The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1901-03-30
BRITISH ANSWER 10 81
CANAL AMENDMENTS
Reply 10 lord lansdowne Is Made
Public " the State
Department.
AGREEMENT IS 100 oNE.sluEp
As Amended by h Senate Great I,rltain
Gets Too Much the WORT Of tho
Deal to Make Acceptance
Advisable

Washington, March 27.-The answer
OF the British government expressing
Its inability to accept the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty in the form amended by the
United States has been made public. 1t
Is in the form of a communication
from Lord Lansdowns, British nina
ister for foreign affairs, to Lord
Pauncefote. and asks the latter to read
the dispatch to the secretary of state
and to leave a copy in his hands.
Lord Lansdowne begins by showing
there was no desire on the part of the
British government to change the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty. but some of Its
provisions, he says, had been regarded
with disfayor by the government OF
the United States, and in the presi-.
dents message of December. 1898. It
was urged that the national policy
called more imperatively than ever for
the control Of the projected highway
by the government of the United
States. Lord Pauncefote made inquiry
of the secretary of state as to this at
titude of the president, the result be-
ing summarized by Lord Lansdowne
as follows:
"In reply. the views of the United
States government were frankly and
openly explained. You We're most emf
pHdllcAIly assured tuaI Lut pIeSiuSiit
had no intention whatever of Ignoring
the Clayton-Bulwer convention. and
that he would loyalty observe Its stipu-
%lations. But in view of the strong ma
tional feeling in favor of the construc-
ton Of a Nicaragua canal, n Of the
improbability of the work being accom-
plished by private enterprise, the
United States government was pre-
pared to undertake it themselves upon
nhfnjntnpe the nprASaarv poCarE from
congress: For that purpose, however,
they must endeavor by friendly nego-
tiations to obtain the consent of Great
Britain to such a modification of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty as without at
fecting the general principle therein
declared. would enable the great object
III view to be accomplished for the ben
eft of the m OF the world"
Not Prepared to Accept 1t.
The result, however, of the discus
sions. Lord Lansdowne says, was the
treaty which Mr.. Hay handed to Lord
Pauncefote in January, 1899. The Brit
ish government was not yet prepared
to accept the treaty, as serious difficult
ties had arisen in seeking to arrange
AFFAIRS then pending before the joint
high commission, and Lord Salisbury
did not see how her majesty's govern
ment could sanction any convention for
amending the Clayton-Bulwer treaty,
as the opinion of this country would
hardly support them in making d con-
cession which would be wholly to the
benefit Of the United States at a time
when they appeared to be so little in
clined to come to a satisfactory settle
ment in regard to the Alaskan from
tier"
Later The In oduction OF the Mica
ragua canal in congress revived at
tentton to the treaty, and it was &C.
copied, Lord L~ansdowne saying: ''Hel.
majesty's government after due con-
sheraton determined to accept the
convention condittonally. as a signal
proof OF their friendly disposition and
OF their desire not to impede the execu-
ton of a project declared TO be of ma
t1onal importance to the people of the
United States"
Lord Lansdowne then discussed the
right of the United States to annul the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty, saying:
The Clayton-Bulwer treaty is an In
ternatlonat contract of un~Questionable
validity; a contract which, according
to we'll established International usage
ought MOTTO be %abrogated or modified,
save with h consent of both the na r.
ties to the contract"
Lord Lansdowne then considers the
senate amendments declaring tGat the
Clayton Bulwer treaty Is ..Eerepy sus-
pended, opposing this contention. He
lays most stress, however, upon the
other senate amendments, and saws
they present more formidable ditficul-
ties. On tnis: he says:
Thinks Principle Violated.
The first of them, which reserves 20
the United States the right Of taking
any measures which it may find necess
sary to secure by Its own forces the
defense of the United States appears
to his majesty's government to In
volVe a distinct departure from the
principle which mas until now found
acceptance with both governments
the principle, namely, hat in time ri
war, as well as in time of peace. the
passage Of the canal is to remain free
md unimpeded, and is to be SO MAIN
tanned by the power OF powers respon-
sible for Its control.
Were this amendment added to the
convention, the United States would.
1t is presumed. be within their rights
II at any when it seemed to
them that heir safety required IN IN
| view of warlike preparations vet
commenced. but contemplated or sun
posed to be contemplated by another
power. they resorted to warlike acts In
or near the canal-acts clearly incon-
sistent with the neutral character
which it has always been sought to
give 1t, and which would deny the free
use OF 1t to the commerce and navies
of the world"
He takes issue with the proposition
that the senate amendment is ana
Joyous to a provision of the Suez canal
convention, and he also points out that
some Of the articles of the Suez canal
convention seemed to have escaped al
tention, and he quotes those providing
that permanent Qualifications are pro.
~ q IN = L.--1 - --L- yL-.HEV. ~ ~ ~
hlblted, ana TOT the dispersion OF as
terfere with its use.
Proceeding, he says: "If the new
clause We're to be added. the obligation
to respect the neutrality OF the canal
in all circumstances would, SO farS as