Newspaper Page Text
10!$ f ' '' ' '" ; .).V-h
fer ft !L : W, -ft. ft. i; AUSTIN'S HAWAIIAN WEEKLY. analyze it and reduce it to a proposition ; but neither can I analyze the invisible fragment vibrations which proceed from a bunch of violets, and which will perfume a whole room. I cannot analyze the passage through the air of the dots and dashes of the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy. But I know that intercession is a current of the breath of God, starting from your own soul, and acting as a dynamic force upon the object for which you pray. It sets free secret spirit influences (perhaps the Father's mighty angels, that excel in strength, who can say ?) but which influences would not be set free without the intercession. I can well under stand Mary Queen of Scots saying that she feared the prayers of John Knox more than at army of 10,000 men. Why should not in tercession be part of God's regularized workings as much as wire less telegraphy ? Why should it not be a natural law, and none the less spiritual because natural ? Such forces do exist call them thought-transference, psychic sympathy, spiritual effinity, what you'will. These forces of influence between man and man, acting independently of distance, are rapidly claiming recognition from the physical investigator. Why should intercession be one of these secret affinities, appertaining to the highest part of man, and acting, by divine natural law, directly upon the object prayed for, originating from the divine nature in you, and passing, full of the infinite resources of God directly to the one for whom you pray ? " Literary Digest. An Unfortified Nicaragua Canal. (As gleaned from Exchanges.) The new treaty with England, now before the Senate, although intended to bring about a peaceful settlement on questions involved in the construction of the Nicaragua canal, seems to have had its first effect in putting many American newspapers into a very belli cose mood. The provisions of the proposed treaty arc briefly put by the Washington correspondent of the New York Sun as follows: "A guaranty to the United States by Great Britain of the right to construct, operate, maintain, and control an inter-oceanic canal, control to be subject to certain conditions. "A guaranty by the United States of the absolute neutrality of the canal. "A guaranty by the United States that it will not fortify the approaches of the canal. "A guaranty to the United States of the right to police the canal. "A guaranty that war-ships of belligerents, while permitted to use the canal in the time of war, should not remain in it for more than twenty-four hours." What arouses the opposition of the papers referred to is the guaranty of the canal's absolute neutrality in peace and war. Such strongly Republican papers as the New York Sun and the Chicago Times-Herald and Inter Ocean ' believe that the Adminis tration has made a mistake this time, and are urging the Senate not to confirm the treaty. Says The Sun: " The more closely we examine the new convention offered as a substitute for the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the more unacceptable it appears. Among the objections to the ratification of the instru ment, which, as The Sun pointed out, while ostensibly a substitute, is essentially a revival of the most obnoxious features of the former treaty, these are insurmountable : " First, the asserted parallelism between the projected Nicaragua canal and the Suez canal (whose neutrality is also guaranteed by the powers) does not exist in fact ; secondly, an agreement on the part of the United States not to fortify the Nicaragua waterway would place our relatively unprotected cities on the Pacific coast at the mercy of any stronger naval power with which we might happen to be at war ; thirdly, such an agreement would especially disable us in the event of a war with Great Britain, which is not only the greatest naval power on earth, but possesses in close proximity to the Atlantic entrance of the proposed canal a coign of vantage in British Honduras which she would be at liberty to fortify and garrison ; finally, the agreement that Great Britain shall jointly guarantee the neutralization of the Nicaragua canal, and the invitation to other European powers to join in such guaranty are flagrant violations of the Monroe doctrine." The Sun proposes that we annex Nicaragua and admit it as a State, so that the canal will become an internal affair, like the Erie canal across New York State, which no other nation will have the slightest right to interfere. " Better to dig no canal," says the same paper, " unless it is to be a canal absolutely under the control of the United States in peace and in war, including war in which the United States may be engaged." The Chicago Times-Herald says: "The United States is Sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law. 'It will permit no other power to build the canal. It will do the work itself with a due regard for the protection of its own interests at all times. In time of peace the commerce of the world may ride the waterway, because this is compatible with those in terests of ours. In time of war both the commerce and the war ships of a public enemy of this country must be barred by our navy and by our forts in order to secure the advantage for which we pay. These are the considerations by which we are moved and they are the ones that will prevail. Fortifications are as certain as the canal itself in spite of the convention." The Chicago Evening Post (Rep.) says that "England has given up nothing substantial, while we have signed away a prerog ative of infinite importance and value.' "If the free use of the canal is granted to the war ships of an enemy," says the Chicago Tribune (Rep.) "this country will be furnishing to its foes facilities at great cost for carrying on war against it." The San Francisco Chronicle (Rep.) says that our right to an exclusive control of the canal "is the right of self-preservation. We are entitled, in time of war," it continues, "to control the nearest water way between our east and west coasts. If there is any part of the Monroe doctrine which will commend itself to the common sense of mankind it is this." The Detroit Tribune (Rep.) declares that "no foreign government must be allowed to have a voice in its control." "We agree to pay all the cost of constructing the canal, instead of part of the cost," says the Detroit News (Ind.), "and receive nothing in exchange." "If we should pierce the isthmus on such terms," says the New York yournal (Ind. Dem.), "we should be simply opening a way for our enemies to attack us." The New York Times (Ind.) believes that the international guaranty of neutrality is the only thing that will keep the canal open at all, to friend or Le, in war time. It says: "The contention that we must have the authority to pass our own ships while forbidding the passage of our enemies is simply foolish. As a political demand it would never be granted by the nations of the world. As a point of strategy it would be futile, since no conceivable fortifications or means of defense which we might set up could be relied upon to protect the canal against effective obstruction by the enemy. We can well afford to take our chances in the time of war with the canal, since it will mani festly give us greater advantages than it will give our foe." The New York Tribune (Rep.) says; "The question seems to be whether the United States is big enough and brave enough and strong enough to open this canal to the world and trust its own ability to cope with whatever im probable emergencies may arise, or is so given to seeing ghosts that it must line the canal with fortresses and sit up o' nights to watch lest some bad pirate enter it. To that question it should not take long to give an answer." The Philadelphia Press (Rep.) points out that the policy of the new treaty is the historic American policy. It says: "The open navigable character of all interoceanic waterways we have insisted upon from the first. We fought the North African pirates for the freedom of the Straits of Gibraltar. We forced Denmark to surrender her claim for sound dues at the en trance to the Baltic. We have applied the princip'e, or joined in applying it, to rivers like the Amazon and the Kongo. We have ' accepted the principle in our o,vn case in the Yukon, whose navi gation is free. . . . Any sign that the United States proposes to play the part of the bully, to refuse the plain rights of interna tional law, and to depart from our own settled policy with refer ence to free waterways, converts our protection into tyranny and will link the Monroe doctrine with the unscrupulous disregard ot international rights." It is reported that considerable opposition to the canal is developing in Congress. j&ffl2.fekg s. Tfl4.