The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1900-08-17

(From our Special Correspondent.)
National Capital Letter.
EXPANSION AND IMPERIALISM DIFFER
ENTIATED-THE REPUBLICANS FIND 1T
HARD TO DEFEND THEIR IMPERIALIs-
TIC POLICY AND ARE THEREFORE ANX-
IOUs TO GET AWAY FROM IT-A CLEAR
LINE DRAWN BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC
EXPANSION AND REPUBLICAN IMPE-
RIAL1sM.
The chief, in fact the only defensive
argument which the Republicans have
been able to invoke in behalf of their
newborn revolutionary policy OF I'm
perialism, is based on the precedents
found in the old time Democratic ex-
pansion policy, first inaugurated by
President Jefferson, which has borne
good fruit, and a doctrine which the
Democratic party not only ratified,
but subsequently fully confirmed by
further similar acquisition Of territory.
With great effrontery they have claim
ed to be reviving the old time doctrine
of expansion, and it is remarkable that
some Democrats: including one or two
Senators, have claimed to find justif-
cation in the old precedents for the
proposed Imperialism. Otherwise the
mischevous Spanish treaty would not
have been ratified
1t was not difficult matter to sec
falsity of this reasoning, and the falla.
cy has already exploded itself by force
of its own internal gaseousness. Those
who fail to differentiate between the
peaceful and legitimate acquisition of
contiguous territory on our own CONT
nent, and the proposed forcible annex
alton of territory 10, 900 miles away
on the eastern continent, must be eth
er ignorant or forgetful of the essen
tial principles taught by our political
history. Even if the conditions at
tending the proposed annexation were
similar to those of the past acquisi-
tions referred to, that is to say, were
an amicable purchase proposed from a
nation anxious to sell, of territory
naturally adapted to assimilation, and
of a people not only suited to the fra
ternity of our citizenship, but anxious
for such association-were all these
conditions equal-still the location of
the proposed annexation would alone,
under our well defined American poll
cy prove an insuperable barrier to its
acquisition.
That insurable barrier is found in
the Monroe Doctrine, the very essence
of which, as heretofore demonstrated,
is to preserve the "felicity of our insu-
lar situation, OH continent removed
as far as possible from contact with
monarchial influences. All past &C
QUESTIONS of territory under Democra-
tic policy has been net only in conflict
with the Monroe Doctrine, but strict
ly in line with, and in promotion Of it.
The amicable purchase of contiguous
American territory from foreign mon
arches, anxious to sell, and the assim-
ilation of fraternal desirable popula-
tion into Republican System, stands
on exactly the same ground as Mr..
Monroe's protest against the suhjec-
tior of the South American republics
to the domination of European mon
archy.
1t is we'll known historical fact
President Jefferson hesitated a long
time before he would consumate the
Louisiana Purchase, holding that a
constitutional amendment was ucces-
sary to give him the power: and it
was only recognition of the strict
com patibility Of the act with the spirit
of our American policy (not then
known as the Monroe Doctrine) that
overcamc his scruples in this regard.
And thus legitimate expansion of re-
publican government on American
soil became fixed principle, and has
unquestionable borne good fruit. 1t
is one of the proudest chapters in Dem
ocratic history, AMI does not need to
he defended in order to assail and beat
down the proposed policy of Imperial
ism involved in capturing and main
tanning foreign colonies by military
force.
This great principle involved in the
situs. or location Of the territory now
proposed to be annexed. as distin-
guishcd from all previous expansion,
and as in open and notorious conflict
with the Monroe Doctrine, ought to be