The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1900-12-04

= law HOopAOs having q SOVoIuuubIlt U
their own when the war with Eng
land began. After the fall Of thei
capital and after the Englisl
were in possession Of the larger poi
ton of the Transvaal and had owe
run the Orange Free State and wer
holding it they issued a proclamation
Of annexation and declared the tw'
former republics colonies of Grea
Britain. Can anybody say that tn
same conditions obtained in the Phil
ippines when the natives took VI
arms against the United States?
The Philippines for centuries wer.
Spanish territory, and so recognized
by the world. It is true that revolt.
against Spanish rule had occurred anC
that such a revolt was in progress al
the time Dewey destroyed Montejo's
fleet and virtually captured the city Of
Manila. But it is not true that the
Filipinos were in possession of the
archipelago or that they had a regu.
larly organized form of government,
recognized by other nations, something
the Beers did have and enjoy. The
Filipinos were rebels trying to over
throw a government which the world
recognized as the lawful one The
man whom they acknowledged as their
leader had betrayed them and was out
Of the country enjoying the fruits of
his treachery and sneaked back into it
only when he knew that the power he
had been opposing and latterly had
sold out to was no longer supreme and
that a new and stronger was the
master. Even when he did so it was
to acknowledge and recognize Ameri-
can sovereignty over the islands. 1t
was only later that he again assumed
the role of revolutionary leader and
waged war against the nation the
world recognized as the rightful
owner of the archipelago by virtue of
the title acquired from Spain.
What would the men who pretend
to see a "war of might against right
in the struggle in the Philippines have
said or done had some foreign nation
stepped in and sought to assume con-
troll of the southern states while they
were in a state Of rebellion and in
justification of it's action pleaded
that the government at Washington
nc longer in a position to inter-
fere because the people of the south
were engaged in a war Of secession.
Would they have argued, as they do in
the case of the Philippines, that it
would be presumptious for the Wash
ington government to interfere? that
if the people of the rebellious states
wanted to be annexed to some other
nation they had a right to do so, as
they no longer recognized the author
ity Of the federal government to say
what they should or should not do?
It is safe to assume that a majority of
them would have strongly denounced
such an attempt and would have in
sisted that Notwithstanding the rebel
lion then in progress this government
was still supreme in the south and
any attempt on the part of some for
eign power to negotiate with the rebels
would be wrong and a clear violation
of the laws of nations.
We're they inclined to be fair and
honest they would recognize a parity of
reasoning as applied to the case of the
Filipinos and the supposititious case of
the southern states, for the two cases
are analogous. In neither instance
had the rightful and recognized govern
ments ceased stheir efforts to subju-
gate the rebels or overthrow the re-
be lion and in neither case had bellig-
rights been accorded the rebels
by any power competent to do so.
In assuming title to the Philippines
the United States did so from a source
recognized by the world as competent
to give title and the plea that the
rights of the Filipinos as a nation hav.
ing standing as such iii the eyes of
the world should be recognized is not
based upon law Or reason. Spain
owned the islands and they were hers
to dispose of as she saw fit, despite of
democratic claims to the contrary.
The flllplnos were her subjects, the
same as they are now subject to the