Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-08-08

country needs workers.
Status of the Filipino.
The republican platform assumes that the
Philippine Islands will be retained under
American sovereignty, and we have right
to demand of the republican leaders a dis
cussion of the future status of the Filipino.
Is he to be citizen or subject? Are we
to bring into the body polite eight or ten
million Asatics. SO different from us in race
and history that amalgamation Is impossi-
BILE? Are they to share with us in making
the laws and shaping the destiny of this
been bold enough to advocate such a propo-
sition- The McEnery resolution adopted by
the Senate Immediately after the ratification
of OF the treaty, expressly negatives this idea.
Inc democratic platform describes the
situation when 1t says that the Filipinos
cannot be citizens without endangering our
civiiization. Who will dispute it? And
what Is the alternative? If the Filipino Is
not to be citizen, shall we make him a
subject? On that question the democratic
platform speaks with emphasis 1t declares
tnat the Filipino cannot be a subject with
Out endangering our form of government.
A republic can have no subjects. A subject
Is possible only in a government resting
upon force. he Is unknown in a government
deriving its just powers from the consent
OF the governed. The republican platform
says that The largest measure of self-gov-
eminent consistent with their welfare and
G HiIinnn .ies h snail a be secured to them he
Urine Tor government which owes its very
existence to the men who offered their lives
as protest against government without
consent and taxation without representa-
ton. In what respect does the position of
the republican party differ from the position
taken by the English government In 1776?
DID pa not the English government promise
GOOD government to the colonists? What
King ever promised a bad government to his
people! DID not the English government
promise that the colonists should have the
q Nf
sistent with their welfare and English fu-
ties? Did not the Spanish government
promise to give to the Cubans the largest
,ieasuTe OF Enforcement consistent with
sieH Meaiare ana Spanish duties? The
whole difference between a monarchy and a
TePuplc may be summed up in one sentence.
IN monarchy the king gives to the people
what he believes to be a good government.
In republic the people secure for them.
selves what they believe to be a good gov
ernment The republican party has accent
ea .he European Idea and planted itself
upon the ground taken by George III and
by every ruler who dstrusts the capacity
OF the people for self-government or denies
them voice In their own affairs
The Case of Porto Rico.
Is the sunlight OF full citizenship to be
enjoyed by the people of the United States
and the twilight of citizenship endured by
the people Of Porto Rico, while the thick
darkness Of perpetual vassalage covers the
philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law as
serts the doctrine that the operation of the
Constitution is confined to the forty-fiye
STATES. me democratic party disputes this
uoctrine ana denounces it as repugnant to
poth the letter and spirit of our organic
law. lhere is no place in our system of
government for the deposit of arbitrary
anu irresponsible power. That the leaders
oi great party should claim for any
RESIDENT or Congress the right to treat
miilons OF people as mere possessions
and deal with them unrestrained by the
Sonstitutlon or the bill of rights shows
no" Iar we have already departed from
the ancient landmarks and indicates what
may be expected If this nation deliberately
enters upon a career of empire The ter
rltorial form of government is Temporary
anu preparatory, and the chief security a
cltizen or territory has Is found in the
fact that he enjoys the same constitutional
guarantees and is subject to the same gen
eral laws as a citizen of a state Take
away this security and his rights will be
violated and his interest sacrificed at the
demand of those who have political influ-
ence This is the evil of the colonial sys-
tenn. no matter by what nation 1t is an
piled. h
What Is our title to the Philippine Is
lands! Do we hold them by treaty or by
conquest? Did we buy them or did we
II not. how did we secure title to them >
Were they thrown in with the land? viii
the republicans say that inanimate earth
mas value. and when that earth is nodded
by the Divine hand and stamped with the
likeness of the Creator 1t becomes a fixture
and passes with the soil? Ii governments
derive their just powers from the consent
or the governed 1t is impossible to secure
tltle to people. either by force or by pur-
chase When we made allies Of the Fill
pinos and armed them to fight against
spain. we disputed Spain's title. If We buy
SPANS title we are not innocent pur-
chasers. But even If We had not disputed
Spain's title She could transfer no greater
title than she had. and her title was based
on force alone We cannot defend such a
utie. but as Spain gave us a quit-claim
deed We can honorably turn the property
over TO the party in possession. Whether
any American official gave the FTlipinos
moral assurance of independence is not ma
terlal. Ihere can be no doubt that we ac-
cepted and utilized the Services of the Fill
pinos and that when We did SO we had full
knowledge that they were fighting for
their own independence, and submit that
history furnishes no example Of turpitude
baser than ours IL now substitute our
yoke for the Spanish yoke.
Filipinos and Cubans.
Who will draw line between the natural
rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos?
Who will say that the former have a right
to liberty and the latter have no right
which we are bound to respect? And, If
the Filipinos ARE and of right ought to be
free and independent" what right have we
to force our government upon them without
their consent? Before our duty can be as
certained. and when their rights are once
determined 1t Is as much our duty to re-
spect those rights as It was the duty of
Spain to 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 liberty we'll enough to
fight for 1t?
1t is argued by some that the FilipInos are
incapable of self-government, and that
therefore We owe it to the world to take
control Of them. Admiral Dewey. In an off,
cial report to the Navy Department. de-
clared the F1lipinos more capable Of self
government: than the Cubans. and said that
he based his opinion upon a knowledge of
both races. But I will not rest the case
upon the relative advancement of the Fill
pinos. Henry Clay. in defending the rights
OF the people Of South America to self
government. said:
1T fs the doctrines Of thrones that man
ls too ignorant to govern himself Their
partisans assert his incapacity in reference
to all nations: II they cannot command uni
versal assent to the proposition 1t is then
remanded to particular nations: and our
pride and our presumption too often make