The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-21
MEL SON is FOR EXPANSION
Consent of the Government Is
Not Necessary.
ENGLAND'S GREAT WORK
Our Duty to Protect the Filipinos From
Anarchy and Despotism-Carter
Opposes the Caffsry
Amendment.

Washington, Jan. 20.-The senate was
| in session five and half hours to-day
I but the session was practically barren
of results. Two notable speeches were
delivered, one by Mr.. Nelson of Mime
sofa in opposition to Mr.. Vests anti
expansion resolution and the other by
Mr.. White of California, a personal ex-
PLANTATION of his position with respect
to the instructions given the California
senators by the legislature in that state
as to voting on the pending peace
treaty. At the conclusion of the speech-
es the senate resumed consideration of
the Nicaragua canal bill It's compile
ton was prevented probably by the
filibustering tactics adopted by MIR.
Tillman of South Carolina, who frankly
announced that the bill could not be
passed to-day, as he, if other senators
would not, would remain in the cham
Der until midnight to prevent a final
vote.
Caffery offered concurrent resolu-
ton calling on the president for cop
les of any communication received by
the state department from representa-
tives or agents of the so-called Phil.
ippine republic and for certain other
information relative to the islands. The
resolution went over under objection.
Allison endeavored to secure unani-'
nous consent for a vote on the Nicar-
aguan canal bill at 3 o'clock to-day,
but Caffery objected.
The house joint resolution appoint-
ing James B. Angel of Michigan, re-
gent of the Smithsonian Institute,
passed. t
Nelson then spoke upon the Vest
anti-expansion resolution. The address
was a constitutional argument favor
ing the right of the United States to
acquire and govern foreign territory.
He maintained that it was no longer
an unsettled question that this country
had the power not only to acquire for
eign territory by discovery, conquest
or treaty, but also to govern territory
so acquired, That question, he said,
had been settled by the decision of the
supreme court and was scarcely long
er open to debate. He referred to the
territory that had been acquired in
the past by the United States govern
ment and declared that in no single
case had the people of the territory
acquired been consulted or their con-
sent secured. In the two cases of
Texas and Hawaii we had more nearly
approached the point of consulting the
inhabitants than in any other but
even in these cases there was but a
shadow Of consultation. In that Of
Hawaii less than 5000 of the inhabi-
tants had been asked for their con-
sent to annexation. In the course of
his debate he said the contention was
being made that the people of the
territory proposed to be acquired were
not fit for citizenship in our republic.
Admitting that contention was correct,
it was quite as true that the people
of much territory hitherto acquired by
this country were unfit for citizenship
at the time the territory was taken
into the union. Had we applied the
reasoning that was now being advanced
against the acquisition of territory the
people of Florida and the Louisiana
territory when they were admitted
into the United States could scarcely
have passed muster, as it is well
known that they were not fitted for
citizenship.
Mr. Nelson then entered upon an
elaborate constitutional argument, cit
ing numerous authorities in support of
his position. He maintained that the
arguments that taxation without rep
resentation was tyranny and that gov
ernments derived their just powers
from consent of the governed were
true only in limited extent. A ma
jority of our people, he said, We're with
out direct representation. Women,
minors and imbeciles We're without
representation in our government and
had to bear their share of taxation.
They had, in other words, to under
go the burdens of our government with
out any voice in it's control.
In response to a question by Mr.. Ma
son of Illinions, Mr.. Nelson said that
no man could truthfully say that the
rights of Fin has baau
stroyed or even in any sense impair
ed by Great Britain's great scheme of
colonization Further replying to Mr..
Mason, he declared that the United
States, our own magnificent govern
ment. was the product of the colonial
ton plans of England and demanded
to know whether Mr.. Mason would
desire to blot out that great work of
England. What the people of Eng
land have done, said Mr. Nelson GER
tainly the people of the United States
could accomplish.
Colonies have not destroyed Eng
land. How will they destroy us?"
Mr., Tillman of South Carolina in
terrupted Mr.. Nelson, and referring to
the contest between Sweden and Nor
way and the practical severance of
their relations, inquired why the Nor
Wegians at home wanted liberty, while
those of the United States did not de-
sire to give liberty to the Filipinos.
This reference to Mr.. Nelson's Nor
Wegian birth aroused him.
IT am citizen of the United States,
Mr.. President" he replied. Il am not
representing either the people or the
government of Norway, whose rights
and liberties I am satisfied are greater
than those of the people of South Car
DINA" Haughter)
In his discussion of the Philippine in
= I, 4
rived at Manila on the memorable 1st
of May, Mr.. Nelson pointed out that
the islanders We're in a state of practi-
cal slavery under the dominion of
Spain. Aguinaldo had abandoned them,
he said, on the payment to him by
Spain of a paltry 80 pieces of silver
which in this case was to be $500, 600