The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, August 9, 1900, Page 2

o GOS PEL THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 1900. - CAN BE SPREAD ABROAD WITHOUT: Democratic Bearers Standard- Formally Informed of Their Nomination at dianapolis. Day Was Hot and Sultry and Many Persons W ho Crowd Around the Speakers’ Stand Are Carried the Grounds. ilitary of ground of with p caker's 1t we estimate Mr Stand. at the park lawn anc nd their fami- d Mrs. on and Governor and 1 to order in a me by Mayor Tag- dially and 1 convention : mass began through the ef- T to get nmearer dson Interrupted. few screams, more groans, ut of the crush. ut it short “We can’ er signs of impa Richar sta nce. on did not ap- amor. but_when danger of seri- s remarks to a for M places i to the *“Sul ms’ inclu ~hardson said in part: and twenty- birth f this re- Kansas City the ican convention that ever history. This great body every Btate and They came from their »d with unfeigned en- 0,000 of constituents me a platform of es for President f the United States in nceived to be the supremest po- ever came to our country. realized that the republic aat the duty was theirs as would rescue the state perialism in which it had thus preserve for them- unimpaired the priceless ernment and civil liberty. u to m that convention and for whom which is represented each State w duty it is to convey to r the notification that bly I have mentioned, acting their constituents, and for erish liberty everywhers, voice, chose you as the and adopted a plat- h the campaign we are now inaugurating shall be conducted. The declaration of party principles enunclated 1 nor to present to you. Bryan Greeted. There was an immediate change of de- portme.t on the part of the crowd when Mr. Bryan arese. He was introduced at Chairman Jones and, as if or- r the occasion, light breeze which evidently had the effect g some relief to the overheated rowded m: of people. At burst of rapturous ay d down and hroughout the de ‘There were oc Mr. Bryan for the speaker. After a few f this kind, the auditors made signs except to applaud the f the speech as they were n read his s h, departing from his manuseript, except in a word of legislation at the beginning of his 10 th address. He was sitting immediately left of Senator Jomes when he was by that gentleman. He arose and was immediately recognized ssemblage. atic leader never ap , better advantage. His face was slightly flushed, but his eye was clear and calm and his voice was v;;‘\‘er manr:rm;_r:nglrlelly is command. s man calm B o and evidentiy he felf his full con- 1 of the situation as he took the one step necessary to bring him to the front | of the platform. He was in a | cept | ar cause which brought | eared | Fainting From , which was loosely but- a necktie coolness in the 1 well with the 2. There was 1 of impediment of speech. e was far-reaching and that he was heard at a great distance was made evident by the fact that people far | th crowd listened a | y as did those w m. Apparently mno strong point was iost to any one present. Strong Sentiments Cheered. ong the sentiments of the speech which were applauded with espe 1 were ring that under-exist ‘we dare not educate th 1 ead th he Dec- 3, that he ag to exc! 1ge the glor, country for that of all the empires t necessary to own a people th them,” and the I the world and Gatling gun at- of this that. 4 lippine he addres ion both wa. words extem- ntroducing his all the peroration, was read The closing’ sentences 1e extemporaneous in. follows I owe an apology people who are to { must read what 1 uld be more p expla- isten,for m g 1 desire while to say, i an read will my then read his address as follows: Speech of Acceptance. irman and members of the No- ee: I shall at an early more formal manner, ac the nomination which tende Is 1 at t time discuss the rious questions covered by the Democratic atform. owever, to submit a few observ: this time upon the general characte the contest before us and upon the ques d in at tion which is declared to be of paramount | | of the eritic importance in this campaign. When I say a contest between Democracy on the one hand plutocracy on the other, I do t mean to say that all our opponents | have deliberately chosen to give-to org ized wealth a predominating influence in ie affairs of the Government, but I do at on the important i{ssues of the ublican party is dominated by s which constantly tend to pecuniary considerations and ig- uman rights. 1559 Lincoln said that the Repub- n party believed in the man and the lar, but that in case of conflict it be- ed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of evat nore h In God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the n ter; money the servant, but upon all important questions to-day Repub- lican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant The maxim of Jefferson, “Equal rights to all and special privileges to non: the doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” are being dis- regarded and the instrumentalities o1 go: ern: t are being used to advance the sts of those who are in a position the Government. Democratic party is not making upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage in- dustry, economy and thrift. On the con- trary, It gives to every citizen the great- st possibie stimulus 1o honest toil when him protection in the enjoy- nt « proceeds of his labor. Prop- T are most secure when human rignts are respected. Democracy strives for a civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits No one has a right to expect from socl- ety more than a fair compensation for the service which he renders to soclety. If he secures more, it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to pre- vent his doing injustice to another. To him who would either through class leg- islation or in the absence of necessary legislation trespass upon the rights of an- otner the Democratic party says ““Thou shalt not.” Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financi B.llhpow- erful number who really profit by Repub- lican policies; but with them are associat- ed a large number who, because of their attachment to the party name, are giving | their support to doctrines antagonistic to | the former teachings of their own party. Re{)ubllcans who used to advocate bimet- allis m now try to convince themselves that the gold standard is gocd; Republicans who were formerly attached to the green- back are now seccking an excuse for giv- ing national banks control of the nation’s paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was pay- ing off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and in- creasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a_trust now beguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts and bad trusts. while in their minds the line betweeen the two is becoming more and more obscure; Republicans who in times past congratulated the country upen the small expense of our standing army are now making light of the objec- tions which are urged against a large in- crease in the permanent military estab- lishment: Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nation was less powerful now look with favor upon a for- eign alliance; Republicans who three years ago condemned “‘forcible annexition” as immoral and even criminal are now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose foreible annexation. That parti- sanship has already blinded many to pres- ent dangers is certain; how llrfi& por- tion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policies remains to be seen. Republican Inconsistencies. For a time Republican leaders were in- clined to deny to opponents the right to criticize the Philippine policy of the ad- ministration, but upon investigation they found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize a Pres- ident during the progress of the Mexican var. Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing with the Philippine question the Republican convention adopted a platform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation. In-| t front | These | It may not be out of place, | ot | that the contest of 1900 is | consti- | ¢ ant to | agreeable to vou to speak wotes, but 1 w to address that constituency which we reach , for it is a thou- as any crowd nd, there- K to all committed | e e s o e PN A e e e aa s e sl ! i ! >~ Pes e e . ° 4-0—-0-0-0-9-8 +-¢ ntry to the exclusion of those | the Republican leaders give new evi- onment 1 of y shall not oe permitted to evade the dous and far-reaching issue which they | deliberately brought into the arena of itics. When the President, supported by a 1ly unanimous vote of the House and ! entered upon a war with Spain for the | : of aiding the struggling patriots of the country, without regard to parly, | polauded. Although the Democrats recog nized that the adm ation would necessarily gain a politi dvantage from the conduct ot | a war which, in the very nature of the case, | must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they gave to the President. When the war | was over and the Republican leaders began t> | est the propriety of a colonial policy op- | ition at « anifested jtself. When the re the Senate a treaty | pendence of Cuba bu »t the Philippine Isi of the earlier complute sub- | th tupe nds to the ates the menace of im- perialism became so apparent that many pre- ferred ot the treaty and risk the flls that m w rather than take the chan of _cor ie errors of the treaty by independe: tion of this country 1 was among the nu who b>- Iieved it better to rat y.and end | the war, rel the remove the ! excuse for war expenditu then give t& the Filipinos the independence which might be forced fro pain by a new treaty. In view m which my-action aroused in some. ers I take this occasion to restate | the re I thought it | safer to trus erican pecple to give in- ce to the Fil ment of t nfriendly nation, an argument in the guestion ‘an aliens make treaties easie: inos than to trust the hen he ask than friends can make laws?" I belleve that we are now in a better position successful con- test againsf imperfalism than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut {ssue is presented between a government by cof ernment by force and imper] sent and a gov- | sts must bear the responsibility for all that happens until | the question is settled. If the treaty had | been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have been held responsible for any in- ternational compl s which might hava arisen before the ratification of another treaty But whatever differences of opinion may hav existed as to the method of opposi the colonial policy there never was any dif ference as to the great Jmportance of the | question and there is no® difference now .as 1o the course to be pursued ! Treatment of Filipinos. | ‘The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinos cording to American principles. The Bacon | Tesolution, introduced a month before hostili- | ties broke out at Manila, promised independ- | ence to the Filipince on the same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption | prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented bloodshed and that its adop- tion at any subsequent time would have ended hostilities. If the treaty had been rajected considerable time would have necessarily elapsed before a new treaty could have been agreed upon and | ratified, and during that time the gquestion would have been agitating the public mind. If the Bacon resolution had been adopted by the Senate and carried out by the President, either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterward, It would have taken rrf question of imperialism out of polities and left the American people free to deal with their domestic problems. But | the resolution was defeated by the. vote of | the Republican Vice President and from that time to this a' Republican Congress has re fused to take any action whatever in the mat- ter. When hostilities broke out at Manila Repub- lican speakers and Republican editors at once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification of the - treaty and | during the progress of the war the same Re- publicans have accused the opponents of im- perialism of giving encouragement to the Fili- pinos. This is & cowardly evasion of respon- sibility. 1f it s right for the United States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently and imi- tate the European empires in the government of the colonies the Republican party ought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races to protest against such @ policy and to resist to the extent of their ability. The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are dented a volce In their own government. If the Republicans are prepared to censure all who_have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination let thera condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate appeal, ‘‘Give me liberty or give me death,”” he expressed a sen- timent which still echoes in the hearts of men. Let them censure Jefferson; of all the states- men of history none have used words so of- fensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Let them censure Wash- ington, who declared that the colonies must choose’ between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run against the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense of popular govern- ment when the political advocates of force and conquest are forgotten. ‘Wars of Conquest. Some one has said that a truth once spoken can never be recalled. It is true. It goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever- widening influence. But if it were possible to obliterate every word written or spoken in de- fense of the principle set forth in the Detlara- tion of Independence a war of conquest would still leave its legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every human heart the love of liverty. FHe never, never made a race of people 80 low in the scale of civiliza. tion or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master. Lincoln said that the safety of this nation not in its fleets, its armies or its fort in the spirit which prizes liberty as t heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere; and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors. Those who would have this nation enter upon a _career of empire must consider not only the effects of imperialism upon the Fillpinos, but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without Weakening that principle here. Even now we are inning to see the para- Iyzing influences of imperialism. Heretofore In attempting to press economic questions] this nation has been prompt to express its R O S o ] | which @ | sympathy for those who were fighting for civil ¥. "While our sphere of activity has been ited to the Western hemisphere, our thies have not been bounded by the seas. have felt it due to ourselves s well as to those who we; right to govérn themsel to proclaim interest which our people®yve from the dat of their own independence felt in &very contest hetween human rights and arbitrary power. Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggle of Greece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression to the universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties mani- fested a lively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now, when a war is in progress in South Africa which must result in the exten- sion of the monarchical idea or in the triumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say a word in behalf of the Boers. Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness toward England; the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. This sympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we belleve in the principle of self-government, and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims of monarchy. 1f this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of the prin- ciples set forth in the Declaration of Inde- pendence it will lose the prestige and influence it has enjoyed among natlons as an exponent of popular government. Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jef- ferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be {gnorant of his views. On one occasion he declared: “If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.’ And again he sald: ‘‘Conquest is not in our the principles; it 1s inconsistent with our govern- ment.”" Acquisition and Expansion. The forcible annexation of territory to be gov- erned by arbitrary powers differs as much from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expan- slon, when expansion enlarges the area of the republic and Incorporates lands which can be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who are willing to,become | citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such. The acquisition of the Louis- iana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts which have been secured from time to time, enlarged the republic, and the constitution followed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distant territory, | already more densely populated than our own country, and to force upon the people a gov- ernment for which there is no warrant in our constitution or our laws. Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to | cultivate it and have the physical power to acquire it cannot be Invoked to justify the appropriation of the Philippine Islands by the United States. If the islands were uninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the sofl. The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried to colonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for 300 years, and yet to-day there are less than 60,000 people of European birth scattersd among 25,000,000 natives, After a century and a half of English domination in India less than one-twentleth of one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an army of 70,000 British soldiers to take care of the tax-col- lectors. Spain has asserted title to the Philip- pine Islands for three centuries, and vet when our fleet entered Manila Bay there were less than 10,000 Spaniards residing in the Philip- pines. A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippines a few traders, a few task- masters and a few office-holders, and an army large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives, It we have an imperial policy we must have a large standing army as its natural and nec. essary complement. The spirit which will justify the forcible annexation of the Fhilip- pine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the domination of other peopie, and with wars of conquest We can expect a certain, if not rapid growth of our milltary establishment. That a large permanent in- crease in cur regular army is intended by the Repullican leaders is not a mere matter of | conjecture but o matter of fact. In his mes- sags of December 5, 1898, the President asked for _authority to increase the standing army to 100,000. 1In 1896 the army coniained about 25,000 en. Within two years the President asied for four times that many and a Repub- lican House of Representatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had been signed and when not a hand was raised againat the United States in any part of the world. If such an army is demanded when an imperial pelicy s contemplated, but not openly avowed, what may be expected if the people encourage the Republican paety by indorsing .ts pol.cy at the polls? A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and. if accompanied by compulsory service, a con- stant scurce of irritation, but it 13 ever a menace to a republican form of fvvemmm:. The army the personification of force, and militarism all inevitably change the ideas of the people and turns the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of ‘war. Tke government which relies for its de- fense upen its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large of professional soldiers. A _small standing army and a well-equl and well-disciplined State militia are sufficient in ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the future as In the place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from all occupations , | needs worke: e | Future of the Filipino. MR. BRYAN RESPONDING TO THE NOTIFICATION. N S Y Y {at’ their country's call and return to Produc- tive labor when their services are no longer required—men who fight when the country | needs fighters and work when the country ! The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine Islands will be retained under | American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of the Republican leaders a dis- cussion of the future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the body politic eight or ten million | Aslatics, so different from us in race and his- v that amalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws and | shaping the destiny of this nation? No Re- publican of prominence has been bold enough | to advoeats such a proposition. The McEnery resolution, adopted by the Senate imin-diately after the ratification of the treaty, expressiy negatives this idea. | described the situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens without endan- gering our civilization. Who will dispute 1t? And what is the alternative? 1f the Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a | subject? On that question the Democratic plat- form speaks with emphasis. | the Filipino cannot be a subject without en- dangering our form of government. A repub- | lic can have no subjects. A subject is poss ble only in a government resting upon force, he is unknown in a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. The Republican platform says that “'the larg- | est measure of self-government consistent with | thelr welfare and our duties shall be secured | to them (the Filipinos) by law.’ This is a | strange doctrine for a_government which owes | its very existence to the men who offered their | lives as a protest against government without | consent and taxation without representation. iln what respect does the position of the Re- publican_party differ from the position taken 6? Did not v the English Government in I he English Government promise a good gov- | ernment to_the colonists? What King ever | promised a bad government to his people? Did | not the English Government promise that the |-colonists should have the largest measure of | self-government ccnsistent dith their welfare | and English dutles? Did not the Spanish Gov- ernment promise to give to the Cubans the largest measure of self-government consistent | with their welfare and Spanish duties? The | whole difference between a monarchy and a | republic may be summed up in one sentenc |In a monarchy the King gives to the people | what he believes to be a good government; in a_republic, the people secure for themseives what they believe to be a good government. The Republican party has accepted the Euro- ean idea and planted itself upon ground taken By George 111 and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity of the people for gelf-government or_denies them a voice in their own affairs. The Republican platform promises that some | measure of self-government is to be given to the Filipinos by law; but, even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment of Copgress last June, and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippine situation. The will of the President has been the only law In the Philippine Islands wher- ever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclose the radical departure from his- tory and precedent contemplated by those who control the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the Porto Rican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American people are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject. If the Porto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied 'the guarantees of our constiution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resisted our authority? If secret influences could com- rel a disregard of our plain duty toward friend- iy people. living near our shores, what treat- ment wHi those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7000 miles away? If in this country, where the people have the right to vote, Republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can they be trusted to protect the Fill 0 exvloit the islands? Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the United States and the twilight of citizenship endured by the people of Porto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law as- serts the doctrine that the operation of the con- _llgllllthm is confined to the forty-five States. he and denounces it as repugnant to both_the let ter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place {n our system of government for the %_ehpo it of arbitrary and irresponsible power. the leaders of a great party should claim for any President or Congress the right to treat millions of people as mere ‘‘possessions’” and deal with them unrestrained by the constitu- tion or the bill of rights shows how far we have already dearted from the ancient land- marks and Indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a carcer of empire. The territorial form of govern- ment is temporary and preparatory and the chief security a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same con- stitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as a citizen of a State. Take I,m this security and his rigl will be violated and his interest sacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is anplied. Title to Land and People. ‘What Is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or by conguest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did e purchiase the people? If mot, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in ‘with the land? Wlu_ the Republicans say that The Democratic platform | It declares that | inos from the corporations which are waiting ! | -0, B e L o e e s ] tle, discovered that he had slain his brother n: ““Ail ye are breth Let us coming of the day when huma. ch when once destroyed cannot be r stored—will be so sa taken except when nec already committe red that it will n sary to punish a > prevent a erir | to_be ‘committea | _If it is said that we have assum: | world obligations which make it Us to perms ly maintain a government the Philippine Isiands, I reply first, that the | highest ob n of this nation is bligation to partic | tions combined, ,can requirs the abandonment of our ther Ty vernment and the substitution nst which | our whole nati second. that our who' inhabit obligation which have a tem residence in th or desire to trade th It is argu - incapabie of fore we owe it to t them. Admiral Dewey the Navy Department more capable bans, and said | knowledge o b the case the relative ad: me Filipinos. Henry Clay, in def of the people ment, satd man 'is too i assert his Incapac it they cannot comm proposition, it nations, and ou often make is to arraign self, to suppe capable of g trampled on by natural Fovernme: Clay was ficlency 1 a a reflection upc denied to any pec ernment. Onee capabie of se | zot, and that to seize upon and go you make force—brute tion of government and invite t despot. I am willing t 1 wise and all-loving Ged o | and left them thousan | til the islands attracted the atte nations. | Hauling Down the Flag. | _ Republicans ask, | flag that floats over our dead | pines2" The same question might have been when the American flax floated over ¢ pec and waved over the dead who f | but the tourist who visits the City | finds there a national cemetery, owned United States and cared f an_ A n the Philip~ asked Mexieo 1 | citizen. Our flag still floatg over our des | when the treaty h Wexico was sig American authority withdrew the | Grande, and I venture the opinion_that d: the last fifty the pecple made more progress under dependence and self-governme would have made under a c: ment held in place by bayone States and Mexico, stronger and hap been had the former crushed by an impert ““benevolent assimilation ‘Can we not govern colonfes?" The question is not what we we ought to do. This nation it desires to do, but it must acc ¢ Mexico hava stimulus of in- for what its es. If the stands In the way the people can constitution. I repeat, the nation | ever it desires to do. but it cannot av | natural and legitimate results ¢ duct. The young man upon reac jority can do what he pleases. He can 4 gard the teachings of his parents: he trample upon all that he has been taught consider sacred, he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws of society and the laws of God his very existence a curse to his and he can bring his father and mo roW to the grave; but he cannot annul tence, “‘the wages of sin Is death.” And so with this nation. It is of age and It can do what it pleases: it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon [ e e e o ) - ? . - > & . + > 'S - S B > - S - & * * | & @ - * > kS - * < @ - + ® é; * I THE RACECOURSE, INDIANAPOLIS, WHERE THE NOTIFICATION (:' OF BRYAN AND STEVENSON WAS MADE. * & [ R e s e ol e e e e el e el e e e e e e e e e o ] inanimate earth has value, and when that earth is molded by the Divine Hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator, it becomes a fixture and passes with the sofl? If overn- ments derive their just powers from the com- sent of the governed, it is impossible tu secure title to people, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spain’s title by treaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with our ideas of govern- ment. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them to fight against Spain we disputed Spain's title. If we buy Spain’s title we are not innocent purchasers. But even if we had not disputed Spain's title, she could transfer no greater title than she had, and her titie was based on force alone. We cannot defend such a title, but as Spain gave us a quitclaim deed we' can honorably turn the property over to the party in possession. Whether any American official gave the Fili- pinos moral assurance of independence is not material. There can be no doubt that we ac- cepted and utilized the services of she Fili- pinos and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their own independence, and I submit that history fur- nishes no example of turpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Soan- ish yoke. Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of an imperialistic policy. | Some say that it is our duty to hold/the Phil- ippine Islands. But duty is not an argument; it 1s a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in any emergency, we must apply well set- tled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avold killing a human be- ing, no matter where the human being lives, or to what e or class he belongs. Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon in- dividuals to observe both the human and moral law, but, as some deny the application of those laws to nations it may mot be out of vlace to quote the opinion of others. Jefferson, than whom there {s no higher political authority, sald: “I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.” Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are & part of the priceless legacy bequeathed to us from the revolutionary days, expressed the same :dea in even stronger language when he said: ' “Justice Is as strictly ~due neighbor nations as between nelghbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when singly: and t nation that makes an unjust war is only a sreat gang.” Men may dare to do in crowds what they | would not dare do as individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined | by the number of those who join in it. can defend a right, but force ha: created a right. the resolution of intervention, that the Cu- bans ‘“‘are and of right ought to be free and independent’’ (language taken from the Declar- ation of Independence). it is equally true thar the Filininos “are and of right ought to_ be free and Independent.” bans to freedom was not based upon thelr proximity to the United States, mot upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upo race or races to which they belonged. Con- gress by a practically unanimous vote de- clared that the principles enunciated at Phila- delphia in 1776 were still alive and appiicable to the Cubans, Consent of Governed. Who will draw a line between the natural rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former have a right to liberty and the latter have no rights which we are bound to respect? And if the Filipinos “‘are and of right ought to be free and independent.”” what right have we to force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty can be ascer- tained, and when their rights are once deter- mined. it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty of Spain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba, or the duty of England to respect the rights of the Ameri- can colonists. Rights never conflict; dutles never clash. ‘Can it be our duty to usurp po- Iitical rights which belong to others? Can it be our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it? Some poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who. in the midst of bae- Force never yet between | It it was true, as declared in | The right of the Cu- the | which the nation rests: it can employ force in- stead of reason: it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can ex- ploit their lands, appropriate their property and | kill their people, but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights. “Would we tread in the paths of tyranny, | Nor reckon the tyrant's cost? | Who taketh ‘another’s ltberty, His freedom is also lost. ‘Would we win as the strong have ever won? Make ready to pay the debt, | For the God who reigned over Babylon Is the God who is reigning yet.”" Some argue that American rule in the Philip- | pine Islands will result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we ex- pect to maintain a colontal policy we shall not | find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us and the most ignorant omes have made the least resistance to our domination. It we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educats | them, lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States and mock us for our inconsistency. The | principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon & defense of imperialism are: . First—That we must improve the present op- portunity to become a world power and enter into international politics. | Second—That our commercial interests in the | Philippine Islands ard in the Orent make it Decgfsary for us to hold the isiands perma- nes y. Third—That the spread of the Christian re- ligion will be facilitated by a colonial policy. Fourth—That there is no honorable retreat | from the position which the nation has taken. | Growth of American Policy. | | . The first argument is addressed to the na- | tlon’s pride and the second to the nation | pocketbook. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for the partisan. | , It is sufficient answer to the first argument | to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has | been the most potent Influence in the world. Not only bas it been a world power, but it has done more to affect the policies of the human race than all the other natlons of the world combined. Because our Declaration of Inde- pendence was promulgated, others have been promulgated;: because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty, others have fought for it; because our constitution was adopted, other constitu- | tions bave been adopted. The growth of the principie of self-government, planted on Amert- can soil, has been the overshadowing political faith of fhe nineteenth centry it has made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as no nation has ever enjoved. Nothing has be:n able to check the onward march of this idea. i am mot willing that this nation shall cass aside the omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the.weapon of physicial warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this republie for the glory of all the empires that have risen and | falien ‘since time bes: The permanent chairman of the Iast Repub- lican National Convention presented the pe- cuniary argument in all its baldness when La | sald: ‘“We make no hypocritical pretenses of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the wel. fare of those people'as a sacred trust, we re. gard the welfare of the American We see our duty to ourseives as wel others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the provines of government and constitution we mean to stim- ulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets This is the commercial argument. { | upon the theory that war can be rightis wased | for pecuniary advantage and that it is profit- | able to purchase trade by foree and violence, | Franklin _denied both of those propositions. | When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of Par- | Hament. which brought on the Revolution, were necessary to prevent American trade from pass- ing into foreign channels, Franklin said: ““To me it seems that neither the obtaining ' nor retaining of any trade. however valuable, is an object for which men may justly epili |