The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-03-15
TO THE SENATE AMENDMENTS TO THE
HAY-PAUNCefORE TREATY.
NOT PEREMpTORY REJECTION.
Expressed I'm Friendly Terms and With
Regrets that England Cannot Accede
to Them-An Argumentatfye Doom.
ment Showing why She Cannot
Accept Them-So worded as to show
that England Expects the Next Ac-
tion I'm the Matter to Come from this
Government.
Government.


expected answer from the British gov
eminent to the state departments
communication reciting the action Of
the senate upon the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty was received today.
Lord Pauncefote came to the state
department at noon by appointment.
He brought the answer with him. and
read it to Secretary Hay. 1t was. in
form, an instruction from Lord Lans-
downe, the British minister OF foreign
affairs, to Lord Pauncefote, and Of this
instruction he left a copy with Secre-
tary Hay.
The secretary and the ambassador
were closeted for half an hour.
At the conclusion of the conference
it was stated hat the instruction to
Lord Pauncefote was to notify the gov
m of the United States that the
British government did not see it's way
clear to the acceptance of the senate's
amendment. The note concluded with
an expression of regret that such a
course was forced upon the British
government.
There was nothing in the nature of
counter proposition nor was any open
ing left for further action by the Brit
iSh government.
1t was stated that if there is to be
a further attempt to amend the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty, so as TO authorize
the United States to construct a wa
terway across the isthmus, then it is
for the United States to make the
overture; the British government sim
ply drops the matter at this point.
The impression prevails that there will
be no immediate action looking toward
the negotiation of a treaty.
For the present the text of the Brit
iSh answer will be withheld from pub
lcation on this side of the water at
least, though it is said that after the
president has considered the matter
some general statement may be made
as to the various points developed.
The British answer is quite lengthy,
as such documents 60, and would make
about two newspaper columns. The
tone of the reply is distinctly friendly
throughout, particularly so in the con-
Guiding assurances of good will and a
desire to cooperate in the realization
of this undertaking.
Although the text is withheld, it is
understood that the answer takes up
each of the three amendments made
by the senate and presents the diff
cultieS in the way of asserting to them.
AS to the amendment which struck
out all that clause of the treaty invit-
ing other maritime nations to concur
in the neutralizing 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, un-
less these governments concur. AS to
the entire a~brogation of the Clayton
Bulawr treaty, as provided by one of
- oNofo rr 80
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-called Davis mendmen ap-
pears, however, to be the chief obstacle
in the way of an agreement, and while
the British answer makes no SuggeS-
ton of any further negotiation, there
seems to be a fair inference from the
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 reading Of the answer also makes it
plain that while it does not max coun-
ter propositions or proposed further
action, yet it does not preclude such
action by laying down a course which
will be adhered to without the slight
est deviation. On the contrary, the
answer takes the form of an argu-
HleHt IenoinS 10 SNOW tndL' the amend
ments proposed by the senate DO not
fairly consider the various British in
terests involved and that they cannot
for that reason be accepted in the
form presented; but there is nothing
peremptory in the one of the answer.
The Davis amendment to the treaty,
while in terms it did not give the
United States a right to fortify the
canal, in general language expressed
the right of this country to adopt such
measures in regard to the canal as
were deemed necessary for the proper
maintenance of American authority.
The other two amendments abrogated
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and struck
out the provision of the treaty which
invited other foreign governments to
express their approval of it.