The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-10

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
uoWn where i has once Heated whether tnat
he its rightful place or not, doctrine which
is not only without justification in internal
tional law. but if it were implanted there
would make of every war between civilized
and powerful nations war of determination
or war of dishonor to one party or to the
other"
Mr.. Hoar then entered upon critical
analysis OF Mr.. Platts speech. After sum
marizing the argument, he said; The con-
stituuonal argument for slavery was ten
times As strong as the argument of the SEN
ator from Connecticut. The slave master
said he owned men for their good. The SEN
ator from Connecticut proposes to own
tions for their good"
He set forth his own constitutional doc
trinc, which he desired to oppose to that
of Mr.. Platt. He declared that the peo-
pie of this country had not deposited all
sovereignty anywhere and had authorized
no agent Of theirs TO exercise all sover-
eighty unlimited and uncontrolled.
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution nor prohibited
by II to the States are reserved to the
States. respectively, or to the people.
amendment. Article 10)
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 eX
pressly granted therein or necessary or con-
venient. in the judgment Of Congress. to
accomplish the purposes expressly declared
therein.
''AH other sovereignty is reserved to the
States or to the people.
'fThe power to conquer alien peoples and
hold them in subsection is nowhere express
~ granted.
THE power to conquer alien peoples and
hold them in subsection is nowhere implied
as necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose declared by the Constitution.
1T is clearly shown to be one that ought
not to be exercised by anybOdy-one that
the trainers of the Constitution thought
ought not to be exercised by anybody. %
Because it is immoral and wicked In itself
20 Because it is expressly denied in the
Declaration of INDEPENDENCE the great in
teTpreter and expounder of the meaning Of
the Constitution which owes rs origin to
the same generation and largely to the same
men. 90 1t is affirmed that it is immoral
and unfit to be exercised by anybOdy-in
numerous instances by contemporary state
constitutions and the contemporary writers
and authors on public law who expressed
the opinion of the American people in that
generation who adopted the Constitution as
well as of the men who framed it,
MAY ACQUIRE TERRITORY.
In discussing how territory may be ac-
CURED constitutionally by the United States
Mr.. Hoar said: 1T may also acquire adjoin-
ing outlying territory, dispose Of it, make
rules and regulations for it for the purpose
of national security and defense, as in the
case of Hawaii although It may not be ex-
pected that the territory so acquired. held
and disposed of shall ever come into the
Union as a State"
However, Immediately following the state
ment, Mr.. Hoar set the Philippines against
Hawaii in this declaration Mr. President,
you are not now proposing to acquire or own
property in the Philippines with dominion
as necessary incident; you are not to own
u foot Of land there; you propose to ac-
quire dominion and legislative power and
nothing else. Where in the Constitution is
the grant of power to exercise sovereignty
where you have no property?'
In support of his Interpretation of the
fNsTNf 1sf
thorities mong them Charles Sumner, Mr.
Justice -. hews and Mr.. Justice Brewer.
He quoted he statement of Louis Napoleon.
made in l6J4 That the time OF conquest IS
past, never to return for il is not by ex-
tending the boundaries of its territory that
a nation can henceforward be honOred and
powerful, but by placing itself at the head of
generous ideas and spreading everywhere
the empire of right and Justice, and added:
Napoleon forgot what he had said when
he grew a little stronger. He saw his OPP
portunity in Mexico, as our friends think
they see ours in the Philippine islands. But
the sure and terrible fate of destiny over
took him in the midst of his pride and
power.
bringing with them the cast-on clothing of
this Pinchbeck Napoleon and ask us, who
have seen his fate, to discard for them the
spotlesS robes in which our fathers arrayed
the beautiful genius of America. A year
ago last December the President of the
United States sent message to Congress.
In that message he said: 1 speak not OF
fOrcible annexation, because that is not to
be thought Of. and under our code of mo-
rality, that would be criminal aggression
WHO SHALL HAUL DOWN MKINLEY?
The time of conquest is past said
Louis Napoleon. All, Mr.. President, Presi-
dent Mckinley but repeated Louis NapO-
leon, though in louder and clearer voice.
President Mckinley, when he spoke, was
not thinking even of honor or of power, in
spring and aIluring as are honor and power.
He placed himself and placed the American
people on the stern, enduring and perpetual
rock of righteousness; that forcible annex
alton is not to be thought of, under our
code of morality that would be criminal
aggression. Who shall haul him down? Who
shall haul down the code? Who shall haul
down the PRESIDENT"
Mr.. Hoar dwelt with emphasis upon the
large increase in national expenditure which
the policy of expansion, advocated by Mr..
Plat. would entail placing the amount at
$150,000,000 annually. He argued that the
adoption of Mr.. Platt's doctrine would re-
duce wages, increase taxation, place an
armed soldier on the back of the working
man, and by the act of the government.
every Americans dignity would be dis
hOnOred and his manhood diScrowned.
In conclusion, Mr. Hoar said he could not
agree that the lesson of our first hundred