WarfieH Library 
 
 45,q'10 
 
 THE ATTEMPT TO SUBJUGATE A PEOPLE STRIVING FOR FREEDOM. 
 NOT THE AMERICAN SOLDIER, RESPONSIBLE FOR CRU- 
 ELTIES IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 IN’ THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 May 22 , 1902. 
 
 W.A.SIIi:NrGTOI^. 
 
 1902 . 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/attempttosubjugaOOhoar 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 HON, GEOEGE E. HOAR. 
 
 The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, havin<j under consideration 
 the bill (S. 22i»5) temporarily to provide for the administration of the affairs 
 of civil government in the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes — 
 
 Mr. HOAR said: 
 
 Mr. President: I have something to say upon the pending bill. 
 I will say it as briefly and as compactly as I may. We have to 
 deal with a territory 10,000 miles away, 1.200 miles in extent, con- 
 taining 10,000,000 people. A ma.jority of the Senate think that 
 people are under the American flag and lawfully subject to oirr 
 authority. We are not at war vuth them or with anj'body. The 
 country is in a condition of profound peace as well as of unex- 
 ampled pro.sperity. The world is in profound peace, except in one 
 quarter, in South Africa, where a handful of republicans are fight- 
 ing for their independence, and have been doing better fighting 
 than has been done on the face of the earth since Thermopyl®, 
 or certainly since Bannockburn. 
 
 Yet the Filipinos have a right to call it war. They claim to be a 
 people and to be fighting for their rights as a people. The Sena- 
 tor from Ohio [Mr. Forakee] admits that there is a people there, 
 although he says they are not one people, but there are several. 
 But we can not be at war under the Constitution without an act 
 of Congress. 
 
 We are not at war. We made peace with Spain on the 14th 
 day of February, 1809. Congress has never declared war with 
 the people of the Philippine Islands. The President has never 
 asserted nor usurped the power to do it. We are only doing on a 
 large scale exactly what we have done at home within a few 
 years past, where the military forces of the United States have 
 been called ofit to suppress a riot or a tumult or a lawless assem- 
 bly, too sti'ong for the local authorities. You have the same 
 right to administer the water torture, or to hang men by the 
 thumbs, to extort confession, in one case as in the other. You have 
 the same right to do it in Cleveland or Pittsburg or at Colorado 
 Springs as you have to do it within the Philippine Islands. I 
 have the same right as an American citizen or an American Sen- 
 ator to discuss the conduct of any military officer in the Philip- 
 phie Islands that I have to discuss the conduct of a marshal or a 
 constable or a captain in Pittsburg or in Cleveland if there were 
 a labor riot there. 
 
 That duty I mean to perform to the best of my ability, fear- 
 lessly as becomes an American citizen, and honestly as becomes 
 an American Senator. 
 
 But I have an anterior duty and an anterior right to talk about 
 the action of the American Senate, both in the past and in the 
 present, for which, as no man wiU deny, I have my full share of 
 personal respon.sibility. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio, in his very brilliant and forcible speech, 
 5S98 3 
 
4 
 
 which I heard with delight and instruction , said that we were 
 bound to restore order in the Philippine Islands, and we can not 
 leave them till that should be done. He said we were bound to 
 keep the faith we pledged to Spain in the treaty, and that we 
 were bound, before we left, to see that secured. He said we were 
 bound, especially, to look out for the safety of the Filipinos who 
 had been our friends, and that we could not, in honor, depart 
 until that should be made secure. 
 
 All that, Mr. President, is true. So far as I know, no man has 
 doubted it. But these things are not what we are fighting for; 
 not one of them. There never was a time when, if 'sve had de- 
 clared that we only were there to keep faith with Spain, and 
 that we only were tliere to restore order, that we were only there 
 to see that no friend of ours should sulTer at tlie hands of any 
 enemy of ours, that the war would not have ended in that 
 moment. 
 
 You are fighting for sovereignty. You are fighting for the 
 principle of eternal dominion over that people, and that is the 
 only question in issue in the conflict. W e said in the case of 
 Cuba that she had a right to be free and independent. We af- 
 firmed in the Teller resolution, I think ^vithout a negative voice, 
 that we would not invade that right and would not meddle with 
 her territory or anything that belonged to her. That declaration 
 was a declaration of peace as well as of righteousness; and we 
 made the treaty, so far as concerned Cuba, and conducted the 
 war and have conducted ourselves ever since on that theory — that 
 we had no right to interfere with her independence; that we had 
 no right to her territory or to anything that was Cuba’s. So we 
 only demanded in the treaty that Spain should hereafter let her 
 alone. If you had done to Cuba as you have done to the Philip- 
 pine Islands, who had exactly the same right, you would be at 
 this moment, in Cuba, just where Spain was when she excited 
 the indignation of the civilized world and we compelled her to 
 let go. And if you had done in the Philippines as you did in 
 Cuba, you would be to-day or would soon be in those islands as 
 you are in Cuba. 
 
 But you made a totally different declaration about the Philip- 
 pine Islands. You undertook in the treaty to acquire sovereignty 
 over her for yourself, which that people denied. You declared 
 not only in the treaty, but in many public utterances in this 
 Chamber and elsewhere, that you had a right to buy sovereignty 
 with money, or to treat it as the spoils of war or the booty of bat- 
 tle. The moment you made that declaration the Filipino people 
 gave you notice that they treated it as a declaration of war. So 
 your generals reported, and so Aguinaldo expressly declared. 
 The President sent out an order to take forcible possession, by 
 military power, of those islands. General Otis tried to suppress 
 it, but it leaked out at Iloilo through General MiUer. General 
 Otis tried to suppress it and substitute that they should have all 
 the rights of the most favored provinces. He stated that he did 
 that &cause he knew the proclamation would bring on war. 
 And the next day Aguinaldo covered the walls of Manila with a 
 proclamation stating what President McKinley had done, and 
 saying that if that were persisted in he and his people would fight, 
 and General MacArthur testified that Aguinaldo represented the 
 entire people. So you deliberately made up the issue for a fight 
 for dominion on one side and a fight for liberty on the other. 
 
 Then when you had ratified the treaty you voted down the res- 
 6208 
 
5 
 
 ohition in the Senate, known as tlie Bacon resolution, declaring 
 the right of that people to independence, and you passed the Mc- 
 Enery I’csolution, which declared that you meant to dispose of 
 those islands as should be for the interest of the United States. 
 That was the origin of the war, if it be war. That is what the 
 war is all about, if it be war; and it is idle for my brilliant and 
 ingeniotis friend from Ohio to undertake to divert this issiie to a 
 contest on our part to enable us to keep faith with our friends 
 among the Filipinos, or to restore order there, or to carry out the 
 provisions of the treaty with Spain. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, when you determined to resort to force for 
 that purpose, you took upon yourself every natural consequence 
 of that condition. The natural result of a conflict of arms be- 
 tween a people coming out of subjection and a highly civilized 
 people — one weak and the other strong, with all the powers and 
 resoiirces of civilization — is inevitably, as everybody knows, that 
 there will be cruelty on one side and retaliation by cruelty on the 
 other. Yoir knew it even before it happened, as well as you know 
 it now that it has happened; and the responsibility is yours. 
 
 If, in a conflict between a people fighting for independence and 
 liberty, being a weak people, and a people striving to deprive 
 them of their independence and liberty, being a strong people, 
 always, if the nature of man remains unchanged, the war is con- 
 verted in the end into a conflict in which bushwhacking, treach- 
 ery, and cruelty have to be encountered, the responsibility is 
 with the men who made the war. Conflicts betw’eeu white races 
 and brown races or red races or black races, between superior 
 races and inferior races, are always cruel on both sides, and the 
 men who decree with full notice that such conflict shall take place 
 are the men on whom the responsibility rests. When Aguinaldo 
 said he did not desire the conflict to go on, and that it went on 
 against his wish, he was told by our general that he would not 
 parley with him without total submission. My friend from Wis- 
 consin declared in the Senate that we would have no talk with 
 men with arms in their hands, whether we were right or wrong. 
 The responsibility of everything that has happened since, which 
 he must have foreseen if he knew anything of history and human 
 nature, rests upon him and the men who acted with him. 
 
 We can not get rid of this one fact, we can not escape it, and 
 we can not flinch from it. You chose war instead of peace. You 
 chose force instead of conciliation, with full notice that every- 
 thing that has happened since would happen as a conseqiience of 
 your decision. Had you made a declaration to Aguinaldo that 
 you would respect their title to independence, and that all you 
 desired was order and to fulfill the treaty and to protect your 
 friends, you would have disarmed that people in a moment. I 
 believe there never has been a time since when a like declaration 
 made by this Chamber alone, but certainly made by this Cham- 
 ber and the other House, with the approval of the President, 
 would not have ended this conflict and prevented all these horrors. 
 
 Instead of that gentlemen talked of the wealth of the Philip- 
 pine Islands, and alxiut'the advantage to our trade. They sought 
 to dazzle our eyes with nuggets of other men’s gold, ^nators 
 declared in the Senate Chamber and on the hustings that the flag 
 never shall be hauled down in the Philippine Islands, and those 
 of you who think otherwise keep silent and enter no disclaimer. 
 The Senator from Ohio saj^s our policy has not been in the dark, 
 but it has been a policy published to the world. Has it? Has it? 
 
 6238 
 
6 
 
 I ■want to ask, What was it which created the war, which keeps it 
 up, and which created and keeps up the hatred, and -will make 
 war break out again and again for centuries to come, unless hu- 
 man nature be changed or be different in their bosoms from what 
 it is in oiu’s? It is because our policy has not been published to 
 the world. It is because you keep a padlock on your bps. 
 
 This debate for the last three years has contained many audaci- 
 ties. One thing, however, no Senator ha? been audacious enough 
 to affirm, and that is that if he were a Filipmo, as he is an Ameri- 
 can, he would not do exactly, sa-ving only acts of cruelty, as the 
 Filipino has done. 
 
 I find myself beset ■with one difficulty whenever I undertake to 
 debate this question. I am to discuss and denounce what seems 
 
 me one of the most foolish and ■wicked chapters in history. 
 Yet I am compelled to admit that the men who are responsible 
 for it are neither foolish nor ■wicked. On the contrary, there are 
 no men on the face of the earth with whom on nearly all other 
 subjects I am in general more in accord, to whose sound judg- 
 ment or practical sagacity I am more willing to defer, or to whose 
 patriotism or humanity I am more ■willing to commit the honor 
 or the fate of the Republic. 
 
 It may be that it is presumption to act on my o'wn judgment 
 against that of my valued and beloved political friends. But we 
 do not settle questions of righteousness or justice on any man’s 
 authority. StiU less do we settle them by a show of hands. Each 
 man is responsible only to his own conscience, which is the only 
 authority he must obey. Besides, Mr. President, I have on my 
 side in this great debate the fathers of the Republic, the states- 
 men who adorned its first century, the founders of the Repub- 
 lican party, every one of whom declared and lived by and died by 
 the doctrine you are now repudiating. I have also your o^wn 
 authority, your o^wn declaration, made only three years ago, at 
 the begiiming of the Spanish war. When you declared that Cuba 
 of right — of right — ought to be a free and indei)endent State, and 
 that the United States would not acquire her teiritory as the re- 
 sult of the war ■with Spain, you settled as p, matter of duty and 
 of justice this whole Pliilippine qiiestion. 
 
 I have,' however, at least, to congratulate my friends who differ 
 from me on an increased sobriety in dealing with this matter. 
 
 We are not flourishing nuggets of gold in the Senate just now. 
 The devil imperialism is not promising us all the kingdoms of 
 this world and the glory thereof, if we will fail down and wor- 
 ship him. You have just hauled down the American flag in 
 China where it once floated, and you have just hauled it do^wn 
 day before yesterday in Cuba where it has floated for three 
 years. 
 
 For the words, “ interests of the United States,” which the 
 McEnery resolirtion declared were to determine our actions in 
 goveraing these islands, you substitute in this bill the declaration 
 that “the rights acquired in the Philippine Islands under the 
 treaty with Spain are to be administered for the benefit of the 
 inhabitants of those islands.” 
 
 Sec. 10. Teat all the property and rights which may have been aeqnired 
 in the Philippine Islands by the United States under the treaty of peace with 
 Spain, 18U8, are hereby placed under the control of the government of the 
 Philipijine Islands, to be a dminis tered for the benefit of inhabitants of the 
 islands. 
 
 Sec. 7. There are to be municipal and provincial governments as far and 
 as fast as the governments are capable, fit, and ready for the same, ■with pop- 
 ular representative government 
 5«)8 
 
7 
 
 The share to which yon propose to admit these people in your 
 scheme of government, is an admission that a large number of 
 them are fit for self-government. You propose for them — to take 
 effect in the near future — a constitution, not very different from 
 that of Canada, where the Crown of England appoints the 
 Governor-General, and the Governor-General appoints the senate, 
 and there is a veto on every provincial law by the Governoz’- 
 General, and a veto on every law of the Canadian congress, not 
 only by the Governor-General, but by the Government at home. 
 
 The Senator from New Hampshire called a witness the other 
 day to the effect that evei-y Filipino would take a bribe. Sir Rob- 
 ert Walpole said that of England. I acquit the majoiity of the 
 Senate and the committee who report this bill from believing the 
 charge made by my lionoi'able friend from New Hampshii-e. 
 They affirm that there are many Filipinos who are sincerely our 
 friends. They admit, if I understand them, that there are in 
 those islands many citizens accomplished and well educated, law- 
 yers and merchants, conducting large affairs in trade, and they 
 themselves propose to commit to these people at once, as soon as 
 may be, lai’ge powers of government, retaining for us little moi'e 
 than the power of a veto. 
 
 What you have been fighting for all this time as your I’ight, if 
 you expect to enact this bill into law and to carry it out in prac- 
 tice, is to szibstitute a constitution of your making for one of 
 their making; to have a dependency, which is what you want, 
 instead of a I’epublic, which is what they want; to have fitness 
 for the elective franchise detei-mined by an authority which has 
 its soui’ce 10,000 miles away, instead of with the people at home; 
 and to deny them independence, even if they are fit for it, so long 
 as you please, without any regard to their desire. 
 
 This investigation, I suppose, is yet upon the threshold. Your 
 chief witnesses, so far, have been soldiers and governors who are 
 committed to policies of subjzzgation. The investigation has 
 been conducted by a committee of that way of thinking. 
 
 Yet we have got already some pregnant admissions, and some 
 remai’kable facts have already come to light. Governor Taft, 
 if I understood him, concedes that nothing so far indicates that 
 the existing policy has been good for the United States. It is 
 only the benefit of the people of the Philippine Islands, in saving 
 them from anarchy, or from foreign nations, in establishing 
 schools for them, that ^undicates what you have done so far. 
 What yozz have done so far has been to get some few thousand 
 children actually at school in the whole Philippine dominion. To 
 get this result, you have certainly slain many times that number 
 of pai’ents. 
 
 It would be without avail to i-epeat in the Senate to-day what 
 was said at the time of the Spanish treaty, and afterwards when 
 you determined to reduce the Philippine people by force to sub- 
 mission. 
 
 What your fathers said when they founded the Republic; the 
 declarations of the gz'eat leaders of every generation; our cen- 
 tzzry of glorious histoi-y , wei'e appealed to in vain. Their lessons 
 fell zzpon the ears of men dazzled by military glory and deliidous 
 with the lust of conquest. I will not repeat them now. My de- 
 sire to-day is simply to call attention to the practical working of 
 the two doctrines — the doctrine of buying sovereignty or con- 
 quering it in battle, and the doctrine of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. For the last three years you have put one of them in 
 5298 
 
8 
 
 force in Cuba and the other in the Philippine Islands. I ask you 
 to think soberly ■vrhich method, on the whole, you hke better. I 
 ask you to compare the cost of war with the cost of peace, of jus- 
 tice with that of injustice, the cost of empire -with the cost 
 ) f republican liberty, the cost of the way of America and the 
 way of Europe, of the doctrine of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence with the doctrine of the Holy Alliance. You have tried both, 
 I hope, to your heart's content. But before I do that I want to 
 call attention to one important fact in our history not generally 
 known. It is very interesting in its connection with this debate. 
 
 John Quincy Adams, as everybody knows, was the father of 
 what wo call the Monroe doctrine. He secured its adoption 
 through the weight of his great influence, by a hesitating Presi- 
 dent, and a reluctant Cabinet. It is not so well known that he 
 placed the Monroe doctiane solely upon the doctrine that just 
 governments must rest upon the consent of the governed. That, 
 he declared to be its only foundation, and that so founded it rested 
 upon the eternal principle of righteousness and justice. 
 
 A thorough examination has lately been made by an accom- 
 plished historical scholar, Mr. Worthington C. Ford, aided by 
 Mr. Charles Francis Adams, grandson of John Quincy Adams, 
 of the unpublished Adams manuscripts at Quincy, the archives 
 of the Department of State, and the papers of President Monroe, 
 lately published by Congress. 
 
 I can relate this story in a moment. I think it an important 
 contribution to this debate. 
 
 Mr. President, I discussed some time ago, and more than once, 
 this attempt to buy sovereignty with money of a dispossessed ty- 
 rant, or to get it as booty or spoils of battle. I showed that it is 
 in contradiction of the great American doctrine that just govern- 
 ments rest only on the consent of the governed — in flat contra- 
 diction of the doctrine on which this Government is founded and 
 of the uniform tradition of all our statesmen from 177G to the 
 adoption of the Spanish treaty. I do not mean to repeat that ar- 
 gument now. It was met by the affirmation tliat Jefferson disre- 
 garded it when we bought Louisiana, and that John Quincy 
 Adams disregarded it when we acquired Florida, and that Abra- 
 ham Lincoln disregarded it when he put down the rebellion, and 
 that Charles Simmer disregarded it when he urged the purchase 
 of Alaska. 
 
 It was never denied th.at we could acquire territory and that 
 we could govern it after it was acquired. Tlie doctrine was that 
 if the territory be inhabited by that vital and living being we call 
 a people, as distinct from a few scattered and unorganized inhab- 
 itants, neither controlling it nor governing themselves, that peo- 
 ple have a right to govern themselves and to determine their ov.m 
 destiny after their own fashion. This is the American exposition 
 of the law of nations. Thomas Jefferson never departed from it. 
 He regarded the Louisiana Territory as something not worth tak- 
 ing. He declared that it would not be inhabited for a thousand 
 j’ears. He only wanted New Orleans. The rest of the Territory 
 was forced upon him by Napoleon. There was no people, in the 
 sense of the law of nations, either in New Orleans or in the 
 Louisiana Territoiy. There was no people there that could make 
 a government or a treaty. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln put down the rebellion, because by his and 
 our interpretation of the Constitution we were one people and 
 not two — to which doctrine the Southern people had consented 
 5298 
 
9 
 
 when they adopted the Constitution; and besides, if you had 
 counted the whole people, black and white, there was never a 
 majority on the side of secession in any single Southern State. 
 Suirmer again and again declared that there was nothing in 
 Alaska which could be called a people, and that if there were the 
 United States would never be willing to acquire them without 
 their consent; and that we would never take Canada, if we could 
 get it, except with the full approbation of her people. If my 
 friends of the press or in the Senate who still stick to this ten 
 h'ondred times refuted fallacy are not content, they will never 
 be persuaded, though Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams 
 and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Sumner rise from the dead. 
 
 I do not wish to detain the Senate by renewing that debate. 
 But I wish to cite a chapter of the history of this country, which 
 shows that your present policy is in contradiction of the Monroe 
 doctrine, as it is in contradiction of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. It is well known that John Quincy Adams was the 
 author of the Monroe doctrine. He carried has point over the 
 opposition of the Cabinet and reluctance on the part of the Presi- 
 dent. 
 
 When Canning proposed that the United States join England 
 in asserting that the Holy Alliance should not reduce any South 
 American coimtry under the dominion of Spain, Mr. Adams said 
 that we would not join England, although she asked us to do it. 
 He said we were not to be a little cockboat in the wake of the 
 British man-of-war. He counseled the President, and his advice 
 was taken, that this country should make its declaration to 
 Russia, the head and strength of the Holy Alliance, and he put 
 that declaration expressly and solely on the doctilne of the con- 
 sent of the governed, affirmed in our Declaration of Independence. 
 He declared that doctrine was a doctrine of absolute right and 
 righteousness. 
 
 It will take but a moment to tell the story as it appears in the 
 archives in our Department of State, in the Monroe papers lately 
 published, in Adams's Diary, and in the Adams manuscripts at 
 Quincy, which have been made public within a few days. 
 
 In August, September, and October, 1823, there came to the 
 State Department of Washington from Mr. Rush dispatches con- 
 taining letters from Mr. Canning. These letters suggested de- 
 signs of the Holy Alliance against the independence of the South 
 American colonies; and proposed cooperation between Great 
 Britain and the United States against that alliance. 
 
 President Monroe asked the advice of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
 Madison, and suggested that we should make it known that we 
 .should view an attack by the European powers upon the colonies 
 of Spain as an attack upon ourselves. But in the meantime the 
 Russian minister, Baron Tuyll, on the 16th of October, commu- 
 nicated to the Secretary of State a declaration of the Emperor of 
 Russia that the political principles of that Power •would not 
 permit him to recognize the independence of the revolted colonies 
 of Spain. 
 
 Mr. Adams saw and seized his opportunity. He gave this ad- 
 ■vice to President Monroe, as appears by his diary, on November 
 7, 1823: 
 
 I remarked that the communications recently received from the Eussian 
 minister, Baron Tuyll, afforded, as I thought, a very suitable and convenient 
 opportunity for ns to take our stand against the Holy Alliance, and at the 
 same time decline the overtures of Clreat Britain. It would be more candid 
 6298 
 
10 
 
 and more dignified to avow our principles explicitly to Baron Tuyll than to 
 go in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war. This idea was 
 acquiesced in on all sides. 
 
 At the Cabinet meeting of November 15, 1823, the subject was 
 again discussed. 
 
 Letters were read from Mr. Jefferson, who was for acceding to the pend- 
 ing proposal. Mr. Madison was less decisively pronounced, but thought the 
 movement on the part of Great Britain impelled more by her interest than 
 by a principle of general liberty. President Monroe was quite despondent. 
 
 Adams proceeds: 
 
 I soon found the source of the President’s despondency with regard to 
 South American affairs. Calhoun is perfectly moonstruck by the surrender 
 of Cadiz, and says the Holy Allies, with 10,(XX) men, will restore all Mexico 
 and all South America to the Spanish dominion. 1 did not deny that they 
 might make a temporary impression for three, four, or five years, but I no 
 more believe that the Holy Allies will restore the Spanish dominion upon the 
 American continent than that Chimborazo will sink beneath the ocean. But, 
 I added, if the South Americans were really in a state to be so easily sub- 
 dued, it would be but a more forcible motive for us to beware of involving 
 ourselves in their fate. I set this down as one of Calhoun’s extravaganzas. 
 He is for plunging into a war to prevent that which, if his opinion of it is 
 correct, we are utterly unable to prevent. He is for embarking our lives 
 and fortunes in a ship which he declares the very rats have abandoned. Cal- 
 houn reverts again to his idea of giving discretionary power to our minister 
 to accede to all Canning’s proposals, if neces.sary, blit not otherwise. After 
 much discussion, I said I thought we should bring the whole answer to Mr. 
 Canning’s proposals to a test of right and wrong. Considering the South 
 Americans as independent nations, they themselves, and no other nation, had 
 the right to dispose of their condition. We have no right to dispose of them, 
 either alone or in conjunction with other nations. Neither have any other 
 nations the right of disposing of them without their consent. This principle 
 will give us a clue to answer all Mr. Canning's questions with candor and 
 confidence, and I am to draft a dispatch accordingly. (Adams’s Memoirs, 
 
 p. 186.1 
 
 Before Mr. Adams prepared the draft, t'wo more dispatches 
 \vere received from Rush, dated the 2d and 10th of October, indi- 
 cating a decided change in Canning's tone, and almost an indiffer- 
 ence on his part to pursue his project of united action. Meantime, 
 there came a new communication from Russia, ■which gave Adams 
 his opportunity. He put his reply on the express and impregnable 
 gi’ound of the consent of the governed, as declared in our Decla- 
 ration of Independence. On the 25th of November, he made, for 
 the President’s use. a draft of observations upon the communica- 
 tions recently received from the Russian minister. The paper 
 begins as follows: 
 
 The Government of the United States of America is essentially republican. 
 By their Constitution it is provided that “the United States shall guarantee 
 to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall 
 protect them from invasion.” 
 
 The principles of this polity are; 1. That the institution of government to 
 be lawful, must be pacific, that is, founded upon the consent and by the agree- 
 ment of those U'ho are governed; and 2. that each nation is exclusively the 
 judge of the government best suited to itself, and that no other nation can 
 justly interfere by force to impose a different government upon it. The 
 first of the principles may be designated as the principle of liberty, the 
 second as the principle of national independence; they are both principles of 
 peace and of good will to men. 
 
 A necessary consi^uence of the second of these principles is that the 
 United States recognize in other nations the right which they claim and ex- 
 ercise for themselves of establishing and modifying their own governments, 
 according to their own judgments and views of their interests, not encroach- 
 ing upon the rights of others. (Ford, p. 38.) 
 
 ISIr. Adams states later in the same document: 
 
 In the general declarations that the allied monarchs will never compound 
 and never will even treat with th revolution, and that their policy has only for 
 its object by forcible interposition to guarantee the tranquiUity of all the 
 States of whic’a the civilized world is composed, the President wishes to per- 
 ceive the sentiments, the application of which is limited, and intended in 
 ‘heir results to be limited to the affaii's of Eui-ope. (Ford, p. 40.) 
 
 5298 
 
11 
 
 Mr. Monroe and Mr. Calhonn hesitated in regard to the inser- 
 tion of this paragraph in the answer to Eussia, bnt neither of 
 them, as appears from the full narrative in Mr. Adams’s diai-y, 
 objected to the doctrine. They thought it might be offensive to 
 Russia. Accordingly Mr. Adams read the paper to Baron Tuyll, 
 omitting that paragraph, but received a letter from the Presiden. 
 a little later, j-ielding his objections and consenting to its reten- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Worthington C. Ford, in an interesting paper contained in 
 the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for Jan- 
 uary, 1902, narrates the whole story, and says in conclusion: 
 
 Tliat the timidity of the President was awakened, that record shows: hut 
 the persistence of Adams and the very weighty arguments he advanced in 
 its favor induced Monroe to yield, but not until it was too late for the pur- 
 pose intended. (Ford, p. 40.) 
 
 Mr. Ford adds, after citing the Russian minister’s communica- 
 tion: 
 
 This gave Adams his opening. If the Emperor set up to be the mouth- 
 piece of Divine Providence it would be well to intimate vhat this counti'y did 
 not recognize the language spoken and had a destiny of its own, also under 
 the guidance of Divine Providence. If Alexander could exploit his political 
 principles, those of a brutal repressive policy, the United States could show 
 th.at another sy.stem of government, remote and separate from European 
 traditions and administration, could give rise to a new and more active polit- 
 ical principle— the consent of the governed— between which and the Emperor 
 there could not exist even a sentimental sympathy. (Ford, p. 15.) 
 
 So, Mr. President, if you have your own way, and keep on in 
 the path you are treading, you have not only repealed the l)e.' la- 
 ration of Independence, but you have left for the klonroe doctrine 
 only the principle of brutal selfishness. You have taken Horn 
 that doctrine, which is the chief glory of this country, from the 
 time of the treaty of peace in 1783 till the inauguration of Abra- 
 ham Lincoln in 1861, its foundation in righteousness and freedom, 
 and you found.it only upon selfishness. You say not that it is 
 right, but only that it is for our interest. If hereafter you go 
 to war for it — if you have your waj' — it will not be for the glory 
 of the liberator or for the principle on which the Republic is 
 founded. You will only have Ancient Pistol’s solace: 
 
 I shaU sutler be unto the camp. 
 
 And profits will accrue. 
 
 John Quincy Adams lived to see the great doctrine he had been 
 taught from his cradle, which he had di’awn in with his mother’s 
 milk, derided and trampled under foot by a people drunk with 
 conquest and dazzled by military glory. He lived to see the 
 President take soldiers and not statesmen for his counselors. 
 He lived to see slavery entrenched in every department of the 
 Government — in the White House, in court, in Congress, in trade, 
 and in the pulpit. But he never wavered nor faltered in liis sub- 
 lime faith. He faced the stormy and turbulent waves of the 
 House of Representatives at eighty. He took for his motto: 
 Alter! Seculo — a motto which his son inscribed at his burial place 
 at Quincy. 
 
 But the new age came sooner even than the faith of John Quincy 
 Adams had predicted. In less than thirteen years from his death, 
 Abraham Lincoln, whom the people sent to the White House, had 
 declared on his way thither the sublime doctrine of the consent 
 of the governed to be that on which the Republic is founded, and 
 for which, if need be, he was willing to be assassinated. I think, 
 therefore, modestly I hope and humbly, that the men who differ 
 from their political associates, and even from majorities, may find 
 5298 
 
12 
 
 sometliing of consolation and something of hope in the company 
 of John Quincy Adams and in the company of Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 When we ratified the treaty of Paris we committed ourselves 
 to one experiment in Cuba and another in the Philippine Islands. 
 We had said already that Cuba of right ought to be free and in- 
 dependent. So when in the treaty Spain abandoned her sover- 
 eignty the title of Cuba became at once complete. We were only 
 to stay there to keep order until we could hand over Cuba to a 
 government her people had chosen and established. 
 
 By the same treaty we bought the Philippine Islands for $20,- 
 000,000 and declared and agreed that Congress shall dispose of 
 them. So, according to those who held that treaty valid, it be- 
 came the duty of the President to reduce them to submission, and 
 of Congress to govern them. 
 
 Here the two doctrines are brought into sharp antagonism. 
 
 In Cuba, of right, just government, according to you. must rest 
 on the consent of the govenied. Her people are to “institute a 
 new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and 
 organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most 
 likely to effect their safety and happiness.” 
 
 In the Philippine Islands a government is to be instituted by a 
 power 10.000 miles away, to be in the beginning a despotism, es- 
 tablished by military power. 
 
 It is to be a despotism where there is treason without an overt 
 act and elections, if they have them, without political debate, and 
 schools where they can not teach liberty. It is to be established 
 by military power, and to be such, to iise the language of the 
 McEnery resolution, such as shall seem “ for the interest of the 
 United States.” 
 
 You have given both doctrines a three years’ trial. Three years 
 is sometimes a very long time and sometimes a very short time in 
 human affairs: I believe the whole life of the Savior, after He 
 first made His divine mission knovm, lasted but three years. 
 Three years has wrought a mighty change in Cuba, and it has 
 wrought a mighty change in the Philippine Islands. We have 
 had plenty of time to try both experiments. 
 
 Pre.sident Roosevelt a day or two ago very truly and eloquently 
 recited the story of what we had done for Cuba, and claimed, and 
 sm’ely he was right, that it was one of the chief glories of the Re- 
 piiblic in all our glorious history. When he had finished the re- 
 cital he said, “ That is onedeed consummated to-day; andnow for 
 the other.” I do not believe that brave and honest man will con- 
 tent himself to match this glorious instance of self-denial and good 
 faith, which has so stirred his enthusiasm, by putting against it 
 the gift of $200,000 from the Treasury to relieve suffering Marti- 
 ni<iue, a gift which, in proportion to oiir resources, is as if a man 
 with $60,000 had given a two-dollar bill. There can be but one 
 other deed which his Administration can do which can match the 
 glories of the liberation of Cuba, and that will be the liberation 
 of the Philippine Islands. 
 
 Now, what has each cost you. and what has each profited you? 
 
 In stating this account of profit and loss I hardly know whfich 
 to take up first, principles and honor or material interests — I 
 should have known very well which to have taken up first down 
 to three years ago — what you call the sentimental, the ideal, the 
 historical on the right side of the cohimn; the cost or the profit 
 in honor or shame and in chai'acter and in principle and moral 
 influence, in true national glory; or the practical side, the cost 
 62'.)8 
 
13 
 
 in money and gain, in life and health, in wasted labor, in dimin- 
 ished national strength, or in prospects of trade and money getting. 
 
 I shoTild naturally begin where our fathers used to begin. But 
 somehow the things get so inextricably blended that we can not 
 keep them separate. This world is so made that yoxi can not keep 
 honesty, and sound policy, and freedom, and mateiial property, 
 and good government, and the consent of the governed, apart. 
 Men who undertake to make money by cheating pay for it by 
 failure in business. If you try to keep order by military despot- 
 ism you siiffer from it by revolution and by barbarity in war. 
 If a strong people try to govern a weak one against its will, the 
 home government will get despotic, too. You can not maintain 
 despotism in Asia and a republic in America. If you try to de- 
 prive even a savage or a barbarian of his just rights you can 
 never do it without becoming a savage or a barbarian yourself. 
 
 Gentlemen talk about sentimentalities, about idealism. They 
 like practical statesmanship better. But, Mr. President, this 
 whole debate for the last four years has been a debate between 
 two kinds of sentimentality. There has been practical states- 
 manship in plenty on both sides. Your side have carried their 
 sentimentalities and ideals out in your practical statesmanship. 
 The other side have tried and begged to be allowed to carry theii’S 
 out in practical statesmanship also. On one side have been these 
 sentimentahties. They were the ideals of the fathers of the Eev- 
 olutionary time, and from their day down till the day of Abraham 
 Lincoln and Charles Sumner was over. The sentimentalities 
 were that all men in political right were created equal; that gov- 
 ernments derive their just povrers from the consent of the gov- 
 erned, and are instituted to secure that equality; that every peo- 
 ple — not every scattering neighborhood or settlement without 
 organic life, not every portion of a people who maybetemporainly 
 discontented, but the political being that we call a people — has 
 the right to institute a government for itself and to lay its 
 foundation on such principles and organize its powers in such 
 form as to it and not to any other peoijle shall seem most likely 
 to effect its safety and happiness. Now, a good deal of practica.1 
 statesmanship has followed from these ideals and sentimentalities. 
 They have builded forty-five States on firm foundations. They 
 have covered South America with republics. They have kept 
 despotism out of the Western Hemisphere. They have made the 
 United States the freest, strongest, richest of the nations of the 
 world. They have made the word republic a name to conjure 
 by the round world over. By their virtue the American flag — 
 beautiful as a flower to those who love it; terrible as a meteor to 
 those who hate it — floats everywhere over peaceful seas, and is 
 welcomed everywhere in friendly ports as the emblem of peaceful 
 supremacy and sovereignty in the commerce of the world. 
 
 Has there been any practical statesmanship incur dealing with 
 Cuba? You had precisely the same problem in the East and in 
 the West. You knew all about conditions in Cuba. Ifiiere has 
 been no lack of counselors to whisper in the ear of the President 
 and Senate and House the dishonorable cmmsel that we should 
 hold on to Cuba, without regard to our pledges or our principles, 
 and that the resolution of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller] 
 was a great mistake. “Ye shall not surely die, ” said the serpent — 
 Squat like a toad, close at tlie ear of Eve. 
 
 I do not know how other men may feel, but I think that the 
 statesmen who have had something to do with bringing Cuba into 
 5298 
 
14 
 
 the family of nations, when they look hack on their career, that 
 my friends who sit around me, when each comes to look back 
 ui)on a career of honorable and brilliant public service, will count 
 the share they had in that as amo:ig the brightest, the greenest, 
 and the freshest laurels in their crown. 
 
 I do not think I could honestly repeat all the compliments 
 ■which the Senator from Wisconsin is in the habit of paying to 
 the Senator from Colorado. The Senator from Colorado has gone 
 against my grain very often, especially when he voted for the 
 Spanish treaty and when his vote defeated the Bacon resolution. 
 But I doxibt whether any man who has sat in this Chamber since 
 Charles Sumner died, or whether all who sit here now put together, 
 have done a more important single service to the country than he 
 did in securing the passage of the resolution w'hich pledged us to 
 deal with Cuba according to the principles of the Declaration of 
 Independence. 
 
 You also, my imperialistic friends, have had your ideals and 
 your sentimentalities. One is that the flag shall never l)e hauled 
 do'mi where it has once floated. Another is that you •will not 
 talk or reason with a people with arms in their hands. Another 
 is that sovereignty over an unwilling people may be bought with 
 gold. And another is that sovereignty may be got by force of 
 arms, as the booty of battle or the spoils of victory. 
 
 What has been the practical statesmanship which comes from 
 your ideals and your sentimentalities? You have wasted six hun- 
 dred millions of treasure. You have sacrificed nearly 10,000 Amer- 
 ican lives — the flower of our youth. You have devastated prov- 
 inces. You nave slain uncounted thousands of the people you 
 desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. 
 Your generals are coming home from their harvest, bringing 
 their sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick 
 and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in 
 body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a 
 numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, 
 and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the 
 water torture. Your practical statesmanship, •which disdains to 
 take George Washington and Abraham Lincoln or the soldiers of 
 the Revolution or of the civil war as models, has looked in some 
 cases to Spain for your example. I believe — nay, I kno’w — that 
 in general our officers and soldiers are humane. But in some 
 cases they have carried on your warfare ■with a mixture of Ameri- 
 can ingenuity and Castilian cruelty. 
 
 Your practical statesmanship has succeeded in converting a 
 people who three years ago were ready to kiss the hem of the 
 garment of the American and to welcome him as a liberator, who 
 thronged after your men when they landed on those islands ■with 
 benediction and gratitrrde, into sullen and irreconcilable ene- 
 mies, possessed of a hatred which centuries can not eradicate. 
 
 Tlie practical statesmanship of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence and the G olden Rule would have cost nothing but a few land 
 words. They would have bought for you the great title of lib- 
 erator and benefactor, which your fathers won for your country 
 in the South American Republics and in Japan and ■which you 
 have won in Cuba. They would have bought for you the undy- 
 ing gratitude of a great and free people and the undying glory 
 which belongs to the name of liberator. That people would 
 have felt for you as Japan felt for you when she declared last 
 £298 
 
15 
 
 summer that she cured everything to the United States of 
 America. 
 
 What have your ideals cost you, and -what have they bought 
 for you? 
 
 1. ' For the Philippine Islands you have had to repeal the Decla- 
 ration of Independence. 
 
 For Cuba yoxi have had to reaffirm it and give it ne'w luster. 
 
 2. For the Philippine Islands you have had to conveii; the Mon- 
 roe doctrine into a doctrine of mere selfishness. 
 
 For Cuba you have acted oh it and vindicated it. 
 
 3. In Ci’.ba you have got the eternal gratitude of a free people. 
 
 In the Philippme Islands you have got the hatred and sullen 
 
 submission of a subjugated people. 
 
 4. From Cuba jmu have brought home nothing btit glory. 
 
 From the Philippines you have broiight home nothing of glory. 
 
 5. In Cuba no man thinks of counting the cost. The few sol- 
 diers who came home from Cuba wounded or sick carry about 
 their wounds and their pale faces as if they were medals of honor. 
 What soldier glories in a wound or an empty sleeve which he got 
 in the Philippines? 
 
 6. The conflict in the Philippines has cost you $600,000,000, 
 thousands of American soldiers — the flower of j'our youth — the 
 health and sanity of thousands more, and hundreds of thousands 
 of Filipinos slain. 
 
 Another price we have paid as the result of your practical 
 statesmanship. We have sold out the right, the old American 
 right, to speak out the sympathy which is in our hearts for peo- 
 ple who are desolate and oppressed everyv'here on the face of the 
 earth. Has there ever been a contest between power and the 
 spirit of liberty, before that now going on in South Africa, when 
 American Senators held their peace because they thought they 
 were under an obligation to the nation in the wrong for not in- 
 terfering with us? I have heard that it turned out that we had 
 no gi’eat reason for gratitude of that Mnd. But I myself heard 
 an American Senator, a soldier of the civil war, declare in this 
 Chamber that, while he sympathized with the Boers, he did not 
 say so because of our obligation to Great Britain for not meddling 
 with us in the war with Spain. Nothing worse than that was 
 said of us in tlie old slavery days. A great English poet before 
 the civil war. in a poem entitled “ The Curse,” taunted us by say- 
 ing that we did not dare to utter our sympathy with freedom so 
 long as we were the holders of slaves. I remember, after fifty 
 years, the sting and shame I felt in my youth when that was 
 uttered. I had hoped that we had got rid of that forever before 
 1865. 
 
 Ye shall watch while kings ccn.spire 
 Round the people’s smouldei ing fire. 
 
 And, warm for your part, 
 
 Shall never dare, O, shame! 
 
 To utter the thought into flame 
 Which burns at your heart. 
 
 Ye shall watch while nations strive 
 With the bloodhounds — die or survive — 
 
 Drop faint from their jaws. 
 
 Or throttle them backward to death. 
 
 And only under your breath 
 Shall ye bless the cause. 
 
 Sometimes men are affected by particular instances who are 
 not impressed by statistics of great numbers. 
 
 5298 
 
16 
 
 Sterne’s starling in its cage has moved more hearts than were 
 ever stirred by census tables. 
 
 Let me take two examples out of a thousand with which to con- 
 trast the natiiral result of the doctrine of your fathers with yours. 
 
 I do not think there ever was a more delightful occurrence in 
 the history of Massachusetts since the Puritans or the Pilgr im s 
 landed there, than the visit to Harvard two years ago of the 
 Cuban teachers to the Harvard Summer School. The old Uni- 
 versity put on her best apparel for the occasion. The guests were 
 manly boys and fair girls, making you think of Tennyson’s sweet 
 girl graduates, who came to sit at the feet of old Harvard to 
 learn something which they could teach to their pupils, and to 
 carry back to their country and teach their own children undy- 
 ing gratitude to the great Republic. It was one of the most de- 
 lightful lessons in all history of the gratitude of a people to its 
 liberator, and of the affection of the liberator-Republic to the 
 people it had delivered. Was there ever a more fitting subject 
 for poetry or for art than the venerable President Eliot, sur- 
 rounded with his staff of learned teachers and famous scholars, 
 the foremost men in the Republic of letters and science, as he 
 welcomed them, these young men and women, to the delights of 
 learning and the blessings of liberty? 
 
 Contrast this scene with another. It is all you have to show, 
 that you have brought back, so far, from the Philippine Islands. 
 You have no grateful youth coming to sit at your feet. You do 
 not dare to bring here even a friendly Filipino to tell you, with 
 unfettered lips, what his people think of you, or what they want 
 of you. i read the other day in a Nebraska paper a terrible story 
 of the passage through Omaha of a carload of maniacs from the 
 Philippine Islands. 
 
 The story, I believe, has been read in the Senate. I telegraphed 
 to Omaha to the editor of a paper, of high rei)utation; I believe, 
 a zealous supporter of the policy of Imperialism, to learn if the 
 story was authentic. I am told in reply, and I am glad to know 
 it, that the picture is sensational and exaggerated, but the sub- 
 stantial fact is confirmed that that load of young soldiers passed 
 through that city lately, as other like cargoes have i>assed through 
 before, maniacs and broken in mental health as the result of serv- 
 ice in the Philippine Islands. 
 
 It is no answer to tell me that such horrors exist everywhere; 
 that there are other maniacs at St. Elizabeth, and that every 
 State asylum is full of them. Tho.se unhappy beings have been 
 visited, without any man’s fault, by the mysterious Providence 
 of God, or if their affliction comes from any man’s fault it is our 
 duty to make it known and to hold the party guilty responsible. 
 It is a terrible picture that I have drawn. It is a picture of men 
 suffering from the inevitable result which every reasonable man 
 mtist have anticipated of the decisions made in this Chamber 
 when we elected to make war for the principle of despotism in- 
 stead of a policy of peace, in accordance with the principles of 
 the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 Mr. President, every one of these maniacs, every one of the 
 many like freights of horror that come back to us from the Phil- 
 ippine Islands, every dead soldier, every wounded or wrecked 
 soldier was once an American boy, the delight of some Ameri- 
 can home, fairer and nobler in his young promise, as we like 
 to think, than any other the round world over. Ah! Mr. Presi- 
 6298 
 
17 
 
 dent, it was not $20,000,000 tliat we paid as the price of sov- 
 ereignty. It was the souls of these hoj-s of oui's that entered into 
 the cost. When you determined by one vote to ratify the Span- 
 ish treaty; when you determined by one vote to defeat the Bacon 
 resolution; when you declared, in the McEnery resolution, that 
 we would dispose of that people as might be for the interest of 
 the United States; when the Senator from Wisconsin said we 
 would not talk to a people who had arms in their hands, although 
 they begged that there should be no war, and that we would at 
 least hear them; when some of you went about the coimtry de- 
 claring that the flag never should be hauled down where it once 
 floated, you did not know, because in your excitement and haste 
 your intellectual vision was dazzled with empire, you did not know 
 that this was to come. But you might have known it. A little 
 reflection and a little reason would have told you. I wonder if 
 the Republican editor who made that knorvn was attacking the 
 American Army. I wonder if those of us who do not like that 
 are the friends or the enemies of the American soldier. 
 
 I can not understand how any man, certainly how any intelli- 
 gent student of history, could have failed to foretell exactly what 
 has happened when we agreed to the Spanish treaty. Everything 
 that has happened since has been the natural, inevitable, inexora- 
 ble result of the policy you then declared. 
 
 If yon knew anything of human nature you knew that the great 
 doctrine that just government depends on the consent of the gov- 
 erned. as applied to the relation of one people to another, has its 
 foundation in the nature of man itself. No people will submit, if 
 it can be helped, to the rule of any other people. You must have 
 known perfectly well, if you had stopped to consider, that so far 
 as the Philippine people were like us they would do exactly what 
 we did and would do again in a like case. So far as they were 
 civilized they would resist you with all the power of civilized 
 war. So far as they were savage they woidd resist you by all the 
 methods of savage warfare. 
 
 You never could eradicate from the hearts of that people by 
 force the love of liberty which God put there. 
 
 For He that worketh high and wise. 
 
 Nor pauseth in His plan, 
 
 Will take the sun out of the skies 
 Ere freedom out of man. 
 
 This war, if you call it war, has gone on for three years. It 
 will go on in some form for three hundred years, unless this policy 
 be abandoned. You will undoubtedly have times of peace and 
 quiet, or pretended submission. You trill buy men with titles, 
 or office, or salaries. You will intimidate cowards. You will 
 get pretended and fawning submission. The land will smile and 
 smile and seem at peace. But the volcano will be there. The 
 lava vull break out again. You can never settle this thing until 
 you settle it right. 
 
 I think my friends of the majority, whatever else they may 
 claim — and they can rightly claim a great deal that is good and 
 creditable for themselves — will not claim to be prophets. They 
 used to prophesy a good deal two years ago. \Ye had great 
 prophets and minor prophets. All predicted peace and submis- 
 sion. and a flag followed by trade, with wealth flowing over this 
 land from the Far East, and the American people standing in the 
 Philippine Islands looking over vuth eager gaze toward China. 
 
 5298 2 
 
18 
 
 Where are now yonr prophets which prophesied unto yon? I fear 
 that we must make the answer that was made to the children of 
 Is rael: “ They prophesied falsely, and the prophets have become 
 wind, and the word is not in them.” 
 
 An instance of this delusion, which seems to have prevailed 
 everj- where, is stated by Mr. Andrew Carnegie in the May num- 
 ber of the North American Review. He says: 
 
 The writer had tlie honor of an interview with President McKinley before 
 war broke out with our allies, and ventured to predict that if he attempted 
 to exercise sovereignty over the Filipinos — whom he had bought at $2.50 a 
 head — ^he would be shooting these people down within thirty days. He smiled, 
 and, addressing a gentleman who was present, said: “Mr. Carnegie doesn't 
 ur.dersfand the situation at all.” Then turning to the writer, he said: “ Wo 
 will be welcomed as their best friends.” “So little,” says Mr. Carnegie, “did 
 dear, kind, loving President McKinley expect ever to be other than the 
 fi'iendly cooperator with those people.” 
 
 A guerrilla warfare, carried on by a weaker people against a 
 stronger, is recognised and legitimate. Many nations have re- 
 sorted to it. Our war of the Revolution in many parts of the 
 country differed little from it. Spain carried it on against Napo- 
 leon when the French forces overran her territory, and mankind 
 sympathized with her. The greatest of English poets since Milton , 
 William Wordsworth, described that warfare in a noble sonnet, 
 which will answer, with scarcely the change of a word, as a de- 
 scription of the Filipino people: 
 
 Hunger, and sultry heat, and nipping blast 
 From bleak hilltop, and length of march by night 
 Through heavy swamp or over snow-clad height— 
 
 These hardshiijs ill-sustained, these dangei's past. 
 
 The roving Spanish bands are reached at last, 
 
 Ch,T,rged, and dispersed like foam; but as a flight 
 Of scattered quails by signs do reunite. 
 
 So these — and, heard of once again, are chased 
 With combination of long-practiced art 
 And newly kindled hope; but they are fled. 
 
 Gone are they, viewless as the buried dead: 
 
 Where now? Their sword is at the foeman’s heartl 
 And thus from year to year his walk they thwart, 
 
 And hang like dreams aroimd his guilty bed. 
 
 I believe the American Army, officers and soldiers, to be made 
 tap of as brave and humane men, in general, as ever lived. They 
 have done what has always been done, and until human nature 
 shall change, always will be done in all like conditions. The chief 
 guilt is on the heads of those who created the conditions. 
 
 One thing, however, I am bound to say in all frankness. I do 
 not know but my statement may be challenged. But I am sure 
 that nearly every well-infonned man who will hear it or read it 
 will know that it is true. That is, that you will never get officers 
 or soldiers in the standing Army, as a rnle, to give testimony 
 which they think will be disagreeable to their superiors or to the 
 War Department. 
 
 I have letters in large numbers myself. I believe eveiy Sena- 
 tor in this body, who is expected to do anything to inquire into 
 these atrocities, has had abundant letters to the effect which I 
 state. The same evil of which we are all conscious, which leads 
 men in p’ublic life to be unwilling to incur unpopularity or the 
 displeasure of their constituents by frankly uttering and acting 
 upon their opinions, applies with a hundredfold more force when 
 you summon a soldier or an officer to tell facts which will bear 
 heavily on the administration of the war. I have had letters 
 ihown me by members of this body who vouched personally for 
 the absolute trustworthiness of the wwiters, who detailed the hor- 
 5298 
 
19 
 
 rors of the water torture and other kindred atrocities, which no 
 inducement would lead them to make public. 
 
 The private soldier who has ended his term of service or who 
 expects to end it and return to private life, is lender less restraint. 
 Blit when he tells his story he is met by the statement of an offi- 
 cer, in some cases, that it is well known that private soldiers are 
 in the habit of “ drawing the long bow,” to use the phrase of one 
 general whose name has been brought into this discussion. In 
 other words, these generals are so jealoiis of the honor of the 
 Army, and their own, that they confine their jealousy to the honor 
 of the officers, and expect you to reject these things on the asser- 
 tion that the soldier is an habitual liar, and then they reproach 
 the men who complain with being indifferent to the honor of the 
 Army. 
 
 Was it ever heard before that a civilized, humane, and Chris- 
 tian nation made war upon a people and refused to tell them what 
 they wanted of them? You refuse to tell these people this year or 
 next year or perhaps for twenty years, whether you mean in the 
 end to deprive them of their independence, or no. You say you 
 want them to siibmit. To submit to what? To mere military 
 force? But for what purpose or what end is that military force 
 to be exerted? You decline to tell them. Not only you decline 
 to say what you want of them, except bare and abject surrender, 
 but you will not even let them tell you what they ask of yo\i. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Forajser] says it is asserted with 
 a show of reason that a majority of the people favor our cause. 
 General Mac Arthur denies this statement, and says they were 
 almost a unit for Aguinaldo. Mr. Denby and Mr. Schurman, two 
 of the three commissioners of the first Filipino Commission, deny 
 the statement. General Bell, in his letter of December 13, 1901, 
 says “ a majority of the inhabitants of his prorince have persist- 
 ently continued their opposition during the entire period of three 
 years, and that the men who accept local office from the governor 
 and take the oath of allegiance do it solely for the purpose of im- 
 proving their opportunity for resistance.” That statement is 
 concurred in by every department commander there. Certainly 
 Major Gardener's apparently temperate and fair statement — about 
 which we are to have no opportunity to examine him until Con- 
 gress adjourns — does not say any. such thing as that suggested by 
 the Senator from Ohio. 
 
 But what is your cause? What is your cause that they favor? 
 Do you mean tha,t a majority of the Filipino people favor your 
 killing them? Certainly not. Do you mean that a majority of 
 the Filipino people, or that any one man in the Philippine Islands, 
 according to the evidence of Governor Taft himself, favors any- 
 thing that you are willing to do? 
 
 The evidence is that some of them favor their admission as an 
 American State and others favor a government of their own un- 
 der your protection. Others would like to come in as a Territory 
 under our Constitution. But is there any evidence that one 
 human being there is ready to submit to your government with- 
 out any rights under our Constitution, or without any prospect 
 of coming in as an American State? Or is there any evidence 
 that any single American citizen, in the Senate or out of it, is 
 willing that we should do anything that a single Filipino is ready 
 to consent to? 
 
 I have no doubt they will take the oath of allegiance. Un- 
 6298 
 
20 
 
 doubtedly they ■\rill go through the form of submission. Un- 
 doubtedly you have force enoiigh to make the ■whole region a 
 ho-wilng -wilderness, if you think fit. Undoubtedly you can put 
 up a form of government in -which they -will seem to take some 
 share, and they -\^i.ll take your offices and your salaries. But 
 ■when you come to getting anjd;hing wliich is not merely tempo- 
 rary; -when you come to announce anytlring in principle, such as 
 those on which governments are founded, you have not any evi- 
 dence of any considerable number of people there ready to sub- 
 mit to yom* -will unless they are compelled by sheer brutal force. 
 
 I do not -wish to dwell at length on the circumstances which 
 attended the capture of Aguinaldo. But as they have been 
 elaborately defended in this body, and it is said that the officer who 
 captured him had a good record before, and especially as he has 
 been decorated by a promotion by the advice and consent of the 
 Senate, I can not let it pass in silence. 
 
 I understand the facts to be that that officer disguised the men 
 under his command in the dress of Filipino soldiers; wrote, or 
 caused to be written, a forged letter to Aguinaldo, purporting to 
 come from one of his ofiicers, stating that he was about to bring 
 him some prisoners he had captured, and in that way got access to 
 Aguinaldo’s headquarters. As ho approached he sent a message 
 to Aguinaldo that he and his friends were hungry; accepted food 
 at his hands, and when in his presence threw do-v\Ti and seized him; 
 shot some of the soldiers who were about Aguinaldo, and brought 
 him back a prisoner into our lines. That is the transaction wliich 
 is so highly applauded in imperialistic quarters. 
 
 I do not believe that the Senate knew what it was doing when 
 it consented to General Funston’s promotion. The nomination 
 came in -with a list of Army and Na-vy appointments and promo- 
 tions — 2,038 in all — and the Senate assented to that at the same 
 time -with 1 ,828 others. I doubt very much whether there were 
 10 Senators in their seats or whether one of them listened to the 
 list as it was read. It is, I suppose, betraying no secret to say that 
 these lists are almost never read to the Senate when they come in 
 or when they are reported from the committee; that the only 
 reading they get is at the time of the confinnation, when they 
 commonly attract no attention whatever. I do not mean to say 
 that if the Senate had had its attention called to the transaction 
 the result would have been different. I only mean to say that I 
 believe many Senators did not know it. I suppose the question 
 whether the Senate would have approved it might have depended 
 on the character and the quality of the general service of that 
 officer and not on the estimate we formed of this particular trans- 
 action, which seems to have been done under orders. I did not 
 know myself that the nomination had been made till long after 
 the Senate had assented. But I incline to think, with General 
 MacArthur’s testimony before the investigating committee that 
 the act was done by his direction and with his approval, I should 
 not have thoiight it fair to hold the officer responsible for it by 
 denying him an other-wise deserved promotion. 
 
 I think we are bound in justice to General Funston to take the 
 declaration of General MacArthur that he ordered and approved 
 everj’thing that officer did. If that be true we have no right to 
 hold the subordinate responsible, however odious the act. If it 
 turn out that that still higher authority has approved the act, 
 then it becomes still more emphatically our duty to point out its 
 enormity. 
 
 5208 
 
21 
 
 The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Forakee] . whom I do not now 
 see in his seat, asked me day before yesterday whether I did not 
 believe that the reports of the military officers were to be trusted. 
 If he were m his seat, I would ask liim to put me that question 
 again, and if he should I would put this question to him: When 
 Theodore Roosevelt, an officer of volunteers, told his story about 
 the canned beef and the military supplies, and every officer in the 
 Regular Army, who knew the facts just as he did. coiitradicted 
 him in the investigatioii , does he believe that Theodore Roosevelt 
 or the officers of the Regular Aiuny told the truth? 
 
 Mr. President, I want to say something on the circumstances 
 which attended the capture of Aguinaldo. They have been elabo- 
 rately defended in this body, and the officer who did it has been 
 decorated with a promotion. I do not suppose 10 Senators knew 
 what they were doing. The name came in with several thousand 
 names of sailors and soldiers in one day, and nearly 2,000 were 
 confii-med the next day. As everybody knows, they are never 
 read except at the time of the confirmation. But although I did 
 not know anything about it myself, I am bound to say, in all fair- 
 ness, that since General MacAidhur, the superior officer, has testi- 
 fied that he approved the act and takes the responsibility for the 
 act, the subordinate is acquitted so far as that act is concerned; 
 and I do not see how we could have refused General Funston his 
 promotion if his record in other respects entitled him to it, if he 
 acted as General MacArthur says he did, under orders. But the 
 higher the responsibility for the act the more it is our duty to ex- 
 amine it. 
 
 Mr. President, we have two guides for the conduct of military 
 officers in such circumstances. They apply not only to this act 
 of General Fumston, but they apply to most of the conduct of 
 our military officers, of which complaint has been made. One of 
 these is Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United 
 States in the Field, prepared by Dr. Francis Lieber and promixl- 
 gated by order of Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 The other is the convention at The Hague, agreed upon by the 
 representatives of this Goveimment with the others on the 29th 
 day of July, 1899, and ratified by the Senate on the 14th of 
 March, 1902. 
 
 Obseiwe that this convention was agreec] upon before all these 
 acts happened, and was unanimously adopted after they had all 
 happened. 
 
 I extract from the Instructions for the Government Regulation 
 of Armies in the Field the follovfing paragraphs: 
 
 Paragraph 148 is this: 
 
 The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging 
 to the hostile army or a citizen or a subject of the hostile government an out- 
 law, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modem 
 law of peace allows such intentional' outlawry. On the contrary, it abhoi’S 
 such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed 
 in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civi- 
 lized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination 
 of enemies as relapses into barbarism. 
 
 Now. Mr. President, is it denied that hundreds upon hundreds 
 of Filipinos have been put to death without trial? Has any soldier 
 or officer been brought to trial by our authority for these offenses? 
 Now, if it be an outrage upon which “ nations look with hoiTor.” 
 to use the language of that paragraph, and which “ the law of war 
 * * * abhors,” is it any less a crime to be abhorred when it is 
 done without such proclamation? The proclamation does not, 
 5298 
 
22 
 
 according to this authority, justify the officer or soldier who acts 
 in obedience to it. On the contrary, his conduct is abhorrent to 
 all civilized manhind. And j^et these thbigs pass without con- 
 demnation, without punishment, without trial. Gentlemen seem 
 to be impatient when they are asked to investigate them, or even 
 to hear the story told in the Senate of the United States. 
 
 Paragi-aph IG is: 
 
 Military necessity does not admit of cruelty —that is, the infliction of suf- 
 fering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding 
 except in fight, nor of torture to extort confession. It does not admit of the 
 use of poison in any way nor of the wanton devastation of a district. Itadmits 
 of deception, but disclaims acts of xierfidy, and, in general, military neces- 
 sity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace 
 unnecessarily difficult. 
 
 The rule says: 
 
 It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy. 
 
 That also follows the prohibition of the use of poison, with 
 which it is associated. 
 
 Now, perfidy is defined later in paragraph 117, which declares: 
 
 It is justly considered an act of bad faith, of infamy, or fiendishness to de- 
 ceive the enemy by flags of protection. * * » 
 
 Paragraph 65 is: 
 
 The use of the enemy’s national standard, flag, or other emblem of na- 
 tionality for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle is an act of per- 
 fidy. * * * 
 
 Is not the uniform an emblem of nationality? If it be an act of 
 perfidy — the use of that emblem of nationality to deceive the 
 enemy in battle— is it any less an act of perfidy to use it to steal 
 upon him and deceive him when he is not in battle and is in Ms 
 own quarters? 
 
 This is also prohibited by the convention of The Hague, which 
 must have been well known to all our officers, which had been 
 signed by the representatives of this Government, although its 
 foimal approval by the Senate took place this winter. 
 
 I suppose if it be perfidy now, according to the unanimous opin- 
 ion of the Senate, and was perfidy before, according to the con- 
 current action of 24 great nations, the question when we formally 
 ratified the treaty becomes unimportant. 
 
 Article 23 of the convention declares: 
 
 (f) To make improper use of a flag of trace, the national flag, or milit.ary 
 eu-signs, and the enemy’s uniform— 
 
 is specially prohibited. That is classed in that article also with 
 the use of poison and poisoned arms. 
 
 So, Mr. President, the act of General Funston — not General 
 Funston himself, if he acted under orders of Ms superior — but 
 the act of General Funston is stamped with indelible infamy by 
 Abraham Lincoln’s articles of war, to which the Secretary of 
 War appeals, and the concurrent action of 24 great nations, and 
 the unanimous action of the Senate tMs winter. 
 
 Let me repeat a little: What is an act of perfidy, as distinguished 
 from the deception which General MacArthur thinks appropriate 
 to all war, as defined by both these great and commanding au- 
 thorities? 
 
 That is defined in paragraph 65, which declares that — 
 
 The use of the enemy’s national standard, flag, or other emblem of nation- 
 ality for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle is an act of perfidy, by 
 which they lose all claim to the protection of the law of war. 
 
 If that be true, is it less an act of perfidy to use the uniform of 
 the enemy — ^his emblem of nationality — to steal upon him when 
 no battle is going on? 
 
 6298 
 
23 
 
 One hundred and seventeen is to like effect: 
 
 It is justly considered an act of bad faith, of infamy, or fiendishnoss to de- 
 ceive the enemy by a flag of protection. Such act of bad faith may be good 
 cause for refusing to respect such flag. 
 
 Such deception is of the same ’ kind as that practiced on the 
 unsuspecting Aguinaldo, which the rule “ justly,” as it declares, 
 “ considers an act of infamy or fiendishness.” 
 
 Eule 60 is: 
 
 It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to 
 give no quarter. 
 
 Observe this is not justified even by revenge. 
 
 No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and there- 
 fore will not accept, quarter. 
 
 56. Aprisonerof waris subject to no punishment for beingapublic enemy, 
 nor is any revenge wi'eaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suf- 
 fering or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, 
 or any other barbarity. 
 
 So, Mr. President, in this attempt to force your sovereignty by 
 this process of benevolent assimilation, we have been brought to 
 the unexampled dishonor of disregarding our own rules for the 
 conduct of annies in the field and to disregard the rules to which 
 our national faith has just been pledged to substantially all the 
 civilized powers of the earth. 
 
 I understand the facts to be that this officer, with the approval 
 of his superior officer, disguised himself or some of his men in the 
 Filipino uniform, stole upon Aguinaldo unawares under that 
 guise, deceived him by a forged letter representing that they were 
 hungry, received food at his hands, and then threw him down and 
 made him captive. 
 
 Now, if that be not the perfidy twice denounced and expressly 
 ranked with poisonmg and other like barbarities I can not under- 
 stand the meaning of hmnan language or the force of human 
 conduct. 
 
 But this act of General Funston's, approved by his superior offi- 
 cer, was in violation, not only of the laws of war, but of thrvt law 
 of hospitality which governs alike everywhere the civilized Chris- 
 tian or pagan wherever the light of chivalry has penetrated. Ho 
 went to Aguinaldo under the pretense that he was ahungered, 
 and Aguinaldo fed him. Was not that an act of perfidy? It vio- 
 lated the holy rite of hospitality which even the Oriental nations 
 hold sacred? 
 
 In Scott's immortal romance of the Talisman, the Sultan Sala- 
 din interposes to prevent a criminal who had just committed a 
 treacherous murder from partaking of his feast by striking off 
 his head as he approached the banquet. “ Had he murdered my 
 father,” said the Saladin to Eichard Coeur de Lion, “ and after- 
 wards partaken of my bowl and cup, not a hair of his head could 
 have been injured by me.” 
 
 In this case it was not the host sparing the guest, it was not 
 Conrad de Montserat partaking of the bowl and the cup of Saladin, 
 but it was the guest who had partaken of the hospitality of the 
 host who betrajud his benefactor, and in doing it represented 
 the United States of America in the Philippines. 
 
 Mr. President, the story of what has been called the water 
 torture has been, in part, told by other Senators. I have no incli- 
 nation to repeat the story. I can not help believing that not a 
 twentieth part of it has yet been told. I get letters in large num- 
 bers from officers, or the friends of officers, who repeat what they 
 tell me, all testifying to these cruelties. And yet as in the case 
 5298 
 
24 
 
 cited by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] the other day the 
 officer, or the officer's friends or kindred, -who send the letters to me, 
 send them under a strict injunction of secrecy. Other ^nators tell 
 me they have a like experience. These brave officers, ■who -would 
 go to the cannon’s mouth for honor, who never flinch in battle, 
 flinch before what they deem the certain ruin of their prospects 
 in life if they give the evidence which they tliink would be dis- 
 tasteful to their superiors. I do not undertake to judge of this 
 matter. Other Senators can judge as well as lean. The Ameri- 
 can people can do it better. 
 
 I suppose, Mr. President, that those of us who are of English 
 descent like to think that the race from which we come ■will com- 
 pare favorably with most others in the matter of humanity. Yet 
 history is full of the terrible cruelties committed by Englishmen 
 when men of other races refused to submit to their authority. I 
 think my friends who seek to extenuate this water torture, or to 
 apologize for it, may perhaps hke to look at the precedent of the 
 dealings with the Insh rebels in 1799. 
 
 In Howell’s State Trials there -will be foimd the proceedings in 
 a suit by Mr. Wright against James Judkin Fitzgerald, a sheriff, 
 who ordered a citizen to be flogged for the purpose of extorting 
 information. I believe 50 lashes were administered and then 50 
 more by Fitzgerald, and in many other cases the same course was 
 taken. It was -wholly to extract information, as this water tor- 
 ture has been to get information, Fitzgerald, the sheriff, told his 
 own story. He pointed out the necessity of his system of terror. 
 He said he got one man he had flogged to confess that the plain- 
 tiff was a secretary of the United Hishmen, and this information 
 he could not get from him before; that Mr. Wright himself had 
 offered to confess, but his memory had been so impaired by the 
 flogging that he could not command the faculty of recollection. 
 Notwithstanding he had by the terror of his name and the sever- 
 ity of his flogging succeeded most astonishingly, particularly in 
 one instance, where, by the flogging of one man, he and 30 others 
 acknowledged themselves United Irishmen. 
 
 Now, that was abundantly proved; and the sheriff who had 
 tortured and flogged these men who were only fighting that Ire- 
 land should not be ruled without the consent of the governed 
 had the effrontery to ask for an act of indemnity from the 
 House of Commons against the damages which had been re- 
 cover(?il against him, and that claim found plenty of advocates. 
 The ministry undertook to extenuate the action of this monster 
 by citing the cruelties which the Irish people had inflicted in 
 their turn, and by sajmg that very material discoveries were 
 made relative to concealed arms as the result of these tortures. 
 The defenders of the administration said the most essential 
 sei’vice had been rendered to the State and to the country by 
 Mr. Fitzgerald. The attorney-general trusted the House would 
 cheerfully accede to the prayer of the petition. Mr. Wright, 
 the man who had been tortured, was a man of excellent char- 
 acter and education, and a teacher of the French language. As 
 soon as he knew there were charges against him he went to 
 the house of the defendant to give himself up and demand a trial. 
 I will not take the time of the Senate to read the debates. The 
 argument for the Government would do very well for some of 
 the arguments we have heard here, and the arguments we have 
 heard here would have done very well there. The House passed 
 5298 
 
25 
 
 a general bill to indemnify all sheriffs and magistrates who had 
 acted for the suppression of the rebellion in a way not warranted 
 by law, and to secure them against actions at law for so doing. 
 The sole question at stake was the right of torture to extort infor- 
 mation. The bill passed the House, and afterwards Fitzgerald 
 got a considerable pension, and was created a baronet of the 
 United Kingdom. 
 
 Now, I agree that this precedent, so far as it may be held to 
 have set an example for what has been done in the Philippine 
 Islands, may be cited against me. I cite it only to show that such 
 things are inevitable when you undertake by brute force to re- 
 duce to subjection an unwilling people, and that, therefore, when 
 you enter upon that undertaking you yourselves take the respon- 
 sibility for everthing that follows. 
 
 Mr. President, it is said that these horrors which never would 
 have come to the public knowledge had not the Senate ordered 
 this investigation, were rmknown to our authorities at home. I 
 hope arrd believe they were unkrrown to the War Department. I 
 know they were rmknown to President Roosevelt, and I Imow they 
 were rmknown to President McKinley. But I can not think, per- 
 haps I am skeptical, that the recent declaration of that honorable 
 gentleman, the Secretary of War, made on a memorable occasion, 
 that the war on our part has been conducted with imexampled 
 humanity, will be accepted by his cormtrymen. 
 
 Let us not be diverted from the true issue. We are not tailring 
 of retaliation. We are not talking of the ordinary brutalities of 
 war. We are not talking about or inquiring into acts of ven- 
 geance committed in the heat of battle. We are talking about tor- 
 tm-e, torture — cold-blooded, deliberate, calculated torture; tortui-e 
 to extort information. Claverhouse did it to the Scotch Covenant- 
 ers with the boot and thumb-screw. It has never since till now been 
 done by a man who spoke English except in Ireland . The Spanish 
 inquisition did it with the slow fire and the boiling oil. It is said 
 that the water torture was borrowed from Spain. I am quite ready 
 to believe it. The men who make the inquiry are told that they 
 are assailing the honor of the American Army. How do the de- 
 fenders of the American Army meet the question? * By denying 
 the fact? No. By saying that the offenders have been detected 
 and punished by military power? Some of these facts were re- 
 ported to the War Department more than a year ago. So far as 
 I can find there have been but two men tided for torture to ex- 
 tort information. They were two officers who hung up men by 
 the thumbs, and they were found guilty. The general officer 
 who approved the finding said “that they had dishonored and de- 
 graded the American Army,” and then they were sent back to 
 their command with a reprimand. I agree with the Senator from 
 Wisconsin that the men who have stolen, and committed assaults 
 for the gratification of brutal lusts have been punished, and pun- 
 ished severely. 
 
 My honorable friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner] said some- 
 thing about this matter the other day. That is the only case of 
 a punishment to be foimd in our records so far as I have seen 
 them. I agree with my friend from Wisconsin that the men who 
 have stolen and committed assaults for the gratification of brutal 
 lusts have been punished, and punished severely, but what we are 
 talking about is torture. 
 
 Mr. SPOONER. Did I say anything about the number? 
 
 6298 
 
26 
 
 Mr. HOAR. The Senator said there were two or three hundred 
 cases, quoting the record before him. 
 
 Mr. CARMACK. Was it not the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
 Dolliver]? 
 
 Mr. HOAR. Ho; it was the Senator from Wisconsin, unless 
 my memory deceives me. I will change it if I am mistaken, but 
 I think I am not mistaken. 
 
 We are talking about torture committed in the open day by 
 men who were not drunk, but sober: men who had not just come 
 out of battle, but torture for the purpose of getting information, 
 on which, according to one of this committee, the tribunals acted. 
 
 What we are talking about is the torture committed in the 
 presence of numerous witnesses for the purpose of extorting in- 
 formation, and orders from high authority to depopulate whole 
 districts, and to slay all inhabitants, including all boys over 10 
 years old. 
 
 Is it denied that these things have been done? Is it denied that 
 although you are still on the threshold of this inquiry, and have 
 only called such witnesses as you happen to find 10,000 miles 
 away from the scene, that these things have been proved to the 
 satisfaction of the majority of the committee, and that no man 
 has yet been punished, although they were going on considerably 
 more than a year ago? Now, how do oiir friends who seek, I will 
 not say to defend, but to extenuate them, deal with the honor of 
 the American Army? Why, they come into the Senate and say 
 that there have been other cruelties and barbarities and atrocities 
 in war. When these American soldiers and officers are called to 
 the bar oirr friends summon Nero and Torquemada and the Span- 
 ish inquisition and the sheeted and ghostly leaders of the Ku 
 Klux Klan and put them by their side. That is the way you de- 
 fend the honor of the American Army. It is the first time the 
 American soldier was put into such company by the men who 
 have undertaken his defense. 
 
 It has been shown, I think, in the investigation now going on 
 that the secretary of the province of Batangas declared that one- 
 third of the 300,000 of the population of that province have died 
 within two^ears — 100,000 men and women. 
 
 The Boston Journal, an eminent Republican paper and a most 
 able supporter of the imperialistic policy, printed on the 3d of 
 May, 1901, an interview with Gen. James M. Bell, given to the 
 New York Times — not the General Bell who has been discussed 
 here, but Gen. James M. Bell is his name, an officer who came 
 back from the Philippines in May, 1901. 
 
 Mr. SPOONER. James F. Bell is the one there now. 
 
 Mr. LODGE. James Franklin Bell. 
 
 IMr. HOAR. This one is James M. Bell, unless I have the in- 
 itials wrong. I have taken great pains to make inquiry. I have 
 heard from the man to whom the interview was given, a news- 
 paper correspondent of high character, and I have applied to the 
 gentlemen of the Boston Journal to know if they ever heard it con- 
 tradicted. He said in May, 1901, and he advocated the policy in 
 the interview, too, that one-sixth of the natives of Luzon have 
 either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last 
 iwo years. Now, what is the population of Luzon? It is about 
 3,000,000, is it not? 
 
 Mr. ALLISON. That or thereabouts. 
 
 Mr. HOAR. Then one-sixth is 500,000. 
 
 6298 
 
27 
 
 I suppose that this dengue fever and the sickness which depopu- 
 lated Batangas is the dii-ect result of the war, and comes from 
 the condition of starvation and bad food which the war has 
 caused. The other provinces have not been heard from. If this 
 be true we have caused the death of more human beings in the 
 Philippines than we have caused to our enemies, including in- 
 surgents in the ten-ible civil war, in all oui- other wars put to- 
 gether, The general adds that — 
 
 the loss of life by killing alone has been very CTeat, but I think not one man 
 has been slain except where his death served the legitimate purposes of war. 
 It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be 
 thought harsh measures, for the Filipino is tricky and crafty and has to be 
 fought in his own way. 
 
 I have made careful inquiry and I am satisfied that this inter- 
 view is genuine. Now, all this is because you will not tell what 
 you mean to do in the future, as I understand it. 
 
 Where did this order to make Samar a howling wilderness 
 originate? The responsibility unquestionably, according to the 
 discipline of armies in the field, rests with the highest authority 
 from which it came. 
 
 We used to talk, some of us, about the horrors of Anderson- 
 ville, and other things that were dona during the civil war. We 
 hope, all of us, never to hear them mentioned again. But is there 
 anything in them worse than that which an officer of high rank 
 in the Army, vouched for by a Senator on this floor, from per- 
 sonal knowledge, as a man of the highest honor and veracity, 
 writes about the evils of these reconceutrado camps in the Phil- 
 ippine Islands? Now all this cost, all these young men gone to 
 their graves, all these wrecked lives, all this* national dishonor, 
 the repeal of the Declaration of Independence, the overthrow of 
 the principle on which the Monroe doctrine was placed by its 
 author, the devastation of provinces, the shooting of captives, the 
 torture of prisoners and of unarmed and peaceful citizens, the hang- 
 ing men up by the thumbs, the carloads of maniac soldiers that 
 you bring home are all because you would not tell and vnll not 
 teU now whether you mean in the future to stand on the princi- 
 ples which you and your fathers alwa3's declared in the past. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio saj’s it is not wise to declare what we 
 will do at some future time. Mr. President, we do not ask you to 
 declare what you will do at some future time. We ask you 
 to declare an eternal principle good at the present time and good 
 at all times. We ask j ou to reaffirm it , because the men most clam- 
 orous in support of what juu are doing deny it. That principle, 
 if you act upon it, prevents you from crushing out a weak nation, 
 because of your fancied interest now or hereafter. It prevents 
 you from undertaking to judge what institutions are fit for 
 other nations on the poor plea that yon are the strongest. We 
 are asking you at least to go no further than to declare what 
 you would not do now or hereafter, and the reason for declaring 
 it is that half of j'ou declare you will hold this people in subjec- 
 tion and the other half on this matter are dumb. You declared 
 what you would not do at some future time when yon all voted 
 that you would not take Cuba against the will of her people, did 
 you not? We ask you to declare not at what moment you will 
 get out of the Philippine Islands, but only on what eternal prin- 
 ciple you will act, in them or out of them. Such declarations are 
 made in all history. They are made in every important treaty 
 between nations. 
 
 6298 
 
28 
 
 The Constitution of the United States is itself but a declaration 
 of what this country will do and what it will not do in all future 
 times. The Declaration of Independence, if it have the practical 
 meaning it lias had for a hundred years, is a declaration of what 
 this country would do through all future times. The Monroe 
 Doctrine, to which sixteen republics south of us owe their life and 
 their safety, was a declaration to mankind of what we would do 
 in all future time. Among all the shallow pretenses of imperial- 
 ism this statement that we will not say what we will do in the 
 future is the most shallow of all. Was there ever such a flimsy 
 pretext flaunted in the face of the American people as that of gen- 
 tlemen who say. If any other nation on the face of the earth or 
 all other nations together attempt to overthrow the independence 
 of any people to the south of us in this hemisphei'e, we will flght 
 and preveiit them, and at the same time think it dishonorable 
 to declare whether we will ever overthrow the independence of 
 a weaker nation in another hemisphere. 
 
 If we take your view of it we have cruSied out the only repub- 
 lic in Asia and put it under our heel and we are now at war with 
 the only Christian people in the East. Even, as I said, the Sena- 
 tor from Ohio admits they are a people, he only says there are 
 several peoples and not one, as if the doctrine that one people has 
 no right to buy sovereignty over another, or to rule another 
 against its will, did not apply in the plural number. You can 
 not crush out an unwilling people, or buy sovereignty over them, 
 or treat them as spoils of conquest, or booty of battle in the singu- 
 lar, or at retail, but you have a perfect right to do it by whole- 
 sale. Suppose there are several peoples in the Philippines. They 
 have population enough to make a hundred and twelve States of 
 the size of Rhode Island or Delaware when they adopted the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 I suppose, according to this modern doctrine, that if, when the 
 Holy Alliance threatened to reduce the colonies which had thrown 
 off the yoke of Spain in South America, not a wit more com- 
 pletely than the Philippine people had thrown off the yoke of 
 Spain in Asia, if they had undertaken to subdue them all at once, 
 John Quincy Adams and James Monroe would have held their 
 peace and would at least have said it was not wise to say what we 
 would do in the future. If we had the right to protect nascent 
 republics from the tyranny of other people and to declare that 
 we would do it in the future, and if need be would encounter the 
 whole continent of Europe single-handed in that case, is it any 
 loss fitting to avow that we will protect such peoples from our- 
 selves? How is it that these gentlemen v/ho will not tell you 
 what they will do in the future in regard to the Philippine Islands 
 were so eager and greedy to tell you what they would do and 
 what they would not do in the case of Cuba when we first declared 
 war on Spain? You can make no distinction between these two 
 cases except by having a motive, which I do not for one moment 
 impute, that when you made war upon Spain you were afraid of 
 Europe, if you did not make the declaration. 
 
 These people are given to us as children, to lead them out of 
 their childhood into manhood. They were docile and affection- 
 ate in the beginning. But they needed j^our kindness and justice, 
 and a respect in them for the rights we claimed for ourselves, and 
 ihe rights we had declared always were inherent in all mankind. 
 You preferred force to kindness, and power to justice, and war to 
 peace, and pride to generosity. 
 
29 
 
 Yon said yon vronld not treat \vith a man -Rnth aims in his 
 hands. Yon have come, instead, to tortnre him ivhen he -was nn- 
 aimed and defenseless. Yet yon said you vronld make his conduct 
 the measure of your oivn; that if he lied to yon, yon would lie 
 to him; that if he were cruel to you, yon would he cniel to him; 
 that if he were a savage, yon would he a savage also. Yon held 
 an attitude toward him which yon hold to no strong or to no 
 civilized power. Y'on decorate an officer for the capture of 
 Agninaldo by treachery, and the next week ratify The Hague con- 
 vention and denounce such action, and classify it with poisoning 
 and breaking of faith. 
 
 Yon tell ns, Mr. President, that the Philippine people have 
 practiced some cruelties themselves. The investigation has not 
 yet gone far enough to enable you to tell which side begun these 
 atrocities. One case which one of the members of the majority 
 of the committee told the Senate the other day was well estab- 
 lished by proving that it occurred long before April, 1901, and 
 was so published, far and wide, in the press of this country at 
 that time. I do not learn tiiat there was any attempt to investi- 
 gate it, either by the War Department or by Congress, mitil the 
 beginning of the present session of Congress. But suppose they 
 did begin it. Such things are quite likely to occur when wealmess 
 is fighting for its lights against strength. Is their conduct any 
 excuse for ours? The Philippine people is but a baby in the hands 
 of our Republic. The yoimg atldete, the giant, the Hercules, the 
 Titan, forces a fight upon a boy 10 years old and then blames 
 the little fellow because he hits below the belt. , 
 
 I see that my enthusiastic friend from North Carolina seeks to 
 break the force of these revelations by saying that they are only 
 what some Americans are wont to do at home. It is benevolent 
 assimilation over again. It is just what the junior Senator from 
 Indiana predicted. He thought we should conduct affairs in the 
 Philippine Islands so admirably that we should pattern our do- 
 mestic administration on that model. But did I understand that 
 the Senator from North Carolina proposes, if his charge against 
 the Democrats there is true, to make North Carolina a howling 
 wilderness, or to burn populous towns of 10,000 people, to get the 
 people of North Carolina into reconcentration camps, and to slay 
 every male child over 10 years old? I know nothing about the 
 timth of the Senator's charges. They have never been investi- 
 gated by the Senate so far. We had some painful investigations 
 years ago by committees in this body and of the other "House, 
 notably one of which the senior Senator from Colorado was chair- 
 man. But I never heard that you undertook to apply to Ameri- 
 cans the methods which, if not justified, at least are sought to 
 be extenuated, in the Philippine Islands. 
 
 Mr. President, if the stories which come to me in private from 
 officers of the Army and from the kindred and friends of sol- 
 diers are to be tnisted; if the evidence which seems to be just 
 beginning before the Senate Committee can be trusted, there is 
 nothing in the conduct of Spain in Cuba worse than the conduct 
 of Americans in the Philippine Islands. If this ertdence be true, 
 and nobody is as yet ready to deny it, and Spain were strong 
 enough, she would have the right to-morrow to wrest the Philip- 
 pine Islands from our grasp on grounds as good, if not better, 
 than those which justified us when we made war upon her. The 
 United States is a strong and powerful country — the strojigest 
 and most powerful on earth, as we love to think. But it is the 
 5298 
 
30 
 
 first time in the history of this people for nearly three hundred 
 years when we had to appeal to strength and not to the righteous- 
 ness of our cause to maintain our position in a great debate of 
 justice and liberty. 
 
 Gentlemen tell us that the Filipinos are savages, that they 
 have inflicted torture, that they have dishonored our dead and 
 outraged the living. That very likely may be true. Spain said 
 the same thing of the Cubans. We have made the same charges 
 against our ovm counti’j-men in the disturbed days after the war. 
 The reports of committees and the evidence in the documents in 
 our library are full of them. But who.ever heard before of an 
 American gentleman, or an American, who took as a rule for his 
 own conduct the condiict of his antagonist, or who claimed that 
 the Republic should act as savages Ijecause she had savages to 
 deal with? I had supposed, Mr. President, that the question, 
 whether a gentleman shall lie or murder or torture, depended on 
 his sense of his ovm character, and not on his opinion of his 
 victim. Of all the miserable sophistical shifts wMch have at- 
 tended this wretched business from the beginning, there is none 
 more miserable than this. 
 
 You knew — men are held to know what they ought to know in 
 morals and in the conduct of States — and you knew that this peo- 
 ple would resist you; you knew you were to have a war; you knew 
 that if they were civilized, so far as they were civilized and like 
 you, the war would be conducted after the fashion of civilized 
 warfare, and that so far as they were savage the war would be 
 conducted on their part after the fashion of savage warfare; and 
 you knew also that if they resisted and held out, their soldiers 
 would be tempted to do what they have done, and would yield to 
 that temptation. 
 
 And I tell you, Mr. President, that if you do not disregard the 
 lessons of human nature thus far, and do not retrace your steps 
 and set an example of another conduct, you will have and those 
 who follow you will have a like experience hereafter. You may 
 pacify this country on the surface; you may make it a solitude, 
 and call it peace; you may burn towns; yoii may exterminate 
 populations; you may kill the children or the boys over 10, as 
 Herod slew the firstborn of the Israelites. But the volcano will 
 be there. You will not settle this thing in a generation or in a 
 centiiry or in ten centuries, until it is settled right. It never 
 ■wdll be settled right until you look for your counselors to George 
 Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams and 
 Abraham Lincoln, and not to the reports of the War Department. 
 
 There is much more I should like to say, but I have spoken too 
 long already. I have listened to what many gentlemen have 
 said — gentlemen whom I love and honor — with profound sorrow. 
 They do over again in the Senate what Burke complained of to 
 the House of Commons. 
 
 In order to prove that the Americans have no right to their liberties we 
 are every day endeavoring to subvert the maxims which preserve the whole 
 spirit of our own. To prove that the Americans ought not to be free we are 
 obliged to depreciate the value of freedom itself; and we never seem to gain 
 a paltry advantage over them in debate without attacking some of those 
 principles or deriding some of those feelings for which our ancestors have 
 shed their blood. 
 
 I wish to cite another weighty maxim from Burke: 
 
 America, gentlemen say, is a noble object — ^it is an object well worth 
 fighting for. Cea-tainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of gaining 
 them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to their choice of means by 
 6298 
 
31 
 
 their complesions and their hahits. Those who understand the military art 
 will of conrse have some predilection for it. Those who wield the thunder 
 of the state may have more confidence in the efiScacy of arms. Bat I con- 
 fess, possibly for the want of this knowledge, my opinion is much more in 
 favor of prudent management than of force — considering force not as an 
 odious, hut a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so 
 active, so growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable connection with us. 
 
 There is nothing — 
 
 Says Gibbon, the historian of the Decline and Fall of the Ro- 
 man Empire — 
 
 more adverse to nature and reason than to hold in obedience remote coun- 
 tries and foreign nations in opposition to their inclination and interest. A 
 torrent of barbarians may pass over the earth, hut an extensive empire must 
 be supported by a refined system of policy and oppression; in the center, an 
 absolute power, prompt in action and rich in resources; a swift and easy 
 communication with the extreme jjarts; fortifications to check the first 
 effort of rebellion; a regular administration to protect and punish; and a 
 weU-discipiined army to inspire fear, without provoking discontent and 
 despair. 
 
 Lord Elgin, Governor-General of India and formerly Governor- 
 General of Canada, vrell known and highly esteemed in the United 
 States, declared as the result of his experience in the East: “ It 
 is a terrible business, however — this living among inferior races. 
 I have seldom from man or woman since I came to the East heard 
 a sentence which was reconcilable with the hypothesis that Chris- 
 tianity had ever come into the world. Detestation, contempt, 
 ferocity, vengeance, whether Chinamen or Indians he the ob.ject. 
 One moves among them with perfect indifference, treating them 
 not as dogs, because in that case one would whistle to them and 
 pat them, hut as maebiues with which one can have no commun- 
 ion or sjunpatby. When the passions of fear and hatred are in- 
 grafted on this indifiference, the result is frightful — an absolute 
 callousness as to the sufferings of the objects of those passions, 
 which must be witnessed to be understood and believed.” 
 
 The glowing narrative of Macaulay, the eloquence of Burke 
 and Sheridan have made the crimes committed in India under the 
 rule of Warren Hastings familiar to mankind. Yet I believe the 
 verdict of history has acquitted Hastings, as the tribunal that tried 
 him acquitted him. He was dismissed, exculpated, from the bar 
 of the House of Lords, and decorated. He was swoni of the Privy 
 Council and received at cofirt. A large purse was made up for 
 him by the East India Company. Yet no man doubts the truth 
 of Burke's ten-ible indictment. He was acquitted because Eng- 
 land, and not he, was the criminal. When England undertook to 
 assei*t her rule in India what followered was the inevitable con- 
 sequence of the decision. 
 
 Lord Erskine, the foremost advocate who ever spoke the Eng- 
 lish tongue on English soil, placed with xmerring sagacity the 
 defense of Hastings on this ground alone. He admitted that 
 Hastings, in i*uling India, “may, and mnst, have offended against 
 the laws of God and nature.” “If he WeXS the faithful viceroy 
 of an empire wi-ested in blood from the people to whom God and 
 nature had given it, he may and must have preserved that unjust 
 dominion over timorous and abject nations by a terrifying snper- 
 iority.” “A government having no root in consent or affection, 
 no foxmdation in similarity of interests, nor support from any 
 one principle which cements men in society together could only 
 be upheld by alternate stratagem and force.” Erskine adds: “To 
 be governed at all, they must be governed with a rod of iron: and 
 oni- empire in the East would long since have been lost to Great 
 6298 
 
32 
 
 Britain if ci^^l sltill and militarj’ prowess had not nnited their 
 efforts to support an authority which Heaven never gave — by 
 means which it never can sanction.” 
 
 Mr. President, this is the eternal law of human nature. You 
 may struggle against it, you may try to escape it, you may 
 persuade yourself that your intentions are benevolent, that your 
 yoke will be easy and your burden will be light, but it will 
 assert itself again and again. Government without the consent 
 of the governed — an authority which Heaven never gave — can 
 only he supported by means which Heaven never can sanction. 
 
 The American people have got this one question to answer. 
 Tliey may answer it now; they can take ten years, or twenty 
 years, or a generation, or a century to think of it. But it will 
 not dovm. They must answer it in the end — Can you lawfioUy 
 buy with money, or get by brute force of anns, the right to hold 
 in subjugation an unwilling people, and to impose on them such 
 constitution as yoii, and not they, think best for them? 
 
 We have answered this qiiestion a good many times in the past. 
 The fathers answered it in 177C, and founded the Republic upon 
 their answer, which has been the corner stone. John Quincy 
 Adams and James Monroe answered it again in the Monroe doc- 
 trine, which John Quincy Adams declared was only the doctrine 
 of the consent of the governed. The Republican party answered 
 it when it took possession of the forces of Government at the 
 beginning of the most brilliant period in all legislative history. 
 Abraham Lincoln answered it when, on that fatal journey to 
 Washington in 18G1, he announced that the doctrine of the con- 
 sent of the governed was the cardinal doctrine of his political 
 creed, and declared, with prophetic vision, that he was ready to 
 be assassinated for it if need be. You answered it again your- 
 selves when you said that Cuba, who had no more title than the 
 people of the Philippine Islands had to their independence, of 
 right oiight to be free and independent. 
 
 The question will be answered again hereafter. It will be an- 
 swered soberly and deliberately and quietly as the American peo- 
 ple are wont to answer great questions of duty. It will be an- 
 swered, not in any turbulent assembly, amid shouting and clapping 
 of hands and stamping of feet, where men do their thinking with 
 their heels and not with their brains. It will be answered in the 
 churches and in the schools and in the colleges; and it will be 
 answered in fifteen million American homes, and it will be an- 
 swered as it has always been ans^wered. It will be answered right. 
 
 A famous orator once imagined the nations of the world unit- 
 ing to erect a column to Jurispradence in some stately capital. 
 Each country was to bring the name of its great jurist to be in- 
 scribed on the side of the column, wdth a sentence stating what 
 he and his country through him had done toward establishing the 
 reign of law in justice for the benefit of mankind. 
 
 Rome said, “Here is Numa, who received the science of law 
 from the nymph Egeria in the cavern and taught its message to 
 his countrymen. Here is Justinian, w^ho first reduced law to_ a 
 code, made its precepts plain, so that all mankind could read it, 
 and laid down the rules which should govern the dealing of man 
 with man in every transaction of life.” 
 
 France said, “Here is D’Aguesseau, the gi’eat chancellor, to 
 whose judgment seat pilgrims from afar were wont to repair to 
 do him reverence.” 
 
 5298 
 
England said, “ Here is Erskine, wlio made it safe for men to 
 print the truth, no matter what tyrant might dislike to read it.” 
 Virginia said, “ Here is IMarshall, who breathed the vital princi- 
 ple into the Constitution, infused into it, instead of the letter that 
 killeth. the spirit that maketh alive, and enabled it to keep State 
 and nation each in its appointed bounds, as the stars abide in their 
 courses.” 
 
 I have sometimes fancied that we might erect here in the cap- 
 ital of the country a column to American Liberty which alone 
 might rival in height the beautiful and simple shaft which we 
 have erected to the fame of the Father of the CSuntry. I can 
 fancy each generation bringing its inscription, which should recite 
 its own contribution to the great structure of which the column 
 should be but the sjunbol. 
 
 The generation of the Puritan and the Pilgrim and the Hugue- 
 not claims the place of honor at the base. ” I brought the torch 
 of Freedom across the sea. I cleared the forest. I subdued the 
 savage and the wild beast. I laid in Christian liberty and law 
 the foundations of empire.” 
 
 The next generation says: “ Wliat my fathers founded I builded. 
 I left the seashore to penetrate the wilderness. I planted schools 
 and colleges and courts and churches.” 
 
 Then comes the generation of the great colonial day. “ I stood 
 by the side of England on many a hard-fought field. I helped 
 humble the power of France. I saw the lilies go down before 
 the lion at Louisburg and Quebec. I carried the cross of St. 
 George in triumph in Martinique and the Havana. I knew the 
 stormy pathways of the ocean. I followed the whale from the 
 Arctic to the Antarctic seas, among tumbling mountains of ice 
 and under equinoctial heat, as the great English orator said, ‘No 
 sea not vexed by my fisheries ; no climate not witness to my toils. ’ ’ ’ 
 Then comes the generation of the Revolutionary time. “ I en- 
 countered the power of England. I declared and won the Inde- 
 pendence of my country. I placed that declaration on the eternal 
 principles of justice and righteousness which all mankind have 
 read, and on which all mankind will one day stand. I affirmed 
 the dignity of human nature and the right of the people to govern 
 themselves. I devised the securities against popular haste and 
 delusion which made that right secure. I created the Supreme 
 Court and the Senate. For the first time in history I made the 
 right of the people to govern themselves safe, and established in- 
 stitutions for that end which will endure forever.” 
 
 The next generation says, I encountered England again. I 
 .indicated the right of an American ship to sail the seas the wide 
 world over without molestation. I made the American sailor as 
 safe at the ends of the earth as my fathers had made the Ameri- 
 can farmer safe in his home. I proclaimed the Monroe doctrine 
 in the face of the Holy Alliance, under which 16 Republics have 
 joined the family of nations. I filled the Western Hemisphere 
 with Republics from the Lakes to Cape Horn, each controlling its 
 own destiny in safety and in honor.” 
 
 Then comes the next generation : “ I did the mighty deeds which 
 in yonr younger years you saw and which your fathers told. I 
 saved the Union. I put down the rebellion. I freed the slave. 
 I made of every slave a freeman, and of every freeman a citizen, 
 and of every citizen a voter.” 
 
 Then comes another who did the great work in peace, in which 
 52S8 3 
 
34 
 
 so many of you had an honorable share: “ I kept the faith. 1 
 paid the debt. I brought in conciliation and peace instead of 
 war. I secured in the practice of nations the great Doctrine of 
 Expatriation. I devised the Homestead system. I covered the 
 prairie and the plain -with happy homes and with mighty States. 
 I crossed the continent and joined together the seas with my 
 great railroads. I declared the manufacturing independence \>f 
 America, as my fathers affirmed its political independence. I 
 built up our vast domestic commerce. I made my country the 
 richest, freest, strongest, happiest peopleonthe faceof the earth.” 
 And now what have we to say? 4^at have we to say? Are 
 we to have a place in that honorable company? Must we engrave 
 on that column, “We repealed the Declaration of Independence. 
 We changed the Monroe doctrine from a doctrine of eternal 
 righteousness and justice, resting on the consent of the governed, 
 to a doctrine of brutal selfishness, looking only to our own ad- 
 vantage. We crushed the only republic in Asia. We made war 
 on the only Christian people in the East. We converted a war 
 of glory to a war of shame. We vulgarized the American flag. 
 We introduced perfidy into the practice of war. We inflicted 
 torture on unarmed men to extort confession. We put children 
 to death. We established reconcentrado camps. We devasted 
 provinces. We baffled the aspirations of a people for liberty.” 
 No, Mr. President. Never! Never! Other and better counsels 
 will yet prevail. The hours are long in the life of a great peo- 
 ple. The irrevocable step is not yet taken. 
 
 Let us at least have this to say: We too have kept the faith of 
 the Fathers. We took Cuba by the hand. We delivered her from 
 her age-long bondage. We welcomed her to the family of na- 
 tions. W’e set mankind an example never beheld before of 
 moderation in -victory. We led hesitating and halting Europe to 
 the deliverance of their beleaguered ambassadors in China. We 
 marched through a hostile country — a country cruel and barbar- 
 ous — without anger or revenge. We retumed benefit for injury, 
 and pity for cruelty. We made the name of America beloved in 
 the East as in the West. We kept faith with the Philippine 
 people. We kept faith -with our own history. We kept our 
 national honor unsullied. The flag which we received -without a 
 rent we handed do-wn without a stain. [Applause on the floor 
 and in the galleries.] 
 
 5293 
 
 o