The Indianapolis journal., 1899-01-11
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT OF
EXPANSION.

Thus far the debate in the Senate on the
question of territorial expansion has been
worthy of that body. The speakers on both
sides have taken broad views of the ques-
tions involved constitutional, economic and
social, and the speeches have been con-
spicuously free from partisanship. This is
as 1t should be, for the issues involved are
too important and the interests too great
to justify their treatment on any other than
broad grounds of national policy.
The main features of the debate on Mon
day We're the carefully prepared speech of
Senator Hoar against expansion and the
brief rejoinder of Senator Platt, of Con-
neeticut, reafirming the doctrines of his
first speech, delivered Dec 49, TO which
Senator Hoars was reply. These two
able speeches presented Numerically oppo-
site views of the constitutional right and
power of the government to acquire foreign
territory. This is a basic question in the
discussion. If the government has no con-
stitutional right to acquire new territory
there is an end of the discussion, and if it
has such right the opposition to expansion
must be confined to grounds of policy or ex-
pediency. Senator Platt took the ground
that the United States, being a sovereign
power, has the right to acquire territory in
all ways that are conceded 10 other SOW
ereign nations of the world He MAIN
tanned that the right to acquire territory is
an attribute of sovereignty upon which the
Constitution does not set any limitation,
and that it is as inherent in and essential
to a republican government as a mon
archical. To a question whether he thought
the power of the United States to acquire
territory was as complete as the power of
Russia, Mr.. Platt answered: Yes; the
rights to acquire territory is an element of
nationality. And do not believe that there
is any obligation to give to the people of
acquired territory the right of self-govern-
ment until such time as they are fit to exer-
else that right
Senator Hoar takes an entirely different
view of the subject. holding that the
United States government has no powers
except such as are expressly delegated to it
by the Constitution, or for the purposes of
carrying out it's declared purposes, and that
the power to acquire territory, not being
expressly conferred, does not exist. He
holds that every constitutional power is
limited to the one supreme and controlling
purpose declared in the Constitution itself:
In order to form a more perfect union, es-
tabish justice insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare and secure the bless
nj fO 10
terity." Then, to make his argument good,
he assumes that unless the acquisition of
foreign territory can be brought distinctly
within one of these purposes it is not per-
missible under the Constitution.
On this phase Of the question Senator
Platt is right on grounds entirely distinct
from the Philippines question. He takes
broad view of the question and Senator
Hoar very narrow one. Sovereignty is an
attribute of all governments, and the right
to acquire territory is necessary attribute
of sovereignty-as necessary as the right to
make war. 1t has been exercised repeatedly
by the government of the United States and
has never before been questioned The
contention that the United States has con-
S1Ae0eAohdA pOWCA " cCQullG Contiguous ter
ritory but not to acquire distant or insular
possessions is childish. The prerogatives
of sovereignty are not measured with sur
veyor's chains. A constitutional power that
has extended from the Atlantic to the Pa
cific coast can as easily reach a thousand
or ten thousand miles beyond. The water
line is not necessarily the limit of territorial
growth any more than it should be of the
dissemination of republican principles and
free government Sovereignty is a moral
attribute of nations, and the operation of
moral principles is not subject to latitude or
longitude. The opposite contention proves
too much. AT present it is used against the
Philippines. Fifty or a hundred years
hence, if the precedent is established now,
it may be used against the acquisition of
territory TO the south of us that is as little
within the range of our desires now as the
Philippines were year ago. But it is not
the question of possessing the Philippines
or any other territory so much as it is of
maintaining the equal sovereignty of re-
publican government with monarchical. A
government that could not acquire territory
would be disfranchised among nations and
discredited by it's own people.