The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-26

The note of the British Government re
jecting the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty a.
amended by the United States Senate
was made public yesterday. 1t was de
Iivered to the Secretary of State by LORD
Pauncefote on March II. in it LORD
Lansdowne, his Majesty's Minister OF
Foreign Affairs, introduces his written
objections to the amendments with the
following declaration regarding the Clay
ton-Bulwer Convention. He says:
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is an international
compact Of unquesticnable validity contract
which, according to the laws of international
usage. ought not to be ahrogated or modified,
save with the consent of both the parties to the
contract. In spite VI this usage. his Majesty
Government find themselves confronted by a
proposition communicated TO il by the United
States Government, without any previous at
tempt to ascertain their views. for the abrogation
of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty"
The above statement directly challenges
the truth of history, the acknowledged
usages of diplomacy. the right Of the
United States to enforce the Monroe
Doctrine and the right of the American
people to arrange their relations with the
Central American States free from Euro
pean interference. Lord Lansdowne calls
particular attention TO the fact that the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was prepared on
the Initiative and by the American State
Department submitted, and by the Brit
ish Government accepted unconditional
~ as signal proof of their friendly dis
position and of their desire not to impede
the execution of the project tthe Mica
ragua Canal, declared to be OF national
importance to the people of the United
States We have no doubt that his lord
ship is right in contending that Secretary
Hay held and still holds identical views
with him as to the survival of the Clay
ton-Bulwer Convention and its alleged
present force He is, however, aware
that Mr.. Hays ablest predecessors have
considered and treated the agreement of
1SiO as null and void. either alb initio be-
cause OF fraud upon the Senate when a
part only of the convention arranged be-
tween the neeotiators was presented to
and ratified by that body; or, because of
the violation by Great Britain of the
vital provision of the contract. in erect
ing the Crown Colony of British Hon
Jul IL III icb-- w TN THESE successive
American Secretaries of State the Senate
and thu american people have been and
are in sntire agreement
II is possible that Lord Lansdowne may
argue that American objections to the
Clayton-Bulwer Convention, as il is Of
iiciaIly regarded by Great Britain, are
concluded by the act of the Hon John
Hay in attempting to revive the terms
and prohibitions of that agreement in his
proposed Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. But
the British Ministry know as well as We
do that an American executive officer
cannot bind this country in any sense or
in the smallest degree to another State
or commit it to any given line of
policy or action, without the specific
constitutional authority of the law or
treaty making power: which latter is not
the President, but the President acting
upon the advice and with the consent of
the Senate.
Lord Lansdowne discusses the three
Senate amendments TO the Hay-Paunce-
fote Treaty seriatim. AS to the first. he
states that under Article / Of the Clay
ton-Bulwer Convention, the two parties
agreed that neither would occupy. fortify,
or COLOMBO, or assume or exercise any
dominion over any part of Central Amer
lea, nor attain any Of the foregoing OBJ !
jects by alliance with any State or peo-
pie Of Central America. If, he says the |
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty were wholly alb |
rogateG, -. Powers would. except in
the vicinity of the canal, recover entire |
freedom of action in Central America.
This citation is an unfortunate one |
AS we have stated above, Article l of |
the Clayton-Rulwer Convention was de-
liberately violated by Great Britain in |
1862 The British contention that the |
negotiators agreed upon secret article
exempting the Belize and Honduras
from the operations Of the compact was
suppressed and never was ratified by the
Senate: hence. was never binding upon
the United States Either that fraud
vitlated the whole contract, or else it
was in force only in the form this nation
accepted it. and died when the perfdy of
British Honduras was committed during
our civil war.
To the Davis amendment reserving to
the United States the right of taking any
measures which it may find necessary to
secure by its own forces the defence of
the canal, Lord Lansdowne objects that
it violates the principle that In time of
war. as well as in time Of peace. the
canal is to be free and unimpeded. and
so maintained by the Power or Powers
responsible for its control-namely, Great
Britain or the Concert of Europe. we sup
pose. IL may be admitted that the ''prln- |
ciple' enunciated may be agreeable to the
opinions and wishes Of Mr.. Hay, and pos
Hibly Of his chief. though as TO the lat
ter there ought to be room for doubt II |
certainly is not one which does or ever | ,
viii find popular acceptance among the |
people OF this country, nor IN the SEN
ate, which represents them In foreign af- | '
fairs. Aside from the disingenuousness
of the British argument that essentially |
the same provision in the Suez Canal Con-
vention is different proposition, the :,
Of the American Union Is a ,
unit in demanding control of what will 1
be link in our national coast line, at
least in time of war. National reasons
for this, based ON national necessity, are
too obvious TO require repetition here.
The note tells Us that. as the Suez Canal +,
the possession of a territorial I