New-York tribune., 1901-03-26
REJECTING CANAL TREATY.
roRp LANsDowNE'S ANSWER MADE
PUBLIC.

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENTS OBJECTIONS
TO SENATE AMENDMENTS STATED
IN DETAIL
washington, March 25.-The answer of the
r2ritish Government expressing inability to ac-
osnt the Ray-Pauncefote Treaty as amended
nv the United States Senate was made public
-o-day IT is in the form Of a communication
from Lord Lansdowne. British Minister of For
eign Affairs to Lord Paunoefote. and asks the
latter TO read the dispatch to the Secretary OF
state and leave a copy in his hands
Lord Lsnsdowne begins by showing that there
vas no desire on the part of the British Govern
rnent 10 change the Clayton Bulwer Treaty.
Put some of its provisions, he says, had been
-egarded with disfavor by the government OF
the United States. and in the Presidents mes
sage of December. 1885, il was urged that the
national policy called more imperatively than
ever for the control of the projected canal by
the government of the United States. Lord
Pauncefote made inquiry of the Secretary of
state as 10 this attitude Of the President the
result being summarized by Lord Lansdowne as
follows:
In reply. the views OF the United States Gov
eminent very frankly and openly ex-
rlsined. You We're most emphatically assured
that the President had intention whatever
NJ
rhat he would loyalty observe treaty stipula-
lions But in view Of the strong national feel
ing in favor Of the construction Of a Nicaragua
canal and Of the improbability of the work be-
ing accomplished by private enterprise. the
Tinted States Government We're prepared to
6ertake il themselves, upon obtaining the neces-
sarv powers from Congress For that purpose.
however. they must endeavor by friendly negoti-
ations 10 obtain the consent of Great Britain to
such a modification Of the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty. as without affecting the general prin-
ciple" therein declared, would ena bic the great
object in view 10 be accomplished for the
benefit OF the commerce of the world.
ENGLAND's FRIENDLY DISPOSITION.
The result Of the discussions Lord Lansdowne
saws. was The treaty which Mr.. Hay handed 10
lord Pauncefote in January 1899 The British
Government was not yet prepared TO accept the
treaty as serious difficulties had arisen in seek
ing 10 arrange affairs then pending before the
Jont High Commission, and Lord Salisbury
did not see now her majesty's government
could sanction any convention for amending the
CLAYTON BulNrer treaty as the opinion of this
country would hardly support them in making a
concession which would be wholly 10 the benefit
NJ the United States. at a time when they ap-
peared 10 be little inclined TO come 10 a
satisfactory settlement in regard 10 the Alaskan
frontier"
Later the Introduction OF the Nicaragua Canal
bn in Congress called attention TO the treaty
Her nnaiestv's government after due con-
sdAration determined TO accept the convention
rnconditionally. as a signal proof OF their
friendly disposition and OF their desire not 20
be Of national Importance 10 the people OF the
United States
Lord Lansdowne then discusses the right OF
the United States 10 annul the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty. saying:
The CLAYTON -Bulwer Treaty is an international
contract OF unquestona bic validity: contract
which, according 10 well established lnterna-
tional usage ought not 20 be abrogated or
modified save with the consent Of both the par
ties to the contract.
DIRECTIONS TO DAVIS AMENDMENT.
Lord Lansaowne then considers the Senate
amendment declaring that the Clayton -Bulwer
Treaty. is .'hereby superseded"F or posing this
contention He lays most stress. however. on the
ether amendments. and says they present more
formidable difficulties OF these he says;
The first Of them. which reserves to the
United States the right Of taking any measures
which thew NAV find necessary 70 secure by their
own forces the defence of the United states, ap-
pears TO his majesty's government 10 involve
distinct departure from the principle wnlch
has until now found acceptance with both gov
ernments: the principle, namely, that IN time OF
war. as well in time of peace, the passage
Of the canal is 10 remain free and unimpeded,
and is 10 be so maintained by the power or
powers responsible for its control.
We're This amendment added 10 the conven-
tion the United States would, il is presumed, be
within their rights, if at any moment when 1t
seemed 70 them that their safety required il,
in view Of warlike preparations not yet COM
menced. but contemplated or supposed TO be
contemplated by another power. they resorted
20 wsrlike acts in near the canal-acts clear
ly inconsistent with the neutral character which
II has always been sought to give il, and which
would deny the free # il 10 the commerce
and navies Of the world.
A "ONE-SIDED ARRANGEMENT"
He takes issue with the proposition that the
Senate amendment is analogous to a provision
a. the Suez Canal Convention. pointing that
scne Of the articles of the SUez Convention seem
4 have escaped attention, and he quotes those
providing that permanent fortifcations are pro
hhited, and for the dispersion Of assemblages
near the canal likely TO interfere with its use
Proceeding he says:
II the clause were 10 be added the OBJ
an circumstances would, 50 far as Great Britain
j concerned, remain in force: the obligation of
tne United states, the other hand. would be
essentially modified. The result would be a one
sloec Arrangement under which Great Britain
would be dcbarred from any warlike action in
OF around the canal while the United States
would be liable 10 resort TO such action TO what
ever extent they might deem necessary TO Sc
cure their own safety
Respecting the contention that there is a
SPECIFIC prohibition in the Hay Pauncefote
treaty against the erection Of fortifications and
that this would sufficiently insure the free use
OF the canal Lord Lansdowne says this con
tenton is one which his majestys government
mrFssa -