, ^

-m-\

•^

/i^..--

¦¦:3^»*®*'

,-/' ¦-¦¦'  new NAVa. J^IL •
LIBERTY TRACTS ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ WfP^r SfifWliP^^

IS IT RIGHT?

By
MpORFlELD STOREY
OF THE BOSTON BAR ,

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE PHILADELPHIA
CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 23, 1900

Between the claim of freedom that All men are enti
tled to tqual political rights, and the dogma of tyranny
-that Might makes rightf there is no middle ground.

,*

'.am

CHICAGO :
AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE
1900 '

PLATFORM OF THE
AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends
tovrard militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret
that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm
that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people' is "criminal
aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in
the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We
deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration
even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of tbe Filipinos as a
needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by
Spanish methods.
We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by
Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convened to
announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence for
which they have so long fought and virhich of right is theirs.
The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international
law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong, A self-governing
state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States
cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.
Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the
Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a
grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of "criminal aggression" in the
Philippines, greatly as -wt regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American
hands, we more deeply, resent the betrciyal of American institutions at home.
The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own
household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to
destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals.
Whether the ruthless slaughter of the Filipinos shall end next month or next
year is but an incident in a contest that must go on until the declaration of
independence and the constitution of the United States are rescued from the hands
' of their betrayers. Those who dispute about standards of value while the
foundation of the republic is undermined will be listened to as little as those who
would wrangle about the small economies of the household while the house is on
fire. The training of a great people for a century, thei aspiration for liberty of a vast
immigration are forces that will hurl aside those who in the delirium of conquest
seek to destroy the character of our institutions.
We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their government in times
of grave national peril 'applies to the present situation. If an administration may
with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a
condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for
spoils to promote the adventure, organize a' truth-suppressing censorship, and
demand of all citizens a suspension of judgment and their unanimous support while
it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled.
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for
the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for re-election all who in
the white house or in congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American
ends. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend
the declaration of independence in the closing campaign of the century.
We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern
another hian without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself,
that is self-goVernment, bu* when he governs himself and also governs another man,
that is more than self-government — that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the
love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spi^¦it which
prizes Uberty as the heritage of aU men in aU lands. Those who deny freedoip to
others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
We cordially invite the co-operation of all men and women who remain loyal
to the dedai-aition of independence and the constitution of tbe United States.
V (\ <u( ( [Adopted by thp Chicago Conference, Oct. i8, 1899.]

IS IT RIGHT?
The people of the United States to-day are face to face with a
question of right and wrong. Upon their answer depend the future
of this country and the liberty of millions of men. Let us look the
facts in the face. In the Philippine Islands the President with the
acquiescence of Congre.ss is trying by force of arms to make the
people surrender unconditionally to his will in order that he, until'
Congress acts, and Congress afterward, may impose upon this for- ,
eign race such a government as he and Congress may think fit. He
utters vague assurances of benevolent purpose, but he makes it
clear that the Filipinos in their native lapd are to have no politicalv
rights, no assured voice in their own government ; only such priv
ileges as Americans may see fit to give them. Nay more, what they
give to-day they may take away to-morrow, for no act of Congress
is beyond the control of Congress and the privileges which Con
gress grants have no more secure foundation than its pleasure.
Men thus absolutely at the mercj^ of a foreign power can by no
stretph of language' be called free, and it is the government of the
United States that denies them their freedom.
Is this right? Test it by any principle, /political, moral or
religious, that we have ever learned at home, in church or at school,
test it by all that the great leaders of this country haye taught us,
is it right ? This is the question which every citizen must answer.
Evade it, disguise it, deny it as he will, he cannot escape it; and
whether he speaks or is silent, whether he acts dr hides his head,
whether he votes or abstains, he answers it and his answer helps
to determine the future of his country. By no silence, no neglect,
by no pretended devotion to other interests can he now avoid his
responsibility, and let him remernber that silence is consent tq the
3

policy of the President; non-action is consent, indifference is
Consent. Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land
--'because they wish to govern themselves — to enjoy thfe freedom
which in this very city our fathers declared the inalienable right
of every human being? "Let it be remembered," said the Conti- ^
nental Congress in addressing the States at the end of the Revolu-^
tion, "that it has ever been the pride and boast of America that
the rights for which she contended were the rights of human
nature." "True statesmen as they were," said Lincoln, "they knew the
tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, so they established these
self-evident truths, that when, in the distant future, some men,
some faction, some interest should set up the doctrine that none
but rich men, or none but white men, or none but Anglo-Saxon
white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happi
ness, their posterity might lo6k up again to the Declaration of
Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their
fathers began ; so that truth, justice and mercy and all the humane
and Christian virtues might not, be extinguished from the land ;
so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the .
great principles on which the teniple of liberty was being built."
Shall we deny the great truths upon which our own liberty
\rests? Shall we slaughter others because theiy assert against us
/the rights which we have always asserted for every people ? Is it
/ right thus to betray the great trust for hyman freedom reposed in
us as a nation?, Upon this question the whole debate turns and
to this question the President and his supporters must be held.
Is it right?
They who dwell upon the wealth which our conquest will pour
into our coffers, upon the power which we shall gain, upon our
increased consideration among the nations of the world, upon the
opportunities which our new possessions will afford our young
men, do not meet this question. They only try to blind our eyes,
to stifle our consciences. They only emulate the tempter and offer

us all the kingdoriis "of the world, if we will do wrong. In all ages
the possession's of their neighbors have tempted men, but those
who yield to the tenjptation and seek to take the property of others
by force or fraud are justly called thieves. Does the amount qf
property stolen o^ the number of thieves engaged change the
nature of the act ? Is there one standard of morals for' a man, :
another for a nation? Again the question recurs, not is robbesy*
^profitable, not is murder lucrative, but are, they right? Is it right |
to kill men in order that we may sell more goods or find more gold ? '
Those who claim that civilization will gain or religion spread
through war and oppression have nobkr motives, but a good mo- ¦
tive does not justify a crime. We may not do evil that good, may
come. To them we may commend the words of Lincoln :
"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to
be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying;
that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow
— what are these arguments ? Thpy are the arguments that kings,
have made for the enslaving of the people in all ages of the world.
You will find that all the arguments of king-craft were always of
this class ; they always bestrode the necks of the people — not that
they wanted to do it, but because the people were better o-ff for
being ridden. . .' . Turn it every way you will — whether it
come fr;om the mouth of a king as an excuse for enslaving' the
people of his country, or from the rnouth of men of one race, as a
reason for' enslaving the men of another race — it is all the same old
serpent." To those who assert pure motiyes we may with more confidence
address our question, Are the acts which you approve right?
What is our exact position in the Philippine Islands? We
went there to destroy the fleet of Spain in a war waged, as President
Schurrtian says, "to drive, from Cuba an effete European power,' a
government of tyranny." We called the natives impatient of that J
.tyranny to our aid, and with their assistance we captured Manila,
They became our allies and it was our purpose from the outset to.
use them as such. Of this there is no room for doubt. More

than six rnonths before war with Spain was declared, on Novemr
ber 3, 1897, Mr. Wildman, our Consul at Hong Kong, informed
Secretary Day that "Agoncillo, foreign agent and high commis
sioner, etc., of the New Republic of the Philippines ... of
fers in behalf of his government alliance offensive and defensive
with the United- States when the United States declares war on
Spain." Here was the offer of ' alliance. Was it accepted? A
month before Dewey's victory he telegraphed to Secretary Long„
"Information >has just reached me that there are 5,000 armed rebels
in camp near Manila, who are willing to assist us." By Dewey's
¦ invitatibn Aguinaldo came from Singapore to Hong Kong "to
arrange with Commodore for general co-operation insurgents
Manila" to quote the words of Consul General Pratt's telegram.
In a United States warship he went to Manila and there he was
furnished with arms, all by Dewey's direction. Thus supported,
he rallied his compatriots and invested Manila. The manifesto
of the Filipinos sent to Luzon before the American squadron
showed with what expectations they acted : "Compatriots, Divine
Providence is about to place independence within our reach. . .
There where you see the American flag flying assemble in num
bers ; they are our deliverers." Aguinaldo's proclamation on May
24 confirmed their confidence : ¦ "Filipinos, the great nation North
America, cradle of liberty and friendly on that account to the lib
erty of our people . . has come to manifest a protection
• which is 'disinterested toward us, considering us with sufficient ¦
civilization to govern by ourselves this our unhappy land." June
18 he established a dictatorial government, proclaiming that "the
final object of all my efforts and strength is nothing else but your
independence." June 23 the dictatorship was replaced by the revo
lutionary government whose declared object was "to struggle for
the independence of the Philippines until all nations shall expressly
recognize it, and to prepare the country so that a true republic ma}-
be established." On that very day Admiral Dewey informed the government
of what Aguinaldo was doing' and expressed his opinion that his
6

people were far more capable of self-government than the natives
of Cuba to whom we had expressly promised independence. Thus
early and thus clearly was the purpose of the Philippine patriots
made known to all men, and certainly to the representatives and
government of the United' States.
After all this, the offer of alliance made at the outset and
accepted in acts if- not in words by Dewey, was formally accepted,
"-when General Anderson, the commander of our army, addressed
General Aguinaldo, and assuring him that our government had
"entire sympathy and most friendly sentiments for the native
people of the Philippine Islands," proceeded : "For these reasons
I desire to have the most amicable relations with you and to have
you and your people , co-operate with us in military operations
against the Spanish forces." It was under these circumstances,
with full knowledge of all these facts, that Admiral Dewey qsed
Aguinaldo "and "the natives to assist me in my operations against
the Spaniards." All these facts were known tO' our government.
It knew that the Filipinos expected and believed, it knew why they
offered their lives and their fortunes to us, it knew, that its repre
sentatives had invited and accepted their aid, it received all that
they gave, and neither President nor Secretary said one word to
undeceive them. In what court of law or morals can the President
arid his. advisers be heard-to deny the existence of the alliance thus
sought a|nd thus used? It is a familiar rule of law that a man is
bound not only by what he say's, but by what he knows the other
party to the contract understands.'
How have we treated this friendly people, so lately our com
rades in arms? Surely they were entitled to a hearing before we
dpcided their future. Surely so many millions of men led by us
to think themselves free were not to be disposed of as so many
ca'ttle. Yet this is exactly what was done;
The envoy of the Filipinos at Washington was denied an
audience. Their representatives at Paris were refused admission
to the conference in which their country was bought, and sold.
„A treaty was made without consulting them, and before it was
-^ I .7

ratified the President sent to General Otis the fatal proclamation
which told the Filipinos how they had been betrayed by the Great
Republic. The inevitable effect of this proclamation was so clear
to General Otis, as he himself reports, that he changed its language
so as to suppress such words as "sovereignty" and others which
asserted an absolute right over the islands, while he promised a
far greater measure of freedom than was to be found in the proc
lamation of the President. The military commander was unwilling
to claim the absolute power which the President wished to assert.
Unhappily the original proclamation found its way into print. The
fears of General Otis were realized. After a skirmish in which
we fired the first shot, and in which, as General Otis reported, the
eriemy acted strictly on the defensive, applications for a truce were
denied, war followed, and unconditional surrender to our will has
since been the condition of peace. "No useless parley," as the
President calls it, is permitted.
What is our will? What government will these men get if
they surrender ? The President does not know, since it is a ques
tion for Congress, and Congress does not know, for no plan is even
proposed. No man in this country can guess what privileges wef
shall give these people, and yet they must surrender without teitns.
To enforce this unreasonable demand we have killed their soldiers,
destroyed their towns, plundered their iiouses, laid waste their
country, visited upon this weaker people every horror of war, and
with these facts staring him in the face tbe Chairm,an of the Pres
ident's commission has the effrontery to say that "our mission is
to share with them our highest American civilizatioi. and liberty."
Would Mr. Schurman accept for the citizens of Ithaca the liberty
which he offers the citizens of Manila ? Is this treatment of our
,allies right? Is this liberty? Where our control is undisputed,
four hundred saloons debauch the people, and the President, whose
power is sufficient to keep the truth from us, the people of the
United States, is unable or unwilling to stop the infamous traffic.
By war and alcohol we destroyed the Indians and with the same
weapons we have begun the destruction of the Malays. Is this
s

benevoknce? Is this civilization? Is this Christianity? Is this
right? How is it with Porto Rico, whose citizens also helped us to
expel the Spaniards? They received us with welcome, they have
never lifted hand against us, they are entirely in our power, they
have trusted us fully. How have we rewarded that trust? They
are to-day subjects of the United States, but absolutely without
political rights. Ours is a constitutional liberty. Our fathers felt
that the representatives chosen by the people could not be trusted
with absolute power even over their constituents, and they framed
constitutions for State and Nation which secured to the citizen
certain rights which no legislature and no executive could invade.
Now the Congress of the United States, the creature of the Con
stitution, deriving all its powers from that instrument, pretends
to find in it authority to govern millions of men without regard
to its restrictions. The Constitutiori gives them power to govern,
but does not limit that power. The people of Hawaii, the Phil
ippines and Porto Rico are subject to the Constitution because
they are ruled by men whose only power is derived from it, yet
they have no rights under it. In 1776 our fathers claimed for all
men certain unalienable rights, including liberty. They asserted
that governments derived their just powers from the consent of the
governed and that taxation ' without representation was tyranny.
They framed a constitution to secure the rights of the citizen, and
now it is held to contain the grant of absolutely despotic power
over whole nations. The Constitution of the United States
enslaves and does not protect men subject to our jurisdiction. Was
ever conclusion more monstrous?
How is this despotic power used? The Filipinos resist us,
and are ruined by war. The Porto Ricans welcome us, and
are ruined by taxation. Congress, which has undertaken to
govern these new subjects, is considering not what their inter
ests demand, but what must be done to protect us from their. com
petition. They are riot citizens of the United States, and as such
entitled to compete with other citizens, but foreigners whos^ indus-

try is to be discouraged. "The highest considerations of justice
and good faith," said Secretary Root, ''demand that we shoiild,
give them free trade with the United States!" The President called
it our "plain duty" to do so, but these sentences -fall upon deaf
ears. We deprive these people of the right to govern then^selves.
We promise them all the blessings of our liberty, and then we
ruin them, considering not their interests, but our own, and treat-,
ing them as serfs with no rights which we are bound to respect.
This singular theory, which places Congress above the Constitution,
means that in great regions subject to our sway not only may the
natives be denied the right of trial by jury, the right of free speech
and a free press, the right of petition, and every other constitutional
right which is essential tb liberty, but American citizens fojlqwing
our flag into these new regions will find themselves also without
the Constitution. Their property may be taken without compen
sation, soldiers may be quartered upon them, they may be taxed
without mercy, unless we propose to hold that in the same com
munity the Constitution may protect one class and not another, and
invent the theory that though the Constitution does not extend
to the territory it follows the individual. How soon, think you,
under theories like this will American citizens and American cap
ital be persuade^ to- leave the home of constitutional liberty, and -
settle in regions -where the flag is the symbol of arbitrary power ?
Imperialism has thrown aside its mask of benevolence. It- is idle
any longer to claim that the flag means liberty and prosperity,
while Congress asserts despotic power and uses it to ruin Porto
Rico in the interest of certain citizens of the United States. Can
anything illustra;te the' inevitable results of imperialism better than
what is now passing before our eyes ? Men who have votes over
ride President and Cabinet, and in their interest even the Consti
tution is construed to deny constitutional rights to men whom
Congress governs under the Constitution. Men without votes are
powerless to protect themselves against ruin. Again, as our fathers
saw, we see "that taxation without representation is tyranny."
Why should the Filipinos surrender? Why should they trust

any promises of President or Commission when the Porto Ricans,
who never resisted, are thu,s treated?
Shall the citizens of the United States be silent while the 'honor
of our country is thus, betrayed ? ' ,
It is small wonder that Congressmen who do not regard the
Constitution in Porto Rico are impatient of its limitations at home.
It isnot strange that they would stifle free speech in Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania, and visit upon all their opponents the penalties
of treason. It is easier to call those who resist their policy traitors
than to defend the policy itself. By such treason this government
vvas, founded and by such treason it has been saved. In the eyes
, of Pierce and Douglas, Charles Sumner and Abraham Lincoln
were traitors when they foright for human freedom, and v^e may
¦ meet the charge to-day as Sumner met it then. When he was told
that Boston was "filled with traitors," "that charge," he answered,
"is not new. Boston of old was the home of Hancock and Adams.'
Her traitors now are those who are truly animated by the spirit of
the American Revolution. In condemning them; in condemning
¦ Massachusetts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply give
proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor, thaft the Declaration
of Independence is 'a self evident lie.' " We may well be proud
to take our stand with the traitors of 1776 and 1856.
The Declaration of Independence has often been attacked, but
never with success. Its principles are ultimate practical truths.
Between the claim of freedom that All men are entitled to equal
political rights, and the dogma of tyranny thdt Might makes right,
there is no middle ground. I defy any man to state any rule for
hurriari government that does not resolve itself into one or the other
of these propositions. Try it for yourselves. Say if you will that
the best or the wisest citizens should gbvern the ignorant and
vicious,. Who shall decide between two men or two nations which
is best fitted to govern the other ? One may be sure of superior
virtue and wisdom, but the other will naturally question the con
clusion. The spirit of liberty is born in every creature and does
not yield to any claim of superiority. The wise and good in the_

last resort can only enforce their claim to govern their inferiors
by arms. It is their might, not their virtue, by which they rule.
Such is the lesson of history. The Athenians were far more en
lightened than the Macedonians. Doubtless they were sure of their
superiority in wisdom. But Demosthenes fell before Philip. Rome
yielded to the barbarians ; and it is England's guns, not her mis
sionaries, which hold India and all her other possessions where the
political rights of the citizen are not recognized. "Equality of
rights is the first of rights," said Charies Sumner. This is the
foundation of our liberty, and no enduring political edifice can stand
on any other. This is the law of Christianity. Can it be that we are
willing now to abandon this great law of right and adopt the bar- .
barous law of might?
I cannot more fitly close this speech than by quoting from the
same great champion of human liberty, his message to another
President who tried to trample upon the rights of a feeble race :
"There is a grandeur in justice and peace beyond anything in
material aggrandizement, beyond anything in war. . . I am
not insensible to the commercial and material prosperity of my
country. But there is something above these. It is the honor and
good name of the Republic, now , darkened by an act of wrong.
If this territory so much coveted by the President were infinitely
more valuable than it is, I hope the Senate would not be tempted
to obtain it by trampling on the weak and humble."
Those who claim that the cause of civilization will be promoted
1 by our war should remember the words of Lord Russell :
"What indeed is true civilization? By its fruit you shall
know it. It is not dominion, wealth, material luxury ; nay, not even
a great literature and education widespread — good though these
things be. Civilization is not a veneer. It must penetrate to the
very heart and core of societies of men. Its true signs are thought
for the poor and suffering, chivalrous regard arid respect for women,
the frank recognition of human . brotherhood, irrespective of race
or color or nation or religion, the narrowing of the domain of mere
force ks a governing factor in the world, the love of ordered free-

dom, abhorrence of what is mean and cruel and vile, ceaseless de
votion to the claims of justice." ^j
Let us hope that our countrymen who call themselves freeT^,
Christian and civilized, may ask their conscience whether the words
of Sumner and Russell are not true, and realizing the truth, have
the manhood to do their duty. Do we really believe in free gov
ernment? Have we, the sons, courage enough to stand by the
principles of our fathers, or shall we cower beneath the party lash,
barter freedom for money, and celebrate the birthdays of Wash-
¦ ipgton and Lincoln while we forget their teachings ? ' -^
For one I cannot doubt the issue. The moral laws of the uni
verse are inexorable. As Pharaoh of old hardened his heart and
refused to let the Israelites go, until successive plagues made him
obey the divine command ; as we ourselves for three-quarters of a
century refused to give the colored race their freedom until we
had seen "every drop of blood drawn by the lash paid by another
drawn by the sword," so we may now make a new experiment of
injustice, and - again ignoi-e the Declaration of Independence, but
that we shall reap a, harvest of woe from the seeds of wrong that
w'e sow is to my mind as certain as that I am speaking to you here.
It is to save, my own country from the disgrace of betraying arid
trampling upon the weak, her trusting allies, to secure her from the
plagues that must follow, her injustice, that I oppose the policy of
the President, assured that nothing but woe can come from wrong.

13

Additional copies of this tract may be had upon
application to
W. J. MIZE, Secretary of the American Anti-Imperialist
League, 517 First National Bank Building,
Chicago.
It is requested that applications be accompanied by
postage. All persons in sympathy with the object of the
League are requested to record their names with one
pf the Secretaries. This does not imply any pefcuniairy
obligation. Funds are desired, however, for carrying
on the work, and the League will be glad tp receive
subscriptions of any amount, large or small.
Remittances should be niade payable to Frederick W.
, Gookin, Treasurer, 217 La Salle Street, Chicago.

DONNELLEV & SONS COMPANY
CHICAGO

"^'3

^^^f -M £,'

i* ji^Jn^t^'-'f

^^^^^^

^¦"#*^:^:-^ V"
.^.^**»..ir-
.«!? ."'^^S*.^ ^ .#' _-S?
^^f- i,.^ >
--*igj?*t
_ Je.
*«"'