The evening times., 1900-04-17

can be clearly and sharply stated as a ques-
tion Of constitutional power, a question OF
international law, question Of justice and
righteousness. or a question of public eN-
pediency. This can be stated clearly and
sharply in the abstract and il can be put
clearly and sharply by an Illustration
growing out OF existing facts
The constitutional question is: Has
Congress the power. under our Constitu-
tion. to hold in subsection unwilling vas
sal States2
THE question Of international law is;
Can any nation rightfully convey TO an
other sovereignty over an unwilling peo-
pie VINO have thrown of its dominion as
serted their independence, established a
government of their own. over whom II
has at the time no practical control from
whose territory il has been disseized. and
which IL Is beyond its power 10 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;
Is il tor our advantage to promote our
trade at the cannons mouth and at the
Point OF the bayonet?
All these questions can be put in way
Of practical illustration by enquiring
whether We ought 10 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 60, in
the case Of the Philippine Islands.
Il hold that this acquisition, holding. and
governing can be only means for a con-
stitutional end-the creation Of new states
or some other Of the constitutional pur-
diverted |
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 l maintain that
the holding in subjection an alien people.
governing them against their will 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
Of his contention that Congress has not the
power to govern dependent nations OF ter
ritories not expected to become States.
Continuing he said;
UsurpHtIon and Robbery.
When hostiIitiez broke out February ;.
1899 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 he peace
fuI possession OF me inhabitants In such
a conditions Of Things. Mr. President, in
ternational law sp-aNs 10 us with its awful
mandate. Ii prolounces your proposed
action sheer usurpatiOn and robbery. You
have no better title. according TO the law
Of nations. to reduce this people TO 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-
siuou sovereignty over people which is
not actually exercised by the country which
undertakes to convey il or yield il.
Il shall show beyond all question or
cayil. from the evidence Of our own com
manders, ,hat this was a people. They
were a people who had taken arms TO es-
tablish a republic. They had achieved lib
orty. 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 Ams ri-
can people for the first time in their his
tory, disregard .ts august mandates
You gentlemen who desire 90 hold on
TO the Philippine Islands are trying Il
plant the United States squarely upon thi.
doctrine. You must affirm that a pe0pl,
rising for their own liberties against
tyrant and having got actual possession
Of their own territory. and having dispOs
scssed the oppressor. have no rightful it'll,
thereto
Not only are we violating our own Con
stiutiOn. and the great preCepts OF th
Declaration Of independence which a.
the supreme Court of the United States
has declared. is to control and inter
pref. being, as the court says. but IN,
letter Of which the Declaration OF Tnde
pendence is the spirit but We are equally
violating the accepted precepts Of the Law
Of nations as eXpouuded by our own grest
authorities"
Mr.. Hoar quoted from various authori
ties on international law to show that rhs
action Of this Government in retaining the
Philippines would De contrary to its teach
iag5 after which. referring 20 the DecIara-
tiOn Of Independence. he said,
The Declaration Of independence 4:
not SO much a declaration Of rights as
declaration of duties. 10 prescribes rule
Of conduct for men in the same state tC
one another and for the nations Of the
earth % one another. Like the golden rule
10 makes the law OF Individual right ths
law also Of individual duty Do Senator,
reflect how this imperialism, as they cal
30. Is iuaugurating a revolution not only
TN the law OF nations. not Culy in the fun
damental law by which the people Of tn,
United states have governed themselve.
until now. not only in the Interpretation
of the Constitution, but in the moral Law
itself2 AS I hear the utterances 0S som,
worthy gentlemen taking the name Of Goo
upon their lips, IL seems 10 me as if thel
thought the balance of the universe itsel
had changed within this year. and tha
God had gone over 10 the side Of Satan.
There is one question I should like q
put 10 the Republican majority in the
Senate and TO the Republican party in the
country: is this doctrine true or is Il
false. Are you 10 stand on it any longer