Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1900-09-14
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

CUNSEUI UT 1HE UOF EnUED.
Judge M. L. Pipes, a staunch
gold democrat, and a former resi-
dent of Corvallis, has written
letter to the Oregonian in which
he considers the consent of the
governed" doctrine of Mr.. Bry-
an. 1t is a valuable contribu-
tion to the literature of this cam
paign, and is the clearest state
ment of the question yet pub
lished. We quote the following
extracts:
Mr.. Bryan maintains that we
have no right to govern the Fill
pinos, because they do not COIL
sent to be governed by us. He
derives his doctrine from that
clause in the Declaration of In
dependence that declares that
s'all governments derive their
just powers from tho consent of
the governed" But that clause
does not mean that the people of
a territory belonging to the Unit
ed States must first give their
consent before we can govern
them, or that they can rightfully
withdraw it.
The Declaration of Independ-
ence asserted the inherent right
of revolution against a despotic
government. The colonies put
their right to be free on the
ground that the government was
too bad to be endured. Mr.. Bry-
an does not put his. declaration
in behalf of the Filipinos Oh that
ground. He says we have no
right to govern them at all,
though we gave them the best
kind of government, and this
solely because they don't want to
be subject 10 our government.
The Declaration does not give
color to any such doctrine.
What the phrase really means is
clearly seen from the context.
The sentence in which it occurs
asserts that to secure these (the
inalieuable rights of life, liberty
and pursuit of happiness), gov
ernmerts are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed !;
that whenever any form of gov
ernment becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or abolish it.
1t is only when the govern
ment becomes destructive of the
inalienable rights it was designed
to secure that the people have a
right to overthrow it or rebel
against it. And the idea is fur
ther emphasized: ''When a long
train Of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same OBJ
ject, evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such government,
and provide new guards for their
future security" And then the
Declaration enumerates ascauses
for their separation IA distinct
acts of despotism. So we see
how, by wrestling the phrase
from its context, and ignoring
the circumstances that gave rise
to the words. it is made to mean
that a government must first ap-
ply to its new subjects for leave
to compel them to obey its laws
and submit to its authority, and
when they have notified us OF
their determination not to sub
nit by shooting our soldiers, we
are not justified in maintaining
the government and putting
down the rebellion.
Now the Filipino has a right
to be free. Mr.. Bryan says 80,
and we all agree with him. But
the words of freedom, liberty,
independence, are used in differ
ent meanings. Mr.. Bryan ar
gues that because the Filipino
has a right to freedom, they
have right to institute gov
ernlnent of their own. Freedom
as predicated of the individual,
or of a nation, or people, has
different Specifications. A man