Various - The Bay State Monthly, Volume 3, No. 1
V >>
Various >> The Bay State Monthly, Volume 3, No. 1
Pages:
1 |
2 | 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10
From that time must be dated the career of Mr. Thompson as a _star_
or leading actor and manager, at first in low comedy, so called, or
eccentric drama, and later, in what he has made a classic New England
drama.
Mr. Thompson is the author of several very pleasing and successful
comedies, but the play JOSHUA WHITCOMB is the best known and most
popular. The leading character is said to have been drawn from Captain
Otis Whitcomb, who died in Swanzey in 1882, at the age of eighty-six. Cy
Prime, who "could have proved it had Bill Jones been alive," died in
that town, a few years since, while Len Holbrook still lives there.
General James Wilson, the veteran, who passed away a short time since,
was well known to the older generation of today. The last scene of the
drama is laid in Swanzey and the scenery is drawn from nature very
artistically. Mr. Thompson is the actor as well as creator of the
leading character in the play. The good old man is drawn from the quiet
and comforts of his rural home to the perplexities of city life in
Boston. There his strong character and good sense offset his simplicity
and ignorance. He acts as a kind of Providence in guiding the lives of
others. To say that the play is pure is not enough--it is ennobling.
The success of the play has been wonderful. Year after year it draws
crowded houses--and it will, long after the genius of Mr. Thompson's
acting becomes a tradition.
Mr. Thompson is a gentleman of wide culture and extensive reading and
information. Not only with the public but with his professional brethren
he is very popular on account of his amiable character. Naturally he is
of a quiet and benevolent disposition, and has the good word of everyone
to whom he is known.
As one of a stock company he never disappointed the manager--as a
manager he never disappointed the public.
In private life he has been very happy in his marital relations, having
married Miss Maria Bolton in July, 1860. Three children--two daughters
and one son, have blessed their union.
A book could well be written on the adventures and incidents that have
attended the presentation of the great play since its inception. Nowhere
is it more popular than in the neighborhood of Mr. Thompsons's summer
home. When a performance is had in Keene the good people of Swanzey
demand a special matinee for their benefit, from which the citizens of
Keene are supposed to be excluded.
In Colorado a Methodist camp-meeting was adjourned and its members
attended the play _en masse_. Such is the charm of the play that it
never loses its attraction.
Mr. Thompson is in the prime of life, about fifty years old. His home is
in New Hampshire; his birthplace was in Pennsylvania. He made his
_debut_ in Massachusetts, and received his professional training in
Canada; he is a citizen of the United States, and is always honored
where genius is recognized.
Like the favorite character, Joshua Whitcomb, in his favorite play, Mr.
Thompson is personally sensitive, kind-hearted, self-sacrificing; he
never speaks ill of any one, delights in doing good, and enjoys hearing
and telling a good story; he is quiet, yet full of fun; generous to a
fault. His company has become much attached to him.
In the village of Swansey is Mr. Thompson's summer home; a beautiful
mansion, surrounded by grounds where art and nature combine to please.
The hospitality of the house is proverbial, but its chief attraction is
its well-stocked library.
* * * * *
NATIONAL BANKS.
THE SURPLUS FUND AND NET PROFITS.
By George H. Wood.
In the elimination of an unusually large amount of dead assets under the
requirements of the National Bank law, previous to extension of the
corporate existence of a bank, the very interesting question is brought
to notice, of what is the proper construction of the law in regard to
reducing and restoring the surplus fund.
Does the law forbid the payment of a dividend by a National Bank when
the effect of such payment will be to reduce the surplus fund of the
bank below an amount equal to one-tenth of its net profits since its
organization as a National Bank; and if so, upon what ground? It does,
and for the following reasons. The power to declare dividends is granted
by section 5199 of the Revised Statutes of the United States in the
following language: "The Directors of any association (National Bank)
may semi-annually declare a dividend of so much of the _net
profits_ of the association as they shall judge expedient; but each
association shall, before the declaration of a dividend, carry one-tenth
of its net profits of the preceding half year to its surplus fund until
the same shall amount to twenty per cent, of its capital stock."
The question at once arises, what are the net profits from which
dividends may be declared, and do they include the surplus fund? It is
held that the net profits are the earnings left on hand after charging
off expenses, taxes and losses, if any, and carrying to surplus fund the
amount required by the law, and that the surplus fund is not to be
considered as net profits available for dividends, for, if it were, the
Directors of a bank could at any time divide the surplus among the
shareholders. It would only be necessary to go through the form of
carrying one-tenth of the net profits to surplus, whereupon, if the
surplus be net profits available for the purpose of a dividend, the
amount so carried can be withdrawn and paid away at once, thereby
defeating the obvious purpose of the law in requiring a portion of each
six month's earnings to be carried to the surplus fund, that purpose
being to provide that a surplus fund equal to twenty per cent, of the
bank's capital shall be accumulated.
The law is to be so construed as to give effect to all its parts, and
any construction that does not do so is manifestly unsound. Therefore a
construction which would render inoperative the requirement for the
accumulation of a surplus fund cannot be correct, and the net profits
available for dividends must be determined by the amount of earnings on
hand other than the surplus fund when that fund does not exceed a sum
equal to one-tenth of the earnings of the bank since its organization.
Having shown what the net profits available for dividends are, the only
other question that can arise is: Can losses and bad debts be charged to
the surplus fund and the other earnings used for paying dividends, or
must all losses and bad debts be first charged against earnings other
than the surplus fund, so far as such earnings will admit of it, and the
surplus, or a portion of it, used only when other earnings shall be
exhausted?
This question is virtually answered above, for if the object of the law
in requiring the creation of a surplus fund may not be defeated by one
means it may not by another; if it may not be defeated by paying away
the amounts carried to surplus in dividends, neither may it be by
charging losses to the surplus and at the same time using the other
earnings for dividends.
Moreover, section 5204 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
provides as follows: "If losses have at any time been sustained by any
such association, equal to or exceeding its undivided profits then on
hand, no dividend shall be made; and no dividend shall ever be made by
any association, while it continues its banking operations, to an amount
greater than its net profits then on hand, deducting therefrom its
losses and bad debts."
This language fixes the extent to which dividends may be made at the
amount of the "net profits" on hand after deducting therefrom losses and
bad debts, and as it has been shown above that the surplus fund cannot
be considered "net profits," available for dividends within the meaning
of the law, it follows that in order to determine the amount of net
earnings available for dividends the losses must first be deducted from
the earnings other than surplus.
It is to be observed also that section 5204 specifies that if losses
have at any time been sustained by a bank equal to or exceeding its
"_undivided_ profits" on hand no dividends shall be made.
Now the surplus fund is not undivided profits, except in so far as it is
earnings not divided among the shareholders. It is made upon a division
of the profits--so much to the stockholders and so much to the surplus
fund. If the law had intended that losses might be charged to surplus
fund in order to leave the other earnings available for dividends it is
to be presumed that care would not have been taken to use the words
"undivided profits," in the connection in which they are used, as stated
above.
Furthermore, if losses may be charged to surplus when at the same time
the other earnings are used for dividends to shareholders, a bank may go
on declaring dividends, and never accumulate any surplus fund whatever
if losses be sustained, as they are in the history of nearly every bank.
A construction of the law which would render inoperative the requirement
for the creation of a surplus cannot be sound; and as the only way to
insure that a surplus shall be accumulated and maintained is to charge
losses against other earnings as far as may be before trenching upon the
surplus; it must be that the law intended that the "undivided profits"
which are not in the surplus fund shall first be used to meet losses.
To a full understanding of the subject it is proper to say that after
using all other earnings on hand at the usual time for declaring a
dividend to meet losses the whole or any part of the surplus may be used
if the losses exceed the amount of the earnings other than surplus, and
then at the end of another six months a dividend may be made if the
earnings will admit of it, one-tenth of the earnings being first carried
to surplus and the re-accumulation of the fund thus begun.
This is because the law has been complied with by charging the losses
against the "undivided profits," as far as they will go, and it is
impossible to do more, or require more to be done, for the
re-establishment of the state of things that existed prior to losses
having been sustained than to do what the law requires shall be done to
originally establish that state of things.
* * * * *
CONCORD, N.H.
* * * * *
IMPRESSIONS D'UN FRANCAIS.
* * * * *
Par le Professeur Emile Pingault.
Quand les Francais, les Francais de France, comme disent leurs cousins
canadiens, parlent de l'Amerique ou pensent a cette reine des
republiques, ils n'ont en vue que les grandes villes. New-York, Boston,
Philadelphie, Chicago, la Nouvelle Orleans etc. ... forment seuls, pour
eux, l'immense continent decouvert par Christophe Colomb.
Je voudrais essayer de reagir contre l'idee generale qu'on a, que la
lumiere, l'intelligence, la prosperite ne se trouvent que dans les
grands centres.
La Providence a voulu que je vinsse etablir ma tente dans une ville qui,
bien qu'etant la capitale du New-Hampshire, parait comme un point
microscopique aupres des villes que j'ai citees plus haut. Eh bien, sans
flatterie aucune, si l'on a pu appeler Boston l'Athene de l'Amerique, je
ne vois pas pourquoi on n'appellerait pas Concord un petit
_Rambouillet_, toute proportion gardee.
Je ne vous dirai pas que Concord est une petite ville situee sur la
Merrimac, de 14,000 a 15,000 habitants, mais ce que je puis vous dire
c'est qu'il faudrait aller bien loin pour trouver une ville plus
intelligente et plus eclairee, je dirais meme plus patriarcale. Tout le
monde s'y connait et s'estime l'un l'autre. Il y a dans cette ville une
emulation pour le bien et pour l'instruction qui ne peut etre surpassee.
Outre les ecoles publiques telles que la Haute Ecole (High School), les
ecoles de grammaire, les ecoles particulieres, on y voit encore des
professeurs de langues modernes, des professeurs de dessin et de
peinture, et parmi ces derniers un jeune artiste qui fera vraiment la
gloire de l'Etat de Granit si la rlasse eclairee sait l'attacher
permanemment a la capitale. La musique a une place privilegiee dans
cette ville, les concerts de l'orchestre Blaisdelle sont suivis comme le
seraient les premieres de Booth et d'Irving. Il y a la plus que du
sentiment, il y a veritablement de l'art, et un enfant de Concord, mort
il y a deux ans, age de vingt ans a peine, etait une preuve manifeste
que l'art est compris ici a un degre superieure.
La litterature est cultivee avec le plus grand soin. Outre trois clubs,
composes chacun d'une quinzaine de membres, qui etudient et admirent
Shakspeare; une dame qui manie la parole comme le grand dramatiste
maniait la pensee donne des conferences sur l'auteur d'_Hamlet_
devant un auditoire aussi intelligent que nombreux.
Cet amour de s'instruire et d'etudier perce jusque dans les enfants les
plus jeunes. Deux _Kindergarten_ sont etablis en cette ville; la,
outre les choses aimables et utiles qu'on enseigne aux petits garcons et
petites filles de cinq a six ans, on leur apprend aussi le francais.
Qu'il est beau de voir ces jeunes intelligences se developper an son de
la belle langue de Bossuet, de Fenelon, de Lamartine et de Victor Hugo.
Vous verrez a Concord un spectacle peut-etre unique dans les Etats-Unis:
une douzaine de petits Americains et Americaines chantant la
_Marsellaise_ et dansant des rondes de Bretagne et de Vendee avec
une voix aussi douce et un accent aussi pur que s'ils etaient nes sur
les bords de la Seine.
Ajoutez a ce tableau bien court et nullement exagere que l'union et la
paix regne entre tous les habitants de la ville, que la police y est
heureuse et fort peu occupee, et vous aurez l'idee de la tranquillite
dont on jouit dans cet endroit privilegie.
J'avouerai franchement, pour finir, que si toutes les villes et villages
ressemblaient a Concord, l'Amerique serait le premier de tous les mondes
connus.
* * * * *
CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY VS. MONROE DOCTRINE.
By George W. Hobbs.
In every conflict of European with American interests on the two
continents, comprising North and South America, our countrymen always
make their appeal to the "Monroe Doctrine" as the supreme, indisputable,
and irrevocable judgment of our national Union. It is said to indicate
the only established idea of foreign policy which has a permanent
influence upon our national administration, whether it be Republican or
Democratic, politically. A President of the United States, justly
appealing to this doctrine, in emergency arouses the heart and courage
of the patriotic citizen, even in the presence of impending war.
In view of this powerful sentiment swaying a great people, as well as
their government, it is not surprising that Congress is often called
upon to apply its principles; and it therefore becomes more and more
important that it should be well understood by _people_, as well as
Congress, in respect to its origin and purpose.
In the message of President Monroe to Congress, at the commencement of
the session of 1823-24, the following passages occur:
"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves,
we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do
so. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that
we resent injuries, or make preparations for defence. With the movements
in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and
by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial
observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially
different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds
from that which exists in their respective governments; and to the
defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood
and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened
citizens, and under which we have enjoyed such unexampled felicity, this
whole nation is devoted.
"We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing
between the United States and those powers to declare--_that we should
consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion
of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the
existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not
interfered and shall not interfere; but with the governments who have
declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we
have on great consideration, and on just principles acknowledged, we
could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or
controlling in any other manner their destiny, in any other light, than
as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United
States_."
"It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political
sytem to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace
and happiness.
"It is equally impossible, that we should behold such interposition in
any form with indifference."
Lest there may be some misapprehension, as to the political
circumstances, which called for the promulgation of this "Monroe
Doctrine," let us for a moment review the events which gave color and
importance to the political environments of that date which elicited
from President Monroe this now famous declaration.
In the year 1822 the allied sovereigns held their Congress at Verona.
The great subject of consideration was the condition of Spain; that
country being then under the Cortes or representatives of the
Revolutionists. The question was, whether or not Ferdinand should be
re-instated in all his authority by the intervention of foreign powers.
Russia, Prussia, France, and Austria, were inclined to that measure;
England dissented and protested, but the course was agreed upon; and
France, with the consent of these other continental powers, took the
conduct of the operation into her own hands. In the spring of 1823, a
French army was sent into Spain. Its success was complete; the popular
government was overthrown, and Ferdinand was re-instated and
re-established in all his power. This invasion was determined on and
undertaken precisely on the doctrines which the allied monarchs had
proclaimed the year before at Laybach; that is, that they had the right
to interfere in the concerns of another State, and reform its
government, "in order to prevent the effect of its bad example" (this
bad example, be it remembered, always being the example of free
government by the people). Now having put down the example of the
Cortes, in Spain, it was natural to inquire, with what eyes they should
look on the Colonies of Spain, that were following still worse examples.
Would King Ferdinand and his allies be content with what had been done
in Spain itself, or would he solicit their aid and would they grant it,
to subdue his rebellious American colonies?
Having "reformed" Spain herself to the true standard of a proud
monarchy, it was more than probable that they might see fit to attempt
the "reformation" and re-organization of the Central and South American
Colonies, which were following the "pernicious example of the United
States," and declaring themselves "free and independent," it being an
historical fact, that as soon as the Spanish King was completely
reestablished he invited the co-operation of his allies in regard to his
provinces in South America, to "assist him to readjust the affairs in
such manner as should retain the sovereignty of Spain over them." The
proposed meeting of the allies for that purpose, however, did not take
place. England had already taken a decided course, and stated
distinctly, and expressly, that "she should consider any foreign
interference by force or by menace, in the dispute between Spain and the
Colonies, as a motive for recognizing the latter without delay."
The sentiment of the liberty-loving people of the American Union was
strongly in favor of the independence of the Colonies, which our
government had already recognized; and it was at this crisis, just as
the attitude of England was made known, that President Monroe's noble
and patriotic declaration was made. Its effect was grand; it disarmed
all organized attempts on the part of Spain and her allies to
re-organize her "rebellious colonies"--now our sister republics in the
western hemisphere--and shook the political systems of the world to
their centres.
"The force of President Monroe's declaration," said Daniel Webster,
"was felt everywhere by all those who could understand its object, and
foresee its effect." Lord Brougham said in Parliament that "no event
had ever created greater joy, exaltation, and gratitude, among all the
freemen in Europe;" that he felt "proud in being connected by blood
and language with the people of the United States;" that "the policy
disclosed by the message became a great, a free, an independent nation."
Daniel Webster again said of it, "I look on the message of December,
1823, as forming a bright page in our history. I will neither help to
erase it nor tear it out; nor shall it be by any act of mine blurred or
blotted. It did honor to the sagacity of the government, and I will not
diminish that honor. It elevated the hopes and gratified the patriotism
of the people over these hopes. I will not bring a mildew, nor will I
put that gratified patriotism to shame."
The effect of this declaration in Europe was all that could have been
desired by the patriotic statesmen who contributed their counsel to its
adoption. The message arrived in England on December 24,
1823--twenty-two days after Mr. Monroe delivered it to Congress. On the
second of January. Mr. Camming, the British Minister of foreign affairs,
told the American Minister that the principles declared in the message,
that the American continents were not to be considered as subject to
future colonization by any of the powers of Europe, greatly embarassed
the instructions he was about to send to the British Ambassador at St.
Petersburg, touching the Northwestern boundary; and that he believed
Great Britain would combat this declaration of the President with
animation.
Its effect upon the then pending negotiations with Russia was so
favorable, that the convention of 1824 was concluded in the Spring of
that year, by the withdrawal on the part of the Emperor of his
pretentious to exclusive trade on the Northwest coast, and by fixing the
parallel of 54" 40' as the line between the permissible establishments
of the respective countries.
This in brief is the history of the celebrated "Monroe Doctrine." It has
never been affirmatively adopted by Congress, by any recorded vote, as
the fixed and unalterable policy of this Republic; but its patriotic
sentiment is so deeply bedded in the hearts of the American people of
every political opinion, that Congress ought not and dare not ignore it.
But did not the United States Senate, when it ratified the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in 1850, practically ignore the "Monroe Doctrine"
and open the door for future trouble? Let us examine this treaty, which,
in the light of present Congressional action, has become an important
element in American politics, and see if it is not antagonistic to the
American policy, and more than the _bete noir_ of partizan dreams.
In order for a complete understanding of the terms, and bearing of this
treaty, I deem it important to give a full synopsis, rather than a brief
reference to its salient points:
THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.
"A convention between the United States of America and her Britannic
Majesty.
PREAMBLE.
"The United States and her Britannic Majesty, being desirous of
consolidating the relations of amity, which so happily subsist between
them, by setting forth and fixing in a convention their views and
intentions with reference to any means of communication by ship canal,
which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, by way
of the river San Juan de Nicaragua and either or both the lakes of
Nicaragua or Manaqua, to any port or place on the Pacific ocean, the
President of the United States has conferred full powers on John M.
Clayton, Secretary of State of the United States, and her Britannic
Majesty on the Right Honorable Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, a member of her
Majesty's most honorable Privy Council, Knight Commander of the most
honorable order of Bath, and Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary of her Britannic Majesty to the United States for the
aforesaid purpose; and the said plenipotentiaries, having exchanged
their full powers, which were found to be in proper form, have agreed to
the following articles, _viz_:
Article 1. The governments of the United States and Great Britain hereby
declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain, or maintain
for itself, any exclusive control over the said ship canal; agreeing
that neither will ever erect or maintain, any fortifications commanding
the same, or in the vicinity thereof: or occupy, or fortify, or
colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America. Nor will either make
use of any protection which either affords, or may afford, or any
alliance which either has or may have, to or with, any state or people
for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the
Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming, or
exercising dominion over the same; nor will the United States or Great
Britain take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection,
or influence, that either may possess, with any state or government,
through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of
acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or
subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to commerce, or
navigation through the said canal, which shall not be offered on the
same terms to the citizens or subjects of the other.
Pages:
1 |
2 | 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10