The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-11-26
Mr.. WEsTERvELTs INQUIRY
To the Editor Of The Herald.

To the Editor of The Herald.
In the issue of your valued paper dated
Nov. 10, you print an editorial under the
ute or American and Aslatic Deals
the purpose of which appears to be to
point wherein our right to acquire and
occupy the Philippine islands differs from
our rights talready acquired TO Califor-
pla and the. rest OF the territory ceied by
Mexico to the United States Having fire.
quently heard statements made to the eff
fect that cur pretended title to these ISL
ands Is base'ess. and that our acts of do
minion there are nothing but usurpations.
and never having heard any reasonable
arguments in support of these statements
therefore began the perusal of your ar
ticie with much pleasure. in the hope of
obtaining from it some light on the sub
ject.
The first two paragraphs in tine first
sentence in the third paragraph are rich
In promise which remains unfulfilled.
and hold out to the reader high hopes
wiich are rudely dispelled by the remain
der of the article. l take the liberty of
quoting the opening passages:
There are people who have said that
our, title to the Philippines is precisely
such title as our title 10 Texas. Arizona.
New Mexico. California. Nevada and
Utah. and there are others who declare
that no man can explain the difference.
mere are people who refuse TO see the
difference today. although they saw it
year. ago. and there are those who can
not explain the difference because they
will not. History explains it, however. and
a
ages at this juncture.
President Polk explained the reasons.
which appeared TO be necessities, for the
annexation of New Mexico and Caiifor-
MA
1 infer from the foregoing (and think
I am warranted in the inference) that the
object Of the article was TO explain the
difference between our title to the Philip
pines and our title TO California. In other
words, to explain wherein our right to ac-
quire the one differs from our right 10
acquire the other. and also infer that the
words quoted from President Polk were
intended to explain the difference in the
matter of right and title between the two
cases. But, as is too frequently the case
in casuistic reasoning. you appear to
have completely lost sight OF the distinc-
ton between right and expectancy. IL
you will carefully and as disDassionately
have made, you will. l think observe two
things. First. that many of the argu-
merits so quoted apply with the same
10 that of California. And. second, that
every argument so quoted (both those
which would apply TO the Philippines and
those which refer TO different conditfons)
is directed solely and exclusively to the
question of the advisability and expe-
diency of sannexing the territory There
is nothing whatever said which even re-
right of the United States TO annex the
territory coded by Mexico. This, il ap-
pears, was taken for granted.
you have invoked do not prove your case
nor even tend in the direction of proof.
Yu say that there is a difference between
our right to the Philippines and our right
TO California That ! understand TO be
the proposition you have started out
with. Now, If you are correct in this
proposition l shall be very pleased land
IN this l am confident l represent a con-
siderable class among your readers) to
hear what your reasons are in support of
1t. am open TO conviction, but want 10
hear some other reasons.
/ shah esteem IL a favor if you will re-
ply to the foregoing through your pages
at an early date. In doing so you are at
liberty TO print this letter. if you so de-
sire. Very truly yours.
GEORGE wESTERvELT.
Salt Lake City. Nov. % 1899.