■iii
'‘-yrrn
What with New York swarming
with diplomatic celebrities there is
growing public interest in the dip
lomatic immunity they enjoy, why,
how-come, and is there any limit
to it?
Defined broadly, diplomatic im
munity can be described as the
freedom from local jurisdiction ac
corded under international law to
foreign officials. And, more than
once, it has been invoked by a for
eign diplomat to protect himself
from the consequences of acts
which if committed by ordinary
citizens would have brought penal
actions.
Yet diplomatic immunity is a
basic United States doctrine, rec
ognized and applied since the na
tion’s independence; is' enforce
able in United States courts; and
fhe Congress has enacted specific
domestic legislation recognizing
it.
At the same time, however, dip
lomatic immunity does not relieve
a person from the obligation to re
spect American laws. But the ac
tion taken against a diplomat who
has performed acts eqdangering
the safety of the community or the
nation is not to haul him into
court but to demand his recall by
his own government.
The State Department recently
made a study of the history of the
concept of diplomatic immunity,
a study that disclosed it dated
back to the usages and customs of
the earliest-peoples , of -whom we
have written record. William
Barnes of its historical office dug
up these facts; ,
Even among primitive tribes and
peoples it became necessary in
communicating and negotiating
with each other, to give certain
immunities and protection to each
other’s messengers or envoys.
The Kings of the Hittites, Baby
lonians, Assyrians, Hebrews, and
Egyptians sent and received en
voys, granting them protection and
immunity. For example, in 1272
B.C., the Hittite King Khetasar
sent messengers to Rameses n of
Egypt to propose peace and a trea
ty of alliance. They were granted
immunity despite an existing state
of war,
The ancient history of China and
India records that envoys from
neighboring peoples were not re
garded as subject to local juris
diction.
The Bible refers to this subject
of diplomatic immunity, and one
particular message in the second
book of Samuel describes the sharp
retaliatory measures followed for
violation of an envoy’s immunity.
Chapters 10 and 11 tell how the
entire race of Ammonites perished
at the hands of David, King of Is-
real, because they treated his mes
sengers offensively.
The inviolability of envoys was
necessary to the carrying on of
negotiations. They were not sub
ject to local jurisdiction even when
they committed an offense in the
state they were visiting. Thus The
bes declared war on Hiessaly be
cause its ambassadors had been
arrested and imprisoned, even
though there was evidence that the
-Theben envoys had conspired
against the Thessalian government.
The Romans accepted the prac
tice of the Greeks as regards dip
lomatic immunity, putting, it in
their codes of law, and Cicero de
fended it thus: “The inviolability
of ambassadors is protected both
by divine and human law; they are
sacred and respected so as to be
inviolable not only when in allied
country but also whenever they
happen to be in forces of the ene
my.’’
The NEW BERN
Hr. & Jlrs.A. M. !furphy
3000 Arcndc.ll St.
Korchc-d City, N. C.
ED WEEKLY
m I HE HEART OP
EASTERN NORTH
CAROLINA
5 Per Copy
■%
VOLUME 3
NEW BERN, N. C., FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1960
NUMBER 32
WHOOPBEHTDPTOO^Although Nw Bern
varsity cheerleaders get a better chance to bask in the lime
light, the Junior varsity cheerleaders have earned glory
also during the exciting gridiron season concluding Friday
night. Shown here, left to right, are Kay Vereen, Carol
GenIXT, Sharon Smith, Louise ;^itty, Peggy Pate, Carol
Bagan, Eleanor Dixon, Assistant Head Cheerleader Nancy
Ward, and in the foreground. Head Cheerleader Connie
Toler.—^Photo by John R. Baxter.
Courage is rightly esteemed the
first of human qualities because it
is the quality which guarantees all
others.—^Winston Churchill. .
New Bernians Can Do Worse
Than Cater To Tourist Trade
Historic New Bern—growing in
creasingly tourist-conscious has
good reason to be interested in
facts and figures that deal with
feliow mortals on the move.
Visitors to North Caroling form
quite a portion of the nation’s
travel traffic. In 1959, Americans
took 247 million person-trips. A
trip, as defined by the Bureau of
the Census in its 1959 Travel Sur
vey, involves one person being out
of town at least overnight or tak
ing a one-day round trip to a place
that is at least 100 thiles one way
away from home. These trips cov
ered 1,^78 million travel days
away from home, or an average
stay of 5.6 days per trip. The ex
penditures for travel amounted to
$23 billion.
The National Travel Survey
showed that in 1959, the destina
tion of 55 per cent of the trips was
in the state of residence, which ac
counted for 41 per cent of the trip-
days. One-fourth of the trips were
to adjacent states, where 23 per
cent of the trip-days were spent.
One-fifth were to destinations be
yond adjacent states, which con
sumed 36 per cent of the travel
days. About 2 per cent of the trips
were to foreign countries, which
consupied 4 per cent of the travel
days. Then, ^ per cent of the trips
were, interstate, and 55 per cent of
the travel days were spent on
these trips.
The major interstate trips aver
age about 9 days and cover 8
states, according to data collected
in highway travel surveys. For the
entire trip, the average expendi
ture is $164 per party, but only 13
per cent of the money is spent in
any one state. North Carolina re
ceives approximately 3 per cent of
the nation’s interstate travel vol
ume, 2 per cent of the travel-days,
and 1.72 per cent of the nation’s
travel expenditures.
Visitors to North Carolina are
typical of American travelers, ex
cept that they spend less in the
state. Thus, the North - Carolina
Highway Department found in its
survey of visitors to the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park
that the typical party was on a
complete trip of 6.70 days, travel
ing 1,260 miles, and spent $152
per party.
Like travelers to other states.
North Carolina visitors are quite
transient. Half of the nut-of-state
visitors pass through the state or
return home the same day. Thus,
50 per cent of the travelers re
quire no overnight accommoda
tions. About one-fourth stay with
friends and relatives.
Nationwide, 43 per cent of trip-
days are for purpose of visiting
friends and. relatives. En route, 30
per cent of travel parties stay with
friends and relatives, and at the
destination the percentage is 48.
When it is recalled that more
than one-fourth of the persons
born in North Carolina are living
elsewhere, a high ratio of family
visitation is to be expected. Some
travelers, about 5 per cent, pro
vide their own overnight accom
modations in' owned cabins, trail
ers or camping.
Only one-fifth of the parties re
quire some' type of commercial
sleeping accommodations for over
night stops, a two- or three-day
stopover, or for a vacation stay.
'The average visitors stay in
North Carolina is one night and
somewhat. less than two days.
Those who do stop overnight will
spend about 2.6 days. The common
conception, of a 5-day stay refers
to a small percentage of vacation
parties.
Summer travelers interviewed in
the 1956 Great Smokey Mountains
National Park Travel Study report
ed stays of 2.29 days in the vicinity
of the Park. Pleasiure parties re
quiring overnight lodging kept
their rooms for an average of 1.69
days.
The average size of all travel
parties is about 2 persons. Auto
mobile parties carry an average of
2.29 persons, but parties going by
common carrier are much smaller,
about 1.4 persons. For business
parties the average is 1.3 persons,
and for nonbusiness, 2.5 persons.
Summer travel parties have an
average of 3 persons. The average
of 3.43 reported for the Great
Smoky National Park is not typical
for the size of across-the-state trav
el parties. The Smoky visitors were
predominantly summer pleasure
visitors. Weekend family parties
and special groups inflate the av
erage for park visitation.
The average expenditure in
North Carolina is estimated to be
$22 per travel party, and $5.50 per
person per day. The average per
person is $11. Great Smoky Nation
al Park visitors in 1956 reported
an average of $10.66. The average
tour in North Carolina is 200
miles, with an expenditure of 11
cents per mile.
Travel spending is heavier at
points of origin and destination
than in between. Thus, travelers
to the Great Smoky Mountains Na
tional Park reported an average
expenditure of $6.70 per person
per day on the complete trip from
home and return, which is almost
exactly the national average of
$6.76 for highway surveys.
But they sp«nt only $4.66 per
day in the vicnity of the park.
Again this agrees with the average
of $4.38 for expenditures in par
ticular states whose travelers were
survejfed on the highways.
There are still those in New
Bern who belittle the part played
in our local economy by the tour
ist dollar, but its importance and
potential can hardly be denied.
And the more we learn about the
traveling public’s whims, needs
and desires, the better chance wp
have to get our share of the vari
amounts spent by folks who get
their fun out of getting around.
-.’i
1
\
Damage to Tobacco
Ih Storage Slight
Damage to tobacco during the
storage period due to insects has
been very slight on Carolina favms
this year, according to William S.
Lamm, of the N. C. Extension serv
ice.
However, this insect—^the tobac
co moth—is always a threat and
now is the time to start a control
program. A good clean-up job in
and around the barn will help
eradicate this pest. All tobacco-
trash and refuse should be remov*
ed and destroyed, warns Mr.
Lamm.