Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1900-09-22
Mr.. DAWES ARGUMENT.
Shows Up Fallacy of Bryan's
Imperialism Cry.
HIS LOGIC IS 1RREFUTABLB

Duty and Obligations of the United
States Plainly set Forth - why We
should Retain III. Islands - The Free
SILVER Danger.
Hon Charles G. Dawes, comptroller
OF the currency, made notable speech
at Joliet, Ills, on Saturday evening,
September IL. He says there are two
issues in this campaign-free silver
and Imperialism, by which is meant
the foreign policy of the administra-
ton. On the silver question he de-
clared his belief that its fallacies
were thoroughly exposed four years
ego. and he showed that all the imag-
tnary evils predicted if we retained the
gold standard had not only failed to
materialize, but on the contrary the
prosperity which has followed its re-
tention has been uneXampled
But there are those who do not feel
wholly satisfied with existing condi'
lions, and Mr.. Dawes requests such
persons to ask themselves the follow
ing questions:
1st. If Democratic administration
comes into power, have | any reason
to believe that it can improve indus
trial conditions by means of the legis-
lation recommended by them?
I'd. If a radical movement of ex-
listing industrial conditions cannot be
expected from a Democratic admins
tration, what risk is there of disturb
ing existing domestic conditions ad-
versely by helping to place a Demo-
cratic administration in power be-
cause am not satisfied with the pre-
sent foreign policy of the nation?
Mr.. Dawes declared his firm belief
that reflection on these questions will
convince any one that. with the issues
presented in the Kansas City platform,
the American voters cannot stop the
nations progress in the world with
out stopping its prosperity at home.
Upon the Philippine question there
are two leading lines of argument.
One used by Bryan is based upon per-
sonal Interpretation of the constitu-
tion and the sayings of former states
laen upon other subjects This is ad
dressed to those who have no oppor-
tun!ty to ascertain conditions in the
islands as they actually exist. The
other line of argument is based upon
facts and conditions as they exist in
the islands today, and upholds the
wisdom of the administration policy,
by showing that under existing con-
ditions it was the only policy that
was just, right and honorable.
We must examins the Philippines as
they are to determine whether we can
III mediately withdraw, or stay there
short time, give government, and
withdraw. Their population is about
ten millions. The people are divided
into hostile tribes, the chief being the
Tagalos, led by a corrupt scoundrel
named Agunaldo, who first plotted
the massacre of our soldiers and the
foreigners resident in Manila, and af-
ter being discovered, made a night at
tack upon our troops. OF the 60 tribes
into which the Filipinos are divided,
many are continually at war with one
another. The population is largely
Malay, and some of the tribes are
naked savages and even cannibals.
The race is indolent, its leaders un-
scrupulous and corrupt.
The Islands are nearly one thousand
in number. the inhabitants lack
racial unity They have always proved
treaChernus and unreliable. They have
always been under monarchial rule,
and do not understand the first prin-
Giples CT self-government, Under pre-
s.nt conditions sels-rule could not re-
suit in anything but cruel and cor
rupt oligarchy, if Agnnaldo were
maintained in power by the forces of
the United States. If We should re-
move Cur almv, anarchy would prob
ally follow. The small fraction of the
people represented by Aguinaldo and
his tribe are in no way representative
of the entire population. Should we
withdraw the result would not be lib
erty, as the Democrats assume, but
anarchy, license and misery.
Among the inherent rights which
all men possess are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. So far as
these rights are concerned, all men
are created equal. The enjoyment of
these rights makes a man self-gov.
erning and free, hut it makes him so
only so far as his freedom does not
interfere with siliilar rights of other
men.
Liberty to the individual is not in
consistent with control over him by
the government under which he lives.
When the individual shows within
these limits that he is unfit to be en-
trusted with his original right of self
government. because he endangers the
lives and liberty of others, then the
government interferes and puts him
under restraint without his consent.
Among those thus held under restraint
in this country are the American In
dians.
The protection of these Individual
rights is the fundamental thing. That
form of government which best pro-
tects them is government with
peoples who are capable of self-gov-
ernment, while some other form of