The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1899-08-16

foreign critics cannot gainsay our
rights.
Cuba And Porto Rico.
BY the same considerations tina,
have finally made Hawaii part Of
the United States, Cuba Porto Rico
should likewise have been ours half q
centure ago. That the inevitable
destiny of our race has likewise cast
these foundlings into our lap. almost
without q struggle, is another proof
that mediaeva! bigotry and misrule
shall not dominate the Western world
The future Of these isles should be
burdened with no great problems
Porto Rico is now q component por.
tion of the United States. 1t is an
island comparatively small, accessible
and we'll supplied with military roads.
There should be nothing serious to
beyond the inevitable fric.
ton that must follow the displacement
of a semi-barbarous rule by civilized
forms of government. Keep out the
and the carpet-baggers
give the island an economic industrial
and it will speedily merge
into the body of the great republic.
The future of Cuba must differ some
what from that Of Porto Rico. In a
of what now seems ill-gotten
generosity, the nation pledged the
world Cuba should be given self
of her own. The history
of the paat six months indicates too
clearly that this isle is not yet ripe for
absolute self-control and that her
future cannot be safely placed at once
in the keeping of her own inexperi-
epced people. She must be slowly
schooled 10 self-control, and must
then be given a fair opportunity to
show her capacity for self-rule under
American supervision.
We may give Cuba the opportunity
to govern herself but can we make
the men fit to govern out of Spanish
stock?
The ultimate future of this isle is
She will be given her
chance to redeem herself. She will
fail, as has almost every
other Spanish American people of the
western hemisphere.
Cuba will then be merged into the
United States, and her people will
gradually melt into the Anglo-saxon
civilization, as did their kindred peo-
pie in the Floridas, Texas and
Louisiana.
The Philippines.
The final parting of the roads comes
upon the question of the PHILIPPINES.
rhe other islands were component
portions of North America, but
temporarily detached. The Philip
pines bring us into another hemis-
ohere throw US into contact with
questions and races, of whose existence
We hardly knew a year ago.
Reducing the Philippine question to
It's lowest terms, its solution becomes
more plain.
Prior to the war these islands be-
onged to Spain.
Where did she get them?
She discovered them some four
hundred years ago, and has since mis-.
governed them by the sole right OF
power.
We destroyed the Spanish fleet at
not to secure these islands,
out to protect our own Pacific coast.
The surrender of Manila carried the
surrender of the islands, and the close
If the war found them in our hands.
Not Desire, but Destiny, has thrust
his burden on us.
The Philippines are now our own,
irst, by the universal law of war
which permits the victor to absorb
he spoils of the vanquished in such
reasonable amount as shall compensate
aim for injury done and outlay made.
This is the lower law, accepted by the
higher Civilized Nations of the
and which none of them
nave denied assent.
The PHILIPPINES are also ours, by
hat higher law, which justlfies an
advanced Civilization In crushing q
lespotic and vicious government and
oestowing upon suffering people the
light to live q free and decent life.
They are ours by that inexorab]e
aw of nature that replaces the rack,
;he tax collector and the hangman
with the schoolhouse, the township
meeting and the Law.
Is Expansion UncOnstitutional7
Next in order comes the claim put
'orth by many cloistered and learned
;olk that the acquisition of new terri
;ory is unconstitutional and against
he traditions of the United States.
Is this 30, and if 80, what is the
basis for the claim?
In the whole body of the Constitu-
ion there is no reference to the
of new territory. There is
nothing that can be construed to
cover this contingency.
The argument that We cannot, there
'ore, annex new territory, has been
largely based upon this lack of specific
to such expansion. This
objection is sophistical and totally
contrary to common sense. The mere
state of Sovereignty itself implies
many acts and obligation not specified
n the Constitution. Thew are the
natural attributes Of National Suprem-
ICY and are so manifestly bound up in
he very fabric Of the Constitution
hat they need no direct mandate in
black and white.
The Constitution does not specifical-
y provide that we defend ourselves if
attacked. Nor does the Constitution,
n terms, deny the right of Secession
% q state which no longer desires to
'etain its place in the national union.
Yet we have waged both defensive
and offensive warfare when common
sense demanded. We fought the
greatest war in history to retain states
which desired to secede yet no man
IAN point TO the constitutional
mandate in black and white which