The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-02-24
The Nations Latest
Question OF Duly.
From Seth Lows Washington's Birthday
Grafton in Philadelphia.

Gz..#l -lnH ntVtl la
Grafton in Philo deInbia'
I'M HlLLlPS BROOKS once said that
III II n man believed that the country
had escaped all the dangers which
Ii have confronted 1t only by series
OF happy accidents such man ma
turaliy would be full OF fear at every
new psrll that makes its appearance, be-
because such man never could tell when
the country's luck might not change If,
on the other hand, SAID Dr. BROOKS, man
belcNeS that the country has overcome
the dangers of the past because its politi-
cal system is inherently sound, such a one
races every new peril with courage born
Of the dangers that have been overcome.
u Is in this spirit Of woll-Grounded cour-
age. think, that the people of the United
states should contemplate the situation
IN WhlCh tNey ma themselves placed, IN
1859, BY the treaty OF peace with Spain.
Vn!eSS our treaty with spain has been
dictated by lust Of empire, 1t is not fair
10 call those who advocated it imperial
lists; unless it has been dictated by lust
Of territory, it is not fair to call them
eTpanSionists; unless better way can
ho shown by which peace could have been
secured, II Is not just to CritiCise the
government for accepting even unwelcome
obligations that the war has brought in
its train.
What, then, are the facts? The con-
gress of the United States, i'm demand
declared it to be the purpose of this coun-
try to secure freedom for the Cubans.
There is certainly neither imperialism nor
expansion in those resolutions. Up to this
hour there Is not an indication that tho
! purpose of the country, as thus formulat-
! ed by congress, viii not be lived up to
| both in the letter and in the spirit. 1t is
! evident therefore, that our imperialism
| and our expansion. IL they exist at all,
! arc by-prouucts; they do not represent
| the hearts desire. But some one will say,
| ''Why, then did We demand the cession
/ OF Porto Rico and of the Philippines? II
the American people are not imperialists
and are not eXpansonists. why should
we demand from Spain the cession Of
| those islands?' The answer it seems to
| me, is very simple, though ii is not the
| same in both cases. If Spain had with
| drawn from Cuba without war she would
/ undoubtedly be still in possession, so far
! as We are concerned, of both Porto Rico
/ and the Philippines. The moment she
! compelled us to 20 to war in order m eX-
! pei her from Cuba, it became evidently
/ the dictate Of good serse to make It i'm
possible for future troubles to arise be-
tween us from similar causes by removing
her from this hemisphere. She has been
! d ulIhCulI hclSnpor from the beginning.
! No one l think seriously criticises this
| decision.
o
| 1t is said, however that in the Phillp-
! pines, by reason of their distance and
! their population, the case is different.
! Undoubtedly 1t is and therefore the an
swer is different Evidently it would
have been unwise to attempt any solution
of the Philippine problem which should
! place Spanish and American ci1-i1izo+io,
side by side in control of different parts
| Of the Philippine group. That would
have been deliberately to reproduce in
the Eastern hemisphere the very condi-
tions that had just led to conflict in the
Antilles. 1t was inevitable therefore
that either SDaiQ or AmaTipa must ,aava
the Philippines. We had DESTROYED
Spain's authority there and had also de-
| stroyed her power to re-establisb A. In
! no fair sapsa Of ,bo ,r,,l., - - -