Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.