tan 
 
 ( 
 
X 
 
 c^.-^^^ 
 
 ^ fl^^ 
 
 /^f 
 
 ,^a^ 
 
 
 Expansion under Democratic Presidents Furnishes No Precedent 
 for Annexation of the Philippine Islands. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 W.S. COWHERD, 
 
 OF MISSOURI, 
 
 HOUSE OF PvEPRESENTATIYES, 
 
 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14. 1900. 
 
 'W^SH[I?^G!-T01^^■. 
 
 1900. 
 
 J?. U.S. 
 
 
.C ?7 
 
 10 J- 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OI" 
 
 HON'. W. S. COWHERD 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
 Union, and having under consideration H. K. 9133— 
 
 Mr. COWHERD said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: I do not know that any apology is needed for 
 addressing this House under general debate and talking from the 
 text instead of upon it. I am inclined to think that more apology 
 is due to the House from one who attempts to discuss any phase 
 of the Philippine situation, after it has been talked over so loag 
 and so fveriuently both here and elsewhere. But there is one part 
 of that proposition to which I desire to call the attention of this 
 House. It has been very frequently stated by Democrats, here and 
 elsewhere, v/ho have concluded to follow the President in his policy 
 of imperialism — and. thank heaven, their numbers are few — that 
 they were simply following Democratic precedents. Not unfre- 
 quent y our Rei^ublican friends have taunted us with the statement 
 that the Philippine policy of permanent annexation was the policy 
 that was inaugurated by Thomas Jetierson. 
 
 I desire, Mr. Chairman, to consider for a few minutes the ques- 
 tion of expansion under Democratic Presidents and compare the 
 motives that influenced their action with those influencing the 
 acts of the party now in power. Because it must be remembered, 
 and is everywhere conceded, that it is the intent which fixes the 
 character of an act, and makes it either criminal or praiseworthy. 
 
 Now. what are the motives influencing the party in power to- 
 day with reference to annexation? I submit that in their last analy- 
 sis they are two. and two only. The one is an appeal to the military 
 spirit and the other the question of commercial advantage. It is 
 to the military spirit that the President appeals when he adopts 
 the language of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GrosvenorJ and 
 asks. "Who will pull down the flag?" 
 
 It is to the military spirit gentlemen on that side of the Cham- 
 ber appeal when they talk about " taking our place among the na- 
 tions of the earth; doing our duty in policing the world." What 
 I want to call their attention to is that in appealing to this spirit 
 they are by that very appeal admitting the fact that it is a policy 
 which if it does not keep us continually at war compels us to be 
 continuously preparing for it. It i.s to the commercial spirit that 
 you appeal when you tell us of the richness of the soil of the Phil- 
 ippines, of their beds of coal, of the sands of the river teeming 
 with gold, and all the wonderful future of oriental trade: but 
 when you contend that in this appeal you are following the Jeffer- 
 son policy, let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, you are proj^osing 
 to increase your commerce by battle ships instead of merchant- 
 men; you are proposing to open markets, not on the (luality of 
 
 4239 3 
 
your goods, biit on the quality of your guns; and these, I submit, 
 are the two motives, and the only two worthy of consideration, 
 that are influencing the action of the present Administration. 
 
 1 admit that I leave out of consideration the minister of the gos- 
 pel who talks about the opportunity lor evangeli/ation. I leave 
 out of consideration that "organized hypocrisy ''that prates about 
 civilization. It is useless to argne with religious fanatics who be- 
 lieve the doctrines of Jesus Christ can be carried on the points of 
 bavonets. or to talk with the jjolitical hypocrite who v.-ishes to 
 civilize by extermination. The fact is that two motives only in- 
 fluence you; reallv. only one, and that is commercial greed, and 
 the other is an appeal to the mihtary spirit made to cover your 
 real purpose. 1 admit that a just commercial advantage is a 
 proper object for administrative action. I admit that an appeal 
 to the military spirit, if not proper, is alwa^'s a powerful appeal 
 to people of Anglo-Saxon origin. But what I wish to call your 
 attention to is that, appealing to this spirit as actuating your 
 motives, you have no right whatever to talk about Democratic 
 precedents and pretend you are following Jefferson himself. 
 
 Now, what was the policy that influenced Jefferson in the Loui- 
 siana purchase? If. in arguing this question, 1 am compelled to 
 travel over the points made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
 Boctell] in his very interesting discussion the other day, I want 
 to offer to the House, as my excuse, that any word of Jefferson is 
 of sufticient weight to warrant frequent repetition, and that the 
 gentleman fromlllinois, in using part of the language I shall quote, 
 was intending to prove the annexation of Louisiana was involun- 
 tary so far as Jefferson was concerned. That, in large part, was 
 true. The fact is that Jefferson, realizing a divided control of the 
 Mississippi, which was then the highway of our commerce, would, 
 after years of continual bickering, end in getting us into war with 
 European powers, determined to obtain, if possible, full rights of 
 navigation of the river and a place of deposit at its mouth. 
 
 The hrst was the thing that he started to obtain: and I propose 
 to prove that tlie motive that influenced Jefferson was to make 
 our course that of a pacific nation. I propose to show that ho 
 was endeavoring to lay the foundation for perpetual peace, as 
 you are preparing to-day, in maintaining possessions in the 
 Orient, to lay foundations for perpetual war. I projiose to show 
 the motive influencing Jefferson was to remo^ e occasion for bick- 
 erings with European neighbors that would embroil us in Euro- 
 pean difficulties, while you, taking, as you are, possessions in the 
 Orient, and those possessions next door to European and Asiatic 
 powers, compel us hereafter to take a hand in every v.-ar on either 
 hemisphere; and yet you are contending that, notwithstanding 
 that, von are following Jeffersonian pre 'edcnts. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I find as early as 1801, in writing to Mon- 
 roe, Mr. Jefferson says: 
 
 Tliero Is ronsUlomble ronson to apprehend that Spnin cedes Lontslana and 
 Floriila to Franco. It is a very unwLso policy in both .and very ominous to us. 
 
 Ominous because it threatened the peace of the nation, as ia 
 conclusively proven by his letter of April Its, 1802, written to Liv- 
 ingston, who was then our envoy to France. In that letter Jeffer- 
 son says: 
 
 Tlio ces.Mon of Louisi.ina and the Florldas by Spain to France works most 
 Borcly on the Unitod Stato'i. • • • There is on the Klol)e one sinplo spot 
 tbo possoiisor of which is our natural and habitual euemy. It ia Now Orleans, 
 i2a» 
 
through which the produce ot threcoighths of onr territory must pass to 
 market, and from its fertility it will ere long yield more than half of our 
 whole iiroduce and contain more than half of our inhabitants. France, plac- 
 ing herself in that door, assumes to us the attitude of defiance. 
 
 There, then, is the Jeffersonian principle, the motive that ac- 
 tuated him in attempting to obtain rights beyond the Mississippi 
 and the purchase of Louisiana. 
 
 Mr. BOUTELL of Illinois. Mr. Chairman 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri yield to 
 the gentleman from Illinois? 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BOUTELL of Illinois, "Would it interfere with the current 
 of the gentleman's remarks to state further along in that letter 
 the process by which Mr. Jefferson proposed to secure the right of 
 deposit if he did not get it by peaceful treaty? 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. I propose to show that not only Jefferson, 
 but the Congress of the United States, considered it so absolutely 
 necessary to the welfare of the nation at that time that they should 
 have the right to the free navigation of the Mississippi, considered 
 it so absolutely necessary to the peace of the United States that they 
 should remove the continual caitse of bickerings from it, that they 
 proposed and intended to have it by conquest if they could not 
 get it by purchase. 
 
 Mr. BOUTELL of Illinois. And not only by conquest, but con- 
 quest brought about through an alliance with Great Britain. 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. I propose to show that, too, and I propose 
 to show that Mr. Jefferson said that when you entered into Euro- 
 pean alliances and broils you would render "the people so much the 
 less happy and prosperous, and yet that is the very policy you are 
 openly advocating to-day, and saying that you are foUowmg Jef- 
 fersonian principles. 
 
 In his letter, in 1803, to Monroe, in which he says he intends to 
 appoint him envoy extraordinary to France, Mr. Jefferson says: 
 
 I have but a moment to inform you that the fever into which the Western 
 mind is thrown by the affair at New Orleans, stimulated by the mercantile 
 and generally the Federal interest, threatens to overbear our peace. 
 
 I read that to show, as I read the other quotations to show, that 
 it was the problem of maintaining peace that Jeft'erson was 
 attempting to solve, and. if you choose to put it that way, that ho 
 proposed to have peace if we had to fight for it. 
 
 Mr. BOUTELL of Illinois. That is it. 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. You are proposing to put the country into a 
 position where we must fight. That is the proposition that I 
 want to draw attention distinctly to. And yet you pretend you 
 are following .Jeffersonian policies by annexing land in the Orient. 
 You must admit that when you appeal to the military spirit and 
 say you must take your part in policing the world, when you say 
 that we must take our place among the nations of the earth, 
 among the great powers; that you propose to have a hand here- 
 after in every European and Asiatic war; and you pretend to say 
 that is Jeffersonian policy. 
 
 Now, Jefferson says in" his letter to Monroe a day or two after, 
 on January I'd, 1803: 
 
 If we can not by purchase of the country insure to ourselves a course of 
 perpetual peace and friendship with all nations, then, as war can not bo dis- 
 tant, it behooves us immediately to be preparing for that war without, how- 
 ever, hasteningit, and it may be neees.sary (on your failure on the Continent) 
 to cross the channel. We shall get entangled in European politics, and, figur- 
 ing more, be much less happy and prosperous. 
 4239 
 
6 
 
 And yet gentlemen, both on that side of the Chamber and on 
 this, contend that the position we have taken in the Orient, whicla 
 they admit will entangle ns in European and Asiatic politics, are 
 Jeffersouian policies, when Jefferson sTated that he would take 
 that position only in case be was driven to it. and if it was pur- 
 sned it would render us so much the less happy and prosperous. 
 Later, in his letter to Livingston, Jefferson says again, and I read 
 this to show that it was his motive to make peace jjerpetual as far 
 as possible in the United States: 
 
 We are satisfied nothing else will secure us affain'^t a war at no distant 
 period, anfl sve can not pre-^s this reason without hf^nning those arrange- 
 ments which will bo necessary if war is hereafter to result. 
 
 Mr. BOUTELL of Illinois. "VThat was the reason that Jeffer- 
 son feared war in case Florida and the mouths of the Mississii^pi 
 River went to France? 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. I will read you 
 
 ^Ir. BOUTELL of Illin<ds. \Vas it not because the navigation 
 of the ^lississip])i. the Pearl, and the Apalachicola would likely 
 be denied Ijy Franco to us. and that made it necessary for us to 
 fight to protect our commerce? 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. That was only true in part; but Jefferson 
 says in a quotation I am about to read that the divided possession 
 of the.se waters render bickering with foreign powers continually 
 likely to occur, but the very thing, and what the gentleman failed 
 to state the other day when he said the Florida resolutions were 
 a Democratic precedent of imperialism, the hope of removing op- 
 portunity for trouble is one of the things that influenced us in 
 the purchase of both of these territories. 
 
 Now, to show conclusively that that was Mr. Jefferson's idea. I 
 read from his letter to John Dickinson, written from Monticello 
 August y, 1803, after the successfol negotiation of the purchase of 
 Louisiana: 
 
 Dear Rth: Your friendly favor of the ]=t instant is received with that wel- 
 come wliich always accmupanics the approbation of the wLso and pood. The 
 a<-i!iiisition of New Orleans would of itsolf have been a preat thin;::, as it 
 would have insured toour We-torn brethren the means of cspcrtiu^r their 
 produce; but that of Louisiau.i is iuap])reciable. because, pivins us the sole 
 dominion of the Mississippi.it excludes those bickerincrs with foreign powera 
 which we know of a certainty would have put us at war with France imme- 
 diately; and it secures to us the course of a peaceable nation. 
 
 There, then, is the Jeffersonian idea of expansion . First, the pur- 
 chase of contiguous territory, the possession of which is necessary 
 to the full enjoyment of the territory we already own; the re- 
 moval of a cause of constant bickerings with foreign nations, 
 which in tho end must necessarily restilt in the disturbance of our 
 peace; and last, the entire removal from proximity with us of a 
 Earojican power that in the end. he feared, would embroil us in 
 European wars. Now, compare that with the policy you follow. 
 You propose to t.ake territory 7.000 miles away, which our citizens 
 can not inhabit and which is no earthly use to us. You i)roposo 
 to take that territory, as you state, for iho very purpose m part of 
 taking a hand in Eurojioan policies and Asiatic diplomacy; and 
 you projKise to take it with full admission ol the fact that instead 
 of securing to tis the cour>e of a peaceful nation it will compel us 
 hereafter to take part in all the w^ars of both the hemispheres. 
 
 Yet you set up a Jeffersonian precedent for such a policy. Ex- 
 cept for the fact that there is in both an expansion of our territory, 
 
there is absolutely no similaritj' between them. Why, sir, the 
 assassin who lurks behind a corner of the fence to shoot down hia 
 victim for the purpose of robbery might .lust as well cite as a 
 precedent the soldier who stands to defend his hearth and kills to 
 protect his country. Both are killing— one for a noble motive, the 
 other for a criminal purpose. Possessing the criminal purpose, 
 you cite the man who is actuated by the noble one as a precedent 
 for your conduct. [Applause.] 
 
 Mr. BO UTELL of Illinois. Will it interrupt the gentleman 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. I am glad to yield to the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. BOQTELL of Illinois. I should like to ask the gentleman 
 the same question which I have asked several on hia side who 
 have discussed the practical solution of the Philippine problem, 
 Whether he would favor the immediate withdrawal of our army 
 and navy from the Philippines and leave the people there at once 
 to their own devices? 
 
 Mr. COWHERD. I will say to the gentleman I believe that 
 had we done for the Filipino what we did for the Cuban: had wo 
 announced to him at the conclusion of the war with Spain, or 
 upon the surrender of Manila, that we proposed to give him a free 
 and independent government, controlled bj' himself, we never 
 would have had to send another soldier there, nor would any 
 question of withdrawal have arisen. [Applause.] Now, his party 
 having brought on the difficulty by the methods they pursued, 
 the gentlemen want to know what we would do to get them out 
 of it. When Manila fell there was in Luzon a government, repub- 
 lican in form, and, if our own officers are to be believed, perform- 
 ing satisfactorily to the people all the functions of government. 
 In the first place I would have recognized that government. Now 
 I would make amends by notifying them fully, freely, and widely 
 that we propose to give them free and independent government 
 at the very first moment possible. That is the policy I would ad- 
 vocate. I do not know what my party's policy may be; "they have 
 not declared it. 
 
 Now, we do not need to take the word of Jefferson alone as to 
 what was Democratic policy in regard to annexation. I hold here 
 the Annals of the Seventh Congress, and I refer to a report ren- 
 dered by a special committee of the House. It will be found on 
 page 371 of this volume. That special committee was composed 
 of distinguished men — Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Eustis. Mr. Bayard, 
 Mr. Dickson. Mr. Lowndes, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Gregg. I 
 shall read only some short extracts from this report to show that 
 the idea of Congress as well as Mr. Jefferson was, as I stated 
 a while ago, that it was a matter of imperious necessity that we 
 should have the right of the navigation of the Mississippi: that, if 
 necessary, we would have to fight for it, because it meant war in 
 the end, and that it was better to acquire it by peaceable means 
 than to go to war for it. Gentlemen here are upholding the wag- 
 ing of a war which is for but one purpose, and that is the extend- 
 ing of our commerce; not to give our commerce access to mar- 
 kets, but to compel markets for it by control of dependent people. 
 This report reads: 
 
 The free and unmolested navigation of the river Mississippi is a point to 
 ■which the attention of the General Government has been directed ever since 
 the peace of 1783, by which our independence as a nation was finally acknowl- 
 edged. 
 
 From the foregoing view of facts it must bo seen that the possession of 
 4:i09 
 
8 
 
 New Orleans and the Floridas will not only be required for the convenience 
 of the United States, but will be demanded by their most imperious necessi- 
 ties. • * * 
 
 The preat question, then, which presents itself is, Shall we at this time lay 
 the foundation for tuturo peace— 
 
 Not for war, but for peace— 
 
 by ofiferinsr a fair and equivalent consideration, or shall we hereafter incur 
 the hazards and the horrors of war* The Governraont of the United Suites 
 Is diffor.'ntlv or^'aiiizud from any in the world. Its object is the happiness of 
 man; its policy and its interest, to pursue right by right means. 
 
 That sounds a little sinj^ilar in this year of our Lord 1900, when 
 ■we are sending our ai'iuies out to conquer a people fighting for 
 their liberty. 
 
 War Is the great scourge of the human race and should never be resorted 
 to but in cases of the most imperious necessity. A wise government will 
 avoid it when its views can be attained by jipuceful measures. 
 
 In all nations the people bear the burden of war. lu the United States the 
 people rule. 
 
 Concluding, this report says: 
 
 In another point of view perhaps it wo\ild he preferable to make the pur- 
 cha.se, as it is believed that a smaller sum would be re(|uired for this subject 
 than would necessarily be expended if wo should attempt to take possessiou 
 by force, the expenses of a war being, indeed, almost incalculable. 
 
 Now, that, Mr. Chairman, as I take it, is a fair exposition of the 
 purposes actuating that great Democratic Administration in our 
 first aciiuisition of territory. And. as I have said, I challenge any 
 gentleman on that side of the Chamber to show where, in any way, 
 a parallel can be drawn between that conduct and the motives 
 that actuate you in holding onto the Philippine Islands. 
 
 The next great ac(ii;isition was the purchase of Florida, and the 
 distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Boutell], as I said a 
 few moments ago, read the secret resolutions pas.sed by Congress 
 and signeVl by the President and gave them, as he said, as some- 
 thing which indicated imperialistic tendencies in the Democratic 
 party. 
 
 I do not think the gentleman was entirely fair in his presenta- 
 tion of that subject. Had he been, he should have said that when 
 our commissioners were sent there under these resohitious to tako 
 temporary po.sses.sion of that country, which we proposed to hold 
 subject to luture negotiations, they were sent there with instruc- 
 tions tliat they should not use force, except there arose the strong 
 Busi)icion tliat some other government was preparing to take pos- 
 Bes.sion of the territory. What government was that? 
 
 This, you will remember, was in ]«ll, just prior to the war of 
 1812 with Ciroat Britain, and it is a fact that at that time Great 
 Britain was negotiating for the Florida forts. It is a fact that at 
 that time she was preparing to establish a line of military posts 
 along our onliro Southern bonier, from which she could success- 
 fully and easily wage war upon our citizens, and these resolutions 
 Wire passed to protect us from Great Britain. They contemplated 
 a niilitarv necessitv. 
 
 \vhv, it is a fact that Great Britain did tako possession of those 
 Florida posts; that from the shelter of those Florida forts she 
 organized the Indian bands to commit their depredations upon 
 American civili/ation: that at thoanouth of one of the Florida 
 rivers she built a fort and garrisoned it with British arms, pro- 
 viding a place for the refugee slaves of the South and for the hos- 
 
 4:230 
 
tile Indians, and from that place, for years, war was waged upon 
 our Southern country. 
 
 It is a fact that the weak hand of Spain was no loncrer able to 
 govern the Floridas, no longer able to control the freebooters who 
 had made their rendezvous along her southern borders, no longer 
 able to drive away the pirates who had taken possession of the 
 islands, no longer able to control the Indians, as she was by treaty 
 bound to do, from issuing out to make their forays upon us or to 
 punish them when they returned. 
 
 These were the facts that led to the passage of the resolutions 
 that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Boutell] read the other 
 day. and this House will remember that Florida was not acquired 
 under those resolutions, but that afterwards, when the Seminolea, 
 issuing from the Florida Everglades, waged war upon the United 
 States, we followed them there, and General Jackson took posses- 
 sion of Florida in order to successfully prosecute that war, and 
 afterwards we purchased it. Purchased it— why? For the very 
 same reason we purchased Louisiana; to eliminate forever the 
 bickerings that were arising about the navigation of the rivers 
 rising in the United States and debouching through Spanish ter- 
 ritory into the Gulf; purchased it to remove a European neighbor 
 whose troubles were sure, sooner or later, to embroil us in Euro- 
 pean war: purchased it because it was necessary for the peace and 
 the defense of the United States. Again, no parallel can be drawn 
 between that conduct and the conduct of the present Administra- 
 tion in holding forever the Philippine Islands and holding them in 
 subjection. For I want j'ou to remember, gentlemen of the House, 
 that not only in the treaty with France was inserted the provision 
 that every inhabitant of that Territory should be entitled to all 
 the privileges and immunities of an American citizen, and that 
 the country itself should, in the fullness of time, be admitted to 
 its rights as a State in the American Union, but in every other 
 cession under a Democratic President. 
 
 Now if, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Boutell] said, 
 Talleyrand and Napoleon put that clause in the treaty with Jef- 
 ferson, there was no Talleyrand and no Napoleon to put that clause 
 in the treaty with Spain. Not only in the treaty for the purchase 
 of Louisiana, but in the treaty for the purchase of Florida and in 
 every other negotiation that was ever made under a Democratic 
 Administration, it was provided that every inhabitant of the Ter- 
 ritory should become a citizen of the United States; that the Con- 
 stitution as well as the flag should follow us into that Territory 
 and govern those people. It was provided in the Florida purchase, 
 it was provided in the cession from Mexico, it was provided in the 
 Gadsden purchase. 
 
 Compare that with the policy of this Administration, that not 
 only holds 10,000,000 people in teiTitory belonging, as they say. to 
 the United States, not only holds them without any present pledge 
 of citizenship or guaranty of liberty, but holds them without 
 daring to make a promise for the future. And yet you claim a 
 Democratic precedent. 
 
 The annexation of Texas, of course, was the union of two sov- 
 ereignties. Texas had won her independence and maintained it, 
 as I remember, for aboiat eight years. It was far more probable 
 that Texas would conquer Mexico than that Mexico would ever 
 reconquer Texas, as we know from the trend of subseciuent events. 
 
 Of course, out of that arose the war with Mexico, and out of 
 
 4239 
 
10 
 
 the war with Mexico arose the cession of territory in 1848. I shall 
 not go to any very great extent into the causes governing that 
 cession of territorj'. Of course, the slavery question was largely 
 a part of it. also the question of the disputed boundary between 
 Texas aud Mexico, Texas claiming that her limits extended to the 
 mouth of the Kio Grande. Again, we demanded an indemnity, 
 which Mexico could onlj- pay in land. Al.so, the condition of Cal- 
 ifornia very largely inlluenced it; because, you will remember 
 again, gentlemen, history tells us that the British were negotiat- 
 ing for jiossessiou of the California ports. 
 
 California had won her independence three times since 1832. and 
 permitted Mexico again to establish her authority over them, 
 .She was practically in the throes of another revolution, and the 
 ' ' Bear " flag was floating above her soil when Fremont flrst landed 
 there. The Americans in that territory at the conclusion of that 
 war numbered between twelve and fifteen thousand, an e<iual if 
 not a greater number than the Mexican inhabitants. Great Brit- 
 ain had been making arrangements for another revolution. An 
 appeal was to be made to her for protection from Mexico, and 
 arrangements were being made to take possession of the territory. 
 It was a race between Commodore Sloat and the British officer 
 which should first raise their flag. Undoubtedly we took it also 
 because we wanted the Pacific coast. We wanted the California 
 ports. We wanted to extend our territory from ocean to o.ean. 
 Wo wanted to extend it from natural boundary to natural bound- 
 arj- — give it as far as possible natural frontiers. It was contigu- 
 ous territory. It was not peopled by an alien race. It involved 
 not a single one of the principles involved in the aunexation and 
 permanent retention of the Philippine Islands. 
 
 And permit me to say here that if you build the Nicaraguan 
 Canal, about which the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Adamson] 
 was just speaking, it is possible that some day you must extend 
 your southern boundaries to take it in. You might then claim 
 some Democratic precedent, because you would have contiguous 
 territory where white men can live and where we can extend the 
 doctrines of the Constitution. 
 
 But I submit, gentlemen, that in no annexation heretofore of 
 any land under Democratic Presidents has there arisen a single 
 one of the dangerous principles that now confront us, nor h:tve 
 they been actuated by the motives controlling that side of this 
 Chamber. 
 
 And yet. notwithstanding these numerous good reasons for the 
 ces-^ion of the territory from Mexico, I call you to remember the 
 fact that immediati'ly after that cession there was an election and 
 the party that had waged the most successful war in all our his- 
 tory, that had aciiuired this immense and valuable tract of land, 
 that i>arty went down to defeat, largely because the American 
 people vrere impressed with the idea that that war was not a just 
 one. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, what are the facts confronting the Admin- 
 istration to-dayV Puerto Rico comes to us with open arms. The 
 ports and markets which slie had heretofore entered are shut off 
 by that fact. She ai)peals to us for aid, and you respond with a 
 tax. Why? Not because you do not .sympathize with the Puerto 
 Rican: not because you do not recognize liis cause as just. You 
 respond with a tax because j'ou wish to establish a precedent for 
 use in the Plnlipjnne Islands. It is openly admitted that if the 
 products of the Philippines are to be admitted free into the United 
 
11 
 
 states; if their labor is to compete ou equal terms with ours; if 
 their millions of Chinese inhabiiants are to be given free access to 
 our country, you can not sustain yourselves before the American 
 people. So. before finally committing yourselves to this proposi- 
 tion, you propose to experiment with Puerto Rico to test the will 
 of the people and the justice of the courts. You wish to know 
 before proceeding further, whether, for the sake of commercial 
 gain, the people are willing to stirrender the spirit of liberty and 
 the courts for political advantage; are ready to construe the Cou- 
 Btitution out of existence. 
 
 Why, Mr. Chairman, there was a time once when Englishmen 
 coming to America contended that the English constitution, the 
 Bill of Rights, Magna Charta, and everything it guaranteed fol- 
 lowed them to any colony. • But we contend to-day that the Amer- 
 ican Constitution is good only for those citizens who can reach 
 the Capitol without wetting their feet; that it is a dry-land doc- 
 ument and loses its force the moment it reaches the sea. There 
 was a time when the Constitution was the compass that guided 
 our condttct. the touchstone by which we tested legislation; but 
 to-day, under your construction of the Puerto Rican bill, the 
 Constitution no longer guides us nor guards them; it no longer 
 hinders the hand of the sovereign nor shelters the head of the sub- 
 ject; and that is the proposition which you are desiring to enact 
 into law in order that j'ou may have a precedent for the control 
 of the Philippine Islands. Tiie President saj's empire is imjjos- 
 sible; yet what must be the feelmg of a subject compelled to live 
 Tinder laws in whose enactment he has no voic-e, when he sees the 
 dominant race preaching one system of law for him and practicing 
 another for themselves. 
 
 Look, too, what a ridiculous attitude it puts distinguished gen- 
 tlemen in when they attempt to support it. Why, the other day 
 I heard the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Dolliver], 
 "The Henry of Navarre" of protection, whose plume has lead 
 every charge on free trade in this Chamber for a dozen years, 
 proudly boast that we propose to make the Philippine ports ' ' open 
 doors'' to the commerce of the world. Mr. Chairman, if free 
 trade is good for the Philippine Islands, why is protection such a 
 blessing for the United States; if protection is good for our infant 
 industries, why is it not also good for an agricultural people where 
 manufactures are yet to be established? if protection is good for 
 lis and good for them, then I ask you how you answer to your 
 conscience when you are legislating ior a peojile unrepresented in 
 this Chamber for your benefit and to their damage. If this be 
 not empire, it lacks naught but the name. Ah, Mr. Chairman, 
 there was a time when we said that taxation without representa- 
 tion was tj'ranny, and we made good our legal construction with 
 flintlocks and saber; but to-day you are announcing to Puerto 
 Rico that taxation without representation is liberty, and you pro- 
 pose to prove it by battle ships and Gatling guns. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the other day there was a still more remarkable 
 proposition advanced at the other end of this Capitol: and I notice 
 by the morning paper that it was discussed, and favorably dis- 
 cussed, last night in a caucus of Republican Senators. \\ hat was 
 that proposition? To open the ports of Puerto Rico free to the 
 products of the United States and tax the products of Puerto Rico 
 seeking entrance to the ports of the United States. I do not be- 
 lieve that proposition could at present pass any further than the 
 stage of honorable mention. I do not believe the American idea 
 4239 
 
12 
 
 of fair play will permit you to enact that kind of lepfislation into 
 law at this time. But so sure as we propose to legislate for a sub- 
 ject race, so sure as we propose to pass laws for unrepresented 
 people, just so sure will exactions of that kind some day find their 
 way into our statute books. The time will come yet when such 
 laws will be enacted; the time will come when the desire for gain 
 will dull our sense of justice; the time will come when the itching 
 palm will still our troubled conscience; and when that time comes, 
 ■we will do as a dominant race has ever done that has legislated 
 for a sub.it'ct, an inferior one, we will be prepared to take all the 
 benefits of the legislation and give them all the burdens of it. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if we would know what is the opinion of the 
 fathers upon this waging war solely for commerce, as you have 
 been doing in the Philippine Islands, a war that we may control 
 oriental trade according to j'our own admissions, let me read to 
 you the resjionse that Benjamin Franklin made to Lord Howe 
 when he came as a peace commissioner to our shores, just as we 
 sent our peace commissioners to announce to the Philippine people 
 that all we wanted was their trade and we would give them in 
 due time such a government as in our opinion they ought to have. 
 This was what Lord Howe said, that all that England wanted 
 was control of the trade and commerce of the United States, and 
 Franklin responded: 
 
 To rae It seems that neither the obtniiiing nor retr.inincr of any trade, how 
 valuable soever, is an object for which men may justly spill each others 
 blood; that the true and sure means of extcudinf; and securinii commerce is 
 the (goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profit of no trado 
 can ever bo equal to the esjiense of compelling it and holding it by fleets or 
 armies. And 1 am persuaded that cool, dispassionate posterity will condemn 
 to infamy those who advise it. and that even success will not save from bome 
 degree of dishonor those who voluntarily engage in it. 
 
 There is the opinion of the most far-sighted, long-headed states- 
 man of the Revolution, the man who embodied in his own person- 
 ality both the wit and wisdom of the age. There is his opinion 
 in regard to a war levied for the purpose of controlling the com- 
 merce of a sulfject people. I commend it to the careful consider- 
 ation of the Republican party. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there was a time when we boasted, not of the 
 money, but the laws we ma<le; not that yonder flag carried trade 
 in its wake, but tliat it carried liberty. To-day its proud boast is 
 that the trado follows the flag. 
 
 The other day when General French rode into Kimberly to the 
 relief of that beleagured city, the newspajiers tell us the citizens 
 held a reception for the English oflicers, and Cecil Rhodes, the 
 very incarnation of the land-lusting, the land-grabbing spirit of 
 the age. the m;in who might also have said, as waa said the other 
 day in the other end of the Capiiol, ''These are all the islands left 
 to grab;" Cecil Rhodes said in resiionse to a toast, "that the 
 people of Kiniiierly had done their part in preserving lor the world 
 the greatest commercial asset of the ago, the English flag." 
 
 Mr. Chairman. I lioi>e the day will never come when nny man 
 can rise in any land and point to yonder banner as a commercial 
 a.'Jset. (Ai)plause.] I trust sir. that something still will survive 
 of the spirit of those days when that banner floated above Wash- 
 ington and his liarefooted patiiots at Valley Forge; I trust some- 
 thing stiil will live of the spirit that animated the men that 
 ni)held that banner when they stood with stubborn f)ld Andrew 
 Jaclcson at New Orleans. 1 trust something of that love of liberty 
 
13 
 
 still permeates this nation as it permeated the followers of yonder 
 flag when they marched with Grant on his stubborn advance to 
 Richmoud. 
 
 And, Mr. Chairman, if the day ever comes when that banner is 
 notliiiig but a commercial asset, then, sir, every stripe of white 
 upon its folds should be dyed in the blood of the men we kill to 
 concjuer, and from yonder ground of blue you should take every 
 star that represents an independent State. [Prolonged applause 
 on the Democratic side.] 
 
 4239 
 
 o 
 
LIBRARY OP CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 621 2