SPEEC H 
 
 OF 
 
 Hon. JOHN B. HENDERSON, 
 
 DELIVERED ]>EFORE 
 
 The Pike Ccuinty Colony of St. Louis, at its 
 Annual Dinner on Febiuarv 25, 1899, in 
 reply to the toast " Our Nation, State and 
 County." 
 
 Mr. President and Gentlemen : 
 
 Yonr toast is so broad as to create some confusion in select- 
 ing the most appropriate line of thonght. Presuming, how- 
 ever, that a reference to the political questions growing out of 
 the late Spanish war, and to the probable consequences of 
 continued strife in Asia, may prove acceptable, I shall venture 
 to submit to you not a speech, but a mere statement of some 
 important facts connected with our history as a nation, coupled 
 with references to a few legal authorities, which, I hope, may 
 tend to elucidate some controverted questions of the day. 
 
 During the Revolutionary War large bodies of unoccuj)ied 
 lands, some of them extending out to the Mississippi river, 
 were claimed by some of the States. New York claimed Ver- 
 mont, and so did New Hampshire ; Virginia claimed what was 
 known as the Northwest Territory, lying between the Ohio 
 and Mississippi rivers, including the lanJ now covered by 
 the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and 
 that part of Minnesota lying east of the Mississippi river. 
 
 E 
 7/3 
 
 <\ 
 
2 
 
 In addition to this, Virginia owned what is now Kentucky: 
 North Carolina claimed the territory now covered by Ten- 
 nessee; Connecticut claimed the western reserve in Ohio, and 
 Massachusetts claimed Maine. Other States made similar 
 claims. As early as 1779 some of the States began to insist 
 that it would be inequitable and unjust for them to join the 
 Confederacy and ho compelled to defend this vast outlying- 
 territory, unless the lauds should thereafter be owned and 
 enjoyed by the whole Union. Thus it is that we, as a Union 
 of States, acquired territory long before the Constitution was 
 adopted ; and it is pertinent to our present politics to ascertain 
 the terms and conditions on which it was obtained and held. 
 
 The Maryland instructions to its delegates in the old Con- 
 gress of the Confederacy declared that the territory, '• if 
 wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of 
 the thirteen States, should be considerpd as a common prop- 
 erty, subject to be parcelled out by Congress into free, con- 
 venient, and independent governments, in such manner and at 
 such times as the wisdom of that assembly shall hereafter 
 direct." 
 
 In October, 1780, the Congress of the Confederation acted 
 on these suggestions and passed a resolution as follows: 
 
 "■liesolved, That the unappropriated lauds that may be 
 ceded to the United States by any particular State, j^ursuant 
 to the recommendation of Congress .. . . shall be disposed of 
 for the common benefits of the United States and be settled 
 and formed into distinct republican States, which shall be- 
 come members of the federal Union, and have the same rights 
 of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States." 
 
 In the celebrated ordinance of 1787, passed by the Congress 
 of the Confederation, for the government of that large body 
 of land which had been ceded by Virginia, almost the entire 
 Bill of Rights, afterwards inserted in the Federal Constitution, 
 was incorporated. The second, third, and fourth articles of 
 that act contain all the essential guaranties of human liberty. 
 Slavery was expressly' interdicted, and civil liberty in its purest 
 
forms was secured by fundamental law, and the right of ad- 
 mission as States was expresslj' ordained. And even the 
 Indian Avas not forgotten. '• Their lands and property," said 
 the ordinance, " shall never be taken from them without their 
 consent, and in their property, rights, and liberty they shall 
 never be invaded or disturbed."' 
 
 Now if you will bear in mind that, when the Constitution 
 was subsequently framed, the original thirteen States of the 
 Confederacy already owned this vast territory which had been 
 ceded to the Union by the several States for the common 
 benefit, you will readily understand the necessity for, and the 
 meaning of, the following provision of the Constitution, to wit: 
 
 " 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 an claims 
 of the United States or of any particular State." 
 
 The men of my age, if any now in my hearing, will remem- 
 ber the long and exciting discussions between 1848 and 1860, 
 touching the meaning of this provision. In the light of con- 
 temporaneous history, the true construction of this clause is 
 almost forced upon our understandings. In some cases agree- 
 ments to transfer territory had been made by some of the 
 States, but the final deeds of cession had .ot been executed. 
 In other words, the titles to parts of the territory' were in an 
 inchoate state ; and it was especially necessary to give as little 
 offense as possible to those States whose consent to the Con- 
 stitution might become necessary to its adoption, and to the 
 organization of the new government under it. Hence it was 
 essential to provide that the Constitution, if adopted, would 
 leave all these titles, whether of the General Government or 
 of the States, in statu quo. 
 
 In all cases where the title had already passed to the Con- 
 federated States, the new government would necessarily become 
 the owner of the lands. The new government, under the 
 Constitution proposed, being one of strictly delegated powers, 
 
it became necessary, of course, to invest Congress witli author- 
 ity to dispose of the lands. And hence the provision author- 
 izing Congress "' to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting the territory or other property belong- 
 ing to the United States." 
 
 The clause clearly shows that the extent of the rules and 
 regulations provided for respected not the inhabitants, for 
 they had been carefully secured in all their rights in the deeds 
 of cession, but they respected solely the sale and disposition 
 of the lauds as property ; and this is abundantly proved by 
 the Avords "territory or other property belonging to the 
 United States.'" In no view of construction could the inhab- 
 itants themselves belong to the United States ; and the words 
 •'other pio])erty '" absolutely compel the conclusion that the 
 word "territory " was used in the context as one of the species 
 of property belonging to the Union. The old Confederacy 
 owned a number of forts, sorue of which w-ere still held by 
 Great Britain under the treaty of peace concluded in 1783, be- 
 cause of our inability, so far, to make restitution for the 
 numerous confiscations made upon the property of Tories and 
 British subjects dining the Revolutionary War, which restitu- 
 tion had been pledged l)y the stipulations of that treaty. 
 
 To this (juestion of ownership of territory under com- 
 pleted and contemplated grants by States, during the ex- 
 istence of the old Confederacy, may be attributed the in- 
 corporation of several other provisions of the Constitution, 
 notably the one declaring that " new States may be admitted 
 by the Congress into this Union." The deeds of cession had 
 themselves specially provided for such admission of States, 
 and this provision was essential to enable the new government 
 to carry out the obligations of the previous government. Con- 
 temporaneous history makes clear also the remainder of this 
 latter section. At that time the present State of Tennessee, 
 under the name of " Franklin,'' was preparing to secede from 
 North Carolina, of which it was a part, and the following ad- 
 ditional provisions were inserted : " But no new State shall be 
 formed or erected within the iurisdiction of any other State ; 
 
nor auy State formed by the juuction 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." 
 
 These threatened troubles were afterwards adjusted by con- 
 sent of the parties interested, and by the subsequent admis- 
 sion into the Union of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vermont. 
 
 Another clause was thought to be necessary because of 
 provisions, in the deeds of cession, requiring that these terri- 
 tories should be divided into convenient boundaries and ad- 
 mitted as States into the Union, on an equal footing with the 
 original thirteen States, whenever they had, respectively, sixty 
 thousand inhabitants ; provided that their constitutions and 
 government should be republican in form ; hence came the 
 4:th section of the -ith article of the Constitution, providing that 
 " the United States shall guarantee to every State in this 
 Union a republican form of government.'" 
 
 It may be safely asserted, I think, that all these provisions 
 of the Constitution which I have quoted were framed to meet 
 the exigencies named — conditions already existing when the 
 Constitution was framed. 
 
 And I think it may also be safely affirmed that further ac- 
 quisitions of territory, either by purchase or by conquest, bad 
 not then occurred to American statesmen. James Madison, 
 who has been properly called the father of the Constitution, 
 was Secretary of State in 1803, when Mr. Jefferson concluded 
 the purchase of the Louisiana territory from France ; and both 
 he and Mr. Jefferson are on record as totally denying the 
 power to have made that treaty, or for the Government of the 
 United States, under any circumstances, to acquire and hold 
 territory, except under the constitutional authority to admit 
 States upon the voluntary consent of their inhabitants. 
 
 It was the opinion of John Adams, and his son John Quincy 
 Adams, and equally the opinion of Daniel Webster. 
 
 This purchase was made under a great emergency, and to re- 
 move the imminent danger of a secession of the Southwestern 
 States, lying on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, from the Union. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson likened his action to that of a guardian invest- 
 
6 
 
 ing- the funds of Lis ward, and afterwards seeking bis conseut 
 to the investment to give it vahdity. He afterwards drafted 
 an amendment to the Coustitution in the hope to legalize this 
 infraction and to avoid in the future the dangers of the prec- 
 edent. 
 
 But I now distinctly wai\e all questions of authority for 
 the acquisition of territory, and I am willing to accept the 
 opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, interpreting the Florida 
 treaty of 1819, in the case of American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 
 and reported in 1 Peters, in which he placed the power to 
 acquire territory on the treaty-making clause of the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 But while I accept this and subsequent decisions of that 
 great court, I accept them in the precise terms in which they 
 have been rendered. I accept them because the acquisition 
 of territory ceases to be dangerous when the people inhabit- 
 ing them are to be clothed by the Constitution with the full 
 panoply of American freedom. 
 
 All Treaties Acquiring Territory Historically Considered. 
 
 I now proceed to show you the provisions of former 
 treaties under which territory has been acquired b}'^ the United 
 States, and then briefly to examine the judicial interpreta- 
 tions of those treaues; and, after doing- so, I shall ask you to 
 consider the difference between them and the late Spanish 
 treaty. 
 
 From the treaty with France, known as the Louisiana treaty, 
 concluded April 30, 1803, I copy the following article, num- 
 bered 3, in the following words : 
 
 " The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated 
 in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as pos- 
 sible, 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 liberty, 
 property, and the religion which they profess." 
 
From the treaty with Spain, kuown as the Florida Purchase, 
 concluded February 22, 1819, ratified February 22, 1821, I 
 read Article 6 : 
 
 '• The inhabitants of tlie territories which His Catholic 
 Majt-sty cedes to the United States, b}- 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." 
 
 From the treaty with Mexico, concluded February 2, 1848, 
 I shall omit Articles 8 and 9, and read from the protocol of 
 May 26, 1848, by which the 9th Article was striken out and the 
 Gth Article of the Louisiana treaty was substituted, in the 
 following language : 
 
 '• 1st. The American Government b}' suppressing the 9th 
 Article of the Treat}^ of Guadalupe Hidalgo and substituting 
 the 3d Article of the Treaty of Louisiana did not intend to 
 diminish in any way what was agreed upon by the aforesaid 
 Article 9th in favor of the inhabitants of the territories 
 ceded by Mexico. Its understanding is, that all of that agree- 
 ment is contained in the 3d Article of the Treaty of Louisiana. 
 In consecjuence, all the privileges and gurau tees, civil, political, 
 and religious, which would have been possessed by the in- 
 habitants of the ceded territories, if the 9th Article of the 
 treaty had been retained, will be enjoyed by them, without any 
 difference, under the article which has been substituted." 
 
 The treaty with Mexico, concluded December 30, 1854, pro- 
 claimed June 30, 1854, known as the Gadsden Purchase, pro- 
 vides as follows : 
 
 "Article V. 
 
 '"All the provisions of the eighth and ninth, sixteenth and 
 seventeenth Articles of the Treaty of Guadaluj^e Hidalgo, shall 
 apply to the territory ceded by the Mexican Republic in the 
 first Article of the present treaty, and to all the rights of per- 
 sons and property, both civil and ecclesiastical, within the same, 
 as fully and as effectually as if the said articles were herein 
 aoain recited and set forth." 
 
I come IK) to tlie trfjity with Russia for the purchase of 
 Alaska, conciiuled March 30, 18G7, ratitied and proclaimed 
 June 20, 1867. 
 
 "Akticle III. 
 
 "The inhabitauts of the ceded territory. accordiu<:;- to their 
 choice, reserving- their natural :dleyiance, may return to Russia 
 within three vears : but if they piv'fer to remain in the ceded 
 territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, 
 shall have the immunities of citizens of the United States, and 
 shall ' maintaiu'd and protected in the free enjoyment of 
 their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes 
 will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United 
 States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal 
 tribes of that country.'' 
 
 In order to mark with emphasis the contrast between the 
 stipulations of all these several treaties and those of the late 
 treaty with Spain of December 10, 18'J8, I shall now read the 
 following clauses from the latter treaty, with the purpose, 
 however, of referring to them again : 
 
 •• Akt. 10. The civil rights and political status of the native 
 inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded t(j the United States 
 shall be determined by the Congress ;" and again — 
 
 " The inhabitants of the territories over whicli Spain relin- 
 quishes, or cedes her sovereignty, shall be secured in the free 
 exercise of their religion.'" 
 
 Of course, there have been as yet no judicial determinations 
 touching the scope and meaning of tJiese clauses in the Spanish 
 treaty. But it will be particularly observed by you that, so 
 far as the treaty itself is concerned, no rights, either civil or 
 political, except religious freedom, are attempted to be guaran- 
 teed or assured to the inhabitants. 
 
 Why this marked distinction is made must be judged by 
 each of you as future history may develop. 
 
 As one of the consequences, however, of that distinction, we 
 now have a cruel, bloody — I fear, a very unfortuimte — war in 
 the Philippine Islands. 
 
But I will postpone further reference to the late treaty until 
 I shall have shown from judicial interpretation, and other 
 authority, the rights of inhabitants and citizens of ceded terri- 
 tories under all those treaties concluded prior to the late 
 Spanish treaty. 
 
 And that brings me to iutpiire in Ihnbie. 
 
 Can Oui; Goverxmext in its Present Form Hold and Gov- 
 ern Territory as a Colonial Possession? 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott 
 case, said : 'vi power therefore in the General Government to 
 obtain and hold colonies and dependent territories, over which 
 they (Congress) might legislate without restriction, would be 
 inconsistent with its own existence in its present form."' 
 
 In Murphy v. Fvamsay, 114 U. S., it is said : 
 
 '•The power of Congress over the Territories is Hmited by 
 the obvious purposes for which it was conferred, and those 
 purposes are satisfied by measures which prepare the people 
 of the Territories to become States in the Union."' 
 
 Justice McLean, in his separate opinion in the Dred Scott 
 case, said : 
 
 " In organizing the government of a territory, Congress is 
 limited to means appropriate to the attainment of the consti- 
 tutional object. No powers can be exercised which are pro- 
 hibited by the Constitution, or which are contrary to its spint ; 
 so that, whether the object may be the protection of .he 
 persons and property of purchasers of the public lands or of 
 communities who have been annexed to the tlnion by conquest 
 or purchase, they are initiatory to the establishment of State 
 o-overnments, 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." 
 
 In Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S., the Supreme Court said : 
 
 "The territories acquired by Congress, whether by deed of 
 cession from the original States, or by treaty with a foreign 
 
10 
 
 country, are held with the object, as soon as their population 
 and condition justify it, of being admitted into the Union as 
 States, upon an equal footing with the original States in all 
 respects." 
 
 In the same case is the following language : 
 
 '• Upon the acquisition of a territory by the United States, 
 whether b}' cession from one of the States or by treaty with a 
 foreign country, or b}' discovery and settlement, the same title 
 and dominion passed to the United States tor the benefit of 
 the whole people, and in trust for the several States, to be 
 ultimately created out of the territory.'" 
 
 Judge Cooley, in his work on Constitutional Law, says: 
 
 " It could never have been understood that any territoiw 
 which by purchase, cession or conquest, should at any time 
 come under the control of tbe United States, should perma- 
 nently be held in a territorial condition, and the neAv States 
 which have been formed of territory acquired by treaty must 
 be supposed to have been received into the Union in strict 
 compliance with the Constitution." 
 
 Continuing, he says : 
 
 "•And when territor}' is acquired, the right to suffer States 
 to be formed tlierefrom and to receive them into the Union 
 must follow of course, not onlj' because the Constitution con- 
 fers the power to admit new States without restriction, but 
 because it would be inconsistent with institutions founded on 
 the fundamental idea of self-government that the Federal 
 Government should retain territory under its imperial rule 
 and deny the people the customary local institutions."' 
 
 The same author, iu contrasting the territorial system of 
 the United States from the colonial system of Great Britain, 
 says : 
 
 " There are differences which are important and, indeed, 
 vital. The first of these is that the territorial condition is 
 understood under the Constitution to be merely temporary 
 and pre})arato]-y : and the peo])le of the territories, while it 
 
11 
 
 coutiuues. are assured of the right to create and estabUsh 
 State institutions for themselves as soon as the population 
 shall be sufficient and the local conditions suitable; while the 
 British colonial system contained no provision or assurances 
 of au}' but a dependent government indetinitely." 
 
 Daniel Webster, the great expounder of the Constitution, 
 said : 
 
 •' Arbitrary governments may have territories and distant 
 possessions because arbitrary governments may rule them by 
 difterent laws and different systems. Kussia may rule m the 
 Ukrane and the provinces of the Caucasus and Kamtschatka 
 by different codes, ordinances or ukases. We can do no such 
 thing. They nmst he of us, ^)ar« of us, or else strangers" 
 
 I can confidently assert that up to date judicial authority 
 and the practice of all the political departments of the Govern- 
 ment establish the fact that — 
 
 THE TERM, UNITED STATES, COVERS ALL THE 
 TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL SOVER- 
 EIGNTY EXTENDS. 
 
 It therefore follows that, on the ratification of the pending 
 treaty by the Spanish Cortez, Puerto Rico and the Philippine 
 Islands will become a part of the United States ; and their in- 
 habitants must at once become entitled to all the guarantees- 
 of civil liberty contained in the Federal Constitution. 
 
 In Pomeroy's Constitutional Law it is said : 
 
 " But is Cono-ress absolute over these districts or territories? 
 Is it like the British Parliament, bound by no limitations save 
 those which are self-imposed ? This cannot be ; nor does the 
 lan'Tuacre of the Constitution require a construction so much 
 opp'osed to all our ideas of civil polity. The safeguards of in- 
 dividual rights— those clauses which preserve the lives, liberty, 
 and property of the citizen from the encroachments 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 irre- 
 
12 
 
 sistiblo. A liill of rights is certainlj' uo less important for the 
 District of Columbia and for the Teiritories than for that por- 
 tion of the nation which is org-auized into States. If it were 
 thought necessary- that Congress should be hedged around with 
 restrictions while it is legislating for the inhabitants of States, 
 who may be partially protected by their local governments, 
 how much more necessary tliat the same body should be re- 
 strained while legislating for the inhabitants of those districts 
 and Territories over which it has an exclusive control. The 
 mandatory clauses of the first eight amendments are clothed in 
 the most general language, and they make no exceptions ; they 
 apply to Cougress in the exercise of all its functions ; in gen- 
 eral t< 'ms they cover its legislation for the District of Colum- 
 bia mt(f for the Territories^ as well as for the States. These 
 clauses must, therefore, be compulsive upon Congress when it 
 makes laws for the District or for the Territories, unless the 
 general language in which the}' are framed is modified by the 
 particular language of the provisions which especially relate to 
 the District and l(^ .j.j Territories. There is evident!}' noth- 
 ing contradictory between these provisions and the general 
 restrictions of the Bill of Rights." 
 
 Continuing on the same subject, the author says : 
 
 " Furthermore, as the clauses in question aie mandatory and 
 pciemptory in their nature, and directed at once to each branch 
 ol the Government, they require no statute of Cougress, de- 
 cision of judge, or act of President to execute them and give 
 them binding efficacy. They execute themseloes witJiout the 
 aid of an inferior laio. Any proceeding of the GovernnioU 
 ill derogation of their command would he void; any proceed- 
 ing declaratory would be useless.'''' 
 
 In Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheaton, the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, by Marshall, C. J., said : 
 
 " 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 Terri- 
 tories. The District of Columbia or the territory west of the 
 Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland 
 
13 
 
 or Peuusylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles 
 of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of im- 
 jjosts, 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 co extensive 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."" 
 
 In U. S. V. More. 3 Cranch, it is said : 
 
 '• The Constitution was made for the benefit of ever}' citizen 
 of the United States, a/u? t/tere /s no citizen, whatever his con- 
 dition, or wherever he mat/ he, loithin. the territory of the 
 United States, who has not a right to its 2^rotection.''' 
 
 In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court said : 
 
 "It (the Government) enters upon territorj' with its powers 
 over the citizen strictly defined and limited by the Constitu- 
 tion, from which it derives its own existence, and by virtue of 
 which alone it continues to exist and act as a government and 
 sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it, and it 
 cannot, when it enters a territory of the United States, put oft' 
 its character and assume discretionary or despotic powers 
 which the Constitution has denied to it. It cannot create for 
 itself a new character separated fi'om the citizens of the United 
 States and the duties it owes them under the provisions of the 
 Constitution. The territory being part of the United States, 
 the Government and the citizen both enter it under the au- 
 thoritj' of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined 
 and marked out, and the federal Government can. exercise no 
 poioer beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny 
 any right which it has reserved.'''' 
 
 In Murphy a. Ramsey, 114 U. S , it is said : 
 
 "The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the 
 territories are secured to them as to other citizens by the 
 principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all the 
 agencies of government, State and national." 
 
 The same doctrine is repeated iu Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U.S.; 
 
14 
 
 in Spiiugville ?'. Thomas. IIG U. S.; in American Publishing- 
 Co. V. Fisher, IGG U. S.: in Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 
 
 In Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S., the Supreme Court held the 
 following- language respecting a case arising in the District of 
 Columbia, where Congress is invested with the power of ex- 
 clusive legislation : 
 
 ■' There is nothing in the history of the Constitution or of 
 the original amendments to justif_y the assertion that the 
 peo])le of the District may be lawfully deprived of the benefit 
 of any of the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and 
 property. . . . We cannot think that the people of this Dis- 
 trict have in that regard less rights than those accorded to 
 the people of the Territories of the United States."" 
 
 I return now for a moment to the late Spanish treaty. 
 And I think I am justified in expressing surprise that, in franj- 
 ing its provisions, our commissioners should have departed 
 from the es ablislied precedents of over one hundred 3'ears. 
 In all previous cases the treaties, in e.xpress words, recognized 
 the inhabitants as a part of the American people, and clothed 
 them with all the rights and immunities of citizens of the United 
 States. Thejf were assured of protection in life, liberty, and 
 property and promised future admission as States on an equal 
 footing with those already in the Union. 
 
 The population of former acquisitions, thus covered by the 
 shield of the Constitution, contained French, Spanish, Creoles, 
 Mexi jans, Russians, and Indians. In the declaration of war 
 last April the first utterance was that the Cubans " are and of 
 right ought to be free and independent." Admiral Dewey, as 
 early as June last, and again in August thereafter, assured our 
 Government that the Philippines were better morally and 
 intellectually, and more capable of self-government, than the 
 Cubans, and that he knew both races well. 
 
 Both Cuba and the Philippines had declared their inde- 
 pendence and established revolutionary governments. Both 
 were struggling for their liberties; and both had i-eceived 
 encouragement and arms from our Government. Both freely 
 >lied their blood in aid of the United States against Spain, 
 
15 
 
 and both were promised liberty and independence by public 
 otlicials of oar country. 
 
 Why, then, were Cuba and the Philippine Islands placed on 
 a diiierent footing .- 
 
 Our declared object in the Spanish war was to secure the 
 freedom and independence of the Cubans. Our declared pur- 
 pose in the Philippines is to subject their inhabitants to the 
 unlimited control of the Congress of the United States. A 
 legisUtive assembly representing the people is now in session 
 in Cub;i. The members of the revolutionary government, 
 organized to secure the independence of the Philippines, are 
 being shot to death by American soldiers for no other crime 
 than that committed by every soldier who followed our flag 
 to establish freedom and self-government in the thirteen Amer- 
 ican colonies. I do not know who declared this Philippine 
 war. Our Constitution commits to Congress the sole power 
 of declaring war in all cases. Its records are painfully silent 
 on this subject. And yet the fact of war is evidenced by the 
 blood and death of thousands who but recently stood with us 
 as allies in the Spanish war. A few short months ago we 
 waged war to free the struggling people of Cuba, and to estab- 
 lish their right to govern themselves. We now wage war to 
 establish for ourselves, in the Philippines, the same imperial 
 right to govern others which we denied to Spain in Cuba. A 
 war for self-government in half a year has degenerated into a 
 total denial of our own declaration of independence. 
 
 If Madame Koland yet lived she might again exclaim upon 
 the crimes committed in the sacred name of liberty. 
 
 It is a wicked plea to say that the Filipinos are incapable 
 of self government. Such has ever been the plea of the master 
 of the slave and of the imperial oppressor of weaker nations. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln well said that God never made a man good 
 enough to be owner of a slave. It is equally true that 7nan 
 has never established a nation good and just enough to govern 
 another people without their consent. 
 
 But is it true that the Cubans are better qualified for self- 
 govv rnment than the people of Luzon, whose aspirations for 
 
16 
 
 self-government are suppressed by the strong hands of a peo- 
 yAe who constantly boast their sympathy with the victims of 
 oppression and wrong- everywhere ? 
 
 It uoAv appears that Admiral Dewey forwarded to the Navy 
 Department, a short time after taking Cavite, a dispatch, as 
 follows: '"These ])eople are far superior in their intelligence 
 and more capable of self-goveriimeut than the natives of Cuba, 
 and I aui familiar with both races.'" 
 
 On August "iDth he again telegraphed from Manila, as 
 follows : 
 
 '•• 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 
 make good citizens." In this he refers to the dispatch of June 
 20th, already (juoted, in regard to their capacity for self-gov- 
 ernment, and says : "Further intercourse with them has con- 
 firmed me in this opinion." 
 
 It is now in evidence that, in June last, the exiled Philippines 
 at Singapore delivered au address to our consul, Mr. Pratt, in 
 that city, in the following language : 
 
 " SiK : The Philippine colony resident in this port, com- 
 posed of representatives of all social classes, have come to 
 present their respects to yon as the legitimate representative 
 of the great and powerful American llepublic, in order to ex- 
 press our eternal gratitude for the moral and material pro- 
 tection extended by Admiral Dewey to our trusted leader, 
 General Emilio Aguinaldo, who has been driven to take up 
 arms in the name of 8,000,000 Filipinos, in defence of those 
 very principles of justice and liberty of which j'our country is 
 the foremost champion. Our countrymen at home, beloved 
 native land, hope that the United States, your nation, persever- 
 ing in its humane policy, will etificaciously 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 
 co-operation with Admiral Dewey, thus supporting our aspira- 
 tions, which time and subsequent actions have developed and 
 
17 
 
 caused to meet with the apphiuse and ap})rob;itioD of your 
 uatiou. Fiually, we request you to convey to your ilhistrious 
 President and the American people, and to Admiral Dewey, 
 our sentiments of sincere gratitude, and our most fervent wishes 
 for their prosperity."' 
 
 Mr. Piatt's reply is as follows : 
 
 '•Now we have news of the brilliant achievements of your 
 own distinguished leader. General Aguinaldo, co-operating on 
 land with the Americans at sea. . . . When, six weeks ago, I 
 learned that Gen. Aguinaldo had arrived incognito in Sing- 
 agore, I immediately sought him out. An hour's interview 
 convinced me 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. I am 
 thankful to have been the means, the merely accidental means, 
 of bringing about the arrangement between General Aguinaldo 
 and Admiral Dewey which has resulted so happily. I can 
 only hope that the eventual outcome will be all that can be 
 desired for the happin'^'ss and welfare of the Filipinos.'" 
 
 In presenting an American flag to the insurgents, Mr. Pratt 
 said : 
 
 " T.iis flag was borne in battle, and is the emblem of that 
 very liberty that you are seeking to attain." 
 
 I copy also from a speech of Hon. Geo. Gray, U. S. Senator 
 from Delaware, and one of our commissioners to make the 
 ti-eaty of peace at Paris with Spain. This speech was made 
 before the Board of Trade at Wilmington, where he resides, 
 as follows: 
 
 "Commodore Dewey had brought Aguinaldo back to Luzon, 
 and by his (Aguiualdo's) leadership ;>nd the encouragement of 
 the American fleet, the embers of the insurrection, which had 
 died out, were rekindled into a flame, and the assistance of 
 the insurgent forces was gladly availed of by our commodore. 
 It then came to be thought that in our settlement with Spain 
 we could not honorabl}- leave the inhabitants of these islands 
 to the tender mercies of their S^janish oppressors and hand 
 over brave men, who had assisted our fleet and army in the 
 
18 
 
 Lour of ueed, to Spanisli dungeons, or to the tiriiig line of 
 Spanish execution.'' 
 
 It is admitted, upon the evidence preserved by the commis- 
 sioners and now partly published, that on the 28d of June last 
 Aguinaldo published at Cavite, under the eyes of Admiral 
 Dewe}', his proclamation as President of the Philippines, de- 
 claring the absolute independence of the islands and estab- 
 lishing a revolutionary goverumeut pledged to the building- 
 up of a great republic in the islands based on the consent of 
 the governed. 
 
 From that proclamation I copy the following : 
 
 "It (the new government) struggles for its independence in 
 the firm belief that the time has arrived m which it can and ought 
 to govern itself. There has been established a levolutionary 
 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." . . . ''This 
 people has resources and energy sufficient to liberate them- 
 selves 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." 
 
 After the organization of this government, it is known and 
 admitted that the troops of Aguinaldo were armed by Admiral 
 Dcwe}', and that the Filijiinos assisted us in the land battles 
 at Manila under circumstances tantamount to a positive under- 
 standing that the islands should be free and independent. 
 
 It cannot be said that we have been misled as to the inten- 
 tions of the revolutionarj'^ government, or that we ever inti- 
 mated to the people that we would interfere with their pur- 
 pose to establish an independent government. To prove Ihis 
 I might exhibit to you numberless facts, but the substance of 
 all is contained in the official report of Major Bell made to 
 General Merritt on August 29, 1898, while in command at 
 Manila, and by him placed in the hands of our commissioners 
 at Paris. It is as follows : 
 
 " There is not a particle of doubt but that Aguinaldo and his 
 
19 
 
 leaders will resist auy attempt of auv government to reorganize 
 a colonial government here. Thev are esjjecially bitter toward 
 the Spaniards, but equally determined not to submit any 
 longer to being a colony of any other government." 
 
 It will be observed that Admiral Dewey only pledged their 
 good behavior '' under just laws." Was it just toward them 
 for us to depart in treaty-making from our established prece- 
 dents of a century ? Was it just to pledge independence and 
 freedom to Cuba and eternal colonial vass ilage to the Philip- 
 pines ? Was it just to tender autonomy and self-government 
 to one and military satraps and proconsuls to the other ? Was 
 it just to hold tlie promise of liberty to the ear, and break it 
 to the hope? Was it just to accept their services in time of 
 need and lose the sense of gratitude in the hour of victory? 
 
 We are great enough to be just, even generous, to a weak 
 and struggling people. But no nation is strong enough to 
 bear the burden of periidy and deceit. 
 
 The Philippine government had its commissioners at Paris 
 during the progress of the late treaty negotiations. The 
 character of these men must not be mistaken. They Avere 
 able, intelligent, and not unacquainted with history or the arts 
 of diplomacy. Spanish imperialism and Spanish cruelty had 
 stamped upon every fibre of their natures a bitter hatred of 
 oppression and an intense love of liberty. An alien govern- 
 ment at Madrid, five thousand miles away, had for centuries 
 governed them in a spirit of relentless tj'raany. These people, 
 too, had come to believe that ■• all men are created equal ; '' 
 that '"governments derive their just powers from the consent 
 of the governed :" that it is the right of the people to cast 
 off oppression, and " to institute a 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 ha2:)piness." 
 
 It was the constant boast of our treaty commissioners at 
 Paris that these humble agents of a people seeking only " their 
 inalienable rights" were never seen or consulted by them, and 
 that their modest supj^lications were unheard in the council 
 
20 
 
 chambers, where twenty million dollars were freelj' given to 
 the oppressor, while to the impoverished victims was left the 
 poor privileg-e of worshipping at altars of religion alread}^ 
 gilded by gold wa-enched from their poverty and reeking with 
 the blood of their people. 
 
 For ages they had been plundered by an alien government 
 at Madrid. And now for tlie long and uncertain future '-the 
 civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants . . . 
 shall be determined by the Congress of the United States." 
 They asked for bread and we gave them a stone They asked 
 for fish and we gave them a serpent. 
 
 Gentlemen, in addition to the phraseology of the treat}' 
 itself, I might refer you to the many speeches made in the 
 Senate by the advocates and expounders of that treaty, in 
 which military imperialism, in its most oifVusive fojins, has 
 been advanced, not only as a constitutional doctrine, but as 
 the true policy of onr nation. And, as an indication approving 
 the new doctrine, let me call your attention to the following 
 resokition passed by the United States Senate since its ratifi- 
 cation of the treaty. I know not its purpose. If it be in- 
 tended as an exposition of the treaty, the ]:)eo2)lo of tlie 
 Pliili])pine Islands are well justilied in fearing a state of things 
 even worse than war. 
 
 The resolution is as follows : 
 
 " That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain 
 it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philip- 
 pine Islands into citizenship of the United States, n >r is it 
 intended to permanently annex said ishmds as an integral 
 part of the territory of the United States ; but it is tlie inten- 
 tion of tlie United States to establish on said islands a gov- 
 ernment suitable to the wants ami conditions of the inhabi- 
 tants of said islands, to prepare them f.r local self-government, 
 and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as 
 will best j^romote the interests of' the citizens of the United 
 /States and the inhabitants of said islands." 
 
 I have already shown that the exercise by Congress of the 
 powers here clainjed would, in the language 'if the Su{)r('me 
 
21 
 
 Court. •' be iucoiisistent with the existence of our Goverumeut 
 ill its present form." The power, you observe, is claimed to 
 govern iudefiuitely, coupled with the declaratiou that the 
 territory shall never be annexed or admitted as States, while 
 the Supreme Court, in Murphy /'. Ramsey, 114 U. S., has said 
 that •■ the power 'of Congress over the territories is limited by 
 the obvious purposes for wliich it was conferred, and those 
 purposes are satisfied by measures which prepare the people 
 to become States in the Unioi." And. in Shively v. Bowlb}', 
 152 U. S., it is said that territories, under our form of govern- 
 ment, can only "^ be held vnth the object, as soon as their 2^02)11- 
 lation and conditio?) justify it, of being adniittea into the 
 Union as States, ui')On an equal footing xoith the origincd 
 States in all respects." 
 
 I refer to this radical departure from established construc- 
 tion simply to show that the inhabitants of the Philippine 
 Islands are fully juslilied in asking an authoritative expression 
 of our purposes. 
 
 My friends, these people are human beings. They no doubt 
 love liberty and hate slavery as fervently as we do. In the lan- 
 guage of Admiral Dewey, they are gentle, docile, and kind. 
 Their social relations are marked by all the affections and tender 
 regard for kindred and friends which mark our own civilization, 
 all the lies to the contrary notwithstanding. They seem to have 
 patriotism, too, which sweetens death in defence of their father- 
 land. And for these reasons I have been amazed that, in this 
 age of commissions, none was sent to the Filipinos, before 
 the commencement of hostilities against them, to teach them 
 the purposes and designs of the American people. So much 
 we have always done for even the most savage of our Indian 
 tribes. Should we do less for our faithful allies who but 
 recently mingled their blood with ours in the trenches of 
 Manila ? 
 
 The inhabitants of Puerto Rico and the Philippines should 
 have the same right to the protection of the Constitution which 
 we enjoy. If these people be violated in life, liberty, or property ; 
 if they shall be robbed of property or punished in person with- 
 
22 
 
 out reg-ard to the sacred g-uaranties of that Coustitutiou, and 
 without the intervention of jur}' trials ; if they be plundered 
 by taxes, duties, imposts, and. excises, in excess of those levied 
 and collected in the States themselves, and beyond the limits 
 of that uniformity prescribed by the organic law of the land : 
 if soldiers, in peace, be quartered upon them and extraordinary 
 taxes be wrung from their poverty for that purpose, this would 
 not be expansion — that peaceful enlargement of national do- 
 main by the addition of willing States — but it would be im- 
 2)erialls»i, that monster progeny of greed and violence which 
 always brings poverty, slavery, and death. It is but another 
 name for tyranny, resistance to which, in the vocabulary of 
 freemen, is obedience to God. 
 
 I am an expansionist. I would let the light of our free in- 
 stitutions so shine that others, seeing our wealth, our prosper- 
 it}', and our happiness, would voluuturily ask to share with us 
 our mau}^ blessings. But I am not an imperialist. God grant 
 that freedom shall ever follow the American flag. When that 
 flag ceases to be the emblem of liberty, let it be " hauled 
 down."' I know of but one flag, and that is the one which 
 proudly floats "' o'er the land of the free and the home of the 
 brave." It will never float gracefully over a land of slaves. 
 Let us be able to paraphrase, in truth, those beautiful lines 
 of Cowper : 
 
 "Slaves cannot breathe in America; if their kings 
 Receive our air, that moment they are free ; 
 They touch our country and their shackles fall." 
 
 My friends, in what nations of Europe to-day will you find 
 the most assured safety for person and property ? In what 
 nations is promised the greatest immunity from the ravages 
 of war ■? A moment's thought will point to Switzerland, Bel- 
 gium, Denmark, and Holland. Their strength consists in 
 their weakness. Unable to take the sword, they are not 
 destined to fall by the sword. It is the strong nations whose 
 soil is soon to be drenched with the blood of their citizens. 
 
 The plundered spoils in Africa and the partition of China 
 cannot be peaceably adjusted. For fifty years the strong 
 
23 
 
 nations of Europe have been preparing for the strife : and the 
 first gun of the most stupendous war known in history maj' 
 be fired before the opening of the 20th century. What interest 
 have we in this threatened conflict ? In the Language of the 
 purest patriot the world lias produced, " Why quit our own 
 to stand on 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, and caprice 1 " 
 
 I think it was Edmund Burke who said, " the people never 
 give up their liberties but under some delusion." 
 
 One of the prevalent delusions to-day is, that expansion of 
 territory is equivalent to national power. Is it not a source 
 of weakness rather than of strength ? Such was the experience 
 of Rome, and such has been unquestionably the experience of 
 Spain. Another delusion is that colonies afford markets for 
 the mother countr3\ Such was the case when colonies were 
 ruled without regard to their rights, and solely for purposes 
 of extortion by the dominant power. Such conduct is now 
 invariably met b}' open resistance, and the suppression of 
 rebellions costs far more than the profits of plunder. Hence 
 has come the new and better doctrine of the "open door" to 
 commerce. But this means that the owner or proprietor has 
 no privileges superior to those of other nations. The owner 
 pays the expenses of administration while others enter the 
 open door on an equal footing with himself. I therefore see 
 no material profit in the ownership of the Philippines. It is 
 said we cannot honorably return them to Spain. It seems, at 
 present, that we are in no good condition to deliver, and Spain 
 is impotent' to hold them. Spain never had them to convey, 
 and we received the transfer possibly under the well-known 
 doctrine of caveat emptor. Spain had no title, and the title 
 of her vendee seems to have grown into no better estate. 
 
 Again, it is said that if we abandon them to their fate, Ger- 
 many or France, or somebody else, will take them. Perhaps it 
 may be well to let them try it. It will likely gorge their appe- 
 tites for colonial expansion. By the time they have swallowed 
 
24 
 
 and assimilated the Pliilippiues, smaller portions of China may 
 satisfy their imperial cravings. 
 
 It is said that our humanity and Christian spirit would re- 
 volt against abandoning these poor creatures who have so long 
 been the victims of Spauish cruelty. The latest reports from 
 Manila seem to indicate that the Filipinos themselves would 
 gladly release us from any supposed obligations in this re- 
 spect. And our bayonets and gunboats carr}' to them but 
 li-ttle of Christian charity. 
 
 It is often triumphantly asked, What would ycni do with the 
 Philippines ? Originally, when the Spanish fleet w^as destro3'ed 
 at Manila, I should have ordered Admiral Dewey to Cuba, 
 that he might assist in carrying out the ord<'is of Congress in 
 declaring war, — '• to drive Spain from Cuiiaand Cuban waters." 
 That was the extent of the declaration of wm-, and everything 
 beyond that is tdtfu oireH. 
 
 Having- committed the blunder of leaving him in Asia, I would 
 now negotiate with the Filipinos to take Manila as a naval 
 station, and then help them to establish a republic of their 
 own, the United States agree lag to aid them in the good 
 work, and to protect them from any threatened interference 
 with their free institutions, they to return to us that $2U.000,- 
 000 which Spain received from us on a defective title. 
 
 True Wisdom Forbids Departure From Safe Precedents. 
 
 Following the teachings of our patriotic ancestors, a siug'le 
 centuiT has sufficed to make us the greatest, the most honored, 
 the most important nation of the earth. 
 
 A population of three millions has rapidlj' grown to be 
 seventy-five millions. Individual poverty has been happily 
 sujiplanted by all the elements of personal comfort. A temper- 
 ate climate, combined with fertility of soil, has brought plent}'', — 
 yea, riches, — to the farmer's home. 
 
 The manufacturer has prospered until, after supplying- the 
 American demand, he ships from his products a surplus of over 
 three hundred million dollars to foreiou markets. Our internal 
 
25 
 
 commerce exceeds that of all Europe. In aggregate exports we 
 already excel the most prosj^erous nations of the world. Our 
 balances of trade are now so large as to threaten the financial 
 peace of Europe, and these balances furnish the abundant re- 
 sources of gold which supply the overflowing streams of our 
 commerce at home. 
 
 These are the triumphs of peace. All was accomplished 
 without an army and without a navy. Trade makes friends, 
 war makes enemies. We waged no foreign wars and we had 
 no foreign enemies. We offered to all the riches of our com- 
 merce, and the nations gave us the willing hand of friendshijD 
 
 We are now entering upon an untried experiment in our 
 system of government. Why not let well enough alone 1 
 
 Imperialism contains more armed soldiers than the fabled 
 wooden horse of Troy. Imperialism reverses the entire theory 
 of self-government. It discards the wisdom of our fathers, 
 repudiates, without shame, the Monroe doctrin*', and joins 
 hands with the execrated Holy Alliance. It rejects the civil 
 equality of men and accepts, without protest, the oppressions 
 and despotism of the 16th century. Tliis war in the Philip- 
 pines brings us back into the shadows of the dark ages. It is 
 a war for which no justification can be urged. As no reasons 
 could be assigned for its existence, Congress was ashamed to 
 make up any record of its declaration. It has scarcely better 
 excuse than the wars of subjugation waged by Imperial 
 Rome, whose object was to plunder, and enslave the weak, 
 and whose result was, in the language of its own historian, to 
 make a desert of other lands and call it peace. 
 
THIS IS A PHOTOCOPY REPRODUCTION 
 
 It is made in compliance with copyright law 
 and produced on acid-free archival 
 
 book weight paper 
 
 which meets the requirements of 
 
 ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 
 
 Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials 
 
 Preservation photocopying 
 
 by 
 
 The University of Connecticut Libraries 
 
 Preservation Department 
 
 2001 
 
7 37 
 
 Q 
 
University of 
 Connecticut 
 
 Libraries 
 
 391b3027673252 
 
im^