Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-09-19


so when we come to the expense OF a
large army and its menace IT is no,
whether four soldiers in four Thousand
would be a menace to this country. Ii Is
this, IL people have reached the poini
where they will permit four soldiers, when
they only need one, then how do you know
but the next step will be an increase
which VIII make them menace
to the country? tGreat applause.) II
the people will not stop this increase be-
fore 1t becomes a menace, are you sure
they are going to afterwards?
This same argument can be used in de.
fense OF an army of two hundred thousand
The same argument can be used in de-
fense of an army OF four hundred thou
sand. The same argument can be used
until the army is so large that 1t is. a
menace and when 1t gets to that size. thew
can say We'll, complain all you want
to; we have got an army big enough now
TO quiet your complaint by force" (Great
applause)
Cost of Militarism.
want to ask you, have you investigated
the cost of education In this country?
saw some figures the other day to the
effect that 1t cost us less than two hun
dred millions year for education in the
United States When this administrator
Ing army was something like one eighth.
or less than that, of the sum spent for
education. But multiply the army by four
and the expense of your army is one ha II
or the expense for education. You see
the children going to school. You are in =
terested In them. Just think my friends
Of increasing the proportion in four years
between education and the army, from one
to eight, to one to two. Is there no dan
ger of militarism? why do we need mill
tarism? Why do we need a large army ?
There are but two reasons given for large
army. One is TO support our foreign policy
and the other is to use the army in this
country to suppress by force that dis
content that ought to be cured by legisla-
tion.
A New Issue.
But my friends want to accept the best
reason that the Republicans put forward,
the argument that II is needed because Of
our foreign policy and want to ask you
whether you have decided to adopt for
eign policy that requires this increase In
the standing army? The American peo.
pie have not declared in favor of i'm
pcrialism. When the president was elect
ed four years ago, there was no such is
sue before the country; and when con-
gress was elected two years ago this issue
was not before the country. Go back to
the campaign of 1898. Read the arguments
made; and you will find that in that cam
paign the Republican leaders did not
declare that we were to have colonial
policy. You will find in that campaign
there was no policy. The only argument
made by the Republicans was Hold up
the hands OF the president until the war
is over; do not discredit him while the
treaty Is being agreed upon" There was
no issue of Imperialism then. There was
the danger of 1t. and some cried out that
there was danger but the Republican party
had not declared its policy. It's president
had not. Congress had not. The cabinet
had not. The Republican newspapers had
not. The Republican speakers had not.
Therefore this question has not been
passed upon by the American people You
now for the first time are going to have
chance to sit In judgment on this subject
and when you come to act on the question
OF Imperialism want you to consider sew
eral propositions which are involved in this
issue.
Title to the Filipino.
First, what Ia your title to the Fill
pino? II we are going to keep the Fill
ipino, we ought to be able to know how we
got him. Great applause.) We did not
have him four years aGo. IL he has come
into our possession since there must have
been time. and there must have been
title pass from somebody to us. You
would not buy horse without looking up
the title You would not buy an acre of
land without getting an abstract. Are you
going to buy eight million Fllipinos with
out looking into their title? What is your
title TO the Filipino? Did we buy him
from Spain? If 60, I want to ask you.
when did this nation ever assert the doc
trlne that you could buy people? When
was that doctrine asserted in this coun-
try? And II the Republican party asserts
that doctrine now, let 1t show how long
since 1t accepted that doctrine. Great
appause.)
Can't Buy People.
II the Declaration of Independence Is
true you cannot buy people IL govern
ments derive their Just powers from the
consent of the governed then you cannot
buy the right to govern people. and l
charge that the Republican party cannot
defend a title based on purchase without
asserting that the Declaration OF Indc-
pendence Is false. when It asserts that
the people are the source OF power.
(Great applause)
But sometimes the Republicans try to
avoid II by saying that we bought the
land, Well, n We Just bought the land
and did not buy the people, how did we
get the people? tApplouse.) Were they
thrown in with the land. (Renewed ap-
plause)
Mother used to buy dress goods and get
the buttons and thread thrown in. Can
we buy land and get people thrown in?
Why, my friends we not only have no
right to buy people but when we bought
from Spain we knew that she did not
have any right TO sell, You ask me how
| know? I know because we ourselves
armed her people to fight against her
authority, and when we recognized the
right OF the Filipino to throw off the
Spanish yoke, when we furnished arms to
the Filipino to tight against the Spanish
authority, we then threw discredit upon
that very title and we are not innocent
purchasers You know there Is a rule in
Iaw that sometimes a man stands In the
position of an innocent purchaser and
while the title may not he good. or would
not be good II he had known OF the de-
rect, 1t IL good because he did not know
OF the detect We are not innocent pur-
chasers because we knew OF the defect in
spains title (Applause)
HOW are you to defend the title7
you defend 1t on the ground OF purchase
you have got to annlhilate tho principles
Tor which this government has stood, But
suppose You defend II on the ground of
forceY Is that any better? Are you GO
ing to say that we own them because we
can whip them? You dare not assert that
doctrine Are You going TO say that a big
man can so out and thrash a little man
aud own hlm9 Applause) And IL big
man cannot secure title to u little man by
whipping him, how could big nation Sc
cure title to little nation by whipping
that nation? (Applause.)
deny that we can secure title by force.