Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-13

drew the IRE OIL Slr EDWARD Grey III the
shape Of an eX-
Sir EDWARD tended note handed
Grey's Response. So s Snea by A% ol
bassador Bryce. Sir Edward declared
that he did not think. from study of
Mr.. Tafts memorandum. that the Presi-
dent fully appreciated the British point
Of view. He asserted that Britain was
not seeking to read anything into the
treaty. and certainly not to deprive the
United States of any liberty which is
open to Great Britain or any other ma
ton. He contended that the Hay Paunce-
fote treaty does not stand alone. and that
it can be interpreted only in the light of
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. as is shown
by the fact that it's preamble distinctly
states that the principle Of neutraliza-
ton in that treaty was not to be i'm
paired by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
which superseded it. He then recited that
one OF the provisions of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty was that the canal should
be "open to the subjects and citizens of
the United States and Great Britain on
equal terms, and also to the subjects of
any other state which was willing to
join in the guarantee OF joint protection"
The Grey note then proceeds to say that
the purpose of the United States In
negotiating the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
was to recover their freedom of action.
and to obtain the right. which they had
surrendered under the Clayton Bulwer
treaty. OF building the canal 1t is con-
tended. however. that the recovery of
this right was based upon the recognition
of England's right to use the canal upon
equal terms with the United States and
of other countries to use 1t upon the same
terms. the language being on, terms of
"entire equality to all nations"
Sir Edward then declares that the right
of Joint protection was one Of the things
the United States wanted to get rid of.
and that It certainly never was in the
mind Of the British government in the
negotiation of the HayPauncefote treaty
that it should assume any responsibility
for the protection of the canal in the
future. This statement seems wholly at
variance with the popular idea that
naturalization of the canal would mean
that England and other countries would
be expected to help us protect it in case
OF war.
The British foreign minister then pro-
ceeds to assert that in the light of the
Clayton-Bu'wer treaty the assumption
call nations cannot exclude the
United States, as was argued by the
United States. He contends that we are
bound by the treaty to treat ourselves
exactly as We treat other nations.
There is one concession In the British
note that has escaped general attention.
and that gives point to
Concession of the argument that the
DILL acquisition of the Canal
Zone tends to render nu-
gatory some of the terms of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty. 1t says that ''now
that the United States has become the
practical sovereign of the canal his mai
esty's government does not question it's
right to exercise belligerent rights for it's
protection" This statement is made in
the face of the fact that the treaty says
that 1.-The canal never shall be blockaded.
nor shall any act Of war be exercised nor
any act of hostility be committed within
it, This gives rise to the question in
many minds how II Is that England can
contend that the United States is exempt
ed from this provision and yet held bound
by the other. The treaty says further
that mo belligerent shall embark Or dis
embark troops. munitions Of war, or war
like materials in the canal" Yet the
Grey note admits that mo belligerent"
does not apply now 10 the United States,
the while he contends that it is one OF
"au nations referred to in the treaty.
The Grey note declares that the exemp2
ton of the coastwise steamships from toll
charges will mean that the burden of
paying for the maintenance Of the canal
will, therefore, fall wholly upon foreign
going vessels. and that this, in turn, will
very much lessen the prospect Of reducing ]