The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-03-12

out, particularly so in the concluding
assurances of good Will and a desire to
cooperate in the realization Of the IN
dertaking. Although the text is with
held, it is understood that the answer
takes up the three amendments made
by the senate, and presents the Difficult
ties in the way of asserting to them
AS to the amendment which struck out
all that clause of the treaty inviting
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 ali
other governments, unless these gov
ernmentS consent.
AS tothe entire abrogation of the
Clayton Bulwer treaty as provided by
one of the senate amendments, it APP
pears to be the British view that such
a step is too far-reaching to be taken
until each side of the case is presented
The sO-called Davis amendment ap-
pears, however, to be the chief OBJ
stacIe in the way of an agreement, and
while the British answer makes no sug-
gestiOn of any further negotiation, It
seems to be a fair inference from IT'S
general tenor that if d modification OF
this amendment could be secured there
could probably be an adjustment upon
the other noints of difference.
A reading of the answer makes pam
that while it does not make counter
propositions. or propose further acLloh,
yet it does not preclude such action py
laying down a course which viii be ad-
hered to without the slightest deVla-
ton.
British Interests Involved.
On the contrary, the answer takes
the form of an argument tending to
show that the amendments proposed Dy
the senate do not fairly consider the
various British interests involved, and
that for that reason they cannot be ac-
cepted in the form presented. There Is
nothing peremptory in the tone or the
answer
The Hay-Pauncefote negotiations
have been in progress for something
over two years. and owing to the great
interests Involved, they nave consul
tuted the international question at Is
she before the state department Inc
treaty was signed prior to the opening
of the Fifty-siXth congress, and was
submitted to the senate in December,
1899 1t at once encountered oppoSltloh
in that body. but after some delay was
finally ratified, after several arheilo-
ments had been adopted
The chief issue was made on what
was known as the Davis amendment
while in terms this did not give the
United States a right to IoruIS Ihe
canal vet in general language 1t eX-
adopt such measures in regard to the
canal as were deemed necessary Tor
the Vroper maintenance of American
authority.
after extended debate in executive
session two other amendments We're
adopted and the treaty was ratified as
amended. The other two amendments
abrogated the ClaytOn-Bu treaty
and struck at the provision OF the
treaty which invited other foreign gov
their RnnTOVal OIL
it.
Neutralizing of Canal
As the amendments created condi-
tons which the British government
had not concurred in when the orig
inal treaty was made, 1t was necessary
to present the instrument in its amend
ed form to that government for its
anDrovaI. It is understood that one
moving consideration in the minds OF
the British statesmen, who considered
the answer to be made, was that their
determination affected not only Great
Britain and her interests in the canal,
but all the maritime nations OF Europe
and of the world at large, as the com
pIete 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 were enjoyed by Great
Britain 1t was rather in the character
of trustee for the maritime nations
that the amended treaty was cOns1d-
cred.
Furthermore, an important consider
alton was as to the effect of the new
instrument incOmpleteiy wiping out the
CLAYTON Bulwer treaty and the rights
which Great Britain claimed under
that document Some of the British
statesmen held that there should be
''auid pro quo" if British claims under
the CLAYTON BulweT5 treaty were sur
rendered 1t was also held that Great
Britain had certain vested rights in
Central America which had given
that if the treaty was to be succeeded
bv something less substantial, then the
old vested rights of Great Britain were
obligated without any adequate re-
turns.
Would Avoid a Breach.
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, and, if posi-
BILE. to arrange a common basis of
agreement. In some British quarters
it was held that too much friction al
ready had been caused by the canal
issue. and that since the United States
was willing to invest 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 a certain de-
gree of control over the canal, particu-