The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-12-26
Juealina win Words.

Juggling With Words.
All of the Democratic resolutions and
speeches on the Philippine situation
rest upon certain forms Of speech which
those who quote them have never
stopped to analyxe or which they will
ingly pervert. There are many Of these
that passed current at an earlier time,
when the philosophical aspect Of lib.
erty had more attention than the prac-
tical. They belong to an age Of dec
larmation: the age OF 1.-THE Social Con-
tract and 1.-THE Rights OF Man." Their
lack Of meaning or Of truth has been
pointed out thousands Of times during
the passing century. and writer in
the latest number Of the Atlantic scores
them as 'consecrated humbugs." But
still they do duty with those who would
impose upon the unthinking.
Easily first among these is that fam
GUS statement Of the Declaration Of
independence, upon which Mr.. De
Almond bases his resolutions for the
Remuneration of our claim upon and au-
thority over the Philippines. This is
that man Is born with certain ''inalien-
able rights. among which are life. lib
erty and the pursuit of happiness" 1t
needs but the slightest reflection to
show that, as an abstract proposition,
to be applied to all peoples and under
all conditions, this IL far from a fact;
and that. in its bald form. the form re-
lied upon by the Democratic opponents
OF expansion. It Is contradicted by our
political faith and denied In practice
in our dealings with one another under
the law every day that we live.
Has man, not even every man, but
the American citizen, whose claims pre-
cede all others with us, an "inalienable
right" to life? An inalienable right is
one Of which a man cannot be deprived.
take 1t away from him except by the
exercise Of brute force and oppression.
There is no state in the Union, whose
statutes provide for capital punishment,
where life Is not taken every year under
sanction of the law and without popular
dissent or denial Of liberty. Has man
an inalienable right to liberty? Every
penitentiary. jail, lookup, correctional
institution of every sort proclaims the
right Of society to deprive the individ-
ual of liberty for his punishment and its
own protection. Has man an inalien-
able right to the pursuit of happiness?
1t depends entirely upon what his con-
ception Of happiness may be. If 1t is
to follow his desires within the field
Of the legally permitted. and without
interfering with the equal rights of
others, yes. If. in pursuing his happi-
ness he transgresses the rules that soci-
ETY. has established as essential to the
common interests OF all, no. He may
not so much as build a fence or lay
drain for his own comfort II it infringes
the law.
In the light of common sense, this en-
preston about "inalienable rights" is
seen to be practically meaningless.
Men, united into civil communities. find
1t necessary to lay down regulations by
which the actions of all are limited;
and the rights" which they would
possess In mere state of nature are
either restricted or surrendered alto
gether. Nor can any one claim that
this Is done by common consent. 1t
was. originally, no more than the voice
of a majority. Now 1t is not even that.
For all our people are born into a sys-
tenn, bound to conform their conduct to
certain principles with whose formula
ton they had nothing to do. and which
their consent or their disapprovai does
not affect in the least unless they can
get majority to join them for amend
inent or repeal.
When we see how restricted Is the al
legged right of the free American citizen
to ''life, liberty and the pursuit of hap
pines" how he is hedged about with
negations and ordered to do or refrain
Aom doing. the nuerility Of all this