The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-03-26
Why THE BRITISH
REJECTED TREATY
correspondence on Nicaraguan
Canal Matter Made Public.
TOO MUCH DEMANDED
ENGLAND STILL STANDS BY
MULTIPLICATION TREATY.

of the British government expressing
it's inability TO accept the PaunCs-
fote treaty in the form amended by
the United States senate was made
public today. It is in the sorm of a
communication from Lord Lansdowne,
British minister of foreign affairs to
Lord PHuncefote and asks the latter
TO rea6 the dispatch to the secretary OF.
state and to leave copy in his hands.
Lord Lansdowne begins by showing
that there was 10 desire On the part of
the British government to change the
Clayton Bulw er treaty But some of
its provisions, he says, had been re-
Earded with disfavor by the govern
ment of the United States and in the
presidents message Of December, 1888.
* was urged that the national policy
called more imperatively than ever for
the control OF the projected highway
by the government Of the United
Lord Pauncefote rhade' inquiry of the
secretary Of state as to the attitude of
the president. the result being sum-
married. by Lord Lansdowne as follows:
In reply, the views OF the JEited
States government were frankly and
openly explained You were most en-
phaticaIly assured that the president
had no intention whatever OF ignoring
the Clayton Bulwer convention and
stipulatiOns. But in vi2w OF the long
national feeling in favor of the con
structton of Nicaragua canal and
Of the improbabiiity of the work be-
ing accomplished by private enterprise,
the United states government was pre-
pared 10 undertake it themselves upon
obtaining the powers from congress.
For that purpose, however, they must
endeavOr. by friendly negotiations to
obtain the consent of Great Britain to
4 III. n - ton
BulWer treaty as without affecting
the general principle therein declared;
would enable the great object in view
TO be accomplished for the benefit OF
the commerce of the world"
Refers 20 Alaskan Boundary
The result, however, of the discus
sions, Lord Lansdowne says, was the
treaty which Mr.. Hay handed 70 Lord
Pauncefote in January, 1899 The Brit
ish government was not yet prepared
TO accept the treaty, as serious diff
culties had arisen in seeking to arrange
affairs then pending before the joint
nigh commission and Lord Salisbury
did not see how her majesty's govern
ment could sanction any convention for
amending the Clayton Bulwer treaty
as the opinion of this country would
hardly support them in making a con-
cession which would be wholly to the
benefit of the United States at a time
when they appeared to be so little in
ouned to come TO a satisfactory agree
ment in regard to the Alaskan from
tier"
Later the introduction of the Mic
aragua canal bill in congress revived
attention to the treaty and it was ac-
cepted, Lord LansdOwne saying:
Her majesty's government after due
consideration. determined to accept the
convention Internationally, as a signal
proof of their friendly disposition and
of their desire not 20 impede the execu-
ton OF a project declared to be of ma
tiOnal Importance to the people of the
United States"
Lord Lansdowne then discussed the
right Of the United States to annul the
Clayton Bulwer treaty, saying:
The Clayton-Bulwe treaty is an in
ternational contract of unquestiOnabie
validity: "A contract which according
10 well established usage ought not 10
be abrogated or modified save with -he
consent of both the parties to the con-
tract"
Lord Lansdowne then considers the
senate amendments. declaring that the
Clayton Bulwer treaty is hereby SUI
perCeded,' opposing this contention. He
lays most stress. however upon the
ether senate amendments and says they
present more formidable difficulties. or.
these he says.
The first Of them. which reserves
to the United States the right of taking
any measures which il may find neces-
=
defense Of the canal appears to his
majesty's government to involve a dis
tinct departure from the principle
which has until now found acceptance
with both governments: the principle.
namely. that in time of war. as wei
As in time OF peace. the passage of the
canal is TO remain free and unim-
peded and is to be SO maintained by
the power or powers responsible for its
control"
Defense of the Canal
Were this amendment added to the
convention the United States would, it
is presumed. be within their rights it,
at any moment when il seemed to them
that their safety required it,. in view
OF warlike preparations not vet COM
menced, but contemplated. or supposed
10 he contemplated by another power,
they resOrted to warlike acts in or
near the canal-aCts clearly incOnsiSt-
ent with the neutral character which
IL has always been sought to give it.
and which would deny the free use of
fl to the commerce and navies of the
world.
He takes issue with the proposition
that the senate amendment is anelo-
gous to a provision of the Suez canal
convention, and he also points out
some of the articles of the Suez con-
vention that seemed to have escaped
attention. and he Quotes those provid-
ing that permanent Notifications are
prohibited, and for the dispersion of
assemblaEes nesr the canal likely 10
interfere with les use. Proceeding, he
SAY ::
'sIf the new clause we're to be added.
the obligation to respect the neutrality
Of the canal in all circumstances would.
so far as Great ssritain is concerned,
remain in force: the obligation of the
United States on the other hand,
would be essentially modified. The re-
suit would be a one-siCcd arrangement
under which Great Britain would be
debarred from any Wariike 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
Free Use of Canal.
Respecting the contention that there
IS a specific prohibition in TIE Hay
Pauncefote treaty against the erection
of Qualifications, and that this would
be sufficient 10 insure the free use of
the canal. Lord Lapsdowne says this
contention IS one which his maiesty's
government are quite unable to adj
nit"
After calling attention to the danger
Gus vagueness of the language en-
ploye5 In the amendment, he says:
Even Il IL were more precisely word
cd 1t would be Impossible to determine
what might be the effect If the CLAUSE
permitting defensive measures and an
other fOrbidding Notifications We're al