The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1901-11-02
Abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwe1
Treaty Provided For.
sUEz CANAL co.'s OPPOSITION
UncOnfrmed RuInOr of a Result OF
the Great Loss Threatening
That Corporation.

| United States, when he lands in New
York to-day will have with him the draft
of new treaty abrogating the Clayton
Bulwar treaty which is in every particular
satisfactory to Lord Salisbury's cabinet
Since Lord Pauncefote was interviewed in
London not one word officially authorized
has been given out here with reference
to the canal. The editorials which have
appeared in England have been based en-
tirely upon dispatches from the United
States.
This is explained by the rather aston
ishing announcement that all negotiations
up to the present day have been entirely
unofficial from a strictly diplomatic point
OF view, and that on pourparlers only de-
pend the hopes generally shared for sue
cessful bridging over of the diplomatic
difficulty. These pourparlers, however,
have been particularly searching. The
state department does not require to see
copy of the important document Lord
Pauncefote carries in order to learn its
terms, though, officially, negotiations will
commence only when the ambassador
reaches Washington. Until that time the
exact conditions of the new convention
are withheld.
What Does Britain Gain.
Though it is admitted that Great Brit
ain has agreed to put the Clayton Bulwer
treaty to one side and to acquiesce in the
construction of the canal by and under
the control of the United States, This con-
cession from Lord Lansdowne's original
contention has not been granted without
some real or fancied advantage to Great
Rr1tQin EuCJT nat ho Fa3,, TO : I, :
a quid pro quo constituted the main fea-
ture of the Drotracted pourparlers, but
that it will directly or indirectly result,
is hrmly established in the minds of the
members of the cabinet. One of the most
responsible officials connected with these
and the. earlier negotiations said:
We never really objected to the eonstruc-
ton of the canal, but we did and do object
to a cavalier abrogauon OF the Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty. It was ia that spirit that Lord
Lansdowne couched his reply to the JAited
States senate's rejection of the last Hay
Pauncefote treaty. 1t was not what you
wanted TO do, but the nasty way you said
It, that was the chief reason for our oppe-
sition. Since then we have been approached
in rational, polite manner, and we have
again @endeavored to substitute for the Clay
ton -Bulwer treaty a treaty that will enable
America to carry out design which, in
broad sense, will doubtless benefit the whole
world.
Regarded a Quid Pro Quo.
The modification of the foreign Office
has doubtless done more than anything
else to secure the assent of the British
government to a new treaty. But almost
in the same breath must be mentioned
the reciprocal arrangement regarding the
British West Indies and other British
possessions This. while in line with the
views latterly attributed to President Nc
Kinley and Roosevelt, was so at vari-
ance with the British governments ex-
perience of the American attitude that
it is now regarded in the light of a
quid pro quo for what hey believe to be
a concession over the Nicaraguan pro-
posals.
The allegation contained in some of the
British papers that Lord Lansdowne has
tamely given up inherent rights without
any return is strenuously denied.
What is perhaps more interesting even
than the reasons prompting Great Britain
to send over Lord Pauncefote with his
draft of a treaty Is the fact that inner
circles OF the cabinet are not nearly so
sure of acceptance of the convention as
are some Of the leading papers on both
sides of the water. 1t is feared that when
the full terms are announced some mem
bers of the senate may still find objections
and that the forecasts so far published,
alleging two sweeping concessions" on
the part of Great Britain, may have
deleterious action.
o. .1'.....' ...''''...'. '.-.'..s...o
:: For instance, the deduction that
/: the proposed treaty in any way
: reaf1rms or extends the scope Of
s: the Monroe doctrine meets with
direct denial by the foreign Office.
o'-..'''''..' 80
For these and other reasons Lord
Pauncefote is not likely to affix his Sig
nature to the document until a majority
of the senate shall have had full oppor-
tunity for studying Great Britains pro-
posal.
Inclined to BE Indifferent
Meanwhile, there exists here species
of Indifference and feeling that, after all,
the new treaty may be pigeonhoIed on
account of some unexpected senatorial OBJ
lection, though this development would
create the keenest disappointment, despite
its present stoical anticipation.
o..................... .....................o
From a diplomatic source there
has already emanated private
rumor that the Suez Canal COM:
pany is using financial and other
influence to prevent an agreement
being reached in regard to the
Nicaraguan canal. 1t has been
IuTLQ6T TSpOTIOQ ludt IllS powerful
corporation has joined hands with
several leading American interests
alleged to be opposed to the con-:
struction of this later waterway.
1t is learned, however, that investiga-
tions carried on here and elsewhere in
which Washington is not an entirely dis
interested party, reveal that there is no
evidence of such Vaccinations by the Suez
Canal company, though the head of one
of the British state departments admitted
that the Nicaraguan canal would prob
ably rob the Suez canal of all its far east
ern trade. The British government is
the largest stockholder in the Suez canal
but it does not appear that financial in
terest has entered into the discussions of
the Nicaraguan canal, the considerations
involved therein being regarded as so
far paramount to any possible loss of fu-
ture dividends from the Suez Canal COM
pany as to make the latter unworthy Of
being coupled with the subject. The
actual business of the Suez Canal com
pany is all transacted in Paris, where the
secretary general of the company said to
a press Representatives:
Suez Denial.
For us the Panama and Nicaraguan pro-
jects do not exist. We pay absolutely no at