The Washington times., 1902-05-27
SenatorPattersonDefends
His Paris Treaty
Editorials.
TILT WITH MR. FORAKER
Colorado Statesman Declares He Has
Changed His Position and Is Not Now
an Advocate of the Policy of Reten-
tiol-Places Blame fo- Trouble.

Senator Patterson made the Philip
pine speech in the Senate yesterday. 1t
lis position, and that of a Western
paper for which he was writing editor
ais at the time of the ratification of the
Paris treaty with Spain.
IFS explanation caused several rather.
lively tits with Mr.. Foraker. who re-
Gently read number OF Mr.. Patterson
editorials in the Senate.
lie teoan his argument with state
ment Of the change of popular sentiment
in relation to the acquisition and reten-
tion of the Philippine islands. which
had taken place in the latter part Of
1898.
Shared in Change.
Ills paper and he himself had shared
n that change; and since then neither
himself nor the paper had advocated the
policy of retention. He said that he
would show to the Senate that the SEN
ator from Ohio, In reading the editorials
some time ago. had not been frank and
candid.
Mr.. Foraker resented the imputation
CT want OF frankness'
Mr.. Patterson insisted that the Sena-
tor from Ohio had omitted editorials
and portions Of editorials which would
have put the question in its true light.
He said that it had given him pain at
the time
Mr.. Foraker disclaimed any purpose
CT inflictins pain on the Senator from
Colorado I-e had been merely UNDER
taking TO defend the action of the
Administration by showing that that ac-
tior. whether wise or unwise. was up
held at the time by the sentiment OF
as Republicans.
Mr.. Patterson turned to the question
of responsibility for the outbreak CT
hostilities on February 4. 1899. He said:
Attack on Filipinos.
II can demonstrate that the attack
on the Filipinos was deliberate; that the
attack was for purpose. and that the
.eirpose was to secure the ratification
Of the treaty which without it would
not in all human probability have been
ratified"
In the further course of his argument
Mr.. Patterson quoted from speech Of
Mr.. Foraker made in January. 1899
to the effect that he had no sympathy
with those who talked of making war
n Aguinaldo and his followers in their
struggle for liberty and independence"
Mr. Foraker explained that the war
he referred TO then was not a war be-
tween the United States and the Philip
pines. but the war between Spain and
he Filipinos.
Mr.. Patterson argued that that could
lot be the case. as Manila had been oc-
'upied and the Spanish soldiers had
,een sent 10 their homes.
Senator Hoar Inquiries.
Mr. Hoar inquired about the sentence
n Mr.. McKinlev's proclamation. which
,ad been suppressed by General Otis,
because he said that it would bring or
var. He professed great admiration for
he intellectual superiority of his Re-
friends who differed with him:
nd said that be would rather lay his
light hand down on the block and have
cut off by an executioner than have
o say what he had said.
But he was SO made by the power
rhich created his soul and intellect that
'e could not see these things in any
ther way. Applause in the galleries.l
The discussion drifted into the Ques-
on of misrepresentation OF the army.
IT. McComas (Rep. Md asserted that
Senators had been guilty OF
ssailing the army. and Mr.. Carmack
enied il.
The question Of personal veracity was
anded between the two Senators, each
ccusing the other of stating what
;as not true. In that connection the
cticn of General ChaTee en- the recent
Durt- martial in Manila was declared
v Mr. Dubois Dem, Idahol as being a
lore severe reflection upon the army
IAN any Democratic Senator had iu-
uiged in.
After Mr.. Patterson had spoken for
Continued on Third Page)