The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-03-29
TO SENATE AMENDMENTS TO HAY
PAUNCEfOTE TREATY.
WHY She CANNOT ACCEPT THEM
Desire to Change the Clayton-Bul-
wer Treaty-Opposed to any Changes
Solely for the Benefit OF the United
States-Right to Annul Clayton-Bul.
wer Treaty Dfscussed-Objectfon to
Provisions as to the Isthmian Canal
In the Amended Treaty.

Oh the brlllsu government, expressing
its inability to accept the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty in the form amended by the
United States senate. was made public
today. 1t is in the form of a commu-
nication from Lord Lansdowne, British
minister OF foreign affairs, to Lord
Pauncefote, and ask the latter to read
the dispatch to the secretary of state
and to leave a copy in his hands.
Lord L~ansdowne begins by showing
there was no desire on the part of the
British government to change the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty; but some of it's pro-
visions, lie say had been regarded
with disfavor by the government of the
United States and in the presidents
message of December 1898, it was urged
that the national policy called more
im~peratively ever for the Control
of the projected highway by the gov
m of the United States. Lord
Lord Pauncefote made inquiry of the
secretary of state as to the attitude of
the president, the result being summa-
rized by Lord Lansdowne as follows:
In reply, the views of the United
States government were very frankly
and openly explained. You were most
emphatically assured that the president
had no intention whatever of ignor-
ing the Clayton-Bulwer convention,
and that he loyalty observed treaty
s~tipulations; but in view of the strong
national feeling in favor Of the con-
struction of a Nicaragua canal, and Of
the im%probability of the work being
accomplished by private enterprises,
prepared to undertake it themselves,
upon obtaining the necessary powers
from congress-. For that purpose, how
ever, they must endeavor, by friendly
negotiations, to obtain the consent Of
Great Britain to sue a modification
of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as, with
out affecting the general principle
therein declared, would enable the
great object in view to be accomplish
ed for the benefit of the Of
the world"
The result, however, of the discus
sions, Lord Lansdowne says, vas the
treaty which Mr.. Hay handed to Lord
Pauncefote in January 1899. The Brit
iSh government was not yet prepared
to accept the treaty, assures difficult
ties had arisen in seeking to arrange
affairs then pending before the joint
high commission, and Lord Salisbury
did not see how her majesty's govern
| ment could sanction any convention
for amending the Clayton-Bulwer trea-
ty, as the opinion of this country
would hardly support them in making
| a concession which would be wholly to
the benefit of the United States, at a
time when they appeared to be so lit
tie inclined to come to a satisfactory
| settlement in regard to the Alaska
frontier"
Later the introduction of the Nicara-
qua canal bill in congress revived at
tention to the treaty, and 1T was &C
cepted, Lord L~ansdowne 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 to 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-Bulwer treaty is an in
ternational contract of unquestionabIe
validity; a contract which, according to
we'll established international usage,
ought not to be a~brogated or modified,
save with the consent of both the par
ties to the contract"
Lord Lansdowne hen considers the
senate amendments declaring that the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty is hereby su-
perseded," opposing this contention
He lays most stress, however, upon the
other senate amendments and says
they present more formidable difficult
ties. On these he says:
THE first of them, which reserves Il
the United States, the rights of taking
any measures which it may find neceS
sary to secure by it's own forces the de
Tense of the United States, appears t.
his majesty's government to involve
distinct departure from the principl
which has, until now, found ~acceptanc
with both governments; the principle
namely, that in time of war as we'll a
in time of peace the passage of the ca
nal is to remain free n unimpeded
and is to be so maintained by the pow
er or powers responsible for it's contro
Were this amendment added to tn
convention the United States would, i
is presumed, be within their rights, !
at any moment when it seemed t
them that their safety required it, 1
view OF warlike preparations, not We
commenced. but contemplated or sup
: posed to be contemplated by anothe
: power, they resorted to warlike act
in or near the canal-acts clearly in
consistent with the neutral characte
which it has always been sought I
give it, and which would deny the FIRE
use of it to the m and navie
{ of the world"
/ He takes issue with the propoSitio
that h senate amendment Is analo
gous 10 a provision of the Suez cana
convention, and he also points out tha
5 some of the articles of the Suez car
vention seem TO have escaped attention
/, and he quotes these providing that pei
manent Notifications are prohibited
{ and for the dispersion of assemblage
near the canal likely to interfere wit
: its use. Proceeding he says:
If the new clause were TO be added
the obligation to respect the neutralit
of the canal in all circumstances would
: so far as Great Britain is concerned
remain in force; the obligation of III
United States, on the other hand, woul
b. essentially modified. The resu
would be a one-sided arrangement, VI
der which Great Britain would be d.
. barred from any warlike action in {
S around the canal, while the Unite
: States would be able to resort to sue
i action to whatever extent The migf