The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-12-07


tx the responsibility for the disaster
than other people, but that is of course
absurd, and there is no particular sense
in quoting their opinions on this point.
The Rev. e. +. Pember of Bangor has
been preaching in favor of expansion and
the way he gets round our solemn promise
not to seek additional territory Is interest.
ing to see We quote what he says on this
point:
They tell us that we promised not to
seek further territory, but simply to drive
panish soliie cut of Cuba, and that
we have broken our ,rd. This is largely
true yet it WAS not Intentional. NO one
Thought of making falls, promise. New
circumstances have arisen, new condi-
ltiops have appeared and new line of
action must follow. History reveals
many of such instances in connection
with our own government.
Here Mr. Pember read the following
from an article in the New York INDIE
pendent by Prof .'as- A. Wodburn OF the
University OF Indiana: "Ihe represen
tatives OF the United Colonies of North
America in Congress at Philadelphia,
after the battles of Lexington, Concoi d
and Bunker Hill had been fought, de-
clared solemply, before God and the
world, that they had not taken mp arms
for separation from the mother country,
but for the redress of grievances, and they
added-lest this declaration should dis
uuiet t minds of our friends and fellow
subjects in any part of the empire as
sure them that we mean not to dissolve
that union which has SO long and SO
happily subsisted between US, and which
we sincerely wish to see restored. Neces-
siity has not yet driven us to that des-
perate measure Yet when the time came
they did sever the ties of union with the
mother country, and felt Justified in thus
breaking their promise.
The ether case was the sCrittenden
resoIution,' which Congress adopted.
soon after the outbreak OF the civil War,
July %, 1861, which declared among other
things: That this war is not waged upon
our part for any purpose of overtime wing
or interfering with the rights or estab-
lishe6 institutions of these states; but to
defend and main ain the supremacy or
the constitution and to preserve the union
with all the dignity, equality ana rights
of the several states unimpaired, that as
soon RS these objects are accomplished
the war ought to cease.
MIR. Pember in continuing said:
ssHhen the emancipation proclamation
was carried cut this promise was broken
and the reason was good one for break
ing il. We may regret the necessity that
compels us TO not be able to keep our
word; but these moments come with in
diyiduals.'
we wonder if Mr. Pember failed to OBJ
serve that the promise the representatives
of the United Colonies of North America
made was conditional promise--a prom
Use not to seek separation from England
unless driven to that necessity. They
alleged that they were then not contem-
plating separation, but they made 1T clear
that they might be driven to that for they
said Necessity mas not yet driven us to
that desperate measure, clearly implying
that they might havs recourse to that 1t
they failed to get a redress OF their
grievances without it.
Mr.. Pember's second parallel is quite as
little parallelas his first. The eman-
cipation proclamation was rot in any
way incompatible with the declaration OF
Congress that the war was not waged
for the extinction of slavery. The eman-
cipation proclamation was means to an
end. In the very first line of it Mr..
Lincoln disclaimed any intention OF
purpose to make the war one for the
abolition of slavery for he said, II do
proclaim and declare that hereafter, as
heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for
the object of practically restoring the con-
stitutional relations between the United
states and each of the states = No prom
ise ever made by Congress was broken
by this proclamation. 1t was a war
measure adopted to help accomplish
the purpose of the war which was the
restoration of ths Union. If Congress
had declared that it would not free the
slaves and had then freed them promise
would have been broken. But this it
did not do.
Now our promise when this war began
was, to quote Mr.. Pember's language,
"not to seek territory" That was
clear and explicit. We have sought terri
tory. We have compelled the Spaniards
to deliver the Philippines to us. 1t may
be that there is some good Justification
for this, but if so Mr. sPem5er has
not found it. ''Dire necessity" never
compelled us to remain in Manila as it
compelled the Unionists to resort to COM
plete separation, and it was never neces-
sary in order to accomplish the object of
the war which was the freedom of Cuba
to occupy the island of Luzon, as it was
necessary to free the slaves in orderlto
facilitate the work of restoring the
Union.
-
FRANCE SPEAKS WELL OF THE