The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-26
Lord Transformers Reply to Secretary
Hay Given Out at the State
Department.
SENATE CHANGES OBNOXIOUS
l. HE'LL TO BE IN CONTRAVEN-
TION OF PRESENT TREATY.
Made that Britain Regards
the CIayton-Bulwer Pact as
Still Binding.

WASHINGTON, March 25.-The COM
munication from the British government
giving the reasons why that government
declined to accept the Senate amendments
to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which was
delivered to Secretary Hay by Lord Paunce-
fote on March II, was made public to-day.
Lord Lansdowne, secretary of state for
foreign affairs, sets forth at some length
the circumstances under which the con-
vention was signed by the British ambas-
sadOr, Lord Pauncefote and the secretary
of state. showing that the negotiations
were initiated by the United States, and
that the British government accepts the
convention Internationally as signal proof
of their friendly disposition and of their
desire not to impede the execution of the
project declared to be of national impor-
tance to the people of the United States"
Lord Lansdowne then considers separately
the three amendments of the Senate. He
begins by saying: THE Clayton-Bulwer
treaty is an international compact of UNI
questionable validity, a contract which, ac-
cording to the laws of international usage,
ought not to be abrogated or modified, save
with the consent of both parties to the
CclllTdCl. III spite VI lnlS uSdSt, Ills xhdJtS-
US government find themselves confront
ed by a proposition communicated to 1t by
the United States government without any
previous attempt to ascertain their views
for the a~brogation of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty"
Lord Lansdowne shows that under Article
l of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the two
parties agreed that neither would occupy or
fortify or c~olonize sor assume or exercise
any dominion over any part of Central
America, nor attain any of the foregoing
objects by alliance with any state or people
of Central America. There is no similar
agreement in the convention. If, therefore,
the treaty were wholly abrogated, both
powers would, except In the vicinity of the
Central America. This change, he thinks.
would certainly be of advantage TO the
United States, and might be of substantial
importance.
The other two amendments, in the opin-
ion of Lord Lansdowne, present more for
midable difficulties. The first of them-the
so-called Davis amendment, which reserves
to the United States the right of taking
any measures which il may find necessary
to secure by its own forces the defense of
the canal-appears to his Majesty's gov
eminent to involve a distinct departure
from the principles which has until now
found acceptance with both governments,
namely, that in time of war as well as in
time of peace, the passage of the canal is
TO remain free and unimpeded, and is to be
maintained by the power or powers respon-
sible for its control. With this amendment
added to the convention the United states
would, it is presumed. be within their
rights If at any moment IL seemed right
that their safety required 1t, In view OF
warlike preparations not yet commenced.
but contemplated or supposed TO be con-
templated by another power, they resorted
to warlike acts in or near the canal; acts
clearly inconsistent with the neutral char
acter which IL has always been sought 10
give IL. and which would deny the free
use of 1t to the and navies of the
world.
anomaly between the tenth article of the
Suez canal convention and the Davis
amendment, adding: 1.-The banks of the
Suez canal are within the dominion OF a
the convention and whose established in
terests IL was necessary to protect; where
as the Nicaraugan canal will be con-
structed in territory belonging not TO the
United States, but TO Central American
states. of whose sovereign rights other
powers cannot claim to dispose
Lord Lansdowne states his objections 10
the amendments which strike out Article
3 Of the convention. under which the high
contracting parties engage, immediately
upon the convention being ratified, TO bring
it to the notice of other powers and to
invite their adherence. IF that adher-
ence were given" he says, the neutrality
of the canal would ne secured Dy the WnOlo
of the adhering powers; without that adj
herence IL would depend only upon the
guarantee of the contracting powers" The
amendment. Lord LanSdowne thinks, not
only removes all prospect of the wider
guarantee. but places Great Britain in a
position of marked disadvantage compared
with other powers. He says: IF his
Majesty's government were to agree to
such an agreement, while the United States
would have a treaty right TO interfere with
the canal i'm time of war, or apprehended
war. and while other powers could with II
clear conscience disregard any of the re-
strictions imposed by the convention, Great
Britain alone, in spite of her enormous
possessions on the American continent, and
III spite of her Australasian colonies and
her interests in the East. would be abSo-
lutely p~recluded from resorting to any such
action or from taking measures TO secure
her interests in and near the canal"
Lord LansdOwne instructs the British
ambassador TO explain to the secretary of
state the reasons set forth in this dispatch
why his Majesty's government feels unable
scented TO them by the American ambas-
sador. and why they prefer. as matters
stand at present, TO retain unmodified the
provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
His MajestyS government he says,
throughout these negotiations give evil
dence of their earnest desire TO meet the
view of the United States. They would. in
slider in a friendly spirit any amendments
of the government of the United States not
inconsistent with the principles of both
governments which the government OF the
United States might propose, and they
would sincerely regret a failure to come
TO an amicable agreement In regard TO this
important subject"