anaheim-gazette 1928-05-31

THE ANAHEIM GAZETTE ESTABLISHED 1870 HENRY KUCHEL, Editor and Proprietor ISSUED EVERY THURSDAY SUBSCRIPTION PER YEAR.....$2.00 SIX MONTHS.....1.25 THREE MONTHS......75 Entered at the Anaheim, California, Post Office as second class matter. DEFENSIVE ARMING ACCORDING to press dispatches, the centennial congress of the American Peace Society went on record in its recent meeting at Cleveland as recognizing the inherent right of nations to arm for defense, but called on all governments to see the moral obligation of renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. No one will quarrel with this resolution. It is undoubtedly true that every nation has a right to arm itself for defensive purposes. The extreme pacifists who would have Uncle Sam disband his army and sink his navy as a "moral example" to the rest of the world, and trust himself to the tender mercies of the howling wolves without any weapons of defense, may not agree with the statement, but they are in the hopeless minority so far as number is concerned, although capable of making plenty of noise when the occasion arises. It is also right and proper that all governments renounce war as an instrument of national policy. The United States is willing to do this officially, has already done it unofficially so far as the sentiment of the people of the country is concerned, and it is after all the sentiment of the people which is finally moulded into policy. It is right and proper to restrict the policy of nations to arming for the purpose of defense. The theory is an admirable one, but like other admirable theories difficult to put into practice. That little word "defense" can cover a multitude of diplomatic operations. It is difficult to pick out any past war in which each statement, but they are in the hopeless minority so far as number is concerned, although capable of making plenty of noise when the occasion arises. It is also right and proper that all governments renounce war as an instrument of national policy. The United States is willing to do this officially, has already done it unofficially so far as the sentiment of the people of the country is concerned, and it is after all the sentiment of the people which is finally moulded into policy. It is right and proper to restrict the policy of nations to arming for the purpose of defense. The theory is an admirable one, but like other admirable theories difficult to put into practice. That little word "defense" can cover a multitude of diplomatic operations. It is difficult to pick out any past war in which each nation involved did not claim that it was acting purely on the defense. No nation in time of trouble will admit that it has taken or is taking the offensive. Each invariably claims that it is acting solely to protect the lives and interests of its own people. This was true in the World war and has been true in practically every war. The Romans shouted that "Carthage must be destroyed," but they claimed that they were fighting on the defensive—that it was necessary to destroy Carthage in order to save Rome. World opinion may, at the time, condemn one nation or another as the offender, but this will not alter the facts of the case as they then exist nor will it avert the danger. Great Britain has a tremendous navy. To the other nations of the world it is an offensive weapon, because it can declare a blockade and sweep the commerce of an unfriendly nation off the seas. But Great Britain's diplomats will tell you that this is a purely defensive weapon. The great fleet must be maintained to "defend" the motherland and prevent its being starved out in case of trouble. There you are. Just what is defensive arming, after all? NO LATIN BLOC IN HIS recent addresses on the Pan-American conference at Havana and our policies toward the nations to the south of us, Charles Evans Hughes makes the point that there is no Latin-American bloc. This is something which must be taken into consideration when we go to study conditions in the countries of Spanish-America. All of the nations to the south of us, except one, speak a common language—Spanish. But this does not mean that they think and act alike, that they have common political aims and ideals, and that they are lined up to a nation against Uncle Sam and his policies. Common language does not always mean political solidarity. We have had enough disagreement with Great Britain to prove that this statement is true. The things which make for international alliances and understandings are similar political and economic aims. The countries of Latin-America do not possess such common aims and for that reason there is no Latin-American bloc opposed to Uncle Sam. That this is true was evidenced in the conference at Havana when more often than not a great majority of the nations to the south were lined up with the delegates of the United States. This was not due to any deep, dark political manipulation on the part of Mr. Hughes and his delegation, although some of our disappointed "liberals" have hinted as much. It was due to the fact that the policies of some of the larger and more influential countries of South America, as Brazil, and Peru, run parallel to our own. They approve the policy of the protective tariff, and are not sure that they are against our policy of intervention—realizing perhaps that they may have to resort to it or may need it themselves on some future occasion. There is of course some friction and misunderstanding between the United States and Latin-America. But this is not at Havana when more often than not a great majority nations to the south were lined up with the delegates of the United States. This was not due to any deep, dark political manipulation on the part of Mr. Hughes and his delegation, although some of our disappointed "liberals" have hinted as much. It was due to the fact that the policies of some of the larger and more influential countries of South America, as Brazil, and Peru, run parallel to our own. They approve the policy of the protective tariff, and are not sure that they are against our policy of intervention—realizing perhaps that they may have to resort to it or may need it themselves on some future occasion. There is of course some friction and misunderstanding between the United States and Latin-America. But this is not uniform and is much more pronounced in some countries than in others. Just now, for instance, Argentine seems very much peeved at us because our protective tariff is really protecting our farmers against Argentine's imports. But on the other hand, Brazil, a more powerful nation, is very friendly to Uncle Sam for various reasons. The misunderstanding is due not to a common policy against us, but to the fact that we have not tried to get as close to our southern neighbors as we should have tried. The European propagandists have taken advantage of this and have sowed the seeds of American distrust down there purely for commercial reasons. But the ice is breaking and we are gradually drawing nearer Latin-America. Let us keep up the good work by getting better acquainted and breaking down the effect of this unfriendly propaganda. NEW SHIPS FOR NAVY UNCLE SAM must have new ships for old, must make the necessary replacements in his navy to keep it on a par with the navies of the powers of Europe, according to Flora A. Walker, chairman of the National Defense Committee of the Daughters of the American Revolution, in a vigorous article in the current issue of the National Republic. “There was a time when the American people took the navy for granted,” Mrs. Walker says. “With sublime and child-like assurance we thought of it as standing invincible, between us and any foe. True enough, to most of us, in actuality, it was something as nebulous as a fleet of billowing clouds floating majestically across a summer sky. “Today that faith is challenged, the enriched vision shattered; we are told all sorts of goblin-tales about the navy and are urged to believe, whether we will or no, that it is out for blood. Agencies have come into being that make it their business to confuse the public mind upon all issues pertaining to national defense. No longer is it deemed safe to trust to a duly elected Congress to guarantee the security of the nation through adequate provision for the maintenance of our defenses.” ANAHEIM GAZETTE The Political Babes In The Woods By Albert T. R. ROR-RORWHATER YER GOIN' TER DO ER BOUT FARM RELIEF? HOW!! HOW-HOWYA GOIN' TA BE ON THE LIQUOR QUESTION? PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WINS A copyrighted dispatch from London recently declared that "private shipping genius scored heavily over government ownership of steamship lines when Lord Kyslant, formerly Owen Phillips, for the White Star line bought the Commonwealth Shipping Line of Australia, paying $9,500,000 for the property, which cost the Australian government $36,000,000." The dispatch continues that Lord Kyslant now controls 2,900,000 tons of shipping and the capital of the companies of which he is chairman or director amounts to a billion dollars, and it is said that the service which his companies give is as good as the best. The most significant point of this news is that this great British shipowner paid $9,500,000 for a line which cost the Australian government $36,000,000. Here is another example of the fallacy of government ownership. Australia, which has made several socialistic experiments, decided that there was money in government shipping lines. The sum of $36,000,000 was pended in the investment. Now the ships have gone into private hands at a loss of three-fourths of the investment to the government. There is a lesson here for Americans too. We have our shipping problems. We are trying to build up and maintain a great merchant marine, and we expect to do it. Several plans for such a marine have been offered. One of them is the plan of government ownership. It has been put forward by those who pretend to shudder at the word "subsidy" as referring to shipping lines. But the shipping business has cost our government many hundreds of millions of dollars. The great expenditure was necessary during the trying times of the World war, and we have found that government-owned shipping is a losing proposition. Of course it has been necessary for the government to keep the ships and improve the service until the time came when these could be turned over at a fair price to private shipping interests. That time is arriving and a great many of the lines have been disposed of. We can now begin to look forward to the time when the government will get out of the shipping business entirely. This move will meet with the approval of the great majority of the American people. We all want an American marine for protection of our trade in time of peace as well as in time of war. But we have found that in America as well as elsewhere great projects of the kind can be operated better and more economically under private than public ownership. Those who hesitate at government aid to shipping as a burden on the taxpayers should stop to consider that government owned shipping lines have been a far greater burden on the taxpayers than any subsidy ever dreamed of by the most ardent advocate of the subsidy theory." By all means let us have our merchant marine, and let us have it privately owned, with the government seeing to it that American ships have a chance to compete fairly with low wages and low living costs in Europe and still maintain the American standard of living. The government ship experiment will never work out. The latest news of the sale of the Australian line to private hands shows the direction in which the wind is blowing. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE It is because of the Suez canal that every government in its vicinity is under British mandate, under a British protectorate or subalized by British money. It is because of the Suez canal that the British Royal Air Force was recently called upon to bomb Arabian towns as a lesson that the Pax Britannica must prevail. It is for the same reason that every movement in Egypt which, directly or indirectly, looks toward a diminishing British power over Egypt's military or foreign affairs must be nipped in the bud. This policy grows out of vital necessity. Even a remote threat to the Suez canal is a threat at the life of Great Britain and of the empire. The British are Suez-conscious. The matter might be dismissed at this point were it not for the different attitude which the British take when the United States is faced by precisely the same situation. The United States must be just as much concerned for the stability of countries in the neighborhood of the Panama canal as are the British in the case of the Suez. The Panama waterway is a capital link for American trade. It is a vital and vulnerable factor in American defense. Yet, when the United States brings pressure to bear upon the republic of Panama for ratification of a treaty making for security of the canal, British propaganda eries out against the iniquity of a powerful nation "oppressing" its weaker neighbor. When the United States acts in Nicaragua in the interest of stabilization as Britain acts in Arabian countries, British propaganda and its American offshoots are loud in denunciation. And the world is sententiously called to witness that Panama and Nicaragua are members of the League of Nations. Perhaps the strangest and most remarkable fact about all this business is the manner in which certain sections of American public opinion and the American press are taken in by this British propaganda. Probably, for one thing, the American public is not Panama-conscious in the sense in which the British public is overwhelmingly Suez-conscious. The British government has the right and duty to take vigorous measures for protection of its commercial, military and political interests in the Suez canal area, even though they involve interference in the domestic affairs of Egypt or neighboring countries. The United States government has the same right and duty. Any other course would be a plain invitation to trouble, if not disaster. It is said that the Pennsylvania railroad is considering the time when dirigible aircraft will be used for fast passenger service. When this time comes, you want to be sure that you have your ticket and won't get put off the train. For a pacifist nation without a navy, China seems to be doing more fighting than the rest of the world put together. According to our own defeatists' theories of disarmament, China ought to be as peaceful as a Sunday school picnic, but she ign't. Of course it has been necessary for the government to keep the ships and improve the service until the time came when these could be turned over at a fair price to private shipping interests. That time is arriving and a great many of the lines have been disposed of. We can now begin to look forward to the time when the government will get out city. Even a remote threat to the Suez canal is a threat at the life of Great Britain and of the empire. The British are Suez-conscious. The matter might be dismissed at this point were it not for the very different attitude which the British take when the United States is faced by precisely the same situation. The United States must be just as much picnic, but she ign’t. IVE GOT A LETTER HERE FROM MY SISTER, DOROTHY~SHE SAYS OUR LITTLE NE-PHEW OSCAR IS GETTIN SO WILD IN THE HOUSE THAT HE IS RUNNIN' AND IS TH' CARPET BY THE AROUND WEARIN' OUT YARD! SHE'S ALL WRONG 'BOUT THAT KID WEARIN' HOMEBREW! WHAT THE CARPET OUT IS WRONG ABOUT BY THE YARD? SAY! YOU TALK LIKE A MAN FULL OF THAT KID WEARIN' HOMEBREW! WHAT THE CARPET OUT IS WRONG ABOUT BY THE YARD? SAYIN' THE KID WORE OUT THE CARPET BY THE YARD? BECAUSE CARPET IS WORN OUT BY THE FEET! DON'T GET ROUGH, KATIE CAN'T YOU TAKE A LITTLE JOKE? OBSERVATIONS AND THEY STILL GO TO AFRICA FOR IVORY LAWYER up state is suing a couple of police officers up there for $10,000 damages because, as he alleges in his complaint, they refused to allow the attorney to interview a prisoner who was his client. The complainant also says he was severely beaten up by the officers when he persisted in seeing his client—which he had a right so to do. DRAWING THAT COLOR LINE SPEAKING of those squared ring artists, after everything is said and done, it was the consensus of opinion openly expressed at the weekly meeting of the whittling and chewing committee, that a white man has no business fighting a black one. STICK A PIN THERE ALL THIS talk about the elimination element in the heavy division of the disciples of the manly art of self-defense is purile, or something, because there is one (and only one) whom the palpitating public cares to see hook up with the champeen. You all know his name—he is the fellow who has an invalid eye and aged legs. But science has progressed so far nowadays that those infirmities may reasonably be expected to be removed before September. With two times out and a good prospect of a third comeback of the deposed one, those features make a good hook to hang up hopes on. And so far as the gate crashers are concerned, there is no use cluttering up the cards with anybody else but those two warriors who figured in that last stand in the city near the Great Lakes. And the reason for all this is that there are a whale of a lot of guys who believe that the next time there will be no delay in commuting over into a neutral corner. JUDGE AS THOU WOULD BE JUDGED THAT terrible catastrophe that happened in an adjoining county a few weeks ago has agitated the people considerably. Of JUDGE AS THOU WOULD BE JUDGED THAT terrible catastrophe that happened in an adjoining county a few weeks ago has agitated the people considerably. Of course, the loss of life there is sad. But let the mantle of sorrow be drawn over that pitiable part of the picture. Now, let the work of reconstruction go on unhindered. The great city will surely do all that is needed to restore that which has been destroyed. Harsh criticism should be withheld. Many theories are advanced as to the cause of the disaster. But let sober thought be given this matter so that justice to all concerned may be administered. TEACHING THE YOUNG IDEA HOW TO SHOOT A young man entered a state university last year as a freshman astonished the world the other day by making twenty bulls-eyes out of twenty shots at fifty yards with a rifle. Now, that young lady can surely take care of herself! LOOKS LIKE BROADCASTING STATION "LOHMSKI to Box Shekyra," reads a headline on the sport page. Some may think that is the new cross-word puzzle, but it's a prize fight. HE WAS GOING RIGHT ALONG SPORT writers often refer to a young foot racer now in the spotlight who is said to be the fastest human on two feet. Be that as it may, there used to live in this county, 35 years ago, a foot racer who was what is called a real sprinter; and while he was the fastest human on two feet in those days, he would crowd four-footed animals pretty hard. One time (all old-timers remember the incident), down in the peatlands, this young fellow was running down the road, practicing up, when a jackrabbit appeared and started down the highway just ahead of him. Being in a hurry that day, he overtook the rabbit and, kicking it to one side, remarked, "Get out of the way, and let a fellow run who wants to." BUNCH OF FLAT TIRES AUTHORITIES in a city in an adjoining county swooped down down on a show in their town and arrested the actors and actresses in a "drama" which they said was lewd. The promoters of the play said it is "art," and wonder what it is all about. DAZZLING DISPLAY OF BEADS AN ORGANIZATION is said to be making one night stands around the circuit, putting on a performance which is called "Torrid Parent." A lot of the "boys" attended the show in a southern city the other night, and they all had front seats, pretty well up to the footlights. The boys say the show was great, and the repartee was greater, some of the jokes bringing down the house, and it is said almost brought down the police force. BUYING A PIG IN THE POKE DAZZLING DISPLAY OF BEADS AN ORGANIZATION is said to be making one night stands around the circuit, putting on a performance which is called "Torrid Parent." A lot of the "boys" attended the show in a southern city the other night, and they all had front seats, pretty well up to the footlights. The boys say the show was great, and the repartee was greater, some of the jokes bringing down the house, and it is said almost brought down the police force. BUYING A PIG IN THE POKE A WELL-KNOWN movie actress is suing to annul a real estate transaction, in which it appears the household goods formed a part of the deal, and among the bric-a-brac was a washing machine, all of which the lady declares was not up to schedule. When pressed as to her knowledge of the uses to which the soap suds mixer was to be put, she admitted she didn't know a thing about the contraption, as she never took in washing. Now, this lady better be more careful in the future, because some live wire realtor may sell her a ham and egg tree. CHARITY SHOULD BEGIN AT HOME. OWING to recent bombing of homes of prominent persons in an eastern city near the Great Lakes, several senators have been moved to suggest that the marines be recalled from foreign lands and put to work in cleaning out the insurgents that infest some of the old home towns. KEEPING HOME FIRES BURNING IT IS said some movie shows are educational, and no doubt that is true. But yet again there are some that are not. Take, for instance, those screen portrayals of the underworld in the larger cities. Those pictures that show how the gunmen work are deplorable, and the versions of the bootlegger in the higher up places are vicious and demoralizing, especially to the minds of the rising generation. They may move a few sob sisters to tears, when the boy hero is about to walk up the steps to the gallows to pay for his crime. That melodrama stuff may cause weeping, but it is bad for the morale of the younger set. ALL IS NOT GOLD THAT GLITTERS EVERYBODY was pained to learn, the other day, that a well-known film comedian had filed voluntary papers in bankruptcy. We all thought he had made the financial grade. But lo and behold, he says he owes a half million dollars and has only $300 to pay it with. That's funny, but it's no joke.