The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-18
| the pledge of the resolution Of Congress
and the declaration of the President
prnise for the President.


Praise for the President.
The Senator then went on to speak OF
the position that the President had won
in the eyes of the people of this country
and OF the world at large. and declared
that Mr.. Mckinley holds place in the
affection of the people at large which none
of his predecessors ever attained in his
lifetime. He said that the country has
done its best 10 redeem its promises with
regard TO Cuba, and he hoped to see the
Government fulfill its promises to the East
as well. Mr.. Hoar referred to the down
fall OF the old Whig party when in the
flush of anticipated triumph. and compared
its position just prior to its fall with that
of the Republican party now. He then
told Of the condition of affairs that in his
opinion, would now exist if the Filipinos
had been declared independent at the Cloze
of the war with Spain. dwelling on bow
American orators and poets would have
delighted to contrast America liberating
and raising up the Republic of Asia with
England subduing and tramping under
foot the Republic of Africa.
Mr.. Hoar discussed the candidacy of Mr..
Bryan for election to the Presidency and
said that he did not believe anything
was TO be hoped for from him as an anti
imperialist.
NO. Mr.. President" said the Senator.
'if we subjugate the Filipinos we are, il
you have your way to govern 1O,OO0.OOO
people in the East and nearly another
million in the West Indies without any
constitutional restraint. There will be
under the flag 20.O00O00 Of other races,
black men at home and brown men abroad.
for whom it bears no star of hope. l do
not see my way clear to hand them over
to Mr.. Bryan in the Executive chair, and
the Senators from Alabama and South
Carolina in the Senate, or to the party
of which, beyond all question, they are to
be most powerful and conspicuous leaders.
Il believe that, II not today or tomorrow,
yet at an early day. better knowledge Of
the facts. the light of experience, the love
of liberty and justice which still burns in
the hearts of the Republican masses in
this country. will bring that party back to
the principles and policq upon which 1t
planted itself in the beginning.
We are presented with an issue that
can be clearly and sharply stated as
question of constitutional power, ques-
tion OF International law, d question OF
justice and righteousness. or a question OF
public eXpediency. This can be stated
clearly and sharply in IT,, abstract, and it
can be put clearly and sharply by an Illus
tration growing out of existing facts.
The constitutional question is: Has
Congress the power. under our Corstitu-
tion, to hold in subsection unwilling vas
sal States?
The question of international law Is:
Can any nation rightfully convey to an
other sovereignty over an unwilling people
who have thrown of its dominion, assert
ed their independence, established gov
ernment of their own; over whom it has at
the time no practical control from whose
territory it has been disseiZed, and which
it is beyond its power to deliver?
The question of justice and righteous
ness is: Have we the right to crush and
hold under our feet an unwilling and sub
iect people whom We have treated as allies.
whose independence We are bound in good
faith TO respect, who had established
their own free government and who had
trusted US?
THE question of public expediency is: Is
il for our advantage TO promote or trade
at the cannon's mouth and at the point Of
the bayonet?
IAN these questions can be put in a
way of practical illustration by enquir-
ing whether We ought to do what We have
done, are doing, and mean to do in the
case of Cuba. or what we have done. are
doing, and some of you mean to do in
the case OF the Philippine Islands"
AlT-E1UdT Sdli tlt dUI!l lAtu illdl lut Nhil1u
States may acquire and hold property and
may make rules for its disposition. Con-
tinuing he said:
Il admit that like other property, the
United States may acquire and hold land
II may acquire it by purchase. 1t may ac-
quire it by treaty. 1t may acquire it by
And it may make rules a-d
regulations for its disposition and govern
ment, however it be acquired.
Acquisition of Territory.
When there are inhabitants upon the
land so acquired 1t may make laws for
their government. But the question be-
tween me and the gentlemen on the other
side is this: Is this acquisition OF terri-
tory, Of land or other property, whether
gained by purchase, conquest, or treaty.
a constitutional end or only a means to a
end? May you acquire. no d
and govern territory or other property as
an end for which our Constitution was
framed. or is it only a means toward some
other and further end? May you acquire,
hold and govern property by conqu st.
treaty or purchase for the sole object of so
holding and governing 1t, without the
Of any further constitutional
purpose? Or must you hold it for a Cn-
stitutioIdl purpose only. such as the max
ing of new States. the national defence and
security the establishment of a seat Of
government. or the construction of Crts,
harbors and like works. which OF course.
are themselves for the national defence
and security?
The Right of Sovereignty.
81 affirm that you cannot get by con-
quest. and you cannot get by purchase. ac-
cording to the modern law OF nations, ac-
cording to the law of nations as accepted
and expounded by the United States. SOW
ereignty over a people, or title to a terri
tory. of which the power that undertakes
to sell it or the power from whom you uu-
dertake to wrest II has not the actual pos
sessian and dominion. Under municipal
law you cannot buy q horse Of which the
seller is dispossessed; you cannot buy
foot Of land Of which he is disseizcd. You
cannot purchase 4 lawsuit Under inter-
national law you cannot buy a people from
a power that has no actual dominion over
them. You cannot buy war. More than
this, you cannot buy a tyrants claim to
subject again an oppressed people who have
achieved their freedom.
Gentlemen tell Us that the bill of the
Senator from Wisconsin is copied from that
introduced in Jeferson's time for the pur>
chase OF Louisiana. DO you claim that you
propose to deal with these people as JEFF
ferson meant to deal with Louisiana? You
talk Of Alaska, of Florida, of California; do
YOU mean TO deal with the Philippines as
we mean TO deal with Alaska and dealt
v ith Florida or California?
u repeat. In every acquisition Of terri
tory we ever made We meant to make
Sratps of il jefferson SNuresslv saws 50 in