The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-05-28
ARE THE FIL1PINos A "PEOpLE' i?

In his great speech in the United States
senate last week-the greatest Grafton
that has been delivered in that chamber
in many years--senator Hoar maintained
that the purchase and conquest Of the
Philippines is in opposition to the great
American doctrine that just governments
rest only on the consent of the governed.
After stating that this argument had been
met by the affirmation that Jefferson dis
regarded the doctrine when he bought
Louisiana, and that John Quincy Adams
disregarded it when we acquired Florida,
and that Abraham Lincoln disregarded it
when we put down the rebellion and that
Charles Sumner disregarded 1t when ne
urged the purchase Of Alaska, Mr.. Hoar
continued:
1t was never denied that we could acquire
territory and that we could govern it after
it was acquired. The doctrine was that II the
territory be inhabited by that vital and liv-
ing being We call a people. as distinct from
few scattered and unorganized inhabitants,
neither controlling it nor governing them
selves, that people have have right to
govern themselves and to determine their
own destiny after their own fashion. This
is the american exposition of the law OF ma
tons Thomas Jefferson never departed from
it. He regarded the Louisiana territory as
something not worth taking. He declared
that it would not be inhabited for thousand
years. He only wanted New Orleans. Tie
rest of the territory was forced upon him by
Napoleon. There was no people, in the sense
Of the law Of nations, either in New Orleans
of in the Louisiana territory. There was no
people there that could make government
or treaty.
Here is the parting Of the ways followed
by those who would hold the Philippines
and those who would withdraw. Leaving
out OF consideration the material and
selfish arguments, which are not without
weight in the settlement Of the question,
most of those who urge the maintenance
of American sovereignty over the Philip
pines declare that the Filipinos are not
that vital and living being we call peo-
ple." On the other hand those who would
have us dea1 with the Philippines as we
have dealt with Cuba maintain that the
Filipinos are q people. ..
There are some, like President Jacob
Gould Schurman, who hold that the Wis
ayan and Tagalog inhabitants of the
Philippines-the Inhabitants entitled to
the generic term Filipinos-are in
transitional stage-that they are mas
cent nation; that they. are becoming that
vital and living being whom we call
people, President Schurman thinks
that the fires of instruction, revolution
and war in the last six years have weld
ed the diverse tribes Of the Tagalogs and
Visayans into real embryonic nation,
To his mind the proper course for Amerl-
ca is to protect, guide and assist the
development Of the nascent nation.
If the Filipinos are without the seed
Of national life; if, left to themselves
they will ever continue to be warning and
quarreling tribes. living in but not really
occupying the Philippine Islands, then
they are not, by Senator Hoar's own
definition people. :->
And if they are not people, they are
not entitled to the application of the doc
trine that all just governments derive
their consent from the governed. AS
there Is a. pronounced divergence OF
opinion on this question of whether the
inta bitants of the Philippines constitute
people, is it not plainly the part; of wis
dom and duty for the EUnitedSssStates te
continue for the present to administer the
islands, encouraging, meanwhile, the de-
yelcpment OF self government Gand sleav-
ing the future to- determine the ult1mate
status of the Philippines? .,s.sr3v.e%. -.