The times., 1901-06-20
sudEe speer,s Address.

The press synopsis Of Judge Speer's
centenary address at Athens. Georgia,
indicates that while the speaker may
have said some good things and said
them well, his remarks as a whole were
lacking in consistency, while in parts
they showed less Of dignifed conserva-
tism than should have characterized an
address upon such an occasion. When
a man processes TO view with alarm the
growth of the Slayonic power, because
the Slay idea of government is essen
TALLY imperialistic. and in the same
breath defends both Imperialism and
the trusts in the United States, there is
abundant room for doubt either OF his
perfect sincerity or the soundness of his
judgment
According TO Judge Speer the Russian
theory of government is based upon the
suppression of the individual, while An
glo-Saxon civilization rests upon the
development of the individual. While
this is true, as broad generalization,
it should also be admitted in common
fairness that Anglo-Saxons have them
selves done little something at differ
ent times and in different countries that
tended very strongly toward the sup
preston OF the Individual The Anglo
Saxon is a great stickler for his own
rights, but he is not always so mindful
OF the rights Of others. There can be
no doubt that the development of the
imperiaIistic idea in the United States
tends TO the suppression of the indiYid-
ual; and If Russian Imperialism is To be
condemned, so should our own, and
even more strongly, because there is
less excuse for the growth of the i'm
perialisdc sentiment here than there is
anywhere else on earth.
But the judge does not condemn i'm
periaIism here. On the contrary, he
wakes wroth in his condemnation Of
those who insist that constitutional
safeguards should be extended to the
people Of our outlying possessions. He
assumes that the ten millions Of people
in the Philippines are all savages, and
that in some inscrutable way great
harm Will come TO US unless they are
governed by despotic power, and their
individuality suppressed. He defends
the denial Of constitutional rights to
those people upon the theory that they
are inferior. and hence not entitled to
those rights-the argument Of the
desFot always.
1t may be. doubtless II is, true that In
civilization the Filipinos are not equal
to ourselves. They may not be ht for
American possibly not even
for a regularly organized territorial
government; but that is no reason why
they should be denied the protection of
the Federal Constitution. There is a
vast difference between shielding the
Filipinos from oppression by throwing
the mantle Of the Constitution over
them and admitting them TO statehood.
The imperialists generally seek 10 OBJ
Ecure the issue by assuming that If the
Constitution is extended TO the Philip
pines. ten millions Of savagcs will at
once be given a voice in the govern
ment Of the United States" This is alb
surd, and everybody ought to know it.
Congress has the sole right to determine
when certain Territory shall be taken
into the Unlon as State. The Consti-
tuition so provides. and ii is right, for
the power must rest somewhere to de-
termine when a territory reaches the
stage Of fitness that entities il TO a voice
in the Government of the entire coun-
try. But it does not follow that because
Congress may rightfuliy say that the
Philippines are not yet fitted for state
hood. IL may go further and deny to the