Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-01-10

NOT NEEDED FOR THE NATION
AL DEFENSE.
Washington, D. c., January 9.-The
galleries of the Senate were we'll filled
at the opening of to-day's session,
many persons being attracted by the
announcement that Mr.. Hoar (Mass.) J.,
would discuss Mr.. Vests anti-expan-
sion resolution.
Mr.. Mitchell (Wis.), reported from
the Military Affairs Committee a bill
providing that all honorably dis
charged soldiers and sailors who
served in the war of the rebellion
and the volunteer soldiers and sailors
of the war of 1912, and of the Mexican
war and of the war with Spain who
may be disabled in any way shall be
admitted into the home for disabled
volunteer soldiers. 1t was passed
A bill to authorize the revival of
suits and actions commenced lawfully
against officers of the United States
as such on the termination of the
terms of such officers was passed.
Mr.. Hoar then called up the resolu-
ton introduced by Mr.. Vest and ad-
dressed to the Senate.
His argument against expansion
was based largely on constitutional
grounds, while the traditions of the
Republic were cited to show that the
annexation of the Philippines would
be contrary to our national policy.
Mr. Hoar believed, he said, this
country to be a nation-a sovereign
nation. He believed Congress pos
sessed all the powers necessary to ac-
complish the great objects the trainers
of the Constitution intended should be
accomplished, but he denied that It
possessed the astonishing" and "ex-
travagant" powers under the Consti-
tuition which the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr Platt) attributed to it.
when the Senator from Connecticut
undertakes to declare" said Mr.. Hoar,
that we may do such things not for
the perfect union,
THE COMMON DEFENSE,
the general welfare of the people of
the United States or the securing of
liberty to ourselves and our children,
but for any fancied or real obligation
to take care of distant peoples beyond
Jul DOulIueiI ICS, uOI pCOplC VI IAC
United States, then / deny his propo-
sition and tell him he can find nothing
either in the text of the Constitution
or the exposition of the fathers, or the
judgments of courts from that day to
this, to warrant or support his doc
trine. I'VE have heard of limited
monarchies, constitutional monarch
les, despotisms tempered by assassin
ation but the logic Of the Senator
from Connecticut makes a pure, I'M
limited, untempered depotism without
any relief from assassins.
Mr.. Hoar held that 1.-The powers of
the United States must be affirmatively
delegated or they do not exist" in
other words, the implied power" refer
red to by Mr.. Platt-the power to gov
ern territory acquired through war
did not exist The power which Mr..
Plat maintained this government pos
sessed was one. Mr. Hoar said, that
our fathers and their descendants have
ever loathed and abhorred. and they
believed that no sovereign on earth
could rightfully exercise it" He said
that while Mr.. Platt had admitted that
governments derived their just powers
from the consent of 'some Of the gov
erned," he did not understand that in
subjugating and governing the Flip
mos, Mr. Plat proposed to get the con-
sent of any of them.
Mr.. Hoar was inclined to ridicule
those
WHO FAVOR EXPANSION,
and the ratification of the treaty of
Paris without amendment. Their ar
guments, he said. were Three cheers
for the flag; Who will dare to haul it
down? Hold on to everything you can
get. America has outgrown American
ism" On this point he said: In gen
eral. the friends of what is called i'm
perialism or expansion content them
selves with declaring that the flag
which is taken down every night and
put up again every morning over the
roof of this Senate chamber. where it
is in its rightful place, must never be
taken down where it has once foated,
whether that be its rightful place or
not-a doctrine that is not only with
out justification in international law,
but if it were planted there would make
it a veritable war between powerful
nations. war Of determination or a
war of dishonor to one party or the
other"
Mr.. Hoar then entered upon a crit
ical analysis of Mr.. Platt's speech.
After summarizing the argument he
said: The constitutional argument
for slavery was ten times as strong as
the argument of the Senator from Con-
necticut. The slave master said he
owned men for their good. The Sena-
tor from Connecticut proposes to own
nations for their good"
He set forth his constitutional doc
trine which he desired to oppose to
that of Mr.. Platt. He declared that
the people Of this country had not de-
posted all sovereignty anywhere and
had authorized no agent of theirs to
exercise all sovereignty unlimited and
uncontrolled. The powers not dele
gated to the United States by the con-
stitution nor prohibited by it to the
States are
RESERVED TO THE STATES,
respectively or to the people. The
sovereignty which can be exercised BY
the nation as a unit is only that
which is necessary for accomplishing
the purposes of the constitution and
must be either expressly granted there
in or necessary or convenient. In the
judgment of Congress, to accomplish
the purposes expressly declared there
in. All other sovereignty is reserved
to the States or to the people. The
r,oxroy- RI common oficp rar.sl1~ u