The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-03-30

sixties rail- and blow over the treaty
you would necessarily conclude that II
was only second in Importance to the
national declaration of independence,
and that men who exercised the right
of judgment and rejected 1t were either
fools or traitors. 1t takes a prostltu-
ted pulpit to indulge in such pyrotech-
mics and fanfaronade of rhetoric. They
lack information, balance, judgment,
but abound in gush and gable. This
country is sorely beset by the whole
tribe Of political parsons We long
ago resolved that We could never listen
to one Of these vociferous demagogues
shooting off his mouth" about. politics
instead Of combining himself to his ap-
pointed work. self or otherwise. the
| preaching Of the blessed Gospel OF the
Son of God. An ignorant declaimer in
the pulpit IN politics is enough to dis
gust men n make angels weep.
AS to the merits Of the treaty. with
out writing at length. We will say this:
1t is limited to five years. and does not
determine the most serious matters OF
1t deals with minor trou-
bles-pecuniary claims not over a half
million dollars n territorial claims.
The friends of the bill have purposely
magnified its Importance
! What did Lord Salisbury, the British
prime minister. say Of the treaty? He
said this, and doubtless he understood
the treaty-its Importance and mean
ing: He said that while the arbitra-
ton treaty will provide an easy method
for the settlement Of small differences,
it will not remove the great risks OF
| war. That is to say, things that are
| not worth fighting about will be ami
cabiy adjusted. and the others will be
referred to the arbitrament Of the
sword as heretofore" That is a fine
treaty to be kicking up such a great
! racket about. 1t will settle small diff
ferences but the important things must
be fought over the old bad a
We wrote an editorial of length at the
! start upon the treaty when published,
but have not given it special consid-
Grafton since. While briefly touching
upon it we will quote two opinions from
| able newspapers. The New York Sun
said this:
There is a growing impression
among good Americans who are not
carried away by sentimental impulses.
hi where this propeSd treaty is not
mere humbug it is highly dangerous to
| vital American interests, n where 1T
is not positively dangerous, it is mere
humbug."
Some time ago The Washington Post,
took the sane, common-sens view OF
the treaty. and that too after studying
it, which is not the case with the pulpit
teers who haye so clamored over it
SO blunderingly n in such maddened
excess. The Post said:
when it comes to really serious
questions, Neutrality-suspicious. Of terri
tory and, incidentally, of national pres
tige, sovereignty, and honor, the value
of the proposed arrangement is not SO
apparent. = Here, it will be
seen, a final verdict is provided for
but how? By AN award by a MAORI
ty of not less than five to one!' The
tribunal is to be composed Of six men,
bers-three chosen by the United States
and three chosen by Great Britain
and it requires a majority of five to one
to declare a judgment which either
party to the controversy is bound to
respect. Does any rational human be-
| ing imagine that two EngliShmen out
of three selected to represent their
country in a case involving it's terri
torial possessions and. therefore. it's
national dignity and honor, will ever
vote with the opposition? Does any
one suppose a similar absurdity on the
part Of any two of our representa-
tiveS?"
nor Great Britain will be much the
loser if the treaty hould not be adopt
} ed finally. The United States have nc
desire or intention to go to war with
the mother country. Great Britain has
quite enough to do to watch her vast
possessions and European matters
without heedlessly, rashly bringing on
a war with this country. No man in
his senses can desire a rupture and a
war between the two great English.
speaking nations.