The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1899-08-09
foreign critics cannot gainsay our
4; fn

foreign critics cannot gainsay our
rights.
Cuba And Porto Rico.
By the same considerations that
have finally made Hawaii a part of
the United States, Cuba Porto Rico
should likewise have been ours half
centure ago. That the inevitable
destiny of our race has likewise cast
these foundlings into our lap, almost
without O struggle, is another proof
that mediaeva! bigotry and misrule
shall not dominate the Western world.
The future of these isles should be
burdened with no great problems.
Porto Rico is now component por-
ton of the United States. It is an
island omparatively small, accessible
and we'll supplied with military roads.
There should be nothing serious to
encounter beyond the inevitable fric-
ton that must follow the displacement
of semi-barbarous rule by civilized
forms Of government. Keep out the
politicians and the carpet-baggers !;
give the island an economic industrial
government and it will speedily merge
into the body of the great republic.
The future of Cuba must differ some
what from that of Porto Rico. In
moment of what now seems ill-gotten
generosity, the nation pledged the
world Cuba should be given self
government of her own. The history
of the past six months indicates too
clearly that this isle is not yet ripe for.
absolute self-control and that her
future cannot be safely placed at once
in the keeping of her own inexperi-
enced people. She must be slowly
schooled 10 self-control, and must
then be given fair opportunity to
show her capacity for self-rule under
American supervision.
We may give Cuba the opportunity
to govern herself but can we make
the men fit to govern out OF Spanish
stock?
The ultimate future of this isle is
foreordained. She will be given her
chance to redeem herself. She will
probably fail, as has almost every
other Spanish people of the
western hemisphere.
Cuba will then be merged into the
United States, and her people will
gradually melt into the Anglo-saxon
civilization, as did their kindred peo-
pie in the Floridas, Texas and
Louisiana.
The Philippines.
The final parting of the roads comes
upon the question of the PHILIPPINES.
The other islands were component
portions of North America, but
temporarily detached. The Philip
pines bring us into another hemis-
phere throw us into contact with
Questions and races, of whose existence
we hardly knew year ago.
Reducing the Philippine question to
its lowest terms, it's solution becomes
more plain.
Prior to the war these islands be-
longed to Spain.
Where did she get them?
She discovered them some four
hundred years ago, and has since mis-.
governed them by the sole right of
superior power. :,
We destroyed the Spanish fleet at
Manila, not to secure these islands,
but to protect our own Pacific coast.
The surrender of Manila carried the
surrender of the islands, and the close
of the war found them in our hands.
Not Desire, but Destiny, has thrust
this burden on US.
The Philippines are now our own,
first. by the universal law of war
which permits the victor to absorb
the spoils of the vanquished in such
reasonable amount as shall compensate
him for injury done and outlay made.
This is the lower law, accepted by the
higher Civilized Nations Of the
continent, and which none of them
have denied assent.
The PHILIPPINES are also ours, by
that higher law, which justifies an
advanced Civilization in crushing q
despotic and vicious government and
bestowing upon suffering people the
right to live free and decent life.
They are ours by that inexorable
law of nature that replaces the rack,
the tax collector and the hangman
with the schoolhouse, the township
meeting and the Law.
Next in order comes the claim put
forth by many cloistered and learned
folk that the acquisition of new terri
tory is unconstitutional and against
the traditions of the United States.
Is this go, and if so, what is the
basis for the claim?
In the whole body of the Constitu-
ton there Is no reference to the
acquisition of new territory. There is
nothing that can be construed to
cover this contingency.
The argument that we cannot, there
fore, annex new territory, has been
largely based upon this lack of specific
consent to such expansion. This
objection Is sophistical and totally
contrary to common sense. The mere
state of Sovereignty itself implies
many acts and obligation not specified
in the Constitution. They are the
natural attributes of National Suprem-
acy and are 80 manifestly bound up in
the very fabric Of the Constitution
that they need no direct mandate in
black and white.
The Constitution does not specifical-
Iy provide that we defend ourselves if
attacked. Nor does the Constitution,
in terms, deny the right Of Secession
to state which no longer desires to
retain it's place in the national union.
Yet we have waged both defensive
and offensive warfare when common
sense demanded. We fought the
greatest war in history to retain states
which desired to secede yet no man
can point to the constitutional
mandate in black and white which