The times., 1901-03-26
Circulation Statement.
EngInnd,s Challenge to America.


jecting the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty as
amended by the United States Senate
was made public yesterday. It was de.
livered to the Secretary OF State by Lord
Pauncefote on March II. In it Lord
Lansdowne, his Majestys Minister Of
Foreign Affairs, introduces his written
objections to the amendments with the
following declaration regarding the Clay
ton-Bulwer Convention. He says:
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is an international
compact OF Unquestionable validity. a contract
which. according to the laws OF international
usage ought not TO be abrOgated or modihed,
save with the consent Of both the parties to the
contract In spite Of this usage hiS Majesty s
Government find themselves confronted by a
proposition communicated TO II by the United
States Government. without any previous at
tempt to ascertain their views, oT the abrogatlon
OF the Clayton-Buwer Treaty"
The above statement directly challenges
the truth of history. the acknowledged
usagcs of diplomacy. the right of the
United States to enforce the Monroe
Doctrine, and the right Of the American
people TO arrange their relations with the
Central American States free from Euro
peau interference Lord I.ansdowne calls
particular attention to the fact that the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was prepared on
the Initiative and by the American State
Department submitted. and by the Brit
ish Government accepted unconditional
~ as signal proof of their friendly dis
position and of their desire not to impede
the execution Of the project Cthe Mica
ragua Canal, declared to be Of national
States" We, have no doubt that his lord
ship is right in contending that Secretary
Hay held and still holds identical views
with him as TO the survival Of the Clay
ton-Bulwer Convention and its alleged
present force. He is, however, aware
that Mr.. Hays ablest predecessors have
considered and treated the agreement of
1S56 as null and void. either alb initio, be
cause OF fraud upon the Senate when a
part only of the convention arranged be-
tween the neeotiators was presented TO
and ratified by that body; or. because Of
the violation by Great Britain Of the
vital provision of the contract. in erect
ing the Crown Colony of British Hon
duras I'm 1862 With these successive
American Secretaries of State the Senate
and the American people have been and
are in entire agreement.
II is possible that Lord Lansdowne may
argue that American objections to the /
Clayton-Bulwer Convention. as it is Of |
hcially regarded by Great Britain, are /
concluded by the act Of the Hon. John |
Hay in attempting to revive the terms |
and prohibitions of that agreement in his |
proposed Hay-Pauncefote Treaty But |
the British Ministry know as well as we |
90 that an American executive officer |
cannot bind this country in any sense or |
in the smallest degree TO another State. !
or commit it to any given line of |
policy or action, without the specific |
constitutional authority Of the law or |
treaty making power: which latter is not |
the President, but the President acting |
upon the advice and with the consent Of |
the Senate
Lord I.ansdowne discusses the three /
Senate amendments to the Hay-Paunce-
fote Treaty seriatim. AS to the first ne /
states that under Article ! Of the Clay |
ton-Bulwer Convention, the two parties |
agreed that neither would occupy. fortify. |
or colonize, or assume or exercise any |
dominion over any part Of Central Amer
lea, nor attain any of the foregoing OBJ !
jects by alliance with any State or peo-
PIE Of Central America. IT, he says. the
Clayton-BUlwer Treaty were wholly alb
rogateG, -. Powers would except in
the vicinity Of the canal, recover entire
freedom Of action in Central America
This citation is an unfortunate one.
As we have stated above, Article l of |
the Clayton-Bulwer Convention was de-
liberately violated by Great Britain in
1867 The British contention that the
negotiators agreed upon secret article
exempting the Belize and Honduras
from the operations Of the compact was
suppressed and never was ratified by the
Senate: hence. was never binding upon
the thited States Either that fraud
viusted the whole contract. or else it
was in force only in the form this nation
accepted it. and died when the perddy of
British Honduras was committed during
our civil war.
To the Davis amendment, reserving to
ths United States the right OF taking any
measures which il may find necessary to
secure by its own forces the defence OF
the canal, Lord Lansdowne objects that =
II violates The principle that in time Of
war. as well as in time Of peace, the |
nal is to be free and unimpeded. and |
50 maintained by the Power or Powers
responsible for It's control-namely, Great
Britain or the Concert Of Europe, we sup [
pose. II may bc admitted that the .prln- I
ciple" oHunciated may be agreeable TO the |
opinions and wishes Of Dir. Hay. and pos
Hibly Of his chief. though as 10 the lat
ter there ought 10 be room for doubt II
certainly is not one which does or ever ,
VIII find popular acceptance among the t
people Of this country nor IN the SEN G
ate which represents them in foreign af- Y
fairs. Aside from the disingenuousness =
OF the British argument that essentially
thc same provision in the Suez Canal Con
yention is different proposition, the
Of the American Union is a :
unit in demanding control of what VIII Il
b. link in our national coast line, at
least ia time OF war. National reasons 8
for this. based on national necessity. are
too obvious TO require repetition here
The note tells Us that. the Suez Canal i !,
I fagerscs the posseRsion of a torritoYial | :