The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-06


sheep fold. SLUT 1000 IN the
Inese acts take for granted thu Who'll.
question At Issue. 1t is imperiaiisno nmrs
ana simple 1t IL being acted nm dav h,
Jay: Are we babies that can be NH on
WIN soothing receptions, when our eve,
anu ears can not deceive us7 Here Is !
sreat and awful responsibility assumed
tne executive. Without calling con.
sress together. the essential element O,
troops to put down another race which I,
struggling for liberty. What was II bu,
genuine love for liberty which led many
OF our people to first sympathize and ther
10 night for the Cubans against Spain
why are we stultifying ourselves by ent.
ing our words, and exactly reversing ouy
policy in the Philippinesy
1T Is tricky and unfair to plunge us
into policy OF expansion, except after
full and fair discussion in a National
campaign. It Is trying to escape the real
issue, as Lincoln expressed II, by fixing
Tue pubic gaze upon the exceeding bright
ness OF military glory-that attractive
rainbow that rises in showers Of blooa :,
II our deliberate purpose is expansion
why should we have selected the deadiiest
climate In the world, why have selected
race OF Tagals, why have we selected n
group OF Islands 1000 miles away. certain
10 involve us In the intrigues OF a de-
vious diplomacy, parcelling out the mains
OF China7 We all recognize that tn,
great Philippine war costing untold lives
and treasure, is the result of accident, and
NOT OF farseeing craftsmanship. We are
there, even when everyone knows II is a
mistake; when everyone, from the Top
oown, would be only too glad to find a
way out; solely because false pride and
uhmanly stupidity keeps up the sacrifice
OF our soldiers.
III We really desire expansion. then
every argument in favor of taking the
Philippines applies with much more
strength to taking Canada and Mexico.
But to take Canada would mean war with
Great Britain. So no! Then we took the
philippines because they were the cas-
lest to get, the weakest of defense. In
other words. we have returned to the pre-
uatory policy OF the Middle Ages, which
we USED IN taking territory in the Mexican
war, and which history has recorded to
our everlasting shame and disgrace. Look
a. It In any way we please, we are in the
philippines for the lowest and basest of
motives. Grant. that under international
law OF monarchical nations we have a le-
gal right to be there. Is that any reason
for the violation of every maxim of COM
mon sense and morals? Why sink for
ever hundreds of millions OF dollars in the
philippines, when We know that the peo-
pie can never in centuries be assimilated
into an Anglo Saxon state; that the land
can ever be colonized by the white race
THE commercial game is not worth the
candle. / have shown on another occa-
sion that the trade advantage are not
worth considering as weighed against
one American life, least OF all against a
great political and moral wrong.
The expansion policy Is but another
and immoral system of the spoils system.
1t provides a district so far away. that as
Secretary Gage said in substance of Alas
ka, 1t is too remote to be able TO apply
civil service rules there. 1t provides new
positions for politicians and their re-
tainers. So many more lieutenants go
many more commissions to bangle before
the workers on the eve of another cleo
ton. The backward step in civil service
reform was only part of the same work
yielding of the principles OF great party
to the wolf and the hawk in politics.
object to expansion because 1t appeals to
the lowest motives of conquest and COM
mercial gain, as against our duty to liberty
and free government; I object to it be-
cause 1t assumes that our people have no
principles as against the base gains OF
trade and office, and that Americans are
really cruel, despotic and indifferent to
l race fighting for liberty. When, in
truth, no nation was ever more ready to
help struggling people against a des-
ootic conquerer. Though we have the
same rights In the Philippines which Rus
'ia or Germany might exercise If they
were in our place, we could not as a re-
public do what would be permitted to
Imperial Russia or Germany.
Some tell us that we can do what we
please with the Philippines. because SOW
ereignty over them belongs to us by
treaty. So, also. when slavery was per-
mitted to the United States by law, we
were able to do what we pleased with
the slaves we owned. But after years
If turmoil and agony. we decided not to
10 all that law allowed, but in the spirit
Of right and justice We set to work 10
remove our unjust legal enaotments and
% give liberty and independence to tho
slaves. Are we, as a Christian and free
nation, Justified In doing with the Fill
pinos all that international law would
permit to any monarchlcal nation? God
forbid! II our political principles are
else than hypocrltical false
hoods. we have no more moral ground for
the unconditional surrender OF
he natives than We should nave nau LOT
he continuance OF slavery under cover OF
aw Right and freedom are above all
technical legal enactments, whether Ma
ional or international; In the progress OF
mankind laws must conform to right.
1--WE are told that the sub1usation or
he Filipinos differs In no whit from the
'eduction of the seeding States In the
ivil war, whom we forced to accept a
government against their will. There is a
,reat difference. Did the Filipinos ever
Trough their representatives in consti-
utio convention, Join In forming our
government, TO which they afterward
'oted TO accept, as did our States7 Did
he Fllipinos ever create part OF
Inion, by the voluntary consent OF the
governed, as did Georgia or Virginia? Then
ghen the seceeding States tried to dis
olive a compact which they helped TO con-
truct and to break up a Union OF which |
hey were an integral part thereby put
ing themselves In insurrection against
he National government, is their case the
anne as that of the Filipinos. who have
ever formed any voluntary part OF our
Jnion and who have come under our con-
roll only by force and conquest? The
Jfyerence in the two cases is the mighty |
Inference arising from a great principle
no principle that governments derive
heir first powers from the consent OF the
overned.
"Take a simple test Of the whole qucs-
ion. Suppose Canada had reyolted rom
irea. Britain and had possession OF an