Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1900-08-08
THE DUTY AS TO THE ISLANDS.

of perpetual vassalage covers the
Philippines"
THE DUTY AS TO THE ISLANDS.
No Need of Abandoning American Methods
There.
He took up the Porto Rican
tariff and discussed it's inconsis-
tency, and then went into further dis
cussion of the circumstances under
which the United States was seeking
to govern the Philippines. What is
eur title to the Philippine Islands?
Do we hold them by treaty or con-
quest? Did we buy them or did we
take them? Did we purchase the peo-
pie? If not, how did we secure title
to them? Were they thrown in with
the land? Will the republicans say
that inanimate earth has value, and
when that earth is m olded by the Divine
hand and stamped with the likeness
of the Creator it becomes a fixture
and passes with the soil? If govern
ments derive their just Pc Wers from
the consent of the governed, it is i'm
possible to secure title to people,
either BY force or by purchase. We
could extinguish Splin's title by
treaty, but if we hold title we must
hold it by some method consistent
with our ideas of government. When
we made allies of the Filipinos and
armed them to fight against Spain we
disputed Spain's title. II we buy
Spain's title we are not innocent pur-
chasers; but even if we had not dis
puted SPANS title, she could transfer
81 - L.. L
title was based on force alone. We
cannot defend such a title, but, as
Spain gave us a quit claim deed, we
can honorably turn the property over
to the party in possession. Whether
the American official gave the Filipi
nos formal assurance of independence
is not material There can be no
doubt that we accepted and utilized
the services of the Filipinos. and that
when we did so we had full knowl-
edge that they were fighting for their
own independence, and su bmit that
history furnishes no example of tur-
pitude baser than ours if we now sub.
stitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.
Some say that it is our duty to
hold the Philippine Islands, but duty
is not al argument-it is a conclu-
sion. To ascertain what our duty is,
in any emergency, we must apply
well settled and generally accepted
principles. 1t is our duty to avoid
stealing. no matter whether the thing
to be stolen is of great or little value.
1t is our duty to avoid killing a hu-
man being, no matter where the hui
man being lives or to what race or
class he belongs. Everyone recog-
nizes tho obligation imposed upon in
dividuals to observe both the human
and moral law; but. as some deny
soldier, who in the midst of
Battle discovered that he had slain his
brother. 1t is written that we all
are brethren Let US hope for the
coming of the day when human life
which when once destroyed cannot be
restored-will be so sacred that it will
never be taken except when necessary
to punish a crime already committed
or to prevent 4 crime about to be COM
mitted. 1t is said that we have as
sumed before the world obligations
which make it necessary for US to per-
manently maintain a government in
the Philippine islands. l reply, first.
that the highest obligation of this ma
ton is to be true to itself. No obliga-
ton to any particular nation. or to
all nations combined, can require the
abandonment of our theory of gov
eminent and the substitution of doc
trines against which our whole ma
tional life has been protest;
and, second. that our obliga-
tions to the Filipinos, who inhabit
tho islands ara praatar tbap apu obl;
CATION which we can owe to foreigners
who have a temporary residence in
the Philippines or desire to trade
there. 1t is argued by some that the
Filipinos are incapable of self govern
ment and that therefore we owe it to
the world to take control of them.
Admiral Dewey, in an official report
to the navy department, declared the
Filipinos more capable of self-govern-
ment than the Cubans, and said that
he based his opinion upon a knowl-
edge of both races But / will not
rest the case upon the relative ad.
vaucement of the Flipinos. Henry
Clay, in defending the rights of the
people of South America to self-gov-
eminent, said: 1t is the doctrine of
thrones that man is too ignorant to
govern himself Their partisaus as
sert his incapacity in reference to
all nations; if they cannot command
universal assent to the proposition, It
is then remanded to particular ma
tons; and our pride and our pre-
sumption too often make converts of
us. / contend that it is to arraign
the disposition of Providence Himself
to suppose that He has created beings
incapable of governing themselves.
aud to be trampled on by kings. Self
government is the natural govern
ment of man."
seIf-Government . BirthriEht.
Clay was right. There are de-
grees of proficiency in the art of self