Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

the defense of its other possessions situated on the eastern coast of the Red Sea.

ARTICLE XI

The measures which shall be taken in the cases provided for by Articles IX and X of the present treaty shall not interfere with the free use of the canal. In the same cases the erection of permanent fortifications contrary to the provisions of Article VIII is prohibited.

ARTICLE XII

The high contracting parties, by application of the principle of equality as regards the free use of the canal, a principle which forms one of the bases of the present treaty, agree that none of them shall endeavor to obtain with respect to the canal territorial or commercial advantages or privileges in any international arrangements which may be concluded. Moreover, the rights of Turkey as the territorial power are reserved.

ARTICLE XIII

With the exception of the obligations expressly provided by the clauses of the present treaty, the sovereign rights of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, and the rights and immunities of His Highness the Khedive, resulting from the firmans, are in no way affected.

ARTICLE XIV

The high contracting parties agree that the engagements resulting from the present treaty shall not be limited by the duration of the act of concession of the Universal Suez Canal Company.

ARTICLE XV

The stipulations of the present treaty shall not interfere with the sanitary measures in force in Egypt.

ARTICLE XVI The high contracting parties undertake to bring the present

treaty to the knowledge of the States which have not signed it, inviting them to accede to it.

ARTICLE XVII

The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Constantinople within the space of one month, or sooner if possible.

In faith of which the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present treaty and have affixed to it the seal of their

arms.

Done at Constantinople, the 29th day of the month of October, in the year 1888. (L. 8.]

W. A. WHITE. [L. S.]

RADOWITZ. (L. 8.]

CALICE. [L. 8.]

MIGUEL FLOREZY GARCIA. [L. 8.]

C. DE MONTEBELLO. (L. S.]

A. BLANC. (L. S.

Gus KEUN. (L. S.]

NELIDOW. ..[L. 8.]

M. SAID.

NEGOTIATION OF THE HAY-PAUNCEFOTE

TREATY

Prepared by Mr. Hay.

The Senate's amendments to the former treaty required (first) that there should be in plain and explicit terms an express abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty; (second) that the rules of neutrality adopted should not deprive the United States of the right to defend itself and to maintain public order; and (third) that other powers should not in any manner be made parties to the treaty by being invited to adhere to it.

For a better understanding of the scheme of the new treaty,

it may be well briefly to advert to the objections suggested by Great Britain to these several amendments.

AS TO THE ABROGATION OF THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY

Lord Lansdowne's objections were as to the manner of doing this and as to the substance. It was insisted that in the negotiations which led to the making of the former treaty no attempt had been made to ascertain the views of the British Government on such complete abrogation, and that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty being, as it claimed, an international compact of unquestionable validity, could not be abrogated without the consent of both parties to the contract.

There was in this connection an apparent misconception on the part of His Majesty's Government in respect to the proper function of the Senate in advising the ratification of a treaty with amendments proposed by it. It seemed to be regarded as an attempt on the part of the Senate to accomplish by its own vote, as a final act, the abrogation of an existing treaty, without an opportunity for full consideration of the matter by the other party. It was overlooked that the Senate was simply exercising its undoubted constitutional function of proposing amendments to be communicated to the other party to the contract, to ascertain its views upon the question, and it was hoped by the President—and the hope was expressed in submitting the treaty as amended by the Senate to the British Government—that the amendments would be found acceptable by it. Failing this, there was a full opportunity for His Majesty's Government, by counter propositions, to express its views on this and the other amendments, and so by a continuous negotiation to arrive, if possible, at a mutually satisfactory solution of all questions involved. Nevertheless, in view of the great importance of the Senate's amendments, taken together, it was deemed more expedient by Lord Lansdowne to reject them, but to leave the door open for fresh negotiations, which might have a more happy issue; and he earnestly deprecated a final failure of the parties to agree, and emphatically

expressed the desire of his Government to meet the views of the United States on this most important matter.

The principal substantial objection to the Senate's amendments, completely superseding the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, was that if this were done, the provisions of Article I of that treaty, which had been left untouched by the original HayPauncefote treaty, would be annulled, and thereby both powers would, except in the vicinity of the canal, acquire entire freedom of action in Central America, a change which Lord Lansdowne thought would certainly be of advantage to the United States, and might be of substantial importance.

AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOTWITHSTANDING

THE NEUTRAL RULES ADOPTED BY THE TREATY, TO DEFEND ITSELF BY ITS OWN FORCES, AND TO SECURE THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER, COVERED BY WHAT WAS GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE DAVIS AMENDMENT.

His Majesty's Government criticised the vagueness of the language employed in the amendment, and the absence of all security as to the manner. in which its ends might at some future time be interpreted; but thought that, however precisely it might be worded, it would be impossible to determine what might be the effect if one clause permitting defensive measures and another clause (which has now been omitted) prohibiting fortification of the canal were allowed to stand side by side in the same convention.

This amendment was strenuously objected to by Great Britain as involving a distinct departure from the principle of neutrality which had theretofore found acceptance by both Governments, inasmuch as it would, as construed by Lord Lansdowne, permit the United States in time of peace as well as in time of war to resort to whatever warlike acts it pleased in and near the canal, which would be clearly inconsistent with its intended neutral character and would deprive the commerce and navies of the world of the free use of it.

It was insisted that by means of the amendment the obliga

tion of Great Britain to respect the neutrality of the canal under all circumstances would remain in force, while that of the United States, on the other hand, would be essentially modified, and that this would result in a one-sided agreement, by which Great Britain would be debarred from any warlike act in or near the canal, while the United States could resort to any such acts, even in time of peace, which it might deem necessary to secure its own safety.

Moreover, it was insisted by this amendment, in connection with the third amendment, which excluded other powers from becoming parties to the contract, Great Britain would be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with all other powers, inasmuch as she alone, with all her vast interests in the commerce of the world, would be bound under all circumstances to respect the neutrality of the canal, while the United States, even in time of peace, would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal on the plea of necessity for its own safety, and all other powers not being bound by the treaty could at their pleasure disregard its provisions.

AS TO THE AMENDMENT STRIKING OUT THE ARTICLE IN THE

TREATY AS SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE, WHICH PROVIDED FOR AN INVITATION TO THE OTHER POWERS TO COME IN AND AD

HERE TO IT.

This was emphatically objected to because if acquiesced in by Great Britain she would be bound by what Lord Lansdowne described as the "stringent rules of neutral conduct" prescribed by the treaty, which would not be equally binding upon the other powers, and it was urged that the adhesion of other powers to the treaty as parties would furnish an additional security for the neutrality of the canal.

In the hope of reconciling the conflicting views thus presented between the former treaty as amended by the Senate and the objections thereto of the British Government, the treaty now submitted for the consideration of the Senate was drafted.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »