The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-05-11
A prnrLExINc aUrsrIoN.

When, years ago. some cruel being
 sprung the question regarding the
 identity of Gains wife he opened the
 door of a labrynth that no one has
 found the way out of. Then on top of that we have been bombarded with discussions about the sex of angels,
 the wabbling of the rabbits nose and other queries of more or less per- picking and important nature to wor-
 ry mankind. It Is enough to make the newspaper man swear.
 Now. just as we were trying to for get all these matters John Paul Jones is resurrected and we see no end to the controversy. It is not so much the uncertainty as to his identity, though that Is bad enough, for we are not at all sure they have found him. positive as General Porter appears to be. but the perplexing question now is-why did he change his name? In a former editorial we called attention to letter from MT. B. l.. Boiling to The Richmond Times-Dispatch declar- ing that he changed his name from JO4H fduA Io tAC Vitc 0y WhASh AO "ssD so we'll known to please relative named William Jones, who willed him certain property on condition that he take the name of John Paul Jones.
 In the Mobile Register of April 20 there was a communication from "J. s. H." endorsing MT. Bolling's opinion as to the occurrence. Then The Rich mond Times-Dispatch of last Sunday again takes up the question. quoting Col. H. s. Burgoyn. of Weldon, N. C., and Cyrus Townsend Brady and other authorities, all of them giving their adhesion to the William Jones theory. The proofs and the arguments are gone into with considerable detail and if nothing else had come forward we might have almost considered the mat ter settled, but it isn't.
 Now we have a letter to The Times Dispatch from S. J. Quinn. of Fred. ericksburg. denying the story outright and positively. He says that the brother of John Paul did not leave him any money or estate, not one cent, did not mention him in his will, and said nothing about the change of name. The legend is that William Paul changed his name to Jones for good and sufficient reasons, and that at his death he left his property to John on condition that he, also, would take the naIhe of Jones. But MT. Quinn draws the record on the disputants to show that William Paul never changed his name at all. He bought property and the deeds were made to William Paul. He made his will and signed 1t with the same name. There is nothing in the records to show that he changed his name and nothing in the will itself to show that he left his brother any money or anything else, nor instruc- tions about his name. Then Mr. Quinn adds
 Those who have read John Paufs early life will remember that ir one of his sea voyages he became involved in difficulty with his ship carpenter, Maxwell. whom he logged Gone ,s ac; a few days thereafter. John was charged with the murder of Maxwell. and was identified by a grand jury at his old home. At this ne was 1ncGnSeQ and left his native shores for America, and landed in Fredericksburg, where he wound up his brothers estate for his sister Mary. After his arrival and of liberty which so fired the hearts of the patriots of that period. thirsting for revenge for imagined or real wrongs and being naturally fond of excitement and adventure, he deter \ mined to join our navy, and if possible, carry the war to the shores of Eng land. In doing this he well knew he was liable to capture and to fall into he would be identified, and have to an- swer the charge, both of treason and the murder of Maxwell. To escape the possibility of Identification in case of capture he added Jones to his name, \ and enlisted in our navy, as John Paul Jones. In doing this he retained the whole of his original name and with Jones added he appeared as a stranger at his old home in Scotland and Eng land, whose shores he did invade This seems to be a plausible reason for the addition of Jones.
 This, 1t seems to us, leaves us about as high in the air as we were before. details than the others did, and his position Is more tenable than any of the others. If William Jones. as shown by the records, made no change in his own name. and expressed no wish for John to do so. does 1t not look like the whole story Is something of a fa- ble? It really seems that we are as far from a settlement of the question as ever, and that If they have surely found his remains they have not found why he changed his name. In fact, the explanation given by MT. Quinn seems as plausible as any other.