The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-11-26


-
the flag and the Philippines. and had
not sought to enforce rights far ex-
ceeding these which were ours beyond
question. there would have been no
war on the archipelago after peace was
had with Spain.
Now let us see how our title to the
territory ceded by Mexico compares
with that ceded by Spain. Outside of
Texas, none of the inhabitants of the
region mentioned in the paragraph
quoted by Mr.. westervelt. disputed the
ownership and sovereignty of Mexico.
The Mexican title was perfect and her.
delivery of the goods was complete.
Texas was made independent and it
was not until a majority of her people
demanded admission that she was taken
into the Union. But New Mexico, Arr
IONA and all the vast area included in
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and
the Gadsden purchase, belonged to
Mexico We acknowledged it; the in
habitants acknowledged it: there was
no revolt in progress against the orig
inal holder and none inaugurated
against the purchaser. The settlers
the hunters, the trappers, the miners
were there in advance and they prac-
tically had possession when it was
yielded by Mexico. President Polk COW
cred the objection made to the forcible
retention of the Philippines: I'm pro-
20.
CALIFORNIA; he said. 1T was known
that but an inconsidcrable portion of
the Mexican people would be trans
ferred with them, the country en-
braced within these provinces being
chiefly an uninhabited region"
He justified the acquisition upon the
further ground that the provinces of
contiguous to the territories of the
United States, and. if brought under
the government of our laws, their re-
sources-mineral. agricultural, manu-
featuring and commercial-would soor
be developed
And. while this may look like the
urging again of expediency, it is a mat
ter that bears upon our constitution
and our form of government until it
touches the question OF right. For in
view of these geographical and indus
trial considerations Mr.. Polk contended
that the territory could become "a
part of the Union and might ulti-
mateiy be carved into American
states" Could this be said of the Phil
ippines? Is it the intention of this
government to make the islands a part
Of the Union, to say nothing of any ul-
innate purpose to make states of the
archipelago? No one has said so. All
deny it. Nobody thinks of retaining
the Philippines except as dependencies.
And serious question of constitutional
right enters, here.
Tie title of the United States to the
land acquired from Mexico is good be-
cause the title of Mexico was good.
The title of the. United States to the
Oriental archipelago for which we paid
Spain is doubtful, because the title of
Spain was not good according to our
own admissions, declarations and atti-
tude as a nation
The title of the United States to the
territory ceded by Mexico is good be-
cause the agreement was accompanied
by delivery of undisputed possession.
The title of the United States to the
Philippines is under a cloud because
there was no delivery and we haven't
obtained undisputed possession Of the
islands yet.
The transfer of the Mexican territory
was never protestea by subject or sev-
ereign.
The title Spain. held in the Philip
pines was never conceded by the sub |
jects, the transfer was contested and |
the president recognized other rights !
and interests than those of Spain by
treating with and by paying addi- |
tional sums of money to local chiefs |
and sovereigns of the visayas, Negritos
and Sulus.
There is such a difference between |
these two national transactions that /
the only wonder is how one can trace |
the SIMILARITY. sre