E 713 
 .C53 
 Copy 1 
 
7\^ 
 
^y. 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 y^^u^L^^^z^^L^ //^^^^-^'^ 
 
 9, 
 
 Acquisition of icriitory— Wc should t;il(c no Partnership in liic 
 Social and I'olitical Troubles of the Old World. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 :> «5f ^ 
 
 HON. HORACE CHILTON, 
 
 \ ' y\' 
 
 ■\ 
 
 OF TEXAS, 
 
 SHNATK OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1899. 
 
 W-A. SHINOTON. 
 
 1899. 
 
 
 mil 
 
 
,C53 
 
 Con::. 'd Off.' 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ov 
 
 HON. H E A E C 1 1 1 L T X . 
 
 On the .Joint resolution (S. R. 211) declaring that the United States disclaim 
 any intention to exercise vjcrmanent sovereignty over the Philippine 
 Islands, and assert their deferniiuation, when a stable and independent 
 government shall have been erected therein, to leave the government of 
 the islands to their own people- 
 Mr. CHILTON said: 
 
 Mr. Prksi dent : The pending treaty of peace between the United 
 States and Spain, which has been made pnblic by order of the 
 Senate, contains three main articles. By Article I Spain relin- 
 qnishes all claim of title to Cuba. By Article II Spain cedes to 
 the United States the island of Puerto Rico and other islands under 
 Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies and the island of Guam in 
 the Ladrones. By Article III Spain makes cession of the archi- 
 pelago known as the Philippine Islands and the United States 
 agree to pay Spain $','0. 000,000. 
 
 There are other dependent articles, the most important of which 
 is, probably. Article VII, by which the two Governments relinquish 
 all claim for indemnity on the part of either Government or its 
 citizens against the other Government arising out of the troubles 
 in Cuba, and in which the United States agree to settle such claims 
 on the part of our citizens against Spain. This may develop into 
 an obligation of many millions against our Government. The 
 amount has not been estimated with any approximate accuracy. 
 Mr. President, the first two articles of the treaty present nij 
 dilficulties. We are satisfied with a relinquishment of Cuba to 
 its own people. Few Senators object to taking a cession of Puerto 
 Rico, which lies in the Western Hemisphere. The island of 
 Guam, in the Ladrones, is not more than two or three times as 
 large as the District of Columbia, and contains a population of 
 only four or five thousand. It is a convenient size for a coaling 
 and naval station, and we would have no perplexities of govern- 
 ment for future settlement. 
 
 The article relating to the Philippines is the one upon which 
 our difterences of opinion turn. 
 
 Mr. President, I am not an anti-expansionist. I believe that it is 
 the duty and the interest of this country to widen its boundaries 
 as time goes on. But 1 would not do this indiscriminately. In 
 case of doubt, I would adhere closely to the policy of the fore- 
 fathers. 
 
 In my judgment the taking of the Philippines will bring peril 
 both to the interests and the institutions of the American people. 
 It is not an acquisition which will add to the comfort and glory 
 of the Republic, like that of Louisiana, or Florida, or Texas, or 
 New Mexico and California. 
 
 4165 3 
 
6 
 
 the territory of the United States. That has been the common 
 construction of our Constitution for the last one hundred years. 
 
 But suppose that danger could be safeguarded by legislation. 
 Where under our Constitution would you find the" authority to 
 keep the productions of the Filipinos, manufactured in their own 
 homes, from coming unimpeded to the ports of the United States? 
 In Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheat., 317), Chief Justice Mar- 
 shall, speaking for the court, said: 
 
 The eighth section of the first article [of the Constitution] gives to Consrresa 
 the "i^ower to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," for the 
 purpo-es thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation 
 as to place. It consequently extends to all places over which the Government 
 extends. 
 
 That is strong enough. 
 
 The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be 
 exorcised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this 
 term designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire? 
 
 He then goes on to answer the question: 
 
 It [the United States] is the name given to oiir great Republic, which is 
 composed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia or the terri- 
 tory west of the Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland 
 or Pennsylvania: and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Consti- 
 tution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises 
 should be observed in the one than in the other. 
 
 The idea was advanced here a few days ago that Congress pos- 
 sessed a higher power over unorganized territory than that which 
 it had over organized Territories; but when this decision was ren- 
 dered the greater part of the territory west of the Missouri River, 
 to which Chief Justice Marshall referred, was unorganized terri- 
 tory. This language applies to all the territory, as he says, which 
 belongs to the United States. 
 
 The same principle is practically outlined in the case of Cross 
 vs. Harrison (16 Howard). From a consideration of these opin- 
 ions and the nature of our Government and institutions, it would 
 seem clear that whenever any territory is brought within this 
 American "empire," so called, it becomes subject to the same 
 constitutional principles which limit Congress in regard to that 
 which we now possess. 
 
 I can not believe that it will be within the power of Congress to 
 prescribe a rate of duty on foreign goods brought into the Philip- 
 pine Islands differing from the duty on same goods when brought 
 into Texas, Maine, or California, nor can national legislation fix a 
 tariff on importations which pass from the Philippine Islands to 
 other parts of this country higher than the tax on importations 
 which pass from the Territory of Arizona or the District of 
 Columbia into any existing State or Territory. 
 
 Mr. President, the laboring people of this country have caught 
 the alarm. They understand the nature of this gi-ave and radical 
 departure. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Texas allow me to 
 interrupt him and ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. Do I understand the Senator to contend that 
 the constitutional provision requiring uniformity in the levying 
 of impost duties woiild apply to importations from the Philippines 
 into other States and Territories of the United States? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Undoubtedly, reasoning from the decisions of 
 the Supreme Court. 
 
 4165 
 
Mr. FORAKER. I call the Senator s attention to the fact that 
 the term " duties upon imports and exports.'" as used in the Con- 
 stitution of the United states, has been hold by the Supremi; 
 Court to apply only to imports and exports from and to foreign 
 countries, and not to imports and exports from one State to another 
 or from one Territory to another of tlie United States. Therefore 
 that rule of the Constitution would have no application at all to 
 exports into thiscountry fromthoPhilippinelslandsif they should 
 be made a part of the United States, and no application \vhatever 
 to transactions between the United States and the Pliilippine 
 Islands; audit would bo competent for any State of the Union, if 
 it saw fit to do so, to protect itself in any way it might see fit by 
 the levying of import duties upon importations from the Philip- 
 pine Islands. 
 
 If the Senator will allow me, I will call his attention to a case 
 reported in 8 Wallace. The Senator may have overlooked it. It 
 is the case of Woodiuft' vs. Parham, where it was held by the 
 Supreme Court, reading only from the syllabus: 
 
 Tho term "import," as used in that clause of the Constitution wliieli says 
 that "no State shall levy any imposts or duties ou imports or exports," does 
 not refer to articles imported from one State into another, but only to arti- 
 cles imported from foreign countries into the U'nited States. 
 
 And the court, in this opinion, went on to say that wherever the 
 term '-imports or exports" is used in the Constitution relation is 
 had to foreign importations and exportations and not to transac- 
 tionsbetween theStates or Territories of the United States. There- 
 fore, imports from the Philippines that would be prejudicial to 
 labor would not be beyond the reach of Congress to regulate. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I differ with the Senator in regard to that 
 proposition. 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. I am only stating what the Supreme Court 
 has held. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I can not concede that the case referred to de- 
 cided the question here involved. It arose under the clause of the 
 Constitution limiting the levying of duties by States. Even in 
 that aspect it has been superseded by later decisions holding that 
 taxes by one State on importations from another are void because 
 they constitute a regulation of interstate commerce. 
 
 We are now speaking of the powers of Congress. Is it within 
 the power of the Congress of the United States to declare that 
 goods which come from Arizona to the District of Columbia shall 
 pay a certain rate of duty or a certain rate of tax— I do not care 
 what you call it— and that goods which come from Texas to the 
 District of Columbia shall pay another rate? Certainly not. 
 
 I will quote part of section 8, Article I, of the Constitution: 
 
 * * * but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout 
 the United States. 
 
 Now, if a tax should be laid on goods brought from Manila to 
 San Francisco or New York, even 'if not a duty or impost, it would 
 fall within the definition of the word " excise,"' and would be 
 invalid if higher than like excises on goods from other ports of 
 our country to New York or San Francisco. 
 
 But I was about to show the views of our labor organizatitins in 
 regard to this question. I received lately a protest from one of 
 these bodies, which I will read in part: 
 
 The undersigned delegates desire to present briefly the reasons whvthe 
 Cigar Makers' International Union of America, an organization coraposl-d of 
 il65 
 
8 
 
 31,500 members, located in 357 cities and towns, is opposed to the annexation 
 of the Philippine Islands by the United States. 
 
 I. Because the bulk of the cigars manufactured in the Philippine Islands 
 are sold at a price of ,*5 to $10 per thousand in United States currency. This 
 statement is verified by Edward W. Harden, special commissioner, in his 
 report on the financial and industrial conditions of said country (page 23). 
 
 II. Because the exportation of cigars m 1896 from Manila amounted to 
 191,130,OW), which, within a few years, under American energy and direction, 
 would increase to the extent of endangering our home industry. 
 
 III. Because the cheap labor of the islands, subsisting mostly on rice and 
 vegetables, would enable a few manufacturers to flood the United States 
 with tliis product, thus tending to paralyze our home market. 
 
 IV. Because the development of the industry in the archipelago would 
 throw thousands of Americans employed at making cigars out of work and 
 reduce the standard of wages to the Asiatic level, which averages from 15 
 cents to 25 cents per day. 
 
 V. Because all barriers that now limit competition between these produc- 
 ing forces would be swept aside, and new conditions created most disastrous 
 to the moral, social, and material welfare of the American working people. 
 
 VI. Because the annexation of the Philippine Islands will not change the 
 Asiatic habits and customs of the laboring population, but will, in course of 
 time, reduce the American standard of living to a level bordering on pau- 
 perism. 
 
 VII. Because the welfare of 150,000 employees and small manufacturers 
 and their families, depending upon this industry for a living in the United 
 States, is of vastly more importance to the nation than the increase of com- 
 merce expected by a few commercial centers. 
 
 VIII. Because it would nullify, in substance, the Chinese exclusion act, the 
 alien contract labor law, and immigration laws, for which organized labor 
 has contended for the last twenty-flve years. 
 
 Mr. PLA.TT of Connecticut. Mr. President, I do not want to 
 interrupt the Senator or delay him, but I do wish just at this 
 point to say that after a very careful study of the situation I am 
 firmly of the belief that none of the natives can come from the 
 Philippine Islands into the United States unless Congress gives 
 permission, nor can any free goods come from there into the United 
 States unless Congress provides for it. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON, Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut 
 can not speak for the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
 laboring people of this country will hardly have a sufficient guar- 
 anty in his emphatic contention on this subject. So long as the 
 Philippine people are held in allegiance to the Government of the 
 United States you can not deny them the rights which belong to 
 other persons who owe allegiance to our Government. Congress 
 has no power to make discriminations between the people who owe 
 a common obligation to a common Federal sovereignty. This 
 Government was founded upon the proposition that all who served 
 the Republic should have equality of right. 
 
 And why are we asked to take up these puzzles? Why are we 
 asked to run the risk of admitting large numbers of Chinese and 
 crossbreeds of Chinese and INIestizos into this Republic, to say 
 nothing of the vast Malay millions which stand behind them? In 
 the Philippine Islands to-day are more than 500,000 Chinese and 
 descendants of Chinese. Tliey mainly inhabit the city of Manila 
 and other towns. 
 
 Those people are laborers, merchants, and traders, and when 
 we open the doors by the annexation of these islands we will 
 bring into competition with our home people more alien pauper 
 laborers than would come here in a hundred years under the or- 
 dinary operation of our immigration laws. And for what? For 
 islands which, in my judgment, have been vastly exaggerated in 
 fertility and value. The sensational journals of this country have 
 saturated the public mind with the idea that if we give up the 
 41C5 
 
9 
 
 Philippine Islands we will -ive up a miue of wealth and an oppor- 
 tunity never to return aj^ain. ^auuppor 
 My Investigations do not confirm these highly colored estimates 
 ^t.'^.T^Tr °^ *>^ Philippines would no doubt fmprove^nle; 
 
 mnalSlvif"'^"''^'^-^"^^^'''"* ^* ^^'^ it would make hut I 
 small ft.^'ure in our national resources. The imports and exports 
 
 exports of the Philippines are in a year 
 
 ^vnif"f "!f^-'^';^f^''^ themselves by daydreams about securing a 
 g eat trade m China and Japan from the standpoint of the Philip 
 pines. But I have seen town-lot booms before. I have seen sober 
 men^ntoxicate themselves with visions of railroads whose char^ 
 ters alone tel the story of their existence and of great cities whffh 
 the census taker never found. 
 A widening commerce with those far-off lands should ever be an 
 
 wnl'^f ''fi'^'J" '^^'^: ^^^ S'^^'-'*^* P^">^ in old Democratic da3s 
 was the first man to unlock the doors of Japan to American trade! 
 iJut to propel that commerce it is not necessary to assume the 
 responsibility of governmental administration. 
 
 wh->>f ™°f* ^''''^ this Government surrender all the advantages 
 T\ h.ch come from our glorious Eastern victory. I would ask one 
 or more coaling and navai stations in the Philipniues so ih^t 
 &fr'^' 7' had unwilling trouble upon tKa we m ght 
 have a base of operations in that quarter of the world 
 
 iiut 1 would rather have a treaty which gave free entry to Ameri- 
 can productions-yes, ten thousand times rather have it-than a 
 
 SimlonTof ?^e pTlip^p^^^^ °^ *^^ '"-^''•'-' -^ --^ 
 
 m/- ?.^1^^^^^Y. Will the Senator permit me? 
 nJp«H^^^^?^?^ OFFICER (Mr. Gallixger in the chair). 
 ""Mr.^CmLTON'^TersI^ '''''' '' *'^ """^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ 
 
 ^^" ^"^rf r^^^^"- ^^ ^'^® contention of the Senator from Con- 
 necticut [Mr. Platt] be correct, and the Philippines coS absS- 
 1 tely under the sovereignty of Congress, and 'are not citizens of 
 
 thiy any'rilhS"'' '^ ^'"''^ °^ ^"^"^'"^ '^^*"' ^^^^ ^^'^^ slJe 
 
 giJ'e'h^itnL'the'tSf"'- ^"^' "^"* ^°°^^^^ ^^^^^ *^ 
 
 hJ^r'^;^''^^^^^?: AJ^^^I^- *^^"' ^s^' t^e Senator whether, if that 
 be true m regard to the Philippines, it is not true with re-ard to 
 
 UnitTd'sS' °^ ^'^ ^"^'"^ "'^"^ °*^^^ Territory^f the 
 4.1 ""^o" P^-^TT of Connecticut. I do not w.\^h to interfere witli 
 the Senator from Texas [Mr. Chiltox]. but I will say with reSrd 
 to the inhabitants of the Territories of New Mexi( o and Arizoia 
 rni^erTqM^fr^^'',?^^*l^'!i^^'"^« ^^'' Constitution and laws of the 
 
 Mr Cmr Tn^P^'A?^^?>*^'''f- A¥* °^^^^'^« ^^^^ distinction. 
 PnrAf;,^? P^' v'^^'\^''^''^^'^"*' ^ 1^'^^^ looked "ito that question 
 fi^Iw IF^- ^,«c?r*^in^ to tliat theory, all wo have to do to with- 
 draw the protectwn of the Constitution from the ptoi)le -f Arizona 
 and New Mexico i.s to repeal that statute; and I do not believe fo? 
 
 Te?iSorie?of f h «* '" ^T°T^ "^^'^^ ^^ *^^ I^^^"'P'« ^^-^'O inhabit the 
 lerutories of this country depend upon any such slender lounda- 
 
 JJr ?^TH^S?<r ^l^y ^ ""^^ t^e Senator a question? 
 Mr. CHILTON. Certainly. . 
 
 4165 
 
10 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators desiring to interrupt a 
 Senator on the tioor will please get consent from the Chair. 
 
 Mr. NELSON. I desire to ask the Senator from Texas a prac- 
 tical question, not for the purpose of interrupting him. When 
 we annexed Alaska did all the Indians and natives of that country 
 become citizens of the United States, or what was the condition 
 of the natives of that country after they were annexed? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Mr. President, under our Constitution the 
 Indians occupy a peculiar situation, and no decision and no ar.uu- 
 ment founded upon the relation of the American Indian to the 
 people of this country and to our Constitution is worth any thing- 
 whatever. • 
 
 Mr. President, I have spoken of the internal difficulties which 
 will present themselves. In my judgment, they form but the 
 smallest part of the gravity of this situation. Whenever we go 
 over into the Philippine Islands great external problems will loom 
 up. Wliat becomes of our Monroe doctrine? What is that Mon- 
 roe doctrine? It is a beautiful principle, which blends the inter- 
 ests of all the people of the American republics to the south of 
 us with the interests of this great nation. 
 
 Under that Monroe doctrine, to which this country has been 
 pledged in every conceivable way, and which took its place in the 
 international law when President Cleveland issued his celebrated 
 warning to England which brought that great Empire to agree to 
 an arbitration with the Venezuelan Republic upon the question 
 of boundary — we say to the world that the Western Hemisphere 
 shall constitute a section of the earth with which the mighty pow- 
 ers of Europe shall have no concern. In the interest of peace the 
 United States will not dislodge European colonies already estab- 
 lished, but their boundaries are fixed. Neither by war, purchase, 
 voluntary cession, vote of the people, nor in any conceivable way 
 shall a single foot of new territory upon this hemisphere be added 
 to European dominion. 
 
 In some respects this is a hard doctrine, but it is a doctrine of 
 virtue and necessity. To say to all the great powers of Europe 
 that they will never be permitted to take in territory anywhere 
 in North, South, or Central America is something to touch the 
 pride of kings and emperors across the wafer. 
 
 Suppose that Germany should have a conflict with Brazil, and 
 her war ships should lay siege to and capture Rio Janeiro, as Ma- 
 nila was captured by us. 
 
 If , then, the Brazilian Government, in order to make a peace, were 
 to propose to cede Rio Janeiro to Germany as a part of the settle- 
 ment, could she do it? No. At that moment the great, strong 
 voice of the American Republic would speak to the German Gov- 
 ernment, " Stay thy hand, for we are sworn that no government 
 of the Old World shall ever hereafter acquire another foot of soil 
 upon the domain of the New." 
 
 Mr. PETrUS. By force? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. No. sir; not by force alone. The Monroe doc- 
 trine goes further. The principle is universal in its sweep and 
 interdicts every species of acquisition by European powers. 
 
 It would be hard to find a citizen of the Union who would give 
 up that Monroe doctrine. 
 
 We will say to the powers of the Old World, " We will not 
 allow you to acquire further possessions in the Western Hemi- 
 sphere. Yet Ave will take Porto Rico, and we reserve the right to 
 
 4165 
 
11 
 
 take Haiti or Brazil or Cuba or any other part of Xorth or South 
 America when we tliink projjer to do so." 
 
 But after saying this, after reserving? that liberty, will we po 
 across into Asia and enter into a wolfish rivalry for land, and will 
 we take and keep all that wo feel disposed to take and keep? Mr. 
 President, all the moral power of the Monroe doctrine will dis- 
 appear whenever we are brought to that extremity. 
 
 There is a corollary from the xMonroe doctrine which is stated 
 by President Monroe himself and the other great statesmen of 
 America. That deduction is that, while we will not allow the 
 governments of the Old World to add any further territory to 
 their present colonies on this side of the water, neither will we 
 take a hand in the affairs of the Old World; and when we abandon 
 that position and go over into the Eastern Hemisphere we will 
 discredit the Monroe doctrine during all time. The principle will 
 have been extracted: its truth and loftiness will have been lost, 
 and it will become simply a doctrine of brute force on the part of 
 the United States. 
 
 Again, Mr. President, when we go over into the Philippines we 
 have thrown ourselves upon the red-hot stove of international poli- 
 tics in the Eastern Hemisphere. When we go we find, in the first 
 place, that goveniments over there do not settle matters, each for 
 itself. You find over there what is known as the "Concert of 
 Europe. " A short time ago Greece had a war with Turkey. Tur- 
 key overran Greece; and had it in her power to force terms upon 
 the Grecian monarchj-. 
 
 But the powers of Europe took a hand. Russia, Germany, Eng- 
 land, France, Austria, and Italy, forming the concert of Europe, 
 intervened, and they said, "We are going to have something to 
 say about how this treaty of peace shall be made. " They demanded 
 that the treaty of peace be settled according to certain principles; 
 ' ' the balance of power must be conserved ; " and so Turkey, after she 
 had won a conclusive victory over Greece, was obliged to submit 
 to a treaty which was dictated by the six great powers of Europe. 
 So after the war between Russia and Turkey a few years ago, 
 Russia was victorious and began to outline the tenns of peace, 
 but a dark figure loomed up— the concert of Europe— England, 
 Germany, France, Austria, and Italy. A congress was called at 
 Berlin, a famous congress in the diplomatic history of the world. 
 Beaconsfield and Bismarck and other great statesmen represent- 
 ing the countries of Europe were there, and though Russia had 
 overpowered Turkey in actual battle, the treaty of peace was made 
 upon compromise terms acceptable to the other great powers. 
 
 Now, when we go into the Philippine Islands we become close 
 neighbors to Russia, Germany, England, and France, and we will 
 no more be satisfied with what we have than thev are. Some 
 American statesman will rise up and say we are as much entitled 
 to a share of China as they are, and we will have the power to 
 take what we want. Then we will be invited to a conference with 
 the powers of Europe. 
 
 Mr. President, do you suppose the people of this conntry would 
 submit to that? No. We never would agree to submit the result 
 of our victories in war to the arbitration of other nations, and our 
 position would be certain to lead to hostile contests between the 
 United States and the powers of the Old World. We would be on 
 the rim of difficulty all the time. 
 When we go to the Philippine Islands, we take our place on the 
 
 4165 
 
12 
 
 Sea of China. France is there. England is there, Russia is there, 
 Germany is there. Trouble will be certain to ensue, and it will 
 not be long in coming. In my judgment twenty years will not 
 elapse until we will be driven into hostile conflict with one or all 
 the great European nations. 
 
 What will be the main theater of the war? Where will the 
 fighting take place? Inevitably in Chinese waters or upon Chinese 
 territory. 
 
 Now, I have great faith in the energy, in the ability, and in the 
 strength of the American people. I know our resources are tre- 
 mendous. BiTt we must never lose sight of the important fact 
 that one of the reasons why the other nations of the earth have 
 heretofore been unwilling and unable to measure arms with the 
 United States is because of the fact that we have stood here in a 
 great continental area and serenity, and the countries of the Old 
 World could not find a place to strike us. They dared not seek to 
 invade us, and hence they shrank from encountering the dangers 
 of a war with this Republic. 
 
 But whenever we take the Philippine Islands we have f urnislied 
 to the world a place to strike us. It will be our one weak point. 
 If we enter into an alliance with England, as is proposed here by 
 some, we will have to take part in the division of China or take 
 side against the partition of China. In either case we will be 
 obliged to go across the sea and fight our future battles with the 
 powers of the Old World at a place which they and not we will 
 select. 
 
 In such a contest we will be at great disadvantage. A Russian 
 Government railroad will soon be finished from St. Petersburg to 
 the Pacific Ocean and Sea of China. It will be within the power 
 of the Russian Empire to send train load after train load of sol- 
 diers from St. Petersburg— its capital — to its remotest limits and 
 debark them close to the Philippines or upon the soil of China. 
 We can not transport our soldiers by railroad. We will load 
 ships at San Francisco or at some other American port and send 
 oiTr soldiers across the Pacific Ocean, make a landing, and then 
 measure arms with the continental powers of the Eastern Hem- 
 isphere. The difference of facilities would be against us in pro- 
 portions so tremendous that I shrink from such an imdertaking. 
 
 Mr. President, we should take some observations from experi- 
 ence. I remember in reading history one very remarkable in- 
 stance of the utter folly of enabling your adversary to select the 
 theater of war. After Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia and 
 left his army bleeding lapon her plains of snow, no power in Europe 
 dared to undertake another Russian invasion. For a half century 
 Russia was deemed impregnable. But in an evil hour she set up 
 certain rights upon the Black Sea. Then England and Franco 
 saw their opportunity. 
 
 When Russia set up these rights upon the Black Sea, as a mat- 
 ter of course she had to enforce them. England and France found 
 it in their power to select the place where the fighting should oc- 
 cur, and when the Crimean war ended Russia was forced to agree 
 to a peace that cost her more prestige than any other event in her 
 history. 
 
 It has been boldly avowed upon this floor that we should go into 
 an alliance with England and fight Russia or Germany or any com- 
 bination of European powers which should seek to partition the 
 Chinese Empire. What does all that mean? It means war. in- 
 describable, unending war. Why should we cast the American 
 
 41Q-} 
 
13 
 
 destiny upon a sea which is bound to brin;^ our people into bloody 
 conflict with the powers of the Old World? It is a dreadful re- 
 sponsibility to propose at this hour of our history. 
 
 The last civil war has already cost the people of the United 
 States over $10,000,000,000; the wars of Europe during the present 
 century have cost the people of Europe over $100,000,000,000, and 
 the end is not yet. Shall we gather nothing from this exi^erience? 
 Shall we go headlong into a policy which has brought the Euro- 
 pean masses into a state almost equivalent to despair? 
 
 So dreadful has this burden grown that not long ago the Czar 
 of Russia proposed a conference to consider plans for a general 
 disarmament. We all know that no disarmament will take place. 
 The powers of Europe must keep up great standing armies to 
 watch each other. Why watch each other? Because they are in 
 close neighborhood and every neighbor striving to gain advantage 
 in territorial acquisition. What brought on the war between the 
 United States and Spain? It was because of the neighborhood of 
 Cuba to this country. If Cuba had been 7,000 miles away, we 
 would never have had war with Spain, and no crisis such as that 
 which now faces its would exist. 
 
 Now, whenever we go to the Philippine Islands we become neigh- 
 bors to France, to Russia, and to Germany, and the very fact of 
 our neighborhood will keep us perpetually in danger of conflict. 
 But it is said, If all this be true, why is it that England, France, 
 Germany, and other countries are engaged in a mad race for co- 
 lonial territory? The reasons are many; some of them partly 
 sound and others purely the result of imitation. 
 
 England and Germany have for a long time been vexed with 
 the problem of a superabundant population. England has gone 
 so far, at different times, as to actually assist immigration to the 
 United States and other parts of the world. 
 
 France has been led into the same policy on the theory of finding 
 new markets, but those who have studied the problem maturely 
 believe that France has not gained and will not gain anything of 
 solid value from her exi^eriment. 
 
 Besides, these countries are not self-sustaining. They do not 
 have, like the United States, such a variety of soil and climate that 
 within their own borders one industry can exchange its products 
 for that of the other and a comfortable living be made practicable 
 for all without calling into requisition foreign trade. 
 
 England and Germany could not live without the wheat which 
 comes from other countries. They could not thrive without the 
 cotton which grows in other countries. The dependence of 
 European nations upon the United States for these great staples 
 of agricultural production has long been the subject of discontent 
 among the thinkers who rule English and German affairs. 
 
 But why should England, Germany, and France be held up to the 
 United States as objects of our imitation? 
 
 Are laborers paid better in England and Germany than they are 
 in the United States? Are the masses of Europe more comfortable 
 than the masses of this Republic? 
 
 If in the short period of our history we have reached a height 
 of power far above that held by other civilized nations, why should 
 we now take up their policies? 
 
 Where has the world ever witnessed such another record as that 
 made by this Union under the fostering principles we are now 
 about to abandon? 
 
 But, Mr. President, the question is asked with an air of coufi- 
 
 4163 
 
14 
 
 dence, as if it presented a difficulty which could not be overcome, 
 •'What are j'ou going to do with the Philippines?" It is even 
 claimed in debate that we possess only a choice of alternatives; 
 on the one hand, to take the Philippines as a part of our territory, 
 or, on the other, to leave them to the dominion of Spain. This is 
 mere assumption. We should do neither one thing nor the other. 
 If we were under no specific obligations to the present insurgent 
 forces in the Philippines it would be our duty, in view of the prin- 
 ciples so long and proudly held by the American Union, to provide 
 for independent government by the peoi^le concerned and leave 
 them to their just destiny. 
 
 But the case is still stronger. The evidence published in con- 
 nection with the treaty shows conclusively that Aguinaldo and 
 his forces were of steady, valuable support to the American com- 
 manders. The same evidence shows that these people looked upon 
 themselves as the allies of the United States and believed faith- 
 fully thai they Avere to be the beneficiaries of a joint success. I 
 know not how it may impress others, but there seems to me some- 
 thing shameful in now turning to the Filipinos and saying to 
 them, "You were not our allies; j'ou were our tools; you were the 
 victims of our diplomacy. We were merely using you, and our 
 consuls and commanders were instructed privately not to commit 
 this Government in a way which would deny lis the privilege of 
 ordering the fate of the Philippines without regard to your wishes. " 
 
 Men talk about our moral duties to the world, about what we 
 owe to England and to China and the peace of mankind, but it 
 seems to me that a great nation of intelligence and power owes to 
 a weak and trustful people like the Filipinos the duty of respect- 
 ing our engagement with them in the same sense in which they 
 understood it. There is no danger either to the peace of the world 
 or the prestige of our Republic in taking this course. 
 
 It has been said upon tins floor that if we aided the Philippine 
 people to establish an independent government Germany, France, 
 Russia, or England would seize these islands. But the truth is 
 that this difficulty is entirely unreal. 
 
 It would be easy for us to treat the Philippine Islands as we 
 treat Liberia. That Republic is not on the Western Hemisphere. 
 We do not claim that it falls under the influence of the Monroe 
 doctrine. It is located on the coast of Africa, where Germanj-, 
 England, and France are pushing forward for new territory. 
 
 We never have undertaken to exercise the slightest sovereignty 
 over Liberia. Yet we have had occasion to define a policy in 
 regard to it. I read from Wharton's Digest of International Law, 
 section 6G, from a letter dated April 21, 1W80, written by Mr. Evarts, 
 while Secretary of State, to Mr. Hoppin: 
 
 Tho United States are not avorso to having the great powers know that 
 they publicly recognize the peculiar relations between them and Liberia, and 
 that they are prepared to talie every proper step to maintain them. To this 
 end it is not inexpedient that you, and Mr. Lowell also, on his return to his 
 post from his present leave, should evince a lively interest in tlie movements 
 of both Great Britain and P'rance in the neighborhood of Liberia. 
 
 While Wharton does not publish the entire letter, I find, on 
 examining the files of the State Department, a further expression 
 in the same letter which may be usefully quoted here: 
 
 The attitude of the European powers which may have established them- 
 selves in tho vicinity of Liberia becomes of interest to tho United States 
 whenever it may assume a tendency to disparage the asserted rights of 
 native self-control. 
 41,;5 
 
15 
 
 In 1S84 a letter was wi-itten on the same genoral subject by Mr. 
 Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, to Mr. Roustan, the French 
 minister. Wharton quotes a part of that letter also, as follows: 
 
 Liberia, although not a colony of tho United States— 
 
 We claimed no jurisdiction over it whatever — 
 
 be^an its independent career as an offshoot of this country, which bears to 
 it a quasi-parental relationship, which authorizes the United States to inter- 
 pose its Kood offices in any contest between Liberia and a foreign state, and 
 a refusal to give! the United Statos an opportunity to bo heard for this pur- 
 pose would make "an unfavorable impression in the minds of the Qovem- 
 mcnt and the people of tho United States." 
 
 In the same letter it is said: 
 
 It seems, however, proper that I should in the name of this Government 
 advise you provisionally that the United States would consiiler a Frinich 
 claim to territory in tho Mannali River as threatening the integrity and tran- 
 quillity of Liberia. I should, however, be most hai)py to learn that the report 
 of French occupation of Keuts Island is unfounded. 
 
 On another occasion, in 1880, Mr. Evarts, while Secretary of 
 State, wrote a letter to Mr. Noyes, in which he called attention to 
 the information which had been received here that the French 
 Government had designs of establishing a protectorate over the 
 Liberian Republic. 
 
 Mr. Noyes, the American minister to France, replied that on 
 making inquiry lie had discovered that there was no intention 
 on the part of the French Government to institute a protectorate 
 over Liberia. That letter was published in the volume of "For- 
 eign Relations of the United States" for 1879, and Mr. Noyes, 
 having ascertained in advance that it would be published, sug- 
 gested that it was unnecessary to put the correspondence in print. 
 But our Government declined to heed his suggestion, and it was 
 said: 
 
 It is therefore quite suitable that the great powers should know that the 
 United States publicly recognize those relations which we bear to Liberia, 
 and is prepared to take every proper step to maintain them. 
 
 Mr. President, our entire interest in Liberia has been put on 
 the ground that it was settled by Africans who left this country, 
 and a hint from us has never failed to arrest all designs cherished 
 by European nations against this little Republic. 
 
 Now, if we go into the Philippine Islands and give those people 
 their just inheritance of independence, our Government can say 
 rightfully to the world that the people of the Philippine Islands 
 established their liberty by aid of our arms; they sustained us in 
 the war against Spain, and we shall therefore always regard them 
 as objects of our parental care. Not one of the powers of Europe 
 would dare to make the slightest aggression upon the independent 
 government of the Philippines at the hazard of our displeasure. 
 
 The claim that we must either take the treaty as it is or sub- 
 ject ourselves to tremendous consequences of difficulty with Spain 
 is another unreal conception in connection with this situation. 
 Spain has no money, no navy, no hopes; and whenever the United 
 States sav, "You must make the same relinquishment in regard 
 to the Philippine Islands that you have made in regard to Cuba," 
 she will instantly yield to our pleasure and close up a war which 
 has advertised alike her folly and wealmess. 
 
 But Senators say we can attend to all these questions after we 
 have ratified the treaty. 
 
 Mr. President, he is but a poor student of human nature who 
 depends too much upon his own firmness of purpose in dealing 
 4165 
 
16 
 
 with gi-eat and constant questions in a great ami constant way. 
 The people of the United States never have given up a foot of ter- 
 ritory. The smallest acquisition becomes a matter of pride after 
 it once becomes a part of the Republic. When two or five years 
 from now it is proposed to give up the Philippines the Senator 
 from Colorado |Mr. Teller], or some other Senator, will rise to 
 say that if you give them up Germany will take them, or England 
 will take them, or Russia will take them, and you will always 
 have this scarecrow of foreign interference in the affairs of the 
 Philippine Islands to deter us from acting in the way our better 
 judgment might suggest. 
 
 But if you will adopt a resolution or amendment to the treaty 
 which explicitly defines our relation to those people, then you will 
 have a fulcrum upon which the moral sentiment of this country 
 can work. Even the boldest adventurer of expansion will feel 
 abashed when reminded that we ought to give the Filipinos inde- 
 pendent government because we solemnly promised to do so when 
 we made the treaty with Spain. 
 
 Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I want to get through so as to give the Senator 
 from Colorado an opportunity to speak. 
 
 Mr. SULLIVAN. I wish merely to ask a question. How can 
 you do that thing when objection is made to the consideration of 
 a resolution? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. That has all been explained. A resolution 
 which shall be effective is now out of the question. We can 
 amend the treaty; and if we do amend it, ratification will be 
 certain. 
 
 Let us make no pretexts. Let us not trample upon the aspira- 
 tions of the Philippine people to imitate the character of this 
 Republic. 
 
 Itls a stirring thing to read of great generals and heroic admi- 
 rals, of sieges, battles, and victories, but after the music and the 
 march have passed by, after the dance of delirium has worn us 
 out, there will come a time of reckoning and mourning. I can 
 but think of what will fall to our people in future years. After 
 we have vindicated, by great sacrifice of the treasure and blood of 
 America, our ability toineasure arms with the powers of Europe 
 in their schemes of colonization upon the Eastern Hemisphere, I 
 feel that the good folks at home are going to be the sufferers for 
 all time— sufferers in purse, suffers in morals, sufferers in insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 I am one of those who believe in a Pro\idence which cares for 
 the destiny of collective millions. I feel that our toilers have out- 
 stripped all others and grown greater in a century than nations 
 that have lived a thousand years, not alone because we have more 
 energy and more brain than those who dwell in other lands, btit 
 because we have been the justest nation of all history. In this 
 great crisis let us show to all hearts and all time that the Ameri- 
 can Republic still furnishes the world's best example of righteous 
 rulers and a free people. 
 4165 
 
 o 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 632 7 
 
LiUKHKY Ul- CUriUKt:>i> 
 
 013 744 632 7 
 
 Hollinger Corp. 
 pH8.5