E 713 
 .072 
 Copy 2 
 
 A DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LvlcKINLEY ADMINISTRATION 
 
 iflictment of 
 'iiiiisti-atiou 
 y Anti- 
 'JK'i'ialists. 
 
 FROM 
 
 ATTACKS OF Mr. CAKL SCHUPtZ 
 
 AND OTHER ANTI-IMPERIAIilSTS. 
 
 r.Y 
 
 J0H:N^ R. DOS PASSOS, 
 
 OF THE NEW YORK BAR. 
 
 -aj^^ 
 
 his 
 

 
COMPLIMENTS OF 
 
 JOHN R. DOS PASSOS, 
 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 JHE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 < 
 
 I. 
 
 The Anti- Imperialists appeal to the conscience of the indictment of 
 
 i *^ i Administration 
 
 by Anti- 
 
 ijition upon a question of morality. 
 
 They indict the President of the United States and his 
 
 dministration, through Mr. Carl Schurz, of the charge of 
 
 timing the " much-vaunted war of liberation into a war 
 
 conquest and criminal aggression." 
 
 They charge that " the President provoked an armed 
 
 nflict with the Filipinos," and that 
 
 " we used the FUipinos as allies, and we profited from their 
 co-operation as allies, and, in point of fact, recognized and 
 treated them as allies so long as they could be useful to us, and 
 that, therefore, we owed them those moral obligations which 
 are always recognized between honorable allies." 
 
 Lud, lastly, it is declai-^^ 
 
 '■'■that if toe had treate^Wlie Filipinos justly vje should have 
 recognized their inde2)endence.'' (Carl Schurz, in the N. Y. 
 Herald, July 14, 1900.) 
 
 nd Mr. Schurz, with great emphasis, addresses a chal- 
 lebe (N. Y. Times, July 25, 1900), which he solemnly 
 rejats and reiterates to the people of this country, to the 
 nperialists " and to the Republican party, to 
 ' ' show me (him) in the history of the world a single act of 
 perfidy committed by any Republic more infamous than that 
 which has been committed by the McKiuley administration 
 against our Filipino allies." [Ibid. ) 
 
 have admired Mr. Schurz as a scholar; and I have 
 iked upon him as an honest and independent critic of 
 j:)lic events. His reiteration of these charges has been 
 dsensational and dramatic, in fact, so vociferous; his 
 
 Imperialists. 
 
2 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 characterization of persons has been so bitter, malignant 
 and vindictive, his w^holesale indictment of the people of 
 this nation is so serious — that, together with his claim 
 that he had received no answer to his broadly flaunted 
 challenges, T have been induced to investigate the charges 
 on my own account ; to go to the foundation of this melan- 
 choly affair ; to follow all of its details from beginningto 
 end, and to examine the questions, as they arose, in the li^ht 
 of morality, as well as of the principles of internatio:al 
 and constitutional law. The result of my labors I n»w 
 give to the public. I rejoice and am proud that this n- 
 vestigation shows that the charges preferred are unfoundd, 
 base and unnatural, in fact and in law; that they h.ve 
 been made either from gross ignorance of the facts, o a 
 misapprehension of them, or from a deliberate disregarcof 
 truth, and a malignant and unchristianlike hatred of ur 
 civil officers, soldiers and sailors — from the President dftvn 
 to the lowliest private. 
 
 I have endeavored to arrange the events in chronolo<cal 
 order, and referred to each authority upon which I ave 
 relied to sustain this argument so that the correciess 
 of my statements may be easily verified by refemce 
 to the documents cited. By this means, all of the 
 sources of my knowledge are disclosed, and by easyref- 
 erence the argument which I propose to submit cs be 
 followed step by step to its conclusion. If the inferaces 
 drawn from the facts are unwarranted, if the reasis I 
 urge for my views are unjustifiable, if the result I rea^i is 
 ^non sequitur, each and all of these things will at offibe 
 perceived and exposed. I have no personal hatred oroli- 
 tical revenge to satisfy, no political favors to demand ( re- 
 ceive ; am subject to no partisan dictation, and resporble 
 alone for these views. I have searched for the truth-the 
 whole truth, and nothing but the truth — and here it ^ 
 
 The facts relevant to this discussion are to be foui in 
 the history of this country between the 15th day of ^b- 
 
THE ANTI-IAlPERlAIJSTS ANSWERED. 3 
 
 iry, 1898, when our battle-ship Maine was blown up 
 itlie harbor of Havana, and the 4th clay of February, 
 19, when hostilities began in the Philippine Islands,. 
 Iween the Filipinos, under Aguinaldo, and our army. 
 *rior to 1896 there had been several insurrections in the 
 llippine Islands against the Spanish Government; but 
 sheir history is not germane to the present controversj^, 
 not necessary to investigate it. The rebellion of 1896, 
 li^ever, is a highly important factor in this discussion, 
 liiise it shows the exact relations which the people of 
 Philippine Islands bore to the sovereignty of SjDain ; it 
 rbals the political status of the inhabitants of these 
 is ads at that time. The insurrection of 1896 was pre- 
 ctd, or accompanied, by a pronunciamento or procla- 
 nion, showing its cause, scope and purpose. It was an 
 sing of the people to obtain the redress of certain 
 s^ific grievances which were set forth as follows : 
 
 " 1. Expulsion of the friars and restitution to the town- 
 ships of the lauds which the friars have appropriated, — divid- 
 ing the incumbencies held by them, as well as the Episcopal 
 sees, equally between peninsular and insular secular priests. 
 
 2. Spam must concede to its, as she has to Cuba, parliamen- 
 tary representation, freedom of the press, toleration of all 
 religious sects, laws common with hers, and administrative and 
 economic autonomy. 
 
 3. Equality in treatment and pay between peninsular and 
 insular civil servants. 
 
 4. Restitution of all lands, appropriated by the friars, to the 
 townships, or to the original owners, or, in default of finding 
 such owners the State, is to put them up to public auction in 
 small lots of a value within the reach of all, and payable 
 within four years, the same as the present State lands. 
 
 5. Abolition of the Government authorities' power to banish 
 citizens, as well as unjust measures against Filipinos, legal equal- 
 ity for all persons, whether peninsular or insular, under the 
 civil as well as the penal code. The war must be prolonged 
 to give the greatest signs of vitality possible, so that Spain 
 
 History of 
 First Insurrec- 
 tion in 
 Pliilippine 
 against Spain 
 in 18%. 
 
4 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 may be compelled to grant our demands, otherwise sh'ill 
 consider us an effete race and curtail, rather than extenour 
 rights." (Vol. I. Rep. Philippine Com., p. 84.) 
 Terms of This is tlieir bill of rights ; this paper shows uehe 
 
 Settlement of o ' i f 
 
 "''of^i89?°° purposes for which the people uprose against Spain. 
 
 The rebellion lasted until the 14th of December, 37, 
 when, at a place called Biacna-Bato, a written treatyns 
 entered into between the insurgents and the Spanish )v- 
 ernment; Aguinaldo representing the former, and Ger- 
 nor-General Primo de Rivera, by proxy, the latter, 'he 
 terms of this treaty and the methods of carrying i)ut 
 are so extraordinary^ and unusual that they cannoiail 
 to awaken in the mind of an Anglo-Saxon milled 
 feelings of astonishment, indignation and pity. Ivas 
 stipulated that Aguinaldo and his leading assottes 
 should leave the islands — that they should volunily 
 expatriate themselves — and take up a residence outsi of 
 their native land, in consideration of the payment of cer- 
 tain sum of money, i. d., $800,000, and the surrenc of 
 the arms of the insurgents to the Spanish Govenent 
 (Senate Document 208, Part 2, 56th Congress, 1st Seon, 
 p. 9., Report of the Philippine Commission, Vol., p. 
 170. The Story Told by Aguinaldo, p. 3). It is a rik- 
 ing feature of this remarkable treaty that it did noiven 
 provide for a redress of the grievances of the pele! 
 (See the treaty, Senate Document 208, Part II., 56thon- 
 gress, 1st Session, p. 9.) In fact they are not menlned 
 
 in it. 
 
 " The principal reforms which were said to havoeen 
 agreed upon by word of mouth, were the suppression re- 
 ligious orders, and the taking away from those religiousders 
 of all intervention in the administration of towns." (Y II. 
 Report of Philippine Com., p. 379.) 
 But this is denied by General de Rivera, who stat in 
 the Spanish Cortes, according to Agoncillo, Aguinio's 
 agent, that he 
 
 "had promised no reforms to Senor Aguinaldo and his my 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 but t/iAtt he had only given them apiece of bread in order that 
 theij might he able to maintain themselves abroad."" (55th 
 Congress, Senate Document 62, Part I., p. 430.) 
 
 , is no wonder, under these circumstances, that Af^iii- Aguinaido, 
 
 ' Description and 
 
 TO should be openly accused of selling out his country character of. 
 
 f Told. Nor do I find anywhere in his story that Agui- 
 
 ilo flatly and squarely denies this charge — in fact, as we 
 
 si see, he admits the receipt of the money. 1 have ray 
 
 opinion about the matter; but I prefer to give the 
 
 f 3 and allow everyone to draw his own conclusions and 
 
 t )rni his own judgment upon them. The importance 
 
 ontroducing this element — of Aguinaldo's honesty or 
 
 dpnesty — into this branch of the discussion is, that it 
 
 bs upon his personal character ; it enables one to judge, 
 
 wa he makes a statement which is opposed to or con- 
 
 tiLcted by the statements of our own officers, whether he 
 
 isititled to more credit than those officers. Aguinaido 
 
 is important element in this Philippine question — he is, 
 
 iiact, the whole of it — and it is of supreme importance 
 
 tl we should have as clear and full a view of his charac- 
 
 tes a man as it is possible for us to obtain. 
 
 J has succeeded in awakening the profound sym- 
 paes of Mr. Schurz and his fellows of the Anti-Impe- 
 riitic League, and of the Democratic party. He is the 
 cl', prominent, central figure on the Philippine side, 
 aiit is his testimony which is invoked to sustain all of 
 tlpromises alleged to have been made to him by our 
 ofals for the future independence of the Filipinos. 
 T'efore, every official and public act of his life becomes 
 oJnportance, not only for the present but for future 
 p)oses. It is quite essential that in the outset we should 
 hi! some knowledge of this man, of his honesty, his pat- 
 rLsm, his ability, his knowledge, and all the other qual- 
 itj necessary to be possessed by one who ambitiously 
 aires upon his own ipse dixit to govern a nation of eight 
 njions or more people. It is admitted that, upon the ter- 
 
6 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSPVEHED. 
 
 mination of the rebellion of 1896, the insurgents surrend- 
 ered their arms to the Spaniards, that Aguinaldo and his 
 nearest associates voluntarily expatriated themselves, choos- 
 ing Hongkong as their place of residence, and that the sum 
 of $400,000 was paid to Aguinaldo in part performance of 
 the terms of the treaty. The balance of the money, ii is 
 said, was not paid, because the Spanish General, de 
 Rivera, stated he would not do so until the corapbte 
 pacification of the Philippines. (Senate Document 2l)8, 
 Part II., 56th Congress, 1st Session, p. 3.) For what 
 purpose was money paid to Aguinaldo? Was it a briDe? 
 Was it money paid to him to be afterwards div:iled 
 between himself and a few of his officers? Let the I'lcts 
 speak. There are several versions of this transaciion 
 brought out in consequence of open charges of corrupion 
 against Aguinaldo by his countrymen and others — I jve 
 them all. Aguinaldo himself relates his version. He 
 says: 
 
 " The whole of the money was to be paid to me peson- 
 ally, leaving the disposal of the money to ray discretioi2iV[(i 
 knowledge of the understanding with my associates and ther 
 insurgents." (The Story Told by Aguinaldo, p. 3.) 
 
 Then there is another version, which comes thrcigh 
 Wildman, our Consul-General at Hongkong, who, !im- 
 self, had several pecuniary transactions with Aguintido, 
 according to the latter' s story (The Story Told by Aguinj do, 
 p. 9), and who, under date of July 19th, 1898, wites 
 (The Anti-Imperialist, Vol. I., No. 2, p. 48): 
 
 "Consulate United States, Hongkong, July 18, 1898 ^* * 
 It has been said that they sold their country for gold, butthis 
 has been conclusively disproved, not only by their own i?ite- 
 ments, but by the speech of the late Governor-General Pimo 
 de Rivera, in the Spanish Senate, June 11, 1898, who aid 
 that Aguinaldo undertook to submit if the Sjyanish Goirn- 
 ment toould give a certain sum to the widows and orphai of 
 the insurgents. He then admits that only a tenth part of his 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 7 
 
 sum was ever given to Aguinaldo, and that the other promises 
 made he did not find it expedient to keep. " 
 
 But it is an impressive fact, in this connection, that the 
 money was deposited in Aguinaldo's own name in the 
 Hongkong bank, and not in trust for the widows and 
 orphans of the insurgents, and that not a dollar of it was 
 ever used for the noble and high-sounding charity alluded 
 to by General Rivera in the Spanish Senate. Here we 
 have General Rivera giving his version of the transaction, 
 stating that the money was paid for the widows and 
 orphans of the insurgents, and Aguinaldo giving another, 
 to the effect that it was paid to him to be used in his dis- 
 cretion. But there is still another version of the affair, 
 which irresistibly appeals to our experience and judgment 
 as men — which contains an ad hominem argument — and 
 which came out in a legal action in Hongkong, instituted 
 by one Ysabelo Artacho. He brought suit against Aguinaldo 
 to recover $200,000, his share of the money, claiming that 
 Aguinaldo refused to pay him. Aguinaldo's version of 
 this whole transaction is this : 
 
 " * * * J ^^g interrupted by letters from Ysabelo Artacho 
 and his solicitors, on the 5th of April, 1898, claiming $200,000 
 of the money received from the Spanish authorities. * * * 
 These letters contain the threat that failure to comply with 
 the demand of Artacho would result in him bringing me before 
 the courts of law in Hongkong. It may make the matter 
 clearer, if I mention at this point, that Ysabelo Artacho ar- 
 rived at Biac-na-Bato and made himself known to and mixed 
 with the olficers in the revolutionary camp on the 21st day of 
 September, 1897, and was appointed Secretary of the Interior 
 in the early part of November of that yeai', when the treaty of 
 peace, proposed and negotiated by Don Pedro Alzandro, a 
 representative of General Rivera, was almost concluded, as is 
 proved by the fact that the document was signed on the 14th 
 of December of that year. In the light of these facts, the un- 
 just and unreasonable nature of the claim of Artacho is easily 
 discernible, for it is monstrous to claim $200,000 for services 
 
THE A N TI-IMPERIA L IS IS A NS VVEKED. 
 
 Aguinaldo re- 
 ceives money 
 from Spanish 
 Government 
 to end the 
 Rebellion. 
 
 rendered to the revolutionary^ government during such a brief 
 period. Moreover, it is a fact tliat it was agreed behoee) our- 
 selves that in the event of the Spaniards failing to comply with 
 each and every one of the promises and conditions cf the 
 agreement, the money obtained from the Spanish Goveriiinent 
 should not he divided, but must be employed in the purchase 
 of arms and ammunition to renew the war of indepentience. 
 It is therefore evident that Artacho, in making this pepos- 
 terous demand, was acting as a spy for the enemy, as an agent 
 of General Primo de Rivera, for he wanted to extinguis-li the 
 rebellion by depriving its leaders of the most indispensable ele- 
 ment, the ' sinews of war,' which is money. This was the view, 
 too, of the whole of my colleagues, and it was resolved that 
 / shoidd leave Hongkong immediately and thereby avoid the 
 litigation which Artacho seemed bent upon, and thereby afford 
 my companions time and opportunity to remove this new and 
 tvholly unexpected harrier to the realization of our cherished 
 plans for the emancipation of our beloved fatherland. / am 
 profoundly pleased to say that they succeeded, Artacho loith- 
 dratoing the suit through a transaction." (The Stoj*} Told 
 by Aguinaldo, pp. 4-5.) 
 
 It thus appears, according to AgaiDaldo's own state- 
 ment, that he did not meet this question in Court, but that 
 he lied from Hongkong to avoid that end, allowing his 
 associates to compromise with Artacho, which they did, 
 by paying him a sura of money, and thus procured the 
 withdrawal of the suit. If the money paid by the Span- 
 ish Government were paid for the benelit of the wdows 
 and orphans of the insurgents, it is curious that Aiiacho 
 would bring suit to recover his share of it; but it is Jiani- 
 f est from the statement of Aguinaldo that the monei was 
 paid to be distributed betioeen himself and Ms isso- 
 ciates, because he expressly admits, in the prectling 
 statement, that the money could be so divided anong 
 these co-patriots, but that they subsequently agred to 
 hold it in the bank until they ascertained whether ^pain 
 would comply with the conditions and promises oJ the 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 9 
 
 agreement. Perhaps it would prove a good investment to 
 open up another insurrection. Aguinaldo, therefore, stands 
 convicted, upon his own statement, of having received 
 money from the Spanish Government to stop the rebellion. 
 Does such an act constitute a Justification for the assertion 
 that he sold his country for gold? Do the facts surround-, 
 ing this transaction show bribery or corruption? These 
 are questions which each individual can answer according 
 to his convictions. What eventually became of this $400,- 
 000, apart from the payment made to compromise Artacho's 
 claim, does not appear from the records which I have had 
 before me, but it must be said, in Justice to Aguinaldo, 
 that our Consul at Manilla, Mr. Oscar '^ . Williams, in a 
 letter to the Secretary of State, said : 
 
 "To-day I executed a power of attorney whereby General 
 Aguinaldo releases to his attorneys in fact $400,000, now in 
 bank at Hongkong, so that taoney therefrom can pay for 3,000 
 stands of arms brought there and expected here to-morrow." 
 (Senate Doc. No. 62, Part 1, 55th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 328.) 
 
 From which it appears that some portion of the money 
 may have been spent for the purchase of these arms. It 
 constitutes no answer to the accusation to say that some 
 of this money was again reinvested in arms. The orig- 
 inal motioe and purpose of the payment of the money to 
 Aguinaldo and his associates, was to end the insurrection 
 and get rid of the leaders. This was accomplished, and 
 the Spanish Government did not pay the cash until Agui- 
 aldo was landed high and dry in Hongkong ! And these 
 patriots thought so little of their country that the reforms 
 promised were not even put in the treaty ! This same 
 Aguinaldo is the individual into whose hands the merciful 
 and philanthropic Anti-Imperialists would entrust the 
 government of the Philippine Islands ! This is the man 
 in reference to whom so many pathetic and tearful appeals 
 have been made ! 
 
 Aguinaldo is thus introduced to us through the rebel- 
 
10 THE ANTI. IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 lion of 1896. When the war broke out between the 
 United States and Spain, we find him living in Hongkong, 
 a voluntary exile from his country, the possessor of this 
 large sum of money, which he says himself was to be 
 divided among himself and his associates. Upon the facts 
 to which I have alluded, I think he appears upon the 
 scene already discredited as a man and as a witness. I 
 have tried in vain to reconcile his acceptance of this money 
 and his voluntary exile from his native land with any sense 
 or motive of imtriotism, honor or justice. The Anti-Impe- 
 rialists have taken him to their bosoms — they have held him 
 up as an honored citizen and i^ure patriot — as a species of 
 Washington. I think they should be disillusioned when 
 they reflect upon this evidence. I think that we must 
 accept Aguinaldo as he appears in the light of this remark- 
 able Biac-na-Bato transaction, and when his statments are 
 opposed to statements of our officers of our army and 
 navy, we should hesitate to adopt his version, unless it 
 is strongly corroborated by other and independent facts ; 
 and the inquiry arises whether the criticism of Colonel 
 Kennon, of the 34th Infantry, who appears to have made 
 a careful analysis of the facts, is not correct : 
 
 " I woukl not venture to say that this uprising was not 
 fully justified. It proved a failure, and its leaders., Aguinaldo 
 in particular., were bought off, and, for a sum of money, 
 agreed to leave the country. * * * It is to he noted that 
 at the time in question they were not struggling patriots, but 
 bought-off traitors, shrexodly trying to turn the existing condi- 
 tions to their oim% personal advantage.''' (Letter of Colonel 
 Kennon to Senator Proctor, Congressional Record, 1st Sess. , 
 56th Congress, p. 2772.) 
 
 The same criticism was made by our Consul at Manila, 
 on March 31, 1898, who, in a letter to our Secretary of 
 State, said : 
 
 "Months ago pacification was claimed by the Governor- 
 General. It was false. A truce had been bought with 11,650- 
 000 (the equivalent in silver of $800,600 gold), during which 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. U 
 
 the Governor-General hoped to embark for Si)ain, but all was a 
 hollow farce." (Senate Document No. 62, 5oth Cong., 3rd 
 Sess., Parti., p. 322.) 
 
 In a previous letter dated February 22d, 1898 {ibid., 
 p. 320), he had said : 
 
 " Certain rebel leaders loere given a cash bribe of $1,650,000 
 to consent to iniblic deportation to China. This bribe and 
 deportation only raidtiplied claimants and fanned the fires of 
 discontent.'" 
 
 I do not wish to do this man any injustice. Perhaps 
 his receipt of the money was consistent with patriotism 
 and honesty. Suppose we assume that it was so. The 
 assumption will not diminish a tittle the strength of the 
 argument which I shall hereafter make. Proceeding upon 
 this last view, leaving all the history appertaining to the 
 receipt of the $400,000 out of the question, I come now to 
 the enquiry as to the substance of the insurrection of 1896. 
 What was the insurrection of 1896? What was its scope, The issues 
 
 •iiiTii T nx • 1 involved in the 
 
 Width, breadth, length and purpose? It was simply an insurrection 
 uprising of the people to redress certain grievances within acknowledged 
 
 r <-j ir L o the sovereignty 
 
 the Spanish Government. It was in no sense an uprising ofspain. 
 for independence or for the establishment of a separate 
 sovereignty ; it had no such end in view, as shown by the 
 proclamation and verihed by the treaty. There is a differ- 
 ence between a war of revolution, which generally aims to 
 overthrow an existing government, and an insurrection, 
 which acknowledges sovereignty but strives to redress 
 certain grievances. The English barons were willing that 
 John should be King, but they stood sword in hand insist- 
 ing that there should be granted to them certain great 
 rights of liberty and property. 
 
 "A war of revolution is generally undertaken for the dis- 
 memberment of a state and the separation of one of its parts 
 or for the overthrow and radical change of the government; 
 while an insurrectionary war is sometimes waged for a very 
 different purpose." (Sir Sherston Baker's "First Steps in 
 International Law," p. 179.) 
 
]2 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 Read this piece of testimony in this connection : 
 
 " Q. Did they have at any time during the course of that 
 revolution the idea of fighting for their independence ? 
 
 A. No ; I never heard this word ' independence ' spoken, 
 nor do I think they are capable of understanding it, even up 
 to this time." (Testimony before Philippine Com., Vol. II., 
 Report, p. 381.) 
 
 The purpose of this insurrection of 1896 was to fight 
 for certain reforms within the government, and when the 
 ui)rising was ended, the complete and absolute sovereignty 
 of Spain over these islands was unquestioned and un- 
 questionahle; and, with the exception of an unimportant 
 outbreak in Cebu, the rebellion had been confined to 
 Luzon. Spain's sovereignty in the other islands had never 
 been questioned, and the thought of independence never 
 entertained by the residents thereof. (Report of the Phil- 
 ippine Commission, Vol. I., p. 171.) So much for this 
 epoch in the history of the Philippine Islands. It shows 
 the status of those people down to the beginning of 1898. 
 
 II. 
 
 Events in We come, then, to the period intervening between Feb- 
 
 Philippines be- ,-,#-. t . i 
 
 uveeu Fei.iu ruarv, 1898, when the Maine was blown up, and the ap- 
 
 ary, IS'.lS. and J ' ' 
 
 Mayiu,i8'j8. pyarauce of Aguiualdo on the warship of Admiral Dewey, 
 in the harbor of Manila, May 19th, 1898. 
 
 It was apparent to everyone, after the destruction of 
 the Maine, that an armed contlict between the United 
 States and Spain was inevitable, and, in fact, open prepar- 
 ations were made in this country for the forthcoming 
 war. This was heralded all over the world, and long 
 before the actual declaration of war had been made 
 our Ambassadors, Consuls, and our Navy in the East 
 were prepared for the blow. This was especially the 
 fact at Hongkong, where, during February and March, 
 measures were laid for the approaching war, and where 
 
THE AiYTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 13 
 
 the rumors and prospects of hostilities were openly and 
 actively discussed. The Spaniards, it seems, after getting 
 rid of Aguinaldo and possessing themselves of the arms 
 used by the insurgents, failed to grant the promised re- 
 forms to the Filipinos, the principal of which, as related 
 by Aguinaldo, were to restrict the friars in their acts of 
 tyranny and oppression — to expel them — and to secularize 
 religious orders. (Story Told by Aguinaldo, p. 4.) Be- 
 sides this the other instalments of the money stipulated 
 had not been paid. 
 
 " This faihire " (says Aguinaldo) " of the Spanish authori- 
 ties to abide by the terms of the treaty, caused me and my 
 companions much unhappiness, which quickly changed to ex- 
 asperation when I received a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel 
 Don Miguel Primo de Rivera (nephew and private secretary 
 of the above-named General), informing rae that I and my 
 companions could never return to Manila." (Story Told by 
 Aguinaldo, p. 4.) 
 
 The Filipinos themselves were angry because a matter 
 of business had been made of an insurrection, and they 
 had no confidence in the Spaniards. 
 
 " As a matter of fact these promises were never carried out. 
 The civil guard began to whip and to shoot and abuse the peo- 
 ple as before, and it is stated that in the Province of Manila 
 more than two hundred men were executed. As a direct re- 
 sult of these further abuses sporadic uprisings occurred in sev- 
 eral provinces of Luzon, but they had nothing of the coherence 
 or strength of the original movement, being attempts to 
 avenge particular wrongs rather than efforts to secure general 
 reform. The straggling and numerically insignificant insur- 
 gent forces lacked arms, ammunition, and leaders. Spain dis- 
 banded her volunteer Filipino militia and prepared to send her 
 regular troops home." (Report of Philippine Commission, 
 Vol. L, p. 17L) 
 And thus was commenced what I shall call the second Beginning of 
 
 Second Insur- 
 
 insurrection. It must be borne in mind that the treaty of section in isos. 
 Biac-na-Bato was not executed until December 14th, 1897, 
 
14 THE ANTI-lMPERIALISrS ANSWERED. 
 
 and that the probability of war between the United States 
 and Spain was in everybody's mouth in February, 1898. 
 The condition, assuming that the Filipinos wished to 
 uprise against the Spanish Government, was this: 
 Aguinaldo had given u^) all their arms, and their leaders 
 were out of the country, and they were confronted, as a 
 matter of fact, with two dilemmas, either of which was 
 fatal to the insurrection : If a war between the United 
 States and Spain had not been imminent no second rebel 
 lion would have broken out, or if, on the other hand, 
 in the absence of any prospect of war, a rebellion had 
 been inaugurated, it would have been speedily put down 
 by Sj^ain, because she would have had no other work 
 on her hands. War being imminent, our Consuls and 
 officers in the East immediately busied themselves with 
 plans and suggestions to aid their country, and ourConsul- 
 General at Singapore, Mr. E. Spencer Pratt, having dis- 
 covered that Aguinaldo was in that place (where he had 
 gone, be it remembered, to hide from the 'process of 
 Artacho), sought to avail himself of Aguinaldo's services, 
 just as he would those of any other individual who had 
 been so closely connected with the Spaniards in the Philip- 
 pines, and who knew the character, manner, habits, and 
 resources of the natives ; and it may even be conceded that 
 First Overtures Pratt sought out Aguiualdo and opened a conference with 
 by Consul- him. But it is clear and unequivocal that Pratt made no 
 
 General at ^ -, i a • i i 
 
 Singapore, pfomiscs to Aguinoldo; his purpose was to get Aguinaldo 
 to go to Dewey, and he telegraphed to the Department of 
 State, under date of July 28th, 1898, that he 
 
 " Declined to discuss with General Aguinaldo the question 
 of the future policy of the United States loith regard to the 
 Philippines^ that I held out no hopes to him of any kind, 
 comynitted the Government in no loay tohatever^ and, in the 
 course of our conferences, never acted upon the assumption 
 that the Government toould act with Aguinaldo for the fur- 
 therance of any plan of his own, nor that in accepting his said 
 
Aguinaldo. 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 15 
 
 co-operation it loould consider itself pledged to recognize any 
 political claim vjhich he might put forioard.'' (Congressional 
 Record, 55th Congress, 3rd Sess., p. 3512.) 
 
 Does Aguinaldo deny this? If he does we have our 
 Consul on one side and Aguinaldo on the other. We 
 have also the same exact, terse and clear statements 
 from all of our other officials. Besides, we have the 
 explicit instructions from the State Department, which 
 confirm everything our officers say. As the result of 
 the several interviews in Singapore, Aguinaldo was in- 
 vited by Dewey to come to Hongkong; but before he 
 reached there Dewey had left, and it was only on May interview be- 
 19th, 1898, eighteen days after the Spanish fleet had been ^"T^.iffnt 
 destroyed, and when it was manifest to the whole world 
 tliat the Philippine Islands were to fall into the posses- 
 sion of the United States soldiers that an interview be- 
 tween Aguinaldo and Dewey took place. 
 
 Dewey made no j^romises to Aguinaldo ; he had it in his 
 power to do so, but he was on his guard against him. A 
 few days after the first interview he received a cable from 
 Washington, from the Secretary of the Navy (Long), as 
 follows : 
 
 Washington, May 26, 1898. 
 "Dewey: You must exercise discretion most fully in all 
 matters and be governed according to circumstances which you 
 know and which we cannot know. You liave our confidence 
 entirely. It is desirable as far as possible and consistent vntli 
 your success and safety, not to have p)olitical alliances xoith the 
 insurgents or any faction, in the islands that loould ineiir lia- 
 bility to m,aintain their cause in the future. " 
 
 Dewey replied on June 3d : 
 " Secretary of the Navy, Washington: 
 
 Receipt of telegram of May 26 is acknowledged and I thank 
 the Department for the expression of confidence. Have acted 
 according to the spirit of the Department's instructions therein 
 from the beginning, and I have entered into no alliance with 
 
16 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 the insurgents or loith any faction. This squadron can reduce 
 the defences of Manila at any moment, but it is considered 
 useless until the arrival of sufficient United States forces to re- 
 tain possession." (Cong. Rec, 55th Cong. , 3rd Sess., p. 2511.) 
 
 With that despatch from the Secretary of the Navy in 
 his hand, it is wholly impossible, in fact out of the ques- 
 tion, that Admiral Dewey would have subsequently made 
 any promise to Aguinaldo. He was specially warned by 
 the Department not to enter into any arrangement by 
 which this Government would be identified with any in- 
 surrection partj^ The evidence upon this point is so 
 overwhelming that even Mr. Schurz does not dispute it, 
 for he admits : 
 
 ' ' I never said that formal alliances or agreements or prom- 
 ises were made." [New York Herald^ July 14, 1900.] 
 
 No promises At this time we knew little or nothing about the Philip- 
 made to ox 
 
 Aguinaldo. pine Islands — we were groping in the dark — we were 
 studying the questions — we were feeling our way — filling 
 ourselves with all details, so that when the time came we 
 might be able to act with a ripe and mature judgment; so 
 that we might be just and fair to all the people of those 
 islands, and to all the interests involved. We did not 
 know whether there were one or twenty-five insurrections 
 in the Philii)pine Islands, and a more clear-headed, 
 humane, conscientious, conservative, sagacious policy, than 
 that conducted through the office of the Secretary of State 
 it is impossible to conceive of, so far as I can Judge from 
 the facts and records which have come under my observa- 
 tion — and I think I have seen everything relevant to the 
 subject. 
 
 Let us go back to the meeting between Dewey and 
 Aguinaldo on the 19th of May, on the deck of the 
 Olymjna. Notwithstanding Mr. Schurz admits no prom- 
 ises were made, I purx)ose to investigate each feature and 
 element of this history. Much is sought to be made 
 of this conference, and it should be closely analyzed. 
 
THE AMTI-TMPERIAI.ISTS ANSWERED. 17 
 
 A question first arises as to the official character of Aguinaido-s 
 
 AT I TTT1 1 r> i-TT. , official char- 
 
 guinaldo. Who was he? What was he at this time? acto- analyzed. 
 
 He was an exile, a mere private individual, with no public 
 or official character or position of any kind whatever; he 
 had voluntarily expatriated himself from his own country, 
 and was prohibited by Spain from visiting there. He was 
 not connected with any insurrection, except in so far as 
 it might have his moral and pecuniary support— in fact, 
 there is no evidence that any insurrection had begun. 
 If anything, he was engaged in the business of launching 
 a rebellion. He did not officially represent the Filii)inos, 
 not only because he had not and could not land on their 
 shores without the aid of the United States, but for the 
 more powerful reason that they had no government what- 
 ever. The insurgents had not, at this time, put them- 
 selves in the field, except in a most scattered, insignificant 
 way ; they had no arms and did not receive any until they 
 were delivered through the instrumentality of the United 
 States boats and troops ; the insurrection was not organ- 
 ized ; the people had made no declaration of independ 
 ence or sovereignty, they had adopted no constitution- 
 no flag — no form- of government; they had neither legal 
 nor local habitation nor name, nor any of the insignia of 
 government; at most they were simply straggling mal- 
 contents, without officers, arms or ammunition, wait- 
 ing to be born, fed, clothed, organized and strength- 
 ened into an insurrection by the influences of the navy 
 and army and power of the United States Government; 
 and ready to take advantage of any opportunity which 
 might advance their interests. The argument that a series 
 of talks at this time, no matter how deep and serious, 
 between Aguinaldo and our Naval officers or Consuls, under 
 such circumstances, can be made the basis of an international 
 compact binding upon the people of the United States can- 
 not be considered — it is absurd — nor would any alleged 
 promises under the circumstances, even if coupled with 
 
18 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 actual and beneficial war services rendered in pursuance 
 of them, make any stronger case, as I shall endeavor to 
 show ; for, among others, this reason : Aguinaldo was 
 nothing — he represented nothing, and could represent 
 nothing, because there was nothing to represent. What 
 was the name of his government? What was its char- 
 acter? Where was it located? Was it a monarchy, an 
 aristocracy or a democracy? Where was the seat of 
 o-overnnient? What was its official roster? I am now 
 speaking of afi'airsand events previous to June 23d, 1S98; 
 I am following closely and attentively each event during 
 this period, because it seems to me that we should keep 
 constantly in view and have a clear understanding of the 
 status of Aguinaldo and his followers at each epoch of 
 this history. 
 
 On the 19th of May, and down to the 23d of June, when 
 Aguinaldo dictatorially adox)ted a constitution, there could 
 be no pretext whatever that any insurrection existed in 
 the Philippine Islands with which Aguinaldo was asso- 
 ciated in any official capacity. It is true that, like lago, 
 he had designs — plans — in his mind, but he had been 
 plainly told by our Consuls and other officers and by 
 Dewey, that he could expect no ofiicial recognition from 
 them or from this Government. Is there any question as 
 to who we are to believe if there is a contest of veracity? 
 It is undoubtedly true that Aguinaldo had deep designs, 
 but they were concealed from our officers. According to 
 the testimony of Colonel Kennon (Cong. Rec. 56th Cong., 
 1st Sess., p. 2772), it appears that 
 
 " On the 4th of May, 1898, Aguinaldo, Agoncillo and a few 
 others held a meeting in this city (Hongkong), in which the 
 2)resent loarioas 2)lon)ied, in case the government of the islands 
 was not turned over to them by the Americans. [Pure, guileless 
 Aguinaldo!] It is to be noted that at the time in question 
 they were not struggling patriots, but bought-off traitors, 
 shrevHlly trying to turn the existing conditions to their own 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 19 
 
 personal advantage. Their plan was to %inite with the Ameri- 
 cans, procure arms from them, which later were to he used 
 against their liberators. I have myself read the minutes of 
 this meeting, signed by Agoncillo, in which this plan is pro- 
 posed by Aguinaldo. " 
 
 The wisdom of the Government was never so apparent — ARuinaido's 
 
 ^ *■ scheme to con- 
 
 its prudence in holding Aguinaldo at arm's length never IJ^g'^Go^^^Jni* 
 appeared more justifiable — than it does to-day, in the light un?ted"states 
 of all of the recently disclosed and surrounding circum onMay4, isgs. 
 stances — for it seems that this man had conceived from the 
 very beginning a purpose of establishing a dictatorial gov- 
 ernment in the Philippine Islands, of his own manufac- 
 ture, without any regard to the wishes of the inhabitants, 
 and that he had conceived the design of carrying that out, 
 even in opposition to the United States, with the very 
 weapons and arms which he expected to receive from our 
 Government. And yet we find the Anti-imperialistic 
 League all in tears for this great, mild, lovely and patriotic 
 Aguinaldo ! He, who did not propose to give us time to 
 breathe, before, anticipating any intention of ours, he 
 would attempt to snatch the Philippines from us ! 
 
 In the month of May, and down to the 23d of June, 
 therefore, the situation in the Philippines was that the 
 United States was trying to defeat Spain, the supreme and ^ Spain the 
 
 *' <-" r 1 X- Sovereign of 
 
 undoubted sovereign of these islands, and to capture them j^juneSl 
 from her. This was as clear as the noonday sun, without 
 a shadow of any intervening right or title between these two 
 powers. It was clear that the Philippines were doomed 
 to be lost tc Spain — clear to Spain — clear to the world — 
 clear to Aguinaldo. Out of this inevitable result — out of 
 the circumstances attending the capture of Manila — came 
 the crystallization of the forces under Aguinaldo. The 
 revolution, if it can be called so (and I claim that that is a 
 misnomer), was born, nourished and grew out of the 
 power and influence of the United States Government. It 
 was a mere branch springing from the principal tree of 
 
20 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 military and naval authority, planted by the United States 
 in the Philippine Islands. It was a subordinate, subsidi- 
 ary, parasitic growth from the great stem of American 
 power. 
 
 III. 
 
 Events be- I will now cousider the acts and events transpiring 
 
 tween May 19 , a • i t • j 
 
 anci^August^ia, between the 19th of May, 1898, when Aguinaldo arrived 
 ^capt£rr at Manila, and the 13th of August, the date of the taking 
 of Manila. Dewey cabled the Government that Aguinaldo 
 had visited him and that he might render assistance. 
 Washington had also heard from Wiliams, the Consul- 
 General at Manila, that the " insurgents of these islands " 
 were making preparation for more successful war against 
 Spain (Cong. Rec, 55th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2512). The 
 Administration, with great prudence, foresight, and good 
 sense (for which they deserve infinite praise, not re- 
 proach and contumely), immediately telegraphed, namely, 
 on May 26th, to Dewey (as I have before stated, but 
 think it important to state again in this connection), that : 
 " It is desirable as far as possible and consistent for your 
 success and safety, not to have any political alliances icith the 
 insurgents or any faction in the islands that loould incur lia- 
 bility to maintain their cause in the future.^' 
 
 To which, on the 6th of June, Dewey replied : 
 
 " Have acted according to spirit of Department's instruc- 
 tions from the beginning, and I have entered into no alliance 
 loith the insurgents or with any faction.'" 
 
 The same caution was given to Consul-General Pratt at 
 Singapore, and the Secretary of State informed him that : 
 "• it iKOxdd not, in accepting Aguinaldo' s co-operation, con- 
 sider itself pledged to recognize any political claims which he 
 might put forward.'' (June 13-16.) (Cong. Rec, o5th Cong., 
 3d Sess., p. 2513.) 
 
 Instruction 
 
 of Secretary of 
 
 State to 
 
 Officials to 
 
 make no 
 
 alliances with 
 
 Aguinaldo. 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 21 
 
 And in a further letter to the same official, it is said : 
 "This Government has hnoioa the Philippine insurgents 
 only as discontented subjects of Spain." (Senate Documents, 
 No. 62, Part I., 55th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 351.) 
 
 Pratt replied to the Department that he had 
 
 " held out 7io hopes to him {Aguinaldo) of any kind,''' &c. 
 
 Wildman, our Consul-General at Hongkong, was in- 
 structed to the same effect and replied in the same manner : 
 " Never made pledges or discussed policy of America with 
 Aguinaldo." (Senate Documents, No. 62. Part I., 55th Cong., 
 3d Sess., p. 338.) 
 
 It therefore overwhelmingly appears that all our offi- 
 cials. Naval and Consulate, were distinctly informed in 
 respect to the position which this Government held in 
 regard to the Philippine Islands, and Aguinaldo had full 
 and perfect notice that he would not be in anywise recog- 
 nized by the Government. The Government wisely did 
 not allow the grass to grow under its feet, but it promptly 
 and broadly put itself upoti record. It stamped out any 
 pretense of existing recognition of Aguinaldo. It gave 
 not the slightest encouragement to him — it placed itself 
 upon the basis of its clear rights — it kept out of entangle- 
 ments which Spain might have been glad to take advantage 
 of when the time for settlement and treaty arrived. Not 
 content with instructing our officials, the Government 
 took the further precaution, through the Secretary of 
 War, to proclaim its views to the whole people of the 
 Philippine Islands ; it was determined there should be no 
 misunderstanding as to the precise relation which the 
 Government of the United States occupied to them. On 
 May, 19, 1898 — the very day Aguinaldo saw Dewey for 
 the first time — the President issued instructions to the War 
 Department, which were conveyed for public proclama- oFpretwent^of 
 tion to General Wesley Merritt, commanding the army of towar^Depart- 
 occupation to the Philippines. The relation of our ™1ng lover °'^" 
 
 1T-C1-- • 1 1 T- eignty over 
 
 country to the Filipinos is clearly stated in this important P^mppines. 
 
 May 19, 1898, 
 
2-2 THE ANTI-IMPEKIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 document, and our views set forth in accordance with the 
 principles of international law; indeed, the language 
 seems to have been taken oerhatim et literatim from a 
 treatise on international law, because it follows so closely 
 the doctrine laid down by all international law writers. 
 Nothing can be clearer, nothing was more timely or 
 proper, than this proclamation, which conveyed to the 
 Filipinos the exact position which they bore to the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States. Tens of thousands of these 
 proclamations were translated into Spanish and distributed 
 among the people of those islands. (Congressional Record, 
 55th Congress, 3d Sess., p. 2515.) I quote the gist of it — 
 that part relevant to this branch of the discussion : 
 
 n * * * fijg gj.gt, effect of the military occupation of the 
 enemy's territory is the severance of the former political rela- 
 tions of the inhabitants and the estahlishment of a neio politi- 
 cal x>ower. [Here is a plain and distinct claim of sovereignty.] 
 Under this changed condition of thinys, the inhabitants, so 
 long as they perform their duties, are entitled to security in 
 their persons and property, and in all their private rights and 
 relations. It is my desire that the people of the Philippines 
 should be acquainted with the purpose of the United States 
 to discharge to the fullest extent its obligations in this regard. 
 It will therefore be the duty of the commander of the expe- 
 dition immediately upon his arrival in the islands, to publish 
 a proclamation, declaring that we come not to make war upon 
 the pjeople of the PJdlipjnnes, nor upon any party or faction 
 among them, but to protect them in their homes, in their em- 
 ployments, and in their personal and religio7is rights. All 
 persons who either b}'^ active aid or by honest submission co- 
 operate with the United States in its efforts to give effect to 
 this beneficent purpose, will receive the award of its support 
 and protection. Our occupation should be as free from sever- 
 ity as possible. * * * Though the poioers of the military 
 occiqyant are absolute and supreme and immediately operate 
 upon the political condition of the inhabitants, the municipal 
 laws of the conquered territory, such as affect private rights of 
 persons and property, and providing for the punishment of 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 23 
 
 crime, are considered as continuing in force, so far as they 
 are compatible with the new order of things, until they are 
 suspended or superseded by the occupying belligerent; and in 
 practice they are not usually abrogated, but are allowed to 
 remain in force and to be administered by the ordinary tri- 
 bunals substantially as they were before the occupation. This 
 enlightened practice is, so far as possible, to be adhered to on 
 the present occasion." (Congressional Record, ooth Con- 
 gress, 3rd Sess., p. 2514.) 
 
 Tills was the forerunner of the " benevolent assimlla- comparison 
 tlon " proclamation, so bitterly denounced by the Anti- Proclamations. 
 Imperialists, and about which I shall have something to 
 say further on ; but it will be noted that a comparison of 
 the two proclamations shows that their language is almost 
 identical ! While the war was at fever heat between Spain 
 and this country, this proclamation was issued to pacify 
 the inhabitants of these islands. It was inevitable that 
 we should conquer these islands — Filipinos with, or 
 Filipinos against us. We were not making war on these 
 people; we were driving out Spain. This proclamation 
 told them so. It revealed our exact international relation 
 to them. Was this wrong? Is there any criticism to be 
 made of the President for the issuance of this proclama- 
 tion? Was it not a beneticent, humane, prudent, friendly 
 act to tender the olive branch to the people of these 
 islands? Was it not consistent with the best policy to 
 solicit and encourage, not merely their submission, but 
 their hopes and friendship? At this time no one could 
 know with certainty what would be the end of the war — 
 what would be the basis of settlement between the two 
 Powers — whether we would hold the PhilijDpines, or 
 whether we would turn them over again to Spain. Still, I 
 presume there was little doubt on the question. 
 
 Why do not these lynx-eyed Anti-Imperialists criticise 
 this first "benevolent assimilation" proclamation? If 
 the second was bad, this one was equally so. 
 
34 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 Juue 10, 1898, 
 Aguinaldo's 
 letter to tlie 
 President. 
 
 Aguinaldo 
 never believed 
 Uniteti States 
 Government 
 would ac- 
 knowledge his 
 Government. 
 
 On the 10th of June, 1898, we have a most significant 
 letter from Aguinaldo to the President of the United 
 States, in which he thanked tlie nation for the efficient 
 and disinterested protection whicli it was giving, and 
 begged and protested tliat the " Government of the United 
 States would retain these islands until the end of the war, 
 and if Spain fails to pay the indemnity, will (not) sell 
 them to an European Power, preferably Great Britain." — 
 (Senate Doc. No. 62, part I., 55th Cong., 3rd Sess., p. 360). 
 
 It will be remembered that there was some wild talk in 
 America of turning over these islands to Great Britain. 
 Aguinaldo at that time was only interested in having them 
 retained by this Government ; he then, apparently, was 
 willing to fully and freely acquiesce in our having pos- 
 session of them, but he did not want them disposed of to 
 any other Power, and he begged us, in behalf of a " people 
 which trusts blindly in you, not to abandon it to the 
 tyranny of Spain." 
 
 In face of all these facts, it is impossible to believe 
 Aguinaldo when he asserts that he received any encour- 
 agement from our officials or officers in the East that this 
 Government would recognize him and the Filipinos as an 
 independent government. Read the emphatic utterances 
 of Dewey, Pratt and Wildman — and how can the naked 
 word of Aquinaldo prevail against them? Instructed 
 clearly and emphatically from Washington to enter into 
 no entangling alliances, it is highly improbable that any 
 of them would give him encouragement. Nay, 1 assert 
 that a careful study of the facts shows that he never be- 
 lieved, even from the beginning, that this Government 
 would acknowledge his independence. It is an after- 
 thought on his part if he says so. Else why the secret 
 conspiracy of May 4th, 1898? And he is condemned out of 
 the mouths of his own friends and officers, one of whom 
 testified : 
 
 " A short time afterwards (after July, 1898), as soon as he 
 had some forces, he proclaimed independence in the few towns 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 25 
 
 wliich he had procured without the consent of Admiral 
 Dewey, at whose orders he had come, and the first time I 
 presented myself to him I heard from his own lips that neither 
 Admiral Dewey nor any other American had ever promised 
 him such independence." — (Vol. II,, Report Philippine Com- 
 mission, p. 381.) 
 
 So far, then, as the case of the Anti-Imperialists rests united states 
 
 -^ never agreed 
 
 Upon promises — verbal or written, implied or expressed, A'S'niUdI?! 
 inferential or direct — that the United States would give or Govemment.i 
 recognize the independence of Aguinaldo's government, it 
 is absolutely without foundation. It has not a leg to 
 stand upon. The denials are not equivocal or doubtful; 
 they are direct, sweeping and overwhelming. 
 
 Mr. Schurz is nervously anxious, constantly demanding, 
 that some one would appear to discuss the facts with him. 
 That anxiety and wish I am now gratifying. And with 
 all of the evidence before me (and which I now tender and 
 open to him) I proclaim that I shall be able to show that 
 in his statement of all of the material facts and x)rinciples 
 of law he is mistaken — wrong — misled far away from the 
 the paths of truth. 
 He says : 
 
 ' ' While so profiting from the co-operation of the Filipinos 
 as our military allies against the 'common enemy,' we know 
 that the Filipinos believed that, fighting side by side with the 
 Republic of Washington and Lincoln, they were fighting for 
 their own independence. We had every reason for knowing 
 that had they not so believed they would have acted dif- 
 ferently. "—(N. Y. Titnes, July 25, 1900.) 
 
 This is not correct. The facts condemn every material Filipinos never 
 word of the statement. The Filipinos believed otherwise, MMauTdbe*"^ 
 because they were told otherwise by our Generals and 
 officers— by every one of them, as I have shown and shall 
 show hereafter. Aguiualdo seized the occasion of this 
 war between Spain and the United States to put himself 
 in motion. It released him from exile. It gave him arms. 
 
 recognized. 
 
26 
 
 THE ANTI IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 It enabled him under our protection to gatlier around him 
 troops. But at every step of 7iis game lie encountered 
 the clear, plain, unmistakable utterances of our Generals, 
 who refused to acknowledge his military or civil power or 
 to give him any encouragement. Finding the road to his 
 ambition was blocked, this bold, bad adventurer coldly, 
 deliberately, with the premeditation of a murderer, cruelly 
 plunged his unhappy countrymen in the most useless and 
 suicidal rebellion ever waged — waged against their 
 friends, who stood before them with the olive branch of 
 friendship, and who were seriously engaged in the hu- 
 mane occuj)ation of discovering what was best for their 
 advancement, progress, health, education and liberty ! 
 
 IV. 
 
 Discussion of 
 
 Apruinaldo's 
 
 dictatorial 
 
 Constitution. 
 
 I wish now to discuss an eventof the 23d of June, 1898, 
 separately. This date is important only because a consti- 
 tution was dictated and promulgated by Aguinaldo at that 
 time. 
 
 What effect and influence has this document upon the 
 merits of the Philippine question? In the flrst place, it was 
 not the work of the people of the Philippine Islands. It 
 was not the result of a pleblscitum— a vote — an official 
 consensus of opinion of the people. It is a document dic- 
 tatorially prei)ared by an individual — iVguinaldo, and 
 promulgated by him to give the world the assurance that 
 a government existed in the Philippines. I invoke the 
 testimony of the Vice-President of the Congress : 
 
 " This Congress was made up by Aguinaldo. All the mem- 
 bers may be said to have been appointed. There was not an 
 election. There were a very few members who were elected 
 by the people, but a gi'eat majority were aj^pointed by Agui- 
 naldo, and naturally the decisions of the Congress had to be as 
 Aofuinaldo desired. 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 27 
 
 Q. Did Aguinaldo have the power to remove members that 
 did not vote to suit his wishes ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he ever employ this right ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir; he appointed me Vice-President of the Con- 
 gress * * * 
 
 Q. What importance did the Congress actually have '? Were 
 its decrees put into effect or were they overruled by Aguinaldo 
 and his Cabinet when they were not pleasing to them '? 
 
 A. Whatever Aguinaldo wished. 
 
 Q. I wish to know whether the Congress was dominated by 
 Aguinaldo and his Cabinet or not ? 
 
 A. Completely. " 
 
 (Vol. II., Report Philippine Commission, pp. 386-7.) 
 
 At most, this constitution of Aguinaldo was but a 
 'proposition^ to be adopted or rejected by the people. It 
 had no efficacy or force until it was formally accepted 
 either by direct ratification or by the people living 
 under it. 
 
 " A de facto government is one actually existing in a state 
 and for the time possessing sufficient strength to exercise sov 
 ereign powers." (Davis' Elements of International Law, 
 p. 34.) 
 
 But there could be neither a de facto nor a de jure gov- 
 ernment established under the circumstances which pre- 
 vailed in the Philippines at this period — at least not with- 
 out the consent of the Government of Spain or of the 
 United States. A war was in existence at this date, June, 
 1898, between the United States and Spain — Spain known 
 to the world and recognized as the sole sovereign of these 
 islands. If the United States prevailed, she need not, 
 under principles of international law, recognize a third 
 sovereignty — established without her consent ; and the 
 same view would apply to Spain. The paper constitution 
 put forth by the dictator, Aguinaldo, in the midst of this 
 war, was therefore inefficacious for any purpose — except 
 
iS THE A NT! IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 SO far as it might be vivified into a living government by 
 tlie ratification of tlie people of the Philippine Islands, 
 when authorized and approved by the United States or 
 Spain, whichever should prove to be the ultimate victor. 
 
 The paper government inaugurated by Aguinaldo could 
 receive no recognition as a government de facto or de jure 
 from outside sovereignties or Powers. Suppose Aguinaldo 
 had sent a representative to the Government of France or 
 England, how would he have been received? Would 
 either of those Powers have recognized a government cre- 
 ated under such circumstances? France would have said 
 to the representative : " Who are you? " " W^hat is your 
 government? " " The Philippine Islands belong to S^min." 
 " Do you claim to have carried through a successful revo- 
 lution?" "Where is the evidence of a plebiscitum — a 
 vote of the people? " " Sj)ain is the sovereign of those 
 islands? " "If she is not, then they belong to the victor, 
 the United States." " How can you intervene between 
 these two Powers to take advantage of the weakness of 
 Spain or the strength of the United States, without the 
 consent of either or both? " 
 
 "A Sovereign State may therefore be defined to be any 
 nation or people organized into a body politic and exercising 
 the rights of self government." (Baker's First Steps in Inter- 
 national Law, p. 24.) 
 
 The most that could be claimed for this constitution by 
 Aguinaldo would be, that by ratification by the people — 
 by approval of the United States or of Spain — it might 
 in time ripen into a government. It was hardly worthy of 
 being called a healthy seed which could produce fruit in 
 the political soil in which it was sowed by Aguinaldo. 
 Aguinaido's Then, it is urged that Aguinaldo procured and adopted 
 a flag — which was displayed on boats running in and about 
 Manila Bay — and which was recognized and respected by 
 our navy and army. Aguinaldo's story of the flag is as 
 follows : 
 
 Flag. 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 29 
 
 "Then the Admiral advised me to at once have made a 
 Filipino National Flag, which he said he would recognize and 
 protect in the presence of the other nations represented by the 
 various squadrons anchored in Manila Bay, adding, however, 
 that he thought it advisable that we should destroy the povier 
 of Spain before hoisting our national flag.'" (The Stoiy Told 
 by Aguinaldo, p. 10.) 
 
 "In conformity with my orders, issued on the 1st of Sep- 
 tember (1898), all Philippine vessels hoisted the national flag, 
 the marines of the Filipino flotilla being the first to execute 
 that order." {Ibid., p. 15.) 
 
 Under the circumstances disclosed, this flag was one for 
 protection merely — it could represent nothing but the dis- 
 tinct troops and property of the insurgents. It had no 
 significance or meaning in international law. It would 
 not be recognized by any foreign Power. It had no more 
 effect than the flag of a brigade or regiment. It existed 
 only by virtue of the permission of the United States. It 
 was used for convenience to distinguish it from the Span- 
 ish flag. It could be used later — when a real, bona fide 
 government was created — as a national ensign. A flag of 
 a sovereign Power, in international law, carries with it 
 respect and protection. Aguinaldo's flag was in no sense a 
 national emblem, because it carried no rights or protection 
 — except so far as it was guarded by the United States Gov- 
 ernment. This paper constitution and this ineffectual .7^^^ 
 are boldly put forward as evidence of the existence of a gov- 
 ernment, and it is claimed in effect that because one of the 
 officers of the United States received one of these constitu- 
 tions, and authorized and knew of the existence of this 
 flag — because Dewey accepted one of these flags as a 
 momento — a souvenir — that the people of the United 
 States are estopped from questioning the existence of 
 Aguinaldo's alleged government; that is, they seek to 
 create a government by estoppel. Political States or Sov- 
 ereignties are not created that way. 
 
30 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 V. 
 
 Aguinaldo 
 never believed 
 independence 
 would be ac- 
 knowledged by 
 United States. 
 
 In this connection I now come to examine a statement 
 of Mr. Schurz, to this effect: 
 
 " While so profiting from the co-operation of the Filipinos 
 as our military allies against the common enemy, vje know that 
 the Filipinos believed that, fighting side by side with the 
 republic of Washington and Lincoln, they were fighting for 
 their own independence. We Jtad every reason for knowing 
 tJiat had they not so believed, they vioidd have acted. differently. 
 Our Government jyermitted them to believe that this inde^yend- 
 ence v)onld be the outcome of a common victory over the com- 
 mon enemy, and meanwhile it continued to accept the benefit 
 of their co-operation, which was based upon that belief." 
 (New York Times, July iioth, 1900.) 
 
 I characterize this statement as false, not imputing, of 
 course, to Mr. Schurz any wilful intention of making- 
 averments that he did not believe to be true, but he has 
 concentrated in this small paragraph the false views which 
 have been recklessly circulated in the community by the 
 Anti-imperialistic League. I do charge Mr. Schurz with a 
 failure to intently and carefully study the facts before 
 circulating such a statement under his own powerful 
 name. The Filipinos, in the first place, never fought ' ' side 
 by side " with our troops. The present war against the 
 United States Government was planned at Hongkong 
 on the 4th of May, 1898, before Aguinaldo had entered 
 the field — after they knew of the defeat of the Spanish 
 fleet at Manila — and before they co-operated in any man- 
 ner with the United States Government. This cabal, clique 
 or coterie of conspirators, determined then and there to 
 wage war against the United States if Aguinaldo was not 
 recognized as representing the whole of the Philippine 
 Islands. (Con. Record, 56th Congress, 1st Sess., p. 2773; 
 The Story Told by Aguinaldo, p. 10, Senate Document No. 
 208, Part II., 56th Cong., 1st Session, p. 5.) Why was 
 this meeting held in advance of auj^ talk with Dewey or 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 31 
 
 our officers if Aguinaldo believed the United States would 
 recognize him? The secret meeting of these conspirators 
 was onl}' necessary because they felt they could not be 
 recognized and they were determined to push their pre- 
 tensions, even to a war with the great power of this Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The corresj)ondence, however, between our officers and 
 Aguinaldo shows that they gave him no encouragement 
 whatever, and it is absolutely incorrect, as stated by Mr. 
 Schurz, that 
 
 " Our Government permitted them to believe that this inde- 
 pendence would be the outcome of a common victory over the 
 common enemy, and meanwhile it continued to accept the 
 benefit of their co-operation, which was based upon that be- 
 lief," (New York Times, July 25th, 1900.) 
 
 I shall show its falsity from every source. Aguinaldo, 
 from the beginning, used the United States Government 
 in every conceivable way to perfect his own plans, to in- 
 crease and discipline his own army, to arm the insurgents 
 and to carefully and skilfully place himself in a position 
 where he could put forth the claim to represent the whole 
 eight or ten million people of the Philippine Islands. As 
 one of his friends and officers said : 
 
 " He had no promise of it, and he had no hope of getting 
 it, and he would not have been able to make war at all, or, in 
 in fact, get here without the aid offered him by the blockade 
 of the American squadron." (Vol. II., Rep. Philippine Com., 
 p. 381.) 
 
 The correspondence, however, between our officers and 
 Aguinaldo clearly and emphatically shows that they gave 
 him no encouragement whatever. There is no doubt that 
 he did everything in his power to procure recognition, but 
 it came not. What did come was an absolute ?iK\^ peremp- 
 tory refusal to recognize 1dm eltlier as a civil or military 
 power in the PJiilippines. Considering all the facts, look- 
 ing at all the surrounding circumstances, this position was 
 
 The corre- 
 spondence be- 
 tween A^ni- 
 naklo and the 
 United States 
 
 :\liHtary 
 Officers refus- 
 ing to recog- 
 nize him. 
 
32 THE AhrTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 right and just to all interested — just to onrselves as a 
 sovereign nation — just to the inhabitants of the Philip- 
 pines, who were under our protection — just to Spain, with 
 whom we were engaged in war, and from whom no terms 
 had yet been vouchsafed or offered. 
 
 Let us take up the correspondence. These letters began 
 on July 4th, 1898. The first is from General Anderson to 
 ' ' Senor Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy, Commanding 
 Philippine Forces, Cavite, Luzon. 
 
 General: I have the honor to inform you that the United 
 States of America, whose land forces I have the honor to 
 command in this vicinity, being at war with the Kingdom of 
 Spain, has entire sympathy and most friendly sentiments for 
 the natioe people of the Philippine Islands. 
 
 For these reasons I desire to have the most amicable relations 
 with you, and to have you and your people co-operate with us 
 in military operations against the Spanish forces. 
 
 In our operations it has become necessary for us to occupy 
 the town of Cavite as a base of of>erations. In doing this I 
 do not wish to interfere with your residence here and the ex- 
 ercise by yourself and other native citizens of all functions 
 and privileges not inconsistent with military rule. * * * 
 I have therefore the honor to ask your excellency to instruct 
 your officials not to interfere with my officers in the perform- 
 ance of their duties and not to assume that they cannot visit 
 Cavite loithout j^ermission.'" (Senate Doc. 208, 5Gth Cong., 
 1st Sess. , p. 4.) 
 
 To which Aguinaldo replied, expressing great satisfac- 
 tion for the sympathy and amicable sentiments contained 
 in the letter, and said : 
 
 " I have already ordered my people not to interfere in the 
 least with your officers and men, orders which I shall reiterate 
 to prevent their being unfulfilled; hoping that you will inform 
 me whatever misconduct that may be done by those in my 
 command, so as to reprimand them and correspond with your 
 wishes." {Ibid., p. 5.) 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIAI.ISTS ANSWERED. 33 
 
 On July 6tli, General Anderson again addressed Agui- 
 naldo, stating : 
 
 " Very soon we expect a large addition to our forces, and 
 it must be apparent to you as a military officer that we will 
 require more room to camp our soldiers, and also store- 
 room for our supplies. For this I would like to have your 
 excellency's advice and co operation, as you are best acquainted 
 with the resources of this country. 
 
 It must be apparent to you that we do not intend to remain 
 here inactive, but to move promptly against our common 
 enemy." {Ibid., p. 5.) 
 
 On the 9th of July, General Anderson wrote to the 
 Adjutant-General of the United States Army at Washing- 
 ton in relation to Aguinaldo, stating : 
 
 " When we first landed he seemed very suspicious and not 
 at all friendly. But I have now come to a better understand- 
 ing with him, and he is much more friendl}' and seems willing 
 to co-operate. But he has declared himself dictator and 
 president and is trying to take Manila without our assistance. 
 This is not probable, but if he can effect bis purpose he will, 
 I apprehend, antagonize any attempt on onr part to establish 
 a provisional gover?inient. " (Ibid. , p. 6. ) 
 
 On July 14th he again addressed Aguinaldo : 
 
 " Wishing to get complete information of the approaches to 
 Manila from every direction, I therefore have the honor to 
 request that you give my officers all possible assistance in 
 making reconnaissance to the lines and approaches, and that 
 you favor them with your advice." {Ibid., p. 6.) 
 
 On July 17th, the Quartermaster, Major-General Jones, 
 addressed a letter to Aguinaldo : 
 
 " We will want horses, buffaloes, carts, etc., for transporta- 
 tion, bamboo for shelter, wood to cook with, etc. For all this 
 we are willing to pay a fair price, but no more. We find so 
 far that the natioe population are not willing to give us this 
 assistance as proinptly as required. But we must have it, and 
 if it becomes necessary we will be compelled to send out parties 
 
34 THE ANTI-IMPEKIALISrS ANSWERED. 
 
 to seize what we may need. We would regret very much to 
 do this, as we are here to befriend the Filipinos. Our nation 
 has spent millions of money to send forces here to expel the 
 Spaniards and to give good government to the whole people 
 and the return we are asking is comparatively slight." {Ihid.^ 
 p. 7.) 
 
 There was no response to this letter, and it was followed 
 by another on July 23d, from the Brigadier-General of the 
 United States Army to Aguinaldo, to this effect : 
 
 " When I came here three weeks ago, I requested j'our 
 Excellency to give what assistance you could to procure means 
 of transportation for the American Army, as it was to fight 
 the cause of your people. So far we have received no response. 
 As you represent your people, I now have the honor to make 
 requisition directly on you for 500 horses and 50 oxen and ox- 
 carts." {Ibid., p. 11.) 
 
 These facts had been previously reported to the Govern- 
 ment at Washington by General Anderson on July 21st, 
 in the following letter : 
 
 "Since I wrote last, Aguinaldo has put in operation an 
 elaborate system of military government, under his assumed 
 authority as dictator., and has jjrohibited any supplies being 
 given us except by his order. * * * JUs assumption of 
 civil authority I have ignored and let htm. know verbally that 
 I could and woidd not recognize it, ichile I did not recognize 
 him as a military leader. It seems strange that I have made 
 no formal protest against his proclamation as dictator, his 
 declaration of martial law, and publication and execution of a 
 despotic form of government. I wrote such a protest, but did 
 not publish it at Admiral Dewey's request, and also for fear 
 of wounding the susceptibilities of Major-General Merritt. 
 But I have let it be known in every other way that v-e do not 
 recognize the dictatorship.'" {Ibid., pp. 12-13.) 
 
 On the 24th of July, Aguinaldo addressed General 
 Anderson in respect to furnishing horses, buffaloes and 
 carfs, explaining why he had not resjjonded, and said : 
 
 " I have circuhated orders in the provinces in the proximity 
 
TFIE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 35 
 
 that in the shortest time possible horses be brought for sale, 
 but I cannot assure j^our Excellency that we have the number 
 of 500 that is needed, because horses are not abundant in these 
 vicinities, owing to deaths caused by epizootic diseases in 
 January and March last." {Ibid.., p. 12.) 
 
 General Anderson replied to this letter and stated to 
 Aguinaldo on the same day : 
 
 "I regret that there should have been any misunderstanding 
 about it. The people to whom we applied even for the hiring 
 of caramates, etc., told our people that they had orders to sup- 
 ply nothing except by your orders.'''' [Ibid., p. 12.) 
 
 On Angnst 1, 1898, Aguinaldo vA^rote to Mr. Williams, 
 Consul at Manila, stating : 
 
 "I pray you earnestly, as also the distinguished Generals 
 who represent your country in these islands, that you entreat 
 the Government at Washington to recognize the revolutionary 
 government of the Filipinos." {Ibid.., p. 16.) 
 
 Aguinaldo was also informed by General Anderson, as 
 follows, in relation to the treatment which he had com- 
 plained about : 
 
 " If you apparently have been treated harshly it is from 
 military necessity and not for want of confidence. We had to 
 take Manila to effect the purpose of our war. While we may 
 admit the justice of your insurrection, to prevent all possible 
 complications, still it is thought judicious and necessary to have 
 only one army in Manila at once. The Government of the 
 United States, you may be assured, which, as its agent, I can 
 make no promises, will deal fairly with the Filipinos, but we 
 must now insist, for the good of all, there shall be no joint 
 occupation of Manila. * * * We most earnestly and sincerely 
 hope and trust that there may be no conflict between us, but 
 ^ we are prepared to enforce our orders in this matter and expect 
 from time to time large additions to our strength. We desire 
 most sincerely to remain friendly with the Filipinos, and have 
 nothing but their best interests at heart in all our dealings 
 with them." {Ibid., pp. 18-19.) 
 
36 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 On August 24th, 1898, Major-General Wesley Merritt 
 addressed Aguinaldo as follows : 
 
 ■' So far as any 2^romises as to vihat should be done in the 
 event of a conclusion of a treaty bettoeen the United States and 
 Spain are concerned, it is utterly impossible for me as the 
 military representative only of the Zlnited States to make any 
 promises such as you request. As you have already been in- 
 formed, you may depend upon the good-vnll of the Americans 
 out here and the Government, of tohich you already knoio the 
 beneficence, to determine these ■tnatters in the future. ^^ {Ibid., 
 p. 24.) 
 
 On the 27th of August, Aguinaldo addressed a letter to 
 General Wesley Merritt, in which he begged him to 
 
 " reclaim from Admiral Dewey the protection of our ships from 
 free navigation and permit me to insist if you wish upon the 
 restitution of the position that we are now going to leave if in 
 the treaty of peace to be celebrated between Spain and the 
 United States they acknoAvledge the dominion of Spain in the 
 Philippines." (Ibid., p. 26.) 
 
 I have given as much of this correspondence as is neces- 
 sary to throw light upon the thoughts, motives and acts 
 of both Aguinaldo and the officers of the United States 
 Army, with whom he had the corresjiondence. These 
 letters show the extent and spirit of Aguinaldo's co-opera- 
 tion. The letters, beginning with the reciprocal expres- 
 sions of good- will and confidence in each other, inevitably 
 tapered off into questions of right and duty. Aguinaldo 
 was laboring for recognition of a revolutionary, independ- 
 ent government. Generals Anderson, Merritt and Otis 
 w^ere equally positive in declining to make such promises, 
 and positively refused to recognize either the civil or 
 military authority. I invite any one who is not satis- 
 lied on this point to read this whole correspondence 
 with care. It will be seen Aguinaldo cannot put his 
 Jinger upon a solitary expression or point to an isolated 
 act loldcli could cause him to believe that he would be 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 37 
 
 recognized. His co-oi)eration consisted in his desultory 
 operations against the Spaniards, made easy by the pres- 
 ence of our troox)S and the moral influence of our power. 
 The assertion, therefore, that " Our Government permitted 
 them to believe that this independence would be the out- 
 come of a common victory " is false as a statement of ex- 
 press agreement — it is false as a general fact — it is false 
 as a deduction or inference. His belief must have been 
 that he would not be recognized. The correspondence 
 sJiows tliat he loas an impedimeiit — not an ally. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Now I take up the question of the co-operation and ser- 
 vices that Aguinaldo rendered to the Americans. I will 
 not detract from them one jot or tittle. The Anti- Imperi- 
 alists, through Mr. Scburz, make this broad claim: 
 
 " The co-operation of the Filipino forces against the com- 
 mon eneiuy was most effective. While our troops were gradu- 
 ally arriving, they crippled the common enemy as we could 
 not possibly have crippled him with our strength then at hand. 
 They made themselves masters of the entire island of Luzon, 
 outside of Manila, and of other important jjarts of the Archi- 
 pelago, so that the Spanish power substantially ceased to exist 
 there. They took many thousands of Spanish prisoners, and 
 they so hemmed in the Spanish forces in Manila on the land 
 side, that they could not receive reinforcements or escape into 
 the interior, while we blockaded Manila on the sea side. Thus 
 the Filipino army became one of the decisive factors in the 
 capture of that city. " (New York Times, July 2oth, 1900.) 
 
 This is an exaggerated view of the services which these 
 Filipinos rendered to us, and it is entirely against the 
 opinion of our officers there, as can be found in their let- 
 ters; the military work of the Filipinos was of no such 
 
 AguinaUlo's 
 co-operation 
 with Amer- 
 ican forces. 
 
38 THE AN TI- IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 importance as is portrayed by their friends. Tlie state- 
 ment is made the basis of a charge that 
 
 " we used the Filipinos as allies — that we profited from their 
 co-operation as allies, and in point of fact recognized and 
 treated thera as allies so long as they could be useful to us, 
 and that therefore ?oe oxoed to them those moral obligations 
 tohich are always recognized between honorable allies." (New 
 York Herald, July 14th, 1900.) 
 
 I am compelled to say that in almost every statement 
 that Mr. Schurz makes there is an error of fact, and where 
 he undertakes to deduce a principle of law, as applicable 
 to such false or suppositious facts, he is necessarily and 
 logically wrong. 
 Filipinos not He savs that the Filipinos were our allies. I deny this 
 
 allies of "^ ^ "^ 
 
 United States, proposition. They aided us; but they were auxiliaries of 
 which we availed ourselves, as we would have availed our- 
 selves of every other factor which we found at hand — dis- 
 tinctly, openly and empliatically at all times repudiating 
 any idea of alliance or of present or future recognition. 
 In the first place an ally signifies an independent state or 
 sovereign power. Chancellor Kent defines an ally to be : 
 " A nation which has entered into an alliance with another 
 nation." (1 Kent's Com., 69.) 
 
 And all other definitions agree with this. 
 
 " A term implying in a military sense any nation united to 
 another under a treaty, aggressive or defensive, or both." 
 Farrow's Military Dictionary. 
 
 " A prince or a state united to another by treaty. " Hamers- 
 ley's Naval Encyclopedia. 
 
 " A state or prince bound to one by a treaty or league — a 
 confederacy." Imperial Dictionary. 
 
 "A state, sovereignity or chief leagued with another by 
 treaty, agreement by treaty, agreement or common action. " 
 Standard Dictionary. 
 
 " One united to another by treaty or league — usually applied 
 
THE AMTI-TMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 3<J 
 
 to sovereigns or states — a confederate," Webster's Diction- 
 ary. 
 
 " One united to another by kinship, treaty or league — a con- 
 federate — more particularly a sovereign or state connected 
 with another by league, aggressive or defensive — or a subject 
 or a citizen of such sovereign or state." Century Dictionary. 
 
 " One united or associated with another by treaty or league 
 — usually applied to sovereigns and states." Philological Dic- 
 tionary. 
 
 The term " ally " is applied, then, to a created and or- 
 ganized government in the sense of international law — this 
 is the sense and meaning of the term as generally used. 1 
 do not claim that this meaning of the term is absolute — 
 prohibitive of others — there may be cases with peculiar 
 circumstances surrounding them where exceptions may be 
 created, but Aguinaldo's paper government could not be 
 made one of these exceptions so as to constitute him in 
 any sense an " ally " of the United States. It was not in 
 a condition, in such a state of creation, progress or de- 
 velopment, when it would be recognized by any foreign 
 Power or Government. His was a wholly anomalous crea- 
 tion ; not a politic body, but a dictatorial assertion. It is 
 absolutely exceptional in the history of international law ; 
 it swung between the Spanish and the United States Gov- 
 ernments^recognizing, and recognized by, neither. In 
 the lexicography and meaning of international law it has 
 no recognized place or name. If Spain Gonquered the 
 United States, Aguinaldo was in rebellion against Spain ; 
 if Spain v^ere conquered, he was, as he is, in rebellion 
 against the United States. If he were an ally, he would 
 have been taken into the councils of our military and 
 naval officers, and his views and opinions would have been 
 considered and recognized in the movements of the forces. 
 We would have co-operated. As a matter of fact he 
 never participated jointly with the United States in any 
 engagement — they never acted together in a single in- 
 
40 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 Stance. To claim lie was an ally is an absolute assump- 
 tion. But, irrespective of these considerations, there are 
 other reasons why Aguinaldo was in no sense an ally of 
 the United States. He was not united or joined to it by 
 any ao-reement or league or confederacy or common pur- 
 l)ose, which is the usual method of creating an alliance. 
 
 But assuming (and I do not dispute the fact) that there 
 might under certain circumstances exist a-n implied agree- 
 ment by which governments may operate together as indi- 
 viduals, without a written contract, and their rights and 
 duties be afterwards determined by the rules of equity and 
 justice, Mr. Schurz makes this point, and I will squarely 
 meet it. He says : 
 
 " That the Filipinos, before co-operating with us as allies 
 against the common enemy 'Spain,' did not insist upon stipu- 
 lating with us in black and white the conditions of the co- 
 operation, but confidingly trusted our honor and good faith as 
 republicans of the school of Washington and Lincoln, is true 
 just as I might go into a business operation with a friend with- 
 out a written contract, believing him to be an honest man ; but 
 what shall I believe him to be if, after having accepted the 
 benefit of my co-operation, he repudiates all moral obligations 
 on the ground that, trusting his honesty, I had neglected to in- 
 sist upon a written contract ? Such a person may occasionally 
 by some quibble of legal technicality escape the payment of a 
 just debt, but he will surely not escape the contempt of 
 gentlemen." (New York Herald, July 14, 1900.) 
 
 Mr. Schurz states the case of an imx^lied contract — an 
 implied alliance — and he claims that the facts justify him 
 in asserting that an implied alliance existed between the 
 Filipinos and the United States Government. But what 
 was the nature of this implied alliance between the Filipinos 
 and the United States Government? An implied contract 
 must be proved, just as an express one. You must show 
 that the facts are sufficient to raise a presumption that an 
 agreement existed of some kind. Now, what was the im- 
 
THE A NTI-I IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 41 
 
 plied alliance? What was the return which the Filii)inos 
 were to get for their services? 
 
 The Filipinos were dissatisfied with Spanish rule, which 
 was unfair, which was tyrannical. They were denied, they 
 claimed, the two great and fundamental principles of 
 modern civilization — representation in the Spanish Cortes 
 and a free press ; besides, they had other ills to redress. 
 These they sought to reform in the insurrection of 1896; 
 but as the wrongs still existed, they welcomed the war 
 between Spain and the United States. 
 
 Now to come directly to the question : Did the United 
 States, in availing itself of the Filipinos' assistance, agree 
 to give them recognition and independence? Where is the 
 evidence to support such a contention, remembering the 
 denials of Consul-General Pratt, of Consul Wildman, of 
 Admiral Dewey? Recall all the letters, recur to the em- 
 phatic and imperative directions of our State Department, 
 and where is there anything to supi)ort an implied con- 
 tract and alliance, except the fact of this naked alleged 
 co-operation? And how can any one claim that the Fili- 
 pinos believed that they were fighting for independence 
 when every official with whom they came in contact dis- 
 tinctly and peremptorily refused to make any promise to 
 them, or to recognize in any manner their claims of sov- 
 ereignty or independence? It takes two to make every con- 
 tract — there must be a meeting of minds, as lawyers say. 
 Did Aguinaldo render the services upon the assumption 
 that he would be recognized? No, it is impossible, because 
 he was plainly told so by our officers, who positively and 
 expressly refused to recognize either his civil or military 
 pow^er. He may have thought that he could slide in be- 
 tween Spain and the United States — and no doubt that 
 was the predominating idea in his mind — but he was mis- 
 taken. Did we accept his services under an assumption 
 or belief that we would politically recognize him? All of 
 the evidence is against this view. Mr. Schurz says that 
 
42 THE ANTI IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 we are bound in duty to do something for these Filipinos ; 
 he claims " we owed to them those moral obligations which 
 are always recognized between honorable allies." What 
 are the moral obligations which are always recognized be- 
 tween honorable allies? I can find no moral obligations 
 which are recognized between honorable allies, except to 
 keep their engagements and agreements and treaties and 
 Our duties to promises. It is undoubtedly true that in accepting the 
 
 stated. services of the Filipinos, whether they were great or small, 
 the United States Government was bound to feed, pay, 
 maintain and protect them. It was bound to do more 
 than this. It was bound to give them a government differ- 
 ent and better than that which they had experienced from 
 Spanish domination. It was bound to allow a free press. 
 It was bound to establish courts. It was bound to allow 
 the exercise of religious worship and of all those other 
 essential rights which a civilized government takes pleas- 
 ure in granting to those who come under its power and 
 domination. All of these rights the government of the 
 United States sought to create and perpetuate, because, 
 as far back as May 19th, 1898, before Manila had fallen, 
 the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the army and 
 navy of the United States, proclaimed to the people of 
 these islands that the Government of the United States in- 
 tended to confer upon them all rights and privileges not 
 incompatible with the actual prevalence of war. And no- 
 where in this history does the humanity, the honesty of 
 purpose, the real statesmanship of the President, shine 
 with such conspicuous effect as in this connection — with 
 his efforts to advance all of the interests of the Filipinos, 
 political, moral, religious, commercial. 
 
 Spain's On the 29th of August, 1898, the Spanish Government 
 
 *'thrspanis"f applied to Secretary Day at Washington through the 
 P"*^by*^the "^ ' French Ambassador and requested that the Spanish troops 
 
 refused.*^'' taken at Manila and held as prisoners of war by the 
 United States might be placed at the disposal of Spain to 
 
THE AMTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 43 
 
 be used by her against the insurgent Filipinos ! What 
 was the answer? The Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. 
 Moore, replied that it could not be expected that the 
 United States could even consider such a proposition 
 
 "in view of the fact that for some time before the surrender 
 of Manila the Spanish forces in that city were besieged by 
 the insurgents by land, while the port was blockaded by the 
 forces of the United States by sea. " 
 
 Do these Anti-Imperialists talk of our owing to the 
 Filipinos " those moral obligations which are always recog- 
 nized between honorable allies?" Here is a payment in 
 full of the debt. Here is complete evidence that the 
 United States was constantly looking after their interests 
 — that they always had them at heart. 
 
 And they recklessly and cruelly charge that the Presi- 
 dent turned the " much- vaunted war of liberation into a 
 war of conquest and criminal aggression! " 
 
 What was the real great motive on the part of the Motive of the 
 Government in retaining the Philippines? I quote from ^a'retifnhig^ 
 a speech made by Judge George Gray, a man of the most '''PP'^es. 
 distinguished character as a jurist and statesman, and a 
 Democrat, who was one of the Peace Commissioners at 
 Paris : 
 
 " The acquisition of territory by the United States was not 
 one of the objects of war, and we solemnly declared in the 
 resolution of Congress that our only object in demanding the 
 relinquishment of the sovereignty of Cuba by Spain was not 
 to hold it ourselves, except that we might j^acify it, and fit it 
 for self-government by its own people. 
 
 But in this, as in all else, ' man proposes, God disposes, ' 
 and it is one of the things that make thoughtful men desire to 
 avoid war, where it can be avoided, for no one can tell what 
 its consequences may be. I ai'dently desired that we might 
 escape the necessity oftakimj the Philippine Islands and assum- 
 ing the burden that their taking will impose upon us, and I 
 knoio that the President of the United States loas equally 
 anxious to the same end. But it became apparent that, with- 
 
44 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 out our seeing, unexpected conditions had been created, and 
 out of these conditions, unquestionably, duties had sprung 
 which could not be avoided or evaded by the United States. 
 
 Commodore Dewey had brought Aguinaldo back to Luzon, 
 and by his leadership and the encouragement of the American 
 fleet, the embers of the insurrection, which had died out, were 
 rekindled into a flame, and the assistance of the insurgent 
 forces was gladly availed of by our Commodor%. It then came 
 to be thought that in our settlement with Spain we could not 
 honorably leave the inhabitants of these islands to the tender 
 mercies of their Spanish oppressors and hand over brave men, 
 who had assisted our fleet and army in the hour of need, to 
 Spanish dungeons, or to the firing line of Spanish execution. 
 I know that that situation appealed to the heart of your Presi- 
 dent, and that he believed he was representing American man- 
 hood and American character when he said, as finally he did, 
 that, whatever became of those islands and those people, it was 
 not in our blood to hand them back to Spain. It was a feel- 
 ing of this kind, I know, that animated the Government of 
 Mr. McKinley in coming to this important conclusion. Recog- 
 nizing the burden, appreciating the responsibility, and ignoring 
 the perils that possibly confronted us, he said, and I know he 
 felt, that, whatever else might be the fate of these islands and 
 of this people, he could not put our country in the attitude of 
 deserting those whom he had placed in a new position of antago- 
 nism to their rulers. 
 
 It was argued that the performance of duty is sometimes not 
 only unpleasant, but has dangers attendant upon it; neverthe- 
 less, a brave man and a brave nation will not shrink from it on 
 that account. On the other hand, if American sentiment did 
 not justify the return of these islands to Spain, no more could 
 it justify leaving them derelict in the Eastern Ocean, the prey 
 of the first occu[)ant, of European rapacity. The powers of 
 Europe would acquiesce in our taking them, but they would 
 not stand by and see them in their helpless condition of anar- 
 chy and disorder without seizing the opportunity to aggrandize 
 themselves, and so it was thought best by the President and 
 his advisers to take the cession of their sovereignty -from Spain, 
 and hold it in trust, to be administered in conformity with those 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 45 
 
 high ideals and liberty-loving traditions which animate and 
 glorify the history of our country. 
 
 Duty cannot honorably be avoided because it may bring pain 
 or danger. Nor can responsibility always be evaded because 
 of its burdens. 
 
 That I sought in Paris, by all honorable means, to escape this 
 responsibility does not matter now. It came to a point at last 
 that we must either leave the islands to Spain, take them as we 
 did, or break off negotiations and come home without a treaty 
 of peace. In the last event the truce would be broken, and a 
 state of active war would have been resumed. We would have 
 had no cession of the sovereignty of the Philippines, and none 
 of Puerto Rico, and no relinquishment of the sovereignty of 
 Cuba. It is true that in the protocol of August 12th Spain had 
 definitely promised that she would cede Puerto Kico and relin- 
 quish Cuba, but without a treaty of peace that promise would 
 not be performed. What would then have been the exigence 
 of the situation? Undoubtedly we would have been compelled 
 to go on and seize with the strong hand, and by military power, 
 both the Philippine archipelago and the Greater and Lesser 
 Antilles, taking by ruthless conquest what it was far better 
 that we should take by the voluntary cession of a treaty of 
 peace. 
 
 But now we have them it does not follow that we are com- 
 mitted to a colonial policy or to a violation of those great prin- 
 ciples of liberty and self-government which must always remain 
 American ideals, if our own free institutions are to endure. " — 
 (Speech before the Wilmington Board of Trade, January 15, 
 1899.) 
 
 All of these latter results Agninaldo has so far thwarted ; 
 his personal ambition overcame all consideration for the 
 inhabitants of the Philippines; he was not willing to wait 
 until the United States had instituted a free and liberal 
 provisional government under the care of the Congress of 
 the United States and under the surveillance of the whole 
 American peojjle; but he cruelly rushed into a bloody 
 and unnecessary war without the slightest fact to sustain 
 him. either in morals, contract (express or implied), or in 
 
 Aguinaldo 
 tliwarted tlie 
 benign pur- 
 poses of 
 United States 
 Government. 
 
46 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 the principles of international law. He was playing for a 
 great stake — the government of the Filipinos. With the 
 support of the United States his game was won. Without 
 it he was ruined. The miserable adventurer, learning that 
 there was a possible division of opinions on this subject in 
 the United States, opened the war, relying upon a part of 
 the American people to eventually upliold him in his ne- 
 farious and bloody scheme. In a nutshell this is the whole 
 truth of Aguinaldo's rebellion. 
 ^^Ltos°''' -'^^^ "^ spend a moment in looking into the justice of 
 analyzed. Agulualdo's claims. It must be remembered that he estab- 
 lished a dictatorial government. The United States had no 
 evidence whatever that he represented the eight or ten 
 millions of people in the Philippine Islands ; tlieij had not 
 been consulted, except so far as Aguinaldo had allured 
 them with the seeming claim that he was acting in con- 
 Junction with the great power of the United States Govern- 
 ment. Mr. Schurz and the Anti-Imperialists claim that we 
 should have recognized the independence of the FilijDinos. 
 Would that have been fair and honorable treatment of the 
 inhabitants of the Philippines? 
 
 " Q. Was the Congress fairly representative of the various 
 provinces in the Philippine Archipelago, or chiefly made up of 
 Luzon? 
 
 A. Luzon exclusively. 
 
 Q. In the Island of Luzon were the various provinces repre- 
 sented, or mostly Tagalog? 
 
 A. All Tagalog." 
 
 (2 Report of Philippine Com., p. 387.) 
 
 Should we not have taken time to breathe — to investi- 
 gate — to send our commissions and boards of enquiry to 
 interrogate the people of these islands — to ascertain what 
 their interests, wants and demands were? To have recog- 
 nized their independence before we concluded a treaty 
 with Spain was absolutely repugnant to all the principles 
 of international law, and of good common sense and pru- 
 dence. To have done so afterward was possible and prob- 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 47 
 
 able, but Aguinaldo thwarted all this by rushing into war, 
 instead of quietly and caluily and honorably seeking to 
 negotiate with this great Government upon the basis of 
 mutual sympathy and friendship. 
 
 And yet Mr. Schurz lays down the bold, bare, uncondi- 
 tional proposition and charge against the Administration 
 "that if we had treated the Filipinos justly we should liave 
 recognized their independence." — (New York Herald, July 
 U, 1900.) 
 
 And he undertakes to support this upon the ground of 
 morals, equity and justice! With great respect to Mr. 
 Schurz's high intelligence and experience, I say that this 
 is simply preposterous; it is more than preposterous, it is 
 humbug. 
 
 I have shown that there was no express promise made 
 to Aguinaldo, and that in face of the testimony of Dewej-, 
 Pratt and Wildman, in view of the clear and exact in- 
 structions of our government, and all of the circumstances 
 surrounding this insurrection, none can be implied. 
 
 VII. 
 
 There remains the single question of co-operation. Does Aguinakio's 
 that imply a recognition of independence? Does it involrie did not involve 
 
 . . recognition. 
 
 recognition? Is there any code of morals or of laio which 
 says that, since we availed ourselves of the co-operation 
 of the Filipinos under the circumstances disclosed, there 
 is a lien uj^on our consciences and honor to proclaim the 
 immediate independence of Aguinaldo's government? 
 
 Now, let us meet Mr. Schurz upon this vaunted field of 
 morality, where he professes to love to graze, and again 
 place the United States vis-a-vis to Aguinaldo. Why 
 were we bound in morals to recognize him? 
 
 He was faithless to his trust in the insurrection of 1896. 
 He settled that war for a money consideration — for what 
 
48 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 the Anglo-Saxon race would call a bribe. When did he 
 abandon the insurrection? At the very moment when the 
 Spanish Government believed he was victorious — and to 
 prevent his victory they bribed him and his crew by 
 money ! 
 
 How did he provide for his people in that treaty? By 
 failing to require the Spanish Government to expressly 
 agree in writing to redress their grievances. This — 
 the material part of the insurrection — was left to oral 
 promises, if stipulated for at all, while his banishment 
 and the money he was to receive for submitting to it — 
 the declaration of peace and the surrender of arms — were 
 all carefully provided for by written instrument. Was 
 he a man to whom the Government of this country could 
 confide the interests, the welfare, the happiness, the 
 liberty of from eight to ten millions of people? Recog- 
 nize the independence of the Filipinos ! Who asked for 
 it? No one but Aguinaldo. Mr. Schurz forgets that a 
 third — the most material — the essential — party to this 
 question were the people themselves. Recognize Agui- 
 naldo without consulting the people? How impossible — 
 how preposterous ! Read the testimony of the leading- 
 lawyers, business men, and others before the Philippine 
 Commission, and learn with what unanimity they are 
 opposed to immediate independence. 
 Hear what the Commission say : 
 
 " While the peoples of the Philippine Islands ardently desire 
 a full measure of rights and liberties, they do not, in the 
 opinion of the Commission, generally desire independence. 
 Hundreds of witnesses testified 'on this subject to the Commis- 
 sion and its individual members, and, though they represented 
 all possible varieties of opinion — many of them in sympathy 
 with the insurgents — they were uniform in their testimony — 
 that in view of the ignorance and poHtical inexperience of the 
 masses of the people, the multiplicity of languages, the diver- 
 gencies of culture and mode of life, and the obstacles to inter- 
 communication, an independent sovereign Piiilippine state was 
 at the present time neither possible nor desirable, even if its 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWEREJ). 49 
 
 poverty and internal weakness and lack of coherence would 
 not invite, and the dissatisfaction of aliens entail, the inter- 
 vention of foreign powers, with the inevitable result of the di- 
 vision of the archipelago among them and the disai)pearance 
 forever of the dream and hope of a united and self-governing 
 Philippine Commonwealth. The Philippine Islands, even the 
 most patriotic declare, cannot at the present time stand alone." 
 (Report of the Philippine Cora., Vol. 1, p. 83.) 
 
 Of whom was this Commission composed? Jacob Gould 
 Schiirman, of New York, President of Cornell University ; 
 Rear Admiral George Dewey; Charles Deuby, of Indiana, 
 Ex-Minister to China; Prof. Dean C. Worcester, of Mich- 
 igan University ; and General Otis. Not politicians, but 
 men taken from the best and most cultured walks of 
 American life, who patiently and carefully investigated 
 every feature of the insurrection, and whose report is a 
 model of fulness, precision, fairness and strength. 
 
 Even Aguinaldo, as late as June 16, 1898, informed our 
 •Consul at Manilla 
 
 " that his friends all hoped the Philippines would be held as a 
 colony of the United States of America." (Senate Doc. No. 
 62, Part I, 55th Cong., 31st Sess.„p. 329.) 
 
 The Belgian Consul, Andre, on August 29, 1898, wrote: 
 "If the United States does not take these islands under 
 their protection the country will be utterly ruined and all 
 foreign merchants will leave the islands." {Ibid., p. 386.) 
 
 And General Greene reported : 
 
 "In the next place Aguinaldo's government or any entirely 
 independent government does not command the hearty support 
 of the large body of the Filipinos * * * they fully realize 
 that they must have the support of some strong nation for 
 many years before they will be in a position to manage their 
 own affairs alone." {Ibid., p. 424.) 
 
 Shall we accept these conclusions of these men who 
 have been upon the spot, and of this Commission who, 
 under the solemnity of their oaths and with their positions 
 
50 
 
 THE ANTI-IMPF.RIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 and rexuitation at stake, report that the immediate inde- 
 pendence of the Filipinos would be bad and disadvan- 
 . tageous to the people and in every way chimerical? Or, 
 shall we accept Carl Schurz, and his Anti-Imperialists — 
 without facts, law or morals to justify them? 
 The position of Tlie real situation of the insuro;ents to the United 
 
 the United » 
 
 States towards States has been entirely overlooked or misunderstood by 
 
 the Fihpinos. •' •' 
 
 the Anti- Imperialists. The United States Government 
 was at war with Spain, and availed itself of every aid 
 which might be found to attain success. One of the 
 principal methods of warfare in an enemy's country is to 
 sow discontent among the people, and to utilize it either 
 by arming the malcontents or using them in any other 
 way. Dewey was perfectly justified in resorting to this 
 method, and of availing himself of Aguinaldo to fan into 
 life the tires of an insurrection which were fast smoulder- 
 ing out. Without Dewey — without the army of the 
 United States — Aguinaldo was nothing ; with their co- 
 operation he was able to draw around him an army of in- 
 surgents. This he shrewdly but dishonestly used to claim 
 rights to which he was not entitled — which had been re- 
 jected, and which were not supported by the ]Deople of the 
 Philippine Islands. 
 
 " Benevolent 
 Assimilation " 
 Proclamation 
 of December 
 19, 1898, con- 
 sidered. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The Anti- Imperialists find fault with the President for 
 issuing a proclamation on December 19, 1898, before the 
 Treaty of Peace had been ratified by the United States 
 Senate. This is the principal assault which they make 
 upon the Executive — the jpiece de resistance of their 
 charges and calumnies. It is well to examine it in this 
 connection. 
 
 Mr. Schurz says : 
 
 "Was it his 'duty' to issue that famous 'benevolent 
 assimilatiou ' ordei", by which weeks before the ratification of 
 
THE ANTl-IMPERIALTSTS ANSWERED. 51 
 
 the peace treaty gave him a legal right to do so, he directed an 
 army to enforce throughout the archipelago American Sover- 
 eignty, which then did not even technically exist?" (N. Y". 
 Herald, July 14, 1900.) 
 
 " Was it his ' duty ' thus substantially to declare war against 
 the Philippine Islanders striving for their freedom and inde- 
 pendence, and to do this in terms so inflammatory that General 
 Otis found himself obliged to substitute for the President's 
 order a proclamation of his own?" {Ibid.) 
 
 " Was it the President's 'duty' thus directly to provoke 
 an armed conflict with the Filipinos ? This was not only not 
 the President's ' duty,' but it was a wanton and ruthless insult 
 thrown in the face of the people who had acted as our allies 
 against a ' common enemy,' and who aspired to be free, and it 
 was at the same time a barefaced usurpation of power which 
 only an unscrupulous partisan spirit would overlook or excuse. " 
 {Ibid.) 
 
 The facts in connection with this are as follows : 
 The protocol of peace between the United States and 
 Spain was entered into on the 12th of August, 1898. It 
 laid the foundation for the subsequent treaty. By article 
 third of this document it was provided that tlie United 
 States was to 
 
 "occupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila pend- 
 ing the conclusion of a treaty of peace which shall determine 
 the control, disposition and government of the Philippines." 
 
 The treaty, signed by the Spanish and American Com- 
 missioners at Paris on the 10th of December, 1898, pro- 
 vided that " Spain cedes to the United States the Archi- 
 pelago known as the Philippine Islands." 
 
 The treaty was ratified by the Senate of the United 
 States on the 6th day of February, 1899. Between the 
 making of this treaty on the 10th day of December, 1898, 
 and its ratification by the Senate on the Gth day of 
 February, 1899, the President issued a proclamation to 
 the Filipinos, which is now known as the "benevolent 
 assimilation" proclamation, and which is assailed on the 
 
52 THE ANTl-lMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 ground that until the treaty was ratified the President' s 
 act in claiming sovereignty over these islands was pre- 
 mature and illegal. This point is as narrow and technical 
 a one as was ever raised in a justice's court to defeat a 
 meritorious claim by resort to a small technical defense. 
 
 Happily, it has no foundation even technically, and it 
 is absolutely unsustainable under the Constitution. 
 
 The President's instructions were issued on the 21st of 
 December, 1898, and were in substance as follows : 
 
 " The destruction of the Spanish fleet in the harbor of 
 Manila by the United States naval squadron, commanded by 
 Rear Admiral Dewey, followed by the reduction of the City 
 and the surrender of the Spanish forces, practically effected 
 the conquest of the Philippine Islands and the suspension of 
 Spanish sovereig)dy therein. 
 
 With the signature of the treaty of peace between the 
 United States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries 
 at Paris on the 10th inst., and as the result of the victories of 
 American arms, the future control, disposition and govern- 
 ment of the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. 
 In fulfilment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired and 
 the responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the 
 actual occupation and administration of the entire group of 
 tha Philippine Islands become immediately necessary, and the 
 military government heretofore maintained by the United 
 States in the city, harbor and bay of Manila is to be extended 
 with all possible dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory. 
 In performing this duty the military commander of the 
 United States is enjoined to make known to the inhabitants of 
 the Philippine Islands that in succeeding to the sovereignty of 
 Spain, in severing the former political relations of the inhabit- 
 ants, and in establishing a new political power, the authority of 
 the United States is to be exerted for the security of the per- 
 sons and property of the people of the Islands and for the 
 confirmation of all their private rights and relations. It will 
 be the duty of the commander of the forces of occupation to 
 announce and proclaim in the most public manner that we 
 come not as invaders or conquerers, but as friends, to protect 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 53 
 
 the natives in their homes, in their employments and in their 
 personal and religious rights. All persons who, either by- 
 active aid or by honest submission, co-operate with the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States to give effect to these beneficent 
 purposes, will receive the reward of its support and protection. 
 All others will be brought within the lawful rule we, have 
 assumed, with firmness if need be, but without severity so far 
 as may be possible. * * * 
 
 It should be the earnest and paramount aim of the military 
 administration to win the confidence, respect and affection of 
 the inhabitants of the Phili})pines by assuring to them in every 
 possible way that full measure of individual rights and liber- 
 ties which IS the heritage of free peoples, and by proving to 
 them that the mission of the United States is one of benevo- 
 lent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and 
 right for arbitrary rule. In the fulfilment of this high mission, 
 supporting the temperate administration of affairs for the 
 greatest good of the governed, there must be sedulously main- 
 tained the strong arm of authority, to repress disturbance and 
 to overcome all obstacles to the bestowal of the blessings of 
 good and stable government upon the people of the Philippine 
 Islands under the free flag of the United States." (Cong. Rec, 
 55th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2515.) 
 
 This proclamation — as it is called — was in effect in- 
 strnctions issued by the President as Commander-in-Chief, 
 through the Secretary of War to the General in command 
 at the Philippines. Great stress is laid by Mr. Schurz upon 
 the fact that the General, in making his proclamation, did 
 not use the exact language of the President. Here is 
 another instance of the utter recklessness of these critics — 
 another evidence that their whole stock-in-trade consists 
 of endeavoring to pick to pieces the acts of the President 
 by a resort to miserable cavils and paltry criticisms. The 
 language of the President was the mere basis for a proc- 
 lamation. It furnished the substance to the General in 
 command. He was on the spot and could know what 
 language was best to be used. In substance he adopted 
 every idea and thought of the President. The claim of 
 
54 THE ANTI. IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 sovereignty was as clear in the proclamation as it was in 
 the instructions of the President. The inhabitants could 
 not fail to understand from both that the United States 
 was the conqueror and owner of the islands. 
 
 The' other claim is that until the treaty was ratified 
 by the Senate the President was paralyzed— that nothing 
 could be done by him with reference to these islands — 
 that everything was in statu quo, without authority on his 
 part to move an inch until the Senate acted on the treaty. 
 These agitators forget, or they conceal the fact, that this 
 proclamation of December 19, 1898, was but a repetition 
 of the proclamation of May 19, 1898, to which I have 
 referred. The sovereignty of the United States was therein 
 expressly claimed by right of conquest on May 19, 1898, 
 because it was an inevitable, foreseen result, as plain as 
 the coming of any fixed event, that these islands would 
 fall into our hands. 
 
 The protocol had been signed on August 12. On August 
 13 Manila was taken, and December 10, 1898, the treaty 
 formally ceded the Philippines to us. But this cession 
 was not in the nature of an original grant — it was a con- 
 firmation of an existing title by conquest. 
 
 The President did not assume to issue these proclama- 
 tions as President of the United States — they were issued 
 under Sec. 2 of Article II. of the Constitution of the 
 United States, which declares 
 
 " The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army 
 and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the sev- 
 eral States when called into the actual service of the United 
 States." 
 During the war, and until a definitive treaty was rati- 
 fied by Spain and the Senate, the President's power as 
 Commander-in-Chief was supreme. In war the power of 
 the President as Commander-in-Chief was almost arbitrary ; 
 \\i peace he acted in conjunction with the Senate. 
 
 Between the signing of the protocol and the definitive 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 55 
 
 ratification of the treaty by the Senate, the President's 
 power as Commander in -Chief was in fnll vigor and force, 
 and coupling this with tlie other facts, and with the agreed 
 treaty of December 10, 1898, the President's proclamation 
 was perfectly proper and legal. He had the undoubted 
 right to prepare the minds of the Filipinos for the inevit- 
 able future. 
 
 On May 19, 1898, as Commander-in-Chief, he issued 
 his original proclamation through the Secretary of War, 
 defining the rights and duties of the inhabitants of these 
 islands. Is there any doubt of his complete right to do 
 this? If there is I refer to the decisions of the United 
 States Supreme Court : 
 
 " The powers of the President are defined in the 2nd article 
 of the Constitution. It was decided by the Supreme Court 
 of the U. S. in reference to the Mexican War that in the con- 
 quest of a country the President may establish a provisional 
 government which may ordain laws and institute a judicial 
 system which will continue in force after the war and until 
 modified by the direct legislation of Congress or by the terri- 
 torial government established by its authority. " 
 
 (I>aurence's Wheaton on International Law, 2nd Anno. 
 
 Ed., p. 99, note 39, citing: 
 Fleming i^s. Page, 9 How., 615. 
 Cross vs. Harrison, 16 How., 190. 
 Liebensdorfer m. Webb, 20 How., 177.) 
 
 In the case of Cross et al. vs. Harrison, 1(3 How., U. S. 
 
 Rep., 189, Judge Wayne, in delivering the opinion of the 
 
 Court, said : 
 
 * * * " Early in 1847 the President, as constitutional 
 Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, authorized the 
 military and naval Commanders of our forces in California to 
 exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror and to form a 
 civil government for the conquered country, and to impose 
 duties on imports and tonnage as military contributions for 
 the support of the government and of the army which had the 
 conquest in possession. No one can doubt that these orders 
 
56 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 of the President and the action of our Army and Navy Com- 
 manders in California in conformity with them were accord- 
 ing to the law of arms." 
 
 And in Sir Sherstou Baker's First Steps in International 
 Law (p. 360, § 16) it is stated : 
 
 That "the President of the United States can make no 
 treaty without tlie concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, 
 and his authority over ceded conquered territory, though 
 derived from the law of nations, is subordinate to Congress. 
 But, as a constitutional Commander-in-Chief, he is authorized 
 to form a civil or military government for the conquered terri- 
 tory during the war, and when such territory is ceded to the 
 United States, as a conquest, the existing government, so 
 established, does not cease as a matter of course or as a con- 
 sequence of the restoration of peace." 
 
 It was not necessary for the Commander-in-Chief of our 
 Army and Navy to wait until the treaty was actually rati- 
 fied by the Senate. He had conquered the Philippines. 
 After the 21st of December, 1898, Spain would never 
 have lifted her hand against the victorious progress of our 
 troops. Spain had fought for the Philippines through 
 her Commissioners at Paris, and had finally agreed to 
 cede them to the United States. The United States would 
 have been guilty of perfidy to the Filipinos if it had 
 allowed these islands to go back to Spain. What law or 
 provision of the Constitution prevented Mr. McKinley 
 from making his proclamation ? Assumption is neither 
 proof nor argument. Why should he wait ? Could he 
 not act in anticipation ? Could he not assume that the 
 Senate would in all honor and decency — to say nothing of 
 the merits — confirm the deliberations of an independent 
 Commission composed of Americans and Spaniards ? And 
 when it should be confirmed by a sort of jus postlimini 
 it retroacted to the date of its original adoption, and its 
 confirmation reacted back and ratified all of the acts of 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 57 
 
 tlie President as Commander-in-Cliief. The fact of its 
 contirmution by tlie Senate silences all objections. 
 
 It is urged that American sovereignty did not exist at 
 this time. But it did, and the proclamation of May 19, 
 1898, seven months previously, had claimed its existence 
 by conquest. 
 
 Read the commencement of the proclamation of Decem- 
 ber '21st and it is seen thatitdoes not rest upon the treaty 
 alone. It asserts that : 
 
 "The destruction of the Spanish fleet in the harbor of 
 Manila by the United States naval squadron, comuiaiuled by 
 Rear Admiral Dewey, followed by the reduction of the city 
 and the surrender of the Spanish forces, practically effected the 
 conquest of the Philippine Islands and the suspension of 
 /Spanish sovereignty. " 
 
 But it is further claimed that its language was so injiam- 
 matory that General Otis suppressed some of the language 
 and substituted a proclamation of his own! The inliam 
 mation is in the criticism and not in the proclamation. Its 
 language is temperate, fair, clear and firm. It is such an 
 accurate reproduction of the principles of international law, 
 acquiesced in everywhere, that, as I said before, it might 
 have been copied from a law book on the subject involved. 
 General Otis had his own reasons for changing the lan- 
 guage of the President. That circumstance is of no 
 moment. The proclamation can stand on its own bottom. 
 It is also claimed that this proclamation was substantially 
 a declaration of war against the Filipinos. If this is so 
 the war was declared long before by the proclamation of 
 May 19, 1898. But let us go deeper into this wonderful 
 point of the Anti-Imperialists. Suppose the treaty had 
 not been ratified. War would then have existed between 
 the United States and Spain. Was the President, then, 
 not right in claiming sovereignty over these possessions, 
 the property of Spain? But the treaty was ratified — and 
 
58 
 
 THE ANTI.IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED.. 
 
 Mr. Bryan 
 indorsed and 
 supported the 
 treaty between 
 Spain and the 
 United States. 
 
 ratified through the conceded influence of Mr. Bryan. 
 
 Hear what this Arch Anti-Imperialist now admits : 
 
 " When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty 
 which * * * provided for the cession of the Phili})pine 
 Islands, the menace of Imperialism became so apparent that 
 many preferred to i-eject the treaty and risk the ills that might 
 follow, rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of 
 the treaty by the indejjendent action of this country. 
 
 I was among the number of those who believed it better to 
 ratify the treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, 
 remove the excuse for war expenditures, and then give to the 
 Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spain 
 by a new treaty. In view of the criticism which my action 
 aroused in some quarters, I take this occasion to restate the 
 reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the 
 American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to 
 trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an 
 unfriendly nation. * * * j believe that we are now in a 
 better position to wage a successful contest against Imperialism 
 than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With 
 the treaty ratified a clean-cut issue is presented between a gov- 
 ernment by consent and a government by force. If the treaty 
 had been rejected the opponents of Imperialism would have 
 been held responsible for any international complications which 
 might have arisen before the ratification of another treaty. 
 * * * The title of Sjyain bemg extinguished we xoere at lib- 
 erty to deal vnth the Filipinos according to American princi- 
 ples. " (Mr. Bryan's letter of acceptance.) 
 
 Here is a distinct admission that Spain had a title to 
 cede. It completely upsets a favorite argument of the 
 Anti Imperialists that Spain had no title to the Philip- 
 pines at the date of the treaty. 
 
 To uphold or sustain the consistency of this admission 
 with other declarations in this remarkable letter of 
 acceptance is fortunately not a nut for me to crack. The 
 children of Israel had a hard time to make bricks without 
 straw, but their task was easy when compared to that 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 59 
 
 which Mr. Bryan has put upon his followers — to reconcile 
 the sentences of that letter. One marked difference be- 
 tween Mr. Bryan and Mr. Schurz is that the former is 
 willing to trust the future of the Philippines in the hands 
 of the American people, where Mr. McKinley has safely 
 placed it, while Mr. Schurz loudl}^ clamors for an imme- 
 diate recognition of their independence. 
 
 When Anti- Imperialists fall out the Filipinos will get 
 their dues. 
 
 Supposing, for argument's sake, the President did act 
 prematurely. What follows? He coin mitted no offense — 
 invaded none of the provisions of the Constitution or of 
 the treaty. He simply took time by the forelock and 
 opened up the way to a smooth and friendly relatioushi^^ 
 with the Filipinos. 
 
 He was guardian of the interests of the Filipinos until, by 
 the terms of the treaty, Congress acted. It was with this 
 body, under the Constitution of the United States, and 
 under the express provisions of the treaty, that the whole 
 question of the rights, government and future of the Fili- 
 pinos was confided. Until it acted the matter was in the 
 hands of the President in the double cax^acity of Execu- 
 tive of the nation and of Commander in Chief of the Army 
 and Navy. Even if he were technically wrong, which 
 I emphatically deny, there was a mere question of good 
 taste involved. Good manners demand that the President 
 of the United States should be free from criticism when 
 acting in the performance of his duties as Executive, if 
 he is not violating any law. The President under the 
 Constitution has a certain scope and liberty of action. 
 Within this sphere, if a part of the nation does not agree 
 with him, good taste, gentle breeding and politeness re- 
 quire silence. We may not agree with him in his method 
 of living, his dress, his religion ; but he has been selected 
 as Chief of the nation by the people. He needs to be re- 
 spected. In the present instance Mr. McKinley conscien- 
 
60 THE ANTI-IMPEKIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 tiously believed he was acting for the true interests and 
 real welfare of the Filipinos. Every step he took was the 
 result of much care and thought. He was, for the first 
 time in the history of this country, confronted with an en- 
 tirely new problem — thrust upon him by the unexpected 
 occurrences at Manila. It was a situation that required 
 study, and as long as he was acting in good faith and for 
 the interests of the whole people — which nothing but a 
 brazen mendacity can deny — he should have been sup- 
 ported by everybody, because there was no question of 
 politics involved. His action has been fully confirmed by 
 the Senate. The intemperate and inflammatory criticism of 
 him by the Anti-Imperialists has, then, no foundation in 
 principles of morality or law — they have simply invaded 
 the domain of good breeding and manners, and behaved 
 with disrespect toward the Executive of this great nation. 
 If they need to be enlightened about the real merits of 
 this question they should have studied the facts and 
 records. 
 
 As for their bad manners, I cannot undertake to correct 
 them. I simply point out to them that the office of the 
 President of the United States — no matter by whom it is 
 administered — whether by Mr. McKinley or Mr. Cleve- 
 land, whether by a Republican or Democrat — is entitled 
 to respect. The occupant should in the domain of his dis- 
 cretion be free from calumnious, slanderous or libellous 
 criticism. And the men who indulge in such ungentle- 
 manly pastimes should be held up in the pillory of public 
 execration. 
 
 I take in this connection an episode in the life of 
 Jefi'erson — whose isolated words the Anti-Imperialists are 
 never tired of quoting. In the acquisition of the territory 
 of Louisiana, Mr. Jefl'erson saw a great opportunity to 
 benefit the people of the United States. Its purchase 
 could not be postponed, and yet between its acquisition 
 and his constitutional opinions there stood a formidable 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 01 
 
 barrier. He had honest doubts whether any territory 
 could be acquired by the United States without an amend- 
 ment to the Constitution, but he saw that if he did not 
 avail himself of the opportunity quickly and promptly 
 the occasion would be lost. He took the territory. Let 
 Mr. Tucker, his biographer, tell the rest of the story : 
 
 " He had good reasons for this caution as it respected France, 
 since the American ministers at Paris soon afterwards wrote 
 that if the negotiation were then to take place, the same treaty 
 could not be obtained, and that if the United States gave the 
 French Government the least opening they could declare it 
 void ; and that a ' warning ' to this effect had been given to 
 them ; and moreover a strange letter relative to the treaty had 
 been recently written by their minister (Pichon) to our Sec- 
 retary of State. In communicating the preceding facts to 
 Colonel Wilson C. Nicholas, then residing in Albemarle, Mr. 
 Jefferson again expresses his opinion that they could not in- 
 corporate Louisiana with the United States without an amend- 
 ment to the constitution ; but Colonel Nicholas had expressed 
 the opinion that the power given to Congress to admit new 
 States into the Union extended to territor}^ beyond their limits 
 at that period. 
 
 It clearly appears by the same letter that Mr. Jefferson did 
 not think that the constitution authorized this addition to the 
 national territory and that it would be necessary to obtain a 
 special amendment for that purpose. 
 
 'The Constitution,' he remarks in the same letter, 'has 
 made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less 
 for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The exec- 
 utive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much ad- 
 vances the good of their country, have done an act beyond 
 the Constitution. The legislature in casting behind them meta- 
 physical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful ser- 
 vants, must ratify and pay for it, and throw themselves on their 
 country, for doing for them unauthorized, what we know they 
 would have done for themselves, had they been in a situation 
 to do it.' He assimilates the case to that of a guardian who 
 exceeds his authority to make an advantageous purchase for 
 
62 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 his ward, relying on his confirming it when he conies of age, 
 and adds, ' But we shall not be disowned by the nation, and 
 * their act of indemnity will confirm and not weaken the Con- 
 stitution by more strongly marking out its lines.' " (Life of 
 Jefferson, by Tucker, Vol. 2, p. 147.) 
 
 No constitutional amendment was ever passed, and Mr. 
 Jefferson's views have since been shown to be unfounded 
 by historical precedent, and judicial authority. But no 
 act throws more glory upon his political career than his 
 endeavor to save this great body of land for this countr^^ 
 at the sacrifice of his own opinions. Let the Anti -Impe- 
 rialists draw a lesson from this — at least of good manners. 
 But I must not fail to notice in this connection another 
 proposition of the Anti-Imperialists, viz. : that by issuing 
 the proclamation of December 21, 1898, the President 
 
 " substantially declared war against the Philippine Islanders 
 striving for their freedom and independence." (New York 
 Herald, July 14, 1900.) 
 
 and the question they put in connection with it — 
 
 ' ' Was it the President's ' duty ' thus directly to provoke an 
 armed conflict with the P'ilipinos? " 
 
 and the answer which they make to their own question, 
 that the act of the President was 
 
 ' ' a barefaced usurpation of power which only an unscrupulous 
 partisan spirit would overlook or excuse.'' {Ibid.) 
 
 I have shown that Aguinaldo determined as early as May 
 4th, 1898, to wage war against the United States if his dicta- 
 torial government was not recognized (ante, p. 18 e^ seq.). 
 I have shown by the correspondence between himself and 
 Generals Anderson, Merrirt and Otis that he was waiting 
 every opportunity to put this purj^ose into execution 
 (ante, p. 31 et seq.). I have shown that as early as May 19, 
 1898, the United States had claimed the sovereignty of 
 these islands by conquest (ante, p. 22 et seq.). I have endeav- 
 ored to show that in the exercise of his power as Com- 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERFALrSTS ANSWERED. 63 
 
 niander in Chief of the Army and Navy the President was 
 justified in issuing the proclamation of December 21, 1898 
 (ante, p. 50 et seq.). I have shown that Aguinaldo did not 
 represent the people of the Philippine Islands (ante, 
 p. 17 et seq.) or their sentiments (ante, p. 46). 
 
 I will add but one word more. I will bring notice 
 home so directly that no one can deny it. Negotiations 
 took place in January, 1899, between Commissioners of 
 Aguinaldo and officers appointed by General Otis. 
 
 " With great tact and patience the Cominanding General 
 had held his forces in check, and he now made a final effort to 
 preserve the peace by appointing a Commission to meet a sim- 
 ilar body appointed by Aguinaldo and to ' confer with regard 
 to the situation of affairs and to arrive at a mutual understand- 
 ing of the intents, purposes, aims and desires of the Fili- 
 pinon people and of the people of the United States.' Six 
 sessions were held, the last occurring on January 29, 1899, six 
 days before the outbreak of hostilities. No substantial results 
 were obtained, the Filipino Commissioners being either unable 
 or unwilling to give any definite statements of the ' intent, 
 purposes, and aims of the people.' At the close of the last 
 session they were given full assurances that no hostile act would 
 be inaugurated by the United States troops," (Vol. I., Rep. 
 Philippine Commission, p. 175.) 
 
 The proclamation of December 21, 1898, is used as a 
 mere pretext to embarrass the question. It was in no 
 sense a declaration of war, nor was it so regarded by 
 Aguinaldo. It is an afterthought on the part of the Anti- 
 Imperialists to call it such. Aguinaldo knew the position 
 of the United States from the beginning. He was plainly 
 and clearly notified that his pretended military or civil 
 power would never be recognized. He was not consulted 
 as to the terms of the treaty, because he was in no proper 
 sense an " ally " of the United States — he was for a short 
 time an auxiliary — precisely as an additional indigenous 
 regiment or regiments would be. His whole capital con- 
 sisted of the moral force of the United States. 
 
64 THE anti-impEriaLists answered. 
 
 Againaldo was not an "ally," for the additional and 
 weighty reason that he was never consulted by and never 
 directly co-operated with our forces — not in one single in- 
 stance. Between June and August 13, 1898, when Manila 
 was captured, he ran a campaign of his own, inducing 
 the Filipino militia to desert the Spanish army with 
 their guns and ammunition, and fighting desultory 
 bands of Spanish soldiers. All of his successes were at- 
 tributable to the moral force of the United States. He 
 guarded the land side of Manila, it is true, but Manila 
 was ours without him or his aid. His whole campaign, 
 the augmentation of his forces, and keeping them together, 
 was to fight the United States. Until hostilities actually 
 begun, on the eve of the ratification of the treaty by the 
 United States — February 6th, 1899 — Aguinaldo skulked 
 around the outj)osts of the United States xlrmy. It was 
 with the greatest difficulty our generals and officers could 
 reach him. This "aZZy/" of ours never condescended to 
 have a personal interview with either Generals Anderson, 
 Merritt or Otis ! 
 
 Long before the Senate ratified the treaty he had con- 
 cluded to attack Manila, for a few days before hostilities 
 began Aguinaldo secretly ordered the Filipinos who were 
 friendly to him to seek refuge outside the city. (Vol. I., 
 Report Philippine Commission, p. 174.) 
 
 And after the war began the Administration held out 
 the olive branch to these insurgents. A Commission was 
 appointed, one of whose objects was "to assist in the 
 peaceful extension of American authority and the estab- 
 lishment of civil and peaceful government among the 
 people." This Commission issued a proclamation ex- 
 pressing these views, and had several conferences with 
 Aguinaldo's Commissioners — they tried to see him per- 
 sonally, but all of their efforts for agreement and peace 
 were ineffectual. 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 65 
 
 This is in brief the history of this rebellion against the 
 sovereignty of the United States by the Filipinos. 
 
 It was an unnecessary, cruel, premeditated, criminal 
 war, inaugurated and carried on by Aguinaldo against the 
 best friends of his country. 
 
 The parties responsible for it are two, Aguinaldo and 
 liis sympathizers in the United States — the so-called Anti- 
 Imperialists. Without the latter the war would never 
 have been commenced. With their aid it has been kept 
 alive. The responsibility upon them is as great as that 
 which men have ever shouldered in any public crisis. 
 They can never shake it off. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Heretofore I have endeavored to fully answer all of the 
 charges made by Mr. Schurz and the Anti Imperialists. If 
 there are any which I have not expressly alluded to it is 
 not because they have been overlooked, but because they 
 are insignificant or are answered by some general state- 
 ment of law or of fact. Out of these undisputed or con- 
 ceded facts there flow certain consequences, based on prin- 
 ciples of international law. 
 
 1. At the commencement of the war, and at the lime 
 of the defeat of the Spanish fleet at Manila, Spain was 
 the supreme and sovereign authority in the Philippines. 
 She did not, and could not, make any disposition of them 
 after the war began, which would have interfered with the 
 American right of conquest. Spain having been van- 
 quished, gave up these possessions to the conqueror, the 
 United States. They thus became the property of the 
 United States by a double title — that of conquest and 
 cession. 
 
 2. As to the inhabitants of these islands, it made no 
 difference whether they were many or few. They passed 
 with the islands — they followed the conquest or cession. 
 
 Legal conse- 
 quences flow- 
 ing from the 
 conquest of 
 Philippines. 
 
66 THE ANTI.IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 Innumerable historical instances of the correctness of 
 this proposition are found in this country and elsewhere. 
 If any one doubts this assertion let him study the cir- 
 cumstances surrounding the purchase of Louisiana, Flor- 
 ida, Alaska — let him study the history of California, New 
 Mexico and Texas. 
 
 One of the most striking and cruel illustrations of this 
 j)rinciple of international law I will cite for the benefit of 
 Mr. Carl Schurz-^that of the forcible wrenching of Alsace 
 and Lorraine from the sovereignty of France by Germany, 
 his native land. The people of these two provinces were 
 forced to become subjects of Germany, or to expatriate 
 themselves and to give up their homes, .birthplace, and all 
 of those sacred and tender ties which attached them to 
 their native land. I believe if it were put to a vote to-day 
 the inhabitants of Alsace would overwhelmingly vote to 
 become French subjects again; but they, in their own 
 native land, are held down by force of conquest and cession. 
 To those Anti-Imperialists overflowing with a lachrymose 
 philanthropy and of the eternal principles of liberty, as 
 they call them, I point to Alsace and Lorraine. Over this 
 sad event they can shed all of their crocodile tears. 
 
 But international law sanctioned the conduct of the 
 Germans. When, therefore, Mr. Schurz and his associates 
 talk of transferring bodies of people like sheep — en bloc — 
 they entirely overlook the clear precepts of international 
 law as laid down by every w^riter, and the necessary results 
 of conquest or cession of territory. 
 
 Here are some excerpts which establish the doctrine : 
 " The conqueror wl^ acquires a province or town from the 
 enemy, acquires thereb}^ the same rights which were possessed 
 by the State from which it is taken. If it formed a constituent 
 part of the hostile State, and was fully and completely under 
 its dominion, it passes into the power of the conqueror upon 
 the same footing, It is united with the new State upon the 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIAI.ISrS ANSWERED. 'I? 
 
 same terms on wliicb it belonged to the old one; that is, with 
 only such political rights as the constitution and laws of the 
 new Satte may see fit to give it. It retains no political privi- 
 leges or immunities, but may acquire those it never possessed 
 before. In political rights it maj^ be the gainer or the loser 
 by the change ; if from being a part of an absolute monarchy 
 it becomes a part of a republic, its liberties will be enlarged, 
 or, if the reverse, they will be restricted. But such restric- 
 tion, in any case, must be in conformity with the rights of 
 conquest and the laws of war. When New Mexico formed a 
 part of the Mexican Republic, it enjoyed the right of repre- 
 sentation in the Mexican Congress; on the conquest of that 
 territory by the arms of the United States, under Gen. Kearny, 
 a clause was introduced into the new organic law for sending 
 a representative to the Congress of the United States. This 
 part of the organic law was disapproved by the President, 
 and, even without such disapproval, it was utterly inoperative, 
 for this right of representation was a political right, Avhich 
 was lost by the very act of conquest, and could be restored to 
 it only by the action of Congress, after its permanent incor- 
 poration into the conquering republic. The case, however, is 
 different where the enem}' possessed only a quasi-sovereignty, 
 or limited political rights, over the conquered province or 
 town. The conqueror acquires no other rights than such as 
 belonged to the State against which he has taken up arms. 
 ' War,' says Vattel, ' authorizes him to possess himself of what 
 belongs to his enemy. If he deprives that enemy of the 
 sovereignty of a town or province, he acquires it, such as it is, 
 with all its limitations and modifications. Accordingly, care 
 is usually taken to stipulate, both in particular capitulations 
 and in treaties of peace, that the towns and countries ceded 
 shall retain all their liberties, privileges and immunities. But 
 where such conquered provinces and towns have themselves 
 taken up arms against him, thus making themselves directly 
 his enemies, the conqueror may regard them as vanquished 
 foes and treat them precisely as he would treat other con- 
 quered territory.' " 
 
 {Ilalleck's International Laio [Baker's Ed.], Vol. 2, page 
 482, Sec. 2; citing Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. R., 194; 
 
68 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 American Ins. Co. %). Canter, 1 Peters R., 542; Marcy to 
 Kearny, Jan. 11, 1847, Ex. Doc, No. 17, 31st Cong., 1st 
 Sess. H. R. 
 
 " Where a conquest is confirmed, or in any other way made 
 complete, the allegiance of the inhabitants who remain in the 
 conquered territory is transferred to the new sovereign. The 
 same effect is produced by an ordinary cession of such terri- 
 tory. In either case the national character of the inhabitants 
 who remain is deemed to be changed from that of the former 
 to the new sovereign, and in their relations with other nations 
 they are entitled to all the advantages, and are subject to all 
 the disadvantages, of their new international status." 
 
 (Sir Sherston Baker's First Steps in International Law, p. 
 153, Sect. 30.) 
 
 3. The inhabitants of a conquered or ceded country, 
 if they do not agree or sympathize with the form of gov- 
 ernment of the conqueror, or purchaser or cessionee, can 
 quit it; they have the admitted right of expatriation. 
 This is generally provided for by treaty, but in the absence 
 of express agreement the right to expatriate still exists. 
 
 It was not provided for in the treaty between Spain and 
 the United States. No one ever imagined, until an un- 
 founded agitation arose in the United States, that the 
 Filipinos would not have been amply satisfied with any 
 temporary provisional and eventually permanent govern- 
 ment which the United States would establish. 
 But the right of expatriation is still open to them. 
 
 "If the inhabitants of the ceded territory remain in 
 the territory after such transfer, they are deemed to have 
 elected to become subjects and thus have consented to the 
 transfer of their allegiance to the new sovereignty. If they 
 leave sine animo revertendi, they are deemed to have elected 
 to continue aliens to the new sovereignty. The status of the 
 inhabitants of the conquered and transferred territory is thus 
 determined by their own acts. This rule is the most just, 
 reasonable and convenient which could be adopted. It is 
 reasonable on the part of the conqueror, who is entitled to 
 know who become his subjects, and who prefer to continue 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 69 
 
 aliens; it is very convenient for those who wish to become 
 the subjects of the new State; and it is not unjust toward 
 those who determine not to become its subjects. According 
 to this rule, domicile, as understood and defined in public 
 law, determines the question of transfer of allegiance, or 
 rather is the rule of evidence by which that question is to be 
 decided. 
 
 "This rule of evidence, with respect to the allegiance of 
 the inhabitants of ceded conquered territory, may be incon- 
 venient to those who do not become subjects of the new sov- 
 ereignty, as it requires them to change their domicile ; but it 
 is necessary for the protection of the rights of those who elect 
 to become subjects of the new Government, and especially 
 necessary for determining the rights and duties of the Gov- 
 ernment which acquires their allegiance and is bound to afford 
 them its protection. It would not do to leave the status of the 
 inhabitants of the acquired territory uncertain and undeter- 
 mined, and to suffer a man's citizenship to continue an open 
 question subject to be disputed by any person at any time, and 
 to change with his own intentions and resolutions as might 
 best suit his convenience or interest. Count Platen Hallemund 
 was prime minister of Hanover at the time of the capitulation 
 of its army to Prussia in 1866. Hanover was afterwards 
 forcibly annexed to Prussia, but before the annexation Count 
 Platen left Hanover in the suite of the ex-King who, by the 
 terms of the capitulation, was allowed to choose his own resi- 
 dence together with a suite of attendants. They took up their 
 abode at Vienna, and, while there. Count Platen was sum- 
 moned to appear before the Supreme Court in Berlin on a 
 charge of high treason, alleged to have been committed by him 
 abroad " as a royal Prussian subject," after he had ceased to 
 reside in Hanover. According to the lav^' of Prussia only a 
 Prussian subject can be prosecuted before a Prussian court for 
 an act of high treason committed abroad, and it was, there- 
 fore, necessary to assume that Count Platen had become a 
 Prussian subject in consequence of the annexation of Hanover 
 by Prussia. He pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court on the 
 ground that he had never become a Prussian subject. The 
 court, however, overruled the plea and proceeded against the 
 
70 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 Count in co«<?«nac/am, sentencing him to penal servitude for 
 fifteen years. It is submitted that the mere fact of con- 
 quest, or forcible annexation, does not create the relations of 
 sovereign and subject between the conqueror and the con- 
 quered, but there must be either an express or tacit submission 
 for the purpose, and in "tacit submission " would be included 
 the remaining within the sphere of the power of the new 
 dominion and fulfilling the duties of subjects; but it must be 
 entirely left to the subjects of the subdued state whether they 
 will acknowledge the new sovereign power or not. Conse- 
 quently they are at liberty to emigrate ; but if they remain 
 the}^ thereby tacitly declare that they enter the new State and 
 community. 
 
 "This modern and more benign construction of the laws 
 of nations, with respect to the allegiance of the inhabitants of 
 conquered or ceded territory, avoids all questions of the right 
 of the one State to transfer, and of the other to claim, the 
 allegiance of subjects of neutral States who are naturalised or 
 domiciled in the territory transferred by conquest or treaty. All 
 are alike aliens to the new sovereignty, if they elect to continue 
 so, and all become its subjects if it consents to receive them, 
 and they, by remaining in the transferred territory, signify 
 their election to become such." 
 
 (Sir Sherston Baker's First Steps in International Law, 
 pp. 356, 357, 358, Sections 7, 8, 9.) 
 
 "Allegiance of the Population of the Conquered or Ceded 
 Territory. — When territory changes hands, by cession or con- 
 quest, the fact that allegiance is now based up_.on consent is 
 usually recognized by the insertion of a clause in the treaty by 
 which the conquest is completed or the session accomplished, 
 permitting such of the inhabitants as desire to retain their 
 former citizenship to dispose of their property and return to 
 the state of their original allegiance. Individuals who decline 
 to take advantage of this permission and elect to remain in the 
 ceded territory are presumed to consent to the change in alle- 
 giance which is involved in the conquest or cession. From 
 the nature of the case, however, no formal guarantee of the 
 allegiance of the population of territory thus transferred is 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 71 
 
 either given or expected. It is proper to say, also, that while 
 the inhabitants of conquered or ceded territory become vested 
 with the rights of citizenship by the fact of conquest or cession, 
 in so far as other states are concerned, their actual absorption 
 into the body politic of the conquering state is a matter which 
 is regulated, not by international law, but by the constitution 
 and laws of the state to which their allegiance has been 
 transferred by conquest or cession. (IV. Calvo, sections 
 2466, 2469; Amer. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Peter, 542; 
 Heffter, section 131; 11 Halleck, pp. 489-497; III. Philli- 
 more, sections 591-593; Hall, sections 205, 206; Dana's 
 Wheaton, section 346, note 169; 11 Halleck, pp. 485-489; 
 United States vs. Repentigny, 5 Wallace, 260; 1 Wildraan, 
 p. 162; IV. Calvo, sections 2466-2477.) 'By a principle 
 of international law, on a transfer of territory by^ne nation 
 to another, the political relations between the inhabitants of 
 the ceded country and the former government are changed and 
 new ones arise between them and the new government. The 
 manner in which this is to be effected is ordinarily the subject 
 of treaty. The contracting parties have the right to contract 
 to transfer and receive respectively the allegiance of all the 
 native-born citizens; but the naturalized citizens, who owe alle- 
 giance purely statutory, are, when released therefrom, remitted 
 to their original status. ' — (Tobin vs. Walkinshaw, 1 McAllister, 
 186; Amer. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Peters, 542.) ' When New 
 Mexico was conquered by the United States, it was only the 
 allegiance of the people that was changed ; their relation to 
 each other and their rights of property remained undisturbed.' 
 (Leitensdorfer el al. y«. Webb, 20 Howard, 176.) 'On a con- 
 quest by one nation of another, and the subsequent surrender 
 of the soil and change of sovei'eignty, those of the former in- 
 habitants who, do not remain and become citizens of the 
 victorious sovereign, but, on the contrary, adhere to their old 
 allegiance and continue in the service of the vanquished sov- 
 ereign, deprive themselves of protection or security to their 
 property, except so far as it may be secured by treat3^ ' — 
 (United States vs. Repentigny, 5 Wallace, all.) 'Hence, 
 where, on such a conquest, a treaty provided that the former 
 inhabitants who wished to adhere in allegiance to their van- 
 
72 THE ANTI.IMPERlALISrS ANSWERED. 
 
 quislied sovereign might sell their property, provided they sold 
 it to a certain class of persons and within a time named, the 
 property, if not so sold, became abandoned to the conqueror. ' — 
 Ibid. " Citizens of territory acquired by the United States 
 as a result of conquest or cession have the international priv- 
 ileges of citizenship, in respect to extra territorial protection, 
 etc., from the date of the treaty of peace or of cession. The 
 matter of their citizenship or naturalization, as a question of 
 municipal law, if not settled in the treaty, depends upon the 
 legislation of Congress. The Treaty of Frankfort, in 1871, 
 authorized liberty of emigration from the provinces of Alsace 
 and Lorraine until October 1, 1872.' — (XIX. Nouv. Rec. Gen., 
 p. 689; Hall, p. 572, note; III. Phillimore, pp. 8(38-871.)" 
 
 (Davis' Elements of International Law, pp. 346-347, 
 and note. ) 
 
 4. In all cessions or conquests of new territory, 
 there is involved many great, delicate and important ques- 
 tions concerning the fundamental rights of life, liberty 
 and property. But these questions are necessarilj' in the 
 hands of the conqueror or purchaser. If he is civilized, 
 civilization will follow the new ownership. If he is a bar- 
 barian and savage, God help the old inhabitants. They 
 must flee their native land, or abide the behests of the new 
 sovereign. Fortunately, in this age there are few cases 
 which produce such an experience. Alsace and Lorraine 
 is the worst spectacle the world has seen for a long time. 
 But the rule of international law is unquestionable. To 
 the victors belong the spoils. With a purchase of new 
 territory is the accompanying right of dictating the form 
 of the new government, subject always to the right of ex- 
 patriation. 
 
 If the conqueror or purchaser of new territory is civil- 
 ized, just and sensible, he will not abuse his privileges. If 
 he is not he will make for his new subjects a hard life, and 
 they in return will j^revent him from enjoying a bed of 
 roses. This is history — this is human nature. To read 
 the utterances of some Anti-Imperialists one would think 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 73 
 
 that the American nation was about to enslave tlie inhab- 
 itants of the Philippine Islands, or to visit some condign 
 punishment upon them. 
 
 Does any sensible man think that such a fate awaits 
 these people at our hands? 
 
 Does not every one know that the future, the prosperity 
 and happiness of the Filipinos will be promoted and en- 
 hanced under the influences of any government which the 
 Congress of the United States may impose? 
 
 In each case of conquest or cession of territory there 
 arises a new question as to how the inhabitants shall be 
 treated and governed. The results are necessarily different 
 in each instance. 
 
 The inhabitants of the United States, as a general rule, 
 need heavy overcoats, blankets, woolen clothing and rubber 
 overshoes. I imagine that we will not force these necessary 
 features of our physical life upon the Filipinos, any more 
 than we will inflict them with governmental machinery 
 which is inapplicable to their present political, educational 
 and moral training and conceptions. 
 
 Primarily all of these questions are matters to be care- 
 fully discussed by the conqueror or purchaser ; the solution 
 will be the result of observation, inquiry and study of the 
 character, habits, history of the people — the climate, the 
 jjresent and future interests of all concerned. We are not 
 a nation of fools and idiots ; we are not a cruel and blood- 
 thirsty race; we have sufficient intelligence, courage, civil- 
 ization and Christianity to deal with any problem that 
 comes before us in the natural development of our national 
 life and history. 
 
 A mother may with as much reason shrink from the re- 
 sponsibility of rearing her first child because of the novelty 
 of the situation, as this nation should fiee from meetini): 
 the responsibilities of any question born out of normal 
 conditions. 
 
 The Philipi^ine Islands are ours — they will remain so — to 
 
74 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 our advantage, and to the present and future political, 
 moral, physical, religious and confmercial benefit of those 
 people. We will have no adopted children that we will 
 feel ashamed of. 
 
 And none that will not love us. 
 
 5. Another proposition is equally clear, i. e., that the 
 inhabitants of the conquered or ceded territory have no 
 rights — strict, technical rights — under the principles of 
 international law, to intervene or to be heard in the 
 discussion of a treaty of cession which involved the transfer 
 of the territory they occupy. 
 Mr. Schurz complains that when 
 
 " we began negotiations for peace with the ' common enemy', 
 and our Filipino allies asked to be heard in these negotiations 
 as to the future of their country, we slammed the door in their 
 faces as if they had no right to their country at all. " (New 
 YoY^ Herald, July 14, 1900.) 
 
 I deny the fact that they asked to be heard. Aguinaldo 
 begged us not to yield the territory to Spain or to sell it in 
 the open market " preferably to England." He never 
 asked to be heard, but he did have his emissary, Agoncillo, 
 at Washington, who fully and extravagantly presented his 
 views in writing to each Senator before the ratification of 
 the treaty — with no effect. 
 
 But irrespective of the question of fact — what is the rule 
 in such cases? 
 
 Were the inhabitants of that vast territory ceded to us 
 by the Louisiana purchase heard? Were the people who 
 resided in Alaska, before its cession to us, heard? 
 
 Were the Alsatians heard before they were put under 
 German domination? 
 
 There is such a thing as being so .tender and delicate 
 about the rights of people as to become impracticable, 
 visionary and platonic. We are not living in the millennium 
 yet. Human rights are x)rotected by human laws, and 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 75 
 
 when our laws are based upon the greatest good for the 
 greatest number, we approach as near to perfection as 
 mortals have been able to attain. 
 
 These Anti-Imperialists are so refined in some parts of 
 their reasoning that they argue themselves out of all 
 schemes of political salvation. 
 
 6. If the above propositions did not necessarily, logi- 
 cally and naturally How from conquest or cession of terri- 
 tory neither could ever be made. It would be abortive. 
 
 The Alsatians might have objected to becoming German- 
 ized ; the Alaskans to becoming Americanized ; and so 
 on through the whole category of historical examples. It 
 shows that such an argument leads to a reductio ad ah- 
 surdum. 
 
 X. 
 
 Out of the 'foregoing facts and history a coterie of sen- 
 timentalists and politicians have endeavored to create and 
 to force a false and untimely political issue, which they 
 have baptized " Imperialism," and the Democratic party, 
 destitute of real questions, has eagerly seized hold of this 
 barren name to hoist itself into power. 
 
 The name is a misnomer. It has no application to any 
 existing conditions — the issue is false because there are 
 no facts to support it — and the result will necessarily be 
 iiollow. 
 
 If the Democrats should succeed they would do nothing 
 for the Filii^inos which the Republicans will not do. The 
 rebellion must cease; Aguinaldo must be eliminated, and 
 then a series of reforms can be inaugurated, leading ux) 
 gradually but surely to a free government by the people. 
 Let any man look the facts — all of them — squarely in the 
 face, and tell me why he should vote the Democratic 
 ticket? Why should we turn out of office an Administra- 
 
76 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 tion closely familiar with the existing situation, whose 
 usefulness as public servants will be much greater than 
 ever, and to place in its stead a party whose stock-in- 
 trade consists in promises which they cannot fulfil and 
 representations which they know to be false? 
 
 Imperialism ! Without an Imperator — without an Em- 
 pire ! There never was anything so far-fetched in political 
 history. It is impossible that the people can be deceived 
 by such wretched, superficial and flimsy fraud. 
 
 The same title would apply to the Louisiana, the Texas, 
 the New Mexico, the Alaska transactions — these will all 
 fall under the modern definition of " Imperialism." 
 
 The accession of territory has been gradually going on 
 from the foundation of our government. As the popula- 
 tion increases, and our commerce develops, we push out 
 as naturally as men grow — from babyhood to adolescence, 
 from adolescence to manhood. In the progress of a 
 national life which Almighty God has confided to our 
 hands, no man can say what will be the full measure of 
 our political development and commercial growth ; or 
 where it will lead us. Every time the question occurs of 
 new territorial acquisition Schurzs and Bryans arise and 
 cry out against it, and prophesy and threaten dire 
 calamity to the nation. 
 
 What became of the past prophecies made at the time 
 of our former territorial accessions? Ground to atoms 
 under the overpowering weight of historical truth ; of our 
 present prosperity and civilization; every act vindicated 
 and applauded. 
 
 And now comes a new set of false apostles crying out 
 against the Philippine victory — made memorable by the 
 generous manner in which we treated Spain in giving her 
 twenty million dollars to conjirm a title which we already 
 possessed by conquest. 
 
 They borrow from the pages of ancient history a name, 
 and tliey undertake to apply it to existing facts by assert 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 77 
 
 ing that the limits of this Kepublic are naturally and con- 
 stitutionally confined to this continent. They argue that 
 we should erect a Chinese wall around our present terri- 
 torial possessions and shut ourselves out from the world ! 
 And this is their full conception of our future and of the 
 purposes of a civilised government. 
 
 They argue that because the Philippines are '■'■far 
 aioay'''' that that fact constitutes Imperialism. I will 
 spend no time in answering such a proposition. Manila 
 Bay is not as "far away" as Oregon was when it was 
 annexed. Science has annihilated both space and time, 
 and territory or commerce which might not have inter- 
 ested us fifty years ago may now become a crying neces- 
 sity. 
 
 But Mr. Schurz, better informed in history than most 
 of his fellow Anti-Imperialists, appreciates that his argu- 
 ments, to have any force, must embrace the worst features 
 of a despotic government — that a mere question of dis- 
 tance between San Francisco and Manila will not answer 
 for " Imperialism," and he throws into the discussion the 
 elements of "conquest," " criminal aggression," "bare- 
 faced usurpation of power;" "the wanton and unneces- 
 sary sacrifice of life; " "wrenching from a nation their 
 country and brutally shooting the inhabitants down ; and 
 governing them without their consent and against the 
 spirit of our owm declaration of independence." 
 
 He does not dare to give us a definition of Imperialism ; 
 general denunciation is the limit of his argument; but 
 lumping his accusations together, extracting from them 
 all of their salient points, the impeachment he makes of 
 this Republic under the name of Imperialism is this: the 
 creation and waging of an unnecessary and cruel war in 
 a pure spirit of aggression, conquest and greed and for the 
 purpose of politically enslaving the inhabitants against 
 their will and governing them by laws different from those 
 under which the conqueror's own people live and against 
 
78 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 the true spirit of modern liberty and civilisation. This is 
 Mr. Schurz's " Imperialism." 
 
 One can only appreciate the fnll strength of it when 
 these charges are compressed into a definition or indict- 
 ment. This he skilfully avoids. 
 
 This accusation, as 1 have shown, is false — false as a 
 general statement, false in every detail, false in fact, false 
 in reason, false in law. Recall'the salient events in this 
 connection. The war which was declared against Spain on 
 the 25th of April, 1898, was the result of almost complete 
 unanimity on the part of Congress. All will remember with 
 what positive reluctance Mr. McKinley entered into the 
 spirit of this declaration — how he postponed, delayed and 
 hesitated, and how he was pushed by the overwhelming 
 sentiment of both branches of the national legislature, by 
 Republicans and Democrats alike, into commencing hos- 
 tilities against Spain. 
 
 A few days after the war was declared Manila fell. 
 The Philippines practically became ours from that date. 
 They fell into our hands as naturally as a ripe apple drops 
 from a tree into the lap of earth ; they came into our pos- 
 session unexpectedly, without aggression or thought of 
 conquest. 
 
 The proclamation of Mr. McKinley, dated May 19, 
 1898, was a broad and clear assumption of sovereignty on 
 our part, justified by the facts, by the Constitution of the 
 United States and by the laws of war and of nations. 
 Not only that but its purpose and spirit were just, liberal 
 and humane. 
 
 Upon this branch of the subject, then, it must be plain to 
 everyone who desires to take his stand on the truth and the 
 truth only, that Mr. McKinley and his Cabinet are justly 
 beyond the reach of censure. Their personal honor, so grossly 
 assailed, stands unimpeached, and the charges involving it 
 recoil upon their assailants. Heavy responsibilities were 
 devolved upon them in this matter, but they have been man- 
 
THE ANTI.rMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 79 
 
 fully met, and in the only way that wonld have satisfied 
 the people of this country — the sentimentalist and 
 factious opposition excepted. The justice of the war 
 with Spain being granted, our authority over the 
 Philippines came to us legitimately, both by cession and 
 under the law of nations. 
 
 That Mr. Bryan believed in the war is a matter of his- 
 tory. I cite Colonel William J. Bryan, the commander 
 of a Nebraska regiment, as my authority. That he 
 believes the United States is the lawful sovereign of the 
 Philippine Islands I cite his letter of acceptance (ante, 
 p. 58), which candidly admits that he was in favor of 
 and worked for the ratification of the treaty between 
 Spain and the United States by which these islands were 
 ceded to us. 
 
 The side show opened by Aguinaldo,and which drew all 
 of its vitality and nourishment from the American nation, 
 was a premature attempt to anticipate natural conditions — 
 to ripen fruit before it had matured — to build a govern- 
 ment without the consent of the real sovereign or the 
 people to be governed. 
 
 He was positively and frequently notified of our views, 
 and expressly informed that he would not be recognized 
 either in a civil or military capacity. If he went on with 
 the organization of a dictatorial constitution, after all of 
 these warnings, it cannot add to the strength of his 
 original unfounded title. But these facts show the true 
 character of Aguinaldo, and prove that he was working 
 solely in his own interest and that of his immediate 
 cabal — and not of the people. Give praises to the Presi- 
 dent and his Cabinet for their wisdom in protecting the 
 people against Aguinaldo, and do not censure them for 
 their great and noble work. , 
 
 The insurrection which we found in the PhilipiDines, 
 whether slumbering or active, could not be countenanced 
 or permitted without an utter abandonment of self-respect 
 
80 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 and of duty. When was it ever before contended that 
 the mere naked existence of an insurrection destroyed at 
 once and^er se the rig-ht of sovereignty? 
 
 The situation was anomalous in some of its aspects, and 
 made necessary the delicate consideration which was given 
 to it, affecting as it did not merely our own rights and in- 
 terests, but the welfare of the Islanders and the interests of 
 foreign communities ; but for that very reasons an abandon- 
 ment of the status was impossible. Such an abandon- 
 ment would under the circumstances have been a kind of 
 national /dZo de se; more than •' infamy '' (to borrow Mr. 
 Schurz's favorite word)^if would have been degeneracy. 
 
 If " Imperialism '' means a sympathy for and a full and 
 hearty endorsement of the acts and events which led up 
 to the acquisition and retention of the Philippine 
 Islands; if it means an approval of the acts of the Admin- 
 istration in opposing the hostilities commenced by 
 Aguinaldo against our government, I am an " Imperialist, " 
 outspoken and uncomiiromising. I am not one of those 
 Republicans whom Mr. Schurz says "are troubled in their 
 consciences about what has been done " ; nor do I believe 
 there are any such who have looked fully and fairly into 
 the question ; nor do I think Mr. Schurz is a proper 
 authority to diagnose the " consciences " of Republicans. 
 His wish is x^erhaps largely represented in his exx)ression. 
 
 XI. 
 
 standing Amoug; other bogies to enforce their party shibboleth 
 
 Armies. o c 
 
 the old attempted argument of the evils of a "standing 
 army " is revamped, and Mr. Bryan in his letter of accept- 
 ance says : 
 
 " If we have an imperial policy we must have a large stand- 
 ing army as its natural and necessary complement. * * * * 
 A large standing arm}^ is not onl}'^ a pecuniary burden to the 
 people, and if accompanied by compulsory service a constant 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 81 
 
 source of irritation, but it is ever a menace to a Republican 
 form of government. The army is the personification of force, 
 and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people 
 and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of 
 peace to the science of war." 
 
 And the Democratic platform is even more profuse in its 
 condemnation of this supposed evil. In the first place no 
 one has inaugurated an "imperial policy." The Philip- 
 pine question was not the result of any formed or settled 
 policy ; it was the result of an accident of war, fortunate 
 in that it gave us greater and further commercial advan- 
 tages in our dealings and trade relations with the Par East. 
 In the next place, I deny that a "standing army " is a 
 menace to a republican form of government, and I am 
 astonished that Mr. Bryan should be so careless of history 
 and so indifferent to the provisions of the Constitution of 
 the United States as to lay down such a proposition. It 
 is pure and open demagogism, because it is directly oppo- 
 site to the facts. 
 
 A "standing army " in a free government, in the sense 
 in which that term is used here and in England, has never 
 been a menace to its institutions. •* 
 
 Let us recur to history to verify this statement. Pre- 
 vious to the reign of William the Third the subject of a 
 "standing army" always excited bitter and acrimonious 
 contest between Parliaments and Kings. The fear of the 
 people grew out of placing the control of such a weapon 
 in the hands of the Executive power alone. But when 
 the revolution of 1688 was finished, it was found that there 
 was no prohibition against a " a standing army " in the 
 Bill of Rights but that the whole question was left in the 
 hands of Parliament. 
 
 And one of the first acts of the Whig Parliament the 
 
 King and Parliament being now in unity after a consti- 
 tutional monarchy had been firmly established— was the 
 creation of a standing army. Strange comment upon Mr. 
 
82 THE ANIT-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 Bryan's criticism and of the platform of the Democratic 
 party, that a standing army was born and nurtured in that 
 great cradle of liberty, the revolution of 1688! 
 
 Before that plank of the Democratic platform was written 
 and before Mr. Bryan had delivered his acceptance, both 
 history and the Constitution should have been studied. But 
 the Anti -Imperialists do not want the truth — they want 
 words — high-sounding terms — like "Imperialism" — the 
 " Principles of the Declaration of Independence " — " Mili- 
 tarism" — they wish to trap the " German " vote; they re- 
 gard the voters as idiots and fools who will accept what they 
 say without thought or examination ; and thus upon the 
 wings of demagogism they hope to fly into power. And 
 now the " Standing Army " is their " drawing card." 
 
 I invoke a sentence or two from Macaulay (History of 
 England, Vol. V., p. 256 et seq.) which absolutely grinds 
 this last assumption into a million atoms : 
 
 " We have made the discovery that an army may be so 
 constituted as to be in the highest degree efficient against an 
 enemy, and yet obsequious to the civil magistrate. We have 
 long ceased to apprehend danger to law and to freedom from 
 th^hcense of troops and from the ambition of victorious gen- 
 erals. An alarmist who should now talk such language as was 
 common five generations ago, who should call for the entire 
 disbanding of the land-force of the realm, and who should 
 gravely predict that the warriors of Inkerman and Delhi would 
 depose the Queen, dissolve the Parliament, and plunder the 
 Bank, would be regarded as fit only for a cell in Saint Luke's. 
 But befo're the Revolution our ancestors had known a standing 
 army only as an instrument of lawless power. Judging by their 
 own experience they thought it impossible that such an army 
 should exist without danger to the rights both of the crown and 
 of the people. One class of politicians was never weary of 
 repeating that an Apostolic Church, a loyal gentry, an ancient 
 nobility, a sainted king, had been foully outraged by the Joyces 
 and the Prides; another class recounted the atrocities com- 
 mitted by the Lambs of Kirke, and by the Beelzebubs and Luci- 
 
THE AMTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 83 
 
 fers of Dundee; and both classes, agreeing in scarcely anything 
 else, were disposed to agree in aversion to the redcoats." 
 
 " The debate, which recurred every spring on the Mutiny 
 Bill, came to be regarded merely as an occasion on which hope- 
 ful young orators fresh from Christchurch were to deliver 
 maiden speeches setting forth how the guards of Pisistratus 
 seized the citadel of Athens, and how the Praetorian cohorts 
 sold the Roman Empire to Didius. At length these declama- 
 tions became too ridiculous to be repeated. The most old- 
 fashioned, the most eccentric politician, could hardly, in the 
 reign of George the Third, contend that there ought to be no 
 regular soldiers, or that the ordinary law, administered by the 
 ordinary courts, would effectually maintain discipline amonf>- 
 such soldiers. All parties being agreed as to the general prin- 
 ciple, a long succession of Mutiny Bills passed without any 
 discussion, except when some particular article of the military 
 code appeared to require amendment. It is, perhaps, because 
 the army became thus gradually and almost imperceptibly one 
 of the institutions of England that it has acted in such perfect 
 harmony with all her other institutions, has never once during 
 a hundred and sixty years, been untrue to the throne or dis- 
 obedient to the law, has never once defied the tribunals or 
 overawed the constitutent bodies." (Macaulay's History of 
 England, Chap. XL, p. 189) (1689). 
 
 Then when we turn to the history of our country we lincl 
 that the framers of our Constitution had no fear of a 
 " Standing Army," nor had the people who ratified their 
 work. The subject was vividly present to their minds, 
 but they unhesitatingly committed the whole subject to the 
 discretion of Congress, which 
 " shall have power * * * 
 
 12. To raise and support armies * * * 
 
 13. To provide and maintain a navy. 
 
 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the 
 land and naval forces. 
 
 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the 
 laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. 
 
84 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 
 
 16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the 
 militia * * * " g^^. 
 
 The wisdom of the people in placing this extensive 
 power in the hands of Congress has been amply justified 
 by history, and the assertion that a " standing army" has 
 been or is anywise detrimental to the Republican institu- 
 tions^ or demoralizing to the people of the country, is 
 utterly unsupported by the facts. The truth is far the 
 other way. Of all of the parts of our government a 
 " standing army " has been one of the most successful and 
 commendable. 
 
 The distinction between civil and military power has 
 been well defined by our Courts whenever the subject lias 
 come before them ; and it has been as well preserved here 
 as Mr. Macaulay states it has in England. 
 
 The line between civil and military anthority is main- 
 tained with the greatest nicety, respect and fidelity by 
 American officers and b^^ our soldiers and sailors. We have 
 had no trouble at all with a "Standing Army," neither in 
 whole nor in part. That it is a necessary and essential 
 feature of our Government every one must admit; that its 
 history and record are matters of felicitation and pride no 
 intelligent man can deny. Why, then, go back to a period 
 previous to the reign of William the Third to find argu- 
 ments against a "Standing Army," and undertake to 
 apply them to existing and essentially ditt'erent conditions ; 
 to drag out of the past old and effete doctrines which can 
 have no applicability to present circumstances? As well 
 may we endeavor to cultivate oranges and figs at the North 
 Pole as to attempt to plant the reasons which the people 
 then had against a " Standing Army " in the soil of our 
 X)resent civilization. Everything is different — everything 
 is changed. "Circumstances alter cases" is a trite but 
 exact maxim. If our institutions and our training are not 
 adequate to sustain all dangers coming from a " Standing 
 Army " we had better abandon them. We are not x)lants 
 
THE ANl'I-IMPERIALISrS ANSWERED. 85 
 
 to thrive by living in a liouse of glass. A "Standing- 
 Army " is more of a necessity to-day than ever before for 
 reasons which will occur to all, among others that it 
 furnishes the nucleus for a greater army if one becomes 
 necessary. In proportion to our population an army of 
 100,000 would be absolutely innocuous. 
 
 We have tried the experiment of armies in this country 
 and they have never given any honest student or lover of 
 our institutions the slightest cause for anxiety or regret. 
 Their record is glorious in war and in peace. If ever the 
 country was tested in this respect it was at the time of the 
 Civil War, when in the North and South it is estimated 
 that four millions of soldiers bore arms. The Union Army 
 alone at the close of the war contained 1,084,064 soldiers. 
 And yet this vast soldiery, as soon as the war finished, 
 "melted down into the body of the people and ceased to 
 show a trace of their existence," as Macaulay says in 
 speaking of the wars of the Commonwealth. What nobler 
 record can be shown than this? Do not such instances 
 disclose the true nature of our soldiery and shed light 
 on the character of our people and our institutions? The 
 attempt on the part of Mr. Bryan to attack the character 
 of the soldiers and sailors of this country and their loyalty 
 to our institutions will recoil upon him and his party. 
 
 It was an unfortunate moment when he invaded the 
 armories of past history — long gone by — and undertook 
 to use the old and rusty weapons which he found there to 
 uphold the flimsy and shallow arguments of his party. 
 As the matter is forcibly put by the Chicago Times-Herald : 
 "To-day the man who talks of militarism as an impending 
 danger to the repubHc as a ' menace to our liberties, ' as threat- 
 ening us with 'a vast military service and conscription,' is a 
 demagogue or a fool, whose knowledge of and faith in the 
 American people could be mobilized on the point of a cambric 
 needle." 
 
 And thus vanishes " Imperialism " and its alleged ad 
 
86 THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED 
 
 junct a "Standing Army" before the stern countenance 
 of truth, facts and history. 
 
 The only hope of the Anti- Imperialists is that their ad- 
 herents will do as they have done — not read or study the 
 cold, unerring facts. If they do, the false and shallow doc- 
 trines which have been promulgated will disappear like 
 snow before a summer's sun. 
 
 The question of " Imperialism," as it relates- to these 
 Philippine Islands, has not yet definitely arisen. What the 
 future may bring forth it is too early to forecast. Whether, 
 if the Filipinos should ever become fit for self-govern- 
 ment or any well-chosen form of government adapted to 
 their own needs and aspirations, and should then, with 
 something approaching to unanimity, demand a separation 
 froin us (thus placing themselves in a situation resembling 
 our own at the time of the Declaration of Independence), 
 that demand should be recognized and under what condi- 
 tions—then the question so eagerly urged by the Anti- 
 Imperialists will, in fact, have arisen. 
 
 The Filipinos have never yet governed themselves — nor 
 have they ever made an attempt for independence against 
 the Spanish domination — as I have shown. To ask them 
 to go through a probative period is not making a great 
 demand either upon their patience or philosophy. In the 
 meantime I see no occasion to fear "Imperialism" con- 
 sidered as an abstract proposition. I am quite prepared to 
 define what it really is, to discuss it in the light of history 
 and experience when the occasion arises. The American 
 people, when they are really awakened to the importance 
 of it, are ready to discuss and deal with any question which 
 affects their vital, political or moral principles or future 
 prosperity and happiness. It is a miserably narrow and 
 mistaken view to ascribe to a government merely selfish 
 ends. A government has an object, as a man has a pur- 
 pose in his creation. If, in the interest of our own devel- 
 opment, and of Christianity and civilization, we are led 
 
THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS ANSWERED. 87 
 
 iDto new territorial fields, I hope I am not paying the 
 American people and their institutions an unmerited eulogy 
 when I say that they have the character, intelligence and 
 courage to meet every situation which may occur in their 
 national life. 
 
 "In pubHc speeches," says Mr. Schurz, " I have again and 
 again challenged the Imperialists to showrae in the history of 
 the world a single act of perfidy committed by any rejmhUc 
 more infamous than that which has been committed by Presi- 
 dent McKinley's administration against our Filipino alHes." 
 
 New York Herald, July 14, 1900. 
 
 What is ' ' perfidy ? " We are told by the lexicographers, 
 legal and others, that it is " the act of one who has en- 
 gaged his faith to do a thing and does not do it, but does 
 the contrary.'' Did this Republic engage its faith to 
 Aguinaldo? I have shown that it never did, directly or 
 indirectly, by express or implied engagement ; by infer- 
 ence or assumption. Let Mr. ^chwvz prove the " perfidy " 
 and I will then compare the conduct of this Republic with 
 that of other Republics, ancient and modern. 
 
 But I will answer a challenge based upon no evidence 
 by another founded upon fact : 
 
 Show me if you can in the history of any government 
 — I will not confine you to Republics — a more undignified, 
 unmerited, malicious and unfounded attack upon any Ad- 
 ministration than that made by you and your associate 
 Anti-Imperialists upon Mr. McKinley and his Cabinet. 
 
 New York, August, 1900. 
 
LiUKHKY Uh CUNUKtb^ 
 
 013 744 626 1 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 626 1 ^