The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-11


new prominence and Importance to the
Philippine question. and the discussion may
be said TO be wide open. Senator Hoar
attempted to break the force OF Senator
Beveridge's speech in some brief remarks
and gave notice that he would discuss the
question more fully in the near future.
Senator Hoar is an able man, and it may
be assumed that he will take as strong a
position as can be taken. and make as
strong an argument against our holding
and governing the Philippines as can be
made. His position is stated in letter
which he has made public in answer to a
speech made by ex-Representative Ouigg,
of Massachusetts. Mr.. Quigg had said
that Senator Hoar wants us to skulk from
our duty" The Senator replies:
1 wish to put against this statement my
emphatic denial. What / want the Ameri-
can people to do, is to do in the Philippines
exactly what We have done, are doing and
expect to do in Cuba We have liberated
both from Spain, and we have had no
thought-at least / have had no thought
of giving either back to Spain. Having de-
livered them from Spain we were bound in
all honor to protect their newly acquired
liberty against the ambition or greed of
any other nation on earth. And we are
equally bound to protect them against our
own. We were bound to stand by them, a
defender and protector, until their new
governments were established in freedom
and in honor, until they had made treaties
with the powers of the earth and were as
secure in their national independence as
Switzerland is secure, CT as Santo Domingo
or Venezuela is secure.
This. then, is Senator Hoar's position
and the basis of all the argument he will
make on the subject. 1t is easily demon
strable that his position is illogical
inconsistent and untenable. The attempt
to link the Philippines with Cuba and to
make our policy in one case dependent on
that In the other is opposed TO the facts
of history and is trick unworthy of a
statesman. If our policy in the Philippines
was to be identical with that towards
Cuba, why was it not discussed and set
tied when our Cuban policy was? Why
did not Senator Hoar himself then offer a
resolution declaring against any acquisition
of territory from Spain? Simply because
the outcome Of the war was unforeseen and
SONAt iot oC PiONlucQ lOT 1ucTe Is not a
single point of parallelism, as far as the
United States Is concerned, between Cuba
and the Philippines. We went to war to
liberate Cuba, but had no idea Of liberat-
ing the Philippines Congress declared that
1.-The people Of Cuba are and of right ought
to be free and independent" 1T said moth
ing about the Philippines. 1t demanded
that Spain Eat once relinquish her authority
and government in the island of Cuba -
but made no allusion to the Philippines
1t declared that 'the United States hereby
disclaims any disposition to exercise SOW
ereignty, Jurisdiction, or control over said
island of Cuba except for the pacifcation
thereof, and asserts it's determination,
when that is accomplished, to leave the
governmentand control of the island to it's
people" 1t said nothing about the Phil
ippines. By the treaty of peace Spain
simply relinquished sovereignty over Cuba
and agreed to evacuate the island she ced-
ed Porto Rico and the Philippines to the
United States outright. Not a word was
said in the treaty regarding the future
government of Cuba, but it provided that
the civil rights and political status of the
native inhabitants of Porto Rico and the
Philippines shall be determined by the
Congress" The treaty provided that "any
obligation assumed by the United States
with respect to Cuba and limited to the
time of it's occupancy thereof" but no
limitation Or qualification was put on the
rights of the United States in the Philip
pines.
The reason why Congress made no dec
laration of policy regarding the Philip
pines at the beginning of the war was
because We had no expectation or idea of
acquiring them. The reason why the treaty
of peace placed the Philippines on an en-
tirely different footing from Cuba was that
the United States had acquired the Phil
ippines and had not acquired Cuba. We
were pledged TO certain policy in Cuba
but could do as we pleased in the Philip
pines.
Another fallacy in Senator Hoar's ar
gument is that because the United States
liberated the Philippines. it was In hon.
or bound to grant them independence. We
did not go to war to liberate the Philip
pines, nor did we liberate them in the sense
that We did Cuba. We acquired them by the
double right of conquest and purchase,
and were under no more obligation to
grant them independence than we were to
grant independence to the people of the
Louisiana purchase. of California. of the
Gadsden purchase, of Alaska. or any other
legally acquired territory. There was no
obligation in the case except that imposed
by the treaty on the Filipinos to come I'M
der the sovereignty of the United States.
and that imposed on Congress to determine
their civil rights and political status. In
arguing that the United States is under any
obligation, expressed or implied, TO apply
its Cuban policy to the Philippines, Sem
ator Hoar falsifies the facts of history
and misrepresents existing conditions.
PHILANTHROPY IN NEW YORK.
The ways of the official philanthropist