The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-08

| made what many believe to have
been an unanswerable argument
| against Mr.. McKinley's Philippine
policy. But in the course of it
he likened Aguinaldo to Washing
ton. When his opponents came to
reply, instead of making serious
attempt to meet his mastery argu-
ment, they took up his comparison be-
| tween Washington and Aguinaldo. and
very periodically and successfully pro-
| ceeded to prove that Washington was
the better man-hence that the presi-
dents policy was right.
Inasmuch as the most of Americans
are not prepared to admit that George
Washington ever had an equal, such
comparisons are foolish and tend to
weaken the real arguments made. The
character of Aguinaldo is only remotely
in issue. if at all. At the same time,
unless Mr.. Barrett could make
stronger showing than he did in reply
to Lentz he would better have kept
out of print
In the first place, Mr.. Barrett has
only very recently praised Agunaldo
almost as highly as Leutz did, the
main difference being in the manner
of statement. Secondly. if Aguinaldo is
| a bribe-taSer, Dewey knew all about
it before he aided Aguinaldo in his
campaign against the Spaniards in Luz
ION. Aguinaldo is no more of bribe-
taker now than he was when Dewey
was treating him as a friend and vir-
tually as an ally, according to Mr..
Barrett's own showing.
We don't know whether Aguinaldo
! is really bribe-t aker or not. 1t
| has been both affirmed and denied. But
| it is none of our business whether he
| is or not. 1t was not our money that
| he took, and it is merely a question
| between him and those whom he de-
frauded, if any such there be. His al
| legged co-partners, and also the Fill
| Pine people, appear to be entirely sat
| isfied and there seems to be no good
reason why we should work ourselves
up into a state of virtuous indigna-
ton over the matter If the war was
being waged to force Aguinaldo to dis
gorge and divide his plumber, the case
might stand on a somewhat different
| footing.
The refusal to exchange Lieutenant
| Gilmore and his men, while deeply to
| be regretted, has no bearing upon the
| question of Aguinaldos ''heroism."
| That is not the trait of character in
| volved in the holding of Gilmore and
! his men. A man may be cruel and at
| the same time brave. Cortez and
| Pizarro were both cases very much in
point.
| The suggestion about Aguinaldo de-
ceiving the Filipino people and permit
ting newspapers and pamphlets to pub
| lsh lies about the Americans, is too ut
| terly trivial for notice in the discussion
of a great question like this. The point
sought to be made is, of course, that
| they would not have resisted the
| Americans but for the deception nrac-
| ticed upon them. But the circumstance
of their grasping with such avidity at
the idea of American recognition shows
plainly that they wanted independence,
| and whether they were or were not
deceived by Aguinaldo is wholly irrele~'
want, so far as the main issue goes.
That is a matter between them and
| Aguinaldo.
The great question is: What are the
rights of the Filipino people, and what
should be our policy toward them?' To
liken Aguinaldo to Washington is fool
ish, but to attempt to settle the Phil
ippine problem by reference to defects
in the personal character of Aguinaldo
is even more so, and infinitely weaker
| in the way of argument.