The record-union., 1899-11-24

sent only the views of the writer's. All
communications must be accSmpanleeu3. " Wy
the name OF the writer. not for pupiicd-
ton unless so desired, but as guarantee
OF good faith.-EdS.
Followed in Others Footsteps.
Eds Record Union: Mr.. Bryan mas
declared in words more eloquent lhaii
true that Mckinley is the first fresi-
dent to repudiate the Declaration OF IN
dependence The ground for this very
serious accusation is that the Presloeltt
has declared himself In favor OF liie
annexation of the Philippines ana mas
planted himself on a platform the
cardinal plank of which is that where
the American flag once goes up there
1t must remain.
The reason given for charging that
the Mckinley policy is opposed 10 'ne
Declaration is that the Filipinos nave
not been consulted as to thelr prefer
ence for or against annexation TO .hiS
country, and that the repelllon they
have begun is being suppressed NY
force of arms In their enthusiasm ail1
love for Aguinaldo the Democrats anu
their mugwump allies compare the Fill
pino rebels of to-day with the founders
of this republic, and their rebellion
with our revolution.
There is such an utter disregard OIL
history and historical facts, of political
psychological and material conditions In
this so-called anti-imperialistic cam
paien that it can only have been con-
ceived on the theory that Americans
are entirely ignorant of their own his
tory, of the conditions that prevail IN
the world to-day, and are entirely un-
fitted to consider and reason out the
political and business problems that
confront them.
If it be true that Mckinley in indors-
ing a policy of annexation has repudl-
ated the Declaration of Independence,
then he is but following in the steps
of Jefferson the Trainer of that paper,
who annexed louisiana; of Monroe,
who added Florida to our dominion; OF
Polk. under whom we secured Califor-
MIA, and of Lincoln, upon whom rests
the responsibility for the purchase OF
Alsaka, although it was acquired after
his death. In not a single instance were
the inhabitants of these several terri
tories consulted as to their wishes N
regard to coming under our nag, al
though in other respects the arguments
of the anti-annexationists OF those days
bear a striking resemblance to those
advanced by Mr.. Bryan and his folloW-
ers to-day Indeed, the only effort at
annexation that failed was singularly
enough the only case in which there
was even a nominal plebiscite. l refer
to the San Domingo scheme.
In view of these historical facts, are
we to understand that Mr.. Bryan takes
the position that Jefferson, Monroe,
Polk and Lincoln trampled on the
Declaration of Independence? Ger
tainly he must, for Mckinley, whom
he charges with that offense, is but
following along the path where they
preceded him. What is the difference
between our title to Luzon and our
title to California? Mexico's title OF
sovereignty here was certainly as
strong as Spains title there.
But for the matter of that, in what
does the principle under which the
white man acquired all this country diff
fer from those which Mr.. Bryan claims
are being pursued in the Philippines?
When were the Indians ever consulted
when the white man wanted their land!
Were they not always suppressed with
force of arms whenever they rose
against the whites? Is it not true that
the offer made the Filipinos is more
liberal than the treatment ever offered
under similar circumstances to people
in the position and of the capacity OF
the islanders?
Evidently Mr.. Jefferson's understand
ing of the Declaration was quite diff
ferent from Mr.. Bryan's. for the former
not only did not think it necessary to
consult the aborigines when proposing
to annex new territory, but he did not
even advocate securing the views OF all
who resided in the original thirteen
colonies on the form of government
they might prefer but believed it both
right and proper for the negro popula-
tion of revolutionary days to cheerfully
accept without question the system of
administration in public affairs that
their white neighbors might select for
them: an idea, which it may be meE-
toned in passing, still prevails in those
states which will undoubtedly give Mr..
Bryan their vote if he is renominated
for the Presidency next year.
The men who framed the Constitution
belong TO the SAINT ptIICu. anu III ooAir
cases were the same individuals as
those who subscribed to the Declara-
ton of Independence, yet they trampled
on the latter document. according 10
the theory of Mr.. Bryan, even more
than Mckinley, since they deliberately
disfranchised the negroes and Indians,
while the President is an earnest advo-
cate of negro suffrage.
1t would seem as though the most
casual student of American history
would not pretend that our present pol
icy in the Philippines is new depart
ure from and a violation of the princi-
pies of the Declaration of Independ-
ence. On the contrary, it is in direct
accord with the whole past history of
this Reoublicl
But it is alleged the annexation of
new territory in the Pacific is in contra
vention of the advice given by Wash
ington in the Farewell Address. 1t
might be answer enough to this state
ment to point out that circumstances
alter cases. and that which was very
good advice on September 10, 1896,
might not apply with equal force in
1899 In fact, the very statements con-
tanned in the Address show this: as.
for instance. where the first President
wrote: Our detached and distant situ-