The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-01-13
SENATE.

? Washington, January IA climax
was reached today in the debate on the
question of expansion which is in prog
ress in the senate. Heretofore, all of
the speeches. with the notable excep-
tion of that of Senator Platt, of Con-
necticut, have been in opposition to
what is presumed to be the policy Of
the administration with respect to the
acquisition CT the Philippines. Today
Senator Foraker, of Ohio, addressed the
senate in opposition to the declaration
of the Vest resolution that the United
States has no constitutional power to
acquire foreign territory to be MAIN
tained as colonies.
While much of his speech was de-
voted to a constitutional argument In
support of the right Of this country as
a nation to acquire and govern out
lying territory, he gave particular at
tention to the -utterances that nave
been made in contravention of that po-
sition, and practically those of Sena-
tors Vest and Hoar. Senator Foraker
has a clear, direct and forceful style
of oratory which commands attention,
not only by reason of the recognized
ability of the man, but also by his i'm
petuosity and power as a speaker. he
is at his best in a running fire of de-
bate and the frequency of Interruptions
today afforded him ample opportunity
to elucidate his argument to the best
advantage.
Senator Foraker laid down the
board proposition that to adopt the
Vest resolution was to declare that our
fathers had brought forth a nation
that was inferior to all nations, re-
gardIess or the generally accepted IDEA
that one nation was the equal OF an
other and all equally restricted.
Among the powers of nationality are
the powers to make war and to make
treaties This is an inherent right of
nationality and ths government of the
United States has<the same power that
all other governments have. 1t being
true that we have the power to make
war and to enter into treaty agree
ments, we logicallyhave the power to
acquire territory by conquest or other
wise and to inherit all the consequences
that may accrue through war.
Senator Foraker quoted Chief Justice
Marshall to sustain his position, con-
tending that the chief justice had said
the United States had not. only the
right to acquire, but also the right to
Senator Bacon called attention to the
fact that the territory under consider
alton by the chief justice was Florida,
which was contiguous and having
population homogeneous with our own.
Senator Foraker said that while this
statement as to the location of the ter
ritory was true, as matter OF fact,
Justice Marshall had not found it
necessary to point out this fact. His
1rtf ha clear and with
out qualification and it was evident
from this quotation that the fathers of
the American republic had not meant
to create nation inferior to other ma
tions in power. Senator Foraker also
quoted Justice Bradley in a Utah case,
involving the question of polygamy, in
which the justice said: 1T would be
absurd to say that a nation has power
to acquire territory and not the power
ITO govern it." This was a late decis-
ion on the same lines as that of Chief
Justice Marshall in the early days of
the republic. Such being the authori-
. tiles, what ground, he asked, have the
supporters of the resolution to stand
upon?
Senator Platt, of Connecticut, called
~ attention to Article v, of the treaty of
France with the United States, drawn
-aRya Benjamin Franklin, which provided
that II Canada should be obtained by
the United States it should be depend
sent upon this country.
YES" said Senator Foraker, "and
nothing is said about the consent of
the Canadians either"
Senator Tillman. of South Carolina,
anquired of Senator Foraker whether
any of the states could discriminate
against a territory on account of the
color or previous condition of it's inhab-
Gtants.
That question is not before us
now" replied Senator Foraker. When
it arises we shall meet it. I wish some
of the states that do discriminate were
outside and we had a trial of the ques-
tion now" Great laughter)
Senator Foraker then took up that
part of the argument of Senator Vest,
in support of the resolution in which
he based his statements upen the Dred
Scott decision. He analysed the de-
cision, showing that a majority of the
court did not support the position with
reference to the acquisition and gov
ernment of territory that Senator Vest
2 had said it had and that really only
one OF the associate justices stood
sauarely with Chief Justice Taney in
support of the full force of the necis-
lion,
In beginning a discussion of the
DnEQf SeDataGkHoar Senator Fora
as I always 10
of the senator
vas a speech
such as he
is reduc-
hat the