The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1900-04-21
Senator Hoar and the Philippines
From Philadelphia Ledger. Republican.

| SENATOR dOar ana Ln6 Fn1npplneS
From Philadelphia Ledger, Republican
Senator Hoar's speech on the joint resolu
ton declaring that the Philippine Islands arr
territory belonging to the United States, ant
that it is the intention of the latter to estab
lish and maintain governmental control of the
group, presents in great detail and in its com
pieteness from every point of view the ground
of American opposition to the permanent re
tention of the islands as dependencies of the
United States. Senator Hoar appeals from
what he terms the ''present delirium of EN-
pire" to the calmer future, but he, neverthe-
less, argues his momentous cause with all the
care a conscientious statesman would display
were the question addressed to a tribunal
whose mind can be swayed by argument and
has not yet decided. Senator Hoar is not a
mere iconoclast, with no plan of his own for
the disposition of the country and peoples
which the fortunes of war have thrust into our
guardianship. His proposition is to reject a
cession of allegiance, which TO him implies
| that sovereignty is a salable and purchasable
commodity. He would guarantee to the is
lands immunity from the interference of for
| eign governments; prefer the assistance of
the United States in preserving order until the
| people of the Philippines have reasonable
opportunity TO set up an independent gov
eminent; aid them in inaugurating such gov
eminent; invite European Powersto agree
that such independence shall not be disturbed.
and declare that the United States will apply
to the Philippines the doctrine declared as 10
Mexico, Hayti and the South American Re-
pubics.
This sufficiently defines Senator Hoar's own
position TO the future of the group, and his
speech is designed to demonstrate that forci-
Bile subjugation or any domination imposed
upon the Philippines, without the consent of
their inhabitants, is contrary to American
fundamental law, to American precedents and
to the sound construction ofinternational law.
The speech is much too lengthy for full pre-
sentation, but glance at some of the salient
points, particularly those portions which deal
with the question of the 'sconsent of the gov
erned," with the general Interpretation of the
Declaration and the Constitution and those
which cite the deliverances of the most emf
nent statesmen of the past upon these great
themes, will indicate the thoroughness of
Senator Hoar's research and the earuestness
of his desire to reach firm ground for his opin-
IONS
At the start Senator Hoar declares that
nothing can be won for liberty in the Philip
pines save through the Republican party, and
that ''if that party cannot be persuaded, his
case is ''for the present hopeless" He then
constitutionally hold in subsection unwilling
vassal States ?'' He admits that the United
States can acquire ard hold property, and
ordaiu rules and regulations for It's DISPOSE
ton; but he propounds the searching inquiry
whether we can acquire and govern property
by conquest, or treaty, or sale, for the sole
purpose Of $50 holding and governing it with
out reference to any further constitutional
purpose, such as the making of new States,
the national defence, the construction of forts,
etc. He maintains that territory can no more
be held by the United States for other than
constitutional ends than warships can be held
for such ends. But the Philippine question is
not territorial alone. What are our constitu-
tional relations to their inhabitants? The Sem
ator answers that they cannot be governed
against their will; that this is an end which so
far from being sanctioned by the Constitution
is prohibited therein:
Governing subject peoples and holding them for
that purpose is not constitutional end. On the
contrary, 1t is an end which the generation which
framed the Constitution and the Declaration dcclar
ed unrighteous and abhorrent. &c. in my
opinion, we have no constitutional power toacquire
territory for the purpose Of holding it in vassilage
against the Will OF its people"
Senator Hoar says that our purchase of the
Philippines was, in fact, not purchase of
even It's territory, save some public buildings.
The people own the farms and town dwellings;
the religious orders the rest In every pre-
vious acquisition the United States became
the land owner. The Philippine cession, the
Senator insists, was the attempted purchase or
cession ''of nothing but sovereignty" over the
people, who, under the present proposition,
are not to share in such sovereignty. The
purchase of allegiance pure and simple, Sena-
tor Hoar holds, is something that international
laws says cannot be bought.
You have no right, according TO the law of ma
tions. to obtain by purchase or acquisition sover-
eighty over people which is not actually exer-
cised by the country which undertakes to convey
IL or yield it. II is familiar principle of the COM
mon law that you cannot make lawful purchase
of land of chattel of which the seller is dispos
sessed. This rule applies with tenfold force to
dertaking to purchase human beings when their
country and the selling power sdsPossessed a. the
enforced BY war.
The Senator AYERS that in every acquisition
heretofore made by this country full recogni-
ton of the doctrine of consent of the gov
erned'' was given. Coming to the Declara-
ton, he comments that the immortal instrn-
ment refers only to political rights, relations
and duties; that it speaks not of the rights of
individuals, but of the rights of peoples and
nations in their relations with one another
"our fathers were not dealing in this (consent)
clause with the doctrine Of the social compact they
used the word people as equivalent to nation or
State. organized political being. and not
mere aggregate of persons not collected or ascot
ated. They not thinking of Robinson Crusoe
In his desolate island They were affirming the
right of each of the thirteen colonies separately
of all together 10 throw OFF the yoke of George ILL.,
and to separate itself or themselves from Great
Britain.
THE question Is put. with an air OF triumph. as
If it were somehow hard to answer. At what point
in the census do men get these God given rights of
yours? Well, the answer is easy enough. Our
fathers in the aGrma tion of the Declaration of In
dependence, were speaking of the equal rights of
nations. of their duties to each other. The exact
point where II few scattered settlements become a
people, or Il few Domadic tribes nation. may not
admit OF precise mathematical definition. At what
point does brook become a river? When does
pond become lake, or lake sea? But surely
there are nations and peoples; there is organized
national life, and there scattered habitations
and wandering tribes TO whom these titles are never
applied. Louisiana, Florida, Alaska. New Mexico,
Californa-neither had nor did their inhabitants
claim to have, such national vitality when we
quired them. And. IL there were anything of that
sort when we annexed them, IL desired to come to
us. And 1t came to us TO become part of us-bone
of our bone. flesh OF our flesh. life of our life, soul
of our soul"