The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1904-10-29
UNwoRTHY or Dir. Hay.

Americans without distinction Of par
ty affiliations are quite willing and
ready to agree that John Hay is a man
of exceptional ability and diplomat
the equal of any living. Indeed. in
the matter of diplomacy there are few
statesmen who can be compared with
him. He is not only a national but
an international character, by reason
Of his inherent ability, which has been
demonstrated on numerous occasions.
Probably one of the very strongest ar
guments that has been advanced in
behalf of Roosevelt during the current
campaign is that Hay would remain
as Secretary of State.
Being a statesman of so much re-
nown and occupying so high a plane,
it is keenly disappointing to find Sec
rotary Hay descending to the level of
the cheap spellbinder in his campaign
speeches. and making arguments from
premises that are incorrect in fact. In
his Carnegie Hall speech, in New York
the other night, Secretary Hay as
sumed that the election of Mckinley
was a vindication of the high protec-
ton policy of the Republican party.
Had an ignorant man made that as
sertion it might have been passed
over; but Secretary Hay is not an ig-
norant man. So far from it, he is one
Of the best informed men in the coun
try. Being such, he is bound to know
that Mr.. Mckinley was elected on the
money issue. and that the tariff cut
relatively small figure in the cam
paign. There were tens of thousands
of conservative voters, disagreeing
with McIIinleys tariff policy, who
voted for him because they believed
the paramount issue to be the stability
of the country's money, and Mckinley
stood for the gold standard. Had that
issue been removed from the canvass
had both candidates stood for gold
there are reasons for thinking that
the outcome of the election would have
been different.
Secretary Hay asserted that for the |
United States to set the Filipinos up in
national housekeeping and get out of |
lI6 lSldIlQS WOulu CONCl llo Will III
delible discredit." Were we covered |
with 'indelible discredit' when we got |
out of Cuba? Secretary Hay will him
self be among the first to claim that |
one of the brightest pages in Ameri- |
can history is that which records our |
treatment of Cuba. Such unselfshness |
as we exhibited i'm that instance was
probably never shown before in the |
history Of nations. But had we not |
the same right to hold Cuba that we |
had to take and hold the Philippines |
and Porto Rico? We took the Asiatic |
and the West India island |
by right of power to do so, and moth |
ing else. Had we not the power to |
keep Cuba also? We announced at the |
beginning of our war with Spain that |
it was not to be war for territory, |
but for the relief of the oppressed and |
to put an end to intolerable conditions |
existing closely adjacent to our own
shores. We lived up to our profess |
sions. in so far as Cuba is concerned, |
and then went into land grabbing on |
a scale that would have done credit to
John Bull Previous to the war our
relations with Cuba, Porto Rico and
the Philippines, colonies of Spain, were !
identical, from the political point of
view. And yet Secretary Hay asserts
that, while we won undying glory by
making one of the colonies free. to
grant freedom to the others would
cover us with .indelible discredit." Is
the conclusion not manifestly incon-
sistent?