The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-17
woLCoTr VS.. BEyERIDGE.

Beveridge's speech are really compliment
tary to the Indiana senator. The latter
spoke nearly two hours and covered every
phase of the Philippines question. yet the
Colorado senator finds only two or three
points to criticise, and those so inconse-
quential and so remote from the main
question that his criticism is really trib-
speech 1t was not to be expected that the
latter would escape criticism or that some
OF 1t would not come from senator's. Sem
ator Hoar voiced the sentiment of the
graybeards when he alluded in a fatherly
and patronizing way to Senator Beveridge's
youth-that which William Pitt, in repell-
ing similar charge, called "the atrocious
crime of being a young man. Senator
Wolcott Is hardly old enough or long
enough in the Senate to join in that charge.
but. being something of an orator him
self, he tries to belittle the speech of a
coming rival by pointing out supposed de-
fects which either the clear atmosphere
Of Colorado or something else ccuses to
look very large in his eyes. He charges
Senator Beverage with taking base
and sordid' view in advocating the reten-
ton Of the Philippines on account of their
material wealth and resources; with
"maudlin sentiment in arguing that
American expansion is part of Gods plan
for civilizing the world, and with palpable
error in claiming that there was no an
tagonism between practical politics, as un-
derstood In the United States. and good
government of the Philippines.
Readers will observe that the points on
which Senator Wolcott bases his criticisms
do not go to the essence of Senator Bev-
eridge's speech. All that he said concern
ing them might be stricken out without
detracting from it's merit. while if all that
Senator Wolcott said in replying to them
were stricken out there would be very
little left of his. Many other people be-
sides Senator Beverage have seen the
hand Of God, variously termed Providence
manifest destiny, fate, ETC., in our ac-
QUESTION of the Philippines, and while it
is a matter of practical consequence
one way or another one persons opinion
on the subject is as good as another's
Perhaps Senator Beveridges view that the
Almighty works out His plans through
nations is as nearly correct as Senator
Wolcott's that 'the divine plan goes no
further than to hold each individual re-
sponsible for his actions towards his fell
bowman" Speculations of this kind in SEN
atorial discussion Of practical question
are surplusage. to say the least.
Senator Beveridge's argument regarding
the national wealth and resources of the
Philippines was not base and sordid." 1t
was legitimate and to the point. He was
of islands that did not belong to us on
account of their natural resources but in
favor of holding them after they have
come into our possession. Senator VOL
colt tries to break the force of the "base
and sordid' view by saying: eff we are
to keep these islands, 1t is because we
owe a duty growing out of the cause of
the war and not because we are able to
take them" Duty to what, or to whom
There is nothing in the cause or origin
ippines. Whatever duty there is in the
case grows out of the end of the war,
not its beginning. On this point the Colo
RADIO senator shoots wide of the mark. We
quote from the press report:
We had taken the Philippines, Mr.. VOL
of the highest duties we owed the human
race. We had entered into the war with
Spain because We could not listen to the
cries of distress that came from Cuba.
When We fnaugurated the war no one
dreamed OF the Philippines, but when ii
closed so quickly and VIGOROUSLY we
oppression, Spain defeated and bankrupt
and the Philippine islands floating dere-
licts. We had taken them because to have
allowed them to drift helplessly into the
power of another would have raised inter-
national complications. We should have
been compelled to take them had they
been as bleak and barren as the desert of
Sahara
This Is very erroneous statement of
the case We never found the Philippine
islands floating derelicts.' 1t is not true
that Spain had abandoned or was ready
to surrender them. Her peace commission
ers at Paris protested till the last moment
against our acquiring them, and only
yielded to the inevitable when they found
there was no escape. They insisted on the
Philippine question being the last one con-
sidered and came near breaking off the
peace negotiation on account of IT, The
peace negotiation began on Oct. 1, 1898.
Oct. q the American commissioners
presented a demand for the Philippines.
which the Spanish commissioners refused
to entertain. On Oct. 81 the American COM
missioners presented a second formal de-
nand for the cession of the entire archi-
pelago. Nov. the Spanish commission
ers fatty refused to accept the PROPOSE
ton. After two weeks OF discussion the
American commissioners, on Nov. 81 pre-
sented their ultimatum and required a
reply by Nov. %. On the last-named date
the Spanish commissioners yielded, but
with a protest that Spain yielded only 10
stress of circumstances. The record, there
fore, shows that we did not find the
Philippine islands floating derelicts" We
exacted them from Spain as victorious
power. Their cession carried with IL Amer
lean sovereignty and the duty of estab-
fishing peace and orderly government. II
Senator Rayerfdge's argument of God's