The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-10

! iAiohe d pure, unlimited, untempered de-
spotism, without any relief from assas-
SINS"
Mr.. Hoar maintained that the PROPOSE
tons advanced by Mr. Platt were not
sustained by a single one of his au-
thor1ties. He held that the powers of
the United States must be affirmatively
delegated or they do not exist in
other words, 1.-The implied power" re-
terred to by Mr.. Platt-the power to
govern territory acquired through war
did not exist. The power which Mr..
Platt maintained this government pos
sessed was one, said Mr.. Hoar, that
| our fathers and their descendants have
| ever loathed and abhorred, and they
believed that no sovereign on earth
could rightfuliy exercise it,
| lie SAID that While Mr.. Platt admitted
| that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of some of
the governed he did not understand
that, in subjugating and governing the
fllip1nos, Mr.. Platt proposed to get the
consent of any of them. Mr.. Hoar was
| inclined to ridicule those who favor ex-
pansion and the ratification of the
| treaty of Paris without amendment.
| Their arguments, he said, were Three
| cheers for the flag-who will dare haul
| it down? Hold on to everything you
| icanism."
In general, the friends of what is
called imperialism or expansion content
| themselves with declaring that the nag
| which is taken down every night and
put up again every morning over the
| roof of the senate chamber where It
| is in it's rightful place, must never be
| taken down if it has once hoaled,
| whether that be the rightful place or
| not-a doctrine which is not only with
| out justification in international law,
| but, If 1T were implanted there, would
| make of every war between civilized
| and powerful nations a war of eX-
| termination or a war of dishonor to
one party or the other. Mr.. Hoar then
| entered upon a critical analysis of Mr.,
Platt's speech. After summarizing the
argument. he said:
| The constitutional argument for
| slavery was 10 times as strong as the
| argument of Mr.. Plat. The slave mas
ter said he owned men for their good.
The senator from Connecticut proposes
to own nations for their good
He set forth his constitutional doc
trine, which he desired to oppose that
of Mr.. Platt. He declared that the peo-
pie of this country had not deposited
all sovereignty anywhere and had used
| no agent Of theirs to exercise all SOW
ereignty, unlimited and uncontrolled.
THE powers not delegated to the
United States by the constitution nor
! served to the states respectively, or to
the people--amendment article TO- The
sovereignty which can be exercised by
the nation as a unit is only that which
is necessary for accomplishing the pur-
poses of the constitution and must be
either expressly granted therein or nee
essary or convenient or the judgment
of congress to accomplish the purposes
expressly declared therein. All other
sovereignty is reserved to the states CT
the people.
THE power to conquer alien peoples
and hold them in subjugation is no
where expressly granted. The power to
conquer alien people and hold them
in subjugation is nowhere implied as
necessary for the accomplishment of
the purposes declared by the constitu-
ton. 1t is clearly shown to be one tnat
ought not to be exercised by anybody
one that the trainers of the conStitu-
ton thought ought not to be exercised
by anybody, because it is immoral and
wicked in itself and because it is eX-
pressly denied in the declaration of
independence, the great interpreter
| and expounder of the constitution
which owes its origin to the same gen.
GRAFTON and largely to the same men.
1T is affirmed that it is immoral and
unfit ITO be exercised by anybody--that
in numerous instances by contemporary
state constitutions and by contempo-
raneous writers and authorities on pub
lie law, who express the opinion of the
| American people in that generation
who adopted the constitution as well as
of the men who framed it,
In discussing how territory may be
acquired, constitutionally, by the Unit
ed States, Mr.. Hoar said:
1T may also acquire adjoining or
outlying territory, dispose of it, make
and MIA tiDpS for IF for Ia MR.
pose of national security and defense
as in the case of Hawaii, although it
may not be expected that the territory
SO acquired, held and disposed of, shall
ever come into the union state
However, Immediately following this
statement, Mr.. Hoar set the Philippines
against Hawaii in this declaration:
Mr. President, you are not now pro-
posing to acquire or own property in
the Philippines with domination as a
necessity incident; you are not to own
a foot of land there. You propose now
to acquire dominion and legislative
power and nothing else. Where in the
constitution is the grant of power to
exercise sovereignty where you have
no property?
In support of his Interpretation of
the constitution, Mr. Hoar cited numer-
Gus authorities, among them Charles
Sumner and Mr. Justice Matthews He
hesitating as to what their action upon
the question of EXPANSION may be
1.-The greatest question that has ever
| been or ever will be put to them in
their lives, the question, not of year
or of century, not of generation,
but question pertaining rather to tho
great period of national life''-not to
commit themselves in principle to such
policy by supporting the peace treaty
and then say they will consider here
| after how they will act under it. In
the course of his appeal to senators,
| Mr.. Hoar said:
| when you raise the flag over the
| Philippines as an emblem of domain
and acquisition, you take it down
| from Independence hall"
| He extolled the statement of Louis
| Napoleon, made in 1854, that the 'tme
of conquest is past, never to return;
| for it is not by extending the bound
| aries of it's territory that a nation can
| henceforward be honored and powerful,
but by placing itself at the head of
generous ideas and spreading every