The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-08-09


pected II the people encourage the Re-
publican party by endorsing its policy at
the polls? A large standing army IS not
only q pecuniary burden to the people
and II accompanied by compulsory SER
vice, constant source Of Irritation. but
NJ is ever menace to a republican form
OF government The army is the personi-
hcatlon or force, and miIitarism will in
eVltaDIy change the ideals of the people
ana turn the thoughts of our young men
rom the arts of peace to the science of
war. Inc government which relies for
It's detense upon its citizens is more like
~ 70 De Just than one which has ar call
d large oody of professional soldiers A
small standing army and a well enuinned
ana we'll disciplined state militia arc So
nclent IN ordinary times, and in an
emergency the nation should in the a1tnTa
~ %5a III the the past place its dependence upon
the volunteers who come from ali occu
pat1ons at their country's call and rerurr
10 productive labor when their servfcaa
are no longer Fequired-men who fight
wren wren the country needs fighters and work
"hen the country needs workers.
WHAT OF HIS FUTURE
The Republican platform assumes mo.
the FnlIlppine Islands will be retained
unoer american sovereignty, and we
nave a right to demand of the Republi-
can can leaders discussion of the future
STATUS OF the Filipino. Is he to be a
cltlzen or subject? Are. we to bring
INTO the body polite eight or ten rniIlfo1
Aaislatics, so dtn&-ent from us in race and
are they to share with US in making the
laws and shaping the destiny of this
hhatlQn! No Republican of prominence
mas been bold enough to advocate such o
proposition. The McEnery resolution q
ADOPTED by the senate Immediately after
the rdt1fcation of the treaty exDressIv
NEGATIVES this idea. The Democratic plat
FORM describes the situation when It saws
that the Filfpinos cannot be CITIZENS
without endangering our civilization
VINO WIZ dispute 1t? And what is the
aIt cI+ian II the Filipino is not to be
q cltlzen, shall We make him q subject?
IN that question the Democratic Mat
FORM speaks with emphasis. It declares
lndt the t1ltpino cannot be a subject
without endanger1ng our form of govern
ment. A republic can have no Subjects
A subject is possible only in a GOVERN
nent resting upon forces; he Is unknown
IN ma a g3vernment deriving its just powers
rom the consent Of the governed The
republican platform says that "the Iarg-
est measure of self-goVernment consiS-
tent with their welfare and our duties
snail be secured to them (the FlfDinos1
by law" This Is a strange doctrine for
government which owes its very exist
ence to the men who offered their lives
as protest against government without
consent and taxation without representa-
ton.
THE SAME AS ENGLAND.
In what respect does the position of the
republican party differ from the position
taken by the English government in
| 100! DID not the English government
promise a good government to the col
ontstS? What king ever promised g bad
government to his people? Did not the
English government promise that the
coIonSts should have the largest meas
ure OF seif-government consistent with
their welfare and English duties? Did
not the Spanish government promise to
give TO the Cubans the largest measure
OF ser-government consistent with their
welfare and Spanish duties? The whole
dnrerence between a monarchy and a re-
public may be summed up in one sen
fence. In a monarchy the king gives to
the people what he believes to be-
good government; IN a republic the peo-
pie secure for themselves what they be-
ieve to be good government. The Re-
publican party has accepted the Eu-
ropean idea and planted itself upon the
ground taken by George III and by
every ruler who distrusts the capacity of
the people for elf-government. or denies
them voice in their own affairs
The Republican platform promises that
some measure Of self-government IS to
De given to the Filipinos by law; but,
sixteen months elapsed after the ratiffca-
ton Of the treaty before the adjourn
ment Of congress last June, and yet no
law was passed dealing with the Phil
lppine situation. The will OF the presi-
dent has been the only law in the Phil
fppine islands wherever the American
authority extends Why does the Re
publican party hesitate to legiSIate upon
the Philippine question? Because a law
would disclose the radical departure from
history and precedent contemplated by
those who control the Republican party.
The storm of protest which greeted the
Porto Rican bill was an indication of
what may be expected when the Amert-
can people are brought face to face with
legislation upon this subject. If the
Porto Ricans, who welcome annexation,
are to be
DENIED THE GUARANTEES
of our constitution, what is to be the lot
Of the Filipinos, who resisted our au-
thorfty? If secret influences could COM
friendly people living near our shores,
what treatment will those same in
fuences provide for unfriendly people
1900 miles away. If, in this country,
where the people have the right to vote.
Republican leaders dare not take the
side of the people against the great mon
opolies which have grown up within the
last few years, how can they be trusted
to protect the FiIipinos from the cor
porations which are waiting to exploit
the islands?
PORTO RICAN TARIFF.
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
Porto Rico tariff law asserts the doc
trine that the operation of the constl-
tuition is confined to the forty-five states.
The Democratic party disputes this doc
trine and denounces 1T as repugnant to
both the letter and spirit of our organic
law. There is no place in our system of
government for the deposit of arbitrary
and irresponsible power. That the lead
ers of a great party should claim for any
president or congress the right to treat
millions of people as mere possessions"
and deal with them unrestrained by the
constitution or the bill Of rights shows
how far We have already departed from
the ancient landmarks, and indicates
what may be expected IL this nation de-
liberately enters upon a career Of en-
pire. The territorial form of government
Is temporary and preparatory, and the
chief security a citizen of a territory has
is found in the fact that he enjoys the
subject to the same general laws as a Cit
iZen of a state. Take away this security
and his rights VIII be violated ana his in
terest 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
WHAT IS OUR TITLE?
What is our title to the Philippine ISL
ands? Do we hold them by treaty or by
conquest? Did we buy them or did we
take them? Did we purchase the people?
If not, how did we secure title to them?
Were they thrown In with the land2 Will
the Republicans say that inanimate earth
has value, and when that earth is nodded
by the Divine Hand and stamped with
the likeness Of the Creator it becomes
a fixture and passes with the soil? If
governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed, it is
impossible to secure title to people, either
by force or by purchase. We could ex-
tinguish Spain's title by treaty, but If
we hold title we must hold it by some
method consistent with our ideas of gov
eminent. When we made allies of the Fill
fpinos and armed them to fight against
Spain we disputed SPANS title. If we
buy Spain's title we are not innocent
purchasers. But even If we had not dis
puted Spain's title, she could transfer no
greater title than She had. and her title