The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-01-10


Mr. President, the persons who favor
the ratification of this treaty without
conditions and without amendment diff
Ter among themselves certainly in their
views, purposes and opinions, and as
they are so many of them honest and
Weil-meaning persons, we have the
rlght to say in their actual and real
opinions In general, the state of mind
and the utterance of the lips are in ac-
cord. Ii you ask them what they want,
you are answered with shout: Three
cheers for the flagl Who will dare to
haul it down? Hold on to everything
you can get. The United States is
strong enough tO do what it likes. The
declaration of independence and the
counsel of Washington and the consti-
tuition of the United States have grown
rusty and musty. They are for little
countries and not for great ones. There
is no moral law for strong nations
America has outgrown Americanism. ;"
Inc senator from Connecticut is en-
Titled to the credit of at least recognize
ing some obligation to the constitution
of the United States in this matter. He
does not so far get rcd of his old in
stlncts as lawyer, a reader of Amer
lean history, and a lover of constitu-
tIonaL liberty as to disregard altogether
the obligation of showing that we have
a right to do this thing in the exercise
OF our delegated trust without VIOLATING.
the oathS we have taken.
In general, the friends of what is
called Imperialism or expansion content
themselves with declaring that the flag
winch is taken down every night and
put up again every morning over the
roof of this senate chamber, where It
is in its Mghtful place, must never be
taken down where 1T has once f1oated.
whepher that be it's rightful place or
not-a doctrine which l shall have oc-
.casion to say before I get through is
not only without justification in inter
NATIONAL law, but if it were implanted
there would make of every war between
civilized and powerful nations a war of
determination or a war Of dishonor 10
one party or the other.
have made a careful ANALYSIS of
the constitutional argument of the SEN
ator from Connecticut. [ think [ can
do 1t justice. l have not followed the
precise order of his statements. Rut
have put them in logical order. He
says:
First. That the United States IN q
nation, q sovereign;
Second. That as a nation it DOS
sesses every sovereign power not re-
served in the constitution to the states
or the people;
Third. That the right to acquire ter
ritory was not reserved, and is there
fore an inherent sovereign right;
Fourth. That it is a right upon
which there is no limitation. and that
IN regard to which there is no qualifi-
cation;
Fifth. That in the right to ACQUIRE
territory is found the right to govern
it:
Sixth. That this right to govern it
is also a sovereign right; and
Seventh. That it is right without
constitutional limit.
The senator from Connecticut pro-
cseds to establish these propositions by
citations from decisions of the supreme
court; from Mr.. Webster; from text
writer's and from legislative prece-
dents. Not one of these IN the least
helps him
From these postuIates the senator
reaches the conclusion that we have
a right to conquer, hold and govern a
subject people of ten millions, without
any constitutional restraint. such peo-
pie being entitled to no constitutional
rights, but subject to the uncontrolled
will of the American congress
He says that he has faith in the
Declaration of Independence. That de-
olares that all men are created equal
and that governments derive their Just
powers from the consent of the gov
from the consent of some of the gov
erned,' although, as 1 think I have
said, | do not find that any of them are
expected to consent in this case:
That he wishes 1 had the same faith
in the Declaration of Independence
that the fathers had;
That he prays that the sound of the
liberty bell from the tower of indie
pendence Hall, still ringing in his ears,
may proclaim liberty to regions never
dreamed of by the fathers
That proclamation Ne will make by
turning our guns and bayonets, if need
be, upon the people of the Philippine
Islands, compelling them to submit to
a government whose powers, just or
unjust, are not to depend upon their
consent, compelling them to submit to
taxation without representation and
deprtving them forever of the equality
which the Declaration of Independ-
ence, in which he still has faith, de-
clares they We're created.
The senator thinks he finds a justifi-
cation of his doctrine in the consitu-
ton of sSachusetts, which does not
permit criminals or persons who cannot
read or write to vote:
In the constitutional provision by
which congress exercises exclusive
jurisdiction over the District of Column
bia:
In the Louisiana treaty:
In the government of territories be-
fore they become states and
In the acquisition and government of
Alaska.
Having completed this argument, my
honorable friend from Connecticut
joins his fellow expansionists in THEN
enthusiastic chorus, reads me a les.
son on fear and doubt and seeing lioIs
in the path, and ends with a pious
prayer for the faith and courage Of
the fathers. The great doctrines of
the Declaration and of the constitu-
ton, which, l think, are lions in the
path, he says are chained now, AID
that he can go quietly by them to his
Malay Castle Beautiful in the distant
oriental seas.
He does not say what fathers. But
| suppose, from his doctrine, he means
Father Lord North, and Father George
I'LL and Father Hutchinson, and Fa-
Their Tryon, and the tory fathers of
revolutionary times, for they are the
only persons having any connection
with the history of this country who
ever believed one of his doctrines. He
certainly does not mean Father George
Washington, Father Thomas Jefferson,
Father John Adams, Father Benjamin
Franklin, Father oliver Ellsworth.
Their faces were all set iufexibiy
dSbllSt MS COHSClLuIlOIldl doctrines ana
his moral theories.
The constitutional argument for slav-
cry was ten times as strong as the
argument of the senator from Connec-
ticut. The slave master said he owned
men for their good. The senator trcm
Connecticut proposes to own nations
for their good. But the slave property
had come down to the s,avo owner from
his fathers.
To the constitutional doctrine of the
senator from Connecticut I desire to
oppose mine. 1t is the doctrine on
which l have acted and on which the
party to which belong has acted dur
ing the whole of my puulic life. The