The Wahpeton times., 1900-08-16
OUR TITLE TO THE ISLANDS.
Ware the People Thrown in with the ORR
entail Real Estats?

ysAeo th0 People Thrown In with tho Ofi.
entail Real Estate?
What is our title to the Philippine
Islands? Do We hold them by treaty
er BY conquest? Did we buy them or
did NE take them? Did we purchase
the people? If not, how did we secure
title to them? Were they thrown in
.-s1ith the land? Will the Republicans
sAay that inanimate earth has value.
., and when that earth is nodded by the
Divine Hand and stamped with the
likeness of the Creator it becomes a
dxture and passes with the soil? If
governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed it is
impossible to secure title to people,
either by force or by purchase. We
could extinguish Spain's title by treaty,
but II we hold title we must hold it
by some method consistent with our
ideas of government. When we made
allies of the FilipinOs and armed them
3so buy Spain's title we are not inno-
cent purchasers. But even If we had
not disputed Spain's title she could
transfer no greater title than she had,
and her title was based on force alone.
We cannot defend such a title but as
Spain gave us a quit claim deed we
can honorably turn the property over
to the party in possession. Whether
any American official gave the Fill
9inOs formal assurance of indepen-
-dence is not material. There can be
no doubt that we accepted and utilized
the services of the Filipinos, and that
when We did so we had full knowledge
that they were fighting for their own
Independence, and submit that his
tory furnishes no example of turpitude
>j8aser than ours If we now substitute
0uf yoke for the Spanish yoke.
Let US consider briefly, the reasons
which have been given in support of
an fmperialistic policy. Some say that
1T 10 our duty to hold the Philippine
4saands. But duty is not an argument;
1t ~ q conclusion. To ascertain what
oar duty is in any emergency we must
apply well settled and generally ac-
. nepted principles. 1t is our duty to
;AW0id stealing, no matter whether the
thing to be stolen is of great or little
value. Every one recognizes the Obliga-
ton imposed upon individuals to Oh.
serve both the human and moral law:
but as some deny the application Of
:thoee laws to nations 1t may not be out
~ 4AesA~S w AuOtC TIC VI OIu.
'eea. Jefferson, than whom there is no
A1gher political authority, said: II
know Of but one code of morality for
s1asn, whether acting singiy or col
Jsetivety." Franklin, whose learning,
wisdom and virtue are part of the
.1rjceless legacy bequeathed to US from
the revolutionary days, expressed the
same idea in even stronger language
when he said: Justice is rs strictly
hpe between neighbor nations as be-
fWeen neighbor citizens. ="
Force can defend right, but force
shas never yet created a right. If it
was true, as declared in the resolu-
..lQns Of Intervention, that the Cubans
'tare and of right ought to be free and
independent" Language taken from the
Declaration of Independence), it is
equally true that the Filipinos "are
And of right ought to he free and inde-
pendent" Who will draw n
line between the natural rights of the
9Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will
say that the former has a right to lib
efty and that the latter has no rights
which we are bound to respect? And
It the Filipinos ''are and of right ought
TO be free and independent" what right
have we to force our government upon
them without their consent?
haH -