Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1900-08-16


differs from democracy The Demo-
cratic party does not oppose expansion,
When expansion enlarges the area of the
republic and incorporates lands which can
be settled by American citizens, or adds
to our population people who are willing
to become citizens and are capable of dis
charging their duties as such. The ac-
QUESTION of the Louisiana territory. Flor
ida, Texas and other tracts which have
been secured from time to time, enlarged
the republic, and the Constitution fol-
lowed the flag into the new territory. 1t
Is now proposed to seize upon distant
territory already more densely populated
than our own country, and to force upon
the people government for which there
is no warrant in our Constitution or our
laws.
A colonial policy means that we shall
send to the Philippines few traders,
few task-masters and a few ofticeholders
and an army large enough to support the
authority of a small fraction of the peo-
pie while they rule the natives. If we
have an imperial policy we must have
large standing army as its natural and
necessary complement.
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 discussion of the future, status
OF the Filipino. is he to be a citizen or
subject? Are we to bring into the body
polite eight or ten million Asiatics, so
different from us in race and history that
amalgamation is impossible? Are they to
share with us in making the laws and
shaping the destiny of this nation? NO
Republican of prominence has been bold
enough to advocate such proposition
The McEnery. resolution, adopted by
the senate Immediately after the ratifica-
ton of the treaty, expressly negatives
this idea.
The Democratic platform describes the
situation when it says that the Filipinos
cannot be citizens without endangering
our civilization. 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 en-
phasis. 1t declares that the Filipino cam
not be subject without 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 it's
just powers from the consent of the gov
| erned. The Republican platform says
that "the largest measure of self-govern-
ment consistent with their welfare and
our duties shall be secured to them (the
Filipinos) by law" This Is a strange doc
trine for a government which owes its
very existence to the mNl who offered
their lives as protest against govern
ment without consent and taxation with
out representation.
The whole difference between a mon
archy and a republic may be summed up
in one sentence. In a monarchy the king
gives to the people what he believes to
be a good government; in a republic the
people secure. for themselves what tLey
believe to be a good government. The
Republican party has accepted the Euro
pean idea and planted itself upon the
ground taken by George Ill. and by every
ruler who distrusts the capacity of the
people for self-government or denies them
a voice in their own affairs.
The Republican platform promises that
some measure of self-government is to
be given the Filipinos-by law; but even
this pledge is not fulfilled Nearly six
teen months elapsed after the ratification
of the treaty before the adjournment of
congress last June, and yet no law was
passed dealing with the Philippine situa-
ton. The will of the president has been
the only law in the Philippine islands
wherever the American authority ex-
tends. Why does the Republican party
hesitate to legislate upon the Philippine
question?
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 Rican Tariff Law
asserts the doctrines that the operation
of the constitution is confined to the
forty-fve states The Democratic party
disputes this doctrine and denounces it
as repugnant to both the letter and spirit
of our organic law There is no place
in our system of government for the de-
post of arbitrary and irresponsible
power. That the leaders of great party
should claim for any president or con-
gress the right to treat millions Of peo-
pie as mere POSSESSIONS" and dealing
with them unrestrained by the Constitu-
ton or the bill of rights shows how far
we have already departed from the ali
Gent landmarks, and indicates what may
be expected il this nation deliberately
enters upon career of empire.
The territorial form of government is
temporary and preparatory, and the chief
security a citizen of territory has is
found ir0the fact that he enjoys the same
constitutional guarantees and is s6bject
to the same general laws as the citizen
of a state Take away this security and
his rights will be violated and his inter-
est sacrificed at the demand of those who
have political influence. This is the evil
of the colonial system, no matter by what
nation it is applied.
Let us consider briefly the reasons
which have been given in support of an
imperialistic policy. Some say that it our
duty to hold the Philippine islands. But
duty is not an argument; it is conoIu-
sion. To ascertain what our duty is in
any emergency we must apply we'll set
tied and generally accepted principles.
Who will draw a line between the
natural rights of the Cubans and the
Filipinos? Who will say that the for
mer have right to liberty and the latter