The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-08-20
DISCUSSED EXPANSION.
National Conference on Foreign Policy of
the United States.

Saratoga, N. Y, August 19-The
National conference on the Foreign
Policy of the United States convened here
this morning with an address by Henry
| Wade Rogers of Chicago, chairman OF the
committee on arrangements. Mr. Rogers,
| in opening his address. said that the con-
| ference was called to consider some of the
most momentous question in the history
| of the republic. He said also that the
principal problem before the present con-
ference was that of territorial expansion,
on which many distinguished men of
national reputation hold widely divergent
views. Indirectly, he referred to the
positions respectively held by the OK
pansionists and the anti-expansionists
The question of the Nicaragua Canal
was taken up and Warner Miller of New
York, took the platform. He briefly spoke
of his persistent advocacy of the canal.
Necessity, he said, demands that the con-
tinent be pierced at this point. Events of
| the past three months demand it's imme-
date construction and he believed all
| Americans were now universally in favor
|
gave the history of the Nicaragua route
and said that had not the canal treaty
been blocked by antagonistic legislation
wears ago. the canal would have been al
ready built and now in actual operation.
| The entire morning session was devoted
to discussion of the Nicaragua Canal.
Joseph Nimmo, Jr., of Washington,
nd hx-
pressed himself as opposed to the Mic
aragua Canal project. The colonial OK
tension problem was taken up at the
York, spoke at length, giving the views
of the anti-expansionists whose cause he
advocated. He was opposed by Judge P.
S. Grosscup of Chicago, who is an earnest
expansionist, and who spoke at great
length. A discussion followed between
Messrs. Schurz and Grosscup. Among
| others who took partsin the general dis
cussion were Harry c. Garfield of Cleve-
land; E. B. Thurber of New York; John
W. Coughlin of Fall River; j. Davis
Duffield of Fall River, u. Setback of New
York, and others.
William Dudley Bull of Indiana, to-
| night made lengthy and strong ADDRESS
| in favor of territorial expansion. Con-
gresham r. III. GIllett of Massachusetts,
made an address on immortality of prize
money. Mr.. Gillette said in part:
"We can hardly hope that the move
ment for the abolition of war and the
substitution of some more rational arbl-
trament of international disputes Wlli at
| tain success in our generation. Although
most civilized men will admit its deslra-
bility, ali will admit the great obstacles
| to its achievement. Especially is today
an inopportune time to awake any en-
thusiasm for it in the country, when on
the arena of war the extraordinary ex-
ploits Of our sailors and soldiers have just
been keeping us in thrill of admiration
and astonishment and delight. But II
war is still inevitable, any mitigation OF
| its barbarity and suffering is desirable
and offers practical field for thought
and discussion and effort. This process
has been going on for centuries, ana al
though war consists of decreasing and de-
stroying and weakening your opponents,
yet there have always been among nations
which called themselves civilized methods
of destruction and. depletion, which wero
not approved and practiced. The theorlst
may satirize the attempt to humanize an
act which is Fundamentally inhuman
and may say that law no place in con-
dition which is based - on
defiance of law, but experience has
showed that mighty public opinion
can override even war, and that when all
law is set aside and defed the opinion OF
Chr1StendOm may SG1li impose r5sbFalntS
The instructions for the government OF
armies in the field issued by our govern
ment in 1868 marking by it's humane and
philophical teachings a great advance in
the humanities of war, said: AS civili-
| cation has advanced during the last CEN
turtles. SO has likewise steadily advanced
especially in war on land the distinction
between the private individual belonging
| to hostile country and the hostile
country itself with its men in arms The
principle had been more and more
Acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is
| to be spared in person, property and
honor as much as the exigenoies of war
will permit.
"But while on land the person and
property of the non oombattants is re-
spected except in case Of military neoessi-
| ty, the same law does not hold upon the
war. There the old ben1ghted rule is still
in force, that anything under the enemy's
flag is spoil of war; Is 1T not illogical and
unreasonable enough to call for change
| in the laws OF the oceanp Should not
the law on sea conform to the law on land
and the general rule being recognized
that harmless private property is exempt
from capture. Logic demands it, common
sense demands it, and the whole trend of
international law and of civiliza ton de-
mands it; only the sel1shness of some
nations forbids it"
| ACCOMPLISHMENTS REITEUEn Of