The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-12
MIR. FORAIxER's SPEECH.
Right of the United states to Acquire
Foreign Territory Maintained.

Mr.. Foraker was then recognized and pro-
ceeded to deliver his set speech on the gen.
eral question of the power to extend our
trritory. He based his remarks principally
upon the Vest resolution, incidentally Civ
ing attention to Mr.. Mason's measure. The
resolutions, he said, were different propo-
stions-the Vest measure raises the ques-
ton of power; the Mason resolution that of
policy We had been told by Mr.. Hoar that
the question of power was the most impor-
tant ever raised in the history Of the gov
eminent. Mr.. Foraker did rot agree with
this dictum. On the contrary, Il had no i'm
portance whatever as a question of practi-
cal consideration. 1t was moot question
and nothing more. The resolution eX-
presses the extreme view held by any one.
and analysis of it was sufficient to demon
strate the progress that had been made
since the acquisition of Louisiana. There
was no precedent when Louisiana was
taken in. and naturally there We're many
differences of opinion on the various points
involved. Mr.. Jefferson himself was not
positive as to his attitude on some points at
issue.
Now it is conceded by the very terms
of the Vest resolution that the government
has the power not only to acquire territory.
but that we may also acquire territory tc
hold it. though temporarily. This was a
great step in advance since the days OF
jefferson, and inasmuch as it made the con-
cesSiOn it was of no practical Importance.
On the other hand, the resolution involved
a theoretical question of vast Importance.
To adpot the resolution was to declare that
our fathers had brought forth a nation
that was inferior to all other nations, re-
gardless of the generally accepted theory
that one nation was equal to another and
all equally unrestricted. Among the powers
and TO make treaties. This is an inherent
right of nationality, and the government
has the same power that all other govern
ments have Our prerOgative is as great
g that Great FORAKER.
1t being true that we have the power to
make war and to enter into treaty agree
mentS, we logically have the power to ac-
quire territory by conquest or otherwise,
and to inherit all the consequences that may
acrue through war. He quoted Chief
Justice Marshall to sustain his position,
contending that the chief justice had said
the United States had not only the right to
acquire but also the right to govern terri
MIR Bacon called attention to the fact that
the territory under consideration by the chief
and having population homogeneous with
our own.
INTENTION OF THE FATHERS.
Mr. Foraker said that while this state
ment as to the location of the territory was
true as a matter of fact. Justice Marshall
had not found it necessary to point out this
fact His utterance had been clear cut and
without qualification, and it was evident
from this quotation that the fathers of the
American Republic had not meant to Gre
ate nation inferior to other nations in
power. Mr. Foraker also quoted Justice
Bradley in a Utah case, involving the ques-
ton of polygamy in which the justice said:
1T would be absurd to say that a nation
has power to acquire territory and not the
power to govern it, This was late qe.
cision on the same lines as that of Chief
Justice Marshall in the early days of the
Republic Such being the authorities, what
ground, he asked, have the supporters OF the
resolution to stand upon? Mr. Vest had con-
tended in his speech that history was against
the assumption of power of this country
to establish colonial governments, and that
the character of our war for independence
demonstrated that the men of that day
would not have countenanced such pro-
ceeding.
there was no complaint in revolutionary
times of colonial policy. There were
many complaints on other scores, but none
on this so that it must be assumed that
they had no such objection as the Missouri
senator had cOntended. On the contrary
there were Indications that they had in
mind the possibility of the acquisition of
territory, and Mr.. Foraker quoted from Mr..
Governor Morriss letter to Mr. Livingston
in which he said that the United States We're
destined to control the whole of the terri
tory of North America.
Mr. President" said Mr. Foraker, after
quoting from Governor Morris at length.
''there is a marked difference between a
prefer of it,
Mr. Platt, OF connecticut, CalIeu attention
to Article 5 of the treaty of France with
the United States. withdrawn by Benjamin
Franklin, which provides that if Canada
should be obtained by the United States it
should be dependent upon this country
YES" said Mr.. Foraker, land nothing is
said about the consent of the Canadians
either"
In reply to a question by Mr.. Allen, of
Nebraska Mr.. Foraker declared that in
every instance whore the United states ac-
CURED territory the Constitution of the
United States was extended over it, and that
all legislation provided by Congress for such
acquired territory must be and always is
distinctly in accordance with the COnsttu-
ton.
Mr. Tfllman, of South Carolina, inquired
of Mr.. Foraker whether any of the States
could discriminate against a territory on ac.
count, of the color or previous condition OF
its inhabitants
THAT question is not before us now re-
piled Mr.. Foraker. when it arises we snail
meet it, I wish some of the States that do
discriminate. were outside and we had a trlal
of the question now" Great laughter)
Mr.. Foraker then took UP that part OF the
argument of Mr. Vest. of Missouri, IN sup
port of the resolution in which ne pased ms
statements upon the Dred Scott decision.
He analysed the decision. showing that
majority of the court did not support the
position with reference to the acquisl ton
and government of territory, that Mr.. Vest
had said it did and that really only one OF
the associate justices stood squarely with
Chief Justice fancy IN support or the 1ull
force of the decision.
FORAKER AROUSES HOAR.
Mr.. Foraker then entered upon a constitu-
tionaI argument in reply to the points made
by Mr. Vest in his speech in support of the
resolution and by Mr. Caffery, of louisiana
in support of the resolution. In beginning a
discussion of the speech of Mr.. Hoar, Mr.
Foraker said: 81 listened, as 1 always listen,
to the speech of the senator from Massachu-
sets 1t was a speech of great ability and
power, such as he always delivers. but when
it is reduced. it amounts only to this, that
the government OF the United States has
only the power to acquire territory for con-
stitutiOnal purposes. and as to what those
constitutional purposes are, the senator
from Massachusetts shall be the whole and
exclusive Judge.
Mr. Forakers remarks brought Mr. Hoar
out for a further explanation of his posi-
ton Rising and interrupting the Ohio sena-
our national defense to annex an outlying
territory, and If the people Of that territory
objected to our acquisition of it / should
consider the SubiugatiOn of IL as "a great
national crime to be repudiated and con-
demned and ] should say the United States
would better go down beneath the waters of
the Pacific in honor rather than disgrace it.
self by such action. Mr.. HOar said he did
which rOamCd a few thousand savages haV
ing no government and being incapable of
government should be passed by or that
civilization should stop at its threshold.
reached by Mr. Hoar. LAS / now under
stand the senator from Massachusetts. said
Mr. Foraker, the march OF civilization
ought not 10 be stopped for lack of consent.
The march of the French across the dark
continent and of the British TO Fashoda is
not. then, to he interrupted.
Mr.. Foraker maintained that the govern
ment Of the United States had ample power
~ no al