Chariton courier., 1908-06-05
FROM THE
MR.. TAFT AS A CRITIC.
MIR. BRYAN'S PAPER

When Secretary Taft spoke at Oma-
ha recently he took occasion to crltl-
else Mr.. Bryan. His first criticism
was directed to Mr.. Bryan's conduct
in advocating the ratification of the
treaty. According to Secretary Ia1t'
Mr.. Bryan can not consistently critl-
else the imperialistic policy OF the
government because he favored the
ratification of the treaty. Secretary
Taft is either misinformed as to what
Mr.. Bryan did, or he is lacking IN the
candor that ought to characterize puD'
lie men in speaking of an opponent.
The question before the country was
not whether the treaty was as good
treaty as might have been made, or
whether it contained provisions that II
ought not to have contained. The
treaty was made by the presidents
representatives, and when presented
to congress, contained provision Tor
the ceding of the Philippine Islands
to the United States. The Republicans
had a majority in both senate and
house, and the president was a Re
publican, but as the treaty requires
two-thirds majority, some of the op-
ponents of Imperialism thought it pos
sible to secure the rejection of the
treaty. The rejection of the treaty,
however, would simply continue the
state of war and furnish an excuse for
q continuance of war taxes and war
expenses. If the Democrats had sue
ceeded in preventing the ratification OF
the treaty, they were not in position
to give instructions as to a new treaty.
If they had prevented the ratification
they would have taken upon them
selves the responsibility for anything
that happened while the state Of war
continued. If, for instance, they had
refused to ratify the treaty, and in
sisted that Spain should give indepen-
dence to the Filipinos, there was
danger of objection being made by
the European nations which have col
onies in the orient, and none Of the
monarchies of Europe are anxious to
have a republic established in Asia.
With minority in both houses, the
Democrats could not possibly shape
the policy of the government, but they
could bring upon themselves just
| criticism if they involved the country
| in further war. This was the situation
i that the Democrats had to meet and
Mr.. Bryan proposed plan for meeting
It, and he has never for moment re-
| gretted the part he took in that crisis
He proposed the ratification of the
| treaty and a declaration of our nation s
| purpose to recognize the independence
of the Philippine islands just as the
| treaty provided for the recognition OF
| the independence of Cuba. The treaty
| settled the question as far as Spain
| was concerned and left the future oi
| the Eilipinos entirely to us It was
| easier for us TO act alone than to act
through a treaty, and by acting alone
| we relieved ourselves of the dangers
| that attend the negotiation of treaty
| The plan which Mr. Bryan proposed
came so near realization that it re
! Quired the vote of the Vice-president
to defeat it, for the treaty was rati
! fed by very slender margin, and the
vote on the Bacon resolution promising
| independence was so close that thE
| presiding officer, the vice-president
turned the scales and decided The
question in the negative. One more
vote and the promise of independencC
would have been given and all subse
quent trouble saved. Now it is hardl!
fair to judge Secretary Taft Of ignoY
ance Of the situation at that time. HI
certainly knew that Mr.. Bryan's pIa1
| included the promise of independents.
as well as the ratification Of the treaty
How can he, then, discuss the matte
without discussing the entire plan
| Why does he speak only Of the ratif
cation Of the treaty and ignore tn,
promise Of independence? Secretar,
Taft is not the only Republican wht
shows this lack of candor. Time an,
again Republicans have made the crit
cism that Secretary Taft makes, an
by doing so have been guilty of tn
same unfairness.
Mr. Bryan has constantly and PEI
| sistcntly opposed imperialism: he ha
= from the very first insisted upon ii
| promise of independence The rat
; hcation Of the treaty was only mean
Of securing independence, aud tn
only means III sight. If we could nc
defeat Imperialism when the Baco
proposition was presented, We cQui
4 not defeat it when our fight was Ell
barrassed by the prolonging of til
war and the incurring of dangers inc
dent thereto
There has never been time sine
the treaty was ratified but we migi
have settled the question by a promis
of independence. but Republican 1ear
ers We're willing to surrender the co
| tliae oe seIf-government in order I
secure trade advantages IN the ofien
and not being able to defend the
policy, they have tried to lay the rat
n Hcatiou Of the treaty upon 1Ir. Brya
60. - l. :.