The sun., 1901-04-22
Concerning the Meaning Of Words

Writing with some appearance OF excite
ment another letter on the subject OF Cuban
annexation and the policy OF the Admins
tration with regard TO Cuba. MIR EDMUND
K. DODGE asks us a question 10 which
We shall give attention. inasmuCh as he
tries to make il involve the matter OF THE
SUNS good faith with him and its other
readers:
II you did M, intend to ad ,pt MI OLNBY's views
TO the effect that the Teller resolution was futile
can be pardoneG FOR thinking that such was your
Intention. Tor the heading Of the article was your
own and Eas in these words The Hon RICHARD
OLNEY Answers question f1r - The text OF
that article starts with these words: We are glad
II reply bg proiv 10 the question. Sc
You pronounced Nj OiNEY'S opinion a we'll
considered one. ! would understand that rs adopt
ing his views. Mr OLNgY answers FOR you and
you reply BY has prorv Words may mean differently
10 different persons Yours mean 10 that YOU
agreed with hin. You now dscaim any intention
to make use of hts views To indirectly express your
own views. although your words quoted above were
calculated to give the O. ntrary .mpr"sSi'n
In your article to day "Wednesday you quite
dSnct'y dissent from hl, views. for while he denies
the Teller resolution had ever any force he says Il
was futlle you. on the contrary, assert II 10 be I'm
Of NE and force Therefor" while not agreeing with
him. do you think II WAS fair use yoV made Of it
10 say tha, he replied for you and that you glad
to reply by hts proN,'
Yea. entirely fair, pertinent and straight
forward as Mr. DopGE will perceive as
soon as his superheated condition Of mind
as to the general subject allows him 10
concentrate his analytical faculties upon
the particular question he raises about the
meaning and Use ~ words
When We quoted Mr. OINEY and said we
were glad to let Mr. OLNEY answer for us.
We were not replying 10 any question from
Mr. DopGE about the validity or futilty
Of the Teller resolution We were replying
10 another correspondent, J. r. H., who
had asked us this question Of fact:
is there really any we'll CONSIDERED opinion that
The annexation Of cuba would be u the advantage
Of the United States or any but the few speculative
promoters among their ctyens'"
To this direct and specific question Of
fact The SIN replied that there was such
well-c0nsidered opinion. and We quoted
Mr OINEYs opinion as evidence of that
fact We let Mr.. OLNEY reply for us to
j. r. Is" question above quoted Mr..
OINFY did reply for is.
When Mr. DODGE maintains that this
perfectly clear and distinctly limited Use
Of Mr. OLNEY views constitutes an aiop-
ton Of those views by THE SUN. and that
the designation of Mr.. OLNEYs opinion "a
well-considered implies our acqules-
cence in that opinion, we prefer 10 attribute
Mr.. DoDGEs confusion Of ideas 10 his
present temperature rather than TO any
permanent inability 10 ratiocInate or 70 any
disposition on his part 70 msrepresent.
And we give him the benefit Of the doubt.
knowing all tho time that in tho first para
graph OF his letter. as printed above. he
garbles our plain statement Of the use we
intended to make Of Mr.. OINEY; thus;
TIrE svN
we are glad 10 reply by proxy 70 ne question
Of f1ct propounfed by the esteemed correspondent.
We therefore allow Mr.. OrSEv N answer
j. r MS" question as IN whether there is any well.
considered opinion that the annexation oi Cuba would
n to the advantage OF anybody except few sp,cu-
latve promoters among our citizens"
MR., PuMUSD n. nODGF
The tet, Of thgt arilce starts with these words;
We are glad to reply by proxy to the question. SC"
As II the question. 40" concerned the
futility Of The Teller resolution. and as II
we were glad TO let Mr.. OLNEY answer
that question for us Fic. Mr.. DODGE