Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1900-06-01
THOMAS JEFFERSON.
WHAT HE THOUGHT OF ACQUIS-
ITlON BY CONQUEST.
He Was Strongly Opposed to It-Maintained
that it Was Inimcal to American interests
to Become Mixed Up With any Contention
of Foreign Powers.
By William j. Bryan.


pealing to the authority OF Jefferson.
OF all the statesmen who have ever
lived Jefferson was the one most hos
tile to the poctrines embodied in the
demand for European colonial policy.
Imperialism, as it now presents it,
self, embraces four distinct PROPOSE
lions:
l. That the acquisition Of territory
by conquest is right.
2. That the acquisition OF remote
territory is desirable.
3. That the doctrine that govern
ments derive their just powers from
the consent OF the governed is un-
sound.
t. That people can be wisely gov
erned by aliens.
To all these propositions Jefferson
was emphatically opposed. In let
ter to VIM. Short, written in 1892, he
said:
eff there be one principle more
deeply written than any other in the
mind OF every American, it is that we
should have nothing to do with con-
quest"
Can he be more explicit? Here we
have a clear and strong denunciation
OF the doctrine that territory should
be acquired by force. If it is said
that we have Outgrown the ideas of
the fathers, it may be observed that
the doctrine laid down by Jefferson
was reiterated only few years ago by
no less Republican than James G.
Blaine. All remember the enthus-
iasm with which he entered into the
work of bringing the republic OF North
and South America into close and
cordial relations; some, however, may
have forgotten the resolutions intro
duced by him at the conference held
in 1890, and approved by the COM
missioners present. They are as fol-
lows:
"First. That the principle of con-
quest shall not, during the continu-
ance of the treaty of arbitration, be
recognized as admissible under Amer.
ican public law.
"Second. That al! cessions of ter
ritory made during the continuance of
the treaty Of arbitration shall be void
if made under threats Of war or in the
presence OF an armed force.
"Third. Any nation from which
such cessions shall be exacted may
demand that the validity of the ces-
sions so made shall be submitted to
arbitration.
Fourth. Any remuneration OF the
right to arbitration made under con-
ditions named in the second section
shall be null and void"
If the principle OF conquest is
right, why should it be denied place
in American public law? So objec-
tionable is the theory of acquisition OF
territory by conquest that the nation
which suffers such injustice can, ac-
cording to the resolutions, recover by
arbitration the land ceded in the
presence of an armed force. So
abhorrent is it that waiver OF arbi-
tration, made under such circum.
stances, is null and void. While the
resolutions were only for the consider
alton of the American Republics, the
principle therein stated cannot be
limited by latitude or longitude.
But this is a time of great and
rapid changes and come may even
look upon Blaine's official acts as
ancient history. If 50, let it be re-
membered that President Mckinley,
only a couple OF years ago December
26, 1s97) in a message to Congress,
the Cuban situation, said !:
"I speak not of forcible annexation,
for that is not to be thought OF. That,
by our code of morality, would be
criminal aggression"
And yet some are now thinking Of
that which was then "not to be
thought Of" Policy may change, but
does a "code of morality" change?
In his recent speech at Savannah
Secretary Gage in defending the new
policy of the administration, suggest
ed that philanthropy and five per
cent" may 60 hand in hand. Surely
we know not what day may bring
forth, if in so short a time criminal
aggression" can be transformed into
philanthropy and five per cent"
What beauty, what riches, the isles OF
the Pacific must possess if they can
tempt our people to abandon not only
the traditions of a century, but our
standard of national morality! What
visions of national greatness the
Philippines must arouse if the very
sight of them can lead our country to
vie with the monarchies OF the old
world in the extension OF sovereignty
by force!
Jefferson has been called an ex.
pansionist. but our opponents will
search in vain for single instance