£715 
 
 
. L 'f^ Y0F CONGRESS 
 
 013 717 892 8 
 
 pemnalife* 
 
 pH8.5 
 
INQUIRIES RELATIVE TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. RICHARD F. PETTIGREW, 
 
 OK SOUTH DAKOTA, 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 Thursday, January n, and Monday, January 15, 1900 
 
 WASHINGTON. 
 I 9OO. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OU" 
 
 HON. RICHARD F. PETTIGREW. 
 
 Thursday, January 11, 1S99. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the following resolution, submitted 
 by Mr. Pettigrew on the od instant: 
 
 That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, directed to 
 inform the Senate whether General Torres, one of the officers of the Philip- 
 pine army, came to General Otis with a flag of truce on February 5. 1899, the 
 day after the fighting commenced between our forces and those of the Fili- 
 pinos, and stated to General Otis that General Aguinaldo declared that fight- 
 ing- had been begun accidentally and was not authorized by him, and that 
 Aguinaldo wished to have it stopped, and that to bring about a conclusion of 
 hostilities he proposed the establishment of a neutral zone between the two 
 armies of a width that would be agreeable to General Otis, so that during the 
 peace negotiations there might be no further danger of conflict between 
 the two armies, and whether General Otis replied that fighting having once 
 begun must go on to the grim end. Was General Otis directed by the Secre- 
 tary of War to make such an answer? Did General Otis telegraph the Sec- 
 retary of War on February 0, 1899, as follows: 'Aguinaldo now applies for a 
 cessation of hostilities and conference. Have declined to answer.' And did 
 General Otis afterwards reply? Was he directed by the Secretary of War to 
 reply; and what answer, if any, did he or the Secretary of War make to the 
 application to cease fighting? " — 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW said: 
 
 Mr. President: So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly will- 
 ing that both of the Senators from Massachusetts should make 
 such inquiries as they choose and seek such information as they 
 desire. I think it is entirely proper. If they believe the informa- 
 tion is necessary in order that they may the better discharge 
 their duties, they ought to seek it, and the Senate should give them 
 the opportunity to do so. 
 
 Of course the details of the amendment offered by the junior 
 Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] might be considerably 
 extended in the pursuit of valuable information for the public. 
 We might inquire whether our soldiers did not desecrate churches 
 and plunder sanctuaries: whether they did not kill prisoners, 
 murder women, burn houses, rob the persons of the inhabitants 
 of the country, both men and women, of their jewels, and so on, 
 covering the usual train of horrors which follow the operations 
 of hostile armies in the field. 
 
 It seems to me that my resolution is exceedingly pertinent. It 
 
 pertai the people of the United States ask to have 
 
 answered. They want to know what our course lias been in regard 
 
 Philippine people previous to the commencement of hostili- 
 
 our course was immediately after hostilities began, 
 
 what: our relations were to those people, and whether or not war 
 
 justified. Certainly no nation should wage war 
 
 unless there is the best of cause and unqui stioned justice on the 
 
 Bide of the aggressor. For the purpose of ascertaining these perti- 
 
 2 3953 
 
<4 
 
 r 
 
 nent facts, as they seem to me to be, I introduced a resolution on 
 the 12th of December, which reads as follows: 
 
 Resolved. That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, directed to 
 inform the Senate whether the flag of the Philippine republic- was carried by 
 vessels in the bay of Manila, and whether the flag of the Philippine republic 
 was ever saluted by Admiral Dewey or any of the vessels of his fleet at any 
 time sin^e May 1, 1898. Were Spanish prisoners delivered over to the Philip- 
 pine forces at the time of the surrender at Subig Bay? Did a vessel com- 
 manded by the forces under Aguinaldo, flying the Philippine flag, accompany 
 •the vessels Concord and Raleigh back to Subig Buy m June, 1898, m order to 
 compel the surrender of the Spanish forces? 
 
 One object in offering this resolution was to ascertain whether 
 or not the Filipino people had been the allies of the United States 
 Army and Navv; whether we had operated with them against a 
 common enemy. The resolution was laid upon the table on the 
 motion of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Chandler], 
 and the only reason given for this attempted suppression of infor- 
 mation was that if the Senate passed the resolution, such action 
 would be telegraphed immediately to the insurgents. 
 
 The object of concealing conditions or operations in time of war 
 must be to keep from an enemy information it does not already 
 possess. If what I state in the resolution is true, the facts were 
 well known to the insurgents at the time the facts were created. 
 If we saluted their flag, they knew it; if their vessels came from 
 Subig Bay to Manila, and if they asked Admiral Dewey to assist 
 them in the conquest of the Spanish garrison at that place, and our 
 vessels went back and captured the garrison and turned the pris- 
 oners over to the insurgents, the insurgents knew it at the time. 
 Therefore the passage of the resolution or the promulgation of the 
 facts to the American people could not encourage the enemy. 
 
 Mr. President, the object in this suppression of information is 
 to keep from the American people certain transactions which 
 after history will record. The trouble with these imperialists is 
 that they confound the Government of the United States with 
 their puny President. The trouble is that his interests are para- 
 mount to the interests of the whole people of this country, and that 
 the desire for political success has more bearing upon grave ques- 
 tions than the mere encouragement or nonencouragement of the 
 insurgents. My resolution was laid upon the table. The informa- 
 tion asked for was denied. I want it answered specifically, be- 
 cause I think it is pertinent to this controversy. 
 
 On January 3 of the present year I offered another resolution— 
 that is, the pending resolution— which reads as follows: 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, directed to in- 
 form the Senate whether General Torres, one of the officers ot the Philippine 
 army, came to General Otis with a flag of truce on February 5, 1899. the day 
 after the fighting commenced between our forces and those of the 1< llipinos, 
 and stated to General Otis that General Aguinaldo declared that fighting had 
 been begun accidentally and was not authorized by him, and that Agumaldo 
 wished to have it stopped, and that to bring about a conclusion of hostilities 
 he proposed the establishment of a neutral zone between the two armies ot a 
 Width that would be agreeable to General Otis, so that during the peace ne- 
 gotiations there might be no further danger of conflict between the two 
 armies, and whether General Otis replied that fighting having once begun 
 must go on to the grim end. Was General Otis directed by the Secretary of 
 War to make such an answer? Did General Otis telegraph the Secretary ot 
 War on February 9, 1899, as follows: "Aguinaldo now applies for a cessation 
 of hostilities and conference. Have declined to answer?" And did General 
 Otis afterwards reply? Was he directed by the Secretary of War to reply, 
 and what answer, if any, did he or the Secretary of War make to the appli- 
 cation to cease fighting? 
 3953 
 
4 
 
 This resolution embodies direct questions. They are pertinent 
 questions, and upon them I desire information. 
 
 Mr. ALLEN. I should like to ask the Senator if he has infor- 
 mation that the contents of the resolution are true? 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. I do not assert in the resolution that the 
 contents are true, but I believe they are true; for if they were 
 false, every imperialist in this body would be in great haste to se- 
 cure replies, and they would have passed my resolution without 
 any delay whatever. 
 
 Mr. ALLEN. Has the Senator any information in his own pos- 
 session about the truth of the assertion contained in the resolution? 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. I will reach that subject later. I will 
 come to it in the course of my remarks. 
 
 Mr. ALL EX. I want to know, because I am in hearty sym- 
 pathy with the resolution, and I think it ought to pass. I do'not 
 think there is anything of such a sacred character that the Ameri- 
 can people should not know it, this being a Government by the 
 people and for the people. 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. I will come to that, Mr. President. The 
 facts recited in the resolution are facts, and they are therefore 
 true. 1 am much obliged to the Senator from Nebraska for bring- 
 ing out this fact at this time. I will produce abundant proof of 
 these facts later on in my remarks. 
 
 Mr. President, is war such a flippant thing to engage in that 
 when an enemy with whom we are fighting declares that the con- 
 flict was not intentionally commenced and desires to cease fight- 
 ing in order that peace may be restored and the killing of men 
 stopped, we should answer that the war having commenced, it shall 
 goon to the grim end. and when later— but a few days later— the 
 request for a cessation of hostilities is again made, our general 
 telegraphs to the Administration that he has declined to answer. 
 It seems to me the questions are so pertinent, so pointed, so impor- 
 tant. Mr. President, that they ought to be the subject of a separate 
 resolution; not be clouded by a series of events which have occurred 
 since, not clouded by these horrible deeds which occur on both 
 sides when men are engaged in shedding each other's blood. 
 
 Therefore I believe that resolution is important. Any other 
 resolutions which may be presented covering other phases of this 
 controversy will not be objected to by me. If information is 
 wanted by the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge], 
 I am willing he shall secure it. But I want these questions— 
 two or three pertinent questions— answered, and answered 
 directly and at once. That is why I object to the substitute. The 
 substitute of the Senator from Massachusetts is what? It reads 
 as follows: 
 
 I'iw.i the President be requested to send to the Senate if not 
 with the public interest, all reports and dispatches relating to 
 the insurrection in the Philippines, and especially any information as to 
 communications or corre with the insurgents, from the 1st of Jan- 
 
 uary, L898, ..a the part of any officer in the military, naval, consular, or 
 diplom ' ' 
 
 I have no objection to that information being secured, but I do 
 not wish to have action delayed on these two great important 
 questions until the information desired by the Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts can be secured; neither do I care to leave discretion to 
 the President as to whether his reply shall be in accord or con- 
 Bistent with public interests. The people of the United States, 
 3953 
 
who are sovereigns in this country, have aright to know the facts 
 regarding which I ask. 
 
 Leave it to the discretion of the President! Why, this resolu- 
 tion. Mr. President, should be amended so that it will accord 
 with the facts. The President himself is unable to distinguish 
 between his own interests and the interests of his country, be- 
 tween the political contest which is about to come on and the 
 question of the destiny and duty of the United States. This reso- 
 lution might be changed so as to read: "If not inconsistent with 
 the interests of the President as a candidate for reelection," for 
 that will govern the answer we shall get. The concealment of 
 news, the suppression of facts, has marked the course of this 
 miserable and wretched transaction from the beginning. 
 
 Even the report of General Otis, which is sent to us purporting 
 to give a history of the war, does not contain all the facts and 
 was either censored at this end of the line or the other. It does 
 not contain his report of the 6th of April, which gives an account 
 of how the fighting commenced and who inaugurated the war. 
 It does not contain MacArthur's report, before whose forces the 
 fighting was begun. MacArthur describes the opening of hostil- 
 ities, but that report was not included. It does not give any re- 
 cital since the war commenced of repeated efforts on the part of 
 the insurgents to cause the cessation of hostilities; it does not 
 give the telegram which Otis sent to the Department dated the 
 9fch of February, 1899, and which is as follows: 
 
 Aguinaldo now applies for a cessation of hostilities and conference; have 
 declined to answer. 
 
 His report does not contain that exceedingly important tele- 
 gram. Fighting commenced on the 4th. On the 9th General Otis 
 telegraphed the Department that Aguinaldo desired to cease fight- 
 ing and have a conference, and that he had not answered. There 
 is no reference in the report to so important an incident as the 
 officially expressed desire of the commander of the enemy to stop 
 the effusion of blood. 
 
 There were innumerable efforts on the part of Aguinaldo to stay 
 the tide of war. He sent flags of truce time and time again, ac- 
 companied by communications, asking if hostilities might cease; 
 and what General Otis did with those messages of good will, and 
 what the Department here did with them, is not contained inOtis's 
 report; all were censored out of it. For what purpose? The facts 
 are known to the insurgents. They are not known to the people 
 of the United States. They were omitted to conceal the true sit- 
 uation from the people of the United States. 
 
 That is not all, Mr. President. This process has been going on 
 at both ends of the line. Of Otis's telegrams, of Otis's reports, it 
 is well known that only portions were given to the American peo- 
 ple. Negotiations with regard to the Sulu agreement were man- 
 gled and partially denied until after the election in Ohio. The 
 President himself sent a proclamation to General Otis, which I 
 will read. It is dated the 21st of December, 1898: 
 
 PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION. 
 
 With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States and 
 Spaiii by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris on the 10th instant, and 
 as a result of the victories of the American arms, the future control, dispo- 
 sition, and government of the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United 
 States In fulfillment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired and the 
 responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the actual occupation 
 3953 
 
and administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands becomes 
 immediately necessary, and the military government heretofore maintained 
 by the United States in the city, harbor, and hay of Manila is to be extended 
 with all possible dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory. 
 
 Here, then, is a declaration on the part of the President that we 
 had acquired sovereignty by purchase and that we proposed to 
 extend a military government over the entire group of the Philip- 
 pine Islands. What was the situation on that day? We occupied 
 simply the city of Manila and a small promontory about 20 miles 
 from the city. 
 
 31 r. HOAR. What is the date of that proclamation? 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. The 21st day of December, 1898. The city 
 of Manila was invested by the army of the Philippine republic. 
 That army had built earthworks from water to water, 14 miles in 
 length, clear around that city, hemming in the Spanish garrison 
 at the time the city was surrendered, and the position of the Fili- 
 pinos was maintained up to the date of this proclamation. This 
 was the message sent to a government exercising jurisdiction over 
 millions of people, maintaining an army of 30, U00 men surround- 
 ing the city of Manila, occupying only the country they had con- 
 quered and captured from Spain. Then the President goes on: 
 
 In performing this duty, the military commander of the United States is 
 make known to the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands that, 
 mtyof Spain, in severing the former political 
 'in- inhabitants, and in establishing a new political power, the 
 ' bed States is to be exerted for the sovereignty of tho 
 property <:>;' the people of the islands and for the confirmation of 
 relations. It will lie the duty of the commander 
 of the forces of occupation to announce and proclaim in the most public 
 -me. not as invaders or conquerors, but as friends, to pro- 
 tect th- in their homes, in their employments, and in th< 
 and religious rights. 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. 
 
 Here was a direct declaration of war. Lay down your arms, 
 submit to our sovereignty, to our military rule throughout the 
 whole of these islands, or we will proceed against you by force of 
 arms and compel you to do so. What is the use,' after the issu- 
 ance of this proclamation, of quibbling about who commenced the 
 Avar? 
 
 But General Otis, fearing that something might occur that 
 would bo disagreeable in this connection, did not give out the 
 pr< el a niation sent to him. He altered it materially. He altered 
 it so that it was not the same proclamation. He altered it so that 
 it read as I shall now read. This is to the people of the Philippine 
 Islands: 
 
 . Instna ti cell icy the President of the United States relative 
 
 to the administration of affairs in the Philippine Islands have been trans- 
 
 hrection of the honorable the Secretary of War, unchr 
 
 date of December 28, 1898. They direct me to publish and proclaim in the 
 
 ti .vj Philippine 
 
 i hat we are here as friends to the Filipinos; to protect them in their 
 
 their employments, their individual and religious liberty, and that 
 
 I her by active aid or honest endeavor, cooperate with the 
 
 Government of the United States to give effect to these beneficent purposes 
 
 will receive the reward of its support and protection. 
 
 The President said all those who surrender, all those who yield, 
 will have protection, and those who do not will be caused to yield 
 3953 
 
by force of arms. Mr. Otis, feeling that this proclamation of the 
 President was too harsh, that it might involve trouble, censored 
 it, as the President has evidently censored Otis's report. So Otis 
 was willing to deceive, swindle, and defraud the people of the 
 Philippines by putting out a proclamation which was not trans- 
 mitted to him to issue, and the Administration is willing to hum- 
 bug the American people at this end of the line with a meager re- 
 port of the facts in regard to this whole subject. 
 
 The entire wretched business is one of duplicity and conceal- 
 ment — an evident effort not only to deceive the people of the 
 United States, but the people of the Philippine Islands. But as 
 soon as General Otis received this proclamation he sent it to Gen- 
 eral Miller, down at Iloilo, and Miller promulgated it exactly as 
 he received it, and within four days the genuine proclamation 
 was back in Manila and all its brutal phrases were presented to 
 the people there. They were suddenly stunned by the edict which 
 declared war against them and which so unexpectedly announced 
 that they should not have their liberty, for which they had sacri- 
 ficed so much life and so much property. 
 
 Mr. GALLINGER. What were those brutal phrases? I should 
 like to have one or two of them read. 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. I will read them to the Senator: 
 
 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. 
 
 A straight and square declaration of war — an announcement 
 that if you do not surrender, if you do not lay down your arms, 
 if you do not give up your liberty, we will make you do all these 
 things by force of arms. The other is as follows: 
 
 The military government heretofore maintained by the United States in 
 the city, harbor, and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible dis- 
 patch to the whole of the" ceded territory. 
 
 The military government of the United States was to be ex- 
 tended over those 30,000 men in arms and over that government 
 of a sister republic, founded upon a constitution similar to ours. 
 I am glad the Senator from New Hampshire asked the question, 
 for I have thought for a long time that those who are maintaining 
 this policy on the part of the United States were ignorant with 
 regard to the facts and stood in need of information. 
 
 Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit 
 me, it strikes me that his declaration that those expressions of the 
 President's message are brutal is absolutely refuted by reading 
 them. The President of the United States used no brutal lan- 
 guage and has not done so during the period of hostilities. 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. Now, Mr. President, let us see what Gen- 
 eral Otis says about this matter. If we have an ally and he has 
 been fighting with us and has lost thousands of men in contact 
 with a common enemy, for his advantage and for ours, and he 
 has established a government and has helped us capture a city 
 with a garrison of 13,000 men, and we then turn around and say 
 to him, We have purchased title, from the persons whom we have 
 been jointly assailing, to your country and to your land, and if 
 you do not lay down your arms aud surrender to us the liberties 
 for which you have been contending, we will make you do it by 
 force of arms. And if that is not brutal language and that is 
 not a brutal course, then the estimate of these things placed upon 
 3863 
 
8 
 
 them by the Senator from New Hampshire must be quite differ- 
 ent from what has been placed upon them by the history of the 
 world through all time. 
 Otis says, with regard to this proclamation, as follows: 
 
 Before publication of this proclamation I endeavored to obtain from able 
 Filipino an expression of opinion as to its probable 
 
 effect i but was not much encouraged. A few days 
 
 ter they declared the publication to have been a mistake, although 
 dgn residents appeared to believe the proclamation, most excellent in 
 tone and' moderation, offered everything that the most hostile of the insur- 
 gents could expect, and undoubtedly would have a beneficial influence. 
 
 Perhaps the proclamation which Otis put out, if it had not been 
 for the President's proclamation itself, which came to them from 
 Iloilo, might have been tolerated. How do we know? Otis sends 
 out a lie to insurgents; Miller sends out the truth. A few days 
 afterwards the truth comes, and then the difficulty of course en- 
 sues. Here is what he says with regard to the President's lan- 
 guage: 
 
 After fnllv considering the President's proclamation and the temper of 
 
 igalos With whom I was daily discussing political problems and the 
 
 friendly intentions of the United States Government toward them, I con- 
 
 ■ hat there were certain words and expressions therein, such as "sov- 
 
 ,," "right of cession," and those which directed immediate occupa- 
 
 tc, though most admirably employed and tersely expressive of actual 
 
 conditions, might be advantageously used by the Tagalo war party to incite 
 
 widespread hostilities among the natives. 
 
 Remarkable, is it not, that such words as "sovereignty" and 
 "cession," such words as "conquest" and "oppression," might 
 have disturbed the inhabitants'? How gratifying it must be to 
 the President to have this censor of his praise the Executive lan- 
 guage! 
 
 So, Mr. President, the war was commenced, and yet the insur- 
 ased every effort and every endeavor to prevent actual hos- 
 tilities. I think I can prove from the record that such was their 
 course. 
 
 But before 1 conclude with regard to this censorship question I 
 want to call attention to the report of the Associated Press. Rob- 
 ert M. Collins, who represented the Associated Press in Manila, in 
 connection with the concealment of facts and of truth from the 
 people of the United States, makes the following statement in an 
 interview which the press representatives had with General Otis. 
 He threatened to court-martial the correspondents for sending the 
 truth to the United States. Mr. Collins says: 
 
 But when General Otis came down in the frank admission that it was not 
 intended so much to prevent the newspapers from giving information and 
 assistance to i he enemy (the legitimate function and, according to our view, 
 the only legitimate one of a censorship), but to keep the knowledge of condi- 
 tions here from the public at home, and when the censor had repeatedly told 
 ns, in ruling out plain statements of undisputed facts, "My instructions are 
 to let nothing go that can hurt the Administration," we concluded that pro- 
 test was justifiable. 
 
 In other words, Mr. President, the purpose of the censorship in 
 Manila was not to keep facts from the enemy, not to keep infor- 
 mation from the enemy, but to keep it from the people at home, 
 the people of this great Republic. We have adopted a new policy 
 along with the adoption of an empire and a pseudo emperor — a 
 policy of no longer taking the American people into our confidence 
 and consulting them with regard to questions of great national 
 moment. Our military censors are instructed nqt to cut out from 
 39.53 
 
9 
 
 the dispatches sent to the newspapers in this country that which 
 might help the enemy, but that which might hurt the Adminis- 
 tration at home. Such instructions are issued by the Adminis- 
 tration itself, and the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy 
 must be obeyed by his subordinates. Military power is imperial, 
 and the imperialist employed it not for the country's good, but to 
 attain personal political ends. 
 Continuing, Mr. Collins says: 
 
 Otis had gained the idea, from the long submission by the newspaper men 
 to his dictation, that it was a part of the duty of the Governor-General to 
 direct the newspaper correspondents as he did his officers. Much of the 
 censorship was conducted by him personally, the censor sending a corre- 
 spondent to the General with any dispatch about which he had doubts. The 
 process of passing a message was identical with the correction of a composi- 
 tion by a schoolmaster, Otis or the censor striking out what displeased him 
 and inserting what he thought should be said; or, what came to the same 
 thing, telling the correspondent he must say certain things if his story was 
 to go. 
 
 And in this way these correspondents say they were compelled 
 to send falsehoods home to us. What is more, Mr. President, 
 further, Mr. Collins says: 
 
 Recently I filed what I thought a most inoffensive statement that the busi- 
 ness men who had appeared before the commission had advocated the reten- 
 tion of the existing silver system of currency. The censor said: "I ought 
 not to let that go. That would be a lift for Bryan. My instructions are to 
 shut off everything that could hurt McKinley's Administration. That is free 
 silver." 
 
 Now then, Mr. President, I object to the resolution or amend- 
 ment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts because he pro- 
 poses to leave to the President the discretion as to whether I shall 
 have my questions answered or not. How can I leave that to the 
 President and expect to get the information when he instructs a 
 censor to deny to the American people the facts for fear that the 
 truth will hurt his Administration? How can we expect to be 
 given the facts when Otis's reports suppress everything almost 
 that would be of importance as against the conduct and course 
 of the Administration and gives us that only which he chooses to 
 divulge? 
 
 Now, Mr. President, who commenced the war? I contend, in 
 the first place, that the President inaugurated hostilities before 
 the treaty with Spain was ratified, when he sent his declaration 
 of war to Otis to be transmitted to the people of the Philippine 
 Islands. What is more, Mr. President, Mr. Otis, in his report, in 
 the first letter he wrote to Aguinaldo after he took command, made 
 the statement which I shall read. I might preface this by saying 
 that at the time Manila fell the insurgents had conquered the 
 island of Luzon. The Spanish flag floated over only one port. 
 They (the Filipino republic) had occupied many of the other 
 islands, and shortly afterwards captured the city of Iloilo. 
 
 Their troops had taken 10,000 Spanish prisoners. They had cap- 
 tured garrison after garrison . They had several small vessels which 
 patrolled the coast flying their flag. They surrounded Manila 
 with a cordon of earthworks. They had 30,000 men in the trenches. 
 When General Merritt went there, he asked the insurgents to 
 allow him to land his forces on the beach in order to take the city 
 of Manila. He sent General Greene, who was instructed not to 
 recognize Aguinaldo or his forces, to try and avoid that, but nev- 
 ertheless, by some hook or crook, to get a lodgment upon the beach. 
 3953 
 
10 
 
 I will read from the statement of Francis V. Greene, major-gen- 
 eral, with regard to this matter: 
 
 General Merritt arrived at Cavite in the Newport on the afternoon of July 
 25, and. after examining the ground the following day. promptly decided two 
 points: First, that the attack would be made along the shore: and second, 
 that it was necessary to get the insurgents off to one side, so as to give us the 
 right of way. He was very anxious to avoid any entangling alliances with 
 Aguinaldo, with whom he had no direct communication. He therefore sent 
 his chief of staff, on the afternoon of July 38, with a verbal message directing 
 me to persuade the insurgents, if possible, to evacuate a portion of their 
 trenches: but I was to do this on my own responsibility and without inti- 
 mating that I had any instructions to this effect from him. I had previously 
 met General Noriel, who commanded the brigade of insurgents nearest to 
 the beach, aud on receiving General Merritt's message I sentmy orderly, who 
 spoke Spanish fluently, to find this general and give him a most polite mes- 
 sage that I desired to see him on matters of common interest. 
 
 What was the purpose of the President? When General Merritt 
 was sent to the Philippines he went with different instructions 
 from those which had been previously given. Previous to that 
 time Aguinaldo had been armed by us, taken to the islands by us. 
 had declared constantly that he wished to set up a government of 
 his own, and that his people desired independence and had adopted 
 a constitution, had established a government, and that they had 
 consulted with Dewey about it, Dewey had said in one of his 
 dispatches that he went ashore to consult with the Filipino people 
 with regard to the establishment of a civil government. Their 
 flag had been saluted. 
 
 Spanish prisoners had been turned over to their government. 
 But suddenly the policy of the Administration changes, and the 
 departure was instigated by England, in my opinion, for the tone 
 of the English papers about this time changed. They began to 
 talk about our duty in the Philippines. The men who were domi- 
 nating England were opposed to war with Spain because they held 
 Spanish bonds. They were in favor of our conquering the Fili- 
 pinos because they would like to get more of the bonds of the 
 United States. The great money oligarchy which has ruled the 
 world for the last twenty or thirty years, dictated the march of 
 armies, and the movement of navies, bidding war to commence or 
 war to cease, has now crossed the Atlantic, and is to-day wielding 
 the destinies of the great Republic and directing every movement, 
 every thought of the servile President of this most corrupt and 
 un-American of all Administrations. 
 
 So General Merritt was to try to fool the Filipinos and prevail 
 upon them to do what he wanted and not let them know what 
 was his purpose. He was armed with different instructions from 
 those that had been given to anyone else. He tells General 
 Greene to get possession of a piece of the shore; to do it without 
 letting the Filipinos know that he recognized them in any way, 
 but to accomplish it. Aguinaldo said he would give possession 
 of the shore if they would make the request in writing. Upon 
 that he withdrew his troops from the trenches and our troops 
 took possession of 400 yards of Aguinaldo's works, from the shore 
 part way around Manila. Without giving the request in writing, 
 we simply promised that it should be sent the next day. This is 
 contained in General Greene's statement. 
 
 Now what occurred? Manila surrendered. It was 14 miles 
 around Manila, and of that 14 miles all but 400 yards was occupied 
 by the Filipino forces. When the city surrendered we took 13,000 
 Spanish prisoners, according to General Greenes report, and there 
 
11 
 
 was no fighting. In fact, the surrender had been arranged. We 
 were simply to make a demonstration and then the Spanish garri- 
 son was to lay down its arms. They were to give themselves up 
 to us that they might avoid capitulating to the Filipinos, who had 
 surrounded them. Thus the surrender of the Spanish forces was 
 secured without bloodshed, except for an accident, or except for 
 such bloodshed as the generals commanding our armies thought 
 was necessary in order to humbug the insurgents, so they would 
 be content to allow us to enter the city without them. 
 
 Immediately upon our occupation of the city we began to push 
 the insurgents back. We gave them nice talk. We told them 
 we were their benefactors. We pointed to our resolution with 
 regard to Cuba. We declared that we had the highest motives 
 and that conquest would not be thought of — that it was immoral. 
 Thus we gained possession of one point after another. 
 
 In demanding the retirement of the Filipino troops the first 
 letter which Otis wrote to Aguinaldo is as follows. Aguinaldo 
 had protested against retiring from territory which he had con- 
 quered by sacrificing the blood of his men. A parley ensued. 
 
 On September 8, 1898, General Otis forwarded to Aguinaldo this 
 communication, the first one he had sent to that officer: 
 
 It only remains for me to respectfully notify you that I am compelled by 
 my instructions to direct that your armed forces evacuate the entire city of 
 Manila, including its suburbs and defenses, and that I shall be obliged to 
 take action with that end in view within a very short space of time should 
 you decline to comply with my Government's demand; and I hereby serve 
 notice on you that unless your troops are withdrawn beyond the line of the 
 city's defenses before Thursday, the 15th instant, I shall be obliged to resort 
 to forcible action .and that my Government will hold you responsible for any 
 unfortunate consequences which may ensue. 
 
 Here, then, on the 8th of September was a declaration of war, 
 a threat to an ally who had done as much against the common 
 enemy as we had done. 
 
 Permit me to believe that my confidence in the sound judgment and 
 patriotism of yourself and associates is not misplaced. 
 
 We were parleying with Spain. It was long before the treaty 
 was made and many months before it was ratified. 
 
 Yon will please pardon me for my apparent unnecessary delay in reply- 
 ing to your communication of the 27th ultimo, but press of the duties con- 
 nected with the administration of the affairs of this city is my excuse. 
 
 In conclusion, I beg to inform you that I Lave conferred freely with Ad- 
 miral Dewey upon the contents of this communication and am delegated by 
 him to state that he fully approves of the same in all respects: that the com- 
 mands of our Government compel us to act as herein indicated, and that be- 
 tween our respective forces there will be unanimity and complete concert of 
 action. 
 
 Now, this is Otis's report, from which I read: 
 
 On September 13 a commission sent by Aguinaldo and consisting of there 
 members, one of whom was the treasurer and another the attorney-general 
 of the insurgent government, called for the purpose of discussing the sub- 
 ject of my letter of the 8th. They asked me to withdraw it and simply re- 
 quest in writing that the insurgent troops retire to the line designated by 
 General Merritt, which I refused to do, stating that unless they withdrew as 
 directed we would be obliged to resort to force. 
 
 Pretty talk, is it not, toward an ally who was fighting with us? 
 If this Administration had a spark of honor when they sent Gen- 
 eral Merritt there they would have told the whole truth in his 
 instructions to the insurgents, would have told them that they 
 had nothing to expect but slavery at our hands, instead of still 
 parading as their friends. 
 
 3933 
 
12 
 
 They then asked that I withdraw the letter and issue a request unaccora- 
 L by an v ( hreal to use force, as Aguinaldo was fearful that he would be 
 move his troops upon a demand, to which I replied that the let- 
 ter of the sili instant would stand. They then said that as the demands of 
 that letter must remain unchanged, the insurgents would withdraw as di- 
 rected therein, but that if I would express in writing a simple request to 
 Aguinaldo to withdraw to the lines which I designated— something which he 
 could show to the troops and induce them to think that he was simply acting 
 i request from these headquarters— he would probably be able to retire 
 his men without much difficulty; that, of course, they themselves under- 
 stood the direction to withdraw, which would be obeyed, and thereupon re- 
 I t heir desire to obtain a note of request, whereupon I furnished them 
 with the following. 
 
 Then comes a request simply to withdraw, designating the line, 
 and this request was complied with. 
 
 Now we complain and the Administration justifies its com- 
 mencement of the war upon these people because they were uneasy 
 during this time; that threats were heard; that assertions were 
 made that they had a right to independence. Aguinaldo issued a 
 proclamation in answer to the President's proclamation, declar- 
 ing that he sought independence for his people. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, who did begin the war? Here is Otis's let- 
 ter of the 8th of September, saying that he would resort to war if 
 they did not surrender to him some of the territory which they 
 had conquered from Spain. Here is the President's proclamation, 
 saying, "If you do not surrender the islands on the 21st of De- 
 cember, I will wage war against you to the death." 
 
 What is more, "it is well to inquire who fired the first shot. 
 It appears that there was a town between the lines of the two 
 armies, occupied by the forces of Aguinaldo— a town 150 yards in 
 advance of the line of the American troops— and that Otis wished 
 to obtain possession of it. He therefore entered into an agreement 
 to have Aguinaldo withdraw his pickets therefrom and retire to a 
 greater distance. 
 
 This was done. On the night after this had been accomplished 
 a patrol of the insurgents entered the abandoned town. A patrol 
 is not a war party; a patrol is simply to pick up stragglers. They 
 had occupied the place the night before, and they sent a patrol in 
 the evening to see if any of their men had remained behind — if 
 there were any stragglers in this village. "We had occupied the 
 place as a picket station, and when these Malays, who do not 
 speak our language, came along, a Nebraska boy ordered them to 
 halt, and they did not halt. 
 
 It is very strange, is it not, that the insurgents -did not under- 
 stand the Spanish or the Malay tongue of the Nebraska boy? He 
 fired upon them and killed a lieutenant, and within a few minutes 
 two or three more Filipinos were killed; and thus the war was be- 
 gun. And who started it? We commenced it by the declaration 
 (if war on the part of our President, by every act of ours which 
 indicated that we did not propose to give them their freedom. We 
 inaugurated the conflict by killing the first man. But what does 
 General Otis say about this? On page 92 of this report you will 
 find the following statement: 
 
 It is not believed that the chief insurgent leaders wish to open hostilities 
 
 a; this time- 
 It is not believed they wished to open hostilities. Let us see. 
 
 On the same page he describes the battle of Manila: 
 
 of Manila commenced at half past 8 o'clock on the evening of 
 February 4 and continued until ■> o'clock the next evening. 
 3953 
 
The engagement was one strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents 
 and of vigorous attack by our forces. 
 
 Here, then. Mr. President, is the killing of two or three or four 
 Filipino soldiers who composed the patrol, which was not a war 
 party, by a picket of ours; and then what? " The engagement was 
 one strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents and of vigorous 
 attack by our forces." Then we rushed upon their works, and 
 the killing and destruction were well under way. We took their 
 trenches and drove them back. And yet it is claimed by the Pres- 
 ident, in his proclamation, that the Filipinos struck a foul blow. 
 Who really struck the foul blow? Who was guilty of duplicity? 
 Who was guilty of deception through the whole of this miserable 
 transaction? 
 
 General Otis conceals the rest of the facts. The report of Gen- 
 eral Mac Arthur is not here, but I have read the reports of various 
 soldiers, for the South Dakota troops were along this line. I have 
 talked with many of them, and there is no possible question but 
 that we were first guilty of shedding blood; that we began the at- 
 tack, and that we followed it up. 
 
 What occurred, Mr. President? General Rives, of Minnesota, 
 who was in charge of the city of Manila at the time fighting com- 
 menced,, in an interview said: 
 
 But I can tell you one piece of news that is not generally known in the 
 United States. On Sunday, February 5, the day after the fighting began, 
 General Torres, of the insurgents, came through our lines under a flag of 
 truce and had a personal interview with General Otis, in which, speaking 
 for Aguinaldo, he declared that the fighting had been begun accidentally 
 and was not authorized by Aguinaldo: that Aguinaldo wished to have it 
 stopped, and that to bring about a conclusion of hostilities he proposed the 
 establishment of a neutral zone between the two armies of any width that 
 would be agreeable to General Otis, so that during the peace negotiations 
 there might be no further danger of conflicts between the two armies. To 
 these representations of General Torres General Otis sternly replied that 
 the fighting, having once begun, must go on to the grim end. 
 
 Mr. SPOONER. What date was that? 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. February 5. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, under all these circumstances, I would like 
 to know what more Aguinaldo could have done. What more 
 could he have done than continue to fight as long as resistance 
 was possible? If I were a Filipino, I would fight until I was gray, 
 if I were not killed before, against this unholy and infamous 
 aggression. 
 
 I do not indorse the sentiment, Mr. President, of the Senator 
 from Nevada, that having once commenced we must go on. 
 That would compel him to join his brother if he found him steal- 
 ing. That would compel him, if he found his comrades commit- 
 ting any crime, to join in the crime until it was consummated. 
 If we are wrong, this Government can take no higher or grander 
 position before the nations of the world than to acknowledge it. 
 
 My country, right or wrong, is a sentiment I indorse with this 
 qualification: When right, to keep it right, and when wrong, to 
 make it right. Neither do I confound the President with the 
 Government. He is but our servant, and if he pursues a wrong 
 course, if he precipitates us into a war unjustly and wrongfully 
 and undertakes to override the Constitution of the United States 
 and the Declaration of Independence, then 1 am against him, and 
 it is my privilege to attack his position. 
 
 I believe he is wrong in this contest. I believe my country can 
 only be great and grand by pursuing that honorable course which 
 3953 
 
14 
 
 lias marked our career in the past, and by exercising that power- 
 ful influence which we can exercise and have exercised all over 
 the world since we became a nation, because of the honor and 
 dignity of onr course and the respect we have always maintained 
 tor the rights of others. We have reached the turning point. 
 
 Are we to abandon this grand history; are we to pursue a course 
 of aggression and wrong, plunder and robbery* on the English 
 principle that having once commenced we must continue to the 
 end/ What would we think of the greatest athlete of the world 
 to-day in insisting that, having begun the beating of a boy of 12, 
 he should beat the boy to death in order to convince the world 
 that he was strong? 
 
 Mr. President, if it takes moi'e courage to do right than to do 
 wrong, then the American people and the American nation should 
 commence at once. Empire has been acquired before only to ruin 
 the nation that started upon a career of conquest. Rome with 
 her legions robbed* the world. When the Roman Empire was 
 founded most the people owned 12 acres apiece— 12 acres per 
 family— indicating a dense rural population. No foreign foe could 
 march through that compact rural population of land owners to 
 the wall of Rome. They were successful farmers and prosperous, 
 and they made mighty' soldiers. Cincinnatus left the plow and 
 led legions on to victory. But during the first century of the 
 Christian era centralization had done its work; the lands had 
 been absorbed by the usurer and gathered into vast estates, cul- 
 tivated by tenants and often by slaves. 
 
 Spain once had an empire which covered almost the world- 
 greater than Rome or any other people ever acquired. Where is 
 Spain to-day? No nation can pursue a course of wrong toward 
 others and long preserve its own liberties. No nation can long 
 give to its people happiness and prosperity, equality, necessary to 
 the preservation of its institutions, when it proceeds to disregard 
 the rights of other nations or plunder other men, no matter what 
 the color of their skin. 
 
 Monday, January 15, 1900. 
 
 Mr. PETTIGrRE W. Mr. President, I did not at this time intend 
 to address the Senate at length upon this subject, for 1 had expected 
 that the resolutions of inquiry which I had offered would be 
 adopted and the information thus furnished from official sources 
 before the debate commenced. But the discussions which arose 
 and the impressions which were made seem to have precipitated 
 a general discussion of the question. I shall begin my remarks 
 to day by reading from one of Lincoln's speeches the following 
 paragraph: 
 
 Those who deny freedom toothers deserve it not for themselves, and un- 
 der the rule of a just God can not long retain it. 
 
 I believe that is true. I believe the reflex action upon our own 
 people of the conquest of other peoples and their governments, 
 against their will, will gradually undermine free institutions in 
 this country and result in the destruction of the Republic. What 
 are the arguments urged why we should force a government upon 
 the people of the Philippines? The President of the United States 
 says they are not fit for self-government. From my observation of 
 history I believe there are no people fit for any other form of gov- 
 ernment. Governments are instituted, not bestowed, and there- 
 fore derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. 
 3953 
 
15 
 
 Any nation of people are capable of maintaining as good a gov- 
 ernment as they are entitled to have, and when they can main- 
 tain a better government they will evolve it, and you can not give 
 them a better government than they can maintain for themselves. 
 A form of government is the result of the social compact, and 
 therefore the government of a people will be as good as the aver- 
 age of the individuals composing the coniinunity are willing to 
 have. The American Indians maintained a government, and for 
 them a better one than we have been able to bestow upon them. 
 The Esquimos in the arctic region maintain a government of their 
 own, suited to their condition and their circumstances, and it is 
 a better government than anybody else can give them. Would 
 their condition be improved by sending to them foreign governors 
 and a foreign council to enact laws and direct their course and 
 method of life, to guide them in their civic and civil affairs? So 
 with every other people the world round. There is nothing in the 
 history of the colonies of the so-called Christain nations of the 
 world to encourage the idea that we can give to this people a better 
 government than they are able to maintain themselves. 
 
 The old doctrine of the divine right of kings, of the hereditary 
 right to rule, is a doctrine that we disputed and controverted 
 when we established our Government and when we announced 
 the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. So proud have 
 we been of that discovery that each year we have celebrated the 
 birth into the world of a new theory a new doctrine with regard 
 to governments; and four hundred constitutions have been framed 
 alter ours. So powerful has our example been throughout the 
 world, that nation after nation struggling to be free has adopted 
 our form of government. 
 
 No nation, no people, in all time and in all history ever im- 
 pressed such a powerful influence upon the human race as this 
 Republic, and for this reason alone. Empires have been estab- 
 lished, a trail of blood has been drawn across the world, and vast 
 aggregations f people have been brought under the rule of an 
 emperor or a monarch since history began, but no people, no na- 
 tion, in the history of the world has ever produced such a powerful 
 effect for good upon thehuman raceasthis great Republic, andsim- 
 ply because of the doctrine laid down by our forefathers in the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 Is it an old doctrine that all Governments derive their just pow- 
 ers from the consent of the governed? Some have said that it 
 was a nursery rhyme sung around the cradle of the Republic. 
 The doctrine is new. It was announced but a century ago. a day 
 in the birth and life of nations, and yet this great Republic, boast- 
 ing as we have on each recurring celebration of the event, pro- 
 poses now to abandon it for the old doctrine and the old theory 
 and the old idea of selfishness. 
 
 The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Beveridge] sa3's that the Dec- 
 laration of Independence does not contemplate that all govern- 
 ments must have the consent of the governed; that only those 
 must have the consent of the governed that we think capable of 
 self-government. Under that theory no people in the world are 
 capable of self-government unless they first get our consent that 
 they are fit to give their consent to a form of government which 
 they wish to set up. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PlattJ 
 says that governments derive their just powers from the consent 
 of some of the governed. Thus the Senator from Indiana would 
 3953 
 
16 
 
 extend the doctrine of imperialism to whole nations of people, 
 while the Senator from Connecticut would extend the doctrine of 
 imperialism to every nation and every people, for he declares that 
 the consent of some of the governed only is required. 
 
 Thus we drift back to the divine right of kings, to the doctrine 
 that those who govern shall determine who of the governed shall 
 give their consent. Thus construed, our glorious Declaration be- 
 comes a mockery and a fraud. Therefore, when we meet each 
 year to celebrate the instrument's birth into the world, the ora- 
 tors of the Republican party will have to explain its meaning and 
 tell the multitude that our notions, our opinions, of the Declara- 
 tion have been wrong for a hundred years. 
 
 Lincoln, in his speech at Springfield, on June 20, 1857, thus de- 
 fined his notions of the Declaration of Independence: 
 
 In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred l>y all and 
 thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro 
 universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed , and hawked 
 at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not 
 at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against 
 him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the 
 theology of the day is fast joining the cry. 
 
 * # * # # * * 
 
 I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men ; 
 but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did 
 riot mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, 
 or social capacity. iThey defined with tolerable distinctness in what re- 
 spects they did consider all men created equal— equal with "certain inalien- 
 able rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
 This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious 
 untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that 
 they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no 
 power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so 
 that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should per- 
 mit. 
 
 They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be 
 familiar to all, and revered by all, constantly looked to, constantly labored 
 for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, 
 and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augment- 
 ing the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. 
 The assertion that "all men are created equal " was of no practical use in 
 effecting our separation from Great Britain, and it was placed in the Declara- 
 tion not for that but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, as, thank God, 
 it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to all those who, in after times, 
 might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. 
 They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant 
 when such should reappear in this fair laud and commence their vocation, 
 they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. 
 
 It seems to me that Lincoln, with his prophetic vision, must have 
 seen this day, when prosperity, breeding tyrants, should undertake 
 to declare that the Declaration of Independence no longer applies 
 to anybody but the people whom we decide are capable of self- 
 government. It stands to-day as a stumbling block; it is the hard 
 nut to crack that the imperialists of this country find on this oc- 
 casion, and it will confront them in this contest on every stump 
 and on every platform in the land. Now, let us see what Stephen 
 A. Douglas in that controversy said about the Declaration. I be- 
 lieve my imperialist friends must have been reading Douglass' 
 argument. Said Lincoln: 
 
 I have now briefly expressed mv view of the meaning and object of that 
 part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that "all men are 
 created equal." 
 
 Now let us hear Judge Douglas's view of the same Subject, as I find it in 
 the printed report >>i his late speech. Here it is: 
 
 "No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers 
 3953 
 
17 
 
 of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they 
 referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared 
 all men to have been created equal— that they were speaking of British sub- 
 jects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in 
 Great Britain— that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and 
 among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
 The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying tho colonists in 
 the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from tho 
 British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country." 
 
 Lincoln says: 
 
 My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder 
 well upon it; see what a mere wreck, mangled ruin, it makes of our once 
 glorious Declaration. . 
 
 "They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to 
 British subjects born and residing in Great Britain." 
 
 Why, according to this, not only negroes, but white people outside of 
 Great Britain and America, were not spoken of in that instrument. The 
 English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included, 
 to be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world 
 are all gone to pot along with the Judge's inferior races. 
 
 I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condi- 
 tion of British subjects. But no; it only meant that we should be equal to 
 them in their own oppressed and unequal condition 1 According to that.it 
 gave no promise that, having kicked off the King and lords of Great Britain, 
 we should not at enco be saddled with a king and lords of our own in these 
 United States. ■ ' . . 
 
 I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement 
 in the conditi >no1 all men everywhere. But no; it merely "was adopted for 
 the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in 
 withdrawing their allegiance from the British Crown and dissolving their 
 connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected 
 sumo eighty years atro.the Declaration is of no practical use now— mere rub- 
 bi ih— only wadding left to rot on the battlefield after the victory is won. 
 
 I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth" to-morrow 
 weok. What for? The doings of that clay had no reference to the present; 
 and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to 
 at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to 
 read the Declaration. 
 
 Why, Mr. President, when we quote the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence or the words of Lincoln, the imperialists of this country 
 say that our words are telegraphed to Manila and give encourage- 
 ment to the insurgents. If, on the last Fourth of July, I should 
 have read here Lincoln's words, that people who disregarded the 
 rights of f reedmen in others can not long retain their own liberty, 
 I suppose Otis would have had me arrested for an insurgent and 
 insisted that I was giving aid and comfort to the enemy; and if I 
 had there read the Declaration of Independence or the words of 
 Lincoln as referring to all people, no matter what their color, I 
 would have been driven from the islands or placed in prison. Has 
 it reached the point that wherever our flag floats men can no longer, 
 without being called rebels, quote from Abraham Lincoln or read 
 the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln goes on to say: 
 
 Suppo-e after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once 
 more with Judge 'Douglas's version. It will then run thus: " We hold these 
 truths to be self evident that all British subjects who were on this continent 
 eighty-one years ago were created equal to all British subjects born and then 
 residing in Great Britain." 
 
 Could you make it any more absurd if on the next Fourth of July 
 you should amend it to accord with the opinion of the Senator 
 from Indiana or the Senator from Connecticut? Lincoln says: 
 
 And I now appeal to all— to Democrats as well as others— are you really 
 willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered away; thus left no more 
 at most than an interesting memorial of the dead past; thus shorn of its vi- 
 tality and practical value and left without the germ or oven the suggestion 
 of the individual rights of man in it? 
 3953-2 
 
18 
 
 On another occasion, in Lincoln's speech in Chicago, 111., July 
 10, 1858, he makes this allusion to the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, and it is so very pertinent to the present occasion and to 
 this debate that I read it as an absolute refutation of the position 
 of the imperialists on this subject. 
 
 I might say here, Mr. President, that I allude to those who ad- 
 vocate the conquest of the Philippines as imperialists and not as 
 expansionists, for the reason that expansion implies the enlarge- 
 ment of the same thing, the adding of more of that which you 
 already have, the acquisition of countries holding a population 
 capable of living and supporting our Constitution to be admitted 
 as States into the Union: while the imperialist doctrine is the 
 acquisition of tropical colonies where it is admitted that self- 
 government can not exist, as we understand it under our Con- 
 stitution; and therefore the people must be governed perpetually 
 and forever as crown colonies of this Republic. 
 
 The holding of such countries, the conquest of an unwilling- 
 people, their retention in subjugation by a standing arm\\_means 
 of necessity not a republic where all the people must be consulted, 
 but a despotism where the will of one man can march armies, 
 declare war, and act with great rapidity. A republic is naturally 
 slow in action, because the people must be considered and must be 
 consulted. 
 
 We have taken on many of the semblances of monarchy and of 
 imperialism in the conduct of this Administration— concealment 
 of facts from the people, denial of news and information, no 
 knowledge of what is going on. no announcement of policy and 
 purpose; and the excuse for it all was that if we should allow the 
 people to know the facts there was danger of creating disapproval 
 of the course of our monarch, and if the enemy should secure 
 those facts it would be of some assistance to them. This is nec- 
 essary in a monarchy. Press censorship, too, is a necessary ad- 
 junct of imperialism,' one of the things our forefathers would not 
 have tolerated for a day. And yet our people are becoming so 
 numb that they are willing to accept it, and even criticise men 
 who protest. Lincoln says: 
 
 Those arguments that are made that the inferior race are to he treated 
 with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to 
 be <li me for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? 
 They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in 
 all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king- 
 craft were of this class. They always bestrode the necks of the people, not 
 that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being 
 at is their argument, and this argument of the judge is the same 
 old serpent that says, " You work and I eat: you toil and I will enjoy the 
 fruit s of it." Turn it in whatever way you will, whether it comes from the 
 mouth o\ a king a an excuse for enslaving the people of his country or from 
 : men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another 
 -. ne old serpent- 
 
 It is as true to-day as it was when Lincoln uttered it. and it 
 will continue through all time and as long as men struggle for 
 freedom— 
 
 and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of 
 
 .:ie public mind that we should not care about this should he 
 
 es 1*' it stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this 
 
 tion of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon 
 
 principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says 
 
 not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other 
 
 man? If 1 , a ion is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in 
 
 which we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it? 
 
 3953 
 
19 
 
 While Lincoln lived and uttered these words forty years ago, 
 there are men to-day in the Senate of the United States who are 
 so bold as to be willing to go and tear them ont. 
 
 A voice in the audience said, " No, no." Lincoln then said: 
 
 Let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then. 
 
 Henry Clay took the same view on the subject, and I will read 
 very briefly i'rom what he said: 
 
 What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the 
 slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act an- 
 nouncing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, 
 that "men are created equal." Now, as an abstract principle, there is no 
 doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable in the original con- 
 struction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great 
 fundamental principle. 
 
 But the difference, Mr. President, between the doctrines of the 
 Republican party as founded by G-iddings and Hale and Lovejoy 
 and the party of Platt and Beveridge is not as great as the dis- 
 tance between Lincoln, the first President of the Republican 
 party, whose greatest title is that of the Emancipator, earned by is- 
 suing on New Year's Day, 1S63, the proclamation of emancipation, 
 and McKinley, whose name must go down in history as the last 
 of the Presidents of the Republican party, and whose chief claim 
 for remembrance will lie in the fact that he restored slavery to 
 our country and that under his Administration, under the pro- 
 tection of our flag — the Stars and Stripes— the slave driver plies 
 the lash to the back of unrequited toil. Lincoln in his emancipa- 
 tion proclamation said: 
 
 And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid. I do order and 
 declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and 
 parts of States are and henceforward shall be free, and that the executive 
 Government of the United States, including the military and naval authori- 
 ties thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. 
 
 President McKinley approved the treaty with the Sultan of 
 Sulu, which provides: 
 
 Art. 3. The rights and dignities of His Highness the Sultan and his datos 
 shall be fully respected, the Moros shall not be interfered with on account 
 of their religion, all their religious customs shall be respected, and no one 
 shall be persecuted on account of his religion. 
 
 And within that clause is embraced slavery and polygamy, both 
 of them religious customs under the practice of Mohammedanism 
 by the Sultan of Sulu. 
 
 But further than that, Mr. President: 
 
 Article 10. Any slave in the archipelago of Sulu shall have the right to pur- 
 chase freedom by paying to his master the usual market value. 
 
 Nothing is said about where he is to get the consideration. The 
 business of the Sultan of Sulu has been in the past to get into a 
 quarrel with some of the negro tribes of the island of Mindanao, 
 the largest island of the group, having an area nearly as great as 
 the State of Indiana, and then, as an excuse for punishing them 
 for having rebelled against his authority, to take prisoners and 
 sell them as slaves to the planters raising sugar upon the island 
 of Borneo. This is the way he gets money to carry on his busi- 
 ness. Yet we have agreed in this treaty, ratified and sanctioned 
 by the President of the United States, that we will not interfere 
 with any controversy which exists between the Sultan and his 
 subjects, but that they shall be tried and dealt with under the 
 laws which he may make. 
 
 oM3 
 
20 
 
 He is an absolute monarch, having the power of life and death. 
 No one can question his right, If he commands his assistants to 
 assassinate any one of his subjects, no one can call into question 
 the act; vet; we make an agreement with him whereby we pay 
 him §250 amonth to flythe flag of the United States over his slave 
 ships and over his harem. 
 
 Art. 13. The United States will give full protection to the Sultan and his 
 subjects in case any foreign nation shall attempt to impose upon them. 
 
 Nobody else. And we have agreed not to again interfere to stop 
 his slave ships or stop the practice of slavery and polygamy in that 
 country. And yet the President says that the Stars and Stripes 
 mean the same thing wherever they float! 
 
 Article XIII of the Constitution of the United States provides, 
 in section 1, that: 
 
 — Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for 
 crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within 
 the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
 
 * * * * * ■::■ * 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. The President of the United States, in his 
 speech at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., in October last, said: 
 
 That from the hour the treaty was ratified it became our territory: there 
 ■was but one authority and but one sovereignty that could be recognized any- 
 where in those islands, and it became our duty to restore order, to preserve 
 peace, to protect life and property. 
 
 Yet he went to war with the Christian people of that country, 
 with those who believed in the Catholic religion, and made a treaty 
 with the Mohammedans by which they were to set up and main- 
 tain their own government almost absolutely independent and free 
 from us. If he had granted to the Christians of the Philippines 
 the same rights he granted to the slaveholders and polyganiists 
 of the Philippines, there would have been no war whatever. And 
 yet we, as a great Christian nation, select for self-government the 
 slaveholding Mohammedans, occupying more than one-third of the 
 area of the entire group, and proceed to establish what? Not Chris- 
 tianity, for they are already Christians; but we make the effort to 
 shoot Protestantism into the Catholic population of the rest of the 
 islands. 
 
 If our flag floats over that entire region, and if, as the President 
 said, it is absolutely under the dominion and control of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, it seems to me that he violated the 
 Constitution when he made the treaty with the Sultan of Sulu, 
 and that he ought to be impeached. 
 
 Mr. President, it would be in accord more with my ideas of 
 American institutions if we had gone to the Sultan of Sulu and 
 said, '• You must abandon polygamy and slavery, and if you do 
 not do it and recognize the power and authority of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States over the whole group of islands under 
 your control we will wage war upon you until you do it," instead 
 of going to the people who had been our allies, the Christian people 
 of t he northern islands, and saying to them, " Unless you surren- 
 der your constitution which you have adopted, and which is 
 framed after our Constitution, unless you surrender your right as 
 a government of a free people, we will proceed to kill you until 
 you do.'' Instead of drawing a trail of blood over those islands, 
 where the population can read and write, where they have em- 
 braced the same religion as ours and pray to the same God, it 
 
21 
 
 would have been better had we attacked the so-called barbarous 
 people of the southern island. 
 
 I might read several other extracts from the President's speech 
 all to the same effect. He has hardly made a speech without an 
 allusion to the flag, until I am almost convinced that he receives 
 his direction from the English minister, for it is the same song 
 always that England sings whenever she proposes to rob somebody. 
 Whenever England concludes to go upon an expedition and plun- 
 der some of the weaker nations of the world, she makes her first 
 appeal to patriotism, and then, step by step, goes on until she has 
 committed the wrong, has transgressed, and then declares that 
 the flag has been fired on and that no Englishman must question 
 the right or wrong of what they are doing until the enemy is de- 
 feated and the country annexed. 
 
 We are pursuing the same course. Our Minister of State was 
 trained in the English school, and he has come home with their 
 ideas and their notions and is going to try their way of humbug- 
 ging the people of this country as the people of England have been 
 humbugged. You can do it in England, but you can not do it 
 here. More than a million of the people of England do not vote. 
 Most of the population have been degraded by being herded in 
 manufacturing towns until a very large per cent of her popula- 
 tion have no property, no capacity, and no opinions except to 
 toady to the aristocracy. 
 
 How appropriate, Mr. President, that the restoration of slavery 
 and the new interpretation of the Declaration of Independence 
 should come together. It seems to me, however, that it marks the 
 saddest chapter in the history of that great political organiza- 
 tion, the Republican party. It came into being as a protest 
 against slavery, as the special champion of the Declaration of In- 
 dependence, and it goes out of being and out of power as the 
 champion of slavery and the repudiator of the Declaration of In- 
 dependence. 
 
 The President says that moral reasons compel us to stay in the 
 Philippines, and that we, under Gods direction, owe a duty to 
 mankind, and more of similar cant. Here is what John Morley, 
 the English statesman and writer and biographer of Gladstone, 
 says with regard to England's policy in this same connection: 
 First- 
 Speaking of England — 
 you push on into territories where yott have no business to be and where 
 you had promised not to go: secondly, your intrusion provokes resentment, 
 and, in these wild countries, resentment means resistance: thirdly, you 
 instantly cry out that the people are rebellious and that their act is rebellion 
 (this in spite of your own assurance that you have no intention of setting up 
 a permanent sovereignty over them); fourthly, you send a force to stamp 
 out the rebellion, and, fifthly, having spread bloodshed, confusion, and an- 
 archy, you declare, with hands uplifted to the heavens, that moral reasons 
 force you to stay, for if you were to leave, this territory would be loft in a 
 condition which no civilized power could contemplate with equanimity or 
 composure. These are the five stages in the Forward liake's progress. 
 
 There is not a thing there that does not absolutely accord with 
 the excuses given by the imperialists why we should abandon our 
 former form of government and conquer and rule against their 
 will an unwilling people. What blessing has England given to 
 her colonies that has justified this plan throughout the world? 
 Ireland came first, and the persecutions of Ireland were justified 
 on a doctrine of benevolent assimilation— that they were Catholics, 
 and therefore, unless they were converted from Catholicism, they 
 3953 
 
22 
 
 would go to the devil, and it was England's great and grand mis- 
 sion to make them Protestant anyhow. She has succeeded neither 
 in the one nor the other. Her course in Ireland has been one of 
 the blackest pages in the history of the world— starvation and 
 plunder. 
 
 If England will govern Ireland as she has done, what right has 
 she to the claim that she can confer benefits upon any country? 
 What is there in England's example that can justify us in under- 
 taking the same work? The miserable, miserable, contemptible rot 
 of Rudyard Kipling where he talks about the white man's burden 
 it seems to me in the light of English history is contemptible— the 
 white man's burden to confer the curses of English rule upon 
 the other nations of the world. 
 
 England commenced with Ireland. How is it with India? 
 They'have made no converts practically to Christianity in India; 
 neither have the natives learned the English language. None of 
 the people of India talk English. They have to keep an army of 
 210,000 men to hold them in subjection and prevent them from 
 securing modern arms, modern implements of destruction, while 
 they trample upon their rights as a people. What blessing has 
 England conferred upon India? Nothing but the fact that taking 
 away her food supply has caused the starvation of a million of 
 men in India every year for years, and some years sis or seven 
 millions of people in a year. One hundred and fifty million dol- 
 lars' worth of the food products of India are shipped away to pay 
 pensions in England, and the result is that the want of that food 
 causes the people of India to starve. 
 
 Compare the provinces of India that do not recognize English 
 rule, that are under an English protectorate, and you will find 
 that there is no starvation there. The native princes rule, and 
 the people govern themselves, and England simply has a suzerainty 
 over them. There is no starvation in those provinces; the starva- 
 tion is in the English part of India, where the English system of 
 robbery and plunder holds sway. India gives no money to the 
 English treasury, but India is a field for exploiting private enter- 
 prise, and thus further enriching the already over-rich classes 
 that govern the English Empire. 
 
 What of New Zealand? Did the conquest of New Zealand 
 confer the blessings of Christianity upon New Zealand? Why, it 
 resulted in the destruction of the inhabitants. To-day a great 
 colony of English people are in New Zealand, but the inhabitants 
 who formerly occupied that land have disappeared as the result 
 of English government. 
 
 How is it in Egypt? The Egyptian Government was bad, and 
 bad for the same reason that the English Government was bad; 
 but England went into Egypt to enforce the collection of a usuri- 
 ous debt for money which Egypt never received. England went 
 there to force upon that people a debt which was composed almost 
 entirely of interest at 26 per cent on a small sum of money, until 
 to-day "every acre of Egypt that is tillable is taxed §10 a year. _ 
 
 Every man. woman, and child in Egypt of native population, 
 Qg and tilling the soil, is a slave to the English taxgatherer. 
 Three thousand five hundred Englishmen wring the taxes by im- 
 prisonment and by the lash from those people, and yet the so-called 
 civilized world looks on with approval. In order to better enlarge 
 their capacity to pay taxes and bear burdens, the English officials 
 have compelled those people to toil in a systematic manner, leay- 
 
 S9i3 
 
23 
 
 ing nothing tor themselves but a bare existence and a bare sub- 
 sistence. So it is everywhere that England has gone. 
 
 As I said before, England's first conquest was Catholic Ireland, 
 and the excuse for oppression there was that the Irish were 
 Catholics. How appropriate that in our first act in the drama of 
 imperialism we should undertake the conquest of another Catholic 
 country, should undertake the conquest of the Philippines, and 
 should make the same miserable and contemptible excuse which 
 has justified England's atrocities in Ireland during all time. From 
 the pulpits of this country we hear prayers for our success in 
 order that we may introduce Christianity. Oh, Mr. President, if 
 we are to go to war against Catholics, it is not necessary to go 
 half way around the world to do so. We have more of them at 
 home, although there are 6,000,000 of them in the Philippines. 
 
 If these islands were rich in every mineral men desire, if their 
 supplies of gold surpassed those of the Transvaal, if every other 
 metal precious and desirable were in unlimited quantities, if their 
 soil were so fertile that it surpassed even the famous valley of the 
 Nile, if they could produce every comfort with half the effort 
 with which it can be produced elsewhere throughout the world, 
 yet I would oppose the annexation of these islands because it is 
 wrong, because it leaves those who have sneered at us in our 
 claim that we were advocates of freedom a justification for their 
 sneer in the future. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I hold that we can not profit from these 
 islands. None of our race live within the Tropics. There is not a 
 colony of our race, the Aryan race, anywhere within 22 degrees of 
 the equator. The men of our race who have been doing a com- 
 mercial business in Manila do not have their families there. They 
 raise a family of half-mixed natives in Manila and leave their real 
 families at home. So it has been with commercial Engl and through 
 the Tropics everywhere, for you can no more produce a white man, 
 a man of our blood, in the Tropics than you can a polar bear. Cli- 
 matic conditions place their limits upon men just as firmly as upon 
 plants and upon animals. 
 
 You can not claim that our race have not been colonists and 
 that they have not gone forward to plant colonies throughout the 
 world, for they have; but they settle in that belt around the world, 
 between the twenty-fifth and fifty-fifth degrees of north or south 
 latitude. 
 
 Jamaica has been an English colony for two hundred years. 
 Jamaica has 4,200 square miles. It lies within the Tropics. Ithasa 
 a population of 633,000 people. How many Englishmen ; how many 
 Europeans? Including the garrison, including the officers, includ- 
 ing the attaches of the Government, 14,600, and that is all. The 
 rest are blacks. This island lies within the Tropics. It has an 
 "elevation of 7,000 feet. It is one of the most healthful of all the 
 tropical islands. 
 
 And yet the European will not locate there. He goes to New 
 Zealand, to southern Australia, to Canada. He abides where the 
 frost chills man's blood and where clothing made of the wool of 
 the sheep helps to keep him warm. I think you can lay it down 
 as a proposition which can not be refuted that self-government 
 and independence and high civilization are only embraced by peo- 
 ple who find it necessary to wear warm clothes and who feel the 
 tingle of the frost in their veins during a portion of a year. 
 
 The Leeward Islands have 701 square miles. They have 123.000 
 3953 
 
24 
 
 people, 5,000 of whom are Europeans. It is another English col- 
 ony. These 5,000 are the garrison and the officeholders, with a 
 few traders. 
 
 British Guiana, on the north coast of South America, has 109,000 
 square miles and a population of 280,000 people, which has been 
 doubled in area, I think, very recently — negroes, contract laborers, 
 coolies from India raising sugar, with 2,533 Europeans, including 
 the garrison. 
 
 Haiti has a population of 600,000 people. It has 10,204 square 
 miles. The language is French. Nine-tenths of the population 
 are negroes, and the rest are mulattoes. You can saj r a thousand 
 things about Haiti, about its healthful climate, about its wonder- 
 ful productiveness, about its desirability. There is not a thing 
 you may say about the Philippines that you can not say about 
 this island with far more truth. White men will not live there be- 
 cause of the climate. 
 
 New Guinea, a British colony, lies between 8° and 10' of the 
 equator and has 88,000 square miles. 
 
 New Zealand has an area of 104,000 square miles. It is near 
 New Guinea. It is between the thirtieth and thirty-fifth degree of 
 south latitude, and therefore outside of the Tropics. I give this 
 illustration for the purpose of showing that it is a question of 
 climate whether the white race will occupy a locality or not. Its 
 population is 628.000 Europeans, 41,000 natives, and 4,400 China- 
 men. It is near New Guinea. It is in the Temperate Zone. So 
 the Anglo-Saxon went there and settled, and he has built up a 
 government, freer, in my opinion, and better than ours, because 
 untrammeled by interference, untrammeled by older influences. 
 This colony was planted later than ours, and, unhindered by greed, 
 by a combination of circumstances which have oppressed us and 
 the English people, the people of New Zealand have worked out 
 what Anglo-Saxon men untrammeled will always work out— a 
 free government participated in by all the people. In my opinion 
 they have better laws. In fact, they furnish about the only 
 example of a first-class English government on the globe to-day. 
 
 The Straits Settlements are within the Tropics. There is there 
 a population of 512,000 natives. Singapore, the commercial city, 
 is a great city, one of the emporiums of the East, right under the 
 equator. It is on the route from the Suez Canal to China and 
 Japan. It contains 512,000 natives, 6,500 Europeans and Ameri- 
 cans. The Europeans are the English garrison and the English 
 officeholders. The few Americans who are there are engaged in 
 trade and business with the East, and they go away in the sum- 
 mer. They go up to Japan; they go to the health resorts of that 
 delightful country to escape the'evil effects of a tropical climate. 
 
 It was supposed that the French people would occupy the Trop- 
 ics, but they do not. The Latin race, more or less, has occupied 
 the Tropics, but the frost of winter has touched the veins of the 
 Frenchman. It has overcome the tendency of his Latin blood to 
 live within the Tropics, and although they have conquered Ton- 
 quin. with 9,000,000 people, and Cochin China, with 8,000,000 
 more, there are only ;»,000 Frenchmen in the whole country, in- 
 cluding the officers and the garrison. The rest of the troops are 
 nativ 
 
 Martinique is an island on the north coast of South America, of 
 which we have heard much of late. Martinique has 187,000 peo- 
 ple, and only 1,301 Frenchmen and Europeans of all classes. The 
 balance of the population are blacks, 
 
French Congo has a population of 7,000,000, and only 300 Euro- 
 peans, besides the garrison. . 
 
 So it goes the world over. Our people do not go to the tropics. 
 Our people will not live and raise families in the Tropics. 
 
 Mr President, we are told by the President of the United states 
 and by the orators who favor imperialism that this will be a 
 paying venture-that trade follows the flag. Well, the morality 
 of that argument can be fairly illustrated, I think, in this way: 
 If a boy of a numerous family should cross a wide desert and find 
 at the foot of a mountain an old man with a family of children, 
 possessed of vast wealth in gold, jewels, horses, and cattle, and 
 should return to his brothers and say, "There are nine of us and 
 I believe if we go together, we can overturn the old man, who is 
 not fit to bring up those children anyway, and rob him of his 
 wealth, and I think it will be a profitable venture, and they 
 should start out and accomplish that act, it seems to me they 
 would stand upon exactly the same plane as the man who stands 
 upon this floor and advocates taking all the Philippine Islands be- 
 
 ° But Mr. President, trade does not follow the flag. If it be true 
 that trade follows the flag, then England's trade with her colonies 
 ought to be a good example and an argument in its favor, mat 
 ought to settle the question. Trade follows the best markets and 
 England's experience is a refutation of the doctrine that trade fol- 
 
 l0 Letus Si; The total imports to England in 1856 were $860 - 
 000,000 from all countries, and from her colonies and dependen- 
 cies, $215,000,000. England's imports from all countries in 18W> 
 amounted to $3,080,000,000, and from her colonies and dependent 
 cies $175 000,000. Twenty-five per cent of all her imports 
 from her colonies or dependencies in 1856 and but »C d per cent in 
 1898. After forty years, if trade follows the flag and has such a 
 tremendous influence upon it, the percentage ol England's trade 
 with her colonies ought to have increased rather than declined. 
 This is not conclusive, but the other facts taken in consideration 
 with it are conclusive that trade does not follow the flag. 
 
 The total exports from England to the whole world and to lei 
 colonies in 1856 were $575,000,000, and of this amount to her colo- 
 ni£ and dependencies $165,000,000. In 1893 her exports to the 
 whole world were $1,125,000,000, and to her colonies and depend- 
 
 TSflgSeSw thafthe t-de^as not increased in pi 
 
 for the four years 1891 to 1895 they took 32.4 per cent; in other 
 words there was an increase of three-tenths of 1 per cent of her 
 Sports to her colonies during that time, although there were 
 
 instead of an increase, a very great decrease. Fno . lish colo . 
 
 Let us see how it is about the import trade. The English coio 
 
 3033 
 
26 
 
 nies imported from all the world $383,000,000 worth of imports in 
 1856 and $165,000,000 from England, or 42.8 per cent. In 1895 it 
 seems the value of the imports to the English colonies and depend- 
 encies from all the world was $1,110,000,000, and from England 
 §350,000.000, or 31.5 per cent. 
 
 Thus the imports to the colonies from the mother country had 
 declined from 42.8 percent in 1856, forty years ago, to 31.5 per 
 cent in 1895, showing that the colonies constantly decreased in 
 the relative amount of their purchases from the mother country. 
 If trade follows the flag, then more and more of their purchases 
 ought to have been, it seems to me, from the mother country 
 rather than a steady decline. 
 
 Let us see whether there is any cause why this should be so. 
 We will take the English trade with the United States. In 185G 
 the total imports into England from all the world amounted to 
 $895,000,000. and from the United States to $170,0CO,O00, or 19 per 
 cent of her total trade. In 1898 England's imports from all the 
 world amounted to $2,055,000,000, of which $530,000,000 were from 
 the United States, or 26.7 per cent of her total trade. In other 
 words, our exports from England had grown from 19 per cent of 
 all England bought to more than one-fourth of all she bought, 
 while her trade with her colonies had continuously decdined. 
 Why was this? Not because trade follows the flag, but because 
 trade seeks the cheapest and best market. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the increase from the United States is 
 very marked as compared with the trade of England when com- 
 pared with her own possessions. If we compare the total imports 
 into England from the whole world and the United States for four 
 years from 1870 to 1873 and from 1895 to 1898 we will find that the 
 increase from the United States was very much greater in propor- 
 tion than the increase of English imports from all countries. In 
 other words, our impurCS increased 183 per cent as against Eng- 
 land's imports from the rest of the world of 121 per cent. 
 
 English exports to the United States have declined from 13 per 
 cent of her total exports in the four vears from 1859 to 1862 to 9 
 per cent of her total exports for the years 1895 to 1898, caused by 
 tariff restriction. But if trade follows the flag this tariff restric- 
 tion which we place upon English goods, thus causing a decrease 
 of imports to this country, certainly ought to have affected then- 
 purchases in the direction of her flag, and ought to have been an 
 additional reason and inducement to purchase more instead of less 
 of her colonies, where she could sell and not be restricted by tariff 
 provisions and could bring back cargoes. 
 
 From another view of the subject, let us see how England s 
 trade with her colonies and the United States compares with rela- 
 tion to population. From 1892 to 1897 England imported from 
 her colonies $1.25 worth of goods for each inhabitant of those colo- 
 nies. From the United States she imported goods to the value of 
 $6.68 for every inhabitant of the United States each year. While 
 the United States purchased of England $1.50 worth for each in- 
 habitant, the English colonies only purchased from England $1.02 
 worth of goods for each inhabitant, purchasing 48 cents' worth 
 for each inhabitant less than we bought from England, even with 
 our purchase of only $1,50 per capita. 
 
 So far as the English tropical colonies are concerned, England 
 onlv sold to them 71 cents' worth of goods last year for each inhabit- 
 ant* in those colonies, and most of that was to supply her own army 
 3953 
 
27 
 
 and her own officeholders, who wanted English goods. Her trade 
 would have been infinitesimal, almost absolutely nothing, with 
 her tropical colonies, except for her army in India of ?0,0U0 Eng- 
 lishmen and her equally great army of officeholders there. So, 
 such an argument is all nonsense. Trade does not follow the flag. 
 
 The United States can only secure tropical countries as colonies. 
 As Schurman, our commissioner to the Philippines, said, the Sul- 
 tan of Sulu and his people would fight, and therefore it was not 
 well to bother with them. So the people who inhabit the temper- 
 ate zone will fight, and our only place to get a people who are easy 
 to control, a people who will not fight too hard, a people who are 
 not armed with modern implements of war, a people who can be 
 run over with battalions of our troops, is in the Tropics. 
 
 How, then, in the light of England's experience, in the light of 
 the fact that England has practically no trade with the inhabitants 
 of her tropical colonies, except the trade that comes from supply- 
 ing her officeholders and her army, can we expect to have much 
 trade with the people of the Philippines? How are we going to 
 get rich keeping a standing army in the Philippines, so as to make 
 people whose wages are not over 5 cents a day trade with us? 
 
 Mr. President, in the Philippines we do not even supply our own 
 Army. If trade follows the flag, it seems to me that the trade with 
 our own Army ought to follow the flag. So prone is trade to seek 
 the best markets that our Army is supplied with potatoes and beef 
 and butter and pork from the English colonies; practically none 
 of it comes from the United States. 
 
 Our soldiers are clothed by the English contractors at Hong- 
 kong. Only shoes and a few canned goods go from the United 
 States, and the reason they go is because we export shoes and that 
 people everywhere can buy shoes cheaper in this country than 
 anywhere else, thus proving conclusively that trade does not fol- 
 low the flag, but goes to the best markets. The coal that propels 
 our ships across the Pacific is English coal. We do not even 
 patronize our own coal mines on the western coast. Every vessel 
 coming this way or going that way in passing Nagasaki, takes 
 on a load of English coal. Our transports are chartered by the 
 Government, and, therefore, every transport carries goods from 
 the United States free of cost to the producers. It seems to me 
 exceedingly strange why, if trade will follow the flag, it does not 
 get under the flag and just float over and supply our own army 
 in the tropics. 
 
 What is there in the future to warrant us to believe that trade 
 will hereafter follow the flag in the Philippines? I should like to 
 have somebody tell me. We made a treaty with Spain by which 
 we agreed that the Philippines should have the "open door," so 
 that all the world could trade there through all time to come. 
 Therefore we broke down the barriers of protection, abandoned 
 the policy upon which the Republican party has ridden into 
 power for years. We declared that we would have the "open 
 door," thereby destroying absolutely all hope of any trade in the 
 future with the people of the Philippines, for, under the decisions 
 of our Supreme Court, we can not impose a tariff on their products 
 unless we amend the Constitution. 
 
 So their products will come to us free of duty. The tobacco 
 
 made into cigars by the nimble fingers of those capable Malays 
 
 will close the tobacco and cigar factories of this country and drive 
 
 our labor into other channels of employment. There is no reason 
 
 3953 
 
why they can not supply unlimitedly the cigars for American con- 
 sumption. Labor there is cheap, labor is abundant, and New 
 England's money— the vast fortunes of the men who have ac- 
 cumulated by the control of monopolies in our country— will go 
 there to exploit this labor, go there to make cotton goods out of 
 Chinese cotton to be sold in the American market. 
 
 Mr. President, I saw a cotton mill in China having 34,000 spin- 
 dles, a modern mill, with, I think. 2,700 Chinese employees or la- 
 borers, every one of them men, full grown. There were no chil- 
 dren and no women in that mill, and just one Englishman. Every 
 other employee, every spinner, carder, weaver, engineer, every 
 man running a loom, 'was a Chinaman; and the average wages- 
 mark that— amounted to $3.50 a month, and they board them- 
 selves. Besides, they were paid in silver, in Mexican dollars, 
 equal to §1.75 in our money. Yet the American laborer is invited 
 to compete wirh 10,000,000 of this kind of labor by annexing the 
 Philippines. 
 
 It seems to me the sum and substance of the whole scheme is to 
 find a field where cheap labor can be secured, labor that will not 
 strike, that does not belong to a union, that does not need an 
 army to keep it in leading strings, that will make goods for the 
 trusts of this country: and, as the trusts dominated the St. Louis 
 convention and own' the Republican party, it is a very proper en- 
 terprise for them to engage in. 
 
 England has not been enriched by her conquests. To-day, what 
 is the happiest country in the world? It is little Switzerland. 
 Where is there the best distribution of wealth, the best opportu- 
 nity for man? Where is there the least poverty, misery, and dis- 
 tress? Itis in Switzerland, without colonies. It is not in England. 
 Her conquests have bestowed no blessings upon her people. Most 
 of her people have no property, most of the people of England 
 own nothing. Two-thirds of them— 60 per cent of them— own 
 nothing, while about 222.000 persons own all the property of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 They are the people who exploit the tropical colonies; they are 
 the people who build railroads and charge what they choose, and 
 make loans at usurious interest, thus piling up higher and higher 
 their great aggregations of wealth. Do we want to follow this 
 example? From it no monev will come into the Treasury for the 
 benefit of the people of the United States. The laborers of this 
 land, from whom we raise our taxes in the same way England 
 raises hers— by a per capita levy upon consumption— are invited to 
 contribute this taxation to support an army of occupation and sub- 
 sidize ships to carry the trade in order that those people may be 
 exploited by the trusts of the United States. 1 do not believe the 
 people of this country will do it. 
 
 There is another object. It is well when people become rest- 
 less, when people become dissatisfied with the conditions which 
 exist, when the toilers of a land begin to believe they are not 
 receiving their just share of the products of their toil, to give 
 them amusement, to distract their attention by distant problems, 
 to do as England has done, begin the killing of men in some dis- 
 tant land, and then appeal to the patriotism of the people and 
 talk about the flag being fired upon in order to take the attention 
 of the people from those great problems the right of solution of 
 which is essential to the happiness of the toilers of the nation. 
 
 You ask me what I would do with the Philippines. I would 
 
 30.>3 
 
29 
 
 draw our army back to Manila. I would send to the Philippine 
 people assurance that they could set up their own government— 
 a republic, such as they have set up 'under their constitution, 
 framed after ours, providing, as it does, for universal education, 
 for the protection of life and property, and I would say to the 
 world, "Hands off!" Then I would try to neutralize that coun- 
 try—that is, I would try to make a treaty with the nations of the 
 world by which those islands and their waters should be neutral 
 ground, where any vessel of any country could go and coal and 
 trade— not free trade, if they chose to put up a tariff wall against 
 all the world, but it should be equal to all; but no nation could 
 go there to fight. 
 
 I would do what Europe has done with Switzerland and what 
 they have done with the Suez Canal; and if the nations of all 
 Europe would not agree to it, I would say, "Hands off; we will 
 plant a republic on the shores of Asia.'' The Malay race have 
 shown their capacity for governing in their triumph in Japan. 
 No nation in the world stands higher in the scale of civilization 
 than the Malays of Japan, a kindred race to the people of the 
 Philippines. Give them a chance, and they will plant republican 
 principles on the shores of Asia that will spread to that continent 
 and undermine and overthrow the despotism of colonial rule and 
 the despotism of monarchies. 
 
 Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from South Dakota allow 
 me to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SPOONER. The Senator from South Dakota would not 
 do that, of course, without the consent of the Filipinos? 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. No, sir; I would not do it without their 
 consent. It seems to me a superfluous question if that is all there 
 is to it. 
 
 We are precluded by our Constitution and by the Declaration 
 of Independence and by every claim we have ever made, by every 
 speech of every person who has addressed a Fourth of July audi- 
 ence, from buying sovereignty over a people without their consent 
 first obtained, Purchasing sovereignty and tran sf erring from one 
 nation to another the rights of their fellow-men is simply a spe- 
 cies of slavery. How can we justify it with all our boasted elo- 
 quence once a year for a century past? I say this Republic, above 
 all the nations of the world, ought to refuse to be a party to the 
 purchase or the effort at purchasing sovereignty over anybody. 
 
 In 1867, when we talked of buying the Danish West Indies, 
 Denmark refused to sell until a vote of the inhabitants could 
 be taken, to see whether or not they would consent to be sold. 
 Even Denmark, touched by the influence of our Constitution and 
 our example, refused to sell the sovereignty without the consent 
 of the people, and for this great Republic to stand up to-day be- 
 fore the world and claim title because they have bought from dis- 
 possessed Spain sovereignty over those people it seems to me is 
 remarkable indeed. 
 
 I think the words of the immortal Lincoln are applicable to this 
 situation: "A house divided against itself can not stand." Under 
 our flag you can not have a republic and an empire. You can 
 not have self-government and a government by force. One or the 
 other will triumph. Either the republic will go down and the em- 
 pire survive, or we will at once retrace our steps to the old safe 
 ground and anchor our ship of state to the declaration and to the 
 
no 
 
 doctrine that all governments derive their just powers from the 
 consent of the governed. 
 
 * * # * * * * 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado 
 says that I never speak a kind word of my fellow-Senators. T am 
 not going to dispute that assertion except to say that my relations 
 are most" pleasant with almost all my fellow-Senators, and I hope 
 he will not undertake to hide the whole Senate behind his large 
 personalitv. I have not spent much time in laudation of him, 
 because I never saw anything in his public career or private life 
 worthy of praise; but I will confess one thing, and that now, which 
 ought to be to his praise and to his advantage— he has a loud voice. 
 It seems to me that his attack upon me is not worthy of reply, 
 and I shall not reply to it. 
 
 As far as his argument is concerned, he has divided his atten- 
 tion between me and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Brveridge]. 
 I should like to know, I should like to hear, I should like to ascer- 
 tain some settled policy upon this question. We are told by the 
 Senator from Indiana that it is greed, conquest, for the purpose 
 of getting rich, with the idea of despoiliug somebody, and we are 
 told by the Senator from Colorado that we are prompted by ideas 
 of philanthropy, but not quite so much philanthropy as the Sen- 
 ator from Indiana wishes to exercise. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, this cant about doing somebody good was 
 the very argument which justified Spain in her conquests of the 
 western world. No people ever went forth for conquest and for 
 plunder who paraded more their pretext that they wished to civi- 
 lize and Christianize the world. They drew their trail of blood 
 across Mexico. What men in all the world had more religious 
 zeal than Cortez and his followers and his priests? Pizarro de- 
 stroved the grand civilization of Peru, butchering her people right 
 and 'left in the name of God. Thsy said they did it because they 
 wanted to confer blessings upon the people of these countries, and 
 they made them desolate for centuries afterwards. 
 
 Russia in her conquest raises the same banner, and her news- 
 papers are full of the same argument, the same cant. 
 
 You can pick out Spanish authors whose books are in our 
 library, hundreds of them, who parade this excuse for conquest 
 better than even the Senator from Colorado. And so it is with 
 England. Wherever she has gone, wherever she has carried her 
 conquest, as I read a short time ago, the same excuse has been 
 made: " We are going to carry the blessings of English civiliza- 
 tion.'" If you should ask the people where she has been— if you 
 ask Ireland, and India, and the natives of New Zealand— what 
 their opinion is of the blessing and benefit she has conferred, it 
 seems to me it would deter us from undertaking the task. 
 
 I should like to know what the argument is? You can not 
 smother debate or drive me from a discussion of the question by 
 ridicule or abuse. Call me atraitor if you will. Men have been 
 called traitors before because they stood up for what they believed 
 to be right. Lincoln, in the House of Representatives, denounced 
 the Mexican war and voted against its approval, and so did Alex- 
 ander Stephens, of the South, and so did Boutwell, of Massachu- 
 setts, and so did many other names that might be added to the list. 
 
 Mr. HOAR. Mr. Boutwell was not in the House at that time. 
 
 Mr. PETTIGREW. The Senator from Massachusetts says that 
 
 3953 
 
Mr. Boutwell was not there then, and I prestime T am wrorg in 
 
 regard to that, alth eard him in a speech say thai tii 
 
 that position, which perhaps was not in the House of Represent- 
 atives, and he believed that more than anything else had made 
 him twice the governor of Massachusetts. What is more, Mr. 
 President. Daniel Webster denounced the Mexican war and after- 
 wards was charged with bring- a traitor to his country by these 
 same people who have a philanthropic mission. 
 
 Fox and Pitt in the English Parliament denounced the war 
 against the American colonies. Is it Lord North and his misi ra- 
 ble cabinet who live in the minds of the people of the world 
 to-day? No; it is those champions of freedom who dared to stand 
 up in the British Parliament and denounce the course of their 
 government of that day. Pitt said: 
 
 What has the Government done? They have sent an armed force, ■ ■ 
 ing of 17,000 men, to dragoon the Bostonians into what is call >d duty: and we 
 are told in the language of menace that if 17,000 w on't do. 50,000 shall. If I 
 were an American as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed 
 in my country I would never lay down my arms— never, never, in 
 
 I should like to know what course this debate is to take. If 
 those who are in favor of imperialism are afraid to embrace the 
 doctrine of greed and of conquest for profit and disagree about 
 the amount of philanthropy that is necessary in-order to justify 
 their position, it is hard to tell what we shall answer or combat. 
 
 In this connection, Mr. President— for I do not care to talk 
 longer — I wish to put in the Record an editorial entitled "Let us 
 be honest," from the Washington Post, of this city. It seems to 
 me it is quite pertinent in this connection as showing how badly 
 divided are the hosts of imperialism. 
 
 LET US BE HONEST! 
 
 Why can not we be honest in our utterances touching the territories wo 
 have recently acquired? Really it would save time and trouble, to say noth- 
 ing of life and treasure, to come out frankly with the announcement that we 
 have annexed these possessions in cold biood, and that we intend to utilize 
 them to our profit and advantage. All this talk about benevolent as 
 tion; all this hypocritical pretense of anxiety for the moral, social, and intel- 
 lectual exaltation of the natives; all this transparent parade of responsibility 
 and deep seated purpose; all this deceives nobody, avails nothing, helps ua 
 not an inch in the direction of profit, dignity, and honor. 
 
 We all know down in our hearts that these islands, groups, etc., are im- 
 portant to us only in the ratio of their practical possibilities. We value 
 them by the standard of their commercial usefulness, and by no other. All 
 this gabble about civilizing and uplifting the benighted barbarians of Cuba 
 and Luzon is mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. Foolishly or wisely, 
 we want these newly acquired territories, not for any missionary or altruis- 
 tic purposes, but for the trade, the commerce, the power, and the money 
 there are in them. Why beat about the bush and promise and protest all 
 sorts of things? Why not be honest? It will pay. 
 
 Asa matter of fact, we are not concerned in the ethical or religions up- 
 lifting of the Filipinos. After all, the diff en out and 
 a starched shirt front is a mere matter of climate and pi . Dis- 
 honesty, untruth, crime, and general wickednes 
 
 ent with us as part of our daily life and growing with our growth. W 
 not go to the West Indies or the Phuippi p.'- s in search of n moral 
 
 rescue. Our own slums abound with opportunities for missionary zeal. 
 
 Why not tell the truth and say— what is the fact— that 
 Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Luzon, together with any other islands in 
 ocean that may hereafter commend themselves to our app 
 believe they will add to our national sli 
 
 will some day become purchasers at our hi as 
 
 well throw off the pious mask and indulge 
 
 It will cost us nothing, and it may profit much. At : i have 
 
 the comfort and satisfaction of being hon< 
 
 of looking into the mirror without blushing.— Washingti unday, 
 
 January 1U, 1900. 
 3053 
 
LlttKW * 
 
 I present that as an answer to the whole philanthropic portion 
 of the speeches of the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from 
 Colorado. 
 
 But in order to bring this debate baclc, it seems to me, to a higher 
 plane and better character, I will read briefly, some verses by How- 
 ard S. Taylor, of Chicago: 
 
 THE CREED OF THE FLAG. 
 
 Who will haul down the flag? — President McKinley. 
 "Who will haul down the flag?" quoth he. 
 
 Why, no hand of flesh and bone 
 Can lower that flag, on land or sea, 
 
 Till the faith of the flag is gone! 
 Till a few shall rule and cunningly keep 
 
 The bunting to garnish their greed : 
 Till dollars are dear and humanity cheap 
 
 By the force of a tory creed! 
 Then will it fall!— but answer us, clear, 
 Do you fancy that hour is drawing near? 
 
 Did our Liberty Bell ring in vain? 
 
 Was our Declaration a lie? 
 Must we turn to the Old World again, 
 
 With the penitent prodigal's cry? 
 Must we arm us and march in the van 
 
 Of Europe's barbaric parade, 
 And boom out a gunpowder gospel to man 
 
 To open a pathway for trade? 
 Shall we strut through the world and bluster and brag 
 With the dollar mark stamped on the brave old flag? 
 
 Nay, haul up the flag— raise it high— 
 
 Not yet is its spirit spent! 
 Let it sing to the wind and the sky 
 The truth that it always meant! 
 Let it sing of the birthright of man, 
 
 Of progress that never can lag. 
 Let it sing that trade may go— where it can, 
 
 But liberty follows the flag! 
 Yea, haul up Old Glory— but, comrades, take heed 
 That no man part the old flag from the creed! 
 
 HOWARD S. TAYLOR. 
 Chicago, January 7, 1S00. 
 3953 
 
 O