Newspaper Page Text
Editorial
Page
LET THE PEOPLE KNOW THE TRUTH
It will be conceded that there is no way by which this great
American nation can be saved the mistake of yielding to the de
mands of Great Britain on the question of the interpretation of
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as that treaty relates to the remission
of Panama Canal tolls to our coastwise vessels, save by bringing
to bear the pressure of an enlightened and informed public senti
ment upon the members of the Upper House of Congress.
By vote the House of Representatives has already fixed
upon that treaty an interpretation, as demanded by Great
Britain, which will hamper the United States in the future
at every turn, whether at peace or at war, should any foreign
nation desire to question the superior rights of this nation, in the
Panama Canal..
Any earnest and anxious seeker after truth and light ought
to receive both in generous measure. One person came seeking
truth and light from one of our Atlanta dailies and propounded
to that newspaper the following query: ‘‘What tolls will our
battleships have to pay for the privilege of passing through the
Panama Canal? To whom will the money be paid. and why?"’
Verily, he asked for bread, and was given a stone.
The editor who answered the query in an editorial in this
daily newspaper, as will appear from a casual observation of his
answer, must have been ignorant of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
The one making the query was trying to find out whether, grant
ing that the United States vessels of commerce would enjoy the
canal equally with other nations. United States vessels of war
must likewise, with other nations, share the canal equally. THIS
IS A MOST PERTINENT INQUIRY, AND ONE AS TO
WHICH THIS QUESTIONER WAS NOT ENLIGHTENED
AND ADVISED.
The editorial makes this astounding statement: ‘‘UNITED
STATES VESSELS OF WAR, IT SHOULD BE REMEM
BERED, ARE ON A VERY DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM
UNITED STATES VESSELS OF COMMERCE.”
If the editor intended to say tHat vessels of war of this na
tion are on a different footing from vessels of commerce of this
nation, then so far as the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is concerned, he
committed an egregious blunder. Nowhere in the four corners
of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty will he find any intimation that
vessels of war of this nation are on a different basis from ves
sels of commerce, On the contrary, the instrument itself speci
fically places in the same class vessels of commerce and war.
Another astounding statement is made: ‘‘This quesion has
nothing to do with the rights of the United States battleships or
other vcssels in our public service.’”’ This is a palpable blunder.
The Hay-Pauncefote treaty applies to vessels of commerce and
war alike; if the United States vessels of commerce must take
potluck in the canal, so must United States vessels of war.
Read the first six rules governing the use of the canal
adopted by the United States.
The whole question in this canal tolls controversy is whether
or not the United States as the ‘‘adopting’’ nation is itself one
which must observe the rules adopted).
To state the proposition is to answer it, for it would be a
manifest absurdity that the United States, as master and owner
of the canal, with authority to ‘‘adopt’’ rules for its use and
enjoyment, would not enjoy rights above, and unenjoyed by
the nations for which the rules are adopted, and which are classed
as ‘‘observing’’ nations.
One need only look at Rules 2,3, 4, 5 and 6, to know beyond
all cavil or quibbling that these six rules were never intended to
apply to the United States. These rules are equally binding upon
all nations as to which they are binding at all; that is to say, the
canal shall never be blockaded; war vessels of belligerents shall
not revictual or take stores in the canal, except so far as it may
LIFE S LESSONS—TWO STUDIES IN CHROMATICS
~ By ELBERT HUBBARD.
lIILE many are passing
w pink persiflage, sarcastic,
silly and humorous ,in
the direction of the colored con
tingent, let us not forget that
porter on a train that was recent
ly held up in Mississippi.
Twe masked men with drawn
revolvers entered the Pullman car.
They called aloud for the passen
gers to hold up their hands. And
the passengers obeyed.
The porter, however, refused.
Armed simply with a whisk
broom he went straight at those
gunmien. And all the time they
‘wers shooling.
He grabbed one of the bandits
by the collar, rushed him fBr the
door and literally threw him
through the glass door of the ves
tibule into the night. And the
-other gunman jumped and ran for
hig life, \
" Not a passemger lost a purse,
‘a grip, & watehy or anything but
_his peace of mind.
. After the gu were routed,
and safety and nity had set
tled down on the fandscape, the
ha | TRE e
WE ‘55;» IS
»—-‘,1:7'61 EW 221 "/,’/A\\\‘ A\ i\u,_c "M“
conductor and trainmen came
back. The porter went smilingly
at his work making up the berths.
Some one noticed, all’ at once,
that he was an olive green in
tone instead of his usual rich
chocolate hue. However, he in
sisted that he was not hurt, and
laughingly tackled his work with
a little needless added zest. %
Suddenly he sank to the floor.
In one minute he was dead.
Three bullets had gone com
pletely through his chest.
He died that his passengers
might live.
90 o
The idea is slowly gaining
ground that the Caucasian has no
menopoly, that the Sherman act
can recognize, on either courage,
loyalty, love or gratitude.
A second piece of news comes
to us as follows:
It seems that Colonel Joe
Choynski, prize fighter and ambi
dextrous, charming, bookish gen
tleman, about twenty years ago
was working the Wire Grass Cir
cuit with a variety show. The
town that was the sceéne of this
be strictly necessary; no belligerent shall embark or disembark
troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal; the
provisions of Article 1 are to apply to the waters adjacent to
the canal, within three miles of either end; the warships of
belligerents shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty
four hours at one time; and the vessels of war of one belligerent
shall not pursue those of another for twenty-four hours.
Now, let us take a concrete instance—the present trouble in
Mexico. Under the terms of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as in
terpreted by Great Britain, Mexico, being a nation and own
ing vessels of war, under Rule 1 of Article 3 her vessels of com
merce and of war are entitled to equal use of the canal with the
vessels of the United States. Has the Atministration any
answer to this proposition?
Under the interpretativn of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty de
manded by Great Britain and called for by the Administration
supporters, and as denounced by the n:gponents of repeal, the
United States bad no rights in this canal for her vessels of war
in the event of war with Mexico over the war vessels of Mexico.
Go one step forth. Suppose that Japan or Great Britain, or any
other nation, should desire to assist Mexico in the event of a war
between Mexico and the United States. Under the contentions
of Great Britain and the Administration supporters as to the
terms of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the United States, although
the builder and owner of the canal, would have no greater rights
in the canal for her vessels of war than Great Britain or Japan
or Mexico. Can there be any doubt about this from the plain
Jangnage of Article 1 of Section 3, declaring for equality of
vessels of war as well as vessels of commerce?
Take another illustration. Suppose Japan went to war with
the United States about this Mexican controversy--and it is
significant that while Japan has declared neutrality as to Huerta,
from whom Japan can hope nothing, Japan has declared no neu
trality as to Carranza, from whom Japan can hope much—and
suppose the war vessels of Japan should pass through the canal
from the Pacific to the Atlantic (the Panama Canal, our canal)
under Rule 5 of Article 3—a"rule as binding as any other rule—
the United States could not follow with her vessels of war under
twenty-four hours, PROVIDED these rules are binding upon the
United States, as contended by Great Britain and by the Admin
istration supporters.
The editor, answering the question first above referred to,
in one of our dailies, lays much stress upon the proposition
that even Great Britain herself raises no question on the point
of vessels of war. Why, of course not! GREAT BRITAIN
HAS NAUGHT TO SAY AT THIS TIME AS TO VESSELS
OF WAR. The diplomats and statesmen of Great Britain, giants
in comparison with pygmy diplomats and politicians of this
country, are too farseeing to mention vessels of war at this time.
There is no occasion AT THIS TIMZ for Great Britain to speak
of vessels of war; but can anyone doubt, in view of the fact
that Article 1 of Section 3 prescribes equality of terms for ‘‘ves
sels of commerce AND WAR,’’' that Great Britain, having
gained her point as to vesSels of commerce, will not, when op
portunity shall arise, argue with crushing force that her ves
sels of war may use the canal on the same terms as our own.
The United States will then be in the lamentable predicament of
having admitted the contentions of Great Britain before they
were ever made. Ne man can read the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
and fail to see that Rules 1,2, 3,4, 5 and 6 of Article 3 are
equally binding upon all nations as to which they are at all
binding ; and with these rules binding upon the United States,
the expenditure of $400,000,000 has been a useless extravagance,
and one from which the United States enjoys no rights, either
in peace or in war, which are not enjoyed by all nations using
the canal.
Therefore, the question to the daily newspaper, as above
specified, is a most pertinent inquiry. Whoever this person was
who asked the question, he struck at the very heart of the sit
nation. This situation should be brought home right now to the
United States Senators before whom this repeal is now pending.
Once pass this repeal and let it receive the signature of the %‘res
ident, and no more can the United States claim that this nation
enjoys any rights in the canal, bought and paid for by our own
mon!:ly, which are not enjoyed by every nation of the civilized
story was one of those well-to
do county seats where the sons
of the best citizens at times trans
form themselves into hooligans
and hoodlums. = ° .
A Chinaman had come to town
and opened up his little laundry;
and one night the hoodlums had
gathered and were sending dead
cats and other delectables through
the front windows.
Jdoe Shoynski, about this time,
came by on his way from the
theater to his hotel. Noticing the
excitement he stopped, sized up
the situation, gently childed the
hoodlums for their actions in re
straint of trade, and begged that
they would go along peaceably
and leave the Chinese to his tex
tile ablutions.
And then it seems that the
hoodlums transferred their at
tentions from the Chinaman to
what they were pleased to call
“the dude actor.”
At this Colonel Choynski only
smiled. He waded in, gave out
upper cuts right and left, with
short-arm jabs and a few long
armed swings, all without prej
udice. The hoodlums hit the dirt,
and suddenly and soen there was
no one on the spot but Joe and
the Chinaman.
And so Joe went along to his
Week Ending
May 12,1914,
hotel. He left town the next day
on the 9:40 and duly forgot the
incident,
And the years passed.
* - . $
““Phe Chinaman made money in
his industrious and economical
fashion.
A few weeks ago he was taken
ill, sorely stricken by the black
wing of death. - The doctors told
him he would not survive,
He sent for a lawyer and made
his will, and he left all of his
money, about ten thousand dol
lars, to Joe Choynski.
Then the Chinaman died. The
lawyer used the wires and found
that Joe Choyngki' was in Pitts
burg, acting as director of the
Pittsburg Athletic Club.
The (Chinaman, it seems, had
written Joe's name out on a piece
of butcher’s paper with a stick
and kept it all these years.
The money was sent to Joe
Choynski. He really did not know
what to do wth it, and explained
that since he had never earned it,
it wasn't really his and all he
could do was accept it as a trus
tee.
And now Colonel Choynski has
decided what he will do with the
ten thousand dollars. .He has
started a school in San Francisco
to give-lessons to Chinese in
physical culture,