New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-06
FOLLOWING BRYAN'S LEAD
MORE "ANTI-IMPERIALIsTIC SPEECHES
IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
IBr TELEGRAPH TO THE rHrBusE.l

IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBuNE.l
Washington Feb 5.-Debate in both houses
OF Congress to-day pitched in the shriliest
'anti-imperialistic" key. In the popular branch
two eminent opponents OF sentiment among the
Ozarks-Mr. Dinsmore. of Arkansas. ana
Champ Clark, OF Missouri-'7veighed at length
against the extension OF American SOW
eregnty to the Philippines. Mr.. Dinsmore. the
ranking Democratic member OF the Foreign Al
fairs Committee. fell in line with MI Bryan
leadership by declaring that the sole duty or
the United States in the Philippine Archipelago
was to set UP the machinery of government and
then turn 1t over to the Tagal insurgents. Mr.
Clark also argued in favor OF evacuation, hon
orable or dishonorable The only alternative 10
abandoning the islands. he commended was 10
incorporate them into the Union as full nedged
States and the Missouri orator exercised his
playful fancy in picturing the variegated ap-
pearance of the House and Senate after the adj
mission of representatives from dozen Tagai'
visayan and Suu commemorative.
In the deliberative branch Mr.. Caffery, or
Louisiana. entered another of his usual elabo-
rate protests against the order OF things either
as proposed or as existing. Mr.. Caffery opposed
both the Wilson and the Dingley Tarin bills. he
voted against the resolutions in 1898 ana
against the ratification of the Treaty OF Peace
with SPAIN in 1899. He fought the annexation OF
Hawaii and has steadily opposed the construc-
ton of the Nicaragua Canal Naturally, the ex-
tension of American influence and sovereignty
in the Far East appeals to him only as hair
Drained departure from constitutional law ana
strict constructionist National traditions Mr..
Caffery spoke for several hours with much ear
nestness and vehemence and had an interested
audience.
LET THEM GO. SAYS MR.. CAFFERY
Mr. CaHery dissented from the proposition
that this country should take the Philippine
Islands, as proposed by Mr.. Beverage. He de-
clared that the question was broadly presented
whether Congress could exercise sovereign
power and Jurisdiction over territory which
might be acquired by the United States Govern
ment He quoted extensively from legal au-
thorities in maintenance of his assertion that
the Filipinos were citizens of the United states
entirely completely absolutely" They became
So" he declared "by the annexation of the
Philippines by the United States. and by the
fact that the flag of this Government floats over
those islands, that flag carries its citizenship
wherever it floats"
Mr. Caffery maintained that in the Philippines
there was when the American forces arrived
there a Filipino Government-"a de facto gov
eminent but that has been destroyed by fire
and sword. for the soldiers of the United States.
unequalled the world over in valor and military
He argued that whatever territory might be
acquired by the United States must be governed
by the limitations of the Constitution. Every
man living under the flag of the United states
was entitled to the rights and privileges guaran-
teed by the Constitution and its amendments
The Filipinos therefore, were entitled to all the
privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to the
citizens of the United States. 1T is absolutely
assured in my mind" said he. that these out
rr,aI hrr he
caprice or the unrestricted voition of Congress.
They must be governed in accordance with the
Constitution. or Congress will have to usurp
powers Of government"
Mr. Caffery held in the course of his argu-
ment that all governments derived their just
powers from the consent of the governed
Does that principle extend inquired Mr..
Spooner, ito inhabited territory conceded to the
United States war indemnity"
1T does" replied Mr.. Caffery, because under
our Constitution and the Declaration of indie
pendence we cannot wage war of conquest"
Then" persisted Mr.. Spooner. "the Senator
thinks the acquisition of California from Mexico
at the close of the Mexican War was unconsti-
tutional."
II do not" replied Mr.. Caffery
You think then" said Mr.. Spooner, that We
would be obliged to obtain the consent OF the
people of the territory exacted as a ndem-
nity?"
II do" replied Mr. Caffery.
Then" continued Mr.. Spooner pressing his
idea still further I'VE would have no authority
to take Puerto Rico II the Puerto Ricans OBJ
jected?"
The Louisiana Senator declined to go so far
as to admit that proposition. but held that
wherever in territory acquired there was a gov
eminent even germ of nationality the
| United States would have no right to govern the
| people of that territory "I believe" he de-
| clared that the Filipinos have a germ-a more
| than germ of nationality. and do not believe
we kill to civilize or slaughter them to give
| them freedom
| CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
Suppose" suggested Mr.. Platt of Connecti-
| cut that should carry war into Mexico
| and that our forces should enter into and &C.
| cupy the country. Would we have to consult
| the Mexcans to what we should do with
| the conquered territory"
Yes, SIR promptly replied Mr.. Caffery
Mr.. Caffery pointed TO England as great ma
| ton which was rendered insecure by her CO.
| lonial possessions. "She trembles," he said "at
! the spectre of the Russian Bear crossing the
| Ural Mountains, and she may we'll tremble at
| the attitude of the less than million of people
| in the Transvaal. There is no strength in these
| take these Fipinos we have injected into our
| system a poison that will inoculate our whole
| body polite. / believe il was wicked and afro
| cious to take these Filipinos into the United