North Park union., 1900-08-24
10000 sp.n,.rd. .e..o,ns in The PIN.


send to the Philippine islands 4 few
traders, few tnskmasters and = few
mce-hOlders, and an army large
enough to support the authority
of small fraction of the people while
they rule the natives.
The Republican platform assumes
that the Philippine islands will be re-
tained under American sovereignty
and we have right to demand Of the
Republican leaders a discussion of the
future status Of the Filipino. Is he tC
become citizen or subject? Are
we to bring into the body polite eight
or ten millions Asiatics, no dinereni
from us In rnce and history that anal
gnmation 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 n propo'
sitIon. The McEnery resolution. adopt
ell by the Senate Immediately after the
ratification OF the treaty, expressly
negatives this idea. The Democratic
platform describes the situation when
1t says that the Filipinos cannot be
citizens without endangering our civil
ization. Who will dispute II? And
what IL the alternative? II the Fill
pino is not to be n citizen, shall we
make him subject? On that question
the Democratic plntform speaks with
equnl emphasis. 1t declares that the
Filipino cannot be subject without
endnngcrIng our form OF government.
What Is our title to the Philippine
islands? DO we hold them by treaty
or by conquest? Did We buy them or
did we take them? Did we purchase
a.. I<,v, a a
cure title to them? Were they thrown
In with the land? VIII the Republicans
say that innnimate earth has value.
but thnt when that earth Is nodded by
the divine hand and stamped with the
likeness Of the creator 1t becomes a
fixture and passes with the soil? II
governments derive their just powers
from the consent OF the governed. II Is
impossible to secure title TO people.
either by force or by purchase. We
could extinguish Spnin's title by treaty,
but II we hold title we must hold II 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 purchasers. But
even II we had not disputed SPANS
title. she could transfer no greater
title than she had. and her title was
based on force alone. We cannot de-
fend such title but II Spain gave us
quit claim deed, we can honorably
turn the property over to the party In
possession. Whether any American
official gave to the F'ilipinos formal as-
surance of independence Is not ma
terial. There can be no doubt that we
accepted and utilized the services of
the Filipinos. and that when we did so
we Ind full knowledge that they We're
fighting for their own independence,
and submit that history furnishes no
example OF turpitude bnser than ours
II we now substitute our yoke for the
Spanish yoke.
Men may dare to do In crowds what
they would not dare to do as individ-
uals, but the moral character OF nn act
is not determined by the number OF
those who Join It, Force can defend
Il right. but force has never yet created
Il right. If II was true. ns declared In
the resolutions OF Intervention. that the
Cubnns ARE and OF right ought to be
free and independent" Language taken
from the Declaration OF Independence,
1t is equally true that the Filipinos
are and of right ought to be free and
Independent" The right OF the Gu
bans to freedom was not based upon
their proximity to the United States.
nor upon the language which they
spoke. nor vet upon the race or races
to which they belonged. Congress by
a practically unanimous vote declared
that the principles enuncintcd mt Phil
ndelphia In 11I6 We're still alive and
applicable to the Cubans. Who will
draw II line between the natural rights
of the Cubnns and the Filipino? Who
Will say that the former has right to
liberty and that the latter has no rights
which we are bound TO respect! And.
II the Filipinos ARE and of right ought
to h free and independent what right
have we TO force our government upon
them without their consent? Before
our duty can be ascertained. their
rights must be determined. and when
their rights are once determined. II is
as much our duty to respect those
rights as 1t was the duty of Spain to
respect the rights of the people OF
Cuba. or the duty OF England to respect
the rights OF the American c0lonists.
Rights never conflict: duties never
clash. Can II he our duty to usurp po-
lltical rights which belong to others?
Can II be our duty to kill those who. fol-
lowing the example of our forcfnthers.
love liberty well enough to fight for 1t?
1t is argued by some that the Fill
pinos are incapable of self-government
and that, therefore. we owe II to the
world to take control OF them. Admiral
Dewey. in m official report to the
Navy Department. declared the Fill
pinos more capable of sclf-govcrnment
than the Cubans and said that he based
his opinion upon knowledge OF both
races. But Will not rest the case up
OH the relative advancement OF the FIJI
ipinos. Henry Clay. in defending the
right of the people of South America
to self-government. said:
1T Is the doctrine OF thrones that
man IL too ignorant to govern himself.
Their partisans assert his incnpacity In
reference to all nations: II they cannot
universal assent to the prop
osition. II is then demanded to pnrticu-
lar nations: and our pride and our pre-
sumption too often make converts of
us. | contend that il Is to nrralgn the
OF Providence himself to
suppose that he has created beings in
capable OF governing themselves. and
to be trampled on by kings. Self-gov-
is the natural government of
man.
Clay was right. There are degrees
of proficiency in the art of self-gOvern-
ment. but 1t is reflection upon the
Creator to say that he denied to any
tbn ,u,>n,itr fnr. cali.