E 713 
 
 .081 
 Copy 1 
 
 Democracy and Imperialism 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 by the 
 
 Hon.Thomas Mott Osborne 
 
 delivered at the 
 
 Tenth Annual Meeting 
 
 of 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 
 BOSTON 
 
 November 30, 190S 
 
 Press of the Cambridge Chronicle 
 Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 y 
 
\ 
 
Democracy and Imperialism 
 ADDRESS 
 
 by the 
 
 Hon Thomas Mott Osborne 
 
 delivered at the 
 Tenth Annual Meeting 
 
 o( 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 
 BOSTON 
 
 November 30, 1908 
 
 FreS"! of the Cambridge Chronicle 
 Cambridge, Mass. 
 
Li 1 3 
 . O §1 
 
 Gift 
 
Democracy and Imperialism 
 
 On Ncivfuibcr l-Uh there appeared the following letter in 
 the Springtield ]\opublican: 
 
 To the Editor of the Kepublioan: — 
 
 AVith the crushing defeat of Bryan at the 
 late election, did it not incorporate, also, an 
 equal defeat to anti-imperialism^ Sui-ely 
 there is nothing in evidence exhibiting a 
 shadow of strength in the opposition of anti- 
 imperialists to Taft. Their feeble influence 
 hci-ctoforc seems to have ebbed toward that 
 obli^^on "whence no traveler ever re- 
 tuiTied."' It is well their mission has ended, 
 and their un-Americanism has become 
 nothingness. Many schemes of disturbance 
 have appeared and disappeared at many 
 periods in the past — anti-imperialism has 
 had its black blot in the history of our 
 country, and lies dead in the graveyard of 
 dead isms and issues — dead, without leaving 
 a mark of influence. 
 
 L. B. Merriam. 
 Springfield, NoA^ember 13, 1908. 
 
 The logic of this interesting epistle is no less curious than 
 its literary composition. It is, of course, open to anyone to 
 draw whatever conclusions he likes from the late election; and 
 it has long been n favorite game with politicians to read into 
 election returns anything whatever that seems to favor their 
 own particular interests; but it would puzzle the average per- 
 son to discover any particular defeat of anti-imperialism that 
 has occurred this year. So far as the ordinary observer can 
 see, no issue of the kind was made in the providential cam- 
 paign; — and perhaps some of us think that ^Mt. Br^'an made a 
 ferious mistake thereby, and that ho would have been far 
 stronger before the country if ho had not to all appearances 
 lost interest in the subject upon which he once made a very 
 great speech — perhaps the finest he ever delivered, — that at 
 
liidiaiiapulis in I'JUU. But whether or uot thLs last thing- be 
 I rue, it is certainly transparently obvious that uot in this last 
 campaign, nor ever in any campaign, have the people of the 
 L'nited States been able fairly to express their judgment on 
 the subject of imperialism, in 1900, while it was made a 
 matter of debate, this question was so compiii-ated with the free 
 silver issue, and that of ^Ir. Bryan's personality, that there 
 could be tio genuine expression of judgment upon it. In 1904: 
 the subject was ignored; as it was again in 1908. How anti- 
 imperialism can bo defeated, when it has never been an issue, 
 we must leave !Mr. Merriam to explain. 
 
 The truth is, of course, that it is impossible to defeat a moral 
 issue. Through stupidity or self-interest we may for a time 
 fail to grasp the ethical principles involved; through the faith- 
 lessness or indifference of its temporary guardians the affirma- 
 tive side may suffer eclipse for the moment, or may even be 
 defeated in one form only to reappear in another; but if the 
 issue be a genuine moral one — if the affirmative side be founded 
 on the everlasting foundations of righteousness, you can no 
 more kill it than you can kill the mathematical truth that two 
 and two make lour. 
 
 Consider how many times in our history the anti-slavery issue 
 was declared killed. Time and time again, as compromise after 
 compromise was brought about, — as one victory of the slavery 
 interest and its northern allies succeeded another, that great 
 moral issue was buried with considerable pomp and circimi- 
 t^^tance, and its funeral oration preached in market-place and 
 senate amid great public rejoicings. Yet, even before these 
 proceedings were well imder Avay, there again arose the issue, 
 still alive and troublesome, clamoring indeed for death (for 
 «ucli issues do not willingly live — it is only the folly of man 
 that prolongs their lives), but seeking the only dissolution 
 })ossible- that brouiilit about hy ixildly facing the trtith and 
 doing tlie right. 
 
 Ami lMif)prialism, therefore, is still with us. we cannot get 
 rid iif it; it will ri-maiu with us — cannot indeed be separated 
 from us -until those in whose power it lies shall deliver U3 
 fioiii the l)(»(ly of this death. 
 
 'ilie more one reHect> upon the true character and mission of 
 the United Stales of .\nieiica, the more clear the folly and 
 pervpi-sity of our imperialist experiment becomes; and the 
 more wrelche<lly .-u])erlicial setMUS the reasoning by which it is 
 defended, l.et us consider the question; taking the Philip- 
 piiicj fur oiir te.xt. 
 
The main facts arc simple enough: In the course of the con- 
 test with Spain, growing out of her colonial troubles in Cuba, 
 our ships of war destroyed the Spanish fleet in the harbor of 
 ^Innila, tlni> bringing to an end the tottering Spanisli power in 
 the J'hilippincs, and proving for the hundredth time that in war 
 outlying colonies are a source of great weakness. 
 
 The Filipinos, like the Cubans, had long been restless and 
 discontented under Spanish misrule. Something in the nature 
 of a native government (just how much is disputed) had grown 
 up as Spain's hold on the Islands had relaxed. When the time 
 came to make a treaty of peace between the United States and 
 Spain, instead of recognizing the rights of the Filipinos to be 
 free, as we did in the case of the inhabitants of Cuba, we 
 bought the Islands of Spain for $20,000,000, thus paying, as 
 was estimated at the time, about fifty cents apiece for the in- 
 habitants. AVe assumed possession of the Islands and have held 
 them e^er since by force of arms. 
 
 But the treaty under which the United States assumed 
 ownership of the Philippines was not confinned without opposi- 
 tion; it was bitterly opposed by representatives of both parties; 
 and only by the exertion of all the pressure of the govern- 
 ment did the tre*aty pass the senate by just the required 
 number of votes. A sliift of one vote would have prevented 
 our embarking on this venture of imperialism; and since that 
 time, as has been stated, the country has never had a fair 
 chance to pass its verdict upon the policy which was then forced 
 upon it. 
 
 We Anti-Imperialists make the broiad assertion that this 
 countni', being as it is a democracy, has no business to own 
 subject colonies. AVhat are the arguments which we meet? 
 
 Fii-st: That the battle of ^Manila created a situation from 
 which we could not afterAvards escape. That we do not want 
 the Islands, but cannot lot them go. 
 
 !N'ever mind whether the details used to bolster up this 
 argniment l>e correct or not; whether or not the Filipinos fired 
 first on our soldiers on .some important occasion; whether 
 Agninaldo was a patriot or a mere disturber; is it broadly true 
 that there ever was or could be a situation in which we were 
 powerless to set the Islands free? The question is almost too 
 sillv to be answered with a straiaht face. 
 
 Suppose you live on a lonely farm in the suburb?, and a gang 
 of toughs come and take possession of it; feast on your pro- 
 vision':, and make free with your hard-earned property; and 
 fuppose some day a squad of policemen makes its appearance 
 8^-id driA-es awav the niflians; what would your feelings be if 
 
the polieeineii should in turn proceed to settle themselves as 
 possessors of the property, alleging that they couldn't go away 
 because a situation had beeu created that made it necessary for 
 them tu continue in possession? 
 
 In the midst of our Kevolutionary struggle with Great 
 Britain, France came to our assistance. Suppose after the 
 Battle of Yorktown, DeGrasse, Kochambeau and Lafayette had 
 landed enough men to cow our ancestors into submission; and 
 then, thrusting Washington aside, had cooly assumed sover- 
 eignty, alleging that a situation had been created that made it 
 necessary to continue in possession. As a matter of fact, did 
 France find any difficulty whatever in handling the situation in 
 17S1, according to the dictates of decency and hunor? Why 
 should we have found it so difficult in 1898? 
 
 Had we so desired, there was absolutely nothing to prevent 
 our leaving the Islands to themselves — to the people to whom 
 they belonged. There is no inherent difficulty today. The 
 difficulties which have been used as a reason are those which 
 we ourselves created; and nothing is easier than to create an 
 obstacle as an excuse for following our own inclination. Let 
 us be frank: We are keeping the Islands not because we can- 
 not come away, but because we either do not want to come 
 away, or think, for some reason, we ought not to do so. The 
 former would arise from motives of self-interest; the latter 
 from a sense of obligation to the Filipinos. 
 
 'i'liis brings us to the second argument: We must continue 
 our Philippines adventure for the sake of what wc can get out 
 of it. 
 
 'I'liere was a time when it was recognized that mere acreage 
 iiiaiic the greatness of ;i nation: Tliat to be big was to be 
 .-trong and mighty. Japan's victory over Russia ought to dispel 
 that time-worn fallacy for at least the present generation, and 
 it would not today be complimentary to a man's reasoning 
 power to charge him with holding such an opinion; but the 
 iiias? of tlie jK'oplc never sui-rcnders ]n'econcoived opinions 
 merely because they iiiv<il\(' l»iid logic. Such fallacies die 
 slowly; and there is such an ii])peal to the imagination in vast 
 stretches of the same color upon the map of the world, that the 
 idea fastens itself upon us every time we endeavor to shake it 
 off. But surely we have got beyond the necessity of treating 
 such an idea as a serious argimient with intelligent people. 
 In extent, tlie Philippines add nothing to our dignity as a 
 nation; in case of war they would be a weakness as they were 
 to Spain; they have no common ground with us of race, 
 language, religious or political ideals. As an addition to our 
 
tenitury they are a pure incumbrance. 
 
 But there ai'fe those who would keep the Islands because of 
 their wealth; because it would be an advantage to us to 
 "develop" theiu. Jveduced to it^ simplest tenns, this is the 
 argument of the slave-driver who worked his "nigor" for the 
 benefit of his own pocket. International morality doeo not exist 
 for such people. Deaf to the teachings uf histoi-y, they tliink 
 only o£ the possibility of personal pecuuian' advantage. The 
 one and only bit of ethical advice which they imderetand or 
 esteem is that of lago: "Put money in thy pui-se!" 
 
 Yet nothing is more certain than the ultimate failure of all 
 schemes to work colonies for the financial benefit of the mother- 
 countiy; or dependencies for the advantage of the master- 
 nation. Individuals may grow fat with plunder, but, as a whole, 
 neither country nor colony thrives. 
 
 Englnnd has, first and last, lavished large sums upon India — 
 not counting the valuable lives she has sacrificed; it has been 
 manifestly a losing game for her. Nor has the burden of im- 
 perialism fallen alone upon England, for there seems to be little 
 if any doubt that in India itself the average wealth of the 
 inhabitants has seriously decreased since careful statistics began 
 to be taken ; and that the people are steadily getting po(|i'er and 
 poorer. 
 
 Where selfishness rules, the situation is far worse; the 
 greater the amount of wealth to be exploited and the easier it 
 is to be gained, the worse for both countries. Look at the 
 commanding position of Spain in the sixteenth century and 
 her rapid decadence. Students of history agree that the chief 
 cause thereof was the riches poured into her lap from the 
 Xew "World. If the love of money is the root of all evil, it ^» 
 unearned wealth that is the Devil's favorite and most dangerous 
 play-thing. If we are to keep the Philippines, it is greatly to 
 be hoped that the riches of the Islands remain hard for us to 
 get, and small in amount: and if it continues to be a serious 
 losing venture in a commercial sense — so much the better! We 
 may the sooner behold the light! 
 
 To keep the Islands for the mere sake of increasing our 
 territory is silly; to keep them for the purpose of robbing them 
 of their wealth is wicked. There remains, however, one other^ 
 consideration along this line; for there is wealth in the Philip- 
 pines which may be secured without robbery, — the wealth that 
 comes from honest, legitimate trade. 
 
 If there were time, this point would be worthy of develop- 
 ment at length; but I must simply point out that the wealth of 
 commerce — the honest wealth that comes to both sides through 
 
the natural exchange of commodities — can be just as well, and 
 indeed far better, carried on between friends as between 
 master and subject. When Massachusetts was an unwilling de- 
 pendency of England, she refused to trade with the mother- 
 country; when the United States was at war with England in 
 1814, Massachusetts almost severed the union rather than give 
 up her trade with the old enemy. You cannot gain or secure 
 the blessings of trade by issuing orders to dependencies, or even 
 by treaties; for trade is done between individuals for the 
 benefit of themselves as individuals; and you cannot force in- 
 dividuals to trade where they do not wish to. Trade requires a 
 Ftate of mind, and it will be far better between the United 
 States and the Philippines if the latter are set free, than if they 
 »re unwillingly held; especially if our absurd tariff wall were 
 broken down so as to allow of natural and free interchange of 
 commodities. At present we hold fast the Islands and erect a 
 barrier to obstruct trade; could anything be more hopelessly 
 futile and ridiculous as a business proposition? 
 
 Xext we come to the arguments based upon nobler grounds 
 — the welfare of the Filipinos; and the point is urged that we 
 must maintain our rule over the Islands because the inhabitants 
 are unable to uphold a government of their own. If we should 
 withdraw, anarchy would ensue. 
 
 The first answer to this argument is that we have no right to 
 as&ume anything of the kind; the second is that even anarchy 
 is to be preferred to tyranny. I confess my own conception of 
 the principles of democracy is such that, if the people of any 
 land prefer anarchy to any form of established government, I 
 say, by all means let them have it; perhaps it is a stage in their 
 evolution which is necessary — just as children have to pass 
 through a period of teething — whether or no. 
 
 Moreover, let us not forget that what may appear anarchy to 
 prople across the ocean may not seem the thing at all at close 
 quarters. During our Civil War, Europe saw the great Ameri- 
 can Republic involved in hopeless anarchy and confusion — 
 apparently going down in ruins; and it was seriously proposed 
 to intorforo and stop such unscomly breach of the world's peace. 
 Yet we know now, and the wisest knew at the time, that that 
 preat conflict was necessary to preserve the Union; that it was 
 not anarchy that was going on, but the relaying of the founda- 
 tions of democracy. 
 
 So tlie nnnrchy argument fails, whetlier looked at from the 
 historical or the ethical point of view. As an historical fact, 
 what we mean by anarchy in such a case — serious social con- 
 fnfion — ha^i been again and again the outward evidence of deep- 
 
seated movcDicnts, which result in the foriiiuhuioii of some 
 system of government best fitted for the time and circum- 
 stances. IS^ever yet in the world's history has one nation been 
 ultimately successful in forcing upon another its own civiliza- 
 tion and ideals in order to prevent anarchy. We can warp, 
 distort or destroy a tree, or we can assist in creating favorable 
 conditions for its growth and development, hvt we cunnot 
 make it grow. The principle of life is in the tree — and in the 
 free elements about it — in the sunshine and the air; we can 
 only assist the processes of nature, we cannot substitute our 
 own. 
 
 The Philippines arc entitled to their own form of develop- 
 ment, — be it apparent anarchy or manifest progress; Japan 
 has shown what freedom from outside interference can do when 
 a nation has within itself the germ of spontaneous and rapid 
 growth. Perhaps the Filipino has the same God-like faculty. 
 Let us beware how we assume that he has it not; and warp, 
 distort or destroy the purposes of God. 
 
 ISText we arc told that we must hold the Islands to prevent 
 their being seized upon by some other power — Great Britain, 
 Germany or Japan. 
 
 This argument is no less flimsy than the last. One might 
 begin by hazarding the suggestion that if it is a question of the 
 Filipinos being held in subjection by some one, perhaps the 
 inhabitants might prefer to choose their own guardian; possibly 
 they would gain by the rule of Japan or Great Britain rather 
 than "benevolent assimilation" by the United States. Whj 
 should we assume that our own particular rule is so necessary 
 to the Philippines? Has it not borne bitter fruit already? Hai 
 it escaped violence and blood-shed? Does it satisfy the people 
 of the Islands? Have we been so successful in perfecting the 
 details of our own form of government that we are justified in 
 deciding upon those for other people? And if these questions 
 are all answered satisfactorily, there still remains the fact that 
 nothing could be simpler than to take the Philippines imdcr our 
 protection and say to every nation in the world: "Hands off!" 
 It would be as easy to protect the Islands in the character of a 
 generous and unselfish friend as in that of an imperious over- 
 lord, and perhaps easier. Our attitude toward Cuba convicta 
 us of ridiculous inconsistency out of hand.* 
 
 *The "neutralization" of the Philippines is, of course, 
 to be preferi-od to any protectorate; a guarantee by all the 
 powers that the Islands will be let alone; — allowed to develop 
 naturally, a? Japan has developed. 
 
Xext comes the argument that it is our duty to civilize aud 
 educate the iuhabitants of the Islands, with or without the im- 
 plied admission that they are to be set free some time or other. 
 
 If true civilization, if the true education of a people con- 
 sists in material things, in good roads, fine bridges, uniformed 
 police, all those wonderful evidences of administrative 
 efticiency, such as are to be seen in India, for example, then I 
 grant that it can probably be produced in the Philippines 
 under our rule much quicker than by home rule, A veneer 
 of civilization under imperialism is comparatively easy to pro- 
 duce,- — and there are no sights more impressive or supei-ficially 
 alluring than the relics of Roman imperialism of old, or of 
 Britisli imperialism of today; but was not that the very kind 
 of civilization which our ancestors spurned, when they threw 
 away the comforts and refinements of English soverei^ty? 
 Education of a sort can be forced wherever you have the 
 power — there are no places in the world so offensively and 
 tragically clean as your prisons; but is that a kind of education 
 we demand for our own children? or would accept even at 
 the point of the bayonet? 
 
 "What business have we to go to the other side of the globe, 
 to a land where, by accident, we have the power, and say: 
 "These <ire our ideas of what is good for you ; and we propose to 
 civilize and educate you according to these ideas? It makes no 
 difFerence what you want or don't want, what you like or dis- 
 like, we propose to decide for you. You must submit; 
 because we are stronger than you and can beat you, and if 
 necessary, will beat you into submission.'* 
 
 England has been trying this sort of thing in India for over 
 a hundred years; and doing it much better (for reasons to be 
 mentioned later) than we can ever hope to do it. Is it a 
 success? (Jf-rtainly wonderful administrative efficiency has 
 been shown there; as a great London paper has recently said, 
 and said truly: 
 
 "Wf have made life and property secure; we have 
 administered j\istice to all men; we have spread the benefits 
 of education far and wide; we liave allowed freedom of speech 
 and freedom of the press; we have respected religion and re- 
 ligious prejudice with care; we have upheld a standard of 
 ftcru])ulous purity and honesty in public nfTairs; we have thrown 
 open to the utmost possible extent the service of India to the 
 Indians; we have run tlie road and bridged the river: above 
 all. perliaps, wp have made men of million? of down-trodden 
 
serfs; we have been the immediate cause that the native of 
 India has come to respect himself.'' 
 
 All this have Englishmen done for India, and what is the 
 result? Are they beloved by the people of India? Is the 
 English rule accepted with gratitude for all its splendid un- 
 selfish work — for all the human lives and treasure expended 
 upon it? Eead your newspapers. India is seething with discon 
 tent; the Viceroy has recently had to abandon his trip of in- 
 spection and has returned under a heavy guard to Calcutta; in 
 the diffei-ent provinces bombs are being hurled at the chief 
 officials, and murders are becoming alarmingly frequent; 
 native newspapers are being suspended and suppressed. On all 
 sides it is agreed that never since the Great Mutiny has the 
 situation been so serious. Yet — irony of fate! — the Secretary 
 of State for India, in the British Cabinet, is John Morley ! 
 
 Listen again to the Simla correspondent of the Daily 
 Telegraph : 
 
 "How comes it, many will say, that with an administration 
 framed upon such excellent lines, there is the opportimity for 
 even malevolent criticism to obtain such publicity in the penin- 
 sula. To this there is one sufficient answer, '^o government 
 has ever saved itself merely by its own virtue and probity. 
 Alexander the Just met the same fate as Heliogabulus, his pre- 
 decessor, and Maximin, his successor; and the very liberality 
 with which we have pei-mitted the free publication and dis- 
 cussion of political heresies has encouraged a thousand to 
 preach disobedience where, under the sterner code of Rome, 
 even one m.ight have hesitated to betray his secret aspirations. 
 The truest commentary upon our policy in India was written a 
 hundred years ago by the only European to whom it has ever 
 been given to understand the inmost soul of the native of India. 
 W.hat is, and must remain for us, a sealed book, so far as many 
 of its chapters are concerned, was read by the Abbe EKiboia 
 from cover to cover, and his final estimate of the necessary rela- 
 tions between the English and the Indian is as true today aa 
 when it was written. Of that estimate the kernel is contained 
 in the following sentence: 'Under the supremacy of the 
 Brahmins the people of India hated their government, while 
 they cherished and respected their rulers; under the supremacy 
 of Europeans they hate and despise their rulers from the bottom 
 of their hearts, while they cherish and respect their government. 
 *****-!? I venture to predict that the British will 
 attempt in vain to effect any very considerable changes in the 
 social condition nf the people of India. To make a people 
 happy it is essential that they themselves should desire to be 
 
made happy, and should «o-operate with thuse who are working 
 for their happiness. Xow the people of India, as it appears to 
 me, ncitlier possess this desire nor are anxious to co-operate to 
 this end. Every reform wliicli is obviously devised for their 
 well-beinp they obstinately push aside, if it is likely in the 
 least dejjree to disturb their manner of living, their most absurd 
 prejudice, or their most puerile custom.' 
 
 "Jf this is as true today as it was a hundred years ago — and 
 it unquestionably is — w'e need not look far for the causes of 
 any unrest that may exist today. If the inability of the Hindoo 
 to appreciate cither the pei-sonality or the labors of those who, 
 well or ill, administer India is as pronounced as ever, we who, 
 to the best of our ability, have instilled in him the principles of 
 patriotism, citizenship, and co-operation, and have, moreover, 
 made him articulate, need take small blame to ourselves if our 
 work still meets with little appreciation among those for whose 
 Bole benefit it is designed." 
 
 Oh I the blindness of men! Can you not see, you English, 
 the key to this wonderful secret — the explanation of this great 
 mystery — of this ''inability of the Hindoo to appreciate" all 
 your wonderful and unselfish devotion. Search your ow'n 
 hearts; and if you find not the answer there, turn to the pages 
 of John ^forloy's Life of Gladstone, and there read those golden 
 words of the great statesman who labored to give justice to 
 Ireland: " Jt is Liberty alone that fits men for Liberty." 
 
 ''What profiteth it a man if he gain the whole world, and 
 lose his own soul?" You have given to the people of India 
 all the material benefits — security of life and property, justice 
 and education, freedom of speech and religion, honest adminis- 
 tration, roads and bridges; — you have given him everything 
 that can be asked of a government, have you not? All? Yes, 
 everything; — except one thing ^ except that which is worth a 
 thousand times more than all these put together, that without 
 which all these are as nothing, the one vital thing that makes 
 the difference between the slave and the man — EKKEDOM. 
 
 T'an we do more for the Philippines than Great Britain has 
 done for India? No; — and yes. We cannot hope to excel her 
 in excellent :i(lmiiiistration; foi- we arc n democracy, while 
 England is an imperial aristocracy, but at the end of a term of 
 yr»ars wo may perhaps bring about something approaehing the 
 efficiency and excellence of the Indian government, and with 
 the same mournful result— a discontented population on the 
 Terjre of a violent outbreak against its unselfish and well- 
 mraninp oppressors. 
 
 But we can, if we ehoosc, do more,- niu'^h more for the 
 
I'iiilijjpines than England has iluin.- I'ui- India; we can make our- 
 aelf their loyal and devoted friend; opening our ports to 
 reciprocal trade; oll'ering- every help in our power toward 
 high ideals and high accomplishment; and giving that most 
 efficient help possible — the setting of a great example. 
 The way to th this, is to withdraw our army and establish 
 independence; and the time to do it is not a century 
 hence, nor a generation hence, not ten years nor five, but 
 now, stralc/hiway, the nooner the better. Every moment 
 of delay is fraught with injustice to the Philippines and danger 
 to oui*selves. 
 
 These are all the arguments that I have ever heard for keep- 
 'mg the Philippines; and I have tried to show them as I be- 
 lieve them to be, one and all in their essence weak and futile. 
 But suppose for a moment they were valid, suppose that the 
 Philippines can not take care of themselves, and that the Islands 
 would be grabbed by some nation suffering from world-hunger; 
 suppose our departure would result in such disorder that the 
 woi-st of fates, that of the Kilkenny cats, would befall the Fili- 
 pinos; suppose we grant that without our help the Islands will 
 never be civilized or educated; suppose that untold wealth is 
 cus if we keep them; suppose any and all of these, what then? 
 It would still be our solemn duty to withdraw; for it still re- 
 mains true what was said by Bishop Potter, I think, *'The real 
 question is not what shall we do with the Philippines, but what 
 will the Philippines do with us^" It is the danger to ourselves 
 tliat is of most importance to us and to the world. 
 
 This coiiutry is a democracy; — a fact that is not unfamiliar 
 to most of us; but liow many there are who fail to appreciate 
 the personal responsibilities that follow from that fact! How 
 many who fail to undei"stand just why we are a democracy; 
 and why, as a democracy, it is impossible for us to play at th« 
 same time the part of an empire! AVe may be one or the 
 other- — but we can't be both. ^^lany people there are who con- 
 fuse the ideas of a republic and a democracy. Republics there 
 have been before ours — the imperial republic of Kome, the 
 aristocratic republic of Venice, the feudal republic of Switzer- 
 land, the paternalistic republic <f the Netherlands; but ours is 
 the first great DEMOCRACY, rhe first nation founded boldly 
 upon the principle that all men are created equal — the political 
 expression of the (i olden Rule. For that is what it comes to. 
 Four grea'. systems of governrm nt before ours had been tried 
 in the world and had failed to s^atisfy mankind. After many 
 separate and crude experiments in government, and many 
 failures, Rome brought all the known world under her imperial 
 
swav — in the first gjCRt organized svsteni of human society; 
 and then to oppose the imperial idea there arose-Ohristiayn't;/. 
 Imjicrialism rested upon one great basic principle, ^^Mi<ilit 
 makts liiyfit" ; and the human relations at the base of that 
 proposition are necessarily those of master and slave. But at 
 the very moment of its complete triumph, at that dramatic 
 instant ^vhen the form of the Roman government itself had 
 been changed to suit the fundamental system, and Augustus 
 Caesar had overthrown the republic and become Jmperotor ; at 
 that moment was heard the low, grave voice of the Hebrew 
 Prophet, " J^o unto otiters as ye would f/iat others s/touhl do 
 unto yon..'' 
 
 The death-knell of imperialism was given in that sentence. 
 It became at once the touchstone by which all future forms of 
 government must be tried; and no government has ever been 
 able permanently to endure, because it could not stand that test. 
 First it was the Imperialism of Rome that fell; then it was 
 the Feudalism of Mediaeval Europe; then it was the Paternal- 
 ism of the Stuarts or the Bourbons; then the Pseudo-Imperial- 
 ism of Xapoleon Bonaparte. As one looks through history, one 
 after the other the carefully built-up systems of tyranny 
 crumble and fall; and upon their ruins, foolish man — failing 
 to see the obvious rock upon which the wrecks have occurred, — 
 refusing to recognize the great tniths of the religion he pro- 
 fesses, tries again, and yet again, to make some new combma- 
 tion that will stand, and peipetuate the ]iower of privilege. 
 Imperialism, the rule of the strong over the weak — of master 
 over the slave; Feudalism, the rule of overlord over vassals; 
 Paternalism, the rule of a monarch claiming divine authority 
 over subjects; Aristocracy, the rule of a social caste over the 
 mob; now one and now the other; now a combination of these 
 two and now of those; but always the refusal of the great mass 
 of the people to be satisfied long with a system which gives 
 special pri\nleges to the favored few; thus denying the vital 
 principle of the rule of life laid down by Jesus. 
 
 This, then, is the meaning of democracy; a system of 
 poverniiunt based upon equal justice and equal privilege for all 
 men; the political expression of the CJolden Riile. 
 
 But wlien this new pystom of human government was out- 
 lined in the groat l^eclaration, and later worked into concrete 
 form in our Fedonil Constitution, our statesmen did not have 
 rloar vision on one vital point. The slnvery compromises of the 
 f 'onRtitution may have been politically wise as a temporary 
 concession to human weakness; but they were a blot upon a 
 noble inptrument and perpetuated in our democracy a relic of 
 
imperialism. Ami wc siirtored bitterly for the sin, of lack of 
 faith in our own political ideal. 
 
 Lincoln said: ''This nation cannot permanently endure half 
 slave and half free." He was right, and upon analysis it ia 
 easy to see why he was right. It was because imperialism and 
 democracy are not only different systems of government, but 
 opposing systems of government. One is based upon the theory 
 that ''Might makes Kight," — the other denies that theory; the 
 one assumes that one man is entitled to rule another man with- 
 out his consent, the other says that all men are created equal 
 and that governments exist only for the sake of the governed; 
 the one denies the Golden Rule, the other affirms it. How can 
 they exist together. As well may fire and water meet in 
 harmony! 
 
 But if this is true of the individual, it is also true of the 
 nation. H our democracy could not exist in combination with 
 one form of imperialism", neither can it exist \\\i\i the other. 
 You can have an imperial republic, but you cannot have an 
 imperial democracy. If slavery — the rule of one man over 
 another— was a denial of the Golden Rule, a negation of 
 democracy; so is the rule of one nation over another. And as 
 Lincoln truly said that this nation could not endure half slave 
 and half free, so we can truly say that thisNation cannot endure 
 a democracy at home and an empire abroad, 
 
 1 have been told that I cannot form a proper judgment of 
 this Philippine matter because I have not visited the Islands. 
 That we must go to Manila and see the splendid work that our 
 Tafts, our Wrights, and our Forbeses have done, and are doing, 
 before we can properly make up our minds; and that in the 
 meantime we must accept the judgment of those who know 
 from practical observation. 
 
 But I have often found that those who are in the thick of 
 things are often the poorest judges; and, moreover, there are 
 some things that we can know perfectly well without seeing. 
 The greatest and most important truths are those of which no 
 ocular proof can bo had. We do not need to journey to Manila 
 to understand the Ten Commandments. 
 
 It is the same old story. Hosea Biglow says: 
 
 "Parson Wilbur he calls all those argimunts lies; 
 
 Sez they're nothin' on airth but jest A<'» /«"'» /""'• 
 An' thet all this big talk of our destinies 
 
 Fs half on it iun'rance, an' t'other half rum." 
 
 Pai-son Wilbur was not quite right, unless he included a 
 great many things under the name of "ignorance"; but it is 
 certainly true that the Imperialists must always fall back upon 
 
t^ 
 
 LlbKHKY Uh LtlNUKbbb 
 
 John r. liubinson's argument, that "They didn't \ 013 717 912 
 thin' down in Judee." 
 
 We are trying out, in this country, a new system of govern- 
 ment — Democnicij. We have not been long at it, as the 
 world moves. We have had splendid results, and we have sur- 
 rived at least one deadly peril. We have problems before ua 
 worthy for any number of intellects to solve; but we cannot 
 solve them, we cannot succeed, we can never retain our proper 
 place in the world's history unless we keep our democracy pure 
 and unsullied; keep our faith in the splendid results of in- 
 dividual and national freedom ; unless we keep on believing 
 that "It is liberty alone that fits men for liberty." And above 
 all we must make our deeds square with our professions. We 
 must yield to others the liberty we claim as our own God-give* 
 right. 
 
 Brethren of the faith, be not discouraged, our cause is neither 
 dead nor dying; the way may be long, but the end is sure. 
 Imperialism, like slavery, is the negation of democracy, and it 
 will not endure. 
 
 We must take our stand boldly upon the teachings of Jesus. 
 If he was right in his enunciation of the Clolden lUile then all 
 the apologists of tyranny and bloodshed are plainly and tragi- 
 cally wrong. If they are right — if the denial of freedom can 
 be compensated for by good roads, bv bridge^ and harbors and 
 a!) the luxuries of efficient government — then is the message of 
 Jesus a mistake, the Golden Kule an impracticable doctrine, 
 and the Christian religion, that we profess, a hideous failure. 
 
 But we know that is not true. We know that with Ilini, to 
 w)iom a tliousand years are but as a day, there will and can be 
 no permanent backward turning: That the hearts of men will 
 be opened to the truth at last. Lowell — our truest poet of 
 democracy, has sung: 
 
 "Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record 
 One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old svtems and the 
 
 Word; 
 Truth forever on the .scaflFold, Wrong loitvcr on the throne, — 
 Yet that scaflFold sways the future, and, boliind the dim un- 
 known, 
 Standeth (Jod within the shadow, keeping watch above his own. 
 We see dimly in the Present wliat is small and wliat is great. 
 Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate, 
 But the .M^ul is still oracular; amid the market's din 
 list the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within, — 
 'They enslave their children's children who make compromi.se 
 with sin.* "