!'li|l1l'I''.!'i'' .
il' "'i "l" " I' ¦
'.i!:-'!,'!,", I".

Vl-iSI|i'! .. ..

iii I'.' I'll

• IT 17
111 1 ll t I

W'![iW|-ii:!i.i,,' ¦
1 i-| I'I l+HIHI!iMi'' !+¦+*'• I

.»!¦ i-i I' B 'lI'V .¦'•'¦.'. 1', ' r.i}B.-i,iM ¦•¦'¦•¦•>
! I 'I ' ¦ ¦ • I ' j^Km

ffl-l, nl
'4*'" I

i

'J

&'^!'':!r'

is'i;

W ' i'i

1 I

I I

The Pastime Series.— Issued Monthly. $3.00 per annum. No. S8. Ma7, 1900.
Entered at Chicago Postofflce as second-c^ss matter.
Chicago : LAIRD & LEE, Publishers, 363 Wabash Avenue.

The Jury Trial of 1900

The

Jury Trial of 1900

IN THE COURT OF
PUBLIC OPINION

BRYAN vs. McKINLEY
JUDGE SAMUEL LEVELHEAD, ON THE BENCH

The People's Cause Presented in Crisp, Sparkling Argument
by the Leading Men of the Day

Joseph R. McLaughlin
B. S., LL. B.

I LLUSTRATE D

CHICAGO
LAIRD & LEE, PUBLISHERS

fintered according to Act of Congress in the year nineteen hundred,
BY
WILLIAM H. LEE,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.
(AUJ BIGHTS RESERVED.)

Paet 1.

CHAPTER I.
It was a bright, clear, crisp morning. Expectancy and
intense interest were depicted upon the faces of the crowd
gathered in the court room when the Judge ascended the
bench and called the case set for hearing on that day, Bryan
Ts. McKinley, an action in ejectment.
Judge Samuel Levelhead was tall, erect and angular, with
strong features, kindly, though piercing, eyes, and quiet man
ners, a man with a look and bearing to distinguish him in a
crowd as a man of more than ordinary parts. He commanded
attention and deference in whatsoever position he might be
placed, and his decisions had attracted general interest, and
were looked upon with respect and approbation throughout
the land. The crowned heads of Europe had but recently
craned their necks to hear his utterances on some very inter
esting and important subjects, and it is safe to say that the
Judge is now a man of considerably more than national
reputation. But it is at home that he is most loved, respected,
and honored. His popular sobriquet is — "Uncle Sam."
The Judge: Are the parties to this cause in court?
Mr. Bryan: The plaintiff is, your Honor, and believing
as I do in discussion and agitation, I have secured the services
and will be assisted by Col. Agi-Tate, of Kansas, of counsel.
Mr. McKinley: May it please your Honor, the defendant
is Sflso present. I am reminded, as we enter upon this ease,
(11)

12 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
that in a former suit which the plaintiff brought against me,
he acted as his own attorney and took counsel chiefly of him
self. In that action, my case was conducted by Mr. Peoples
to my entire satisfaction.
Over three years' experience in the discharge of the re
sponsible and onerous duties of the position which it has been
my honor to hold as the result of the last popular verdict, it
has been necessary for me frequently to consult General Good.
He is a friend whom I trust, and my desire is that the Amer
ican people shall know more of him. He will act as my
counsel. The Judge: Is a jury trial demanded?
Mr. Bryan: Yes, your Honor; I desire that this matter
shall be decided by the people.
Mr. McKinley: As I have already intimated, the people
have once before acted in a matter between us, and I am quite
content that they should do so again.
The Judge: Let the jury be drawn.
The Sheriff: The jurymen will take their places in the
box as their names are called. Mr. Granger, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Mason, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Woodman, Mr. Eich, Mr. Poor-
man, Mr. Roadman, Mr. Miner, Mr. Blackman, Dr. Reasoner,
and Mr. Trademan.
The Judge: Do counsel wish to examine the jury?
Col. Agi-Tate: We are well satisfied with the jury in the
main, but if your Honor please, I will ask a few questions of
Mr. Eich.
Q. Mr. Eich, what is your business?
A. I'm a capitalist.
Q. Ah, a capitalist! Then you enjoy the business of fore
closing mortgagee?
A. I do not. I could not take pleasure in another's mis-

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 13
fortune. I always lend my money to men who want it; I
have never forced a loan on any man yet.
Col. Agi-Tate: If your Honor please, I would prefer some
other person than Mr. Rich on this jury. A capitalist could
not, in my opinion, be an impartial juror in a case where his
interests might be ever so remotely affected. I think capital
should not be allowed much consideration in the decision of a
question of this character. Such a question should be decided
by the common people — by the masses. The disposition of
the wealthy has always been to oppress the poor. Capital has
oppressed and still continues to oppress labor. Labor is
ground down under an iron heel. I see Mr. Hobos and Mr.
Dusty Rhodes, both men of the masses, are present, and
while I do not wish to peremptorily challenge Mr. Rich, I
would prefer to see one of these gentlemen on the panel.
What we need in this country, if your Honor please, is an
Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood against the en
croachments of organized wealth. "Surely, extortion maketh
a wise man foolish."
Gen'l Good: If your Honor please, we have no objection
to the jury as it is drawn. It gives me pain that, at so early
a stage in these proceedings, counsel should show so much
animosity, and fairly bound, as it were, into the realm of bit
terness. Why can not this contest be carried onwithout such
a descent into those horrid things that array man against his
fellowman; that stir up strife and bad feeling? In a former
case, the plaintiff resorted to the same kind of practices, and
he should have learned a lesson from Hie results. We are
many people, with many minds and many interests. It is by
combining all these interests and opinions that we reach a
wise judgment.
Col. Agi-Tate: Do I understand my brother to be so much

14 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
in favor of "the combines" that he even favors one on "opin
ions?" Gen. Good: I would combine the good there is in all
men for the general welfare. I will examine Mr. Eich.
Q. Mr. Rich, were you bom a capitalist?
A. I was not. My father and mother were pioneers in
Michigan and were poor. Both father and mother died before
I had reached my majority, and I was left alone without
money and with but few friends. I worked diligently for
many years at very hard work. I worked on a farm for as
little as $8 a month, but I always made it a rule to have my
expenditures considerably less than my income, no matter
what the size of that income should be. I practiced rigid
economy and saved money little by little until finally I was
able to start in a business of my own. Hard work and per
severance developed the business in time into one of larger
proportions, and I was able to lay by money faster.
Q. My brother has referred to the "common people" and
the "masses." Are you one of the common people?
A. The term "common people" is one which, in my judg
ment, is diiScult of exact definition, every man being will
ing to so class himself, but unwilling that any other man
should thus designate him.
Gen. Good: If your Honor please, all interests and occu
pations, as far as possible, should be represented in this trial.
If either of my brother's friends had been called tO' the jury
box in the first instance, I should have made no objef tion to
his sitting as a juror in this case; but, sir, I would consider
the dismissal of Mr. Rich from the jury and the substitution
of either of my friend's friends as a severe rebuke to that
idea of thrift, industry, and independence^ which is the char
acteristic of American manhood.

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 15
The Judge: The court is of the opinion that counsel's
objection tO' Mr. Eich is not well taken. The court has yet
to be convinced that there is anything criminal, or even im
proper, in a man's being a capitalist. A capitalist is a man
who possesses wealth. It is to be presumed, in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, that he has obtained his
property honestly, and if so, he is entitled to all the protection
and privileges that society affords to its citizens. No govern
ment of the people, by the people, and for the people can long
endure that does not protect the rights of property.
The contention of counsel that Mr. Rich would not be a
competent juror on account of his personal interest would
apply to every other juror; for each of them has his interests
to protect. The interests of some may not be so large as
those of others, but they are just as vital and important to
the individual himself. Such is the nature of this case, as
indicated by the charge brought, that every element that en
ters into the complex whole of our national interest and pros
perity should have representation in the body of twelve
men who are to weigh the evidence presented and render a
verdict accordingly. The jury as now constituted would
seem to be a representative body of American citizens. I see
no reason for the dismissal of the juror and will therefore de
cline the request. Let the case proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: May it please your Honor, this is an action
in the nature of ejectment. It is brought by the plaintiff
and in his name, but is in reality the cause of the people,
he being only their agent and representative in the proceed
ings. This is not a personal matter. We are engaged in a
fight for principles, and principles are of more importance
than men. It would be presumptuous, indeed, in us to pre^
sent ourselves against the distinguished gentleman who is the

16 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
defendant in this cause, if it were merely for the purpose of
measuring abilities, but this is not a contest between persons.
The humblest citizen in the land, -vihen clad in the armor of
a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. We
are here to plead for a cause as holy as the cause of liberty —
the cause of humanity — and while it is necessary for individ
uals to figure as the active participants, we object to bringing
this question down to the level of persons. The individual
is but an atom; he is bom, he acts, he dies; but principles axe
eternal, and this is a contest over principle. The plaintiff
has been besieged by such large numbers of citizens to bring
this suit, that I believe it may fairly be called the people's
cause. I am free to say, your Honor, that if the defendant, Mr.
McKinley, had conducted his administration in conformity
with the wishes of the people of this country and had
adopted a course of action in their interest, this case would
not have been brought, but I am grieved to say that he has
pursued a course which is in the highest degree derogatory
to the best interests of the people of the United States, who
are the real owners of the property and premises which he
occupies. In many ways his conduct has been humiliating to
the high-minded and noble, and degrading in its tendency
upon the public morals. It was, therefore, incumbent that
this action should be at once taken — ^taken in behalf of the
people. I will formally set forth charges against the defendant in
three counts:
(1) The three years of Mr. McKinley's occupancy of the
presidential chair has witnessed the gradual turning over to
trusts of all the industries that constitute the national
wealth. One of the most potent influences which operate in

J UXVX i±VJ..ii.±J \_fi'

avor of the trusts is the protective tariff, an iniquitous in-
titution which I do not hesitate to denounce, as the demo-
xatic party has again and again denounced, as inimical to
lur common good. I therefore arraign the administration for
ts favoritism to trusts by its maintenance of tariff privileges,
md for its failure to control these commercial pirates which
ts favor has created.
(2) I further arraign the administration for its subservi-
mcy to the plutocrats of Wall Street and Lombard Street,
md for bowing to their dictates and fastening the gold
standard upon the people.
(3) These three years have witnessed a crusade, entered
ipon in the holy name of humanity in Cuba, develop into a
yar for conquest and spoils in the Philippines. I again arraign
\Ir. McKinley for ignoring the doctrine of self-government so
ong cherished in this country, and placing the stamp of his
ipproval upon the doctrine of Empire.

CHAPTEE II.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Pubhc
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: Counsel will proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: If your Honor please, I think it will be in
the interest of simplicity to deal with each count separately.
Gen. Good: We have no objection to such a course.
The Judge: That order will be observed. Before pro
ceeding, however, with the introduction of testimony, I de
sire to address a word to the jury.
Gentlemen of the Jury, I deem it wise that I should at the
outset inform you somewhat as to your privileges and duties.
The position of the juryman is an honorable and responsible
one. The jury is an arm of the court, it is a pajt of the
machinery established for )tlie administration of justice. It is
the duty of a jury to be calm, careful, and judicial. Without
23rejudioe or passion, it should weigh the evidence that is pre
sented to it and dispense justice — ^justice is the object to be
sougli\t. It is your privilege to arrest proceedings at any
tirae and at any point for the purpose of inteiTogating the
court, the witness, or the attorney concerning any matter that
^3 not fully undersitood by you. These are privileges which
you enjoy; they are also duties which rest upon you, and tliey
are conferred in the interest of a full, clear, and complete
knowledge, of the matter upon which you are to act when
you retire to the jury room. Counsel wiU proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: We are now ready, if your Honor please, to
inquire in what way the defendant is responsible for the exist
ence and promotion of trusts. We shall endeavor, briefly as
(18)

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 19
possible, to show that trusts and monopolies are a direct out
growth of the principles of the Republican party, and that in
any seeming declaration they may make against them, they are
only blinding the eyes of the people while they continue to
foster the interests of capital and press down upon the brow
of labor a crown of thorns.
I shall endeavor to show, first, that the Republican party in
enforcing a high protective tariff is playing into the hands
of the great trusts; and secondly, that in maintaining the
gold standard, it favors the dear dollar which has lowered
prices and driven manufacturers into combinations for the
purpose of upholding prices and preventing loss; and, thirdly,
that the whole course of Republican legislation and sympathy
is with the rich and opulent, rather than with the weak and
straggling. I want to start with the declaration that a monopoly in pri
vate hands is indefensible from any standpoint, and intoler
able. I make no exception to the rule. I do not divide mo
nopolies in private hands into good monopolies and bad mo
nopolies. There is no good monopoly in private hands.
There can be no good monopoly in private hands until the
Almighty sends us angels to preside over the monopoly.
There may be a despot who may be better than some other
despot, but there is no good despotism. One trust may be
less harmful than another. One trust magnate may be more
benevolent than another, but I do not believe it is safe for
society to permit any man, or group of men, to monopolize
any article of merchandise or any branch of industry. What
is "the purpose of monopoly? I shall go right into the en
emy's country and endeavor to throw light on this matter
from persons who are connected with the trusts, and I shall
call as our first witness, Mr. Havemeyer.

20 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Havemeyer, what is your occupation?
Mr. Havemeyer: I am engaged in the business of manu
facturing sugar.
Q. What infiuence does the protective tariff exert in favor
of trusts?
A. In my opinion, the protective tariff is the mother of
all trusts. The trusts would not organize if the tariff did not
protect their products against European competition.*
Q. What effect will the present agitation against trusts
have, in your opinion?
A. The government, through the tariff laws, plunders the
people, and trusts are merely its machinery for doing it.
All this agitation against trusts is against the business ma
chinery employed to take from the public what the govern
ment, in its tariff laws, says it is proper and suitable the
trusts should have.
Q. How much of a tariff should be levied to make up the
difference in cost of manufacturing here and abroad?
A. Ten per cent.
Q. How much protection do the sugar interests receive?
A. A protection equal to about 3^ per cent, ad valorem.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
Gen. Good: Mr. Havemeyer, you say you are in the sugar
business? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Havemeyer, are you president of the sugar trust?
A. I am.
Q. When was the sugar trust formed?
A. In 1888.
Q. That was under President Cleveland's administration;
was it not?

* From testimony given before the Industrial Commission at Waahington.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 21
A. Yes, jsir.
Q. Now, Mr. Havemeyer, the first tariff act was passed in
1789 and the sugar trust was organized in 1888; ninety-nine
years later. It would seem from this that if a protective
tariff operates in the favor of trusts, the sugar interest was
very slow in talcing advantage of its benefits; would it not?
A. Perhaps so.
Q. Would it not be much more plausible, Mr. Havemeyer,
to suppose that the trust is an outgrowth of new business
conditions? A. That element undoubtedly is present, but, in my opin
ion, the protective tariff also favors trusts by limiting com
petition. Q. Mr. Havemeyer, did not the Wilson-Gorman act oper
ate greatly in favor of your trust?
A. We do not disguise the fact that we favor such tariff
regulations as were provided in the Wilson-Gorman aet.
Q. Is it not true, Mr. Havemeyer, that the McKinley law
of 1890 put millions of dollars into the purses of the sugar
producers of this country, doubled the sugar product of Lou
isiana, extended the sorghum and beet sugar industry of other
states and greatly increased the domestic supply of sugar, and
that the Wilson-Gorman act at once put $18,000,000 into the
purse of the Sugar Trust on the existing supply of sugar,
besides insuring it a large annual profit in the future?
A. I have already said that the McKinley law was favor
able to home producers.
Q. Mr. Havemeyer, you have testified that, in your opin
ion, a protective tariff operates to the benefit of the trust.
Do they have a protective tariff in England?
A. I believe they do not.
Q. Do you not know whether they do or not?

22 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. I understand they do not.
Q. Are there any trusts or combinations of capital in
England? A. Undoubtedly there are. .
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: I will now call Mr. Charles R. Flint.
Q. Mr. Flint, do you defend the principle of the trust?
A. I do.
Q. What do you believe to be the purpose of the trust?
A. One of the purposes is to secure the advantage of
larger aggregation of capital and ability; if I am asked what
are these advantages, the answer is only difficult because the
list is so long.*
Q. I will not weary the jury by asking you to recite your
long list of advantages, but will you simply state the prin
cipal ones?
A. Raw material for the purpose of manufacture may be
secured at lower prices.
Q. In other words, one man to buy wool for all the
woolen manufacturers. Is that what you mean?
A. Yes, sir; all that are associated together.
Q. That means then that every man who sells wool must
sell it at the price fixed by this one purchaser in the United
States? A. It does not follow that because combinations are
formed there would necessarily be but one institution of a*
kind doing business in the United States.
Q. We'll, never mind that. I understand you to say, Mr.
Flint, that the principal advantage of the tmst is to lower
the price of raw material?

Quotation is given from Mr. Flint by Col. Bryan in speech at Chicago

Tmst Conference.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 23
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the next advantage?
A. Goods can be supplied from the plant which is most
central to the territory and the one which is best equipped
and most advantageously situated. Some plants would run'
more continuously and be preferred to those less favorably
situated. Q. Does not that mean that after the trust has bought all
the factories, some of them will be closed down and the men
there employed thrown out of work?
A. There would have to be readjustments, certainly.
Q. What is your next advantage, Mr. Flint?
A. In case of labor strikes or fires, the work of production
will go on and thus prevent interruption and serious loss.
Q. Does not that mean that if the people employed in one
factory are not satisfied with the terms fixed by the employer
and strike, the trust can close that factory and let the em
ployees starve while the work goes on in other factories with
out- loss to the manufacturers?
A. You have the privilege of so interpreting it.
General Good: Personally, we have no objections to our
brother covering a very wide range in his inquiries, but it
seems scarcely necessary that he should consume the time of
the court and jury in setting up dummies for himself to
knock down. May I not ask my brother to introduce SQch
evidence as he may have to prove the charges he has mado,
and to show the culpability of the Republican party in rela
tion to this question?
Col. Agi-Tate: I resent the gentleman's remark as unnec
essary at this time, and shall insist upon introducing the evi
dence in my own way. When the gentleman introduces his
testimony, he will expect the same privilege.

24 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
The Judge: The gentleman will proceed, confining him-'
self as directly as possible to his allegations.
Col. Agi-Tate: What is the next advantage, Mr. Flint?
A. We avoid multiplication of means of distribution and a
better force of salesmen takes the place of a larger number.
Q. What assurance has society that it will get any of the
benefits from the reduction?
A. The cheaper an article is produced, the cheaper it can
be sold.
Q. Can you name any other advantage which combination
has? A. Terms and conditions of sale become more uniform
and can be more safely granted.
Q. The trust then can not only fix the price of wh'at it
sells, but it can fix the terms upon which it sells?
A. It is like other dealers in that respect.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: I do not care to cross examine the witness,
your Honor, for, as I have already intimated, this testimony is
incompetent and irrelevant. It does not, even indirectly, sup
port the allegation that Republican principles are responsible
for the existence and promotion of trusts. This testimony
should be expunged from the record as immaterial, and I
would so move, your Honor, but for the fact that we do not
desire to exclude any testimony that the plaintiff feels has a
bearing on the case. He may show the existence of the solar
system if he so desires.
Col. Agi-Tate: We will now call Senator Jones to the
stand. Q. Senator Jones, you are aware that trusts and large
combinations of capital are daily forming. What in your
opinion is the cause?

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 25
A. Falling prices caused by the rising dollar.
Q. Why have falling prices caused by the rising dollar
operated in favor of the formation of trusts?
A. Because people seeing the fail in prices and measuring
the loss of investments have looked about for some means to
protect themselves from this loss, and they have combined
to hold up prices to protect their investments from a loss
which would not have occurred but for the rise in value of the
dollar and the fall in the level of prices.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: Senator Jones, you speak of the- "rising
dollar!" How do you know that the value of the dollar has
risen? A. By the difference between prices of commodities now
and in the past as compared with the dollar.
Q. Senator Jones, would you think that improvements in
machinery and modern methods of manufacturing would have
anything to do with lowering the price of manufactured
goods? A. I should say they would have some effect.
Q. Is not labor the best unit by which to measure the
value of the dollar?
A. I should say that labor ought to be considered in that
connection. Q. Senator Jones, do you not know that measured by the
unit of a day's labor, the dollar has not risen in value?
A. I can not say as to that.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: My next witness is ex-Senator Peffer, of
Kansas. Q. Mr. Peffer, I believe you served time In the United
States Senate?

26 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
A. I was a member of the United States Senate at one
time. Q. Now, Senator, what has been the trend of legislation
for the past forty years?
A. It has been in the interests of landlords, banks, syn
dicates, railways, and wealth generally.
Q. What is the occasion of the departure from the good
old standards of the first half of the century?
.A. With the great Civil War new forces came into play.
The suspension of specie payments forced the government to
adopt a new monetary policy which afforded bankers the op
portunity to use the public credit for speculation. Our cur
rency waff converted into coin interest-bearing bonds; then
"coin" was construed to mean gold and the minting of silver
dollars was discontinued. Gold was king.*
Q. What effect had this on the country's business?
A. The general level of prices fell to^ the cost line. Ag
riculture was prostrate, the earth had come under the do
minion of landlords, railway companies were in combination;
wealth and social influence had usurped powei:, and the seat
of government was transferred to Wall Street. Congress had
forgotten the people and turned their business over to the
money changers.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: Senator, what is your business?
A. I am a populist.
Q. You misunderstood me. I asked what is your occu
pation? A. I understood you and I affirm again that I am a popu
list.

* Position taken hy Ez-Senator Peffer in an article in the North American
Review in 1893.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 27
Q. Oh, I see! a good populist has no time for anything'
else. Now, Senator, you and "Sockless Jerry," so-called, hail
from the same state, do you not?
A. "Sockless Jerry" is a misnomer. Jerry wears the finest
quality of silk stockings.
Q. Named, I suppose, on the same theory that was used
in giving a name to Peach Springs, Arizona — a place where
there are neither peaches nor springs, and water is brought
in by rail at twenty-five cents a barrel? Now, Senator, in
your opinion, all of these direful conditions are the result of
monetary legislation — ^in short, due to the fact that "gold
is king," are they?
A. Yes, sir; most assuredly.
Q. Senator, you say Congress had forgotten the people
and turned their business over to the money changers. Is not
that a very harsh arraignment?
A. Perhaps so, but a true one.
Q. Senator, do you realize that that assertion is a slander
upon the statesmen who made this nation great — a slander on
all the honored names from Lincoln down to Harrison?
A. I appreciate the significance of my statement.
Q. Do you realize that you have impeached the integrity
of men like Seward, Sumner, Grant, Conkling, Morton,
Sherman, Garfield, Blaine, Washburn, Morrill, Edmonds, and
a host of others?
A. That makes it rather personal.
Q. Senator, you proposed at one time to have the govern
ment issue money against supplies of grain and potatoes to
be deposited in warehouses provided by the government, did
you not?
A. Yes, sir.

28 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
¦ Q. Suppose the potatoes should rot, where would the se
curity be?
A. No security is needed— the government can issue as
much money as it likes.
Q. Fiat money.
A. Certainly.
Q. The government depository was merely a bluff?
A. There is no need of having anything back of money
but the government's simple promise.
Q. Are there any Coxeys with armies of unemployed men
marching through Kansas now?
A. No, sir; people are generally well employed.
General Good: That is all.
Col. Agi-Tate: I will now ask Mr. Schonfarber to testify.
Q. Mr. Schonfarber, you are a member of the Executive
Committee of the Order of the Knights of Labor, are you not?
A. I am.
Q. What is the purpose of your organization?
A. We have formed the Order of Knights of Labor for the
purpose of organizing, educating, and directing the power of
the industrial masses. We aim to have our share in the gains
and honors of advancing civilization.*
Q. What is the attitude of your organization toward
trusts? A. We are opposed to trusts and to restrictions upon
trade, commerce, and industry. We are opposed to trusts:
because they not only lead to legitimate economies in manu
facture and distribution, but to abuse of legislation, corrup
tion of courts and legislators, and to the oppression of the
industrial masses by shutting out the opportunity for em
ployment. * From speech before the Chicago Trust Conference.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 29
Q. What effect has the tariff had on trusts?
A. The tariff tax has helped the industrial trusts to put
up prices and enhance the cost of living.
Q. What remedy do you advocate?
A. Trusts should be divided into two classes, at least:
one class, that which find their being and profit in franchises
or special privileges granted by city, state or nation; receiving
legislation which enables them, to mortgage the unborn babe
of the American citizen, as well as burden him by taxing to
the point of bare subsistence.
If the power to oppress the -people-, to burden society and
mortgage futurity has been given by law, it can be taken away
by law, and that, too, without injustice to anyone. Corporate
ownership of railroads is the backbone of the trust, and the
.protective tariff its right arm.
I believe that this evil can be cured by municipal, state
and national ownership of the means of transportation of pas
sengers, freight and intelligence, and the absolute freedom to
sell in the highest market and buy in the lowest.
The other kinds of trusts, the commercial combinations,
have little power for evil if deprived of the support and
assistance wf the specially privileged corporations. Take
away the railroads and their discriminating power between
shippers, and where would be the Standard Oil Company?
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: You must recognize, Mr. Schonfarber,
that the very worst times that have been experienced, for
both capital and labor in this country, followed the election
in 1893 of a Democratic candidate on a free trade platform.
That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: I wish now to call to the stand a dis
tinguished gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Nosrettaw,

30 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Q. Mr. Nosrettaw, you Tiave given many years of diligent
study to economic subjects, have you not?
Mr. Nosrettaw: I have for many years been deeply inter
ested in all questions concerning the welfare of our country.
Q. You have written much and made many public
speeches, have you not?
A. I have endeavored in my feeble way to throw some
light upon the questions at issue and to aid the public in
coming to correct solutions of vexatious problems.
Q. Upon this question of protection as related to trusts,
will you explain to the jury what your convictions are?
A. I can come to no other conclusion than that the
monopolistic corporations we call trusts, owe their existence
and power to the protective tariff, which has for its object the
prohibition of foreign competing products.
Q. You believe, then, that protection is not only a wicked
policy which denies our people the right of buying in the
cheapest and selling in the dearest market, but that it fosters
the growth of monopolies and thus places the people at the
mercy of extortioners?
A. Ido.
Q. If these trade restrictions were removed, what would
be the effect on the trusts?
A. Naturally, I think they would be put out of existence
in due time.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do, Mr. Nosrettaw.
General Good: Mr. Nosrettaw, you have said that trusts
owe their existence and power to the protective tariff. Are
there any trusts in England?
A. I understand there are capital combinations in Eng
land. Q. Do you not understand that there are more large

THE JUR-i' 'ITJAL OF 1000. 31
capital combinations in England — combinations which, in
this country, are called trusts — than there are in the United
States? A. I do not know it.
Q. You do know, do you not, that there are, and have
been for many years, many such capital combinations in
England? A. I'll not deny it.
Q. Will you not be fair enough to admit it?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. And England is a free trade country, is
it not?
A. So called. It has no tariff for the purpose of pro
tection. Q. Just so-. That, by common agreement in all countries,
is called free trade. Now, Mr. Nosrettaw, is it not true that,
during the last Cleveland administration and under the rule
of the Wilson-Gorman anti-protective tariff, there were more
trusts in this country than ever before existed in the United
States? A. I -have not the figures to show whether that is true or
not. Q. If your memory is pretty good, y5u remember that
many new trusts were organized, and existing ones strength
ened, during the last Cleveland administration, do you not?
A. That may be true.
Q. Is it not a fact, verified by history, that it was during
the Cleveland administration and under free trade Democratic
rule that the recent rapid tendency toward high capitalization
and combination developed?
A. The last Democratic president was James Buchanan.
Q. Is it not also a fact that at that time, the three great

32 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
tmsts— the Whisky trust, the Standard Oil trust, and the
Sugar tmst — ^were Democratic monopolies fostered and en
couraged by Democratic legislation and Democratic appro
bation? A. There might be a difference of opinion about that.
Q. Is it mot also a fact that the rapid growth and re
puted success of these three great monopolies, so favored
under Democratic rule; have done more to stimulate and de
velop the growth of similar organizations, than have all other
causes combined?
A. I understand that is your contention.
Q. And now, Mr. Nosrettaw, having admitted that there
are in England many large capital combinations similar to
those in our country which we call trusts, will you please in
form the jury what, in your opinion, is the father of trusts
in England?
A. The conditions are different.
Q. Oh! so different that free trade is the "father" there
and protection the "father" here?
A. "Oh, such a headache!"
General Good: That is all, sir.
Col. Agi-Tate: I desire now to call a distinguished Aoter-
ican, Ex-Governor Altgeld, of Illinois.
Q. Governor, you have well settled convictions regarding
trusts, have you not?
A. Yes, and it will require earnest men to deal with that
problem. Q. Does Republican legislation, in your opinion, favor
trusts? A. It does. To-day we find that all of the great trusts of
America have made their bed in the Republican camp. They
are managed by shrewd men, and we are warranted in assuming

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 33
that they have made their bed there because they feel that
over there they are aniong friends.*
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all, Mr. Altgeld.
General Good: That will do, Governor, thank you.
Col. Agi-Tate: I will now call to the stand Gov. Ralph-
ston. Q. Gov. Ealphston, do you regard trusts and trade com
binations as a menace to our national prosperity and even to
the perpetuity of our system of government?
A. I do. Commercial feudalism is the logical outcome of
the trust. The trust manager is the feudal baron. The trust
tends to concentrate the ownership and management of all
lines of business activity into the hands of a very few, and by
its unlawful, indefensible methods deprives the very best
element of our people of that equality of opportunity which
has been the foundation, the rock bottom of our greatness as
a nation. Equality of opportunity to all men is better than
the control of the world's trade. Increase of the wealth of the
country is greatly to be desired, but if the people are to be
degraded to industrial slaves, wealth is a curse.
The effect of the trust upon our national life and our
citizenship will not be sudden perhaps; it will rather be a
silent and gradual change. A democratic republic cannot
survive the disappearance of a democratic population.
Q. How, in your opinion, may this evil be met?
A. If our independent and intelligent business men and
artisans are to be crowded out of existence as a class by the
trusts, there is no remedy too drastic. I favor complete and
prompt annihilation of the trusts — with due regard for prop
erty rights, of course. I am of the opinion that the only way

* Speech in Faneuil Hall, Boston, January 30th, 1900.

34 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.*
lo treat an ulcer is with the surgeon's knife. Trusts should
be cut entirely out of our industrial body.
Coi. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: That will do, Govemor.
Col. Agi-Tate: I will call Mr. Dudley G. Wooten, of
'J'exa.s, to the witness stand.
Q. Mr. Wooten, you are a member of the Texas legislature,
are you not?
]Mr. Wooten: Yes, sir; I am a member of the legislature
of that great state.
Q. Have you any views as to the good or bad effects of
tmsts upon society?
A. Certainly. The location, area, resources and popula
tion of Tr;-as entitle it? citizens to entertain very positive and
pertinent conviction? upon that question.
Q. Do you regard trusts as a menace to the general pros
perity of the country?
A. 1 do. With u;, who are mainly producers of raw mate
rials and consumers of manufactured products, whatever
tends to arbitrarily control the price? of the one or to monop
olize the output of the other is a direct injury to our people.*
Again, we believe that there is a fundamental principle
of political ethics and governmental science involved in the
proMeni; under discussion. We believe that there are some
things more valuable, more to be desired and more worthy to
bo contended for by a free people than mere industrial ac
tivity, commercial progress or the accumulation of worldly
wealth. We do not believe in that school of political philosophy -
that despises the wisdom and experience of the fathers of
English and American liberty and law, that rejects as anti-
* From Speech made at Chicago Tmat Conference.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 35
quated and inadequate the great precepts and principles of
venerable jurisprudence at the behest of modern monopoly,
that salves the wounds of freedom with the oil of avarice
and condones constitutional crime with the argument of
pelf and greed.
Q. You believe, then, that the influence of this monopoly
would be detrimental to the best interests of the republic ?
A. We have but to remember that no republic has ever
survived the mercenary despotism of merchants and money
changers. We recall the fate of that little group of Italian
states whose political institutions were wrecked by the touch
of commercial greed, and whose republican freedom vanished
before the breath of commercial. ambition. Their glittering
fragments strewed the shores of the Mediterranean like shat
tered bubbles as soon as their commerce becanie mightier than
their constitution, and their shipping more potent than their
statesmanship. Q. You believe that the trust operates to reduce the price
of raw material and to lower wages?
A. Yes. The fundamental purposes of huge capitalized
monopolies are to reduce expenses by lowering the prices of
raw materials, minimizing the cost of labor, and concentrating
the expenditure of energy into the smallest possible compass;
to destroy competition by absorbing all rival industries,
squeezing out the small, coercing the weak and amalgamating
the strong; to monopolize and control trade and industry by
absolutely dominating the market and subsidizing and terror
izing the free and normal course of commerce, transportation
and labor.
Q. Who is benefitted thereby?
A. The few employes who are able to retain their em-
ploymerit under the new system; the speculators in the wa-

36 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
tered stock that was fioated at the inception of the enter
prise and which has become valuable by the manipulations of
the monopoly; and the limited number of promoters who
have amassed millions of money by the scheme that defrauded,
impoverished and enslaved millions of men. Wealth and
prosperity and a limited degree of happiness have perhaps
blessed a few selfish incorporators and their more selfish
families; while poverty, discontent, despair and the bitterness
of ruined hopes and homes have darkened the minds and
desolated the hearts of countless thousands of honest, indus
trious, aspiring citizens of a free republic.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do, Mr. Wooten.
General Good: You refer to watered stock as one of the
evils of these combinations. Now, suppose that legislation
were enacted which would prevent the watering of stock,
what effect would that have to destroy the evil of combina
tion? A. It is a question in my mind whether legislation can
control these monsters. They will find some means of avoid
ing all statutory legislation.
Q. Do you think these combinations ought to be anni
hilated? A. I think legislation of a radical kind is necessary. The
federal government should take the initiative in a movement
to suppress and restrain these great monopolies.
Q. Well, Mr. Wooten, if you "suppress" the monopolies,
there is little left to restrain! You do not regard commercial
activity as a matter of much importance?
A. Commercial activity is all very well, but in Texas we
do not believe in prostituting everything to worldly wealth.
Q. Mr. Wooten, do you not know that industrial activity
is the life of any nation? Do you not know that a nation

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 37
without commercial progress is doomed to certain retrogres
sion and ultimate death?
A. I do not see that I can make my meaning plainter by
further explanation.
Q. Mr. Wooten, you have referred to the fall of the
Italian republics, and have attributed that fall to the com
mercial greed of the people. Has it ever occurred to you
that their fall was the result of internal corruption which
played into the hands of aspiring and aggressive neighboring
powers, or do you believe that commercial greed is the root
of all evil?
A. I love to recall that Washington warned his coun
trymen against the dangerous seductions of commercial
power and the corrupt influence of consuming wealth; that
he commended to them the frugal methods and easy paths of
individual enterprise, and with his last breath bade them
beware of the encroaching tyranny of national greed.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Wooten.
Terrence Mulvaney called to the stand.
Col. Agi-Tate: Are you an American citizen, Mr. Mul
vaney? Mulvaney: Oi am, sor.
Q. How long have you lived in this country?
A. Sivinteen years, sor.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Masheenist, sor.
Q. Been working at your trade ever since you came over?
A. No, sor. For sivril years Oi wuz workin' hard to f oind
an openin', sor, whin the mills and facthories wuz closin' —
Q. Answer "Yes" or "No" to direct questions, please, Mr.
Mulvaney. Now, you are recommended as an intelligent and

38 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1000.
industrious workman, what is your opinion of those greedy
and merciless monopolies called trusts?
A. Oi don't loike thim kind, sor; they're bad.
Q. Then it is your opinion, after years of observation,
that such combinations are a menace to the public welfare?
A. Yis, sor.
A Juror: Mr. Mulvaney, do you mean by this to condemn
as public evils all combinations of capital?
A. No, sor.
Col. Agi-Tate: Where would you draw the line?
A. Well, sor, Oi'd draw th' loine round th' neck of the rale
trusts, in the forst place — thim that clane out all competition
and trow honest labor out av imployment. Afther that Oi'd
be moighty cairful.
Q. Explain yourself.
,A. Well, sor, if the wather in th' mill dom was breakin'
out th' dom, wud Oi desthroy th' mill to get aven v/id th'
the wather? Not by a dom site!
Q. Oh, but your comparison fails.
A. It fails, do it? Well, thin, if Oi wuz makin' a foire in
th' shtove to bake m' petaties wid, an' th' foire wuz tryin' to
burn me house up, Oi'd put it out if Oi cud, but Oi wudn't
smash m' stove jist for thot, nor throw away m' matches.
Naythur wud Oi clane out all comboines jist becase thim thot
has brissuls are thryin' t' hog th' whole thing. Oi'd draw th'
loine where it wudn't shtrangle competition, an' Oi'd draw
th' loine where it wudn't hang up honest labor, d'ye moind?
Q. But these high tariff trusts — trusts sired by protection
- — are not they all alike?
A. Begora, if protiction is the fay ther av troosts, who's
guilty in ould England? Tell me thot. Soired b' protiction,
is it? Well, thot's a good joke on John Bool, who was or-

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 39
ganizin' an' promotin' troosts a long toime before there wuz
wan heard av in this country. Yis, thot's a good wan.
But plaze don't fool me so aisy. Th' high tariff, is it? Be-
gobs, I know the diffirence bechune a high tariff an' a low
tariff, moind thot! An' so duz ivery intilligent worruking
man. Indushtrilly and commershully spakin', it's th' differ
ence bechune livin' an' dyin'.
Q. You're probably a protectionist because your employer
is. A. Is thot so? Well, sor, to be plain Avid ye, Oi'm a pro-
tictionist becaze whin we hev Protiction Oi'm able in th' forst
place to foind an employer, and plinty of work wid good
wages; and w'hin we don't hev Protiction, Oi'm a long toime
out av a job, loike thousands of ithers. Oi've tried both av
thim in this counthry, an' know what Oi'm talkin' about.
Q. And you refuse to admit that Protection is the father
of trusts?
A. Well, sor, it wud pain me much t' think that all thim
big troosts in free trade England are intirely fatherless, so it
wud. Col. Agi-Tate: That will do, Mr. Mulvaney.
General Good: Your Honor, we are willing to give plain
tiff's counsel all the time they want with this witness.
Col. Agi-Tate: I now call Congressman Sulzer, of New
York, to testify.
Q. Mr. Sulzer, you have made a special study of the
trust question. Will you tell us your opinion of trusts?
A. There is no doubt that the trusts to-day are doing ir
reparable injury to the consumers, toilers, and the tax
payers of the country. No one will dispute that proposition.
I believe and I charge that the administration is responsible
for the sway, the growth, and the power of the trusts. If

40 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
the Attorney-General would enforce the law now on the
statute books, in my judgment, every trust could be ^dis
solved. The greatest trust, however, of all the trusts is the
money trust, and the present currency bill will create the
greatest money monopoly and the greatest flnaneial trust the
world has ever seen. Its possibilities for plunder are un
limited. I understand the American people. I know the great
American heart. I believe I know the nobler impulses of the
great civilization of this hemisphere. I think I know what
they are thinking about; I think I know 'how they feel in ref
erence to the imperial march of the Republicans under the
leadership of Mark Hanna; I think I know how they feel as
they witness Congress override the constitution, trample un
der foot the Declaration of Independence, and turn to the
wall the picture of the great emancipator, and I prophesy
now that the people of this country will never submit to the
brutal dictation of Mark Hanna.*
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: If your Honor please, while I do not care
to cross-examine Congressman Sulzer, I would like to tell the
gentleman something: The man who, in the campaign o<f
1900, undertakes to run for Vice-President, or anything else,
upon an outcry about trusts — ^howling in the ears of the
American people about that subject, does not know what the
American people are made of. Tlie American people, gentle
men of the jury, understand one thing and there can be no
doubt about it; they understand that for four years — ^from
1892 to 1896 — ^business broke down; they starved; everything
went to destruction and disaster all over this country; and
they know that it was not over twenty-four hours after the
* From speech made in Congress Feb. 17, 1900. Cong. Recotd.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 41
Election of President McKinley in 1896, before business began
to revive, and they will stand by the party that stood by
them.* I am reminded of a little incident that occurred recently on
a Burlington train between Omaha and Denver. A shouting
populist from Nebraska and a cattle owner from Denver were
having an animated political discussion. The populist was
louder of voice than the stock man, but his arguments seemed
to impress the interested listeners as much less convincing.
The heated debate was flnally concluded by a pointed illustra
tion from the cattle owner, who said:
"My friend, you populists are just like a wild steer I had in
the yards the other day. That blamed steer had the best of
feed in front of him and all around him, and plenty of it;
but the little cuss just stood up there and bellered and
bawled, and bawled and bellered all day long — for what, the
Lord only knows."
Whereupon the populist's wife, with appealing voice, said:
"Abraham, do stop talking politics." Incredible as it may
seem, Abraham stopped, but not until after he had given the
steer a grin of approval.

* Gen. Good here nses the language of.Congreiaman Grosvenor in reply to
Congressman Sulzer.

CHAPTEE III.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is nov/ in session.
The Judge: The defense will please open their case.
General Good: May it please the court and gentlemen of
the jury, I congratulate my brother upon bis masterful ar
raignment of trusts.
It is universally conceded that combinations, which engross
or control the market of any particular kind of merchandise
or commodity by suppressing natural and ordinary com
petition whereby prices are unduly enhanced to the general
consumer, are obnoxious, not only to the common law, but
also to the public welfare. There must be a remedy for tbe
evils involved in such organization.*
In defending the Republican party, we shall show that the
charges made by my brother are unfounded; that the trust
question is one which must be handled with great wisdom,
with great care for all the interests that are affected; that the
public mind is in an unsettled condition regarding the proper
checks and restraints that should be put upon these combina
tions; that the prolific mother of trusts is hard times and
severe competition; and that any measure designed to affect
the reform which is conceded by all parties to be necessary
must be at once broad, comprehensive, and thoroughly di
gested.

* President's Message to Congress. (42)

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 43
We shall show, if your Honor please, that there exists a
wide divergence of opinion on the subject of trust regulation
and that, while all the power of legislation should and must
be used in the control of these combinations, it is exceedingly
unwise that precipitate, ill-considered, immature action shall
either be taken or encouraged. I shall call the jury's atten
tion to the fact that all Federal legislation that has even been
enacted, all steps that have ever been talcen, to correct the
evils of the trust, have been taken by the Republican party
and that, although the Democratic party was in full control
of the administration from 1892 to 1896, it made no improve
ment upon the anti-trust law which they found upon the
statute books — the result of Republican watchfulness.
Gentlemen of the jury, there was held within the past few
months in the city of Chicago a most notable conference on
the subject of trusts. This conference contributed a vast
amount of knowledge to the discussion and rendered an un
derstanding of trust problems less difficult. Among the in
terested observers of its proceeding was Dr. E. Benjamin
Andrews. I shall ask Dr. Andrews to take the witness stand
and tell us something of that conference.
General Good: Dr. Andrews, will you give us your im
pressions of the character of the Chicago Trust Conference?
Dr. Andrews: I was much impressed with its democratic
character. All classes of thinkers participated. Even Ben
jamin Tucker, the anarchist, was on the program and said
out his whole say. In striking contrast to him was Prof.
John B. Clark, the sage of the economists' guild in America.
All shades of belief were present, and the conference listened
to each with patience and good will. There was a frank and
fraternal comparison of diverse opinions by Americans of the

44 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
most widely separated sections and of the most varied calling
and social and industrial positions.*
Q. Was there any general agreement in the views of the
delegates? A. Perhaps all would have joined in certain generalities,
but upon specific tenets about trusts the conference presented
the widest variety of opinions. There were, however, invalu
able contributions to public knowledge on this theme, most
of which consisted of new matter.
Q. What is your opinion as to the best method of handling
trusts? A. The trust is a complex subject; we have only begun
to see into it. But we shall see into and through it in time,
if we patiently work on. The Anglo-Saxon race never yet
got into an imbroglio biit it extricated itself; and it has
gotten out of all its imbroglios by using the same patient,
conciliatory, and 'hopeful temper so markedly exhibited in
the Chicago Conference.
General Good: That will do. Professor.
Col. Agi-Tate: This is the gentleman whose free silver
views got him into trouble with the trustees of Brown Uni
versity. I have no cross-examination.
General Good: Prof. Bemis will please take the stand.
. Prof. Bemis, you have studied the trust problem; what, in
your opinion, is the duty of the Federal Government in
relation to trusts?
Prof. Bemis: The trust problem, like the slavery question,
will take a generation or more to settle, and, like the slavery
question, will entail endless trouble unless approached intelli
gently and with conscientious devotion to the public weal.

• Dr. Andrews in a letter to Review of Reviews.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 45
I would say the government should move cautiously in the
matter.* Q. Professor, why are you not in favor of summary action?
A. Such action would be both unnecessary and unjust.
In my opinion, our immediate problem is this: Given a new
form of organization which, on the one hand, has in it vast
possibility of social economy and advantage; but on the other
li.md, immense opportunity for exorbitant profits and crushing
competition. Can we keep the good while we remove the
evil? Q. You claim that the trust has its good as well as its
liad features?
A. I do, certainly.
Q. What causes have brought the trust into existence?
A. The evolution of the trust appears to be so natural that
I am constantly surprised that no one has given the following
analysis of it:
Until recently the tendency of competition to reduce prices
has been met by the ability of the competitors, in a consider
able degree, to turn to other lines of business, or at least to re
duce the capital in an old business as soon as it became so over
done as' to be unprofitable. A diminution of output would
then restore prices to such a level as to yield the normal
profits that similar capital, risk, and ability could command
elsewhere. Owing, however, to the growing specialization and costli
ness of the machinery necessary in almost any line of manu
facturing, it is not as easy as formerly to withdraw capital
from an unprofitable business. Even the modern corporate
form of organization lends itself less readily to dissolution or

* From speech at Chicago Trust Conference and other public utterances.

46 THE JURY TRIAL OP' 1900.
to withdrawal of a portion of the share of capital than did the
partnership. Q. Can you give an illustration of your meaning?
A. Certainly. Let us assume that in a certain industry
the product, under normal conditions, sells for $1.00, and that
of this amount twenty-five cents is necessary to cover taxes,
insurance, depreciation, and interest on the normal profits of
such business. This twenty-five cents may be considered as
fixed charges, since they are charges that the plant is expected
to bear even when idle. The other seventy-five cents of the
price, which would include wages, fuel, raw material, etc., and
which would stop if the factory should shut down, may be
called operating expenses. Now let us suppose that this line
of business is in the hands of half a dozen or more powerful
corporations. Some one of these, thinking to take away
business from its rivals, and ultimately to make a good
showing for the stockholders, may reduce the price to ninety-
five cents, although no better able to do so than its rivals.
Unless the latter immediately follow suit, they will lose much
of their business; but they will not thereby reduce their fixed
charges. They will therefore argue that if they reduce their
price to ninety-five cents, they will lose five cents on every
article they sell, but that if they do not so reduce, they will
lose twenty-five cents on every article they do not sell within
the limits of their normal productive capacity. The process
is likely to be repeated by another cut to ninety cents in some
factory. This series of reductions may continue until the
article is sold for seventy-five cents. In fact, the price may
be reduced a little below that, rather than permit the skilled-
labor force to be broken up, and the connection with the
markets to be lost.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 47
Q. How does this form differ from the older forms of
competition? A. This kind of competition is recognized by the general
public as different from the older forms, since to it are ap
plied the terms, "war of rates," "cut-throat competition," etc.
The manufacturers in such a situation recognize that it is a
case of "trust or bust." There is an almost irresistible tend
ency, apart from the economies of combination, for a union
of such warring interests to take place. At least a partial
confirmation of this theory of the matter may be found in the
[^;enerally admitted fact, that competing natural monopolies,
such as gas-works, railroads, etc., go through precisely this
experience, and that, after doing business for hardly enough
to pay operating expenses, are forced to combine. Prof.
Hadley well brought this out years ago in his "Railway Trans
portation." It is beginning to be seen that the same reason
which makes railroads combine at a ruinous point — the dif
iiculty of withdrawing capital once embarked in any enter
prise — applies with more and more force to all kinds of busi
ness. Q. As I understand you then, Professor, the costliness of
machinery, owing to the growing practice of specialization in
manufacture, adds to the difficulty of withdrawing capital
once em-barked in an enterprise, and drives the manufac
turer into combination as the only method of preventing his
doing business at a loss and ultimately losing his capital.
A. Precisely.
Q. Do you make any distinction as to the different kinds
of business?
A. Broadly speaking, business enterprises can be divided
into two classes: (1) those that produce goods known by the
brand of the maker, like the Remington Typewriter, the

48 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Columbia Bicycle, the Elgin Watch, etc.; and (2) where the
goods of one factory's product are likely to be the same as
those of another, and where the goods are known by a test
applied by the purchaser or a State inspector, as in the case
of matches, oil, sugar, or alcohol. In the latter class of
goods the competition is especially keen, and likely to take
the form of abnormally low prices. On that account, trusts
are sooner developed in this class than in the former; yet
the recent formation of combinations in bicycles and a
few similar products, indicates the tendency of even the first-
named lines of business to enter the trust form.
Q. Is there any parallel to this kind of organization in
other lines of trade or occupation?
A. Yes. We may get a clearer idea of this whole subject
by a study of the trade-union. Labor, like the corporation,
has two classes of expenses; viz., one which is absolutely neces
sary to the existence of the laborer, such as some form of nu
tritious food, lodging, clothing, etc.; and one that involves
provision for old age, children's education, and certain com
forts which may not be absolutely necessary for the efficiency
of labor, but which are necessary for a truly civilized exist
ence. Q. Do you mean to say that there is a similarity in prin
ciple between the trust and the trade-union?
A. A very great similarity. The la;bor world, like that of
business in general, is divisible into those who have a special
reputation as individual workers, such as physicians, lawyers,
teachers, artists, writers, etc., and those, including even
skilled artisans, whose work is not very distinct from that of
others of the same class. In the latter case, price, or wages, is
the chief thing to be considered by the employer. With such
workers, therefore, there arises a "cut-throat war of rates"

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 49
similar to the case of the business where the product is not
known by the brand of the maker. There is frequently a tend
ency for common labor to compete at ruinously low wages.
The labor trust becomes as inevitable as the capitalist trust.
Each of the two commonly refuses to deal with those not in
the combination, and attempts to force others to do likewise.
Each attempts to compel all in similar circumstances to join
the trust. This illustration, however, will further confirm the
position here taken, that the capitalist trust is a natural devel
opment of modern competitive conditions.
Q. That will do. Professor.
Col. Agi-Tate: Professor, do you believe it necessary to
have any statutory regulation of trusts?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Well, then, why should you postpone the immediate
application of the remedy?
A. We conquered at Santiago and Manila by building our
Oregons on the Pacific coast and training our Deweys in land
locked, rocky Vermont. So, before we can deal adequately
with the trust problem, we shall have to build our battering
ram back in the hills and gradually move it up to the walls of
Jericho, preparing for the final struggle as we move along.
General Good: Nebraska would be far enough back to go
for the ram.
Col. Agi-Tate: Yes, provided the ram had been imported
to Nebraska from Ohio.
Professor, it is believed by some that a system -of Federal
and State licenses upon all corporations engaged in interstate
commerce which would forbid their doing business in any
state outside their origin without a license, would be effectual
as a means of control of trusts. What do you think of that
idea?:

50 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. It would be flying in the face of economic evolution
and the possibilities of cheap production, just as would laws
preventing the use of machinery.
Q. You have nothing then to offer as remedial legislation?
A. Yes. I would begin by making discriminations in
railroad rates impossible. I would have all shippers treated
alike. This is of fundamental importance. I would make
this the starting point and proceed carefully. I would follow
with legislation providing for greater publicity and the pre
vention of boycotts.
Q. Does not the protective tariff play into the hands of
trusts? A. The theory of the protective tariff demands com
petition at home to take the place of the excluded competition
from abroad, and where combinations exist which shut out that
home competition on any particular article, Congress should
greatly reduce the tariff rate on that article. One need not,
however, believe that all protectionist arguments in the past
have been fallacious in order to indorse a reduction of protec
tion on trust goods.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: I will call Mr. Bourke Cockran to the
stand. Q. Mr. Cockran, one witness has stated that commer
cial feudalism is the logical outcome of the trust. You have
a recognized position as a close student of the great problems
of the time. In your opinion, is that statement true?
A. In my opinion, it is very far from the truth.
Q. Do you believe that industrial combinations operate
for the general good or against it?
A. Every device which facilitates the industrial co-opera
tion of men promotes the volume of production. Corpora-

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 51
tions possess enormous capacity for swelling the tide of hu
man prosperity, and they have promoted the wellbeing of
every community in which they have been encouraged. I do
not say that the management of corporations has always been
good, in fact, corporate mismanagement forms the blackest
page in our history. I do not object to the principle of co
operation; in fact, I approve of that principle. The corpora
tion is the natural evolution of the partnership. It is a
scheme by which many men, strangers to each other, can co
operate in various fields of industry with a limited risk to
each, while a partnership is essentially the co-operation of a
few men well known to each other, who are compelled to de
vote all their time and pledge all their resources to the suc
cess of their joint enterprise.*
Q. Mr. Cockran, what is the occasion for such general
distrust of corporations?
A. I have referred to the fact that corporate mismanage
ment is a great evil. It has brought corporations into disre
pute. While I do not think the public hatred of corporations
is wholly justified, yet I believe the history of corporate mis
management in this country explains it.
The distrust of corporations arises not, in my judgment,
from a general opposition to corporate organizations, but
from profound distrust of corporate administration.
Q. How would you correct corporate abuses?
A. Whenever we discover corporate abuses, we find that
it originates in secrecy, that it is developed in secrecy and
that it is maintained in secrecy. Special favors could never
be granted in the light of day. Misrepresentations would be
useless if all the knowledge of corporate officers were imparted
to the public. Fraud upon corporations by the directors
* From speech of Mr. Cockran at Chicago Itrust Conference.

52 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
would never be attempted if their operations were conducted
within full view of the stockholders and of the public. Se
crecy being the source of evil, publicity is its only natural
antidote. These, then, are my suggestions for the cure of such evils
as affect the body politic: Equal rights to all men in the en
joyment of all facilities furnished by the government directly
or through agencies of its selection; publicity of every detail
in corporate management affecting the community; penalties
for interruption, through strikes or other industrial disturb
ances, of the public service which a corporation is chartered
to perform, unless the corporation can show that it had always
been ready to discuss matters in dispute with its employees
through agents of their own selection.
Q. Mr. Cockran, what do you mean by facilities furnished
by the government, directly or through agents of its selection?
A. There are three ways by which, in this country, gov
ernment interferes with the trade of individuals. One is by
patent laws; another method of government interference with
trade is by tariff laws. Every person must concede, whether
he believes in high tariff or free trade, that a protective tariff
fosters combinations to control the market in one way. It
restricts competition in a commodity to those producing it
in this country. It is proper to say, however, that according
to the protectionist, the exclusion of foreign -competition de
velops a domestic competition much keener and in some
mysterious way more beneficent.
The third form of government interference with the trade
of individuals is a very serious one. In my judgment, it has
a wider infiuence in promoting industrial combinations than
the tariff. I refer to special favors granted to certain indus
tries by great corporations exercising public franchises. I

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 53
call this form of discrimination government favor, because
these corporations are essentially agencies of the government
although their stocks are owned by private individuals. No
person can enjoy a favor at the hands of any company exer
cising a public franchise except at the expense of another.
This is true in every instance where government extends
special favors to an individual. Government cannot at one
and the same time be a fountain of generosity and of justice.
Government cannot of itself create anything. Now, if govern
ment cannot create anything, it has nothing of its own to
bestow on anybody. If, then, it undertakes to enrich one in
dividual, the thing which it gives him it must take from
another. Q. Do combinations of capital operate to raise prices or
to reduce them?
A. Whether combinations of capital operate to raise
prices or to reduce them, is a- subject about which there is a
diversity of opinion. While I am fully conscious that the
movements of prices depend upon many forces, or perhaps,
I should rather say, upon every force, — upon the fertility
of the soil, upon the sun that quickens the seed, -upon the
rains that refresh it, upon the rivers which facilitate the
transportation of the crop harvested on the surface of the
earth, and of the minerals yielded from its bosom, upon
every element of nature as well as upon the industry of man
— I think it is beyond question that some combinations of
capital operate to cheapen commodities and some to make
them dearer.
Q. Will you explain, if you please, what combinations tend
to cheapen commodities and what to make them dearer?
A. I believe there is a very simple test by which we can
always determine the effect on prices of any successful Indus-

54 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
trial organization, and that is, to ascertain whether it flour
ishes through government aid or without it. Combinations
or individuals who excel by virtue of the superiority of their
wares must be set down as having a beneficial influence, while
those who excel by reason of special favors never operate to
stimulate the volume of production, but always to restrict it.
Q. In your judgment, would socialism prove a cure for the
evils that affect the body politic?
A. If socialism would result in a more abundant yield of
the earth, I would be a socialist, as I am in favor of the
greatest production. I do not believe that in the present
condition of the race a man would labor as zealously or as
effectively for the common good as he does now for his own
profit, and therefore I believe socialism would restrict rather
than promote the volume of production. I favor industrial
combinations generally upon the sole ground that they in
crease the productive power of the people.
Q. What effect do industrial combinations have upon the
rate of wages?
A. I believe that every improved method of production
operates not only to increase wages, but to increase the num
ber of operatives employed.
Juror Roadman: Mr. Cockran, it is claimed by the presi
dent of the Commercial Travelers' National League that,
through the operation of the trusts, 35,000 commercial trav
elers have been thrown out of employment, and over 25,000
more reduced in salary. Will you kindly throw some light
upon that condition?
A. We have no particular evidence that such statistics are
accurate, but even supposing these facts to be true, must we
hold back the car of progress until every human being can get
aboard? If so, we must diminish its speed from the rate of

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 55
the lightning express to that of the lumbering ox wagon. It
seems to me it would be cheaper to pension middle-men di
rectly from the treasury than to restrict the efficiency of the
capable in deference to the lamentations of the incapable. I
may add that until there is a prospect of a. pension, I doubt
very much whether we could find 35,000 unemployed com
mercial travelers in the country.
A period of industrial transition is always a period of ap
prehension; but as a matter of fact, industrial organizations
which increase production never have and never can fail to in
crease the number of hands engaged, and to increase the
number of employees cannot operate to throw anyone out of
employment. On the eve of the application of machinery to manufactur
ing, operatives of every description bemoaned the advent of
the new force which they believed would filch from their
mouths the scanty crusts on which they had supported exist
ence. What has been the result of the change? Machinery
placed goods in greater abundance upon the market, and
demanded for its operation hands that had already acquired
familiarity with the articles to be manufactured. The sol
itary laborers came together in the factory where they
earned better wages, and in a short time they organized unions
and demanded still better wages. The railroad has superseded
the stage coach, but surely it would not be contended that the
progress of the human race should have been blocked out of
sympathy, not for the necessities, but for the vanity of an
occasional stage coach driver, who felt it a loss of dignity to
exchange his four horses for an engine. The object of con
solidating corporations must be to increase sales, and increase
of sales involves an increase in salesmen, and the best sales
men will be the first beneficiaries of the change. Of course I

56 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
speak of those who promptly seek employment under tTie
new system, not of those who spend their days bemoaning dis
carded methods.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Cockran.
Col. Agi-Tate: You would then be willing that the grand
body of commercial evangelists who go from one part of the
country to the other proclaiming the merits of their goods,
should be driven to the necessity of changing their employ
ment and of seeking menial positions under the grand oc
topus. Mr. Cockran: My populistic brother, if I have not made
my meaning plain, I fear it will be of little use to repeat or
enlarge, but if you and the Court and jury can stand it, I can.
I noticed as I came over to this court house that the side
walks were not all on the same level. At the street inter
sections there is a step down of several inches, and I thought
what an inconvenience and hardship this must be to cripples.
It then occurred to me that it would be impracticable to con
struct a town on the sole idea of best methods for cripples.
A town must be built with regard to its practical use; it must
be built with regard to the interests of the great body of its
citizens who are not cripples. Assuming then, that 35,000
commercial travelers will be thrown out of employment
(which I do not admit) must we build for these men or for
the other eighty million people of the country who would be
benefited? Col. Agi-Tate: You would class this energetic body of
men with cripples and unfortunates, I see?
A. I would not. Nor would I class them with "evan
gelists." "Commercial evangelists" is complimentary, and if
compliment is what you seek, you have it in such expressions.
I am testifying to the truth. I am stating facts, and truth

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 57
and fact are not always complimentary or agreeable. I wish
now to make an emphatic protest against the use of meaning
less phrases, which, instead of making a difficult problem
clearer, serve to becloud it. To call au industrial organiza
tion a combination — -a, hydra-headed monster or an octopus
does not cast any light upon what it is or illumine my path
way in attempting to deal with it; nor do such terms as
"commercial evangelist" or "angels of distribution" simplify
discussion or throw light upon the subject. The plain term
"commercial traveler" is one of dignity and of honor, and it is
borne by an exceptionally able and industrious class of men,
who are abundantly able to take care of themselves in any
industrial change that may arise. It is unpardonable non
sense to assert that the traveling man must go as a result of
combination. Many people feared that the department store
would, by concentrating so many departments of trade under
one roof, displace large numbers of clerks, as one clerk could
supposedly wait upon more customers. The facts have not
borne out the fear. These stores are veritable bee-hives.
The clerks are so numerous that they almost fall over each
other. Human nature is the one thing that in all these changes
will remain about the same. Clerks are as much needed in
the department store to show up the soft side of every article
to the customer as ever. So with the traveling man. It is,
always has been, and always will be one of the missions of the
traveling salesman to warm up, enthuse, encourage and edu
cate the trade. This necessity will remain under all condi
tions, — ^it takes the salesman to sell goods, to put life and
activity into trade. Combinations will increase production
and increased merchandise will require an increase of sales
men.

58 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Cockran, you do not share the general
belief that the trust is the natural outgrowth of unnatural
conditions created by man-made laws?
A. I am not aware that there is any such general belief.
Trade combinations and large aggregations of active capital
are only the evolution in the development of our industrial
and commercial life.
Q. Do you believe that an industrial aristocracy is compat
ible with a government wherein all men are created equal?
A. I do not know of any industrial aristocracy. If you
mean to ask whether industrial combinations are incompat
ible with the equal rights of men, I have no hesitation in
saying that I do not.
Q. You would be willing, then, to place the laboring man
of this country absolutely in the hands of the leaders of mo
nopolies. A. I believe that would be impossible. I do not believe
you can put the laboring man in the hands of his employer,
or the employer in the hands of the employe. There is a
mutual relationship existing between them which neither can
disregard if he would. They are partners. I maintain that
the standard of wages is fixed by two forces acting on each
other, the competition of laborers for employment operating
to make wages lower, and the competition of capital for profit
operating to make wages higher. Nothing can be further
from the truth than the degrading notion that wages are a
species of alms depending on the moral attributes of the em
ployer, that good employers pay high wages and bad employ
ers low wages. The prosperity of both employer and em
ploye fiows from the same fountain,
Col. Agi-Tate; That will do.

THE JURi' TRIAL OP 1900. 59
General Good: Mr. Benjamin R. Tucker, will you take
the witness stand?
Q. Will you explain to us briefly, Mr. Tucker, the at
titude of anarchism towards industrial combinations?
A. Anarchism is the doctrine that in all matters there
should be the greatest amount of individual liberty compat
ible with the equality of liberty. Viewed in the light of these
propositions, the trust, like every other industrial combina
tion endeavoring to do collectively nothing but what each
member of the combination rightfully may endeavor to do
individually, is an unimpeachable institution.*
Of the four monopolies — the banking monopoly, the land
monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent and copyright
monopoly — the injustice of all but the last mentioned is mani
fest even to a child.
Free access to the world of matter, abolishing land monop
oly; free access to the world of mind, abolishing idea monop
oly; free access to an untaxed and unprivileged market, abol
ishing tariff monopoly and money monopoly — secure these,
and all the rest shall be added unto you.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: You certainly do not accuse the Repub
lican party with having an idea monopoly?
General Good: He might cite a party that has gone bank
rupt in that line.
General Good: I will ask Mr. -Rockefeller to take the
stand. Q. Mr. Eockefeller, when was the first combination of
different esta;blishments in the oil industry, in which you are
interested, formed?

* From speech at Chicago Trust Conference.

60 THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Mr. Eockefeller: I was interested in a union formed
about 1867.
Q. Why was this union made?
A. The cause leading to its formation was the desire to
unite our skill and capital in order to carry on a business of
some magnitude and importance in place of the small busi
ness each of the contracting parties had previously carried on.
Q. What motive has prompted further aggregations of
capital by which the Standard Oil Company has attained its
present enormous size?*
A. As time elapsed and the possibilities of the business
became apparent, we found further capital to be necessary,
obtained the required persons and capital, and organized the
Standard Oil Company, with a capital of one million dollars.
Later we found more capital could be utilized, and found
persons with capital to interest themselves with us, and in
creased our capital to three million five hundred thousand
dollars. As the business grew, markets were obtained at home
and abroad, more persons and capital were added to the busi
ness, and new corporating agencies were obtained, the abject
being always the same — to extend our business by furnishing
the best and cheapest products.
Q. To what extent has railroad discrimination in freight
rates contributed to the profits of the Standard Oil Company?
A. No percentage of the profits of the Standard came
from advantage given by railroads at any time. Whatever
advantage it received in its constant efforts to reduce rates of
freight was deducted from the price of oil. The advantages
to the Standard from low freight rates consisted solely in the

* From a letter to the Industrial Commission at Washington published in
the N. Y, Sun.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 61
increased volume of its business arising from the low price of
its product.
Q. What per cent, of all the oil consumed in this country
does the Standard Oil Company supply?
A. About 62 per cent., I believe.
Q. How has the Company been able to so completely dom
inate the market?
A. I ascribe the success of the Standard to its consistent
policy to make the volume of its business large through the
merits and cheapness' of its products. It has spared no ex
pense in finding, securing and utilizing the best and cheapest
methods of manufacture. It has sought for the best super
intendents and workmen and paid the best wage's. It has not
hesitated to sacrifice old machinery and old plants for new
and better ones. It has placed its manufactures at the point
where they could supply markets at the least expense. It
has not only sought markets for its principal products, but for
all possible by-products, sparing no expense in introducing
them to the public. It has had faith in American oil, and has
brought together millions of money for the purpose of mak
ing it what it is and holding its markets against the com
petition of Eussia and of the many countries which are pro
ducers of oil and competitors against American oil.
Q. Is there any advantage in combinations of capital, and
if so, what are they?
A. In my opinion there are advantages. The chief advan
tages are: command of the necessary capital; extension of
limits of business; increase of number of persons interested in
the business; iniprovements and economies which are de
rived from knowledge of many interested persons of wide ex
perience; power to give the public an improved product at less
price and still make a profit for stockholders; permanent work

62 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
and good wages for laborers. I speak from my experience in
the business with which I have been intimately acquainted
for about forty years.
In my opinion combinations are a necessity, and if all
Americans are to have the privilege of extending their busi
ness in all the states of the Union and into foreign countries
as well, they are a necessity on a large scale and require the
agency of more than one corporation.
Q. What dangers to the public do you think may arise
from such co-operation of persons and such aggregations of
capital? A. The dangers are, that the power conferred by com
bination may be abused, that combinations may be formed for
speculation in stock rather than for conducting business, and
that for this purpose prices may be temporarily raised instead
of being lowered.
Q. What would you suggest as a means of dealing with
this important instrument of industry?
A. I would suggest Federal legislation under which cor
porations may be created and regulated, if that be possible.
In lieu thereof, state legislation, as nearly uniform as possible,
encouraging combinations of persons and capital for the pur
pose of carrying on industries, but permitting state super
vision, not of a character to hamper industries, but suf
ficient to prevent frauds upon the public. Hitherto, most
legislative attempts have been an effort not to control, but
to destroy, hence their futility.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Rockefeller.
Col. Agi-Tate: You uphold the principle of monopoly, do
you, Mr. Rockefeller?
A. I uphold the principle of concentration of capital for

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 63
the purpose of extending American business all over the
world, as I have already stated.
Q. In trade you believe in the survival of the fittest, do
you? A. I do.
Q. Mr. KockefeUer, in the conduct of the business of your
Company, do you sell oil at lower prices in certain markets
than you do in others, for the purpose of killing local com
petition? A. I am not familiar with every detail employed in the
marketing of the products of our Company; but the methods
of large business companies are very like those of smaller ones,
or like the methods employed by individuals under similar
circumstances. Q. As a matter of fact, is it not the purpose of all trusts
like yours to freeze out all competition so that they may con
trol both output and prices? Your testimony is more evasive
than direct on this point. While it is true that your monop
oly has in the past supplied the trade with cheap oil, and the
consumers have not been the victims of extreme extortion, it
is nevertheless true that all absolute monopolies have it in
their power to control both output and prices and force the
consumers to pay for the products whatever the trusts may
demand of them. I fancy that the conscience of all political
parties condemn such a condition, and will not cease to pro
test until the right of full and open competition shall be
guaranteed to all. That will do, Mr. Rockefeller.
General Good: I will call Mr. John M. Stahl.
Q. You have been secretary of the Farmers' National
Congress, have you not, Mr. Stahl?
Mr. Stahl: I have.
Q. Will you tell us briefly what, in your opinion, should

64 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
be the attitude of the farmer toward combinations of capital?
A. The trust is a logical phenomenon in industrial de
velopments. We have the machine: it is for us not to try to
smash it, but to discover how best to use it. I believe that
anything that increases the productivity of mankind is a good
thing and should work good. I will confess that I tried hard
to reaeh conclusions not so favorable to these industrial com
binations. But I am constrained to acknowledge the tmth
as it is given me to see it.*
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: The agricultural class fortunately do not
generally hold that view.
General Good: My brother had better take the witness
stand if he wishes to contradict Mr. Stahl.
Col. Agi-Tate: We have shown by other witnesses an op
posite belief.
General Good: All of which goes to prove my contention
that the public mind is unsettled as to what is the best
method of regulation. There are few who do not admit that
some form of regulation is necessary. There is, however, a
marked distinction between regulation and confiscation.
General Good: Mr. Edward P. Ripley will take the stand.
Q. Mr. Ripley, you are president of the Atchison, Topeka
& Sante Fe Railway System, are you?
A. Yes, Mr.
Q. Of how many corporations is your railway system com
posed, and how many miles of road does it control?
A. It is composed of something over 100 corporations
controlling roughly 7,500 miles.
Q. What has been the effect upon rates and service, of
the consolidation? * From speech at Chicago Tmst Conference.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 65
A. The result to the public of the consolidation as to
rates has been to lower them, and as to service, to increase
the convenience.
Q. What has been the result to employes' wages?
A. The result to employes' wages has been to advance
them. It is a well known fact that wages on the smaller
roads are in almost all ca^es lower than on the larger systems.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: These consolidations have relieved you
from competition, have they not?
A. With few exceptions, each absorption or consolidation
has both relieved and intensified competition, that is, it has
relieved us of competition at one point only to bring us into
competition at another, and as there is no part of the United
States where railway competition does not exist, either in its
direct or indirect form, it is fair to say that competition has
been restricted but slightly, if at all, by the consolidations
that have taken place.
Q. Is it not the policy of your railway system to discrim
inate in favor of large shippers and strong trade combina
tions? A. Unquestionably the result of strong trade combina
tions has been that the railroads have been compelled to dis
criminate in their favor.*
Col. Agi-Tate: You admit that the railroads do discrim
inate in favor of large shippers. This is a frank concession.
That will do.
General Good: Mr. Thomas Updegraff, will you take the
witness stand?
Q. You were formerly a member of Congress for Iowa,
were you not?
? From speech at Chicago Trust Conference.

66 THE JURY TRIAL OP 190().
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your attitude toward the trusts, Mr. Upde
graff? A. The monopolistic trusts I stand against; an aggregation
of capital, however large, properly managed, I approve.
Q. Would you advocate the removal of the protective
tariff in dealing with the problems growing out of the trusts?
A. It is only a fool who kills the goose that lays daily the
golden egg. If the tariff be in any sense the mother of
trusts, I would save the mother and raise hee children in thft
nurture and admonition of the Lord. It has been said there
never was a paradise without snakes. Protectionists would
kill the snakes and save the paradise. Free traders in Amer
ica would devastate the paradise and save the snakes.*
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Snakes are sometimes seen by members of
Congress this side of paradise. That will do.
General Good: Mr. J. C. Hanley, will you take the witness
stand? Q. Mr. Hanley, you represented the National Farmers'
Alliance and Industrial Union of America at the Chicago
Trust Conference, did you not?
A. I did, sir. I spoke there in behalf of that organization.
Q. Are combinations of capital a benefit or an injury to
the interests of agriculture, in your judgment?
A. Trusts and combinations, if conducted on a strict
business competitive system, would be a blessing rather than
a curse. But the operation of many of these gigantic monop
olies, as conducted at present, is a menace to the existence and
stability of our nation.f
* From speech at Chicago Trust Conference.
t From speech at Chicago Trust Conference.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 67
There are many ways in which the farmer is made the
helpless victim of the numerous combines through which his
products pass in transit from the farm to the consumer, and
every one of these combines levies tribute on him.
Q. What are the causes of these conditions?
A. The causes, in brief, are the tendencies to capitalize
combinations at enormously watered values, and then exact
tribute in the shape of fixed interest on this vastly over
capitalized stock. The effort to earn these fixed charges often
places these trusts and combines under public disapproval.
Because of the power they control, they can suppress com
petition, put down the price of raw material or product, and
put up the price of the manufactured article, while at the
same breath they can reduce wages.
Q. What remedy would you propose?
A. I am convinced that legislation can remedy this evil
only as it strikes at its root, and that the government should
own and control all means of transportation and public
utilities, and operate them in the interest of the people.
While I firmly believe that this will be the only correct and
finally effective remedy, I am still aware that it will be some
time before this condition will be realized, and the trusts
themselves are hastening the day faster than the most ardent
socialist ever dreamed of.
We must, however, have present remedies. We must pre
serve competition. In order to secure competition for the
products of the farm, I propose four remedies which will be
necessary to carry out successfully the permanent establish
ment of competition:
(1) The opening and extending of our foreign markets in
oriental countries.

68 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
(2) The building of our own merchant ships to carry our
products to foreign markets.
(3) The establishment and maintenance of permanent in
ternational exhibits, in the Orient, of American raw and man
ufactured products.
(4) The protection of American graifl. markets from rail
road and warehouse monopoly by the encouragement of local
and terminal competition.
. General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Did I understand you to say that socialism,
to which we are hastening as you express it> would be a cure
for these evils?
A. I did not say we were hastening to socialism, and I do
not advocate socialism in advocating government control of
public utilities.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: Mr. George Gunton.
General Good: Mr. Gunton, you are publisher of Gun-
ton's Magazine in New York City, are you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell us what, in your opinion, is the influence
of corporations upon the condition of labor?
A, Where large corporations prevail, wages are highest
and employment most continuous, and everybody knoWs it is
there where the laborers are most independent. It is no
torious that large corporations have the least influence over
the opinions and individual conduct of their laborers. Let
it be known that a large Corporation is trying to influence the
election of candidates for office, and that is the Signal for the
working men to vote against them.*
Q. How do corporations affect the interest of the farmers?
* From speech at Chicago Trust Conference.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 190O. 69
A. There is probably no class in the community who de
rive more benefit from the economic improvements of large
corporations than do the farmers. All the great improve
ments in tools, architecture, sanitation, domestic appoint
ments, art, literature and general refinement are the products
of industrial centres where large capitalistic enterprises
abound. Every form of commodity outside of food, which
enters into the farmer's life has been greatly cheapened by
the efforts of large corporations.
Transportation, which is an important item in the farmer's
economy, has been reduced fifty per cent, during the last
twenty-five years.
While the farmer has received all the advantages produced
by large corporations in lower prices of everything he buys,
and lower transportation, the price of what he sells has under
gone very little fall, of many products no fall at all and some
have even risen.
Q,. What is the influence of large corporations upon busi
ness stability and prosperity?
A, Large corporations are superior to small concerns;
(1) because by the use of large capital and superior methods,
they improve the quality and reduce the price of commodities;
(2) they are more favorable than smaller concerns to high
wages and individual freedom of laborer's; (3) by introducing
scientific precision into industry they tend to increase the
permanence of employment and reduce the tendency to indus
trial depressions, all of which are vital elements iu the na
tion's prosperity and progress.
Q. You would suggest legislation upon the subject?
A. It might be well for Congress to enact a law empower
ing the government to grant national charters to corpora
tions which should give them the right to do business over the

70 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
entire territory of the United States; (3) it might also be
provided that companies using a public franchise, like rail
roads, should not be permitted to make uneconomic discrim
inations in their rates of traffic, that they should be subject to
public accounting, and that the contracts with shippers should
be accessible to all other shippers.
The general infiuence of publicity and inspection by the
national government, coupled with the corporation's protec
tion in its right to do business, would tend to create a whole
some influence around corporate conduct. It would carry
out the true idea of protection that the American market
should be open to every American producer, and that the in
terests of the laborers and the public is safe-guarded by the
national government; at the same time leaving the essential
features of business to be determined b.y the free action of
economic forces.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Gunton.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Gunton, you live in New York City?
A. Yes, sir.
Col. Agi-Tate: That accounts for your ultra views no
doubt. That will do.
General Good: I will now call Mr. F. B. Thurber.
General Good: Mr. Thurber, you are president of the
United States Export Association, are you not?
A. Yes, sir.
General Good: You have been a careful student of these
organizations of industry, I understand. Will you give us
briefly your views with regard to them?
Mr. Thurber: I at first believed that these organizations
of industry would tend to oppress the public with high prices,
and also that their political influence was to be feared; but a
careful study of their effect ranging over a period of years has

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 71
materially modified my opinion. The first prominent illustra
tion of the so-called trust principle was the consolidation of
lines of railroad into vast systems, with the result of better
service, and as a whole, lower rates. The people of the United
States now get their transportation at about half those of
other principal countries.*
The next was the Standard Oil Company, under whose
operations the price of oil has declined more than other com
modities not under trust control. Another is the American
Sugar Refining Company, under whose operation prices have
averaged 50 per cent, lower in ten years succeeding its forma
tion than they did during the preceding ten years.
If a combination of capital in any line temporarily exacts
a liberal profit, immediately capital fiows into that channel,
another combination is formed and competition ensues on a
scale, and operates with an intensity, far beyond anything that
is possible on a smaller scale. A striking illustration of this is
found in the sugar and coffee industries to-day. Arbuckle
Bros, had attained a commanding position as roasters and
sellers of coffee, and they also sold but did not refine sugars.
Because the American Sugar Refining Co. would not sell them
cheaper than other buyers of sugar, they decided to go into
the sugar refining business, whereupon leading spirits in the
sugar refining company, seeing that the margin in the coffee
business was good, decided to go into the roasting and selling
of coffee. The result has been that this contest of giants has
reduced the profits in both industries to a minimum, if not to
a positive loss, making it hard for smaller manufacturers and
dealers to live, but saving millions of dollars for consumers
that would have otherwise inured to manufacturers and deal
ers.

• Chicago Trust Conference and other public utterances.

72 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Q. Are any safe-guards needed, and what would you sug
gest? A. The only trusts which have succeeded for any length
of time have been those which have been conducted on a far-
sighted basis of moderate margins of profit relying upon a
large turn-over and the economies resulting from the com
mand of large capital intelligently administered. The only
safe-guards needed are for stockholders and investors whose
interests are often sacrificed through lack of publicity. So far
as the interest of consumers is concerned, it is amply pro
tected now; (1) by competition, and (2) by the common law,
which if invoked will nullify any contract in unreasonable
restraint of trade, and any unreasonable combination is sub
ject to indictment for conspiracy.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: You think the interest of the consumer is
amply protected now by competition. You don't seem to
realize that competition is now, at this present minute, dead
in many kinds of trade. You are excused.
• General Good: I will now call to the stand Mr. Samuel
Adams Robinson.
General Good: Mr. Robinson, you were a representative
of the American Protective Tariff League at the Chicago
conference of trusts, were you not?
Mr. Robinson: Yes, sir; I was.
Q. What is your opinion of the wisdom of a policy that
advocates the removal of protection as a remedy for trust op
pression? A. The free trade advocate of the removal of protection
as a trust antidote reminds me of the practitioner who could
cure but one disease, and he always threw the patient into a
fit and then prescribed for the fit. History, howeyer, does not

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 73
record that he was invariably successful in curing the fit.
The stage of fits has not yet been reached in tmst conditions,
though some of the quacks would have us think otherwise.
Their antidote is an old and well knoWn one. It Was tried in
1892, and we all know hoW it worked. Do we want any more
of it? I think not.*
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Robinson, if your political theories
bear the same mark of the chestnut that your story in relation
to fits does, you will not be considered as having added much
to the general intelligence on the subject. That will do.
General Good: General Benjamin Harrison will now take
the stand.
General Good: General Harrison, the people regard you
as one of their wisest counsellors. Will you tell the jury
whether, in your opinion, the tariff has promoted trust com
binations? General Harrison: The protective tariff benefits all Amer
ican citizens from the highest to the lowest; from the large
manufacturer to the smallest individual worker; from the
man of brain to the man of brawn. The tariff does not work
any special benefit to combinations of capital. It benefits them
in a general way by making business good everywhere in the
land. Q. What leads you to believe that the protective tariff
operates to the benefit of the entire American people?
A. Both the principle which underlies the doctrine of the
¦ protective tariff and our industria,l history. Without going
into a discussion of the doctrine of protection, I may mention
some of the results of that policy. I affirm, with great pos-
itiveness and without fear of successful denial, that this na-

* From speec^ at Chicago Trust Conference.

74 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
tion hag never known prosperity except under the beneficent
influence of protective legislation. It has always thrived un
der protection and it has always languished without protec
tion. It has been said the tariff is a dead issue.
The tariff is a most vital issue to the people of this country
to-day. In 1892 the voters of this country, acting under n
strange hallucination, decided that the tariff was a dead issue,
and for four years they repented that action in distress and
misery, in sackcloth and ashes, prostrated upon the ground.
They saw the flres die out of fhe furnaces, the looms become
silent as the grave.
The election of Grover Cleveland in 1892, upon a platform
declaring the principle of the protective tariff unconstitu
tional and the tariff itself a fraud and a robbery; and the
election at the same time of enough Democratic senators and
representatives to give both houses of Congress into the con
trol of the Democratic party immediately unsettled the busi
ness interests of the country, caused widespread distrust and
discouragement and plunged the country into an awful busi
ness calamity.
Before the election in 1892, the general conditions affecting
the commercial and industrial interests of the United States
were in the highest degree favorable. A comparison of the
conditions then existing with those of the most favored period
in the history of the country will show that so high a degree
of prosperity and so general a diffusion of the comforts of life
were never before enjoyed by our people.*
Every branch of business, every line of industry, every de
partment of commercial activity, was in the highest degree
productive. The banks of the country were prosperous, and

* President Harrison's farewell message to Congress and other public
utterances.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 75
especially the savings banks, which were overflowing with the
deposits of men who were daily employed at good wages.
There never had been a time in our history when work was
so abundant, when wages were so high, whether measured by
the currency in which they were paid or by their power to
supply the necessaries and comforts of life. The general
average of prices of agricultural products was such as to give
to agriculture a fair participation in the general prosperity.
I believe that the protective system, which had for some
thing more than thirty years prior to that time continuously
prevailed in our legislation, was a mighty instrument for the
development of our national wealth, and a most powerful
agency in protecting the homes of our working men from the
invasion of want. I felt at that time a most solicitous interest
to preserve to our working people, rates that would, not only
give them daily bread, but supply a comfortable margin for
those home attractions and family comforts and enjoyments
without which life is neither hopeful nor sweet.
It was- in the midst of such a period of general prosperity
that the Democratic party assumed control of the government.
Within six months from that fatal November day, this nation
was in the throes of bitter distress, a distress in which it con
tinued during the entire Democratic administration and until
the success of Mr. McKinley at the polls in 1896 gave to the
people the flrst gleam of hope which they had had for four
long, tedious, tiresome, troublesome years. General business
began to improve from the day of Mr. McKinley's election,
and has continued to improve ever since that time, until now
the business of the country is larger and more flourishing than
it has ever been.
The protective tariff is far from a dead issue. It is a vital
issue to every citizen of this nation. It is not only a vital

76 THE JURI' TRIAL OF 1900.
issue, but it is the most vital issue of all the issues that pre
sent themselves to the voters, What is it that transformed the
business of the country, as in the twinkling of an eye, from
a condition of prosperity to one of distress, and again from
the distressed condition back to one of prosperity?
The Republican party possess no philosopher's stone, they
possess what is better, the intelligence to frame legislation
upon the doctrine of American interests first, of American
markets for American manufacturers, and American wages
for American laboring men.
Changes in entire schedules will at times become necessary.
It may be that some such changes are necessary now. It
may be that some of the great combinations are receiving
undue benefit from a too favorable schedule rate. But these
things are easily corrected and should be corrected. It is,
however, a much more difficult task to correct the great mis
take of fiying to the doctrine of free trade, which has always
proved a delusion and a snare, both to labor and to capital.
The laboring man who votes against the protective tariff
votes against the American system and against ' his daily
bread. Q. General, you are aware that some people attribute the
cause of the great panic and business depression to disturbr
ance in the financial system of the country, are you not?
A. I am aware that that claim is made, but, in my opin
ion, it was not the principal cause of the panic. It must be
remembered that Grover Cleveland was a sound money Demo
crat, and it was well known that no debased currency
schemes could prevail during his administration. There is no
doubt but that the election of a Democratic president on a
platform, declaring the tariff an unconstitutional robbery and
demanding its immediate repeal, was the prime cause of the

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 77
great business disturbance which followed the presidential
election of 1892. It is important that the cotmtry should
have a sound money, a stable currency with which to transact
and carry on the great enterprises of the nation. But it
must also be borne in mind that money is simply the instru
ment by which business is carried on. A good instrument
alone will not produce business. You must have underlying
conditions that are favorable, or you will not have commercial
prosperity. The policy of protection to American industry
is the vital principle which time and again has put life and
energy into the business world. There is not much doubt, in
my opinion, but that all classes of people will remember the
past and take warning, and vote for those conditions which
produce the highest prosperity and the most general condition
of wealth and comfort among the people.
General Good: The plaintiff may take the witness.
Col. Agi-Tate: There is little use to discuss the tariff with
one so steeped in it as is General Harrison. That will do.
General. General Good: I will ask Senator Thurston to testify.
Q. Senator, I believe you took part in the campaign of
1892? Senator Thurston: Yes, sir.
Q. In that campaign it was claimed by the Democrats that
the condition of the working people would be improved Under
free trade, was it not?
A. It was not only claimed that the condition of the
working people would be improved, but it was asserted that
the tariff was a tax and a robbery, and that, besides being a
robbery, it was unconstitutional and Unlawful.
Q. What was the Republican contention?
A. The Republican party contended, as it has always con-

78 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
tended, that the protective tariff was necessary and was in the
interest of American labor and American industry, and that
a departure from the protective theory would throw the
country into widespread disaster and ruin.
Q. Did the results bear out the Republican prediction?
A. Every man's experience will answer that question for
himself. The trials and tribulations of the four or five years
which followed the blessings of free trade are still fresh in the
minds of the people. I do not think they want to be blessed
in that way again for a great many years.
Q. In the coming campaign do you propose to discuss
the tariff issue?
A. I do not propose to dwell upon the tariff issue. If
the people have not already learned their lesson on that sub
ject, no amount of talk or discussion will help them. I will
simply tell them this story and let it go with that. A farmer
boy had just been down to the pasture to bring home a
cow and calf. He was coming up the lane very nicely until
along came a steer going in the opposite direction. The calf,
taking a fancy to the steer, followed him off, much to the dis
gust of the boy, who ran after it, endeavoring to get it to re
turn. But the steer ran, and the calf ran, and the boy ran,
and the boy ran, and the calf ran, and the steer ran; and
finally the boy, tears streaming down his face, stopped and
cried out, "Go it, gol darn you; you will find your mistake
when supper time comes."*
General Good: I wish now to call John Scaren.
Q. Mr. Scaren, where do you reside?
A. Cleveland, Ohio.
Q. What is your business?
A. I run a Fire Alarm Agency.
? story ^old m political speech at Detroit, Mich,

THE JURY ^RIAL OP 1900. 79
Q. Do you know Mr. Hanna of Cleveland?
A. What! Hanna? Mark Hanna? Marcus A. Hanna?
Don't mention him. He's awful.
Q. Whom did he murder?
A. He didn't murder nobody. But then — say, let's change
the subject.
Q. Mr. Scaren, you have intimated that Mr. Hanna is
guilty of some great crime. Now, what is it? Has he par
doned any anarchists? Has 1 e ever set the law of his country
at defiance and encouraged riot and bloodshed?
A. Oh, no! He ain't guilty of any of those things.
Q. Well, what is his offense ? Wliat has he done to justify
your insinuations against him?
A. You press me too hard. You must remember that in
my business, I've got to have something to holler about.
Q. Then you mean to say that Mr. Hanna is really guilty
of no great crime or offense?
A. The worst real charges that I have heard against the
Senator are: That he was born, against his wishes, of honest
and industrious parents; that in early life he developed a
marked ability for business and a strong disposition "to mind
his own business;" that he appreciated the value of education
and tried to get a little of it for himself; that his father was a
grocer and that afterwards he became one; that at the very
tender age of twenty-seven, he deliberately married a lady
whom he loved — a very reprehensible thing for a young man
to do; that later in life his habits of industry, economy and
perseverance, coupled with sagacity and business foresight,
greatly increased the field of his operations until he became a
manufacturer, a vessel owner on the Great Lakes, and an iron
ore developer. The seriousness of this charge is somewhat

80 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
mitigated by the fact that he was always honest in all his
dealings. Q. Are these his only offences?
A. I might mention one or two more. His chief offence
is th&t he has great admiration for and faith in Wm. McKin
ley, President of the United States of America; that this con
fidence is one that dates from the childhood of both of them,
and Mr. Hanna refuses to give it up.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Scaren.
Col. Agi-Tate: Good-by, Scaren, but don't forget your
calling.

CHAPTER IV.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: We are now ready for the arguments of coun
sel on the first count. Counsel may proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: Gentlemen of the jury, the trust is a great
question — a question of great importance to the American
people. The trust principle is not a new principle; but the
trust question has grown in importance, because within three
years, more trusts have been organized, considering the cap
ital and magnitude of the interests involved, than were or
ganized in all the previous history of the country, and the
people are now face to face with this question: How shall
we exterminate this curse, and what political party is respon
sible for it? No economic tendency is to-=day so full of tre
mendous possibilities as the trust. The unmistakable drift is
toward an iron-bound concentration of the entire industries
of the country, in single corporate hands. These trusts are
now capitalized at the appalling sum of eight billions of
dollars. Gentlemen of the jury, the mind can scarcely comprehend
such immense figures. Eight billions of dollars! Why, gen
tlemen, that is more than the entire manufacturing capital of
the country in 1890. The entire capital engaged in manufac
turing in 1890 was less than seven billions of dollars.
This great capitalization indicates three important facts^
(1) that combines have been organized at a rapid rate; (2)
that there is a marvellous amount of water in the stock of
(81)

82 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
these organizations, and (3) that the Eepublican party favors
.such organizations. These powerful organizations will soon
have the country entirely within their grasp.
The evidence which has been introduced in this case by the
plaintiff, shows conclusively the evils and injustice endured
by our people every day they allow these huge combinations
to exist.
Gentlemen of the jury, you have only to go about the
country and you will see where people have subscribed money
to enterprising establishments, and where these enterprises
have come under the control of the trusts, and have been
closed, and stand now as silent monuments of the trust sys
tem. If the people employed in the one factory are not satis
fied with the terms fixed by the employer and strike, the
trust can close that factory and let the employees starve while
work goes on in the other factories without loss to the manu
facturers. We have listened to friends of the trusts who tell us that
their effect is to lower the price of raw material. Now you
can only lower the price of raw material by working a great
injury to all the people who are engaged in the production of
raw material and in the purchase of finished products; and
such people are in a vast majority. These witnesses have
claimed that labor would be more continually employed,
and give that as one of the excuses for the existence of trusts.
Gentlemen of the jury, the reverse of this is the fact. These
great combinations throw men out of employment rather than
increase employment, for after the trusts have bought all the
factories, the riext thing is to close some of them down and
turn the men who are engaged in them out of employment.
The Declaration of Independence, which says all men are
created equal, was once a highly respected document. It is

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 83
under a cloud just now, but I have confidence that in a few
months the clouds will have rolled by and that old document
will shine with its former brightness, and again our govern
ment will be administered according to the maxim of Jeffer
son, "Equal rights to all, and special privileges to none."
The Republican administration administers government on
the theory of equal rights to none, and special privileges to
the few.
I will give you a little illustration showing how the Re
publican party plays into the hands of the monopoly, and I
want you to think it over. When the Spanish war broke out,
we had to have more taxes, and the Republican party looked
around for any old thing to put a stamp on, and now you run
across the stamp taxes all the time. Every time I send a tele
gram, I have to pay the regular rate and in addition thereto
one cent is added for the benevolent assimilation of the
Filipino. Now, gentlemen, why is it that the man who sends the tel
egram has to pay that tax? Because the telegraph company
says so. And why was the law so made that the telegraph
company could shift the burden on to the man who sends the
telegram? Because the telegraph companies have more in
fluence with the Republican party than all the poor Repub
licans who use the wires. The Eepublican party made this
law, and it stands as one of the most recent monuments of
Republican sycophancy before the authority of the trust. The
Republican party has made money more precious than blood.
The time and the condition is one which demands action;
action strong and positive. The trust is a curse of which we
must rid ourselves entirely. I want to go all the way and
make a monopoly absolutely impossible. I am wilKng to re
ceive any information, and adopt any method that anybody

84 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
can propose that looks to the annihilation of trusts. The cor
poration is a man-made man. My contention is, that the
government that created trusts must keep control of them,
and that the man-made man must be admonished: "Remem
ber now thy Creator in the days of thy youth and throughout
thy whole life."
I protest against the doctrine of the defendant that the
trust is the natural outgrowth of natural laws. It is not true!
The trust is the natural outgrowth of unnatural conditions
created by men-made laws which are allowed to remain upon
and to disgrace our statute books.
Gentlemen, the trust owes its life, not to any eternal spirit
permeating its whole being and baffling any attempt to crush
out its life, but to the laws under which it exists — ^laws for
which the Eepublican party is responsible. If you believe the
Eepublican party will destroy the trusts, I want to remind you
that the Eepublican party has to-day control of the three de
partments of the government. But, my friends, when Con
gress met and received the President's message, instead of be
ginning some plan for the suppression of trusts, the flrst act
of the lower House was to put through the financial bill, a bill
which creates a paper money trust more potent for evil than
all the other trusts combined.
The Eepublican party favors trusts by its tariff, its gold
standard, and its supine legislation in general. A large pro
portion of the people regard this new institution with alarm,
while the friends of the trust, almost to a man, admit that
there is need of trust regulation.
You can destroy the trusts when you get ready to. There
is a way which I think would prove effective. I would, by
federal legislation, shut the trust up into one state — ^the
state in which it is organized — until it received a license from
the federal authorities.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1000. 85
Gentlemen of the jury, an idea is the most important thing
a man can get into his head. An idea will control a man's
life. An idea mil revolutionize a community, a state, a na
tion, the world, and we never know when we are going to get
an idea. We get them from our fellowmen, we get them from
inanimate nature, we get them from the animals about us. I
once got a valuable idea from some hogs. I was riding
through Iowa and saw some hogs rooting in a field. The
first thought that came to me was that these hogs were de
stroying a great deal in value, and then my mind ran back
to the time when I lived upon a farm and we had hogs.
Then I thought of the way we used to protect property by
putting rings in the noses of the hogs; and then the question
came to me, why did we do it? Not to keep the hogs from
getting fat, for we were more interested in their getting fat
than they were; the sooner they got fat, the sooner we would
kill them; the longer they were in getting fat, the longer they
lived. But why did we put rings in their noses? So that
while they were getting fat they would not destroy more than
they were worth. Then the thought came to me, that one of
the great purposes of government was to put rings in the noses
of hogs. There is an idea worthy of your consideration.
Gentlemen of the jury, I stated to you frankly at the out
set, that I should endeavor to show that the Eepublican party
was playing into the hands of the trusts; that the whole
course of Eepublican legislation is in sympathy with the rich
and opulent. I have introduced ample testimony to sustain
all of these contentions, and now I will leave with you this
sentiment: "111 fares the land, to hastening loss a prey.
Where wealth accumulates and men decay:
Princes and lords may flourish or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath hath made;
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride.
When once destroyed can never be supplied."

86 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
General Good: Gentlemen of the jury: A five year- old
boy can ask more questions in five minutes than a philosopher
can answer in five hours, so likewise a discredited prophet of
evil, standing on the brink of an imaginary calamity, can
excite more fears, create more distrust, and make more un
supported declarations in an hour than all the forces of truth
can quiet and answer in a week.
Col. Agi-Tate, like the plaintiff, is nothing if not intense.
They are both high strung. With great lung power they de
mand that the trust shall be regulated. Who denies that
proposition? We do not. We also demand that the trust
shall be regulated. We do more; we act on that demand!
The plaintiff claims that the Eepublican party, though in
possession of all branches of the government, is doing noth
ing to control the trusts. Such a declaration is an insult to
your intelligence, for there is no truth in it! Who placed the
anti-trust law of 1890 upon the statute books? The Eepub
lican party! The Democrats went into power two years after
that law was passed by Congress. Did they do anything to
amend or improve it? Not a thing! Did they do anything
to enforce it? Not a thing! Their attorney general declared
the law unconstitutional and refused to enforce it. In
marked contrast to that action is the conduct of the attorney
general of the present Administration, who by his vigorous
efforts to enforce the law, has had its constitutionality es
tablished in the United States Supreme Court, and has re
strained many trusts from violating its provisions. The
charge, therefore, that three departments of the government
are idle in this matter is absolutely and unqualifiedly false.
A Republican Congress passed the anti-trust law, and Demo
cratic Congressmen have since declared it sufficient for all
purposes, as Congressman Sulzer did in his speech in Congress

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 87
February 17th last. This represents the legislative branch
of the government. The prompt and vigorous action of At
torney General Griggs disproves the charge as to the executive
branch, and the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court
and other federal courts disprove the whole charge.
The plaintiff can do notliing without a paramount issue.
Eight years ago free trade was the paramount issue. The
people tried that and discarded it, — -the promised blessings
did not come. Four years ago 16 to 1 was the only pure and
unadulterated paramount issue. The people passed that by
and are glad of it. To-day trust regulation, trust annihila
tion, is the paramount issue. Gentlemen of the jury, reg
ulate the trust, — do it wisely, — but smite the arm that at
tempts, by whatsoever device or scheme, to lay the ax to the
root of the noble Tree of Protection — a tree whose ripened
fruit bountifully falls into the lap of American labor.
It is said again that the factories which the trusts have
closed stand as silent monuments of the trust system. That
is true and it is a deplorable fact. Nevertheless, as a factory
closer the trust is not to be compared for a moment with free
trade — the giant factory closer. Its monuments stood not in
isolated localities, but throughout the entire land.
It has been sought to show by the testimony of Mr. Have
meyer that the tariff is the mother of trusts. But you must
bear in mind, gentlemen, that Democrats hate the protective
tariff as the Devil hates Holy Water and everything that can
be done to cast aspersion upon it will be done. Such testi
mony, however, falls helpless and lifeless to the ground unless
it can be shown that trusts do not form in free trade countries
or in this country upon goods that are not protected. This
cannot be done. That the greatest trust of the world has
exis'ted in kerosene oil, a commodity in no way benefitted by

88 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
the protective tariff, and that trusts and combinations exist
in free trade England, is a complete refutation of the claim.
Let them give a satisfactory answer to these facts, or let theit
argument fail.
While we favor regulation, while we demand regulation,
while we practice regulation, we both favor and demand such
regulation as will regulate and not destroy, as will control
and not annihilate. It is the part of wisdom to save the good
there is in associated effort. Associated effort has in the past
blessed mankind. Shall we discard it now without even the
semblance of a rational consideration? There is reason in all
things — except a Populistic Democrat.
As far back as that the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary, it has been the custom of men to join together for
the purpose of accomplishing, in their associated capacity,
what they could not accomplish as individuals. Gentlemen
of the jury, it was thus that the simple partnership between
two men was formed. Smith and Jones believed that by
uniting their means or their business, or both, they could
unite their efforts, increase their business, reduce their ex
penses, and make more money for themselves than they could
do acting separately, and they combined. Partnership, in
cluding a larger number of individuals, say three or four or
even more, was a broadening of this tendency toward associa
tion. Then there came the limited partnership, in which two
or more assumed the active control of the business and, asso
ciated with them, was the silent partner, who had no part in
the active management of the business, but who furnished
part or all of the capital required. We have a great many
of these different kinds of partnerships in the commercial
field to-day. Now, the tendency toward associated effort led
to the corporation, an institution which has been so generally

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 89
approved and welcomed that it is authorized by the laws of
every state in the Union. Under the laws of the state, any
number of persons, not less than three or five, as the case may
be, are permitted to come together and form a corporation for
the purpose of conducting business.
A corporation may be composed of a small number of in
dividuals, all of whom take some part in the conduct of the
business, in which case it is very like a partnership; or it may
be composed of a large number of persons, the great majority
of whom have nothing to do with the management of the
business, in which case it is analogous to the special partner
ship. Gentlemen, that is all there is to the corporation! And
I desire here and now to say, and to say it emphatically, that
all political economists, from Adam Smith to John Stuart
Mill, and from the latter down to the present time, have
warmly favored such associations of capital, upon the ground
that production was greatly increased by means of them.
Now, there is another thing to which I wish to call your
attention. It is this: When the trust was first organized it
consisted of several companies, or corporations, which were
brought together under one central management. These
trusts, finding the courts unfriendly to such combinations of
incorporated companies, abandoned that inethod of associa
tion and organized a simple corporation in the ordinary way
under state laws. This company then purchased the prop
erty of those persons, or companies, who desired to enter it.
You will see, then, that the only way in which this corpora
tion differs from that with which we have become familiar in
the past, is in the amount of its capitalization.
The plaintiff delights in tearing things down if they are up,
and ripping them up if they are down. The words "destroy"
and "annihilate" roll from his lips with supreme pleasure.

90 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
In this instance, however, his desire to tear things down has
led him to the necessity of building something up. Ac
cordingly, he has set up a man of straw, which also is a man-
made man, in order that he may knock him down and mu
tilate him after he has fallen.
The plaintiff states that the Declaration of Independence is
apparently under a cloud with some people-. If that be so,
it must be true of sections where the party of my brother
dominates. He can have no war with me upon this matter.
The doctrine of equal rights to all, and special privileges to
none is a Republican maxim, and is carried out in Republican
legislation. The plaintiff admits that he believes in co-operation in pol
itics, but affects not to believe in co-operation in business.
In other words, he believes it is a good thing in his business
(politics) and a very reprehensible thing in the affairs of
other men. The plaintiff not only believes in co-operation,
but practices it in fusing all the discontented fragments of
political organizations into one grand aggregation.
That combinations of capital require stringent regulation
on the part of the government there can be no possible doubt,
but such regulation should become severer as they approach
the control of, or dominate, the market, is equally true. A
combination which dominates the market, shutting out com
petition, is intolerable and is contrary, as I have said, to the
common law. The plaintiff is fighting a man of straw. I am
satisfied that the wisdom of Congress and of our courts will
find sufficient authority for the proper control of such or
ganizations. We should never, gentlemen of the jury, in our search for
remedies, lose sight of the fact that the needs of this country
demand that its shipping should be pushed to the uttermost

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 91
parts of the world. We should not forget that, in so extend
ing our trade and commerce, large capital is needed, capital
for the development of the great resources of the country.
Gentlemen of the jury, I realize quite as fully as does my
brother, that these new combinations are capable of produc
ing evil, but I am not so certain that they will not be produc
tive of good. I look upon the railroad systems of the land —
and they are the greatest systems in the world — extending
from ocean to ocean, binding the interests of the nation to
gether with bands of iron, as one of our great blessings. Are
we ready to-day to lose entirely the advantage of combinations
of capital before we have inspected the matter more closely?
While, as my brother has said, the trust principle is not a new
principle, the trust in its present form is comparatively a new
creation. In the commercial world it is a phenomenon.
Col. Agi-Tate: (Interrupting) I would say it is an in
iquity, either in this world or the world to come.
General Good: At this stage of the trial. Colonel, the
jury no doubt has comprehended you.
Now, gentlemen, the question arises: What legislation can
be made to apply to these great corporations, upon which we
desire to place more rigorous control? Some of the wit
nesses would annihilate the trust, that is to say, they would
destroy it. Others would endeavor to control it by means
of license. State or Federal, or both. Still others would
regulate it by requiring greater publicity in the conduct
of its business. Others, again, would provide for a system
of state or federal inspection, such as is provided now iu
the case of National and State banks. Others would deprive
these combinations of the use of the United States mails.
Others would prohibit interstate transportation of goods con
trolled by trusts. Others would repeal the tariff duties on ar-

92 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
tides made by large combinations. Others believe that very
little legislation is needed for their control.
All of these different shades of belief go to show, gentle
men of the jury, that the time for sweeping action has not yet
arrived. My brother demands action. He claims that action
is the watchword, and that action is what the people of this
country demand. My answer to that claim is, that the people
of this country demand right action, not action simply be
cause it is action, and for the sake of action.
At the Trust Conference held in Chicago, the practical
politieiaii, the labor leader, single taxer, political economists,
reformers, journalists, bankers, clergymen, railroad men,
farmers, men of all shades of political and economic belief
from all parts of the country, were gathered. Here was an
epitome of the American people, and yet this conference could
agree upon nothing but discussion.
Gentlemen of the jury, I do not believe that this is purely
a politi.cal question, but if it is, I know of no party more
capable to grapple with it than the Republican party, a party
whose statesmanship looks to the highest interest of American
labor, and the highest development of American resources; a
party which has been, and is now, the party of progress and
prosperity, the party which has solved all the important ques
tions that have arisen in the past forty years, and under
whose administration we have had the wonderful industrial
development of the past three years.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, in concluding this trust dis
cussion, let us take a front view of the situation. The plain
tiff charges the Republican party with a desire and purpose
of fostering trusts when the facts of history prove that the
Republican party is the only political organization that has

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 93
ever sought to regulate and control trusts. Let us repeat and
let the jury bear in mind:
First, That the anti-trust law was framed by Republicans,
passed by a Eepublican Congress, and has been enforced under
a Eepublican Administration.
Second, That when the Democrats came into power, that
law was treated as a dead letter; that by the refusal of a Demo
cratic Attorney General of the United States to enforce the
law, or to attempt to do so, great encouragement was given to
the trusts then existing; that this inaction was an invitation,
eagerly accepted, for other combinations to organize into
monopolies; that the Democratic attitude toward these com
binations at a time when the Democratic party was in position
to make a record of hostility toward them, was as friendly as
inaction or indifference could possibly make it.
Third, Let the jury remember, too, that gross and willful
misrepresentation characterizes every utterance of the plain
tiff in his charge that protection is the mother of trusts, when
the. fact is nowhere denied, and everywhere acknowledged,
that trusts exist in free trade as well as protection countries.
Let it be remembered that the free trade Democratic party's
present furious onslaught against trusts is but another con
spiracy against protection. Facts are falsified, truth is de
nied, false witness borne, to establish a relationship which
does not exist between trusts and protection, in order that
they may deceive the people into believing that free trade is
necessary to the destruction of cormorant trusts. It is not
the first time that they who "steal the livery of heaven to
serve the devil in" have been caught in the act.

Part 2. FINANCE.

CHAPTER I.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of PuWic
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: We will now take up the hearing on the sec
ond count. Counsel will proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: If your Honor please, under this count we
arraign the administration for its subserviency to the pluto
crats of Wall Street and Lombard Street, for its bowing to the
dictates -of the moneyed aristocracy and consenting to fasten
upon the people of this country the gold standard of values.
Gentlemen of the jury, we shall endeavor to show that the
present administration has violated the faith of the people
and repudiated its past history in adopting the gold standard
of values. The law which the administration has put upon
the statute books establishing gold as the only standard of
value in this country is inimical to the good of the common
people of the land and against the express wish of more than
six and a half millions of voters, who declared at the last
election in favor of the free and unlimited coinage of silver
and of gold at the ratio of sixteen parts of silver to one part
of gold.
The Republican party in the past has claimed to be the
friend of silver. Its legislation and its platforms all show
that it has made great professions and promises to the people
in behalf of the popular metal. It is true the Republican
<95)

96 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
party committed an outrageous crime against bimetallism by
the Act of 1873, which demonetized silver, but it has always
pleaded not guilty to the charge of unfaithfulness to the
cause of silver, and has by subsequent legislation endeavored
to show its sympathy for the money of the common people.
But now, gentlemen of the jury, while the minds of the
people are absorbed over other questions, and particularly the
question of a foreign war, the Republican party, at the be
hest of the bankers of the country, forces upon the nation the
gold standard. It thus repudiates all its past professions in
favor of the white metal.
Gentlemen of the jury, I charge the Republican party with
prostituting everything to the dollar. The dollar mark has
become the emblem of the Republican party. The Eepublican
party has made money more precious than blood. The Ee
publican currency law binds this country to the wheels of
English finance. Now, gentlemen of the jury, what, I ask
you, will be the condition in this country if England ever
happens to get into a real war, if the financial condition suf
fers such a disturbance as it did in this country, through the
English reverses with the Boers? The new currency law, I
reiterate it, is the most infamous bill ever passed in Congress.
This Congress was elected when Eepublican orators were tell
ing us to uphold the government in time of war, and while
they were saying that the financiers were preparing to hold up
the government. The sections of the bill retiring the green
back, which preserved this nation when the gold had fled, and
providing for bank issues of paper money, is claimed to mean
an elastic currency. If this be so, it is clear that it has bank
ers at both ends of the elastic.
Gentlemen of the jury, we are told that the silver issue is
dead, and we are asked to drop it. I want to say to you that

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 9?
the silver cause has never been thoroughly buried, and that it
has sufficient life left in it to last for a few years yet. The
question oi the free and unlimited coinage of silver on the
constitutional basis of sixteen to one is not, and never can
become, a dead issue until its rights are fully restored and
recognized in the statute law of the country.
General Good: Your honor and gentlemen of the jury,
the plaintiff has been sitting up with the corpse of 16 to 1
eve? since the election of 1896, insisting that it still retains its
vital force and virile vigor of the preceding campaign. He
mil have it embalmed only in song and sentiment, unheeding
all protests from the board of health, posting dreadful warn
ings to all financial undertakers who marvel much because the
date of interment has been so long postponed.
The plaintiff has been repeatedly and urgently advised by
distinguished partisans of his own party to give the corpse a
decent burial and to cease mourning over the lost o^use so
dear to his heart. They have appealed to him, while s,houting
over the dead, to remember the living and the live issues of
the present. But all the Belmontian protests, all the Cock-
ranean petitions, all the pleadings of the thousands of dis
tinguished members of his own party are. unheeded by the
plaintiff. He hears only the echoes of the past and affects to
believe they are the shouts of the present for 16 to 1, without
the consent of any other nation on earth.
The plaintiff complains that the administration has violated
the public faith and gone counter to the wishes of over six
millions of people in establishing the gold standard. But my
brother has forgotten that there were over seven millions of
people voting on the other side of this question, and that ma
jorities rule in this country. These seven millions of voters,
by their action, demanded that this silver question should

98 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
forever be put to rest, never again to disturb the business
interests of the people. They demanded that such legislation
be enacted as would forever fix the standard of value, and that
the national honor and- credit should at all times be main
tained. They decided in favor of the gold standard. The
administration has done nothing but to put into execution the
decree of the people at the last election. It has fulfilled its
pledge to the people. The country is now on a gold basis.
The business interests of the country are secure and know
exactly what to count upon.
Gentlemen of the jury, my brother has referred to the fact
that the Eepublican party in its legislation and in its plat
forms has made pretensions to favor silver. "Whatever at
titude has been assumed by the Eepublican party toward sil
ver coinage has been controlled by conditions which existed
at the time and which seemed best for the interests of the
country. The over-production of silver and the rapid decline
in its price have rendered modifications indispensable. The
Eepublican party rendered every possible effort to the cause of
silver, and granted the fullest opportunity to the metal with
out endangering the stability of the standard. It has always
been a tenet of .the Republican doctrine that the national
honor must be maintained at all hazards, therefore when it
became evident that the gold standard was endangered there
wsis neither halting nor hesitation on the part of the Republi
can party which promptly and courageously declared for
the continuance of the existing gold standard.
Gentlemen of the jury, my brother says that the emblem
of the Republican party is the dollar mark, and that the
Republican party places the dollar above the man, and that
with the Eepublican party money is more precious than
blood. These are mere assertions which in themselves mean

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 09
nothing. In reply to the statement that the emblem of the
Eepublican party is the dollar mark, we might retort that the
emblem of the Democratic Bryan party is the three balls of
the pawnbroker, for it cannot be denied that under the opera
tion of Democratic policy the people have been reduced to
such a condition of want and deprivation that they have been
compelled to pawn even their jewels and heirlooms in order to
keep from starving.
Col. Agi-Tate: For the purpose of proving the rank incon
sistency of the Eepublican party on the financial question, T
shall call upon a distinguished member of that party to tes
tify. Mr. Dolliver will please talfe the stand.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Dolliver, you are a member of the
house of representative,?, are you not?
Mr. Dolliver: I believe my certificate of election has
never been questioned.
Q. From what state?
A. Iowa, please, not Utah.
Q. Mr. Dolliver, how do you reconcile your present posi
tion on the financial question with that which you and your
party held four years ago?
A. In what particular?
Q. Four years ago you professed to be a friend of bimet
allism, and now you are an ardent advocate of this measure
which proposes to fasten the gold standard upon the country.
Your plea perhaps will be that you were in favor of inter
national bimetallism and that foreign powers are reluctant to
try the experiment, but I'll save you the embarrassment of an
explanation to that effect.
A. Very kind of you. But really the necessity of the bill
you refer to arises from the fact that, notwithstanding w^e are
now on the gold standard and have been for more than two

100 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
generations, there are some of the boys on your side that have
not yet heard of it. As a matter of fact we are on the gold
standard and have been for practical purposes since 1834.
The law of that year, by treating 16 ounces of silver as
equivalent to 1 ounce of gold, effectually exhausted the coin
age of silver dollars, because the material Was worth more in
the market than the nominal value of the coin. Therefore
nobody presented the silver for coinage, and even fractional
currency gradually disappeared from circulation and use.
As to my consistency— I have not been in Congress long
enough to make all the mistakes possible to be made about
silver.* Q. You have made a good many?
A. I confess only one. I confess that I shared in the
general stupidity in respect to the law of 1890, which re-:
quired the daily purchase of six tons of pig silver to be paid
for with promissory notes.
Q. And you are still making mistakes?
A. There is one thing I ought not to be accused of and
that is, that I have ever supported a proposition to manufac
ture our dollars of material worth less than a dollar, for the
benefit of the gentlemen who owned the material, and that is
some satisfaction.
Q. Confession is good for the soul, Mr. Dolliver,
A. You rely too much on hearsay evidence. But in 1890
I did vote for the act which I now regard as of unquestioned
bad policy, the act for the purchase of the silver bullion to
be piled up in the Treasury of the United States. I did it
because Senator Teller, of Colorado, and Senator Sherman, of
Ohio, both agreed in thinking that the purchase of the entire

* Congregsional Record, Decetnber 11th, 1899.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 101
American product would restore the parity between gold and
silver. Q. And so you are not now abimetallist? Is it because of
the failure of that act to restore the parity between gold and
silver? A. I have concluded, being guided by what has happened
to us, that the law of 1873 was an act of far-sighted wisdom.
If that aet had remained undisturbed, all or nearly all of our
monetary problems would have been simplified if not avoided
altogether. I say that, notwithstanding the party in which I
have served all my life is responsible for all that has been
done for silver, I do not accuse our friends of the Democratic
party of ever having helped silver at all. During the whole
of Mr. Cleveland's first administration you never even offered
a bill on this subject in the House, though you had a majority
there and though the slender Republican majority in the
Senate was made up from the silver States.
Q. But you do confess that you and your party have made
some mistakes? That's all for the present.
General Good: Mr. Dolliver, in the light of experience up
to this time, are you in favor of free coinage by international
agreement? A. I am not. There is certainly no pressure for inter
national agreement now, such as might have reasonably ex
isted five years ago, because if the Director of the Mint is cor
rect, the world's supply of gold has grown with such an amaz
ing annual increment that before the end 'of the next year it
will more than equal the total aggregate of gold and silver
put together when the St. Louis platform was adopted; so I
think that those who believed in international bimetallism
will find small necessity for the further agitation of that sub
ject.

102 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Q. But the plaintiff still insists that without free coinage
at 16 to 1, and with the gold standard in force, the price of
everything, labor included, will go down under a law as inex
orable as the law of gravitation. This was his main conten
tion four years ago. What have you to say to that?
A. That on a question which goes to the heart of this
country, not one of his followers can truthfully say that Mr.
Bryan had sufficient wisdom to guide the footsteps of those
less enlightened than himself. He said wages would come
down and the working people of the United States would be
left without employment. Was he right about that? If he
has kept his eye on the newspapers, he has noticed that the
wages of labor are everywhere steadily going up, adding mil
lions of dollars to the comfort of the humble homes of the
land; so when Mr. Bryan predicted a still further loss of em
ployment and a still further decline in wages, the whole
w-orld now knows he was wrong. I do not think any the less
of him personally because his predictions have not been ful
filled. When a man tells me that it is going to rain and it
turns out to be a sunshiny day, I do not have any less re
spect for his moral character. But when a man predicts dry
weather and plenteous showers fall instead, I insist that un
less he expects a personal application of the proverb by which
the mental outfit of such a one is described, he should at least
get in out of the rain. Mr. Bryan in 1896 claimed that the
restoration of prosperity in the United States was entirely im
possible except under his general management, and 1 here
publicly convict him, by the open book of universal experi
ence, of wholesale and retail dealing in misfortunes that
never eome.
Q. How about Mr. Bryan's position as to the volume and
concentration of the currency of the country?

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 103
A. I appeal to every business man's experience whether
the decisive vote of the American people adverse to Mr. Bry
an's candidacy did not immediately unlock the hoarded money
of the United States. That vote did more. It put the loan
able funds of the whole world at the disposal of the business
of this country, as that money fiowed from all quarters for in
vestment in the United States. As a result, we have not only
seen the money, which we had, put back into circulation, bu t
in the last three years the aggregate volume of money in the
United States has increased by leaps and bounds. The Di
rector of the Mint tells me that if all the mints in the
L'"nited States worked all the time, night and day, and did
nothing else, they could manufacture only 50,000,000 silver
dollars in a year. The Secretary of the Treasury tells me that
since William McKinley was inaugurated there has been
added to the volume of money in the United States the stu
pendous aggregate sum of $400,000,000, most of it in gold
and all of it as good as gold. Now let me make that a little
clearer. If they had worked all the mints all the time, they
could have manufactured out of silver only $150,000,000
since William McKinley was inaugurated, but our policy has
given to the business of the American people $400,000,000
in less than three years, an amount which would have taken
all the mints of the United States, working all the time, eight
years to manufacture.
Q. And every dollar of this is worth 100 cents?
A. That is the best thing about it. Every man who gets a
dollar by the labor of his hands or the sale of his products
knows that that dollar is as good as gold everywhere in the
world. In other words, we have done for the Bryan party at
least four times as much as they expected to be able to do for
themselves, so why would it not be a good idea for them to

104 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1000.
get out of the main traveled road and let the procession move
on? General Good: The procession seems to be moving on.
That will do, Mr. Dolliver.
Col. Agi-Tate: Congressman Joseph W. Bailey, of Teias,
takes the stand.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Bailey, you h&ve heard various wit
nesses testify regarding the question at issue, what have you
to offer? Especially do we desire your opinion respecting the
merits or demerits of this financial measure which seeks to
force upon the country the gold standard notwithstanding the
fact that its advocates four years ago professed to beliete in
bimetallism? Mr. Bailey: This bill and the reasons which have been
offered in support of it exemplify the readiness of our Ee
publican friends to abandon their own positions and to adopt
the arguments of their Opponents. I am aware that it does
not embarrass them to be reminded of these things. They de
clare that they are ready to change their position whenever
they change their minds, and that declaration does credit to
their moral and political courage, but it is not creditable to
their wisdom that they so frequently take a position otie year
which they are compelled to abandon the next year.*
Col. Agi-Tate: Proceed, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Bailey: It is intended by the first section of this bill
to establish the gold standard, but, sir, dotyou not know that
the gold standard haS long been established by the law of this
country? Why, then, is it necessary to enact it the second
time? Our Eepublican friends think they have completely
answered our objections to the gold standard when they point
to the existing good times. In 1896 the Democratic party
* Congressional Record, JantiarJ i, 1900.

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 105
affirmed that the annual increase in the production of gold
was not sufficient to meet the increasing demand for gold,
and that therefore the value of it was constantly enhancing.
We contend, further, that as the value of gold enhanced, the
price of all commodities measured in gold necessarily de
creased and affirmed that this was an injury to the country.
Three years have elapsed since then, and, while they have
materially changed conditions, they have not affected the
validity of our argument or theirs.
Answer me upon your candor, gentlemen of the Eepublican
party, if the $170,000,000 worth of gold which the world
was producing in 1895 was sufficient to meet the world's in
creased demands for gold, why is it that you are rejoicing
now because the production of gold has almost doubled? Do
not these good times, which you ascribe in large part to the
enormously increased production of gold, instead of refuting
our argument, confirm it?
General Good: Permit me to answer that right now. If
you were worth enough last year, Mr. Bailey, to support your
self and family and carry on your business in a manner satis
factory, would you not rejoice if by reason of good fortune
you should find yourself worth twice as much this year as you
were last? If so, would you feel called upon to apologize for
so rejoicing?
Further, along this linCj Mr. Bailey^ in a recent speech
made by you in the House of EepresentativeSj you said — and
these are your own words: "We demanded that the mints of
our country should be opened to the free and unlimited coin
age of gold and silver, to absorbj if necessary, the world's en
tire annual supply of $307,000,000. To-day the accidents of
mining have produced almost as much gold as the world was
then producing of both gold and silver; and yet, not one of

106 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
you will dare to tell the people of this country that the $800,-
000,00-0' of gold which the world produces is more than the
world requires." In the same speech you demanded unlimited
free coinage at the 16 to 1 ratio, regardless of the commer
cial ratio, thus for the purpose of your argument placing
silver on a par with gold when at the present market price
the actual difference in the purchasing power of the two dol
lars would be about 53 cents.
Now, Mr. Bailey, you assume by this that the $300,000,000
of gold and silver ($130,000,000 of this being silver) would
meet all the requirements of $300,000,000 of gold, whereas
the fact is conceded by all students of finance and confirmed
by experience, that the cheaper dollar forces the dearer out of
use as money. Your logic leads you to a tremendous con
traction of the money volume, to silver monometallism and to
a dollar possessing less than half the purchasing power of our
present dollar. This would leave you infinitely worse off than
your most cherished dreams and anticipations have ever
placed the Republican party. As a panic promoter your plan
would be a signal success.
Col. Agi-Tate: Proceed, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Bailey: I will say this: If the world could increase
the production of gold until it was equal to the sum of $400,-
000,000 or $500,000,000 a year, then you would dispose of our
demand for the free coinage of silver by supplying sufficient
gold for basic money.
Juror Miller: The world seems to be making rapid prog
ress to that end, does it not? But should it fall a little short
the consensus of intelligent public opinion might accept a
lower estimate than yours as perfectly safe.
Col. Agi-Tate: These interruption,s, while admissible un
der the rules, are evidently for the purpose of embarrassing

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 107
the witness. Your Honor, I trust the witness may be per
mitted to proceed with his testimony.
The Judge: Ample opportunity will be given him. Pro
ceed, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Bailey: My immediate concern is not with prophecy,
but is with the question of cause and effect. If it shall tran
spire that the world continues enormously to increase its
production of gold, then it will happen that the gold mines
will provide a sufficient supply to meet the world's increasing
needs for gold, and will thus reverse disastrous tendency to
falling prices. It could not be, however, that the increase
in the production of gold during the past three years could of
itself and alone have produced the elevation of prices and the
stimulation of business which we witness in this country to
day. General Good: Quite a concession, Mr. Bailey. I thought
the object of your argument was to prove the power of an
increasing volume of money to increase prices.
Mr. Bailey: That it has exerted an appreciable infiuence
in both directions (the elevation of prices and stimulation of
business) is unquestionably true; and that if it can be con
tinued through a series of years it will exert a still greater
and more beneficial 'influence is equally true, unless the de
mands for gold should increase at a corresponding rate. But
if when the world is given an experience of rising prices com
ing from a more abundant supply of money for the next few
years, and then if in the providence of God these mines
should be exhausted, or if by the industries of men the.
demand should be multiplied until the increased supply is
more than absorbed by new demands, you will have found
your arguments in this experience beyond the power of your
most skilled logicians to refute.

108 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
General Good: Your Honor, witness said a moment ago
that his immediate concern is not with prophecy. Of course
we may give imagination full play and worry ourselves into
cataleptics concerning future possibilities. If, in the provi
dence of God, the great lakes and oceans should go dry, un
doubtedly the ship building industry would be ruined. The
immensely increased outputs of the gold mines in operation
and the many discoveries of rich new gold fields reported
give assurance to all except the most accomplished pessimist"
that our confidence in the Creator's resources need not be
shaken for at least some generations to come. But while on
this point permit me to suggest that witness has so far ig
nored^ entirely what a majority of the electors of this country
regard as the most potent factor in the restoration of good
times, and that is the restoration. of a protective tariff. This,
coupled with sound money, solves the problem.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Bailey, perhaps the defendant's coun
sel will now permit you to proceed,
Mr. Bailey: It seems to me that the very results which
the opposition so exultingly ascribe to the discovery of these
new and richer mines proves conclusively that we were right
in 1896 when we asserted that the world needed more basic
money. But if we were mistaken in tM5t, and whether the
increase of prices has come through the increased production
of gold or through some other cause, are you not ready to
admit that we were right when we declared that an increase
in the price of all commodities would be a blessing to the
people of this land and that you were wrong when you
denied it?
Gen. Good: I am glad the gentleman at last is honest
enough to admit it might have been "through some other
cause" that good times and better prices were restored. That

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 109
other 'possible cause he might name if he would. He voted
against it when he voted for free trade, or for the industry-
destroying tariff "for revenue only". Now, your Honor, I
hope I may be further indulged to the extent of asldng the
Avitneas a question. I have before me a speech of his in which
I find what appears to be a self-contradiction. In one place
he says: "Gentlemen, the other side have spoken as if our
position requires us to deny the effect of the great and sud
den increase of gold, but nothing could be farther from the
truth. Indeed, the reverse of this is trUe. _We do not deny
that the increased ptodiiction of gold has mitigated the dis
tressing tendency toward falling prices; we go further even
than that, and we assert that it has resulted in a slight eleva*
tion of prices."
Elsewhere in the same speech he says: "Butj Mr. Chair
man, these gentlemen are altogether mistaken in asserting
that the present rise in prices is due mainly to the increase in
the production of gold." He attributes the rise in prices to
increased foreign demands. The witness seems to be quarrel
ing with himself over a vexatious question. I ask him if that
isn't so?
Col. Agi-Tate: Your Honor, when it comes to the ques
tion of consistency, prudence would seem to dictate extreme
caution on the part of those of the opposition who have ex
changed convictions so recently on the subject of bimetallism.
General Good: Your Honor, this is a courteous charge
that Republicans who four years ago were bimetallists are
now for the gold standard. Be it so, the charge is robbed of
its sting by the indisputable fact that conditions have mate
rially changed since 1896. Both parties recognize this truth
and the witness himself has so testified. But it is entirely
different when witness presents at the same time and in the

110 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
same speech two conflicting views on precisely the same sub
ject. This is the kind of inconsistency which makes ridic
ulous any attempt to defend it.
Col. Agi-Tate: This side-play for the edification of the
jury is lawyer-like and all well enough, but I hardly think an
intelligent jury like this will be thus led away from the main
points under discussion. Mr. Bailey, when interrupted you
were coming to the question of supply and demand. Please
proceed. Mr. Bailey: A circumstance which has contributed most
largely to the business activity of the last three years, and
which has been entirely overlooked by gentlemen on the other
side, is the fact that many purchases which under ordinary
circumstances would have been made in 1893, 1894, 1895 and
1896 have been made in 1897, 1898 and 1899. This hap
pened in this way: The low price of farm products in 1893,
1894 and 1895 rendered our farmers unable to provide for
anything except the most urgent necessities, and every ar
ticle which possibly could be dispensed with was left in the
manufacturer's warehouse or on the merchant's shelf. For
the lack of patronage the merchant could not patronize the
manufacturer and an almost unprecedented stagnation of
business ensued.
General Good: Pardon the interruption, but this is excel
lent testimony. Let the jury be duly impressed with the fact
that this witness, a recognized leader of the Democratic party,
here testifies that, during the Democratic years of 1893, 1894,
1895 and 1896, under a Democratic administration and the
beneficent influence of the Wilson-Gorman law, the agricul
tural, commercial and industrial interests of the country were
simply paralyzed, and that all these interests immediately re
vived under the following Eepublican administration and the

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. Ill
restoration of protection to American industries and Amer
ican labor. Gentlemen of the jury, this is only true history,
but we may well be astounded to hear it so frankly and cor
rectly repeated by this witness, who himself exerted all his
power and influence for a continuation of the conditions as
they existed in those few years *of Democratic rule.
Col. Agi-Tate: Your Honor, the defendant's counsel may
now take the witness and keep him until he gets through
with him. He seems desirous of doing most of the talking
and I am willing to indulge him if your Honor and the jury
can stand it.
General Good: My brother is very kind. I will try to re
pay him by expressing my thanks, and my satisfaction also.
The witness has given us so much valuable testimony that it
would be ungracious to ask more of him at this time.
Col. Agi-Tate: I desire to call to the stand a well-known
representative of labor, Mr. M. E. Cannick.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Cannick, you have been quite prom
inently identified with the interests of organized labor, have
you not?
Mr. Cannick: Yes, sir; for many years I have been an ac
tive member of a large labor organization, and am yet.
Q. Have held responsible official positions therein, have
you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without desiring to be too personal or inquisitive, I
would like to know your views as to the relative positions of
the two great political parties toward organized labor. Or,
to put it more clearly, I would ask, which of these parties
have you deemed it wise and best to support in the interest
of labor?

112 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. Your question, of course, requires my answer to be
followed by justifying reasons.
Q'. Well, it is generally understood that intelligent voters
have opinions of their own which guide them in the exercise
of their sovereign rights. Would you object to stating here
which party you have hithSrto supported?
A. I have always voted the Democratic ticket.
Q. The answer is no surprise. You have regarded the
principles and policies of the Democratic party as more nearly
meeting the demands and neoessities of labor than those of
any other political party, have you not?
A. My flrst vote was polled for the Democratic ticket and
my sympathies have generally been that way.
Q. Yes. How long have you been a voter?
A. I became a voter in 1884.
Q. And you say you have -voted the Democratic ticket
ever since?
A, I have.
Q. Now will you explain to the jury your reasons for be
lieving the principles and policies of the Democratic party to
be more in harmony with the desires and demands of labor
than are those of the Eepublican party?
A. Sir, I can't do it.
Q. Can't do it? I don't understand yon.
A. I have been trying by hard study and mucE serious
thought to answer myself that question ever since 1896 and
have been unable to do so.
Q. Did you understand my question?
A. Yes, sir; and I am trying to explain. As already said,
I have voted the Democratic ticket ever since I becanie a
voter. I voted for Cleveland and free trade. I voted for
Bryan and free silver. After the election of McKinley in

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 113
1896, and w^hen things began to brighten up, for the first time
in my life I began seriously to study politics and policies.
The more I thought and studied, the more I became convinced
that M. E. Cannick had been voting against his own interests
and against the interests of lionest home labor which he rep
resented. Col. Agi-Tate: That will do, Mr. Cannick.
General Good: One moment, Mr. Cannick. Your story
is too interesting to be discontinued in the middle of it.
Please proceed.
Mr. Cannick: Under Democratic rule labor was very
poorly employed and wages were reduced. Under Eepublican
rule labor has been well employed at good wages. This differ
ence is the one great item that concerns labor. I and thou
sands of others who have nothing but labor to sell have been
voting ourselves out of employment and out of wages, by
voting for the free admission into our markets of the prod
ucts of cheap foreign labor. We didn't know it then but we
know it now.
Q. And then, after voting for free trade and lower wages
or no work, you voted for Bryan, free trade and free silver?
A. I was caught with the idea that free silver meant more
money and more work.
Q. And you have become convinced, have you not, that
free silver at 16 to 1 would mean the reduction by more than
one-half of the purchasing power of the few dollars you might
be fortunate to receive for your labor under the industry
destroying infiuence of free trade?
A. Your question is my answer. It is for these reasons
that I have decided to break away from past political affilia
tions, though that is not an easy thing to do. Hereafter I
shall vote with the party which has given honest home labor

114 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
its best opportunities, so long as that party shall continue to
do so.
General Good: Mr. Cannick, your wise resolution does
much to condone your past offenses, especially as you have
already paid the penalty of those offenses in low wages and
long vacations. That will do.
Senator Stewart takes the stand.
Col. Agi-Tate: Senator Stewart, as you are one of'the pio
neer advocates and promoters of unlimited free coinage, we
would like to have your opinion of the new financial measure.
Senator Stewart: I am surprised at such legislation, the
shadows of which already darken the hopes of the confiding
victims of Wall Street. It is so utterly contradictory of the
St. Louis platform of the Eepublican party that it astonishes
the country.
Q. Senator, when and what was the last legislative action
of the United States Congress on the money question?
A. Tlie act of November 1, 1893, declared it to be the
policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold
and silver as standard money. This last expression of the will
of Congress recognizes silver coin as standard money equally
with gold coin.*
General Good: Senator, if what you say be true, will you
explain what your real grievance was in the campaign of
1896? If the country was already on the double standard
basis, what had you then to make such a tremendous issue of?
A. We demanded the unlimited free .coinage of silver as
well as gold at the legal ratio of 16 to 1.
Col. Agi-Tate: Senator, how much silver and gold coin
had we in 1896?

* Congressional Record, Financial Debate.

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 115
A. There were in the United States in 1896 between 500
and 600 millions of standard silver dollars, and very nearly
an equal amount of standard gold coin. Both the silver and
gold coin were full legal tender and each one was standard
money in the same sense in which the other was standard
money. If $500,000,000 of legal tender gold money created a,
gold 'standard, then $500,000,000 of full legal tender silver
created a silver standard. Therefore if there was a gold
standard in 1896, there was also a silver standard. The Ee
publican party was pledged to maintain the gold standard that
then existed.
General Good: Pardon me. But were not you and all
free silver people under the painful impression in 1896 that
you were still being outraged by "the crime of 1873?" Why
not agree with most of your partisan friends and with the facts
in the case and say that we have had the gold standard in this
country for many years prior to 1896? And why not con
cede further that with the gold standard we have had prac
tical bimetallism in the concurrent use of both gold and sil
ver, as you have shown?
A. The country will understand that a gold standard
which excludes the silver standard of 1896 is a very differ
ent standard from the gold standard which existed in com
mon with the silver standard, and in which silver possessed
the same functions as gold.
Col. Agi-Tate: What have you to say of the contention
that national bank notes are better money than silver coin or
legal tender paper issued direct by the Government?
A. The whole scheme is in violation of the fundamental
principles of monetary science.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: Senator, your testimony here indicates

116 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
that you were pretty well satisfied with the financial policy of
the country in 1896. But as a matter of fact, you were not,
were you?
A. As already explained, I was then, as I am now, for
the unlimited free coinage of silver as well as gold at the
legal ratio of 16 to 1.
Q. Eegardless of the commercial ratio, which was 33 to 1?
A. Yes.
Q. For the benefit of the silver owners, of course? Sen
ator, the country well understands why you people who live
in silver states and are interested in the production of silver
are in favor of free coinage at 16 to 1. It would' be a rich
privilege indeed to the silver owner to be permitted to take
$1,000,000 worth of silver to the mints and have it coined
into $2,000,000 on his ovm private account. He could take
that coined silver back home and pay off his miners and debts
in 50-cent dollars and make big money by doing so. That
will do. Senator.

CHAPTEE II.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is now in session.
The Court: Proceed, gentlemen.
General Good: I will call Senator Allison to the stand.
General^ Good: Senator, it is claimed by the Democracy
that the Eepublican party has materially changed its financial
policy since 1896, thereby confessing inconsistency with its
previous record. What have you to say in answer to that?
Senator Allison: There is no proposition maintained in
'the debates upon this question to change our existing cur
rency, consisting, as it does now, of gold and silver; of gold
certificates and silver certificates, based upon deposits; and of
Greenbacks and Treasury notes and National Bank notes.
Q. How about the retirement of the greenbacks?
A. This bill, if it means anything, does mean that the
greenbacks shall continue in circulation. Indeed, we have
provided that they shall be reissued.*
Q. Will you explain. Senator, the provisions of this meas
ure relative to the denominational issues of the various kinds
of paper currency?
A. The bill provides that the silver certificates shall be in
denominations of $10 and under; that the National bank
notes shall be in denominations of $10 and over, and that the
greenbacks shall be in denominations of $10 and over. The
gold certificates are to be in denominations of $20 and over,
and at least one-fourth of them shall be less than $50. We
* Debate on Financial bill, T7. S. Senate.
(U7)

118 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
have made these provisions in addition to the provisions of law
already in existence, which have proven so absolutely satisfac
tory. Q. Now, Senator, how do you account for Democratic
hostility to National banks?
A. They seem to denounce the National banks as though
they were criminals, plundering the community. Wherever
there has been criticism of this feature of the bill it is a
criticism in the nature of a statement that we are trying to
refund our debt into bonds bearing a lower rate of interest for
the benefit of the banks of the United States. If it is for the
benefit of the banks of the United States to have bonds bear
ing 2 per cent, rather than 3 or 4 per cent, interest, they will
understand that, undoubtedly. It is no doubt better for
them, under the provisions of this bill, than to issue notes
upon the present value of the bonds at 90 per cent, of par.
If there is a better system of banking in the broad world than
our National banks, I have yet to learn of it.
Q. The point is made by Democrats that the banks of
New York recently placed the finances of the country in such
a condition that the interest rate was 184 per cent. How do
you meet that charge?
A. For a few hours only of a single day that rate pre
vailed. Was that, however, because of bank circulation? The
associated banks of New York have less than $16,000,000 of
all the circulation of National bank notes. Did that gambling
rate of interest, or that situation in New York affect the
country? From investigation I know personally that the
very day the bank rate in New York for two or three hours
was 184 per cent., the bank rate in all the other cities of the
country was normal and neither went up nor down a cent.
Q. Then you do not share in the apprehension of the

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 119
Democrats as to the power and possible purpose of the banks
to manipulate the finances to the detriment of the people?
A. What nonsense! We have two hundred and forty-two
millions of National bank notes now in circulation, and we
have more than a thousand millions of other paper money,
and every dollar now in circulation must and under this act
will remain in circulation. Therefore, it is a case of the tail
wagging the dog, according to their theory. Two hundred
and forty-two millions cannot control a thousand millions.
Q. Senator, if the National banks exchange their bonds,
as provided in the new measure, what will be the gain thereljy
to the government?
A. We shall save $22,000,000 per annum in interest; and
that in an economical sort of government amounts to some
thing in the course of time.
We need not be gibbeted on the crossroads of public opin
ion for undertaking to favor the National banks by requiring
them to use a 2 per cent, bond instead of a 3 or 4 per cent.
bond, when at the same time we are saving to the people of
the United States $22,000,000 per annum.
Q. Senator, the Democracy attacks your bill because it
requires the redemption of the United States notes and the
Treasury notes in gold instead of "coin." That is no new^
departure, is it?
A. No. That may be said to be a strengthening of the
existing law. So far as I know there has never been a green
back or Treasury note redeemed otherwise than in gold.
General Good: That will do. Senator.
Col. Agi-Tate: Senator, the greenbacks were made re
deemable in coin in the act of 1875, were they not?
A. I wish to say that if these notes are redeemable in coin
this bill changes the law so as to make them redeemable in

120 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
gold. They have been redeemable in gold in practice. It is
essential, if they are to continue in circulation, that all the
people may know that we intend to redeem them in gold.
This bill does not provide for the elimination of the green
backs from our currency, but directs that they shall continue
as a part of our currency.
If they are to continue a part of our currency, there ought
to be a reserve for their redemption, and that reserve should
be, as it always has been since 1879, in gold; for such a re
serve we have made ample provision.
Q. Senator, did you not approve of the act of President
Cleveland in selling government bonds ostensibly to replenish
the gold reserve, but really to provide money with which to
pay the current expenses of the government?
A. I did sustain the President in borrowing money to
maintain the reserve. I probably did criticise him and his
party and the majority in the Senate which refused to pro
vide other means whereby the current expenses of the Govern
ment could not be paid, and thus forced the Secretary of the
Treasury either to allow the Government obligations to go to
protest or to use those funds. Less than six weeks before
President Cleveland was inaugurated we put in an appropria
tion bill with the unanimous approval of the committee on
appropriations, of which I was then chairman, a provision
which was passed by the Senate, authorizing the Secretary
of the Treasury to raise $50,000,000 in Treasury certificates
of indebtedness, payable in two years, drawing 3 per cent, in
terest, to meet deficiencies in the public expenditures. We
saw that deficiencies were coming.
Q. You saw they were coming? What cleared your vision
to the approaching calamity?
A. I will tell you if you do not know. When Mr. Cleve-

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 121
land was elected in 1892 there at once fell upon this country a
pall and gloom, because it was believed that he would carry
out his determined purpose of overturning the industrial
system of our country and revolutionize it into a system of
free trade; and it did not require a man of large experience to
see that if that were done there would be a large deficit in
the Treasury consequent upon the change of policy.
Col. Agi-Tate: If the Senator will pardon me, I merely
interject this remark to get him, if he will, to absolve the
Democratic party from any responsibility for Grover Cleve
land or his errors. He never was a Democrat.
A. I will absolve the Democratic party from any respon
sibility for him during the last years of his administration,
and I will absolve him from any responsibility for the Demo
cratic party as well. Certainly he does not want any respon
sibility of that character.
Q. Very well. Now, Senator, will you please enlighten
us on another point? Did not President Harrison in the
closing months of his administration have bonds prepared
looking to the replenishment of the gold reserve the same as
President Cleveland did?
A. I do not know that, but I know that it would have
been a prudent thing for any administration to look into the
face of the fact that the advent of the Democratic party in
1893 was the signal for deficiencies and disasters, distress and
revolution respecting our industrial system. Therefore, if
President Harrison did not see it he must have been asleep.
Q. Will the Senator inform us what the reserve surplus
or deficiency was on the 1st day of June, 1893, for that fiscal
year? A. I will. On the first day of July, 1893, the revenue

122 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
surplus over expenditures was $3,341,000. Of course the old
tariff was still in effect.
Q. The Democratic party had been in power three months,
had it not?.
A. Yes, it had been in power from the fourth day of
March to the first of July.
Q. Now, will the Senator state what the deficiency was in
1894? That was after the Wilson Act went into effect.
A. The deficiency was $70,000,000. The raid on the
Treasury for the redemption of greenbacks resulted from the
distrust which came in turn from the divisions of the Demo
cratic party. The great body of them were on one side, and
Mr. Cleveland and a few of his followers were on the other,
and that division disclosed the fact that in the elections to
come the Shibboleth of the campaign on that side would be
the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to
1. I here assert that the political questions that were thrust
into prominence in connection with the currency system in
1894, 1895 and 1896 were largely responsible for the deficit
in our Treasury and for the uncertainty as respects our money,
and therefore there were constant redemptions of greenbacks
at the Treasury.
Q. Will the Senator express an opinion as to whether that
deficit was owing more to the distrust in regard to the currency
and the free coinage of silver than to the distrust of evil
effects from the proposed adoption of free trade?
A. It was both of them. You mistake me if you think I
hold the change of the tariff blameless.
Q. Now, Senator, returning to the silver question, how can
you keep the silver dollar at par with a gold dollar unless
you redeem it in gold?
A, I will answer by referring to your own experience and

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 123
observation as to the history of twenty-two years, and ask you
if you have ever been able to buy an American silver dollar
at a discount? Every silver dollar you have had, every silver
certificate you have had, has been worth in every market as
much as a gold dollar.
General Good: Yes, by reason of the wise provisions of
our laws restricting the coinage of silver. Under the gold
standard every dollar, whether of gold, silver or paper, is and
will be kept at par — worth 100 cents each.
Col. Agi-Tate: You are not on the witness stand. General.
General Good: You may place me there if you wish.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do. Senator.
General Good: I will call the Hon. Jesse Overstreet, of
Indiana, as my next' witness.
General Good: Mr. Overstreet, you are a member of the
National House of Eepresentatives, are you not?
Mr. Overstreet: I am.
Q. You were the author of House Bill No. 1, known as
the Financial Bill, were you not?
A. I introduced that measure and had a part in its con
struction. Q. What do you consider the most important provision of
the measure?
A. The first and most important feature of the measure
is the establishment of the gold standard in law. The
strengthening of the public credit, by the removal of all doubt
concerning the policy and practice of the government relative
to the unit of value is of paramount importance. The ele
ment of value is just as essential to a standard of value as
the element of weight is to a standard of weight, or of length
to the standard of measure. Firmness, stability, and con
stancy are characteristics which any standard must possess if

124 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
it shall meet the demand on it by universal use for honest and
true measurement, whether of value, weight or length.*
Q. What are your objections to a double standard?
A; All efforts to effect by law a double standard of value
have been futile, and the laws of trade and commerce, in
different to statute law, have universally and consistently
recognized as the standard that metal the intrinsic value of
which has been most stable and most free from fluctuations.
There can be but one standard of a given measurement at one
time. An attempt to couple two standards differing in any
degree in essential characteristics will shift the standard to
the weaker link.
Q. Mr. Overstreet, it has been stated here that there was
no need for financial legislation. Will you kindly tell us
whether, in your opinion, there was need of such legislation?
A. In my opinion there was. To dispel all lingering doubt
from the minds of the public, and to give clear expression to
the nation's purpose relative to financial obligations, it was
necessary to have such legislation.
Q. When will the doubt disappear?
A. When the standard shall be permanently established
and all uncertainty as to its stability removed, the parity of
all our money will be fully recognized, and the kind of money
in which payments will be made will rarely if ever be the
subject of dispute. When certainty shall take the place of
doubt, and the integrity of our credit be as fixed as the honor
of the nation, the national debt can be readily refunded at
lower rates of interest and future loans negotiated with ease
upon better terms than ever before.
The rapid development of American trade and its vast
expansion, bringing our people into closer relations with the
"^ Congressional Record, December U, 1899.

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 125
leading nations of the world, make it imperative that the
standard of value in which settlements are made shall be the
best known to the highest civilization and shall safely ap
peal to intelligent and successful experience.
Q. Mr. Overstreet, it has been stated here that the effect
of this statute would be to raise the price of bonds, and thus
operate to the great advantage of the bondholders. It has
been claimed that if the bonds had been sold with the gold
payment provision in them, they would have brought a much
higher price than they did, and that the passing of this law
operates in the nature of a gratuity to these bondholders.
Can you give us any light on this point?
A. If this condition be true, and I have no doubt that it
may be true, it proves the opposite of what our friends desire.
It shows conclusively that the better we make our credit the
lower we can borrow money. If there had been no doubt as
to the kind of money the lender would be repaid in, our
national debt could have been placed at a lower rate of inter
est. But the fact that our credit has not been as good as it
might have been, by reason of doubt and uncertainty is no
reason that we should not repair the fault as quickly as pos
sible, but on the contrary affords every reason why we should.
Q. Are present conditions favorable for the adoption of
the gold standard?
A. They are most favorable. Such are the general con
ditions of trade, as well as the condition of the national treas
ury, that no disbursements whatever can possibly attend the
legislation proposed. The volume and variety of our inter
state and foreign trade have never before been equalled. The
supply of labor fails to meet the demand. Bountiful harvests
and the output of manufacturers strain the means of trans
portation. Vast enterprises for extension of shipping facil-

126 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
ities by land and sea are in progress. No clouds as yet appear
to cast a shadow upon our prosperity.
The national revenues have been abundant and satisfactory
notwithstanding the expense incident to the war with Spain,.
which has been concluded with such success and honor, and
the expense incurred by the insurrection in the Philippines.
The government has been able to meet all its obligations
with ease, and has declared its willingness to anticipate its
interest payments so as to quickly return the money to the
channels of trade.
Q. It is true, is it not, that we are now and have been for
many years operating under the gold standard?
A. In declaring gold to be the standard of value, the
bill clearly states that we are already operating under such
standard. The first provision is, "That the standard unit of
value shall, as now, be the dollar, and shall consist of 25 8-10
grains of gold, 9-10 fine, or 23 22-100 grains of pure gold,
being the one-tenth part of the eagle."
Q. Was not one of the purposes of this statute to provide
against the endless chain?
A. It was, most assuredly.
Q. How is it accomplished?
A. The bill provides for the creation of a division of
issue and redemption in the treasury department, and requires
the department to keep separate from the fiscal operations of
the government the coin and bullion especially designated as
a redemption fund, and the deposits pledged for the payment
of specific notes outstanding, and prohibits the use of the
same except for the purposes to which they shall be especially
dedicated. In the absence of a law providing protection to the gold
reseiwe, it is always subject to encroachment in expenditures

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 127
to meet the general expenses of the government. Whenever
such encroachment has seemed probable a fear has arisen that
the government would not be able to meet its obligations, and
a run upon the reserve for the redemption of the demand
notes has followed. This situation is responsible for the so-
called "endless chain" by separating the reserve fund from
the general fund and prohibiting its use except for redemp
tion of United States notes and treasury notes. The dangers
to which it has been so greatly subjected will be removed.
These demand notes are redeemed in gold, as they always have
been, and no additional burden is imposed upon the govern
ment. It is sought to simplify and legalize the practice, and
create a division in the treasury where the whole business of
issuing and redeeming notes may be transacted, and to estab
lish complete confidence in the redemption of our demand
obligations. Q. Mr. Overstreet, is there any provision in the bill for the
sale of bonds to maintain the gold reserve?
A. There is. It provides a complete safeguard to guaran
tee the permanent maintenance of the gold standard by au
thorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, whenever it is neces
sary for such maintenance, to issue and sell bonds of the
United States, payable in gold coin, and for the exchange
of gold coin for any other money issued or coined by the
United States, should the Secretary of the Treasury deem
such exchange necessary in order to maintain the parity and
equal value of the money of the United States.
Q. It is claimed that this method would result in a con
traction of the currency. Would that be true?
A. It would not. There can be no contraction of the
currency under this system, for the reason that either the

128 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
note is in circulation, or if redeemed its equivalent is in
circulation. Q. Is this provision for the sale of bonds a new proposi
tion? A. It is not. It has been the rule heretofore that where
the revenues fail to equal the expenditures, the government
has a right to obtain money by the issue and sale of bonds.
This bill advances no new propositiqn. It clearly defines
the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury toward the protec
tion of the gold reserve, and provides for the issue of bonds at
a lower rate of interest than at present authorized by law.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Overstreet.
General Good: I will now call the Hon. Marriott Brosius,
of Penn,sylvania.
General Good: Mr. Brosius, you are a member of the
House of Eepresentatives, are you not?
Mr. Brosius: I am.
Q. Do you consider this an auspicious time to repair our
currency laws?
A. I do. All trade and commerce are at high water mark,
while the condition of business in general is in every way
favorable. In fact, it seems a happy provision in our national
affairs that has brought us upon such auspicious conditions
for repairs in our financial and banking laws which have
pressed with extreme urgency upon public attention for some
years.* Q. Mr. Brosius, it has been contended here that the
Eepublican party is extremely inconsistent in causing the
financial bill, which provided for the gold standard, to be
passed. What have you to say regarding that claim?

* Congressional Record, December 18, 1899,

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 129
A. A few carpers and cavilers have indulged in criticisms
as severe as they are senseless. But what on earth is more
commendable than a change of mind in the Hght of a new
day? It is pitiful to witness the efforts of some men to be
consistent.- I listened in the House debate to animadversion
upon the inconsistency of men in not holding always the same
views. If we did, we should soon be a nation of fools. Con
sistency is the bogie of little minds to which infant statesmen
and feeble philosophers do homage. What has a great soul
to do with consistency more than with his shadow on the wall?
It is the rule of wisdom to speak to-day what we think, and
to-morrow speak again what we think, though it contradict
every utterance of yesterday. Every great question must
eome to the touch-stone of the present. To-day, and not last
year, is the judgment day for this financial measure.
Q. You would rather be right, then, than be consistent?
A. I try to be both right and consistent; but criticisms of
that character carry about as much weight as Sydney Smith's
complaint of the solar system, when he said to his friend Jeff
rey — "Damn the solar system. Bad light, planets too distant;
pestered with comets; feeble contrivance."
Q. Do you consider the bill a good business measure?
A. It is a great business measure, calculated to keep upon
the present solid foundation the welfare and prosperity of the
whole country.
Q. You claim that the gold standard already exists; why
do you desire to confirm an existing standard?
A. The answer is not far to seek. In the first place, it is
desirable, for the sake of unity, clearness and convenience, to
have the declaration of the standard reproduced in connec
tion with the provisions for its maintenance. This is the
commonest occurrence in our legislation.

130 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
But there is another reason. Our monetary legislation for
half a century has been an evolution developed by accretions
at long intervals, as amendments were suggested by time and
experience. The system has grown in a fashion not greatly
distinguished for unity or legal coherence. It has therefore
lent itself to varying constructions under the bias of party
feeling or the exigencies of politics. The result has been that
diverse views and purposes have led to diverse interpretations
of lav,', and out of the vicissitudes of our financial affairs, our
trials, dangers, and catastrophes narrowly escaped has come
a degree of uncertainty as to what might occur in possible
contingencies in the practical administration of the system.
This is disquieting to the public mind. We know, as has
recently been said, in matters monetary, the state of mind
is as important as the state of fact. In such a juncture it is
obviously the dictate of wisdom to remove the doubt, clarify
the situation and put the public mind at ease.
General Good: That will do, Mr. Brosius.
Mr. Finance is now called to the stand.
General Good: Mr. Finance, what is your occupation?
Mr. Finance: I hold a responsible official position in the
treasury department.
Q. Have given years of study to the monetary question,
have you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The plaintiff in this case, despite the verdict of the
people in 1896, still insists that the so-called "crime of 1873"
shall be avenged, and that unlimited free coinage at the ratio
of 16 to 1 is yet demanded in the interest of the people's
good. Will you explain to the jury what the plaintiff means
by the crime of 1873?
A. He says silver was then demonetized.

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 131
Q. What does the word demonetize 'mean?
A. Webster defines it thus: "Demonetize — ^to deprive of
current value; to withdraw from use as money."
Q. Then if silver had been demonetized, it would have
been withdrawn from use as money, would it not?
A. Certainly, according to Webster.
Q. But is it not a fact that since the alleged demonetiza
tion in 1873, most of our silver dollars have been coined?
A. Yes, sir. The total coinage of silver dollars from the
first coinage in 1792 up to January 1, 1873, was $8,045,838.
The total coinage of silver dollars from January 1, 1873 to
January 1, 1895, was $422,426,794, and many thousands of
silver dollars have been coined since then.
Q. That is to say that during the 23 years following the
Act of 1873 the coinage of silver dollars at the U. S. mints
was about 52 1-2 times as much as it was during the 81 years
prior to the alleged demonetization, which the free silver
advocates brand as the crime of 1873?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then with the gold standard and the use of all this
silver as money the country has had practical bimetallism,
has it not?
A. It has.
Q. And every dollar, whether of gold, silver or paper, has
the same purchasing power?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it that keeps our silver dollars at par with'
gold? A. They are kept at par with gold by the very restrictions
which the free silver advocates would have removed.
Q. Now, Mr. Finance, explain this to the jury in your own
way.

132 THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
A. Well, in the first place, the free silver people demand
free coinage at the ratio of 16 to 1 when the actual commer
cial ratio is above 32 to 1. There are 371 1-4 grains of pure
silver or 412 1-2 grains of standard silver, in a silver dollar,
the difference being the alloy — 41 1-4 grains. There are 480
grains in an ounce of pure silver. By computation it is read
ily seen that the pure silver in a silver dollar is commercially
worth less than 47 cents, the price of bar silver being less
than 60 cents per ounce in the New York market. Unlim
ited free coinage at the 16 to 1 ratio would certainly drive all
the gold out of use as money, being worth so much more as
a commodity, thus enormously contracting the currency, and
bringing the country to silver monometallism.
Q. But they claim that free coinage woulH so increase the
demand for silver as to largely increase the price of silver?
A. That was not the result of the operation of the Sher
man purchasing act, which authorized the purchase of 4,500,-
000 ounces of silver every month. All the time that act was
in force the price of silver had a continuous sinking spell,
leaving it lower after than it was before the act was passed.
Q. And this act authorized or directed -the purchase of
practically the output of our silver mines at that time?
A. I so understand it.
Q. The inevitable result of free coinage at the 16 to 1
ratio, then, would be a tremendous contraction by the expul
sion of gold, and also a tremendous contraction of the pur
chasing power of silver?
A. Exactly so. It would reduce by more than one-half the
present purchasing power of a dollar, and rob in the same
proportion the value of bank deposits, insurance policies, etc.
Q. Was the coinage ratio ever fixed or changed without

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 133
approximating as closely as possible to the commercial ratio
of the two metals, gold and silver?
A. Never. It was attempted for the first time in 1896
arbitrarily to fi.x the coinage ratio entirely without rfegard to
the commercial ratio, or rather to place in power a party that
would carry out that purpose.
Q. Do you think the intelligence of the country will ever
permit such a dangerous experiment to be tried?
A. I do not. The American people see in the general and
unparalleled prosperity of the country overwhelming evidence
of the wisdom of the Eepublican financial policy.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Finance, I suppose you are aware that
the new financial bill forces upon the country the single gold
standard, to the absolute exclusion of silver as basic money?
Mr. Finance: I am aware, sir, that the new financial bill
is the product of the best intelligence of the country, en
lightened by experience and study. The gold standard we
have had for many years, but time and experience have
demonstrated that certain defects existed in our monetary
system which demanded attention. It is the object of the
new bill, while re-establishing on a firmer basis than ever
the gold standard, to remedy these defects by providing for
a greater elasticity of our currency in times of emergency,
also to make what is known as the "endless chain system"
wholly unnecessary by wise provisions relating to redemption.
Q. Then you, as your party's representative here, are not
in favor of bimetallism?
A. I am in favor of the practical bimetallism this bill
proposes, the gold standard with the largest use of silver
money consistent with safety.
Q. "Consistent with safety!" Eather ambiguous, that.

134 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. Not so. The history of finance in all nations proves
that the cheaper dollar drives out the dearer. Your plan of
bimetallism — free coinage at the ratio of 16 to 1 — would
result in silver monometallism. It would give us the silver
standard and gold would disappear except as a commodity.
Q. I think I have heard that before.
A. Undoubtedly. Perhaps it is not the first time you have
heard the truth and rejected it.
Q. Then I suppose you are a friend of National banks?
A. Did you ever know of a safer banking system in this
country? Did we ever have one so safe? I do not say it
cannot be improved and I believe the provisions of the new
measure, now familiar to all, will prove to be the right rem
edies for those defects that have existed in the National
banking system. As tlie representative of a party which has
been clamorous for a return to the state bank of issue, you
will perhaps concede that there is a popular prejudice,
founded on exceHent reasons, against a departure from a sys
tem that guarantees every holder of National. bank currency
against the loss of a single dollar, this prejudice being
strongly intensified when it is proposed to return to a system
which in its former operation guaranteed nothing except
business paralysis and nervous prostration.
Q. We are not discussing that phase of the subject now,
Mr. Finance. We are after the National Bank sharks.
A. Oh, yes. In former days your party was after the
"despot" Lincoln, the "butcher" Grant, the 'Tjummer" Sher
man, and since then you have been after the National bank
sharks, the protective tariff, the productive enterprises of the
country, and every good thing the Eepublican party has pro
posed and established. Pardon me — ^you have been after all
these, but history tells us that it was the country that suf-

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 135
fered whenever you were able to lay violent hands upon any
of them.
Col. Agi-Tate: We do not eare to listen to campaign
speeches at this time, Mr. Finance. I may call you to the
stand again.
The Judge: I hope the plaintiff will finish with the wit
ness now. It is desirable to close the testimony of each wit
ness as we proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: Your Honor, I hope I may be indulged to
the extent requested.
The Judge: Very well. Call the next witness.
General Good: Your Honor, I now desire to introduce for
the consideration of the jury, the full text of the financial
bill as passed by the last Congress, permanently establishing
the gold standard of values in fulfillment of the promise of
the Eepublican party to the people. It is of the highest im
portance that the jury shall study well the various sections
and provisions of this act, together with the testimony here
taken, in order that they may come to correct conclusions.
If misstatements of fact have been heard with reference to the
purpose of this act, or of any of its provisions, a careful read
ing of the measure will enable the jury to place the respon
sibility of those mistakes, and materially aid them in making
up a just and intelligent verdict.
It was only a few days after the passage of this act that one
John P. Altgeld, in a public speech in Detroit, declared,
among other reckless assertions, that one of the purposes of
this law was to force the retirement of the greenbacks, a
declaration as false as unwarranted. The party that
created the greenback and not the party that opposed it in
its infancy can be relied upon to protect it. That the jury
may not be imposed upon or misled by any misrepresentation

136 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
of the purpose of any part of the act, whether intentionally,
innocently, or ignorantly made, I deem it a duty of the high
est importance that every juror make himself familiar with
every section and provision of the same.
The Judge: It is certainly the duty of the jury to get a
thorough understanding of this important legislation. The
full text of the financial bill as passed by Congress will,
therefore, be here presented to them.
The act is as follows:
SECTION l-FIXES GOLD AS THE STANDARD OF VALUE.
The dollar consisting of t-sventy-flve and eight-tenths grains of gold,
nine-tenths flne, as established by section 3,511 of the revised statutes
of the United States, shall be the standard unit of ralue, and all forms
of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at
a parity of value with this standard; and it shall be the duty of the Sec
retary of the Treasury to maintain such parity.
SECTION 2— FOR GOLD RESERVE OE $150,000,000.
United States notes and treasury notes issued under the act of July
14, 1890, -when presented to the treasury for redemption, shall be re
deemed in gold coin of the standard flxed In the first section of this act;
and in order to secure the prompt and certain redemption of such note's
as herein provided it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury
to set apart in the treasury a reserve fund of .flSO, 000,000 in gold coin
and bullion, -which fund shall be used for such redemption purposes only;
and whenever and as often as any of said notes shall be redeemed from
said fund It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to use
said notes so redeemed to restore and maintain such reserve fund in the
manner 'following, to wit:
1. By exchanging the notes so redeemed for any gold coin in the
general fund of the treasury.
2. By accepting deposits of gold coin at the treasury or at any sub-
treasury in exchange for the United States notes so redeemed.
3. By procuring gold coin by the use of said notes in accordance
with the provisions of section 3,700 of the revised statutes of the United
States. If the Secretary of the Treasury is unable to restore and maintain
the gold coin in the reserve fund by the foregoing methods, and the
amount of such gold coin and bullion in said fund shall at any time
fall below $100,000,000, then it shall be his duty to restore the same to
the maxim.um sum of $150,000,000 by borrowing money on the credit
of the United States, and for the debt thus incurred to issue and sell
coupon or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as he may
prescribe. In denominations- of $50 or any multiple thereof, bearing inter
est at the rate of not exceeding 3 per cent per annum, payable quarterly,
such bonds to be payable at the pleasure of the United States after one
year from the date of their Issue, and to be payable, principal and inter
est. In gold coin of the present standard value, and to be exerapt from
the payment of all taxes or duties of the United States, .is well as from
taxation in any form by or under state, municipal or local authority.
The gold coin received from the sale of said bonds shall first be eov-

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 137
ered into the general fund of the treasury and then exchanged in the
manner hereinbefore provided for au equal amount of the notes re
deemed and held for exchange; and the Secretary of the Tl'easury may,
in his discretion, use said notes In exchange for gold, or to purchase or
redeem any bonds of the United States, or for any other lawful purpose
the public interests may require, except that they shall not be used to
meet deficiencies In tlie current revenues.
United States notes, when redeemed In accordance with the provisions
of this section, shall be reissued, but shall be held in the reserve fund
until exchanged for gold, as herein provided; and the gold coin and
bullion In the reserve fund, together with the redeemed notes held for
use as provided In this section, shall at no time exceed the maximum sum
of $150,000,000. SECTION 3-PROVISIONS REGARDING PRESENT MONET.
Nothing contained In this act shall be construed to affect the legal
tender quality, as now provided by law, of the sliver dollar, or of any
other money coined or issued by the United States.
SECTION 4— DIVISIONS OF ISSUE AND REDEMPTION.
There shall be established In the Treasury Department, as a part
of the ofiice of the Treasurer of the United States, divisions to be desig
nated and known as the division of issue and the division of redemption,
to which shall be assigned, respectively, under such rpgulations as the
Secretary of the Treasury may approve, all records and accounts relat
ing to the Issue and redemption of United States notes, gold certifi
cates, silver certificates, and currency certificates.
There shall be transferred from the accounts of the general fund of
the treasury of the United States, aud talien up on the books of said
divisions, respectively, accounts relating to the reserve fund for the re
demption of United States notes and treasury notes, the gold coin held
against outstanding gold certificates, the UnHed States notes held against
outstanding currency certificates, and the silver dollars held against
outstanding silver certificates, and each of the funds represented by
these accounts shall be used for the redemption of the notes and certifi
cates for which they are respectively pledged, and shall be used for no
other purpose, the same being held as trust funds.
SECTION 5-ISSUANCE OP SILVER CERTIFICATES.
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, as fast as stand-
.ird sliver dollars are coined under the provisions of the acts of July 14,
1890, and June 13, 1898, from bullion purchased under the act of July 14,
1890, to retire and cancel an equal amount of treasury notes whenever
received into the treasury, either by exchange In accordance with the
provisions of this act or in the ordinary course of business; and upon the
cancellation of treasury notes silver certificates shall be issued against
the silver dollars- so coined.
SECTION 6— FOR ISSUANCE OP GOLD CERTIFICATES.
The Secretary of the Treasury Is hereby authorized and_ directed to
receive deposits of gold coin with the treasurer or any assistant treas
urer of the United States, In sums of not less than $20, and to Issue gold
certificates therefor in denominations of not less than $20; and the coin
so deposited shall be retained in the treasury and held for the payment
of such certificates on demand, and used for no other purpose. Such
certificates shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues,
and when so received may be reissued, and when held by any national
banking association may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve.
Provided, That whenever and sO long as the gold coin held in the

138 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
reserve fund in the treasury for the redemption of United States notes
and treasury notes shall fall and remain below $100,000,000 the author
ity to issue certificates as herein provided shall be suspended.
Provided, further. That whenever and so long as the aggregate
amount of United States notes and silver certificates in the general fund
of the treasury shall exceed $60,000,000 the Secretary of the Treasury
may in his discretion suspend the issue of the certificates herein pro
vided for.
Provided, further, That of the amount of such outstanding certificates
one-fourth at least shall be In denominations of $50 or less.
Provided, further. That the Secretary of the Treasury may In his dis
cretion issue such certificates in denominations of $10,000, payable to
order. Section 5,193 of the revised statutes of the United States Is
hereby repealed.
SECTION 7— PUTS LIMIT UPON SILVER CERTIFICATES.
Hereafter silver certificates shalj be issued only of denominations of
$10 and under, except that not exceeding In the aggregate 10 per cent
of the total volume of said certificates, in the discretion of the Secretary
of the Treasury, may be issued in denominations of $20, $50 and $100.
Silver certificates of higher denomination than $10, except as herein
provided, shall, whenever received at the treasury or redeemed, be re
tired and canceled, and certificates of denominations of $10 or less shall
be substituted therefor; and after such substitution, In whole or in part,
a like volume of United States notes of less denomination than $10 shall
from time to time be retired and canceled, and notes of denominations of
$10 and upward shall be reissued in substitution therefor, with like qual
ities and restrictions as those retired and canceled.
SECTION 8— COINAGE OF SUBSIDIARY SILVER COIN.
The Secretary of the Treasury Is hereby authorized to use, at his
discretion, any silver bullion In the treasury of the United States pur
chased under the act of July 14, 1890, for coinage into such denomina
tions of subsidiary silver coin as may be necessary to meet the publio
requirements for such coin; provided, that the amount of subsidiary
silver coin outstanding shall not at any time exceed in the aggregate
$100,000,000. Whenever any silver bullion purchased under the act of July 14, 1890,
shall be used in the coinage of subsidiary silver coin an amount of treas
ury notes Issued under said act equal to the cost of the bullion contained
In such coin shall be canceled and not reissued.
SECTION 9— RECOINAGE OP WORNOUT SILVER COIN.
The Secretary of the Treasury Is hereby authorized and directed to
cause all worn and uncurrent subsidiary silver coin of the United States
now In the treasury and hereafter received to be recoined and to reim
burse the treasury of the United States for the difference between the
nominal or face value of such coin and the amount the same will pro
duce In new coin from any moneys in the treasury not otherwise ap
propriated. SECTION 10-NATIONAL BANKS IN THE SMALL CITIES.
Section 5,138 of the revised statutes is hereby amended so as to read
as follows:"Section 5,138. No association shall be organized with a less capital
than $100,000, except that banks with a capital of not less than $50,000
may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, be organized
in any place the population of which does not exceed 6,000 Inhabitants
ftnd except that banlts with a capital of not lass than $25,000 may, witli

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 139
the sanction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be organized In any place
the population of which does not exceed 3,000 Inhabitants. , No associa
tion shall be organized In a city the population of which exceeds 50,000
persons with a capital of less than $200,000."
SECTION ll-POR THE USE OF 2 PER CENT BONDS.
The Secretary of the Treasury Is hereby authorized to receive at the
treasury any of the outstanding bonds of the United States bearing in
terest at 5 per cent per annum, payable Feb. 1, 1904, aud any bonds of,
the United States bearing Interest at 4 per cent per annum., payable
July 1, 1907, and any bonds of the United. States bearing Interest at 3
per cent per annum, payable Aug. 1, 1908, and to issue in exchange there
for an equal amount of coupon or registered bonds of the United States,
In such form as he may prescribe. In denoniluatlons of $50 or any multiple
thereof, bearing interest at the rate of 2 per cent per annum, payable
quarterly; such bonds to be payable at the pleasure of the United States
after thirty years from the date of their Issue, and said bonds to be
payable, principal and interest. In gold coin of the present standard value,
and to be exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties of the United
States, as well as from taxation In any form by or under state, municipal
or local authority.
Providing, that such outstanding bonds may be received in exchange
at valuation not greater than their present worth to yield an income
of 2% per cent per annum; and In consideration of the reduction of In
terest effected the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to pay the
holders of the outstanding bonds surrendered for exchange, out of
any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, a sum not greater
than the difference between their present worth, computed as aforesaid,
and their par value; and the payments to be made hereunder shall be
held to be payments on account of the sinking fund created by section
3,694 of the revised statutes.
Provided, further, that the 2 per cent bonds to be Issued under the
Srovlslons of this act shall be issued at not less than par, and they shall
e numbered consecutively In the order of their Issue, and when payment
is made the last numbers Issued shall be flrst paid, and this order shall
be followed until all the bonds are paid; and whenever any of the out
standing bonds are called for payment Interest thereon shall cease three
months after such call.
There Is hereby appropiated out of any money In the treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to effect the exchanges of bonds provided for in
this act, a sum not exceeding one-flfteenth of 1 per cent of the face value
of said bonds to pay the expense of preparing and issuing the same and
other expenses Incident thereto.
SECTION 12— ON CIRCULATION BY NATIONAL BANKS.
Upon the deposit with the treasurer of the United States, by any
national banking association, of any bonds of the United States In the
manner provided by existing law, such association shall be entitled to
receive from the comptroller of the currency circulating notes In blank.
registered and countersigned as provided by law, equal in amount to the
par value of the bonds so deposited, and any national banking association
now having bonds on deposit for the security of circulating notes, and
upon which an amount of circulating notes has been issued less than
the par value of the bonds, shall be entitled, upon due application to the
comptroller of the currency, to receive additional circulating notes In
blank to an amount which will increase the circulating notes held by
sucii association to the par value of the bonds deposited; such addlHonal
notes to be held and treated in the same way as circulating notes of
national banking associations heretofore issued, and subject to all the
provisions of law affecting such note*.

140 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to modtty
or repeal the provisions of section 5,167 of the revised statutes of the
United States, authorizing the comptroller of the currency to i-equire
additional deposits of bonds or of lawful money !"«»?<> tl^\™^^VhI^,l"!
of the bonds held to secure the circulating notes shall fall below the Par
value of the circulating notes outstanding, for which such bonds may be
'^**Pprovid(^!further,'that the cIrcuIaOng note's furnished to national bank
ing associations under the provisions of this act shall be of the denom
inations prescribed by law. except that no national banking association
shall, after the passage of this act, be entitled to receive f'o™ the <;omp-
troller of the currency, or to issue or reissue or place in clrculatio-n more
than one-third in amount of- its circulating notes of the denomination
Provided, further, that the total amount of such notes issned to any
such association may equal at any time but shall not exceed the amount
at such time of its capital stock actually paid in. ,, , . ... ^„„
Provided, further, that under regulations to be prescribed by the bec-
retary of the Treasury any national banking association may substitute
the 2 per cent bonds Issued under the provisions of this act for any of the
bonds deposited with the treasurer to secure circulation or to secure
deposits of public money. ....
So much of an act entitled. "An pet to enable national banking asso
ciations to extend their corporate existence, and for other purposes.
approved July 12, 1882, as prohibits any national bank which makes any
deposit of lawful money in order to withdraw its circulating notes from
receiving any increase of its circulation for the period of six months from
the time It made such deposit of lawful money for the purpose aforesaid,
is hereby repealed, and all other aets or parts of acts inconsistent with
the provisions of this section are hereby repealed.
SECTION 13-TAX LAID UPON THE NATIONAL BANKS.
Every national banking association having on deposit, as provided by
law, bonds, of the United States bearing interest at the rate of 2 per cent
per annum, issued under the provisions of this act, to secure its circu
lating notes, sihall pay to the treasurer of the United States, in the months
of January and July, a tax of one-fourth of 1 per cent each half year
upon the average amount of such of its notes in circulation as are based
upon the deposit of said 2 per cent bonds; and such taxes shall be in
lieu of existing taxes on its notes in circulation imposed by section 5,214
of the revised statutes.
SECTION 14— INTERNATIONAL BIMETALLIC AMENDMENT.
The provisions of this act are not intended to preclude the accom
plishment of international bimetallism whenever conditions shall make
it expedient and practicable to secure the same by concurrent action of
the leading commercial nations of the world, and at a ratio which shall
insure permanence of relative value between gold and silver.
Col. Agi-Tate: If your Honor please, and gentlemen of
the jury, under this count we arraigned the administration for
its subserviency to the plutocrats of Wall Street and Lombard
Street; for its bowing to the dictates of the moneyed aristoc
racy and consenting to fasten upon the people of the country
the gold standard of values. I deem it unnecessary that fur-

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 141
ther testimony should be taken to justify our arraignment and
prove our contention. Even the witnesses for the defendant
have, by their testimony, proven all that we set out to prove.
Having frankly confessed the truth of our charge of their
purpose to abandon their past pretense in favor of bimetallism
and force upon the country the gold standard, it naturally
follows that they have done this at the dictation of the
moneyed aristocracy.
Gentlemen of the jury, we claim the verdict in this case
is clearly against the defendant, even were the testimony of
our own witnesses to be thrown out. But when you review the
testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses and weigh it well in the
scales of truth and justice, you will realize, perhaps as never
before, that consistency is a jewel which the administration
does not now possess. There is needed no argument to con
vince the jury of the justice of our arraignment. Demon
strated by our own and confessed by the defendant's witnesses,
argument becomes wholly unnecessary in this case.
Yet it is well to consider important facts in connection with
the testimony given.
Gentlemen of the jury, the Eepublicans think that all the
people rest upon the financier. The Eepublicans believe that
the trader should be considered and not the producer. This
vicious doctrine that money is more precious than humanity
has manifested itself in all the questions now before the coun
try. The Eepublicans say that they want this money question
settled, and they have a bill that provides for the gold stand
ard and a National bank currency.
After having fought a campaign, under the mask of inter
national bimetallism, they now seek to make the gold stand
ard permanent before the people can have another chance to

U2 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
express themselves at the polls. And then add to that the
provision that changes our paper money from government
paper to bank paper.
Do you believe that governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed? Do you believe the people
have a right to be heard in the decision of their own affairs?
If you do, I want you to remember that the Eepublican party
did not desire to say in 1896 that it was going to retire the
greenbacks. The Eepublican platform never mentioned it.
The President's letter of acceptance did not contain a refer
ence to the retirement of greenbacks, and yet, though they
went into power without presenting .that question to the
people, they now seek to change our financial system, drive
the government out of the business of issuing paper money,
and give to the National banks the power to form a paper
money trust.
All the evidence and facts go to establish the charge we
"have made and we confidently rely upon you, gentlemen of the
juTj, to do your duty and your whole duty without fear or
favor. The advocates of free coinage asserted in 1896 that the
gold standard was a conspiracy organized by the great finan
ciers of the world to lessen the volume of the world's standard
money for the double purpose, first, of raising the purchasing
power of a given quantity of money, and second, of making
it easier to corner the supply of standard money. The advo
cates of free coinage believed the charge when they made it,
and they believe it still. Inspired by the conviction that they
are laboring in behalf of a large majority of the peoplej not
only here, but throughout the world, they will continue their
fight, confident that many who in the past resisted their ar
gument will now come to their support.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 143
General Good: Your Honor and gentlemen of the jury.
To the awful charge that the administration has declared in
favor of the gold standard of values, let it be borne in miud
that we pleaded guilty before this arraignment was brought
against us. The charges "proven and confessed" simply
amount to a certificate of our earnest desire and honest inten
tion to do that which time and experience have demonstrated
to be best for the country and for all the people. We are
quite willing to let the testimony as it stands go to the jury.
That testimony confirms the verdict of 1896 as the only .true
and honest verdict that could have been then rendered. It
appeals to the intelligence of every voter to-day to say that the
changed and vastly improved conditions since 1896 are due to
something; that these vastly improved conditions are the very
reverse of what the other side then predicted, and that they
fulfill to completion the promises and prophecies of the Ee
publican party.
Gentlemen of the jury: In the light of all this testimony
and the facts presented, I believe your verdict is already made
up in accordance therewith. I do not deem deserving the
dignity of even a denial the demagogic reference to our al
leged "subserviency to the plutocrats of Wall Street and Lom
bard Street"; or to the equally silly charge of "bowing to the
dictates of the moneyed aristocracy." This is but a hemor
rhage of partisan spleen, painful but not dangerous. You will
observe that the spasm was over when the terrible arraign
ment was made.
The plaintiff, for prudential reasons, produced no witnesses
to testify on that point. He well understands that the insane
and idiotic are not permitted to testify in any court. They
may and often do arraign somebody for something, but they

144 I'HE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
are not competent witnesses even in the lowest court of jus
tice. Passing to the plaintiff's reckless assertions that the Ee
publican party takes the position that money is more precious
than humanity; that Eepublicans consider only the trader
and not the producer, etc., — why should he thus insult the
intelligence of the jury, especially when he has to belie
every -chapter of the Eepublican party's history to do it?
The Eepublican party was called into existence by the cries
of distressed and oppressed humanity. Its mission then was
to unfetter and uplift humanity in bondage; its mission ever
since has been to secure the greatest good to all the people.
Such an accusation as the plaintiff here brings against the
Eepublican party is a wilfv.l and wicked- libel on that party's
history from its beginning to the present time.
The plaintiff's rhetoric regarding the present purpose of the
Eepublican party concerning the country's finances, is in
tended to impress you that that party has been committing
financial crimes ever since 1873. The people no longer ago
than 1896 most emphatically repudiated his charges up to
that date; they did so again in the congressional elections of
1898, and will do so again in 1900.
Let the jury bear in mind that every advance step for the
betterment of our financial system has been taken by the
Eepublican party, and that every Eepublican measure, finan
cial or otherwise, which the people have indorsed has met "the
most bitter opposition of the Democratic party.
Now one of the most salient points in the new financial
measure regarding the National banks is the proposition, bit
terly assailed by the plaintiff's party, to authorize such banks
to issue circulation within the limit of their capital up to the
par value of the bonds deposited for security. It means sim-

THE JURy trial OF 1900. 145
ply this: Will the United States accept its own bond of $100
as good security for $100 or for only $90? This bill declares
in effect that if the gorvemment will not take less than $100
for a single bond, it ought not to refuse to accept it as collat
eral security for the same sum. To permit these banks to
issue circulation to the full amount of the bonds deposited
would be to immensely increase the currency circulation of
the country, and this is one of the ends sought by this wise
measure. The plaintiff talks like a panic-stricken prophet about the
retirement of the greenbacks and about giving to the National
banks the power to form a paper money trust. The measure
which he and his party are so bitterly opposed to seeks to
provide a more elastic currency, to" do away with the "endless
chain system," which has proved so harrassing, and to give
the people a stable currency equal to the best in the world,
with an increased volume to meet all demands.
But why go on? Gentlemen of the jury, before you are
facts and evidence sufficient for your intelligent direction.
We await your verdict with no less confidence than we felt
during the great trial of 1896.
The Eepublican party never lowered the flag or the credit
of the government, but has exalted both. It has not been our
liabit or our history as Eepublicans to haul down or lower our
colors. The past of the Eepublican party is secure. Its glory
fills the world with wonder and admiration, and inspires man
kind with new hopes and grander aspirations. It will be a
leading force in the future as it has been a mighty force in the
past. Its glories will continue to blaze on the heights, a
beacon to the world, pointing to a higher destiny for mankind.

A GREAT BOOM IN UNCLE SAM'S EXPORT TRADE.

Part 3.

CHAPTEE I.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: Let the trial proceed.
Col. Agi-Tate: If your Honor please, I will now enter on
the consideration of the third count.
Under this count, I arraign the administration for its
policy of imperialism; for its endeavor to swerve our govern
ment from the path of Eepublic to the path of Empire; and I
declare here and now that in so doing it violates the funda
mental law of our country. I arraign the administration for
its endeavor to force the government of the United States
upon an unwilling people, a people who are capable of self-
government, thereby violating one of the chief tenets of the
Declaration of Independence — that governments derive their
just power from the consent of the governed. I arraign the
administration for its ungenerous and pusillanimous conduct
in turning on a friendly ally — an ally which it recognized on
terms of equality, and which it promised to recognize as an
independent nation. I charge that this whole infamous busi
ness is but another bow to the commercial greed of the trusts
and is in antagonism to the eternal precepts of freedom.
I shall show that the proposed retention of the Philippine
Archipelago as a colonial dependency is the application of a
vicious principle; that the imperial policy advocated by the
admiaistration denies each and all of those fundamental prin-
(U7)

148 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
ciples written in the Declaration of Independence; that the
administration has recognized a polygamous and slave-owning
systernTin the treaty with the Sultan of Sulu; and that it is
personally responsible for the war of conquest now going on
in the Philippines.
At the outset, I vrish briefly to review the events early in
the defendant's administration that paved the way to this
policy of Empire. When the defendant took possession of the
presidential chair, there was, at our very doors, a people op
pressed by the tyranny of a foreign rule mediaeval in its des
potism. These people cried out to us for aid, even as in the
days of our great struggle for independence our forefathers
appealed for succor to the champions of the cause of liberty.
This people cried out to us to rally to the support of that
principle of free government for which our flag, the glorious
stars and Stripes, stands as the world's greatest exponent.
The hearts of the masses of the people of our land beat
in sympathy with the wrongs of these, our neighbors, and the
force of public opinion impelled the defendant against his ovm
wishes and the protests of the great monopolies and moneyed
interests of the country to declare war with Spain.
The scandals and mismanagement of that war by which so
much added suffering and so much unnecessary loss of life
was entailed upon our brave soldiery, are too fresh in the
minds of intelligent men and readers of our free press, such as
constitute the jury in this case, to require recital here.
Dewey's great and truly Nelsonian victory in Manila Bay
stirred, and its memory still stirs, our patriotic enthusiasm. God
forbid that this great achievement of American valor may be
the means of the defeat of the principles and policy on which
depends the perpetuity of our democratic institutions!
Commercial greed and lust for empire saw in this victoTy in

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 149
Eastern waters an opportunity, and they found in Mr. McKin
ley an instrument for its accomplishment. A clause in the
Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed
at Paris, December 10th, 1898, provides for the cession of the
archipelago, known as the Philippine Islands, for a considera
tion of $20,000,000.
The acquisition cf subject territory to be held under colo
nial government is un-American. In the consideration of
great problems, we should heed the counsel and admonition
of the past, and I would invoke from the realms of Shade the
spirit of Thomas Jefferson, the greatest of the world's con
structive statesmen. Let us listen with reverence to the wis
dom of the Sage of Monticello.
Spirit of Jefferson: "If there be any principle more deep
ly written than any other in the mind of every American, it is
that we should have nothing to do with conquest.
"Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to en
tangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never
to suffer Europe to meddle in cis-Atlantic affairs. America
has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe and pecu
liarly her own.
"I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well cal
culated as ours for extensive empire and self-government. I
have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition
which could ever be made to our system of states; the control
of which, with Florida Point, this island would give us over
the Gulf of Mexico and the countries and isthmus bordering
on it, as well as all those whose waters flow into it, would fill
up the measure of our political wellbeing. It will be objected
to our receiving Cuba, that no limit can then be drawn to our
future conquests. Cuba can be defended by us without a
navy, and this develops the principle which ought to limit our

150 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
views. Nothing should ever be accepted by us which would
require a navy to defend."
I will now introduce as my first witness, Felipe
Buencamino, by whom I shall show the facts and rights upon
•which is based the claim of the Filipino government for
recognition from our republic. Mr. Linguisto will act as
interpreter. Col. Agi-Tate: You are an official of the government of
the Filipino republic, are you not?
Felipe Buencamino: Yes, sir; I have been intrusted with
the portfolio of foreign affairs. *
Q. Your people claim the right of recognition as an inde
pendent state from the government of the United States, do
they? A. The Filipino people aspire to be recognized, and be
lieve they have ample reason and justification for official rec
ognition as an independent state by your influential govern
ment. Q. Upon what do you base this claim?
A. (1) It is generally accepted as an axiom that, as re
gards international affairs, the larger and more powerful a
state, the greater is its obligation morally to support and
maintain lesser states in the independence, the welfare and
the happiness which God in His bountiful goodness has de
signed should be theirs, and of which the greater states are
guardians. The powerful and wealthy nation of the United States of
America has been deputed by God to assist the weak Filipinos
in the arduous and difficult task of restoration of their in
dependence. (3) Accomplished facts are accepted in dealing with things
* From Congroaslonal Record.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 151
political as rights; unless the facts are at variance with the
doctrines laid down in international law, or the eternal prin
ciples of justice. Strictly in accordance with these incon
trovertible principles, the independence of the United States
was realized and recognized in the last century, the ruling
principle being that all men are born equal and possess in
alienable rights of life, liberty, independence, and freedom in
the pursuit of happiness.
(3) The Filipinos can justly boast of a social status on a
par with cultured people, and are fit to commingle and live
on an equality with civilized jiations forming in common with
them part of the magna civitas.
Q. You have confidence in the ability of the Filipino
people to govern themselves in an independent manner?
A. I have. We are a community of eight million people,
politically organized on well defined territory, with our own
government which is competent to protect the rights of our
citizens, and to assume full responsibility in the conduct of
relations with other states.
We have an official language — Spanish. We have accepted
an enlightened religion — the Eoman Catholic faith. Strict
morality, which emanates from Christianizing infiuences,
governs our manners and customs.
Our laws are on a par with the statutes of other civilized
states, we respect life, honor, and rights in property, and
punish with severe penalties all violations of these governing
principles of humanity. We also have laws encouraging the
knowledge of science and arts, protecting industries, com
merce, and agriculture.
Q. You believe Providence has designated the government
of this nation as the agent through whom may be established
Filipino independence, do you?

152 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. I do. Eloquent proof of this is to be found in the co
operation offered and rendered to Aguinaldo in May, 1898,
by the United States consuls at Hong Kong and Singapore,
in order that our illustrious leader might continue the revolu
tionary war waged against Spain in 1896 and 1897. .
Q. To what co-operation do you refer?
A. The United States despatch boat, McCuUoch (attached
to Admiral Dewey's squadron), conveyed Aguinaldo from
Hong Kong to Cavite, where he arrived May 19th, 1898.
Admiral Dewey received Aguinaldo with the ceremony and
honors due to a general, in the presence of the whole of the
officers and men of the fiagship Olympia, and besides gave
him sixty Spanish Mauser rifies to aid in a renewal of the-
revolution against Spain. General Aguinaldo was allowed to
establish in Cavite (then held by the United States naval
forces) the headquarters of the Filipino government, which
commenced to exercise the functions of government on May
34th, issuing therefrom a proclamation declaring war against
Spain to wrest from her their independence.
In this wholly unforeseen way, bonds of good will and
friendship were formed between Americans and Filipinos,
resulting, as is well known, in the heroic and triumphant
campaign of the Filipino army against the Spaniards.
Q. The consuls to whom you refer confirm these state
ments, do they?
A. The letters of the consuls confirm the statements.
Mr. Pratt, in one of his letters, says he congratulates himself
on the rapid triumphs of Aguinaldo over the Spaniards, as
it proves the wisdom of his judgment in recommending him to
Admiral (then Commodore) Dewey and the government at
Washington, and he added that he hoped to receive, when

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 158
Gen. Aguinaldo captured Manila, some historic memento,
such as the fiag or keys of the city or fortress.
Q. When did Spanish sovereignty over the Filipino people
come to an end?
A. The alien Spanish government fell definitely on
August 13th, 1898, on which day our troops, which had
closely invested Manila for more than two months, captured
the suburbs of Manila, driving the Spaniards from their de
fences while the United States forces peacefully occupied the
walled city in accordance with the terms of capitulation
signed by the Spanish general.
Q. How was the reign of peace and harmony between
Americans and Filipinos destroyed and warfare established?
A. Your President, Mr. McKinley, using as his pretext
alleged rights obtained through the purchase of the more
than doubtful sovereignty of Spain, imposed on us by force
of arms the sovereignty of the United States.
If moral obligations are applicable in international affairs,
it is beyond question that there should be no evasion of
obligation on the part of the great American nation to stand
by and protect the small Filipino nation until our existence
as an independent nation is recognized and thereby firmly
established — a great work to which your consuls and com
manders in question applied themselves.
Q. You say our commanders applied themselves to the
work of securing recognition for your nation. Will you ex
plain your meaning?
A. In his letter to Gen. Aguinaldo, Admiral Dewey states
that he has received with pleasure the documents forwarded
to him by our distinguished leader, promising to transmit
them to their respective destinations. The documents re
ferred to are the first proclamation issued by Gen. Aguinaldo

154 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
announcing his arrival and the establishment of the dicta
torial government at Cavite, also the proclamation of Filipino
Independence. Generals Anderson, Merritt, and Otis in their correspond
ence styled (as was only right and proper that they should)
our leader's "General commanding the Philippine revolution
ary army;" while General Anderson asked General Aguinaldo
for quarters and camping ground for the forces under his
command, as well as other assistance and co-operation in the
campaign against the Spaniards, our common enemy.
It is also a well known fact that American commanders ap
plied to us for positions and trenches for their troops, to
place their forces side by side with ours in the siege of
Manila. The records prove that everything was done in a
manner indicating full recognition of our triumphant revolu
tion and the noble ends kept constantly in view, namely, our
liberty and independence.
Generals Anderson and Merritt addressed telegrams to Gen.
Aguinaldo on August 13th, 1898, (the day on which our troops
captured the whole of the suburbs of Manila, and the Span
iards in the walled city capitulated to the forces of the
United States) requesting General Aguinaldo to give instruc
tions for his troops to evacuate the suburbs in order to avoid
the dangers of a dual military occupation, and offering to
negotiate with General Aguinaldo afterwards.
Q. You deny the legality of the cession of sovereignty by
Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris, do you?
A. That cession of sovereignty is a null and void agree
ment in every respect, for it has been concluded in contra
vention to all rules of international law and in opposition to
the eternal principles of justice.
It is not moral, nor could it be just, nor in accord witK

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 155
international right, to say to a nation: "I will help you sweep
away Spanish sovereignty and make you independent, and
after helping you to do this, I come and buy the sovereignty
from Spain by title of cession and impose it by force of arms
upon the protected people."
In respect to cessions, the essential conditions include the
possession of what is ceded, and when it concerns inhabited
territories, the concordance and express consent of the inhab
itants. Neither of these conditions has been fulfilled by the
Treaty of Paris; first, because at that date, and long before it,
Spain exercised no sovereignty whatever over any Philippine
territory which was "reconquered by us and governed by us
since June, 1898, which facts were well known to the gov
ernments of Washington and Madrid. Second, because the
Philippine people had publicly and loyally manifested to the
government of Washington and to the whole world that it was
their desire to live independently of all alien sovereignty.
Perhaps on this account our wishes were not consulted when
the cession was made, an act of bad faith on the part of the
two contracting parties who make the terms null and void by
reason of this false step.
Q. You consider, then, that our government is bound
legally and morally to recognize the independence of the
Filipinos? A. I do. The United States can not be excused from rec
ognizing our independence, either on account of their vic
tories over the Spaniards or by reason of the provisions of the
Treaty of Paris. We, however, readily admit that our grat
itude and full recognition are due to the great North Amer
ican Nation for the generous assistance proffered us by their
consular representatives and commanders in bringing from
Hong Kong to Cavite our illustrious leader to continue the

156 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
rebellion against Spain, and then by respecting that revolu
tion, recognizing it as the sovereign power which replaced
that which Spain had lost.
Endeavoring to filch from us our liberty, subjecting^ our
independence so dearly won, to the influence of a new foreign
yoke is an act which will leave on the hitherto spotless pages
of your glorious history, an everlasting and indelible stain.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: If you desired official recognition of your
independence from our government and regarded us as the
people deputed by Providence to protect the weak Filipino
nation, why did you begin hostilities on the night of February
4th, 1899?
A. We were not to blame for the outbreak of hostilities.
In the first place, we, the Filipinos, were expecting at that
very time official recognition of our independence from the
government of Washington, an expectation justified by a let
ter from Gen. Otis, dated January 25th, and the conference
of the commissions of Americans and Filipinos, which sat in
Manila during the latter part of January to discuss matters
and arrange for a basis of friendly relations between the two
parties which it was hoped would be permanent.
The Filipinos were fully aware of the superior strength of
jour forces, against whom it would have been criminal folly
to pit our inexperienced army.
We had nothing to gain and very much to lose by aggres
sion. We are neither celebrated warriors nor great fighters,
nor are we as Quixotic as the Spaniards. We took up arms
to obtain independence, and it is self-evident that we did
not develop our little armed force for the purpose of making
an enemy of such a great and mighty people as the citizens
of the United States.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 157
If there be borne in mind the fact that we had lived in
peace and harmony with your forces since June, without the
smallest intention or inclination to commence hostilities at a
period when your forces were smaller and more easy to cope
with than subsequently, it must be evident that we were
not the aggressors. During the night of February 4th, your
forces, in accordance with the orders of President McKinley,
commenced hostilities for the purpose of establishing Amer
ican sovereignty in our archipelago by force of arms.
Q. The witness indulges in glittering generalities that
are not facts. I wish, your Honor and gentlemen of the
jury, to call special attention to the statements just made by
the witness in view of evidence I shall offer, concerning the
actual outbreak of hostilities and the character of the letter
from Gen. Otis and the conference of commissions to which
witness referred. What reasons have you for charging Pres
ident McKinley with the outbreak of hostilities?
A. Your President, Mr. McKinley, caused reinforcements
to be sent to Manila after the capitulation by Spain, on the
13th of August, 1898. He refused to listen to our humble
petition to him praying for recognition of our independence
through our representative Agoncillo, whom he refused to
receive. He refused to give ear to our appeal through the
good offices of Gen. Otis, as is proved by a letter from the
General. Lastly and finally, the Treaty of Paris was so framed as to
involve the cession of the sovereignty of Spain to the United
States. Th« most natural sequence of these moves of Mr. McKinley
is to be found in the outbreak of hostilities, namely, an order
from your President to Gen. Otis t® commence acts of
aggression and impese on us that odious sovereignty by force

158 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
of arms, notwithstanding the fact that we had demonstrated
from the first that we would accept no solution other than
our independence.
Q. Again the witness indulges in generalities instead of
specific facts.
Mr. Buencamino, you testified that Aguinaldo was brought
from Hong Kong to Cavite through the assistance of the
United States?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he was not engaged in a struggle against Spanish
tyranny when Admiral Dewey won his victory of May 1st,
and it was only by American assistance that he returned.
You testified that the Filipino government commenced to
exercise its functions May 24th, 1898, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then Spanish sovereignty was unquestioned up to that
time. Now, Mr. Buencamino, you have claimed that you have
laws on a par with the statutes of other civilized states, that
you protect industries, commerce, and agriculture, and en
courage science and art; have you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your objection to Spanish sovereignty in these Islands
was that it failed to provide you with the conditions in
cident to modern civilization; was it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Since you assumed control of affairs, a very short time
has elapsed for the establishment of all these conditions which
you claim exist and are protected by statutes.
You testified that the Spanish government fell definitely
August 13th when Manila was taken; did you?
A. Yes, sir.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 159
Q. You testified concerning the legality of the Treaty of
Paris, that Spain exercised at the time of the treaty no sov
ereignty whatever over any Philippine territory which was re
conquered by you and governed by you since June, 1898;
did you not.
A. I did, sir.
Q. Then, your Honor and gentlemen of the jury, the
witness himself admits a nominal Spanish sovereignty over
the Philippine Archipelago, except for a very small portion,
at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, and he has
also admitted that Filipino control of this small portion was
due to the presence and victories of our forces. He destroys
his own contention that the Tteaty of Paris was illegal.
That is all, Mr. Buencamino.
Col. Agi-Tate: Ensign Leonard Sargent will take the stand.
Q. Mr. Sargent, you have had opportunities for observing
the conditions existing in the Philippines; have you not?
Ensign Sargent: Yes, sir. With the permission of Ad
miral Dewey, I spent the greater part of the months of
October and November of 1898 in company with Paymaster
W. B. Wilcox, United States Navy, in the interior of the
northern part of the Island of Luzon.*
Q. You were there, then, before the United States had
announced its policy in regard to the Philippines?
A. The terms of the treaty with Spain were being nego
tiated by our commissioners at Paris, and the fate of the
islands hung in the balance. The native population, taking
matters into their own hands, had declared their independence
from all foreign jurisdiction, and had set up a provisional
government with Aguinaldo at its head.
Q. Was this provisional government efficient?
* Prom letter published in Congressional Record, January 9, 1900.

160 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. As a tribute to the efficiency of Aguinaldo's govern
ment and of the law-abiding character of his subjects, I offer
the fact that Mr. Wilcox and I pursued our journey through
out in perfect security, and I returned to Manila with only the
most pleasing recollections of the quiet and orderly life which
we found, the natives to be leading. We traveled more than
six hundred miles in a very comprehensive circuit through the
northern part of the island of Luzon, visiting seven provinces,
of which some were under the immediate control of the
central government at Malolos, while others were remotely
situated, separated from each other and from the seat of
government by natural divisions of land, and accessible only
by lengthy and arduous travel. It cannot be denied that in a
region occupied by many millions of inhabitants, Aguinaldo's
government for nearly six months stood alone between an
archy and order. The military forces of the United States
held control only in Manila with its suburbs and in Cavite,
and had no authority to proceed further; while in the vast
remaining districts the representatives of the only other
recognized power on the field were prisoners in the hands of
their despised subjects.
Q. What did you find to be the character and education
of the Filipinos?
A. I found the native of the interior an astonishingly
different character from the one originally met in Manila.
Previous to my journey I regarded those whom I had en
countered in that city with great dislike, and after my return,
I was unable to overcome that feeling. They are not a fair
sample of the race. The great mass of the population has
been kept by Spain in an unenlightened state by deliberate
legislation. Those who have acquired education have done
so at an extravagant cost that has placed it absolutely beyond

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 161
the reach of all but the wealthy. There are few, if any,
among that number, however, who while possessing the price
of a schooling, have neglected to apply it to that end. I can
not see what better gauge we can obtain at present of the in
telligence and ambition of the whole Filipino race than the
progress that has been made by its favored numbers with the
limited opportunities at their command.
The heroes of this people are not heroes of war, but of
science and invention. Without rival, the American who is
best known by reputation in Luzon is Mr. Edison. The ruling
Filipinos, during the existence of their provisional govern
ment, appreciated the necessity of providing public schools to
be accessible to the poorest inhabitants.
Q. Spanish is the language of government; is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you find to be the language of the people of
the provinces?
A. The educated class of Filipinos speak two languages
that are universal throughout the island in their own class;
these are Spanish and Tegalog. The ignorant natives, on the
other hand, have only their own provincial dialect. These
dialects are so different one from another that they must be
separately studied to be understood. Dictionaries of many of
them have been made by the Jesuit priests. Through the
servants of our party we had at command five dialects in ad
dition to the Spanish and Tegalog, yet, in passing through
one province we failed utterly to make ourselves understood
by a native whom we accosted, although we plied him pa
tiently with these seven languages.
Q. What is the occasion of this variety of dialects?
A. The dangers incident to travel have had much to do
with the confusion of dialects that prevail on the island, and

162 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
this confusion is consequently more marked in the eastern
than in the western provinces.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: I do not care to cross-examine this witness.
His testimony goes to show that the character of these
people is tribal rather than national.
Col. Agi-Tate: W. B. Wilcox, Postmaster of the United
States Navy, will take the stand as the next witness.
Q. Mr. Wilcox, you were accompanied by Leonard E. Sar
gent in the tour through the Island of Luzon, concerning
which he has testified, were you?
A. I was.
Q. What did you find to be the intelligence and education
ofthe natives?
A. The Philippine officers, both military and civil, that
we met in all the provinces we visited were, with very few
exceptions, men of intelligent appearance and conversation.
The same is true of all those men who form the upper class in
each town. The education of most of them is limited, but
they appear to seize every opportunity to improve it. They
have great respect and admiration for learning. Very many
of them desire to send their children to schools in the United
States or Europe. Many men of importance in different towns
told us that the first use to be made of the revenue of their
government, after there is no more danger of war, wil be to
start good schools in every village. The poorer classes are
extremely ignorant on most subjects, but a large percentage
of them can read and write.*
Q. _ Were there marked class distinctions between rich and
poor? A. There is a very marked line between these two classes,
• From letter published in Congressional Record, January 9, 1900.

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 163
and this has been broadened by the insurrection, for the
reason that military officers must equip themselves without
pay, and that civil officers have numerous expenses for which
they receive no return. All officers, civil and military, have
therefore been chosen from the richer class, and the political
and military power of the provinces is in the hands of that
class. The private soldiers are fed and clothed by the gov
ernment and allowed a very small amount of spending money,
in the western provinces thirty cents in silver per week.
Q. What relations existed between the military and civil
classes? A. In the provinces to the east that we visited, there ap
peared to be little or no friction between the two classes.
Officers and privates, as far as we could observe, treated
civilians with consideration. In the other provinces there
was a marked difference; the officers were domineering. In
traveling in these provinces, we had many opportunities to ob
serve this attitude. When accidents happened to our carriage,
the officer -commanding our escort called to our assistance
every native in sight. When they did not answer his call
promptly, we have seen him strike them with his riding-
whip. One man had a serious wound on his face where an
officer had struck him with his pistol butt. He came to us
for redress after having appealed in vain to the military of
ficer in command of the town. An order from Aguinaldo,
dated October Sth, 1898, calls the attention of his officers to
the evils of this practice, and orders them to correct it in
themselves and to instruct all sergeants, corporals, and pri
vates on the attitude they should maintain toward civilians.
Q. What did you find to be, the popular sentiment regard
ing independence?
A. Of the large number of officers, civil and military, and

£ 4 ££

164 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
of leading townspeople we met, nearly every man expressed in
our presence his sentiment on this question, and they all de
clared they will accept nothing short of independence. On
the subject of independence there is again a marked differ
ence among the provinces. In those we first visited, there is
more enthusiasm. The sentiment is more of the people. In
others it is more of the higher class and. of the army. In these
provinces we have seen signs of actual discontent with the
existing state of things.
Q. What was the general sentiment toward the United
States? A. There is much variety of feeling among the Philip
pines with regard to the debt of gratitude they owe to the
United States. In every town we found men that said our
nation had saved them from slavery, and others who claimed
that without our interference their independence would have
been recognized before this time. On one point they are
united, however, that is, that whatever our government may
have done for them, it has not gained the right to. annex them.
They desire the protection of the United States at sea, but
fear any interference on land.
They have been prejudiced against us by the Spaniards.
With regard to the record of our policy toward a subject
people, they have received remarkable information on two
points; that we have mercilessly slain and finally exterminated
the race of Indians that were native to our soil, and that we
went to war in 1861 to suppress an insurrection of negro
slaves, whom we also ended by exterminating. InteUigent
and well informed men have believed these charges, and the
Spanish version of our Indian problem is particularly well
known. The charges made have been so numerous and so

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 165
severe that what the natives have since learned has not suf
ficed to disillusion them.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: It appears that in this land uncursed by
trusts the political and military power is in the hands of the
rich, and the poorer classes are brutally treated!
That will do, Mr. Wilcox.
Col. Agi-Tate: I wish to submit at this point, as evidence
bearing upon the character of the Filipinos and their capabil
ity for self-government, this letter from Gen. Charles King,
an officer who writes from his own personal observations:
"San Francisco, June 32, 1899.
"To The Editor of the Journal,
"Milwaukee, Wis.
"Dear Sir: — Thinking over your telegram and request of
June 7th, I find myself seriously embarrassed. As an of
ficer of the army, there are many reasons why I should not
give my views of the situation in the Philippines, how long
fighting is likely to continue, and thoughts as to America's
part in the future of the islands.
"The capability of the Filipinos for self-government can
not be doubted. Such men as Arellano, Aguinaldo, and many
others whom I might name, are highly educated. Nine-
tenths of the people read and write and are skilled artisans in
one way or another; they are industrious, frugal, temperate,
and, given a fair start, eould look out for themselves infinitely
better than our people imagine. In my own opinion they
rank far higher than the Cubans or the uneducated negroes
to whom we have given the right of suffrage.
"Very truly yours,
"Charles King,
"Brigadier General."*
• Congressional Record, January 0, 1900.

166 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
General Good: This testimony would be important if it
were true. The letter was evidently written with little care
for the statements contained. If nine-tenths of those people
can read and write, their civilization is superior to our own,
which falls far below that mark.
Col. Agi-Tate: My next witness will be Senator Tillman,
of South Carolina.
Q. Senator, you have taken an active part on the floor of
the Senate in the debate over the Philippine question; have
j'ou not?
Senator Tillman: I had the honor to introduce a resolu
tion bearing upon our Philippine policy and upon that resolu
tion I addressed the Senate.
Q. What was that resolution?
A. I will read it:
Eesolved, First. That, in the words of the Declaration of
Independence, "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 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 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 hap
piness." Second. That under the Constitution of the United States
the Federal government has no power to rule over colonial
dependencies, but is restricted in its operations to States as

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 167
integral parts of the Union and to Territories intended for
future States.
Third. That the expansion of our commerce has not been,
and cannot be, dependent upon the adoption of a policy of
imperialism, involving the subjugation and annexation of
Asiatic colonies, but would in the end be hindered by such a
policy. Fourth. That we are opposed to the retention of the Phil
ippine Islands by the United States, and that it is our purpose
to consent to the independence of the Filipinos as soon as
stable government shall be established by them; and toward
the prompt establishment of such a government we pledge our
friendly assistance.*'
Q. You believe that the Declaration of Independence is
still a governing force in our affairs, and that the Constitution
itself applies to all people under our jurisdiction; do you?
A. I do. I lay down this broad proposition which rests
on the basis of common sense, that the United States cannot
govern any country that does not belong to the United States,
and that if we have any territory anywhere above which our
fiag floats, there the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the country go together, and if the fiag goes
there the Constitution and the Principles underlying the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence go too. If we
surrender these, if we by our action claim that we have other
and further power, then the beginning qf the end is at hand.
Q. This is a legal proposition about which men differ; is
it not?
A. It is. Men who are lawyers always differ. It is their
business to differ. If all lawyers agreed, there would be no
attorney on the other side, and one fee would not be earned.
• Congressional Record, January 29, 1900

168 HE JUR;y trial OP 1900.
Our Supreme Court, the authorized interpreter of our Con
stitution has made some decisions bearing on this question in
which it is shown that according to the opinion of the Su
preme Court, the proposition I have laid down is the law of
the land and that Congress must carry it out.
Judge Cooley, whose commentaries are universally accepted
as conclusive interpretations of our Constitutional Law, sur3=-
marizes as follows: "And when territory is acquired that
right to suffer States to be formed therefrom and to receive
them into the- Union must follow of course, not only because
the Constitution confers the power to admit new states with
out restriction, but also because it would be inconsistent with
institutions founded on the fundamental idea of self-govern
ment that the Federal government should retain territory
under its own Imperial rule and deny the people the cus
tomary local institutions."
Q. The next proposition involved in your resolution is
that our commerce does not depend upon the acquisition of
Asiatic territory. You do not imagine then. Senator, that a
new .A-laddin's Palace is going to spring up in that quarter of
the globe, which we are to march forward to enjoy?
A. I do not. Our trade with the Philippine Islands is
comparatively trifling. The trade of the whole Philippine
Islands is so small that it can cut no figure in this discussion.
I think the exports and the imports of the whole islands
amount to something less than $30,000,000.00. Our com
merce in the Pacific is comparatively small. At least ninety
per cent, of the exports of the American people at this time
go to Europe. The nations of Europe, which has a com
paratively small area and is densely populated, will call on
us in future as they have in the past for our surplus agricul
tural products to feed their teeming millions, and our manu-

the jury trial op 1900. 169
faetured products, if we shall become possessors of this East
ern Empire, will only go there if we can sell those people the
best goods at the lowest price.
Q. You think we need not establish in that territory a
despotism to protect our commercial interests?
A. We need not establish in that territory a despotism
which will bar out, by our tariff laws, the products of other
nationalities, and we are reaching after a shadow while we
can get the substance without any army, without any risk to
our Constitution, without going contrary to or being false to
the traditions of our people; and I say that the flag is not
necessary to be backed by bayonets in order to sell our
calicos and other manufactures in that market.
Q. Did the Treaty of Paris give us any legal title to the
Philippines? A. I say no. I could not get any property in any place
on such conditions. I have got to have delivery follow the
deed; I have got to prove that the property belonged to the
man who sold it. We cannot prove Spain's title. We there
fore simply bought what Spain did not have. So whatever
title we now possess rests upon conquest and conquest only.
Q. What are the legal points involved here?
A. First. The Filipinos had revolted and were fighting
for their liberty before we declared war with Spain. Second.
They had conquered the archipelago and had possession of it,
and Aguinaldo's authority was recognized through it except
in the Mohammedan islands in the South. These people had
conquered their liberties from Spain before we conquered
Manila. We helped them. Well and good. That did not give
us any more title to their property or to their land than it did
the French when they helped us in the Eevolutionary War.
The legal status was that the Filipinos had a government of

170 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
their own and we had only Manila. The Treaty of Peace
came; we made a demand. The President went West; he
held his ear to the ground, so the newspapers stated; he was
applauded everywhere when he spoke about the flag having
been planted on lands watered by the blood of our soldiers
and asked "Who would tear it down?" He thought he was
doing a popular thing. I cannot believe that he thought he
was doing a right thing. He demanded that the Islands
should be bought, giving $20,000,000.00' for something that
Spain did not possess.
Q. What do you consider it the duty of this nation to do?
A. First — stop this war.
Q. How?
A. By telling those people that we do not want to have
them governed after our methods. By saying to them, "Come-
together and piece up the government you had, or any other
you now want. We will warn Europe and all other depre
dators off your shores."
Q. We could have done this a year ago much easier than
we can now, could we not?
A. Yes, but it is not too late to do right. We had no right
there at the beginning — I mean in the way we have under
taken. We captured Manila from Spain, and to that we have
title. Spain ceded it to us and we can retain it if we want to
in law and in morals. But the balance of the islands are not
ours and never were ours in any legal sense.
Q. You think we should allow these people to establish
their own government, and simply protect them against out
side interference?
A. I do. There will be some recompense. We can retain
whatever territory we may need for a naval station. We could
make a compact with them which would give us any advan-

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 171
tages we might desire or need in the way of commerce. We
of the South realize what it is to have two races side by side
that cannot 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 bur
den" 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, and that bur
den clings to us like the shirt of Nessus, and we are not
responsible, because we inherited it. But we have enough of
debased and ignoble people in our midst without seeking by
conquest to incorporate ten million more colored peoples.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: Senator, you have said that our trade with
the Philippine Islands is comparatively trifling. Do you not
think that with the enlivening influences of American ge
nius and money to develop those islands, our commerce
would greatly increase?
A. Possibly with those influences, and the granting of
Sranclhises to certain people to .exploit and develop the
islands, that 'commerce would double and treble and quin
tuple, and all that. It may be that it will; I presume it could.
But if it does, it will be at the expense of one of two great
principles. We must ignore the rights and interests of the
people of those islands and allow capitalists to exploit' those
islands as England has done in India — in other words, rob
the people; or we shall have -a part of the territory of the
United States, a people, a land under our flag against which
we must discriminate by having their products barred from
our shores while we force on them our manufactures. Either
we must admit them if the Supreme Court's dictum is right,
and have their products come here in competition with ours,

172 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
or we must exclude them against all the principles and opin
ions of that Court hitherto.
Q. You have emphasized your belief in the right of the
Filipinos to self-government. What do you understand by
self-government ?
A. Self-government, as understood by historians and all
the people who have fought for that great blessing, is a gov
ernment of your own people — a government of Germans by
Germans, of Frenchmen by Frenchmen, and so on. A people
who want to have an empire or dictatorship, or a limited mon
archy have a perfect right to live under it. It does not gall
like a foreign yoke.
Q. Do you think the government of the Czar of Eussia is
self-government ?
A. It is Eussian government.
Q. But is it self-government?
A. It is self-government to the extent that it is satisfac
tory to the Eussian people. No one else has any right to
complain. Q. But you have said that your interpretation of self-
government was a government by one's own people, one's own
kindred. Then has Eussia self-government?
A. Not according to our standard. Switzerland and Eng
land are the only two self-governing nations in Europe judged
by our standards.
Q. Do you not think it is our duty to spread our system
of government to the end that, all people may enjoy self-
government according to our standard?
A. I love our institutions as well as any man, but I repudi
ate the pretension that we must have a Procrustean bed and
cause all people to lie on it, whether they are long enough to
fill it out or too long and have to be cut off.
General Good: That is all. Senator.

CHAPTER II.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is now in session.
Col. Agi-Tate: I will call as the next witness, Hon. Don
aldson Caffery, United States Senator from Louisiana.
Q. Senator Caffery, do you consider the question of the
policy of the government of the United States toward the
Philippines, an important one?
Senator Caffery: No more momentous question has ever
occupied the attention of the American Congress and the
American people. No more momentous question could oc
cupy it. The question is, broadly presented, whether or not
by implication from an obscure section of the Constitution,
the Congress of the United States can exercise sovereign juris
diction and power over whatever territory may be acquired by
the United States.
Q. Do you believe Congress has such power?
A. I do not. A government cannot be created by im
plication. Congress has not the power to establish in distant
lands beyond the sea, an empire beyond the control of the
people without any of the safeguards that our fathers pro
vided for the security of our liberties.
A representative government is necessarily based upon the
conserit of the governed. I contend that there is no power
anywhere outside of the people of the United States, no pow
er in any branch of government, or in all the branches of
government combined, to make any other than a representa-
(173)

174 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
tive government in any territory which may be acquired by
war or cession.*
Q. Senator Caffery, you have made a careful study of this
subject, have you?
A. I have, I think. I
Q. In order to arrive at a clear understanding of the
facts, it is necessary to know the condition of affairs existing
in the Philippine Archipelago just previous to the battle of
Manila. Will you tell us what were the relations then existing
between the Spanish government and their Filipino subjects?
A. It appears that in 1896 a rebellion started in the
Philippine Islands under the leadership of Aguinaldo. That
rebellion had proceeded to such an extent that the Spaniards
were driven to their fortified towns on the sea coast and the
insurgents held the balance of the territory. When the posi
tion became analogous to that of Cuba, when the insurgents
could not drive the Spaniards from their fortified towns nor
the Spaniards defeat the insurgents in the country, a compro
mise was entered into.
The Spanish government made a compromise whereby the
deportation of the leaders of the insurgents was agreed on and
Aguinaldo and certain of his followers were to be paid $800,-
000 for leaving the country so that things could settle down.
They left, but a part of the agreement was that the Spanish
government would grant certain reforms to the Filipinos;
that they would give .them representation in the cortes; that
they would provide them with an autonomous government to
a large extent; that they would reform abuses that had crept
into the church; and grant other reforms which I do not now
recall. Q. Where did Aguinaldo go?
* Congresslsaal Kecerd, February 2, 190O.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 175
A. Aguinaldo retired to Hong Kong. $400,000 was de
posited in a bank in Hong Kong as security that the Span
iards would comply with their promise. They did not
comply. That money was used by Aguinaldo subsequ.ently
and intended to be used by him all the time for the purpose
of raising another insurrection and again commencing hostili
ties against the Spaniards.
Q. He was in Hong Kong then when Admiral Dewey de
stroyed the Spanish fleet?
A. He was, and hearing of this, Aguina'ldo hastened to
Singapore, where he had a conference with Consul Pratt, and
from that point Consul Pratt sent a telegram to Admiral
Dewey informing him that Aguinaldo was present at Singa
pore and desired to go over to Manila to help the American
forces. A telegram was received from Admiral Dewey to the effect
substantially of inviting Aguinaldo to come. He came with
thirteen of his staff. Immediately after landing, he com
menced to organize the insurrection in co-operation with our
military commanders.
Q. You say in co-operation with our military commanders?
A. Yes. His co-operation was invited by General Ander
son and accepted. He was armed by Admiral Dewey. His
assistance was accepted. He surrounded Manila. He cooped
up the Spaniards within the walls of that city. He got up an
army, according to the official statements of our consul, of
about 30,000 men. With these 30,000 men he drove the
Spaniards out of any control whatever of the interior.
Q. These are the facts up to that point?
A. They are.,
Q. Then Aguinaldo became an ally of the United States?
A. He was an ally. He rendered us important service and

176 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
the testimony of two most intelligent explorers sent out by
Admiral Dewey himself. Ensign Sargent and Lieutenant Wil
cox, is to the effect that Aguinaldo had established and com
pleted a de facto government with full control of Luzon; that
quiet and order obtained everywhere where he had jurisdic
tion; that he administered the ordinary forms of government,
and that the Filipinos gladly welcomed his leadership and
gladly enrolled under his banner.
Q. That creates a state of facts which rendered the Phil
ippine governm'ent worthy to be recognized as an independent
republic, does it not?
A. It does. They had control of the whole island except
the city of Manila, with regular armies, with a government
organized, with a law administration, with several depart
ments of government in full and active operation.
Q. The Filipino governinent possessed the same title to
recognition that the Cubans did, according to these facts?
A. Yes, sir. The Cubans did not have so good a title as
the Filipinos had after the co-operation of Aguinaldo was
accepted and after Aguinaldo established this government.
Q. Was Aguinaldo's government a military despotism?
A. It does not make any difference whether that govern
ment was a military despotism or whether it was a free re
public. It was that sort of a government that the Filipinos
at that period wanted. It was that sort of government which
they accepted. It was that sort of government to which they
gave their "consent."
Q. Then what occurred"
A. After inviting his co-operation through General An
derson, who was the first military commander in charge, a
change came over the spirit of the dream of our rulers. From
wanting a coaling station only in Luzon, the covetous eye of

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 177
the administration seemed to take in the whole of the Philr
ippine group. The gaudy bauble of empire was held up as a
coveted prize. From the moment this insidious and per
nicious idea seized possession of the American mind in high
places, from that very moment, Aguinaldo was treated as an
insurgent. When he demanded a parley and the cessation of hostilities,
he was told that the war having commenced, it must go on to
the grim end. Every step in the progress since that time
has been military domination.
Q. You think the aggressive war we are waging against
the Filipinos has no justification; do you?
A. The game is not worth the candle. All this glittering,
showy panorama of empire and riches amounts to nothing.
It is an empty bauble. It is something that perhaps might
enrich a few promoters, but it will not benefit the majority
of the American people. This thing of commercial greed;
this thing of seeking foreign markets in semi-barbarous coun
tries, is no justification for the aggressive w^ar we are waging
against the Filipinos.
Q. Do you think it is a duty we owe to civilization to ac
cept the sovereignty over these people?
A. We have heard a great deal of the humanitarian idea
of subduing people to civilize them; of killing them to Chris
tianize them, of murdering them to give them the benefit of
good government.
All history teaches us that no people have ever wrought
out civilization except of themselves, through themselves,
and by their own efforts. If we will continue in the plan we
have heretofore adopted of disseminating the principles of our
free government in peaceful methods, we may, and will, I
believe, live to see a plentiful harvest reaped from the seed

178 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
of liberty we sow abroad. I believe that by peaceful methods
we can instill our principle of government into half-civilized
and semi-barbarous peoples better than by the Mohammedan
principle of fire and sword.
Q. What do you think would be the result of the adoption
on the part of the people of the United States of a policy ot
imperialism? A. I believe that the end of empire is destruction. I be
lieve when the Constitution of the United States is wrenched
from its moorings and carried into these remote seas and is
established there in despotic sway, that it is the beginning of
the end of the republic.
All the vast patronage which pro-consular appointments
to these distant positions would give, all the innumerable
jobs which would spring from such positions, would neces
sarily corrupt the people at home just as the pro-consuls of
Eome corrupted the Eoman citizens and destroyed that great
republic. Col. Agi-Tate; That is all.
General Good: Senator, do I understand you correctly
that you contend that where foreign territory is acquired by
treaty, the inhabitants of the acquired territory become cit
izens, and that no provision for citizenship is necessary in the
treaty? A. I think it is surplusage. Yes, sir. As a matter of law,
the inhabitants become citizens of the United States and en
titled to the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution
to citizens.
Q. Do you go further and insist that they are thereby en
titled under the Constitution to any particular form of gov
ernment? A. I do.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 179
Q. Provided that the form of government which is given
to them does not interfere with those rights essential in a cit
izen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
A. I do not exactly understand you.
Q. Did you not say a little while ago that the inhabitants
of a territory belonging to the United States are entitled to a
representative government?
A. They are. That was just exactly what I said.
Q. Do you regard our government of Alaska as uncon
stitutional? A. I do not.
Q. It is a representative government in your view?
A. It is not.
Q. Then is it not unconstitutional?
A. No, sir. When we acquire territory that has not at the
moment of acquisition or for sometime after, the character
and condition of Statehood, Congress must exercise a kind of
a tutorship over that territory. There is a kind of intermedi
ary condition. Congress is the guardian of that territory. But
the territory must possess the ingredients of representative
government ultimately. I contend that whatever territory the
United States acquires, it must govern under the constitu
tional limitation.
Q. Do you carry your contention under the Declaration of
Independence to the extent of asserting that the United
States has no Constitutional power at the end of a war with a
foreign government, and in settlement of it to exact and to
accept inhabited territory as a ceded conquest without the
consent of its inhabitants?
A. I do. I contend that we can wage no war of conquest.
Q. Then the acquisition of California from Mexico at the
end of the Mexican War was unconstitutional, was it?

180 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. No, sir.
Q. Then you admit that we may take at the end of a war,
justifiable in its inauguration and conduct, inhabited territory
as indemnity accompanied by cession without that consent?
A. That depends upon the nature and the character of the
territory and its inhabitants, and its inhabitants especially.
If there is a nationality, if there is the germ of nationality,
the consent of the people must be procured or the funda
mental principles of the Constitution are violated.
Q. Do not almost every people have the germ of nation
ality? A. No, sir. A wandering nomadic tribe has no national
ity. A scattering, roving band of Indians has no nationality
or any progress toward nationality.
Q. I said the germ of nationality; that is the term you
employed? A. They have not the germ of nationality; they have no
starting point, and they end nowhere. But under the Con
stitution of the United States, in my opinion, any people
who have the capacity to form a government and have the
germs of' nationality cannot be taken into the territory of
the United States without their consent. If a war was waged
against Great Britain and the United States triumphed, as
everybody knows she would triumph, and Canada was sought
to be taken by the United States to indemnify for the expense
incurred in the war, I do not believe without a violation of
our Constitution and that Declaration made on the fourth of
July, 1776, that our government could be forced on these
people without their consent. I believe from th6.fact detailed
by our own officers and observant travelers, that the Filipinos
have the germs of a national life, and that we cannot, without

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 181
violation of our Constitution itself, kill them to civilize them,
slaughter them to give them liberty.
Q. You say it all depends upon whether such people have
the genns of nationality? ~Who is to determine whether they
have the germs or not ?
A. That is largely to be determined by the conscience and
judgment of both parties.
Q. Suppose we had chosen, after a long and expensive war
with Spain, to take a portion of the Spanish domain as in
demnity, would we have been obliged to ask and obtain the
consent of the inhabitants of that portion?
A. I think so.
Q. And if they did not consent, would we be precluded
from any indemnity by way of territory?
A. I think so. If they are a part of that nationality, you
cannot segregate them. Nationality could not be destroyed
piecemeal. Q. Did we not destroy the nationality of Mexico piece
meal, when we took a part of Mexican territory and its inhab
itants? A. I think not.
Q. Then you would say we would have had no power to
take Puerto Eico, as indemnity, if any of the Puerto Eicans
had objected?
A. I am not aware that the Puerto Eicans had national
life. Q. Then the germ of nationality is a little difficult to
define? A. Well, it is. I admit that. Every case depends on its
own circumstances.
Q. I wish to get at your views. Do you think that we
would have had no power to exact as indemnity at the end of

182 THE JURY TRIAL OF 190«.
the war Puerto Eico if it had not been entirely agreeable to
its people?
A. In this particular war, we had no right to exact indem
nity from anybody.
Q. But leave that out. On general principles?
A. On general principles, I would state that I do not
think we would have the right.
Q. Then you would say that the United States, unlike any
other nation in the world, is precluded by the Declaration
of Independence from accepting or exacting at the end of a
war, as indemnity, inhabited territory unless it is inhabited by
nomadic tribes without a germ?
A. I would drop them like I would a hot potato if they
had the germ of imperialism, whatever sort of nationality
they had. I think that is one of these microbes that eat their
poisonous way into the vitals of republics.
Q. You think if there is an organized society, it must be
consulted, do you?
A. I do.
Q. Was there an organized society in Louisiana?
A. No, sir.
Q. The provinces of California and New Mexico had
governments and all the appliances of civilized governments
under the general power of Mexico. Was it necessary to con
sult them?
A. It was not. They had nothing but a municipal life.
They had no national life.
Q. Why not?
A. The territory was so vast, the population so scattered,
that it was impossible in that particular instance that there
should have been either an incipient or complete national life.
Q. They were not nomadic tribes, were they?

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 183
A. They were not exactly nomadic, but they were mostly
pioneers, adventurers. The mass of the population west of
the Mississippi Eiver was congested in New Orleans. There
was no approach to a national life in that vast territory.
Q. Have pioneers no right to come in under the Declara
tion? A. Pioneers have as much national life as anybody, if they
get together into an organized society. But 49,000 people in
habiting an area of 1,800,000 square miles was a population
so small in comparison to the area that they could not have
any national life.
Q. That depends then not only on the number of people
but on the size of the territory?
A. It does not. If there are 49,000 people anywhere on
God's earth with an organized government, that society is
protected against American aggression under the Declaration
of Independence. But that sort of society did not exist in
Louisiana and I believe that territory was properly acquired.
Q. Suppose Mexico makes war upon us and we carry the
war into Mexico and conquer Mexico; have we got to consult
the people there as to what we will do?
A. Yes, sir. We cannot wage any war of aggression.
Q. Would you withdraw our army from the Philippines
now and let the Islands go?
A. I do not think now is the proper time for that.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agitate: I will call the Hon. Eichard F. Pettigrew,
Senator from South Dakota.
Q. You sit upon the Eepublican side of the Senate, do
you not?
Senator Pettigrew: I do.
Q. Senator, do you uphold the President and the Ee-

184 THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
publican Administration in departing from time-honored tra
dition and entering upon the present course in regard to the
Philippines? A. I do not. I believe he is wrong in this matter. I be
lieve my country can only be great and grand by pursuing
that honorable course that has marked our career in the past,
and by exercising that powerful influence which we can exer
cise and have exercised all over the world since we became
a nation, because of the honor and dignity of our course and
the respect we have always maintained for the rights of
others.* Q. Why do. you think the President's policy wrong?
A. We are precluded by our Constitution and by the Dec
laration of Independence and by every claim we have ever
made, by every speech of every person who has addressed a
Fourth of July audience, from buying sovereignty over a
people without their consent.
I believe the refiex action upon our own people, of the
conquest of other peoples and their government, against their
will, will gradually undermine free institutions in this country
and result in the destruction of the Eepublic.
It seems to me the sum and substance of the whole scheme
is to find a field where cheap labor can be secured, labor that
will not strike, that does not belong to a union, that does not
need an army to keep it in leading strings, that will make
goods for the trusts of this country; and as the trusts dom
inated the St. Louis convention and our own Eepublican
Party, it is a very proper enterprise for them to "engage in.
Q. Senator, what would you do with the Philippines?
A. I would draw our army back to Manila. I would send
to the Philippine people assurance that they could set up their
• Congressional Record, January 15, 1900.

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 185
own government — a republic, such as they have set up under
their constitution, framed after ours, providing, as it does,
for universal education, for the protection of life and proper
ty, and I would say to the world, "Hands off!" Then I would
try to neutralize that country, — that is, I would try to make
a treaty with the nations of the world by which those islands
and their waters should be neutral ground, where any vessel
of any country could go and coal and trade — not free trade —
if its inhabitants chose to put up the tariff wall against all
the world; but it should be equal to all; but no nation could
go there to fight.
I would do what Europe has done with Switzerland, and
what they have done with the Suez Canal; and if the nations
of all Europe would not agree to it, I would say, "Hands off;
we will plant a Eepublic on the shores of Asia."
Q. Do you believe our government can now retract its
position with honor to the country?
A. My country, right or wrong, is a sentiment I endorse
with this qualification: When right, to keep it right; when
wrong, to make it right. Neither do I confound the president
with the government. He is but our servant, and if he pur
sues a wrong course, if he precipitates us into a war unjustly
and undertakes to over-ride the Constitution of the United
States and the Declaration of Independence, then I am
against him, and it is my privilege to attack his position.
If we are wrong, this government can take no higher or
grander position before the nations of the world than to
acknowledge it.
Q. Senator, you have stated a belief that the present
Administration's policy will result in the destruction of the
republic. Will you please explain your meaning?
A. We have taken on mainy of the semblances of mon-

186 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
archy and of imperialism in the conduct of this Administra
tion-— concealment of facts from the people, denial of news
and information, no knowledge of what is going on, no an
nouncement of policy and purpose; and the excuse for it all
was that if we should allow the people to know the facts,
there was danger of creating disapproval of the course of the
Administration, and if the enemy should secure those facts, it
would be of some assistance to them. This is necessary in a
monarchy. Press censorship, too, is a necessary adjunct of
imperialism, one of the things our forefathers would not have
tolerated for a day.
Q. Do you use the term "imperialism" advisedly?
A. I do. I allude to those who advocate the conquest of
the Philippines as imperialists and not as expansionists, for
the reason that expansion implies the enlargement of the same
thing, the adding of more of that which you already have, the
acquisition of countries holding a population capable of living
and supporting our Constitution to be admitted as States
into the Union; while the imperialist doctrine is the acquisi
tion of tropical colonies where it is admitted that self-govern
ment cannot exist, as we understand it under our Constitu
tion; and therefore the people must be governed perpetually
and forever as crown colonies of this Eepublic.
Q. To what press censorship do you refer?
A. I refer to the report of Gen. Otis, which he sent to us
purporting to give a history of the war. This report does not
contain all the facts, and was either censored at this end of
the line or the other. It does not contain his report of the
6th of April, which gives an account of how the fighting com
menced and who inaugurated the war. It does not contain
McArthur's report, before whose forces fighting was begun.
McArihur describes the opening of hostilities, but that report

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 187
was not included. The report does not give any recital since
the war commenced of repeated efforts on the part of the in
surgents to cause a cessation of hostilities; it does not give the
telegram which Otis sent to the department, dated the 9th of
February, 1899, and which is as follows: "Aguinaldo now
applies for a cessation of hostilities and conference. Have de
clined to answer."
The report does not contain that exceedingly important
telegram. Fighting commenced on the 4th. On the 9th Gen.
Otis telegraphed the department that Aguinaldo desired to
cease fighting and have a conference, and that he did not an
swer. There is no reference in the report to so important an
incident as the officially expressed desire of the commander
©f the enemy to stop the effusion of blood.
There were innumerable efforts on the part of Aguinaldo
to stay the tide of war. He sent fiags of truce time and again,
accompanied by communications asking if hostilities might
cease; and what Gen. Otis did with those messages of good
will, and what the Department here did with them, is not
contained in Otis' report: all was censored out of it.
This process has been going on at both ends of the line.
Of Otis' telegrams, of Otis' reports, it is well known that only
portions were given to the American people. Negotiations
with regard to the Sulu agreement were mangled and par
tially denied until after the election in Ohio. The President
himself sent a proclamation to Gen. Otis, which I will read.
It is dated the 31st of December, 1898: "With the signature
of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain
by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris on the 10th
instant, and as a result of the victories of the American arms,
the future control, disposition, and government of the
Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In ful-

188 THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
fillment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired and the
responsibility of government thus assumed, the actual occu
pation and administration of the entire group of the Philip
pine Islands becomes immediately necessary, and the military
government heretofore maintained by the United States in
the city, harbor, and Bay of Manila is to be extended with
all possible dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory."
Here, then, is a declaration on the part of the President that
we had acquired sovereignty by purchase, and that we pro
posed to extend military government over the entire group of
the Philippine Islands. 'What was the situation on that day?
We occupied simply the city of Manila and a small promon
tory about twenty miles from the city. Here was a direct
declaration of war.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do. Senator.
General Good: If your Honor please, I am unwilling that
the record in this case shall be disfigured by the testimony of
this witness to any greater extent. My brother is entitled to
all the comfort he can take from it. This witness has been
charged by his colleagues in the United .States Senate with
trenching in his speech and acts close upon technical treason,
if not committing moral treason. He has, in his capacity as
a Senator of the United States, embarrassed the President in
the conduct of the war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
He has challenged the veracity of our soldiers in the field. He
has set the statements of our great naval hero,. George Dewey,
at naught for those of the leaders of the insurrection. He
has done all this while his country is at war, entitled to the
support of all patriotic citizens.
Senator, I will dismiss you, without cross-examination. You
may go and God forgive you, the American people never can.

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 189
Col. Agi-Tate: I will introduce as my next witness the
Honorable Close Construction.
Ool. Agi-Tate: You are a student of Constitutional law and
political science; are you not?
Mr. Close Construction: Yes, sir; I am.
Q. Do you support the present Eepublican Administration
in its policy of imperialism?
A. I do not. There is no warrant in the Constitution for
such policy. If there be anything to which the American
people was committed; if there be anything to which Presi
dent McKinl^ was committed; if there be anything to which
the Eepublican party was committed, it was the doctrine that
just governments rest upon the consent of the governed; that
every people has a right to determine its own institutions,
the right to dissolve at will the political connection that
binds it to another people, and to seek by its own paths its
safety and happiness. Sovereignty over an unwilling people
cannot, according to American ideas, rightfully be gained
either by conquest or purchase.
That was the doctrine of Washington, of Jefferson, of Lin
coln, of Jackson, and of Sumner.
Q. You believe that Congress has no right to govern ter
ritory except under the Constitution; do you?
A. I do. Wherever the power of Congress goes, there
goes the Constitution, and the Constitution provides only
for the government of citizens of states, or of territories in
preparation for statehood. We must build a new Constitu
tion before we can find the right to buy and sell people like
sheep and to rule them as subjects.
Q. The treaty entered into with the Sultan of Sulu is in
violation of the Constitution; is it not?
A. Yes, sir. In dofiance of the thirteenth Amendment,

190 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
the President has embraced slavery in the region over which
oi;ir flag floats, by his treaty' with the polygamous Sultan of
Sulu. Q. It was said that the Sultan would flght and therefore
we must not disturb him; was it not?-
A. Yes, sir. It is the policy of this Administration to
shoot civilization into a Christian people struggling for liber
ty, and to treat with and pay a bonus tc^. a Mohammedan des
potism. Q. With the adoption of. a policy of Empire, our Presi
dent has adopted the policy of no longer taking the American
people into his confidence and consulting them with regard to
questions of national importance; has he not?
A. Yes, sir. Information concerning the actual situation
in the Philippines has been suppressed in order to keep from
the American people certain facts which after history will
record. Q. Eeports from officials in the Philippines have been
censored; have they?
A. Yes, sir. And press correspondents have been sub
jected to censorship.
Q. What do you know of this press censorship?
A. Eobert M. Collins, who represented the Associated
Press, in Manila, says Otis told him his instructions were to
let nothing go that cguld hurt the Administration. Mr. Col
lins further says: "Eecently I filed what I thought a most
inoffensive statement that the business men who had appeared
before the Commission had advocated the retention of the
existing silver system of currency. The censor said; 1
ought not to let that go. That would be a lift for Bryan.' "
Q. Will you mention some important facts that have been
concealed from the American people?

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 191
A. Otis' report of April 6th, 1899, does not contain his
statement of how hostilities commenced and who inaugurated
the war. It was censored at this end or the other. Otis sent
to the department February 9th, this dispatch: "Aguinaldo
now applies for a cessation of hostilities and conference — have
declined to answer." That, too, was suppressed.
Q. 'Who inaugurated the war now going on in the Phil
ippines? A. The President inaugurated hostilities when in Decem
ber, 1898, he sent to Otis a proclamation asserting the sover
eignty of the United States over the Philippines. Here was
a direct declaration of war. Otis read and suppressed the mes
sage. He said the language was calculated to create an im
mediate outbreak of hostilities. He took the responsibility of
modifying this proclamation and issuing one in which he vir
tually promised the people independence. He incautiously
sent a copy of the original to a certain Mr. Miller, who, con
trary to his desire, made it public and it became widely cir
culated among the Filipinos. Aguinaldo met it by a counter-
proclamation, in which he indignantly protested against the
claim of sovereignty by the United States and said that after
all the men were killed off, even the women of Cavite prov
ince were prepared to shed their patriotic blood for the lib
erty and independence of their country. Pretty soon after,
these people got the news that they had been bought like a
fiock of sheep.
Q. Who fired the first shot?
A. We inaugurated the conflict by killing the first man.
Q. Will you relate the circumstances?
A. It appears that there was a town between the lines of
the two armies, occupied by the forces of Aguinaldo — a town
150 yards in advance of the line of the American troops —

192 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
and that Otis wished to obtain possession of it. He therefore
entered into an agreement to have Aguinaldo withdraw' his
pickets therefrom and retire to a greater distance.
This was done. On the night after this had been accom
plished, a patrol of the insurgents entered the abandoned
town. A patrol is not a war party; a patrol is simply to pick
up stragglers. They had occupied the place the night before,
and they sent a patrol in the evening to see if any of their
men had remained behind — if there were any stragglers in
this village. We had occupied the place as a picket station,
and when these Malays, who do not speak our language, came
along, a Nebraska boy ordered them to halt, and they did
not halt.
It is very strange, is it not, that the insurgents did not
understand the Spanish or the Malay speech of the Ne
braska boy? He fired upon them and killed a lieutenant,
and within a few minutes two or three more Filipinos were
killed; and thus the war was begun.
Q. Then the engagement was one strictly defensive on
the part of the insurgents, and a vigorous attack by our
forces? A. It was. If I were a Filipino, I would fight until 1
was gray, if I were not killed before, against this infamous
aggression. Q. What do you think of the claim that the war, haviEg
begun, we must continue it to the end?
A. I will answer by asking what we would think of the
greatest athlete of the world to-day in insisting that, having
begun to beat a boy of twelve, he must beat the boy to death
in order to convince the world that he is strong.
Q. Do you think our race can live and prosper within the
tropics?

THB JURY TRI-AL OF 1900. 193
A. Not a colony of our race exists within twenty-two
degrees of the Equator. Men of our race doing a commercial
business in Manila do not have their families there. I think
it can be laid down as a proposition that self-government, in
dependence, and high civilization are only embraced by people
who feel the tingle of frost in their veins during a portion
of the year.
Q. The imperialists tell us that trade follows the flag,
and that this will be a paying venture; what do you think of
that argument?
A. Well, the morality of that argument can be fairly il
lustrated, I think, in this way: If a iDoy of a numerous family
should cross a wide desert and find at the foot of a mountain
an old man with a family of children, possessed of vast
wealth in gold, jewels, horses and cattle, and should return
to his brothers and say, "There are nine of us, and I believe,
if we go together, we can overturn the old man, who is not
fit to bring up those ehildren anyway, and rob him of his
wealth, and I think it will be a profitable venture," and they
should start out and accomplish that act, it seems to me they
would stand upon exactly the same plane as the man who
advocates taking the Philippine Islands because it would pay.
Trade follows the best markets and England's experience is
a refutation of the doctrine that trade follows the flag.
Q. Would commercial advantages follow the acquisition
of the Philippines?
A. Their whole trade will never be worth what it costs
us. The most earnest advocates of this expansion policy
declare that we are to get hereafter our full share, even of
the trade of Europe and that we are to maintain an "open
door" policy in the Philippines, where all nations are to be
on terms of legal equality.

194 THB JURY- TRIAL OP 1900.
Q. Do you deny our rights gained by the Treaty of Paris?
A. Spain had no right to sell and consequently no actual
title could we wrest from her.
Q. Why do you say Spain had no right to sell?
A. They were not in a condition of subjection to Spain
when we bought them. They occupied and controlled peace
ably and in order all of their own territory with trifling
exceptions — where they hemmed in the Spaniards by land
while our navy hemmed them in on the side of the sea.
They had restored order and peace throughout the islands.
There was not a square mile of that whole territory that was
not then the undisputed, lawful and peaceable possession of
the Philippine people.
Q. What government had they established?
A. They had already planned a Eepublican form of gov
ernment and framed a Constitution to take effect as soon
as the war was ended. The dictatorship established by
Aguinaldo was only temporary and provisional. It was just
such a dictatorship as was established by Bolivar in the
South American republics when they revolted from Spain,
and as existed in Massachussets under the Committee of-
Safety in the five years preceding the constitution of 1780.
Q. What estimate do you place upon the character of the
Filipinos? A. They are not savages. One high authority says — ^I
think the statement is an exaggeration — there is less illiteracy
there than in Massachusetts. But there is doubtless less
illiteracy tha:a there was, quite likely, in some early Ameri
can states.
Major Younghusband says they were largely moved to
their struggle for freedom by a stirring work of fiction as our
people was in the anti-slavery days, by "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 195
They are a people with houses, pianos, works of art,
luxuries, and the forms of civilized society.
Q. We could to-day have the glory attained by no other
nation in history of being the great liberator of mankind;
in two hemispheres, by recognizing the independence of these |
people; could we not?
A. Yes sir. And instead, we have the disgrace of crush
ing out by our military power the first republic in the Orient.
Q. History shows the wreck of many republics who sought
imperial destiny; does it not?
A. Yes sir. Our triumphs have come by the avoidance
of external complications. There is still a vast domain at
home. We should have a party and a man in power in this
country that would anchor the Ship of State to the Declara
tion of Independence and the Constitution.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: Mr. Close Construction, do you not recog
nize that the history of our country has been a history of
expansion — Florida, Louisiana, Alaska — ^have all been
brought under our sovereignty?
A. There was in none of these territories when we ac
quired them, a people capable of governing them. The few
scattered settlements constituted a people capable of acting
together in no political capacity. In the cases of Louisiana
and Alaska and the territory obtained from Mexico, the few
dwellers in these sparsely settled and generally uninhabited
regions were entirely content to come to us. They were
acquired with the expectation that they would be parts of the
Eepublic and would become, in time, equal, self-governing
and powerful states.
How idle to cite those cases as indicating our right to

196 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
conquer a reluctant people to be held forever as subjects and
not as equals!
Q. Do you not think such sentiments as you have ex
pressed in your direct testimony are responsible for the con
tinuation of the war? Are you not disloyal to our flag?
A. When the President said that "forcible annexation,
according to our American code of morals would be criminal
aggression," was he disloyal to the fiag? Was there ever an
utterance so calculated to give courage to Aguinaldo and his
people? Q. Do you think the character of Aguinaldo as shown by
his career in this war, is worthy of support by our nation?
A. The charges against Aguinaldo have been refuted
again and again on the authority of the advocates of imperial
ism themselves. Did the American commander carry back
in his ship a traitor corrupt and venal to take again the
leadership of his people? Has a venal and corrupt traitor
been all this time leading this fight against the vast power
of the American Eepublic with but one-tenth of one per cent.
of his people under his command?
Q. Why do you think that Spain had no right to sell
the Philippine Islands, when except for the victories of our
army and navy, Spain would still be in possession of these
islands? A. The inhabitants of that group of 13,000 islands were
much nearer actual independence when the Treaty of Paris
was signed than ever had been the people of Cuba. They
were certainly entitled to be called a people. They had a
population of from eight to twelve or fifteen millions, nobody
knows how many. They had- hemmed in Spain at Manila
on the land side and controlled more than 99 per cent, of
their own territory. Their leader had been brought over to

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 197
the Islands in a United States ship by the United States
authorities, and was in arms at the head of his forces with
our full concurrence and co-operations.
Q. The conclusion of the Philippine Commission, after
the most thorough and careful study of the facts, is practi
cally the reverse of yours. President Schurman went to the
Philippines an opponent of expansion; did he not?
A. I believe he did.
Q. Then it might be if you possessed more thorough
knowledge upon the subject, you might find reason to change
your opinion. That will do.

CHAPTEE III.
The Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: Counsel will now open for the defense.
General Good: Your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury,
I shall proceed at once to introduce evidence to show that
the history of our country is a history of expansion, that the
policy in the Philippines adopted by the vigorous Adminis
tration of President McKinley is a continuance of the policy
inaugurated by Washington in the North- West Territory, and
supported and formulated by Jefferson in the purchase of
Louisiana. While demonstrating this, I shall at the same
time demonstrate the wisdom of that policy and the absolute
necessity of its continuance in order to meet the natural
and inevitable demands of time and ever changing con
ditions. I shall show that the Phillippines came to us
through the events of a righteous war and the treaty which
terminated it. The testimony of the able and honest men
appointed hy the President upon the Philippine Commission
will prove that the details of this policy have been determined
by a careful investigation of the facts involved in the ease;
that the present war in these islands has been humanely but
vigorously conducted, and that every dictate of national inter
est and honor demands that it be prosecuted until our control
is firmly established throughout the Archipelago. I shall
show, furthermore, the liberal character of the government
which it is the intention of the Administration to institute
in these new possessions when peace is restored. My first
witness will be Professor Eeseareh, by whom I shall _ show
( 198 )

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 199
the expansion of the thirteen original states into our present
great World power.
Gen. Good: Professor Eeseareh, is this subject of terri
torial expansion a new one in the political discussions of the
United States?
Prof. Eeseareh: It is not. It is as old as the country.
There is a close parallel between the very earliest experience
of the American republic and the discussions of the last
twelve months over the colonial policy of the United States.
Q. You say the present controversy is paralleled by the
earliest experience of the American republic. Was it the
intention of the framers of our national government to in
crease the territory of the Union?
A. That question is simply one of fact. The records of
the time clearly show that during the first thirty years of
the United States of America — ^from 1775 to 1805 — the
question of territorial extension was repeatedly presented to
the people, and three times led to annexation; that we had
territorial disputes with all our next door neighbors and made
advances into unexplored and hitherto unoccupied country.
Q. What were the territorial controversies of these three
decades in our history?
A. There were four successive periods of territorial dis
cussion, first, the conquest of the North-West Territory in
1778 and the consequent acknowledgement of the Mississippi
as the western boundary by the treaties of 1782 and 1783
with Great Britain; second, discussion over territorial powers
during the Confederation and in the Federal and State con
ventions of 1787 and 1788; third, the question of the naviga
tion of the Mississippi from 1783 to 1785; and fourth, the
annexation of Louisiana.

200 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Q. Then this country very early in its history began to
acquire territory by conquest?
A. Yes, sir. During the Eevolutionary War, by important
conquests in the region between the Ohio river, the Great
Lakes and the Mississippi. Clark's daring expedition was
commissioned and sent out by Virginia and not by the Federal
government; but in the minds of the people of other states
the capture of the vast regions annexed was simply a part
of the general military operations of the Eevolution, and they
claimed the territory as belonging to the general government.
There were hot discussions in and out of Congress on this
subject, and the pamphlet literature of the time all shows
conception of the ability of the Americans not only to take
territory by the sword, but to hold and govern it under a
colonial system.
Q. This transfer of territory was regarded as a natural
incident of warfare and of the advance of civilization: was it?
A. Yes; although it was as clear then as now that annexa
tion meant a great change in the balance of national forces
and in the future growth of the country. The West was
already looming up as a political power, and there were not.
wanting statesmen who shook their heads at the new and
terrible problems which the acquisition of that region must
bring upon the country.
Q. I understand, then, that the policy of territorial ex
pansion was inaugurated before this government had an es
tablished position among the world's powers?
A. Such was the case. Congress, on Oct. 1, 1780, before
the nation had acquired claim to a single rod of ground,
provided distinctly for the elementary principles of American
colonialism. It was not until 1787, however, by the North-
West Ordinance that a colonial system was organized.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 201
Q. This conquered territory was an important factor in
the peace negotiations at the close of the Eevolutionary War;
was it not?
A. Yes sir. The three great expansionists of that period,
Franldin, Jay and Adams, by a magnificent piece of diplo
macy, secured an unquestioned seat upon the Mississippi and
thus prepared the way for an ultimate expansion across the
continent. Q. The great territorial enactment known as the North-
West Ordinance, distinctly stated the power of Congress to
establish for the territory such government as they deemed
suitable; did it not?
A. It did.
Q. Were the questions Ox annexation and territorial gov
ernment subjects of much debate in the Federal and State
Conventions of 1787 and 1788?
A. No sir: the clause giving Congress "Power to dispose
of and make all needful Eules and Eegulations respecting the
territory or other property belonging to The United States"
was adopted with little discussion as the question was re
garded as already settled by the Ordinance before mentioned.
Q. In a previous answer you said that the question of
the navigation of the Mississippi river was under discussion
in the years 1783 to 1785. What raised that question?
A. The expansion of our commerce.
Q. What did the necessities of our commerce require?
A. That there be an "open door" at New Orleans and that
the citizens of the United States have equal rights in the
navigation of the Mississippi.
Q. Were the demands of our merchants and traders con
ceded?

202 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. Not until this nation controlled the Mississippi by
virtue of the Louisiana purchase made in 1803.
Q. By whom was this expansion guided and controlled?
A. By Thomas Jefferson — ^then President.
Q. Did Congress direct the executive action in this
matter? A. No. Prompt action was necessary. The purchase
from Napoleon was ordered by the President in his executive
capacity and he depended upon the progressive element of
the people to bring about a ratification of his action by Con
gress. Q. Was there a prompt ratificatioL
A. No. The discussion was long and the controversy
over the question of expansion the most bitter which the
country has seen even to the present time.
Q. What arguments were advanced against expansion in
1803? A. Its constitutionality was denied: the inhabitants of
our new possessions were said to be alien in race, language
and customs; the distance from the seat of government was
too great to admit of proper administration; they eould not
be held without the presence of a large standing army; the
stability of our own government was endangered by provin
cial acquisitions.
In fact, the anti-expansionists of to-day are simply reiterat
ing the old arguments used against Thomas Jefferson in the
Sth Congress.
Q. Was the faith of the Presioent in the progressive
element of the people justified?
A. It was; and time has proven the wisdom of Jefferson's
Expansion policy.
Q. What was the next addition to our territory?

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 203
A. Florida; acquired by treaty.from Spain in 1819. This
expansion was the logical result of military operations con
ducted by General Andrew Jackson.
Q. What brought the question of expansion again before
the people?
A. The admission of Texas in 1845.
Q. Was Texas admitted without controversy?
A. No. The anti-expansionists again brought forward all
their old arguments against increase of territory.
Q. The war with Mexico was brought upon us by the
annexation of Texas; was it not?
A. It was.
Q. What attitude was assumed by the anti-expansionists
toward the Mexican War?
A. They proclaimed from pulpit, press and platform, that
it was a war of conquest and that "were they Mexicans as
they were Americans, they would welcome the invaders with
hospitable hands to bloody graves.'"
Q. What expansion followed the Mexican War?
A. Partly by conquest and partly by purchase for a nomi
nal sum, we extended our limits to the Pacific' ocean.
Q. Did this expansion prove beneficial to the interests of
the country at large?
A. It did. The acquisition of the Pacific coast and the
interests developed there by American pioneers gave a won
derful impetus to the trade and commerce of the nation and
was directly instrumental in creating a merchant marine al
most equal to that of Great Britain. When through force
of circumstances our ships were driven from the seas, the
genius of our people turned to internal development and
the solution of transcontinental transportation problems.

204 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
The condition of our Great West to-day gives forcible testi
mony for the wisdom of this expansion.
Q. The Alaska purchase in 1867 was the next addition
to our territory was it not?
A. It was.
Q. Did this acqijisition meet with opposition?
A. It did. The anti-expansionists jeered at the Adminis
tration for the purchase of icebergs and snow-banks.
Q. Has time proven the wisdom of expansion in this
instance? A. It has. The fisheries and mineral wealth of Alaska
have more than justified its purchase.
Q. Wherein does Alaska differ from all our previous
territorial acquisitions?
A. In that it has never been organized as a territory with
a view to preparation for statehood, and in the fact that it is
not contiguous territory.
Q. 'What are our most recent territorial additions?
A. The Hawaiian Islands, received by Congress through
the petition of the inhabitants of the islands, in 1898, and
in the same year Puerto Eico, Guam, and the Philippine
Archipelago. General Good: You may take the witness, Col. Agi-Tate.
Col. Agi-Tate: Professor Eeseareh, is there any parallel
between the acquisition of the Philippines and the purchase
of Louisiana, then practically without population?
A. I think there is. I have heard' no argument against
this territorial enlargement which was not urged against the
annexation of Louisiana. Modern methods have brought
the Philippines nearer than was Louisiana when it was an
nexed. Q. But are the Philippines, with a population denser than

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 205
Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska, available for oc
cupation? A. I think they are. When Jefferson negotiated the
purchase of Louisiana he was the target of abuse, ridicule
and reproach. From New England came such epithets as
"Jacobin," "imperialist," "perverter of the Constitution."
Yet all admit now that Jefferson acted wisely.
Q. Do you believe the people in the Philippines are sus
ceptible of the civilization of the inhabitants of the Louisiana
purchase? A. I would not place limitations upon the powers of Al
mighty God, or the genius of the American people.
Q. Then you believe in shooting civilization into the
Filipinos; do you?
A. I do not think we are shooting civilization into them.
But the history of civilization has been traced in human
blood. Wendell Phillips says that every achievement of
human justice has gone from rack to rack, and scaffold to
scaffold. Q. You believe this nation can rightfully hold the
Philippines' A. Every foot. No nation on earth has a higher right
of title to a rod of soil. We hold it by the double title of
purchase and of conquest; and my belief is, that where once
the shadow of our banner has fallen, there will survive a race
of free men. A stronger and, I believe, a higher will than
ours gave us that territory because we were the boldest, the
freest, the most progressive and the most enlightened of the
Christian nations of the present age. If this Administration
should surrender the Philippines, the historian of the future
who extolled Washington, Jefferson, and the other Presidents

206 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
that have aided our national expansion, would write down
McKinley's action as the most pusillanimous in the record.
Q. You are familiar with the decisions of the Supreme
Court in cases that have arisen in connection with the vari
ous additions to our territory; are you?
A. Yes sir, fairly familiar, I think.
Q. With reference to our right to govern subject terri
tory, our Supreme Court, the authorized interpreter of our
Constitution, has said: "A power in the General Govern
ment to obtain and hold colonies and dependent territories
over which they (the Congress) might legislate without re
striction would be inconsistent with its own existence in its
present form."
You recognize that I quote correctly; do you?
A. I do; but —
Col. Agi-Tate: The witness is excused, that is all.
General Good: I protest. Professor Eeseareh should have
the privilege of completing his answer.
Col. Agi-Tate: His answer was sufficient. He admitted
that this decision of the Supreme Court denied any colonial
power such as the defendant claims.
The Judge: Defendant's attorney has the privilege of
redirect examination.
General Good: Very well. My brother has concluded his
cross-examination. Professor Eeseareh, has the Supreme
Court ruled upon this question?
Plofessor Eeseareh: I started to say when I was inter
rupted, that the Supreme Court has never definitely ruled
upon this question. In its collateral opinions, the advocates
of both plaintiff and defendant in this case find support.
The plaintiff's sympathizers quote one set of dicta and the
defendant's supporters another. But clearly the weight is

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 207
on the side of the Administration, and there is no doubt, in
my mind, that the Supreme Court, as soon as the issue
comes directly before it, will uphold the progressive view,
any other decision would fetter the hands of the nation,
restrain it from growth, deny to it powers, possessed by all
other great nations and prevent it reaping the legitimate
fruits of its conquests or its treaties.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate; Professor Eeseareh, is there not something
startling in the doctrine that the Congress has plenary power
over all territory not organized into states?
A. Startling though it may be to some people, there
seems to me no doubt of the soundness of the principle. It
is one of those questions which, never before directly raised,
has never been determined; but which now must be deter
mined before we can know how much or Tiow little of a
nation we have in these United States.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: I will call as my next witness President
J. G. Schurman of Cornell University, Chairman of the
Philippine Commission. I hold in my hand the "Preliminary
Statement of the Commissioners appointed by the President
of the United States to investigate affairs in the Philippine
Islands." Mr. Schurman, does this report embody the essen
tial facts of the situation in the Philippines and the relation
and duty of this government toward the Filipinos as disclosed
by careful study on the part of your Commission?
Mr. Schurman: It does.
Q. Where did the Commission draw up this report?
A. In Washington.
Q. It is signed by all of the members of the Commission;
is it?

208 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A. Gen. Otis was a member; but his duties kept him in
the Philippines and hence his signature does not appear.
He gave valuable assistance, however, in the work of the
Commission and is in entire harmony with the report.
Q. When did your Commission arrive at Manila?
A. The Commission reached that city March 4th, 1899.
Q. Mr. Schurman, how did your Commission proceed in
its investigation of conditions prevailing in the Philippines?
A. During all of its stay in Manila, the Commission was
engaged in hearing the statements of leading men — ^bankers,
lawyers, railroad men, ship owners, capitalists, educators, and
in fact, men of all classes — as to all the topics of interest in
the Islands. In nationality these persons were Spanish,
English, German, American, Austrian and natives of the
Islands.* Almost every subject touching the Islands was fully and
systematically gone into — government, law, currency, the
Chinese question, edacation, mines, railroads, commerce,
public lands, church property, agriculture, forestry, meteor
ology, etc. The opinions of the witnesses were freely taken
as to the capability of the Filipinos for self-government; as
to the form of government which would best suit them, as
to their habits, customs, condition and intelligence.
In addition, the commission received a great number of
papers and communications on many pending subjects.
Books and newspapers were freely consulted.
The members of the Commission mingled freely with the
native and foreign society at Manila and at other points
which were visi'ted and sought in that mode to acquire in
formation.

• Philippine OommissIftB report.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 209
Q. I find here a brief historical sketch. (Beading from
the report.)
"Prior to 1896, divers rebellions had broken out against
Spanish rule, but at this time we are chiefly concerned with
the one which occurred in that year. This movement w^as in
no sense an attempt to win independence; but was merely
an effort to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly
growing intolerable. The reforms demanded were set forth
in a proclamation by one of the insurgent leaders."
Then this rebellion was not a struggle for liberty and
Eepublican government as the plaintiff has endeavored to
prove? A. It was not. This was in no sense an attempt to win
independence. The reforms for demanding which they had
good grounds were set forth in the proclamation, the sub
stance of which follows the paragraph you quote.
Q. The character of Spanish dealing was similar to that
with the Cubans; was it?
A. Yes, sir. On paper the Spanish system of government
was tolerable, but in practice every Spanish govemor did what
he saw fit, regardless of the law. The press was under strict
censorship and supported and applauded whatever the Span
iards did, and the evil deeds of men in the government were
hidden in order not to hurt the prestige of Spain.
Q, (Eeading from the Eeport) "The war was finally ter
minated by the Treaty of Biac-Na-Bato. This celebrated
Treaty was signed December 14th, 1897. It was agreed by
Governor General Primo de Eivera that certain concessions
should be made by the Spaniards, among which were repre
sentation in the Cortez of Spain, the sending away of the
friars — which was the principal question — the right of asso
ciation, and a free press.

210 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Primo de Eivera stated that he had authority from Madrid
to give two million dollars, Mexican, if necessary, in order to
bring about a cessation of hostilities; the amount agreed
upon, however, as acceptable to the Filipinos was one million
two hundred thousand dollars. This money was to be paid
when Aguinaldo and his cabinet and his leading officers ar
rived in Hong Kong."
It appears then, that the people whom the plaintiff has com
pared to the founders of our country in their Eevolutionary
War, were willing to "sell their birth-right," does it not?
A. We found the facts in the case to be as stated in that
Eeport. Q. (Eeading) "It appears that Paterno, who served as
Mediator, only offered Aguinaldo $400,000. $200,000 was
paid to Aguinaldo when he arrived in Hong Kong. The
balance of the money was to be paid when the Filipinos had
delivered up their arms. The whole arrangement was not ac
ceptable to the people. They were angry because a matter
of business had been made of the revolution, and they
had no confidence in the Spaniards." According to this
statement the Filipino people do not seem to regard Aguin
aldo as another George Washington!
Did the Spaniards make the promised reforms?
A. These promises were never carried out. As a direct
result of the further abuses, uprisings occurred in several
provinces of Luzon; but they were attempts to avenge par
ticular wrongs rather than efforts to secure general reform.
The insurgent forces lacked arms, ammunition , and leaders.
Q. The treaty of Biac-Na-Bato really ended the rebellion
of the Philipino people against Spanish tyranny; did it?
A. The treaty ended the war, which, with the exception
of an important outbreak in Cebu, had been confined to

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 211
Luzon, Spain's sovereignty in the other islands never having
been questioned, and the thought of independence never hav
ing been entertained.
Q. What effect did the outbreak of hostilities between the
United States and Spain have upon the situation in the
Islands? A. The Governor General wished the Filipinos to unite in
defence of Spain. He called in the insurgents who had laid
down their arms and promised that if the Filipinos would
defend Spain against America, complete autonomy would be
given them. He added to his cabinet officials twelve or four
teen Filipinos appointed by him. But his plan met with little
success, because the Filipinos did not trust the promises of
Spain. Q. (Eeading) "Then came the first of May, 1898, and
the destruction of the Spanish fieet by Admiral Dewey. This
event caused a great loss of prestige to the Spaniards. Final
ly, on May 19th, Aguinaldo came." Here follows Admiral
Dewey's "Memorandum of relations with Aguinaldo," which
I will defer reading until the Admiral himself takes the
stand; but I will ask you, Mr. Schurman, if your investigation
disclosed any possible basis for the plaintiff's claim that an
alliance with Aguinaldo was entered into by this government
through its proper representatives, or a promise of Filipino
independence made?
A. No alliance of any kind was entered into with Aguin
aldo, nor was any promise of independence made to him then
or at any other time.
Q. (Continuing to read) "Shortly afterwards" — ^after the
arrival of Aguinaldo — "the Filipinos began to attack the
Spanish. Their number was rapidly augmented by the mili
tia, who had been given arms by Spain, all of whom revolted

212 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
and joined the insurgents. Great Filipino successes followed,
many Spaniards were taken prisoners, and while the Spanish
troops now remained quietly in Manila, the Filipino forces
made themselves masters of the entire island except that city.
"On the arrival of the troops commanded by Gen. Anderson
at Cavite, Gen. Aguinaldo was requested by Admiral Dewey
to evacuate that place, and he moved his headquarters to the
neighboring town of Bacoor.
"Now for the first time arose the idea of national inde
pendence. Aguinaldo issued a proclamation in which he took
the responsibility of promising it to his people on behalf of
the American Government, although he admitted freely in
private conversation with members of his cabinet that neither
Admiral Dewey nor any other American had made him any
such promise."
Aguinaldo's character does not here appear to be such as it
has been portrayed by the plaintiff; does it Mr. Schurman?
A. The Commission comments upon his character later,
you will see. Aguinaldo had already declared himself dictator
and surrounded himself with a cabinet. The landing of
American troops at Paranague, July 15, so exasperated him
that he wished to, attack at once; but was deterred by lack of
arms and ammunition.
Q. You say lack of arms and ammunition prevented an
immediate attack upon our troops?
A. Yes, sir. He decided to wait until the fall of Manila;
then to enter the city with the American troops, to secure the
arms of the Spanish soldiers, if possible, and finally make an
attack upon us.
Q. You say he decided to take advantage of our capture
of Manila to secure arms to use against us?
A. Yes, sir.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. Sl3
Q. Did he take any steps in the meantime?
A. Meanwhile he sent orders to the neighboring towns for
a passive resistance and for the placing of all possible ob
stacles in the way of the American troops.
Q. Where did the second expedition go into camp?
A. At "Camp Dewey," about lOO yards from the coast,
near the landing place, with front toward Manila.
Q. (Eeading) "Upon landing and joining the troops at
Camp Dewey, Brigadier General Anderson, the ranking Brig
adier General, assumed command of the division. Shortly
afterwards, upon the arrival of Gen. Merritt, the insurgents
were notified that our troops intended to commence operations
against Manila and would establish a line of works commenc
ing at the base and extending east in front of the outposts
then maintained by them. This movement was not received
kindly by the Filipinos; but on the establishment of our line
on their front, they gradually retired. There were no con
ferences between the officers of the Filipinos and our of
ficers with a view of operating against the Spaniards, nor was
there any co-operation of any kind between the respective
forces. Upon our landing, they furnished our forces no pro
tection nor support. The natives objected to our establishing
camps and were only quieted by the assurance that the United
States would pay for all the damage done and for all the wood
and other articles consumed." Then you did not find evi
dence that Aguinaldo assisted, as claimed by his supporters,
in the operations against Manila?
A. There was no combined movement by the United
States and the Filipinos against the Spaniards.
Q. (Continuing) "When the city of Manila was taken on
August 13th, the Filipinos took no part in the attack, but
came following in with a view of looting the. city, 'and were

214 fUE JURi TRIAL OP 1^60.
only prevented from doing so by our forces, preventing them
from entering. Aguinaldo claimed that he had the right to
occupy the city; he demanded of Gen. Merritt the cession
of the palace of Malacanan for himself and the cession of all
the churches of Manila, Pace and Ermita and also that part
of the money which was taken from the Spaniards as spoils of
war should be given up, and above all that he be given the
arms of the Spanish prisoners. This confirms the statement
already made that he intended to get possession of these
arms for the purpose of attacking us. All these demands
were refused."
You found the facts in the case to be directly contrary to
the testimony offered by the plaintiff concerning this matter;
did you?
A. We did.
Q. What followed the refusal of these demands?
A. All manner of abuses were indulged in by the insur
gent troops, who committed assaults and robberies and even
kidnapped natives who were friendly to the Americans. It
became necessary tb order the Filipino forces back, and this
order made them angry. Aguinaldo removed his seat of
government to Malolos, where the so-called Filipino Congress
assembled. The anti-American feeling was nourished by the
Filipino newspapers and by what were called "popular clubs"
in Manila and the neighboring villages and towns. Tlie actual
purpose of these clubs, nominally intended to promote social
intercourse, was to provoke bitterness toward the Americans
and from their membership was recruited the local militia,
which was to attack us from within Manila while the regular
insurgent troops attacked us from without.
Q. Were there active preparations for war?
A. On Sept. 21st, the Filipino Congress passed a decree

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 215
imposing military service on every male over 18 years of age
not in government service. Every carriage factory and black
smith shop in Manila was making bolos (knives).
Q. (Eeading further) "It is in proof before us that Ag
uinaldo was urged at this time to make some immediate deter
mination in regard to the settlement of affairs with the Amer
icans. At this time we were about to discuss the future of the
Philippines in Paris, and many of the leading Filipinos be
lieved that America would abandon this country. It was
made plain to Aguinaldo that it was not enough for the Fil
ipinos to desire America to stay in the Islands, but that it
would be desirable for them to show America that it would be
to her interest to keep the country. Aguinaldo was advised
to write President McKinley and ask what desires he had
about the country and what form of government he wished to
establish, and to ask him not to abandon the Filipinos. This
view was accepted not only by the government, but by many
members of the Filipino Congress. There was, however, con
siderable opposition, especially from Paterno, Mabini, and
Sandico. While it seemed to appear that the sovereignty of
America was acceptable to Aguinaldo, still he was always
urging the military men to prepare for war. The cabinet at
Malolos decided to send to the President of the United States
the propositions above mentioned, but Aguinaldo did not wish
to do so. He first stated that he desired to translate them
into Tagalog, and afterwards that he wished to put them into
cipher, and so delayed the sending of them." Here, too, you
found the evidence in contradiction to that presented in this
court by the plaintiff; did you?
A. We did.
Q. Will you give briefiy the events leading up to the actual
outbreak of hostilities?

816 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
A. Aguinaldo urged a one million dollar bond issue for
the purchase of arms and ammunition.
A signal by means of rockets had been agreed upon, and it
was understood that the attack would come upon the first act
of the American forces that would afford pretext. Persistent
attempts were made to provoke our soldiers to fire.
A final effort to preserve peace was the appointment of a
commission to meet a similar body appointed by Aguinaldo. ,
Six sessions were held, but no substantial results were ob
tained, the Filipino commissioners being unable or unwilling
to give any definite statement of the "intent, purpose and
aims of their people."
Q. I will resume reading: "On the evening of the 4th of
February, an insurgent officer came to the front with a detail
of men and attempted to pass the guard on the San Juan
Bridge, our guard being stationed at the west end of the
bridge. The Nebraska sentinel drove them back without fir
ing, but a few minutes before 9 o'clock that evening a large
body of insurgent troops made an advance on the South
Dakota outposts, which fell back rather than fire. About the
same time the insurgents came in force to the east end of the
San Juan bridge, in front of the Nebraska regiment. For
several nights prior thereto a lieutenant in the insurgent army
had been coming regularly to our outpost No. 3, of the
Nebraska regiment, and attempting to force the outpost back
and insisting on posting his guard within the Nebraska lines;
and at this time and in the darkness he again appeared with a
detail of about six men and approached Private Grayson, of
Company D, First Nebraska Volunteers, the sentinel on duty
at outpost No. 3. He, after halting them three times without
effect, fired, killing the lieutenant, whose men, returned the

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900, 217
fire and then retreated. Immediately rockets were sent up by
the Filipinos and they commenced firing all along the line."
The Americans were forced into this war, then?
A. They were. Aguinaldo had made up his mind to fight
the Americans and the Treaty of Paris strengthened the de
termination. He did not openly declare himself; but he ex
cited everybody, especially military men, by claiming inde
pendence and it is doubtful whether he had power to check or
control the army at the time hostilities broke out.
Q. (Eeading again) "Deplorable as war is, the one in
which we are now engaged was unavoidable by us. We were
attacked by a bold, adventurous and enthusiastic army. No
alternative was left to us, except ignominious retreat. It is
not to be conceived of that any American would have sanc
tioned the surrender of Manila to the insurgents. Our obliga
tions to other nations and friendly Filipinos, and ourselves
and our fiag demanded that force should be met by force.
'Whatever the fate of the Philippines may be, there is no
course open to us now except the prosecution of the war until
the insurgents are reduced to submission. The Commission
is of the opinion that there has been no time since the de
struction of the Spanish squadron by Admiral Dewey, when it
was possible to withdraw our forces from the Islands either
with honor to ourselves or with safety to the inhabitants."
What was the result of this night attack?
A. Immediately after the first shot, the insurgents opened
fire all along •their line, which fire continued till midnight;
and about 4 o'clock in the morning of Feb. 5th, the insurgents
again opened fire all around the city and continued until the
Americans charged them and drove them with great slaughter
from the trenches.
Q. I think it unnecessary at this point to enter into an

218 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
account of the progress of the war. Hostilities began before
your arrival' at Manila?
A. Yes, the fighting began while the civil members of the
Commission were on the way to the Philippines bearing the
instructions of the President to make known to the inhab
itants the peaceful and beneficent intentions of the United
States. The insurgents' rash and wholly unjustifiable appeal
to arms did not prevent the Commission from entering upon
their labors, though much restricting the area of their powers.
Q. 'What condition of affairs did you find there?
A. When the Commission reached Manila on March 4th,
the situation in the city was bad. Half of the native popula
tion had fled and most of the remainder were shut in their
houses. Business was at a standstill. Insurgent troops every
where faced our lines and the sound of rifle flre was fre
quently audible at our house. A reign of terror prevailed.
Filipinos who had favored Atnericans feared assassination and
few had the courage to come out openly for us. Fortunately
there were among this number some of the best men of the
city. Q. I notice a section in the report is headed Gradual
Change of Public Sentiment. How was this change of feeling
brought about?
A. On the 4th of April the Commission issued a proclama
tion setting forth the principles by which the United States
would be guided in exercising the sovereignty which Spain
had ceded to us over the Philippine Islands and assuring the
people of the largest participation in the government which
might he found compatible with the general welfare, and
reconcilable with the sovereign rights and obligations of the
United States. The people asked for acts as well as promises,
and the Commission being anxious to meet this demand

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 219
urged the re-establishment of the law courts. Early in June
the Supreme Court was re-oponed with flve Filipinos and
three American Justices. Later other courts were established.
The proclamation had a good effect in adjacent parts of
Luzon and in the Islands of Negros and such other places as
were open to its reception.
Q. Then the continuance of the rebellion was not a na
tional movement?
A. No, sir. The strong anti-American feeling was con
fined to the Tagalog provinces; but even in those imme
diately adjacent to Manila there was a strong conservative
element, consisting of people of wealth and intelligence, op
posed to the war. In the remaining provinces of Luzon the
Tagalog rebellion was viewed at first with indifference, and
later with fear. Through the Archipelago there was trouble
only at those points to which armed Tagalogs had been sent
in considerable number^. In many provinces there was ab
solute anarchy, and from all sides came petitions for protec
tion and help, which we were unable to give as troops could
not be spared.
Q. What were the relations of the Commission with Ag
uinaldo? A. Aguinaldo sent a delegation to Manila to confer with
the Commission, and while the Commission steadfastly re
fused to discuss his proposal to suspend hostilities, as being
a military matter, assurances were given of the beneficent pur
poses of the United States and the President's readiness to
grant the Philippine peoples as ample liberties as were con
sistent with the ends of government, subject only to the rec
ognition of the sovereignty of the United States, a point
which, being established, the Commission invariably refused
even to discuss. Nothing came of negotiations, as Aguinaldo's

220 THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
emissaries were without powers and merely came and came
again for information.
Q. The Commission made every effort to bring the war
to a close; did they?
A. They did. The American people may feel confident no
effort was omitted to secure a peaceful end of the struggle.
The fullness of the information communicated to Aguinaldo's
commission, the assurances of a liberal form of government
when they laid down their arms, and the earnest appeals to
them to stop further bloodshed in a struggle which could only
end in their defeat — all witness to the spirit of patient concili
ation exhibited by the Commission in endeavoring to reach an
amicable adjustment with the insurgents, and the obduracy of
Aguinaldo in continuing forcible resistance and in refusing
even to outline terms which might be compared with the
terms offered or with the concession which the superior power
might have been willing to make.
Q. Can these people be regarded as a nation?
A. No, sir. The Filipinos are not a nation. The masses
of the people are without a common speech and they lack the
sentiment of nationality. Their loyalty is sti'll of the tribal
sort. Q. Then your Commission does not agree with the impres
sion created by some of the plaintiff's witnesses, that a full
fledged republic would spring into existence if the Americans
would only withdraw from the Islands?
A. No, sir. The most that can be expected of the Fil
ipinos is to co-operate with the Americans in the administra
tion of general affairs from Manila as a center, and to under
take, subject to American control and guidance, the admin
istration of provincial and municipal affairs. As education
advances and experience ripens, the natives may be entrusted

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 221
with a larger and more independent share of government —
self-government as the American ideal, being constantly kept
in view.
Q. (Eeading) "Should our power by any fatality be
withdrawn, the Commission believe that the government of
the Philippines would speedily lapse into anarchy, which
would excuse if it did not necessitate the interference of other
powers and eventual division of the Islands among them.
Only through American occupation is the ideal of a free, self-
governing and united Philippine commonwealth at all con
ceivable." An American protectorate would be an act of kindness to
these people?
A. Yes, sir. The welfare of the Filipinos coincides with
the dictates of national honor in forbidding abandonment of
the Islands. We cannot from any point of view escape the
responsibilities of government which our sovereignty entails,
and the performance of our national duty will prove the
greatest blessing to the peoples of the Philippine Islands.
Q. You are aware that there are those who have seen fit
to accuse our troops of desecrating churches, murdering pris
oners and committing unmentionable crimes; did you find
grounds for such charges?
A. We are glad to express the belief that a war was never
more humanely conducted. Insurgent wounded were repeat
edly succored on the field by our men, at the risk of their
lives. Those who had a chance for life were taken to Manila
and tenderly cared for in our hospitals. If churches were oc
cupied, it was only as a military necessity, and frequently after
their use as forts by the insurgents had made it necessary to
train our artillery upon them. Prisoners were taken whenever
opportunity offered, often only to be set at liberty after being

222 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
disarmed and fed. Up to the time of our departure, al
though numerous spies had been captured, not a single Fil
ipino had been executed.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Schurman, before you were appointed
by President McKinley on the Commission, you spoke before
the Cornell students in emphatic declaration against the tak
ing of the islands, supporting your views with appeals to our
traditional national policy; did you not?
Mr. Schurman: The address to which you refer was de
livered at the opening of the University in the Fall of 1898.
As the Filipinos were not within the scope of the Monroe
Doctrine, my view was that, however deep and sincere our
sympathies with them might be, we were not called upon as a
nation to rectify any of the tyrannies of the Old World, so
long at least as no national interest was at stake. I recom
mended, therefore, that the Philippines be left with Spain.
The treaty-making power of the United States, backed by an
overwhelming public opinion, took the Philippine Islands
from Spain, and the theoretic expediency of expansion has not
been an open question since. The act and fact of expansion
was complete when the treaty of peace was ratified.
Q. Now, Mr. Schurman, since you deny the right of these
people to form their own government; what government do
you suggest that we infiiet upon them?
A. I have recommended to the President a government
and a Constitution for the Philippines. It is practically the
same governmental policy outlined by Thomas Jefferson for
the government of the vast territory acquired by the Louisiana
purchase. The second Philippine Commission goes to the
islands for the purpose of establishing the new government

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.' 223
since it has received, I am happy to say, the President's en
dorsement. Col. Agi-Tate: That is all. Professor.
General Good: My next witness is a gentleman who needs
no introduction to the American people. Admiral George
Dewey. General Good: Your signature to this report of the Phil
ippine Commission is proof that the facts herein set forth
constitute your testimony concerning the matters in question,
is it not.
Admiral Dewey: It is.
Q. You have heard the testimony of the Chairman of
your Commission. Do you agree with his statements?
A. Ido.
Q. Concerning one particular in this report, I wish your
direct testimony. I will read from the document your mem
orandum. "On April 24th, 1898, the following cipher dispatch was
received at Hong Kong, from Mr. E. Spencer Pratt, United
States Consul-General at Singapore: "Aguinaldo, insurgent
leader, here. Will come Hong Kong; arrange with Com
modore for general co-operation insurgents, Manila, if desired.
Telegraph Pratt."
On the same day Commodore Dewey telegraphed Mr. Pratt,
"Tell Aguinaldo come soon as possible," the neces,sity for
haste being due to the fact that the squadron had been noti
fied by the Hong Kong government to leave those waters by
the following day. The squadron left Hong Kong the morn
ing of the 25th and Mirs Bay on the 27th. Aguinaldo did not
arrive in Hong Kong in time for a conference.
It had been reported to the Commodore as early as March
1st, by the United States Consul at Manila and others, that

224 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
the Filipinos had broken out into insurrection against Span
ish authority in the vicinity of Manila, and on March 30th,
Mr. Williams had telegraphed "Five thousand rebels, armed,
in camp near city. Loyal to us in case of war."
Upon the arrival of the squadron at Manila, it was found
that there was no insurrection to speak of, and it was accord
ingly decided to allow Aguinaldo to come to Cavite on board
the McC'uUoch. He arrived with thirteen of his staff on
May 19th, and immediately came on board the Olympia to
call on the Commander-in-Chief, after which he was allowed
to land at Cavite and organize an army. This was done with
the purpose of strengthening the United States forces and
weakening those of the enemy.
"No alliance of any kind was entered into with Aguinaldo,
nor was any promise of independence made to him then or at
any other time."*
Q. Your memorandum is accurately given here, is it?
A. It is.
Q. Admiral, you have heard the testimony offered to prove
that- you or Consul Pratt, acting on behalf of the United
States, promised the Filipinos independence, have you not?
A. I have heard that statement made; but I never made
such a promise, and Consul Pratt is ready to take oath that
he also is guiltless in the matter. I affirm that no alliance
of any kind was entered into with Aguinaldo, nor was any
promise of independence made to him then, or at any other
time. Q. After the arrival and landing of our troops, was there
any co-operation of our forces with the Filipinos?
A. There was no co-operation of any kind between the

• Philippine Commission report.

THte JtlllY TRIAL OP 1900. 225
respective fotces, and the relation between them waS strained
from the beginning.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Admiral Dewey, how do you reconcile
the testimony you have just given with the fact that you
recognized the Philippine republic by receiving Aguinaldo
with military honors and saluting the Filipino flag?
Admiral Dewey: The statement that I received him with
military honors or saluted the Filipino flag is absolutely false.
Q. I hold in my hand a paper translated from a Spanish
pamphlet written by Aguinaldo and printed at Tarlac . in
Luzon. This translation was made in Boston and furnished
to the Springfield Eepublican. Its statements contradict
yours. Have you seen this paper?
A. i have. The statement of Aguinaldo, published in
that paper, as far as it relates to me, is a tissue of falsehood.
I never promised him, directly or indirectly, independence for
the Filipinos. I never treated him as an ally, except to make
use of him and the natives to assist in my operations against
the - Spaniards. He never uttered the word "independence"
in any conversation with me or my officers.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: The Hon. Charles Denby, another mem
ber of the Philippine Commission, will now take the stand.
General Good: Mr. Denby, your signature to this report
indicates that it expresses your judgment and belief concern
ing facts and conditions in the Philippines; does it not?
Mi". Denby: Yes, sir.*
Q. Do you corroborate the testimony of Mr. Schurman
and Admiral Dewey?
A. i do.

? Philippine Commission report and other papers.

226 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Q. Had you any personal knowledge of conditions in tha
Orient previous to your appointment on this Commission?
A. I had, through my experience as Minister tp China.
Q. Do you think the commercial development of the
United States demands that we secure markets in the far Bast?
A. I do. The finger of destiny has pointed the way to
commercial greatness. A new era has come upon us. We
have the Hawaiian Islands, Guam, Puerto Eico, the Philip
pines and part of Samoa for our own and we are holding
Cuba in trust to-day.
Whether we will or no, these are accomplished facts. Our
western coast is alive, awake and is stretching out its hands
for the trade of hundreds of millions of people which is to
make San Francisco, Tacoma and Seattle the rivals of New
York, Philadelphia and Boston. The Southern states see an
illimitable market for their cotton and for their iron.
I know that our skilled mechanics can beat the world in
making manufactured articles. Let us give them a world
wide market!
Q. Do you think the United States should intervene in
the affairs of the Orient?
A. The United States should intervene on any question
in the subject matter whereof we are interested. We are a
great nation and it is not for us to stand aside like a poor
boy at a frolic when international questions are on the tapis.
We should not stand idly by and see hostile camps estab
lished in China under the plea of leaseholds if the lessees in
tend to make us pay greater duties than our treaties provide
for. General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Denby, do you not think we are bound

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 227
by the spirit of our own Declaration of Independence to give
the Filipinos their independence?
Mr. Denby: When the insurrection is over it will be time
to discuss what to do with the Philippines. Meantime we will
educate the Filipino children, divorce church and state, re
form abuses, establish free municipal and provisional govern
ments, enfranchise the press and make personal freedom the
birthright of all the people. I hope that soon the insurrection
will end and that nobody will have occasion to raise any
question as to the "consent of the governed."
Q. Have we any right to intervene in Chinese matters
while we proclaim the Monroe Doctrine and deny the right of
European interference in this hemisphere?
A. We have as much right to intervene in Chinese mat
ters in behalf of our missionaries and merchants as we had to
intervene in Venezuelan affairs. We have just as much right
to preserve our trade rights in China as England, Eussia or
any other European power. 'Why should England, Eussia,
France and Germany arrogate to themselves control of Asia?
We are the closest to China of all the great commercial na
tions except Japan. We have done more to open it to civiliza
tion than any country except England.
China, Eussia and France have already obtained concessions
in China. The building of the Siberian road is probably des
tined to change the course of travel. These events fol
lowed by our own acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, and
a part of Samoa, create the beginning of a new and remark
able era. We should take the lead in the imperial march, not
of monarchical ideas, but of the commerce that shall encom
pass the universe.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.

228 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
General Good: Prof. Dean C. Worcester, also a member
of the Philippine Commission, will now take the stand.
General Good: You have heard the testimony given to
prove that promises of independence were made to the Fil
ipinos, have you not?
Prof. Worcester: I have. Admiral Dewey's testimony
that he never made such a promise should be accepted as
final. As to the implied promise, it is urged that when Aguin
aldo proclaimed to the world his expectation that independ
ence would be granted to his people, he was not promptly
informed of the fact that he was mistaken by the nearest
American official. It does not appear that any of our of
ficials had authority to settle this matter, and under the cir
cumstances, it is hardly to be wondered at that they did not
avail themselves of the first opportunity to attempt to do so.*
Q. 'What do you consider the motive of Aguinaldo's
course? A. Personal ambition; this has thus far been an insur
mountable obstacle in the way of a peaceful settlement of the
difficulties which have arisen. The promptness with which an
army gathered about his standard, seems to have surprised even
Aguinaldo himself; he became intoxicated with the sense of
his power, and conceived the idea of an independent govern
ment under his own dictatorship,
Q. Was the conduct of our men during the period preced
ing the outbreak of hostilities calculated to promote a peace
ful adjustment of the difficulties?
A. Yes, sir. The self-control displayed by our officers
and men during the trying period which preceded the out
break of hostilities was beyond praise.
Q. Do you think Gen. Otis should have acceded to the
• Philippine Commission report and other papers^

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 229
request for the suspension of hostilities and the establishment
of the neutral zone?
A. It would have been inexcusable for him to do so be
fore his forces had gained positions, enabling them to protect
the city and its water supply. After these position had been
occupied, abundant opportunity was given the insurgents to
suspend hostilities, had they desired to do so, but they
promptly invested and continuously harassed our lines.
Q. You have heard the testimony given by President
Schurman of the Philippine Commission; do you, as a mem
ber of the Commission, support his statements taken from
the report?
A. Ido.
General Good: That will do. Col. Agi-Tate, take the wit
ness. Col. Agi-Tate: At present I have no cross-examination.
I may recall Mr. Worcester later.
General Good: Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massa
chusetts, will take the stand.
Q. Senator Lodge, what legislation, in your opinion, is
necessary at the present time in regard to the government of
the Philippine Islands?
A. Very little. The bill proposed by the Senate Commit
tee on Philippines is all that is demanded.
Q. What does that bill provide?
A. The bill is as follows:
"Be it enacted, etc.. That when all insurrection against the
sovereignty and authority of the United States in the Phil
ippine Islands, acquired from Spain by the treaty concluded
at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, shall have been
completely suppressed by the military and naval forces of the
United States, all military, civil, and judicial powers necessary

230 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
to govern the said islands shall, until otherwise provided by
Congress, be vested in such person and persons, and shall be
exercised in such manner as the President of the United
States shall direct for maintaining and protecting the inhab
itants of said islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and religion."*
This bill is simple but all sufficient. It makes no declara
tion and offers no promises as to a future we can not yet pre
dict. It meets the need of the present and stops there. The
President, under the military power, which still controls and
must for some time control the islands, could do all that fhis
bill provides. But it is well that we should have the direct au
thorization of Congress and be enabled to meet any emer
gency that may arise with the sanction of the law-making
power, until that power shall decree otherwise. Above all it
is important that Congress should assert its authority; that
we should not leave it to the Executive acting with the un'lim-
ited authority of the war power to go on alone after the con
clusion of peace, but that he should proceed under the author
ity of Congress in whatever he does until Congress shall
otherwise and more specifically provide. By this bill we fol
low the well-settled American precedents of Jefferson and
Monroe, which were used stilMater in the case of Hawaii.
This bill is the assertion of Congressional authority and of the
legislative power of the Government. To undertake any
further or more far-reaching legislation at this time would be,
in my judgment, a great mistake. But I believe it to be of
great importance to define our position, so that it may be per
fectly understood by the inhabitants of the Philippines, as
well as by our own people.

• Congressional Record, March 7, 190O.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 231
Q. But, Senator, it is claimed that we should declare the
policy of the Government in this matter?
A. Negotiations, concessions, promises, and hesitations
are to the Asiatic mind merely proofs of weakness, and tend
only to encourage useless outbreaks, crimes, and disorders.
A firm attitude, at once just and fearless, impresses such
people with a sense of strength and will calm them, give them
a feeling of security, and tend strongly to bring about peacr
and good order. This bill conveys this impression, states the
present position of the United States, and does nothing more.
The operative and essential part of it is in the very words of
the act by which Congress authorized Jefferson to govern
Louisiana, and which received his approbation and signature.
It was also used by Congress and by President Monroe in 1819
in regard to Florida. I think that in such a case we may
safely tread in the footsteps of the author of the Declaration
of Independence. He saw no contradiction between that
great instrument and the treaty with Napoleon, or the aet to
govern Louisiana. Some modern commentators take a differ
ent view and are unable to reconcile the acquisition of ter
ritory without what they call the consent of the governed with
the principles of the Declaration. Jefferson found no such
difficulty, and I can not but think that he understood the
meaning of the Declaration as well as its latest champions
and defenders. At all events, I am content to follow him,
content to vote for his bill, content to accept his interpreta
tion of what he himself wrote.
Q. Senator, will you give us a brief explanation of the
Eepublican policy with relation to Philippine affairs?
A. Before explaining our policy I should be glad, as a pre
liminary, to state the policy proposed by our opponents, so
that I could contrast our own with it, but I have thus far

232 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900,
been unable to discover what their policy is, No doubt it
exists, no doubt it is beautiful, but, like many beautiful
things, it seems to the average searcher after truth both diaph
anous and elusive. We have had presented to us, it is
true, the policy desired by Aguinaldo and his followers, that
we should acknowledge him as a government, enfor-ce his rule
upon the other eighty-three tribes and upon all the other
islands, and then protect him from foreign interference. This
plan, which would involve us in endless wars with the natives
and keep us embroiled with other nations, loads us with re
sponsibility without power and falls- into ruin and absurdity
the moment it is stated. Another proposition is that we
should treat the Philippines as we treat Cuba. That is pre
cisely what we are doing. But what is really meant hy this
demand is not that we should treat the Philippines as we treat
Cuba, but that we should make to them a promise as to the
future. And that is what every proposition made by those
opposed to the Eepublican party comes down to, a promise
as to the future. We are to put down insurrection and dis
order and hold the islands temporarily without the consent
of the governed, but simultaneously we are to make large
promises as to the future, which will look well in print and
keep insurrection and disorder alive.
The resolutions offered by Senators on the other side and
the tenor of their speeches are all of this description. They
present no policy, hut inyite us to make promises. Promises
are neither action nor policy, and, in the form of legislation,
are a grave mistake. Those which involve us in pledges of
independence have the additional disadvantage of being the
one sure means of keeping alive war and disorder in the
islands. Those who offer them or urge them proceed on the
assumption that you can deal with an Asiatic in the same

THE JURY TRIAL OP. 1900. 233
manner and expect from him the same results as from a
European or an American. This shows, it seems to me, a fatal
misconception. The Asiatic mind and habit of thought are
utterly different from ours. Words or acts which to us would
show generosity -and kindness and would bring peace and
order, to an Asiatic mean simply weakness and timidity and
are to him an incentive to riot, resistance, and bloodshed.
Promises of this kind, therefore, are neither effective actiop
nor intelligent policy, but the sure breeders of war. If we
must abandon the Philippines, let us abandon them frankly.
If we mean to turn them over to domestic anarchy or foreign
control, let us do it squarely. If we are to retain them, let
us deal manfully with the problems as they arise. But do
tiot indulge in the unspeakable cruelty of making promises
which our successors may be unable or unwilling to fulfill,
and which will serve merely to light the flames of war once
more and brings death to hundreds nf natiyes and to scores of
American soldiers. Let us not attempt in such a situation and
with such responsibilities to mortgage an unknown future and
give bonds to fate which will be redeemed in blood.
The policy we offer, on the other hand, is simple and
straightforward. We believe in the frank acceptance of exist
ing facts, and in dealing with them as they are and not on a
theory of what they might or ought to be. We accept the
fact that the Philippine Islands are ours to-day and that we
are responsible for them before the world. The next fact is
that there is a war in those islands, which, with its chief in
hiding, and no semblance of a government, has now degen
erated into mere guerrilla fighting and brigandage, with a
precarious existence predicated on the November elections.
Our immediate duty, therefore, is to suppress this disorder,
put an end to fighting, and restore peace and order, That is

234 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
what we are doing. That is all we are called upon to do in
order to meet the demands of the living present. Beyond
this we ought not to go by a legislative act, except to make
such provision that there may be no delay in re-establishing
civil government when the war ends. The question of our
constitutional right and powej to govern those islands in any
way we please I shall not discuss. Not only is it still in the
future, but if authority is lacking the Constitution can be
amended. Personally I have no doubt that our Constitution
gives full right and authority to hold and govern the Philip
pines without making them either economically or politically
part of our system, neither of which they should ever be. 'When
our great Chief Justice, John Marshall, declared in the Cher
okee case that the United States could have under its control,
exercised by treaty or the laws of Congress, a "domestic and
dependent nation," I think he solved the question of our
constitutional relations to the Philippines. Further than the
acts and the policy which I have just stated, I can only give
my own opinion and belief as to the future, and as to the
course to be pursued in the Philippines. I hope and believe
that we shall retain the islands, and that, peace and order
once restored, we shall and should re-establish civil govern
ment, beginning with the towns and villages, where the in
habitants are able to manage the'ir own affairs. We should
give them honest administration, and prompt and efficient
courts. We should see to it that there is entire protection to
persons and property, in order to encourage the development
of the islands by the assurance of safety to investors of cap
ital. All men should be protected in the free exercise of their
religion, and the doors thrown open to missionaries" of all
Christian sects. The land, which belongs to the people, and ,
of which they have been robbed in the past, should be re-

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 235
turned to them and their titles made secure. We should in
augurate and carry forward, in the most earnest and liberal
way, a comprehensive system of popular education. Finally,
while we bring prosperity to the islands by developing their
resources, we should, as rapidly as conditions will permit,
bestow upon them self-government and home inile. Such, in
outline, is the policy which I believe can be and will be pur
sued toward the Philippines. It will require time, patience,
honesty, and ability for its completion, but it is thoroughly
practicable and reasonable.
General Good: Take the witness. Col. Agi-Tate.
Col. Agi-Tate: Senator, laying aside for a moment moral
and constitutional questions, do you not think that the ad
mission of the cheap labor of the Philippines to our markets
would be very detrimental to American labor?
A. The Democratic party has for years been the advo
cate of free trade and increased exports, but now they shud
der at our gaining control of the Pacific and developing our
commerce with the E'ast. Eeady in their opposition to pro
tection, to open our markets to the free competition of all
the tropical, all the cheapest labor of the world, they are now
filled with horror at the thought of admitting to our markets
that small fragment of the world's cheap labor contained in
the Philippine Islands, something which neither Eepublicans
nor anyone else think for one moment of doing.
Q. Now, Senator, you must recognize that on purely moral
grounds we have no right to take or retain the Philippines,
and that as a matter of expediency our whole Eastern policy
is a costly mistake?
A. I do not. I deny both propositions. I believe we are
in the Philippines as righteously as we are there rightfully
and legally. I believe that to abandon the islands, or to leave

236 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
them now, would be a wrong to humanity, a dereliction of
duty, a base betrayal of the Filipinos who have supported us,
led by the best men of Luzon, and in the highest degree con
trary to sound morals. As to expediency, the arguments in
favor of the retention of the Philippines seem to me so over
whelming that I should regard their loss as a calamity to our
tfade and commerce and to all our business interests so great
than no man can measure it.
Q. So valuable that we are justified in robbing these help
less people of their liberty?
A. As to liberty, they have never had it, and have none
now, except when we give it to them protected by the flag and
armies of the United States. Their insurrection against
Spain, confined to one* island; had been utterly abortive and
could never have revived or been successful while Spain con
trolled the sea. We have given them all the liberty they ever
had. We could not have robbed them of it, for they had
none to lose.
Q. Do you not recognize. Senator, that we are doing a
great wrong in forcing our government on an unwilling
people? A. The consent of the governed is a fair phrase, but what
does it mean? In order to interpret Jefferson's language
aright let us see what kind of a government he was himself
engaged in setting up^ for there alone can we get light as to
his meaning. The Declaration of Independence was the an
nouncement of the existence of a new revolutionary govern
ment upon American soil. Upon whose consent did it rest?
Was it upon that of all the people of the colonies duly ex
pressed? Most assuredly not.. In the first place we must
throw out all negroes and persons of African descent, who
formed about one-quarter of the population, and who were

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 237
not consulted at all as to the proposed change of government.
So we must immediately insert the word "white" in Jeffer
son's sentence. Let us go a step further. Were women in
cluded in the -word "governed?" They certainly were not
permitted by voice or vote to express an opinion on this mo
mentous question. They must, therefore, be excluded, and
we must add to the word "white" the word "male" as a fur
ther limitation upon the governed whom Jefferson had in
mind. Did the revolutionary government rest on the con
sent of all the white males in the colonies? Most assuredly
not. There was the usual age limitation which shut out all
male persons under twenty-one, and manhood suffrage, as we
understand it, did not exist in a single colony. Everywhere
the suffrage was limited, generally by property qualifications,
sometimes by other restrictions. So another amendment be
comes necessary to Jefferson's phrase if we are going to make
it fit the government which he was actually engaged in setting
up. Conforming to the facts, the sentence then would read
something like this: "Deriving their just powers from the
consent of the white male governed who have the right to
vote according to the laws of the various colonies." This is
not all. The white male population of voting and military
age in the coloni'fes was divided upon the question of the
revolution. In some States the Loyalists were in a majority;
in others the Patriots were in a majority, and in still others
the two parties appear to have been pretty evenly balanced.
Taking the colonies as a whole, a very large minority, if not
half, of the people whom the Continental Congress proposed
to govern were utterly opposed to the revolution. ' Did we
ask their consent? Not at all. We crowded the revolutionary
government on the Loyalists at the point of the bayonet, and
when the revolution was over they had to a'ccept the govern-

238 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
ment thus forced upon them or go into exile, which many of
them did. Therefore, if we test Jefferson's phrase by the facts
of the government which we see he was engaged in setting up
himself, we find that it does not in the least meet the fantastic
extensions which it has been sought to put upon it in the in
terests of the Filipinos.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.

CHAPTEE IV.
THe Crier: Hear ye! Hear ye! The Court of Public
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: Proceed with the case.
General Good: Senator Beveridge, of Indiana, will take
the stand.
" General Good: Senator, you have visited the Philippine
archipelago and made careful investigations of the conditions
there existing, have you not?
Senator Beveridge: I have.
Q. 'What were your impressions of the resources of the
Islands? A. I have cruised more than 2,000 miles through the ar
chipelago, every moment a surprise at its loveliness and
wealth. I have ridden hundreds of miles on the islands,
every foot of the way a revelation of vegetable and mineral
riches. Eice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and to
bacco, and many products of the temperate, as well as tropic
zone, grow in various sections of the archipelago. The wood
of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for
a century to come.*
Forty miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically moun
tains of coal; and ship captains, who have used it, told me that
it is better steamer fuel than the best coal of Japan. I have
a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the
banks of a Philippine creek. I have gold dust washed out
by crude processes of careless natives from the sands of a
Philippine stream. In one of the islands great deposits of
• CSo-ngress-iooal Record, January 9, 1900.
(239)

240 THE JURt TRIAL OP 1900.
copper exist untouched. The mineral wealth of this empire
of the ocean will one day siirprlse the world. And the min
eral wealth is but a small fraction of the agricultural wealth
of these islands.
Q. What do you think of the climate of the islands?
A. The climate is the best tropic climate iii the world.
My own experience with tropical conditions has not been ex
haustive; but this is the belief of those who have lived in
many tropical countries, with scores of whom I have talked on
this point.
Q. Do you consider the climate fit for the white race?
A. I can testify that the climate of Manila greatly sur
passes that of Hong Kong, and from Hong Kong's heights the
civilization of our race is irradiating all the Orient. The
European business men of Cebu, Iloilo and Manila work as
hard and as many hours a day as those of New York, and a
finer body of physical manhood can not be gathered at ran
dom in America.
Q. What did you find to be the character of the people of
these islands?
A. They are a barbarous race, modified by three centuries
of contact with a decadent race. The Filipino is the South
Sea Malay, put through a process of three hundred years of
superstition in religion, dishonesty in dealing, disorder in
habits of industry, and cruelty, caprice and corruption in
government. Q. Do you consider them fit for self-government?
A. It is barely possible that one thousand men in all the
archipelago are capable of self-government in the Anglo-
Saxon ^ense. My own belief is that there are not one hun
dred men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon
self-government means; and there are over 5,000,000 people

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 241
to be governed. The Filipinos are utterly unfit as a mass for
self-government. The great majority of the people would
vote just as their tribal or local leaders dictated.
Q. Did you find able leaders among them?
A. I know many clever and highly educated people among
them, but there are only three commanding intellects and
characters — Arellano, Mabini and Aguinaldo.
Q. What is your estimate of Aguinaldo?
A. Aguinaldo is a clever, popular leader, able, brave, re
sourceful, cunning, ambitious, unscrupulous and masterful.
He is a natural dictator. His ideas of government are ab
solute orders, implicit obedience or immediate death. He
understands the character of his countrymen. He is a Malay
Sylla; not a Filipino Washington.
Q. What sort of government, in your opinion, is needed
in these islands?
A. In Paluan, Sulu and Mindanao, the strictest military
government is necessary, indefinitely. In all other islands
government must be simple, strong and uniform. The Fil
ipino has no conception of pure, orderly, equal, impartial gov
ernment, under equal laws justly administered, because he
has never seen such a government. He must be shown the
simplest results of good government by actual example in or
der that he may begin to understand its most elementary
principles. Q. You think this nation should hold and govern the
Philippines? A. I do. We should not repudiate our duty in the Ar
chipelago. We should not abandon our opportunity in the
Orient. We should not renounce our part in the mission of
our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world.

242 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Q. In the interest of our commerce, what is the im
portance of the Philippines?
A. Our largest trade henceforth must be with Asia. The
Pacific is our ocean. More and more Europe will manufacture
all it needs — secure from its colonies the most it consumes.
China's trade is the mightiest commercial fact in our future.
Her resources, her possibilities, her wants — all are undevel
oped. That statesman commits a crime against American
trade — against the American grower of cotton and wheat and
tobacco, the American manufacturer of machinery and cloth
ing — ^who fails to put America where she may command that
trade. General Good: Take the witness, Col. Agi-Tate.
Col. Agi-Tate: Senator Beveridge, you would have this
government depart from the counsels of its founders and
from our Constitution and enter upon a policy of imperialism,
would you?
A. The founders of the nation knew that the republic they
were planting must, in obedience to the laws of our expanding
race, necessarily develop into the greater republic which the
world beholds to-day, and into the still mightier republic
which the world will finally acknowledge as the arbiter, under
God, of the destinies of mankind. And so our fathers wrote
into the Constitution these words of growth, of expansion,
unlimited by geography or climate, or by anything but the
vitality and possibilities of the American people, "Congress
shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United
States." This power is admitted in the case of Florida, Louisi
ana, Alaska. How, then, is it denied in the Philippines? Is
there a geographical interpretation to the Constitution? Do
degrees of longitude fix Constitutional limitations? Does a

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 243
thousand miles of ocean diminish Constitutional power more
than a thousand miles of land? No; the oceans are not lim
itations of the power Which the Constitution expressly gives
Congress to govern all territory the nation may acquire.
Q. But, Senator, do you not believe that governments de
rive "their just powers from the consent of the governed?"
A. ' "Consent" means the understanding of the thing to
which the consent is given; and there are people in the world
who do not understand any form of government. And yet
these people who are not capabale of "consenting" to any
form of government must be governed. The Declaration of
Independence contemplates all forms of government which
secure the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness; self-government, when that will best secure
these ends, as in the case of people capable of self-government;
other appropriate forms when people are not capable of self-
government. The authors of the Declaration themselves gov
erned the Indian without his consent; the inhabitants of
Louisiana without their consent; and, ever since, the sons of
the makers of the Declaration have been governing not by
theory, but by practice, after the fashion of our governing
race, now by one form, now by another, but always for the
purpose of securing the great, eternal ends of life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness, in the civilized meaning of those terms
— life according to orderly methods of civilized society; liberty
regulated by law; pursuit of happiness limited by the pursuit
of happiness by every other man.
Q. Do you justify this prolonged war with the Filipinos by
the plea that it is in the cause of humanity?
A. American opposition to the war has been the chief
factor in prolonging it. Had Aguinaldo not understood that
in America, even in- the American Congress, he and his cause

244 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
were supported; had he not known that it was proclaimed on
the stump and in the press of a faction in the United States,
that every shot his misguided followers fired into the breasts
of American soldiers was like the volleys fired by Washing
ton's men against the soldiers of King George, his insurrection
would have dissolved before it entirely crystallized.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: The Honorable Theodore Eoosevelt, Gov
ernor of New York, is my next witness .
General Good: Governor, are you an advocate of the doe-
trine of expansion?
Governor Eoosevelt: I am. Every expansion of a great,
civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteous
ness. In every instance of expansion during the present cen
tury the result proved that the expanding power was doing
a great and important duty to civilization.*
Q. Will you explain more fully?
A. Take the case of France and Algiers. During the early
decades of the present century, piracy of the most dreadful
description was rife in the Mediterranean and thousands of
civilized men were yearly dragged into slavery by the Moorish
pirates. Our own country was one among the civilized powers
which paid blood money to the Moslem bandits of the sea.
France expanded over Algiers, and the result was that piracy
. in the Mediterranean came to an end, and Algiers has thriven
as never before in its history.
On an even larger scale the same thing is true of England
^nd the Soudan. The expansion of England throughout the
whole Nile valley has been an incalculable gain for civiliza
tion.

• From a published address.

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 245
Again, the Eussian advances in Asia have meant the cessa
tion of the barbarous warfare under which Asian civilization
had steadily withered away since the days of Gengis Khan and
the substitution in its place of a reign of peace and order.
All civilization has been the gainer by this expansion.
In North America, as elsewhere, the expansion of the civ
ilized nation has invariably meant the growth of the area in
which peace is nominal throughout the world.
Q. You think the same results will follow the annexation
of the Philippines?
A. I do. The. same will be true of the Philippines. We,
will establish therein a suitable and orderly government so
that one more fair spot of the world's surface shall have been
snatched from the throes of darkness.
General Good: That is all. Governor.
Col. Agi-Tate: Governor, you are an advocate then of war
and not of peace. You were not in sympathy with the senti
ment prompting the Peace Conference at The Hague?
Governor Eoosevelt: It is only the war-like power of a
civilized people that can give peace to the world.
I am among those who believe that much was accomplished
at the Peace Conference at The Hague, and I am proud of the
leading position taken by our delegates. Incidentally I may
mention that the testimony is unanimous that they were able
to take this leading position largely because we had just
emerged victorious from our most righteous war with Spain.
Every expansion of civilization makes for peace.
Q. Do you uphold the war waged to bring into subjection
a weak race struggling for liberty?
A. Foolish sentimentalists like those who write little
poems in favor of the Mahdists against the English and who
now write little essays in favor of Aguinaldo against the

246 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Americans, celebrated the Algerian free-booters as heroes who
were struggling for liberty against the invading French.
The barbarous will yielded only to force. ' Back of every
force must come fair dealing if the peace is to be permanent.
But without force the establishment of fair dealing was im
possible. In our history we have had more trouble from the Indian
tribes whom we pampered and petted than from those we
wronged. The fact that nowadays barbarians recede or are conquered,
with the attendant fact that peace follows their retrogression
or conquest, is due solely to the power of the mighty civilized
races which, by their expansion, are gradually bringing peace
into red wastes where the barbarian peoples of the world held
sway. Q. Do you not recognize that your doctrine of expansion
may result in the decline of our republican institutions?
A. Nations that expand, and nations that do not expand,
may both ultimately go down; but the one leaves heirs and a
glorious memory, and the other leaves neither. The Eoman
expanded and he has left a memory which has profoundly in
fluenced the history of mankind. He has further left as the
heirs of his tongue and culture the so-called Latin peoples
of Europe and America.
It is the great expanding peoples which bequeath to future
ages the great memories and material results of their achieve
ments. Q. Do you not think we should recognize the Filipinos as
an independent nation?
A. If we were to leave the Philippines and put the Ag-
uinaldan oligarchy in control of these islands, we should
merely throw them over to rapine and bloodshed until some

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 247
stronger, manlier power stepped in to do the task we had
shown ourselves fearful to perform.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: I will ask Hon. John Barrett to take the
witness box.
Q. YoiT were formerly United States Minister to Siam,
were you not?
Mr. Barrett: I was.
Q. I believe you were a personal friend of Major General
Lawton? A. He was an intimate friend of mine.
Q. Did you receive a letter from General Lawton regard
ing the Philippine war?
A. I did.
Q. 'When was the letter written?
A. The letter was written from his camp at the front in
November last.
Q. Did Gen. Lawton express any opinion as to the effect
on the war of American anti-imperialist sentiment?
A. He did.
Q. Will you kindly produce this letter?
A. (Mr. Barrett hands the letter to General Good.)
General Good: (Eising) If your Honor please, I desire
to introduce this letter in evidence. I will return it to the
witness and aslc him to read it.
Col. Agi-Tate: If your Honor please, I wish to see that
letter before it is read. (General Good hands letter to Col.
Agi-Tate, who reads it and, rising, says) Your Honor, I ob
ject to the admission of this letter. There is nothing to show
that it is genuine. In fact, it is altogether probable that it is
a forgery. It is not sworn to and is entirely inadmissible.
This is not the first attempt of those who are thirsting for

248 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Empire to make evidence that will support their infamous
scheme. From the President down, all through the line of
officers and men, there has been a deliberate attempt to de
ceive the people about the conduct of the war. Even the
Commissioners appointed by the President have felt it neces
sary to bias their reports and falsify facts in order to support
the authority that appointed —
Dr. Eeasoner (rising and gesticulating): Your Honor, I
can not sit still and hear this unprecedented language. It is
the language of treason, and the man who can uttf'F it is a
traitor. I —
Col, Agi-Tate: Your Honor, I object-
General Good: Your Honor, it is —
Dr. Eeasoner: I claim —
The Court (rapping vigorously): Gentlemen, we must
have order. I must admonish the juror that it is not proper
for him to interrupt unless for the purpose of getting in
formation on some point that is not understood.
Dr. Eeasoner: Will the Court accept my apology and
pardon me? It was because I could not understand how any
American citizen, worthy the name, could utter such senti
ments, that 1 interrupted the plaintiff's counsel. I know I
was out of order, however, and therefore I apologize for the
interruption. The Court: Proceed, General Good.
General Good: Your Honor, Mr. Barrett can testify as to
the genuineness of this letter. Mr. Barrett, is there any
doubt on this point?
Mr. Barrett: None whatever, sir. It is from Gen. Eaw-
ton to me. It is genuine.
General Good: You Honor, we oifer this letter in evi-
dence to show —

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 249
Col. Agi-Tate: I object, your Honor.
General Good: Counsel objects, not because he doubts
the identity of the writer of the letter, but because it con
tains most damaging testimony against his cause. This brave
American soldier can not now be summoned in person to tes
tify here. He has fallen and a grateful nation has been pay
ing loving tribute to his splendid virtues. His heroic deeds
are found recorded in the most thrilling chapters of history,
and in the light of this prophetic letter, we may see much to
deplore besides his death.
Col. Agi-Tate: Your Honor, this is the rant of a dema
gogue. He seeks to w^ork upon the sympathies of the jury by
eulogizing the dead. He —
General Good: Your Honor, I desire the words of plain
tiff's counsel to stand as his own rebuke now and his con
demnation hereafter. Treason is a hard word, but, sir, I am
willing to let the jury define the language and attitude of this
man who spits upon the fiag that protects him, and would
here deny the testimony of as brave a soldier as ever died
defending that flag.
Col. Agi-Tate (rising): You may be protected in your in
solence here, but not elsewhere.
General Good: Your threat only confirms my opinion of
you. I am ready to repeat elsewhere what I say here!
(Col. Agi-Tate advances toward General Good, who meets
his threat with a smile of contempt.)
The Court: Silence! I warn you now that any further
language or demonstration of this kind will receive the re
buke it justly deserves.
General Good: Your Honor, so far as I am concerned,
I accept the rebuke now, and apologize. What I desire is
sample justice. This letter X pffer in evidence is genuine.

250 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
It is the voluntary testimony of a soldier beloved and believed
by all patriotic Americans — a soldier who is the type of the
brave boys who are upholding their country's fiag against re
bellion abroad and treason at home.
Col. Agi-Tate: And again, I most earnestly object.
The Court: The objection is overruled.
General Good: Now, your Honor, I here offer in evidence
this letter written by Gen. Lawton to Mr. John Barrett.
(Mr. Barrett reads:) "I would to God that the truth of this
whole Philippine situation could be known by every one in
America as I know it. If the real history, inspiration, and.
conditions of this insurrection, and the influences, local and
external, that now encourage the enemy, as well as the actual
possibilities of these islands and peoples and their relations to
this great East, could be understood at home, we would hear
no more talk of unjust 'shooting of government' into the
Filipinos, or of hauling down our flag in the Philippines.
"If the so-called anti-imperialists would honestly ascertain
the truth on the ground and not in distant America, they,
whom I believe to be honest men misinformed, would be con
vinced of the error of their statements and conclusions and of
the unfortunate effect of their publications here.
"If I am shot by a Filipino bullet, it might as well come
from one of my own men, because I Icnow from observation
confirmed by captured prisoners that the continuance of
fighting is chiefly due to reports that are sent out from
America."* General Good: Your Honor and gentlemen of the jury,
I call your special attention to the closing paragraph of this
letter. "If I am shot," he says, "by a Filipino bullet, it

• Published in Outlook and other journals.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 251
might as well come from one of my own men." 'Why, gentle
men of the jury? "Because," he adds, "I know from ob
servation, conflrmed by captured prisoners, that the continu
ance of fighting is chiefiy due to reports that are sent out
from America." What these reports are, he explains in the
preceding paragraphs of his letter. Your Honor, if these are
words of truth and prophecy, then the death of brave Lawton
and of many other brave American soldiers, is due to that
which caused the continuance of that fighting. I know not
what men may do, but, your Honor, it is something to know
that the righteous judgment of the Almighty will place the
responsibility where it belongs — Yes! (turning to Col. Agi-
Tate) He will place the awful responsibility of the death of
Lawton, and many other brave soldiers, where it belongs!
That will do, Mr. Barrett.
Col. Agi-Tate: Mr. Barrett, you are willing to testify
under oath that this letter you have just read was written
by Gen. Lawton'or by his dictation, are you?
Mr. Barrett: I am.
Col. Agi-Tate: Can you tell me what reason he had for
saying that the continuance of the fighting was due to Ameri
can sentiment favorable to the Filipinos?
Mr. Barrett: I suppose the reason he had for saying so
was the knowledge he had that it was so.
Col. Agi-Tate: Then it is merely a matter of supposition
on your part, is it?
Mr. Barrett: I think the letter speaks for itself so plainly
that it matters little to the jury or any one else whether I
suppose or absolutely know his reason for saying what he
did say.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: General Funston will take the stand.

252 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
Q. General Funston, you served in the Philippine war as
Colonel of the Twentieth Kansas Volunteers?
Gen. Funston: Yes sir.
Q. Tlien you chose to return to the Philippines after hav
ing come home from there, did you not?
A. I did.
Q. What was your motive in so doing?
A. I felt it was my duty to give the Government the
benefit of my experience, and help end the war. as speedily
as possible. I firmly believe if the right policy is adopted
the war in the Philippines will close within a few months.
I am in favor of an aggressive war against the insurgents,
not necessarily with brutality, but one which will give the
Filipinos no rest and will convince the men in the field as
well as the noncombatants that we are determined to con
quer them, no matter what the cost, and that we will not
rest until this is achieved.
Q. Gen. Funston, what is your estimate of the character
of the Filipinos?
A. The Filipino natives have no idea of honor. In our
fighting with them, they violated all the rules of civilized
warfare, and they knew perfectly what they were violating.
They would bring forward a fiag of truce, and when our
men went forward with the same fiag, the insurgents would
fire upon them. This treachery became so common as to
excite no comment, yet in return our men were wonderfully
kind and considerate to their wounded and prisoners.''"'
Q. You consider then. General, that our war in the
Philippines has been a humane one?
A. In my experience in eighteen engagements, I never
saw any cruelty shown by our troops, while every battle fur-
* la Harper's Weekly.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 190a 253
nished instances of American soldiers risking their lives to
save Filipino wounded, and taking great pains to see that
suffering natives were given prompt medical attendance. It
was the testimony of all the foreign military experts that
were on the fields that this was the most humane war against
a half civilized people that the world ever saw. The stories
of brutality of a number of volunteers, were sent out by cor
respondents, whom no one knew either in Manila or on the
firing line. As for the soldiers who tell such tales, they are
simply liars.
Q. General, in your opinion are the Filipinos flt for self-
government? A. In my opinion it is foolish to talk of giving the
Filipinos self-government after we have whipped them. They
are not a homogenous people, but a collection of tribes,
differing in race, religion and language. They are children
so far as any familiarity with independent government is
concerned. My knowledge of Spanish permitted me to get
at first hand the opinions of some of Aguinaldo's chief
lieutenants, and of other men who were regarded as leaders
of the natives. None of these men had any well defined ideas
in regard to the government that they desired to set up.
They were united on one thing, only; to expel the friars and
seize their property for the revenue it would bring them;
but they apparently had not considered the currency, tariff,
revenue or any other problems of practical government.
Q. What form of government should be instituted in the
Philippines when peace is restored, in your opinion?
A, My opinion is that we should have a Governor with
practically autocratic powers, and he should be a man like
Leonard Wood in Cuba, with great administrative ability and
absolutely honest. Only in this way will we get good results.

254 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
If the political hangers on, who have a pull are allowed to
go out in subordinate capacities, we may expect scandals that
will be a national disgrace. With a strong military force to
compel obedience at the start, the country may be well gov
erned. It may be advisable to permit the Filipinos some
representative body, but to give them self-government is
impossible. They have some crude ideas of popular govern
ment, but have had neither training nor opportunity to
assimilate these ideas.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: I pass.
General Good: I will next call Major-General Joseph
Wheeler of Alabama.
General Good: General 'Wheeler, you were in the Philip
pines for a short time, were you not?
General Wheeler: I was.
Q. From your personal knowledge of existing affairs what
do you think would be the result of the withdrawal of our
army now?
A. I am confident that if we should withdraw our army
now Aguinaldo could not hold himself in power without
carrying on warfare with other tribes and this would cause
a constant turmoil and warfare for years. For us to with
draw our army now would be criminal and for such an act
we would be arraigned and denounced by the civilized nations
of the earth. *
General Good: That is all. General.
Col. Agi-Tate: No cross-examination. General.
General Good: I will call as my next witness, Mr. Clark
Howell, of Atlanta, Georgia, editor of that well-known news-

• Published interview.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 255
paper of that wonderful southern city, the Atlanta Consti
tution. General Good: Mr. How'ell, how are the interests of the
South affected by the acquisition of the Philippines?
Mr. Howell: To the South -there is a very practical feature
of the Philippine question. The industrial development of
no section of the country has been more marked during the
last few years than in the South, where the staple cotton was
once king; but where the manufactured cotton product now
divides the scepter. *
With the phenomenal development of Asiatic demand for
cotton goods, and the steadily increasing facilities of the
South to supply it, we can reasonably expect an outcome
which, at no distant day, will fall but little short of the
weaving by the factories of our country of practically the
total output of American bales; and figuring only upon the
increased demands sufficient to justify a modest wardrobe of
not more than one cotton suit to each Filipino, we have in
this item alone a return which would very soon meet the
cash cost of the islands, and-, in addition, an investment of
incalculable wealth to the cotton industry of our country.
We have as yet but touched the borders of Asiatic trade,
and with anything like a fair basis for operation, giving us
a vantage ground from which we can participate in the fruits
of that newly opening market, we may look confidently to the
day when the South, taking her sister states of other sections
by the hand, will point to her overflowing apron of riches,
and lead the joyful chorus that sings the nation's wealth.
Q. Mr. Howell, you have heard the testimony of the prose
cution against the policy of the Administration in the Philip^

* Address delivered at Buffalo, New York.

256 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
pines. Does that seem to you to indicate the popular senti
ment of our people?
A, If I thought for a moment that such expression em
bodied anything like a popular sentiment, I would feel con
cern for the honor of our country and the security of its
government. Firm, however, in the faith of our fathers and
impressed with the view that public sentiment, when fully
aroused, seldom goes wrong, I prefer to take such manifesta
tions as the morbid and aggravated sentiment of a hopeless
and thoughtless element, which no more measures the patriot
ism of our masses than a grain of sand in the hour glass
measures eternity.
General Good: That will do.
CoL Agi-Tate: Mr. Howell, you base yoUr support of a
colonial policy, then, upon the commercial advantages to be
derived therefrom?
A. I do not. To teach a correct solution of this momen
tous problem we must approach its discussion not solely with
the view of ascertaining what is best for us to do from a
selfish standpoint; but also with the broader and more com
prehensive recognition of our duty to ourselves, to the Fili
pinos, and of the obligation imposed upon us by Providence
to the rest of the civilized world.
The span of our century has marked the extension of our
national domain from the Atlantic seaboard across the blue
ranges of the Alleghenies to the fertile valleys of the Missis
sippi and its tributaries; beyond the naked plains of the west,
over the rugged peaks of the Eockies, into the fruit-laden
cups of the Sierras — and yet we are not half way to the dis
tant extremity over which the stars and stripes now fioat.
Our outposts, still looking westward, peer through the dark
ness of the ages and meet at the day line the pickets of

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 257
European civilization and education where paganism, chaos
and ignorance have held full swfty. We shotild turn our
faces to the future with renewed hope and with renewed
strength to discharge .the obligations with which the all--\^ise
Creator has invested us.
Q. Do you realize the cost in human blood and btirdens
of heavy taxation that must result from a colonial policy?
A. There are burdens to bear, it is trUe, but what nation
is without them, or will be free from them, until the ideal
Arcadia is materialized? A prospect of which even the new
century does not give promise.
Q. Do you not believe that our republican institutions
will be endangered by a policy of expansion and imperialism?
A. Since the organization of the thirteen original states,
each generation has produced some misguided citiizeUs who^
blind to the benefits offered by extension bf national domain,
sought in vain to thwart the march of commercial progress
and check the current of a nation's destiny. Even prior to
the birth of our repnblic, the great Frederick characterized
as absurd the ideas of maintaining an independent forni of
government coveribg so vast a dotnain as that embraced be
tween Maine and Georgia. Every extension of our border
line was met by similar argument, and when the Oregoii
country was under discussion in the forties, a senator with
becoming seriousness, declared that the contemplated annexa
tion would prove a topheavy construction, which would
weaken and crush the tender foundation of the national
fabric. But, one by one, new states were molded from new terri
tory, and the republic built on the hearts of the people,
strengthened in proportion to its growth.

258 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
Q. Do you uphold the war now going on in the Philip*
pines for forcible annexation?
A. I do. I cannot look with indiflerence upon assault
upon our flag, from whomsoever it may come, and whatever
may be the conditions prompting such an attack.
It should be enough for any American citizen to know
that our boys are being killed, our flag is being assailed and
our authority is being defied.
In the Philippines 65,000 American soldiers to-day are
standing in the trenches against the onslaught on our nation
al authority.
Q. Do you think the plea of patriotism justifies us in
maintaining this war when a declaration of our intention to
deal with the Filipinos as with the Cubans would promptly
terminate it?
A. There is room for patriotic difference on expansion of
our boundary lines and the subsequent control of territory
thus acquired. Those who regard the islands as an undesir
able and a burdensome asset should be accorded full sincerity
of motive and honesty of purpose in the expression of their
opinion; but in the present state of affairs they should join
none the less heartily in the patriotic effort of those who
hold a contrary view to sustain the government in its declared
policy of removing the firebrand from the hand of the rev
olutionist before treating with him concerning his future
state. Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: Captain Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N., will
take the stand.
General Good: Captain Mahan, are you in sympathy with
the administration policy in the Philippines?
Captain Mahan: I am.

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 259
Q.. You hold that the Philippines belong indisputably
tons? A. As regards the civilized nations of the world, the
United States holds the Philippines by the unimpeachable
title of successful war, confirmed by a subsequent treaty with
the previous unimpeached possessor.
As regards the inhabitants of the Islands, she finds herself
confronted with the grave question of her technical position
and of political rule transferred to her by treaty. It is a
miserable measurement of the question by advocates or by
opponents to regard it merely as one of interest, although
questions of interest are lawfully necessary parts of the gener
al consideration. The great question before us is one of respon
sibility and duty. The United States is utterly without right,
political, moral or religious to divest herself of the duty of
government of the Philippines.
General Good: That will do.
Col. Agi-Tate: Do you not think the United States gov
ernment should pledge the Filipinos self-government?
A. I believe great will be her mistake if she enter into
antecedent pledge as to the amount of self-government that
will be conceded her. Actions speak louder than promises,
and quite as loud as is necessary. Let her give such privilege
to the utmost attainable, but let her abstain from pledges
which breed disaffection and disappointment, because always
understood to mean more than they say. The question be
tween the United States and the Filipinos — or rather the
Tagals — is not one of the eighth commandment, but rather
of the fifth. It is not a question of our robbing, but of their
obedience to lawful authority.
Col. Agi-Tate: That will do.
General Good: General H. V. Boynton is the next witness.

260 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
General Good: General Boynton, do you know anything
of the genealogy of the Massachusetts anti-imperialists?
General Boynton: Yes, as a man of Massachusetts birth I
know something of her history.
Q. Kindly tell us about them.
A. Some who were formerly patriots, and some of them,
men of renown, have, as you know, organized against what
they are pleased to call imperialism. A friend in Boston as
sures me that the great grandfather of one of the most active
officials in organizing the Anti-Imperialists' League was
ordered out of Boston by General Washington because he was
a Tory; that of his grandfathers, both were opposed to the
war of 1813, and one was in the Hartford convention; that
his father denounced the war with Mexico; and that both he
and his father were Copperheads in the civil war— from which
it would appear that this league is organized strictly on the
merit system. *
Q. What is the ground of their opposition?
A. These gentlemen, as you also know, have discovered
a modern George Washington. Just now he is making a
series of hasty journeys incognito about the island of Luzon,
disguised under the name of Aguinaldo — which in the Vola-
puk of our Boston anti-imperialists signifies George Washing
ton the Second, These patriots burn incense to both the
first Washington and the Boston imitation, and have much
to say against entangling alliances' "empire", and especially
and always about "the consent of the governed".
Q. What have you to say of the genesis of these sup
porters of the doctrine of consent?
A. The landing at Plymouth was an invasion pure and
simple. From the Bradford History, the original of whicli
* Speech at Mich. OJub banquet, Detroit, E^b. 21, 1900.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 261
was discovered a few years since and obtained by Senator
Hoar for the State of Massachusetts after much patriotic
effort, it appears that the first day of the landing an armed
party went out and robbed Indian coaches of their winter
store of corn, and the second day began to shoot Indians who
appeared before them with bows and arrows, One being
fired at, "after taking a full aim at him at half musket shot,
gave," the Bradford record affirms, "a most extraordinary
shriek and ran away with all the rest," and "thus it pleased
God to vanquish their enemies and give them deliverance."
From that day the ancestors of our anti-imperialists with
the Bible under their arm, and the rifle on their shoulder
advanced with praise and song and rifie and sword and torch
to drive out the heathen and perfect their own land titles.
There is not an anti-imperialist in New England whose title
to his real estate, if traced bacli to its source, would not read,
if it told the truth, "Wrested from the Indians by the sword,"
and therefore, without consent.
Q. Can you justify the action of this League on any
ground whatever?
A. None whatever.
Every citizen who has fairness to inform himself of what
the President is striving to accomplish in the shortest possi
ble time knows that it is the establishment of civil rule in
all the islands which we now control by arms. The moment
this can be secured with safety, military rule will cease and
the most beneficent government which this land can furnish
will be set up. But these impractical anti-imperialists insist
upon an immediate lowering of our flag, abandoning the
Philippines — and turning the islands over to anarchy. If
there be unadulterated anarchists anywhere these are they.
Cherishing the memory of Washington's exalted patriotism,

262 THte JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
"let it be said, and let it be said here," to use the words of
Eev. Dr. Stryker, in his unrivaled oration at the funeral of
General Lawton, "that none of us is of those who walk back
ward into the future and translate the present upside down."
General Good: That is all. General.
Col. Agi-Tate: Then you condemn the Pilgrim Fathers,
do you. General?
A. Not at all.
It is not necessary to the argument suggested by these
remarks to condemn the Pilgrims, or eTcn criticise their
course in any degree. My object is to call attention to the
undoubted fact that every New England anti-imperialist
would on the least provocation fly to the defence of their
ancestors and their methods, no matter in what form the
attack might come.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: I will now call to the witness stand Lieu
tenant Horace M. Eeeve, U. S. A., aid de camp of General
J. C. Bates, who was sent to the Sultan of Sulu to make an
agreement between the military authorities of the United
States and that sovereign.
General Good: Lieutenant Eeeve, will you tell us some
thing of the natural conditions of the Sulu islands?
Lieutenant jReeve: In the southern part of the Philippine
archipelago there is a chain of small islands extending in
a southerly direction toward the northern coast of Borneo;
these islands comprise the Sulu Archipelago. These Sulu
islands are numerous but many of the smaller ones are un
inhabited. The climate is better than that of any other
locality in the Philippines, there being practically no rainy
season. All of the islands are beautiful and the Sulu Sea

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 263
which surrounds most of them is usually as quiet as an inland
lake. Besides the ordinary tropical fruits, these islands produce
cocoanut trees in abundance. Each tree, it is estimated, will
clear $1.00 per year for the owner. There are woods of
various kinds, coffee can be grown, rubber is found in one
island and some copper has been discovered. A very fair
brand of cattle is raised. The Sulu Sea contains an abun
dance of fish.
Q. What is the character of the inhabitants?
A. The inhabitants of the Sulu islands are the most
unique people hitherto gathered under the American flag,
or for that matter, under any other flag. Nearly all of them
are Mohammedan Malays, called "Moros" by the Spaniards,
and came originally from Borneo.
The local aristocracy are proud to claim Arabian ancestry.
These Moslems of the Pacific are in close touch with their
religious brethren in the Levant and there are a number of
Moros who have made their pilgrimage to Mecca. The More
is a strict observer of all his religious regulations.
The Moro in physique reminds one of our Apache Indian.
They both possess the same sinewy limbs and are about equal
in stature. But the Moro does not wear long hair. The
costumes of the Moros suggest that of the chorus of a comic
opera. There is another class of Malays called Samars or Bajos,
to be found on certain of the islands. These people live in
boats and are inoffensive, seeking their livelihood by fishing.
In- all of the settlements of the Sulus, one is apt to find,
as elsewh-Cre in this part of the East, as many Chinamen as
the local commerce justifies.
Q. What political system exists?

264 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
A, The political systeni existing among the Moros ap^
pears to be a grotesque and inferior mimicry of Mediaeval
feudalism. Here they have a general ruler or Sultan with
his courtiers, retainers and serfs and in each district or on
each island are other leader?, termed Dattos, similar to the
barons, The question pf high place is fixed by heredity or
by unusual prowess in fighting.
The Moros have practipally never recognized the supremacy
of Spain which country with difficulty maintained a few
garrisons in these isl^-pds; h^t a Spanish soldier unless at
tended by a strong escort, never dared to leave the walls of
the garrison.
The Spanish government during many years, expended
miicji blood ai;d treasure in attempting to suppress and con
trol these wild free-booters,
Q, What was the ipiportance of treaty relations between
the military authorities of the United States and the Sultan
of Sulu?
A. To placate and bring this unruly population under
the American flag was a matter of no small importance,
especially at this period of insurrection in Luzon and in the
Yisayan islands.
These Moros would make foemen not to be despised if
they chose fo ambush American troops in the jungles and
hills of their islands.
In Egypt their brethren with the saine courage have, within
a few years, more than once dashed themselves against British
bayonets with a gallantry unsurpassed.
General Bates was sent to make an agreement with them
to be binding when further ratified by General Otis aiid the
President. It required five weeks of patiepce and tact to
procure the signature of the Sultan,

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 265
Q. . What were the principal points of this agreenient?
A. The supremacy of the United States on land and sea;
the American flag to be flown; non-interference with the
religion and customs of the Moros; the power of slaves to
purchase freedom by the payment of the current price; the
suppression of piracy; the introduction of fire-arms forbidden;
the Moro authorities to have jurisdiction over all pases where
none but Moros are interested; foreigners to be pllow-ed to
purchase land under certain regulations; Americans to be
allowed to travel anywhere in the Sulu archipelago.
A few salaries were stipulated to be paid to the Sultan
and some of the leading Dattos.
General Good: That is all.
Col. Agi-Tate: Lieutenant Eeeve, the sum of $10,000 was
taken to Sulu as a bonus or bribe for the Sultan; was it not?
A. That is a mistake. As I was the disbursing officer of
the mission, I know how much Wf.s expended.
Q. What was the sum?
A. The sum of five thousand dollars was taken to Sulu
to meet contingent expenses, and of this sum about two-
thirds was turned in as unused.
Q. How 'was the other third used?
A. The Sultan having stated that he had been put to
some expense in maintaining a platoon of Sikhs to preserve
order at the town of Siassi, it was estimated that the sum of
seven hundred and fifty dollars would be a fair reimburse
ment, and that sum was placed in Sulu Town, subject to the
Sultan's order. This is the only money transaction which
has as yet taken place between the United States and the
Sultan- In ^ few cases, after leading Dattos had expressed them
selves as desirous of assisting the United States, they were

266 THE JUKY TRIAL OP 1900.
presented with a sum of money; the two principal Dattos each
received three hundred dollars.
Q. "Whj were these sums paid?
A. That law and order has been maintained in these
islands since their ownership by the United States has been
due to the Sultan and his Dattos, and the sums received
were very small for service rendered.
Q. You say the agreement states that the Sultan and some
of his Dattos are to receive yearly salaries; is not this pro
vision in the nature of a bonus?
A. This is not in the nature of a bonus; these men are
responsible for the administration of justice between Moros
and the maintenance of peace. The entire budget does not
add up to the pay of a member of Congress.
Q. Does polygamy exist in the islands?
A. It does.
Q. Then the United States government upholds polygamy
in the Sulus; is not that antagonistic to civilized ideas?
A. Polygamy exists in the islands, being fostered by
Mohammedanism, and it is certainly an institution antagonis
tic to civilized ideas; but it is not a. thing which can be
abolished by a stroke of the pen or by a military expedition.
Its abolition will require time and influences other than mil
itary force.
Q. The Eepublican party in this country brought about
war to stamp out slavery — ^this Administration is upholding
that institution in the Sulus; is it?
A. A kind of slavery exists among the Moros, but the
term slavery in this connection is almost a misnomer. It is
rather a system of serfdom. The lot of the slave is not a
bad one, compared to that of the ordinary Moro. Very little
hard manual labor is performed by any one.

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 267
Slaves accompany their masters everywhere, and appear to
be on terms of familiarity with them. These retainers take
great interest in everything. Some of them were present at
each of the interviews or councils which General Bates held
with the chiefs.
However, slavery in name alone is a bad thing and to give
these persons a chance to attain their own freedom or to allow
it to be purchased for them by the United States, the agree
ment stipulated that slaves should be freed upon the payment
of the current price (the average price of a slave is about $15).
Slaverjr, like polygamy, is an institution that cannot be
abolished in a moment, and there are some people in the
United States who thought that it would have been a just
thing to reimburse the people of our Southern states for their
liberated negroes.
Col. Agi-Tate: That is all.
General Good: I will now call upon Governor Shaw, of
Iowa. General Good: Govemor, you have heard the statement
made that We should abandon the Philippines; what do you
think of the idea?
Gov. Shaw: I will answer that question by a little illus
tration. I have a neighbor who troubles me. For ten, twenty,
forty, yes, for a hundred years, I have heard cries of murder
every night. I have seen fresh blood on the doorstep every
morning. Finally I can bear it no longer, and one morning
I say to my wife that I am going across the street and settle
that little difficulty once and for all. My wife, my children,
and the grandmother in the chimney comer, all tell me for
heaven's sake to go. I do go. I am gone a little while and I
return with an infant on my arm.

268 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
I am sorry! I don't know what to do with the youngster!
But the time for me to have hesitated was before I crossed
the street. The time for me to have been a coward was before
I intervened to settle matters.
I will tell you what I do. I pay an old man $20,000,000 for
a cradle and I am now engaged in quieting that baby. He'll
not eat, he'll do nothing but kick and squall.
I have not yet determined what I am going to do with that
babe, and am not going to decide until he looks up and smiles
and plays with his toes. Then I'll talk with him about the
future. But first he must recognize his benefactor and he
must recognise the pit from which I plucked him. I say
that it has been determined that the babe shall be reconciled.
My boy wants me to let them play marbles together when
the babe is big enough. My wife wants me to take the babe
and raise him. She says we are as rich as Croesus, and that
God has not given us so much wealth for nothing. When the
babe is old enough, she says I can give him some money and
set him up in business for himself. My girl says that she
doesn't like the youngster at all; that she doesn't like his
complexion; it is dirty. She wants me to let any one else
bring him up; no, not any one else, because we would be
responsible if he wasn't well brought up; but we might get
Aunt G^ermany or Sister France or maybe Mother England
to do it. The old grandmother in the chimney corner snaps
out that I had better mind my own business; that I have as
many children now as I can raise; that if I take care of my
own children I will do pretty well, and tells me to put the
babe back where I got him.
In my family, however, no one but an old grandmother
would think of doing a thing like that. What to do, I don't

THB JURY TRIAL OF 190a 269
know. But I shall solve the question when it comes time.
In the meantime I am waiting for the babe to reconcile itself.*
General Good: That is all. Governor.
Col. Agi-Tate; If I understand you. Governor, you would
coerce these helpless people into subjection?
A. We must pacify those islands. We must hold them,
protect them, help them. This is both our duty and our
right. Suppose in Cleveland's Administration, when we had
a little difficulty with England over the VenezuelaJi question
^^— suppose we had come to war. Suppose England had sent
over a fleet and anchored it in ,the St. Lawrence in front of
Quebec, and we before breakfast one morning sent a fleet
there too, and the two fleets had a "bum-bum;" and that after
breakfast the two fleets were still there, one above the water
and the other below. Suppose we had hoisted the American
flag at Quebec and had consummated a treaty at Paris, I do
not say, mind- you, that all Canadians would have to take off
their hats to that American fiag; but I do say that all the sur-
vivors would,
* Address at Michigan Club banquet, Detroit, February 21, 1900.

CHAPTEE V.
The Crier:' Hear ye! Hear ye! ; The Court 'of Public
Opinion is now in session.
The Judge: Proceed with the case.
Col. Agi-Tate: Gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff in this
case brings suit in the name of liberty and humanity. He
appeals in the name of those principles for which the first
settlers came to the New England shores, for which our Eevo
lutionary War was fought, for the perpetuation of which our
Constitution was drafted and by the observance of which, we
have risen as a nation to our present position — in the name
0 fall these he appeals for the ejectment from the Presidential
office of the man who would commit us to a policy of com
mercial greed and imperialism.
Gentlemen of the jury, at the outset, I outlined the charges
that I expected to prove. These charges have been fully es
tablished by the testimony which I will briefly review.
(1) I have shown that the counsel of the founders of our
Eepublic and the great men who have guided its destinies at
critical periods in its history, is on the side of peace and polit
ical isolation and against militarism and participation in the
rivalries of the world's politics.
(2) I have shown that a Eepublic cannot have subjects.
To govern the Fihpinos as colonial subjects would be contrary
to the spirit of our institutions and would make our flag the
symbol of conquest and oppression.
(3) I have shown that we have no right in the Philippines.
This Mr. McKinley himself acknowledged in his message to
Congress of December, 1897. (870)

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. $71
Said he, "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."
But one short year later he seems to have experienced a
change of heart and to have succumbed to the temptation of
the opportunity for foreign markets and empire.
On December 31, 1898, on his own initiative, without the
authority of Congress or the people, more than a month be
fore the Treaty of Paris was ratified by the Senate, he issued
that astounding proclamation to the Filipinos which has been
read in this court room. He gave them choice of "honest
submission" or "forcible annexation."
The proclamation drove them into war with the United
States and it was not only natural but right that they should
go to war against us.
(4) I have shown that for over a year we have been en
gaged in a brutal and unrighteous campaign against a people
to whom we were in debt for assistance against our enemy
Spain, in a war in which we engaged for the very same reason
for which the Filipino is now fighting us.
For one hundred years the Indians of this country were
hunted and killed and driven from pillar to post, wdth the
same idea, and by the same means now being employed by this
country against the natives of the Philippine Islands. And
what has been the result? Granted that the few remaining
red men of this country, who a hundred years ago were num
bered by thousands, are more civilized than were their pro
genitors, yet the Indian, as a race, is almost extinct, and their
extinction is mainly due to the rifle and the shotgun used in
forcing upon them the benefits of a higher civilization. Can
it be denied that they governed themselves long before the
pale face began a war against them which practically ended in

^72 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
their extermination? Such laws as were sufficient for their
needs were enforced in all their tribes, such government as
best fitted them was administered for hundreds of years. If,
then, this country has failed, after hundreds of years and by
the expenditure of countless lives and billions of treasure, in
civilizing and Christianizing a race of people within our bor
ders, and easy of access, what will be the result of the foolish
endeavor to shoot morality and civilization into other semi-
barbarous tribes with Gatling guns and Mauser rifles, 7,000
miles from our shores? Can we expect better or speedier suc
cess in the Philippines than we have had on the flelds and in
the fastnesses of the wild country once owned and peopled by
the aborigines of America? If it required the bloody work of a
. hundred years to subdue the Indians of America and at the
cost of almost wiping them from the face of the earth, how
long will it take to bring into subjection the savage Malay and
the half-civilized Tagalo of the Philippines with an ocean
separating the field of strife, and the base of operations of the
benevolent assimilator? Judging from the present outlook,
the little brown man of the Archipelago, like his half-brother,
the American red man, must first submit to almost total anni
hilation, and then he is ripe for civilization.
No honorable American can uphold the criminal attempt
of American potentates to deprive a weak race of its liberty
already dearly bought from Spanish tyranny.
(5) I have shown that, according to the theory of national
rights established by our Eevolution against England, Spain
had no moral sovereignty in the Philippine Islands to sell to
us. Nor had she any legal sovereignty. Spain was tmable
to conquer Cuba before the war with us had destroyed her
fleets and crippled her resources, and there is no reason to
believe that after such disaster she could have quelled the

THU JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 273
insurrection in the Philippines. Spain having no sovereignty
to sell, we could buy none of her.
Gentlemen of the jury, every day that this nation remains
committed to this policy of imperialism deepens our crime
and shame.
Better America cries out to those who believe we have a
higher destiny than to rob and steal and kill, to take the gov
ernment from an Administration that has betrayed American
traditions, American honor, and American liberty.
Let us examine the testimony that the defendant has here
introduced to defend his course.
He has brought in witnesses to prove that the holding of
the Filipinos as colonial subjects is a divinely ordered re
sponsibility — whether we wish it or not the civilization of
these populous islands has been suddenly laid upon our
shoulders and we must not prove unworthy of the trust;
these islands afford opportunity to provide ourselves with for
eign markets and extend our foreign trade, an opportunity
that may never recur and that our industrial welfare requires
us to improve.
Gentlemen of the jury, his defense sums up into: Blessings
for the peoples absorbed. Duty to the World, Defense of our
Flag and Markets. The first three are but forms of the fourth
— avarice for markets.
Blessings to the peoples absorbed! The same old plea under
which Great Britain seeks to justify her colonial policy and
yet the dealings of England with her lower subject races is a
sturdy proof that civilizing and uplifting are not her ends
except as they increase and strengthen her sources of income. ¦
We believe that any and all people and peoples are capable
of governing themselves. 'While the Filipino government
could not be compared to our own, it has been sufficient for

274 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
their needs, and to try to put them on a higher plane would
but prove a disappointment. If the defendant would bless
these people, he should give them independence and at the
same time protect them from the interference or aggression
of other powers.
Gentlemen of the jury, the blessing will be to our capital
ists. Do capitalists go out into the world to bless?
We have had some opportunities to uplift the lowly in the
Southern Blacks and in the Indians and the results do not in
dicate that we have a genius for elevating inferior races.
Duty to the World! Another plea worn thread-bare by
European Powers in justification of unholy aggression.
This argument of our duty to the world in the civilization
of lower races has been cunningly handled by those whose
motive is commercial greed. They gain their point through
an appeal to the conscience of the nation and then when the
policy is approved and laws passed by which the commercial-
ists can go ahead and do what they please, they announce that
humanity in that particular instance would be wasted. This
will be our experience.
The commercialist will pronounce the doctrine of total
savage depravity and will proceed upon the principle always
applied by capitalists to inferior labor — long hours, and petty
remuneration. What is left of the natives after this course will be turned
over to the missionaries for Christianization.
Defense of the Flag! When that flag stands for conquest
and oppression, it is unworthy of defense. "While we honor
the brave men fighting under orders in a distant clime f"'" our
flag, we do not honor those whose sordid policy compels vis-
tims to tropical disease and Filipino bullets.
Our flag cannot stand for democracy here and imperialism

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 275
in the Philippines. In this war we must see ourselves in the
English mirror.
Markets! Here indeed, gentlemen of the jury, we find the
motive for the Administration Philippine policy. The mar
kets of China and the East are tempting and the people of
the United States must be committed to a policy of mil
itarism in order that the proprietor, speculator and capitalist
may be protected in the accumulation of wealth!
Let us not be deceived, gentlemen of the jury, by all this
hypocritical pretense of anxiety for the moral, social and in
tellectual exaltation of the natives; all this parade of respon
sibility and deep-seated purpose. These newly acquired ter
ritories are desired for trade, commerce, power, and the money
there is in them.
The great masses of the people must bear the burden of
heavy taxation necessitated by an expensive colonial policy
and a vast navy and must also suffer the evils to their in
dustrial condition incident to the competition of millions of
cheap laborers.
We have come to the "parting of the ways," gentlemen of
the jury. Let us turn aside from glittering dreams of world
wide empire and hold fast to the old Eepublic that has sur
vived the shock of foreign and even civil war. If we would
preserve the force of our Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution and perpetuate our democratic institutions, we
must eject from the seat of power the man and the party
that would commit the nation to a policy of imperialism.
General Good: In this court room, gentlemen of the jury,
has been enacted a memorable contest. We have witnessed,
as it were, two centuries, two eras, personified by the plaintiff
and defendant, meet and cross swords.
The plaintiff holding fast to the past and clinging narrowly

276 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
to its traditions, has battled to overthrow the champion of the
new idea, the new century, the new era of a broader national
life. Traditionalism has arrayed itself against progress. It is
yours, gentlemen of the jury, to award the laurel wreath of
victory. You have heard both sides and I feel confident
that when you have weighed and considered the testimony
offered and the arguments presented, your verdict will be
given for expansion, for growth, for throwing down the walls
of prejudice and going out to the sea to make, build, and up
lift. The defendant, gentlemen of the jury, stands for progress
and the awakening of the American people to the oppor
tunities and duties of, the hour.
We have presented evidence to overthrow the contentions
of the plaintiff and our witnesses have traversed the whole
range of the Philippine question — in its commercial aspect,
its possibilities as an empire, as to the history of the pending
war, the character and capability of the people themselves,
the traditional attitude of the United States, the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution.
If ridicule were fact and sneers argument the plaintiff
would have both fact and argument with him; for he loses
no opportunity to ridicule exalted patriotism and to sneer
at the high motives of those who attempt to do good to
others. With him there is no such thing as disinterested
benevolence. Everything is brought down to the low and
humiliating level of what he terms "commercial greed". We
must not try to help these people because they cannot be
raised to the level of our own civilization. Such an argu
ment is the personification of stupidity.
We are charged with bending everything to secure per-

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 277
sonal advantage-markets. This is a base and unworthy
charge. At the same time I wish to say — and to say with
emphasis — ^that it is one of the solemn obligations of govern
ment to provide its citizens with markets — a maxim which
the- democrat party has yet to learn. They should learn also
that trade and commerce is one of the most potent and
powerful influences in uplifting and civilizing mankind.
Sneer at commerce? Commerce has lifted the nations from
barbarism! Commerce sharpens the edge of intellect! Com
merce has been a great uplifting influence since the dawn of
civilization! Gentlemen of the jury, notwithstanding sneers, we
stand for the doctrine of the duty of the superior races
of the world toward the inferior and for the practical mission
of the white man who has a burden to carry, as against the
narrow, self-contained, and selfish policy of the oiDposition,
which would allow these unblessed people to forever remain
in darkness, tore by civil feuds and strife.
The plaintiff has attempted to prove that the policy of the
founders of the Eepublic, and especially the counsel of
Thomas Jefferson, was contrary to that which has guided
the course of the President in the matter of the Philippines.
That is not true.
"V\Tiatever may have been the abstract theories of the Sage
of Monticello upon the proper limits of any proposed exten
sion of territory, it must not be forgotten that the Louisiana
purchase of 1803 was made during the presidency of Thomas
Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson himself strongly urged this purchase, and
in the debates preceding that first great step in territorial
expansion, the full force of his constructive statesmanship

278 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
was in support of the acquisition of a territory as distant and
a people as alien as are the Philippines to-day.
Deeds are more than words, and the acts of Thomas Jeffer
son place him on record in history as an expansionist — one
of the greatest expansionists the world has ever known.
My brother says we should treat the Filipinos as we are
treating the Cubans^ — we should help them frame a republican
form of government, relinquish sovereignty to them, and
simply protect them against foreign aggression.
This is the dream of a theorist who knows nothing of the
capacity of the Filipinos. A republican form of government
presupposes capacity for self-government. The inhabitants of
the Philippines are not, as yet, the material of which a self-
ruling nation must be composed. The better educated among
them are quick and intelligent, yet with that native treachery
and desire to overreach which is a race characteristic of the
Mala-y. The vast mass of the people are utterly ignorant.
They are accustomed to being under tutelage. It will take
years to educate even the best of them into the American
idea of freedom and self-government, and the greatest calam
ity that eould befall them would be to throw them at once
upon their own feeble resources in this matter. With the
Philippines the United States will be just and even generous.
It will confer responsibility as soon and as fast as they can
carry it.
The plaintiff contends that the Treaty of Paris is void be
cause we purchased from Spain something she had already
lost. He does not seem to object to our retention of Puerto
Eico, which we obtained by the same treaty that gave us the
Philippines. He does not apparently object to the retention
of Hawaii, obtained by annexation, although in both cases the

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 279
territory is not contiguous to our own, but separated from us
by miles of sea.
We have shown that the Philippines are rightfully ours and
that it is our duty to civilization to quell the insurrection
now in progress there, and then to establish a just government
under which these people and their islands may play their
part in the world's progress.
The plaintiff has urged against the present war that it is a
tax upon our people. Americans do not measure duty by
financial standards, and no mighty work for our own selves,
for the world or for humanity, has ever been done with ease.
Gentlemen of the jury, this Philippine question involves the
whole subject of the relation of the white race to the control
and development of the tropics.
The really important and far-reaching historical events of
the past two centuries have been the struggles for the posses
sion of those regions of the world where the white race can
work and live permanently.
Territorial expansion has been the law of the life of the
American republic. This last expansion, which has led us to
the Philippine Islands, is a summons to make our fiag, which
is already the symbol of irresistible power, the star of promise
and the emblem of benediction to all the oppressed peoples of
the benighted Orient. The nineteenth century has been a
wonderful century — a miracle. What is the token of this
wonderful century? I say in a word, expansion, a boundless
extension of human knowledge and a vast enlargement of
human power.
The great struggle of the future is already upon us. It is
for the inheritance of the tropics, not indeed for their posses
sion in the ordinary sense of the word; but for the control of
these regions according to high standards.

280 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
We have introduced testimony to show the importance to
our own industrial condition of the trade with the tropics.
In addition to the home market, we now need the markets
jf the world. Science, invention, and manufacturing have all
expanded together. Our power of production having outrun
our capacity to consume, and being all the time on the in
crease, and the old markets of the world being glutted by the
products of all civilized nations, what new outlets are there for
our waxing productivity, what new fields for the reception of
the surplus commodities we multiply so rapidly and at a con
stantly declining cost? The life of the nation in no small
degree depends on the answer. The only peoples who have
not reached the manufacturing stage, the only peoples who do
not compete with us in their own markets, are the vast popu
lations of South America, Africa, and especially of Asia.
Shall we withdraw from these markets in favor of Europe?
That is the question. Shall we surrender to others that
which is rightfully our own? Shall we close our eyes to a
great national advantage?
These regions embrace some of the richest territories on
the earth's surface; but they are territories as yet, for the
greater part undeveloped. It is in an interchange of com
modities between these regions and those occupied at present
by white peoples that it is possible to have permanently op
erative on the largest scale upon which it could be made op
erative in the world, the great natural principle underlying
all trade, i. e., that 'the interchange of products between
peoples and regions possessing different natural capacities,
tends to be mutually advantageous.
Over a considerable portion of these regions at present,
there exists a state of anarchy or of primitive savagery in

THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 281
which no attempt is made or can be made to develop the nat
ural resources lying ready at hand.
The complex life of the modern world must rest more and
more upon the production of the tropics.
During the nineteenth century the energies of the western
peoples have been mainly absorbed in the development and
civilization of vast territories in the temperate zone. Neither
the conditions of commerce nor industry under which this
development has proceeded can be expected to continue. The
development of industrialism, an increased capacity for out
put, a tendency to keener competition with diminisliing
profits, will drive the more advanced peoples to seek new
outlets for their activities.
A great natural field of enterprise remains in the develop
ment of the tropics, and the peoples of the temperate zone
will be subject to a gradually increasing pressure to turn their
attention thereto.
The United States has not hitherto extended her rule into
the tropics; but the entire drift of policy and events among
the English speaking peoples for the last two hundred years
convinces us that we must embark before it is too late, in a
policy of expansion and become a world power.
The temperate regions have been occupied; there remain
the tropics and the great question of the time is the ultimate
relation of the white man to the tropics.
Gentiemen of the jury, we must recognize the utter folly
of a policy based on a conception that it will be possible in
the future to stand aloof from the tropics. We have no
choice in the matter. The filling up of the temperate zone
and the development of industrialism will drive us into
rivalry for the trade of the tropics.
The tropics will never be developed by the natives them-

282 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
selves. Such a development, as by force of circumstances
must come, can only take place under the influence of the
white man, and we are facing a much greater issue than any
mere question of commercial policy or of natural selfishness.
Gentlemen of the jurjr, we are in the Philippines in the
name of civilization and we should hold them as a trust for
civilization. No more enduring responsibility has ever been laid upon
a civilized nation than that which presents itself to us in
the matter of our future relations to the Orient.
If we do not m^ean to shirk the grave responsibility, if we
mean tp stand for progress, for higher ideals of humanity,
for a higher type of social honor, we must uphold the policy
of the Administration. Consider calmly the policy of the
President, which our officers followed by sea and land. His
tory will say that it has been firm, consistent, and humane
from the beginning. No false hopes were held out. From
the dispatch of May 36 onward the attitude of our Govern
ment was clear and unmistakable. But every real hope,
every proper promise, was freely offered and never violated.
There are many duties imposed upon a President in which
it is easy to imagine a personal or selfish motive, in which
such motives might exist even if they do not. But here even
the most malignant must be at a loss to find the existence
of a bad motive possible. Suddenly at the end of the Spanish
war we were confronted with the question of what should be
done with the Philippines. Their fate was in our hands.
We were all able to discuss them and to speculate as to 'v^at
-should be done. No responsibility rested upon us. But one
man had to act. While the rest of the world was talking he
had to be doing. The iron hand of necessity was upon his
shoulder, and upon his alone. Act he must. No man in,

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 283
that high office seeks new burdens and fresh responsibilities
or longs to enter on new policies with the unforeseen dangers
which lie thick along untried paths. Every selfish motive,
every personal interest, cried out against it. Every selfish
motive, every personal interest, urged the President to let
the Philippines go, and, like Gallio, to care for none of these
things. It was so easy to pass by on the other side. But
he faced the new conditions which surged up around him.
When others then knew little he Imew much. Thus he came
to see what duty demanded, duty to ourselves and to others.
Thus he came to see what the interests of the American
people required. Guided by this sense of duty, by the spirit
of the American people in the past, by a wise sta-tesmanship,
which looked deeply into the future, he boldly took the
islands. Since this great decision his policy has been firm
and consistent. He has sought only what was best for the
people of those islands and for his own people. It is all
there in the record. Yet although he fought in his youth
for liberty and union, he is now coarsely accused of infatua
tion for a vulgar Caesarism. He who is known to everybody
as one of the kindest of men, eager to do kindly acts to
everyone, is denounced as brutal and inhuman to a distant
race whom he has sought in every way to benefit. "When
every selfish interest drew him in the other direction he has
been charged with self-seeking for following the hard and
thorny path of duty.
I hesitate, gentlemen of the jury, in saying even as much
as I have said. The President ofthe United States needs
no defense at my hands. His own policy and his own acts
in the East are his all-sufficient defense, both now and in
history. But I have heard with amazement and regret the
attacks which have been made upon the President in con-

284 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
nection with the Philippines. I am well aware that malig
nity can not raise imbecility above contempt. I know that
only weak minds and bad tempers mistake abuse for argu
ment. I am sure that it is needless to repel attacks from
such sources. But, none the less, as one who has followed
and studied all the details of his Eastern policy, I wish to
make public record of my admiration for that policy and
of my belief in it. As an American I believe it to be
at once courageous, wise, and patriotic. The words of criti
cism or of praise which we utter here will pass with the hour
of speech, but the great facts of the last two years will stand.
In the long process of the patient years those who now assail
the President with epithet and imputation will shrink down
beyond the ken of even the antiquarian's microscope. But
the name of the President who took the Philippines and
planted our fiag at the portals of the East will stand out
bright and clear upon the pages of history, where all men
may read it, and he will have a monument better than any
reared by human hands in fair and fertile islands blooming
after long neglect and in a race redeemed from tyranny and
lifted up to broadening freedom and to larger hopes.
I do not believe that this nation was raised up for nothing.
I do not believe that it is the creation of blind chance. I
have faith that it has a great mission in the world — a mission
of good, a mission of freedom. I believe that it can live up
to that mission; therefore I want to see it step forward boldly
and take its place at the head of the nations. I wish to see
it master of the Pacific. I would have it fulfill what I think
is its manifest destiny if it is not false to the laws which govern
it. I am not dreaming of a primrose path. I know well
that in the past we have committed grievous mistakes and
paid for them, done wrong and made heavy compaasation

THE JURY TRIAL OF 190a 285
for it, stumbled and fallen and suffered. But we have always
risen, bruised and grimed sometimes, yet still we have risen
stronger and more erect than ever, and the march has always'
been forward and onward. Onward and forward it will still
be, despite stumblings and mistakes as before, while we are
true to ourselves and obedient to the laws which have ruled
our past and will still govern our future. But when w-c begin
to distrust ourselves, to shrink from our own greatness, to
shiver before the responsibilities which come to us, to retreat
in the face of doubts and difficulties, then indeed peril will
be near at hand. I would have our great nation always able
to say: It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.*
* General Good here quotes from Henry Cabot Lodge. [Congressional
Becord, March 7, 1900.]

CHAPTEE VI.

The Charge of the Judge to the Jnry.
The Judge: Gentlemen of the jury, if this were a case
-involving simply the life, liberty or property of a single
individual, you would still be bound to give it your most
impartial and painstaking consideration. But it is a case
which involves much more than the welfare of any single in
dividual. Upon your action depends the prosperity and the
well-being of the whole people of this Nation. Every man,
woman, and child in this country is interested in your verdict;
for it will affect them all, either for good or for ill. It is in
your power to confer great blessings upon this people. It is
also in your power to blight their hopes, and infiiet suffering
and distress upon them.
Viewed in this light, therefore, gentlemen, it is your duty
to approach the task before you with conservatism and wis
dom. -I charge you that it is your solemn duty to bring to
the decision of this most important question minds free from
all prejudice. You must remember that charges are easily
made, while proof may be wanting. Loud declamation is not
evidence. Truth and error are often so mixed and intermixed
that it is difficult to separate them and arrive at fundamental
conditions or truths. This can be done only by patient in
quiry which duty requires that you shall give to all the con
siderations of this case. I charge you that it is your duty to
disregard all attempts, come from whatever source they may,
(288)

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 287
to blind your eyes or inflame your minds by appeals to your
passion. While free speech and full discussion are the rights of
every American citizen, attempts to influence and control
public action by misrepresentation, false charges, unworthy
appeals to passion, are to the last degree reprehensible. I
cannot brand attempts to breed strife, to engender animosi
ties between citizens of this country, in too severe language.
All efforts made to array man against his fellow-man, to
array class against class are against the spirit of Christian
civilization and the good of society, and should be scorned
by every right-minded citizen. Questions affecting the wel
fare of this people are of such a solemn nature that they
should be settled by appeals to the reason and not to the
passions of men.
The people of this country are interested in maintaining,
if they have it, and in securing if they do not have it, that
condition of things which will afford good wages to the men
who depend upon their daily toil for their daily bread and for
the comforts and pleasures of life. In some degree these
men are responsible for their own condition, for they have
the opportunity to secure good or bad conditions by the exer
cise of their votes, but you must remember that dependent
upon them are many others who are not permitted to exer
cise this privilege, but whose necessities are as great and in
many cases even greater than those of the bread-winner
himself. There are three separate counts under which the defendant
is accused. First, he is charged with having favored the
promotion of highly capitalized combinations or monopolies,
called trusts. Second, he is charged with having declared for
the gold standard of values in obedience to the dictation of

288 THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
the money power to the great detriment of the cause of jus
tice and of the common people; and, third, his accusers charge
him with pursuing a policy toward the Filipinos which is
both cruel and un-American, showing his purpose to be to
foster and establish imperialism under the authority of the
Stars and Stripes.
On each of these counts you are to take into consideration
not only all the individual testimony offered and facts brought
out, but th edefendant, being the representative of a large or
ganization of men and speaking for that organization and
for its principles and policies, here assumes the responsibility
of defending the past record and present purposes of that or
ganization; hence you are privileged to take into the account
its past record as judged, first, by the accusing party and then
by a jury of the whole people in previous trials of ^this kind.
As to the first charge, that defendant is a friend and pro
moter of trusts, you are privileged to take in connection with
the testimony and the facts here presented, whatever material
evidence you may find in the record referred to. For your in
struction it is proper for me to say that the judges of the
United States courts have decided several cases where com
binations and trusts were involved in a manner which dem
onstrates that they are thoroughly in earnest in the matter.
You are at liberty to review these decisions to aid your in
telligence in arriving at just conclusions. The hi.ghest court
of the land but recently handed down a decision in the case
of the Addison Pipe and Steel Co. et al. vs. the United States,
which demonstrates that the judicial branch of the govern
ment possesses the power of control over trusts and combina
tions. This proceeding was commenced in behalf of the
Unitde States under the so-called anti-trust acts of Congress
passed July 2, 1890, This action was instituted for the pur-

THE JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 289
pose of obtaining an injunction perpetually enjoining six cor
porations, who were made defendants and who were engaged
in the manufacture, sale and transportation of iron pipe at
their respective places of business in the states of their resi
dence, from further acting under or carrying on the com
binations alleged in the petition to have been entered into be
tween them, and which was stated to be an illegal and unlaw
ful combination, under the act mentioned above, because it
was in restraint of trade among the states and in violation of
the inter-state commerce law.
The trial court dismissed the petition, but on appeal to the
Circuit Court of Appeals, the judgment of the court below
was reversed, with instructions to enter a decree for the
United States perpetually enjoining the defendants as asked.
This case going to the United States Supreme Court, the de
cree was affirmed after being so modified as to make it con;
sistent with the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.
That is to say, to the extent that the decree included in its
scope the enjoining of defendants from combining in their
own state, it was modified and limited to that portion of the
combination or agreement which is inter-state in its char
acter. Many other cases involving the validity of the anti-trust
law of 1890 have been heard and decisions rendered. Under
that law the courts have broken up the trans-Missouri com
bination, and the Traffic Association, and in these various de
cisions it has been held that that law applies to the manufac
ture and sale of every commodity that is manufactured in the
United States for inter-state commerce by a trust. You have
a right td take into consideration the fact that this law was
placed upon the statute books by the Eepublican party, for
whieh the defendant stands sponsor in this case. You may

290 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
also take into consideration the fact that since the passage
of this anti-trust law in 1890, the Democratic party has been
in complete power for a period of four years, and that it did
nothing in the way of improving the statute designed for the
regulation of trusts and combinations which it found upon
the statute books, placed there by the party whieh it now ac
cuses. The charge that the various branches of the govern
ment have done nothing to control trusts is without any
foundation in fact.
In connection with this trust question, I will further say
to you that in the light of the testimony which has been pre
sented, which is conflicting in a very striking degree when it
comes to a question of remedy for the evils which are claimed
to exist in these large combinations, that it is your duty to
proceed cautiously. The benefits which have resulted in the
past from associated effort are beyond computation, and it
would be the part of folly to strike down worthy forms of
association because some evils may exist. We should endeaTOT
to devise means by which the benefits of corporate enterprise
may be retained, while the evils incident to corporate ahuees
are removed. To perform this feat requires patience and vnu-
dom. In reference to the plaintiff's charge in the second count,
it is for you to take the testimony and facts presented and
weigh them carefully, reviewing the past record of the de
fendant and his party on the one hand, and that of the plain
tiff and his party on the other hand. If you shall find it true
that the defendant has been and is the tool of Wall Street
and Lombard Street, or that he is bowing to the monied aris
tocracy, it is your duty to declare against him; but if you shall
find on the other hand that the trade and commerce of this
great nation require the best money in the' world, and that

THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900. 291
the defendant has done nothing but to provide such a cur
rency for the people, it is your duty to declare for him. If
you find that it is the laboring man who is always cheated by
cheap and depreciated money, it is your duty to support the
defendant in his endeavor to provide honest money for the
people. If you find that the laborer is entitled to the pay
for his day's labor in the best money that is known on earth,
then it is your duty to support the President for establishing
such a medium of exchange. If you do not believe in the
National bank currency, but prefer the wild-cat money of
state banks, it is your duty to support the plaintiff's conten
tion. The charge of imperialism in the third count alleges an
entirely new and unworthy departure from the American idea
of governmental independence and rights. The defendant is
charged with violating all the sacred tenets of our funda
mental law, in carrying on a war against the inhabitants of
the Philippine Islands. It is for you to take the evidence
before you for and against the defendant and weigh most care
fully the importance of every liue and word. No intelligent
comprehension of the question is possible that does not in
clude the past, present and future of our great republic. I'
adjure you, gentlemen of the jury, to bring yourselves to ' a
full realization of the importance of your duty in dealing with
this charge.
It is claimed on the one hand that this movement in favor
of expansion is due to the basest consideration of commercial
greed; that the promoters of it have no high and noble object
in view in furthering it and are willing to trail the Con
stitution in the dirt for the purpose of achieving an unworthy
commercial advantage. On the other hand, it is claimed that
the war with Spain was not one of our seeking, that it was

292 THE JURY TRIAL OF 1900.
forced upon us for humanity's sake, that it was our duty to
hear the cry of suffering Cuba, that once in a war with a great
foreign power, it was our duty to press it to the bitter end;
that the results which followed so quicldy after the opening
up of hostilities, especially the destruction of the Spanish
fleet in the Bay of Manila, were such as to justify the belief
that in all this matter the power of God was present, and
that it was His will that this great Eepublic should use its
power and its wealth for the purpose of improving the con
dition of the half civilized people who had for so long a time
been subjected to oppression by Spain.
Those who oppose expansion assert that there is no author
ity under the Constitution for the action which is proposed.
They deny the right of the government of the United States
to impose its government upon any people without their con
sent first obtained. Those who favor the policy of expansion
assert that there is ample authority under the Constitution for
it. They claim that it would be to deprive the government of
one of the essential features of sovereignty if it were not per
mitted to hold conquered territory, the fruit of victorious
arms. They claim further that every expansion that has been
made, every extension of our territory has been opposed by the
same arguments as are now presented by the opposition. They
declare that every step toward expansion that has ever been
taken has subsequently heen approved by public opinion.
Gentlemen of the jury, if in your opinion it is wise that a
great government should extend its civilization to those
people who are less favored than its self, that it should use
all lawful and honorable means to extend its commerce to the
remotest parts of the earth, that it is justified in securing
more outposts for protection and more gateways to the mar
kets of the world, your verdict will be with the defendant ancj

THB JURY TRIAL OF 1900. 293
his administration. If you believe that we should be con
tented to live at home and refuse to look upon the great op
portunities which the world offers, you will favor the plaintiff
in his contention.
I do not strain the limits of my jurisdiction when I say to
you that no just verdict can be returned in this case, which
does not take into account the evidence which history pro
duces. The Anglo-Saxon race is one of migration and ex
pansion. It has been the greatest factor of the world in
the elevation and civilization of mankind, but it is for you
to determine whether limits shall be set about its future
operations Let your verdict be one that will be approved
by.posterity, as well as by the present generation of the
world's highest and best intelligence.
Gentlemen of the jury, according as you think the policy
of the one side or the other to this controversy leads to your
ideal of government, you should give your decision. What is
an ideal government? It is one which affords to the citizen
the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of
others; one which protects life and property; one which pro
motes happiness among the people by giving every man the
opportunity to eam an honest living; one which opens the
door of opportunity to the hand of toil; one which provides an
honest dollar as the measure of values — a, dollar that can face
the money of any nation under the- sun and say, "I am as
good as thou;" one in whose statute laws the spirit of progress
is established; one which believes in a progressive and ex
panding civilization; one which encourages home industry and
home labor, and favors trade and commerce with all the
world; one which is honest with itself and just with everyone;
one which lives not unto itself alone; one which has charity
for the weak and benighted; one whose word is as good as its

294 THB JURY TRIAL OP 1900.
bond, whose bond. is the best on earth, and whose flag is the
object of respect and adoration wherever it is unfurled to the
breeze. I will now dismiss you for the present, and will convene
you here on the sixth day of November next to hear your
verdict, and may Heaven guide you to right conclusions.

THE END.

IvAIRD & IvKE S
..Standard Reference Books..
^'Laird & Lee beat the world with their series of Reference vrorIa."—So8toH Tlmea.

The 20th Century [jrair.i
Handy ....
CYCM>PBDIA BRITANNICA
Over 16,000 sub
jects ol intense In
terest, alpbabetlo*
ally arranged', and
covering Law. BusineM,
Botany, History,
Qeograpliy, Biography, nedicine,
jB80 column^ot matter. Zoology.
AU dates and Latest DiScoTerles
up to Not. 1, 1899.
Size, AHi^a Inches.
stut cloth....,  S0.60
rail leather, full gilt, Indexed  1.00

Lee's Priceless Recipes
A Book of Recipes and
Formulas 
Seven leading De
partments, each j
thoroughly indexed.
Bedpes lor
The Druggist)
The Chemist,
The Household,
TheParm,etG.
A single Item may be j
the source of a for- '
tune. Everything of
the best and thoroughly tested by
the author, a famous scientist. Sot
a cook book. Size 4}^z5K inches.
Flexible cloth, out flush  90.25
Stiff Bilk cloth, red edgea  50
Leather, full gilt  1.00

Edison's... Handy Encyclopedia
Two Thousand Subjects
ot highest value to all, carefully
classlfled. Every country in the
world fully described, with maps.
nore than 500,000 sold.
Iiiked by all. Worthy of bearing the
name of Bdlson, the Wizard, for,
like him, it is brimful of rare, prac
tical common sense. ,
Size, 4Mx5Vi inches.
Limp cloth  35o ^
Stiff cloth, gold stamped  50c

Conklin's... Handy Manual
of Useful Information and
Atlas of the World . .
50 full-page colored Maps. Ding-
ley, Wilson and McKinley tariffs,
compared, complete. The Tariff of
Cuba, War with Spain. The latest
census. The new Copyright Law.
Up-to-Date In Every Partlcnlar.
1,800,000 copies sold. Size, 4^x6^ In.
Flexible cloth, cut flush  S0.S5
Stiff silk cloth, red edges...  60
Leather,fnll gUt  1.00

LEE'S VEST-POCKET
Question-Settler [new.^
Quick and Accurate Answers
to All Arguments. ....
- Over 100,000 Words
of Up-to-Date Matter.
Most marvelous, alphb-
betlcaUy arranged
Pocket and Desk
Companion...
Size eviz2!4 inches. The
only Cyclopedia of its
size in tbe world.
Silk cloth  .¦..  aso
Fail leather, full gilt, indexed.  SOo

...LEE'S...
Home and Business
Manual... Ulustrated. New,
original, reUable.
Ten Departments
by ten Specialists.
Penmanehlp, Letter-
Writing, Banking,
Bvery-Day Law, Social
Forms, Publio Speak
ing, Mercantile and
Technical Terms, etc.
Size 6Kx4)f iiiohes.
Limp oloth, red edges.
Stiff silk-olotb, red edges.
Full morocoo, fnll gilt.

foriale everywtitre, or tent, pottpaid, on receijit ef price, by
LAIRD & LEE, Publishers, . CHICAQO

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01762 4843

.:¦!¦

• ¦ i"l'l ¦iii '1
'' i-|.'i ¦ ii l!
!l "¦
I'il '

.M I ' -I" '

> ¦¦ .. i sir
'liifjliSi'jir I

.¦ ¦ , . ¦'!, "ll'
lilillilil'i" ''>''ii' ;i
i' ::!iii ,..¦¦¦:¦!,!; !
1 i i!; 1". ¦¦'; ¦ •• I'li.i'i!;
,!•.)! rjii.i,.i. !]j|[||yjj|
¦'! .I'I' i'-l yfa l!n
1 1 1' ! ,1 ',i ''I aniiji j
I ¦ ¦ . ¦! : ii|| I'I ¦
„-.„i!<i:!:irilM!!:.
I ¦ • • • ll<ll. 'I I I
I ! -ill :,. Mil ¦¦ !¦!, .
j. j i . ¦ . . I...:! ./i ii:i'- ¦

•».i.'iia.<

.¦..!.. , . i^iJi'iliiiif ¦¦;¦*.. !¦ ¦.'!¦!;'::
¦i ' ¦ 1 i : .'¦ 1 !¦'¦ ¦ ¦ ' ,, . ".I I
¦ . . .¦ -.';¦¦! ' ,' ¦ ;'i,|.ii.i!ii.l':',i,'""
-. " • . i"! I  ¦¦' ¦ . ,¦ I ...I',' !¦! "-1 • ¦ ¦'.
I ' ¦¦ i'i:i.ii> 1 1 I iii„,Mi, , ii.!ji.i

¦::.-!, "i-'.i

• , 'Y^irAi. '.!• :.',¦:¦:!¦ Ill- ¦ • " i '^l 1 '¦ " ',y,

i'i;';.''!#

'1 " 'M"i'!l:".

1^1. 1.
,11.. I

<!¦:! • I . ,<i •-: I '• :¦! ; i:!.iji Uill;i,l|i|i i-'i<
'l ¦¦ ¦¦.¦;!i-.'''; ¦./M'.lt . ¦ .! .! !¦ ¦ I .I'-i i 1. !
; . '¦ , ll ¦ I , }i;;, ¦ ¦¦ . ' ii'iii! ., 'i'"
,'••',' ¦ i;-'!; ¦',''  ¦¦ ¦ ¦
: ¦ '¦¦,¦':!'• ¦:',!.ii!;. .jiiij

i

. -1
I.i. .'; i'

i^

1 , '41 aj.
' r
I 4 I ¦,

:' ". ¦¦;':iK;i«!. ¦, .¦
¦!'.?iii!',i

¦ ,' ...].,! ll", ¦ I ¦!..!, .1,1,!,;,, . ¦
.¦'-¦¦ .•"¦' '.'!!:(«'¦¦¦. '. ;i i:ii',;i! ' '
• . I . ^ 1. !¦ ..'.!'!'i".ll-"..i' ¦ ¦¦:,l'i!'".i ¦  ¦¦ .1
Jl s; : I . fi,|,j-'.i I . ¦ . I • ¦ : • . I
1 • ¦'li "I ¦ I '¦¦ ¦ '
I '¦¦sii I ¦ f^ ¦ ¦¦ I
¦¦¦; ¦;.¦¦:'¦¦ ¦  %¦•¦:

*»- -. .,3.:i, ;.!¦¦¦ .lliK..-'. '¦¦¦!¦¦ .¦...:;,:.!¦,,:..' . ..; .„
'¦'.¦¦ ! , ;i ¦ " ¦ '¦ . 1 1 , ¦
' . '..:¦!,". ' '.1 ¦

'*, ¦¦••-. . .!'¦¦;. ''•r--Ii  ;|-^ OM'.''t !.'>«i»'l.. ' i !!".i'"';i;i!!',i', ¦' '.¦ I ¦' "Ij
... !'.¦..'¦ ,¦ ¦ . '¦ .'V'-v ¦¦ .- ' •¦¦ :¦¦¦¦'!' ;  I. ;.i:.i.'i ..;!- ¦ .i-'v-i'.' I ." ¦' '
i3;i„'..„jjji*.. ! ¦•• ¦. . . ,.¦ , , . ¦¦.¦'¦ .'¦. i.' ;::.v,'i",' ri' ¦¦ ',
¦iT^.-vr.'.. . . ¦ ,'¦ '\¦¦^:«:^. |V ¦-¦¦.,! .\, '¦:,;:¦'¦¦¦¦ w:i|-.!.M ¦¦i'.-':ii|
' _ . .. :•.,: ;.,..•¦ :¦• .. . , . . .• ;.;. . - v,-:. ¦iV-i.-ipifi:'!'?-:;!!!!.! ;;-.:'iin i ¦"•¦'' i- y. \\ S^ '. . " 'IJ

r-K '

'.'I.'S. -.'.I' .' ,
'.' t ..1 : ll '

'I'llili'll'li! ¦ '¦

li^.'LiJir ii i , ¦ r .
.¦ii'l-' , H .', !

.ii".

' !¦ ..; 111!!.''
¦I I ¦¦ I ¦!
I

¦iJ I"