The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-03

| Philippines. and its ownership much
more precarious. Just prior 10 the ces-
sion Of the country to the United States
there were several revolts against Mex
lean authority, in which We're engaged
I a much larger percentage of the total
population than ever engaged in ans
Philippine Instruction
| In the Philippines the United States
| first wrested from Spain her possession
by force. and afterwards concluded a
treaty by which the islands were bought
from Spain and paid for. The same
thing took place in regard to Califor-
mia. After the United States took pos
session of California in 1876, their au-
thority was resisted by the native CAL
| ifornianS almost 10 a man under Cas-
| tro, and il took about a years fighting
| TO subdue them and complete the con-
quest. In the case of the Philippines,
after our troops took possession, por-
ton of the natives under Aguinaldo
rose against the authority of the United
States, and Gas the trouble, we hope, is
now nearly at an end) it will have ia
ken about a years fighting TO subdue
them. OF course, in the latter case. the
| fighting has been on a much larger
| scale than in the former. but this is a
difference of degree merely, and not of
kind The facts. therefore, do not bear
our your following statements:
L
| itants of the region mentioned in the
paragraph mentioned by Mr.. Wester-
welt disputed the ownership and SOW
ereignty of Mexico. The Mexican title
was perfect and her delivery of the
goods was complete.
There was no revolt in progress
against the original holder and none in
augurated against the purchaser.
THE title of the United States to the
land acquired is good because the title
of Mexico was good.
1.-The title of the United States to the
oriental archipelago, for which We paid
Spain, is doubtful, because the title Of
Spain was not good, according to our
own admissions, declarations and atti-
tude as a nation
THE title of the United States of the
territory ceded by Mexico is good be-
cause the agreement was accompanied
by delivery of undisputed possession.
THE title of the United States to the
Philippines is under cloud because
there was no delivery and We haven't
obtained undisputed possession of the
islands yet.
1.-The transfer of the Mexican terri
tory was never protested by subject or
sovereign.
1.-THE title Spain held in the Philip
pines was never conceded by the sub
jects, the transfer was contested and
the president recognized other rights
and interests than those of Spain by
treating with and by paying additional
sums of money to local chiefs and SOW
ereigns of the Visayas, Negritos and
Sulus."
II you will go over these statements
carefully once more and compare them
with historical facts, you will readily
see that not single one of these state
ments will hold water
You conclude by expressing your
wonder how one can trace the similar
ity. 1t is, however, not wonderful, and
can be accomplished with ease by the
simple process of confirming ones self to
facts.
There are, as you say. differences be-
tween the two transactions. But these
are all of them differences which have
TO do with the geographical position of
the countries and with their nature and
character. but not with the manner of,
or right to, their acquisition, which
have been strikingly similar in. both
cases. When it comes TO the question,
which you suggest, as what can be
done with these islands, we are going
outside of the sphere of the present
discussion. and moreover are. l think,
seeking somewhat prematurely to solve
a problem with which the future will
undoubtedly have to deal That, as a
noted author is fond of remarking, is
another story. Very truly yours.
GEORGE WESTERvELT
Mr. Westervelt's communication.
is a very able presentation of
the Spanish side of the controversy be-
tween the Spanish sovereign and the
rebels against Spanish authority--quite
as able, no doubt. as any champion of
royalty ever put forth in defense of
England's right to hold the American
colonies or Russia's right to govern
Poland. Spain's title to the Philippines
was never more cleverly defended, per-
haps, and the only wonder is. after
reading Mr.. Westervelt's argument.
how law-abiding government like the
United States could find an excuse for
trespassing upon premises so well en-
closed, so plainly posted. and, withal.
so far from the objective point of the
war
The fact that Mr.. Westervelt stipu-
lates that the expediency of forcible
expansion, the dangers Of invading the
Orient, the morality OF conquest or the
justice of subjugating the Fihpinos.
are not to be discussed in this connec-
ton, narr0ws the controversy down to
an examination of SPANS title to the
Philippines at the time she agreed to
sell them for s20,060,OO0. And this, we
are cautioned, must be considered only
in the light of our annexation of terri
tory at the close OF the Mexican war.
The title obtained from Mexico was
not questioned; there were no inhabit-
ants of the territory thus acquired in
eighty OF Mexico; we found no allies
under the Mexican flag who wanted
their independence; and Mexican sub
jects residing in the annexed area who
were opposed TO the authority proclaim
ed by the United States We're given
ample opportunity TO return to Mexico
or 70 become citizenS, of this republic.
There was no cloud upon the title We
obtained from Mexico. The ownership
was not disputed; the transfer of pos
session was complete; there was per-
feet titulus and perfect modus.
@ 8 @
So it remains to examine into the
title we obtained from Spain to the
Philippines. To do this it will be neees-
sary 10 ascertain:
]. Whether Spain's right to the Phil
ippines at the beginning of the war
was such that this government respect
ed or would have guaranteed it.
% W.