ix  CP ~
r M,




f
i
f: i
lI
i' 




l I, l


A 
i,,~




1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
I
s; 
4I. ':!1 ^::"':*i~i.'- ^.**!. ":. -  ':'.,;'1...  */ ':  ' - '       *
[.   v l';^ ":';:'X '.":ll^.-^      i; *:::;   i:                                                                                    \: Ia 








L713
*    '   `,~r m c
wT. ~




<f




;
I




C. E...~~
f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  -- x~



REPUBLIC OR EMPIRE?
THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION
BY
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN


ADLAI E. STEVENSON
GEN. JAMES B. WEAVER
GEORGE F. HOAR
ARTHUR P. GORMAN
WILLIAM V. ALLEN
MARION BUTLER
AUGUSTUS O. BACON
GEORGE W. TURNER
HERNANDO D. MONEY
JOHN L. McLAURIN
GEORGE F. EDMUNDS 
SAMUEL GOMPERS
DAVID STARR JORDAN
CHARLES A. TOWNE


ANDREW CARNEGIE
JOHN W. DANIEL
GEORGE G. VEST
HENRY M. TELLER
STEPHEN M. WHITE
WILLIAM E. MASON
BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN
HORACE R. CHILTON
ALEXANDER S. CLAY
JOHN G. CARLISLE
CARL SCHURZ
CHARLES F. ADAMS
HENRY van DYKE, D. D.
HENRY U. JOHNSON


AND OTHERS.
CHICAGO
THE INDEPENDENCE COMPANY
1899,                                                                 4~~~~~~~~~~~~M




v


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1899, by
THE INDEPENDENCE COMPANY, CHICAGO,, * ^    In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at;,:s o.'~:Washington, D. C.
Composition by
Brown-Cooper Typesetting Co.,
Chicago.
Presswork and Binding by
Thomas Knapp Printing & Binding Co.,
Chicago.
atp' -*




PREFACE.
The Spanish-American war has involved the people
of the United States in the discussion of a question
entirely new to the present generation, a question of
such vast importance that its final settlement will form
an epoch in the history of the nation. The treaty of
peace, now concluded, provides for the relinquishment
by Spain of sovereignty over Cuba and also for the
cession of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands to the
United States.
The President has assured the people of Cuba that
the only purpose of our government is to establish a
stable and independent government upon the island.
The recognition of the right of the people to independence relegates the Cuban question to a matter of detail.
The people of Porto Rico seem to desire annexation
to the United States, and since that island is a part of
the Western Hemisphere and of great strategic advantage to this nation, there is practically no opposition to the incorporation of Porto Rico within the
Union.
The Philippine question, however, is still an unsettled one. While the treaty has been ratified, yet the
vote was very close, and favorable action could not be
secured until an understanding was reached that ratification would not determine the future status of the
Filipinos.
The Bacon resolution, which read as follows:
"Resolved further, That the United States hereby
disclaim any disposition or intention to exercise per



2


PREFACE.


manent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said
islands, and assert their determination, when a stable
and independent government shall have been erected
therein, entitled in the judgment of the Government
of the United States to recognition as such, to transfer
to said government upon terms which shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by
Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and
control of the islands to their people,"
was only defeated by the vote of the Vice-President.
The McEnery resolution reading as follows:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That by the ratification of the treaty of
peace with Spain, it is not intended to incorporate the
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into citizenship
of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently
annex said islands as an integral part of the territory
of the United States; but it is the intention of the
United States to establish on said islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants of said islands to prepare them for local
self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests
of citizens of the United States and the inhabitants of
said islands,"
was adopted, being supported by nearly all the Senators who opposed the Bacon resolution.
The latter resolution expressly leaves for future determination the policy of the United States respecting the islands. President McKinley, in his Boston
speech, emphasized the declaration that the Philippine
problem is now in the hands of the American people
for solution.
Republic or empire, which shall it be? A republic,
dedicated to the doctrine that all men are created equal,
and that governments derive their just powers from




PREFACE.


3


the consent of the governed, or an empire, in which
alien races are brought into subjection by force and
governed without representation?
In order to place before the public the best arguments thus far produced against the adoption of a
colonial policy, the publishers have collected and herewith present the views of the most eminent men of the
nation representing all parties.
Messrs. Bryan, Stevenson, Daniel, Vest, etc., speak
from the standpoint of Democrats, and ex-Secretary
Carlisle from the standpoint of gold Democracy.
Messrs. Hoar, Edmunds, Mason and Johnson look at
the subject from the standpoint of Republicans, and
Teller, Turner and Towne represent the silver Republicans.  Messrs. Weaver, Allen and Butler express
the Populist view; Mr. Carnegie presents the subject
from the standpoint of the successful business man,
and Mr. Gompers reflects the views of the army of
wage-earners. Messrs. Schurz and Adams speak as
publicists, Prof. Jordan as an educator, while Rev.
Henry van Dyke, Bislhops Spalding and'Potter, apply
to the problem the test of Christianity. The verses of
Taylor and Shadwell clothe in poetical language the
sentiments which the others express in prose.
It will be seen that the material has been gathered
from every section of the country, from Massachusetts
to California, from Minnesota to Texas. An appendix
has been added, containing the Protocol, the Treaty,
and such interesting state correspondence relative to
the Philippine question.
Besides the likenesses and autographs of the men
Whose opinions have been presented, the reader will
also find an interesting collection of Philippine views,
etc.
THE PUBLISHERS.




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


PORTRAITS AN
Adams, Charles F.....   214
Allen, William V....... 286
Bacon, Augustus O... 535
Bryan, W. J....Frontispiece
Butler, Marion.........254
Carlisle, John G....... 66I
Carnegie, Andrew.....   94
Chilton, Horace R..... 499
Clay, Alexander S..... 607
Daniel, John W....... 365
Edmunds, George F... 246
Gompers, Samuel......  210
Gorman, Arthur P..... 222
Hoar, George F....... I58
Johnson, Henry U..... 625


D AUTOGRAPHS.
Jordan, David Starr... 278
Mason, William E.... 471
McLaurin, John L.....   589
Money, Hernando D... 447
Schurz, Carl.......... 334
Stevenson, Adlai E... 270
Teller, Henry M...... 238
Tillman, Benjamin R... 26
Towne, Chas. A....... 318
Turner, Geo. W....... 553
VanDyke, Henry...... 427
Vest, George G........ 142
Weaver, James B...... IIo
White, Stephen M...... I90


SCENES IN THE PHILIPPINES.
A Typical Residence, Manila...........................
A Country Scene in Luzon Island, Showing Bridge....
American Soldiers at Commissary Department on the
Banks of the River Pasig..........................


14
30
46


Group of Natives, Molo Island......................... 62
Native of the Philippines..............................  62
Philippine Soldiers Just Before Leaving    the  City of
Manila to Go Beyond the American Lines.......... 78
Street in Native Quarter, Malolos...................... 174
Native Children, Santa Cruz......................      174
Some of the Natives of Pampanga Island................ 302
Scene on Corregidor Island............................  350
A Native Village in Luzon Island...................... 383
A Cigar Factory in Manila............................ 402
Molo River....................................... 418
Main Street in Jaro.................................... 418
Plaza and Church in Iloilo.............................  441
Quay at Iloilo, Sugar Drying in the Foreground, Showing Steamers at Docks............................. 44I
Street Scene in Iloilo.................................. 456
M ain  Street  in  Iloilo...................................  456
Mouth of the Pasig River, Manila, Walled City on the
Right...................................... 489
Women Cigarmakers, Manila                               518
A Wayside'Shop in Country District, Luzon Island...... 571
Car Bearing Aguinaldo and Other Leaders Leaving for
Hong Kong...................................... 643
The Cathedral in the Walled City of Manila, Showing
Effect of Earthquake.............................. 679
Scene in the Interior of Luzon Island................... 697




CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Page.
Speeches and Interviews of W. J. Bryan on Imperialism:
Intervention in Cuba..............................   9
First Speech Against Imperialism.................   I
The Savannah Interview...........................   13
National Emblem................................    I5
Who Saves His Country Saves Himself............17
Cincinnati Speech................................   I8
Jackson Day Speech at Chicago.................... 23
Naboth's Vineyard.............................   26
) Liberty, Not Conquest............................. 28
It Rests with the People.......................... 29
America's Mission.............................      33
CHAPTER II.
Articles by W. J. Bryan on Imperialism:
Jefferson versus Imperialism....................... 4I
The Army.......................................     47
Ratify the Treaty, Declare the Nation's Policy...... 53
4Will It Pay?.......................................  59
British Rule in India............................. 68
What Next?...................................       8
CHAPTER III.
The Creed of the Flag, Poem, by Dr. Howard S. Taylor. 87
The Poor Man's Burden, Poem, by Dr. Howard S.
Taylor....................... 88
CHAPTER IV.
XShould the United States Expand? By Andrew Carnegie. 89
CHAPTER V.
Against Imperialism, by General James B. Weaver...... IOI
CHAPTER VI.
Are We to Spread the Christian Religion with the Bayonet Point, as Mahomet Spread Islamism with a
Scimiter? By Benjamin R. Tillman.................     3




6


CONTENTS.


CHAPTER VII.
Annexation from a Legal Point of View, by George G.
Vest........................................... 129
CHAPTER VIII..Our Government as It was Intended, by George F. Hoar I49 'q
CHAPTER IX.
The Passing of Constitutional Restraints, by Stephen M.
White.......................................... I8I
CHAPTER X.
Imperialism-Its Dangers and Wrongs, by Samuel Gompers.......................             209
CHAPTER XI.,What Policy the United States Should Pursue, by
Charles Francis Adams.......................... 213
CHAPTER XII.
Large Standing Armies a Menace to a Republic, by Arthur  P. Gorman................................... 221
CHAPTER XIII.
A Nation's Power, by Henry M. Teller.............        229
CHAPTER XIV.
) What Will.They Do to Us? By George F. Edmunds... 245
CHAPTER XV.
A Government Based on Force, by Marion Butler...... 255
CHAPTER XVI.
kA Republic Can Have No Subjects, by Adlai E. Stevenson.............................................. 259
CHAPTER XVII.
False Steps by a Nation Are Hard to Retrace, by David
Starr Jordan...................................... 273
CHAPTER      XVIII.
Necessary and Natural Territorial Expansion, by William V. Allen......................                287
CHAPTER XIX.
Lest We Forget, by Charles A. Towne................ 305




CONTENTS.


7


CHAPTER XX.
American Imperialism, by Carl Schurz................ 329
CHAPTER XXI.
/,The Effect of Annexation of the Philippines on American Labor, by John W. Daniel.................... 367
CHAPTER XXII.
The American Birthright and the Philippine Pottage,
by Rev. Henry van Dyke.......................... 429
CHAPTER XXIII.
Let Us Not with Our Own Hands Stain the Immaculate
Shield of American Arms, by Hernando D. Money.. 449
CHAPTER XXIV.,Universal Liberty, by William E. Mason............... 473
CHAPTER XXV.
Annexation Dangerous to Labor. Horace R. Chilton.. 50I
CHAPTER XXVI.
AIndependence for the Philippines, by Augustus O. Bacon. 523
CHAPTER XXVII.
Our Ship of State, by George W. Turner................ 549
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Our New Colonial Policy, by John L. McLaurin........ 577
CHAPTER XXIX.
Excessive Taxation Destructive to Patriotism, by Alexander S. Clay.................................. 595
CHAPTER XXX.
Imperial Splendor and Imperial Mistakes, by Henry U;
Johnson............................... 615
CHAPTER XXXI.
Our Future Policy, by John G. Carlisle..............  649
CHAPTER XXXII.
Love of Country, by Rt. Rev. J. L. Spalding............ 675




8                     CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Anti-Imperialist League..............................  695
*Extent of Empire Does Not Make Us a World Power,
by Rev. George C. Lorimer, D. D.................. 70
Are Missionaries "Imperialists"? By Rev. James L. Barton.....................................          702
Address to the Convention of the Episcopalian Diocese,
by Rt. Rev. Henry C. Potter, D. D................ 703
*The Question of the Philippines- by Prof. George P.
Fisher............................................  705
No Imperialism Should Be Recognized, by Rev. Dr.
Thomas J. Conaty                                   707
Success as a Missionary Nation, by Rev. Daniel Merriman, D. D....................................... 708
McEnery and Bacon Resolutions...................... 711
CHAPTER XXXIV.
The Gospel of Force, Poem, by Bertrand Shadwell.       713
APPENDIX.
Protocol of Agreement.................................17
Treaty of Peace..................................
Letter of Admiral Dewey.............................. 726
Aguinaldo's Proclamation-Dictatorial.................729
Aguinaldo's Establishment of Revolutionary Government............................................. 733
Message of President of Philippine Revolution.......... 74
State Correspondence................................  744
Aguinaldo to President.........................  757
Aguinaldo to Mr. Williams................... 760
The Publishers desire to acknowledge the courtesies
extended by the New     York Journal, New    York World,
Messrs. Harper 6& Brothers, New    York, Curtis Publishing
Company, Philadelphia, and the Chicago      Chronicle for
copyrighted articles appearing in this volume.




CHAPTER 1.
SPEECHES AND INTERVIEWS OF HON. W. J.
BRYAN ON IMPERIALISM.
INTERVENTION     IN  CUBA.
"Yes, the time for intervention has arrived. Humanity demands that we shall act. Cuba lies within
sight of our shores and the sufferings of her people
cannot be ignored unless we, as a nation, have become
so engrossed in money making as to be indifferent
to distress.
"Intervention may be accompanied by danger and
expense, but existence cannot be separated from responsibility and responsibility sometimes leads a nation, as well as an individual, into danger. A neighbor must sometimes incur danger for a neighbor, and
a friend for a friend.
"War is a terrible thing and cannot be defended except as a means to an end, and yet it is sometimes the
only means by which a necessary end can be secured.
The state punishes its own citizens by imprisonment
and even death when counsel and persuasion fail. War
is the final arbiter between nations when reason and
diplomacy are of no avail.
"Spain might not resist intervention; it is to be
hoped that she would recognize the right of the
United States to act, and immediately withdraw from
Cuba, but whether she resents intervention or not, the
United States must perform a plain duty.
"Our own interests justify intervention. Spain has
governed Cuba so badly as to excite continuous re9




T0 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.
volt, and, after exciting revolt, has shown herself
powerless to restore order and enforce law upon the
island.
"Spanish rule in Cuba has disturbed the United
States, interfered with business, increased the expense of guarding our shores and drawn upon the
resources of our people to care for those made destitute by war. We have as much right to demand the
cessation of war in the interest of the United States
as Spain has to demand its continuance for her benefit.
"If the question is to be settled upon the basis of
human rights, surely our people have waited long
enough; if, on the other hand, pecuniary interests are
to be considered, then it must be remembered that
the loss suffered by the United States and Cuba together far exceeds any gain which Spain could reasonably expect to secure even if she had a hope of recovering Cuba by force of arms.
'Spain has only herself to blame for the condition
of affairs in Cuba. If she denies to her former subjects
the rights of war and calls the Cuban army a mob,
let her remember the words of Victor Hugo: 'The
mob is the human race in misery.' No nation can
afford to make its people miserable.
"If the Cubans prefer death to Spanish rule it must
be because Spanish rule has robbed life of joy and
hope. If a nation sows the wind it must reap the
whirlwind."
FIRST SPEECH    AGAINST IMPERIALISM.
"Nebraska is ready to do her part in time of war
as well as in time of peace. Her citizens were among
the first to give expression to their sympathy with
the Cuban patriots, and her representatives in the




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. II


Senate and House took a prominent part in the advocacy of armed intervention by the United States.
"When the President issued a call for volunteers
Nebraska's quota was promptly furnished and she
is prepared to respond to the second and subsequent
calls.
"Nebraska's attitude upon the subject does not,
however, indicate that the state is inhabited by a
contentious or warlike people; it simply means that
our people understand both the rights conferred, and
the obligations imposed, by proximity to Cuba.
Understanding these rights and obligations, they do
not shrink from any consequences which may follow the performance of a national duty.
"War is harsh; it is attended by hardship and
suffering; it means a vast expenditure of men and
money. We may well pray for the coming of the day,
promised in Holy Writ, when the swords shall be
beafen into plowshares and the spears into pruning
hooks; but universal peace cannot come until
Justice is enthroned throughout the world. Jehovah
deals with nations as He deals with men, and for
both decrees that the wages of sin is death. Until
the right has triumphed in every land and love reigns
in every heart government must, as a last resort, appeal to force. As long as the oppressor is deaf to
the voice of reason, so long must the citizen accustom
his shoulder to the musket and his hand to the saber.
"Our nation exhausted diplomacy in its efforts to
secure a peaceable solution of the Cuban question,
and only took up arms when it was compelled to
choose between war and servile acquiescence in cruelties which would have been a disgrace to barbarism.
"History will vindicate the position taken by the
United States in the war with Spain. In saying this
I assume that the principles which were invoked in




I2 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


the inauguration of the war will be observed in its
prosecution and conclusion. If, however, a contest
undertaken for the sake of humanity degenerates into
a war of conquest, we shall find it difficult to meet the
charge of having added hypocrisy to greed. Is our
national character so weak that we cannot withstand
the temptation to appropriate the first piece of land
that comes within our reach?
"To inflict upon the enemy all possible harm is
legitimate warfare, but shall we contemplate a scheme
for the colonization of the Orient merely because our
ships won a remarkable victory in the harbor of
Manila?
"Our guns destroyed a Spanish fleet, but can they
destroy that self-evident truth, that governments derive their just powers, not from superior force, but
from the consent of the governed?
"Shall we abandon a just resistance to European
encroachment upon the Western hemisphere, in order
to mingle in the controversies of Europe and Asia?
"Nebraska, standing midway between the oceans,
will contribute her full share toward the protection of
our sea coast; her sons will support the flag at home
and abroad, wherever the honor and the interests of
the nation may require. Nebraska will hold up the
hands of the government while the battle rages, and
when the war clouds roll away her voice will be heard
pleading for the maintenance of those ideas which inspired the founders of bur government and gave the
nation its proud eminence among the nations of the
earth.
"If others turn to thoughts of aggrandizement and
yield allegiance to those who clothe land-covetousness
in the attractive garb of 'national destiny' the people
of Nebraska will, if I mistake not their sentiments,
plant themselves upon the disclaimer entered by Con



MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 13


gress and insist that good faith shall characterize
the making of peace as it did the beginning of war.
Goldsmith calls upon statesmen
"'* * * to judge how wide the limits stand
Betwixt a splendid and a happy land.'
"If some dream of the splendors of a heterogeneous empire encircling the globe, we shall be content to aid in bringing enduring happiness to a homogeneous people, consecrated to the purpose of maintaining a government of the people, by the people,
and for the people."
[Extract from speech delivered at Trans-Mississippi Exposition,
Omaha, Neb., June 14, 1898]          V
THE SAVANNAH INTERVIEW.
"My reason for leaving the army was set forth in
my letter to the adjutant-general tendering my resignation. Now that the treaty of peace has been concluded I believe that I can be more useful to my
country as a civilian than as a soldier.
"I may be in error, but in my judgment our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our
people defended Cfba 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 gains, but now
the very 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 governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed.
"To borrow a Bible quotation, 'A house divided
against itself cannot stand.' Paraphrasing Lincoln's




14 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


declaration, I may add that this nation cannot endure
half republic and half colony-half free and half vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our
present interests and our future welfare, all forbid
our entering upon a career of conquest.
"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 an
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 annexation of necessary contiguous territory on the North American continent,
but he was opposed to wars of conquest and expressly
condemned the acquiring of remote territory.
"Some think that the fight should be made against
ratification of the treaty, -but I would prefer another
plan. If the treaty is rejected, negotiations must be
renewed and instead of settling the question according to our ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with
the possibility of international complications. It will
be easier, I think, to end the war at once by ratifying
the treaty and then deal with the subject in our own
way. The issue can be presented directly by a resolution of Congress declaring the policy of the nation
upon this subject. The President in his message says
that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba
is to establish a stable government and then turn that
government over to the people of Cuba. Congress
could reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba and
assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines
and Porto Rico. Such a resolution would make a
clear-cut issue between the doctrine of self-govern



0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,,, i ~E 1'l | I~                           1   1|' S
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9,p, — 3c            F,,n ~r:~;I;" i'.E:..~L;ci.,.~l...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
Si.,~~~;" ~llw...~~ ~~          ~~~~...~........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I:,~:~.....E......... j..........
*  so S  z j;.  1  '.. I i  '  1s~~ ~..............  m  z.......   U.......   1..........~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~ll,,








MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 15


ment and the doctrine of imperialism. We should
reserve a harbor and coaling station in Porto Rico
and the Philippines in return for services rendered
and I think we would be justified in asking the same
concession from Cuba.
"In the case of Porto Rico, where the people have
as yet expressed no desire for an. independent government, we might with propriety declare our willingness to annex the island if the citizens desire annexation, but 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."
[Interview at Savannah, Ga., December 13, 1898.]
THE NATIONAL EMBLEM.
"The flag is a national emblem and is obedient to
the national will. It was made for the people, not
the people for the flag. When the American people
want the flag raised, they raise it; when they want
it hauled down, they haul it down. The flag was
raised upon Canadian soil during the war of 1812 and
it was hauled down when peace was restored. The
flag was planted upon Chapultepec during the war
with Mexico and it was hauled down when the war
was over. The morning papers announce that General Lee ordered the flag hauled down in Cuba yesterday, because it was raised too soon. The flag will
be raised in Cuba again on the Ist of January, but
the President declares in his message that it will be
hauled down as soon as a stable government is established. Who will deny to our people the right to haul
the flag down in the Philippines, if they so desire,
when a stable government is established there?
"Our flag stands for an indissoluble union of in



i6 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


destructible states. Every state is represented by a,
star and every territory sees in the constitution a star
of hope that will some day take its place in the constellation. What is there in the flag to awaken the
zeal or reflect the aspirations of vassal colonies which
are too good to be cast away, but not good enough
to be admitted to the sisterhood of states?
"Shall we keep the Philippines and amend our flag?
Shall we add a new star-the blood-star, Mars-to
indicate that we have entered upon a career of conquest? Or shall we borrow the yellow, which in I896
was the badge of gold and greed, and paint Saturn
and his rings, to suggest a carpet-bag government,
with its schemes of spoliation?  Or shall we adorn
our flag with a milky way composed of a multitude of
minor stars representing remote and insignificant dependencies?
"No, a thousand times better that we haul down the
stars and stripes and substitute the flag of an independent republic than surrender the doctrines that
give glory to 'Old Glory.' It was the flag of our
fathers in the years that are gone; it is the flag of a
reunited country to-day; let it be the flag of our
nation in the years that are to come. Its stripes of red
tell of the blood that was shed to purchase liberty;
its stripes of white proclaim the pure and heaven-born
purpose of a government which derives its just
powers from the consent of the governed. The mission of that flag is to float-not over a conglomeration of commonwealths and colonies-but over 'the
land of the free and the home of the brave;' and to
that mission it must remain forever true-forever
true."
[Extract from speech delivered at Lincoln, Neb., December 23,
1898, at reception tendered by The Woman's Bimetallic League, The
Lancaster County Bimetallic League, and The University Bimetallio
Club.]




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 17


"WHO SAVES HIS COUNTRY SAVES HIMSELF."
"You have labored diligently to prevent foreign
financiers from disregarding the rights of the American people; now you are called upon to use your influence to prevent the American people from disregarding the rights of others. Self-restraint is a difficult virtue to practice. Solomon says that 'he that
ruleth his own spirit is better than he that taketh
a city.' The American people have shown that they
can take a city; will they be able to restrain the spirit
of conquest?
"It has been the boast of our nation that right makes
might; shall we abandon the motto of the republic
and go back a century to the monarchical motto
which asserts that might makes right?
"Be not carried away by the excitement incident
to war; it will soon subside. Our people will turn
again to the paths of peace; justice will resume her
reign.
"Be steadfast in the faith of the fathers; your fight
is for yourselves as well as for your country. In the
words of the distinguished Georgian, Hill: 'Who
saves his country saves himself-and all things saved
do bless him. Who lets his country die, lets all
things die, dies himself ignobly-and all things,
dying, curse him.'
"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




18 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


for which our forefathers 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 upon those
who are struggling to be free.
"We rejoice in the marvelous victory won by
Dewey in Manila Bay; we would give to him a sacred
place in history and crown his memory with blessings. To us he is a hero; to the Filipinos he can be
a savior. Let him be known to posterity, not as the
subjugator of an alien race, but as the redeemer of
an oppressed people-not as a Lord Clive, but as a
La Fayette. The gratitude of a people is better than
a jeweled sword."
[Extract from speech delivered at Nebraska Traveling Men's
Bryan Club banquet, Lincoln, Neb., December 31, 1898.]
CINCINNATI SPEECH.
"The sentiment of the people upon any great question must be measured during the days of deliberation
and not during the hours of excitement. A good man
will sometimes be engaged in a fight, but it is not
reasonable to expect a judicial opinion from him until
he has had time to wash the blood off his face.
"I have seen a herd of mild-eyed, gentle kine transferred into infuriated beasts by the sight and scent of
blood, and I have seen the same animals quiet and
peaceful again in a few hours.
"We have much of the animal in us still in spite of
civilizing processes. It is not unnatural that our people should be more sanguinary immediately after a
battle than they were before, but it is only a question of time when reflection will restore the condi



MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 19


tions which existed before this nation became engaged
in the war with Spain.
"When men are excited they talk about what they
can do; when they are calm they talk about what they
ought to do.
"If the President rightly interpreted the feelings of
the people when they were intoxicated by a military
titiumph we shall appeal from 'Philip drunk to Philip
s!uber.' The forcible annexation of the Philippine Islands would violate a principle of American public law
deeply imbedded in the American mind.
it is difficult to overestimate the influence which
such a change in our national policy would produce
on the character of our people. Our opponents ask,
is our nation not great enough to do what England,
Germany and Holland are doing? They inquire, can
we not govern colonies as well as they?
"Whether we can govern colonies as well as other
countries can is not material; the real question is
whether we can, in one hemisphere, develop the theory that governments derive their just power from
the consent of the governed, and at the same time inaugurate, support and defend in the other hemisphere
a government which derives its authority entirely from
superior force.
"And if these two ideas of government cannot live
together which one shall we choose? To defend forcible annexation on the ground that we are carrying
out a religious duty is worse than absurd.
"The Bible teaches us that it is more blessed to give
than to receive, while the colonial policy is based upon
the doctrine that it is more blessed to take than to
leave. I am afraid that the imperialists have confused
the beatitudes.
"I once heard of a man who mixed up the parable




20 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


of the good Samaritan with the parable of the sower,
and in attempting to repeat the former, said:
"'A man went from Jerusalem to Jericho and as
he went he fell among thorns and the thorns sprang up
and choked him.'
"We entered the Spanish war as peacemakers.
Imperialists have an indistinct recollection that a
blessing has been promised to the peacemakers and
also to the meek, but their desire for more territory
has perverted their memories, so that, as they recall the former, it reads: 'Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall inherit the earth.'
"The meek are to inherit the earth, but the imperialists can hardly be classed among the meek.
"Annexation cannot be defended upon the ground
that we shall find a pecuniary profit in the policy. The
advantage which may come to a few individuals who
hold the offices or who secure valuable franchises cannot properly be weighed against the money expended
in governing the Philippines, because the money expended will be paid by those who pay the taxes.
"We are not yet in position to determine whether
the people of the United States as a whole will bring
back from the Philippines as much as they send there.
There is an old saying that it is not profitable to buy
a lawsuit. Our nation may learn by experience that
it is not wise to purchase the right to conquer a
people.
"Spain, under compulsion, gives us a quit-claim to
the Philippines in return for $20,000,000, but she does
not agree to warrant and defend our title as against the
Filipinos.
"To buy land is one thing; to buy people is another.
Land is inanimate and makes no resistance to a transfer of title; the people are animate and sometimes desire a voice in their own affairs. But whet.hor, meas



MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 21


ured by dollars and cents, the conquest of the Philippines would prove profitable or expensive, it will certainly prove embarrassing to those who still hold to
the doctrine which underlies a republic.
"Military rule is antagonistic to our theory of government. The arguments which are used to defend it
in the Philippines may be used to execute it in the
United States.
"Under military rule much must be left to the discretion of the Military Governor, and this can only be
justified upon the theory that the Governor knows
more than the people whom he governs, is better acquainted with their needs than they are themselves,
is entirely in sympathy with them, and is thoroughly
honest and unselfish in his desire to do them good.
"Such a combination of wisdom, integrity and love
is difficult to find and the Republican party will enter
upon a hard task when it starts out to select suitable
military Governors for our remote possessions.
"Even if the party has absolute confidence in its
great political manager, Senator I-anna, it must be remembered that the people of Ohio have compelled
him to serve them in the United States Senate, and
that inferior men must be intrusted with the distribution of justice and benevolence among the nation's
dark-skinned subjects in the Pacific.
"If we enter upon a colonial policy, we must expect
to hear the command 'Silence' issuing with increasing
emphasis from the imperialists. If a member of Congress attempts to criticise any injustice perpetrated by
a government official against a helpless people he will
be warned to keep silent lest his criticisms encourage
resistance to American authority in the Orient.
"If an orator on the Fourth of July dares to speak
of inalienable rights or refers with commendation to
the manner in which our forefathers resisted taxation




22 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.
without representation he will be warned to keep silent
lest his utterances excite rebellion among distant subjects.
"If we adopt a colonial policy and pursue the course
which incited the revolution of I776 we must muffle the tones of the old Liberty Bell and commune in
whispers when we praise the patriotism of our forefathers.
"We cannot afford to destroy the Declaration of Independence; we cannot afford to erase from our constitutions, State and national, 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 an emanation
from physical power.
"But even if we could destroy every vestige of the
laws which are the outgrowth 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 which 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 right and might
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."
[Extract from speech delivered at Duckworth Club Banquet, Cincinnati, 0., January 6, 1899.]




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 23


JACKSON DAY SPEECH AT CHICAGO.
"Those who advocate the annexation of the Philippines call themselves expansionists, but they are really
imperialists. The word expansion would describe the
acquisition of territory to be populated by homogeneous people and to be carved into states like those
now in existence. An empire suggests variety in race
and diversity in government. The Imperialists do not
desire to clothe the Filipinos with all the rights and
privileges of American citizenship; they want to exercise sovereignty over an alien race and they expect
to rule the new subjects upon a theory entirely at
variance with constitutional government. Victoria is
Queen of Great Britain and Empress of India; shall
we change the title of our executive and call him the
President of the United States and Emperor of the
Philippines?
"The Democratic party stood for the money of the
Constitution in I896; it stands for the government of
the Constitution now.
"It opposed an English financial policy in 1896; it
opposes an English colonial policy now. Those who
in 1896 were in favor of turning the American people
over to the greed of foreign financiers and domestic
trusts may now be willing to turn the Filipinos over to
the tender nerclies of military governors and carpetbag officials.
"T!ose 0 wlho in 1896 thought the people of the
United States too weak to attend to their own business
isay nox think them strong enough to attend to the
Iulsiness of remote and alien races; but those who, in
i8{,6, fought for independence for the American peotile will not now withhold independence from those
s hu desire it elsewhere.
"We are told that the Filipinos are not capable of




24 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


self-government; that has a familiar ring. Only two
years ago I heard the same argument made against a
very respectable minority of the people of this country. The money loaners, who coerced borrowers, did
it upon that theory; the employers who coerced their
employes did it for the same reason. Self-government
is a constant education; the capacity for self-government increases with participation in government. The
Filipinos are not far enough advanced to share in the
government of the people of the United States, but
they are competent to govern themselves. It is not
fair to compare them with our own citizens, because
the American people have been educating themselves
in the science of government for nearly three centuries and, while we have much to learn, we have already made great improvement. The Filipinos will
not establish a perfect government, but they will establish a government as nearly perfect as they are
competent to enjoy and the United States can protect
them from molestation from without.
"Give the Filipinos time and opportunity, and while
they never will catch up with us, unless we cease to
improve, yet they may some day stand where we stand
now.
"What excuse can be given for the adoption of a
colonial policy? Secretary Gage disclosed the secret
in his Savannah speech. I think we might be justified in calling Mr. Gage the key-hole of the administration, because we look through him to learn what is
going on within the executive council chamber. He
suggested that 'philanthropy and five per cent' would
go hand in hand in the new venture. These are the
two arguments which are always used in favor of conquest. 'Philanthropy and five per cent.' The one
chloroforms the conscience of the conqueror and the
other picks the pocket of the conquered.




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 25


"Some assert that we must hold the islands because
of the pecuniary profit to be derived from them, while
others say that it is our duty to govern the Filipinos
for their own good. I deny the soundness of both
arguments. Forcible annexation will not only be
'criminal aggression' (to borrow Mr. McKinley's language of a year ago), but it will cost more than it is
worth, and the whole people will pay the cost, while
a few will reap all the benefits.
"Still weaker is the argument based upon religious
duty. The Christian religion rests upon the doctrine
of vicarious suffering; the colonial policy rests upon
the doctrine of vicarious enjoyment.
"When the desire to steal becomes uncontrollable
in an individual he is declared to be a kleptomaniac
and is sent to an asylum; when the desire to grab
land becomes uncontrollable in a nation we are told
that the 'currents of destiny are flowing through the
hearts of men' and that the American people are entering upon 'a manifest mission.'
"Shame upon a logic which locks up the petty offender and enthrones grand larceny. Have the people
returned to the worship of the Golden Calf? Have
they made unto themselves a new commandment consistent with the spirit of conquest and the lust for
empire? Is 'thou shalt not steal upon a small scale'
to be substituted for the law of Moses?
"Awake O ancient Law-Giver, awake! Break forth
from thine unmarked sepulchre and speed thee back
to cloud-crowned Sinai; commune once more with
the God of our fathers and' proclaim again the words
engraven upon the tables of stone-the law that was,
the law that is to-day-the law that neither individual
nor nation can violate with impunity."
[Extract from speech delivered at banquet of Bryan League, Chicago, Ill., January 7, 1899.]




26 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


NABOTH'S VINEYARD.
"The Bible tells us that Ahab, the king, wanted the
vineyard of Naboth and was sorely grieved because
the owner thereof refused to part with the inheritance
of his fathers. Then followed a plot, and false charges
were preferred against Naboth to furnish an excuse
for getting rid of him.
" 'Thou shalt not covet!' 'Thou shalt not bear false
witness!' 'Thou shalt not kill'-three commandments
broken, and still a fourth, 'Thou shalt not steal,' to be
broken in order to get a little piece of ground! And
what was the result? When the king went forth to
take possession Elijah, that brave old prophet of the
early days, met him and pronounced against him the
sentence of the Almighty: 'In the place where the
dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall the dogs lick
thy blood, even thine.'
"Neither his own exalted position nor the lowly station of his victim could save him from the avenging
hand of outraged justice. His case was tried in a court
where neither wealth, nor rank, nor power can shield
the transgressor.
"Wars of conquest have their origin in covetousness, and the history of the human race has been written in characters of blood because rulers have looked
with longing eyes upon the lands of others.
"Covetousness is prone to seek the aid of false pretence to carry out its plans, but what it cannot secure
by persuasion it takes by the sword.
"Senator Teller's amendment to the intervention
resolution saved the Cubans from the covetousness of
those who are so anxious to secure possession of the
island, that they are willing to deny the truth of the




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 27


declaration of our own Congress, that 'the people of
Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free.'"
* *   *
"Imperialism might expand the nation's territory,
but it would contract the nation's purpose. It is not
a step forward toward a broader destiny; it is a step
backward, toward the narrow views of kings and emperors.
"Dr. Taylor has aptly expressed it in his 'Creed of
the Flag,' when lie asks:
'Shall we turn to the old world again
With the penitent prodigal's cry?'
"I answer, never. This republic is not a prodigal
son; it has not spent its substance in riotous living. It
is not ready to retrace its steps and, with shamed face
and trembling voice, solicit an humble place among
the servants of royalty. It has not sinned against
Heaven, and God grant that the crowned heads of
Europe may never have occasion to kill the fatted calf
to commemorate its return from reliance upon the will
of the people to dependence upon the authority which
flows from regal birth or superior force!
"We cannot afford to enter upon a colonial policy.
The theory upon which a government is built is a matter of vital importance. The national idea has a controlling influence upon the thought and character of
the people. Our national idea is self-government, and
unless we are ready to abandon that idea forever we
cannot ignore it in dealing with the Filipinos.
"That idea is entwined with our traditions; it permeates our history; it is a part of our literature.
"That idea has given eloquence to the orator and inspiration to the poet. Take from our national hymns




28 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


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.
"Other nations may dream of wars of conquest and
of distant dependencies governed by external force;
not so with the United States.
"The fruits of imperialism, he they bitter or sweet,
must be left to the subjects of monarchy.   This is
the one tree of which the citizens of a republic may not
partake. It is the voice of the serpent, not the voice
of God, that bids us eat."
[Extract from speech delivered in Denver, Colo., January 17, 1899,
at the joint invitation of the Chairmen of the Democratic, Populist
and Silver Republican State Committees.]
LIBERTY, NOT CONQUEST.
The ratification of the treaty, instead of committing
the United States to a colonial policy, really clears the
way for the recognition of a Philippine republic. Lincoln, in his first inaugural message, condensed an unanswerable argument into a brief question when he
asked, "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends
can make laws?'"   The same argument is presented
in the question, Could the independence of the Filipinos be secured more easily by diplomacy from a
foreign and hostile nation than it can through laws
passed by Congress and voicing the sentiments of the
American people alone? 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? It is absurd to say that
the United States can be transformed from a republic
into an empire without consulting the voters.
The imperialists may be willing to deny to the




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 29


Filipinos the right to govern themselves, but they cannot deny to the American people the right to determine the policy to be pursued by the United States
in the settlement of the Philippine question.
Until the people express themselves we can only
guess at their views, but is it not safer to suppose that
they will adhere to the ideas and policies of a century
than to assume that they will go back to the creed of
kings and to the gospel of force?
In commemoration of the fact that France was our
ally in securing independence the citizens of that nation joined with the citizens of the United States in
placing in New York Harbor an heroic statue representing Liberty enlightening the world. What course
shall our nation pursue? Send the statue of Liberty
back to France and borrow from England a statue
of William the Conqueror? Or shall our nation so
act as to enable the American people to join with the
Filipinos in placing in the harbor of Manila a statue
of Liberty enlightening the Orient?
[Extract from speech delivered at Democratic banquet, St. Paul,
Minn., February 14, 1899.]
IT RESTS WITH THE PEOPLE.
"The President, in his Boston speech, has declared
that the future of the Philippines is in the hands of
the American people. This is all that has been contended for by the opponents of the forcible and
permanent annexation of the Philippine Islands.
If the matter is in the hands of the American people,
then it is a subject for discussion by the American
people, and the only question to be considered and
decided is whether the permanent retention of the
Philippine Islands is desirable. In considering what




30 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


is desirable we must consider what is best for the
people of the United States, and what is best for the
Filipinos. Those who oppose the colonial policy deny
that the adoption of such a policy by this nation
would be beneficial either to the United States or to
the alien race over which our sovereignty would be
extended.
"The sooner the question is settled the better. It
is putting the cart before the horse to say that
the nation cannot reveal its purpose until the Filipinos
lay down their arms. If the nation would declare
its intention to establish a stable and independent
government in the Philippines and then leave that
government in the hands of the people of the islands,
hostilities would be suspended at once, and further
bloodshed would be avoided.
"What would our colonists have thought of a demand upon the part of England that we first lay down
our arms and surrender to the king, and then trust to
the decision that he would make? Now that the treaty
has been ratified and Spain eliminated from the question, the American people are free to take such action
as the circumstances require. Shall our nation enter
upon a career of conquest and substitute the doctrine
of force for the power of example and the influence
of counsel?
"Our forefathers fought for independence under
a banner upon which was inscribed the motto, 'Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.' And so
those who to-day not only desire American independence, but are willing to encourage the idea of independence and self-government in other races can fight
under a banner upon which is inscribed a similar
motto: 'Millions for defense, but not one cent for
conquest.'
"Some of the advocates of a colonial policy have








AhAdi:, (7 1l~jlY iCEN.f,<] T.U5ZON' ISLAN'Dr STIOWXING BRIDGE



MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 31


sought to lay upon those who opposed the ratification
of the treaty the responsibility for the recent bloodshed at Manila. While I believed, and still believe,
that it was better to ratify the treaty and make the
fight for Philippine independence before the American
people rather than through diplomatic negotiations
with Spain, I deny that the Senators who opposed
ratification were in any way responsible for the commencement of hostilities.
"The responsibility rests, not upon those who opposed the treaty, but upon those who refused to disclose the nation's purpose, and left the Filipinos to
believe that their fight against Spain, instead of bringing them  independence, had only brought them a
change of masters. It was the desire to be independent that led the Filipinos to resist American authority, and their desire for independence was not inspired by any American opposition to the terms of
the treaty. It will be remembered that the Filipinos
issued a declaration of independence last summer, before the treaty was negotiated. Opposition to the
treaty  could not have caused a desire for independence which was expressed before the treaty
was made.    If it was wrong for any one in
this country to inspire in other races a desire
for self-government, the imperialists cannot confine
their reproaches to the living. They must lay the
blame upon American statesmen long since dead.
Patrick Henry was responsible to some extent, because the sentiments he expressed in his speech have
found a lodgment in the hearts of all races.
"Washington must also be blamed, for when he
drew his sword in defense of the rights of the colonists, he gave inspiration to all similarly situated.
Jefferson was largely to blame, because the Declaration of Independence, the work of his pen, has been




32 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.
an inspiration to the lovers of liberty in every clime.
"Abraham Lincoln cannot escape his share of blame
if those are to be blamed who have aroused among
the oppressed a desire for participation in the government under which they live. When the great
emancipator delivered his speech at Gettysburg, and
appealed to the people of the United States to so act
that 'a government of the people, for the people, and
by the people shall not perish from the earth,' he did
more to stimulate the desire for self-government than
has been done by any other public man in half a century.
"The American people cannot apply the European
and monarchical doctrine of force in the subjugation and government of alien races and at the same
time stand forth as defenders of the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A man may live a double life when only
one of his lives is known, but as soon as his duplicity
becomes manifest to the world he can lead but one
life, and that the worst. As soon as we establish
two forms of government, one by consent in this country and the other by force in Asia, we shall cease
to have the influence of a republic and shall join in the
spoliation of helpless people under the pretense of
conferring upon them unsought and undesired blessings.
"Independence for the Filipinos under a protector.
ate which will guard them from outside interference
while they work out their own destiny is consistent
with American tradition, American history, and
American interests. The sooner the declaration is
made the better."


[Extract from speech delivered at State University, Ann Arbor,
Mich., February 18, 1899..




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 33


AMERICA'S MISSION.
When the advocates of imperialism find it impossible to reconcile a colonial policy with the principles
of our government or with the canons of morality;
wxhen they are unable to defend it upon the ground of
religious duty or pecuniary profit, they fall back in
helpless despair upon the assertion that it is destiny.
"Suppose it does violate the constitution," they say;
"suppose it does break all the commandments; suppose it does entail upon the nation an incalculable
expenditure of blood and money; it is destiny and
we must submit."
The people have not voted for imperialism; no
national convention has declared for it; no Congress
has passed upon it. To whom, then, has the future
been revealed?  Whence this voice of authority?
We can all prophesy, but our prophesies are merely
guesses, colored by our hopes and our surroundings.
Man's opinion of what is to be is half wish and half
environment.  Avarice paints destiny with a dollar
mark before it, militarism equips it with a sword.
He is the best prophet who, recognizing the omnipotence of truth, comprehends most clearly the great
forces which are working out the progress, not of one
party, not of one nation, but of the human race.
History is replete with predictions which once wore
the hue of destiny, but which failed of fulfillment because those who uttered them saw too small an arc
of the circle of events. When Pharaoh pursued the
fleeing Israelites to the edge of the Red Sea he was
confident that their bondage would be renewed and
that they would again make bricks without straw, but
destiny was not revealed until Moses and his followers
reached the farther shore dry shod and the waves




34 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


rolled over the horses and chariots of the Egyptians.
When Belshazzar, on the last night of his reign, led
his thousand lords into the Babylonian banquet hall
and sat down to a table glittering with vessels of silver
and gold he felt sure of his kingdom for many years
to come, but destiny was not revealed until the hand
wrote upon the wall those awe-inspiring words,
"Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin."  When Abderrahman swept northward with his conquering hosts his
imagination saw the Crescent triumphant throughout
the world, but destiny was not revealed until Charles
Martel raised the cross above the battlefield of Tours
and saved Europe from the sword of Mohammedanism. WAhen Napoleon emerged victorious from Marengo, from Ulm and from Austerlitz he thought
himself the child of destiny, but destiny was not revealed until Bliicher's forces joined the army of Wellington and the vanquished Corsican began his melancholy march toward St. Helena.  When the redcoats of George the Third routed the New Englanders
at Lexington and Bunker Hill there arose before the
British sovereign visions of colonies taxed without
representation and drained of their wealth by foreignmade laws, but destiny was not revealed until the
surrender of Cornwallis completed the work begun
at Independence Hall and ushered into existence. a
government deriving its just powers from the consent
of the governed.
We have reached another crisis. The ancient doctrine of imperialism, banished from our land more
than a century ago, has recrossed the Atlantic and
challenged democracy to mortal combat upon American soil.
Whether the Spanish war shall be known in history
as a war for liberty or as a war of conquest; whether
the principles of self-government shall be strength



MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 35
ened or abandoned; whether this nation shall remain
a homogeneous republic or become a heterogeneous
empire-these questions must be answered by the
American people-when they speak, and not until
then, will destiny be revealed.
Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter
of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a
thing to be achieved.
No one can see the end from the beginning, but
every one can make his course an honorable one
from beginning to end, by adhering to the right under
all circumstances. Whether a man steals much or
little may depend upon his opportunities, but whether
he steals at all depends upon his own volition.
So with our nation. If we embark upon a career of
conquest no one can tell how many islands we may
be able to seize or how many races we may be able
to subjugate; neither can any one estimate the cost,
immediate and remote, to the nation's purse and to
the nation's character, but whether we shall enter
upon such a career is a question which the people
have a right to decide for themselves.
Unexpected events may retard or advance the nation's growth, but the nation's purpose determines its
destiny.
What is the nation's purpose?
The main purpose of the founders of our government was to secure for themselves and for posterity
the blessings of liberty, and that purpose has been
faithfully followed 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.




36 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


Under this policy our nation has grown in numbers and in strength. Under this policy its beneficent
influence has encircled the globe. Under this policy
the taxpayers have been spared the burden and the
menace of a large military establishment and the
young men have been taught the arts of peace rather
than the science of war. On each returning Fourth
of July our people have met to celebrate the signing
of the Declaration of Independence; their hearts have
renewed their vows to free institutions and their voices
have praised the forefathers whose wisdom and courage and patriotism made it possible for each succeeding generation to repeat the words,
"My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of Liberty,
Of thee I sing."
This sentiment was well-nigh universal until a
year ago. It was to this sentiment that the Cuban
insurgents appealed; it was this sentiment that impelled our people to enter into the war with Spain.
Have the people so changed within a few short
months that they are now willing to apologize for the
War of the Revolution and force upon the Filipinos
the same system of government against which the
colonists protested with fire and sword?
The hour of temptation has 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 affections of his countrymen.
Our nation is tempted to depart from its "standard




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 37


of morality" and adopt a policy of "criminal aggression." But, will it yield?
If I mistake not the sentiment of the American
people they will spurn the bribe of imperialism, and,
by resisting temptation, win such a victory as has not
been won since the battle of Yorktown. Let it be
written of the United States: Behold a republic that
took up arms to aid a neighboring people, struggling
to be free; a republic that, in the progress of the war,
helped distant races whose wrongs were not in contemplation when hostilities began; a republic that,
when peace was restored, turned a deaf ear to the
clamorous voice of greed and to those borne down by
the weight of a foreign yoke spoke the welcome words,
Stand up; be free-let this be the record made on history's page and the silent example of this republic, true
to its principles in the hour of trial, will do more to
extend the area of self-government and civilization
than could be done by all the wars of conquLt that we
could wage in a generation.
The forcible annexation of the Philippine Islands
is not necessary to make the United States a worldpower. For over ten decades our nation has been a
world-power. During its brief existence it has exerted upon the human race an influence more potent
for good than all the other nations of the earth combined, and it has exerted that influence without the
use of sword or Gatling gun. Mexico and the republics of Central and South America testify to the benign
influence of our institutions, while Europe and Asia
give evidence of the working of the leaven of selfgovernment. In the growth of democracy we observe the triumphant march of an idea-an idea that
would be weighted down rather than aided by the
armor and weapons proffered by imperialism.
Much has been said of late about Anglo-Saxon




38 MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM.


civilization. Far be it from me to detract from the
service rendered to the world by the sturdy race whose
language we speak. The union of the Angle and
the Saxon formed a new and valuable type, but the
process of race evolution was not completed when the
Angle and the Saxon met. A still later type has appeared which is superior to any which has existed
heretofore; and with this new type will come a higher
civilization than any which has preceded it. Great has
been the Greek, the Latin, the Slav, the Celt, the
Teuton and the Anglo-Saxon, but greater than any of
these is the American, in whom are blended the virtues
of them all.
Civil and religious liberty, universal education and
the right to participate, directly or through representatives chosen by himself, in all the affairs of government-these give to the American citizen an opportunity and an inspiration which can be found nowhere
else.
Standing upon the vantage ground already gained
the American people can aspire to a grander destiny
than has opened before any other race.
Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual
to protect his own rights, American civilization will
teach him to respect the rights of others.
Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual
to take care of himself, American civilization, proclaiming the equality of all before the law, will teach
him that his own highest good requires the observance of the commandment: "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself."
Anglo-Saxon civilization has, by force of arms, applied the art of government to other races for the
benefit of Anglo-Saxons, American civilization will,
by the influence of example, excite in other races a




MR. BRYAN'S SPEECHES ON IMPERIALISM. 39
desire for self-government and a determination to
secure it.
Anglo-Saxon civilization has carried its flag to
every clime and defended it with forts and garrisons.
American civilization will imprint its flag upon the
hearts of all who long for freedom.
To American civilization, all hail!
"Time's noblest offspring is the last!"
[Extract from speech delivered at Washington Day banquet given
by the Virginia Democratic Association at Washington, D. C., February 22, 1899.]




I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




CHAPTER II.
ARTICLES WRITTEN BY HON. W. J.
BRYAN ON IMPERIALISM.
JEFFERSON VERSUS IMPERIALISM.
The advocates of imperialism have sought to support their position by appealing to the authority of
Jefferson. Of all the statesmen who have ever lived,
Jefferson was the one most hostile to the doctrines
embodied in the demand for a European colonial
policy.
Imperialism, as it now presents itself, embraces four
distinct propositions:
I. That the acquisition of territory by conquest
is right.
2. That the acquisition of remote territory is desirable.
3. That the doctrine that governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed is unsound.
4. That people can be wisely governed by aliens.
To all these propositions Jefferson was emphatically opposed. In a letter to William Short, written in
179I, he said:
"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."
Could he be more explicit? Here we have a clear
and strong denunciation of the doctrine that territory
should be acquired by force. If it is said that we
have outgrown the ideas of the fathers, it may be ob41




42 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


served that the doctrine laid down by Jefferson was
reiterated only a few years ago by no less a Republican than James G. Blaine. All remember the enthusiasm with which he entered into the work of
bringing the Republics of North and South America
into close and cordial relations; some, however, may
have forgotten the resolutions introduced by him at
the conference held in I890, and approved by the commissioners present. They are as follows:
"First. That the principle of conquest shall not,
during the continuance of the treaty of arbitration, be
recognized as admissible under American public law.
"Second. That all cessions of territory made during the continuance of the treaty of arbitration shall be
void if made under threats of war or in the presence
of an armed force.
"Third. Any nation from which such cessions shall
be exacted may demand that the validity of the cessions so made shall be submitted to arbitration.
"Fourth. Any renunciation of the right to arbitration made under the conditions named in the second
section shall be null and void."
If the principle of conquest is right, why should
it be denied a place in American public law? So
objectionable is the theory of acquisition of territory
by conquest that the nation which suffers such injustice can, according to the resolutions, recover by
arbitration the land ceded in the presence of an
armed force. So abhorrent is it, that a waiver of
arbitration, made under such circumstances, is null
and void. While the resolutions were only for the
consideration of the American Republics, the principle
therein stated cannot be limited by latitude or longitude.
But this is a time of great and rapid changes and
some may even look upon Blaine's official acts as an



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 43
cient history. If so, let it be remembered that President McKinley only a year ago (December 6, 1897),
in a message to Congress discussing the Cuban situation, said:
"I speak not of forcible annexation, for that is not to
be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would
be criminal aggression."
And yet some are now thinking of that which was
then "not to be thought of." Policy may change, but
does a "code of morality" change?  In his recent
speech at Savannah Secretary Gage, in defending the
new policy of the administration, suggested that
"philanthropy and five per cent" may go hand in hand.
Surely we know not what a day may bring forth, if in
so short a time "criminal aggression" can be transformed into "philanthropy and five per cent." What
beauty, what riches, the isles of the Pacific must possess if they can tempt our people to abandon not only
the traditions of a century, but our standard of national morality! What visions of national greatness
the Philippines must arouse if the very sight of them
can lead our country to vie with the monarchies of
the old world in the extension of sovereignty by force.
Jefferson has been called an expansionist, but our
opponents will search in vain for a single instance
where he advocated the acquisition of remote territory. On the contrary, he expressly disclaimed any
desire for land outside of the North American continent. That he 'looked forward to the annexation
of Cuba is well known, but in a letter to President
Monroe, 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.
Thinking that someone might use the annexation of
Cuba as a precedent for indefinite expansion, he said




44 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


in a letter to President Madison, dated April 27, 1809:
"It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no
limit can then be drawn to our future acquisitions,"
but, he added, "Cuba can be defended by us without
a navy, and this develops the principle which ought
to limit our views. Nothing should ever be accepted
which would require a navy to defend it."
In the same letter, speaking of the possible acquisition of that island, he said:
"I would immediately erect a column on the southernmost limit of Cuba, and inscribe on it a ne p/us
ultra as to us in that direction."
It may be argued that Jefferson was wrong in asserting that we should confine our possessions to the
North American continent, but certainly no one can
truthfully quote him as an authority for excursions
into the eastern hemisphere. If he was unwilling to
go farther south than Cuba, even in the western hemisphere, would he be likely to look with favor upon
colonies in the Orient?
If the authority of Jefferson cannot be invoked to
support the acquisition of remote territory, much less
can his great name be used to excuse a colonial policy which denies to the people the right to govern
themselves. When he suggested an inscription for
his monument he did not enumerate the honors which
he had receivedl, though no American had been more
highly honored; he only asked to be remembered for
what he had (lone and lie named the writing of the
Declaration of Independence as the greatest of his
deeds. In that nemorable document he declared it
a self-evident truth that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. The defense and development of that doctrine was his special care.  His writings abound with expressions
showing his devotion to that doctrine and his solici



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 45


tude for it. He preached it in the enthusiasm of his
youth; he reiterated it when he reached the age of
maturity; he crowned it with benedictions in his old
age. Who will say that, if living, he would jeopardize
it to-day by engrafting upon it the doctrine of government by external force.
Upon the fourth proposition Jefferson is no less
explicit. Now, when some are suggesting the wisdom of a military government for the Philippines, or
a colonial system such as England administers in
India, it will not be out of place to refer to the manner in which Jefferson viewed the inability of aliens
to prescribe laws and administer government.  In
i817 a French society was formed for the purpose
of settling upon a tract of land near the Tombigbee
River. Jefferson was invited to formulate laws and
regulations for the society. On the i6th of January
of that year he wrote from Monticello expressing his
high appreciation of the confidence expressed in him,
but declining to undertake the task. The reasons he
gave are well worth considering at this time. After
wishing them great happiness in their undertaking he
said:
"The laws, however, which must effect this must
flow from their own habits, their own feelings, and the
resources of their own minds. No stranger to these
could possibly propose regulations adapted to them.t
Every people have their own particular habits, ways
of thinking, manners, etc., which have grown up with
them from their infancy, are become a part of their
nature, and to which the regulations which are to
make them happy must be accommodated. No member of a foreign country can have a sufficient sympathy
with these. The institutions of Lycurgus, for example, would not have suited Athens, nor those of
Solon, Lacedaemon. The organizations of Locke




46 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
were impracticable for Carolina, and those of Rosseau
for Poland. Turning inwardly on myself from these
eminent illustrations of the truth of my observation,
I feel all the presumption it would manifest should I
undertake to do what this respectable society is alone
qualified to do suitably for itself."
The alien may possess greater intelligence and
greater strength, but he lacks the sympathy for, and
the identification with, the people. We have only to
recall the grievances enumerated in the Declaration of
Independence to learn how an ocean may dilute justice and how the cry of the oppressed can be silenced
by distance. And yet the inhabitants of the colonies
were the descendants of Englishmen-blood of their
blood and bone of their bone. Shall we be more considerate of subjects farther away from us, and differing from us in color, race and tongue, than the English were of their own offspring?
Modest Jefferson!-he had been Governor, Anmbassador to France, Vice-President and President; he
was ripe in experience and crowned with honors; but
this modern lawgiver, this immortal genius, hesitated
to suggest laws for a people with whose habits, customs and methods of thought he was unfamiliar. And
yet the imperialists of to-day, intoxicated by a taste of
blood, are rash enough to enter upon the government
of the Filipinos, confident of the nation's ability to
compel obedience, even if it cannot earn gratitude or
win affection. Plutarch said that men entertained
three sentiments concerning the ancient gods: They
feared them for their strength, admired them for their
wisdom, and loved them for their justice. Jefferson
taught the doctrine that governments should win the
love of men. What shall be the ambition of our
nation; to be loved because it is just or to be feared
because it is strong?








AMERICAN SOLDIERS AT CO)NMISSAARY DEPARTMENT ON THE BANKS OF THi
RIVER PASIG.




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 47


THE ARMY.
In his annual message sent to Congress December
5, I898, the President makes the following recommendations in favor of a permanent increase in the
standing army:
"The importance of legislation for the permanent
increase of the army is therefore manifest, and the
recommendation of the Secretary of War for that purpose has my unqualified approval. There can be no
question that at this time, and probably for some
time in the future, one hundred thousand men will
be none too many to meet the necessities of the situation."
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 military establishments. But, strange
as it may seem, the President not only requests it, but
the Republican leaders in Congress seem inclined to
grant the request.
Progress in Europe; retrogression in the United
States!
In the old world "the currents of destiny" seem to
be running in the direction of relief to the people from
military burdens; shall they run in an opposite direction here?
During the recent campaign the people were urged
to support the party in power until the "fruits of
victory" could be made secure. Is the first fruit of
victory to be realized in the transfer of a large body
of men from the field and workshop to the camp and
barracks-from the ranks of the wealth producers
to the ranks of the tax consumers? Such a transfer




48 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


will lessen the nation's wealth-producing power and
at the same time exact a larger annual tribute from
those who toil.
Any unnecessary increase in the regular army is
open to several objections, among which may be mentioned the following:
First-It increases taxes, and thus does injustice
to those who contribute to the support of the Government.
Second-It tends to place force above reason in
the structure of our Government.
Tlird-It lessens the nation's dependence upon its
citizen soldiery-the sheet-anchor of a republic's defense.
No one objects to the maintenance of a regular
army sufficient in strength to maintain law and order
in time of peace and to form the nucleus of such an
army as may be required when the military establishment is placed upon a war footing; but the taxpayers
are justified in entering a vigorous protest against
excessive appropriations for military purposes.
It is not surprising that the protest is most vigorous from the masses, because under our system of
taxation the bulk of our Federal revenues is collected
from import duties and internal revenue taxes upon
liquors and tobaccos, all of which bear most heavily
upon the poor. Import duties are collected upon
articles used by the people, and the people do not use
the articles taxed in proportion to income.
For instance, a man with an income of $Ioo,ooo
does not eat, nor wear, nor use a hundred times as
much of articles taxed as the average man with an
income of $I,ooo. The people.with small incomes,
therefore, pay, as a rule, a larger percentage of their
incomes to support the Federal Government than
people with large incomes. The same is true of in



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 49


ternal revenue taxes collected upon liquors and tobaccos. Men do not use liquor and tobacco in proportion to their incomes. Thus it will be seen that
our Federal taxes are, in effect, an income tax; not
only an income tax, but a graded income tax, and
heaviest in proportion upon the smallest incomes.
If we could supply a part of our necessary revenues
from a direct income tax the burdens of a large army
would be more equitably borne, but, according to the
decision of the Supreme Court, the income of an
individual is more sacred than the individual, because
the citizen can be drafted in time of danger, while
his income cannot be taxed either in peace or war.
The army is the impersonation of force. It does
not deliberate, it acts; it does not decide, it executes;
it does not reason, it shoots.
Militarism is the very antithesis of Democracy; they
do not grow in the same soil; they do not draw their
nourishment from the same source.
In an army orders come down from the commnander
to the soldier, and the soldier obeys; in a republic
mandates issue from the sovereign people, and the
public servant gives heed. If any one doubts the demoralizing results which follow the use of force, even
when that force is justified by necessity, let him behold the change which has taken place in the views
of many of our people during the last eight months
and then estimate, if he can, the far-reaching effect
which a large increase in the permanent army would
have upon the thoughts, the purposes and the character of our people.
Our Government derives its just powers from the
consent of the governed, and its strength from the
people themselves. We cannot afford to weaken the
Government's reliance upon the people by cultivating
the idea that all the work of war must be done by pro



50 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


fessional soldiers. The citizen is a safer lawmaker
when he may be called upon to assist in the enforcement of the laws, and legislation is more likely to
be just when the Government relies largely upon volunteers, because the support is surest when the Government is so beneficent that each citizen is willing
to die to preserve its blessings to posterity.  The
readiness with which the American people have always
responded to their country's call is a guarantee as to
the future.
I have suggested some of the reasons (not all, by
any means) why the regular army should not be increased, unless such increase be actually necessary.
I now ask whether there is any such necessity for
increasing that branch of the army which is held for
service in the United States. There may, from time
to time, be need of small additions to man new coast
fortifications; but what is there in the domestic situation to justify or excuse the demand for more soldiers?
An army of occupation for service in Cuba, Porto
Rico and the Philippines is made necessary by the
conditions growing out of the war. But such an army
is temporary in character, and should not be made
a pretext for an increase of 200 per cent in our standing army.
The President assures us, in his last message, that
the only purpose our Government has in taking possession of Cuba is to assist the Cubans in establishing
a stable government. When that is accomplished our
troops are to be withdrawn.
The number needed in the Philippines will depend
largely upon the course pursued by the Government
in regard to those islands. It will require fewer
soldiers and less time to give self-government to the
inhabitants of the Philippines than it will to give them
a military government or a "carpet-bag" government.




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 51


Since our standing army was sufficient for all domestic
purposes prior to the war, and since there is much
uncertainty in regard to the army of occupation, it
would seem the part of wisdom to separate the two
branches of the service and make provision at once
for the latter, leaving the friends and opponents of a
large standing army to settle that question after the
volunteers are mustered out.
Most of the volunteers have no taste for military
life; they left peaceful pursuits and enlisted, at a great
sacrifice to themselves and their relatives, because
their country needed them. Now that the war is over
they desire to return home, and their desire should
be gratified at the earliest possible moment. They
were willing to fight when fighting was necessary;
they were ready to lay down their arms as soon as
hostilities ceased. If an attempt be made to secure
a large increase in the army at home, merely because
of a temporary need for an insular army, a prolonged
Congressional debate is inevitable. Is it fair to keep
the volunteers in the service while this question is
being disposed of?
Unless Republican leaders desire to hold the volunteers as hostages to compel Congress to consent to a
large army, they ought to be willing to postpone the
consideration of the Regular Army bill and accept
a substitute authorizing the President to recruit an
army of occupation for service outside of the United
States. The soldiers can be enlisted for two or three
years, and before their term expires the nation's policy
will be defined and conditions so settled that provision
can be made for the future with more intelligence.
In recruiting the army of occupation opportunity
should be given for the re-enlistment of such volunteers as desire to continue in the service. And I may
add that it will encourage re-enlistment if a company




52 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


or battalion formed from a volunteer regiment is allowed to select its officers from among the members
of the regiment.
The pay of enlisted men serving in the army of occupation should be considerably increased over the
present rate to compensate for greater risk to health
incurred in the islands.
When the time arrives for the deliberate consideration of the permanent military establishment it will
be found safer and more economical to provide complete modern equipment for the State militia, together
with liberal appropriations for instruction and for annual encampments, than to increase the regular army.
Soldiers in the regular service are withdrawn from
productive labor and must be supported the year
around, while members of the State militia receive
military training without abandoning civil pursuits
and without becoming a pecuniary burden to either
State or nation.
To recapitulate:  There is no immediate necessity for the consideration of the proposition to permanently increase the military establishment; there
is immediate necessity for the relief of the volunteers.
Let the army of occupation be recruited at once; let
the size of the regular army be determined after the
volunteers have been released.
The people are united in the desire to muster out the
volunteers; they are divided in opinion in regard to
the regular army.
Let each question be decided upon its merits.




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 53


RATIFY THE TREATY. DECLARE THE NATION'S
POLICY.
I gladly avail myself of the columns of the Journal
to suggest a few reasons why the opponents of a
colonial policy should make their fight in support
of a resolution declaring the nation's purpose rather
than against the ratification of the treaty.
The conflict between the doctrine of self-government and the doctrine of alien government supported
by external force has been thrust upon the American
people as a result of the war. It is so important a
conflict that it cannot be avoided, and, since it deals
with a question now before Congress, it must be considered immediately. It is useless to ask what effect
this new issue will have upon other issues. Issues
must be met as they arise; they cannot be moved
about at will like pawns upon a chess board.
The opponents of imperialism have an opportunity
to choose the ground upon which the battle is to be
fought.  Why not oppose the ratification of the
treaty?
First, because a victory won against the treaty
would prove only temporary if the people really favor
a colonial policy.
That a victory won against the treaty would depend
for its value entirely upon the sentiment of the people
is evident. A minority can obstruct action for a
time, but a minority, so long as it remains a minority,
can only delay action and enforce reflection; it cannot commit the nation to a policy.
When there seemed some probability of the rejection of the treaty the friends of the administration began to suggest the propriety of withholding the treaty
until the new senate could be convened in extra ses



54 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


sion. As the new senate will have a considerable
Republican majority it would be quite certain to ratify the treaty. Thus an effort to prevent the ratification of the treaty would be likely to fail in the very
beginning. But let us suppose it possible to defeat
ratification in both the present and the next senatewhat would be the result?  Would the imperialists
abandon the hope of annexing the Philippines so
long as they could claim the support of the President
and a majority of both houses? Could a minority of
the Senate prevent the annexation of Hawaii? As
we are now in possession of the Philippine Islands
the advocates of a colonial policy might secure an appropriation sufficient to pay the twenty millions
agreed upon and leave the rest of the treaty for future consideration. In other words, if the opponents
of imperialism have a majority in both houses they
can declare the nation's policy; if the imperialists
have a majority in both houses they cannot be permanently thwarted by a minority in the Senate.
A resolution declaring the nation's policy recognizes that the destiny of the United States is in the
hands of all the people and seeks to ascertain at once
the sentiment of the people as reflected by their representatives.
If that decision is in harmony with the policy which
has prevailed in the past the question will be settled
and the people will return to the consideration of domestic problems. If, however, the advocates of imperialism either postpone consideration or control the
action of Congress an appeal will be taken to the
voters at the next election. So great a change in
our national policy cannot be made unless the authority therefor comes directly and unequivocally from
that source of all power in a republic-the people.
In answer to those who fear that the question of




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 55


imperialism, if discussed, will draw attention away
from other questions, it is sufficient to say that the
people cannot be prevented from considering a question which reaches down to the foundation principles
of the republic. Instead of avoiding the issue it is the
part of wisdom to deal with it at once and dispose of it
permanently.
Second, 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 risks which always
attend negotiations with a hostile nation.
The rejection of the treaty would give the administration an excuse for military expenditures which
could not be justified after the conclusion of peace,
and the opponents of the treaty would be charged with
making such appropriations necessary. It must be
remembered that in case the treaty is rejected negotiations must be renewed with an enemy whose ill-will
is not concealed. Who is able to guarantee the nation
against new dangers and new complications?  In
order to form an estimate of the risks which would
thus be incurred, one has only to recall the unexpected
things which have happened since war was declared.
Is it wise to so make the attack as to assume all the
risks when the same end can be gained by a plan
which throws the risks upon our opponents? If the
imperialists vote down a resolution declaring the nation's policy or postpone its consideration, they become responsible for any loss of life or expenditure
of money which may follow as a result of such action.
I suggest below a few reasons in support of a resolution declaring it to be the nation's purpose to establish a stable government in Cuba and the Philippines
and then to give the inhabitants independence under




56 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
an American protectorate which will guard them
against molestation from without.
First, such a course is consistent with national
honor.
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 it intends to do respecting the territory
surrenldered by Spain.
The President has said that the only purpose our
nation has in taking possession of Cuba is to assist
the inhabitants to establish a stable and independent
government. It can do no harm for Congress to reaffirm this purpose, and it may do much good. The
Cu.bans, having fought for independence for many
years and against great odds, are naturally jealous of
the liberty which they have won and no doubt should
be left as to the sincerity and good faith of our government in its dealings with them. Such a declaration
would not only be harmless, but it is almost made
necessary by the flippant, if not contemptuous, tone in
which some United States officials speak of the intelligence and patriotism of the Cubans and of their right
to independence.
The duty of declaring our national policy in regard 
to the Philippines is even more imperative. The Filipinos were fighting for independence when the United
States declared war against Spain. In the formal protest filed with the peace commissioners in Paris the
representatives of Aguinaldo assert that they received
friendly assurances from United States officials and
acted upon those assurances in co-operating against
the Spaniards. Whether or not such assurances were
given, frankness and honesty should characterize our
dealings with them.
If we announce to the world that we hold the Phil



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 57


ippine Islands, not for pecuniary profit but in trust
for the inhabitants; if we declare that our only purpose is to assist the Filipinos to establish a stable and
independent government, friendly relations will be
maintained and there will be little need of troops. If,
on the other hand, the Filipinos are not to have independence but merely a change of masters we should
break the news to them at once and send over a large
army to instruct them in the principles of a government which, in one hemisphere, derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and in the other
derives its authority from superior force.
While our nation is not prepared to draft a complete code of laws suited to the peculiar needs of the
Filipinos we ought to be able to decide at once whether we intend to deal with them according to the principles of our own government or according to the customs prevailing among European monarchies. Even
a republican Congress ought to be able to choose
without hesitation between a policy which establishes
a republic in the Orient and a policy which sows the
seeds of militarism in the United States.
The trade relations possible under a protectorate
would be of more value to the United States than
any which could come as the result of forcible annexation.
The people of Porto Rico have not manifested any
desire for political independence and would in all
probability favor annexation, yet it is only right that
they should have an opportunity to choose. The resolution authorizing intervention recognized the right
of the Cubans to independence. To be consistent we
must also respect the wishes of the inhabitants of
Porto Rico. The resolution could, without impropriety, offer annexation to Porto Rico.
In a recent interview I suggested that the United




58 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


States should retain a harbor and coaling station in
the Philippines and in Porto Rico in return for services rendered and added that Cuba should be asked
to make a similar concession on the same ground.
Second, a resolution declaring the nation's purpose presents a plain and clear-cut issue between the
theory of self-government and the colonial policy. It
presents a positive affirmative method of dealing with
the question. In opposing the treaty we would be
on the defensive; in outlining a policy we shall be
aggressive. The strongest arguments which could be
used in support of the treaty will lose their force entirely when Spain is eliminated and the American people are able to dispose of the question according to
their own ideas and interests.
Third, it secures, by easier means, every end that
can be secured by a rejection of the treaty.
If an officer of the law arrests a person in possession
of stolen goods he can either compel the return of
the goods to the owner or he can first rescue them
and then return them himself. We find Spain in the
possession of a title to a part of the Philippines. She
has not yet conquered all the native tribes, but the
title which she has was acquired by force and has been
held by force. We can either compel her to surrender her title to the Filipinos, as we compelled her to
surrender Cuba to the Cubans, or we can accept possession and then of our own accord turn over the islands to the inhabitants. The peace commissioners
might have demanded independence for the Filipinos
as they did for the Cubans; if they did not properly
interpret the wishes of the people of the United States
the blame must fall upon them and not upon the people. Certainly seventy millions of citizens are under
no obligation to abate their devotion to the ideals
which they have cherished for a century in order to




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 59


endorse the work of a peace commission or to approve
of the instructions of an executive.
If it is urged that the ratification of the treaty imposes upon us an obligation to pay twenty millions
of dollars to Spain, I answer, first, that this amount
can probably be secured from the Filipinos in return
for independence, and second, that, if it cannot be secured from them, it is better to lose the amount entirely than to expend a larger sum in securing a modification of the treaty.
It is better to regard the amount paid as a contribution to liberty than to consider it the market price
of land, improvements or people.
To terminate the war upon the same high plane
upon which it was inaugurated is worthy of a great
republic; to descend from a sublime beginning to the
purchase of sovereignty (for our own profit) from a
nation whose title we disputed in Cuba would lay us
open to the charge of Punic faith.
WILL IT PAY?
On former occasions I have quoted authority
against the policy of imperialism and have insisted
that the adoption of an European colonial policy would
endanger the perpetuity of the republic. While every
lover of his country should be willing to surrender
a pecuniary advantage, however alluring, if that advantage would in the least jeopardize our national existence, still the opponents of imperialism are fortunate in having upon their side the dollar argument as
well as the arguments based upon fundamental principles.,




60 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


The forcible annexation of the I'hilippine Islands
(and, in my judgment, even annexation bly the consent of the people) wouldl prove a source of pecuniary
loss rather than gain. Heretofore our acquisitions
have been confined to the North American continent,
the nation having in view either security from attack
or land suitable for settlement. Generally both objects have been realized. Florida and the territory
between the Mississippi and the Pacific were necessary for purposes of defense, and, in addition thereto,
furnished homes and occupation for an increasing
population.
The Hawaiian Islands are nearer to the western
than to the eastern hemisphere, and their annexation
was urged largely upon the ground that their possession by another nation would be a menace to the
United States. When objection was made to the
heterogeneous character of the people of the islands,
it was met by the assertion that they were few in number. 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 population. No argument made in favor of the
annexation of the Hawaiian Islands can be used in
support of the imperialistic policy. The purchase of
Alaska removed one more monarchy from American
territory and gave to the United States a maximum
of land with a minimum of inhabitants.
In the forcible annexation of the Philippines our
nation neither adds to its strength nor secures broader
opportunities for the American people.
Even if the principle of conquest were permissible
under American public law, the conquest of territory
so remote from our shores, inhabited by people who
have no sympathy with our history or our customs,
and who reent our attempt to overthrow their declar



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 6i


ation of independence, would be a tax upon our military and naval strength the magnitude of which cannot now be determined.
Who can estimate in money and men the cost of
subduing and keeping in subjection eight millions of
people, six thousand miles away, scattered over twelve
hundred islands and living under a tropical sun?
How many soldiers did Spain sacrifice in her effort
to put down almost continuous insurrection in Cuba?
How many perished from wounds and disease in the
vain attempt to keep the Pearl of the Antilles under
Spanish dominion? Yet Cuba has only about a million and a half of inhabitants, anct Havana is only half
as far from Cadiz as Manila is from San Francisco.
If this question is to be settled upon the basis of
dollars and cents, who will insure the nation that the
receipts will equal the expenditures? Who will guarantee that the income from the Philippines, be it great
or small, will find its way back to the pockets of the
people who, through taxation, will furnish the money?
And even if the amount invested in ships, armament
and in the equipment of soldiers is returned dollar for
dollar, who will place a price upon the blood that will
be shed? If war is to be waged for trade, how much
trade ought to be demanded in exchange for a human
life? And will the man who expects to secure the
trade risk his own life or the life of some one else?
The demand for a standing army of one hundred
thousand men is the beginning of a policy which will
increase the hours of toil and fill the homes of the land
with vacant chairs.
In his essay on The West Indies, Lord Macaulay
denies that colonies are a source of profit even to
European countries. He says:
"There are some who assert that, in a military and
political point of view, the West Indies are of great




62 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


importance to this country. This is a common but a
monstrous misrepresentation. We venture to say that
colonial empire has been one of the greatest curses
of modern Europe. What nation has it ever strengthened? What nation has it ever enriched? What have
been its fruits? Wars of frequent occurrence and immense cost, fettered trade, lavish expenditure, clashing jurisdiction, corruption in governments and indigence among the people. What have Mexico and
Peru done for Spain, the Brazils for Portugal, Batavia
for Holland? Or, if the experience of others is lost
upon us, shall we not profit by our own? What have
we not sacrificed to our infatuated passion for transatlantic dominion? This it is that has so often led us
to risk our own smiling gardens and dear firesides for
some snowy desert or infectious morass on the other
side of the globe; this induced us to resign all
the advantages of our insular situation-to embroil
ourselves in the intrigues, and fight the battles of
half the continent-to form coalitions which were instantly broken-and to give subsidies which were
never earned; this gave birth to the fratricidal war
against American liberty, with all its disgraceful defeats, and all its barren victories, and all the massacres
of the Indian hatchet, and all the bloody contracts of
the Hessian slaughter-house; this it was which, in
the war against the French republic, induced us to
send thousands and tens of thousands of our bravest
troops to die in West Indian hospitals, while the armies of our enemies were pouring over the Rhine
and the Alps. When a colonial acquisition has been
in prospect, we have thought no expenditure extravagant, no interference perilous. Gold has been to us
as dust, and blood as water. Shall we never learn
wisdom? Shall we never cease to prosecute a pursuit wilder than the wildest dream of alchemy, with




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 63


all the credulity and all the profusion of Sir Epicure
Mammon?
"Those who maintain that settlements so remote
conduce to the military or maritime power of nations
fly in the face of history."
Thus wrote England's orator, statesman and historian.
Shall we refuse to profit by the experience of others? Has the victory of seventy millions of people
over seventeen millions so infatuated us witl our own
prowess that gold is to become to us also as dust and
blood as water?
Let us consider for a moment the indirect cost of
annexation. Grave domestic problems press for solution; can we afford to neglect them in order to engage unnecessarily in controversies abroad?
Must the people at large busy themselves with the
contemplation of "destiny" while the special interests
hedge themselves about with legal bulwarks and exact an increasing toll from productive industry?
While the American people are endeavoring to extend an unsolicited sovereignty over remote peoples,
foreign financiers will be able to complete the conquest of our own country. Labor's protest against
the black list and government by injunction and its
plea for arbitration, shorter hours and a fair share of
the wealth which it creates, will be drowned in noisy
disputes over new boundary lines and in the clash of
conflicting authority.
Monopoly can thrive in security so long as the inquiry, "Who will haul down the flag," on distant islands turns public attention away from the question,
who will uproot the trusts at home?
What will it cost the people to substitute contests
over treaties for economic issues? What will it cost
the people to postpone consideration of remedial legis



*


64 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
lation while the ship of state tosses about in the whirlpool of international politics?
In considering the question of imperialism we have
a right to weigh possibilities as well as certainties;
and among the possibilities may be mentioned an offensive and defensive union between the United States
and one or more European nations. Already one may
hear an Anglo-American alliance suggested-a suggestion which would have been discarded as a dream
a year ago. When this nation abandons its traditions
and enters upon a colonial policy, a long step will
have been taken toward those entanglements against
which Washington and Jefferson with equal emphasis
warned their countrymen.
What a change the imperialistic idea has already
wrought in the minds of its advocates! During the
nation's infancy and development the American people
spurned the thought of foreign alliance and its attendant obligations; they refused to yoke the young republic with a monarchy. The wisest among us are not
able to measure the cost of a policy which would surrender the nation's independence of action and drag
it into the broils of Europe and Asia.
The Monroe Doctrine, too, what will become of it?
How can we expect European nations to respect our
supremacy in the western hemisphere if we insist upon
entering Asia? So long as we confine ourselves to our
own continent we are strong enough to repel the
world, but are we prepared (or is it worth while to
prepare) to wage an offensive warfare in other parts
of the globe?
On the other hand, what advantages are suggested
by imperialists to offset the cost and dangers mentioned?
They tell us that trade follows the flag and that
wider markets will be the result of annexation. With



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 65


out admitting that any argument based upon trade
advantages can justify an attempt to adopt a double
standard in government-a government by consent in
America and a government by force in Asia-it
may be answered that commerce is a matter of cost
and not a matter of bunting. The protectionist understands this and demands not a flag barrier but a price
barrier between the home manufacturer and the foreign competitor.
Public attention has already been called to the fact
that, while Spain was sending soldiers to the Philippines England was sending merchandise. While the
home government was sending money to the islands
Great Britain was drawing money from them.
The cost of transportation is an important factor
and has more influence than sovereignty in directing
the course of trade.
Canada does not refuse to deal with us merely because she flys the British Jack; in fact, I have been
told that she sometimes buys even her British
Jacks in the United States. Our foreign trade is increasing, and that increase is not due to an expanding sovereignty.
The insignificance of the trade argument will be
manifest to any one who will compare the consunlilig
capacity of the Filipinos with that of a like nunmber
of Americans.  The inhabitants of the torrid zones
can never equal, or even approach, the inhabitants of
the temperate zones as customers. England's conmmerce with the United States is greater than her commerce with India, and yet India has a population of
nearly three hundred millions and the English flag
floats over them.
It is yet to be decided whether the open door policy
will be adopted in the Orient or a tariff wall built
around our subjects there, but neither plan will be




66 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


found satisfactory. Our people, however, should not
expect a colonial policy to prove acceptable, either to
the governed or to the governing. If we attempt to
run our country upon the European plan we must prepare ourselves for continual complaint. History has
thus far failed to furnish a single example of a nation
selfish enough to desire a colony and yet unselfish
enough to govern it wisely at long range.
It has been argued that annexation would furnish
a new field for the investment of American capital. If
there is surplus money seeking investment why is it
not employed in the purchase of farm lands, in developing domestic enterprises or in replacing foreign
capital? In I896 we were told that we were dependent
upon foreign capital and must so legislate as to keep
what we had and invite more. Strange that it should
be necessary to have an English financial system in
order to bring European capital into the States and
also an English colonial policy for the purpose of taking American capital out. Every dollar sent to the
Philippines must be withdrawn from present investments, and we must either suffer to the extent of the
amount withdrawn or borrow abroad and increase our
bondage to foreign money lenders.
It is sometimes suggested that the Philippines would
furnish homes for those who are crowded out of this
country. This argument, too, is without foundation.
The population of the United States amounts to only
twenty-one persons to the square mile, while the Philippine Islands already contain about sixty to the
square mile. It will be several generations before the
population of the United States will be as dense as
it is now in the Philippines.
Our people will not flock to Manila; climatic conditions will be as great an obstacle as over-population.
English supremacy in India has continued for nearly




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 67


a hundred and fifty years, and yet in 1891 the Britishborn population of India was only I00,55I-less than
the total number of prisoners confined in the jails of
India at the end of I895.
Jamaica has had all the advantages which could be
derived from an English colonial policy and yet the
white population in 1891 numbered less than fifteen
thousand out of a total of 639,000ooo.
Java has been under the dominion of the Netherlands for nearly three hundred years, and yet in 1894
the Europeans upon the island numbered less than
60,oo000 out of a total population of more than 25,.
000,000.
Spain has been able to induce but a small number
of her people to settle in the Philippines and, if we
can judge from the reports sent back by our volunteers, we shall not succeed any better.
But while the Philippines will not prove inviting
to Americans, we shall probably draw a considerable
number from the islands to the United States. The
emigration will be eastward rather than westward.
During the six years from I889 to 1894 more than
ninety thousand coolies left India, and we may expect
an influx of Malays.
It is not strange that the laboring men 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
Chinese emigration, but to exclude a few Chinese and
admit many Filipinos is like straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel.
The farmers and laboring men constitute a large
majority of the American people; what is there in annexation for them?  Heavier taxes, Asiatic emigra



68 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


tion and an opportunity to furnish more sons for the
army.
Will it pay?
BRITISH RULE IN INDIA.
In the discussion of a colonial policy for the United
States frequent references will be made to England's
government of India. The imperialists are already
declaring that Great Britain's policy has resulted in
profit to herself and benefit to her Asiatic subjects.
The opponents of imperialism, on the other hand,
find in India's experience a warning against a policy
which places one nation under the control of another
and distant nation.
In I600 the first East India company was organized.
Its charter was for fifteen years, but a new and perpetual charter was granted in I609. Under the reign
of Charles II. the company obtained another charter
which continued former privileges and added authority "to make peace or war with any prince or people
(in India) not being Christian."
The affairs of the company were managed with an
eye single to gain, and intervention in the quarrels of
native princes resulted in the gradual extension of
its influence. Money was the object, and the means
employed would not always bear scrutiny. There was,
however, no hypocritical mingling of an imaginary
"philanthropy" with an actual "five per cent."
In I757 Lord Clive, by the battle of Plassey, made
the company the dominant power in Indian politics,
and under Clive and Hastings the income of the East
India Company reached enormous proportions.
The history of the century, beginning with the bat



GIROUP OF NATIVE SliBS   MOL;O ISLAXD)~
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E  E,!
I W
I    I  W  *  I_ A_00000~~~~~~~~"~'!~T~r~ Jlll  T111 S _ _IIC I"I   =      _~:?




I




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 69
tie of Plassey and ending with the Sepoy mutiny in
I857, was written under headlines like the following:
"The First War with Hyder Ali," "The Rohilla War,"
"The Second War with Hyder Ali," "The War with
Tippoo Saib," "The War with the Mahrattas," "Suppression of the Pindaris," "The Last of the Peshwas,"
"The First Burmese War," "The First Afghan War,"
"'The Conquest of Scinde," "The Sekh Wars," "The
Conquest of Punjab," "The Annexation of Pegu,"
"The Annexation of Oudh," "The Outbreak of Meerut," "The Seizure of Delhi," "The Siege of Lucknow,",etc., etc.
This brief review is not given because it is interesting, but to acquaint the reader with the imperialistic plan of solving the problem of civilization by the
elimination of unruly factors.
In I858 Parliament, by an act entitled an act "for
the better government of India," confessed that the
management of Indian affairs could be improved and
placed the control in the hands of a Secretary of State
for India and a Council.
In 1877 Queen Victoria assumed the title, Empress
of India.
Even if it could be shown that England's sovereignty over India had brought blessings to the Indian
people and advantage to the inhabitants of Great Britain, we could not afford to adopt the policy. A monarchy can engage in work which a republic dare not
undertake. A monarchy is constructed upon the
theory that authority descends from the king and that
privileges are granted by the crown to the subjects.
Of course the ruling power recognizes that it owes a
duty to the people, but while the obligation is binding
upon the conscience of the sovereign it cannot be enforced by the subject.
Webster presented this idea with great force in his




70 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


speech on the Greek revolution. After setting forth
the agreement between the Allied Powers, he said:
"The first of these principles is, that all popular or
constitutional rights are holden no otherwise than as
grants from the crown. Society, upon this principle,
has no rights of its own; it takes good government,
when it gets it, as a boon and a concession, but can
demand nothing. It is to live in that favor which
emanates from royal authority, and if it have the misfortune to lose that favor, there is nothing to protect
it against any degree of injustice and oppression. It
can rightfully make no endeavor for a change, by itself; its whole privilege is to receive the favors that
may be dispensed by the sovereign power, and all its
duty is described in the single word, submission. This
is the plain result of the principal continental state papers; indeed, it is nearly the identical text of some
of them."
The English. people have from time to time forced
the crown to recognize certain rights, but the principle of monarchy still exists. The sovereign has a
veto upon all legislation; the fact that this veto has
not been used of late does not change the governmental theory and, in India, the application of the theory has deprived the Indian people of participation in
the control of their own affairs.
A nation which denies the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed can give self-government to one colony and
deny it to another; it can give it to colonies strong
enough to exact it by force and deny it to weaker
ones; but a nation which recognizes the people as the
only sovereigns, and regards those temporarily in authority merely as public servants, is not at liberty to
apply the principle to one section of the country and
refuse it to another.




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 71
But, so far from supporting the contention of the
imperialists, British rule in India really enforces every
argument that can be made against a colonial system
of government. In the first place, to authorize a commercial company "to make peace or war with any
prince or people (not Christian)," according to its.pleasure, was to place the pecuniary interests of a few
stockholders above the rights of those with whom they
had dealings. Clive and hlastings seem to have acted
upon this authority. When the former was called to
account he confessed that he had forged a treaty and
his conduct was such that Parliament was compelled
to vote that he "had abused his powers and set an
evil example to the servants of the public," but, as he
had increased the power of England in India, his
condemnation was accompanied by the declaration
that he had, "at the same time, rendered great and
meritorious services to his country."
The prosecution of Hastings for wrongs inflicted
upon the people of India occupies a conspicuous place
among the political trials of history. The speeches
made against him recall the orations of Cicero against
Verres, who, by the way, was also charged with plundering a colony.
Cicero said that Verres relied for his hope of escape
upon his ability to corrupt the judges of his day, and
it appears that the East India Company was also accused of polluting the stream of justice only a century
ago.
In his speech on the Nabob of Arcot's debts, Burke
said: "Let no man hereafter talk of the decaying energies of nature. All the acts and monuments in the
records of peculation; the consolidated corruption of
ages; the pattern of exemplary plunder in the heroic
times of Roman iniquity, never equalled the gigantic
corruption of this single act. Never did Nero, in all




72 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
the insolent prodigality of despotism, deal out to his
praetorian guards a donation fit to be named with the
largess showered down by the bounty of our chancellor of the exchequer on the faithful band of his Indian sepoys."
How little human nature changes from age to age!
How weak is the boasted strength of the arm of the
law when the defendant possesses the influence purchased by great wealth, however obtained, and the
accusation comes from a far-off victim of oppression!
Those who expect justice to be exercised by officials far removed from the source of power-officials
who do not receive their commissions from, and cannot be removed by, the people whom they governshould read Sheridan's great speech portraying the
effect of the Hastings policy upon the people of
India.
Below will be found an extract:
"If, my lords, a stranger had at this time entered
the province of Oude, ignorant of what had happened
since the death of Sujah Dowlah, that prince who, with
a savage heart, had still great lines of character, and
who, with all his ferocity in war, had with a cultivating
hand preserved to his country the wealth which it derived from benignant skies, and a prolific soil; if observing the wide and general devastation of fields unclothed and brown; of vegetation burnt up and extinguished; of villages depopulated and in ruin; of temples unroofed and perishing; of reservoirs broken
down and dry, this stranger would ask, What has thus
laid waste this beautiful and opulent land; what monstrous madness has ravaged with widespread war;
what desolating foreign foe; what civil discords; what
disputed succession; what religious zeal; what fabled
monster has stalked abroad and, with malice and mortal enmity to man, withered by the grasp of death




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 73


every growth of nature and humanity, all means of
delight, and each original, simple principle of bare existence? The answer would have been: Not one of
these causes! No wars have ravaged these lands and
depopulated these villages! No desolating foreign foe!
no domestic broils! no disputed succession! no religious superserviceable zeal! no poisonous monster!
no affliction of Providence, which, while it scourges
us, cut off the sources of resuscitation!
"No. This damp of death is the mere effusion of
British amity! We sink under the pressure of their
support! We writhe under their perfidious gripe!
They have embraced us with their protecting arms,
and lo! these are the fruits of their alliance!"
No clearer case was ever made against a prisoner
at the bar, and yet after a seven years' trial before the
House of Lords Hastings was acquitted, not because
he was guiltless, but because England had acquired
territory by his policy.
Lord Macaulay, in describing the crimes perpetrated at that time against a helpless people, gives expression to a truth which has lost none of its force
with the lapse of years. He says: "And then was seen
what we believe to be the most frightful of all spectacles, the strength of civilization without its mercy.
To all other despotism there is a check, imperfect indeed, and liable to gross abuse, but still sufficient to
preserve society from the last extreme of misery. A
time comes when the evils of submission are obviously
greater than those of resistance, when fear itself begets
a sort of courage, when a convulsive burst of popular
rage and despair warns tyrants not to presume too far
on the patience of mankind. But against misgovernment such as then afflicted Bengal, it is impossible to
struggle. The superior intelligence and energy of the
dominant class made their power irresistible. A war




74 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


of Bengalees against Englishmen was like a war of
sheep against wolves, of men against demons."
"The strength of civilization without its mercy!"
The American people are capable of governing
themselves, but what reason have we to believe that
they can wisely administer the affairs of distant races?
It is difficult enough to curb corporate power in this
country, where the people who suffer have in their
own hands the means of redress; how much more
difficult it would be to protect the interests of
the people where the people who do the governing do
not feel the suffering and where the people who do
the suffering must rely upon the mercy of alien
rulers!
True, Macaulay argues that English morality, tardily but finally, followed English authority into the
Orient, but, as a matter of fact, the bleeding of India
has continued systematically during the present century. Polite and refined methods have been substituted for the rude and harsh ones formerly employed,
and the money received is distributed among a larger
number, but the total sum annually drawn from India
is greater now than it was when England's foremost
orators and statesmen were demanding the impeachment of notorious malefactors.
Sir J. Strachey, an Englishman, in a history recently
published, is quoted as saying that "the confiscation
of the rights of the ryots (in Bengal) has reached vast
proportions." He then shows that through the action
of the English government the Zemindars, or middle
men, have been able to enormously increase their income at the expense of the tillers of the soil, the increase being from four hundred thousand pounds in
the last century to thirteen million pounds at the present time.
On the 28th of December, I397-only a year ago



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 75
a meeting of the London Indian Society was held at
Montague Mansions and strong resolutions adopted.
Below will be found an extract from the resolutions:
"That this conference of Indians, resident in the
United Kingdom, is of opinion"That of all the evils and 'terrible misery' that India
has been suffering for a century and a half, and of
which the latest developments are the most deplorable,
famine and plague, arising from ever-increasing poverty, the stupid and suicidal Frontier War and its savagery, of the wholesale destruction of villages, unworthy of any people, but far more so of English civilization; the unwise and suicidal prosecutions for sedition; the absurd and ignorant cry of the disloyalty
of the educated Indians, and for the curtailment of
the liberty of the Indian press; the despotism-like
that of the imprisonment of the Natus, and the general
insufficiency and inefficiency of the administrationof all these and many other minor evils the main cause
is the unrighteous and un-British system of government which produces an unceasing and ever-increasing bleeding of the country, and which is maintained
by a political hypocrisy and continuous subterfuges
unworthy of the British honor and namle, and entirely
in opposition to the wishes of the British people, and
utterly in violation of acts and resolutions of Parliament, and of the most solemn and repeated pledges
of the British nation and sovereign.
"That unless the present unrighteous and un-British
system of government is thoroughly reformed into a
righteous and truly British system destruction to India
and disaster to the British Empire must be the inevitable result."
Mr. Naoroji, an Indian residing in England, in supporting the resolution, pointed out the continuous
drain of money from India and argued that the people




76 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


were compelled "to make brick, not only without
straw, but even without clay." He insisted that England's trade with India would be greater if she would
allow the people of India a larger participation in the
affairs of their own government and protested against
the policy of sending Englishmen to India to hold the
offices and draw their support from taxes levied upon
the inhabitants. He complained that British justice
is one thing in England and quite another thing in
India, and said: "There (in India) it is only the business of the people to pay taxes and to slave; and the
business of the government to spend those taxes to
their own benefit. Whenever any question arises between Great Britain and India there is a demoralized
mind. The principles of politics, of commerce, of
equality which are applied to Great Britain are not applied to India. As if it were not inhabited by human
beings!"
Does any one doubt that, if we annex the Philippines and govern them by agents sent from here, questions between them and the people of the United
States will be settled by the people of the United
States and for the benefit of the people of the United
States? If we make subjects of them against their will
and for our own benefit are we likely to govern them
with any more benevolence?
The resolutions quoted mention efforts for the curtailment of the liberty of the press. Is that not a necessary result of governmental injustice? Are we likely to allow the Filipinos freedom of the press, if we
enter upon a system that is indefensible according to
our theory of government?
Mr. Hyndman, an English writer, in a pamphlet issued in 1897, calls attention to English indifference
to India's wrongs, and, as an illustration of this indifference, cites the fact that during the preceding year the




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 77


India budget affecting the welfare of nearly three hundred millions of people was brought before Parliament on the last day of the session when only a few
members were present. He asserts that "matters are
far worse now than they were in the days of the old
East India Company," and that "nothing short of a
great famine, a terrible pestilence, or a revolt on a
large scale, will induce the mass of Englishmen to devote any attention whatever to the affairs of India."
To show how, in the government of India, the interests of English office-holders outweigh the interests
of the natives, I give an extract from the pamphlet already referred to:
"First, under the East India Company, and then,
and far more completely, under the direct rule of the
Crown of the English people, the natives have been
shut out from all the principal positions of trust over
five-sixths of Hindostan, and have been prevented
from gaining any experience in the higher administration, or in military affairs.
"Wherever it was possible to put in an Englishman to oust a native an Englishman has been put in,
and has been paid from four times to twenty times
as much for his services as would have sufficed for
the salary of an equally capable Hindoo or Mohammedan official. * * * At the present time, out of
39,000 officials who draw a salary of more than I,ooo
rupees a year, 28,000 are Englishmen and only I,ooo
natives. Moreover, the 11,ooo natives receive as salaries only three million pounds a year; the 28,000
Englishmen receive fifteen million pounds a year. Out
of the 960 important civil offices which really control
the civil administration of India 900 are filled with
Englishmen and only sixty with natives. Still worse,
if possible, the natives of India have no control whatsoever in any shape or way over their own taxation,




78 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
or any voice at all in the expenditure of their own
revenues.  Their entire government-I speak, of
course, of the 250,000ooo,ooo under our direct controlis carried on and administered by foreigners, who not
only do not settle in the country but who live lives
quite remote from those of the people, and return
home at about forty-five or fifty years of age with
large pensions.
"As I have often said in public, India is, in fact,
now governed by successive relays of English carpetbaggers, who have as little sympathy with the natives
as they have any real knowledge of their habits and
customs."
The Statesman's Year Book of I897, published by
Macmillan & Co., London, contains some interesting
statistics in regard to India.
It seems that there are but two and a quarter millions of Christians in India-less than one per centafter so many years of English control.
It appears, also, that in I891 only a little more than
three millions out of three hundred millions were under instruction; a little more than twelve millions
were not under instruction, but able to read and
write, while two hundred and forty-six millions were
neither under instruction nor able to read or write.
Twenty-five millions appear under the head "not returned."
The European army in India amounts to seventyfour thousand and the native army to one hundred
and forty-five thousand. In the army the European
officers number five thousand and the native officers
twenty-seven hundred. One-fourth of the national expenditure in India goes to the support of the army.
Nearly one-third of India's annual revenue is expended in Great Britain. The salary of the Governor
General is 250,000 rupees per annum.




PHILIPPINE SOLDIERS JUST BEFORE LEAVING THE CITY OF MANILA TO GO
BEYOND THE AMERICAN LINES.




*
lb~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 79


Tne Year Book above mentioned is also responsible
for the statement that the act of 1893, closing the Indian mints to the free coinage of silver, was enacted
by the Governor General and Council upon the same
day that it was introduced. Mr. Leech, former director of the United States mint, in an article in the
Forum, declared that the closing of the mints of India
on that occasion was the most momentous event in
the monetary history of the present century. It will
be remembered that this act was made the excuse for
an extra session of our Congress and for the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law.
One can obtain some idea of the evils of irresponsible alien government when he reflects that an English Governor General and an English Council
changed the financial system of nearly three hundred
millions of people by an act introduced and passed
in the course of a single day.
No matter what views one may hold upon the money question, he cannot defend such a system of government without abandoning every principle revered
by the founders of the republic. Senator Wolcott, of
Colorado, one of the President's commissioners, upon
his return from Europe, made a speech in the Senate
in which he declared that the last Indian famine was a
money famine rather than a food famine. In that
speech Mr. Wolcott also asserted that the closing of
the India mints reduced, by five hundred millions of
dollars, the value of the silver accumulated in the
hands of the people. If Mr. Wolcott's statement contains the smallest fraction 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. If the famine was, in fact,
a -money famine, created by an act of the Governor
and his Council, then indeed is English rule as cruel




8o MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


and merciless in India to-day as was the rule of the
East India Company's agents a century ago.
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.
We may well turn from the contemplation of an imperial policy and its necessary vices to the words of
Jefferson in his first inaugural message: "Sometimes
it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
government of others? Or have we found angels in
the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer
this question."
WHAT NEXT?
Imperialists seek to create the impression that the
ratification of the treaty has terminated the controversy in regard to the future of the Philippines, but
there is no ground whatever for such a conclusion.
The President has not as yet outlined a policy and
Congress has so far failed to make any declaration
upon the subject. Several administration senators
have expressely denied that ratification commits the
United States to the permanent annexation of the
Philippine Islands.
The treaty extinguishes Spanish sovereignty, but it
does not determine our nation's course in dealing with
the Filipinos. In the opinion of many (and I am
among the number) the ratification of the treaty, instead of closing the door to independence, really makes
easier the establishment of such a government in the
Philippine Islands. The matter is now entirely within




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 81


the control of Congress, and there is no legal obstacle
to prevent the immediate passage of a resolution promising self-government to the Filipinos and pledging
the United States to protect their government from
outside interference. If we have a right to acquire
land we have a right to part with it; if we have a
right to secure, by purchase or conquest, a disputed
title from Spain, we certainly have a right to give a
quit-claim deed to the party in possession.
If the power to part with the islands is admitted, the
only question remaining for discussion is whether the
United States should permanently hold the Asiatic territory acquired from Spain. For two months the sentiment against imperialism has been constantly growing and there is nothing in the ratification of the treaty
to make such a policy more desirable.
Until Dewey's victory no one thought us under obligation to extend our sovereignty over the Filipinos.
If subsequent events have imposed such an obligation
upon the'United States it is worth while to inquire
as to its nature and extent. Is it political in its character? Must we make subjects of the Filipinos now
because we made allies of them in the war with Spain?
France did nof recognize any such obligation when
she helped us to throw off British supremacy. Are we
compelled to civilize the Filipinos by force because we
interfered with Spain's efforts to accomplish the same
end by the same means? Are we in duty bound to
conquer and to govern, when we can find a pretext
for doing so, every nation which is weaker than ours
or whose civilization is below our standard? Does
history justify us in believing that we can improve the
condition of the Filipinos and advance them in civilization by governing them without their consent and
taxing them without representation? England has
tried that plan in India for a hundred and fifty years,




82 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.


and yet Japan has made more progress in the last
thirty years than India has made in the hundred and
fifty. And it may be added that the idea of self-government has developed more rapidly among the Japanese during the same period than it has among the
people of India.
Government is an evolution and its administration
is always susceptible of improvement. The capacity
for self-government is developed by responsibility. As
exercise strengthens the muscles of the athlete and as
education improves the mental faculties of the student,
even so participation in government instructs the citizen in the science of government and perfects him in
the art of administering it.
We must not expect the Filipinos to establish and
maintain as good a government as ours, and it is vain
for us to expect that we would maintain there, at long
range, as good a government as we have here. The
government is, as it were, a composite photograph of
the people, a reflection of their average virtue and intelligence.
Some defend annexation upon the ground that the
business interests of the islands demand it. The business interests will probably be able to take care of
themselves under an independent form of government,
unless they are very different from the business interests of the United States. The so-called business men
constitute a very small fraction of the total population
of the islands, who will say that their pecuniary interests are superior in importance to the right of all the
rest of the people to enjoy a government of their own
choosing.
Some say that our duty to the foreign residents in
the Philippines requires us to annex the islands. If
we admit this argument we not only exalt the interests
of foreigners above the interests of natives, but place




MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM. 83


a higher estimate upon the wishes of foreigners residing in Manila than upon the welfare of our own
people.
The fact that the subject of imperialism is being
discussed through the newspapers and magazines, as
well as in Congress, is evidence that the work of education is still going on. The advocates of a colonial
policy must convince the conservative element of the
country, by clear and satisfactory proof, they cannot
rely upon Catch words. The "Who will haul down the
flag?" argument has already been discarded, "Destiny" is not as "manifest" as it was a few weeks ago,
and the argument of "duty" is being analyzed. The
people are face to face with a grave public problem.
They have not acted upon it yet, and they will not be
frightened away from the calm consideration of it by
the repetition of unsupported prophesies. The battle
of Manila, which brought loss to us and disaster to
the Filipinos, has not rendered "forcible annexation"
less repugnant to our nation's "code of morality." If
it has any effect at all it ought to emphasize the dangers attendant upon (if I may be permitted to quote
from the President again) "criminal aggression." The
Filipinos were guilty of inexcusable ignorance if they
thought that they could prevent the ratification of the
treaty by an attack upon the American lines, but no
act of theirs can determine the permanent policy of the
United States. Whether imperialism is desirable is
too large a question to be settled by a battle. Battles
are to be expected under such a policy. England had
been the dominant power in India for a century, when
the Sepoy mutiny took place, and she rules even now
by fear rather than by love.
Force and reason rest upon different foundations
and employ different forms of logic. Reason, recognizing that only that is enduring which is just, asks




84 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
whether the thing proposed ought to be done; force
says, I desire, I can, I will. When the desire proves
to be greater than the ability to accomplish, the force
argument reads (in the past tense) I desired, I tried, I
failed. But even force, if accompanied by intelligence,
calculates the cost. No one doubts that the United
States army and navy are able to whip into subjection
all the Filipinos who are not exterminated in the
process, but is it worth the cost?
Militarism is only one item of the cost, but it alone
will far outweigh all the advantages which are expected to flow from a colonial policy. John Morley,
the English statesman, in a recent speech to his constituents, uttered a warning which may well be considered by our people. He said:
"Imperialism brings with it militarism, and must
bring with it militarism. Militarism means a gigantic
expenditure, daily growing. It means an increase in
government of the power of aristocratic and privileged
classes. Militarism means the profusion of the taxpayer's money everywhere except in the taxpayer's
own home, and militarism must mean war.
"And you must be much less well read in history
than I take the liberals of Scotland to be if you do
not know that it is not war, that hateful demon of
war, but white-winged peace that has been the nurse
and guardian of freedom and justice and well-being
over that great army of toilers upon whose labor, upon
whose privations, upon whose hardships, after all, the
greatness and the strength of empires and of states are
founded and are built up."
Militarism is so necessary a companion of imperialism that the President asks for a two hundred per cent
increase in the standing army, even before the people
at large have passed upon the question of annexation.
Morley says that imperialism gives to the aristoc



MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIAITSM. 85


racy and to the privileged classes an increased influence in government; do we need to increase their influence in our government? Surely they are potent
enough already.
He calls attention to the fact that the toiler finds his
hope in peaceful progress rather than in war's uncertainties. Is it strange that the laboring classes are
protesting against both imperialism and militarism?
Is it possible that their protest will be in vain?
Imperialism has been described as "The White
Man's Burden," but, since it crushes the wealth-producer beneath an increasing weight of taxes, it might
with more propriety be called The Poor Man's Load.
If the Peace Commissioners had demanded a harbor
and coaling station in the Philippines and had required
Spain to surrender the rest of the land to the Filipinos, as she surrendered Cuba to the Cubans, we
would not now be considering how to let go of the
islands. If the sum of twenty millions had been necessary to secure Spain's release, the payment of the
amount by the Filipinos might have been guaranteed
by the United States.
But the failure of the Peace Commissioners to secure for the Filipinos the same rights that were obtained for the Cubans, could have been easily remedied by a resolution declaring the nation's purpose to
establish a stable and independent government.
It is still possible for the Senate alone, or for the
Senate and House together, to adopt such a resolution.
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 in the United States.
This departure from traditions was not authorized
by the people; whether it will be ratified by them




86 MR. BRYAN'S ARTICLES ON IMPERIALISM.
remains to be seen. The responsibility rests first upon
Congress and afterwards upon that power which
makes Congresses.
Whatever may be the wish of individuals or the interests of parties, we may rest assured that the final
disposition of the Philippine question will conform
to the deliberate judgment of the voters; they constitute the court of last resort; from their decision
there is no appeal.
What next? Investigation, discussion, action.




CHAPTER III.
THE CREED OF THE FLAG.
By DR. HOWARD S. TAYLOR, CHICAGO.
"Who will haul down the flag?" quoth he,
And no man an answer gave.
But who will haul up the flag, ask we,
Where the flag ought never wave'.
Over an arrogant mission of spoil
That takes, as a matter of course,
A subject race and a conquered soil
And a government based on force!
Answer us!-answer us! true and fair,
Who will haul up Old Glory there?
"Who will haul down the flag?" quoth he.
Nay, think how it first went up
When War astride of the land and sea
Poured wrath from his brimming cup;
When brave men died and left in bequest
One pledge for the great and the small;
Not stars for a few and stripes for the rest,
But the flag of our country for all!
Answer us, truly and plainly, we pray:
Was that not its meaning in Washington's day?
From, Washington's day to Jackson's time,
From  Yorktown to New Orleans,
Did any man follow that flag sublime
And doubt what the symbol means?
Free self-ruled states, each one as a star
Fixed fast in a field of blue
Fenced in by the blood-red stripes of war
To preserve themn for me and you!
Answer us, now, do you dare to drag
The old faith out of our father's flag?
"Who will haul down the flag?" quoth he.
Why, no hand of flesh and bone
Can lower that flag, on land or sea,
Till the faith of the flag is gone!
-a Till a few shall rule and cunningly keep
The bunting to garnish their greed;
Till dollars are dear and humanity cheap
By the force of a tory creed!
Then will it fall!-biut ansvrer us, clear,
Do you fancy that hour is drawing near?
Did our Liberty Bell ring in vain?
Was our Declaration a lie?
Must we turn to the old world again,
With the penitent prodigal's cry?
Must we arm us and march in the van
Of Europe's barbaric parade
And boom out a gunpowder gospel to man
To open a pathway for trade?
Shall we strut through the world and bluster and brag
With the dollar-mark stamped on the brave old flag?
87




88           THE POOR MAN'S BURDEN.
Nay, haul up the flag-raise it highNot yet is its spirit spent!
Let it sing in the wind and the sky
The truth that it always meant!
Let it sing of the birthright of man,
Of progress that never can lag,
Let it sing that trade may go where it can
But liberty follows the flag! 
Yea, haul up Old Glory-but, comrades, take heed
That no man shall part the old flag from the creed!
THE POOR MAN'S BURDEN.
By DR. HOWARD S. TAYLOR.
Pile up the poor man's burdenThe weight of foreign wars;
Go shrewdly yoke together
Great Mercury and Mars,
And march with them to conquest,
As once did ancient Rome,
With vigor on her borders
And slow decay at home!
Pile up the poor man's burden,
Accept Great Britain's plan;
She does all things for commerceScarce anything for man.
Far off among the pagans
She seeks an open door
While Pity cries in London,
"God help the British poor!"
Pile up the poor man's burdenHis sons will hear our call,
Will feed the jungle fever
And stop the Mauser ball;
Will fall far off unnoted,
For spoils they may not share,
And spill their blood to water
A laurel here and there!
Pile up the poor man's burden;
Keep in the old, old track!
Let glory ride, as ever,
Upon the toiler's back.
Lay tax and tax upon him,
Devised with subtle skillCall forth his sons to slaughter
And let him pay the bill!
Pile up the poor man's burden!
The lords of trade, at least,
May drink, like King Belshazzar,
In comfort at the feast;
May boast, as did the monarch
Within his palace hall,
While God wrote out his sentence
In fire upon the wall!




CHAPTER IV.
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND?
BY ANDREW CARNEGIE.
[Copyright, 1899, by Curtis Publishing Co., Phila, Pa.]
Secretary Gage has not only told us that he is a
convert to imperialism, but he has fortunately given
us the reason. All that is necessary is that our public
men should give reasons for the Republic's abandoning the policy which has made her great. He accepts
the dangers and cost of imperialism, against his own
wishes, for the sake of commercial expansion.
Now, Secretary Gage has never manufactured anything; nor exported anything-he is neither in manufacturing nor in commerce. I am in both. Our
concern is to-day the largest in its line in the world,
and I believe it is also the largest exporter of manufactures in the United States. We have, within two
years, begun to send our steel to all parts of the world.
Our sales reach into the millions of dollars. We haveour house in London now, as we have in New York.
The foreign business is growing by leaps and bounds.
Now, one of the reasons why I oppose imperialismthe acquisition of the Philippines-is commercial
expansion.
The reason that Secretary Gage gives for acquiring
the Philippines is the reason why I would not. He
believes that it would be favorable to commercial expansion; I know that it would be detrimental. The
Secretary gives no reason for thinking that the acquisition of distant possessions would increase our foreign trade.
89




90 SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND?


Permit me to state reasons why it would not increase, but decrease it.  Foreign trade rests upon
peace and security; the waters must be calm, disturbing influences absent, to foster trade in foreign
parts. Should we undertake to hold the Philippines,
we immediately place the whole Republic within the
zone of wars and rumors of wars; and the rumor of
war, it must be remembered, is in itself absolutely destructive to commerce. France, Germany and Russia,
as is well known, are opposed to America's holding
any possessions in the far East.
Those nations drove Japan out of Corea; they will
drive the United States out of the Philippines, always
provided Britain agrees to do what she did with Japan, —occupy a neutral position. But I go further than
this. England will require the United States to agree
to keep the "open door," as she required it of Germany. Of course, Germany agreed to keep the "open
door" in her Eastern possessions. She wouldn't have
any possessions if she had not so agreed. And it will
be precisely the same with the United States; for let
it be carefully noted that seventy per cent of the total
trade of the Philippines is to-day British.
Suppose that President McKinley, in order to hold
the Philippines at all, has to grant the "open door,"
where will Secretary Gage and his commercial expansion stand then? What will labor in the United
States say to the recreant President? What compensation is it to have? What justification can be pleaded
for paying twenty or forty millions for the Philippines, and for sacrificing the blood of our soldiers
and the lives of our civil servants which were involved
in this acquisition, if no advantage accrues? What
answer will he make to the people upon whom he imposes additional taxation?




SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND? 91


I think I know what the laboring masses of the
United States will say to him, and to any Government
that throws upon the country such sacrifices of life,
and such burdens, only to open its costly acquisitions
to the nations of the world. If it be fair competition
with other nations that we require for commercial
expansion, we are certain of that already, because
Britain will never permit the "open door" in the far
East to be closed.
Let the President take either horn of the dilemma,1
and his policy of what he himself has called "criminal
aggression" fails. Let him  open the door to the
world, and he antagonizes American labor. Let him
consider the Philippines part of the United States,
and therefore entitled, under the Constitution, to free
trade with, as part of, the United States, and the door
at once is closed, except through the high tariff, to all
other nations; and he antagonizes the wvhole of
Europe, and has war upon his hands to a certaintythis time no weak Spain to deal with, but the overwhelming naval power of Europe.
We are correctly told by the Secretary of State that
the "open door" does not mean free trade; that the
Philippines will have their tariff; and that all products entering the ports will be required to pay the
same duties, whether these be products of American
soil or labor, or of the low-priced labor of Europe,
India, Australia or the Argentine; but the Secretary
of State is also reported to have said that this places
all nations upon an equality. Here he has made a
pardonable mistake, since he has had no experience
of commerce.
The manufacturer of Germany, France or Britain,
the farmer of Australia and of the Baltic provinces,
of Russia and of the Argentine, reach the Philippines




92 SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND?


at about one-half the freight-cost that the American
farmer has to pay upon his products, or the American
manufacturer upon manufactured articles. The distance to Manila from the Atlantic seaboard is, say,
14,000 miles (via Cape); from Europe only say,
9,000; 12,000 from New York (via Europe, which is
the shortest way); from Australia only about onehalf the distance of that from San Francisco-say
3,500 miles, against 7,000; from India only 4,000,
and from Argentine not much farther than from San
Francisco.
Therefore, when President McKinley agreed that
the products of Europe and the agricultural products
of Australia and Argentine and India should reach
the Philippines, and pay only the same tariff as products of the soil and the mines of his own country, he
closed tlb door upon American commercial expansion in the Philippines.
It is interesting to consider whether the President,
or the Secretary of State, or any member of his cabinet knew that landing American products, either of
the farm or of the mine, in Manila, upon equal terms
with the agricultural products of Australia, India,
Argentine, or of the manufacturers of Europe, simply
meant that American grain, flour, provisions, American cotton and woolen goods, American iron and
steel, were at so serious a disadvantage, owing to the
greater distance, that they were practically excluded
from the new possessions for which the American
people are to pay. My answer is, that I do not believe
that one of them ever thought of this fatal fact of
distance.
America stands in regard to the trade of the Philippines exactly as she stood when they were under the
dominion of Spain, except that trade with Spain was




SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND? 93


favored. She was then on an equality with other foreign nations, but what has the Republic now to shoulder, by this hasty act of the President, which she had
not before?
First-She pays $20,000,000 for the privilege of
getting what she would better have paid a thousand
millions to be without.
Second-The President is to ask Congress for an
addition to the army, one and one-half times bigger
than the entire army that was necessary before he left
the path of the fathers, and plunged the Ship of State
into this sea of troubles.
Third-The President is to ask Congress for a tremendous addition to our navy, which will cost the
United States more than $20,000,000 every year.
The increased army will cost the country probably as
much.
The President will get his ships of war, but he
will not get his regular soldiers. The work which
he wishes them to do is not that which the regular
soldier of the United States has hitherto agreed to do.
The regular soldier will have to leave his country
to oppress the aspiration of people who are striving
for independence.
Perhaps the President of the United States will
order the American soldier to shoot down men whose
only crime is that they fight for the independence of
their country, which the American has been brought
up to believe and to prize worthy of all sacrifice. Recruits cannot be had for the regular army even to-day.
The pay of the army must be raised. It is safe to say
that the additional burdens which the President must
finally place upon the American people will not
amount to less than $Ioo,ooo,ooo per annum, and all
of this will be required because the country will have




94 SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND?


to maintain an army and navy equal to those of European powers, in order to defend worthless foreign
possessions from which no benefit can now be reaped,
American products having been effectually excluded
from them.
I have shown that, so far as the Philippines are
concerned, the President has placed the United States
at a fatal disadvantage compared with our foreign
rivals. Can American products of the farm, or the
mine, reach the Philippines at anything approaching
the cost of transportation of the agricultural products
of Australia, Argentine or Russia, or the manufactures
of Great Britain, Germany or France, having thousands of miles farther to go to reach the islands?
If yes, then the American is not disadvantaged, but
he has even then no advantage of all his extra taxes.
He had the "open door" before, except, as I have said,
in competition with Spain. If not, then the President has handicapped the agricultural and manufacturing interests of his country, and given to the foreigner the trade of the Philippines.
It has been said that the Philippines will be to the
United States what India is to England. This is what
I believe they will be, but do people really know
what India is to England? I have been in Indiahave met the Indians who speak English. They have
spoken to me freely, because I was an American.
What does education make of Indians?  Incipient
rebels! They have taken to heart Washington and
our struggle for independence; they speak most of
Cromwell and of Bolivar, of Wallace and of Tell.
England in India stands to-day upon a volcano.
She has to keep 60,ooo British troops there to hold
the people in subjection. She does not trust one gun
in the hands of the native troops. They can have




: j                  li` SP            1'~A
~,,,Y
D / Dizzy
L                           _ _/_ _ _
C X.*        1(  




I
I




SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND? 95


muskets, but the artillery is all held by the British
regiments. England has been in India for nearly 200
years-this is the condition she is in to-day. Of all
the perils of England, that of India is the greatest.
There is scarcely a statesman of Britain who does
not wish privately: "Would that we were safely out
of India!" More than one of them has said as much
to me. What does India do for England? Ask the
desolate homes that I have known in Britain. The
late war against the Afridis plunged many thousands
of homes in England into mourning.  The greatest
weakness that England possesses to-day is India.
Were it not for India she would not fear Russia.
India is the curse of Britain, and the Philippines
will be the curse of the United States. If you teach
suppressed people at all, you make them rebels. Education is fatal to the government of a superior race.
The Declaration of Independence will make every
ambitious Filipino a thoroughly dissatisfied subject.
Only those who know something of the national
affairs of Europe can realize the dangers into which
the United States may be suddenly plunged unawares.
Her entrance upon the stage in the far East will not
be welcome to any but Britain, and that very properly,
for British purposes only.
Mr. Stead, the well-known publicist, has just made
the tour of European capitals, and reports, what I
found there-that the United States' entrance upon
territory in the far East is everywhere regarded with
aversion, outside of England. "Outside of England,"
says Mr. Stead, "I have not met a single non-American who was not opposed."
It is no secret that, as the Saturday Review says,
"The United States gets its territory in the East by
the assistance of the moral power of Britain."




96 SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND?


Only Britain's holding back the other powers gave
us the Philippines. This let me put on record as my
belief, that, should the United States assume control
of the Philippines, she will have cause to ponder well
over what the London Times tells us as follows:
"If the Philippines are to be effectively occupied, a
large naval and transport power will be necessary.
The United States must show themselves ready to
repel any attempt on the part of other powers to
attack a position which for some time can hardly be
regarded secure."
It will not be sufficient that we have ships equal to
any of the powers to insure perfect safety on the
islands. Something more will be necessary, for European nations combine, and change combination, with
alarming rapidity.
Europe is an armed camp, with nine millions of
trained soldiers, two millions of these in the regular
army, while the United States is a hive of peaceful
industry, with only 56,000 regular soldiers. The warships of Europe number over,50oo-those of the
United States only eighty-one.
Obviously, we have not yet prepared ourselves to
defend distant possessions against these forces, even
singly, much less if they are allied. If our territories
are attacked, we are powerless. Of course we can
prepare ourselves-no question about the Americans'
ability to equal even Britain, or to excel her, upon the
sea, or upon land, either. But the fact remains, we
have yet to do this; and, until we do, it is madness
to incur the responsibilities of territory in the far
East.
One point should always be remembered-it is not
actual war which brings most loss to business or to
the poor laboring masses. War is destructive, but




SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND? 97


short, and comes but seldom.  It is the unceasing
alarms of war which work most injury, causing capital to shrink from enterprise, frightening the whole
financial, commercial and manufacturing world, and
throwing upon the workingmen at last the chief burden of want and suffering, through loss of employment. Less from actual war than from the constant
threat of war to which Europe is exposed come the
distress of the laboring people.
The entrance of the United States into this zone
of constant dread of war is even more to be feared
than the danger of actual war itself, except so far as
the latter involves direct sacrifice of human life. On
the other hand, lack of steady employment through
seasons of panic caused by alarm of war also claims
its victims, sometimes in the course of years even
exceeding in number those who fall in battle. There
can be no genuine prosperity in a country which is
kept in constant apprehension of war.
War between European powers is almost sure to
break out in the East sooner or later, for it is in view
of the coming struggle that every gun-plant, armorplant and shipyard is busy in Europe, night and day,
Sundays and Saturdays, preparing engines of war.
The United States will then have to look out for alliances. We must combine. 
It is all very well to say that Britain will be our
ally-perhaps, perhaps-but perhaps not. It depends.
Here is what the Saturday Review says: "Let us be
frank, and say outright that we expect mutual gain
in material interests in this rapprochement.  The
Americans are making their bargain under the protecting naval strength of England."
Surely nothing could be plainer than this.  No
American statesman should risk his country's safety




98 SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND?


upon an assumption of alliance or aid from British
or any other power, nor depend upon other than our
own strong right arm-which is very weak, indeed,
to-day, but must be made strong if we become an
Eastern power and wish to protect ourselves.
It is well for the United States to appreciate its
unrivaled position as long as she remains solid, compact, and without far-distant possessions liable to attack which she would consider herself in honor bound
to repel. To-day, suppose all the naval powers combined against her, how trifling the injury they could
inflict. Only the fringe of our country would feel it;
the ports upon the sea. The nation as a whole would
be untouched. Even the ports and the harbors are
easily rendered impregnable by mines and torpedoes,
and, in extreme cases, by closing the channels: The
recent war has shown that naval attack upon fortifications is not effective.
We should have no exports for a time, but the
annual domestic exchange of the people is not estimated by any one at less than fifty thousand millions
of dollars; those of exports and imports have never
yet reached quite two thousand millions-only about
four per cent of the domestic. The annual increase
of domestic exchanges is estimated to be just about
equal to the total of all our foreign trade, imports 
and exports combined. No great and general suffering could ensue from their stoppage for a time during
war. Some labor would be displaced, but the greater
call for volunteers for garrison duty and to supply the
abnormal demands always caused by war would require more labor. The number of volunteers taken
from the ranks of labor at present causes a scarcity
of men, especially throughout the Northwestern
States.




SHOULD THE UNITED STATES EXPAND? 99


The national wealth would not increase so rapidly
during the blockade. This is all. No one need suffer for food or clothing or shelter, for all these would
be plentifully supplied.  No lives would be lost.
Through Mexican or Canadian ports, even, every luxury would come to us. Upon our enemies would fall
the ruinous expense of naval operations far from
their base, and of waste of life. The loss of food
products would cause fanine and general distress in
Europe. In Britain so serious would this become
that, if not a party to the attack, her condition would
soon compel her to interfere and end the war.
No glory could come to our assailants; only monotonous waiting, exhausting their powers of mlischief, and compelling them to make peace upon our
own terms.
Such is our position so long as we remain compact,
absorbing only coterminous territory, upon which
Americans will grow. Russia is in precisely the same
condition, strategically considered, and none but she
and ourselves can be impregnable.
Such is the old policy, and such the new. The
one keeps the Republic the most peaceful, most prosperous, most happy, most highly civilized of all the
nations, devoting less and less of her energies to the
destructive engines of war, and more and more to
the education of her people.
One path-safety, peace, prosperity, civilization,
Republicanism; the other-dangers, taxation, sacrifice
of life, wars, militarism, imperialism. Can there be
any serious doubt as to the choice of the American
people?




.     
go.




CHAPTER V.


AGAINST IMPERIALISM.
BY GENERAL J. B. WEAVER.
"No man is good enough to govern another without the other's
consent."-Abraham Lincoln.
This postulate, selected from the many wise sayings
of one of the greatest emancipators of the world, contains within itself, in indestructible form, the whole
problem of rightful human government. It is in such
perfect unison with the constitution of man's intellectual, moral and physical being; so in accord with
our personal right to think for ourselves and hence
our duty to put all virtuous thoughts into action, that
we are forced to conclude, from the very correlation of
human faculties, that it is the will of our Creator that
we shall govern ourselves; and that beyond the selfimposed restraints of orderly association, no human
power can rightfully be permitted to intrude upon
this inviolable realm of individual kingship. Every
faculty of the human soul seems fashioned to impel us,
once and forever, to reject the yoke that would prevent the free exercise of this inalienable right. This
is in concert with the teachings of the enlightened and
heroic characters who fashioned our own infant republic. It is in harmony with the songs sung around
the cradle of our liberties, and so inlaid in the very
warp and woof of American character, to say nothing
of its perfect agreement with the enlightened and
self-imposed limitations against conquest, placed upon
101




102  WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALTSM.


our commander-in-chief when he was clothed by the
Congress with authority to draw the sword, that it
seems strangely incredible there should be found a
single soul under our flag who would question the
applicability of this fundamental truth to any body of
people anywhere on this planet. And yet we have a
distinguished and honored citizen sitting in the chair
of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, who thinks
that if he is not good enough, he is at least strong
enough, with the aid of an army and modern battleships, to govern Io,ooO,ooo distant and alien people
against their consent. And to prove his ability to do
so and to defend his position against attack, he has
felt compelled to take the lives of thousands of people
who were so wicked as to desire to govern themselves
and so rash as to attack our own starry flag in the
vain hope of securing this priceless boon.
Let there be no mistake here. We do not question the right, nor yet the duty of American soldiers in
the Philippines to defend their lives and their flag
when attacked. No sane man will question this.
They must also obey their officers. And the President, too, must obey his superiors-the Congress, and
the people whom they represent.
But in all contentions involving the taking of human
life, either in single combat or on the field of battle, the
moral sense of mankind must and will enquire whether
the taking of life could have been reasonably avoided.
And if it could, the verdict of history and the conscience of humanity will hold to strict accountability
that man who deliberately and stubbornly refused
to listen to the voice of reason. It is conceded by all
rational persons that if an individual, in the pursuit
of a lawful purpose, finds himself upon the possessions of another or on disputed ground, he may defend
himself if attacked even by the occupant of the in



WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


10o3


vaded premises. His attitude, however, must be that
of defense and not aggression. But if prior to the
attack the resident party make overtures of peace and
send representatives to peaceably confer about what
should be done to avoid conflict, the party that refuses to confer and insists upon calling for re-enforcements to strengthen his disputed position, would be in
poor attitude to insist that he was without fault if
bloodshed followed. In the presence of such facts
every court in christendom, and the whole world,
would cry out, you sought the conflict and invited the
shedding of blood. In such case the moral law would
suffer violence. Now, is it possible that our government has outgrown the moral law? Can it so expand
in importance as to reach a circumference where this
law does not exist?  Why, the great Greek poet, a
thousand years before the sweet-spirited Nazarene
graced this earth with His footsteps, or His angelic
ushers heralded His mission of peace and good will,
knew better than that. This pagan thinker exclaimed,
"Behold the nation in the man comprised!"  He saw
all the rights, all the wants, all the power and all the
limitations of national prerogative comprised in a
single individual.
But the case of the Filipinos is yet stronger than
this illustration. Here is a basic fact which must
never be lost sight of when we come to form opinions
concerning this important controversy which involvesour national honor. Spain was involved in a double
war in the Archipelago-one with us and another with
the inhabitants of those islands. We were seeking
to overpower her arms, while the latter were striving
for liberty, home and native land. Their struggle for
liberty antedated our arrival there more than two
years. During Dewey's long wait for reinforcements
to enable us to crush the inland power of Spain as he




104   WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


had overwhelmed her upon the sea, what were these
poor Filipinos doing? They sought arms of Dewey
and received them. They did not rest upon them and
simply besiege the commissary department for sustenance. No, they.marshaled their liberty-loving
hosts and fell upon their tyrannical oppressors.
Stronghold after stronghold fell before them. They
pressed forward through blood and death and only
halted before Manila itself, and then only at the
request of Dewey. They did not ask our army to liberate them and then bestow free government upon
them as a gift. They proceeded to purchase it with
their own blood. Dewey humanely cautioned Aguinaldo to observe the rules of civilized warfare in all
he did. Certainly, said the gallant young hero-and
it was done. Dewey dispatched to Washington that
the dusky warrior was a born soldier of exceptional
ability. The American commander, our whole people and the world knew the Filipinos were struggling
for the right to set up a government of their own.
We knew it before we ever landed a soldier there. It
was an honorable aspiration that should not have
been and is not offensive to the American people.
But doubts existed among the Filipinos as to the ultimate intentions of the American government. Relations became naturally somewhat strained, but no conflicts ensued. Instead, representatives were dispatched
to Washington with the view of reaching an amicable
understanding and they asked to be heard. Was not
this highly commendable? It is the time honored
method pursued by all nations, both Christian and
pagan, since the world began. Think of the scene!
Representatives of a far off Asiatic people coming
with an olive branch and bowing humbly in our
capitol-in the very sanctuary of freedom-before an
American President, in sight of an American Congress




WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


IO5


praying for freedom! They had seen our star in the
east and had come to worship it. They were burning
to fit our humane theory to their dusky and long oppressed constituency. It was an unprecedented spectacle. It seemed that the beautiful and sublime
prophecy of Thomas Jefferson, "The time will come
when rivers of blood will cease to flow and leave to
mankind the right of self government," was entering
at least upon partial fulfillment, and that ours was to
be the glory of closing the drama by stanching the
flow of blood. Oh, merciful Creator, is it possible that
our beautiful and beloved country could look upon
such a scene and deny the prayer of those humble
people? Agoncillo reached Washington. The two
armies were still at peace. Let the world remember
the fact that Agoncillo and suite were there to work
for freedom and to avert war. Here one kindly look
-a single smile and friendly shake of the hand-would
have settled all and opened the way to permanent
peace. Would that not have been both honorable and
merciful? But how were the Filipino commissioners
treated? Their communications were not even received or considered. No audience was granted or
courtesies exchanged. Instead they were treated as
intruders and given to understand that their presence
at Washington was unwelcome. Their importunities
for self-government were answered with fresh orders
for the dispatch of additional troops and battleships to
Manila-and this after Spain had yielded her sovereignty and hauled down her flag in all this vexed
group of islands.
After having turned a deaf ear to this mission of
peace, how arrogant and presumptuous it is for the
President to expect that his Commissioners will be
heard and respected by the Filipinos. They are, of
course, a mere sacrificial embassy, instructed to wait




106   WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


on the shedding of blood and the civilizing effect of
Mauser rifles before issuing their oracular incantations
to the natives. Have we grown so great that we
cannot even talk to a humble people about their liberties-not even after we had assured all concerned at
the start that we were humanitarians and had eschewed all thoughts of conquest? When courtesies
were refused everybody expected serious trouble.
Alas, it is upon us in appalling proportions. Hundreds of our brave soldiers and thousands of the Filipinos slaughtered and maimed.   When these benighted people turned their vision toward us and
caught one feeble ray of freedom's glorious light we
refused to talk with them and found it necessary to
shoot them to pieces by the thousand! Poor stricken
souls! The light of freedom and the eyes which feebly
beeleld it extinguished forever! Do these people love
liberty? Let their determination to fight for it against
such fearful odds-their willingness to fight both
Spain and the United States in order to obtain the
priceless treasure-answer the question. Was it beneath our dignity to try by conference to avoid this
holocaust? In the name of all that is merciful and
Christian, upon what kind of times have we fallen?
But the President has at last spoken amid this revolting scene of desolation, not to the Congress ordained to deal with such momentous questions-but to
guests at a feast in a distant commercial city. But
let us avoid being captious or even conventional, while
we proceed to briefly examine the defense which he
has made of his policy, and take a glance at his expressions of purpose for the future. The eloquent
periods of the President concerning destiny, civilization and the decrees of a higher power, are rhetorically
faultless. But in view of the chart of authority under
which he is acting and in the light of what is happen



WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


107


ing in the Philippines we cannot refrain from regarding the Delphic platitudes of the Boston speech as
stilted, dreamy and heartless. It is unfortunate for the
President that the blood-stained pages of all history
abound with defensive apologies of this character.
British sovereigns were full of such professions, both
before and during their war for the subjugation of the
American colonies. Cortes in Mexico and Pizarro,
the conqueror of Peru, plead the same humane purposes. If we will listen to the claims of Spain, her
reign has always been humane and uplifting in all her
possessions, Cuba and the Philippines included. Another remarkable feature about this speech is this, it
discusses the war which was declared in behalf of human liberty, but nowhere mentions the Constitution of
the United States, and only once hints at the Declaration of Independence; and then only to inform us
that he cannot use it advantageously in the present
exigency. He lifts the whole controversy above these
antiquated parchments into the higher sphere of destiny and the unrevealed decrees of Providence.
"Congress," says the President, "can declare war,
but a higher power decrees its bounds and fixes its relations and responsibilities." Then all Congress had
to do was to start the program and the President and
Providence would look after the details. Are we to
understand that the President simply accepted and
acted upon the naked declaration of war and disregarded the limitations against conquest imposed by
Congress? Whether he intended to say it or not this
is exactly what he seems to have done. But very
high poetic authority says, "For the King's offense
the people die," and is it not as reasonable to suppose
that the "higher power" would be present to guide
Congress when deliberating concerning a declaration
of war which involved the lives of thousands of His




108  WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


unoffending children-when it was humanely striving
to fix bounds to the shedding of blood-as it is to infer
that He presides and directs in the hell of battle? Is
Congress God-forsaken, and is a slaughtering army
Deity's chosen seat of power? If we can see the Supreme Ruler as the Lord of Sabaoth, can we not
more clearly discern Him as the ever present Spirit
of peace and mercy? To say the least these casuistic
extravaganzas of the President are utterly meaningless, if indeed they should not be more severely characterized. If the President has received any revelation that the limitations against conquest in our declaration of war are displeasing to the "higher Power,"
let him make it known. Otherwise every enlightened
citizen will judge of these things for himself. It is a
coincident worthy of note that the recent speech of
Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State
for the British colonies, delivered at the annual dinner of the Silversmith's association of Birmingham,
England, is couched in almost identical language with
that used by our President in his speech delivered at
the Boston banquet. Referring to our war with Spain,
the Right Hon. Secretary said: "We now see our
cousins across the water entering the lists and sharing in a task which might have proved too heavy for
us alone." "Providence shapes our ends and intends
us to be a great governing power, conquering in order
to civilize, administer and develop vast areas of the
world's surface, primarily to our advantage, but to
their own advantage as well." The thing calculated
to wound our pride in connection with the two
speeches is the fact that the Right. Hon. Englishman
spoke first and blazed the way in these recent discoveries concerning the ways of Providence with imperialism. Note the similarity of thought. It is marked
and striking. It would seem there is an entente cordiale existing between the two governments which the




WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


Io9


people know nothing about. Near the middle of this
century our victorious army swept across the sunscorched plains of Mexico from Palo Alto to their capitol and planted our flag over the halls of the Montezumas. And yet it seems that a "Higher Power" diC
not inspire President Polk, nor Generals Scott and
Taylor to hold Mexico in order to uplift, educate and
civilize her people. Providence did not so shape our
rough hewn ends at that time. It would be well to
carefully inquire whether this gospel of conquest does
not emanate from a lower power instead of a higher.
The President says: "We could not discharge the
responsibilities upon us until those islands became
ours, either by conquest or treaty."  Then I submit
that he should have gone to Congress, the great repository of the people's power, and asked for an enlargement of authority. But was not the cession of
those islands forced from Spain? Did not the President instruct his commissioners to demand their cession as an ultimatum and as a condition precedent
to peace? The whole world knows this to be true.
We forced the transfer because we had military advantage; and we are now slaying the Filipinos to establish our authority over them. Will anybody deny that
this is conquest? What right had the President to
insist upon the cession of those islands under the grant
of authority which he was exercising? It was as much
his duty to observe the limitations of power expressed
by Congress as it was to exercise the auth6rity
granted. Furthermore, equity and every consideration
of the moral law required that we should, at the time
the cession was made, take notice of the rights of the
Io,ooo,ooo inhabitants of that country. It was not necessary, either, to abandon the islands to anarchy, to
have thrown them into the arena for the strife of nations, nor yet to have abandoned them to Spain. We




I IO  WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


should have received their envoys and allowed the
people there to organize and strengthen their own republic under our fostering care and protection. Mankind everywhere would have applauded such policy.
No army of occupation, except a very small one, and
that for a short time only, would have been necessary,
and our brave soldiers would not be called upon to
lay down their lives unnecessarily in that tropical
clime. A couple of battleships anchored in a naval
station of our own, which could have been had for the
asking, would have furnished all the permanent force
necessary.
Here is another precious morsel from the Executive.
Speaking of the Filipinos, he says:
"Did we ask their consent to liberate them from
Spanish sovereignty or to enter Manila Bay and destroy the Spanish sea power there? We did not ask
these. We were obeying a higher moral obligation
which rested upon us and which did not require anybody's consent. Every present obligation has been
met and fulfilled in the expulsion of Spanish sovereignty from their islands, and while the war was in
progress we could not ask their views. Nor can we
now ask their consent."
We answer it was not necessary to ask the consent
of the Filipinos to liberate them from Spanish tyranny. We had their unsolicited consent and co-operation. But our Declaration of Independence is greatly
at fault, else it is necessary to ask their consent when
we seek to establish another government over them in
place of the Spanish authority expelled. The President thinks he has found a people to whom the Declaration of Independence does not apply! He assumes
'that we can deny to them life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness, unless they will submit to be governed
by a people alien to themselves, whose seat of gov



.I
~         |A.^^jf ~-' 'J *' ^ ^
^^ ^===^    -~~~~~~~~~~~~~








WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


III


ernment is ten thousand miles away from their islands.
When the President announces, as he did in his Boston speech, that he cannot ask the consent of the
Filipinos to allow him to govern them, he virtually
proclaims a war of extermination. If they will not
consent but resist his authority he will kill. And if
they continue to resist he must continue to kill. Could
anything be more abominable or revolting? No conqueror, during the last two centuries, has ever enunciated a more deplorable theory. Has not our Christian nation yet learned that we cannot substitute force
for the Golden Rule and then reasonably expect peace?
Away with a policy which rejects the chart of our liberties and the standard of human brotherhood which
it erected, in dealing with this helpless people who are
nursing an infant republic largely fashioned after our
own! There is yet an honorable way out of the dilemma. The road which leads toward the right always
lies open. You may pile difficulties mountain high
and still it is passable. Assure this people that they
shall have the right to govern themselves, under our
protectorate, and war will cease. The President concedes that the American Congress and people can now
rightfully deal with this burning question. This is
well. But they had the right to tell him how to deal
with the question, and they did so in the unmistakable limitations which they placed upon him long before he ever landed a soldier there. Months have
elapsed since the power of Spain was broken and the
treaty is now ratified. Has any policy been outlined
to Congress? Any form of government suggested?
None whatever. Nothing has been laid before the
present Congress as to any of the conquered provinces,
and none even as to Hawaii. I mistake the signs of
the times or the people will, ere long, indicate a policy
which will be in accord with our own glorious Declar



112   WEAVER AGAINST IMPERIALISM.


ation, traditions and Constitution. Having rebelled
ourselves against a colonial system, and having broken
Spanish colonial tyranny in the Antilles and in the
Indian Archipelago, we will not tarnish our fame nor
cloud the hope of an oppressed world by returning to
the blood-stained policy of Imperial Britain.


7




CHAPTER VI.


ARE WE TO SPREAD THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WITH THE BAYONET POINT
AS MAHOMET SPREAD          ISLAMISM WITH A SCIMITER?
BY HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
I have listened to the long and able debate on the
general proposition of annexation or expansion, and
have never at any time intended to obtrude my views.
I have never in my legislative experience in this
body or in any other assemblage heard so many
speeches giving the most cogent reasons why a man
should not vote for a proposition followed by the
acknowledgment that the speaker notwithstanding
intended to give his vote in its support. So at least
a great many votes that have gone to the treaty and
have enabled it to become the law of the land have
been cast by men who have been in great doubt as
to their duty and have at last yielded rather to pressure than to any conscientious or calm consideration
of the result.
As far as my observation goes, and as I understand
the present status of the American people, we have
no Constitution left. The only rule which governs
Congress now is the rule of the majority. We had
an illustration of that when the Hawaiian treaty was
rejected by the constitutional one-third, more than
one-third refusing to ratify it, and the majority
113




114 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.


brought in its resolution of annexation by which the
Constitution was overridden.
I will qualify the statement I have just made as regards our having no Constitution left, which the majority are bound to respect, by saying that the twothirds vote to ratify a treaty is the only scintilla of
the original instrument which now remains to hamper
the majority.
If the Senate joint Resolution should pass and be
approved by the President it would mean nothing
more than the cold-blooded enunciation of our power,
and a declaration that we will deal with this question
from the standpoint of our interests, regardless of the
rights or the wishes of those 10,000,000 Asiatics who
have come under our sway. And above all, notwithstanding the assertions which we heard here Yesterday,
that we could not take time to enter into negotiations with the men who had pistols at our breasts,
or with those who had fired upon the flag, it appears
to me that of all times in our history we could at this
moment give forth a sound that would be generous
and worthy of the great American people.
What caused this last battle of Manila? The reports which we receive through our newspapers all
come from American sources; they charge that the
Filipinos wantonly attacked the American army, and
that that army had a right to defend itself, which nobody assumes to deny. But when we recollect that
the telegraph lines from those islands are in charge
of the American commander there, or of those whon
he designates to control them, it is natural for us
to suppose that nothing would be let out under the
censorship which has existed for the last three months
or more that would be in the slightest degree derogatory to the good faith or the honor of the American




SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. II5
army there. Time alone will tell whether this battle
was provoked by the Filipinos for purposes of their
own or by the Americans for the purpose of endeavoring to sway men in this Senate to ratify the
treaty and change the status.
I recall one of JEsop's fables in which a painter
had depicted a lion lying on his back prone beneath
the heel of a man, and when he showed the painting
to the lion the lion said, "Yes, you painted that; but
if you will let me paint it, the situation will be just the
opposite."
I come now to make a statement, upon which I
base what I have just said, to this effect: That I have
seen in the last forty-eight hours an invalided officer
of the American Army, one of the regulars, who has
just reached this city from Manila. From what he
told me of the situation before he left there, I dare to
assert that the American Army has been in a state of
siege in that city for three or four months; that the
lines surrounding the city have been in the possession
of the Filipino army outside; that no American was
allowed to cross them; and that those Filipinos, while
they had not been actively engaged in firing upon our
troops, have preserved a strict recognition of the fact
that they were in an attitude of antagonism, that they
did not recognize this Government as having any
rights outside of the city of Manila. If that be true,
the question recurs as to who may be responsible
or who was responsible for the battle of Saturday
night last.
As I understand the legal status the ratification of
the treaty will bring about this result: That in the eye
of the law the Philippine Islands are ours and the
inhabitants thereof are to-day rebels; they are now
ours by right of cession from Spain, ratified yesterday




ii6 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.


by this body, and to be ratified soon by the Spanish
Government; they are Americans, and since they
have fired upon the flag they are rebels. That is the
law of the situation as we see it and possibly as the
world sees it.
Now, considering the fact, which can not be denied
-for our consul reported the fact as far back as February, I898, before Dewey sailed into Manila Baythat there was a rebellion against Spain; that the
Filipino army was lying outside of the city of Manila
and hostilities were active; considering the fact that
they organized a government as far back as last June;
considering the fact that they have been actively engaged in collecting munitions of war and have recruited their army until, as this officer told me, they
have not less than 40,000 men outside of Manila today, we are brought face to face with the consideration as to whether it was not wise and proper and
the best thing from their point of view for the Filipinos to make the attack which they did, or which
it is said they did, on Saturday night last.
If they went to war with the United States before
the United States had a title to those islands in law,
what is their legal status in international law? They
can not be called rebels to us except from the extreme
standpoint of legal technicality. We had no right
in Manila so far as they were concerned; we only had
rights there so far as Spain was concerned; and if,
after they had their representative here pleading and
begging for some word of comfort, some promise as
to our'policy, or some dim outline even as to the
purpose of recognizing their right to local self-government, they grew desperate at last and fired upon our
troops, the firing upon those troops before we had
any legal title must give them the right of belligerents




SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. 117


in war, although they are subjects of Spain, because
by the cession to us we simply fall heir to Spain's
residuary title in those islands.
We may say they are rebels, and in strict legal interpretation they may be rebels, but let this war
terminate how it will, history will declare that they
are to-day patriots striving for what we fought for in
our struggle with Great Britain in the last century;
and we can not escape from the condition at least of
doubt as to the course we ought to follow when we
consider this fact. They were fighting for their freedom against Spanish tyranny two years ago, and they
continued to fight up to the time when Aguinaldo left
the islands and went to Singapore; they continued
the fight, as our own consul said, after he left; they
never did cease, some of them; there never was peace;
and now the question which addresses itself to every
American who loves his flag and loves his great country and loves the great principle upon which that flag
rests and that country is founded is this: Are we to
take the place of Spain as their taskmasters and
tyrants?
I have looked back down the vista of what history
I have read, and I appeal to any Senator here who
may be versed in history to correct me if I am wrong
when I say there never has been in the history of
time a precedent for the existing condition now at
Manila between the United States and the Filipino insurgents. The transition or transfer of the legal title
to the islands during the period of their rebellion
against one government and their effort to throw off
the yoke and establish an independent government
has never, so far as I recall, occurred before in the history of the world.
I say the present situation in Manila is unique,




I18 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.
it is sui generis, it is the first one of the kind that
has ever existed in the history of the world where
a colony of another nation at war with that nation
for its freedom has been sold in the meantime to
another power and their allegiance or sovereignty
transferred.
We can look at it from our side and then look at it
from theirs. I have just presented a few of the ideas
which have occurred to me as having actuated the
Filipinos in firing upon the American flag, as they
did last Saturday, and that was that they desired to
obtain in the eye of international law the rights of
belligerents and not become rebels after the cession,
as would have occurred if they had fired yesterday
evening or this morning, after we had ratified the
treaty.
Senators will recall the fact that some twenty years
ago the South African Republic, known as the Transvaal, inhabited by the Boers, was annexed to the
British Crown by proclamation. A British diplomatic
agent had gone into that country to spy out the land,
so to speak, to feel the temper of the people. Having
notified his Government that it was advisable to do
so, a proclamation was issued, simply reaching out
and swallowing the whole Republic, putting them
under the British, flag, and sending a British governor,
accompanied by a regiment of soldiers, to take possession of the cities, towns, and forts, and lo, the
thing was done; the Transvaal was a part of the
British Empire!
The Boers, a sturdy Dutch stock, who had fled
from Natal and from the Orange Free State to get rid
of the Englishmen, numbering only about 50,000
souls all told, met in mass meeting and in assembly
time and again.  They protested, they supplicated,




SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. 119
they negotiated, they begged. In the meantime, while
these proceedings were going on, there was a transfer of power in England from the wily, brilliant, but
unscrupulous Disraeli to that grandest of English
statesman of this century, William Ewart Gladstone.
But even Mr. Gladstone, though he felt that the incorporation of the Boers under the British flag and into
the British Empire was wrong, did not feel called
upon to say so officially; and in the Queen's address
to the Commons, written, of course, by the prime
minister, it was stated that their request could not
be granted.
They were put under the British yoke in 1877. In
December, 1880, three years afterwards, the machinery of the Government had begun to move, and
the British tax-gatherer came around and levied on
a wagon belonging to one of the Boers who had
refused to pay taxes. HTe put it up for sale, but, instead of selling it, several Boers rode in on horseback,
took charge of the wagon, and gave this British official notice to get out, and in a week's time the entire
province was in rebellion against the British Crown,
but struggling for that inherent right of man-selfgovernment.
The British troops began to move; re-enforcements were rushed from Cape Town, from the adjoining territory belonging to England. The Boers were
farmers who had never drilled, but the best riflemen
in the world. The result was that in the conflicts
with the British regulars these undrilled farmers
whipped the redcoats, although they were officered by
trained soldiers; and under the lead of one of their
number, whose name was Joubert, they won some
notable victories. Reading the history of his brilliant
military deeds last night, I came to think that possibly




120 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.


under similar conditions, extended a thousandfold as
to this man Aguinaldo, who is now called an upstart
and an organizer of a "tin-horn government" in Manila, in the Philippines, it may come to pass that under
his inspiration and leadership a similar result will
happen in those islands.
The last conflict between these Dutch farmers-half
civilized if you choose to term them so-and the
British army was at Majuba Hill, where a thousand
picked British regulars had taken an impregnable position, as they thought, in the cup of an extinct volcano, a natural fortification with a rim around it. The
Boers surrounded them, crawled up to the rim of the
cup, and shot to death over half their number, put the
rest to flight-those they did not capture-and "all
the world wondered." Of course the British bulldog
barked and the British lion roared.  The demand
from the rabble was, "Rush more re-enforcements
down there and shoot those rebels to death."
What did Gladstone say and what did Gladstone
do? Realizing that a continuation of the war involved
the loss to Great Britain of many soldiers, realizing
that his predecessor in office had committed a grave
wrong, he sent a negotiator, Gen. Sir Evelyn
Wood, with instructions to bring about an honorable peace by the restoration to those people of their
republic, reserving only to the Queen of England
the right of suzerain and the right to control the
foreign policy of the republic.
What more do we want in the Philippines than the
right of a protectorate, which will give us the control
of their foreign policy, will keep away from those
islands any outside interloper, or land-grabber, or
robber who might desire to gobble them up and
enslave the people? What right, or what advantage




SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. 121
will it be to us to do more than to get as to those
islands a similar condition as that existing in the
Transvaal?
When Parliament met, the leader of the opposition,
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, moved a resolution censuring the Government for its disgraceful surrender to
these struggling Boers in South Africa and the return
to them of their inheritance of self-government. The
English press-that portion of it which belonged to
the   opposition-clamored        for  punishment     of   the
rebels and for their annihilation and extinction. Mr.
Gladstone, in defending his conduct, made a speech
in Parliament, an extract from which I shall read;
and I would to God that it could be framed and hung
up in every legislative chamber where the rights of
man are discussed and passed on by legislators as a
guide as to what true statesmanship demands. Here
is what that great Englishman said:
"Our case is summed up in this: We have endeavored to cast
aside all considerations of false shame, and we have felt that we were
strong enough to put aside those considerations of false shame
without fear of entailing upon our country any sacrifice at all. We
have endeavored to do right, and to eschew wrong, and we have done
that in a matter involving alike the lives of thousands and the honor
and character of our country. And, sir, whatever may be the sense
of gentlemen opposite, we believe that we are supported, not only
by the general convictions of Parliament, but by those of the country. We feel that we are entitled to make that declaration, for from
every great center of opinion in Europe, from the remotest corners of
Anglo-Saxon America, have come back to us the echoes of the
resolution which we have taken, the favoring and approving echoes,
recognizing in the policy of the Government an ambition higher than
that which looks for military triumph or for territorial aggrandizement, but which seeks to signalize itself by walking in the plain
and simple ways of right and justice, and which desires never to
build up empire except in the happiness of the governed."
There is no parallel for the action of the English
prime minister.     He was the first who had the greatness of soul to rise up and do what was right regardless of consequences.        Can   the   American     nation,
which we claim to be the home of liberty, a nation
of free men, imbued with ideas of self-government
from their cradle, can we do less?




122 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.


It was said that English honor demanded that these
colonists should be punished.    Everybody knows
that England could have sent troops enough there
to have killed the last man of them, just as we can
send troops enough to Manila to kill, as the Senator
from Montana said the other day, "to shoot them to
death," if need be, to make them respect our flag and
our authority. We can do it. Nobody doubts that.
The question is ought we to do it? Is it honorable
to do it? Is it right to do it?
As though coming at the most opportune time possible, you might say just before the treaty reached
the Senate, or about the time it was sent to us, there
appeared in one of our magazines a poem by Rudyard
Kipling, the greatest poet of England at this time.
This poem, unique, and in some places too deep for
me, is a prophecy. I do not imagine that in the
history of human events any poet has ever felt inspired so clearly to portray our danger and our duty.
It is called "The White Man's Burden."    With the
permission of Senators I will read a stanza, and I beg
Senators to listen to it, for it is well worth their attention. This man has lived in the Indies. In fact, he
is a citizen of the world, and has been all over it, and
knows whereof he speaks.
"Take up the White Man's burdenSend forth the best ye breedGo, bind your sons to exile,
To serve your captive's need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wildYour new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child."
I will pause here. I intend to read more, but I
wish to call attention to a fact which may have
escaped the attention of Senators thus far, that with
five exceptions every man in this Chamber who has
had to do with the colored race in this country voted




SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. 123


against the ratification of the treaty.  It was not
because we are Democrats, but because we understand and realize what it is to have two races side
by side that can not mix or mingle without deterioration and injury to both and the ultimate destruction
of the civilization of the higher. We of the South
have borne this white man's burden of a colored race
in our midst since their emancipation and before.
It was a burden upon our manhood and our ideas
of liberty before they were emancipated. It is still a
burden, although they have been granted the franchise. It clings to us like the shirt of Nessus, and
we are not responsible, because we inherited it, and
your fathers as well as ours are responsible for the
presence amongst us of that people. Why do we as
a people want to incorporate into our citizenship ten
millions more of different or of differing races, three
or four of them?
But we have not incorporated them      yet, and let
us see what this English poet has to say about it,
and what he thinks.
"Take up the White Man's burdenNo iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeperThe tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead."
Ah, if we have no other consideration, if no feeling
of humanity, no love of our fellows, no regard for
others' rights, if nothing but our self-interest shall
actuate us in this crisis, let me say to you that if we
go madly on in the direction of crushing these people
into subjection and submission we will do so at the
cost of many, many thousands of the flower of American youth. There are Io,ooo,ooo of these people,
some of them fairly well civilized, and running




124 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.


to the extreme of naked savages, who are reported
in our press dispatches as having stood out in the
open and fired their bows and arrows, not flinching
from the storm of shot and shell thrown into their
midst by the American soldiers there.
The report of the battle claims that we lost only
seventy-five killed and a hundred and odd wounded;
but the first skirmish has carried with it what anguish,
what desolation, to homes in a dozen States! How
many more victims are we to offer up on this altar of
Mammon or national greed? When those regiments
march back, if they return with decimated ranks, as
they are bound to come, if we have to send thousands
and tens of thousands of re-enforcements there to
press onward until we have subdued those ten millions, at whose door will lie these lives-their blood
shed for what? An idea. If a man fires upon the
American flag, shoot the last man and kill him, no
matter how many Americans have to be shot to do it.
The city of Manila is surrounded by swamps and
marshes, I am told. A few miles back lie the woods
and jungles and mountains. These people are used
to the climate. They know how to get about, and if
they mean to have their liberties, as they appear to
do, at what sacrifice will the American domination be
placed over them? There is another verse of Kipling. I have fallen in love with this man. He tells
us what we will reap:
"Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old rewardThe blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guardThe cry of hosts ye humor
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light'Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?' "
Those peoples are not suited to our institutions..
They are not ready for liberty as we understand it.




SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. 125
They do not want it. Why are we bent on forcing
upon them a civilization not suited to them and which
only means in their view degradation and a loss of
self-respect, which is worse than the loss of life itself?
I am nearly done. Nobody answers and nobody
can. The commercial instinct which seeks to furnish
a market and places for the growth of commerce or
the investment of capital for the money making of
the few is pressing this country madly to the final and
ultimate annexation of these people regardless of their
own wishes.
We are face to face with the question as to whether
we will be content to pass a resolution here which
might be sent to the Filipinos as a flag of truce and
a means of bringing about pacification and ultimate
relinquishment of everything except the protectorate
and such commercial advantages as we ought to
keep, and which they will gladly give us. We are at
a crisis in our own history, when we must turn our
faces away from this temptation, turn our backs upon
the incentive which has led us thus far, or we must
move forward remorselessly and relentlessly, doing
our own country and our own people more harm than
can result to those people, though we exterminate
them from the face of the globe. We have within our
grasp, and possible of attainment, a glory and honor
such as has never come to another nation in the
history of the world-the honor of having fought a
war for the love of liberty, animated by no greedy,
selfish purposes hidden under the declaration.
We are still an undegenerate people. We have
not yet become corrupted. We have in our veins
the best blood of the northern races, who now dominate the world. While we make no pretenses-and
it is a pity that we do not even stand up to the few




126 SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN.
we do make-we have here a religion whose essence
is mercy. We have had an experience in free government, government based on the will of the governed-for government by majority is government
with the consent of the governed-and we have been
taught by that government what so few people of this
world have learned, both the firmness to rule and the
power of obedience to that rule. We are a Christian
people, and our missionaries, or those imbued with the
missionary spirit, clamor for the annexation of these
islands for the purpose of shedding over them the
light of the gospel. We are asked to do as Mahomet
did with his creed-carry the Christian religion to
these people upon the point of a bayonet, as he spread
Islamism over Western Asia and Eastern Europe and
Northern Africa on his scimiter.
There are two forces struggling for mastery here,
and the better instincts of every Senator within the
hearing of my voice lead him to side with me in the
proposition that we do not want to shoot people into
a civilized condition if we know how to get around it.
The two forces to which I have referred as struggling
for mastery are liberty, light, and morality-in a word,
Christianity-contending against ignorance, greed,
and tyranny, against the empires of Mammon and
Belial. In the summer seas of the Tropics in both
hemispheres two flags are afloat to-day upon two
ancient cities. They both bear the emblem of this
great Republic, the Stars and Stripes. One goes there
and is floating in the free air as a harbinger of peace,
order, prosperity, happiness, liberty. The other floats
in Manila as an emblem of power, cold-blooded, determined to do what? To subjugate those people at
whatever cost and force on them such a government
as we think is best for them, and then, according to




___II_I_ _i_; _11_II.I........_I__.__... ...
b4 -r: ~J
i
I
I" `c
""








SPEECH OF HON. BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN. 127


the language of the resolution, determine afterwards
as it may be to "our" advantage whether we will sell
them or whether we will rule them in our "own"
way, without regard to their rights.
Why not tell these people now before further blood
is shed? We do not intend to do with you differently
from what we do with the Cubans. We went into
the war for the purposes of freeing a nation oppressed
beyond all historical precedent almost. By accident
or without premeditation you have fallen in our grasp.
We bought you from Spain and have title. We only
want enough of your territory to give us a harbor
of refuge, a naval station, the right to protect you
from outside interlopers, and to get such commercial
advantages as you of right ought to give us. Pass a
resolution of that kind, and then if those people will
not listen to reason and continue to fire on the flag,
I for one will say the blood will be on their own heads.
Let slip the dogs of war and teach them to respect
the Stars and Stripes. But we are there now upon
a false pretense. We are there wrongfully. We are
there without any justification to ourselves or to the
civilized world.
I yield to no man in loyalty to the sentiments, my
country, may it ever be right, but right or wrong, my
country. But, oh, my God, when I think how dishonorable the prosecution of the war promises to be to us
as a people, how little justification for it we have, even
to ourselves, I would that you, my fellows on this
floor, would pass a resolution which could bring about
immediately a cessation of hostilities and a condition
which might give the Philippine people the same right
to bless us as Cuba will possess, and which command
for us the admiration and respect of the civilized and
pagan world.
[Extract of speech February 7, 1899.]








CHAPTER VII.
ANNEXATION FROM A LEGAL POINT
OF VIEW.
BY GEORGE G. VEST,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That under the
Constitution of the United States no power is given to the Federal
Government to acquire territory to be held and governed permanently as colonies.
The colonial system of European nations can not be established
under our present Constitution, but all territory acquired by the
Government, except such small amount as may be necessary for
coaling stations, correction of boundaries, and similar governmental
purposes, must be acquired and governed with the purpose of ultimately organizing such territory into States suitable for admission
into the Union.
I do not propose in my brief discussion of this resolution to say anything which will necessitate an executive session. It is not my purpose to discuss any
treaty now    pending or which may be hereafter submitted to the Senate.
It seems to me peculiarly appropriate at this time to
examine what are the powers of Congress in regard to
the acquisition and government of new territory.
When the Attorney-General, the great law officer of
the Government, declares publicly and deliberately
that the Constitution made for thirteen half-rescued
colonies, glad to be permitted to live at all, has grown
too small for the greatest nation upon the face of the
earth, it appears to me time to inquire what is that
Constitution and the powers conferred upon Congress.
Every school-boy knows, or ought to know, that the
Revolutionary war, which gave us existence as a
people, was fought for four years exclusively against
129




130   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


the colonial system of Europe. Our fathers did not
in the commencement of that struggle contemplate
independence from the mother, country. When the
people of Rhode Island burned the British war sloop
Gaspee in Narragansett Bay, and the people of Massachusetts threw overboard the cargo of tea in Boston
Harbor, they acted as British subjects, proclaiming
their loyalty to the Crown of England. When Thomas
Jefferson, Patrick HIenry, and Light-Horse Harry
Lee met at the old Raleigh tavern in Williamsburg,
Va., and indorsed the action of Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, they proclaimed themselves English
subjects, loyal to the King, and only demanded the
rights that were given to them as Englishmen by
Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights.
What is the colonial system against which our fathers protested? It is based upon the fundamental idea
that the people of immense areas of territory can be
held as subjects, never to become citizens; that they
must pay taxes and be impoverished by governmental
exaction without having anything to do with the
legislation under which they live.
Against taxation without representation our fathers
fought for the first four years of the Revolution,
struggling against the system which England then attempted to impose upon them, and which was graphically described by Thomas Jefferson as the belief that
nine-tenths of mankind were born bridled and saddled
and the other tenth booted and spurred to ride them.
When war became flagrant and battles had been
fought and blood had been shed, the patriots of the
Revolution came to the conclusion that there must be
final separation from the British throne. Thomas
Jefferson then penned the immortal Declaration upon
the basic idea that all governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I3I


It is incredible that the men who fought for seven
long years without money, without men almost, and
without arms, against the proudest and strongest nation in the world, resisting the doctrine upon which
the colonial system of Europe is based, should, after
being rescued by Providence from its thraldom, deliberately put this doctrine in the written Constitution framed to govern them and their children. How
can it be true that all governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed when millions of human beings are held without their consent
as mere chattels, to be disposed of as the sovereign
power of the mother country may choose?
But, passing from this historic argument, which
seems to me unanswerable, the highest tribunal in the
United States, the Supreme Court, has settled this
question by a unanimous opinion, when the ablest
lawyers in the country were upon the bench. I am
now about to refer to a decision which I know will revive bitter memories unless those memories be happily eliminated by recent events. In the case of Dred
Scott against Sandford, Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion ~7ToCiort wh'iid' co0nstituted the
opinion of seven of the justices out of nine, effectually
disposed of the question as to whether the United
States could hold colonies without the intention or
prospect of forming them into States and admitting
them into the Union.
I am perfectly willing to eliminate that portion of
this opinion which referred to the introduction of
slavery into the Territories, notwithstanding an act of
Congress that prohibited it, and also declaring that
the Missouri compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional.
These questions were settled by shot and shell and
saber stroke for all time to come. But the portion
of the opinion that I shall now ask the Secretary to




132       FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.
read was acquiesced in by the nine justices upon that
court, including Justices McLean and Curtis, who disagreed with the majority in regard to the slavery question, but acquiesced in the opinion that this Government had no right to adopt the colonial system of
Europe.     I read this extract from     the court's opinion.
[Supreme      Court.    Opinions    of the    court.   Dred
Scott vs. Sandford.]
There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the
Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on
the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its
own pleasure, nor to enlarge its territorial limits in any way except
by the admission of new States. That power is plainly given; and if a
new State is admitted it needs no further legislation by Congress,
because the Constitution itself defines the relative rights and powers
and duties of the State and the citizens of the State and the Federal
Government. But no power is given to acquire a territory to be
held and governed permanently in that character.
And, indeed, the power exercised by Congress to acquire territory and establish a government there, according to its own unlimited discretion, was viewed with great jealousy by the leading statesmen of the day. And in the Federalist (No. 38), written by Mr.
Madison, he speaks of the acquisition of the Northwestern Territory
by the Confederated States, by the cession from Virginia, and the
establishment of a government there, as an exercise of power not warranted by the Articles of Confederation, and dangerous to the
liberties of the people. And he urges the adoption of the Constitution as a security and safeguard against such an exercise of power.
We do not mean, however, to question the power of Congress in
this respect. 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 acquisition 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. It is acquired to become a State and
not to be held as a colony and governed by Congress with absolute
authority; and as the propriety of admitting a new State is committed to the sound discretion of Congress the power to acquire territory for that purpose to be held by the United States until it is In
a suitable condition to become a State upon an equal footing with
the other States, must rest upon the same discretion.
I have stated that the nine justices of the Supreme
Court acquiesced in that portion of the Dred Scott
opinion, and I assert now, and challenge contradiction,
that not one tribunal, Federal nor State, and not one
public man of eminence in this country, has ever contradicted that portion of the Dred Scott decision until
within the last six months, when the craze of expansion seems to have taken possession of a large
portion of the American people.




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


133


Justice McLean, whose opinion was held, together
with that of Justice Curtis, to have represented the
opinion of the Northern people in regard to the power
of a slaveholder to carry his slaves into a Territory,
not only acquiesced in that portion of the Dred Scott
decision which has been read, but proceeded to
emphasize it in the elaborate and exhaustive opinion
which he filed. I will now read extracts from the
opinions of those two eminent lawyers.
In organizing the government of a Territory Congress is limited
to means appropriate to the attainment of the constitutional object.
No powers can be exercised which are prohibited by the Constitution or which are contrary to its spirit; so that, whether the object
may be the protection of the persons and property of purchasers of
the public lands or of communities who have been annexed to the
Union by conquest or purchase, they are initiatory to the establishment of State governments, and no more power can be claimed or exercised than is necessary to the attainment of the end. This is the
limitation of all the Federal powers.-Mr. Justice McLean.
Since, then, this power was manifestly conferred to enable the
United States to dispose of its public lands to settlers and to admit
them into the Union as States, when, in the judgment of Congress,
they should be fitted therefor, since these were the needs provided
for, since it is confessed that government is indispensable to provide for those needs, and the power is to make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory, I can not doubt that this is a
power to govern the inhabitants of the territory, by such laws as
Congress deems needful, until they obtain admission as States.-Mr.
Justice Curtis.
I call attention to the fact that in these two dissenting opinions as to the introduction of slavery into
the Territories, but concurring opinions as to the want
of power in this Government to hold colonies as
colonies not to be admitted as States and with no
prospect of becoming States, the fundamental idea is
conveyed that all the power of Congress in regard
to the Territories is to be exercised as an initiatory
process to their becoming States of the American
Union.
The Articles of Confederation-to show how sensitive were our fathers in regard to new territory to
be added to this country-made no provision at all
for the acquisition of new territory. As Chief Justice
Taney said in delivering the opinion in the Dred Scott




134   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


case, Mr. Madison in the thirty-eighth paper of the
Federalist, over the signature of Publius, criticised
the action of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in admitting the Northwestern Territory
when donated to the United States by Virginia, and
in dividing that Territory into States, first forming
Territorial governments; and he used the unconstitutional action, the unauthorized action of the Congress
of the Confederation as an argument why a remedy
should be applied in the provisions of the new Constitution of I789 then pending, and for the adoption
of which he was contending.
What are the provisions of this Constitution of 1789,
for the first time alluding to the acquisition and government of new territory? There are but two provisions in that Constitution pertinent to the present
discussion-first, "That Congress shall have power
to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property
of the United States."  That is the first provision.
Then follows, as a conclusion, that "new States may
be admitted by Congress into the Union." What
lawyer, what intelligent layman, will not admit that
these two provisions are to be taken and construed
together?
The Supreme Court of the United States has again
and again decided, as Justice McLean and Justice
Curtis said in their opinion in the Dred Scott case, that
"needful rules and regulations" means that Congress
shall prepare the Territory for admission into the
Union as a State. I repeat, who can believe that
there could be any other meaning, taking the history
of the Revolution, the arguments of Mr. Madison, and
the sensitiveness of the American people at that time
to the addition of territory under any circumstances
to the Union as it then existed?




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I35


The colonial system of Europe had not then assumed the vast proportions it has to-day. I have before me a paper taken,from the consular reports for
July last, which may prove of some interest in the
present contingency. Great Britain expresses approbation of the new doctrine now proposed in the
United States, which holds that we can enter upon the
colonial system of Europe and hold colonies without
any prospect or hope of their ever becoming members
of our Union. It is not to be wondered at that the
great apostle of the colonial system in Europe should
now welcome with open arms the Republic they attempted to destroy, when it comes as a new recruit
to the system which we fought for seven years, tracking the snow at Valley Forge with bloody feet in
order to successfully resist it.
From this paper which I hold in my hand, and
which I will ask to be inserted in my remarks for general information, it appears that Great Britain has in
the mother country 120,979 square miles, and in her
colonies I6,662,073 square miles. Great Britain has
in the mother land 39,825,000oo inhabitants, and in her
colonies 322,000,000 subjects absolutely of the Empire,
excepting Canada and Australia, where there is limited self-government, the remainder being "'rown colonies, without the right even to govern themselves
locally, and certainly without any right to participate
in the action of Parliament.
France, also a republic nominally, comes next in
this vast system. It must be said in justice to the
Republic of France that much the largest portion, if
not all, of its colonial possessions, were acquired under
the Empire and the old Bourbon monarchy. Germany comes third, and so on through the list of European kingdoms and empires, with millions upon mil



136         FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.
lions of human beings, hewers of wood and drawers
of water, in utter defiance of human rights.
COLONIAL POSSESSIONS OF EUROPEAN STATES.
The extent of the German colonial possessions and protectorates,
including the recently leased territory in Kyaochau Bay, is 2,600,000
square  kilometers (1,615,577 square   miles).   The German     Empire
proper contains only 540,657 square kilometers (335,931 square miles),
which is not much more than one-fifth of its colonial possessions.
Togo, Kameruns, and German Southwest Africa contain together
874,189 square miles. German East Africa is nearly two-thirds as
large as the last named, having 584,777 square miles.
England's colonies and possessions embrace no less than 16,662 -073 square miles, or more than eighty-five times as much as the
motherland.
A comparative table of the extent and number of inhabitants of
the European colonial possessions shows:
Extent.                 Population.
Country.   Motherland.    Colonies.     Motherland.    Colonies.
Sq. Miles.   Sq. Miles.
Great Britain..........120,979   16,662,073    39,825,000    322,000,000
France................204,092     2,505,000    38,520,000     44,290,000
German    Empire.....208,830      1,615,577    53,325,000      7,450,000
Portugal.............. 36,038      809,914      5,050,000     10,215,000
Holland............... 12,648      783,000      4,930,000     34,210,000
Spain.................197,670     405,458     17,300,000      9,800,000
Italy...................110,646    242,420    31,290,000       195,000
Denmark (Faroe Islands, Iceland, and
Greenland).......... 15,289        86,614     2,175,000       130,000
Germany takes third place as regards extent of colonial territory,
but only sixth in point of population of her possessions. Only Great
Britain, France, Holland, and Portugal have more inhabitants in their
colonial possessions and protectorates than there are at home.
I assert that the fundamental idea of our American
institutions is citizenship to all within the jurisdiction
of the Government, except to the Indian tribes. The
Constitution makes an exception as to the Indians because their position was sui generis and entirely
anomalous. As the Supreme Court said in the Cherokee-Georgia case, the Indian tribes are independent
dependencies. We have recognized their right to
their own     tribal customs and         institutions, and      at the
same time put upon them nonintercourse laws, and
exercised by legislation the power of control.
With that single exception all the people of the
United States within its jurisdiction are to be citizens,
and whatever may be said in regard to the older in



FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I37


habitants of new territory that may be acquired by this
country, it is beyond any question, under the terms of
the fourteenth amendment, that all children born
within our jurisdiction, no matter what the condition
of the parent is as to citizenship, are made citizens of
the United States and of the State in which they reside.
The Supreme Court has decided that the child of
Chinese parents born in this country becomes a citizen,
but that Congress can not take away the right of citizenship conferred' by the Constitution on account of
birth. If this is not settled by adjudication, nothing
can be settled by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The fourteenth amendment provides that all persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and
of the State in which they reside.
When, then, we take jurisdiction over millions of
acres of what is now foreign soil and bring under
our jurisdiction millions of human beings, whatever
may be the case as to the citizenship of the older inhabitants of those areas, their children born under
the jurisdiction of the United States become citizens,
entitled to all the immunities and privileges of citizenship. If this amendment does not provide this, it is
absolutely nugatory and void. If that is not one result of the war crystallized in the Constitution for all
time and beyond question, then the results of that
struggle are entirely misunderstood by the people of
the United States and the world.
The fifteenth amendment provides that all citizens
shall be entitled to the right of suffrage, being supplementary to the fourteenth amendment, which provides
that all persons born and naturalized in this country,
and subject to its jurisdiction, shall be citizens, obvi



138   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


ously intending to exclude the children of ambassadors
and of persons in transit through the country, as, for
instance, in going from Mexico to Canada, when children are born en route. The words "and subject to
its jurisdiction" apply to that class of persons, but except such children and the Indians. It was unquestionably the intention of the framers of this amendment and of the States which adopted it that American
citizenship should apply to all the inhabitants of our
common country.
But it is said that we have abandoned by precedent
the application of the doctrine announced in this resolution, and that we have by legislative action admitted
the right of the United States to acquire by purchase
large tracts of territory to be held as colonies. I
emphatically, distinctly, and without qualification deny
that assertion. It is the resort of desperate disputants
and anonymous patriots, who appear from day to day
in the public press, and attack public men as Bourbons
and decrepit statesmen because we choose to adhere
to the principles of the Constitution and the traditions
of our fathers, and to resist this new evangel, which
threatens to sweep away all conservatism from the
land.
When did we admit territory to be held as colonies?
Was the Northwestern Territory brought under the
jurisdiction of the United States in order to be held as
a colony? The author of the Declaration of Independence was the author of the ordinance of 1784,
called the ordinance of 1787, and in it provision was
made for a Territorial governor, a Territorial judge,
a Territorial marshal, and that as soon as 5,000 white
male inhabitants should be found in that Territory,
they should have the right to elect a Territorial legislature and pass laws for their own government.
Who will be reckless enough to say that Thomas




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I39


Jefferson, who penned the words "All governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," would have degraded and branded with infamy that princely gift of Virginia to the country by
inserting in it the hateful principle of the colonial system of Fiurope? Did we depart from the doctrine I
am here to-day advocating with all my strength when
we admitted Louisiana, during the Presidency of Jefferson, to the jurisdiction of the United States?
In the act of cession from France is found a provision that as soon as possible the inhabitants of that
Territory shall be made citizens of the United States
and the Territory itself admitted as a State of the
Union. Did we give up the doctrine which I am
here to-day advocating when Florida was purchased
from Spain and brought within the jurisdiction of the
United States? In the act of cession from Spain is
contained the same provision as is found in the
Louisiana purchase, that the inhabitants as soon as
possible shall be made citizens and Florida admitted
as a State of the Union.
But we are told by eminent statesmen that when
Alaska came into the Union we surrendered this whole
question. When Russia ceded Alaska to the United
States the same provision was put in the act of cession, that the inhabitants of Alaska as soon as possible should become citizens and Alaska be admitted as
a State of the Union.
When, where, how have we ever surrendered the
great doctrine that this is a confederation of sovereign
States and that there are known to the Constitution
but four forms of government-first, the National
government, then the State government, then the
Territorial government, and then the District of Columbia? It is not possible to point out any other
form of government under the Constitution.




140   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


It is said by the expansionists that Alaska          was
called, in the act to furnish a government for it, the
district of Alaska. That is true. That act was drawn
by ex-President Harrison, then a member of the Senate and chairman of the Committee on Territories, of
which I was a member, and I called the attention of
the committee at the time to the argument substantially I now make, that there was but one district
possible under the Constitution, and that was the district of ten miles square, to be freed from political excitement, and to be used as the seat of government for
the whole United States.
I was answered by the chairman of the committee
that the word "district" made no difference; that the
act itself provided for a territorial governor, a territorial judge, a territorial marshal, and four commissioners with the jurisdiction of justices of the peace
in the State of Oregon. But the Supreme Court of
the  United   States has settled     this  question.    Mr.
Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the Supreme
Court in what is known as the Alaska case, declared
that Alaska was a Territory of the United States, and
that the supreme court of Alaska was properly added
to the Ninth judicial circuit under the general law,
which provides that from the supreme court of the
Territory there shall be the right of appeal to the appellate courts in their respective circuits, and I read
that decision:
In 163 U. S., steamer Coquitlam vs. United States, Justice Harlan,
delivering the opinion of the Court, says:
"Alaska is one of the Territories of the United States. It was
so designated in that order and has always been so regarded. And the
court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within
the limits of that Territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial
sense the supreme court of that Territory.
"No reason can be suggested why a Territory of the United
States in which the court of last resort is called a supreme court,
should be assigned to some circuit established by Congress that does
not apply with full force to the Territory of Alaska, in which the
court of last resort is designated as the district court of Alaska. The
title of the Territorial court is not so material as its character. Looking at the whole scope of the act of 1891, we do not doubt that Con



FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I4I


gress contemplated that the final orders and decrees of the courts
of last resort in the organized Territories of the United States-by
whatever name those courts were designated in legislative enactments
-should be reviewed by the proper circuit court of appeals, leaving
to this court the assignment of the respective Territories among the
existing circuits."
The act providing a government for Alaska was
drafted in accordance with the ordinance of 1784,
called the ordinance of 1787, which provided for the
government of the Northwestern Territory. The only
difference between the two acts is that no provision
is made in the Alaska statute for the subsequent creation of a Territorial legislature, prescribing the qualifications of electors of the members of that Territorial
legislature when elected. It was never pretended that
Alaska was anything but a Territory of the United
States until within the last six months, when the new
apostles of a new system have undertaken to teach
the American people that the fathers were mistaken in
our form of government.
But, I come now to the great, overwhelming, and
crucial argument made by the expansionists in favor
of this new system. Driven in desperation by the
earlier history of our country and by the decisions of
the Supreme Court to their last alternative, they claim
that the Territories, whether organized or unorganized
-and newly acquired-are not subject to the Constitution of the United States and that the Constitution
applies alone to the States of the Union. They quote
in support of this monstrous proposition-for I can
denominate it nothing else-the great name and authority of Daniel Webster. I am sorry to say that
Mr. Webster, for whose learning and ability I have the
highest respect, permitted himself, in an acrimonious
debate with John C. Calhoun on the government of
the territory acquired from Mexico in 1848, to say that
the Constitution did not apply to the Territories.
Unfortunately at that period the slavery question




142   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


overshadowed everything else, and when new territory came into the Union the question was only, "Is it
free or slave?" Calhoun contended that the Constitution of the United States recognized slavery, and that
ipso facto it was extended over the newly acquired
territory, and consequently carried the institution of
slavery into it. Mr. Webster combated this position,
and in doing so permitted himself to say that the
Constitution did not apply to the Territories, but only
to the States. He went further and asserted that
under the Constitution the Federal Government had
no right to acquire territory by purchase or conquest
for any purpose whatever, ignoring the treaty-making
power and the war-making power, which the Supreme
Court and every respectable lawyer now admit gives
to us the right to acquire territory by conquest or by
purchase.
I repeat, that I have the highest respect for Mr.
Webster as a lawyer and statesman, but the proposition he advanced is so monstrous as not to permit
discussion. To say that the citizens of a Territory
under the jurisdiction of the United States are excluded from the provisions of the Bill of Rights is to
say that they are at the mercy of Congress without
limitation; that Congress can prohibit the free exercise
of religion; take away the right of trial by jury; take
away immunity from unreasonable search and seizure,
and destroy all the great rights guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights to all the people of the United States. For
what did our fathers struggle?
For what did their descendants labor and toil if
this monstrous proposition be now true? Fortunately
for the country, and for human rights and constitutional liberty, the Supreme Court of the United States
has, in repeated adjudications, settled this question,
finally and forever against Mr. Webster's position.




A       A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ix-i
Z   /          ft 
I, 
I




a




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I43


As early as January, 1820, Chief Justice Marshall, in
delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court, in the case of Loughborough, decided emphatically that the term "United States" in the Constitution meant the States and the Territories and
every foot of the soil over which the flag of our
country floats.
John    Marshall wrote      no  nebulous    opinion.    I-is
knowledge of the Constitution was only equaled by
his command of the English language. I say now,
although I differ with him in many respects politically,
that until this country cease to exist and the English
language cease to be spoken, John Marshall, of Virginia, will stand without a peer in the judicial annals
of this or any other country.       What said Chief Justice
Marshall in 4 Wheaton, in the case of Loughborough
vs. Blake?
In 4 Wheaton, "Loughborough vs. Blake," Chief Justice Marshall,
delivering the opinion of the court, said:
"The eighth section of the first article gives to Congress the
'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises' for the
purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all places over which
the Government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words, which modify the grant. These words
are: 'but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States.' It will not be contended that the modification of
the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend.
The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises
may be exercised, and must be exercised, throughout the United States.
Does this term designate the whole or any particular portion of the
American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great Republic, which is composed of
States and Territories. The District of Columbia or the territory west of
the Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland or
Pennsylvania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our
Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties,
and excises should be observed in the one than the other. Since, then,
the power to lay and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes, is obviously coextensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts,
and excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United States,
it follows that the power to impose direct taxes also extends throughout the United States."
It seems to me that this decision is a finality in regard to this new and astounding claim that the Territories of the United States are not embraced within
the term "United States," and that the limitations of
the Constitution do not apply to them.




144   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


We are told now       under this astounding announcement that one rate of taxation can prevail in the Territories and another in the States, notwithstanding the
provision of the Constitution that all duties, imposts,
and excises shall be uniform throughout the whole
United States.
If this doctrine as now announced be true, not
one of the limitations, not one of the grants, not one
of the immunities provided for by the Constitution applies to the Territories of the United States, but only
to organized States. I might submit this question
with the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, believing
that the American people are not so besotted with the
glare of military glory or the glitter of commercial advantage as to forget the great jurist who did so much
to expound the Constitution of our country; but I will
go further. In ioi United States, in the case of National Bank vs. The County of Yankton, Chief Justice
Waite, in     delivering   the  unanimous opinion         of the
court, said:
All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under the
authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions
of the outlying dominion of the United States. Their relation to the
General Government is much the same as that which counties bear to
the respective States, and Congress may legislate for them as a State
does for its municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory
takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local
government. It is obligatory on and binds the Territorial authorities;
but Congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of
its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the
United States, except such as have been expressly or by implication
reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.
In the organic act of Dakota there was not an express reservation of power in Congress to amend the acts of the Territorial legislature, nor was it necessary. Such a power is an incident of sovereignty and continues until granted away. Congress may not only
abrogate 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 departments of the Territorial governments.
It may do for the Territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may. do for the States.
Now what can the people of the United States do
for a State?    Can they take away from         the people of a




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


I45


State the right of trial by jury, or of habeas corpus,
or immunity from illegal arrest and search and seizure,
or take away fron them the right of religious opinion?
If a Territory occupy the relation to the Federal
Government that a county does to a State, what can
the State authorities do as to a county?  Can they
govern it without reference to the State constitution;
and could the Congress of the United States, under
the decision of Chief Justice Waite, concurred in by
all the judges, govern the Territories at their own
will without regard to the limitations and prohibitions
of the Federal Constitution?
I shall not weary the Senate by reading other opinions, but I will refer to them, and Senators can satisfy
themselves. In the case of Thompson vs. Utah, decided in 170 U. S., the Supreme Court unanimously
declared that the right of trial by jury in criminal
cases to the people of a Territory could not be taken
away by Congress and that the powers of Congress as
to Territories were limited and defined by the Constitution of the United States and not unrestricted.
They made the same decision in two other cases, the
American Publishing Society vs. Fisher, I66 U. S.,
464, and Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wallace, 35. There
can no longer be a question, nor the shadow of a
question, that the Congress of the United States is
as to the Territories limited in its action by the Federal Constitution.
I have not controverted, and do not propose to controvert, the power of the Federal Government to acquire and govern territory, but I do deny that territory
can be acquired to be held as colonies, peopled by millions of subjects not citizens, with no hope or prospect of its ever becoming a State of the Union. I may
be answered by the statement that this is not a practical question, because Congress has exclusive jurisdic



146   FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.


tion as to the admission of States, and it may hold this
territory indefinitely without any idea of its ever coming into the Union; in other words, establish under
cover and by a fraud upon the Constitution the colonial system which the Constitution never contemplated.
I will not insult my brother Senators by supposing
that they would thus evade the spirit and letter of the
Constitution, and when believing that the colonial
system is not possible in this country, would vote to
take in vast tracts of land inhabited by barbarians,
intending never to allow this territory to come in as
a State, but to hold it for commercial advantages alone,
in violation of the fundamental law  of the land.
Whenever the Congress of the United States becomes
so degraded as to do this, it matters little what occurs in the future. It is simply a question of time
when the disastrous end will come.
We are told that this country can do anything,
Constitution or no Constitution. We are a great people-great in war, great in peace-but we are not
greater than the people who once conquered the
world, not with long-range guns and steel-clad ships,
but with the short sword of the Roman legion and the
wooden galleys that sailed across the Adriatic. The
colonial system destroyed all hope of republicanism
in the olden time. It is an appanage of monarchy.
It can exist in no free country, because it uproots and
eliminates the basis of all republican institutions, that
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I know not what may be done with the glamor of
foreign conquest and the greed of the commercial and
money-making classes in this country. For myself, I
would rather quit public life and would be willing to
risk life itself rather than give my consent to this




FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.           147
fantastic and wicked attempt to revolutionize our Government and substitute the principles of our hereditary
enemies for the teachings of Washington and his associates.
[Extract of speech delivered December 12, 1898.]




I




CHAPTER VIII.
OUR GOVERNMENT AS IT WAS INTENDED.
BY GEORGE F. HOAR,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That under the Constitution
of the United States no power is given to the Federal Government to
acquire territory to be held and governed permanently as colonies.
The colonial system of European nations can not be established
under our present Constitution, but all territory acquired by the Government, except such small amount as may be necessary for coaling
stations, correction of boundaries, and similar governmental purposes,
must be acquired and governed with the purpose of ultimately organizing such territory into States suitable for admission into the
Union.
I am quite sure that no man who will hear or who
will read what I say will doubt that nothing
could induce me to say it but a commanding sense
of public duty. I think I dislike more than most men
to differ from men with whom I have so long and
so constantly agreed. I dislike to differ from the
President, whose election I hailed with such personal
satisfaction and such exulting anticipations for the
Republic.     I dislike to differ from    so many of my
party associates in this chamber, with whom I have
for so many years trod the same path and sought
the same goal. I am one of those men who believe
that little that is great or good or permanent for a
free people can be accomplished without the instrumentality of party. i And I have believed religiously,
and from my soul, for half a century, in the great doctrines and principles of the Republican party. I stood
in a humble capacity by its cradle. I do not mean,
if I can help it, to follow its hearse. I am sure
149




150 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


I render it a service; I am sure I help to protect and
to prolong the life of that great organization, if I can
say or can do anything to keep it from forsaking the
great principles and doctrines in which alone it must
live or bear no life. I must, in this great crisis, discharge the trust my beloved Commonwealth has committed to me according to my sense of duty as I see it.
However unpleasant may be that duty, as Martin
Luther said, "God help me. I can do no otherwise."
I am to speak for my country, for its whole past,
and for its whole future. I am to speak to a people
whose fate is bound up in the preservation of our
great doctrine of constitutional liberty. I am to speak
for the dead soldier who gave his life for liberty that
his death might set a seal upon his country's historic
glory. I am to speak for the Republican party, all
of whose great traditions are at stake, and all of
whose great achievements are in peril.
No man can ever justly charge me with a lack of
faith in my countrymen, or a lack of faith in the principles on which the Republic is founded. If during
thirty years' service within these walls, or during
fifty years of constant, active, and absorbed interest
in public affairs, there has ever come from my lips
an utterance showing lack of faith in the people, in
the Republic, in country, in liberty, or in the future,
let them be silent now. I thank God that if I have no
other Christian virtue, I have at least in the fullest
measure that which stands as the central figure in
the mighty group which the Apostle says is forever
to abide-Hope. I thank God that as my eyes grow
dim they look out on a fairer country, a better people,
a brighter future.
I have in my humble way, poor enough I know,
but it was my best, defended the character of the




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 151


American people, their capacity for self-government,
the character of the great legislative bodies through
which that government is exercised, whenever and
by whomsoever assailed. I do not distrust them now.
But the strongest frame may get mortal sickness from
one exposure; the most vigorous health or life may
be destroyed by a single drop of poison, and what
poison is to the human frame the abandonment of our
great doctrine of liberty will be to the Republic.
After all, I am old-fashioned enough to think that
our fathers, who won the Revolution and who framed
the Constitution, were the wisest builders of states
the world has yet seen.  I think that they knew
where to seek for the best lessons of experience and
they knew how to lay down the rules which should
be the best guides for their descendants. They did
not disdain to study ancient history. They knew what
caused the downfall of the mighty Roman Republic.
They read, as Chatham said he did, the history of the
freedom, of the decay, and the enslavement of Greece.
They knew to what she owed her glory and to what
she owed her ruin. They learned from her the doctrine that while there is little else that a democracy
can not accomplish it can not rule over vassal states
or subject peoples without bringing in the element
of death into its own constitution. The Americans
have been aptly called the Greeks of modern times.
The versatile, enterprising, adventurous Yankee has
been likened to the people of Athens, who were of
the Ionian race, and the brave, constant, inflexible
men of the South to the brave, constant, and inflexible Sparta, whose people were Dorians.
There are two lessons our fathers learned from the
history of Greece which they hoped their children
would remember-the danger of disunion and do



152 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


mestic strife and an indulgence in the greed and lust
of empire. The Greeks stood together against the
power of Persia as the American States stood together
against the tyranny of England. For us the danger
of disunion has happily passed by. Our Athenians
and our Spartans are bound and welded together
again, each lending to the other the strength of their
steel and the sharpness of their tempered blade in
an indissoluble Union. Our danger to-day is from
the lust of empire. It is a little remarkable that the
temptation that besets us now lured and brought to
ruin the Athenian people in ancient times.         I hope
that we may be able to resist and avert that danger
as we resisted and averted       the  peril of disunion.
Pericles and Cleon, the conservative and the radical
leaders, differing in everything else, united in their
vain warning to their countrymen against this peril.
Cleon, though a demagogue and a radical, boldly
told his countrymen thatA democracy was incapable of holding dominion over others; that
they were slaves to every new paradox, and that as they listened to
the orators for expansion they resembled men sitting to be amused
by rhetoricians rather than deliberating on state affairs.
They disregarded his warning. The result was the
Syracusan expedition and the overthrow of the
Athenian Republic.
Professor Creasy, in his Six Decisive Battles of the
World, well says:
There has never been a republic yet in history that acquired dominion over another nation that did not rule it selfishly and oppressively. There is no single exception to this rule either in ancient or
modern times. Carthage, Rome, Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Holland, and republican France, all tyrannized over every province and
subject State where they gained authority.
My excellent friend, the Senator from      Connecticut,
after stating that in his judgment Governments derive
their just powers from the consent of "some of the
governed," is polite enough to add that he wishes




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 153
I understood the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence as well as the fathers did.
I am not speaking only of his denial of the great
doctrine of constitutional liberty and of political
morality that government derives its just power from
the consent of the governed, and that any people has
the right, when it thinks its existing government is
destructive of the great ends of life, liberty, and happiness, to throw off the old government and make
a new one for itself, and certainly if it have that right
no other man has the right to impose one on it against
its consent. l But I am not speaking of that. I am
speaking of his astonishing and most extravagant
construction of the powers of Congress under the
Constitution.
That I may not do him an injustice, I have carefully
digested and put in order the different propositions
to which' he commits himself, to which he seeks to
commit the Senate, and which he wishes to make the
foundation for the new departure which he desires
the country to take.
The Senator from Connecticut says:
As to every matter the United States as a nation possesses sovereign power, except only where sovereignty has been reserved to the
States and the people.
He says again:.
As a nation it possesses every sovereign power not reserved in its
Constitution to the States or to the people. The right to acquire territory was not reserved, and is therefore an inherent, sovereign right.
In the right to acquire territory is found the right to govern it, and as
the right to acquire is a sovereign, inherent right, the right to govern is a sovereign right not limited in the Constitution.
He says again:
A sovereign right cannot be limited.
He wouldlike any Senator to point out to him the language in which the Constitution places any limit upon a sovereign or inherent power, or prescribes the mode and manner in which it would be exercised.




I54  SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.
These propositions of the Senator from Connecticut I deny. I deny them, not as a strict constructionist; but as a liberal constructionist; not as a States'
rights man, but as a Federalist; not as a disciple of
Madison or Calhoun, but as a disciple of Alexander
Hamilton and Daniel Webster and Charles Sumner.
I. I affirm that every constitutional power, whether
it be called a power of sovereignty or of nationality
-neither of which phrases is found in terms in tile
Constitution-or whether it be a power expressly declared and named therein, is limited to the one supreme and controlling purpose declared as that for
which the Constitution itself was framed: "In order
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity."
Now, the liberal constructionists claim that everything which is done to accomplish either of these purposes, unless expressly prohibited, may be constitutionally done by the law-making power. And in that
I agree with them.
I repeat, the first article of the Constitution, section I, says: "All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."
So, certainly, there are legislative powers that are
not "herein granted."  All legislative powers are
powers of sovereignty. Mark the clear distinction
between the legislative powers of the States and between the sovereign powers of the States and those
belonging to the United States. The powers of the
United States must be affirmatively delegated or
they do not exist. The powers claimed by the States
must be expressly prohibited or they do exist. And
there are other powers not delegated to the United




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 155


States and prohibited to the States which are reserved
to the people; that is, there are powers which the people of the United States mean shall not be exercised
by anybody on the face of the earth, so far as their
jurisdiction and authority extend, unless they shall
hereafter change their mind and grant them.
But the question with which we now have to deal
is whether Congress may conquer and may govern,
without their consent and against their will, a foreign
nation, a separate, distinct, and numerous people, a
territory not hereafter to be populated by Americans,
to be formed into American States and to take its part
in fulfilling and executing the purposes for which the
Constitution was framed, whether it may conquer,
control and govern this people, not for the general
welfare, common defense, more perfect union, more
blessed liberty of the people of the United States, but
for some real or fancied benefit to be conferred
against their desire upon the people so governed
or in discharge of some fancied obligation to them,
and not to the people of the United States.
The question is whether the men who framed the
Constitution, or the people who adopted it, meant
to confer that power among the limited and restrained
powers of the sovereign nation that they were
creating.
I declare not only that this is not among the express powers conferred upon the sovereignty they
created, that it is not among the powers necessarily
or reasonably or conveniently implied for the sake of
carrying into effect the purposes of that instrument,
but that it is a power which it can be demonstrated
by the whole contemporaneous history and by our
whole history since until within six months they did
not mean should exist-a power that our fathers and




156 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


their descendants have ever loathed and abhorredand that they believed that no sovereign on earth
could rightfully exercise it, and that no people on
earth could rightfully confer it. They not only did
not mean to confer it, but they would have cut off
their right hands, every one of them, sooner than
set them to an instrument which should confer it.
Now, let us trace for a moment the history of this
beautiful, august, pure, invincible sovereign of ours.
The idea that our fathers intended to clothe it with
such a sovereignty is as repugnant to me as the idea
that because God created a seraph, or an archangel,
or even a man in His own image, He intended that
he should be at liberty to commit murder or robbery
or any form of bestiality because He had clothed him
with the physical power to accomplish it.
Expositio contemporanea maxime valet. The great
contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution is to
be found in the Declaration of Independence. Over
every clause, syllable, and letter of the Constitution
the Declaration of Independence pours its blazing
torchlight. The same men framed it. The same
States confirmed it. The same people pledged their
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to support it. The great characters in the constitutional
convention were the great characters of the Continental Congress. There are undoubtedly, among its
burning and shining truths, one or two which the
convention that adopted it were not prepared themselves at once to put into practice. But they placed
them before their coutrymen as an ideal moral law
to which the liberty of the people was to aspire and
to ascend as soon as the nature of existing conditions
would admit. Doubtless slavery was inconsistent with
it, as Jefferson, its great author, has in more than




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 157


one place left on record.   But at last in the strife
of a great civil war the truth of the Declaration prevailed and the falsehood of slavery went down, and
at last the Constitution of the United States conformed to the Declaration and it has become the law
of the land, and its great doctrines of liberty are written upon the American flag wherever the American
flag floats. Who shall haul them down?
When I hear from     some of our friends this new
doctrine of constitutional interpretation, when I hear
attributed to men in high places, counselors of the
President himself, that we have outgrown the principles and the interpretation which were sufficient for
our thirteen States and our 3,000,000 of people in
the time of their weakness, and by which they have
grown to 75,000,000 and forty-five States, in this hour
of our strength, it seems to me these counselors would
have this nation of ours like some prosperous thriving
youth who reverses suddenly all the maxims and rules
of living in which he has been educated and says to
himself: "I am too big for the Golden Rule. I have
outgrown the Ten Commandments. I no longer need
the strait waistcoat of the moral law.   Like Jeshuron, I will wax fat and kick."
As I read some of these utterances I was reminded
of an observation made by a very bright English historian, who seems to aptly hit the mood of the expansion politicians of our time:
A conscience is no doubt a very useful possession in early years.
But when a man has kept one till middle life, he ought to have
established a certain modus vivendi with it; it should be absorbed
and become a part of himself, not a separate faculty delivering oracular utterances.
If the United States forsake this doctrine of the
fathers, who -shall take it up?  Is there to be no place
on the face of the earth hereafter where a man can




158 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


stand up by virtue of his manhood and say, "I am a
man"?
In general, the friends of what is called imperialism
or expansion content themselves with declaring that
the flag which is taken down every night and put up
again every morning over the roof of this Senate
Chamber, where it is in its rightful place, must never
be taken down where it has once floated, whether
that be its rightful place or not-a doctrine which
I shall have occasion to say before I get through is
not only without justification in international law,
but if it were implanted there would make of every
war between civilized and powerful nations a war of
extermination or a war of dishonor to one party or
the other.
If you can not take down a national flag where it
has once floated in time of war, we were disgraced
when we took our flag down in Mexico and in Vera
Cruz, or after the invasion of Canada; England was
dishonored when she took her flag down after she
captured this capital; and every nation is henceforth
pledged to the doctrine that wherever it puts its military foot or its naval power with the flag over it,
that must be a war to the death and to extermination
or the honor of the state is disgraced by the flag of
that nation being withdrawn.
Sovereignty in part is vested in and belongs to the
nation as a unit, and may be exercised by national
agencies exclusively.  Part of this sovereignty is
vested in and belongs to the States as units, and may
be exercised by their agencies exclusively. Part of
this. sovereignty, though exercised by other sovereigns, the people have not delegated to the Government of the United States as a unit, and have prohibited it to the States. That part is reserved to the




I
I
r
~
 1.-:E:: ":::::
B:;:::::;                           __             I                                                ~      ~~..:::








SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 159


people by the express terms of the Constitution, because they do not think fit that it shall be exercised
at all.
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people-Amendment, Article Io.
The sovereignty which can be exercised by the
nation as a unit is only that which is necessary for
accomplishing the purposes of the Constitution, and
must be either expressly granted therein or necessary
or convenient, in the judgment of Congress, to accomplish the purposes expressly declared therein.
All other sovereignty is reserved to the States or to
the people.
The power to conquer alien peoples and hold them
in subjugation is nowhere expressly granted.
The power to conquer alien peoples and hold themn
in subjugation is nowhere implied as necessary for
the accomplishment of the purposes declared by the
Constitution.
It is clearly shown to be one that ought not to
be exercised by anybody-one that the framers of the
Constitution thought ought not to be exercised by
anybody.
I. Because it is immoral and wicked in itself.
2. Because it is expressly denied in the Declaration
of Independence, the great interpreter and expounder of the meaning of the Constitution, which
owes its origin to the same generation and largely to
the same men.
3. It is affirmed that it is immoral and unfit to be
exercised by anybody-in numerous instances by contemporary State constitutions and the contemporary
writers and authorities on public law, who expressed




i60 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


the opinion of the American people in that generation
who adopted the Constitution as well as of the men
who framed it.
The power to hold property is implied, whether that
property be land or chattels. It exists becauseI. It is essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of the Constitution.     That is undoubtedly as
true of the right to acquire and hold property in land
as other property.
2. The power also is clearly affirmed by the letter
of the Constitution where it declares, Article IV, section 3:
"The 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 nothing in this Constitution shall
be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of
any particular State."
This power to dispose of the territory or other
property belonging to the United States, and'to make
all needful rules and regulations respecting it, and
the power implied from that provision, to acquire and
hold territory or other property, like other constitutional powers, is a power to be exercised only for
constitutional purposes.
It is like the power to acquire and dispose of ships
or cannon or public buildings or a drove of pack
mules or a library, to be exercised in accomplishment
of the purposes of the Constitution and not to be
exercised where it is not reasonably necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of those purposes.
We have no more right to acquire land or hold it, or
to dispose of it for an unconstitutional purpose than
we have a right to fit out a fleet or to buy a park
of artillery for an unconstitutional purpose.
Among the constitutional purposes for which Congress may acquire and hold territory and other property are the building of forts, and the establishment of




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 16I


post-offices and subtreasuries and custom-houses. In
all these cases it is accomplishing a clearly constitutional purpose.
One of the constitutional purposes is the enlargement of the country by the admission of new States,
and therefore Congress may lawfully acquire, hold
and dispose of territory with reference to the accomplishment of that great constitutional purpose, among
others. It may also acquire adjoining or outlying territory, dispose of it, make rules and regulations for it
for the purposes of national security and defense, although it may not be expected that the territory so
acquired, held, and disposed of shall ever come into
the Union as a State. That is, as many people think,
the case of Hawaii.
Now the disposing of and the making rules and
regulations for territory acquired for either of these
purposes necessarily involves the making laws for the
government of the inhabitants-forever, if the territory is not to come in as a State, or during the growing and transition period if and until it shall come
in as a State.
But it is to be observed, and it should not be forgotten, that all this is a constitutional provision which
looks chiefly at the land and territory as mere property. And it applies, so far as its terms, and its general spirit and purpose are concerned, equally to public lands within a State as to those which are without
it. And there is no other provision in the Constitution for making rules and regulations for the territory
of the United States or its other property, in the case
where the public lands are in Alabama or Florida
or Iowa, than where they are in Alaska or Arizona or
wherever the public lands are outside any State jurisdiction.




162 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


The framers of the Constitution were not thinking
mainly and chiefly, when they enacted that clause, of
lawmaking, of the government of men, of the rights
of citizenship. They were thinking of public property,
and, although the lawmaking, the rights of men, citizenship have to be recognized from the necessity of
the case, where the public property is a large tract of
land fit for human settlement, yet the language they
used and the thought in their minds treated the element of property as the principal, and the element
of citizenship as something only temporary and passing, only to last until the property, territory and inhabitants can be given over to freedom under the
jurisdiction of a State, to be admitted as an equal
member of our political partnership. And two things
about this clause are quite significant. ()ne is that it
is not contained in the article which gives Congress
general legislative powers, but is sandwiched in between the section providing for the admission of new
States, and the section providing for guaranteeing to
every State a republican form of government, showing that they were not thinking of conferring a general legislative power over the inhabitants, and were
only thinking, so far as the inhabitants of a territory
were concerned, of the transition or expectant period
while they were awaiting admission to statehood. And
you are not now proposing to acquire or own property in the Philippines with dominion as a necessary
incident; you are not thinking of the ownership of
land there. You propose, now, to acquire dominion
and legislative power and nothing else. Where in
the Constitution is the grant of power to exercise sovereignty where you have no property?
When they come to provide for permanent government, for lawmaking, for the rights of citizens not




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. I63
in a transition state, although it was in a little tract
not to exceed ten miles square, the framers used a
very different and a much more dignified language.
Then comes the phraseology, apt and fitting for dealing with manhood and with human rights, the language in which lawmaking is provided for:
Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever over such districtNot to exceed ten miles squareas may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of
the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful
buildings.
This is the only exclusive legislation granted in
that instrument, except as an incident to ownership
of land.
These men, who after making this provision for
making rules and regulations for territory or other
property-they had already got the vast Northwestwhen they came to speak of exclusive legislation,
thought they had to put it in separately, if it was to
be permanent and not over people who were coming
in as a State, even for ten miles-meant to have their
right to exercise exclusive legislation over subjectpeoples, millions of miles square of territory, which
they did not expect to own, to be inferred from the
clause relating to the disposition of property?
The acquisition of Alaska was defended by Charles
Sumner, intrepid advocate and martyr of liberty, to
whom the Declaration of Independence was as another gospel.    The difference between his purposes
and those of the men who defend this new policy is
apparent. The closing sentence of his great speech
on the cession of Russian America, made in executive
session and made public by order of the Senate, cover



164 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


ing 170 pages in his collected works, sets forth the
benefit which its acquisition by the United States will
confer upon Alaska:
But your best work and most important endowment will be the
republican government which, looking to a long future, you will
organize, with schools free to all, and with equal laws, before which
every citizen will stand erect in the consciousness of manhood. Here
will be a motive power without which coal itself is insufficient. Here
will be a source of wealth more inexhaustible than any fisheries.
Bestow such a government and you will give what is better than all
you can receive, whether quintals of fish, sands of gold, choicest
fur, or most beautiful ivory.
The representatives of Connecticut in the convention that framed the Constitution, afterward predecessors of the Senator in the Senate, made their report
to the governor when they went home. This is what
they say:
Some additional powers are vested in Congress, which was a principal object that the States had in view in appointing the convention. Those powers extend only to matters respecting the common
interests of the Union, and are specially defined.
When the delegates of the Old Thirteen set their
hands to that Declaration, the people of the United
States stepped forth armed in its invincible panoply,
like Minerva from the head of Jove, the greatest world
power the world had ever seen. The seed they planted
on that July morning grew up into crowns and
scepters.   Whenever we depart from         it the   world
power of the great Republic is at an end.
I desire to submit to my brethren and Senators this
proposition, and ask them if it be not a rule of universal and commanding force:
Courts, as Mr. Justice Brewer so well says, may
not be able to treat such a declaration of principle as
having the force of organic law, or make them the
basis of judicial decision in determining Constitutional
rights which depend upon the letter of the Constitution. Courts have no discretion. They must decide
in accordance with the law as declared by the lawmaker, and the lawmaker, if within the letter and lan



SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.          I65
guage of the Constitution, must settle the question
whether the law he enacts is in accordance also with
its spirit and purpose.
But a very different rule is binding upon the conscience of the legislator, whether the legislation he
is framing be in the form of a treaty or a statute.
He has discretion within the Constitutional limits. He
may legislate or he may refrain from legislating. He
may consent to a treaty or he may withhold his consent to a treaty. Now, I affirm that he is boundbound the more strongly and not the less strongly
because his conscience is the only safety of the people
-to refrain from legislating whenever the legislation
that is proposed be contrary to, the spirit and the
purpose of the Constitution, even though he may not
be restrained by its letter. He is not to study the
Constitution, which he is sworn to support, to find
holes to creep out of. He is not to search to see
whether the fathers have failed to make their general
language sufficient to cover every conceivable case,
and to feel at liberty to go against the spirit of the
Constitution if he find one not covered by its letter.
Are the thought and the spirit to prevail, and the
interpretation we are to give the great document that
which secures liberty to the people of the United
States, or to people everywhere where the flag floats?
Are you to take the spirit which maketh life, or the
letter which killeth in this hour of great national
temptation in one of the greatest actions and greatest
eras in all history?
Abraham Lincoln had some sensible ideas on this
matter, as we used to think. We have heard something about the flag, I think, within the last six
months, and the people of the world have heard something about the flag, and as they have seen that new




i66 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


constellation rising in the Orient, going around the
world with the sun, they are curious to know          what
it stands for and what it means.         We have heard
something about the flag in modern times. Abraham
Lincoln was invited one day to raise the banner over
the old Independence Hall in Philadelphia, on that
memorable journey from his home to the national
capital.  When we think of what followed, the words
he  uttered   there  seem    prophetic.   They    rival in
grandeur the immortal words at Gettysburg. We are
asked what else we can        do   with   the   Philippine
Islands, unless we are to sacrifice the immortal principles of the Declaration.    That answer can be easily
and satisfactorily given.   But if it could not be given
we know very well what Abraham Lincoln would
have said, who declared on his way to the seat of
Government, that he would not save the Union itself
at the sacrifice of the Declaration of Independence.
All the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far
as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this Iall. I have never
had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. * * * Now, my friends,
can this country be saved upon this basis? If it can, I shall consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to
save it. If it can not be saved upon that principle, it will be truly
awful. But if this country can not be saved without giving up that
principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this
spot than surrender it.
Then, after adding that he had not expected to say
a word, he repeated the consecration of his life, exclaimingI have said nothing but what I am willing to live by and, if it be
the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by.
When you raise the flag over the Philippine
Islands as an emblem      of dominion    and   acquisition
you take it down from Independence Hall.
Let me read from Lincoln once more. In his great
Lewiston speech of August, 1858, he read aloud the




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 167
preamble of the Declaration of Independence, and
added this:
This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the universe. This was their lofty and wise and noble understanding of the
justice of the Creator to his creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his
creatures, to the whole great family of man. * * * They grasped
not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the furthest posterity. They erected a beacon
to guide their children and their children's children and the countless
myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen
as they were they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants,
and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in
the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set
up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, or
none but Anglo-Saxon white men were entitled to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the
Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle
which their fathers began, so that truth and justice and mercy and
all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from
the land; so that no man should thereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the principles on which the temple of liberty was being
built. Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting * * * with the Declaration of Independence; if you have
listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and
mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions, * * * let me entreat
you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close
by the blood of the Revolution.
Louis Napoleon, at the opening ot the session of
the French Assembly,         March    2, 1854, made       this
declaration:
Besides, and I love to proclaim it loudly, the time of conquest is
past, never to return, for it is not by extending the boundaries of its
territory that a nation can henceforward be honored and powerful, but
by placing itself at the head of generous ideas and spreading everywhere the empire of right and justice.
Napoleon forgot what he had said when he grew
a little stronger. He saw his opportunity in Mexico,
as our friends think they see ours in the Philippine
Islands.    But the sure and terrible feet of Destiny
overtook him in the midst of his pride and power.
There's one hath swifter feet than crime;
Cannon parliaments settle naught.
Minie is good, but, spite of change,
Gutenberg's gun hath the longest range.
Spin, spin, Clothe, spin,
Lachesis twist and Atropos sever,
In the shadow, year out, year in,
The silent headsman waits forever.
Wait, we say, our years are long,
Men are weak, but man is strong.
Since the stars first curved their rings
We have looked on many things;




i68 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


Great wars come and great wars go,
Wolf tracks light on polar snow,
We have seen him come and goneThis second-hand Napoleon.
Spin, spin, Clotho, spin,
Lachesis twist and Atropos sever,
In the shadow, year out, year in,
The silent headsman waits forever.
Our commissioners come back from Paris bringing with them the cast-off clothing of this pinchbeck
Napoleon, and ask us, who have seen his fate, to discard for it the spotless robes in which our fathers
arrayed the beautiful genius of America.
A year ago last December, the President of the
United States sent a message to Congress. In that
message he said:
I speak not of forcible annexation, because that is not to be
thought of, and under our code of morality that would be criminal
aggression.
"The time of conquest is past," said Louis Napoleon.  President McKinley repeated Louis Napoleon, though in louder and clearer voice. "The time
of conquest is past," said the French Emperor. "It
is not by extending the boundaries of its territory
that a nation can henceforward be honored and'
powerful, but by placing itself at the head of generous
ideas and spreading everywhere the empire of right
and justice."
President McKinley, when      he spoke, was not
thinking even of honor or of power, inspiring and
alluring as are honor and power. He placed himself
and placed the American people on the stern, enduring, and perpetual rock of righteousness; that forcible annexation is not to be thought of, under our code
of morality; that would be criminal aggression.
Who shall haul him down?      Who shall haul down
the code?   Who shall haul down the President?
That rock is like the rock of the Word



SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 169
Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; and on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
There are other things found in this Declaration.
In enumerating the wrongs inflicted upon this people
by George III., the Declaration says that he "refused
to pass laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people unless those people would relinquish the
right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only." And
now my honorable friend says that the same men
who set their hands to that Declaration, and pledged
their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to its support,
proceeded twelve years after to establish a government, on which they conferred the power exercised
by George III. to destroy the right of representation
in the legislature, to govern a people without it, and
to forever extinguish and trample out that inestimable
right, formidable to tyrants only. And not only that,
but he is about, as I understand him, to proceed to
vote to do it.
Further, our fathers in their terrible arraignment
and indictment of the King for using these sovereign
powers, which the Senator now claims belong to and
are to be used by the President and Congress of the
United States, says that the King had "made judges
dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their
offices and the amount and payment of their salaries;"
and yet he proposes to make judges for twelve million
people dependent on the will of the President only for
their tenure of office, and on the will of Congress
alone for the amount and payment of their salaries.
Further, they said that King George had "kept
among us in times of peace standing armies" and
"quartered large bodies of armed troops among us
without the consent of our legislatures."  I suppose
somewhere in this Capitol men are at work to-day in




170 SP:EECH OF HION. GEORGE F. HOAR.


devising ways and means for a permanent standing
army to be kept in these islands, east and west, without the consent of anybody there. 
They said King George had combined with others
to subject us to jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and not acknowledged by our laws, giving his
assent to their acts of pretended legislation for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for
imposing taxes on us without our consent; for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by
jury; for altering fundamentally the forms of our
government; for declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
The   Declaration    of Independence      declares  that
whenever any form     of government becomes destructive of the ends therein stated it is the right of the
people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying 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.
Charles Sumner affirmed repeatedly, and the people
of Massachusetts supported him        in that affirmation,
what at last the whole Republican party, and I had
thought till within    the last six   months the whole
country, had come to believe, that the Declaration of
Independence is co-equal with the Constitution, the
one being a grant of power and the other a sovereign
rule of interpretation.
Charles Sumner says:
The words that governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed are sacred words, full of life-giving energy.
Not simply national independence was here proclaimed, but also the
primal rights of all mankind. Then and there appeared the angel of
human liberation, speaking and acting at once with heaven-born
strength, breaking bolts, unloosing bonds, and opening prison doors;
always ranging on its mighty errand, wherever there are any, no matter of what country or race, who struggle for rights denied; now
cheering Garibaldi at Naples, as it had cheered Washington in the
snows of Valley Forge, and especially visiting all who are down



SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HIOAR.                     171
trodden, whispering that there is none so poor as to be without rights
which every man is bound to respect, none so degraded as to be beneath its beneficent reach, none so lofty as to be above its restraining power; while before it despotism and oligarchy fall on their faces,
like the image of Dagon, and the people everywhere begin to govern
themselves.  Such is the popular sovereignty proclaimed by the
Declaration of Independence.
Mr. Sumner says:
These words in the Declaration of Independence were not uttered
in vain. Do you suppose them  idle? Do you suppose them mere
phrase or generality? No such thing. They are living words, by
which this country is solemnly bound, and from which it can never
escape until they are fulfilled. Your statutes can not contain any
limitation which inflicts an indignity upon any portion of the
human family. Only in this way can you have peace.
You would not do this thing if you were bound not
to do it by treaty, and yet a great authority on public
law has declared that treaties that are in violation of
human    rights are but rags.       Can you do it against
the solemn inhibition of the great charter of our principles, to the observance of which not only the national faith is bound, but with which the national conscience and honor are inextricably interwoven?
The Declaration of Independence is the twofold promise, first, that
all are equal in rights, and secondly, that just government stands only
on the consent of the governed, being the two great political commandments on which hang all laws and constitutions. Keep these
truly, and you will keep all. Write them in your statutes; write
them in your hearts. This is the great and only final settlement of
all existing questions. To this sublime consecration of the Republic
let us aspire.
There is another single sentence of Charles Sumner's smiting flat in the face the expansion notion of
sovereignty of the Senator frmm-Connecticut.              Mr.
Sumner says:
But the great Declaration, not content with announcing certain
rights as unalienable, and therefore beyond the control of any government, still further restrains the sovereignty, which it asserts by
simply declaring that the United States have "full power to do all acts
and things which independent states may of right do." Here is a
well-defined limitation upon the popular sovereignty. The dogma of
Tory lawyers and pamphleteers-put forward to sustain the claim
of parliamentary omnipotence, and vehemently espoused by Dr.
Johnson in his "Taxation no Tyranny"-was openly, that sovereignty
is in its nature illimitable, precisely as it is now loosely professed by
Mr. IDouglas for his handful of squatters. But this dogma is distinctly discarded in the Declaration, and it is frankly proclaimed
that all sovereignty is subordinate to the rule of right. Mark, now,
the difference. All existing governments at that time, even the local
governments of the colonies, stood on power without limitation. Here
was a new government, which, taking its place among the nations,
announced that it stood only on right, and claimed no sovereignty




172 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


inconsistent with right. Such, again, is the popular sovereignty of
the Declaration of Independence.
I quote also from John Quincy Adams' Fourth of
July oration at Newburyport, I837.           I wonder if the
Senator from Connecticut thinks John Quincy Adams
lacked faith in the Declaration of Independence when
he denied this new doctrine.
Mr. Adams says:
The sovereign authority conferred upon the people of the colonies
by the Declaration of Independence could not dispense them, nor any
individual citizen of them, from the fulfillment of their moral obligations. The people who assumed their equal and separate station
among the powers of the earth, by the laws of nature's God, by that
very act acknowledged themselves bound to the observance of those
laws, and could neither exercise nor confer any power inconsistent
with them.
Then, alluding to the self-imposed restraints upon
the sovereignty which was established, he said:
The Declaration acknowledged the rule of right paramount to the
power of independent states itself, and virtually disclaimed all power
to do wrong. This was a novelty in the moral philosophy of nations,
and it is the essential point of difference between the system of
government announced in the Declaration of Independence and those
systems which had until then prevailed among men. * * * It was
an experiment upon the heart of man. All the legislators of the
human race until that day had laid the foundations of all government
among men in power; and hence it was that in the maxims of theory,
as well as in the practice of nations, sovereignty was held to be unlimited and illimitable. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed
another law, * * * a law of right, binding upon nations as well as
individuals, upon sovereigns as well as upon subjects. * * * In
assuming the attributes of sovereign power, the colonists appealed to
the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and neither claimed nor conferred authority to do anything
but for right.
George Bancroft says of it:
This immortal state paper, which for its composer was the aurora
of enduring fame, was "the genuine effusion of the soul of the
country at that time," the revelation of its mind, when, in its youth,
its enthusiasm, its sublime confronting of danger, it rose to the
highest creative powers of which man is capable. The bill of rights
which it promulgates is of rights that are older than human institutions, and spring from the eternal justice that is anterior to the State.
I commend this passage to some of our worthy
clergymen who are of late preaching from their
pulpits the new commandment to do evil that good
may come.
Thackeray, no mean judge of noble art, no mean
judge of noble actions, was one day crossing the ro



SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 173


tunda of this Capitol in company with Charles Sumner. He stopped before the picture where the genius
of the great artist of Connecticut has delineated on
the imperishable canvas the scene when the Declaration of Independence was presented by Jefferson to
the solemn sitting over which Hancock presided, and
the new nation, born on the g9th of April, I775, was
baptized in the faith of our new gospel of liberty. He
stood for a moment silent, and     then  said to  Mr.
Sumner, "That's your painter."
Surely he was right. The foremost action of human
history is fitly represented by the great work which
we fondly hope is to be as enduring as time, enduring
as the republic, enduring as liberty. It is there, in
the foremost place of honor which can be found on
this earth.   No   Parthenon, no   Saint Peter's, no
Palace of the Escurial, no Sans Souci, not Westminster Abbey itself can equal, at least to our eyes,
this spot where forever a great and free people declares its constitutional will.
Beneath the great dome to which the pilgrim from
afar first repairs when he visits the capital of his
country, hangs the great picture which delineates the
scene when the nation was first baptized into immortal life. It was not only the independence of America
which   was then   declared-it was the     dignity  of
human nature itself.
When Samuel Rogers visited the Dominican convent at Padua, an aged friar showed him the'famous
picture of The Last Supper in the refectory of the
convent. He said:
I have sat at my meals before it for seven and forty years, and
such are the changes that have taken place among us-so many have
come and gone in that time-that when I look upon the company there,
upon those who are sitting at that table, silent as they are, I am
sometimes inclined to think that we not they are the shadows.
As Administrations, terms of Presidential office,




174 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


begin and end, as Senators and Representatives come
and go before the silent figures in that immortal picture, it seems to me that we are but the shadows, while
Hancock and Jefferson and Adams and Franklin
and Ellsworth and Livingston are still deliberating,
still acting, still alive. Shall we turn it with its face
to the wall? Shall the scroll first be stricken from the
hand of Jefferson and another put there which shall
read:
"Governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed-some of them.  Men are
created equal-some of them. Taxation and representation go together-for us, not for other men.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are held in
the Philippine Islands at our will, and not at the
will of the people."
And then shall we turn the picture with its face to
the wall, and put instead of it a representation of some
great battle where the guns of our Navy and our
Army are turned on the men struggling for their
liberty at Iloilo?
Our friends tell us that all this is emotion and
rhetoric and sentiment. They tell us that it does
not belong to the domain of practical statesmanship,
or the conduct of the affairs of life; that these are the
things we think when we talk, and that we are thinking of quite other things when we act and vote.
Well, the doctrines I stand upon are the doctrines
of the most practical statesmen, of the most practical
generation that ever lived on the face of the earth.
These sentiments, wrapped in a few sentences, not
equaling in compass the Ten Commlandments or the
Lord's Prayer, amplifying only a little the Golden
Rule itself, have turned out to be a practical force
in this world of ours. The Puritans took them for




s~l~r N NATIlX QtT~ltER  IALOLQ
i i i i l Ei _
S i I I illt 1111_i~~~~~~i  _
I I I i! t  __~~~~~
I,                            D 
| ll ii ff~            X
l ~ l ~~ |; |               W: 'rri
I  ||F sI   fP     W#k
| ~ l                DD fj11  gDg-gDDD
l       D~.~ia~jx l i*   'illt  t 0 t~tifll
|      |l j < <~~:~p~.~.;; t i: t. gi        - g7___:,.WM 
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -r.~ I-.i  Sp~: z..:stA ~    ~ 'IW':  11   itT,  N<'  (.;tZ




1




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. 175
their rule, and in one brief, crowded century they
made England, which had been trembling before
Spain, whose knees had smote together before HIolland, whose monarch had been the pensioner and
whose treasury had been the tributary of France, the
greatest power the world had ever seen. It is these
that make "world-powers."
Our fathers shod their feet with -them as witl
sandals. Borne up by them, they crossed the Atlantic,
and, with their invincible might, builded on its sure
foundations this temple that covers the continent and
whose portals are upon both the seas. Is there any
practical statesmanship, is there any cunning of the
politician, is there any struggling for power, is there
any seeking for office, is there any party discipline
which has ever wrought in all history such things
as these half-dozen little sentences have wrought. Are
there any statesmen in American history, among the
living or among the dead, whom the people love and
honor as they do the men who planted their feet on
these truths, and who bore witness to them in life
and in death?
These doctrines were affirmed in all the State constitutions of that time and have been reaffirmed in
many State constitutions since. Every State official
takes his oath to support' them before he can enter
upon the humblest office.
Connecticut declares in her constitution of I776
that —
the fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and
civilization call for is due to every man in his place without impeachment and infringement, and that the denial thereof is the disturbance, if not the ruin, of churches and commonwealths.
She reaffirms and amplifies this declaration in I8i8.
Maryland in the same year reaffirmed the great
doctrines of the Declaration.
Massachusetts in 1780 repeats and reaffirms the




176 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


great truths of the Declaration as the foundation of
her own Commonwealth.
Virginia preceded the Declaration itself by her bill
of rights adopted June 12, I776, about three weeks
before the Declaration. The two great state papers
were framed by the same hand.
In I830 Virginia declared thatthat declaration of rights, the basis and foundation of government
required, in the opinion of this convention, no amendment, and should
be prefixed to the constitution of that year and have the same relation
thereto as it had to the former constitution of this Commonwealth.
The one great lesson which sums up the teachings
of American history during our century of constitutional life is the dignity of labor. It is an unquestionable truth that no tropical colony was ever settled, by
men not born in tropical climes, for the purpose of
finding work.    There was scarcely ever a tropical
colony successful at all. There was never a tropical
colony successful except under the system of contract
labor.  That is to be set up, enforced, and administered by the agencies of the Republic of the United
States, if we are to succeed in such administration
at all,
Our fathers taught us the priceless value of national
credit, and to keep free from the burden of national
debt. We have thought until lately that our strength
came in a large part from our unsullied and unequaled
public credit.  If we were compelled in self-defense
to enter into a contest with the strongest or richest
power on earth, our credit would remain unimpaired
until our opponent was bankrupt. If in time of war
or public danger we were compelled to contract debt,
we have supposed that the only policy of dealing with
it in time of peace was to pay it.
But now the Senator from Connecticut seems to
contemplate that we shall embark on a permanent
system of national expenditure which will put this




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.        177
nation under an obligation the equivalent of which
will be a national debt greater than that of any other
nation on the face of the earth. Have you reflected
that a permanent increase of our expenditures of one
hundred and fifty millions a year-which we can not
avoid, and from which we can not withdraw-is precisely the same thing as adding to our national debt
five thousand million dollars, capitalized at 3 per cent,
which is more than the Government is now paying,
and that a permanent increase in our expenditures
of three hudred millions a year is the same as increasing our national debt ten thousand millions, capitalized at 3 per cent? I think it can be easily demonstrated that the policies on which we are asked to
embark involve a permanent national expenditure
much larger than the amounts I have named. Our
civil list, already so enormous, must be enormously
increased. Instead of taking from the people by fair
competition, or even by fair selection, men to take
their share in self-government, we must have in the
future, as they have in England, a trained class whose
lives are to be spent, not in self-government, but in
the government of other men.
At the close of the nineteenth century the American
Republic, after its example in abolishing slavery has
spread through the world, is asked by the Senator
from Connecticut to adopt a doctrine of constitutional
expansion on the principle that it is right to conquer,
buy, and subject a whole nation if we happen to
deem it for their good-for their good as we conceive
it, and not as they conceive it.
I do not agree that the lesson of our first hundred
years is that the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution are a failure, and that America is to begin
the twentieth century where Spain began the sixteenth.




178 SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.


The Monroe doctrine is gone.  Every European
nation, every European alliance, has the right to acquire dominion in this hemisphere when we acquire
it in the other. The Senator's doctrine put anywhere
in practice will make of our beloved country a cheapjack country, raking after the cart for the leavings
of European tyranny.
It may be that in some storm and tempest of popular delusion, a cloud may for the moment cover the
great truths of our Declaration. I have within the
compass of my own life encountered such a storm and
tempest more than once. In 1850, after the passage
of the compromise measure, the great contest for the
freedom of the vast territory between the Mississippi
and the Pacific seemed hopelessly lost. Senate and
people, courts and State legislatures seemed all bowing in assent to the overthrow of the great principles
of the Declaration. But after a few short years the
cloud and storm passed by, and the eternal constellation shone out unmoved and unshaken in its glory in
the sky.
I remember when the great political party swept
over the North, electing in my own State every member of the legislature but two, every member of Congress, every member of the State government, based
on the doctrine of denying the application of these
truths to citizens of foreign birth. But again the
delusion passed by, and the eternal truths shone out.
I have seen like movements of popular error and delusion in more recent years. So far God has given
me strength to withstand them in my humble fashion.
But they were overthrown and brought to naught
not by any human strength, but because the eternal
providence of God is on the side of freedom.




SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR. I79


Our fathers dreaded a standing army; but the Senator's doctrine, put in practice anywhere, now or hereafter, renders necessary a standing army, to be reenforced by a powerful navy. Our fathers denounced
the subjection of any people whose judges were appointed or whose salaries were paid by a foreign
power; but the Senator's doctrine requires us to send
to a foreign people judges, not of their own selection,
appointed and paid by us. The Senator's doctrine,
whenever it shall be put in practice, will entail upon
us a national debt larger than any now existing on
the face of the earth, larger than any ever known in
history.
Our fathers dreaded the national taxgatherer; but
the doctrine of the Senator from Connecticut, if it be
adopted, is sure to make our national tax-gatherer
the most familiar visitant to every American home.
Our fathers respected above all the dignity of labor
and rights of human nature. The one thing created
by God a little lower than the angels was a man. And
they meant to send abroad the American flag bearing
upon its folds, invisible perhaps to the bodily eye, but
visible to the spiritual discernment, the legend of the
dignity of pure manhood. That legend, that clharter,
that fundamental truth, is written in the opening sentences of the great Declaration, and now the Senator
from  Connecticut would repeal them.  He would
repeal the great charter of our covenant. No longer,
as the flag floats over distant seas, shall it bear on its
folds to the downtrodden and oppressed among men
the glad tidings that there is at least one spot where
that beautiful dream is a living reality.  The poor
Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman
of Europe, will exclaim, as he reads this new doctrine:
"Good God!    Is there not one place left on earth




180  SPEECH OF THE HON. GEORGE F. HOAR.
where in right of my manhood I can stand up and be
a man?" Will you disregard every lesson of experience? No tropical colony was ever yet successfully administered without a system of contract labor strictly
administered and enforced by the Government. I will
not speak of the thirteenth amendment. In our parliamentary practice amendments fall with the original
bill. This amendment will fall with the original Constitution.
This spasm of folly and delusion also, in my judgment, will surely pass by. Whether it pass by or no,
I thank God I have done my duty, and. that I have
adhered to the great doctrines of righteousness and
freedom, which I learned from my fathers, and in
whose service my life has been spent.




CHAPTER IX.
THE PASSING OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRAINTS.
BY HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
The extracts which I present are announcements
of the Supreme Court of the United States and include declarations from the President of the United
States and from the distinguished naval commander
whose victory at Manila has made him              an historical
character.
This grant (the power to lay and collect taxes, etc.) is general
without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all places
over which the Government extends.-(Loughborough vs. Blake, per
Marshall, C. J., 5 Wheat., 323.)
There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the
Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on
the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its
own pleasure. * * * It (the new acquisition) is required to become
a State and not to be held as a colony by Congress with absolute
authority.-(Dred Scott vs. Sandford, per Taney, C. J., 19 I-ow., 393.)
This decision has never been reconsidered in the Supreme Court
of the United States.-(Justice Miller's Lectures, page 406.)
Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired
by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose
dominion they passed, subject to the right of election on their part to
retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise as may be
provided.-(Boyd vs. Nebraska, per Fuller, C. J., 143 U. S., 186.)
That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States relating to the right of trial by jury in suits at common law apply
to the Territories of the United States is no longer an open question.(Thompson vs. Utah, per Harlan, J., 170 U. S., 346; Callan vs. Wilson,
127 U. S., 551.)
I speak not of forcible annexation, for that can not be thought of.
That, by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression.-(President McKinley, messages, December, 1897, and April 11, 1898.)
The United States disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island (Cuba)
except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination,
when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control
of the island to its people.-(Joint resolution, Congressional Record,
Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, volume 31, part 4, page 3393.)
In a telegram sent to the Department on June 23, I expressed the
opinion that "these people (the Filipinos) are far superior in their
intelligence and more capable of self-government than the natives of
Cuba, and I am familiar with both races." Further intercourse with
them has confirmed me in this opinion.-(Admiral Dewey to Secretary
of Navy, August 29, 1898; Senate Document No. 62, part 1, Fifty-fifth
Congress, third session.)
181




182 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


That flag has been planted in two hemisipheres, and there it
remains, the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and progress. Who
will withdraw from the people over whom it floats its protecting folds?
Will the people of the South help to haul it down?-(President McKinley, address at Atlanta, Ga., December 16, 1898.)
The mission of the United States (to the Philippine Islands) is one
of benevolent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and
right for arbitrary rule.-(President McKinley to the Secretary of
War, December 21, 1898.)
I do not intend to elaborately discuss the question
of law heretofore debated. I do not believe that it will
serve any useful purpose to enter into an attempted
differentiation between the authority of the United
States in its relation to foreign powers and its authority as regards domestic affairs. I dispute the contention which seeks to give jurisdiction in the one case
and to deny it in the other, and which limits the operation of the Constitution as to the rights of Territories and new    acquisitions to Congressional discretion, denying to those within such area "the equal protection" of our laws and reducing their constitutional
rigits to the insignificant and problematical protection
of colonial dependencies.
It appears to me that when our Constitution was
ma(le it was supposed that the United States would
never extend its domain save over those who were not
only within the equal protection of its laws, but who
were competent to participate in the efforts of an aspiring people to conserve for themselves and humanity the benefits of representative civilization.  Whatever may be the truth as to the issue of power, I design to discuss this subject more largely from the
standpoint of policy.
It is conceded by all that the latter proposition is
open for debate. Those who are regardless of organic
restraints so admit. I do not desire to detain the Senate with any elaboration regarding the opinions of our
courts or the views of eminent lawyers with reference
to the subject of the construction of the Constitution




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 183


on expansion problems. It is certain that we can never
agree as to that proposition. The sentiments of Senators of uncommon ability, the carefully expressed
ideas of men of profound learning in this country and
elsewhere, as expressed in the public prints, demonstrate the futility of any endeavor to procure accord
upon this topic.
We are to-day confronted by a situation which all
must admit does not agree in all respects, if it does not
differ in principle with that which has heretofore been
presented.
It will be conceded, I take it, that while we may have
the authority to annex territory, as contended by the
most advanced advocates of annexation, and to the ultimate extent for which they plead. Notwithstanding
all this, the propriety of the exercise of such power
must depend upon circumstances; and the fact of the
possession of the authority furnishes no reason for
any assertion not warranted by right.
Hence, finally, speaking from the standpoint of policy, we must ask ourselves this question: Shall we
bring the Philippine Islands within our confines? Shall
we introduce them to this home of intelligence and
manly effort? Shall we acquire these islands under
the conditions now confronting us? Is it better for
us that we should do so? ' This is the issue. I shall
endeavor to. impress upon the Senate the fact that
"charity begins at home," that while we may owe
much without, there never has been a time when the
mission of this Republic based upon solid principles,
involved the necessity of embarking in the instantaneous civilization of foreign peoples or in converting
into its own confines the seeds of dissolution. If we
or the Filipinos must suffer I vote for our own benefit.




184 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


We know but little of the true inwardness of the
Philippine Islands. No one seems to be thoroughly
advised as to the exact character of all of the inhabitants of that territory. We are unable even to say
how many islands there are which come within this
attempted cession. We can not define the area so far
as it is fit for cultivation, civilization, or for any other
legitimate end. But in the midst of this ambiguity we
at least know that the Philippines are tenanted by a
very peculiar mass, a heterogeneous compound of inefficient oriental humanity. I care not, for the purposes of my argument, whether these islanders are fit
for free government as you and as I understand it. If
they are so fitted, they should be permitted to establish a free government; if they are not so fitted, they
should not be brought into an alliance with us; we
do not in that event want them. Those who are incompetent to control themselves should not be of us.
We do not seek the irresponsible.
I have examined with some care the record which
was made before the Peace Commission of which you
were an honored and eficient member, and I fail there
to find anything altering or affecting my view as regards the treaty.
In the first place, it is evident that the Philippine
people suffered under the dominion of the parent country. I do not doubt that. It is clear that gross exactions in the way of taxation and illegitimate imposts
were levied upon them; that personal indignities and
cruelties were inflicted. I am ready to concede that
the same record contains recitations of some abominable transactions on the part of the insurgents. I
might refer to the statement of a witness before the
Paris arbitration tribunal, who deposed as follows:
This witness said that a certain priest of bad char



SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 185
acter was sent to the province of Cavite. He described
his treatment thus:
And there the rebels caught him in this last rebellion, and more
to ridicule him than anything else, I think, they made him their
bishop. They said, "Mind what you do. You can be our bishop
and take charge of our clergy, but don't you attempt anything behind
our backs." He thought he was quite safe, and he was found taking
sketches and notes of their strongholds. I-le had already made arrangements with the monks for their delivery. They caught him and
they said it was treachery-he had made negotiations with the Augustine monks in Manila-and after proper trial he was condemned
to death. He was tied to a post, without a hat and without water,
and died of sunstroke fever, and hunger, and that was his end.
The character of the Filipino is in controversy.          As
I have said, my argument does not depend upon an
accurate exhibition of his real traits. The reason already given in this regard is sufficient.        If he knows
enough to govern himself, we should let him             alone.
If he does not know     enough, we do not desire to associate with him.
We have in this record the testimony of Consul
Wildman as to the character of Aguinaldo.             In a letter, from which I will in a moment quote, he extols
that chieftain.   Later on, in Senate Document No. 62,
part I, present session, we find that he questions the
sincerity of Aguinaldo and intimates most strongly
that he has outgrown his usefulness. I quote from
page 336 of the above cited document:
I have lived among the Malays of the Straits Settlements and have
been an honored guest of the different sultanates. I have watched
their system of government and have admired their intelligence, and
I rank them high among the semi-civilized nations of the earth.
The natives of the Philippine Islands belong to the Malay race; and
while there are very few pure Malays among their leaders, I think
their stock has rather been improved than debased by admixture. I
consider the forty or fifty Philippine leaders with whose fortunes I
have been very closely connected both the superiors of the Malays and
the Cubans. Aguinaldo, Agoncilla and Sandico are all men who
would all be leaders in their separate departments in any country, while among the wealthy Manila men who live in Hongkong and
who are spending their money liberally for the overthrow of the
Spaniards and the annexation to the United States men like the
Cortes family and the Basa family would hold their own among
bankers and lawyers anywhere.
Again he says:
There has been a systematic attempt to blacken the name of
Aguinaldo and his cabinet on account of the questionable terms of




i86 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


their surrender to Spanish forces a year ago this month. It has been
said that they sold their country tor gold; but this has been conclusively disproved, not only by their own statements but by the
speech of the late Governor-General Rivera in the Spanish Senate
June 11, 1898. He said that Aguinaldo undertook to submit if the
Spanish Government would give a certain sum to the widows and
orphans of the insurgents. lie then admits that only a tenth part
of this sum was ever given to Aguinaldo and that the other promises made he did not find it expedient to keep.
Further on he remarks:
The insurgents are fighting for freedom from the Spanish rule
and rely upon the well-known sense of justice that controls all the
actions of our Government as to their future. (Id., page 337.)
This consul, and also Mr. Williams, who afterwards
incurred the displeasure of tle State Department, and
seemingly in response to criticisms made as to his conduct, questioned the attitude of Aguinaldo and his colleagues, appear to have been excessively anxious to
retain their positions, and this may account for the
want of lucidity in their correspondence, taken as a
whole. Yet I must confess that I arise from a perusal
of this record believing that there are a number of able
men among the Filipinos, persons who are adequately
educated to attend to the more complex affairs of life,
but that the vast mass of the inhalitants are, and will
for many years remain, in a condition far below that
which every well-informed American believes to be essential to citizenship and even to presence within our
borders.   I do not mean by this that no local government can be established, but I do mean that no
governmental institution on as high a plane as ours
will be maintained for many years in that region.
But such government will never be an accomplished
fact unless opportunity is given. Whatever may be asserted in enthusiastic moments, I do not hesitate to
say that it is not the mission or place of the American people to assume responsibility for such a population or to educate, otherwise than by example, and
certainly not under the influence of the sword, the pro



SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 187


testing occupants of tropical climes. I deny our duty
to civilize such an aggregation. Clearly alien races
who, as far as history has furnished evidence, have
not been found fitted for the highest civilization, ought
not to be introduced here, as they are not competent
to participate intelligently and profitably in the affairs
of this Government.
Upon another occasion I had an opportunity to examine, and I attempted to explain, why it was and is
that a remote nation or people of habits varying from
ours in almost every direction can not be a valuable
acquisition, and can not constitute a desirable addition
to the American Republic.
Assume that we import an alien and novel people
numbering 1o,ooo,ooo. Whether they are to be citizens or are not to be such-dropping that branch of
the inquiry-they are at least brought within the
United States. We are responsible for them to the
world, and they are to some extent supposed to be responsible to us. What advantage can they be to this
Republic? Can they furnish us anything that will tend
to make us more stable, more civilized, more enlightened? Clearly not. Do we offer them a government
of their choice? Do they petition us asking that we
receive them? Do they seek for themselves and their
posterity the benefits of our civilization? No; they repudiate our attempt to govern them; they demand
that they shall be permitted to pursue their own way;
they insist they should be allowed to solve domestic
and governmental issues for themselves, and that they
ought to be allowed to at least experiment as to whether they are or are not competent to sustain a government adapted to their wants. They even intimate that
we are to join in international land grabbing, and that
the Spanish war was for conquest-not for humanity's
sake.




I88 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


Ought we to allow the Filipino an opportunity? If
we say that he is not fitted to govern himself, by what
process of reasoning can we reach the conclusion that
therefore, and on that account, we ought to absorb
him, especially when we announce in advance that we
are not acquiring possessions for the purpose of dominion or statehood?
It is clear to me that in the evolution of those affairs
which surround this matter a clearly defined policy
has eventuated looking to permanent retention and
colonial government. It is the intention and the object and the aim  of the present administration and
those who are supporting this project to annex these
islands for all time. Title is sought. The treaty speaks
of relinquishment as to Cuba, but uses the word cession as regards the Philippines. Will Senators adopt
the resolution offered by the Senator from Georgia?
No. If there is no desire to lastingly hold this group,
can there be any objection to the adoption of that resolution?
But what do we find outside of this? I have already
referred to the remarks of the President of the United
States delivered, not in his message only, for in his
message he refers to forcible annexation as a crime
and denounces it as an offense against public morality as defined by us, but on a public occasion he again
referred to the Filipinos and spoke of the flag that had
been planted in that hemisphere. He said:
There it remains the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and
progress. Who will withdraw from the people over whom it floats its
protecting folds? Will the people of the South elect to haul it
down?
And in the letter to the Secretary of War, to which
I have also adverted, the President declared that our
policy toward those islands is that of "benevolent assimilation." What is meant by "benevolent assimila



SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 189
tion?"  Who shall define that?  The word "assimilation" implies absorption, taking in. True, the Presi(lent guarantees us that he will not assimilate those
people violently. There will no doubt be something
of an anaesthetic character with reference to that assimilation.
For my own part, I am opposed to the entire design, but upon any theory whatever, upon any theory
which anyone, outside of a very few Senators, is willing to father in this chamber, it follows that it is our
duty, if we have the slightest regard for our position
before the world, to indicate in advance what we intend to do.
Now, let me ask any Senator on the other side of
the proposition whether at the time the Senator from
Colorado offered an amendment to the Cuban resolutions, which has already been read, in which it was
said by this body and by the CongressThat the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said
island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control
of the island to its people.
-there was any admission that we were waging a war
of conquest? No one had the boldness to make such
a declaration.
For what purpose did the United States embark in
the war? It is well known here that the many difficulties which we now meet were anticipated by some
of us, but no one supposed that we would ever attempt
to absorb islands on the Asiatic coast, and compel
them into actual close communion with us permanently. Had an amendment to that resolutior been offered
providing that all possible acquisitions should be
brought within its scope and its letter, there would
have been no opposition.
Remembering that Admiral Dewey says, from per



190 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


sonal contact with the Filipinos and the Cubans, that
the former are better fitted for independent government than the latter, are we not honestly bound by the
spirit of our declaration to give an independent government to not only the Cuban people, but likewise to
the Filipinos, and we refuse to declare that the same
rule which we applied to Cuba will be applied in the
case under consideration.
While I repeat that I do not believe either or any
of these races are really fitted for companionship with
us, yet, under the peculiar circumstances of this situation, I am willing to apply to the Philippine Islands
the same rule that we have already declared we design
to enforce in Cuba. Whether we apply that rule or not
depends upon our good faith, and it is to be presumed
that we will be loyal to our pledges, although we know
that we will have opposition of a mercenary character.
There is no danger in such a course. The Filipinos
solicit it; the world will be satisfied; all possible obligations will be fulfilled.
I affirm again that the policy can not be to treat the
Philippine Islands as we treat Cuba, or else Senators
would not object to voting for a resolution of that purport.
Is there anything so alluring in the Philippine Islands, even of a business character, that we should be
willing to throw aside our traditions, to disregard the
teachings of our consciences, and to set aside every
declaration which statesmen of national repute have
ever made? Is there anything, I repeat, alluring in a
business way?
Permit me to say that I do not give undue weight
to purely commercial considerations. When I believe
that we can not morally or in accord with our duty
incorporate the Philippines, the affair is at an end.
But I appreciate that in some quarters a different con



........../








SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. I91
ception prevails. Boards of trade and chambers of
commerce in various localities look forward to and
with glowing words portray the riches which they
seem to think will drop into our laps. Thus was the
siren voice raised in the case of Hawaii, and yet it is
demonstrable to-day, as some of us said it would be
demonstrated, that the local sugar growers alone made
fortunes from annexation. Then we were told that numerous laborers would go to Hawaii and find a longsought opportunity for the development of their interests, and yet we have ascertained from experience that
these anticipations were not realized and that there is
no opening for such immigration.
That acquisition was only valuable to the few and
only dangerous as I thought, in the way of a precedent. However this may be, that is history; and the
only excuse for our action is that it was not of a character sufficiently important to make it vital. But here
we travel thousands of miles farther, and instead of
having Ioo,ooo people to deal with, we have 8,ooo,ooo
or IO,OOO,OOO, more obviously incompetent and more
difficult to control.
When you seek to acquire property, do you not look
to the title and right of your grantor? Do you not
ascertain what power he had, what jurisdiction he enjoyed, and what possession he enjoys?  If he had
nothing standing on the records, he must have had
possession indicating his entry and justifying his pretensions. If we cause peace and order to prevail in
the Philippines, it will be the result of conquest, not
of Spain, but of those whom Spain never subdued.
There are half of these islands which have never
been under the control of Spain. What must we do
with them? If we ratify this treaty and pass laws under it, we have no alternative but to invade and by
power subject them. We can not, as a great nation,




192 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.
stand aside and permit unchallenged rebellion. If we
ratify the treaty, we must show the nations of the
world that we have not only the technical right, but
also the physical strength, to enforce our mandates;
and hence it follows irresistibly that we must send our
arms abroad and bring the Mohammedans and others
into subjection.
What kind of an enterprise is this to be? What will
it cost, not in money, but in life? When we commenced the Spanish war, we did not, I am persuaded,
anticipate such a possibility. There would have been
more hesitation had we done so. Will we be able, we
who live and constitute the "land of the free and home
of the brave," to justify ourselves to ourselves if we assume the responsibility of a war in the Tropics in such
a cause?
Is this new possession untenanted and barren? Are
the islands uninhabited? On pages 404 and 405 of the
document already named will be found a statement by
General Greene, an officer who seemed to be very well
advised. He informs us that, taking the islands of Luzon, Panay, Cebu, Leyte, Bohol, and Negros, the average population per square mile is 9I; that of the island of Cebu is 210, and of the island of Luzon 79.
He remarks:
The density of population in these six islands is nearly 50 per
cent greater than in Illinois and Indiana (census of 1890), greater than
in Spain, about one-half as great as in France, and one-third as great
as in Japan and China.
Then he gives the exact figures. He also furnishes
information regarding Mindanao, Samar, Mindoro,
Romblon, and Masbate, where he finds a population
per square mile of II. The leading islands of the
group, those which are accessible, have a population
greater per square mile than Spain itself, and a population greater per square mile than the great States of
Illinois and Indiana.




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 193


What is to be gained by the contemplated policy?
If mere trade is the object, there is no difficulty in providing for it with any government which may be established. But I fail to see from statistical examination anything to justify us in assuming that the profits
attending annexation and depending upon it will
nearly atone for the enormous expenditure and extravagant outlay which must prove essential. Furthermore, some years ago in the Congress of the United
States there was a positive and aggressive agitation as
to the Chinese question, arising from the protest of
the people of our Pacific coast. They came before
Congress and urged restrictive legislation, and that
legislation was enacted, and we excluded Chinese laborers from our shores. We kept them out, although
they sought to come in occasional shiploads only.
Here it is proposed to bring in an entire population,
possessing to a large degree the same competitive
character, containing millions and millions of peopleno one can give the precise number. It is well enough
to pretend that constitutional guaranties may be disregarded and that our newly annexed friends may be
limited to a certain part of the United States. God
forbid that we shall ever have a nation so divided
against itself that we will not permit those who reside
in one part to visit elsewhere. No such attempted
rule, I trust, will ever find its place, notwithstanding
the agitations of any moment, upon the statute books
of the American Republic.
Without entering into any extended discussion of
the subject, I am very clear that every child born anywhere within the United States, whether you define it
internationally or nationally or otherwise, is a citizen
of the United States.
This must be true under the decision rendered by




194 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


the Supreme Court in United States vs. Wong Kim
Ark (169 U. S., 649).
There it was decided that a child born in the United
States of Chinese parents who, at the time of his birth,
are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a domicile in the United States and are not employed in any
diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of
China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of
the United States by virtue of the first clause of the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside.
It will be noted that the power granted to Congress
lby the Constitution is "to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization."  It is not easy to discover, even if
we bring the Filipino within our fold, how     we can
have "an uniform   rule of naturalization" without including the offspring of those who inhabit the islands
from Mindanao to Luzon.
The Senator from Louisiana has contributed an
able argument regarding the citizen status of the Filipinos in case of annexation.
As was well said by ex-Senator Edmunds:
A republic can have no subjects. Its people must be either citizens, slaves, or aliens.
True, we may prevent the inhabitants of the Philippines from voting for President or members of Congress and from otherwise availing themselves of some
other benefits which they may theoretically enjoy by
leaving the group in a Territorial condition. Nevertheless, this will not affect the rule announced by the
Supreme Court of the United States in Boyd vs. Nebraska, already mentioned. It was there remarked:
Mr. Justice Story, In his Commentaries on the Constitution, says:
"Every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States,"




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHTITE. 195


and this is the rule expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the
Constitution. Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott vs. Sandford, (;0 U. S,.
19 How., 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the Constitution
of the United States "every free person born on the soil of a State,
who is a citizen of that State by force of its constitution or laws, is
also a citizen of the United States." And Mr. Justice Swayne, in
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U. S., 16 Wall., 36, 126, declared that "a
citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States."
I do not believe that a man who is a citizen when in
one part of the United States can be anything less, no
matter where he goes.
As I understand it, it was the design and the intention of the framers of our organic law that the burdlens
resulting from   revenue taxation, that the fiscal ol)ligations which we must endure because of the necessity of mlaintaining the Government, mlust be distributed uniformly over the entire United States; and tintil there is a decision from a more authoritative tribunal than can be found in any convention or university,
I must beg leave to stand to that view.
It is said that after all we owe an obligation of
an ill-defined nature to sonebody with reference to
the Philippines which makes it necessary to ablsorb
them. To whom      do we owe such obligation?     Do we
owe it to the people there?    If so, surely they have a
right to waive it.   If we are to assimilate thenl    because of an obligation unlder which we rest to them,
they must be allowed to discharge us.       Annexation,
absorption, or assimilation they tlo not desire.
We stand in a singular position before the world,
and those of us who are opposed to the new dispensation and policy are blamed in some quarters.        It is
said we complicate matters by delay.       But we delay
nothing. We decline to subscribe to a policy which
we think means dishonor.      A   part of our Army, on
board ship, looks upon an island tenanted by people
who have been struggling for years, whether they are
white or black, poor, good or bad, to establish their
own government. We are armed, exchanging glaring




196 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


glances. They hardly know what to do. It is said
to us, "Ratify the treaty." Suppose we proceed to
give to this Administration power outside of the mere
military authority now being exercised; what then will
be the result? If the natives resist, what will we do?
Will we shoot them? If wo do not need them, must
we take them? Is it our obligation to be unjust or
cruel?
I believe that so far as the world at large respecting
humanity is concerned we will do more for our own
age and for times that are yet to be if we so act as to
demonstrate that we are worthy of the great heritage
to which we have succeeded. We will, indeed, hold
a proud position if we prove that we differ from other
nations whose accumulated powers were used for evil,
whose rulers, in the midst of the splendors of transitory triumph, assailed the liberties of their fellows. We
owe no obligation of that kind. No such crime can we
be asked to commit.
We hear much of our destiny, our manifest destiny.
What "manifest destiny", can require any man or set
of men or any nation to do that which should not be
done? Are we destined for turpitude? What is that
manifest destiny? Is it to conquer the world? Evidently many so think. Not long ago it was frequently
said upon this floor, "wherever the flag is raised there
let it float forever." This proposition was so absurd
and the statement was so ridiculed here and elsewhere
that a distinguished Senator of expansion tendencies
informed me recently that the expression was only a
figure of speech.
Yet this very phrase has been alluded to as the
maxim upon which expansionists rest. Wherever
the American flag has been raised, whether rightly or
wrongly, whether or not circumstances make it advisable for us to take it down, there it must continue




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. I97
to wave; that while under it we might conquer, yet
we can not without impropriety relieve it from a position where it can not remain but as the symbfl and
evidence of oppression. That view, I believe, has
been abandoned, and we are now told, as I have
stated, that the former argument was nothing more
than "a figure of speech." Upon many of these
"figures" do the arguments of our adversaries rest.
Our trade, we are advised, requires us to go abroad
sword in hand, regardless of principle. Let us investigate. From the most selfish standpoint we ought
to adhere to our present policy and leave foreign entanglements for our competitors. I do not care, for
the sake of this argument, whether the commercial
greatness of the United States is due to Republican
so-called protection, or to Democratic ideas, or to the
natural abilities and the manufacturing and commercial impulses of the race. To whatever it may be due,
we enjoy commercial superiority, and under our present system we have acquired this enviable position.
We have won it honestly, by patient, intelligent effort.
We have obtained it as the result of the splendid standard of efficiency of our labor-the highest in the
world-by compensating our toilers most liberally, by
availing ourselves of improved methods, by utilizing
our resources, and by invading the marts of the world
and taking from other nations in the peaceful struggles
of the day, not by force, but by brain and brawn, those
great advantages which the records of our Treasury
Department show are ours.
Without running at all into elaborate figures, I will
refer the Senate to the imports and exports of
merchandise for the twelve months, in each case commencing in January and ending in December, for the
years I893, I894, I895, I896, 1897, and 1898. But
I will show in this connection here and now this fact




198 SPEECH     OF HON. STEPHEN        M. WHITE.
only, that while in 1893 our exports exceeded our
imports a little less than $Ioo,ooo,o0o-ninety-nine million dollars and odd-in 1894 they rose to $I48,ooo,ooo, in 1895 dropped down to $23,000,000, in I896
rose to $324,000,000, in 1897 to $357,000,000, and in
1898 we exported $62I,000,000 more than we imported.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF MERCHANDISE FOR THE YEARS
1893 TO 1898.
Twelve months                            Excess of
ending December-  Imports.    Exports.    exports.
1893........................... $776,248,924  $876,148,781  $99,899,857
1894............................ 676,312,941  825,102,248  148,789,307
1895............................ 801,669,347  824,860,136  23,190,789
196........................... 681,579,556  1,005,837,241  324.257,685
1897............................ 742,595,229  1,099,709,045  357,113,816
1898............................ 633,664,634  1,254,925,169  621,260,535
Why is all this? Take our consular reports, Senators, and examine them, especially those issued during the last few years, and you will find that American
enterprise and American ingenuity are compelling attention everywhere. You will find evidences to this
effect in the heart of enterprising Germany, in the
center of enlightened England, in the midst of cultivated France.   You encounter such manifestations
everywhere, and day by day, hour by hour, as our
people are better understood and their skill and the
merits of their goods more accurately estimated, and
as we become more careful regarding our consuls and
the retention of those who know something about their
business, our trade expands.
We appropriate by these     civilized  methods the
profits heretofore enjoyed by other countries. We are
drawing these vast benefits to our pockets. We are
becoming great. No little area is ours. Our domain
is mighty.   This is not a nation to be held in the
hollow of even the imperialistic hand. With a population less than one-fourth per square mile of that
of the islands of the Philippine group which I first




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. j9n


enumerated, with vast territory yet untotlched(, with
boundless resources, susceptible of utilization and
destined for our benefit and for that of our posteritywith all of these great advantages, this glorious prospect, this magnificent possibility, at our own doors,
under our immediate civilization-should we not hesitate before forming new alliances?
Witness our territorial greatness. Think what we
may do when our population is several times its present number. Look at the victories of peace which may
be ours, the contests in the courts of honor which we
may win, the contributions to civilization which we
may furnish! Are not these more worthy prizes than
the spoils of war? Our schools and our churches
rise in every township, in every spot where mankind
throng.  In the paths of mining, agriculture, and
manufacture, in the domain of science and art mark
our success and observe the boundless field. When
our future can thus be rationally anticipated, when
we are actually about to possess the choicest blessings
of the earth, our conquests won without blood and
producing treasure-victories gained honestly, the
rewards of intelligence, brought forth under the vivifying and electrifying stimulation of free government —
when we have thus succeeded in promoting our Republic to its proud and, in a sense, truly imperial
position, we are told that we must follow that delusive
stranger, "our destiny," and must depart from our
tried and incomparably successful policy-thus adopting that which is destructive to others in preference to
that which makes us really great.
Talk about the obligation that we owe to the Philippines, to England, to France, to China, or to any nation or state or set of nations in the world. Do we
not owe more to ourselves? Are not those who are
near and dear to us-ought not our country to be




200 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


dearer to us than any momentary triumph or the flitting shouts of the battlefield? Are we to relinquish
the substantial and change our century-sanctified plans
in a night because our Navy has been victorious, our
Army militant in a contest far from equal? Because
we fought a war wherein we lost in actual battle (eliminating subsequent sickness and wounded fatalities)
280 men, must we raise great armies and aver "no
power can defeat us?" I know that the sword must
sometimes be drawn and that many issues are thus
solved, and solved well. But the lessons of time admonish us that all combats to the death are irrational.
Civilization occasionally springs from the gory field,
but I do not wish my nation to participate in any effort
that will result in aught but the building up and
strengthening of her claim to be the ideal republicliving to spread virtue and freedom by the mild processes of truth and reason.
Who invites us to these new fields of conquest?
The nations with whom we have been contending in
this peaceful and soon to be determinative struggle;
the nations whose manufacturing we are taking away;
the nations whose resources are yielding to the policy
of this emancipated Government. They seek to allure
us, and they display before us the alleged choice
blessings, as they call them, of "benevolent assimilation." India is selected as a typical case. In the dull
and ambitionless abode of the Hindoo is found convincing proof of crushed manhood. England, the nation with whom we so lately disputed concerning the
Monroe doctrine, is now our mentor and example.
Why this sudden change? Is it rational? I want
none of this. I know it is not always popular to seek
to restrain the impetuous march of those who see or
think they see glory ahead, but I believe it is the duty




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 201
of men situated as we are to look upon this grave
situation calmly and considerately.
I read an article in a newspaper recently to the
effect that our Government has agreed to a treaty or
compact with Spain, and that the United States can
not afford to recede; that Senators who are not expansionists are not cast in patriotic mold. Such impudence does not frighten me from duty. Has it
come to this that a treaty, when signed by the Executive, is thereafter the supreme law of the land, or is
it still well to obtain the concurrence of the Senate
of the United States, and is there any less responsibility upon the Senate in connection with the treaty
than there is upon the President?
May this body advise and consent when the Constitution so ordains? When this annexation experiment
shall have been tried, if tried it must be, and when its
issue for weal or woe has passed into a demonstration,
will not this body share and must it not share equally
with the Executive in whatever may have transpired?
Was it not thought by the men who conceived the
Constitution that the Senate of the United States might
occasionally contribute an idea in addition to those
of Executive discovery, however able, honest, and intelligent the Executive might be?
We are bound to examine this for ourselves. We
can not rest upon any examination by anybody else.
No one has a higher regard for the ability of the three
members of this body who went abroad on this treaty
mission than have I. This treaty is to a large extent
their work, and we are in the presence, therefore, of
men who understand more about it than we do. This,
however, can have no influence upon us, except in so
far as reasons may be furnished and arguments adduced controlling our judgment and discretion.
We must satisfy ourselves, I repeat, and that we




202 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


will do so I have no reason to doubt. This is not
assumption, it is the performance of a duty. Whatever may be the personal effect of blending Executive
and Senatorial functions in a treaty commissioner, the
organic laws can not thus be altered.
Will anyone tell me that a great standing army is
advisable in a republic? What is the inevitable and
necessary consequence of the carrying out of this modern doctrine of expansion? It will not rest its influence upon the Philippines only. When we place our
giant foot upon those islands, we will seek new scenes
for aggression and conquest and will consider that it
is our duty to encircle the earth.
What is the limit of the expansionist? Where
does he stop? It is hinted that our more progressive legislators and citizens hope to participate in
the partition of China. Whenever there is to be an
"absorption," which is a modern expression for international robbery, the advocates of the new idea
wish to be present. The old days, when upon the
Fourth of July and other festivities the school-boy
talked about the outrages involved in the partition
of Poland, will not come again. The custom of reading Washington's Farewell Address here will soon be
abandoned if this fallacious doctrine obtains. The
sarcastic irrelevancy of that great announcement will
be apparent to the most unlettered and expansive mind.
We have bills for the increase of our Navy, and I am
in favor of a fine naval establishment-sufficient to
guard our interests thoroughly, but not to engage in
conquest. We are informed that these expenditures
will aggregate millions, and yet we have only commenced. Oh, you can not in a moment lead a free
people from the pathway of virtue which from the
teachings of their mothers' knee they learned to tread.
The allurements and deceptions from which nations




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 203


and individuals alike suffer do not ordinarily mean the
immediate avoidance of honor. The gradual moving
away from the old road finally results in its abandonment. The way of truth is left untrodden. Upon it
grow weeds and thistles. Its identity is now and then
pointed out by someone who lingers on the scenea lone worshiper yet at liberty's shrine.
It is an army of a hundred thousand men, or 60,000
men now. It will be I20,000 in a short time. And
why not? This vast host will be necessary. Nay,
several times more. I do not speak of this enormous
augmentation of our military as any act of oppression
upon the part of those who recommend it, or upon
the part of those who may vote the appropriations,
but I speak of it, sir, as the inevitable and necessary
consequence of the adoption of a policy which recognizes the arbitrament of the sword and the settlement
of disputes not in peace, but in war. We are preparing for not merely a war, but for wars.
Then will come a time when the military will donlinate the land and when the Republic will endure only
in story and in song.
How long would it have bleen necessary to combat such a policy had it been advocated but a little
time ago? Is it not singular that as matters proceed(
we become more and more acclimated, as it were, to
this situation; we more readily yield up and sacrifice
really precious things and join the majority in saying
that after all the Constitution is of no great force,
and that if, as a distinguished military man has lately
said, it is not in accordance with our new deman(ls
and developments, we can get something else? And
so we can; we may abandon the basic principles of
this Government. We (I speak of the people) have
the power to do so. The nations have so acted in
many an age. Can we not, too, be foolish? I have




204 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


considered it less important to discuss the actual words
of the Constitution than to combat this destructive
tendency.
What does this enormous armed display mean?
We familiarize the people with the presence of war.
We look at Article III of the amendments of the Constitution and we wonder why, after all, there was so
much said about the quartering of troops. Of whom
were the fathers afraid? They feared the armies,
whose business was not of peace. They knew much
of the arrogance Qf soldiery. They appreciated the
impossibility of preserving liberty in the face of
mighty standing armies. They knew that the honest
civilian must yield, and they searched history in vain
to learn that there was any compatibility between a
standing army and free institutions.
And hence, if there is one thing that we have all
learned, Democrats, Republicans, and Populists alike,
it is that, save in a great public exigency, we ought
not to have among us, and upon us, and of us, large
bodies of armed men. And yet we are bringing about
a condition which will necessitate this calamity. We
are creating, by this annexation program, the very
condition which we concede and have always conceded
to be eminently disastrous.
Consider the state of a people who are pursuing
peace, who are not familiar with war, but who are
ready to instantly spring to arms to. defend their
rights and honor, and to preserve their nation from injustice-consider such a people abandoning the tenets
of civilization and adopting the business of carnage.
Are we ready to call this progress?
Because I consider this particular subject of a great
deal of importance-that while I am opposed, for
reasons which I have stated, to the entire scheme,
while my objections are so absolutely basic that I have




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 205
no idea that the proposition will ever receive my vote
in any of its forms, nevertheless, if it be true, as contended by the Senator from Colorado and no doubt
believed by him, that we intend to treat the people of
the Philippine Islands as we intend to treat the people
of Cuba, let us make a record which hereafter will not
be evidence against the insistence of that intent.
For instance, we have declared our intention regarding Cuba. It is proposed by the resolution offered by
the Senator from Georgia that we shall declare our intention regarding the Philippines. If we do not do
that, it will be considered that that proposition has
been answered in the negative.
Then the treaty itself declares that while the title to
Cuba is relinquished, that to the Philippines is ceded.
I imagine that before accepting title to anything, before we consider it as a relinquishment or a cession,
it is better to know our actual desires. When the
cession is completed, the grant absolutely made, the
power entirely exercised, and this resolution tabled or
laid aside or forgotten for the time being, then the
question must be, how will we get rid of our investment? It is better to deliberate now upon the disposition of this territory that future complications may be
avoided. The cession is not yet complete. The Senate must act first.
I am unwilling to leave this resolution to be passed
on hereafter, for I know it will be in the hands of some,
whom I am personally aware are antagonistic to anything save permanent retention. They will prevent
its consideration at all, and I therefore insist that if
it is in good faith intended to treat Cuba and the
Philippines alike, let the record so show.
I do not see either that the mere reference in the
ninth article of the pending treaty to the native inhabitants of the territories and the provision that Con



206 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.


gress shall determine the citizen status interferes with
my position. On the contrary, this recital presupposes that Congress will legislate with reference to
these acquisitions as though the cession were perfect.
I have attempted briefly to give some of the reasons
which appear to me controlling against the making of
this treaty. I have not dwelt upon the threatened
abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, nor have I
shown, as I might, the difficulties of colonial government in the tropics by any government. I find no
embarrassment in solving the situation, bad as it is,
upon lines heretofore indicated. Spain and all other
nations can be warned off and a local government
can be established. I see no want of dignity upon
the part of the United States in insisting that as far
as the Philippine Islands are concerned they shall be
treated as Cuba is treated. If it be said that we have
our commissioners, I answer that we should act under
our constitutional authority and to the best of our
ability. That this does not imply discredit, but only
implies regardfulness of duty.
These questions, I take it, must be determined from
some other standpoint than that of individual preference. Those of us who believe that a new, untried,
and dangerous policy is about to be inaugurated can
not find any answer in the assertion that we have appropriated other and more congenial territory, areas
fitted for civilization and easy of access and free from
a dangerous and permanently nonassimilative population. Never before did we seek a distant sea and an
Oriental land, tenanted by millions who are not of us
and who deny our authority. I am not attracted by
the colonial experiences of the world.
Spain herself believed in expansion. Imperialism
brought her down.
In these days when military power and splendor




SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE. 207


engross so much attention, at this time when all over
the world are repeated the stories of American valor,
now when the youth turns with aspiring eye toward
the gratification of his ambition to the tented field,
when the soldier and the sailor rejoice in their great
accomplishments, it is well for us to look back-to
reflect. The fathers of the Republic had studied the
history of mankind. They read from the standpoint
of threatened liberty. They deliberated from the vantage ground of disinterested honesty. They fought,
too, in vindication of their opinions. Their life terms
were not less than those of this generation.
Greater men have not been here. These statesmen
were well aware that other nations had been free and
that in the days of frugality and honesty they were
happy and prosperous and soon became strong. They
knew that republicanism in its purity must ever beget
power and affluence and that nations as well as individuals are often seduced by the lavish offerings of
ambition to attempt military despotism and to regard
as ill suited the safe teachings of less flattering hours.
They were profoundly versed in the narrations which
told of the rise and fall of people-the sacrifices of independence-the terrors of corruption and decay. Shall
we not heed their admonitions? Are we too wise to
regard them? Can we credit the promise that imperialism will benefit the cause of freedom? The
world saw upon Helena's lonely rock the greatest soldier, perhaps, of all history. When his
life's race had nearly run, he who too had believed
himself a man of destiny, gazing upon the glistening
sea which guarded his restless spirit, said, almost with
his dying breath, that the world would never know
what he had in store for man.
In the seven-hilled city more than once the tyrant
with bloody sword uplifted claimed the blessings of




208 SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE.
posterity. The glorious court of Fontainebleau was
refulgent with a brightness which indicated the effort
of power to conceal a condition which eventuated in a
culmination which threatened the thrones of the Old
World.
The United States will never be too prosperous or
strong to adhere to constitutional restraints and to
work out its mission with the aid of intelligent and
honest men. It is in the hope that we may aid to
preserve forever stainless in its purity and unconquerable in its integrity the Republic of our fathers that I
register here my protest against what I conceive to be
a disastrous innovation.




CHAPTER XI


IMPERIALISM-ITS DANGERS AND
WRONGS.
BY MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS,
PRESIDENT OP THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
It is worse than folly, aye, it is a crime, to lull ourselves into the fancy that we shall escape the duties
which we owe to our people by becoming a nation
of conquerors, disregarding the lessons of nearly a
century and a quarter of our national existence as an
independent, progressive, humane and peace-loving
nation. We cannot with safety to ourselves, or justice
to others keep the workers and the lovers of reform
and simple justice divided, or divert their attention, and
thus render them powerless.to expose abuses and
remedy existing injustice.
A "foreign war as a cure for domestic discontent"
has been the device of tyrants and false counselors
from time immemorial, but it has always lead to a
Waterloo, a Sedan, to certain decadence and often
utter ruin. In our country we are perhaps too powerful to incur outside disaster; but we shall certainly
court worse evils at home if we try to benumb the nation's sense of justice and love of right, and prevent it
from striving earnestly to correct all proved errors.
If the Philippines are annexed what is to prevent the
Chinese, the Negritos and the Malays coming to our
country? How can we prevent the Chinese coolies
from going to the Philippines and from there swarm
into the United States and engulf our people and our
209




210 IMPERIALISM-DANGERS AND WRONGS.


civilization? If these new islands are to become ours,
it will be either under the form of Territories or States.
Can we hope to close the flood-gates of immigration
from the hordes of Chinese and the semi-savage races
coming from what will then be part of our own
country? Certainly, if we are to retain the principles
of law enunciated from the foundation of our Govern'ment, no legislation of such a character can be expected.
In a country such as ours the conditions and opportunities of the wage-earners are profoundly affected by
the view of the worth or dignity of men who earn
their bread by the work of their hands. The progress
and improvement in the condition of the wage-earners
in the former slave States have been seriously obstructed by decades in which manual labor and slave
labor were identical. The South now, with difficulty,
respects labor, because labor is the condition of those
who were formerly slaves, and this fact operates potentially against any effort to secure social justice by
legislative action or organized movement of the workers. If these facts have operated so effectually to
prevent necessary changes in the condition of our own
people, how difficult will it be to quicken our conscience so as to secure social and legislative relief for
the semi-savage slave or contract laborers of the conquered islands?
If- we attempt to force upon the natives of the
Philippines our rule, and compel them to conform to
our more or less rigid mold of government, how many
lives shall we take? Of course, they will seem cheap,
because they are poor laborers. They will be members
of the majority in the Philippines, but they will be
ruled and killed at the convenience of the very small
minority there, backed up by our armed land and sea




ii~ -;;,I 1,:
leBZI
~aril iii,
~.~ -~
~~-I "
I:iLO 
~~; ld
"~~. ,*
a ~,i*~
ig."B~.8
II
a'i~:E $
ig ~i
gL
.%E
aiaile








IMPERIALISM-DANGERS AND WRONGS. 211


forces. The dominant class in the islands will ease
its conscience because the victims will be poor, ignoant and weak. When innocent men can be shot down
on the public highway as they were in Lattimer, Pa.,
and Virden, Ill., men of our own flesh and blood,
men who help to make this homogeneous nation great,
because they dare ask for more humane conditions
at the hands of the moneyed class of our country, how
much more difficult will it be to arouse any sympathy,
and secure relief for the poor semi-savages in the
Philippines, much less indignation at any crime against
their inherent and natural rights to life, lioerty and the
pursuit of happiness?..




it




CHAPTER XI.
WHAT     POLICY     THE    UNITED     STATES
SHOULD PURSUE.
BY CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
HIS VIEWS IN A LETTER TO HON. CARL SCHURZ.
Boston, December 21, 1898.
My Dear Mr. Schurz:
In a recent letter you kindly suggest that I submit
to you a sketch of what I think should be said in an
address such as it is proposed should now be put forth
by the Anti-Imperialist League to the people of the
United States.
I last evening read a paper before the Lexington
Historical Society, in which I discussed the question
of extra-territorial expansion from the historical point
of view. There is one aspect, and, to my mind,
the all-important aspect of the question, which, in addressing an historical society, was not germane. I
refer to the question of a practical policy to be pursued
by us, as a nation, under existing conditions. That
Spain has abandoned all claim of sovereignty over the
Philippine Islands admits of no question. Whether
the United States has accepted the sovereignty thus
abandoned is still an open question; but this I do not
regard as material. Nevertheless, we are confronted
by a fact; and, whenever we criticise the policy up to
this time pursued, we are met with an inquiry as to
what we have to propose in place of it. We are invited to stop finding fault with others, and to suggest
some feasible alternative policy ourselves.
To this we must, therefore, in fairness, address our213




214 VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
selves. It is, in my judgment, useless to attempt to
carry on the discussion merely in the negative form.
As opponents of an incloate policy we must, in place
of what we object to, propose something positive, or
we must abandon the field. Accepting the alternative, I now want to suggest a positive policy for the
consideration of those who feel as we feel. I wish
your judgment upon it.
There has, it seems to me, been a great deal of idle
"Duty," "Mission," and "Call" talk on the subject of
our recent acquisition of "Islands beyond the Sea,"
and the necessity of adopting some policy, commonly
described as "Imperial," in dealing with them. This
policy is, in the minds of most people who favor it, to
be indirectly modeled on the policy heretofore so successfully pursued under somewhat similar conditions
by Great Britain. It involves, as I tried to point out
in the Lexington paper I have referred to, the abandonment or reversal of all the fundamental principles
of our government since its origin, and of the foreign
policy we have heretofore pursued. This, I submit, is
absolutely unnecessary. Another and substitute policy, purely American, as contradistinguished from the
European or British, known as "Imperial," policy, can
readily be formulated.
This essentially American policy would be based
both upon our cardinal political principles, and our
recent foreign experiences. It is commonly argued
that, having destroyed the existing government in
Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, we have assumed a political responsibility, and are under a-moral
obligation to provide another government in place of
that which by our action has ceased to exist. What
has been our course heretofore under similar circumstances? Precedents, I submit, at once suggest them



I  IIIIIII"
-   ------- -   -~n,  ) I
(  {t rev  r  yX
AQ-Aj   ~~~ p  au-"i~








VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 215


selves. Precedents, too, directly in point, and within
your and my easy recollection.
I refer to the course pursued by us toward Mexico
in the year 1848, and again in I866; toward Hayti
for seventy years back; and toward Venezuela as recently as three years ago. It is said that the inhabitants of the islands of the Antilles, and much more those
of the Philippine archipelago, are as yet unfitted to
maintain a government; and that they should be kept
in a condition of "tutelage" until they are fitted so to
do. It is further argued that a stable government is
necessary, and that it is out of the question for us to
permit a condition of chronic disturbance and scandalous unrest to exist so near our own borders as
Cuba and Porto Rico. Yet how long, I would ask,
did that condition exist in Mexico? And with what
results? How long has it existed in Hayti? Has the
government of Venezuela ever been "stable?" Have
we found it necessary or thought it best to establish
a governmental protectorate in any of those immediately adjacent regions?
What has been, historically, our policy-the American, as distinguished from the European and British
policy-toward those communities,-two of them
Spanish, one African? So far as foreign powers are
concerned, we have laid down the principle of "Handsoff." So far as their own government was concerned,
we insisted that the only way to learn to walk was to
try to walk, and that the history of mankind did not
show that nations placed under systems of "tutelage,"
-taught to lean for support on a superior power,ever acquired the faculty of independent action.
Of this, with us, fundamental truth, the British race
itself furnishes a very notable example. In the fortyfourth year of the Christian era the island of Great
Britain was occupied by what the "Imperial" Romans




216 VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.


adjudged to be an inferior race. To the Romans the
Britons unquestionably were inferior. Every child's
history contains an account of the course then pursued by the superior toward that inferior race, and its
results. The Romans occupied Great Britain, and
they occupied it hard upon four centuries, holding the
people in "tutelage," and protecting them against
themselves, as well as against their enemies. With
what result? So emasculated and incapable of selfgovernment did the people of England become during their "tutelage" that, when Rome at last withdrew, they found themselves totally unfitted for selfgovernment, much more for facing a foreign enemy.
As the last, and best, historian of the English people
tells us, the purely despotic system of the imperial
government "by crushing all local independence,
crushed all local vigor. Men forgot how to fight for
their country when they forgot how to govern it."
The end was that, through six centuries more, England was overrun, first by those of one race, and then
by those of another, until the Normans established
themselves in it as conquerors; and then, and not until
then, the deteriorating effect of a system of long continued "tutelage" ceased to be felt, and the islanders
became by degrees the most energetic, virile, and selfsustaining of races. As nearly, therefore, as can be
historically stated, it took eight centuries for the people of England to overcome the injurious influence of
four centuries of just such a system as it is now proposed by us to inflict on the Philippines.t Hindostan
tThe Roman legions were withdrawn from Great Britain
in 410; Magna Charta was signed in June, I215, and the reign
of French Kings over England canme to a close in I217. It is
a striking illustration of the deliberation with which natural
processes work themselves out, that the period which elapsed
between the withdrawal of Rome from England, and the recovery of England by the English, should have exceeded by
more than a century the time which has as yet elapsed since
England was thus recovered.




VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 217


would furnish another highly suggestive example of
the educational effects of "tutelage," on a race. After
a century and a half of that British "tutelage" what
progress has India made toward fitness for self-government? Is the end in sight?
From the historical point of view, it is instructive
to note the exactly different results reached through
the truly American policy we have pursued in the
not dissimilar cases of Hayti and Mexico. While
Hayti, it is true, has failed to make great progress in
one century, it has made quite as much progress as
England made during any equal period immediately
after Rome withdrew from it. And that degree of
slowness in growth, which with equanimity has been
endured by us in Hayti, could certainly be endured by
us in islands on the coast of Asia. It cannot be gainsaid that, through our insisting on the policy of noninterference ourselves, and of non-interference by
European nations, Hayti has been brought into a
position where it is on the high road to better things
in future. That has been the result of the prescriptive
American policy. With Mexico, the case is far
stronger. We all know that in 1848, after our war
of spoliation, we had to bolster up a semblance of a
government for Mexico, with which to negotiate a
treaty of peace. Mexico at that time was reduced by
us to a condition of utter anarchy. Under the theory
now gaining in vogue, it would then have been our
plain duty to make of Mexico an extra-territorial dependency, and protect it against itself. We wisely
took a different course. Like other Spanish communities in America, Mexico then passed through a
succession of revolutions, from which it became apparent the people were not in a fit condition for selfgovernment. Nevertheless, sternly insisting on noninterference by outside powers, we ourselves wisely




218 VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.


left that country to work out its own salvation in its
own way.
In 1862, when the United States was involved in the
War of the Rebellion, the Europeans took advantage
of the situation to invade Mexico, and to establish
there a "stable government." They undertook to protect that people against themselves, and to erect for
them a species of protectorate, such as we now propose for the Philippines. As soon as our war was
over, we insisted upon the withdrawal of Europe from
Mexico. What followed is matter of recent history.
It is unnecessary to recall it. We did not reduce
Mexico into a condition of "tutelage,"or establish over
it a "protectorate" of our own. We, on the contrary, insisted that it should stand on its own legs;
and, by so doing, learn to stand firmly on them, just
as a child learns to walk, by being compelled to try
to walk, not by being kept everlastingly in "leading
strings." This was the American, as contradistinguished from the European policy; and Mexico today walks firmly.
Finally take the case of Venezuela in 1895. I believe I am not mistaken when I say that, during the
twenty-five preceding years, Venezuela had undergone
almost as many revolutions. It certainly had not enjoyed a stable government. Through disputes over
questions of boundary, Great Britain proposed to confer that indisputable blessing upon a considerable
region. We interfered under a most questionable extension of the Monroe Doctrine, and asserted the
principle of "Hands-off." Having done this, —having
in so far perpetuated what we now call the scandal
of anarchy,-we did not establish "tutelage," or a
protectorate, ourselves. We wisely left Venezuela to
work out its destiny in its own way, and in the fullness of time. That policy was far-seeing, beneficent,




VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 219
and strictly American in 1895. Why, then, make
almost indecent haste to abandon it in 1898?
Instead, therefore, of finding our precedents in the
experience of England, or that of any other European
power, I would suggest that the true course for this
country now to pursue is exactly the course we have
heretofore pursued under similar conditions. Let us
be true to our own traditions, and follow our own
precedents. Having relieved the Spanish islands from
the dominion of Spain, we should declare concerning
them a policy of "Hands-off," both on our own part
and on the part of other powers. We should say that
the independence of those islands is morally guaranteed by us as a consequence of the treaty of Paris, anll(
then leave them just as we have left Ilayti, and just
as we left Mexico and Venezuela, to adopt for themselves such form of government as the people thereof
are ripe for. In the cases of Mexico and Venezuela,
and in the case of Hayti, we have not found it necessary to interfere ever or at all. It is not yet apparent
why we should find it necessary to interfere with
islands so much lmore remote from us than ITayti,
and than Mexico and Venezuela, as are the Philippines.
In this matter we can thus well afford to be consistent, as well as logical. Our fundamental principles, those of the Declaration, the Constitution, and
the Monroe Doctrine, have not yet been shown to
be unsound-why should we be in such a hurry to
abandon them? Our precedents are close at hand,
and satisfactory-why look away from them to follow
those of Great Britain? Why need we, all of a sudden, be so very English and so altogether French,
even borrowing their nomenclature of "imperialism?"
Why can not we, too, in the language of Burke, be
content to set our feet "in the tracks of our fore



220 VIEWS OF CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.


fathers, where we can neither wander nor stumble?"
The only difficulty in the way of our so doing seems
to be that we are in such a desperate hurry; while
natural influences and methods, though in the great
end indisputably the wisest and best, always require
time in which to work themselves out to their results.
Wiser than the Almighty in our own conceit, we think
to get there at once; the "there" in this case being
everlasting "tutelage," as in India, instead of ultimate
self-government, as in Mexico.
The policy heretofore pursued by us in such cases,
-the policy of "Hands-off," and "Walk alone," is distinctly American; it is not European not even British. It recognizes the principles of our Declaration of
Independence. It recognizes the truth that all just
government exists by the consent of the governed. It
recognizes the existence of the Monroe Doctrine. In
a word, it recognizes every principle and precedent,
whether natural or historical, which has from the beginning lain at the foundation of our American policy.
We propose to guarantee them against outside meddling, and, above all, from "tutelage," and make them,
by walking, learn to walk alone.
This, I submit, is not only an answer to the question so frequently put to us, but a positive policy following established precedents, and, what is more,
purely American, as distinguished from a European or
British, policy and precedents.
I remain, etc.,
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
HON. CARL SCHURZ,
i6 E. 64th Street, New York City.




CHAPTER XII.
LARGE STANDING ARMIES A MENACE TO
A REPUBLIC.
BY HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
I have not consumed much of the time of the Senate
in the discussion of the pending resolutions. I have
had no intention of doing so, and would not now but
for the occurrences of the last two days in this
chamber. The remarks of the Senator from Nebraska,
who addressed the Senate this morning, in connection with the remarks made by the Senator from
Colorado seem to make it necessary that I should say
one word before we shall have entered upon the real
consideration of the treaty in secret session.
It has grown to be an unfortunate custom that the
newspaper criticisms of public men find ready conduits in this body, so that their utterances may be recorded here upon our records. No matter how severe
the criticism, how unjust the comment, it seems that
at times they are to find their way into this body and
to be repeated by honorable members of the Senate.
My attitude upon this treaty was well defined in a
public utterance before the treaty was negotiated so far
as it refers to the acquisition of the Philippine Islands.
My opinion upon that question was known and freely
expressed by me to one of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty before he left this country for Paris.
I have had no cause to change the opinions then expressed publicly and privately. They were opinions
formed after mature deliberation; opinions that I be221




222 SPEECH OF HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN.


lieved were in the best interests of my country; opinions to be maintained by me, no matter what the influence may be upon the other side.
In my course in public life Presidents of the United
States and their cabinets have had no terrors for me.
I have opposed them when they were of my own political faith, when I believed that the measures presented were too extreme and would put in jeopardy
the business interests of the American people. I oppose this treaty in the form in which it comes to us,
and under which we are to acquire the sovereignty of
the Philippine Archipelago, filled with people who
never can assimilate with us, because I believe its
adoption and the acquisition of the territory would
be more disastrous to my country than any other
measure which has come before the Congress of the
United States or the Senate of the United States from
the formation of the Government to this hour.
The Senator from Colorado, in his carefully prepared speech, as I take it, after having described the
conditions attending the consideration of the treaty,
said:
Bar England, there is not a country in Europe that is not
hostile to us. During all this war they stood in sullen hate, hoping
for our defeat and that disaster might come to us; and to-day they
wait with eager and rapacious gaze, hoping that some event may yet
prevent our reaping the fruits of the treaty which has been agreed
upon by the commissioners of the two countries. Yet, while this
critical condition of affairs exists, it has become evident within the
last few days that certain political leaders in this chamber believe
that a new issue should be brought before the American people
to be determined at the next Presidential election. They intend that
the American people shall be called upon to pass on the questions
arising out of the war, and that this shall be the issue of the next
campaign.
For one, I believe that issue a fair one, and I am ready, as all
good citizens ought to be, to meet the views of the whole American
people upon the question of the conduct of the war, of its achievements, and of the policy this country should pursue at its close. But
it is deplorable that in formulating such an issue and in pursuit of
such a policy those leaders should find it necessary to seek to dishonor this Government and the administration which has guided us
so wisely through the troubled sea of international complications and
brought us to the threshold of an honorable peace; that they
should seek to degrade us in the face of the nations of the world;
and that they should attempt to bring about some fancied political
advantage by an effort to defeat the ratification of a treaty which,
if unratified, must bring back a condition of war as it existed before
the report of the commissioners, passive it may be, but full of uncertainty and full of disaster to the interests and the welfare of
our country.




saai
I8~i~
Z- ~:
u~
-~I~ 
~F:l
iil'
8t
I"; ~: ~i~
, ~3X ~~; :
I~"i
ai-;
1 -~.~"
$~ -;~*:
i-, Bdl~lcE , $:I
a::
ri:i ~i:..~~
~- r~i
z'
i
*11,71Tll" r)l j"i\l,




I




SPEECH OF HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN. 223
I suppose that a fair judgment and a charitable judgment would enable me to say that the Senator from
Colorado alone, of all the Senators in this body, is the
only one capable of such an utterance when we are
considering such a great question.
Aspirations of public men amount to but little. That
the political desire for preferment of any man would
control his vote upon this treaty is inconceivable to
me, and he who entertains such an idea is on a very
low plane in the consideration of a measure so grave.
I believe in parties. I believe in my party, because
I believe that the interests of the people will be best
served in the end by its promotion to power and its
control of governmental affairs. I adhered to it when
some of its doctrines were very far from meeting with
my approval, because I have believed that in the main
the interests of the country would be better subserved
through it.
Away beyond office, away beyond personal desire of
promotion of any sort, stands the great question we
are facing. On yesterday, Sunday, the cable flashed
the news that because of the attitude of the American
Republic in their determination, in their effort, in their
threat to take possession of a people who did not desire to become a part of the nation the blood of American citizens had flowed. Those natives, fighting for
their liberty as they understand it, made an attack
upon the American army.
Who believes for a moment that if there was a provision in the pending treaty like the one relating to
Cuba that our occupation would be only temporary,
that it is only intended to aid them to form a better
government to control their own affairs, that there
would have been a single life lost? They would have
submitted as Gomez has submitted, and turned their
army as allies and supporters of the American flag,




224 SPEECH OF HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN.
which would, under that condition, give them liberty
and freedom.
I believe that if the pending treaty is ratified and we
obtain a cession of the sovereignty of those islands, it
will be only the beginning of a war that will cost us
hundreds, yes, thousands, of lives of our splendid specimens of intelligent young manhood and millions and
millions of money, and that when we shall have, as we
will, driven them at the point of the bayonet to submit
to the authority of the American nation, with all the
accompanying (cestruction of property and lives, the
whole archipelago will then be a pest to the American
Union. I believe that it will open the door for a 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.
Do you remember-I do-that it was but ten years
ago that this great American nation, with all its power,
when two great political parties were lining up in the
Presidential battle of T888, was compelled by the
working people, the men who are engaged in trades,
the men who are engaged in labor, to abrogate a
treaty with China which permitted the Chinese to come
in? Only a few hundred thousand had come in on the
Pacific coast, yet the feeling against them was so intense that both political parties were forced to declare
against their further entry. I think it the most remarkable chapter in the history of the country and the
only instance of the abrogation of a treaty by statute.
While we were negotiating with China, a friendly nation, with which we were at peace, for a modification
of the treaty negotiated by Mr. Seward in i868, both
parties were absolutely driven, so powerful was the
feeling of the laboring people of the country to pass
an act of Congress which abrogated the treaty without




SPEECH OF HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN. 225


giving the friendly nation an opportunity for consideration.
We made that restriction and destroyed our trade
with China. They submitted to it as no other nation
on the earth would have submitted to it. Our trade,
however, melted away until it has run down to almost
nothing as compared with that of Great Britain,
France and Germany. And now ten years after that act
we propose to take islands that are in front of the
China Sea. No nation on earth can guard them. No
power is strong enough to prevent the Chinese from
going over and obtaining a lodgment; and then it is
a stepping-stone by which they will come to the
United States, because when the islands are annexed
the inhabitants become American citizens. You can
not keep the Chinese out to-day with all the police
power of the Government. You can not prevent their
entry from Canada and from Mexico. It will not, in
my judgment, be four years, if this treaty is ratified,
before the American people will act as they did in
I888. I am not an alarmist, nor have I a desire to
throw out a suggestion of disorder, but, judging from
the past, our people will resent it.
I assume it is believed by the authors of this measure that the people will resent it; and hence you propose to provide for it by increasing the Army to be 
kept at home a hundred thousand men, at a cost of
$Ioo100,,ooo a year, not alone to take care of our
affairs in those distant islands, but as a police force to
help to control the American people.
This is possibly the last time I may address the
Senate upon this subject, and I now enter my solemn
protest against it. I want to see this great Government march on for all time, as it has in the past, relying
upon the good will and good sense of the American




226 SPEECH OF HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN.


people to support and protect their Government without the aid of armies.
I fear armies at home. I witnessed the great struggle of the war between the States which closed in
I865. Since its close I have seen a great army used
in part to control the sovereign States of the Union.
I also witnessed the patriotic and manly efforts of the
great captain of our armies, General Grant, and of
that fearless volunteer soldier, Gen. John A. Logan,
of Illinois, and of Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, both nmembers of the House, who raised their
voices, as all statesmen had done in the past, and
favored the reduction of the Army to 30,000 men,
when their own country, one-third of it, was in a state
of unrest. I want to follow in their lead-a lead
which makes it impossible to govern the American
people by bayonets.
The spectacle has just been presented of the President of the United States, kindly, manly, partisan as
he has always been, in his tour through the Southern
country, preaching good will and kindness to all who
inhabit that section of our common land, giving them
full credit for their patriotism in this war, as he ought
to have done, and making the kindly suggestion that
the time had passed when there should be any distinction between the care of the graves of the Confederatei
dead and those of the Union soldiers. His sentiments
are noble and magnanimous. But when you couple
with them his other insistence, both public and private,
that we must have Ioo,ooo soldiers and a navy as large
as France or Germany, how can his suggestion-honestly made, I admit-to the Southern people that the
Government take care of the graves of their ancestors
be otherwise interpreted than also meaning, "You
must give me Ioo,ooo men to keep in order their
descendants who are living?"




SPEECH OF HON. ARTHUR P. GORMAN. 227
From  the whole transaction I shrink; from the
whole transaction, in the interest of the people of the
American Union, as I see their interests, I protest;
for, I repeat, I believe the absorption of the inhabitants
of these islands would be more disastrous than the
war from I86i to 1865 so far as the material interests
of the country are concerlned. I think it would be
more disastrous than  the picture drawn by thei
Senator from Virginia of the great misfortune which
came to us by the injection into our body politic of
the slave, against the protest of Virginia, and because
of which the whole land was deluged in blood and
brother turned against brother.
To Virginia this country owes a debt of gratitude.
From the (lays of Patrick IHenry until the speech of the
Senator from Virginia on my left, Virginia has always voiced the true American sentiment, which, if
adhered to, will bring prosperity and glory to our
common country.




(I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




CHAPTER XIII.
A NATION'S POWER.
BY HON. HENRY M. TELLER,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM COLORADO.
The power of acquisition of territory, as I said.
in June last when addressing  the  Senate, is a
prerogative of nationality, and there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes the Government of the United States to acquire either Cuba
or Porto Rico except as it may be found in the power
to declare and carry on war, and through the great
prerogative of national sovereignty, a power that has
never been denied to any nation in the history of the
world, the power of acquisition.
I shall not attempt to go into a discussion of this
question. I suppose the Senator from Missouri would
say we are a nation, but that we are a nation with
limited powers. The Supreme Court of the United
States said, and it is an elementary principle, that
a sovereign power can be limited only by its own act.
If there is any limitation upon our power as a sovereign it must be found in the Constitution of the
United States. We might have limited our power;
we might have declared that we possessed not the
power that other nations did. But we did not. The
founders of the Republic did not mean to say that this
great nation, then perhaps small, but in their expectation to be great, could not do as a nation what other
nations did, or what other nations claimed the right to
229




230  SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.
do, and might find necessary to do in the interest of
the people. The only restriction or limitation on the
exercise of national prerogatives is with reference to
our internal or domestic affairs. In that respect the
United States is a nation of limited and defined powers, to be found in the Constitution.
The power of acquiring territory has been repeatedly declared by the Supreme Court to belong to us.
We have exercised it. We have exercised it without
special provisions of the Constitution. Jefferson
doubted very much whether we had the power. The
contemporaneous opinion of statesmen was against
him. Occasionally one'believed we had the power to
take territory and not the power to admit it as a State.
Such was the declaration of a number of statesmen at
the time of the acquisition of Louisiana. It does not
appear from what I can learn that Jefferson doubted
our authority to make a State of territory if he was
satisfied we had the power to acquire it. Whatever
doubts there might have been then as to that, they
were put at rest when we accepted the purchase of
Louisiana and when we incorporated that territory
into different States of the Union.
The Supreme Court of the United States have said
in many opinions, and by the very best men who sat
upon that bench, including Chief Justice Marshall,
that our right to govern was unquestioned and unlimited and unrestricted by the Constitution of the United
States. We may give to 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 under which they live.
In volume I30, United States Reports, pages 603,
604, and 605, Judge Field said;




SPEECH     OF IION. HENRY         M. TELLER.       231
Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of
every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could
not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of
another power. As said by this court in the case of The Exchange
(7 Cranch, 116, 136), speaking by Chief Justice Marshall:
"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute.
"It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would
imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction,
and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that
power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore,
to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories
must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow
from no other legitimate source.
"While under our Constitution and form of government the great
mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United
States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation invested with powers which belong to independent
nations, the exercise of which can be invoked in the maintenance of
its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory."
In 6 Wheaton, pages 264 and 413, the court said:
That the United States form, for many and for most important
purposes, a single nation has not yet been denied. In war we are one
people. In making peace we are one people. In all commercial regulations we are one and the same people. In many other respects the
American people are one; and the Government, which is alone capable
of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the
Government of the Union. It is their Government, and in that character they have no other.
America has chosen to be in many respects, and to many purposes,
a nation; and for all these purposes her Government is complete; to
all these objects it is competent. Tie people have declared that in the
exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. It can,
then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or
governments within the American territory. The constitution and
laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and
laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great
empire-for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate.
Justice   Matthews, in      Murphy     vs. Ramsey,      114
United States Reports, said:
The counsel for the appellants in argument seemed to question the
constitutional power of Congress to pass the act of March 22, 1882,
so far as it abridges the rights of electors in the Territory under
previous laws. But that question is, we think, no longer open to discussion. It has passed beyond the state of controversy into final
judgment. The people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the
national Territories, have supreme power over them and their
inhabitants.
Supreme power of the United States must exclude
all other power.
Mr. Justice Bradley, in the opinion of the court in
the case of Mormon        Church vs. United       States, 136
United States Reports, page 42, said:




232 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.
The power to acquire territory, other than the territory northwest
of the Ohio River (which belonged to the United States at the adoption of the Constitution), is derived from the treaty-making power and
the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of these powers
are those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments. The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest,
by treaty, and by cession is an incident of national sovereignty. The
Territory of Louisiana, when acquired from France, and the Territories
west of the Rocky Mountains, when acquired from 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 of the people then inhabiting those
Territories. Having rightly acquired said Territories, the United
States Government was the only one which could impose laws upon
them, and its sovereignty over them was complete.
No State of the Union had any such right of sovereignty over
them; no other country or government had any such right. These
propositions are so elementary, and so necessarily follow from the
condition of things arising upon the acquisition of new territory, that
they need no argument to support them. They are self-evident. Chief
Justice Marshall, in the case of the American Insurance Company vs.
Canter (1 Pet., 511, 542), well said: "Perhaps the power of governing a
Territory belonging to the United States which has not, by becoming
a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily
from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular
State and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States.
The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to
acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is
derived, the possession of it is unquestioned."
I will admit it is the moral duty and that there is
an obligation    upon the people of the United           States
in their legislation with reference to these countries
to keep in mind the fundamental principle which underlies free government and without which free government can not exist, a principle so often quoted by
the Senator from Missouri, and a principle that can
not be too often quoted, "that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed."
I do not mean to say that we may not disregard
that, and that we could not administer government in
these new possessions of ours in violation of that
principle, but that in accordance with the great fundamental principles that permeate and underlie republican institutions and dominate the mind of Republicans everywhere, we ought not to forget that the just
powers of government are derived from the consent
of the governed, and it is our duty to secure to these
people just such political rights and privileges as they




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER. 233


are entitled to under our system. That must be determined by their condition.
The doctrine that the consent of the governed is
essential in a republican government has many exceptions. We do not in the United States, with all
our boasted freedom, allow everybody to participate
in the affairs of government. We exclude the alien,
we exclude the ignorant and vicious, we exclude women and infants-rightfully, because the principle that
the just powers of government are derived from the
consent of the governed has always been received
everywhere with exceptions.  There is no government in the world, and there never has been one,
founded upon a strict observance of that declaration,
and there can not be.
Why? Because the interests of the few must give
way to the interests of the great mass; because it
might be dangerous to the body politic to allow a
certain class to participate in the affairs of the government. The disabilities that exist must be disabilities
that render them unfit and unsuitable for the discharge of political duties, or else they ought not to be
excluded. Such a rule must be applied to everybody
subject to such disabilities. We can not allow one
citizen with disabilities to participate and another with
the same disabilities to be excluded.
One of the declarations of a free people is that there
must be no taxation without representation, and yet
every day in this country and in every other where
this doctrine is recognized we see people paying taxes
without representation. We see women paying taxes
and infants paying taxes and foreigners paying taxes,
and yet we do not understand that it is a violation of
that fundamental principle, because everybody should
recognize the exceptions.




234 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.


Now, we are comiing to deal with the greatest question, in my opinion, that the American people have
dealt with since the contest of I86i. I have more
confidence in the good sense of the American people
than to believe we are about to adopt a policy in dealing with these countries that threatens the death of
the Republic or even great danger to it.
In the first place, I believe to-day that we are hardly
prepared to pass upon what ought to be the character
of government that we establish over these countries.
I am not one of those who would turn these islands
back to Spain; I am not one who would give them
up to any other nation in the world; nor would I give
them up to the people of those countries under present
conditions. I believe we went into this war in the interest of human freedom, in the interest of good government; that we went into it as no other people in
the history of the world ever went into a war. We
have stood before the world presenting a spectacle
and an example unheard of in history, ready to pour
out our money and sacrifice life in the interest of those
strangers.
We can not stop. We commenced this great work
of humanity, and we are bound to carry it on until we
have accomplished the great object for which we began. We can not do it by turning over to those people the government of these various countries, in my
judglment, in the present disorganized condition of
affairs there; but we ought to keep in view all the
time that some day these people are to be self-reliant
and self-governing, as we are, or they are to become
a part and parcel of this Republic, entitled to all the
rights and subject to all the duties of citizenship of
States.
Which shall it be? As they are now, nobody wants




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER 235


to take them into the body politic. Nobody wants to
make Cuba or Porto Rico or the Philippines States of
the Union. I do not believe any portion of the people
of the United States are willing to say that these possessions shall be created States and admitted into the
Union now. And yet, in the course of time, if they
shall become fitted, they may become States and admitted into the Union.
As I look upon it, we have a great obligation resting upon us. We are on trial. Are we going to be
able to handle this question safely for ourselves and
safely for the people whose interests we started out
to protect? I will admit that that is a difficult question, and if I should now outline at this moment my
idea of what ought to be the policy of the Government it may be, and very likely will be, subject to
change when we are better informed about those people. But there are some underlying principles which
we must keep in view, and one of those is that we can
not govern these colonies, these provinces, as England governs India; we may govern them as England
governs Canada and her other English-speaking colonies. What shall be the policy must depend largely,
in my judgment, upon the character of the people with
whom we are to deal. I think in the island of Cuba,
with a little assistance from the Government of the
United States, there can be established a government
of proper character to take care of all the local interests of that country.
I confess that I am not willing to see the people of
Cuba to-day turned out to take care of themselves so
far as international affairs are concerned. I should
be afraid of interference by some foreign power with
that new government. I think we should say to the
world, and say it so that all could understand it: We




236  SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.
intend to give to those people, so far as it can be done,
self-government; but we do not intend that they shall
become the prey, either by conquest or by treaty, of
any foreign power.  In all their international relations I believe, for many years to come at least, the
Government of the United States must speak to the
world for Cuba.
It is not necessary that we invite every man in Cuba
to participate in the government that we there establish. We have the right to see that they exclude from
participation in that government such elements as we
know would render the government unstable and unsafe, or else do it ourselves. If those people are able
to maintain a government of the character I have mentioned without our assistance, which secures to the
people all the blessings and averts all the evils which
governments among men are instituted to secure and
to avert, then we should let them do so in all their
local affairs.
The statement that we can not have colonies, that
we can not enter upon the imperialism of Europe, I
believe is idle, for I do not think that any considerable
number of the American people or any considerable
number of men in public life propose to adopt the
system which Great Britain adopted with reference
to her early colonies, and which she abandoned more
than a hundred years ago as to her English-speaking
colonies after she had received a lesson in dealing
with us. I do not think the American people will believe in holding these islands for the purpose of making money out of them, as the French are holding
some portions of China and some portions of Africa.
The American people are not engaged in this effort
for the 5 per cent or the 10 per cent or any other per
cent that is coming to them. They are engaged in it
V.,




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER. 237
in the interest of good government; they believe that
putting up and keeping up the flag of this country
over our new possessions will do for those people
what the English flag did for us when it brought to
us English common law and English jurisprudence
and English freedom.  They believe the American
flag is capable of giving to those people American law,
American freedom; American progress, and enabling
them to share in prosperity with us as well as in
American glory.
There will be no harm done if the American flag
floats there as an emblem of national power, keeping
always in view that it is not to float over slaves or sub —
jugated people; but every citizen of this great Republic may not be entitled to all the rights of the citizenship of a State and yet entitled to the benefit of
these great principles-liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keeping that in view, the American flag will
be a blessing wherever it floats. It never has been a
curse and it never will be a curse to any people, for
there will be no colonial system under it such as
England has applied to India. There will be no
"imperialism" under it.
I have said repeatedly that I thought we ought not
to deal with this question until we properly reach it,
and I would have been willing to do that but for the
repeated declarations of prominent men in public life
that we who did not believe that the Government of
the United States lacked the power to acquire territory, that we who did not believe that the American
flag, having on it the insignia of government, should
come down until we replaced it with something
equally good, wanted to establish in these new possessions the colonial system of Europe, with all its


9




238 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.


evils, with all its vices, with all its cruelty to the people to whom it is applied. We do not want that.
If you could poll the American people, you would
not find I per cent of them who want to do that; and
if you should take the vote now you would not find I
per cent of them who believe it will not be better for
these new possessions of ours that our flag shall float
over them, not simply as the emblem of power, but
as the emblem of good government, of protection to
them, as it is protection to us.
Why can we not take this position before the world?
It is in accordance with our declaration, solemnly
made by the two Houses of Congress, with the approval of the President, that this was not a war of conquest. When we had conquered the Philippines, and
when we might have properly demanded of Spain indemnity, we turned around and we gave to Spain
$20,000,000. Why? I do not know. But I assume that
we gave it to her as we gave $I5,ooo,ooo to Mexico
when we conquered her territory and when she lay
bleeding at our feet, when we might have taken every
foot of that country and made it ours, in accordance
with international law; and we should have done it
if we had been ruled and moved by the spirit which
actuates most nations of the world.
We said to her, prostrate as she was, "We want
some of your territory, and we are willing to pay for
it; we will give you $I5,ooo,ooo." And we gave it.
We held that territory, first, by conquest and, then, by
purchase; and such a purchase had never before been
made in the history of national acquirements, unless
it was in the case of the Louisiana purchase, which
made it possible that the last Mexican purchase should
be accomplished.
What has it brought to us? Wealth ptold, an em

e




VIA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
A'S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i::




I




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER. 239


pire in extent. We took it with clean hands. No
matter what might have been said or might have been
believed of the provocation of the war with Mexico;
no matter what people might have thought of our
haste to begin that war, or our object, everybody in
the world must have admitted that we dealt with
Mexico as became a great and generous people. So
we have dealt with Spain in giving her $20,000,000 -a bagatelle, a mere nothing. These possessions are
ours by conquest, by purchase, by right. We could
not give them up if we would.
If one-half of the people of Luzon are capable-I
believe more than that number are capable to-day-of
managing their affairs in a fairly good condition, I
would say to them: This is the line that we think
your government should be inaugurated upon; and
then I would ask them to inaugurate a government in
entire accordance with republican sentiment and republican principles. I am aware that they know nothing about free government. I am aware that they are
incapable of establishing, without our advice, without
our moral support, and possibly without our physical
support, a government such as we should be willing
to see established in those islands-a government
which would give protection to person and property
and ultimately lift those people up to a higher plane
than they now occupy.
I do not believe that they can manage a government
like that which is maintained in some of the States of
this Union, or, I may say, in all of the States of this
Union; but here is a fundamental truth recognized in
republican government, that a people are entitled only
to such government as they can maintain. Any government which they can maintain, which brings order
and peace to the people, is the government which




240 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.


they have the right to have and ought to have, and we
have no right to interfere and say to them, "Unless
you can maintain a better government than you now
have, one as good as ours, you must let us manage
your affairs, and we will give you a better government." A government of the people and by the people may not always be the highest order of government, but if it brings peace and protection to the people, and is the best they can do, it is all that we can
demand of them.
I believe we have a great obligation resting upon
us, which is to help these people. I know the danger
and the trouble of dealing with tropical people.  I
know that there has never been in a tropical country
a government such as we believe ought to exist, and
I am of the opinion that there never will be one that
will come up to our idea of government. The people
who live in the Tropics are not qualified, and, I fear,
never will be qualified to maintain such a government
as is maintained by Anglo-Saxon people. A torrid
climate does not develop high mental or moral qualities. Yet we can not say to them, "You can not have
a government of your own choice and of your own
creating;" for if we do, then we abandon the great
doctrine of republics, which is that the people are entitled to make their own government.
I am not dealing with this question believing that
we are not to have embarrassment, that we are not to
have trouble. I know we shall have, but I do not believe we should shrink from our duty because there
may be difficulties attending it. It may cost us some
money; but it has cost us already at least $300,000,ooo, and it has cost us two or three thousand lives.
It may cost us as much more. We entered upon this
war with deliberation. It was the American people




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER. 241


who made this war; it was not the Administration;
it was not the Senate; it was not the House of Representatives; it was the American people who demanded that we should intervene in the interests of
the downtrodden in Cuba; and when eight or ten
millions more of men under like circumstances fall
under our control, we can not avoid our duty by saying, "We went to war to help Cuba. We will help nobody else." That is cowardly. We can not do it.
We are big enough and rich enough to carry on this
great work in the interest of freedom without counting the expense. It is too late to do that now. All
we need to consider is how can we do this work without injury to ourselves and a blessing to these people.
That is the principle which ought to animate the
American Senate and the American House and the
American people. I would say to the inhabitants of
these new possessions, "If you can maintain a government of order for your local affairs, you shall be allowed to do it." I should 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." We
may call it a protectorate or we may call it what we
please. I would stand back of these people and help
them, help to give to them a government that will secure to them the blessings of liberty, and help them to
solve the great questions which are presented to them
as a free people, for that is what we have got to make
them.




242 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.


I never look for and never expect to find in a
tropical country a government like unto ours. It is
not in the nature of things that there should be. The
Asiatic will never maintain such a government as the
Anglo-Saxon. He is not capable of it, and wedded
as he is to traditions, seeing only good in that which
has gone before, he does not make an effort to improve, as the Anglo-Saxon does.
Yet, by daily contact with the duties of manhood
and citizenship, he is progressing gradually, and there
is hope for improvement, even in the tropical world.
There is hope for the people in the Philippines, who
are infinitely better to-day than they were when Spain
went there. I mean more intelligent and capable of
self-government. Notwithstanding the oppressions of
Spain and the outrages inflicted upon them for two
hundred years, they have made progress. They will
make more under republican principles if we are wise
and deal with them intelligently and justly. As said
by that illustrious naval officer, kindness and protection of their interests will bring them into close communion with us. I will not say there will not be any
difficulty, but there will be no difficulty that is insurmountable in dealing with them.
We can make a mistake by refusing to do justice
to them, and we can have great tribulations brought
upon us by so doing. We shall make a mistake if we
make up our minds that we are going to govern those
people from here; that we are going to govern them
with the Anglo-Saxons whom we send out from here
to administer the affairs of that country. You will
need your 50,000 soldiers, and in a little while you
will need more, for they are a great people. They are
a people who know something of their rights. They
are a people who are willing to contend for them, and




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER. 243


I believe it to be almost an axiom that a people who
will fight for their liberty, and who are willing to die
for it, are capable of maintaining it when they get it.
I do not want to give up these islands. I do not
want to surrender them to anybody in the world. I
do not want to govern them in the spirit of the
colonial governments of Europe, or as many of them
are being carried on. I do not want to give them
up, because to give them up would be to leave those
people in a worse condition than they were when we
took away the power of Spain. We may leave them
a prey, perhaps, to their own vices. We leave them
to be a prey of all Europe. We must stand for them.
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 consistent with safety
to us, you shall be a part and a parcel of this great
people." That does not mean that you must make
States of them. It does not mean that you shall give
them the elective franchise, but it does mean that
you shall give them the protection of the flag; that
you shall stand between them and foreign powers;
that you shall give them that moral aid, that moral
encouragement, which will enable them to take care
of themselves.
If there was doubt I would not let constitutional
questions prevent us from going on and doing what
we started to do. There is no doubt of our power.
The way is clear. The power is ample. It is not necessary to make them States. But the question of




244 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY M. TELLER.


statehood will be determined by the character of the
men and not by their distance from our shores. I do
not believe they will be States ever. The time may
come when we can say "Accept full sovereignty.
Take care of yourselves. Go to the world and proclaim your nationality, put up your own flag." But
they can not do it now. They must have our fostering care for a time, with kindness and justice. The
American flag to them should always represent something besides the majesty of this Government. It
should represent that always, wherever it floats, but it
should represent to those people freedom, protection,
participation in the benefits of the greatest and freest
people in the world.


I




CHAPTER XIV.
WHAT WILL THEY DO TO US?
BY HON. GEORGE FRANKLIN EDMUNDS,
EX-UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
I. These 1,200 islands, more or less, are in the
heart of the tropics and occupy a region of seas nearly
I,ooo miles long north and south and about 300 miles
wide. They are about 7,000 miles distant from our Pacific coast and are about I4,000 miles distant from our
Atlantic coast via the Suez Canal, controlled by a
foreign power. Only a few of the islands are large
enough to play any important part in the problem.
These are Luzon, Camarines, Mindoro, Samar, Leyte,
Panay, Mindanao and Palawan. The latest encyclopaedias estimate the area at about 14,000 square miles
and the population at 7,000,000.
2. They have all the climatic evils and diseases of
tropical countries and are frequently afflicted by violent hurricanes and earthquakes. They are, as all
human experience has proved, absolutely incapable of
being colonized and built up into communities of
Americans or of any of the people of cool climates.
3. They are already inhabited, as already stated, by
about 7,000,000 of people-being more than sixty to
the square mile of the whole area of all the islands.
The population, therefore, is already denser than that
of the State of Michigan. The population is composed
of Spaniards, other Europeans, English and Americans, half-castes, Chinese, Malays, Japanese and aboriginal natives. Of the total of all this conglomerate
of races the Europeans and Americans compose less
245




Lil

I"i-i-~.
dll 1: i~i
~"" ~ 8I
R~~'i"i;~i
lia                                                11;1
i'i`" 6"
I"i""l
 "1 D
 ~i:8- ~".""1                         D                       91;~1.,ia;
~
u-~-;- fil
,i;~* i~I~
a
I --
~~~~
ar
~,        --
lil
RIS -~::El q:~a "",~
i
~"" ~~-~~~,I
" r
~
~
":
~?,
B
1 - ~, 1~k,,
~ass
ar ~ -3 Iy
~
I*iL ~~; ~ "98 a;I si
I:1,
I ~:ix i  ~9
1-;
~i;"'i~-. ~~
in i~~ L -~.;-i\"
" -~ —
~ii ii ii.y;.~ 
eii.Ba r:n
Ii~l




I




ARTICLE BY HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS. 247


9. At that time, and long before, an active and
powerful rebellion was in progress in the islands, and
so far as present information goes it now holds sway
over a large part of Luzon and quite or nearly the
whole of Panay and of other large districts of these
principal islands. It appears to be true that the rebel;
co-operated with our forces in the overthrow of the
Spanish rule at Manila under the impression that out
operations at Manila were not to help Spain to put
down the rebellion and then take possession for ourselves, but were only to cripple the Spanish power as
an incident of war in bringing Spain to renounce its
control of Cuba, which Congress had said in its declaration in respect to Cuba was its sole purpose.
Io. That the people of the islands who were carrying on the rebellion in order to be free and independent
do not desire to be annexed and to become a territorial dependency of the United States of any kind,
and that they intend to resist annexation appears to be
indisputable.
What I have said so far will not, I take it, be disputed by any intelligent person. What then in the
present state of affairs is to be done?
Are we to make war upon the people of the Philippines as Spain was doing, in order to subject them to
our dominion?
This apparently we must do to make them a people
(whether citizens, subjects or slaves) of the United
States.
To justify this "a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind" should compel our Government to state
definitely the grounds upon which we make the attempt. We have assured the nations of the globe in
the most solemn manner possible that we made war
not for conquest or extended dominion, but solely to




248 ARTICLE BY HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.


set the people of Cuba free-of whom Congress declared that "they were and of right ought to be free
and independent."
At that very time the Philippine rebellion was
stronger and better organized than that of Cuba. Recent events have proved that the Philippine rebels
are as capable of self-government as the people of
Cuba. When the United States aided in the attainment and recognized the independence qf the Spanish
provinces of Central and South America our Government did not set itself up to be the final judges of
whether or not they were capable of self-government,
although it was perfectly well known that self-government by the people of those provinces could not be
such, and never could be such, as the races and inhabitants of temperate zones could establish and maintain.
To force our dominion, then, upon the people of
the Philippines would be in opposition to the everliving principles on which our own nation was founded,
and under which it has in a little more than a century
grown so great in an ever-increasing native and homogeneous people, established in a temperate zone of the
earth, and capable from this cause of continuous development in industry, increase of knowledge, in social
order, justice and morality. If we now proceed to
conquer (as probably we can at last, although Spain
has failed to do it after more than a century of effort),
what shallwe say to them is the motive of our conduct?
How are we to explain it to the world, having "a
decent respect for the opinions of mankind," as Jefferson and our fathers thought necessary in our Declaration of Independence?
Can we be justified in forcing by the sword our particular and excellent ideas of government, morality




ARTICLE BY HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS. 249


and religion upon these people, as Mahomet did in his
religious wars and as Spain did in her early operations
on this continent?
How will such of our "bishops, priests and deacons" and religious newspapers as have appeared to
favor the scheme find authority in the greatest and
best of all books that have ever been given to mankind
-the New Testament-for this new enterprise now
proposed for our republic?
All the people of these islands who were the subjects of Spain will become citizens of the United States
by the mere act of cession unless the treaty of cession
should provide that those who wished could remain
subjects of Spain and aliens as to the United States.
This has been a necessary rule of international law
for hundreds of years; and the rule is founded upon
the obvious fact that the people of every country or of
any part of it must owe allegiance to and be subject
to the government of some sovereign power, be it a
tribe, or emperor, or king, or republic, and must, unless they are slaves or serfs, have the rights of such.
But a republic can have no subjects. Its people
must be either citizens, slaves or aliens.
If aliens, they are the subjects or citizens of some
other power which is bound to protect them. The
transfer, therefore, of the sovereignty of Spain over
the Philippines to the United States makes all her subjects at once citizens of the United States.
If citizens of the United States, they have all the
rights that belong to other citizens in the Territories,
whether on the mainland or on islands of the sea.
Neither geography nor distance has anything to do
with it.
The Constitution of the United States provides for
the government of Territories as well as for govern



250 ARTICLE BY HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.


ment within the States. In the States the autonomy
is fixed in respect of all the three departments of the
Government-legislative, executive and judicial. In
the Territories Congress is left free to regulate, subject to the Constitution, the means of government according to its discretion. But fundamental and other
private rights are, and always have been, as secure under and by force of the same Constitution in the Territories as in the States. The Constitution secures both,
only by different methods of exertion. Congress may
invest the political government of a Territory in a
single person if it chooses, and confide the judicial
power to a single judge if it likes, but it cannot authorize the political Governor to make a law that injuriously affects personal rights differently from such
laws as Congress may rightfully make for the citizens
of a State.
It cannot authorize a Territorial judge to condemn
a man unheard or to deal with his person or property
otherwise than by that due process of law which the
Constitution secures to all the people who owe allegiance to the United States or are within its sovereign power. It cannot say that no citizen residing in
a State shall migrate to a Territory, or that a citizen
or some particular class of citizens residing in a Territory shall not migrate to a State. In short, the Constitution does operate and have full force in our Territories in the respects that affect the personal and civil
rights of all.
This fundamental principle (self-evident on our republican theory of government) has been constantly
recognized and acted upon by the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Congress, therefore, cannot lawfully prevent the
migration of any citizen residing in the Philippines




ARTICLE BY HON.'GEORGE F. EDMUNDS. 251


(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. It is not well, then, to shut our
eyes to dangers of this character that attend such acquisition of territories fully populated by such peoples
as those of the Philippines are known to be.
There are other considerations, both humane and
financial, that cannot be ignored. If the people of the
Philippines, both civilized and savage, must be subdued to our Christian government by force of arms,
how many American lives and how much American
treasure ought to be sacrificed to that end?
Rapidly developing events seem to show that a military force of at least 50,000 men must be kept up on
land in those islands in order to our obtaining an
effectual supremacy.
And this force must be supported by many naval
vessels, with their crews, etc. To keep up such an
establishment it is evident from the experience of
Spain and from that of other nations carrying on
such operations in the tropics that a constant current
of supply and reinforcement both of material and men
must go on.
Besides the casualties of battle with foes (some of
whom Spain has not been able to subdue in 200 years
of effort) there is also the constant and unconquerable foe of the tropical climate and the diseases always present in it.
And besides this no troops from the temperate zones
can long endure the effect of such a climate, and they
must therefore be withdrawn to some cooler latitude
at very short periods to recuperate. The English in
India happily have the Himalayan hills within comparatively short distances, to which their troops are




252 ARTICLE BY HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.


sent at frequent intervals to escape the exhaustion of
the tropical seacoast. But our troops in the Philippines must be transported by sea four or five thousand miles to reach the salubrious shores of California
and Oregon. To accomplish all this the annual and
continuous expenditure of millions upon millions of
the earnings of our people must go on indefinitely.
But we are now confronted with both a "condition" and a "theory." The Executive has concluded
a treaty by which Spain has ceded the sovereignty of
the whole Philippine group, of which she had actual
possession of only a small fraction, and in many parts
of which her dominion had been absolutely overthrown, and in other parts of which she never had any
dominion at all, many of the islands having from the
first until to-day been inhabited by independe t tribes
over which Spain never had any actual dominion.
In dealing with this treaty the Senate is supposed
to be as free to act according to its own judgment as
the President was free to act according to his in negotiating it. The Senate may decline to ratify the treaty,
which in the present state of affairs would produce a
situation extremely embarrassing. But if the Senate
believes the treaty to be wrong it will doubtless have
the courage to reject it and to face the consequences.
The Senate, however, may consider that while Spain
ougnt to depart from the Philippines and renounce her
dominion there, the United States ought not to assume
her sovereignty, such as it was, against the express
will of the people of the islands. And in view of the
evils likely to follow even if those people desired to
become a part of the United States, the Senate can
amend the treaty so as to provide substantially, as
the scheme   has been  as to   Cuba, that the
people of those islands should be left to govern them



ARTICLE BY HON. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS. 253
selves as best they may, with such guarantees for order and personal safety of the inhabitants as shall be
adequate to the preservation of order. Such a guarantee can be presently enforced at infinitely less cost
of blood and treasure than our undertaking to assume
and exercise sovereignty over the islands.
In such a case every material benefit of trade, commerce and of political expediency can be attained.
I make no comment in respect of the price of $20,0ooo,oo provided by the treaty to be paid to Spain for
the islands. In view of the gravity of the other aspects
of the subject it is not worthy of notice.








Iiil-;; "

a,
" iC - i;;.? -,~;;
s
~~\a
rd
s-,i;~~
~~;~
2 ~s,
~aa
"-_c ;i -9
~;~:.7~ :
~;: n I~~~~ ~; a~*~8"
~~..Y I
Y ";
,,; ~~
c-      i.
~,
~,,,~.'r x "" "  ~ -~
I- I ~r~u r
ir~x~.. ~,
It
7








CHAPTER XV.


A GOVERNMENT BASED ON FORCE.
BY HON. MARION BUTLER,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
Thd daily reports from the scene of war in the Philippine Islands cannot have failed to cause considerable reflection on the part of even a casual observer of current events. One day the Associated
Press reports announce, in great headlines, that "Our
Troops Are Steadily Advancing Against the Filipinos;" another day that, "General Otis has the Situation well under Control;" another day that, "General Otis thinks there is no Doubt about his Subjugating the Filipinos after Awhile;" another day that,
"There was on Yesterday a Sharp Engagement between our Troops and the Filipinos, we lost Fifty
Men, the Fillipinos lost Heavily, but Number Unknown;" another day that, "General Otis is Preparing to Make a more Vigorous Onslaught against the
Stubborn Fillipinos." Only a few days ago the announcement was that there had been a very sharp
engagement, and that our soldiers fought bravely and
sustained the deadly fire of the Filipinos with great
courage; that while we lost a hundred or more, the
Fillipinos lost much more heavily, etc., etc. This same
dispatch contained a list of the killed and wounded
of our men, which made over a column in fine type.
No one has ever doubted the ability of the United
States Government to subjugate the Fillipinos; and,
255




256 ARTICLE BY HON. MARION BUTLER.


in fact, to kill and bury every one of them if we so
desired. If we should conquer such an half-fed, halfclothed, and half-savage people in an hundred different islands, there would be no glory or credit in it
for a great civilized government like the United States.
The question for the American people to consider is
whether or not it is right and best for us to do this
thing. First, whether it is right and consistent with
the principles upon which this government is founded;
and, second, without even regarding the questions of
right and morals, whether or not the game is worth
the ammunition.
If we had the Philippine Islands, what would we do
with them? If we attempt to govern them as a conquered people (a thing that must be repugnant to
every American patriot and to every believer in a free
government) it will be necessary for us to always keep
a large standing army at great expense, ready to shoot
down and kill the inhabitants of those islands whenever they evince the least desire for freedom, just as
the English were ready to shoot us down in 1776, or
to hang any of our leading patriots up by the neck
whenever, by tongue or pen, they dared to express the
sentiment that we ought to have a free government
of our own. It is no answer for us to say that we were
better qualified for self-government in I776 than the
Filipinos are now or will ever be. If the Declaration
of Independence is true, then the Fillipinos are just
as much entitled to a free government as we were,
and are entitled to the kind of government which is
best suited to them, which government will be the
kind that they are capable of forming and maintaining.
A people become more capable of self-government as
they have the burdens and responsibilities of government thrust upon them.




ARTICLE BY HON. MARION BUTLER. 257


Besides, we will have to send a large number of
office-holders to those islands who would not only
draw their salaries from our government, but who
would consider it their privilege to plunder and oppress the Fillipinos for their own personal profit and
gain. What advantage could come to our people or to
our government from this great outlay of money,
this corruption in high places, and this course which
would result in necessary murder to enforce our decrees? None whatever. There might be a few monopolists in this country who could gobble up some
franchises or valuable resources of the islands for their
own personal profit, while Uncle Sam and the American people footed the bills and committed the greater
crimes necessary for their personal gain. We paid
Spain twenty million dollars for a law suit. We have
already spent much more than that amount since in
trying to establish our claim, which will be worse than
a white elephant after we have won it. This is the
financial side of the transaction, but the effect that
such a course will have upon our own government at
home is still more serious and important.
No individual can ever elevate himself and accomplish anything praiseworthy and noble without having a high ideal for his rule of conduct, towards which
he is always striving whether he reaches it or not. The
same is true of a nation, and vitally true of a Republic. Our forefathers set up in the Declaration of
Independence the highest Code of political morals ever
promulgated by man. Firmly planted on these great
principles as the bed-rock of our faith, this government has grown rich and powerful in the brief time of
a century, becoming to be not only a world power
but the greatest world power known. While it is true
that our government has not always lived up to the




258 ARTICLE BY HON. MARION BUTLER.


principles of the Declaration of Independence, any
more than has the most devout Christian lived up in
strict letter to the Ten Commandments, yet the important thing is that the Nation has always held to
these principles and striven toward them just as the
Christian has always kept before him the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule as his cloud by day
and his pillar of fire by night. Nations and individuals
make mistakes, take false steps; but these are never
serious as long as we stand by our ideals and principles, because the mistakes will simply serve as examples and object-lessons to point out dangers and
warn us against making other such false steps in the
future. But whenever a nation or an individual deliberately disregards its high ideals, and deliberately
turns its back upon them all in order to commit a
false step, then such a false step is fatal and the individual and the nation taking it is lost.
So the policy upon which the Syndicates and the
Monopolists and Franchise-Grabbers have forced this
country to embark, in open repudiation of every principle of the Declaration of Independence and of every
fundamental principle underlying a free Republic, is
fatal to the government unless the people themselves
realize the enormity of the crime committed, drive
from power their false representatives, and restore the
government into the hands of the followers of Jefferson and Lincoln.




CHAPTER XVI.
A REPUBLIC CAN HAVE NO SUBJECTS.
BY HON. ADLAI E. STEVENSON,
EX-VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
During the century now drawing to a close America
has given to the world its best lessons in liberty and in
law. Near its beginning to Great Britain-no less
than to Spain at its close-it has given a never-to-beforgotten lesson in the dread art of war. The brilliancy of recent victories, the splendid achievements
of our arms upon foreign shores and upon distant
waters, can not obscure or dim the glory of the tri —
umph of American valor at New Orleans upon the
proud day of which this is the anniversary. The 8th
of January is one of the sacred days of our calendar.
Each recurring anniversary recalls a bloody struggle
which will for all time hold its place in history. Upon
that day Jackson, with a handful of militia, with a loss
of seven killed and six wounded, defeated and captured
the splendidly equipped regulars of the British army.
The disgraceful surrender of Hull at Detroit, the wanton destruction by fire of the public buildings at Washington, with all the insults and wrongs which had
precipitated the second war with Great Britain, were
more than atoned for by the victory we celebrate. It
was the last battle of the war; the last fought-the
last, I trust in God, that will ever be fought-by England against the United States. The events which
inspired, together with the glorious culmination of a
struggle forced by a powerful upon a weak nation,
259




260  ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.


belong now to the domain of history. No American
will forget that the British courage, before which a
few months later the old guard of Napoleon went
down at Waterloo, was unable to cope with Jackson
and his heroic comrades at New Orleans.
The treaty of Ghent, establishing peace-which I
trust will endure with the ages-between Great Britain and America, had been signed on the 24th of December, fourteen days before the great battle was
fought. For many days thereafter, its existence was
unknown to the real actors in the great drama. We
stand in awe as we contemplate the marvels which
have been wrought out by man in the years that lie
between that great event and the present hour.
We celebrate each returning 8th of January-as each
returning Fourth day of July-in no spirit of unfriendliness to the land from which we derive our
language and in a measure our laws, but that the noble
deeds of the illustrious dead, the founders and defenders of the Republic, may not perish from the
memories of the living. Responding and rejoicing as
we do at every manifestation of good will upon the
part of the mother country toward her once dependent colonies, yet it is not meet that the truths of history be forgotten. Earnestly as we desire that for the
future "the battle flag be furled" between us and our
kindred beyond the sea, yet may the day be far distant
when the recurrence of our national anniversaries fail
to touch a responsive chord in the American heart.
Upon this historic anniversary and this coming together of such as are of the political faith of Andrew
Jackson, it may not be out of place to note in brief
words some of the achievements of the great party
of which during a stormy career he was the acknowledged chieftain and defender. The Democratic party,
under the leadership of its immortal founder, Thomas




ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.  261


Jefferson, after a memorable contest, came into power
on the 4th day of March, I80I. The intervening years
that stretch back to that masterful hour make up almost a century of our national life. No age nor
country within so brief a span has witnessed events
so stupendous, achievements so marvelous along all
pathways of human thought and endeavor. All that
genius in the ages past has contributed to the world's
treasury of knowledge-to whatever tends to human
comfort and to the lessening of human distressdwindles in the presence of the marvelous achievements of the nineteenth century.
The United States of America-its form of government still an experiment-containing a few millions
of people, with but scant population west of the Alleghenies, its frontiers in constant menace from the savage, without army or navy, was struggling for place
among the nations. The hour that witnessed the inauguration of Jefferson witnessed the first advent to
power of the great political party which for more than
one-half the years that make up our constitutional
history has controlled the destiny of the Republic. In.
his brief address to his countrymen upon his induction into the great office Jefferson gave expression to
his views upon the salient principles of government,
and formulated that confession of political faith which
for almost a century has been the touchstone of all
Democratic platforms and creeds.
As the key to constitutional interpretation, as the
corner stone of our governmental fabric, he proclaimed: "Equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace,
commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State
governments in all their rights as the most convenient
administration for all our domestic concerns; the




262  ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.


preservation of the General Government in its whole
constitutional vigor as the sheet anchor of our peace
at home and safety abroad; absolute acquiescence in
the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in
peace and for the first moments of war; the supremacy
of the civil over the military authority; economy in the
public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened;
the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture
and of commerce as its handmaid, freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected."
During fifty-six of the ninety-eight years that have
passed since this "creed of our political faith" was
declared, the Democratic party has been in control
of the General Government. With the deathless principles here enunciated as its evangel, it has kept the
faith. In victory and in defeat it has held inviolable
the tenets of its great apostle. It celebrated its advent
to power by the repeal of the odious alien and sedition
laws; enacted by the Federal party during the Administration of Adams. The champion of "equal and exact
justice to all men," it stands to-day, as in the past, the
relentless foe of special privileges, of organized greed,
of high protective and prohibitory tariffs, of all unlawful combinations, monopolies and "trusts"-of
whatever tends to oppress or to enrich a class at the
expense of the people. Deprecating whatever deprives
the accused of his guaranteed right of trial by jury, it
held with our great court-amid the storm and stress
of civil strife-"the Constitution of the United States.
the supreme law of the land, in war as well as in
peace." Recognizing the wisdom of the fathers in the
creation of the great co-ordinate departments of the




ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.  263


Government, the Democratic party, at a critical moment in our history, defeated the mad efforts of the
dominant party in Congress to remove from his high
office by impeachment the President of the United
States for the exercise of clearly defined executive
duties.
The antagonist at all times of religious tests and religious intolerance, the Democratic party-amid the
excitement and passion born of Know-Nothing fanaticism and proscription-stood, the bulwark of liberty
and conscience-of the right to worship God according to the dictates of individual judgment and reason.
To the end that "labor be lightly burdened" and commerce, "the handmaid of agriculture," encouraged, the
Democratic party stands now, as in the past, for
"tariff for revenue only," for the reduction to the
minimum of the cost of all necessary articles of consumption. Experience has demonstrated that high
tariffs have deprived the Government of its needed
revenues, secured to the favored beneficiaries colossal
fortunes, and largely increased to the people the cost
of the necessaries of life. The baleful but logical results of so-called "protection" are seen in the sudden
growth of giant monopolies, combination in restraint
of lawful trade, and "trusts," more perilous than foreign foe to the existence of popular government.
"Economy in the public expense" has been and will
continue the party shibboleth of democracy. "Subsidies" and all unnecessary expenditures of the public
money have ever found untiring foes in those who hold
the political faith of Jefferson. Recognizing the imperative obligation to maintain intact State as well as
Federal authority-each within the limits prescribed
by the Constitution-the Democratic party, with Jefferson, would maintain the rights of the States "as most
convenient for the administration of all domestic con



264   ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.
cerns," and recognize as paramount the sacred obligation "to preserve the General Government in its constitutional vigor as the sheet anchor of our peace at
home and our safety abroad." "Honest payment of
our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith."
It was during the wise and economical administration of President Jackson that the last dollar of governmental indebtedness was paid and our national debt
wholly extin'guished.
The Democratic party would mete out even-handed
justice alike to creditor and debtor. It is the antagonist of whatever, either in legislation or administration, would impair the sacredness of existing obligations or render their discharge more difficult by augmenting or by lessening the debt-paying power of
money. "A well-disciplined militia-our best reliance
in peace and for the first moments of war." True at
the beginning of the century, with a few millions of
population, no less true at the close, as we stand in
the fore-front of the nations, with a population of 70,ooo,ooo. The result of our recent conflict with Spain
gives emphasis to the prophetic words of Jefferson.
Existing conditions in continental Europe, entailing
taxation and misery to the verge of human endurance,
illustrate by sad object lessons the inevitable results
of large standing armies in time of peace.
Shall we still give heed to the warning of the great
sage of the revolution or enter upon a new century
with European monarchies as our model? Shall we
be deaf to the teachings of one hundred years of our
own history? Without a large standing army, but
relying upon the patriotism and courage of American
manhood, we were victorious in the war with Great
Britain, with Mexico, in the great civil strife, and with
Spain. In the light of history, can it be possible that
the American people will consent to the creation of a




ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.     265
large standing army and its consequent continuing
and ever-increasing burden of taxation? Shall this
be the response of the free Republic to the appeal that
comes from despotic Russia for the disarmament of
all the nations?
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations-entangling alliances with none." At no
period in our history have these words of Jefferson
possessed a deeper significance. Before we abandon
the traditions of the fathers it is well that we deliberate
upon the possible consequences of a departure from
the settled governmental policy of more than a century.
Not in the "delirium of victory," but only after calm
discussion of what may follow, should the momentous
question now presented be determined. Nations as
well as individuals may "do that in their zeal which
their calmer judgment dare not approve." It would
be difficult to conceive of a question more vital, more
far reaching in its consequences, than that now confronting us as to the disposition of recent conquered
territory.
Is it too much to say that the enforcement of the
proposed policy of the expansionists in a large measure involves the question of a change in our form of
government? It can hardly be contended that the
measure proposed for the control or government of the
Philippine Islands finds warrant in the Constitution.
Shall the closing hours of the century witness the
American people abandoning the pathway in which
past generations have found prosperity and happiness,
and embarking upon that of aggression and expansion, against which we are warned by the wrecks
which lie along the entire pathway of history? Even
if true that "imperialism" would open up a new and
larger field for our commerce and make us an important factor in the great affairs of nations, even




266  ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.


these would be purchased at too dear a price. Standing out against the new policy of expansion, of absorbing distant islands, with their Io,ooo,ooo mongrel
population, into our body politic, with all it involves
of European complication, are the warnings of the
founders of the Republic. It was Jefferson who said:
"Our first and fundamental maxim should be never
to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe."
Washington, when retiring from his great office,
left these farewell words to be read and pondered by
the oncoming generations of his countrymen: "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.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us
have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must
be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of
which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Our
detached and distant situation 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 ambition,
rivalship, interest, or caprice?"
To those who, in the exuberance of feeling produced
by suddenly discovered kinship, would "interweave our
destiny" with that of England, counting on her
friendship and aid in whatever continental entanglements may result from imperialism, it may be well
to recall the suggestive words of Washington: "There
can be no greater error than to expect or calculate
upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an
illusion which experience must cure, which a just
pride ought to discard." Is it asking too much of
the American people to solemnly ponder the warn



ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.  267


ings of Washington and his compatriots before venturing upon an untried pathway beset with foreign
jealousies, complications, and antagonisms?
As precedents for the proposed policy of expansion
we are referred by its advocates to the Louisiana purchase and to the vast area added to our Republic by
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Neither the purchase from France in 1803 nor the cession by Mexico
half a century ago furnish a precedent for the policy
now proposed to be inaugurated. By the Louisiana
purchase the United States acquired the vast territory stretching northward to the British possessions
and westward from the Mississippi to the domain of
the Spaniard. Out of this vast area, purchased for
$I5,000,000 from the great Napoleon, have been
carved fourteen sovereign States. As the result of the
masterly statesmanship of President Jefferson and the
unrivaled diplomacy of Monroe and Livingston the
free navigation of the Mississippi was secured forever,
and a magnificent area, an empire in extent, made a
part of our national domain. This grand achievement
is the glory of Jefferson and of the great historic party
of which he was the founder.
Under a later Democratic administration, and as the
result of the treaty which terminated our war with
Mexico, we acquired California, Nevada, Utah, a portion of Arizona, and New Mexico, thus bringing under
our flag, to remain forever, the vast expanse stretching from the eastern seaboard to the Pacific Ocean.
The territory thus acquired was the fit abode for men
of our own race. Either at the period of annexation
or soon thereafter it passed under the rule of the
Anglo-Saxon, who had carried with him our language
and our laws. It was territory contiguous to our own,
and acquired with the intention at the proper timewhen population and conditions would justify-of




268  ARTICLE BY TION. A. E. STEVENSON.


carving it into States. The wisdom that inspired all
this seems more than human. The result: Millions
of happy American homes, increase beyond the dreams
of avarice of our national wealth, and the United States
chief among the nations of the earth.
Are we to be told that history is but repeating itself,
and that the contemplated annexation or absorption
of the Philippine Archipelago finds precedent in the
historic events I have mentioned? The answer is
found in the bare statement of facts. The acquired
territory is contiguous; the Philippine islands, 8,000
miles distant. The former adapted to the residence,
comfort, and happiness of our own people; the latter
the fit abode for the half-civilized and degraded races,
its only occupants amid poverty and wretchedness for
centuries. The acquisition of the territory upon our
own continent added little to the national expense; to
maintain sovereignty over the distant islands will
necessitate immense expenditures upon our Army and
Navy. The people of the former were of the selfgoverning races; the latter know no rule but that of
force.
We are told that "Trade follows the flag," and that
untold commercial advantages will result from the
proposed acquisition. Trade knows no sentiment; it
goes where it is profitable. What of our products will
find market in these remote islands? Ninety per cent
of our exports reach European markets "because only
the civilized man is the consumer." Whatever of commercial advantage may result from annexation will be
as the dust in the balance to the immense naval expenditure it entails.
The graver questions involved in the proposed
scheme of annexation are yet to be considered. What
is to be the permanent form of government for the
Philippine Islands? I do not controvert the power of




ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.  269


the National Government to acquire new territory.
The power incident, of establishing for it temporary
government, is alike unquestioned. The instances already cited, of the Louisiana purchase and that by
treaty from Mexico, are well established precedents.
In these cases, however, it was never questioned that,
with suitable boundaries and division and under proper
regulations, the entire territory would ultimately attain
to statehood.
The question recurs, What form of government do
the expansionists propose for the Philippine Islands?
Are the Territorial or colonial governments which
Congress may possibly establish to be only preliminary to the creation of sovereign States to be admitted
into the Federal Union? This of necessity contemplates the admission of many additional Senators and
Representatives to seats in Congress, the aggregate
population of the islands now being double that of our
entire country at the first inauguration of Washington. In view of the degraded character of the population, their total unfitness for self-government, the
proposition is monstrous. Its consummation would be
a crime against civilization.
If it be the intention to establish our political institutions in these remote islands, then what becomes of
the "Monroe doctrine"? This vital international policy, announced by the President of the United States
seventy-five years ago, was: "We owe it, therefore,
to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare
that we should consider any attempt on their part to
extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere
as dangerous to our peace and safety." Immediately
following this, and as part of the declared intention of
our Government, so clearly enunciated by Monroe, was
the solemn declaration: "With the existing colonies




270  ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.


or dependencies of any European power we have not
interfered and shall not interfere."
The Monroe doctrine is wholesome and enduring.
It is the faith of Americans of every creed and party
-is of the very warp and woof of our political being.
It was promulgated at the critical moment when the
"Holy Alliance" was attempting to stifle the republican spirit and re-establish the despotism of Spain
upon her revolted colonies in South America and
Mexico. 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 recognize the corresponding obligation
to refrain from any attempt to force our political system upon any part of the Old World. This has been
our settled rule of faith and practice for seventy-five
years. Its promulgation defeated the purpose of the
Holy Alliance and destroyed forever the power of
Spain upon this continent. Under it Louis Napoleon,
a third of a century ago, was obliged to withdraw the
French army from Mexico and leave the ill-starred
Maximilian to his fate. Under it the empire established by foreign bayonets disappeared and the Republic was restored. Are we now to say that we still
recognize the binding force of this doctrine upon
other nations, but not upon ourselves?
If ultimate statehood for these remote islands be
disclaimed, how, then, are they to be held and governed? The only alternative is by force-by the power
of the Army and the Navy; and this not for a day or
for a year, but for time. What then becomes of the
bed-rock principle that "governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed?" If they
are to be held permanently, as conquered provinces,
then it will not only be in absolute disregard of all
the traditions of the past, but in direct antagonism to




~a ~i ~r
L::" ;o~.
C" 
I~sa;~
~r;"h,-::








ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.      271
the letter and spirit of our Declaration of Independence. It is no less true now than in the days of our
Revolution that "government by arbitrary power is
still despotism."
A question yet more grave can not escape our serious consideration. It is one that touches the good
faith, the honor of our nation. Events have crowded
in such rapid succession that we seem to have forgotten
the avowed purpose of the war with Spain. It was
declared to be a war solely in the interests of humanity-solely for the relief of the oppressed and
starving at our door. An eminent Republican Senator a few months ago voiced the sentiments of the
entire country when he said: "It is a war in which
there does not enter the slightest thought or desire
of foreign conquest or of national gain or advantage."
Alas, what a change has come in so brief a time! The
wrongs of the poor Cuban are forgotten, and the
dream of the imperialist is now of untold commercial
gain and of the United States becoming chief among
the factors in European politics. "We can not escape
history." For all time we will be judged by our
solemn disclaimer, immediately following the formal
declaration of war:
"The United States hereby disclaims any disposition to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control
over said island, except for the pacification thereof,
and asserts its determinatidn when that is accomplished
to leave the government and control of the island to
its people."
It was this solemn disclaimer by the American Congress that justified the war at the bar of our own conscience and that of the world. To say now that our
disclaimer applied only to Cuba and not to other
Spanish dependencies would be only "to palter with
words in a double sense." It is a subterfuge un



272   ARTICLE BY HON. A. E. STEVENSON.
worthy of the greatest of nations. Is it too late even
now to demand of those whose hands hold power to
make good our solemn declaration that our war with
Spain was waged not in the spirit of aggrandizement
but solely in the interest of humanity?




CHAPTER XVII.
FALSE STEPS BY A NATION ARE HARD TO
RETRACE.
BY DAVID STARR JORDAN,
PRESIDENT OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
I wish to-night to maintain a single proposition. It
is our plain duty to withdraw from the Philippine Islands as soon as in dignity we can. I ask you to consider with me three questions of the hour:
Why do we want the Philippines?
What can we do with them?
What will they do to us?
The questions demand serious consideration, not
one at a time, but all together. We should know clearly our final intentions as a nation, for it is never easy
to retrace false steps. We have made too many of
them already. It is time for us to grow serious.
Even the most headlong of our people admit that we
stand in the presence of a real crisis. But the problem is virtually solved when we know what our true
interests are. Half the energy we have spent in getting into trouble will take us honorably out of it.
Once convinced that we do not want the Philippines
it will be easy to abandon them. The difficulty is that
we do not yet know what we want, and we are afraid
that if we once let these people go we will never catch
them again.
Let us glance for a moment at the actual condition
of affairs. By the fortunes of war the capital of the
273




274   ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN.
Philippine Islands fell last May into the hands of our
navy.
The city of Manila we have held, and by dint of bulldog diplomacy our final treaty of peace has assigned
to us the four hundred islands of the whole archipelago. To these we have as yet no real title. We can
get none till the actual owners have been consulted.
We have only purchased Spain's quitclaim deed to
property she could not hold and which she cannot
transfer. For the right to finish the conquest of the
Philippines we have agreed on our part to pay $20,ooo,ooo in cash, or $2 apiece for each man, woman
and child the archipelago contains, besides the land
on which they were born, and which, in their fashion,
they have cultivated. This is a sum absurdly large,
if we consider only the use we are likely to make of
the region and the probable cost of its reconquest and
rule.
It seems criminally small, if we consider the possible returns to us, or to Spain, from peddling out the
islands for old junk in the open market or from leasing them to commercial companies competent to exploit them to their utmost.
The price is high when we remember that the
United States for a century has felt absolutely no need
for such property and would not have taken any of
it or all of it as a gift.
The price is high, too, when we observe that the
failure of Spain placed the islands not in our hands,
but in the hands of their own people-a third party
whose interest we, like Spain, have as yet failed to
consider, Emilio Aguinaldo, the liberator of the Filipinos, the "Washington of the Orient," is the de facto
ruler of most of the islands.
If at the close of our Revolutionary War the King
of France, coming in at the eleventh hour and driv



ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN. 275


ing the English from our capitol, had bought a quitclaim deed to the colonies, proposing to retain them
in the interest of French commerce, he would have
held exactly the position in which President McKinley has placed the United States.
Let us consider the first of our propositions.
Why do we vant the Philippines?
To this I can give no answer of my own. I can see
not one valid reason why we should want them, and
not many why they should want us.
I am not convinced that we can give them anything
which they will value, or which will make them stronger or happier. I am sure that they can in no wise
help us. But while I can give no reason of my own,
I have listened carefully to the speeches of others, and
the voices I have heard are legion.
In the one breath we are told that it is the will of
God that we should annex the Philippines and make
civilized American Christians of their medley population. In another, we must crush out the usurper Aguinaldo, drive his rebel followers to the swamps and
fastnesses and build up institutions with the remnant
that survive.
All this is in the line of least resistance. Along this
line Spain ruled and plundered her colonies. In such
fashion her colonies impoverished and corrupted
Spain. Because she had no moral force to prevent it,
cruelty and corruption became her manifest destiny.
It will be ours if we follow her methods. Toward
such a manifest destiny "the tumult and the shouting" of to-day are hurrying us along. Nations, like
men, must learn to say "No" when "Yes" is fatal.
One of the ablest of British public men-one known
to all of us as a stanch friend of the United States
through the Civil War, when our allies in the present
British Ministry could not conceal their hatred and




276  ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN.


contempt, writes in a private letter these words to me:
"I could not say this in my public writings," he
says, and so I do not give his name, "but it seems to
me that expansion has in it a large element of sheer
vulgarity, in the shape of a parvenu desire for admission into the imperialist and military camp of the
Old World."
But, again, what guarantee is there that we shall
give good government? What obligation is there that
any one should do so? When did it become our duty
to see that anarchy and corruption are expelled from
semi-barbarous regions? For thirty years we have
misgoverned Alaska with open eyes and even now
scarcely a visible sign of repentance. We are not
sworn to good government even in our own cities.
We give them self-government, and that is all. The
people everywhere make their own standards, China,
Korea, Siam, Turkey, Tartary, Arabia and the peoples
of Asia generally, "half devil, half child," are none of
them under good government. The rulers of Central
America, of Venezuela, Bolivia, and, worst of all, the
unspeakable Hayti, are no more efficient or more virtuous than the Filipinos. As men we may care for
these things and work for their improvement; as a
nation they are none of our business, so long as their
badness of government does not harm our national interests. We have no nearer concern in the government of the Philippines.
The Philippines are not contiguous to any land of
freedom. They lie in the heart of that region which
Ambrose Bierce calls "the horrid zone, nature's asylum for degenerates." They are already densely populated-more densely than even the oldest of the
United States. Their population cannot be exterminated on the one hand nor made economically potent
on the other, except through slavery. Finally, the




ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN. 277


conditions of life are such as to forbid Anglo-Saxon
colonization. Free institutions worthy of the name
have never yet existed in the tropics. Apparently
they can never exist there.
Individual exceptions and special cases to the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon or any other civilized race degenerates in the tropics mentally, morally, physically.
This statement has been lately denied in some quarters. Degeneration may be any one of three different
kinds: Race decline, personal degeneration, and social decay.
The essential of race degeneration is the continuous
lowering of the mental and physical powers of each
successive generation. Such a process is very slow,
requiring centuries before it shows itself. It finds its
cause in unwholesome conditions which destroy first
the bravest, strongest and most active, leaving the
feeble, indolent and cowardly to perpetuate the species.
Military selection or seizure of the strong to replenish
the armies has produced race degeneration in many
parts of Europe.
For the control of dependent nations and slave races
the fair-sounding name of "imperialism" has lately
come into use. It has been hailed with joy on the
one hand, for it is associated with armorial bearings
and more than royal pomp and splendor; it has been
made a term of reproach on the other, and our newspaper politicians now hasten to declare that they
favor expansion only when it has "no taint of imperialism."
All this is a mere quibble in names. Conquest of
the Orient is not expansion, because there is no room
for free manhood to grow there.
Annexation without imperialism is sheer anarchy.
Annexation with imperialism is still worse, for, so far
as it goes, it means the abandonment of democracy.




278 ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN.


We make slave nations out of the Philippines, but
never free States in the sense in which the name State
applies to Maine or Iowa or California.
The Philippines can have no part in our Federal
Union. Their self-government must be of a wholly
different kind-the outgrowth of their own needs and
dispositions. If we rule them successfully we must
control them in all respects, and especially we must
do all their politics for them. What they need is not
our freedom, but some form of paternal despotism, or
a monarchy of their own, which, as in Europe, will
keep the people out of politics.
"Imperialism" is a word too big for the problem
before us. We mean simply the control of the tropics, to the extent that they be economically productive.
It is a definite business, difficult and costly, with few
rewards and many dangers. It is fairly well understood by some of those engaged in it. It has been
successfully conducted under certain very narrow lines
by Great Britain and by Holland, although both countries have the record of many failures. Germany has
tried it for a little while, as has also Japan, neither
with instructive results.
Spain is out of the business in final bankruptcy and
her assets are in our hands for final disposition. France
has made failures only, and this because she has held
colonies for her own selfish ends. The main reason
of our prosperity is the freedom from war. Our farmer
carries no soldier on his back. We fear no foreign invader, because we invite none.
Were the people of the continent of Europe once
freed from the cost of militarism, their industrial progress would be the wonder of the ages.
As it is, they are ground down by worse than medieval taxation. A French cartoon represents the farmer
of 1780 with a feudal lord on his back. The French




.~~..3_,^.J..,
^Jj~i~zeA^/-^A~t.  ~^^-ut^







ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN. 279


farmer of 900o is figured as bearing a soldier, then a
politician, and on the back of these a Jewish moneylender.
Our British friends speak of the smoothness of
their colonial methods, especially in the crown colonies which Parliament cannot touch. Everything runs
as though newly oiled, and the British public hears
nothing of it. Exactly so. It is none of the public's
business, and the less the public has to say the less
embarrassment from its ignorant meddling. The colonial bureau belongs to the crown, not to the people.
But we are not ready for that kind of adjustment.
Our executive is a creature of the public. We have
not governmental affairs which are sacred from the eye
or hand of the people. Government of the people, for
the people and by the people implies that the people
are to be interested in all its details, "every one to the
last and the greatest," even at the risk of destroying
its smoothness of operation.
Hence, colonial rule, as undertaken by us, must be
marred by vacillating ignorance, incompetence, parsimony and neglect. All these defects appear in our
foreign relations as well. For the reason of the greater
intelligence of our people in public affairs, our government will enter on the control of the tropics with
a great handicap. The people want to know all about
it. The administration must keep open books and justify itself at every step. This will act against its highest efficiency. The forms of self-government are not
adapted to the government of others. The very
strength of the Republic unfits it for complicated tasks,
because its power can be brought at once into effect
only as the people understand its purposes.
Through concentration of power in the Executive
we may be able to make of Havana and Manila clean
and orderly cities. Shall we not by similar means,




280 ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN.


sooner or later, purify San Francisco and New York?
If martial government is good for Luzon, or for Santiago, why not for Washington, or even for Boston?
But having opinions of his own, however crude, on
all public questions, the citizen demands that his representatives should carry out these opinions. If he
has, or thinks he has, a financial interest in any line of
policy he will vote for men whose interests are the
same as his. In such manner Congress has become
not an assembly "of the wisest men to make public
laws," but a gathering of attorneys, each pledged to
some local or corporate interest, and each doing his
best, or appearing to do it, to carry out the lines of
policy dictated by others. This condition the fathers
could not foresee.
Still democracy is always wiser than it seems. The
common politician knows the weaknesses of the people
and tries to profit by them. The true statesman knows
the strength of the people and tries to lead them, and
the results he attains are sometimes marvelous. One
of the grandest examples of a man of the people was
Lincoln. He could touch the noblest springs in our
national character. Such leaders will rise when occasion demand them. Meanwhile, the men are not wanting. Sound common-sense and devoted patriotism are
needed in all walks of life and are found there. The
froth on the waves may fill our public offices, but the
great deep is below them.
"Are all the common ones so grand? and all the
titled ones so mean?" was asked in 1863 of the Army
of the Potomac.
"The common men so grand," though all the titled
ones be mean, is the experience of all democracy. It is
far better and far safer than the reverse condition,
when only titled men are great and all the common




ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN. 281


men are mean. Such nations are like inverted pyramids, resting on the strength of one man.
The cost of this whole business may be urged as an
argument against annexation. It will appeal to our
people as the discussion of the bill for the enlargement
of the army plainly shows. It is clearly evident that
the cost of conquest, or even military occupation of the
Philippines, is grotesquely in excess of any possible
gain to the Government. We may open the way for
individuals and corporations to grow rich, but the
people can never get their money back. No possible
development of the islands can profit the people at
large. There are no openings in the tropics for the
small farmer, none for the American laborer, or in
general none for any of the rank and file of the American people. Nor can any be made by any act of ours.
We cannot allow the conditions of life in the Orient.
The question of flag, other things being equal, affects
neither commerce nor industry.
Trade never "follows the flag," because it is a flag.
Trade "flies through the open door," because it is a
door. Men buy or sell wherever they can make
money.
Another selfish argument is this: That China is
soon to be looted by the Powers of Europe. We wish
to be on hand to get our share of her land and trade.
We would be in the center of the fight, and to that
end we would be as vulnerable as the rest. "I held the
enemy down," said brave John Phoenix, at San Diego,
"with my nose, which I inserted between his teeth for
that purpose."
Admitting, however, that somewhere or other a
reason exists for taking the Philippines-admitting
that we have extinguished Aguinaldo, somehow, by
gold or by sword-what shall we do with them?




282 ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN.


Shall we hold them as vassal nations, subject to the
sovereign will of Congress?
Shall we make them territories, self-governing, so
far as be under republican forms?
Shall we devise tariffs and other statutes in their interest, alone, or shall we extend to them unchanged
our protective tariff, our navigation laws and our
Chinese exclusion acts?
As I have said many times the function of democracy is not to secure good government, but to strengthen the people so that they be wise enough to make
good government for themselves.
We have no machinery to handle the affairs of other
people. We want none because, to be effective, it must
not be democratic. Concentration of authority gives
effectiveness at the expense of strength. What is done
through democracy has the power of the people behind it. The ideal of democracy is that the people
should handle their own affairs and theirs only.
So long as the people of the United States rule
themselves alone, so long is democracy safe. The influence of their intelligence and their success is potent everywhere. But this rule extended over an alien
and unwilling people ceases to be democracy. It loses
its motive force-the consent of the governed, and in
proportion as its efforts are successful, so does the
"Government of the people and by the people" perish
from the earth.
The establishment of a protectorate over the Philippines has many difficulties. It is on the one hand a
scheme for finally seizing the islands; on the other,
a device to let them go easily. If we assume unasked responsibility for them, they will be reckless in
making trouble.
A protected republic is the acme of irresponsibility.




ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN. 283


Its politicians may declare war against neutral nations
solely "to see the wheels go round."
A friendly alliance seems better than a protectorate,
but this is not a matter for off-hand decision.
As to the true American policy of to-day, I give the
fullest indorsement to the same words of Professor
Janes, which are in substance as follows:
"First-It is our duty to carry out the solemn pledge
made to the world, with respect to Cuba, and retain
military possession only long enough to enable the
Cubans to organize a government of their own. A
few months, at least, should witness the complete relinquishment of Cuba into the hands of its own citizens. After that it should remain absolutely free and
independent. We have no right to insist that our own
or any particular form of government shall be adopted
by the Cubans or to impose qualifications of citizenship on them. The present noble government of Mexico, by which, in Diaz' own words, it has become the
'germ of a great nation,'would have been impossible
under our own dictation or under the disastrous imperialism of Napoleon and Maximilian. The same
rule should be adopted in regard to Porto Rico.
"Second-No inhabited country should be acquired
by this Government which cannot be received into the
family of States. If, in the future, the people of Cuba
and Porto Rico agree with those of the United States
that annexation is mutually desirable, they may be
joined to our body politic. Our policy in the Philippines should be exactly the same. Let them fit their
government to their own needs with the guarantee
of our protection from outside interference. But under no circumstances should the Philippines or any
distant territory, inhabited by an alien and semi-civilized population, be retained as a permanent possession of the United States."




284 ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN.


I may quote in this connection the noble words of
Carl Schurz:
"We're told that, having grown so great and strong,
we must at last cast off our childish reverence for the
teaching of Washington's farewell address, 'nursery
rhymes that were sung around the cradle of the Republic.' "
I apprehend that many of those who now so flippantly scoff at the heritage the Father of his Country
left us in his last words of admonition, have never read
that venerable document. I challenge those who have,
to show me a single sentence of general import in it
that would not, as a wise rule of national conduct, apply to the circumstances of to-day.
What is it that has given to Washington's farewell
address an authority that was revered by all until our
recent victories made so many of us drunk with wild
ambitions? Not only the prestige of Washington's
name, great as that was and should ever remain-no,
it was the fact that, under a respectful observance of
those teachings, this Republic has grown from the
most modest beginnings into a "Union spanning the
vast continent." Our people have multiplied from a
handful to 75,000,00o. We have risen from poverty
to wealth-the sum of which the imagination can
hardly grasp. This American nation has become one
of the greatest and most powerful on earth, and continuing in the same course will surely become the
greatest and most powerful of all.
Not Washington's name alone gave his teachings
their dignity and weight. It was the practical results
of his policy that secured to it, until now, the intelligent approbation of the American people. And unless we have completely lost our senses we shall never
despise and reject as mere "nursery rhymes" the words
of wisdom left us by the greatest of Americans, fol



ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN. 285
lowing which the American people have achieved a
splendor of development without parallel in the history of mankind.
The greatness of a nation lies not in its bigness, but
in its justice, in the wisdom and virtue of its people,
and in the prosperity of their individual affairs. The
nation exists for its men, never the men for the nation. "I cannot help thinking of you as you deserve,"
said Thoreau, "O, ye governments."
The only government that I recognize, and it matters not how few are at the head of it or how small
its army, is that which establishes justice in the land,
never that which establishes injustice. The will of
freemen to be just one toward another is our final
guarantee that the "Government of the people, for the
people, by the people shall not perish from the earth."




I~~~~~~~~~~~~




I9 g
i~~~~~~~~b
r;.e* "   ~  "
11:0    o   -4
10, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ le   - ~ ~ ~ ~;~`~~~I








CHAPTER XVIII.
NECESSARY AND NATURAL TERRITORIAL
EXPANSION.
BY HON. WILLIAM     V. ALLEN,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA.
No   attempt will be     made   by   me   to  discuss
the question of national expansion at any length.
I will confine myself to referring to that subject in
general language, but before I conclude I shall attempt
to distinguish between necessary and natural territorial expansion and what may be called Napoleonic
imperialisnl.
I shall vote to ratify the treaty of peace with Spain,
and in doing so I must not be regarded as representing the views of anyone but those of my constituents
and myself. I have necessarily been absent from the
Chamber for some days and I have not had the full
benefit of all the speeches that have been made during
that time, but I have read sufficiently on the subject
to satisfy my mind as to what course I should pursue.
I think, however, that I ought now to set at rest, as far
as I am capable of doing so, a suggestion of the Sunday morning Washington Times, in which it is said:
If Senator Allen makes good his promise to enlighten the Senate
and the country as to the motives that control Senator Gorman in
committing his party in the Senate to a cause directly opposite to
that recommended by William J. Bryan, * * * and if all other
things happen that it was said yesterday would happen, then the
three hours of the Senate's session preceding the vote on the peace
treaty will indeed be dramatic and exciting.
If there is anything I dislike, it is to be patted on
the back and coddled and nursed like an infant by a
287




288 SPEECT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.


newspaper. I have the greatest respect for that kind
of journalisnl that is cast on a highl plane and takes a
lofty view of public questions, but I have not the
slightest regard for that kind that would deal with the
prejudices of men or that would appeal to anly real
or supposed vanity that I miight possess to influence
my conduct regarding a public question. The statement of tlhat paper is gratuitous. It is wholly inexcusable, for I have at no time "promised to enlighten
the Senate and the country as to the motives that control the action of Senator Gorman." Noor (o I know
wllat llis motives are or what lie intends doingI, nor
an I concerned in knowing.
I am not the keeper of the conscience or of the
opinions of Colonel Bryan. I know n)o mnlore of his
wishes or opinions than I gather froim his public utterances, a means of information open to all. I do not
presume to represent him here or elsewhere and assertions frequently made that I am doing so are utterly
unfounded, sinister, and insincere.  I am proud to
admit that I at least regard myself as the personal,
as I trust I am also his political, friend, and I may be
permitted to say, in this presence, without intending
to reflect in the slightest degree on any other gentleman in public life, that I regard him as easily the superior in point of knowledge and capacity for public
dutty of any living American statesman, and I do this
not because I am his debtor for political or other
favors, as he is not my debtor. Whatever may betide
him, I am clearly of the opinion that the impartial
historian who may write in the calm of another age
will rank him witlh W\elster and Clay and that lie will
l)e regarded by future generations as one of the greatest statesmen our country has produced. I look utpo1n
him as a comet that las appeared in the political
heavens, as those great statesmen appeared, that is




SPEECH OF HION. WILLIAM V. ALLEN. 289


seen upon the political horizon of our country once in
a generation only.
If there is a man in this world who is absolutely
sincere in the doctrines he advocates, that man is Mr.
Bryan.    H-e is not a demagogue, as the groundlings
and ttlmllebugs of politics would have the worl(l believe. The sincerity of his political convictions no man
who knows him       can question.    They partake more of
religion to him    than anything else.      To him    his duty
and patlway are clear.        -te is not seeking personal
advantage, and his convictions on public questions are
dearer than tlhe office of President of thle United States.
In another article in the Washington Sunday Times
it is said:
The same gossips who have associated Senator Quay's name with
a possible bolt on the treaty are also referring to Senator Allen, of
Nebraska, as one desiring somle favors of the Administration. It
seems to be a fairly well-established fact that in the early part of
the debate on the treaty Senator Allen announced himself in favor of
its ratification, and before going to Nebraska, about three weeks
ago, he was paired with a Senator who would vote in opposition.
After Senator Allen returned from  Nebraska he was quick to announce that he was going to vote against the treaty, and shortly
after the Senate convened yesterday he offered a resolution more
sweeping in its provisions than any of those now pending introduced
by Senator Vest, Senator Bacon, and Senator Sullivan. Mr. Allen
goes further than the others. lie is not willing to accept Porto Rico
as one of the spoils of war, but wants to give the people or that
island, as well as the Filipinos, an independent government, the
same as is promised for Cuba.
It has been intimated that Senator Allen would not object if
the Administration would so exercise its influence on the Nebraska
legislature as to have the Republicans join with the Populists and
re-elect him for another term. It is not known that Senator Allen
would change his position on the treaty if this were done, but it
is argued in political circles that this might not be bad politics from
an Administration point of view.
It is very difficult to meet and refute a gratuitous
antl  utnwarranted assertion of tllis kiild.     No manl lias
ever had the slightest occasion to dloul)t where I stood
in  respect to   the ratification of the treaty.       I have
never occupied doubtful groundt.  From    the time the
treaty came to this Chanber and was laid before us,
aye, at a time when I knew         through the press what
its plrovisions were, important as they are and as di



290  SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.
vergent as they are from my own views, I announced
my purpose to vote for its ratification.
I am not seeking favors at the hands of this Administration. There is no favor President McKinley
could confer upon me that would change my opinion
in the slightest degree. I am an American citizen,
having all the convictions and intensity of purpose of
an American citizen. I am not prepared to surrender
my views for favors to be shown. I would rather
take my station among the humblest of my kind than
to surrender an honest conviction, that is always dear
to a self-respecting man.
I have not seen nor talked with the correspondent of
a newspaper since my return to this city from my
home in Nebraska, and no man has a right to attribute,
and if he was a self-respecting man he would not attribute, to me opinions and purposes and motives I
have not entertained.
Because I shall vote for the treaty it does not follow that I am in favor of annexation. I do it for the
simple reason that in my judgment the Government
of the United States can not afford to open up negotiations with the Spanish dynasty again. We have
the whole question within our jurisdiction and within
our power, and here and by us alone it should be
settled. If by amending the treaty we send it back
for further consideration by the commissioners, or to
new commissioners to be appointed; if we open up the
subject-matter of the treaty, we will, in my judgment,
especially in the light of very recent events, incur the
danger of European interference and European complications.
It is because we will have the power, when the
treaty is ratified, of determining the form of government to be set up in the Philippine Islands and in
the other possessions that have come to us as a result




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN. 291
of the war, without incurring any danger from abroad,
that I shall vote for the ratification of the treaty.
If I had been a member of the commission I would
not have assented to many of its provisions. I would
have insisted that the same provision which applies to
Cuba should apply to the Philippines and to Porto
Rico.  Otherwise I would not have been brought
to sign the treaty or the report favorably recommending it. The treaty is here, and it must be disposed of by the American Senate without further delay.
I am not in favor and I shall not vote for the joint
resolution of the senior Senator from Georgia. If
passed by Congress and signed by the President, it
would simply become a statute that may be repealed
by another Congress. It is not expressive of the conviction of this body, which is the constitutional tribunal that must pass upon the treaty and construe
and give it force. It would not, in my judgment,
possess the force of an ordinary Senate resolution
expressing the views of the Senate.
There have been in the entire history of our
Government, from the formation of the Constitution and the distribution of its respective powers, two
schools of constitutional thought; the one holding
tenaciously to the doctrine that the Government possesses and can exercise authority, so far as its foreign
policy is concerned, consistent only with the primary
purpose of maintaining a government for certain welldefined territories and well-defined inhabitants thereof
and their posterity. This school is known as strict
constructionists. They hold that the government is
one of delegated powers alone, and that a power does
not exist unless expressly granted or necessarily, or
at least conveniently, implied to carry out a granted
power.
The other school is perhaps best known as the Ham



292  SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALIEN.
iltonian theorists, that have from time to time held
that the Constitution created a government national
in character and possessing, as respects its external
relations, not only an express but an implied authority
necessary to be exercised with foreign countries as
completely and as fully as any nation of the world.
Arguments have been brought forth from time to
time by these different schools in advocacy of their
respective views, and conflicts of a very sharp and important nature have been the result.
Every constitutional expression, clause, and sentence has been examined with a resolute purpose of
ascertaining its true meaning, not only in the light
of original discussion and as presenting a question of
first instance and greatest importance, but also in the
light of history and of the spirit and atmosphere of
the period of constitutional formation. The temper,
habits, and thought, as well as the known intention,
of the framers and their unswerving desire of erecting
a government that should exist for all time, under
whose flag and sovereignty the mightiest nation of the
earth would be carried forward to a dreamless and
endless destiny, have been considered.
I have been impressed, since the acquisition of this
new territory as a result of the war with Spain, with
the overshadowing necessity of considering the question with faultless accuracy. What we may do is not
to be the work of an hour, nor can it be undone l)v
subsequent legislation or executive order, but it is to
stand for all time and involves for final weal or woe
the present inhabitants of the United States and those
of the new territory, as well as those of countless generations to succeed. If, unfortunately, we shall authoritatively express a conclusion that would cause
our country to be overrun by a horde of alien peoples
in no manner capable of using or enjoying the bless



SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ATLLEN  293


ings and privileges of self-government, or of maintaining them when won by others, whose presence and
influence would deteriorate or injure the nation, ultimately 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 lbe justly chargeable with
inexcusable incompetency to deal with the question.
The Government of the United States was erected
for all ages. It was established through tle agitation, struggle, and bloodshed of those who had been
seeking for generations the formation of political institutions where individual independence, action, and
thought would have the largest field of operation.
The doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule was
for the first time in the history of the world ignored
and set aside, after a revolution lasting over seven
years and prosecuted under discouraging circtumstances, but which, aided by Divine Providence,
eventually resulted in the dismemberment of that people from the mother country and from her political
institutions. For the first time in all history the right
of every human being, by virtue of his birth, to govern
himself and indirectly exercise sovereignty in the conluct of the affairs of his Government, helping to
shape its policies and to mold its institutions, was
announced.
Europe, horrified at this declaration, expressed free
and frequent opinions that a government by the people
could not long exist, and that, amid warring factions,
turbulent multitudes, and the incompetency of those
intrusted with the immediate exercise of sovereignty,
it would fall and be succeeded by an aristocracy, an
oligarchy, or even monarchy itself. It has been the
pride of every American citizen that the political




294 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.


institutions erected by the fathers of the Republic
for the benefit of themselves and their posterity have
survived, and that by the exercise of a high degree of
intelligence and deliberation, caution, patriotism, and
moderation, it will be within the power of the people
to reorganize the authority of the Republic on higher
and broader principles and place it in a position where
the least restraint shall be exercised over the people
consistent with public peace, good order, and safety.
We should not, in discussing the questions presented by these resolutions, forget these facts, and nothing
should be done that would in the slightest degree militate against or imperil our institutions.
But the first question presented for consideration
is one of naked constitutional power of acquiring territory and the extension thereover of the provisions of
the Constitution to the inhabitants at the moment of
its acquisition. 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 question and the policy and
course of the Government I found myself, as I supposed, unalterably arrayed against it.
I had held, as I think all will agree, that this being
a government of enumerated powers, written and implied, the doctrine of limitation extends to our foreign relations as well as to our domestic institutions,
and that a power not classified with one or the other
of these does not exist, and I am inclined to think that
this was the earlier opinion of those who participated
directly in laying the foundation of the Republic. But
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 additional territory is concerned. Whether or not the great lawyers, patriots,
and statesmen who drafted and adopted the Declara



SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN  295


tion of Independence, 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 possessed or exercised by the
most absolute kingdom or monarchy of earth.
Doubtless it was not believed by many in the early
history of the Government and during the period covered by the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the formation of the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, that we would ever extend
our jurisdiction over the entire Temperate Zone of
America, and few dreamed that a powerful and compact nation with limitless commerce and agriculture
and with complex industries would eventually extend
from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
There may have been those who hoped for that
time, and therefore it is consonant with the truth to say
that it may have been anticipated, if such an event
should happen, that Congress should have power to
admit new States "into this Union," and "dispose of,
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory and all other property belonging to the
United States."
It seems to me that it cannot, in the light of the
amendments to the Constitution, be denied that the
United States possesses this power. There was a time
in the history of this Government when the status of
an American citizen was uncertain; there was a time
when the question was mooted whether there could
be a citizen of the United States separate and distinct
from his citizenship of a State. I say the question




296 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.


was at least unsettled. There were jurists of national
reputation, high in authority, who held that every man
acquired his citizenship of the United States by and
through the fact that he was a citizen of some State,
while on the other hand, there were those equally high
in authority, and whose opinions were of equal weight,
who held that the Constitution, regardless of the
anlndmlents, created the distinct character of a citizen of the United States independently of the State or
Territory in which the individual resided.
In the light of amendments to the Constitution,
I think there can be no longer any question respecting
the status of a citizen; but I desire to refer to and
read1 section 3, Article IV, of the Constitution, which
says;,.ew States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no( new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of
aly other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of tAwo
or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
TI'he  ords of that section     are general. "''ew
States," so it says, "may be admitted by the Congress
into this Union;" and then the section i1mmediately
lilits the general language employed, providing "but
no new State shall be formed or erected within the
jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be
formed by the junction of two or more States, or
parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures
of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
From   what territory was it anticipated that new
States should be formed?     The colonies had certain
possessions at the time of the formation of the Constitution. If new States could not be erected out of the
States already in existence or by the consolidation
of States or parts of States without their consent, and
without the consent of Congress, where was the Govermn:lent to look for the territory it could admit as
new States into t1he Union?     I cannot and do not




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN          297
believe it was in the minds of the great men who
framed this great charter of our liberty that the
territorial dominion and jurisdiction of this Government should be limited to the thirteen States east of
the Allegheny   Mountains. I believe that Washington and his compatriots looked west of the Alleghenies and across this continent to the Pacific
Ocean, and that the great men who penned this immortal instrument had it in their minds that this
Government would grow to a point where it would be
necessary and proper to annex new territory and to admit new States.
I turn briefly to paragraph 2 of same section of the
Constitution:
The 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.
What territory was meant by this provision of the
Constitution?  Was it intended that Congress should
have power to make rules and regulations for governing the territory embraced in the States? Certainly
not. Each of the States had a perfect government of
its own, exercising every conceivable power an independent government could exercise, except in those
cases where the States granted power to the General
Government, and where by the adoption of the Constitution they had restrained themselves from the exercise of power; in other words, when the Government of the United States was created, the thirteen
original States carved out of their otherwise unrestricted sovereignty certain powers which they conferred
on the General Government, and restrained themselves
from the exercise of certain other powers, and with
those exceptions each State to-day can exercise all
the power of the most independent and absolute government of earth.




298    SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM           V. ALLEN.
I must necessarily     be   brief  in  the  remarks    I
am to make; but I cannot resist the temptation
of calling attention to a remarkable statement
of the senior Senator from Ohio in his speech the
other day, when he declared that the Declaration of
Independence was simply a bill of complaint, or a bill
enumerating    certain  grievances against the     British
Crown.
I am not too old to learn; I learn daily; and I hope
during the years that may be allotted to me on earth
I may never grow so old and inattentive to duty as not
to learn   hour by hour;     and yet I have supposed
throughout all the years of my life that the Declaration of Independence is the first great charter of
American liberty.     It was not the beginning of government; it was the first crystallization in the form of
a written document of certain well-known and generally accepted doctrines held in this country in colonial
days; it was the first defiance that was hurled in the
face of England and continental Europe by the colonists who inhabited this country.    It was not and is not
simply a bill of complaint against the English Government.    Let me read a paragraph from      it. Said the
Continental Congress:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
haippiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted
among men, deriving 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,
and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
That docs not sound like a mere bill of complaint
against the xEnglish     Government.      It was the announcement of principles that are as deathless as the
sun and as eternal as the rock-ribbed earth.      I say in
this splendid presence this day that I hold to the
doctrine that every human being is born with the




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN  299


right to rule and control himself, if capable. I cannot
understand how, through the ages that have passed,
any man could be found of such indifferent or weak
intellect that he could have reached a different belief.
It is as much the right of a Filipino to govern himself, if he is capable of doing so, as it is the right of an
American citizen to do so. This doctrine is not
confined to the people of the United States. It extends, according to the language, to all men, wherever found; yet the Senator from Ohio would have
this great document mean no more than a mere bill of
complaint against the English Crown!
Nor can I agree with the Senator from    Connecticut, who  announced  the  startling  doctrine
in this Chamber that it was the right of "some
of the governed" to participate in the government.
That, too, is a novel and startling proposition.
Where is the line of demarkation to be drawn?
Our ancestors said it was the inalienable right of
all  men  to  participate  in  their  government.
There was no restriction, no limitation. All, so
they said, were entitled to this blessing; and yet in the
Senate of the United States the monstrous doctrine
is advanced that a few men alone are entitled to participate in the government. Where, I ask again, is
the line of demarkation to be drawn? Is it to be
placed on religious, on political, on personal, or on
educational ground?  No, the doctrine was monstrous
in its conception and it would be disastrous in its consequences if applied.
I desire to call attention to a remark of the senior
Senator from Virginia, made on Saturday last, presenting an argument with which I cannot agree and
in which I do not concur. That Senator said
that the power to acquire territory exists as incident
to the war-making power, which is correct, and then




300 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.


he  said territory  could  be acquired by treaty
and by cession. There are but two ways to acquire
territory under the Constitution-one as an incident of
the war-making power and the other by virtue of the
treaty-making power. What is a cession but a treaty?
It is, as the law books say, a treaty of cession, just
as we speak of a treaty of commerce or a treaty of
amity and peace. There is no way known among
men, under a government like ours, of acquiring territory except as an incident of the power to make war
and by virtue of the power to make treaties with foreign nations.
The Senator said the difference between a treaty
and a cession was this: That a treaty carried with
it certain inter-dependent obligations binding upon
both parties, while a cession was no more than a deed
of quittance or a release to the party receiving it. That is like the impossible distinction
made by some law writers between a bilateral and
a unilateral contract. You can scarcely open a law
book that treats on the subject of contracts that you
will not find refinements and distinctions between a
bilateral and a unilateral contract; and yet, in my
judgment, there is not the slightest distinction between
such contracts, for every contract, whether it be signed,
every contract, whether it be partly in writing or rests
partly in parole, is a contract that carries with it obligations and duties on the part of the respective
parties. So, I assert again that the sole power possessed by this Government to acquire territory is by
virtue of the war-making power and the treaty-making power.
I have no doult, as declared by the resolutions under
consideration, that in permanently acquiring territory
we would do so with the view of incorporating its inhabitants into our population as citizens. All through




SPE-ECIt OF -ION. WILLIAMI V. ALLEN. 301


tlhe history of our acquisition of territory, bheginning
witll Iouisiana in 1803 and ending with tle Hawaiian
Islands, our ancestors have utnderstoo(d, and wxe, too,
that we hold the acquired territory in trust for statehood. So our law writers aind so our jurists have declared from time to timle. \We lave no power, in my
judgment, to hold tie Filipinos as vassals. We have
no right to deprive tlhen;i whatever they may be, of
the right of self-government if they desire it.  It
would be ruinous, in my judgment, if we sought to
do so.
We are confronted to-day in our own country
with a great race prollem, that must 1)e solved soon if
it is not to bring us troul)le. We have con(litions existitgr ili certain sections of tile lUnion tlat can niot
always contlinue. It will be tile part of wise an(l cnservative statesnlanship for tlhe American states.ICe
to deal witll this prol)lem in a few years. Are wCe wnow
preparedl, undler tlhese circumstances, to talle witllint
our population I2,000,0o00 lpeople alien in race, alien
in language and in purposes to a great pol)Cular gove\rnment like ours? I challenge any gentleman on this
floor on either sidle of the Chaimer. I care not whlo lie
may be, to point out the autlhority this G;overnlmenlt
would have, when the Philippines are annexed to tlil
United States, to restrict the expatriationl (f tlhose
people and their inimigration here. There is no
power to prevent it. Tlhe moment we plerniai nitly.
annex those islands to this country andl they be)coime
a district or a Territory of the United States, that
moment we extenIi our jurisdiction over them    lidl
over the people, and tlhose people will thave as much
right to come into the District of Columnlia or to.ettle
in any State of this Union as I have to pass from( Nebraska to Iowa or ally other part of our comiltMon
country.




302 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.


It-may be that there is a sinister motive in this;
it may be that there are those who contemplate the
rapid approach of the time when this debased population can be brought here and thrown in deadly contact with the laboring men of our country. I ask
the Republicans of this Chamber what will become of
your tariff laws under such circumstances? You
have said to the laboring man of this country for more
than a quarter of a century that a protective tariff is
a blessing to him. You have made many of them believe it. Of course it was never intended to benefit the
manufacturer, according to your argument. The
manufacturer, the man who reaps the benefit from a
protective tariff, has been sedulously excluded from the
argument; but the tariff was to reach its strong arms
around the laboring men and protect them and their
families.
You said to them in 1896 that you wanted this
country protected from the pauper laborer of Europe
and the manufactured articles of pauper labor, and yet
by annexation you will open wide the door to an endless horde of nondescript population that can come to
your very doors in spite of all you can do, in deadly
contact with the laborer of this country, debasing the
civilization of himself and his family. You will simply
move the factory from the United States to Manila
and the Hawaiian Islands. And what, too, will become of the Chinese-exclusion acts? They will be
swept away and a resistless tide of cheap labor admitted.
I may disagree with the distinguished gentleman
who is at the head of this Government at the
present time, as I do. But, I do it honestly, because I believe many of his policies are wrong. I am
not to be driven from my position because some portion of my constituency may not approve of my views.




SOME OF THlE NATIVES OF PAMPWANGA ISLAND.




a




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN. 303


I would rather take my station in the obscurest community of my State and devote the remainder of my
life to eking out an existence by the most onerous
manual labor than to surrender to any man, high or
low, or to any organization or party, an honest, conscientious conviction of duty.
We must not shut our eyes to the dangers that confront us. Let it be once understood that we are to
abandon the domestic policy that has been ours
throughout the years of our national existence and
embark on the uncertain sea of imperialism, to become
"a power," whatever that may be, of the world, and
our institutions that have been held dear for more
than a century and a quarter, our flag that has floated
in triumph over every foot of our common country
and that has ridden the storms of the sea in triumph
and in glory will be hauled down not only in Manila,
but in this country as well. Can we afford to take
the risk? Can we afford to incur the danger?
I hold that the foreign policy to be pursued by
this Government must inevitably be a policy incident
to and in aid of a strong domestic government. Such
was the declaration of Hamilton himself. It was said
in one of his articles in the Federalist that in the very
nature of things a republic can never have an aggressive foreign policy. He said its safety was to be found
in its isolation and in its compactness, for, said that
great man further, in a republic like the United States,
where the administration is changing every four years,
a policy that is aggressive, that believes in the forcible colonization of other lands, may, by the election
of a Chief Magistrate holding different views, be overturned and changed.
The news has come to us within the last few hours
of a conflict between the American Army and Navy
and the Filipinos. To my own State has fallen much




304 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN.


of the loss of life and limb. Ten out of twenty of the
young men who lost their lives in the battie that has
been fought in the last forty-eight hours were members of the First Nebraska Infantry. There is mourning in Nebraska to-day; there will be weeping at the
hearthstone of many a Nebraska home to-night. This
ought to be a warning to us.
We are in the Philippine Islands as a conquering
military power. We hold them to-day by virtue of the
power to make war, and in no other sense, and there
those islands and those people must remain respecting
the law, respecting the dignity and the sovereignty
and the flag of this nation until their status among
the nations of tle earth shall be defined. But if we are
to hlold thelm, if in time they are to come completely
\within our jurisdiction, we must not refuse them the
or(linary p)rivileges and immunities of an American
citizen.
If prayer b1e a sincere desire of the human heart, I
fervently pray that this great (langer may be averted
and this complex question may be solved in justice
and in honor to our nation and in justice and in honor
to the conquered. Those islands and those people must
not be surrendered to Spain. Spain has lost her jurisdiction over them and over the islands of the Western Hemisphere forever. God grant the day may
speedily come when Spain, unless she changes her civilization, shall be blotted from the map of nations.
God grant the day when the Filipinos and the inhabitants of Porto Rico and Cuba may rise to a true conception of the duties and obligations of citizenship;
when they, too, with the encouragement of this great
and powerful Republic, shall take their station among
the civilized republics and peoples of the earth,




CHAPTER XIX.
"LEST WE FORGET."
BY CHARLES A. TOWNE,
EX-REPRESENTATIVE OF CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA.
Not so much by formal provision of law as by the
grateful and reverent affection of the American people, this anniversary is consecrated to the memory
of Washington. A name not unknown or unadored
in the world that is even older yet, though it make
our newest problems for us, for out of Asia comes
to-day a cry startling the silence of abysmal centuries
and echoing a prophecy of long ago, when our Aryan
progenitors began their restless progress round the
globe, the cry of a struggling people imploring the
freedom wherewith we ourselves are free and invoking the venerated shade of Washington to witness between us and them.
This day, 167 years ago, George Washington was
born, and ere this year be passed time will have
marched a century from his grave. It is my humble
but firm opinion that not since his death has the advent of his birthday been marked by circumstances so
novel, so interesting, so momentous and sinister as
now. Not in all that time has there arisen a crisis
in the history of this country so needful of his wisdom, so apt to his counsel, and so menacing to his
glory, as' that which to-day confronts the Republic
that was founded by his valor and that has touched
tie heights of greatness through obedience to his precepts.
305




3o6


"LEST WE FORGET.'


Profoundly convinced that as a democracy we have
reached the parting of the ways, and that upon the
decision by the American people of problems now imminent depends the future weal or woe of our country,
and hence that of the human race for ages to come,
I propose to speak out plainly and emphatically as to
what, in my judgment, the present situation is and
means and as to what it is incumbent on the citizens
to do in respect of it. I adopt this course the more
freely to-day, inasmuch as the main question has not
yet become a partisan issue and thus rendered, as to
many persons, unapproachable by honest inquiry and
insusceptible of unprejudiced consideration; albeit, as
I have observed with infinite regret, a very great number of people have already jumped at conclusions in
this important matter, actuated solely by what seemed
to be from day to day the tendency of their party leadership.
I am quite aware, my friends, that by a considerable
proportion of the public press the language of distrust of present tendencies is ridiculed as a form of
hysteria or denounced as an attack on the Government, and that a man who ventures to raise a cry of
warning is either charitably characterized as a fit candidate for a lunatic asylum or violently assailed as an
enemy of his country. It has been long, however,
since such opposition lost its terrors for me; and I
snall bear with cheerful resignation my share of whatever opprobrium shall continue to be heaped upon
those, who on this subject, are outspoken and resolute.
It is usually difficult to estimate the drift and force
of the currents of social and political change. Their
ordinary flow is so still and regular as not to attract
the attention of any but the closest observer, so that




"LEST WVE FORGET."


307


his accounts of the results of his observations are met
with general apathy or incredulity. But now and then
events occur that so accelerate the speed of tendencies as to make them obvious to common scrutiny.
Wars, for example, are such events. It is as if suddenly the restraint of banks and counter currents were
swept away and the dominant flow became a torrent.
At such a time there is need of cool heads. The general disposition is to go with the stream, and those
who before drifted unconscious of direction now madly abandon themselves to the course, calling it Providence and themselves the children of destiny.
Edmund Burke once said that no war ever leaves a
nation where it found it. This is true in many ways,
but in none more significantly than in respect of the
dispositions and even the inherited instincts of men.
A forceful illustration is the recent war with Spain.
Thousands of humdrum citizens to whom one little
year ago even Porto Rico seemed far beyond our natural sphere of influence, are to-day clamoring for the
annexation of the Philippines, whose geographical
whereabouts were then no better known to them than
those of the Islands of the Blest, and about.which even
now many of them have notions very little more (efinite than is their knowledge of Swat or Timbuctoo.
A few, indeed, there are among us that not long ago,
considering the multiplying difficulties of industrial
and economic problems, were gravely doubtful of the
ability of democratic institutions to maintain themselves on this continent, but who now, led by what
reasoning and justified by what consistency I know
not, are eager to complicate an already desperate situation with a whole hemisphere of novel perils.
An American Senate that solemnly declared less
than a year since that our occupation of Cuba, the




308


"LEST WE FORGET."


very territory which was the subject and the inevitable theater of war, should be confined to the pacification of the island, refused a few days ago to give
its assent to a straightforward resolution disclaiming
any intention to exercise permanent sovereignty in the
Philippines, which were in no way associated with the
cause of the war and only incidentally involved in its
prosecution.
An American President who, in April, I898, went
reluctantly to war for the liberation of one people, proclaimed in January, 1899, the subjugation "by conquest" of another people, and is to-day engaged by
sea and land in forcing the authority of this great Government upon an inoffensive race struggling to be free
and vainly interposing between their naked bodies and
our merciless guns the familiar and once respected
guaranties of the Declaration of Independence.
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.
The contest out of which it is claimed there comes
to us this Christian duty of slaughter and subjugation
began nobly. Not since the devoted manhood of Europe in holy enthusiasm vowed to redeem the tomb
of the Saviour from the pollution of the infidel has
history witnessed so chivalrous and unselfish a war
as that which was commenced by the people of the
United States to free the island of Cuba from the tyranny of Spain. It was not to be a war of conquest.
Orators in and out of Congress pictured in glowing
colors the disinterestedness of our action. The newspapers vied with one another in strengthening the
doctrine of international law justifying intervention on
grounds of humanity. The pulpit added its fervid
sanction to the high resolves of the new crusade.




"LEST WE FORGET."


309


In the resolutions that practically constituted a declaration of war the purpose of this Government was
clearly expressed to be the expulsion of all Spanish
authority from Cuba and the achievement of the freedom and independence of the island; and the famous
fourth resolution was as follows:
That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island
except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when
that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the
island to its people.
The brave deeds of our soldiers and sailors that followed this declaration shone with a special glory because of it. For it is the object of a war that characterizes it. Unjust wars are never glorious. rWhile it
is true that the history of warfare on the land recordls
few filer exhibitions of personal bravery than those
witnessed on the hill of San Juan, and that the naval
battles of Manila and Santiago will sustain comparison with the most famous engagements of the greatest
captains of the sea, yet succeeding ages will recall that
what, in the ability and heroisn of Dewey and Schley
and Roosevelt and their brave associates, added a new
title to the grateful remembrance of mankind was the
consciousness of facing death in every awful form
to win the prize of liberty for an alien people. Let us
make them   secure in this high heritage. Let us see
to it that the chaplets placed upon their brows by the
genius of self-sacrifice be not withered by thle touch
of greed or stained with the blood of innocence.
The possession of the Philippine Islands was in no
way necessary to the success of the war nor within
its purpose. Admiral Dewey went to Manila in pursuance of his well-known instructions to 'find the
Spanish fleet and destroy it."  In his subsequent oper



3Io


"LEST WE FORGET."


ations he wTas assisted by the insurgent Filipinos, who
were engaged, like the rebels of Cuba, in an effort
to throw off the yoke of Spain, if possible a more
heavy burden and a more odious tyranny in the Philippines than in the Antilles.
Said Admiral Dewey on the 27th of June: "I have
given the insurgents to understand that I consider
them as friends, because we oppose a mutual enemy."
The publications of the Government show beyond all
cavil that, whatever mental reservations the Washington authorities may have found it consistent with their
ideas of honorable diplomacy to entertain, our representatives immediately in contact with Emilio Aguinaldo and his coadjutors treated the insurrectionists
as allies and that we were honorably bound to respect
the relation. Such was the situation when they organized a government, declared themselves free and
independent, adopted a constitution, raised and maintained an army, collected revenues, conducted military operations according to the laws of war, and captured and held many thousands of Spanish prisoners.
During all this time they made no mystery of the sacred object of their endeavor. They were striving
for independence, for the overthrow of the Spanish
power and the establishment of a Philippine republic. They eagerly welcomed the sailors and soldiers
of the United States, and gladly accepted and returned our assistance. My friends, if under such circumstances we harbored against our allies a secret
intention of snatching from their grasp the hard-won
reward of all their suffering and valor as soon as it
should come within their reach; if we deceived and
profited by their confidence only to force upon them
the milder though scarcely less welcome overlordship
of the United States in the place of the Spanish despot



"LEST WE FORGET."


3II


ism they rebelled against; if, in short, we led these people up to a near view of freedom only at last to give
them a change of masters, then may God forgive us
and in some way shield us from the retribution we deserve and that all history teaches us we must else
receive! For such an act would be worse than Punic
faith, a deed without a name, in the presence of which
the garnered trophies of a hundred years would fall to
ashes and the sun of the Republic set in blackness
forever.
The peace protocol was signed August 12, 1898, and
by it, while Spain expressed a willingness to relinquish
her sovereignty over Cuba and to cede Porto Rico to
the United States, which points were subsequently
confirmed by the treaty, the following provision was
made as to the Philippines:
Art. 3. The United States will occupy 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 Philippines.
Thus, until the matter should be finally settled by
the treaty of peace, the status of the parties in the
Philippines was determined by the protocol and fixed
as of its date, August 12. The attack by the troops
of the United States upon the city was not made until
the next day, August 13, and the formal capitulation
occurred on the i5th. 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, the bay, and the harbor
of Manila.   When, therefore, the President of the
United States says, as he recently has said, that our




312


"LEST WE FORGET."


possession of the Philippine Islands rests upon the
"right of conquest," le is certainly in error.  When
he signed the protocol he expressly bound this country
to determine the ultimate fate of those islands by negotiation. Such, as a matter of fact, is the manner in
which it has been done. Article III of the treaty of
Paris of December io, I898, "cedes to the United
States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands;" and that it may more clearly appear to have
been the result of "negotiation" rather than of "conquest," the same article of the treaty provides for the
payment to Spain of $20,000,000 out of the Treasury
of the United States. It is all "hire and salary, not revenge."  We have not wrested the Filipinos from
Spain; we have bought them. Theirs is not even the
poor satisfaction of figuring among the spoils of honorable war. They are the sorry chattels of a higgling
bargain and sale between the bankrupt monarchy of
Charles V and the recreant Republic of George Washington.
The condition of affairs in the Philippine Islands
at this moment constitutes an ineffaceable stain upon
the honor of this country. Having bought out the
shadowy and unstable authority of Spain we have succeeded to her equity in this rebellion, or rather let us
say to her inequity, for we have long since given full
recognition of the justice of the rebellion. Oh! the
magic power of gold. By paying $20,000,000 of it we
have transformed patriotism into treason, our allies
into rebels. The very men whose aspirations for liberty a few short months ago we supported with our
Army and Navy we are to-day engaged in shooting
to death. By the light of the burning villages about
Manila and of Iloilo let us read the following language
from the President's proclamation made public by




"LEST WE FORGET."


313


General Otis on the 5th of last month: "The mission
of the United States is one of beneficent assimilation." And in confirmation of this benevolent disposition let us read again from his Cuban message of
April ii, 1898: "I speak not of forcible annexation,
for that can not be thought of; that, by our code of
morality, would be criminal aggression." For saying
this and then doing what we have done we shall hardly
escape the revenges of history.
But it is said that the present hostilities were begun
by the Filipinos. The facts are not quite so well authenticated as could be wished, especially in view of
the claim of Agoncillo that the Americans were the aggressors and precipitated the difficulty for the purpose
of influencing the then pending vote in the United
States Senate on the treaty ratification, and considering
also the vigilant censorship of the cable maintained by
our military authorities.  But accepting the statement as true, where rests the ultimate responsibility?
Does it not lie against us for not having long before
given to the people of those islands an assurance that
they should have the right of instituting and maintaining a government of their own? That is what
they have been fighting Spain for. That is the only
thing they desire. Why was not the assurance given?
My answer is, because the powers that be in this country did not intend to allow the Filipinos to govern
themselves, and will never hereafter grant them their
independence unless compelled to do so by the libertyloving people of the United States.
What are the evidences of this? The hurrying of reinforcements to the Philippines, the negotiation of a
treaty providing for the cession to us of sovereignty
over the islands; the persistent refusal of the Government to make any definite announcement of a policy




314


"LEST WE FORGET."


when a word consistent with the natural and just expectations of our former allies would have been a
perfect guaranty of peace; the reiterated demand of
the President and certain Senators to know who would
"haul down the flag;" and the refusal of the Senate
to pass a simple resolution similar to that in which,
at the outbreak of the war, assurance was given to
Cuba that we would not exercise permanent jurisdiction in that island but would withdraw upon the accomplishment of its pacification and leave its government and control to its people. Such a proclamation
even now by the Executive of this Government, or,
better yet, a declaration to that effect in a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, signed by the
President, would instantly re-establish peace in the
distracted Philippines.
But such a procedure would interfere with the programme which, wherever it originated, seems now tolerably well determined upon. It is proposed to establish a colonial empire founded upon force and maintained by military occupation. Governor Roosevelt
says that the Filipinos "must be made to realize absolutely that we are their masters." General Merritt is
reported as saying: "We must go at the matter systematically and whip them so soundly that they will
make no further question of the ability of the United
States to do what she pleases." He adds: "I believe
that we should adopt the English colonial system.
* * * The Filipinos should be ruled over by a military resident or governor, having practically absolute
power." Senator Davis, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and one of the Paris peace
commissioners, has also declared that in his judgment
the government of the Philippines should be along the
general lines of that of the English crown colonies.




"LEST WE FORGET."


3I5


Nobody proposes to form states out of these islands
nor to erect them into Territories preparatorily to
statehood. Situated in the Tropics they can never
become colonies in the true sense, because our people
can not occupy and possess them. The only alternative to granting them their freedom and the right, subject to a limited protectorate by the United States, to
establish and maintain a government of their own,
is to hold them indefinitely as a subject nation-as a
dependency under military control.
The objections to any such system are numerous
and very serious, although the present occasion will
permit reference to only a few of theni. Waiving now
the question of power, although I think it plain that
undler the Constitution there is no authority in the
Government of the United States to establish a colonial system, overwhelming considerations of the
highest duty and expediency seem to me absolutely
to condemn the project and to counsel the obligation,
wisdom, and advantage of permitting the Filipinos
to organize and maintain a free, stable, and independent government of their own under the protectorate of
the United States.
It is not too late to do this. The unfortunate breaking out of hostilities between us. and them does not
commit us to the extermination of the Filipinos. It is
never too late to be just. There is no obligation upon
this great nation, such as might to an inconsequential
state seem to arise out of a false sense of pride, to
carry on the slaughter already begun. It is still possible to listen to the dictates of humanity, and it ought
to be easy to do so when humlanity squares with interest. The ratification of the treaty, now practically
complete except as to the exchange of formalities, has
made the question a domestic one. In his speech at




3I6


"LEST WE FORGET."


Boston the other night the President said that the
subject now rests with' the American people; and
surely we should be broad enough and big enough to
deal with it in a spirit of sobriety and righteousness.
There is a disposition in some quarters to regard the
whole matter as finally disposed of by the formal acceptance of sovereignty over the Philippines under
the treaty; and unquestionably it well suits the designs of certain persons to propagate that impression
as widely as possible. But this status can not be permitted to remain. Tile conscience of our people will
revolt against a war of "criminal aggression" in the
Philippines. Even they who counseled violence in the
beginning will be compelled by awakening public sentiment to accept accommodation by and by, making
merit of a tardy virtue in the spirit of that character
of Euripides who says, "If it be needful to resort to
injustice in order to attain power, let us have recourse
to it; but under all other circumstances let us be honest."
The whole scheme of colonialism is out of harmony
with our institutions. It belongs to imperialism, not
to republicanism. No republic ever ruled colonies otherwise than oppressively.  It has been repeatedly
pointed outt that the attempt led to the downfall of the
Athenian democracy and transformed the Republic of
Rome into an empire. There would be an infinite demoralization to domestic peace and progress in the
contemplation of a portion of our domain cut off from
the privileges of liberty and the rights of self-government. Every advance that freedom has ever made has
been gained by sacrifice and maintained only by vigilance. History and analogy teach us that tyranny
would sooner travel from the Philippines to the United
States than liberty would travel from the United States




"LEST WE FORGET."


317


to the Philippines. It is amazing to notice to what
an extent even the tentative establishment of absolutism in the Philippines has corrupted public sentiment at home. It has already lowered the high ideals
of the olden time. It has taug'ht many of us a new
language, the language of the despot and the bully.
Mr. Murat Halstead, a distinguished newspaper writer
and public educator, after a visit to the islands, gave a
careful estimate of the difficulties of governing them,
and declared that in his judgment a relatively small
army "could hold the Filipinos in subjection." One
of our great newspapers quotes a prominent army officer, lately returned from the Philiplpines, as declarilig
it to be necessary for us to sweep tlhe inhabitants into
the sea. The illustrious chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate recently said in a
speech, referring to the Filipinos: "I would bring them
up tenderly, but in chastisement, if we must."
Upon reflection it must seem to all of us monstrous
that men living in the Great Republic, and after a
hundred years of the benign and salutary sway of our
Constitution, can use language like that which I have
quoted. Why, our fathers, in words that rang around
the world and, even if we prove recreant, shall echo
through all time, declared that the power which it is
now proposed we should use over the Filipinos can
never, under any circumstances, be rightfully exercised by anybody over anybody else. Almost every
line of the Declaration of Independence is an indictment against this proposed system of misgovernment
in the Philippine Islands.
Thoughtful men can not have failed to notice, what
has seemed to me a most unhappily significant thing,
to what lengths some of our American statesmen have
gone in an anxiety to construe the Constitution as




318


"LEST WE FORGET."


authorizing the acquisition and government of dependencies wholly without restraint and as clothing Congress and the President with a power as absolute as
despotism itself. Is it not ominous, the bare fact that
men feel impelled to make an argument like that?  It
must be that they have forgotten how and why the
Constitution was framed and upon what theory it
rests. In the preamble of that instrument the purpose
of the exercise of all the powers conferred by it was
stated in the following memorable words:
To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our
posterity.
A distinguished judge of the United States Supreme
Court has said, in rendering a decision of that tribunal,
that it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
How will the advocates of the employment of an irresponsible rule over the Philippines justify their attitude in the face of the sublime and inspired proposition that governments "derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed," and of the limitation
of the authority of the National Government to the
broad and beneficent objects recited in the preamble?
The tendency to which I have just referred goes far
to justify the apprehensions of those people who regard it as not widely impossible that gradual abuses
of power must ultimately lead not only to the destruction of the guaranties of our constitutional liberty, but
to an actual assumption by the Government of imperial forms. There is not, indeed, much difference
between the statement of some of our eminent generals
respecting the necessity of a magnificent and crushing
exercise of force over the Filipinos in order to impress them sufficiently with a conception of the hope



I   i
I
iiiiiiiiiiiii
I
i
ill
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-% 
i~~~~~~~~~" ~
iiii'iii?
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~








"LEST WE FORGET."


319


lessness of resistance, and the following statement of
Beaconsfield in the House of Lords in support of his
bill to confer upon Queen Victoria the title of Empress
of India:
It is only by the amplification of titles that you can often touch
and satisfy the imagination of nations, and that is an element which
governments must not despise.
There is also noticeable a growing disposition to
magnify the office of the Presidency. All will recall
how Congress at the beginning of hostilities with
Spain voted the sum of $5o,ooo,ooo to the President
to be expended absolutely at his discretion; and it
is only a few days since that Representative of the
Congressional majority proposed to clothe the Chief
Magistrate with the discretionary powers of determining whether the Standing Army should consist of 50,ooo or Io0,ooo men. Nothing has been more common
in the course of the recent debates, both in the Senate
and in the House of Representatives, than for prominent statesmen to attempt to explain the absence of
any legislative plan of action by the fact that the
President has not yet declared his policy. This last
circumstance is but one example of many that might
be offered to exhibit the gradual and, in the aggregate,
tremendous aggrandizement of the power of the
President, a tendency very marked in recent years,
and sufficiently ominous in the ordinary development
of our democratic system. The question relates itself
to far too large an inquiry for present consideration;
but I desire earnestly to.direct attention to it as fraught
with the greatest future importance. While I desire
not to be thought an alarmist, yet in my opinion the
citizens of the country can not be too frequently reminded, in the language of an American adage, that
"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," and that




320


"LEST WE FORGET."


freemen can not view with too careful a jealousy even
the slightest excess of constitutional authority.
To set up a colonial system is to be ready to trade
peace for war, to surrender serenity and security for a
state of armed anxiety and weakening incertitude.
It is to mix up in alien quarrels, which we have deprecated always and with special emphasis of late, at precisely the time when by all indications they are about
to culminate in the most colossal and destructive war
of modern times. Not long ago, at the lord mayor's
banquet in London, Lord Salisbury declared that the
advent of the United States into Old World diplomacy
would greatly strengthen England, but his lordship
added that he was sorry that, in his opinion, it did not
improve the prospects of peace. The sensitive storm
center is in the East, and into the very midst of it we
should be led by this fatuous policy of empire.
The imperial policy will necessitate a vast increase
in our naval establishment and, especially and most
serious, the creation and maintenance of a great standing army. Nothing can excuse the apparent indifference of a large part of our people to this consideration.
The men from whom we drew our political lineage
were exceedingly apprehensive of the danger to free
institutions that always lurks in a large standing army.
Washington not only voiced the sentiment of his time,
but one of the lessons of all history, when in his Farewell Address he said:
Avoid the necessity of these overgrown military establishments
which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty,
and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican
liberty.
How discouraging to the hopeful lover of peace it
is to witness the United States, hitherto the great exemplar of peace, preparing to undertake the ruinous
burden of standing armies just when Europe is about




"LEST WE FORGET."


32I


to go into counsel over disarmament, and to see her
putting on the helmet of Mars at the very time when
the Czar, the War Lord of the North, is inviting the
nations to the Temple of Concord.
This dream of empire can not be realized without a
prodigious increase in the expenses of the Government, to be borne with difficulty by the people without recompense through any corresponding advantage. The best authority fixes the proportions of this
imperial increment at about $200,000,000 a year. Inasmuch as the cost of our war witl Spain was not far
from  $175,000,000, the anomalous conclusion is
reached that it would be cheaper for us by $25,000,000
a year to fight for peace tlan to maintain it after we
get it. These figures should prove interesting retading
for the people of this country who witness tlle expenditures of National Government mounting fast toward $2,000,000,000 per Congress, and who have recently been authoritatively assured that the so-called
"war taxes" must continue indefinitely, and that, notwithstanding the raising of more than $70,000ooo,ooo
in this manner and the sale of $200,000,000 of bonds,
there will be a deficit in the national revenues at the
end of the present fiscal year close to $18o,ooo,ooo.
The interest of labor in tlis great subject is imlportant and immediate; and the leaders of that peaceable
and powerful army do well to attack this imlperial programme now instead of waiting until they are actually
confronted by uestions arising out of tlle immi1igration of cheap oriental workmen from our new possessions, or presented by the importation from thence of
goods made in American factories in the PhiliIppines
to colmpete in our market at honie with tlhe products
of the toil and skill of American freemen.
But the chief and all-sufficient reason, as it seems




322


"LEST WE FORGET."


to me, why it is unspeakable folly for the United States
to erect a permanent colonial dependency in the Philippine Islands is that it will distract our attention from
the study and solution of the gravest social, economic,
and industrial problems in our domestic life, and must
needlessly multiply the tasks of democratic government at exactly the time when, in its natural development, it is being subjected to a crucial strain.
We are constantly reminded by writers of great
learning and insight, like the historian Lecky, Sir Henry, Maine, Mr. E. L. Godkin, and Professor Hyslop,
that democracy is still in the experimental stage. It
seems to me a folly bordering on lunacy that men
should now soberly propose to add the burdens that
have invariably crushed every other republic in the
history of the world that assumed them to those under
which the people of this country are already staggering, doubtful of solving them to the credit and glory
of democratic institutions. Their temerity will be appreciated if we barely enumerate, without pausing to
discuss, some of the chief problems before which the
genius of our Republic has already paused: Questions
of municipal government; of just taxation; of the
equitable distribution of produced wealth; of the administration of natural monopolies, and the control of
artificial combinations of capital in trusts and otherwise, and the organization of labor; racial problems;
and the abuses of our partisan political system with its
evolution of boss tyranny, official irresponsibility, and
public apathy. Until these questions are settled we
have "room and verge enough" at home. Let us not
be deceived by the specious plea of "duty."  Our
greatest, until we shall have made much more progress
in them, practically our only, duty is with these im



"LEST WE FORGET."


323


mediate, immense domestic problems; and not for ourselves alone, but for all mankind.
So far as I have observed, little attempt has been
inade in the way of affirmative argument by the advocates of the imperialistic programme. By so managing as to set the Government drifting inevitably toward their object, so that if nothing at all be done we
shall find ourselves perforce in due time completely 
given over to their policy, they have shrewdly maneuvered the burden of proof upon their antagonists.
When circumstances compel them to utterance, the
results, if I may be permitted in all candor to say so,
are exceedingly disappointing. It would seem as if
so momentous a departure from our ancient and traditional policy ought to be justified by very weighty
considerations. On the contrary, however, they are
for the most part of such a character as to remind one,
when observing the aspect and demonstrations of the
audiences to whom they are addressed, of what Cleon
said of the Athenian democracy under somewhat similar circumstances: "That as they listened to the orators for expansion they resembled men sitting to be
amused by rhetoricians rather than deliberating on
state affairs."
Vague mention is made by them of supposed commercial advantages to accrue to the United States from
the acquisition of the Philippines. When it is renembered that the total foreign trade of the islands is only
about $30,000,000 a year, and that under the so-called
"open door" policy which the great commercial nations have introduced in their colonial management,
and which we have already announced we propose to
pursue, we can increase our share of this precisely as
well without owning the islands as we can by owning
them, and without any of the expense entailed by the




324


"LEST WE FORGET."


latter policy, this contention thins to a vanishing point.
So far as Chinese and oriental trade in general is concerned, the maintenance of a coaling station in Luzon, which could easily be arranged, would afford all
the facilities that full possession of the archipelago
would give. Under modern colonial policies the tendency of trade is not, as it was in the era of navigation
laws and similar monopoly regulations, to "follow the
flag," but to seek the avenues of least resistance and
of greatest profit to those conducting it. The way to
augment our trade is to undersell our competitors, to
increase the desirability of our goods, and to improve
our consular arrangements and foreign business methods. Yankee ingenuity and mechanical skill, which
have already trebled our exports to China during the
last eight years, while England was doubling hers, will
do infinitely more for our commerce than the costly
purchase of a market of which we can possess no more
after paying the price than would be freely ours without it.
It is said that the home market is overstocked; that
there is a glut of all kinds of goods, due to overproduction, and that what the American citizen can not
eat and wear must be worked off on the Malay and
the Chinamen. Nothing better than this claim illustrates the baselessness of the imperialistic argument.
I assert with all confidence that under a proper distribution of the burdens of government and opportunities
of wealth in the United States no more of the comforts
and luxuries of life can be created by American skill
than can be profitably consumed and wisely enjoyed
by American manhood, American womanhood and
childhood. When men freeze at the mouth of the coal
mine and starve in front of the bake shop, when the
per capita consumption of wheat decreases as popu



"LEST WE FORGET."


325


lation multiplies, when millions of our citizens lack
roof and raiment, to say that there is an overproduction of the necessaries of life is both an economic
absurdity and an arraignment of our American civilization at the bar of humanity and justice.
The attempt is made to fire the imagination of the
people with much talk of the opportunity now presented to us of becoming a "world power." Why, my
friends, what is it to be a "world power?" Is it not
to be a power in the world; and if so, where is there
a greater "world power" than the United States, or
than she has been for more than a hundred years?
During all that timle America has carried the torch
that has lighted the pathway of liberty for the nations
of the earth. Our reaction upon Europe has crumbled
dynasties to dust and above the graves of privilege
has reared republics and parliaments. Within that
century nearly 500 constitutions have been born, none
of which would have been possible but for ours. The
South American Republics, not coddled into perpetual
infancy, but defended in natural, self-taught, and therefore sure progress, have risen up and called us blessed.
Wherever representative  government  has  been
planted, wherever new guaranties of personal security
and political rights have been won, wherever religious
liberty has widened and the freedom of the press increased, there has been witnessed the force of American example, which, though gentle as the "sweet influence of the Pleiades," speaks louder than the thunder of our guns and moves with more resistless might
than armies.
And what can empire offer us for this? A rivalship
with swaggering kingdoms seeking loot and license of
their weaker neighbors, snatching our share of plunder
that we do not need, marching back three centuries




326


"LEST WE FORGET."


over the fallen and shattered idols of our storied progress, earning the fear of every victim and the jealous
hatred of every rival, where we might have retained
the love of the one and at least the respect of the
other.
One of the last of the sage observations of the great
Bismarck was elicited by the prospect of the Spanish
war. Said he:
The result of the war can not be wholesome to Europe or America. The United States will be forced to adopt an intermeddling
policy leading to unavoidable friction. * * * The American
change of front means retrogression, in the high sense of civilization.
This is the main regrettable fact about the war.
If, my friends, we do not resist and conquer the
forces that are now setting toward an American empire in the eastern tropics, with its inevitable resultant
imperialistic modification of our domestic institutions,
the prophecy of Bismarck will surely become the judgment of history. It will be ours eternally to bear the
odium of having stopped the car of progress and
turned it backward. From so melancholy a reproach
as that, it is, in my judgment, the duty of every true
American to strive to the uttermost to save his country. To such high resolves, what time could give so
deep and strong a sanction as the birthday of Washington? He was an American in every fiber of his
being, devoted absolutely to his country, hopeful of
her future, and profoundly attached to the Union under the Constitution.   He believed in the legitimate
growth of the United States, gave much time to the
study of routes and waterways to the westward, along
which he knew the tide of civilization was sure to set,
and his prophetic vision foresaw the gradual assimilation of the continent by the spreading settlements
from the earlier centers of population. Has the movement yet reached its limit? Is congested humanity




"LEST WE FORGET."


327


crowding us into the sea? Why, my friends, opportunities greater than all the orient, richer than "barbaric
pearl and gold," await our enterprise, when it shall be
disenthralled, within the present limits of the Republic. And when that shall have been subdued, the rest
of this vast continent is ours by a law         as certain in
its result as it will be peaceable in its accomplishment.
Were Washington alive to-day he would be to that
extent an "expansionist;" but we may be sure that he
who left to posterity the priceless political testament
of the "Farewell Address" would as certainly and
steadily have opposed imperialism in the form of a
distant colonial dependency as he turned his back upon
the offer of kingly power and "put away the crown."
As to    the unavoidable accompaniment of an             imperial policy in the way of alliances with other powers,
his views have been left us in singular completeness
and deliberation. The reasons on which they were
based are as valid now as when he penned them. His
utterance seems strangely prophetic of our present situation, and, though familiar from frequent citation,
can not be recalled too often:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you
to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to
be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. * * *
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. So far as we,have already formed
engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let
us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or
a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or
the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to
pursue a different course.  If we remain one people, under an
efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an
attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve
upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under
the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly




328             "LEST WE FORGET."
hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or
war, as our interests, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit
our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our
destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with
any portion of the foreign world.
Ages and ages ago from the plains of Asia our
Aryan forefathers turned their faces westward and entered upon that world-march whose record is the story
of human progress. Their institutions grew as their
journey lengthened, until at last we, their descendants,
standing by the great sea from beyond whose farther
shore their earth-round course began, are dowered
with priceless constitutional liberties won by the struggles and sacrifices, the strenuous strife of muscle and
brain and spirit, of six thousand years.
My friends, as we cross that ocean returning toward
our ancestral home, what shall be our message to the
peoples that were left behind? Shall it be peace or
war, the cruelty and bondage of the empire or the
friendship and freedom of the republic?
[Extract of address delivered on Washington's Birthday, 1899,
at University of Michigan.]




CHAPTER XX.
AMERICAN IMPERIALISMBY THE HONORABLE CARL SCHURZ.
By inviting me to address its faculty, its students,
and its friends upon so distinguished an occasion, the
University of Chicago has done me an honor for
which I am profoundly grateful. I can prove that
gratitude in no better way than by uttering with entire frankness my honest convictions on the great
subject you have given me to discuss-a subject
fraught with more nmomentous consequence than any
ever submitted to the judgment of the American
people since the foundation of our constitutional government.
It is proposed to embark this republic in a course
of imperialistic policy by permanently annexing to it
certain islands taken, or partly taken, from Spain in
the late war. The matter is near its decision, but not
yet decided. The peace treaty made at Paris is not
yet ratified by the senate; but even if it were, the
question whether those islands, although ceded )y
Spain, shall be permanently incorporated in the territory of the UTnited States would still be open for final
determination by Congress. As an open question
therefore, I shall discuss it.
If ever, it behooves the American people to think
and act with calm deliberation, for the character and
future of the republic and the welfare of its people
now living and yet to be born are in unprecedented
jeopardy. To form a candid judgment of what this
329




330


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


republic has been, wlhat it may becon;c, a;d1 what it
ought to be, let us first recall to our minds its condition before the recent Spanish War.
Our government was, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the greatest American of his time, and the most
genuine type of true Americanism, "the government
of the people, by the people, and for the people." It
was the noblest ambition of all true Americans to
carry this democratic government to the highest degree of perfection and justice, in probity, in assured
peace, in the security of human rights, in progressive
civilization; to solve the problem of popular self-government on the grandest scale, and thus to make this
republic the example and guiding-star of mankind.
We had invited the oppressed of all nations to find
shelter here, and to enjoy with us the blessings of
free institutions. They came by the millions. Some
were not as welcome as others, but, under the assimilating force of American life in our temperate climate, which stimulates the working energies, nurses
the spirit of orderly freedom, and thus favors the
growth of democracies, they became good Americans,
most in the first, all in the following generations.
And so with all the blood-crossings caused by the
motley immigration, we became a substantially homogeneous people, united by common political beliefs
and ideals, by common interests, laws, and aspirations
-in one word, a nation. Indeed, we were not without
our difficulties and embarrassments, but only one of
them, the race antagonism between the negroes and
the whites, especially where the negroes live in mass,
presents a problem which so far has baffled all efforts
at practical solution in harmony with the spirit of our
free institutions, and thus threatens complications of
a grave character.
We gloried in the marvelous growth of our popula



AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


33I


tion, wealth, power, and civilization, and in the incalculable richness of the resources of our country capable of harboring three times our present population,
and of immeasurable further material development.
Our commerce with the world abroad, although we
had no colonies, and but a small navy, spread with
unprecedented rapidity, capturing one foreign market
after another, not only for the products of our farms,
but also for many of those of our manufacturing industries, with prospects of indefinite extension.
Peace reigned within our borders, and there was
not the faintest shadow of a danger of foreign attack.
Our voice, whenever we chose to speak in the councils of nations, was listened to with respect, even the
mightiest sea-power on occasion yielding to us a deference far beyond its habit in its intercourse with
others. We were considered ultimately invincible, if
not invulnerable, in our continental stronghold. It
was our boast, not that we possessed great and costly
armies and navies, but that we did not need any.
This exceptional blessing was our pride, as it was the
envy of the world. We looked down with pitying
sympathy  on  other nations which   submissively
groaned under the burden of constantly increasing
armaments, and we praised our good fortune for having saved us from so wretched a fate.
Such was our condition, such our beliefs and ideals,
such our ambition and our pride, but a short year
ago. Had the famous peace message of the Czar of
Russia, with its protest against growing militarism and
its plea for disarmament, reached us then, it would
have been hailed with enthusiasm by every American
as a triumph of our example. We might have claimed
only that to our republic, and not to the Russian
monarch, belonged the place of leadership in so great
an onward step in the progress of civilization.




332


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


Then came the Spanish War. A few vigorous blows
laid the feeble enemy helpless at our feet. The whole
scene seemed to have suddenly changed. According
to the solemn proclamation of our government, the
war had been undertaken solely for the liberation of
Cuba, as a war of humanity and not of conquest. But
our easy victories had put conquest within our reach,
and when our arms occupied foreign territory, a loud
demand arose that, pledge or no pledge to the contrary, the conquests should be kept, even the Philippines on the other side of the globe, and that as to
Cuba herself, independence would be only a provisional formality. Why not? was the cry. lHas not
the career of the republic almost from its very beginning been one of territorial expansion? Has it not
acquired Louisiana, Florida, Texas, the vast countries
that came to us through the Mexican War, and
Alaska, and has it not digested them well? Were not
those acquisitions much larger than those now in
contemplation? If the republic could digest the old,
'why not the new? What is the difference?
Only look with an unclouded eye, and you will
soon discover differences enough warning you to beware. There are five of decisive importance.
I. All the former acquisitions were on this continent, and, excepting Alaska, contiguous to our borders.
2. They were situated, not in the tropical, but in
the temperate zone, where democratic institutions
thrive, and where our people could migrate in mass.
3. They were but very thinly peopled-in fact,
without any population that would have been in the
way of new settlement.
4. They could be organized as territories in the
usual manner, with the expectation that they would
presently come into the Union as self-governing




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


333


States with populations substantially homogeneous to
our own.
5. They did not require a material increase of our
army and navy, either for their subjection to our rule
or for their defense against any probable foreign attack provoked by their being in our possession.
Acquisitions of that nature we might, since the
slavery trouble has been allayed, make indefinitely
without in any dangerous degree imperiling our great
experiment of democratic institutions on the grandest scale; without putting the peace of the republic
in jeopardy, and without depriving us of the inestimable privilege of comparatively unarmed security on a
compact continent which may, indeed, by an enterprising enemy, be scratched on its edges, but is, with
a people like ours, virtually impregnable. Even of
our far away Alaska it can be said that, although at
present a possession of doubtful value, it is at least
mainly on this continent, and may at some future time,
when the inhabitants of the British possessions happily wish to unite with us, be within our uninterrupted boundaries.
Compare now with our old acquisitions as to all
these important points those at present in view.
They are not continental, not contiguous to our
present domain, but beyond seas, the Philippines
many thousand miles distant from our coast. They
are all situated in the tropics where people of the
northern races, such as Anglo-Saxons, or, generally
speaking, people of Germanic blood, have never migrated in mass to stay; and they are more or less
densely populated, parts of them as densely as Massachusetts-their populations consisting almost exclusively of races to whom the tropical climate is congenial-Spanish creoles mixed with negroes in the
West Indies, and Malays, Tagals, Filipinos, Chinese,




334


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


Japanese, Negritos, and various more or less barbarous tribes in the Philippines.
When the question is asked whether we may hope
to adapt those countries and populations to our system
of government, the advocates of annexation answer
cheerily, that when they belong to us, we shall soon
"Americanize" them. This may mean that Americans
in sufficiently large numbers will migrate there to determine the character of those populations so as to
assimilate them to our own.
This is a delusion of the first magnitude. We shall,
indeed, be able, if we go honestly about it, to accomplish several salutary things in those countries. But
one thing we cannot do. We cannot strip the tropical
climate of those qualities which have at all times deterred men of the northern races to which we belong,
from migrating to such countries in mass, and to make
their homes there, as they have migrated and are still
migrating to countries in the temperate zone. This is
not a mere theory, but a fact of universal experience.
It is true, you will find in tropical regions a sprinkling of persons of Anglo-Saxon or of other northern
origin-merchants, railroad builders, speculators, professional men, miners, and mechanics; also here and
there an agriculturist. But their number is small,
and most of them expect to go home again as soon as
their money-making purpose is more or less accomplished.
Thus we observe now that business men with plenty
of means are casting their eyes upon our "new possessions" to establish mercantile houses there, or
manufactories to be worked with native labor; and
moneyed syndicates and "improvement companies"
to exploit the resources of those countries, and speculators and promoters to take advantage of what may
turn up-the franchise grabber, as reported, is al



(,l   C..I I








AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


335


ready there-many having perfectly legitimate ends in
view, others ends not so legitimate, and all expecting
to be more or less favored by the power of our government; in short, the capitalist is thinking of going
there, or to send his agents, his enterprises in most
cases to be directed from these more congenial shores.
But you will find that laboring men of the northern
races, as they have never done so before, will not now
go there in mass to do the work of the country, agricultural or industrial, and to found there permanent
homes; and this not merely because the rate of wages
in such countries is, owing to native competition, usually low, but because they cannot thrive there under
the climatic conditions.
But it is the working-masses, those laboring in agriculture and the industries, that everywhere form the
bulk of the population; and they are the true constituency of democratic government. And as the
northern races cannot do the work of the tropical
zone, they cannot furnish such constituencies. It is
an incontestable and very significant fact that the
British, the best colonizers in history, have, indeed
established in tropical regions governments and
rather absolute ones, but they have never succeeded
in establishing there democratic commonwealths of the
Anglo-Saxon type, like those in America or Australia.
The scheme of Americanising our "new possessions" in that sense is therefore absolutely hopeless.
The immutable forces of nature are against it. Whatever we may do for their improvement, the people of
the Spanish Antilles will remain in overwhelming
numerical predominance, Spanish creoles and negroes,
and the people of the Philippines, Filipinos, Malays,
Tagals, and so on-some of them quite clever in their
way, but the vast majority utterly alien to us, not only




336


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


in origin and language, but in habits, traditions, ways
of thinking, principles, ambitions-in short, in most
things that are of the greatest importance in human
intercourse and especially in political co-operation.
And under the influences of their tropical climate they
will prove incapable of becoming assimilated to the
Anglo-Saxon. They would, therefore, remain in the
population of this republic a hopelessly heterogeneous
element-in some respects more hopeless even than
the colored people now living among us.
What, then, shall we do with such populations?
Shall we, according, not indeed to the letter, but to
the evident spirit of our Constitution, organize those
countries as territories with a view to their eventual
admission as States? If they become States on an
equal footing with the other States they will not only
be permitted to govern themselves as to their home
concerns, but they will take part in governing the
whole republic, in governing us, by sending senators
and representatives into our Congress to help make
our laws and by voting for President and Vice-President to give our national government its executive.
The prospect of the consequences which would follow
the admission of the Spanish creoles and the negroes
of West India Islands and of the Malays and Tagals
of the Philippines to participation in the conduct of our
government is so alarming that you instinctively
pause before taking the step.
But this may be avoided, it is said, by governing the
new possessions as mere dependencies, or subject
provinces. I will waive the constitutional question
and merely point out that this would be a most serious departure from the rule that governed our former
acquisitions, which are so frequently quoted as precedents. It is useless to speak of the District of Columbia and Alaska as proof that we have done such things




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


337


before and can do them again. Every candid mind
will at once admit the vast difference between those
cases and the permanent establishment of substantially arbitrary government over large territories with
many millions of inhabitants, and with a prospect of
there being many more of the same kind, if we once
launch out on a career of conquest. The question is
not merely whether we can do such things, but
whether, having the public good at heart, we should
do them.
If we do adopt such a system, then we shall, for the
first time since the abolition of slavery, again have
two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class,
who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the government in accordance with our old constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to
be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by the
Americans of the first class, through congressional
legislation and the action of the national executivenot to speak of individual "masters" arrogating to
themselves powers beyond the law.
This will be a difference no better-nay, rather
somewhat worse-than that which a century and a
quarter ago still existed between Englishmen of the
first and Englishmen of the second class, the first
represented by King George and the British Parliament, and the second by the American colonists. This
difference called forth that great paean of human liberty, the American Declaration of Independence-a
document which, I regret to say, seems, owing to the
intoxication of conquest, to have lost much of its
charm among some of our fellow-citizens. Its fundamental principle was the "governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed." We
are now told that we have never fully lived up to that
principle, and that, therefore, in our new policy we




338


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


may cast it aside altogether. But I say to you that, if
we are true believers in democratic government, it
is our duty to move in the direction toward the full
realization of that principle and not in the direction
away from it. If you tell me that we cannot govern
the people of those new possessions'in accordance with
that principle, then I answer that this is a good reason why this democracy should not attempt to govern
them at all.
If we do, we shall transform the government of the
people, for the people, and by the people, for which
Abraham Lincoln lived, into a government of one part
of the people, the strong, over another part, the weak.
Such an abandonment of a fundamental principle as
a permanent policy may at first seem to bear only
upon more or less distant dependencies, but it can
hardly fail in its ultimate effects to disturb the rule
of the same principle in the conduct of democratic
government at home. And I warn the American people that a Democracy cannot so deny its faith as to the
vital conditions of its being-it cannot long play the
king over subject populations without creating within
itself ways of thinking and habits of action most dangerous to its own vitality-most dangerous especially
to those classes of society which are the least powerful in the assertion, and the most helpless in the defense of their rights. Let the poor and the men who
earn their bread by the labor of their hands pause
and consider well before they give their assent to a
policy so deliberately forgetful of the equality of rights.
I do not mean to say, however, that all of our new
acquisitions would be ruled as subject provinces.
Some of them, the Philippines, would probably remain such, but some others would doubtless become
States. In Porto Rico, for instance, politicians of
lively ambition are already clamoring for the speedy




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


339


organization of that island as a regular territory, soon
to be admitted as a State of the Union. You may say
that they will have long to wait. Be not so sure of
that. Consult your own experience. Has not more
than one territory, hIardly fitted for statehood, been
precipitated into the Union as a State when the majority party in Congress thought that, by doing so,
its party strength could be augmented in the Senate
and in the House and in the electoral college? Have
our parties become so unselfishly virtuous that this
may not happen again? So we may see Porto Rico admitted before we have had time to rub our eyes.
You may say that little Porto Rico would not matter much. But can any clear-thinking man believe
that, when we are once fairly started in the course of
indiscriminate expansion, we shall stop there? Will
not the same reasons which induced us to take Porto
Rico also be used to show that the two islands of San
Domingo with Hayti, and of Cuba, which separate
Porto Rico from our coast, would, if they were in
foreign hands, be a danger to us, and that we must
take them? Nothing could be more plausible. Why,
the necessity of annexing San Domingo is already
freely discussed, and agencies to bring this about are
actually at work. And as to Cuba, every expansionist
will tell you that it is only a matter of time. And
does any one believe that those islands, if annexed,
will not become States of this Union? That would
give us at least three, perhaps four, new States, with
about 3,500,000 inhabitants, Spanish and French
Creoles and negroes, with six or eight senators, and
from fifteen to twenty representatives in Congress
and a corresponding number of votes in the electoral
college.
Nor are we likely to stop there. If we build and
own the Nicaragua Canal, instead of neutralizing it,




340


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


we shall easily persuade ourselves that our control of
that canal will not be safe unless we own all the country down to it, so that it be not separated from our
borders by any foreign, and possibly hostile power.
Is this too adventurous an idea to become true? Why,
it is not half as adventurous and extravagant as the
idea of uniting to this republic the Philippines 9,000
miles away. It is already proposed to acquire in some
way strips of territory several miles wide on each
side of that canal for its military protection. But that
will certainly be found insufficient if foreign countries
lie between. We must, therefore, have those countries. That means Mexico and various small Central
American republics, with a population in all of about
I4,000,000, mostly Spanish-Indian mixture-making
at least fifteen States, entitled to thirty senators and
scores of representatives and presidential electors.
As to the character of the people whom those senators, members, and presidential electors are to represent, I will let an authority speak that may astonish
you, considering his present position-the Hon.
Whitelaw Reid, who said in a public address at the
time when the annexation of San Domingo was under
discussion:
"The land greed of the Anglo-Saxon race is still at
work. We have absorbed the best part of Mexico, but
we have plenty of propagandists, mainly in the army,
and with influential voice near the head of the government, clamorous for the rest. We have taken a
foothold in the West Indies; it will be of God's mercy
if we do not find the whole West Indian archipelago
crowded upon us to tax an already overloaded digestion. What are we to do with the turbulent, treacherous, ill-conditioned population? They have shown
no faculty for self-government hitherto; and are we
to precipitate them in a mass into the already suffi



AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


341


ciently-degraded elements of our national suffrage?
We are trying the powers of Anglo-Saxon self-governing digestion upon three millions of slaves; are the
gastric juices of the body politic equal to the addition
of the Mexicans, the Santo Domingans, the Cubans,
the 'Conks' of the Bahamas, the Kanakas, and the rest
of the inferior mixed races of our outlying tropical
and semi-tropical dependencies?"
As Mr. Reid now advocates the annexation of Porto
Rico and the Philippines, he must have changed his
opinion, which he had a right to do. But I think he
substantially spoke the truth then, and if he now
wants the Philippines, his case clearly illustrates how
far people will be carried by the expansion fever when
it once fairly takes hold of them.
You may think that the introduction of more than
thirty men in our senate, over eighty in the lower
house of our Congress, and much over one hundred
votes in our electoral college, to speak and act for the
mixture of Spanish, French, and negro blood on the
West India Islands, and for the Spanish and Indian
mixture on the continent south of us-for people
utterly alien and mostly incapable of assimilation to
us in their tropical habitation-to make our laws and
elect our Presidents, and incidentally to help us lift
up the Philippines to a higher plane of civilizationis too shocking a proposition to be entertained for a
moment and that our people will resist it to the bitter
end. No they will not resist it, if indiscriminate expansion has once become the settled policy of the republic. They will be told, as they are told now, that
we are in it and cannot get honorably out of it; that
destiny, and Providence, and duty demand it; that it
would be cowardly to shrink from our new responsibilities; that those populations cannot take care of
themselves, and that it is our mission to let them have




342


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


the blessing of our free institutions; that we must
have new markets for our products; that those countries are rich in resources, and that there is plenty of
money to be made by taking them; that the American people can whip anybody and do anything they
set out to do; and that "Old Glory" should float over
every land on which we can lay our hands.
Those who have yielded to such cries once, will
yield to them again. Conservative citizens will tell
them that thus the homogeneousness of the people of
the republic, so essential to the working of our democratic institutions, will be irretrievably lost; that our
race troubles, already dangerous, will be infinitely aggravated and that the government of, by, and for the
people will be in imminent danger of fatal demoralization. They will be cried down as pusillanimous pessimists, who are no longer American patriots. The
American people will be driven on and on by the force
of events as Napoleon was when started on his career
of limitless conquest. This is imperialism as now advocated.
7 Our old acquisitions did not require a material increase of our army and navy. What of the new? It
is generally admitted that we need very considerable
additions to our armaments on land and sea to restore
and keep order on the islands taken from Spain, and
then to establish our sovereignty there. This is a
ticklish business. In the first place, Spain has never
been in actual control and possession of a good many
of the Philippine Islands, while on others the insurgent Filipinos had well-nigh destroyed the Spanish
power when the treaty of Paris was made.
The Hon. Cyrus A. Sulloway, a member of Congress from New Hampshire, is reported to have said
in a recent interview: "The Anglo-Saxon advances into the new regions with a Bible in one hand




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


343


and a shotgun in the other. The inhabitants of those
regions that he cannot convert with the aid of the
Bible and bring into his markets he gets rid of with the
shotgun. It is but another demonstration of the survival of the fittest." In other words, unless you worship as we command you, and give us a profitable
trade, we shall have to shoot you down. The bloodiest of the old Spanish conquerors, four centuries ago,
could not have spoken better. It has a strange sound
in free America. Let us hope that the spread of this
hideous brutality of sentiment will prove only a temporary epidemic, like the influenza, and will yield again
when the intoxication of victory subsides and our
heads become cool once more. If it does not, more
shotguns will be needed than Mr. Sulloway may now
anticipate.
If we take those new regions, we shall be well entangled in that contest for territorial aggrandizement,
which distracts other nations and drives them far beyond their original design. So it will be inevitably
with us. We shall want new countries to protect that
which we already possess. The greed of speculators,
working upon our government, will push us from one
point to another, and we shall have new conflicts on
our hands, almost without knowing how we got into
them. It has always been so under such circumstances, and always will be. This means more and
more soldiers, ships, and guns.
A singular delusion has taken hold of the minds of
otherwise clear-headed men. It is that our new friendship with England will serve firmly to secure the
world's peace. Nobody can hail that friendly feeling
between the two nations more warmly than I do, and
I fervidly hope it will last. But I am profoundly convinced that if this friendship results in the two countries setting out to grasp "for the Anglo-Saxon," as the




344


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


phrase is, whatever of the earth may be attainable-if
they hunt in couple-they will surely soon fall out
about the game, and the first serious quarrel, or at
least one of the first, we shall have, will be Yvith Great
Britain. And as family feuds are the bitterest, that
feud will be apt to become one of the most deplorable
in its consequences.
No nation is, or ought to be, unselfish. England, in
her friendly feeling toward us is not inspired by mere
sentimental benevolence. The anxious wish of many
Englishmen that we should take the Philippines is
not free from the consideration that, if we do so, we
shall for a long time depend on British friendship to
maintain our position on that field of rivalry, and that
Britain will derive ample profit from our dependence
on her. This was recently set forth with startling
candor by the London Saturday Review, thus:
"Let us be frank and say outright that we expect
mutual gain in material interests from this rapprochement. The American Commissioners at Paris are
making this bargain, whether they realize it or not,
under the protecting naval strength of England, and
we shall expect a material quid pro quo for this assistance. We expect the United States to deal generously with Canada in the matter of tariffs, and we expect to be remembered when the United States comes
into possession of the Philippine Islands, and, above
all, we expect her assistance on the day, which is
quickly approaching, when the future of China comes
up for settlement, for the young imperialist has entered
upon a path where it will require a strong friend, and a
lasting friendship between the two nations can be
secured, not by frothy sentimentality on public platforms, but by reciprocal advantages in solid, material
interests.




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


345


And the cable dispatch from London bringing this
utterance added:
"The foregoing opinion is certainly outspoken
enough, but every American moving in business circles here knows this voices the expectations of the
average Englishman."
This is plain. If Englishmen think so we have no
fault to find with them. But it would be extremely
foolish on our part to close our eyes to the fact. British friendship is a good thing to have, but, perhaps,
not so good thing to need. If we are wise we shall
not put ourselves in a situation in which we shall
need it. British statesmanship has sometimes shown
great skill in making other nations fight its battles.
This is very admirable from its point of view, but it
is not so pleasant for the nations so used. I should
be loath to see this Republic associated with Great
Britain in apparently joint concerns as a junior partner with a minority interest, or the American Navy in
the situation of a mere squadron of the British fleet.
This would surely lead to trouble in the settling of
accounts. Lord Salisbury was decidedly right when,
at the last lord mayor's banquet, he said that the appearance of the United States as a factor in Asiatic
affairs was likely to conduce to the interests of Great
Britain, but might "not conduce to the interest of
peace." Whether he had eventual quarrels with this
Republic in mind, I do not know. But it is certain
that the expression of British sentiment I have just
quoted shows us a Pandora box of such quarrels.
Ardently desiring the maintenance of the friendship
between England and this Republic, I cannot but express the profound belief that this friendship will remain most secure if the two nations do not attempt
to accomplish the same ends in the same way and on
the same field, but continue to follow the separate




346


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


courses prescribed by their peculiar conditions and
their history.
The history of England is that of a small island,
inhabited by a vigorous, energetic and rapidly multiplying race, with the sea for its given field of action.
Nothing could be more natural than that, as the population pressed against its narrow boundaries, Englishmen should have swarmed out, founding colonies and
gradually building up an empire of possessions scattered all over the globe. England now must have
the most powerful fleet in the world, not only for the
protection of her distant possessions, but because if
any other sea power, or combination of sea powers,
could effectually blockade her coasts, her people as
they now are, might be starved in a few months.
England must be the greatest sea power in order to
be a great power at all.
The American people began their career as one of
the colonial offshoots of the English stock.  They
found a great continent to occupy and to fill with
democratic commonwealths.  Our country is large
enough for several times our present population. Our
home resources are enormous, in 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 rather result in starving others that
need our products. We are to-day one of the greatest
powers on earth, without having the most powerful
fleet, and without stepping beyond our continent.
We are sure to be by far the greatest power of all, as
our homogeneous, intelligent, and patriotic population
multiplies, and our resources are developed, without
firing a gun or sacrificing a life for the sake of conquest-far more powerful than the British Empire
with all its Hindoos, and than the Russian Empire




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


347


with all its Mongols. We can exercise the most beneficent influences upon mankind, not by forcing our
rule or our goods upon others that are weak at the
point of the bayonet, but through the moral power
of our example, in proving how the greatest as well as
the smallest nation can carry on the government of
the people, by the people, and for the people in justice,
liberty, order, and peace without large armies and
navies.
Let this Republic and Great Britain each follow the
course which its conditions and its history have assigned to it, and their ambitions will not clash, and
their friendship can be maintained for the good of all.
And if our British cousins should ever get into very
serious stress, American friendship may stand behind
them; but then Britain would depend upon our friendship, which, as an American, I should prefer, and not
America on British friendship, as our British friends,
who so impatiently urge us to take the Philippines,
would have it. But if we do take the Philippines, and
thus entangle ourselves in the rivalries of Asiatic
affairs, the future will be, as Lord Salisbury predicted, one of wars and rumors of wars, and the time
will be forever past when we could look down with
condescending pity on the nations of the Old World
groaning under militarism with all its burdens.
We are already told that we shall need a regular
army of at least oo00,000 men, three-fourths of whom
are to serve in our "new possessions." The question
is whether this necessity is to be only temporary or
permanent. Look at the cost. Last year the support
of the army proper required about $23,000,000. It is
computed that taking the increased costliness of the
service in the tropics into account, the army under
the new dispensation will require about $I50,0oo,ooo;
that is, $127,o00,ooo a year more. It is also officially




348


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


admitted that the possession of the Philippines would
render indispensable a much larger increase of the
navy than would otherwise be necessary, costing untold millions for the building and equipment of ships,
and untold millions every year for their maintenance
and for the increased number of officers and men.
What we shall have to spend for fortifications and the
like cannot now be computed. But there is a burden
upon us which in like weight no other nation has to
bear. To-day, thirty-three years after the Civil War,
we have a pension roll of very nearly one million
names. And still they come. We paid to pensioners
over $145,000,000 last year, a sum larger than the
annual cost of the whole military peace establishment
of the German Empire, including its pension roll. Our
recent Spanish war will, according to a moderate estimate, add at least $20,000,000 to our annual pension
payments. But if we send troops to the tropics and
keep them there, we must look for a steady stream
of pensioners from that quarter, for in the tropics soldiers are "used up" very fast, even if they have no
campaigning to do.
But all such estimates are futile. There may, and
probably will be, much campaigning to do to keep our
new subjects in obedience, or even in conflicts with
other powers. And what military and naval expeditions will then cost, with our extravagant habits, and
how the pension roll then will grow, we know to be
incalculable. Moreover, we shall then be in the situation of those European powers, the extent of whose
armaments are determined, not by their own wishes,
but by the armaments of their rivals. We, too, shall
nervously watch reports from abroad telling us that
this power is augmenting the number of its warships,
or that another is increasing its battalions, or strengthening its colonial garrisons in the neighborhood of our




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


349


far-away possessions; and we shall have to follow suit.
Not we ourselves, but our rivals and possible enemies
will decide how large our armies and navies must be,
and how much money we must spend for them. And
all that money will have to come out of the pockets of
our people, the poor as well as the rich. Our taxpaying capacity and willingness are indeed very great.
But set your policy of imperialism in full swing, as the
acquisition of the Philippines will do, and the time
will come, and come quickly, when every American
farmer and workingman, when going to his toil, will,
like his European brother, have "to carry a fully
armed soldier on his back."
Our government has agreed to appear in the "Peaceand-Disarnlament Conference" called by the Russian
Czar. What will our representative have to say when
the Russian spokesman, as the Czar has done, truthfully describes the ever-growing evils of militarism,
and the necessity of putting a stop to them in the interest of civilization and of the popular welfare? The
American imperialist, whatever fine phrases he may
employ, will have to say substantially this: "All you
tell us about the ruinous effects of increasing armaments and the necessity of stopping them in the interest of civilization and the popular welfare, was
our own belief some time ago. But we Americans
have recently changed our minds. You, gentlemen,
say that the powers you represent would disarm if they
could, and that general disarmament might be possible if one power would resolutely begin to disarm.
But we Americans are just beginning to arm. You
say that this will put another difficulty in the way of
general disarmament. But we Americans have, by
way of liberating Cuba, won by conquest some islands
in both hemispheres, to which we may wish to add,




350


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


and this business will require larger armies and navies
than we now have."
This is the voice of American imperialism. And
thus our great and glorious Republic, which once
boasted of marching in the vanguard of progressive
civilization, will deliberately go to the rear, and make
of itself a new obstacle to a reform, the success of
which would do infinitely more for the general good
of mankind than we could accomplish by a hundred
victories of our arms on land or sea.
It would seem, therefore, that the new territorial
acquisitions in view are after all very different from
those we have made before. But something more is
to be said. When the Cuban affair approached a
crisis, President McKinley declared in his message
that "forcible annexation cannot be thought of" for
"it would by our code of morals, be criminal aggression." And in resolving upon the war against Spain,
Congress, to commend that war to the public opinion
of mankind, declared with equal emphasis and solemnity that the war was, from a sense of duty and
humanity, made specifically for the liberation of
Cuba, and that Cuba "is, and of right ought to be,
free and independent." If these declarations were
not sincere, they were base and disgraceful acts of
hypocrisy. If they were sincere at the time, would
they not be turned into such disgraceful acts of
hypocrisy by subsequently changing the war, professedly made from motives of duty and humanity, into
a war of conquest and self-aggrandizement?  It is
pretended that those virtuous promises referred to
Cuba only. But if President McKinley had said that,
while the forcible annexation of Cuba would be
criminal aggression, the forcible annexation of anything else would be perfectly right, and if Congress
had declared that as to Cuba the war would be one of




II
I
i:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i
I   _              l _, _ _                      I
II3 l_.k 
3 
Z 
2 -I- 
I _ _:,|.|| 
i _  Y X/ 








AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


35I


mere duty, humanity, and liberation, but that we
would take by conquest whatever else we could lay
our hands on, would not all mankind have broken out
in a shout of scornful derision?
I ask in all candor, taking President McKinley at
his word: Will the forcible annexation of the Philippines by our code of morals not be criminal aggression
-a self-confessed crime? I ask further, if the Cubans, as Congress declared, are and of right ought to
be free and independent, can anybody tell me why the
Porto Ricans and the Filipinos ought not of right to
be free and independent? Can you sincerely recognize the right to freedom and independence of one and
refuse the same right to another in the same situation,
and then take his land? Would hot that be doubledealing of the most shameless sort?
We hear much of the respect of mankind for us
having been greatly raised by our victories. Indeed,
the valor of our soldiers and the brilliant achievements of our navy have won deserved admiration.
But do not deceive yourselves about the respect of
mankind. Recently I found in the papers an account
of the public opinion of Europe, written by a prominent English journalist. This is what he says: "The
friends of America wring their hands in unaffected
grief over the fall of the United States under the temptation of the lust of territorial expansion. Her enemies shoot out the lip and shriek in derision over
what they regard as the unmistakable demonstration
which the demand for the Philippines affords of
American cupidity, American bad faith and American
ambition. 'We told you so!' they exclaim. That is
what the unctuous rectitude of the Anglo-Saxon
always ends in. He always begins by calling heaven
to witness his unselfish desire to help his neighbor,
but he always ends by stealing his spoons!"




352


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


Atrocious, is it not? And yet this is substantially
what the true friends of America, and what her enemies in Europe, think-I mean those friends who
had faith in the nobility of the American people, who
loved our republican government, and who hoped that
the example set by our great democracy would be an
inspiration to those struggling for liberty the world
over; and I mean those enemies who hate republican
government and who long to see the American people
disgraced and humiliated. So they think; I know it
from my own correspondence. Nothing has in our
times discredited the name of republic in the civilized
world as much as the Dreyfus outrage in France and
our conquest furor in America; and our conquest
furor more, because from us the world hoped more.
No, do not deceive yourselves. If we turn that war
which was so solemnly commended to the favor of
mankind as a generous war of liberation and humanity
into a victory for'conquest and self-aggrandizement,
we shall have thoroughly forfeited our moral credit
with the world. Professions of unselfish virtue and
benevolence, proclamations of noble humanitarian
purposes coming fron us will never, never be trusted
again. Is this the position in which this great Republic of ours should stand among the family of nations?
Our American self-respect should rise in indignant
protest against it.
And now compare this picture of the state of things
which threatens us with the picture I drew of our
condition existing before the expansion fever seized
us. Which will you choose?
What can there be to justify a policy fraught with
such direful consequences?  Let us pass the arguments of the advocates of such imperialism candidly
in review.
The cry suddenly raised that this great country has




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


353


become too small for us is too ridiculous to demand an
answer, in view of the fact that our present population
may be tripled and still have ample elbow-room, with
resources to support many more. But we are told
that our industries are gasping for breath; that we are
suffering from over-production; that our products
must have new outlets, and that we need colonies and
dependencies the world over to give us more markets.
More markets? Certainly. But do we, civilized beings, indulge in the absurd and barbarous notion that
we must own the countries with which we wish to
trade? Here are our official reports before us, telling
us that of late years our export trade has grown enormously, not only of farm products but of the products
of our manufacturing industries; in fact, that "our
sales of manufactured goods have continued to extend
with a facility and promptitude of results which have
excited the serious concern of countries that, for generations, have not only controlled their home markets,
but had practically monopolized certain lines of trade
in other lands."
There is a distinguished Englishman, the Right
I-on. Charles T. Ritchie, President of the Board oi
Trade, telling a British Chamber of Commerce that
"we (Great Britain) are being rapidly overhauled in
exports by other nations, especially the United States
and Germany," their exports fast advancing, while
British exports are declining. What? Great Britain,
the greatest colonial power in the world, losing in
competition with two nations, one of which had, so
far, no colonies or dependencies at all, and the other
none of any commercial importance?   What does
this mean? It means that, as proved by the United
States and Germany, colonies are not necessary forthe expansion of trade, and that, as proved by Great
Britain, colonies do not protect a nation against a




354


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


loss of trade. Our trade expands, without colonies
or big navies, because we produce certain goods better and in proportion cheaper than other people do.
British trade declines, in spite of immense dependencies and the strongest navy, because it does not
successfully compete with us in that respect. Trade
follows, not the flag, but the best goods -for the price.
Expansion of export trade and new markets! We do
not need foreign conquests to get them, for we have
them, and are getting them more and more in rapidly
increasing growth.
"But the Pacific Ocean," we are mysteriously told,
"will be the great commercial battlefield of the future, and we must quickly use the present opportunity to secure our position on it. The visible presence
of great power is necessary for us to get our share of
the trade of China. Therefore we must have the Philippines." Well, the China trade is worth having, although for a time out of sight the Atlantic Ocean will
be an infinitely more important battlefield of commerce than the Pacific, and one European customer
is worth more than twenty or thirty Asiatics.  But
does the trade of China really require that we should
have the Philippines and make a great display of power
to get our share? Read the consular reports, and you
will find that in many places in China our trade is
rapidly gaining, while in some British trade is declining, and this while Great Britain had on hand the
greatest display of power imaginable and we had
none. And in order to increase our trade there, our
consuls advise us to improve our commercial methods,
saying nothing of the necessity of establishing a base
of naval operations, and of our appearing there with
war ships and heavy guns. Trade is developed, not by
the best guns, but by the best merchants. But why do
other nations prepare to fight for the Chinese trade?




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


355


Other nations have done many foolish things which
we have been, and I hope will remain, wise enough
not to imitate. If it should come to fighting for Chinese customers, the powers engaged in that fight are
not unlikely to find out that they pay too high a price
for what can be gained, and that at last the peaceful
and active neutral will have the best bargain. At any
rate, to launch into all the embroilments of an imperialistic policy by annexing the Philippines in order
to snatch something more of the Chinese trade would
be for us the foolishest game of all.
Generally speaking, nothing could be more irrational than all the talk about our losing commercial or
other opportunities which "will never come back if
we fail to grasp them now." Why, we are so rapidly
growing in all the elements of power ahead of all
other nations that, not many decades hence, unless we
demoralize ourselves by a reckless policy of adventure, not one of them will be able to resist our will if
we choose to enforce it. This the world knows, and
is alarmed at the prospect.  Those who are most
alarmed may wish that we should give them now, by
some rash enterprise, an occasion for dealing us a
damaging blow while we are less irresistible.
"But we must have coaling stations for our navy!"
Well, can we not get as many coaling stations as we
need without owning populous countries behind them
that would entangle us in dangerous political responsibilities and complications?
"But we must civilize those poor people!" Are
we not ingenious and charitable enough to (lo much
for their civilization without subjugating and ruling
them by criminal aggression?
The rest of the pleas for imperialism consist mostly
of those high-sounding catch-words of which a free
people when about to ~ecide a great question should




356


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


be especially suspicious. We are admonished that
it is time for us to become a "world power." Well,
we are a world power now, and have been one for
many years. What is a world power? A power
strong enough to make its voice listened to with deference by the world whenever it chooses to speak. Is
it necessary for a world power, in order to be such, to
have its finger in every pie? Must we have the Philippines in order to become a world power? To ask the
question is to answer it.
The American flag, we are told, whenever once
raised, must never be hauled down. Certainly, every
patriotic citizen will always be ready, if need be, to
fight and to die under his flag wherever it may wave
in justice and for the best interests of the country. But
I say to you, woe to the Republic if it should ever
be without citizens patriotic and brave enough to defy
the demagogues' cry and to haul down the flag wherever it may be raised not in justice and not for the
best interests of the country. Such a republic would
not last long.
But, they tell us, we have been living in a state of
contemptible isolation which must be broken so that
we may feel and conduct ourselves "as a full-grown
member of the family of nations." What is that socalled isolation? Is it commercial? Last year our
foreign trade amounted to nearly 2,000 million dollars, and is rapidly growing. Is that commercial isolation? Or are we politically isolated? Remember
our history. Who was it that early in this century
broke up the piracy of the Barbary States? Who was
it that took a leading part in delivering the world's
commerce of the Danish Sound dues? Who was it
that first opened Japan to communication with the
western world? And what power has in this century
made more valuable contributions to international




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


357


law than the United States? Do you call that contemptible isolation? It is true, we did not meddle
much with foreign affairs that did not concern us.
But if the circle of our interests widens and we wish
to meddle more, must we needs have the Philippines
in order to feel and conduct ourselves as a member of
the family of nations?
We are told that, having grown so great and strong,
we must at last cast off our childish reverence for the
teachings of Washington's farewell address-those
"nursery rhymes that were sung around the cradle of
the Republic." I apprehend that many of those who
now so flippantly scoff at the heritage the Fattler of
his Country left us in his last words of admonition,
have never read that venerable document. I clhallenge those who have to show me a single sentence of
general import in it that would not as a wise rule of
national conduct apply to the circumstances of to-day!
What is it that has given to Washington's farewell address an authority that was revered by all until our recent victories made so many of us drunk with wild
ambitions? Not only the prestige of Washington's
name, great as that was and should ever remain. No,
it was the fact that under a respectful observance of
those teachings this Republic has grown from the most
modest beginnings into a Union spanning this vast
continent; our people have multiplied from a handful
to seventy-five millions; we have risen from poverty
to a wealth the sum of which the imagination can
hardly grasp; this American nation has become one of
the greatest and most powerful on earth, and, continuing in the same course, will surely become the g-reatest and most powerful of all. Not Washington's name
alone gave his teachings their dignity and weight. It
was the practical results of his policy that secured to it,
until now, the intelligent approbation of the American




358


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


people. And unless we have completely lost our senses,
we shall never despise and reject as mere "nursery
rhymes" the words of wisdom left us by the greatest
of Americans, following which the American people
have achieved a splendor of development without parallel in the history of mankind.
You may tell me that this is all very well, but that
by the acts of our own government we are now in this
annexation business, and how can we get decently out
of it? I answer that the difficulties of getting out of it
may be great; but that they are infinitely less great
than the difficulties we shall have to contend with if
we stay in it.
Looking them in the face, let us first clear our minds
of confused notions about our duties and responsibilities in the premises. That our victories have devolved
upon us certain duties as to the people of the conquered islands, I readily admit. But are they the only
duties we have to perform, or have they suddenly become paramount to all other duties?  I deny it.  I
deny that the duties we owe to the Cubans and the
Porto Ricans and the Filipinos and the Tagals of the
Asiatic islands absolve us from our duties to the seventy-five millions of our own people and to their posterity. I deny that they oblige us to destroy the moral
credit of our own Republic by turning this loudly
heralded war of liberation and humanity into a landgrabbing game and an act of criminal aggression. I
deny that they compel us to aggravate our race troubles, to bring upon us the constant danger of war, and
to subject our people to the galling burden of increasing armaments. If we have rescued those unfortunate
daughters of Spain, the colonies, from the tyranny of
their cruel father, I deny that we are therefore in honor
bound to marry any of the girls, or to take them all
into our household, where they may disturb and de



AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


359


moralize our whole family. I deny that the liberation
of those Spanish dependencies morally constrains us
to do anything that would put our highest mission to
solve the great problem of democratic government in
jeopardy, or that would otherwise endanger the vital
interests of the Republic. Whatever our duties to
them may be, our duties to our own country and
people stand first; and from this standpoint we have,
as sane men and patriotic citizens, to regard our obligation to take care of the future of those islands and
their people.
They fought for deliverance from Spanish oppression, and we helped them to obtain that deliverance.
That deliverance they understood to mean independence. I repeat the question whether anybody can
tell me why the declaration of Congress that the
Cubans of right ought to be free and independent
should not apply to all of them? Their independence,
therefore, would be the natural and rightful outcome.
This is the solution of the problem first to be taken
in view.
It is objected that they are not capable of independent government. They may answer that this is
their affair and that they are at least entitled to a trial.
I frankly admit that if they are given that trial, their
conduct in governing themselves will be far from perfect. Well, the conduct of no people is perfect, not
even our own. They may try to revenge themselves
upon their tories in their Revolutionary War. But
we, too, threw our tories into hideous dungeons during
our Revolutionary War and persecuted and drove
them away after its close. They may have bloody civil
broils. But we, too, have had our Civil War, which
cost hundreds and thousands of lives and devastated
one-half of our land; and now we have in horrible
abundance the killings by lynch law, and our battles




36o


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


of Virden. They may have trouble with their wild
tribes. So had we, and we treated our wild tribes
in a manner not to be proud of. They may have corruption and rapacity in their government, but Havana
and Ponce may get municipal administration almost
as good as New York has under Tammany rule; and
Manila may secure a city council not much less virtuous than that of Chicago.
I say these things not in a spirit of levity, well understanding the difference; but I say them seriously
to remind you that, when we speak of the government
those islands should have, we cannot reasonably set
up standards which are not reached even by the most
civilized people, and which in those regions could not
be reached, even if we ourselves conducted their government with our best available statesmanship. Our
attention is in these days frequently called to the admirable and in many respects successful administrative
machinery introduced by Great Britain in India. But
it must not be forgotten that this machinery was
evolved from a century of rapine, corruption, disastrous blunders, savage struggles and murderous revolts, and that even now many wise men in England
gravely doubt in their hearts whether it was best for
their country to undertake the conquest of India at all,
and are troubled by gloomy forebodings of a calamitous catastrophe that may some day engulf that splendid fabric of Asiatic dominion.
No, we cannot expect that the Porto Ricans, the
Cubans, and the Filipinos will maintain orderly governments in Anglo-Saxon fashion. But they may succeed in establishing a tolerable order of things in their
own fashion, as Mexico, after many decades of turbulent disorder, succeeded at last, under Porfirio Diaz,
in having a strong and orderly government of her
kind, not, indeed, such a government as we would tol



AMERICAN IMPERIALISIM.


361


crate in this Union, but a government answering Mexican character and interests, and respectable in its relations with the outside world.
This will become all the more possible if, without
annexing and ruling those people, we simply put
them on their feet, and then give them the benefit of
that humanitarian spirit which, as we claim, led us
into the war for the liberation of Cuba. To this end
we should keep our troops on the islands until their
people have constructed governments and organized
forces of their own for the maintenance of order. Our
military occupation should not be kept up as long as
possible, but should be withdrawn as soon as possible.
The Philippines may, as Belgium and Switzerland
are in Europe, be covered by a guarantee of neutrality
on the part of the powers most interested in that region-an agreement which the diplomacy of the
United States should not find it difficult to obtain.
This would secure them against foreign aggression.
As to the independent republics of Porto Rico and
Cuba, our government might lend its good offices to
unite them with San Domingo and Hayti in a confederacy of the Antilles, to give theml a more respectable international standing. Stipulations should be
agreed upon with them as to open ports and the freedom of business enterprise within their borders, affording all possible commercial facilities.  Missionary effort in the largest sense, as to the development
of popular education and of other civilizing agencies,
as well as abundant charity in case of need, will on
our part not be wanting, and all this will help to mitigate their disorderly tendencies and to steady their
governments.
Thus we shall be their best friends without being
their foreign rulers. We shall have done our duty to




362


AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


them, to ourselves, and to the world. However imperfect their governments may still remain, they will
at least be their own, and they will not with their disorders and corruptions contaminate our institutions,
the integrity of which is not only to ourselves, but to
liberty-loving mankind, the most important concern
of all. We may then await the result with generous
patience-with the same patience with which for
many years we witnessed the revolutionary disorders
of Mexico on our very borders, without any thought
of taking her government into our own hands.
Ask yourselves whether a policy like this will not
raise the American people to a level of moral greatness
never before attained! If this democracy, after all
the intoxication of triumph in war, conscientiously
remembers its professions and pledges, and soberly
reflects on its duties to itself and others, and then
deliberately resists the temptation of conquest, it will
achieve the grandest triumph of the democratic idea
that history knows of. It will give the government of,
for, and by the people a prestige it never before possessed. It will render the cause of civilization throughout the world a service without parallel. It will put
its detractors to shame, and its voice will be heard
in the council of nations with more sincere respect
and more deference than ever. The American people,
having given proof of their strength and also of their
honesty and wisdom, will stand infinitely mightier before the world than any number of subjugated vassals
could make them. Are not here our best interests,
both moral and material? Is not this genuine glory?
Is not this true patriotism?
I call upon all who so believe never to lose heart in
the struggle for this great cause, whatever odds may
seem to be against us. Let there be no pusillanimous
yielding while the final decision is still in the balance.




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.           363
Let us relax no effort in this, the greatest crisis the
Republic has ever seen. Let us never cease to invoke
the good sense, the honesty, and the patriotic pride of
the people. Let us raise high the flag of our country
-not as an emblem of reckless adventure and greedy
conquest, of betrayed professions and broken pledges,
of criminal aggressions and arbitrary rule over subject
populations-but the old, the true flag, the flag of
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; the flag
of the government of, for, and by the people; the flag
of national faith held sacred and of national honor
unsullied; the flag of human rights and of good example to all nations; the flag of true civilization,
peace, and good-will to all men. Under it let us stand
to the last, whatever betide.




IK'




f~~~~~~~~~~ e
g lI,, _ 
Ig g gI, 
11 |  I II 
la l l i l l l l lle
1 i l l I I | I I _ 








CHAPTER XXI.
THE EFFECT OF ANNEXATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES ON AMERICAN LABOR.
BY HON. JOHN W DANIEL,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
It is the first step that costs. To-day we are the
United States of America. To-morrow, if a treaty
now pending in the Senate is ratified, we will be the
United States of America and Asia. Our name, like
a hoop upon a barrel, marks the boundary of our national projection and ambition. It is proposed to embody into the American Commonwealth as an integral
part thereof a large and miscellaneous assortment of
Asiatic islands, estimated in number at from 1,200 to
2,000, and to make citizens of the United States, with
all the rights of citizenship which attach to the inhabitants of an American Territory, a large and miscellaneous and diversified assortment of people.
We are told by a number of Senators who have addressed us that of these islands and of this people we
know but little. Our ignorance of them is a self-evident fact.  The documents of our Government, in
which have been collected such information as encyclopedias and books of travel would furnish, commence their imperfect account by telling us that both
as to the islands and as to the people who inhabit
them little that is accurate can be ascertained.  We
are invoked to do the gravest, the most serious, and
solemn act that can ever be done in the movements of
mankind, an act in its nature implying permanence.
367




368  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


It is to establish and to assert the sovereignty of the
American people over these islands and over this
people. For my part, I deem it inexpedient, unwise,
and unjust that we should do so.
We are just emerging from a war of humanity, of
liberty, and of national honor. In the beginning of
that war, and in calling upon volunteers to follow our
flag, both the Congress of the United States and the
President of the United States declared our national
purpose. Congress disclaimed in the joint resolution
which led to war any intention of conquest.  The
President declared that forcible annexation was criminal aggression.
The war has been a glorious success. Our Navy
has startled the world by the brilliancy of its achievements.   Our Army has added new laurels to the
chaplet of its veteran glories. Our people have been
united as no people ever were united in supporting a
National Administration.
Victory came on eagle's wings to our standard, and
on the Ist day of January of the present year the last
of the empire of Charles V vanished from the American continent and the dream of Spain for universal
empire turned to dust and ashes.
In war it is the unexpected that happens. So in
every great and new adventure of peace.  We are
asked now to sally forth 7,000 miles from our native
seat to grasp, against their will, eight millions of unwilling people-to seize upon them, to take them by
force of arms and deposit them, land and people, within the lines of the Constitution under the American
flag-to make them an integral part of this American
Republic.
I do not believe that the great body of the American
people understand the significance of this treaty. I




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 369


do not believe, at least if I may judge from their utterances, that many Senators who are saying, "Vote
for the treaty now and fix your policy to-morrow,"
understand what that treaty does irretrievably. That
treaty fixes our policy. The rest of our policy is a
mere matter of clerkly detail. The treaty is the thoroughfare, and through and over that thoroughfare
eight millions of Filipinos march into the open doorway of the American Republic. More than that, 70,ooo,ooo Americans march into the Philippine Islands
as the Filipinos march here.
It is a marriage of nations. This twain become one
flesh. They become bone of our bone and flesh of
our flesh. Henceforth and forever, according to the
terminology of this treaty, the Filipinos and Americans are one. I trust yet, that before this marriage is
consummated the spirit of American constitutional
liberty will arise and forbid the bans.
There is one characteristic of the speeches which
have been delivered on this subject by those who favor
the treaty and of the essays and editorials which
doubtless has not escaped your observation.  The
issue joined in the debate has been too much joined
upon a mere question of power. Who has told us
what we are going to the Philippine Islands for? Who
has told us what moral or legal compulsion we are
under to go there?
Who has said that we are going to make a more
perfect union or add to the general welfare, to the
national defense, to the establishment of justice, or to
the insurance of domestic tranquillity, or how or in
what way we will secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,-how attain by going there
any of the great ends for which our Government was
founded and our Constitution ordained? Upon these




370  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


subjects there has been a general if not an absolute
silence.
I shall speak on this question solely from the standpoint of an American, a republican American, if you
please, believing in republican doctrines and in republican institutions; a democratic American, if you
please, believing in the right of this people and the
right of all people to govern themselves. No obligation to any other nation, nay, no obligation to the
Filipinos, however fanciful or however solid, should
for a single instant disturb us from standing firmly
and fixedly on this standpoint.
It is the American people who have got the first
mortgage upon our diligent attention and loyalty to
their interests, to their Constitution, to their principles; it is the American people who have got the preferred stock in anything that we may do or project
concerning our national polity. We may have some
obligations to others. They are secondary. But we
have none which is not perfectly consistent with such
amendment to this treaty as will preserve our national
character and consummate perfectly the purposes for
which the war was begun.
It is said that we can not leave the Filipinos in the
hands of Spain. I agree to that. Our obligation is
one of equity and is one of honor. But why leave the
Filipinos in the hands of Spain? What have we to
do with them and what is their relation to us that we
should sally forth knightlike, with lance in hand, to do
anything for or about them?  It is a fact that the
Filipinos helped us in our war with Spain. They became our comrades in the line of battle. The blood of
the brown people of the Philippine Archipelago and
the blood of the paleface from the great Northern




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.  371


Republic flowed in a common stream to cast off the
odious and intolerable yoke of Spain.
The obligation that we owe to the Filipinos is the
obligation of comradeship. It is the obligation of
fraternity.  It is not pecuniary; it is honorary.  It
comes under that class of obligations which has as
its touchstone and its watchword "noblesse oblige."
Having accepted comradeship-call the comrade ally,
coadjutor, cooperator, or what not-having accepted
the fact of friendship and clasped hands on the perilous edge of battle, we can not renounce the hand that
we there clasped and treat the man or the men who
gave us those hands otherwise than as friends. Tllat
is "noblesse oblige."
What is it, if you strike the gun out of the hand
in which you put the gun and aim the gun at the
breast which touched elbow with your elbow when
you went down to battle? What is that? I name it
not, but it is not noblesse oblige. We can not leave
the Filipinos in the hands of Spain.  No, no, no.
Americans can not so treat those who were their comrades.
What next?   Recognize their independence as a
nation? I say, "No." They have not yet made themselves an independent nation.  We do not know
whether they can or whether they will make themselves such a nation as can assume international obligations and maintain themselves in the great family of
states. Recognize them and come away from the islands? No; we can not now come away from the
islands. We need only look skyward to see that the
birds of prey are circling around the Philippine Islands. We can neither leave them in the hands of
Spain nor leave them to become the prey of the first
vulture that sweeps upon them.




372  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


\What next?  The face of the treaty tells us how to
treat them. Exactly as we have treated Cuba. We
are now in military occupation of the Philippine Islands. Let us stay in military occupation of the Philippine Islands until such time as we know more about
them than we do, until we have assisted them with our
kind offices and with our national prestige and with
our force of arms into such destiny as may fitly and
justly await them, into such destiny as they have projected for themselves.
What is the difference between doing that and ratifying this treaty? It is the difference between planting an empire there and maintaining the temporary
ascendency of American power there.
The one thing, such as we have proposed and are
doing in Cuba, is essentially transitory; it is ambulatory; it admits of a moment's change. The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief
of our armies, can withdraw in honor, in propriety, in
justice the troops from Cuba whenever good sense
and sound policy dictate. Why not leave him to do
the same thing as to the Philippine Islands?  With
far more reason may we do that as to the Philippine
Islands than with respect to Cuba.
Cuba is a natural part of the American continent.
It has been, ever since we ourselves have been a nation, within the range and under the sphere of influence of the American Republic. As the Hon. Thomas
Francis Bayard said when he was Secretary of State
in the first administration of Mr. Cleveland, we have
established a protectorate over the Western World.
It has always been and it is to-day under the wing
of the people of the United States out of the necessity
of our geographical situation. The Philippine Islands have never been and naturally can never so be.




SPEECH OF TION. JOHN W. DANIEL. 373


Why not, then, leave them in that situation in which
we may determine our policy at leisure, studiously,
sedately, with full comprehension of all those facts
and conditions of which we now claim to know and of
which we do know so little?
Before we launch forth upon this great adventure I
beg to call attention to the fact that as we stand today we are not only the most favored nation of the
world, but occupy a position more favored by Providence than any nation that ever did exist in the history of the world since time began. Our situation is
absolutely ideal; it is a natural fortification.  Our
coast is washed east and west by the everlasting seas,
which have put up an impenetrable barrier against
the aggression of any other nation.  As Abraham
Lincoln said in one of his speeches, we are so situated
that all the armies of the universe, with Napoleon
Bonaparte as their general, could never manage to
take a drink of water out of the Ohio River.
We are in a natural and impregnable fortress which
the God of nature has put around us. North of us
are our own kin, a people who in their situation, so
far from menacing us, constitute a bond to keep the
peace unto themselves, and also make an additional
bond to keep the peace with the great mother of nations from which they and we ourselves sprung. South
of us are the Central and South American republics.
Of all of them we were the prototype and exemplar.
They are the intellectual and moral children of the
American brain; they are all friendly to us; they can
not be otherwise.
We are about to build the Nicaragua Canal. I did
not vote for the particular measure, not because I
did not want the canal, for I believe in it, but in one
way or another that canal is about to be built. It




374  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


will chain together the armor of our national defense.
After that canal shall have been built, we will not be
like Achilles, we will be impregnable from the crown
of our head to the sole of our feet, including the heel.
Every annexation we have ever made to the American commonwealth has been an annexation in contemplation of our Constitution and in symmetrical
outline with the projections of nature-rivers, mountains, and seas, which are the great lawgivers to peoples.
They tell us that Jefferson was a great annexationist. So he was; but, expansionist as he was, he drew
the line on expansion. He interpreted the oracles of
nature, if indeed they needed interpretation, for their
language is not oracular in the olden oracular sense.
Cuba we want, he said, for it is an outpost of the Gulf
of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, but we want no
annexation that will require a navy to defend it.
If we look introspectively we find that this nation,
having now established its ascendency in the wings
of the republic in the Sandwich Islands and in Cuba
and in Porto Rico, is a perfect, symmetrical body,
becoming homogeneous in all its parts, dedicated to
the principles of human liberty, and it goes forth like
a bridegroom from his chamber, rejoicing as a strong
man to run a race. Annex the Philippine Islands to
this country, and what is it then? Something beyond
the boundaries indicated in its Constitution, something beyond any ideal that ever entered the dreams
of our fathers, something that is cumbrous and
unnatural, something that is heterogeneous and surprising, something that is amphibious, something that
is half man and half fish, something that never would
have been born in the natural course of human projection, something that is the haphazard chance of




SPEECH OF lION. JO(IN XW. DANIEL.  375


war, which we are asked to change into a permanent
establishment.
When we contemplate the one hundred and twentyfive years of the history of the American Republic and
the anterior years in which it was forming in these
forests of Amferica, we discern that there has been but
one impediment to our national harmony and to our
national growth. For that impediment the generation that founded this Republic and its successors
were not responsible. They were the unwilling heirs
of unwilling and protesting ancestors. The Dutch
ship that landed at Jamestown bringing here another
race brought also Pandora's box. The interjection
of a race nonassimilable with the American people has
been the fly in the ointment of American institutions,
of American peace, of American history.
That interjection came from war and came from
distant colonial establishments. The untutored black
man in his native haunts was seized upon by war, was
torn from the habitat for which nature had intended
him, was put on board an alien ship by an alien people, and was brought here and sold.  There is no
tragedy in human history so pitiable, and none, if it
be justly contemplated, that is so instructive. There
lies across the border of yonder stream an old Commonwealth upon which that tragedy inflicted its most
terrific curse.
Twenty-seven times did the people of that Commonwealth protest through their legislative assemblies against the intrusion of this foreign and this alien
mixture into their Commonwealth; but trade, the
commercial spirit overriding the great liberty-loving
principles of' the British race, foisted them upon us
with bayonets. The rest of the story I need not tell;
but that one ingredient in the American Common



376  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


wealth turned brother against brother, sowed the
seeds of discord into that which otherwise would have
been a perfect Union. Without that we were a homogeneous people.
Go into Maine or Louisiana; go into Tennessee or
Massachusetts; go into Virginia or Ohio or Illinois,
and the American people are like unto themselves,
with the same ideas of government, with the same
devoted and undying love of liberty, witl the same
sense of justice and of equity and of honor. This one
thing poured "the sweet milk of concord into hell."
We are happily beginning to adjust ourselves to
the conditions and complications and infinite troubles
that this one ancient crime brought down upon us.
We are happily at peace with ourselves to-day
throughout all this American nation, and I thank God
I have lived to see this day. It matters not on which
side a man fought in the civil war; he is devoted today to the flag of his country and to everything that
that flag stands for.  He honors and esteems the
President of the United States not only with the naked
loyalty that belongs to the dignity of his great office,
but with that grateful esteem and with that open and
honest admiration for great wisdom and public virtue
and broad and enlightened patriotism and for sweet
and gracious and friendly ways.
Now, at this moment, perfect in every defense, at
peace with all the nations of the world, blessed with
everything, and with more than everything, that any
other nation was ever blessed with, we are challenged
to go forth upon a great expedition 7,000 miles away
from our home, to lay the heavy hand of our sovereign power upon 8,ooo,ooo people ahd introduce
again into the American commonwealth the fatal and




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL  377


insidious element which came near being the cause of
its destruction.
There is one thing that neither time nor education
can change. You may change the leopard's spots,
but you will never change the different qualities of
the races which God has created in order that they
may fulfill separate and distinct missions in the cultivation and civilization of the world. The Indian of
one hundred and twenty-five years ago is the Indian of
to-day-ameliorated, to a certain extent civilized, and
yet the wisdom of our forefathers, when, in the Constitution, they set them apart as one people, separate
and distinct from the great dominant race which had
come to take this land and to inhabit it, is indicated
in what we are still doing and must forever do with
them so long as they maintain their tribal relations and
so long as they are Indians. Racial differences, differences of religion, differences in mode of thought,
differences in psychology, the subtle analyses of man
have put them asunder.
Apart from that, there are many objections to the
treaty as it stands. It is objectionable from a military and strategic standpoint. It destroys the solidarity of this nation. It throws out an American salient far beyond any line of our natural or projected
development. That salient will be the first point of
attack in any plan of battle against this nation. We
can no longer hug our native shores and bid the world
defiance; we have flung our glove far down into the
arena of the nations, and the first day that war is declared between this American Republic and any other
great nation of the world the prow of the battle ship,
with its mighty guns, will be turned toward the Philil)pine Islands.
What then? Anticipating that, if we take the Phil



378   SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


ippines to-day we must commence to fortify them tomorrow. There are from 1,200 to 2,000 of those islands. The fortification of one island may not defend
another. Siege guns have got to be put upon every
harbor and around their cities, at an expense of millions upon millions of dollars. A separate navy has
got to watch them and be ready to defend them.
Naturally enough, "birds of a feather flock together." The Philippine treaty and a great standing
army walk into the halls of Congress hand in hand,
one behind and close upon the heels of the other. In
a military and strategic point of view no nation ever
challenged fate by so unwise and unnecessary a step
as to fling out an American salient upon the Asiatic
coast and say, "Here is the place where we are willing to establish our sovereignty, and, if need be, to
defend it against the world in arms." It means militarism to follow-its essential corollary, its necessary
and its inevitable consequence.
The men who favor the standing Army to-day have
read in the lines of that treaty the bugle call "To
arms! To arms!" They have seen with that treaty
you can no more rely permanently and fixedly upon
the American volunteer, the pride of the nation, the
citizen soldier, ever ready to take his gun and go
down to the shore to defend his native land; that you
must have, if you are going there to maintain your
sovereignty, a regular army; you must introduce the
regular soldier into American life, and when he comes
he will come with all the necessary consequences.
The American who has heretofore visited Europe
has come back making a contrast between European
nations and his own country which was infinitely reassuring and delightful. In no public place in Europe
are you ever out of sight of a regular soldier. You




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.  379


will see the redcoat on every court green in Britain,
at every theater, at every shop, on every highwaythe man with a gun, ever ready to fight; the soldier
of the nation whose gates in the temple of Janus are
never closed, the nation which makes its living by
war.
If you go to France, you see, with all her power of
recovery after the invasion of Germany, she there has
the regular soldier on the workman's bench, and the
swish of the horsehair plume will be heard with the
rustle of every dress. The French grenadier is a social and familiar picture in every domestic scene of
life. We are apt to picture the great scenic phases
of a nation, to point to their triumphs for their national character. The American would point to Manila Bay, or to Gettysburg Heights, or to Malvern
Hill, or to Maryes Hill, or to some other place where
American armies marched to death without flinching,
and say, "Behold! there is what the American is!"
The greatest triumph of the American nation was a
silent and inconspicuous triumph. It was a triumph
that was not heralded with the blast of the bugle nor
decorated with the ornamental flag. It was the triumph of the American people when they laid down
their arms in I865 and dispersed, each man quietly
to his workshop and to his fireside. North and South
participated in that triumph.
Even men as wise as Grant and Sherman had said
that when you disperse these Southern armies they
will break up into bands; one band will infest a
mountain fastness, another band will roam the plains,
another band will go to the prairies, and for years
after the civil war you will have rumors of strife and
disagreeable incidents, and you will have to keep a
standing army to meet with those incidental troubles




380  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


that come in the aftermath of battle. There was no
such trouble. The people of our race when they fight
mean war, and when they surrender they surrender
as flatly and as decisively and as utterly as any people
who mean what they say and who believe that it is
the truth which makes men free and not falsehood,
and not trifling with great concerns.
So the American people shook hands upon the battlefield, which both sides had illustrated with its splendid prowess and with its noble sacrifice. As General
Grant fitly says in his Memoirs, "They shook hands
as old friends who had been long parted, neither
showing resentment."  Why should they have shown
resentment? War is not personal; it is a matter of
principle; it is a matter of duty. There is no reason
why the man who does the right as he sees the right
may not look the world in the eye and grasp the honest hand of another man, however much he may have
differed with him.
I want to see that triumph repeated here. The war
is done, in all its projected ideals and with all its
natural and just consequences. Spain has vanished
from the American continent.  Cuba has been set
free. It was a proud day for the American citizen;
it was a day which made our hearts thrill with exceeding pride and joy when the American flag shot
forth into the sky over the dungeon walls of Morro
Castle, and the stars heard the message that a people
had come who founded their domain not upon the
sword but upon human rights.
This is the only great government in the world that
laid a corner stone before it put up the foundation of
the building. Other nations have been formed from
the various circumstances which made men connect
together for their mutual defense and interest and




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.       381
safety. They have grown through the long processes
of time from various motives and incidents, but our
birth was signalized by a peculiar thing, and that germ
which we planted in the beginning of our institutions
has grown and waxed and is to-day strong and
mighty.
We founded a government upon the recognition of
human rights-that is our distinction-the right of
men to be free, the right of men to govern themselves;
and no man in this Government to-day but feels that
he has an immediate, an intimate, a close and undying tie between the highest of its officers, between the
most solemn ordinances of its constitutions, between
its judges, its legislators, and himself. It is his legislature; it is his Senate; it is his House of Representatives; it is his Constitution; it is his Declaration of
Independence; it is his country, and he has his rights
in that country, and that country gets back in return
his allegiance and his love.
Let us ask ourselves why we should annex the Philippine Islands. I spoke of the debt of equity and
honor which we owed the Filipinos. It was a debt of
friendship. Is the annexation of them against their
will friendship?  La Fontaine has a fable of which
I am reminded by the proposition. There was a master once, he says, who had a favorite dog, and the dog
was accustomed to bring the master his dinner in a
basket. One day upon the street with the basket
in his mouth going to his master's workshop he was
beset by hungry curs. The basket was knocked out
of his mouth and the victuals were spilled upon the
ground, whereupon the dog, before he addressed himself to the hungry curs who were after him, commenced to gulp down the dinner. Just then the master appeared upon the scene and reproached the dog.




382 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


He gave a most excellent excuse. "Why, my dear
master," he says, "I was taking the dinner faithfully
to you when these hungry curs jumped upon nme, and
as the dinner was spilled, I knew you would rather
have your faithful dog to consume it than to fill up the
mouths of these hungry curs."
Having been once friendly to the Filipinos, and seeing that, according to the way the world wags, some
vulture is after them, we have concluded that since
they have to be eaten up, they would rather have their
good old American friend undertake the benevolent
assimilation than to have any other persons undertake
it. That dog of the fable was an exceedingly smart
and philosophical dog. For dog logic, I do not think
he has ever been excelled; but upon my word, sir, I
do not feel that, as smart as he was, I can yet agree
to put him up instead of the American eagle, and accept the moral of his tale in place of the teachings of
Thomas Jefferson and Daniel Webster and Abraham
Lincoln, and all the great men who have guided the
American people in their hours of emergency.
What do we want to go to the Philippines for, and
what are we after, and wherein will we be any better or
stronger or nobler or richer after we have gone there?
What is the temptation to us? Having told one fable
I find myself tempted to tell another. In the old times
when there was transmigration of souls between the
different types of animated nature, it is said that a
cat found herself suddenly transformed into a beautiful lady. Nothing could have exceeded the charms of
her person and nothing the propriety of her behavior.
But one day, as she sat the picture of demure and enchanted beauty, a mouse chanced to run across the
floor. She did not shriek, as perhaps some of her
prototypes would have done, but she instantly jumped





~:: I  a:ia
~*- I,: I~;~.,*,,
-::::::  k;i".i~ `as
i:  ~i
sHsa:e_;;~~~
'"ci
"p(I
i *,a I*
~* I ~; ~L
~:
i
*:~:                                                                    1a   F fi~ ~~~  B             -i                          
a,,.l. 1:8~-~:`8: FL:PrX r
a9;ia;;;;;- ~i ir
r,
~t ~,
"
t








SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.       385
upon and devoured the mouse. The feline instinct
was still there.
The American Republic set itself upon a different
plan from the anterior nations. It said that all men
are equal. There was the one word set like a diamond in the Declaration of Independence. It said,
furthermore, all just governments derive their powers
from the consent of the governed. It made a Constitution in which it put up bars of defense for the rights
of man and for the rights of the community. It robed
itself in the robes of liberty. It set the Goddess of
Liberty over its Capitol. Nothing could exceed the
beauty of its nobility or the wisdom of its design, and
everything has gone well with us until this Philippine
mouse has happened to run across the floor, and the
old native instinct of taking something has broken
loose in us again.
I think I heard a Senator say one day that all of
our ancestors were pirates. I take no issue with him.
The great prepotent family that has molded American
institutions and has hewed out this massive and
eternal stone of human liberty were descendants of the
great northern races that put freedom in Great Britain, as far as it went, but it once rode the northern
seas under the raven flag. But when they got here in
this beautiful land, when they felt the pinch of ancient
and distant tyranny controlling their affairs, they
turned over a new leaf and adopted a set of good resolutions, and Providence aided them in the fulfillment
of them as it had blessed no other people since time
began.
But there is a chance to take somebody, there is a
chance to get some more land, there is a chance to
expand in mere material and numerical strength, to
seem to be mightier, and the old instinct has jumped




386  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


up again and the old appetite has broken out again,
and a short-sighted policy is attempted to be placed
upon us to override all that we have hitherto accomplished.
We are already beginning to get the Asiatic flavor
in our American utterances. The people talk of destiny after the manner of the Orient, after the way of
those who bow themselves to fate. We have also got
a little of Spanish accent and vogue into our American manners. When we say settle this question now
in your treaty, it is mafana, mafana; to-morrow, tomorrow.
More than this, I do not think any nation of the
earth or the monarchical essays and pessimists of the
world have ever run down the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States as
much as I have heard it run down, belittled, and minifled in the last few weeks under the influence of this
debate. It seems now that it was not much of a Declaration after all. It seems now that it was not much
of a Constitution after all. It seems now that there is
no provision of it and no sentiment in it and no principle of it that can not be cheesepared away and can
not have some nice sharp quillet of the law in a diplomatic way to let it down easily and dismiss it from our
further consideration.
I never expected to be called on to defend the Declaration of Independence in this Hall. I never expected to hear its phrases used as if they were airy
nothings, rhetorical flourishes, empty vaporings of a
revolutionary assemblage.  I think that Abraham
Lincoln has correctly expounded the Declaration of
Independence, and I think in the great debate which
he held with Judge Douglas when they were candidates for the Senate from Illinois that he met every




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.  387


phase of the argument which has here been adduced
against it.
I think he defined it and interpreted it just as its
immortal author meant it-Thomas Jefferson, the pioneer, the founder, the enunciator of a principle which
has done more to mold American institutions, to
swing them back into the right groove when they got
wrong, than any other. He did not mean that men
were equal in all respects, neither in stature nor in
intellect, nor in moral character, nor in possession.
What he meant was that they were equally entitled to
liberty. When he spoke of all governments deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed,
he meant that the government of a people must derive its just powers from the consent of the people
over whom the government was stretched and to
which it applied.
It is literally true that it means the consent of some
of the governed, not all. But, according to republican
and democratic institutions a majority have a right to
express the views of the community, and the consent
of all is expressed in the sense of a majority of that
government of whom they are the people. It does
not imply that because a man is free he may necessarily vote. Our Constitution has dealt with that question. It has left it to the States, and in the nature of
things the States must determine who shall vote.
The woman is as free as the man, but she does not
vote. The boy 20 years of age is as free and may be
wiser and stronger and better than the boy of 23, but
one votes and the other does not. In the nature of
things the sovereign body of the whole people, who
are the majority acting for the entire commonwealth,
must determine the degrees of ability-mental, moral,




388  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


and physical-which are worthy of the deposit of that
portion of the political power.
But whether or not the power to vote is possessed
or dispossessed by reason of mental or moral weakness or sex or age or condition, all the citizens of a
commonwealth that is free are themselves free, and all
of them are equal in the enjoyment of their lives. Each
of them has the same defense; all have the same liberty. Each of them has the same protection in the
pursuit of happiness under just and equal laws,
which is the possession of each and every one. That is
what the Declaration of Independence means. That is
the manner in which every State in this Union has
interpreted it. That is the way in which it is accepted
in Territory and State alike.
But it is said that with respect to Porto Rico we
have one idea and with respect to the Philippine Islands another.  Gentlemen who are opposed to the
propositions which I am maintaining say that you
went to Porto Rico by force of arms. You dispossessed the sovereignty of Spain. You accepted sovereignty from  Spain.  You have established yourselves upon that island without asking the consent of
the governed and without any regard to your Declaration of Independence.
I make two answers to their proposition. In thei
first place, I say that naturally the two places are different. Porto Rico is an outpost of the American
commonwealth. It is under the jurisdiction of our
Monroe law, which is as much a law as if it were in
our written Constitution. It is essential to our selfdefense. The first law of nature is the inherent attribute of a free State as much as of any other.
Furthermore, I say that the people of Porto Rico
have made no objection to our sovereignty. They




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.  389


have not established another government, as the Filipinos have done. They have not raised another revolution, as the Filipinos have done. They have not
asked us not to annex them, as the Filipinos
have   done.     While   the   matter   does   not   rest
in   the   evidence    of   documents,     yet   according to our general and public information they welcomed the American flag.        They accepted us with
outstretched Arms.    But be that as it may, all rules
have   some   exceptions.    Political truths, however
clear, however pure, however well defined, can not
move with the accuracy of a mathematical equation
nor with the symmetry of the starry motions above.
Mr. Lincoln answered this objection, made in another
case, to the Declaration of Independence:
It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make
necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a
necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that
was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established
this Government. We had slaves amongst us. We could not get
our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery. We
could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; and
having of necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the
principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand
as our standard.
So I say with respect to Porto Rico.        While the
logic may not be justified by the facts, assume that it
was the fact that the Porto Ricans did not want us.
It is a necessity of the American Republic. We can
not help ourselves. The God of nature, who put that
island near our shore, made it a natural outpost of
our own defense.
A captain of artillery that carries his battery over a
field or demolishes a house in order to get at the
enemy does not destroy the private property that he
occupies for the emergency in contempt of any of the
rights of man.    He does it not because he wants to,
not that it may not wound his feelings, not that it may
not be against his natural instincts and principles,




390  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


but because the necessity of defense is upon him, and
he must.
It is often in the path of the most noble and gracious nations, those of the highest conception, that
they must sometimes break their models. They can
not help it. They live in a world of trouble.  They
are surrounded by the difficult circumstances and situations and complexions of war, pestilence, famine, and
invasion. They must do not the best that is conceivable, not the best that some dreamer in his closet
might bring up to himself in some sweet imagination,
but the best that that case and those conditions admit of.
This we have done with respect to Porto Rico. We
can not let another nation take her. That is as old
as the Monroe doctrine. We were obliged to drive
the Spanish out of her in order to consummate a
righteous war. In the nature of things the sovereignty was devolved upon us by the law of nature and
of nations.
But how is it as to the Filipinos? Is there any necessity there? Is there any necessity for our taking
the Philippine Islands? It is a necessity which no
man has mentioned. If there is any sound policy and
wise judgment in establishing our sovereignty there
in contradistinction to our temporary occupancy, no
man has disclosed that policy or made known his confidential views.
Through many of the speeches of those who say
"Ratify the treaty" there runs a sense of distrust of
what they are doing; there runs a sense of preference
for what we propose to do. They say, "Ratify the
treaty now; come and we will talk about policy tomorrow."
The policy is wrapped up in the treaty. The policy




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.  3)1


is determined by the treaty. The policy that will follow is a mere minor detail. If you have military occupancy there, as you have in Cuba, you may fold
your tents like the Arab and quietly steal away, or
sail away, or march away, or get away any night or
morning that you please.
It is not a question of hauling down the flag. The
flag now is a mere casual visitor there. It is no more
fixed there than it is fixed in Pennsylvania avenue
when it sweeps down at the head of a regiment. It
merely waves there over a ship and where it is carried
by an American soldier.  But 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 thing that ever nation did or could do.
And what excuse is there for it?  I wish to quote
with accuracy some of the gentlemen who have so
earnestly advocated this treaty. We are told that we
are bound up in certain alternatives; that this is the
least injurious alternative; not that they want it; they
deprecate it; but they submit to it, so to speak,
against their judgment and against their will as a thing
per se, and hope to-morrow we will rectify any
trouble or any wrong or any mischief which we may
make.
Peace, it is said, is in this treaty; peace-a pleasing
name to conjure with. "Blessed are the peacemakers." Are our friends upon the other side sure that
this treaty means peace?  Are they sure that the
spoken word will be substantiated by subsequent
facts?  Undoubtedly it means peace with Spain.
There is nothing else in the future but peace with
Spain. There is no contingency that can revive war




392  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEIL.


with Spain. There is nothing that we would do with
this treaty that can affect Spain.
Ah, but amend it, they say, and you delay. We are
acting for all time. We are acting for immortality,
not for a few days or a few weeks or a few months.
Aye, would a few years be a long vestibule to that
infinite stretch of time that goes with sovereignty?
But this treaty is easily amended. You have only
to substitute in respect to the Philippine Islands what
you have done as to Cuba, and it is done. If there
are votes here to do that, it can be done next Monday.
Do you think Spain will not consent? Why do you
think so? There is nothing in the nature of things
from which any man can fancy that Spain would not
readily assent. She has done so in one case with
respect to Cuba, and she did it there simply because
we asked it. She did it in Cuba against her wishes.
She wanted us to annex Cuba on account of her Spanish citizens there, for she thought that the Spanish
people there and the Spanish soldiers there and the
Spanish property there would all be safer and better
under the permanent sovereignty of the United States
than in the chance medley of military occupation with
Cuban independence hovering over it. But against
the wishes of Spain we said, "No; we prefer only a
military occupation here."
Now, if Spain assented to our wishes in that regard,
why not as to the other?  If she assented to our
wishes with respect to a state lying upon our shores,
with which we have a natural affinity, a manifest and
inevitable destiny of close communion, why would she
not also have assented to our suggestion with respect
to the Philippine Islands?
But suppose she does not like it. We did not go
into this war for the pleasure and satisfaction of Spain.




SPEI'ECft OF I()N. JOHN W. DANIEL.    393


We went into it much against her liking, and we
should not cease this war until we have registered our
will, and not the Spanish will, upon the subject-matters with which we have to deal. She could have no
sensible, reasonable, justifiable, or even plausible objection.
Some gentlemen have said that there is the same'
thing in the relinquishment of sovereignty and in the
cession of territory. There is as much difference between them as there is between a hawk and a handsaw. The cession of sovereignty is a contract and a
grant between two parties. The ceding sovereign is
the grantor; the grantee sovereign accepts it, and
there is a mutual and interchangeable obligation and
fixity of relation between them. A relinquishment is
a one-sided affair, that is to say, with respect to the
obligations it creates, not with respect to the obligations which it exerts and fulfills.
It is mere letting go upon the one side without the
undertaking of any peculiar relation or obligation
upon the other except what it sees fit to undertake,
and that this was perfectly understood is illustrated
in the note of our American commissioners at Paris,
who, addressing the Spanish commissioners, set forth
to them that perfect understanding of the difference
between relinquishment and a cession, with a quotation of learned authorities defining the distinctions between them. But the most ordinary mind can comprehend them.
If Spain relinquishes her authority to us it leaves us
free-handed and unbound, and we may do as we please
with respect to the Philippine Islands. It does not bind
us and obligate us to her to put our sovereignty there
to stay. It leaves our generals and our troops there;
it leaves the President of the United States here, and,




394  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


as in other cases of annexation, in Florida, in Mexico,
and in numerous instances which are familiar in all
the writings of our international and constitutional
writers, a relinquishment would leave us as master of
the situation, with no one to dictate to us, with no one
to be bound to, but with America to work out her
own will according to the pleasure of the Senate and
of the House of Representatives hereafter.
Now, I think that some of our learned friends upon
the other side have misconceived and have misstated
this case.   I think the journals of the country have
misconceived and have misstated it. I will read a
paragraph from a very intelligent editorial in the
Hartford Courant, where it sums up this case to its
readers:
There are some thingsSays this writerThere are some things the ratification of the treaty will not do.
It will not make the Philippines a part of the United States. It will
not extend the Constitution of the United States over those islands.
It will not make the Filipinos American citizens and electors. It will
give them no opportunity which they did not enjoy just as fully this
time last year to compete with American workingmen in the labor
market, nor will it let in their products free of duty to compete with
American products. The ratification of the treaty will leave them outside the Constitution, outside the tariff, outside the immigration laws.
It will not enable them to scramble over or crawl under. We may add,
for the more effectual reassurement of some excessively alarmed
orators, that it will not in the least affect the difference between the
Philippine climate and the American climate, nor shorten by a single
marine league the distance from Manila to New York.
It will not change climate or shorten distance; I
admit that, and that is one reason why I am
opposed to the treaty. The climate is one which
Americans can never colonize. We speak of establishing a Philippine colony. We will do no more in the
Philippines than Great Britain in more than a hundred years has been able to do in India. There is no
British colony there except in the most paltry and insignificant sense of the word. Not 3 per cent yet are
British people. You can not establish any American




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 395


colony in the Philippine Islands. The colony would
perish.
You can not carry the American people to the
Philippine Islands. The people who live there can
not have the qualities, physical, moral, or intellectual,
that Americans possess. It is not a colony that we
propose to establish; it is a dependency, a perpetual
dependency, an eternal serfdom, a species of national
and international slavery modeled after the Russian
pattern, in which the slave goes with the land.
This newspaper writer is mistaken in every one of
his legal propositions, according to the Constitution
of the United States, according to the opinion of our
jurists and publicists that have written thereon, according to the decisions of the United States Supreme
Court that have adjudicated thereon, and likewise according to the natural and inborn principles of
American liberty which we all possess.
The Philippine Islands will become a part of the
United States the moment that the treaty is ratified.
The Constitution of the United States will extend over
them the moment that it is ratified. It will make the
Filipinos American citizens, though not electors-I
admit the electoral proposition-as soon as it is ratified. It will give them an opportunity immediate, instant, that they did not enjoy this time last year or
any year before, to compete with American workingmen in the labor market. It will let in their products
free of duty to compete with American products just
as soon as Congress has performed its constitutional
mandate and its sworn duty to extend the actual application of the laws to them.
The ratification of the treaty will not leave them
outside of the Constitution. It will enable them to
scramble over or crawl under or get in, any way that




396  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


they please to come in. It will nullify our immigration laws against alien labor. It will nullify our immigration laws against all the races of the East who
are at present prohibited from coming here. It will
put the goods and manufactures and products of the
Philippine Islands and all of its workmen into competition with those of the American workmen.
Why do I say this? It is because the American
Constitution is a free Constitution. It is because it
has constantly been getting freer and freer. It is because our decisions have fully interpreted it and because our statutes have enacted legislation in behalf of
all who may come in our jurisdiction. It stands at the
gate waiting and ready to present them with these
rights and privileges as soon as the treaty puts them
in. It will not require a special act of Congress, because Congress has enacted by anticipation for all
who come within our jurisdiction.
I will read three sections, page 347, of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, sections 1977, 1978,
and 1979. But before I read them I wish to make one
observation.
Suppose that the ratification of this treaty did leave
the Philippine Islanders in this degraded and extraconstitutional condition. Suppose it left them with
no rights that an American Senator was bound to
respect and applied to them in the most contemptuous manner that sentence which the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Platt] told us the other day was
such a scar upon American jurisprudence; do we
want any such people in the American commonwealth? There was no sentence which was uttered
about our civil war which probed down deeper into
the nature of things or more illuminated our then unhappy condition than the sentence which Abraham




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 397


Lincoln uttered in his New York speech, when he said
that this Republic could not remain half free and half
slave.
This Republic can not remain, nor by my will can
it be created, half free and half dependent. In the
nature of things the Philippine Islands will never be
fitted to become American States. Their race forbids
it; their climate forbids it; their conditions in all respects forbid it. Therefore, if the gentlemen who
deny them constitutional rights can have their way, it
is for the creation of a perpetual dependency, of an
absolute despotism annexed to a republic, that they
are seeking.
I know not in what attitude the presentation of the
Philippine argument is most repulsive. I know not
which form of presentation of it is more obnoxious to
our people and our institutions. If they are unfitted
for liberty and you propose to deny to them the right
to a free constitution and to be a free people, you
have to raise in your midst a lot of Egyptian taskmasters and satraps, pro-consuls, governors-general,
intendentes; and you march forth with this treaty not
only to take the Spanish shoe as the master of the
Philippine Islands, but to adopt the Spanish policy for
their government.
I know, from the superior character and experience
of the American people, that they are a humane people. I know that they are noble and high-minded,
and that in no situation on the earth will they ever become so cruel, so corrupt, or so disregardful of the
rights of man as their Spanish predecessors. But I
know this also: That they turn their faces the downward way.
I know also, if the history of the world has left any
lessons for our guidance, that when you raise great




398 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


standing armies, when you have vast commerce,
when you appoint governors-general, when you make
profitable employments for men whom you set as taskmasters over others, in the nature of things, by the
inevitable tendencies and inclinations of human nature, you set up a great establishment in which there
is every incitement of ambition and wealth for its perpetuity, and that those who share in its honors, in its
emoluments, in its profits, however honorably, will be
disposed to a continuance of a condition of things
which is to their profit. It may be that we will do
better than any other nation has ever done; I know
we will do better than Spain; but at its best it is a
most perilous relation; it is a most injurious relation;
it is a relation that all should pray against who have
ever felt the power of that prayer, `Lead us not into
temptation."
I want to read an authority from our Supreme Court
to which, I believe, attention has not yet been called.
It is with respect to our Territories. A Territory of
the United States is just as much a part of it as any
foot of soil in it. A citizen or inhabitant of a Territory, with permanent residence therein, is just as
much a citizen of the United States as the President
of the United States or any Senator here. It is true,
the limit of his prerogatives may be curtailed by the
conditions of his environment, but the Territory is a
part of the Union and the man is a citizen of the
Union.
Nay, in international transactions and to the outer
world a Territory or district of the United States is
undistinguishable from a State. This was decided by
our Supreme Court in the case of De Geofroy vs.
Riggs. The decision is to be found in 133 United
States Reports, page 642. It was a discussion of our




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 399
treaty with France of      800oo, in which we had accorded
to French citizens certain rights in the United States.
The question arose whether or not a Territory of the
United States was a State within the contemplation
of that treaty. The Supreme Court said that it was.
Judge Field, giving the opinion, said respecting the
particular articles of the treaty which he was considering:
This article is not happily drawn. It leaves in doubt what is meant
by "States of the Union." Ordinarily these terms would be held to
apply to those political communities exercising various attributes of
sovereignty which compose the United States, as distinguished from
the organized municipalities known as Territories and the District
of Columbia. And yet separate communities, with an independent local
government, are often described as States, though the extent of their
political sovereignty be limited by relations to a more general government or to other countries. (Halleck on International Law, chapter 3,
sections 5, 6, 7.)
The term is used in general jurisprudence and by writers on
public law as denoting organized political societies with an established
government. Within this definition the District of Columbia, under
the Government of the United States, is as much a State as any of
those political communities which compose the United States. Were
there no other territory under the Government of the United States,
it would not be questioned that the District of Columbia would be a
State within the meaning of international law; and it is not perceived that it is any less a State within that meaning because other
States and other territory are also under the same Government.
By this treaty there occurs what the international
law  writers call a collective naturalization of all the
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands as American
citizens, and to them attach instantly all those personal rights and immunities which belong to American citizens. What are those rights, privileges, and
immunities? I have collected our constitutional provisions respecting citizenship. It will be seen, and
clearly seen, from their perusal and interpretation that
instantly the Filipinos are made American citizens.
Our constitutional provisions on the subject of citizenship are as follows:
First, section 2, Article IV:
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States.
That applies to the citizens of the Territories as
well as to the citizens of those communities which are




400     SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.
technically called States in our Constitution.       The
right to vote is not a privilege and immunity of
American citizenship. This was decided in the case
of Minor vs. Happersett, in 21 Wallace, which showed
that the right to vote was a matter which rested within
the prerogative of the State; but the other rights, all
the rights of commerce, of transportation, of property,
of buying and selling, exchanging, apply as well to a
citizen of a Territory as to a citizen of a State under
the decision which I have just read from the Supreme
Court with respect to a Territory being considered as
a State for certain purposes and in certain effects and
intents.
Then comes this provision in section 3, Article IV:
The 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.
Territory in that sense seems to have referred to
the actual, physical territory which the United States
owns, not only by eminent domain, but by immediate,
actual fee-simple title. Certainly it did not apply to
enabling the United States to take away any of the
muniments and privileges of American citizens, but
only applied to those rules and regulations respecting
the actual property of the United States, and by extension of interpretation with respect to the government of that property, over that territory of which the
United States was the immediate sovereign.
Then, we have Article XIV, section I:
All persons born or naturalized in the United StatesCertainly, all persons born under annexation would
come within the immediate language of this clauseAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or'enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




n ~ ~      ~        ~        ~       ~        ~       n
I
le~
4
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii




~~~~~1 ~ ~ ~ ~




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 401


Then comes Article XV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Without the amendment of that clause in the Constitution, Article XV, if the Congress of the United
States hereafter should choose, after annexing the
Philippine Islands, to give the right to vote to a portion of its intelligent population, it is obliged to make
no distinction on account of race or color, and the
Tagalos, the Negritos, and all the various inferior
tribes of that country have got to be considered with
respect to race and color on the same basis and to the
same intent and purpose as a white-born American
citizen.
So much for the language of the Constitution.
There is a principle of international law which applies
to its construction. It is true that Congress may enact a uniform system of naturalization for foreigners,
but there is no method of naturalizing one who owes
allegiance to the country, and who by a priori act has
been made a citizen.        By   international law, well
known, interpreted by our courts, fixed and settled,
the annexation of the territory is what is called a collective naturalization   of its people.     It puts them
within the jurisdiction of the United States.
I will read on that subject the opinion of a distinguished jurist whose legal opinions have always been
greatly respected, not only in this Hall but throughout the country. He was once chairman of the Judiciary Committee of this body-the Hon. George F.
Edmunds, of Vermont. He states thatAll the people of these islands who were the subjects of Spain will
become citizens of the United States by the mere act of cession unless
the treaty of cession should provide that those who wished could
remain subjects of Spain and aliens as to the United States. This has
been a necessary rule of international law for hundreds of years;
and the rule is founded upon the obvious fact that the people of
every country, or of any part of it, must owe allegiance to and be




402  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


subject to the government of some sovereign power, be it a tribe, or
emperor, or king, or republic, and must, unless they are slaves or
serfs, have the rights of such.
But a republic can have no subjects. Its people must be either
citizens, slaves, or aliens.
If aliens, they are the subjects or citizens of some other power
which is bound to protect them. The transfer, therefore, of the sovereignty of Spain over the Philippines to the United States makes all
her subjects at once citizens of the United States.
If citizens of the United States, they have all the rights that
belong to other citizens in the Territories, whether on the mainland or
on islands of the sea. Neither geography nor distance has anything
to do with it.
Nay, looking beyond this deliberate and learned
opinion of an able constitutional jurist, we will see that
the treaty itself acquiesces in this interpretation of international law. It assumes that the great body of
the Philippine people are created by its passage as
American citizens, and it provides for those who do
not wish to become so maintaining their allegiance to
the  Spanish     Government      under certain      conditions
which it prescribes.
I read a little from the case of Pollard vs. Hagan,
in 3 Howard, page 312:
It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or
otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives;
and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive
or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by
treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the constitution and laws
of its own government.
Again I read from      the case of the United States vs.
Wong Kim Ark (I69 U. S. Reports, 705):
Congress has no authority "to restrict the effect of birth, declared
by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to
citizenship."
Again, I read from Crandall vs. Nevada (6 Wallace,
35):
All citizens of the United States have the right to enter its seaports, to pass freely from one part of its territory to another, and to
reside in any State.
The whole Philippine population, if they wish to,
can come freely to any part of the United States and
locate anywhere in       the  United    States.     They    can
bring their goods with them, and they are unamenable to any tax law of the United States, unless it be




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.            403
the temporary order of military authority in its course
of being supervened by the civil power of the United
States.
By the annexation of territorySays Chief Justice Marshallthe relations of the inhabitants with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers the territory transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it.
(American Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Peters, 542.)
It has been intimated that we can make any sort
of tariff for these people. It has been time and again
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
that as allegiance is created in the citizen to the Government, and the protection of the Government is
extended to the citizen by the act which creates sovereignty, that then and there he becomes entitled to
be governed by the same uniform laws with respect
to taxation and everything else as any other citizen.
I do not lose sight of the fact that there may be an
intervening stage in which civil authority may be
withheld until military authority has passed, but that
military  occupancy  is essentially transient.   The
moment the cession is made the decree of its cessation has been pronounced.
The moment of cession is the moment of constitutional accession, and with constitutional accession it
becomes the solemn and sworn duty of Congress to
provide equal laws to extend these equal immunities,
to secure these equal privileges, and there can be no
construction favorable to any idea which has been
maintained by gentlemen who declare that the people
of these territories will not succeed to the rights of
American citizens except in the supposition that Congress will act in fraud of their sworn duty; that they
will refuse to obey the instrument which they have




404  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


sworn to support; that they will make a mockery and
scorn of American institutions, and, by mere arbitrary
power, sit in their seats and withhold the law which
they have sworn to create, and refuse the protection
and immunity which it is their duty to extend.
This is what gentlemen mean who are learned and
skilled in knowledge of the Constitution when they say
that the Constitution does not immediately extend all
rights, privileges, and immunities. The Constitution
presumes a physical instrument to execute it; it presumes an honorable, honest, and conscientious instrument; and their construction is only justifiable and
warrantable upon the assumption that Congress will
turn its back upon the Constitution and refuse to execute its sworn duty.
In two cases before the Supreme Court of the
United States this question has been decided. One of
these cases is the case of Loughborough vs. Blake,
to be found in 5 Wheaton, which was a tax case. It
involved direct taxation by the United States, and the
question arose whether or not a district of the United
States was a State in that sense and in the Union in
that sense that the direct-tax provision of the Constitution applied to it. Chief Justice Marshall said that
it was held that uniformity of tax law applying as to
other States applied to the District of Columbia, and
that the State of the District of Columbia or the Territories west of the Missouri River were just as much
a part of the United States in the sense of the Constitution as any State in the Union.
Another was the case in I6 Howard. It is the case
of Cross et al. vs. Harrison, in which the question of
tariff laws as applicable to California arose. In that
case the Supreme Court showed the difference between military occupancy and sovereignty. It showed




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.   405


that during the military occupancy the military commander, under the President of the United States,
might prescribe such duties as he saw fit. That was
under the right of the strong hand, a de facto government, the only government that was there; but the
moment that civil power supervened and cession took
place, it became the duty of Congress to establish a
collection district in California, and the moment that
it established the agency for the collection of revenue,
uniform and equal laws attached as to every other
port and every other place in the United States.
Let us not deceive ourselves about this treaty. Let
us not try to deceive any portion of tie American
people about this treaty. If we are going to take the
Philippine Islands, and if a treaty is to be enacted, let
us contemplate beforehand exactly what it means, and
assume and honorably bear its inevitable consequences. It means the utter destruction of all tariff
laws if Congress shall do its duty between the Filipinos
and us; it means the utter abrogation of all immigration laws between the Filipinos and us, and the Chinese, the Japanese, the Tagalos, the Negritos, and all
the curious and nondescript tribes of the Philippines,
with all that they produce in those islands, and with
all that their cheap labor may manufacture in those
islands, established by greed and foreordained by this
treaty to come into the market places and the marts
of the United States on exactly the same basis, under
the same protection, and with all the benefits which
accrue to all American workmen of any race, of any
State, or of any Territory.
I would add to the decisions which I have read a
few more, which I deem it scarce necessary to read,
but I will add to the authorities which I have quoted
one from Cooley on the Constitution, a decision of




406 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


Judge Washington in 4 Washington Circuit Court
Reports, which is generally accepted and taken by
text writers and jurists as an exposition of what is
meant by the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States.      He says:
They may all be comprehended under the following general heads:
Protection of the Government; the enjoying of life and liberty; the
right to acquire and possess property of every kind and to pursue
and obtain happiness in safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good
of the whole; the right of the citizen of one State to pass through or
to reside in another State for the purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of
habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of every kind in
the courts of the States; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either
real or personal;- an exemption from higher taxes or imposts than are
paid by the citizens of the other States may be mentioned as some
of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are
clearly expressed by the general description of privileges deemed to
be fundamental.
It is true that this treaty reserves the right of Congress to declare the civil rights and political status of
these people; but it is also true that Congress in declaring those civil rights and that political status is
bound by the Constitution to recognize these fundamental rights, immunities, and privileges, and it can
make no definition of civil rights, it can make no declaration of political status, that is not within the lines
of that Constitution and of these limitations as they
have been recognized and expounded.
To recur now to the statute, Congress has already
legislated upon this subject. It has provided in anticipation what shall be the rights and what are the
rights of the occupants and inhabitants of our territory; and I read these sections:
Sec. 1977. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to
like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of
every kind, and to no other.
There is one section applicable to personal rights.
Now the next section:




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN          W. DANIEL.       407
Sec. 1978. All citizens of the United States shall have the same
right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens
thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property.
Then there is still another section:
Sec. 1979. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.
Here, then, Congress has already by anticipation
fixed its policy as to citizens.  It has already put the
Filipino upon the plane of any other American citizen.    It has already interpreted the clauses of the
Constitution which operate upon it, and the very moment that the assent of the Senate of the United States
goes to the treaty, the moment the bars are down, the
gates are opened and the Filipino walks under the
protection of that statute and can say, if he will, as
proudly as any of us, "I, too, am an American citizen,
and claim the right of the road and the freedom of the
mart and all the privileges, rights, and immunities
which attach to me as such."
Now, if we are to have these people, let us have a
little understanding of Whom     they are.   We do not
know much. I know, probably, as little as any, but I
have tried to find out by hasty perusal of encyclopedias, magazines, newspaper articles, etc.If that statute did not exist ready-made, applying to
the Filipinos eo instanti, we would be obliged by the
Constitution immediately to make it. Instead of acquiring by the treaty any suggestion or right to repeal
it, we would come under the most solemn adjuration
that man can live under to enact it.
Would any benefit of trade compensate us for this
great change in our national life and this organic
change in our institutions? If there be any underly



408     SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.
ing incentive that has not been fully exploited with
respect to this treaty, it must be that we are going to
get some trade benefit from it. We will get a place to
build railroads, perhaps, though there are a great many
good    openings for     railroads yet remaining in this
country. We will have an enlarged market for our
wares, it may be suggested. On this line I beg to
read a line from a pamphlet called "The Colonial Systems of the World," which has just been issued by our
own Government, compiled by Mr. O. P. Austin:
Commerce between the successful colonies and their mother countries is in nearly all cases placed upon practically the same basis as
that with other countries, goods from the home countries receiving
in the vast majority of cases no advantages over those from other
countries in import duties or other exactions of this character affecting
commerce. In the more prosperous and progressive colonies, the
percentage of importations from the mother countries grows somewhat less as the business and prosperity increase.
The chief British colonies in North America (Canada and NeWfoundland), which in 1871 took 50 per cent of their importations from
the home country, took in 1896 less than 30 per cent from the United
Kingdom; those of South Africa (Cape Colony and Natal), which in
1871 took 83 per cent from the home country, took but 71 per cent in
1896; those of Australia and the adjacent islands, which in 1876 took
48 per cent from the home country, in 1896 took but 40 per cent. The
French colonies now take from the home country about 42 per cent
of their total imports, while the British colonies obtain about 40 per
cent of their total imports from the home country.
This shows that the exploitation of colonies for the
purpose of monopolizing trade is a vanishing quantity
in the civilization of the world; and in the last two or
three decades even, in the colonies of Great Britain
and France, Which those great nations have cultivated
and tried to build up as subsidiary to their home markets, the proportion of goods that they have bought
from the mother country has been a constantly diminishing quantity. So I say, under the conditions which
we at present find the colonizing exploitation schemes
of the world's aggressive       aggrandizement, they      are
not in that attitude to tempt us to go there for the
purposes of trade.
There is another fact with respect to our own trade
which is equally significant as indicative of what




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.  409


should be our true policy. It is not necessary to own
a man in order to sell something to him. It may be
very convenient to catch a fellow and tie him down,
to build a tariff fortification on one side and an internal revenue fortification on the other, and then say,
"Buy this and give me that." It is a scheme which is
outworked in the world's progress. It is no longer
necessary to buy a man and tie him and hold him and
compel him to trade with you. Neither is it necessary
to exercise suzerainty after Turkish or Spanish or
English or any other fashion in order to trade with
people.
With whom to-day is our largest and most profitable trade? From whom do we derive the largest
balance that goes into our coffers? From whom do
we receive the largest sums for our agricultural products or for our many articles of manufacture which are
now possessing the earth, not by colonization, not by
the sovereignty of our Government, but which are
now conquering the earth and subduing nations to
pay tribute to us through the excellence of American
workingmen and the cheapness of American products, brought forth by skilled labor, challenging the
world to competition? It is Great Britain. She is
our first benefactor in the way of trade.
Yet, strange to say, we have not a single strategic
island at the mouth of Liverpool Harbor. We have
not built a single American castle, after the pattern of
Morro, upon the bank of the Thames.   At Portsmouth and Southampton and Dover, and at all the
other ports of England, our flag comes and goes, and
the merchantmen deliver our goods and bring back
what we want, and there is no American soldier there,
there is no American gun there, there is no Philippine
Island there, there is no Hawaiian Island there, there




410 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


is nothing there except the superiority of American
goods and the Englishman with his money who wants
to buy them.
The time has passed in the history of the world
when you have to blow your way to trade by dynamite. The time has passed in the history of the world,
even in China, when you can build Chinese walls
around nations. They say we want to go to the Philippines to open the door of the East. That is progress. Yet others say that when we get in the Philippines to open the door of the East they want to trim
down the Declaration of Independence.
They want to viscerate the Constitution of the
United States; they want to revise and correct the
judicial decisions of Marshall and Taney; they want
to upset the Supreme Court, and they want to repeal
the free statutes of an American Congress, so as to
shut the door behind the Philippines and build an inner wall to keep them from communicating and trading with us. To this complexion we have come at
last, so incongruous, so heterogeneous, so contradictory of all we have been and all that we ought to be.
We are breaking down our history, repudiating and
belittling our principles, and seeking to subvert the
whole theory and settled tenure of American progress
and of American rule, just to get and embody in our
Commonwealth some scattered, barbarous, or savage
islands and people of a mixed and nondescript race.
I desire to insert here from the Democratic Magazine for January, I899, a summary of who these new
Americans are. It is a compilation summarized from
the books and papers which have recently been written
upon the subject. In the first place, we are to have
25,000 Negritos, aborigines. They have no fixed occupation. They are American citizens, or will be, out




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 411


of a job, but ready for one. They are dwarfish as a
rule, 4 feet 8 inches in average height; negroid features, hair, and color; tattoed; nearly naked. Their
religion is pagan.
In the next place, we have 3,000,000 Tagals and
2,500,000 Visayos.  They are Catholic.  They are
field hands, day laborers, servants, agriculturists,
small traders. They are tall and well formed, round
head, flat nose, low brow, large dark eyes.
Then we have the Moros, of whom there are 300,ooo. They are Mohammedans. They are agriculturists,
hunters, and fishers, and our noble cod is in danger,
for they will fish and fish and their fish will come here
in competition with our fish.  They are tall and
strong, scantily clothed, rather savage-featured.
Then come the Igorrotes. They are pagan. There
are 500,000 of them. They live in the mountainous
districts. They are dirty and repulsive in appearance,
industrious, monogamists, distinct from Malays and
Negritos. They are probably of Japanese origin.
Then come scattered tribes, 2,000,000, mixed (pagan,
Catholic, Mohammedan) altogether. They are found
throughout the archipelago. They are hunters, fishers, small agriculturists; varying, some closely resembling Negritos, others equal to Tagals.
Then we have the Spanish, 1o,ooo. Three hundred
years of colonization and only 10,000 Spaniards there!
How long would it be before there are Io,ooo Americans there?  There are only a handful now.  There
are only 200 Englishmen in the city of Manila.  The
people of our race only touch at the Philippine Islands, and it is touch and go. They stop to have a
transaction or to direct a transaction, and as one of our
Eastern States was said to be a most excellent State to
emigrate from, the Philippine Islands are considered




412  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


by all civilized nations whose people have ever been
there as a most excellent place to get away from, and
as quickly as possible, and they have all got away
from there. Even to-day, after three hundred years
of occupation, only Io,ooo Spaniards have located
there.
Then come the Spanish Mestizos, descendants of
Spanish fathers and native mothers, 50,000, Catholic.
Then come the Chinese, 200,000, Buddhists.          They
are in every city and town. John Chinaman is everywhere, with his cheap laundry and his cheap transactions in various things. In every city and town he is
located.    They are merchants, tradesmen, laborers.
Every community of any size has its Chinese quota.
They are hated by Spaniards and heavily taxed, but
they are industrious and prosperous.
Then come the Chinese Mestizos, or mixed breed,
400,000; double the number of the pure and genuine
article.  They are Buddhists and Catholics.         They
are in all important communities. There are merchants, tradesmen, dock hands, and laborers.
Then come other nationalities. Under the colonization of Spain, in three hundred years all the other
nationalities of these islands, containing some eight
or ten million people, amount to only 5,000.
The statement referred to is as follows:
[From the Democratic Magazine for January, 1899.]
INHABITANTS OF THIE PHILIPPINES; THE MANY AND MIXED
RACES OCCUPYING OUR NEW POSSESSIONS IN THE EAST.
NATIVES.
Negritos (Aetas) aborigines, 25,000, Pagan. Scattered throughout
archipelago. No fixed occupation. Dwarfish (4 ft. 8 in. av.). Negroid
features, hair, and color; tattooed; nearly naked. Roving bands, subsisting on honey, wild fruits, and roots. Driven to the more inaccessible regions by invading Malays.
Malays: Indonesians-Tagals, 3,000,000, Catholic. Northern and
central islands of archipelago. Field hands, day laborers, servants,
agriculturists. Tall and well-formed; round head, flat nose, low
brow; large, dark eyes. By preference inhabit the lowlands, many




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 413
living in pile-built dwellings; easily civilized, musical, lazy and superstitious.
Visayos, 2,500,000, Catholic. Southern islands, save Sulu and Mindanao. Agriculturists, laborers, servants, and small traders. Well
developed; regular but somewhat Negroid features. Peaceful, very
lazy, vain, fond of fine clothes, cigarettes, and betel nuts; tractable.
Moros, 300,000, Mohammedan. Inland portions of large islands.
Agriculturists, hunters and fishers. Tall and strong; scantily clothed;
rather savage featured. This class embraces all Malays not civilized
and converted to Christianity. Similar to Tagals.
Igorrotes (Igolotes), 500,000, Pagan. Mountainous districts, mostly
in Luzon. Agriculturists, miners, and metal workers. Dirty and
repulsive in appearance. Most industrious and moral of the native
tribes, monogamists; known to be distinct from Malays and Negritos. Probably of Japanese origin.
Scattered tribes, 2,000,000, mixed (Pagan, Catholic, Mohammedan).
Throughout archipelago. Hunters, fishers, and small agriculturists.
Varying, some closely resembling Negritos, others equal to Tagals.
Over sixty dialects among natives. Over thirty languages officially
recognized. About 200 tribes in archipelago.
NON-NATIVES.
Spanish, 10,000, Catholic. Mostly in large cities. State, church,
and military officials, army and navy. There are few Spaniards in the
island outside of army, navy, and church.
Spanish-Mestizos, 50,000, Catholic. Mostly in large cities. Merchants, petty officials. Descendants of Spanish fathers and native
mothers.
Chinese, 200,000, Buddhist. In every city and town. Merchants,
tradesmen, and laborers.  Every community of any size has its
Chinese quota. They are hated by Spaniards and heavily taxed.
Industrious, prosperous.
Chinese-Mestizos, 400,000, Buddhist and Catholic. In all important
communities. Merchants, tradesmen, dock hands, and laborers. Descendants from  Chinese fathers and native mothers.   Make good
business men.
Other nationalities, 5,000, in cities of Manila, Iloilo, and Cebu.
Wholesale merchants and traders. Mostly English, German, French,
and American. They monopolize wholesale trade.
We are asked to annex to the United States a
witch's caldronBlack spirits and white, red spirits and gray,
Mingle, mingle, mingle, you that mingle may.
We are not only asked to annex the caldron and
make it a part of our great, broad, Christian, AngloSaxon, American land, but we are asked also to annex
the contents and take this brew-mixed races, Chinese, Japanese, Malay        Negritos-anybody         who    has
come along in three hundred years, in all of their concatenations and colors; and the travelers who have
been there tell us and have written in the books that
they are not only of all hues and colors, but there are
spotted people there, and, what I have never heard of
_i




414 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


in any other country, there are striped people there
with zebra signs upon them.
This mess of Asiatic pottage, 7,000 miles from the
United States, in a land that we can not colonize and
can not inhabit, we are told to-day by the fortune of
a righteous war waged for liberty, for the ascendency
of the Declaration of Independence, for the gift of
freedom to an adjoining State, we must take up and
annex and combine with our own blood and with our
own people, and consecrate them with the oil of
American citizenship.
There has never been since time began such a fatuous notion in the breast of a nation. There has never
been such condescension from a high ideal and from
a noble and manifest destiny. Not only is it a degradation of this American land and of this American
race, but the scholars and thinkers of this country,
the mighty men who ponder institutions and courses
of events, look upon our adoption of these people and
our forcible annexation of them as giving the lie to
the whole current of American history and repudiating all the great principles of constitutional freedom
which we proclaimed at our beginning and which have
tended to make us great.
I have no criticism to pronounce upon my colleagues who differ with me. I have no reproaches for
those who see their duty differently.  I believe the
gentlemen who represented our country in Paris acted
honestly and conscientiously. I believe the honorable gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber mean
only their country's good; but I am amazed, I am
startled, I am thrown away from my ordinary bearings and conception of things to think that such gentlemen and such a body should contemplate the adoption of a treaty that utterly scorns and repudiates our




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.                   415
position; that is essentially at war with our institutions; that embodies a country which is no part of
the American continent and can not be made so, and
that must inevitably take up and work into the destiny of the American people these alien races, or must
make us get down from       the throne of freedom     which
we have occupied for one hundred and twenty-five
years and condescend with the scrambling nations of
the world to get what we can, where we can, and how
we can, to the repudiation of our national character
and of our settled doctrines and principles.
I wish to read a few words from Professor Sumner.
That he is learned and able no man will deny. That
he is profound and thoughtful all men know. This
is the light in which he regards the treaty:
The question of imperialism, then, is the question whether we are
going to give the lie to the origin of our own national existence by
establishing a colonial system of the old Spanish type, even if we have
to sacrifice our existing civil and political system to do it. I submit
that it is a strange incongruity to utter grand platitudes about the
blessings of liberty, etc., which we are going to impart to these people
and to begin by refusing to extend the Constitution over them, and
still more by throwing the Constitution into the gutter here at home.
If you take away the Constitution, what is the American liberty and
all the rest? Nothing but a lot of phrases.
And this indeed we have been plainly told here,
when the great doctrines of our freedom were quoted,
was a lot of phrases, and gentlemen are going to hew
out a new path and make new principles upon the
mimicry and policy of Great Britain and find their
path where they may according to the chance medley
of things. There is yet another sentence or two from
Professor Sumner which I wish to read:
The cold and unnecessary cruelty of the Spaniards  to the
aborigines is appalling, even when compared with the treatment of
the aborigines by other Europeans. A modern economist stands
aghast at the economic measures adopted by Spain, as well in regard
to her domestic policy as ~o her colonies. It seems as if those measures could only have been inspired by some demon of folly, they were
so destructive to her prosperity. She possesses a large literature from
the last three centuries, in which her publicists discuss with amazement the question whether it was a blessing or a curse to get the
Indies, and why, with all the supposed conditions of prosperity in
her hands, she was declining all the time.
We now hear it argued that she is well rid of her colonies, and




416 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


that, if she will devote her energies to her internal development, and
rid her politics of the corruption of colonial officials and interests,
she may be regenerated. That is a rational opinion. It is the best
diagnosis of her condition, and the best prescription of a remedy which
the occasion has called forth. But what, then, will happen to the
State which has taken over her colonies? I can see no answer except
that that nation, with them, has taken over the disease, and that it
now is to be corrupted by exploiting dependent communities just as
she has been. That it stands exposed to this danger is undeniable.
It was the wisest of men who said, "The thing
that hath been, it is that which shall be   *  *  *  and
there is no new thing under the sun." But, sir, not
until the hour that this treaty was debated in this
chamber did the idea come to my mind that it was
the destiny of this great American Republic to put
on the old clothes of Spain and to take those shining
feet which have walked across the heights of freedom
and put on them the worn-out shoes of Spain. We
have dispossessed her here by our shores of the land
which she despised and destroyed, and which she did
not lift up, but which pulled her down to its low
level. We can not make American citizens of the
Filipinos with such conceptions of citizenship as we
possess.
Not in a hundred years, nay, not in a thousand
years, can we lift the Philippine Islands and the mixed
races that there inhabit to the level of civilization
which this land, God-blessed, possesses. It is easier
to let down and to go down than to rise up. We have
risen up through the bloody sweat and turmoil of a
thousand years of battle and through bitter experiences which have chastened us.         Facilis descensus
Averno. The moment that this treaty is ratified, in
some future age, if such shall be the case, the historian
will say at that moment commenced the decline of
American institutions and of the great career which
America had set forth to herself to lead upon this
earth.
Any way you go, this Republic will stand; this




AMIoI.o RIVER
MAIN STREET IN JARO.




k




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 417


people will live for hundreds and a thousand of years
to come; but I wish that the longevity of this nation
might transcend anything that ever had happened
before in all the story of time. I would wish that
the Declaration of Independence, instead of being
belittled, might be carried nearer and closer home
to every hearth and hearthstone in all this land; that
it might go to the lowly and humble of whatever skin
or complexion with the outstretched hand of friendship and with a message of God's love.
I would wish that all might be exalted. But whatever happens, let us not go down. We stand to-day
by the bank of a broader and a deeper Rubicon than
ever Caesar meditated beside. At our feet we hear the
swash of the great Pacific Ocean, and beyond lies the
expansionists' dream-Caesar's Rome. Caesar never
did wrong without just cause. That is the imperialistic plea. America will not do wrong without a
great temptation. That to-day is the expansionists'
plea. For my country I hope that she will ne'er do
wrong.
Let no glittering temptation of trade, let no gold
from the gorgeous East tempt her eye or her hand.
She stands to-day the foremost nation of the world.
She stands to-day the foremost nation that ever the
world has seen. Let her tread with secure and steady
steps along her own highways, respecting nations and
respecting men, putting into the dream of every child
that goes to school that vision of liberty of which
the Declaration is the great figure and of which the
Constitution is the rock-bound formation. Let her
to the tempter of expansion to-day say, as He said
who stood upon the mount when the glories of the
earth were stretched before Him, "Get thee behind
me, Satan."




418 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


Peace! Peace! This treaty is not a treaty of peace
except in formal ceremony with Spain. It is a declaration of war against the Philippine people, not by
Congress, but in necessary and logical effect. We
know that the Filipinos are in arms. We know that
they have an army of from 12,000 to 30,000. We
know that they are seeking to work out their own
destiny. The moment that this treaty is adopted the
Filipinos are made citizens, and the moment they are
made citizens, if they do not instantly lay down their
arms they become rebels. The tie of allegiance is
created with this Government, and when the President or Commander-in-Chief says, "Our sovereignty
is here; lay down your arms," they bear them no
longer, under the penalty of death.
r  My country-may she ever be right; but my
ountry, right or wrong. That is my doctrine. If
the treaty is passed, I believe it is constitutional and
authoritative. I do not deny the legal or constitutional right. I accept the fate and the decree of my
country, and I stand with my people and my kind.
At the same time I know what it means. I would
that this cup might pass from us. There is a line of
battle in the Philippine Islands of a dusky race, who
have reared a flag and who have asked that they
might be free. The moment this treaty passes, if
they 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 and
to make them lay down their arms under the penalty
of execution in battle.
I hope that may not happen. I pray it may not
happen. But, oh, if it should happen, what a con
clusion is that of a holy and a righteous war begun




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 419


for humanity and for liberty, and what justification
hlas this nation before God and man?
The peace of the world! is it going to conduce
to the permanent peace of the world to have the forefinger of America (lipped into Asiatic politics?  I
much question it.  Lord Salisbury, in that recent
memorable speech, which all Senators have noted,
declared that it was his opinion that it would help
England, but as to the peace of the world, he could
not see that it was any assurance of that.
We know that China is in many respects a dying
nation. We know that Japan, Russia, France, Germany, and Great Britain, every great nation of the
world, is watching China and is trying to get certain
advantages tlere.
If we take the Philippine Islands we put ourselves
right there by the gate of war. We announce by
taking it that we intend to take the line up thereto follow the flag. The line is far distant. It can
not march there; it has got to sail there. It has got
to sail 7,000 miles there over tropical seas, around
the world in one direction or another. But if it must
go, it will go and it will stay. But will that conduce
to the world's peace?
The next thing in order to maintain ourselves we
must have an ally. We will feel lonesome out there,
perhaps, by ourselves. An alliance with some great
nation is the next inevitable consequence of this
treaty. That nation may be Great Britain.
I rejoice that there have been two great moral
effects of our war with Spain. In the first place, more
than over any other result do I rejoice that it has
made all Americans brethren in verity. If there were
wrongs committed, if there were mistakes made, if
there were errors for whom our fathers or ourselves




420 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


were accountable thirty or forty years ago, thank
God it has been wiped out in the blood of our sons.
Northern and Southern men, Eastern and Western
men, have baptized this nation anew with their blood
under the flag.
Next to that, I rejoice that the whole Englishspeaking race has been brought in closer affinity. I
am glad that our motherland and the people of the
United States fhave been brought together in the
manner that they ought to be brought together, by
their natural relations, by the affinity of blood, and
that congenial and friendly feelings exist. But no
bond of alliance has been made between them. We
have tied ourselves up in no legal or constitutional
engagement. Friendship has grown, as it must ever
grow, without sealing wax and without parchment.
But if we maintain our position in the East, an alliance is necessary. It will soon come.  The first
rumor of war that startles our business men and that
wakes America to anxiety will throw us into the
arms of an alliance of some sort or another with somebody.  What does that alliance with one person
mean? It means the rest of the world against us
There will be alliances against the alliance. The moment that an alliance is made, then instead of having
one chance for war we have two.
If we expect our ally to fight for us, we stand ready
at a moment's warning to fight for it. It takes two
to make a bargain.  Each must be faithful to it.
Then, perhaps, we will put a third in the alliance.
Then three must stand together or fall together, and
around that maelstrom just beginning to eddy on the
Asiatic shore; having first pulled American sovereignty out of its natural socket between the Atlantic
and the Pacific oceans, floating in the eddying waters




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. 421


of the tropical seas, it will bring an alliance there
and an alliance against it; and around that standpoint
some day will be fought a great battle for some nation
in which America and her institutions will be imperiled.
It is the unexpected that happens in such adventures, as it is the unexpected that happens in war.
In this way or in some other way such is the tendency of things; some collision of some sort at some
time is inevitable.
Now, what are our alternatives? The junior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge) said a few days
ago that we have the alternative of ratifying the treaty
or rejecting it. He portrayed great difficulties from
its rejection. If it is ratified, he said, we will look out
for our policies afterwards.
The senior Senator from Ohio (Mr. Foraker) on
the i th of January gave considerable consideration
to our alternative, and I will read what he said, because I wish to quote more accurately:
I know whereof I speakHe saidwhen I say that of the four things we had the choice of doing-giving
the islands back to Spain, giving them to other countries, leaving
them to anarchy, or taking them ourselves-the President acted most
wisely when he concluded that we should take them ourselves.
The honorable Senator's analysis of the situation
and statement of the alternatives presented to us was
complete with a single striking and important exception. He omitted a fifth alternative, or, rather, a differentiation of the fourth. We might take them to
ourselves as a sovereign accepting the perpetual sovereignty of them, and thus incorporating them eo
instanti as a part of us-as we did with Porto Rico,
or we might simply have required Spain to relinquish
her sovereignty, and have continued our military




422  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


occupation, which is a mere temporary assertion of
the strong hand, and left the question of sovereignty
and final disposition for future determination.
It is this fifth alternation, an easy and safe and ready
and expedient course, which I do most cordially
commend. The speech of the Senator from Ohio furnishes itself the reasons why this alternative, as it
seems to me, is the wisest one to be pursued.       He
says:
I do not know of anybody who wants to take possession of the
Philippine Islands and govern the people of those islands indefinitely
by force of arms.
Secondly:
I say I do not know of anybody from the President of the United
States down to his humblest follower in this matter who is proposing
by force and violence to take and hold these islands for all time to
come.
Then, if we are not ready by force and violence
to take them if they resist, if we are not ready to
follow our sovereignty by the necessary and inevitable corollary of sovereignty, why do that thing
which commits us to it?    Why accept or assert "sovereignty" there which in its nature contemplates all
time to come, and which predicates of itself indefinite,
aye, infinite extension?
Why, he says, "there are complications."   He justly
refrained from motives of prudence and delicacy,
which I respect and follow, from stating them. But 
I will add, however, that my motives have the additional one of ignorance.
But whatever those complications may be, there is
none imaginable that could not be dealt with from
the standpoint of military occupation, which is transient, momentary, and ambulatory sovereignty without committal as to its prolongation, as by an acceptance of title and sovereignty which is the lordship of
the land and of its population forever.




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.        423
It is for that proposition that I stand. We have
the formula of it in the treaty itself with respect to
Cuba. That it is acceptable to Spain when we ask it
is shown by the fact that where we asked it she adopted
it. There is no difficulty in the meantime.
The honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
Spooner], who addressed us so ably and candidly on
yesterday, said there was no difficulty about our protocol and about our having captured Mianila. I have
read that protocol. It solves instead of suggesting
difficulty, for by its own terms provides that until
by treaty we have settled this matter we are to remain
in possession of the stronghold of the situation. So
we will not stay there as an intruder. WVe stay there by
consent of Spain, and she herself has provided in
that protocol the very situation which we would most
desire and most comfortably occupy for a waiting
period.
So then I say, from the standpoint of that protocol,
by Spanish consent occupying the bay and harbor
of Manila, exercising our good offices as far as we
may to get her prisoners released from the insurgent
Filipinos, going on and fulfilling all the details of the
protocol with Spain in sending her soldiers back to
their native land, there awaits her but one thing, to
leave America free from Filipino annexation, in occupation of the theater of the war and in such a condition that honorably, reasonably, she may do henceforth without embarrassment that which seemeth unto
her good as a free people.
There are two great leaders of political parties in
the United States whose names will never be forgotten, and who, however great may be those who
will take their places hereafter, will never be transcended in the hold that they have upon the affec



424  SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.


tions of the common people of this country. It is
fortunate for the country and fortunate for both parties that it is so.
One of those men was Thomas Jefferson, the
author of the Declaration of Independence, the great
annexationist of American territory, the man who
from the beginning repudiated all annexations of territory ultra mare.  The other one of those great
leaders was Abraham Lincoln; and, singularly enough
and fortunately enough in the contemplation of the
great subject which we have before us to-day, Thomas
Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln stand for the same
doctrine, and the two parties are made into one
stream flowing into the great constitutional channel
of American liberty.
Both of these men, more than any men of their day
and generation, had confidence in and trusted the
common people. Each of them believed that every
individual had rights which all men were bound to
respect; and if Thomas Jefferson was the author of
the Declaration, Abraham Lincoln carried that Declaration severely, exactly, and strictly to its logical and
essential consequences.  We have just got through
that work with the loss of much blood and treasure,
and to each gentleman who to-day may hesitate upon
this subject, be he a Democrat, I would say: "My
friend, follow the teaching and the inspiration of Jefferson;" and, if he be a Republican, "I invoke the
spirit and teaching of Abraham Lincoln."
There be those who see an American scepter in the
eastern sky. It may be that that scepter is there; but
if that scepter be there, it is not a scepter that sparkles
by the side of the star that shone over the manger
of Bethlehem when the shepherds watched their flocks




SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL.       425
at night and when the wise men, looking for the Messiah, came.
No; I would rather invoke to-day that star which
hovered over old Independence Hall on the morning
of that 4th of July, 1776, when the world waited the
deliverance of a mighty message; I would point to
that star, the star of the great northern Republic,
founded by the great white race of the northern
nations; I would say we go on no war of conquest;
I would say that we respect the weakest and the most
helpless of mankind; I would say to the men who are
fighting for their freedom, be they many or be they
few, be they in Cuba or be they in the Philippine
Islands, that to them the great American Republic
gives the salute of honor and dares not condescend
to put her foot upon their necks.
I would point again to that bright star that beamed
over Independence Hall il the bright morning of our
birthright, and I would hope that ever hereafter we
might say of it that of its* * * true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.




I




 n
Ib~
,,                                                                                ";":
~ 
"i
ie,K~~  ~
if oi~, ;-~."I: YI~~
~:~~ '"
~ ui

i ~~- -~
 i. ~pp
'I
a:
 
I~iB
~ k








CHAPTER XXII.
THE AMERICAN BIRTHRIGHT AND THE
PHILIPPINE POTTAGE.
BY REV. HENRY VAN DYKE, LL. D.,
PASTOR BRICK CHURCH, NEW YORK CITY.
Hebrews xii: 16. "Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright."
This is the most important Thanksgiving Day that
has been celebrated by the present generation of Americans. 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 with such portentous clouds of danger massed along
the horizon.
It is a significant Thanksgiving because we have
extraordinary causes for national gratitude. The first
and greatest of these causes is the superabundant harvest with which, for the second year in succession, God
has rewarded the patient toilers who are the strength
and pride of our country. This harvest includes not
only the fruits of the earth, but also the manifold
products of human industry. The true power of a
nation is in the character of its workers. The true
glory of a nation is in the quality of their workmanship. The true prosperity of a nation is in the reward
which God bestows upon their work. For this reward,.
far greater than it has ever been before in our history, let us give our first and our deepest thanks.
The second cause for gratitude to-day is the new
evidence that we have received of the union of the
429




430 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.
whole American people in loyalty and patriotism. The
gaping wounds left by the Civil War have closed.
There is no bloody chasm between the North and the
South. The President presides over a united country,
responding as one man to a call to support the national
honor; and the brave men who once wore the gray
uniform are ready to march again beside the "boys in
blue" under the starry flag of American freedom. For
this glorious restoration of the spirit of national unity
let us give joyous and united thanks.
The third cause for gratitude is the renewal of cordial amity between the two leading nations of the
world-Great Britain and the United States. The
clouds of jealousy and distrust which have so often
risen between England and America seemed to have
faded entirely away. These two sister countries, representing in widely different political forms the triumphant spirit of Anglo-Saxon civilization, rejoice together in the clear sunlight of warm and vital sympathy. Such a friendship is nobler and more secure
than any kind of partnership. A true and open amity
between Great Britain and the United States, undisturbed by any rivalries in the dangerous business of
imperial conquest, unthreatened by any secret and selfish compact to divide the spoils of territorial war,
would be a powerful guarantee of the peace of the
world. For this unchartered friendship with our kinsmen across the sea let us give sincere and prudent
thanks.
The fourth cause for thanksgiving to-day is the
signal victory that has been granted to our country's
arms in a war undertaken for the destruction of the
ancient Spanish tyranny in the Western Hemisphere
and the liberation of the oppressed people of Cuba.
How reluctantly the American people took up the
cross of war after thirty-three years of peace none can




SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE. 431


know except those who have read the peace-loving
heart of the great silent classes, the happy, industrious,
prosperous classes, of our country. The call of humanity was the only summons that could have roused
them; the cause of liberty was the only cause for
which they would have fought. No party, no administration could have received the loyal support of the
whole people unless it had written on its banner the
splendid motto: "2Not for gain, not for territory, but
for freedom  and human brotherhood!" That avowal
alone made the war possible and successful. For that
cause alone Christians could pray with a sincere heart,
and mothers give their sons to death by slaughter or
disease, and lovers of liberty take up the unselfish
sword. The cause is won; the last vestige of the
Spanish power in the Western Hemisphere is broken;
Cuba is free. Proud of the splendid discipline and
courage and compassion of our navy, proved at Manila and Santiago; proud of the personal bravery of
the true heroes in our army who endured unknown
hardships, and were patient under incredible difficulties, and who faced with equal daring the pestilence
that walked in darkness through the camps of death
and the invisible bullets that sang through the cruel
sunlight of Guantanamo and San Juan hill; proud and
glad of all that American soldiers and sailors have
clone this year in the cause of liberty, we present our
offerings upon the solemn altar of gratitude. For the
Divine guidance and protection, without which a victory so complete and swift, even over an inferior foe,
could never have been won, let us give most humble
and hearty thanks.
But this Thanksgiving Day is not significant alone
in its causes for gratitude. It is an important day, a
marked day, an immensely serious day because it finds
us, suddenly and without preparation, face to face




432 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.
with the most momentous and far-reaching problem of
our national history.
The question that came upon us at the close of the
Revolution was serious: Should the liberal colonies
separate, or should they unite? But the leaders of
the people had been long preparing to meet it; and
the irresistible pressure of reason and sympathy consolidated the nation.
The question that came upon us in the Civil War
was urgent and weighty: Could the republic continue
to exist "half slave, half free?" But again the minds
of the wise and fearless were ready with the well-considered answer, wrought out after painful years of conflict. Slavery must die that the republic might live.
The question that comes upon us to-day is less urgent, but it is vaster, more fraught with incalculable
consequences.
Are the United States to continue as a peaceful republic, or are they to become a conquering empire?
Is the result of the war with Spain to be the banishment of European tyranny from the Western I-emisphere, or is it to be the entanglement of the Western
republic in the rivalries of European kingdoms? Have
we set the Cubans free, or have we lost our own faith
in freedom? 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?
Nine months ago no one dreamed of such a question. Not one American in five hundred could have
told you what or where the Philippines were; if any
one thought of their possession as a possible result of
the war, he kept the thought carefully concealed.
Six months ago, while Admiral Dewey's triumphant
fleet was resting in Cavite Bay, there were not fifty
people in the country who regarded his victory as the




SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE. 433
first step in a career of imperial conquest in the Far
East; the question of reversing a whole national policy and extending our dominion at one stroke of the
sword over a vast and populous group of islands in the
China Sea was utterly unconsidered.
Without warning, without deliberation, and apparently without clear intention, it has been made the
burning question of the day. Never has fate sprung a
more trying surprise upon an unsuspecting and ingenuous people. Never has the most difficult problem
of a great republic been met so hastily, so lightly or
with such inconsiderate confidence. And, as if to add
to the irony of the situation, political leaders assure us
not only that the question has been raised unintentionally, but also that it has been already settled involuntarily. Without any adequate discussion, without any popular vote, without any intelligent and responsible leadership, by a mysterious and non-resident
destiny, by the accident that a Spanish fleet destroyed
on the first of May, I898, was in the harbor of Manila
instead of on the high seas, the future career of the
American Republic has been changed irrevocably; the
nation has been committed to a policy of colonial expansion, and the United States of America have been
transformed into the "United States and Conquered
Territories of America and the China Sea." Surely
this is the veriest comedy of self-government, the most
ridiculous blind-man's buff of national development
that ever a scorner of democracy dared to imagine. If
it were true it would be a humorous commentary on
the Declaration of Independence and a farcical finale
of the American Revolution.
But, fortunately, it is not true. There is an oldfashioned document called the American Constitution
which was expressly constructed to discourage the
unconscious humor of such sudden changes. Before




434 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.
the die is cast the people must be taken fairly into the
game; before the result is irrevocable the Supreme
Court must pass upon the rules and the play. The
question whether the American birthright is to be
bartered for the Philippine pottage is still open. A
brief preliminary discussion of this question will not
be out of place this morning.
I wish to confine the question to the precise form in
which it is put. The case of Cuba does not enter into
it. There is no proposal at present to do anything
more for Cuba than we promised; to guarantee peace,
order and free government to a neighboring people.
That is a fine thing to do.
Nor do the cases of the Hawaiian islands and Porto
Rico come clearly and altogether within the question.
The legal government of Hawaii has asked for annexation to the United States; Porto Rico is a small island, close at hand, and inhabited principally by white
people who have received us willingly and are already
asking for territorial government. Whatever objections there may be to taking such territories under our
flag, there is at least no flagrant violation of American
principles. No one can say that these islands are annexed absolutely without hope or prospect of their
ever becoming a real part of the republic. There is at
least some shadow of resemblance between their annexation and the process by which the contiguous
territories of Texas and Louisiana were acquired, civilized and incorporated into the Union. The shadow is
very thin, to be sure, but it is perceptible.
But in the case of the Philippines there is a glaring
difference. No man of intelligence ventures to deny
it; many openly rejoice in the difference. The proposal to annex, by force, or purchase, or forcible purchase, these distant, unwilling and semi-barbarous islands is hailed as a new and glorious departure in




SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE. 435


American history. A new   word-iniperiaism -has
been coined to define it. It is frankly confessed that it
involves a departure from ancient traditions; it is
openly boasted that it leaves the counsels of Washington and Jefferson far behind us forever. Because
of this novelty, because of this separation from what
we once counted a most precious heritage, I venture
to ask whether this bargain offers any fit compensation for the loss of our American birthright?
I. Let us consider the arguments in favor of it.
They may be summed up under three heads; the argument from duty, the argument from destiny, and the
argument from desperation.
I. The argument from duty comes first, because it
is the strongest with honest and conscientious men.
Undoubtedly we have incurred responsibilities by the
late war, and we must meet them in a manly spirit; but
certainly these responsibilities are not unlimited. They
are bounded on one side by our rights. The very question at issue is whether we have a right to deny the
principles of our Constitution by conquering unwilling subjects and annexing tributary colonies to our
domain. On the other side our responsibilities are
bounded by our abilities. It is never a duty to attempt
a task which there is no prospect of performing with
real usefulness. We surely owe the Filipinos the very
best we can give them consistently with our other responsibilities; but it is far from being certain that the
best thing we can do for them is to make them our
vassals. If that were true our whole duty would not
be done, the humane results of the war would not be
completed, until we had annexed the misgoverned
Spaniards of Spain also. No argument drawn from
our duty to an oppressed and suffering race can be
applied to the conquest of the Philippine Islands which




436   SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.
does not apply with equal and even with greater force
to the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.
2. The argument from destiny is not an argument;
it is a phrase. It takes for granted all that is in dispute; it clothes itself in glittering rainbows and introduces the question of debate in the disguise of a fact
accomplished. "Yesterday," says a brilliant orator,
"there were four great nations ruling the world and
dividing up the territories of barbarous tribes-Great
Britain, Russia, France and Germany-to-day there
are five, for America has entered the arena of colonial
conquest." But how came the great Republic in that
strange co-partnership? By what device was she led
blindfold into that curious company? What does she
there? What must she forfeit to obtain her share in
the partition of spoils? That is the question. To talk
of destiny is not to discuss, but to dodge, the point at
issue.
3. The argument from desperation directly contradicts the argument from destiny. It presents the
annexation of the Philippines, not as a glorious accomplishment, but as a hard necessity. We must do it
because there is nothing else that we can do. A
speaker less brilliant than the orator of the five nations, but more cautious, puts the case in a sentence:
"We have got a wolf by the ears and we can't let go."
The answer to this is simple. We have not got the
wolf at present, though we are trying our best to get
hold of him. It is absurd to say that the only way for
us to get out of our difficulties is to go into the enterprise of wolf-keeping. Nothing has yet been said
or done which binds us to take permanent possession
of these islands. Granting that the Philippines need
a strong hand to set them in order, it has not been
shown that ours is the only hand, nor that we must
do it all alone. A protectorate for a limited time and




SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYRKE. 437


with the purpose of building up a firm self-government would be one of the possible solutions of the difficulty. To pass this by and say that our only resort
is to assume sovereignty of these yet unconquered islands is merely to beg the question.
No, these contradictory arguments from duty and
destiny and despair do not touch the real spring of
the movement for colonial expansion. It is the prospect of profit that makes those distant islands gleam
before our fancy as desirable acquisitions. The argument drawn from the supposed need of creating and
fortifying new outlets for our trade has the most
practical force. It is the unconscious desire of rivaling England in her colonial wealth and power that
allures us to the untried path of conquest; and this in
spite of the fact that during the last seven years England, with all her colonies, has lost 5 per cent of her
export trade, while the United States, without colonies, have gained i8 per cent. It is a secret discontent
in the part of a peaceful, industrious, self-contained
nation that urges us to take an armed hand in the
partition of the East and exchange our birthright for
a mess of pottage.
II. Let us weigh tlie arguments against such a
course.
I. It is contrary to the Constitution of the United
States as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The authority of that magnificent tribunal in which the
Anglo-Saxon ideal of the supremacy of law is forever
embodied, more clearly and powerfully than in any
other human institution, is clearly against the legitimacy of a policy of colonial expansion for this Republic as now constituted. The Supreme Court in case of
Scott vs. Sanford, 1856, held, "There is certainly no
)power given by the Constitution to the Federal government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on




438 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.
the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure. * * * No power is
given to acquire a territory to be held and governed
permanently in that character."
It is idle and foolish to urge against this that the
federal government has the power to make war and
to conclude peace. War is to be made and peace concluded in harmony with the Constitution, not over its
ruins.
2. Every following step in the career of colonial
imperialism will bring us into conflict with our own
institutions, and necessitate constitutional change or
insure practical failure.  Our Government, with its
checks and balances, with its prudent and conservative divisions of power, is the best in the world for
peace and self-defense; but the worst in the world for
what the President called, a few months ago, "criminal aggression."  We cannot compete with monarchies and empires in the game of land-grabbing and
vassal ruling. We have not the machinery; and we
cannot get it, except by breaking up our present system of government and building a new fabric out of
the pieces. Republics have not been successful as
rulers of colonies. When they have entered that career they have changed quickly into monarchies or
empires. The supposed analogy between England and
America is a fatal illusion. British institutions are
founded, as Gladstone has said, on the doctrine of inequality; American institutions are founded on the
doctrine of equality. If we become a colonizing power
we must abandon our institutions or be paralyzed by
them. The swiftness of action, the secrecy, not to say
slipperiness of policy, and the absolutism of control
which are essential to success in territorial conquest
and dominion are inconsistent with republicanism as
America has interpreted it. Imperialism and democ



SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE. 439


racy, militarism and self-government are contradictory
terms. A government of the people, by the people,
for the people, is impregnable for defense, but impotent for conquest. When imperiazlism comes in at the
door democracy flies out at the window. An imperialistic democracy is an impossible hybrid; we might as
well speak of an atheistic religion, or a white blackness. To enter upon a career of colonial expansion
with our present institutions is to court failure or to
'prepare for silent revolution.
3. There is an equally serious objection to the
attempt to launch the United States upon the business
of acquiring vassal colonies and governing distant and
inferior races, in the poor outfit of our people for such
a task.
It is said that we must begin or we shall never learn;
the trouble is that we have already begun, but we have
not learned. I am not speaking now in the spirit of
pessimism or despair of the American people.  No
man could have a more profound confidence in their
native ability, their fundamental integrity, and their
ultimate common sense. It is to this common sense
that I would appeal for a candid judgment of our
preparation for an imperial career at the present moilent.
Let us be on our guard against the flattering comparison with England. The English people have a
natural genius for governing inferior races-a steady
head, an inflexible hand, and a superb self-confidence.
What proof have we given of any such extraordinary
genius in our dealing with inferior races? Does the
comparison of the treatment of the Indians in Canada
and in the United States give us a comfortable sense
of pride? Is the condition of drunken and disorderly
Alaska a just'encouragement to larger enterprises? Is
our success in treating the Chinese problem and the




440 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.


Negro problem so notorious that we must attempt to
repeat it on a magnified scale eight thousand miles
away? The rifle-shots that ring from Illinois and the
Carolinas, announcing a bloody skirmish of races in
the very heart of the Republic-are these the joyous
salutes that herald our advance to rule eight millions
more of black and yellow people in the islands of the
Pacific Ocean?
England has a magnificent Civil Service at the foundation of her colonial empire. What have we? A
recently unstarched Civil Service in New York, a Civil
Service in Washington which is threatened with a new
and serious crippling, and a persistent endemic of
boss-rule all over the country. These things are not
good guarantees that we shall send our best, our
cleanest, our most educated young men to fill the
offices in our distant colonies. And even if we could
be sure that such men would be sent, they are more
needed at home than they are abroad. We have no
such domestic surplus of men and deficit of work as
England has. Her tiny territory and immense population mark her necessity, even as our immense territory,
not yet fully peopled nor wisely ruled, marks ours.
For a country in our position to set out upon the adventure of colonial conquest promises discredit to ourselves and discomfort to our vassals. With our unsolved problems staring us in the face, our cities misgoverned and our territories neglected, the cry of today-not the cry of despair, but the cry of hope and
courage-must be "Americans for America!"
4. Another weighty argument against the annexation of the Philippines is the frightful burden which it
will almost certainly impose upon the people.
First, a burden of military service. If we do this
thing we dare not do it half-way. A great colonial
power must have an army and a navy equal to any in




j
D
"T P"
O
~pr
id;C
i a
a
ct:
;I~ ~ — -~~~I ----*
z  i~ —:~ —~~~ ~
 t;If

E: D
i IIf ~
i.i








SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE. 443


the world. An expansion of territory to a line ten
thousand miles away means a new frontier of danger
which can only be defended by an enormous armament. No one can tell how large a military force we
must ultimately create. But this any one can foretell:
the ranks must be kept full; and if Americans do not
thirst for garrison duty in the tropics they must be
compelled or bought to serve. On the one hand we
see a system of conscription like that of Germany,
where every man-child is born with a soldier's collar
around his neck; on the other hand we see an enormous drain upon the earnings of the people, like England's annual budget of $203,000,000 for the army and
navy.
Second, a burden of heavy taxation. The cost of
militarism comes out of the pockets of the people. So
far as armies and navies are needed, their expense
must be cheerfully borne. I am no advocate of parsimony in national defense; our American navy has
been worth all that it has cost; and if our army has
disappointed us in any way it is because we have not
realized its importance, nor treated it with generosity
and prudence. But to willfully increase our need of
military force by an immense and unnecessary extension of our frontier of danger is to bind a heavy burden
and lay it upon the unconscious backs of future generations of toiling men. If we enter the course of
foreign conquest, the day is not far distant when we
must spend in annual preparation for wars more than
the $I8o,ooo,ooo that we now spend every year in the
education of our children for peace.
Third, a burden of interminable and bloody strife.
Expansion means entanglement; entanglement means
ultimate conflict. The great nations of Europe are encamped around the China Sea in arms. If we go in
among them we must fight when they blow the trum



444 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.


pet. Lord Salisbury says with characteristic frankness:
The appearance of the American Republic among the factors,
at all events, of Asiatic, and possibly of European diplomacy, is a
grave and serious event which may not conduce to the interests of
peace, though I think, in any event, it is likely to conduce to the
interest of Great Britain.
Hear the unintentional warning of an interested
friend! Colonial expansion means coming strife; the
annexation of the Philippines means the annexation of
a new danger to the world's peace. The acceptance of
imperialism  means that we must prepare to beat our
ploughshares into swords and our pruning hooks into
spears, and be ready to water distant lands and stain
foreign seas with an ever-increasing torrent of American blood.   Is it for this that philanthropists and
Christian preachers urge us to abandon our peaceful
mission of enlightenment and thrust forward, sword
in hand, into the arena of imperial conflict?
5. But the chief argument against the forcible extension of American sovereignty over the Philippines
is that it certainly involves the surrender of our American birthright of glorious ideals. "This imitation of
Old World methods," said one of our most powerful
journals, a few months ago, "by the New World appears to us to be based upon an entire disregard, not
merely of American precedence, but of American principles."
I do not speak now of our word of honor, tacitly
pledged to the world, when we disclaimed "any disposition or intention to exercise any sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said islands, except for the
pacification thereof." It is said that this was a limited
promise; that it was meant to be taken in a Pickwickian sense, that it applies only to the island of Cuba.
Pass it by.
But how can we pass by the solemn and majestic




SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE. 445


claim of our Declaration of Independence, that "Government derives its just powers from the consent of
the governed?" How can we abandon the principle
for which our fathers fought and died: "No taxation
without representation?"
Men have told me that it is a useless task to discuss
the question that we have been considering this morning. It is too late. A distinguished diplomatist (one
who believes that the war with Spain might have been
avoided if he had been given more time to complete
his negotiations) said to me the other night: "You
argue in vain. It is no more possible to check imperialism than it would be to stop the chip that has
gone over Niagara Falls." I, for one, refuse to believe
in the disastrous simile. There is still time to avert,
or at least to modify, the catastrophe if the people will
but realize what it means. There is still time to utter
a sincere protest against the final commitment of the
Republic to the new and perilous policy of undisguised
imperialism. There is still time to call for a halt and
an intelligent discussion, before an archipelago of conquered islands on the other side of the globe is made
a permanent part of the domain of the United States
of America.
Anonymous patriots have written to warn me that
it is a dangerous task to call for this discussion. It
imperils popularity. The cry of to-day is: "Wherever
the American flag has been raised it never must be
hauled down." The man who will not join that cry
may be accused of disloyalty and called a Spaniard.
So be it, then. If the price of popularity is the stifling
of conviction, I want none of it. If the test of loyalty
is to join in every thoughtless cry of the multitude, I
decline it. I profess a higher loyalty-allegiance to
the flag, notfor what it covers, but for what it means.
There is one thing that can happen to the American




446 SERMON OF REV. HENRY VAN DYKE.
flag worse than to be hauled down. That is to have
its meaning and its message changed.
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.
May the luster of its equal stars never be dimmed
by the shadow of the crowned imperial eagle. May its
stripes of pure red and white never be crossed by the
yellow bar-sinister of warfare for conquest. May it
never advance save to bring liberty and self-government to all beneath its folds. May it never retreat
save from a place where its presence would mean disloyalty to the American idea. May it float untarnished,
and unchanged, save by the blossoming of new stars
in its celestial field of blue. May all seas learn to welcome it, and all lands look to it as the emblem of the
Great Republic; the mountain-peak of nations, lonely,
if need be, till others have risen to her lofty standard.
God keep her from lowering her flag from that
proud solitude of splendor to follow the fortunes of the
conquering sword.
God save the birthright of the one country on earth
whose ideal is not to subjugate the world, but to enlighten it.




i0 
~.
~ ~ :" lic~e
"- "
liiii.i; : s~
I
iaill`,,
~:U
-~
F. E:
iil
r~,,,
~- gg,,
"""r;




a




CHAPTER XXIII.
LET US NOT WITH OUR OWN HANDS STAIN
THE IMMACULATE SHIELD OF AMERICAN ARMS.
BY HON. HERNANDO D. MONEY,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
In the history of the Roman republic there were
times of great public exigency and of national peril,
when the senate called from his place some great man
and put into his hands the supreme authority of the
republic. They said to him, "We suspend all laws,
all courts, all civil processes, and we invest you with
absolute power. But before you assume this great
and exclusive authority we place one last command
upon you, 'See that the republic shall suffer no detriment.' "
I feel that the American people, triumphant in the
grandest experiment ever made upon this planet for
self-government, have imposed upon each one of us
who sits here in judgment that solemn injunction,
"See that the Republic suffers no detriment."
In the first place, I want to say that I concede fully
the right of the United States of America to acquire
territory by conquest, by purchase, by peaceful and
voluntary annexation, and in the other ways competent to the sovereignties of the world.
I will undertake also to acknowledge that the treatymaking power has the right to negotiate by all the
advantages of the situation, so far as Spain is affected,
to secure the rewards of victory-"the spoil of our
449




450    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


bow and of our spear." But I shall also argue, after
Jefferson, Calhoun, and other men who respected the
Constitution, that the treaty-making power, of which
to-day we are a part, can only act within the limitations of the Federal Constitution, and that its actions
and results must be in accord with the theory, structure, and objects of our Government.
It has been contended that the Constitution of the
United States, the organic law of the land, the creator
of the Senate and of the Executive, can not run in
its full force in the whole domain of the United States;
that it must be carried to Territories and dependencies
by the law of the Congress; in other words, that the
creature of the Constitution is more fully endowed
with force and authority than its creator.
I deny that proposition. I care nothing for the
quotations made here of decisions and of statutes, in
every one of which the circumstances have not been
detailed which led to the dictum or the judgment.
They do not shake my conviction that wherever the
flag of the United States floats, whether on sea or land,
all of that domain which it brings within our jurisdiction is under and subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
When we acquire territory, by whatever manner,
ipso facto over that acquisition exists the Constitution.
Without that Constitution our bonds are dissolved
and we are no longer a nation. By agreement with
that instrument the laws of Congress have force and
effect everywhere-in Territories, organized or unorganized, as well as in the States. Everywhere the test
of life of the law is obedience to the Constitution.
The Constitution is around and over the domain of the
United States, as the atmosphere that envelopes the
globe. It has the force, continuous and uninter



SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


451


rupted, of gravity itself, and though it may not manifest itself, it will do so whenever its creatures, the
Congress and the President or the judiciary, shall do
something which is repugnant to or inconsistent with
its provisions.
The Constitution declares of itself that "this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made
or which shall be made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
Of what land? Is it that land which is inclosed within the borders of the States and organized Territories,
or is it the land wherever the jurisdiction of the United
States is asserted? What authority has the United
States itself anywhere but in and under this Constitution? By what device can a part be greater than
the whole, or a part of an instrument go further than
the instrument itself? Can it be an act of Congress
can deny to any person the bill of rights given by the
Constitution? How absurd the claim that a law of
Congress can have a wider range than that Constitution, by whose consent the law may live. Where this
Constitution is not, there can not be a law of Congress, nor jurisdiction of the Government of the
United States, nor the United States themselves.
Senators who favor the ratification of the treaty
have taken two positions regarding the inhabitants
of the archipelago. They are concerned for the welfare of the Filipinos. It is asserted that they are unfit
for self-government, and therefore it is unwise to put
in this treaty anything which leaves them to themselves to organize their own government which will
meet their peculiar needs. On the other hand, others
assert that they are sufficiently civilized to enter into
a half citizenship, and in that doubtful character will




452     SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.
be a valuable acquisition to the population of the
United States. Others speak of them as savages, to
be dealt with according to our sovereign pleasure, as
were our Indians. They are or they are not capable
of becoming citizens, and between these dangerous
Symplegades I do not see how those gentlemen are to
steer their boat. If the Filipinos are not fit for selfgovernment, then they are not fit for citizens of the
United States. If they are fit for self-government or
independent government, then it is our duty to let
them take care of themselves in the way best suited
to their intellectual, their moral, and material development. "The glorious privilege of independence"
is as much their right as ours, as sweet to the lower as
to the higher capacity, as dear to half-civilized as to
enlightened nations, and the free people who deny
liberty to those who have aspired, struggled, and died
for it shall not be justified by the material gains they
may hope to secure.
I realize the advantage of the possession of an archipelago that for 1,200 miles extends along the whole
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, a coign of vantage there that would
be to our profit; but while these advantages would
help, they are not indispensable, and our commerce
advances apace lacking them.
It happens that this country, which some gentlemen on this floor have called isolated (but which is in
communication by telegraph and by steamer with
every country on the face of the globe), has in its isolation, so called, during the last seven years increased
its exports 18 per cent, while Great Britain, colonizing




SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


453


almost the whole of the earth held by the inferior
races, has suffered a decrease of 5 per cent in the
same period?
If England, with colonies that reach around the
globe, and which occupy an area of more than three
times the whole of the United States, can not hold
her markets by colonization, and if we encroach upon
her in the markets which have hitherto been hers,
what is the force of this commercial argument upon
the Senate?
France also extended her dominion to extend her
trade. She is the second in area of the great colonizing powers of the earth, yet we are informed that a
few days ago M. Pelletan, the French minister, discussing the budget in the Chamber of Deputies, attacked the colonial system, declaring that France
spent $I6,ooo,ooo annually on her colonies and obtained nothing except an increase in exports, in which
there was a profit, perhaps, of $4,000,000. There was,
in fact, no French colonization at all, but only military
occupation. He entirely disbelieved, while the army
cost $200,000,000 and the debt another $200,000,000,
in the wisdom of spending $I6,ooo,ooo for the pleasure of ruling foreign populations. And what has been
her loss in drain upon her manhood, energy, and
brains, in blood more precious than her treasures?
I did not intend, however, to go particularly into
details upon this point, but I will make this general
remark, that England herself now sees the futility of
this vast colony holding in promoting her foreign
trade, and we have the expression deliberately made
by the British administration that England no more
desires to colonize and gain territory; that she only
seeks trade; that she only asks open ports.  While
Germany, France, and Russia are disputing for pos



454    SPEECH OF lION. H. D. MONEY.


session of the territory of China, England in her
struggle for open ports invokes our assistance. Yet
Lord Salisbury, at the Lord Mayor's banquet the
other night, declared that while the assistance which
the United States would render when she becomes a
factor in the oriental problem would be vastly beneficial to England, yet he doubted if it would conduce
to peace. Yet Senators here advance the argument
that we can not turn loose the Philippines unless we
precipitate a war between the great European powers
for the distribution of those islands among themselves
If such war comes, we will not be a party to it. If
we seize and hold the islands for the benevolent purpose of preventing other nations from quarreling over
them, we will inaugurate a war with the Malays of
which I can not see the cost nor the end.
While I would do anything that would be proper to
advance the commerce of the United States, yet it has
not been proved that the extension of our commerce
is dependent upon our possession of the Philippines,
but, on the contrary, we are outstripping our competitors. The commerce of the United States, fortunately
for this great Republic, has been founded more wisely
upon the superior skill of its artisans; and in this, as
in the public defense, it is the workingman who is the
solid foundation of our prosperity and greatness. Superior excellence has carried our wares into the shops
in all the cities of Europe, and in this day, when transportation is rapid and communication is instantaneous,
there has been a reversal of the old feeling. It is
Europe that fears America in industrial competition, and instead of depending upon the aid proposed here for fostering commerce, that Europe is
alarmed, and the Austrian premier has suggested the
idea to the chancelleries of the Old World that there




SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


455


must be a union of European powers against the trade
of America. We find the protectionist system turned
against us, and instead of walling ourselves in, we are
about to be walled out by the manufacturing and agricultural interests whose "pauper labor" has been the
bogie man for some and an exhaustless mine of wealth
for others.
That which carries American commerce abroad is
not the protection of this Government; it is not that
the flag of the fighting navy of the United States is
found on every sea and in every port; it is the superior skill of the American workingman, who demands a larger wage, a better living, a larger reward,
as his share of the fruits of his industry, than any
other workingman on this globe.
Nevertheless, this is an enticing topic, and I can
understand how a man from a great commercial city
will yield to the importunities of boards of trade and
chambers of commerce, and will conclude to give his
vote, neglectful of the general best interests of the
country. The men who plow, who sow, who reap,
who harvest, who create, are at last the foundation of
this nation's prosperity, and they make the threat of a
wall being raised against our exports idle and ineffectual. We can afford to laugh to scorn any threat
of that sort.
This is a critical moment, when a turn of the wrist
will send the wheel to the right and carry the ship
home and safe into harbor, or a turn to the left will
lay her upon the rocks; and whether the turn shall
be dexter or sinister, the future shall give judgment.
It is a serious thought that we are abott to do something for which our posterity may blush; that in the
very exuberance of our strength we are about to exercise it without judgment or mercy; that we esteem




456    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


but lightly the rights, the liberties, the sacrifices of a
people who for one hundred years have groaned under the tyranny of aliens. Are all these Io,ooo,ooo
people-nobody knows how many-unworthy of any
consideration in this vast international transaction?
It is said that we have not treated with these people
as allies or as auxiliaries.  Let us not deceive ourselves, for we shall not deceive anybody else. Senators fear that we will lose prestige if we recede from
the advanced step which they say we have taken, and
we have heard a lot of rant and fustian that would do
credit to a lot of barn-storming tragedians about hauling down the flag. We all know that no hand but the
hand of an American will ever do that. Of this we
are perfectly satisfied. When we lower the colors, it
will be because national honor and good faith demand
it, and not otherwise.
After Dewey's glorious victory in Manila Bay our
consul, corresponding with him, asked if Aguinaldo
could be of any service. Aguinaldo, as you recollect,
is a man who in some quarters has been described as
a sort of blackguard insurgent and a traitor against
the United States. He never yet owed allegiance to
us, and we have not had possession of his country.
He has been proclaimed from time to time an adventurer, a traitor, and a bandit, and insulted by other
opprobrious epithets.  The records submitted to us
for our guidance and information in this matter, from
which I presume our able and efficient commissioners
derived their information, show that this man has had
a most honorable career, that he is a brave, honest,
sincere, and able man, and that with all his opportunities he is poor.
There had been a long and bloody struggle between Spain and her revolted subjects in the islands




AM1AINJ SNTIIFt.E IN ILI)ILO.
StlE   P SCENE IN   OI|L








SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


'457


both parties had suffered and were weary of the struggle, and to secure peace a treaty "or agreement" was
entered into. Spain agreed to correct abuses in the
civil administration and introduce many reforms, and
to pay a large sum of money for the widows and orphans of the insurgents who had fallen in battle. On
their side the Tagals were to cease hostilities, and as
a guarantee of tranquillity Aguinaldo and about fifty
of his principal followers were to expatriate themselves. Four hundred thousand dollars was paid in
cash to Aguinaldo, who, with his fellow exiles, went
to Hongkong. No part of the balance of the stipulated sum was ever paid. One of Aguinaldo's officers
sued for a division of the money. The dispute was
settled by a payment out of court of $5,000 to the
claimant. Aguinaldo was living modestly at Hong —
kong, declaring that the money was a trust fund and
could not be put to a private use, and as the Spanisti
had failed to keep their promise of reform, it should
be devoted to the purposes of another rebellion, and it
was expended in the purchase of the munitions of war.
These people purchased arms to do what? To acquire their liberty, to conquer their liberty-these
people, who had groaned for a hundred years under
exactions and tyranny in comparison with which
those which drove our forefathers into rebellion in
1776 were trivial-these people, not discouraged by
repeated failures nor by bloody punishment, were
making another effort, as they had been doing again
and again for a hundred years. Then Aguinaldo was
sent for, not to excite insurrection against Spain, but
to control these forces already organized in rebellion
in the interests of the American attack upon the Spanish forces in Manila and the islands of the Philippines. This is evidenced by the proclamation of the




458    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


junta at Hongkong, by the proclamation of the junta
at Singapore, by the correspondence of our consul,
Mr. Pratt, at Singapore, of Mr. Wildman, at Hongkong, and of Mr. Williams, in the city of Manila.
Aguinaldo, on his part, promised that he would conduct the war with humanity; that he would control
the forces that were operating against the Spanish at
that time around Manila, and he was only put on
board ship at Singapore when Commodore Dewey
telegraphed, "Send Aguinaldo at once." He went to
Hongkong and there he put himself into the hands
of another American consul, Mr. Wildman, who, in
the secrecy of night, to prevent any interference, himself put Aguinaldo and 17 of his officers on board the
IT. S. S. McCulloch and sent them to Manila. There
he was put ashore and taken to the arsenal at Cavite
and was furnished by the Americans with the arms
which he required.
The chiefs who were carrying on this revolution
throughout the different provinces rallied around him
and made him their leader. They came promptly in
and gave their adhesion to him.  Then the correspondence continued between  General Anderson,
commanding the American forces, and General
Aguinaldo, commanding the insurrectionary forces of
the Philippines. He was asked to give passes to our
officers to go through his lines and was requested to
furnish us with the material of war. He did give us
carts, bullocks, horses, firewood, and everything else
we demanded of him. In these communications he is
called our ally; in others he is called our auxiliary;
but in every instance, unaware of the instruction of
our State Department, he trusted to the open declarations of our civil and military officers that he was our
ally and auxiliary. It makes no difference what our




SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


459


mental reservations were, Aguinaldo acted in good
faith, and we are compelled to make those people understand that we are not to repudiate the understanding which we gave of our relation to them.
"True hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood."
Are these people capable of independent government? The question is not of self-government. There
are but two self-governing peoples on this globe,
and one of them maintains its existence because neutrality is guaranteed by the great powers of Europe.
Others have the form of a republic, but not the genius
and spirit.  They are good enough republics on
paper, but in practice they fall short of the principles
which they declare. The Asiatic mind, in my opinion, never will conceive the idea of self-government as
we understand and as we practice it.
Take France for an example. That nation while a
monarchy was for more than a hundred years in the
very fore front of civilization. She gave to the world
art, science, literature, and manners-everything that
adds to the politeness and refinement of the human
race. But self-government finds difficulties, not insurmountable, perhaps, which seem to inhere in the
genius of her people and menace the stability of their
government. I, for one, do not believe that there is
in the Latin nations that capacity for self-government
which the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon mind conceives
and has put in successful operation.
The illiteracy in Luzon is not one-third of what it is
in the peninsula of Spain. They have at least been
well taught by the monastic orders.
But this government which is now organized and
of which Aguinaldo is the head has been denounced as
a dictatorship. Aguinaldo did that thing which is the




460    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


common thing and the proper thing and the only thing
to do in the history of insurrections. He did whtat
we did, what every South American country did, what
Greece did, what every insurrectionary country that
seeks to relieve itself from tyranny has done. First
they went to war in scattered bands, with little organization; then they came together without a head;
then there was a dictatorship, as George Washington
was appointed dictator, as Simon Bolivar was appointed  dictator.  After that was done, which
was simply a tentative and provisional form of government, when "peace comes and broods over a country with its white wings like a dove," "when war's wild
blast has blown," the people organizel the real government; and these are only preparatory steps leading up to that conclusion.
What kind of men is it that compose the Filipino
Congress?   The latest writer, Mr. Roberson, who
visited the Congress while in session, gives a very
favorable account of their character and ability. Of
the 83 members sitting 17 were graduates of European universities, and the president, Pedro Paterno,
took his degree as D. D. in the University of Madrid,
and afterward received his degree of LL. D. from the
University of Salamanca. He is an author of such
reputation that his books have been translated into
German.
Major Bell, the chief of our secret service at Manila,
under passes from Aguinaldo, visited many of the
Philippine bands and became personally acquainted
with many of their leaders.  He speaks of them as
brave, honest, and patriotic. Only two are called dishonest, and the adjutants he esteems bright, educated
and patriotic.
These are the men whom it is now proposed to sac



SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


461


rifice in order that we may have certain commercial
advantages in the Orient. I ask you, Senators, does
that commend itself to your consciences as representatives of the American people, as the custodians of
their.honor, their dignity, their majesty? I ask you,
is that consistent with your sense of justice?
These people have an organized army. Nobody
denies that.  Mr. Robinson, who has been to the
capital, says that Aguinaldo has to-day 65,000 men,
well trained, well armed; that the provinces contain
2,000,000 people who acknowledge allegiance to this
provisional government, and that a greater supply of
men can be had when they are wanted. Those are
the people we are to disfranchise; those are the people we are to declare incapable of taking care of
themselves; those are the people we are to subdue by
arms. Whenever we shall ratify this treaty and the
President shall issue his proclamation to the people
of Manila, he should pin on the door of the national
palace, with a sword, the declaration that we have not
gone forth to conquer, but we have gone forth to defend the right. What a terrible commentary upon
the honesty of the American Congress if in a war we
said we had begun because humanity no longer could
hear the cries and groans of those who suffered at our
doorsteps, that we would not be passive a moment
longer while these people were suffering and struggling and fighting for liberty in Cuba, when we declared that we were engaged in the holiest business
that could occupy the minds of men-if in the case of
the Philippines we should now repudiate that declaration.
"The sweetest libation that liberty draws is from the
hearts that break and bleed in her cause."  Is that
true as to the West Indies and untrue as to the East




462    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


Indies? Is a Cuban to be cherished and to be the
subject of anxious solicitude, for whom we pour out
our blood and our treasure, and the Malay, at the
other end of the world, under the same circumstances,
with increased aggravation to incite rebellion, not only
not to receive our sympathy but to be subjugated to
our power? Have we gone into the business of buying men?
Now, I know very well that it will be said that the
people go with the land, and that if we take the cession of territory under the treaty they go with it.
That is true.
But I wish to ask if it was not the extremity of
Spain that gave us the islands under such circumstances? In old times, when there was little law, international or otherwise, in the termination of conflicts the law of uti possidetis always prevailed; that
is, every man kept what he had. It was"The good old rule,
* * * the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can."
That was the practice of nations. As we increased
in civilization and respect for law, then we began to
engage in exchanges, and at last, after struggle and
travail, we began to consider human rights, to consider the men going with the land; and for that reason' I say that the very moment this treaty is ratified
by the Cortes of Spain and becomes a part of the municipal law of this land, as it does under the Constitution, every living soul in the islands becomes a citizen
of the United States of America, a citizen amenable to
its laws and privileged and endowed with all the muniments of title to liberty by the Constitution of the
United States. That is true not only of every child
born there but of every man there.




SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


463


Further, that it was so considered in the forming of
this treaty, else there would be no point in the provision made there that every resident of the islands
should have the privilege within a stated time of going before an officer and recording his intention of retaining his allegiance to Spain. The allegiance passes
with the possession, and these people are, citizens
whenever this treaty is ratified.  Not citizens with
the right to vote, because that is a privilege which
only the States can confer.  They will be citizens,
however, in the sense that they are under the aegis
of the Constitution, and I defy Congress or the Executive to do one single act that would impair the
rights of a citizen of Alaska or the Indian Territory.or the territory we propose to take now by purchase
or subjugation.
Under the law of uti possidetis, by the arbitrament
of arms, what would we take if we settled upon that
ancient custom? We would have the sandy point of
Cavite, and that would be all. The attack upon Manila was made the day the protocol was signed, and
was made through ignorance of our officers, of course,
and under the laws of nations it would have been our
duty to immediately put back into the hands of the
Spaniards what we had taken. The law of nations
requires that upon a change of situation of that sort,
made without knowledge of the truce, the offending
party shall place things in statu quo as far as possible.
Now of the rights of the Filipinos in this matter:
They are capable of independent government as good
as any which they have ever enjoyed, for they could
not to save their lives form a government that would
be so iniquitous and so oppressive as that of the monastic order that held sway in the islands and disposed
of governors, general officers, and people as they saw




464    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


fit. There can be no worse government than that.
Another thing. This cession of territory which we
have acquired some say is by conquest, but we all
know it was by purchase, unless "conquest" means
that we have so reduced the strength of our enemy to
resist, so reduced his ability to cope with us, that he
is prostrate at our feet. In that sense we have made
a conquest.  In that sense we could take territory
from the Pyrenees to the Mediterranean. The whole
peninsula was subject to us. It was conquest in that
sense. But if it means occupation, then I deny that
we occupied the Philippines at all, if the protocol was
of any effect; and nobody can deny that.
I ask, then, what would you do with these people
9,ooo miles away? Why was Warren Hastings, after
he had been Governor-General of India, impeached
before the House of Lords by the most brilliant array
of orators that figured in British history?  When
Lord Clive, whose genius shed imperishable luster
upon British arms, came back loaded with laurels,
and, unfortunately, with money also, to enjoy his honors in England, notwithstanding the glamour of the
great victory at Plassey, he was investigated by a
committee. He said, "Gentlemen, when you accuse
me of these things and I consider my opportunities,
I am astonished at my own moderation."
What may be done to the Filipinos is one thing
which has not been determined, it seems, in anybody's
mind. Yet it does seem, before we fix irrevocably
this law, which is to be the supreme law of the land,
that somebody ought to formulate a policy. Who is
going to do it? I have been told that they are waiting for Congress to adjourn, that the President and
his Cabinet may get up a form of government for the
Filipinos. That is pretty cool, when we consider the




SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


465


fact that the Constitution devolves that power upon
Congress and not upon the Executive; that it is not
the business of the President-and I speak with great
respect of him personally and for his high office. I
say it is none of his business about the form of government. That is a matter which concerns this body
and the House of Representatives.  It is not only
their prerogative, but is a duty which the Constitution
imposes, and which they can not shirk or avoid.
It has been considered almost a crime here to oppose the Executive. That is another danger. The
subserviency of the Senate to the Executive is one of
the dangers of this situation.  Let this co-ordinate
branch of the Government maintain its dignity and
power, such power as is granted to it by the Constitution.
Some newspapers demanded that we should vote
upon this treaty before it had been presented to us by
the Committee on Foreign Relations.  Those who
did not agree to it in form without amendment were
denounced as obstructionists before the slightest effort was made at progress, and at last, in their importunate eagerness for us to do something without deliberation, to discharge a momentous duty without
due consideration, some part of the press lapsed into
a condition of fretful and feverish mendacity which reflected on every man who opposed the treaty unamended, who did not agree to vote for the treaty.
This representation of obstruction was put out daily
in the press, and it was said that the debate on the
Maritime Canal Company was a part of the scheme
of obstruction, when no effort had been made to
bring forth the treaty, and when a little inquiry would
have shown that this side of the Senate was ready to
debate or to vote whenever they were invited to do so.




466    SPEECH OF HON. HI. D. MONEY.


Those people who feel that this country would lose
something of its prestige if we retired from the advanced step taken in the flush of victory, if the flag
were taken down, are totally without justification for
their anxiety.
Would this country suffer in the moral esteem of
the universe if, after having exacted this much from
an overthrown adversary, we should recede from that
large demand; if we should say, "We have concluded that we will not take the sovereignty of the
Philippines; that we will not be a factor in oriental
complications; that we will not be a world power in
the sense that we are to interfere and have a say in
every discussion as to partition of territory and trade
in the East; that we will not conquer and subjugate
the Filipinos; but will be moderate; we will be generous; we will be magnanimous in our treatment of
these people;" and we will say to Spain, "Here, take
the third article back. You have ceded your sovereignty to us; we do not wish sovereignty there. Say
now that you will relinquish your sovereignty in the
Philippine Islands, and we will say on our part to the
Filipinos, who have relied upon us, to some extent at
least, 'Take your country and do with it what you
will?'"
I do not mean an immediate evacuation, whose horrors have been portrayed upon this floor, but evacuation as the necessity of the case will permit; the withdrawal of American troops from Manila as from the
island of Cuba; a protectorate sufficient to maintain
public order; a protectorate sufficient for this government in embryo to organize itself formally and perfectly, to set itself in operation, to put its hand upon
public affairs, and to begin the administration of them.
Then we should retire. Would we suffer in the es



SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


467


teem of Spain? Would we suffer in the esteem and
friendship of the Filipinos? Would we suffer in the
esteem and respect of Europe generally? No, but the
great Republic would immensely add to her reputation for honor, for magnanimity, for generosity, for
love of freedom, if we made this concession.
But in the flush of victory we think only of our
advantages. This is a time when, in my opinion, we
ought to be cool; we ought to be collected. There
never was a moment in the history of this Republic
that we could more solemnly join that invocation of
the "Recessional""Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget."
In the hot flush of triumph protect us from ourselves. Let us not with our own hands stain the immaculate shield of the American arms. Let us not
with our own hands degrade the banner of our authority in any land.
Leaving out of calculation the taxes that will be
exacted from the working people and the producers
of this country, leaving out all these things that tend
to a larger establishment of Army and Navy, we have
to consider this further fact. It may be immaterial
to some. It may seem inconsequential to some, but
to my mind it is the most serious in all this most serious controversy. What effect will the military occupation of the islands, 9,ooo miles away, comprising
1o,ooo,ooo people, have upon the American character?
This Government is founded upon a presupposition of
the ability and capacity of the man, individually
speaking, to understand liberty and his rights, and his
courage to maintain them. The permanence of our
free institutions depends altogether upon whether we
can maintain this high type of manhood in this coun



468    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


try. I will ask you whether there will not be attacks
made upon its foundation when we begin military occupation of the Philippines with this ulterior design?
We put into the hands of a class or a party or a
man, when the time may be ripe for such a man, a
great force with which our people have become familiarized, which they now dread, which they now
fear, and the result will be that the introduction here
will be easy of that which is now considered impossible. If any one thing can be done that will change
the American type, if there is one single fact which
will incapacitate them for self-government-in other
words, which will destroy their individuality, destroy
their demand for participation in governmental affairs, that will impair their jealousy of military power
-that thing should not be done. These things may
come to plague us in years to come. They are not
impossible, they are not improbable; but, on the contrary, in my hunmble 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.
Another thing. We are told that we want peace;
that we want to get the volunteers home. We all do.
Everybody wants peace. I want the volunteers
brought home. They have that right. They did not
enlist for garrison duty.  They did not enlist for a
subjugating war. They enlisted for freedom. The
struggle is over, the cause won, the banner flies triumpllant, and they have a right to come home and
be dismissed from the military service. They are not
professionals pursuing a vocation; they are the citizen
soldiery, who have other business.
I do not suppose that any Senator is in any sense
determined in his conduct in this or any other great




SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


469


matter except by the convictions of his own linld and
that he is prepared to face the consequences.  The
American people will exercise a revisory judgment
over the action that will be taken here. When the
bills come in for the war with the Philippines, when
one demand after another is made for volunteers,
when the sick are brought home to get well and to
die, when they perish in that tropical climate, so inimical to Europeans that after three hundred years of
occupation the Spanish have only I6,ooo residents
upon the island, when these misfortunes come upon
us, and when we have been stigmatized by the lovers
of freedom as being false to the promise made, at
least to the hope if not to the ear, when we have suffered in consequence in our own self-respect, then I
believe that the American people will pass such judgment upon this action as will deter anything similar in
the future.
Every man here holds his conscience in his own
keeping; he is responsible for his own act, and I for
one will feel recreant to myself, recreant to my high
office, recreant to my duty to humanity, recreant to
my duty to human liberty everywhere, if I fail to give
my negative to a treaty that sold away the liberty of
Io,ooo,ooo human beings who, after a struggle of one
hundred years, demonstrated through blood and suffering and sacrifice their worthiness for a better fate
than is proposed. These men have struggled under
every disadvantage. The Malay character has been
developed in the ordeal of fire and blood to anl excellence not attained by their kindred in any other part
of the world. A hundred years through painful steps
they have moved along a road which they have macadamized with their bones and cemented with their
blood. The noblest aspirations that can fire the hu



470    SPEECH OF HON. H. D. MONEY.


man heart have actuated these men, resistance to tyranny. This great Republic has reached its arm across
the waste of water and helped these people to their
feet, given them the opportunity to organize a government and to run the race for freedom according to
their capacity.
Instead of that, shall we be the ministers of injustice? Shall we be the deterrent forces to discourage
the uprising for freedom elsewhere on the globe? Is
the flag no longer to be the beacon that invites the
people of an oppressed race everywhere to our shores,
or is it to be the "balefire on the rock warning the
world that approach is danger and contact is death?"
Are we to be the great exemplars of human liberty,
or are we to join the ranks of the monarchs of the
world in the lust for territory, the greed for conquest,
for aggrandizement, and depart from that simplicity
of liberty, of freedom, of the rights of man as set forth
in our Declaration of Independence, as guaranteed by
our Constitution? The fate of millions of people in the
Philippines, of untold millions in America, rests upon
the decision of the Senate.




I




Li;
"'"i
1~~":; ~
d.
""
",,;, ~ i
1;,1  n:I"
-
f- iilllli. 
i ~
Le
o,
M,,I~i 
i~ji.
"";a""'
Rpi ;*
iirj      i           




CHAPTER XXIV.
UNIVERSAL      LIBERTY
BY HON. WILLIAM E. MASON,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
It is easy to drift with the tide, but not always safe.
It is pleasant to remain within the harbor when the
storm is on without. But sometimes the storm within,
the inner conscience, is more dangerous to peace of
mind than the storm without may be to human life.
The simple resolution which I have introduced, and
which I shall ask a vote upon before the final passage
of any material legislation or treaty upon this subject,
does not have necessarily anything to do with the
treaty. I do not intend to speak upon that subject.
The remarks of the Senator from Louisiana went
to the suggestion that we have no constitutional
power to acquire territory except under certain conditions, and the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut in answer showed that both gentlemen had been
diligent in searching for conflicting authorities, and
they have convinced the Senate, I think, that the
question still is and always will be unsettled.
The proposition, however, followed by the Senator
from Massachusetts, and to which I wish to invite the
attention of my distinguished friend from Ohio, is to
the effect, first, that we have no right to acquire territory for an unconstitutional purpose; second, that
the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of
the Declaration of Independence, and, therefore, third,
that we have no right under the Constitution to acquire
473




474  SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


territory for the purpose of governing a people without their consent.
The resolution which I have offered does not involve
a question of law. If I believe at any time in the
future I can add to anything suggested by distinguished gentlemen, I shall have the temerity to enter
that field of discussion. The resolution I offer involves a question of policy to be pursued by this Republic and requires no learned discussion of constitutional law.
Understand me, I am not apologizing for the resolution nor for my speech. I regret its necessity; but
that it is necessary that this treaty-making body of
the United States should declare itself, one side or the
other, upon the fundamental principles of our Government I could demonstrate to you in a moment's reading of the current literature of the day. Could I show
its necessity better than reading one or two extracts
from leading journals describing the situation of our
troops about the town of Iloilo? One of the great
papers of this country says:
In any case the insurgent flag at Iloilo will have to come down
and give place to the Stars and Stripes. The fact that no American
troops were present at the surrender of the town has nothing to do
with the case. The American forces have taken the whole Philippine
group and concluded a treaty of peace with Spain by which the
islands have all come under the American flag. * * * But peace
and authority must be maintained; and if the Malay rebel factions
can not realize this peaceably, they must be taught the fact in a
way that they will understand.
In another place:
To raise any other flag than the Stars and Stripes over any town
In the Philippine Islands will henceforth be an act of rebellion
against the established power of the United States and will have to
be dealt with accordingly.
From this morning's paper I read just one sentence
to show that we are entering upon a state of war with
the natives of the island, lwhose only crime is a de



SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 475


sire to govern themselves and defend their homes.
This is from an editorial in this morning's paper:
That it may mean a long war to suppress the outlawsThat is what King George called Washington, you
rememberand establish American authority over every foot of the Philippines
can not deter the Government from the use of force at the earliest
practicable moment.
So much for the situation of the hour, a situation
which was not unanticipated by any man who could
think fifteen minutes ahead of the present moment, a
situation which was as inexorable and as sure of coming as the night follows day.
I ask only an indorsement of the Declaration of Independence.  Surely American gentlemen will not
sneer at my simplicity. Sirely American gentlemen
have not outgrown this document; and if they have,
they will have to pardon me that I have not mentally,
morally, and loyally kept pace with them in their wonderful growth.
I appreciate and agree with President Lincoln, who
said, "In the long run you can trust the people;" but
I want the people to hear both sides of this question
before the verdict is rendered.
Distinguished editors, writers and statesmen tell us,
almost constantly, that this doctrine of governing
those people without their consent is a part of the
platform  of the Republican party, and they would
discipline me because of my opposition.
I may be charged with speaking for rebels. When
did they take the oath of allegiance to our flag?
Name the hour when they have not claimed the right
of independence. I am speaking one word for the
Philippine Islands, but I am speaking two words for




476 SPEIECII OF TION. WILLIAM E. MASON.


my own country. A boy treading upon an ant, his
father said, "Don't, my boy; that is cruel." A learned
man said, "The ant has no nerve centers and can not
suffer." "Ah," said the father, "I am speaking one
word for the ant and two words for my boy." A black
man thanked a Senator here the other day. He said,
"I thank you, Mr. Senator, for what you have said for
my race." The Senator said, "I was speaking one
word for your race and two for mine." The one thing
that has dwarfed the white race more than any other
is the stooping of a hundred years of the white man
to hold the black man down. If I am to be branded
as speaking for rebels, let me say at the outset I am
speaking more for my country than for them.
We have learned, and must learn again and again,
the simple lesson of the law of compensation. That
law is as unfailing as the law of gravitation. There is
no vicarious atonement for a nation's crime. I care
not what your religious faith may be, no nation has
ever committed a crime against a weaker nation or
against her own citizens that the law of compensation
has not demanded settlement. For a hundred years
in this country we piled up the wealth of unrequited
toil of the slaves. We said, "This is the land of the
free and the home of the brave," and sold women and
children to the highest and best bidder for cash. No
picture could be painted of the genius of our country
in which the slave pen and whipping post did not rear
their heads. We tore down the slave pen; the auction
block came down with it; but there was not material
enough to make headboards for the graves.
You can not govern the Philippine Islands without
taxing them. You have not yet their consent to tax
them. You propose again to tax without representation. Look out for tea parties. Those semi-social
functions are liable to occur, for Yankee Doodle and




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM EI. MASON. 477


the Star-Spangled     Banner have been      heard in the
Archipelago.
In the light of the construction given to liberty by
one of the distinguished Senators of this body, who
has amended the Declaration of Independence in his
speech here by inserting the words "some of the people," let me read, in the light of that definition, the
definition of liberty as given by Webster. You remember Kossuth, the great liberator and lover of liberty. He came here in I851, and you remember how
he stirred the hearts of the American people here in
Washington long before we had heard of this new
interpretation that government was for "some of the
people."   When Kossuth made his speecll in Washington, Webster replied.     Remember, Senators, I do
not claim any monopoly on liberty. I do not claim for
a nmoment that I love it any more than you do; but
I beg and I pray you to hear this man's definition of
liberty-not liberty for nie fixed by you.     I read from
Kossuth's Speeches, page 159. Webster said:
There is, gentlemen, the great element of human happiness mixed
up with other. We have our social affections; we have our family
affections; but then we have this sentiment of our country; which
imbues all our hearts and enters into all our other feelings; and
this sentiment of country is an affection not only for the soil on
which we were born; it not only appertains to our parents and
sisters and brothers and friends, but our habits and institutions, and
to the government of that country in all respects.
We may talk of it as we please, but there is nothing that satisfies the human mind in an enlightened age unless man is governed
by his own country and the institutions of his own government.
Hear this sentence, and remember this if you forget
all I shall say to-day:
No matter how easy the yoke, though our dearly beloved friends who are going to govern the Philippines
may use a sillen cord, a golden chain, Webster says:
No matter how easy may be the yoke of a foreign power

And we are a foreign power so far as the Philippines




478 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


are concerned; we can not speak their language; we
can not read their newspapersNo matter how easy may be the yoke of a foreign power-no matter how lightly it sits upon the shoulders, if it is not imposed by the
voice of his own nation and of his own country, he will not, he
can not, and he means not to be happy under its burden.
No matter how easy the yoke, he means not to be
happy. But we are told that they can not govern
themselves. Where is the student of evolution who
talks like this? Where is the man who has read who
does not know that all government is made to fit the
people and does not rise either above or below the
people themselves? Who does not know the difference between "canned liberty," as the Speaker of the
House calls it, and the genuine liberty which we
enjoy?
No, no; they can not govern themselves. I was told
so the other day by one of my beloved constituents,
who never governs himself fifteen minutes at a time;
but he was willing to take an assignment under the
present Administration to govern all the Philippines at
a fair salary.
Can not govern themselves! Every man who ever
owned a slave always said: "Why, you poor, downtrodden slave, I own you for your own good, just to
help you; I eat my bread in the sweat of your face
just to keep you safe and sound from the ways of danger; and in order that I may continue to exercise
this Christian duty do not let me catch you with a
spelling book in your hand."
Can not govern themselves! And we are to say that
to-day to the poor, God-forsaken, down-trodden people of the Philippine Islands; and while we whisper
the words of consolation into their ears that we are to
give them liberty and life, we wink the other eye to
the merchants of the country, and say: "We will ex



SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 479


tend commerce and sell more calico." My distinguished friend suggested this morning that we ought
to rake those islands with our guns and compel their
people to wear shirts-not that they need the shirts,
but to increase the demand for calico.
We are to go to those people with guns, notwithstanding Dewey said they are competent to govern themselves-he had handled them without guns;
he had had no trouble with them.
Did you ever see the Passion Play? Were you reminded when you saw the picture of gentlemen in
foreign lands parting and dividing the homes of the
Filipinos without consulting them and without notice
to the people who live there-were you reminded of
the picture in the Passion Play where the garments of
the Master were parted by the throw of the dice?
But we are to exercise the right of taxation without
representation. We are to govern the ad valorem and
the specific duties. Ah, my friends, look out; for once
the spirit of imperialism governs the poor and weak
Io,ooo miles away, look out that that spirit does not
touch you nearer home.
When Kossuth wrote the declaration of Hungarian
independence he had in mind our own Declaration of
Independence. So he said here in Washington. For
over one hundred years every lover of liberty has
pointed to this sentence within this resolution: "All
just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed."
This sentence has been a pillar of fire by night and
a cloud by day to the downtrodden and oppressed all
over the world. In the light of this sentence crowns
have fallen to the dust and men have stood anew in
their own manhood. In the light of this sentence
Simon Bolivar, the liberator of South America, laid in
blood and carnage the foundation stones of the South




480 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


American republics. In the light of this sentence Kosciusko led his Spartan band against the hosts of Russian and Austrian oppressors of his native Poland.
This burning sentence attracted the attention of Lafayette, across the water, and his ships set sail for our
relief. In the light of this sentence Garibaldi struck
down Bourbon tyranny and carved his name not only
in the hearts of lovers of liberty in Italy, but all over
the world. No, we will not amend that sentence now.
We will not insert the word "some" just yet. It has
passed beyond the power of this country to amend the
Declaration of Independence.
You ask for expansion.    See how   we have expanded in the time since this sentence was written.
Not only have republics started up in place of monarchies, but monarchies have themselves gradually
broadened into constitutional governments, getting
nearer and nearer to the voice of the people.   Our
own xwas the first great republic, and in the better and
broader sense our flag floats from the dome of every
republic. From   Brazil to Nicaragua and Venezuela
the brave little republican flag is floating. It may not
be striped or starred like our own, but it is born of
the spirit of our spirit, and it breathes defiance to the
monarchies of the world, because our flag is in our
sky and because the Monroe doctrine is written forever in the hearts of the people.
Let me tell you what our good friend Fox said in
the English Parliament, that some of you expansionists read when you were boys and have long since forgotten. I quote his exact language, and I quote the
volume of Fox's Speeches, at page 6I:
The noble lord who moved the amendment said that we were in
the dilemma of conquering or abandoning America. What have
been the advantages of America to this Kingdom? Extent of trade,
increase of commercial advantages, and a numerous people growing
up in the same ideas and sentiments as ourselves. Now, sir, would




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 481


those advantages accrue to us if America was conquered? Not one
of them.
Let me read just a little further from what Fox said
in answer to this proposition, made so far by all the
people who are in favor of taking the Philippine Islacls, whether the people of those islands want us
to do so or not. Fox, following on in the same speech
on the same day, in reply to the Crown, said:
Such a possession of America must be secured by a standing
armyIs not that true here?and that, let me observe, must be a very considerable army.
Is not that true here? Aguinaldo has 5o,ooo men
and one climate.    Mr. Fox, continuing, said:
Consider, sir, that that army must be cut off from the intercourse
of social liberty here, and accustomed in every instance to bow down
and break the spirits of men, to trample on the rights and live on the
spoils cruelly wrung from the sweat and labor of their fellow-subjects. Such an army employed for such purposes, and paid by such
means, for supporting such principles, would be a very proper instrument to effect points of a greater, or at least more favorite, importance nearer home; points, perhaps, very unfavorable to the liberties of this country.
Not one expansionist, not one who advocates the
taking of these islands against the consent of the people, but what will tell you in the same breath, "Yes,
it is going to be a great tax upon the people of the
United States, but we will let the Filipinos pay that
tax." They are to pay for our standing army. They
are to pay the price of their own chains.
The Filipino, or resident of the Philippine Islands,
is begging to treat with us. Hle knocks at our door
to be heard. He loves his home as you love yours,
and as I love mine. He has breathed the inspiration
of our history. He asks only what our fathers fought
for-the right to govern himself. There is no treaty of
commercial value to the United States which could be




482 SPEECH OF HON< WILLIAM E. MASON.


suggested that he is not ready and willing to give us.
Then it is not the expansion of commerce you want,
but it is the expansion of the gewgaws and the tinsels
of royalty.
Let me give notice to you gentlemen who expect to
be in politics that if this war goes on, and if we open
the guns, as we threaten to do within ten days, upon
the women and children in the island of Iloilo, the
father in New England will begin to plead for the
father in Manila, the mother in Illinois will begin to
pray for the mother in the islands of the sea, and the
fathers will vote as the mothers pray. God Almighty
help the party that seeks to give civilization and Christian liberty hypodermically with I3-inch guns.
Have we got to fight and plead for those people in
the Philippine Islands as was done for the Cubans?
Are we to hear Aguinaldo called a cutthroat, a robber,
as we did the poor Garcia within this very chamber,
because he fought for liberty and for his own country?
Oh, but they say Aguinaldo is a self-appointed chief.
That is a way of their politics there. Look about the
Senate, and who of us is here except originally upon
his own invitation?
Why can not we now make those people our friends,
as Fox pleaded to make America England's friend a
hundred years ago?
We ourselves discredited the sovereign title of
Spain. We ourselves have thrown a taint upon their
possessions. We ourselves, in the face of the world,
have thrown a taint upon all sovereignty claimed by
Spain that was held by force. Yes, the insurgents held
more than the Spaniards held within their grasp, but
the Spaniards were better traders. They knew how to
buy and sell sovereignty better than the Filipinos,
who, thank God, have not learned it, and we ought
never to begin to teach them.




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 483


I am for the independence of the people of the Philippine Islands, as I am for independence of the people
of Cuba. I am bound by a solemn promise made in
this chamber. Senators may higgle and say it is not
nominated in the bond; but it is an implied promise
more sacred to an honorable gentleman than though
it were written in blood.
Anything else will be the breaking of a national
promise and a personal disgrace to 70,000,000 people.
Then we can say to the world, "See, there is Bedloe's
Island; the Goddess of Liberty has not changed the
liberty cap for a crown; the goddess has turned on
her pedestal and with her mighty searchlight sweeps
the continent to Cuba; aye, and across the water Io,ooo miles away the seed sown at Concord has taken
root; there is a new flag in the sky-not the flag of
the Western giant, with 70,000,000 people back of it,
seeking to extend territory and accomplish sovereignty, but the brave little republican flag which
flaunts its saucy colors in the very portals of the
Orient.
But to abandon them as Fox proposed to abandon
America means self-government. It is time enough
for us to say they can not govern themselves when we
have given them a trial.
Oh, the glory of responsibility! You have seen
common jackknife lawyers make good judges because
they were elected to the behch. They found responsibility, and it made them men. Soldiers fight better
in uniform, for they fear to disgrace themselves by retreat. They disgrace the country whose colors they
wear. Citizens grow in responsibility when panoplied
with citizenship, and the reverse is true when they are
denied that sacred offering. To abandon the Philippines means what? It means what Fox meant for the
United States-the right to govern themselves.




484 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


That we have assisted the Filipinos is undoubtedly
true. That they assisted us is also true. We are told
that Aguinaldo could not have got back there but for
Dewey. Then Dewey put him back. Then under all
the laws of common honesty he is an ally. Under all
the laws of nations he is our ally. Caesar, with all his
cruelty, aye, Nero, never accepted the assistance of an
ally and whipped his enemy and then turned his guns
upon the men who helped him.
I say respectfully that there is no more right or necessity of our governing the Philippine Islands than
there is of governing Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, or
any other South American state without the consent
of its people. Certainly we have no more right to
govern them than we have to govern Cuba. Our Government is committed to the withdrawal of our troops
from Cuba as soon as peace is restored and a government established.
Tell me why we should adopt one plan for Cuba and
another for the Philippines. Do you say, with the explosionists-I mean the expansionists, "We promised
we would not steal Cuba, but we did not promise not
to steal the Philippines?" Do you say, with Shylock,
"Is it so nominated in the bond?" You remember
Jacques in the Two Orphans was charged with stealing a coat. He said, "You lie; it was a cloak." Will
you tell me, please, how grand larceny and criminal
aggression in Cuba become high Christian civilization
in the Philippines? Is there some place in the Pacific
Ocean where we change the code of ethics and good
morals as we change the calendar and the ship's clock
in crossing?
We can not teach them to govern themselves. There
is only one road to self-government. That is through
the gate of responsibility, along the rough and rugged
road of experience. You can not teach liberty and




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 485


self-government with a Mauser gun. Spain has tried
it for centuries; at least, with guns similar if not of
the same pattern. For centuries she has been for expansion, more land, more property, more poor people
she could ride over with some cheap politician with a
crown on his head. Are we going to keep the crown
room there that Spain occupied? Is the throne room
to be kept intact for Tammany Hall or the Republican
party when we send our envoys there?
Spain is an expansionist and has been for centuries.
And say, my friends, have you forgotten the first rule
proved by all history, without exception, that every
square inch of territory taken by force has to be held
by force? Go to your children who are in the first
year of the high school and they will tell you the rule,
that in all history every square foot of ground taken
by force from an alien nation has to be kept by force.
There is Alsace-Lorraine, between Germany and
France. A standing army is kept there on both sides,
and there is a continuing threat of war. Are we to
continue to imitate Spain? She has believed in the
expansion of territory, expansion of commerce by
force, without the consent of the governed, and her
ships are lying at the bottom of the sea. Her men
are rotting in the ocean and upon the land all over
the world. Her flag has been dishonored, disgraced,
defeated, and sent back to her peninsula, and the
golden crown of imperialism  that sle has sought
against the will of the people has turned to ashes in her
palsied hands.
But distinguished gentlemen who claim a monopoly
of patriotism, who do not seem to observe the difference between expansion and explosion, say that we
who believe in getting the consent of the governed before we govern them want to give back the Philippines
to Spain. Everyone who makes the statement knows




486 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


that is not what we want. May I repeat the old story
of Lincoln? Driving in his carriage one day, he
alighted to turn a tumblebug to his legs. Replying to
the Cabinet minister within the carriage, he said: "I
merely wanted to give him a show with all the other
bugs of his class." He set him along the highroad,
along the line of the survival of the fittest.
Do you remember when Mexico was invaded by the
French and Uncle Sam said, "Go; there is the Monroe
doctrine; Mexico is covered by the shadow of its
wing," and the French soldiers left, and the brave little
Republic of Mexico is slowly but surely climbing the
ladder to a better education, a better civilization. That
is the expansion I believe in. That is the imperialism
the fathers taught.
Venezuela, within three years, was assaulted by
England-sought to be despoiled of her port of entry.
Grover Cleveland was President of the United States,
and he said to the greatest naval power ot the world,
"Stop!" You know the result. Venezuela, struggling
along, improving in civil and religious liberty, is
climbing higher and higher the scale of civilization.
We did not want to annex her when we spoke for her.
We did not seek to tax and govern her, but we set her
on the high road of imperialism within herself, and
that is the imperialism the fathers taught, and that
is the expansion I plead for.
I wonder if my colleagues have forgotten the scenes
of twelve months ago within this chamber, when the
distinguished Senator who now occupies the chair had
the floor and was for liberty and Cuba? Do you remember when some of our distinguished colleagues
read to us the charge by the Germans that we were
seeking territory, that Uncle Sam was a sly dog, and
that we were playing the part of the good Samaritan
and had a compass under our wings to measure terri



SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 487


tory? Was there not a distinguished Senator-from
New Hampshire, I think-who answered the slander
by quoting the Battle Hymn of the Republic?
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.
Shall we change the last line and say:
Let us die to make men slaves?
Have you forgotten how we called upon the people
to look this way, and we said, "Hear, O ye hills; turn,
all ye people of the world; turn ye, O eyes, and see
America. She worshipeth at the shrine of Him who
was born in the manger. We unlimber our guns for
humanity's sake. We clear our decks for the liberty
of others." Are we, by turning our guns upon the
natives, to say by our conduct, "Look not this way;
turn in shame upon us; the money changers are in the
temple of liberty; the jingle of gold and silver is heard
within her walls; and we are now about to barter and
dicker, to buy and sell the right to govern men and
women and children without their consent."
But we are told, and we were told only yesterday by
the Senator from Connecticut, if you will read his
closing speech in which he replied to the Senator from
Massachusetts, to whom I now take occasion to pay
my tribute of honor and respect, such as I bear toward
few men in this life-"we are going to give them liberty, but we want them to have our kind of liberty.
You must be happy, my dear Filipino, but happy in
the way I tell you to be happy."
I am going to read you the exact words of King
George. You liberty-loving expansionists, who are
going to give them civilization with guns, who are
going to extend commerce at the cost of the lives of
the boys of this country, when you say you are going
to give them liberty forget the difference between your
liberty and theirs. Let me read you the exact words




488 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


of King George, so that you may be sure to be on
his side when next you speak for liberty for the Philippines.
Here is the language of his kingship George III. I
am going to read you his exact words. He was "desirous of restoring to them the blessings of law and
liberty." Oh, why was not Pecksniff born at that time
to wear a crown? King George said exactly as you
expansionists talk to-day, exactly as the Senator from
Connecticut said-he was going to give them the liberty of his kind; Connecticut liberty for the Philippine
Islands, the canned liberty that Mr. Speaker Reed
speaks of; the misfit liberty that has never "gone"
among the nations of the world.
Let me read you what King George said. This is
the father they speak of, I will say to the Senator from
Massachusetts, when they refer him to the fathers.
They did refer to the father-George III. Let me
read you his exact words, and when next you strut
before your constituents and say, "We are the superior
race; we are the Anglo-Saxons; we have larger
cloaks and can say longer prayers; we stand higher
than upon the house tops; we thank God we are not
as other men," they can say, with King George, "We
are going to give those poor devils the kind of liberty
we want them to take, and if they do not take our liberty we will shoot them to death." I am going to read
you King George's liberty. You can insert it in three
lines of a speech made by the distinguished Senator,
and you could not tell whether it was the Senator or
King George who made it:
I am desirous of restoring to them the blessings of law and
liberty equally enjoyed by every British subjectYou want to strike out the word "British" and insert "American" in the gentleman's speech; that is
all



:I
~8,; - .~ ~- T ~' i:
~:
3
a
L
d
~3                                  t
ci
ji
Li
r-i
h, y
r
d

Irl i
3:11
L:C
iJ I
B i 9i
":
~i;l
a
9                                             "I
a

ri
B
r
i
hi
i ir-~~~~
ui9
irl
ri
B
";
BjjlBBt l,?a,r;I.i
,s~e: r








SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 491
which they have fatally and desperately exchanged for the calamities of war and the arbitrary tyranny of their chiefs.
"Chiefs," he said. The King said "chiefs." The
Senator said "chiefs," I think. The King referred to
Washington; the Senator to Aguinaldo. Was there
not an answer on the same day from the lover of liberty, Fox-not because he loved us, but because he
loved liberty? In answer to the King he said on the
same day, rising in his place:
But, sir, how is this blessed system of liberty to be established?
By the bayonets of disciplined Hessians?
I lack originality. May I use the same language?
How is the liberty to be established?  You have answered by your proclamation. You say, peacefully if
you can, but powder if you must. I say the boys in
blue or gray, or whatever color they fight in, enlisted
to make men free. They enlisted to fight the tyrant
Spain. They did not enlist to make men slaves. They
did not enlist to fight the Filipinos, and the fairest
thing you can do for the American youth before you
set him to shooting the women and children of the island is to give him a chance to come home.
They are not Hessians. They are not hired as
butchers. They heard the lofty talk of patriotism. We
were all willing to die to make men free. You have
no right, after having accomplished the liberty of
Cuba, to send your officers Io,ooo miles away to subjugate, to kill, and to destroy the innocent natives,
whose only offense is the love of wife, the love of
children, and the love of home.
I ask now for some one who shall follow me to answer, did Aguinaldo go back there under the protection of our flag? If so, is he not an ally? If he is an
ally, have we a right to settle terms of war and peace
without consulting him and his people? Ah, but it




492 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


was officially reported that our colonel in command
said to them, "Give up Iloilo," and they said, "No;"
and it is officially reported that our commander said,
"Before we burn your town we will give you twentyfour hours to take your women and children out under the stars." I say it is reported officially that this
gentleman in charge-I have forgotten the name of
the colonel in charge-said that before he bombarded
the town-it has not been denied; it has been reported
frequently-he would give them twenty-four hours.
We have never put our foot upon that island. We
were not even there when the people drove the Spaniards out. The flag has never been upon the island,
either by conquest or in any other way. The people
are governing themselves, and we are told that we are
to give them twenty-four hours-that is not so long
as Weyler gave them, in some instances-for men,
women and children to move out of their homeshomes as sacred as mine is to me or yours is to you.
That is to be our action against people who have
never offended us; against people who have been our
allies in this struggle. At the point of a gun we are
to conquer our allies, having defeated the main opponent of the fight. Shade of the immortal Washington,
defend us! Tears of the martyred Lincoln, plead for
this country at the throne of eternal justice!
And I say that for a nation of 70,000,000 people to
stand upon the shore of a little struggling community
and threaten them is an example of cowardice almost
unparalleled in the history of the world.
But we are told by certain distinguished gentlemen
who are interested in commerce, and who talk one
story in the counting-room and another one in the
church, that we must civilize these people.  "Thank
God, we are not as other men. We must bring them
up to our standard in civilization." I suppose that




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 493


means clothes, religion, churches, schools, and the use
of all the peculiar kinds of drinks that we indulge in.
Food, raiment, and the color of the necktie must be
involved.
How are we going to civilize them? Shall we show
them how to run municipalities with boodle aldermen?
Shall we teach them to worship money and the man
who has it, regardless of how he got it? Shall we send
special instructors to teach them how to kill postmasters, their wives and children, if their complexion
does not suit the populace? Shall we have illustrated
pictures showing the works of the mob in Illinois,
North Carolina and South Carolina?
Since the signing of the protocol we have murdered more men in Illinois by the mob than they have
in the Philippine islands. Shall we take that branch
of our civilization and force it upon them with a 13 -inch gun? Shall we teach them, as they do in North
and South Carolina, how the mobs can run the towns
and kill the people?
Shall we teach them how to organize trusts so that
when one gentleman is out on his yacht and is troubled
with liver complaint or a trifle seasick he can float into
Manila Bay and raise the price of sugar on 70,000,000
people?
Shall we teach them how to organize their legislature as we have this body, so that the minority can
boss and not the majority? Shall we teach them the
speech of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut,
that all just powers of government are derived from
the consent of "some" of the governed? Shall we
send them Lincoln's Gettysburg speech amended in
that way-a government of some of the people, by a
part of the people, for a few of the people?
Some may say I belittle my own institutions. I
do not. I should like to call attention to a few of




494  SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.
the beams in the eye of the Americano that he may
not stretch and break his neck reaching Io,ooo miles
away to find the mote in the eye of the Filipino.
I am not afraid of the result so far as my country is concerned.  The distinguished Senator who
sounded a keynote the like of which has not been
heard in half a century in this hall may have just
grounds for apprehension, but I come from a younger
community. We have stood many things, as our
country has. We went through the Know-Nothing
craze, the Greenback fever, the free-silver tempest,
and we have come up out of it all brave and strong.
Why?
Because our Government has builded right. The
just powers of the Government have been derived
from the consent of the people. It is builded on a rock
that can not wash away. It has within itself the wellspring of eternal youth.
And why, in the name of all that is generous,
should we refuse the Filipino the privilege of lighting
his feeble taper at the light and heat of our flaming
torch?
Why is it that to-day in the happy land of Cuba
they are preparing to celebrate their Fourth of July?
Have you not read of the processions, the whites and
the blacks, the men and the women and the children,
the starving reconcentrados, marching and shouting,
singing their La Marseillaise, singing their Wacht am
Rhein, singing their Star Spangled Banner? Why?
Because we promised them independence, and by implication we promised the same thing to the Philippine Islands.
Why is it not so to-day in the Philippine Islands?
Why are they gathering their men and their guns
around them? Are they not saying to us, "This war




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 495


means something more than a change of masters?"
When some gentleman who loves liberty takes this
floor I beg him to tell me the reason for treating them
differently from what we propose to treat the people
in the island of Cuba.
What is the reason? Are human homes less sacred
in the Philippines? Are human hopes and human aspirations any less sacred there? Does the father love
his family less? Does not the mother sing her lullaby
as well there? Is there some secret reason whereby
we intend to take the sovereignty of the people and
gather from them the tribute we should have gathered
from the shekels of Spain?
Tell me, I say, when you have the floor, you who
are going to follow peacefully and pleasantly if you
can, but with gun and powder if you must, you who
stand upon the platform to take the Philippine Islands
regardless of the wish of the people, where in your
declaration of principle have you the right to treat
them differently from the people of Cuba.
Oh, but gentlemen say there is something in it.
There is the sale of rum and tobacco and calico. If
you want the land, there is Canada; that is nearer.
Take Canada. They talk our language. But when I
say that to my expansionist friend, he says, "That is
different." Oh, yes; it is different, and I will tell you
the difference. It is the difference between the fleet
of a Victoria and the fleet of Aguinaldo. That is all
the difference. There is no difference in principle, for
if you have a right to take the Philippines and govern
them and tax them without their consent, you have the
right to take Canada.
Why not take something nearer home if it is a
mere matter of advantage? Why not put the skull and
crossbones of piracy upon the flag at once and take out
of the Declaration of Independence that all just pow



496 SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


ers of the government are derived from the consent
of the governed?
We have had a very serious war, glorious in its inception, for liberty. We have set the high-water mark
in patriotism. When Patrick Henry said, "Give me
liberty or give me death," the world said, "That is the
high-water mark of liberty."  But here, at the close
of the century, we have lifted the mark. When the
President called for Ioo,ooo men, 625,000 between sun
and sun answered the call and said not "Give me liberty or give me death," but "Give liberty to the continent or give me death; I will put my life in the balance to clean the continent where my flag floats."
I have seen men dying in hospitals without a murmur. They said to me, "I am going to die; it is all
right, old man." I have stood by the open graves. I
have seen the mother's tears dry and her face light up
with hope-aye, with pride-when it was said to her
that he died in a noble cause; that he died like the
Master, for others. I have seen the tears dry and the
face light with pride because her son was there, having died in the cause as sacred as the Nazarene's.
But when your ships come home laden from Manila
with the putrid remains of our boys, and you take the
coffin to the mother's door, you never will dry her
tears, you never will soothe her heart, by telling her
that you have extended your commerce at tne cost of
her dead boy.
Who wants to govern the Philippines, le. me ask in
conclusion? Where is the ambitious Senator who
wants to make laws at this desk to govern people io,ooo miles away? Who is the kind-hearted statesman?
You can not speak their language. You do not know
their schools. You can not read their newspapers.
You do not know their religion. Why, I never even
saw one of their newspapers. I am told there is a




SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON. 497


bogy man here who represents Aguinaldo, but I have
never even seen him. I have an idea that their homes
are sacred to them and that their government, like the
fountain head, is what the people will make it; that
it can never be better until they make it better, and
that government can not be learned by inheritance any
more than you can inherit a trade.
I have an idea that their homes are sacred, that their
children are beloved, that they love their soil, and that
they have their songs; that the father has his prayer,
that they have a hearthstone of some kind, and that
the mother has a lullaby for her babe. Who wants to
govern them here? In the name of God, who wants
to do it? Who craves the power to make laws for
men Io,000 miles away whom you never saw? Who
seeks to go there as the governor?  If Democracy
succeeds, tell me the name of the man in this chamber
who wants to go, covered with the tinsels, the gewgaws and flubdubs of sovereignty that comes from
royalty, and have the natives receive you and keep
the flies off your sacred person while you listen to the
interpreter. What man ever breathed American air
in Illinois or Wisconsin who would stoop to this?
Ah, the fever has run high, the temperature has
been almost beyond our power to withstand. The war
made heroes of all of us-some of us in our minds,
some of us on the field. In the contemplation of the
heroic work of Dewrey and the Army and Navy we
have grown so heroic that we know not where to
stop; and in lcave of power we have forgotten the high
purpose and the lofty plan upon which the declaration
of war was founded.
If in my effort to-day I can get one American to
think a little more of the rights of man, if I can add
one comfort or one hope to the poorest, blackest,
meanest and lowest of God's creatures in the Philip



498  SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON.


pine Islands, I shall be satisfied and more than paid
for my effort.
I am done. I have not well done. I have been
advised by those whom I think most of as friends to
await events. But the events that I saw coming in
early August are here. I could wait no longer. Some
have been kind enough to say that my seat was in
danger.
Why, I have seen the boys come home sick, and I
have seen their graves; and I have seen so much of
sacrifice in this cause that, as much as I love the association and the seat among you, I would give it as
cheerfully as I would a crust, if my people want it,
regretting only that I have so little to give in this
cause.
I had hoped for some power of language that the
old masters were said to have who stood within this
forum in the past. I have almost prayed for some magnetic power that I could turn the tide for the liberty
of those people, for some magnetic power that I could
draw you so close that I could write in living letters
upon your hearts the word "Liberty." Not liberty for
your family as I prescribe it, not liberty for me or my
children by your dictation, not Austrian liberty for
Hungary, not Spanish liberty for Cuba, not English
liberty for the United States and not American liberty
for the Philippines, but universal liberty-universal
liberty for which our fathers died.








3. g WI*0'.0g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~
4 | |  l am         i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I.. I I. _k 1~~~~~~
g I l * _ _XS~~~~~~~
TV _ I | * IIIID _WF~~~~
| | _ I | | _ ~~~~~~~
111 l * I g | p~~~~~~i
11' I 2.E  ~~~~~~~~~
I1ll-  -1:                 1
I     ~oq /  
it z  




CHAPTER XXV.
ANNEXATION DANGEROUS TO LABOR.
BY HON. HORACE CHILTON,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
The pending treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain, which has been made public by
order of the Senate, contains three main articles. By
Article I Spain relinquishes all claim of title to Cuba.
By Article II Spain cedes to the United States the
Island of Porto Rico and other islands under Spanish
sovereignty in the West Indies and the Island of
Guam in the Ladrones. By Article III Spain makes
like absolute cession of the archipelago known as the
Philippine Islands and the United States agree to
pay Spain $20,000,000.
There are other dependent articles, the most important of which is, probably, Article VII, by which
the two Governments relinquish all claim for indemnity on the part of either Government or its citizens
against the other Government arising out of the
troubles in Cuba, and in which the United States
agree to settle such claims on the part of our citizens
against Spain. This may develop into an obligation
of many millions against our Government.    The
amount has not been ascertained nor even estimated
with any approximate accuracy.
The first two articles of the treaty present no difficulties. We are satisfied with a relinquishment of
Cuba to its own people. Few Senators object to taking a cession of Porto Rico, which lies in the Western
501




502 SPEECH OF HION. HORACE CHILTON.


Hemisphere. The Island of Guam, in the Ladrones,
is not more than two or three times as large as the
District of Columbia, and contains a population of
only four or five thousand. It is a convenient size
for a coaling and naval station, and we would have no
perplexities of government for future settlement.
The article relating to the Philippines is the one
upon which our differences of opinion turn.
I am not an anti-expansionist. I believe that it is
the duty and the interest of this country to widen its
boundaries as time goes on. But I would not do this
indiscriminately. In case of doubt, I would adhere
closely to the policy of the forefathers. In my judgment the taking of the Philippines will bring peril
both to the interests and the institutions of the American people. It is not an acquisition which will add
to the comfort and glory of the Republic, like that
of Louisiana, or Florida, or Texas, or New Mexico
and California.
It seems to me a matter of astonishment that such
a radical far-reaching responsibility should be courted
upon the scantiness of the information which we possess in regard to the subject-matter of our acquisition.
Perhaps no Senator upon this floor ever set foot
upon the Philippine Islands, and few will claim that
they possess that grasp upon the case which they
would feel necessary in an important private transaction.
We know in a general way that there are from 1,200
to I,800 islands in the Philippine group, that four or
five hundred of them are inhabited, and that a great
many of them are so barren that they contain not
a single soul. We know that there are from 7,000,000
to 12,000,000 people upon them. My own opinion is
that there are nearer 7,000,000 than 12,000,000, be



SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 503


cause we know how customary it is to exaggerate the
population of the Eastern nations.
There is no homogeneity among those people.
Some profess one religion, some another. Some have
never been under the actual sovereignty of Spain.
They represent all grades of society from rank savages to the semi-civilized children of Spanish and
Chinese fathers and native Malay mothers.   A
mere handful of Germans, English, and Spaniards are
there, but they are so few that they need not be taken
into account.
Now, the first thing which would have to be done
after the United States went into the Philippines
would be to bring the islands under settled rule. We
would have to do what Spain, after three hundred
years of trial, with all the instrumentalities of tyranny
at her command, has been unable to do. We would
need a great and growing army.
If we will confine our operations to Porto Rico and
Cuba, no additions to our present Regular Army will
be necessary. We need but few soldiers inside the
present borders of the United States, and our existing
military force can be spared largely for Porto Rico
and Cuba. Porto Rico is small in area and at peace.
That island can be policed by two or three companies
of good soldiers. Nor is there great danger in Cuba.
The fact of the proximity of the United States to
the West Indies, that our great power hangs over the
islands like a mountain side, the hopelessness of
making headway against this Government in a rebellion or insurrection, will deter those in Porto Rico
and Cuba who might otherwise be factors in disturbance from doing anything in opposition to our just
rule.




504 SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CI-ILTON.


But, sir, when we go to the Philippine Islands a
different problem is thrust upon us. We will need a
standing army of European proportions, and with that
standing army will come all the vast consequences of
present and future expense, which the American people should never forget. We will have retired lists for
Army and Navy officers expanding faster than we
expand our dominion; we will have pensions piled
on pensions to the latest generation; we will have
our minds constantly fixed upon visions of war and
conquest rather than peace and industrial advancement, and for years the Pacific cables will bring
bloody news to the homes of America.
But, sir, after we go there, after we have subjected
those islands under great stress and great expense to
the Government of our country, what a complexity
of social and political problems is brought to our
(oors. Take, for example, the labor problem.
There are two distinct dangers which it is hardly
possible to avert. Those dangers are, first, the competition of the pauper laborers of the Philippine
Islands who may come to our shores. The second is
the danger of the competition of the pauper-made
products sent out from the Philippine Islands to flood
and disparage American markets.
It is hardly material to the consideration of this
question whether the Philippine Islanders become citizens or not when they are admitted into the bounds
of our Republic. All persons who are within the
jurisdiction of this country have the free right of locomotion from one part of our dominion to another.
Would it be within the power of Congress to say that
an alien peacefully resident here should not go from
one of our Territories to another?




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 505


We can keep aliens from coming here. That has
been decided.   That is a power of our sovereignty
We can expel aliens after they come here. That is a
function of our sovereignty. But we have no power
to interfere with the personal liberty of an alien as
long as he remains under the protection of our Republic.
I will not speak at. length of the question whether
the sons and daughters of the Filipinos would become
citizens of this country. The Supreme Court of the
United States, in a case as late as the one hundred
and sixty-ninth volume, had occasion to decide that
the son of an alien Chinaman who was born in this
country could not be excluded from our borders.
Blackstone lays down that great principle of AngloSaxon progress that one of the first attributes of personal liberty is the right of locomotion from one part
of the domain to another. And upon original principles, as well as American authority, it is fairly deducible that whenever we take the Philippine Islanders
under our jurisdiction the Supreme Court will hold
that it is beyond the power of Congress to prevent
them  from  passing between different parts of the
territory of the United States.  That has been the
common construction of our Constitution for the last
one hundred years.
But suppose the danger could be safeguarded by
legislation. Where under our Constitution ldo you
find the authority to keep the productions of the Filipinos, manufactured in their own homes, from coming
unimpeded to the ports of the United States?     In
Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheat., 317), Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, said:
"The eighth section of the first article [of the Constitution] gives
to Congress the 'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises,' for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is gen



506 SPEECH OF HION. HIORACE CHIILTON.


eral, without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all
places over which the Government extends."
That is pretty strong.
"The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises,
may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States.
Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the
American empire?"
Chief Justice Marshall seems to have been something of an imperialist himself, and he uses that word
so that it might not be said that he only meant to
include the States of the Union or the organized Territories.
"Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of
the American empire?"
He then goes on to answer the question:
"It [the United States] is the name given to our great Republic,
which is composed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the
United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania."
You will remember the idea was advanced here a
few days ago that there was some other power in
Congress over unorganized territory than that which
we had over organized Territories; but when this decision was rendered the greater part of the territory
west of the Missouri River, to which Chief Justice
Marshall referred, was unorganized territory.             This
language applies to all the territory, as he says, which
belongs to the United States.
"The District of Columbia or the territory west of the Missouri is
not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania; and
it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that
uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should
be observed in the one than in the other. Since, then, the power
to lay and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes, is obviously coextensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United States, it
follows that the power to impose direct taxes also extends throughout
the United States."
The same principle       is practically    outlined   in  the
case of Cross vs. Harrison, I6 Howard.           From   a consideration of these opinions and the nature of our




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 507


Government and institutions, it would seem clear that
whenever any territory is brought within this American "empire," so called, it becomes subject to the
same constitutional principles which overrule Congress in regard to that which we now possess.
I can not believe that it is within the power of Congress to say that there shall be a rate of duty on foreign goods brought into the Philippine Islands
differing from the duty on same goods when brought
into Texas, Maine, or California, nor can national
legislation fix a tariff on importations which pass from
the Philippine Islands to other parts of this country
higher than the tax on importations which pass from
the Territory of Arizona or the District of Columbia
into any existing State or Territory.
The laboring people of this country have caught the
alarm. They understand the nature of this grave and
radical departure.
Is it within the power of the Congress of the
United States to-day to say that goods which come
from Arizona to the District of Columbia shall pay a
certain rate of duty or a certain rate of tax-I do not
care what you call it-and that goods which come
from Texas to the District of Columbia shall pay another rate? Certainly not.
I will quote part of section 8, Article I, of the Constitution:
* * * but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States.
Now, if a tax was laid on goods brought from Manila to San Francisco or New York, even if not a duty
or impost, it would fall within the definition of the
word "excise," and would be invalid if higher than
like excises on goods from other ports of our country
to New York or San Francisco.




508 SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON.
But I was about to show the views of our labor organizations in regard       to this question.       I received
lately a protest from one of these bodies, which I will
read in part:
"The undersigned delegates desire to present briefly the reasons
why the Cigar Makers' International Union of America, an organization composed of 31,500 members, located in 357 cities and towns, is opposed to the annexation of the Philippine Islands by the United States.
"I. Because the bulk of the cigars manufactured in the Philippine
Islands are sold at a price of $5 to $10 per thousand in United States
currency. This statement is verified by Edward W. Harden, special
commissioner, in his report on the financial and industrial conditions of said country (page 23).
"II. Because the exportation of cigars in 1896 from    Manila
amounted to 194,136,000, which, within a few years, under American
energy and direction, would increase to the extent of endangering
our home industry.
"III. Because the cheap labor of the islands, subsisting mostly on
rice and vegetables, would enable a few manufacturers to flood the
United States with this product, thus tending to paralyze our home
market.
"IV. Because the development of the industry in the archipelago
would throw thousands of Americans employed at making cigars out
of work and reduce the standard of wages to the Asiatic level, which
averages from 15 cents to 25 cents per day.
"V. Because all barriers that now limit competition between these
producing forces would be swept aside, and new conditions created
most disastrous to the moral, social, and material welfare of the
American working people.
"VI. Because the annexation of the Philippine Islands will not
change the Asiatic habits and customs of the laboring population, but
will, in course of time, reduce the American standard of living to a
level bordering on pauperism.
"VII. Because the welfare of 150,000 employees and small manufacturers and their families, depending upon this industry for a living
in the United States, is of vastly more importance to the nation than
the increase of commerce expected by a few commercial centers.
"VIII. Because it would nullify, in substance, the Chinese exclusion act, the alien contract labor law, and immigration laws, for
which organized labor has contended for the last twenty-five years."
So long as the Philippine people are held in allegiance to the Government of the United States you
can not deny them the privileges which pertain to
other prsons who owe allegiance to our Government.
Congress has no power to make discriminations between the people who owe a common obligation to a
common Federal sovereignty. This Government was
founded upon the proposition that all who served the
Republic should have equality of right.
And why are we asked to take up these dangers?
Why are we asked to run the risk of admitting 500,000
Chinese and crossbreeds of Chinese and Mestizos into




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 509


this Republic, to say nothing of the vast Malay millions which stand behind them? In the Philippine
Islands to-day are more than 500,000 Chinese and
descendants of Chinese. They mainly inhabit the city
of Manila and other towns.
Those people are laborers, merchants, and traders,
and when we open the doors by the annexation of
these islands we will bring into competition with our
home people more alien pauper laborers than would
come here in a hundred years under the ordinary
operation of our immigration laws. And for what?
For islands which, in my judgment, have been vastly
exaggerated in fertility and value.
The commerce of the Philippines would no doubt
improve under the touch of American energy, but at
best it would make but a small figure in our national
resources. The imports and exports of the United
States are now more in a day than the imports and
exports of the Philippines are in a year.
Men may deceive themselves by daydreams about
securing a great trade in China and Japan from the
standpoint of the Philippines. But I have seen townlot booms before. I have seen sober men intoxicate
themselves with visions of railroads whose charters
alone tell the story of their existence and of great
cities which the census taker never found.
A widening commerce with those far-off lands
should ever be an object of our care. The gallant
Perry, in old Democratic days, was the first man to
unlock the doors of Japan to American trade.
But to propel that commerce it is not necessary to
assume the responsibility of governmental administration.
I would not have this Government surrender all the
advantages which come from our glorious Eastern




510  SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON.
victory. I would ask one or more coaling and naval
stations in the Philippines, so that hereafter, if we had
unwilling trouble upon the sea, we might have a base
of operations in that quarter of the world.
But I would rather have a treaty which gave free
entry to American productions-yes, ten thousand
times rather have it-than a profitless and never quiet
sovereignty of the ignorant and mixed millions of the
Philippines.
I have spoken of the internal difficulties which will
present themselves. In my judgment, they form but
the smallest part of the gravity of this situation.
Whenever we go over into the Philippine Islands
great external problems will loom up. What becomes
of our Monroe doctrine? What is that Monroe doctrine? It is a beautiful principle, which blends the
interests of all the people of the American republics
to the south of us with the interests of this great nation.
In the interest of peace the United States will not
undertake to dislodge European colonies already established, but their boundaries are fixed. Ne plus
ultra is written for them, and neither by war, purchase,
voluntary cession, vote of the people, nor in any other
way shall a single foot of new territory upon this
hemisphere be added to European dominion.
In some respects this is a hard doctrine, but it is a
doctrine of virtue and necessity. To say to all the
great powers of Europe that while you may talk about
taking in new territory, you can not do this anywhere
in North, South, or Central America is something to
touch the pride of kings and emperors across the
water. Suppose Germany should have some kind of
a conflict with Brazil, and her war ships should lay
siege to and capture Rio Janeiro, as Manila was cap



SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 511


tured by us, and Brazil, brought to her knees, was
forced to treat for peace.
Suppose that the Brazilian Government, in order to
make this peace, were to propose to cede Rio Janeiro
to Germany as a part of the settlement. Could she
do it? No. At that moment the great, strong voice
of the American Republic would speak to the German
Government, "Stay thy hand, for we are sworn that no
government of the Old World shall ever hereafter
acquire another foot of soil upon the domain of the
new.
But the Monroe doctrine goes further. If the Venezuelan Government to-morrow should propose to
sell out one-half of its territory to Germany or to Rusria or to France, the Republic of the United States
would intervene.
It would be hard to find a citizen of the Union who
would give up that Monroe doctrine.
We will say to the powers of the Old World, "We
will not allow you to acquire further possession in the
Western Hemisphere."  Yet we will take Porto Rico,
and we reserve the' right to take Haiti or Brazil or
Cuba or any other part of North or South America
when we think proper to do so.
But after saying this, after reserving that liberty,
will we go across into Asia and enter into the wolfish
rivalry for land over there, and will we take and keep
all that we feel disposed to take and keep? I say that
all the moral power that there has ever been in the
Monroe doctrine will leave it whenever we are brought
to that extremity.
There is a corollary from the Monroe doctrine
which is stated by President Monroe himself and all
the other great statesmen of America who expounded
that doctrine. That deduction is that, while we will




512 SPEECH OF HION. HORACE CHILTON.


not allow the governments of the Old World to add
any further territory to their present colonies on this
side of the water, neither will we take a hand in the
affairs of the Old World, and when we abandon that
position and go over into the Eastern Hemisphere we
will discredit the Monroe doctrine during all time.
The principle will have been extracted from it, its
truth, beauty, and loftiness will have been lost, and it
will become simply a doctrine of brute force on the
part of the United States.
Again, when we go over into the Philippines we
have thrown ourselves upon the red-hot stove of international politics in the Eastern Hemisphere. When
we go over there we find, in the first place, that governments over there do not settle matters, each for
itself. You find over there what is known as the concert of Europe. A short time ago Greece had a war
with Turkey. Turkey overran Greece; and had it
in her power to force terms upon the- Grecian monarchy.
But the powers of Europe intervened.  Russia,
Germany, England, France, Austria, and Italy, forming the concert of Europe, intervened, and they said,
"We are going to have something to say about how
this treaty of peace shall be made." They demanded
that the treaty of peace be settled according to certain
principles; "the balance of power must be conserved;"
and so Turkey, after she had won a conclusive victory
over Greece, was obliged to submit to a treaty which
was dictated by the six great powers of Europe.
So after the war between Russia and Turkey a few
years ago, Russia was victorious and began to outline the terms of peace, but a dark figure loomed upthe concert of Europe-England, Germany, France,
Austria, and Italy. A congress was called at Berlin,




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 513


a famous congress in the diplomatic history of the
world. Beaconsfield and Bismarck and other great
statesmen representing the countries of Europe were
there, and though Russia had overpowered Turkey
in actual battle, the treaty of peace was made upon
compromise terms acceptable to the other great
powers.
When we go to the Philippine Islands, we take our
place on the Sea of China. France is there, England
is there, Russia is there, Germany is there. We become close neighbors to all of the great powers of
Europe, and with each neighbor striving to gain advantage in territorial acquisition.  Trouble will be
certain to ensue, and it will not be long in coming.
In my judgment twenty years will not elapse until we
will be driven into hostile conflict with one or all the
great European nations.
What will be the main theater of the war  Where
will the fighting take place? Inevitably in Chinese
waters or upon Chinese territory.
Whenever we take the Philippine Islands within our
jurisdiction, every man and every dollar of the American people will be consecrated to their defense. We
will not let other countries take them from us, and
we will have to defend them with all the power at our
commnand. We will have to send our men and cur
nunitions over there to carry on the war.
Now, I have great faith in the energy, in the ability,
and in the strength of the American people. I know
our resources are tremendous. But we must never
lose sight of the important fact that one of the reasons
why the other nations of the earth have heretofore
been unwilling and unable to measure arms with the
United States is because of the fact.that we have stood
here in a great continental area and serenity, and the




514 SPEECH OF H-ON. HORACE CHILTON.


countries of the Old W~orld could not find a place to.
strike us. They dared not seek to invade us, and
hence they shrank from encountering the dangers of
a war with this Republic.
But whenever we take the Philippine Islands we
have furnished to the world a place to strike us. It
will be our one weak point. If we enter into an alliance with England, as is proposed here by some, we
will have to take part in the division of China or take
side against the partition of China. In either case we
will have to go across the sea and fight our future
battles with the powers of the Old World at a place
which they and not we will select.
In such a contest we will be at great disadvantage.
A Russian Government railroad will soon be finished
from St. Petersburg to the Pacific Ocean and Sea of
China. It will be within the power of the Russian
Empire to send train load after train load of soldiers
from St. Petersburg-its capital-to its remotest limits, and debark them close to the Philippines or upon
the soil of China. We can not transport our soldiers
by railroad. We will have to load ships at San Francisco or at some other American port, and send our
soldiers across the Pacific Ocean, make a landing, and
then measure arms with the continental powers of the
Eastern Hemisphere.   The difference of facilities
would be against us in proportions so tremendous that
I shrink from such an undertaking.
We should take some observations from experience.
I- remember in reading history one very remarkable
instance of the utter folly of enabling your adversary
to select the theater of wari. After Napoleon Bonaparte undertook to invade Russia and left his army
bleeding upon her plains of snow, no power in Europe
dared to undertake another Russian invasion. For




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 515


a half century Russia was deemed impregnable. But
in an evil hour she set up certain rights upon the
Black Sea. Then England and France saw their opportunity.
When Russia set up these rights upon the Black
Sea, as a matter of course she had to enforce them.
England and France found it in their power to select
the place where the fighting should take place; and
when the Crimean war ended Russia was forced to
agree to a peace that cost her more prestige than any
other event in her history. If we go to the Philippine
Islands, transfer the forum of our wars in the future
from our own continent to the Eastern Continent, it
seems to me there could be nothing more perilous to
our prestige than to undertake such a departure.
Who can measure the vast cost of such an experiment? It has been boldly avowed upon this floor
that we should go into an alliance with England and
fight Russia or Germany or any combination of European powers which should seek to partition the Chinese Empire. What does all that mean? It means
war, indescribable, unending war. Why should we
cast the American destiny upon a sea which is bound
to bring our people into bloody conflict with the powers of the Old World? It is a dreadful responsibility
to propose at this hour of our history.
The last civil war has already cost the people of the
United States over $Io,ooo,ooo,ooo; the wars of Europe during the present century have cost the people
of Europe over $Ioo,ooo,ooo,ooo, and the end is not
yet. Shall we gather nothing from this experience?
Shall we go headlong into a policy which has brought
the European masses into a state almost equivalent
to despair?
So dreadful has this burden grown that not long




5i6 SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON.


ago the Czar of Russia proposed that there should be
a general disarmament. They are going to have a
conference. We all know that no disarmament will
take place.  The powers of Europe must keep up
great standing armies to watch each other.  Why
watch each other? Because they are in close neighborhood.   What brought on the war between the
United States and Spain? It was because of the neighborhood of Cuba to this country. If Cuba had been
7,000 miles away, we would never have had war with
Spain, and no crisis such as that which now faces us
would exist.
Now, whenever we go to the Philippine Islands we
become neighbors to France, to Russia, and to Germany, and the very fact of our neighborhood will
keep us perpetually in danger of conflict. But it is
said: If all this be true, why is it that England,
France, Germany, and other countries are engaged in
a mad race for colonial territory?  The reasons are
many; some of them partly sound and others purely
the result of imitation.
England and Germany have for a long time been
vexed with the problem of a superabundant population. England has gone so far, at different times, as
to actually assist immigration to the United States and
other parts of the world. An overcrowded population
had to be provided for, so a colonial policy has been
as much the result of this state of affairs as from any
other cause.
Germany occupies the same situation. France has
been led into the same policy on the theory of finding
new markets, but those who have studied the problem
maturely believe that France has not gained and will
not gain anything from her experiment but disaster
and loss of time and money.




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 517
Besides, all these countries are not self-sustaining.
They do not have, like the United States, such a variety of soil and climate that within their own borders
one industry can exchange its products for that of the
other and a comfortable living be made practicable
by all without calling into requisition foreign trade.
England and Germany could not live without the
wheat which comes from other countries. They could
not thrive without the cotton fields which grow in
other countries, and the complete dependence of European nations upon the United States for these great
staples of agricultural production in this country has
long been the subject of discontent among the thinkers who rule English and German affairs.
Why should England, Germany, and France be
held up to the United States as objects of our imitation? Why should it be proposed that we abandon
the safe tenets of our fathers and start upon a rivalry
with them in the greed for distant possessions?
Are laborers paid better in England and Germany
than they are in the United States? Are the masses
of Europe more comfortable than the masses of this
Republic?
If we have done so much better, if in a hundred
years we have reached a height of power which England and Germany have not attained in a thousand
years, why should we abandon our policy for theirs?
Where has the world ever witnessed such another
record as that made by this Union under the fostering principles we are now about to abandon?
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. I can but
think of what will fall to our people in future years.
After we have vindicated, by great sacrifice of the




5I8 SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON.


treasure and blood of America, our ability to measure
arms with the powers of Europe in their schemes of
colonization upon the Eastern Hemisphere, I feel that
the good folks at home are going to be the sufferers
for all time-sufferers in purse, sufferers in morals,
sufferers in institutions.
The question is asked with an air of confidence, as
if it presented a difficulty which could not be overcome, "What are you going to, do with the Philippines?" It is even claimed here in debate that we
possess only a choice of alternatives; on the one hand,
to take the Philippines as a part of our territory, or,
on the other, to leave them to the dominion of Spain.
This is mere assumption. We should do neither one
thing nor the other. If we were under no obligations to the present insurgent forces in the Philippines it would be our duty, in view of the principles
so long and proudly held by this Government, to provide for independent government by the people concerned and leave them to their just destiny.
But the case is still stronger. The evidence published in connection with the treaty shows conclusively that Aguinaldo and his forces were of steady,
valuable support to the American commanders. The
same evidence shows that these people looked upon
themselves as the allies of the United States and believed faithfully that they were to be the beneficiaries
of a joint success. I know not how it may impress
others, but there seems to me something shameful in
now turning to the Filipinos and saying to them.
"You were not our allies; you were our tools; you
were the victims of our diplomacy. We were merely
using you, and our consuls and commanders were instructed privately not to commit this Government in
a way which would deny us the privilege of ordering




I




IBC
if ii 3 L  S  I 4Y  L
W    iONTE G   A
WV>IXrig CICGARMAREZ~E kS~9  M.NI~




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 519


the fate of the Philippines without regard to your
wishes."
Men talk about our moral duties to the world, about
what we owe to England and to Clina and the peace
of mankind, but it seems to me that a great nation
of intelligence and power owes to a weak and trustful
people like the Filipinos the duty of respecting our
engagement with them in the same sense in which
they understood it. There is no danger either to the
peace of the world or the prestige of our Republic in
taking this course. It has been said upon this floor
that if we did this Germany, France, Russia, or England would seize these islands. But the truth is that
this difficulty is entirely unreal.
It would be easy for us to treat the Philippine Islands as we treat Liberia.     That Republic is not on
the Western Hemisphere.       We do not claim that it
falls under the influence of the Monroe doctrine.     It
is located on the coast of Africa, where Germany,
England, and France are pushing forward for new
territory.
We never have undertaken to exercise the slightest
sovereignty over it. Yet we have had occasion to
define a policy in regard to it. I read from Wharton's
Digest of International Law, section 66, from a letter
dated April 21, 1880, written by Mr. Evarts, while
Secretary of State, to Mr. Hoppin:
"The United States are not averse to having the great powers
know that they publicly recognize the peculiar relations between them
and Liberia, and that they are prepared to take every proper step to
maintain them. To this end it is not inexpedient that you, and Mr.
Lowell also, on his return to his post from his present leave, should
evince a lively interest in the movements of both Great Britain and
France in the neighborhood of Liberia."
While Wharton does not publish the entire letter, I
find, on examining the files of the State Department,
a further expression in the same letter which may be
usefully quoted here:




520 SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON.


"The attitude of the European powers which may have established
themselves in the vicinity of Liberia becomes of interest to the
United States whenever it may assume a tendency to disparage the
asserted rights of native self-control."
In i884 a letter was written on the same general
subject by Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, to
Mr. Roustan, the French minister.         Wharton quotes
a part of that letter also, as follows:
"Liberia, although not a colony of the United States-"
We claimed no jurisdiction over it whatever"began its independent career as an offshoot of this country, which
bears to it a quasi-parental relationship, which authorizes the United
States to interpose its good offices in any contest between Liberia and
a foreign state, and a refusal to give the United States an opportunity
to be heard for this purpose would make 'an unfavorable impression
in the minds of the Government and the people of the United
States.' "
In tie same letter it is said:
"It seems, however, proper that I should in the name of this
Government advise you provisionally that the United States would
consider a French claim to territory in the Mannah River as threatening the integrity and tranquillity of Liberia. I should, however, be
most happy to learn that the report of French occupation of Kents
Island is unfounded."
On another occasion, in I880, Mr. Evarts, while
Secretary of State, wrote a letter to Mr. Noyes, in
which he called attention to the information which
had been received here that the French Government
had designs of establishing a protectorate over the
Liberian Republic.
Mr. Noyes, the American minister to France, wrote
back that on making inquiry he had discovered that
there was no intention of the part of the French Government to institute a protectorate over Liberia. That
letter was published in the volume of "Foreign Relation of the United States" for 1879, and Mr. Noyes,
having ascertained in advance that it would be published, suggested that it was necessary to put the correspondence in print. But our Government declined
to heed his suggestion, and it was said:
"It is therefore quite suitable that the great powers should know
that the United States publicly recognizes those relations which we




SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON. 521


bear to Liberia, and is prepared to take every proper step to maintain them."
Our entire interest in Liberia has been put on the
ground that it was settled by Africans who left this
country, and a hint from us has never failed to arrest
all designs cherished by European nations against this
little Republic.
Now, if we go into the Philippine Islands and give
those people their just inheritance of independence,
our Government can say rightfully to the world that
the people of the Philippine Islands established their
independence by aid of our arms; they sustained us
in the war against Spain, and we shall therefore always regard them as objects of our parental care.
Not one of the powers of Europe would dare to make
the slightest aggression upon the independent government of the Philippines at the hazard of our displeasure.
I wish to say in conclusion that the idea that we
must either take the treaty as it is or subject ourselves to tremendous consequences of difficulty with
Spain is another unreal conception in connection with
this situation.  Spain has no money, no navy, no
hopes; and whenever the United States says, "You
must make the same relinquishment in regard to the
Philippine Islands that you have made in regard to
Cuba," she will instantly yield to our pleasure and
close up a war which has advertised alike her folly and
weakness. But Senators say we can attend to all these
questions after we have ratified the treaty.
He is but a poor student of human nature who depends too much upon his own firmness of purpose in
dealing with great and constant questions in a great
and constant way. The people of the United States
never have given up a foot of territory. The smallest
acquisition becomes a matter of pride after it once be



522 SPEECH OF HON. HORACE CHILTON.


comes a part of the Republic.  When two or five
years from now it is proposed to give up the Philippines the Senator from Colorado, or some other Senator, will rise to say that if we give them up Germany
will take them, or England will take them, or Russia
will take them, and we will always have this scarecrow of foreign interference in the affairs of the Philippine Islands to deter us from acting in the way our
better judgment might suggest.
Let us make no pretexts. Let us not trample upon
the aspirations of the Philippine people to imitate the
character of this Republic.
I am one of those who believe in a Providence
which cares for the destiny of collective millions. I
feel that our toilers have outstripped all others and
grown greater in a century than nations that have
lived a thousand years, not alone because we have
more energy and more brain than those who dwell in
other lands, but because we have been the justest nation of all history. In this great crisis let us show to
all hearts and all time that the American Republic
still furnishes the world's best example of righteous
rulers and a free people.




CHAPTER XXVI.
INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
BY HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, First-That the Govern
ment and people of the United States have not waged the recent war
with Spain for conquest and for the acquisition of foreign territory, but
solely for the purposes set forth in the resolution of Congress making
the declaration of said war, the acquisition of such small tracts of
land or harbors as may be necessary for governmental purposes being
not deemed inconsistent with the same.
Second-That in demanding and in receiving the cession of the
Philippine Islands it is not the purpose of the GoVernment of the
United States to secure and maintain dominion over the same as a
part of the territory of the United States, or to incorporate the inhabitants thereof as citizens of the United States, or to hold said inhabitants as vassals or subjects of this Government.
Third-That whereas at the time of the declaration of war by the
United States against Spain, and prior thereto, the inhabitants of
the Philippine Islands were actively engaged in a war with Spain
to achieve their independence and whereas said purpose and the
military operations thereunder have not been abandoned, but are
still being actively prosecuted thereunder, therefore, in recognition of
and in obedience to the vital principle announced in the great declaration that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of
the governed," the Government of the United States recognizes that
the people of the Philippine Islands of a right ought to be free andl
independent; that, with this view and to give effect to the same, the
Government of the United States has required the Government of
Spain to relinquish its authority and government in the Philippine
Islands and to withdraw its land and naval forces from the Philippine
Islands and from the waters thereof.
Fourth-That the United States hereby disclaim any disposition or
intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction. or control over said
islands, and assert their determination, when a stable and independent government shall have been duly erected therein entitled to
recognition as such, to transfer to said government, upon terms which
shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by
Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and control of the
islands to their people.
I have introduced these resolutions not simply for
the purpose of procuring a basis upon which to make a
speech; I have introduced them for the practical purpose, if possible, of furnishing a basis upon which the
question relative to the future policy of the Government in connection with the Philippine Islands may
523




524 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


be satisfactorily adjusted and agreed upon, not only
by the Senate but by the other branches of the lawmaking power.
The fundamental requirement in these resolutions
is that the Government of the United States will not
undertake to exercise permanent dominion over the
Philippine Islands. The resolutions are intentionally
made broad, so that those who agree upon that fundamental proposition may stand upon them even though
they may differ materially as to a great many other
things relative to the future course of this Government in connection with the Philippine Islands.
Those with whom I am in sympathy in this discussion do not favor the acquisition by the United
States of distant territories, of territories so remote as
not to be within the proper sphere of the influence of
the United States, and more especially of territories
peopled by an altogether alien and different race.
Further than that, we do not believe that it is consistent with our views and in harmony with the principles of our Government that any territory, speaking
generally, should be annexed to the United States
against the will of the people inhabiting such territory. We do not believe that it is possible to safely
incorporate as a State any community lying on the opposite side of the globe. We do not believe that it is
either to the interest or within the governmental power of this country to annex territory with a view to its
being held as a colony, and its citizens, or rather its
inhabitants, held as vassals.
Many who are reluctant to relinquish the Philippine Islands, and who are at the same time unwilling
to commit themselves to the doctrine of forcible annexation, who at the same time are not willing to put
the Government in the position of ruining a people




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 525


and subjecting them against their will, endeavor to
reconcile themselves by the proposition that the government which we propose to give to that country
shall be a good government, that it shall be a government which will better their condition, and that it will
be one which in its administration will be consistent
with free institutions.
That proposition, while of course a very much more
considerate one than the extreme of the subjugation
of a people, is still inconsistent with free institutions.
Wherever a people are required to render an obedience which is involuntary, that requirement is an
enslavement of that people.
There are different degrees of enslavement. If we
put our yoke upon a people, if we rule them arbitrarily,
if we send them governors and judges, if we make laws
for them without their participation, if we enforce obedience to such laws by our army, then it is an absolute
enslavement. If, on the contrary, we allow them free
institutions, but 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.
There is but one government among the leading nations of the earth that recognizes the right of selfgovernment in a people, that recognizes that the consent of a people is an essential to their government,
and when this Government practically denies that
right, in the march of free institutions the hand upon
the dial of the clock of the world has been set back an
hundred years.
It is impossible to conceive that this Government
will knowingly and purposely deny to a people the
right of self-government; it is incredible that the lilerty-loving people of this country will by force of arms




526 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


impose a government upon another people against
their will-a people who owed us no allegiance-who
are struggling to be free. There is no public man
who will admit that he is in favor of that proposition;
there is no official, no Senator, who would not repel
the charge, if it were made against him, that he would
thus violate the right of self-government.
Senators argue as to the power of the Government
to acquire dominion over foreign territory; they argue
as to the duty of the Government to exercise this authority; but when the question is squarely put to
them, when the issue is put where it can not be
evaded, "Do you favor the subjection of another country and the imposition of the power of this Government without the consent of that people?" they shrink
away from the acknowledgment of such a position.
Senator Foraker from Ohio, in his speech the other
day, in speaking of the purpose of himself and
those who agree with him as to the future of the Philippine Islands, used this language:
I do not understand anybody to be proposing to take the Philippine
Islands with the idea and view of permanently 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 understand 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.
And also Senator Grant of Delaware, in a speech
made at a complimentary dinner given in his honor
by the Board of Trade of that city, used similar language, as follows:
But now that we have themHe was speaking not only of the Philippine Islands,
but of the West India Islands also, I judge from the
connection



INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 527


But now that we have them, it does not follow that we are committed to a colonial policy or to a violation of those great principles
of liberty and self-government which must always remain American
ideals if our own free institutions are to endure.
No country, and this country least of all, can afford to trample on
its ideals. I have no fear that it will do so.
Without assuming for a moment any right to speak for the President, I think I can assure you, with some knowledge whereof I
speak, that he fully appreciates the duties and responsibilities of the
situation, and that he is committed to no policy calculated to discourage, much less strike down, the aspirations of liberty-loving
Ipeople all over the world.
I am   extremely gratified to have these expressions
from these distinguished Senators, and I am       particularly gratified to know that they reflect, of their own
personal knowledge, the views of the President with
regard to this most important matter.        If the views
expressed by the Senator from Ohio in his speech and
by the Senator from Delaware in his speech, which I
have quoted, are those upon which we are to act, there
is very little difference between us, and there will be
no future contention between us if we can have an
authoritative expression from the lawmaking power of
the United States in a joint resolution that such is the
purpose of the future.
When in that solemn moment we stood forth to
dare and meet the necessary sacrifice, we called upon
God and men to witness the purity of our motives and
the unselfishness of our intentions. We declared in
language almost identical with the language of the
resolutions which I have had the honor to introduce
that we did not propose to wage this war for aggrandizement, that we did not wage it for conquest, but
that we waged it, or proposed to wage it, in the interest of humanity. We declared that when a stable government was secured in Cuba we          would    withdraw
from that island and leave the affairs of that country
to its own inhabitants.
That war has practically passed; the sacrifice which
we anticipated was not exacted of us; the sacrifice in
life was comparatively trifling; a special danger which




528 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


we anticipated did not come, for behind all of the anticipations of possible sacrifice of blood and treasure
there was the specter, which we now remember, although we may in the hour of victory have forgotten
it, of the possibility of European intervention and a
consequent world's war. Not only has there been little
sacrifice, but there has been no intervention, and there
will be no intervention, and we now know not only
that we are to do as we see fit in Cuba, but that we are
to work our will with the Philippine Islands so far as
other nations are concerned.
What I desire by these resolutions is this: That
now, in the hour of our victory, in the time of our
undisputed physical power, we shall accord to the
Philippine Islands exactly what we proposed in the
beginning, when the matter was in doubt, we would
accord to the Cubans.
When the declaration of war was made the Philippine Islands were not within the contemplation of
Congress. We were thinking only of the Cubans. But
suppose when the Senator from Colorado introduced his fourth resolution as an amendment to
those resolutions, in which we declared substantially
what is declared in these resolutions, that the war was
not to be waged for aggrandizement or for conquest,
but that we proposed at the proper time to surrender
the control of Cuban affairs to the Cubans-suppose
when that amendment was proposed there had been a
further amendment proposed excepting the Philippine
Islands, ahd suppose we had said that while we did
propose to deal thus with the Cubans, so far as the
Philippine Islands were concerned, we proposed, if we
could take them, to do so, and to appropriate them to
ourselves. With the feeling then upon us, with the
intention which we then had to exhibit to the world
the purity of our motives, can there be any doubt as




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 529


to the action of Congress in voting down those resolutions?
If we had passed resolutions and made the exception to the Philippine Islands, it would have utterly
defeated the purpose of the disclaimer in those resolutions. If, on the contrary, we had expressed at the
time our intention with reference to Cuba, and purposely withheld our expression of intention with reference to the Philippine Islands, it would have been the
practicing of an unworthy deceit; and there is no
principle which was involved in the disclaimer with
reference to the Cuban people which does not also apply to the Filipinos; and the object I have in these resolutions is that we may put ourselves in that position.
Why is it that the Filipinos refuse to recognize the
right of the American troops to occupy the islands?
Is it because they are hostile to American troops? By
no means. Is it because they are unwilling that the
United States Government shall assist them in the establishment of a government? Certainly not. Is it
because they are reluctant that the United States shall
hold possession until it can be ascertained whether or
not they can be safely left without becoming a prey
to other foreign governments? Assuredly not.
They would be glad to have the United States troops
there with the avowal of such purposes from the United
States Government, but they are opposed to the occupation of their islands by the United States troops because of the apprehension that it is the purpose of the
United States Government to maintain permanent dominion in those islands; and whenever we shall, by
such resolutions as these, say solemnly to the world
that such is not our purpose, there is no longer any
danger of difficulty. Without it, even as we sit here
to-day, there is very great danger of it.
It is a famous saying that the shot at Concord rang




530 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


around the world. If that shot, which we dread and
fear, should be heard at Manila, or in any other part
of the Philippine Islands, it also will ring around the
world, but it will carry no cheer to the downtrodden
and the oppressed.
We hear a great deal about the obligations which we
owe to the Philippine Islands. Some curious logic
has been evolved on this question.  Ordinarily the
man who is under obligation is the one who has to
contribute something for the benefit of the man to
whom he is under obligation. The obligor is the man
who bears the burden; the obligor is the man who
makes the sacrifice; the obligor is the man who pays
the debt. The obligee is the man who receives the
benefit from the obligor.
Yet, in this instance, those who favor the acquisition of the Philippine Islands, and who try to put it
upon the high ground that we are under obligation to
the Filipinos, reason it out that we, the obligors, are
to receive the islands in discharge of the obligation!
Without stopping to analyze so untenable a proposition as that, I desire to ask the attention of the Senate
to the consideration of the question, What are the
obligations that we owe to the Philippine Islands or to
their inhabitants?
When we went there to attack Spain we accepted of
the co-operation and alliance of the Filipinos for the
purpose of furthering our cause. We gave arms and
we gave ammunition to them, and while the war progressed there was over a month after the battle of
Manila during which there was not an American regiment upon the Philippine Islands, and during all of
that time the Spaniards were beleaguered by Dewey
on the sea and Aguinaldo on the land in co-operation
and alliance.
Now, it is a sound proposition that that fact laid an




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 531
obligation upon the United States, and only one obligation, and that obligation was that we would not
make peace with Spain without breaking the power of
Spain in the Philippine Islands. That obligation was
laid upon us. It would have been a gross breach of
faith if we had not required that Spain should relinquish her power in the Philippine Islands.
But what was the necessary corollary of the performance of that obligation? Could it be said that the
obligation growing out of that co-operation and that
alliance was discharged by requiring Spain to relinquish her power in the Philippine Islands, and by then
taking those islands for ourselves?
If so, with equal force it might have been urged
at the conclusion of our Revolutionary War that
France should make a treaty with Great Britain
and take thereunder a cession of the American colonies. The very same facts which laid upon us the obligation to break the power of Spain in the Philippines laid upon us the obligation to recognize the freedom of that people. When we accepted of the co-operation and the alliance of the Filipinos, we necessarily recognized that they were in the prosecution of
a rightful rebellion; we necessarily practically recognized them as belligerents.           *
They were there engaged at that time in a rightful
rebellion, or they were bandits; they were, in the latter case, outlaws, and the United States authorities
had no right to accept of their co-operation and their
alliance. There is no refinement of reasoning, there is
no finesse of logic which can get away from the conclusion that when we sailed into Manila Bay and recognized those people as rightful belligerents, put arms
and ammunition in their hands, and accepted of their
co-operation and their alliance, we not only became,
by every high and honorable obligation, bound to sec




532 INDEPENDENCE FOR TIlE PHILIPPINES.


to it that the power of Spain was broken in the Philippines, but we fell under an obligation, no less imperative, that when it was broken the Filipinos should get
the benefit of it, and not the American people. My
contention is that we certainly incurred that obligation
and that it is the only obligation.
I want to analyze that proposition a moment, because there is a great deal of general talk about our
obligations to the Filipinos; obligations which are to
require that this Government shall maintain a great
armament; obligations which are to require us to continue practically in a state of war; obligations which
are to require us to throw down the gauntlet to the
whole world, and say we are the guardians of the Philippine Islands and nobody else shall touch them; obligations which are to require us to see to it that eight
or ten millions of savages on the other side of the
globe maintain a peaceful and orderly government.
There must be some controlling reason upon which
any such contention can be based.
We went to war with Spain not for the purpose of
correcting all the evils with which her people were afflicted; we went to war with Spain not to break the
chains of tyranny with which she might be binding
her different colonies; we did not undertake to be the
great universal benefactor and to right all the wrongs
of all the world, or even all the wrongs that Spain
might be inflicting upon any of her people. We went
to war because a particular colony which she was afflicting lay at our doors; we went to war because the
disorders of that Government affected the peace of
our community and were injurious to our material interest. We said there was a condition of affairs which
was unbearable and that we would put an end to it.
To that extent and to that alone we claimed and
avowed the reason for the declaration of war. So it




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 533


follows that the mere declaration of war did not affect
in any manner our relations with the Philippine Islands except to put us in a state of war with them as
a part of the Spanish domain, and in no manner laid
any obligations upon us as to those islands. We were
not charged with the duty of preserving order in Asia.
We were not charged with the obligations of seeing
that they had a stable and orderly government in any
part of that hemisphere. No such duty rested upon
us. None such was assumed by us.
Therefore the simple declaration of war did not lay
any obligation upon us to the Philippine Islands, and
I desire that any Senator will put his finger upon the
act which laid us under any obligations to the Philippine Islands outside of the fact that in the war which
ensued we took those who were the insurgents in
those islands to be our allies and made a common
cause with them.
Now, all that grows out of that-all that grows out
of the fact of that co-operation and that alliance-is
to impose upon us a single obligation which we must
not ignore. How far does that obligation go? Does
it require that we shall for all time undertake to be the
guardians of the Philippine Islands? Does that particular obligation lay upon us the duty hereafter, not
only now but for years to come, to maintain an expensive military establishment, to burden our people with
debt, to run the risk of becoming involved in wars in
order thaf we may keep our hands upon the Philippine Islands and keep them in proper condition hereafter?
What is the effect of the acquisition of the Philippine
Islands? It will be an entirely new departure. It will
commit us to a colonial policy necessarily, because it
is not possible, it is not within the contemplation of
the American people, that the Philippine Islands




534 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


should ever be converted into a State or into States
and admitted into participation in the affairs of this
Government.
That is out of the question. That is an absolute impossibility. Not only is there the consideration of
great distance, but the people are absolutely foreign in
every particular, foreign in religion, foreign in race,
totally unassimilable to our people, and absolutely unqualified for the exercise of such duties as are devolved
upon States and their representatives in the Government. So it comes down squarely to the proposition,
will you hold the Philippine Islands as a colony?
Whenever we come to that position, whenever we
reach that point and say we will, then we have committed ourselves to a new and permanent policy.
If the Philippines are annexed this territory must
either be in the end admitted as States in the Union
with their people as citizens, entitled to equal rights
and power with the citizens of other States, or the territory must be held as colonies with their people as
subjects and vassals of the United States.
What is the result if these islands are acquired and
held as colonies? The logic of the situation will be to
acquire more Asiatic territory, and after that to reach
out for still more. There is no reason for the acquisition of the Philippines which will not apply to the
acquisition of other parts of Asia, each acquisition
furnishing a reason why another part still beyond
should be also acquired. The acquisition of the Philippines will commit this Government to the colonial
or imperial policy. The logic of that policy will certainly require that we actively enlarge our efforts and
seek to bring under our dominion all countries whose
people are too weak to resist our colossal power, and
which have not already been added to the land-grab



I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
1l1
i~Il B g x~~i~ |, w
3 i               I              |...  xS  xsg  xx:xx  x...i.w,    sxx x,
g        W..  ''I i   xx., x..xex  X  X.MX
Nv~n fi X,  S  X X'', X~g. X i r Xj 2 2 o l
Xi  xxe ''3g'X,, XX. HU.S AM''''.>. i'  ' '%.XS,@aGS~t, Vgzl 
vr X,.i~~~~~~~~~a X X}}g..S.\Q">  xW AX ''-| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~








INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 537
bing and nation-appropriating governments of Europe.
Under this policy our Government will abandon its
peaceful career and reach out to the ends of the earth
for empire and power that we may with a strong arm
dominate and rule over distant lands and peoples of
every race, condition and color. This reach-out for
empire will inevitably lead to wars, not such wars as
the little one, with its trifling sacrifices, through which
we have just passed; but great wars, with all their
sacrifices. It means vast armies, composed in large
part of our young men, ready on a day's notice to cope
in bloody conflict with the great military powers of
the earth. It means peace at evening, perhaps, with
no certainty but that the morrow will find us participants in a world's war.
Let us not be misled by our recent war in which we
suffered such little sacrifice of life. Such is not the
usual fortune. War seldom fails to claim its victims, and there are many now living who remember a
war which laid its bloody hand on some member of
nearly every family in the land. If we would not invite a return of such days of sacrifice we should not
embark our fortunes in distant ventures to dare the
depths and shoals of unknown seas.
If we are to enter into the struggle for foreign dominion and empire, we can not escape the ever-present
danger of war which, like an angry, never-disappearing cloud, year in and year out, hangs over Europe.
The nations of Europe are watching with keen anxiety
the course which the Government of the United States
will take in this matter. England especially is showing the keenest interest and anxiety. Why is it? Why
has England this interest? Why has she this anxiety
that we shall take the Philippine Islands? Why is it
that the London papers are daily burdened with ex



538 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
hortations to our people and to our Government to acquire and exercise dominion in the Philippine Islands?
Is it because England is so anxious that we shall be
aggrandized?  Is it because England is so anxious
that we shall increase our power, or has she a selfish
motive in it?
Of course it would be very interesting to go into
all the utterances of the British press and the British
officials, but I have in mind a particular utterance that
was in the mind of the British people when
the fact was suggested to them that the Senator from  Ohio, from  the President's own State
and speaking, as he said, from personal knowledge of the intention of the President, had said that it
was not the purpose permanently to occupy those islands, and here was the effect produced upon the British mind.
The last clause which I read shows what was the
thought in the mind. It may be that there are additional thoughts; it may be that there are additional motives, but the particular thought, the one
which made the announcement fall like a dash of cold
water on the British public, on British officialdom,
was this:
"They began to question what was the profit of this
friendship if America did not propose to back up Great
Britain's policy in the far East by retaining the most
important base of operation in the event of war over
China."
Not what was going to be the effect in maintaining peace, but what would be the effect if America
failed to back up Great Britain in a war over China?
There is where we have the utterance which exemplifies the unselfishness and disinterestedness of our English cousins in this particular desire on their part that
we shall annex the Philippines. In practical effect they




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 539


said this: "What is the benefit to us of American
friendship if America is not going to back up and aid
Great Britain in a war over China?"
It is in order that if war comes we also may be involved in it. It is in order that if the European coalition against her is too strong she may have as an ally
the great United States of America.
If that 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 seacoast city but that will be in danger of destruction from
the allied navies of the world. This may be a remote
possibility, but if so it is a possibility so fraught with
disaster to the United States that I will do nothing to
tempt so dire a fate.
I am not without sympathy for the English. i am
not hostile to them, but quite the contrary. All the
blood that I have in me comes from English ancestry.
I am proud of the fact and would not have it otherwise if I could. I am proud of the English race; I am
proud of the grand civilization given to the world by
England; I am proud of her history; I am proud of
her achievements; and if the time came that the great
powers leagued themselves together to destroy her, I
would be willing to go to her side and bare our
breasts in her defense. Whenever her life was at stake
I think we would owe that much to the mother country.
But when it comes to being involved in war, when
it comes to being liable to sacrifice everything in this
country that peace can bring us and endure everything
that war can inflict upon us, in order that England
may carry out her schemes of foreign colonization and




540 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
foreign dominion, then I am opposed to anything
which will involve us in any such conflict. Who can
shut his eyes to the fact, who for a moment can doubt,
that if we reach out and take these islands we have
put ourselves in a position where we are in danger at
any time of being involved in a world's war?
I cannot go into that question-I mean at length.
But it must necessarily result in the maintenance of a
great army in the Philippine Islands. Ten millions of
people can not be held in subjection by a regiment
or a brigade or a division. Ten millions of people, especially such as they are, must be held in subjection
by a large army-not only a large army, but, situated
as they are, upon twelve hundred islands, by a large
navy. Are we to have war taxes forever? Are we
never to have relief from the war burdens which the
people cheerfully took up, expecting them to be short?
Are they to be annoyed and burdened forever with
the war tax? Is it to be increased?
Who can believe that it is possible to do away with
the war tax if we take the Philippine Islands. The ordinary peace expenses of the Government can not be
met by customs revenue and the former peace internal revenue. If we take on these new burdens, the extent of which no man can foretell, we must not only
have continued war taxes, but we must also certainly
have continued bond issues.
Again, do Senators consider the Herculean task
which we undertake when we say that we will maintain
a military establishment in the Philippine Islands? Do
they realize that even when not at war with a foreign
power we must maintain there an army of at least
30,000 men? Do they for a moment realize what
it is to transport a hundred thousand men across the
sea? And yet, if we became involved in a war with a




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PH-IILIPPINES. 541


foreign power, we would have to transport more than
a hundred thousand men across the Pacific Ocean.
If we become involved in a war with a foreign
power, the Philippine Islands would be our weak spot.
It was the weak spot of Spain, and we struck it first
because it was the weak spot, and if we succeeded
to her dominion it would be our weak spot, and any
foreign government with which we engaged in war
would strike that first. If we were to maintain our
authority, if we were to meet that stroke, at least Ioo,ooo men must be transported across the Pacific Ocean,
7,000 miles.
I am going to suggest but one more thought and
then I will not further trespass upon the Senate. It
has been suggested by another portion of the dispatch
from London which I read, which quotes the London
Spectator. In speaking about the Americans and the
Philippine Islands the paper, which this dispatch calls
"the solemn Spectator," says as follows:
We believe the Americans to be one of these. Fifty years hence,
under their control, theFilipinos will be orderly, law-abiding persons, like our own Hindoos.
Fifty years of burden to the American people, fifty
years of a great army and a great navy, fifty years of
liability to world's wars to get them into the condition
of the Hindoos!
The word "Hindoos" has brought the suggestion to me which I am now to make, and that is that
the colonization of people like the Hindoos, people
like the Filipinos, unavoidably, in order that they may
be kept in subjection, brings to the government which
controls them the necessity of cruelty, of the hard
iron hand, of utter indifference to the shedding of
blood.
I have here a book written by Mr. John Russell
Young, the official of this Government who to-day




542 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


lies dead, and about whom I know I may be permitted
to pause to say what Senators will indorse, that he had
the respect and the confidence and the affection of all
the men who knew him. It is a book published by
him, called "Around the World with General Grant,"
and he gives here an account of the cruelties practiced
by the British authorities for the purpose of keeping
the Hindoos in subjection.
It is a brief account of the treatment of one regiment
of Sepoys, not all of them; a regiment which had been
disarmed; a regiment which had tried to make its escape; a regiment which, it is true, had murdered some
of its officers. Now I am going to read the account of
this as given by Mr. Young in the second volume of
that work, on page 93:
"The Twenty-sixth Native Infantry-"
Speaking of the Indian infantry"The Twenty-sixth Native Infantry had been disarmed in May and kept under guard. On July 30 some
madman in the regiment killed the major. The author
of this murder was a favorite named Prakash Pandy,
who rushed out of his hut, called upon his comrades to
rise, and, seeing the major, killed him. The sergeantmajor was also slain. The Twenty-sixth had served
with distinction in many campaigns, notably in the
Afghan campaign of 1842. It was thought that the
fugitives would run south to Delhi to join the king.
"But they took a northern direction, away from the
war, anxious to reach Cashmere, to be out of India.
They had no guns. There was a drenching rain, and
the country was almost flooded. The troops came up
with them, shooting I50 and driving them into the
river, drowned inevitably, 'too weakened and famished, as they must have been after their forty miles'
flight, to battle with the flood.' The main body escaped, swimming and floating to an island, 'where




INDEPENDENCE FOR TIHE PHILIPPINES. 543


they might be descried crouching like a brood of wild
fowl.' Mr. Cooper started out to capture them."
After stating the fact of the capture, it goes on:
"The doomed men, with joined palms, the Hindoo
attitude of entreaty, crowded into the boats and were
brought on shore. 'In utter despair forty or fifty
dashed into the stream and disappeared.' No order
was given to fire, and the fugitives, says Mr. Cooper
in a spirit of playfulness, became possessed of a 'sudden and insane idea that they were going to be tried
by a court-martial after some luxurious refreshment.'
"So they were brought on shore, one by one, tightly
bound, their decorations and necklaces ignominiously
cut off. 'Some begged that their women and children
might be spared, and were informed that the British
Government did not condescend to war with women
and children.' They were marched to the town, 'the
gracious moon,' Mr. Cooper informing us, coming out
through the clouds, and reflecting herself in myriad
pools and streams to 'light the prisoners to their fate.'
"They arrived at midnight. Next morning at daybreak Mr. Cooper took his seat. He had 282 prisoners, besides numbers of camp followers. He sent his
Mohammedan troops, fearing they might hesitate to
shoot Mohammedans, to a religious festival, and, alone
with his 'faithful Sikhs,' proceeded to do justice. 'Ten
by ten,' says Mr. Cooper, 'the Sepoys were called forth.
Their names having been taken down in succession,
they were pinioned, linked together, and marched to
execution, a firing party being in readiness. Every
phase of deportment,' says Mr. Cooper, in a critical,
observant spirit, 'was manifested by the doomed men,
after the sullen firing of volleys of distant musketry
forced the conviction of inevitable death-astonishment, rage, frantic despair, the most stoic calmness.' "




544 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.


Then he goes on to state the demeanor of these men
as they passed by where Mr. Cooper was, etc.:
"Others again petitioned to be allowed to make one
last salam to the sahib. About I50 having been thus
executed, one of the executioners swooned away (he
was the oldest of the firing party), and a little rest was
allowed. Then proceeding, the number had arrived at
237 (that is, the number who had been killed or shot),
when the district officer was informed that the remainder refused to come out of the bastion, where they had
been imprisoned temporarily a few hours before. Expecting a mob and resistance, preparations were made
against escape, but little expectation was entertained
of the real and awful fate which had fallen on the remainder of the mutineers. They had anticipated by a
few short hours their doom. The doors were opened,
and, behold, they were nearly all dead. Unconsciously
the tragedy of the Black Hole had been re-enacted.
"No cries had been heard during the night in consequence of the hubbub, tumult and shouting of horsemen, police, tehseel guards and excited villagers.
Forty-five bodies dead from fright, exhaustion, fatigue, heat, and partial suffocation were dragged into
light and consigned, in common with all the other bodies, into one common pit by the hands of village
sweepers. One sepoy was too much wounded to be
shot and was sent to Lahore along with forty-one subsequent captives, where they were all blown from cannon. The assembled natives, says Mr. Cooper, expected to see the women and children thrown into the
pit, and because this was not done 'marveled at the
clemency and the justice of the British.'
*      *      *      *       *      *
"Mr. Cooper's superiors approved his acts. Sir John
Lawrence informed him that he had acted with energy




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 545


and spirit and deserved well of the State. The judicial
commissioner was more enthusiastic. 'My dear Cooper: * * * It will be a feather in your cap as long
as you live. You will have abundant money to reward
all, and the (executioners) Sikhs should have a good
round sum given to them. You have had slaughter
enough. We want a few for the troops here (to be
blown from cannon), and also for evidence.'"
I do not read that for the purpose of casting any
reflection upon the English people. On the contrary,
I recognize them as the most Christian and the most
humane nation of Europe. But only with the sword
and gun can millions of the semi-civilized be kept in
subjection. The very best that can be said, and what
is proper to be said, is that it was necessary that the
English should perpetrate this cruelty, this butchery,
if they would maintain their dominion in India, and
that is the purpose for which I have read it. I have
read it to illustrate the fact that in order to maintain
dominion over such people only such desperate remedies can be applied for the purpose of keeping them
in subjection.
Why, I was a school-boy at the time the events narrated in this book took place, and I shall never forget
the impression made upon me in looking at the pictorial newspapers, Harper's Weekly I recollect particularly, with the pictures of the sepoys bound to the
mouths of cannon and blown to pieces. And, if we
are to maintain dominion over these millions of people
in the Philippine Islands, nothing but the strong hand,
nothing but cruelty, nothing but the iron rule will enable us to maintain that dominion. I do not want any
such transactions under the American flag.
As I was saying, if we are to maintain dominion over this foreign, alien people, these Mohammedans, these people accustomed to revolution, and to




546 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
blood, and to disorder, if you please, we will be compelled to do it with an iron hand, regardless of the
shedding of blood. And I repeat, I want no such
transactions under the American flag. I do not want
it to be that we will have to send governors and judges
there to be brought back here to be tried for their
oppressions of a people like them. I want no Warren Hastings arrayed before the bar of the Senate to
be tried upon impeachment articles for oppressions of
a people whom we afe seeking to rule.
I want to hear nothing of another Black Hole or another Lucknow in the Philippine Islands. I want to
hear nothing about the blowing of people from cannon by Americans. I want to hear nothing of the
shooting of hundreds of men of one regiment, all done
in the name of the United States and under the American flag.
In one respect we are certainly the most blessed
nation of the earth. It is in the fact that if we continue to attend to our own business, if we continue to
look to the development of our own resources, if we
stand upon the great principles of the right of a people
to self-government, and do not seek to extend our dominion over unwilling lands; if we do this, I say, we
are the most blessed of all people in one particular,
and that is that we have the power to absolutely command peace on this continent.
Situated as we are with an ocean on each side, with
the great power that we have, it is an impossibility,
so long as we maintain this position, for any nation
to make war against us successfully; and no one will
ever attempt it. But if we reach out to Asia, if we become embroiled in the politics of the governments of
Europe, more especially if in so doing we surrender
our right to maintain the Monroe doctrine and invite
all Europe to conie and intermeddle with the affairs




INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 547


on this continent, then that priceless immunity is gone
forever, and we are remitted to a period of wars the
end of which no man can see.
It has become fashionable to sneer at the advice of
Washington that we avoid entangling alliances. Sir,
there never was a time when that advice was so important as now.
The greatest curse that can befall a people is war,
even though that war be, as has been the last, an unbroken series of victories; not simply because it involves death and bloodshed, but because it accustoms
our people and familiarizes them with scenes of violence and of blood; because it accustoms them to the
idea of military rule rather than the peaceful agencies
of civil government; because it weakens our reverence
for and obedience to the great constitutional limitations which have been set up as the guardians of personal and political liberty; because there is no war
but what, to a certain extent, works a revolution in the
free institutions of the country; because it is generally depraving and demoralizing to the public sentiment.
And, if I may be pardoned in this presence for saying it, I know of no greater illustration of the demoralizing and poisoning effects of war than we find
in the fact that there are those who are now advocating
a course which must lead to interminablle wars, who
b)ut two short twelvemonths since stood here the very
apostles of peace, the uncompromising opponents of
war, and the extreme advocates of the establishment
of a permanent board of arbitration which should forever make war impossible and settle all international
disputes by arbitration.
And, as war is the greatest curse, peace is the
greatest blessing. Peace is ours if we will have it; but




548 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
if we do not have it by our will, then we will have
wars against our will.
I feel as if I have but touched the subject, but as I
close, the thought which impresses my mind is the importance to us that we should preserve our institutions
and the principles of our Government, and that at the
same time we should preserve the peace of this people;
and these things are worth more to us than all the
treasures gathered from subject peoples, and more
than the dominion of all the islands of the seas.




CHAPTER XXVII.
OUR SHIP OF STATE.
BY HON. GEORGE W. TURNER,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.
Our gallant ship of state has encountered many
storms, and weathered them all, during the one hundred and twenty-three years it has been afloat. It
looked at one time as if it would be submerged beneath the turbulent waters which beat against it and
washed over it as a result of that elemental and titanic
conflict of passions and interests which shook the
entire Western Hemisphere from center to circumference; but happily the noble craft rode the storm and
came safely into port, battered, bruised, and disfigured
to some extent, but bearing unharmed its freight of
liberty and nationality so precious.to the American
people. The builders of that vessel were wise beyond
their day and generation, wise beyond any day or
generation before or since.
Having launched a beautiful, symmetrical, and
noble craft, they, out of their wisdom and experience
and great knowledge, charted the seas in which it
was to sail with unusual care and vigilance, marking
the direction from which adverse winds were likely to
come and pointing out with certainty and precision
the hidden rocks and unfriendly shores on which
many similar craft had laid their bones. Our ship
has never encountered serious storms or found herself in dangerous waters except when her pilots have
549




550


OUR SITIP OF STATE.


disregarded these warning admonitions laid down for
their guidance.
Yesterday that chart was the cherished heritage of
American statesmanship. All professed respect for it
and obedience to it. To-day it would appear, if one
may judge from utterances in this chamber, that the
chart has been torn into tatters and that our noble
craft is drifting whither she will on a wild and unknown sea. Where she will finally bring up a century hence, which is but as a day in the life of a
nation, if she enters upon the course which some
would have her pursue-whether she will then be
freighted with the hopes and aspirations of a free and
homogeneous people or weighted down with the fortunes of a mixed and mongrel race, cut loose from
fixed principles and dominated by lust of dominion
and the mercenary instinct which dares all and braves
all for commercial gain, no man now living is wise
enough to foresee or foretell.
We are being forced into these strange courses on
the pretense that Providence has cast on us new
responsibilities which we may not shirk. But to my
mind there is nothing in the events which have made
these resolutions pertinent that forces on the American people the dangerous responsibility against
which they are directed.
We are 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.
We can give back to our conquered enemy such as
we do not want, but that is not our only resource 
in the premises. It is idle and vain, it seems to me,
after we have gone to war for the sole purpose of




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


55I


requiring a foreign nation to relinquish sovereignty
over a people suffering from misgovernment, to say
that we have only two alternatives with reference to
the territory invaded and overrun by us during the
war, namely, to give it back to our enemy, or to keep
it ourselves. If we may keep it ourselves, we may
require it to be given to the people who inhabit it,
for the purpose of independence and liberty.  And
that would seem to be a most appropriate, generous
and just exercise of our power, if the people who
inhabit it have been warring for liberty and independence for years, if they became our allies during our
own war, and gave us zealous and.loyal support, and
if they now tell us, since our common enemy has been
vanquished, that, much as they respect and admire us
and our institutions, they desire from us nothing but
the opportunity to establish for themselves, on the
basis of independence, the rights and liberties of their
own people.
We are all free citizens of this Republic, and may
eat and drink whatever we please; but experience has
demonstrated that it is detrimental to health to eat
and drink too much. Are not those of us who may
have formed temperate resolutions as free as those
who give unbridled license to their appetites? Have
we lost anything of our freedom, or derogated anything from our standing among our fellows? We
still have, indeed, the freedom to break our temperate
resolutions if we want to. And so it is with the
nation. We walk among the other nations as free as
the air, and with as much pride as our power will
permit, and so far as they are concerned our sovereignty is limitless and illimitable. If we have made
good resolutions to ourselves and promised ourselves
to keep them for the good of our health, that is no




552


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


concern of theirs. We have promised them nothing
and owe them nothing. So far as they are concerned,
we have a perfect right to break our resolutions.
The idea that limitations on our sovereign powers,
when applied to our own municipal concerns, limit the
sovereignty of the nation in the great family of nations
and put it at a disadvantage there has no foundation in fact. Every constitutional limitation on the
power of government, whether written or unwritten,
for the protection of the citizen and the guaranty
of wise and orderly government is to some extent
an impeachment of sovereignty intraterritorially. But
no nation has ever presumed to say that such limitations derogate from the standing of the nation extraterritorially. All nations do in fact maintain the contrary when they hold other nations up to the performance of international obligations notwithstanding
internal municipal limitations which may stand in the
way.
The language of Washington was that "The great
rule for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as
little political connection as possible;" that it was "unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in
the ordinary vicissitudes of Old World politics, or the
ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different
course."  This was the language of prudence, from
the lips of him who was godlike in prudence and
courage; but it has suddenly become cowardly and
un-American to longer give heed to prudential considerations. Washington's fear was not that we
should engage in the colonizing business and thus become entangled with European interests. His warn



:i'P:r::
'':~az
u~lia ri b;''
8:    8'
e Ii-;.~B








OUR SHIP OF STATE.


555


ing was against entangling alliances which might
overcome the great advantage of our detached situation. But neither he nor any of his compeers, nor
any of the great statesmen who have since followed
them in the administration of the Government, until
very lately, ever considered it possible that we should
voluntarily give up our advantageous situation by
extending our domain beyond this continent and into
the very hotbed of European interests and contentions.
When we pass from the domain of prudence to
that of principle it will be readily seen, it seems to
me, that the proposition of power to which I referred
breaks down almost every fundamental principle on
which our institutions are founded, or which have
been accepted as wise and prudent maxims in their
administration. I shall barely mention a few of these
principles in this connection, preferring to refer to
them at greater length in another connection, or, if
that be impracticable, at a later period. Under this
new doctrine of government we are to have both
citizens and subjects. Our domains are to be divided
by imaginary lines, on one side of which the Constitution is a bright and effulgent and life-giving sun,
animating to health and continued growth and beneficent principles of civil and religious liberty, and on
the other side a cold and silent moon, lighting with
its dim and reflected rays a trackless waste of arbitrary and irresponsible power. We are to relegate
the Declaration of Independence to the lumber room
of useless and obsolete furniture.
The principles that John Hampden fought for, and
that cost Charles I. his head, and which our fathers
embodied in the Declaration of Independence and
fought and died for, namely, that taxation without




556


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


representation is tyranny and can not be submitted
to without slavery, and "that all governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
are to be no longer a guide to our statesmen or a
protection to our people, or if indeed they be a protection, it is only to those living in certain limited
and favored areas. Democratic simplicity as taught
by the immortal Jefferson, and which was best exemplified by honesty and economy in the administration of the Government and by unyielding jealousy
of large standing armies, is to give way to imperial
splendor, dazzling the imagination and corrupting the
integrity of our people by its lavish expenditure, its
loose and venal rule, and the pomp and circumstance
of war, by which alone it can be supported.
Senators may say that their positions do not lead
to those things, but there is only one escape from
them; a universal miscegenation of blood, of religion, and of government with the yellow Buddhists,
Mohammedans, and Confucians over whom it is proposed to extend our protecting wing, and with whom
it is proposed to attempt the process of deglutition
and digestion disguised under the Christian and
euphonious name of "benevolent assimilation." This
alternative, while it would be contrary to some of our
traditions of government, would not do violence to
the principles of liberty on which our Government is
founded. But it would do such violence to our blood,
to the history and traditions of our race, and would
leave such frightful results in mongrelizing our citizenship, that the advocates of the new movement in
favor of a greater America prefer the alternative risk
of debauching our institutions rather than do that, by
an assimilating miscegenation, which will certainly
impoverish and debilitate our citizenship.




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


557


But the senior Senator from Ohio, while asserting
the power of the Government, in the broadest terms,
to acquire dominion over other peoples in any manner known to the law of nations, and for any purpose, and to govern them without respect to the Constitution, says that the resolutions presented by the
senior Senator from Missouri present a moot question
and are unimportant, because no person in the Administration from the President down, has the remotest idea of denying to the Filipinos the utmost
liberty and independence in forming their government. I see that the authority of the distinguished
Senator to speak for the Administration has lately
been denied.
It was noted extensively in the press of the country,
while our commissioners were in Paris, that they were
in daily touch with the President, and were acting
wholly and entirely under his guidance and direction.
I find in the treaty, negotiated by our commissioners
under this direction of the President, evidence of such
a character that it must override the opinion of the
Senator from Ohio. I find in that solemn instrument
not only a cession to us by Spain of sovereignty over
the Philippines, but an acceptance by us of that sovereignty, the language with respect to the Philippines
differing so radically from that employed with reference to Cuba as to preclude the idea that it was intended to treat both countries alike.
It is true that the Senator asserts that there were
grave state reasons for the difference in phraseology
employed with respect to the two countries, which can
be stated with propriety only behind closed doors.
But to the plain, average American citizen it is difficult to see why we may not protect the Filipinos in
the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness while form



558


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


ing their government, and afterwards, for the matter
of that, as well as we may protect the people of Cuba.
The fact that we have wrested their liberty and independence from unwilling hands at the point of the
sword and presented it to them is full and ample title
to us to maintain it at all times and against all comers
by like means; and I apprehend that we would not
only do so, but that the entire world so well knows
we would do so that no hostile hand would ever be
raised against our generous and beneficent purpose.
But there is still other evidence in the treaty of
the purpose for which it was negotiated.
We have covenanted with Spain to admit her ships
and merchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands
on the same terms as our own for the period of ten
years. We have made divers and sundry stipulations,
having no limitation of time, for the security of property and individual right in all territory ceded or relinquished by Spain, including ecclesiastical property,
which necessarily presupposes continued sovereignty.
We have made stipulations concerning judicial proceedings, which presupposes the same thing. We have
covenanted to admit certain articles of Spanish production free of duty in the Philippines for ten years.
And, finally, we limit these stipulations so far as they
apply to Cuba to the time of our occupancy of that
island, but we make no such limitation concerning the
Philippines.
But more convincing than all this, above and beyond it all, have been the declarations of the President himself.  When he asked dramatically at Atlanta, "Who is there that will dare haul down the
American flag from the soil upon which it has once
been planted by American valor?" the country and the
Senate understood him to refer to the Philippines. But




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


559


he has since been more explicit and made the meaning of the Administration too plain for controversy.
In his orders to General Otis he announced that the
policy of the Government toward the Philippines was
one of "benevolent assimilation."
No one, I imagine, ever assumed, until so assured
by the Senator from Ohio, that "benevolent assimilation" was different from any other kind of assimilation, and that according to the Presidential lexicography it really meant the exact opposite of what it
means in other people's dictionaries.
It is familiar constitutional law that the courts follow the political branch of the Government on all
political questions. The political branch determines
the acquisition of territory and when our sovereignty
attaches over it.  The political branch also determines when organized or unorganized territory over
which our sovereignty has attached shall be admitted
as States. So that the purpose for which we may
acquire territory can never come into question in the
courts of the land, nor can the justice or injustice
of excluding the people of American territory from
statehood and representation in the Government come
into question in the courts. It follows from this that
anything judges may have said on the subject in judicial decisions is mere dictum and is entitled to respect accordingly as we respect the judge who may
have spoken, and accordingly as he may have spoken
with consideration and deliberation or the reverse.
To bring such utterances into this chamber and
read them as if that were all that were necessary to
foreclose discussion, even if the utterances be in point,
is to misapprehend, wholly and entirely, their nature
and character. But although the courts can not pronounce it and enforce it, the constitutional limitation




560


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


may exist. If it exist, it is binding on the consciences of the members of the legislative and executive departments of the Government. They may violate their oaths of office and set it at naught, and thus
nullify it, but they can not destroy it. It is like the
unwritten constitutional principles of English liberty.
They may be violated time out of mind by the Parliament, but they can never be destroyed; and when the
frenzy of the hour has passed which set them aside,
they again return to guide and mold the legislation of
the great English people. This is a higher, but none
the less real, branch of American constitutional law;
and it is none the less real, but all the more so, because it is one which has its sole sanction in the consciences of Senators and Representatives and of the
President of the United States.
When we come to the Constitution itself to look for
light on this question we are confronted first with the
preamble to that great instrument, and I find in the
noble wording of that preamble some evidence at least
of the construction for which I am contending. That
instrument was adopted, first, "in order to form a
more perfect union," not a cumbersome scheme of
government in constant danger of toppling over with
its own weight; second, "to establish justice," which
all who have read the history of our land know is
impossible in colonial government; third, "to insure
domestic tranquillity," not to bring in the interests
of alien people to disturb tranquillity, or to associate
with us even in a subordinate relation unsympathetic
and nonassimilable people who would forever bar the
hope of tranquillity; fourth, "to provide for the common defense," not to open ourselves to the certainty
of aggression and attack; fifth, "to promote the general welfare"-the general welfare of our own people,




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


56i


not a quixotic crusade to promote the general welfare
of all or any other of the peoples of the world; sixth,
"to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
our posterity"-to ourselves and our posterity, not
somebody else and their posterity.
The fathers were speaking in this connection strictly of ourselves and of our land. They knew that we
should grow both in population and area, and they
made provision for new and additional States as the
result of such growth; but the people who were to be
protected by the great charter of our liberties at all
times and any and everywhere beneath our flag were
to be the American people-the great offshoot of the
Anglo-Saxon race which had peopled the temperate
zone of North America. They could not have been
ignorant, and were not ignorant, of the fact that the
greatest menace to the liberty of that people that
could be introduced would be to permit indiscriminate
political connection with other peoples, different in
blood, in religion, in habits and modes of thought,
and sufficiently strong in numbers and in climatic
protection to leave no hope of their perfect or even
approximate assimilation by our own people.
To pass now from the preamble to the body of
the instrument, one is struck by the fact that each
and every of its provisions is made for the government of a free people. Nowhere is there room for
the application of arbitrary power, except in time of
war or domestic insurrection.
The doctrine is summed up and stated, with his
usual accuracy and fullness, by Professor Pomeroy,
from whose work on Constitutional Law the Senator
from Connecticut quoted in another connection. Professor Pomeroy says:
"But is Congress absolutely omnipotent over these Districts and
Territories? Is it, like the British Parliament, bound by no limita



562


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


tions save those which are self-imposed? This can not be; nor does
the language of the Constitution require a construction so much opposed to all our ideas of civil polity. The safeguards of individual
rights-those clauses which preserve the lives, liberty, and property
of the citizen from the encroachment of arbitrary power-must apply
as well to that legislation of Congress which is concerned exclusively
with the District of Columbia or with the Territories as to that which
is concerned with the States. The reasoning which leads to this conclusion is irresistible. A bill of rights is certainly no less important
for the District of Columbia and for the Territories than for that
portion of the nation which is organized into States.
"If it were thought necessary that Congress should be hedged
round with restrictions while it is legislating for the inhabitants of the
States, who may be partially protected by their local government,
how much more necessary that the same body should be restrained
while legislating for the inhabitants of those districts and Territories
over which it has an exclusive control and undivided sway. Now, it
is to be remarked that the mandatory clauses of the first eight amendments-which constitute the national bill of rights-are clothed in
the most general language; they make no exceptions; they apply
to Congress in the exercise of all its functions; in general terms
they cover its legislation for the District of Columbia and for the
Territories as well as for the States. These clauses must, therefore,
be compulsive upon Congress when it makes laws for the districts or
for the Territories, unless the general language in which they are
framed is controlled and modified by the particular language of the
provisions which expressly relate to the District and to the Territories.
"These special provisions declare that Congress shall have power
'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory'
and 'to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over
such District.' There is evidently nothing contradictory between the
first of these provisions and the general restrictions of the bill of
rights. In the second, the phrase 'exclusive legislation' simply designates Congress as the only lawmaking body, without indicating what
laws may be made. The words 'in all cases whatsoever' are the only
ones which even appear to limit the general mandates of the first
eight amendments; and here the contradiction is in appearance
merely. The 'all cases whatsoever' must be construed to mean all
cases in which any legislation is possible. In fact, this affirmative
grant of general legislative power is limited by the same negative
mandates which affect all the other affirmative grants to the National
Government. Whatever laws may be passed-and any may be enacted
that are not forbidden by the express or the implied negative restrictions of the Constitution-Congress is the sole body from which they
must issue. "-Pomeroy's Constitutional Law, section 492.
The pertinency of this branch of the discussion, as
it strikes me, lies in this fact: The admission that
all territory acquired must be organized into States
at some time would at once put a stop to all ideas
of expansion in the East, because who is there ill
this country that would accept for a moment the idea
of admitting     to an equality with      us in our government the Orientals who inhabit and must continue to
inhabit exclusively that country? With all the learning  and    refinement of which       they   are  capable, we
could not permit our destinies to be controlled by
them in whole or part. If we take them, then we must




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


563


take them with the understanding that we hold them
in a subordinate or vassal state. We could not safely
accord to our own people held in such a state permanently the provisions of the Constitution in favor of
personal liberty.
The privilege of habeas corpus, of trial by jury, of
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures,
of the right to speak and publish at pleasure, the protection of the ordinary processes of the law in time
of peace, to say nothing of the other provisions in
favor of private right, would make such government
impossible. They would make it doubly impossible
in the 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 his quick and resentful nature to excesses which
would be impossible to the Anglo-Saxon or to any of
the European races.  Hence, in this new crusade,
which has the domination of these races for its object, it is not only necessary to deny them political
privileges, but also the private rights which we ourselves enjoy. But in the one case, as in the other, we
run up against the rock of the Constitution, and that
forms an impassable barrier to further progress.
To return now to my analysis of the Constitution.
Not only are all its provisions made for freemen, but
all of them, as I read them, presuppose ultimate
equality of political right. Undoubtedly the provision
for the admission of new States was intended to accomplish that. The power invested in Congress to
"nmake all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory or other property belonging to the United
States," if it referred to the making of laws for the
government of Territories, and that I believe is the
better view, is a part of the section providing for the




564


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


admission of new States into the Union, and must be
cpnstrued in pari materia therewith, and held to
mean, as if the idea had been plainly expressed, that
such right of government was given pending the admission of the Territories to statehood.
It is significant that when the Constitution came
to deal with the question of the permanent government of territory which never could become States,
as it did in another place, its language was full and
explicit, not only as to the character of power which
might be exercised, but also as to the places over
which it might be exercised. The seventeenth paragraph of section 8, Article I, provides that Congress
shall have power"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over
such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of
particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat
of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority
over all places purchased, by consent of the legislature of the State in
which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards, and other needful buildings."
We have here enumerated all the places which the
founders of the Constitution had it in mind might
be required to be permanently governed by the legislation of Congress. Can it be doubted that the word
"colonies" would have been inserted in this connection
if it had ever occurred to the great men who performed that work that the United States could ever
own or possess or rule over colonies? Manifestly so,
it seems to me.
Further, could the great men who formed the Constitution have been unmindful of the diverse situations
and varying needs of a people subject to one government, but scattered over the four quarters       of the
globe, as must necessarily be the case with a mother
country and her colonies?       And if so, and if the
possibility of colonies was ever contemplated, could
they have been guilty of inserting the first clause of




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


565


section 8 of Article I in the Constitution?      That
clause provides:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
The Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through John Marshall, has said that this clause
operates over all the Territories of the United States,
whether organized into States or not, ex proprio
vigore, and that under it no discrimination against,
or exception in favor of, any Territory is possible.
Yet it is manifestly unjust to lay protective taxes, duties, imposts and excises on distant colonies for the
benefit of the mother country. No colony would long
submit to it. None would submit so long as we did
to similar exactions from the mother country. Yet
we finally threw off the yoke, as any other colony
would do, in the fullness of time, if subjected to such
an injustice.
When we come to the contemporaneous construction the evidences are both full and satisfactory. Coincidently with the formation of the Constitution the
Congress of the Confederation was considering the
matter of the government of the Northwest Territory.
Many members of the        Constitutional Convention
were also members of the Confederated Congress, and
they passed back and forth between the two bodies as
duty or inclination prompted them. On the I3th day
of July, 1787, the Confederated Congress, the Constitutional Convention then being in session in the same
city, passed the ordinance for the government of the
Northwest Territory. It is a model of statecraft and
organic legislation.   It is printed in our book of
Revised Statutes between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States,




566              OUR   SHIP OF STATE.
and   is entitled  to rank with    both  of them.      This
ordinance was not formally readopted after the formation of the Constitution, but its existence and binding
efficacy were expressly recognized in the legislation of
the first Congress, that of I789. This ordinance, after
providing for the temporary government of the Northwest Territory, contains this provision:
"Sec. 13. And for extending the fundamental principles of civil
and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics,
their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish those
principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments
which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said Territory; to provide, also, for the establishment of States and permanent government
therein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal councils
on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as
may be consistent with the general interest.
"Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority
aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as articles
of compact between the original States and the people and the States
in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable unless by common consent."
Then follow the articles of compact, which embraced substantially all of the provisions of the Federal Constitution, either originally or as amended,
for the security of civil and religious liberty, and then
they go on to provide for the organization of the Territory into States as soon as fitted therefor.         This
shows what the fathers of the Republic, the authors of
the Declaration of Independence, and the framers of
the Federal Constitution thought was the proper thing
to do with territory owned by the Government and
not then organized into States. There is no hint 
here of colonies.     There   is  not the    most remote
thought that any portion of the then domain of the
Republic might be denied either civil, religious, or
political liberty-civil and    religious liberty immediately, and political liberty ultimately.
The Supreme Court of the United States pronounced this ordinance a solemn and binding compact between the original States and the people of the
unorganized Territories, anterior to the Constitution




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


567


and unaffected by it. And its provisions, substantially, either by solemn enactment of Congress or by
force of treaties made pursuant to the Constitution,
have been extended over every foot of territory owned
by us then or acquired by us since that time, containing a then present or prospective population, unless
it be in the case of the acquisition of the Hawaiian
Islands. The Northwest Territory embraced the area
now occupied by the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and a part of Minnesota.      On
May 26, I790, the Congress of the United States extended the provisions of this celebrated ordinance over
the territory of the United States south of the Ohio
River. That territory embraced the area now occupied by the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, and a part of Georgia.
On the 3oth day of April, 1803, our Government
completed the Louisiana purchase from the Republic
of France. The territory thus acquired embraced the
area now occupied by the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, all but the southwest corner of Kansas,
Iowa, Minnesota west of the Mississippi River, Nebraska, Colorado east of the' Rocky Mountains and
north of the Arkansas River, the two Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, most of Wyoming,
and the present Indian Territory. The treaty with
France by which this cession was made provided:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into
the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the
United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess. (Article III, treaty of cession.)"
This treaty was made while Jefferson was President,
while Mr. Madison was Secretary of State, was signed
by Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe, and was
ratified while many of the framers of the Constitution




568              OUR SHIP OF STATE.
were yet in    public life.   Mr. Jefferson    may    have
doubted the constitutional power to purchase and acquire the territory, but neither he nor any of those
associated with him appeared to have doubted both
the duty and propriety, after the purchase was made,
upon conferring on the inhabitants of added territory
the ultimate right of participation in our Government.
The next new      territory acquired was that of the
Floridas, which was ceded to us by Spain by the
treaty of Washington, dated February 22, 1819.         The
sixth article of that treaty provided:
"The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty
cedes to the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the
Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the
principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment
of all the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the
United States."
Next was the annexation of Texas, March I, 1845.
Texas was annexed and admitted into the Union by
the same act, and of course no provision concerning
the civil or political rights of the inhabitants was necessary.
Next was the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, dated
February 2, 1848, by which we acquired from Mexico
the area included in the States of California, Nevada,
Utah, the greater part of Arizona, the greater part of
New    Mexico, Colorado west of the Rocky           Mountains, and the southwestern part of Wyoming.          This
acquisition was supplemented by the Gadsden purchase from   Mexico December 30, 1853, the territory
thus purchased now constituting the southern part of
the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona. Article
IX  of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided:
"The Mexicans who, in the Territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably
with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated
into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper
time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according
to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime shall
be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty




OUR SHIP OF STATE.


569


and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without
restriction."
By Article V of the Gadsden treaty, the provisions
of Article IX and the other articles of the treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo were adopted as articles of the
Gadsden treaty. So that up to the treaty with Russia,
whereby we acquired Alaska, we have an unbroken
line of action in which the acquisition of new territory was always accompanied with the contemporaneous purpose always expressed by statute or treaty
to incorporate the newly acquired territory into the
Union of States, and to accord the inhabitants thereof
the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United
States.  The only difference in phraseology in the
Alaskan treaty is that in that treaty the provision for
the incorporation of the territory into the Union was
omitted, but the other substantive provisions of former treaties were retained. Article V of that treaty
provided "that the inhabitants * * * shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,
and immunities of citizens of the United States," etc.
I need not enlarge on the effect of long-continued
legislative and executive construction of constitutional provisions. They are so persuasive, even on
questions which the courts may determine, that unless
palpably wrong the courts uniformly follow them. If
the construction run back to the time of the framers
of the Constitution, the persuasive effect is much increased. If it be continuous and relate to propositions involved in ambiguity, its effect is conclusive.
Now, here we have a proposition which it may be
claimed at best by those opposed to it is ambiguous
on the face of the Constitution. But we have historical evidences prior to the adoption of the Constitution all pointing one way, and we have the practice
of the Government, commencing at a time absolutely




57o


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


coincident with the formation of the Constitution and
continuing in one uniform and unbroken line down
to the present time, in support of the historical evidences, and it seems to me that these must be convincing and conclusive. I should not consider the
expression of one or more of the framers of the Constitution, in a private capacity and a long time after
their word has been accomplished, however eminent
they may have been, as militating seriously against
such uniform, unbroken, and long-continued practice.
The right and power to be and exist as a nation,
to treat with and make war on other nations, is
certainly expressly conferred on the General Government, and the right to perform such functions of sovereignty and nationality as pertain to it in its dealings
with other nations and which are not committed to
other hands, such as the acquisition of territory, may
certainly be implied as a necessary corollary of these
major grants of right and power.  And conceding
this to be true, which I do in the fullest measure,
how does the contention of the Senator that such
power resides in the General Government, no matter
what its source-and to that contention nearly all his
argument and most of his authorities were directedmeet the proposition that there is a necessary implication in the Constitution against the exercise of that
power for the purpose of establishing colonies which
are never to be admitted to statehood?
I do not consider that the manifest necessity of the
nation for limited possessions abroad, even if they
be more or less extensively peopled, which are noted
and excepted from the resolutions of the Senator from
Missouri, militates against the declaration which the
resolutions are intended to assert. I do not consider
the acquisition of barren islands, valuable to our peo



S:all

ii
r
m
m
m
a
~3
n
ol
r:
y
m

tr

v?
c3

ii:
e
o
x
s
M
i"

it
I
I
iai
X-








OUR SHIP OF STATE.


573


pie for mineral deposits or vegetable growths, or even
of larger possessions which could never be extensively
peopled, or, if so, only spasmodically or intermittently, as militating against that declaration. Every proposition must have its reasonable limitations. The arguments ab inconvenienti and reductio ad absurdum.
which are always founded on such limitations, are
insuperable obstacles in the path of the unthinking.
But ordinarily they never stop the resolutions of wisdom, and they ought not to do so. They are not
valid arguments unless they lead to conclusions which,
making due allowances for the infirmity of all human prevision and foresight, show conclusively the
falsity and impossibility of the proposition they are
brought forward to combat.
The fathers may well have determined against the
system of colonization and yet have contemplated the
necessity for foreign acquisitions of limited extent and
meager population for national purposes, which would
always require to be governed by the legislation of
Congress. I wish to say in this connection that I
do not consider the Hawaiian Islands in this category,
and did not so consider them at the time of their
acquisition. While they are essential undoubtedly to
the defensive power of the nation, they are yet capable
of supporting a large Anglo-Saxon population and are
sufficiently alluring to attract such a population. The
native population is insignificant and fast disappearing. They are sufficiently near our shores to permit
easy communication, and the same intimate trade
relations that subsist among our own people will always prevail with them. These facts will assure to
them at no distant day the political privileges of
statehood, either as an independent State or by connection with one or the other of the great Pacific




574


OUR SHIP OF STATE.


coast States, which have already furnished so large a
part of their present American population.
I am not a strict constructionist of the Constitution
by any means. My training, such as it is, has all been
in the other direction. I would give the nation every
power which by any reasonable construction it may
have and ought to have. I am the last man to limit
its just powers by a strained construction. I am, I
believe, a liberal nationalist. But there are bounds
to my liberality. I draw the line at that vain and
boastful spirit which seems to be abroad in the land,
that we of this day and age and generation are entirely sufficient unto ourselves; that there are no
problems which we can not solve unaided; that there
is no danger which it is not cowardly and un-American for us to fear, and that reverence for the wise
and prescient admonitions of the fathers, even when
incorporated in the organic law of the land or when
spoken in the great instrument which the organic law
was framed to carry out, by which it is interpreted,
and which it was formed to interpret, is contrary to
the progressive spirit of this age and this people.
It is well enough to hug the pleasing thought that
we are a great people and that there is no responsibility that can be thrust on us which we can not
meet and face and accept with safety. That this is
true all may well believe, else our fathers fought and
wrought in vain, and we of this day are degenerate
children. But it is the height of quixotism and is the
reverse of the teachings of the fathers to go around
in the world hunting responsibilities and courting
dangers because we are able to meet them.
The American people are not lacking in the faith
and the c6urage of the fathers. They have sometimes,
however, for a brief period, been lacking in the wis



OUR SHIP OF STATE.            575
dom of the fathers. But in every case the aberration has been temporary. When the excitement or
passion or interest which led them astray has subsided
or gone by, they have returned to that wisdom and
conservatism, always tempered with faith and courage, which, like our free institutions, is the birthright
they inherit from  the fathers.  I would therefore
amend the invocation of the distinguished Senator,
confident that it will not fall on dulled ears, and say,
"Oh, for the courage andc the faith and the wisdom of
the fathers!"




r
I~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




CHAPTER XXVIII.
OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.
BY HON. JOHN L. McLAURIN,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
The manifold and serious questions growing out
of the war with Spain are now absorbing the attention of the American people.
As a Senator, representing, in part, the State of
South Carolina, it is my duty to express my convictions in no uncertain terms upon a question so vitally
affecting the interests of my State and the destiny
of this nation. In this crisis every Senator must decide for himself; he is responsible to none save his
State, his nation, and his God.
The experience of the South for the past thirty
years with the negro race, is pregnant with lessons
of wisdom for our guidance in the Philippines. It
is passing strange that Senators who favored universal
suffrage and the full enfranchisement of the negro
should now advocate imperialism.
In other words, that territory can be acquired by
conquest, held as a colony, and its inhabitants
treated as vassals rather than citizens-governed by
military rule or legislation not authorized by the Constitution. There is a glaring inconsistency in these
positions. If they are sincere in their views as to the
Philippines, they should propose an amendment to
the Constitution which will put the inferior races in
577




578        OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.
this country and the inhabitants of the Philippines
upon an equality as to their civil and political rights,
and thus forever settle the vexed race and suffrage
questions in this country as well as the outlying territories.
How can they consistently, justly, and, I might add,
constitutionally, advocate a policy for outlying territories, embracing races so nearly akin to the negro,
which differ so radically from the policy adopted as to
that race in the South?      There can be but one answer to that question, and that is that they substantially admit, in the light of a third of a century's experience, that universal suffrage is a monumental failure and that the time has come for the correction
of this stupendous governmental error.
Prof. Thomas Miller, of South Carolina, a former
Congressman and one        of the  most highly     accomplished and able representatives of his race in America, in a recent speech delivered in South Carolina on
the anniversary of Emancipation Day, said:
"Who is it that stands to-day in the United States Senate and
warns negroes and white men of the South that right to vote is not
a gift from the nation, but a matter left with each sovereign State
to be regulated; that is to be given or taken away? Why, it is a man
from New England, the great Republican Senator Platt. And why
has this great change come over the North in relation to franchise?
Why do they yield to this principle that has always been claimed by
the South? This great New England Republican and august Senator
from a sovereign State stands in the Senate Chamber and virtually
admits that the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments are nugatory
and of no effect."
Universal suffrage in the South long since degenerated into a race question, and as such led to the
practical elimination of the negro from politics; a
policy that is to-day wisely advocated by the great
leaders of the race like Professor Miller and Booker
Washington, and which in time, without outside interference, under the guidance of the best thought of
both races, will lead to a just and mutually satisfactory settlement of the gravest problem that has ever




OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


579


confronted any people in modern times. Conscious
of rectitude of purpose and feeling that the negro was
not responsible for the position into which he was
thrust, the South, not defiantly, but by protestation,
has patiently appealed to the nation to judge her
righteously.
It is indeed comforting to hear some of those who
in the past criticized us, now that the question is
brought home, completely justify our methods in providing a scheme of colonial government.
It is contended by the Senator from Connecticut
that this nation has an inherent right of sovereignty
outside of the Constitution to acquire territory and
govern it. In the Federal Constitution are enumerated
the rights and powers delegated by the States to the
Federal Government. In the State constitutions the
people have delegated to the State governments all
the rights and powers except those enumerated in
the prohibitions of the instrument.  Congress can
therefore exercise only those powers for which there
is a grant in the Federal Constitution, while State
legislatures can exercise all powers except those prohibited in State constitutions.  Hence, the United
States as a nation has no reserved powers or inherent
sovereignty, except such as may be delegated in the
Constitution of the United States. Whatever there is
of reserved rights or "inherent sovereignty" not delegated in the Federal Constitution remains in the
people of the States. The nation, as a nation, has no
sovereign rights except those conferred by the Constitution.
The sovereignty of the nation is the power given
the nation by the Constitution. If there were to be
any reserved powers of the nation outside of the Constitution, why the enumeration specifically of those




580   OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


powers in the instrument itself? Why were they not
reserved, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in express terms?
It is true Pomeroy does say:
"This nation possesses political sovereignty. There can be no
nation without political sovereignty and no political sovereignty without a nation."
I understand, however, political sovereignty to
mean the authority of a nation to exercise governmental powers. How are these powers to be exercised?   In the case of the United States, in the manner provided by the Constitution, through the departments of the Government; and in being exercised by
these departments it is limited by the terms of the
Constitution fixing the manner of the exercise of
sovereignty.
To hold that there is an inherent power of sovereignty in the nation, outside of the Constitution, to
(lo something not authorized by that instrument, is
to place this "inherent sovereignty" above the Constitution and thus destroy the very foundation upon
which constitutional government rests. Judge Gray,
in the Chinese-exclusion case, said:
The United States are a sovereign and independent nation, and are
invested by the Constitution with the entire control of international
relations and with all the powers of government necessary to maintain that control and make it effective.
While holding that the United States are a sovereign and independent nation, it will be seen that he
also holds that the sovereignty of the nation is vested
by the Constitution; and if so, it can only be exercised
in the mode pointed out in the Constitution and is
controlled by the words of the grant of this sovereignty.
There was no nation of the United States until the
adoption of the Federal Constitution; hence before
that time there could be no sovereignty of the nation.




OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


58I


What conferred   this sovereignty?  Clearly the
States, by and through the Federal Constitution. If
so, then there can be no inherent right of sovereignty
except that conferred by the Constitution.
The Senator further contends that we are a sovereign nation, and as such have the same inherent right
to acquire territory as England, France, Germany,
and Mexico.   I controvert that proposition.  The
sovereignty of the nation of Great Britain and the
others is vested in the people, and has never been
delegated and limited as in our country.  These
Governments enjoy sovereignty in its elementary
form. What the government wills it may do without considering the act or its consequences in the
light of an organic law of binding obligation.
Our Government is in a very different position. The
Federal Constitution is the embodiment of the sovereignty of the United States as a nation, and this
sovereignty can only be exercised in accordance with
the powers contained in its provisions. Great Britain
can do anything as a nation in the way of the exercise of governmental functions. There is nothing to
prohibit or restrict the fullest exercise of her sovereignty as a nation. Hence there is no analogy, and
the sovereignty of the United States as a nation
differs widely from that of Great Britain.
It is further contended that a sovereign right can
not be limited and that all our Constitution can do
is to prescribe the manner in which it can be exercised. If, as already shown, the sovereignty of the
United States was conferred by the States through
the Federal Constitution, it is clear that, in conferring
the power and prescribing the manner of its exercise,
they did set a limit in the very terms of the instrument itself.




582


OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


I deny, therefore, that the United States as a nation has a sovereign, inherent right and control outside of the grant of such power in the Constitution.
This is not an essential element of nationality so far
as our nation is concerned, although it may be in
England or Russia, where the nationality and sovereignty incident to it are not created and limited by
a written constitution.
I do not, however, controvert the proposition that
the United States have the power to acquire territory
by conquest, purchase, or otherwise, and to govern
same under the grant of power contained in the Constitution. I do, however, deny the proposition that
territory can be acquired and permanently held as
such by the United States, of course, subject to the
exception of small tracts acquired for specific governmental purposes, like coaling stations and the guano
islands under the act of 1856. I think Hawaii comes
under the exception of a military and commercial necessity.
The Constitution only confers the power to annex
conditioned upon the formation of States out of the
new  territory.  Its subjection to Federal control is
a temporary stage necessarily preceding the permanent condition of statehood.    As Chief Justice Marshall said in Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheaton):
"Territories are in a state of infancy advancing to manhood,
looking forward to complete equality as soon as that state of manhood shall be attained."
Chief Justice Taney said:
"The power to admit new States authorizes the acquisition 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."
The States ceded lands to the United States upon
the understanding that it should be eventually formed
into States. In the treaty of 1803, by which France
ceded Louisiana, it is provided that:




OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


583


"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into
the Union of the United States as soon as possible according to the
principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States."
This article of the treaty was construed by Chief
Justice Marshall to mean that Louisiana shall be admitted into the Union as soon as possible on an equal
footing with the other States.    The treaty of 1819,
by which Spain ceded Florida, and of 1848 and 1853,
by which Mexico ceded California and New Mexico,
contained the same provisions as the treaty of 1803.
Thus it will be seen that all the vast domain acquired by the United States down to I853 was in
trust for the subsequent admission of States. Texas
was acquired not as a Territory but annexed as a
State. The treaty by which Alaska was acquired is
an exception to the rule, no doubt based upon the
assumption that it was a barren waste, whose climate
and geographical position would render it uninhabitable for years to come.
The two clauses in the Constitution bearing directly upon the acquisition of territory are embraced in
section 3, Article IV, and are as follows:
"New States shall be admitted by Congress into the Union-"
And"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory and property of the
United States."
It will be observed that these two provisions are
not only in juxtaposition but are also embraced in
the same section and article of the Constitution. This
coupling them together has some significance, and is
evidence that in the minds of the framers of our
organic law   there was an intimate connection      between acquiring territory   and   giving  it statehood.
Their connection entirely negatives the idea that any
territory can be held as a colony or its people denied




584   OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


a republican form of government. There is not a line
or sentence in our Constitution that authorizes the
United States to embark upon a colonial career. Our
people fought for six years in the Revolutionary war
against the colonial system of Europe, which was
based upon monarchy. It is incredible that the men
who fought in that war against the colonial system
should have formed a government whose Constitution recognized and adopted the very oppressions
against which they were battling. That they did not
intend to do so is evidenced by the fact that Madison, in the Federalist, urged the adoption of the
Constitution as a security and safeguard against this
very thing.
The purpose of the Constitution was "to form a
more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and posterity." These words
indicate that the Government could never rule subject races or control territory not in the Union. Congress can only acquire and govern territory subject
to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Were it otherwise, it would be to discredit and abandon representative government.
The Constitution and a long line of judicial decisions all show that the policy of this Government
since its foundation is that we can not acquire a territory and hold it permanently as such; that statehood
must be the ultimate object.
It may be determined in the declaration of war as
in the case of Cuba. In that declaration we said that
Cuba was not to be acquired, but, when free from
the sovereignty of Spain, her people should be permitted to establish their own government. The real




OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


question now before the American people is, Are we
ready to swing loose from our constitutional moorings? Are we prepared to abandon the peaceful policies of the past century and drift amid the breakers
that have beset for ages the dynasties of the Old
World? Has the time come when we are willing to
change our system of popular government and bring
it into harmony with the monarchies of the Old
World?
It is idle to speak of Americanizing a tropical country 8,000 miles away. Our people will never consent
for the people of that far-off land to ever have a
voice in the affairs of our country.  Therefore, to
govern them we must inaugurate a military or colonial system, utterly at variance with the principles of
our Republic. But even if by a strained construction
of the Constitution the power is vested in the United
States to inaugurate a colonial system, I am utterly
opposed, as a matter of policy, to the acquisition of
any territory that can not be Americanized and
brought into harmony with our institutions. I believe
the time is not far off, and I gladly welcome its approach, when our flag will float over every foot of
North American soil, but it must come naturally and
peacefully, by the consent of the governed, not by
the rude hand of war.
But when it comes to thrusting our rule upon ro,ooo,ooo people on another continent by force of
arms, I hold that such a policy is unwise, as well as
at variance with the principles upon which our Government is founded. Taxation without representation
is as much tyranny as when King George's tea was
dumped into Boston Harbor. To govern the people
of the Philippines without their consent, is as much
government without the consent of the governed as




586   OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


it was when we were under the rule of Great Britain.
Government by force is, and always will be, despotism. Can we afford to abandon the doctrine of selfgovernment and establish anywhere a despotism? If
so, then let us prepare for the burden of a large army
and navy, heavy taxation, and the unrequited sacrifice of the young men of the nation.   Hitherto our
flag, wherever it has floated, has meant freedom and
self-government, battle only for peace.   But when
raised over conquered territories, held as colonies, it
will mean tyranny and misrule, battle for the sake
of plunder. My sentiment is, may it never wave save
to bring liberty and self-government to the downtrodden and oppressed of the earth; may it float untarnished and unchanged, save for the glory of new
stars in its celestial field of blue; may all peoples continue to hail it as the emblem of a great Republicthe mountain peak of nations.
A colonial policy means entanglement with foreign
nations. Lord Salisbury has said:
"The appearance of the American Republic among the factors of
Asiatic and possibly European diplomacy is a grave and serious
event, which may not conduce to the interests of peace, though I think
in any event it is likely to conduce to the interests of Great Britain."
Imperialism means that we must beat our pruning
hooks into spears and be ready to water distant lands
and stain distant seas with a never-ceasing torrent
of American blood. It means a never-ending strife
with the nations of the world.
In a commercial point of view I believe the importance of the Philippines per se is greatly exaggerated.
They are chiefly valuable as the key to the Orient, but
we need not colonize to obtain that advantage. The
exports of the Philippines, according to the statistical
abstract, in I896 amounted to $30,806,250.    If this
entire trade was monopolized by us it would be insig



OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


587


nificant. We will have to teach them to wear shirts
and breeches before we can trade with them much.
But England and Germany have large trade interests
in the Philippines, and under our agreement with
Spain she must have equal trade privileges with the
United States. As a matter of dollars and cents I
doubt its advantage.
Great Britain has in her colonies I6,662,973 square
miles, containing 322,000,000 inhabitants, while the
mother country has only 39,825,ooo  people and 120,979 square miles. The United States has no colonies,
and yet our exports compare most favorably with
those of Great Britain. Out of lo,ooo,ooo natives in
the Philippines 7,000,000 only are domesticated, and
the other 3,000,000 are savages.  The revenues to
Spain in 1894-95 from the Philippines were $13,579,900 and her expenditures were $13,280,130. These
revenues were derived from imports, Government monopolies, stamps, cock fighting, opium, gambling, lotteries, raffles, and Chinese capitation tax. The United
States could not derive as much, as she could not
license gambling, cock fighting, etc., and oppress the
inhabitants as Spain has done.
Under our constitutional Government we can not
compete with monarchies in colonizing and vassal
ruling. We have not the machinery and can not get
it without breaking up our system and building a new
fabric out of the pieces. Republics have not been
successful as rulers of colonies.  Invariably when
they have embarked in that career they have changed
into monarchies or empires.
The supposed analogy between England and the
United States is a fatal illusion.
"British institutions are founded," said Mr. Gladstone, "upon the doctrine of inequality."  American




588   OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.
A government of the people, by the people, and for
the people is impregnable for defense, but impotent
for conquest.
To become a colonizing power we must abandon
our republican institutions, or be paralyzed by them.
Our Government, with its checks and balances and
conservative divisions of power, is the best in the
world for peace and the poorest for criminal aggressions. Great Britain is an oligarchy, not a republic.
It is admiralty rather than democracy.   Americans
govern themselves, while Englishmen are ruled by
their Government.
Then, England has a magnificent civil service at
the foundation of her colonial empire, while our civil
service is chameleon-like, elastic, and not much after
all but a system of boss rule. We have no domestic
surplus of men and deficit of work, as England has.
Her small territory and immense population mark her
necessity, while our immense territory, not yet fully
peopled, marks ours. The natural decadence and inherent corruption of a colonial system is a danger
to the life of the strongest monarchy.
Bismarck said:
"I do not want colonies at all for Germany. Their only use is to
provide sinecures. This is all England and Spain get out of theirs.
German colonies are like the silks and sables of the Polish nobleman
who had no shirt to wear under them."
The creation of offices, the extravagant expenditure
of money by officeholders, and the actual corruption
creeping into any colonial system will sooner or later
sap the foundation of any government.
Three and a half centuries ago, Charles V. boasted
that the sun never set upon the dominions which
Spain maintained by wars in Europe, Africa, America,
and the islands of the sea. Where now is that mag



JOHN L. McLAURIN.








OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


59I


nificent empire?    Gone;    forever vanished!     Not
enough left to cast a shadow. England boasts to-day,
as did Charles V., that the sun never sets upon the
empire that, like Spain, she has maintained with unceasing wars. And like Spain she, too, in time may
see a dismal wreck and ruin, wrought by the natural
blight incident to colonial possessions.
Macaulay says:
"We venture to say that colonial empire has been one of the
greatest curses to modern Europe. What nation has it ever strengthened? What nation has it ever enriched? What have been its
fruits? Wars of frequent occurrence and enormous cost, fettered
trade, lavish expenditure, clashing jurisdiction, competition in government, and indigence among the people."
Rome colonized in all parts of the habitable globe,
and from the proud pinnacle of mistress of the world
she has fallen into eternal decay and lives only in the
pages of history. I believe that if we embark in a
colonial career, unsuited as are our institutions to
such a system-nay, with a form of government utterly antagonistic to the idea-that it is the first downward step along the path upon which so many nations
have fallen. I believe it is the great rock upon which
our republican institutions will finally be stranded.
Senators need not call upon Providence and "manifest destiny."  The most horrid crimes and foolish
blunders of the ages have been committed under similar protestations.
Imperialism means self-building at the expense of
others. Its roots are embedded in lust of power and
insatiable greed. The trusts and money power, that
now hold so many of our own people in financial
bondage, are crying out for new fields to exploit.
Other nations have built and developed, and then
tried expansion as a remedy for domestic discontent.
If you would know their history, read it in the gray




592   OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


silence of Eastern lands, in the wreckage of once
mighty empires.
"For the spider hath woven her web in the banqueting hall of
kings, and the owl keepeth her night watch in the towers of
Afrasiab."
It does seem to me that the rent garments and
whitened bones of other nations who have tried that
way and found their death should hold some warning for us.
An insuperable objection to the Philippines is the
difficulty of governing, 8,000 miles away, a people
just removed from barbarians and mongrel in race,
religion, and character. A protectorate over them, I
predict, will give us more trouble than all the domestic
problems now confronting us.
There are three fundamental principles upon which
this Government is founded:
I. Citizenship, universal and coextensive with the
country.
2. Local self-government.
3. Freedom to travel, to labor, and to engage in
business in any part of the country.
How are these principles to be maintained by the
United States in colonies? Are these mixed races
from  the Orient, against some of whom  we have
passed exclusion laws, to have all the rights of citizenship cbnferred upon them?   Shall they have a
voice in the Government of this country, corresponding to the voice that we have in the government of
theirs? Or is the right of suffrage to be given themI
to placate the spirit of the Constitution, while by solm
legerdemain they are denied its practical fruits?
Of one thing I am sure-the American people will
never consent for these inferior races to flood our
land and add another complication to the labor problem. To permit cheap Asiatic labor to come into




OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


593


competition with our intelligent, well-paid labor will
be to degrade and lower our civilization.  Already
in Illinois negroes from Alabama have been shot and
driven from the State, and such action defended by
the Governor.
Again, will Americans ever consent to live in the
Philippines and aid in the development of its natural
resources and the evolution of barbarians into the
light and liberty of civilization? Inhabitancy is oide
of the conditions to success in colonizing.  Seneca
said of the Romans, "Wherever the Roman conquers
he inhabits." The partial failure of England in India
is mainly attributable to the impossibility of getting
Englishmen to inhabit the country. Her rule of a
century in India has not materially changed the habits
or customs of the people.  England has conquered
India, but her influence would disappear when her
dominion as a ruler ended.
I suppose that I might be called a moderate expansionist, but it seems to me that the United States
can well be content with the territory of North America without reaching out to the uttermost parts of the
earth to embrace a people so different from us in
race, religion, and civilization, and who will never be
able to appreciate or understand our institutions. It
looks to me as if some of our public men had gone
wild on this question of expansion.
Here we stand to-day with great issues of financial
reform, labor and trusts questions all sidetracked; the
whole business of the nation suddenly become artificial; our people called upon to abandon the safe
treadmill of domestic concerns for new fields, new
thoughts, and fresh hopes, that can not but prove
illusive. It is wiser and better to look after domestic
politics first, and not avoid grave questions at home




594   OUR NEW COLONIAL POLICY.


in order to join in the international game of land
grabbing.
If we embark in a colonial system, it means the inauguration of a despotic power in Washington. It
means a large standing army that will not only be
used to rule outlying territories with an iron hand, but
that, sooner or later, will be used at home to overawe
and override the popular will. An imperialistic democracy, like an atheistic religion, is an impossible
hybrid.
The hand of God may have been in the war with
Spain, but I do not feel that it is in obedience to the
Divine will that we are pursuing a career of conquest
in the Philippines. Conquest has never been the handmaid of our civilization or the Christian religion;
their triumphs rest upon a foundation of peace. The
sword established the religion of Mohammed, but it
will never spread and maintain the religion of Jesus
Christ. I am in favor of the United States continuing
as a peaceful Republic, not a conquering empire. We
should not become entangled in the rivalries of European kingdoms, but be content with the banishment
of European tyranny from this hemisphere. I would
not sell the principles upon which our Republic is
founded for a mess of pottage in the Philippines.
Why should we run after "strange gods?" Let this
Government move along in the same orbit that has
transformed a few scattered colonies into a great
nation, and fanned a feeble spark into a beacon light
among the nations of the earth.
Better than wealth, better than "a territory upon
which the sun never sets," is the transmission to our
children of a Republic built upon the indestructible
rock of constitutional government.




CHAPTER XXIX.
EXCESSIVE TAXATION DESTRUCTIVE TO
PATRIOTISM.
BY HON. ALEXANDER         5. CLAY,
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
The resolution passed at the last session of Congress
declaring war against Spain declared expressly that
the United States disclaimed any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control
over the island of Cuba, except for the pacification
thereof, and asserted its determination, when that was
accomplished, to leave the government and control to
the people thereof. If it had been declared that it was
the purpose of the war to conquer, acquire, and annex
the Philippine Islands to the United States, I do not
believe the proposition would have received a half
dozen votes in the Senate.       If it had been known
that the war would result in the acquisition and annexation of the Philippine Islands to the United
States and their permanent retention by us, I do not
believe that the resolution declaring war against
Spain would ever have received a majority of the votes
of the Senate.
The President in his message to Congress said:
"As soon as we are in possession of Cuba and have pacified the
island, it will be necessary to give aid and direction to its people to
form a government for themselves. This should be undertaken at the
earliest moment consistent with safety and assured success. It is important that our relations with this people shall be of the most
friendly character and our commercial relations close and reciprocal.
It should be our duty to assist in every proper way to build up the
waste places of the island, encourage the industry of the people, and
assist them to form a government which shall be free and independent, thus realizing the best aspirations of the Cuban people."
595




596 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


These patriotic utterances of the Chief Magistrate
of the nation commend themselves to the intelligent
and thoughtful people of America. I shall have occasion to refer to them again before I close this argument, and I shall take the position that if they are
applicable to Cuba, then why are they not applicable
to the Philippines? In my judgment, if this part of
the message is put in operation by appropriate legislation, the honor and good faith of the United States
will be fully carried out, and in less than a half dozen
years Cuba will ask to be annexed to the United
States, and at no distant day, when the Islands of
Cuba and Porto Rico have acquired sufficient population, and have otherwise qualified themselves for statehood, they will ask to be admitted as States in this
Union of States. They belong to the Western Hemisphere; nature has in all probability intended them
to be a part of this country, and if they come freely
and willingly and ask for annexation I am not prepared to say they ought to be rejected.
Let us see what we are to get by the acquisition
of the Philippine Islands, and what are the responsibilities we assume by such acquisition and what are
the consequences likely to follow.  These islands,
1,200 in number, are out in the ocean, near China,
on the other side of the world. It is more than 7,000
miles from Manila to the nearest point of land of the
United States. In order to reach these islands from
our eastern coast you must travel by water nearly
14,000 miles. They are located in the tropics, in a
climate unsuited to the Anglo-Saxon race, and are
populated by about 8,000,000 people totally unacquainted with and unsuited to our form of government. There is no hope of American communities
being built up in this territory capable of statehood.




SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 597


The history of the past demonstrates that our race
can not thrive and prosper in the tropics. The area
of these islands is about twice as large as my own
State. This population is composed of Spaniards,
half-castes, Chinese, Malays, and Japanese. Of the 
total population, Europeans and Americans compose
less than 2 per cent.   The English, Germans,
French, and Americans, knowing the climatic conditions of the country, have never sought 'homes
among the Filipinos. Now, why do we want Such a
population, situated at such great distance from us,
and why do we want to become responsible for their
future government, when such responsibility is almost sure to involve us in future wars with foreign
governments?
It has been the policy of this Government to be
on friendly terms with all nations, but to form entangling alliances with none.  Our phenomenal
growth as a Republic can be attributed largely to the
fact that we have avoided foreign wars, and only a
small per cent of our citizens have been taken front
the pursuits of peaceful and productive occupations
to engage in military life. If we undertake to cross
the ocean and to establish colonies, we will be driven
to an alliance with England, Russia, Japan, or some
other foreign power in order to hold and defend our
newly acquired possessions. What would such an
alliance mean? If with England, and she engaged
in war with Germany, France, or any other power,
then our fleets and our soldiers must cross the ocean
and help fight England's battles.  If the alliance
should be with Japan or any other foreign power, the
result would be the same.
The senior Senator from Minnesota hopes to see
the day come when an alliance will be formed between




598 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


our Government, England, and Japan. I have great
respect for the judgment of the Senator. I always
consider with great deliberation a statement or proposition coming from such an eminent source, but I
can not give my assent to such a proposition. Such
an alliance would be against the teachings of the
"Father of our country" and against the spirit and
genius of our Government. We do not want to become complicated in the far East. We want no complications or war with England, France, Germany,
Russia, China, Japan, or any other foreign power.
We want to continue our friendly commercial relations with all of them. We want no territory or population liable and likely to involve us in complications
which may lead to war with any of these powers.
We learn now hostilities are threatened between
France and China. Less than five yeais ago Japan
was engaged in a war with China. The danger of
frequent and almost constant wars between foreign
nations in the far East, which always bring ruin and
disaster, should be a warning against the acquisition
of this foreign territory and population. Why do we
want to invite a condition of affairs that will take a
hundred thousand of our citizens from peaceful pursuits and transfer them to military life, to be shot
down in defense of Malays? In the language of
Mr. Carnegie, "Why do we wish to enter the far East,
a mine of dynamite, always liable to explode?"
Another reason why I oppose the annexation and
permanent retention of the Philippines I will now
state briefly. It is not disputed that at the time we
engaged in war with Spain for the liberation of Cuba
the inhabitants of the Philippines were in a state of rebellion against Spain and struggling for their independence. They had rebelled against the powers of




SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 599


Spain, had organized an army, and were struggling to 
throw off Spanish supremacy, achieve their independence, and establish a government of their own choosing. Through the instrumentality of the United
States army and navy Spanish authority on those
islands has ended. Why did the inhabitants of the
Philippines rebel against Spain? For the same reason
the Cubans were fighting for self-government.
Since Spanish rule has ceased to exist in those
islands we possess unmistakable evidence that the
entire population, consisting of nearly 9,ooo,ooo people, will be as hostile to any government that we may
establish denying them the right of self-government
as they were against the Government of Spain.
Did you ever contemplate what a serious and difficult task it is to rule and govern eight or nine
millions of people against their will, when this people were ready to sacrifice their fortunes and their
lives for independence and self-government, especially when our ships and soldiers must travel from
seven to fourteen thousand miles from our eastern and
western coast across the ocean to fight our battles on
the native land of the insurgents?
Men fight with desperation for home, wife, and
children and native land. This people, burning with
a desire for liberty and independence, and feeling that
they had been relieved of one oppressor and expecting
the dawn of a new era, an era which would mark the
beginning of their freedom and independence, would
at last realize that they were still to have a master
and be deprived of the privilege of self-government.
Jn all probability they would raise an army of more
than a hundred thousand soldiers to resist the Government of the United States, to defend their homes, to




600 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


retain their property and establish their independence.
When we send our brave sons across the ocean to
wage war of extermination against these people, what
excuse could we give the civilized world for our
action? The only excuse we could offer for such a
course would be that we waged war against Spain,
came out victorious, acquired this territory by conquest, and were now proceeding to take from the
natives their islands and deprive them of independence and self-government. What an anomalous position ours would be! We waged war against Spain
and drove the Spanish army from Cuban soil and its
navy from Cuban waters to give to the Cubans the
right of self-government, when now we send our
soldiers with muskets and bayonets to the Philippine
Islands to wage war against these people who seek
the same liberty and the right of self-government the
Cubans sought.
Such inconsistency is without a parallel in the history of nations. By such action we say to the world
we fought this war to exterminate Spanish rule and
oppression in Cuba and to establish a stable government there, a government of their own choosing, and
to exterminate Spanish rule in the Philippines and to
establish in lieu of Spanish authority a government of
the United States against the desire and wishes of
those to be governed. Is it possible that we have arrived at that period in the history of this nation that
we are willing to forcibly annex 9,000,000 people and
114,000 square miles of territory to our Government
and to prescribe rules and regulations for the government of such people against their will and consent
when they are struggling for independence and are
ready to shed their blood for the right of self-govern



SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 6oi


ment? If we are guilty of such conduct I fail to see
how the future historian of our beloved country can
complain of British oppression against the American
colonies.
Another strong argument to my mind against the
annexation, which may lead to war, is the disadvantages under which we labor when engaged in war
with a nation on the other side of the ocean. This
was fully illustrated in the war between England and
the American colonies. When our fathers met and
established the Declaration of Independence, which
separated the colonies from the mother country, our
entire population consisted of less than 3,000,000 people, about one-third the population of the Philippine
Islands. England was a great, strong, and powerful
nation, but in the contest she went down before the
arms of the infant Republic. We were engaged in the
holy and righteous cause of liberty, and were fighting
for home and native land. England had to send her
ships, soldiers, and supplies across the ocean to
American soil to conquer the new-born Republic.
These disadvantages and our righteous cause gave
the victory to American arms and American valor.
When we began war with Spain for the liberation of
Cuba, Spain labored under similar disadvantages. She
had to sail across the ocean with her fleet and army
to defend her American possessions located within
eighty miles of our coast. No sensible man for a
minute thought Spain could defend either Cuba or
Porto Rico against American arms. But when we
wage war against the Philippine Islands the situation
is just reversed.  We must leave home and native
land and fight our battles in the East and engage in
war with nations unfriendly to our form of government.




602 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


Another argument to my mind against the acquisition of these islands is this: If there be any lesson
which history clearly teaches, it is this, that free nations can not govern subject provinces. Even monarchies engaged in the colonial business have not
found it profitable in extending their colonial possessions, which have often involved them in expensive
and cruel wars. Such a colonial policy was responsible for the Revolutionary war between England and
America. The bitter and unrelenting hatred that long
existed between England and Ireland is another illustration of the folly of such government. No nation
on the earth engaged more extensively in the colonial
business than did Spain. Where are her innumerable
American possessions? She has not only given up
her South American possessions, but she has been
driven from the Western Hemisphere and has bankrupted her treasury in defending her colonial possessions.
History teaches us that the early Romans possessed
the faculty of self-government beyond any people of
whom we have any historical knowledge, with the
exception of the American people, and their liberties
perished when Rome became mistress of ignorant,
barbarous, conquered races unsuited to her free institutions, to whom she was unable or unwilling to extend all the privileges which her own citizens enjoyed. This Government is founded upon the virtue
and intelligence of our people. We have triumphedl
by reason of our wisdom and superior knowledge. It
has been said that our system of education, open to
every child, our churches, planting the seeds of Christianity everywhere, our public press, reaching into
every hamlet, are the instruments and agencies which




SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 603


have enabled our people to plant, enjoy, and perpetuate our free institutions.
Under our system  of government all power is
lodged with the people. Destroy the intelligence and
patriotism of the masses and you destroy our Government. Who doubts the end of our Rcpublic when
public sentiment is dominated by an ignorant and
debauched population, especially a population composed of inferior races that have always been under
the influence and domination of monarchical government? It is true that Germany, France, Russia, and
Great Britain have embarked in a colonial policy, but
there is no comparison between the Governments of
those countries and ours.  Any government that
roams the world over in pursuit of foreign territory
on which to plant and govern colonies, as England
governs India, or as Rome governed her provinces,
must necessarily maintain a large and expensive
standing army. When colonies rebel on account of
oppression and misrule, soldiers are needed to keel)
them in subjection and to crush out and to destroy
every aspiration for liberty and self-government. As
an illustration to sustain this argument, look at the
armies of Europe.  Germany maintains a standing
army of 591,715 soldiers; France, 561,848; Russia,
761,400; Great Britain, 211,532; United States,
27,632.
Think of it, at the time we declared war against
Spain the United States supported a standing army
of only 27,000 men. We had a population of 75,000,ooo people, more than seventy billions of wealth, and
three and a half million square miles of territory.
\Where in the history of the world will you find anotler nation that has been able to defend itself against
internal dissensions and foreign enemies with only i




604 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


person out of every 3,000 of its population in the military service? No wonder the growth of this nation
has challenged the admiration of the world. We
have adhered to the teachings of our fathers and
avoided complications and entangling alliances with
other governments. Instead of maintaining a large
standing army, we have taught our citizens that it
was the mission of our Government to guarantee to
every American citizen life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. We have taught our citizens in the
Declaration of Indepenence that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights and derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Under our system of government we have maintained
the friendship of all nations, and our citizens have
been permitted to engage in industrial pursuits instead
of wasting our energies and resources in unprofitable
wars.
What shall we do with the Philippine Islands?
They have been left upon our hands as a result of
the war. We did not need them, we did not want
them, but we are forced to deal with them anyway.
However we may desire to extricate ourselves from
this responsibility, we can not escape it. We must
either give them back to Spain, sell them to some
other government, keep them and govern them ourselves against their consent, or aid and direct the
population of those islands to form a government
for themselves. For one I am unalterably opposed
to the proposition to return them to Spain. Such a
course would justly meet with the condemnation of
the civilized world. I am equally opposed to the proposition to sell them to some other country. For the
reasons stated in my argument, I can never give
my assent to the proposition to annex these islands




SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 605


to our Government and       permanently   retain  them
against their consent.
There is but one proposition left, but one course
for me to pursue, but one line of policy for which
I am willing to cast my vote. The President in his
message said:
"I do not discuss at this time the government or the future of
the new possessions which will come to us as the result of the
war with Spain. Such discussion will be appropriate after the
treaty of peace shall be ratified. In the meantime, until Congress has
legislated otherwise, it will be my duty to continue the military government which has existed since our occupation."
The President, however, did make an exception
to Cuba, and he declared in no uncertain tones that
it was our duty to assist the Cuban people to form a
government which shall be free and independent, thus
realizing the best aspirations of the Cuban people.
He declared that Spanish rule must be replaced by a
just, benevolent, and humane government created by
the people of Cuba, capable of performing all international obligations, and which shall encourage thrift,
industry, and prosperity, and promote peace and good
will among all the inhabitants, whatever may have
been their relations in the past. He furthermore declared, until there is complete tranquillity in the
island and a stable government inaugurated, military
occupation shall be continued.
The message is silent as to the government we shall
give to the people of the Philippine Islands. If the
friends of expansion will replace Spanish rule by a
just, benevolent, and humane government, created
by the people of the Philippine Islands, capable of
performing all international obligations, and which
shall encourage thrift, industry, and prosperity, and
promote peace and good will among all the inhabitants, then we will have reached a happy solution of
this troublesome question.   Why should we declare,




606 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


before the ratification of the peace treaty, that the
people of Cuba shall have a just, humane and benevolent government created by themselves, and deny this
God-given right to the inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands? Why should we declare our purpose to give
aid and direction to the people of Cuba to form a
government for themselves and deny this same
blessed privilege to the Filipinos? Why should we
say to the people of Cuba that military occupation by
our Government on the island shall cease so soon as a
stable government is formed by the people of Cuba,
and deny the same privilege to the population of the
Philippine Islands? Why can we speak out in no uncertain tones, before the ratification of the peace
treaty, as to the disposition of the Island of Cuba,
and why should we remain silent as to the policy of
our Government in dealing with 8,000,000 people on
the Philippine Islands? If it be wise and statesmanlike to outline our policy as to Cuba before the adoption of the peace treaty, what reason or logic can
the friends of expansion give for silence as to the
policy of our Government in dealing with our other
territorial acquisitions?
The friends of expansion say that the population of
the Philippine Islands are incapable of self-government. From the best information I have been able
to obtain they are much more capable of self-government than the people of Cuba; and we propose to aid
and assist the people of Cuba in forming a just and
stable government for themselves. I hold in mny hand
a book called "4Military Notes on the Philippines,"
gotten out by the War Department, fully, and I trust
accurately, describing the population of those islands.
I find language on page 2I of this book bearing out
that part of my argument going to show this people




 '~~-; ~~ *sl
11~
i;;i6~:~~;~1~
i~`l~~~BF~ ,.,~~1.%~,t:?.l.;.~~~
; '~;i iidi.~~I~~ ~ ;~ .:i: 
':::~.::~::%~~~; ~~ ~~r~F '--
~'': i~ir ~i~~ - ~- - a
 ` ~'L-:*:.,~; i
i~;s~ B
:riis~ a 
;~ ~B
~: ~~` r~ ` ~ ` ~:i ~  i i`-~~ — ~c, ~:i
-.i.
iQ ~ - ~`H ~:a:B
x~``~~- isa `~:~- - ~ ~~~~ ~I~-rl~~~~;:r
~s _~~~r.1:~ _ ~a^
~~:(
i
~ ~~
i~"
~ci.i
 ~~~  ~~  I~ ~~~. 
%~.
-i. "~i
 "~:~I'~~ 7i: E. iB
~~~~~i~,~ r qi
;"'"~n.:a
a
~i~
 ~~~
Ils""i:








SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 609


capable of self-government, and I insert same as a
part of my remarks:
"The Philippine Malays are a superior race to many other Asiatic
peoples; orderly, amiable, courteous, honest, and exceedingly superstitious, they are easily influenced upon profession of Christianity.
Like most tropical people, their efforts are intermittent rather than
steady; their wants are readily provided for, and they take life
easily. The inhabitants of the islands are composed of the most
diverse mixture of races, including Malays, Aetas, Negrit:.s, pure
blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Indios, Moors, Europeans, and mixture of
each with the others. There are as many different tribes as there are
islands, and it is said that 500 languages and dialects are spoken in
the islands at the present day.
"The inhabitants are generally tractable and amenable to government and generally not hostile to foreigners. In the inaccessible
parts of the islands there are still tribes of unsubdued savages, whose
number is estimated at about 602,000. Fond of music, dancing, and
amusements of all kinds, they are born gamblers, and cock-fighting is
their greatest passion. Every town has its cock-pit, and in the largest
the spectators may be numbered by the thousands. This amusement
is heavily taxed by the Spaniards, and advantage is taken of their
taste for gambling by running a lottery for the benefit of the Government. Probably not more than fifteen or twenty thousand Spaniards
or people of pure Spanish blood are permanent residents, and the
number of other foreigners is not large. The majority of these are at
Manila, where the English have established a club in the suburbs,
which has become the center of foreign social intercourse. Without
doubt, the most primitive of the Philippine people are the Aetas, or
Negritos, a race of blacks of almost dwarfish stature. They are believed to be, and with good reason, the true aborigines of the islands,
who even at the time of the earliest Spanish conquest had begun
to go to the wall under the fierce struggle for existence with the encroaching Malay tribes. At present they are well-nigh extinct and
promise to become entirely so. These people are confined to the
higher mountain ranges in Luzon and Negros although a few are
found in Mindanao."
We learn through the public press that General
Aguinaldo, through his representatives, has filed with
the Department of State a memorandum setting forth
the claims of the Filipinos to independence and selfgovernment. I hold in my hand a summary of the
arguments said to have been advanced in that memorandum     in  favor of independence.         If that document be correctly reported, it contains the highest
evidence that the leaders of those people are fully
capable of forming and putting in operation a government of their own. I ask that this document be
inserted as a part of my remarks. A summary of that
argument is as follows:
"American precepts and examples have influenced my people to
desire independent government.
"Suffering, as did the Americans, from alien rule, they rose and
drove out foreign masters.




6IO SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


"They established and for seven months have maintained a form
of government resembling the American in that it is based upon the
right of the people to rule.
"This government has, according to doctrines laid down by distinguished American Secretaries of State, become entitled to recognition by the American Republic.
"The expelled Government of Spain, having at the time of the
signing of the treaty of peace possession of only one part, and the
remainder of the Philippines, except Manila, being in the possession
of the Philippine republic, and all insignia of sovereignty having
passed from Spain, that country could give no title to the United
States to the Philippine Islands.
"Spain having no title to give, her claim can not be rendered better by the ratification of the treaty of peace.
"From the foregoing it would seem to follow that the present
recognition of the first republic of Asia by the greatest Republic of
America would be cognizant of right, justice, and precedent.
"I can not close this memorandum without taking occasion to
assure you of the gratitude felt by my countrymen toward the Americans for the assistance rendered them in the attainment of their
liberty and of their strong desire in every way, less than their
effacement as a nation, to give practical expression to this gratitude,
and further to hope that as self-respecting nations the bonds of
friendship between the two may grow stronger with the passing of
years."
I do not pretend to say that these people are as
capable   of self-government as the        Americans, and
where will you find a population that will compare
with ours? Where will you find a population capable
of putting in operation such a system of government
as we enjoy? They are capable of putting in operation a government suitable to their taste, surroundings, and conditions, and one that will bring to them
much more happiness and satisfaction than a government established by a foreign power against their will.
It is not the mission of this Government to go among
the nations of the earth and force the principles of
our Government on others against their will and consent simply because we may possess more virtue and
intelligence than those whom        we   seek   to  force  to
accept our theory of government.
A government of the unlearned and the uncivilized
may be simple in its operation, but heretofore such
governments have met the wants of a primitive people. The Indians had a government that met their
wants and immediate demands before the Englishspeaking people ever saw       the Western     Hemisphere.




SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 611


So did the Britons before Roman invasion. God in
His wisdom has never yet created a people that were
not capable of sustaining some form of government.
Trace the history of the world since God placed Adam
in the Garden of Eden, and there has never been a
time or a race of human beings that did not put in
operation and sustain some form of government.
Often these governments have been simple in form,
but they have met the wants of a less advanced and
cultivated people. A government framed and fashioned after the style of the one established by our
fathers might not be suitable to such times and conditions.
My solution of the Philippine question is simply
this: Let Congress say that whereas Spanish rule
has ceased to exist in the Philippine Islands, that
Spanish authority must be replaced by a just, benevolent, and humane government, created by the people
of those islands, capable of performing international
obligations and of promoting peace and good will
among all of the inhabitants. Let us declare that it
is our purpose to give aid and direction to the people
of those islands to form such a government for themselves. Then it will not be necessary to spend one
hundred and fifty millions annually to maintain a
large standing army.
Where are we drifting? I see that General Wood
has asked Congress for an army of 50,ooo soldiers to
keep order in Cuba. I send to the Clerk's desk a
synopsis of the statement he made before the Military
Committee of the House.
"WILL NEED FIFTY THOUSAND MEN.
"GENERAL WOOD'S ESTIMATE OF THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION FOR CUBA.
"Gen. Leonard Wood, military commander of the Department
of Santiago, was before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs




612 SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.


yesterday. Hle gave a detailed account of his operations in the province and in the city of Santiago, and also gave his estimate of the
military force necessary to maintain order in the islands.
"On the latter point he expressed the opinion that for some time
the 7,500 men now in Santiago province should be continued, but that
after a time 5,000 would be sufficient for the service. He considered,
however, that a military force would be necessary to the maintenance
of order for some years, and said it should be sufficient to check
effectually and quickly any trouble before it could gain headway.
This remark applied to the island as a whole, and he thought as
many as 50,000 troops should be stationed throughout Cuba.
"With proper precaution and tact he did not anticipate trouble,
and he believed that the insurgent forces would rapidly disintegrate in
all parts of the island. Santiago had been a great stronghold of the
Cuban insurgents under Garcia, but they had now practically disbanded. Outlining his mode of governing the province, he said he had
made no appointments to office except upon the recommendations of
Cubans, and that he had in all cases put them upon their honor in
making such recommendations.
"He had shown absolute trust in them in all matters, going among
them always unarmed, and leaving the books of the administration
always open to their inspection. He had Cubans in all departments,
and his private secretary had at one time been a member of Gomez's
staff. Thus, they always knew how their money had been expended,
and knew just what he was doing as their governor."
I ask again where are we drifting?           If it takes an
army of 50,000 soldiers to maintain a stable government in Cuba, where we grant to them the right of
self-government, what kind of an army will it take
to put in operation a government by force against
the consent of 9,000,0ooo      people    on   the   Philippine
Islands?     Fifty  thousand    soldiers to   keep   order in
Cuba with a population of a million of inhabitants!
At the same ratio      it would require 400,000 soldiers
to govern the Philippine Islands as an American
province.
The annual expenses of the army previous to the
late war ranged from twenty to twenty-four million
dollars. The expenses of the army for 900o are estimated at $144,500,000, an increase of a hundred and
twenty    millions.    The annual increase and the expenses of the navy are estimated at $15,000,000. The
increase of pensions is estimated at about four millions. In my judgment, the acquisition and retention
of the Philippine Islands means an army of 50o,ooo
soldiers.   It means the annual expenses of the army
will increase    from   twenty    to  two   hundred     million




SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY. 613


dollars. A large standing army means that the pension list will increase from five to ten millions anually. Then let us consider the dangers of disease to
which our soldiers will be necessarily exposed when
located in the tropics. The death rate in such a climate would be at least 200 per cent greater than in
our own country.
It will never do to be governed by the advice of
our war generals as to the size of our standing army
or as to the territory we should acquire. I make
no reflection on them, but many of them are wild and
extravagant on these two subjects. Let us remove
the cause for irritation between our Government and
the Filipinos by declaring that we will not attempt to
govern them against their will. Then we will not
need a standing army to force a government on
them. Then the most amicable relations will be
established between the people of those islands and
our Government. They will owe to us a debt of lasting gratitude, and commercial relations based on
such friendship will be much more profitable and advantageous than those based on war.
Let us profit by the lesson which history teaches us.
We know that when Rome became mistress of the
provinces to which she was unable to extend her own
liberties the days of her self-government were numbered. We know that history teaches us that a homogeneous and vigorous people may manage their own
affairs under a popular constitution so long as their
personal characters remain undegenerate. Congress
may pass laws and administer them as public sentiment approves, but Congress can only successfully
legislate for such people as are directly represented
therein.  Imperial acquisitions and imperial aspirations draw necessarily after them a desire for imperial




614  SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER S. CLAY.
rule. If we would perpetuate our free institutions
and maintain forever popular government, let us
cling with undying tenacity to the great truths taught
by the founders of our Government, that "all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to
secure these rights governments are instituted among
men, deriving 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 abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation upon such principles
and organizing its powers in such form as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 




CHAPTER XXX.
IMPERIAL SPLENDOR AND IMPERIAL
MISTAKES.
BY HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON,
REPRESENTATIVE OF CONGRESS FROM SIXTH DISTRICT OF INDIANA.
A few evenings ago the Home Market Club, of
Boston, Mass., gave a banquet, at which the President of the United States was the principal guest.
Judging from the newspaper accounts of the affair, it
was an exceedingly elaborate one in all of its details.
We are told that the number of plates laid at the table
was largely in excess of that usually laid at such entertainments and that the hall was decorated with great
profusion, the table at which the Chief Executive sat
in particular being loaded down with rare and fragrant flowers. It appears, too, that sweetest music
lent its charms to the occasion; that an ode to the
President was sung by the banqueters to the tune of
"America," and that a vast concourse of people looked
down from the galleries upon the festal board.
The Secretary of War was in attendance, he whom
the Boston populace had hissed upon the street a few
hours before, ere they turned to greet with rapturous
applause the chief who had bestowed upon him his
official character. We can hardly blame them though
for this, for they were only following the precedent
set them by some of the leading Republican newspapers of the country, which, for months past, have
been fiercely attacking the Secretary, and yet have
lacked the courage to lay their ax to the root of the
615




616 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


evil and censure the gentleman who, to reward him for
his political services and disbursements in the campaign of I896, appointed him to his present position,
and has maintained him there ever since, notwithstanding his incompetency and against the righteous
complaints that have been made against him.
The Secretary of the Navy also graced the oc
casion with his presence, and so far forgot his usual
courtesy, so far belied his New England training and
associations, as to repeat the stale and untruthful
charge that those who opposed the ratification of the
infamous treaty of peace with Spain were responsible
for the bloodshed that occurred in the Philippines.
When the Chief Magistrate had ceased speaking,
another member of his official family, the gentleman
who presides over the Post-Office Department, arose
in his place and proceeded to load his chief down with
an eulogy so fulsome and extravagant, so absolutely
given over to hyperbole, that no individual not wholly
eaten up with vanity could possibly have endured it
without nausea and disgust.
The newspapers further inform us that among the
decorations there were suspended over the entrance
to the banquet hall three portraits, one of Washington, one of Lincoln, and one of the President himself,
and that beneath these was inscribed in letters so bold
and plain that even a blind man could read it with
ease the single, significant word, "Liberators."
Now, George Washington fought with his sword
for eight long and bloody years to establish the right
of a people to govern themselves, and in his farewell
address he counseled his countrymen to live on terms
of amity with all nations and to enter into entangling
alliances with none.
Abraham Lincoln's whole political life, God bless his
memory, was a contention for the rights of man; and




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 617
it was his kindly hand which penned the immortal
emancipation proclamation that struck the shackles
from the limbs of millions of bondmen. One would
think, sir, that the gentleman who was just then, as the
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, engaged
in the prosecution of a bloody war against a poor
and defenseless people in the Orient, with a view to
forcing upon them a government against their will,
who was employed in the unsavory task of Christianizing them with the sword and civilizing them at the
mouths of cannon, would naturally have felt some
little embarrassment as he gazed upon these portraits
and read the significant inscription below.
Possibly His Excellency did not see them. He may
have turned his back upon them just as he has turned
his back upon the Declaration of Independence and
upon the cardinal principles of liberty, upon which the
Republican party was founded forty-three years ago.
If he did see them, possibly there may have passed
through his mind the faintest suspicion as to the bona
fides of the hospitality extencled to him. He may even
have caught a transient glimpse of the satire which
hung these three pictures in juxtaposition and wrote
that word of bitter irony beneath. Be this as it may,
the President does not appear to have been at all
abashed by this incongruous circumstance, but to have
arisen from his seat and there, within the shadow of
the monument on Bunker Hill, where Warren fell
fighting for liberty, and within a stone's throw of
Faneuil Hall, where time and again the true sons of
the old Bay State have sent forth to the country their
messages of freedom, he delivered perhaps the most
remarkable, certainly the most disingenuous, address
that ever fell from the lips of an American President.
This address, together with certain prefatory matter
and a synopsis of the remarks of the Secretary of the




618 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


Navy and of the Postmaster-General as they were
published in the Washington Post of this city, I shall
take the liberty of incorporating into the Record along
with my remarks.
The address, divested of its verbiage, considered
apart from its platitudes and the ostentatious professions of virtue with which it was interlarded, was nothing more nor less than a carefully devised and studious
misstatement of the issue between the Chief Executive
and those of his own party who are opposed to his
wretched policy in the Philippines. It was an effort to
befog the subject and to mislead the public judgment.
We are told, sir, that this speech was received with enthusiastic applause by those who heard it, but we who
read it in cold print and in the light of the indefensible
tragedy now being enacted near the shores of Asia involuntarily think of that creation of Charles Dickens
who was accustomed to roll his eyes piously to heaven
and exclaim with great ostentation to those about him,
"My friends, let us be moral!" and who was the father
of two daughters, one of whom he named Charity and
the other Mercy.
His Excellency declared upon this occasion, if not in
so many words, at least in effect, that he had never entertained any policy with respect to the Philippines up
to the time the treaty of peace was ratified, but that he
had simply held them as Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy, leaving the question as to their disposition and control to be determined thereafter by
Congress.  This is precisely the same plea that
was made for him by his mouthpiece upon the floor
the gentleman from Ohio, in the speech which that
gentleman made here while the Army bill was pending, in answer to some remarks which I had previously submitted in the debate. The President, however,
was not so candid in his Home Market utterance as




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 619


was the gentleman from Ohio, for he made no profert
therein of his proclamation to the Philippines, issued
immediately after the signing of the treaty of peace
at Paris, whereas the gentleman from Ohio inserted
that document in full in the Record when he came to
revise his remarks, where it can easily be discovered,
by those who might read it, that it is as an entirety
directly at variance with the construction which the
gentleman placed upon it while reading fragmentary
portions of it during his speech.
If the Chief Executive really feels, as he declared
at this banquet, that the disposition of the Philippines
is a matter to be determined by Congress, why does
he not call a special session of Congress to settle the
matter at once, and then keep his hands off the legislative branch of the Government and not attempt to
influence it while the subject is being discussed and
decided? Heaven knows there is need of action and
of speedy action. If he is sincere, why did he permit
his supporters in the Senate to vote down the other
day the Bacon resolution, which distinctly declared
that the United States entertained no intention of
permanently holding these islands, but that it would,
when the people there had established their government firmly, withdraw and leave them to govern
themselves?
Why did he insist that the McEnery resolution
should be passed-a resolution which is a fraud, a delusion, and a snare, a shameful evasion, which, like a
Christmas tree, has something upon it for everybodya resolution which is all things to all men and which
can be construed to suit the predilections of the man
who reads it, whether he be for or against the permanent holding of the Philippines? That resolution
is intended simply to quiet the conscience of the American people, to lull all opposition to sleep while the




620 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.
President goes ahead waging relentless and merciless
war against the Filipinos and laying deep and secure
the foundations for a permanent American colony in
their territory. No Representative who is opposed
to such a policy as this can vote for this resolution
without self-stultification and the loss of self-respect.
Its passage is precisely what the advocates of imperialism in the East most earnestly desire.
But the Chief Executive of this nation had scarcely
hidden himself behind the plea of a simple holding
of the Philippines as the Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy, had scarcely disavowed that he had
entertained any policy as to their disposition, until,
with an inconsistency that would have been impossible
in anyone save himself, he gave his whole case away
by declaring that the islands came into our possession
by circumstances beyond anyone's control and by
launching out into a labored defense of the very terms
of the obnoxious treaty of peace itself.
He stated further that we had been obliged to take
the Philippines to ourselves because to withdraw from
them would have been, first, to abandon the Filipinos
to anarchy because of their incapacity for self-government; second, to leave them exposed to the renewed
oppression and tyranny of Spain; and third, to abandon them to absorption by the great powers of the
Old World.   If by the statement that the Philippines came into our possession through circumstances
which no man could control, the Chief Executive referred to the temporary possession of them which
came as a result of the victory of Admiral Dewey and
his gallant tars, I have no issue to make with him.
But if, in the use of that expression, he seeks to convey to his countrymen the idea that their present
permanent acquisition by us was beyond control, I
utterly deny it, and think I will be able to fix this




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 621


responsibility, before I am through, where it properly
belongs.
Now, I am determined that the President of the
United States shall neither befog the issue between
himself and those of the Republican party who oppose
his Philippine policy, nor mislead the public judgment,
nor escape responsibility for the gross official blunder
which he has committed in connection with this Eastern problem. If this war for subjugation of an alien
race, waged without the declaration of Congress, the
permanent acquisition of their territory to our own
domain, the creation of a great standing army and
navy, the loading down of our people with grievous
taxation, the departure from the policy of nonintervention in European affairs, under which we have
outstripped in progress and development any nation
on the face of the globe, is right, then the President
is entitled to the glory of the accomplishment, and
no man should be permitted to snatch a single laurel
from his brow.
If, on the other hand, the policy is wrong and
fraught with grave menace and serious danger to the
American public, the President is alone responsible
for it, and he must bear the whole burden of the fearful responsibility. I assert that the entire policy is not
simply an error, but that it is a crime, and that the
Chief Executive of this nation is the one who has
precipitated upon us the embarrassments and the difficulties by which we are now confronted. I insist that
he (lid not simply hold the Philippines as Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy, leaving the question
of the disposition and control of them to Congress,
but that he formulated and put into execution an
affirmative and aggressive policy, that of their permanent annexation to this country, and forced it
through the Senate of the United States with all the




622 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


power and influences which his high office enabled
him to employ.
Let us see whether I am right in this. When Spain
sued for peace, it became not simply the right, but also
the duty of the President to take the initiative in determining what should be the terms of the peace.
The Constitution expressly conferred the treaty-making power upon him, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Right then and there was the
Presidential opportunity. He could insert in that
treaty whatever terms he pleased. He could omit
from it whatever terms he desired, acting always, of
course, within the limits of his constitutional powers.
True, the instrument would be of no validity until
Spain agreed to it and it was ratified by the Senate;
but Spain would have consented to anything. She
was defeated, disheartened, and impotent.
Not a nation on earth was willing to come to her
rescue. The Senate would have ratified anything
which the President had seen fit to submit to it. The
Chief Executive was popular with the people. Whether he deserved that popularity I shall not stop to inquire. I simply stated as a well-known fact that he
possessed the entire confidence of the country, and
therefore he had no reason to fear to do what was
right. The occasion was one calling for the exercise
on his part of intelligence, sound judgment, patriotism,
and wise statesmanship. His first impression was to
demand of the Filipinos simply a coaling station, a
measure amply sufficient for all of our legitimate purposes, and the evacuation of the island by Spain without compensation by the taxpayers of the United
States.
Had he adhered to this view of the matter, all would
have been well. The whole nation would have followed him cheerfully, and to-day we would have been




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 623


at peace with the Philippine republic, and our Army
and Navy, which is now waging war against our former friends and allies, would have been disbanded.
No Army bill for a standing army of Ioo,ooo men
would have been pending or necessary, and we could
now be getting ready to reduce instead of getting
ready to greatly increase the burden of our taxation.
But the President changed his original intention. He
committed a fatal error. He wrote into that treaty
the absolute transfer of Spanish sovereignty over the
Philippines to ourselves, and the payment of $20,000,ooo out of the United States Treasury as a consideration for the cession.
He sent this treaty to the Senate of the United
States for ratification. Then he issued to the people of the Philippines that proclamation in which he
informed them that the United States had succeeded
to the title of Spain, declared that the government and
control of their territory belonged to us, ordered them
to pay their taxes to the military government which
he established over them, and blandly made known
to them that our mission in their midst was one of
"benevolent assimilation." They were further assured
by him, as he took their islands without their consent
and established government over them against their
will, that we came in order that we might confer inestimable advantages and blessings upon them, and
that if they accepted our control without remonstrance
they would be protected, but that if they failed to do
so they would be coerced.
Then sir, turning again to the treaty which he had
negotiated, he drove it through the Senate of the
United States by the unlimited exercise of all those
powers and influences which the great office he holds
makes possible.
These facts which I have stated are true; they are




624 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


now known to all intelligent men. They can not be
successfully denied. What, then, did the Chief Executive mean by telling those who gathered around
the banquet board at Boston that up to the ratification of the Paris treaty he had simply held the Philippines as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
without any policy of his own, leaving the whole matter to be determined afterward by the Congress of the
United States? Was he foolish enough to believe that
his mere statement would be allowed to pass unchallenged? Was he vain enough to imagine that his ipse
dixit would conclude the matter, with the damning
proof of its falsity so near at hand?
Why did the President change his original intention
as to the terms to be incorporated into the treaty?
What were the influences that brought the change
about? I have heard it stated that the applause of the
people who greeted him just about this juncture of
public affairs, while he was on his tour in the West,
was the reason for it. Was it, then, the condition of
public sentiment rather than the right or wrong of the
matter which influenced the Presidential mind? Does
the Chief Executive regard his great prerogatives to
be so supinely representative that he must needs abdicate them at every popular wind that blows? Does
he feel that his high office gives him no latitude for
the exercise of individual judgment and of independent action? Did he make no allowance for transient
ebullitions of public enthusiasm and excitement, overlook his opportunity to save the people from themselves, lose sight of all the sacred traditions of the
country, and fear to make his appeal to that ultimate
tribunal which has so often in our national history
vindicated those who have fearlessly stood for the
right in public affairs-the sober, second thought of
the great American people?




ME~~~~~~~~~~~-Il-.....................w0f.  kN- ---
p, ~11
II    | | E 'lQ i-i _ 
I    I l,.EEIE|_ 
I I I el L00 000 tEL * I | l 
/ A44              a 
0 x -  | l | l WS. X~~~




Ii




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 627


And is His Excellency quite sure that he properly
gauged the condition of the public mind on the subject of Philippine annexation? Is he absolutely certain
that one swallow really makes a whole summer? It
would seem so, for in this Home Market address he
exultingly declared that the annexation treaty had
passed the Senate by over two-thirds majority of that
body and was sanctioned by the judgment of ninetenths of his countrymen. HIow that treaty finally got
its two-thirds majority in the Senate-the tremendous
pressure necessary to secure it there-where its fate
hung doubtful and trembling in the balance until the
very latest moment, and was then only saved by the
votes of Senators who had most of them spoken
against it, no man knows better than William McKinley, the President of the United States. Every
Representative upon this floor knows that it is doubtful whether the treaty could secure a two-thirds vote in
this House if the test were to be made here to-day.
Judging, then, by the opinion of their Representatives, sir, only two-thirds, and not nine-tenths, of the
American people are inclined to ratify this treaty.
Adulation has indeed sorely blinded the Chief Executive to the truth if he imagines that even the majority of his countrymen approve of this permanent
holding in the Orient. Let him not pin his faith too
securely to the sordid interests which clamor so loudly
in his hearing, to those who so confidently and recklessly assume to speak for the whole of our mighty
population. If he will but quiet the noisy throng
which surrounds him long enough to put his ear to
the ground and listen he will distinguish the premonitions of a coming storm; he will hear the steady
tread, not of the Ioo,ooo men whom he demands for a
crusade against liberty, but of a mighty army of free




628 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.
people who are beginning to move in defense of their
cherished traditions and their violated honor.
We have been told further that the President yielded
up his first-blush impressions at the importunity of
Admiral Dewey, who urged that the Philippines should
be retained. The Chief Executive can not screen himself behind the gold lace of the hero of Manila. No
one can honor more profoundly than I do the officers
of our Regular Army and Navy. They have ever been
the mainstay of the nation in the hour of battle. Their
heroic achievements have shed imperishable glory
upon our arms and will be the priceless legacy which
we will bequeath to our posterity, but their predilections are naturally for arms.
They have imbibed, of course, the prejudices and
the prefcrences of their calling. We can not blame
them for desiring to magnify the size and importance
of the Army and Navy; for advocating the expansion
of our territorial limits and the taking on of a colonial
policy. Such a departure will open up to them opportunities for promotion and for honorable service and
distinction which they could not otherwise enjoy. For
this very reason, their advice as to our national
policy should be received with caution, and the President, who is not merely the Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy, but is also the Chief Executive
of 75,o00,000 of peaceful and liberty-loving people,
whose happiness and prosperity have been achieved
by a rigid adherence to their own affairs, should have
been quick to recognize and prompt to act upon these
considerations to which I have adverted.
Again we have been assured that the demand of our
peace commissioners at Paris to hold the Philippines
is what induced the President to yield. So far as one
of the commissioners is concerned, we know that this
is false. This commissioner, the Senator from Dela



SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 629


ware, whatever may be his opinion upon the matter
now, wrote earnestly from abroad protesting and arguing against the annexation policy of the Administration. But even if this statement were true, it furnished
not the shadow of a justification for the conduct of the
President. The constitutional power to negotiate the
treaty was his, not the commissioners. They were
simply his instruments, appointed to carry out his
will. They were utterly powerless to resist. No,
this plea, like all the others, will not avail.
The truth is that these commissioners got their inspiration and their instructions from the White House.
Those instructions once changed, the action of the
commissioners would have been different. 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 already 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 election and who, I
doubt not, have pledged him a renomination and a reelection. These are the gentlemen who are already
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 Britain, Germany, and Japan
against Russia and France, the old-time enemies of his
country and the old-time friends of ours.
These are the gentlemen who are already grasping
after special privileges in the Philippines, in Cuba, and
in Porto Rico. It was, I imagine, for their especial
benefit that the President created his advisory board




630 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


to the War Department, composed of three American
citizens, the object being to farm out valuable privileges and immunities which should belong to the people of those islands themselves, and in whose disposition they should have a voice, if their government is
to be free and their rights maintained. Do not misunderstand me. I have no fault to find, sir, with the
spirit of legitimate American commerce. It should
be fostered, encouraged, and extended. My contention is against the spirit of American greed which
cares nothing for the spirit of American liberty and
still less for the freedom of an alien people, which
would trample ruthlessly upon the most sacred rights
and count life and human happiness for nothing, as
against the power to plunder under the plausible
pretense of legitimate trade.
And what do these gentlemen propose? To amass
colossal 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.
To enable them to do this, our whole population is
to purchase their field of operations for them in the
Philippines for the round sum of $20,000,000, and is
to be taxed interminably and excessively for the creation and maintenance of a great army and navy, whicii
is to conquer and hold the Filipinos in subjection and
defend the islands after they have been expensively
fortified against the assaults of the great European
nations, with which our new foreign policy will be
certain to bring us into frequent contention.
What else is upon the program of these gentlemen?
The open door in the Philippines, making it forever
totally impossible to discriminate in tariff duties there
in favor of the products of the American farm and the
American shop.




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 631
What is the other sacrifice that is required? That
the annexation of Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, absolutely sure to come at an early day, for they
have registered it in their vows, shall precipitate the
sugar, tobacco, hemp, and other cheap products of
these islands and Hawaii upon the American market in
free and unrestricted competition with the agricultural and laboring elements of our own country.
This policy, sir, would be free trade in William
Jennings Bryan. What is it in William McKinley?
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?  Has he changed his views upon the
tariff also? Has he recanted his old faith? Has he
resolved to abandon the farmer and the laborer to
unrestricted competition with the pauper labor of the
Old World and of the tropics? Let the Senator from
Ohio, whom I much like and admire, and the Senator
from Minnesota, who recently nominated him for reelection in their post-prandial speeches at the Dayton
banquet, and who seek to forestall the choice of the
next Republican national convention many months in
advance of its assembling, answer this question; answer it, not merely to the party bosses who make
nominations, but to the great, honest, and libertyloving masses of the Republican party, without whose
ratification at the polls their work will all have been
done in vain.
The President of the United States, as I have said,
told his auditors at Boston that the Filipinos were incapable of governing themselves. It is a complete answer to this to say that at the very moment he




632 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


made this statement the Filipinos were governing
themselves on every inch of their territory which we
had not wrested from their possession? They were
not only governing themselves, but they were also
fighting desperately for the right to do so in the future.
At the very instant those words fell from the Presidential lips there was only one native government in
the Philippine Islands. This was the Philippine republic, loyally supported by all the people. It had a
written constitution, a president, cabinet officers, a
legislative body, a seat of government, and an army
officered and in the field and equipped with munitions
of war. It has possession and control of all the territory except the city of Manila and, perhaps, one other
seacoast city, which we held ourselves. This government, too, was in existence the very day the treaty
of peace was signed at Paris. It was then capable of
maintaining itself against Spain. Her power to overthrow it was gone, and gone forever. This is the report rendered to our Chief Executive by our own
consul abroad. This Philippine republic was entitled
to recognition under the laws of nations. Spain's
title, sir, was destroyed. Plow could she convey to us
a sovereignty which she had irretrievably lost?
The Filipinos incapable of self-government? Liable
to fall into anarchy, you say, if left to themselves? Have you observed that they publish and
read newspapers in Manila? Did you see in
the Washington Post, not long ago, the high tribute
paid to them by the two United States naval officers
who, by permission of Aguinaldo, traveled extensively
in the interior of the islands? Have you failed to note
the intelligence of Agoncillo and the other Philippine
representatives recently within our borders?' Are you
aware that Admiral Dewey made use of this language




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 633


in his communication to the Secretary of the Navy on
the 29th day of last August:
The population of Luzon is reported to be something over 3,000,800, mostly natives. These are gentle, docile, and, under just laws
and with the benefits of popular education, would soon make good
citizens.
In a telegram sent to the Department on June 23 I expressed
the opinion that "these people are far superior in their intelligence,
and more capable of self-government than the natives of Cuba, and
I am familiar with both races." Further intercourse with them has
confirmed me in this opinion.
Do you know that in the "Notes on the Philippines," issued by the Adjutant-General's Office of the
War Department last September, the following language occurs:
The Philippine Malays are a superior race to many other Asiatic
peoples. Orderly, amiable, courteous, honest, and exceedingly superstitious, they are easily influenced upon professions of Christianity.
Like most tropical people, their efforts are intermittent rather than
steady, their wants are readily provided for, and they take life easy.
* * * The inhabitants are generally tractable and amenable to
government, and generally not hostile to foreigners.
Has it escaped your notice that the United States
consul-general at Hongkong, China, made use of the
following language in his communication to Mr.
Moore, of the Department of State, in his letter of
July I8, I898?I have lived among the Malays of the Straits Settlements and
have been an honored guest of the different sultanates.  I have
watched their system of government and have admired their intelligence, and I rank them high among the semi-civilized nations of
the earth. The natives of the Philippine Islands belong to the Malay
race, and while there are very few pure Malays among their leaders,
I think their stock has rather been improved than debased by admixture.
I consider the forty or fifty Philippine leaders, with whose fortunes I have been very closely connected, both the superiors of the
Malays and the Cubans. Aguinaldo, Agoncilla. and Sandico are all
men who would all be leaders in their separate departments in any
country, while among the wealthy Manila men, who live in Hongkong and who are spending their money liberally for the overthrow
of the Spaniards and the annexation to the United States, men like
the Cortes family and the Basa family, would hold their own among
bankers and lawyers anywhere.
Let me call your attention still further to another
paragraph in this consul-general's communication,
which reads as follows:
In conclusion, I wish to put myself on record as stating that the
insurgent government of the Philippine Islands can not be dealt with




634 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.
as though they were North American Indians, willing to be removed
from one reservation to another at the whim of their masters. If
the United States decides not to retain the Philippine Islands, its
10,000,000 people will demand independence, and the attempt of any
foreign nation to obtain territory or coaling stations will be resisted
with the same spirit with which they fought the Spaniards.
You are mistaken, sadly mistaken. iThe Philippine
people are capable of self-government. Take your
mailed hand from their throats, and give them a
chance   to   demonstrate   this  fact  still  further.
Cease  sending   our brave    soldiers to  meet death
in an ignoble war. What right have you to demand such a sacrifice as this?     Stop   wasting our
national resources in an effort to belie all the professions of sympathy which we have made in times past
for the downtrodden and oppressed. You are maligning the national character. You are bringing reproach
upon the greatest Republic of modern times. There is
serious danger ahead, too, if you do not desist. You
were warned in the concluding paragraph of our consul-general's communication, which I have just read,
that the Filipinos were a spirited people, and that they
would not be deterred by overwhelming odds from
resisting any nation which might assail their independence as bravely as they had resisted Spain, and
yet you insisted on undertaking the experiment. You
have gotten us into our difficulties. Now, sir, you
must do your full share in extricating us from them.
Stand back and accord to these people who by
their valor have earned the right to be free the privilege of establishing such a form of government as they themselves prefer. It will not, of course,
be nearly so perfect a government as ours, for they
are of an inferior race to our own. But though it may
be somewhat crude, especially at the outset, it will
answer all their needs well enough, and will bring
to them peace and happiness.
You can not command public sympathy, aye, yotl




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 635


will soon forfeit public respect, if you keep on exclaiming, as you did in your speech to tmhe Home
Market Club, "It is not a good time for the liberator
to submit important questions concerning liberty and
government to the liberated while they are engaged in
shooting down their rescuers." The inhabitants of the
Philippines are not liberated; they are oppressed.
We are not liberators; nor are we rescuers. We are inflicting upon them a grievous wrong. The spirit of
liberty is not yet dead in the breasts of your countrymen, and the time is near at hand when such sentiments as those you have uttered will, from the lips of
any public man, however high his station, be everywhere received with manifestations of dissent rather
than of approbation.
The Chief Executive's declaration that we were
forced to take the Philippines in order to save them
from again falling under the domination of Spain is a
pretext, not a fact.
When the treaty was signed at Paris, the Philippine
republic was in the condition which I have already
described-firmly established, cordially supported by
all of the people, occupying all the islands, except
the city of Manila, which was held by us, and the city
of Iloilo, which soon thereafter passed into their possession. It has a good-sized army in the field, well
officered and equipped.
On the other hand, Spain's soldiers were scattered
or imprisoned; her ships antiquated, crippled, or at the
bottom of the sea; her finances disordered; her treasury well-nigh bankrupt, and her people in despair.
How could she thus situated have regained her
ascendency over oooo,ooo people in the Philippines,
12,000 miles from her borders, when before these
misfortunes befell her, with an army of I50,000 men
and a great fleet at her command, she had signally




636 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


failed to subdue a million or two of Cubans only 3,000
miles distant?
Spain not only could not have accomplished this
task, but she never would have undertaken it, especially had the President required her to evacuate the Philippines, without compensation from the Federal Treasury, and leave the people of these islands to manage
their own affairs.
Again, His Excellency told his Home Market auditors that we were obliged to commit grand larceny
of the Philippines in order to prevent the great European nations from committing the crime.
The Presidential defense seems to be summed up
about as follows: First, I never had any policy with
respect to the Philippines prior to the ratification of the
treaty of peace-I only held them ministerially to preserve the peace; second, no one is responsible for our
having determined to hold them  permanently and
by force-we have possession of them by virtue of circumstances beyond anyone's control; third, we take
them because the Filipinos are not capable of self-government;'fourth, we take them to prevent Spain from
recovering them; fifth, we take them in order to prevent the great European nations from parceling them
out among themselves.
The gentlemen in this Chamber who follow the profession of law will not fail to observe the marked
resemblance between this Presidential answer and the
answer permitted to be filed in cases at law in those
States of the Union which have adopted what is generally known as the "reformed system of code pleading."
One of the distinguishing features of this system is
that defenses which are totally inconsistent and irreconcilable with each other are allowed to be set
up in different paragraphs of the same answer. In
some of the States, however, the provision is practical



SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 637
ly done away with by requiring the defendant to verify
his answer under his oath.
What a dilemma the Chief Executive would be in
if this latter rule were applied to his defense in tile
case of the Philippines! What would be his confusion,
too, if instead of giving to him the boundless universe
to defend in he was suddenly required to elect upon
which paragraph of his answer he would rely?
When the President of 75,000,000 of free people assigns as a reason for overthrowing the liberty of
an alien race that other nations would have committed
the wrong if he had not, I submit that we have certainly reached a pretty low ebb in our national existence.  Far nobler to have left to nations less humane than ourselves a monopoly of such wrong.
It is not in line with our traditions or our practices.
We could at least have kept our hands clean and our
honor unsullied. We owed to the Filipinos no duty
of protection. They neither desired nor asked it of us.
We never promised it to them. What they demanded
was absolute independence-independence of us as
well as of Spain, and of all the world besides. They
entertained no fear of other nations. Why, then,
should we have feared for them? They ask our permission, aye, they demand their right, to run the risk.
We only deny it because we have designs upon them.
No nation on earth manifested any disposition to
lay violent hands upon the Philippines, unless it was
Germany, and she was inspired to whatever course
she pursued by the belief that we were intending to
appropriate them to ourselves. Had we compelled
Spain to evacuate, and then recognized the Philippine
republic and given it a helping hand, the example
would not have been lost upon Europe, and the full
measure of our duty would have been righteously performed. To say that our example would not have been




638 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


followed and that the Philippines would have been
appropriated by other nations is, to say the least, to
deny to them that which is theirs of right-the opportunity to try the experiment.
Our treatment of the Filipinos is among the saddest
and most disgraceful incidents of all our national history. It is incapable of defense, though not yet, thank
heaven, beyond our power of reparation. This people
have been cruelly oppressed by Spain for years. Their
sufferings have been extraordinary. Time and again
they have risen against their oppressors and struggled
to be free. They were fighting for their independence
when our war with Spain commenced. We sought
and accepted their aid against the common enemy.
We brought Aguinaldo back from China, supplied him
with arms and ammunition, and sent him to lead his
countrymen against the Spanish army in the Philippines. We did not ask his submission to us. He did
not agree to accept our domination. We encouraged
him and his people to believe that their rights should
be zealously regarded. They had heard of the great
Republic beyond the sea. They knew of Washington
and of Lincoln, of our struggle for our independence,
and of the representative character of the Government
which we have established. They knew that we had
proclaimed a holy war to emancipate in Cuba a people
who were the victims of the same relentless master
who had been the author of all their woes.
They had heard the positive declaration of the President that our war was not being waged for the forcible
annexation of territory; that this, according to our
code of morals, would be criminal aggression and was
not to be thought of for one moment. They thought
that he spoke the truth; they believed in us; they
trusted us. They looked upon our flag with glad eyes
and with hopeful hearts. Never did it occur to them




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 639


for one instant that we were capable of deception, that
we could by any human possibility cherish designs
against their liberties. So they assembled their army;
they attacked the common foe. They drove the Spanish outposts into Manila and besieged Spain there by
land, while Dewey's victorious fleet menaced her by
sea. They were our faithful friends and our loyal
allies. Gentlemen may deny this if they please. They
may stickle for technicalities. They only add to our
record of shame when they do so, for part I of Senate
Document No. 62 and current history also attest the
truth of what I declare. In the days which immediately succeeded the destruction of the Spanish fleet
we had no American soldiers to land, capture Manila,
and occupy the soil, but Aguinaldo and the insurgents
were our army of occupation.
Then these people created a government in order
that they might enjoy the blessings of liberty. It was
a free government, too; a republic modeled largely
after ours. I need not describe it. I have done that
already; but I repeat once more-indeed, it can not
be emphasized too strongly-that it was a government
which was acceptable to all the people and that it was
supreme and powerful over all the territory except the
city of Manila, and, perhaps, one other city, since
passed into Philippine possession. The sentiment
which this people cherished toward us was made manifest by a simple incident which occurred when a consul-general of the United States paid a visit to Manila.
The consul informs us that he was received with the
utmost enthusiasm, that he was cheered to the echo,
and that the people of all ages and conditions and of
both sexes pressed eagerly upon him, and, in their
anxiety to grasp his hands in welcome, impeded his
progress for blocks through the city.
But the Administration, which had at first been per



640 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


fectly willing to receive the aid of the Filipinos against
Spain, and had actually done so, began early to ignore
them. Dispatches were then sent calling down our
consuls in the Orient who had spoken well of them
and had helped to enlist their services in our behalf.
We commenced to treat them with coldness and
neglect, to separate ourselves from them. Possibly the
President then contemplated turning them back to
Spain when peace should come, and therefore thought
that he had better not recognize them too far; that
such a course might create embarrassment in negotiating a treaty of peace-an event then just ahead. Soon,
however, came his resolution to deprive them of their
liberty and take them unto ourselves. They heard
Spain sue for an armistice. They witnessed the signing
of the protocol, leaving the disposition of their territory a subject for future determination. They had by
this time learned to suspect us, to doubt our integrity.
They were filled with anxiety and alarm. They drew
apart from us, and unto themselves. They soon saw
with indignation that President who not eight months
before had declared to the world that the Spanish war
was not waged for the forcible annexation of territory
negotiate a treaty which robbed them of their soil and
annexed it to our own domain, and send it to the
Senate of the United States for its approval. They
listened with heavy hearts and kindling resentment to
the same President's proclamation, couched in language as cruel as it was diplomatic, and in his honeyed
phraseology they read the death knell of all their longcherished aspirations to be free.
In this their great emergency they dispatched to our
shores a representative, whose mission was one of
amity, and who came only to intercede with the Chief
Executive and to implore him and us to do them no
wrong. In what manner did the President receive this




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 641


intelligent and inoffensive man, this messenger from
our friends and allies? He ignored him entirely. His
respectful petitions were treated with silent contempt.
When he knocked mildly and respectfully at the doors
of the Department of State the silence within was like
unto that of the grave; they were barred against him.
Spies were set to watch him at his hotel, as though he
were a common malefactor. When he walked out into
this city his footsteps were dogged by detectives of
the secret service. He was denounced, misrepresented, and mistrusted. Finally he was threatened with
arrest, and then, when to avoid so great an indignity
he fled our domain, we added insult to injury by
falsely charging that he had telegraphed to Aguinaldo
to attack our troops at Manila as a means of preventing the ratification of the treaty of peace in the Senate, and had left us to escape punishment for that
offense.
How could this innocent man have sent such a
telegram and escaped prompt detection here, when his
every act was under our constant surveillance, when
we had established a strict censorship over all that he
said or did? What man not a driveling idiot believes
that Agoncillo was fool enough to precipitate bloodshed in the Philippines when he knew only too well
that peace there was the only hope for the defeat of the
treaty here?
Then we ratified this unjust treaty, voted down in
the Senate the Bacon resolution, which disavowed
any intention of holding these islands permanently, refused even to consider a similarly worded resolution in
this House, and, having provoked this unhappy people to attack us at Manila by our menace of them,
we now find ourselves waging against them at all
points not only a defensive, but, an aggressive and
bloody war to reduce them to our arbitrary wills;




642 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


and now comes the Chief Executive of this nation,
the one person responsible above everyone else for
the whole wretched business, and in lugubrious accents informs his Boston audience that every red drop
of blood around the trenches of Manila, whether of
an American soldier or of a "misguided" Filipino,
brings anguish to his heart.
How it must augment the agony of the great sufferer to reflect that his own hand has precipitated his
all-absorbing grief upon him! Let him reflect upon
unaffected sorrow-the sorrow that dwells in the
breast of the heart-broken wife or child as the terrible
message is flashed to them over the ocean cable that
a loved one has fallen far off in the East, under the
hot skies of the Tropics. Let him turn his face to the
Orient, and there in the lurid glare of their burning
homes behold in the jungles the dusky bodies of the
lifeless Filipinos, whose sightless orbs turn upward,
as though mutely appealing to high heaven for the
justice which he has denied them.
And all of these wrongs to which I have made reference have been committed in the name of a people who
boast of their free institutions, and who live under a
written Constitution, every line of which fairly bristles
with guaranties for the liberties of the citizen.
These remarks of mine will be certain to be followed, both in and out of Congress, by a prolonged
howl of denunciation from a particular class of persons. Notwithstanding the fact that I announced over
two years ago to many persons in my district that I
would never again be an aspirant for Congress, and
was not a candidate either for renomination or reelection to this House, we will hear it stated and
published that my constituents have "retired" me
from public life. My motives will be aspersed, my
purpose misrepresented, and my conduct unjustly as







Z 4
Mw~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
FORJJOG   KNG




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 645


sailed. The vocabulary of epithets will be exhausted
upon me. I will, of course, be accused of having made
a vindictive and unjustifiable attack upon a great and
noble President. I will be stigmatized as a coward
and as a traitor to my party. It was so when I
arraigned the Chief Magistrate for his faithlessness to
public duty on a former occasion from this floor. It
will be so again. In this peculiar style of warfare,
you will find the gentlemen who have been incapable of contributing anything in the way of argument in support of the policy of the Administration
taking most conspicuous rank. They will have the
cordial co-operation of the gentlemen who are more
anxious to be popular than they are to be right.
The gentlemen who are grateful for patronage
already received and stimulated by the lively anticipation of patronage yet to come will also attune their
voracious voices to the general chorus. Only a blind
and unreasoning acceptance of the doctrine of Presidential infallibility and a supine acquiescence in the
Presidential ipse dixit can commend a Representative
to this kind of individuals. With them independence
in thought and action is a crime. To their minds "the
king can do no wrong," even though the king is
caught in the very perpetration of a wrong. They
load the Chief Magistrate down with eulogies-a common trick of mediocrity-surrender up their independence and judgment to his keeping, and thus encouraging him in his errors, follow him uncomplainingly, even though he is leading them and the party
into danger and the country into serious difficulty and
embarrassment. These gentlemen, who demonstrate
their own bravery by rushing at the head of what they
conceive to be an overwhelming public sentiment to
assail a Representative who is making his fight singlehanded and alone, so far as this side of the Chamber




646 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.


is concerned, would do well to reflect before they impeach any man's devotion to the Republican party.
I was a Republican long before these debates
arose. I am a Republican still. I expect to remain a
Republican, though I trust I may be pardoned for declaring that no political organization deserves support which proves recreant to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which it is founded and surrenders both its conscience and its traditions to the
demand of greed and avarice. Those who charge me
with party disloyalty would do well to specify with
particularity wherein I have been guilty instead of
confining themselves to wholesale charges and vague
generalities.
It is the President and those who are particeps
criminis to his wrong, either by giving him their
active support or by quietly submitting to his aggressions while he is leading the party into pitfalls, who are
lacking in party fealty, not I. The time for earnest
Republicans to make their fight is here and now,
before the organization is irretrievably committed to
a policy which will, if adhered to, assuredly lead to
overwhelming defeat.
The President seems fatally bent on giving the
Democratic party the right side of a great moral issue,
which will take an abiding hold upon the consciences
of the American people in the next campaign. He
is determined to commit it to the championship of
oppression, violence, and excessive taxation-to appeal to a free people for indorsement upon an unsavory record, in which an abandonment of our most
cherished traditions, the enslavement of analien people, and the creation of a large and expensive standing army and navy shall be the most prominent
feature.




SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON. 647
To this, as a Republican, I am unalterably opposed.
The world of civilization and of letters was still
lingering under the charm of Rudyard Kipling's great
poem, the "Recessional," when he again arrested its
attention with another product of his pen entitled
"The White Man's Burden."         The appearance of this
latter poem called forth from some writer to me unknown    a parody   entitled "The Brown       Man's Burden," which recently appeared in the paper of Henri
Labouchere.      This parody     could  with   great propriety have been dedicated to the President of the
United States, for it is in effect a severe and caustic
arraignment of his policy in the Orient. I can not,
of course, arrogate to myself the right of dedication.
That is the exclusive privilege of the author. But I
take the liberty of concluding my remarks by
reading a part of it to the House and commending it
to the Chief Executive's most thoughtful and earnest
consideration. That portion of the poem which I
desire to read is as follows:
Pile on the brown man's burden
To gratify your greed;
Go, clear away the "niggers"
Who progress would impede;
Be very stern, for truly
'Tis useless to be mild
With new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Pile on the brown man's burden,
And if ye rouse his hate,
Meet his old-fashioned reasons
With Maxims up-to-date;
With shells and dum-dum bullets,
A hundred times make plain
The brown man's loss must ever
Imply the white man's gain.
Pile on the brown man's burden,
Compel him to be free;
Let all your manifestoes
Reek with philanthropy,
And if with heathen folly
He dares your will dispute,
Then in the name of freedom
Don't hesitate to shoot.




648 SPEECH OF HON. HENRY U. JOHNSON.
Pile on the brown man's burden,
Nor do not deem it hard
If you should earn the rancor
Of those ye yearn to guard;
The screaming of your eagle
Will drown the victim's sobGo on through fire and slaughter,
There's dollars in the job.
Pile on the brown man's burden,
With equity have done,
Weak, antiquated scruples
Their squeamish course have run,
And though 'tis freedom's banner
You're waving in the van,
Reserve for home consumption
The sacred "Rights of man."




CHAPTER XXXI.
OUR FUTURE POLICY.
BY THE HON. J. G. CARLISLE.
[From Harper's Magazine. Copyright 1898 by Harper & Bros.]
Whether we shall enter upon a career of conquest
and annexation in the islands of the seas adjacent to
our shores and in distant parts of the world, or adhere to the peaceful continental policy which has heretofore characterized our national course, is by far the
most important question yet presented for the consideration of our people in connection with the existing war with Spain. To even the most careless observer of current events it must be evident that the
avowed purpose for which the war was commenced
has passed almost entirely out of the public mind, and
that, if not wholly abandoned before hostilities cease.
it will be accomplished merely as one of the incidents.
attending the success of our arms, while other results
having a permanent and controlling influence upon
our future national life and character may make this
struggle with a feeble monarchy in Europe the commencement of a new era in the history of the great
American republic. Spain may not be able to maintain her existing dynasty, or even her present form
of government, and yet it may be that she has provoked a conflict which will mark the beginning of a
radical change in the domestic and foreign policy of
the United States, and possibly the beginning of a
revolution in the opinions and aspirations of our people which may ultimately prove fatal to the simple republican institutions under which we now live.
649




650


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


The only causes for the intervention which resulted
in the present war, as stated by Congress in a resolution approved by the President, were that "the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than
three years in the island of Cuba, so near our own
borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people
of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian
civilization, culminating, as they have, in the destruc
tion of a United States battleship, with 266 of its offi
cers and crew, while on a friendly visit in the harbor of
Havana, and cannot longer be endured." For these
reasons only it was declared that the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent; that it is the duty of the United States
to demand, and the government of the United States
does demand, that the government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of
Cuba, and withdraw its land and naval forces from
that island and its waters; and that the President ot
the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and
empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of
the United States, and to call into the actual service
of the United States the militia of the several states,
to such extent as may be necessary to carry the resolution into effect. Even if the resolution had stopped
here, it would have been perfectly plain that there was
no purpose of conquest or annexation, because the
right of the people of Cuba to be free and independent,
which includes a right to establish and maintain a separate government of their own, was distinctly declared;
but, in order to give the world positive assurance of
our unselfish purposes, the resolution concluded with
the unequivocal statement that "the United States
hereby disclaims any disposition to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


65I


the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination,
when that is accomplished, to leave the government
and control of the island to its people."
This demand, with the disclaimer incorporated in it,
was at once officially transmitted to our minister at
Madrid for delivery to the Spanish government, with
the announcement that a response must be made within forty-eight hours. That government having prevented the delivery of the demand by the summary
dismissal of our minister, Congress promptly declared
that war existed between the two countries from the
date of that act, and we are now engaged in the prosecution of hostilities for the reasons and purposes set
forth in the resolution. Unless bad faith is to be imputed to our government, the conclusion is inevitable
that if this demand had been complied with, the whole
purpose of our intervention would have been accomplished, and no further proceedings of an unfriendly
character would have been taken. If we were actuated
ly any other motives or entertained any other purposes, then was the time to declare them, in order that
our own people and the world at large might fully understand the grounds upon which it was proposed to
justify our action. Honesty is the best policy for nations as well as for individuals, and having thus explicitly declared the purpose for which the war was
to be prosecuted, we cannot, without serious injury to
our national character and standing, enter upon a crusade for the spoliation of the enemy's territory. Such
a course would not only forfeit the respect and confidence of other nations, and deprive us in large part
of the sympathy which our declared position has secured for us, but might provoke such unfriendly proceedings upon the part of other governments as to embarrass our operations and greatly prolong the strug



652


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


gle. But our national honor is pledged, and ought to
be sacredly preserved, no matter what view other nations may take of the subject. Even if the permanent
acquisition of the colonial possessions of Spain were
desirable under any circumstances, we could not afford to seize and hold them as the result of a war professedly prosecuted solely in the interest of humanity
and the right of the people to govern themselves as
independent communities.
It is urged by some, however, that we should appropriate the territory of the enemy as an indemnity
for the expenditures incurred in the prosecution of the
war, but it is obvious that such a course would be
wholly inconsistent with the motives avowed by Congress as a justification for the intervention. It would
place us in the humiliating attitude of demanding compensation for our humanity and love of liberty. It was
perfectly evident from the terms of the resolution that
war was expected to follow a refusal by Spain to comply with our demand for the liberation of the suffering
people of Cuba, and it was of course well known that
war could not be prosecuted without an enormous expenditure of money and a great sacrifice of life and
property; and yet a solemn pledge was made that we
would not attempt to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over the very territory which furnished the whole cause for intervention. It would be
a mere quibble to say that the pledge applied by its
terms to Cuba only, and that we are therefore free to
seize and appropriate Spanish territory in every other
part of the globe. The declarations of the government
must be taken as a whole; they announced the motives for the intervention and the object intended to be
secured; and the pledge was incorporated only to
give additional and positive assurance to the world




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


653


that no other motives influenced the action of the government, and that no other object was contemplated.
But, independently of the declarations which immediately preceded the commencement of hostilities, are
we not impliedly pledged, by our past policy with reference to this hemisphere, not to make acquisitions of
territory or establish governments in other quarters of
the world? For three-quarters of a century this government has steadily maintained the position that it
would not permit European powers to "extend their
systems to any portion of this hemisphere," and several
times we have been on the verge of serious collisions
with other nations on account of a real or supposed
purpose on their part to disregard our policy in this
respect. At the time this policy was announced by
President Monroe it was distinctly understood that it
was equally incumbent upon us to abstain from all
interference with the internal affairs of European nations. In October, 1823, Mr. Jefferson wrote to President Monroe: "Our first and fundamental maxim
should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils
of Europe. Our second, never to suffpr Europe to
intermeddle with cisatlantic affairs." And Mr. Monroe, in his message of that year, speaking of our policy
in regard to Europe, said it was "not to interfere in
the internal concerns of any of its powers." He also
declared in the same message, as a part of the policy
he was promulgating, that "with the existing colonies
or dependencies of any European power we have not
interfered and shall not interfere." This policy was
announced at a most critical period in our history. The
Holy Alliance had been formed, and by an addition to
its compact in 1822 had declared "that the system of
representative government is equally as incompatible
with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the




654


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


sovereignty of the people with the divine right,' and
the parties to it therefore engaged "in the most solemn
manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the
system of representative government in whatever
country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet
known." One of the well-known purposes of this alliance was to assist Spain in re-establishing her authority over her revolted provinces in South America 
but the position taken by the United States, supported
by the refusal of Great Britain to countenance the
views of the allied kings, put an end to their mischievous plans, at least so far as this hemisphere was concerned; and from that time to the present, by a firm
adherence to the policy of non-intervention for political purposes in Europe, and protest against European
intervention for like purposes on this side of the Atlantic, we have succeeded in keeping ourselves free
from the quarrels and wars of the outside world, and
in successfully developing the internal resources of a
great republic devoted to the arts of peace and civilization. Suppose it had been announced in 1823 not only
that we would not permit European nations to acquire
territory or establish their systems of government on
this hemisphere in the future, but that we would forcibly expel them from the possessions already held,
whether on the mainland or in the seas, and that at
the same time we would proceed at our own will and
pleasure to acquire territory by conquest or cession,
and set up governments in every part of the globe
within our reach, can there be a rational doubt as to
what the immediate result would have been?  The
nations already armed and combined to preserve and
extend monarchical institutions and to suppress representative government would have resented our declar



OUR FUTURE POLICY.


ation by the use of force; and this republic, then just
beginning to feel assured of its strength and durability,
would probably have been destroyed, and its territory
partitioned among the co-operating powers. Even
Great Britain, then holding large possessions on this
continent, as well as valuable interests in the adjacent
seas, would have been compelled, in self-defence, to
join in the war of extermination against us, and we
would not have had the support or sympathy of a
single nation in Europe. The question for us now to
consider is whether it would be wise, after maintaining this position for so long a time, and securing the
acquiescence of other nations, largely upon the assurance that we would not meddle with their affairs, to
reopen the controversy by a total reversal of our policy
in regard to the acquisition of territory in remote parts
of the world, and thus extend our political interests,
power, and influence far beyond the limits voluntarily
assigned to them. How can we consistently deny the
right of other nations to acquire territory on this continent or in this hemisphere if we at the same time
assert our own right to seize provinces and establish
governments wherever we may choose? Nations have
long lives, and this question is certain to confront us
sooner or later if we take the new departure which
many of our people now seem to favor.
But even if we were untrammelled by pledges, expressed or implied, or by our past declarations concerning the acquisition of territory in this hemisphere
by other nations, there are abundant reasons, affecting
our own economic and political interests, why we
should not repudiate the conservative and safe policy
which has made us the most compact, homogeneous,
and progressive country in the world, and enter upon
an unjustifiable and dangerous contest for dominion




656


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


and power beyond the natural limits of our State and
Federal systems of government-a contest in which
success would prove to be the greatest calamity that
could befall us as a nation. That our political institutions were not designed for the government of dependent colonies and provinces is a proposition which
scarcely admits of discussion. This was intended to
be a free republic, composed of self-governing States
and intelligent, law-abiding, and liberty-loving people;
and 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. The un-American theory
that Congress or the Executive can permanently hold
and govern any part of the United States in such manner as it or he may see proper is a necessary feature
of the imperialism which now threatens the country;
for it is evident that if this theory cannot be practically
applied to the proposed additions to our territory,
their possession will be a perpetual menace to our institutions. A large majority of the population which
the advocates of conquest and annexation propose to
incorporate by force into the body of American citizenship-the Chinese, Malays, half-breeds, native pagans, and others-are not only wholly unfit to govern
themselves, but incapable of being successfully governed under our free Constitution. If, however, territory is acquired, it must be governed by either direct
Congressional legislation or by the inhabitants themselves, under such supervision and control as Congress can constitutionally exercise. At the close of the
war the title to all the territory actually held in subjection by our military forces will, unless otherwise




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


657


provided by stipulation or treaty, be vested in the
United States for all public and political purposes.
During the war, and while held by the military authorities, it will be subject to the laws of war, and may
be governed accordingly, because it is still enemy's
country; and if a de facto government has been established by the military authorities (luring the occupation, and is in existence when peace is concluded, that
government may be continued for a reasonable time
afterwards, in order that persons and property may
be protected until the laws of the new sovereign can
be extended over it. This exceptional form of government is justifiable only on the ground of necessity, and
consequently it can be rightfully continued only for a
sufficient time to enable the new proprietor to establish its own civil authority over the conquest or cession. But this de facto military government cannot,
after the war is over, exercise any authority inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
There is no room for a military despotism, or for the
exercise of arbitrary power by the civil authorities,
anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States
in time of peace; and whenever the Philippine Islands,
Porto Rico, or other islands shall become part of our
territory, their inhabitants will be entitled to all the
rights, privileges, and immunities secured to the people
by the Constitution. While held by the military forces,
after the cessation of hostilities, the officials representing the de facto government may administer the local
affairs and establish rules and regulations for the preservation of peace and order, but the fundamental rights
of the people must be respected.
"It cannot be admitted," says the Supreme Court,
in a well-considered case, "that the King of Spain
could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United




658


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less
can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive
or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring
territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject
to the Constitution and laws of its own government,
and not according to those of the government ceding it."
Whatever power Congress possesses to govern a
territory, either by direct legislation or by providing
a form of local government by the people, is derived
solely from the Constitution, and must be exercised
in accordance with that instrument. Every territorial
official, whether appointed by the President, designated by Congress, or elected by the people, must take
an oath to support the Constitution, and he can perform no valid act inconsistent with its provisions.
Under our system no part of our territory or people
can be governed by proconsuls or governors-general,
but only by responsible officials, whose powers are regulated and limited not only by the express provisions
of the Constitution and laws but by the recognized
principles of civil and religious liberty which constitute
the bases of our political institutions. The acquisition
of territory does not necessarily confer upon its inhabitants the immediate right of suffrage; but trial by
jury, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience
in matters of religion, immunity from unreasonable
seizures and searches, the right to acquire and enjoy
property free from molestation except by due process
of law, and all the other personal rights, privileges,
and immunities secured to citizens and others within
our jurisdiction, must be respected and enforced in
conquered and ceded territory as well as elsewhere.
The great mass of the people of the United States, as




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


659


now constituted, belong to a race which has been
accustomed to the enjoyment of personal liberty and
self-government from time ilmmemorial. They are
educated in the principles of English and American liberty, and they appreciate the blessings of free government; but the ignorant, degraded and servile races
which it is now proposed to absorb into the body
politic know absolutely nothing about these principles,
or the institutions established for their maintenance;
and even if they did, they are wholly incapable of appreciating them. All their habits, traditions, experience and surroundings, especially in the Philippine
Islands and the other islands belonging to Spain, are
opposed to our theories of government. Not only
their political system, but their civilization, their social
customs, and their conceptions of right and wrong,
are wholly different from ours. The sense of individual independence in the conduct of their own private
affairs, and of responsibility to the community and the
state in the conduct of public affairs, has never existed
in the minds of these people, and it cannot be imparted
to them by a mere change of sovereignty. What they
are now they must continue to be for many generations, and the political power which their numbers and
the popular character of our institutions will ultimately
entitle them to exercise will have a strong tendency to
debase our legislation, and may even control the choice
of the Chief Executive and the whole domestic and
foreign policy of the government. 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 altogether having thirty or forty Representatives; while




660


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


Cuba, with a population of a million and a half, must
also become a State, with two Senators, and at least
five Representatives, according to the present ratio.
But this is not all we have to apprehend, for if we once
inaugurate the policy of conquest and annexation beyond the boundaries of our own continent, at what
point are we to stop? The possession of the Philippine
Islands, Cuba, Hawaii, the Caroline Islands, the Ladrone Islands and Puerto Rico will not satisfy the
aggressive spirit of imperialism; in fact, it will, according to the uniform experience of other nations, stimulate the desire for new acquisitions, and we will almost
certainly go on, unless checked by the armed opposition of other powers, until we have fastened upon the
United States a black and yellow horde of conscript
citizens to debauch the suffrage and sap the foundations of our free institutions. It is a permanent
national policy that we are asked to inaugurate, not
merely a temporary departure from the course marked
out by the statesmen of the past. Visions of a great
empire extending into every part of the habitable
globe, limited only by the measure of our own military
power and the bounds of our own ambition, are already beginning to obscure-the popular judgment and
silence the voice of sober reason and genuine patriotism. Domestic problems of the gravest character,
pressing for settlement, are treated with indifference,
while dreams of wealth, of commercial supremacy
abroad, martial glory, and autocratic dictation in the
great international councils of the world, are inflaming
the imaginations of the people, and rapidly driving
them, without due consideration, into the indorsement
of a policy which, when once adopted, can never be
abandoned without a confession of weakness which no
administration will ever be willing to make. Every




i ""                                               ---~.,,I;;". ""-8"";
-r                               ~f~sr 1,,:~-:-t~.i~;~~; 
311:1~ xr  iii8iiii
ri  ra _g;
"4Ddi:
IgdiiP        El 8*,
i  ~x,  ia
~ ~.D~.-".
a, iei-~ a8 I
~      -.     i:"~I:i  ~~BAU1;1,1
"'-F
n                                             ,
   ss *~ 1 bi
~~ ~Y ""~~"~ i~
 
iiiru;
  :iiixs 
~~?i'tR~ii
ru;~ 16 rllir:c;~  i'~~
x: * ,r~~;n i-~X
~i"i.. ",           .                                       bx
~.`"~~
 BI: — ~D~"rjp ~ "-~ -~`~ "8~~~i
~r~: -;:  -?
w- ~ ~ 1~ ~9
4s;Ld"::~~ ),ii';i.                                                                                                                                   a41
I-,,,
BeBX~g:~i~;~~ -:
r
is;I;~                    "i       -;:~
ir
~                      r      a;~
 "i~
w -~
ic:ih;.~__ i~.."
"-     r~;                          ~                       ,~
ia Xp :w:  1419
~~ "I
"~-  6i ~
w
ir x
W 
ii " s 
~~~p;
~                                                           se;
_ra_:;x f
-          -is
4,ii*i..,i.
~:,..~.








OUR FUTURE POLICY.


663


disappointed politician, every adventurous speculator,
every ambitious soldier of fortune, and every reckless
enthusiast, whatever may be his calling or station in
life, will clamor for new acquisitions, and the additional
patronage which a compliance with his demands
would secure will always constitute a persuasive argument in support of his policy. Every extension of our
jurisdiction over inhabited territory acquired from
other countries, especially if the inhabitants are ignorant and inexperienced in public affairs, will open a
fruitful field for the operations of the unscrupulous politician, which, we may be sure, he will promptly occupy
and diligently cultivate. It is said that the Spanish
"carpet-bagger" is now the curse of the Philippine
Islands, plundering the rich and the poor, the church
and the state, with perfect impartiality, and it is probable that his capacity for extortion and peculation has
not been exaggerated; but if we appropriate the
islands it will very soon be demonstrated that the
American species of this pest is much more destructive
than the Spanish variety, and that he can easily grow
rich and arrogant off the remnants left by his predecessors.
We must not delude ourselves with the hope or belief that the era of conquest and annexation will close
when the present programme is completed; it will be
the beginning, not the end. After the first step, public
sentiment will be so perverted and the public service
so demoralized that it will require more than ordinary
moral courage upon the part of the conservative element in the country to resist the aggressive movement,
urged on, as it will be, by appeals to patriotism, to
national pride, and to commercial avarice. It will take
our people a long time to learn, if they ever learn,
that the enthusiasm and self-confidence born of suc



664


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


cessful warfare are not safe guides in matters affecting
the permanent policies of the government. The great
danger is that they will not learn this truth at all, or
learn it too late to save the republic.
While sympathy for the oppressed, and even actual
assistance in their struggles for emancipation when it
can be properly rendered, are not to be condemned,
very few will deny that our first and highest duty is
to protect the materialand political interestsof our own
country, and prevent their being subordinated to the
real or supposed interests of others, who, whatever
may be their condition, are certainly not more meritorious than our own people. Whether Cuba shall be free
and independent and shall have a stable government
are questions of great importance to the people of that
island, and of considerable importance to us; but the
question of greatest importance to the people of the
United States is whether they shall allow a war prosecuted ostensibly for the independence of a foreign people to be made the pretext or the occasion for changing the very essence of our national character, and for
converting their own government into a great warmaking, tax-consuming, land-grabbing, and office-distributing machine. No graver question than this will
probably ever be presented for the consideration of the
American people, for upon its decision depends the
preservation or destruction of the vital principle of our
federative republic of equal States. If we are to close
and seal up the records of the past and begin a new
history, it ought not to be said hereafter that it was
done without a protest from the friends of democraticrepublican government, or without a full knowledge of
the probable consequences.
Hitherto we 'have been exempt from the maintenance of large standing armies and great navies, and




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


665


consequently the burden of taxation, while much
greater at some periods than the real necessities of
the public service required, has never been so
heavy as seriously to impede the growth and prosperity of the country. Our energies have been devoted
to the cultivation of the arts of peace, to the construction of great highways, to the development of our mineral resources, to the improvement of waterways, to
agriculture, manufactures and commerce, and to
the establishment of charities and institutions of learning, and all the other interests and objects which most
distinguish the civilization of a peaceful American republic from that of the armed and fortified kingdoms
and empires of the Old World. Under this policy our
military and naval establishments have been comparatively inexpensive, and as a general rule they have
practically constituted mere branches of the civil service. They have not dominated the country or materially influenced the course of public affairs, but have
been subordinate to the civil authorities in practice
as well as in theory. Fortunately for us, the militarism
which constitutes the most conspicuous and apparently
the most dangerous element in the social and political
systems of France and the German Empire has not, up
to the present time, asserted itself to any considerable
extent in this country. But if we are to adopt and
successfully maintain an imperial policy, the glory of
the achievement will belong principally to the army
and navy, and the people at large will simply enjoy the
privilege of paying the cost. Each successful expedition, each forcible extension of our jurisdiction over
an unwilling people, will add to the laurels of the military branches of the government, and the almost inevitable result will be that their social and political
influence will grow until they overshadow all other




666


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


callings and professions. Military Senators and Representatives in Congress will enact laws for a military
President to execute, and military Governors of States
will not long perplex themselves with questions of civil
law when the soldiery under their command can easily
cut the knots with their swords. We will be more fortunate than the people of some other countries if our
judicial tribunals, under the elective system, shall escape the influence of the military spirit and continue
to administer justice between private individuals and
between the government and its citizens according to
the simple and conservative rules and processes of the
common law of the land.
When territory is conquered or annexed, we must
not only govern it, with or without the consent of its
people, but we must also be prepared at all times to
protect it against the possible encroachments of other
powers; its cities and towns must be garrisoned by a
sufficient military force, and its coasts must be fortified
and guarded by a navy strong enough at least to meet
any sudden emergency. This involves an enormous
addition to our regular army, and such a permanent
increase of our naval establishment as will keep it
constantly upon a war footing. This drain upon our
resources must be met immediately by exorbitant taxation upon the property of the people, and, sooner
or later, by conscription of their persons; for great
standing armies and navies cannot be permanently
maintained by voluntary enlistment in a country where
the opportunities for profitable employment are so
great as they are here. The unwholesome climates of
our tropical possessions will demand new victims
every year, and thousands of our young men must be
forcibly withdrawn from the productive industries of
the country and sacrificed to the remorseless spirit of




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


667


imperialism, which has already ruined many nations
and impoverished and oppressed many people. Our
fathers made what they supposed to be a perpetual
protest against it when they forcibly separated the colonies from the mother-country, and established institutions founded on the democratic principle that no
people can be rightfully governed except by their own
consent; but after the lapse of less than a hundred and
twenty-five years we find great numbers of their descendants, inhabiting the country they redeemed, and
living under the institutions they founded, openly repudiating the grounds upon which the Revolutionary
war was fought, and insisting upon the right to conquer and annex territory and people without affording
them the least opportunity to express their will upon
the subject. There is absolutely no evidence worthy of
consideration to show that a majority of the people of
Hawaii or Cuba, or any other island proposed to be
conquered or annexed, desire to be attached to the
United States, while their character, habits, and past
histories strongly conduce to prove that they greatly
prefer to remain as they are, or establish independent
governments of their own. So far as the example and
influence of our republican institutions have educated
the minds and encouraged the aspirations of mankind,
a repudiation by the United States of the principle that
all just governments must be founded upon the consent of the governed would set the world back more
than a century, and all the arguments that have been
presented, all the battles that have been fought, and
all the progress that has been made in the long struggle to emancipate the people from the domination of
self-constituted and hereditary rulers will be lost by a
single false step taken in the delirium of triumph over
a prostrate and dying monarchy. Better a thousand




668


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


times that monarchical Spain should continue to rule
a people against their will than that the United States
should usurp her place and hold them in subjection
in the name of liberty and humanity.
Here on our own continent we are not only free
from molestation by other powers, but free also from
any obligation or interest to participate in their quarrels or wars abroad; but the adoption of the imperial
policy of conquest and annexation beyond the conceded limits of our political influence will at once precipitate us, wholly unprepared, into the vortex of European and Asiatic complications, and it is not reasonable to suppose that we can successfully maintain
our position without co-operating at times with one
side or the other in all the controversies that now exist
or that may hereafter arrive. We can neither extend
the Monroe doctrine to our possessions in Europe and
Asia nor maintain it here when we have once crossed
the line which has heretofore separated us from the
diplomacy and wars of rival nations beyond the seas.
If we invade their domain we must leave behind us the
traditions and policies of the past, and we must go with
arms in our hands prepared to defend what we take
against all comers. Presidential messages and proclamations, and even Congressional resolutions and
statutes, will not preserve the balance of power abroad,
or limit the ambitions of kings and emperors. Wise
diplomacy, great armaments, enormous expencdtures
of money, and the most exacting system of taxation
that can be devised will be necessary to establish and
permanently maintain our position as a member of the
powerful group of nations now and always contending
among themselves for commercial and political supremacy. When we acquire territory we necessarily
acquire an interest in all the questions affecting its




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


669


trade and its material development. The obligation to
protect and promote the commercial and other interests of Honolulu and Manila will be precisely the same
as the obligation to protect and promote the commercial and other interests of New York and New Orleans,
and having extended our jurisdiction over them, we
will be bound, by every consideration of honor and
duty, to see that no unjust discriminations are made
against them by the municipal or international regulations adopted by other countries. At the very outset
we are likely to be confronted with the most serious
questions growing out of the Chinese situation, and,
in the unsettled state of affairs abroad, it is almost certain that other troublesome problems will be presented
in the near future. Are we prepared to deal with them?
If so, we must enter the field of European diplomacy
at once and assume our share of responsibility for the
adjustment of European interests, whether peaceably
or otherwise. If not, we must, upon a confession of incapacity or indifference, sacrifice the interests of a people whom we have gone half-way round the globe to
conquer and annex, and who by our action have been
deprived of all other protection. It will be impossible
to take part in the discussion and adjustment of European problems, whether they are commercial or political, without committing ourselves to the results, whatever they may be. The great questions of peace and
war will no longer be determined exclusively by a
consideration of our own interests or the judgment of
our own people, but by the controlling influences of
European intrigues and coalitions.
Already the most advanced advocates of imperialism, and even some who are opposed to it, are beginning to foresee the results of that policy and to suggest
preparations to meet them; but one of the most serious




670


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


objections to their suggestion is that its adoption
would probably provoke at once the very international
entanglements which all true Americans desire to
avoid. Coupled with the imperial policy, and, in fact,
constituting a part of it, an alliance with Great Britain,
it is contended, would make us strong enough to hold
whatever we chose to take in any part of the world;
but the fact seems to be overlooked that if (Great
Britain is to help us take care of our dependencies,
we must help Great Britain take care of hers;
and thus, while our power and prestige might be increased, our burdens would be multiplied many fold.
Great Britain, by reason of her conspicuous position
in Europe, her important colonial possessions in every
quarter of the globe, and her aggressive commercial
policy, is far more exposed to the danger of frequent
wars than the United States, or at least far more than
the United States have heretofore been under the wise
counsels of our early statesmen. An alliance with
Great Britain or any other power would necessarily
impose upon us reciprocal obligations and duties,
which, when once assumed, could not be disregarded
without a breach of good faith, no matter what loss or
damage a compliance with them might entail upon us.
We have a memorable instance in our history where
an alliance with a foreign power, formed during the
struggle for independence, afterwards came very near
embroiling us in the wars of Europe, and did, in fact,
cause a serious rupture, if not actual war, between this
country and the other party to the compact. The
colonial alliance with Franc?, had it not been for the
wisdom and courage of Washington, would have
drawn us into the mighty conflicts which convulsed
the nations of Europe at the close of the eighteenth
and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, and we




OUR FUTURE POLICY.


671


might then have shared the fate of the governments
that perished by the sword or were extinguished by
treaties and congresses which they were powerless to
prevent. Although we escaped the wars, we did not
escape all their consequences, and the United States,
adter the lapse of a hundred years, are still investigating and paying the claims of their own citizens for
French spoliations of their commerce. It is best to
keep our domestic affairs and the conduct of our foreign relations in our own hands under all circumstances; and if we distrust the power of our own government successfully to prosecute the policy of conquest and aggrandizement, that is a sufficient reason,
if there were no other, for condemning the policy itself, but not by any means a sufficient reason for the
formation of an alliance which would require us to
assist another nation in extending or preserving its
colonial possessions.
Alliances between independent nations, especially
when their institutions and interests are dissimilar in
any material respect, are always dangerous, even when
they appear to be most necessary. Many of the great
wars of the world have grown out of disagreements
between the parties themselves concerning the character and extent of the obligations imposed upon them
by the compact, and out of alleged breaches of good
faith upon the part of one or the other; and considering the remoteness of the United States from the theatre of European and Asiatic strife, and the great number and importance of the questions likely to arise in
which we could have no. "eal concern, or in which, if
concerned at all, our real interests might be opposed
to those of our ally, it is, to say the least, highly probable that an alliance with any one of the great powers
would not only involve us at once in the diplomatic




672


OUR FUTURE POLICY.


controversies and perhaps more serious contests with
its rivals, but ultimately in a breach of friendly relations
between the contracting parties themselves. Undoubtedly, if our traditional policy is to be abandoned, and
an alliance is to be contracted with any foreign power,
Great Britain is the nation with which we have the
most interests and sentiments in common, and therefore the one to which we should look, above all others,
for concert of action in matters affecting the general
peace and progress of the world. But in order to secure this concert of action in all cases where it may
be necessary or desirable, it is not incumbent upon us
to tie ourselves hard and fast in advance by a solemn
compact. Having a common language, religion, and
jurisprudence, and, to a great extent, common interests in the promotion and extension of similar political institutions, the two countries are natural allies,
and all that is required in order to make their power
and influence practically controlling in international
affairs is a frank recognition of this fact on both sides,
and the cultivation of the fraternal feeling which it
ought to inspire.
Instead of the indiscriminate denunciation and
abuse which it has been the habit of a certain class of
our legislators and politicians to indulge in for partisan purposes in the past, let them forego in the future
the supposed advantages of appeals to the lowest passions and prejudices of the people, and devote themselves to the patriotic task of undoing their own mischievous work. Heretofore it has been impossible to
carry on a discussion upon any public qcuestion in this
country, especially if it related in any way to our economic policy, without having to meet the charge of
subserviency to British interests, if not the charge
of.outright bribery with British gold; and some per



OUR FUTURE POLICY.


673


verted imaginations have never failed to see the
stealthy diplomacy of that government thwarting our
purposes in even the most trivial enterprises at home
or abroad. According to their view, no policy could
possibly be right or beneficial to us if Great Britain
was supposed to approve it, and no policy could possibly be wrong or injurious to us if Great Britain was
supposed to disapprove it.
The sympathy manifested for us in the present war
by the government and people of the mother-country
is just what was expected by intelligent Americans
who had not allowed themselves to be influenced by
the reckless statements and inflammatory appeals of
small politicians in and out of office, but it is none the
less significant or gratifying for that reason. It will
bring the two countries still closer together, and
awaken in each a pride of race, a sense of power, and a
spirit of moderation and justice in all matters of difference between themselves which will contribute far
more to their mutual security and to the promotion of
peace with other nations than any mere conventional
alliance. When it is understood that there are to be
no more wars between people of the Anglo-Saxon
race, that all their differences not amicably adjusted
by diplomacy will be permanently settled by arbitration, that they are thoroughly united by the ties of
blood and a common heritage of free institutions, not
for conquest or aggression of any kind, but for the
promotion of peace and civilization, and that their
combined influence will be exerted for these purposes
only, all other nations will realize that a new force has
been developed which cannot prudently be ignored
in their schemes of aggrandizement in any part of the
globe.




I




CHAPTER XXXII.
LOVE OF COUNTRY.
BY BISHOP SPALDING.
Love of country, like all love, springs from a desire
for life, for wider and richer life. Life is possible
only through communion with what nourishes it, with
what is not itself. We see ourselves in the image reflected from the world on which we look, as by a
mirror. We are what we are by virtue of the thousand influences which have acted upon us-our
minds have been fashioned and colored by sun and
moon and stars, by the vestures with which earth
clothes herself as the seasons change, by rivers, oceans
and mountains, by books we have read, by work we
have done, by games we have played, by the good
and the evil which have befallen us, by the men and
women we have known, admired and loved, or feared
and hated. All that we have seen, felt, suffered and
done has helped to make us what we are. For good
and for ill we are bound to the universe, and apart
from it we can neither know nor love nor enjoy. Stars
whose light no human eye has beheld help to hold us
where we are; grasses and trees that flourished before man ever trod the earth, from the soil by which
we are fed, the coal by which we are warmed and
ministered to in a hundred ways. Nothing exists or
lives in isolation, and as insight increases, the perception that all things are in union and inter-communion with one another grows clearer. It is only in
675




676


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


the lowest stage of thought that objects seem to
stand out in separateness, apart from their relations.
When we look a little deeper we see that certain relations at least enter as essential elements into all ideas
of the objective world, and that all things are interdependent, are a system of forces moving and acting
in unison. When we look still more profoundly we
perceive within and beyond the world cdf relative
things, the independent being who is life and mind,
the absolute and eternal, creative energy, God, in
whom and by whom the universe exists, who is Himself self-determined and self-active.
Hence the radical impulse in the craving for richer
and wider life is a godward impulse. What we really
long for, whether consciously or not, is divine life,
immortal life; and we need no other proof of this
than the unsatisfactoriness of all, even the highest,
achievement. Nothing, once attained, corresponds to
the dream which lured us to the pursuit, whether it
be wealth, or power, or fame, or pleasure. When we
seek ourselves through all the mazes of matter, we
may end weary and satiated, but not satisfied. God
alone is the infinite Other whom we need to fill and
complete our lives. Hence religion is and has been
the inexhaustible fountainhead of self-devotion-of
the self-devotion of patriots and heroes, of saints and
artists, of wives and mothers; for whoever loves truth
or justice or beauty or goodness with a surpassing
love, with a love which endures all things, renounces
all things, if only it may attain its end, cannot but
be inspired, strengthened and upheld by an enthusiasm which must be called religious. By such men
barbarous tribes have been led to higher planes,
states have been founded, just laws decreed, tyrants
overthrown, and the arts and sciences created. For




LOVE OF COUNTRY.


677


this reason epochs of religious earnestness are epochs
of advancing life; epochs of religious skepticism and
indifference, epochs of decadence. There may still be,
indeed, a gloss, a glitter, a polish, a material prosperity by which the frivolous and thoughtless are misled;
but the power of heart and hope whereby man lives
and is strong, is failing. Will is enfeebled, character
is undermined, and there is a general falling away in
thought, in language, in manners, in conduct, even
though it be so gradual as to be imperceptible to the
careless eye.
There is a higher love than love of country-the
love of truth, the love of justice, the love of righteousness; and he alone is a patriot who is willing to
suffer obloquy and the loss of money and friends,
rather than betray tie cause of truth, justice and
righteousness, for only by being faithful to this can 'he
rightly serve his country. Moral causes govern the
standing and the falling of states as of individuals;
and conquering armies move forward in vain, in vain
the fleeting fabric of trade is spread, if a mortal taint
within slowly moulder all. The national life is at
fault if it be not in harmony with the eternal principles on which all right human life rests. The greatest
and the noblest men when they meet rise into regions
where all merely national distinctions are forgotten
and transcended. In studying the works of a philosopher, a poet or a man of science we give little heed
to what country he was born and lived in, so eager are
we to learn the truth and beauty which he revealstruth and beauty which are of no country,' which
are wide and all-embracing as the universe. In the
Iresence of heroic virtue also, the national limitations
disappear, that the god-like man, who belongs to all
countries and ages, may stand forth in his proper light.




678


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


A man supremely endowed narrows his mind when he
is less than universally human. What he says and
does should make laws for all-those diviner laws
which have their sanction in the common sense which
makes the whole world akin. Patriotism as understood by the ancients is but a partial virtue. When it
is most intense it is most narrow and intolerant. In
Jerusalem, in Athens, in Rome, the city was the fatherland. It was the thought of Zion, and of Ziola's
brook that flowed fast by the oracle of God, of the
Acropolis, with its marvelous setting in the midst of
the Attic plan, of the world mother, looking from her
seven hills on the Tiber's tawny wave, that made the
exiles waste away with repinings for home; and their
passionate devotion to their country was rarely separable from a hatred of the foreign nature. Whoever was
not a citizen was an enemy or a slave. The captive
foe was treated with pitiless cruelty and the slave had
no rights. We are separated from these ancient patriots less by the long lapse of time which has intervened than by the difference of spirit in which we
look upon and love our country. For us the man is
more than the citizen, humanity more sacred than nationality. To lead a man's life one must live for some
one or something other than self. As we can see ourselves only in what is other, so we can find and love
ourselves only in what is other than ourselves. To
escape from the starved condition of the isolated, the
individual is impelled to identify himself with larger
unities-with the family, with the state, with mankind,
with God. Now for the ancients the state was the
ultimate unity in which a man could find and feel
himself. Hence their aims and sympathies were partial and narrow. Their patriotism was more intense,
but it was less rational, less moral, and therefore less




,  '  X.    '  *d
11 ' }{IR4  IN  OXF: MtAO.t, F S..CT7Yf ) }WA t.,  O~glFE( 1 4< KAKTI1X QI {A 




I




LOVE OF COUNTRY.


681


enduring and less beneficent than ours. It was not
possible for them to identify themselves with the race,
to recognize that all men are made of one blood, and
that whenever one suffers injustice, wrong is done to
all. But for us nationality has ceased to be the limit
of individual sympathy, and the oppression of peoples,
however remote, often affects us as though we ourselves had been injured; while noble words and heroic
deeds, wherever and by whomever spoken or done,
fill us with enthusiasm and gratitude. Many causes,
of which the Christian religion is the deepest and.
most far-reaching, have led to the wider views and
more generous appreciativeness of modern men. In
looking to the one heavenly Father they are drawn
together and held by ties, consecrated by faith and
approved by reason. Science, which deals with laws
that are universal, that act alike upon the farthest
star and the grain of sand at our feet, on the face as
on individuals, promotes this catholicity of feeling and
interest. Our machinery, too, in bringing the ends of
the world together, facilitates the intercourse of the
peoples of the earth and thereby weakens their immemorial prejudices and hatreds. The commercial interdependence of the nations has a like tendency;
while the constantly increasing influence of woman
makes for a larger sympathy and love. No great
movement can now long remain within the boundaries
of the nation in which it originates. The questions of
education, of labor, of the rights of woman, rouse attention and discussion in every civilized country. A
new discovery or invention is at once heralded from
land to land. The telegraph and the printing press
mediate a rapid and continuous interchange of
thought throughout the world, and thus help to make




682


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


us all, in a way never before possible, citizens of the
world.
At the present moment America, if simple truth
may be uttered without incurring the suspicion of conceit, represents the general tendency and sentiment of
the modern age more than any other country. Here
the national feeling is larger and more hospitable than
anywhere else; here men of all tongues and races
more easily find themselves at home than anywhere
else. No other country is so attractive, no other affords in such fullness opportunity for self-activity in
every sphere of endeavor, no other insures sdch complete civil and religious liberty. Nowhere else is there
so much freedom from abuses which, because they are
inveterate, seem to be sacred; nowhere else is there so
much good will, so much readiness to help, so much
general intelligence, such sanguine faith in the ability
of an enlightened and religious people, who govern
themselves, to overcome all obstacles and to find a
remedy for whatever mishaps or evils may befall them.
Here, too, more than elsewhere possibly, men feel
that there is a higher love than the love of country,
that the citizen can serve his country rightly only
when he holds himself in vital communion with the
eternal principles on which human life rests, and
by which it is nourished. The American's loyalty to
his country is first of all loyalty to truth, to justice,
to humanity. He feels that its institutions can be enduring only when they are founded on religion and
morality. Hle is less inspired by the fortune of the
Republic, its material advantages and possibilities,
than by his spiritual significance and destiny. fHe is,
indeed, filled with a sense of gladness when lie beholds it stretch from ocean to ocean, from the lakes
to the gulf; when he sees the northern pine salute the




LOVE OF COUNTRY.


683


southern palm as a fellow-citizen, when he looks on
its prairies teeming with harvests sufficient to feed
the world, on its mountains and plains filled with silver and gold, with iron and copper, with coal and oil.
But he is less impressed by this geographical and
material greatness and splendor than by the intellectual- and moral conditions which America presents.
Nature is fruitful in vain, where man is contemptible. The palace makes ridiculous the occupant who
is a beggar in mind and spirit. To no purpose is the
country great, if the men are small. Life is more than
life's circumstance, man more than his environment.
The American patriot then more than others seeks
grounds for his love of country chiefly in the world
of man's higher being. For him, freedom, knowledge, truth, justice, good will, humanity, are the
essential needs; and it is a little thing that America
offers facilities for satisfying the physical and material wants, if here the soul is starved. Democracy
itself is not an end, but a means. The end is a nobler,
wiser, stronger, more beneficent kind of man and
woman. How shall such men and women be formed
except by opportunity-opportunity for all of worship,
of education, of culture, of work that strengthens and
purifies, while it creates material comfort and independence? If a nobler race is to spring forth in this
new world, all the influences that are active and potent
in the national life must conspire to form public opinion, by which in the end we are all ruled-a public
opinion which shall be favorable to pure religion, to
the best education and to sound morality. The better
kind, however otherwise they may disagree, must
unite and support one another in ceaseless efforts to
create such a public opinion. They must not merely
lead loyal, brave, chaste and helpful lives, but they




684


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


must so live that the atmosphere in which they move
shall receive from them a magnetic quality-the power
to stimulate all who breathe it to nobler thoughts and
loves, to a deeper and more tender solicitude for the
rights and needs of all men, of women and children,
of the sick and forsaken, of the criminal and captive.
Goethe, who never utters a foolish thing, says that
in times of peace patriotism properly consists merely
in this-that each one sweep before his own door,
attend to his own business, learn his own lesson, that
it may be well in his own household; and what he
says, if but partial, is nevertheless essential truth. He
himself, indeed, even in times of war and disaster for
the Fatherland, seemed to act on this principle, and
he has consequently been accused by some of his own
countrymen of a lack of patriotism, though in fact he
did more to make possible the political union of Germany than any other man; for he,.more than any
other, awakened the self-consciousness of the German
people, and thus inspired them with a more intense
longing for national unity. A good patriot is first of
all a good man-true to himself and true in his relations to his fellowmen. If false to himself, he is false
to all. If he love not rightly his father and mother,
his wife and child, the neighbor who dwells beside
him, how shall he rightly love his country?  If he
respect not the dignity of human nature in himself,
but degrades it by drunkenness or lying or sensuality
or dishonesty, how shall he feel a genuine and generous interest in the commonweal, and earnestly strive
to do his part in correcting the evils and abuses which
impair or threaten the national life and prosperity?
It will, indeed, be easy for him to make his patriotism
a theme for declamation, and easy, too, to throw suspicion on the loyalty of others, but if he is not a real




LOVE OF COUNTRY.


685


man it is not possible that he should be a real lover of
his country. Whoever deliberately wrongs an American, wrongs America. The worst enemy of the
country is not the drunkard, but the buyer of votes,
whether at the polls or in council chambers or in legislative halls; not the petty thief, but the capitalist
whose insatiate greed urges him on to crush all competitors; not the selfish man who cares not at all
for the general good, but the politician who makes his
patriotism a cloak to cover him while he sneaks into
public office, which he prostitutes to private gain;
not he who refuses his assent to measures, however
popular, unless he can give it honestly, but the demagogue who is ever ready to run and cry with the
crowd; not the ranting anarchist, but the editor who
for money imp)ugns the known truth. But the beef
embalmer has attained the highest point of traitorous
infamy, beyond which it is not possible to go-he
poisons the wells, not to destroy the enemy, but the
soldiers who fight their country's battles. The saloon
is bad-the worst evil, however, resulting from it is
not drunkenness, but political corruption; for if just
laws were rightly administered the saloon would cease
to be a source of degradation and ruin.
Our civilization is still incomplete-it is, as Emerson says, "A wild democracy; the riot of mediocrities
and dishonesties and fudges." If numbers were
enough, if machinery were enough to constitute a
great people, for us the question would be settled;
but the kind of man, not number or wealth or machinery, is what we have to consider, and it is a favoralle omen that we are not self-complacent, that our
defects and faults are not hidden from us. We suffer
from the absence of the discil)line of respect, from a
certain hardness and materialism, from a fondness




686


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


for exaggeration and boastfulness. The fear of Demos and the demagogue prevents us from speaking
the simple and salutary language of truth when farreaching and vital issues are in question. We are so
accustomed to bow to the will of majorities, that we
easily forget that votes count for nothing when we
have to consider what is true and wise and just. Here
there is every likelihood that the minority is right
and the majority wrong. The multitude everywhere
and in all ages are dominated by the present. They
are unwilling to wait, unwilling to deny themselves
now that they may become capable of higher things
hereafter. The success of a day robs them of the glory
of a lifetime. They are fickle, because, since they see
only what is immediately before them, their opinions
change as the road turns. They are selfish because
they are short-sighted and but feebly influenced by
large ideas and generous aims. Being a crowd they
are easily hypnotized and are quickly hurried from
one extreme to another. They follow the cry of
chance leaders, and being little able to think for themselves, they resent independence of thought in those
things precisely in which such thought is most needed,
for in the deepest and most critical questions concerning the national life and policy what is popular is
rarely what is most wise. The voice of the most serious minds is not only not heeded; it is drowned in
the clamor and vituperation of those who are themselves led by men who know little and who have at
heart chiefly their own popularity and profit. We
suffer ourselves to be hypnotized by glaring type and
loud shouting, as was shown in the silver campaign,
when the bimetallists would have won had it not been
for Hanna's millions and the terrorism exercised by
the employers of labor and the capitalists. A false




LOVE OF COUNTRY.


687


opinion is created and we are commanded to accept
it without question as the will of the people; and our
highest officials, when they yield to the outcry of the
mob, are commended for their wisdom and patriotism.
Our best minds do not guide us, our best men do not
govern us. By faithful adherence to the principles
with which our national life began, we have grown
to be a prosperous and mighty people. We have been
taught to cherish these principles as being scarcely
less sacred than our religion. Our climate is healthful, our soil fertile, our territory is as large as all
Europe. Our industry, intelligence and mechanical
skill have in the brief space of a century made us the
richest of the nations, while the growth of our population has been phenomenal. If success be an argument for continuing in a given line of policy and conduct, no people ever had so good a reason for following
in the old way. Our success has been marvelous, but
after all, it is still only the success of an experiment.
It has not yet been proved that a stable and enduring
civilization can be built on a democracy such as ours.
We occupy a continent stretching east and west, north
and south for thousands of miles. It is not easy to
reconcile the interests of regions lying so remote from
one another. Our population is composed not only
of heterogeneous elements from Europe, but also of
a large and increasing and but partially assimilated
body of Africans. While our national progress has
been great, our love of principle and our strength of
moral conviction seem to have grown feebler. More
and more we are dominated by greed, more and more
we become reckless of the means by which money is
obtained. Vast fortunes are quickly heaped up, but
those who toil are little benefited. Our political and
commercial life is undermined by dishonesty, and we




688


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


are becoming so callous or so reckless that abuses
which endanger our very existence as a nation give
us little concern.
In the presence of such conditions is it possible to
hesitate at all as to the course to be pursued? We
have a compact territory sufficient to support three
hundred or more millions of human beings. Should
it be possible that we ever need more, there is a region
as large, with a population much like our own, adjoining our northern boundary. Why, then, should
we go to the ends of the earth to take forcible possession of islands lying in remote oceans under tropical skies, inhabited by barbarous or savage tribes,
where both race and climate preclude the hope of ever
attaining to any highl degree of culture? Why should
we own Cuba? We do not need it; its population
is undesirable, and to hold it we must increase our
army and navy, and gradually drift into a militarism
which must threaten our most cherished institutions?
What can imperialism bring us except the menace of
ruin? As men are born to die, states rise to fall.
Nineveh, Tyre, Babylon, Persia, Egypt and Greece,
each had its day. Spain, once the mightiest power in
the world, is now weak and helpless. For all the end
must come, but who that loves his country would not
remove the final catastrophe to some remote and still
remoter day? States must perish, but empires are
more surely and more quickly brought to ruin. They
rise suddenly, and suddenly fall. The great empires
now existing are of comparatively recent origin. The
Russian has lasted about two hundred years, the British not a hundred and fifty, the Ottoman would long
since have fallen had it not been upheld by the jealousy of the other powers. Roman patriotism was
dead when Rome became an empire, and its history




LOVE OF COUNTRY.


689


under the Caesars saddens and appals. The Saracenic
empire lasted three hundred years; the Spanish three
hundred, and there seems to be no good reason for
thinking that the British shall endure so long. England was driven into imperialism by the instinct of
self-preservation.  The little island, confronted by
powerful and warlike nations, would have been conquered again and again, as it was by the Romans, the
Anglo-Saxons and the Normans, had it not, in becoming an imperial power, built up a navy, with which
to defy the world and to girdle itself as with triple
walls of adamant. But we are separated by thousands
of miles from every other great nation. A coalition of
all Europe against us, if such a thing were possible,
need not alarm us. In self-defense we should prove
invincible. In America the republic rises, in solitary
grandeur, like a majestic dome, dwarfing all else from
Behring's Strait to Cape Horn, without a compeer,
without a rival. Our corn feeds Europe, our cotton
gives her operatives employment, and from year to
year the export of our manufactures increases. We
are free from the jealousies and hatreds, the standing
armies and oppressive taxation, the menaces of revolution and war, by which the old world is kept in constant turmoil and peril. What country ever had such
a fortune in its position, in its resources, in its possibilities?
Unlike other nations, we began as a civilized people.
Unlike other nations, we began with freedom. Our
progress, if we except the civil war, which was the inevitable result of a taint implanted in our constitution, has been along the ways of peace; our prosperity has been wrought by obedience to wise and just
laws, by industry and intelligence. Our continent has
seemed great and good enough for us; and while we




69o


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


have sworn to keep it free from the interference of
foreign powers, we have refused to cast covetous and
lustful eyes upon the outlying regions of the earth.
Conquest, and forcible annexation and military rule
are in opposition alike to our traditions and our fundamental principles of government. Is it creditable that
the sentiment of the country has, in these vital matters, undergone a sudden and radical change, and that
we are now prepared to abandon our unique and providential position in the civilized world, to rush madly
in the way of conquest and imperialism, with the inevitable result of becoming involved in the hatreds,
alliances and wars of Europe? It is not credible. The
evil that seems to threaten us is but a passing frenzy,
an outburst of popular enthusiasm which will soon
give place to sober second thought. The leaders
have believed that they were yielding to the popular
will, and the people have believed that they were following the guidance of the men in whose hands they
had placed the conduct of national affairs. But this
misunderstanding can not continue. Spain deserved
to be driven from her possessions. Her rule was unjust and cruel. Wie have done a noble work, but
having done it, we shall not be unwise or unpatriotic
enough to jeopardize the fortune and the future of
our own country by annexing the conquered islands
and so becoming an imperial power. Here, at our
hands, lies the task God sets us. It is the development of our inner life, the enriching of our minds,
the purification of our hearts, the education of ourselves through liberty and labor, the reform of our
politics, the rooting out of cant, lying, vulgarity, greed
and dishonesty, of drunkenness and lust; the correcting of our extravagant estimate of the value of what
is merely matter, of life's accompaniments as distin



LOVE OF COUNTRY.


691


guished from life itself, which is thought and love,
strength and courage, patience and forbearance. We
have to learn that what makes a millionaire spoils a
man, that a people who think trade and commerce the
one thing needful have no permanent place in history,
because they have no influence on the spiritual, which
is the real life of man. The people that is the bearer
of the largest thought, the deepest love, the holiest
faith lives and works forever in the race, while merchants and traders perish and are forgotten like the
wares they deal in. See how quickly elated and how
quickly cast down are they whose hope is in richesfor riches are akin to fear, to change and death, while
they who live for truth and righteousness move forward, serene and unafraid, upborne by the unseen
powers, for truth and righteousness are life. Beggars
and outcasts, if but some divine thought or immortal
hope upwelled within, have survived the fall of empires, the ruin of civilizations and the utter vanishment of the people from whom they sprang. We have
to learn how to be happy and noble; for, as Ruskin
says, till we have learned how to be happy and noble
we have not much to tell, even to red Indians; and he
goes on: "To watch the corn grow, and the blossoms
set; to draw hard breath over ploughshare or spade;
to read, to think, to love, to hope, to pray-these are
the things that make men happy. * * * The
world's prosperity or adversity depends upon our
knowing and teaching these few things; but upon
iron or glass or electricity or steam, in no wise." The
Absolute, the Highest is a Person, and the civilization
which issues in the noblest personalities is the best.
By them we estimate the worth of our nature, by them
the value of our political and religious institutions.
But noble men and women do not spring forth in iso



692


LOVE OF COUNTRY.


lation. As an individual, man is insignificant; in fact
he cannot become human at all, except in a social
environment, in a medium in which he is made partaker of the life of the race, receiving the thoughts,
hopes and beliefs, the aims, aspirations and ideals
which are the food of the spirit of man, of that which
places him in opposition to nature and lifts him above
its fatal laws. It is the patriot's business to strengthen
and purify the institutions by which the citizen is educated-the family, the church, the state. To whom the
life of the home is not sacred nothing is sacred. The
child that does not drink pure love and religion from
this fountain-head can never be rightly educated. It is
in vain that we build churches and schools, if the
home does not fill them with teachable hearts and
minds. It is here that each one receives his better self
-the self that makes him conscious that he is a center
towards which infinities converge, where truth and
justice and love are felt to be the real and permanent
good. Patriotism, like charity, begins at home. It
is not a philosophy, it is a sentiment inspired above
all by the mothers of a people from whom also we receive religion and morality, which Washington calls
the indispensable supports of political prosperity;
and, therefore, he refuses to give the title of patriot
to those who "labor to subvert these great pillars of
human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of
men and citizens."
The end of all worthy struggle is to establish
morality as the basis of individual and national life,
and morality can be firmly founded only on pure religion. To make righteousness prevail, tb make justice reign, to spread beauty, gentleness, wisdom and
peace, to widen opportunity, to increase good will,
to move in the light of higher thoughts and larger




LOVE OF COUNTRY.               693
hopes, to encourage science and art, to foster industry
and thrift, education and culture, reverence and obedience, purity and love, honesty, sobriety and the disinterested devotion to the common good-this is.the
patriot's aim, this his ideal. And if even a minority,
a remnant, work in this spirit, and strive with this
purpose, the star of the republic, which rose to herald the dawn of a new and better era, shall not throw
its parting rays on the ruins of an empire, stained
with blood




a




CHAPTER XXXIII.
ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.
ADDRESS ADOPTED BY THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC LEAGUE.
FEBRUARY 10, 1899.
The full ratification of the Treaty with Spain will
cause a technical change in the relations of the United
States to the Philippine Islands, but will afford no reason for any change of the purposes of the Anti-Imperialists in regard to the future of the islands, nor
will it in the least affect the clear duty of this Republic.
We are now engaged in warfare with the inhabitants of those islands. It is unprofitable to discuss
the question as to which party began hostilities. No
other result could have been expected, when the lines
of two opposing military forces were held so close
and in such tense condition that little was needed to
cause an explosion.
Certain facts, however, are beyond dispute: that
Aguinaldo was brought to the islands by our own
warship, that his aid was accepted and desired in our
military operations against the Spaniards, and that
hopes of independence were encouraged by our consuls and other officers. It is equally indisputable that
a parliament of the islands, organized by representatives elected by one hundred and eighty-six towns and
provinces, chose Aguinaldo President and framed a
constitution, which was promulgated, defining the
695




696   ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.


powers and duties of the separate departments of the
government with remarkable clearness and ability;
that the government so formed beyond a doubt represented fairly the people of the islands and probably
with quite as much fairness as the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, in 1775, represented the people
of the thirteen States.
It is also undeniable that on January 5 President
McKinley issued a proclamation through General
Otis, declaring that on the -oth of the previous month
the Philippine Islands had been ceded to this country
by Spain by the signature of the Treaty of Paris, and
further ordered him to extend the military government of the United States "to the whole of the ceded
territory," and to demand the surrender of Iloilo,
which was then held by the Filipinos in an orderly
manner by capture from the Spaniards.
It cannot be claimed in law that this assumption of
power was warranted in advance of the ratification
of the Treaty by both parties, and there can be no
doubt that the arbitrary claim greatly aggravated the
people of the islands, whose hope of independence
seemed thus rudely destroyed.
No declaratory resolution as to the future of the
islands was assented to by the Administration before the ratification of the Treaty by the Senate, and
none has been made since.
Any right that we assert to ownership of the Philippines must rest, therefore, either upon conquest or
upon purchase from their Spanish oppressors, or upon
both, and in any case it is, as we believe, inconsistent
with the principles of this Republic, and fraught with
danger to its peace and to the peace of the world
The first result we already witness, a war of subjugation, which must embitter the people we seek to




I
S~~~~~l~~~~~~ii~~~~~~?~~~~~~ J-i(S~~~~~~~~~~~~ IN-f~~~~~~~~~~ii i~~~~~~~~n  Br"  66ri:(3N  iS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~T)~~~~~








ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC    ADDRESSES.     699
rule, and which, however successful, must bring disaster and death to our soldiers, and unmeasured cost
to our people.
Profoundly impressed with the seriousness of the
situation, it is the purpose of the Anti-Imperialists to
continue the circulation of literature, to assist in the
formation of leagues, and by public meetings, and
every proper means known to a free people, to agitate for the revival in the land of the spirit of Washington and Lincoln, to protest against a spirit of militarism and force, to oppose the colonial idea and a
permanently large standing army, and to assert the
vital truths of the Declaration of Independence embodied in the Constitution and indissolubly connected
with the welfare of this Republic.
They urge, therefore, all lovers of freedom, without regard to party associations, to co-operate with
them to the following ends:
First. That our government shall take immediate
steps toward a suspension of hostilities in the Philippines and a conference with the Philippine leaders,
with a view to preventing further bloodshed upon the
basis of a recognition of their freedom and independence as soon as proper guaranties can be had of order
and protection to property.
Second. That the Congress of the United States
shall tender an official assurance to the inhabitants
of the Philippine Islands that they will encourage and
assist in the organization of such a government in the
islands as the people thereof shall prefer, and that upon
its organization in stable manner the United States, in
accordance with its traditional and prescriptive policy
in such cases, will recognize the independence of the
Philippines and its equality among nations, and gradually withdraw all military and naval forces.




700    ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.
The above address has been prepared by the AntiImperialist League, whose officers are as follows:
President, George S. Boutwell.
Vice-Presidents: Grover Cleveland, George F.
Edmunds, John Sherman, Henry Codman Potter, H.
S. Pingree, Samuel Gompers, John G. Carlisle, Andrew Carnegie, Charles Francis Adams, Carl Schurz,
Reverdy Johnson, Samuel Bowles, Edward Atkinson,
James C. Carter, John C. Bullitt, Patrick A. Collins,
Herbert Myrick, Theodore L. Cuyler.
Treasurer, Francis A. Osborn.
Secretary, Erving Winslow.
Executive Committee: Chairman, Winslow Warren; president, secretary, treasurer, ex-officio, William
Endicott, Jr., James J. Myers, Albert S. Parsons,
David Greene Haskins, Jr., J. P. Munroe.
EXTEN' OF EMPIRE DOES NOT MAKE US
A WORLD POWER.
BY REV. GEORGE C. LORIMER, D.D.
THANKSGIVING DAY SERMON DELIVERED AT TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON.
"There are strange rumors as to what the present
shall develop. Among the many statements made
both at home and abroad is that we have become
a world power. The accession of territory is what
some say has made us great. Yet I maintain that no
accession of territory makes us a world power. Were
we to double the extent of all our possessions it
would not add one jot to our inherent strength and
greatness. Let us not confuse ourselves. If we do
we will gravitate toward that national heresy-material
prosperity. Greatness does not lie in coffers or territory, but it lies in the men and women of a nation
and in their ideals and acts.
"Extension of territory does not make a world




ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.  701


power. It may even be a hindrance to it. We ought
to remember the words of Pericles to his followers:
'I adjure thee, do not extend the frontiers of the empire. Defend them, but do not extend them, for in
proportion as you extend them will your defense of
thenm le weak.'
"I think, too, that we may extend too much. Here is
where I want to lay emphasis. Extent of empire does
not make us a world power.
"This word imperialism that has been used so much
of late I do not like. It is used in many ways. It is
used to denote an indefinite change in policy.  I
object to the word. I abominate it. I have no place
in my vocabulary for the word, for I find it charged
through and through with threatenings, if brought
to these shores. The word is dangerous. Correct
thinking requires correct terminology.
"We have high ideals. A nation is great as it
clings to its high ideals. Ideals are ever to be placed
above party. Ideals are great things and parties are
rubbish. The danger is that the word imperialism will
rise and rise until it obscures ideals.
"Since this talk of imperialism I have noticed that
more colored people have been shot down Soutll, and
that even in Illinois there has been an appeal to musketry. What is the cause of it? It is a poor reason
that applies to the Pacific and not to the Atlantic. If
we are to put an army in the Philippines to rule those
people why shall not the rifle rule the South?
"No; imperialism misrepresents American ideas.
You cannot follow it out without reaping its evils
here in our own land, the evils of militarism, of suppression of ideas and suppression of principles worth
more than all the Philippines and the Cubas combined."




702  ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.


ARE MISSIONARIES "IMPERIALISTS?"
IN A LETTER TO BOSTON HERALD BY REV. JAMES L. BARTON, SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS.
It is not my custom to write letters to newspapers,
but I feel constrained to send you this note at this
time because of an editorial in Wednesday morning's
Herald on "Religion and Imperialism," in which you
state that: "It is worthy of notice that the most active of those in this country interested in missionary
efforts are also the strongest advocates of an extension of the influence and authority of the United States
over what have been in the past foreign countries."
You also state that: "Those who have been personally engaged in foreign missionary work are, so
far as they have declared themselves, imperialists by a
very large majority."
I cannot speak for missionaries of other mission
boards, nor am I in a position to speak for all the
five hundred and forty missionaries of our own board,
but I know the opinion of a large number of the missionaries of our board and of others, and I do not
know one who is in favor of an imperialistic policy;
and, more than this, I have never heard this policy
advocated by the officers of our board or of any
other, and I am very certain that, were that policy
entertained, it would have found utterance in my hearing.
On the other hand, I have constantly heard the officers and missionaries of the American board express
regret that the policy of imperialism was likely to prevail. Hitherto our missionaries have gone to the ends
of the earth carrying on their work, and it has never
been charged upon them that they were the forerun



ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES


703


ners of the colonies to be planted, which in turn were
to lead to a protectorate from the home country, if not
annexation.  Missionaries from England, Germany
and France have been open to these charges, and
thereby their influence has been greatly narrowed and
their efforts misinterpreted, while our own missionaries have been entirely unhampered.
I think I state what would be most generally received by the officers and members of our own board
when I say we should be most loth to ask the extension
of the American protectorate over any non-Christian
country on the ground that thus our missionaries
would be more free to carry on their work We believe
that it would be most disastrous to our work to have
this step taken, for it would be impossible to separate
in the minds of the people missionary enterprise from
government interference. It would give the appearance of the propagation of Christianity and the establishment of Christian institutions through government aid.
We do not believe in this, and want to avoid any
such appearance, both before the people to whom we
are attempting to carry our best American Christian
civilization, and before the world, which is quick to
criticise missionary effort and sometimes eager to
misinterpret missionary motives.
ADDRESS TO THE CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL.
IAN DIOCESE.
BY RIGHT REV. HENRY C. POTTER, D.D., BISHOP OF NEW YORK.
There could not be a more complete or more perilous inversion of the whole moral, social, political situation! The nation has had much, during the past
few months, to blind and to intoxicate it. It has won




704  ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.


an easy victory over an effete and decrepit adversary,
in which no splendors of individual heroism, no triumphs of naval skill-and in these we may indulge a
just pride-ought to blind our eyes to the fact that
we have had a very easy task against a very feeble foe.
And now, with unexpected fruits of victory in our
hands, what, men are asking, are we going to do
with them?
Nay, rather, the solemn question is, What are they
going to do with us? Upon what wild course of socalled imperialism are they going to launch a people, many of whom are dizzy already with the dream of
colonial gains, and who expect to repeat in distant
islands some such history as our conquered enemy
wrote long ago in blood and plunder in her colonies
here and in South America? We have our Congress
to direct this race for empire, and our gaunt and physically wrecked sons and brothers by tens of thousands
at home to show us how they will do it.
At such a time, as never before, the Church of God
is called upon, in the pulpit and by every agency at
her command, to speak the words of truth and soberness, and to reason of righteousness, temperance, and
a judgment to come-a judgment for nations as well
as individuals-till impetuosity is sobered and chastened; and until a people in peril of being wrecked
upon an untried sea can be made to pause and think.
The things that this community and this nation alike
supremely need are not more territory, more avenues
of trade, more places for place-hunters, more pensions
for idlers, more subject races to prey upon, but a
dawning consciousness of what, in individual and in
national life, are a people's indispensable moral foundations-those great spiritual forces on which alone
men and nations are built.




ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.   705


THE QUESTION OF THE PHILIPPINES.
BY PROF. GEORGE P. FISHER, YALE COLLEGE, CONGREGATIONALIST.
The discussion respecting the Philippines may be
simplified by distinctly considering, in the first place,
whether the permanent possession of these islands by
the United States is, or is not, in itself, desirable.
That is to say, would it be an advantage to this country to incorporate in its political system and govern
these remote islands, with their many millions of nonCaucasian inhabitants? Had this question been proposed before the war with Spain began, who doubts
that a negative answer would have been rendered
by our people by common consent? If this annexation was undesirable then, so far as the well-being of
this country is concerned, no reason can be given why
it is not just as undesirable now. Evidently it is felt
to be an evil by the advocates of "expansion" generally, for they constantly fell back for the defense of their
position on the alleged call of humanity, and the alleged cruelty of leaving the Filipinos in the lurch. In
other words, the common argument heard of late is
that there is nothing that we can do except to embark in this new policy of "colonialism" or "imperialism," or whatever else it may be called. It is difficult
to avoid seeing its incongruity with the principles, the
true spirit, and the whole history of our national polity.
It is plain that the extension of our boundaries, in the
past, to include territories adjacent, sparsely inhabited, and destined to be settled by people of our own
race-territories judged capable of being developed
into states homogeneous with the previously existing
states of the Union-furnishes no analogy to the astounding project of establishing an empire peopled by




706   ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.
aliens in blood, at best half-civilized, on the other side
of the globe. Who professes to expect that the Philippines will ever be fit to become mates of the states of
the republic, and as such to send their Senators and
Representatives to the National Legislature? Yet one
of the greatest perils connected with the scheme of
expansion is, that if it be carried out, and if these
communities of Malays and savages should be raised
some inches above their present grade of intelligence
and character, the exigencies of party will prove
strong enough to secure their reception into the family
of states. We have already had instances of the premature admission of states, in obedience to an assumed political necessity, which justify such an apprehension.
Well, if the Philippines are not to be evolved into
states, they must be subject to our sovereignty, a foreign sovereignty, with methods of government the opposite of those to which we are accustomed under our
republican institutions. It is hardly conceivable that
the exercise of those methods, and the resulting familiarity with them, should not react disastrously upon
the spirit and methods of free, constitutional administration at home. The subjection of the Filipinos, if
they are not to become our political equals, must be
in reality, for an indefinite period, their subjection to
foreign masters. We ought not to hide from ourselves the danger that commercial greed, or other impulses, perhaps worse, may kindle among us an ambition for further conquests. Political complications
and contests with European powers are likely to
spring up in the exercise of government by deputies
in that distant region, considering the character of the
motley tribes that inhabit these islands. But we hear
on every hand the question, What shall we do with




ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC    ADDRESSES.     707
them? The first thing to do is unequivocally to acknowledge that the prolonged exercise of a sovereignty of this nature on our part is in the highest degree
undesirable-that it is something fraught with evils
and dangers. It is very often, if not always, true that
"Where there is a will, there is a way." The course
that we are pledged to take in reference to Cuba
shows that another method of procedure, besides that
of the advocates of "expansion" and "colonialism," is
possible. What is wanted is that the country should
set its face openly and resolutely against that avowed
reversal of American policy which is popularly termed
"imperialism"-the acquisition and government of dependencies, not states in embryo. There are welcome
signs that the national restlessness in which this new
movement has its principal source, is now abating.
With its disappearance, we shall probably no longer
hear protests against "isolation," by which is meant
the habit of the nation in the past to mind its own
business, in pursuance of the wise and statesmanlike
counsels of the founders of the republic. Their advice was to set free the wings of commerce, but to
shun political entanglements. To the observance of
this advice our national prosperity has been largely
due. It would be a great pity to let even a well meant
but mistaken philanthropy seduce us to forsake this
path.
NO IMPERIALISM SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED.
BY REV. DR. THOMAS J. CONATY,
RECTOR OF CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D. C.
It was never intended in our scheme of government
that we should become imperialists for territory, and




708   ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.
no imperialism should be recognized except the imperialism of ideas in self-government and the imperialism that comes with trade. We have no mission to
settle the political differences of the world, except by
advice and example-never as conquerors. Large
standing armies are the accompaniments and the curse
of absolutism; there is no place for them in a democracy. We have serious vital problems to work out
among ourselves. Let us fear an increased greed of
power. There is danger in departing from our ideals
and allowing grasping syndicates and political adventurers to lead us into the governing of people who
are as much entitled to self-government as we are.
Colonies and alliances are foreign to the ideals of American government.
SUCCESS AS A MISSIONARY NATION.
BY REV. DANIEL MERRIMAN, D.D., OF WORCESTER, MASS.
It has been reported that President McKinley has
been mainly influenced in his policy for the annexation of the Philippines by the attitude, real or supposed, of the religious people of the country. If this
is the fact, these people are in a position of grave responsibility. Are they prepared in the supposed interests of philanthropy and Christian missions to back
the administration up in a course "of forcible annexation" of the Philippines, which the President himself defined as "criminal aggression"?
One can understand how ministers and missionaries
could join with philanthropists in upholding the administration in making war on Spain for the liberation
of Cuba from an intolerable tyranny. But when in
the face of the solemn pledge that we did this solely




ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.  709


in the interests of ihumanity, and that we would not
acquire territory, we compel Spain to cede to us Porto
Rico and the Philippines, and send a large army and
navy to force the Filipinos to annexation and submission to our authority, it is a little difficult to see
how the good ministers and deacons, the pious editors
and missionary secretaries, can bid the President Godspeed in this business.
The fact is, it is conquest that we are embarked
upon now. And,when you try to make missions the
object for which you carry on conquest, you have
crushed the wllole spirit and enterprise of missions.
To affirm the contrary is to go back to the (lark
ages when priests urged the soldier and the torturer
to force tleir victims into submission to the church
with sword and firebrand.
Abundant and convincing reasons are given why
we should keep our hands off from the Filipinos, except to co-operate with them by our counsel and help
in getting them on their feet. If we persist in annexing tlem, subjugating them and governing them
as dependents, it will lay upon us an enormous
cost that will be felt as a burden by every one, and will
rob us of much of our singular advantage among the
nations. It will force us into international complications in which war will be a constant menace. It will
deal a grievous, if not a fatal blow to tlhe foundaatons
of our government, to our integrity, self-respect and
power as a free people, and will destroy our pre-eminent influence as a nation set for the inspiration of intelligence, liberty and righteousness in the world. It
will reverse the main currents of our whole history,
and will give the lie to our proudest professions.
These considerations ought to appeal to all sensible people, especially to those who claim to be Chris



7IO   ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC ADDRESSES.
tian. They ought to see that to have all, or any, of
these things result, will be so far to limit their power
to carry forward the kingdom of Christ in this and in
every other land.
But if none of these things move them, if they still
are under the sentimental delusion that even at the
cost of these tremendous sacrifices, amounting to the
destruction, or at least impairment of our most cherished possessions, God is calling us, for the sake of
the spread of the Gospel, to annex the Philippines,
then let them be sure of one thing, that the Kingdom
of Christ is never set forward by the hands of those
who are bent upon selfish aggression.
If we impose ourselves upon the Filipinos, they will
hate us and our religion, and they ought to, for if our
religion takes us there to beat them down into our
vassals with cannon and bayonet, it will be a hateful
religion, whatever pious professions we may make
about it.
It seems strange that the brethren cannot see what
has given us success as a missionary nation-success
in carrying our education, our philanthropies, our
hopes of betterment, our Gospel, to the ends of the
earth, and making us, in all the nobler senses of the
phrase, "a world power," has been the fact that we
were not a warlike, quarrelsome, violently aggressive,
and conquering nation.
No demand of humanity or Christianity can be
strong enough to lead us to give up this advantage,
for when we give it up we shall be neither humane
nor Christian, but simply selfish.




M'ENERY AND BACON RESOLUTIONS.
The following resolution introduced bly Mr. McEnery, of Louisiana, was adopted by the Senate after
the ratification of the Treaty:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That by the ratification of the treaty of
peace with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into citizenship
of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently
annex said islands as an integral part of the territory
of the United States; but it is the intention of the
United States to establish on said islands a government
suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants
of said islands to prepare them for local self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of
said islands as will best promote the interests of the
citizens of the United States and the inhabitants of
said islands.
The following amendment, originally offered as a
resolution by Mr. Bacon, of Georgia, was defeated by
the vote of Vice-President Hobart:
Resolved further, That the United States hereby disclaim any disposition or intention to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said
islands, and assert their determination, when a stable
and independent government shall have been erected
therein, entitled in the judgment of the Government of
the United States to recognition as such, to transfer to
said government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by
Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and
control of the islands to their people.
The Democratic caucus of the House of Representatives afterwards endorsed the Bacon resolution.
711




I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~I




CHAPTER XXXIV.


THE GOSPEL OF FORCE.
BY BERTRAND SHADWELL, CHICAGO.
Take up the sword and rifle,
Send forth your ships with speed,
To join the nations' scramble,
And vie with them in greed;
Go find your goods a market,
Beyond the western flood,
The heathen who withstand you
Shall answer it in blood.
Take up the sword and rifle,
For so does all the world,
There's none shall dare upbraid you,
When once your flag's unfurled,
The race is to the swiftest,
The battle to the strong,
Success is the criterion,
None cares to count the wrong.
Take up the sword and rifle,
And know no fear or pause,
What though your hands be bloody,
Who calls ye to the laws?
The ports ye wish to enter,
The roads ye wish to tread.
Make them with heathen living,
Mark them with heathen dead.
713




4        THE GOSPEL OF FORCE.
Take up your sword and rifle,
Rob every savage race,
Annex their lands and harbors,
For this is Christian grace.
E'en though ye slaughter thousands,
Ye still shall count it gain;
If ye extend your commerce,
Who dreads the curse of Cain?
Take up the sword and rifle,
Still keep your conscience wholeSo soon is found an unction
To soothe a guilty soul.
Go with it to your Maker,
Find what excuse ye canRob for the sake of justice,
Kill for the love of man.




0XMMidV




t
III




PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND SPAIN.
Signed at Washington August I2, I898.
PROTOCOL.
William R. Day, Secretary of State of the United States,
and His Excellency Jules Cambon, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of France at Washington, respectively possessing for this purpose full authority
from the Government of the United States and the Government of Spain, have concluded and signed the following
articles, embodying the terms on which the two governments
have agreed in respect to the matters hereinafter set forth,
having in view the establishment of peace between the two
countries, that is to say:
ARTICLE    I.
Spain will relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title
to Cuba.
ARTICLE II.
Spain will cede to the United States the island of Porto
Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in
the West Indies, and also an island in the Ladrones, to be
selected by the United States.
ARTICLE III.
The United States willoccupy 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 Philippines.
ARTICLE IV.
Spain will immediately evacuate Cuba, Porto Rico and
other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West
717




7I8


APPENDIX.


Indies; and to this end each Government will, within ten
days after the signing of this protocol, appoint Commissioners, and the Commissioners so appointed shall, within thirty
days after the signing of this protocol, meet at Havana for
the purpose of arranging and carrying out the details of the
aforesaid evacuation of Cuba and the adjacent Spanish islands; and each Government will, within ten days after the
signing of this protocol, also appoint other Commissioners,
who shall, within thirty days after the signing of this protocol,
meet at San Juan, in Porto Rico, for the purpose of arranging and carrying out the details of the aforesaid evacuation
of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies.
ARTICLE V.
The United States and Spain will each appoint not more
than five commissioners to treat of peace, and the commissioners so appointed shall meet at Paris not later than October I, I898, and proceed to the negotiation and conclusion of
a treaty of peace, which treaty shall be subject to ratification
according to the respective constitutional forms of the two
countries.
ARTICLE VI.
Upon the conclusion and signing of this protocol hostilities between the two countries shall be suspended, and notice
to that effect shall be given as soon as possible by each Government to the commanders of its military and naval forces.
Done at Washington in duplicate, in English and in
French, by the undersigned, who have hereunto set their
hands and seals, the i2th day of August, I898.
(Seal.)                      WILLIAM    R. DAY.
(Seal.)                      JULES CAMBON.




TREATY OF PEACE
OF DECEMBER        Io, I898.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN REGENT OF SPAIN, IN THE
NAME OF HER AUGUST SON, DON ALFONSO
XIII., desiring to end the state of war now existing between
the two countries, have for that purpose appointed as Plenipotentiaries:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
WILLIAM R. DAY, CUSHMAN K. DAVIS, WILLIAM   P. FRYE, GEORGE GRAY, and WHITELAW
REID, citizens of the United States;
AND HIER MAJESTY THE QUEEN REGENT OF
SPAIN;
DON EUGENIO MONTERO RIOS, President of the
Senate; DON BUENAVENTURA DE ABARZUZA, Senator of the Kingdom and ex-Minister of the Crown; DON
JOSE DE GARNICA, Deputy to the Cortes and Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court; DON WENCESLAO RAMIREZ DE VILLA-URRUTIA, Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels, and DON RAFAEL
CERERO, General of Division;
Who, having assembled in Paris, and having exchanged
their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper
form, have, after discussion of the matters before them,
agreed upon the following articles:
ARTICLE I.
Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title
to Cuba.
And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be
occupied by the United States, the United States will, so
long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the
obligations that may under international law result from the
fact of its occupation for the protection of life and property.
ARTICLE II.
Spain cedes to the United States the islands of Porto Rico
and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the
719




720


APPENDIX.


West Indies, and the island of Guam, in the Marianas or
Ladrones.
ARTICLE III.
Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known
as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:
A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of
the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and
eighteen (II8th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh
(I27th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich,
thence along the one hundred and twenty-seventh (I27th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel
of four degrees and forty-five minutes (4~ 45') north latitude,
thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty-five
minutes (4~ 45') north latitude to its intersection  with
the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen
degrees and thirty-five minutes (I19~ 35') east of Greenwich, thence  along   the  meridian  of longitude  one
hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty-five minutes
(119~ 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven
degrees and forty minutes (7~ 40') north, thence along the
parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7~ 40')
north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth
(Ii6th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich,
thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (Ioth)
degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and
eighteenth (II8th) degree meridian  of longitude east of
Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth
(II8th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to
the point of beginning.
The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty
million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the
exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.
ARTICLE IV.
The United States will, for the term of ten years, from
the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present
treaty, admit Spanish ships and merchandise to the ports of
the Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and merchandise of the United States.




APPENDIX.


721


ARTICLE V.
The United States will, upon the signature of the present
treaty, send back to Spain, at its own cost, the Spanish soldiers taken as prisoners of war on the capture of Manila by
the American forces. The arms of the soldiers in question
shall be restored to them.
Spain will, upon the exchange of the ratifications of the
present treaty, proceed to evacuate the Philippines, as well
as the island of Guam, on terms similar to those agreed upon
by the commissioners appointed to arrange for the evacuation of Porto Rico and other islands in the West Indies, under the Protocol of August 12, I898, which is to continue in
force till its provisions are completely executed.
The time within which the evacuation of the Philippine
Islands and Guam shall be completed shall be fixed by the
two governments. Stands of colors, uncaptured war vessels,
small arms, guns of all calibres, with their carriages and
accessories, powder, ammunition, live stock and materials
and supplies of all kinds, belonging to the land and naval
forces of Spain in the Philippines and Guam, remain the
property of Spain. Pieces of heavy ordnance, exclusive of
field artillery, in the fortifications and coast defences, shall
remain in their emplacements for the term of six months, to
be reckoned from the exchange of ratifications of the treaty;
and the United States may, in the meantime, purchase such
material from Spain, if a satisfactory agreement between the
two governments on the subject shall be reached.
ARTICLE VI.
Spain will, upon the signature of the present treaty, release all prisoners of war, and all persons detained or imprisoned for political offences, in connection with the insurrections in Cuba and the Philippines and the war with the
United States.
Reciprocally, the United States will release all persons
made prisoners of war by the American forces, and will
undertake to obtain the release of all Spanish prisoners in
the hands of the insurgents in Cuba and the Philippines.
The Government of the United States will at its own cost
return to Spain and the Government of Spain will at its own
cost return to the United States, Cuba, Porto Rico and the




722


APPENDIX.


Philippines, according to the situation of their respective
homes, prisoners released or caused to be released by them,
respectively, under this article.
ARTICLE VII.
The United States and Spain mutually relinquish all
claims for indemnity, national and individual, of every kind,
of either government, or of its citizens or subjects, against the
other government, that may have arisen since the beginning
of the late insurrection in Cuba and prior to the exchange
of ratifications of the present treaty, including all claims for
indemnity for the cost of the war.
ARTICLE VIII.
In conformity with the provisions of Articles I, II and III
of this treaty Spain relinquishes in Cuba, and cedes in Porto
Rico and other islands in the West Indies, in the island of
Guam, and in the Philippine Archipelago, all the buildings,
wharves, barracks, forts, structures, public highways and
other immovable property which, in conformity with law,
belong to the public domain, and as such belong to the
Crown of Spain.
And it is hereby declared that the relinquishment or cession, as the case may be, to which the preceding paragraph
refers, cannot in any respect impair the property or rights
which by law belong to the peaceful possession of property
of all kinds, of provinces, municipalities, public or private
establishments, ecclesiastical or civic bodies, or any other
associations having legal capacity to acquire and possess
property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or
of private individuals, of whatsoever nationality such individuals may be.
The aforesaid relinquishment or cession, as the case may
be, includes all documents exclusively referring to the sovereignty relinquished or ceded that may exist in the archives
of the Peninsula. Where any document in such archives only
in part relates to said sovereignty a copy of such part will
be furnished whenever it shall be requested. Like rules shall
be reciprocally observed in favor of Spain in respect of documents in the archives of the islands above referred to.
In the aforesaid relinquishment or cession, as the case
may be, are also included such rights as the Crown of Spain




APPENDIX.


723


and its authorities possess in respect of the official archives
and records, executive as well as judicial, in the islands above
referred to, which relate to said islands or the rights and
property of their inhabitants.  Such archives and records
shall be carefully preserved, and private persons shall without
distinction have the right to require, in accordance with law,
authenticated copies of the contracts, wills and other instruments forming part of notarial protocols or files, or which
may be contained in the executive or judicial archives, be the
latter in Spain or in the islands aforesaid.
ARTICLE IX.
Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the
territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes
or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or
may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their
rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of
such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have
the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are
applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the
territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of
Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from
the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a
declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in
default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory
in which they may reside.
The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States
shall be determined by the Congress.
ARTICLE X.
The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free
exercise of their religion.
ARTICLE XI.
The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain
by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be
subject in matters civil as well as criminal to the jurisdiction
of the courts of the country wherein they reside, pursuant




724


APPENDIX.


to the ordinary laws governing the same; and they shall have
the right to appear before such courts, and to pursue the
same course as citizens of the country to which the courts
belong.
ARTICLE XII.
Judicial proceedings pending at the time of the exchange
of ratifications of this treaty in the territories over which
Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be determined according to the following rules:
I. Judgments rendered either in civil suits between private individuals, or in criminal matters, before the date mentioned, and with respect to which there is no recourse or
right of review under the Spanish law, shall be deemed to be
final, and shall be executed in due form by competent authority in the territory within which such judgments should
be carried out.
2. Civil suits between private individuals which may on
the date mentioned be undetermined shall be prosecuted to
judgment before the court in which they may then be pending or in the court that may be substituted therefor.
3. Criminal actions pending on the date mentioned bcfore the Supreme Court of Spain against citizens of the territory which by this treaty ceases to be Spanish shall continue
under its jurisdiction until final judgment; but, such judgment having been rendered, the execution thereof shall be
committed to the competent authority of the place in which
the case arose.
ARTICLE XIII.
The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents
acquired by the Spaniards in the Island of Cuba, and in Porto
Rico, the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time
of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected. Spanish scientific, literary and artistic
works, not subversive of public order in the territories in
question, shall continue to be admitted free of duty into
such territories for the period of ten years, to be reckoned
from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this
treaty.
ARTICLE XIV.


Spain shall have the power to establish consular officers
in the ports and places of the territories, the sovereignty




APPENDIX.


725


over which has been either relinquished or ceded by the
present treaty.
ARTICLE XV.
The Government of each country will, for the term of ten
years, accord to the merchant vessels of the other country
the same treatment in respect of all port changes, including
entrance and clearance dues, light dues, and tonnage duties,
as it accords to its own merchant vessels, not engaged in the
coastwise trade.
This article may at any time be terminated on six months'
notice given by either Government to the other.
ARTICLE XVI.
It is understood that any obligations assumed in this
treaty by the United States with respect to Cuba are limited
to the time of its occupancy thereof; but it will, upon the
termination of such occupancy, advise any government established in the island to assume the same obligations.
ARTICLE XVII.
The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the
United States, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and by Her Majesty the Queen Regent of
Spain; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if
possible.
In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have
signed this treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals.
Done in duplicate at Paris, the tenth day of December,
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
ninety-eight.
(Seal.)                  WILLIAM R. DAY.
(Seal.)                   CUSHMAN K. DAVIS.
(Seal.)                  WILLIAM     P. FRYE.
(Seal.)                   GEO. GRAY.
(Seal.)                  WHITELAW       REID.




726


APPENDIX.


LETTER OF ADMIRAL DEWEY
ON THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION.
U. S. Naval Force on Asiatic Station, Flagship Baltimore,
Manila, Philippine Islands, August 29, 1898.
Sir: Referring to the Department's telegram of the 28th
instant, I have the honor to transmit by the hand of Brig.
Gen. F. V. Greene, U. S. V., the following views and information upon the subject of the Philippines. A copy of this communication is also given to Major-General Merritt:
The most important islands of the Philippines are Luzon,
Panay, Cebu, Negros, Leyte and Mindanao. The others, owing either to the character of the inhabitants, the limited
amount of civilization, or the almost entire absence of cultivated land, may be neglected in any consideration of the relative importance or desirability of these islands, especially
those of the southern group, which are almost wholly given
over to savages.
Luzon is in almost all respects the most desirable of these
islands, and therefore the one to retain. In it is situated
Manila, the most important commercial as well as the most
populous port of all the islands-a port that in our hands
would soon become one of the first ports of the world. Not
only is tobacco produced in large quantities, but all the tobacco of fine quality grown in the Philippines comes from
the northern provinces of this island. The interior has as
yet not been developed.
There is but one short railroad, from Manila to Dagupan,
and no highways, so that almost all the commerce is carried
on by water. Were railroads and highways built-and labor
is very cheap-there is little doubt that this island would
rapidly increase in productiveness and wealth. The population of Luzon is reported to be something over 3,000,000,
mostly natives. These are gentle, docile, and, under just laws
and with the benefits of popular education, would soon make
good citizens.
In a telegram sent to the Department on June 23 I expressed the opinion that "these people are far superior in
their intelligence and more capable of self-government than
the natives of Cuba, and I am familiar with both races."




APPENDIX.


727


Further intercourse with them has confirmed me in this opinion.
As Luzon is the farthest north of the large islands, its
climate is naturally the most temperate. In this connection
it may be mentioned that out of a force of over 2,000 on the
ships of my squadron the number of men on the sick list at
any time has not exceeded forty, nor has there been any
considerable sickness among our troops on shore, though
they were much exposed for three weeks in the trenches
during the rainy season. As a matter of fact, Manila is far
from being an unhealthy city, and the climate is as fine as
that of any place in the tropics.
About sixty miles from Manila and to the northward and
westward is Subig Bay, decidedly the best harbor in the Philippines, having no equal as a coaling station or naval and
military base.
The entrances are narrow, the shores bold, the water deep,
the bay landlocked, easily defended from attack by sea or
land, and the fresh-water supply ample. As it is just off the
trade route between Manila and China and Japan, it strategically commands Manila. It is there that the Spanish Goverlnment had planned to place its principal naval arsenal in
the East. Already a great deal of money has been expended,
many buildings erected, and much work done. A contract
has been made with an English company to construct a
floating dock of I2,000 tons capacity; some of the material
has been delivered and payments made. The arsenal is on
the south side of the harbor, at the village of Olongapo. It
is expected that a connection will be made with the railroad
from Manila to Dagupan, thus putting Subig in easy reach of
Manila.
The principal naval station in the Philippines is now at
Cavite, in Manila Bay. It has very fair workshops for light
work and ways for vessels of less than I,ooo tons. But it is
capable of little expansion, and the small depth of water precludes the building of dry docks for large ships, or even the
use of floating docks of much capacity.
Luzon has other decided advantages, both in a commercial and military sense. It is nearest the great centers of trade
in the far East, such as Hongkong, Canton, Shanghai, Pekin,
Nagasaki and Yokohama, and nearest the trade routes from
the United States and Honolulu to those centers; consequently its influence would be greater if held by us. It also




728


APPENDIX.


commands San Bernadine Strait, the principal water route
through the Philippines from east to west.
From all the above facts it seems patent that Luzon is
by far the most valuable island in the group, whether considered from a commercial or military standpoint.
Panay, Cebu, Negros and Leyte are very thickly populated and well cultivated. In these islands the natives are
conceded to be the best educated and farthest advanced in
civilization.
In Panay is situated Iloilo, the second commercial port of
the Philippines and the center of the sugar trade. It has a
good harbor, with two entrances, and one that has great
strategic importance.
Cebu, the third commercial port, in the island of the same
name, has a harbor much like that of Iloilo.
From the best information obtainable it appears that the
Philippines contain varied and valuable mineral resources, as
well as admirable timber.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
GEORGE DEWEY,
Rear-Admiral, United States Navy,
Commanding United States Naval Forces on Asiatic Station.
The Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.




AGUINALDO'S PROCLAMATION
OF JUNE 18, I898, ESTABLISHING THE
DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT.
B.
No. I.
To the Philippine Public:
Circumstances have providentially placed me in a position for which I can not fail to recognize that I am not properly qualified; but since I can not violate the laws of Providence nor decline the obligations which honor and patriotism
impose upon me, I now salute you, Oh My Beloved People.
I have proclaimed in the face of the whole world that the
aspiration of my whole life, the final object of all my efforts
and strength, is nothing else but your independence, for I am
firmly convinced that that constitutes your constant desire,
and that independence signifies for us redemption from slavery and tyranny, regaining our liberty and entrance into
the concert of civilized nations.
I understand, on the other hand, that the first duty of
every government is to interpret faithfully popular aspirations; with this motive, although the abnormal circumstances
of the war have compelled me to institute this dictatorial government which assumes full powers, both civil and military,
my constant desire is to surround myself with the most distinguished persons of each province, those that by their conduct deserve the confidence of their province, to the end that,
the true necessities of each being known to them, measures
may be adopted to meet those necessities and apply the remedies in accordance with the desires of all.
I understand, moreover, the urgent necessity of establishing in each town a solid and robust organization, the strongest bulwark of public security and the sole means of securing
that union and discipline which are indispensable for the
establishment of the Republic, that is, government of the
people, for the people, and warding off the international conflicts which may arise.
729




730


APPENDIX.


Following out the foregoing. considerations, I decree as
follows:
Article I. The inhabitants of every town where the forces
of the Spanish Government still remain will decide upon the
most efficacious measures to combat and destroy them, according to the resources and means at their disposal, according to prisoners of war the treatment most conformable to
humanitarian sentiments and in the customs observed by civilized nations.
Art. II. As soon as the town is freed from Spanish domination the inhabitants most distinguished for high character,
social position, and honorable conduct, both in the center of
the community and in the suburbs, will come together in a
large meeting, in which they will proceed to elect, by a majority of votes, the chief of the town and a headman for each
suburb, considering as suburbs not only those hitherto known
as such but also the center of the community.
All those inhabitants who fulfill the conditions above
named will have the right to take part in this meeting and
to be elected, provided always that they are friendly to the
Philippine independence and are twenty years of age.
Art. III. In this meeting shall also be elected by a majority of votes three delegates, one of police and internal
order, another of justice and civil registry, and another of
taxes and property.
The delegate of justice and civil registry will aid the chief
in the formation of courts and in keeping of books of registry
of births, deaths and marriage contracts, and of the census.
The delegate of taxes and property will aid the chief in
the collection of taxes and administration of public funds, the
opening of books of registry of cattle and real property, and
in all work relating to encouragement of every class of industry.
Art. IV. The chief, as president, with the headman and
the above-mentioned delegates, will constitute the popular
assemblies, who will supervise the exact fulfillment of the
laws in force and the particular interests of each town.
The head man of the center of the community will be
the vice-president of the assembly and the delegate of justice
its secretary.
The head men will be delegates of the chief within their
respective boundaries.
Art. V. The chiefs of each town, after consulting the opin



APPENDIX.


73I


ion of their respective assemblies, will meet and elect, by majority of votes, the chief of the province and three councilors
for the three branches above-mentioned.
The chief of the province as president, the chief of the
town which is the capital of the province as vice-president,
and the above-named councilors will constitute the provincial
council, which will supervise the carrying out of the instructions of the government in the territory of the province
and for the general interest of the province, and will propose
for this government the measures which should be adopted
for the general welfare.
Art. VI. The above-named chiefs will also elect by a majority of votes three representatives for each one of the
provinces of Manila and Cavite, two for each one of the
provinces classified as terminal in Spanish Legislation, and
one for each one of the other provinces and politico-military
commands of the Philippine Archipelago.
The above-named representatives will guard the general
interests of the archipelago and the particular interests of
their respective provinces, and will constitute the revolutionary congress which will propose to this Government the
measures concerning the preservation of internal order and
external security of these islands, and will be heard by this
government on all questions of grave importance, the decision of which will admit of delay or adjournment.
Art. VII. Persons elected to any office whatsoever in the
form prescribed in the preceding article can not perform the
same without the previous confirmation by the Government,
which will give it in accordance with the certifications of
election.
Representatives will establish their identity by exhibiting
the above-named certificates.
Art. VIII. The military chiefs named by this government
in each province will not intervene in the government and administration of the provinces, but will confine themselves to
requesting of the chiefs of the provinces and of the towns
the aid which may be necessary, both in men and resources,
which are not to be refused in case of actual necessity.
Nevertheless, when the province is threatened or occupied
by the enemy, in whole or in part, the military chief of highest rank therein may assume the powers of the chief of the
province until the danger has disappeared.
Art. IX. The government will name for each province a




732


APPENDIX.


commissioner specially charged with establishing therein the
organization prescribed in this decree, in accordance with instructions which this government will communicate to him.
Those military chiefs who liberate the towns from the Spanish domination are commissioners by virtue of their office.
The above-named commissioners will preside over the
first meetings held in each town and in each province.
Art. X. As soon as the organization provided in the
decree has been established all previous appointments to any
civil office whatsoever, no matter what their origin or source,
shall be null and void, and all instructions in conflict with
the foregoing are hereby annulled.
Given at Cavite, the i8th day of June, 1898.
EMILIO AGUINALDO.
C.
No. 2.
For the execution and proper carrying out of what is
prescribed in the decree of this government concerning the
management of the provinces and towns of the Philippine
Archipelago, I decree as follows:
INSTRUCTIONS       CONCERNING       THE     MANAGEMENT OF THE PROVINCES AND TOWNS.
(Then follow forty-five rules concerning the elections,
formation of the police, the courts, and the laying and collection of taxes.)
Given at Cavite, the 20th of June, I898.
EMILIO AGUINALDO.




AGUINALDO'S PROCLAMATION
OF JUNE 23, ESTABLISHING THE REVOLUTIONARY.GOVERNMENT.
No. 3.
Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy, president of the revolutionary government of the Philippines and general-in-chief
of its army.
This Government, desiring to demonstrate to the Philippine people that one of its ends is to combat with a firm
hand the inveterate vices of the Spanish administration, substituting for personal luxury and that pompous ostentation
which have made it a mere matter of routine, cumbrous and
slow in its movements, another administration more modest,
simple and prompt in performing the public service, I decree
as follows:
CHAPTER I.-OF THE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT.
Article I. The dictatorial government will be entitled
hereafter the revolutionary government, whose object is to
struggle for the independence of the Philippines until all
nations, including the Spanish, shall expressly recognize it,
and to prepare the country so that a true republic may be
established.
The dictator will be entitled hereafter president of the
revolutionary government.
Art. II. Four secretaryships of government are createdone of foreign affairs, navy, and commerce; another of war
and public works; another of police and internal order, justice, education and hygiene; and another of finance, agriculture and manufacturing industry.
The government may increase the number of secretaryships when it shall find in practice that this distribution is
not sufficient for the multiplied and complicated necessities of
the public service.
Art. III. Each secretaryship shall aid the president in the
733




734


APPENDIX.


administration of questions concerning the different branches
which it comprises.
At the head of each one shall be a secretary, who shall
not be responsible for the decrees of the presidency, but shall
sign them with the president to give them authority.
But if it shall appear that the decree has been promulgated on the proposition of the secretary of the department
the latter shall be responsible conjointly with the president.
Art. IV. The secretaryship of foreign affairs will be divided into three bureaus-one of diplomacy, another of navy,
and another of commerce.
The first bureau will study and dispose of all questions
pertaining to management of diplomatic negotiations with
other powers and the correspondence of the government
with them; the second will study all questions relating to
the formation and organization of our navy, and the fitting
out of such expeditions as the necessities of the revolution
may require; and the third will have charge of everything
relating to the internal and external commerce, and the preliminary work which may be necessary for making treaties of
comnmerce with other nations.
Art. V. The secretaryship of war will be divided into two
bureaus-one of war, properly speaking, and the other of
public works.
The first bureau will be subdivided into four sectionsone of campaigns, another of military justice, another of military administration, and another of military health.
The section of campaigns will have charge of the appointment and formation of the certificates of enlistment and
service of all who serve in the revolutionary militia; of the
direction of campaigns; the preparation of plans, works of
fortification, and preparing reports of battles; of the study
of military tactics for the army and the organization of the
general staff, artillery and cavalry; and, finally, of the determination of all the other questions concerning the business of campaigns and military operations.
The section of military justice will have charge of everything relating to courts of war and military tribunals, the appointment of judges and counsel, and the determination of all
questions of military justice. The section of military administration will be charged with the furnishing of food and other
supplies necessary for the use of the army, and the section




APPENDIX.


735


of military health will have charge of-everything relating to
the hygiene and healthfulness of the militia.
Art. VI. The other secretaryships will be divided into
such bureaus as their branches may require, and each bureau
will be subdivided into sections according to the nature and
importance of the work it has to do.
Art. VII. The secretary will inspect and supervise all the
work of his secretaryship and will determine all questions
with the president of the government.
At the head of each bureau will be a director, and in each
section an officer provided with such number of assistants
and clerks as may be specified.
Art. VIII. The president will appoint the secretaries of
his own free choice, and in concert with them will appoint all
the subordinate officials of each secretaryship.
In order that in the choice of persons it may be possible to
avoid favoritism it must be fully understood that the good
name of the country and the triumph of the revolution require the services of persons truly capable.
Art. IX. The secretaries may be present at the revolutionary congress, in order that they may make any motion in
the name of the president or may be interpolated publicly
by any one of the representatives; but when the question
xxhich is the object of the motion shall be put to vote, or after
the interpolation is enutid, they shall leave and shall not take
part in the vote.
Art. X. The president of the government is the personification of the Philippine people, and in accordance with this
idea it shall not be possible to hold him responsible while he
fills the office.
His term of office shail last until the revolution triumphs,
unless ur, er extraordinary  circumstances he shall feel
obliged to offer his resignation to congress, in which case
congress will elect whosoever it considers most fit.
CHA`PTER II.-OF THE REVOLUTIONARY
CONGRESS.
Art. XI. The revolutionary congress is the body of representatives of the provinces of the Philippine Archipelago
elected in the manner prescribed in the decrees of the I8th
of the present month.
Nevertheless, if any province shall not be able as yet to




736                 APPENDIX.
elect representatives because the greater part of its towns
shall have not yet been able to liberate themselves from
Spanish domination, the government shall have power to
appoint as provisional representatives for this province those
persons who are most distinguished for high character and
social position in such numbers as are prescribed by the
above-named decree, provided always that they are natives
of the province which they represent or have resided therein
for a long time.
Art. XII. The representatives having met at the town
which is the seat of the revolutionary government, and in
the building which may be designated, will proceed to its
preliminary labors, designating by plurality of votes a commission composed of five individuals charged with examining
documents accrediting each representative, and another commission composed of three individuals who will examine the
documents which the five of the former commission exhibit.
Art. XIII. On the following day the above-named representatives will meet again, and the two commissions will read
their respective reports concerning the legality of the said
documents, deciding by an absolute majority of votes on the
character of those which appear doubtful.
This business completed, it will proceed to designate, also
by absolute majority, a president, vice-president, and two secretaries, who shall be chosen from among the representatives, whereupon the congress shall be considered organized
and shall notify the government of the result of the election.
Art. XIV. The place where congress deliberates is sacred
and inviolable, and no armed force shall enter therein unless
the president thereof shall ask therefor in order to establish
internal order disturbed by those who can neither honor
themselves nor its august functions.
Art. XV. The powers of congress are: To watch over
the general interest of the Philippine people and the carrying
out of the revolutionary laws; to discuss and vote upon said
laws; to discuss and approve prior to their ratification treaties and loans; to examine and approve the accounts presented
annually by the secretary of finance as well as extraordinary
and other taxes which may hereafter be imposed.
Art. XVI. Congress shall also be consulted in all grave
and important questions the determination of which admit of
delay or adjournment; but the president of the government




APPENDIX.


737


shall have power to decide questions of urgent character,
but in that case he shall give account by message to said
body of the decision which he has adopted.
Art. XVII. Every representative shall have power to present to congress any project of a law, and every secretary on
the order of the president of the government shall have similar power.
Art. XVIII. The sessions of congress shall be public, and
only in cases which require reserve shall it have power to
hold a secret session.
Art. XIX. In the order of its deliberations as well as in
the internal government of the body the instructions which
shall be formulated by the congress itself shall be observed.
The president shall direct the deliberations and shall not
vote except in case of a tie, when he shall have the casting
vote.
Art. XX. The president of the government shall not have
power to interrupt in any manner the meetings of congress
nor embarrass its sessions.
Art. XXI. The congress shall designate a permanent
commission of justice, which shall be presided over by the
auxiliary vice-president or each of the secretaries, and shall be
composed of those persons and seven members elected by
plurality of votes from among the representatives. This commission shall judge on appeal the criminal cases tried by the
provincial courts, and shall take cognizance of and have original jurisdiction in all cases against the secretaries of the government, the chiefs of provinces and towns, and the provincial judges.
Art. XXII. In the officeof the secretary of congress shall
be kept a book of honor, wherein shall be recorded special
services rendered the country and considered as such by said
body. Every Filipino, whether in the military or civil service,
may petition congress for notation in said book, presenting
duly accredited documents describing the service rendered
by him on behalf of the country since the beginning of the
present revolution. For extraordinary services which may be
rendered hereafter the government will propose said notation,
accompanying the proposal with the necessary documents
justifying it.
Art. XXIII. The congress shall also grant on the proposal of the government rewards in money, which can be
given only once, to the families of those who were victims of




738


APPENDIX.


their duty and patriotism as a result of extraordinary acts of
heroism.
Art. XXIV. The acts of congress shall not take effect until the president of the government orders their fulfillment and
execution. Whenever the said president shall be of the opinion that any act is unsuitable or against public policy or pernicious, he shall explain to congress the reasons against its
execution, and if the latter shall insist on its passage the
president shall have power to oppose his veto under his most
rigid responsibility.
CHAPTER III.-OF MILITARY COURTS AND
JUSTICE.
Art.' XXV. When the chiefs of military detachments have
notice that any soldier has committed or has perpetrated any
act of those commonly considered as military crimes, he
shall bring it to the knowledge of the commandant of the
Zone, who shall appoint a judge and a secretary, who shall
begin suit in the form prescribed in the instructions dated
the 20th of the present month. If the accused shall be of the
grade of lieutenant or higher, the said commandant shall
himself be the judge, and if the latter shall be the accused
the senior commandant of the province shall name as judge
an officer who holds a higher grade, unless the same senior
commandant shall himself have brought the suit. The judge
shall always belong to the class of chiefs.
Art. XXVI. On the conclusion of the preliminary hearing
the senior commandant shall designate three officers of equal
or higher rank to the judge, and the military court shall consist of the said officers, the judge, the councilor, and the
president. The latter shall be the commandant of the zone if
the accused be of the grade of lieutenant or higher.  The
court shall conduct the trial in the form customary in the
provincial courts, but the judgment shall be appealable to the
higher courts of war.
Art. XXVII. The superior court shall be composed of six
members, who shall hold rank not less than brigadier-generals, and the judge-advocate. If the number of generals present in the capital of the revolutionary government shall not
be sufficient, the deficiency shall be supplied by representatives designated and commissioned by congress. The president of the court shall be the general having the highest rank




APPENDIX.


739


of all, and should there be more than one having equal rank
the president shall be elected from among them by absolute
majority of votes.
Art. XXVIII. The superior court shall have jurisdiction
in all cases affecting the higher commandants, the commandants of zones and all officers of the rank of major and higher.
Art. XXIX. Commit military crimes: First, those who
fail to grant the necessary protection to foreigners, both in
their persons and property, and those who similarly fail to afford protection to hospitals and ambulances, including persons
and effects which may be found in possession of one or the
other, and those engaged in the service of the same, provided
always they commit no hostile act; second, those who fail
in the respect due to the lives, money, and jewels of enemies
who lay down their arms, and of prisoners of war; third,
Filipinos who place themselves in the service of the enemy,
acting as spies or disclosing to them secrets of war and the
plans of the revolutionary positions and fortifications, and
those who present themselves under a flag of truce without
justifying properly their office and their personality; and,
fourth, those who fail to recognize a flag of truce duly accredited in the form prescribed by international law.
Will commit also military crimes: Those who conspire
against the unity of the revolutionists, provoking rivalry between chiefs, and forming divisions and armed bands; second, those who solicit contributions without authority of the
government and misappropriate the public funds; third,
those who desert to the enemy, or are guilty of cowardice
in the presence of the enemy, being armed; and, fourth,
those who seize the property of any person who has done no
harm to the revolution, violate women, and assassinate or inflict serious wounds on unarmed persons, and who commit
robberies and arson.
Art. XXX. Those who commit the crimes enumerated
will be considered, as declared, enemies of the revolution, and
will incur the penalties prescribed in the Spanish Penal Code,
and in the highest grade.
If the crime shall not be found in the said code, the offender shall be imprisoned until the revolution triumphs, unless the result of this shall be an irreparable damage, which,
in the judgment of the tribunal, shall be a sufficient cause
for imposing the penalty of death.




740


APPENDIX.


ADDITIONAL      CLAUSES.
The government will establish abroad a revolutionary
committee composed of a number, not yet determined, of
persons most competent in the Philippine Archipelago. This
committee will be divided into three delegations: One of
diplomacy, another of the navy, and another of the army.
The delegation of diplomacy will arrange and conduct
negotiations with foreign cabinets with a view to the recognition of the belligerency and independence of the Philippines.
The delegation of the navy will be charged with the
studying and organizing of the Philippine navy and preparing
the expenditures which the necessities of the revolution may
require.
The delegation of the army will study military tactics and
the best form of organization for the general staff, artillery,
and engineers, and whatever else may be necessary in order
to fit out the Philippine army under the conditions required
by modern progress.
Art. XXXII. The government will issue the necessary
instructions for the proper execution of the present decree.
Art. XXXIII. All the decrees of the dictatorial government in conflict with the foregoing are hereby annulled.
Given at Cavite, the 23d of June, I898.
EMILIO AGUINALDO.
E.
INSTRUCTIONS.
Desiring to bring about a proper execution of the decree
dated the 23d of the present month, and to provide that the
administrative measures shall not result hereafter in the
paralysis of public business, but that, on the contrary, it
shall constitute the best guaranty of the regularity, promptitude and fitness in the transaction of public business, I give
the following instructions and decree:
(Then follow ten rules concerning the details of installing
the government.)
Cavite, the 27th of June, 1898.
EMILIO AGUINALDO.




F.
MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION.
If it is true, as it is true, that political revolutions properly
understood are the violent means which people employ to
recover the sovereignty which naturally belongs to them,
usurped and trampled upon by a tyrannical and arbitrary
government, no revolution can be more righteous than that
of the Philippines, because the people have had recourse to it
after having exhausted all the pacific means which reason
and experience could suggest.
The ancient kings of Castile felt obliged to consider the
Philippines as a brother people, united to the Spanish in a
perfect participation of aims and interests, so much so that
when the constitution of 1812 was promulgated at Cadiz, on
account of the war of Spanish independence, these islands
were represented in the Spanish Cortes; but the interests
of the monastic corporations, which have always found unconditional support in the Spanish Government, overcame
this sacred duty and the Philippines remained excluded from
the Spanish constitution and the people at the mercy of the
discretionary or arbitrary powers of the Governor-General.
In this condition the people claimed justice, begged of the
metropolis the recognition and restitution of their secular
rights by means of reforms which should assimilate in a
gradual and progressive manner the Philippines to the Spaniards; but their voice was quickly throttled and their sons
received as the reward of their self-denial deportation, martyrdom, and death. The religious corporations with whose
interests, always opposed to those of the Philippine people,
the Spanish Government has been identified, scoffed at those
pretensions and answered with the knowledge of that government that Spanish liberties had cost blood.
What other recourse then remained to the people for insisting as in duty bound on regaining its former rights? No
alternative remained except force, and convinced of that, it
has had recourse and revolution.
And now it is not limited to asking assimilation to the
741




742


APPENDIX.


Spanish political constitution, but it asks a definite separation
from it. It struggles for its independence in the firm belief
that the time has arrived in which it can and ought to govern
itself.
There has been established a revolutionary government
under wise and just laws, suited to the abnormal circumstances through which it is passing, and which in proper time
will prepare it for a true republic. Thus taking as a sole
model for its acts reason, for its sole end justice, and for its
sole means honorable labor, it calls all Filipinos its sons without distinction of class, and invites them to unite firmly, with
the object of forming a noble society, not based upon blood
nor pompous titles, but upon the work and personal merit of
each one; a free society, where exists neither egotism nor
personal politics, which annihilate and crush; neither envy
nor favoritism, which debase; neither fanfaronade nor charlatanism, which are ridiculous.
And it could not be otherwise. A people which has given
proofs of suffering and valor in tribulation and in danger
and of hard work and study in peace is not destined to slavery; this people is called to be great, to be one of the strongest arms of Providence in ruling the destinies of mankind.
This people has resources and energy sufficient to liberate
itself from the ruin and extinction into which the Spanish
Government has plunged it, and to claim a modest but
worthy place in the concert of free nations.
Given at Cavite the 23d of June, I898.
EMILIO AGUINALDO.
G.
To Foreign Governments:
The revolutionary government of the Philippines on its
establishment explained through the message dated the 23d
of June last the true causes of the Philippine revolution,
showing according to the evidence that this popular movement is the result of the laws which regulate the life of a
people which aspire to progress and to perfection by the sole
road of liberty.
The said revolution now rules in the provinces of Cavite,
Batangas, Mindoro, Tayabas, Laguna, Morong, Bulacan,
Bataan, Pampanga, Nueva-Ecija, Tarlac, Pangasinan, Union,




APPENDIX.


743


Infanta and Zambales, and it holds besieged the capital of
Manila.
In these provinces complete order and perfect tranquillity
reign, administered by the authorities elected by the provinces
in accordance with the organic decrees dated I8th and 23d
of June last.
The revolution holds, moreover, about g,ooo prisoners of
war, who are treated in accordance with the customs of war
between civilized nations and humane sentiments, and at the
end of the war it has more than 30,000 combatants organized
in the form of a regular army.
In this situation the chiefs of the towns, comprised in
the above-mentioned provinces, interpreting the sentiments
which animate those who have elected them, have proclaimed
the independence of the Philippines, petitioning the revolutionary government that it will entreat and obtain from foreign governments recognition of its belligerency and its independence in the firm belief that the Philippine people have
already arrived at that state in which they can and ought to
govern themselves.
This is set forth in the accompanying documents subscribed by the above-named chiefs.
Wherefore the undersigned, by virtue of the powers which
belong to him as president of the revolutionary government
of the Philippines and in the name and representation of
the Philippine people, asks the support of all the powers of
the civilized world, and earnestly entreats them to proceed to
the formal recognition of the belligerency of the revolution
and the independence of the Philippines, since they are the
means designated by Providence to maintain the equilibrium
between peoples, sustaining the weak and restraining the
strong, to the end that by these means shall shine forth and
be realized the most complete justice in the indefinite progress of humanity.
Given at Bacoor, in the Province of Cavite, the 6th day of
August, I898.
The president of the revolutionary government,.*         EMILIO AGUINALDO.




744


APPENDIX.


MR. PRATT TO MR. DAY.
(Confidential.)
No. 212.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Singapore, April 28, I898.
Sir: I have the honor to report that 1 sent you, on the
27th instant, and confirmed in my dispatch No. 2II of that
date, a telegram, which deciphered read as follows:
Secretary of State, Washington:
General Aguinaldo gone my instance Hongkong arrange
with Dewey co-operation insurgents Manila.  PRATT.
The facts are these: On the evening of Saturday, the 23d
instant, I was confidentially informed of the arrival here, incognito, of the supreme leader of the Philippine insurgents,
General Emilio Aguinaldo, by Mr. H. W. Bray, an English
gentleman of high standing, who, after fifteen years' residence as a merchant and planter in the Philippines, had been
compelled by the disturbed condition of things resulting from
Spanish misrule to abandon his property and leave there,
and from whom I had previously obtained much valuable
information for Commodore Dewey regarding fortifications,
coal deposits, etc., at different points in the islands.
Being aware of the great prestige of General Aguinaldo
with the insurgents, and that no one, either at home or
abroad, could exert over them the same influence and control that he could, I determined at once to see him, and, at
my request, a secret interview was accordingly arranged for
the following morning, Sunday, the 24th, in which, besides
General Aguinaldo, were only present the General's trusted
advisers and Mr. Bray, who acted as interpreter.
At this interview, after learning from General Aguinaldo
the state of and object sought to be obtained by the present
insurrectionary movement, which, though absent from the
Philippines, he was still directing, I took it upon myself.
whilst explaining that I had no authority to speak for the
Government, to point out the danger of continuing independent action at this stage; and, having convinced him of the
expediency of co-operating with our fleet, then at Hongkong,
and obtained the assurance of his willingness to proceed
thither and confer with Commodore Dewey to that end,




APPENDIX.


745


should the latter so desire, I telegraphed the Commodore
the same day as follows, through our consul-general at Hongkong:
Aguinaldo, insurgent leader, here. Will come Hongkong;
arrange with Commodore for general co-operation insurgents
Manila if desired. Telegraph.               PRATT.
The Commodore's reply reading thus:
Tell Aguinaldo come soon as possible.   DEWEY.
I received it late that night, and at once communicated to
General Aguinaldo, who, with his aid-de-camp and private
secretary, all under assumed names, I succeeded in getting off
by the British steamer Malacca, which left here on Tuesday,
the 26th.
Just previous to his departure I had a second and last
interview with General Aguinaldo, the particulars of which
I shall give you by next mail.
The General impressed me as a man of intelligence, ability
and courage, and worthy the confidence that had been placed
in him.
I think that in arranging for his direct co-operation with
the commander of our forces I have prevented possible conflict of action and facilitated the work of occupying and administering the Philippines.
If this course of mine meets with the Government's approval, as I trust it may, I shall be fully satisfied; to Mr.
Bray, however, I consider there is due some special recognition for most valuable services rendered.
How that recognition can best be made I leave to you to
decide.
I have, etc.,             E. SPENCER PRATT,
United States Consul-General.
MR. PRATT TO MR. DAY.
No. 213.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Singapore, April 30, I898.
Sir: Referring to my dispatch, No. 212, of the 28th instant, I have the honor to report that in the second and last
interview I had with Gen, Emilio Aguinaldo, on the eve of




746


APPENDIX.


his departure for Hongkong, I enjoined upon him the necessity, under Commodore Dewey's direction, of exerting absolute control over his forces in the Philippines, as no excesses
on their part would be tolerated by the American Government, the President having declared that the present hostilities with Spain were to be carried on in strict accord with
modern principles of civilized warfare.
To this General Aguinaldo fully assented, assuring me that
he intended, and was perfectly able, once in the field, to hold
his followers, the insurgents, in check and lead them as our
commander should direct.
The General further stated that he hoped the United States
would assume protection of the Philippines for at least long
enough to allow the inhabitants to establish a government of
their own, in the organization of which he would desire
American advice and assistance.
These questions I told him I had no authority to discuss.
I have, etc.,             E. SPENCER PRATT,
United States Consul-General.
MR. PRATT TO MR. DAY.
No. 223.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Singapore, May 20, I898.
Sir: I have the honor to submit for your consideration
a proclamation in Spanish, issued prior to the departure of
our fleet for Manila by the insurgent leaders in Hongkong,
calling upon the Filipinos not to obey the appeal of the
Spaniards to oppose the Americans, but to rally in support
of these, as they came as their friends and liberators.
Three copies of the English translation of the above I also
enclose for handing to the press, should that, in your opinion, seem advisable.
I have the honor to be,   E. SPENCER PRATT,
United States Consul-General.
(Inclosure.)
AMERICA'S ALLIES-THE MANIFESTO OF THE
FILIPINOS.
The following is a translation from the Spanish of a proclamation of the rebel leaders in Hongkong, sent over to the
Philippines in advance of the American squadron:




APPENDIX.


747


Compatriots: Divine Providence is about to place independence within our reach, and in a way the most free and
independent nation could hardly wish for.
The Americans, not from mercenary motives, but f9r the
sake of humanity and the lamentations of so many persecuted people, have considered it opportune to extend their
protecting mantle to our beloved country, now that they
have been obliged to sever relations with Spain, owing to the
tyranny this nation is exercising in Cuba, causing enormous
injury to the Americans, who have such large commercial
and other interests there.
At the present moment an American squadron is preparing to sail for the Philippines.
We, your brothers, are very much afraid that you may
be induced to fire on the Americans. No, brothers, never
make this mistake. Rather blow your own brains out than
fire a shot or treat as enemies those who are your liberators.
Your natural enemies, your executioners, the authors of
your misery and unhappiness, are the Spaniards, who govern
you. Against these you must raise your weapons and odium;
understand well, against the Spaniards, and never against the
Americans.
Take no notice of the decree of the Governor-General
calling you to arms, although it may cost you your lives.
Rather die than be ungrateful to our American liberators.
The Governor-General call you to arms. What for? To
defend your Spanish tyrants? To defend those that have
despised you, and even in public speeches asked for your
extermination-those that have treated you little better than
savages? No! No! A thousand times no!
Give a glance at history and you will see that all Spain's
wars in Oceania have sacrificed Philippine blood. We have
been put to fight in Cochin-China to assist the French in an
affair that in no way concerned the Philippines. We were
compelled to spill our blood by Simon de Anda against the
English, who, in any case, would have made better rulers
than the Spaniards. Every year our children are taken away
to be sacrificed in Mindanao and Sulu, on the pretense of
making us believe these people are our enemies, when in
reality they are our brothers, like us fighting for their independence.
After having sacrificed our blood against the English,




748


APPENDIX.


against the Annamites, against the people of Mindanao, etc.,
what recompense or thanks have we received from the Spanish Government? Obscurity, poverty, the butchery of those
dear to us. Enough, brothers, of this Spanish tutelage.
Take note, the Americans will attack by sea and prevent
any re-enforcements coming from Spain; therefore we insurgents must attack by land. Probably you will have more
than sufficient arms, because the Americans have arms and
will find means to assist us.
There, where you see the American flag flying, assemble
in numbers; they are our redeemers.
Our unworthy names are as nothing, but one and all of
us invoke the name of the greatest patroit our country has
seen, in the sure and certain hope that his spirit will be with
us in these moments and guide us to victory-our immortal
Jose Rizal.
MR. PRATT TO MR. DAY.
No. 225.       Consulate-General of the United States,
Singapore, June 2, I898.
Sir: I have the honor to submit inclosed a telegram
from Hongkong, of the 25th ultimo, on the situation in the
Philippines, published in Singapore yesterday afternoon, the
Ist instant.
Considering the enthusiastic manner General Aguinaldo
has been received by the "natives and the confidence with
which he already appears to have inspired Admiral Dewey,
it will be admitted, I think, that I did not overrate his importance and that I have materially assisted the cause of the
United States in the Philippines in securing his co-operation.
Why this co-operation should not have been secured to
us during the months General Aguinaldo remained awaiting
events in Hongkong, and that he was allowed to leave there
without having been approached in the interest of our Government, I can not understand.
No close observer of what had transpired in the Philippines during the past four years could have failed to recognize that General Aguinaldo enjoyed above all others the
confidence of the Filipino insurgents and the respect alike




APPENDIX.


749


of Spaniards and foreigners in the islands, all of whom
vouched for his high sense of justice and honor.
I have the honor to be, etc. E. SPENCER PRATT,
United States Consul-General.
(Inclosure in Dispatch No. 225.)
(The Singapore Free Press, Wednesday, June I, I898.
Hongkong Telegraph, 25th.)
THE WAR-THE SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES.
The Japanese cruiser Akitsushima arrived here yesterday
from Manila, and the following is the latest news:
General Aguinaldo arrived by the McCulloch on the I9th
instant, and was received with great enthusiasm by the natives.
Admiral Dewey was very much pleased with him, and has
turned over to him two modern field pieces and 300 rifles,
with plenty of ammunition.
General Aguinaldo is now organizing an attack on the
Spanish land forces, and a decisive battle may be expected
soon.
The Manila papers are publishing sensational articles
hourly, among which is that the U. S. S. Baltimore is so used
up in the late engagement that the American admiral decided
to scuttle her.
MR. PRATT TO MR. DAY.
No. 229.       Consulate-General of the United States,
Singapore, June 9, 1898.
Sir: I have the honor to report that this afternoon, on
the occasion of the receipt of the news of General Aguinaldo's recent successes near Manila, I was waited upon by
the Philippine residents in Singapore and presented an address which, though written in Spanish, was delivered in
French, and which I accordingly replied to in that language.
The reports of the proceedings sent me by the editors of
the Singapore Free Press and Straits Times, both of whom
were present, I submit herewith, with duplicates for the
press should you consider their publication desirable.
The original address in Spanish was not left with me, but




750


APPENDIX.


I am promised it as soon as properly written out, and will
then forward it.
My reply, however, I can not forward, as it was not
written, but extemporaneous, and has been correctly rendered from the French into English in the within reports,
from which you will note that I avoided touching upon the
question of our future policy re the Philippines.
I have the honor, etc.,   E. SPENCER PRATT,
United States Consul-General.
(Inclosures-The Straits Times, June 9.)
Mr. Spencer Pratt Serenaded-Meeting of Filipino Refugees
at the United States Consulate-They present an address to Mr. Spencer Pratt and drink to America, England, and Admiral Dewey.
The United States consulate at Singapore was yesterday
afternoon in an unusual state of bustle. That bustle extended
itself to Raffles' Hotel, of which the Consulate forms an
outlying part. From a period shortly prior to 5 o'clock,
afternoon, the natives of the Philippines resident in Singapore began to assemble at the consulate. Their object was
partly to present an address to Hon. Spencer Pratt, United
States consul-general, and partly to serenade him, for which
purpose some twenty-five or thirty of the Filipinos came
equipped with musical instruments. Gradually the crowd
gathered in the vicinity of the United States consulate, and,
after a little quiet preliminary music, Dr. Santos, as representing the Philippine community in Singapore, proceeded to
read the following address, which was originally drafted in
Spanish and then translated into French. The address was
read in French, and the following is an English translation:
THE ADDRESS.
"To the Hon. Edward Spencer Pratt, consul-general of the
United States of North America, Singapore:
"Sir: The Philippine colony resident in this port, composed of representatives of all social classes, have come to
present their respects to you as the legitimate representative
of the great and powerful American Republic, in order to
express our eternal gratitude for the moral and material




APPENDIX.


75I


protection extended by Admiral Dewey to our trusted
leader, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, who has been driven to take
up arms in the name of 8,ooo,ooo Filipinos, in defense of those
very principles of justice and liberty of which your country
is the foremost champion. Our countrymen at home, and
those of us residing here, refugees from Spanish misrule
and tyranny in our beloved native land, hope that the
United States, your nation, persevering in its humane policy
will efficaciously second the program arranged between you,
sir, and General Aguinaldo in this port of Singapore, and
secure to us our independence under the protection of the
United States. Our warmest thanks are especially due to
you, sir, personally, for having been the first to cultivate
relations with General Aguinaldo, and arrange for the cooperation with Admiral Dewey, thus supporting our aspirations which time and subsequent actions have developed and
caused to meet with the applause and approbation of your
nation. Finally, we request you to convey to your illustrious President and the American people, and to Admiral
Dewey, our sentiments of sincere gratitude and our most
fervent wishes for their prosperity.
"Singapore, June 8, I898."
Dr. Santos, having presented the above address to Mr.
Spencer Pratt, proceeded, speaking in French, to state his
belief that the Filipinos would prove and were now proving
themselves fit for self-government. While it would be very
desirable that such a government should be under American
protection, yet it would be found that the brave Filipinos,
who were now driving the Spanish troops before them, were
quite fit also to fill offices of civil administration. Referring
to certain news which had been telegraphed from Europe,
Dr. Santos deprecated the transfer of the Philippines from
Spain to any power. He was quite confident that the sympathy of the American people would be with a nation who
were struggling to be free.
THE UNITED STATES CONSUL-GENERAL REPLIES.
After listening to the address the United States consulgeneral, also speaking in French, said:
"Gentlemen, the honor you have conferred upon me is




752


APPENDIX.


so unexpected that I can not find appropriate words with
which to thank you and with which to reply to the eloquent
address you have just read to me. Rest assured, though.
that I fully understand and sincerely appreciate the motives
that have prompted your present action, and that your words,
which have sunk deep in my heart, shall be faithfully repeated to the President, to Admiral Dewey, and to the
American people-from whom I am sure that they will meet
with full and generous response. A little over a montIr ago
the world resounded with the praises of Admiral Dewey and
his fellow officers and men for a glorious victory won by
the American Asiatic Squadron in the Bay of Manila. Now,
we have news of the brilliant achievements of your own distinguished leader, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, co-operating on
land with the Americans at sea. You have just reason to
be proud of what has been and is being accomplished by
General Aguinaldo and your fellow countrymen under his
command. When, six weeks ago, I learned that General
Aguinaldo had arrived incognito in Singapore, I immediately
sought him out. An hour's interview convinced me that he
was the man for the occasion; and, having communicated with
Admiral Dewey, I accordingly arranged for him to join
the latter, which he did, at Cavite. The rest you know.
"I am thankful to have been the means, though merely
the accidental means, of bringing about the arrangement between General Aguinaldo and Admiral Dewey, which has resulted so happily. I can only hope that the eventful outcome will be all that can be desired for the happiness and
welfare of the Filipinos. My parting words to General Aguinaldo were, 'General, when you have proved yourself great,
prove yourself magnanimous,' and from the treatment accorded to the recent Spanish prisoners it would appear that
he had done so." (Applause.)
At the conclusion of Mr. Pratt's speech refreshments
were served, and as the Filipinos, being Christians, drink
alcohol, there was no difficulty in arranging as to refreshments. "Long life and prosperity" were drunk} to Mr.
Consul-General Spencer Pratt. Then the American Republic was cheered. Then Commodore Dewey was cheered
for his gallant victory. Then England was cheered for
sheltering the Filipino refugees.




APPENDIX.                     753
PRESENTING      A  FLAG.
Then Dr. Santos, as the spokesman of the Filipino
refugees, again addressed the audience with many complimentary remarks on the gallantry of Admiral Dewey and
the skill and foresight of United States Consul-General
Pratt, and with glowing forecasts of the prosperity that
awaited the Philippine Islands under the new regime. He
expressed a desire to have an American flag as a reminiscence
of the day's proceedings. Mr. Spencer Pratt, again speaking in French, replied, saying:
"This flag was borne in battle, and is the emblem of that
very liberty that you are seeking to attain. Its red stripes
represent the blood that was shed for the cause; the white
represents the purity of the motive; the blue field stands for
the azure of the sky; the stars are the free and independent
States of the Union. Take the flag and keep it as a souvenir
of this occasion."
At the conclusion. of Mr. Pratt's speech, he handed an
American flag to Dr. Santos, who received it reverently, and
waved it exultantly amidst the cheers of the assembled Filipinos. The flag would, said Dr. Santos, be preserved so
that future generations might look at it with pride.
MR. DAY TO MR. PRATT.
(Telegram.)
Department of State, June I6, 1898.
Two hundred twelve received and answered. Avoid unauthorized negotiations with Philippine insurgents.
DAY.
No. 78.
MR. DAY TO MR. PRATT.
Department of State,
Washington, June i6, 1898.
Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of your confidential
dispatch No. 212, of the 28th of April last, in which you report your proceedings in bringing together the insurgent
general, Emilio Aguinaldo, and Admiral Dewey, before the
latter's departure for Manila. It appears that your meeting
with General Aguinaldo was brought about through the
good offices of Mr. H. W. Bray, a British subject, who has
been compelled by the disturbed condition of things in the




754


APPENDIX.


Philippines to abandon his property and business there, and
that, after an interview with General Aguinaldo, you telegraphed to Admiral Dewey that the insurgent leader would
come to Hongkong to arrange for a general co-operation of
the insurgents, if this should be desired. The admiral telegraphed in reply: "Tell Aguinaldo come as soon as possible." As a consequence General Aguinaldo, with his aidde-camp and private secretary, left Singapore for Hongkong on the 26th of April for the purpose of joining Admiral
Dewey. You promise the department a fuller account of
your interview with General Aguinaldo by the next mail,
and say that in arranging for his "direct co-operation" with
the commander of the United States forces you have prevented a possible conflict of action and facilitated the work
of occupying and administering the Philippines.
The department observes that you informed General
Aguinaldo that you had no authority to speak for the United
States; and, in the absence of the fuller report which you
promise, it is assumed that you did not attempt to commit
this Government to any alliance with the Philippine insurgents. To obtain the unconditional personal assistance of
General Aguinaldo in the expedition to Manila was proper,
if in so doing he was not induced to form hopes which it
might not be practical to gratify. The Government has
known the Philippine insurgents only as discontented and
rebellious subjects of Spain, and is not acquainted with
their purposes. While their contest with that power has been
a matter of public notoriety, they have neither asked nor
received from this Government any recognition. The
United States, in entering upon the occupation of the islands,
as the result of its military operations in that quarter, will do
so in the exercise of the rights which the state of war confers, and will expect from the inhabitants, without regard to
their former attitude toward the Spanish Government, that
obedience which will be lawfully due from them.
'~ If, in the course of your conferences with General Aguinaldo, you acted upon the assumption that this Government
would co-operate with him for the furtherance of any plan
of his own, or that, in accepting his co-operation, it would
consider itself pledged to recognize any political claims which
he may put forward, your action was unauthorized and can
not be approved.       Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM    R. DAY.




APPENDIX.


755


MR. DAY TO MR. PRATT.
No. 87.                       Department of State,
Washington, July 20, I898.
Sir: Your No. 229 of the 9th ultimo, inclosing printed
copies of a report from the Straits Times of the same day,
entitled "Mr. Spencer Pratt's Serenade," with a view to its
communication to the press, has been received and considered.
By department's telegram of the I7th of June you were instructed to avoid unauthorized negotiations with the Philippine insurgents. The reasons for this instruction were
conveyed to you in my No. 78 of the i6th of June, by which
the President's views on the subject of your relations with
General Aguinaldo were fully expressed.
The extract now communicated by you from the Straits
Times of the 9th of June has occasioned a feeling of disquietude and a doubt as to whether some of your acts may
not have borne a significance and produced an impression
which this Government would be compelled to regret.
The address presented to you by the twenty-five or thirty
Filipinos who gathered about the consulate discloses an
understanding on their part that the object of Admiral Dewey
was to support the cause of General Aguinaldo, and that the
ultimate object of our action is to secure the independence of
the Philippines "under the protection of the United States."
Your address does not repel this implication, and it
moreover represents that General Aguinaldo was "sought
out by you," whereas it had been the understanding of the
Department that you received him only upon the request of
a British subject named Bray, who formerly lived in the
Philippines. Your further reference to General Aguinaldo as
"the man for the occasion," and to your "bringing about"
the "arrangement" between "General Aguinaldo and Admiral
Dewey which has resulted so happily," also represents the
matter in a light which causes apprehension lest your action
may have laid the ground of future misunderstandings and
complications.
For these reasons the Department has not caused the
article to be given to the press, lest it might seem thereby to
lend a sanction to views the expression of which it had not
authorized.              Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM R. DAY.




756


APPENDIX.


MR. PRATT TO MR. MOORE.
No. 236.      Consulate-General of the United States,
Singapore, June 2I, I898.
Sir: In continuation of my dispatch No. 235, of the
2oth instant, I beg to state that if, in regard to General
Aguinaldo, I arranged directly with Commodore Dewey
without obtaining the Department's previous authorization it
was because of the little time there was in which to act and
the practical impossibility of explaining by cable to the
Department the value of the general's co-operation, of which
I felt the commodore would already be in a position to judge
from what he must have learned of the situation while at
Hongkong.
I beg further to state that it was not only on account of
the material aid I was confident he could lend us that I regarded the co-operation of General Aguinaldo as so desirable,
but also because, as the recognized leader of the insurgents,
he was, I considered, the one best able to direct and influence
them, and therefore the one most important for our commander to have under immediate control, both as concerned
the present and future policy of our Government in the
Philippines, whatever that policy might be.
Had it not been arranged for General Aguinaldo thus to
co-operate with us it is more than probable that he would
have returned to the islands of his own accord and undertaken independent operations, which might, I fear, have
caused us serious embarrassment. I am not having, nor do
I propose to have, any further dealings here with the Philippine insurgents.
I have the honor, etc.,  E. SPENCER PRATT,
United States Consul-General.




EMILIO AGUINALDO TO THE
PRESIDENT.
(Translation.)
Cavite, June Io, 1898.
To the President of the Republic of the Great North American Nation:
Dear and Honored Sir: I come to greet you with the
most tender effusion of my soul, and to express to you my
deep and sincere gratitude, in the name of the unfortunate
Philippine people, for the efficient and disinterested protection which you have decided to give it, to shake off the yoke
of the cruel and corrupt Spanish domination, as you are
doing to the equally unfortunate Cuba, which Spain wishes to
see annihilated rather than free and independent, giving her,
to quiet her and cicatrize the deep wounds made in her heart
by the iniquities committed upon her children, a false autonomy, of which one bold blow of the Governor-General
may deprive her immediately, as she has no colonial army to
serve as a counterpoise to the almost sovereign powers of that
supreme authority.
At the same time, as I am always frank and open, I must
express to you the great sorrow which all of us Filipinos felt
on reading in the Times, a newspaper of the greatest circulation and reputation in the whole world, in its issue of the 5th
of last month, the astounding statement that you, sir, will retain these islands until the end of the war, and, if Spain fails
to pay the indemnity, will sell them to a European power,
preferably Great Britain. But we found a palliative to our
sorrow in the improbability and suddenness of that statement,
as common sense refuses to believe that so sensible a public
man as you would venture to make an assertion so contrary
to common sense, before events are entirely consummated, as
you well know that if God favors the triumph of your arms
to-day, to-morrow He may defeat them and give the victory
to Spain, and because such an assertion is not consistent with
the protection of which you make a boast toward this unfortunate people, which has been groaning for more than
757




758


APPENDIX.


three centuries in the clutches of a nation which has for its
shield (emblem) the lion, one of the ferocious animals, although she displays it as a symbol of nobility, which she
certainly does not possess, besides the fact that it is opposed
to your noble and generous sentiments to wish to sell these
islands to a European power such as England, thereby making us pass under the domination of that nation, which, although it has a truly liberal government, partakes none the
less of the nature of a tyranny as it is monarchical.
Oh, sir, you are greatly injured by this statement, which
ought to be regarded merely as a diplomatic trick invented by
the friends of Spain to induce us to help her by using this vile
slander which has been hurled against you to arouse our
hostility to that powerful nation over whose destinies you
happily preside.
The Philippine people, however, have not given credit to
that awkwardly invented fable, and have seen in your nation,
ever since your fleet destroyed in a moment the Spanish fleet
which was here, in spite of its being assisted by the guns of
their two forts, the angel who is the harbinger of their
liberty; and they rose like a single wave when, as soon as I
trod these shores, I addressed them to gain them over; and
they captured, within the period of ten days, nearly the whole
garrison of this Province of Cavite, in whose port I have my
government-by the consent of the admiral of your triumphant fleet-as well as the garrison of the adjoining
Province of Bataam, together with the governors and officials
of both provinces; and my valiant hosts are now besieging
Manila, the capital, on the south and east, while my forces
in the Province of Bulacan, which adjoins this province on
the north, and the chief town of which is likewise being besieged by them, nearly surround Manila on the north.
Such is the astonishing triumph which this suffering people has gained in a few days over the conquering race whose
traditional valor, of which it is continually bragging, has been
humbled on these battlefields and has been succeeded by a
great terror; and a people of such warlike qualities, which is,
moreover, thoroughly civilized, as nearly two-thirds of them
can read and write, and as they have in their midst many
men of high attainments in the sciences and arts, should not
be sold as if it were a lamb to be sacrificed and exploited for
the greed of another nation.
I close by protesting once and a thousand times, in the




APPENDIX.                    759
name of this people, which knows how to fight for its honor
by means of its improvised warriors and artillery men, against
the statement published by the Times, mainly for the purpose of casting a blot in history upon its glorious name; a
people which trusts blindly in you not to abandon it to the
tyranny of Spain, but to leave it free and independent, even
if you make peace with Spain, and I offer fervent prayers for
the ever-increasing prosperity of your powerful nation, to
which and to you I shall show unbounded gratitude, and
shall repay with interest that great obligation.
Your humble servant,
EMILIO AGUINALDO.




EMILIO AGUINALDO TO MR. WILLIAMS.
August I, 1898.
Mr. Williams:
Dear Sir and Distinguished Friend: Impressed by the
note of July 8 past, I can only confess that the people of
North America have excited, and now excite, the universal
admiration not only for the grade of progress and culture
to which they have arrived in a very short time, but also for
their political constitution, so admirable and inimitable, and
for the generosity, honesty, and industry of the men of the
Government who have so far ruled the destinies of that great
people without an equal in history.
Above all, I thank you sincerely for the kind words which
you express in your note quoted above, and I congratulate
you with all sincerity on the acuteness and ingenuity which
you have displayed in it in painting in an admirable manner
the benefits which, especially for me and my leaders, and, in
general, for all my compatriots, would be secured by the
union of these islands with the United States of America.
Ah! that picture, so happy and so finished, is capable of fascinating not only the dreamy imagination of the impressionable Oriental, but also the cold and calculating thoughts of
the sons of the North.
This is not saying that I am not of your opinion. I am
fully persuaded that the Filipinos will arrive at the height
of happiness and glory if in future they can show with raised
heads the rights which to-day are shown by the free citizens
of North America. 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 since
you are my friend and the friend of the Filipinos and have
said it. But why should we say it? Will my people believe it?
I, with true knowledge of the character and habits of
these people, do not dare assure you of it, since I have only
wished to establish a government in order that none of those
powers whioh you call ambitious should be able to take ad760




APPENDIX.


76i


vantage of our good faith, as has been done in the past by
the Spaniards. I have done what they desire, establishing a
government in order that nothing important may be done
without consulting fully their sovereign will, not only because
it was my duty, but also because acting in any other manner
they would fail to recognize me as the interpreter of their
aspirations and would punish me as a traitor, replacing me
by another more careful of his own honor and dignity.
I have said always, and I now repeat, that we recognize
the right of the North Americans to our gratitude, for we do
not forget for a moment the favors which we have received
and are now receiving, but however great those favors may
be it is not possible for me to remove the distrust of my
compatriots.
These say that if the object of the United States is to
annex these islands, why not recognize the government established in them in order in that manner to join with it the
same as by annexation?
Why do not the American generals operate in conjunction
with the Filipino generals and, uniting the forces, render the
end more decisive?
Is it intended, indeed, to carry out annexation against the
wish of these people, distorting the legal sense of that word?
If the revolutionary government is the genuine representative by right and deed of the Filipino people, as we have
proved when necessary, why is it wished to oppress instead
of gaining their confidence and friendship?
It is useless for me to represent to my compatriots the
favors received through Admiral Dewey, for they assert that
up to the present the American forces have shown not an
active, only a passive co-operation, from which they suppose that the intention of these forces are not for the best.
They assert, besides, that it is possible to suppose that I was
brought from Hongkong to assure those forces by my presence that the Filipinos would not make common cause with
the Spaniards, and that they have delivered to the Filipinos
the arms abandoned by the former in the Cavite Arsenal, in
order to save themselves much labor, fatigue, blood, and
treasure that a war with Spain would cost.
But I do not believe these unworthy suspicions. I have
full confidence in the generosity and philanthropy which shine
in characters of gold in the history of the privileged people of
the United States, and for that reason, invoking the friend



762


APPENDIX.


ship which you profess for me and the love which you have
for my people, I pray you earnestly, as also the distinguished
generals who represent your country in these islands, that
you entreat the Government at Washington to recognize the
revolutionary government of the Filipinos, and I, for my
part, will labor with all my power with my people that the
United States shall not repent their sentiments of humanity
in coming to the aid of an oppressed people.
Say to the Government at Washington that the Filipino
people abominate savagery, that in the midst of their past
misfortunes they have learned to love liberty, order, justice,
and civil life, and that they are not able to lay aside their
own wishes when their future lot and history are under discussion. Say, also, that I and my leaders know what we owe
to our unfortunate country, that we know how to admire
and are ready to imitate the disinterestedness, the abnegation, and the patriotism of the grand men of America, among
whom stands pre-eminent the immortal General Washington.
You and I both love the Filipinos; both see their progress, their prosperity, and their greatness. For this we
should avoid any conflict which would be fatal to the interests
of both peoples, who should always be brothers. In this you
will acquire a name in the history of humanity and an
ineradicable affection in the hearts of the Filipino people.
(From General Aguinaldo to Mr. Williams, United States
Consul.)




to~




v.
il




I




I




Oi




I
















THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DATE DUE
All ul 9 2UOQ
WQ 1.D




UJNIVFRSITY OF MICHIGAN
II 901      01690 liii 119411
3 9015 01690 1194


-tPR I"  A r m
a0S-PR n aqn3p


Reviewed by Pre;v^tji." / /




T:f
I
I.,t}