Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-07


of the largest and most attentive that
Mr.. Bryan has had. The speech was
devoted almost exclusively to the
question of Imperialism. While not
hoiding that this was the only issue.
MIR. Bryan said he did contend that
1t was the question OF paramount
Importance. This was true, because
TINS question involved the fundamen-
tai principles of our government.
A SHARP RETORT
Discussing the title to the Philippine
islands, MIR. Bryan asked: ''Who
says the Lord gave them to us?"
10 this question voice in the crowd
responded. Mark Hanna" This re-
Spouse ELECTED shout, and Mr.. Bryan
IepIied: While l am not prepared
the human voice, do not think that
When lie gets ready to speak to the
american people He will choose some
other mouthpiece than Mark Hanna"
ne commended that under the RepubIi-
can scheme for the control of the Phil
ippines the people of those islands
necessarily become subjects as they
could not be citizens under those
piahs, ana there was no place under
republican form of government for Il
subject. He charged the Republican
party with lack of sympathy with
the Beers, which was n new expert
ence for that party, for never before
IN its history has that party failed to
take position in favor of republic
struggling for liberty. The secret of
said. the fear that IL this country
should take IL position favorable TO the
5oers, the British Parliament might
declare for the Filipinos. In this
speech MIR. Bryan discussed more fully
than at any time before the charge
that he had secured the ratification OF
The peace treaty with Spain. On this
question he said
IMPERIALISM.
My friends l want to call your at
tention to one argument that the Re
publican party seems more fond of
argument in defense of imperialism.
The main argument that j have been
hearing lately in defense of imperial
ism is that I helped to ratify the
treaty. Republicans give me too much
credit when they say | secured the rat
ihcation of the treaty. | have not yet
found Il single Senator who has pub
licly declared that he voted for the
treaty because l wanted him to. but
Senator Wellington has said that he
voted for the treaty because the Presi-
den asked him to. and promised that
the Philippines should not bc held per-
manently il the treaty was ratified.
so that If YOU attempt to prove that
am responsible for the treaty you
cannot do ii. but You can prove by
Senator Wellington that the treaty
would not have been ratified but for
the promise of your President. But
Will say that If the Republican party
VIII not assume the responsibility for
the ratification of the treaty, / will do
1t myself. Great applause.) I favor
ed the ratification of the treaty.
was not Senator and did not have n
vote.
THE TREATY
II do not know that my voice changed
one single vote. but / am willing to
waive all that and am willing to as
sumo the responsibility for the ratin-
cation OF the treaty. but. Republicans,
you must assume the responsibility for
making the treaty and for everything
that has happened since that treaty
was ratified. That treaty might have
given Independence TO the Filipinos
when 1t gave Independence to the
Cubans. I believe that it could have
given independence to them when #
gave independence to the Cubans. and
IT. when it was made through the ac-
ton of the President the treaty had
given Independence to the Filpinos as
1T gave Independence to the Cubans.
not one drop Of American blood would
have been shed in the Philippine ISL
ands from that time To this. CAP
plausc.)
WHO is RESPONSIBLE
You ask who is responsible for the
shedding Of American blood i'm Inc
Philippine Islands. and say that party
is responsible for the shedding of
blood that was responsible for n treaty.
that made free men of Cubans and
lrled 10 make NassalS of the Filipinos
UEreat applausc.) When that treaty
came 10 the Senate it had to be met
and there were three things that might
be done First. the treaty could be
ratified; second ii could be amended
If there were enough votes in favor of
the amendment: third. ii could be re-
Jected. 1t could not be amended be-
cause there were not votes enough
and If any Republican tells you that
that treaty could have been amended
in the Senate | want you to remember
that when the Bacon resolution came
before the Senate it met with n tie
vote. and the vote of the Republican
Vice President defeated it. / did all |
could to get the Bacon resolution pass
ed. and what Republican viii say I
could get the treaty amended when |
could not get the resolution passed
that promised independence to the FL
iipinos. Great appausc)
THE ONLY CHOICE.
Therefore we were compelled to
either accept the treaty or reject 1t.
What did rejection of the treaty
mean? 1t meant one of two things.
either the President would have
to call the new Senate together
which was overwhelmingly Republican.
and then secure q ratification from the
new Senate. or else he would have had
to appoint a new commission to make
n new treaty if it had bcen rejected.
If on the 4th day of February the
President had called the new Senate
together on the 4th day of March. and
had the treaty ratified by the now Sen
ate. then the delay would have done no
good. But suppose he appointed a com
mission to make new treaty. who
could tell what complication might
arise while the new treaty was being
made? II those who OPPOSED Imperial
is IL IL. .t...ll 1. - =.