The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-08-09

with us IN making the laws ana Shaping
the destiny of this nation? No Republican,
of prominence has been bold enough to
advocate such proposition. The McEnery
resolution, adopted by the Senate I'M
treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The
Democratic platform described the situa-
ton when Ii says that the Filipinos cannot
be citizens without endangering our clVlil-
Zation. Who will dispute IL? And what Is
the alternative? IL the Filipino is not to be
citizen, shall We make him subject! On
that question the Democratic platform
speaks with emphasis. 1t declares that
the Filipino cannot be subject without
endangering our form of government. A
republic can have no subjects. A subject
is possible only in a government resting
upon force, he is unknown in a government
deriving its just powers from the consent
of the governed. The Republican platform
says that 1.-The largest measure OF self
government consistent with their welfare
and our duties shall be secured 10 them
| (the Filipinos) by law This is strange
| doctrine for a government which owes It's
| very existence to the men who offered their
| lives protest against government with
| out consent and taxation without repre-
| sentation. In what respect does the position
of the Republican party differ from the
position taken by the English government
of 1116? Did not the English government
| promise good government to the colon
| lists? What king ever promised bad gov
| eminent TO his people? Did not the English
government promise that the colonists
| should have the largest measure of self
| government with tnelr welfare ana r1usifSu
duties? Did not the Spanish government
| promise to given the Cubans the largest
measure of self-government consistent with
| their welfare and SPANISH duties? The
! whole difference between monarchy and
/ republic may be summed up in one SEN
| tence. In monarchy the king gives to
1 the people what he believes to be good
| government; in republic the people secure
| for themselves what they believe to be
| good government. The Republican party
has accepted the European idea and planted
| and by every ruler who distrusts the capac-
| ity of the people for self-government or
denies them voice in their own affairs.
REPUBLICAN PROMISES.
The Republican platform promises that
| some measure of self-government is to be
given to the Filipinos by law; but, even this
pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen
| months elapsed after the ratification of the
(, treaty before the adjournment of Congress
last June and yet no law was passed deal
ing with the Philippine situation. The will
| CT the President has been the only law in
the Philippine islands wherever the Ameri-
| can authority extends. Why does the Re-
publican party hesitate to legislate upon
the Philippine question? Because a law
| would disclose the radical departure from
| history and precedent contemplated by
| those who control the Republican party.
| The storm of protest which greeted the
| Porto Rican bill was an indication of what
may be expected when the American peo-
| plo are brought face to face with legisla-
ton upon this subject. If the Porto Ricans,
| who welcome annexation, are to be denied
| the guarantees of our Constitution, what is
| To be the lot of the FfllipinoeS, who re-
| sisted our authority? If secret influences
could compel disregard of our plain duty
toward friendly people, living near our
| shores, what treatment will those same
influences provide for unfriendly people
1000 miles away? If, in this country where
| the people have the right to vote Repub-
| lican leaders dare not take the side of the
| people against the great monopolies which
have grown Up within the last few years.
how they be trusted to protect the
| Fflipinos from the corporations which are
waiting to exploit the islands?
| Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be
enjoyed by the people of the United States
and the twilight of semi-citiZenship en-
dured by the people of Porto Rico, while
the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage
covers the Philippines? The Porto Rico
tariff law asserts the doctrine that the
operation of the Constitution is confined
to the forty-five States. The Democratic
party disputes this doctrine and denounces
1t as repugnant to both the letter and spirit
of our organic law. There is no place I'm
our system of government for the deposit
of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That
the leaders of a great party should claim
for any President or Congress the right 70
treat millions of people as mere posses
sionS'' and deal with them unrestrained by
the Constitution or the bill of rights shows
how far we have already departed from
the ancient landmarks and indicates what
may be expected il this Nation deliberately
enters upon career of empire. The terri
tortal form of government is temporary
and preparatory, and the chief security a
| citizen of Territory has Is found I'm the
fact that he enjoys the same constitutional
| guarantees and is subject to the same gen.
eral laws as citizen of a State. Take
away this security and his rights will be
violated and his interest sacrificed at the
| demand of those who have political intfu-
ence. This Is the evil of the colonial sys-
tenn, no matter by what nation it is ap-
piled.
THE TITLE TO THE PHILIPPINES.
What is our title to the Philippine
islands? Do we hold them by treaty OIL
by conquest? Did we buy them, or did we
take them? Did we purchase the people,
If not, how did we secure title to them;
Were they thrown in with the land? viii
the Republicans say that inanimate earth
has value and when that earth is nodded
by the Divine hand and stamped with thu
likeness of the Creator 1t becomes fixture
and passes with the soil? If government:
derive their just powers of the consent
of the governed it is impossible to secure
) title TO people either by force or by pur
chase. We could extinguish SPANS It'll,
!, by treaty, but If we hold title We mus
hold it by some method consistent with
allies of the Filipinos and armed them t.
fight against Spain, we disputed Spain:
. title. If we buy SPANS title we are not in
nocent purchasers. But even If we had no
disputed SPANS title, she could transfer
no greater title than she had, and hel
title was based force alone. We can
not defend such title, but as Spain CAV,
us a quit claim deed we can HONORABLE,
turn the property over to the party il
| possession Whether any American of
fetal gave the Filipinos moral assuranc,
OF independence is not material. Their,
, | can be no doubt that accepted ant
utilized the services of the F'ilipinos anC
| that when we did so we had full knowl
; edge that they were fighting for their owl
, independence, and l submit that histor,
furnishes no example of turpitude base
than ours if we now substitute our yok
for the Spanish yoke.
Let us consider briefly the relation
which have been given in support of an i'm
perialistic policy. Some say ii is our dut,
to hold the Philippine islands. But dutr
: Is not an argument; it is conclusion. T,
ascertain what our duty is, in any emer
Sency, we must apply well-settled and gen
orally accepted principles. 1t is our dut,
: to avoid stealing, no matter whether tn
: thing be stolen is of great little value
1t Is our duty TO avoid killing human be
; ing, no matter where the human bein,
lives, or to what race or class he belongs
Every one recognizes the obligation i'm
: | posed upon individuals to observe both tn
human and moral law, but as some den
. | the application of those laws to nations
, | may not be out of place 10 quote the opin
) ion OF others. Jefferson, than whom Their
, | is no higher political AUTHORITY said. "a