£713 
 
 IJ^oS^ 
 
 ,\m 
 
^ (^^L^l^ 
 
 Tz 
 
 r7. 
 
 / 
 
 What is to be done v/lth the Philippines? 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 / 
 
 HON. W. G. BRANTLEY, 
 
 OF GEORGIA, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1900. 
 
 
 washiistgtoin:. 
 
 laco. 
 
 4005 
 
 V.<.> ' 
 

 Cong, fee 
 
 10 
 
 v» t. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM G. BRANTLEY. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
 Union, and having under consideration the bill (H. B. 8245) to regulate the 
 trade of Puerto Rico, and for other purposes- 
 Mr. BRANTLEY said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman : What is to be done with the Philippines? What 
 is to be their future? What is to be the policy of the United States 
 Government with reference to them? 
 
 These are questions that interest and concern many people. 
 They deeply concern not only the Filipinos, but as well the people 
 of America, and the answers to them are anxiously awaited by 
 the people of the civilized world. Their importance can not be 
 overstated or overestimated. Upon the answers to them depend 
 the hopes, the aspirations, and the destiny of a people struggling 
 for liberty; and, more than this, there are many who believe that, 
 unless all history be false, the final answers to these questions will 
 determine the fate of a Republic more than an.hundred years old, 
 and will settle forever the question as to whe'ther or not a free 
 people can perpetuate self-government or whether such a govern- 
 ment must in time perish from the earth. If we concede the 
 gravity of these questions — and all must concede it, no matter 
 from what standpoint they are viewed— it is important to know 
 who can answer them, and it is doubly important to know what 
 the answers will be. 
 
 It is not questioned or denied that the power to answer these 
 questions is vested in Congress and in Congress alone. The or- 
 ganic law so provides, and the President in his last annual mes- 
 sage to us directed our attention to them. He said: 
 
 The future govei^nment of the Philippines rests with the Congress of the 
 United States. 
 
 He further said: 
 
 Until Congress shall have made known the formal expression of its will, I 
 shall use the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes to 
 uphold the sovereignty of the United States in these distant islands. 
 
 In an address delivered by him in Boston, on February 16, 1899, 
 he also said: 
 
 This whole subject is now with Congress; and Congress is the voice, the 
 conscience, and the judgment of the American people. 
 
 It does not occur to me, therefore, that, viewing these questions 
 from the standpoint of the Constitution and the Presidents ut- 
 terances, that it is inappropriate for a member of this House to 
 discuss them, and not only to discuss them, but to suggest the 
 answers that should be made. Indeed, I believe it not only appro- 
 priate so to do, but, in my opinion, a solemn responsibility rests 
 upon this Congress not only to discuss these questions, but after 
 discussion to act, and declare to the Filipinos, the Americans, and 
 4095 3 
 
all the world what the policy ot this great Government with ref- 
 erence to the Philippines is. 
 
 On December 10, 1898, a treaty of peace with Spain was agreed 
 npon, and on February 6, 1899. that treaty was ratified by the 
 United States Senate, and the war vv^ith Spain which had, for all 
 practical purposes ended months before, then became theoretically 
 and legally at an end, and, so far as the Congress was concerned, 
 the United States was at peace with all the world. Under that 
 treaty, so ratified, it was provided that: 
 
 The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the terri- 
 tories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress. 
 
 There are some who insist that this provision of the treaty is 
 the supreme law for the guidance of Congress, and that, under 
 this provision. Congress has unrestrained power to provide such 
 civil rights and such political status for the Filipinos as the will 
 of Congress may deem proper to provide. I do not subscribe to 
 any such doctrine, for I believe that, under this provision of the 
 treaty. Congress must fix the civil rights and the political status 
 of the Filipinos in accordance with the terms and the limitations 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 But, passing this question for the present, I would call attention 
 to the fact that this treaty is more than twelve months old; the 
 responsibility that it puts upon the Congress was placed there 
 more than a year ago, and yet Congress has taken no step to 
 formulate a policy, or to meet its responsibility, or to discharge 
 the duties that lie at its door. 
 
 It is said, however, that Congress can do nothing, because the 
 Filipinos are in a state of insurrection, because a state of war 
 between them and us exists, and that until it shall have been 
 ended and peace restored Congress should do nothing. As an 
 humble member of this House I dissent from this proposition. 
 
 If we concede that the President, through proclamations and by 
 commissioners, has earnestly endeavored to persuade the Fili- 
 pinos to lay down their arms and to accept the sovereignty of the 
 United States, we are still confronted with the fact that the Presi- 
 dent was and is without power to announce to the Filipino people 
 a definite policy or to pledge the faith of this country to any given 
 policy, because this country can have no policy and the President 
 can commit it to none until Congress has declared one. 
 
 General Otis, in a letter addressed by him on January 9, 1899, 
 to the insurgent leader, Aguinaldo, used this language expressive 
 of the situation. After stating that a treaty of peace with Spain 
 had been agreed upon, he said: 
 
 This treaty acknowledgment, with the conditions which accompany it, 
 awaits ratification by the Senate of the United States, and the action of its 
 Congress must also be secured before the Executive of that Government can 
 proclaim a definite policy. That policy must conform to the will of the peo- 
 ple of the United States, expressed through its representatives in Congress. 
 
 General Otis also informs us, and I quote his exact language as 
 found in his report: 
 
 Repeated conferences were held with influential insurgents, whose chief 
 aim appeared to be to obtain some authoritative expression on the intent of the 
 United States with regard to the Philippines, and complained that they were 
 unable to discover any one who could speak ex cathedra. They asserted that 
 their Malolos arrangement was a government de facto, which had the right 
 to ask an expression of intent from the United States Government. 
 
 Is it any wonder that the Filipinos could find no one that could 
 speak ex cathedra as to the intent of this Government? Is it any 
 wonder that up to this hour they have been unable to find anyone 
 
 4095 
 
who could so speak? The only persons who could so speak have 
 remained silent, and they are silent until now. This Congress 
 should have spoken long ago. It should speak now. In the light 
 of all that has developed since this warfare began who can say. 
 if the Congress had measured up to its duty and declared the in- 
 tent of this Government to be to give the Filipinos their independ- 
 ence, that all the rich American blood and all the treasure that 
 has been poured out in these islands could not have been saved? 
 
 Who can say that such a declaration now would not stop the 
 sacrifice of life and the drain upon the resources of our people? 
 It may be a mere theory that such a declaration would have such 
 an effect, and yet it is a theory well founded upon the knowledge 
 our people have of the motives and inspirations that move any 
 people who strive for liberty and independence. It is a theory 
 well worth the trying if we have in our hearts the determination 
 and the intention now or in the future to accord independence to 
 the Philippine Islands. [Applause. J 
 
 Again, who can say that a declaration from the Congress before 
 this unhappy warfare began that it was the intent of this Govern- 
 ment to permanently retain the Philippines would not have avoided 
 a war? Who can say that such a declaration now would not end 
 it? If the Filipinos knew that this Government, by its Congress, 
 had fully determined to subdue and subject them as a dependent 
 people, is it beyond reason that dismay and discouragement would 
 seize them and that they in despair would cease the conflict? 
 They have been told that Congress alone has the power to announce 
 such a determination, and they know that Congress has never an- 
 nounced it; they know that the treaty of peace left their civil 
 rights and political status to be determined by the Congress, and 
 they know that Congress has never determined them; they know 
 that their future is in the hands of a free people governing a great 
 Republic, and is it too much for them to expect and to believe 
 that the free will give freedom? 
 
 If they so expect and believe, will not this belief continue to 
 nerve them to give battle, and will not that hope continue to ani- 
 mate them until the hope itself is denied them? I am ignorant of 
 the motives that impel gentlemen of the majority in this House 
 to maintain their position of inaction on this great question, and 
 I do not undertake to impugn their motives or the motives of any- 
 one. I confess my surprise, however, confronted, as we are, with 
 the possibility always of bringing this war to a close by a positive 
 declaration of policy, that no policy is declared. I confess my 
 surprise that, with a duty and a responsibility upon us to act and 
 to act quickly, this Congress does not stir. 
 
 All that Congress has done has been by indirection. No affirma- 
 tive action has been taken. 
 
 When the House voted to pay the $20,000,000 to Spain that the 
 treaty provided for, all amendments looking to a declaration of 
 policy were refused. The House was unable to declare one. 
 Many members voted to pay the twenty millions not because they 
 approved the acquisition of the Philippines, but because they be- 
 lieved that the Constitution vesting the I resident and the Senate 
 with the power to make this treaty, and the treaty having been 
 made, the same became an obligation of the Government that we 
 were in honor bound to pay. For the same reason, without divi- 
 sion of party, war supplies have been voted. Our soldiers with- 
 out their volition were in the Philippines. They were being at- 
 tacked. We could not desert them'. Our flag was being fired 
 
 4G95 
 
6 
 
 npon; whether rightly or wrongly we could not stop to inquire. 
 We simply went to its rescue. [Applause.] 
 
 But, throughout it all, Congress has never announced a fixed 
 intention or ever declared a settled policy with reference to the 
 Filipinos. 
 
 Is it possible that we are afraid to act because some think that 
 any action by us or any declaration by us affirming our allegiance 
 to the principles of freedom would encourage an enemy against 
 the United States? Are we to abdicate our functions and sit with 
 mute lips and folded hands and await a policy to be formulated 
 and declared by the President and submitted for our ratification? 
 What has come over the once proud spirit of American independ- 
 ence—a spirit that has reached its highest acclaim in these halls— 
 that we should sit and await the directions or instructions from 
 anyone save the great body of the people? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, one set of commissioners have already been to 
 the Philippine Islands, and have talked with the insurgent leaders 
 and citizens of these islands, and have issued proclamations an- 
 nouncing some of the purposes of this Government. They went 
 without knowledge of ^the intention of Congress and without its 
 instructions. They have returned and have presented us with 
 voluminous literature as to the result of their visit. We see it 
 stated in the newspapers that another commission is about to be 
 appointed to visit these islands for the purpose of inaugurating a 
 civil government there. What kind of a civil government will 
 this new commission organize? Where will it get any authority 
 expressive of the will of the American people to organize any gov- 
 ernment? I insist, Mr. Chairman, that if this new commiss:on 
 goes, it should go clothed with authority from us, and should go 
 prepared and fortified to declare in unmistakable terms what the 
 intent of this Government is, and go with authority to establish 
 the government there that this Congress has determined should be 
 established. 
 
 There has been considerable talk about our duty to the flag and 
 our duty to uphold the President. Indeed, some have gone so far 
 as to confound the President and the flag as one and the same, and 
 the proposition has been broadly hinted at that one could not dis- 
 agree with the President without being disloyal to the flag. I feel 
 sure that no gentleman in this House has indulged in any such 
 talk or indorses any such sentiment. There is but one flag for all 
 of us, and we all love it. [Applause.] This has been demon- 
 strated in this House time and again when, without a dissenting 
 vote, we have voted men and munitions of war for the purpose of 
 defending it. We who hold commissions here, however, are in 
 our sphere charged with as much responsibility as is the President. 
 Indeed, so far as this war is concerned, there is more responsibility 
 upon the Congress than upon the President. We alone have the 
 power to declare war; and it necessarily follows that if we sit idly 
 by and allow the President to wage a war, we become responsible 
 for it, whether we approve it or not. We have not yet reached the 
 period in the American life where freedom of speech can be demed 
 either to the people or to their representatives, and more than a 
 hundred years ago we repudiated the doctrine of tyrants that '-the 
 king can do no wrong," and surely there are none now in free 
 America who are willing to invoke such a declaration. 
 
 We have the right to diifer from the President. We have the 
 right to differ with each other. We should be able to disagree 
 
 4095 
 
without charging "treason "or " disloyalty." No great question 
 was ever solved by crimination and recrimination. We should 
 discuss the great (luestions confronting us with all the solemnity 
 that their importance demands. 
 
 In my opinion the questions presented by the Philippine problem 
 are not political. They are national and fundamental. They go 
 to the fireside in the home of every citizen. They concern the 
 traditions and the policies of this Government from its foundation 
 until now. They involve the Declaration of Independence, the 
 Constitution, and all our glorious past. They have to do with the 
 lives and the health of thousands of American soldiers bearing 
 arms beneath the American flag. They should be discussed from 
 the standpoint of free American citizenship, and not from the 
 standpoint of any political party. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal I can not hope 
 to discuss all the phases that the Philippine question presents, nor 
 can I hope to discuss any one of them at the length and with the 
 completeness that its importance deserves. I will not speculate 
 upon what ought to have been done. 1 wish to talk of what should 
 be done now. I submit two propositions to this House: In the 
 first place, I insist that in the interest of peace, in the interest of 
 our soldiers and sailors, in the maintenance of the dignity and 
 power of Congress, and in fulfillment of our solemn obligations, 
 this Congress should ainrmatively declare a policy, whatever that 
 policy may be, as to the purposes and intentions of the Federal 
 Government with reference to the Philippine Islands. I submit, 
 in the next place, with equal earnestness, that the policy to be de- 
 clared should be a policy looking to the release of the Philippine 
 Islands from the sovereignty of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am not so much concprned about the style and 
 form of government that the Filipinos should have as I am con- 
 cerned that we should absolve ourselves from their government 
 at the earliest possible day. I do not claim for the views I pre- 
 sent any special merit of newness or of originality. I simply 
 claim for them sincerity. I do not believe, technically and legally 
 speaking, that we bear the same relation to the Philippines that 
 we do to Cuba. Morally speaking, I believe the relation is the 
 same. In the treaty of peace, "Spain relinquishes all claim of 
 sovereignty over and title to Cuba." but does not cede that sov- 
 ereignty to us. In reference to the Philippines, the treaty declares, 
 ' ' Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the 
 Philippine Islands. " It appears from a reading of the treaty that 
 in the case of Cuba we take the title to hold in trust, as it were, 
 to be delivered after the pacification of the island to the Cubans, 
 while in the case of the Philippines we take outright and to our- 
 selves whatever title Spain had to the Philippines. 
 
 It therefore follows that we are vested to-day with just as good 
 a title, and no better, as Spain had and held. While this is true, I 
 nevertheless believe that when the Fifty-fifth Congress declared 
 that the Cuban people "are and of right ought to be free and in- 
 dependent," they in effect declared the same of the Filipinos, be- 
 cause it would be absurd and ridiculous to give any other mean- 
 ing to the declaration. We could not have stood before the 
 civilized world and said. "The Cuban people are and of right 
 ought to be free and independent, but the Filipinos are not and 
 of right ought not to be free and independent. "' The declaration 
 we made was a declaration of freedom, and, although it was lim- 
 
8 
 
 ited to the Cuban people, it was so limited because they were tne 
 only people at that time involved, but the principle and the spirit 
 involved in the declaration was as broad as the universe. 
 
 I believe, too, that when the Fifty-fifth Congress declared it to 
 be the determination of the United States to leave the govern- 
 ment and control of the island of Cuba to its people, after the 
 pacification thereof, it was equivalent to a declaration that the 
 United States was not engaged in a war of conquest, and did not 
 expect to demand any enlargement of its territory or any enrich- 
 ment of its Treasury as the result of its victorious arms. It was 
 a declaration so lofty and so noble that it thrilled every American 
 heart and proclaimed again to the world that a new government, 
 upon new theories higher and better than the Old World ever 
 knew, existed in the Western Hemisphere. It was such a decla- 
 ration as only a government founded upon liberty could have 
 uttered. It follows, if my construction of the resolutions of Con- 
 gress is correct, that, morally speaking, there is no difference 
 between the status of Cuba and the status of the Philippines so 
 far as the United States Government is concerned. [Applause.] 
 
 The technical difference, however, that does exist involves a 
 difference in the course to be pursued by the Congress. In the 
 case of Cuba a policy of inaction is all that is necessary to prevent 
 us from embarking in a colonial enterprise there, while in the 
 case of the Philippines and of Puerto Rico a policy of positive ac- 
 tion is necessary to undo the entry that has already been made 
 into a colonial venture, in order to save this country from the 
 perils of colonial government. 
 
 Gentlemen who speak of those who oppose the permanent reten- 
 tion of the Philippines as mere obstructionists demonstrate that 
 they have not given the subject the consideration that its impor- 
 tance deserves. The foundations of empire have already been laid. 
 The beginning of a colonial system of government has already 
 been inaugurated. There are those of us who would undo this 
 wrong and who would put the ship of state back into the waters 
 in which she has sailed so long. Those of us who wish this done 
 desire positive action in order to do it. Those who oppose it are 
 the real obstructionists. 
 
 In reference to our title to the Philippines, it occurs to me that 
 our status is about this: We took a conveyance of title from 
 Spain, and we hold by that means the paper title to the islands. 
 When we came to take possession, however, under our title, the 
 Filipinos interposed an adverse claim. They claimed an adverse 
 possession and set up a prescriptive title. Those of us who have 
 practiced law have seen many a good paper title defeated by a 
 superior prescriptive title. When the Filipinos thus joined issue 
 with us upon the question of title, we sought in no way to adjust 
 our differences with them. We appealed to no peaceful forum to 
 determine the disputed issue, and thus it followed that the issue of 
 title was put to the arbitrament of the sword for determination. 
 Possibly, if we had called the conscience of the world into a court, 
 and had appeared in such a forum to test our rights, we might 
 have had it suggested to us that Spain held Cuba by the same 
 right that she held the Philippines; that her title to the one was 
 as good as to the other, and we might have been asked how we 
 reconciled the fact of our repudiation of her title to Cuba and yet 
 held as valid and legal her title to the Philippines. 
 
 We might also have been asked, if we really believed that by her 
 
 4095 
 
9 
 
 corrupt rule Spain had forfeited ber title to Cuba, if. for the same 
 reason, we did not really believe that she had also forfeited her 
 title to the Philippines. It might have been asked us, too, if Eng- 
 land did not have as good title to her American colonies as Spain 
 ever dared to claim to the Philippines, and if we now believe that 
 our forefathers were right in repudiating the title of England. It 
 is possible also that we might have been asked, if we now believed 
 in the validity of Spain's title to her colonies, how it was that we 
 recognized her rebellious colonies in South America when they 
 disputed that title. Some of these questions might have been 
 troublesome to answer, but, whether for that reason or for some 
 other, we did not stop to argue or dispute the question of title, 
 but proceeded with Army and Navy to take possession of these 
 islands under the title that we had. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 
 
 Mr. GRIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
 my colleague be allowed to conclude his remarks. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia asks unani- 
 mous consent that his colleague be allowed to conclude his re- 
 marks. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears 
 none. 
 
 Mr. BRANTLEY. Believing as I do, Mr. Chairman, for the 
 reasons given, that our moral duty to the Philippines is the same 
 as it is to the Cubans, I insist that we should accord to them the 
 same freedom that we propose to accord to the Cubans. 
 
 I recognize the fact, however, that, so far as the Cubans are 
 concerned, we are neither expected to or have the right to organ- 
 ize a government for them. Indeed, under the treaty of peace, in 
 which Spain did not cede her sovereignty in Cuba to us, and 
 under the resolution of Congress declaring' war against Spain, in 
 which we disclaimed any disposition to exercise sovereignty, 
 jurisdiction, or control over Cuba, except for the pacification 
 thereof, and asserted our determination when that was accom- 
 plished to leave the government and control of the island to its 
 people, we have nothing to do with a government in Cuba. Our 
 plain and manifest duty is to get out of Cuba after its pacification. 
 In the case of the Philippines we have the technical right, under 
 our title, to establish a government there, provided we establish 
 it under the Constitution; nor will I stop to discuss the proposi- 
 tion that by the act of cession of these islands to us we assumed 
 certain international obligations to establish a government there; 
 nor will I stop to discuss the proposition that some obligation 
 rests upon us to restore order in the islands for the good of the 
 inhabitants thereof. I am willing, for all the purposes of my 
 argument, to concede that such obligations rest upon us; but 
 when, with the aid of the natives, whose aid we should invite, we 
 have performed these obligations, I insist that our duty then is 
 to get out and leave the government and control of these islands 
 to their own people. In the case of Cuba we must get out after 
 pacification, and in the case of the Philippines we ought to get 
 out after the establishment of a government there, and we ought 
 to declare now that such is our purpose. 
 
 Delay may be necessary to determine how valuable the Philip- 
 pines are, but time is not of the essence in determining the great 
 question of intention or in choosing between that which is morallj' 
 wrong and that which is morally right. It will take time to per- 
 fect a permanent government for the Philippines, but no such 
 
 4095 
 
10 
 
 time is necessary to determine whether or not we intend to estab- 
 lish such a government. Some people say, What will become of 
 the Philippines when we leave them? I ask what will become of 
 Cuba, that we have already determined to leave? "Sufficient 
 unto the day is the evil thereof." When we have determined to 
 leave the Philippines, I doubt not but that the wisdom and patri- 
 otism of the American Congress w411 find a way to carry that de- 
 termination into effect, and a way by which the honor and the 
 prestige of the American name will be sustained. When we have 
 declared our intention, we will then determine the method of its 
 execution. It will not do for gentlemen to say that a declaration 
 from us would not bind a subsequent Congress, and therefore 
 there is no reason to make it. We might with as much propriety 
 decline to enact any legislation upon the plea that a subsequent 
 Congress may repeal it. If we decline to declare the intention of 
 the United States in regard to the Philippines upon such a ground, 
 the next and each succeeding Congress may likewise decline to do 
 so upon the same ground, and thus the Philippines would be fas- 
 tened upon us forever. It is sufficient for us to perform our duty 
 as we see it. W"e can not avoid doing so upon the pretext that in 
 the future other people may not perform theirs. 
 
 Great stress is laid by some upon the strategical value of these 
 islands to us, and it is insisted that we need a base of operations 
 and a base of supplies there. I will not stop to argue this proposi- 
 tion, because I do not suppose that anyone doubts that it is within 
 our power before we get out of the Philippine Islands to arrange 
 with their government for whatever coaling stations and harbor 
 facilities and commercial advantages that we desire. Indeed, I 
 do not suppose there is an individual anywhere who doubts that 
 we could leave the Philippines to-morrow, if we so desired, upon 
 our own terms 'and our own conditions. It seems to me, there 
 fore, that all the argument in favor of a permanent retention of 
 the Philippines upon such grounds as these is pointless, because 
 all that we desire, all that we need, and all that we could claim 
 we could have without a permanent retention of the islands. 
 
 In my opinion there are but two courses open for the United 
 States to follow in reference to these islands. If it should be the 
 will of the American people, as represented in Congress, to per- 
 manently retain these islands, then in the resolution declaring 
 such intention there should be included the further resolution de- 
 claring our intent and purpose either now or in the future to in- 
 corporate these islands into statehood. The only other course 
 open to us to pursue is to vacate the islands, leaving the people 
 thereof to control their own government whenever the same is 
 established. 
 
 I do not believe that we have the power to annex any territory, 
 whether by peaceable or forcible means, when we do not at the 
 time or in the future ever intend to incorporate such territory 
 into our Union as a sovereign State and to extend to the inhabit- 
 ants thereof the rights of citizens of the United States. There are 
 those, however, who insist that we have the right to annex terri- 
 tory without any such intention, and that Congress has the power 
 to govern it outside of the Constitution. I can not assent to any 
 such belief or any such proposition. 
 
 We have such a proposition squarely presented to us now in the 
 pending bill, wherein it is proposed to levy impost duties upon the 
 products of Puerto Rico into the United States, Puerto Rico now 
 being a part of the United States. The bill is in violation of the 
 
 4095 
 
11 
 
 Constitution of our country. It is a bold announcement of an im- 
 perial policy. It can not be defended upon the ground that the 
 tax is small. The question presented is not one of dollars, it is 
 one of principle. It is not a question of free trade or of protec- 
 tion, it is a question of Constitution or no Constitution. The ma- 
 jority of the Ways and Means Committee who have reported this 
 bill advise us in their report, in answer to the suggestion that this 
 legislation will set a precedent for the Philippines, that they ex- 
 pressly assert by this bill the right to discriminate between Puerto 
 Rico or the Philippine Islands and the United States. 
 
 They inform us by way of argument that it was the people of 
 the original thirteen States who formed the Union, that it was for 
 themselves and their posterity that the Union was formed, and they 
 conclude and solemnly state " that upon reason and authority the 
 term 'United States,' as used in the Constitution, has reference 
 only to the States that constitute the Federal Union, and does not 
 include Territories," and they further conclude "that the power 
 of Congress with respect to legislation for the Territories is ple- 
 nary." They base their conclusions largely upon the proposition 
 that the treaty of peace with Spain left Congress with the power 
 to determine what legislation should be enacted for the islands 
 ceded, and that the law of the treaty is supreme. 
 
 I would suggest that before the treaty was framed the Constitu- 
 tion existed, and that before these islands were ceded the Congress 
 of the United States was organized. I submit that the Constitu- 
 tion is the supreme authority in this country, above statutes and 
 above treaties. The treaty-making power, existing itself by the 
 power of the Constitution, can not confer a power to override the 
 Constitution. Congress has no power that it does not derive from 
 the Constitution. The President, by the helj) of a foreign nation 
 and the United States Senate, can not alter or amend the Constitu- 
 tion. He can confer no power upon Congress that it does not al- 
 ready possess. He can not subtract from any power that already 
 exists. The treaty may enlarge the territory over which the Con- 
 gress may legislate, but the treaty can neither add to nor take from 
 the limitations of power that are imposed by the Constitution 
 upon the Congress. It is undoubtedly true that in the prosecution 
 of a war the President may seize foreign territory. He may by 
 treaty have this territory annexed to the United States. He may 
 do this in times of peace. 
 
 Until the act of annexation is complete by the formal ratifica- 
 tion by the Senate, the President may exercise military rule and 
 maintain military government over the ceded territory. When- 
 ever, however, the final formalities of the annexation are complete 
 and the ceded territory becomes a part of the United States, it 
 becomes as much a part as any State or Territory in the Union. 
 During the formative period of organizing such a territory into a 
 Territorial government the President may govern the same until 
 the Congress is prepared to act, but whenever Congress under- 
 takes to legislate for the ceded territory it must legislate under 
 the terms of the Constitution. This proposition has time and 
 again been affirmed by our Supreme Court. The clause in the 
 Constitution providing that " Congress shall have power to dispose 
 of and make all needful regulations respecting the territory and 
 other property belonging to the United States " has been repeatedly 
 construed to mean that this power is given subject to the limita- 
 tions of the Constitution. It is not a despotic, arbitrary power, to 
 be used without restraint. Congress possesses no such power for 
 
 409o 
 
12 
 
 any purpose. The power given is plenary, but plenary in the 
 sense that it is as full and complete as the Constitution will allow. 
 Chief Justice Waite, in 101 U. S., 132, clearly states the true con- 
 struction of this clause when he says: 
 
 But Congress is supreme and for the purposes of this department of its 
 governmental authority has all the power of the people of the United States, 
 except such as has been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibi- 
 tions of the Constitution. 
 
 The same principle is enunciated in 98 U. S., 162; 166 U. S., 707; 
 170 U. S., 346: 114 U. S., 15; 127 U. S., 550; and in many other 
 cases. Congress, in legislating for a Territory, assumes the pow- 
 ers of a State legislature in addition to its powers as the Congress. 
 The Territorial courts that it provides have the jurisdiction of 
 State courts as well as of the Federal courts. This is all mani- 
 festly proper, because the Congress is the only power that can 
 govern the Territory, and yet Congress can pass no law for any 
 Territory that is prohibited by the Constitution. It is subject 
 always in all that it does to the limitations upon its power fixed 
 by the Constitution. 
 
 * * « * * » * ^ 
 
 The gentlemen of the majority, as I understand them, admit 
 that the Constitution is supreme so long as the Congress is legis- 
 lating for the States, but that the Constitution does not prevail 
 when the Congress is legislating for the Territories. In other 
 words, the Constitution is recognized in the United States, limited, 
 but is unknown in the United States, unlimited. I understand 
 from them that, in their opinion, the Constitution does not extend 
 over any part of the vast territory of the Philippines or of Puerto 
 Rico, and that Congress, which has no power except under the 
 Constitution, has unlimited and unbridled power and authority 
 to frame any government and enact any laws in these Territories 
 that may suit its will and pleasure. 
 
 I understand from them that they believe that no restriction, 
 fundamental or otherwise, is put upon Congress in legislating 
 for these Territories except the prohibition of slavery. I under- 
 stand from them that we can tax the people in these islands as 
 much or as little as we please: that we are not called upon or re- 
 quired to give them representation before w^e tax them; that their 
 consent is not necessary to any government we may choose to put 
 upon them or to any laws that we may determine to enact for 
 them. As I understand, further, the position of the gentlemen of 
 the majority of the committee, they hold that the inhabitants of 
 these islands can not be interfered with in the free exercise of their 
 religion, because the treaty with Spain provides that this shall 
 not be done, but that they hold that, the treaty not providing to 
 the contrary. Congress is not bound by the limitations on its 
 power fixed in the Constitution. I therefore understand that if 
 the position of these gentlemen be correct, Congress may in time 
 of peace suspend the writ of habeas corpus in these islands: may 
 pass bills of attainder and ex post facto laws; may infringe the 
 right to keep and bear arms: may quarter soldiers in time of 
 peace in any home without consulting the owner: may institute 
 unreasonable searches and seizures of the people and their houses 
 and issue warrants without probable cause and without oath or 
 affirmation, and may deny the right of trial by jurj''. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it is enough to shock the moral conscience to 
 know that in this day of enlightenment, when we believe the 
 
 4095 
 
13 
 
 principles of free government to be better understood than they 
 have ever been before, gentlemen claiming allegiance to a free 
 government should assert the right and power of this Congress 
 to thus rule and govern a people who form a part of the United 
 States and over whom float the Stars and Stripes which such 
 people are expected to love and to reverence. If we carry this 
 position to a further conclusion, we find that the Constitution pro- 
 hibits the granting of titles of nobility by the United States; but 
 if the Constitution does not apply to Puerto Rico or the Philip- 
 pines, and if the power of Congress is plenary in deaiing with 
 these islands, what is to hinder Congress from enthroning a king 
 upon these islands and creating the right of succession and pro- 
 viding for lords and dukes and all the court machinery necessary 
 to create an ideal monarchy? Could anything be more repellant 
 to the American mind? Is not the mere statement of the possi- 
 bility of such a thing a sufficient argument itself against the 
 proposition that is insisted upon? [Applause.] 
 
 I would beg to suggest that the argument of the majority of the 
 committee that the Constitution is for the States alone is not new. 
 It was first suggested by those who opposed the accession of Loui- 
 siana. These gentlemen were given to quotmg the preamble to 
 the Constitution, beginning, ' ' We, the people ot the United States, " 
 and saying, " It is we, the people of the United States, for ourselves 
 and our posterity, not for the peopie of New Orleans or of Canada; 
 none of these enter into the scope of the instrument." And yet 
 those who in their day opposed the annexation of Louisiana be- 
 cause they believed there was no warrant or authority under the 
 Constitution for it were overruled, and Louisiana was annexed. 
 Those to-day who oppose the annexation of the Philippines are 
 pointed to this past history as an answer to their objections. 
 
 The answer, however, does not appear to be all that is claimed 
 for it, for we are now told that the opponents to the annexation of 
 Louisiana were wrong, that the Constitution provided for it, and 
 yet we are also told that this same Constitution, although provid- 
 ing for 'annexation, does not provide that its sheltering protection 
 shall extend over the territorj^ annexed. It would thus appear 
 that we are involved in the unfortunate predicament where we 
 must either deny the Constitution in order to annex or deny it 
 after annexation in order to govern. It seems to be simply a ques- 
 tion of where we will den}^ it, for somewhere we must lay it aside 
 or our schemes can not go through. It seems to be a sorry dilemma 
 in which we find ourselves, no matter which way we turn. 
 
 In attempting to pass this bill the grievances of the American 
 colonies are pushed into the background and forgotten. We are 
 asked to steel our hearts and close our ears to the remonstrances 
 of our forefathers, that through the cycles of time have ever rung 
 in the ears of American patriots and that until now we have ever 
 believed would ring in all the ages to come. [Applause.] How 
 soon are we asked to forget that it was a protest against taxation 
 without representation and not a thirst for liberty that first pro- 
 voked the Revolutionary war! How soon are we asked to forget 
 those ringing and one time thought never to be forgotten words of 
 the brave Virginians of old, when they declared, "No power on 
 earth has a right to impose taxes on the people or take the 
 smallest portion of their property without their consent given by 
 their representatives.'' [Applause.] This principle, the Virgin- 
 ians said, is the '• chief pillar of the Constitution," without which 
 4093> 
 
14 
 
 "no man can be said to have the least shadow of liberty," since 
 no man could be truly said to possess anything if other men could 
 lawfully take away any portion of it. [Applause.] 
 
 I have no desire or intention to enter into a discussion of the 
 legal authorities bearing on this question and shall refer to but 
 few of them. They have been so ably presented that there is 
 nothing left for me to say in reference to them. The Constitu- 
 tion provides that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uni- 
 form throughout the United States." It also provides that "no 
 tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." It 
 also provides that "no preference shall be given by any regulation 
 of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of 
 another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged 
 to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. " These provisions of the 
 Constitution, it seems to me, are sufficiently clear in their mean- 
 ing as to absolutely prohibit the passage of this bill. I think the 
 language used is too plain to admit of construction, but, if any is 
 needed, in my judgment the opinion of Justice Marshall in 5 
 Wheaton, 317,'^ is all that is necessary. In this case, in construing 
 the first provision of the Constitution I have quoted, he says: 
 
 The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be ex- 
 ercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term 
 designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire T Cer- 
 tainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our 
 great Republic, which is composed of States and Territories. The District 
 of Columbia or the Territories west of the Missouri is not less within the 
 United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary on 
 the principle of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of im- 
 posts, duties, and excises shall be observed in the one than in the other. 
 
 In addition to this I would also cite the striking language em- 
 ployed by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, in 19 
 Howard, 482. Gentlemen may call this language a dictum or 
 what not, but none of them will ever successfully reply to the 
 great truth that it so clearly states: 
 
 There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Gov- 
 ernment to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or 
 at a distance to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure, nor to enlarge its 
 territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new States. That 
 power is plainly given, and if a new State is admitted it needs no further 
 legislation by Congress, because the Constitution itself defines the relative 
 rights and powers and duties of the State and the citizens of the State and 
 the Federal Government. But no power is given to acquire a territory to 
 be held and governed permanently in that character. The power to expand 
 the territory of the United States by the admission of new States is plainly 
 given, and in the construction of this power by all the departments of the 
 Government it has been held to authorize the acquisition of a territory not 
 fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population 
 would entitle it to admission. It is acquired to become a State, and not be 
 held as a colony and governed by Congress with absolute authority. 
 
 This bill is squarely in conflict with two provisions of the Con- 
 stitution. Puerto Rico being a part of the United States, a duty 
 upon articles imported into the States from Puerto Rico violates 
 the uniformity of duties that the Constitution says must exist 
 throughout the United States. In the next place, the bill in pro- 
 posing a duty at Puerto Rico on all goods imported from the States 
 into Puerto Rico not only violates the principle of uniformity, 
 but further violates that other provision of the Constitution, that 
 "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State," 
 for it can not be denied that this duty, although collected in 
 Puerto Rico, is in fact an export duty on the goods sent out from 
 any State. All the ingenuity and all the sophistry of our friends 
 
 4095 
 
15 
 
 on the other side can not refute a proposition that is as plain and 
 
 manifest as this. 
 
 It is an interesting fact that when the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee first undertook an investigation of this subject they were 
 not sure as to the meaning of the term " the United States " as 
 found in the Constitution, and they appointed a subcommittee 
 to make research and advise the full committee as to the exact 
 meaning of this term. As a result of this research the committee 
 reached the conclusion that the term "the United States" does 
 not include Territories, and they presented a most elaborate argu- 
 ment to sustain their conclusions, and to further establish the 
 proposition that the power of Congress in legislating for the Ter- 
 ritories is plenary. Now, ' ' plenary " means ' ' full in all respects or 
 requisites," " entire" and " complete," and it seems to me that if 
 the power of Congress be plenary, all discussion as to what the 
 Constitution means is superfluous so far as this question is con- 
 cerned. If the Constitution does not extend to Puerto Rico, and. 
 if the limitations prescribed in it are not binding upon Congress 
 in legislating for Puerto Rico, of what interest is it to know what 
 the term " the United States " means? Or of what necessity is it 
 to construe the Constitution at all? 
 
 I beg further to say that, in my opinion, all the authorities and 
 all the precedents cited by those who uphold this bill are in vain; 
 they are not precedents; they do not apply; they do not present 
 parallel cases, because I submit that never before in the history 
 of the Congress has it ever been attempted to legislate for any 
 people for whom there did not exist, by treaty or declaration some- 
 where made, an intention upon the part of the United States to 
 incorporate these people into citizenship and statehood. I realize, 
 Mr. Chairman, the predicament of our friends upon the other side 
 who favor this bill. Against their duty to obey the Constitution 
 comes the desire not to antagonize the agricultural or industrial 
 or labor interests of this country by admitting free of duty the 
 products of the several islands annexed, and neither do they wish 
 to antagonize any of these interests by removing all restrictions 
 upon immigration from these islands. 
 
 The predicament in which they find themselves is serious. Upon 
 the one side is the Constitution and the rights of the Puerto Rican 
 people now, and the rights of all our other islands in the future, 
 none of which can vote. Upon the other side are American inter- 
 ests, each one controlling votes. I would not charge that the lat- 
 ter side have prevailed in the deliberations of the gentlemen of the 
 committee because of their power, but, reading the present in the 
 light of the past, I am not surprised that they have done so. I do 
 not know and do not charge that such considerations have con- 
 trolled the committee in thus departing from the Constitution and 
 from the lead of the President, whom they have been so blindly 
 following throughout the discussion of these new questions, and 
 yet it is an interesting thing to note the report of the Ways and 
 Means Committee recommending this Puerto Rican tariff, and 
 then to note the recommendation of the President in his last an- 
 nual message, when he said, "Our plain duty is to abolish all cus- 
 toms tariffs between the United States and Puerto Rico and give 
 her products free access to our market," and also to note the rec- 
 ommendation of the Secretary of War, who says, "I wish most 
 strongly to urge that the customs duties between Puerto Rico and 
 the United States be removed." We note these things and won- 
 der why the departure. 
 
 4095 
 
16 
 
 Mr. Cha^'rman, I am not unmindful that there are interests, and 
 perhaps large interests, of this country that will be affected, and 
 possibly seriously affected, by free trade between the United States 
 and the islands recently acquired. 1 would avoid such injury if 
 I could; but in my judgment, if the American people make up 
 their minds to hold these islands as a part of the United States, they 
 must likewise reach the conclusion to endure whatever hardships 
 are thereby entailed. I do not believe that we of the Congress 
 can keep unsullied the great trust reposed in us and ■' shut up"' 
 the Constitution to protect any interest that now or hereafter may 
 flourish in the United States. [Applause.] 
 
 So far as Puerto Rico is concerned, no substantial injury could 
 come to American industries by free trade with it. The island is 
 only about 40 miles wide and 80 miles long, and all that it could 
 produce would be but a small fraction of the production of this 
 country. The trouble with the gentlemen of the committee is not 
 free trade with Puerto Rico. It is free sugar from Cuba and the 
 Philippines that they fear. They are afraid of the precedent that 
 free trade with Puerto Rico would establish. And so with this 
 fear, which is a fear of the protected sugar barons, they turn down 
 the Constitution and turn a deaf ear to the appeals of Puerto Rico 
 for relief and propose this bill. Aside from all constitutional 
 questions, the bill should not pass because of its injustice to the 
 Puerto Ricans. They are entitled to our markets, for we, by our 
 act, have shut them out from all oth( rs. The Merchants" Associ- 
 ation of New York City have investigated this question, and they 
 have declared for free trade with Puerto Rico, in order that we 
 may keep faith with its inhabitants and do but simple justice to 
 them. They quote approvingly from Mr. William R. Corwine, 
 whom their association sent to Puerto Rico to investigate trade 
 conditions there. Mr. Corwine said: 
 
 Place the inhabitants in the position where their trade can be extended 
 and all will be well; but if this policy which contracts trade and increases 
 pauperism continues, the questions which in prosperity would become minor 
 ones will grow in importance, and instead of a feeling of contentment, which 
 makes government easy, a spirit of discontent will arise which may render 
 government hard. The Spaniards ruled by force. We can rule through the 
 affections of the people. Shortened purses and empty stomachs, however, 
 are not the bases upon which affection thrives. 
 
 As illustrating the distressing conditions which prevail in 
 Puerto Rico — conditions that demand liberal treatment from us, 
 that demand free trade, justice, and equality — 1 quote a late dis- 
 patch that appeared in the Associated Press items: 
 
 San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 17, 1900. 
 
 Several of the largest merchants of San Juan, upon being interviewed, 
 unanimously expressed the opinion that immediate Congressional action is 
 absolutely essential to the interests of the island. They say that the crops 
 are immovable, the proposed duty under the Foraker bill on sugar and to- 
 bacco being prohibitive. There are now 3,30(3,000 pounds of tobacco ready 
 for shipment, and by August there will be 5,000,000 pounds. The best price 
 obtainable for tobacco in New York under the half-dollar duty is about SI. 85. 
 
 There has been a small coffee crop, owing to the hurricane, and sugar can 
 not pay the duty imposed, the planters holding their products and awaiting 
 the action of Congress. There isno money to plant new crops or to pay labor- 
 ers, thousands of whom are on the point of starvation, being unable to obtain 
 work. The estates are idle and bankers refuse to advance funds on account 
 of the extension of mortgages; the planters are desperate and the people 
 discouraged, and they demand absolute free trade and authority for the 
 island tocontract a loan to pay immediate expenses and for the relief of the 
 planters. 
 
 The local press expresses the opinion that the conditions of the island were 
 better during the darkest days of the Spanish regime. 
 4095 
 
17 
 
 The Foraker bill would be acceptable without the duty, the merchants be- 
 ing willing to pay a revenue tax in lieu of the tariff, which would relieve the 
 planters. 
 
 Undoubtedly, if we are going to permanently retain the Philip- 
 pines, we should so declare, and should promptly make amends 
 for the failure of the treaty to provide for their admission to state- 
 hood by solemnly declaring here that statehood will be given them 
 when they are ready for it; and yet I do not believe that this will 
 be done, for, so far as I have ever read or heard, there is no one in 
 all this broad land who believes that these islands will ever become 
 States in the Union, or who desires that they should so become. 
 The character, the habits, the interests, and the civilization of the 
 people inhabiting them are such that our Anglo-Saxon civilization, 
 or, better still, our American civilization, would never consent that 
 these people should have equal voice and equal power with us in 
 the management of our own affairs. They are too far removed 
 from us also for community of interest and action to ever exist 
 between thrm and us. It is manifest that those who brought 
 about their annexation had no thought or purpose of making them 
 citizens of the United States, because, in violation of all prece- 
 dents in the treaty-making history of this Government, those who 
 negotiated the treaty did not incorporate therein any provision 
 looking to statehood for the islands or citizenship for their inhab- 
 itants. 
 
 Gentlemen of the other side and as well those elsewhere who 
 favor the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands are free 
 to quote precedents, and to say that they are but following in the 
 tracks marked out by our forefathers in the beginning of this 
 Republic. I wish to take issue with this position. As I have 
 already pointed out, there is no parallel in all our past history to 
 the proposition now pending to permanently retain the Philippine 
 Islands without any declaration of intention to ever accord them 
 statehood. The parallel between the present case and our past 
 history also fails in that all our past annexations have been in the 
 main annexations of territory and not of people. 
 
 The annexation of the Louisi;ina territory is most frequently 
 cited as justifying the annexation of the Philippines. I wish to 
 call attention to the fact thnt at the time of the annexation of 
 Louisiana that, aside from the constitutional questions that were 
 raised, and to which I have already adverted, the burning ques- 
 tion at that time was the fear that this great territory, after it 
 became populated, would become all-powerful in the Union and 
 would dominate the Government to the exclusion of the East. 
 Certainly no such question exists now as to the Philippines. 
 
 Texas was objected to, among other grounds, because it was 
 claimed that its annexation was but a scheme to extend the slave- 
 holding territory and increase the strength of the slaveholding 
 States. Tliis objection might be somewhat pertinent now in the 
 light of the treaty our Government has consummated with the 
 Sultan of Sulu, by which treaty the United States not only agrees 
 not to interfere with but to protect the people of the Sultan in the 
 free exercise of their religion and customs, social and domestic, 
 which customs include slavery, but also, as an evidence of the 
 good faith of this Government in so agreeing, General Otis offered 
 a present to the Sultan and datos of §10,000. Mexican money, and 
 agreed to regularly supply sums of money thereafter in accord- 
 ance with the previous agreement of Spain. 
 
 4095—3 
 
18 
 
 In reference to the Louisiana purchase, I wonld call attention 
 to the fact that, notwithstanJing the assaults that were leveled 
 at Jefferson, that great statesman, before he ever treated with 
 France for a cession of the Louisiana territory, transmitted to 
 the Congress on December 15, 1802, his message calling attention 
 to the cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France; 
 and again, on January 11, 1S03, he transmitted his message to the 
 Senate nominating a minister plenipotentiary and a minister 
 extraordinary and iileniporentiary to treat with both France and, 
 if necessary, Spain, in reference to obtaining a cession of this 
 territory. It thus appe.irs that his purpose, whe her held to b« 
 wise or unwise, was not concealed in his own bosom. The same 
 was cominunicated to the lavrmalnng f)ower, and both the law- 
 making and the treaty-making power of this Government were in 
 his full confidence in the very incipiency of the negotiations for 
 this cession. Does that parallel exist in our negotiaiions for the 
 Philippines? 
 
 I would also remind our friends on the other side that Jefferson 
 convened the Congress in extraordinary session on October 17, 
 1803, after the treaty of cession was agreed upon, and in his mes- 
 sage to Congress on that day used this American language: 
 
 With the wisdom of Congress it will rest to take those ulterior measures 
 which may be necessary for the immediate occupation and temporary gov- 
 ernment of the country; for its incorporation into our Union; for rendering 
 the change of government a blessing to our newly adopted brethren; for se- 
 curing to them the rights of conscience and of property; for confirming to 
 the Indian inhabitants their occupancy and self-government, establishing 
 friendly and commercial relations with them, and for ascertaining the geog- 
 raphy of the country acquired. 
 
 He thus announced in the outset that, so far as his Administra- 
 tion was concerned, our newly acquired citizens were brethren; 
 that their territory was to be incorporated into our Union, and 
 that self-government would be continued to them. It is unneces- 
 sary for me to remind gentlemen that the treaty with France itself 
 stipulated that Louisiana should eventually be incorporated as a 
 State. If we are going to cite the Louisiana purchase as a prece- 
 dent for annexing the Philippines, must not we, in order to justify 
 ourselves entirely, go the lengih that Jefferson did and announce 
 statehood and self-government for the Filipinos? 
 
 It may not lie out of place for me to call attention to the fact 
 that at the t'me of the annexation of Louisiana it was vital to the 
 young American Republic to control the Mississippi River. Time 
 and again the right of deposit in New Orleans had been denied 
 them. They were confronted with the fact that this great river 
 and the vast territory of Louisiana had been ceded by Spain to 
 Napoleon, and that the great Emperor proposed to reorganize on 
 a grand scale his French colonies. 
 
 The safety of the young Republic, to say nothing of its com- 
 merce, demanded that this should not be done, but that our Re- 
 public, in the interest of peace, in the interest of its periietuity. 
 and in the interest of its commerce, should control this river and 
 this territory. Such was the situation then, and, reading into 
 the future, Jefferson, with unfaltering wisdom, acted. Is there 
 a parallel between that situation and the present? Is not the 
 Philippine situation just the reverse of that? Then our fathers 
 were welding together a compact territory on this continent; 
 now we are crossing a great ocean and invading another conti- 
 nent. Then our fathers acted in the interest of peace and sought 
 to promote and preserve it; now we throw peace to the winds and 
 
 i095 
 
19 
 
 challenge war. Then our fathers sought to pi'eserve that which 
 they had: now we, to feed a thirst for glory and for greed, imperil 
 that which we have. Then our fathers sought to bestow liberty; 
 now we to deny it. Then our fathers sought to avoid European 
 and eastern entanglements; now we deliberately invite them. [Ap- 
 p^Aise.] Then our fathers were humble worshipers at the shrine 
 of liberty, seeking to dedicate this country to the sacred cause of 
 freedom -^ now we feel that we have become a world power and 
 are seeking to exhibit to the world our strength and our might. 
 
 It is an interesting fact that, notwithstanding the potent argu- 
 ments in favor of our obtaining Louisiana, Jefferson doubted and 
 hesitated as to the power of this Government to annex it, and it 
 is written that he talked of calling for a constitutional amend- 
 ment that would authorize and justify that which had already 
 been done. It was subsequently determined, however, that this 
 was unnecessary. No such qualms of conscience as this affect the 
 expansionist of to-day. Starting from the standpoint of what 
 Jefferson did and ignoring what he thought, they go beyond him, 
 beyond all the fathers and ail the traditions and all the prece- 
 dents, and propose to centralize here in Washington, outside the 
 pale of the Constitution, the control of the happiness, the for- 
 tunes, the aspirations, and the government of more than 10,000,000 
 human souls, and they situated thousands of miles away from our 
 farthest western shore. 
 
 As illustrating the views and the opinions of the expansionists 
 of old, and to show the stri'dng contrast between them and the 
 expansionists of to-dav. I beg to call attention to what President 
 Polk said in his message of December 2, 1845. in reference to the 
 annexation of Texas: 
 
 This accession to our territory has been a bloodless achievement. No arm 
 of force has been raised to produce the result. The sword has had no part 
 in the victory. We have not sought to extend our territorial possessions by 
 conquest or our republican institutions over a reluctant people. It was the 
 deliberate homage of each people to the great principle of our federative 
 Union. 
 
 When our President of today comes to write the history of the 
 annexation of the Philippines, can he quote the language of 
 President Polk? 
 
 President Polk further, in his inaugural address, in favoring 
 the policy of expansion, used this significant language: 
 
 It is confidently believed that our system may be safely extended to the 
 utmost bounds of our territorial limits, and that as it shall be extended the 
 bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become stronger. 
 
 The expansionist of to-day ridicules the idea of there being any 
 limit to our expansion, and vet the expansionist of old, as shown 
 in the address of President Polk, believed that there were limits 
 to our expansion. That the farthest extent of these limits were 
 the limits fixed by the Western Hemisphere I do not suppose any- 
 one doubts. 
 
 President Polk is not the only statesman of old who bebeved 
 that there were limits to our expansion, for we find that in the 
 second annual message of President Monroe he said: 
 
 By extending our Government on the principles of our Constitution over 
 the vast territory within our limits on the lakes and the Mississippi and its 
 numerous streams new life and vigor are infused into every part of our 
 system. 
 
 The great Daniel Webster also said: 
 
 There must be some limit to the extent of our territory, if we would make 
 our institutions permanent. 
 409.5 
 
20 
 
 The Monroe doctrine, so called because of its forcible presenta- 
 tion by President Monroe, although it had been the settled policy 
 of this Government from its organization, is thus stated by Presi- 
 dent Monroe in his message of December 2, 1823. After referring 
 to the struggle of the Greeks for liberty and briefly to the affairs 
 of Spain and Portugal, he says: 
 
 The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in 
 favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the At- 
 lantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to them- 
 selves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so 
 to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we 
 resent injuries' or make preparation for our defense. "With the movements 
 in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by 
 causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. 
 The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this re- 
 spect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists 
 in their respective governments, and to the defense of our own, which has 
 been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the 
 wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed 
 unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to 
 candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and 
 those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part 
 to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our 
 peace and safety. „ ^ 
 
 With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we 
 have not interfered and shall not interfere; but with the governments who 
 have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence 
 we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we 
 could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or con- 
 trolling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in a^^y 
 other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the 
 United States. 
 
 Is not the justice and righteousness of the Monroe doctrine 
 based on the declared policy of this Republic not to interfere in 
 European affairs? For a hundred years or more we did not seek 
 to extend our system of government into the Eastern Hemisphere, 
 and the Eastern and European countries have not extended theirs 
 here, but have held aloof out of re;-pect to the Monroe doctrine. 
 It is true that now and then foreign powers have pretended to 
 sneer at the pretensions of this doctrine, and yet none of them 
 have dared to violate it. Upon what reason and upon what jus- 
 tice can we maintain it before the enlightened judgment of man- 
 kind if we deliberately remove our main justification and defense 
 of it? If we can invade Asia, and feel justified in so doing, why 
 can not Germany or some other country invade some portion of 
 the Western Hemisphere not occupied by us and feel justified in 
 so doing? If we pursue the course of planting our system of gov- 
 ernment in the Eastern Hemisphere, will not the question of main- 
 taining ourselves there and here be simply a question of power 
 and of might and not a question of right? Will not the equity we 
 now have be gone, our defense be destroyed, and we left to stand 
 solely by the strength of our good right arm, unsupported and 
 unsustained by the righteousness and justice with which we have 
 heretofore been armed? 
 
 There are those who talk about the annexation of Florida as a 
 precedent for annexing the Philippines, and yet it was President 
 Monroe, who enunciated the famous Monroe doctrine, who nego- 
 tiated this treaty. At the time of that annexation the Monroe 
 doctrine was in full force, and the annexation of Florida so far 
 from weakening it emphasized and strengthened it. Annexation 
 of the Philippines tends to destroy it. V/e all know that at the 
 time of the annexation of Florida our country was harassed and 
 disturbed by roving bands of savages and outlaws in the penin- 
 
 4095 
 
21 
 
 Bill a of Florida, which Spain could not or -wonld not control. To 
 protect ourselves, we had to control the peninsula, and in addition 
 to this imperative fact we needed the peninsula of Florida for the 
 national defense. We needed to control its shores, lapped as they 
 are by the waters of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Our 
 treaty of cession also provided that Florida should have statehood. 
 
 Do any of the arguments or any of these conditions applicable 
 to Florida apply to the Philippines? 
 
 President Monroe also had ideas about our General Government 
 that the expansionist of to-day will hardly approve. He said: 
 
 The impracticability of one consolidated Government for this great and 
 growina: nation will be more apparent and will be tiniversally admitted. 
 Incapable of exercising local authority except for general purposes, the 
 General Government will no longer be dreaded. 
 
 Will the expansionist of to-day admit the impracticability of a 
 consolidated Government, when they propose to have such a Gov- 
 ernment control and govern more than 10,000.000 people? Will 
 the expansionist of to-day admit the incapacity of the General 
 Government to exercise local authority except for general pur- 
 poses, when they propose to have the General Government exercise 
 both general and local authority for millions of subject people? 
 
 There are other expressions from the fathers of old that accord 
 with the position of those who oppose the permanent retention of 
 the Philippines, but do not accord with those who favor such 
 retention. Fillmore declared, in his first annual message: 
 
 Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses 
 of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive 
 to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as 
 circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to 
 its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for them- 
 selves, and they readily concede it to others. We make no wars to promote 
 or to prevent successions to thrones, to maintain any theory of a balance of 
 power, or to suppress the actual government which any country chooses to 
 establish for itself. 
 
 The sentiments herein expressed met the approval of every 
 American heart when they were uttered, and I can not believe 
 that such sentiments are not in accord with American feeling 
 and American sentiment to-day. And yet this Government is 
 engaged in refusing to the Filipinos the right to their own form 
 of government, and with force of arms is engaged in suppressing 
 the actual government which the Filipinos chose to establish for 
 themselves. How the mighty have fallen from their high estate! 
 When our President of to-day comes to write of the Filipinos, 
 will he quote with approval this message of President Fillmore? 
 
 There are those who profess now to believe that the Declaration 
 of Independence no longer exists for our guidance and control. 
 They profess to believe that we have passed the day when we 
 should be moved by the sentiments and the principles enunciated 
 in that immortal Declaration. They profess to believe that it has 
 never been a part of our Government; but that, for all practical 
 purposes, it perished with the creation of our Constitution. Such 
 thoughts and such sentiments have not always existed. As late 
 as the Administration of President Taylor the Declaration' of 
 Independence was alive, as listen to his message referring to the 
 proposal to qualify the terms of California as a State. He s-aid: 
 
 In attempting to deny to the people of this State the right of self- 
 government in a matter which peculiarly affects themselves will infallibly 
 be regarded by them as an invasion of their rights, and upon the principle 
 laid down in our own Declaration of Independence they will certainly be 
 sustained by the great mass of the American people. 
 4095 
 
22 
 
 He further asserted in this message another doctrine that I 
 assume is totally repugnant to the expansionist of to-day. He said: 
 
 To assert that they are a conquered people, and must, as a state, submit 
 to the will of their conquerors in this regard, will meet with no cordial re- 
 sponse among American freemen. 
 
 Is not the position of our Administration to-day in reference to 
 the Filipinos that until they admit that they are a conquered peo- 
 ple we will not even deign to tell them what we intend to do with 
 them? Where in all our history is there a parallel to such a 
 position? . 
 
 A distinguished gentleman who was elected to this House to sit 
 on this side of the Chamber, but who, as I understand him, has 
 voluntarilv elected to be known as belonging to the other side, has 
 called our"^attention to the fact that Mr. Buchanan, whom he says 
 is the last Democratic President we have had. was an expansion- 
 ist and favored the purchase of Cuba. I am glad that our friend 
 has referred us to this fact, because it furnishes the opportunity 
 to give to the House the benelit of the views entertained by Mr. 
 Buchanan, and I commend these views to the careful considera- 
 tion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and all his compatriots 
 upon the other side. Mr. Buchanan said in a message: 
 
 It has been made known to the world by my predecessors that the United 
 States have on several occasions endeavored to acquire Cuba from Spam by 
 honorable negotiation. If this were accomplished the last relic of the Afri- 
 can slave trade would instantly disappear. We would not. it we could, ac- 
 ouire Cuba in any other manner. This is due to our national character. All 
 the territory that we have acquired since the origin of the Government has 
 been bv fair purchase from France, Spain, and Mexico, or by the free and 
 voluntary act of the independent State of Texas in blending her destinies 
 with our own. 
 
 In his inaugural address he said: 
 
 It is our glory that whilst other nations have extended their dominion by 
 the sword we have never acquired any territory except by fair purchase, or, 
 as in the case of Texas, by the voluntary determination of a brave, kindred, 
 and independent people to blend their destinies with our own. 
 
 He also said: 
 
 Our past history forbids that we shall in the future acquire territory un- 
 less this be sanctioned by the laws of justice and honor. 
 
 How will the record of our acquisitions stand when we are 
 through putting the Filipinos to the sword and have seized their 
 land as our own? 
 
 Alaska is sometimes referred to as a precedent for the annexa- 
 tion of the Philippines, but, aside from the fact that Alaska is not 
 contiguous territory, there is no parallel in the two cases. In the 
 first place, Alaska at the time of annexation was unpopulated, and 
 the annexation was of land and not of people. Even to day the 
 last estimated population of Alaska, as furnished in the last An- 
 nual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, shows a population, all 
 told, of only 55,064, and this thirty-two years after annexation. Is 
 there any parallel between this and the annexation of ten or twelve 
 million human souls in the Philippines? ^ , 
 
 A further and more striking dili'erence lies in the fact that it is 
 conceded that whenever Alaska is prepared for it she will be ad- 
 mitted to statehood. Nobody disputes this. Congress has recog- 
 nized Alaska as a part of the United States by enacting legislation 
 for it, and Congress can not legislate for any country that is not 
 a part of the United States, and no country can be a part of the 
 United States and not be under the protection of its laws and Con- 
 stitution. In the act of 1898 in reference to Alaska Congress dis- 
 tinctly recognized the right of statehood in Alaska by declaring 
 
 409;-) 
 
23 
 
 that this act shonkl not be construed " as impairing in any degree 
 the title of any State that may hereafter be erected out of said 
 district or any part thereof to tide lands and beds of any of its 
 navigable waters," etc. 
 
 In my opinion, however. Alaska furnishes an object lesson 
 against the permanent retention of the Philippines and against a 
 colonial policy. Our government of the Territory of Alaska 
 demonstrates the inadequacy of our system to govern and care 
 for a dependent and subject people. The theory of our Government 
 is that there are no rulers but the people. There is no provision 
 and no place and no power to govern except by the people. When 
 we undertake to say that " we, the citizens," will govern "you, 
 the subjects," we find no machinery at our disposal, and the re- 
 sult is misgovernment. It is worse: it is anarchy. 
 
 As an illustration of how Alaska is governed, the Secretary of 
 the Interior, in his last annual report, says: 
 
 Attention is called to the anomalous condition of the laud laws in the dis- 
 trict. There are no surveyed lauds, nor has any system of surveying been 
 Erovided, rendering it next to impossible for a poor settler to acciuire a 
 omestead. Citizens who have resided in the district for thirty-two years 
 have as yet been unable to secure title to the lands they have occupied. 
 
 Think of it! For thirty-tvv^o years we have owned Alaska, and 
 yet to-day no citizen of that district has b^ cu able to acquire a 
 title to the land that he has bought, occupied, and improved. 
 [Applause.] AVhat greater commentary upon our incompetency 
 to provide for a subject people could be suggested? The people 
 must provide for themselves, or their wants and needs will never 
 be satisfied. 
 
 But listen further. The Attorney-General, in his last annual 
 report, says: 
 
 The administration of affairs in Alaska, and especially the admini^^tration 
 of justice through the courts and court officers assigned to that Territory, 
 ks not satisfactory. There has been during the past year a very great in- 
 crease in the amount of legal business in Alaska. The report of the district 
 attorney shows that the criminal business has doubled within a year, and 
 the civil business has multiplied five times over. Complaints of the inad- 
 equacy of the provision to establish law and order are almost universal. 
 The district judge advises me that because of a lack of time not one-tenth of 
 the business presented can be disposed of. Oflicers of the Army exercisiT}g 
 command in the Territory report that the insufficient appropriations for the 
 Department of Justice and the lack of a sufficient force of court officials 
 render the administration of justice along the Yukon abortive, and that the 
 average citizen dwelling in that region has but very little respect for it. 
 
 Here we have it stated that after thirty-two years of our admin- 
 istration we have not provided the means to dispose of one- tenth 
 of the business brought to our courts, that complaints of the inatle- 
 quacy of our provisions to establish law and order are almost uni- 
 versal, and that our administration of justice — American justice, 
 if you please, of which we boast— is such that it inspires no respect 
 among the natives. Can we wonder that the town of Wrangell 
 has asked to be transferred to Canada, has asked to be trans- 
 planted from underneath the sheltering folds of our glorious flag, 
 simply because that flag as it floats in Alaska does not mean good 
 government, good laws, and justice? 
 
 Can we wonder that this state of affairs exists when Governor 
 Bradley, of the Territory, is quoted as saying: 
 
 There are 60 men in charge of the government of the Territory. They 
 have no interest in Alaska, except to grab what they can and getaway. They 
 are like a hungry lot of codfish. Seven of these officials, 11 per cent of th« 
 entire government, are now under indictment for malfeasance in office. 
 
 Is not this but a repetition of the world's history that men can 
 
 4Q95 
 
24 
 
 not be trusted to rule an alien people in an ali m land, where they 
 have no interest to subserve save the emoluments of office? 
 
 What stronger argument can be offered agtiinst a colonial gov- 
 ernment than this statement of facts reveals? [Applause.] 
 
 As further illustrating our want of proper machinery to govern 
 colonies, we have immediately before us the deplorable condition 
 of affairs in Hawaii. We annexed these islands more than a year 
 and a half ago. We have not yet given them a Territorial form of 
 government, and in the formative period of their existence we 
 have not provided them with any laws by which they can main- 
 tain themselves. Their legislature became extinguished with the 
 rarification of the treaty of annexation, and now, with the bubonic 
 plague devastating their land, carrying suffering, want, and death 
 in its wake, tliere is no power to authorize tne expenditure of 
 money in providing treatment and in attempting to crush the dis- 
 ease. We are told^by the newspapers that the President and his 
 Cabinet have been anxiously consu ting in reference to the condi- 
 tion of these people and have been seriously trying to devise some 
 way for their immediate relief. It must be apparent to everyone 
 that, in order to govern a subject people, there must be arbitrary 
 power lodged somewhere that can act quickly. There is no placd 
 under our Constitution where such power can be lodged; and if 
 Congress undertakes to vest it anywhere, it must do so without 
 warrant or authority from the Constitution and without regard 
 for the first principles of freedom, for it has been well said that 
 ' ' the history of the world has been written in vain if it does not 
 leach us that unrestrained authority can never be safely trusted 
 in human hands." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Alaska and Hawaii are not the only instances m 
 the history of this Republic th;it have demonstrated the folly and 
 the wrong of a republic attempting to govern any people except by 
 democratic methods. Here in this Union the Southern States 
 have known the effect of such a government. The people of the 
 South know what it is to be governed without their consent. 
 They bitterly know the horror, the injustice, and the iniquity that 
 such a government entails. They know what it is to have no 
 voice in their affairs, to be taxed without representation, to be 
 governed by aliens, and to have military rule supplant the civil 
 law. I mention these things not to awaken unpleasant memories 
 or to reopen wounds or to scar afresh old sores that burrowed deep 
 in the flesh. The memory of these things is fast dying out, and I 
 would not revive it, nor do my people desire that I should do so; 
 but I mention them to emphasize the statement that as a repre- 
 sentative of these people I will never by my vote or voice con- 
 sent to put such a government upon any of God's people in any 
 clime, beneath anv sun, in any part of this earth. [Applause.] 
 
 I would not do it as a matter of sentiment for the subject peo- 
 ple, but, above and beyond this sentiment, I would not do it for 
 love of the American people and American institutions, because I 
 believe that to do so would be to set a precedent that in its effect 
 would ultimately overthrow the liberties of our own people. If 
 there be no other way to govern the people of the Philippines ex- 
 cept through despotic and arbitrary government, and if we are de- 
 termined to govern them, tlien let us amend the Constitution 
 before we undertake such a government, for I believe with Wash- 
 ington that — 
 
 If in the opinion of the people the distril ution or modification of the con- 
 Btitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amend- 
 
 4095 
 
25 
 
 ment in the way wliich the Constitution designates. But let there be no 
 change by usurpation: for * * * it is the customary weapon by which 
 free governments are destroyed. 
 
 I equally abhor with Daniel Webster a military republic, and, 
 as applicable to the present discussion, I recall his utterance of 
 more than half a century ago, when he pronounced— 
 
 A military republic a government founded on mock elections and supported 
 only by the sword; as a movement, but as a retrograde and disastrous move- 
 ment, from the old-fashioned monarchical systems. 
 
 And I recall that at the same time he declared: 
 
 Above all, the military must be kept, according to the language of our Bill 
 of Rights, in strict subordination to our civil authority. Wherever this les- 
 son is not botla learned and practiced there can be no practical freedom. 
 Absurd, preposteroiis, a scoff and a satire on free forms of constitutional lib- 
 erty for frames of government to be prescribed by military leaders and the 
 right of suffrage to be exercised at the point of the sword. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, I do not want the Philip- 
 pine Islands either out oi the Constitution or under it. I do not 
 wish to have them as a part of this Union. In passing, however, 
 I would say that with a dec-aration proposing to admit Puerto 
 Rico ultimately into statehoo 1 I would interpose no objection to 
 permanently retaining it, provided the people of Puerto Rico de- 
 sire us to keep them. I would interpose no objection either to 
 Cuba, under the same conditions, becoming a part of this Union. 
 These islands are dilrerentiy situated from the Philippines. They 
 are within the legitimate sphere of our influence; they are within 
 th^ Western Hemisphere, and they lie almost at our door. They 
 may be of strategical value to us. We would vi'Olate none of our 
 time-honored principles in annexing them. The Monroe doctrine 
 would not be interfered with. We could defend them far easier 
 from hostile invasion than we could defend the Philippines, and 
 we could perhaps the better protect the Atlantic coast from the 
 invasion of yellow fever by annexing them. 
 
 I am opposed to forcibly annexing any people, and it is incon- 
 ceivable to my mind that this country, boasting of its free insti- 
 tutions and glorying in its past achievements for liberty, should 
 commit itself to the attempt to force its flag over an unwilling 
 people. [Applause.] 
 
 I am opposed to retaining the Philippines because I am opposed 
 to a large standing army. Before the war with Spain an army of 
 25,000 men was as large as we needed. It was ample to meet all 
 the needs of a free people. The war with Spain necessitated an 
 increase in this army, and yet, although this war ended more than 
 a year ago, the taxpayers are still supporting a great army, and 
 all because of the Philippines. No man to-day can tell when this 
 atmy will be disbanded; no man can predict when what we are 
 pleased to call the "insurrection " in the Phi ippines will end, and 
 !io man c;m say how long it will stay ended whenever an end is 
 reached. The history of these islands offer us but little hope that 
 we could with safety withdraw our army, even though peace 
 V ith them should be declared. The retention of these islands, it 
 pt^ems to me, therefore makes the retention of the army a neces- 
 sity, and upon the other hand, no man will deny the proposition 
 that with the release of the islands the army will not be neces- 
 sary. 
 
 I am opposed to retaining these islands because of the expense. 
 It is stated that the normal cost of the Government prior to the 
 war with Spain was. in round numbers. So per capita, and it is 
 now stated that this expense is §8 per capita. We thus have an 
 
 4095 
 
26 
 
 inciBase of $.J per capita, or a total of over $'200,000,000 per year, 
 and all because we own the Philippines and the foolish natives of 
 the islands have disputed our title. The war taxes are still col- 
 lected, although peace is declared. These taxes fall upon every 
 home and every workshop. Their imposition has already lasted 
 too long, and the burden they entail should be lifted Instead of 
 being- permanently fastened upon our people, as the retention of 
 these islands will necessitate. 
 
 I am opposed to retaining the Philippines because I am opposed 
 to a one-man government in any land that flies the United States 
 flag. I do not believe in centralizing power in the White House. 
 I do not believe in enlarging the already too great power that is 
 now vested there. I do not believe in a strong centralized gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 I believe that those people are governed best who are governed 
 least, and I believe that "the powers not delegated to the United 
 States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are 
 reserved to the States respectively or to the people." I ha\e no 
 faith in the theory that has been suggested that the government 
 we would establish in the Philippines would be so clean, so pure, 
 and so able that its image reflected back to us would make this 
 Government more pure, more clean, and more able. Rather than 
 this, I fear that an autocratic government there would eventually 
 result in an autocratic government here. If self-government can 
 be denied in any one part of the United States it can be denied in 
 all parts. If we accustom ourselves to tiie use of arbitrary power 
 in one place, it will become natural and easy to use it in all places. 
 When v,^e consent to a government of the Filipinos, who have 
 become a part of the United States, at the point of the bayonet, 
 let all patriots remember that at the same time we are increasing 
 the number of bayonets. As we increase despotic power we must 
 remember that at the same time we are increasing the armed 
 force to maintain it. Is not this dangerous, desperate ground to 
 enter upon? The part of prudence and the part of safety is to 
 withdraw from it before it is everlastingly too late. 
 
 Learned gentlemen and able gentlemen have talked about the 
 inherent powers of this Government. We hear it claimed that 
 whether the Constitution provides for it or not, this Govern- 
 ment possesses the same powers of all other great govern- 
 ments. Mr. Chairman, this Government has no power that the 
 Constitution does not delegate to it; for, by the language of the 
 Constitution, all other powers not so delegated are prohibited. If 
 the framers of this Government had supposed that in its creation 
 they were giving to it the despotic powers of the governments of 
 old, would they ever have established it? They were seeking to 
 escape from such powers. They soaght here in the New World 
 to found a new government, and, ignoring all precedents, they 
 blazed a way of their own. They profited by the experience of 
 past governments and eschewed the vicious elements of all those 
 governments from theirs. 
 
 The foundation upon which they laid their structure was free- 
 dom, and upon this foundation they reared a superstruciuve dedi- 
 cated to liberty. It is now seriously proposed after a century of 
 experience with this Government to deliberately remove the foun- 
 dation upon which it is built, and to assert that the wise fathers 
 of old had framed a government 'v\th all the despotic powers of 
 the Old World. The proposition, it seems to me, is monstrous. 
 
 4095 
 
27 
 
 Unless our forefathers blundered in their work, and it has taken 
 one hundred years to tind it out, if true, the United States Gov- 
 ernment can not do anything that any other government can and 
 still be the United States. 
 
 I have no patience with those who claim the hand of destiny is 
 guiding us in the Philippine question. Those people who so claim 
 are simply uninformed as to the facts. It was not the hand of 
 destiny that in August, 1898, cabled to Admiral Dewey, saying: 
 
 The President desires to receive from you any important information you 
 may have of the Philippines, the desirability of the several islands, * * * 
 and, in a naval or commercial sense, which would be the most advantageous. 
 
 That telegram was sent from the Navy Department by direction 
 of the President. There is nothing of destiny in it. There is no 
 suggestion of a derelict people drifting into our hands for whom 
 we must provide. It is a cold-blooded business inquiry. It was 
 not the hand of destiny but the hand of our Secretary of State 
 that, on July 30, IbJJS, named as tiie third condition that the United 
 States would require of Spain, in the event of a cessation of hos- 
 tilities, that — 
 
 On similar grounds the United States is entitled to occupy and will hold 
 the city, bay, and harbor of Manila pending the conclusion of the treaty of 
 peace which shall detei'mine the control, disposition, and government of the 
 Philippines. 
 
 Destiny did not make itself manifest until after the cablegram 
 to Admiral Dewey had been answered and our jjeace commission- 
 ers had gone to work to perfect the treaty and had received their 
 instructions to demand the Philippines. The whole transaction 
 was one of business, of barter and sale, without the intervention of 
 destiny. It yet remains to be seen whether the business deal, as 
 it was finally consummated, will be ratified by the American 
 people. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the United States is not the civilizer of the 
 world. We wish that nil countries had our civilization and that 
 they all had a government like ours. The only wa)^, however, 
 that we can assist them to obtain that which we have is to keep 
 ever before them an ideal government in all its pristine purity and 
 glory. We can teach them by example and by precept, but we 
 can not teach them by force. I can well understand how the 
 course we have iDursued so far in reference to the Philippines has 
 created alarm among civilized people everywhere. An English 
 writer in the London Chronicle says: 
 
 If we express our disappointment as Englishmen that our American kins- 
 folk are apparently following our example, it is because in the matter of the 
 rights of every people to govern themselves we had looked up to them as 
 about to show us the better way by respecting the aspirations toward free- 
 dom even of less advanced races, and by acting in accordance with their own 
 noble traditions and republican principles. 
 
 The noble and disinterested purposes for which we declared 
 war against Spain raised the United Stares to the topmost pinna- 
 cle of the great and humane governments of the world. If we 
 had but lived up to the renown we then won. or if we would live 
 np to it now, in my humble opinion we would accomplish more 
 for freedom, more for good government, more for humanity, and 
 more for the United States than all our armies in a century of 
 time can hope to accomplish. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in all that I have said I have not discussed the 
 Filipinos themselves. My concern has not been for them, but for 
 us. I have had no intention, and have none now, by anything 
 
 4C9 
 
28 
 
 that I say to encourage them in their hoyieless fight I have no 
 fear of doing so, beceuse no feeble words of mine could add to the 
 eloquent words of freedom and of liberty that line the archives of 
 our nation from the Declaration of Independence until now, and 
 no act of mine could stir a patriotic heart as the history of our 
 glorious deeds, achieved in freedom's name, must already stir it. 
 I believe that the Filipinos should submit, if for i::o other reason 
 than because they can not succeed. I believe they can accom- 
 plish more by peaceful methods than by arms, and yet I trust that 
 I will be pardoned if I say that a careful reading of all the infor- 
 m .tion furnished us about them shows that, notwithstanding all 
 statements to the contrary, they seek and crave liberty. The ex- 
 cellent gentlemen composing the peace comiQission sent by the 
 President to the Philippines say a great many things in their re- 
 port, and among these things I find this statement: 
 
 While the people of the Philippine Islands ardently desire a full measure 
 of rights and liberties, they do not, in the opinion of the commission, gener- 
 ally desire independence. * * * Tbe Philippine Islands, even the most 
 patriotic declare, can not at the present time stand alone. They need the 
 tutelage and the protection of the United States, but they need it in order 
 that in dne time they may, in their opinion, become self-governing and in- 
 dependent, for it would be a misrepresentation of facts not to report that 
 ultimate independence— independence after an indefinite pei-iod of American 
 training— is the aspiration and goal of the intelligent Filipinos who to-day 
 so strenuously oppose the suggestions of independence at the present time. 
 
 We know, Mr. Chairman, that Aguinaldo and his followers de- 
 sire independence, because they have aslred for it and are now 
 fighting for it. and here we have the statement of our commission 
 that the balance of the Filipinos also desire it. Who is promising 
 it to them? Who is holding out any hope that at any time in th© 
 future their aspirations will be granted? 
 
 I am opposed, Mr. Chairman, to the retention of the Philip- 
 pines, because I am opposed to this Government acquiring any 
 territory in the Eastern Hemisphere. To retain these islandi* 
 would mean our entrance into and participation in the ever-arising 
 and ever-perplexing questions of the East. It would convert us 
 from a peace-] oving into a warlike nation. The Eastern world, in 
 dealing with questions of government, recognizes onij'- the law of 
 might. This is made manifest in the large and ever-increasing 
 armament of the countries of the Old World. Invading, as we 
 would be, the territory of the Old World governments, who can 
 say that we could maintain ourselves there and avoid entangle- 
 ments or alliances with other nations? I am not yet ready to do 
 this. I am not yet ready to reverse the declaration of our policy 
 made by Jefferson when he said: 
 
 Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alli- 
 ances with none. 
 
 Nor am I yet ready to discard and refute the parting words and 
 
 advice of the first President of this Republic when he said: 
 
 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very re- 
 mote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the 
 causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it 
 must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary 
 vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary cornbinations and collisions of her 
 frioiidships or enmities. Oiir detached and distant situation invites and en- 
 ables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an 
 efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material 
 injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will 
 cause the neutrality we maj^ at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously 
 respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making ac- 
 quisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when 
 we may choose peace or war as our interest, guided by ju.stice, shall couns^ 
 
 4095 
 
29 
 
 To retain these islands would mean not only a large standing 
 army for the purpose of upholding our Government among the 
 islanders, but it would also mean such an army for the purpose of 
 defending them from outside interference. It would mean a great 
 army and a great navy, because these islands are so far removed 
 from our shores that we could not rely upon our volunteer forces 
 to defend them. We would have to be ever ready for war, just as 
 all Europe is to-day. 
 
 In the research that I have made on this great question, Mr. 
 Chairman, I have not lost sight of the materialistic argument that 
 has been presented in favor of the permanent retention of these 
 islands, and, while I have reached the conclusion that the view 
 thus presented has been exaggerated and has been given more im- 
 portance than the facts justify, yet I am frank to say that no con- 
 sideration of commerce or of gold, and no thirst for empire ought, 
 in my opinion, to be weighed in the balance against the Constitu- 
 tion and liberty and the perpetuation of our free institutions. 
 
 Some part of this Government, however, invested with power, 
 has been pandering to whatever of cupidity there may be in our 
 natures in the style of literature with which they have supplied 
 us. I have received Government publications which set i orth in 
 glowing language the rich stores of gold and of silver, of coal, of 
 iron, and of copper to be found in the Philippine Islands, and de- 
 scribing the great fertility of the soil, and pointing out the mar- 
 yelous results that American energy and American money can 
 achieve in these islands. When I come to read, however, that 
 portion of this literature devoted to the facts, I find that the for- 
 eign commerce in these islands in 1894 was as much as it was ever 
 known to be, and that in this year it amounted to only $23, 558, ^o'^ 
 of imports and §33,149,984 of exports. In the tables for other 
 years the figures are smaller. 
 
 When we remember that if we handle this entire commerce, 
 both exports and imports, we could only expect a legitimate profit 
 out of it, we can realize what a pitiful return we would get for 
 our great investment of money, leaving out of consideration en- 
 tirely the precious American lives that have been sacrificed and 
 will be sacrificed to obtain it. Why, sir, if the entire commerce, 
 both exports and imports — not the profits, but the entire com- 
 merce — came to us as a gift, it would not pay the expenses of our 
 Army alone, and would leave totally unprovided for the expenses 
 of the civil government. 
 
 I find also in the budget of revenues and expenses for these 
 islands for the year 1897 that the total income is placed at $17,- 
 474,020, and the total expenses at $17,258,145, and I notice that 
 included in the income and assisting to make the total are, 
 proceeds of monopolies $1,222,000, and lottery 81,000,000. Spain 
 is charged with resorting to every expedient and every ingenuity 
 to wring money from these people, and yet, with all this, barely 
 enough is yielded to support the government. With our more 
 beneficent government — and I assume that it would be more benef- 
 icent—and with our refusal to license monopolies and lotteries, 
 how would we provide the necessary revenue to conduct our Gov- 
 ernment? 
 
 If we assume the responsibility for the destiny of these people, 
 I suppose it would be a part of our mission to teach them the ways 
 of civilization, to educate them, and lead them up to the higher 
 and better walks of life. Where would the money come from 
 with which to do it? I am told that we now expend about 30 
 
 4095 
 
30 
 
 cents per capita on our Indian wards. I do not know that the 
 figures are correct, but suppose we only expend 10 cents per capita 
 each year on the Filipinos, it would take, in round numbers, 
 $1,000,000 per j^ear for this purpose alone. It seems to me, there- 
 fore, that in reaching out for the commerce of these islands, so far 
 from materially benefiting our people, we will entail a sore and 
 grievous burden upon them; in my opinion, such a burden as no 
 law of reason or of prudence or of Providence requires at our hands. 
 Reading further from the literature furnished us, I learn that 
 in the yesir 1894 about 60 per cent of the foreign trade of these 
 islands was carried in British vessels and only 20 per cent in 
 Spanish vessels. I learn also that Great Britain was the largest 
 consumer of the products of these islands and that we. the United 
 States, consumed three times as much of these products as did 
 Spain. It is true that the gentleman compiling these figures goes 
 on to say that — 
 
 "With these islands in our possession, and the construction of railroads in 
 the interior of Luzon, it is probable that an enormous extension could be 
 given to this commerce, nearly allot which would come to the United States. 
 
 Perhaps it would, and perhaps it would not. It is a free guess 
 for anybody. The fact, however, that is made manifest by these 
 figures, is that in 1894, when we did not own the Philippines, they 
 exported to us three times as much of their products as they ex- 
 ported to Spain and exported more to Great Britain than they 
 did to us. 
 
 Do not these figures demonstrate that it is a fallacy that we must 
 own a country and a people in order to trade with them? If we 
 furnish the best market for the Filipinos, will we not buy their 
 goods whether we own them or not? And if they furnish us the 
 best market for our products, we will sell to them no matter what 
 flag they fly. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is strange to me that at 
 this time of all times our people or any portion of them should 
 have conceived the idea that to extend our commerce we must ex- 
 tend our territory, because it has been so recent that we had our 
 attention called to the enormous volume of our foreign commerce. 
 The President in his annual message informs us that— 
 
 The combined imports and exports for the year are the largest ever shown 
 in a single year in all our history. Our exports for 1899 alone exceed by more 
 than a billion dollars our imports and exports combined in 1870. The imports 
 per capita are 20 per cent less than in 1870, while the exports per capita are 
 58 per cent more than in 1870. Exports of agricultural products were 
 $784,776,143. Of manufactured products we exported in value $a39,592,146, 
 being larger than any previous year. It is a noteworthy fact that the only 
 year in all our history when the products of our manufactories sold abroad 
 exceeded those bought abroad were 1893 and 1899. 
 
 I do not think this the time for any comment upon these figures 
 other than upon the remarkable showing they make of our growing 
 export trade. I will leave to some other occasion to discuss the 
 question of whether or not the decrease in our importations has 
 been due to the advance in the height of our tariff wall, or as to 
 whether this decrease is to the substantial interests of the con- 
 sumers of the country, or as to whether the increase in our trade 
 generally is due to natural or to artificial causes. I wish now 
 merely to call attention to the fact that in the face of this state- 
 ment, showing our enormous export trade with people who owe 
 us no allegiance and who do not fly our flag, there are still those 
 who say that we must, in order to increase our export trade, own 
 colonies and govern a dependent people. Such a proposition, in 
 the light of these figures, seems to be absurd. 
 
 4095 
 
81 
 
 There is other information, however, that we get from the lit- 
 erature furnished us that is interesting. We are pointed to these 
 islands as offering a great field for development, as being a wilder- 
 ness of riches, as it were, ready for the hand of America merely to 
 reach out and take in, and yet in the column of facts we are ad^ 
 vised that in the island of Luzon there are now 79 people to each 
 square mile; in the island of Leyte, 71; Negros, 7;;; Panay, 155; 
 Bohol, 188; and Zebu, 210; and we are also told that these six 
 islands comprise the principal islands in all the archipelago. This 
 literature further officially informs us that the density of popula- 
 tion in these six islands is 50 per cent greater than it is in the States 
 of Illinois and Indiana, and is greater than that of any of our 
 States east of the Rocky Mountains except Massachusetts and 
 Rhode Island. 
 
 We are told, however, that these islands will support a much 
 larger population than tliey now have; that the population now is 
 only about one half as great asit is in France and one-third as great 
 as it is in China and Japan. It would be useless to deny this last 
 proposition. It may be true or it may not be true; the proposi- 
 tion is speculation pure and simple. If it be true, however, it must 
 of necessity be equally true that far greater populations can be 
 maintained in our States than now exist. It follows that if we 
 have a surplus of energy and a surplus of capital, we can find 
 here within our own domain riper fields to exploit, a better climate 
 in which to live, and a more homogeneous people to dwell among. 
 Here the hope of success is greater and the chances of failure 
 smaller. 
 
 I can understand, Mr. Chairman, how individuals or corpora- 
 tions, few in number, could obtain franchises, rights, ancl con- 
 cessions in these islands and exploit the islands to their own sat- 
 isfaction and to their own profit. I can still better understand 
 how this could be done under an arbitrary and despotic govern- 
 ment, with the people exercising no rights and having no power 
 to protect themselves; but I fail to see how our Government or 
 our taxpayers can realize anything from the venture, and 1 can 
 not give my consent to overturn precedents, traditions, and even 
 our organic law itself to the end simply that a few favored mo- 
 nopolies and individuals may wax and grow fat at the expense of 
 the people. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have said that the question I was endeavoring 
 to discuss was not political. I still maintain that proposition, and 
 yet gentlemen here and elsewhere have now and then felt called 
 upon to refer to the Democratic party as the rarty of expansion, 
 and to point to accessions of territory in the past under Demo- 
 cratic Administrations, and have felt it their duty to suggest that 
 Democrats now who oppose the retention of the Philippine Islands 
 are backslidden from the faith of their fathers and deserters from 
 the traditional policy of their party. I respectfully dissent from 
 this view. I believe, and have endeavored to demonstrate, that 
 tho e who look upon this question as I do are as true to the poli- 
 cies and traditions and the faith of the Democratic party as any 
 who in the days gone by have marched beneath its banner. 
 
 I would remind gentlemen who thus attempt to taunt us of the 
 fate that uniformly befell those who in the past offered such taunts. 
 This is not the first time taunts of this kind have been made, and 
 yet through the changing vicissitudes of time Democratic members 
 nave been returned here by Democratic constituencies. The rec- 
 ords disclose to me that the attitude of the Democratic party on 
 
 4095 
 
m,«S.!.„.^^. '-""<^Kt5^ 
 
 32 ® 0" 744 680 7 
 
 the expansion of territory in the past was just as violently and 
 bitterly assailed at the time as is now the attitude of its member- 
 ship on the pending question, and yet time and reason vindicated 
 and sustained its position, and overwhelmed those who opposed 
 it, and forced them to the acknowledgment that they were wrong; 
 and so, Mr. Chairman, I believe that those who scoff and jeer to- 
 day at our position will in the days to come be forced to admit 
 their error and their wrong, just as their predecessors in the past 
 have been compelled to do. 
 
 My hope is that their repentance will not have to be in sack- 
 cloth and in ashes at the feet of a crushed and overturned Repub- 
 lic. The Democratic party has stood in the past and stands to-day 
 for expansion— expansion of territory, of commerce, and of free- 
 dom, and of all things that are good and great. Wherever under 
 its administration this country has expanded its territory it has 
 carried freedom, liberty, and the Constitution with it. The Demo- 
 cratic party has always believed that " forcible annexation was 
 criminal aggression and not to be thought of." [Applause.] It 
 has believed in ''benevolent assimilation" in fact as well as in 
 theory. It has never in the past stood for expansion of territory 
 at the expense of freedom. It has never stood for the curtailment 
 of liberty that commerce might expand. [Applause.] 
 
 It has never waged a war of conquest. It has never sought by 
 force of arms to subject an alien people. It has never stood for 
 empire or for colonies, and, so far as I can read the signs of the 
 times, it stands to-day where it has ever stood — the foe of oppres- 
 sion, the enemy of tyranny, the friend of liberty, and the cham- 
 pion of progress. But, Mr. Chairman, regardless of party or 
 parly history, when temptation comes to us as a republic and 
 cupidity and avarice arise within us, when great riches seem 
 temptingly near and dreams of imperial splendor dazzle us, we 
 must invoke the aid of the true American spirit and cling to the 
 Constitution with tenacious energy as the sheet anchor of our 
 liberties. If we do not this, we are undone, and that which we have 
 we will have no more, and that which we receive will be but dust 
 and bitterness. [Loud applapse. ] 
 
 4035 
 
 o 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 680 7 # 
 
 p6nmalipe«