-

SATY

- -----
-
SPEEDY ºper
Syracuse, N. Y.
Steckten, -
-
-
-




[.
E;
ſº
-I]
Eº
EC
-C
Eº
E.
Eº
E.
Eºſ
agº º
ſº-
ſe- º
Cº
º/ .
E-º
C A
*=l
Fº
ZTA®” ºl
Wºº, º Aº Aº
º ** * - s: §
\º
tº Q.' .
ºlº' Mº F 'º'
||||||||||||||||||||||
gº ºf . ººº ſº scºr.º.
~- sº
wº. Mº lºw . . . . .N.A, i,j \l ºf ſº
z-z---~-7
< §
: i
*
d 2. 'º
#
R-
P

elegate fro111 111 V. O.W.
sº
* I stand here today to plead with you not to abandon the principles that have bro
ºthese things to pass. I implore you to keep to the policy that has made the country gr
º I have nothing new to say. But I ask you to keep in the old channels, and to keep offit
£old rocks laid down in the old charts, and to follow the old sailing orders that all the 6
captains of other days have obeyed; to take your bearings, as of old, from the north sta
ºº: Of whose true fixed and resting quality sº º º:
- There is no fellow in the firmament,
- ---
And not from this meteoric light of empire.
- Especially, if I could, would I persuade the great Republican party to come back ăg
to its old faith, to its old religion, before it is too late. There is yet time. -
|\ |||||||}| F.
º *
of MAssACHUSETTs, T

resolution relative to the Philippines
The Senate having under consideration the
duced by Mr. Beveridge January 4, 1900–
MR. HOAR said:
# - : : - . :}; : •k -º-º::
He had won golden honors by his patriotic hesitation in bringin
ar and by his interpretation of the purpose with which the people.
Intered upon it. -
# ;: - :: - ::: - :: - # *
The promise which the President and the Senate made as to Cuba w
so far, done our best to redeem. When the Spanish fleet was sunk
Spanish fiag went down from over Havana peace and order and contentm
and reviving industry and liberty followed the American flag. Some of u
loped for the same thing in the East. We had hoped that a like policy
have brought a like result in the Philippine Islands. No man contemplat
i moment the return ºf those islands to Spain. One of the apostles
soon have thought of Śiving back a redeemed soul to the dominion of
The American people, so far as I know, were all agreed that thei
brought with it the responsibility of protecting the liberated peoples
cupidity of any other power until they could establish their own indepen
in freedom and in honor. -
I stand here today to plead with you not to abandon the principles th
ught these things to pass. I implore you to keep to the policy
the country great. I have nothing new to say. But I ask you to
a the old channels and to keep off the old rocks laid down in the old
and to follow the old sailing orders that all the old captains of other
obeyed, to take your bearings as of old from the north star.
- Of whose true fixed and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament,
and not from this meteoric light of empire.
Especially, if I could, would I persuade the great Republican party to
ack again to its old faith, to its old religion, before it is too late.
If when we made the treaty of peace we had adhered to the purpose
red when we declared war; if we had dealt with the Philippine Isl
we promised to deal, have dealt and expect to deal with Cuba, the
ould have escaped the loss of 6000 brave soldiers, other thousands o
ind shattered lives, the sickness of many more, the expenditure of
millions, and, what is far worse than all, the trampling under
herished ideals. There would have been today a noble republic in th
ing docile at our feet, receiving from us civilization, laws, mai
ng in turn everything the gratitude of a free people could gi
jbedience, trade. The Philippine youth would throng our universit
Constitution, our Declaration, the lives of Washington and Lincoln,
ngs of Jefferson and Franklin would have been the text-books of thei
ow our orators and poets would have delighted to contrast Am
g and raising up the republic of Asia with England subduing and
lder foot the republic of Africa.
I believe, Mr. President, not only that perseverance in this policy
bandonment of the principles upon which our Government is found
will change our Republic into an empire, that our methods of
5f diplomacy, of administration, must hereafter be those which
*mpires, and not those which belong to republics; but I believe
In this attempt will result in the defeat and overthrow of the Rep
hat defeat may not come this year or next year. I pray God it
m I well remember when the old Whig party, in the flush
anticipated triumph, gave up the great doctrines which it
yed and undertook to abandon the great territory between the
to its fate. It held its convention at Philadelphia.
- --> mid the tempest all
- º t military chieftain. Ami

- - the country and e
than four years thereafter Daniel Webster, as he
, “The Whig party as a political organization is go!
such fate attend the Republican party. . . . . .
The practical question which divided the American people last year
ich divides them today is this: Whether in protecting the people O
hilippine Islands from the ambition and Cupidity of other nations w
d to protect them from our own. . . . . . .
ward Everett concludes that masterpiece of consummate oratory,
ess on the character of Washington: ---
et us make a national festival and holiday of his birthday; and ever as the
returns let us remember that while with these solemn and joyous rites:
elebrate the great anniversary, our fellow-citizens on the Hudson, on 'ot
the Southern plains to the Western lakes, are engaged in the same offices of g
and love. Nor we, nor they alone, beyond the Ohio, beyond the Mississip
supendous trail of immigration from the East to the West, which, bursti
as it moves westward, is already threading the Western prairies, swarming thro
rtals of the Rocky mountains and winding down their slopes, the name and
ry of Washington on that gracious night will travel with the silver queen of
ough sixty degrees of longitude, nor part company with her till she walks in he
s through the Golden Gate of California and passes serenely on to hold midnig
her Australian stars. There and, there only in barbarous archipelagos, as yet in
by civilized man, the name of Washington is unknown; and there, too, whe
m with enlightened millions, new honors shall be paid with ours to his me
e time which the orator predicted came. In that Eastern archipe
nger the home of barbarism, a people had achieved their independenc
own off the yoke of centuries. They were longing for civilization, edu
ind liberty. To the millions with which that land is swarming in
ng of a new light the name of Washington has become familiar
the people are citing his example to protect their own liberties again:
untrymen. They are nearly threefold in number the people to whom
well Address was delivered. Pray to God that that revered and bea
er, our shield so often against distempered folly and unhallowe
n, may be theirs also.
saling with this question, Mr. President, I do not mean to enter
ubtful ground. I shall advance no proposition ever seriously di
country till within twelye months. I shall cite no authority that is
common consent of all parties and all men of all shades of ol
ognized as among the very weightiest in jurisprudence and in the cond
he State. I shall claim nothing as fact which is not abundantly pri
he evidence of the great commanders who conducted this war; by
ng from the President and the heads of department of persons for
lute trustworthiness these authorities vouch.
think as I do in regard to the interpretation of the Constitution
to the mandates of the moral law or the law of nations, to wi
n and all nations must render obedience; in regard to the policies which
or the conduct of the State, or in regard to those facts of recent his
le light of which we have acted or are to act hereafter, be treason, t
ton was a traitor, then Jefferson was a traitor, then Jackson
then Franklin was a traitor, then Sumner was a traitor, then Lin
traitor, then Webster was a traitor, then Clay was a traito º
was a traitor, then Kent was a traitor, then Seward was a traitor, f
nley within two years was a traitor, then the Supreme Court
d States has been in the past a nest and hotbed of treason, then th
United States for more than a century have been traitors to the
g and their own Constitution. -
are presented with an issue that can be clearly and sharply sta
ion of constitutional power, a question of international lav
ustice and righteousness or a question of public expediency.
ed clearly and sharply in the abstract, and it can be put clearly and
---
in illustration growing out of existing facts. ºf
constitutional question is: Has Congress the power under our Cº
to hold in subjection unwilling vassal States? -
uestion of international law is: Can any nation Fightfully conve
sovereignty over an unwilling people who have thrown off
in, asserted their independence, established a government of th
whom it has at the time no practical control, from whose ter
s been disseized and which it is beyond its power to deliver?
The question of justice and righteousness is: Have we th
d hold under our feet an unwilling and subject people who
as allies, whose independence we are bound in good fairl

government and w --------- -------------
he question of public expediency is: Is it for our advantage to promote
de at the cannon's mouth and at the point of the bayonet? *º
All these questions can be put in a way of practical illustration by inquiri
hether we ought to do what we have done, are doing and mean to do in th
case of Cuba, or what we have done, are doing and some of you mean to d
in the case of the Philippine Islands.
It does not seem to me to be worth while to state again at length the coi
stitutional argument which I have addressed to the Senate heretofore. It ha
seen encountered with eloquence, with clearness and beauty of statement, an
I have no doubt, with absolute sincerity by Senators who have spoken upon
the other side. But the issue between them and me can be summed up in
sentence or two, and if so stated it cannot be made clear to any man's ap-
prehension I despair of making it clear by any elaboration or amplification.
I admit that the United States may acquire and hold property and may make
rules and regulations for its disposition.
I admit that, like other property, the United States may acquire and hol
land. It may acquire it by purchase. It may acquire it by treaty. It mi
acquire it by conquest. And it may make rules and regulations for its
position and government however it be acquired.
*
When there are inhabitants upon the land so acquired it may make laws
their government. But the question between me and the gentlemen on
other side is this: Is this acquisition of territory, of land or other propert
hether gained by purchase, conquest or treaty, a constitutional end or o
a means to a constitutional end? May you acquire, hold and govern territ
or other property as an end for which our Constitution was framed, or i
nly a means toward some other and fourther end? May you acquire, hold a
govern property by conquest, treaty or purchase for the sole object of so ho
ng and governing it without the consideration of any further constitutio
purpose? Or must you hold it for a constitutional purpose only, such as
aking of new States, the national defense and security; the establishment.
a seat of government or the construction of forts, harbors and like wol
hich, of course, are themselves for the national defense and security?
hold that this acquisition, holding and governing can be only a means
constitutional end—the creation of new States or some other of th
titutional purposes to which I have adverted. And I maintain that you
o more hold and govern territory than you can hold and manage cannon
fleets for any other than a constitutional end; and I maintain that the hol
n subjection an alien people, governing them against their will for an
ed advantage to them, is not only not an end provided for by the Con
on, but is an end prohibited therein.
Now, with due respect to the gentlemen who have discussed this
not find that they have answered this proposition or undertaken to
I do not find that they have understood it. You have, in my jud
nder your admitted power to acquire, own and govern territory, wh
: st like your admitted power to govern, own and control ships or gu
more right under the Constitution to hold that territory for the sake o
ing in subjection an alien people than you have a right to acquire, ho
manage cannon or fleets or to raise armies for the sake of keeping in
jection and under your control an alien people. All these things
means, and means to constitutional and not to unconstitutional ends.
he Constitution of the United States sets forth certain specific objec
fers certain specific powers upon the Government it creates. All po
essary or reasonably convenient to accomplishing these specific objec
ising these specific powers are granted by implication.
he Constitution says that Cengress may make rules and regulat
e government of the territory and other property of the United States
implies that we may acquire and regulate territory as we may acquir
use other property, such as our ships of war, our cannon or forts or arse
erritory, like other property, can only be acquired for constitutional
poses and cannot be acquired and governed for unconstitutional purpo
e constitutional purpose is to admit new States to the Union. Th
ne of the objects for which the Constitution was framed. So w
and hold and govern territory with that object in view. But
ject peoples and holding them for that pupose is not a constitutio
he contrary, it is an end which the generation which framed the
ſon and the Declaration of Independence declared was unrighteo
--- . So, in my opinion, we have no constitutional power to:
erritory for the purpose of holding it in subjugation, in a stäte ºf
rfääni, against the will ºf its peºple,
iſiºdºrº infºre acquired nº territºry

est. The Filipinos desire to do what our English ancestors di
days when England was Catholic. The laity feared that the Churc
ingross all the land. So they passed their statute of mortmain. You
either got to let the people of the Philippine Islands settle this matt
themselves or you must take upon you the delicate duty of settling
them. Your purchase or conquest is a purchase or conquest of nothing
sovereignty. It is a sovereignty over a people who are never to be adm
to exercise it or to share it.
In the present case we have not, I repeat, bought any property.
undertaken to buy mere sovereignty. There were no public lands in thi
ippine Islands, the property of Spain, which we have bought and pai
The mountains of iron and the nuggets of gold and the hemp-bearing fi
you purpose to strip the owners of their rightful title? We have un
to buy allegiance pure and simple. And allegiance is just what the
nations declares you cannot buy. The power of Congress to dispose
territory or other property of the United States, invoked in this debat
foundation of your constitutional right, may carry with it in a proper cas
right to the allegiance of the occupant of the soil we own. But we have
bought any property there. The mountains of iron, the nuggets of g
hemp-bearing fields, the tobacco and sugar and coffee are not ours,
holding first that we can buy of Spain an allegiance which this peop
shaken off, which Spain could not deliver, which does not exist in ju
ight, we can then go on and say that the Constitution of the United
does not apply to territory and that we will proceed to take the private pr
of this people for public use without their consent.
Whether the inestimable and imperishable principles of human lib
o be trampled down by the American Republic, and whether its great bul
nd fortress, the American Constitution, impregnable from without, is
betrayed from within, is our question now. ---- rº-ºº:
Will any gentleman affirm that the framers of the Constitution or thi
who adopted it considered as an object and end of their government of
powers which the Declaration of Independence had declared beyond
powers of any government and contrary to natural right? Alexander
lton says the Declaration of Independence is the fundamental constitu
avery State. - sº ------ - x :
I have been unable to find a single reputable authority more than
months old for the power now claimed for Congress to govern dep
Daniel Webster said in the Senate March 23, 1848: -
Arbitrary governments may have territories and distant possessions, because
governments may rule them by different laws and different systems. We can do
hing. They must be of us; part of us, or else, strangers. I think I see a
which is likely to turn the ſtitution of the land into a deformed monster, iſ
rather than a blessing; in fact, a frame of an unequal government, not founded
representation, not founded on equality, but on the grossest inequality; and
this process will go on, or that there is danger that it will go on, until this
; : .* I resist it, today and always! Whoever falters or whoever flies, I
the contest! - -- º
ames Madison said in the Federalist:
he object of the Federal Constitution is to secure the union of the th ºtee
ates, which we know to be practicable; and to add to them such other State
arise in their own, bosoms, or in their neighborhood; which we cannot doubt will
cal,—James Madison, Federalist, No. 14.
William H. Seward said: ---
t is a remarkable feature of the Constitution of the
templated colonies, or provinges, or territories at all.
ated States only, nothin
re, sovereign States: * * --------- - -----> -- ~~~-----~~~ - lºwis
'ovision of the Constitution excluding colonies, which are always subject
xcluding provinces, which always tend to corrupt and ultimately to bre
ent State.—Seward's Works. Volume 1, page 122. º
y the Constitution of the United States, there are no subjects. Every eltizens
one State is a free and equal citizen of the United States. Again, by the Constit
the United States there are no permanent provincas or dependencies,<-Seward's
olume 4, page 187, --~ ºr ºf -- a
fººms out of the tº sº. In the case of

1S an ------------- declare
Ynferred upon Congress for the put ºf aggression or aggrandizement, but to
the Government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights.
the rights of its citizens. A war, therefore, declared by ºil.."." be pre-
med to be waged for the purpose of conquest or the acquisition of territory; nor does the
declaring the war imply an authority to the President to enlarge the limits of the
nited States by subjugating the enemy's country. - - -
Our Territories, so far, have all been places where Americans would go to
dwell as citizens, to establish American homes, to obtain honorable employ-
ment and to build a State. Will any man go to the Philippine Islands to dwell,
except to help govern the people or to make money by a temporary residence?
The men of the Philippines, under the Constitution and the existing laws, may
ecome your fellow-citizens. You will never consent, in the sense of a true
itizenship, to become theirs. - ~
Mr. President, our friends who take another view of this question like to tell
us of the mistakes of great men of other days who have vainly protested
gainst acquisition of territory. One worthy and most exuberant gentleman
n another place points out to his hearers the folly of Webster and Clay, the
elusions of Charles Sumner, and contrasts them with the wisdom of Jefferson
and Tyler and Polk. Mr. Jefferson declared that the acquisition of Louisiana
as unconstitutional, and wanted a constitutional amendment to justify it.
think the general sense of the American people is that in that particular
Ir. Jefferson was in error and that our power to admit new States clearly
volves the power to acquire territory from which new States are to be made.
wonder, however, if there be any man now alive who now holds or who ever
d or ever will hold a seat in either House of Congress willing to say tha
ving taken an oath to support the Constitution, he would for any purpose
of public advantage forswear himself for the sake of a real or fancied good
º to his country. I hope and believe that the spirit of Fletcher of Saltoun, who
id he would die to serve Scotland, but he would not do a base thing to save
r, is still the spirit of American statesmanship.
In all generations the statesmen who have appealed to righteousness and
justice and freedom have left an enduring place in the loving memory of their
ountrymen, while the men who have counseled them to walk in the path of
ustice and wrong, even if it led to empire and even if they were in the
majority in their own day, are forgotten and despised. Ah, Mr. President,
hat gentleman says we are the annointed of the Lord, as the Jews were the
ointed of the Lord. But the Jewish empire is forgotten. The sands of
he desert cover the foundations of her cities. The spider spins its thread,
he owl makes its midnight perch in their palaces. But still those little words,
Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet that that is thy neighbor's; what-
er ye would that men shall do to you, do ye even so again unto them,” shine
gh the ages, blazing and undimmed. Mr. President, you may speculate
may refine; you may doubt; you may deny. But the one foremost action i
history, the foremost action in all history, is the writing upon its pages
simple and sublime opening sentences of the Declaration of Independ-
nce. And the men who stand by it shall live in the eternal memory of man-
ld, and the men who depart from it, however triumphant and successful in
little policies, shall perish and be forgotten or shall be remembered o
When hostilities broke out, February 5, 1899, we had no occupancy of a
le of any kind to any portion of the Philippine territory, except the tow
bay of Manila. Everything else was in the peaceful possession of th
itants. In such a condition of things, Mr. President, international I
is to us with its awful mandate. It pronounces your proposed action
usurpation and robbery. You have no better title, according to the law
ons, to reduce this people to subjection than you have to subjugate
aiti or Belgium or Switzerland.
FORBIDDEN BY INTERNATIONAL LAW.
s the settled doctrine as declared by our own great masters of j
e. - - -- - ---
have no right, according to the law of nations, to obtain by purchase OI’
on sovereignty over a people which is not actually exercised b
which undertakes to convey it or yield it.
a familiar principle of the common law that you cannot make a law
e of land of which the seller is disseized or of a chattel of whicl
Ossessed. The reason of this doctrine is to prevent the purchase,
This rule applies with tenfold force to undertaking to purchase hu
when their country and the selling power is dispossessed at the til
have not yet completed the acquisition. But at the time we e
it and at the time of this alleged purchase the people of the Phil

S; pê8. y jeral Otis' report, by Admir ewey'
the reports of officers for whom they vouched, held their entire territor
the exception of the single town of Manila. They had, as appears from
reports, a full organized government. They had an army fighting for
pendence, admirably disciplined, according to the statement of zealous
Gates of expansion. - - º
Why, Mr. President, is it credible that any American statesman, that a
American Senator, that any intelligent American citizen anywhere, two year
ago could have been found to affirm that a proceeding like that of the Pari
treaty could give a just and valid title to sovereignty over a people situated as:
were the people of those islands? A title of Spain, originally by conquest,
never submitted to nor admitted by the people of the islands, with frequen
insurrections at different times for centuries, and then the yoke all thrown off
a constitutional government, schools, colleges, churches, universities, hospitals
town governments, a legislature, a cabinet, courts, a code of laws and th
whole island occupied and controlled by its people, with the single exceptio
of one city; with taxes lawfully levied and collected, with an army and ºth
eginning of a navy. -
And yet the Senate, the Congress, enacted less than two years ago that th
eople of Cuba—controlling peaceably no part of their island, levying no taxi
in any orderly or peaceable way, with no administration of justice, no e
inet—not only of right ought to be, but were, in fact, a free and independen
tate. I did not give my assent to that declaration of fact. I assented
to the doctrine that they of right ought to be. But I thought the statement
act much calculated to embarrass the Government of the United States, if
were bound by that declaration, and it has been practically disregarded by
dministration ever since. But the question now is a very different one.
not only deny that the Filipinos are, but you deny that they of right ought t
free and independent, and you recognize Spain as entitled to sell you the s
ereignty of an island where she was not at the time occupying a foot of t
‘itory, where her soldiers were held captive by the government of the is
a government to which you had delivered over a large number of Spa
prisoners to be held as captives. And yet you come here today and say:
hey not only are not, but they of right ought not to be free and indepen
d when you are pressed you answer us by talking about mountains of
and nuggets of gold and trade with China. - -
I affirm that you cannot get by conquest and you cannot get by purcha
cording to the modern law of nations, according to the law of nation
cepted and expounded by the United States, sovereignty over a people
title to a territory of which the power that undertakes to sell i —pow
from whom you undertake to wrest it has not the actual possession and
minion. Under municipal law you cannot buy a horse of which the se
dispossessed; you cannot buy a foot of land of which he is disseized
cannot purchase a lawsuit. Under international law you cannot buy a peo
from a power that has no actual dominion over them. You cannot buy a w
More than this, you cannot buy a tyrant's claim to subject again an oppres
people who have achieved their freedom.
You cannot buy the liberties of a people from a dispossessed tyrant, liber
they have bravely won for themselves in arms. You cannot buy soverei
ike merchandise and men like sheep. The King of England kept, down
800, the title of Duke of Normandy and King of France. Could any oth
sountry or all Europe together have bought France of Ring George? I
what would have happened if, instead of acknowledging our independence :
ime before the French treaty, France had bought England out and underta
o assert her title to the United States. These questions have to be answ
not amid the shouting and applause of a political campaign, not in party p
orms, not alone in a single campaign or a single generation. They have g
to be answered to history, to the instructed conscience of the civilized wor
when the passions and the greed and the ambitions of a single genera
have gone by and are cold, And there will be to them but one answer.
I shall show beyond all question of cavil, from the evidence of our own
anders, that this was a people. They were a people who had taken arm
public. They had established a republic—the first republic of the Orie
Now, international law has something to say about this matter. Willº
ºn people for the first time in their history disregard its august m
ates? -º -
You gentlemen who desire to hold on to the Philippine Islands are trying
plant the United States squarely upon this doctrine. You must affirm tha
people rising for their own liberties against a tyrant and having got a
possession of their own territory and having dispossessed the oppressor
4432 º º - - - -

































































































* Not only are we violating our own Constitution and the great precepts of th
*claration of Independence, which, as the Supreme Court of the United State
e declared, is to control and interpret, being, as the Court say, but the lette
which the Declaration of Independence is the spirit, but we are equally
}lating the accepted precepts of the law of nations as expounded by our own
reat authorities. - - - º
f there be one thing above others which is the glory of the American Re-
blic it is the respect and obedience it has ever paid to international law. It
that law, the product of Christianity, which prevents every weak nation on
he earth from becoming the prey of the stronger ones. It is to nations what
he conscience is to the individual soul. It finds its enforcement and sanction
the public opinion of the civilized world, a power, according to Mr. Webster,
stronger than armies or navies. No nation escapes the penalty of its infraction.
º As Mr. Webster says, it pursues the conqueror to the very scene of his ovation
nd wounds him with the sting that belongs to the consciousness of having
outraged the opinion of mankind. -
The late Secretary of State, Mr. Day, the head of the commission that ne-
tiated the treaty at Paris, has quite lately publicly disclaimed any title to
Philippine Archipelago, by conquest. I think, although there have been
he hasty statements to that effect, the theory of title by conquest will find
ew advocates in this chamber. It is a theory opposed alike to all the traditions
f the Republic and to all the mandates of morality. -
Mr. Justice Gray says, in his opinión in the case of The Paquete Habana and
The Lola (U. S. Rep., vol. 175): -: -
international law is part of our law and must be ascertained and administered by the
urts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon
are duly presented for their determination. ; -
Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals not for the speculations of their
thors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the
w_really is.-- Hilton vs. Guyot, 159 U. S., 113, 163, 164,214, 215. º
hey are witnesses of the sentiments and usages of civilized nations, and the weight of
eir testimony increases every time, that, their authority is invoked by statesmen and
y year that passes without the rules laid down in their works being impugned by the
wal of contrary principles.—Wheaton's International Law º edition), section 15.
cases where the principal jurists agree the presumption will be very great in favor
ºf the solidity of their maxims, and no, civilized nation that does not arrogantly set all
»rdinary law and justice at defiance will yenture to disregard the uniform sense of the
stablished writers on international law.—1 Kent Com., 18
Our fathers used to think John Locke pretty good authority in the ethics of
‘reedom. Bacon and Newton and Locke still hold their place as the greatest
of English philosophers. You will find him cited pretty often in the great de-
-
ates that preceded the Revolution and the discussions when our national and
tate constitutions were set up. This is what he says: -
Over those, then, that joined with him in the war, and over those of the subdued country
hat opposed him not, and the posterity even of those that did, the conqueror, even in a
st war, hath by his conquest no right, of dominion. They are free from any subjection
him, and if their former government be dissolved they are at liberty to begin and erect
ther to themselves. - -
The conqueror, it is true, usually by the force he has over, them, compels them, with
sword at their breast, to stoop to his conditions and submit to such a government as
pleased to afford them, but the inquiry is, What right has he to do so? If it be said they
bmit by their own consent, then this allows their own consent, to be necessary to give
conqueror a title to rule over them. It remains only to be considered whether promises
torted by force without right can be thought consent and how far they bind... To which {
say they bind not at all, because whatsoever another gets from me by force I shall
in the #1; #" he is obliged presently to restore.—Locke on Civil Government,
- ections y - ---
Mr. President, is there any truth in this? Is this a revolutionary pro- --
iamento or is it doctrine to which—whatever monarchical governments
ave to say—the American people are committed by all their traditions
by all their history? º:
From many authorities I will cite a few. - -
First. President McKinley, in the language so often quoted. When th
orcible annexation, according to our American code of morals, would be criminal a
º
SiOn— --- -
a copperhead? Was he disloyal to the flag? Was not he Republican
er an utterance So Calculated to give courage to Aguinaldo and
y
n he said–
man rights and constitutional privileges must not be forgotten in the race for wealth
ommercial Supremacy. The government of the people must be by the people and not
few of the people. It must rest upon the free gonsent of the governed and all
ed. Power, it must be remembered, which is secured by oppression or us
y any form of injustice is soon dethroned. . We have no º in law or mora
th ‘hich belongs to another, whether it is property or power— -
















































































































































risprudence, unless some of us were to
ing the superiority to Story. Judge Kent's language, which I --
quoted elsewhere, has been quoted already more than once in this debate
a says: º
Full sovereignty cannot be held to have pººl by the mere words of the treaty witho
|ctual delivery. To complete the right of property the right to the thing and the pos
º session of the thing must be united. This is a necessary principle in the law of property
all systems of jurisprudence. * * - - º : , , , .
This #ºneral law of property applies to the right of territory no less than to other
rights. The practice of nations has been conformable to this principle and the conventional
law of nations is full of instances of this kind. (Page 178.)
The same doctrine is stated by Halleck, International Law, Volume 2, pag
12, and by Phillimore Commentaries upon International Law, Volume 3, page
871. º º
Halleek Says:
The rule of public law with respect to the allegiance of the inhabitants of a conquered º
territory is no longer to be interpreted as meaning that it is absolutely and unconditionally º
acquired by conquest or transferred and handed over by treaty as a thing assignable by
contract and without the assent of the subject. On the contrăry, the express or implied
consent of the subject is now regarded as essential to a complete new allegiance.
Sumner said in his speech before the Republican State Convention of Mass
= 'chusetts in 1869: º
And he knows our country little, and little also of that great liberty of ours, who suppose
:hat we could receive such a transfer. On each side there is impossibility. Territory ma
conveyed, but not a people. - -"
Next, Shurston Baker, whose admirable treatise on international law ha
just been published in Boston. He says: º - º º
In modern times sales and transfers of national territory to another power can only b
lade by treaty or some solmen act of the sovereign authority of the State. And such trans
ers of territory do not include the allegiance of its inhabitants without their consent, ex
press or implied. - º º
t page 355 the same author says: -
"The rule of public law, with respect to the allegiance of the inhabitants of a conquere
territory is therefore no longer to be interpreted as meaning that it is absolutely and t
*Conditionally acquired by conquest or transferred and handed over by a treaty as a thing a S-
signable by contract and without the assent of the subject. On the contrary, the express:
or implied assent of the subject is now regarded as essential to a complete new allegiance
If the inhabitants, of the ceded conquered territory choose to leave it on its transfe
and to adhere to their former sovereign they have, in general, a right to do so.
# The status of the inhabitants of the conquered and transferred territory is thus det
mined by their own choice.
In the cases arising out of the Reyolution by which the North American colonies of
Great Britain became an independent State it was considered to be an established maximº
§of public and international law that there was vested in an individual a right of electing
o remain under the old or of contracting a new allegiance. The choice must be made
within a reasonable period of time. º-
irder to make a transfer of property valid the authority, whether de facto or de jure,
st be competent to bind the State. Hence the necessity of examining into and asce
ng the powers of the rulers, as the municipal constitutions of different States throw.
y difficulties in the way of alienations of their public property, and particularly o
territory. Especially, in modern times, the consent of the governed, express or im
l, is necessary before the transfer of their allegiance can regularly take place.
ut why multiply citations to a Senate who within two years affirmed thi
f right ought to be free and independent and to a Congress and a Pres
that declared war to make that declaration good? You were stating
rine of public law, were you not? You were not uttering a lying revolu-
ary pronunciamento. You were speaking for a great nation on a solem
ion. You were speaking words of truth and soberness, words you mean
lake good with the lives of your sons. The first and last declaration of
aw ever made by the American people, the declaration of 1776 and
ation of 1898, are in full accord and harmony. They both justify th
ne people and condemn us. -
w that in that archipelago of 1200 Islands there are many tribe t
There are wild men, pagans, who probably never heard of Spain.
islands over which Spain never exercised power. There are Ma:
letans, polygamists ruled by a sultan, whose polygamous despotism we a
w supporting. We can buy our peace with him, although we cannot ev
it for peace with the men whom our military commanders promised in --
endence. But I am pleading for that Christian people who won their freedom
ym Spain and established free government over Luzon and the Visayas, a go
rnment as stable and unquestioned as that of any American State during our-
º THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
The Declaration of In lependence is not so much a declaration of rights a
claration of duties. It prescribes a rule of conduct for men in the same state
le another and for the nations of the earth to one another. Like the golden;

*** * > * > * > * > * * *** is “imperialism,” as they call it, is inaugurating
tion not only in the law of nations, not only in the fundamental law by
he people of the United States have governed themeslyes until now, not onl
in the interpretation of the Constitution, but in the moral law itself? As I h
the utterances of some worthy gentlemen taking the name of God upon th
lips, it seems to me as if they thought the balance of the universe itself ha
hanged within this year and that God had gone over to the side of Satan.
There is one question I would like to put to the Republican majority in th
Senate and to the Republican party in the country: Is this doctrine true or is
it false? Are you to stand on it any longer or are you going to whistle it down
the windº - - - º
I believe that utterance made at Philadelphia in 1776 to have been the great-
est evangel that ever came to mankind since the story of Bethlehem. Like the
shot fired at Concord, it was heard round the world. It was heard with fear in
the palace of the tyrant; it was heard with joy in the huts where poor men
dwelt. I reverently believe it was heard with joy in heaven itself.
I believe also that if the gloss put upon that great declaration by the Senator
from Connecticut had been uttered then it would have been received with
burst of derisive laughter in hell, and Satan himself would have led
Ghorus. - - - -
We have had so far some fundamental doctrine, some ideals to which
people has been devoted. Have you anything to give us in their place?
are trying to knock out the corner-stones. Is there any material from
swamp and mud and morass from which you can make a new foundati
Our temple?
Gentlemen tell us that the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin is copied
that introduced in Jefferson's time for the purchase of Louisiana. Do you
that you propose to deal with these people as Jefferson meant to deal
Louisiana? You talk of Alaska, of Florida, of California. Do you me
deal with the Philippines as we mean to deal with Alaska and dealt with
ida or California? -
It was safe to give Jefferson—who thought it wicked to govern a p
against its will—a power with which gentlemen who think it is right ough
never to be trusted. . - -
I have spoken of the Declaration of Independence as a solemn affirmati
public law, but it is far more than that. It is a solemn pledge of national fa
and honor. It is a baptismal vow. It is the bedrock of our republican ins
tions. It is, as the Supreme Court declared, the soul and spirit of which
Constitution is but the body and letter. It is the light by which the
tution must be read. The statesman or the party who will not stand
Declaration and obey it is never to be trusted anywhere to keep an o
support the Constitution. To such a statesman, whenever his ambition
passion shall incline him, to such a party, Whenever its fancied advantage
tempt it, there will be no constitutional restraint. It will bend the
º ution to its desire, never its desire to the Constitution. Constitutio ad c.
accommodatur, non causa ad constitutionem. ,
There is expansion enough in it, but it is the expansion of freedom an
f despotism; of life, not of death. Never was such growth in all hum
ory as that from the seed Thomas Jefferson planted. The parable of
ard seed, than which, as Edward Everett said, “the burning pen o
n, ranging heaven and earth for a similitude, can find nothing m
riate or expressive to which to liken the Kingdom of God,” is repeat
“Whereunto shall we liken it, or with what comparison shall we col
is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the ear
han all the seeds that be in the earth. But when it is sown it growe
Secometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches, so
owls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.” This is the exp
Thomas Jefferson. It has covered the continent. It is on both the se
has saved South America. It is revolutionizing Europe. It is the e
of freedom. It differs froma your tinsel, pinchbeck, pewter expansion
growth of a healthy youth into a strong man differs from the expansio
naconda when he swallows his victim. Ours is the expansion of
ſefferson. Yours is the expansion of Aaron Burr. It is destined to as s
e and to a like fate.
ntil within two years the American people have been wont to appea -
eclaration of Independence as the foremost State paper in history. As
--
ars go round the Fourth of July has been celebrated wherever A
ld gather together, at home or abroad. To have signed it, to an A
was better than a title of nobility. It was no passionate utterance o
. There was nothing of the radical in it; nothing of
le French Revolution. It was - º------- * ~ *-
he sober utterance o

º' Tº L -
º U. *neration that ever lived. It was the declaration of a
sº at the most religious period of their history. It was a declara-
on not merely of rights, but of duties. It was an act not of revolution, but,
of construction. It was the corner-stone, the foundation stone of a great na
tional edifice wherein the American people were to dwell forevermore.
The language was the language of Thomas Jefferson. But the thought was
the thought of every one of his associates. The men of the Continental Con-
gress meant to plant their new nation on eternal verities which no man pos-
sessed by the spirit of liberty could ever thereafter undertake to challenge. As
the Christian religion was rested by its author on two sublime commandments
on which hang all the laws and the prophets, so these men rested republican
liberty on two sublime verities on which it must stand, if it can stand at all,
in which it must live or bear no life. One was the equality of the individual
man with every other in political right. The other is that you are now seeking
to overthrow—the right of every people to institute their own government, lay-
ing its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness, and so to
the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. Equality of individual
manhood and equality of individual States. This is the doctrine which the
Republican party is now urged to deny.
The confusion of the argument of our friends on the other side comes from
onfounding the statement in the Declaration of the rights of individuals with
the statement of the rights of nations or peoples in dealing with one another.-
The whole Declaration is a statement of political rights and political relations
-
nd political duties. * - - ºr º
First. Every man is equal in political rights including the right to life, lib
£erty and the pursuit of happiness, to every other. - - -
* Second. No people can come under the government of any other people or of
any ruler without its consent. The law of nature and of nature's God entitled
every people to its separate and equal station among the powers of the earth.
ur fathers were not dealing in this clause with the doctrine of the social com-
pact; they were not considering the rights of minorities; they used the word.
people” as equivalent to “nation” or “State,” as an organized political being
d not as a mere aggregate of persons not collected or associated. They were
ot thinking of Robinson Crusoe in his desolate island or of scattered settlers,
ll less of predatory bands roaming over vast regions they could neither own
or occupy. They were affirming the right of each of the thirteen colonies
separately or of all together to throw off the yoke of George III and to sepa- -
fate itself or themselves from Great Britain. Now, you must either admit that
what they said was true or you must affirm the contrary. -
The question is put with an air of triumph, as if it were somehow hard toº
swer, If this doctrine of yours apply to a million men why does it not apply
# to a hundred men? At what point in the census do men get these God-given
ghts of yours? Well, the answer is easy enough. Our fathers in the affima-
on of the Declaration of Independence you are now denying were speaking
he equal rights of nations, of their duties to each other. The exact point
re a few scattered settlements become a people or a few nomadic tribes a
tion may not admit of precise mathematical definition. At what point does
ok become a river? When does a pond become a lake or a lake a sea or a
ze a hurricane? You cannot tell me. But surely there are nations and
oples, there is organized national life; and there are scattered habitations.
d wandering tribes to whom these titles are never applied. Louisiana
a, Alaska, New Mexico, Calfornia, neither had, nor did their inhabitant
to have, such a national vitality when we acquired them. And if there
Here anything of that sort when we annexed them it desired to come to us.
nd it came to us to become part of us—bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh,
- four life, soul of our soul. --- º * * *
ut I can give you two pretty safe practical rules, quite enough for this day's
rose. Each of them will solve your difficulty, if you have a difficulty, and
ant to solve it. That is a people, that is a power of the earth, that is a na
n entitled as such to its separate and equal station among the powers of
he earth by the laws of nature and of nature's God, that has a written con-
|titution, a settled territory, an independence it has achieved, an organized
y, a congress, Courts, Schools, universities, churches, the Christian religion,
a village life in orderly, civilized, self-governed municipalities; a pure family
life, newspapers, books, statesmen who can debate questions of international
like Mabini, and organize governments, like Aguinaldo; poets like José
l: aye, and patriots who can die for liberty, like José Rizal. The Boer
ublic is a nation, and it is a crime to crush out its life, though its population
eless than Providence, R. I. Each one of our old thirteen States would have
- º
-
-- º
- º º


































































en a nation, even if it had stood alone º...ie Philippine republic
twenty times the number of the Boers, a people more than the whole thi
States who joined in the Declaration put together, is a nation, and it
greater crime still to crush out its life. ---
There is another rule that will help any Senator out of his difficulty. It must
be a comfort to every one of you in his perplexity. Every people is of right en-
titled to its independence that has got as far as Cuba had in the spring of 1898.
You all admit that. Admit! You all avow, affirm, strenuously insist on that:
You will all pledge your lives and fortunes and sacred honor for that. You will
go to war and send your sons to war to maintain that. If Spain shall deny it. -
or any other country but Great Britain, woe be to her. It isn't necessary, ac-
cording to you, to have a constitution; it isn't necessary to have courts; it isn
necessary to have a capital; it isn't necessary to have a school. The seat of
government may be in the saddle. It isn't necessary to occupy a city or to ha
a seaport; it isn't necessary to hold permanently an acre of land; it isn't nece
sary to have got the invader out of the country; it isn't necessary to hav
tenth part of the claim the Filipinos have or to have done a tenth part of the
things the Filipinos have done. You settled all this for yourselves and for
country long ago–March 10, 1898. So I assume you have only put this c
drum for the pleasure of answering it yourselves. - º
Mr. Jefferson estimates the population of Louisiana at the time of the pu
chase at 42,375 in his communication to Congress. Its area in square m
was 1,182,752, one person to twenty-seven square miles. But Gayarre, the
recent authority, estimates the population at about 20,000, or less than
person to fifty square miles. -
The population of Florida at the time of the annexation was about 30,000
the first census thereafter it was 34,725, making a little more than one
itant to two square miles. ---
A convention of the people of Florida petitioned for the protection
United States as an integral part of the United States, and it is notorious
the inhabitants were eager for annexation. -
In the case of Louisiana the settlers at New Orleans objected. Thos
Louis and the other ports were willing. But the settlers at New Orlean
many of them, sojourners only, designing to return to France. And Fr
as Napoleon well knew, was totally unable to hold them against Englan
Mr. President, no man can read for a moment Mr. Sumner's great spe
ecutive session and claim that it is in the least a departure from the
ines of the Declaration of Independence or a precedent for the conq
purchase of the Philippine Islands.
He quotes John Adams, saying that our State governments are destine
spread over the northern part of this whole quarter of the globe. He adds th
e are to guarantee a republican form of government to them, and that Rus
is now, with France and Spain, giving way to the absorbing unity declai
the national motto, “E Pluribus Unum.” -
Mr. Sumner enters in his speech what he styles a “caveat.” This treaty
ot be a precedent for a system of indiscriminate and costly annexio
ays that every stage in our predestined future must be by natural proc
without war, and, he would add, even without purchase. Our trium
be by growth and organic expansion, recognizing always the will of t
ecome our fellow-citizens. Our acquisitions, he says, will be under th
n of wedlock to the Républic. - - -
n the case of Hawaii a constitution had been maintained in pea
ears, in spite of Mr. Cleveland’s known inclination to interfere for
throw. There was an express provision authorizing the Government
a treaty of annexation with us.
In the case of the provinces acquired from Mexico there was m
capable of a separate national life, and there was at least no reason t
that the people dissented.
But in the present case you have a clear, sharp question to put
ence of the people: Will you by force of arms or by purchase g
belonging to an unwilling people, numbering millions, for the purpo
ng them in subjugation forever—a people who had achieved their
ence, had a government established in order and in peace,
pposed to your rule that they are willing to die in an almost ho
ºnce to it?
I repeat. In every acquisition of territory we ever made we meal
tates of it..' Jefferson expressly says so in his Louisiana message, T.
no nation owning and dwelling on the territory; no people in the sens.
Declaration; no organized national life; and certainly in avery ease bu
ana, we had reñson tº believe that the few #8Attered dwellerg in t
proved the tra

º
California yielde Årsuasion er than to conquest. She renounced her lineage
anguage and ancient loyalt. (Seward's Works, volume 1, page 9.) º
AGUINALDO, BRAVE, HONEST AND PATRIOTIC, *------
Senators, if there were no Constitution, if there were no Declaration, if there.
re no international law, if there were nothing but the history of the pas
wo years, the American people would be bound in honor, if there be hono
bound in common honesty, if there be honesty, not to crush out this Philippine
ublic, and not to wrest from this people its independence. The history o
ur dealing with the Philippine people is found in the reports of Our Col
ders. It is all contained in our official documents and in published State
ents of General Anderson and in the speeches of the President. It is littl
own to the country today. When it shall be known I believe it will cause a
Glution in public sentiment. - - --
There are 1200 islands in the Philippine group. They extend as far as from
ine to Florida. They have a population variously estimated at from
00,000 to 12,000,000. There are wild tribes who never heard of Christ, and
lds that never heard of Spain. But among them are the people of t
d of Luzon, numbering 3,500,000, and the people of the Visayan Islan
bering 2,500,000 more. They are a Christian and civilized people. The
ted their independence from Spain and established a republic. T
are no more to be affected by the few wild tribes in their own mountai
the dwellers in the other islands than the rights of our old thirteen State
'ected by the French in Canada or the Six Nations of New York or the
herokees of Georgia or the Indians west of the Mississippi. Twice our com-
ding generals, by their own confession, assured these people of their i
rly and beyond all cavil we formed an alliance with them. We express
them to co-operate with us. We handed over our prisoners to their keep
e sought their help in caring for our sick and wounded. We Were told
am again and again and again that they were fighting for independer
purpose was as well known to our generals, to the War Department and
President as the fact that they were in arms. We never undeceived
ntil the time when hostilities were declared in 1899. The President.
declared again and again that we had no title and claimed no right to any
beyond the town of Manila. Hostilities were begun by us at a pla
bwal and regret and offer to withdraw to a line we should prescribe. If
h that republic, despoil that people of their freedom and independence
ubject them to our rule, it will be a story of shame and dishonor.
t right, is it just, to subjugate this people? To substitute our Governme.
their self-government, for the constitution they have proclaimed and e
lished, a scheme of government such as we could devise ten thousand mil
ld pay? . - ,
ight to make tariffs for our interests and not theirs?
2 interests of the Manila tobacco-grower to be decided upon hea
he tobacco-raisers of the Connecticut River valley?
these mountains of iron and nuggets of gold and stores of coal and hemp
g fields and fruit-bearing gardens to be looked upon by our legislator
etous eyes? -
r wealth or their wealth these things are to increase?
right to put over them officers whom we are to select and they a
are other pregnant questions, some of which perhaps require a littl
nation and a little study of the reports of our commanders.
rightfully achieved their independence when hostilities began be
ind them? ---
y forfeit their independence by the circumstances of the war?
whole, have they not shown that they are fit for self-government,
fit as Greece, fit as Spain, fit as Japan, fit as Haiti or San Dom
ountry to the south of us, from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn,
with our approval, those countries won their liberties from Spain?
ightfully subjugate a people because we think them unfit
mes Mackintosh when the partition of Poland was goings
political doctrine more false or permicious than that which repregents.
al government as an exteniţation of unjust aggression against a countr
in to mankini for the .# its indepeñdenge, As ng governm
faultgº.gifth a tigetilääijätigliès the grägååå gº wif, gº an
Fº ############################aa!

The people of the Philippine Islands have never submitted themselv
gly to Spain. There has been no time for two centuries when they
ot have been free from the yoke if they could. Their history has been a
tory of cruelty and oppression on one side, of resistance and the aspiration
freedom on the other. - -
In 1896 a rebellion broke out, headed by Aguinaldo. His people were un-
armed and poor. The difficulty of communication in a country without road:
made combination impossible against a power that commanded the sea and
the seaports. Still, the revolt was formidable enough to compel Spain to ma
promises of reform and redress of grievances. Aguinaldo, seeing that a co
tinued strife would cost much suffering, many lives, and in all likelihood de-
feat in the end, accepted Spain's promise of amendment and agreed that the
principal leaders of the rebellion, their wives, widows and children, should go
into exile and that Spain should make some provision for their support.
Spain was faithless to her promise of reform and paid over only part of the
money. This transaction has been much criticised here, but, in my judgm
it leaves no stain on the honesty or patriotism of the insurgent chief. Th
is no evidence that he profited himself by the transaction or expended a p
of the money for his own use. The transaction was, as circumstances t
were, for the interest of his people. -
Many advocates of imperialism who have investigated the matter have d
clared their confidence in Aguinaldo's integrity. Mr. Schurman, presidents
the commission, told his students at Cornell when he got home that Aguinaldo
was an honest and a patriotic man. Our consuls bear this same testimony
Mr. Williams, United States consul-general at Manila, under date of Ma
28, 1898, says: - -
Rebellion never more threatening to Spain. Rebels getting money, arms and friends.
and they outnumber the Spaniards a hundred to one. - - -
March 21, 1898, he writes of the desertion of an entire regiment of the S
ish forces to the insurgents, and adds:
Now five thousand armed rebels, who for days have been in camp near Manila an
been re-enforced from the mountains, plan to attack the city tonight. ºr
On April 28, 1898, Mr. Pratt wrote a letter to Mr. Day, in which he speal
“learning from General Aguinaldo the state and object sought to be obtain
which, though absent from the Philippines, he was directing.” -
Mr. Pratt further says in a letter to Secretary Day: - -------
General Aguinaldo impressed me as a man of intellectual ability, courage and worth
he confidence that had been placed in him. - ---
He says further: w - *
No close observer of what has transpired in the Philippines during the past fo
could have failed to recognize that General Aguinaldo enjoyed above all others th
dence of the Philippine insurgents and the respect alike of the Spanish and foreigne
the islands, all of whom vouched for his justice and high sense of honor.
Mr. Williams wrote Mr. Moore on July 18, 1898: - º
General Aguinaldo, Agoncillo and Sandico are all men who would be leaders.
separate departments in any country. - -
I have studied as well as I could the character and career of Aguinald
not compare him with Washington. To Americans there is one chara
lofty, one name too sacred, for parallel or comparison. But I believe
take a high rank hereafter among the men who have lived and died fo
He deserves to be remembered with that small band who have give
everything dearer than life to their country in a losing cause.
º To his loved land he gave, without a stain,
--- Courage and faith, vain faith, and courage vain. - ---
He shall live with Kossuth, with Oom Paul, with Joubert, with Ei
ith Egmont and Horn, with Nathan Hale, with Warren, with all
artyrs of history whose blood hath been the seed of the church of lib
- He, subtle, strong and stubborn, gave his life º
To a lost cause, and knew the gift was vain.
Later shall rise a people same and great, -
- I'orged in strong fires, by equal war made one,
Telling old battles over without hate, . --
Noble, his name shall pass from sire to son.
On June 11, 1898, Consul Pratt writes to Aguinaldo from singap
I wrote fully to Admiral Dewev concerning you, and to the American Gover
- ointed out that you and you alone were equal to the occasion. .."
- Consul-General Wildman writes to Aguinaldo from Hongkong Ju
calling upon him to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Al
Saying: -
I have youched for your honesty and earnestness of purpose to

--- In bl -
ºyºur champion should any try to slander y
orget that the United States undertook this war for the sole purpose
g the Cubans from the cruelties under which they were suffering and not for the
3 of conquest or the hope of gain. They are actuated by precisely the same feelings tow
the Filipinos. Whatever, the final disposition of the conquered territory may be, yo
ust the United States that justice and honor will control all their dealings with you. .
On the 14th of July, 1898, he writes to Aguinaldo: -
You have certainly fulfilled nobly all the promises I made on your behalf to
Wey - - - - * --
I am glad to see that our commissioners in their report do not indorse the
oroughly refuted slander that Aguinaldo accepted any money from t
Spainiards for his own purposes. But the revolution was compromised by a
grement with the leaders of the insurrection to withdraw from the island and
he promise from the Spaniards that the people should have representation
the Cortes of Spain; that the friars should be sent aw
association and a free press should be enjoyed. a . º
These promises were all broken. “The civil guard began to whip and to sh
and abuse the people as before, and it is stated that in the province of M
ore than 200 were executed. The money that had been paid to the re
saders was at once converted into a fund for a new revolution.” The tra
ction. On the whole, seems not to have been disadvantageous to the Filipi
o, our commissioners say, had a great many soldiers, but had only
00 small arms, consisting of rifles, shotguns and a few cannon of antiqu
models. The fund that had been obtained from the Spaniards was inve.
modern arms of approved pattern. On the 1st of May, 1898, Admiral Dev
troyed the Spanish fleet, and on the 19th of the same month Aguina
came and brought thirteen of his staff with him, and was allowed to land
vite and organize an army. -
"he junior Senator from Colorado, in a manly speech, with
ay; that the right
much of
find myself in hearty accord, says that Aguinaldo is brave, honest and
riotic. I am glad to congratulate the Senate that at least one voice has be
ound among the supporters of the policy of imperialism to do justice to --
int enemy. Hºresident Schurman has borne to him a like tribute. These
emen, at least, have had clearness of sight enough to see that the men whi
--
y to disgrace the name of Aguinaldo are disgracing Admiral Dewey and Pr
ent McKinley. Either Aguinaldo is brave, honest and patriotic or the g
trait, ºr and a hireling and put him at the head of the men who were then
Ilies in arms. - -
Why, Mr. President, the men who chatter so glibly in newspapers, and
am sorry to say, sometimes in the Senate, do not seem to reflect that they
contradicted by the conduct of the people of the Philippine Islands, by the
t of Admiral Dewey himself. º -
The Philippine masses, from the beginning until this hour, have been mos
wal to this chieftain. - - -
* * * General MacArthur, one of the bravest American commanders in the P riº,
ines, declared a few months ago: “When I first started in against these rebels I believe
hat Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whol
opulation of Luzon—the native population—was opposed to us. But having come
, after having occupied several towns and cities in succession and having been bro
nto contact with both ‘insurrectos’ and ‘amigos,' I have been reluctantly compelle
that the Filipino masses are loyal to Aguinaldo and the government wh
s an extract from an address by the Filipino leaders just after Aguinald
d, published by Murat Halstead in his “Story of the Philippines:”
ul of gold, selling out his country at the same time. There were published, mor
in those Spanish periodicals caricatures of Senor Aguinaldo which profound
nded his honor and his patriotism. - ----------
enor Aguinaldo and the other revolutionists who reside in Hongkong agreed not to ta.
It one cent of the $400,000 deposited in the chartered banks and the Hongkong
hanghai Bank, the only amount which Senor Aguinaldo received from the Spanish
rnment on account of the stipulated indemnity, but to use it for arms in order to
nother revolution in the Philippines, in case the Spanish Government should
out the peace agreement, at least in so far as it refers to general amnesty an
ms. All the above-named revolutionists, Senor Aguinaldo setting the exam -------->
deny themselves every kind of comfort during their stay in Hº
modest style, for the purpose of preventing a reduction by 0
ve-named sum of $400,000, which they set aside exclusively for the

ivi Liliº S ke Judas and his c rnold, for ******
, ask his co-operation and advice, d r Spanish preservers to
ad commit our sick to his tender mercy? ----------->
The United States of America does not use traitors and scoundrels
tools in the great transactions of its history. -
The English General Buller repelled indignantly some attacks in the B
press upon the character of the Boers, and said indignantly that it became
brave people to honor a brave enemy. I think the American people can
that. They will yet do justice to the martyrs of liberty in this Oriental isle
What generous American, what youth who has been stirred by the story
Thermopylae and Marathon, what patriot who remembers Warren, what I
with English blood who remembers Hampden or Sydney or Russell,
Dutchman who remembers Egmont and Horn, what Irishman who rem
Emmett, what Hungarian who remembers ISOssuth, will not feel his
throb and his eyes moisten as he thinks of the lofty heroism and the aw
tragedy of José Rizal or as he reads the death chant which he wrote in
ast hours, just before he was shot by the Spanish tyrants on the 30th o
cember, 1896. Our English translation gives only imperfectly the effect of
noble Spanish, the tongue in which the great scholar said he should choo
Speak to his God. - - --
- Farewell, adored Fatherland; our Eden lost, farewell;
Farewell, O Sun's loved region, pearl of the Eastern sea;
Gladly I die for thy dear sake, yea, thou knowest well
Were my sad life more radiant far than mortal tongue could tell,
Yet would I give it gladly, joyously for thee.
Pray for those who died alone, betrayed in wretchedness;
For those who suſſered for thy sa Ke torments and misery;
For broken hearts of mothers, who weep in bitterness;
For widows, tortured captives, Orphans in deep distress; -
And pray for thy dear self, that thou may’st finally be free.
Farewell, adored country; I leave my all with thee,
Beloved Philippines, whose soil my feet have trod,
I leave with thee my life's love deep; I go where all are free; -
I go where are no tortures, where the oppressor's power shall be
Destroyed, where faith kills not, where He who reigns is God.
AGUINALDO REPRESENTED WEHOLE PEOPLE.
One of the great mistakes of many honest people is the belief that Agu
has in Some Way imposed himself upon the people of Luzon and the neigh
ing islands against their will; that he is an unscrupulous usurper, who fo
his authority on an unwilling people. This notion is corrected a hundred ti
by the testimony of our officials. Aguinaldo was as much the recogn
leader of his people as Kossuth was the recognized leader of the Hungari
Admiral Dewey brought him back from exile because he was the accep
GEoice of his people. There were 30,000 men in arms who hailed him on
rrival as their chosen leader. "
The constitution he promulgated was accepted by the people, who were
throughout Luzon and the Visayas in the enjoyment of a quiet and o
government, republican in form, save the brief and temporary dictatorship
ercised only for military purposes—a dictatorship not half as absolu
heory as the dictatorship of our President over those islands has -
theory during the last twelve months. Of course, the authority of the
ment of Luzon and the adjacent islands did not extend over the savage
in the southern islands or over the Sultan of Sulu. But at least it pa
ibute to that Sultan. - § {
General MacArthur, talking to H. Irving Hancock, Manila corresponden
he Criterion, said, what I have once quoted: º -
When I first started in against these rebels I believed that Aguinaldo's troo
ented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population on Lü,
ative population, that is—was opposed to us and our offers of aid and good gover
ut after having come this far, after having occupied several town and cities
ssion and having been brought much into contact with both insurrectos and am
ºve been reluctantly compelled to believe that the Filipino masses are loyal
o Aguinaldo and the government which he heads. -º-º-º-º: º
- eneral Otis' proclamation of January 4, 1899, recognizes that th
ints under Aguinaldo fairly represent the people. I will not
length. But there is one very significant paragraph therein. It is thi
From the tenure and substance of the proclamation of the President, I am full
opinion that it is the intention of the United States Government, while directing th
#.º." appoint, the representative men now forming the controlling eleńe
lipinos to civil positions of trust and responsibility.
Is not that a full acknowledgment, as of January 4, 1899, in th
hat Aguinaldo and those associated with him were the controlli
Philippine Islands, and next, that they were fit for civil posi
responsibility? º -
4432
-:

UNIVERSITY OF MICHGAN
;
. U4 | * “
H68
PT.1 The conquest of .
the Philippines
glaoso "

, -237’’
“sp;EDY Binder
i
:
f.”