The Forrest City times. [volume], October 27, 1899, Image 1

About The Forrest City times. [volume] (Forrest City, Ark.) 1871-1919

Image provided by: Arkansas State Archives

                
ESTABLISHED 1871.
rear God, Tell the Truth and Make Money.
By LANDVOIGT & VADAKIN.
FORREST CITY, ARK., FRIDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 27, 1899.
NO. 5.
VOL. XXIX.
IMPERIALISM A CRIME
McKinley’s Philippine Policy De
nounced by Carl Schurz.
|*re roicn live* of ('nnsrpaa I »ur|)nl l>>
Ihr President—'Trraliurnl of I-' 111 —
plnoa n lllot I pon Arnrr
I«■ hit Honor.
The great anti-imperialist conference
in Chicago, Tuesday, October 17, was
opened by leading democrats and anti
imperialists from all over the union.
In the evening, at Central Music hall, a
large gathering listened to a lengthy
address by Carl Schurz, of which the
following is a liberal digest:
"More than eight months ago I had the
ho'or of addressing the citizens of Chi
cago on the subject of American Imperial
ism, meaning the policy of annexing to
this r> public distant countries and alien
populations that will not fit into our demo
cratic system of government. I discussed
at that time mainly the baneful • IT* ct the
pursuit of an imperialistic policy would
produce upon our political institutions.
After long silence, during which I have
car fully reviewed my own opinions as
well as those of others In the light of the
best information I could obtain. 1 shall
now approach the same subject from an
otht r point of view. We all know that the
popular mind is much disturbed by the
Philippine war and that, however highly
we admire the bravery of our soldiers, no
body professes to be proud of the war itself
There are fi w Americans who do not
frankly admit their regret that this war
should ever have happened. 1 think 1 risk
nothing when I say that it is not merely
the bungling conduct of military opera
tions. but a serious trouble of consciences
that disturbs the American heart about
this war, and that this trouble of con
science will rot be allayed by a more suc
cessful military campaign, just as 30 years
ago the trouble of conscience about slav
ery could not be allayed by any com
promise.
"Many people now. as the slavery com
promisers did then, try to ease their minds
by saying: 'Well, we are in it. and now
w e must do the best we can.' In spite of
the obvious futility of this cry in some
respects, I will accept it with the one pro
viso, that we make an honest elTort to
ascertain what really is the best we can
do To this end let us first ch arly remem
ber what has happened.
In April, lV.ix, we went to war with spam
for the avowed purpose of liberating the
people of Culm, who had long been strug
gling for freedom and Independence. Our
object In that war was clearly and em
phatically proclaimed by a solemn reso
lution of congress repudiating all Inten
tion of annexation on our part, and declar
ing that the Cuban people 'are. and of
right ought to be, free and independent ’
This solemn declaration was made to do
justice to the spirit of the American peo
ple, who wire indeed willing to wage a
war of liberation, but would not have con
sented to a war of conquest. It was also
to propitiate the opinion of mankind for
our iu tlon. President McKinley also de
clared with equal solemnity that annexa
tion by force could not be thought of, be
cause, according to our code of morals, it
w ould be ‘criminal aggression.'
Purely n Wttr of I.llterntlon.
"Can It justly be pretended that these
declarations referred only to the ls'and
of Cuba? What would the American peo
ple what would the world have said, if
congress had resolved that the Cuban peo
pb were rightfully entitled to freedom
and independence, but that as to the people
of ot: r Spanish colonies we recognized no
such right, and if President McKinley had
declared that the forcible annexation of
Cuba would be criminal, but that the
for able annexation of other Spanish col
or! - would be a righteous act? A general
outburst of protest from our own people,
and of derision and contempt from the
v ill world, would have been tin answer
N" thin can he no cavil—that war was
pro timed to all mankind to be a war of
111" ration, and nol of conquest, and even
r w our very imperialists are still boast
ing that the war was prompted by the most
inn- f’-h and generous purposes, and that
the insult us who do not believe it.
In the course of that war Commodore
T> w \, by a brilliant feat of arms, de
' 1 lht- Spanish fleet in the harbor
of Manila. This did not change the her
haracter of the war—certainly not
in !>• n. y’s own opinion. The Filipinos,
e n- hating the strongest and f.in most
'rib <>f the population of the archipelago,
h id long been fighting for freedom and
Independence, just as the Cifbans had.
The gn at mass of the other islanders
sympathized with them. They fought fur
the same cause as the Cubans, and they
f‘eight against the same enemy—the same
enemy igainst whom we were waging our
war of humanity and liberation. They had
mu ime in ireeaom ana inaepenamce
'vhloh we recognized 'of right' In the Cu
te: :.s-»-nay. mor •; for, as Admiral Dewey
telegraphed to our government, 'they are
f tr -uperior In thtlr Intelligence, and more
1 tp.ible of self-government than the na
ti\'s of Cuba.' The admiral adds: ‘I am
familiar with both races, and further In
tercourse with them has continued me In
this opinion.'
"Indeed, the mendacious stories spread
by our Imperialists, which represent those
P*o; as barbarians, their doings as lucre
‘savagery,’ and their chiefs as no better
than 'cut-throats,' have been refuted by
su. h a mass of authoritative testimony,
coming in part from men who are them
s-lv. s imperialists, that their authors
should hide their heads in shame; for sure
ly. ' is not the part of really brave mi n to
c animate their victims before sacrificing
thorn.
Itfciign izeil ns Allies.
"Now, whether there was or not any for
tt: "inpact of alliance signed and sealed,
. lid man who has studied the official
U" " < nts will deny that in point of fact
’• i : ipinos, having been desired and in
to j to do so, were, before the capture of
Ma *.iia, acting, and w ere practically rt c
tgniZ'd. as our allies, and that us such
II. N lid effective service, which we ac
ta 1 1 and protlted by. This is an indis
I’u: o fact, proved by the record. It is
an equally indisputable fact that dur
■ :g that period the Kiliplno government
constantly and publicly, so that no
body could plead ignorance of it
or misunderstand it, informed the
world that their object was the achieve
ment of national independence, and that
tb-y believed the Americans had come in
good faith to help them accomplish that
end. as in the case of Cuba. It was weeks
after various proclamations and other pub
lic utterances of Aguinaldo to that effect
that the correspondence between him and
tier.. Anderson, which I have quoted, took
P*ar'e. and that the useful services of the
Filipinos as our allies were accepted. It
i ' *u,rtber, an indisputable fact that dur
ing th.s period our government did not in
form :he Filipinos that their fond ex
pect at.ons as to our recognition of thtlr
mdtpe fence were mistaken. Our secre
tary of state did. Indeed, cn June 16 write
to Mr. Pratt, our consul general at Singa
pore, that our government knew the Phil
ippine insurgents not indeed as patriots
struggling for liberty and who, like the
Cubans, 'are, and of right ought to be, In
dependent.' but merely as discontented
and rebellious subjects of Spain,' who. If
we occupied their country in consequence
of the war, would have to yield us due
'obedience.' And other officers of our gov
ernment were instructed not to make any
promises to the KJlipInos as to the future,
llut the Filipinos themselves were not so
Informed They were left to believe that,
while lighting in cooperation with the
American forces, they were fighting for
their own independence. They could not
imagine that the government of the great
American republic, while boasting of hav
ing gone to war w ith Spain under the ban
ner of liberation and humanity in behalf
of Cuba, was capable of secretly plotting
to turn that war lr.to one for the conquest
and subjugation of the Philippines.
Natives Ordered to Fall Hark
"But just that was to happen. As soon
as Manila was taken and we had no fur
ther use for our Filipino allies they wa re
ordered to fall back and back from the
city and suburbs Our military command
ers treated the Filipinos' country as If It
were our own. When Aguinaldo sent one
of his aide-de-camps to Gen. Merritt with
a request for an Interview Gen. Merritt
was 'too busy.’ When our peace negotia
tions with Spain began and representatives
of the Filipinos asked for audience to so
licit consideration of the rights and wishes
of their people the doors were slammed
in their faces, in Washington as well as
in Paris. And behind those doors the
scheme was hatched to deprive the Phil
ippine Islanders of the independence from
foreign rule and to make them the subjects
of another foreign ruler, and that foreign
ruler their late ally, this great republic,
which had grandly proclaimed to the world
that Its war against Spain was not a war
of conquest, but a war of liberation and
humanity.
"Behind those doors, which were tightly
closed to the people of the Philippines, a
treaty was made with Spain by the direc
tion of President McKinley, which pro
vided for the cession of the Philippine is
lands by Spain to the United States for
the consideration of JHO.OOO.OOO. It has been
said that this sum was not purchase
money, but a compensation for improve
ments made by Spain, or a 'solatium' to
sweeten the pill of cession, or what not.
Put stripped of all cloudy verbiage, it was
really purchase money, the sale being made
by Spain under duress. Thus Spain sold
and the United States bought what was
called the sovereignly of Spain over the
Philippine islands and their people.
.'ow, iouk at tne circumstances under
wnleh that ‘cession’ was made. Spain had
lost the possession of the country, except
a few Isolated and helpless little garrisons,
most of which were effectively blockaded
by the Filipinos. The American forces oc
cupied Cavite and the harbor and city of
Manila and nothing more. The bulk of the
country was occupied and possessed by the
people thereof, over whom Spain had, in
point of fact, ceased to exercise any sov
ereignty, the Spanish power having been
driven out or destroyed by the Filipino In
surrection, while the United States had not
acquired, beyond Cavite and Manila, any
authority of whatever name by military
occupation nor by recognition on the part
of the people. Aguinaldo’s army surround
ed Manila on the land side, and his govern
ment claimed organized control over 15
provinces That government was estab
lished at Malolos, not far from Manila, and
a very respectable government it was. Ac- i
cording to Mr. Barrett, our late minister in
Siam, himself an ardent imperialist, who
bad seen it. it had a well-organized execu
tive. divided into several departments, ably
conducted, and a popular assembly, a con
gress. which would favorably compare with
the parliament of Japan—an infinitely bet
ter government than the insurrectionary
government of Cuba ever was.
McKinley ■> IHrlntor,
"This is a grim story. Two years ago the
prediction of such a possibility would have
been regarded as a hideous nightmare—as
the offspring of a diseased imagination.
But to-day it is a true tale—a plain recital
of facts taken from the official records.
These things have actually been done in
these last two years by and under the ad
ministration of William McKinley. This
is our Philippine war as it stands. It is pre
tended that we had n right to the possession
of the Philippines and that self-respect de
manded us to enforce that right. What
kind of right was it? The right of con
quest? Had we really acquired that coun
try by armed conquest, which, as Presi
de nt McKinley has told us, is, according to
the American code of morals, ‘criminal?’
But if we had thrown aside our code of
morals we had then not conquered more
than the bay and city of Manila. The rest
of the country was controlled, if by any
body, by the Filipinos. Or was it the right
of possession by treaty? I have already
shown that the president ordered the en
forcement of our sovereignty over the
archipelago long before the treaty had by
ratification gained legal effect, and also
that, in making that treaty, we had bought
something called sovereignty which Spain
had ceased to possess and could therefore
wvi nrw anu ucuvcr.
"It is also pretended that, whatever our
rights, the Filipinos were the original ag
gressors In the pending light and that our
troops found themselves compelled to de
fend their flag against assault. What are
the facts? One evening early In February
last some Filipino soldiers entered the
American lines without, however, attack
ing anybody. An American s> ntry tired,
killing one of the Filipinos. Then a desul
tory bring began at the outposts. It spread
until it assumed the proportions of an ex
tensive engagement, in which a large num
ber of Filipinos were killed. It is a well
established fact that this engagement
could not have been a premeditated affair
on the part of the Filipinos, as many of
their officers, including Aguina'.do's pri
vate secretary, were at the time in the the
aters and cafes of Manila. It Is further
well known that the next day Agutnaldo
sent an oflteer, Gen. Torres, under a tlag
of truce to Gen. Otis to declare that the
lighting had not been authorized by Agui
nuldo, hut had begun accidentally; that
Aguinaldo wished to have it stopped, and
proposed, to that end, the establishment
of a neutral zone between the two armies,
sueh as might he agreeable to Gen. Otis;
whereupon Gen. Otis curtly answered that
the fighting, having once begun, must go
on to the grim end. Who was it that really
wanted the fight?
"But far more important than all this Is
the fact that President McKinley's 'benev
olent assimilation’ order, which even be
fore the ratification of the treaty demand
ed that the Philippine islanders should un
conditionally surrender to American sov
ereignty, in default whereof our military
forces would compel them, was really the
president’s declaration of war against the
Filipinos insisting upon independence, how
ever you may quibble about it. When an
armed man enters my house under some
questionable pretext and tells me that I
must yield to him unconditional control
of the premises or he will knock me down
who is the aggressor no matter who
strikts the fir?t blow? No case of aggres
sion can be clearer, shuttle and prevaricate
as you will.
Shot Dunn "Without rurlrr."
“Let us recapitulate. We go to war with
Spain In behalf of an oppressed colony of
hers. We solemnly proclaim this to be a
war—not of conquest—Ood forbid!—but of
liberation and humanity. We Invade the
Spanish colony of the Philippines, destroy
the Spanish fleet and Invite the cooperation
of the Filipino Insurgents against Spain.
We accept their effective aid as allies, all
the while permitting them to believe that
In case of victory they will be free and in
dependent. By active lighting they gel con
trol of a large part of the interior country,
from which Spain is virtually ousted.
When we have captured Manila and have
no further use for our Filipino allies our
president directs that, behind their backs,
a treaty be made with Spain transfer
ring their country to us, and even before
that treaty is ratifled he tells them that, in
place of the Spaniards, they must accept us
as their masters, and that If they do not
they will be compelled by force of arms.
They refuse and we shoot them down, and,
as President Mc{vlnley said at Pittsburgh,
we shall continue to shoot them down
'without useless parley.'
"1 have recited these things In studiously
sober and dry matter-of-fact language,
without oratorical ornament or appeal. I
ask you now what epithet can you find
justly to characterize such a course? Hap
pily. you need not search for one, for Pres
ident McKinley himself has furnished the
best, when, In a virtuous moment, he said
that annexation by force should not be
thought of, for, according to the American
code of morals, It would be 'criminal ag
gression.’ Yes, 'criminal' is the word.
Have you ever heard of any aggression
more clearly criminal than this? And in
this case there is an element of peculiarly
repulsive meanness and treachery. I pity
the American who can behold this spec
tacle without the profoundest shame, con
trition and resentment. Is it a wonder, I
repeat, that the American people, in whose
name this has been done, should be troubled
in their conscience?
“To justify, or rather to excuse, such
things nothing but a plea of the extremest
necessity will avail. Did such a necessity
exist? In a sort of helpless way the de
fenders of this policy ask: ‘What else could
the president have done under the circum
stances?' This question Is simply childish.
If he thought he could not order Commo
dore Dewey away from Manila after the
execution of the order to destroy the Span
ish fleet he could have told the people of the
Philippine Islands that this was, on our
part, a war, not of conquest, but of libera
tion and hur:anlty; that we sympathized
w ith their deedrv- for freedom and Independ
ence and tha* >»"' would treat them as we
had specifically promised to treat the Cu
ban people In furthering the establishment
of an lndependtmt government. And this
task would have been much easier than In
the case of Cuba, since, according to Ad
miral Dewey’s repeatedly emphatic testi
mony. the Filipinos were much better fit
ted for such a government. Our Ingenious
postmaster general has told us that the
president could not have done that, because
he had no warrant for It, since he did not
know whether the American people would
wish to keep the Philippine Islands. But
what warrant, then, had the president for
putting, by his 'benevolent assimilation or
der,’ before the Filipinos the alternative
of submission to our sovereignty or war?
< liHllenj{c» I'rool ul savagery.
“T am far from meaning to picture the
Philippine Islanders as paragons of virtue
and gentle conduvt. But I challenge the
Imperialists to show me any Instances of
bloody disturbanfte or other savagery
among themselves sufficient to create any
necessity of our armed interference to 're
store order' or to 'save them from anachy.’
I ask and demand an answer. Is it not true
that, even if there has been such a disorder
ly tendency. It would have required a long
time for it to kill one-tenth as many human
beings as we have killed and to cause one
tenth as much devastation as We have
caused by our assaults upon them? Is it
not true that, instead of being obliged to
‘restore order,' we have carried riot and
death and desolation into peaceful com
munities whose only offense was not that
they did not maintain order and safety
within themselves, but that they refused to
accept us as their rulers? And here is the
rub.
"In the vocabulary of our imperialists
'order' means, above all, submission to
their will. Any other kind of order, be it
ever so peaceful and safe, must be sup
pressed with a bloody hand. This 'order'
is the kind that has been demanded by the
despot since the world had a history. Its
language has already becowte dangerously
familiar to us—a famUlarKy which cannot
cease too soon.
"From all these points of view, therefore,
the Philippine war wat unnecessary as it
is unjust. A wanton, wicked ar.d abomi
nable war—so it is cal'.c-d by untold thou
sands of American citizens, and so it Is at
heart felt to be. I have no doubt, by an im
mense majority of the American people.
Aye. as such it is cursed by many of our
very soldiers whom our government orders
to shoot down innocent people. Ami who
will deny that this war would certainly
have been avoided had the president re
mained true to the national pledge that the
war against Spain should be a war of lib
eration and humanity, and not of conquest?
And what have we now? After eight
months' slaughter and devastation, squan
dered treasure and shame, an Indefinite
prospect of more and more slaughter,
devastation, squandered treasure and
shame.
In wunion Killing Humane?
“What Is the ultimate purpose of this
policy? To be perfectly fair, 1 will assume
that the true spirit of American imperial
ism is represented not by the extremists
who want to subjugate the Philippine is
landers at any cost ar.d then exploit the
Islands to the best advantage of the con
queror, but by the more humane persons
who say that we must establish our sov
ereignty over them to make them happy,
to prepare them for self-government, and
i veil recognize their right to complete in
dependence as soon as they show them
selves fit for it. Let me ask these well
meaning citizens a simple question. If you
think that the American people may ulti
mately consent to the independence of
those islanders, as a matter of right and
good policy, why do you insist upon killing
them now? You answer: ‘Because they
refuse to recognize our sovereignty.’ Why
do they so refuse? Because they think
themselves entitled to independence and
are willing to fight and die for it. But If
you Insist upon continuing to shoot them
down for this reason does not that moan
that you want to kill them for demanding
the identical thing which you yourself
think that you may ultimately find it just
and proper to grant them? Would not
every drop of blood shed in such a guilty
sport cry to Heaven? To kill men in a just
war and in obedience to imperative neces
sity is one thing. To kill men for demand
ing what you yourself may ultimately have
to approve is another. How can such kill
ing adopted as a policy be countenanced by
a man of conscience and humane feelings?
And yet such killing, without useless par
ley. is the policy proposed to us.
“We are told that we must trust Presi
dent McKinley and his advisers to bring
us out 'all right.' I should be glad to be
able to do so, but I cannot forget that they
have got us in all wrong. And here we have
to consider a point of immense Importance,
which I solemn’y urge upon the nttentlor
of the American people. It Is one of tht
fundamental principles of our system ol
democratic government that only the con
gress has the power to declare war. What
doe* this signify? That a declaration of
war. the initiation of an armed conflict
between this nation and some other power
—the most solemn and responsible act a na
tion can perform. Involving as It does tha
lives and fortunes of an uncounted number
of human beings—shall not be at the dis
cretion of the executive branch of the gov
ernment, but shall depend upon the author
ity of the legislative representatives of the
people—In other words, that, as much as
the machinery of government may make
such a thing possible, the deliberate will
of the people constitutionally expressed
shall determine the awful question of peace
or war.
Ilrungl't on by the President.
“Those are, therefore, by no means wrong
who call this the ‘president's war.’ And a
war so brought about and so conducted the
American people are asked lo approve and
encourage simply because 'we are In it'—
that Is, because the president of his own
motion has got us Into it. Have you con
sidered what this means? Every man of
public experience knows how powerful and
seductive precedent is as an argument in
the interpretation of law.- and of constitu
tional practices. When a thing, no matter
how questionable, has once been done by
the government and approved, or even ac
quiesced in, by the people, that act will
surely he used as a justification of Its being
done again. In nothing is the authority of
precedent more dangerous than in defend
ing usurpations of governmental power.
“I am not here as a partisan, hut as an
American citizen anxious for the future of
the republic. And I cannot too earnestly
admonish the American people. If they
value the fundamental principles of their
government and their own security and
that of their children, for a moment to
throw aside all partisan bias and soberly to
consider what kind of a precedent they
would set if they consented to, and by con
senting approved, the president's manage
ment of the Philippine business merely 'be
cause we are in it.’ We cannot expect all
our future presidents to be models of public
virtue and wisdom as George Washington
was. Imagine now In the presidential of
fice a man well meaning, but maybe, short
sighted and pliable and under the influence
of so-called 'friends’ who are greedy and
reckless speculators, and who would not
scruple to push him Into warlike complica
tions In order to get great opportunities for
profit, or a man of that inordinate ambi
tion which Intoxicates the mind and be
fogs the conscience; or a man of extreme
partisan spirit, who honestly believes the
victory of his party to be necessary for the
salvation of the universe, and may think
that a foreign broil would serve the chances
of his party; or a man of an uncontrollable
combativeness of temperament which
might run away with his sense of responsi
bility—and that we shall have such men in
the presidential chair Is by no means un
likely with our loose way of selecting can
didates for the presidency. Imagine, then,
a future president belonging to either of
these classes to have before him the prece
dent of Mr. McKinley's management of the
* uuauitan, naiR'iiuiifU uy me ap
proval or only the acquiescence of the peo
ple, and to feel himself permitted—nay,
even encouraged—to say to himself that, as
this precedent shows, he may plunge the
country into warlike conflicts of his own
motion, without asking leave of congress,
with only some legal technicalities to cover
his usurpation, or, even without such, and
that he may, by a machinery of deception
called a war censorship, keep the people in
the dark about what is going on, and that
into however bad a mess he may have
got the country he may count upon the
people, as soon as a drop of blood has been
shed, to uphold the usurpation and to cry
down everybody who opposes it as a ‘trai
tor,' and all this because ‘we are in it!’ Can
you conceive a more baneful precedent, a
more prolific source of danger to the peace
and security of the country ? Can any sane
man deny that it will be all the more
prolific of evil if in this way we drift into a
foreign policy full of temptation for dan
gerous adventure?
I.el Them Walk Alone.
“Those who talk so much about 'fitting
a people for self-government’ often forget
that no people w ere ever made ’fit’ for self
government by being kept In the leading
strings of a foreign power. You learn to
walk by doing your own crawling and
stumbling. Self-government Is learned
only by exercising it upon one’s own re
sponsibility. Of course, there will be mis
takes and troubles and disorders. We have
had and now have these, too—at the begin
ning our persecution of the tories, our
fiounderings before the constitution was
formed, our Shay’s rebellion, our whisky
war and various failures and disturbances
—among them a civil war that cost us a
loss of life and treasure horrible to think
of. and the murder of two presidents. Hut
who will say that on account of these
things some foreign power should have
kept the American people in leading strings
to teach them to govern themselves? If
the Philippine Islanders do as well as the
Mexicans, who have worked their way.
since we left them alone after our war of
1S47, through many disorders, to an orderly
government, who will have a right to tlnd
fault with the result? You may tak'- it as a
general rule that he who wants to reign
over others is solemnly convinced that they
are guile unable to govern themselves.
“Now, what objection is there to the pol
icy dictated by our fundamental principles
and our good faith? I hear the angry cry:
'What? Surrender to Aguinuldo? Will
not the world ridicule and despise us for
such a confession of our incompetence to
deal with so feeble a foe? What will oe
come of our prestige?’ No, we shall not
surrender to Aguinuldo. In giving up a
criminal aggression we shall surrender
only to our own sense of right and justice,
to our own understanding of our own true
interests and to the \ ital principles of our
own republic. Nobody will laugh at us
whose good opinion w e have reason to cher
ish. There will, of course, be an outcry of
disappointment in England. But from
whom will it come? From sucti men as
James Bryce or John Morlev, or any one of
those true friends of this republic who un
derstand and admire and wish to perpetu
ate and spread the fundamental prin
ciples of its vitality? No, not from them.
But the outcry will come from those in
England who long to see us entangled in
comfdications apt to make th*- American
repuolic dependent upon British aid and
thus subservient to British inter. sts.
“The true friends of this republic in Eng
land and. indeed, all over the world, who
are now grieving to see us go astray, will
rejoice, and their hearts will be uplifted
with new confidence in our honesty, in our
wisdom and in the virtue of democratic in
stitutions w hen they behold the Am.' tlcan
people throwing aside all the puerilities of
false pride and returning to the path of
their true duty.”
-According to Hanna the talk of
running Dewey for president is an in
sult to the hero of Manila. Jackson and
Grant rail for president. Has the presi
dency been cheapened since Hanna, as
purchasing agent for McKinley, seeur-.d
u lUtu on it?—Albany «,rgus.
DEFIES THE CONSTITUTION.
Mi'Kinlrj'i Violation of '.ntcriran
Principle* In the S.ilu
Affair.
Iu the perfunctory adulation of Pres
ident McKinley by tlit Massachusetts
rt publicans iu state convention one of
the causes alleged in their platform
for ecstatic admiration of that public
functionary is "the tact, the patience,
the skill and the statesmanlike spirit
with which the president has ap
proached the perplexing problems uris
iftg from the war.” Without discuss
ing the spirit in which Mr. McKinley
has "approached” these problems. \\ hich
is altogether a matter of opinion, we
may be permitted to regard the man
ner in which he has solved them, which
is simply a matter of fact.
The only one of the "problems aris
ing from the war" which President Mc
Kinley has not only "approached” but
actually solved is that of the establish
ment of the Cuited States sovereignty
over the Sulu archipelago, lying to the
southward of the Philippines proper,
which was included in the purchase for
which we paid $->0,000,000 to Spain. We
huve no possible use for these islands,
of course; they must always be an ex
pense and a nuisance, but Mr. McKinley
insisted upon having them, and he has
got them, and he has actually estab
lished sovereignty over them. It is the
one completed act of his administra
tion in the adjustment of the new re
lations of the United States arising
out of the war. it is the crown of his
“tact, patience, skill and statesman
ship.”
l he establishment of the sovereignty
of the United States over the Snlu ar
chipelago has not been made by con
quest but by diplomacy. The president
has made a treaty, or agreement, or
bargain, with the “sultan” of these is
lands. He hns pledged the American
people to pay to this magnate an an
nual tribute to keep him quiet, and in
consideration of his acknowledgment
of the “sovereignty” of the United
States. This is cheap enough, in com
parison w ith the cost of .Mr. McKinley’s
policy in respect to Aguinaldo in Luzon.
We might buy up and pension the local
pusses of all the islands in the China
sea at far less expense than the coun
try is put to for the maintenance of
Otis’ authority on a few square miles
about Manila by the force of arms.
But the statesmanship of President
McKinley does not stop with the pay
ment of tribute to this yellow monarch;
it includes the guarantee of certain pe
culiar institutions of that country for
which tl “sultan” has great affection.
We mat pass over the Mohamedun
tenet of polygamy, with which Mr. Mc
Kinley has pledged the United States
not to interfere; this is merely a mat
ter of morals or sociology. But the
question of slavery is another story.
The thirteenth amendment to the
constitution of the United States de
clares as follows: “Neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude, except as
a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist w ithin the United States, or
in any place subject to their jurisdic
tion.” This amendment was pro
claimed as a part of the organic law of
the republic, December is, ]Sf»3. Pres
ident McKinley cannot plead ignorance
of the law. Every child in our public
schools knows it by heart, and knows
that wherever the jurisdiction of the
United States extends no man or wom
an or child can be held in servitude.
Air. McKinley has established, by the
payment of tribute to the yellow po
tentate of the Sulu archipelago, the sov
ereignty of the United States over these
islands. Uy the tenns of the consti
tution under which the president holds
his oflice and exercises his authority,
the establishment of that sovereignty
frees every human being held in bond
age on those islands. Mr. McKinley
has no right to say that slavery shall
continue. Whatever he may say can
count no more than the word of the
least of his fellow citizens. The peo
ple of the United States have freed
every slave in Sulu. It is decreed by
the organic law of the land.
liut what has been done by this "wise
and patriotic administration,” as the
sycophantic republican state conven
tion styles the llanna-AIcKinley syndi
cate at Washington? A treaty has
been made with the “sultan” of this
slaveholding territory "whereby “all
slaves have the right of buying their
freedom at a price to be fixed bv dis
interested parties or another may buy
a slave's freedom for him.” Such, at
least, is the statement made regarding
the treaty with the “sultan” of Sulu
effected by Gen. Hates and heralded
as a great diplomatic triumph by the
organs of the administration. If Pres
ident McKinley has not consented to
this flagrant violation of the constitu
tion of the United States lie cannot too
speedily absolve himself by giving pub- j
lieity to the terms of the treaty by
which he has established the •-•over
eignty of the United States over Sulu.
There is every reason to believe that
the situation is as stated.
Slavery has existed in Sulu from time
Immemortil. The slaves are captive*
of war, poor debtors and the children
of such unfortunates born while their
parents are in a condition of servitude.
Everyone of these slaves is free to-day
under the constitution of the United
States. Tly what usurpation of author
ity ha* President McKinley dared to
allow the "sultan” of Sulu to retain
these human beings in involuntry servi
tmlv 7
I lie theory of those who sustain the
policy of the administration in the Phil
ippines is that the declaration of inde
pendence is outgrown; that it is no
longer true that all men have Apial po
litical rights; that just government
to-day does not rest upon the consent
of the governed; that representation
need not accompany taxation. But tlie
declaration of independence and the
constitution of the l nited States are
two different documents. The declara
tion may l>e outgrow n, ss the republic
an supporters of Mr. McKinley tell us,
hut the constitution is the law of the
land, to which the president must bow
as well as the humblest citizen. And’
the constitution declares that there
shall be no slavery or involuntary serv -
itude within either tlie 1'nited States
or “any place subject to their jurisdic
tion.”
Mr. McKinley has. by his "wise, states
manlike and patriotic” conduct, es
tablished the jurisdiction of the
l nited States over the Sulu islands. In
doing this lie seems to have reestab
lished slavery within the jurisdiction
of this republic. On the face of it,
here surely is a case for the house of
representatives to make a presenta
tion to the senate of the United States.
—Boston Post.
TRUST TALK BY HANNA
Had I.ok Sprinicinit Out of Had PaltB
Uttered by the Hepiibllena
Bu»,
Mnrk Hanna ought to cultivate hia
memory or curtail his conversation.
Asserting the other day that the re
publicans would take 3 decided stand
against trusts, Mark Hanna now alleges
that trusts are beneficial institutions.
If trusts are a benefit to the people
why does Hanna say that the party of
which he is the boss is going to oppose
them?
If trusts are not beneficial, why does
Mark Hanna assert that William J.
Hryan failed to prove their evil tend
encies?
That Hnntia forgets one day what he
said the day before is not m prising tie -
cause it is simply an illustration of the
old proverb that a liar needs a long
mem ory.
Hanna was quoted by republican pa
pers as saying that his party would op
pose trusts and thus take the wind out
of democratic sails.
Now. he is quoted by the same repub
lican authority as speaking concerning
the trust conference as follows:
“The result is that Bryan got a great
chewing up by llourke Cockran. Cock
ran asked Bryan to show him evidence
that industrial combinations were evil
in their tendency. That’s a proper de
mand. Show us the evidence. There is
absolutely no inflation in the existing
business prosperity. There is no un
usual extension of credit. Businessmen
are paying cash for all they get and are
glad to do it. They are not asking cred
it. We simply passed through a period
of prolonged business drought under
Cleveland that exhausted all our sup
plies and strained to the snapping
point thousands of our established in
dustries. Now the drought is over.
The business men want raw and man
ufactured products and have the money
to pay for them. Is there anything
wrong with that? Take pig iron, for in
stance. The high prices are owing to
the demand, l’ig iron is scarce and
that's why the price is high.”
Does Mark Hnnnu know why pig iron
is scarce?
Does lie not know that the iron mines,
the mills anti the transportation facili
ties are controlled by the trust-.
If he could induce himself to tell the
truth he would say that pig iron is high
because the trusts have created a mo
opoly.
Is a monopoly a good thing?
Dili Ilout ke Coekran “chew up liryan”
to the extent of proving that a mo
nopoly has no evil tendencies?
Hanna should try to be consistent.
His bail logic, springing out of bad faith,
can do his party no good. McKinley
should give Hanna a hint. Chicago
Democrat.
POINTS AND OPINIONS.
-It is not so strange that William
McKinley should have thrown ci\il serv
ice over for Mark Hanna. Hanna has
done infinitely more for McKinley.—
Chicago Democrat.
-It is a good democratic doctrine
to stand tip tor the right and resist
wrong. And no exception will be made
in favor of chartered robbery.—St.
Louis Post-Dispatch.
-Secretary lioot is now spoken of
as «i running mate for McKinley in
1900. As a former trust attorney he
would be a fit candidate if the republic
ans are going to put a plank in their
platform denouncing trusts and apolo
gizing for them at the same time.- Buf
falo Times.
-The nature of President McKin
ley is to have no principles and to urge
no measures that are antagonistic to
anybody. And this is his policy, too.
Such is the way in which he has treated
tlie money question and such is the
manner in which he lias endeavored to
deal with the Filipino insurgents. The
basic principle of such policy is to l>e
amiable and not offend anybody. Kven
in war don't shoot to kill.- lVtiand
Oregonian