Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-03-26
TEXT OF BRITISH REPLY.
The Correspondence on the Hay.
Pauncefote Treaty Made
Public.
Language Of Britain's Rejection
OF the Amendments Made
by Senate.
England Believes the Changes
Made Would Give United
States Advantage.

1
United States senate has been made
PUBLIC. 1t is in the form Of a comnlu-.
nication from Lord Lansdowne. British,
minister OF foreign affairs to Lord
! Pauncefote and asks the latter TO read
! the dispatch u the secretary of state
end To leave a copy in his hands.
4 Lord Laslsdowne begins by showing
there Was no desire on the part of the
4 BRUSH government to change the Clay
i ton Bulwer treaty, But some Of It's
4 Lrovisiofs, he says, had been regarded
with disfavor by the government Of the
4 United states, and in the presidents
message OF December 1893. it was urged
/ that tlis national policy called more inn
rerativelyT than ever for the ..control', of
she projected highway by the govern
3nsent Of the United States Lord.
t'auneefets made inquiry of the secre-
tary OF state as 10 this attitude of the
president, the result being summarized
! by Lord Laus,lowne as follows
In reply. the views Of The United
I States government We're Very frankly
and opsnis expressed YOU vas most
lsnphatiraiiy assured that the president
had no Intention whatever OF Ignoring
i the Clayton Buiwer. convention and that
sIlle would Loyalty observe treaty stipuia-
a tons. Rut in View of the slrons nation
4 d feeling in favor Of the construction
sIaf q Nicaragua canal, and OF the inn
lsiohability II the work being accom-
Il p'ished by private enterprise the United
1 Gertake ii themselves upon oFtainin.
4 The necessary power from congress. For
i dat purpose, however, they must en-
i 8deavor by friendly negotiations 10 oD-
ltain the CONSENT of Great britain %
l.such a modification Of the ,i;iyton- Bul-
q Yer treaty as, Without affecting the
general iincipie therein declared
would enable the great object in view 10
be eolnplsshea for Tie benefit of ne
i commerce 81 ths world,
III. result, however, Of the discus
sisii7s Lord I-ansGo8ne says. Was the
s. .rsa' Which Mr. Hay handed 10 Lore,
1 Y allilssf ete in January. 1889 The Brit
lsh government vas not YET prepared 3,
a aeeeitt the treaty as serious difficulties
fad arisen in seeking 10 arrange affairs
s ben pending bafore the joint high COM
nilsson. and Lord Salisbury did NOT see
how her inajesty's government coulo
sanction any convention for amending
the 'lay't on ISulwer treaty. as the opin-
4 Ion Of this country would hardly sup
u pert them = n MA King "a L concession when
Il would be wholly to the benefit OF the
& 2 nitea States al 4 time when thew ap-
Il Feared TO be SO little inclined to come Il,
g satisfactory settlement in regard 10
q She Alaskan frantier.'
Later the Introduction Of the Nicara-
u qua canal bill II congress revived a,ten-
sstion TO the treaty aud ii was accepted.
+, Lore l-ansdowfle sa ying Her ma RS
'ys government after due consideration
determined 70 II the convention uu-
soonalfionally. as signal proof Of their
ifiefdly disposition and OF their desire
sfsot g impede tbs execution of a project
declared 70 be of national Importance
70 the people of the United States.
1 Lord Lansdowne then discusses the
sht of the United States to ann,il the
s. e'iaston-'Hhlwer treaty. saying: The
10y ton -Bulwer treaty is an lnterna,
Itentract which. according to well eetab-
t8ished international usage. ought rot IA
y be abrogated or modified save win, the
consent of both the parties TO the con.
tract
| Lord Lansdowne then considers the
senate amendments declaring that the
"a ytor- Bulwer treaty is hereby s,I,
perseded' opposing this contention. n.
lays most stress however. upon tho
) other senate amendments and say.
{ they present more formidable difficul.
ties. On these he says:
The first Of them, which reserves fht
nited States the right Of taking an,
measures which 1t may find necessar,
10 secure by its own forces. this. ,efens,
Of the United States appears to his ma
Jesty $ government TO Involve a distine
J. departure from the principle which ha
until row found acceptance with boil
governments the principle namely
thatln time OF war as we'll as in time o
: peace the passage of the canal is to re
main free and unimpeded. and is to b
80 maintained by the power or power
D responsible for its control Were tfi
amendment added to the convention tn
4 United States would it is presumed. b
! within their rights. if at any momen
/ when it seemed TO them that their safe
~ required 1T, in view of warlike prep
arations not yet commenced, but con
templated or supposed to be contem
plated by another power, they resorte
4 to Warlike acts In or near the canal
1 acts clearly Inconsistent with the neu
tral character which it has always bee
sought to give 1t, and which would den
the free use of ii to the commerce an
nayies OF the world
He takes issue with the propositio
/ that the senate amendment is analogou
! to a provision of the Suez canal conven
ton, and he also points out that some {
the articles of the Suez conyentio
! seemed to have escaped attention. an
he quotes those providing that perma
I nent Notifications are prohibited, an
! for the disposition Of assemblages nea
/ the canal likely to interfere with its us,
Proceeding, he says:
III the new clause were to be adde
/ the obligation to respect the neutralit
Of the canal in all circumstances would
50 far az Great Britain is concerned, re
main in force; the obligation of tn
United States. on the other hand. woul
- be essentially modified. The resu
world be q one sided arrangement uu
der which Great Britain would be dc
e barred from any warlike action In I
!. around the canal, while the Unite
States would be able to resort to sue
q action to whatever extent they naigl
Il deem necessary to secure their ow
= safety"
Respecting the contention that thei
II specific prohibition in the Ha,