The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-03-26
England's Reasons for Refusing to
Accept Hay-Pauncefote Con-
vention Made Public.
CAN'T SWALLOW AMENDMENTS
Provision Authorizing United
States to Fortify Nicaraguan
Canal Especially OBJ
jectionable.

Washington March 25.-The communication
from the British Government giving the
reasons why that Government declined to
accept the Senate amendments to the Hay
Paunceforte treaty. which was delivered to
Secretary Hay by Lord Pauncerote on
March II. was made public Monday
Lord Lansdown considers separately
the three amendments OF the Senate. He
begins by saying:
THE ClaytOn-Bulwer treaty Is an inter-
national compact of unquest.onable validi-
ty, a contract which. according to the laws
of international usage. ought not to be abb
rogated or modified. save with tho consent
of both parties to the contract. In spite OF
this usage his Majesty's Government find
themselves confronted by a proposition
communicated to it by the United States
Government without any previous attempt
to ascertain their views for the abrogation
of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
England Objects to Amendments.
Lord Lansdowne then considers the Sem
ate amendments declaring that the Clay
opposing this contention. He lays most
stress. however. upon the other Senate
amendments, and says they present more
THE first of them. which reserves TO the
United States the right of taking any meas
vi, ures $ which it may find necessary TO secure
States, appears to his Majesty's Govern
ment to invoNe 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 to remain free and unimpeded and
Powers responsible for its control
He takes issue with the proposition that
the Senate amendment is analogous to a
provision of the Suez Canal convention.
Treaty a Onc-Sided Advancement.
Proceeding. he said IF the new clause
were to be added. the obligation to respect
stances would, so far as Great Britain is
concerned, remain in force; the obligation
OF the United States. on the other hand.
would be a one-sided arrangement under
which Great Britain would be debarred
from, from any !h, warlke M actor action IN or around the
able to resort to such action to whatever
extent they might deem necessary to se-
cure their own safety"
vagueness of the language employed in the
amendment. he says: Even If it were more
precisely worded. it would be. impossible
to determine what might be the effect II
one clause permitting defensive measures
and another forbiddng fortifications were
allowed to stand side by side in the con-
ITO his Majestys Government, It seems
as have already said, that the amendment
might be construed as leaving it open to
only If war existed, but even if it were an
ticipated. to take any measures, however
stringent or far-reaching. which, In their
Judgment might be represented as suitable
for the purpose of protecting their national
interests. Such an enactment would strike
at the very root Of that general principle
of naturalization upon which the Clayton
Bulwer treaty was based and which was
reafl1rr,ed In the convention as drafted"
The third Senate amendment struck out
the provisions inviting the adherence Of
other Powers. AS to that. Lord Lansdowne
says:
..The amendment not only removes all
prospect of the wider guarantee of the neu-
trality of the canal. but places this country
in position Of marked disadvantage. COM
pared with other Powers. which would not
be subject to the self-denying ordinance
which Great Britain is desired to accept"