The age-herald., 1899-01-12

between the United States and Spain with out reference to anybody else.
 MT. Hoar contended it was breach of faith to attack Spain at Iloilo, and bad policy to attack Aguinaldo. MT. Allen replied to Mir Gray, asserting that Spain had no jurisdiction in the Phi,ip- pines, and that Agunaldo's government was the government there. His govern ment was both a de facto and a de jure government, and it had maintained itself for several years Therefore the United States did not succeed to Spain's title to the islands.
 Technically at War
 MT. Gray replied that evidently MT. Allen was laboring under a misapprehension; this country was technically at war with Spain until the peace treaty was completed. It was true that active military operations had ceased and for this reason the United States was under the highest obligations to maintain good faith in the observance of the terms of the protocol.
 MT. Allen spoke briefly in reply to MT. Gray, reiterating his position and asking for the immediate consideration of his reso- lution.
 MT. Gallinger objected and the resolu- tion went over.
 MT. Foraker was then recognized and proceeded to deliver his set speech on the general question of power to extend our territory. He based his remarks principal ly upon the Vest resolution. incidentally giving attention to MT Masons measure. The resolutions. he said were different propositions-the Vest measure raises the question of power; the Mason resolution that of policy We had been told by MT. Hoar that the question of power was the most important ever raised in the history of the government.
 MT Foraker did not agree with this dctum. On the contrary, it had no in- portance whatever as question of prac- tical consideration.
 It was a moot question and nothing more The resolution expresses the extreme view held by anyone and an analysis of it was sufficient to demonstrate the progress that had been made since the acquisition of Lou isiana. There was no precedent when Lod- isiana was taken in, and naturally there were then many differences of opinion on the points then involved. MT. Jefferson him self was not positive as to his attitude on some points a issue. Now it is conceded by the very terms of the Vest resolution that the government has the power not only to acquire territory, but that we may also acquire territory to hold it, though tenn porariy This was a great step in advance since the days of Jefferson, and inasmuch as it made the concessions it was of no practical importance
 Question of Vast Importance
 On the other hand, the reolution involved a theoretical question of vast importance. To adopt the resolution was to declare that our fathers had brought nation forth that was inferior to all other nations, regardless of the generally accepted theory that one nation was equal to another, and all equally unrestricted
 Among the powers of nationality are the powers to make war and to make treaties. This is an inherent right of nationality, and this government has the same power that all other governments have. Our pre- rogative is as great that of Great Brit ain, said MT. Foraker. It being true that we have the power to make war and to enter into treaty agreements, we logically have the power to acquire territory by con- quest or otherwise, to inherit all the conse- quences that may accrue through war.
 He quoted Chief Justice Marshall to sus- tain his position, contending that the Chief Justice had said the United States had not only the right to acquire, but also the right to govern territory so acquired.
 MT. Bacon called attention to the fact that the territory under consideration hy the chief justice was Florida, which was contiguous and having populat on home- ogenous with our own.
 Judge Marshalrs Utterance
 Mr. Foraker said that while this state ment as to the location of territory was true as a matter of fact, Judge Marshall had not found it necessary to point out this fact. His utterance had been clear-cut and without qualification, and it was evident from this that the fathers of the American republic had not meant to create a nation inferior to other nations in power
 MT. Foraker also questioned Justice Brad ley in the Utah case, involving the question of polygamy, in which the justice said: Tt would be absurd to say that nation has power to acquire territory and not the power to govern it."
 This was late decision on the same lines