The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-06

acquisition Of this sort--of the territory of
a distant nationality. peopled by other races
and belonging to another continent. In the
case Of Louisiana, President jefferson ex-
pressed the opinion that the annexation was
unconstitutional and needed the authority OF
constitutional amendment. The resolution
annexlng Texas did not pass without the
well-known protests against its constitution
atty made in the Senate by Daniel Webster.
II the exigencies under which the Louisiana
and Texas annexation were made caused the
question of their constitutionality to be ig-
nored it was because those territories were
Immediately contiguous to the United
States, were situated in the same latitude
were practically uninhabited and contained
a vast area of virgin territory which inev
itably had to be settled by Americans who
had already ignored it and had begun to
overflow its boundaries. With neither Louis
lana. Florida nor California, was it the
case. nor until now has it been thought pos
sibe under our form of government, that
a permanent extraterritoriaI and extracon-
stitutional sovereignty should be estab-
lished by the United States over dependen
cies not intended hereafter to be made
States, or to be governed by laws in common
with the United States or a part thereof.
What is now proposed is a wholly new de-
parture, full of menace to the integrity and
permanence of American Institutions.
I'VE respectfully submit that, according
to the principles upon which our Republic
was founded, we are in duty bound to recOg-
nize the rights of the inhabitants of the
Philippines and of Porto Rico to independ-
ence and self-government precisely as We
have recognized that right in the case of
the inhabitants of Cuba; that it, as Presi-
dent Mckinley declared 'forcible annexa-
ton cannot be thought Of in the case of
Cuba because it would, by our code of NOR
ais. be criminal aggression, then forcible
annexation of the Philippines will be no
less criminal aggression according to the
same code of morals.
The Philippines have more settled gov
eminent and q control of their islands more
extensive than the CUbans when we took
up arms in their behalf but we declared as
TO Cuba that it is and of right ought to be
free and independent. Why ought we not
then, frankly and generously to say of the
Philippines that they are and Of right ought
to be free and independent Since their
population has, as an unforeseen incident of
the war waged by the United States for
the liberation of the Cubans, fallen more
or less under the control or influence of this
Republic should we not, instead of an effort
TO subjugate them, which would most prob
ably be bloody and long continued, aid them
10 assume the functions of independent gov
eminent in good faith and with all possible
expedition? Will not this be the surest as
we'll as the only just and righteous way to
avoid conflicts with them and to maintain
with them friendly relations fruitful to both
sides? Ought we not in their case follow
the precedent set by us for Mexico and
Haiti? Ought we not to use our power and
our influence in diplomacy to guarantee
them against foreign aggression while they
work out their own future rather than by
a gross violation of our traditions and
phghted faith to ourselves become the ag-
gressors?
We submit in conclusion that the sober
second thought of the American people will
support your honorable body in a refusal
TO ratify the Spanish treaty until it's text
shall be so modified that it will beyond con-
stitutionaI doubt assure independence to the
Philippines and Porto Rico and protect our
own Republic from any danger that they
shall become American States or that their
inhabitants shall become American citi-
RenS