THE UNITED STATES IN 1899 AN ADDRESS Delivered before the University of Pennsylvania February 22d, 1899 BY SETH LOW HXCHANG*. THE UNITED STATES IN 1899. Mr. Provost, Ladies and Gentlemen: A century and a half ago, the College of Philadelphia and King's College in the Province of New York were both under discussion, but neither had yet been founded. The College of Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsylvania, was chartered in 1753, and King's College, now Columbia Univer- sity in the City of New York, in 1754. It is an interesting circumstance that the same man, the Rev. Samuel Johnson, S. T.D., of Connecticut, was invited by each of the young col- leges to become its first President. It would seem, therefore, as if the timber out of which college presidents are made was as scarce then as it appears to be to-day ! Why it was that Dr. Johnson, in the presence of such a tempting alternative, should have chosen to become the first President of King's College, I shall not attempt to say. The incident serves to show how closely the University of Pennsylvania and the University over which I have the honor to preside were re- lated in those early days. Within a decade of their founda- tion, both of them were represented in a joint attempt to secure funds in England for their common benefit. The original papers relating to this transaction are in your posses- sion. Our own records merely show that you are credited with a full and true accounting for our share of the funds so raised, about ^6,000. As we were thus closely associated in origin, so the history and development of the two universities has followed parallel lines. Each being located in an im- portant city, each illustrates the effect of a large city upon such an institution. So long as the city was small, these colleges rendered a service to the country at large second to no others. Their influence was as wide as the colonies. As the city closed about them, on the other hand, their patronage and their influence became chiefly local; because, as I suppose, their immediate surroundings were more important and there was less need and less opportunity to reach the country out- side. Few people from without were willing then, as com- paratively few are now, to send their sons to college, in a city, at the youthful age which ordinarily marks the begin- ning of college life. As the educational system of the country has developed, on the other hand, in the closing decades of 2 The United States in /S'gp. the present century, demanding opportunities for advanced instruction not only in the professions but in all branches of learning, it has become evident that, for this class of work, the location in a great city is in itself a distinct advantage. Accordingly, during the last two decades, both the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University have attained once more to a position of national influence such as they have not held for nearly a century. It seems probable that the tide which has thus begun to turn will Mow with increasing volume for many years to come, and it is not improbable that, even upon the college side of their work, these institutions, under the changed conditions of the country, may render a service in the future much more important than they have rendered in the past at any time since the early years of their founda- tion. This result is to be obtained, undoubtedly, by identify- ing the universities with the best activities of the city in which each is placed — not by attempting to hold the university aloof from the city's life. For the life apart, the country or the small city is still the better location. As our two universities have thus been closely associated in experience throughout their history, so there is an evident link between the cities of New York and Philadelphia in the history of the nation. The Government of the United States was established by the inauguration of Washington, as Presi- dent, in the City of New York in 1789. In the following year the Government was removed to Philadelphia, and was maintained here until it was moved again, in the year 1800, to the City of Washington, which was founded to be its abiding place. The City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, was founded in a district ceded to the Federal Government by the States of Maryland and Virginia in order that the capital of the country might be in territory directly under federal control. It is interesting to observe that the Federation of Australia, now in process of formation, has just adopted a similar arrangement for the solution of the same problem. The capital of the Australian Federation is to be established in New South Wales upon territory to be 1 eded to the Federation and to be under its direct control. Thus the wisdom of our fathers, in this particular, is curiously instilled and illustrated a century after the fact. I recall that a year ago, in this place and on this occasion, we were listening to the earnest and patriotic words of Presi- dent McKinley. It was only one week after the unhappy destruction of the " Maine " in the harbor of Havana. What a page of our national history has been written since! The a< tion of the President in attending this celebration a year The United States hi i8gg. 3 ago was characteristic of his attitude, as it seems to me, during the whole of that fateful Spring. Nothing that he could then have done would have contributed more impor- tantly to quieting the public mind, at that juncture, than his appearance here at such a moment to speak the calm and measured words which we had the pleasure of hearing. Only one who has tried to meet calmly such an occasion, with a great burden of anxiety resting upon his heart, can have the faintest conception of the mastery of self called for by such an undertaking. I like to think that at every crisis in our national history, so many of which have marked the interven- ing months, the nation has had the benefit of the same self- control, the same cool judgment, and the same utter devotion to the welfare of the country. It is not necessary to claim for the President entire freedom from mistakes in order to recog- nize in his general bearing a very high quality of leadership. The anxieties of the war are over, and the problems of peace resulting from the war are now upon us. No one who has lived through it can forget the exhilarating sense of grati- fied patriotism which marked the action of Congress and of people as the war came on. The enthusiastic response of the volunteers to the President's calls, the splendid valor displayed by our men on land and sea, the noble devotion of good women to the sick and wounded, all of these were as welcome as our victories except as our victories were themselves the fitting and natural reward of the qualities thus displayed. For these things show that the character of the nation, when thus tried in the fiery furnace of war, glowed with the bright- ness of pure and precious metal, and that the nation's capacity for self-sacrifice, in a large sense, is not less than it used to be. But this is not all. The mechanical skill and ready efficiency so characteristic of the American told with over- whelming effect in the overthrow of the enemy. This capacity to turn industrial effectiveness into efficiency in war, as the swift ocean steamers of the merchant marine take on them- selves, upon demand, the qualities of men-of-war, is evi- dence that warlike power sufficient for our need is developed in peace and by peace among a people that does not suffer itself to be dismayed by difficulties or weakened by luxury. I wish it could be also said that the American genius for organization and for business had displayed itself during the war to equal advantage. In the Navy it did. There was some- thing as admirable as its fighting in the way in which every- thing that it fell to the lot of the Navy to do, was done, quietly, without confusion and with absolute success. In the Army it did not. It must in all candor be admitted that the 4 The United States in i8gg. task of the War Department was much the heavier. It had to multiply the army ten-fold, and it had to do quickly on a large scale what it had only been in the habit of doing slowly and on a small scale. But it is precisely under such circum- stances that genius shows; and we are obliged to admit that <>n the side of the War Department, the genius that has made our railroads the most effective in the world, the genius that is enabling our manufacturers to conquer the markets of the world, was not forthcoming. The Santiago campaign of the Army was splendidly and brilliantly successful, and if the war had lasted longer I dare say we should have had a better criterion than we have now by which to judge how much of the dreadful suffering in camp and in the field is inseparable from war at the very best. But the contrast between the work of the Navy Department and of the War Department is too great to be wholly explained away. It is as clear as the noonday sun that the organization of the War Department and of the Army is absolutely unfriendly to efficiency. The President's Commission of Investigation has pointed out some of the difficulties and has suggested some of the remedies. It remains for public opinion to see that these remedies, or others equally effective, are promptly enacted into law. I am glad that the President has appointed a Court of Enquiry to go to tin bottom of the grievous charges that have been made against the Commissary Department, for it is hideously in contrast with the self-sacrificing heroism of our troops that such charges can even be mooted, much less made by the Commanding General of the Army. Now that the enquiry has been ordered, the people may well await the finding with patience and with an open mind, as a people at once too great to do injustice even to a single one not known to be at fault and too earnest to permit any who may be proven guilty either of wrongdoing or of false charges to escape the blazing fury of their wrath. To some of our people, perhaps to many of them, the con- sequences to ourselves of this war with Spain seem more ter- rible than the dangers of the war itself. When patriots like Senator Hoar of Massachusetts and Senator Hale of Maine, not to speak of others, feel called upon to break away from their party and vote against the ratification of the Treaty of Peai '•, he must be a light-hearted man, indeed, who does not consider seriously the gravity of the decisions that have been m idr by those charged with authority by the American peo- ple to make precisely such decisions. I want to point out, if 1 i an, why it seems to me that the decisions reached may be The United States in ffyp. 5 accepted with a good heart, and to indicate some, at least, of the duties that flow from the ratification of the Treaty. A century ago, John Adams was President. Washington was still alive, enjoying at Mt. Vernon his well-earned retire- ment; and he had just given a new evidence of his unquench- able public spirit by accepting a commission as Lieutenant- General of the Army of the United States in view of a possible war with France, which was then feared. During the sessions of Congress held in your city the foundations were laid of the Navy of the United States whose achieve- ments and traditions have made its victories of last Summer appear to be only the natural continuation of its glorious past. Truxtun and Hull, Perry and Decatur, Farragut and Porter, seem to be only other ways of spelling the names of Dewey and of Sampson. During his presidency of eight years Washington had demonstrated the strength of the new government in various directions. He had avoided complications with revolution- ary France, despite the strong and natural popular sympathy with the country which had aided so importantly in winning our own independence; he had settled outstanding questions full of embarrassing possibilities, by a treaty with Great Britain which at the time was exceedingly unpopular; he had put down by force an armed insurrection; and he had inflicted summary punishment upon the Indians, who showed a disposition to harass our Western borders. The new government, therefore, by 1799, was fairly launched ; but already new dangers began to make their ap- pearance. The election of Thomas McKean as Governor of Pennsylvania in 1799 foreshadowed the triumph of Jefferson and the Republican or Democratic party of that day. In the eyes of the Federalists who had controlled the government from the start, this seemed like the beginning of the end. There is more than a little evidence that in the minds of some of them it seemed to forebode a civil war. All the time, the problem of slavery was embedded in the Constitution, unrecognized, indeed, in a certain sense, until 1820, but always there. In 1820 came the discussion which terminated for the moment in the Missouri Compromise. Like a thun- derbolt out of a clear sky, these discussions revealed the electricity in the air and suggested the coming storm. Then came nullification, and all the uneasy years attending the angry controversy about slavery; and, finally, attempted se- cession and the Civil War. Foreign wars with England in 181 2, with Mexico in 1846, and with Spain in 1898, have tested the country in its capacity for combat against an out- 6 The United States in tSpp, side foe; while wide-spread commercial panic and disaster in i 19, in 1837, 1857, 1873, and 1893, have tested the capacity of the people for self-control under circumstances of great domestic hardship and distress. It may fairly be said that no period of 20 years has passed thai has not brought the country face to face with some grave danger and up to some new test. Phillips Brooks once said that if a man believed that the country had escaped all the dangers which have confronted it only by a series of happy accidents, such a man would naturally be full of fear at every new peril that makes its appearance, because such a man never could tell when the country's luck might not change. If. on the other hand, said Dr. Brooks, a man believes that the country has overcome the dangers of the past because its political system is inherently sound, such an one faces every new peril with a courage born of the very dangers that have been overcome. It is in this spirit of well-grounded courage, I think, that the people of the United States should contemplate the situ- ation in which they find themselves placed, in 1899, by the Treaty of Peace with Spain. The advocates of ratification have been called imperialists and expansionists, and the treaty itself has been said to be in woeful contradiction with all we stand for as a nation. These are serious charges, and it behooves every man who loves his country to consider whether they are well made. Unless our treaty with Spain has been dictated by lust of empire, it is not fair to call those who ad- vocated it, imperialists; unless it has been dictated by lust of territory, it is not fair to call them expansionists; unless a better way can be shown by which peace could have been secured, it is not just to criticise the government for accept- ing even unwelcome obligations that the war has brought in its train. What then are the facts? The Congress of the United States, in demanding the withdrawal of Spain from Cuba, declared it to be the purpose of this country to secure free- dom for the Cubans. There is certainly neither imperialism nor expansion in those resolutions. Up to this hour, there is not an indication that the purpose of the country, as thus formulated by Congress, will not be lived up to both in the Letter and in the spirit. It is evident, therefore, that our im- perialism and our expansionism, if they exist at all, are by- products; they do not represent the heart's desire. But some one will say, " Why then did we demand the cession of Porto Rico and of the- Philippines? If the American people ■ iic init imperialists and arc nol expansionists, why should we The United States in 1899. 7 demand from Spain the cession of these islands?" The an- swer, it seems to me, is very simple, though it is not the same in both cases. If Spain had withdrawn from Cuba without war, she would undoubtedly be still in possession, so far as we are concerned, of both Porto Rico and the Philip- pines. The moment she compelled us to go to war in order to expel her from Cuba, it became evidently the dictate of good sense to make it impossible for future troubles to arise between us from similar causes by removing her from this hemisphere. She has been a difficult neighbor from the be- ginning. No one, I think, seriously criticises this decision. It is said, however, that in the Philippines, by reason of their distance and their population, the case is different. Undoubtedly it is, and therefore the answer is different. Evidently it would have been unwise to attempt any solu- tion of the Philippine problem which should place Span- ish and American civilization side by side in control of differ- ent parts of the Philippine group. That would have been deliberately to reproduce in the Eastern hemisphere the very conditions that had just led to conflict in the Antilles. It was inevitable, therefore, that either Spain or America must leave the Philippines. We had destroyed Spain's authority there, and had also destroyed her power to re-establish it. In no fair sense of the words, under these conditions, is it just to say that in determining to make peace by securing the cession of the Philippines the United States has been animated by either the lust of empire or the lust of territory. But some say that the islands should have been surren- dered to the natives under a joint protectorate. It is urged that our action, in demanding a cession of the Philippine Islands to ourselves, is comparable with what the action of France would have been if, at the end of the Revolutionary War, France had made peace with England by demanding the cession of England's American colonies to herself. Leav- ing out of account the fact that France had entered into formal alliance with the Colonists to aid them in securing in- dependence, it seems to me, rather, that the demand of those who seek a joint protectorate for the natives is like a demand on the part of France, had she made it, that England's colon- ies should be left to the Indians under a joint protectorate. It is impossible, in such affairs, to leave out of account the demonstrated capacity of a people for self-government. Un- doubtedly, the United States should, and undoubtedly we shall, give to the natives of the Philippines as great a meas- ure of self-government as they are capable of exercising; but we could not, in justice to civilization assume, in our treaty 8 The United States in 1899. with Spain, a capacity for civilized government on the part of the natives which has never been shown to exist. It was the same Jefferson who wrote in our Declaration of Independ- ence that government ought to rest upon the consent of the governed and who argued for a strict construction of our national constitution, that purchased Louisiana from Napo- leon without the consent of the people sovereignty over whom was thus transferred to the United States; and also without anv other constitutional authority than that which has been exer- cised in connection with the cession of the Philippines. That is the difference between Jefferson the Statesman and Jeffer- son the Philosopher. The philosopher stated the ideal, which I believe to be the ideal of the American people to-day as fully as it always has been; but the statesman did a great service to his country and to civilization, by doing a wise thing at a fortunate moment, although, in doing it, he con- travened his own ideal. I freely admit that if the dilemma with which we have had to deal in the matter of the Philip- pines had been voluntarily and consciously sought, the out- come would have been discreditable to our good faith and alarming in its portent. Coming as it has, however, as an unintended result of a war with Spain having its origin in ilisturbances with Cuba, I believe the children have given the answer the fathers would have made in the like case. Unless civilization, under proper conditions, has a right to withhold control from barbarism and semi-barbarism and to substitute for either something better, our own national life rests upon inexcusable wrong to the aborigines whose land we have taken and for whose civilization, such as it was, we have sub- stituted our own. But others again say, that the American ideal is government " of the people, by the people and for the people," and that, however truly we may give to the Philippine Islands a govern- ment for the people, it will not be and cannot be, under our authority, a government of the people and by the people. Un- doubtedly in this aspect, also, the fact comes short of the ideal; but to say that, in the premises, we have no duty to civilization or to the Philippine Islanders is to claim that a self-governing Democracy, by its very nature, is incapable of serving other peoples except by its own example. I do not think so meanly oi Democracy. Yet I would not admit for a moment, even by implication, thai the service of the American Democracy to mankind has been hitherto anything less than a world ser- vice. I have no sympathy with any who speak with a certain air oi apology 0! America's isolation in the past. No nation ince the American Republic was founded has influenced the The United States in i8gg. 9 history of all nations more importantly or more beneficially. Indirectly by its influence, and directly by its action, it has done more than any other country to substitute arbitration for war as a means of settling international disputes; while its general success as a self-governing nation, sincerely de- voted to the arts of peace, has given a profound impulse to democracy the world over. Neither do I believe that the short and successful war with Spain has changed the temper of our countrymen in a night. The equally successful war with Mexico produced no such result, and the inbred habit of a century is not so easily cast aside. Our mission, indeed, has been a world mission of the highest order. We have in- vited to our shores men of every European country and many others, to share with us in the development and civilization of a continent. Not even England's mission, with her colo- nies and dependencies scattered over the earth, has been more wide-reaching than ours. We have asked the people of the civilized world to join with us in developing a continent, and, in doing so, to learn with us the lessons and the art of self-government. We have also invited here the wealth of Christendom to take part in the development of our material resources. It is noticeable that in the same eventful year of 1898 that has burdened us with new duties to people across the sea, we have become for the first time a creditor nation lending vast sums of money to the people of Europe. It is a striking and suggestive coincidence that at the very moment when our relations to the civilized world have changed financially, the obligation of duty to outside peoples, less civilized than we are, seems also to have been laid upon us. It is as if a Voice that admits of no remonstrance had said to us, in the plenitude of our prosperity and power: " Hereafter you must heed the call to service both with men and with money, away from home as well as at home." Certainly the change in our political relations is not more striking than that which has taken place in the domain of finance. To me it seems an evidence of the soundness of heart of the American people that they have unflinchingly accepted the heavy burdens de- volved upon the nation by reason of the war with Spain; and I do not see in the acceptance of these burdens any unfaith- fulness to our past or to what we stand for among the nations of the earth. It is possible, but by no means sure, that our material interests will be benefitted by the course we have pursued. As I interpret the attitude of our people, they have taken up the task which seems to have been laid upon them, not stopping to question closely whether it will be advan- io The Unite J Stairs in 180Q, tageous to themselves or not, but determining to do it as best they