The Savannah morning news., 1901-03-12
BRITAIN'S ANSWER
rr1Ls WHY SHE DROPPED THE
CANAL TREATY.
WE ARE NICELY REPRovED.
,,oa sEsNATE's RAsHNEsS IN ITS
AMENDMENTS.

1,terests Not Consulted in Max
inc the Amendments, and No OPP
ortunity Given for a Counter
p-orositiOn-She Dismisses the En-
Fire Matter and Leaves 1t to the
r,,ted states to Make New Over
tures-T'he Reply Marked by Pos
,tixe but Friendly Tone.
u-,sbington. March 1.-THE long expect
- answer from the British government to
.bo state Departments communication re-
,itirq the action of the Senate upon the
11av-Pauncefote treaty was returned to-
day.
lord Pauncefote came to the State De-
,,rtment at noon by appointment. He
brouqbt the answer with him, and read
If TO Secretary Hay. It was, in form,
or instruction from Lord Landsdowne,
r5e British minister of foreign affairs, to
lord Pauncefote and of this instruction
bc left copy with Secretary Hay. The
.a,retarv and the ambassador were closet
81 for half an hour. At the conclusion
If the conference it was stated that the
obstruction to Lord Pauncefote was to no.
ufy The government of the United States
that the British government did not see
lis way clear to the acceptance of the
Senate amendments. The note concluded
with an expression of regret that such a
course was forced upon the British gov
eminent There was nothing in the ma
lure of a counter-propoeition nor was any
opening ieft for further action by the
British government.
1t was stated that if there is to be
further attempt to amend the Clayton
Buiwer treaty, so as to authorize the
United States to construct a waterway
across the isthmus, then it is for the
United States to make the overture; the
British government simply drops the
matter at this point. The impression
prevails that there will be no immediate
action looking toward the negotiation of
a treaty.
Not to BE Protested Now.
For the present, the text of the British
answer viii be withheld from publication
on t+is side of the water at least, though
1t is said that after the President has con-
sidered the matter. some general state
ment may be made as to the various
points developed.
The British answer is quite lengthy,
as such documents go, and would make
about two newspaper columns. The tone
Of the reply is distinctly friendly
throughout. particularly so in the con-
clu7Iing assurances of good will and a
desire to cooperate in the realization of
this undertaking. Although the text is
withheld, it is understood that the an
swer takes up each of the three amend
ments made by the Senate and presents
the difficulties in the way OF asserting
TO them. As to the amendment which
struck out all that clause of the treaty
inviting all the other maritime nations
to concur in the neutralzing of the canal,
the British view is that while the United
States and Great Britain can bind them
selves by treaty to neutralize the canal,
they cannot make this action binding on
all other governments. unless these gov
ernments concur. AS to the entire abro-
cation of the Clayton Bulwer treaty. as
provided by one of the Senate amend
ments, it appears to be the British view
that such a step is too far-reaching TO be
taken without some negotiation in which
the British side of the case is presented.
The Davis Amendment.
The so-called Davis amendment appears,
however. to be the chief obstacle in the
way OF an agreement, ana Wnlle tne Btu
fish answer makes no suggestion of any
further negotiation, there seems to be 4
fair inference from the general tenor that
i' . modification of this amendment could
he secured there probably could be an
adjustment upon the other points of diff
ferences.
A reading of the answer also makes
plain that while it does not make coun-
ter-propositions or propose further action,
yet it does not preclude sue haction by
laying down a course which will be ad-
hered to without the slightest deviation.
Ou the contrary, the answer takes the
form Of an argument tending to show
that the amendments proposed by the
senate do not fairly consider the various
British interests involved, and that they
cannot for that reason. be accepted in
the form presented. But there is moth
ing peremptory in the tone of the an
sWer.
The Davis amendment to the treaty,
While In terms it die not give the United
states the right TO fortify the canal, in
general language expressed the right to
ms country to adopt such measures in
regard to the canal as were deemed nee
oSsary for the proper maintenance of
American authority The two other
amendments abrogated the Clayton Bull
"er treaty and struck out the provision
OF the treaty which invited other for
+lBn governments to express their ap-