The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-24
REsrRREcTING a nrGREAR.

After President Mckinley had delivered
his speech in Boston, those calling them
selves anti-imperialists should nave discov-
cred that their bugbear of Caesarism was
dead and that the only thing left for them
was to attend their own funeral. They seem
not to have read that address, or. if they
have, their hysteria over the matter pre-
vents them from realizing that the senti-
ment which runs through the whole adj
dress is opposed to the spirit of conquest
and the policy of Imperialism. The Presi-
dents reply to those who insisted that Adj
miral Dewey, after having destroyed the
Spanish feet, should have sailed away de-
stroys the assumption of annexation and
all that it implies. That reply is worth quot
ing again:
Gould we. after freeing the Filipinos from
the domination of Spain, have left them
without government and without power to
protect life or property or to perform the
international Obligations essential to an in
dependent state? Could we have left them
In a state of anarchy and justified ourselves
in our own c~onsciences or before the tri-
bunal of mankind? Could we have done that
in the sight of God and man?
If the President had intended to annex the
= AAAAPI'AAAC9 LG WOA40 " AIaN0 lAu0C lAlC
foregoing declaration, the plain purport Of
which is against permanent occupation. The
United States had destroyed the power of
Spain in the Philippines, as was our de-
clared purpose in Cuba. Having destroyed,
the Nation was in duty bound to build up.
Another passage in the Boston speech is yet
more significant, as showing that imperial
ism. conquest or permanent is
not part of the Presidents plan. 1t is as
follows:
Our concern was not for territory, or
trade, or empire, but for the people, whose
interests and destiny, without our willing
1t, had been put in our hands. 1t was with
this feeling that from the first day to the
last not one word or line went from the
executive in Washington to our military
and naval commanders at Manila, or to our
peace commissioners at Paris, that did not
put as the sole purpose to be kept In mind
hrst after the success of our arms and the
maintenance of our own honor, the welfare
and happiness and the rights of the inhabi-
tants of the Philippine islands.
When the President said that "our con-
Germ was not for territory, or trade, or en-
pire, but for the people," he captured the
whole stock in trade of the a~nti-imperial-
lists. He destroyed the bugbear which they
ave ~ hOdoly NOhobA OSRCO " AAA6Ab-
en- the American people.
1t is necessary to call attention to the
statements of the President in that speech
because, on Washington's birthday. a con-
siderable number of orators devoted them
selves to reconstructing the bugbear Of i'm
perialism and conquest which the President
so completely destroyed. Colonel Bryan read
his Bible to find out that if the American
people undertook to seize and control the
Philippines, the F%flipinos. as a chosen peo-
pie, would pass over safely, while the Amer
lean Nation would be engulfed beyond the
help of life-preservers. He assumed that it
is the purpose of the President to subiu-
gate the Filiplnos and hold them as vas
sails, as the Egyptians did the Hebrews. in
another way, General Alger SO far forgot
himself as to disavow the Presidents pur-
pose in his remarks about never taking
down the flag when once raised. There were
others. Lest the views of the President
may have been forgotten, they have been
repeated. "Our concern was not for terri
tory or empire. but for the people, " in oc-
cupylng Manila and Cuba, is the declared
policy of the President.