Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-08-30
FILIPINO PROBLEMS

CHARLES DENLY of Indiana, a lifelong
democrat and eX-miniSter to China has
written a letter regarding the Philippine
question in which he takes strong
ground in v of the position of Presi-
dent Mckinley, and condemns the course
advocated by MIR. Bryan as not only un-
patriotic in policy but bad in morals Mr..
DENLY writes with full knowledge Of his
subject. having been a member OF the
first commission to the Philippines, and
having made a thorough study of the sit
uation there, a study which was the
more intelligently directed as his former
residence in China had given him 4
knowledge Of eastern affairs and man
ners. =
POLITICS VS.. MORALS.
h letter in question was received at
the headquarters Of the republican ma
tional committee on Monday and will be
published by it as a campaign document.
1t reads as follows:
In his speech Of April II. 1900. in the
senate Mr.. Hoar said that he could not
forget that Mr.. Bryan, unless he is
much mfsrepresented, used all his power
and influence with those Of hts friends
who are ready to listen to his counsels
to secure the ratification Of the treaty.
meaning the Paris treaty.
There were seventeen democratic SEN
ators who voted for the ratification. a
two-thirds majority was necessary. The.
treaty was ratified by INT vote. Mr..
Bryan mas SQuafoly assumed the ceSpOn-
sibility of the ratification.
I'm his speech of acceptance Mr.. Bry-
an meets this question in the only way
that he could have met it. His language
is: I was among the number OF those
who believed it better to ratify the
treaty Thus Mr.. Bryan indorses the
doctrine that a politician has the right
to do evil in order that good may come.
The end justff1es the means. In morals
this position is unsound.
W. had taken Manila on August Is.
1898. In December, 1898, Spain had made
a treaty. ceding the stands to US. We
had occupied them until February 5.
1899. On that day Aguinaldo made war
IN us. Our soldiers had to fight for their
lives. The treaty was ratified on Febr,b
airy I. 1899. Mr.. Bryan advised his
friends in the senate to vote to ratify
the treaty after the battle Of February
5 had been fought, He knew that war
had begun. He might readily have fore
seen What complications might possibly
occur out of the existing conditions. Then
was the time to nave talked about the
consent of the governed n not now.
when every speech he makes adds ten
names to the roll of our dead, and LOG
to the Filipino dead.
BRYAN'S PLEA A POOR ONE.
"If Mr.. Bryan's plea were filed in the
courts the judges would hold it bad. on
the doctrine of estoppel. II a man fails
TO tell Tie lIuLu "uCA he OA6AI " AAosS
told it, and the position of another per-
son would be injuriously affected by per-
uniting him to tell thereafter what he al
leges to be true, his mouth Is sealed by
the law. For instance, if you stand by
at an auction sale and see another per
son buy your horse inc pay for 1t with
out disclosing you title, you. are estop-
ped to claim the horse, though your title
to it might have been good if you had
asserted it at the proper time.
xNFu T0~,,-~ o1y3r, h y,rAJo11hfnd nnyU
er to prevent the ratification Of the treaty,
actually, by his own confession. advised
it's ratification. Neither in law nor IN
morals can he be permitted now to Sc
cure political advantage from
ing a course of conduct which he himself
advised.
Surely, if a great political leader goes
! before the country and counsels that a
certain law be passed, or a solemn treaty
be ratified, an indignant pubic Will hot
listen to him patiently when he AFTER
wards d%enounces the adoption of the lire
of policy which he himself urged. Al
may be fair In love and war. but no pun-
lie man has openly aVoWed tnat al 10
fair i'm politics. However violent tne
! presumption may be, it is still presumed
prima facie hat political Battles aro
waged on principle, and mo- on fraud
and trickery.
HARDLY AN HONORABLE COURSE.
st do not accuse MI. Bryan of favoring
the adoption of the treaty of Paris Cor the
sake of securing a political advantage,
but if he really believed the treaty was
bad, because it conveyed to US the title
to the Philippines, surely the palmer ana
more honorable course Would nave peen
to have opposed it's ratification: Wnas
he says as to his reasons for his CON
due is: L thought it safer to trust the
American people to give independence TO
the F%ilipinos han to trust the accom-
-1;cn,cor< Of that n1rnOSp to diplomacy
with an unfriendly nation
trhis sounds well, indeed, and puts
Mr.. Bryan in the attitude of desiring m
dependence for the Filipinos afdentiy.
what were the Filipinos to him or he to
them? Why should he so ardently de-
| sire that they should be spared the lis.
grace of becoming citizens of our great
republic? Why become so suddenly nm
bued with antagonism to the democratlc
principle of expansion as xemplit1e Dy
ali Democratic statesmen from Jefferson
to Voorhees,? If he could stand the an
nexation of Hawaii, why balk at the ac-
QUESTION of the Philippines?
"Mr. Bryan is not slow IN giving IN ms
own words the reason for his conauc..
He does not wait long to show the cloven
fot, His own explanation is as follows:
ct believe that we are now IN albetter
position to wage a successful contest
against imperialism than we would nave
beer had the treaty been rejected.
CREATES HIS OWN MONSTER"
Here, then, we have the real a
for this strange parody of JekyH AND
Hyde: He wanted to create the bogy OF
imperialism in order that he mlgnt
fight and overcome the monster. II the
treaty lax not been ratified there would
have been no Imperialism and MT
Bryan would have failed to secure an
antagonist worthy of his splendid ora
tory. How simple it all seems now tina,
he has explained it. If Mr.. Bryan had
opposed the ratification of the treaty
the Filipinos would have gone their way
? either into the arms of Spain, or OF Ger
many, or into discordant n warrins