The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-15
THE IMPERlALISTIC DRIFT.

E have already commented upon remarks by
M General Merritt and others disparaging to the
constitution in connection with the acquisition
OF the Philippine Islands The subject is attracting
the notice OF rejecting and educated citizens all
the country and is by exhausted. The
possible addition to our flag OF black star, repre-
senting barbarism, paganisnl, Northumberland,
polygamy and all the other degraded characteristics
OF the nine millions who form the mongrel Asatic
population OF the Philippines, is exciting not only
apprehension, but positive alarm The drift in favor
Of imperialism and the imitation of Great Britain,
though not to be discerned in any formal utterances
OF the President of the United States has neverthe
less been manifested in official circles For example,
James Wilson, the Secretary for Agriculture in his
annual report speaks OF increased trade relations be-
tween the United States and its 'insuar dependen-
denotes" This is not the only expression Of similar
import to be found in the public documents OF 1903
The sensational press constantly belittles derdes and
misrepresents the constitution every great expounder
Of that instrument and every American statesman
whose name has been a household word and whose
reputation has been held dear among the American
people. There have been so many evidences of flip
pant disregard OF the most sacred principles of our
government that thoughtful and earnest men feel the
necessity OF arresting the tendency toward rerograde
revolution
It has been proved beyond controversy and with
out even the sembance of intelligent contradiction
that the retention OF the Philippines either as a
colony or as an Asiatc addition to our territory,
would be a gross violation of fundamental law, op-
posed to the spirit and the objects OF our political
institutions departure for which there is no pre-
cedent, and an act of deliberate treachery toward
mankind The fact, however, has not been clearly
explained that claim of ownership of the Phil
ippnes under the recent treaty of Paris is in itself
a relapse toward the tyranncal and illogical doc
trines OF the Middle Ages which were expelled from
our soil by the Revolutionary War and by our Gov
eminent and the reputation of which in relation to
Cuba was the official justification for the late war
Spain held the Philippines as she retained Cuba not
withstanding her claim resting upon discovery, un-
der the rejected dogma of the divine right of kings
She had no other title or source of title This dogma
necessarily denied the existence in the inhabitants
as against the monarchy of any rights natural or
conventional. There had been prolonged rebellions
in Cuba and in the Philippines, and the interference
of the United States put solely the ground of
humanity and to insure to the Cubans an opporttn-
ity to exercise their conceded right OF se-govern-
ment.
When the treaty of Paris was framed the situation
iii the Philippines was that Spain claimed the SOW
ereignty she had exercised for centuries; that we
had captured Manila and occupied other portions Of
the island of Luzon, and that the actual possession
of the archipelago was held by the nine millions or
Whereabouts who composed its population So much
of the title Of Spain by divine right as remained
transferred to us for twenty millions and in recog-
milton OF our military and naval supremacy and we
now claim that this transfer with or without their
consent, carried with it the nine millions who,
whether subjects or citizens politically belong to