BY LOYOLA L.

"First rise after very low, indicates

a stronger blow; June, too soon, July, stand by; August, look out you must; September, remember; October, all over."

T

HUS runs the sailor's proverb of the hurricanes of the West India Islands,

a

proverb known by heart by all those who have seen these revolving storms go sweeping by, leaving death and desolation in their wake. "September, remember," said Captain Thomas, of the British tramp Foxhall, slowly to himself, as on September 8th, late in the afternoon he was nearing the Windward Passage, en route from Cape Town to Galveston. "Wonder if we'll make it this time without a blow," he mused, looking toward the southeast, where cloud bank was rising, around which at short intervals played flashes of lightning. "Doesn't look very good for this time o' year, eh! Mr. Munson?" he said, addressing his first officer, at the same time pointing to the southeast. "Is everything on deck secured?"

a

"Yes, sir," the mate replied; "the bos'n just reported everything doubly lashed."

Darkness falls rapidly in the tropics, and in a short time after the sun sank from sight the Foxhall was wrapped in inky darkness, which more clearly revealed the flashes of lightning from the south

east. "Keep her west by nor' till seven bells, then let her go nor' nor' west," said the skipper as he started below to answer the summons of the dinner bell. His foot was on the first step of the ladder leading to the deck below, when-swish! something about the size of a potato shot past his ear, then, spat! something cold and clammy struck him full in the face.

MILLS, U. S. A.

While Captain Thomas was trying to figure out what had struck him, Mr. Munson, on the other end of the bridge was yelling: "Get out, you beast, get out-le' go my ear! le' go." "What is it?" sang out the Captain; "Jersey mosquitoes?" "No, it's bats," said Munson. "Look here, this one was trying to make a nest in my ear." "Where did they come from?" asked the skipper, savagely eyeing the creature. "From the islands, replied the first mate; "they are gettin' away from a hurricane. They're a sure sign of a blow," he continued, "a sure sign. I've navigated these parts nigh on to twenty years, and never knew it to fail. If we don't see some fun to-night, then I miss my guess." The mate was right. Before six bells in the first watch the storm broke with all the fury of its kind, lashing the sea into a yeasty foam. For a while it looked as if the ship could not stand the strain; she pitched and rolled, shaking herself clear of one sea, only to struggle with a bigger one. By skillful handling and the use of oil a catastrophe was averted. So next morning found the Foxhall weather beaten but able to proceed. Early on the morning of the ninth Rebecca Shoal light was made on the starboard beam, distant ten miles. The departure was taken, and the course set, across the Gulf of Mexico for Galveston. ought to pick up the Bolivar Point Light at three o'clock in the mornning," said the skipper, emerging from the chart house, where he had been figuring out the course and distance. "Will you run right in, sir, or lay to till daylight?" asked Mr. Munson. "Lay to," laughed the skipper; "lay to off Galveston? Why I know that harbor as well as I know the streets of Glasgow!

"We

No, sir-ee! We'll be past the health officer before sunrise."

If Captain Thomas had only known what the next twenty-four hours would reveal and the sight that awaited them in Galveston, he would not have been so confident of an early arrival. At three bells (one-thirty) in the mid-watch the captain was called according to his orders. He awoke with a start. He had been dreaming of ghosts, and gave a sigh of relief to find it was enly a dream. Coming on deck the cool sea breeze thoroughly awakened him, but try as he would he could not shake off the nervous feeling caused by his dream. The creaking of a derrick block caused him to shudder visibly. "Have that block secured, sir," he said to the officer of the watch. The officer looked surprised. The "Old Man" had never been so particular before. A seaman with a rope yarn soon silenced the block, but the captain's nervousness increased. At the time calculated for Bolivar Point Light to be seen, all hands were trying to pierce the darkness ahead. Seven bells were struck and no light in sight. The "old man" was pacing the bridge like a caged tiger, stopping at every turn to peer with his night glasses into the gloom. "Mind your helm, there!" he yelled to the man at the wheel who had let her run off half a point. "Keep her steady." Turning suddenly, he asked the officer of the watch if the search-light was ready. "All ready, sir," the officer replied. "Have it turned on, then," he said. "Aye, aye, sir," said the officer, repeating the order to the electrician, who was stationed to operate it. The current was switched on, and the instrument began to click, as the carbons automatically came together; then, with a swishing sound, a beam of light shot out across the water. The air was misty, causing the finger of light to reveal grotesquely the night birds, as they circled and careened in its wake. Every eye was expectantly following the path of

light, when suddenly the captain cried: "Look! My God! do you see that? Back her! Back her! For God's sake, back her!" he shouted. The third mate pulled the handle of the telegraph back, to which signal the engines promptly responded. "Does anybody see it?" hoarseiy whispered the skipper, pointing a shaking finger at the ghost. For a ghost it was, floating lightly on the air in the beam of light, its long arms waving frantically, as if to warn them back. Once it vanished, then re-appeared, gesticulating more frantically than before; then disappeared, and was seen no more. Every one saw it and felt fear in his bones. The next instant the ship struck, and ground her nose in the sand. But the engines were doing their work, and she backed off, rolling deeply in the ground swell. She continued backing until well clear, when the anchor was let go. "Here is the ghost, captain," exclaimed the electrician who had been operating the search-light, holding up a badly scorched bat by the wing. It had found its way inthe search-light during the shower of bats off the Windward Passage. When the current was turned on its shadow projected on the beam of light, producing the apparition that scared all hands out of a year's growth, but saved the ship from sure destruction. Bolivar Point light, as well as the whole city of Galveston had been destroyed by the hurricane of September eighth, in which thousands of lives and millions of dollars in property, had been lost, and had it not been for the timely intervention of a harmless insect eater, the crew of the "Foxhall" would have been added to the list of the missing.

to

Under a glass case in the captain's cabin visitors to the "Foxhall" are to-day shown a fine specimen of the West Indian bat, mounted with all the care of the taxidermist's art, and if its fur is a little scorched, that fact only adds to the estimation in which it is held by all on board.

HE birth of a new State is

T always a matter of interest

from the standpoint of international law, as well as from the standpoint of politics. The degree of interest, however, varies with the circumstances of birth and importance of the new State. The circumstances in the present case are of unusual interest because of their departure from the slow and prosaic course of events ordinarily expected in the process of State-building. Nor is the new State an unimportant one. For, notwithstanding its territorial smallness, its location endows it with a wealth of importance to the whole commercial world.

As the attitude of the United States toward the new Republic has occasioned no small amount of criticism, though nowhere has this criticism been so virulent as in the United States Senate, it is fitting that we study soberly the action of our Government from the standpoint of international law. These critics insist that the United States fomented the revolution upon the Isthmus, recognized the Republic of Panama prematurely, disregarded our obligations to Colombia under the treaty of 1846, and that the President and Senate are attempting under the treaty-making power to usurp powers which properly belong to the House. As to the first of these, there is no evidence that the administration did anything to foment trouble upon the Isthmus. The accusation rests entirely upon supposition. If the revolution could be accounted for upon no other ground than the theory of guilty co-operation upon the part of the United States, the above supposition would have a logical basis upon which to rest.

But no such explanation is nec

essary in order to explain the facts. There was ample incentive to revolt, apart from any outside interference. The people of the Isthmus had never derived any very substantial benefit from their political connection with Colombia. Only about one-tenth of the revenues collected from them were spent for their benefit, and what protection they re ceived they received from the United States. To be thus used as a political asset for the benefit of a knot of corrupt politicians at Bogota was certainly not well calculated to strengthen their feeling of allegiance.

Viewed in the light of Colombia's past indifference toward the welfare of her Isthmian provinces, it seems entirely natural that when their interests were selfishly sacrificed and their reasonable hopes blighted by the political narrowness which rejected the Hay-Herran Treaty, the people of the Isthmus should have done exactly what they did, viz: dissolve the political bond which kept them from rendering the service and reaping the benefit which God and nature intended they should. It is an injustice not to concede to those people, situated upon the world's highway of commerce, some degree of intelligence and some degree of self-interest. Not to have manifested a determination that this great natural resource, due to their situation, be used to their own and the benefit of mankind, rather than senselessly wasted, would have been unmistakable evidence of an imperative need for the appointment of a commission of lunacy. But conceding to them some intelligence and ordinary interests, it is not difficult to understand how ten million dollars, plus a yearly income in cash, plus the immense

benefit to be derived from the canal, would be attractive to them whether it was to Colombia or not.

Nor were the prospects of success such as to render the revolution a hopeless one, irrespective of any outside aid. For Colombia has practically no navy and the territory of Panama is well-nigh inaccessible from the Colombian mainland. And as the Colombian Government was substantially bankrupt, her powers of coercion were exceedingly limited, because at the present time money is almost absolutely necessary in order to wage war effectively. Furthermore, we must not forget that Panama could reasonably have expected aid from Venezuela, if aid were needed. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the unlikelihood of their success was such as to deter them from declaring their independence.

If, then, the administration was not guilty of fomenting the revolution, is it guilty of an offense by reason of its early recognition of the existence of a de facto Government and later of the independence of Panama? The recognition of a de facto Government is simply an expression of judgment as to the existence of a fact. And as the people of the Isthmus were in complete control of all the machinery of Government, there is little, if any room,

for difference of opinion as to the existence of the fact. It is indeed difficult to see how an honest doubt could arise with reference to this, since at the time when the administration recognized the existence of a de facto Government, the Republic of Panama was the only national organization within the territorial limits claimed by it to which the people of said territory acknowledged allegiance and rendered obedience. And as allegiance and obedience are the essence of Government, it is not half good nonsense to argue that a Government did not exist.

The recognition of the independence of a State formed by separa

tion is always more or less of a delicate matter, unless it follows such recognition by the parent State. But, clearly, the length of time which has elapsed between the declaration of independence and its recognition by another State cannot be the determining factor. If so, Colombia has a grievance against nearly every nation in the world, for their recognition was but a few days later than ours. It is the presence of conditions and not the lapse of time which warrants the recognition of the independence of a State. In the United States the power to recognize is vested in the sound direction of the President. and provided he acts in good faith there is scarcely room for complaint because his judgment differs from that of Colombia, particularly when he agrees with that of nearly all the other nations.

As to our treaty obligations, the question is one of interpretation. The treaty of December 12, 1864, between the United States and New Granada, contains in article 25 the following provision: "And in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial conpensation for said advantages and for the favors they have acquired by the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of this treaty, the United States guarantee, positively and efficaciously, to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned Isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed at any future time while this treaty exists; and in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory." The meaning of this can best be ascertained by recalling the circumstances under which the treaty was framed. There was at that time reason to apprehend aggressions upon the part of European powers, particularly England and France. And it is fair to conclude that the intention of the parties was to guard against such aggressions, and not to fasten upon the people of the Isthmus a particular Government regardless of its justice or injustice in its treatment of those people. The United States never has, and I trust that it never will, enter into a treaty for the purpose of depriving any people of their inalienable right of revolution. Our own history precludes it and our common sense forbids it.

It is a well-established rule of international law that a treaty should never be so interpreted as to do violence to the spirit thereof. What we guaranteed in this treaty was, and what we are now doing, is to protect the Isthmus against attack from without and a condition of anarchy from within. The covenant was one which "runs with the land" regardless of names.

But have the President and Senate usurped powers belonging to the House? If the Republic of Panama is an independent State and we are sincere in our desire for a canal, why should we not negotiate and ratify a treaty with said Republic, and that without unnecessary delay? The fact that Colombia mav act in an irrational way and declare war as a result of the treaty is no legitimate argument against the exercise of the treaty-making power without the concurrence of

the House. War may result from the negotiation and ratification of almost any treaty, but if it is an incidental and not a necessary result, there is manifestly no usurpation of power at the expense of the House.

Nor was the negotiation of the treaty precluded by the terms of the Spooner Act. The well-understood purpose of that act was to enable us to secure reasonable terms with Columbia, concerning the preferable route, not to make it compulsory upon us to negotiate a treaty with Nicaragua and Costa Rica upon such terms as they might see fit to grant concerning a less desirable route. True, the treaty thus neglected could be rejected by the Senate, but that would mean a delay of at least several months, and delay is not the specialty of the American people. The fact is, that a condition of affairs is now presented that was never contemplated by the Spooner Act. Hence it is mere pettifoggery to argue that said act precludes us from pursuing the wisest course under the changed conditions.

There is, therefore, no sufficient ground for concluding that the course of the administration thus far has violated international, constitutional or statute law. True, it might have proceeded more slowly, but whether or not that would have been wiser is a question, not of law, but of policy, which time alone can