The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-03-26
The BRITISH ANSWER
DOCUMENT MADE PUBLIC IN WASH
INGTON YESTERDAY.
LANSD0WNE'S MANY REASONS
WHY TREATY WAS UNACCEPTABLE
TO GREAT BRITAIN.

Is in the Shape of n Letter to Ann
bassadOr Paun Gov
ernment Not Altogether Pleased
With the Hay Treaty, but Decided
to Accept as n Mark of Friendship
to This COuntry-Then He Proceeds
to Tell in Diplomatic Language
How the Senate Amendments
Queered the Entire Business-Brit-
ain StiII Holds the CIayton-BuIwer
Treaty "a Valid Contract, He Says.
Washington, March 25.-The answer of
the British government expressing its
inability to accept the HayPauncefote
treaty in the form amended by the United
States Senate, was made public to-day.
1t is in the form of a communication from
Lord Lansdowne, British minister of for
eign affairs, to Lord Pauncefote, and
asks the latter to read the dispatch to
the Secretary of State, and to leave
copy in his hands.
Lord Lansdowne begins by showing
there was no desire on the part of the
British government to change the Clay
SCAAAN VI
visions, he says, had been regarded with
disfavor by the government of the Uni
ted States, and in the Presidents mes,
sage of December, 1898, it was urged that
the national policy called more impera-
lively than ever for the control of the
projected highway by the government of
the United States. Lord Pauncefote maoe
inquiry of the Secretary of State, as to
this attitude of the President, the re-
suit being summarized by Lord Lansdowne
as follows:
Our Views Were Explained.
'In reply, the views of the United
States government were very frankly and
openly explained. You were most en-
phatically assured that the President had
no intention whatever of ignoring the
Clayton Bulwer convention, and that he
would loyalty observe treaty stipulations.
But in view of the strong national feel
ing in favor of the construction of a Mic
araguan canal and the probability of work
being accomplished by private enterprise,
the United States government was pre-
pared to undertake 1t themselves upon
obtaining the necessary powers from Con-
gress. For that purpose, however, they
must endeavor, by friendly negotiations,
to obtain the consent of Great Britain to
such modification of the Clayton -Bulwer
treaty as, without AFFECTING the general
principle therein declared. would enable
the great object in view to be accom-
plished for the benefit of the commerce
of the world"
Not Prepared to Accept Result.
The result. however, of the discussions,
Lord Lansdowne says. was the treaty
which Mr.. Hay handed to Lord Pauuce-
fote in January, 1899. The British gov
ernment was not yet prepared to accept
the treaty. as serious difficulties had aris-
en- in seeking to arrange affairs then
pending before the joint high commits
sion, and Lord Salisbury did not see how
Her Majesty's government could sane
tion any convention for amending the
Clayton-B -Bulwer treaty, as the opinion of
this country would hardly support them
in making a concession which would be
wholly to the benefit of the United States
at a time when they appeared to be so
little inclined to come to a satisfactory
settlement in regard to the Alaskan from
tier.
Later the introduction of the Nicaragua
canal bill in Congress revived attention
to the treaty and it was accepted, Lord
Landsdowne saying:
Her Majesty's government after due
consideration determined to accept the
convention unconditionally as signal
proof of their friendly disposition and of
their desire not to impede the execution
of a project to be of national Importance
to the people of the United Staes"
The Clayton BuIwer Treaty.
Lord Lansdowne then discusses the
right of the United States to annul the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty, saying:
"The Clayton-Bulwer treaty is an inter
national contract of unquestionable valid
ity; a contract which, according to we'll
established international usage, ought not
to be abrogated or modified, save with the
consent of both the parties to the con-
tract"
The Senate Amendment.
Lord Lansdowne then considers the
Senate amendments declaring that the
Clayton -Bulwer treaty is thereby super
seded," opposing this contention. He lays
most stress. however, upon the other Sen
ate amendments and says they present
more formidable difficulties. On these he
says:
.'The first of them, which reserves to
the United States the rights Of taking
any measures which it may find neces-
sary to secure by it's own forces the de-
Tense of the United States, appears to
His Majesty's government to involve
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 ca
nal is to remain free and unimpeded. and
is to be so maintained by the power
or powers responsible for it's control.
Were this amendment added to the
~Eonvention the United States would. II
is presumed, be within the rights, II at
any moment when II seemed to them
that their safety required II. in view Of
the warlike preparations not yet COM
nenced but contemplated or supposed 10
be contemplated by another Power they
resorted to warlike acts in or near the
canal-acts clearly inconsistent with the
neutral character which II has always
been sought to give IT, and which would
deny the free use OF II 20 the commerce
and navies of the world"
Not Analogous TO Suez Case.
He takes issue with the proposition that
the Senate amendment IL analogous to n
provision OF the Suez canal convention.
and he also points out that some OF tho
articles Of the suez convention seemed
TO have escaped attention. and he quotes
those providing that permanent fortpica.
tions are prohibited. and for the dispersion
OF assemblaRes near the canal likely 10
interfere with ~ use.
Proceeding. he says.
III the new clause were 10 be aided.
the obligation 10 respect the neutrality 0f
tbe canal Ia on circumstances would, 20