Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-03-12
ENGLi:.D SAYS NO.
CONTINUED from page Io


The ,"o-callcd Davis amendment ap-
pearc however. to be the chief obstacle
in the way of an agreement and Whlie
the British answer makes no suSSeS-
ton of any further negotiation, It
seems 10 be fair inference from It's
general tenor that if 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
counter propositions or propose fur
ther action. vet it does not preclude
such action by laying down course
which will be adhered TO without the
slightest deviation. on the contrary.
the answer takes the form of an argu-
ment tending to show that the amend
ments proposed by the Senate do not
fairly consider the various British in
terests involved and for that reason
they cannot be accepted in the form
presented. There is nothing peremp-
tory in the tone of the answer.
The HayPauncefote negotiations
have been in progress for something
over TWO years and. owing to the great
interests involved. they have Constitu-
ted the chief international question al
issue before the state department.
The treaty was signed prior to the
opening of the seth Congress and was
submitted to the Senate in December.
1889. 1t at once encountered OppoSi
ton in that body. but after consider
able delay. was ratified after several
amendments and been adopted. The
chief issue was made on what is known
as the Davis amendment. While in
terms this did not give the United
States a right TO fortify the canal, yet
in general language ii expressed the
right of this country to adopt such
measures in regard to the canal as
We're deemed necessary for the proper
maintenance of American authority.
After extended debate in executive
session. this and two other amend
ments abrogated the Clayton BulWer
treaty and struck out the provision of
the treaty which invited other foreign
governments to express their approval
of ii.
AS the amendments created condi-
tons which the British government
had not concurred in when the original
treaty was made. il was necessary to
present the instrument in its amended
form to that government for its ap-
prevail. 1t is understood that one NOV
ing consideration in the minds of the
British statesmen who considered the
answer to be made was that their de-
termination affected not only Great
Britain ana her interests in the canal
but all the maritime nations of Europe
and of the world ut large, as the COM
plete neutraliZing of the canal under
the terms Of the treaty would have the
effect of comforting the same rights
and usage to Germany. France and
other nations that We're enjoyed by
Great Britain. Ii was rather in the
character OF trustee for the maritime
nations that the amended treaty was
considered.
Furthermore an important consid-
Grafton was as to the effect Of the new
instrument in completely Wipiug out
the -BulWer treaty, ana the
rights which Great Britain claimed uni
der that document. Some Of the Brit
ish statesmen held that there should bJ
Il quid pro quo, if British claims un-
der the Clayton-BulWer treaty We're
surrendered. 1t also was held that
Great Britain had certain vested rights
in Central America which had given
place to the CIayton- BulWer treaty. So
that if the treaty was to be succeeded
by something less substantial, then the
old vested rights of Great Britain were
oblitcrated, without any adequate re
turn.
At the same time the understanding
here is that the sentiment Of British
officials was to avoid a breach or issue
with the United States ana if possible
to arrange a common basis Of agree
ment. In some British quarters it was
held that too much friction already
had been caused by the canal issue.
and that since the United States was
willing to invest the hundreds of mil
lions Of dollars required for the canals
construction and then admit to it the
commerce of Great Britain and the
world at large, it was but just To give
the American government certain de-
gree of authority over the canal, par
ticularly when its military necessities
required such authority. In this spirit
and with these conflicting considera-
tons, the matter has been pending be
fore the British cabinet with the re
suit of the formal answer cOmmuni-
Gated by Lord Pauncefote, today.
Inc elect Oh the DIlllSti diiSNtI '.lil-
not be to restore the life of the Hay
PauncefOte treaty so far as now APP
pears. That document had 4 distinct
Limitation within which it could be
ratified and no doubt seems to exist
among officials that the period expired
when the Senate adjourned. The an
swer is chiefly important, therefore, as
making clear the attitude of the Brit
;.,I, ,A,,t ,1n Dt la
of the American government. With
the two positions thus clearly defined.
it remains to be seen whether the
United States government Will carry
on such further negotiations as may
reconcile differences and bring about q
common ground of action.
In view of the persistent publication
Of the report that bubonic plague ex-
listed in San Francisco. the treasury
department some weeks ago appointed
4 commission of experts to examine in
to and report upon the situation there
That report has been received at the
treasury department but the authori-
ties are not disposed to make it public
at this time.
Almost simultaneously with the re-
ccipt of the report, delegation Of
pf