The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1901-03-30

UREA , itA1l 10 OLASIAAC0biI C1l1d1Il4
force: the obligation or the United
States, on the other hand, would be es-
Ssentially modified. The result would be-
a. onesided arrangement. under which
Great Britain would be debarred from
any warlike action In or around the
canal, while the United States would
be able to resort to such action %
whatever extent they might deem nee.
iessary to secure their own safety.
Hard to Comprehend.
& Respecting the contention that tnere
is a specific prohibition In the Hay
Pauneefote treaty against the erection
Of f~ortitications, and that this would
sufficiently insure the free use of h
canal, Lord ~I4ansdowne says this CON
stention Is one which her majesty's gov
eminent are quite unable to admit
After calling attention to IT, danger-
Gus Hagueness OF the language ems
plnyed in the amendment. he says:
Even II 1t We're more precisely word
dit would be Impossible to determine
what might be the. effect If one clause
permitting defensive mea and am
other forbidding Qualifications were al.
owed t stand side by side in the cons
Nentlon. To his majestS's government.
u seems, us I have already said, that
the amendment might he construed as
leaving 1t open to the United States at
any moment. not only IL war existed.
but even II 1t We're anticipated, to take
any measures, however stringent or
f~ar-reaching. which. in their Judgment.
might be represented as suitable for
the purpose of protecting their national
interests. Such an enactment would
strike at the very root. of that general.
principle OF naturalization upon which
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was based,
and which was reaffirmed In the con-
yention as drafted"
II fN,a fnSr7 -
OF the provision inviting the adher-
ence Of other powers, GAS to this, Lord
LansdoWne says:
placed Mt Disadvantage.
The amendment not only removes
all prospect of the wide guarantee of
the neutrality of the canal, but places
this country in a position of marked
disadvantages. compared with other
powers which would not be subject to
the selfdenying ordinance which Great
britain is asked to accept. 1t would
follow, were his majesty's government
70 agree to such an arrangement, hat
while the United States would have n
treaty right to interfere with the canal
In time OF war, or unprecedented war,
and While other covers could with q
Gear conscience disregard any of the
restrictions imposed by the convention.
Great Britain alone, in spite of her
enormous possessions on the Ameri-
can continent, in spite of the extent Of
her Australian colonies and her inter-
ests In the east, would be absolutely
precluded from resorting to any such
action. or from taking measures to se-
cure her interest in and near the ca
raj"
Having thus expressed his objections
to each of the three senate amend
ments, Lord L~ansdowne concludes as
follows:
Il request that your ~excellency will
explain to the secretary OF state the
reasons as set forthi in this dispatch,
why his majesty's government feel
unable to accept the convention In the
shape presented to them by the Amer
lean ambassador. and why they prefer.
as matters stand at present, to retain
unmodified. the provisions of the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty. Ills majesty'3
government has, throughout these ne
gotiations. given evidence of their
earnest desire to meet the views of the
United States. They would on this oc-
casion have been ready to consider in
a friendly spirit any amendments of
the convention, not inconsistent with
the principles accepted by both gov
ernments. which the government OF the
United States might have desired to
propose, n they would sincerely re-
gret= a failure to coine to an nmicable
understanding in regard to this impor-
tant subject"