The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-03-25
BRITISH Note MADE PUBLIC
Reasons for the Rejection Of the
Amended Canal Treaty.
Lord Lansdowne Declares That the
CIayton-BuIyver Convention Ought
Not to Be AbroGated Without
the Consent of Both Parties.


ing to accept the Senate amendments TO
the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was made
public today. 1t is in the form of a com
riunication from Lord Lansdowne TO
Lord Pauncefote, copy Of which the
latter delivered to the Secretary Of State
on March Il
The circumstances under which the con-
vention was signed by the British Ambas-
sador and the Secretary of State are
set forth at some length, showing that
the negotiations were initiated by the
United States. and that the British Gov
eminent accepted the convention I'M
condftionaHy as signal proof of their
friendly disposition and of their desire
not to impede the execution Of the pro-
ject declared TO be of national impor-
lance TO the people Of the United States
Three amendments of the Senate are
then separately considered. Lord Lands
dov-ne begins by saying: The Clayton
BuIwer Treaty is an international com
pact of unquestionable validity. con-
tract which, according 70 e laws Of IN
ternationaI usage. ought nor to be abro-
gated or modified, save with the consent
OF both the parties TO the contract IN
, spite Of this usage, his Majestys Co..
ornment find themselves confronted by
proposition communicated 10 it by the
United States Government, without any
previous attempt to ascertain their
views for the abrogation Of the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty.
Lord Lansdowne shows that, under Ar
ticIe !. Of the CIayton-Bulwer Treaty, the
two parties agreed that neither would oc-
cupy. fortify. or coIonize, or assume or
exercise any dominion over any part of
Central America. nor attain any Of the
foregoing objects by alliance with any
Stale or people OF Central America There
is TO similar agreement in the Conven-
tioE If therefore. the treaty were wholly
abrogated. both Powers would, except
in the vicinity of the canal, recover en-
tire freedom of action in Central Ameri-
ca This change, he thinks, would Ger
tainIy be of advantage to the United
states and might be Of substantial i'm
portance.
The other two amendments, in the Opin-
ion OF Lord Lansdowne. present more for
rnidabIe difficulties. The first Of them
the so-caHed Davis amendment-vhich
reserves 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. appears TO his Maj
esty's Government to involve a distinct
/ departure from the principle which has
until now found acceptance with both
! Governments-the principle, namely. that
in time of war. as well as in time Of
peace. the passage of the canal is II re-
main free and unimpeded and is 10 be so
maintained by the Power or Powers re-
sponsIbIe for its control
With this amendment added to the con-
ventIon. the United States would. it is
presumed be within their rights if at
| any moment when II seemed TO them that
| their safety required it, in view OF war
ike preparations not yet commenced. but
/ contemplated or supposed TO be contem-
/ plated by another Power, they resorted
/ 70 warIike acts in or near the canal; acts
| clearly inconsistent with the neutral char
acter which it has always been sought TO
give it. and which would deny the free
use Of it to the commerce and navies of
the world.
| Lord Lansdov.ne goes on as follows to
| show that there is no analogy between
the tenth article Of the suez Canal Con-
vention and the Davis amendment
| The banks Of the Suez Canal are with
in the dominions Of a territorial sover-
| eign who was a party TO the convention
whose established interests it was neces-
sary to protect: whereas the Nicaragua
Canal VIII be constructed in territory be-
/ longing not TO the United States, but to
! Central American states. Of whose SOW
! ereign rights OJner powers cannot claim
10 dispose
| Lord Lansdowne goes on to state his
| objections 10 the amendment which
strikes out Article III of the convention,
| under which the high contracting parties
/ engage, Immediately upon the convention
being ratified, 10 bring it to the notice
Of other Powers and TO invite their ad-
herence-
If that adherence he says. were Civ
en-. the neutrality Of the canal would be
secured by the whole OF the aQtterlng
| Powers; without that adherence il would
/ depend only upon the guarantee OF the
two contracting parties The amendment,
he thinks, not only removes all prospect
| Of the wider guarantee, but places Great
! Britain in Il position Of marked dIsad-
| vantage compared with other Powers
Continuing, he says:
| II his maJcsty-s Government were to
| agree to such an arrangement while the
| United States would have a treaty right
to interfere with the canal in tine of war
| or appreheuded war and while other
| Powers could with clear conscience
disregard any Of the restrictions i'm
| posed by the convention. Great Britain
| alone, in spite of her enormous posses
| siOns on the American continent. and in
! spite Of her Australian colonies and her
| interesta in the East. would be absolutely
| rrecluded from resorting to any such &C
| ton 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 des-
patch why his Aajesty's Government feel
unable 10 accept the convention i'm the
shape presented to them by the Americ IN
Ambassador, and why they prefer as
matters stand at present. To retain un-
modified the provisions Of the Clayton
BuIwer Treaty
| His Majesty-s Government have" he
says throughout these negotiations civ
| en- evidence of their earnest desire to
meet The views of tb.. United States Tho.