The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-07-24
THE ELKINs MOVEMENT

4 Senator Elkins declares that ne mas
been misunderstood and "misrepre-
sent ed'' as to his formal proposition for
the annexation of Cuba, presented IN nls
bill on file in the senate. He could hardly
he misunderstood, for the proposition was
made in perspicuous English, tempered,
indeed, by an expression of Difference to
the voluntary action of the Cubans them
selves.
A Havana dispatch notes the discussion
Of the proposition in Cuba, suggesting
that there is more or less indignation
over the assumpti ion by Elkins and those
who think with him, that it is an intellec-
tual and physical impossibility for the
Cubans to govern themselves successfully.
Certainly. 1t seems absurd for Elkins and
the annexationists to invite a people In
capable of self government to become an
integral part of this nation, possessed
of all the rights and privileges of a sover-
eign state. II they cannot govern them
selves as a republic, they certainly are
not fitted to take the responsibilities OF
statehood. Behold the inconsistency Of
the annexationists! =
But the interesting thing about 1t is
that the planting element in Cuba are the
leaders of the annexation project on the
island The rank and file, the Constituent
cies of Cuban senators and congressman,
are apparently to a large extent deter
mined to maintain the republic which has
been established after so much storm
and stress, and demonstrate to the skep-
tical that there is abundant capacity in
Cuba to carry out the dream of many
years. They think that there is a con-
spiracy to create a disturbance over an
nexation and give the United States a
pretext for Intervention. They will, con-
y tinue to believe this and it is very GER
!. tain that the movement of the planters
who wish to have our market open to
I them, will meet with increasing antagon-
ssism outside the planting and commercial
g Interests, the latter being inclined to the
planters view Of business revival If an
nexation comes. Senator Elkins, who OPP
posed the Cuban reciprocity bill as iercely
s. as did the beet sugar interest and the
other interests which feared the displace-
ment of a single stone in the high tariff
wall, argued very. effectively in his
speech on the subject of annexation, that
4 the process, instead of injuring any In
dustry in the United States, would really
be of the highest value to them; In fact,
he reiterated what Henry Oxnard said in
Il 1893-e4 and disowned in 1902, that the beet
Z sugar interest would flourish to-day wit h.
/. out farthing Of protection. =
If you ask Elkins, to-day, about annexa-
y ton, he will straightaway reply: I'm
ii EVITABLE AS THAT OF TEXAS WAS"
i The St. Louis Globe-Democrat names 1903
gor 1904 as the year of annexat ion and the
i Globe Democrat has been, all through the
I Cuban bill controversy, a savage cham
& pion of the beet sugar interest which it
seems to regard as more sacred than the
constitution Of the United States or the
], Declaration of independence. 1t is emil
& nently advisable, however, notwithstand-
s ing all the cocksureness of the annexa-
tionists, to let>the question be determined
ST by the Cubans themselves, since we have
gone to the trouble to set them UP as a
y republic under certain limitations. Pal
s. ma, after being elected president of the
81 Cuban republic, would not relish being
z governor of the state of Cuba, under the
q: federal pact. Let Cuba have. her chance
as an Independent republic, and let shef
take the initiative toward annexation, fl
q she gets tired of her present effort.