Washington sentinel., 1900-03-10
John sherman Agrees With Mr.
Bryan,

In a previous issue we had oc
casion to criticise Senator Hoar
for his unprovoked and unwar-
ranted attack on Mr.. Bryan, be-
cause the latter advocated the
adoption of the resolution OF self
government for the Filipinos in
preference to the rejection Of the
treaty of peace with Spain. We
suggested then that Mr.. Hoar was
catering to possible Republican
votes in the Massachusetts, Legis
latuTe. Developments have sus-
tanned us in our view. II has since
transpired that there was a vote OF
want OF confidence in Senator Hoar
pending in the Massachusetts, Leg
iSlature, and it is now clear that
Mr.. Hoar lugged in Mr.. Bryan's
name for the purpose of placating
the Imperialistic spirit oil that body.
The result was that the vote was
postponed to the next term. Il is
entirely possible that Mr.. Hoar
may find far different sentiment
in the newly elected Legislature.
While we commend Mr.. Hoar
for the good work he has done and
NAV do in the cause of anti Impe-
rialism, we cannot condemn too
strongly men who fell down at the
crucial moment. 1t seems as If
the statement that "every man has
his price" is correct. Galamiel
Bradford, George S. Boutwell,,
Frank B. Sanborn, and host of
other stalwart Massachusetts
Republicans declared at the
Philadelphia Conference that they
would most certainly support Mr..
Bryan as against Mckinley. Why
this backsliding of Mr.. r.Hoar, un-
less it be to hold on to a seat in
the Senate. Better 60 down in
honorable defeat than tarnish his
name by supporting the arch
traitor Mckinley. John Sherman
is at least as good Republican
and as good an American as Mr..
Hoar, and he advocated the iden
tlcal course that Mr.. Bryan took IN
recommending the adoption OF the
treaty, though opposed to the ex-
pansion policy. We quote from
the Washington Post an interview
had with Mr.. Sherman at the time
the treaty was up for ratification,
which, in our opinion, will set
at rest forever the wisdom and
craftsmanship of Mr.. Bryan in the
premises. He says:
should vote for the ratification of
the treaty, because it would at once end
the technical condition OF war that now
exists; because it would place the
problems to be solved directly within the
control of Congress; because it would
remove forever the sovereignty Of Spain
from the Philippine Islands, and, be.
cause, as that sovereignty then would
devOlve upon US, we would be in
position to afford the Filipinos an
opportunity to establigh for themselves
such republican form of government
as they were capable Of maintaining.
Asked whether the ratification
OF the treaty would be declara-
ton OF policy by this government;
whether it would bind the United
States to hold the Philippine ISL
ands as colonies1 He said:
Oh, not at all. The legislative branch
of the government would be in position,
In the event OF the treatY's ratification,
to make such disposition of the islands
as it deemed fit. My own idea is that
we should extend to the FiIipinos a
helping hand in the formation and
maintenance Of their government. We
properly might say to them: 1--WE have
relieved you through war and purchase
Of the sovereignty OF Spain. We now
expect you 10 establish a stable and
independent republican government in
these islands. We will afford you such
assistance as you may need or desire.
In return for our efforts in your behalf
we shall expect you to repay to us the
twenty millions Of dollars which we paid
Spai1 for relinquishing her sovereignty
here. This money may be paid in
installments or in any reasonable man
ner you NAV elect. We shall ask further
that the United States shall have a
coaling station and commercial base in
the Island OF Luzon, and that you give
us favorable commercial relations with
the islands"
That, in my opinion. is as far as we
ought to go-as far as we desire to go.
Our people, think, would be satisfied
with such an arrangement. which could
not he regarded as otherwise than
favorable TO this country.