The Washington times., 1901-08-14

|
| in which it is essentially weak, but we
| will not go into that now, for our pur-
pose is to bring out another and entire
ly different point.
Mr. Boutwell, concludes his article,
which appears in the North American
Review for August, by declaring that
if the court ultimately takes this posi-
ton it will satisfy the demands of the
anti-imperialists. In this he undoubt-
edly goes too far. and comedies too
much. It will satisfy very few anti
imperialists merely to have the Consti
tuition extended to those islands after
they have been duly organized as Ter
ritories, if it should ever be done. That
would do no more than to settle the
status Of these particular islands. The
principle would still stand, with the
sanction of the Supreme Court, that
by simply declining to establish Terri
torial Governments in newly acquired
possessions Congress may govern them
forever independently of the Constitu-
ton
The claim of the anti-imperialists has
been that wherever the sovereignty of
the United States is set up, there the
Constitution becomes the highest law.
and the guiding star of all COMPRESSION
al legislation. To say that Congress
may ignore the Constitution merely be
cause it neglects to organize a Terri
torial Government stands on the border
line of claim that two wrongs make
right. There is something more than
the Philippines and Porto Rico involved
in this issue. 1t is one which concerns
every future acquisition of territory.
Under the decision of the court in the
Downes case, we might possess our
selves of the whole American Continent
outside the present limits of the United
States, and Congress would have alb
solute power in all that broad area.
Not only this, but the power could be
retained indefinitely by the simple ex-
pedient of not organizing Territorial
Governments. That certainly does not
leave the issue in such a shape as to
satisfy the aspirations of the great
body of the ant,-imperialists.
There is, however another aspect of
the matter in which Mr.. Boutwells
conclusion is of more intrinsic value.
He shows clearly the broad distinction
between anti-imperialism and anti-ex-
pansi IN. The two things are totally
different and should never be confound-
ed. Expansion has been the policy of
the Republic from its very birth. With
out expansion the United States, instead
of being the foremost nation of the
earth, would have been no more than
second class Power, and probably II
would have been in the third rank. We
may not need more territory so press
to declare broadly that we want no
more and will take no more would be
utterly Illogical and absurd. That
would be ''anti-eXpansion" doctrine, and
it is one to which very few Americans
would be willing to subscribe. But
when it comes to the government of
territory which may be acquired, we
are confronted by very different sort
of question. The man who puts him
self on record as favoring TIE right of
Congress to govern such territory re-
gardless of the Constitution simply
presents himself in the light of an i'm
perialist-not of a legitimate expan-
sionist.
Divested of loose generalities. and
closely analysed, it will be found that
nearly all of the opposition to the Ad
ministratiOn's policy with reference to
Porto Rico and the Philippines rests
upon anti-imperialistic and not upon
anti-expansion principles. If the Ad-
ministration had shown disposition
to hold itself within constitutional lin
itations, and to treat Porto Rico and
the Philippines as American territory,
protected by the Federal Constitution,
Aguinaldo would have had very few
sympathiZers in this country, and ex-
ceedingly slender support in his own.
The unmistakable trend of the policy OF
President Mckinley toward the exer-
else of power along imperialistic lines
is responsible for nearly all of what
has appeared to be anti-expansion SEN
tiInent in the United States. as well as
for a very large part of the difficulty
which has beset him III the carrying out
of that policy in the islands themselves.