Washington sentinel., 1900-06-02

They are history. There has indeed
been some quibbling as to whether the
Fiipinos were really our allies. That
our Government did not give them the
tile OF allies. is true enough. But did
we not use their services as those of
allies so long as their services were OF
any advantage to us? Did we not
practically treat them as allies during
that time, even to the extent Of
recognizing them as entitled to the
charge OF prisoners taken from the
common enemy by the aid Of our armsP
And did not our using them as our
allies, and our profit lg by their services
as our allies, impose upon US the moral
o0Igaiion to respect them as our allies2
Anunscrupulous pettifogger may dispute
that, but a man Of honor will not. Let
the.imperialists answer. There has also
been some quibbIiDg as to our having
promised them independence. That we
did not in formal official declaration
promise them independence, is true
enough But did we not. while we
were using them as allies aud profitiug
rom their services as allies, know that
they believed they were fighting tor
their own independence, and that they
would not have fought on the same side
with us against the common enemy jF
they had believed othergiseP And did
- we ever during that peri ID honestly tell
them that they were mistaken? And as
we did not tell them this while using
them as allies, was not that morally as
good and binding a promise as il il had
been written down, signed, sealed, aud
delivered2 Again an INSCRIPTIONS pet-
tiiogger may bubble about this. but an
honest man, a gentleman, will not. Let
the imperialists answer.
What then is our responsibility
growing out Of this state OF facts? I may
be told that this is an extreme and
impractical view OF the ca Sc; that we
must deal with things as they are; that
we have got the Philippines now; that
the only thing to be considered now is
what to do with them; and that all that
preceded our getting them is a mere
academic question, p" useless to discuss.
An academic question, indeed It may
be very inconvenlent question to the
imperislists, but that does not make it
merely academic It must be discussed
10 exhibit the moral aspect Of the case.
Let us look at it. In the first place, we
have not got the Philippines yet. We
are still fighting and killing people
our late allies. to get control of them.
All we have got is, as have shown, not
moral and rightful, but merely tech.
nical, title-such title as an unscrupu-
lous corporation wrecker may, by legal,
Guirts and tecbnicalities and treachery
and force, get the property OF the
stockholders. But suppose we had won
actual possession OF the Philippines.
Would that alter the moral nature of the
question: II we have them, we are. IN
view of the way we got them, virtually
in possession Of stolen goods--goods
obtained by fraud. treachery, and brutal
force. We know the goods are stolen
goods, for we have stolen them our
selves. When we remind the imperialists
OF that ct, the answer is substantially
this: Spare US the useless discussion
OF that academic question. Suppose the
goods are stolen. Then the possession
Of those stolen goods devolves upon us
new responsibilities which in the first
place require US to keep the stolen
goods
Is this really the first demand OF the
new responsibility ofthe great American
Republic1 have always believed that
the republics Of WashinRto and Lincoln
should and would always recognize II as
the first and highest responsibility TO
give to the world an example OF good
faith and perfect justice IN the Tecogni'
ton Of the rights OF others, be they ever
so humble. Unless l am altogether
wrong in this belief, our true RESPONSE
bilities in the case oi the Philippines
demand not that we regard it as a mere
academic question how we got them, or
that we should keep the goods under
the esanctimonious pretence eofbenevolent
purposes, but that. as an honest and
righteous people, we should restore
them 20 their riRhtful owners, and to
secure, so far as il is in our power, those
owners in the possession of them,