The record-union., 1899-10-17


the sArgonaut'' particeps criminis
Waving consideration of the "Rec-
ord Union's@ predilection for using
would-be humorous appellations-
which are not argument and prove
nothing except possibly spleen on the
part of the user-in speaking of the
antagonists of the Presidents Phlllp-
pine policy, l will, with the kind per-
mission of the Record Union" make
rejoinder to it's comments upon my
said "Argonaut' squib.
The Record Union" says: The
President did and does still oppose
forcible annexation"
If as result of the war of SubJuga'
ton against the Filipinos, the Philip
pine Islands shall be made an integral
part of the United States, either as a
Territory or as colony, what Would
this be but 'forcible annexation" i. e,
annexation or actual acquisition result
ant from the employment of force?
Again, says the "Record-Union" 'Hc
Ghe PresidenD never has favored'
and will not favor a war of conquest.
For what reason, then, has the Pres
ident been prosecuting, and is deter
mined to yet prosecute, war against
the Filipinos? And why did ne
say in his Pittsburg speech to the re-
turned Pennsylvania volunteers, Y ou
and your comrades in arms have en-
larged the map of the United States
and have extended the jurisdiction OF
American liberty? I say, why, if II
is not war of conquest that has been
waged and is to be waged against the
Filipinos?
Is not this in act and utterance SIM
ply an exemplification Of that spirit,
that purpose which caused the defeat
by the vote of the Vice President OF
the Bacon resolution which was intro
duced in the Senate just before ad-
journment of the Fifty-fifth Congress
and pending the ratification of the
Paris peace treaty? 1t will be remem-
bered that that resolution with refer
ence to the attitude the United States
held toward the Philippines and then
peoples was much of the same tenor
as the Teller clause Ghe concludins
clause Of the joint resolution declar-
ing for intervention in Cuba in behalf
of the independence of the Cubans
In a word, the Bacon resolution was q
declaration in favor of the independ-
ence and government of the Fill
pinos, and disclaimer ON the part OF
the United States of any purpose to
exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction OF
control in the islands. If it is not
the purpose of the Administration tc
accord to the Filipinos independence
and lf-government, then, if they
fight to attain such end, can it BE-
truthfully or logically held that the
President does not make war of con
quest when by force he attempts to
compel them to yield to control of the
United States Government? If it is
the purpose of the Administration tc
give TO the Filipinos self government
then why make war upon them? Those
people are not resisting our armed ag-
gression just for the fun of killing and
being killed; they are fighting to be
free from alien sovereignty, just as our
forefathers. the colonists, did. No; the
Filipinos are not rebels, as were the
colonists. The colonists had been un'
der allegiance to the British crown
and rebelled to throw off that allegi-
ance. The Filipinos have never beer
under allegiance to the United States
consequently are not in rebellion
against authority once recognized and
submitted to, but they are resisting ar
attempt to impose alien authority upor
them.
Treating of the alleged sovereignty
of Spain over the Filipinos at the timt
of the ratification of the peace treaty
the "Record-Union" ignores the very
salient fact that outside of the cities
of Manila and Cavite the Filipinos
were in actual possession of the island
of Luzon, and were maintaining an au-
tonomous civil government, when the
United States forces, aided by Aguin-
aldo and his armed adherents, forced
the capitulation of Manila by the
Spanish army, and terminated Span
ish control therein. This fact is at
tested by no less an authority thar
Hon. John Barrett, ex-United States
Minister to Siam, who spoke or wrote
from personal knowledge acquired by
observation on the scene of action ir
Luzon This would seem to be proof
conclusive that at the time Spalr
agreed to transfer sovereignty over the
island of Luzon to the United States
in the most part she had not such
sovereignty, it having been terminated
by the Filipinos by their armed might
Hence, the United States had and have
no sovereignty over those people. Thai
is why war is being made agains'
them, it being necessary to subjugate
them by force in order to establish
and maintain governmental supremacy
over them. This is war Of conquest
in its most emphatic sense, and nc
amount of sophistical hair-splitting
can alter the fact.
Much is made in the argument OF
the protagonists of the Presidents pol
icy, that as Commander-inC Chief OF
the army and navy of the United
States, he is engaged in putting dowr
insurrection. Now, in order to con
stitute insurrection, those making
armed resistance TO the authority OF
the United States must be recognized
and proved as being subject to thai
authority. Will the Record Union
point out wherein the laws, the Fedora
statutes Of the United States, are ir
any way applicable or are in any sense
in force in the Philippines? How about
the attempted application and enforce
ment Of the Chinese immigration re-
striction law?
No, 1t is not insurrection ON the part
Of the Filipinos; it is defensive war
fare (the United States forces fired the
first shoD. provoked by aggression OF
an alien Power seeking to enforce its
control.
thaf =
could have been averted had the plain