The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-07


shall apply their ingenuity, not TO the
discovery of difficulties in the way Of our
getting out, but to find some means by
| which We can honorably recur to our an
cient policy-a solution of the problem
| will more certainly be found consistent
| with that view. If, OF the other hand.
| it shall be found for the interest or tine
| honor of this country to embark perma-
| nently upon colonial policy in the trop-
| les of the Orient, it will be thousand
| time better to embark upon that policy
understandingly and having beforehand
carefully weighed its disadvantages.
/ do not propose to discuss at any
length the unfitness of our system of gov
eminent for the colonial policy, because
that proposition has been so often and so
thoroughly discussed. There is>undoubt-
eddy an irrepressible conflict between the
principle of that policy and the great
lesson Of our history. / believe that moth
ing Is more strongly established by ex-
perience than the general wisdom Of the
principle as applied TO communities that
Governments derive their just pow
ers from the consent of the gov
erned. The power Of the strong
State to make laws for the weaker
State without Its consent to impose taxes
according to its own will. disguised. as
such power has always been. under the
sounding terms of freedom and civiIiza-
ton. has usually been productive of a
national slavery as bad in principle and
practice as individual slavery.
There is no community or interest be-
tween the people Of the Philippine ISL
ands and the people of the United States.
We and they are geographically and eth
faN ~
poles asunder No advocate of retaining
them however he may have asserted as
reason for taking them that We had an
nexed contiguous territory, destined to
become corporate part Of the United
States) has been daring enough to main
tain that We should make them a part Of
our political system.
In fact. the argument against treating
the inhabitants of an island which is geo.
graphically part of this hemisphere and
may well some day enter into our polit-
ical system as entirely outside the Con-
stitutfon. without any of the fundamental
human rights safeguarded there and sub
Ject absolutely to such laws as Congress
might see fit to impose was that if the
people of Porto Rico were put upon a diff
ferent basis We should therefore be COM
PEELED to extend the same rights to the
people of the Philippine Islands. The
able lawyers and orators who defended
the principle of the tariff upon Porto Rico
were unable to discover a stronger argyll
ment for their position than that IL We
did not have the power to impose it, We
could not retain the Philippine Islands.
From the notion that the people of
those islands should have constitutional
rights they recoiled with q species of hor
ror. am making no extravagant asser-
ton. therefore, when l say that no re-
Sponsible public man in this country
dreams of having the Philippine Islands
become part of the United States as
Louisiana and Florida became part of
the United States and having them par
ticipate jointly with us in making laws
for a common country.
Since then they are to have no share in
our countrys government-since We do
not propose to "benevolently assinilate"
them to the point where they shall be-
come an integral part of ourselvas-upon
what theory are we to remain there. and
for what purpose? / believe that the I'M
DERIVING motive, and in fact the motive
that has been most widely proclaimed
upon the stump and in the debates in
Congress, is that it is broadly for the ad-
vantage of the people of the United
States. and especially for their pecuniary
advantage, to remain there.
1 propose, therefore. to present briefly
some of the reasons which lead me to be-
lieve that il is not for the interest of the
United States permanently to occupy those
islands. This is view of the question
which has not usually been discussed;
and discuss it today not because think
it Of more importance than or Of equal
Importance with the great question Of
principle, but because 1 consider it ma
teria1 to meet as fairly as 1 can the I'M
derlying argument which is presented in
support Of the policy. do not claim nov
city for my argument 1t will only be
upon different line from that which is
commonly pursued.
AS portion of the cost OF retaining the
Philippine Islands We are to include the
maintenance of the greater part of the
army established by this very bill. This
measure is the first born and legitimate
offspring Of that policy. The cost Of our
army is, on the average about $1,000 per
man With 1900 men our war bill has
been about s27 600. 900. With 100, 600 men
1t has been about sl00, 100000. These who
are comparing our standing army with
the armies OF other nations are usually
careful not also to compare the relative
cost.
On the basis of 100 GOO men you will find
that the direct cost of our army Is nearly
equal to that OF the great and oyerbur-
dened military nations of Europe. The
French army cost in the year 1899 $685.
Oo0, GOO; the German army in the year end
ing March 81. 1900, $3.50. 000. 900: the Brit
ish army cost in the year 1900 sI90, 000, 900,
and the Russian army in the year 1888 |
$i53, 900 goo. / understand these figures
include the cost of pensions and fortifica-
lions.
bOn the basis of this bill the estimate of
the War Department calls for $i13,000,- |
900, putting US fourth on the list Of the |
five great powers / have named. But |
these figures by no means tell the whole |
story There is another expense, not in |
cluded in direct military appropriation. |
which is a necessary incident to our army |
and as much part of its cost as the pay |
of soldier That Is seen in our pension |
system. The American people have gen. |
erously declared the policy of liberal pen |
sions for their soldiers.
The poorhouse is no place for the de- |
serving soldier who has fought for his |
country. We are appropriating for pen
sions at the rate Of S14o. 000, coo a year. |
We have, then, from these two sources |
from the direct war bill and from the |
pension appropriations total of about |
$3.50. 600 900 year, which is vastly great |
er than the similar charges of any other |
nation, and greater even than the COM
bined military expenses OF France and
Germany, those two great enemies who
are armed to the teeth against each other.
1t has been supposed that we enjoyed an
from the warlike burdens which
curse Europe; but the point is already |
reached where We have far outstripped
any other nation in the element of MILL
tary cost, and where. at the speed with
which We are forging ahead, 1t is not un-
to expect that our annual out
lay Will equal that of three OF the four