New-York tribune., 1904-08-26
STILL NEEDS INTERPRETING.

Ill
tain eyten+ on the Philippine issue. Nhat lne
Hon Erving Winslow failed to do, the non
Jobp q AIilhurn has accomplished In let-
fer TO Judge Parker, dated August ~ MI Niii-
burn nut again the question WHICH dsheu ~
Mr. Winslow. the Democratic candldate ii"u an
s,yered so briefly and evasively Inc queS'ioh
read:
1 have noticed in some quarters ,tsed
TO criticse the words self government 81
h,- Won in connection with the future OF CIe
Philippine Islands meaning Soiie'n!iis , s., ~
than Independence: and nei'tSe tbot "seife0vern-
am not right in assuming thsI sen .itt
ment" as YOU used the phrase. is ioenticdI WIN
Independence. political and territorial
Judre Parker'S answer, dated August q tol
lows:
You are entirely right in assuming that as l
employed the phrase self goVeThInen51 rc no
litical and territorial. After noting the cru
cism referred to by You; am stll uIanoe ,oooi i
understand how IL can be said that a people
eniov sAlf-sovernment while another naIo'1
NAV in any degree whatever control lAeF q,
ton But take away all possible oppoI,S M ~
for conjecture. ii shall be made cisaF III ule -
ter of acceptance that I am in hearty accoIu @
with that plank In the Dernocratc piei1- ~,
which advocates treating the F1hplhoS pre'iiS,els
os We did the Cubans; and also favor making
the promise TO them now TO take such acloH a9
soon it can prudently be done
sThe World and "The Evening Post both
chagrined at the dubiousness of Judge Farke'
first declaration Of policy, pronounce lhlS Ioot-
note exclamation clear" and admirable 1t
is clear" and admirable" certainly, TO the e1-
tent that il disposes of the contention of TWO OF
Judge Parker's closest and most energetic sup
porters-'The New-York Times and The
Rrooklvn EaEle"-that Democratic success TINS
year will involve no interruption or modlnca-
tion of our present Philippine policy II endS
the spirited campaign which The Eagle mas
been making on the ground that, with Judge
Parker as President. the stability OF our COLO
NAL policy will remain assured. The Demo
cratic nominee has interpreted himself sum
ciently to kill the suggested programme OF run
ming him both as An ''imperialist and an anti
imperalst.
There are. however, still some points in the
Judges Philippine programme which need clear
ing ND. Neither in the Esopus speech nor In
the Niilburn letter does the candidate show Il
marked capacity for precise and definite state
ment. In his speech be said that our responsi-
hility in the Philippines would he best suo-
served by preparing the islanders rs rapidly
"aS possible for self-g0vernment The Philip
pines are an American dependency. Our SOY
ereigntv over the islands is complete and un-
disputed. Under our sovereignty the only self
government which the Philippines could posi-
bly, enjoy would he self government such MS
Porto Rico enjoys as a dependency. Alaska or
Hawaii enjoys is a Territory or NewYOrk and
New-Jersey enjoy as States In his speech
Judge Parker said nothing about a recession Of
sovereignty. He was talking Of the Philippines
as they are to-day-"territory appurtenant 10
the United States" Yet in the Milburn letter
he assures us that when he used the term self
government he had in mind status wholly
impossible under existing conditions he
thinking of independence, political and
territorial" He processes, further 10 he ''un-
n y 11nd nd HOY caD ba hat
people enjoy self-government while another
nation may in any degree whatever control
their action"
No sentence could better illustrate than this the
general muddiness Of Judge Parker's thought.
The Filipinos are not people" in the political
sense. Another nation" does not and cannot
control their action. The analogy he suggests
IS absolutely haseless and misleading. Being
neither people" nor nation politically,
legally or constitutionaIy II can be no infringe
ment whatever on the enjoyment of such self
government as that to which the Filipinos may
attain TO have the eXtent and character Of that
sef-government determined by the United
States
Judge Parker says no people can have "self-
government without complete political and
territorial independence" He proposes TO give
that sort OF "self-goYernment' TO the Filipinos;
but in the next breath he declares that we
should treat the Eilipinos We treated the
Cubans. But did we give the Cuhans that sort
OF independence: Is ii true that we do not "in
any degree whatever control Cuba's action?
Has Judge Parker forgotten the Plat amend
ment which Cuba incorporated into her consti
tuition before the American occupation ended?
That amendment abridges Cuban sovereignty in
many important particulars. Yet the Cubans
have, or think they have, "self government"
what does Judge Parker really think or mean?
Does he want "to set the Filipino people upon
their feet free and independent to work ont
their own destiny asEthe Democratic plat
FORM says. or does he want TO give them
limited independence. with guarantees for good
behavior. after the Cuban fashion? II &c no
excuse for Judge Parker that the platform also
wants TO do this. He has not hesitated before
to correct errors and supply deficiencies in tho
platform. The Milburn letter contradicts IT.
sen now long shall We have TO wait before n
new bulletin Of explanation is issued2