The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-03-12

| Although the text is withheld it is
understood that the answer takes up
each of the three amendments made by
/ the Senate and preSnts the difficulties
| in the way of asserting to them. AS
| to the amendment which struck out all
| that clause of the treaty inviting other
maritime nations to concur in the neu-
| Trailing of the canal the British view
| is that while the United States and
Great Britain can bind themselves by
treaty to neutralize the canal, they
cannot make this action binding on all
other governments unless these govern
ments concur.
AS to the entire abrogation of the
| Clayton-B ulwer treaty, as provided by
one of the Senate amendments, 1T APP
pears 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, so-caled Davis amendment ap-
pears, however to be the chief obstacle
! in the way of an agreement and while
the British answer makes no sugges-
| tlOll VI any llutI llcSOlldtioliJ IL
seems to be a fair inference from its
! general tenor that if a modification Of
this amendment could be secured, there
probably could be an adjustment upon
| the other points of differences. A read
ing Of the answer also makes plain
that while it does not make counter
propositions or propose further action
yet it does not preclude such action by
| laying down a course which will be adj
hered to without the slightest devia-
| ton.
| On 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 va
| rieus British interests involved, and as
the complete neutralizing Of the canal
under the terms Of the treaty would
have the effect of comforting the same
rights and usage to Germany, France
and other nations that were enjoyed by
Great Britain. Tt was rather in the
character Of trustee for the maritime
nations that the amended treaty was
considered. furthermore, an important
consideration was as to the effect OF the
new instrument in completely Wiplng
out the Clayton Bulwer treaty and the
| rights which Great Britain claimed UNI
| der that document. Some of the Brit
! ish statesmen held that there should
be quid pro quo, if British claims I'M
der the Clayton-Bulwer treaty were sur
! rendered 1t also was held that Great
Britain had certain vested rights in
| Central America, which had given place
F, to the. Clayton-Bulwer treaty, SO that
if the treaty was to be succeeded by
something less substantial, then the old
vested rights of Great Britain were OBJ
| liberated, without any adequate return.
At the same time, the understanding
here is that the sentiment of British Of
ficials was to avoid a breach or issue
with the United States and if possible
| to arrange a common basis of agree
ment.
! In some British quarters it was held
| that too much friction already had been
caused by the canal issue, and that
since the United States was willing to
! invest the hundreds of millions of dol
1 lars required for the canals construc-
ton and then admit to 1t the commerce
| of Great Britain and the world at large,
| it was but just to give the American
government a certain degree of author
| ity over the canal, particularly when
it's military necessities required such
authority. In this spirit and with these
conflicting considerations, the matter
has been pending before the British
cabinet with the result of the formal
answer communicated by Lord Paunce-
fote to-day.
The effect of the British answer can
not be to restore the life of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty SO far as now APP
pears. That document had a distinct
limitation, within which it. could be
ratified and no doubt seems to exist
among officials that the period expired
when the Senate adjourned. Inc
answer is chiefly important, therefore,
as making clear the attitude of the
British government, alongside the attl-
tude of the American government.
With the two positions thus clearly de-
fined it remains to be seen whether
the United States government Will car
nv on such further negotiations as may
reconcile differences and bring about a
common ground of action.