consent of both the parties to the
contract. In spite of this usage his majeS-
tvs government find themselves confronted
by proposition, communicated to it by the
United States government without any pre-
Vious attempt to ascertain their views, for
the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty.
He shows that under article l of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty the two parties
agreed that neither would occupy or for
tify or colonize, or assume or exercise any
dominion over any part of Central Amer
ica, nor attain any of the foregoing objects
by alliance with any state or people of
Central America. There is no similar
agreement in the convention. If therefore,
the treaty were wholly abrogated both
powers would, except in the vicinity Of the
canal, recover entire freedom Of action in
Central America. This change, he thinks
would certainly-be of advantage to the
United States, and might be of substantial
Importance.
Defense of the Canal.
The other two amendments, in the opin-
ion of Lord Lansdowne, present more for
midable difficulties. The first of them-the
so-called Davis amendment-which re-
serves to the United States the right of
taking any measures which 1t may find
necessary to secure by it's own forces the
defense of the canal, appear to his mai
esty's government to involve a distinct de-
parture from the principle which has until
now found acceptance with both govern
ments, the principle, namely, that in time
of war, as well as in time of peace, the
passage of the canal is to remain free and
unirpeded, and Is to be so maintained by
the power or powers responsible for its
control.
with this amendment added to the con-
vention the United States would, it is pre-
sumed, be within their rights if at any mo-
ment when it seemed to them that their
safety required it. in view of warlike prep
arations not yet commenced but contem-
plated or supposed to be contemplated by
another power. they resorted to warlike
acts in or near the canal; acts clearly in
consistent 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
Case of the suex Canal.
He goes on to show that there is no anal
ogy between the tenth article Of the Suez
canal convention and the Davis amend
ment. 1.-The banks Of the Suez canal are
within the dominions Of territorial SOW
ereign who party to the convention
and whose established interests it was nee
essary to protect; whereas the Nicaragua
canal will be constructed in territory be-
longing, not to the United States, but to
Central American states, Of whose SOW
ereign rights other powers cannot claim to
dispose"
England Unfairly Restricted.
Lord Lansdowne goes on to state his OBJ
JOCllOlS " tLS diueuuuSIltp WHICH Strikes
out article of the convention, under
which the high contracting parties en-
gage, Immediately upon the convention
being ratified, to bring it to the notice of
other powers, and to invite their adher-
ence. III that adherence were given, the
neutrality of the canal would be secured
by the whole Of the adhering powers; with
out that adherence it would depend only
upon the guarantee Of the two contracting
powers. The amendment, he thinks, not
only removes all prospect Of the wider
guarantee, but places Great Britain in a
position of marked disadvantage COMPARED
with other powers. If his majestys gov
ernment were to agree to such an agree
ment, while the United States would have
treaty right to interfere with the canal
in time of war; apprehended war; and
while other powers could with clear
conscience, disregard any of the restric-
tions imposed by the convention, Great
Britain alone. in spite Of her enormous
possessions on the American continent, and
in spite Of her Australasian colonies and her
interests in the east. would be absolutely
precluded from resorting to any such
action, or from taking measures to secure
her interests In and near the canal"
Assurance of Friendship.
Lord Lansdowne instructs the British
ambassador to explain to the Secretary of
State the reasons set forth in this dispatch
why his majesty's government feel unable
to accept the convention in the shape pre-
sented to them by the American ambassa-
dor. and why they prefer, as matters stand
at present, to retain unmodif1ed the provi-
sions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. His
majesty's government have" he says,
throughout these negotiations, given evil
dence of their earnest desire to meet the
views of the United States. They would,
| in this connection have been ready to con-
slider in friendly spirit any amendments
of the government OF the United States not
inconsistent with the principles of both
governments which the government Of the
United States might propose, and they
would sincerely regret a failure to come to
an amicable understanding in regard to
| this important subject"
RETURN OF GEN. MILES.