The record-union., 1899-01-21
TILLMAN RESORTS
TO F|LIBUSTER|NG.
The Tactics Adopted BY the South
Carolina Senator
Prevents Completion Of Consideration Of
Nicaragua Canal Bill.
Nelson Of Minnesota Delivers a
Speech In Opposition to Vests
Anti-Expansion Policy, and
White Of California Explains
Why He Refuses to Respect the
Instructions Of the Legislature
as to Voting on the Peace
Treaty.

a. to Voting on the Peace
Treaty.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2O-The Senate
was in session for five hours and half
to-day, but the session was practically
barren of results. Two notable speeches
were delivered, one by Nelson of Min
nesota, in opposition to Vests anti-ex-
tpansion resolutions, and the other by
! White CD of California, a personal
texplanation of his position with respect
to the instructions given the California
Senators by the Legislature in that
State as to voting on thel pending peace
treaty.
| At the conclusion of the speeches the
Senate resumed consideration of the
Nicaragua Canal bill. Its completion
was prevented by the filibustering tao
ties adopted by Tillman O.) of South
Carolina, who frantically announced
that the bill could not pass to-day, as
he and other Senators, if necessary,
would remain in the chamber until
midnight to prevent final vote.
| Caffery of Louisiana offered the fol-
lowing concurrent resolution:
THAT the President be and is here
by requested, If not Incompatible with
the public interest, to furnish to the
Senate copies of any communications
received by the State Department from
any representatives or agents of the
so-called Philippine republic, and also
| to furnish any information in his pos
session or any documents filed before
the State Department relative to the
bonds of territories in the Philippine
Islands, together with the number of
inhabitants thereof, held respectively
under the control of the American
forces and the authority of the social
ed Philippine Republic showing partic-
ularly what islands or part Of islands, If
any, can in any event be delivered by
Spain to the United STAKES"
| The resolution went over under OBJ
lection.
| Allison of Iowa endeavored to secure
unanimous consent for the taking of a
vote on the Nicaragua Canal bill at
O'Clock to-day, but Caffery objected.
| In response to a question by Mason
of Illinois. Nelson said that no man
could truthfully say that the rights
Of Englishmen had been destroyed or
|
Britain's great success of colonization.
Further, replying to Mason, he de-
clared that the United States, our own
magnificent Government, was. the prod
uct of the colonization plans of Eng
land, and demanded to know whether
Mason would desire to blot out that
great work of England. What the reo-
pie of England have done, said he, GER
tainly the people of the United States
could accomplish. Colonies have not
destroyed England-how will they de-
stroy us?''
| Tillman of South Carolina, interrupt
| ing Nelson, and referring to the ooh
test between Sweden and Norway and
the practical severance of their rela-
tions, inquired why the Norwegians at
home wanted liberty while those of the
United States did not desire to give
liberty to the Filipincs?
This reference to Nelson's Norwegian
birth aroused him. Il am a citizen of
the United States, Mr.. President" he
replied. Il am not representing either
the people or the Government of Nor
way, whose rights ana liberties I am
satisfied are greater than those of the
people of South Carolina - daughter }
"A House joint resolution was passed
reappointing James B. Angel as one of
! the Regents of the Smithsonian Insti-
/ tute.
/ Nelson Of Minnesota was then recog-
nized to make speech on the Vest
anti-expansion resolution. His address
was a constitutional argument in sup
port of the United states 20 acquire
and govern foreign territory. He main
tanned that it was no longer an unset
tied question, that this country had the
power not only to acquire foreign ter
,itory by discovery, conquest or treaty,
but also to govern territory so acquired.
That question, he said, had been settled
by decision of the Supreme Court,
and was scarcely longer open to de-
bate.
| He referred to the territory that had
been acquired in the past by the United
States Government, and declared that
in no single case had the people Of the
! territory acquired been consulted or
their consent secured. In the two cases
| of Texas and Hawaii we had more
nearly approached the point of consult
| ing the inhabitants than IN any other,
but even in those cases there was but
a shadow of consultation. In that of
Hawaii, less than 5000 of the inhabi-
tants had been asked for their consent
to annexation.
! In the course of his debate he said
Tie contention was being made that the
people of the territory proposed to be
acquired were not fit for citizenship in
cur republic. Admitting that conten-
tion was correct, it was quite true that
-,s ople of much territory hitherto ac-
ouired by this country were unfit for
citizenship at the time the territory
was taken into the Union. Had we ap-
pied the reasoning that was now being
advanced against the acquisition of ter
1itcry the people Of Florida and the
Louisiana territory when they were adj
niitted into the United States could
scarcely have passed muster, as it is
well known that they were not fitted
for citizenship.
| Nelson then entered upon an elabor-
ate constitutional argument, citing
numerous authorities in support of his
position. He maintained that the argu-
me nts that taxation without represen-
itation was tyranny. and that Govern