Hopkinsville Kentuckian., 1900-08-14

ilau0noo. Thdg s the evil OF the
gyeten, no matter by what nation
TiHe 20 the Philippines.
What Is our title to the Philippine ,is-
1Onqusstf Did we buy them or did We
gls7 II not. how did we secure cure
in with the land? WIN the repub-
deans say that inanimate earth has value,
and when that earth is nodded by the
Divine hand and stamped with the like
ness OF the Creator II becomes a fixture
and passes with the soil2 If governments
derive their Just powers from the con
secure title to people, either BY force or
BY purchase. We could extinguish Spain's
title by treaty, but II we hold title we
must hold It by some method consistent
with our ideas Of government When we
made allies Of the Filipinos and armed
them to fight against Spain. we disputed
Spains title. If we buy Span's title we
are not innocent purchaser But even
y we had not disputed spaias title, she
could transfer no greater tie than she
had, and her title was basel on force
alone. We cannot defend such q title, but,
| as Spain gave us quit cl7i~l Decd we
can honorably turn the pror ~'v over to
the party In possession. nether any
American official gave the 'lplnos for
NAL assurance of indepon5 nee is not
material. There can be no doubt that we
accepted and utilized the services of the
Filipinos. and that when we did so we had
| full knowledge that they were hghting
for their own independence, and submit
that history furnishes no example Of
| turpitude baser than ours II we now sub
sttute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.
| Let us consider briefly the reasons
which have been given in support of an
| imperialistic policy. Some say that Il is
our duty to hold the Philippine islands.
But duty is not an argument; IL IS a con-
elusion. To ascertain what our duty Is,
| In any emergency. we must apply we'll
settled and generally accepted principles.
| II is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter
whether the thing to be stolen is of great
! or little value. It is our duty to avoid
! killing a human being, no matter where
the human being lives or to what race
| or class he belongs. Everyone recognizes
the obligation imposed upon individuals to
observe both the human and moral laws,
but as some deny the application Of those
! laws to nations, IL may not be out Of
place to quote the opinion of others. JEFF
! fersOn, than whom there is no higher po-
| Htical authority. said
II know Of but one code of morality for
lively"
Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and
virtue are a part of the priceless legacy
beQueathed to us from the revolutionary
days. expressed the same idea in even
stronger language when he said:
Justice is as strictly due between
neighbor nations as between neighbOr
citizens. A highwayman is as much
rObber when he plumbers in a gang as
when singly; and the nation that makes
an unjust war is only great gang
Force Creates No Right.
Men may dare to do in crowds what they
would not dare to do as individuals, but
the moral character of an act is not ce-
termined by the number of those who join
in 1t. Force can defend right but force
has never yet created a right. If = was
true, as declared in the resolutions Of in
| terVenton, that the Cubans are and of
right ought to be free and Independent
Language taken from the declaration Of
independence) 1t Is equally true that the
a
and independent" The right OF the Cubans
to freedom was not based upon their prOX-
Unity to the United States, nor upon the
language which they spoke, nor yet upon
the race or races to which they belonged
Congress by practically unanimous vote
declared that the principles enunciated at
Philadelphia in d716 were still alive and
applicable to the Cubans.
Who will draw a line between the natural
rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos?
Who will say that the former has right
to liberty and that the latter has no rights
which we are bound to respect2 And, II the
Filipinos "are and of right ought to be
free and independent what right have we
to force our government upon them with
out their consent? Before our duty can be
ascertained, their rights must be deter
mined, and when their rights are once de-
/ termined, 1t is as much our duty to respect
those rights as 1t was the duty of Spain
10 respect the rights of the people Of Cuba,
or the duty of England TO respect the
rights Of the American colonists. Rights
never conflict; duties never clash. Can
it be our duty to usurp political rights
which belong to others? Can 1t be our duty
to kill those who, following the example
of our forefathers, love Eyerty well enough
Some poet has described the terror which
overcame a soldier who, in the midst Of
battle. discovered that he had slain his
brother. 1t Is written: "All ye are breth-
rem Let us hope for the coming of the
day when human lfe-which. when once
sacred that it will never be taken except
when necessary to punish a crime already
committed, or to prevent a crime about
If It is said that we have assumed before
the world obligations which make II neces-
sary for us to permanently maintain a
government in the Philippine islands, /
| reply. first, that the highest obligation of
| this nation Is to be true to itself. No obli-
cation to any particular nation, or to all
nations combined, can require the abandon
ment of our theory of government and the
substitution of doctrines against which
our whole national life has been a protest
And, second, that our obligations to the
| Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, are
greater than any obligations which we can
owe to foreigners who have a. temporary
residence in the Philippines or desire to
trade there.
Capacity of self-GOvernment.
. 1t is argued by some that the Filipinos
are incapable of self-government and
that therefore we owe Ii to the world to
take control of them Admiral Dewey, in an
oticidl report to the navy department, de-
clared the Filipinos more capable OF self
government than the Cubans, and said
that he based his opinion upon a knowl-
edge of both races. But l will not rest
the case upon the relative advancement
of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defend
ing the rights. of the people of South
America to self-gOvernment, said:
1T Is the doctrine Of thrones that man
Is too ignorant to govern himself. Their
partisans assert his incapacity in refer
ence to all nations; If they cannot com
mand universal assent to the proposition,
II vs. then remanded to particular nations;
and our pride and our presumption too
often make converts of us. L contend
that It is to arraign the disposition of
Providence Himself to suppose that He
has created beings incapable Of govern
ing themselves, and to be trampled on by
kings, Self-goyernment is the natural
government of man"
Clay was right. There are degrees
of proficiency in the art Of self-goVern-
ment but Il Is a reflection upon the Crea-
tor to say that lie denied TO any people
the capacity of self-goYernment once
admit that some people are capable of
self-government and that others are not
and that the capable people have a right