New-York tribune., 1911-01-22


precisely Worded il would be inposslol'
10 determine what might be the eftec'
# one clause permitting defensive meas
ures and another foTbidding tortincs
tious were allowed 10 stand side by SIDE
IN the convention.
Objections 10 First Treaty
,r,or5 Lansdowne then goes on to poln'
out that not only would this ciause
strike et the very root Of that gen
eral principle OF naturalization upon
which the CLAYTON -Btlwer treaty was
based" but that this amendment stallus
ont in stronger. relief N the light OF tne
other amendment which strikes out the
provision that other powers shan be m
vited TO adhere 10 the treaty he urseo
upon Lord Tauncefote the view thal In7
+reatv. as amended, would IN eIiec"
lesye the United States free TO fortily
the canal. would free the other powers
fron the obligation Of respecting us
neutrality. while Great Britain alone
in spite Of her enormous possessions on
the American continent, in spite OF the
extent Of her Australian colonies ana ner
interests in the East, would BE- ap-
solutely precluded from resortlng 70 any
srch action. or from taking measures 20
eecore her interests in and near ths
canal"
He closes by instructlng the Amoas-
sador TO assure DIT. Hay OF the frenoy
spirit Of his majesty's government put
Of their inability 20 accept the treaty as
amended.
Despite the encouragement which
Secretary Hay felt when rhe treaty was
rejected, and the -criticisu Of himself In
the public prints 70 which he was keeniy
sensitive. he began at once the prepara-
ton Of a new treaty. as is shown oy a
communication from Lord Pauncetote 10
the MARQUIS Of Lausdowne, under date
of April ~. 1901. in which the Ambas-
sador advised his principal that Mr.. HAY
vas engaged in framing a new draft
(which. as I understand, he has drawn
up after consultation with prominent
Senators. and which he trusts will be ac-
ceptable 10 his majesty's government
Lord Lansdowne. under date Of An
gust $. 1901, communicated TO Gerard n
Lowther. FIRST secretary oC embassy in
WASHINGTON and charge daffaires, ad-
,ising him that the Foreign ONCE had
made a careful examination of Mr.. Hays
new draft. which had been submitted
through Lord PaUucefote, and had sug-
Eested certain amendments. In this
memorandum he calls attention 10 the
fact that Mr. Hay had omitted the
amendment rcscryinc 10 the United
States the right 10 provide for the de-
fence Of the canal but also had omitted
the provision that mo fortifcations shall
he erected commanding the canal or the
waters adjacent; that he provided for
military police TO protect the canal and
that the provision inviting the adherence
Of other powers 10 the convention was
also omitted The British Minister then
adds.
In the new draft. the United States
iutimates its readiness "to adopt some
what similar rules as the basis Of the
naturalization of the canal 1t would
appear to follow that the whole respon-
sbility for upholding these rules, and
thereby maintaining the neutrality OF
the canal, would henCeforth he assumed
by the government of the United states.
LE. Eld44@t ll ANllll - Oil III hDi Neliih
one. but in view Of the fact that the
whole cost Of the construction Of the
canal is 10 be borne bv that government,
which is also TO be charged with such
measures as may be necessary 20 pro-
tect il against lawlessness and disorder.
his majesty's government are not likely
10 object TO it
Right 10 Fortify coneeded,
The rules referred to are those pro-
yioIng Tor the neutrality Of the canaD
And again, he says:
The various points connected with the
defence Of the canal may be Conven-
Ientlv considered together In the pres
cut draft the Senate amendment has
been dropped which left the United
States NJ liberty 10 apply such meas
ures as might be found necessary to
take fcr. securing by its own forces the
defence of the United States" on the
other hand. the words in time of war
as in time Of peace" are omitted from
I;ule J. and there is no stipulation as
originally IN Rule Z. prohibiting the erec-
rlOn Of fortifcatons commanding the
canal or the waters adjacent.
do not fail 10 observe the important
difference between the question as now
presented 10 US and the position which
vas created by the amendment adopted
in the Senate.
In my dispatch 7 pointed out the dan
Eerous ambiguity Of sn instrument Of
which one clause permitted the adoption
Of defensive measures. while another
prohibited the erection Of fortifcations
n is most important that no doubt
ehould exist rs 10 the intention of the
contracting parties. As 10 this. I un-
6erstand that by the omission Of all
reference 20 the matter Of defence the
United States government desire 10 re-
serve the power Of taking measures to
protect the canal, at any time when the
tinted States may be at war. from de-
6truction or damage al the hands of an
enemy or enemies On the other hand,
conclude that with the above exception
+Nere Is no intention 10 derogate from
the principles Of neutrality laid down
by the rules.
Would Leave the United States Free,
Then follows this important declsra-
son.
As 10 the first Of these propositions.
snl not prepared 70 deny that contin-
rencies may arise when not only from
? national point Of view, but on behalf
of the commercial interests Of the whole
world, Il might be Of supreme impor-
rance 10 the United States that they
should be free to adopt measures for
Yhe defence Of the canal at moment
when they were Themselves engaged IN
hostilities.
II is also 20 be borne in mind that
owing to the omission Of the words
,!r6er which this country became Jointly