The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-05-13
OUR PHILIPPINE POLICY.


sition is stated in the following two
paragraphs:
Tho possession OF the Philippine Islands
by the United States left the government
OF this country free TO undertake to form
IL policy with respect to the organization
and control OF the Islands The first
opinion relating TO such a policy con
ceTned the profit TO be derived by the
United States. More mature considera-
tions emphasized the advantage which the
islands might derive from the connec-
ton. After much talk and more hesta-
tlon. the government OF the dominant
country finally assumed toward the Fill
pfnos the attitude which an enlightened
toward the people over whom II exercises
It's authority, an attitude involving
duty to take such action as will promote
their well-being and progress in civiliza-
The policy adopted had certain features
That indicated n departure from the ira
ditional colonial policy Of Western nations.
Among other provisions. II was required
that the financial affairs should be man
aged for the advantage OF the Inhabitants
OF the Islands, and not for the purpose
or creating n revenue for the United
States; that the Inhabitants should be
brought as early as possible Into a state
where they could participate In the
thought and other civilizng influences of
tho Western world; and that they should
be gradually made familiar with the ideas
and procedure or government as II exists
IN Civilized nations. tnlS 10 De accom-
plished not wholly by preccpt. but by ac-
tual participation In the business OF gov
erning.
There is no doubt but that the policy
Of the United States toward the Phil
ippines was designed to be benevolent
and altruistic, Without doubt, the
intent was to stimulate the progress and
education of the Filipinos, and to pre-.
serve for them their country intact,
and to confer upon them all the ben
efits of civilization and to allow of
Philippine development under Filipino
auspices and control.
This is fully recognized by Mr..
Moses. We are, therefore, surprised
at his statement that the first opinion
relating to our policy in the Philippines
concerned the profit to be derived by
the United States 1t is quite true
that. commercially, there were hopes
of large trade conquests and immense
benefits, both to the Filipinos and to
the industrial and trade interests Of
the United States that would result
from the acquisition of the Philippines
and the building up of our trade with
the islands and with China. But it is
entirely incorrect to say that the
United States officially, or as a gov
ernment, had any designs upon the
Philippines in the way Of revenue or
financial advantage. Quite the con-
trary is and always has been the case;
for it was recognized even at the be-
ginning, that the Philippines would be
a source Of cost all the time to the pub
lie treasury, and never profit to it,
Our great and fundamental mistake
with the Philippines, as we consider,
was in the passage of the Hoar amend
ment which forbade the full employ
ment Of United States enterprise and
capital in the islands. If Americans
had been allowed to go free and un-
trammeled into the Philippines with
their capital, their energy, and their
commercial and industrial strength,
there never would have been any Phil
ippine question any more than there
has been a Porto Rican question. There
has never been Porto Rican question
because Americans were never ham
pered in going into Porto Rico, acquir-
ing land, establishing industries, and
building up trade relations. The con-
trast between the beneficial operation
of unrestricted investment and exploi.
tation in Porto Rico, as compared with
the evil effects OF the denial of these
avenues to Americans in the Philip
pines, is manifest. The argument for
the Hoar proposition was that we ought
to leave the Philippines for the Fill
pinos. A similar argument would have
required that we should leave Porto
Rico to the Porto Ricans; but IN the
latter case we did nothing of the kind,
and the Porto Ricans are enormously
benefited because we did not. The
Porto Ricans have more benefit from
Porto Rico than they could possibly
have had if American money and en-
terprise had been shut out
The contrast between the Philippines
and Porto Rico marks the contrast be-
tween the opposite policies that we
have pursued in the two dependencies
respectively. In Porto Rico, Americans
had every opportunity for investment
and development. The result is rich,
contented aud prosperous people IN
Porto Rico. In the Philippines we de.
MED American capital. American en-
ergy, and American industry, its OPP
portunity to enter and redeem the
archipelago. The result is. Americans
have been kept out from all large de-
velopment and constant discomfort, a
Philippine problem. Tariff walls were
maintained against the Philippines for
many years, and the country was
treated as alien and made to feel that
Americans had no real interest IN the
country or the people, whereas free
trade has existed with Porto Rico from
It's acquisition with the happiest re-
suits.