The evening times., 1900-04-17

can be clearly and sharply stated as CUES
tion of constitutional power, a question OF
international law, a question of justice and
righteousness. or a question of public ex-
pediency. This can be stated clearly and
sharply in the abstract, and it can be put
clearly and sharply by an illustration
growing out Of existing facts.
The constitutional question is: Has
Congress the power, under our Consutu-
tion, to hold in subjection unwilling vas
sal States?
THE question of international law is:
Can any nation rightfully convey TO an
other sovereignty over an unwllllng peo-
pie who have thrown of its dominion, as
serted their independence. established
government of their own, over whom 1T
has at the time no practical control, from
whose territory il has been disseized, and
which il is beyond its power to deliver?
The question is justice and righteous
ness is: Have We the right TO crush and
hold under our feet an unwilling and sub
ject people whom we had 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:
)
trade at the cannon's mouth and at the
point of the bayonet?
"All these questions can be put in a way
of practical Illustration by enquiring
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 Go, in
the case of the Philippine Islands.
Il hold that this acquisition, holding, and
governing can be only a means for con-
stitutional end-the creation of new States
or some other of the constitutional pur-
noses TO which / have adverted. And
maintain that you can no more hold and
govern territory than you can hold and
manage cannon or fleets for any other than
a constitutional end: and I maintain that
the holding in subsection an alien people,
governing them against their viii for any
fancied advantage TO them. is not only not
an end provided for by the Constitution,
but is an end prohibited therein.
Mr. Hoar al this point entered into
discussion of the status of the Philippines
under the Constitution and quoted a num-
Der OF decisions of the United States Su-
preme Court and legal opinions in support
nf his contention that Congress has not the
power to govern dependent nations or ter
ritories not expected to become States.
Continuing he said:
USurpation and Robbery.
When hostilities broke out. February 3.
1895. we had no occupancy Of and no title
OF any kind to any portion Of the Philip
pine territory. except the town and bay Of
Manila. Everything else was in the peace
full possession of the inhabitants. In such
a conditions of things. Mr.. President, in
ternational law speaks TO us with its awful
mandate. Ii pronounces your proposed
action sheer usurpation and robbery. You
have no better title, according TO the law
Of nations. to reduce this people 10 suhjec
tiOn than you have to subjugate Mexico or
Haiti or Belgium or Switzerland.
This is the settled doctrine as de-
Clared by our own great masters Of jUris-
prudence
You have no right according to the law
of nations, TO obtain by purchase or acqui-
sitiOn sovereignty over a people which is
not actually exercised by the country which
undertakes to convey it or yield it.
4 shall show beyond all question or
cayil. from the evidence Of our own com
manders. that this was a people. They
were a people who had taken arms to es-
tablish a republic. They had achieved lib
prty. They had taken arms TO establish
a republic. They had established a repub-
lic-the first republic OF the Orient.
Now. international law has something
to say about this matter. VIII the Ameri-
can people for the first time in their his
tory. disregard its august mandates?
You gentlemen who desire to hold on
TO the Philippine Islands are trying 10
plant the United States squarely upon this
doctrine. You must affirm that a people
f.i.F las.
tyTant. and having got actual possession
Of their own territory. and having dispos-
sessed The oppressOr, have no rightful title
thereto.
Not only are We violating our own Con-
stUution. and the great precepts Of the
Declaration Of Independence which as
the Supreme Court OF the United States
has declared. is to control and inter
pret, being as the court says but the
letter CT which the Declaration Of Tnde-
penGence is the spirit but We are equally
violating the accepted precepts Of the law
of nations as eXpUUuded by our own great
authorities.
Mr.. Hoar quoted from various authori-
ties on international law to show that rhe
action of this Government I'm retaining the
Philippines would be contrary 10 its teach
ing. after which referring to the Declara-
ton OF Independence. be said.
The Declaration Of Independence Is
not SO much a declaration OF rights as
declaration of duties. 1t prescribes a rule
OF conduct for men IN the same state to
one another and for the nations Of the
earth tC one another Like the golden rule,
it makes the law Of individual right the
law also of individual duty. Do Senator'S
reflect how this imperialism as they call
10. is inaugUrating a revolution not only
in the law of nations. not cnly in the fun
law by which the people OF the
United States have governed themselves
until now. not only in the Interpretation
Of the Constitution. but in the moral law
itself2 As | hear the utterances OF some
worthy gentlemen taking the name Of God
upon their lips, il seems 10 me as if they
thought the balance of the universe itself
had changed within this year. and that
God had gone over TO the side OF Satan.
There is one question I should like TO
put to the Republican majority in the
Senate and to the Republican party in the
is this doctrine true or is il
false, Are you 10 stand on it any longer
-----