Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1901-03-14

4 -
Not Preremptory in
,TOne--NO Counter
Propositions
Washington, March 1.-The long tx
pected answer from the British govern
ment to the State Department communl-
cation reciting the action Of the Senate
upon the Hay-Pauuccfote treaty was re-
turned today.
Lord Pauncefote came to the State De-
partment at noon by appointment. lie
brought the answer Vi,h him, and read 1t
to Secretary Hay 1t was, il form, an
instruction from Lord Lansdowne, tie
British Minister Of Foreign Affairs to Lord
Pauncefote, and of this instruction he left
a copy with Secretary Hay The Secre-
tary and the ambassador were ciOseted for
half an hour.
At the conclusion of the conference, 1t
was stated that the instruction of LORD
Pauncefote was to notify the government
of the United States that the British gov
ernment did not see it, way clear to ac'
ceptance of the Senate amendments. The
note concluded with an expression Of re-
gret that such course was forced upon
the British government. There was moth
ing in the nature OF counter proposition
nor was any opening left for further action
by the British government.
NO FURTHER STEP EXPECTED SOON.
1t was stated that if there is TO be fur
ther attempt to amend the Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty, so as to authorize 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 nego iation Of treaty.
For the present, the text Of the British
answer will be withheld from publication,
on this side of the water at least, though 1t
is said that after the President has con-
sidered the matter some general statement
may be made as to the various points de-
veloped.
The British answer il quite lengthy, as
such documents 60, and world make
about two newspaper columns. The tone
of the reply is distinctly friendly through
out, i'll the concluding assurances OF good
will and a desire to cooperate In realiza'
ton of this undertaking. Although the
text is withheld,lt is understood that the
answer 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
oat all that clause Of the treaty inviting
other marine nations to concur in the
neutralizlng Of the canal the British view
is that while Great Britain and the United
States can bind themselves by treaty to
neutrallze the canal, they cannot make
this action binding on all other govern
ments, unless these governments concur
As to the entire abrogatiou Of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty, as provided by one the
Senate amendments, 1t appears 10 be the
British view that such step is too far
reaching 20 be taken without some nego-
tiations in which the British side Of the
case is presented.
The so-called Davis amendment appears,
however to be the chef obstacle in the way
of an agreement, and while the British
answer makes no suggestion Of any further
negotiation, there seems 10 be fair In
ference from the general tenor that If q
modification of this amendment could be
secured, there probably could be All al
iustment upon the other points Of differ
ences.
AS reading of the answer also makes
plain that while it does not make counter
propositions or propose further action, yet
il does not preclude such action by laying
down a course which will be adhered lo
without the slightest deviation.
IN FORM OF ARGUMENT.
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 various British
interests involved, and that they cannot
for that reason be accepted in the form
presented. But there Is nothing peremp
tory in the tone Of the answer.
The Davis amendment to the treaty
while in terms it did not give the the
United States right to foTtify the canal
in general language expressed the right o
this country to adopt such measures iu re
gard to the canal as were deemed neces'
sary for the proper maintenance of Amer
lean authority The two other amend
ments abrogated for the Clayton BuIwe
treaty and struck out the provisions OF TN
treaty which invited other foreign govern