Richmond planet., 1900-05-05
Violations Of The Constitution "A Ringing
Plea For Justice--!The Fathers -
Of the Republic.

hotbed OF treason; then the people of
the United States, for more than
century, have been traitors 10 their
own nag and their own Constitution.
We are presented with an issue that
can be clearly and sharply stated as .
question of constitutional power,
question OF international Law, q Ques-
tion Of justice and righteousness, or q
question OF public expediebcy. This
the sbstract, and it can be put clearly
and sharply by 40 illustration grow
ing out OF existing facts.
The constitutional question is: Has
Congress the power under our Cousti-
tuition, TO hold in subsection unwilling
Vsssal Ststes3
The question az international law is:
Can any natisn rightfully convey Co an
other sovereignty over. an unwilling peo
pie who have thrown of its dominion,
asserted their independence, establish
ed government of their own, over
whom it has at the time no practical
control, from whose territory it has
been disseize sd, and which it is beyond
it's power to deliver?
THE GREAT QUESTION.
The question OF justice ard right.
crush and hold under our feet an un-
willing an subjeet people whom We
have treated as allies, whose lndepen-
dence we are bound in good faith to
respect, who had esta ablished their own
free COVER ment, and who had trusted
US?
The question OF public expediency
is: Is it for our advantage to promote
onr trade at the cannon's mouth and
at the point of the bsyonet7 2
All these questions can be put in .
way OF practical illustr alton by irquir-
Jog whether we ought TO do what W,
have done, are doing, and mean to do
in the case of sOuba; or what Ave have
done, are doing, and some of Sou
mean 30 do in the case Of the Philip
pine Islsnds.
Il does not seem to ms to be worth
while TO state again at length she con-
stitutional argument which / have ad-
dressed to the Senate heretofore. 1t
has been encountered with elcQuence,
with clesrness and beauty OF state
ment, and, have ne doubt, with aoso-
lutte sincerity by Senators who have
spoken upon the other side. But the
issue between them and me can bs
summed up ID q sentence or two, aud
IL. so stated, it can not be made clear
TO anv mans apprehension, despair
of making it clear by any elaboration
or ampificstion.
/ admit that the United States may
acquire and hold property, and may
make rules and regulations for its dis
position.
admit that, like other property, the
Unised States may acquire and hold
land. 1t may acquire it by purchase.
At may acquire by treaty. Is may
acquire it by conquest. And il may
make rules and regulations for its dis
position and governments, however it
be acquired.
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT.
When there are inhabitants upon the
land 80 acquired it may make avs for
their goverament. But the question
between me and the gentlemen on the
other side is this: Is this acquisition
of territory, of land or other property,
whether gained by purchase, con-
Quest, or treaty, constitutional end
or only q means TO constitutional al
end May you acquire, hold and
govern territory or Other property as
an end for which our Constitution Was
| framed, or is 1t only o means toward
some other and fursher end May you
acquire, hold, and govern property by
conquest, treaty or purchase for the
sole object of 80 holding and governing
it, without the consideration of any
further constitutional purposeP Or
must you hold it for q. constitutional
purpose only, such as the making OF
new States, the national defense and
security, the establishment of seat of
governments, or the construction of
forts, harbors, and like works, which,
| of course, are themselves for the ma
tional defense and security
hold that this acquisition. holding
and governing can be on.y q means for
o constitutional end-the creation oi
new States or some other of the con-
stitutional purposes to which have
edverted. And / maintain that you
can no more hold and govern territory