The Washington herald., 1914-04-11
The Presidents Courage.

grandeur; il is true, after he retired from
the Presidency He confessed to the world
that he had been in the wrong in2nlain=
tanning, with others, the guilt Of Gen. Fitz-
john Porter on the battle field of Manassas.
in 1862. So grievous was the guilt of Gen.
Porter believed to be that the court-mar-
tial and the country was persuaded that he
should suffer the severest penalty known
to the code of war. = 5."..3 20.
Yet Gen Grant declared some years
later that injustice had been done to Gen.
Porter, in which he shared. He knew that
confession of this kind would bring upon
him reproaches. He acknowledged that
his lifelong friend, John A. Logan, would
make vigorous response in antagoHisn, as
he did for three long days on the floor of
the Senate. Yet Gen. Grant came forth
with the statement that he and others were
wrong, and that it was the duty of the
country to see to it that Fitzjohn Porter
was vindicated. The moral courage of
Gen. Grant was sufficient to take away the
stain that was upon Gen. Porter's name.
Recently President Wilson has matched
the sublime moral courage displayed by
Gen. Grant thirty years ago. And what
ever the future may have in store for
President Wilson, one of the great tradi-
tons of his administration will be that
which records the moral heroisIn displayed
by him when he, in the name of the honor
of his country, asked Congress so to act
as to preserve that national honor ... -.
The President stands as the guardian of
national honor. 1t is for him to protect it.
He, of all others, should be, as President
Wilson has been, keenly sensitive; to the
maintenance of the honor of the nation.
The President having gained, as Gen.
Grant did, information which at one time
was not at hand, perceived that in the legis-
lation enacted by the so-called Panama
Canal law, by which discrimination in
favor of American vessels engaged in
coastwise commerce was permitted, there
had been serious breach of the understand
ing entered into when John Hay and Lord
Pauncefote drafted the so-called Panama
Canal treaty.
That, then, was the sole issue Whether
Great Britain may or may not find benefit
to her own commerce in, repeal of the
free tolls provision is aliunde, as the law
yers say. For beyond that lies this ques-
ton: Did the minds of John Hay. and
Lord Pauncefote meet when the treaty
was drafted, and did the Senate of the e.
United States have full assurance that
their minds did meet when drafting the
treaty?
Whether free tolls is in reality dis
guised subsidy to American vessels en-
gagged in coastwise trade is apart from the
real issue That issue is this: Did the men
who made the treaty, and the Senate when
it confirmed it, have common understand
ing as to its meaning?
Whether or not the Tehauntepec Rail
road across Lower Mexico finds vital in
terest in the proposed repeal of the Tree =
toll provision, is apart from the issue.
That issue is simply this: Did John Hay
and Lord Pauncefote agree in their under
standing OF the treaty?
Political advantage OF a partisan char
acter sought for in this crisis is beneath
contempt; nor will any honorable man
seek such advantage at this time Presi-
dent Wilson says that national honor is at
stake, and that is above any question of
partisan advantage. The antagonism wittr.
Great Britain which some who are: in pub
lie life in the United States permit to irflu- =,
ence their judgment should have no part
in this discussion. For the issue is not
Great Britain and the United States, but
the honor of the United States. as that is 4
to be established among tht nations |of the
earth. Therefore, the only question, for
honorable men to answer to their own
satisfaction is this: Is President Wilson
right in maintaining that the representa- (.
tive of the American government and the
representative OF the government of Great
Britain found that they had reached a
common understanding, and, when that
had been reached, they drafted the treaty
so as to express that understanding in