The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-06-24

deed, no statesman of high standing had
 advocated the policy of colonial eXpan- | sion. Were 1t not for the fact that the
 results of this war have placed the na- l ton tn position respecting certain for
 eign territory, which involves great re- | responsibilities, and which presents se- ] rious problems for practical statesman | ship, it is safe to say, that neither this
 people as a whole, nor any considerable
 number of the wisest statesmen, would
 advocate such policy. Yet may it not
 be that the Spanish war was the very i thing needed to overcome our excessive
 conservatism, and not only afford an op-
 portunity, but point out the duty of
 adopting a radical change of policy? A prominent expansonist recently ar-
 gued: If we are to hold our own in
 the struggle for naval and commercial
 supremacy, we must build up our power l without our borders. From the
 standpoint of national honor the argu-
 ment is even stronger. The guns that
 thundered off Manila and Santiago left
 us echoes of glory, but they also left us
 legacy of duty,' Speaking of the
 Philippine Islands, he says: Their
 population includes half-caste and ma tive Christians, warlike Moslems and l wild Pagans. Many of their people are | utterly unfit for self government, and show no signs of becoming fit" He
 claims that English rule in India and Egypt has benefited England as we'll
 as the other countries concerned, mark
 edly advancing the cause of civilization,
 and adds: 50, if we do our duty aright in the Philippines, we will add to that
 national renown which is the highest and finest part of national life; will
 greatly benefit the people of the Philip
 pine Islands, and, above all, we will
 play our part well i'll the great work
 of uplifting mankind. But to do this
 work, keep in mind that we must show
 in a very high degree the qualities of
 courage, of honesty and of good judg-
 ment."
 We are told that, "The guns that
 thundered off Manila and Santiago. :. left us a legacy of duty and that
 we must play our part well in the great
 work of uplifting mankind"; that our
 national honor is at stake; that as a
 Christian nation we are bound to re- spond to the plain call which the All mighty has uttered to us, and that We are sent forth to impart to the Tagals
 Cubans, Porto Ricans and their poster ity, the blessings of religion and liberty. Yet, as Charles Francis Adams has eX- pressed it December 20, 1S9S): viewed in the cold, pitiless light of history-and this is the only way we here can view them-'divine missions and 'providen- tial calls are questionable things; things the assumption and fult1llment or which are apt to be at variance The United States government is no more charged with cosmopolitan philanthropy to-day than it has been in the past and history shows that in this respect the American has been guided more by his instinct than by his ethics,-"The shot eun has. unfortunately, been more in evidence than the Bible. In calm consideration of the present sltuatloh' in it's bearing upon our moral fespon- sibility, is it true that national honor and national duty lie in the direction or colonial expansion?
 The American nation undertook the Spanish war for the avoWed purpose oi preventing the perpetration or 1urtner atrocities by Spain upon her own colo- nial subjects. To avoid any mlslhtef- pretation of it's purpose the declarat'oh of war was accompanied by the an nouncement that it was not proposed to acouire sovereignty over Spanish ter tritorv. At that moment the termln- ation of Spanish rule over at least a portion of her colonial possessions was foreseen. It was as evident then as 1t is now that the inhabitants Of those Spanish colonies possessed neither the intelligence, nor the sterling character reuuisite for successful selt-govern- uent. Aside from the extent of terri tory occupied no condition differs ma terially from the expectations at thd time when that declaration, or pledge, | was made. Does national honor, then, require the maintenance of sovereignty over these colonies, and a broken pledge? It is claimed that this pledge | was made without due deiberation, and | that as a choice of evils it is less ob- iectionable now to disregard a foolish | and inconsiderate pledge than to dsre- gard the moral and material interests OF more than twelve millions of human be- ings who have been placed under our | control by the fate of war.
 But little more than century ago we were ourselves colonists. The great body of our people had emigrated from Great Britain, bringing with them to the new world not only the language, put also the laws and traditions of the mother country. No nation has better record than Great Britain in respect .o the treatment of colonies Compared | with the treatment usually accorded de- tendencies the American colonies had much to be thankful for, and but little lust ground for complaint; but they mad high ideals, and were not to be ,asily satisfied. They wanted indepen- lence and in order to justify them selves in the eyes of the world, pro- claimed certain principles respecting he rights of colonies, which at that ime had somewhat the air of novelty. They proclaimed That all men are ere ted equal; that they are endowed by heir creator with certain inalienable liberty and the pursuit of happiness; hat to secure these rights governments re instituted among men deriving their ust powers from the consent of the governed Sovereignty which was btained through other channels than he consent of the governed was not ecognized as a valid title. Might did ot make right; human liberties were ot a matter of bargain and sale We