Newspaper Page Text
6
DEMOCRATS BIG DAY.
Continued from First Page.
▼or of official and commercial supremacy
and the advancement of business in this
direction regardless of the constitution
and regardless of the consequences which
menace the peace and prosperity of the
country. Th y are now' ready to wage
uVar for the principles which they enter
tain and whi h I believe will lead us to
victory in November.
“Again, ladies and gentlemen, I extend
to you a hearty welcome. I now have the
pleasure of introducing to you the perma
nent chairman of the meeting. Senator
James K. Jone-s, of Arkansas. (Loud
cheering.)
Spoke I'mler Olflicnl tic*.
Senator Jones made no speech upon tak
ing tlie chair, but confined his remarks
to the simile introduction of the speak
er? to the audience.
Congressman James D. Richardsan of
Tennessee,to whose lot.as permanent chair
man of the National Convention, fell the
duty of notifying Mr. Bryan of his nom
ination, made the first of the notification
addresses.
Probably no man ever made an impor
tant speech under greater difficulties. The
sun was throwing its rays directly upon
many of his auditors and besides they
were present to hear MY. Bryan. In the
crowd where a hand once down could not
be raised, and one's raised could not be
iow'ered. were old men, frail women and
small children. Boon the mass began to
away back and forth through the efforts
of those in the rear to get nearer the
speakers. There were a few screams,
more groans, and it became necessary to
get some of the feeble people out of the
crush. There were loud cries of “Cut it
short,” “Give Bryan a chance.” “We
can’t stand it here,” and other signs of
impatience.
For a time Mr. Richardson did not ap
pear perturbed by this clamor, but when
there appeared to be real danger of seri
ous results he brought his remarks to a
somewhat precipitous close, apeaking for
only fifteen minutes. Notwithstanding
the general confusion. Mr. Richardson was
liberaWy applauded, especially when he
.spoke of Zulu slavery and Oriental
harems.
R Icliu r<l4>n Notifies Ilrjnn,
The following axe extracts from Mr.
Richardson’® speech:
“Four years ago you led the party in
the most brlllant contest it has ever ex
perienced. You then failed to win the
goal, the presidency, but you did more;
you won the respect and admiration of
your political foes and the ardent love and
devotion of your followers. That contest
was made by you against stupendous
odds, in the face of a hostile press, and
with unhappy division in your ranks. I
congratulate you and the country that
all these unfortunate conditions do not
confront you to-day. It is true you were
then bitterly, sometimes wantonly, as
sailed, and when partisan rancor rnn high
occasionally coarse things were said of
you and your parry. But you and they
survived them ail, and were perhaps
stronger for them. We trust this cam
paign will be pitched on a higher plane,
and that it w’Ul be conducted in a manner
worthy of the great dignity which at
taches to the two most exalted offices at
stake.
“It is true that you and your party
friends have already been characterized
as dishonest and lawless at home, and
as cowards abroad. I feel sure, however,
it will stop at this, or, at least, if such
hyperbolic flowers of speech are used at
all, it will be in rare instances, and only
then by someone whose coarse manners
before the public are equalled only by the
roughness of his riding habit.
“The plaiform which 1 handed you i* a
new Declaration of Independence. You
will see it takes no step backward upon
any issue or party creed heretofore pro
mulgated.
“I cannot, without trespassing upon the
propriety of this occasion, further discuss,
or even make mention of the other issues
of the campaign. The vast multitude be
fore us is impatient an.l eager to catch
the first utterance of your lips and hang
on your eloquent words.
“In this unparalled contest we pledge
you the earnest, zealous unbought, un
faltering. enthusiastic support of seven
million votes of the republic as you go
forth to battle, and as the constitution of
our beloved land should follow’ its flag, so
this undismayed and unconquerable band
of patriots will follow you as you bear
their flag to victory in November.”
Bree*c Blew for Bryan.
There was an immediate change of de
portment on the part of the crowd when
Mr. Bryan arose. He was introduced at
3:30 by Chairman Jones. As if ordered
for the occasion, a light breeze sprang up,
bringing some relief to the over-heated
mass of humanity. After one burst of
applause, th* crowd quieted down and re
mained well behaved throughout the deliv
ery of the speech. There were occasional
cries o-f “Louder,’* when Mr. Bryan first
began to speak, but these were offset by
hurrahs for the speaker. After a few
contests of this kind the auditors made no
further signs except to applaud the points
of the speech.
Mr. Bryan read his speech, departing
not from his manuscript except in a word
of explanation at the beginning of his ad
dress. He was sitting immediatelytothe left
of Senator Jones when he was presented by
that gentleman. He arose promptly and
was Immediately recognized by the entire
assemblage.
Mr. Bryan never appeared to better ad
vantage. His face was slightly flushed,
but his eye was clear and calm and his
voice was never more completely at his
command He w f as dressed in a b’ack sack
coat, which was loo?e y buttoned about
the waist. A whi e shirt frent and white
necktie gave the appearance cf coolness
which corr.p r:ed well with the speakers
personal hearing. His voice was far reach
ing and that he was heard at g ?reat dis
tance w'as made evident by the fact that
jeop e far out in the crowd listened ap
parently as intently as did those who sat
on the platform.
Sentiments Mnnt Applauded.
Among the jentlments of the speech
which w'ere applauded with especial zest
w* re those declaring that under existing
circumstances "we c*are not educate the
Fhlpinos lest th*>y learn to read the De
claiation of Ind pendence and the consti
tution of the United States;’* that we
would never agree to exchange the glory
of this country for {hal of all the em
pires; that “it is not necessary to own a
pe )ple in order to trade with them,’* and
that “the commend ‘Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel* has not a
Gatling gun attachment.' '*
There was also general cheering over the
speaker’s promise to convene Congress im
mediately to remedy the Philippine situ
ation if he were elected.
No part of the speech received the earn
est ..ouuacudution that was bestowed up
do the perorat lon. This called out an out
burst mat was both tumultuos and pro
l<*#r*d.
Mr. Bryan spoke a few' words extem
poraneously In introducing his speech, all
of which, e*oept the peroration, was read
from manuscript. The closing sentences
were repeated from memory In a most ef
fective manner. The extemporaneous in
troduction was as follows:
Bryan Head Hit Speech.
“I feel that T owe an apology or expla
nation to the people who are to listen for
the fact that 1 must read what I am go
ing to say. It would be more pleasant
to me and more agreeable to you to apeak
without notes, but I want to address thnt
larger constituency which we reach
through the newspapers, for It Is a thous
an 1 times as numerous os any crowd that
dould a -mble here; and, therefore, in
order that I may apeak to all throughout
the and. I have committed to writing
w hut I desire to say and will ask your
Indulgence while I read my sx>eech."
He then r*ad hia address as follows:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Noti
fication Committee:
T shall, at an early day. and in a more
formal manner, accept the nomination
which you tender, # and I shall at that time
discuss the various questions covered by
the Democratic platform. Jt may not be
out of place, however, to submit a few
observation* at this time upon the general
character oi the contest before us, and
upon the question which is declared to be
of paramount importance in this cam
paign.
When I say that the contest of 1900 is a
contest between Democracy on the one
hand'and plutocracy on the other, I do
not mean to say that all our opponents
have deliberately chosen to give to organ
ized wealth a predominating influence in
the affairs of the government, but 1 do
assert that on the important issues of the
day the Republican party is dominated by
those influences which constantly tend to
elevale pecuniary considerations and ig
nore human rights.
In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican
party 1 clieved in the man and ihc dollar,
but that In case of conflict it believed in
the man Uforc the dollar. This is the
■proper relation which should exist between
the two. Man, the handiwork of God.
comes first. money, the handiw'ork of mail,
is of inferior importance. Man is the mas
ter, money the servant, hut upon all im
portant questions to-day, Republican legis
lation tends to make money the master
and man the servant.
The maxim of Jefferson, "equal rights
to all and special privileges to none,” and
the doctrine of Lincoln that this should he
a government “of the people, by the peo
ple, and for the people” are being disre
garded and the instrumentalities of gov
ernment are being used to advance the in
terests of those who are in a position to
secure favors from the government.
The Democratic party is not making war
ujkhi the hornet acquisition of wealth; it
has no desire to discourage industry,
economy and thrift. On the contrary, it
gives to every citizen the greatest possible
st mulus to honest toil, when it promises
him protection in the enjoyment of tn
proceeds of his labor. Property rights are
most secure when human rights are .e
--spected. Democracy strives for a civili
zation in which every member of society
will share according to his merits.
No one has a right to expect from so
ciety more than a fair compensation for
the service which he renders to society. If
he secures more, it is at the expense of
someone else. It is no injustice to him
to prevent his doing injustice to another.
To him who would, either through class
legislation or in the absence of necessary
legislation, trespass upon the rights of
another, the Democratic party says “Thou
shalt not.”
Profit in Republicanism.
Against us are arrayed a comparatively
small, but politically and flnacially pow
erful, number who really profit by Repub
lican pedicles: but with them are associated
a large number who, because of their ar
tachmcni to the party name, are giving
their support to doctrines antagonistic to
the former teachings of their own
party'. Republicans who used to
advocate bimetallism, now try to
convince themselves that the gold stand
ard is good; Republicans who were for
merly attached to the greenback are now
seeking an excuse for giving national
tanks control of the nation’s paper
money; Republicans who used lo boast
that the Republican party was paying 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 between the two Is be
coming more and more obscure; Repub
licans who, in times past, congratulated
the country upon the small expense of
our standing army, are now making light
of the objections which are urged against
a large Jncrease In the permanent mili
tary establishment; Republicans who
gloried in our independence when the
nation was less powerful, now look with
favor upon the foreign alliance; Repub
licans who three years ago condemned
forcible annexation” as so immoral and
even criminal, are now sure that it is
both immoral and criminal to oppose
forcible annexation. That partisanship
has already blinded many to present dan
gers is certain; how large a portion of the
Republican party can be drawn over to
the new policies remains to be seen.
Republican Stoastinn.
For a time Republican leaders were in
clined to deny to opponents the right to
criticise the Philippine policy of the ad
ministration. b\u upon investigation they
found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted
and exercised the right to criticise a
President during the progress of the Mex
ican war. I
Instead of meeting the Issue todly 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 io
boasting and self congratulation.
In attempting to press economic ques
tions upon the country to the exclusion
of those which involve the very structure
of our government, the Republican lead
ers give new evidence of their abandon
ment of the earlier ideals of the party and
of their complete subserviency to pecuni
ary considerations.
But they shall not be permitted to evade
the stupendous and far-reaching issues
w’hich they have deliberately brought into
the arena of politics. When the President,
supported by a practically unanimous
vote of the House and Senate, entered
upon a war with Spain for the purpose of
aiding the struggling patriots in Cuba,
the country, without regard to party, ap
plauded. Although the Democrats recog
nized that the administration would nec
essarily gain a political advantage from
the conduct of a war which, in the very
nature of the case, must soon end in a
complete victory, they vied with the Re
publicans in the support which they gave
to the President When the war wns over
and the Republican leaders began to sug
gest the propriety of a colonial policy,
opposition at once manifested itself. When
the President finally laid before the Sen
ate. a treaty which recognized the inde
pendence of Cuba but provided for the
cession of the Philippine Islands to the
United States, the menace of imperialism
became so apparent that many preferred
to reject the treaty and risk the ills that
might follow rather than take the chance
of correcting the errors of the treaty by
the independent action of this country.
Believed In Ratification.
I was among the number of those who
believed it better to ratify the treaty and
end the war. release the volunteers, re
move the excuse for war expenditures,
and then give to the Filipino- the inde
pendence which might he forced from
Spain by □ new treaty.
In view of the criticism which my ac
t-on aroused in some quarters I take this
occasion to restate the reasons given at
that time. I thought It safer to trust the
American reople to give independence to
the Filipinos than to trust the accom
plishment of that purpose to diplomacy
with an unfriendly nation. Lincoln em
bodied an argument in the question, when
he asked, ('an aliens make treaties eas
ier than friends ran make lows?” T be
lieve that we are now in a better position
to wage a suecesstul contest against im
perialism than we would have been hud
the treaty been rejected. With the treaty
ratified, a ok an cut Usue is presented be
tween a government by consent and a
government by force, and imperialists
must bear the responsibility fer all that
hut par s until the question is settled If
the treaty had been rejected, the oppo
nents of Imperialism would have been held
t©sponsible for unv international compli
cations whi' h might have aiLen before
the ratification of another treaty. Hut
whatever diffrence* of opinion may have
( X Sted as to the best method of oppodrg
the colot ial policy, there tv ver was any
difference us to the great importance of
qua-tion aid there | no difference
now ns to the c urse to be pursued.
The title of Brain being extinguished,
we were at liberty to deal with the Fi 1-
pinos according to American principles.
Th© Bacon resolution, introduced a month
before hostilities broke out at Manila,
THE MORNING NEWS: THURSDAY. AUGUST 9, 1900.
promised independence to the Filipino? on
the same tei ms that it was prom.sed to
the Cubans. I supported this resolution
and believe that its adoption prior to the
hieaking out of hostilities would have pre
vented bloodshed, and that its adoption
at any sub *qu nt time would have tended
I hostilities.
If the treaty had been rejected, con
siderable time would have necessarily
• lapsed before anew treaty could have
been agreed upon and satisfied, and dur
ing that time the question would have
been agiratirg the public mind. If the Ba
■ <on r solution had been adopted by the
j Senate and carried out by the President,
•ithe i at the time of the ratification of
! the treaty or at any time afterwards, it
would hove taken th question of imper
ialism out of politics and left the Ameri
can people free to deal with their domes
; tic pr blems. But the resolution was de
feated by the vo e of the Republican Vice
President and from that time to this a
K publican Congress has refused to take
any action whatever in the matter.
When hostilities broke out at Manila,
Itepub.ican speakers and Republican edi
tors at once sought to lay the blame upon
those who had delayed the rati
fication of the treaty, and, dur
ing the progress of the war, the sarhe Re
publicans have accused the opponents of
imperialism of giving encouragement to
the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion
of responsibility.
Should State Its Position.
If it is right for the United States to
hold the Philippine Islands permanently
and imitate the European empires in the
government of the colonies, the Republi
. an party ought to state its position and
defend it, but it must expect the subject
races to protest against such a jiolicy and
to resist to the extent of their ability.
The Filipinos do not need any entburage
ment from Americans now living. Our
whole history has been an en
couragement, not only to the
Filipinos, but to all who are
denied a voice in their own gov
ernment. If the Republicans are prepar
ed to censure all who have used language
calculated to make Filipinos hate foreign
domination, let them condemn the speech
o f Patrick Henry. When he uttered that
passionate appeal: “Give me liberty or
give me death,” he expressed a sentiment
which still echoes in the hearts of men.
Let them censure Jefferson; of all the
statesmen of history, none have used
words so offensive to those who would
hold their fellows in political bondage.
Let them censure Washington, who de
clare<J that the colonies must chdose be
tween liberty and slavery. Or, if the stat
us of limitations has run against the sins
of Henry and Jefferson and Washington,
let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettys
burg speech will be quoted in defense of
popular government when the present ad
vocates of force and conquest are forgot
ten.
Someone has said that a truth once
spoken can never be recalled. It is true,
It goe* on and on. and no one can set a
limit to its ever-widening influences. But
if it W’ere possible to obliterate every word
written or spoken in defense of the prin
ciples set forth in the Declaration of In
dependence. 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 liberty.
He never made c race of people so low
in the scale of civilization or intelligence
that it w f ould welcome a foreign master.
Lincoln said that the safety of this na
tion was not In its fleet?, its armies or
its forts, but in the spirit which prizes
liberty and the 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 en
ter upon a career of empire must consider
not only the effect of imperialism on the
Filipinos, but they must also calculate
its effect upon our own nation. We can
not repudiate the principle of self-govern
ment in the Philippines without weaking
that principle here.
Effects of Imperialism.
Rvcn now we are beginning to see the
paralyzing influence of imperialism. Here
tofore, this nation has been prompt to ex
press its sympathy with those who were
fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere
of activity has been limited to the West
ern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not
been bounded by the seas. We have felt
it due to ourselves and to the world, as
well as to those w’ho were struggling for
the right to govern themselves, to proclaim
the interest which our people have, from
the date of their own independence, felt
in every contest betw-een human rights
and abiirary power. Three-quarters of a
century ago, when our nation was small,
th* struggles of Greece aroused our people,
and Webster and Clay gave eloquent ex
pression to the universal do*lre for Grecian
independence. In 1890. all parties manifest
ed a lively interest in the success of the
Cubans, but now when a war is in prog
ress in South Africa, which must result in
the extension of the monarchial 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 un
friendliness toward England; the Ameri
can people are not unfriendly toward ihe
people of any nation. This sympathy is
due to the fact that, as stated in our plat
form. we believe in the principle of self
government and reject, as did our fore
fathers, the claims of monarchy. If this
nation surrenders its belief in the universal
application of the principles set forth in
the Declaration of Independence, it will
lose the prestige and influence which it
has enjoyed among the nations as an ex
ponent of popular government.
Our opponents, conscious of the weak
ness of their cause, seek to confuse impe
rialism with expansion, and have even
dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of
their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely
and used language with such precision that
no one can he ignorant of his views. On
one occasion he declared: “If there be one
principle more deeply rooted than any oth
er in the mind of every American, it is
that we should have, nothing to do with
conquest.” And again he 6aid: “Conquest
is not in our principles; it is inconsistent
with our government.”
The forcible annexation of territory to
be governed by arbitrary power, differs as
much from the acquisition of territory to
be built up into states as a monarchy dif
fers from a democracy. The Democratic
Party does not oppose expansion, when
expansion enlarges the area of the repub
lic and incorporates land which can be set
tled by American citizens, or adds to our
l ation people who are willing to be
cw.ne citizens and are capable of
discharging theld duties as such. The ac
quisition of the Louisiana territory.
Florida, Texas |Vtd other tracts which
have been secured from time to time,
enlarging the republic, and the
constitution followed the flag Into the
new territory. It is now proposed o
seize upon distant territory already more
densely populated than our own country,
and to force upon the people a govern
ment, for which there is no warrant in
our conmitmion or our laws. Even the
argument that ibis earth belongs to those
who desire to cultivate It and have the
physical power to acquire it cannot be
invoked o Justify the appropriation of
the Philippine Islands by the United
States. If the islands were uninhabited
I American citizens would not be willing to
go there and till the soil. The white
I race will not live so neat the equator.
Other nations have tried to colonize in the
same latitude. The Netherlands have
! controlled Java for "no years, and yot to
day there are less than 60,000 people of
European birth scattered among 2’,000.0(0
natives After a century and a half of
English domination in India, less than
one-twentieth of one per cent, of the
people of India are of English birth, and
it requires an army of 70,000 British sol
diers to take car* of the tax colle<Aors.
Bpain has awerteif titles to the Philip
pine Islands for three centuries, and yet,
when our fleet entered Manila Hay, there
were less than 10,000 Spaniards reaiding in
the Philippines.
Whnt a Colonial Policy Means.
A colonial policy means that we shall
oend 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 peo
ple while they rule the natives.
If we have an imperial policy we must
have a laige standing army as its natural
and necessary complement. The spirit
which will Justify the forcible annex
ation of the Philippine Islands, will jus
tify the oeizure of other islands and the
domination cf other people, and with
wars of conquest we can expect a certain.
If not rapid growth of our military es
tablishment. That a large permanent in
crease in our regular army is intended by
the Republican leaders is not a mere
matter of fact. In hi? message of De
cember 5, 1898. the President asked for
authority to increase the standing army
to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained
about 25,000 men. Within rwo year? the
President asked for four times that many,
and a Republican House of Representa
tives complied with the request after the
Spanish treaty had b*-en signed and no
country was at war with the United
States. If such an army i? demanded when
an imperial policy is contemplated but
not openly avowed, what may he ex
pected if the people encourage the
Republican party by indorsing its policy
at the polls? A large standing army is not
only a peculiar burden to the people and
if accompanied by compulsory service, a
constant source of irritation, but it is ever
a menace to a republican form of govern
ment. The army is the personification of
force, and militarism will inevitably
change the ideals of the people and turn
the thoughts of our young men from the
arts of peace to the science of war. The
government which relies for its defense
upon its citizens, is more likely to be just
than one which has at call a large body
of professional soldiers. A small stand
ing army and a well-equipped and well
disciplined state militia are sufficient in
ordinary times, and in an emergency the
nation should in the future, us in the
past, place its dependence upon the volun
teers w r ho come fr.om all occupations at
their country’s call and return to produc
tive labor when their services are no long
ger required—men who fight when the
country needs fighters and work when the
country needs workers.
Future Status of Filipino.
The Republican platform assumes that
the Philippine Islands will be retained un
der American sovereignty, and we have a
right to demand of the Republican leaders
a discussion of the future status of the
Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a sub
ject? Are we to bring intot he body politic
eight or ten million Asiatics? so different
from us in race and rnistory that amalga
mation is Impossible? Are they to share
with us in making the laws and shaping
the des'tiny of this nation? No Republican
of prominence has been bold enough to
advocate such a proposii ion? The McEnerv
resolution, adopted by the Senate imme
diately after the ratification of t ne treaty,
expressly ne*gatives this idea. The Dem
ocratic platform described the situation
w'hen it a ays that the Fipinos cannot be
citizens without endangering our civiliza
tion. Who will dispute it? And what is
the alternative? If the Filipino is not to
be a citizen, shall we make him a subject?
On that question the Democratic platform
speaks with emphasis. It declares that
the Filipino cannot be a subject without
endangering our form of government. A
republic can have no subjects. A subject
is possible orjjy In a government resting
upon force, he is unknown in a govern
ment deriving its just powers from ihe
consent of the governed. The Republican
platform says that “The largest measure
of self-government consistent with their
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 of
fered their lives as a protest against gov
ernment without consent and taxa
tion without representation. In
what respect does the position
of the Republican party differ from the
position taken by the English govern
ment in 1776? Did net the English govern
ment promise a goed government to the
colonists? What King ever promised a
lad government to his reorle? Did not
the Erglish government promise that the
colonists should have the largest measure
of self-government with their welfare an 1
English dudes? Did not the Spanish gov
ernment promise to give the Cubans the
largest measure of self-government con
sistent with their welfare and Spanish du
ties? The whole difference between a
monarchy and a republic may be summed
up in one sentence. In a monarchy th-' 1
king gives to the people what he believes
to he a good government; in a republic the
people s cure for themselves what they
believe to be a good government. The Re
publican party has accepted the European
idea and planted itself upon the
ground taken by George 111, and by every
ruler who distrusts the capacity of the
I eople for self-government cr denies them
a voice in their own affairs.
A Pledge t nfulfilled.
The Republican platform promises that
some measure of self-government is to be
g ven to the Filipinos by law; but, even
this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly eixte'n
months ei.ipsed after the ratification of
tl e treaty bt fore the adjournmer t of Con
gress last June, and yet no law wa< pass
ed dealing with the Philippine situation.
The will of the President has been Ihe
only law in the Philippine Islands wher
ever the American authority extends. Why
does the Republican party hesitate to leg
islate upen the Philippine question? Be
cause a law wou'd disclose the radical
departure fr-m history and piece lent con
temrlated by those who control the Re
publican party. The storm of protest
which greet- and the Porto Rican hill was
an indication of what may be expected
when the American people are brought
face to face with legislation upon this sub
ject If the P rto Rfcnns, who welcome
annexation, are. to be d-n ed the guaran
tees of our constitution, what is to he th©
lot ef the Filip nos, who resisted our au
thority? If secret influences could com
pel a disregard of cur rlin duty toward
friendly people, living near our shores,
what treatment will those same influences
provide for unfriendly p ople 7,000 miles
away? If, In this country where the peo
ple have the right to vote, Republican
leaders dare not take the side of the
I*©opD against th a great monopolies which
ha\e grown up within the last few years,
bow can they he trusted to protect the
Filipinos from the corporations which are
waiting to exploit rhe islands?
Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be
enjoyed by the peop’e of the United
States, and the twilight of semi-citizen
ship endured by the people of Porto Rico,
while the thick darkness of perpetual vas
salage covers the Philippine*? The Porto
Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine thnt
the operation of the constitution is con
fined to the forty-five states. The Demo
c’atic party disputes th s do.*trine and
denounces it as repugnant io bith the
let er and spirit of our organic law. There
is no place In our system of government
for the deposit of arbitrary and irrespon
sible power. That the leaders of a great
party should claim for any President or
Congress the right to tr at millions of
people as mere “possessions” and deal
with thm unrestrained by the constitu
tion or the bill of rights shows how- far
we have already departed from the an
cient landmark?, and indicates what may
be expected if thl nation deliberately en
ters upon a car er of empire. Tin- ter
ritorisl form of government Is temporary
and preparatory, and the chief security
a citizen of a t rrltrry has is fo ni in the
fact that he enjoys the tarn*-
(onstiluti. nal guarantees. and is
subject to ihe same general
laws as a citizen of a state. Take
away this security and his right* wiil he
violated and his Interest sacrificed or the
demand of those who have political in
fluences. This Is the evil of the colonial
system, no matter by what nation it is
applied.
Oar Title to Plllipplnea.
Whet is our title to the Philippine Isl
ands? Do we hold them by treaty or bv
•conquest? Did we buy them or did we
take them? Did we purchase the peo
ple? If not. how did w*e secure title to
them? Were they thrown in with the
land? Will the Republicans say that in
animate earth has value, and when that
earth i? molded by the Divine hand end
stamped with the likeness of the cre
ator it becomes a fixture and passes with
the soil? If governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed,
it is impossible to secure title to people,
either by force or by purchase. We could
extinguish Spain’s title by treaty, but if
vve hold title we must hold it by some
method consistent with our ideas of gov
ernment. When we made allies of the
Filipinos and armed them to fight against
Spain, we disputed Spain'e title. If we
buy Spain's title, we are not innocent pur
chasers. But even if we had not disputed
Spain's title, she could transfer no great
er title than she had, and her title was
based on force alone. We cannot defend
such a title, but as Spain gave us a quit
claim deed, we can honorably turn the
property over to the party in possession.
Whether any American official gave the
Filipinos moral assurance of independence
is not material. There can be no
doubt that we accepted and
utilized the services of the Filipinos
and that when we did so we had , full
knowledge that they were fighting for
their independence, and I submit that his
tory furnishes no example of turpitude
baser than our? if we now substitute our
yoke for the Spanish yoke.
Let us consider briefly the reasons which
have been given in support of an imperi
alistic policy. They say that it is our
duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But
duty is not an argument; it is a conclu
sion. To ascertain what our duty is in
any emergency we must apply well set
tled and generally accepted principle®, 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 avoid
killing a human being, no matter where
the human being lives or to what race or
class he belongs. Everyone recognizes the
obligation imposed upon individuals
to observe both the human and
moral iaw, but a? some f deny
the application of those laws to nations,
it may not be out of place to quote the
opinion of others. Jefferson, than whom
there is no higher political authority,
said:
“I know of but one code of morality for
nun, whether acting singly or collective
ly.”
Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and
virtue are a part of the priceless legacy
bequeathed to us from the revolutionary
days, expressed the same idea in even
stronger language w’hen he said:
‘Justice is as strictly due between
neighbor nations as between neighbor cit
izens. A highwayman is as much a robber
when he plunders in a gang as when
singly; and the nation that makes an
unjust war is only a great gang.”
Men may dare to do in crowds what
they would rot date to do a? individual?,
but the moral character of an act Is not
determined by the number of those who
join in it. Force can defend a right, but
force has never yet created a right. If
it was true, as declared in the resolution
of intervention, that the Cubans “are and
of right ought to be frte and independent”
(language taktn from the Declaration of
Independence) it is equally true that the
Filipinos “are and of right ought to be
free end independent.” The right of the
Cubans to freedom was not based upon
their proximity to the United States, nor
upon the language w’hlch they spoke, nor
yet upon the race or races to which they'
belonged. Congress by a practically unan
imous vote dec ared that the principles
enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were
still alive and applicable to the Cubans.
Cuban* and Filipino*.
Who will draw* a line between the nat
ural rights of the Cubans and the Fili
pinos? Who will say that the former have
a right to libtr.y and the latter have no
rights which we are bound to reaped?
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 ascertained, and when
their rights are once determined, it is as
mu' h our duty to respect those rights as
it was the duty cf Spoin to respect the
rights of the people of Cuba, or the duty
of England to respect the rights of the
American colonists. Rights never con
flict; duties never clash. Can It be our
duty to usurp political rights which be
long to otheis? Can it be our duty .to kill
those who, following the example of our
forefathers, love liberty w’ell enough to
for it?
Some poet has described the terror
which overcame a soldier who, in the
midst of battle, discovered that he had
slain his brother. It is written: “All ye
are brethren." Let us hope for the com
ing of the day when human life—which
when once destroyed cannot be restored—
will be so sacred that it will never be
taken except when necessary to punish
a crime already committed, or to prevent
a crime about to be committed.
If it is said that we have assumed be
fore the world obligations which make it
necessary for us to permanently main
tain a government in t 1 . Philippine Isl
ands, I reply, first, t ho t 1 highest ob
ligation of this i. ><> be true to
itself. No obligation to any particular
nation, or to all nations combined, can re
quire the abandonment of our theory of
government and the substitution of doc
trines against w'hich our whole national
life has been a protest. And. second, that
our obligations to the Filipinos, *who in
habit the islands, are greater than any
obligations which we can owe to foreign
ers who have a temporary resilence in
the Philippines or desire to trade there.
It is argued by some that the Filipinos
are incapable of self-government, and that
therefore we owe it io the world to take
control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an
official report to the Navy Department,
declared the Filipinos more capable of
self-government than the Cubans, and said
that he based his opinion upon a knowl
edge of both races. But I will not rest
the case upon the relative advancement of
the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending
the rights of the people of South Amer
ica to self-government, ©aid:
“It Is the doctrine of thrones that man
is too ignorant to govern himself. Their
partisans assert his incapacity in reference
to oil nations; if they cannot command
universal consent to the proposition, it
Is then remanded to particular nations
and our pride and our presumption too
often make converts qf us. I contend
• hat it is to arraign the disposition of
Providence Himself, to suppose that He
has created beings incapable of governing
themselves, and to be trampled on by
iKngs. Self-government is the natural
government of man."
Clay was right. There are degrees of
proficiency In the ait of self-government,
but it is a reflection upon the Creator to
say that He denied to any people th* ca
pacity of self-government. Once admit
that Fome people ore capable of
self-government, and that others arc
not. and that the capable people have
a right to seize upon and govrrn the in
capable. and you make for^e—brute force
—the only foundation of government
ar.d invite the reign of the den
pot. 1 am not willing to believe that
reign of the despot. I am not willing to
believe that an all-wise and an all-loving
God created the Filipinos, and then left
them thousands of years helpless until the
islands attracted the attention of Euro
pean nations.
The Flag Over Our Pend.
Republicans ask: “Shall we haul down the
flag that floats over our dead in the Phil
ippines?” The vame question might have
been asked when the American flag float
ed over Chapultepec* and waved over the
dead who fell there; but the tourist who
visits the City of Mexico finds there a
national cemetery owned by the United
States and cared for by an American cit
izen. Our flag still floats over our dead,
but when the treaty with Mexico was
signed. American authority withdrew to
the Rio Grande, and I venture the opin
ion that during the last fifty years the
people of Mexico have made more pro
gress under the stimulus of Independence
and self-government than they would
have made under a carpet-bag govern
ment held in place by bayonets.
The United States and Mexico,
friendly republics, are. each stronger and
happier than they would have been had
the former been cursed and the latter
crushed by an imperialistic policy, disguis
ed as “benevolent assimilation.”
“Can we not govern colonies?” we are
asked. The question is not what we can
do, but w hat we ought to do. This nation
can do whatever it desires to do, but it
must accept responsibility for w hat it does.
If the constitution stands in the way, the
people can amend the constitution. I re
peat, the nation can do whatever it de
sires to do. but it cannot avoid the natural
and legitimate results of its own conduct.
The young man upon reaching his major
ity can do what he pleaees. He can dis
regard the teachings of his parents; he
can trample upon all that he has been
taught to consider sacred; he can disobey
the laws of the laws of society,
and the laws of God. He can stamp fail
ure upon his life, bring his father and
mother in sorrow to the grave; but he can
not annul the sentence, “The wage* 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 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 exploit 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 cf tyranny,
Nor reckon the tyrant’s cost?
Who taketh another’s liberty
His freedom is also lost,
W’ould 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
Philippine Islands will result in the bet
ter education of the Filipinos. Be not de
ceived. If we expect to maintain a colo
nial policy’, we shall not find it to our ad
vantage to educate the people. The edu
cated Filipinos are now in revolt against
us, and the most ignorant ones have made
the least resistance to our domination. If
we are to govern them without their con
sent and give them no voice in determining
the taxes which they’ must pay, we dare
not educate them, lest thy’ learn to read
the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States and mock
us for our inconsistency.
Imperialistic Argument*.
The principal arguments, however, ad
vanced by those who enter upon a defense
of imperialism, are:
First. That we must improve the pres
ent opportunity to become a w r orld power
and enter into international politics.
Second. That our commercial interests
in the Philippine Islands and in the Orient
make it necessary for us to hold the isl
ands permanently.
Third. That the spread of the Christian
religion will be faciliiated by a colonial
policy.
Fourth. That there is no honorable re
treat from the position which the nation
has takeq.
The first argument is addressed to the
nation’s pride and the second to the na
tion's pocketbook. The third is intended
for the church member and the fourth for
the partisan.
It is a sufficient answer to the first ar
gument to say that for more than a cen
tury this nation has been a world power.
For ten decades it has been the most po
tent influence in the world. Not only has
it been a world power, but it has done
more to affect the policies of the human
race than all the other nations of the
w'orld combined. Because our Declaration
of Independence w’as promulgated, others
have been promulgated; because the pa
triot* of 1776 fought for liberty, others have
fought for it; because our constitution was
adopted, other constitutions have been
adopted. The grow’th of ihe principle of
self-government, planted on American soil,
has been the over-shadowing politidal fact
of the nineteenth century. It has made
this nation conspicuous among the nations
and given it a place in history such as no
other nation has ever enjoyed.' Nothing
has been able to check the onward march
of this idea. I am not willing that this
nation shall cast aside the omnipotent
weapon of truth to seize again the weapon
of physical welfare. I would not exchange
the glory of this republic for the glory of
all the empires that 'have arisen and fall
en since time began.
The permanent chairman of the last Re
publican National Convention presented
the pecuniary argument in all its bald
ness when he said:
“We make no hypocritical pretenses of
being interested in the Philippines solely
on account of others. While we regard
the welfare of those people as a sacred
trust, we regard the welfare of the Amer
ican people first. We see our duty to
ourselves as well as to others. We be
lieve in trade expansion. By every legit
imate means within the province of gov
ernment and constitution, we mean to
stimulate the expansion of our trade and
open new markets.”
This is the commercial argument. It is
based upon the theory that war can be
rightly waged for pecuniary advantage,
and that it is profitable to purchase trade
by force and violence. Franklin denied
both of these propositions. When Lord
Howe asserted that the acts of Parliament,
which brought on the revolution, w’ere
necessary to prevent American trade from
passing into foreign channels, Franklin
replied:
“To me it seems that neither the ob
taining nor retaining of any trade, how
valuable soever, is an object for which
men may justly spill each other’s blood;
that the true and sure means of extend
ing and securing commerce are the good
ness and cheapness of commodities, and
that the profits of no trade can ever be
equal to the expense of compelling it and
holding it by fleets and armies. I con
sider this war against us, therefore, as
both unjust and unwise."
I plaJe the philosophy of Franklin
against the sordid doctrine of those who
would put a price upon the life of an
American soldier and justify a war of con
quest upon the ground that It will pay.
The Democrotlc party is in favor of the
expansion of trades. It would extend our
trade by every legitimate and peaceful
means; but it is not willing to make mer
chandise of human blood.
War of Conquest Is Wrong-.
But a war of conquest Is as unwise os
it is unrighteous. A harbor and coaling
station in the Philippines would answer
every trade and military necessity, and
such a concession tk>uid have been secured
at any time without difficulty.
It Is not necessary to own people in order
to trade with them. We carry on trade to
day wiih every part of the world, and our
commerce has expanded more rapidly than
the commerce of any European empire.
We do not own Japan or China, but we
trade with their people. We have not ab
sorbed Ihe republics of Central and South
America, but we trade with them. It has
not been necessary to have any political
connections with Canada or the nations of
Europe in order to trade with them. Trade
cannot be permanently profitable unless it
is voluntary. When trade is secured by
force, the cost of securing it and retaining
it must be taken out of the profits, and the
profits are never large enough to cover
the expense. Such a system would never
be defended, but for the fact that, the ex
pense is borne by all ihe people, while the
profits are enjoyed by the few.
Imperialism would be profitable to the
army contractors; It would be profitable
to the shipowners, who would carry live
soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead
soldiers back; it would be profitable to
those who would seize upon the franchises,
and it would be profitable to the officials
whose salaries would be fixed heie and
paid over (here; but to the farmer, to the
laboring man, and to the vast majority of
those engaged In other occupations, it
would bring expenditure without return
and risk without reward.
Farmers and laboring men have, aa
rule, email incomes, and, under y ste *
which place the tax upon con#umptio?
pay more than their fair share of the 3
pensea of government. Thus the v®ry pIT
pie who receive leaat benefit from irrvpZ"
rlalism will be injured most by the min"
tary burdens which accompany it.
In addition to the evils which he and the
farmer share in common, the laboring man
will be the first to suffer if Oriental sub.
jects seek work in the United States; the
first to suffer if American capital leaves
our shores to employ Oriental labor in the
Philippines to supply the trade of China
and Japan; the first to suffer from the vie
lence which the military spirit arouses
and the first to suffer when the methods
of imperialism are applied to our owrv gov
eminent.
It is not strange, therefore, that the la
bor organizations have been quick to noie
the approach of these dangers and prompt
to protest against both militarism and im
perialism.
The pecuniary argument, though nior*
effective with certain classes. Is not like
ly to be used so often or presented with
so much < mphasis as the religious argu
ment. If what has been termed the “gun
powder gospel” were urged against th*
Filipinos only, it would be a sufficient an
swer to say .that a majority of the Fili
pinos? are now members of one branch of
the Christian church; but the principle
involved is one of much wider applica
tion and challenges serious consideration.
The Beligioag Arguiueut.
The religious argument varies in posi
tiveness from a passive belief that Prov
ince delivered the Fiiipinos into our
hands, for their good and our glory, t 0
the exultation of the minister who said
that we ought to thrash the natives (Fili
pinos) until they understand who we
are,” and that “every bullet sent, every
cannon shot and every flag waved meanj
righteousness.”
We cannot approve of this doctrine in
one place unless we are willing to apply
it every where If there is poison in the
blood of the hand it will ultimately reach
the heart. It is equally true that ford
ble Christianity, if planted under the
American flag in, the far-away Orient, will
sooner or later be transplanted upon
American soil. If true Christianity con
sists in carrying out in our daily lives
the teachings of Christ, who will say that
we are commanded to c’.vihze with dyna
mile and p.oselyte with the sword? He
who would declare the Divine will, must
prove his authority either by Holy Writ
or by evidence of a special dispensation.
The command “Go ye ir-to all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature”
has no Gatling-gun attachment. When
Jesus visited a village of Samaria, and
the people refused to receive Him. soma
of the disciples suggested that Are should
be ca’lcd down from heaven to avenge
the ir.sult; but the Master rebuked them,
and said: “Ye know’ not what manner of
spirit ye are cf; for the Sen of Man is
not come to destroy men’s lives, but to
save them.” Suppose he had said “We will
thrash them until they' understand who
we ate,” how different would have been
the history of Christianity? Compare. If
you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal
doctrines of imp rial sm wih the Golden
Rule and the commandment, “Thou shalt
lovrt thy neighbor as thyse f.”
Love, not force, was 'the weapon of
the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the
exploitation of them, w'as His method of
reaching the human heart. A missionary
recently told me that the Stars and
Stripes once saved his life because his
assailant recognized our flag as a flag that
had no blood upon it. Let it be know*n that
our missionaries are seeking souls in
stead of sovereignty; let it be known that
instead of being the advance guard of
conquering armies, they are going forth
to help and to uplift, hav
ing their loins grit about
with truth and their fee-t shod with ths
preparation of the Gospel of Peace, wear
ing the breast-plate of righteousness, and
carrying the sword of the Spirit; let it be
known that they are the citizens of a na
tion which respects the rights of the cit
izens of other nations a? carefully as it
protects the rights of its own citizens,
and the welcome given to our missionaries
will be mere cordial than the welcome
extended to the missionaries of any other
nation.
The argument, made by some, that It
was unfortunate for the nation that it had
anything to do with the Philippine Bl
ands, but that the naval victory at Ma
nila made the permanent acquisition of
those islands necessary. is al?o unsound.
We won n victory at Santiago, but th*t
did not compel us to hold Cuba. The
shedding of American blood in the Phil
ippine Islands does not make it impera
tive that we should regain possession for
ever. American blood was shed at San
Juan Hill and El Caney, and yet the Pres
ident has promised the Cuban* independ
ence. The fact that the American flag
floats over Manila doe* not compel us to
exercise perpetual sovereignty over the
islands; that flag waves over Havana to
day, but the President has promised to
haul it down when the flag of the Cuban
republic is ready’ to rise in its place. Bet
ter a thosuad times that our flag In the
Orient give, way to a flag representing (he
idea of self-government than that the flag
of this republic should become the flag of
an empire.
An Easy, Honorable Solntion.
There is an easy, honest, honorab’e so
lution of the Philippine question. It is
set forth in the Democratic platform, and
it Is submitted with confidence to the
American people. This plan I unreserv
edly indorse. If elected, I shall convene
Congress in extroordinary session os on
as I am inaugurated, and recommend ail
Immediate declaration of the nation ? pur
pose, first, to establish a stable form of
government in the Philippine Islond?. just
as we are now establishing a s r oble form
of government in the island of Cuba; sec
ond. to give independence to the Filipinos,
just as we have promised to give inde
pendence to the Cubans; third, io pro ect
the Filipinos from outside interference
while they w-ork out their destiny, just a*
we have protected the republics of Cen
tral and South America, and are, by the
Monroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cube.
An European protectorate often results in
the exploitation of the ward by the guar
dian. An American p**otfctora’e gives to
rhe nation protected ihe advantage of our
strength, without making it the vict ; m of
our greed. For three-quarters of a cen
tury the Monroe doctrine has been *
shield to neigtoring republics and
yet it has imposed no pecuniary
burden upon us. After the Filipinos had
aided us in the war against Spain. **
could not nonorably turn them over to
their former masters; we could not leave
them to be the victims of the ambition*
designs of the European nations, and since
we do not desire to make them a part cf
us. or to hold them as subjects, we prop o *®
the only alternative, namely, to gb' e
them Independence and guard th**
against molestation from without.
When our opponents are unable to de
fend their position by argument 'hey f
back upon the assertion that it is destiny,
and insist that we must submit to it. n®
matter how much it violates moral pre
cepts and our principles of government.
This is a complacent philosophy. It ob ‘
literates the distinction between right and
wrong and makes individuals and nation*
the helpless victims of circumstances.
Destiny is the subterfuge of the inverte
brate. who. lacking the courage to oppose
error. se*ks some plausible excuse for
supporting It. Washington said that the
destiny of this republican form of govern
ment was deeply. If not finally, staked on
ihe experiment entrusted to the American
pebple. How different Washington’s defi
nition of destiny from the Republic in defi
nition! The Republicans say that this na
tion Is In the hands of destiny; Wash
ington believed that not only the destiny
of our own nation, but the destiny o f th®
republican form of government through
out the world was entrusted to American
hands. Washington was right. The des
tiny of this republic is * n
the bandit of ifs own peopl*.
upon the surges* of th© experiment her*
rests, the hope of humanity. No exterior
Continued on Ninth Page.