T 
 
 inn 
 
 ami 
 
 ill 
 
 IBS 
 IB 
 
 ^ 
 
 rami 
 
 mil 
 
 Mil 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 ;<* 
 
 
 
 ■ -Y 
 
 
 V 
 
 \° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -'■>> 
 
 
 # 
 
 
 
 
 
 * . <p. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1* 3f 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ ^ 
 
 5~ 
 
 V 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 rt- 
 
 
 
 > $ % 
 
 -^ 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 9 V. ^ 
 
 -*1 
 
 
 cK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 o5 
 
 ^ v 
 
 \ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.<$*. 
 
 
 o<y 
 
 A O 
 
 <G* 
 
 
 *» 
 
 A> ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 r> 
 
 >\# 
 
 
 V 
 
 "> 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 v>^. 
 
 
 ,0o 
 
 '^. ^ 
 
 V . X- 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 "^ o x 
 
 x ^. 
 
 
 
 <^> * 
 
 - X 
 
 
 -c^ ,-\ 
 
 
 'J- S u 
 
 
 
 • X- 
 
 r / y X' 
 
 ->. /- 
 
 X* 
 
 k> 
 
 N X X 
 
 
 ^. S 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 K %<. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 <s> 
 
 
 
 
 <' 
 
 f <?>. 
 
 \ 
 
 **v 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PATRIOT OR 
 PESSIMIST? 
 
 IN 
 
 UNCLE SAM'S STUDY 
 OF EXPANSION 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES S. BARCUS 
 
 AUTHOR OF "THE BOOMERANG" 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS, U. S. A. 
 
 THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY 
 PUBLISHERS 
 
NEWEST BOOKi 
 
 PUBLliHED BT THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY. 
 
 "Che Redemption Of David Corson. Charles Fred- 
 eric Goss. A novel notable for its strength and vivid 
 imagery; containing an unusual study of the secret springs of 
 life. The author's wide reading, illumined by actual personal 
 experiences, and his rare powers of description, have produced 
 a singularly interesting and elevating story. i2mo, $i.jo. 
 
 Smiles \ohzd With Sighs. Robert J. Burdette. a 
 book of Burdette pathos and humor, in rollicking rhyme. 
 " Burdette the laughing philosopher, the prince of pathos — 
 who jingles among the bells of his cap the key to every 
 human heart." Uniform with Riley Love-Lyrics, with many 
 illustrations by Will Vawter. i2mo y $1.23. 
 
 Sweepers of the Sea. Claude H. Wetmore. Two young 
 men, having come into possession of hidden treasures of untold 
 value, lease an island near Chile and there build the most 
 powerful navv that has ever sailed. War is declared on Peru, 
 and the story is launched on a career of excitement and holds 
 its interest strongly to the end. Illustrated. i2mo y $/.jo. 
 
 Cbe Cragedy Of f>amlet. The first volume of an entirely 
 new edition of Shakespeare. Edited by Edward Dowden. 
 Printed in England by Methuen & Co. and published in Amer- 
 ica exclusively by The Boiven-Mcrrill Co. An introduction of 
 twenty pages is prefixed to the plav. In an appendix passages 
 are printed from the Quarto of 1603. Demy, S'vo, $1.25. 
 
 HmeriCan -pundit Toadstools and Mushrooms, Edible and 
 Poisonous. Charles McIlvaine. Describing over 800 
 species, 750 being edible. Illustrated with thirty-eight page 
 color plates, twenty-five page engravings and over 300 etch 
 ings, instructions for students, how to distinguish edible from 
 poisonous, treatment in case of poisoning, recipes for cook 
 ing, complete glossary and indexes. Large quarto, $10. OO 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 

PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 IN 
 
 UNCLE SAM'S STUDY 
 
 OF 
 
 EXPANSION 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES S. BARCUS 
 
 Author of '*The Boomerang" 
 
 Indianapolis, U. S. A. 
 
 THE BOWEN-MERRILL CO. 
 
 Publishers 
 
£f~7/3 
 
 
 Copyright 
 
 1900 
 
 By JAMES S. BARCUS 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 TO WILLIAM Mc KIN LEY, 
 
 The affectionate and tender husband, the brave and saga- 
 cious statesman, the ideal type of American manhood, the 
 lover of his nation and of the world, and therefore the 
 true, broad, patriot, this volume is most respectfully 
 dedicated. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Frankly, the one aim of this volume is to stimulate 
 thought to the end that the great truths now making for 
 the gain and glory of our Republic, and for the progress 
 and prosperity of hitherto down-trodden peoples, may 
 be searched out eagerly. The Author does not assume 
 to have spoken the first, nor yet the last word on the 
 great subject of expansion. Indeed, facts have not been 
 appealed to, so much as philosophy and reason, though 
 volume upon volume would be required to relate all the 
 facts, which crowd upon one another in justification of 
 the enlightened policy of the United States in working 
 out her unprecedented destiny. Public print is already 
 laden down with scientific utterances in advocacy of our 
 growth and our corresponding usefulness, as well as 
 with the vagaries of obstruction doctrinaires. And so 
 the campaign of education goes on apace with no pros- 
 pect — or better, no danger — of abatement till our great 
 and good people shall have reached the practical solution, 
 which, it is submitted, generally comports with duty 
 toward the country and the world. May this volume 
 prove an inspiration to some — the more the better — to 
 press their inquiry toward truth, right, and duty, is the 
 earnest prayer of your affectionate well-wisher of the 
 majesty, justice, and power of our peerless nation. 
 
 James S. Barcus, 
 Terre Haute, Ind., February i, 1900. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PHILIPPINE QUESTION 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction 
 
 I 
 
 QUESTION OF LAW 30 
 
 Constitutional • ■ • • 34 
 
 Acquisition 3 « 
 
 Other Purchases— Louisiana, Florida, Texas, etc... 40 
 
 "Remoteness" 40 
 
 State Expectancy— Alaska and Philippines excep- 
 tions 4^ 
 
 Must Retain — Secession Intolerable 49 
 
 Government and Status 59 
 
 With View to Statehood 01 
 
 Permanent Territory 07 
 
 International Law ?6 
 
 II 
 
 QUESTION OF FACT 81 
 
 Will it Pay? 83 
 
 Labor Competition 89 
 
 Market 9 *> 
 
 Philippines 08 
 
 China and Orient 102 
 
 International War and Neutrality 114 
 
 Ownership 1 1? 
 
 Protectorate 121 
 
 Regardless of the Philippines 126 
 
 Monroe Doctrine _. 130 
 
 Strong Army and Navy 140 
 
 Adequacy Discussed 144 
 
 Military Excess Impossible Under Our System 148 
 
VI CONTENTS 
 
 III 
 
 Page 
 
 QUESTION OF HUMANITY 154 
 
 Right and Duty 161 
 
 As to Aguinaldo 161 
 
 Who Provoked the Philippine War? 164 
 
 Status of Aguinaldo 170 
 
 As to Filipinos as a Whole 174 
 
 Had They a Government? 1 SO 
 
 What is the Will of the Majority? 183 
 
 Climate, Race and Adaptability to Self-government 185 
 Local Self-government Aided by the United States 194 
 
 As to the World 198 
 
 Sanction for International Law 200 
 
 United States as a Member of the World Govern- 
 ment 204 
 
 American Traditions and Precedents 206 
 
 Freedom, Equality and Liberty 210 
 
 Consent of Governed 219 
 
 Taxation and Representation 224 
 
 Declaration of Independence and " The Fathers"' .... 225 
 
 The Fact and the Kind of Colonial Government 235 
 
 Government Expediency 237 
 
 Philippine and Cuban Policy Distinguished 238 
 
 Exigencies of War 243 
 
 Territorial and Colonial Government Distinguished... 248 
 Effect on American Civilization 257 
 
 UNCLE SAM'S BLESSING TO ORPHAN DON.. 263 
 
PROLOGUE, 
 
 Shall selfish splendor mark our type of man? 
 
 Shall liberty ensconce itself at home? 
 This mighty nation's lustrous light should shine — 
 
 The earth and sea her base, the sky her dome. 
 
 If missionary work exalteth man, 
 
 If "Right and Might" condition world-success, 
 What weakling midget-soul will duty shirk? 
 
 Who'll dare distort the words we speak to bless? 
 
 Borne on by duty toward our fellowmen, 
 We must, though sacrifice attend our zeal, 
 
 While for our Master souls the time is ripe 
 Perform the Master zvork for public weal. 
 
 But chance, or fortune, or the will of God 
 Prevails our arduous burden to relieve ; 
 
 Such blessings promise forth our lot to be — 
 'Tis better that we give than to receive. 
 
 What boot vile shafts by selfish critics hurled? 
 
 Prosperity obtains and not distress. 
 Though "scolds" our liberty may sore beset, 
 
 No harm results from freedom of the press. 
 
 Assaults against humanity and right 
 
 Will prove in vain, no matter who assails ; 
 
 As force meets force and weaker force must yield, 
 So error met by honest reason fails. 
 
 Though mean and grudging souls their sloth confess, 
 While "sullen" peoples, other powers enslave, 
 
 Tn thundrous tones the voice of freemen cry 
 "Where waves our starrv banner, let it wave." 
 
Patriot or Pessimist? 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Scene : Uncle Sam's Retreat, Washington, D. C. 
 Present: Uncle Sam and Orphan Don. 
 
 Orphan Don: Uncle, I suppose I need not remind 
 you that within a few days I shall be twenty-one years 
 of age. You have always told me that when I should 
 have attained my majority, you would relate to me the 
 secret of my life. 
 
 Uncle Sam: Yes, my boy, even in the midst of un- 
 usual cares of state, I have been thinking of you, and it 
 is with not a little regret that I look forward to the time 
 when our relations as adopted son and foster father must 
 
 cease. 
 
 I have not kept you ignorant of the events referred to 
 with any selfish motive. You well know that I should 
 cheerfully give you the benefit of any information which 
 would seem to me, in my greater experience, of vital 
 importance to you. 
 
 You were but seven months old the night I found you 
 on the doorsteps of my retreat; that was a long time 
 ago, long in years, but particularly long in the events 
 and achievements of our country. As we seem to be 
 alone, and are not likely to be disturbed to-night, I shall 
 tell you the secret. 
 
 Your father—- Hark ! Some one is knocking. 
 
 Orphan Don : I will see who it is, Uncle* 
 
 7 
 
8 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Uncle Sam (soliloquizing) : My position with refer- 
 ence to this orphan was long misunderstood by a few 
 people, and misrepresented by others. It was thought 
 my purpose in adopting him was sinister ; and although 
 few knew his lineage, some people were ready to believe 
 and suggest that I had, in some way, taken possession of 
 him without the consent of his parents, and against what 
 would be his will if he were of an accountable age. But, 
 happily, time has proved that those who objected were 
 merely self-constituted guardians, with selfish and un- 
 clean purpose, which I well knew then, and my care of 
 him has been such — though he has, indeed, been a care 
 at times — that his condition is far better than any other 
 fate then possible to him, and to his credit, be it said, 
 he has directly and indirectly inspired me to an extent 
 not to be calculated by his tax upon my time and means. 
 
 Orphan Don : Uncle, a gentleman without craves a 
 conference with you. I explained to him that your time 
 was so much taken up with national and international 
 affairs, that, much as you enjoy conferring with men — 
 whether high or low, rich or poor, educated or ignorant 
 — you must deny yourself that pleasure in all cases during 
 the pendency of such weighty responsibilities as rest upon 
 you at this time, but he insisted that he had important 
 information for you directly pertaining to the business 
 of state. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Did you explain to him that I had been 
 forced to adopt the rule of confining my advice to those 
 in official position? 
 
 Orphan Don: Yes, I emphasized it, but, not daunted, 
 he persisted that the business upon which he wished to 
 confer affected most seriously the interests of the na- 
 tion, and that he could give you facts concerning the 
 present government and its officials, which the officials 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 9 
 
 themselves are studiously concealing from you. At 
 length I consented to his waiting until I could carry his 
 message to you. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Well, as it so happens that we are not 
 discussing public matters to-night, although my mind has 
 been thoroughly engrossed for ten long hours to-day and 
 I would wish a respite and such diversion as the rem- 
 iniscences of your life would afford, yet, let us postpone 
 the matters touching you, and for this once hear what he 
 has to say. 
 
 Orphan Don : Very well, I will admit him. 
 
 (Enter Pessimist.) 
 
 Pessimist: Most honored patron saint of this great 
 republic and friend of all, dear Uncle Sam, I salute you in 
 tender love, and bear you tidings which grieve me much, 
 and would that I could spare you the sadness of hearing 
 them. 
 
 Uncle Sam: You are welcome; speak on, but, pray 
 you, speak to the point, as my time is occupied with mat- 
 ters of grave importance. What has befallen our coun- 
 try of which you would apprise me? But first of all, 
 by what name may I know you? 
 
 Pessimist: Sir, my name is Pessimist, and I have 
 come to tell you that the President of the United States 
 has ignored the traditions of our republic. He has fallen 
 from the lofty purpose which once prompted him to lift 
 up and ennoble humanity, to the low and groveling plain 
 of a foreign potentate, conducting a war of aggression 
 with most devastating and destructive results to the peo- 
 ple of a foreign country, whom he is oppressing, and all 
 at the expense of untold millions of money, to be borne 
 by our people, and at the sacrifice of the flower of our 
 youth, who must be forced into military life to sustain 
 his recreant and ambitious schemes. He would, sir, es- 
 tablish in a distant land a colonial rule such as that con- 
 ducted by Great Britain, Germany and France. He has 
 
10 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 trampled upon and scoffed at the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence ; he refuses to recognize the fact that "all men 
 are created free and equal ;" that "governments derive their 
 just powers from the consent of the governed," and that 
 there should be no "taxation without representation." 
 Sir, it has come to such a pass that the greatest states- 
 man of America — the Honorable William J. Bryan — has 
 recently suggested in a public speech that it would be 
 necessary for us to change the title of our executive and 
 call him the "President of the United States and the Em- 
 peror of the Philippines." 
 
 Uncle Sam : How came you by that name? Is it sig- 
 nificant ? 
 
 Pessimist : O sir, my enemies say that I act the part, 
 but there are those unkind enough to take the same po- 
 sition with reference to many other people who chance 
 to have names suggestive of opprobrium. I can imagine 
 that the enemies of ex-Governor Hogg of Texas would, 
 for no other reason than that of his name, call him selfish 
 and beastly. 
 
 It is true that I criticise existing conditions without 
 fear or favor, but only my enemies claim that I am a pessi- 
 mist in my disposition. I hope, therefore, that you will 
 believe me when I say that I am a pessimist only in name. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I should like to believe it, but what you 
 have said so far casts some doubt upon your claim, 
 though you may be honest. I am very loath to impugn 
 motives. Pessimists are not all intentionally evil ; there 
 are two kinds of pessimists, one whose designs are un- 
 holy and dishonest from the beginning and who finds 
 fault with everything for some selfish purpose, or be- 
 cause of a morbid hatred of man and of the institutions of 
 man ; the other is the deluded individual whose mind is 
 too illogical or whose vision is too short to reach correct 
 conclusions on economic subjects; or, perhaps the hon- 
 est pessimist may have sufficient natural ability, but may 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST r 11 
 
 belong to that unfortunate class who illustrate the truth 
 of Pope's rhythmic apothegm : 
 
 "A little learning is a dangerous thing ! 
 Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." 
 
 Such people are as good as anybody else. I do not 
 recognize any superior right of any class or individual, 
 but they mistake their province when they put themselves 
 up as leaders to dictate the policy of government or of 
 society. This is not an especial hardship; only a small 
 percentage of this nation or any nation can hold positions 
 of leadership. There is plenty of work for all the rest to 
 do. 
 
 Without venturing a final opinion as to your status it 
 is safe to make the general observation that the honest 
 pessimist should not seek influential positions, and the 
 dishonest pessimist should not be permitted to occupy 
 them. 
 
 There is a plenty, and to spare, of men who have 
 studied the great problems of government and who look 
 sufficiently far into their intricacies to take a hopeful view 
 where such view contributes to the welfare of our people. 
 In short, they take the correct view,* holding up the finger 
 of warning where necessary without chastening or re- 
 buking those charged with the responsibilities of govern- 
 ment upon a hasty or shallow investigation. 
 
 Pessimist: I see that you are inclined to regard me 
 as a pessimist, though you are kind enough not to clas- 
 sify me. However, you leave me but small comfort in 
 the alternatives, for I scarcely know which I would rather 
 be, a designing knave or an ignorant pretender. I believe, 
 however, I could convince you of my sincerity, as well as 
 of my accuracy, in pronouncing upon important matters, 
 but I see you are impatient now because of your limited 
 time. 
 
12 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 It has come to my notice that you intend to set out 
 upon a journey, to confer with men of distinction in the 
 interior, and it so happens that a large mass meeting is 
 to be held in Fort Harrison, one of the historic spots in 
 Indiana, next Tuesday night. The purpose is to check, 
 if possible, what the great majority of people believe to 
 be a course on the part of the President which is totally 
 opposed to the best interests of American citizens. We 
 call it an Anti-Imperialist meeting, our adversaries call 
 it, in milder terms, a meeting of the Anti-Expansionists. 
 I have been called upon to deliver an address upon that 
 occasion, in which I hope to convince the hearers and 
 those who read my speech, that the purpose of the Presi- 
 dent and his advisers is either grossly evil or destructively 
 erroneous. 
 
 If you could find it convenient to attend this meeting 
 I know it would give us all great pleasure to see you 
 there, and I believe I can convince you in that address, 
 as of course I cannot in such short conversation as your 
 time now would allow, that I am a pessimist only in name, 
 but a patriot in purpose and conduct. 
 
 Uncle Sam: My program is so completely filled that 
 it would be difficult for me to find the time, and yet— and 
 yet — 
 
 Is the other side to be represented? 
 
 Pessimist: No, not according to the program, but I 
 have directed my associates to give it out that all ques- 
 tions would be answered, and that all in the audience 
 desiring to make comments would be free to do so ; and 
 there is a young man in our State whose interest in public 
 affairs has been such that his friends have dubbed him 
 "Patriot." It is thought that he will have considerable 
 to say, and as he is friendly toward the President, both 
 sides are likely to be represented. At any rate, if you 
 would consent to attend and act as chairman _ of the 
 meeting, I have so much confidence in our position that 
 I should be willing to allow Patriot, as they call him, to 
 use all the time he desires in his vain effort to refute 
 my arguments. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 13 
 
 Uncle Sam: Don, will you tell me where we are 
 scheduled to be on Tuesday ? 
 
 Orphan Don : Yes, Uncle, at Indianapolis. 
 
 Uncle Sam: Very well, I shall accept your invita- 
 tion and attend your meeting at Fort Harrison. 
 
 Pessimist : Then may I announce your decision, so as 
 to increase the crowd as much as possible? 
 
 Uncle Sam : Yes ; the more I think it over, the more 
 I am inclined to believe good will come, and I have heard 
 so much from what I have believed to be carping critics, 
 that it will give me pleasure to hear from the people them- 
 selves. In fact, the purpose of my itinerary is to learn 
 what I can of the people's wish on the important ques- 
 tions confronting the American public to-day. 
 
 Let me warn you in advance that if I attend this meet- 
 ing I shall take the responsibility myself of commenting 
 upon any criticism which degenerates into mere abuse, or 
 which is couched in such intemperate language as to ap- 
 peal to passion rather than to reason, or which may be 
 offered by irresponsible people. 
 
 Criticism of the government is to be desired always, 
 but that criticism must have for its one and only aim 
 the betterment of conditions, and not the destruction and 
 displacement of conditions that are without offering ade- 
 quate and superior substitutes. 
 
 I would call your attention to the fact that nothing 
 lends itself more readily to attack and slanderous abuse 
 than the affairs of government. The reason for this is 
 not far to seek. It lies in the fact that whafever is in 
 existence in connection with government is of human 
 origin and is directed by human minds. It is therefore 
 subject to the shortcomings and mistakes of finite man. 
 
 Who cannot put his ringer upon an error in the noblest 
 work of man ? Andrea del Sarto could point to Raphael's 
 
14 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 painting and say : "That arm is wrongly put and I could 
 alter it ;" but honest Andrea del Sarto could also say : 
 "The soul is right." And so we find critics who can point 
 to the work of masters in statecraft, and, picking out 
 here and there a little flaw, say, "I could better it;" but 
 if they will be honest, like the artist, they also will say 
 in many cases, "I could not produce the complete result ; 
 I could not better the actual conditions." And when 
 criticism is once unbridled and unrestrained by respect or 
 reason, in addition to pointing out the actual errors it is 
 too frequently willing to fabricate those which do not 
 exist ; to warp conduct which is the best under the cir- 
 cumstances, all things considered, into apparent error or 
 evil. 
 
 Such a critic is found in the character of the blatant 
 demagogue who denounces with the power of oratory 
 and always in the name of liberty. I will have none of 
 that, and if your meeting should take that turn you must 
 count upon me for such rebuke as the grave responsibili- 
 ties of my position may seem to warrant. 
 
 Madame Roland gave voice to a sad but living truth 
 when she exclaimed, in the face of the awful fact to her, 
 "O Liberty ! Liberty ! how many crimes are committed 
 in thy name!" 
 
 I have observed that those who would accomplish the 
 destruction of our most sacred beliefs, quote with un- 
 stinted praise in support of such destruction from the 
 men who helped to make these beliefs. One of the in- 
 evitable functions of a patriot is to supply quotations 
 for demagogues. William Henry Harrison took notice 
 of this class of people. He said : 
 
 "This is the old trick of those who would usurp the 
 government of their country. In the name of democracy 
 they speak, warning the people against the influence of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 15 
 
 wealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient 
 and modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became 
 the master of the Roman people, and the Senate, under 
 the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the 
 former against the aristocracy of the latter; Cromwell, 
 in the character of protector of the liberties of the people, 
 became the dictator of England; and Bolivar possessed 
 himself of unlimited oower with the title of his country's 
 liberator. ,, 
 
 My attention was called recently to an article written 
 by one Carl Schurz, in which he rolls the name of Lincoln 
 under his tongue as a sweet morsel, quoting him to dis- 
 credit the action and purpose of President McKinley 
 with the evident view, if possible, of forcing from the 
 President a declaration of his intentions in the Philippine 
 question while the war was yet in progress. 
 
 The situation, as it seems to me — though I am open to 
 conviction at your meeting — is very much the same as it 
 was at the beginning of the War of the Rebellion, when 
 the same Mr. Schurz nagged and abused President Lin- 
 coln because he, in the exercise of his war prerogative, 
 postponed the announcement of civil purpose until the 
 needful military administration should have come to an , 
 end, or until such time as, in his executive discretion, 
 it would seem wise to him to divulge his purpose. Such a 
 man I am almost tempted to liken to a horse-fly ; he tor- 
 ments one President until he is dead, then gives out the 
 impression that they had always been agreed, but that 
 his criticism, like the biting of the horse-fly, had merely 
 helped the President along with his burden ; then he 
 lights upon another, and another, tormenting each of 
 them in turn, while each plods on and honestly bears the 
 burden in spite of his annoyance. 
 
 Or I would liken him to a bad, idle boy, who stands 
 off and throws stones at a carpenter, while he, in spite 
 
1G PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 
 
 of the bad boy, erects a beautiful mansion, and then when 
 its beauty is forced upon his stupid and stubborn mind, 
 he talks about it in a manner to imply that he helped to 
 build the house by keeping the carpenters stirred up and 
 making them active. 
 
 If Mr. Schurz lives ten years more he will be quoting 
 President McKinley's policy in the Philippines to defame 
 and obstruct whatever President may then be trying to 
 accomplish some other patriotic work. It is difficult to 
 classify Mr. Schurz, because he is a man of education, and 
 I dislike to call him dishonest ; but that he is a pessimist 
 I no longer have any doubt. 
 
 Of course, it does not follow from Pope's suggestion 
 that "much learning" may not also be dangerous. I am 
 tempted to exclaim to him as did Festus to Paul, "Much 
 learning doth make thee mad." 
 
 Though Mr. Schurz comes of good German stock, 
 he seems to have started wrong, for ever since he es- 
 caped to America he has contributed his great ability more 
 to destruction than to construction. 
 
 "Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined." A sap- 
 ling which if properly trained would grow into the most 
 splendid oak may, by being trained improperly, while 
 growing to equal proportions, be ugly, snarly and of no 
 use to man. And when a man of genius becomes chronic 
 in his opposition to progress and noble, brave, manly na- 
 tional conduct, he may be open to the comparison sug- 
 gested by the oak ; and it is in order to introduce the 
 history of such a man's life to impeach and discredit his 
 testimony in a case where sound evidence is required. 
 Such men pervert the use of language in order to mislead 
 those who have not had the opportunity for full investi- 
 gation. They undertake to carry conviction by clever 
 phrase. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? 11 
 
 Mr. Schurz himself, in the very article in which he 
 attempts to cloud the issues, speaks of "Those high- 
 sounding catchwords of which a free people, when about 
 to decide a great question, should be especially suspi- 
 cious." I would commend this utterance to the careful at- 
 tention of those who may have occasion to read the re- 
 mainder of the article by Mr. Schurz himself. 
 
 As there is an admixture of evil in all good, thorns 
 among roses, stones in the soil, sorrow close upon the 
 heels of joy, so the English language, replete in rich- 
 ness of expression and power, nevertheless also lends 
 itself to the use of artful designers whose unjust purpose 
 detracts nothing from their ability to utilize it. 
 
 Let me quote you a sentence, the application of which 
 might be used in an intellectual guessing contest: 
 
 "But after the music and the march have passed by, 
 after the dance of delirium has worn us out, there will 
 come a time of reckoning and mourning." 
 
 Lincoln might have said this of the South when they 
 were contending for secession ; General Grosvenor 
 might have said it in reference to the mad vaporings of 
 Edward Atkinson and a few other Americans in their 
 attempt to give aid and comfort to Aguinaldo and the 
 Philippine insurgents. But, as a matter of fact, Senator 
 Chilton of Texas used the expression in an attack against 
 the President's effort to restore peace and order in the 
 Philippines. 
 
 One distinguished divine objects to our control of the 
 Philippines because it will make "More places for place- 
 hunters." This sort of phrase has a tendency to preju- 
 dice people who would like to come to the right conclu- 
 sion. Of course a new responsibility makes more places 
 for place-hunters; the question is whether the places 
 
18 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 should be made. Every step forward in government 
 means more places for place hunters. A factory-inspec- 
 tion law, such as many States have passed for sanitary 
 and humane purposes, necessitates the creation of a com- 
 mission or a bureau, and therefore more places for place- 
 hunters. Every new postoffice is open to the same 
 objection. The establishment of our rural-delivery sys- 
 tem, which bids fair to have far-reaching results in edu- 
 cating and enlightening farmers, makes more places for 
 place-hunters ; but who shall say that the American farm- 
 er does not deserve this service? 
 
 I merely refer to this matter in this way to show you 
 that it is always possible to couch a phrase thus for the 
 purpose of appealing to the passion and prejudice of men, 
 and this fact must be taken into consideration in your 
 forthcoming discussion, else I shall not hesitate to re- 
 mind the audience of the unfair design. 
 
 Many critics are fond of the sensation produced by the 
 power of our language for antitheses. Rev. Henry Van 
 Dyke of New York City says : 
 
 "Three and thirty years have rolled away since we 
 gave thanks for the ending of the Civil War ; never since 
 that time has our national religious festival been observed 
 under such brilliant sunlight of prosperity or such por- 
 tentous clouds of danger massed along the horizon." 
 
 This sentence, read in connection with the rest of his 
 sermon on "The American Birthright and the Philippine 
 Pottage," reads very much as though it had been cast 
 and rounded out with a view to literary effect. He seems 
 equally fond of alliteration, and seemingly for that pur- 
 pose he makes the irresponsible allusion to the President's 
 policy as one of "duty," "destiny" and "desperation." 
 
 Pessimist: I beg pardon, sir, but it is my purpose to 
 quote from Rev. Van Dyke's sermon in my discussion at 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 19 
 
 Fort Harrison, and really, I think his arguments are 
 very able. 
 
 Uncle Sam : That being the case, we will say no more 
 about him just now, but I think you will find that his 
 forte is the pulpit, and not the governmental forum. I 
 would not have the people understand that I discourage 
 the co-operation of preachers in political affairs, but I 
 do wish they would confine their teachings to questions 
 of morality, general expediency, and appeals to the com- 
 mon sense of the people, and not attempt to lay down 
 fundamental rules in political economy which tend to 
 upset healthy and well-established principles. For exam- 
 ple, Rev. George C. Lorimer recently said : "Ideals are 
 great things, and parties are rubbish." 
 
 Without going into a lengthy discussion, I may assume 
 that you, and all the people in the main, understand that 
 parties are an inevitable, as well as an essential, concom- 
 itant of republican government. 
 
 The checks and balances in the Constitution would be 
 of but little value were it not for the potential competi- 
 tion between parties which establishes a restraint by one 
 upon the other in all its conduct of affairs. Thus, I say, 
 Dr. Lorimer made the mistake of stepping out of his 
 pulpit into the political forum without first mastering the 
 subject to which he addressed himself. I deprecate this 
 trick of oratory to which some of the ablest preachers and 
 lawyers resort by clever phrase-making for misleading 
 purposes. 
 
 Pessimist : But, sir, how can one argue a case without 
 resorting to the artful figures of speech ? 
 
 Uncle Sam : Do not misunderstand me ; I discourage 
 no proper use of illustrations — it is the abuse of them, the 
 seemingly premeditated purpose to mislead, to which I 
 
20 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 
 
 object. For example, Mr. Bryan, in a speech delivered 
 at Washington Day banquet given by the Virginia Dem- 
 ocratic Association here in Washington Feb. 22, 1899, 
 said: 
 
 "The hour of temptation is come, but temptations do 
 not destroy, they merely test the strength of individuals 
 and nations. They are stumbling blocks or stepping 
 stones ; they lead to infamy or fame, according to the 
 use made of them. Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen 
 served together in the Continental Army, and both were 
 offered British gold. Arnold yielded to the temptation, 
 and made his name a synonym for treason ; Allen resisted, 
 and lives in the affection of his countrymen. 
 
 Thus far this is a beautiful period of oratory, and thus 
 far I congratulate Mr. Bryan, for it cannot be denied 
 that he is a powerful orator ; but see the vile use to which 
 he puts the figure. He goes on : 
 
 "Our nation is tempted to depart from its 'standard of 
 morality' and adopt a policy of 'criminal aggression/ 
 but will it yield?" 
 
 Is it not Mr. Bryan's evident purpose in this to create 
 in the minds of the people a belief that the keeping of 
 the Philippines by the United States, and by the advice of 
 the President, would be equivalent to such an act of trea- 
 son as that committed by Benedict Arnold, who plotted to 
 deliver an army of American patriots into the hands of 
 America's enemy, and does any reasonable man believe 
 that Mr. Bryan would have the temerity to say such a 
 thing outright? 
 
 It is this misuse of figures or phrases to create an 
 impression by indirection which the orator would not 
 dare express directly, which I deprecate and regret. 
 
 I cannot discontinue this conversation on the propriety 
 of speech and discussion without directing your atteii- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 21 
 
 tion to another fault, for, mind you, I desire to save you 
 embarrassment if possible, and I also desire, if possible, 
 to prevent your doing - the administration an injustice ; 
 for I believe it to be honest and capable, and shall continue 
 so to believe, unless you can convince me to the contrary. 
 Some orators on your side, and some newspapers as 
 well, are attempting to cast odium upon the proposed con- 
 duct of the United States in the Philippines by the use of 
 opprobrious terms, and also by the opprobrious use of 
 proper terms. For instance, the word "Imperialism." 
 Now this word might come under either class, i. e., for 
 certain reasons it may be considered an opprobrious term ; 
 viewed in another way, it is a proper term, and the use 
 of it to express a condition contrary to American condi- 
 tions is a perversion. Our ancestors used the term freely 
 in connection with our country. Chief Justice Marshall, 
 for instance, in the case of Loughborough vs. Blake, and 
 in other decisions frequently speaks of the "American 
 Empire." 
 
 Pessimist : But I propose to show, sir, that "empire," 
 as used by our people, has reference to such dominion 
 over territory as that of Great Britain over India, for 
 instance. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Then you will probably define your term, 
 and not use the word empire for a misleading purpose. 
 Of course, it will be in order for "Patriot" or whoever 
 speaks on his side, to define his understanding of the 
 word. Other catch words and phrases used in this man- 
 ner are "criminal aggression, " "colonial rule," "land- 
 grabbing," "subjugation," and the like. Then they take 
 up words applied properly by the President, and use them 
 derisively, as for example, "benevolent assimilation." 
 This sort of thing proves nothing, and is meant to mis- 
 lead. 
 
22 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 One more point to which I would commend your cau- 
 tion ; that is the irreverent manner in which men of dis- 
 tinction, Mr. Bryan, and even dignified senators of the 
 United States, have sneered at the President's reference 
 to the God of our universe. Now, the effect of this kind 
 of reflection against due reference to the Deity in all 
 public utterances is to discourage sincere Christian men 
 from indulging in it. I do not believe our country has 
 ever suffered, but on the contrary believe that it has 
 always been strengthened by that sincere and oft-repeated 
 reverential deference paid by such men as Washington, 
 Lincoln, and McKinley to the Maker of us all. 
 
 Pessimist : Will you let me explain at some length my 
 view upon these questions? 
 
 Uncle Sam : The hour is growing late, and I prefer 
 to postpone any further discussion until we meet at your 
 gathering at Fort Harrison. 
 
 Pessimist: Very good, but remember, I shall con- 
 vince you. I bid you good night. 
 
 (Exit Pessimist.) 
 
 Scene: Compartment in palace car en route from 
 
 Washington to Fort Harrison. 
 Present: Uncle Sam and Orphan Don. 
 
 Orphan Don: Uncle, you were just about to relate 
 some facts which interest me when Pessimist called the 
 other night and interrupted us. Since that time you have 
 been so busy that I have scarcely had a word with you. 
 I am curious to hear the story, and can scarcely control 
 my patience, though I have had occasion to learn many 
 lessons of patience by observing your dealings with all 
 kinds and conditions of men, some of whom have insisted 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 23 
 
 upon misunderstanding your motives from time to time. 
 On many occasions I could scarcely refrain from advising 
 you to say things which, in your wisdom, you withheld, 
 maybe for a long time. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I am not withholding the story of your 
 life to try your patience, but the time is barely ripe for 
 you to hear it, and the opportunity has not presented 
 itself, nor does it even to-day, for me to tell it. If I may 
 tax your patience a little further, I should like to conclude 
 the work of the present trip before taking up your per- 
 sonal matter. Possibly before it is concluded some res- 
 pite may come ; if so, I shall gladly avail myself of the 
 chance to relieve your anxiety. 
 
 . You will find enough diversion in our journey, as you 
 have found in many other such journeys, to occupy your 
 mind, and I hope, to keep you happy; but the work in 
 hand is unusually onerous, and must have my undivided 
 attention for the present. I am not seeking the advice 
 of the people upon one question merely, as it was in 
 1896, when Sound Money was the all-prepondering issue, 
 but this campaign it is Sound Money, Philippine Policy, 
 and the Trusts. I hope to obtain a concensus of popular 
 opinion, as well as a good analysis from the standpoint of 
 skill and learning upon all these issues before I return 
 to Washington. The order of investigation and the ar- 
 rangement of data is but partly completed, and I shall 
 busy myself for the rest of the journey with this task. 
 
 Orphan Don : I most cheerfully accede to your wishes, 
 Uncle, and shall employ my time in reading and observa- 
 tion. The adversaries of the Administration policy have 
 declaimed so much about the traditions of the Fathers, 
 and have quoted so freely from former Presidents, that 
 I think I shall review The Federalist, and perhaps read 
 a few of the messages of Monroe and other Presidents, 
 
2\ PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 that I may learn for myself what they said, and under 
 what conditions their wise sayings were spoken. 
 Uncle Sam: That is well. 
 
 Scene: Prairie House, Fort Harrison, Indiana. 
 Present: Uncle Sam and Orphan Don. 
 
 Orphan Don : Uncle, the crowd at the meeting place 
 is something almost indescribable. It will be utterly im- 
 possible for any orator to make one-tenth of them hear. 
 It has been advertised widely that you are to be present, 
 and the people have come in droves from far and near, 
 not only citizens of Indiana, but from Illinois, Kentucky, 
 Michigan and Ohio, and the hotel clerk says that quite a 
 number have come from practically every State in the 
 Union. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I am glad so much interest is shown ; let 
 us repair to the meeting place. 
 
 Scene : Fort Harrison, Indiana. 
 
 Present: Uncle Sam, Pessimist, Patriot, Orphan 
 Don, and seemingly a countless multitude of citi- 
 zens, made up from every class, every profession, 
 every trade. 
 
 A Citizen: The meeting will please come to order. 
 Fellow citizens, I have the honor of presenting to this 
 magnificent audience, as 'chairman of the meeting, the 
 patron saint of America — Uncle Sam — who will now take 
 charge of the meeting. (Long and continued applause.) 
 
 Uncle Sam: Friends, at the solicitation of Pessimist 
 I have joined you here for the purpose of listening, and 
 not for the purpose of talking. I might dilate at length 
 upon many questions which concern the government and 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 25 
 
 this great people. I might exhort you as to your duty 
 along certain lines, but as I fancy the opportunity will 
 come from time in the course of Pessimist's remarks and 
 the discussion of them by you, for me to say what I like, 
 I shall for the present give way to the orator of the 
 evening, Pessimist, who needs no introduction to an 
 American audience. 
 
 Pessimist: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen — It 
 is with great pleasure that I proceed with the endeavor to 
 place before you the facts and reasons for my belief that 
 the present crisis in the United States stands second in 
 importance to no event which has commanded the atten- 
 tion of historians. 
 
 We are standing to-day upon the brink of a mighty 
 precipice; we are about to depart from the traditions 
 of the Fathers, who laid down as the foundation princi- 
 ples of our governmental structure the equality of man, 
 the freedom of all individuals, and that governments de- 
 rive their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
 and that there shall be no taxation without representa- 
 tion. 
 
 The President of the United States, who, in his mes- 
 sage before the Spanish-American war voiced the most 
 lofty purpose conceivable to free institutions by disclaim- 
 ing any purpose of criminal aggression, has degenerated 
 into a land-grabbing, colonial-governing agent for the 
 monopolistic rings and combinations of Wall Street. 
 
 I have been adjured by Uncle Sam to confine myself 
 to temperate language, but I submit that it is difficult 
 to find suitable language of mild degree to characterize 
 the seditious and treasonable efforts so assiduously in- 
 dulged in by the President. Just think of the condition 
 which confronts us! That patriot and friend of the peo- 
 ple — William Jennings Bryan — says : 
 
 "Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms, now 
 they must defend themselves and their country against a 
 foreign idea — the colonial idea of European nations. 
 Heretofore greed has perverted the government and used 
 its instrumentalities for private gain, but now the very 
 
26 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 foundation principles of our government are assaulted. 
 Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a 
 colonial policy, such as is now pursued by European 
 countries, or it must abandon the doctrine that govern- 
 ments derive their just powers from the consent of the 
 governed." 
 
 In another speech he says : 
 
 "If we adopt a colonial policy and pursue a course 
 which incited the revolution of 1776, we must muffle the 
 tones of old Liberty Bell, and commune in whispers when 
 we praise the patriotism of our fathers. We cannot afford 
 to destroy the Declaration of Independence; we cannot 
 afford to erase from our constitutions, State and Na- 
 tional, the Bill of Rights; we have not time to examine 
 the libraries of the nation and purge them of the essays, 
 the speeches and the books that defend the doctrine that 
 law is the crystallization of public opinion rather than 
 the emanation of physical power; but, even if we could 
 destroy every vestige of the laws, which are the out- 
 growth of the immortal document penned by Jefferson, 
 if we could obliterate every written word that has been 
 inspired by the idea that this is 'a government of the 
 people, by the people, and for the people,' we could not 
 tear from the heart of the human race the hope that the 
 American republic has planted there. The impassioned 
 appeal 'Give me liberty or give me death' still echoes 
 around the world. In the future, as in the past, the desire 
 to be free will be stronger than the desire to enjoy a mere 
 physical existence. The conflict between might and right 
 will continue here and everywhere until a day is reached 
 when the love of money will no longer sear the national 
 conscience, and hypocrisy no longer hide the hideous 
 features of avarice behind the mask of philanthropy." 
 
 Patriot: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed a sug- 
 gestion, it seems to me that the language quoted from 
 Mr. Bryan is largely an attack upon conditions in 
 America regardless of expansion, and is therefore largely 
 irrelevant in a discussion that purports to deal with the 
 Philippine question. If Pessimist believes, as does Mr. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 27 
 
 Bryan, that "the love of money" now sears "the national 
 conscience/' and that "hypocrisy" now "hides the hideous 
 features of avarice behind the mask of philanthropy," we 
 might easily arrange for a discussion as to the fact of that 
 charge; but the allegations made against the American 
 policy in the Philippines will contribute quite enough 
 material for the discussion of one evening, and in addi- 
 tion to this fact, the minds of the hearers are not so liable 
 to be confused as if we confine ourselves strictly to the 
 question which we have met to hear elucidated. 
 
 Uncle Sam: It would conduce to the better under- 
 standing of the issues if only arguments germane to the 
 question are presented, and these arguments themselves 
 should be presented in a systematic manner, and not at 
 haphazard. 
 
 The quotations from Mr. Bryan raise several points, 
 any one of which ought to be dwelt upon more or less 
 at length. Time will not permit us here to discuss all 
 the charges possible to make justly and unjustly against 
 mankind. In the interest of fairness, I sincerely trust 
 that nothing in the way of general charges of bad faith 
 and impure motive will be resorted to. If the conduct of 
 any individual or set of individuals be reprehensible, the 
 fact is easily come at by logical reason and presentation 
 of the truth. I should like to see an orderly method pur- 
 sued. 
 
 Pessimist: If it may please the audience, I should like 
 to ask a suggestion of Uncle Sam as to the order in which 
 the subject shall be discussed. 
 
 Uncle Sam: Have you any particular outline? 
 
 Pessimist: No, except that I propose to show that 
 the conduct in connection with this war is against the 
 interest of humanity. 
 
 Patriot: May I submit a suggestion? 
 
28 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Pessimist : Certainly. 
 
 Patriot : You will agree that the conclusion to be ar- 
 rived at from a humanitarian point of view, must be the 
 result of facts — a correct theory based upon the facts. 
 Assuming that this is true, we have to deal with two great 
 questions : First, the question of fact ; and second, the 
 question of humanity. But it has been contended by 
 some of the adversaries of the administration that the pro- 
 posed plan in the Philippines is in contravention of pub- 
 lic law. If that be true, and can be conclusively shown, 
 our time would be wasted in disputing over the questions 
 of fact and humanity, for in that event we have recourse 
 to the court. It also appears to me that unless the facts 
 relied upon by the administration in support of its policy 
 can be successfully controverted by its adversaries, no 
 time need be spent upon the purely ethical or sociological 
 question of humanity. If, therefore, my suggestion will 
 not inconvenience the orator in the arrangement of his 
 proposed address, the logical sequence, as it seems to me, 
 is to discuss, first, the question of law ; second, the ques- 
 tion of fact, and third, the question of humanity. 
 
 Uncle Sam : It would seem proper to defer to the wish 
 of the orator of the evening in the matter of topical 
 arrangement. 
 
 I take this opportunity to interject that I have made 
 no suggestions to Pessimist save that he should be fair 
 and temperate in his discussion, and that he should freely 
 and cheerfully yield the floor to any member of the audi- 
 ence desiring to ask questions or to comment upon his 
 propositions. I therefore refer the question of order to 
 him. 
 
 Pessimist: The order suggested by Patriot will not 
 confuse me, but I fear the arrangement, though logical 
 to be sure, will prove somewhat uninteresting, because 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 29 
 
 the question of law, however popularly discussed, is neces- 
 sarily a little tedious and insipid. The only apprehension 
 I have in the matter is that the audience will grow weary 
 of this portion of the discussion, and may partially dis- 
 perse before we conclude. 
 
 Patriot : While it is true that all of us are now fully 
 employed — a condition which I cannot refrain from re- 
 minding you is different from that which prevailed during 
 the campaign of 1896, — yet the fact that to-morrow is a 
 holiday constrains me to the belief that we will all stay 
 throughout the discussion, even though the first portion 
 may not prove especially inspiring. 
 
 Voices : That is right ; we will stay if it takes all 
 night. 
 
 Pessimist: Then I shall proceed in the order sug- 
 gested by Patriot: 
 
 First, the question of law. 
 Second, the question of fact. 
 Third, the question of humanity. 
 
I. 
 
 QUESTION OF LAW. 
 
 Pessimist: The Federal Government is a government 
 of delegated powers, and it must be plain to everyone that 
 unless there is found in its constitution some authority 
 for acquiring territory beyond the seas, no such authority 
 exists. The implied power claimed by some of the 
 apologists of the Administration has its existence only 
 in the imagination of those whose ''wish is father to the 
 thought." 
 
 Constitutional grants and limitations should be con- 
 strued in the light of # events and professional opinions 
 contemporary with the adoption of the Constitution. 
 Thus, courts have always looked with the utmost respect 
 to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence as guides in the interpretation of difficult constitu- 
 tional problems. 
 
 That it is against the spirit of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence for us to acquire territory by conquest, and to 
 rule it like foreign princes rule colonies, can admit of no 
 doubt. It would be useless to attempt to controvert this 
 proposition in the minds of the American people. What 
 better authority do we want on a question of public law 
 than the great lawyer, statesman and Democratic leader, 
 the Honorable William J. Bryan? And has he not said, 
 as quoted in my preliminary remarks, "The very founda- 
 tion principles of our government are assaulted"? 
 
 If it is not unlawful to assault the foundations of our 
 government, what respect can we hope to command for 
 our Constitution and our laws? And if you will recall 
 carefully his words throughout, you will observe that he 
 implies in every sentence that there is a persistent deter- 
 mination on the part of the Republican Administration to 
 
 30 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 31 
 
 undermine the Constitution and to ignore entirely the 
 principles so ably laid down in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 Patriot: May it please the Chairman, and fellow-citi- 
 zens, it seems to me that Pessimist is confusing the three 
 main topics — Law, Fact and Humanity. If he will con- 
 fine himself to the question of Law proper, it will be 
 easier for us to follow his arguments, and he will un- 
 doubtedly be left free to discuss at any length the ques- 
 tion as to whether the action pursued by the United States 
 is right and honorable and patriotic, after we shall have 
 first determined that we have legal sanction for the course 
 pursued. 
 
 Pessimist : It seems to me that we have a perfect right 
 to call into our council such opinions as that of Mr. Bryan. 
 Of course, we have no law on the statute books which 
 specifically says we shall not acquire territory, but the 
 claim I make is, that in the absence of a statute, or a con- 
 stitutional grant explicitly giving us the power, the au- 
 thority does not exist, because, as before stated, our gov- 
 ernment is a government of delegated powers, and as I 
 understand it, where this is the case, the rule of construc- 
 tion is that what is not granted is denied. The individual 
 States, in adopting the Constitution, reserved all that was 
 not expressly granted to the Federal Government. 
 
 Hon. Charles A. Towne, ex-Representative from Min- 
 nesota, in an address delivered at the University of Mich- 
 igan on Washington's Birthday, 1899, expressly denies 
 the title of America to the Philippine Islands. He calls 
 attention to the Peace Protocol, signed Aug. 12, 1898, in 
 which it was provided that "The United States will oc- 
 cupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila pending 
 the 'conclusion of a treaty of peace which shall determine 
 the control, disposition and government of the Philip- 
 pines." He then adverts to the capture of Manila and the 
 capitulation on August 15, and shows clearly that the 
 capture, having occurred after the signing of the protocol, 
 should give no title in law. He says : 
 
32 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 "Whatever under other circumstances might have been 
 the effect of the capture of the city of Manila upon the 
 sovereignty of the entire group of islands, and whether 
 or not it would have passed that sovereignty to the 
 United States, it is clear that after the execution of the 
 protocol the capture could not possibly confer any rights 
 beyond the provisional occupation of the city, bay and 
 the harbor of Manila. When, therefore, the President 
 of the United States says, as he recently has said, that our 
 possession of the Philippines rests upon the 'right of con- 
 quest/ he is certainly in error. When he signed the pro- 
 tocol he expressly bound this country to determine the 
 ultimate fate of those islands by negotiation." 
 
 Patriot: May I ask Pessimist to whom we were 
 obligated by the protocol ? 
 
 Pessimist : To everybody. 
 
 Patriot: I shall venture to show the error of Pessi- 
 mist's answer. The protocol was a contract between 
 two nations, namely, Spain and the United States; the 
 considerations moving from one to the other respectively, 
 were recited, and among the mutual considerations was 
 that the Treaty of Peace should determine the control, etc. 
 The signatories alone could legally enforce these consid- 
 erations. I submit, as a matter of primary legal construc- 
 tion, that since we were bound by this promise only as 
 between Spain and the United States, our title as between 
 the United States and the Philippines was made doubly 
 secure by capture, in accordance with the well-known and 
 incontrovertible law of nations. 
 
 I perceive an advantage in the division of the question 
 of law under two heads, and suggest that it be treated in 
 that order: 
 
 ( i ) The law as laid down by the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 (2) International law. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 33 
 
 Pessimist : I am free to confess that my study of the 
 legal details concerning this question has been limited. I 
 do not believe it should be decided by technicalities of 
 the law so much as by the law in the broader sense, such 
 as laid down in the quotations I gave from Mr. Bryan, 
 where he says : 
 
 "Even if we could destroy every vestige of the laws 
 which are the outgrowth of the immortal document 
 penned by Jefferson," and so on, "we could not tear from 
 the heart of the human race the hope which the American 
 republic has planted there." 
 
 Of course, he refers here to the laws in a popular sense, 
 just as I think they should be referred to in the discussion 
 of this question, which touches so closely the common 
 sense and vital interest of the unprofessional masses. 
 
 All through Mr. Bryan's speeches you will find it 
 plainly suggested that as between the two, the Declara- 
 tion of Independence represents better law than the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. Why, then, should we not 
 talk about the law in a common-sense way before these 
 people and not attempt to lead them into a maze of legal 
 quips and professional technicalities, from which lawyers 
 themselves can scarcely emerge? 
 
 Uncle Sam : I understand, Pessimist, that it is per- 
 fectly proper to give attention to the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence and to the popular understanding of what is 
 lawful and right, but I respectfully submit that the legal, 
 technicalities form a proper part of this discussion, and 
 however briefly treated, they should be disposed of at 
 this juncture. 
 
 Pessimist: Well, I will give way to Patriot, and let 
 him take the lead on this topic. He seems to think that 
 there is legal justification for the nation's. procedure thus 
 far; let him show it if he can. I will take chances on 
 
34 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 convincing the audience under the other topics, that there 
 is nothing in the claims which he may now make. 
 
 Uncle Sam: Will Patriot assume this responsibility?' 
 If so, let him proceed. 
 
 Patriot: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen — If 
 you will permit a preliminary remark, I shall endeavor to 
 assume the responsibility Pessimist has shifted to me. 
 
 There is no reason why a fair, calm and unimpassioned 
 discussion of our legal status should blind even the un- 
 professional masses, as suggested by Pessimist. 
 
 The right to acquire territory in the manner in which 
 we have acquired the Philippines, if it exists at all in the 
 Constitution and the decisions of our courts, admits of 
 perfectly clear analysis and requires no professional skill, 
 and, indeed, no superior logic to understand, and I can 
 assure you all that no finger can point to any effort on my 
 part to confuse, but it shall rather be my aim to enlighten 
 every hearer, even in the name of law. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 Patriot : In the first place, I would combat the propo- 
 sition laid down by Pessimist that no specific grant exists 
 for the acquisition of territory, and in the second place, 
 the implied power would warrant it in the absence of 
 express grant. The Federal Constitution, though an in- 
 strument intended to repose in the Federal Government 
 limited powers, would be inadequate to the purposes of 
 government if it had not intended that the government 
 should exercise implied grants of power as well as those 
 expressly given, and the United States Supreme Court 
 has been unanimous and uniform from the beginning in 
 its holding to the effect that grants necessarily or con- 
 veniently implied, are as effectual and binding as if ex- 
 pressly stated. 
 
PATRIOT Ok PESSIMIST t 3S 
 
 Pessimist : How do you make out an express grant ? 
 
 Patriot : I contend that the power to acquire territory 
 is expressly granted in the treaty-making power vested 
 in and imposed upon the President of the United States. 
 It says : 
 
 "He shall have power, by and with the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds 
 of the senators present concur." 
 
 Pessimist : That says nothing about acquiring terri- 
 tory ; it merely gives power to make treaties. 
 
 Patriot: No argument is necessary to convince you 
 that the framers of the Constitution could not anticipate 
 the exigencies arising under which treaties would or 
 might be made. They could not know with what nations 
 nor on what terms treaties should be made. A treaty is 
 a contract between nations ; it calls for performance 
 usually on both sides — it calls therefore for value. Ter- 
 ritory being at the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion a recognized value, a commodity in which sovereign 
 nations might deal, it must be conclusively presumed 
 that the framers of the Constitution intended that the 
 President should, in his discretion, contract for territory 
 as well as for other values. 
 
 Pessimist : But where is anything said about taking 
 territory as a value? 
 
 Patriot : I might retort by asking, Where is anything 
 said about taking money or anything else as a value? If 
 the absence of words denoting value prohibits the ex- 
 change of any values in making treaties, the authority 
 becomes nugatory and absurd, and to admit that any 
 value whatever is contemplated is to admit territory the 
 same as money. Had territory not been intended, we 
 are bound to conclude that the framers of the Consti- 
 
30 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 tution would have numbered it among the prohibitions of 
 the Constitution, for they were not forgetful of the necesr 
 sary interdictions while creating permissions and grants. 
 A rule of construction, accepted universally, is that where 
 exceptions are recited in a statute or a Constitution, pro- 
 ceedings not falling under the exceptions are presumed to 
 fall under the rule. 
 
 Furthermore, as before stated, we have the implied 
 power under two heads : First, the Constitution provides 
 that Congress shall have the power "to provide for the 
 common defense and promote the general welfare." The 
 second is a provision for Congress to admit States and 
 govern Territories, which I shall refer to more fully under 
 the topic relating to our right to govern. On this head 
 Chief Justice Taney said in the Dred ScOtt case : 
 
 "The power to expand the territory of the United States 
 by the admission of new States is plainly given ; and in 
 the construction of this power by all the departments of 
 the government, it has been held to authorize the ac- 
 quisition of territory, not fit for admission at the time., 
 but to be admitted as soon as its population and situation 
 would entitle it to admission." 
 
 There is a certain kind of testimony which may be 
 admitted even in a question of law in some such popular 
 form as suggested by Pessimist. Authority of law is 
 threefold, or perhaps fourfold in this particular instance. 
 First, the law in a given case may be determined by the 
 Constitution or statute itself, i. e., the written law ; 
 second, by the judicial decisions in adjudicated cases 
 where the facts are parallel ; third, the opinions of recog- 
 nized authorities, such as text-book writers and lawyers. 
 The fourth source — applying in the present case — though 
 merging somewhat into the second and third, is inter- 
 national law as it is found in treaties, decrees, ukases, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 37 
 
 etc. Now the fault I would find with Pessimist's propo- 
 sition is that he proposed to confine himself wholly to the 
 'third source of law, namely, the opinions loosely ex- 
 pressed in the speeches of lawyers. I think, therefore, we 
 may with propriety introduce the legal opinions of those 
 who have studied the question, and believe that the result 
 will be to clarify the atmosphere, provided we do not rely 
 upon them to the exclusion of the written law and court 
 decisions. I have selected as my authorities on this sub- 
 ject men who, for the most part, hold with Pessimist on 
 the question of fact and on the question of humanity. 
 Senator Teller said in a recent speech: 
 
 "The power to acquire territory has been repeatedly 
 declared by the Supreme Court to belong to us. We have 
 exercised it ; we have exercised it without special pro- 
 visions in the Constitution. Jefferson doubted very much 
 whether we had the power. * * * Whatever doubts 
 there might have been then as to that, they were put at 
 rest when we accepted the purchase of Louisiana." 
 
 Again Mr. Teller says : 
 
 "When we conquered the Philippines and when we 
 might have properly demanded of Spain indemnity, we 
 turned around and we gave to Spain twenty millions. 
 Why? I do not know, but I assume that we gave it to 
 her as we gave fifteen millions to Mexico when we con- 
 quered her territory and when she lay bleeding at our 
 feet. * * * We held that territory first by conquest, 
 and then by purchase. * * * We took it with clean 
 hands. * * * So we have dealt with Spain in giving 
 her twenty millions — a bagatelle — a mere nothing. These 
 possessions are ours by conquest, by purchase, by right." 
 
 Need I remind Pessimist and this audience that the 
 cases are parallel ? Even if he persists in the argument of 
 Mr. Towne, that by the Peace Protocol we were restricted 
 to negotiation, he must admit that we hold the territory 
 
38 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 
 
 by purchase. Let him deny either title, and we still have 
 one to secure our possession. If by any means he can 
 convince us that we did not get our possession bv con- 
 quest, we point to the purchase ; if he claims that the pur- 
 chase did not extend to the whole, we point to the con- 
 quest. In either case we have the title by right. 
 
 Pessimist : Pardon me, but it is Imperialism that we 
 oppose, and, as well said by David Starr Jordan, president 
 of Stanford University : "Annexation without Imperial- 
 ism is sheer anarchy. Annexation with Imperialism is 
 still worse, for so far as it goes, it means the abandon- 
 ment of democracy." 
 
 Patriot : Your suggestion does not apply strictly to 
 the question of our right of purchase. Mr. Jordan's re- 
 marks pertain rather to our right to govern under our 
 present laws, i. e., he undertakes to lay down the proposi- 
 tion that we cannot govern the Philippines without de- 
 parting from our republican form of government, and I 
 admit that we could not depart from our republican form 
 of government without an infraction of public law ; but 
 let us continue the discussion as to our right of acquisi- 
 tion. Suppose we consider the constitutional question 
 divided into two topics : 
 
 ( 1 ) Acquisition ; which we are now discussing. 
 
 (2) Government and statu.'. 
 
 Will Pessimist accept this suggestion ? 
 
 Pessimist : Certainly, if under the second head you 
 will answer Mr. Jordan's charge. 
 
 Patriot : I shall endeavor to do so. Proceeding, then, 
 with the question of acquisition, Senator Allen of Neb- 
 raska recites briefly the evolution of thought produced 
 in his own mind by an investigation of our legal rights, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? . 39 
 
 and at the same time bears strong testimony in favor of 
 the proposition for which we contend. He says : 
 
 "I must admit, although familiar in a general way with 
 the history of the formation and great purpose of the 
 Constitution, that when I first began examining this ques- 
 tion and the policy and course of the government, I found 
 myself, as I supposed, unalterably arrayed against it. 
 * * * -Q U f i am now convinced that I was wrong in 
 so far as the exercise of constitutional power with foreign 
 nations, or in the acquisition of foreign territory, is con- 
 cerned. Whether the great lawyers, patriots and states- 
 men who drafted and adopted the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, and those who submitted the Constitution of 
 the United States, as well as many of its amendments, 
 to the people, clearly understood the power that was being 
 granted to the nation so far as its foreign relations are 
 concerned. It must, I think, be admitted that express 
 grants were made that gave the United States as full 
 and perfect sovereignty in our relations with foreign 
 countries and foreign people as would or could be pos- 
 sessed or exercised by the most absolute kingdom or 
 monarchy on earth." 
 
 Senator Money of Mississippi says : 
 
 "In the first place, I want to say that I concede fully 
 the right of the United States of America to acquire ter- 
 ritory by conquest, by purchase, by peaceful and volun- 
 tary annexation, and in the other ways competent to the 
 sovereignties of the world." 
 
 Senator McLaurin of South Carolina, while denying 
 to the United States any sovereign right outside of con- 
 stitutional grants, does, in plain language, admit that the 
 right exists. He says : 
 
 "I do not, however, controvert the proposition that the 
 United States have the power to acquire territory by con- 
 quest, purchase or otherwise, and to govern same under 
 the grant of power contained in the Constitution." 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 OTHER PURCHASES : LOUISIANA, FLORIDA, ETC. 
 
 Patriot : If there lingers any doubt as to our right under 
 the law to the acquisition of the Philippines, let me remind 
 the audience of what you all well know, namely, that we 
 have an abundance of legal precedent running back as 
 far as Jefferson. We purchased Louisiana from France 
 in 1803 for the sum of fifteen million dollars ; we ac- 
 quired California by conquest ; we purchased Alaska for 
 seven million two hundred thousand dollars, and we an- 
 nexed Hawaii by a peaceful treaty. Let it be conceded 
 without further argument that we have a rightful title; 
 or not to beg the question, that we have a good title in 
 law. 
 
 "remoteness/"' 
 
 Pessimist: No; I concede nothing of the kind. The 
 precedents cited all relate to territory contiguous to the 
 United States at the time of these acquisitions, and it 
 was not in the minds of the United States authorities in 
 making these acquisitions that we would ever go across 
 the sea to secure territory where the securing of such ter- 
 ritory would involve us in European wars and jeopardize 
 our peace with the world. Mr. Bryan says :. 
 
 "Jefferson has been quoted in support of Imperialism, 
 but our opponents must distinguish between Imperialism 
 and Expansion. They must also distinguish between 
 expansion in the Western Hemisphere and expansion that 
 involves us in the quarrels of Europe -and the Orient. 
 They must still further distinguish between expansion 
 which secures contiguous territory for future settlement, 
 and expansion which secures us alien races for future 
 subjugation. Jefferson favored the annextion of neces- 
 sary contiguous territory on the North American conti- 
 nent, but he was opposed to wars of conquest, and ex- 
 pressly condemned the acquiring of remote territory." 
 
 Again Mr. Bryan says: "J c fre rs °n has been called an 
 Expansionist, but our opponents will search in vain for 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 41 
 
 a single instance where he advocated the acquisition of 
 remote territory. On the contrary, he expressly dis- 
 claimed any desire for land outside of the North Ameri- 
 can continent. That he looked forward to the annexation 
 of Cuba is well known, but in a letter to President Mon- 
 roe, dated June 23, 1823, he suggested that we should be 
 in readiness to receive Cuba when solicited by herself. 
 To him Cuba was desirable only because of the island's 
 close proximity to the United States." 
 
 Patriot : Will Pessimist contend that the acquisition of 
 Hawaii and Alaska was in the contemplation of Jefferson ? 
 
 . Pessimist : This could fairly be brought within the 
 meaning of Jefferson's policy, because, as Mr. Bryan 
 
 says : 
 
 "In the opinion of those who favored the annexation 
 of Hawaii the advantages to be gained from a strategical 
 standpoint outweighed the objection raised to the popula- 
 tion. No argument made in favor of the annexation of 
 the Hawaiian Islands can be used in support of the im- 
 perialistic policy. The purchase of Alaska removed one 
 more monarchy from American territory, and it gave to 
 the United States a maximum of land with a minimum 
 of inhabitants." 
 
 Patriot: I am glad you quoted Mr. Bryan in this con- 
 nection, because it forcibly suggests the propriety of dis- 
 cussing what Jefferson may have thought rather under 
 the head of expediency than under the head of law. 
 
 It ought not to be presumed that the Fathers intended 
 to lay down specific rules by which we were to be governed 
 in detail, but rather we should interpret what they said in 
 the light of the circumstances which then prevailed, and 
 endeavor ourselves to apply now the same kind of states- 
 manlike common sense to the conditions which now pre- 
 vail. 
 
 When Mr. Bryan justifies the acquisition of Hawaii 
 under his construction of Jefferson's idea on the ground 
 
42 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 that Hawaii is a strategetical point, and of Alaska because 
 it removed one more monarchy from the Western Hemi- 
 sphere, I would retort that in the judgment of other men 
 who are Mr. Bryan's equals, if not his superiors, in states- 
 manship, the possession of the Philippines also affords a 
 strategical advantage, and that by the acquisition of the 
 Philippines we removed another monarchy not only from 
 the Western Hemisphere, but so completely broke its 
 power in the Orient that it will be confined to its native 
 peninsula until, in the fullness of time, it crumbles under 
 the competition of republican principles ; and surely 
 "Maximum of territorv with a minimum of inhabitants" 
 cannot argue anything either in law or morals. But I my- 
 self have caught your spirit of digression, for what I said 
 is more properly distributed between the questions of fact 
 and humanity, rather than coming under the question of 
 law. But, conceding that there is some force in the argu- 
 ment that we should not acquire remote territory, let us 
 give attention for a moment to the definition of remote- 
 ness. 
 
 What was remote to Jefferson, and what is remote to 
 us? 
 
 I think much light may be shed upon this point of the 
 discussion if we will substitute the word "inaccessibility" 
 for that of "remoteness." Is it not likely that Jefferson's 
 only purpose was to discourage the acquisition of inac- 
 cessible territory? The battle of Xew Orleans was fought 
 fourteen days after the Treaty of Ghent, which had de- 
 clared peace between the combatants in that battle, and yet 
 Jefferson did not regard Xew Orleans as remote from the 
 seat of government. The news reached Jackson in due 
 i;me after the treaty had been signed. The delay was not 
 flue to some extraordinary accident or intervention of na- 
 ture, but it was due to the fact that it took that long to 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 43 
 
 carry the message by the facilities then available. We then 
 did not dream of ordinary telegraph lines, much less 
 oceanic cables. 
 
 The battle of Manila was fought less than three days 
 after the protocol had been signed which restored peace 
 temporarily between Spain and the United States, and 
 that delay was due to extraordinary conditions; the cables 
 had been cut. But it is difficult to conceive of a set of con- 
 ditions which would make possible a battle anywhere in 
 the Philippine possessions fourteen days after a peace 
 treaty should make such a battle unnecessary. 
 
 What does this mean? It means simply that by reason 
 of the increased facilities of communication the Philippine 
 Islands are nearer to the seat of the United States Gov- 
 ernment to-day than was the Louisiana Territory nine 
 years after it was purchased. How much more accessible 
 the Philippines will be made in the next nine years under 
 the impulse of American enterprise no one can say. But 
 there is likely to be such a network of cables connecting 
 these islands with the mainland, and such a system of rail- 
 roads and steamship lines connecting them with one an- 
 other, that every pulse-beat of our civilization, under 
 guidance of the Government at Washington, will almost 
 instantly be felt throughout the length and breadth of the 
 Phillipine Archipelago. 
 
 - Pessimist : But there is something more to be thought 
 of than the mere question of communication. Look at the 
 length of time it takes to reach the Philippines with sol- 
 diers and supplies? 
 
 Patriot: It takes less than a month to go from San 
 Francisco to Manila. It took much longer to travel from 
 Washington to New Orleans with soldiers or supplies 
 in 1803, when we acquired that territory. When the 
 capital of Indiana was removed from Corydon to Indian- 
 
44 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 apolis in 1824, the team which hauled the official para- 
 phernalia of the government for that short distance of 125 
 miles spent ten days on the journey, and they were not 
 interrupted by savages, as they might have been. Indeed, 
 the danger of delay by accident in travel for that distance 
 in that time in the territory then possessed was far greater 
 than the danger to-day in travel from the American con- 
 tinent to the Philippines. 
 
 Pessimist : But in our interpretation of the meaning 
 of the Fathers, we should take into consideration the 
 proximity in point of miles and natural communications, 
 because they undoubtedly intended that we should be se- 
 cure against attack by foreign powers, and to that end 
 hoped that we would confine our sovereignty to the West- 
 ern Hemisphere. The ocean on each side forms a natural 
 barrier, and we should avail ourselves of the bounty of 
 nature in locating us so advantageously. 
 
 Senator Daniel of Virginia says that if we keep the 
 Philippines "we can no longer hug our native shores and 
 bid the world defiance." Why should we not keep on our 
 own ground, where our advantage is so great ? 
 
 Mr. Schurz, speaking of the Philippines, says : 
 
 "They are not continental, not contiguous to our 
 present dominion, but beyond seas, the Philippines, many 
 thousand miles distant from our coast." And he goes on 
 to recite many other reasons why we should not regard 
 the purchase of Louisiana, Hawaii, Mexico, Alaska and 
 the conquest of California as precedents in the Philippine 
 Question. 
 
 In closing this particular topic I wish to add the opin- 
 ion of Senator Turner of Washington. He says, speaking 
 of the attitude of George Washington — 
 
 "But neither he nor any of his compeers, nor any of the 
 great statesmen who have since followed them in the ad- 
 ministration of the Government, until very lately, ever 
 conceded it possible that we should voluntarily give up 
 our advantageous situation by extending our domain 
 beyond this continent and into the very hotbed of Eur. • 
 pean interests and contentions,"' 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 45 
 
 Patriot : The gist of your argument seems to be in 
 the assumption that from a strategical point of view we 
 cannot afford to acquire territory beyond the sea, and rea- 
 soning backward, you conclude that for this reason the 
 Fathers never intended that we should. This raises a 
 question which more properly belongs to the realm of 
 political science than to that of law ; but inasmuch as we 
 are endeavoring to ascertain the intent of our ancestors in 
 order that we may attach the proper importance to their 
 declarations as precedents by which to be guided now, we 
 may linger a moment upon this point. 
 
 It involves a question of national boundaries, which 
 publicists recognize as being of two kinds — natural and 
 artificial. The early writers were all agreed in their 
 greater approval of natural boundaries than of artificial 
 boundaries, as the political boundaries of States ; but the 
 chess game of politics among nations has played sad 
 havoc with the theory that political boundaries should be 
 co-extensive with natural boundaries. Of all the civilized 
 nations to-day, Japan is about the only one which meets 
 this theoretical requirement of geographical unity. 
 
 Natural boundary . formations are defined to be large 
 bodies of water, mountains or large rivers, and these are 
 presented in the order of their importance according to 
 the old idea. The reason for this w r as simply that by the 
 means then at hand it was more difficult for the enemy to 
 cross a large body of water to make an invasion than it 
 was to cross mountains, and more difficult to cross moun- 
 tains than rivers. 
 
 In the first place, the conditions have changed so that 
 this argument would not now hold good. In the second 
 place, we ignored it when we expanded beyond the Alle- 
 gheny Mountains, and again when we expanded beyond 
 the Mississippi River, and still again when we expanded 
 
46 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? 
 
 beyond the Rockies, to say nothing of our extension to 
 Hawaii and Alaska. 
 
 I have said that in the first place the conditions which 
 underlie the theory of the ancient school no longer pre- 
 vail. The ocean to-day is a safer and more speedy high- 
 way than the trail over high mountains, while mountains, 
 on the other hand, have been so mastered by the science of 
 engineering that they are scarcely more of an obstruction 
 than an ordinary river. This theory is modified also by 
 the improvement in naval equipment. 
 
 The underlying principle which moved Jefferson and 
 his compatriots to oppose the acquisition of territory other 
 than in the Western Hemisphere has so changed that their 
 views, however applicable at the time, should have very 
 little weight now. 
 
 When we come to the question of humanity and our 
 duty to the world, I shall pay my respects to Senator 
 Daniel, Mr. Bryan and some of the other gentlemen whom 
 you have quoted in favor of the proposition that we should 
 bottle up our civilization in America. 
 
 STATE EXPECTANCY: ALASKA AND HAWAII EXCEPTIONS. 
 
 Pessimist : It seems to me that even if you have shown 
 our right to purchase territory or to acquire it by con- 
 quest, in a general way, that it ought to be shown more 
 clearly that we have a right to acquire territory for any 
 purpose other than that of eventually admitting it into the 
 Union as a State or States. It was expressly declared in 
 the treaty by which we purchased the Louisiana Territory 
 that it should, when fit, be admitted into the Union as a 
 State or States, and the same understanding has always 
 been had wherever we have acquired territory. 
 
 Patriot : I beg leave to correct Pessimist in this state- 
 ment. Generalizations of this character have a tendency 
 to mislead those who do not look specifically into the facts. 
 
 In the treaty by which we purchased Alaska the pro- 
 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 47 
 
 vision with reference to State expectancy was not inserted. 
 Neither was there any such provision in the compact by 
 which Hawaii was annexed ; but while I myself have con- 
 ceded the value of precedents, I would call attention to the 
 fact that precedents, in the absence of analogous reason- 
 ing, are never held to be binding on the judgment, either 
 of American legislatures or American courts. 
 
 Let us inquire why the provision for Statehood was in- 
 cluded in the Louisiana Purchase. Manifestly, this was 
 done to satisfy some condition or other, and we may rea- 
 s< >nably presume that it was done to avoid the raising of a 
 question on the part of the inhabitants of the annexed 
 territory as to their new status. There was extreme ne- 
 cessity for conciliating them lest they should form alli- 
 ances with our enemies. The inhabitants of Louisiana 
 Territory consisted very largely of people belonging to the 
 Latin races. They had been tossed about from one sov- 
 ereignty to another like a football. They had been from 
 under the sway of Spain but a short time, and Spain was 
 still ready to dispute some of the ground with France, and 
 finally with us. It would have been undiplomatic and im- 
 politic in the extreme not to use this very reasonable 
 means of conciliation. The access to the Mississippi 
 River and the freedom of navigation thereon were in- 
 volved, and in the absence of railroads this meant much to 
 the people of our country and justified any reasonable con- 
 cession. The same may be said of Florida. Moreover, 
 it was obvious to the promulgators of these purchases that 
 these people would fit themselves for Statehood, and that 
 we should, naturally, in the course of time, desire to make 
 States of that territory ; therefore, there could be no harm 
 in the provision, and the insertion of it might prevent 
 internecine war at a time when we were ill prepared to 
 incur the danger of it. 
 
48 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 In the case of Texas we admitted it as a State outright. 
 When the necessity for making a declaration committing 
 ourselves so far in advance had been removed, we omitted 
 it in the case of Alaska. In the case of the Philippines, 
 when the treaty was made with Spain, we were already the 
 possessors by conquest of the Philippine Archipelago, and 
 it would have been a work of supererogation to declare 
 to Spain what our purpose was with reference to posses- 
 sions already our own. 
 
 Furthermore, it will not, I think, in the light of all the 
 facts, be claimed even by Pessimist that the treaty itself 
 made with Spain invaded the rights of public law. 
 
 Pessimist : I am not so sure that I can concede your 
 last proposition, because it seems a simple truth to me that 
 we owed it as a duty to the Filipinos to say in the Treaty 
 of Peace, since we were acquiring the territory, that we 
 proposed eventually to admit them into the sisterhood of 
 States. 
 
 Patriot : We will get to this a little later if you put it 
 merely on the ground of duty. My inquiry now looks 
 purely to the question of legal right. Do you any longer 
 deny our legal right to the acquisition of the Philippines 
 by purchase? 
 
 Pessimist : But you yourself stated a moment ago that 
 at the time this treaty was made we owned the Philippines 
 by conquest. I would therefore like to have your answer 
 to this proposition before I answer your question. I call 
 attention to the fact that we have no right to acquire this 
 territory by conquest, and would again beg leave to cite 
 for authority Mr. Bryan. He says that Jefferson was 
 unalterably opposed to the acquisition of territory by con- 
 quest, and Mr. Bryan quotes a letter written by Jefferson 
 in 1791 to William Short, in which Jefferson says: "If 
 there be one principle more deeply written than any other 
 in the mind of every American, it is that we should have 
 nothing to do with conquest." Mr. Bryan himself then 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 49 
 
 comments upon Jefferson's text by saying, "Could he be 
 more explicit? Here we have a clear, strong denunciation 
 of the doctrine that territory should be acquired by force." 
 
 Patriot : But if Pessimist insists upon ignoring the 
 later precedent of our acquisition of California by con- 
 quest, and holds to the doctrine that we had no right to 
 acquire the Philippines in this manner, I shall compel him 
 to take hold of the other horn of the dilemma and leave 
 him and his idol to settle the difficulty. 
 
 In Mr. Bryan's book, "Republic or Empire," he reprints 
 an article from the New York Journal, written by himself 
 during the discussion of the treaty in the Senate, in which 
 he says : 
 
 "The rejection of the treaty would be unwise, because 
 the opponents of the treaty would be compelled to assume 
 responsibility for the continuance of war conditions, and 
 for the risk which always attend negotiations with a hos- 
 tile nation." 
 
 Will Pessimist admit that Mr. Bryan would recommend 
 the ratification of the treaty if the result of the treaty were 
 unlawful? 
 
 The language of the treaty was, "Spain cedes to the 
 United States the archipelago known as the Philippine 
 Islands." 
 
 MUST RETAIN SECESSION INTOLERABLE. 
 
 Pessimist : The law does seem to be on your side so far 
 as the acquisition of the territory is concerned, but since 
 we have no legal right to govern colonies we should im- 
 mediately declare our purpose to hold the territories with 
 a view to Statehood, or we should release them to the Fili- 
 pinos themselves. 
 
 Patriot : The answer to this argument in particular 
 refers to our legal right to govern the Filipinos, and prop- 
 erly comes a little later in our discussion. 
 
50 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? 
 
 A preliminary question to be disposed of is, whether we 
 have a legal right to retain the Philippines. I hold that we 
 have a legal right, and, in addition thereto, that there is a 
 legal duty incumbent upon us to hold that territory as a 
 part of the United States domain. 
 
 You have admitted, and it must be conceded by all, that 
 we are in possession of the Philippines by virtue of law, 
 This being true, all our reasoning as to legal right and 
 legal duty to retain the Philippines must be analogous to 
 the reasoning which would permit us to retain any other 
 territory of the United States. Suppose, therefore, the 
 question arose as to whether we have a right to retain the 
 Territory of New Mexico or Arizona or Alaska, would 
 not the answer be that it is ours, and that we have in law 
 a right to hold fast to that which is our own ? 
 
 While I concede that we might also, by reason of our 
 dominion of ownership dispose of the Philippines, just as 
 we might dispose of the other territory named, yet the 
 propriety, expediency and justice of disposing of any of 
 these territories should be postponed to a later topic of our 
 discussion. 
 
 It would certainly be an unusual proceeding for the 
 President of the United States to withdraw military pro- 
 tection from the territory belonging to the United States 
 when that protection is needed. This he would have no 
 right in law to do, because the Constitution imposes upon 
 him the duty of preserving order. It would also be an un- 
 usual and unjustifiable proceeding for the Congress to 
 abandon territory belonging to the United States to the 
 immediate inhabitants of that territory without an indica- 
 tion of a desire to that effect from the sovereign rulers of 
 the United States — the people themselves ; for such aban- 
 donment on the part of the legislature would be yielding 
 to secession. The mere fact that the inhabitants of the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 51 
 
 territory desire secession gives it no warrant in law. Our 
 country wrote this decision with the sword, and sealed it 
 with the blood of patriots in both military and civil serv- 
 ice. 
 
 If it be an infraction of law to keep the islands, it was 
 equally illegal to purchase them ; or, conversely, since it 
 was legally right to purchase the islands, it is legally right 
 to keep them ; for, I submit it as a proposition of primary 
 law, that purchase means the securing of all rights of con- 
 trol over the object purchased. 
 
 Pessimist: But it might be proper to purchase the 
 islands with a view to turning them over to the Filipinos 
 in the interest of humanity, and yet at the same time im- 
 proper to hold them with a view to the subjugation of the 
 Filipinos. 
 
 Patriot: I think the people will be convinced before 
 we are finished that it was in the interest of humanity and 
 in keeping with the wish of the Filipinos themselves that 
 we keep the islands. But to the legal point again : Since 
 it is right to buy the islands for a good purpose, then it is 
 right to work out that good purpose before letting them 
 go, even though the process should take a longer time than 
 was contemplated. I should even go so far as to say that 
 it is proper to keep the islands until that purpose is 
 worked out, no matter how long it takes. 
 
 Pessimist : But, as Senator White of California says : 
 ''It is not the mission or place of the American people 
 to assume responsibility for such a population, or to teach 
 otherwise than by example, and certainly not under the 
 influence of the sword, the protesting occupants of trop- 
 ical climes." 
 
 Patriot : But that is not what the Constitution says. It 
 says, "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make 
 
5^ PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory 
 or other property belonging to the United States." 
 
 This does not say where such territory shall be located, 
 but applies equally to all territory belonging to the United 
 States. You have conceded that we have the legal right 
 to acquire the Philippines. We have acquired them ; 
 therefore, under this grant of the Constitution, the re- 
 sponsibility for the Filipinos legally rests upon the Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Chief Justice YYaite, in National Bank vs. The County, 
 of Yankton, said : 
 
 "All territory within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States not included in any State must necessarily be gov- 
 erned by or under the authority of Congress. * * * 
 The organic law of a territory takes the place of a consti- 
 tution, as the fundamental law of local government. It is 
 obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities, but 
 Congress is supreme." 
 
 He goes on to say that it was not even necessary for the 
 Constitution to reserve to Congress the right of amending 
 and of vetoing acts of territorial legislatures for — 
 
 "Such a power is an incident of sovereignty, and con- 
 tinues until granted away. Congress may not only abro- 
 gate laws of the territorial legislatures, but it may itself 
 legislate directly for the local government. It may make a 
 void act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act 
 void. In other words, it has full and complete legislative 
 authority over the people of the territories and all the de- 
 partments of the territorial governments. Tt may do for 
 the territories what the people under the Constitution of 
 the United States may do for the States." 
 
 Pessimist : But notwithstanding this power to govern 
 the Filipinos in their interest, have not they, the bene- 
 ficiaries, a right to waive this benefit and say to Congress, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 53 
 
 "You need not trouble yourself about governing us ; we 
 prefer to have things entirely in our own hands?" 
 
 Patriot : I have already answered this question by 
 stating, in substance, that secession is intolerable. Lin- 
 coln claimed that the. Southern States had not the right to 
 waive the benefits vouchsafed to them under the Consti- 
 tution, and if we once concede that the moment the people 
 of any territory desire to separate themselves from the 
 United States they should all be allowed to do so, that 
 moment we have dissolved the most sacred bond which 
 unites us as a nation. 
 
 Webster said : "Liberty and union, now and forever, 
 one and inseparable;" and this doctrine has been sub- 
 scribed to for too long a time to be idly cast aside now. 
 
 Senator Daniel describes the acquisition of the Philip- 
 pines as "a marriage of nations." The Filipinos will have 
 to show some abuse as ground for divorce before that 
 sacred plight can be annulled. Again Senator Daniel 
 says : 
 
 "Once fix sovereignty there, and its roots go down to 
 the center of the earth like a fee-simple deed, and its stars 
 go upward until they mingle with those in space. It is 
 sovereignty, the most permanent act of human life, the 
 most fixed and immovable that ever nation did or could 
 do. * * * The moment this treaty passes, if they 
 ( the Filipinos) do not lay down their arms, it is the duty 
 of the American President to order it, and it is the duty of 
 the American soldier to shoot them to death, to make 
 them lay down their arms under the penalty of execution 
 in battle." 
 
 Pessimist : Is it not a sad commentary on the end of 
 this enlightened century to speak of bloodshed in this 
 way ? 
 
 L T ncle Sam : I hope Pessimist will not appeal to preju- 
 dice and passion, and especially on the points of law. 
 
54 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Patriot has made plain by his own argument, and by 
 quotations, that sovereignty having been fixed in the 
 islands, the effort on the part of some of the inhabitants to 
 resist that sovereignty amounts to a breach of faith, and to 
 an effort to secede, the same as the similar act on the part 
 of the Southern States, and as much as war is to be 
 dreaded, history, civilization and morals have already jus- 
 tified President Lincoln in commanding the Rebels of the 
 South to lay down arms, and in "shooting them to death" 
 when they refused to do so. We cannot conceive of gov- 
 ernment without law, nor of law without sanction, nor of 
 sanction without penalty, nor of penalty for such grave 
 offense without death ; and when the victim brings death 
 upon himself it is no part of a patriot to condemn the exe- 
 cutioner and to carry flowers to the treasonable victim. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Patriot : I thank Uncle Sam for coming to my rescue. 
 I felt the insult which I thought Pessimist hurled at the 
 President of the United States, but notwithstanding such 
 unseemly animadversion I dislike to bring it to the atten- 
 tion of this audience. I prefer to discuss the question dis- 
 passionately and candidly. 
 
 Senator Money of Mississippi, speaking of the Fili- 
 pinos, says : 
 
 "They will be citizens, however, in the sense that they 
 are under the aegis of the Constitution, and I defy Con- 
 gress or the executive to do one single act that would im- 
 pair the rights of the citizens of Alaska, or of the Indian 
 Territory, or of the territory we propose to take now by 
 purchase or by subjugation." 
 
 The right of citizenship carries with it the responsibil- 
 ity of citizenship, and that responsibility involves punish- 
 ment, maybe even to death, for violating the supreme law 
 of the land, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 55 
 
 Th; theory indulged in by our adversaries that we 
 ought not to govern so remote a nation peopled by such 
 races as those making the Filipinos has nothing to do with 
 our legal right or duty to keep the islands. 
 
 The same argument was made against extending suf- 
 frage to the negro. At that time we did not know what 
 would be the effect ; we did not inquire ; we believed that 
 the genius of American government would be equal to 
 the emergency when the time should come to meet it. 
 
 We have the Philippines the same as we have New 
 Mexico. How would we go about it to give up New Mex- 
 ico ? Suppose she should demand freedom and independ- 
 ence ? Ought we to retire our sovereignty from that ter- 
 ritory ? 
 
 Pessimist : But we have had New Mexico a long time. 
 
 Patriot : All the greater reason why we should declare 
 independence for her if she asked it — if she served a long 
 probationary period. The same is true of Alaska. Is 
 anybody finding fault because Alaska is not declared free ? 
 All the Southern States wanted was independence, and 
 they proposed to set up a republic. Why force them, our 
 neighbors, to stay in the United States if we ought to per- 
 mit dictation to this Government by the inhabitants of the, 
 far-away Philippines, to whom we owe no such neighborly 
 consideration? 
 
 Pessimist : But, as Senator Bacon of Georgia says : 
 
 "Wherever a people are required to render an obedience 
 which is involuntary, that requirement is an enslavement 
 of that people. * * * If * * * Ave allow them 
 free institutions and at the same time prescribe to them 
 that they shall owe allegiance to a government against 
 their will, it is none the less an enslavement, although less 
 in degree." 
 
5() PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Patriot : This is rather too nice a theory for practical 
 politics, to say nothing of legal rights. In its last analysis 
 of control, one extreme is slavery, and the other is anarchy 
 — i. e., absolute control is slavery ; no control at all is 
 anarchy. The United States, guided by just, as well as 
 practical, precepts, has hit upon the golden mean of gov- 
 erning, neither by absolute force nor, on the other hand, 
 by withholding force altogether. What Senator Bacon has 
 said would apply equally to the territories of New Mexico, 
 Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii, and even to the Southern 
 States. If, in other words, our control over the Filipinos 
 is that of the master over the slave, then the territories to 
 which I have referred, and the Southern States them- 
 selves, are in bondage, because of them we require an 
 obedience which is, or was, involuntary. This may not be 
 strictly true of all the territories, and may not be strictly 
 true to-day of the Southern States ; but that they resisted 
 and resented our control at the time is too well known in 
 history to necessitate repetition. We forced them to ac- 
 cept our sovereignty; they rejoice in that fact to-day — at 
 least for the most part — and I believe at no distant date, 
 all of the Filipinos, as do most of them now, will rejoice in 
 our sovereignty over them. 
 
 Senator Turner of Washington, though believing that 
 we should give up the Philippines, admits that we are also 
 "at entire liberty to keep such foreign territory as we have 
 conquered if we want to, and such of it as is suitable for 
 our purposes by reason of its situation, its soil, its climate 
 and its people, and their favoring disposition, we may 
 want to keep.*' 
 
 Pessimist: But Senator Turner predicates his admis- 
 sion of our liberty to keep them upon their "favoring dis- 
 position.'' What do you say about our taking the Fili- 
 pinos against their will ? 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 5? 
 
 Patiiot: This question merges into the question of 
 fact, and the evidence is conflicting. In such emergency 
 we are bound to weigh the testimony and ourselves judge 
 of the credibility of the respective witnesses. While it is 
 true that a number of scattering letters have come to citi- 
 zens of the United States from soldiers to the effect that 
 the Filipinos do not desire annexation to the United 
 States, it is also true that such letters have come to the 
 opposite effect. This testimony, as nearly as it may be 
 judged, may be regarded as offset, one side by the other. 
 And it was because of this conflicting testimony that the 
 President of the United States, under authority of Con- 
 gress, sent a commission to the Philippines to inquire into 
 the facts, and not to give an opinion from this or that iso- 
 lated spot, but to formulate their report from a consensus 
 of opinion throughout the archipelago. This was done, 
 and they are agreed that Aguinaldo and his supporters 
 comprise but a small contingency of the Filipinos working 
 for personal and selfish ends ; and that the great mass of 
 ihe Philippine population welcome the benign intervention 
 of the United States, and are anxious to see peace 
 restored. This commission was made up of Admiral 
 Dewey, J. G. Schurman, Charles Denby and Dean C. 
 Worcester — all men whose individual opinions, upon care- 
 ful investigation, could not be questioned ; and when we 
 add to this that they were acting under the grave responsi- 
 bility of official positions, owing a duty both to the Fili- 
 pinos and to the United States, and to the majesty of law 
 and justice, can any court or any jury hesitate as to whose 
 opinion should be received, theirs, or that of irresponsible 
 individuals, writing from narrow fields of observation ? 
 
 Senator Teller says: "These possessions are ours by 
 conquest, by purchase, by right ; we could not give them 
 up if we would." Mind you, Senator Teller differs from 
 
58 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 the Administration as to the policy which should be pur- 
 sued, and I shall address myself to his -views upon that 
 subject later. But on the question of our keeping the ter- 
 ritory he says : 
 
 "We have put up our flag. There it is going to stay ; it 
 is going to stay there for their protection and our glory, 
 for there can be no greater glory coming to any nation 
 in the world than that they should take eight or ten million 
 men bound down by the power of a wicked government 
 and lift them up and put them on the plane of citizenship 
 in a great republic, and say to them, 'So far as is con- 
 sistent with safety to us, you shall be a part and parcel of 
 this great people.' " 
 
 Pessimist: All this is very well, provided we intend 
 to make States of them. While you have convinced me, I 
 confess, that we had a right to purchase the territory, 
 whether Statehood was intended or not, I do not believe 
 we have any right to keep the territory except with a view 
 to Statehood, and I would call your attention to a state- 
 ment made by Mr. Carlisle on this point : 
 
 "No one has ever heretofore supposed that any territory 
 or community could be rightfully governed by the central 
 authority except for such period as might be necessary to 
 prepare it for admission into the Union upon a footing of 
 perfect equality with each of the other States." 
 
 Patriot : With the permission of Pessimist, I will post- 
 • pone the answer to this point until we come to the topic 
 under which it would properly fall, namely, our right to 
 govern the Philippines, and I promise that I shall take it 
 up then. Let us first establish the fact, if we can, or you 
 deny it successfully if you can, that the United States has 
 a right in law and a duty in law to keep the territory. It 
 lias been admitted that we had the right to purchase ; have 
 we the right to keep? I believe we have shown already 
 that such right exists in law, but the strongest argument 
 is yet to be made. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 59 
 
 In the Treaty of Paris, by which peace was restored be- 
 tween the United States and Spain, we entered into a 
 solemn covenant (and remember that treaties form a part 
 of the supreme law of the land) that we would, "for the 
 term of ten years * * * admit Spanish ships and 
 merchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands on the 
 same terms as ships and merchandise of the United 
 States." And we have, as Senator Turner said, "made 
 divers and sundry stipulations, having no limitation of 
 time, for the security of property and individual rights in 
 all territories ceded or relinquished by Spain, including 
 ecclesiastical property, which necessarily pre-supposes 
 continued sovereignty." We therefore have not only a 
 legal right and a duty, but we are, by the highest law 
 known to our nation, or to any nation, charged with the 
 absolute responsibility of maintaining our sovereignty 
 over these islands in order that we may have the right and 
 the power to keep our pledges made in this treaty. 
 
 Pessimist : Well, I will give up that we have the legal 
 right to keep the territory under some conditions. This 
 only shows what a ridiculous position we have put our- 
 selves in. Here we are the possessors of territory which 
 we have no right to govern. 
 
 As Patriot is leading this part of the discussion I will 
 give way to him to show, if he can, any legal rights we 
 may have to govern the territory which we find ourselves 
 the possessors of. 
 
 GOVERNMENT AND STATUS. 
 
 Patriot : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : It 
 seems to me that little time need be consumed in discuss- 
 ing the question of our legal right to govern territory 
 which we possess. A joint resolution offered in the Sen- 
 ate, Jan. 9th, by Senator Beveridge of Indiana reads : 
 
GO PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 "Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives of the United States of America in Congress As- 
 sembled : That the Philippine Islands are territory be- 
 longing to the United States, that it is the intention of the 
 United States to retain them as such and establish and 
 maintain such governmental control throughout the archi- 
 pelago as the situation may demand." 
 
 This resolution declares that the territory is ours. We 
 have proved here, even to the satisfaction of Pessimist, 
 that we are the owners of the territory. Primary reason- 
 ing leads to the inevitable conclusion that if the United 
 States, which owns the territory, cannot control it, then 
 there is no sovereign power on earth that can, and accord- 
 ing to axiomatic truth, recognized as fundamental inter- 
 national law that no territory can for a moment be without 
 a sovereign power, we reach the necessary conclusion that 
 the United States has rightful authority to govern the 
 Philippines. 
 
 Senator Money of Mississippi, before the treaty was 
 ratified, said: "When we acquire territory by whatever 
 manner, ipso facto over that acquisition exists the Consti- 
 tution." 
 
 Even in the absence of specific provisions for the gov- 
 ernment of our territory we would be authorized, and in 
 fact bound by duty to take control by the implied authority 
 which authorizes its ownership, because ownership means 
 dominion over, and anything short of dominion over lacks 
 so much of being ownership. 
 
 Alexander Hamilton, in his opinion as to the constitu- 
 tionality of the Bank of the United States in 1791, said : 
 
 "It is not denied that there are implied, as well as ex- 
 press, powers, and that the former are as effectually dele- 
 gated as the latter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall 
 be mentioned that there is another class of powers which 
 mav be properly denominated as resulting pozvers. It \yiil 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 61 
 
 not l)c doubted that if the United States should make a 
 conquest of any of the territories of its neighbors they 
 would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered 
 territory. This would be rather a result from the whole 
 mass of powers of the Government and from the nature of 
 political society than a consequence of either of the powers 
 especially enumerated." 
 
 I have already referred to the constitutional grant of 
 power to the Congress of the United States to dispose of 
 and to control territory. Laws have been enacted upon 
 this authority providing for legislatures to enact territorial 
 legislation ; territorial courts and other necessary officials ; 
 and if that power exists with reference to one territory it 
 exists with reference to all. 
 
 WITH VIEW TO STATEHOOD. 
 
 Pessimist: That is just what I deny. We have the 
 right to govern the territories we already possess, but the 
 case is different with them, because they look forward to 
 Statehood, while the Filipinos are asked to submit to our 
 rule without the hope of ever becoming equal, because no 
 promise is given that their country shall ever be admitted 
 as a State or States. 
 
 Patriot: Very well, so much has been accomplished 
 then if you admit that we have a right to govern the ter- 
 ritory as we have throughout our history been governing 
 it. This being true, you do not deny our right to govern 
 the Filipinos themselves, provided we do not refuse them 
 Statehood. 
 
 Pessimist: That is right, I will admit that we have 
 legal sanction for our rule in the Philippine Islands if we 
 only promise them Statehood. 
 
 Patriot : You evade my question. My point is that we 
 have a right to govern them if we do not refuse Statehood. 
 You put it "we have a right to govern them if we promise 
 
62 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Statehood." I think it admits of full proof that the 
 United States is neither called upon by law nor justice to 
 promise Statehood in advance of their fitness. They are 
 not ready for it yet. This will be admitted by all. That 
 question can be settled when the time comes ; meantime, 
 we have a right to govern them because they are our ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 Pessimist : That is just where I find fault with the Ad- 
 ministration. President McKinley, in his eagerness to 
 make capital for a second term, tries to win favor by cater- 
 ing to the passing fancy of the masses. He is always 
 keeping his ear to the ground to find out what the rabble 
 have to say. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Pardon me, I tried to forestall the neces- 
 sity of public rebuke, but the language you have just in- 
 dulged in would not even be argument under a question of 
 fact or humanity unless you have facts to prove it. It 
 certainly has no place in this legal discussion. Moreover, 
 you lay yourself open to the charge of inconsistency in 
 making the statement that the President is catering to the 
 mass of people, for when you came to see me in my re- 
 treat you told me that the great majority of the people 
 believed as you do, and were against the President. If 
 that statement were true, then the statement you just made 
 cannot be true. Furthermore, if the President's only mo- 
 tive was to curry favor, and if the promise of Statehood 
 to the Filipinos were a ready means of obtaining that 
 favor, and if the President were not honest in his purpose, 
 it would be perfectly easy for him to promise Statehood, 
 and keep the Filipinos expecting it whether it was in- 
 tended or not, because the promise of it carries with it no 
 obligation in law, for the reason that the question is left 
 to the unprejudiced discretion of Congress, as to whether 
 a given territory may be admitted as a State when it ap- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 63 
 
 plies. Thus you see the Filipinos could be kept knocking 
 at the door for admission year in and year out, century in 
 and century out, and invariably and continually refused 
 that admission by Congress, no matter what the President 
 might have promised. 
 
 Pessimist : I shall try, sir, to restrain myself in the use 
 of language so as not to annoy you by characterizations 
 which you regard as improper, but Mr. Carlisle says : 
 
 "The Philippine Islands, with a population of eight or 
 ten millions, must, unless we are to violate the organic 
 law of the land, and hold and govern them perpetually as 
 conquered provinces, be erected within a reasonable time 
 into several States, each with two Senators, and alto- 
 gether having thirty or forty representatives." 
 
 According to this reasoning and this opinion, we have 
 no right to hold the territory unless we expect to make 
 States of it. Besides this, you yourself quoted Chief Jus- 
 tice Taney in the Dred Scott case as an authority for the 
 acquisition of territory, but I recall that his opinion states 
 that we could acquire "territory not fit for admission at 
 the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population and 
 situation would entitle it." You will note that he clearly 
 says, while admitting, as I admit, that we can acquire the 
 territory while it is unfit for admission, as in the case of 
 the Philippines, that we can only acquire it with view to 
 admission, that is, "To be admitted as soon as its popula- 
 tion and situation would entitle it to admission." 
 
 Patriot: If the Chairman please, it seems to me that 
 the argument quoted from Mr. Carlisle in itself gives us 
 authority for holding the islands without now promising 
 Statehood. He implies that we should erect the territories 
 into States within a reasonable time. I submit that even 
 under this authority it is still an open question whether we 
 should ever admit them as States or not. 
 
 The citing, too, of the decision of Chief Justice Taney 
 goes to the same purpose. In fact, his opinion, which is 
 law, makes it unnecessary for us to promise Statehood. 
 
64 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 It raises the presumption that it is already promised, be- 
 cause that is the law. The only question is for them to 
 demonstrate their fitness, and then get consent of Con- 
 gress to come in as States ; and I submit that this is not 
 the proper time to discuss their title to admission. Sup- 
 pose we grant that we must admit them in "reasonable 
 time" when they shall become "fit," is reasonable time a 
 matter of years? If so, how many years should a terri- 
 tory wait before admission? Fifty-two years, as in the 
 case of New Mexico, or thirty-five years, as in the case of 
 Alaska? And these are still out of the sisterhood of 
 States. How long must they wait, and who shall say? 
 Even if it were a matter of -years, does not the patience 
 shown by the inhabitants of New Mexico, Arizona and 
 Alaska give the zeal of the Filipinos rather the appearance 
 of undue haste ? No, I submit "reasonable time" is not a 
 matter of years. It is, as implied by Chief Justice Taney, 
 a matter of "fitness." And how can we determine now the 
 question of the fitness of the Filipinos for admission ten, 
 twenty or fifty years hence? We have not denied them 
 admission when they shall have become fit, therefore we 
 have a right to govern them. That it is premature to dis- 
 cuss their future fitness now is shown by the fact that both 
 those in favor of our sovereignty and those opposed to it 
 are divided among themselves as to the self-governing 
 power and the status in civilization of the Philippine peo- 
 ple. 
 
 Pessimist : Cut we insist that this question should be 
 settled now. We might as well know what our future 
 policy is to be at this time, and give the poor Filipinos the 
 benefit of State expectancy; such a hope will be an in- 
 spiration to them. 
 
 Patriot: Three replies might be made to the last sug- 
 gestion of Pessimist. First, the Filipinos know, because 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 65 
 
 they have been assured by American orators and writers, 
 who are working in their behalf, that the United States 
 holds territory only with a view to Statehood ; second, that 
 the rights of the Filipinos to a specific declaration in their 
 particular case, comes more properly under the topic of 
 humanity; and, third, if we stop and settle every conceiv- 
 able question which is not, for the moment, a practical one, 
 our legislatures would soon be given up to mere academic 
 discussion at the expense or exclusion of the great prac- 
 tical problems pressing for solution. 
 
 Representatives charged with the duty of solving prac- 
 tical problems have before now made the mistake of frit- 
 tering away their time on theoretical discussion. 
 
 We might fool away a great deal of time on this ques- 
 tion and in the end find that the Filipinos never would 
 became fit for Statehood! When they get ready for ad- 
 mission, then let them say so ; then it will become a prac- 
 tical problem, subject to the deliberations always indulged 
 in by the United States legislature in the case of practical 
 problems. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I cannot refrain from expressing my ap- 
 proval of Patriot's remarks on the question of practicabil- . 
 ity. I know that there are those who claim to have such 
 pure purpose that they despise the word practical as ap- 
 plied to political matters. They think of it as implying 
 boss rule and political tricks. W T hile it is true that a man 
 who will resort to unjustifiable means to attain a political 
 end is called a practical politician, yet it is a sign of weak- 
 ness for the pure-minded politician to allow such tricksters 
 to appropriate to themselves the word practical, because in 
 a higher sense the distinction between practical and the- 
 oretical becomes important. 
 
 Criticism and reform to be effectual must be timely, and 
 it is no positive proof that a man is bad or evilly disposed 
 
66 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 because he remains silent while evil is going on around 
 him. This depends on the circumstances. If he runs 
 amuck, striking at this and that and every evil whenever 
 they appear in sight, he makes himself ridiculous in the 
 eyes of the community, loses his influence for good, and 
 thus accomplishes absolutely nothing. He is set down, 
 and justly so, as an eccentric, or in street parlance, as a 
 crank. But the practical man, equally exalted in purpose, 
 watches for the current of public opinion and spends his 
 time in the missionary work of helping to reform that 
 which the people themselves are ready to reform. He 
 makes himself a power. The one attempts with his indi- 
 vidual might to move every mountain which he may come 
 to in his travels, the other co-operates with his fellow man 
 in providing the necessary facilities to tunnel through the 
 mountain. The one is unscientific, untimely and therefore 
 ineffectual reform ; the other is intelligent, broad-minded 
 and timely, and therefore, effectual, reform. I commend 
 the study of the practical means toward desirable ends, 
 and in order that there may be time for practical ques- 
 tions I desire that our legislature and the people them- 
 selves shall first pay attention to the questions which can 
 be settled now, leaving for the future questions the discus- 
 sion of which would for the present be premature. 
 
 Patriot : Senator Bacon of Georgia expresses the be- 
 lief that "It is not possible to safely incorporate as a State 
 any community lying on the opposite side of the globe," 
 and yet he is friendly to the Filipinos, so much so that he 
 introduced a resolution in the Senate looking to their inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 Now, if he is right in this theory, and since it is true 
 that we must keep the islands, as conceded a while ago by 
 Pessimist, then we are forced to the necessity of govern- 
 ing 1 them whether we ever admit them as States or not. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? &1 
 
 But let us hope that Mr, Bacon may be incorrect in his 
 views, and that they may eventually deserve admission. 
 Senator Foraker says : 
 
 "I do not understand anybody to be proposing to take 
 the Philippine Islands with the idea and view to per- 
 manently holding them and denying to the people there 
 the right to have a government of their own, if they are 
 capable of it and want to establish it. I do not under- 
 stand that anybody wants to do that. I have not heard 
 of anybody who wants to do that. The President of 
 the United States does not, I know, and no Senator in 
 this chamber has made any such statement." 
 
 I shall conclude this topic by saying that the fact that 
 all its possibility lies before the Filipinos in precisely the 
 same way that it lies before the inhabitants of our other 
 Territories, and if they deserve admission as States, it is 
 their privilege, as it is the privilege of the other Territories 
 to ask for it, to demand it; and it is the province of Con- 
 gress in the case of the petition of the Filipinos, precisely 
 as in the case of the petition of other Territories, to grant 
 admission or to deny it, according to the discretion of 
 that Congress. 
 
 Pessimist: But will you not grant, for the sake of 
 argument, that we have no right to govern the Philip- 
 pines as a territory? 
 
 PERMANENT TERRITORY. 
 
 Patriot: No, on the contrary, I assert that we have a 
 right to control this territory permanently as territory, 
 and I derive that conclusion from the facts already 
 stated. First, that there has been no declaration of 
 purpose not to admit them as States ; they therefore have 
 the right of petition, and Congress may admit them if 
 it sees fit. Second, that while Congress may deny them 
 
GS PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 admission, it may also, in the same manner, deny the 
 admission of Territories which we have for years been 
 governing. We must not get away from the Constitu- 
 tional fact that "Congress shall have power to dispose of 
 and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 territory or other property belonging to the United 
 States ;" and that "new States may be admitted by the 
 Congress into this Union." 
 
 At the time of the adoption of the Constitution the 
 United States owned territory. If the framers had 
 meant to make the admission of territory into the Union 
 compulsory it would have read, "States must be ad- 
 mitted into the Union," or at least some suitable lan- 
 guage would have been employed. The language which 
 was employed merely clothes the legislature with power 
 to admit without imposing any duty. 
 
 Senator Teller says: 
 
 "We may give them just such a government as we 
 think they deserve. We may give them a government 
 in which they are allowed to participate, or we may deny- 
 to them any participation in the affairs of the government 
 in which they live." 
 
 Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of the Exchange, 
 said: 
 
 "The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory 
 is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible 
 to no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction 
 upon it deriving validity from an external force would 
 imply diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of its 
 restriction." 
 
 Justice Field, speaking of territorial control, said (130 
 U. S., 603): "Jurisdiction over its own territory to that 
 extent is an incident of every independent nation; it is a 
 part of its independence." 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? G9 
 
 Justice Matthews, in Murphy vs. Ramsey (114 U. S. 
 Reports), says: "The people of the United States, as 
 sovereign owners of the national territories, have su- 
 preme power over them and their inhabitants." 
 
 And, as Justice Bradley, in the case of Mormon 
 Church vs. U. S. (135 U. $., 42), speaking of the power 
 to acquire territory, says: 
 
 "The incidents of these powers are those of national 
 sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments. 
 The Territory of Louisiana when acquired from France, 
 and the Territories west of the Rocky Mountains when 
 acquired of Mexico, became the absolute property and 
 domain of the United States, subject to such conditions 
 as the government, in its diplomatic negotiations, had 
 seen fit to accept relating to the rights 6f the people then 
 inhabiting those Territories. Having acquired said Ter- 
 ritories, the United States government was the only one 
 which could impose laws upon them, and its sovereignty 
 over them was complete." 
 
 If we apply the same decisions to the Filipinos, and 
 if they fail to meet these requirements, the result will 
 naturally be to keep them perpetually in our control as 
 territory. This is unquestionably lawful, provided we 
 apply the decisions, and to say that they shall fix their 
 own conditions is to abandon sovereisrntv to them to 
 that extent. 
 
 The test is one of population and intelligence, both 
 practical questions. If it is claimed that it is wrong to 
 keep them out when they have sufficient population, re- 
 gardless of their intelligence, then we are abandoning one 
 of the tests, and the better one. If it is wrong to keep 
 people out because of their small population when they 
 meet the requirements of intelligence, then we are 
 abandoning one of the tests, and though not the better, 
 still an essential one 
 
70 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 By submitting to the absence of either test, the United 
 States would be acknowledging an egregious wrong to- 
 ward Xew Mexico or Arizona, which have been out of 
 the Union so long, and if put purely upon sentimental 
 grounds, they would have a right to complain; but from 
 the standpoint of practical, high-minded statesmanship, 
 we conclude that the nation, and even the people, of 
 these Territories are better off by being compelled to 
 serve an apprenticeship and live under the probation 
 requisite to Statehood according to our present custom. 
 
 Pessimist: But Rev. Van Dyke, in his Thanksgiving 
 sermon, which I believe Uncle Sam has read, cites Su- 
 preme Court authority, which seems to me conclusive 
 against you. The case cited is the Dred Scott decision, 
 in which the Court says: 
 
 "There is certainly no power given by the Constitution 
 to the Federal Government to establish or maintain col- 
 onies bordering on the United States, or at a distance, 
 to be ruled and governed at their own pleasure. * * * 
 No power is given to acquire a territory to be held and 
 governed permanently in that character." 
 
 I hope that I shall not be accused of resorting to loose 
 statements. In this criticism I have read to you the 
 opinion of the Court itself. 
 
 Patriot: The law laid down by the Court is sound, 
 but the application of it is misconceived. As before 
 stated, there is no evidence to show that the United 
 States has acquired territory to be "governed perma- 
 nently in that character," that is, in the character of 
 colonies. It is not even shown that it is the intention 
 of the United States to hold the Philippines permanently 
 as a United States Territory. We contend merely that 
 unless we refuse Statehood when application shall have 
 been made for it, after proper preparation and fitness. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 71 
 
 we are strictly within the letter and the spirit of the Con- 
 stitution in controlling that Territory as such. 
 
 Pessimist: A friend of mine here has just handed me 
 an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall in the case 
 of Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheaton). He says: 
 "Territories are in a state of infancy advancing to man- 
 hood, looking forward to complete equality as soon as 
 that state of manhood shall be attained." 
 
 Does this not show that the Territory is held with a 
 purpose of Statehood? 
 
 Patriot: This opinion, like that of Chief Justice Taney 
 and other honorable judges, contemplates the growth of 
 the Territory into manhood, that is, into fitness, before 
 there shall be admission. But our ancestors knew, and 
 we know, that there is a possibility that some of our 
 Territories will never be fit for admission. Monroe said: 
 
 "The condition of the aborigines within our limits 
 and especially those who are within the limits of any of 
 the States, merits likewise particular attention. Experi- 
 ence has shown that unless the tribes be civilized they 
 can never be incorporated into our system in any form 
 whatever. * * * Their civilization is indispensable 
 to their safety, and this can be accomplished only by de- 
 grees." 
 
 Again I repeat, we do not deny, nor has the govern- 
 ment in any word or suggestion, denied the right of 
 the Philippine Islands to admission as States if that fit- 
 ness shall be demonstrated, and if Congress shall be will- 
 ing to admit them. And if they cannot be made fit under 
 our government, our faith in the genius of our govern- 
 ment is such as to justify the belief that the Filipinos 
 cannot reach that degree of fitness any other way — 
 i. e., we can lift them higher than they can lift them- 
 selves. If this is not true, then it is our duty to declare 
 
n PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 all our present Territories free and independent, so that 
 they may, by self-government, without our interference, 
 reach a higher degree of civilization. 
 
 Pessimist: Your argument seems to me to leave very 
 little hope for the Filipinos. Senator Turner shows 
 that we could not give them the kind of government ex- 
 tended to States — i. e., in his opinion they will never be 
 fit, and if this is true, your theory is that they never will 
 be admitted. 
 
 Senator Turner, in speaking of the privileges which 
 it would be impossible to extend to them, says: 
 
 ''They would make it doubly impossible in case of the 
 wily, subtle, restless Oriental, unused to such liberty, 
 devoid of reverence for law and authority, incapable of 
 acquiring it, and driven on by quick and resentful nature 
 to excesses which would be impossible to the Anglo- 
 Saxon or to any of the European races." 
 
 What is the use of talking about giving them State- 
 hood when they become fit for it, when we know in 
 advance that they never will be fit for it? 
 
 Patriot: This is precisely the question we attempted 
 to dispose of awhile ago, when Uncle Sam had to step 
 in and remind you that it was untimely. Neither Sen- 
 ator Turner, nor anybody else, can tell now whether they 
 will eventually be fit for Statehood; and even if they 
 could say so, then you would force the United States 
 into a most anomalous position, because you say you 
 admit that we took the territory by right, and that we 
 have a right to govern them with Stale expectancy, and 
 now you say that State expectancy is impossible even if 
 we promised it, because they can never qualify. Let us 
 quit this gloomy view, and rather hope that under the 
 inspiring guidance of the United States they may be led 
 to a higher life, in which case they would be legally 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ U 
 
 entitled, with the sanction of Congress, to admission as 
 States. 
 
 Some years ago it was generally believed that the 
 moral condition of Utah Territory would never be such 
 as to entitle it to admission, but the desire of the inhab- 
 itants for admission, and the knowledge of the high 
 standard of qualification required, put it on its good be- 
 havior and inspired it to higher aims so that it might 
 be pronounced worthy of admission. The transforma- 
 tion, while not instantaneous, and, indeed, not yet com- 
 plete, was nevertheless almost magic, and is yet going 
 on toward the proper ideal. Much the same might be 
 said of other States, and there are many of us who be- 
 lieve that the Filipinos will catch the spirit of American 
 pride, and will soon begin to point out to one another the 
 advantages to be derived from such conduct as will bring 
 them properly within the sisterhood of States. 
 
 Pessimist: But though I shall not insist upon an an- 
 swer, I should like to know what you think would be our 
 predicament if we find that they cannot qualify. Have 
 we any right to settle down to a permanent occupancy 
 of that territory after we come to a point where we may 
 fairly know that it cannot be brought into the Union as 
 States? 
 
 Patriot: If Uncle Sam will indulge Pessimist in tak- 
 ing just a moment of our time for this purely theoretical 
 question, which has no relevancy to the argument, I am 
 willing to gratify him with an answer to his question. 
 
 Uncle Sam: If you can answer it briefly, proceed. 
 
 Patriot: I can answer it in three words — Amend the 
 Constitution. But I might elaborate very briefly on 
 these three words. If so great a need should appear as 
 that which is troubling the mind of Pessimist, we would 
 surely be justified in meeting that need in the logical, 
 
74 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 natural way in which we always meet needs which trans- 
 cend the bounds of the Constitution. 
 
 Pessimist: That is just what we are complaining 
 about — the disposition on the part of the Administration 
 to ignore the Constitution. 
 
 Patriot: You admit that it has not so far ignored the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Pessimist: Yes, but it seems in a fair way to do it. 
 
 Patriot: No, so far it has seen no need of it, and if 
 there should appear need, I think you will admit there 
 is no harm in resorting to the power to amend — at least 
 the statesman whom you seem to have adopted as your 
 idol, Mr. Bryan, has suggested an amendment to the 
 Constitution to control the Trust Question, and I do not 
 speak of this disparagingly, either, because I regard the 
 power to amend the Constitution as one of the most im- 
 portant powers connected with it ; but for that power we 
 could not have had our first eight amendments which 
 form our bill of rights; we could not have had the thir- 
 teenth amendment, which abolishes slavery; we could 
 not have had the fourteenth amendment, which protects 
 the negro in his equal rights and throws a cloak of pro- 
 tection w r ith greater security than before about the pri- 
 vate property of individuals. 
 
 I do not, therefore, find fault with Mr. Bryan for 
 suggesting an amendment to the Constitution, but merely 
 quote him as an authority from your own school to show 
 that it would be proper if necessary in so great a prob- 
 lem as that of controlling the Filipinos. We have the 
 Philippine territory by right of law; we must control it 
 some way. We are therefore justified in finding the way, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 73 
 
 or in making the way. Madison said in the "Federal- 
 ist: 
 
 "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in 
 reason than that wherever the end is required, the means 
 are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing' 
 is given, every particular power necessary for doing it 
 is included." 
 
 I say, therefore, that since we have the territory by 
 right, since the Constitution gives Congress the right to 
 control territory in a general way, that whatever means 
 are necessary to accomplish the end of control, are not 
 only warranted by the necessity of control, but are im- 
 posed as a sacred obligation. 
 
 The great practical common sense of the people of the 
 United States has more than once proved the truth of 
 this proposition. Why, if worst comes to worst, we could 
 on precedent, too, colonize the Filipinos and put the last 
 one of them on the Island of Bohol and keep them there. 
 The fathers so treated the Indians. Both law and civili- 
 zation justify it. So we could treat the Filipinos if they 
 are so savage and unreasoning as to resist the benign 
 teachings of republican government, or if they put upon 
 us such a tax of care and expense as to burden our 
 army and navy and our civil budget. I simply assert 
 that, having the right to control them, we are justified 
 in using whatever means are necessary to that end. 
 
 Pessimist: Well, as I said to start out with, 
 I have not investigated the question of law very 
 carefully. I prefer to rest the case on the 
 question of Fact and the question of Humanity. 
 Go on and say what you have to say about the 
 next topic, International Law, and let us get through 
 with this part of the discussion, so that we can take up 
 the more important matters, 
 
76 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 i international law. 
 
 Patriot: Perhaps it would please Pessimist if I should 
 take as my text for the few remarks on International Law 
 rights and obligations a statement made by Mr. Bryan : 
 ''Existence cannot be separated from responsibility, and 
 responsibility sometimes leads a nation, as well as an 
 individual, into danger." 
 
 I have already spoken incidentally of the obligation 
 we owe to Spain, by reason of our covenants in the 
 Treaty of Paris. This is one of the responsibilities which 
 cannot be separated from existence. We were bound 
 to make these covenants in order to close the war, to 
 satisfy the contending parties, and to place ourselves 
 above criticism in the eyes of the worid. 
 
 The other nations of the world are interested also be- 
 cause the influence of American civilization, having once 
 been planted in the Orient, they are entitled to the bene- 
 fits thereof, and we could not recede from that advance 
 ground without lowering our standard as a nation among 
 nations. 
 
 Pessimist: You speak of our duty toward Spain and 
 the other governments of the world. My interest is in the 
 Filipinos themselves. You have convinced me of the 
 right of the United States in American Law to purchase 
 the Philippine Islands, but when we venture into the 
 realm of International Law you should meet the Filipinos 
 on common ground. 
 
 International Law, as I understand, has to do with 
 the relation of one nation to all the others, and presumes 
 equality in this state citizenship — i. e., each state or nation 
 is a citizen of the world of nations, and all stand on an 
 equality. I therefore challenge you to show the right of 
 the United States to purchase and rule over the Philippine 
 Islands by sanction of International Law unless the con- 
 sent of the Filipinos is obtained, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? Ti 
 
 Patriot: Why, my dear sir, the doctrine you lay down 
 is not international law — it is international anarchy. To 
 illustrate it, let us take the case of individuals. You have 
 rightly said that international law has to do with the rela- 
 tion between states or nations forming the world of 
 nations, just as private national law has to do with the 
 relations between individuals making up the nation. Then 
 you say that unless the consent of the Filipinos is ob- 
 tained nothing can be done in the name of international 
 law which relates to their interest. 
 
 Let us carry out your comparison a little further. By 
 the same token, nothing can be done in a nation in the 
 name of law touching the interest of an individual without 
 his consent. This would make law impossible, and 
 would, I repeat, produce anarchy. The one is not liberty 
 among individuals, nor the other among nations. It is in 
 each case unrestrained license. 
 
 Aside from this, you have fallen into the error which 
 influences our adversaries throughout of presuming that 
 the Filipinos did not consent to our acquisition of their 
 territory. A little later in the discussion evidence will 
 be adduced to show that they did consent, but so far as 
 international law is concerned, their consent was not 
 necessary. 
 
 While no vote is taken in questions of international 
 law, we do arrive at a consensus of opinion of the 
 members of the world of nations, and it must be plain to 
 all that the world is content with the move we have made. 
 There has been no objection, no protest, no criticism. 
 If we had violated any principle of international law the 
 protest and criticism would have been forthcoming. 
 
 If in the onward march of civilization the acquisition 
 of territory was necessary and admissible, the fact that 
 the people incidentally come into the government of the 
 
n PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 United States shoulo form no ground either for our 
 grudging the liberty it affords them, nor for shirking 
 the responsibility it places upon us. Every individual 
 living in any Territory, whether there by choice or acci- 
 dent of birth or other circumstance, is subject to the fate 
 of that Territory, whether good or bad. 
 
 Some questions of international law are mooted ques- 
 tions, and, as we shall show a little later on, the deter- 
 mination of them is worthy the attention of the highest 
 civilization; but the proposition laid down as to the fate 
 of inhabitants of territory is undisputed. No international 
 lawyer will claim to the contrary. The quoting of one is 
 the quoting of all on this principle of law. 
 
 William Edward Hall, in his text-book on Interna- 
 tional Law, says: "The principle that the wishes of a 
 population are to be consulted when the territory which 
 they inhabit is ceded, has not been adopted in interna- 
 tional law, and cannot be adopted into it until title by 
 conquest has disappeared." 
 
 So much for the right of jurisdiction over the Filipinos. 
 
 Law is always the result of compromise. There is no 
 such thing in practice as pure and unrestrained liberty of 
 action. The moment a man or a nation is permitted to 
 act out his own will, that moment the selfish purpose 
 leads that man or nation to cross the path of some other 
 man or nation, and rather than persist each in his course 
 of licensed destruction of the other's interests, they come 
 together and compromise their differences, agreeing what 
 shall be the rights and the limitations of each with refer- 
 ence to the other; and this is law. 
 
 Some of the passions or appetites of the individual may 
 tempt him to violate the law, but if there is a preponder- 
 ance of reason and judgment and honor, he keeps down 
 those passions, disappoints them, punishes them, exe- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 79 
 
 elites them, if necessary, that he may serve the purpose of 
 law and order. So with the State. When the right has 
 been given to the sovereign State to rule, any act not 
 conformable to that sovereign authority is without avail; 
 therefore, since we properly have jurisdiction over the 
 Filipinos, even though they did resent it, international 
 law recognizes our right to control them. Mr. Hall 
 says again: 
 
 "And it being a necessary result of independence that 
 the will of the State shall be exclusive over its territory, 
 it also asserts authority as a general rule over all persons 
 and things, and decides what acts shall or shall not be 
 done within its domain." 
 
 Even if we conceded that the majority of the Filipinos 
 were opposed to our acquisition of our territory, never- 
 theless we had the right to acquire it, and we have the 
 right to govern its inhabitants under the sanction of 
 international law. Does Pessimist doubt it? 
 
 Pessimist: I am not prepared to dispute it, but I do 
 not think there is much humanity in that kind of law. 
 In fact," I think the less law we can have, whether inter- 
 national or national, the better. I judge the Filipinos 
 largely by myself. I should not like to have anyone 
 compel me to do a thing, or to prevent me from doing a 
 thing according to my own will. 
 
 Patriot: That being the case, it is scarcely worth 
 while for us to continue the discussion of law; for, as 
 stated in the beginning of this topic, the result of such a 
 condition as pictured by Pessimist, would be non-law 
 and disorder — i. e., anarchy. Anarchy is the end of the 
 road which starts in with a general fault-finding with 
 conditions that exist, and but few men can be turned 
 into bypaths of virtue after starting on this road. 
 
 Pessimist: I do not especially relish public rebuke, 
 
80 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 and if Patriot keeps that up I shall discontinue the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Uncle Sam: It is due to the audience and just to 
 Patriot that I should admonish Pessimist to discuss the 
 question on merit and not allow his temper to lead him 
 into abusive language. Patriot saved me the trouble of 
 making his criticism for him, for I was about to speak 
 along the same line. What he said was scientific, though 
 of course anarchy is a harsh word. I will ask Patriot to 
 spare Pessimist embarrassment where it is possible, but 
 on the other hand, I must insist that Pessimist bring him- 
 self within the conception of law and order, and base his 
 discussions thereon, otherwise I shall consider it proper 
 for Patriot to call him to task, and in fact, should feel in 
 duty bound to this audience and to my great people to 
 do so myself if Patriot did not. 
 
 The fact that nations have not complained, but on the 
 contrary have expressed satisfaction at our taking posses- 
 sion of the Philippines, raises a conclusive presumption, 
 I think, that the act was justified in the eyes of other 
 nations, and is therefore in accordance with international 
 law. I suggest that the discussion proceed on the ques- 
 tion of fact. 
 
II. 
 
 QUESTION OF FACT. 
 
 Patriot: As I was to lead in the discussion of the legal 
 question only, I yield the floor to Pessimist on the ques- 
 tion of fact. 
 
 Pessimist: I suppose I shall not be bound down so 
 strictly to scientific rules and regulations now. 
 
 Uncle Sam: No, but you must be logical in your 
 reasoning or it will be impossible for us to follow you. 
 
 Pessimist: That we have been guilty of infamous con- 
 duct, the facts will clearly show — infamous to ourselves 
 because of the lowering of our standard of civilization; 
 infamous to the Filipinos because, as I shall now attempt 
 to show by the facts, they have been robbed of their lib- 
 erty and reduced from the high state of a free and inde- 
 pendent people to that of miserable slaves; for what is 
 slavery but subjugation to the will of others? Mr. Bryan 
 has said: 
 
 "The purpose of Annexationists, so far as that purpose 
 can be discovered, is to apply to the government of the 
 Filipinos methods familiar to the people of Europe and 
 Asia, but new to the people of the United States." 
 
 If this is not the case, I should like to see a successful 
 contradiction of it. Look at the letters from the boys at 
 the front telling us that the war is wrong. Can Patriot 
 or anybody else justify it? 
 
 Patriot: The question of fact is somewhat lengthy 
 and admits of some logical order in the discussion. It 
 involves more or less of political theory, and I should like, 
 
82 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 that we discuss it in an orderly method. I cannot answer 
 a general charge of meanness without analyzing the 
 charge. In fact, in the language of the lawyer, I think 
 I might demur to the indictment set forth by Pessimist 
 on the ground that he has charged nothing in particular. 
 You cannot indict a man by saying that he is a mean man 
 or ought not to live, or is dangerous to the community. 
 You must specify wherein his conduct is reprehensible, 
 nor is it proof for a witness, or a dozen witnesses for that 
 matter, to get on the witness stand and swear that a man 
 is bad. Such testimony might go to the question of his 
 credibility as a witness in the case, but he cannot be con- 
 victed of anything on such tesimony. 
 
 In the earlier times, in the development of our com- 
 mon law, either party to a suit might line up witnesses, 
 and the one who could command the most witnesses won 
 the case. Such practice is not in keeping with modern 
 views of justice, and so we must reject this method and 
 seek a higher quality of proof. 
 
 There have been some letters of complaint from the 
 boys in the field, and there have been some letters of 
 complaint -from the boys at home to the boys in the field, 
 but this does not prove anything. There have been an 
 abundance of letters on the other side. Neither does this 
 prove anything. I do not know which side has been 
 complimented with the best literary production or the 
 most zealous advocacy by letter-writing. It would not 
 bear very heavily upon the question if we knew just which 
 side has been written about the most, but we do not know 
 and cannot know. 
 
 There is a kind of evidence which admits of analysis 
 and estimate. Now in order to analyze the testimony 
 properly, we should go about it in a cool-headed, delib- 
 erate, reasonable manner. Let us not fly in the face of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 1 88 
 
 facts and tear our hair in madness like the hot-blooded 
 and irrational Latin races might do ; but let us do credit 
 to our Teutonic blood by reasoning the question out delib- 
 erately, and by taking plenty of time to reason it out. 
 
 Pessimist: Well, what would you like to talk about 
 first? 
 
 Patriot: I have jotted down a little outline which it 
 seems to me would facilitate the discussion. Under the 
 question of fact suppose we first consider whether it will 
 pay, which question involves the interest of labor and 
 the value of the markets ; then let us take up the danger 
 of international war and our duties as to neutrality. This 
 will probably be subdivided to advantage. Then will 
 come the question of strengthening our army and navy. 
 Now if we take these up separately, follow the objections 
 made by our adversaries, one by one, I believe they can 
 be successfully met by such testimony and such reasoning 
 as reasonable men in the pursuit of their ordinary affairs 
 would accept as proof. I would, therefore, suggest that 
 Pessimist address himself to the question as to whether 
 it would pay. 
 
 WILL IT PAY? 
 
 Pessimist: That is just what I thought. Patriot pro- 
 poses to decide this question from the standpoint of 
 dollars. Mr. Bryan has told us a good deal about the 
 Republican Party's dollar argument, and it seems to me 
 that America has fallen to a low state when we can un- 
 blushingly discuss the propriety of subjugating a nation 
 of people on the ground of financial and commercial suc- 
 cess. That is it! Will it pay? That is the way you 
 propose to decide the question ; as Mr. P>ryan says, "Put- 
 ting the dollar above the man." How, sir, can you justify 
 such plutocratic principle? How can you see one man 
 
84 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 
 
 ruling and trampling upon another merely because it 
 pays — because there is money in it? How can you whom 
 they call Patriot place the dollar above the man? 
 
 Patriot: More or less latitude should be given for 
 theoretic discussion under this head, and I shall reply 
 briefly to the assault of which Pessimist has just relieved 
 himself. The question, "Will it pay?" of course means, 
 will it pay taking into consideration all rights of men. 
 The simplest sort of illustration will prove the unfairness 
 of the charge that we are putting the dollar above the 
 man when we ask, Will it pay? 
 
 May not a church corporation consider the value and 
 probable appreciation of property when buying a site for 
 the church, or look to profit when selling an old 
 site, without being charged with putting the dollar above 
 the man? Of course, if the trustees would say, no matter 
 what the effect upon individuals, no matter if it proves 
 cruel, we will take this and that financial course because 
 it pays, then they would be open to such rebuke as Pessi- 
 mist has attempted to administer to this government; 
 but otherwise the wisdom of such success is to be ad- 
 mired. "Putting the dollar above the man" deserves no 
 better name than that of counterfeit coin. The phrase 
 was coined, no matter whether by Mr. Bryan or whom- 
 soever else, for the purpose of accomplishing a result 
 beyond the worth of the phrase coined. Of course no 
 man, no nation, no party has a right to put the dollar 
 above the man. All are agreed in that. The unfairness 
 of the use of the term in this connection is illustrated by 
 the fact that Mr. Bryan himself, as every sensible man 
 must, in discussing this question, talks about the financial 
 and trade advantages of the United States. He says, in 
 a speech on Imperialism: "The trade relations possible 
 under a protectorate would be of more value to the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST! 85 
 
 United States than any which could come as the result 
 of forcible annexation." 
 
 Mr. Bryan is in favor of a protectorate, and in order 
 to convince the people that a protectorate is better, he 
 says it will pay better, that the trade relations will be of 
 more value under a protectorate than under ownership. 
 Does anybody charge him with putting the dollar above 
 the man for using such an argument? 
 
 The inconsistency of our adversaries is shown by an- 
 other important fact. They say on the one hand that our 
 trade advantages will be enhanced by a protectorate 
 rather than by annexation, and then on the other hand 
 they say that we are annexing at the behest of our trades- 
 men who want to make fortunes of it. That is, they charge 
 in one breath that we are making a poor financial bar- 
 gain, and in the next that we are putting the dollar above 
 the man in pursuing a course which is financially profit- 
 able. May we not discuss a question of politics, a ques- 
 tion of best benefit — the greatest good to the greatest 
 number — without having our motives impugned? We 
 have said in the past "By the gods, we will build up 
 humanity in spite of business interests;" should we not 
 now thank God that business interest and the interest 
 of humanity go hand in hand? Wrong to point out to 
 the people a commercial advantage? Wrong to wish a 
 nation prosperous? Why, what have we been living for 
 all these years? What did Jefferson mean when, in his 
 Third Annual Message, just after the Louisiana Purchase 
 had been consummated, he rejoiced in the fact that "the 
 fertility of the country, its climate and extent promise, in 
 due season, important aids to our treasury, and ample 
 provision for our posterity and a wide spread for the 
 blessings of freedom and equal laws?" 
 
 It frequently happens that a man's patriotic duty 
 
SG PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 leads along the highway of both national and individual 
 success, for all of which we are in the habit of being 
 glad. 
 
 Have not our Presidents, in their messages from the 
 beginning, dwelt upon the material prosperity of the 
 United States and its citizens? Has not every -Thanks- 
 giving Proclamation since the first recited to our Maker 
 a nation's gratitude for past material favors, and a 
 nation's prayer for their continuance? What must the 
 laborers think of Mr. Bryan's spurious claim that discus- 
 sion looking to their betterment in dollars is putting the 
 dollar above the man. The result of such a cult, if it be- 
 came popular, would be to intimidate legislators until 
 they would hesitate to enter into questions which affect 
 the industrial success either of capital or of labor. Madi- 
 son says, in the tenth number of the Federalist: 
 
 "A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mer- 
 cantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser 
 interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations. 
 * * * A regulation of these various and interfering 
 interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, 
 and involves the spirit of party and faction in the neces- 
 sary and ordinary operations of the government." 
 
 When Mr. Bryan says, therefore, that "Imperialism 
 finds its inspiration in dollars and not in duty," he simply 
 begs the question, and undertakes by indirection to create 
 the impression that those charged with the responsibil- 
 ities of this government are trying to sell it out. 
 
 Again Mr. Bryan takes up the expression used by 
 Secretary Gage, "Philanthropy and five per cent," and 
 says, "The one chloroforms the conscience of the con- 
 queror, and the other picks the pocket of the conquered." 
 Here is a power of language worthy of a better cause. 
 "Philanthropy and five per cent" simply means philan- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 87 
 
 thropy on a self-supporting basis. Is there any harm in 
 that? He who charges harm, whether directly like a man, 
 or indirectly, insults every self-supporting church, every 
 self-supporting missionary society, every self-supporting 
 charity organization. It is not a mark of inhumanity, 
 but a mark of developed civilization if this great govern- 
 ment of ours can go abroad and carry the message of 
 free institutions, giving greater liberty and greater com- 
 fort and greater happiness in life to the inhabitants of a 
 foreign country, and at the same time make it profitable 
 to the people of the United States. As a matter of fact, 
 this is the only way we could do it. We would not be 
 justified in taxing the American people for any great 
 amount of charity abroad ; but to show the utter baseness 
 of the phrase "putting the dollar above the man," let me 
 quote from another speech of Mr. Bryan's, delivered 
 after he had forgotten he coined that phrase ; he says : 
 
 'The opponents of Imperialism are fortunate in hav- 
 ing upon their side the dollar argument, as well as the 
 arguments based upon fundamental principles." 
 
 Whether this statement is true or not is a question 
 for discussion a little later on, but I quote Mr. Bryan 
 here to show that he knows it is proper to talk of the 
 financial advantages and disadvantages, that he wilfully 
 appeals to the prejudices and passions of his hearers by 
 using words and phrases which indicate that the discus- 
 sion of such questions is sinful. Mr. Bryan again shows 
 that he recognizes the validity of the dollar argument, 
 for where he refers in one speech to Senator Wolcott's 
 report on the closing of the India mines, he says: 
 
 "If Mr. Wolcott's statement contains the smallest frac- 
 tion of truth, the injury done by the East India Company 
 during its entire existence was less than the injury done 
 by that one act of the governor and his council." 
 
gg PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 The "one act" referred to was the adoption of the gold 
 standard, and Mr. Bryan's argument on the silver ques- 
 tion is a dollar argument. If there is such a thing possi- 
 ble as putting the dollar above the man, the campaign of 
 1896 was certainly conducted on that basis by Mr. Bryan 
 and his party; for regardless of the creditor's right he 
 concerned himself with the debtor on the sole question 
 as to what would pay him. Xo, there is no harm in 
 succeeding financially. You must show that the method 
 and the result of success are harmful, or else you must 
 commend rather than condemn. Indeed, Air. Bryan once 
 said: "I assure you that it is the money that is in the 
 office, and not the honor, that attracts me." I should 
 not refer to this little unpleasantness had not Air. Bryan 
 provoked it by questioning every argument which looks 
 to financial success. 
 
 America has usually been fortunate in her purchases. 
 She paid fifteen millions for Louisiana Territory, which 
 was in due time formed into fifteen States, some of which 
 now contribute probably more than that amount an- 
 nually to the national treasury. She purchased Alaska 
 for seven million two hundred thousand dollars. Our 
 people have brought from there within the past two years 
 gold to the value of more than the entire cost to us. 
 There were those who said it would not pay to purchase 
 Louisiana and condemned Jefferson and his compatriots 
 for doing it. There were those who said it would not pay 
 to purchase Alaska. There are always those who are 
 ready to clog the wheels of national and world progress. 
 Xo less is that true of the people who now either say that 
 the purchase of the Philippines will not be profitable, or 
 who undertake to stop the mouths of those who are ready 
 to show that it will be profitable. The dollar argument 
 is legitimate. A dollar is a medium of exchange merely, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? 89 
 
 which enables man to secure physical necessities and 
 luxuries upon which must rest the soul temple. Success 
 is Godly. It is the man who cares nothing about finan- 
 cial success whose mind is- not active enough to think 
 of or care about either man or God. Financial and indus- 
 trial success is manly and honorable. The anvil stroke 
 of industry is the drum beat in the triumphal march of 
 Christian civilization. The whirr of spindles and the buzz 
 of machinery in our workshops form a grand symphony, 
 and the cheerful voices of the army of honest workmen 
 form a magnificent chorus, all lightening the burdens and 
 cheering the hearts of mortal man, and at the same time 
 pouring their rich music of progress into the very throne 
 of heaven. If this is not true, then the life of the mound- 
 builders and the savage is the ideal life for man, and our 
 higher civilization is a failure. If it is true, then it is 
 right to talk about material success. 
 
 Pessimist: Very well, let us discuss the question from 
 the dollar standpoint, for even on that ground you will 
 find the laborers have nothing to gain by annexation. 
 
 Patriot: Proceed. 
 
 LABOR COMPETITION. 
 
 Pessimist: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Apropos of labor competition, let me quote again from 
 Mr. Bryan. He says: 
 
 "It is not strange that the laboring man should look 
 with undisguised alarm upon the prospect of Oriental 
 competition upon the farms and in the factories of the 
 United States. Our people have legislated against Chi- 
 nese immigration, but to exclude a few Chinese and 
 admit many Filipinos is like straining at a gnat and 
 swallowing a camel. Farmers and laboring men consti- 
 tute a large majority of the American people. What 
 is there in annexation for them?" 
 
90 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST! 
 
 Ex-Senator Gorman also savs: 
 
 "I believe that it will open the door for the flow from 
 the Chinese Empire and from the islands themselves of 
 a host of men, untold in numbers, who will not assimilate 
 with, but will tend to degrade the American people." 
 
 Patriot: One answer to Mr. Bryan's objection would 
 be the arguments which he himself has been making 
 for years in favor of free trade with all nations. If he is 
 correct in his claim for free trade, which he has persist- 
 ently and eloquently made for the whole period of his 
 public life, then he is wrong in his claim that the com- 
 petition with the Filipinos is injurious. The two propo- 
 sitions cannot stand together, one or the other must fall, 
 because they are repugnant. But a better argument still 
 will show that Mr. Bryan is wrong in both propositions. 
 He is wrong in his advocacy of universal free trade, be- 
 cause that would bring our American mechanics and 
 laborers into direct competition with manufacturing na- 
 tions. This would stop, as it did stop during the adminis- 
 tration of President Cleveland under the Wilson Bill, the 
 principal factories of the United States, because Great 
 Britain is able, under such condition's, to undersell our 
 manufacturers on account of the discrepancy in wages, 
 lie is wrong in claiming that the competition in the Phil- 
 ippines would injure American laborers and mechanics, 
 because they are not a manufacturing nation. It is worth 
 while to have had this criticism from Mr. Bryan, however, 
 because so far as it goes, it is a confession that a protect- 
 ive tariff is a benefit to laborers — a principle for which the 
 Republican Party has contended and fought since its 
 birth. - 
 
 Pessimist: But what about the competition of the 
 Chinese? You have heard my quotation from ex-Senator 
 Gorman to the effect that untold numbers of Chinese 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 91 
 
 would flow into our territory, and he goes on to speak of 
 "the concerted action of laborers in 1888 which com- 
 pelled the abrogation of the treaty with China. Mr. 
 Gorman refers here to the Geary Act, by which the 
 Chinese were excluded from the United States. When 
 the Chinese get to the Philippine Islands, they will be 
 able to cross the ocean and come to the United States 
 proper, because all people under the sovereignty of the 
 United States have a right to travel from one State or 
 Territory to another without let or hindrance. 
 
 Patriot: This is another of those questions which can 
 be attended to when we reach it. As stated by Senator 
 Beveridge, the experience of Germany has been that the 
 migration of natives to the main country is a theory only, 
 but in practice it does not occur.- He says: 
 
 "But the natives will not come here. Let all men 
 dismiss that fear. The Dutch have Java, and its popula- 
 tion, under Holland's rule, has increased from two mil- 
 lion to more than twenty million people; yet the Java 
 laborer has never competed with the laborer of Holland. 
 And this is true of England and Germany, of every 
 colonizing, administering power." 
 
 We have discriminated against the Chinese so far as 
 this country is concerned, and we can continue to dis- 
 criminate against them if the interest of the American 
 people and civilization warrant us in doing so. We can 
 prevent them from coming to the Philippines at all, or 
 we can admit them to the Philippine Islands and stop 
 them there. We can allow the Filipinos themselves to 
 emigrate to the United States or we can prevent it. 
 
 The rule you have laid down with reference to the free 
 passage from one State or Territory to another is subject 
 to any necessary exception in the interest of humanity 
 and the American government. We have made an 
 exception to it in the case of the Indian. We have, from 
 the beginning of the government reserved the right, and 
 
92 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 believed it to be proper to control the inhabitants of the 
 United States in any way which the spirit of our institu- 
 tions require. We have the right and the power to give 
 absolute liberty to all, or limited liberty to those who do 
 not understand the use of full liberty. We can build a 
 stockade around the Indians of America and keep them 
 in it if the guarding of them should otherwise by reason 
 of their savagery prove too expensive and dangerous. 
 We can place whatever restrictions the emergency may 
 require about the conduct of the Filipinos, and it will all 
 be for their eventual good. 
 
 Pessimist: But ex-Senator Edmunds, a Republican, 
 says: 
 
 "Congress, therefore, cannot lawfully prevent the mi- 
 gration of any citizens residing in the Philippines (and 
 every Spanish subject therein becomes one by force of 
 the treaty) to our States, any more than it can lawfully 
 prevent the migration of citizens of the States to the 
 Philippines." 
 
 Patriot: Well, there is no evidence yet that we shall 
 desire to prevent their migration. In the first place, as 
 before observed, it is not likely that they will want to 
 migrate in any large numbers, and, in the second place, 
 if they should, and it should be undesirable for them to 
 do so, a law can be passed, or, if need be, a Constitutional 
 amendment be enacted prohibiting it. 
 
 No one contends that we have finished the work of 
 legislation, and no one holds that the Constitution is now 
 equal to all future emergencies. Congress will continue 
 to meet year by year and enact the necessary laws, and 
 the people will continue to have the right to amend the 
 Constitution where the working out of some great pro- 
 gress, such as that of the emancipation of the slaves, 
 requires it. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 93 
 
 According to the doctrine of some Anti-Expansionists 
 such a revision of our laws would be called for. Speak- 
 ing before the Treaty had been ratified, Senator Allen 
 said : 
 
 "If, unfortunately, we shall authoritatively express a 
 conclusion that would cause our country to be overrun 
 by a horde of alien people in a manner incapable of using 
 or enjoying the blessings of self-government, or by main- 
 taining them when won by others, whose presence and 
 influence would deteriorate or injure the nation, ulti- 
 mately wrecking the Constitution and destroying our 
 political institutions, a horde of people unassimilable by 
 reason of turbid and passionate natures, the consequences 
 would be fearful to the happiness and progress of the 
 world, and we would be justly chargeable with an inex- 
 cusable incompetency to deal with the question." 
 
 Now I submit that the genius of this government 
 would not be open to any charge of incompetency to 
 deal with a question like this. Is there any one in this 
 audience who is un-American enough to doubt the abil- 
 ity of the American people to keep in control or to keep 
 out "a horde of people unassimilable by reason of turbid 
 and passionate natures?" Is there any one here who has 
 so little faith in the courage and the manhood of young 
 America as to believe that we would stand idly by and 
 permit "consequences * * * fearful to the happi- 
 ness and progress of the world?" 
 
 What man among us will stand up and confess his lack 
 of faith in the creative and preservative power of this 
 mighty people to meet an emergency like this? We are 
 giving to the Filipinos a certain local autonomy, and it 
 will be competent for them to make treaties with the 
 United States after the fashion of the treaties made by 
 the United States with the Indians. 
 
 There are three ways therefore by which the great 
 
U PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 difficulty of labor emigration from the Philippines can be 
 regulated, or prevented altogether, if their standard of 
 civilization should not -entitle them, according to Amer- 
 ican notions, to emigrate here "freely. One is by treaty 
 relations; another is by ordinary legislation; or if that 
 fail, a third is by amendment to the Constitution. LUit we 
 have always boasted of the fact that America is the '"land 
 of the free and the home of the brave." We have been 
 laughed at for admitting all kinds and sorts of foreigners, 
 and it is a fact that to-day our immigration laws are such 
 that the people of Germany, Ireland or Italy, or any of 
 the other nations of the world except China, can come 
 to compete with our labor as freely as can the Filipinos 
 since annexation, so that the scarecrow which has been 
 flaunted in the face of laborers, by reason of our annexa- 
 tion of the Philippines, amounts to nothing more than 
 the problem if immigration, which is being studied in 
 the interest of American labor, and will, in the fullness 
 of time, be solved properly. 
 
 Pessimist: Ex-Representative Towne, of Minnesota, 
 presents another danger to American laborers. He calls 
 attention to the fact that American workmen will be 
 faced by "the importation from thence of goods made 
 in American factories in the Philippines, to compete with 
 our market at home on the products and skill of Ameri- 
 can freemen." 
 
 How can you prevent that? 
 
 Patriot: If it should prove necessary to prevent it, 
 it can be done by the regulation of tariff. According 
 to credible reports, the Filipinos lack the energy to com- 
 pete with American laborers, and whatever manufactur- 
 ing may be done for several years to come on the 
 Philippine Islands will undoubtedly be done by laborers 
 who migrate to that country from America. An Ameri- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 95 
 
 can skilled laborer, with his energy and push, can 
 accomplish more than half a dozen Filipinos with their 
 loose notions of system and their lassitude. 
 
 It is vastly more likely, with the splendid attractions 
 of mineral resources and agricultural possibilities in the 
 Philippines, that American labor will migrate there than 
 that Philippine labor will emigrate to this country. It 
 will thus appear that the labor, instead of being burdened 
 in America, will be relieved to that extent. 
 
 According to the most conservative estimates, we shall 
 not be confronted with this question until at least an- 
 other Presidential campaign, because for several years, 
 under the most favorable conditions, it will be necessary 
 to maintain a military government in the Philippines, 
 during which time, under our present laws, as laid down 
 in Cross et al. vs. Harrison (116 Howard) the President 
 of the United States may prescribe such duties as he 
 sees fit. There is no occasion, therefore, for such undue 
 haste, and certainly no occasion for undue alarm. A few 
 years of occupation and research incident thereto will 
 bring to our service a vast fund of information, which can 
 be substituted for the mere conjecture indulged in now 
 by those opposed to annexation. If it should then turn 
 out that the labor in this country is in danger, the party 
 which espouses the cause of labor will have a good case, 
 and no one can doubt the result. The danger for the 
 present is remote. It cannot, from a manufacturing 
 standpoint, affect American laborers until time shall have 
 elapsed in which to build up the factories in the Philip- 
 pines, even though they should use Philippine labor as 
 against American labor. 
 
 The solicitude shown by the Democrats for the pro- 
 tection of American labor against pauper labor of the 
 Philippines, who do not manufacture, while they would 
 
•90 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 force upon us the competition of England, already 
 thoroughly equipped for competition in manufacture, 
 simply shows the insincerity of their bluster. 
 
 Pessimist: Do you not admit there is some danger, 
 do you not admit that the question is debatable? 
 
 Patriot: For the sake of getting on to the next topic, 
 suppose I admit that it is a debatable question. That 
 gives me the opportunity to conclude by saying that the 
 Republican party has always shown more wisdom in 
 legislation in the interest of laborers. It has been the 
 party of protection, which the Democrats now endorse 
 by contending against free trade with the Filipinos. 
 
 I put the proposition in this form : Have not the work- 
 men of the United States, skilled and unskilled, the great 
 army of wage-earners, of whatever degree, faith that, as 
 between the two parties, the Republican party can best 
 be trusted with their interests in any new emergency? 
 With the question thus put, I rest the case in the hands 
 of American workmen. 
 
 Pessimist: Very well, let the discussion proceed on 
 the next topic. 
 
 MARKET. 
 
 Pessimist: As the burden is upon the Expansionists 
 to show the trade advantage of our ownership of the 
 Philippines, I would ask Patriot to lead the discussion 
 under this head. 
 
 Patriot: While I am willing to lead in the discussion, 
 I do not accept the theory of Pessimist on which he 
 places his request for me to lead. Comparatively few 
 Anti-Expansionists deny the advantages of the Philip- 
 pines as a market and as a gateway to the Oriental 
 markets ; besides, if we can show further on that it is our 
 humane duty to govern the Filipinos Mr. Bryan would 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 97 
 
 agree that we should ignore the question of financial 
 profit, so as not to put the dollar above the man, but let 
 us call in the witnesses, and among the first I would men- 
 tion Senator Money, who is a zealous Anti-Expansionist. 
 He says : 
 
 "I realize the advantage of the possession of an archi- 
 pelago that for twelve hundred miles extends along the 
 front of China. Perhaps Manila as a free port under 
 American rule would become the greatest emporium in 
 the whole Orient in the progress of time, probably in a 
 few decades. I know that our commerce would have a 
 foothold and coign of vantage there that would be to 
 our profit." 
 
 Pessimist: Does Senator Money then recommend 
 that we keep the Philippines? 
 
 Patriot: No, he says: 
 
 'While these advantages would help, they are not 
 indispensable and our commerce advances apace lacking 
 them." 
 
 Pessimist: I thought you would find some modifica- 
 tion to his statement. 
 
 Patriot: Certainly I do not contend that Senator 
 Money is in favor of keeping the Philippines. I specifi- 
 cally stated before quoting him that he was opposed to 
 it, but for that reason his admission is an admission 
 against interest, and according to rules and practice in 
 law is admissible and has great weight. We shall discuss 
 later on his contention that we should not keep the Phil- 
 ippines. 
 
 What I propose to prove now is that so far as the 
 market is concerned, it is to our advantage and the ad- 
 mission I have quoted from Senator Money goes to the 
 point. It is, so far as his judgment is concerned, con- 
 
98 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 elusive that it would pay. I shall elaborate somewhat 
 the argument of trade advantage in the Philippines 
 proper. 
 
 PHILIPPINES. 
 
 Patriot: The report of the Chief of the Bureau of Sta- 
 tistics for November, 1899, shows that the Philippines 
 have been purchasing nearly sixteen times as much from 
 Spain as from the United States; another "sixteen to one 
 proposition" which Mr. Bryan is in favor of, but which 
 the American producers would like to see reversed. I 
 do not wish to treat this grave matter in a facetious man- 
 ner, but there is a second analogy to the sound money 
 issue which may account for Mr. Bryan's opposition to 
 our possession of the Philippines. The report of the 
 Bureau of Statistics, above referred to, also says that 
 investigations tend to establish, beyond any great ques- 
 tion, the presence in the Philippines of boundless quan- 
 tities of gold. This fact will have two important effects 
 on American commerce. First, it will attract to that 
 archipelago a large number of Americans, just as Cal- 
 ifornia attracted them, and to a very much greater extent 
 than Alaska, because of the rigour of Alaska's climate 
 and the mildness of the Philippine climate. This pouring 
 in of American life will itself call for American products 
 and supplies; and in addition thereto it will develop the 
 Filipinos, appeal to their pride to wear better clothes, eat 
 better food, live in better houses, and build better rail- 
 roads, so that an endless amount of American products 
 will be called for. The second advantage which I claim 
 is that the supply of gold which we may confidently ex- 
 pect from the Philippines will increase the amount of 
 money in the United States, and I suppose I need not 
 argue with you, since you believe in Mr. Bryan's prin- 
 
 .V tu ..J 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 99 
 
 ciples, that the more plentiful the money the more 
 prosperous the times. The only difference between us 
 on that point is that you believe this proposition to be 
 true regardless of the intrinsic value of money, while I 
 believe it is true only provided the money is good. I 
 digress, however, but this question might deserve our 
 attention at some other time. 
 
 We are told authoritatively — officially, in fact — that 
 the Filipinos use a great many carriages, and that the 
 wealthier classes have luxurious vehicles. We are told 
 that they are proud and vain. All this tends to show 
 that they can be transformed from a practically naked 
 state, which needs no American products, into a well- 
 dressed, well-fed and well-housed people, which would 
 buy enormous quantities of American products. 
 
 We send to the Philippines now less than half the 
 amount in dollars that w T e purchase from them. In the 
 interest of our merchant marine, which should be encour- 
 aged and built up, this should be more nearly balanced. 
 We shall undoubtedly increase our purchases from there, 
 but we should increase our sales more, so that vessels 
 carrying goods to us from them will be fully laden on 
 their return trips. 
 
 Pessimist: But will they consume the goods? Can 
 you prove it? I do not believe they will ever be in 
 need of American products to any extent worth naming. 
 
 Patriot: Well, no, I do not pretend that I can prove 
 it. I do not claim that political science is an exact sci- 
 ence. We must take the evidence at hand, form our 
 conclusions from that, and trust to the future for the 
 result. The Fathers did not wait until they were certain 
 of results before acting. When Louisiana was pur- 
 chased it was pointed to by the opponents of the Admin- 
 
 LofC. 
 
100 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 istration as a piece of gross extravagance. It was said 
 the fifteen millions of money had as well be thrown into 
 the sea — better, too, because the territory involved ex- 
 pense and endangered the peace of the United States. 
 Jefferson could not prove that they were wrong. Cir- 
 cumstantial evidence was against them, and time proved 
 the wisdom of accepting the circumstantial evidence. 
 
 In Jefferson's message to Congress on March 10, 1808, 
 he reports a purchase from the Cherokee Indians of a 
 tract of land at the mouth of the Chickamauga. Note the 
 reason he gives for this move : 
 
 "It w r as represented that there was within that tract 
 a great abundance of iron ore of excellent quality with 
 a stream and fall of water suitable for iron works; that 
 the Cherokees were anxious to have works established 
 there in the hope of having a better supply of those in- 
 struments of household and agriculture, of which they 
 have learned the use and necessity, but on the condition 
 that they should be under the authority and control of 
 the United States. As such an establishment would occa- 
 sion a considerable and certain demand for corn and 
 other provisions and necessities, it seemed probable that 
 it would immediately draw around it a close settlement of 
 the Cherokees, would encourage them to enter upon a 
 regular line of agriculture, familiarize them with the 
 practice and value of the arts, attach them to property, 
 lead them of necessity and without delay to the estab- 
 lishment of laws and government, and thus make a great 
 and important advance toward assimilating their condi- 
 tion to. ours." 
 
 You will note that Jefferson does not state his hope 
 with mathematical exactness. 
 
 Pessimist: Yes, but that case did not look to the great 
 crimes which are contemplated in the Philippines. In 
 those good old days monopolists were not looking for 
 opportunities to rob people as they are now. Senator 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 101 
 
 Butler describes the situation we may expect in the Phil- 
 ippines very briefly. He says: 
 
 "So the policy upon which syndicates and monopolists 
 and franchise grabbers have forced this country to em- 
 bark, in open repudiation of every principle of the Declar- 
 ation of Independence, and of every fundamental 
 principle underlying a free republic, is fatal to the govern- 
 ment, unless the people themselves realize the enormity 
 of the crime committed, and drive from power their false 
 representatives, and restore the government into the 
 hands of the followers of Jefferson and Lincoln." 
 
 Patriot: I would call your attention to another point 
 in Jefferson's message. He says: 
 
 "It is understood there are private individuals ready 
 to erect them (referring to the new works), subject to 
 such reasonable rent as may secure a reimbursement to 
 the United States and to such other conditions as shall 
 secure to the Indians their rights and tranquillity." 
 
 What does Mr. Bryan think of President Jefferson's 
 suggestion of franchises for greedy capitalists in Jeffer- 
 son's time? The plain, simple truth is that individual 
 success and good government, according to the Ameri- 
 can plan, are inseparable, and Jefferson was too much of 
 a statesman, too much of a lover of his country, too much 
 of a well-wisher of his fellow men, to deny the govern- 
 ment the right to purchase territory on the ground that 
 some individual would be benefited thereby. 
 
 This thought marks the distinct line of cleavage be- 
 tween the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. 
 The Democratic Party pretends to say, "We will adopt 
 no policy whereby men in particular can grow wealthy, 
 no matter how much such policy might benefit men in 
 general." The Republican Party says, "We will adopt that 
 policy which will bring prosperity, growth and happiness 
 
102 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 to the greatest number, even though it should result inci- 
 dentally in the production of greater wealth for some than 
 others," the difference being that the Republican Party 
 is candid and the Democratic Party is insincere, because 
 in its advocacy of the Free Silver Doctrine it was work- 
 ing directly toward the end of special advantage to silver 
 mine syndicates. 
 
 Pessimist: Is not the real object to get a hold on the 
 other people of Asia? Is it not true that the capitalists 
 of America are buying franchises in China now with no 
 other purpose than that of private gain? 
 
 Patriot: That brings us to the question of the mar- 
 kets in China and the Orient — suppose you tell the audi- 
 ence about that. 
 
 CHIXA AXD THE ORIENT. 
 
 Pessimist: I have great fear for the safety of my coun- 
 try when a condition exists such as is described by 
 ex-Representative Henry U. Johnson, of Indiana. Speak- 
 ing of the responsibility and results to follow, he says: 
 
 "The wrong was with the Chief Executive. He alone 
 is responsible. In my humble opinion, the reason for 
 the change in the Presidential policy in the Orient is to 
 be sought for and found in quite another direction from 
 any of those referred to. It was his concession to the 
 selfish capitalists of the country, his surrender to their 
 demands. These are the gentlemen who furnished the 
 money for his nomination, and who, I doubt not, have 
 pledged him a renomination and re-election. These are 
 the gentlemen who are seizing upon valuable franchises 
 in China in connection with the English syndicate, with 
 a Member of Parliament from Wales at its head. These 
 are the gentlemen whom Lord Beresford has in mind in 
 his cordial but not wholly disinterested invitation to an 
 alliance in China with Great Britain, Germany and Japan 
 against Russia and France — old time enemies of his 
 countrv, but the old time friends of ours. These are the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 103 
 
 gentlemen who are grasping after special privileges in 
 the Philippines, in Cuba and in Porto Rico. * * * 
 And what do these gentlemen propose? To amass colos- 
 sal fortunes in the islands by virtue of their franchises 
 and upon the cheap labor of the native population, not 
 one dollar of which will ever find its lodging place in 
 the pockets of the American people. Where now is the 
 masterful champion of Protection, the author of the 
 McKinley Bill, the man who advocated protection in 
 season and out of season, and earnestly contended that it 
 shed its blessings, as the gentle rain from heaven, upon 
 all classes of our people alike, upon the farmer, the 
 laborer and the manufacturer?" 
 
 What does Patriot say about a condition which justi- 
 fies such remarks as these? 
 
 Patriot: What do I say about a condition which 
 justifies such remarks as these? I say that such a condi- 
 tion would indeed be regrettable, but I also say that such 
 a condition does not exist as to justify such remarks. 
 Some men do not wait for a justification before making 
 such remarks as these. A man who will resort to abuse 
 usually does not scrutinize the alleged facts upon which 
 he bases his abuse. What does all Mr. Johnson said 
 amount to in plain, business language? It is merely 
 that the boundless natural resources of the Orient, which 
 by reason of the sluggish, unschooled mental habits of 
 the people have so far not been developed enable men of 
 American genius and American push and" American thrift 
 to go there and make a success, provided this govern- 
 ment throws the mantle of its encouragement and pro- 
 tection around them. So far this is not wrong, is it? That 
 is, is it wrong to succeed, wrong to make money, wrong, 
 indeed, to build up fortunes? Nobody claims that it is 
 except those who have neglected their own opportun- 
 ities or who have not been blessed with the gift of suffi- 
 cient talents, or who have cultivated that morbid state of 
 
104 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 mind which recognizes no such thing as merit, and joins 
 the small socialistic procession in their clamor for a gen- 
 eral levelling of things, and insists upon war by the have- 
 nots against the haves. Of course somebody will be 
 benefited; that is just what we contend. Shall we re- 
 frain from opening up the unlimited possibilities in the 
 Philippines because not all can be directly benefited, or 
 postpone it until we can secure equal division? We 
 should have to wait for socialism. We opened Oklahoma 
 and the Cherokee Strip, and in the mad rush some were 
 disappointed, but it was a great benefit to the most fore- 
 handed and energetic, and to the extent that the success 
 of any is the success of all,, all were indirectly benefited. 
 When California was opened up not every man was 
 benefited, but some were, and so it will be, of course, in 
 the Philippines. And so our sum-total is made up by 
 advantage for some in this enterprise — for others in that 
 — 7 until all are served. 
 
 Let us move forward one step further. What a crime 
 is charged against President McKinley for free trade in 
 the Philippines. As before suggested, if this concession 
 in so small a way to non-manufacturing nations — a con- 
 cession in the interest of humanity, a concession which 
 is to elevate the standard of labor — is such a sad and evil 
 deed, what language can we employ to characterize the 
 effort of the Democratic Party to extend free trade all 
 over the world? The difference is that the Democratic 
 Party insists upon working to a theory, and it is so 
 opinion proud that it would rather sacrifice any amount 
 of benefit to the people than to acknowledge that its the- 
 ory will not work exactly as laid down. The Republican 
 Party has always treated the tariff question as a practical 
 question. President Harrison said it was a question 
 of markets rather than maxims. So the Republican 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 105 
 
 Party has always regarded it, and it does not hesitate to 
 make reciprocity treaties, discriminating in favor of some 
 nations and against others. It has looked upon the tariff 
 question as a matter of business, making the best bar- 
 gains it could in the interest of the people of the United 
 States. 
 
 Take the third proposition to which you have ad- 
 dressed yourself by your quotation from Mr. Johnson — 
 that cheap labor will be employed by these franchise- 
 holders in the Orient. I have already shown by the 
 discussion of the markets in the Philippines proper that 
 this danger exists only in the minds of those who are 
 looking for difficulties; that it is not real. The constant 
 repetition of false charges does not add truth to them. 
 In the quotation I gave awhile ago from Jefferson he 
 speaks of the advantage in connection with the works to 
 be built up in the territory purchased, and does not seem 
 to fear any danger of discrimination against American 
 labor. In the first place, all lovers of their country have 
 faith enough in America to believe that the American 
 laborer will be properly protected, no matter what exi- 
 gencies arise in the far East. 
 
 In the second place, few men who have studied the 
 great economic questions fail to understand that the 
 interest of the American laborer is likely to take care of 
 itself in the evolution of Eastern civilization. If for a 
 few years the bulk of the labor in the East should be 
 natives poorly paid, enough American labor, American 
 pride and ambition will impress themselves upon the 
 conditions to leaven their whole life and to thrill them 
 with the American pride, ambition and hope. They will 
 begin to spend more money on their living, buy more 
 goods at home and abroad, and needing more money with 
 which to buy, they will not be slow in learning their 
 
106 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 rights and demanding more. This has been the history of 
 Japan without the intervention of America except merely 
 that of moral influence. What may we expect when 
 America goes to the field of action and puts her strong 
 shoulder to the wheel? Does not every reasonable man 
 know that from that moment the car of progress will 
 rapidly move up the hill of civilization? In a short time 
 there will spring up great cities like Hong Kong, great 
 industrial centers, great mining districts, and high and 
 exalted relations between the inhabitants. The export 
 trade of America will move forward in leaps and bounds. 
 We have already vastly increased the sales of American 
 products, within the last few years, to China, Hong Kong 
 and Turkish Asia, but greater than to any and all the oth- 
 ers has been the increase to Japan, and we should not lose 
 sight of the significance of this fact. Those who believe 
 that the trade of America will be cut off by the increased 
 development of the East, arguing on the theory that they 
 will do their own manufacturing, should review their 
 history of Japan. A few years ago a commission from 
 Japan came over to America to investigate labor-saving 
 machinery. They purchased from America, among other 
 things, the machinery for several paper mills. Short- 
 sighted pessimists whose attention was brought to this 
 fact, said that it was a blunder to give these people the 
 benefit of our inventions, that the machine manufacturers 
 should withhold these advantages from them, because if 
 they built their own paper mills our export of paper to 
 their country would cease. But there is something in the 
 evolution of the world's events which cannot be checked 
 by such narrow views. Some greater power is working 
 out the destiny of man, often in "wondrous ways." And 
 so it proved in Japan. They built their paper mills. 
 Strange to say, so far from its resulting in cutting of the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? ' 107 
 
 exports of paper from this country to Japan, the export 
 trade grew and continued to grow, and to-day continues 
 to grow. Why? Simply because when even a Malay 
 race had caught the vitalizing spirit of American enter- 
 prise they wanted to know more about America — they 
 wanted to know more about the world. More books, 
 more newspapers, more prospectuses and descriptions of 
 new enterprises were needed; therefore, more paper, and 
 the growth is phenomenal. What has been said about 
 the paper is true of all the other supplies. Their wants 
 have so greatly increased that their wages have neces- 
 sarily increased, for whatever may be the theoretical ob- 
 jection by economists to the Irion Law of Wages, it has 
 proved a blessing to mankind; even in America that law 
 holds good. The laborer gets only what he needs be- 
 cause he is willing to work for what he needs. His sal- 
 vation and his hope lie in the fact that it is to the great 
 interest of the great army of employers who have some- 
 thing to sell to develop the needs of the great army of 
 laborers so that they in turn will buy what the employers 
 have to sell; and when that need has been developed it 
 will be satisfied by sufficient wages to meet it. Thus all 
 right-thinking men encourage insurance by which men 
 may provide for their families after death, building and 
 loan associations, by which they may provide themselves 
 homes while living; the development of aesthetic taste, 
 by which they come not merely to want but to need 
 in order to secure their greater happiness, the thousand 
 and one luxuries of life — better clothes, more stylish 
 vehicles for transportation, more and better musical in- 
 struments, more and better books, more and better of 
 everything which God has put within the reach of man 
 and given him the right to use. Inoculate the Eastern 
 laborers with this ambition, and no being living to-day is 
 
108 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 young enough to see at the end. of the most favored life 
 any year which will not call for vast supplies from the 
 United States to these millions upon millions of people 
 in the East. 
 
 Glance at the statistics in the Statesman's Year Book 
 and see the story of our growth, growing greater in those 
 countries which have had more of our enlightenment, 
 and least of all in those which have not come in contact 
 with it. Japan, in its small way, is what China will be 
 in its larger way when its people have once been quick- 
 ened by this new life. 
 
 Pessimist: But what assurance have we that America 
 will have the opportunity of supplying goods to these 
 peoples? Will not England and the other European 
 countries who will divide up China among themselves, 
 adopt protective tariff laws, discriminating against Amer- 
 ica? What hope can we have of open ports? 
 
 Patriot: We are discussing the prospect in the East 
 in connection with our possession of the Philippines. I 
 would therefore answer your question in two ways. First, 
 if there is any likelihood of their closing the ports to us, 
 our chances for bringing favorable influence to bear are 
 greater if we have the political advantage of ownership 
 in the Philippines, which as a strategetic point is so im- 
 portant to all that region, both in matter of trade and in 
 matter of international differences. As stated before, the 
 Republican Party has always regarded the tariff as a 
 practical problem. It is based upon the "give and take" 
 idea. One nation says to another, "You favor me and I 
 will favor you." Being in the Philippines, we are able 
 to offer advantages to the people in control of China and 
 the Orient, as well as to hold over them the potential 
 threat of unfriendliness in case of trouble between them 
 and others. Thus it will be seen that our chances for the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? i09 
 
 Eastern trade are bettered by being so near the scene 
 of action. 
 
 But my second answer is that our power among" the 
 nations of the world has grown to be such that a diplo- 
 matic expression of our wish, within reason, becomes the 
 law of many other nations as to us. It is ^generally 
 believed that in case of war between Great Britain and 
 the other powers, America could, without forming an 
 alliance against Great Britain, but merely by applying 
 some extreme rules relating to contraband of war, actu- 
 ally starve England out in a few months. English states- 
 men have been frank enough to concede this and they 
 have been frank enough to emphasize of late that our 
 friendship is so important that they can afford to make 
 any reasonable concession to maintain it. 
 
 We cannot know positively that all this field will be 
 open to us, but let us improve our chances all we can. 
 Business men do not ask a certainty before making 
 investments. They go on the theory that "nothing ven- 
 tured, nothing gained." If we do not make the venture 
 we stand no show to gain the advantages, and that these 
 advantages are marvelous provided we can get them, 
 even those opposed to the policy of the administration 
 admit. They admit it when they say it is in the interest 
 of franchise grabbers. Mr. Johnson, in his tirade against 
 the President, is giving testimony, for whatever it is 
 worth, to the effect that the trade advantages in the 
 Orient are great. 
 
 Mr. Worthington C. Ford, who is opposed to the 
 retention of the Philippines, in an address at the annual 
 meeting of the American Academy of Political and Social 
 Science, April, 1899, said: 
 
 "No one denies the possibilities of Asia, its gold fields, 
 its iron, its tin and its copper deposits; its wonderful 
 
110 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 waterways, and its population that always seems to offer 
 a rich market beyond description." 
 
 He also says, speaking of China: 
 
 "Not raising sufficient food for its people, it is from 
 other countries that the necessary grains must be ob- 
 tained. Ihe ability to buy from foreign nations has 
 increased from $29,700,000 in 1886 to $94,800,000 in 1896, 
 and the purchases have all been in needed and useful 
 commodities." 
 
 Pessimist: But does anybody believe that the Chinese 
 are capable of developing like the Japanese have de- 
 veloped? 
 
 Patriot: Scientists differ. It has been but compara- 
 tively few years since all were agreed that the Japanese 
 were incapable of development. They tasted the draught 
 from American genius, which quickened them, and al- 
 most instantly, like "Alice in Wonderland," they grew 
 from a pigmy to a giant. Mr. Ford says: 
 
 "Wherever tested and an opportunity given, the China- 
 man has proved himself a good workman. The problem 
 then to be settled is, how this hive of potential industry 
 can be made to work on the natural resources of China 
 for the benefit of the nations of the West." 
 
 And as to the character and ability of the Chinese, he 
 quotes from Blackburn's Reports as follows: 
 
 "The truth is that a man of good physical and intel- 
 lectual, qualities, regarded merely as an economical factor, 
 is turned out cheaper by the Chinese than by any other 
 race. He is deficient in the higher moral qualities, indi- 
 vidual trustworthiness, public spirit, sense of duty and 
 active courage, a group of qualities perhaps best repre- 
 sented in our language by the word 'manliness,' but in 
 the lower moral qualities of patience, mental and physical, 
 and perseverance in labor, he is unrivaled. * * * 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? Ill 
 
 European superintendence is essential precisely because 
 of their moral shortcomings above stated." 
 
 While these vast numbers are being developed to the 
 higher ideals, they will continue to purchase more and 
 more of the cotton goods of our southern States and of 
 the cereals of our farms of the Northwest and of the 
 manufactured products of our central and eastern States, 
 but when the great work of developing the natural re- 
 sources begins, and the network of railroads and steam- 
 ship lines created to accommodate these vast enterprises, 
 and the cities spring up almost like magic in the night, 
 as Hong Kong did when gold was discovered in Aus- 
 tralia, the thrill of life and activity there will vibrate 
 through every nerve center of our home industry, and 
 benefit our people as much as it benefits the benighted 
 Orient. Such is the dispensation of nature and na- 
 ture's God, that when we give we receive, when we 
 bestow a blessing, we reap a joy. 
 
 No one believes the dissemination of knowledge will 
 work an injury to the teacher. Civilization like knowl- 
 edge is a concept which grows and enriches and sweetens 
 by the very act of shifting a part of itself upon its more 
 unfortunate neighbors. 
 
 Another advantage to our markets which comes by 
 our possession of the Philippines is that it gives the 
 pioneering spirit of America scope for exercise. That 
 same adventurous spirit which prompted the people of 
 the May Flower to hazard property and life to cross the 
 sea, which prompted them after landing to reach out into 
 the forest beyond their immediate needs, which prompted 
 Daniel Boone to leave home and friends and prospect 
 through the wilderness, which prompted George Rogers 
 Clark against tremendous odds and advice of his friends 
 
112 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 to forge his way to the western wilderness and with a 
 handful of faithful followers conquer the British at Kas- 
 kaskia and Vincennes, and wrench from them a vast 
 territory in time to have it included by the treaty of 
 peace in the United States instead of being left a part of 
 the province of Quebec, which prompted John C. Fre- 
 mont to find the paths through the wilderness of the 
 great West, which prompted our great naval heroes to 
 break up the band of pirates which had preyed upon our 
 commerce for years, this same adventurous spirit, I say, 
 prompts the American merchant to seek opportunity 
 abroad. 
 
 Prof. John Bassett Moore, in a lecture before the 
 American Academy of Political and Social Science said: 
 
 "''From the foundation of our government the energy 
 and enterprise that distinguish the American character 
 have impelled our merchants in sight of unrivaled oppor- 
 tunities at home to seek in the markets of the world an 
 expansion of their commerce." 
 
 And is it not wrong to discourage these merchants? 
 Is it not wrong to withhold from Americans the oppor- 
 tunities of private gain ? Jefferson said : 
 
 "Agriculture, manufactories, commerce and naviga- 
 tion, the four pillars of our prosperity, are then most 
 thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." 
 
 Here then was a recognition of the right to prosecute 
 such enterprises. He further says: "Protection from 
 casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be sea- 
 sonably interposed." 
 
 To show again his proper solicitude for the financial 
 success of individuals, in his fourth annual message, No- 
 vember 8, 1804, he said: 
 
 "Whether the great interests of agriculture, manufac- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 113 
 
 tories, commerce or navigation can, within the pale of 
 your constitutional powers, be aided in any of their rela- 
 tions, whether laws are provided in all cases where they 
 are wanting, whether those provided are exactly what 
 they should be, whether any abuses take place in their 
 administration or in that of the public revenues, whether 
 the organizations of public agents or of public forces is 
 perfect in all its parts — in fine, whether anything can be 
 done to advance the general good, are questions within 
 the limits of your functions which will certainly occupy 
 your attention." 
 
 President Monroe, in his eighth annual message, ex- 
 pressed the sensible view of our government toward our 
 merchant class. He says: 
 
 "Extending as our interests do to every part of the 
 inhabited globe and to every sea to which our citizens are 
 carried by their industry and enterprise, to which they 
 are invited by the wants of others, and have a right to go, 
 we must either protect them in the enjoyment of their 
 rights or abandon them in certain events to waste and 
 desolation. Our attitude is highly interesting as relates 
 to other powers, and particularly to our southern neigh- 
 bors. We have duties to perform with respect to all to 
 which we must be faithful. To every kind of danger we 
 should pay the most vigilant and unceasing attention, 
 remove the cause where it may be practicable, and be 
 prepared to meet it when inevitable." 
 
 There is little doubt even by those opposed to the 
 Philippine policy of the financial advantage to American 
 enterprise. Admitting this, they contend that it is not 
 right toward the Filipinos and that it will degrade Amer- 
 ican citizenship, but they do admit the fact of its indus- 
 trial advantage. 
 
 We are constantly admonished by Jefferson, Monroe 
 and other of the Fathers to look carefully after the in- 
 dustrial enterprises of American citizens, and the proofs 
 
114 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 
 
 adduced I believe have been sufficient to convince all in 
 the audience that the possibilities to our trade in the 
 Philippines and in the balance of the East are boundless. 
 Does Pessimist doubt it? 
 
 Pessimist: I concede the question put that way. It 
 is to our financial advantage, but it is so much against 
 our principles and so contrary to American traditions 
 that I am still opposed to it. 
 
 Patriot: Very well, since you concede the advantage 
 Ave may pass to the next topic, because the question of 
 right and duty comes later. 
 
 The next topic in the order agreed upon I believe is 
 International War and Neutrality. Will Pessimist pro- 
 ceed? 
 
 INTERNATIONAL WAR AND NEUTRALITY. 
 
 Pessimist: If for no other reason, we ought to. give 
 up the Philippines in order to avoid the disputes and wars 
 which embroil European nations. As has been pointed 
 out by anti-expansion writers, the Philippines will prove 
 the "golden apple of discord" thrown among the rivals 
 of the world for the Asiatic commerce. We are bound to 
 be dragged into all sorts of disputes and contentions, and 
 will be compelled to resort to arms to defend our honor. 
 Our natural and logical attitude is that of neutrality to- 
 ward the warring factions of Europe and Asia. Jefferson 
 said: 
 
 "Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to 
 entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe." 
 
 And Washington said in his Farewell Address : 
 
 "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign 
 nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have 
 with them as little political connection as possible. Eu- 
 rope has a set of primary interests which to us have none 
 or very remote relations, hence she must be engaged in 
 frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 115 
 
 foreign to our concerns. Our detached and distant situ- 
 ation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. 
 Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? 
 Why quit our own to stand on foreign ground? Why 
 by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of 
 Europe entangle ourselves in the toils of European am- 
 bition, rivalship, interest or caprice?" 
 
 What would Washington say to such a course as that 
 pursued by President McKinley? Mr. Carl Schurz says: 
 
 "Our country is large enough for several times our 
 present population. Our home resources are enormous 
 and a great part not yet touched. We need not fear to 
 be starved by the completest blockade of our coasts, for 
 we have enough of everything and to spare. On the 
 contrary, such a blockade might result in starving others 
 that need our products. We are to-day one of the great- 
 est powers on earth without having the most powerful 
 fleet and without stepping beyond our continent." 
 
 In discussing our future policy Mr. John G. Carlisle 
 says : 
 
 "Colonial alliance with France, had it not been for the 
 wisdom and courage of Washington, would have driven 
 us into the mighty conflicts which convulsed the nations 
 of Europe at the close of the eighteenth and beginning 
 of the nineteenth centuries, and we might then have 
 shared the fate of governments that perished by the 
 sword, or that were extinguished by treaties and Con- 
 gresses which they were powerless to prevent." 
 
 Can Patriot justify an act on the part of the President 
 of the United States which is so likely to hurl our nation 
 into European war? Such an act is contrary to the 
 Monroe Doctrine, contrary to our uniform duty of neu- 
 trality toward belligerent nations. No, he cannot justify 
 such a course. How much better it would be to declare 
 the islands independent and to establish a Protectorate 
 over them, letting them work out their own government 
 according to their own traditions and genius, and in or- 
 der that we may do so, let the young and powerful Re- 
 public of America say to the world, as suggested by Mr. 
 Bryan: "Hands off." We stand ready to see that the 
 Filipinos shall not be imposed upon. Mr. Bryan says: 
 
116 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 "Independence for the Filipinos under a Protectorate, 
 which will guard them from outside interference while 
 they work out their own destiny, is consistent with Amer- 
 ican traditions, American history and American inter- 
 ests." Why should Patriot or anybody else insist upon 
 our taking a course different from this, the one so appar- 
 ently proper and consistent with American ideals? 
 
 Patriot: With the permission of the audience, I shall 
 undertake to refute the arguments of Pessimist under 
 four heads. As I have repeatedly said, it is impossible 
 to answer promiscuous charges without some logical 
 analysis. There is no power on earth which can, and no 
 power in heaven which will insure any nation against in- 
 ternational war. It is liable to be encountered by the 
 United States, no matter how fair or how judicious our 
 conduct may be. The unfairness or injustice of some other 
 nation is quite as liable to compel it as if we ourselves were 
 at fault, for what American would consent to our refrain- 
 ing from war if unreasonable demands were made against 
 us and insisted upon under threats? The late war with 
 Spain is an example of impossible forbearance. All of 
 the great battles of the world have been the result, for 
 the most part, of unfairness on the one side and practic- 
 ally a fair disposition on the other. It will thus be seen 
 that the abandonment of the Philippines would not prove 
 a panacea against the ills of international war. The 
 question is, to what extent the Philippine Islands are 
 likely to cause international war as affecting us, and I 
 propose to show, first, that so far from being more, there 
 is less danger of international war on their account if we 
 own them. Second, that there is more danger on their 
 account if we stand a protector over them. Third, that 
 the development of our industries and our trade relations 
 with the far v East are such, and are bound to become 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? 117 
 
 such under the irresistible evolution of American genius, 
 that intercourse with the European nations must and 
 ought to be to such an extent that we shall be compelled 
 to assert our rights against other nations and resist en- 
 croachments by them, regardless of the Philippines; and 
 fourth, I shall attempt to show that the Monroe Doctrine 
 does not apply to the present situation. 
 
 OWNERSHIP. 
 
 Patriot : The right of sovereignty over property in 
 territory is so sacredly recognized by European coun- 
 tries, that nothing will conduce to our safety in the pur- 
 suit of commercial enterprises in the East so much as a 
 fee simple title to territory in that hemisphere. The mo- 
 ment any act of ours is open to criticism, so long as that 
 act is not of such inhuman character as to call for inter- 
 vention on high moral ground, the powers of Europe will 
 say to one another: 'That is an affair of the United 
 States; it is their property." If anything of such repre- 
 hensible nature as that of the Spanish treatment of their 
 Cuban subjects should occur in the vicinity of the Philip- 
 pines as, for instance, in the comparatively recent case of 
 the brutal and barbarous treatment of the Turkish Sultan 
 toward missionaries and other inhabitants of his Empire, 
 the very fact of our proximity to the scene of such action, 
 the very fact of our ownership of property in the Eastern 
 Hemisphere, would give us a right, not only according to 
 our own conscience, not only in the sight of God, but a 
 right according to the accepted theory of the world to 
 hold up the finger of warning against such brutal con- 
 duct, and if in the judgment of our own nation we 
 thought it wise to do so, to compel desistance at the 
 point of the bayonet, as we did for the freedom of Cuba; 
 )but for our ownership of property there, such an inter- 
 
118 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 ference in the name of humanity would be rebuked and 
 scoffed at by the Eastern world. In short, we are prac- 
 tically powerless to carry the doctrine of humanity into 
 the East unless we have property interests there, because 
 we cannot hope to succeed in such a vast arena except 
 with the co-operation of some of the European powers, 
 and that co-operation could not be obtained at this stage 
 of civilization by the mere claim, no matter how lofty, on 
 the part of the United States that our interest in human- 
 ity alone justified such interference. It will be easier for 
 us to avoid war, because it will be easier for us to make 
 treaties in the interest of peace. 
 
 The fallacy of anti-expansion argument under this head 
 can scarcely be shown better than by calling attention to 
 an extract from a speech of Senator Chilton, in which he 
 says : 
 
 "We will have to go across the sea and fight battles 
 with the powers of the Old World at a place which they, 
 and not we, will select." 
 
 This quotation suggests two thoughts-. First, that we 
 are likely to have to go across the sea to fight battles 
 whether we have the Philippines or not, as Dewey's vic- 
 tory in Manila Bay demonstrates. Whenever we shall 
 chance to be at war with any nation, good military and 
 naval tactics will compel us to strike our adversary wher- 
 ever she is vulnerable. If that be across the sea, then 
 across the sea we must go. We could not have won the 
 victory against Spain at so little expense of money and 
 life, nor in so short a time had Admiral Dewey not dealt 
 that stunning blow by sinking Spain's Asiatic fleet. 
 
 The second thought suggested by Senator Chilton's 
 quotation is, that no matter whether we do or do not own 
 the Philippines, if it should become necessary for us to 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 119 
 
 go across the sea to fight battles, we may or may not 
 fight at a place which they select. It depends on the 
 circumstances. Before we owned the Philippines we 
 fought at a place we selected. Now that we own them, 
 if there should be another war, we would fight at the 
 place we select again if we were attacking a country that 
 had interests in the East, and if, on the other hand, our 
 adversaries should select the place, it might be the Philip- 
 pines, it might be Cuba or Hawaii or the Pacific or Atlan- 
 tic coast. Under any circumstances, however, instead of 
 having to go away from home to fight the battles of the 
 East, we shall be able to fight them close to home, be- 
 cause we are now at home in the Philippines. Senator 
 Clay of Georgia says: 
 
 "If we undertake to cross the ocean and to establish 
 colonies, we will be driven to an alliance with Eng- 
 land, Russia, Japan and some other foreign power in 
 order to defend our newly acquired possessions." 
 
 In the first place, we are not establishing colonies 
 ' across the ocean, but are governing a territory in accord- 
 ance with our Constitution and legislative enactments. 
 In the second place, it is begging the question to say 
 that we shall have to fight to defend the Philippines. 
 
 The question is, whether we can afford to fight to de- 
 fend them if necessary, and the answer to that is involved 
 in the. entire discussion of this question. If we have a 
 right there, and ought to be there, then we have this right 
 and this duty, of course, in the face of the fact that if we 
 are attacked there we shall have to defend ourselves. But 
 it seems to me conclusive that with this ownership of 
 property we can exact justice from all nations in the 
 East to a better advantage than if we did not own the 
 Philippines, and certainly our possession of the Philip- 
 
120 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 pines will detract nothing from our power to exact jus- 
 tice from the nations of the Western Hemisphere. 
 
 Pessimist has quoted Washington and has attempted 
 to apply it to the present situation. A shallow reading 
 of that portion of Washington's Farewell Address might 
 carry the thought Pessimist intended to convey, but let 
 us analyze it briefly. In the first place, Washington clear- 
 ly commends "the extending of our commercial rela- 
 tions.'' True, he admonishes us to have "as little political 
 connection as possible," but he does not say we should 
 have no political connection. On the contrary, he im- 
 pliedly says that we should have all the political connec- 
 tion which may prove to be necessary; so this quotation 
 from Washington must be applied to the Eastern situa- 
 tion in conjunction with the answer to the further ques- 
 tion, how much political relation is needful now, not one 
 hundred years ago, but now at the end of a century of 
 industrial evolution and marvelous skill and undreamed- 
 of growth and development of American possibilities as 
 a world power. How much political connection, I say, 
 is necessary now with the Eastern countries "in extend-' 
 ing our commercial relations?" Note the next sentence 
 from Washington: ''Europe has a set of primary inter- 
 ests which to us have none or very remote relation.'' 
 Whatever primary relations referred to by Washington 
 then "which to us have none or a very remote relation," 
 and which may still be found to exist and which may 
 still be found to have no interest for us, we shall be able 
 to let alone now as then, with the Philippine Islands as 
 without them. Some of these concerns which at that time 
 were essentially foreign may prove to be no longer so. 
 If after the advice of Washington and a century of experi- 
 ence added to it, we should find that it is to our com- 
 mercial and our political advantage to have concern with 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 121 
 
 them, who shall say that we should follow the course 
 which seemed to be wise a hundred years ago, rather 
 than the course which seems wise now? Another sen- 
 tence from the extract quoted from Washington: "Why 
 quit our own to stand on foreign ground?" In giving 
 due and proper credit to the wise enunciations of states- 
 men or leaders in any branch of thought, we should give 
 attention to the circumstances under which they spoke. 
 It should be borne in mind that when Washington gave 
 this advice England and France were at war. Lafayette, 
 under the breath of the King of France, had lent succor 
 to America. The hatred of British institutions ran high 
 and the anti-federalists were so bitter in their hatred to- 
 ward anything that seemed to smack of royalty that a 
 most persistent effort was made by the people of the 
 United States to force the Administration into an alli- 
 ance with France against Great Britain. The Fathers 
 knew, and Washington spoke for the Fathers, that such 
 an alliance would embroil us in a world war. It required 
 the most cool-headed statesmanship and the highest type 
 of patriotism to so analyze the situation as to allay that 
 feeling of hatred toward England and in its stead im- 
 plant the doctrine of neutrality toward belligerents, and 
 it was for this purpose that Washington admonished them 
 to attend to home affairs, and not for the purpose of lay- 
 ing down specific rules for all future time. 
 
 Since the next topic presents the converse of the argu- 
 ments which I have just made under the present head, 
 I shall, unless there is some further question, proceed 
 to discuss it. 
 
 PROTECTORATE. 
 
 Patriot: Having shown that ownership of the Philip- 
 pines incurs no greater danger of war than an entire 
 
122 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 absence from them, I shall now attempt to demonstrate 
 that the establishment by the United States Govern- 
 ment of a protectorate over the Philippines would have 
 a greater tendency to entangle us with foreign nations 
 than would the complete sovereignty. The scheme of a 
 protectorate must be one of two things: either it must 
 leave the nation free to conduct its own internal affairs 
 without molestation from the protector, the protector 
 standing merely between the protected nation and the 
 outside world — the true protectorate — or, on the other 
 hand, the protected nation must defer to the protector 
 in matters of local concern, as well as in international 
 affairs; but this latter condition is merely a deception 
 because while pretending to give independence the pro- 
 tector stands in the attitude of absolute guardian and 
 master, able at all times to thwart every independent 
 purpose. This is colonial rule under another name. Since 
 those who favor a protectorate vigorously declaim against 
 a colonial policy, we are forced to presume that they 
 favor the former of these two conditions — i. e., the com- 
 plete local independence and the international subordina- 
 tion. 
 
 Pessimist: It seems to me that you have pictured 
 exactly the kind of government we should establish in 
 the Philippines. Mr. Bryan says: 
 
 "The United States can protect them from molesta- 
 tion from without." He also says: "The Filipinos are 
 not far enough advanced to shire in the government of 
 the people of the United States, but they are competent to 
 govern themselves." 
 
 Patriot: The proposition by Mr. Bryan seems rather 
 paradoxical. It seems to me that any people capable of 
 governing themselves without the advice and assistance 
 of the United States, would be all the more capable as a 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 123 
 
 part of the government of the United States, with the 
 right which that connection would give it to our immedi- 
 ate counsel and aid. But, adopting for the moment the 
 suggestion that they are not far enough advanced to 
 share in our government, does it not follow that in the 
 pursuit of their own affairs, without the experience and 
 intelligence of the United States Government, they would 
 make mistakes because of their inexperience, would re- 
 sort to rash conduct because of their unduly inflated 
 pride, and indulge in corruption because of their low 
 ideals of honor, all in such manner as to bring them into 
 contempt in the eyes of other nations, and resulting in 
 affronts, which we, as their protectors, would be bound 
 to resent, or defend them against? 
 
 Picture, if you can, the position of the United States if 
 we adopted the policy advised by Senator Teller. He 
 says : 
 
 "I would say to the inhabitants of these possessions: 
 'If you can maintain a government of order for your local 
 affairs, you shall be allowed to do it.' I would say to 
 them in addition: 'We will, for your good, stand between 
 you and the European powers who would appropriate 
 your country and would inaugurate a system of colonial 
 dependence such as England has in India and such as 
 Spain has maintained over you, and we will see that no 
 foreign power interferes with you.' And to do that 
 we must say to them: 'If you wish to speak to the world 
 on foreign affairs, you must speak through us.' " 
 
 This fledgling nation — what kind we cannot say, and 
 as a mere protector we would have no right to dictate — 
 would get into all sorts of quarrels, leaving us to act the 
 part of indulgent uncle to degenerate nephew, ever and 
 anon paying off their debts with a little fatherly advice, 
 but with no power to direct their future course, 
 
 Mr. Jordan, previously referred to, says: 
 
m PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 "A protected republic is the acme of irresponsibility. 
 Its politicians may declare war against neutral nations 
 solely to 'see the wheels go 'round.' " 
 
 Pessimist : I have a copy of Rev. Jordan's sermon and 
 find that he endorses the recommendation of Prof. Jones, 
 which on this point is as follows : "Let them fit their 
 government to their own needs with the guarantee of our 
 protection from outside interference." 
 
 Patriot: That simply shows the inconsistency of the 
 anti-expansion argument, for the same man favors a pro- 
 tectorate, while admitting that nothing could be more 
 irresponsible. * 
 
 Pessimist : Well, why not adopt the suggestion of Mr. 
 Schurz and cover the Philippines by a guarantee of neu- 
 trality on the part of the Powers most interested? He 
 says this would no*; be difficult to obtain by United States' 
 diplomacy, and that it "would secure them against foreign 
 aggression." 
 
 Patriot: Well, let us dissect this proposition. Our 
 Government has pride and an honor which it must sustain. 
 If it makes treaties it must insist upon their fulfillment, 
 even at the cost of war. As before said, the European 
 nations would not recognize so much right on our part in 
 the Philippines if we had merely entered into an agree- 
 ment with them in reference thereto, as they would if we 
 owned them outright. In the second place, the Filipinos 
 themselves would be more likely to provoke hostilities if in 
 control of their local affairs than if directed by the United 
 States as a territory. Thus the occasion for war would be 
 more likely under a protectorate, and our position to de- 
 fend against attack would be less favorable. As a pro- 
 tected government they would have a right to admit into 
 their territory any person, or group of persons on any 
 terms. They would be subject to the flattery and bribery 
 of European adventurers who desired to get control of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 125 
 
 their franchises, and so long as this took place under the 
 sanction of their local law, and with the permission of the 
 local authorities, we would be powerless to prevent it, 
 even though the insinuation of such foreign influence 
 should eventually result in the practical bondage of the 
 natives. The rights of the protected nation, as I have just 
 set forth, can be disputed by no authority. Any curtail- 
 ment of those rights would amount to subjugation instead 
 of protection. 
 
 The well recognized authority on International Law, 
 W. E. Hall, says of protectorates which differ from colo- 
 nies: 
 
 "The protected community retains, as of right, all pow- 
 ers of internal sovereignty which have not been expressly 
 surrendered by treaty, or which are not needed for the due 
 fulfillment of the external obligations which the protecting 
 State has directly or implicitly undertaken by the act of 
 assuming the protectorate." 
 
 All this responsibility must be upon the United States 
 as a protector of the Philippines. In government, as in 
 most relations between man and man, there must be a 
 quid pro quo. This condition would leave us no control 
 over the tax budget, and if war was provoked, as it would 
 likely be, we are handicapped by our limited control and 
 by the danger of foreign influence among the Filipinos 
 themselves, which might result in a change of their pur- 
 pose right while we are in the field fighting their battles ; 
 or if we should ourselves become engaged in war with any 
 Eastern power, we, the protectors of the Philippines, who 
 must fight at their suggestion, cannot call upon them to 
 aid in our defense, for it is one of the rights and privileges 
 of a protected nation to remain neutral even when one of 
 the belligerents is its protector. 
 
 During the Crimean War the Ionian Islands, protected 
 
126 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 by Great Britain, stubbornly persisted in a neutral course, 
 and the right of their position was acknowledged in the 
 English court. 
 
 Pessimist : Where is your authority for this ? 
 
 Patriot: Fourth Edition of Hall's International Law, 
 page 30. Those who would impose upon the United 
 States the task of protecting the Philippines are engaged 
 in the anomalous effort to have the United States assume 
 all the burdens connected with whatever Eastern troubles 
 we may ever have, while disclaiming and denying our- 
 selves of the right to any of the benefits. No, a protec- 
 torate may be fraught with too much danger and accom- 
 panied by too little means of defense ever to find sanction 
 in the statescraft of America. 
 
 Pessimist : Well, what do you propose to say on inter- 
 national war and neutrality regardless of the Philippines ? 
 
 REGARDLESS OF THE PHILIPPINES. 
 
 Patriot : The only ground upon which we can keep out 
 of all danger of international war is that of selfish se- 
 clusion — a condition which is so repugnant to American 
 push, enterprise and daring, that he who indulges in the 
 wish for it is a mere political dilletante, and he who ex- 
 presses the hope of it is engaged in idle day dreams. 
 America, with a foreign trade already amounting to two 
 thousand millions of dollars, America, who almost a cen- 
 tury ago made the largest contribution toward the anni- 
 hilation of piracy in the Barbary States ; America, who 
 waved her magic wand over benighted Japan and bid her 
 arise to new light and life ; America, who has produced 
 the inventive genius and the industrial faith and the me- 
 chanical skill to bind this nation with the other nations of 
 the world by a score of oceanic cables ; America, who has 
 said to Spain : "You shall not degrade humanity by treat- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 127 
 
 ing men like brutes ;" America to be isolated ? No, banish 
 the thought. We are going to stand up as a citizen of the 
 world of nations that we are, on the one hand taking the 
 responsibility of such a position and on the other insisting 
 upon our share of the benefits of such citizenship. When 
 the young gladiator strips and steps into the arena, he 
 does it after making up his mind to take the consequences ; 
 and so when a nation puts up its flag, it does it knowing 
 that the status of nationality brings with its blessings the 
 perils of war. America has kept in the front rank of 
 diplomacy, as she has in other accomplishments. She has 
 attended strictly to her own business, though she has con- 
 stantly enlarged the field of her business. Whether we 
 own the Philippines or not, our future, as well as our 
 past, will bring with it the duty to ourselves of exact- 
 ing justice from other nations and the duty to them of our- 
 selves rendering justice to all. 
 
 Pessimist : But there is more or less apprehension of a 
 general world war in the no distant future. Why should 
 America increase the danger of being drawn into that war 
 by holding on to the Philippines? Senator Bacon points^ 
 out the prospect of such a war and says : 
 
 "If mat war comes it will not be confined to the Orient ; 
 if that war comes it will involve every leading nation of 
 the world ; if that war comes, not only will our young men 
 lay their bones upon the distant soil of Asia, but our own 
 country will have to stand its defense. When that war 
 comes there is not a sea-coast city but that will be in 
 danger of destruction from the allied navies of the world. 
 This nay be a remote possibility, but if so, it is a possibil- 
 ity so fraught with disaster to the United States that T will 
 do nothing to tempt so dire a fate." 
 
 Why will Patriot insist upon bringing such *~~ : .l to 
 America? 
 
 Patriot: My answer is three-fold. First, the danger 
 
128 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 of this war exists regardless of the Philippines. Second, 
 America will be in better positron to bring to tear her 
 good offices in the field of diplomacy for preventing the 
 war, if by ownership of the Philippines she is a recognized 
 member of the European diplomatic fraternity ; and, third, 
 since such a war is even a remote possibility, it is the 
 sacred duty of those charged with the peace and welfare 
 of this Government gradually, but with due facility, to in- 
 crease our navy and our standing army sufficiently to meet 
 such emergencies without disaster to our institutions ; and 
 if the possession of the Philippines makes the increase of 
 the army and navy a practical necessity now, and gives the 
 excuse for such expense — without which any increase is 
 always unpopular — then we have in the possession of the 
 Philippines for this one reason alone an unmistakable 
 blessing, even if for the time being it is to our adversaries 
 a blessing in disguise. 
 
 A further point should be observed: In the event of 
 this world war it will be greatly to our interest to own 
 the Philippines. Those islands would be legitimate fight- 
 ing ground anyway, and the one on the ground will have 
 an unquestioned advantage. 
 
 Aside from the aggressive nature of America as a force 
 which compels our constant intercourse with the world in 
 a large way, we should not lose sight of the frequent and 
 almost constant necessity for resenting the too great or 
 impertinent aggressions on the part of other countries. 
 In President Monroe's last annual message he recites the 
 difficulties and losses incident to the unsettled state of 
 neutrality laws; and in alluding to the war then just 
 closc v, i between France and Spain, he laments the fact 
 that ^oth parties had mistreated us. He first calls atten- 
 tion w our resentment by war against Great Britain and 
 says; 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 129 
 
 "From the other by whose then reigning government 
 vessels were seized in port as well as at sea, and the car- 
 goes confiscated, indemnity has been expected but has not 
 yet been rendered. It was under the influence of the 
 latter that our vessels were likewise seized by the govern- 
 ments of Spain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Naples, 
 and from whom indemnity has been claimed and is still 
 expected with the exception of Spain, by whom it has 
 been rendered. With both parties we had abundant cause 
 of war, but we had no alternative but to resist that which 
 was most powerful at sea and pressed us nearest at home." 
 
 It will thus be seen that ownership of property in the 
 Eastern Hemisphere is not essential to national quarrels. 
 They are quite as likely to be forced upon us without such 
 ownership ; and, indeed, the evidence so far goes to show 
 that these quarrels are more likely to be forced upon us 
 without such ownership. 
 
 Pessimist : What evidence goes to show this fact ? 
 
 Patriot : The history of our country shows that we 
 have always been annoyed, and that redress for annoy- 
 ance has been difficult and slow. Since we purchased the 
 Philippines, however, all the nations have vied with one 
 another to show us respect, and but one disturbance has 
 occurred to our commerce — the single instance of the 
 British seizure of a cargo of American flour in Delagoa 
 Bay, for which apology and restitution was made with 
 unprecedented promptness in answer to our first diplo- 
 matic request. Have I not demonstrated the danger of 
 international war to be as great regardless of the Philip- 
 pines as when they are taken into consideration ; and that 
 both the danger of war and the difficulties of fighting it 
 are greater under a protectorate than with the sovereign 
 ownership of the Philippines ? 
 
 Pessimist: But how can you justify our ownership of 
 
130 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 the .Philippines in the light of the Monroe Doctrine, which 
 promises on the one hand to allow no interference on the 
 part of European governments in the Western Hemi- 
 sphere, and on the other hand by implication promises to 
 leave European nations to their own fate and inclination 
 in all other parts of the world ? 
 
 MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 Patriot: The Monroe Doctrine, as represented by 
 Democratic orators, affords another instance in which 
 there is a studied effort to mislead those who do not take 
 the pains to analyze the conditions. Application of this 
 doctrine should be made, first, in the light of comparison 
 between the conditions existing at the time of its enun- 
 ciation and the conditions existing now ; and second, the 
 application should be made by reference to the full mean- 
 ing of the language of that Doctrine, studied in all its 
 parts. 
 
 Pessimist: I had no idea that you would hazard an 
 opinion that the Monroe Doctrine has not been violated 
 by our seizure of territory in the Eastern Hemisphere. 
 Mr. Bryan says : 
 
 'The Monroe Doctrine, too — what will become of it? 
 How can we expect European nations to respect our su- 
 premacy in the Western Hemisphere if we insist upon 
 entering Asia?" 
 
 Your intimation that our policy in the Philippines does 
 not contravene the international law, as represented by 
 the Monroe Doctrine, is the first I have heard since the 
 controversy began. Senator Hoar of Massachusetts says : 
 
 "The Monroe Doctrine is gone. Every European na- 
 tion, every European alliance, has the right to acquire 
 dominion in this hemisphere when we acquire it in the 
 other." 
 
 Patriot: When Pessimist spoke, I was about to take 
 up the question in its logical order. I shall now proceed 
 to make the following points: 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 131 
 
 First : That the Monroe Doctrine is not and never has 
 been accepted as a tenet of international law. 
 
 Hall on International Law ignores it. Wheaton, an 
 American authority, says : 
 
 'This political formula has been, to a great extent, acted 
 upon by the United States, especially with regard to their 
 taking no part in European politics. Nevertheless, it 
 still exists only as a 'doctrine/ and has not been incor- 
 porated into any legislative enactments or into any con- 
 vention." 
 
 It follows from this that the condition described by 
 Senator Hoar as existing now has always existed. Eu- 
 ropean nations have always claimed the right to do what 
 they liked in the Western Hemisphere. They simply 
 dared not exercise that right. The Monroe Doctrine was 
 therefore effective only by virtue of its sanction in Amer- 
 ican virility and American arms. 
 
 Second : At the time the Monroe Doctrine was enun- 
 ciated Spain was endeavoring to extend the "Holy Alli- 
 ance" to the whole of South America, and her efforts 
 seemed in a fair way to succeed. This alliance offered 
 a powerful menace both to America and to England, be- 
 cause it would put in the power of Spain all the Latin 
 peoples of the Western Hemisphere, and with her then 
 powerful navy she would have been in a position to make 
 such exactions and to offer such insults as her greed, or 
 her bigotry, might prompt her to, both against the inter- 
 ests of America and of England. Realizing this danger, 
 George Canning, the renowned English orator and states- 
 man, transmitted a confidential proposal to our Mr. Rush, 
 Secretary of State, and this proposal was, after careful 
 deliberation and secret conference with the English 
 authorities, in the language of Justin McCarthy, the his- 
 
132 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 torian, "Adopted in the interests of England, as well as in 
 those of the American Republic.'' 
 
 Pessimist: Do you mean to tell this audience that 
 President Monroe was not the author of the Monroe Doc- 
 trine ? 
 
 Patriot: I have so stated, although that is not the im- 
 portant fact of my argument. It matters not who was the 
 author, the question is : What was the doctrine and does 
 it apply to our present policy ? 
 
 Pessimist: Does any reputable historian claim that 
 Monroe was not the author? 
 
 Patriot : It is not put in the shape of a claim, but sim- 
 ply related as a matter of course. You can verify this 
 statement by looking in the "History of Our Own Times," 
 by McCarthy, or in Mr. Koerner's article on the Monroe 
 Doctrine in "Lalor's Cyclopedia of Political Science." 
 
 In passing, it may not be amiss to remind the critics 
 of the Administration that President Monroe deemed it 
 justifiable to confer with England, even in a confidential 
 way, on grave matters of international concern. 
 
 In the third place, our adversaries who appropriate to 
 their own side of the argument all the virtue of the Mon- 
 roe Doctrine, read it only in part and interpret that part 
 in the most narrow sort of way. Let us center our minds 
 for a brief space upon the language of the doctrine itself. 
 And for convenience to this end let me recite that portion 
 of President Monroe's message of December 2, 1823, 
 which is generally accepted as embodying the principles 
 of the Monroe Doctrine. It says: 
 
 "In the wars of the European powers in matters relat- 
 ing to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does 
 it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our 
 rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 133 
 
 injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the 
 movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more 
 immediately connected, and by causes which must be ob- 
 vious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The 
 political system of the allied powers is essentially different 
 in this respect from that of America. This difference pro- 
 ceeds from that which exists in their -respective govern- 
 ments ; and to the defense of our own, which has been 
 achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and 
 matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citi- 
 zens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felic- 
 ity, this -whole nation is devoted. We owe it to candor 
 and to the amicable relation existing between the United 
 States and the allied powers to declare that we should 
 consider any attempt on their part to extend their sys- 
 tem to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to 
 our peace and safety. With existing colonies or de- 
 pendencies of any European power we have not inter- 
 fered, and shall not interfere ; but with the governments 
 which have declared their independence and maintained 
 it, and whose independence we have, on great considera- 
 tion and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view 
 an interposition for oppressing them, or controlling in any 
 other manner their destiny by any European power, in 
 any other light than that as a manifestation of an un- 
 friendly disposition toward the United States. In the war 
 between these new governments and Spain we declared 
 our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this 
 we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided 
 no change shall occur which in the judgment of the com- 
 petent authorities of this government shall make a cor- 
 responding change on the part of the United States indis- 
 pensable to their security." 
 
 Pessimist : Does this not show clearly that we cannot, 
 in keeping with the American policy, interfere with for- 
 eign nations? 
 
 Patriot : If immediately after hearing the Monroe 
 Doctrine recited Pessimist fails to understand, why, how 
 can you blame people who have one side only pointed 
 
134 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 out to them, and its purpose distorted by fervent oratory, 
 for obtaining the wrong impression? I am determined, 
 however, that this audience shall not go away with such 
 misconceptions. 
 
 In the first portion of the doctrine the disaffirmance of 
 our policy to interfere with European powers is based up- 
 on the express qualification that they "attend to matters 
 relating to themselves." The necessary inference is that we 
 should take a hand if they were engaged in matters relat- 
 ing to us. Any other interpretation would be an abandon- 
 ment of our independence, and as a matter of fact we have 
 recently taken a hand in European matters, as may be 
 attested by a glance at the humbled pride of that monar- 
 chy which, with its invincible Armada, once boasted its 
 jurisdiction over all the waters of the world. Monroe 
 also makes very plain the purpose of "this whole nation" 
 to defend our own. Does any one believe that he meant 
 to confine that defense to what was our own at that time, 
 to that which we had then "achieved by the loss of so 
 much blood and treasure?" No, a more reasonable sup- 
 position is that he would apply it also to whatever we 
 should in the future achieve or acquire. So we bring 
 this doctrine to the defense of that world power which fell 
 to our lot by the matchless though almost bloodless victory 
 of Admiral Dewey in Manila Bay. 
 
 I have been frank to quote fully all that is claimed as 
 part of the Monroe Doctrine, for I believe that it is all 
 reconcilable to the policy of the Administration at this 
 time when viewed in the light of changed conditions. I 
 dare say we have no adversary who is so abject a wor- 
 shiper of precedents, or so precise a stickler for strict 
 construction of precedent, as to lay any blame upon the 
 Administration for the war so far as it affected Cuba; 
 and yet I make bold to assert, without fear of even an 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 135 
 
 effort at contradiction, that the declaration of war against 
 Spain in the interest of Cuba was the writing of an 
 amendment to the Monroe Doctrine ; or more sensibly yet, 
 it was the application of modern common sense in the 
 interpretation of that doctrine. Need I do more in eluci- 
 dation of this claim than to reiterate one sentence of that 
 doctrine which I recited a moment ago ? "With the exist- 
 ing colonies or dependencies of any European power we 
 have not interfered and shall not interfere." 
 
 Let those orators who have been so rampant in de- 
 claiming the efficacy of the Monroe Doctrine reconcile 
 this language to our recent conduct in interfering with 
 a Spanish colony in the Western Hemisphere which ex- 
 isted at the time Monroe wrote. 
 
 Pessimist : But you asserted that all of our recent con- 
 duct would square with the Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 Patriot : And so I assert now, for the simple reasons 
 that the Monroe Doctrine was merely a recommendation 
 to Congress and a declaration to the people as to the policy 
 which should be pursued by the United States govern- 
 ment as conditions existed then, and not otherwise. This 
 is proved by the further declaration of Monroe that we 
 would adhere to the neutrality then practiced toward 
 Spain and her combatants "provided no change shall oc- 
 cur which in the judgment of the competent authorities 
 of this government shall make a corresponding change 
 on the part of the United States indispensable to their 
 security." Monroe realized that questions of this nature 
 must be left to the solution of men charged with the affairs 
 of government under the conditions prevailing when the 
 solution might be called for. In the same message Mon- 
 roe said : 
 
 "A precise knowledge of our relations with foreign 
 
136 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 powers, as respects our negotiations and transactions with 
 each, is thought to be particularly necessary." 
 
 Will Pessimist tell this enlightened audience of what 
 consequence such "precise knowledge" would be if we are 
 not to base our international conduct upon it? Why 
 should we be concerned about our relations with foreign 
 powers if, regardless of these relations, we are to remain 
 supinely silent in all Eastern matters? I declare, there- 
 fore, that the war with Cuba was a violation of a strict 
 and slavish interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine; but 
 that neither that war nor its Philippine sequel is a vio- 
 lation of an enlightened and liberal construction. Indeed, 
 in the whole doctrine, there is no specific promise to the 
 powers of Europe that we will not interfere with their 
 affairs. It is merely laid down as not comporting with 
 our policy to do so, but on the other hand we did prom- 
 ise specifically there not to interfere with any European 
 colonies already planted in America. 
 
 Pessimist: But ex- Vice President Stevenson says: 
 
 "The essence of the doctrine, as understood by the 
 world then, was, While we forbid the establishment of 
 despotic governments upon the American continent, we 
 recognized the corresponding obligation to refrain from 
 any attempt to force our political system upon any part of 
 the old world." 
 
 This, according to my understanding, establishes an 
 implied promise on our part not to interfere in the East. 
 
 Patriot: This doctrine, like every other state enun- 
 ciation by the founders of our government,- was carried 
 only so far as the expediency of the times would warrant. 
 Its great ultimate purpose was in the interest of justice; 
 its immediate purpose was to baffle Spain in her effort to 
 become the dominant force of the Western Hemisphere. 
 It went as far as it could toward the alleviation of man- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST'/ 137 
 
 kind then — any larger claim of right by the United States 
 as a young country of limited means and a correspond- 
 ingly limited naval power would have been nugatory for 
 the want of the only sanction known to international law, 
 namely, force. It did that little missionary work well, 
 though that was all it was strong enough to do. But it 
 would be no more daring on the part of the powerful 
 United States of to-day to declare that no more. monarch- 
 ies should be established or fostered anywhere in the 
 world than it was to make such declaration then with 
 reference to the Western Hemisphere. We have not gone 
 that far, but we have strongly implied that in future wars 
 and in future colonial rule there shall be no more slaugh- 
 tering of innocent reconcentrados, nor maiming with poi- 
 soned Mauser bullets, nor devastation of private resources 
 for the sake of military official enrichment. If it was 
 noble for the Fathers to take such a bold stand as that 
 announced by the Monroe Doctrine, how much nobler a 
 part are we playing in the humanitarian evolution of the 
 world by what will be known and honored in history as 
 the McKinley Doctrine ? And yet we have done no more 
 than duty. We would be unworthy the heritage of our 
 fathers if, with our additional century of enlightenment, 
 our vast revolutions in invention and our almost fabulous 
 wealth and power, we refrain from making correspond- 
 ing improvements upon the condition of our fathers. 
 
 Washington looked forward to the time when we should 
 have such power that we could "defy material injury from 
 external annoyance," and again in his language, "When 
 we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality 
 we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously re- 
 spected," and "when we may choose peace or war as our 
 interests, guided by justice, shall counsel." He was too 
 much of a statesman to attempt a prophecy as to precisely 
 
138 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 what neutrality we should in the future "resolve upon," 
 or when and under what conditions we would "choose 
 peace or war ;" but like the grand statesman that he was, 
 he left it to the responsible parties in the government at 
 whatever time they should be called upon to act to deter- 
 mine these great questions "as our interests, guided by 
 justice, shall counsel." 
 
 Pessimist: But Senator Daniel says, "Our Monroe 
 Doctrine * * * is as much a law as if it were in our 
 written constitution." If this be true, I hold that we have 
 no right to violate it even if such holding forces me to 
 regret our freeing of Cuba. 
 
 Patriot : I cited both Hall and Wheaton, acknowledged 
 authorities on international law, to show that the Mon- 
 roe Doctrine was never regarded as anything else than 
 a mere political formula by other nations, and it needs 
 scarcely to be asserted that our own country did not 
 regard it as a law, for if we had we would have pursued 
 the usual and orderly method of putting it either in the 
 Constitution or on the statute books. The only force 
 the doctrine has had with European powers was that 
 given it by the sanction of American arms, and we can 
 give the same proportionate force to-day to any enlarge- 
 ment of that doctrine which the wisdom of the past, ap- 
 plied to present conditions, may warrant. And I should not 
 be willing to indulge in the doleful speculation that with 
 all the advantages of the past before us, we are so weak 
 as to be incapable of formulating a new Monroe Doctrine 
 — a McKinley Doctrine, if you please — suited to our 
 changed conditions and justified by our added strength. 
 Indeed, President McKinley was not the first to make ex- 
 ceptions to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1880 Mr. Evarts, 
 Secretary of State, said: 
 
 "The United States are not averse to having the great 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 139 
 
 powers know that they publicly recognize the peculiar 
 relations between them and Liberia, and that they are pre- 
 pared to take every proper step to maintain them." 
 
 And the powers heeded our warning. 
 
 Pessimist : But Liberia was practically colonized under 
 the tutelage of our government. 
 
 Patriot : In some sense, yes. But it is not in the Western 
 Hemisphere, and you have insisted that the doctrine con- 
 fines us to it. What the Monroe Doctrine really amounts 
 to is an assertion that America will resist the interference 
 on the part of any power with what America herself deems 
 to be America's business, and that she in turn will deal 
 out justice to all other powers according to her idea of 
 justice. No other view is rational, and no other view 
 could stand. Even if the Monroe Doctrine had been en- 
 grafted in our laws, it has been repealed in part. It is 
 a well-settled principle that where two laws conflict the 
 latter law annuls and repeals the preceding one. And 
 this would be especially true where, as in the present case, 
 the latter law is a treaty, because a treaty is the supreme 
 law of the land. Whatever may be said, then, of the pre- 
 vious force of the Alonroe Doctrine, our treaty provision 
 — that is, our supreme law enactment stipulating certain 
 covenants to Spain as to the Philippine Islands — compels 
 whatever interference may prove necessary with foreign 
 powers to preserve the integrity of these covenants. 
 
 Citizen : It seems to me that no further proof is needed 
 to justify our conduct as far as the Monroe Doctrine is 
 concerned. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Is there any different opinion? 
 
 Pessimist: I am not convinced. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Is there any one except Pessimist who still 
 doubts this justification? 
 
140 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Chorus of voices : No. No. 
 
 Uncle Sam : If there is any further doubt, let it be 
 made known now. Hearing none, I assume that all but 
 Pessimist are convinced, and I recommend that we pro- 
 ceed to the next topic. 
 
 STRONG ARMY AND NAVY. 
 
 Pessimist: One of the objections which we make 
 against the Philippine policy is that it necessitates a strong 
 army and navy. Mr. Bryan says : 
 
 "It is strange that this request for so large an increase 
 in the permanent army should be asked of a peace-loving 
 people just at the time when the Czar of Russia is urging 
 the nations of the world to join in the reduction of mili- 
 tary establishments, but strange as it may seem, the Presi- 
 dent not only requests it, but the Republican leaders in 
 Congress seem inclined to grant the request. Progress 
 in Europe, retrogression in the United States." 
 
 Patriot : I would not cast any reflection upon the efforts 
 of nations to minimize the necessity of war; and 
 whatever may have been Air. Bryan's view at the time he 
 delivered himself of the opinion you have quoted from, 
 he certainly would not contend now that either the Czar 
 of Russia or any of those who joined in co-operation with 
 him had in view anything more than merely to reduce 
 such necessity to a minimum. The condition of the 
 crown, as well as the character of recommendations made 
 by his representatives, proved the limitations of his pur- 
 pose. Charity compels this construction rather than to 
 charge him with insincerity. That recognized internation- 
 al statesman yet remains to be heard from who took seri- 
 ously the proposition of disarmament, and the enterprise 
 with which Russia continued to build her ships and to 
 exert her diplomatic genius in the prospective division of 
 niina to her selfish interest, all conspire to limit any 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 141 
 
 serious purpose she may have had to the realm of reason- 
 able additions to our international law in keeping with 
 that human nature which from the dawn of history has 
 existed, and which all save a few theorists still believe to 
 exist, whereby men and nations subscribe to the first law 
 of nature — self-preservation. 
 
 The founders of our government were all agreed that 
 we should surround ourselves with sufficient warlike 
 power to insure peace. George Washington said: "To 
 be prepared for war is the most effectual means to pro- 
 mote peace." This maxim has been subscribed to from 
 the day it was uttered a century ago until the present 
 time; and it was ably elaborated by one of America's 
 proud warriors and able statesmen, Governor Roosevelt, 
 in an address before the Naval War College, June, 1897, 
 while he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Speaking 
 at that time, this distinguished political philosopher ut- 
 tered a prophetic truth, which he himself later helped to 
 verify, to the effect that modern warfare is decisive. He 
 says: "In most recent wars the operations of the first 
 ninety days have decided the result of the conflict." Let 
 us not forget what disastrous fate might have befallen 
 the United States if we had not happened to be warned of 
 the plans of the Rebels for building the Merrimac in time 
 ourselves to construct the Monitor for its rival and vic- 
 tor. And let us review that sad page in American history 
 which records the lack of foresight preceding the War of 
 181 2, freely acknowledged by our ancestors, by ignoring 
 the admonition, "In time of peace prepare for war," and 
 which neglect led to severe loss, the burning of our capi- 
 tol, almost civil war among ourselves, and a treaty of 
 peace which was scarcely short of American humility. A 
 necessary conclusion upon which historians are agreed 
 is, that if we had been prepared for war Great Britain 
 
142 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 would never have provoked it. Governor Roosevelt, in 
 the address before referred to, said: 
 
 "In public, as in private life, a bold front tends to insure 
 peace and not strife. * * * In war the mere defensive 
 never pays, and can never result in anything but disaster. 
 It is not enough to parry a blow ; the surest way to pre- 
 vent its repetition is to return it." 
 
 If any one doubts Governor Roosevelt's right to speak 
 as one in authority on this question, let me remind that 
 one that when we took the aggressive and struck back- 
 by sending Dewey to capture or destroy the Spanish fleet 
 at Manila, this nation had the benefit of the combined 
 wisdom of McKinley as President and Roosevelt as 
 Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Again Governor Roose- 
 velt says : 
 
 "Preparedness deters the foe, and maintains right by 
 the show of ready might without the use of violence. 
 Peace, like freedom, is not a gift that tarries long in the 
 hands of cowards, or of those too feeble or too short- 
 sighted to deserve it." 
 
 It would seem needless to present any argument in 
 favor of an adequate army and navy, but so much irre- 
 sponsible criticism has been hurled at the Administration 
 for encouraging the continued growth of these instru- 
 mentalities for peace that some attention to the subject 
 seems warranted. By the presence of adequate force we 
 not only preserve peace where war may be threatened, 
 but we are thus enabled to impress upon the world our 
 notions of neutrality. So familiar is every one with the 
 truth for which I am contending, that every utterance 
 seems a platitude. Scarcely a message delivered by any 
 one of the Presidents from Washington to McKinley has 
 been closed without some express or implied approval of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 143 
 
 an adequate army and navy. Monroe says in his Annual 
 Message, 1824: 
 
 "If a system of universal and permanent peace could be 
 established, or if in war the belligerent parties would 
 respect the rights of neutral powers, we should have no 
 occasion for a navy or an army. The expense and dan- 
 gers of such establishment might be avoided. The his^ 
 tory of all ages proves that this cannot be presumed, but 
 on the contrary, that at least one-half of every century in 
 ancient as well as modern times has been consumed in 
 wars, and often of the most general and desolating char- 
 acter. Nor is there any cause to infer, if we examine the 
 condition of the nations with which we have the most 
 intercourse and strongest political relations, that we shall 
 in the future be exempt from that calamity within any 
 period to which a rational calculation may be extended; 
 and as to the rights of neutral powers, it is sufficient to 
 appeal to our own experience to demonstrate how little 
 regard will be paid to them whenever they come in conflict 
 with the interests of the powers at war while we rely on 
 the justice of our cause and on argument alone." 
 
 Again in the same message President Monroe said : 
 
 "Two great objects are therefore to be regarded in the 
 establishment of an adequate naval force; the first to 
 prevent war so far as it may be practicable, the second to 
 diminish its calamities when it may be inevitable. Hence 
 the subject of defense becomes intimately connected in 
 all its parts in war and in peace for the land and at sea. No 
 government will be disposed in its wars with other powers, 
 to violate our rights if it knows we have the means, are 
 prepared and resolved to defend them. The motive will 
 also be diminished if it knows that our defenses by land 
 are so well planned and executed that an invasion of our 
 coasts cannot be productive of the evils to which we have 
 heretofore been exposed." 
 
 In another message Mr. Monroe voices the same senti- 
 ment in very succinct language : "It is by our ability to 
 
1U PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 resent injuries and redress wrongs that we may avoid 
 them." 
 
 President Tyler said in his Inaugural Address in 1841 : 
 
 "In regard to foreign nations, the groundwork of my 
 policy will be justice on our part to all, submitting to in- 
 justice from none. * * * With a view to this, the con- 
 dition of our military defenses will become a matter of 
 anxious solicitude." 
 
 And he urges that these "should be rendered replete 
 with efficiency." 
 
 And so I might go on quoting from practically all the 
 Presidents to the same effect. 
 
 ADEQUACY. 
 
 Pessimist: I am ready to concede that we need some 
 sort of army and navy, but it is proposed to make it too 
 large. We are threatened with militarism. I saw it sug- 
 gested in an editorial not long ago that there is great 
 danger of our becoming an army-ridden nation, and that 
 when the army is sufficiently increased and brought under 
 the subjection and discipline of the President, who is its 
 commander-in-chief, he will use the forces for the pur- 
 pose of keeping himself in office ; that he might even 
 dispense with the formality of election; but if not so 
 bad as that, he would at least see that the vote was influ- 
 enced for him by military menace. 
 
 Patriot : It may be well to divide the question immedi- 
 ately in hand into two sub topics : First, what kind of 
 army and navy are adequate ; second, is there any danger 
 of military excess ? 
 
 Adequacy is a comparative term. What was adequate 
 in our army and navy a hundred years ago would not be 
 termed adequate to-day. For a comparison of this 
 thought, let us take the ordinary walks of life. Look 
 around you and witness the development of necessities, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 145 
 
 and necessity in the matter of national war footing is 
 synonymous with adequacy. 
 
 Smith and Jones are grocerymen in the same town, 
 catering to the same class of trade, and have no competi- 
 tion outside of themselves. It may be said truthfully that 
 neither of them needs a telephone, but Jones puts one in. 
 To him it is a luxury, but the moment he has it Smith 
 must put one in — not as a luxury, but as a necessity. In 
 the country districts many of you remember when a top 
 k u ggy was a rare possession, and an organ or piano 
 scarcely seen at all in any of the country homes. To-day 
 these are regarded as necessities. Some neighborhoods 
 went on developing until the pride of others was quick- 
 ened, and they purchased these actual necessities which 
 but a short time ago were mere luxuries. 
 
 Pessimist : But if you apply this doctrine to war prep- 
 aration where will we stop? Is not the United States 
 doing wrong in advancing, and thus compelling, the emu- 
 lation and similar advance of foreign nations? Is not 
 this just the thing objected to by the Czar of Russia when 
 he declared that there was danger of all the nations arm- 
 ing to the teeth, and draining their resources to sustain 
 the soldiery? 
 
 Patriot : I have already given my opinion of the extent 
 to which the Czar's peace conference might be thought of 
 to advantage, but this question should not be determined 
 either by light remarks about the Czar's intentions, nor on 
 the other hand should it be left to the fate of mere senti- 
 mentalists, and "peace at any price" doctrinaires, of which 
 it must be confessed America, like the rest of the world, 
 has a scattered few. Those few, however, make enough 
 trouble to require a somewhat larger war footing than 
 would be necessary without their disturbance. The ques- 
 tion should rather be considered calmly, and in the light of 
 all the facts and circumstances. It is a fact that the 
 
146 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 7 
 
 United States, instead of taking the lead and setting the 
 1 example referred to by Pessimist, has not only resisted 
 the too great increase of war preparation, but has lin- 
 gered a generation behind the other powers of the world ; 
 and she has paid dearly for it at times. I hold that that 
 army and navy is adequate which will enforce our just 
 claims and protect our rights at the minimum of cost in 
 life and money. The question of expense, therefore, in- 
 fluences the question of adequacy in so far that false 
 economy in the peace footing of war preparation results 
 in such abnormal expense in the actual clash of arms that 
 the average expense distributed over both periods is 
 greater than if sufficient preparation for emergencies had 
 been provided in the beginning. Certainly we cannot call 
 that national economy which calls for such description 
 as is found in Monroe's message of January 50, 1824, 
 where he says : 
 
 "The amount of the property of our fellow-citizens 
 which was seized and confiscated or' destroyed by the 
 belligerent parties in the wars of the French revolution 
 or of those which followed before we became a party to 
 the war, is almost incalculable. * * * Two great ob- 
 jects are therefore to be regarded in the establishment of 
 an adequate force — the first to prevent war so far as it 
 may be practicable, the second to diminish its calamities 
 when it may be inevitable." 
 
 But what is adequacy? that is the question. There may 
 be several tests. One is a comparison with the other 
 powers as suggested before. A standing army of 100,000 
 men would still be but one out of 800 of our population, 
 whereas the standing army of Germany is about 1 out of 
 every 200 of the population; that of England 1 out of 
 every 180 cf the population, and that of Russia 1 out of 
 every 150 of the population. In our navy we have a total 
 of 130 effective fighting vessels, or without any qualifica- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? U1 
 
 tion whatever, we shall have, after the completion of the 
 eight fitst-class battleships, four monitors, thirty torpedo 
 boats and sixteen torpedo boat destroyers now under con- 
 struction, and including all the yachts, steamers, colliers, 
 etc., only a total of 242. Germany has, including torpedo 
 boats and torpedo boat destroyers, about 244 vessels in 
 her navy ; England has about 727, and Russia about 269. 
 But. we have also our own experience as a criterion 
 and by which to compare our present and future needs. 
 In 1867 the peace establishment of the regular army of 
 the United States was put at 54,641 men. In 1893 it had 
 been reduced to 27,862 men ; in 1898 still further reduc- 
 tions had taken place until it numbered but 25,051. At 
 the beginning of the Spanish-American War it was in- 
 creased to 27,700 men, and later, for the emergency of 
 war, to 65,000, and again by Act of Congress March 2, 
 1899, to 100,000 men. 
 
 Pessimist: If it was not wrong and unnecessary to 
 have a large standing army, why was the great reduc- 
 tion made in 1867 and 1898 — a 60 per cent decrease? 
 
 Patriot: The reason for this reduction forms a part 
 of the answer to the doleful warnings of the peace-loving 
 claimants to sanctification, and with the permission of the 
 audience I will postpone the statement of reasons for that 
 reduction to a little later period in the discussion. I shall 
 first attempt to show that the maintenance of 100,000 in 
 the standing army is not without precedent in the United 
 States. It is, indeed, a smaller army in time of war, in pro- 
 portion to our population, and a much smaller army in pro- 
 portion to our wealth than was maintained in 1867 in time 
 of peace. In 1867 our population was, in round numbers, 
 37,000,000, and the estimated aggregate wealth of the 
 nation was $28,000,000,000. It is thought that the census 
 
148 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST* 
 
 will show a population of 75,000,000 and that the aggre- 
 gate wealth of the country is $100,000,000,000. It will 
 thus be seen that the present army is but one man to 800 
 of population, whereas the army of 1S07 was one man to 
 677 of population, and the ratio of wealth in 1867 to the 
 wealth of 1900 is as I to 3 ; and yet we now have less than 
 two to one of aetual military members. Those who are 
 criticising President McKinley for doing his plain, patri- 
 otic duty are impliedly eritieising Lineoln for that for 
 which the world praised him. I have called your attention 
 to the strength of the navy at the present time, or as it 
 will be in the near future. Our modesty in 1900 is shown 
 further by the comparison of the navy to-day with the 
 navy as it was in 1S64. At that time the national govern- 
 ment had more than coo vessels, or over twice the num- 
 ber — nearly three times the number — now in the service. 
 
 MILITARY EXCESS IMPOSSIBLE IN REPUBLIC. 
 
 Patriot : I shall now address myself to the proposition 
 that military excess is impossible under a true republican 
 form of government. 
 
 Those who try to curry favor with the people by alleg- 
 ing the danger of militarism when the increase of the 
 army or navy is suggested, either wilfully magnify the 
 danger, or else they fail to catch the spirit of representa- 
 tive government. Why has almost every President found 
 it necessary to cultivate a willingness on the part of the 
 people to provide the necessary strength of army and 
 navy, and why is it that notwithstanding their constant 
 admonition, our army and navy have grown unevenly 
 and slowly? The reason is plainly found in the fact 
 that representatives in a representative government are 
 loath to vote taxes upon the people, and will not do so 
 until they are justified by popular opinion. Whenever the 
 
PAT} UST? 
 
 time comes, therefore, tte navy have 
 
 reached the proper strength, the party advocating a c 
 sation of appropriations for them will be able to ma 
 such an appeal to the American people that the ce 
 will take place. The same calamity prophets busied them- 
 selves in warning the people in the same manner when 
 they were ing the adoption of our national consti- 
 
 tution, and they were answered most effectively by Mad- 
 n in one of the Federalist papers m which he 
 says : 
 
 "That the people and the States shou! a sufficient 
 
 period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men 
 ready to betray both ; that the traitors should through 
 th: 1 uniformly and systems. pursue some 
 
 fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment ; 
 that the governments and the people of the United Sta 
 
 [entiy and patiently behold the gathering storm 
 and continue to supply the materials until it should be 
 prepared to bur 'heir own heads, must appear to 
 
 every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious 
 jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counv 
 feit zeal, than like the sober apprehension of genuine 
 patriotism 
 
 That public servants study to place themselves on rec- 
 1 in fa ' judicious economy — aye, too often in 
 
 fa^. excessive, and there" : false economy — is 
 
 evider. the very fact of inevitable reduction in the 
 
 strength of our war footing during uninterrupted periods 
 peace. This is the answer to Pessimist's question of a 
 few moments ago. In f the constant warnings of 
 
 our patriotic Presidents, uniform growth of the navy and 
 army has been in ave had to be developed 
 
 fits and start a sufficient incr: 
 
 alv anting in the people in til profound peace, 
 
 iherent in Arr nt that repr 
 
150 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 atives invariably echo the desire of the people. This 
 condition, though an inconvenience, is nevertheless jus- 
 tified, because it forms one of the strongest pillars of 
 safety in the governmental structure. Resort must there- 
 fore be had to the people's consent under extraordinary 
 conditions when their consent is obtainable. When war 
 clouds are gathering in the peaceful sky or amid the actual 
 clash of arms, or while the sad memories of disaster and 
 the proud deeds of martial heroes linger vividly in the 
 mind, and the moral of needful preparation takes hold 
 upon the imagination — all of which conditions prevail in 
 a cluster about the immediate events of war — at such 
 times, and at such times only, will the people sustain their 
 representatives in their honest zeal for public defense. 
 Since opportunities present themselves at rare intervals, 
 a President of the United States who neglected to make 
 earnest recommendations at these timely seasons would 
 be derelict in his duty and open to the just charge of time- 
 serving. He would be indulging in the worst type of 
 charlatanism imaginable who, for the sake of momentary 
 popularity by display of economy, would neglect the 
 only opportunities which come "in our form of govern- 
 ment, of surrounding the people with the means and facil- 
 ities by which a little later on they can defend their homes, 
 their honor, and the very government itself from the un- 
 foreseen attacks which history teaches us are likely to 
 be made against a nation prepared for war, and abso- 
 lutely certain to be made against a nation which is un- 
 prepared ; and as the President would be culpable for 
 such neglect, so any man who, occupying a position of 
 influence in his community, for the sake of parading his 
 notions of economy, exerts that influence to thwart the 
 President's dutiful effort, is wanting in genuine patriot- 
 ism, for patriotism looks to the safety, comfort and hap- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 151 
 
 piness — not alone of the people to-day living, but of all 
 future generations. 
 
 In 1797-98 the fear of war with France so stimulated 
 the confidence of the representatives that they authorized 
 the construction and purchase of 27 vessels. These were 
 not needed for the purpose designed, for war was averted ; 
 but with what honor and glory this navy served the in- 
 terests of this government later on let the story of our 
 intrepid resistance to the Barbary States and of the ser- 
 vice of the few little giant vessels, such as Constitution, 
 President, and United States in the War of 1812 relate. 
 If the fear of war with France had not afforded the oppor- 
 tunity for strengthening our navy, or if the President and 
 Congress had been so craven as to neglect that oppor- 
 tunity, the buccaneering triumphs of the Barbary States 
 might have continued indefinitely to lay waste our com- 
 merce at sea, and England's navy, 830 vessels strong, 
 would have made a more pitiable spectacle of the United 
 States than she did in the War of 18 12. Need I multiply 
 illustrations to prove the fact that in our government, so 
 far from there being danger of military excess, exceptional 
 opportunities are essential to sufficient military growth. 
 
 Pessimist : But who shall say when we get over the 
 line? Suppose when our military has grown a little 
 stronger and thoroughly disciplined, the President should 
 issue such commands as to use this force to perpetuate his 
 office? Patriot has not ventured to answer this part of 
 the objection I made awhile ago. 
 
 Patriot: I lay it down as a fundamental principle in 
 our government that there can be no such automaton dis- 
 cipline among this free people as would cause a soldier 
 or an officer to commit an act of treason at the command 
 of anybody. The regular army itself would be divided on 
 such a proposition, and I should hate to believe that they 
 
152 PATRIOT OR PESSIM.IS1 : 
 
 would all be traitors. On the contrary, I would rather 
 believe both for the sake of accuracy and my faith in 
 their manhood that treason will be the exception. Does 
 anyone doubt that soldiers will refuse to follow the com- 
 mander-in-chief when they differ from him on a great 
 national question? It has been demonstrated that they 
 will break the ranks when they are wrong - and the Execu- 
 tive right, as witness the division of our regular army in 
 our War of the Rebellion. The suggestion Pessimist 
 makes contemplates nothing short of treason which would 
 convulse the entire population, throw the country into 
 revolution, and draw a distinct line of separation, on the 
 one side of which would be those ready to abandon the 
 principle of our government and to violate not only the 
 spirit but the letter of the Constitution, which lays down 
 and surrounds with safeguards the methods of election. 
 On this side of the line would be represented only those 
 who, by some inconceivable, unimaginable and impossible 
 magic of thought, would of a sudden conceive a prefer- 
 ence for a king rather than for a President ; for a mon- 
 archy rather than a republic — for a despotism rather than 
 liberty and freedom. If abject subservience on the part of 
 the army to such a condition can by any stretch of the 
 most lurid imagination be conceived, then on this side 
 of the line would be only the army of 100,000 men at 
 most. 
 
 On the other side of the line would be the patriots who 
 prize the heritage of liberty, freedom and equality, who 
 believe in the representative governments, who regard the 
 right of suffrage and the purity of the ballot as a sacred 
 trust, as binding as an oath before high heaven, and in 
 addition to this there would be lifted against the puny 
 threat of the 100,000 soldiers the mighty arm of the irre- 
 sistible host of militia made up from the 20,000,000 of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 153 
 
 freemen, from each of whom would go forth the defiant 
 appeal made by Patrick Henry : "Give me liberty or give 
 me death." Does any sane person think that a man capa- 
 ble of being selected for the high office of President, 
 which is 'regarded the world over (because it is selec- 
 tion and not by force) the most exalted and the most dis- 
 tinguished honor possible in civic life — does anyone, I 
 say, think that such a man would risk his reputation, his 
 good name, and, indeed, his life, in such a game as that ? 
 Insane would be the President who could think of such a 
 venture ; and no less insane is the man who can picture 
 such a thing as remotely probable. No reasoning man 
 believes it possible. It is pointed out by our adversaries 
 as a part of that spurious political capital which in a pri- 
 vate corporation would be called watered stock. It repre- 
 sents no value. It is a means of obstruction to the on- 
 ward movement of the Ship of State, with objects in view 
 on the part of the obstructionist wholly selfish. He hopes 
 when the majestic vessel slows up, that he will be able to 
 pull his little, old-fashioned craft up beside her and climb 
 on and take charge of the pilot house. 
 
 Every step forward proposed since the government 
 began has been antagonized by the ultra-conservatives, 
 and these adversaries always assure us that we are blindly 
 rushing over a destructive precipice which they, but not 
 we, can discern, and which will land us in the abyss of 
 monarchy or anarchy, or some other form of utter ruin. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I would like to ask if any one doubts the 
 wisdom and justice of the attitude of the Administration 
 in increasing the strength of the army and navy. Shall 
 I assume from your silence that the President is right? 
 
 Voices : He is right. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Then let us proceed to the subdivision of 
 the discussion which deals with the question of humanity. 
 
III. 
 
 QUESTION OF HUMANITY. 
 
 Pessimist : Though you seem to have convinced the 
 audience of our legal right to acquire and to govern the 
 Philippines ; and though the audience seem also to believe 
 that it will pay ; that both labor and capital will be bene- 
 fited, and that the danger of international war and the 
 jeopardy of neutrality are less by our ownership than 
 under a protectorate; and that neither of these dangers 
 can be avoided regardless of the Philippines ; and though 
 I stand alone in my belief that the Monroe Doctrine has 
 been violated, and that our army and navy are being de- 
 veloped to an unnecessary and dangerous degree of 
 strength, yet I defy you to convince any of us that the 
 policy pursued is right in the name of humanity. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Patriot has made such suggestions in 
 regard to the order of treatment of the previous topics 
 as to indicate exhaustive reading and thought upon the en- 
 tire subject. Perhaps he has a plan of outline for the sub- 
 ject of humanity, or will Pessimist offer an outline? 
 
 Pessimist : I see no reason why we should sub-divide 
 the subject up. It is the trick of a lawyer to tear to 
 pieces a single proposition and talk about the parts instead 
 of the whole, and the purpose is the confusion of the 
 court and jury. I can say what I have to say under the 
 general subject without cutting it to pieces. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I confess my surprise that Pessimist 
 should discourage analytic thought and discussion. It is 
 a subject for regret that so much haphazard, unscientific 
 and therefore irresponsible criticism should be hurled at 
 all efforts in the direction of progress. How a logical 
 
 154 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 155 
 
 division of a main subject, with the dissection and study 
 of each step in its proper order, showing its connection 
 with the next step, can result in confusion, I am unable 
 to understand. My own view is that it is precisely this 
 sort of reasoning which leads to the light, and that the 
 cause, however meritorious, which falls into the hands 
 of loose and careless thinkers or men who avoid logic 
 because of its unerring index to truth, is the cause which 
 suffers even at the hands of just courts and juries for 
 the want of lucid presentation. At least I think we should 
 listen to Patriot's plan of outline. 
 
 Pessimist : Very well, let him spout. 
 
 Patriot: The question upon which we are about to 
 enter presents itself to my mind in five main divisions. 
 First, we can spend some time to advantage in discussing 
 right and duty, both as to Aguinaldo and his followers, 
 and as to the Filipinos in general, and as to the world ; 
 then, second, some attention should be paid to humanity 
 as taught by the traditions and precedents of the Fathers. 
 We should in the third place consider this main subject as 
 affected, so far as it may be properly affected, by gov- 
 ernment expediency ; then, fourth, the specific question of 
 territorial government in the light of humanity cannot be 
 overlooked ; and last of all, we should take into considera- 
 tion the effect on American civilization. 
 
 Voices : Very good ; very good. 
 
 Pessimist : I do not see how I can make such a divi- 
 sion, as I have not thought of it before. I have read 
 charges of unrighteous conduct against the Administra- 
 tion for such unwarranted conduct as the subjugation of 
 the Filipinos, and I do not believe any one can hear what 
 orators have said to this effect without being convinced 
 as I have been convinced ; and I prefer to take up these 
 arguments as they come to my mind and not be annoyed in 
 
15G PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 the discussion by rules and regulations, as Patriot has 
 been insisting upon from the beginning. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I am constrained to say in the interest of 
 justice and fair discussion that Patriot's outlines so far 
 have been the means of a clearer understanding of the 
 subject, with no tendency to trammel the thoughts of any 
 nor to baffle the course of proper argument. Truth is 
 the object of our search, and we cannot discard the pro- 
 cesses of thought and analysis which have approved 
 themselves to scholars and statesmen since Socrates began 
 to teach merely for the convenience of those who feel a 
 grievance, but who for their own reasons have neglected 
 and failed to put their grievances in the shape of specific 
 and intelligible indictments. If Pessimist prefers to go on 
 in the rambling sort of way which seems to have been his 
 plan from the beginning, it is not within my province as 
 chairman of the meeting to hinder him ; but he can have 
 no reasonable objection if Patriot should pursue his order- 
 ly and logical course in answering Pessimist's arguments. 
 Pessimist may therefore proceed as suits him best. 
 
 Pessimist: I don't care how Patriot answers, but I 
 propose to produce some burning truths that cannot be 
 denied, no matter how systematic may be his effort. Mr. 
 Bryan says : 
 
 "Imperialism finds its inspiration in dollars, not in duty. 
 It is not our duty to burden our people with increased 
 taxes in order to give a few speculators an opportunity 
 for exploitation ; it is not our duty to sacrifice the best 
 blood of our nation in tropical jungles in an attempt to 
 stifle the very sentiments which have given vitality to 
 American institutions ; it is not our duty to deny to the 
 people of the Philippines the rights for which our fathers 
 fought from Bunker Hill to Yorktown. Our nation has 
 a mission, but it is to liberate those who are in bondage — 
 not to place shackles on those who are struggling to be 
 free." 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 157 
 
 Again Mr. Bryan says : 
 
 "The main purpose of the founders of our government 
 was to secure for themselves and for posterity the bless- 
 ings of liberty, and that purpose has been faithfully fol- 
 lowed up to this time. Our statesmen have opposed each 
 other upon economic questions, but they have agreed in 
 defending self-government as the controlling national 
 idea. They have quarreled among themselves over tariff 
 and finance, but they have been united in their opposition 
 to an entangling alliance with any European power." 
 Again Mr. Bryan says : 
 
 "The Philippines are too far away and their people too 
 different from ours to be annexed to the United States 
 even if they desired it." 
 He says : 
 
 "If an orator of the Fourth of July dares to speak of 
 inalienable rights, or refers with commendation to the 
 manner in which our forefathers resisted taxation without 
 representation, he will be warned to keep silent lest his 
 utterances excite rebellion among distant subjects." 
 
 Mr. Bryan asks the painfully-suggestive question, 
 "Shall we change the title of our Executive and call him 
 the President of the United States and the Emperor of 
 the Philippines?" Uncle Sam will recall my reference 
 to this sad prospect in our conference at his retreat. 
 Again, Mr. Bryan asks : 
 
 "If independence is more desirable to our people than 
 a colonial policy, who is there or what is there to prevent 
 the recognition of Philippine independence?" 
 
 Citizen: Pessimist jumps around from one subject to 
 another so rapidly that I fail to follow him. I am almost 
 dizzy with the effort. It reminds me of looking at a 
 kinetoscope when I was down to New York last summer. 
 I simply hear such a variety of statements following one 
 another with lightning change that I cannot distinguish 
 between them nor grasp the meaning of any of them. 
 
 Pessimist : I do not see how any man can be so blind 
 to patriotism as to fail to see in these quotations a faith- 
 
iv PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST* 
 
 ful warning against the most terrible evils of our time; 
 and what objection can there be to massing these evils 
 ■ and destroying them all at once? Whal is the use of mak- 
 ing peace with any of them? Although 1 am frank to say 
 that I have not pointed out anything like all the wrongs of 
 the Government, language fails me to depict the terrible 
 evils of our time. When the moneyed men <>f the coun- 
 try can eorncr all the money in the United States and 
 let the poor wage earners starve ; when gigantic hydra- 
 headed eorporations hover over the entire country, fas- 
 tening their tentacles upon all the industries and sucking 
 the life blood out of labor, and when on top of this the 
 President of the United States places a crown upon his 
 own head and seats himself upon a throne and conducts 
 a devastating and cruel war for the purpose of subjugat- 
 ing a foreign people and bringing them under the hated 
 rule of colonial empire, and when men will set themselves 
 up to justify all this infamy in the name of humanity, I 
 think it is time to call a halt ; and 1 refuse to be hindered 
 in the missionary work of enlightening the people as to 
 their condition of slavery by any set of rules and regula- 
 tions of debate taught by professors in millionaire college.- 
 whose very positions depend upon their training the 
 youth of the land to betray our country. 
 
 Uncle Sam : I trust, sir, you will not make it necessarv 
 for me to repeat in public the warnings I felt certain it 
 was necessary for me to give to you in private about 
 the degeneration of argument into mere abuse. 
 
 Pessimist: I thought I had some rights at this meet- 
 ing. I was to be the principal speaker, and did not sup- 
 pose even you would attempt to hinder me in my speech. 
 The people want to hear the truth, and I propose to give 
 it to them. I care not what Patriot or anybody else may 
 think, so long as the people are with me I shall continue 
 to preach the gospel of liberty and freedom. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Even in the face of propriety of speech 
 I have such an abiding faith in the good judgment of my 
 people that I shall interpose no objection to your pro- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? L59 
 
 ceeding in the way you have set out, provided they shall 
 desire to hear you. I appeal to the audience — shall he 
 go on? 
 
 Multitude- of Voices: No, No! Put him out! Hear 
 Patriot ! 
 
 Uncle Sam: I trust I interpret the voice of the audi- 
 ence rightly when I say that you are willing to hear 
 Pessimist also if he will he orderly and respectful in his 
 remarks. 
 
 Voices : Certainly, certainly. 
 
 Uncle Sam : You understand, then, Pessimist, that 
 you are welcome to continue the debate in a fair way. Do 
 you accept the conditions? 
 
 Pessimist : If Patriot will first answer the arguments I 
 have reproduced from Mr. Bryan I shall then have some- 
 thing more to say, and shall try to say it with that degree 
 of refinement and culture which seems so much to suit the 
 taste of imperialists, who would like to hobnob with kings 
 and princes. 
 
 Citizen : I have no desire to hobnob with kings and 
 princes. I want only what is fair and just and economical 
 in government, and I think the rest of the people here feel 
 the same way. We approve the kind of discussion rec- 
 ommended by Uncle Sam, and we do not want any reflec- 
 tions cast upon our taste. 
 
 Pessimist : Let Patriot talk awhile. 
 
 Patriot: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I 
 deeply regret that anything has occurred to occasion the 
 slightest ill feeling on the part of Pessimist. It was my 
 sincere wish that the discussion might go on with an eye 
 single to truth. Neither anger nor passion — nor, indeed, 
 impatience — constitutes a suitable vehicle for the convey- 
 ance of truth. Reason is the mother of truth, and fairness 
 
160 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 
 
 its handmaid. I trust that Pessimist will conform to 
 these views and give us the benefit of his ideas in the 
 residue of this discussion. I, for one, believe that Ameri- 
 can manhood has nothing- to fear, even from intemperate, 
 exaggerated and untruthful utterances of demagogues or 
 misguided partisans, because we do not act until we 
 have consulted the true oracle of wisdom and tested it 
 by the rule of fairness ; but it takes longer to accomplish 
 this desired end against promiscuous and erratic 
 charges than if these charges are brought intelligently and 
 sincerely. 
 
 The arguments, such arguments as they were, set forth 
 by Pessimist, run the entire gamut of our discussion, and 
 indeed, reach out into other fields. For example, he has 
 raised the discussion of the dollar argument, which we 
 disposed of in the early part of the discussion. He tells 
 us that the Philippines are too far away, after having 
 admitted our claim with reference to "remoteness." Still 
 other of his arguments distribute themselves over the 
 remaining portion of the discussion. He speaks of tax- 
 ation without representation, which, it is submitted, can 
 best be treated in connection with American Traditions 
 and Precedents. He charges us that we have entered 
 upon a colonial policy, which comes under the topic of 
 Territorial Government ; he refers to the entangling alli- 
 ances, which has already been treated in part as a question 
 of fact under the topic of International War and Neutral- 
 ity, and, which may further properly be treated as a ques- 
 tion of humanity under the topic of Right and Duty as 
 to the world. And so I see no way to give this audience 
 the benefit of my views except to take up these questions 
 in the order indicated by me awhile ago ; and since Pessi- 
 mist lias requested me to talk awhile, I invite your atten- 
 tion to the first topic under the question of Humanity. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 1(31 
 
 RIGHT AND DUTY. 
 
 Patriot : In order to a still more clear understanding 
 of this topic, I suggest that we consider it under three 
 sub-topics. First, as to Aguinaldo and the Insurgents ; 
 and I would like to ask Pessimist if he has anything to 
 offer at this particular juncture. 
 
 AS TO AGUINALDO AND INSURGENTS. 
 
 Pessimist : I would like to read a passage from Rev. 
 Van Dyke's sermon. He says : 
 
 "No party, no administration, could have received the 
 loyal support of the whole people unless it had written 
 on its banner the splendid motto, 'Not for gain, not for 
 territory, but for freedom and human brotherhood.' That 
 avowal alone made the war popular and successful ; for 
 that cause alone Christians could pray with a sincere 
 heart, and the mothers give their sons to death by slaugh- 
 ter and disease-, and lovers of liberty take up the unselfish 
 sword." 
 
 Let us see how much a true devotion of analysis will 
 aid Patriot in replying to this. 
 
 Patriot : No reply is necessary. I most heartily sub- 
 scribe to it, and if this discussion results in demonstrating 
 that the war in the Philippines is for gain and for territory 
 only, and is against freedom and human brotherhood, then 
 I shall vote success to Pessimist in all the claims he makes. 
 But it is easily demonstrable that the war and the Ameri- 
 can control of the Philippines make for freedom and 
 human progress, while incidentally it results in gain and 
 added territory. We should not lose sight of our prop- 
 erty rights in the Philippines which the former part of 
 this discussion has demonstrated, and we shall not fail to 
 see that in asserting our property rights we are perform- 
 ing the highest duty and recognizing the most salutary 
 
162 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 right of Aguinaldo and all the other tenants of our prop- 
 erty there. The trouble with Pessimist is that he confuses 
 liberty with ownership of property. When did we adopt 
 the "leveling system" of anarchy which contends that no 
 man is free who is bound to recognize a superior author- 
 ity ? The moment we admit that Aguinaldo and the insur- 
 gents, who are in possession of a part of the Philippines, 
 should be pronounced the owners of the islands when the 
 title changed hands, we must, to be consistent, say to 
 every tenant of real estate : "Watch the records of trans- 
 fer, and if your landlord should ever sell this property 
 instead of making attornment to the purchaser, assert 
 your claim as owner." Such advice might have been ac- 
 ceptable properly enough in the Place de la Concorde dur- 
 ing the Reign of Terror, but in America, where the rights 
 of property are held sacred, no such advice will ever be 
 given by any. one in authority, and it would not be accept- 
 ed by the tenant himself if it were given. Such advice is 
 of the same ilk as that which recommends that the prop- 
 erty of the industrious and frugal should be divided up 
 equally with the idle, shiftless and degenerate. 
 
 Pessimist : But Aguinaldo and the other Filipinos are 
 laying claim to their own native soil, to which I contend 
 they have the right as against the Americans. 
 
 Patriot: Once more I declare that our possession of 
 the Philippines is by consent of the Filipinos, but, in addi- 
 tion to this fact, it is in keeping with the progress of 
 civilization. History scarcely reaches back far enough to 
 determine the right of title to any territory anywhere on 
 the question of priority. If we are to condemn ourselves 
 for taking territory for the pupose of civilization, then we 
 must place the blame futher back, because we have in- 
 herited that idea from our ancestors, and he who quarrels 
 
PATRIOT UK PESSIMIST t 163 
 
 with President McKiniey for his policy in the Philippines 
 would quarrel with George Rogers Clark for invading the 
 territory of which the State where we are holding this 
 celebrated meeting is a part. He would, by implication, 
 say that this great garden spot of the Central States ought 
 still to be a part of the Province of Quebec. He would 
 call Pontiac a patriot as he does Aguinaldo, he would 
 condemn the French and Indian War of 1754 and call 
 Major Washington a despised imperialist for trying to 
 capture Fort Duquesne. But his sophistry would carry 
 him further back, and condemn the Indians themselves 
 because they drove out and exterminated the Mound 
 Builders. Indeed, he could not be sure that the Mound 
 Builders themselves were the rightful occupants of the 
 soil, for perhaps they in turn drove out some other peo- 
 ples. Such is the folly of trying to square the conduct of 
 progressive civilization with puristic, holier-than-thou 
 theories in the hands of demagogues. There is a prac- 
 tical side to American nature which seems to mete out 
 justice, though it must sometimes ride over those who 
 refuse to progress. Had Aguinaldo done nothing to de- 
 serve our animosity he would still have no right nor claim 
 upon our duty for any ownership in the Philippines out- 
 side of that ownership which belongs to the citizens of 
 other territories, legally and properly acquired and held 
 by the United States. 
 
 Pessimist: Do you mean to say that Aguinaldo is 
 at fault? 
 
 Patriot : I certainly do declare it. He plotted an as- 
 sault upon the American army. 
 
 Pessimist : I don't believe it. Our soldiers fired the 
 first shot. 
 
164 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Patriot : That proves nothing. We fired the first shot 
 in the war with Spain. 
 
 WHO PROVOKED THE PHILIPPINE WAR? 
 
 Patriot : The real question is not who struck the first 
 blow, but who, according to the code of national honor, 
 made the first blow necessary? I therefore admit with- 
 out discussion that we did fire the first shot, but it was 
 done after the most wanton provocation on the part of 
 the insurgents. 
 
 Pessimist : They were acting within their rights. They 
 were insisting upon that recognition which had been 
 promised by our consul-general at Singapore through 
 Aguinaldo, and when they saw they were going to be 
 subjugated, and that the success of America meant not 
 the riddance of a master but a change of masters, they 
 availed themselves of their right to protest. They had 
 no assurance from the President, such as the Cubans 
 had, that our purpose was in the interest of humanity 
 and not territorial aggression. Why should the President 
 refuse to speak? Why should Congress, when it had 
 the opportunity, refuse to pass the Bacon Resolution, 
 which specifically outlined the future policy of the United 
 States in the Philippines ; and who can blame Aguinaldo 
 and his compatriots for protesting against our conduct 
 when we thus refused to announce our purpose? The 
 protest made by Aguinaldo and his soldiers was not such 
 as should cause our soldiers to fire upon them. 
 
 Uncle Sam : The charge Pessimist makes that our sol- 
 diers fired without justification is a serious one. It is 
 perfectly admissible in this discussion, if true; but it 
 should be accompanied by unquestionable proof or else 
 be left unmade. 
 
 Pessimist : I can prove it by letters from the boys at 
 the front, and by Senator Hoar, Senator Pettigrew, Mr. 
 Brvun and a number of other eminent authorities. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 165 
 
 Patriot : In order to settle this question, permit me to 
 quote from the report of the Philippine Commission, offi- 
 cially made in Washington, Nov, 2, 1899, by the Com- 
 missioners, J. G. Schurman, George Dewey, Charles 
 Denby and Dean C. Worcester. You can get a full copy 
 of this report if you will drop a postal card to the Secre- 
 tary of State, and it is well worth reading, because it is 
 not hearsay, but official testimony and conclusive proof of 
 the situation in the Philippines. That report says : 
 
 "All manner of abuses were indulged in by the Insur- 
 gent troops, who committed assaults and robberies, and, 
 under the order of Gen. Pio del Pilar, even kidnaped 
 natives who were friendly to Americans and carried them 
 off into the mountains or killed them. In the interest of 
 law and order it became necessary to order the Filipino 
 forces back, and this order made them angry." 
 
 The Report then relates the organization of the "popu- 
 lar clubs" in Manila and vicinity under military order 
 from Aguinaldo, the object of which clubs was "to pro- 
 voke bitterness toward the Americans," and "to attack us 
 from within Manila while the regular Insurgent troops at- 
 tacked us from without." Again the Report says : 
 
 "It is now known that elaborate plans had been per- 
 fected for a simultaneous attack by the forces within and 
 without Manila. * * * A signal by means of rockets 
 had been agreed upon, and it was universally understood 
 that it would come upon the occurrence of the first act on 
 the part of the American forces which would afford a pre- 
 text ; and in the lack of such act, in the near future at all 
 events." 
 
 The Report then goes on to show a most per- 
 sistent and hateful effort on the part of the Insurgents to 
 draw our fire, violating the orders of our officers and then 
 openly calling our soldiers cowards for not firing. In 
 order to further facilitate their preparation for the secret 
 
166 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 attack, they pretended a desire for peace by diplomacy, 
 and time after time sought conferences with our officers. 
 Six sessions were held, during all of which Aguinaldo 
 was secretly advising those "friendly to him" to seek 
 refuge outside the city. And now note how it came that 
 the brave boys from Nebraska, acting as they believed in 
 the interest of patriotism and in the interest of right, fired 
 upon these Filipino Rebels who were insulting our flag, 
 and who were at the same time being advised by Mr. 
 Bryan, also of Nebraska, that they had a right to do so. 
 The Report says : 
 
 "On the evening of the 4th of February an Insurgent 
 officer came to the front with a detail of men and at- 
 tempted to pass the guard on the San Juan bridge, our 
 guard being stationed at the west end of the bridge. The 
 Nebraska sentinel drove them back without firing, but a 
 few minutes before nine o'clock that evening a large body 
 of Insurgent troops made an advance on the South Da- 
 kota outpost, which fell back rather than fire. About the 
 same time the Insurgents came in force to the east end of 
 the San Juan bridge in front of the Nebraska regiment. 
 For several nights prior thereto an lieutenant in the In- 
 surgent army had been coming regularly to our outpost 
 number two of the Nebraska regiment and attempting to 
 force the outpost back and insisting upon posting his 
 guard within the Nebraska lines ; and at this time and in 
 the darkness he again appeared with a detail of about 
 six men and approached Private Grayson of Co. D, 1st 
 Nebraska Volunteers, the sentinel on duty at Outpost No. 
 2. He, after halting them three times without effect, 
 fired, killing the lieutenant, whose men returned the fire 
 and retreated." 
 
 If anyone doubts the conspiracy set on foot by Agui- 
 naldo to kill indiscriminately men, women and children, 
 combatants or non-combatants alike, who might happen 
 to be in Manila, let him pay attention to the next sen- 
 tence of the Report : 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 167 
 
 "Immediately rockets were sent up by the Filipinos and 
 they commenced firing all along the line. * * * And 
 about four o'clock on the morning of February 5 the 
 Insurgents again opened fire all around the city and kept 
 it up until the Americans charged them and drove them, 
 with great slaughter, out of their trenches." 
 
 So much for an authentic statement of the facts. Hav- 
 ing heard the facts, you, ladies and gentlemen, have a 
 right to your own opinions ; but it may not be amiss if I 
 quote you the expert opinion of the Commissioners them- 
 selves. They say: 
 
 "Deplorable as war is, the one in which we are now en- 
 gaged was unavoidable by us. We were attacked by a 
 bold, adventurous and enthusiastic army, and no alterna- 
 tive was left to us except ignominious retreat." 
 
 Bear in mind that the evidence upon which this opinion 
 is based is of the highest order. The mails have been 
 loaded with letters from the boys to the same effect, and, 
 as stated in the earlier part of this discussion, if we were 
 compelled to resort to this sort of testimony, both the 
 earnestness and the number of communications support- 
 ing the Administration would equal, if they did not ex- 
 ceed, those opposing them ; but I have chosen rather to 
 rest the case upon the kind of testimony which a court 
 would receive and which appeals most strongly to genu- 
 ine seekers after truth in all such cases. 
 
 Uncle Sam: Will Pessimist now claim that our sol- 
 diers were unjustifiable in firing? 
 
 Pessimist: Perhaps as soldiers they could do noth- 
 ing else, but the policy of the government which com- 
 pelled them to fire was wrong, and therefore I contend 
 that, going back further, it can be shown that the Amer- 
 icans, and not Aguinaldo, provoked the war. They had 
 been told that victory for us meant victory for them, 
 and when they began to doubt this and called upon 
 
168 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST: 
 
 the President to declare his policy lie refused to do so. 
 They were, therefore, justified in resorting to force. 
 
 Patriot: Waiving the question of brutality and 
 Aguinaldo's plan of butchering innocent and alleged 
 guilty alike, which was perpetrated, and as far as pos- 
 sible executed by the insurgents, I undertake to say that 
 all the assurances authoritatively made by the United 
 States Government have been carried out in a way that 
 is satisfactory to the great majority of the Filipinos, as 
 I shall prove a little later on, though naturally it does 
 not meet with the precise wish of Aguinaldo and his co- 
 adventurers who had in mind the establishment of a 
 despotism under the name of republic; and I make bold 
 still further to assert that even if our purpose had not 
 been carried out at that time, the demands of Aguinaldo 
 for a declaration of purpose were premature and unrea- 
 sonable, because in the very nature of things we had no 
 opportunity, up to that time, to ascertain facts sufficient 
 upon which to build the administrative purpose,, and for 
 the further reason that the declaration of civil purpose* 
 during the continuance of war, or under the threat of war, 
 would have been without precedent. Such a course be- 
 longs to the nation suing for conditional peace rather 
 than to the nation whose just cause and strength of 
 arms both compel and enable it to exact unconditional 
 surrender. 
 
 Insurgent sympathizers in the United States have acted 
 as if they would hold a stop-watch over the President, 
 constituting themselves the judges, not only of what the 
 President, in his executive discretion, should do, but 
 when he should do it, and while mercilessly condemning 
 him for not acting hastily and upon partial or imperfect 
 information, they themselves, in the very act of con- 
 demning him, do so upon mere guess as to the situation. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 169 
 
 The Bacon resolution was so great an interference with 
 executive authority in time of war as almost to entitle 
 it to be called impertinent. No one could doubt its ten- 
 dency to aggravate war conditions, just as the repeated 
 efforts to compel President Lincoln to outline his recon- 
 struction plans before the War of the Rebellion was 
 over made the termination of that war more difficult and 
 more expensive. In trying to ascertain who provoked 
 the Philippine war these questions must be taken into 
 consideration. 
 
 Those who insist upon doubting the loyal purpose of 
 the President and who attempt to wring from him in ad- 
 vance an expression which he should be allowed to 
 withhold until the restoration of peace, are no less 
 absurd than the youth who, having suddenly reached 
 the first stages of manhood in the opinion of others, but 
 having grown to full stature of body and mind in his own 
 opinion, conceived it to be the proper and smart thing 
 to discipline his father; and so he requested his father 
 to make a new declaration of duty toward his neighbors, 
 and threatened that unless he made it in public he would 
 inform the neighbors that they had a right to fall out 
 with him and call him a traitor to the traditions of the 
 family and an ingrate in the fraternity of neighbors. 
 
 Just compare for one moment the quality of mind and 
 soul in the man who will thus embarrass the govern- 
 ment and question motives in such rank haste with the 
 quality of mind and soul in Admiral Decatur, who said: 
 "My country! May she always be right; but right or 
 wrong, my country!" 
 
 Pessimist. But, as Mr. Bryan has said: 
 "Our nation owes it to the nations with which we have 
 dealings, as well as to the inhabitants of Cuba, Porto 
 Rico and the Philippines, to announce immediately what 
 
170 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 it intends to do respecting the territory surrendered by 
 Spain." 
 
 Patriot: Whatever may have been the supposition on 
 the part of Anti-Expansionists a year ago, it is now cer- 
 tainly plain to everybody that the majority of the Fili- 
 pinos were satisfied, and are to-day satisfied, with the 
 declaration of purpose which was made. The attitude 
 of the Administration all along has been clearly under- 
 stood by those who were not looking for little flaws, to 
 be the same as that announced by the President in his 
 Ocean Grove speech: 
 
 "Peace first; then, with charity for all, establish a gov- 
 ernment of law and order, protecting life and property, 
 and occupation for the wellbeing of the people who will 
 participate in it under the Stars and Stripes." 
 
 It is no surprise that the people who insisted upon a 
 premature declaration of purpose immediately upon the 
 announcement just quoted, began to question the Presi- 
 dent's sincerity in the utterance; but in the second place, 
 replying to the quotation which Pessimist just made from 
 Mr. Bryan, no nation owes anything to a hostile nation, 
 a rebellwus faction nor to a seditious person. To estab- 
 lish such precedent would immediately give the right of 
 secession not alone to territory owned by the United 
 States, where all the people desire it, but where a self- 
 constituted faction of pretended rulers make the demand. 
 
 Pessimist: But Aguinaldo had been promised inde- 
 pendence for the Filipinos. 
 
 STATUS OF AGUINALDO. 
 
 Pessimist: Mr. Bryan says, in one of his articles on 
 Imperialism : 
 
 "In the formal protest filed with the Peace Commis- 
 sioners in Paris, the representatives of Aguinaldo assert 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? m 
 
 that they received friendly assurances from the United 
 States officials, and acted upon those assurances in co- 
 operating against Spain." 
 
 Patriot: Over against the testimony which Mr. Bryan 
 has seen fit to accept, namely, that of the emissaries of 
 the rebels themselves, I should like to impose the testi- 
 mony of the Philippine Commission, which accepts and 
 endorses as a committee the following statement of Ad- 
 miral Dewey: "No alliance of any kind was entered into 
 with Aguinaldo, nor was any promise made to him then 
 or any other time." 
 
 Pessimist: But did not our consul-general, Mr. E. 
 Spencer Pratt, at Singapore, send Aguinaldo to Admiral 
 Dewey to assist him in putting down the Spaniards, and 
 did not General Anderson treat him as an ally? And 
 would Aguinaldo have aided us with any other under- 
 standing? 
 
 Patriot: Taking up Pessimist's questions one at a 
 time, I should say in the first place that Aguinaldo would 
 naturally act with the Americans to destroy the power of 
 Spain, since it could be destroyed in no other way, and 
 since he had in mind, as subsequent events proved, the 
 subtle purpose to seize the fruits of the victory from the 
 Americans when it should have been achieved. I have 
 read you what ought to be accepted as sufficient evidence 
 — and, indeed, sufficient authority — upon which to base 
 our conclusions; but I may add in answer to your last 
 question, first, that if Mr. Pratt, in sending Aguinaldo 
 to Dewey made any promise of independence, he ex- 
 ceeded his authority specifically given by the Secretary 
 of State, and such, promise, therefore, would not be bind- 
 ing upon this government. It would not be bind- 
 ing even if Mr. Pratt had not been instructed to refrain 
 from such promise. It would be binding only if made 
 
172 PATRIOT GR PESSIMIST? 
 
 with the President's affirmative sanction. But Dewey 
 promised Aguinaldo nothing — he merely used him as a 
 volunteer assistant without compromising the sov- 
 ereignty at home. 
 
 Pessimist: This does not agree with Aguinaldo's rep- 
 resentation as was shown by Senator Pettigrew's recent 
 statements in the Senate. 
 
 Patriot: You seem to forget the reply to Senator Pet- 
 tigrew by Senator Lodge, which left Aguinaldo's sym- 
 pathizers no ground to stand on; and in addition to the 
 argument, Senator Lodge read the following letter, writ- 
 ten as late as Jan. 30, 1900, by Admiral Dewey himself: 
 
 "Washington, Jan. 30, 1900. 
 
 "Dear Senator Lodge : The statement of Emilio Agui- 
 naldo, as recently published in the Springfield Repub- 
 lican, as far as it relates to me, is a tissue of falsehoods. 
 I never promised directly or indirectly independence for 
 the Filipinos. I never treated him as an ally, except to 
 make use of him and the soldiers to assist me in my 
 operations against the Spaniards. He never alluded to 
 the word 'independence' in any conversation with me or 
 my officers. 
 
 "The statement that I received him with military hon- 
 ors or saluted the so-called Filipino flag is absolutely 
 false. Sincerely yours, 
 
 George Dewey/' 
 
 Whom will the people believe — Senator Lodge, cor- 
 roborated by Admiral Dewey, or Senator Pettigrew, cor- 
 roborated by Aguinaldo? 
 
 Chorus of Voices: Lodge and Dewey, of course. 
 
 Pessimist: But why did not General Otis yield to 
 Aguinaldo's request for a cessation of hostilities and for 
 the establishment of a neutral zone between our armies 
 and the Filipino insurgents. Aguinaldo explained that 
 the firing had been a mistake, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 1?3 
 
 Patriot: Of course, after this treacherous effort to 
 lead our soldiers into ambush had met with a dismal fail- 
 ure, the same treachery prompted him to try by other 
 means to accomplish his wanton purpose. In other 
 words, if he could win by surprise and attack, all well, 
 but if that fail, then he would resort to crafty diplomacy. 
 Of course, General Otis would not yield. No American 
 general would submit to such trifling and such humility. 
 Not to demand unconditional surrender in such a case 
 would be to cast an unjustifiable reflection upon the name 
 of America's most illustrious warrior — General Grant — 
 who, in answer to Buckner's request for a parley at Ft. 
 Donelson, said: "No terms except an unconditional and 
 immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move 
 immediately upon your works." This process of obtain- 
 ing peace was met by General Buckner in the same spirit 
 as was General Otis' plan of securing peace by conquer- 
 ing and not fooling with the enemy. General Buckner, 
 in yielding, said to General Grant that he had decided, 
 "notwithstanding the brilliant success of the Confeder- 
 ate armies yesterday, to accept the ungenerous and un- 
 chivalrous terms which you propose." As Grant was 
 justified by the American people in demanding uncon- 
 ditional surrender when he possessed the power to exact 
 it, so will the conduct of General Otis be commended 
 by all who admire American courage and believe in 
 American justice. 
 
 In the next place, the mere fact that Aguinaldo and 
 his associates aided in putting down the Spanish war 
 gives him and his chiefs no right as against the great 
 body of Filipinos. Indians and Indian chiefs have aided 
 us against the British, but that did not make allies of the 
 Indians. It did put upon us the duty of doing justice 
 toward the Indians, and perhaps of rendering special 
 
174 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 
 
 favors to the persons giving us aid, provided always that 
 they do not forfeit their claims upon us by treachery or 
 some other act of illegality which we could not look upon 
 with favor. If the act of accepting aid gives the one ren- 
 dering aid the right to dictate the terms of a settlement, 
 then let no nation accept the aid of an individual or a 
 nation unless it is ready to yield up its independence. 
 
 Aguinaldo's position from the time the treaty was 
 signed — if not, indeed, from the time Manila was cap- 
 tured, was precisely that of any inhabitant of any other 
 territory of the United States who puts himself in oppo- 
 sition either by protest or by force of arms, or by vote, 
 to the authority of the United States in that territory; 
 and no amount of bluster or sentimentalism can wreathe 
 for him a garland to cover up the scar of treason which 
 his own stubbornness has fixed upon his rebellious head. 
 
 AS TO FILIPINOS AS A WHOLE. 
 
 Patriot: It is the belief of the Administration that the 
 Filipinos, as a whole, desire the government which the 
 United States has arranged to administer over that coun- 
 try as our territory. If this be true, then the "consent 
 of the governed" theory literally interpreted would make 
 it incumbent upon the United States to do what it is 
 doing. Assuming for the moment that this is true, but 
 postponing proof to a later point in the discussion, we 
 are right. 
 
 Pessimist: But suppose you cannot prove it. 
 
 Patriot: I can and shall by such evidence as would 
 be acceptable to a reasonable man; but even if the proof 
 should be considered imperfect, temperate judgment 
 would be suspended until sufficient time shall have 
 elapsed for the full and satisfactory proof to be adduced, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 175 
 
 if it can be adduced. Moreover, since the acquisition of 
 the territory and our control over it have the sanction of 
 legal right, the burden rests upon those who oppose our 
 control to show that the majority of the people oppose 
 it, and not upon us to show that they favor it. 
 
 But when we come to discuss a little later on the char- 
 acter of the people themselves, we will, I think, find justi- 
 fication for carrying out the policy which the law of our 
 own land and of all nations approves, even if the majority 
 of the Filipinos did not approve it. 
 
 It is our duty to lift them up and put them on a higher 
 plane of civilization. 
 
 Pessimist: If they are happy and contented without 
 our aid, what business have we to interfere with that 
 happiness and contentment? 
 
 Patriot: Contentment is not necessarily an accom- 
 paniment of the highest life. Indeed, it is thought by 
 many philosophers that it is detrimental to progress. 
 The pleasure of achievement leaves no room for content- 
 ment with the things already achieved. The moment one 
 terrace is reached in climbing the mountain of civiliza- 
 tion, the eye is cast upward to another, and still another, 
 'and the mind is not content so long as there are higher 
 possibilities. This is true both of men and nations; and 
 where the cosmic life comes in conflict with the individual 
 life, the individual must give way in order that society 
 may move on. The small society in turn must give way 
 in order that the large may move on. When the Terri- 
 torial government of Indiana was established in 1800 the 
 people complained, saying that it imposed upon them 
 taxes for officials which prior to that time they had been 
 able to avoid; but the larger society, that of the nation 
 itself, took the matter in hand, and as "good reasons 
 
176 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 must perforce give way to better," this little society with 
 its narrow view was forced to yield, and the result was 
 a forward step in cosmic life. Law and order soon pre- 
 vailed against irresponsible interference of one person 
 against another, or one neighborhood against another; 
 organized force was built up to oppose the savage upris- 
 ings all around the neighborhood; schools were estab- 
 lished and paid for out of the taxes, which, though also 
 opposed by a large percentage of the people — perhaps 
 the majority — who had not come to realize the value of 
 education, nevertheless in the end proved a great bene- 
 faction to the people of the territory, and finally the 
 State and Nation. Had Mr. Bryan been in the forum at 
 that time, his voice, undoubtedly, would have led the 
 chorus against this practical, common-sense advance, 
 on the sentimental ground that the people in the terri- 
 tory had a claim upon the United States Government 
 by right and duty which should allow them to govern 
 themselves in their own imperfect way. 
 
 Pessimist: But you forget that we had an alliance with 
 the Filipinos. Mr. Bryan says: 
 
 "Must we make subjects of the Filipinos now because 
 we made allies of them in the war with Spain? France 
 did not recognize any such obligation when she helped 
 us throw off British supremacy." 
 
 Patriot: I have already shown that there was no 
 alliance. But addressing myself to Mr. Bryan's refer- 
 ence to France, I would say that if, on the conclusion of 
 our war with Great Britain, a band of Americans had 
 turned upon Lafayette and his French compatriots, and 
 with insinuations of cowardice and other insults had 
 compelled them to fire upon those Americans, such con- 
 duct would have been just cause of war against those 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 177 
 
 Americans by France; and this is the precise situation 
 now. If, in the illustration given, the United States had 
 supported the band of Americans in their insult against 
 the French, the cause of war would have been against 
 the United States. I believe it will be shown to the 
 satisfaction of the people here that the Filipinos have 
 not supported Aguinaldo and the insurgents, and that 
 we are pursuing our original policy in the government 
 of the Filipinos — not against their will, but in conformity 
 therewith. All admit that we have the legal right to take 
 the territory and that we have the legal right to govern 
 it. But even those who on moral grounds oppose our 
 governing the inhabitants admit our moral right to take 
 the territory for the ultimate good of the Filipinos. How 
 much time, I would ask, have we a right and duty to 
 consume in working out their good? I answer that even 
 on this ground, waiving for the moment our duty to our- 
 selves and to the rest of the world, and even waiving the 
 question of their consent, we have the right to keep them 
 until, in our judgment, that good has been worked out, 
 whether the time required be a year, a decade, or a 
 century. 
 
 And right here I would like to quote a word from 
 Bishop Spalding. He says: 
 
 "At the present moment America, if simple truth may 
 be uttered without incurring a suspicion of conceit, repre- 
 sents the general tendency and sentiment of the modern 
 age more than any other country." 
 
 Again he says: 
 
 "Democracy itself is not an end, but a means. The 
 end is a nobler, wiser, stronger, more beneficent kind 
 of man and woman," 
 
 Now in the first place the government we are giving 
 the Filipinos is a representative government to the same 
 
178 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 
 
 extent as that we are giving to other of our territories. 
 And in the second place, if it is not a pure democracy of 
 and by themselves, it bears the test applied by Bishop 
 Spalding, because it works out a nobler purpose for the 
 people themselves than could any means at their hands 
 if left alone. 
 
 The Philippine Commission in their report corrobo- 
 rate the general opinion indulged in America when they 
 say: 
 
 "Should our power by any fatality be withdrawn the 
 Commission believe that the government of the Philippines 
 would speedily lapse into anarchy, which would excuse, 
 if it did not necessitate, the intervention of other powers 
 and the eventual division of the islands among them. 
 I >nly through American occupation, therefore, is the 
 idea of a free, self-governing and united Philippine com- 
 monwealth at all conceivable. And the indispensable 
 need from the Filipino point of view of maintaining 
 American sovereignty over the archipelago is recognized 
 by all intelligent Filipinos and even by those insurgents 
 who desire an American protectorate. The latter, it is 
 true, would take the revenues and leave us the responsi- 
 bilities. Nevertheless they recognize the indubitable 
 fact that the Filipinos cannot stand alone. Thus the 
 welfare of the Filipinos coincides with the dictates of 
 national honor in forbidding our abandonment of the 
 archipelago. We cannot, from any point of view, escape 
 the responsibilities of government which our sovereignty 
 entails, and the Commission is strongly persuaded that 
 the performance of our national duty will prove the great- 
 est blessing to the people of the Philippine Islands." 
 
 When we take into consideration the responsibility 
 placed on the Commissioners — a knowledge on their 
 part that their recommendations and their statement of 
 fact would go into the archives of our nation and become 
 a part of its history, to be pointed to in after generations 
 to the end of time with pride or justifiable derision, ac- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 179 
 
 cording as they shall have told the truth and reached 
 wise conclusions or stated falsehoods and erroneous con- 
 clusions, the value of this expert judgment and this care- 
 ful statement of facts cannot be overestimated. We are 
 forced to the conclusion, therefore, that they knew what 
 they were talking about, that they told the truth and that 
 their deductions are wise. 
 
 In addition to all this, let us call to witness Aguinaldo 
 himself as to what is probably best for the Philippine 
 people; for while we must require the strictest corrobo- 
 ration of his testimony when it is given in his own inter- 
 est, yet, as I have intimated before in this discussion, 
 evidence given by him or anyone else against interest, 
 is admissible. In a letter addressed to Mr. Williams, 
 United States Consul at Manila, Aguinaldo says: 
 
 "These islands will be in effect one of the richest and 
 pleasantest countries of the globe if the capital and 
 industry of North Americans come to develop the soil. 
 You say all this and yet more will result from annexing 
 ourselves to your people, and I also believe the same, 
 and have said it. But why should we say it? Will my 
 people believe it?" 
 
 . Here is an acknowledgment by Aguinaldo himself that 
 the best interests of the Filipinos would be subserved by 
 annexation to the United States if they could only be 
 made to believe it; and yet after his vain effort to create 
 disbelief it is found that the large body of the Filipinos 
 have faith that our government of the Philippines is to 
 their advantage. 
 
 Pessimist: Aguinaldo never seriously thought what 
 he said in this letter. He was advised by his American 
 lawyers, that this attitude would prove good diplomacy 
 and was persuaded to resort to these gentler methods to 
 subserve his purpose. 
 
180 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Patriot: I am willing to accept this view set forth by 
 Pessimist, for the reason that we are not confined to 
 Aguinaldo for proof that it is better for the Filipinos that 
 we should govern them, and for the additional reason that 
 a knowledge of the source of Aguinaldo's state papers 
 sheds important light upon very much of his conduct, 
 and tends to confirm the claim made by Senator Bever- 
 idge and others that the responsibility for the death of 
 our soldiers and the continuance of the war rests upon 
 the opponents of the Administration in the United 
 States. 
 
 I suggest that we divide the question of our right and 
 duty toward the Filipinos into sub-topics, the first of 
 which to be, Had they a Government? 
 
 HAD THEY A GOVERNMENT? 
 
 Patriot: I respectfully submit that where a people 
 were so demoralized and broken up as they were, the 
 intervention of some stronger power which can maintain 
 order makes for the happiness and prosperity of the 
 weaker people. 
 
 Pessimist: But they had a government, under a con- 
 stitution regularly adopted, which provided for a legis- 
 lature, a judiciary and an executive government. The 
 result of the work of the Americans is simply to create 
 disorder and divide the Filipinos among themselves. 
 
 Patriot: So little claim has been made to the existence 
 of a government of law and order among the Filipinos 
 for the past several years, when they have been subjected 
 to the devastation of the Spanish and the Philippine army 
 alike, that it may be worth while to pay attention in detail 
 to the kind of government which really existed as a 
 foundation for Pessimist's claim of an orderly govern- 
 ment. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 181 
 
 On June 19, 1898, Aguinaldo established by decree 
 what he himself called a "dictatorial government." The 
 arbitrary provisions of this "constitution" — if the Amer- 
 ican mind can grasp as a definition of constitution a 
 proclamation which leaves all the power in the hands of 
 one man — were so soon laid aside that its provisions may 
 be passed over in charity, and we may confine our investi- 
 gation to his so-called later "constitution," which was 
 intended to be enough milder to conciliate the Filipinos. 
 
 June 23 he issued this other decree, or proclamation, 
 establishing what he calls "The Revolutionary Govern- 
 ment." If there is anything in mere name, perhaps this 
 is an improvement, both in the "constitution" and the 
 execution of it. In it he says: "The dictator will be 
 entitled hereafter President of the Revolutionary Gov- 
 ernment." 
 
 Article 10 reads: 
 
 "The President of the Government is the personifica- 
 tion of the Philippine people, and in accordance with 
 this idea it shall not be possible to hold him responsible 
 while he holds the office. His term of office shall last 
 until the revolution triumphs, unless under extraordinary 
 circumstances he shall feel obliged to offer his resigna- 
 tion in Congress, in which case Congress shall elect who- 
 soever it considers most fit." 
 
 Pessimist: Is not that a fair proposition? He can 
 hold his office only so long as the revolution lasts, and 
 if he resigns it sooner, Congress is in power to elect h;s 
 successor? 
 
 Patriot: An evidence of Aguinaldo's own confidence 
 in the intelligence of the Filipinos may be found in his 
 effort to deceive them just as he seems to have deceived 
 you on this point. 
 
 Article 24, separated from Article 10 by a recital of 
 various rights and duties in the Congress, the judiciary 
 
182 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 and the people, contains the real joker which Aguinaldo 
 held in his own hand. This Article says : 
 
 "The acts of Congress shall not take effect until the 
 President of the government orders their fulfillment and 
 execution." 
 
 It is difficult to understand how the same person can 
 regard this paper constitution or declaration as a govern- 
 ment of the Filipinos and at the same time declaim with 
 such an injured air on the bounteous blessings of free 
 government of which we are alleged to be robbing the 
 Filipinos. 
 
 The actual condition of the government which the 
 Filipinos had is better understood from the following 
 passage in the report of the Philippine Commission : 
 
 'Tn general, such machinery of 'government' as existed 
 served only for plundering the people under the pretext 
 of levying "war contributions' while many of the insurgent 
 officials were accumulating wealth. The administration 
 of justice was paralyzed and crime of all sorts was ram- 
 pant. Might was the only law. Xever in the worst days 
 of Spanish misrule had the people been so overtaxed or 
 so badly governed. Futhermore, there was no organiza- 
 tion which international law would recognize as the 
 beginning of a government." 
 
 Hall says : 
 
 "The commencement of a State dates, nevertheless, 
 from its recognition by other powers; that is to say, from 
 the time at which they accredit ministers to it, or con- 
 clude treaties with it, or in some other way enter into 
 such relations with it as exists between states alone." 
 
 No power had dreamed of any such recognition. Thus 
 disappears the last vestige of claim to independent gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Pessimist: Even if they had not a satisfactory gov- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 183 
 
 ernment at the time, it does not follow that they could not 
 organize one if let alone, and I contend that the people 
 of the Philippine Islands were opposed to our organiz- 
 ing the government for them. 
 
 Patriot : This brings us to the next topic I intended to 
 suggest. 
 
 WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY? 
 
 Patriot : Much has already been said from time to time 
 in the course of our discussions as to the will of the ma- 
 jority of the Filipinos, and I think the audience would 
 rather review in their own minds our preceding argu- 
 ments than to hear them repeated in substance at this 
 juncture. 
 
 Pessimist: Time would be wasted anyway in specu- 
 lating on this question which the government authori- 
 ties seem bent upon concealing from us. They have 
 instituted such censorship, in the name of military law, 
 that the American press cannot learn the truth. If the 
 truth could be known I venture to say that the large 
 majority of the Filipinos are opposed to American annex- 
 ation. 
 
 Patriot: I shall make no further reference to the 
 effect of censorship than merely to say that according 
 to Pessimist's previous statements very many letters 
 seem to have reached America criticising the Adminis- 
 tration, all of which goes to indicate that they are free to 
 write to their families and friends at home anything they 
 please. If the government is open to criticism at all on 
 account of censorship, it is because the freedom of 
 speech and the freedom of the press have been extended 
 further during this war than usual, even in the United 
 States, and further than was ever heard of in any other 
 country. It will be presumed by all reasonable men that 
 
184 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 no information upon this subject has been concealed 
 from us by the government. And again, in this case as in 
 the others, where Pessimist relies upon hearsay testi- 
 mony, as many and probably more letters have been 
 published expressing the belief that the majority do 
 favor our government than of those which believe the 
 contrary. But in addition to this hearsay testimony we 
 have also in this case the benefit of the expert opinion 
 of the Philippine Commission. Speaking of the condi- 
 tion of affairs at the time General McArthur became 
 active in the Philippines, the Report says: 
 
 "The natives, at the order of General Luna, fired their 
 towns before his advancing column. Those who were 
 unwilling to leave their homes were driven out by insur- 
 gent soldiers, who burned their houses. The object of 
 this inhuman procedure was to compel the inhabitants to 
 flee before us, and thus prevent their learning from ex- 
 perience that the fearful tales concerning our soldiers, 
 with which they had been deceived, were myths." 
 
 The report further says of the Filipinos: 
 
 "They had been plundered by the insurgent troops, 
 who had robbed them of their jewels, money, clothing 
 and even food, so that they were literally starving. 
 Peaceable citizens had been fired on. Women had been 
 maltreated and there was general satisfaction that the 
 Americans had. come at last." 
 
 Again, after describing the local self-government estab- 
 lished by the Commission, to which I shall allude in par- 
 ticular a little later on, the report says : 
 
 "In every instance enthusiasm ran high before we took 
 our departure, and when we left, cheers were raised for 
 General Lawton and for the country which he repre- 
 sents. * * * Deputations came secretly from many 
 important towns, begging us to advance our lines and do 
 for them what we had done for Bacoor and Imus." 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 185 
 
 Pessimist: Well, since we cannot tell certainly 
 whether the majority favor the United States Govern- 
 ment there or not, let us move on to the next topic, 
 whatever it is. 
 
 Patriot: I am ready to rest this part of the case 
 without further argument, although I do not concede 
 the impossibility stated. By the code of political science 
 proof positive has been adduced that we have their con- 
 sent — i. e., we have proved it by the sort of evidence 
 that would appeal to a reasonable man. Political science 
 is not an exact science. Conclusions as to what is best 
 in government are not arrived at by mathematical de- 
 duction, nor with mathematical exactness. Those 
 charged with the responsible duty of government exam- 
 ine all the data at hand, converse with representative 
 people of all the varied views, weigh all the testimony 
 thus accumulated in the scale of political experience and 
 wisdom, and then render a decision. He who persists 
 in disputing the decision thus found falls in the same 
 category with him who declines to accept axiomatic 
 truths, and with whom philosophers and scientists refuse 
 to reason further. But unless Pessimist has something 
 more to say, let us take up the next topic. 
 
 CLIMATE, RACE AND ADAPTABILITY TO SELF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Patriot: But little time need be spent on this topic, 
 because the adversaries of the Administration, while dis- 
 agreeing on some points, are, for the most part, of 
 opinion that on account of race, climate and lack of ex- 
 perience the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are 
 incapable of self-government; and this they allege as 
 their reason for claiming they are not fit to become a 
 part of the United States. They also claim the same 
 thing-, some of them directly and all of them indirectly, 
 
186 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 in advocating a United States protectorate over the 
 Philippines, for a belief in their inability for self-govern- 
 ment is a natural inference from the assertion that a 
 protectorate is necessary. I, for one, believe that for the 
 present they are incapable of self-government. I sub- 
 scribe to the opinion of Senator Beveridge that they are 
 "mere children," that '"they are a barbarous race modified 
 by three centuries of contact with a decadent race." 
 Senator Beveridge further says: 
 
 "The Filipino is the South Sea Malay put through a 
 process of three hundred years of superstition in re- 
 ligion, dishonesty in dealing, disorder in habits of 
 industry and cruelty, caprice and corruption in govern- 
 ment." 
 
 Pessimist: If that be true, how can you recommend 
 that this lot of vagabonds be taken in as citizens of the 
 United States? 
 
 Patriot: I put it on the ground of our duty to the 
 Filipinos themselves, and upon the further ground of our 
 dutv toward the world, to which I shall advert a little 
 later. But there can remain nothing more of the argu- 
 ment that the Filipinos should be left to govern them- 
 selves when it is once tested by the facts I have quoted 
 from Senator Beveridge, and by the concession which 
 all opponents have either directly or indirectly made. 
 And this simplifies the question, because it now resolves 
 itself to our duty toward a people whom some govern- 
 ment must rule, or who in the alternative must be left 
 with no government at all. I shall hazard the further 
 opinion that there is nothing either in the climate, the 
 race nor of the training which forbids the hope that in 
 the reasonably near future these people may be capable 
 of as much self-government as is to-day enjoyed by the 
 inhabitants of om ether territories, and that they will 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 187 
 
 eventually be capable of entering into the high state of 
 our commonwealth sisterhood. 
 
 Pessimist: How long do you think this will take? 
 
 Patriot: It will certainly take more than a few years. 
 The republics of Central and South America have been 
 several hundred years working toward the light, though 
 it is true they have been handicapped by the lack of that 
 friendly aid which the United States is prepared actively 
 to give to the Filipinos. It will probably take these 
 mixed races longer, much longer, probably centuries 
 longer, to be weaned away from their childish and vicious 
 notions — a condition best described by Kipling: "Half 
 devil and half child 1 ' — than it would Anglo-Saxon peo- 
 ples; and yet we lived under colonial rule for nearly 300 
 years before we assumed that we were capable of entire 
 self-government; and if the uplifting of nations less fortu- 
 nate than ourselves forms any part of our province, for 
 the present and for the future, are we to select only those 
 tasks which can be performed in the present genera- 
 tion, or, is it not nobler to face the future with the de- 
 termination to do missionary work as a leader among 
 nations, regardless of the time of harvest, having in view 
 only the duty of making all possible speed to righteous 
 ends in keeping with the most certain accomplishment 
 of those ends? Men do not build for themselves alone, 
 nor for their own time or generation. We both con- 
 tribute blessings to future generations and impose bur- 
 dens upon them; we build bridges and roads and public 
 buildings the completion of which is likely to be so far 
 in the future that few of the projectors hope to reap any 
 benefit from them. We pay for them out of our funds, 
 if at hand, and if not, we borrow the money and impose 
 the duty of paying it back upon those who come after us. 
 
388 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 The great length of time probably necessary for the 
 regeneration of the Filipinos will be no barrier to the 
 people of the United States who take a broad and long 
 view when they consider the accomplishment of great 
 achievements. How selfish and ungrateful is the man 
 who would withhold the beneficent offices of this govern- 
 ment from the benighted Filipinos on the ground that 
 he will not live to see them capable of self-government. 
 Let such a man look around him and witness how little 
 he himself is responsible for the blessings he enjoys. 
 With such a mind as his, Copernicus would not have 
 worked out the system of astronomy by which scientists 
 after him have been able to determine the movements of 
 the heavenly bodies and to dethrone the superstition of 
 astrology to the everlasting benefit of mankind. Watt 
 could have had but little encouragement, reasoning from 
 this narrow view, in his development of the discovery 
 of steam-power; and Gutenberg might well have re- 
 strained his enthusiasm in contemplating the possibilities 
 of the printing press and its marvelous revolution of gov- 
 ernments and religions if he had stopped to inquire 
 whether he would live to see the end, which is not yet. 
 Cyrus W. Field, if left merely to the contemplation of 
 his own span of life, would not have persisted in laying 
 the Atlantic cable after four failures, facing the scoffs 
 and derision of his fellowmen, who, from their stand- 
 point, "knew" he was crazy. 
 
 Pessimist: Oh, well, you might go on reciting ex- 
 amples of this kind for the rest of the week without 
 convincing me that this government is called upon to 
 civilize such a degenerate nation as the Filipinos. In all 
 the cases you cite the promoters expected pecuniary gain 
 from discoveries and inventions. 
 
 Patriot; That is precisely what yon accused us of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 189 
 
 expecting, and you have inadvertently revealed another 
 analogy in the two cases. The benefactors of whom L 
 spoke did expect pecuniary gain, but they were also 
 inspired by the prospect of contributing to the world's 
 prosperity and happiness. This is precisely the case of 
 the United States in reference to the Philippines. It is 
 the belief of far-sighted and unselfish statesmen that 
 while we are thus lifting up a down-trodden nation and 
 leading them to the light, we are at the same time adding 
 to the wealth and resources of the United States; and the 
 enterprise is so creative that while the Filipinos are pay- 
 ing the expenses incident to their own improvement 
 through the instrumentality of the United States and 
 contributing something toward the wealth of the United 
 States besides, they are at the same time experiencing 
 and will continue to experience a genuine economy. And 
 all this for the reason that a just government, such as 
 the United States administers" in its territories, can cost 
 nothing like so much as the extravagant despotism of the 
 Tagal leaders, or which some foreign nation less benevo- 
 lent than the United States would force upon them in our 
 absence. 
 
 Pessimist: But why not let them work out their own 
 salvation? Is it not all the more to their credit when 
 they have accomplished it? 
 
 Patriot: To withhold our aid from the Philippines 
 and throw them on their own responsibility in the face 
 of impending anarchy, or despotic rule, would be like the 
 prosperous man refusing to aid a degenerate neighbor, 
 assigning as a reason that anything in the nature of 
 charity would tend still further to prevent his regenera- 
 tion and reflect discredit upon him when redeemed; 
 or it would be like the father withholding aid from his 
 
190 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 son who desires education or a start in business, dilating 
 to him upon the great advantage the struggle would be, 
 and the glory of self-made men. To make the case 
 parallel, the father would have to drive the son penniless 
 from home while a mere child; to be sure, the boy, like 
 the Philippine children, would get on some way or other, 
 and might possibly win success and renown, because 
 many waifs do achieve success. The objection to this 
 method, and the reason why it should not be deliberately 
 resorted to, but confined to the exceptional cases made 
 necessary by force of circumstances, is that while a 
 few succeed, the large majority thus thrown adrift fail 
 and bring discredit to themselves and the community. 
 The process is so severe that it does produce high types 
 of success, but too many boys and too many nations are 
 likely to be spoiled in the operation. It is like the tem- 
 pering of steel for rare qualities in cutlery, where one 
 blade comes out perfect and nine come out worthless. 
 
 The humane father prefers to help his son in a reason- 
 able way to the extent of his ability. The charitable man 
 will contribute of his wordly goods to the alleviation of 
 suffering in his more unfortunate fellowmen, and the 
 nation of high ideals will not withhold its beneficent of- 
 fices to the nations of lower degree. 
 
 We have assumed the responsibility of caring for the 
 Filipinos, and could not leave the cold, starving child 
 thus found upon our doorsteps and skulk away, even if its 
 care should be a tax upon us ; happily, however, the 
 care of the child proves the adage that "virtue is its own 
 reward," and fulfills the Scriptural promise of return with 
 increment of "bread cast upon the waters." Strange 
 philosophy which is taught by those who profess such 
 solicitude for the character of our race lest contact with 
 the Filipinos should contaminate it, who at the same 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 191 
 
 time tell us that "charity begins at home," and that if 
 the Filipinos are unable to govern themselves we should 
 be disdainful enough to leave them to their own evil 
 fate. Wonderful humanity, this. Here they are on 
 our hands, and your immaculate reformer says : "If they 
 do not need our help, we should give it; but if they do 
 need it we should withhold it — i. e., if they are fit for self- 
 government we should release them or take them in as 
 States; if they are not fit for self-government we should 
 abandon them, regardless of the consequences. This 
 certainly is the acme of cold aristocracy, and blind is the 
 man to our big-hearted American human nature who can 
 believe that such a course would be at all tolerable. As 
 well say that we should build a prison wall around the 
 poor unfortunate Indians in America and authorize the 
 sentinels stationed thereon to keep them in until they 
 would devour one another or starve. 
 
 Some say that the keeping of the Philippines is mon- 
 strous because of the degraded character of the inhab- 
 itants, who are not fit for self-government, others say 
 it will be monstrous to keep them because they are fit 
 and therefore entitled to self-government. What further 
 proof need we produce of the utter inconsistency of their 
 argument? The better reasoning is that if they are fit 
 for self-government, then the kind of self-government 
 they get as Territories of the United States, and in the 
 course of times if properly developed, as commonwealths 
 of this nation, is, according to American belief, the best 
 in the world for them ; but if, on the other hand, they 
 are so degraded, so superstitious, so senile that they can 
 not govern themselves and must be controlled by others, 
 then the kind of government they would get as Territories 
 of the United States is still the best for them which 
 human genius has yet devised for such people, because 
 
192 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 so long as they must continue to be ruled, they will be 
 ruled by justice, tempered with mercy, and so soon as 
 they graduate into a condition of self-governing qualities, 
 the opportunity for exercising that developed ability will 
 be afforded them. In other words, we are faced with 
 the theory on the one hand that they are able to govern 
 themselves, in which case their association with us can 
 do us no harm, or on the other hand we are faced with 
 the theory that they can not be trusted alone, in which 
 case it is no more harmful that we should govern them 
 than that some other nation should, but is less harmful 
 in so much as our government would be more humane, 
 more economical and more conducive to their self-devel- 
 opment. If in the latter event we should be compelled 
 to part from the traditions of our ancestors who wrote 
 and spoke for a new, untried and weak government, 
 which had all it could do to take care of itself, then we 
 have the consolation that in so departing we are acting 
 like men worthy of our ancestors in that we are brave 
 enough and original enough to apply new methods to 
 new conditions. 
 
 The idea that we must not give the Filipinos any gov- 
 ernment because we can not give them in undiluted form 
 all that we enjoy ourselves, is coldly selfish, and rather 
 than to deny to them our benign supervision we had better, 
 if need be, modify the Constitution to meet the exigency, 
 as we did for the manumission of the slaves, and not, like 
 the selfish rich man, take refuge behind the selfish argu- 
 ment that if we can not invite the pauper into our own 
 home as a member of our family, we think it better for 
 him that he should be left to the kind of life which he 
 himself can work out unaided by us. 
 
 Our adversaries are divided as to whether the Filipinos 
 are equal to self-government or not, but by reason of the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 193 
 
 foregoing conclusions, we move forward in our duty 
 regardless of this fact, though not indifferent to it, know- 
 ing that time alone can solve this problem; and that 
 whichever way the scale may turn, the United States 
 government is equal to the emergency, and the future of 
 these peoples is safe in our hands. Whosoever doubts it 
 confesses to little faith in the vitality and constancy of 
 American patriotism, and whosoever entertains such lack 
 of faith should be and will be an object of close scrutiny, 
 if not of suspicion by the people who select our public 
 servants. To doubt that these people will progress more 
 rapidly under the direction of the United States than 
 otherwise is to render an unjustifiable apology for our 
 present government of other territories, because if they 
 would progress more rapidly, left to themselves, our obli- 
 gation to humanity would compel us to declare them all 
 independent. If we owe this duty, therefore, to the Phil- 
 ippines, we owe it likewise to the inhabitants of New 
 Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii and Porto Rico. And 
 conversely if we do not owe it as a duty to release these 
 latter Territories, neither do we owe it to the Filipinos. 
 But the claim that such people would advance bettcr 
 without our aid than with it is against the traditions and 
 belief of our people, and against the judgment of reason- 
 ing men. Madison says in the Federalist: 
 
 "The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and 
 cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and con- 
 fidence in proportion to the number with which it is asso- 
 ciated." 
 
 The fact that we can not now solve the problem and 
 determine precisely the kind of government suited to the 
 Filipinos, does not relieve us of duty, but instead 
 puts the additional duty upon us of ascertaining the pre- 
 liminary facts as well as of applying the remedy. We 
 
19-1 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 have the Philippines, and whatever may be their future 
 our duty is clear — to learn the conditions as rapidly as 
 possible and to apply the remedy faithfully when we learn. 
 
 "Let us then be up and doing, 
 With a heart for any fate ; 
 Still achieving;, still pursuing, 
 Learn to labor and to wait." 
 
 Uncle Sam: Does anyone wish to reply to Patriot's 
 argument on this topic? Hearing no one, let us pass on. 
 
 LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Pessimist: I can tell you very briefly what kind of 
 local self-government we are giving the Filipinos. It 
 is a chance to govern themselves at the command of Gen. 
 Otis and his subordinate officers at the point of a rifle, 
 In short, there is no such thing as local self-government 
 in that slave Territory of ours. That is all I have to say. 
 
 Patriot: While it is true that at this time a military 
 government is in existence in the Philippines, just as it 
 must always be in a state of war, and during the organ- 
 ization of civil government, which takes a longer or 
 shorter period owing to the extent of acquiescence to 
 lawful conditions, yet at the same time we are now giving 
 them a measure of local self-government which people 
 accustomed to the military rule of European powers 
 would regard as dangerously liberal. 
 
 The courts have been opened up wherever the rebel- 
 lion is not active. The Supreme Court has been estab- 
 lished in the language of the Philippine Commission, 
 "with five Filipinos and three American justices," and 
 "courts of first instance and justice courts were estab- 
 lished later when the difficult problem of. securing suitable 
 Filipino officials had been satisfactorily solved." After 
 describing the preparation of a scheme of municipal gov- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? .195 
 
 ernment under the counsel of Filipino lawyers, the report 
 goes on to say: 
 
 "In each town the people were called together and an 
 election was held. The officials chosen were fully in- 
 structed as to their duties, and were advised that they 
 must expend every cent raised by taxation in defraying 
 local- expenses." 
 
 I have under a previous topic referred to the enthusi- 
 asm with which these experimental efforts of the com- 
 missioners were met. Patriotic Americans rest easy in 
 the complaisant belief that the Filipinos will be given all 
 the self-government they are capable of appreciating and 
 administering. 
 
 Pessimist : This work of the commission was ,do ne 
 for political effect. I admit that they have been given 
 self-government, but it is because they wanted to make 
 a showing to the American people to catch votes for 
 McKinley. Later on this liberty will be denied them. 
 
 Patriot: In the first place, the charge just made by 
 Pessimist carries with it its own condemnation, because 
 the fact that a true report of the situation existing there 
 will influence votes in America will always be as potent 
 as now, and when the American government in the Phil- 
 ippines shall cease to be just, and in accordance with the 
 notions of our voters all the party opposing such conduct 
 needs to do is to appeal to the voters for redress. This 
 character of our government with the limited tenure of 
 office, and the constantly-recurring opportunity for an 
 appeal to the people themselves, makes it reasonably cer- 
 tain that no great amount of wrong will take place. 
 
 In the second place it ill becomes a man pretending 
 to have faith in our institutions to accuse a commission 
 of such reputable men of becoming hirelings to work 
 out a political scheme. Language fails me to describe the 
 
196 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 infamy of such a charge, which by implication involves 
 the President in the contemptible work of employing 
 such servants 
 
 If the object of life is happiness, then it requires but a 
 moderate quality of third rate reasoning to know that 
 men who have achieved such greatness, except in mor- 
 bidly rare cases, cannot depart from honest principles 
 in government. The working out of true ideals is their 
 life pride. The accommodation of expedient and justi- 
 fiable means to desirable economic ends is the food of 
 their life existence, and to violate one of these principles 
 would be as painful and as blighting to their consciences 
 and convictions as for a true mathematician who lives in 
 his profession and loves it, to so stultify himself as de- 
 liberately to write a false formula in calculus or to state 
 an untruthful proposition in geometry. Laying aside 
 the question of honesty for the sake of honesty, an all- 
 wise Creator has so constituted man that, for the most 
 part, a man who has devoted his life to a set of fixed 
 principles along the line of truth and accuracy finds so 
 infinitely more pleasure in the conservation of those prin- 
 ciples than in their destruction that even though he be 
 inherently dishonest he will, out of sheer selfishness, in 
 his natural desire to avoid pain, keep close to the path 
 of public virtue. How much more must be the motive 
 of the man who, equally susceptible to this deterrent of 
 pain and this inducement to happiness, has bred and 
 trained within him the high ideals of lofty purpose and 
 right for the sake of right toward all his fellow men. I 
 submit that every healthy mind acquainted with the facts 
 does unhesitatingly admit the truth of this philosophy, 
 and at the same time ascribe these nobler principles to 
 President McKinley, in Admiral Dewey and to each and 
 every member of the Philippine Commission; and that 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 197 
 
 every mind incapable of taking this view, or which stub- 
 bornly refuses to take this view, is unhealthy and must be 
 .classed among the unfortunates or the evil-doers. 
 
 But as a third argument in evidence of our good faith 
 in the matter of local self-government, let me quote from 
 the Secretary of War in his report for 1899, in which 
 he says : 
 
 "The rule of administration of the civil government 
 of the island (Cuba) has been to employ the people of 
 Cuba themselves to the fullest extent possible, and to 
 furnish to the Cubans, during our occupation, an oppor- 
 tunity for training in the honest, official performance of 
 official duties which has never been afforded to them 
 before." 
 
 And speaking of the enormous task of taking the cen- 
 sus of Cuba, the Secretary goes on to say: 
 
 "The entire force through the census now being taken 
 is composed of Cubans, with one well-known citizen of 
 each of the six provinces as the supervisor of that pro- 
 vince and with enumerators nominated by him from resi- 
 dents of the province." 
 
 The Secretary further states that the process of extend- 
 ing civil government in the Philippines has gone on since 
 the return of the Philippine Commission, and while there 
 is yet doubt as to the precise form of government suited 
 to the different islands and provinces, owing to the varied 
 degrees of intelligence, because time is needed to learn 
 and apply the facts to the respective conditions, yet this 
 noble work is going on and there is no faint-heartedness 
 in Washington as to the ultimate beneficent result. 
 
 An additional evidence of the devotion of President 
 McKinley and those about him to the great task and duty 
 in hand, and an evidence of their likeness to the con- 
 structive statesmen of our early history, is the fact that 
 
198 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 regardless of doubts and criticism and charges made by 
 thoughtless, ignorant or vicious men, they are not swerved 
 from their purpose of working out the magnificent and 
 the majestic growth of American power and influence 
 recently made possible by the brilliant achievements of our 
 arms and of our diplomacy. 
 
 Uncle Sam : As I understand it, Pessimist does not deny 
 that local self-government has been instituted in the Phil- 
 ippines, but he simply expressed doubt as to whether it 
 will be continued. Since the same kind of doubt may be 
 expressed as to the continuance of our free institutions 
 in America, and indeed, is expressed by those whom but 
 for the presence of Pessimist I would call pessimists, I 
 see no advantage in extending the discussion on this 
 point, as it can be nothing more than academic, with no 
 practical result. If all are satisfied with the present efforts 
 at local self-government, let us proceed to the next topic. 
 
 AS TO THE WORLD. 
 
 Pessimist : I do not understand why Patriot proposed 
 the consideration of our right and duty as to the world 
 in this discussion ; I do not see how that can have any- 
 thing to do with the question. We should take care of our- 
 selves and let the rest of the world do the same. As 
 Bishop Spalding says : "Patriotism, like charity, begins 
 at home." We should consider this question wholly from 
 our own -standpoint no matter what the consequences to 
 the rest of the world. 
 
 Patriot : I can not think that Bishop Spalding meant 
 to be understood as Pessimist has understood him. Has 
 anyone here a copy of his sermon? 
 
 Citizen : Yes, here is a copy. 
 
 Patriot : I notice in another part of the sermon the 
 Bishop says : 
 
 "The end of all worthy struggle is to establish morality 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 199 
 
 as the basis of individual and national life. * * ' ■ * to 
 make justice reign, to spread beauty, gentleness, wis- 
 dom and peace ; to widen opportunity, to increase good 
 will." 
 
 I scarcely think that any quotation is necessary to prove 
 that Bishop Spalding would not withhold from the world 
 the advantages of American civilization. If required 
 to answer whether any given man would make such de- 
 nial, I would first ask, Is that man a Christian? — No, I 
 would not even feel, it necessary to ask that. I would 
 only ask, "Is that man like Abou ben Adham, one who 
 loves his fellow men ?" And if the answer be in the affirm- 
 ative, I should forthwith declare him to be in favor of 
 letting the light of our liberty shine in all the dark places 
 of the earth. 
 
 It is a common fault of narrow souls who, while desir- 
 ing the laurels of virtue, have not the virtue to merit them, 
 to hide behind quotations which ennoble if properly ap- 
 plied, but which otherwise degrade, and "charity begins 
 at home" is one of those adages with which stinginess 
 clothes itself when it stalks abroad as benevolence. 
 Patriotism and charity begin at home to be sure, but it is 
 neither patriotism nor charity, if when able, it does not 
 extend beyond home. Stripped of its disguise and 
 hypocrisy it is just selfishness. Will- this great, strong 
 nation shrink from a world duty on the pretext that we 
 are sufficient unto ourselves, and that if others are not 
 they should be ? It is like the heartless man who happens 
 to be possessed of plenty and who thanks God for the 
 shelter over his own head and shows unfeeling contempt 
 and brutal indifference to his unfortunate neighbor whom 
 fate has left without shelter. His prayer would be "Bless 
 me and my wife, my son John and his wife, us four and 
 no more. Amen." 
 
200 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Of course there is a limit to the possibilities of charity. 
 The object of this discussion is to show that it is both the 
 duty and within the power of the United States Govern- 
 ment, not only without sacrifice, but at an actual gain, 
 to bestow its blessings upon the world by elevating civili- 
 zation in the East and bringing the salutary example so 
 much nearer to those benighted countries — a quantity 
 and quality of missionary work which the combined 
 churches of Christendom, however creditable their efforts 
 have been, could not, but for this political intervention, 
 accomplish in the century to come. 
 
 By accident and incident of war we came into the 
 heritage of that golden archipelago, and at the same time 
 fell heir to a tremendous responsibility. These advan- 
 tages to ourselves an honest administration can not throw 
 away, and this responsibility to the world a virile, brave 
 and Christian nation can not shirk. 
 
 We owe a duty to the world because we are capable of 
 giving sanction to International law and because of our 
 moral responsibility as a member of the world govern- 
 ment, and I should like to consider a little further the 
 question of our right and duty to the world under these 
 two heads. 
 
 SANCTION FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
 
 Pessimist : I have nothing to say on this subject. 
 
 Patriot: The sanction for International law is two- 
 fold. First, the moral influence of the world, and second, 
 the political power of a nation contending for a given 
 principle in International law. The moral influence of 
 that nation which has the greatest physical power will 
 naturally be the more likely to prevail, but it is well 
 understood that physical power is the first and greatest 
 
Jr'AlKlUl UK rhSZlMlSl r 3U1 
 
 necessity in the enforcement of an international principle. 
 Hall says : 
 
 "Grave doubt is felt whether even old and established 
 dictates will be obeyed when the highest interests of 
 nations are in play." 
 
 Again Hall says: 
 
 "A state is only bound by rules to which it feels itself 
 obligated in conscience, after a reasonable examination, 
 to submit." 
 
 It is well known that there is no judicial or adminis- 
 trative machinery by which to obtain enforcement of a 
 principle desired by one nation which affects the interests 
 of another. It is therefore important that the United 
 States should put itself in a position before the world 
 to be powerful and effective in choosing and maintain- 
 ing international tenets. 
 
 Pessimist: That is just what I complained of. The 
 United States has enough to do to attend to its own 
 affairs, and going to the Philippines forces it into quar- 
 rels with the rest of the world; so instead of performing 
 an obligation of right and duty toward other nations of 
 the world, we are merely annoying and disturbing them. 
 
 Patriot : It has been clearly demonstrated, I flatter 
 myself, that these international disturbances will come 
 anyway, and while they would bring greater distress to 
 us in our isolated and undeveloped condition, at the same 
 time we would be able to do less good to the world by 
 elevating their standard of international morality and 
 law. 
 
 Monroe warned the United States of the necessity of 
 strengthening itself so that foreign belligerents might not 
 be able to prey upon our commerce and insult our flag, 
 as was done in the wars of the French Revolution to an 
 
202 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 extent described by him as "almost incalculable." Such-in- 
 juries can be greatly minimized by the improvement of 
 international precepts, provided there is back of those pre- 
 cepts the potential threat of punishment for their violation. 
 
 Pessimist: Rev. Van Dyke says that: "The great 
 nations of Europe are encamped around the China sea in 
 arms." Rather than plunge into that promiscuous quarrel 
 I should wait until we are injured, and then exact repar- 
 ation from the nation injuring us and go to war with it 
 alone if necessary. 
 
 Patriot: The objection to such a position is, in the 
 first place, that our going into the Philippines has not 
 brought us the trouble anticipated ; it has not precipitated 
 the clash of arms predicted by Rev. Van Dyke or your- 
 self ; but it has, as a natural consequence of our enhanced 
 advantage, made diplomacy and international understand- 
 ing easier. This is shown by Secretary Hay's superb 
 diplomatic achievement recently in the Chinese matter, 
 and in the profound respect which nations are vieing 
 with one another to show the United States since she 
 was brave enough to take her proper place at the head of 
 the nations of the world. 
 
 An additional objection to the plan suggested by Pessi- 
 mist is that it permits unnecessary war. It is the part of 
 the bully to say nothing of his rights and claims until 
 they are attacked and then jump in and whip tlje man who 
 disturbs him. The lover of honorable peace is always 
 ready to come to an understanding with his neighbors, 
 and if he feels justified in claiming rights which they do 
 not recognize, he will take pains to warn them of his view 
 before the opportunity comes for them to cross his path ; 
 and before a nation has laid down an international law 
 principle, conduct on the part of some other nation con- 
 trary to such principle is not a legitimate cause of war. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 203 
 
 England once claimed the right to impress American 
 seamen and to forcibly visit American vessels on the seas. 
 This right was denied by the United States, but it was a 
 grave question for a time what would be written in the 
 minds of nations as the final International law on this 
 subject. If the United States had then held such vantage 
 ground as she does now, the mere enunciation of such a 
 manifestly fair rule between nations would have been ac- 
 cepted without a test of arms. It is this ability on the part 
 of the United States to preserve peace while at the same 
 -time she is elevating the world-standard of law, which 
 constrains me to the belief that our duty to the world 
 justifies our course in the Philippines. 
 
 America had force enough to take a long step in ad- 
 vance in the matter of the Cuban war, and by so doing 
 to transform a mere tenet of international morals to the 
 principle of international law. No more reconcentrados, 
 no more heartless butchery of innocent people, no more 
 cruel treatment of prisoners without the violation of this 
 new American-made international statute. Hitherto such 
 violation of international morality gave no ground for 
 formal complaint, no matter how odious it was. Hence- 
 forward the rights of nations, as the rights of individuals, 
 are circumscribed within the limitations thus newly set 
 down. To make this good for the future in the Eastern 
 Hemisphere as well as in the Western, and to make good 
 our advanced views as to contraband of war, prohibition 
 of poisoned bullets, limitations on the use of smokeless 
 powder, etc., etc., we must proportionately extend the 
 sphere of power to correspond with the sphere of moral 
 influence. With the permission of the audience I should 
 like to elaborate slightly under the next topic suggested 
 by me awhile ago. Has Pessimist anything more to say? 
 
 Pessimist : Nothing more now. 
 
204 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 9 
 
 UNITED STATES AS A MEMBER OF THE WORLD GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Patriot : Even if it were true, which it is not, that a 
 necessary converse of the Monroe Doctrine would keep 
 us out of the East, our greater duty as a nation citizen 
 of the world of nations would justify, and indeed compel 
 us, in the larger duty of acting the part of that citizen- 
 ship. For this secure and strong nation to stay out 
 of world politics because we are safe and comfortable 
 is like a certain type of wealthy and refined American 
 gentlemen remaining away from primaries and elections, 
 giving as an excuse the plea that they are secure, that 
 their plans will not be interfered with, no matter what 
 may happen to others, that the work is too dirty, that 
 they will leave it to those who are willing to get down 
 and "dabble in politics" as they call it. They therefore 
 sanction the evil which they see around them in municipal, 
 State and national affairs, and let those less favorably 
 situated "go hang." Shame on such citizenship ! It is 
 the duty of a man who enjoys the blessings of a govern- 
 ment to have views on public affairs and to work and 
 vote in the interest of the kind of politics which he be- 
 lieves will best subserve the interests and conduce to 
 the happiness of the greatest number of his fellow men. 
 The vote is as sacred as testimony under oath, and more 
 potent, for upon the testimony depends the fate of an 
 individual, whereas the vote decides the fate of a nation 
 and of a race. A man who refuses to vote is unworthy 
 of citizenship ; a m<in who votes without a knowledge 
 of the issue is criminally careless, and a man who votes 
 against his intelligence and conscience is a political per- 
 jurer. 
 
 And so, in equal degree is it the duty of a nation when 
 once strong enough to take part in the government of the 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST r 205 
 
 world, to set a good example and then to vote for the 
 acceptance of that example by others — i. e., to have its 
 say in the affairs of international law to the end that the 
 evolution of mutual rights and duties between nations, 
 which have gone on from a state of barbarism and tribal 
 extermination, through the varied processes step by step 
 up to the present high plane, may continue on and on 
 till peace in all the world shall be the almost universal 
 rule and war the rare and accidental exception. 
 
 There is but one way in which a citizen can do his whole 
 duty, and that is to exercise his whole influence for the 
 best government which in his judgment is available, and 
 there is but one way in which a nation can carry out the 
 motto of Andrew Jackson — "To do justice to all and to 
 submit to wrong from none," and that is for the nation 
 to extend its "sphere of influence" as far as possible, and 
 to back that influence by a corresponding power which 
 can only be done by occupying every vantage ground 
 afforded by the combination of "might and right;" and 
 this is precisely what the United States is doing by taking 
 and keeping the Philippines. To exercise might without 
 right is infamous in man or nation. To possess right 
 without might is nugatory in man, and in the eyes 
 of the world is both nugatory and contemptible in a 
 nation. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Are there any misgivings as to our duty 
 to the world? 
 
 Pessimist : We cannot carry out the policy of Patriot 
 without flying in the face of our own history. 
 
 Uncle Sam: I believe according to Patriot's outline 
 the next topic will deal with the question to which Pessi- 
 mist has just alluded. 
 
206 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 AMERICAN TRADITIONS AND PRECEDENTS. 
 
 Pessimist : I suppose I may at least be permitted to 
 hold up before this audience the warnings of the Fathers. 
 If there is yet in us any respect for their wishes, and any 
 heed for their almost divinely-inspired prophecies, I shall 
 be able to convince this audience that we ought not to 
 keep the Philippines even if we have the legal right, and 
 even if it will aid the laboring man and the merchant and 
 reduce the probability of international war and subserve 
 the development of international law, and even if it is 
 not against the Monroe Doctrine, and still further, if it 
 does not invite militarism, and even though it is our duty 
 toward the Filipinos, and toward the world, I consider 
 that we owe a higher duty than any or all of these to the 
 sayings of the Fathers. You will recall what I said in 
 the earlier part of this discussion and what I quoted from 
 Mr. Bryan about the necessity of muffling the tones of 
 old Liberty Bell, "and communing in whispers when we 
 praise the patriotism of our fathers," if we should go on 
 in our reckless course. I now emphasize all that, and 
 insist again that we have no right to destroy the Declara- 
 tion of Independence and act contrary to the founders of 
 this government. Such conduct would be as despicable 
 in us as for a boy, at the death of his father, to do any- 
 thing contrary to his father's wish while living. It is for 
 us to decide what we shall do. As Rev. Van Dyke says : 
 
 "Are we still loyal to the principles of our forefathers 
 as expressed in the Declaration of Independence? or are 
 we now ready to sell the American birthright for a mess 
 of pottage in the Philippines?" 
 
 If we persist in our recreant course, we will, as declared 
 by Senator Turner, "relegate the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence to the lumber room of useless and obsolete 
 furniture." 
 
 Patriot: I believe it has already been demonstrated 
 to the satisfaction of this audience and repeatedly ad- 
 mitted by Pessimist, that the possession of the Philippines 
 is an advantage to labor and capital in the United States, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 207 
 
 and is not, therefore, a ''mere mess of pottage." I believe 
 I shall be able to demonstrate under a subsequent topic 
 that insteacfof relegating the Declaration of Independence 
 to "the lumber room," our present policy shows greater 
 respect for it than the policy proposed by. Pessimist. 
 
 Before passing on to the sub-topics under this head, 
 I desire to make a few general observations on the ques- 
 tion of* precedents and traditions, and I can think of no 
 better illustration from which to reason than the one sug- 
 gested by Pessimist himself. To what extent should a 
 respectful and devoted son observe the precedents and 
 traditions of his natural father? All admire the loyalty 
 of the boy who "stood on the burning deck whence all 
 but him had fled," but all pity his judgment and have a 
 just contempt for his lack of common sense ; for it does 
 not appear that any good could be accomplished by his 
 self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice without a great object is 
 but a mockery of heroism. If the conditions had remained 
 unchanged, if the father had not been killed, and if all oth- 
 ers had not left the ship — if, in short, any conceivable good 
 end could have been worked out by the desperate means 
 recommended to the son, then death at his post would 
 have entitled him to the sincere gratitude and ungrudging 
 plaudits of men. But, "circumstances alter cases," and 
 the boy had probably heard his father say that. At least 
 the boy would have done his father more credit if he 
 had exercised judgment to that extent. The real moral 
 which the poet intended that we should draw from this 
 holocaust was that sometimes explicit orders cannot be 
 obeyed without useless and absurd consequences. I can 
 think of no illustration which better indicates the folly 
 of the purist in politics who insists upon blindly follow- 
 ing platitudes found in teachings of our forefathers. 
 
 The father who wishes to develop a noble son studiously 
 
208 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 refrains from laying down specific rules by which his 
 life shall be shaped. He indulges in but few commands, 
 and interposes but few prohibitions, and all ni these he 
 qualifies by reciting the circumstances upon which their 
 observation must rest. He devotes his time and thought 
 rather to the cultivation in his son of honest and upright 
 purpose and an independent and original application of 
 the knowledge which he may acquire of people and 
 things to the conditions which he may find existing where 
 action or decision is required. The father who is so 
 egotistical as to believe that he can do his son's thinking 
 for all future time and can make the son obedient to his 
 particular desires throughout the remainder of the son's 
 life, succeeds in producing a pitiable reflection of him- 
 self, a miserable imitator of his conduct; or if the son 
 has sense enough to resent such humility, but not power 
 enough to resist it, he bears up under the restraint as long 
 as possible, and finally breaks over only to become a 
 degenerate in keeping with the law of nature, which re- 
 quires that men be developed in the free exercise of their 
 judgment. 
 
 Undue and enforced restraint is always followed by 
 intemperate and unreasonable exercise of liberty, for the 
 law of compensation requires that every spasm shall be 
 followed by a reaction. 
 
 I shall show that our respect for the forefathers is 
 greater than that of Pessimist, because we give them 
 credit for desiring to be succeeded, not by a race of imi- 
 tators but by a race of independent thinkers like them- 
 selves. Pessimist ascribes to them divine prescience, while 
 we maintain that they were honest, and therefore laid 
 claim to nothing more than human insight, and that they 
 recognized the fallibility of all human beings — them- 
 selves along with the rest. Indeed, they made mistakes, 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 209 
 
 even between the times of writing the Declaration of 
 Independence and framing the Constitution of the United 
 States, because practically the same men who performed 
 these two magnificent pieces of work framed and adopted 
 the Articles of Confederation, which they themselves ac- 
 knowledged to be a failure. Having made these mistakes 
 in matters where the circumstances were known to them, 
 who can charge them with such audacity as to think them- 
 selves more capable of public direction without error after 
 their time, than the men who should come after them? 
 If we are to follow in the footsteps of our ancestors, where 
 shall we draw the line? They themselves had ancestors. 
 Theirs were also ours. I submit that the only basis upon 
 which we can follow precedents and traditions is that 
 of the applicability and adaptability of the precedents and 
 traditions to our present conditions and circumstances, 
 applied by the test of reason, and that those charged with 
 the responsibilities of the government now and the people 
 from whom they get their authority must judge of this 
 applicability and adaptability. This elevates the traditions 
 and precedents to their proper and rational use, and this 
 makes us, the sons, worthy of them, the fathers, because 
 instead of being weak, dependent imitators, we thus become 
 rational, self-thinking, independent men like they were, 
 and like they desire us to be. We do imitate them to 
 the extent that so much of their example and so much 
 of their admonition as can be applied to the present con- 
 ditions we adopt, as they adopted the example and ad- 
 monitions of their ancestors; but where changed condi- 
 tions and new circumstances necessitate additions to or 
 subtractions from the principles laid down by them we 
 take the responsibility of the revision, just as they took the 
 responsibility of revising the principles of their ancestors 
 when changed conditions warranted that. If, on the other 
 
210 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST F 
 
 hand, we must take traditions on faith,, and must regard 
 an application of reason to them as sacrilegious, then 
 we must go further back than Revolutionary times, be- 
 cause for three hundred years prior to that our royal 
 worshipping ancestors were praising the crown of Eng- 
 land and were ready to strike down any man who dared 
 defame the mother country. Which then shall we adopt, 
 blind imitation or the discretion of reason? Reasoning 
 men must all agree to the latter of these alternatives, 
 and by this test let us proceed to inquire to what extent 
 we should be bound by the theories of Revolutionary days. 
 I suggest that Pessimist tell us how, if at all, the policy 
 of the Administration in the Philippines invades freedom, 
 equality and liberty. 
 
 FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND LIBERTY. 
 
 Pessimist : I agree with M r. Bryan when he says : 
 
 "Take from our national hymns the three words, free, 
 freedom and liberty, and they would be as meaningless 
 as would be our flag if robbed of its red, white and blue." 
 
 And again, where he says : 
 
 "The main purpose -of the founders of our government 
 was to secure for themselves and for posterity the bless- 
 ings of liberty, and that purpose has been faithfully fol- 
 lowed up to this time." 
 
 Liberty, equality and freedom were the watchwords 
 of the Declaration of Independence. My prayer is with 
 Rev. Van Dyke, who, in speaking of the Flag, says: 
 "Hitherto it has meant freedom and equality and self- 
 government, and battle only for the sake of peace. Pray 
 God its message may never be altered." 
 
 How can Patriot justify his name when he holds to a 
 contrary doctrine? 
 
 Patriot : If the policy pursued in the Philippines 
 changed the message of the Flag, if it struck from the 
 national hymns the precious words of freedom and liberty, 
 
 i 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 211 
 
 if it altered our purpose to secure for ourselves and our 
 posterity the blessings of liberty, then I should be as 
 enthusiastic in my opposition to that policy as is Pessimist. 
 The difference between us, therefore, is that he is proceed- 
 ing upon the assumption that such a revolution as de- 
 scribed in his quotations will be the result of our policy, 
 while I deny it. The question we are discussing is pre- 
 cisely the question as I have put it, and to indulge merely 
 in patriotic utterances begs the question. The charge 
 that such a revolution as described has taken place has 
 already been met in many of its aspects, and I propose 
 before this discussion is concluded to show that it is 
 not a justifiable charge. For this purpose let us analyze 
 what is meant by the words freedom, liberty and equality, 
 and what our Fathers meant by blessings for themselves 
 and their posterity. First of all, who are their posterity? 
 Will the strict constructionists tell me that it was meant 
 in its literal sense ? If so, every emigrant admitted to our 
 soil after that word was spoken is usurping the blessings 
 intended by the Fathers for their own posterity; and 
 strange as it may seem, this usurpation was by their own 
 consent. 
 
 Pessimist : Oh, of course, it meant any person or num- 
 ber of persons who might subsequently be admitted to 
 those blessings by their consent. 
 
 Patriot: Would you say, then, that only the consent 
 of the founders of our government would justify a divis- 
 ion of those blessings ? 
 
 Pessimist: Now you are getting into technicalities 
 again. 
 
 Patriot: You were never more mistaken in your life. 
 The precise thing that I am doing is to avoid the tech- 
 nicalities you are resorting to. You admit, now, that 
 
212 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 
 
 people other than their posterity might be admitted to 
 these blessings by their consent. Very well, exceptions 
 to that rule, or better still, an enlargement of that rule, 
 are admissible when the judgment of those concerned 
 warrants. Now the Fathers did admit others in two 
 ways : They allowed the immigration of people from 
 every civilized and uncivilized country on the face of the 
 earth. They boasted of the fact that they had established 
 an asylum for the oppressed of every land. They also 
 admitted others into these blessings by acquiring new 
 territory — even the Fathers themselves. So far the ex- 
 ception to the rule must be commended in the very act 
 of commending the rule itself, because both rule and 
 exception emanate from the same source. Their succes- 
 sors followed their example and continued to admit emi- 
 grants from other countries and to acquire other territory. 
 This is the sum and substance of what we are doing in 
 acquiring Porto Rico and the Philippines, and by gov- 
 erning them as our Fathers governed the territory they 
 admitted we are simply enlarging the scope of our 
 blessings by enlarging the definition of posterity, just as 
 our Fathers did. But let us not stop here ; let us press 
 the inquiry sufficiently into history to ascertain the mean- 
 ing of these words, because a popular conception of lib- 
 erty, for example, may possibly be erroneous. I have 
 already endeavored to distinguish between liberty and 
 license and I believe I have shown that liberty must be 
 accompanied by some sort of restraint, and that being true 
 we may well inquire, we must inquire what are the legiti- 
 mate limitations to put upon the actions of a man and 
 yet leave him unstripped of his liberty. The Mormons 
 claim the right to-day of plural marriage, and have in- 
 veighed against this Government for striking down their 
 religious liberty by pronouncing as immoral and illegal 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 213 
 
 what they call liberty. In the good old days it was re- 
 garded as a part of the liberty of a husband to administer 
 corporal punishment to his wife, and statutes are extant 
 in some States to this day, though unenforced, giving 
 this right and placing upon it certain limitations as to the 
 size of the rod which may be used, etc. Even there, their 
 liberty was restrained, because they might not go beyond 
 certain extremes of severity ; but we of this age and gen- 
 eration do not charge those who repealed such laws with 
 taking away the liberty properly belonging to husbands, 
 nor do we believe that our national legislators robbed 
 anybody of any proper liberty by pronouncing polygamy 
 a crime. 
 
 Pessimist: How would you define liberty then? 
 
 Patriot : Roughly speaking, individual liberty is that 
 right which a sovereign State sees fit to give to its inhab- 
 itants to do as they please so long as that pleasure does 
 not conflict with the liberty of others. 
 
 Prof. Burgess in "Political Science and Comparative 
 Constitutional Law," says : There never was and never 
 can be any liberty upon this earth and among human 
 beings outside of State organization." 
 
 This is rational, because without the State organization 
 to restrain those who would abuse liberty, those who 
 would use it properly would be robbed of that privilege. 
 Now in determining the liberty which we shall enjoy, 
 we take into consideration the time honored maxim, "the 
 greatest good to the greatest number," and so we give 
 Statehood to some portions of our territory, Territorial 
 government to other portions and military rule to still 
 others, as the respective cases need and deserve. 
 
 We are talking about precedents and traditions of our 
 history, and if we are violating the sacred meaning' of 
 
214 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 liberty in thus discriminating, we are only following in 
 the footsteps of the founders of the Government, for they 
 had their States and their Territories and they kept the 
 sentinel over some of their own people and over the un- 
 fortunate Indians. All this was justified, as they thought, 
 and is justified as we think by the needs of civilization 
 as planned by a higher power. In the judgment of finite 
 man this is right. If it is wrong, then it must be the 
 judgment of finite man that our Maker was wrong in • 
 so constituting us. And as we do not administer the 
 same degree of liberty to groups of inhabitants in differ- 
 ent Territories, so we do not, nor did the Fathers, extend 
 the same privileges to all individuals alike ; and this 
 brings us to the consideration of the word "equality." 
 
 We subscribe reverently to the doctrine that all men 
 were created free and equal, but we accept as an un- 
 avoidable condition of that equality the limitations put 
 upon it by publicists, philosophers, lawyers and our high- 
 est courts of justice who have told us that it means 
 equality before the law and in the race for worldly goods 
 and happiness, and that it can not, in the nature of our 
 existence, mean equality in any other sense. To say that 
 it means equality in natural ability is merely to indulge 
 in the statement of an absurdity too apparent to deserve 
 a moment's consideration. It is to dispute the parable of 
 the talents and the teachings of our literature, both sacred 
 and profane, from the commencement of time. To say 
 that it means equality in privileges and immunities 
 outside of the law, is to accuse, not only ourselves, 
 but our ancestors, of wrong, and to claim, on the other 
 hand, that the right to vote, the right to make con- 
 tracts, and an innumerable list of other law-given rights 
 are rights inherent in man. Whereas our forefathers be- 
 lieved, and we believe, that only those have a right to 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 215 
 
 vote to whom the right is given by law; and if the law 
 does not extend far enough, or is not universal enough in 
 its distribution of that right, then the Fathers recognized 
 a more limited equality than we, because it is known that 
 the universal manhood suffrage which we enjoy more 
 than any other nation in the world, has been attained by 
 the process of evolution. All of the States in the be- 
 ginning had a very limited right of franchise. That right 
 was extended by slow degrees. At first it was limited by 
 property qualifications, and also by a limit of age, in some 
 of the States higher and some lower. Now if equality 
 is to be interpreted in the same literal sense that one gold 
 dollar is on an equality with another, or that one two- 
 inch cube is on an equality with another two-inch cube — 
 i. e., if it is to be taken in the sense of unqualified same- 
 ness, then our forefathers were not justified in puttings 
 property qualification on the right of franchise. Their 
 reasoning should have been, all men being equal, since 
 one has the right to vote, then all have the right to vote. 
 And in addition to this it would have been extremely 
 difficult for them to fix the age limit, for who shall say 
 what constitutes manhood? Is it 21 years of age? We 
 see imbeciles and idiots, criminals and degenerates, above 
 that age, and we see a high type of moral and intellectual 
 development much under that age. Would anyone claim 
 that Edward Atkinson, who writes commonplace 
 vituperations against economic conditions, is superior 
 because of his seventy-two years, to a William Cullen 
 Bryant, who at eighteen could write Thanatopsis? 
 
 Pessimist : Well, they simply follow the general rule 
 that for the most part men do reach the age of manhood 
 at 21. 
 
 Patriot: Precisely. In other words, they do what in 
 their wisdom as human beings is the best thing to do 
 
216 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 under the circumstances, which proves that they do not 
 strive for absolute equality, but for equality surrounded 
 by such limitations and conditions as good government 
 requires. Again, it is evident that our Fathers did not 
 mean equality in the literal sense, for they did not allow 
 women to vote ; they did not allow them to make contracts 
 nor to hold property, and they placed upon them, for the 
 benefit of what they conceived to be for the interests of the 
 women along with the rest of humanity, a long list of 
 disabilities, which in the further interest of humanity, by 
 added experience and investigation, their successors have 
 gradually narrowed until to-day most of the disabilities 
 which our Fathers placed upon women have been removed ; 
 and I do not believe that people charge us with disre- 
 spect for the Fathers for thus exercising our improved 
 judgment on this question. Again, if our Fathers meant 
 to be literal in their interpretation of equality and liberty, 
 what shall we say of their denial of liberty and equality 
 to the colored race? They were deprived of both. As 
 Senator Mason says: "We said 'this is the land of the 
 free and the home of the brave,' and sold women and chil- 
 dren to the highest and the best bidder for cash." 
 
 This is what the Fathers did, and bless them, it was 
 according to the best light and strength they had. Many 
 of them regretted this state of things, but most of them 
 believed in it ; most of them wrote their magnificent ap- 
 peals for liberty and freedom with pen and ink brought to 
 their desks by slaves. I shall advert to this subject again 
 under the head of Government Expediency ; but before 
 leaving the present topic I would like to cite one more 
 instance in which the Fathers denied equality in its literal 
 sense, namely, the Indians. We approve that judgment 
 and if, in working out the salvation of our country in its 
 extended form, we shall find in the way of that civiliza- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 21? 
 
 tion savage and brutal tribes, we shall exercise the same 
 common sense and perform the same sacred duty to our 
 posterity which the Fathers exercised and performed in 
 restraining or punishing, as the case may require, until 
 churches and school houses shall occupy the ground 
 now used for war dances, and factories and commercial 
 institutions where now barbarous tribes hunt and destroy 
 one another. This is civilization. This is government, 
 according to the ideals of the Fathers and according to 
 the ideals of the generations which came after them; 
 and as we have improved upon the quality and quantity 
 of liberty which they allowed to men, and particularly 
 to women, and to the colored race, so I confidently believe 
 that we shall improve upon their treatment of savage 
 tribes, which was the best they could do under the cir- 
 cumstances, but which subsequent experience has shown 
 us was far from ideal. 
 
 What has been said about equality and liberty applies 
 equally to freedom. If freedom in a literal sense had 
 been meant, the Declaration of Independence would have 
 been an Emancipation Proclamation as well ; but it took 
 three-quarters of a century of additional study, additional 
 growth of morality, and additional manhood to enable 
 Lincoln to write that Emancipation Proclamation which 
 the Fathers failed to write. No, they did not mean that 
 we should use these words as inflexible rules contrary to 
 common sense. In this, as in all other matters, they ex- 
 pected we would grow, and if their spirits hover over us, 
 who can doubt that they are rejoicing in the magnificent 
 fact that we have grown, that we have developed, that 
 we have used instead of hiding away the talents which 
 they provided for us, that we not only have had the rev- 
 erence for their teachings to go as far as they led us 
 in the right direction, but that we have the stamina and 
 
218 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 the manhood to go still further, even into untried fields 
 of human endeavor, according to our still better light and 
 added strength ; and do they not rejoice in the fact that 
 we recognize not only their teachings as a part of our 
 heritage, but that we recognize as an additional and 
 even more valuable consequence of the wise work done 
 by them, the added light, the increased knowledge, and 
 therefore the superior ability which has thus been vouch- 
 safed to us. 
 
 To claim, even by implication, as Mr. Bryan does, that 
 wisdom became extinct at the death of Jefferson, is 
 the saddest thing that can be charged against our ances- 
 tors, for 'it is only another way of accusing them of 
 bringing forth a race of weaklings, who merely reflect 
 the greatness of their fathers, but can have no hope of 
 greatness themselves. The fact that Jefferson and the 
 rest believed that they were founding a self-governing 
 government is proof positive that they expected their 
 sons to the end of time to exercise the kind of discretion 
 and independent judgment by which alone a self-govern- 
 ment can subsist. 
 
 Pessimist : What is the use to talk about self-govern- 
 ment unless the people who are governed give their 
 consent to that government? 
 
 Patriot : Are you willing that we should now take up 
 the discussion of the topic you indicate? 
 
 Uncle Sam : Unless someone still insists upon the 
 literal interpretation of the words freedom, equality and 
 liberty, and has additional arguments to offer on that 
 side, I assume that all are satisfied with the arguments 
 presented by Patriot. Hearing no objection, we will pass 
 to the next topic. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 219 
 
 CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. 
 
 Pessimist: I accept Mr. Bryan's proposition that, 
 ''government is either by force or by consent/' and if 
 we are going to administer force in the government of 
 the Philippines I should like to know how you make 
 that out a government by consent? 
 
 Patriot : I fear the audience has already grown weary 
 of our repetition of this argument, but as usual, you have 
 provoked it after demonstration, and I ask the indulgence 
 of the people here while I once more remind them and 
 you that no more force and no different kind of force is 
 used, or contemplated, in the government of the Filipinos 
 than we are using or have used in other territory belong- 
 ing to the United States. I have said repeatedly that 
 the conditions are precisely the same, but you simply 
 refuse to accept a demonstrated fact, and that is char- 
 acteristic of the Democratic Party. Gresham's Law 
 laid down over three hundred years ago the proposition 
 that cheap money drives good money out of the market. 
 This has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of scientific 
 minds and to the satisfaction of civilized nations, and yet 
 the Democratic Party insists upon trying it again. A 
 protective tariff has been found by actual experience 
 to be a benefit to laborers in the United States, by en- 
 abling us to do our manufacturing at home and to employ 
 our labor and capital in industry. We have proved 
 this by the abundant prosperity experienced under pro- 
 tective tariff laws, and by the miserable adversity forced 
 upon us by free trade ; and yet the Democratic Party 
 wants to try it again. And so after my repeated proof 
 that the status of the Filipinos is the same as the status 
 of the inhabitants of our other territory, you return to 
 the argument and claim that we are exercising a kind of 
 government there which we do not exercise elsewhere. 
 
220 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 But I shall now reply to Pessimist's point by analysis. 
 Our Government has always consisted partly of force 
 and partly of consent. In this matter Mr. Bryan has 
 again proved himself a mere theorist. He lays down a 
 proposition in political science that government is either 
 by force or by consent, and then, with that fatuity which 
 marks so much of his effort, he proceeds upon the assump- 
 tion that political science is an exact science, and that 
 the conduct of those in charge of public affairs can be 
 prescribed by inflexible rules. He seems to look upon 
 our Government as a sort of perpetual motion machine, 
 which, having been set going by the Fathers, must be 
 left to run without any further attention. 
 
 I lay it down as an incontrovertible proposition that 
 there is no such government on earth, and that there 
 can be no such government on earth, so long as it is 
 inhabited merely by human beings, as a government 
 wholly by consent — i. e., a government by consent with- 
 out any force ; but the United States Government is a 
 government by consent in the broad sense in which the 
 term was used by the Fathers, and we must apply that 
 rule in our interpretation of it ; otherwise it is absolutely 
 meaningless and impossible. The more than six millions 
 of people who voted for Mr. Bryan in 1896 are to-day, 
 by his strict rule, being governed without their consent, 
 but most of them are glad of it. 
 
 Pessimist: Mr. Bryan does not mean the consent of 
 every individual, he means the consent of the majority. 
 
 Patriot: Very well, then, you admit that the word 
 is not to be used in its literal and strict interpretation. 
 That takes us a long way on our journey toward a right 
 understanding. If we have not already ascertained that 
 our government in the Philippines is by the consent of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST: 221 
 
 a majority, it is simply because the time and opportunity 
 have not yet been afforded to ascertain the facts. You, at 
 least, have not shown that any other kind of government 
 proposed there has the consent of the majority ; thus if 
 I am wrong in believing that we have the consent of the 
 majority in the Philippines, it does not help your cause, 
 for you cannot say that we have not the consent; nor 
 does it hurt my cause, for it justifies our holding the 
 islands until time enough shall have elapsed to ascertain 
 what that consent is ; and then if it should transpire that 
 we have not the consent of the majority the question 
 could be properly raised were it not for an additional fact 
 which must be taken into consideration in determining the 
 question of consent. 
 
 We have never recognized that consent of majority 
 means the consent of the majority of each political divis- 
 ion. The majority of the people in Louisiana voted for Mr. 
 Bryan for President, but Mr. McKinley was seated as their 
 President, i. e., we ascertained the will of the majority 
 of the whole United States. In deciding what govern- 
 ment is justifiable in the Philippines we must pursue the 
 same plan as we would pursue in determining the kind 
 of government justifiable in the territory of New Mexico. 
 Now what would be our method there? Would we take 
 a vote of the inhabitants of New Mexico and then give 
 them the kind of government they decided upon? If so, 
 suppose they said they would have a king, or suppose a 
 dictator would set himself up as Aguinaldo has done in 
 the Philippines, and, to make the case even stronger than 
 Aguinaldo's, they would vote a ratification of his act, 
 would we allow a dictatorship to go on there? Suppose 
 they committed any sort of act violating the sovereignty 
 of the United States, would we, because the consent of 
 the majority had been obtained to that act, be compelled 
 
222 PATRIOT OR P US SI MI ST t 
 
 to approve it ? Suppose the}' decided by a vote that they 
 no longer wished to be a part of the United States at all, 
 do you not see, Pessimist, and does not Mr. Bryan see, 
 to what an absurd end the logical analysis of this propo- 
 sition would lead us? We are bound to conclude that 
 secession could not be allowed, and that our prevention 
 of secession would still be in keeping with the theory 
 that this government is a government by consent, and if 
 secession could not be allowed when voted by the people 
 of the territory belonging to the United States, then a 
 dictatorship could be prevented in keeping with that the- 
 ory; and if all this is true of Mexico, is it not equally 
 true of the Philippines, where at least it is not certain 
 that the majority favors separation? 
 
 If Mr. Bryan thinks we are not in the habit of using 
 force in connection with consent, let me remind him of 
 the effort of the Southern States to secede, which was 
 resisted by all the force necessary, and if he still is 
 not convinced, let him start an insurrection against the 
 United States Government in Nebraska, and let him get 
 the consent of all the governed there, or let him start the 
 insurrection in Alaska with the consent of the governed 
 there, and see what will be the result. 
 
 Pessimist: Now, I have you right where I want you. 
 I have read in the paper recently, and have heard Mr. 
 Bryan quote a statement made by Abraham Lincoln. 
 This quotation will compel you to admit that you are 
 wrong, or it will leave you but one alternative, and that 
 is to say that Lincoln did not know what he was talking 
 about. He says : 
 
 "No man is good enough to govern another without 
 the other's consent. When the white man governs him- 
 self, that is self-government, but when he governs him- 
 self and also another man, that is more than self-govern- 
 ment — that is despotism. Our reliance is in the love of 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 223 
 
 liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in 
 the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men 
 in all lands everywhere. Those who deny freedom to 
 others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just 
 God cannot long retain it." I pause for reply. 
 
 Patriot : The use of this quotation from Lincoln 
 against our policy in the Philippines illustrates better 
 than anything I could produce the hypocrisy of our ad- 
 versaries. What Lincoln meant, as every reasoning man 
 knows, was that one individual should not govern an- 
 other individual by force, as slave holders were then 
 doing. He did not mean that the sovereign power of a 
 government should not use force in governing one of 
 its members if need be, nor does the language admit of 
 such construction, even if we were left to the language 
 itself for our understanding of it. But about the time Lin- 
 coln said this he was using force against nearly half the 
 people in the United States. He allowed men to be court- 
 martialed and shot ; it was by his sanction that military 
 rule prevailed in many States which were not strictly a 
 part of the scene of the war. Officers of the law were 
 still permitted to arrest, try and punish criminals against 
 their consent, and he was exercising his executive power 
 in the governing of territories in p r ecisely the same man- 
 ner as President McKinley is exercising his powers in 
 the government of Porto Rico and the Philippines, using 
 military rule wherever necessary. 
 
 If Mr. Bryan is in doubt as to what McKinley would 
 do to him if he were leading an insurrection in some other 
 territory like Aguinaldo is in the Philippines, let him 
 review some of the proclamations which fell thick and 
 fast from the pen of Lincoln at about the same time he 
 expressed himself in the language which Pessimist has 
 quoted. These proclamations called such conduct trea- 
 
224 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 son, and threatened sufficient force to put it down, 
 whether he had the consent of the traitors or not, and I 
 have looked in vain for any effort on the part of Lincoln 
 to ascertain the will of the majority in the seceding States 
 when they were struggling for secession. The plain, 
 simple, unvarnished truth is, Mr. Bryan knows the gov- 
 ernment in the Philippines to-day does not violate the 
 principle that governments derive their just powers from 
 the consent of the governed. 
 
 Uncle Sam: Is there anything further? Then let us 
 continue the discussion under the next topic. 
 
 TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION. 
 
 Pessimist: This government is built upon the prin- 
 ciple that there should be no taxation without representa- 
 tion, and I would remind the audience of Mr. Bryan's 
 prophecy that Fourth of July orators would be warned to 
 keep silent about taxation without representation after 
 we have finally decided to govern the Philippines without 
 the consent of their inhabitants. It seems rather re- 
 markable to think of an orator being restrained from say- 
 ing anything he pleases in America, but you have heard 
 what Mr. Bryan said about it. 
 
 Patriot : Taxation without representation in its literal 
 and uncomprOmised significance is another one of those 
 magnificent idealities toward which a republic should 
 work, but which, in its perfection, no republic made up of 
 human beings can ever quite attain. We have set our- 
 selves up as a model, and we subscribe in full faith to a 
 sensible understanding of the principle that there should 
 be no taxation without representation. Representation is, 
 of course, used in the sense of franchise, and yet we 
 proceed to tax women, infants and foreigners without 
 giving them any representation. We have always done 
 this and have escaped any successful charge of violating 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 235 
 
 republican principles. Before Mr. Bryan can convince 
 the people that the Philippine policy is a blow at free 
 institutions on this ground, he will first have to convince 
 us that we and our ancestors have been wrong from the 
 time Hawaii was annexed clear back to the purchase and 
 government of Louisiana territory, because we are doing 
 identically the same thing in the Philippines that we are 
 doing in Alaska and have done in the other territories. 
 We are giving them a military government, with the view 
 to extending it to a regular territorial government as 
 soon as conditions in those islands will permit. 
 
 To show that it is wrong, then, Pessimist will have 
 to show that we have been wrong in the other cases. Will 
 he attempt this ? 
 
 Pessimist : Nothing more to say on this topic. I do 
 not care much about this particular feature anyway. 
 
 Patriot: Will you then take up the next? 
 
 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE FATHERS. 
 
 Pessimist: When we think of the blood which was 
 shed to secure the blessings demanded and declared to be 
 ours in the Declaration of Independence, what must we 
 feel toward that man or set of men who tries to rob us 
 of those blessings by inaugurating a system of colonial 
 government contrary to the principles of that "Immortal 
 document penned by Jefferson." It says that "all men 
 are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
 with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, 
 liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 
 
 It also says that governments derive "their just powers 
 from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form 
 of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is 
 the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." 
 
 It is upon these doctrines and in our effort to maintain 
 them sacredly that we rely for votes to sustain our posi- 
 tion. If everything else in my argument has failed up to 
 
226 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 this time the spectacle Patriot will make of himself in 
 trying to answer me now, will more than balance our 
 account in my favor. We have finally come to the parting 
 of the ways. No amount of logic and scientific discus- 
 sion can save him this time. He must either stick to the 
 Declaration and abandon the Philippines, or he must 
 take the other road, which is to stick to the Philippines 
 and abandon the Declaration. Now, what will Patriot, 
 the apologist for the Administration, say? 
 
 Patriot: I do not wish to divert attention from our 
 serious inquiry, but I am tempted to express my personal 
 opinion of Pessimist's effort to save a lost cause by con- 
 temptible insinuations and by the use of isolated words 
 and phrases from an instrument, which when read as a 
 whole warrants and justifies our course in the Philippines. 
 This wicked garbling of the writings and sayings of great 
 men is always indulged in by political charlatans; but it 
 is indulged in to an unusual extent in the present cam- 
 paign — a fact which may well cause concern among 
 thoughtful men. Such a disposition on the part of a 
 plausible orator makes him, whether he has good or bad 
 intentions, a positively dangerous man to a community. 
 Let us turn to the Declaration of Independence itself, and 
 see if it bears such a mission as these few catchwords 
 and phrases interpreted literally would indicate. The 
 first paragraph of the Declaration itself lays it down as 
 a duty that a people, who are forced by necessity to sep- 
 arate themselves from another people, should "declare the 
 causes which impel them to the separation." Now this 
 proves that the framers of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence did not object to the fact of colonial government, 
 but merely objected to the kind of colonial government 
 which had been forced upon them, and it also raises the 
 question in our minds as to what causes for separation 
 would the Filipinos be able to recite which would, in the 
 
PATRIOT UK PESSIMIST t 82? 
 
 language of the Declaration, show "a decent respect to the 
 opinions of mankind." 
 
 The second paragraph, which states that "all men are 
 created equal," etc., says : "Whenever any form of gov- 
 ernment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right 
 of the people to alter or to abolish it." 
 
 The language employed by the Fathers proves that 
 equality, liberty, freedom, etc., represent a condition which 
 may be had under different forms of government. But 
 above all, it inferentially denies the right of a people to 
 separate from its government until that government "be- 
 comes destructive of these ends." If, therefore, the 
 Democratic party should, agreeable to the suggestion of 
 Mr. Bourke Cockran adopt the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence as its platform, it would be compelled to show that 
 our government has become "destructive of these ends," 
 i. e., destructive of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness," etc., before it would recommend separation accord- 
 ing to the Declaration ; and if it could show that of the 
 Philippines, it would at the same time justify the secession 
 of all our other territories, because no discrimination has 
 been made, but so far from proving this, the campaign 
 of education would compel all right-minded men' to admit 
 that we are giving them a higher degree of self-govern- 
 ment than they have ever had before. 
 
 Further along in the Declaration it says : 
 
 "When a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursu- 
 ing invariably the same object, evinces a design to re- 
 duce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, 
 it is their duty, to throw off such government and to pro- 
 vide new guards for their future security." 
 
 This applied to the Philippine Question justifies their 
 separation from the rule of Aguinaldo, because he has 
 indulged in that "long train of abuses and usurpation." 
 
228 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 But before the Declaration can be pleaded to justify theii 
 separation from us, it must first be shown that the United 
 States has burdened them with ''a long train of abuses 
 and usurpations" for the purpose of reducing them "under 
 absolute despotism." 
 
 According to the Fathers, "when" all this has happened, 
 but not until then can their separation be justified. But 
 so long as the same kind of government is provided to 
 them as to the other territories, this cannot be shown, and 
 we are in no danger of having to fight over again the war 
 of secession. 
 
 I would recommend, then, that each one in this audi- 
 ence review in the Declaration the "long train of abuses 
 and usurpations" upon which was based our right of sep- 
 aration and independence. 
 
 The king forbade the governors to pass laws of "imme- 
 diate and pressing importance * * * shifted the place 
 of holding the legislative sessions here and there distant 
 from the depository of their public records for the sole 
 purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his 
 measures." 
 
 If our government should be guilty of such abuses, the 
 political party which pointed them out would sweep the 
 country. British government refused to provide for the 
 administration of justice. We compelled its adminis- 
 tration. They made the judges dependent upon the will 
 of the king. The limited tenure of our President's office 
 renders this condition impossible in the government of 
 cur territories. They appointed English officers to rule 
 over us, while we employed natives to the fullest extent 
 possible. They transported our people "beyond seas 
 to be tried for pretended offenses." We establish courts 
 of justice in our territories and make the native inhabi- 
 tants themselves judges of the courts. They suspended 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 220 
 
 our legislatures and arrogated to themselves "the right to 
 legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." We have estab- 
 lished local autonomy and are educating the people as 
 rapidly as possible to make their own laws in all cases 
 not controverting the general policy of our Federal Gov- 
 ernment. Their conduct among us was accompanied with 
 "circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled 
 in the most barbarous ages," while our conduct in the 
 Philippines has been characterized by patience even in 
 the face of insult and by the most humane treatment, not 
 alone of the non-combatants, but even of the treasonable 
 insurgents when taken prisoner. The Declaration says : 
 
 "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act 
 which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a 
 free people." 
 
 This language shows that the framers of the Declara- 
 tion had no such narrow views of the word free as has 
 been ascribed to them by Pessimist and his friends. The 
 implication here is that a prince who is not guilty of such 
 tyrannical acts may be fit "to be the ruler of a free people," 
 and that if King George had been such a prince they 
 would not have felt justified in declaring the separation. 
 And do we not hear it said, even to this day, that if such 
 justice as good governmental policy ought to have dictated 
 had been indulged toward the American colonies, we 
 would be a British province, the same as Canada, at this 
 time ? In the light of increased knowledge we might have 
 found other justifiable means for separation, but we have 
 been drawn into a discussion of the Philippine Question 
 according to the teachings of the Declaration, and as far 
 as anything said in it is capable of guiding us, we are 
 forced to conclude that the Fathers themselves would 
 not have counseled separation but for the long train of 
 abuses which they recited. 
 
230 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Thus, so far from justifying our abandonment of the 
 Philippines, a right interpretation would justify our con- 
 tinued sovereignty over the islands, even if we were 
 exercising that sovereignty in a monarchical way, so long 
 as we did not resort to this 'long train of abuses." How 
 much more would the Declaration justify our sovereignty 
 when it is one of benign aid, and beneficent education 
 unaccompanied by the first suggestion of cruelty suffered 
 by our colonial fathers. 
 
 There are some other distinctions which the thought 
 of the Declaration forces upon us. When we determined 
 to separate from the sovereign country, we had lived 
 under it 150 years, and when we finally separated we 
 were able to establish a just and intelligent government 
 of our own. If the Filipinos could separate, as Bryan 
 wishes to have them do, they would not be able to estab- 
 lish a just government of their own, but would fall im- 
 mediately under the blighting rule of despotism or anar-" 
 chv. What then would become of the platitudes of the 
 Declaration ? 
 
 It should be borne in mind that we have now in our 
 vocabulary a larger word even that that of patriotism. 
 That word is humanity. In the dark ages of feudalism 
 the vassal swore fealty to his feudal lord, and was ready 
 to fight for the protection of his person. A little later, 
 by reason of the compact between the various lords and 
 the king, all these feudal subjects took the oath of allegi- 
 ance to the king, by which they were bound to protect him 
 in the possession of life and of his royal realm. No patri- 
 otism in that, but a sort of enthusiastic devotion for the 
 king himself, tinctured with the self-interest subserved 
 by the maintenance of supremacy over the various kingly 
 factions. But when the jealousies of kings caused them 
 to fight one another in wars of extermination, then was 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 231 
 
 cultivated in the minds of the people themselves a love of 
 country. That was patriotism. There was never an 
 example of so pure a type of patriotism as was possible 
 under a republican government until the example of 
 American patriotism was presented to the world. There 
 was love of country, not for the sake of a king, but for 
 the sake of the people themselves who owned and were a 
 part of the country. This sentiment reached its highest 
 point when the rebellion was resisted by the war for the 
 preservation of the Union, i. e., for the preservation of 
 the united country. That war was fought on the prin- 
 ciple of patriotism, i. e., to preserve and protect the coun- 
 try — for the first few months — and then another step was 
 taken in the evolution, and we found ourselves contend- 
 ing and fighting for a principle higher than patriotism, 
 but not the highest yet. It was a contention for human- 
 ity in America. We were ready then to say, and felt 
 strong enough to say, there shall be no slavery here ; no 
 cruelty, no abuse, no tyranny, no despotism within the 
 magic line which marks the boundaries of these United 
 States. This was a long step in advance, but it was not 
 the end of the journey. We did not concern ourselves 
 with the situation elsewhere. South America was still 
 a slave continent. The pagan nations generally contin- 
 ued in slavery. The Spaniards then, as in recent years, 
 were indulging in barbaric cruelty in sight of our south- 
 ern doorsteps. We said that is none of our business. We 
 had reached that rung in the ladder of civilization which 
 may be defined as humanity in America. The next step 
 was not taken until the platform of the Republican party 
 warned Spain that the time had come when we would 
 not tolerate brutality so close to our possessions ; and, 
 faithful to that pledge, William McKinley so directed 
 events as to cultivate in the breast of every American 
 
232 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 
 
 patriot the feeling of humanity in the Western Hemi- 
 sphere. This marked another epoch. 
 
 Still another step remained. The accident of war had 
 placed us in guardianship over the Filipinos. As soon as 
 the cruel hold of the Spaniards was broken, Ave found 
 that Aguinaldo and his insurgents were committing the 
 same kind of cruel acts in the Eastern Hemisphere to 
 which we objected on the part of the Spaniards in the 
 Western Hemisphere. We said : "Let us take the other 
 step, we are blessed with the opportunity, we are charged 
 with the duty, and we are clothed with the power. Let 
 us step to the top of the ladder and register on the highest 
 crag of the mountain of civilization — away up higher 
 than any inscription ever written there — our eternal pro- 
 test against brutality and barbarity in the treatment of 
 any people anywhere." Thus we have reached the con- 
 ception of world humanity. 
 
 But even this high ideal can be carried into practice 
 only so fast and so far as our influence and our warlike 
 force will insure its success. To say that we must fight 
 for these principles all at once all over the world would 
 be to adopt the policy as narrow and one-sided, and as 
 theoretical and impractical as that which our adversaries 
 wished to apply in their interpretation of the sayings of 
 the Fathers. The fruits of this great victory cannot be 
 reached unless we push forward to more advanced ground 
 than could be occupied by our ancestors, and this is in 
 accordance with their wish and example. That they 
 themselves had no intention of being bound by the literal 
 interpretation of the language used, is proved by their 
 own conduct. Upon what other theory can Pessimist 
 justify their going to royal courts in knickerbockers, their 
 use of diplomatic language expressing the most heartfelt 
 sympathy and respect for his royal majesty this, and his 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 233 
 
 worshipful majesty that, trading and hobnobbing with 
 hated crowned heads of Europe. The example which 
 the Fathers did set and which we should follow, is that 
 of applying good sense to existing conditions, and of not 
 spoiling the possibility of any blessing by making the 
 unreasonable demand for all the conceivable blessings at 
 once. 
 
 In the presence of novel conditions, shall we call to the 
 shades of wise men a century dead for specific direc- 
 tions, or shall we turn to the wise men living and have 
 the courage to adopt their views, original though they 
 are? It cheapens the value of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence to call it down as an authority against the Phil- 
 ippine policy, for it gives those who do not look deeply 
 into the question but who have an abiding faith in the 
 justice and fairness of our present government, an idea 
 that the Declaration of Independence was a sort of ad- 
 monition for sublimated purity and perfection on earth 
 toward which men ought to aim, but which they could 
 never, in the nature of human limitations, achieve. 
 Whereas, in truth the Declaration applies to and justifies 
 the practical policy of the Fathers and of the present 
 Administration. It was not an attenuated plea for gov- 
 ernmental sanctification, but a strong, robust enunciation 
 of practical possibilities for a practical people. 
 
 The founders of this government did not run amuck 
 and declare that the words " all men are created 
 equal" applies without exception. If they had, as I have 
 stated before, they would have been compelled to apply it 
 to the colored race, they w r ould have been compelled to 
 avoid the appearance of evil and thus to refuse to send 
 ambassadors and consuls abroad or to accept like repre- 
 sentatives from other countries whose governments dis- 
 puted this inherent right. What they did mean was that 
 
234 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 
 
 all men are born free and equal and that the good offices 
 of American government should be used toward bringing 
 all men — it does not say in America merely — but all men 
 throughout the world, into this rightful heritage as speed- 
 ily as possible in keeping with actual progress and the 
 greatest good to the greatest number. They recognized, 
 as we do, that we cannot at once demand a change of gov- 
 ernment in all the world, because our rashness would only 
 defeat our ultimate purpose ; nor can we make the rule 
 inflexible as to our own government because not all of our 
 own people are able to stand the light of freedom and 
 liberty and equality in its full and unlimited extent; and 
 if we insisted upon adjusting all conditions forthwith to 
 our exalted views instead of bending to suit our fastidious 
 and superhuman conceits, the undeveloped conditions 
 would rather cause our rule to break, and we should slide 
 backward in the scale of civilization in our too ardent 
 effort to move forward. 
 
 If the Fathers had intended to be literal, how is it 
 that Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, neglected throughout his long term of public ser- 
 vice, eight years of which was spent in the executive 
 chair, to recommend and insist upon the abolition of 
 slavery? No, they meant to be practical, and in showing 
 the non-application of the Declaration of Independence 
 to the claims of our adversaries, I do not seek to belittle 
 it, nor to reflect discredit upon those who adopted it ; but 
 when hypocrites dwell with such assumed reverence upon 
 a scriptural text as to warp its language into a plea for 
 their unjust cause, it is needful that the limitations of 
 that text be pointed out and that the circumstances of 
 its enunciation be explained in order the more surely to 
 conserve its true sacred meaning and its influence for 
 righteous ends. It is to our great credit that we pay at- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 233 
 
 tention to precedents and traditions, but in the language 
 of Madison: 
 
 "Is it not to the glory of the people of America that 
 whilst they paid a decent regard to the opinions of former 
 times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind 
 veneration for antiquity, for custom or for names to over- 
 rule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowl- 
 edge of their own situation and the lesson of their own 
 experience?" This is precisely what the doctrinaires of 
 democracy insist upon our doing in the present contest. 
 None of this argument goes to the point of finding fault 
 with freedom, liberty or any of the other tenets for which 
 our ancestors contended, but merely to show that they 
 set the example of practicability in research for these 
 principles. 
 
 THE FACT AND THE KIND OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Patriot : As a matter of simple truth, there is not a 
 word in the Declaration of Independence itself, nor have 
 the public speakers against our Philippine policy adduced 
 any remarks from any of the Fathers in protest against 
 colonial government as a fact, i. e., as an existing condi- 
 tion. What they did protest against — the sum and sub- 
 stance of it all — was the kind of colonial government 
 under which they were forced to live. While I do not 
 offer any apology for colonial government, but on the 
 contrary have shown, and shall in a later topic show more 
 fully still, that we are not conducting a colonial govern- 
 ment in the Philippines, yet to those who pin such faith 
 to the beliefs and doctrines of our colonial ancestors, I 
 wish to say emphatically that they believed a colonial 
 government right, and that the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence from beginning to end is but a protest against the 
 Abuse of colonies and not against the use and existence of 
 
23G PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 them. What must Mr. Bryan think of our ancestors for 
 living under colonial rule for three hundred years if he 
 is of opinion that they objected to the fact of colonial 
 rule? He could only excuse such delay by pleading 
 cowardice on their part. If they were opposed to colonial 
 government their cause of war arose, not in 1776, but in 
 the latter part of the fifteenth century, and why did they 
 not protest then ? Because in the first place they had no 
 objection to just colonial government, and in the second 
 place they recognized that they had not yet a sufficient 
 amount of experience and training under an older sover- 
 eign power to warrant their launching out into a govern- 
 ment of their own. Success and liberty were dearer to 
 them than any particular kind of government. The Dem- 
 ocratic leaders want the Philippines to leap at one bound 
 to that self-governing ability to which our ancestors were 
 three hundred years in growing. 
 
 To hear some of the Democratic orators talk you would 
 think that every government called a republic is good 
 and every government called by any other name is bad. 
 If the people could be made to believe this, how easy it 
 would be for tyrants to put at rest all protest and dis- 
 turbance. All that would be necessary would be to write 
 at the head of a decree or a constitution like that of Agui- 
 naldo's, 'This is a republic." 
 
 If as a matter of fact it is impossible for the Filipinos 
 to govern themselves according to republican ideas, which 
 is better for them, liberty, freedom and equal rights 
 before the law and in the pursuit of happiness 
 under a territorial form of government in fact and in 
 name, or to have despotism and tyranny under an inde- 
 pendent republican government in name only? I submit 
 that rather than have the latter, they would be better off 
 even if governed as a colony by a monarchy. How much 
 
 i 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 237 
 
 better their condition if governed not by a monarchy, nor 
 yet as a colony, but by a republic in name and in fact, as 
 one of its territories in keeping with its well-tested meth- 
 ods of law, order and justice. 
 
 Will Pessimist contend that our Revolution was fought 
 because of colonial government, or will he not rather ad- 
 mit that it was fought because of the existence in our 
 colonies of bad colonial government? 
 
 Pessimist : I suppose you are right about it, but any- 
 how, they did not say anything in praise of colonial 
 government, but I have not anything more to say on this 
 part of the subject. 
 
 Patriot : It would have been quite irrelevant to the 
 case for them to praise a foreign government which they 
 at the time were resisting, so that the last remark of Pes- 
 simist adds nothing to the case. Let us take up the next 
 topic. 
 
 GOVERNMENT EXPEDIENCY. 
 
 Pessimist : I would call the attention of the audience 
 to the fact that this topic was not suggested by me. I 
 believe that right should prevail, and that we have no 
 right to compromise with wrong; therefore, I haven't 
 anything more to say about government expediency. 
 
 Patriot : There is nothing difficult about understand- 
 ing the necessity for government expediency. It is like 
 the expediency of justice. It is bound to adopt certain 
 legal fictions in the interest of greater and of more certain 
 justice and convenience to the largest number of people. 
 Right of property is sacred, and yet, one who is not a 
 true owner may, by prescription, place himself in a su- 
 perior position. Our law, as well as our morals, requires 
 that men shall pay their debts, and yet we have our stat- 
 utes of limitation which excuse the payment after the. 
 
238 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 lapse of a certain time, and our bankruptcy laws which 
 force the creditor, under certain conditions, to accept 
 nothing, or less than the face of his claim. Crime 
 should be punished, and yet our national and state ex- 
 ecutives are clothed with the plenary power of pardon. 
 It is upon these principles that the government of the 
 United States paid tribute to pirates, bartered in slaves 
 and submitted to the slave traffic among its people, and 
 it is in keeping with these principles that the government 
 of the United States cannot be the same in all its priv- 
 ileges and immunities to all sections of the country, nor 
 to all individuals in the same section. Those who have 
 claimed that the precise methods proposed for Cuba and 
 Porto Rico should be followed out in the Philippines are 
 simply undertaking to fasten upon the Administration a 
 principle in ethics rather than a rule of practical political 
 progress ; and let us dwell for a moment upon this point. 
 
 PHILIPPINE AXD CUBAN POLICY DISTINGUISHED. 
 
 Pessimist : Yes, I should like to know how it comes 
 that we can give one kind of encouragement to the Cubans 
 and another kind to the Filipinos without being inconsist- 
 ent. We expressly declared in advance that it was not 
 our purpose to annex Cuba ; why should we not say 
 the same thing about the Philippines ? This would have 
 saved all the trouble, and if we must have the Philippines 
 why should we not declare our purpose eventually to 
 admit them into the United States as commonwealths 
 equal to those already admitted ? 
 
 Patriot : Much of this ground has already been cov- 
 ered, but perhaps a recapitulation here may not be out of 
 order. The Philippines do not form the first instance in 
 which the United States has omitted to declare its pur- 
 pose in advance with reference to territory. Hawaii and 
 Alaska are in the same category and antedate the Philip- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 239 
 
 pine Question. The only reason such promise was in- 
 cluded in the earlier purchases was that of the youthful 
 condition of our nation and the persistent desire on the 
 part of European nations to grasp territory in our neigh- 
 borhood, and the danger that the inhabitants within the 
 territory acquired by us would be alienated and turned 
 against us before they could learn of our fixed purpose to 
 do justice. All these reasons conspired to make it neces- 
 sary for us to proclaim in advance in those particular in- 
 stances what neither duty nor sovereign necessity outside 
 of political expediency required that we should proclaim. 
 
 When the necessity of such declaration of future pur- 
 pose no longer existed, we omitted to make such dec- 
 laration, and this was in keeping with our universal pol- 
 icy, which is to make the best bargain we can in keeping 
 with justice, regarding each separate case in the light of 
 conditions surrounding it. 
 
 We have pronounced in favor of confiscation of neutral 
 goods in enemies' vessels in treaties with some countries, 
 and in treaties with other countries we have agreed that 
 contraband of war should not be confiscable. Govern- 
 ment is a bundle of compromises, and the man who, 
 either too narrow or too inexperienced to see and apply 
 this fundamental fact in government, is not practical 
 enough to do good among men in a political way. Such 
 a man always grows backward until he reaches the midget 
 stage of political fanaticism. We must always apply the 
 same common sense to a government proposition that we 
 do to ordinary affairs. "A half loaf is better than no 
 bread" is a more sensible doctrine than to say "I would 
 rather starve than have less than my share." 
 
 If a family want to go to the top of the Washington 
 Monument in the elevator and there is not room enough 
 for all at one time, and not time for two trips, they must 
 
240 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 do one of three things-: (a) All get in and break down the 
 elevator, thus injuring some and accomplishing nothing 
 for any; (b) all stay out, or, (c) part go in and part stay 
 out, the latter taking chances on compensation in some 
 other way. Does not the compromise appeal to every one 
 as the only reasonable course? How often changed cir- 
 cumstances which seem disastrous, have proved bless- 
 ings in disguise, let each answer for himself, as he has 
 seen it verified and exemplified in his own life. If we 
 cannot do precisely the same good toward two foreign 
 peoples shall we for that reason withhold all favor from 
 one of them? 
 
 Pessimist: But we adopted a resolution in Congress 
 in declaring war against Spain, a part of which was : 
 
 ''That the United States hereby disclaims any disposi- 
 tion or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or 
 control over said island (Cuba) except for the pacification 
 thereof, and asserts its determination when that is ac- 
 complished to leave the government and control of the 
 island to its people." 
 
 That was noble. Let me read a brief paragraph from 
 the speech of ex-Representative Towne : 
 
 "Ah ! what a fall is here, my countrymen. Within the 
 circuit of a single year to have declined from the moral 
 leadership of mankind into the common brigandage of 
 the robber nations of the world l" How can this be justi- 
 fied? 
 
 Patriot: It cannot be justified. It simply is not true. 
 The very language of the resolution quoted by Pessimist 
 shows that our disclaimer as to sovereign jurisdiction re- 
 ferred to Cuba only. It did not say that we should not 
 acquire territory or govern territory anywhere in the 
 future. Such a statement would have been absurd, and 
 would have required a constitutional amendment to bind 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST ? 241 
 
 future administrations because the Constitution gives the 
 President, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
 ate, the right to acquire territory, and clothes Congress 
 with the right to govern it. We have acted, therefore, 
 strictly within our rights, whether considered from the 
 legal or equitable standpoint, in acquiring Porto Rico and 
 the Philippines, and in extending to them a sort of su- 
 pervision different from that which we had extended to 
 Cuba. If the exigencies of war had not brought the 
 Philippines into our possession, practically at the same 
 time that our declared purpose in Cuba was consum- 
 mated, nobody would have thought of criticising our 
 government on the ground of inconsistency in its treat- 
 ment of the two nations. Why should it be any more in- 
 consistent if the one act follows immediately after the 
 other, than if there had been a lapse of many years be- 
 tween them? We have precedents for our conduct in 
 reference to both. We have, on the one hand, intervened 
 in favor of Venezuela, Mexico, and, in fact, all the gov- 
 ernments of the Western Hemisphere and of Liberia in 
 the Eastern Hemisphere, without acquiring their terri- 
 tory, and on the other, we have acquired territory from 
 time to time and governed it. Since, therefore, we have 
 precedents for our conduct in Cuba and also for our con- 
 duct in the Philippines, and since we have right and rea- 
 son in favor of both, by what stretch of imagination can 
 any form of logic commend one act and condemn the 
 other on the mere fact that they happened close together 
 and grew out of the same contest ? Even if it were true 
 that the policy in the Philippines involved the Administra- 
 tion in a change of opinion, this would not be a ground 
 for condemnation, as I shall show beyond question of 
 doubt under the next head. But the critics themselves 
 recommend one policy toward the Porto Ricans, and an- 
 
242 PATRIOT GR PESSIMIST? 
 
 other for the Filipinos. They say: "Govern Porto Rico 
 as a territory, but establish a protectorate over the Philip- 
 pines." 
 
 From a practical standpoint, if one must have a pro- 
 tectorate and the other a territorial government, common 
 sense would dictate a reverse of this proposition. A pro- 
 tectorate would prove easier and more certain of success 
 in Porto Rico because European nations would recognize 
 our interference there without our being the owners, while 
 in the Philippines the only sure method of baffling the 
 nations of Europe in their purpose, if they have such 
 purpose, to entangle us on account of our relations in the 
 East, is for us to maintain our ownership there, a kind 
 of claim which all the European governments are in the 
 habit of respecting, when asserted by a nation of the first 
 class. 
 
 We should plant the sure foundation of peace away 
 from home and take the chances of embroilment close 
 at hand where it can more readily be attended to. We 
 set about to elevate civilization in Cuba by what seemed 
 the most expeditious method for that case ; and when 
 in the course of human events the opportunity came to 
 elevate civilization in Porto Rico and the Philippines, 
 there again we applied what, under the circumstances, 
 seemed the most expeditious. Though the course pur- 
 sued in one differs from that in the other, they are dis- 
 tinguishable only in kind, and not in propriety, nor in the 
 application of finite justice. As we were right in the one. 
 so are we right in the other, and as we used the lamp 
 of experience to guide us in working out a system of 
 justice adapted to the peculiar circumstances in Cuba, so 
 did we the same in Porto Rico and the Philippines. 
 Nothing has been adduced so far to controvert this claim, 
 and I await Pessimist's effort to dispute it if he can. 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 243 
 
 Pessimist : I think I shall wait until you have finished 
 the entire topic of government expediency. 
 
 Patriot : Very well, then, I shall proceed under the 
 next head. 
 
 EXIGENCIES OF WAR. 
 
 Patriot : I quote from President McKinley's message 
 of Dec. 6, 1897: 
 
 "I speak not of forcible annexation, for that is net 
 to be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be 
 criminal aggression." 
 
 This has been used as a text for so many anti-expan- 
 sion political sermons that a moment's attention to it may 
 not be out of place. In the first place, it must be borne 
 in mind that the acquisition of the Philippines is in all 
 probability in accordance with the wish of the majority of 
 the inhabitants, and therefore, the presumption of crim- 
 inal aggression is not raised. On the contrary, so far as 
 human judgment can at this time pronounce, the pre- 
 sumption is strong that the acquisition of the Philippines 
 is by consent of the inhabitants. Furthermore it cannot 
 be made out criminal b> any contortion of language, be- 
 cause it is legal, and it is as impossible for an act to be 
 both legal and criminal at the same time as it is for a 
 body to be in two places at the same time, or for two 
 bodies to occupy the same place at one time. The ab- 
 surdity of the charges made against the President must 
 herein appear plain to all. This declaration of the Presi- 
 dent related solely and only to Cuba, and it meant that 
 under all the circumstances a forcible annexation of Cuba 
 would amount to criminal aggression, and that criminal 
 aggression could not be thought of. In view of the long 
 years of intercourse between the United States and Cuba, 
 
244 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 
 
 her appeals for sympathy and our oft-repeated expres- 
 sion of hope in her behalf had, in a sense, bound us to 
 her territory differently from that of Louisiana, Alaska 
 and others, but we had no such intercourse with the 
 Philippines, and we were bound by none of those ties. 
 
 But even if the President had meant in the face of our 
 past practice that hereafter we should neither conquer, nor 
 purchase territory on the ground that we had enough, or 
 in the belief that it could no longer prove advantageous 
 to outside territory for us to conquer or acquire it, or for 
 any other reason, even then the President would have 
 been justified in altering his opinion, by reason of the 
 exigencies of war which no human foresight could fore- 
 see at the time of his declaration. 
 
 President Lincoln in his first inaugural address quotes 
 from one of his own speeches, and reaffirms it as follows : 
 
 "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere 
 with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. 
 I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no 
 inclination to do so." 
 
 But the war came, the Union must be saved. Lincoln 
 expressed it as his determination to save the Lnion with 
 slavery if he could, but without slavery if he must. Final- 
 ly in the exercise of his war power Lincoln felt justified 
 in saying: "As commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any 
 measures which may best subdue the enemy." And with- 
 out the .shadow of constitutional sanction, he decreed the 
 end of slavery; and, so far from getting the consent of 
 the governed, he even drafted free men to fight for a 
 cause which they opposed. What he did by reason of 
 the exigencies of that war proves conclusively that it is 
 not reprehensible nor hateful in the eyes of the people, 
 nor yet contrary to the advance of civilization, for even 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 215 
 
 the Chief Executive to change his opinion upon a matter 
 of grave national importance. President McKinley like- 
 wise believed he had the right when the war was on to 
 do whatever was necessary most effectually to "subdue the 
 enemy. " He sent a brief message to Commodore Dewey, 
 instructing him either to capture or destroy Spain's 
 Asiatic fleet. The result of the victory which followed, 
 placed the Philippines in our hands, brought to Commo- 
 dore Dewey the plaudits of an undivided nation, brought 
 tc this country marvelous advantages and put us in a 
 position where we were morally bound to protect and 
 care for the Filipinos in just precisely the same manner 
 that Lincoln's great war measure of freeing the slaves — 
 done for no other purpose — put us in position where we 
 were morally bo\md to protect and care for the negroes. 
 As Lincoln deserves no less the plaudits of man for his 
 humane act of emancipation because of its being a war 
 measure, neither should McKinley be praised any the less 
 because the uplifting of the Filipinos was eventuated like- 
 wise by a war measure. Each act took patriotic devotion 
 to country and manly courage of conviction. As Lincoln 
 was equal to the occasion as he found it, so was McKinley 
 equal to his great work. 
 
 Pessimist: Unless you are willing to say that evil 
 should be done that good may come, how can you excuse 
 the President for his secret course in dealing with matters 
 pertaining to the Philippines, his censorship of news and 
 his treaty with the Sultan of Sulu, by which he gave 
 countenance to slavery and polygamy? 
 
 Patriot: In the exercise of Executive discretion in 
 time of war, the President must of necessity resort to 
 some measures which in time of peace would be intolera- 
 ble to a free people, and here again I would refer you 
 to our previous history. Censorship need not be dwelt 
 
210 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 upon, because it is a matter of common observation that 
 no foreign war has ever been conducted by any foreign 
 country which exercised so little espionage over the free 
 thought and expression and brought to bear so little re- 
 straint upon the action either of the soldiers and peace- 
 able inhabitants or the enemy themselves, as our war 
 against the Philippine insurgents. State secrets are neces- 
 sary, to be sure. This has always been recognized. The 
 Monroe Doctrine, as I have already shown, was born and 
 reared almost to its full stature before it saw the light of 
 public opinion. It was the result of secret conference, and 
 necessarily so in order that the best good for the public 
 weal might be accomplished. 
 
 Pessimist has referred to the compact with the Sultan 
 of Sulu. This treaty, made for the purpose of restoring 
 peace, was justifiable as a war expedient, precisely in the 
 same manner as Lincoln was justified in denying the writ 
 of habeas corpus, and in the same manner that spies are 
 allowed to go under false pretenses and in disguise for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the condition of the enemy, 
 and for the purpose of carrying "a message to Garcia," 
 if need be, in all of which cases success is crowned with 
 the victor's wreath. Lincoln was ready to tolerate slav- 
 ery in all of the slave States in order to end the war 
 and save the Union. If that had been done, no future 
 opportunity would have afforded itself to rid our govern- 
 ment of slavery. Lincoln was willing to purchase the 
 slaves, and wrote a long message urging that course. In 
 short he, like McKinley, kept sight of the main purpose — 
 that of restoring peace with honor and of preventing the 
 loss of any of our territory. The compact entered into 
 by President McKinley looks to no such permanent ex- 
 istence of slavery as would either of Lincoln's plans, but 
 on the contrary it looks to the establishment of our gov^ 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? Wi 
 
 ernment there, which is the surest guarantee possible that 
 slavery will not long continue. 
 
 What do the President's critics offer on this high moral 
 point in the place of the President's work which they 
 would undo? They want us to let the Filipinos govern 
 themselves, not for a short time only, but forever, and 
 according to their own polygamous and slavery notions. 
 And our course is not the doing of evil that good may 
 come — we simply postpone the doing of good a little 
 while because it is practical sense to do so, whereas the 
 Democrats recommend the eternal postponement of doing 
 good. If we had not made the treaty, slavery and poly- 
 gamy would have gone on until complete peace and order 
 could be restored in the Philippines. With the treaty, the 
 extirpation of slavery and polygamy is made certain. 
 Thus we bring them to account on this criticism, as we 
 have on all others. 
 
 As I have repeatedly said, there could be no progress 
 in government without compromise. Adversaries of the 
 Administration, will, I believe, accept Jefferson as an 
 authority on the question of Government Expediency. 
 Jefferson was extremely anxious to have the capital 
 located in the District of Columbia. Hamilton and the 
 Northern members of Congress preferred a more norther- 
 ly site, but Hamilton, on the other hand, in working out 
 his great financial system, was eager for the passage of a 
 lull by which the Federal Government would assume the 
 State debts. In that important crisis Jefferson and Ham- 
 ilton simply made a swap, the one agreeing to use his 
 influence to secure the District of Columbia as the site of 
 the capital, and the other to secure the national assump- 
 tion of State debts. And nobody regards this bit of "log 
 rolling" as criminal, because the ends justified the means, 
 and if Jefferson were alive to-day and were opposed to 
 
248 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 slavery and polygamy he would approve the method by 
 which these crimes against morals and civilization are 
 as speedily as practicable to be exterminated. But it is 
 not the first time the United States has sanctioned poly- 
 gamy in its territories. It did not attempt to prevent it' 
 in Utah until Utah desired Statehood, and then made its 
 discontinuance one of the conditions of admission to 
 Statehood. 
 
 4. 
 
 TERRITORIAL AND COLONIAL GOVERNMENT DISTINGUISHED. 
 
 Pessimist : I do not know what Patriot means to say 
 under this topic, but I suppose he will undertake to de- 
 fend colonial government. 
 
 Patriot : Xo ; it is my purpose merely to allude to 
 the fact, which I have already shown, that our govern- 
 ment in the Philippines is territorial in the same sense as 
 is our government in Alaska. 
 
 It must be distinguished from colonial government so 
 far as colonial government has been exercised by other 
 nations, by the one fact at least that in territorial gov- 
 ernment practically all of the revenue is turned to the 
 building up and education of the people, and the devel- 
 opment of their natural resources, whereas for the most 
 part in a colonial government the mother country, if a 
 monarclvy, taxes the colony as heavily as possible in keep- 
 ing with any sort of peace for the purpose of keeping up 
 the tinsel glitter and in some cases the unrestrained lust of 
 thrones. The territorial government is the application 
 of economic principles to the simple requirements of a 
 republic, and the constant changes of our Executive in- 
 sure an honest dispensation of justice, while the governor- 
 general or the local prince in control of a monarch's col- 
 ony is in no danger of being removed so long as he con- 
 tributes to the monarch. No change of administration 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 249 
 
 will come to imperil his position, and no cry from his 
 subjects for justice or pity can reach the throne. Our 
 idea of territorial government permits and invites inde- 
 pendent self-control to a marked degree, as witness our 
 control of Cuba. The Secretary of War, Mr. Root, tells 
 us that General Wood has invariably consulted the Cubans 
 before making any appointments. He goes among them 
 unarmed, he leaves the books of the administration open 
 to their inspection, and his private secretary is a Cuban 
 who at one time was a member' of Gomez' staff. Cubans 
 are employed in all departments of the Cuban govern- 
 ment ; they know just how much money is collected and 
 expended, and for what it is expended. Has any monar- 
 chy, or any other republic, for that matter, ever tried this 
 sort of government? Even if it were called a colonial 
 government, it has a larger degree of representation, lib- 
 erty and freedom than the Cubans ever knew, and the 
 same thing is true, or will be made true, in the Philippines. 
 If we are to teach civilization and the proper territorial 
 control by example, then we have chosen a most admirable 
 method, i. e., by object lesson right in the midst of Euro- 
 pean colonial government. What better method could we 
 pursue to compel foreign countries to deal fairly with 
 their subject territory? When fairness and liberty and 
 justice is shown to be possible in the Philippines, Eng- 
 land, Germany, France, Holland and all the rest will be 
 forced by example to adopt more and more just measures, 
 until government, though by name colonial, will become 
 practically free, as is the case in the Dominion of Canada 
 to-day, and no better example of the effect of our benign 
 rule upon the conduct of our neighbors can be suggested 
 than that of our control of the great territories which 
 we have governed from time to time, and its influence 
 upon England in her control of Canada. 
 
250 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Those who express fear that our jurisdiction over ter- 
 ritory in the far East will cause us to adopt cruel meth- 
 ods of governing, confess to but little faith in the creative 
 and vitalizing force of our institutions. I would pay a 
 higher tribute to American manhood and ideals. I would 
 say that we will by example compel England and all the 
 other territory holding governments to deal fairly and 
 honestly and humanely with their subjects in the Eastern 
 Hemisphere, as we have by example compelled them to 
 deal with their subjects in the Western Hemisphere. It is 
 by this example that we can elevate the plane of civiliza- 
 tion, not alone in our own territory, but wherever organ- 
 ized society exists. 
 
 Pessimist : All experience has shown that nations 
 which govern colonies do so selfishly and without refer- 
 ence to the good of the people whom they govern. The 
 East India Company, as related by Mr. Bryan, had "An 
 eye single to gain." They trampled upon the rights of 
 the rulers. It is even said that the English governor- 
 general and an English consul changed the financial sys- 
 tem of India arbitrarily in a single day. And Senator 
 Bacon tells a most frightful story which he read in 
 "Around the World with General Grant," by Mr. John 
 Russell Young, about a lot of Sepoys that were blown 
 to pieces from the mouths of cannon. I should think the 
 American Government would want better business than 
 treating people in this sort of way. 
 
 Patriot : What Pessimist has related proves first of all 
 the necessity for missionary work on the part of the 
 United States in the manner of governing territory. He 
 might as well cite English history to prove that a republi- 
 can form of government is impossible, because they have 
 not adopted it, as to cite the English treatment of their 
 colonies to prove that just treatment is impossible be- 
 cause they have not administered it. As a matter of fact 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 251 
 
 they have for more than a hundred years been fair and 
 generous with their English speaking subjects. I have 
 already referred to Canada in this connection; but even 
 if this were not so, it does not follow that our course would 
 be unjust. Our political conditions are different here. 
 Any injustice or cruelty on the part of the United States 
 officials in our territories would be the signal for party 
 opposition. If the story related by Mr. John Russell 
 Young depicts unnecessary cruelty by the English, then 
 all the more reason the United States should take a hand 
 in governing those Eastern peoples and reduce such 
 cruelty to a minimum by her just example ; for the worse 
 you picture English rule of colonies, the louder you appeal 
 for an American example to teach the world what fair 
 play is. But as I have read Mr. Young's story, it was 
 simply a case of the mutiny of an entire regiment, a court- 
 martial and military execution, and that in the judgment 
 of the English officers the kind of execution resorted to 
 was needed for an example, just as in some of our States 
 it is still regarded as a salutary warning to the people to 
 execute criminals by hanging in public. 
 
 Pessimist : You say that we would be more kind and 
 just to our subjects. Mr. Bryan, referring to colonial 
 rule, pertinently asks : 
 
 "If we make subjects of them against their will and 
 for our own benefit, are we likely to govern them with any 
 more benevolence?" 
 
 Patriot : I answer first that we do not hold them as 
 subjects, nor have we brought them under our jurisdic- 
 tion against their will. The kind of treatment we have 
 already administered in urging education and participa- 
 tion in public affairs is proof that our treatment will be 
 such an improvement as to reflect itself in the conduct of 
 all the nations of Europe which are governing colonies. 
 
252 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 Pessimist : There is right where you get yourself into 
 trouble. As Mr. Carnegie says: "If you teach sup- 
 pressed people at all you make them rebels." And Mr. 
 Carnegie calls our attention to the fact that in India, Eng- 
 land "does not trust one gun in the hands of the native 
 troops." How can we hope to civilize people of this kind ? 
 
 Patriot: The trouble with these quotations, as with 
 most of yours, is that they are based upon a false premise, 
 and you seem unwilling to detect the fallacy in them. 
 Certainly if you teach a suppressed people they rebel, but 
 this presumes that we have suppressed the Filipino^ 
 which is not true, except as to the comparatively few who 
 have rebelled ; and the fact that England does not train 
 the Indians in the use and responsibility of guns and does 
 not try to cultivate their confidence by trusting them, may 
 be the explanation of the terrible mutiny and its fatal 
 consequences related by Mr. Young. Ours is a dif- 
 ferent course, as witness the fact that we are employing 
 the native troops and training them rapidly to take the 
 place of those from home as sentinels over the rights and 
 property of our territorial inhabitants. 
 
 Pessimist : But Mr. Bryan says, "English rule in India 
 is not bad because it is English, but because no race has 
 yet appeared sufficiently strong in character to resist the 
 temptations which come with irresponsible power." 
 
 Patriot : This is another example of the false premise 
 and therefore the erroneous conclusion of which I com- 
 plained a moment ago. Mr. Bryan proceeds upon the 
 theory that our power in the Philippines is irresponsible. 
 As repeatedly stated and shown in this argument, our 
 responsibility in the Philippines is the same as in our 
 other territories, so we must reconstruct both the argu- 
 ment and the conclusion found in your quotation from 
 Mr. Bryan. Our race is .sufficiently strong, first to make 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 253 
 
 itself a responsible power in the governing of territories, 
 and second, to resist the temptations which come with 
 that responsible power. 
 
 The conduct of our officials is guarded by a double 
 responsibility. First, they are amenable to our just and 
 even-handed laws, and second, to the party restraint in- 
 herent in our system of government, which compels the 
 representatives of one political party to pursue a wise and 
 just course, or to stand aside for the representatives of 
 another political party. But there is an additional re- 
 sponsibility which has affected even the conduct of Eng- 
 land toward her colonies, and that is the standard of 
 world morality, which by the grace and the power of the 
 United States has been elevated somewhat everywhere 
 and very much in the immediate neighborhood of its 
 example; so that even if we may call England an irre- 
 sponsible power in the government of her colonies, her 
 leniency and justice toward the Canadians justifies the 
 hope that even irresponsible powers may eventually adopt 
 the rule of justice toward their subject colonies. How 
 much more likely, how almost certain, indeed, is a re- 
 sponsible power like ours to deal justly in the governing 
 of all her territories in the future just as she has done in 
 the past. To this kind of conduct we are committed by 
 the highest and strongest obligation. It is written in 
 our Declaration of Independence, and in our Constitution ; 
 it is woven into the framework of our republican institu- 
 tions ; it is the motif in all our national songs, the in- 
 spiration in all our political platforms and the central 
 thought in all the wise historic utterances of all our Presi- 
 dents. Nothing has happened to change the meaning 
 of the declaration of President McKinley in his letter to 
 the Secretary of War, December 21, 1898, in speaking of 
 the Philippines, where he says : 
 
£54 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 "The mission of the United States is one of benevolent 
 assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and 
 right for arbitrary rule." 
 
 Pessimist : But why can we not, as Mr. Schurz recom- 
 mends, "be content with the moral influence we can bring 
 to bear upon the world?" 
 
 Patriot: This is precisely the doctrine I have been 
 preaching. I have pointed out the benefit of our example 
 on Canada, and I have shown that in order to make our 
 example more effective we must bring the object lesson to 
 the attention of those we would teach. Thus if we would 
 have influence in the far East by reason of our 
 noble example, the best place to hold the school is where 
 the Eastern people can attend. Those who are disposed 
 to deal unfairly with nations will not go far to seek us 
 out for the purpose of learning fair methods. We must 
 bring it near them, and then the effect of example must 
 be indirect; it must act through the subject people them- 
 selves. The people of India and China must themselves 
 first hear of our fair treatment toward the inhabitants 
 of our territory, they must come in contact with them ; 
 their subjects and our citizens must exchange experience 
 in the markets of the world in the ordinary walks of life. 
 Then the downtrodden nations will lift their heads and ask 
 and demand more consideration. The governing nations 
 will find it in the interest of peace and their own prosperity 
 to grant concessions little by little. This must be the effect 
 of our example if it is to have any salutary effect at all 
 and such result can only be obtained by our ownership of 
 territorv in the midst of those countries which we would 
 uplift. 
 
 Pessimist : But Rev. Van Dyke tells us that : 
 
 "We cannot compete with monarchies and empires in 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 255 
 
 th,e game of land grabbing and vassal ruling. * * ' * 
 Republics have not been successful as rulers of colonies." 
 Why should we venture upon this road which has led 
 other republics astray? 
 
 Patriot: Must I once more remind Pessimist that we 
 are not attempting to rule a colony ; neither is our effort a 
 land grabbing or vassal ruling enterprise ? If our object 
 had been to get land instead of to benefit people, we could 
 have taken from Spain the last foot of ground she had, 
 even the peninsula itself ; so Rev. Van Dyke has proved 
 nothing, nor, indeed, has he really stated anything which 
 pertains to our case. If it were relevant to our discussion 
 Ave might easily show by numerous examples that this 
 republic has accomplished many things which other re- 
 publics have failed in, but since we do not propose a col- 
 ony it is needless to dwell upon it. 
 
 The whole sum and substance of what we propose is 
 to govern our own territories in our own way for the 
 benefit of the people who inhabit them, and for whatever 
 incidental benefit may come to this government thereby, 
 and for the additional benefit of the rest of the world so 
 far as our example may go. This we can do for the love 
 of country and for the love of humanity. 
 
 Pessimist : But I do not believe it is our duty to seek 
 out wild people and expend our energy in trying to civilize 
 them. "Why," as asked by Bishop Spalding, "should we 
 go to the end of the earth to take forcible possession of 
 islands lying in remote oceans under tropical skies, in- 
 habited by barbarous and savage tribes, where both race 
 and climate preclude the hope of ever attaining to any 
 higher degree of culture?" 
 
 Patriot : If we accept the suggestion of Bishop Spalding 
 that nothing can improve the condition of these barbar- 
 ous and savage tribes, then certainly we have taken the 
 
256 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.' 
 
 curse off of any plan which might look to the forcible 
 governing of such people, because if they cannot be 
 brought out of a savage state, some power has got to 
 govern them, and if so, do we not owe it to humanity 
 to step in when expedient, and especially when the duty 
 is already on our shoulders, and give good government 
 rather than leave it to monarchies to give bad? If there 
 is a certain amount of governing to do in the world with- 
 out the consent of the particular individuals governed, 
 ought not we to do our share, and especially when ours 
 would be a government of mercy and uplifting, whereas 
 that by monarchies is a government of suppression and 
 destruction of hope ? This duty is accentuated in the face 
 of the fact that there may be a possibility of reform which 
 our sort of government would encourage, and which their 
 sort would make impossible. If, in other words, this 
 world, like every nation and every state, has a number of 
 inhabitants, or has communities of inhabitants whose un- 
 fortunate mental condition makes it necessary that they 
 should be restrained, or incarcerated, is it the part of 
 humanity that we should permit those of brutal and un- 
 feeling disposition to be the wardens over such unfor- 
 tunates, or should we not rather say that their keepers 
 and their nurses should be from among the most kind- 
 hearted, the most benevolent, the most hopeful of those 
 who are willing to devote themselves to the betterment 
 of humanity, to the uplifting of the unfortunate, and to 
 the restoration of hope in those from whom hope has fled ? 
 As the latter course has approved itself to citizens of the 
 United States in the care of the insane and the unfor- 
 tunate from any cause, so, must that course approve itself 
 to this nation as a citizen of the world of nations in its 
 dealings with unfortunate peoples and tribes over whom 
 it has become the guardian, whether by choice or by force 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 257 
 
 of circumstances. I submit that we are not to lose any- 
 thing by such a course, and the world is to be greatly the 
 rainer. 
 
 Pessimist : I do not see how we can avoid contamina- 
 tion by contact with such people. 
 
 Patriot : Let us discuss for a moment, then, the effect 
 of our governmental missionary work abroad on our peo- 
 ple at home. 
 
 EFFECT ON AMERICAN CIVILIZATION. 
 
 Pessimist: If we do not stop short on our Philippine 
 policy we will become a vassal nation ourselves. Sen- 
 ator Money is undoubtedly a true prophet when he says : 
 
 "In my humble opinion there will not be many decades 
 before the policy that is now applied to the Philippines 
 will be brought upon the American citizen himself." His 
 only hope of escape is the fact, as he says, "That the 
 American people will pass such judgment upon this action 
 as will deter anything similar in the future." 
 
 Patriot: The fact that the Philippines are in a dif- 
 ferent section, peopled by a different race and influenced 
 by a different climate, is, in this age of rapid communica- 
 tion and close international relations, positively to the 
 mutual advantage of the races thus commingling, and 
 can have no deleterious effect upon us. Even in the days 
 of our colonial ancestors the advantage from such rela- 
 tions was foreshadowed. President Monroe, in his eighth 
 annual message, after describing the advantages of diver- 
 sified peoples in different climates living under the one 
 republican form of government, says: 
 
 "What one portion wants the other may supply ; and 
 this will be most sensibly felt by the parts most distant 
 from each other, forming thereby a domestic market and 
 an active intercourse between the extremes and through- 
 out every portion of our Union." 
 
258 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 It seems strange that our adversaries should in one 
 breath express such unbounded faith in the good sense 
 of the American people and in the next breath tell them 
 they are so stupid that the least contact with inferior peo- 
 ple will contaminate these same sensible Americans and 
 reduce them to the level of their unfortunate European 
 friends. It would be easier to understand our oppo- 
 nents if they would accept and stick to one or the other 
 of these arguments. Have they faith in the American 
 people, or have they not ? The two quotations from Sen- 
 ator Money cannot be written in the same creed. If he 
 means what he says in the first, he cannot hope for that 
 curative judgment and action of which he speaks in the 
 second, and if in reality he has that hope in the self- 
 governing power of American citizens as expressed in 
 the second quotation, then it is impossible for him to fear 
 the calamitous results so dolefully depicted in the first. 
 Those who claim that the American contact with these 
 native Orientals will lower the standard of American 
 civilization simply show their little faith in the virtue 
 of American manhood. It has never suffered by contact 
 with poorer civilization, but has always lifted up the 
 men of poorer station who have touched the hem of its 
 garment. This lack of hope, if sufficiently widespread, 
 would play sad havoc with any government, no matter if 
 it be confined to narrow compass or extended beyond the 
 seas. My observation has been that if you scratch an anti- 
 expansionist you discover under the surface a discontented 
 fault-finder who is dissatisfied with conditions in the 
 United States aside from the Philippine Question. The 
 same microbes which breed the disease of irresponsible 
 complaint against the patriotic work of the Administration 
 in the Philippines also breed the disease of promiscuous 
 and indiscriminate scolding against the successful opera- 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 259 
 
 tion of the Government as well as all private enterprise at 
 home. As an example, ex-Representative Towne, who 
 has been quoted in this discussion, devotes a part of his 
 speech to the Philippine question and then shows his gen- 
 eral doubt of American sense and manhood by reciting 
 an imaginary list of imaginary dangers in our local con- 
 cern, and speaking of these "burdens," he says : "The 
 people of this country are already staggering, doubtful 
 of solving them to the credit and glory of domestic insti- 
 tutions." Then he goes on with a picture which did 
 exist under Democratic rule, but which McKinley's Ad- 
 ministration has happily removed. He declaims to us 
 about men freezing at the mouth of coal mines and starv- 
 ing in front of bakeshops, and about millions of our citi- 
 zens lacking food and raiment. And so I could show you 
 in practically every speech made against expansion this 
 sort of quarreling with everything else the Government 
 is doing. 
 
 Rev. Van Dyke warns us against undertaking to rule 
 "eight millons more of black and yellow people in the 
 islands of the Pacific Ocean," and asks if, "the rifle shots 
 that ring from Illinois and the Carolinas announcing the 
 bloody skirmish of races in the very heart of our re- 
 public" are to be "the joyous salutes that herald our 
 advance ?" 
 
 And so I repeat, the average anti-expansionist would 
 be finding fault anyhow, so that he is no more active and 
 is doing no more harm talking about the Philippines than 
 he would do for some other reason if we had not ex- 
 panded. 
 
 With some people reform seems to be a mania. They 
 agitate not for the benefit of the object, but for the delec- 
 tation of the subject. This zeal leads them to mistake 
 mere change for progress ; having observed that progress 
 
2&0 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 involves change, they jump to" the converse conclusion that 
 all change involves progress. They read a tirade written 
 by a Carlyle under a dyspeptic impulse or a mournful 
 prophecy of impossible evils' by a Malthus or a social dirge 
 by a Schopenhauer, and your professional reformer at 
 once conceives a passionate longing to make the real 
 conditions appear as bad as the conditions imagined by 
 the gloomy, pessimistic sophist of the past. We have 
 thus cornered the anti-expansionists and are forced to 
 conclude that they are the same people who make up that 
 ever present element in our society whose members con- 
 stantly inveigh against orderly progress because it is not 
 all that could be pictured as ideal, whose members if con- 
 sistent would quarrel with the sun and refuse to let its 
 beneficent rays shine on them because it has spots on it — 
 who, in short, would produce nothing rather than an im- 
 perfect something. There are those among us — and they 
 are of this same class — who would denounce the com- 
 mercial world because ninety per cent fail in business. 
 The same temperament impels many of them to rail at the 
 sacred institution of matrimony because of the sadness 
 and the disappointment it affords to see the hopes shat- 
 tered, the ideals destroyed by failure and inconstancy of 
 affection, and the intervention of untimely death even 
 where love is mutual and divine. Well balanced men, 
 while feeling no less sympathy for the distressed, never- 
 theless press on in the race of life, cultivating hope in- 
 stead of, despair. They make the best of human condi- 
 tions while recognizing their imperfections. Witness the 
 widow's weeds, the orphan's tears and the long, weary 
 years filled with nothing but sad memory and unrequited 
 hope. Very much of life is like the sentiment of Thomas 
 Moore's sad but beautiful lines in Lallah Rookh — 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 261 
 
 "Oh, ever thus, from childhood's hour, 
 I've seen my fondest hopes decay ; 
 I never loved a tree or flower 
 But 'twas the first to fade away. 
 
 I never nurs'd a dear gazelle, 
 
 To glad me with its soft, hlack eye, 
 
 But when it came to know me well 
 And love me it was sure to die." 
 The melancholiac sees nothing better in existence than 
 this doleful condition. But sensible people realize that 
 these disappointments and griefs train our souls and sym- 
 pathies and make us better men and women. Besides, 
 better things come unexpectedly, and we are so consti- 
 tuted that "Hope springs eternal in the human breast." 
 The chronic fault finder who is usually himself the incar- 
 nation of self-imposed disappointment becomes a bear on 
 the market of hope and tries to induce the world to part 
 with this treasure for a trifling or no consideration. 
 
 Our great poets have not failed to appreciate the bit- 
 terness of disappointment, but on the whole they have 
 tried to teach us that it is more human to hope on not- 
 withstanding disappointment, than to turn bitter toward 
 human institutions. Is it not better to reason with Long- 
 fellow that although — 
 
 "Into each life some rain must fall, 
 Some days be dark and dreary — 
 
 we should nevertheless admonish our souls according to 
 his further lines — 
 
 "Be still, sad heart, and cease repining, 
 For behind the cloud is the sun still shining." 
 
 The world has always been, and always will be, filled 
 with joy and sadness side by side. In Lincoln's favorite 
 poem, "Mortality," by William Knox, we read— 
 
262 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 "Yea! hope and despondency, pleasure and pain, 
 Are mingled together in sunshine and rain ; 
 And the smile and the tear, the song and the dirge, 
 Still follow each other like surge upon surge." 
 
 I have dwelt at some length upon the disposition of 
 those who would take a morbid view of life, because I am 
 convinced that the criticisms against the Administration 
 practically all emanate from these people, and that is par- 
 ticularly true of the. criticisms which entertain, or which 
 claim to entertain, a fear that our orderly course in the 
 Philippines, after the fashion of our course in other terri- 
 tories now and hereafter, will produce an evil effect upon 
 American civilization. In the language of Hamilton: 
 
 "Were the pictures which have been drawn by the polit- 
 ical jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the 
 human character, the inference would be that there is not 
 sufficient virtue among men for self-government, and that 
 nothing less than a change to despotism can restrain them 
 from destroying and devouring one another." 
 
 If anyone in all this audience still refuses to take the 
 hopeful view, to him no further address will avail. And 
 to those who, on the other hand, recognize the progress 
 made by our Government as the greatest in the civilized 
 world, and who believe in the fitness of our republic to 
 work out the greatest blessings possible for man, and who 
 have faith in living men, as well as men who have gone 
 before, and who believe that in our magnificent system of 
 self-government there is no need and no room for mere 
 morbid criticism, fault-finding and scolding — to all such 
 any further address in vindication of our policy in the 
 Philippines is, I submit, unnecessary ; and if I mistake not, 
 nearly all, if not, indeed, all of this audience, will take their 
 places in the latter class. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Has Pessimist anything more to say ? 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 263 
 
 Citizen: Pessimist left the audience just as Patriot 
 was reciting the lines from "Lallah Rookh," muttering as 
 he went out : "I am afraid my trees and flowers are fad- 
 ing away." (Cheers, laughter and applause.) 
 
 Uncle Sam: Is there anyone in the audience who is 
 not yet convinced of the wisdom, honesty, patriotism and 
 humanity of the President in his Philippine Policy? If 
 so, let him hold up his hand — Seeing none, I assume they 
 are all convinced. 
 
 Before taking my departure from among you I desire to 
 express my gratitude for your kind attention and eager- 
 ness for truth. I am prouder than ever of the good sense 
 of my people. I commend you all for the respectful atti- 
 tude you have shown toward Pessimist, even though you 
 found it impossible to agree with him. You have shown 
 remarkable endurance and patience in listening so long. 
 The session has reminded me of some of the continuous 
 all-night and all-day sessions we have at the close of Con- 
 gressional terms. I assume that the same good sense 
 which you have all exhibited in reaching a sound con- 
 clusion will characterize the entire American people when 
 the facts are brought home to them as they have been to 
 you. 
 
 And now I bid you a fond and affectionate good-bye. 
 (Long and stormy applause.) 
 
 Scene: Compartment in Palace Car en route to 
 Washington. Present, Uncle Sam and Orphan 
 Don. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Having decided to return to Washington 
 before continuing my investigations in the West, I shall 
 now have time to give you the brief story for which you 
 
2M PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 
 
 have been waiting. I am sure you must have enjoyed the 
 meeting we have attended; and before I begin, will you 
 not tell me what were your impressions ? 
 
 Orphan Don : My mind was agitated by mingled sur- 
 prise, joy and pity. I was surprised at the prepondering 
 sentiment in that great audience for the righteous cause 
 of the Administration ; because Pessimist assured you that 
 night at your Retreat that the great majority of the people 
 gemerally favored his views, and of course if any did favor 
 him they were present to hear him speak and were con- 
 vinced by Patriot. I rejoiced in the patient, respectful 
 and manly attitude of Patriot while he laid bare the fallacy 
 and hypocrisy of Pessimist. But, on the other hand, I 
 could find in my heart nothing but pity for the sad spec- 
 tacle Pessimist made of himself as Patriot drove him from 
 one illogical position to another, until, in utter rout, Pes- 
 simist finally left the field, after fully demonstrating that 
 the name by which he goes precisely describes his char- 
 acter. 
 
 Uncle Sam : My son, you have spoken nobly. Little 
 would it have been thought twenty years ago that you 
 would, by this time, have come to such right understand- 
 ing. 
 
 Your father was almost, if not quite, a degenerate. He 
 had brought up other sons, most of whom are long since 
 dead, but some of whom in their lifetime gave him cause, 
 as he thought, for intemperate boastings. He claimed to 
 be the superior of all other fathers, and "as pride goeth 
 before a fall," his course was soon run ; his substance was 
 "spent in riotous living." You were abused and mis- 
 treated almost to the limit of your childish endurance. 
 When you were but six months' old your father's inebriety 
 and brutality sent your mother to an untimely grave. You 
 were cuffed and kicked for another month, until sore and 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 265 
 
 bleeding you were brought and laid upon the doorsteps of 
 my Retreat. Nobody else wanted you ; I did not especially 
 want you, although I foresaw some possibilities which 
 others did not see. I saw the opportunity to set an 
 example in kind treatment of unfortunates and I believed 
 that in some way, though I was not quite clear how, I 
 would be repaid for my trouble, aside from the satisfaction 
 it always gives to do a kindly act. Though others did not 
 want you, they found fault with me for taking you. They 
 said that when your father relinquished you, you should 
 be left to follow out your own sweet will. 
 
 Orphan Don : Why, Uncle, you do not mean to say 
 that anybody believed I was capable of taking care of my- 
 self at the age of seven months ? Why I was a mere in- 
 fant. I would have died of starvation. 
 
 Uncle Sam : My boy, you have seen enough of the 
 world in your twenty-one years, indeed, I venture to say 
 you have seen enough within the last twenty-four hours 
 to convince you that some people contend for things 
 equally as absurd as that. Of course, you would have 
 starved. But they said, while he may not attain to an 
 ideal life if left to himself, he will be free in such life as 
 he is able to live, and he had better die than be subjugated 
 to the will of another. Well, let it pass, only a few in- 
 dulged in such philosophy, albeit those few claimed that 
 the rest of the world were on their side. Some of them 
 were honest but merely deluded. Others felt that there 
 were certain rewards to which they would fall heir if they 
 succeeded in demonstrating their new theory. But the 
 great rank and file of people have taken pains to indicate 
 to me, in one way or another, from time to time, that the 
 practical course which I pursued had their approval ; and 
 I have been commiserated on the one hand on account of 
 the long-suffering care necessarily bestowed upon you, 
 
2GG PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 and felicitated on the other hand on account of the credit 
 your conduct has proved to me. 
 
 You are now to go out into the world for yourself. I 
 did not know at first whether you would be able to assume 
 such responsibilities at the ordinary age of manhood. I 
 confess I had some misgivings about it for a time, and I 
 congratulate myself to the extent of saying that your 
 rapid progress has been due in no small degree to the 
 kindness which I have ever studied to mingle with my 
 firmness in governing you. You have responded to these 
 new conditions in a manner which reflects great credit 
 upon you and your Latin blood. Your progress has aston- 
 ished your friends and confounded your enemies. Those 
 who meddled in the beginning insisted, after I had re- 
 solved to take care of you, that I should at that time prom- 
 ise you your freedom at your majority. I saw no advan- 
 tage in promising something which you might never de- 
 serve, and all who knew me were well aware of the fact, 
 though for selfish reasons they denied it, that if you should 
 ever deserve your freedom I would be only too glad to 
 grant it. You have richly deserved it, and I now pro- 
 nounce you your own man, free to go forth in the world 
 and act whatever part you see fit. And now that you have 
 with such credit to yourself reached the time and the con- 
 dition of accountability, I feel that it is scarcely necessary 
 that I should admonish you to do good rather than ill. 
 
 Orphan Don : Uncle, I can scarcely express my grati- 
 tude for what you have said, and I know I shall never be 
 able to put into words the gratefulness which is in my 
 heart for what you have done for me. Then I must leave 
 you when we get back to Washington? 
 
 Uncle Sam: Not exactly leave me, Don. You will 
 still be a member of my great family as all these other peo- 
 ple are whom you see around us; but you will now take 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 267 
 
 your place among them on an equality, whereas, I have, in 
 a sense, been governing you more than I have the others, 
 which I am happy to say you now recognize was for your 
 good. 
 
 Orphan Don : I never doubted it, Uncle. I know some 
 people said I resented your authority over me, but they 
 simply did not know the facts. In many cases, they did 
 not take the pains to ascertain the facts. Alas ! in some 
 cases I fear they did not want to know the facts. 
 
 Uncle Sam : Well, never mind, they all know now, 
 for the fullness of time has proved the purity of my pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Orphan Don : Yes, it is better to let it pass. I am 
 glad, however, that I am "Still to be a member of your 
 larger family, where I may continue to have your advice 
 and, indeed, your restraining hand should I go too far 
 astray. And now before our journey is ended, the better 
 to shield myself against the danger of error, will you not 
 bestow upon me your blessing, and give me, I pray you, 
 dear Uncle, any advice which the richness of your ex- 
 perience and the justice in your heart may suggest to you 
 as fitting? 
 
 Uncle Sam : Well, Don, my boy, I would set up for 
 you a model, though it may not be perfect in my poor de- 
 scription, which nevertheless if copied faithfully will make 
 your life a beautiful picture to behold. If I had but one 
 parting admonition to give you, I should say to you, "Be 
 a patriot." You have seen what an unhappy condition 
 pervades the mind of a pessimist. You have observed 
 how he will shift from one position to another to escape 
 the punishment of logic, like some miserable dumb animal, 
 driven hither and thither by a force of which he knows 
 not. You have seen that once started on such a course 
 almost every avenue of deceit and baseness immediately 
 
268 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 opens itself up, and that the pessimist must ever and anon 
 retreat into these to keep up the appearance of con- 
 sistency. You have seen that a pessimist is opinion-proud ; 
 having made a statement he seems to feel that he must 
 stick to it, no matter how far it may carry him away from 
 the path of truth and duty. You have seen how this leads 
 to ill temper, to impatience and finally to self-disgust. 
 Avoid this unhappy course, my boy, avoid it. Such a man 
 carries the same disposition into every day life. He is 
 sour and crabbed to members of his own family, to his 
 friends and all around him. He is contentious and can- 
 tankerous about little things, and for fear his authority 
 will be questioned he works himself into an unhappy 
 frame of mind when anyone in the ordinary walks of life, 
 and in his home circle, dares to differ from him in mat- 
 ters of the smallest importance. The net result of such a 
 life is that he is unkind, ungenerous and unhelpful to any 
 and all. On the contrary, he is a positive hindrance and 
 a stumbling-block in the way of those who would make 
 progress, were it not for the fact that they are cowered by 
 his stubborn and unreasoning will. He is simply what is 
 ordinarily known as a common scold. With your ideas of 
 justice I am sure this course would not suit you. 
 
 Look upon the other picture. I said I would advise you 
 to be a patriot, if that were my only words. If you ask 
 why I would not say, Be an honest man, or be truthful, 
 or industrious, or sympathetic and respectful and obliging, 
 or vigilant for opportunity to do good to individuals, to 
 society, to the world, or patient, just and conciliatory 
 towards members of your own family and your neighbors, 
 or generous and magnanimous toward those whom you 
 must in the struggle of life meet and vanquish, or char- 
 itable toward those who are unfortunate and toward the 
 "stranger within your door." If asked, I say, why I have 
 
PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 269 
 
 not commended any or all of these rather than patriotism, 
 I answer forthwith that patriotism includes all of these, 
 and still more. 
 
 The patriot would exercise all this kindliness, this gen- 
 erosity, this justice, patience and benevolence toward all 
 his fellow men. He loves his family and cultivates that 
 love by applying to it the life-giving cordial of reason. It 
 is not stayed or hindered by accident of fortune or phys- 
 ical condition. He will nurse it more closely in the face of 
 worldly adversity. He will cling to it the more fondly if 
 misfortune should befall and there should come the truss 
 instead of the corsage, the crutch instead of the dainty, 
 tripping dance. The patriot — because he must have all 
 these manly qualities to be a patriot — having fixed 
 his devotion upon an object, keeps it there 
 though the winds of adversity blow, though the 
 waves of calamity lash, though the storm of 
 misfortune envelop him. Honest man? Yea, the 
 patriot is all- of that. Though laden down with obliga- 
 tions forced upon him by others — burdens which would 
 crush the midget soul of a pessimist — and though released 
 from them, both by law and voluntary renunciation of 
 creditors, the patriot will have none of this. He will 
 throw into the scale of justice as he, the big-hearted, hon- 
 est man sees it, the last dollar even to his homestead, in 
 order that none shall suffer, even indirectly, by his fault. 
 And when good fortune overtakes him, as it frequently 
 does such devotion to right, the balance of the bond is 
 met. The patriot is all of this. The patriot is everything 
 that anybody else can be for the good of himself, his fam- 
 ily, his friends, his neighborhood, his country and his fel- 
 low-man, and in addition to this he is ready to die for 
 these convictions. As a young man he will shoulder the 
 musket in defense of his country. He will take his place 
 
270 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 
 
 in the thick of the fight. He will dare shot and shell to 
 minister unto the wants of his wounded and famished 
 comrades. He will brave dangers which threaten almost 
 certain death to himself to carry a message which will pre- 
 vent the death of others. He will take his place in civil 
 life when the struggle of war is over. He will devote him- 
 self to the industry and upbuilding of his country, not 
 alone for personal aggrandizement, not alone that he may 
 gather wealth, but having in view as his main object the 
 distribution of opportunities to those who labor and to 
 those who employ labor throughout the length and 
 breadth of his country. He will, when called upon, serve 
 his State and his nation with that signal devotion and that 
 evenhanded justice which emanate only from a true and 
 tried patriot. And when the larger opportunities come to 
 stretch out his hand to other nations and beckon them on 
 to higher life, having the courage of his convictions, and 
 knowing that his unsullied purpose of human helpfulness 
 will meet with the approbation of his fellow-citizens, 
 whose wish he is bound to respect, he lifts that pure strong 
 hand and bids the peoples of down-trodden nations take 
 new hope. This, Don, is a patriot. Imitate him. 
 
<X~ JUST PUBLISHED a 
 LIFE OF 
 
 OLIVER P. MORTON 
 
 THE GREAT 
 WAR GOVERNOR 
 
 Including his Important Speeches 
 
 By WILLIAM DUDLEY FOULKE 
 
 "zA notable contribution to the 
 historical literature of the State 
 and that of the Civil War." 
 
 In two volumes containing more than 
 one thousand pages. 
 
 price: 
 
 Bound in Cloth, $6.00 Half Calf, $9.00 
 Sheep, $8.00 Full Morocco, $12 00 
 
 TkBOWEN-MERRILLCO. 
 
 PUBLISHERS 
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 
 
%1 
 
 A historical romance handled with much delicacy and skill— 
 
 0(eiv York World 
 
 One of the best novels that has appeared in the last ten years — 
 
 Chicago tvening Posl 
 
 Never was there written a prettier love story of the Middle Ages- 
 San Francisco Gill 
 Umo, Cloth. Illustrated, SI. 50 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS, IND., U. S. A. 
 
 £1403 
 

 
 
 <" 
 
 
 
 .-*> 
 
 *\ 
 
 
 =*. v* 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 ,0o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ff I A 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 *L v^ 
 
 \ ^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 •f> 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 <p 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ x ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■•- ' » I 
 
 
 •/• 
 
 \ A 
 
 r > 
 
 
 OCT 
 
 ^V 
 
 
 
 
 • ,** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 << 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,0 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r> 
 
*- "<. 
 
 
 
 % 4- 
 
 \ 
 
 $<$>. 
 
 
 
 V <■ 
 
 
 
 ,J %. .«.' 
 
 
 •c- V 
 
 
 .^-,. : 
 
 
 •>*■. 
 
 
 <-> 
 
 
 
 P c& 
 
 • 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 O 
 
 \° p 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 ^ A 
 
 ' 'V 
 
 
 ,#''^, 
 
 </> A X 
 
 
 
 n* 
 
 '%- 
 
 
 
 
 V* 
 
 
 
 l*' 
 
 V . 
 
 •N> v 
 
 /> 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 v^ 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 .ttf 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 ** v 
 
 
 
 
 s£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 V > 
 
 \ 
 
 Oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % >* 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "c o X ' 
 
 
 # 
 
 \* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ++ < 
 
 ■>* v 
 
 

 III! 
 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 
 L'BRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 714 9