New-York tribune., 1911-01-22
From The Tribune Bureau !

From The Tribune Bureau
Washington. Jan. 2l.-So completely
and effectually does the official corre-
spondence which passed between Secre-
tary Hay and the Marquis Of Lans-
downe. and which led to the completion
of the Hay Pauncefote treaty in its final
form. dispose of the contention that the
United States is debarred by that conven-
ton from fortifyng the Panama Canal,
that The Tribune correspondent takes
the responsibility Of making public the
essential portions Of these pourparlers.
which heretofore have in the main
formed part of the confidential archives
Of the Department OF State and the
British Foreign Office.
This correspondence proves that Great
Britain willingly became party 10 a
treaty which 1t fully appreciated en-
powered the United States to fortify tn.
canal. and did so without reluctancelas
soon as II was clearly established that
! that the United States assumed entire
responsibility for the neutrality Of ths
canal II shows that from the time the
Senate ratified with amendments this
first Hay Pauncefote treaty, on Decer.
Der 20. 1900. Great Britain fully under
stood the position Of the United states
end its purpose 10 fortifv the canal.
That treaty. II Will be recalled, was
amended by the Senate IN three i'm
portant PARTICULARS one declaring the
Clayton Bulwer treaty 10 be thereby
superseded; another providing that moth.
ing therein should preclude the United
States from taking such steps "as IL
might find necessary to take for secur-
Ing by its own forces the defence Of ths
United States and the maintenance ot
public order" and third striking out the
provision whereby other powers were in
vlted to adhere 10 the treaty. Secretary
Hay advised Lord Pauncefote. then
British Ambassador I'm Washington. or
these amendments. under the date o,
December %, 1900. and thev were also
Immediately conveyed TO the Marquis of
Lansdowne by the American Ambassa-
dor 10 Great Britain. Joseph II. Choate.
Lord lsnsdowne 70 Lord Psuncefote.
In a long communication 10 Lord
Pauncefote. written under date Of Febru-
sry %, 1901, the Marquis of Lansdowns
reviews the entire history Of the negotis-
tions by which the United states had
sought 10 secure a new convention SUI
perseding the Clayton Bulwer treaty. and
then takes up seriatlm. the amendments
inserted by the Senate. Discussing them,
he says;
The first Of them. which reserves IA
! the United States the right Of taking
any measures which it may find neces-
sary to secure by its own forces the de-
| fence OF the United states appears TO
1 his majestys government to involve a.
distinct departure from the principls
which has until now found acceptance
with both governments. the principle,
| namely, that I'm time OF war as well as
| in time OF peace the passage ~ the canal
| is to remain free and unimpeded. and ia
TO be so maintained BY the power or
powers responsible for its control
Were this amendment added to the
convention the United States would. IL
| is presumed be within their rights II
at any moment when II seemed 10 them
that their safety required Il. in view OF
| warlike preparations not vet commenced,
| but contemplated or supposed 10 be con-
| templated by another power, they re-
| sorted 10 warlike acts In or near the canal
acts clearly inconsistent with the neu-
tral character which II has always been
sought to give II. and which would denv
the free use OF IL 10 the commerce and
navies Of the world.
Assuming that this amendment was
modelled upon the provisions Of the Suez
Canal convention. he then goes on 10
point out the relative differences between
that canal and the waterway il was
proposed TO construct across the 18TH
mus. either by way Of Panama or OF
Nicaragua, and closes with the asser-
ton: But the analogy which II has been
attempted to set up fails I'm one essential
particular The banks OF the Suez Cana!
are within the dominions OF a territorial
sovereign, who was party to the conven-
tion. and whose established interests Il
was necessary 10 protect etc.
Again he says;
II NAV be contended that If the new
clause were adopted, Section { OF Arti-
Gle . which prohibits the erection of for
ti6cations. would sufficiently insure the
free use of the canal. This contention
is however. one which his majestys gov
ernment are quite unable To admit
viii not insist upon the dangerous vague
meas of the language employed in he
, amendment, or upon the absence of all
security as TO the manner In which the
words might, at some future time, bd