The Washington times., 1901-08-08
Louisiana and the Philippines.

1t is. never necessary to defend a just
cause Jr a sound principle by Illogical
arguments or untruthful statements Of
assumed facts. This may be considered
automatic. and it applies with peculiar
force to some of the leading contentious
on behalf of the imperialistic policy of
the present Administration. For exam
pie. it has been vehemently claimed, not
by irresponsible, ill-infermed persons,
but by Republican leaders of recognized
standing. that the Spooner resolution
empowering the President to govern the
Philippines is identical in character
with the one by which President Jeffer-
son was authorized to govern the Terri
tory of Louisiana after it had been ac-
quired from France. The purpose of
this claim was to silence the opposition
by showing that the Republican party
was merely following a Democratic
precedent.
The falsity of the statement was
clearly and repeatedly shown while the
Spooner resolution was under consider
alton. but it is doubtful if any other ex-
position of the difference between the
two resolutions has equaled in effective
strength that Of ex-senator I;dmunds
in the August number of THE North
American Review" The main purpose
of Mr.. Edmunds' article is to show the
illogical and contradictory character Of
the Supreme Courts decisions in the
insular cases; but incidentally. and in
illustration OF the un-American charac-
ter Of the present policy in the Philip
pines. he states with singular clearness
and force the radical difference between
the Spooner resolution and the one
under which Mr. Jefferson for short
time exercised authority in the Terri
tory Of Louisiana
In The first place. Mr. Edmunds
brings out the fact that the Louisiana
resolution was temporary in character,
and expired by limitation with the close
of the session OF Congress at which 1t
vas adopted. On the other hand. the
Spooner provision will never expire by
virtue OF anything contained within it
self 1t is a permanent law, and it will
stand until Congress changes it. This.
as Mr.. Edmunds very pertinently sug-
gests. Congress cannot do by anything
Houses. unless the President. with gra-
cious condescension, is willing to sur
1ender the extraordinary grant Of pow
er. This the President might or might
not do II would depend entirely upon
the man and the strength of his ambi-
tion power. II Congress should re-
peal the Spooner resolution by vote
consisting Of the Democratic member |
ship, re-enfoTced by a small fraction OF /
the Republican majority, it Is morally |
certain that President Mckinley would |
veto the bill and it is just as certain |
that President Hanna" would do the |
same thing. In fine. Congress has en-
trusted the President with powers that |
# would be almost impossible to take |
away from him again without his con- |
sent.
This point, however. Is not original |
with Senator Edmunds, nor is it the |
most radical difference in principle be-
tween the resolutions. This, as the |
Senator shows, lies in the nature of the |
powers conferred. The Louisiana res
Olution was designed merely to cover
the brief transition period between the
time Of the cession and detailed legisla-
ton by Congress. To this end il pro-
vided that until the expiration of the
present Congress, unless provision for
the temporary government Of the said
Territories be sooner made by Con-
gress. I'll the military, civil, and judicial
powers exercised by the existing Gov
ernment of the same shall be vested in
such person or persons and shall be ex-
ercised in such manner as the President
of the United States shall direct" etc.
The resolution, it will be seen, did not
give the President power to change
single law then in existence. 1t merely