New-York tribune., 1901-03-29
4 QUESTION OF INSULTS

| of yesterdays London rumors that Denmark S
| terms for the sale of her West India islands
include a popular vote of the inhabitants on
| the question OF transfer. guarantee the
| part of the United States of American citizen
ship TO them on annexation and free trade of
the islands with the United States. The re-
port, however, has happily served TO draw
forth the following characteristically sane fair
minded and truthful observation from The
New-York Evening Post:
Thirty years ago the United States would have
felt insulted by such proposal Denmark has
now made US in regard to the sale OF St Thomas
In effect, the Danish Government stipulates
that If we buy the island, we treat the inhabi-
tants decently. All these conditions
would have been regarded as a matter of course
IN Sewards time and 20 have named them in
the treaty would have seemed affront like
making a man promise TO be kind to his own
children But such moral humiliations go nat
urally with the glories of being a world power.
In 1861 Mr. Seward himself entered into
negotiation with Denmark for the purchase of
this same island of st. Thomas That was be
fore, even in the view of the present day anti
imperialists, the United States had been so
disgraced as a civilized government that for
eiSn nations felt compelled TO put us under
bond TO treat their ceded peoples decently. and
also before, in the view of those anti-imperial-
lists, our own self-respect had been so lowered
10y conquest and tyranny that we could con-
template such stipulatiOns as anything but in
sultinS Yet, curiOusly enough. away back in
1867 the Danish Government did insist In its
treaty with the United States on making a
popular vote of the inha abitants about to be
ceded condition of the cession. Mr. Seward
did not want TO agree to this. apparently re-
garding the plebiscite as a bothersome compli-
cation 10 the negotiation. but there is no record
that he anybody else considered the nropo-
stion an insult. At least. if il was an insult
then We may take heart over our present de-
generate condition seeing that we stand no
worse in the eyes of the world than we did in
Stewards time. when conditions now reported
10 he proposed were not regarded so much as
matter of course but that Denmark named
them in the treaty
There Is no reason 10 suppose these reported
terms correct. and there is reason TO think that
some of them would not be wise in view of
the different terms under which we hold Porto
Rico close by. But if they were correct there
would he nothing in them which the United
States might not have been asked 10 cuaran-
tee TO the inhabitants Of any territory annexed
IN the last hundred years without the least
suggestion of moral humiliation The stinula-
tion Of a vote was made in the Danish treaty
of 1867. The stipulation of the treaty annex
ing Louisiana in 1903 exacted by France was
that the lnhabitarts shonld be Incorporated in
the union OF the United States, and admitted
as soon as possible. according TO the prin-
"ciples of the Federal Constitution. to the on
Joyment of all the rights. advantages and i'm
munities of citizens of The United States"
Thus a citizenship at some indefinite time in
the future was insultingly exacted from tbe
American oppressors OF 1903. who tho biob
minded Napoleon feared would not treat his
subjects decently. That noble exponent of free
dom and human rights, Ferdinand VII iusu,ted
us in the same fashion in 1919 in cedinc Flor
ida Our moral degeneracy had gone so far in
! ls4s that Mexico stipulated In the treaty of
"uadaiupe Hidalgo that the inhabitants of
Aew-Mexieo and California should forthwith
! acquire the rights Of American citizens except
as within one year they might elect TO retain
Mexican nationality. This condition carried
with il free trade with the rest of the United
States. Clearly Mexico would not even trust
us TO fulhl our pledge at our own convenience
! In fact, so low has been our reputation through