I I (Z 91 I Ib a 4 II1/ ' *O | ` ]1 e4.. I. O C* (o. h~ * v I. iII i i I I I 8 GENERAL LIBRARY University of Michigan Presetifcd ly 4-w CA.r V-p-I A S Ili~ F, ,J V~ siyij lf:f ~'-'f', ~ **:s* *:c^ ^.*W,>-.W.*;:,r -t:':. A **. * ^^^^^*^^*''^^^^^^'^*^^^^*^*^~~~J i^^-N I^^^ '.^ **^-'cv.-^.^*-'^ —^"'""^.:.^. /^^yv''~~~X S 'aa'^ te "';-;-',11;:^^^-:'. -*,-' ***".'*..**fi1'".' fc.;^ ^*..^.**i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.1 ^^^^y'^^^'^l^^^^^f^~~~~.5 ^^y-i-yx,^ ** — ^,..-:.-;,?:...;,. *-.;;<;-.y.,- - **^^ r *^.;^.^-;.-. -* ^ ^: v;< >i***t**-*? >.'-.:-.'.?-. ^ * 1:^.:-^ l-*W L, -44- ^ ^ " -^^. **.*;. ^*^- ^ v;.*** ^ ' oe. ^ r - -^;^ ^ '.."- ^: ps A ^ ^ *'x:l: -5 Mt 4 "N. ^ ^^;V ^ ^r;: 4r ^, ^;^ - *. '^.* *.*.^ '.. *, -; * - -, - O..: -; -'.' ^ ^^^^^ ^-':^^ ^.?.~:**. -?*; —A P.-": *. ';' v.l** *: - ^ ^^. ll^^t^ —^~~~~~~J %gl^ ~^*^l^ ^^~~~~~A " ^ ~> '* *.. *, * * \ *- *;* *;,,-4 - -.* * ".-; "';'. ** oil-"^ r A '. - 4 ^ *" "**''"' " ^ - '*S1*!!^ ^ 3;^^ i',.;.U ';,y. ''^::^,"'','!- ^:-',;"-* ^l'/;l-'-"l'''l':A'.v."*"'< % '.-:'; A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'Z '^l:^^^ --- v^^-'^^;^-^ ---^..; >^ * - * -% A?:^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ';4M -.; ib -; "*-^"-* *'^ *;.-x ^,**: -^?,;t*.' ^1^^**^' * ^ * w ' *.^^^.-Ai^' % ^^? ^^f^";^''''^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'^^-^ Al -, ^ — ^^- ' 1-*-^ ^ *'**:.*l ^ * ^= w is~~~~~asss~~~~~~~~m;4A? ll^^iA,-'-1^^.^'^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" H i^^ ^^ ^ ' ^*^' *^^" N':*.;* ' *: '***^'-: ^-.:-'.:;^, —0.~ Wi-A' ^ " ''^ * '-s *'-;' V '*r *^ * *; -^ ^ * *" " " >^*-<: X^ ^ ^Y^ ^'-''^ -^"^^ <^^ < >. ' —^ **^<ttee<.:i,.'''[ ';.^^^^^4 iwa^ ^''- ^ thaN.^' ^ i;.-~ <: ->^ *-*^.. *^ Y-'-'*;:' *'. f - - *"^ — i* 4t^ ^ i..^y ^^^^ y<*^*. -'.* -* —":.'^:*".<:"*> -':;^*^;' ^~ *^'y- ^-^~~~$4, ^^N^^^^-4^;;!-::'^ -. "^;^.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'4,'*t^~:*^ I t,'-o ( 4'h)'-/~- V N1 ~ R "S S 7 t'( "' THE PROBLEM IN THE PHILIPPINES. S 1 |' | I, ('11 < — Ht T \ t E NI r T I 1 I) OF COLOiRADO, IN fI! "' SI'N'AT'FI O)1: T11,' i'ITI']!') S'l'.\'rl.;S, Tue-dnyWeclnosrhiv,;md( Thur<ld-iv eLI -( a, y 1 12,:`m cl (X X ( 1., Felt_)Paz'y 11, 12, Hllnl 1W, lo()(.2 - _.0 _. _.,-, N -. I I C '1' O N. 1 90'2. S P E E C II OF HON. I EN RtY M. TELLE 1l. ttuesday, February 11, 1902. The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5.5:3 temporarily to provide revenue for the Philippine Islands, and for other lpurposesMr. TELLER said: Mr. PRESIDENT: As I said yesterday, I do not intend in what I shall say to go into the question of ou r power to hold territory nonadjacent to the United States, nor do I intend to discuss the legal question involved. I said more than two years ago that I did not think the question whether or not we should hold those islands was in controversy. I felt certain from the hour that Dewey went into the harbor of Manila that we should be compelled to have some relations with those people. and that those relations must be of more th an a commercial character. I believe that those islands, if we l] ave to hold them as we are now holding them. will not be profitable.and can not be made profitable. I myself have never believed they coulll be nde profitable: and yet I have believed that for certain reasons it was a proper thing for the Government of the United States to have a closer relation with them than they have witbh any) other country. I have believed that in the haands of certain European or Asiatic powers those islands would be dangerous to us. For that reason, and for that reason alone. I believe it well that we s1ould maintain, if possible, friendly relations with the peoplle of the Philippine Archipelago. But I have never supposed that there would be an attempt on our part to take and hold and own the islainds in the complete sense of the term. I ani sure when the treaty with Spain was before the Senate that that result was not anticipated by any member of this body, and I am sure that the party in power did not contemplate at that time the present existing condition of things. I want now to repeat that I do not believe any profit can be made by holding the islands commercially if we have to hold them by force. Not only is it contrary to our principles of government, but it is contrary to our interests to hold any people in subjection or compel them to give us commercial privileges and opportunities which they do not give to other nations. I had supposed that if we were to accept this as a question unsettled, the first problem would be, perhaps, to determine what our rights may be there. Inasmuch as there is nobody in the world save the Filipino who can challenge the right of the United States to hold or not to hold those islands, and nobody is likely to do so, and nobody would be allowed to do so if anyone should attempt it-. Mr. SPOONER. Except here. Mr. TELLER. It is not worth while, therefore, outside of the American Congress. where it is a proper subject of debate, to consider that question. Inasmuch as we have been told by those in 4980 3 6 proposition unassailable and uncontradictable. that if ever a people are elevated, the elevation must be accomplished by their own efforts. I do not mean to say that a country like ours can not have, and that it has not had, great influence on the people of the world and incited them to better conditions, because it is true that its influence has been felt. I have no doubt that the example of the colonies in their fight for independence and in the good government they established after they had attained their independence brought on the great contest which soon followed, and in which all of the European world participated, and out of which grew, whatever you may say of the tyranny of Napoleon, and although with bloodshed and disaster to all the people who participated in it, more for the human race than has been attained in any other two hundred and fifty or five hundred years in human history. It was Napoleon who broke the strength of the theory of the divine right of kings. I have not any doubt myself that Lafayette, with his conception of American government and American freedom, was an important factor in bringing on, though unintentionally on his part, the great French rebellion against the constituted authorities. Wicked as that revolution was in many details, yet out of it came infinite good. But our influence was then,' and it should ever be, that of an exemplar, and we should not attempt, Mahomet-like, to enforce upon other people our civil, political, or religious views. DOCTRINE Or DESTINY. I think I may safely assert that it is not the duty of any individual or nation to attempt an impossible task, or to attempt a task difficult in the extreme unless it is to be followed by great good. We have attempted that task, sometimes under the pretense that it was to bring a commercial advantage to us, sometimes under the pretense that destiny or Providence had imposed the duty on us. I do not know what men mean when they tell us that destiny has required us to do a certain thing. Do they mean, in the case of the Philippines, that the Omnipotent has decreed that we shall enter upon a period of spoliation and war, and that with blood and bayonets, and swords, and the thundering of cannon we shall force upon the people of the Philippine Islands that which we think is good for them and that which they think they know is not good for them? If I had such conceptions of Deity, I should have to change every sentiment of my heart, and I do not believe it is much less than sacrilege to say that the Almighty demands this sacrifice of us. I should want, before I engaged in it, a plain edict from the Almighty. It would have to come, not as the oracles came to the old Greeks, not as they came to the heathen world when it professed to hear the voice of its gods. I should want to know that it was the voice of the good God and that it was not the prompting of the evil one. I could imagine that the methods we are pursuing might emanate from the god of evil and wickedness, but I can not conceive how they could emanate from the Lover of the human race, from that God who is Love. If I could hear the directing voice of the Almighty in this matter, and could thus be made to feel that it was a duty incumbent upon us to carry our civilization to the Philippine Islands, I would not hesitate, no matter what the cost. But I insist that 4980 Hils voice has not been heard in this question. I insist that if there is any reason why we should be there it ciani not be found i the command of Deity. OPPOSED TO AMERICAN INTERIESTS. Mr. President. it is equally certain to me that the interest of the United States does not demand our presence in the Philippines on our present footing. It is equally curtain to mne that even if we should get rid of the question ot nior al if wxe should forget that nations must respond for wrongdoing like men, if we should forget every, page of our histori -,if wve should toirget what our fathers declared over and over acrt'in and wxhat thiey wen~it to war for-the maintenance of a priilciple-that goverxnmenits are instituted by men for the benefit ot inicn and thenr just powers are derived from the consent of the governed -it we. should forget that in the interest of comniercia —tlisni, I in-sist that there is no such demand on us, for n~o man can st-and in thi's Chamber and show me that in a generation, or in ten generations, can we be compensated by the trade there for what we have already sacrificed and suffered. and that ag(jain~st the will antid prote~st of the people who rightfully own and should coiitrol, acco'1rdin~g to American ideas. the land iii which they live. Now, after nearly three years of conilict, after years of actual warfare, with a large ari'iy in the Philippines-I a-m told that already 120,000 men have been there-what is the situation? How many we have left there, and how many have returned to go to early graves, how much evil we have inflicted ul)ofl our p00o)l0 by that course. independent of the cost in dollars and cents. God alone knows. No hutman being canl tell us to-dlay what will be the influence upon a gcfrea t army there amidst all the temptations and vices of a tropical climate and among a tropical people. It remains yet to be determined by the future how much we are to be damaged, not alone in our purse, but how much we are to be cursed in our physical and mental and moral manhood. There are some things difficult to speak about in public. I shall, be pardoned, I hope, when I say that if the Army surgeons there are to be trusted, we shall receive a curse of curses, not only in this generation, but in the generations to come. The blood of the American citizen will be contaminated by a vice which flourishes, especially in tropical countries, to an extent never heard of before in this or any other civilized country, in my opinion. That remains for the future. I can measure the dollars; I can count what 'it costs in that respect; I can consider what it takres out of the pockets of the American people; and with our great wealth, great as the cost is, I will not put it for a mi-nute by the degradation that has come to American naianhood in the soldiers that we have sent to those islands. I will not attempt to measure it by the side of the degradation that has come to the whole American people by our contact there, by lessening their respect for those great, eternal truths that no Christian nation can for a moment forget or overlook. The worse evil that is befalling us is not the money we are paying out. That we can pay; that we can forget, great as it is and burdensome as it is; but the other wiM remain with us always, a debt never to be paid. There will be no redeemer for that. Mr. President, is it worth it? What do we get? Is there a Senator in this Chamber who is happy over the condition there? 4980 8 FROM THE PHILIPPINE POINT OF VIEW. Is there one here who will say that he has no sympathy with the struggling Filipinos? Can anyone fail to sympathize with them when he sees death and destruction measured out to them and knows, as he must know, that those men believe at least that they are fighting for home and fireside, doing that which the whole world has declared to be a virtue of superior character. I may not agree with them. I may not believe that the great American people mean to subjugate and destroy those people. I may not believe, and do not believe, that the American people desire their subjugation or the destruction of their liberties. But we have not succeeded in convincing the Filipino that that is not our attitude. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE] tells us that those people must submit. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORAKER] in impassioned terms declared to us that the American Army would stay there until every Filipino acknowledged its supremacy. He might have added, I suppose, until he either acknowledged its supremacy or went to his grave. Why are those men in arms against the United States? I could understand why Aguinaldo, an ambitious Asiatic, might take up arms against us, for he wanted power and he wanted the advantage that he could secure as the leader of the people. But what of the rank and file? What do the common Filipinos mean when they stand in battle before us and when they are ready to go to their deaths in the strife? Do they not mean that they are standing in defense of what they believe to be right? As an American I can not feel happy over the defeat of, and I can not myself wish that there should come disaster to, American arms. But I can not but respect the people who believe that we are attempting to subject them and put upon them a government and a system of civilization that they dislike. I can not help feeling for them, and I believe every man here feels for them. He may say they are misguided, that they are ignorant; but after all the man who, when he thinks his home is assailed, stands in front of it with his gun is a model of excellency the world over. The American people came to their existence as a nation through blood. We had a long and bloody war-seven years of contest with the then ruling power of the world-but it was not longer than the war in the Philippine Islands will be. A Senator has said to me that there is no counterpart between our condition and that of these people. That is right; there is not. We were Englishmen. We had come from England and settled here under English charters and English law, but when England attempted to put upon us a tax that we believed she should not we went to wrar. We did not take up arms because of any atrocities committed upon us. We did not go to war because we were suffering from anything that Parliament had done. We fought for a principle. As Webster said, in the Senate, in 1834, we went to war against a preamble. We went to war against a parliamentary declaration that England had a right to govern us and provide for taxation of the American colonies without their consent. When Parliament passed a resolution declaring that the right existed to enact all the legislation required for the colonies, Mr. Wilkes. a member of the House of Commons, said, referring to it, "It is the compendium of slavery,"' and when Lord North said, 4980 9 " The tax is trifling,' Englishmen in both Houses responded. "' The American people are not fighting becanuse of thie size of the tax." They were fighting because of the violation of the princi' ple that taxation and representation under English law must go totgether. Oh, no: the conditions are not the same, but we 1had the right to fight. If we were justified in resisting. so is the Filipino. It was demonstrated here by the Senator from Washington [Mr. TUINEIt], as it has been demonlstrated before. that when we went there the Filipino had for years been mkinlg a contest in those islands for independence from Spanish rule. and that he had every reason to believe that we were to give him a better condition than that which Spain had maintained. IRlESPONSllBILITY FIO TIlE VWAI. Mr. President, I amr not going into the question whether or'not we promised the Filipinos independence. I am not going to touch that subject. It does not make any difference whether we promised it to them specifically or not. We ha!d for one hundred and twenty-five years declared that people situated as they were situated had a right to govern themselves. andte they l-had no reason to suppose that we had changed our attitude on tlhai-t snbjectt. They had a right to believe-as you and I believe and everybody here believes-that with a temporary domination that would come in those islands there would come a condition consistent wNith our declaration made during the last one hundred and twenty-five years by every act of ours and by ten thousand individnal declarations that went out to the world as tlhe cardinal principles of the American people. When they found that we were adding to our Army, and when they found we were not making any promises or pledges to thelm. that we were not doing for then what we did for Cuba, that their demand that the same provision should be applied to them as to Cuba met with no response froml the dominant party here, it is not surprising that they should have thought there was a necessity for the maintenance of their army. It is not astonishing that the friction of two armies of different peolles should have brought about a collision such as there was brought about on the 4th of February, 1899. It is not a question whether they were to blame or we. In my view of the case. if they were to blame, if it is admitted they brought on the war, still it was our duty to have said to them, not by General Otis who was there, but for the American nation to have said to them by the legislative body, by the Executive of the United States, in an official manner. "There is to be no subjugation here." Do you not believe that if we had asserted the principle which is set forth in the amendment I offered yesterday there would have been peace in those islands? Why could we not have done so? Did not our interests and our duty alike demand that course? If not, I pray some Senator here to enlighten me on that subject, either now or at some future time. I am sure I have as much interest in the success of the American people as any man who sits on the other side of the Chamber. I believe I have as much appreciation of the country's glory and greatness as anybody else in the Senate, and I can not myself see where there would have been any lowering of dignity if the American nation had said to those people, "You are ualding a mistake as to our intentions." The 4980 10 Senators who sit on the other side of the Chamber had control of the legislative and executive departments. Why did they not say to those people: " We do not intend to subjugate you." You would have said it over and over again when you were appealing to us, who are not in accord with you on general subjects, to vote for the ratification of the treaty. You could not have ratified the treaty if you had declared your present policy to be the policy to be pursued under it. You lacked but a vote or two of being defeated. You would have lacked a dozen. You would have received no votes except from those who surrendered their judgment to the party caucus if you had told the truth when the treaty was before us, if you knew the truth. I do not charge now that any Senator here meant to misrepresent. I believe that the, policy then was the policy enunciated in the fourth resolution with reference to Cuba up to a time after the treaty was ratified. And then, Mr. President, in some way-I do not know how-some evil influence became dominant and took control of the executive department of the Government, and the President's voice was no longer for peace, but for war. No, Mr. President, there is not any counterpart of our relation to England at the time of the Revolution in the relation of the Philippines to the United States now. We were an intelligent people, but we knew what would happen to us if we remained under English rule. Not degradation, not despoiling of property, not enslavement in the sense the term is used, but political enslavement was what our forefathers feared. We would have had to submit to a Parliament where we had no representative, which said to us, " You shall pay a tax of 3 pence or 2 pence a pound upon tea. You shall put a stamp upon everything that you buy and everything that you sell; every document that you issue you shall put a stamp on. " That is taxation. What we said was that taxation without representation is tyranny. Is it any less tyranny in the Philippine Islands than it was in America? I do not believe that we did intend, as a nation, to subjugate and destroy those people. And yet we apparently thought it was not necessary to make any effort to convince them that that was not the case. As a result of this negligence we have the war, flagrant war (if the reports are true, with probably 20,000 American citizens sacrificed) and the other evils of which I have spoken. Are these to last forever? After all, we are not ready, the great American people are not ready, after three years to say through the legislative department what the policy is to be; and yet you wonder that the ignorant Filipinos, men not acquainted with us, doubt whether we are to give them freedom or not. What reason have they to suppose that we are going to give them freedom? If we do not mean to hold them in our strong grip, in the grip of the greatest power in the world, which they realize as well as we, why can you not say to them that they are mistaken? Has not the Administration had time to develop a policy? Is it possible that there are not statesmen enough in the Republican organization or in public life to determine what justice to the Filipino, what justice to the American people, what the interest of the Filipino and the interest of our own people demand? Must we go along in this unhappy condition? Do you think you answer the appeal of the Filipino when you reply to him, " You must submit; we will subjugate you. When you have laid down your arms, 4980 11 when you have surrendered yourself and are incompetent of further contest, then we will tell you what we are going to do with you?" The declaration was made here the other day that there is one thing we will promise. It was not said that we will promise peace, not that we will promise good government, but that we will promise the Filipino that thle god of war shall be felt in every section of his land unless he submits unconditionally to us. THE ENGLISH r1UIECESDENT. Mir. President, I have spent some time in the last few months reading up the history of the conflict between Great Britainl and this country. I have taken up the debates, and I founld againll and again accounts of men rising in the House of Lords and in the Commons and saying to their fellows, "*Would you, could you deal with rebels with arms in their hands? No, no; ithere must be unconditional surrender. When the American people surrender then we will tell them what we are going to do." Pages of their reports are taken up with that kind of declaration. But there were men there, liberty-loving Englishmen, whos dared to stand up and say that they would not if they were in the place of the Americans surrender under that demand. It was not pleasing to the party in power in England, but no man rose in Parliament in the whole history of the war and charged any other man with treason when he said as Pitt said, " I admire and I love the Americans for the resistance they are making." I wish to read an extract or two from speeches that used to stir our blood. I want to read what used to be in the old English reader when I was a boy, which we have all read with unction and delight, and which had a tendency to stilmulate American youth with love of freedom, which had much to do with implanting in us the sentiment that the greatest glory in American life is the love of liberty and justice and the belief that when that departs from us the glory of America will be gone and the end of the Republic will come. To go back somewhat to the time before we got into trouble with Great Britain, you will recall that Great Britain had had continental wars and had been in trouble with the rest of the world. When she was in her greatest possible distress there came forward an Englishman who brought order out of confusion, who stimulated the people of that country as no other man ever stimulated them or. in my opinion, the people of any other country in the world. That Englishman was none other than the Earl of Chatham, the great Pitt. and he had undoubtedly greater influence upon English character than any other man who ever lived. In his old age, full of honors and glory, tottering in his walk as an aged man does, he made his way to the House of Lords to defend the Americans, though not to defend American independence, for he said: "I am not for American independence; I do not like the way you are driving these people to independence." Then he added: "I wanted the dependency of the American people upon the Crown, but I want it as an Englishman; I want it as I have it in the county in which I live, and as we have it in every English shire and in every county." Mr. President, if those words should be uttered here now, if Pitt were here and could speak here as he spoke there, he would be charged with sedition and treason on the floor of this Senate. Hear him further: As to conquest, therefore, my lords, I repeat it is impossible. You may swell every expense and every effort still more extravagantly, pile and ac4980 12 cumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow, traffic and barter with every little pitiful German prince that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign prince, your efforts are forever vain and impotent, doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely, for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies to overrun them with the mercenary sons of rapine and plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty. There is probably not a Senator here who has not, when a boy, declaimed these very words in the schoolhouses of the country: If I were an American as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms. Never! Never! Neverl Not long since, in the city of Paris, there was a gathering of distinguished men, and at that gathering, among others, was the English minister, Mr. Monson, a scholarly gentleman-a man holding high rank aside from his position as an ambassador-who paid a high tribute to Pitt. The occasion was the American University Dinner Club, at Paris, February 22, 1897. If Pitt's position was contested then, as it was by some of the English lords who did not agree with him, the English sentiment to-day appears to be with him. This now is from the speech of the English ambassador: It is unnecessary for me to remind you that even at the outset of the struggle, and for some time after its commencement, there were not wanting in the mother country voices and those the most eloquent, which not only denounced the policy of the King's Government, but proclaimed with conviction the impossibility of the task proposed. You must all of you remember the brilliant oration in which the great Chatham pointed out to his colleagues in the House of Lords the absolute futility of the enterprise. "My lords," said he, "you can not conquer America." And then Mr. Monson read the same extract from Pitt's speech that I have just read to you. When he concluded the quotation there was loud applause, and then he said-and this is what I particularly want to read: This was the voice, these were the sentiments, of the most enlightened of the scions of the mother country. They failed in arresting the policy against which they were directed, and in my judgment they happily failed; but, none the less, they remain on record as the generous expression of a sympathy which the adherents of the court might qualify as treasonable, but which was in harmony with the traditions of England and with the principles by which she has achieved her constitutional liberties. Mr. President, it was not necessary to wait until the days of Mr. Monson for a vindication of Pitt and his associates. It came many years before. It came when Lord Brougham, a great Englishman, said that George Washington was the greatest man of all the ages and that the principles for which he fought were the dearest of all to free men. I read still further from Mr. Monson's remarks, as follows: If Washington was the personification of sincere and modest patriotism, surely Chatham embodies in his mighty soul the inspirations of a patriotism none the less sincere nor less genuine, because it found an inadequate response on the part of those who encouraged a kind-hearted monarch in a course which exposed him to the charge of tyranny. Preeminent on the east andwest of the Atlantic stand up the figures of those two patriots; the one, the type of the calm, reflecting soldier, penetrated with the justice of his cause, and prepared to make every sacrifice on its behalf; the other, the sagacious statesman, ripe in years, experience, and foresight, brimful of sympathy with the cause of liberty, and overflowing with a true appreciation of the spirit which had been aroused by England's disregard of her best traditions. Mr. HOAR. What is the Senator reading there? Mr. TELLER. I stated that I was reading from the speech of the British ambassador to France, made February 22, 1897, in the city of Paris, at an American dinner. I read it to show that it is 4980 13 not inconsistent with loyalty to my Government, nor love and admiration for it. to protest against whlt I believe to be a great wrongt not only to the people of the Philippine Islands, but a great wrong to the American people. iMr. President, let me read a word or two miore from what Mr. Pitt said apropos of our rebellion against the exactions of the mother country: The independent views of America have been stated and tassrted as the foundation of this address. 1My lords, no man wishes for the due dependence of America on this country nmore than I do. To pr)eerve it. antd not contfirm that state of independence into which your measures hitherto have driven them, is the object which we ought to unite ill attaining. The Americans, contending for their rights against the arbitralry exactions, I love and ladmire; it is the struggle of free and virtuous patriots; but contlending for independence and total disconnection from England. as an Englishman, I can mnot wish them success; for in a due constitutiolntl dependenly, including the lancient supremacy of this country in regulating their commeurce and navigation, consists the mutual happiness and prosperity both of England and America. In the same address he said further: You can not conciliate America by your present measures; you can not subdue her by your present or by any measures. What, then, (can you doy You can not conquer, you can not gain, but you can address: you can lull llhe fearsand anxietie~s of the moment into an ignorance of the daniger that should produce e them.he time demands the language of truth. We must not now ap)ply the flattering unction of servile compliance or blind c'm-nplaisance. In a just and necessary war to maintain thel rights or honor of my country I would strip the shirt from mly back txo support it. But in siuch a war as this. unjust in its princi)le, inpracticaldle il its meanstll, and ruin in its consequences, I would not contribute a single effort nor a single shilling. A few (lays later, while this old statesman was standing on tlme brink of the grave, for the volume which contains these speeches of his also contains the addresses that were made in Parlianmeint on his dea4-, he spoke again on tlhe subject of the Americain IRevolution. Parliament was considering tle use of thel Indiains. They were disclaiming against such warfare and saying that Great Britain had degTaded herself by using these savages. as we are degrading ourselves by using the Macabebes, and one of the lords said: It was perfectly justifiable to use all the means that God and nature lit, into our hands. Upon this. IMr. Pitt (the Earl of Chatham) again rose and sa-id: I am astonished, shocked, to hear such principles confessed, to hear th(em avowed in this House or in this country; principles equally unconstitutional, inhuman. and unchristian. My lords, I did not intend to have encroached again upon your attention, but I can not repress my indignation, I feel myself impelled by every dlut y. My lords, we are called apon as members of thlis House, as men, as Clhristian men,. to protest against such notions standing near the Throne, polluting the ear of majesty. "That God and nature put into our hands." I know it what ideas that lord may entertain of God and nature, but I know that Hi-' abominable principles are equally ablhorent to religion and humanity. Whati to attribute the sacred sanction of God and nature to the massacres of the Indian scalping knife. to the cannibal savage, torturing, murdering, roasting, and eating; literally, my lords, eating the mangled victims of his barbarous battles. Such horrible notions shock every precept of religion, divine or natural, and every generous feeling of humanity. And. my lords, they shbock every sentiment of honor, they shock me as a lover of honorable war and a detester of murderous barbarity." He then goes on to say that, old and infirm as he is, he could not refrain from entering his indignant protest. Mr. President, the other day, when the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORAKER] exclaimed with so much force and enthusiasm that we would continue this war until every man laid down his arms and surrendered to us, I could not help thinking that on 4980 14 several occasions the British King in his address to Parliament insisted in, if not quite the language, the same spirit, that he would continue the war upon the Americans until they should acknowledge the right of Great Britain to tax without representation and their proper dependence on the British Parliament. I turn now for a moment to read, not the whole of the speech, but a few words from the utterances of the King, George III: My Lords and gentlemen, I will steadily pursue the measures in which we are engaged for the reestablishment of that constitutional subordination which, with the blessing of God, I will maintain through the several parts of my dominions. He then goes on at considerable length to speak of the American people as rebels, as lacking in gratitude for all that Great Britain had done for them in so many years. OUR POSITION CRITICAL. Mr. President, every man who has stood in the Senate for the last two years and found fault with the present condition in the Philippine Islands has done so at the risk of exciting the displeasure of the party in power. I do not care to what political organization he belongs, I do not care what public service he may have rendered, either to his State or the nation, if he calls attention to the wicked and infamous condition that exists in those islands and expresses the belief that there is a better way, he is held up to the contempt of the whole American people, and if he stands on this side of the Chamber he is charged with an attempt to introduce politics into the discussion of these questions. Now, sir, if I know myself, I desire to make no political capital out of American misfortunes. I want to make no capital out of a condition that makes me sick at heart and sometimes makes me almost hopeless for the future of this great Government of ours. I believe, Mr. President, as I stand here before the American Senate and the American people, that this is a critical period in American history. The legislation that we are to enact here will not only have its influence upon the 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 Filipinos, but the result will be felt by the 76,000,000 Americans. If persisted in, this course will absolutely change the character of the American Government. You can not continue a war for subjugation; you can not continue to insist that 10,000,000 men are to be encumbered with all the burdens of a relation to the United States, but to have none of its benefits, as is the case when you deny to them the constitutional rights that you give to everybody else; and the American people can not continue to submit, as they do submit now, to allow those things to go on, without a protest, without experiencing the degradation of the public morals which is rapidly approaching and is the inevitable result of injustice perpetrated by national authority. Why, sir, you can maintain a republic only upon the intelligence and morality of the people. No republic has ever been upheld upon any other basis, and upon no other basis can one be upheld. Whenever we shall lose respect for the rights of men; whenever we shall see the American flag become the emblem, not of justice and right, but of force only, you will see a rapid decay of political morality and of the love of freedom. You may have a Republic in name. The Republic may not die in name; it may live; but it will not be the Republic of the fathers; it will not be the Republic that it was intended to be; it will not be the Republic of our youth. We may have great wealth, we may have great 4980 15 learning, and we may make high-sounding speeches about liberty and freedom and republican government, and yet not have a Republic at all. Do not the readers of history remember that Augustus and others of the Ctsars were supposed to be living in a republic? No man was more fond, I believe, of parading his devotion to the republic than Augustus Ctesar himself, and yet a more absolute lord and master never existed on the face of the earth. That was a period of letters, of enlightenment. of art, of science. and of philosophy, and they maintained for years a pretense that they had a republican government, with an labsolutely atoc.ratic. ruler. There have been other republics besides ours, and they have lived longer than this Republic has lived, but there is no certainty because we have lived one hundred and twenty-five years that we will live always. We will live always, Mr. President. if we keep in mind all the time that justice must be done by every ( man1 to every other man, and, above all. that as a nation we rmust deal equitably with every power that we colme in touch witl. THE UNITED STA'TES AS A WOILD POWlrC. We are a great world power, IMr. President: the greate;cst in the world, I hear the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPooNEllt], who sits in front of me. say. I agree witl him. In all history there has not been such a nation as this. We have not suddenly sprung into a world power. When more than two generations ago-yes, nearly three generations ago, eighty years ago-we said to the world," Thus far may you go and no farther; you shall not touch the struggling Republics of South America." they respected that declaration, and they have respected it ever since. I said before that. in my judgment, we had had the greatest influence upon the affairs of mankind of any people, at least in modern times; and we have had that influence to our glory, not as a great world power, but as lovers of men and lovers of justice. THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION AND ITS WORIK. We have in the Philippine Islands 6,000,000 Christian men. They are not heathens. They may not be up to our standard: they may not have learned the liturgy of freedom as we have learned it; their anthems may not be sung to the same tune as ours in their celebration of liberty and freedom, but according to their capacity they are as liberty loving as we are. Their conceptions are not so high, but their conceptions are their own, given to them by the Almighty, and they have a right to them, and we have no right to say that ours are better. There are 6.000,000 of Christian people that we are attempting to deprive of the right of self-government. I know it will be said in reply, " That is not true." When do you propose to give them self-government? I asked that question of the Senator from Wisconsin a year ago; I asked him what was to be our policy. He then told me, as he told the Senate, that we would have to send a commission out there to find out the facts in order to determine what should be our policy. We have sent a Commission there, not to find out the facts-although that may be one of their duties-but we have sent them there, as we have been told again and again, to supply an example to those people of what constitutes American government. Yet in the face of this declaration you have in the statutes enacted for that archipelago by the Philippine Commission some4980 16 thing which shows the conception of that Commission of what an American government ought to be. and if any Filipino can fall in love with that he ought to be a slave for the balance of his life. Who have been the tyrants of the world? Those who exercised power without right. It does not make any difference what you call them, they who assume power-and all power is assumed which does not (come from the people over whom it is to be exercised-are tyrants. I do not intend to spend very much time over that so-called law which was read to us here last week, but I want to allude to it briefly. For more than twenty-two years I have had a seat in this Senate. I believe I have been as careful in my attendance as most Senators. I came into the Senate a comparatively short time after the close of the great civil war. We had then to deal with a great many ugly questions growing out of that war, and I have been a witness of some very strange occurrences in this body, things that would not be tolerated now, but which were. perhaps, justifiable, or respectable, I may say, after that great war. But I never saw anything that struck me as so remarkable as the socalled enactments of the Philippine Commission which were read the other day in the hearing of the Senate. I had seen accounts of some of those enactments in the public press, but I had asstuned, for the credit of the Commission, that they were not truly stated. I can not help expressing the gratification that came to me when a Senator on this floor declared that the president of that Conmmission did not approve of those enactments. I had respected that official for many years as a man of learning, of character, and as a prominent citizen of the United States. I had known his father; I had known something of his family; and when it was stated 'here that he had not approved of those enactments my heart took courage. But when a few days later I learned that he, like the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORA:KER], had given his adhesion to those enactments as proper enactments my heart sank within me. I do not know whether the American Senate, controlled now by the Republican party, is going to stand for those enactments or not: I do not know whether the Senators can satisfy their cinsciences or the American people by the violation of the fundamental principles of free government by saying, as the French say-I shall not give it in French for fear that I might not get the proper pronunciation —"that is war." When trouble occurred in France, and when outrages of a gross character were committed. the Frenchmen said. as an excuse, ' That is war." Mr. President, you can not say that is war, for I assert here now that the history of mankind does not furnish a parallel for the infamy of these enactments. Wilkes said the declaration that Parliament had a right to enact all the laws for America was the compendium of tyranny. So I say of this, Mr. President. it is the compendium of tyranny, it is the compendiuml of infamy: and yet I have seen men stand up on this floor and say that they believed it was necessary. If it is necessary that we should violate constitutional'principles, if it is necessary that we should outrage all the traditions of liberty-loving people for ages, it is not worth while that we should attempt to hold those islands a single minute. No obligation can be great enough upon us to require such a sacrifice of conscience and of decency as we should make if we give our adhesion to that idea. 4980 17 I want to see if there are lany more Senators sitting on th o l the ler side of the Chamber who will stand up and say, " We believe that is a just and a righteous act." Let ine read it, Mr. President. I notice the Senator from Ohio skipped it. I know that at heart he did not believe in it; at least, I can not believe that he did. Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator allow me to ask what it is that he says I skipped in the reading of the statutes? Mr. TELLER. Oh, you read it. Mr. FORARER. Then why does the Senator say that I skipped it? Mr. SPOONER. You slipped denouncing it. Mr. TELLER. The Senator read it, but without making any comments on it, I mean. Mr. FORAKER. I hope the Senator will allow me to say that there is not anything in tnat statute that I am not content to read and indorse and comment upon. MTr. TELLER. Well, Mr. President, to my surprise the Senator said that several days ago, but he said it in the heat of debate. Having great respect for the Senator, I attributed the utterance in great part to the fact that it was said in the lleat of debate. If he says now, after deliberation and thought, tllat he approves of the statute, it is not for me to criticise himl; I leave him to the ages: I leave him to the people who shall comne after him; I leave him to the liberty-loving people and the law-alidillg people of the country. If he can say in his heart, after delitbeation, that the statute that I shall read in a few minutes is a proper one to pass, no matter what the exigencies may be, I le(ave hlilli to settle that, not with me. but with the American people, with the people, as I have said before, who have liberty-loving ideas. The Senator read with a good deal of interest the other day several statutes of the Philippine Comlmission which comport exactly with our statutes. The Senator can not see any difference between the statutes passed by the Philippine Conmmission and our statutes. Why, sir, the difference between conditions is everything in a statute. We provide that if a man learns that treason is contemplated or has been committed he must make the fact known. If by the infirmities of hulman nature, by his love for somebody, or by his fears, or from the fact that he sympathizes with treason, he does not see fit to make it known, what shall happen to him? He is to be tried by a jury of his peers; he is to have his neighbors called and they are to listen to the testimony: they are to consider it; they are to adjudicate upon it. The Filipino is to be tried, Mr. President. by no jury. ie is to be tried by an American judge, in most cases, and when he is not tried by an American judge he is to be tried by what would have been called in Revolutionary days a Tory Filipino. He is to be tried by a man who for a stipend that is paid him goes onto the bench to do the work of the conqueror of his people, who withholds from him, as from all, any promise of a better time in the immediate future or any other future, except the indefinite promise that "' when you are fit for self-government we will give it to you." Mr. President, let me read this statute. I want to read first the eighth section, which provides thatEvery person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the insular government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or 4980 2 18 obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding, $2,00 or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court. Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him there? Mr. PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RAWLINS in the chair). Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Ohio? Mr. TELLER. Yes. Mr. FORAKER. I want to inform the Senator that that section is copied almost verbatim from the statute of Tennessee on the subject of treason and sedition. I have the Tennessee statute before me, and will read it, with the Senator's permission. Mr. TELLER. I will take the Senator's word for it. He need not read the statute. Mr. BATE. May I ask the Senator from Ohio what is the date of that statute? Mr. FORAKER. That is the Tennessee statute. I do not know the date; it is not given here. But it is followed by a note in this compilation to the effect thatThis section was probably drafted by Hon. Luke E. Wright, acting governor of the Philippines, who formerly practiced law in Tennessee. Being familiar with the statutes of that State, he naturally adopted the language employed by the Tennessee legislature in creating an enactment of similar character. It is given here as section 5555 of the Code of Tennessee. I should like to read it. Mr. TELLER. I would rather the Senator would not interrupt me by reading anything at all now. I will yield to him for anything that is proper, but I am not going to yield for a speech. Mr. FORAKER. Inasmuch as the Senator read section 8 of the enactment of the Philippine Commission, I thought I should like to show that it was put in there by incorporation from the Tennessee statute. Mr. TELLER. That is not the statute I referred to, nor a counterpart of it; but I will come to that. Is it any answer to that to say that some other community may have passed a law that is cruel and harsh and opens to the courts a latitude of discretion to determine what is to disturb the public, to determine what incites rebellion? All these things are left not to a jury to determine, but to a court. In Tennessee a jury of Tennesseans would say whether a man's act incited to rebellion or not, and he would be tried before a Tennessee judge; but it is not a Filipino judge who sits out there and who would determine such a case. If he is a Filipino, he has American money in his pocket and wants to keep his place, and we know that in the days of our Revolution there were no people so harsh upon our liberty-loving soldiers and the people who stood for freedom and independence as were the tories. It will not do for the Senator to think he has answered that question by saying Tennessee did it or Ohio did it or that any other State did it. Conditions are different. DO THE FILIPINOS WANT US? We are over there, Mr. President, acting professedly in the interest of the Filipinos, and you on the other side of the Chamber are telling us that the Philippine people want us there; that 4980 19 the great majority of the people want us there; and yet you justify such enactments by saying a condition exists there which makes it necessary. If the people want you there, you do not need any such statutes as these, and if you do need them, it is self-evident that the people do not want you there. That I think I may say without offense to anybody. I believe we all know that as a matter of fact the Filipino people do not want us there, but the contrary is always the cry of power under such circumstances. I could read from the debates in Parliament of the eighteenth century to show that such a plea was 4made in England during our Revolution. Member and lord, one after another, in both houses rose again and again, declaring that three-fourths of the American people wanted English rule: that it was the wicked American Congress that had got control of affairs and would not allow peace to be made on British terms. Not only that, Mr. President, but Parliament appointed a conmmittee which took testimony, and a member of the first Continental Congress went before the committee and swore that three-fourths of the American people wanted to submit to British rule, but that the other fourth were so infamous that they would not allow them to do so. Speech after speech was made to the effect that the people of the colonies wanted British law and British authority. But notwithstanding these representations England sent over here a great army of 60,000 men to keep the minority in check. This is just the course we are pursuing toward the Philippines, except that we have had at one time 10,000 more men there than England sent to America. Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask hin a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Colorado yield? Mr. TELLER. Certainly, for a question. Mr. SPOONER. Did not the Senator vote to send the Army over there? & Mr. TELLER. I did not have anything to say about that. Mr. SPOONER. The Senator voted for the bill. Mr. TELLER. What bill? Mr. SPOONER. The bill increasing the Army. Mr. TELLER. Do you mean originally? Mr. SPOONER. Yes. Mr. TELLER. When we had to increase the Army, I voted for the increase, I presume. Mr. SPOONER. It was to enable the President to send troops to the Philippines. The Senator voted for that act, I presume? Mr. TELLER. I am going to say a word or two about that. Mr. HOAR. I do not want to interrupt the Senator when he is answering another questionMr. TELLER. I will yield to the Senator. Mr. HOAR. But I want, before he passes from that point, to call his attention to the remark he made about our sending 10,000 more troops to the Philippines than Great Britain sent here. As I understand, we have sent, including those we have there now and those who are under orders to go there, 120,000 men to the Philippines, if I am not mistaken. Mr. TELLER. You are not mistaken. Mr. HOAR. I thought the Senator was understating it. Mr. TELLER. I was recalling the fact that there were 71,000 4980 20 American soldiers in the Philippine Islands at one time, whilst all that Great Britain ever sent here at all times was 66.000. Of course they were not all in the field at the same time. A part of the time some of them were in durance vile as prisoners of war. Mr. HOAR. Taking all the troops we have sent to the Philippines and those now under orders, we have sent about twice the number that Great Britain sent here during the Revolutionary war. Mr. TELLER. Yes; we have sent to the Philippines about 120,000 troops. Mr. BATE. We have 40,000 there now, according to the Adjutant-General. We have had as many as 77,000 there, 62.000 of them regulars. They are all regulars who are there now. Mr. TELLER. It has been stated that we had 76,000 troops in the Philippines. I believe 71.000 was really the correct number. I want to leave this subject for a minute, but I shall come back to it. The Senator diverted me. Mr. HOAR. I beg pardon. Mr. TELLER. Not at all. I am entirely willing that the Senator should have interrupted. THE PEACE TREATY. Mr. President, I am one of those who voted for the treaty with Spain. Before it got here I made up my mind that the best thing we could do was to ratify the treaty and get rid of Spain in the settlement of the question. Long before the treaty came here I made a speech in the Senate, in which I announced myself for the treaty, as I understood it to be. and I should probably have been for the treaty if it had contained other provisions, because I was anxious to close up the war between the United States and Spain. Until the treaty was ratified there was technically a state of war. We had some troops over in the Philippines; we had some troops in Cuba; we had a large number of troops ready to go from here, if there was a necessity for it, either to Cuba, the Philippine Islands, or anywhere else, if Spain should attempt to continue the contest. One object in ratifying the treaty was to reduce the Army. On the 20th of December, 1898, I announced, in the most unequivocal terms that my language would permit, that I did not want to hold the Philippine Islands; that I did not want to make them a part of the United States. As I say, the treaty had not been received here when I announced in unmistakable terms the doctrine that had been promulgated in the Senate by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON] who sits before me. Every idea that he then enunciated I agreed to and had proclaimed on the floor of the Senate. I believed then, and I believe now, that the best thing that could have been done would have been to ratifiy that treaty " instanter." We ratified it on the 6th day of February, and it required every vote that could be gotten to secure its approval. Yes, we ratified it, but accompanying the ratification was the declaration of every leading Republican in this Chamber and every leading Republican in public life that the charges which had been made on this side of the Chamber and on the other sidethat we were to keep those people against their will and hold the ~islands-were not true. The Senator from Washington [Mr. TURNER] yesterday read the record on this subject of a few. He might have read the record of twice as many. Every man was 4980 21 committed to this one proposition: That when the treaty should be ratified we. the American Congress, would determine what should be the attitude of the American people toward those people over there. We did- not then have access to the files of the Departmlent of War. On the 21st day of December, 1898. thle President of tlhe United States sent a proclamation to the Philippines. 1 do not hesitate to say here that if that proclamation lhad been rlead to tlhe American Senate not a solitary vote would have been secur1ed on this side of the Chamber for the ratification of the trea ty becaltulse it enunciated a policy in absolute contradiction to thalt whlich was proclaimed here on this floor both in executive and in open1 session as to what should be the policy of the American pleoplle t)uchlling the islands. Those instructiIons of the President wellt to the Philippine Islands, and when they reached Ge(neral Otis he c(Ilnsored and cut out the objectionablel matters containel d in thelm, because he said if they were published they would bring on \war. And yet, Mir. President, one proclamaltion fronm Otis and another from General Miller went to the Filipino people long before we heard of or had any knowledge of them, and the Filipino peoplle said: " Otis is lying to us and Miller is telling us the truth." Mr. President, I have not the slightest doublt tlhat this dulplicity did more to hasten the contest than anythilg and all othlr tllings done. I can imagine its effect upon a people, not savages. but. as stated here, a peoplle many of whon1 are educated, a people who had been in contest with Spain, a large percentage of whom are the equals in intelligence and learning of the people of alnost any nation in the world, a people who. the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. MONEY] tells us. had 800 students in the University of Manila and thousands of students in the European universities when the trouble began. Is it strange that such a people should have suspected our honesty? Not at all. BEGINNING OUR WAR IN THE PHILIPPINES. Moreover, we did not know when we voted for this army that the commander of the Filipino army had said to our general in charge: " This is a mistake, and if you want a cessation of hostilities we will have it." I know the report that that statement was made has been denied, but no man can read the statement of General Otis first and last and not believe that it is true as I repeat it, that we might have had a cessation of hostilities. The statement is further to the effect that the Filipinos were then on the defensive, not on the aggressive, and that we were the aggressive party during that first battle. Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator from Colorado a question, if he will allow me. Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. HOAR. I wish to ask the Senator from Colorado if the original order of General Otis, directing him to proceed to enforce submission, was not itself an act of war under the law of nations? Mr. TELLER. I am somewhat diffident as to my knowledge of the laws of nations as they are now being construed. I do not know what they are under present conditions, but I should say that formerly, ten years ago, it would have been a declaration of war. Mr. HOAR. Suppose any nation on the face of the earth had 4980 22 issued to its military commander an order to subdue another people; is there any people on the face of the earth who would not treat that as an act of war? I put that question because of what seemed to me the very unimportant discussion as to whether the Filipinos fired first on that night when the first shots were fired, or we did. There had been, as I conceive, a formal and unquestionable act of war on our part long before. Mr. TELLER. I think the Senator from Massachusetts is right as to the question of law, and coming as it did With two interpretations of it, it is not strange that the Filipinos did not lay down their arms, nor is it strange that the conflict arose. The best peacemaker in the world is not a soldier; the best person to maintain the peace is not a soldier, and some of us realized the danger there was of a conflict with those people during the whole time. THE SEDITION LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Mr. President, I am coming back to this legislation, so called. I deny that it is entitled to be dignified by the name of legislation, but it is the law under which the Filipino must live. It is the law under which he must act. I read one section, to which the Senator from Ohio thinks he has answered all objections by saying that Tennessee has a statute like it. He might have gone to Russia, but if he had done so I do not think he could find one quite like tihe one I am going to read. We once had a sedition law here, but if anybody will get it and read it-I read it the other day-he will find that it is as mild as a dove, and this is a roaring lion compared to it. Now let me read: All persons who shall meet together for the purpose of forming or who shall form any secret society, or who shall after the passage of this act continue membership in a society already formed, having for its object, in whole or in l)art, the promotion of treason, rebellion, or sedition, or the promulgation of any political opinion or policy, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. Is there a Senator who will say that Congress, with all its power, could pass such a law as this? I should like to have some Senator who thinks it can be done to answer this question now. If he wants to reply he can have an hour out of my time to do so. Is there anybody, who knows what is the power of Parliament, who would say here that the English Parliament could pass such a law and have it held valid by the courts of Great Britain? I do not believe any Senator here will put himself on record as saying that that is a valid law. Mr. MITCHELL. May I ask the Senator from Colorado a question? Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. MITCHELL. Is it not a fact that the substitute reported by the minority of the committee recommends the continuance of that law? Mr. TELLER. No; it does not. Mr. MITCHELL. I so understand it. Mr. TELLER. But if it did, I am not bound by that. Mr. MITCHELL. No: I do not believe the Senator isMr. TELLER. I stated yesterday that I was not bound by anybody's opinion in this matter but my own. But the minority refer to and say "the laws." Does that expression mean simply "a law?" If it does, I do not understand what "laws" are. 4980...... 23 That could not be a law if it had behind it the entire body of Congress, every man voting for it, and the President signing it. Why? Because it is contrary to the great Bill of Rights; because it is contrary to the Decllaation of Independence; because it is contrary to the Constitution of the United States; because it is contrary to every principle of justice Land humanity. It is an invasion of the rights of mankind. and I repeat that, if your condition over there is so deplorable that you nmst justify it by say-ing that it is a proper thing to do, God have mercy on the people of those islands, and God have mercy on the mtan who stands before the American people and says it is a just and righteous law. I repeat, it is the compendium of tyranny. Yes: it is the comIpendium of infamy, and I shall not bring myself within the criticisml of any S iiator here who has a liberty-lovilg heart when I repeat that assertion. It can not be said too often. Mr. President. a thousa-nd islands like those of the Philippines are not worth such a degradation of the so-called legal departmelnt of the Government as is involved in that so-called law, not if they were all that is pictured by the fancy of those who forget that we owe something to mankind and that we owe something to those people-and certainly we do owe something to thcnl if our flag rightfully floats over them. What we owe thenl is protection in the enjoyment of everything that we have for our own benefit. Now. will you stand before the world and say an Aimerican needs more protection than the Filipino. thatl the law is a violation of an American's rights but not a violation of the Fililpino's, and yet talk to himll and talk to us about the benefits vyo are conferring upon him by Iputtnilg, him under the flag of our countllry? Before I get throuh I ill ten( t call attention to the condition over there, and I believe it to be damnalll le. I believe it to )e a disgrace to us. I believe it is unnecessary on any line of conduct that we are justified in pursuing; yet I do not believe it is so bad as it must be if that act can be justified as an act of war. PHILIPPINE STATUTE COMPARED W1TH TREASON LAWS O' TIHE UNITID STATES. Following the section of the law I have read there are several other sections on the same line, aid it is possible that the Senator from Ohio in his researches may find that some other people, forgetful of the great principles of human rights, have enacted some law like each of them. But I challenge him now, and I challenge every man here, to find anywhere in the annals of human history an enactment like that in its entirety. The hordes of Asia that invaded Europe with their Mohammedan teachings, with their declaration that they would impose on the people a better religious belief than they had, never when they trampled out the governmenit where they went descended to such wickedness and cruelty as are found in that act. No man would be safe under it. -Mr. FORAKER. I understood the Senator from Colorado to challenge me to cite any legislation, in any country, State, or nation, similar to that upon which he has been commenting. I call his attention to the statutes of the State of Maryland, and if he will only compare the section from the M5aryland statute on treason and sedition with the section upon which he has been commenting he will find that it is almost a literal transcript. Mi. TELLER. There is a wide difference. 4980 24 Mr. FORAKER. I contend that there is not. I can not now do more than to answer the challenge by making the citation. Mr. TELLER. The Senator will have plenty of opportunity to answer the statement. Mr. FORAKER. Yes, I merely now point to the statute. I will say to the Senator that in due time I will undertake to satisfy everybody who will listen that there is no difference in point of principle, and only that difference in language which the different situation makes necessary. Mr. TELLER. The Senator can not do that. It is not the fact. Suppose the provisions are similar. Under what condition was the Maryland statute enacted? When it became a law there was a great slave population in that State and it was applied to the slaves. Has the time come when in this Chamber legislation is to be directed and justified by the slavery legislation that preceded the late war? Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me, I will say that he is mistaken; that it was enacted when the Union was threatened with overthrow. It was because there was a large disloyal population in the State of Maryland ready to go into insurrection, and it was enacted for precisely the salme purpose that that statute has been enacted in the Philippines. Mr. SPOONER. And it shows that on its face. Mr. FORAKER. It shows it on its face. Mr. TELLER. Those were times which were exceptional. Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator allow me to add one word? I dislike to interrupt him, but I wish to call his attention in this;onmection, if he will bear with me, to the fact that I have gone pretty carefully through this statute, and I find that it is made up of United States Revised Statutes, different sections from different State statutes, and a continuance, in a modified forlm, of the Spanish code that was already in existence in the Philippine Islands. Mr. TELLER. I have examined the Spanish code. The Senator can not find all of that statute in the Spanish code. Mr. FORAKER. No; not all of it. Mr. TELLER. No. Mr. FORAKER. I say a part of it is taken from the Spanish code; but most of it, four-fifths of it, is taken from the laws of the United States. Mr. TELLER. If it was taken from the laws of the United States, it was taken from those laws that are not enforced and never have been enforced. I wish the Senator would keep in mind, and I want everybody else to keep in mind, a wide distinction between that law in the Philippine Islands and a law where the jury system prevails and where every man has a right to appeal, not to a hostile court, but to a court of the vicinage in which he lives and to his neighbors as a trial jury. Here the Filipino is to be tried by a hostile court, to be tried by a court that does not understand his language, or, if tried by a court which does understand, that has surrendered to the conqueror and has become the willing oppressor of the people of that country. When I say that the counterpart of the Philippine legislation can not be found, I mean that it can not be found under the circumstances; and they must be taken into consideration. Possibly in the excitement of our civil war some things may have been done that were not justifiable. But I repeat, as I said yes4980 05 terday, that there was no }ittenmpt to execute a similar law t this during the civil war. I refer to the laws upon) our statute book of which the Senator from Massalchusetts particularly complfained. I venture to say that there was not a. single case dmuring our war of 1861-1865 in whichl the loving mother of a rebel soldier was compelled to give evidence of his disloyalty to anybody. What would have been tle condition in Kentucky, what would have been the condition in sonme parts of Virginia, where families w ere divided, if sulch a law had been enforced? It was impossible that tahe American sentiment at any time could ihave justified this procedure-that when the disloyal soldier. coming back from tllhe Confederate battlefield. and coming into the home where the lmther was a loyal womlan. and therre were plenlt of those ('caeso. or where the father was a loyal man, that that "atler or th;at Iothler must take him and surrender himi to the authorities or give notice of where lie was and whalt lie vwas doing. Tlhe attempt to carry out or to enforce such a law would have been resisted in the most determined manner by the entire Northern people. We recognized the belligerent rights of the South1 in tlle very beginning of the war. Europe recognized t hemll. I say now tlhat section 1 of that Philippine act is an ilnvasion of the law of nations as to belligerent rights. I said that this statute had Ino counterpalrt. I thlink I oulght to change that statement. There is possibly one as wicked. When Mlaximilian wass trying to force himself. by Austrian and French bayonets, upon a throne in our neighboring Republic of Mexico, and when le found the people applarentlyr subdlued to-day in tle field to-morrow. le madet an order which history says he stipulated with the officials when lie lmade it should not be enforced. That was that every Mexican found with arms in his halnds should be considered a pirate against the Government and be executed without trial. That order did much. I am told to arouse the people of Mexico; and when they, by force of atrIms, got possession of Maximilian and his assistants. thle wife of a distinguished officer went to the President of Mexico, a man of great ability and of great worth. and pleaded with him on her bended knees for the life of Maximilian. He said: "' Madam. if all Mexico were on their lnees before me, justice requires the execution of this man for that order." And he had him executed; and badly as the world felt to see the Emperor thus executed. for he was a chivalric man, mtankind universally admitted that the act was within the laws of war and he deserved his fate. except for the palliating circmnlstance, not then known to the world. that he had protested that the act must not be enforced. But the decree was enforced, and the wicked men who enforced it went to their death at the same moment that he did. If the law has any counterpart, there it is. According to this statute, the Filipino shall not advocate independence, neither in peace nor in war. The pulpit is closed. The rostrum is closed. The mouth of every Filipino is closed. If those who passed that enactment could have reached the thoughts and sentiments of the Filipinos, they would doubtless have made it a crime for them to aspire to liberty and independence. This act complained of is not the Maryland act in words or spirit. Mr. President. there never has been a people struggling for liberty since I can remember that I have not at least felt my heart 4980 26 go out to them. I may think that the Filipinos are mistaken men and that they ought to submit to us and trust to our generosity, but they do not believe so. I would make it possible for them to believe that we are not robbers and murderers, disregarders of rights, but that we are still lovers of justice and liberty, not liberty and justice applied to ourselves alone, but of liberty and justice as applied to all men. IS THERE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGE IN HOLDING THE PHILIPPINES? Now I desire to take up another phase of this case. I have taken more time than I ought to have consumed in this debate, but I have been led on by the magnitude of the subject. This is a question for the great American people to settle. It has not been settled. It is before us. We are to deal with it. We are to settle at this session of Congress what shall be our policy, what shall be the future relation of the Filipinos to our Government. I do not, therefore, make any apology. I should despise myself as unworthy of a seat on this floor if, entertaining the opinions I do, I did not stand here and protest. Mr. President, I am not without hope. I know that some day, and I hope that day is not far distant, the American people will take hold of this subject, and I believe they will do justice as they see it. The great body of the American people are still true to these great principles, and they will see this matter as some of us think we see it. They will not be blinded by the declaration that there is money in this thing; that there is commercial advantage. What is it that we are to get? I hope some Senator will be prepared to-morrow, or before we vote on this bill, to tell us where the commercial advantage comes. I repeat the statement with which I began, that the only advantage in holding these islands is that they may never be used to our disadvantage; that no strong power may ever get lodgment there. I repeat. and the history of the world will sustain me in the assertion, that the way to hold them is to hold them by the consent of the people of the islands, and in no other way can we hold them so that they will be of benefit. In any other way that you may hold them they will be a source of danger to us. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will the Senator from Colorado permit me? Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Is the Senator from Colorado entirely certain that at the present time there is not a majority of the Christian people, as they are called, of the Philippine Islands who do consent to our government there? Mr. TELLER. If I can believe a very distinguished officer of our Army who I insist has better opportunities of knowing than any civil commissioner, if I can trust the written letters that I have seen from men in high authority, written within the last sixty days, there is not a tithe of them who want us there. But if the Philippine people do want us, let them have an opportunity of speaking. Let them have the opportunity of saying so, not in front of your bayonets, not with your soldiers dominating them, but give them an opportunity to express their opinion without the fear of bayonet rule. General MacArthur says that the efforts that we are making to bring these people into such relation with us as will entitle them 4980 27 to a government of their own melans the entire reorganization of society. What an undertaking! What does that mean, Mr. President? It means a people. the lmost conservative on the face of the earth, attached by traditions to things that exist. are to,change every sentiment in their minds and to adopt a civilization inconsistent with their ideas of right, because we think it beneficial to them that they should. I have no question in my own mind but that not a small per cent, but practically no considerable number, of the people desire our presence in those islands. I know something of the Asiatic ilind. I have come in contact with it more or less for the last forty years. I know that when the civil Commission goes out the natives will meet them with banners, and they will build arches and all that, but they would shoot the commissioners if they found them where they could safely do so. It is the Asiatic way; it is Asiatic dissimulation. I know that when the chairman of the Commission went around the islands the people attended, and there were huzzas. Does any man here believe that a people who had been fighting Spain and who have seen no other American government but autocracy have fallen in love with it and want it to dominate them? It is preposterous to suppose that that could be the case, and the evidence does not support the presumption, no matter what the chairman of the Commission may say. DECLARATION OF I NIEPIENDElNCE. Mr. HOAR. Mav I ask the Senator a question? Mr. TELLER. You may. Mr. HOAR. I ask him if he does not think that a belief on the part of our Coimmission there that that people, or a majority of them, favor our rule is not totally inconsistent with and negatived by the decree the Commission have lately promulgated, under which. if the Americans in Mlanila on the next Fourth of July undertake to celebrate the day by a simple read(ing of the Declaration of Independence, they are liable to be sent to the penitentiary? Mr. TELLER. I introduced some things tllat bear on that poilnt the other day. I will refer to the sulbject. though I hlad not intenlded to do so. I said that Senators on the other side of the Chamber would be afraid to read the Declaration of Independence. Of course I meant publicly. I suppose that occasionally some of them will read it in secret, and perhaps they will think of the time when their hearts did beat in sympathy with the principles declared in it, and they will wonder how they could have lbelieved in such antiquated ideas as therein contained. But what I meant to say is that they would not stand up here and read the Declaration, because if the fact that they had done so was telegraphed out to Manila it would incite rebellion. Mr. President, I do not know of any document-in all of my reading I have never seen anything that would excite a man more to stand for his rights than the Declaration of Independence. A night or two after I had made my previous statement here a gentleman of high character, whom I have known for many years, after spending eighteen months in the islands, said to me that on a gala day there he was invited to make a speech, and the question came up as to what should be his subject. He said perhaps he would talk in line with our Declaration of Independence, when the committee on arrangements, an American committee, said to 4980 28 him that it was not safe to do that. I saw in the papers recentlyI do not know whether the statement is truthful or not-that some assemblage where that document was read were regarded by the authorities as disloyal and seditious gatherings, because they were reading and commenting on the Declaration of Independence. That may be a newspaper story, but I can see very well Mr. BURTON. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Kansas? Mr. TELLER. I yield. Mr. BURTON. May I ask a question? Did I understand the Senator to say that the Commission said to that gentleman that he could not make the speech? Mr. TELLER. Oh, no, I did not say so; I said the committee that was holding the meeting. Mr. BURTON. I beg your pardon. Mr. TELLER. I do not know what the Commission has said about those things. I should not, after reading that ninth section of their so-called act, think it possible for the Commission to allow anybody to read the American Declaration of Independence. If that act could be justified the Commission would be justified in saying that the Declaration of Independence could not be read. I wish now to speak for a little while in reply to the Senator from Connecticut. Of course I shall not myself accept the statement made by the optimistic witnesses who come here and tell us that peace prevails when Army officers say it does not. I will trust the Army officer. He is there to keep peace. He is there to secure the subjugation of the Filipino and to compel him to admit that he is being governed as he ought to be governed by this Commission. He has a difficult task, but that is what he is there for and that is what he is attempting. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President — The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Colorado yield? Mr. TELLER. I yield. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I asked the question that I did because I had been reading from the reports of the civil government of 23 provinces which were put into the testimony of Governor Taft. I do not wish to take the time now to quote from these reports, but when the Senator is through I should like to put them in the RECORD. Mr. TELLER. I do not care what the Senator does with the reports when I get through. I am liberal about being interrupted. It is quite possible for the Senator from Connecticut to determine in an authoritative way whether there is a majority of the people out there who want our rule. You have the Administration. You have the purse. You have everything. You can send a commission there, as we were told a year ago you were going to do. You ought to send it. You ought to pick out a commission of the best men in the United States and send them there. That is a condescension which Great Britain made to us when we were at war with her. She sent two commissions over here to see if she could not compose the difficulty. I said before that the Army is not a proper agent to do these things. Neither do I believe that the civil Commission is a proper agent. You ought to send a commission there, and, what 4980 29 is more. you ought to bring from the islands here, if there is a question about it. 200 or 300 of the people and let them tell their story here. A year ago I put into the REcoRn the protest of 2,000 Filipinos from the city of Manila, not one of them raising his hand against the Government, not one of them ever having done so that I know of, in which they said in the most unequivocal terms, in the same termls and tones that Pitt used in speaking of the Americans, "You can not subdue and subjugate the Filipino people. " Since I made the statement as to the Declaration of Independence I have read a letter from an Army officer who is a man of some prominence, though not in command. This letter was written to another officer and was a private letter, not for the public, in which he depicted the conditions over there. There are plenty of such men who can be brought here to give their testimony. I know they will give it under the shadow of the dominatioll of the War Department, and I know if they are Regular Army officers they will come here at the risk of their deserved and recognized rights of promotion. but they will comel if called. If that is a charge against the War Department, Mr. President, you have only to look at the record of the War Departmelnt for two years past to find a justification of the charge. Yet, in the face of the probability of exciting departmental displeasure, you canl get in the Philippine Islands men who will (come here and tell the truth, and you can not say it is asking too much to ask that they be brought. What has this war cost in money, to say nothing of the cost in blood and manhoodl It has cost probably not less than $350,000,000. It is to cost you twice that amount if the civil Connmission tell the truth. It will cost you ten times that almoulnt if Chaffee and MacArthur can be relied upon. And what are you to get? Iet me submit now, so that some one may reply, what it is that yoe. -et. A trade there which with all the world this year was worth $53,000,000, of which our share was $4,500,000, imports and exports, $1,000,000 less than it was last year. Yet we will hear that trade follows the flag? With Great Britain there was a trade of $17,000,000 as against our trade of $4,500,000, $2,000,000 of which was exports from the United States to Manila. And what do you suppose the major part of that was composed of? Of the $2,061,000 exports from the United States to Manila, $1,110.000 was in wine, beer, and whisky. Mr. President, if the whole trade came to us, and if the profit of the whole $53,000.000 came to us, it would not pay the cost of this war for a single week, and if it was all profit it would not pay for the conduct of this war a single year. Later I mean to touch upon what the condition is there more fully than I have done, but I do not care about going any further to-night, and in accordance with the universal custom of the Senate, believing as I do that there is no haste in this matter, that this is a question of such infinite importance, not to the Filipinos alone, but to us, I feel justified in asking the Senate to allow me to cease for the present and to continue to-morrow or at some subsequent time. Wednesday, February 12, 1902. Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, after I surrendered the floor yesterday there was some discussion which was foreshadowed by j- -n 30 the question the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] had asked me about the sentiment of the people of the Philippine Islands. Before I take up any other proposition I want to say a few words on that point and also a few words about the statement made by the Senator from Connecticut in the course of a speech. I can not put my eye at the moment on the part of the Senator's speech to which I refer, but I recall it very well. He said that I had said that the United States is rightfully in the Philippine Islands. I have never said that, Mr. President. What I said was that by international law we were undoubtedly there under its te rms. I also said the other day that there was nobody who would contest our right there except the Filipinos. No nation in the world is going to raise any question with us if we take the entire sovereignty and insist on the right to subjugate and oppress the people of those islands who came to us by our cession from Spain. I have said, therefore, that our rights in the Philippines did not seem to me to be a very practical question in considering the proposed legislation. I said a year ago in the Senate that it was apparent that the party in power intended to keep and hold those islands while that party remains in power, and that it was therefore certain that the islands would be held by the United States for the next four years, if not longer. I find no trouble about our title now-none whatever. I know that it may be properly questioned, but it is not going to be questioned, except here and in the Philippine Islands. It has been determined, so far as it can be determined through the military branch of the Government, that we are in possession. As I recall it, Cicero once said in one of his orations that matters which had been settled in a military tribunal by a military adjudication would never be reversed in a court of law, and this proceeding is not likely to be reversed in a court of law. We know already that the courts have decided that the Philippines are a part of the United States. I do not mean to say, nor did I mean to say yesterday or the day before, that I agree with all the statements of the court, but I accept the court's conclusion. I would not be understood as saying that I consider it so binding upon me that I could not rightfully cast my vote against it if I had an opportunity and it were proper to do so. OUR RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES. But recognizing the fact that the court apparently had to make an effort to reach the conclusion that it did reach, and which it reached by devious ways, I do not mean to use that word offensively, but to say that by a curious method, no two of the judges quite agreeing on all of the propositions, but a majority agreeing in the final conclusion, a decision was reached. I do not think, as I said a year ago, that morally we are rightfully in possession of those islands, because I do not myself believe-I want that to be distinctly understood-that when we took the sovereignty we took it with a right to hold it against the will of the nine or ten million people there. But, more than that, I now say that I do not believe there is any court in the world now established, or any set of judges in the world now constituted, who would declare that those Filipinos who resist our domination are technically or actually guilty of trea4980 31 son. They have never owed any allegiance to us. They did owe allegiance to Spain, but Spain had no right to transfer that allegiance. She transferred by treaty lher sovereignty over the soil, but she could not sell to us the 9.000.000 or 10,000,000) people there. They were resisting Spain at the very time that we made this treaty, were in arms against her, and were believed by most people to be capable of maintaining that position atgainst Spain and of winning their independence if we should let tllthem alone. Hence I say that I do not believe that they are technically guilty of treason. I do not feel toward them, and I do not believe the peopl)e of this country generally feel toward them, as we feel toward meIn who owe allegiance by birth, or by their voluntary submission to it. and afterwards decline to observe tle duties of citizenship towa vlr the Government under lwhich they live. As I have before said. every Senator who discusses this question, differing with the Administiration or the dominant party, discusses it under embarrassment and in some respects unde 'r restraint, and subjects himself to criticism, and is likely to be put into a false position by impassioned applleals of Senators differing with him by eulogies of the flag, by a very beautiful piece of oratory where a Senator declares, for instance, that the fiag always stands for all that is good and that opposition to wllatever is being done under it must be opposition to that good. All that may be very pretty, but it is not:argument. Then, I am sorry to say that it seems to me that in this debate there is not that exactness and fairness that ought to characterize a debate in the Senate. I want to speak of that when the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORAKEI1t] comes in, if lie shall come in while I am speaking. If not, I shall have to speak of it in his absence. DO THE FILIPINOS WANT US? The issue last night raised by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] was whether the people in the Philippine Islands wanted our domination. Whenever the Senator can show they do want it, I will be with him; whenever he can prove here, with a fair degree of evidence, that three-fourths of the people there want it, I will be for compelling the other fourth of them to submit, because I lmow that the doctrine that the consent of the governed is necessary to proper government does not mean that every individual must indicate his consent. Whenever the majority of those people shall say they want the Government of the United States, then the others must submit to it. But, Mr. President, is there any Senator on this floor who really believes that three-fourths of the people of those islands want us there? I am now speaking of three-fourths of the Christians, and do not include the heathen and wild men, who can not have a conception one way or the other, and we will let them go. Indeed, does anybody believe that any considerable number, much less three-fourths, of those people are anxious for our dominationthat is, that they are so attached and devoted to the Government of the United States that they would not willingly see our soldiers vacate the garrisons and our ships sail out of their harbors? I do not think that anybody believes so except the Senator from Connecticut, and, knowing that Senator to be a lawyer of long experience, I am utterly unable to understand how he can believe it. But I must assume that he does; that he believes three-fourths of those people are panting and anxious and waiting for the other 4980 32 fourth to quit fighting, so that they may enter into the full joys of the autocratic government that you have established over there. I can understand if you had a government there of the people and by the people, or if you were promising, as I have proposed in the amendment which I have offered to this bill. and which will be voted down I fear —if you were promising at some time, it might be in the dim and distant future, but at some time, to give those people a government of their own, I might understand, I say, that there might be hopeful men there who would be willing to wait and hope, and meantime accept our domination. But under the circumstances the statement that our sovereignty is now demanded taxes my credulity. In the first place, there is a population over there absolutely unlike our own; there is a civilization there absolutely distinct from ours. It is true they are Christians; but, as one writer says of them, they are Christians with even more superstition than faith. They are stanch adherents to one of the great Christian churches, and they are not savages, as I am going to show before I get through. They are civilized people, mainly-I am speaking now of the Christian people-and yet they never had a line of thought on any question that was in accordance with ours, except the single one of devotion to liberty, which somebody has said the Almighty had planted in the heart of every man to a greater or less degree, and probably in a lesser degree in the Asiatic mind than in that of some other races of the world. They have that idea in common with us. That is admitted by everybody. It is admitted by the Commission and it is contended by the three Filipino members of the Commission who tell us of the conditions there. They say they are devoted to liberty. They go on to explain why it is that the trouble arose, and they say very frankly that it was because they doubted our purpose, that they did not believe we were going to give them the liberty which they wanted, and that is the reason they were in hostile array against us. We do not need any argument to show that these people wanted independence against Spain when it had control of the islands. They went to war. Indeed, they have always been at war with Spain. They were at war with Spain when we went there, and we encouraged them to continue the war with that country. They gathered an army, though it is said they had no government, and that there was not much I admit. But still there was an army there bigger than ours when we took Manila. There was an army there without a commissary; an army without any means of being clothed, and no compensation was being rendered to them. It was a volunteer army seeking freedom from Spanish domination and Spanish cruelties; and that fact of itself ought to show that they wanted freedom. And freedom, Mr. President, never existed in any country where the people who proposed to enjoy it were not the managers and controllers of their own affairs and their own destiny. You can not have freedom when somebody commands obedience. Up to this hour there is not a Filipino alive who has any reason to say that we are to give those people a free government, unless he may have heard that declaration here in an unofficial manner. The Government of the United States has absolutely declined during three straight years and a few days more now of war to say to those people that even in the distant future we will give 4980 33 them a government of their own. We have said to them. "When we can fit you for self-government. when we can educate you up to our ideals. then we will give you a government." Mr. President, to say that th'ee-fourths of those people will welcome our domination under such circumstances is to say that they are unfit for government of any Idnd. But everybody knows that is not true. COURTESY IN THE SENATE. I do not want to say anything offensive in this debate if I can help it, and if I do so accidentally I suppose I shall have to take it back. I said the other day that every Senator on the other side of the Chamber knew a certain fact. Thereupon half a dozen Senators called me to order. when I was absolutely and strictly within parliamentary rules in making the statement. I singled out no Senator; but I was as much in order when I said that as if I had said that the Republican i)arty. coml)osed of six or seven million men, believe this or do not believe that, and I challenge the parliamentarians in this body to deny that I was in order. Not wishing to seem to be unfair, I took it back. and said"' everybody ought to know," not because it was out of order, but I did not wish to offend anyone. Mr. SPOONER. That was more polite. Mr. TELLER. That might have been more polite. Mr. President, but not more parliamentary. It is a good deal more so than when Senators stand on the floor and charge us with treason, or even charge us with a less interest in public affairs thani they claim to have. I want to call the attention of the Senator from Connecticut to the colloquy between him and some other Senators last night. Mr. CAMAACK. I should like to ask the Senator what he would think if he finds it to be true that all the military officers have exactly the opposito opinion from the opinion held by the commissioners? Now, what was the Senator's answer? Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I have no evidence that all the military officers hold a different opinion. The Senator was not asked that. He was asked what he would say if all the officers did say so, and he replied, " Well, I have no evidence that they did say so." The Senator is a lawyer, and he knows that does not answer the question. I want to ask him now what he would say if all the officers did say so? Suppose my premises are false, then what? The Senator can answer my question now, or he can answer it after I get through. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, I do not know that I am called upon to answer a purely hypothetical question. Mr. TELLER. No, it is not a hypothetical question, Mr. President. We assert that that is a fact. 1 assert here and now that every military officer, so far as I know, who has been in the Philippine Islands, or who is there now, is asserting that the condition is absolutely different from what it is asserted to be by the Philippine Commission. That is a question for proof, and the SenatorMr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. TELLER. The Senator can bring the proper officers before him and find out, when I make that statement, whether or not it is true. It would not be belied or contradicted if he could 4980 —3 34 find somebody who should come here from the islands and who, under the terrorism which prevails in Army circles, should say that he thought the people were different. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President — The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Colorado yield? Mr. TELLER. In a moment. What is the public sentiment of the commanding men of the Army? That is the question. I did not mean to put the Senator off, but I wanted to finish my sentence. If he desires to say anything, I will yield. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If I deem it important, Mr. President, I shall reply to the Senator in the future. Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut said: I have no evidence that all the military officers hold a different opinion, and I do not believe it is true; but I think the Senator from Tennessee himself will scarcely go to the extent of trying to discredit in the United States Senate and before the American people the honesty, integrity, patriotism, and ability of Luke Wright, of Tennessee. Nobody has attempted to discredit any man connected with the Conmmission; but who has the best opportunity to form opinions-the officers of the Army or the members of the Commission? That is the question, and it is not any answer at all to say, '' Why, these are men of high character." We admit they are men of high character. PIRESENT CONDITIONS. Here is another rather remarkable statement made by the Senator from Connecticut, and I do not know what it means: Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. We have some officers out there. We have Generals Chaffee and Hughes and Davis and Bell and Grant, and if those five officers, gallant and brave, could have stood in this Chamber last week and heard what Senators have said about the condition in the Philippine Islands, I think they could not have refrained from taking part in that debate themselves. Now, does the Senator mean to say that all those men agree with the Commission? Does he say here or will he say, in view of General Chaffee's report (which I have never been able to get except that I have seen it in the newspapers, but I have no doubt the Senator can get it), that General Chaffee agrees with the Commission? Mr. PROCTOR. Will the Senator from Colorado allow me? Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. PROCTOR. I happen to have received this morning a letter from Manila. It is very short, merely a page or so, and I will read part of it. Mr. TELLER. The Senator can read it all. Mr. PROCTOR. I will read everything that concerns this matter. The letter is dated at the Headquarters Division of the Philippines, Manila, P. I., December 27, 1901. The first page refers solely to some friends of mine who were traveling, and then the writer says: I may say to you that I believe we are progressing fairly well in stamping out what remains of the insurrection in the Philippinle Islands, and, without promising anything, I believe that we shall have the matter fairly settled in two or three months. If you note the map of the archipelago occasionally you might pay particular attention to the provinces of Batangas, Laguna, and Tayabas, in the island of Luzon. They are now the scene of what hostilities remain in this island, and military operations there are extremely active; so much so, in fact, that we hear things are getting very uncomfort4980 35 able for the insurrectos themselves and for others who have by every metans in their power —deception, money, and supplies-aided the par'ties (cnducting this guerrilla warfare. I think in a short time, Senator, they will get tired; it is certain they will get tired before I do. It is a good sign when men of influence, heretofore lquietly resting on their oars, are step:ping l thte front and endeavoring to prevail on the leaders of the insurrection to give up. In the island of lSmar the insurrection is still on. The force is not large, but sufficiently so to keep up disqu(iet in that island. The iln itself it s an awful place, by nature, for campaigning: is a very diflicult spot, indteed, for troops to operate in. A couple of hundred men at the tllpresent time are set,ting at defiance the best endeavorls of about 3,0X) of o (url troops. Of course, it is only on rare occasions that our soldiers find any of the hostile force, lint we must occupy all the towns in order to prevent supplies getting to the enemy, if possible. On the island of Mindoro there is also a small force, possibly 75 or 1l) riflls, but I am not distressed over that island just yet. They will easily come into the fold when the other sections referred to hav(,e been restored to quliet. From what I have stated. you can readily see thlat the territ ory menlltioned is but a small part of the Philippine Archiipelago. In nearly all the rest of it comparative quiet now prevails. 5Wishing you, Senator, a happy New Year. beilieve ne, Y1ou1Is, truly, ADNA R. C(IAFFEE. Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator from Vernlll t one qu1estion'? Does he understand the stllapinig omut. to which hlis correspondent alludes, to be the equivalent exactly of reconciling a peopie to our rule? Mr. PROCTOR. Stamping out what realains of the insurreetion is his expression. Mr. CARMACK. Will the Senator from Colorado allow mllie I desire to understand one tlilng in the letter. The writer speaks of men of influence cominlg to the front and prevailin g on the leaders of the insurrection to surren der. I ulnderstantl tlat refers to the provinces of Batangas and Samlar. I so understood from the reading of tlhe letter. Mr. ALLISON. Laguna is also mentioned. Mr. PROCTOR. He was speaking of those provinces, lut in that sentence he does not specifically confine it to them. It mllight fairly be interpreted as meaning the insurrection in those provinces. Mr. CARMACK. If the Senator from Colorado will allow me, I wish to say that it is not at all surprising that lmen of influence in those particular provinces should be coming to the front to induce the leaders of the insurrection to surrender, because by the orders issued by General Bell and by General Smith, in those provinces, their subordinate officers are commanded to arrest all men of influence who do not prove their loyalty within a certain time by inducing some leaders of the insurrection to surrender, and if within ten days they can not accompnlish that then they are to be deported from the island, their wives and children driven into the mountains, and their towns destroyed. So it is not at all surprising that some of them under that inducement should be acting as the letter indicates. Mr. TELLER. I will come to what General Chaffee says before I get through. That is a letter which shows, I think, just what the condition there is. You may " stamp it out." I have not yet said you could not "stamp it out," but I do not believe you can keep it stamped out. We compelled by force of arms the Filipino army to disband. The War Department says-and if there is any question about it I will read the statement, although I suppose there will be none-that they did not disband because they were defeated. They did not come into conflict with us, so 49,O 36 that we could defeat the whole army, but they disbanded because they thought it was a better way to conduct the war, and undoubtedly it was for them, making it more difficult for us. They pursued the course which has been wisely pursued for many thousands of years by other people when they are acting on the defensive. I do not suppose Fabius I was the first that ever practiced that system of military defense, although we have given it his name. There has been some complaint-of which I shall speak before I get through-of the cruelties that are practiced. I have spoken of them once before, a year ago. They have been continued more or less ever since, and will be continued just as long as you have natives in your Army. The Senator from Connecticut continued: But right here as I progress I wish to say that if we have been by force and wickedness disarming a people, and the evidence shows that in twelve months after disarmament there exists no latent hostility to the Governlment of the United States, but everywhere a desire to submit to its sovereignty and to come under the benificence of its sway, it is certainly evidence of very remarkable progress toward that condition of things which we all desire shall prevail in those islands. If that desire for American domination does exist, it is remarkable. I would to God that it did exist. Nobody would be better pleased than I would to know that it existed. The question at issue is, Does it exist? The Senator assumes that it does. If that is true, if three-fourths of the people there are in full sympathy with us, anxious to recognize our sovereignty and obey our laws, there is not any reason in the world why we should not reduce our army to a very much smaller number than they talk about, and there is not any reason in the world why we should continue to practice those things which we have been practicing and which I say are contrary to the law of nations and the laws of war. I doubt whether you can find anywhere in the annals of history anything quite equal to General Bell's order, of which my friend the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. CARMAIK] has just spoken, when you consider the condition; when you consider that these are not and have not been our subjects; when you realize that to-day there is not a Filipino alive who can state what is his relation to this Government. You withhold from him citizenship; or if you have conferred it upon him, you have done it in such a way that he has no proof of it. He would have a very different relation and owe a different allegiance. under the law of nations, if he had been a citizen or even a subject of ours. He has been neither, unless you can buy allegiance when you buy territory. I stated the other day, and I want to repeat it, for you can not repeat it too often, that under international law the people of a country which you subject by force of arms are entitled to the country in which they live, and are entitled to have the laws that existed there under the former government, or they are entitled to have laws made by the conqueror for them. You have not done either. You have ignored the laws there. You have not legislated for them, except in a way that, if they have any idea of liberty and law, must be very offensive to them. And your legislation is not only offensive to them, but it is offensive to the moral sense of every man on the face of the earth who has any knowledge of the rights of man. If you have three-fourths of them, then your statutes are still more infamous, and the conduct of the Army to them in many respects has been more infamous than we had supposed. 4980 37 I do not intend to waste any time over the eloquent words of the Senator from Connecticut, in which he declared thaltnotwithstanding what the Senator from Colorado has saLid. notwithstanding the frequent remarks we hmear on the othertl side that there is no moral obligation, no Christian duty restingi upon us to do anytthing more in the Philippine'Islands than to return from themt, I do think thaft we are under the obligation and direction of a higher power with reference to our duty in the Philippine Islands. If I believed that to be true, I should still say that Providence could not sanction the methods we are pursuing, even to secure the ends that Providence had declared we should secure. Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask lim a question? Mr. TELLER. Oh, certainly. Mr. SPOONER. Has the Government of the United States done anything in the Philippine Archipelago which meets the approval of the Senator or which lie regards as right or beneficent? Mr. TELLER. That question it is hardly proper for the Senator to ask. Mr. SPOONER. I have listened to the Senator and I have not in his speech discovered an opinion upon his part that anything that has been done over there by the Government was right or beneficent, and I thought perhaps I was doing him injustice in my mind. Mr. TELLER. I will try to make this speech from my standpoint. I am not the subject of catechism from the Senator from Wisconsin, who assumes now by his question that I am simply here as a fault-finder. Either he dyes not realize that I am here as an American Senator or he thinks I do not realize that fact. We have done beneficent things there of which it is not necessary that I should now speak. We are accomplishing some things. We are attempting some things I do not believe we can accomplish, although the object and the purpose were beneficent and good. But I am here to complain of those things that I think we ought not to do. That question is another proof of what I stated a little while ago, of the embarrassment and limitations under which we must address the Senate and the country upon this question. If a Senator with whom I have associated so many years has so ill an opinion of me as to believe I am here simply to find fault because I do not happen to be in accord with the policy of this Government, I do not think he has thorouglhly made my acquaintance, or else I do not know myself. I know that I have no desire to make any political capital out of thllis unfortunate position. I know, and my record in this body ought to satisfy the Senator from Wisconsin of it, that I follow what I believe to be my own conscience and judgment. I have stood by his Administration when it was absolutely necessary that it should have my vote. not because I was a member of it, not because I was in sympathy with its general purposes and ends, not but that I believed that its domination over the country would in the end be hurtful-I am not now speaking of material interests-but because I believed it was right and just and proper that I should; because on more than one occasion I believed it was to the interest of the people of the United States that I should do so; and I have never, since I have been in the Senate, been afraid to differ from the political organization with which I was connected whenever in my judgment it was right and proper that I should do so. 4980 38 I am not addressing the Senate as a fault-finder. I am speaking because I believe, in the first place, that the policy we are pursuing toward those people is a wicked and unfortuuate policy; because I believe it is a policy that can not succeed; because I believe that if you want to hold the islands, it is a nolicy you ought to abandon. Mr. President, I hope I have not been led into saying anything I ought not to say. I may be a little too sensitive about those things. THE PHILIPPINE TREASON CODE. I was in hopes the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORAKER] would be here this morning. He is not. I have not before me the speech he made yesterday when he interrupted me, and I can speak only from memory, but if I do not do him justice I will be very glad if anybody will correct me. The Senator called our attention to section 10, which he said was the code of Tennessee. Substantially that may be true, but he did not read all of the section of the Tennessee code. He did not read that part of it which provides substantially that no man shall be punished except by a jury of his countrymen. Can not he and can not the Senate see the difference between the case of men who are subject to the arbitrary control of a court and men who have the right, first, to be presented to a grand jury; secondly, to have a jury of their own peers, and, thirdly, to have a judge who knows the people and who is in sympathy with them. To my surprise. the Senator from Ohio also read the ninth section-a question that I understand he, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, is willing to indorse and defend. I said yesterLay that there was not, I thought, anywhere in the world a counterpart of that section. The Senator said it was the Maryland statute. I want to say, with the Maryland section before me, in the very document which the Senator had, and the Philippine section 9, that the very offensive portion, the most offensive portion, that which violates the rights of men more certainly than any other, is not in the Maryland provision at all. The Philippine statute first provides: All persons who shall meet together for the purpose of forming, or who shall form, any secret society, or who shall after the passage of this act continue membership in a society already formed having for its object, in whole or in part, the promotion of treason, rebellion, or sedition. That portion might be fairly said to be a repetition of the Maryland act, although it is not entirely so. But the Philippine law continues: Or the promulgation of any political opinion or policy. I repeat that that clause is not in the Maryland statute. It is not in any act that the Senator has brought here. In my judgment it is not in any act ever before written in the English language. I said the only counterpart I knew of was in Mexico, but that was not a counterpart, for there the person complained of had to have arms in his hands and be in opposition to the Government. I am not going to spend much time on this point, for I know other Senators will discuss it fully and critically. The Senator from Connecticut attempted to make some explanation of that provision, but his explanation was very lame: and it only shows that when a man is determined to sustain a bad cause, he will always make a bad argument. 4980 39 Mr. HOAR. AVill the Senaltor froml Colorado allow mle inl this connection? I dislike very much to interrupt himl. but 1 have not heard ill the debate what seemlls to 1me a very imll)ortaint matter. I think the Senator. when I was out. alluded to it. lut 1 will ask him a question on that point, as lie has just spokenl (1o thll subject. I refer to the United States statute alnd the ct stitittional] definition of treason. The Constitution of the United States provides that no person shall be convicted of tretason withlout thle testilony of two persons to the slame overt act. That is not olly a rule of evidence, it is a definitionl of the crime. Nobody can comllit treason against the TUnited States but by an overt act. Now, the Philippine Commllission in underta1king- to copy it ha's provided for treason without tlhat limitatioln anyw1here. so that under its enactmenit a person may colimmit treasoni by words, by inciting other persons to do it, commfitting no overt act. and canl be found guilty on the hearsay evidence of a single wite.ss-that is, the evidence of the mani who heard what lie said. It seelis to be that among all the gross, indefensible provisions of this code this is on the whole the worse. I beg pardon of the Senator from Colorado. but I wish t.hat that may go in connection with the statemenlt he has just made. Mr. TELLER. The Senator has no occasion to lbeg my pardon. I am glad to have him make thle statementt. He mighrt even have gone further. Section 10 is not quite so offensive as section 9, and it llmay have in some of the laws of the States a counterlpart, inl part at least. although it has not as a whole. That is a section whic(h mlakes it a crime for the people of the islandsTo advocate, orally or by writing or printing or like lmetods, the independence of the Phililppine Islands or their selaration frol thle United States, whether by peaceable or forcible means, or to printl. pl)blish,. or circulalt any handbill, newtsp)aper, or other publicatio)n advoca ting such independelnclle or separation. I will leave that question. I have before lme the United States act of 1862, passed with reference to the then existing war in the United States. when, as I said the other day. the passions of the people, North and South. were aroused to a degree plerhaps never before witnessed in any community, and it is merciful compared with the most merciful part of this wonderful statute, so called, concerning sedition in the Philippine Islands. If any Senator wants to look at it, he will find that it was enacted on the 17th of July, 1862. Mr. President. we are told now that there is a state of practical peace over in those islands, and that all we have got to do is to keep on a little longer, and, as General Chaffee says, they will stamp it out. Before I get through I will show how they are stamping it out. EFFECT ON ORIENTAL TRADE. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] makes the whole matter turn upon the question of the elevation of that race and our submission to a duty imposed upon us by Deity that we can not avoid. In 1900 there were the same prophecies made. We were told then that peace was practically secured in the Philippine Islands. I notice that in the address of Mr. LODGE, the permanent chairman of the Republican national convention held in Philadelphia in June, 1900, in speaking of this question, he said: It is for the American people to decide this question. Our position is plain. The restoration of peace and order, now so nearly reached, in the Philippines 4980 40 shall be completed. Civil government shall be established, and the people advanced as rapidly as possible along the road to entire freedom and to selfgovernment under our flag. I will not read all of it. Mr. LODGE. I should be delighted to have the Senator read it all. I think it is pretty good reading. Mr. TELLER. I have no objection to reading further. Mr. LODGE. I did not mean that the Senator should read the whole speech. Mr. BACON. You do not think it is all good, then? Mr. TELLER. I desire to read another paragraph necessary to fairly state his ideas. Mr. LODGE. The Senator is welcome to read any part of it. I was only joking. Mr. TELLER. The chairman then goes on and says " we will not retreat." I do not know of anybody who has asked them to retreat or has asked the Government to retreat. The chairman then said: We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of these people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and legislation we mean to stimulate the expansion of our trade and to open new markets. Greatest of all markets is China. Our trade there is growing by leaps and bounds. Manila, the prize of war, gives us inestimable advantages in developing that trade. To-day when our legations are in danger, when our missionaries are assailed and our consuls threatened, it is well, indeed, that we have ships in the bay of Manila and troops that we can send to protect our own. Mr. President, I am willing to agree with the Senator that was one possible advantage we got out of this condition; but I am not willing to agree with the statement in the next sentence, which I want to read: Manila is the corner stone of our Eastern policy, and the brilliant diplomacy of John Hay in securing from all nations a guaranty of our treaty rights and of the open door in China rests upon it. That I do not believe, Mr. President. I do not believe our policy rests upon Manila. I do not believe that Manila will ever be a particularly advantageous port for us through which to secure the Asiatic trade. I wish to repeat that the advantage of holding Manila is that somebody else shall not have it to our detriment, and not that we can make it the basis for Asiatic trade. I have in my hands here a speech made by Mr. HILL of Connecticut, a distinguished member of the House belonging to the political party which has control of the Government, published in the National Geographic Magazine, with reference to our trade with China, to which I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Massachusetts and to the attention of the Senate, because it accords exactly with my ideas about this matter, and I have not been a careless observer of affairs in the Asiatic world for the last twenty years. Mr. HILL had made a trip around the world, and these are his conclusions: There is no sphere of influence for us there, and to look upon Manila as a base for Chinese trade is like chasing rainbows for a pot of gold, for commercial bases are not established 600 miles at sea and where storage and reshipment charges would be more than the direct freight to the destined market. The integrity of China can not be preserved by a protectorate of the powers, and if it could the people of this country would not permit our Government to be a partner in it. China must reform herself or go to pieces speedily. My judgment is that her destiny is slow but sure absorption by Asiatic Russia, and that the world will be the gainer by the change. 4980 41 I agree to the first proposition, that there is every probability that Asiatic Russia will absorb China, but I do not believe China will be the gainer, nor do I believe the world will be a gainer. although I think China will suffer less, practically. than we and the other peoples. I do not know what the late treaty between Japan and England, by which it is said they have agreed to enter into an aliallce to protect the auton omy of China and hold it. may result in, but I hope that the report that China's autoinomy is to be miaintained is true. I said in the fall of 1897, and a little later. in the first month of 1898, that that was a very desirable thing tt secure, and that I believed it was the duty of Great Britain and the United States to say to Russia, " Hands off of China." But we did not do that and Russia has imoved into Manchuria. No maltter whiat may be said about its being a temporary lodgment, it is a permanent appropriation of that great section of the Chinese Empire. and it is to be held and controlled by Russia. and to be the vantage point from which she will sally out upon the balance of that great Empire. and I greatly fear she will dismelmber it in spite of the new alliance of Great Britain and Japan. That compact lmay have the effect of retarding it for a time, but I believe it is almost inevitable now that dismemberment will be the result. But this is somewhat foreign to the subject under discussion. Mr. President, I wish to read another statement that the chairman of the convention made in Philadelphia in 1900: We take issue with the Democrats who would cast off the Philippines because the American people can not be trusted with them, and we declare that the American people can be trusted to deal justly, wisely, and generously with these distant islands and will lift them up to a higher prosperity, a broader freedom, and a nobler civilization than they have ever known. We have not failed elsewhere. We shall not fail here. I would be delighted if I knew that that was a prophecy which would be fulfilled, but I do not see that the steps are being taken which it seems to me will bring about that desirable end. That. I want to say, is why I complain. I am in accord with that sentiment if it can be put into execution; I should like to see it done: but I know enough of the human race to know that these noble ends can only be accomplished with the consent and approval of the Philippine people themselves. If you would put into this proposed statute the amendments which I offered the other day and modify and change them. if you think they are too drastic or not sufficiently elastic, and with those provisions in the bill send it over to them, I believe you would take a great step in the direction of the aspirations of the chairman of the Republican national convention as he uttered them in 1900 at the convention in Philadelphia. I am sorry the statement the Senator made as chairman of his party's convention, when he said peace was practically accomplished, has not been borne out by the facts. THE SPANISH WAR. I have been reading from the Republican campaign book of 1900, and while I have the book in my hands I wish to turn to the Republican platform of 1900. It is in some respects a statement of facts, not of principles, and here is one of its statements: Its armies were in the field, and the quick and signal triumph of its forces on land and sea bore equal tribute to the courage of American soldiers and sailors and to the skill and foresight of Republican statesmanship. That assertion hardly comports with the declaration in another place which was made the other day, that the Democratic party 4980 42 forced the Administration into that war. I do not agree with that statement myself, for I do not believe the Democratic party did force the Republican party into the war. We went to war because the American people were excited on the subject of Spain's treatment of the Cubans, and I should like to say now, although it may seem to be a little foreign to what I have been saying, that before we voted on the bill which brought war. and which everybody knew would bring war. I expressed my opinion on this floor that we might avoid war. Everything that has happened since has convinced me that if we had taken the right steps under Mr. Cleveland's Administration or under the Republican Administration and declared the belligerency of the Cuban people alone, without a recognition of the Republic, they would have taken care of the islands themselves. Mr. President, if there has been any instance in our long history when we failed to do what we ought to have done, this is such an instance, and we are punished for not doing our duty. We are being punished for a failure to do our duty in 1896, 1897, and the early portion of 1898. I have not finished reading from the platform. Here is another extract: To ten millions of the human race there was given "a new birth of freedom," and to the American people a new and noble responsibility. It looked, I suppose, to the American people that that was a feat, and if we had accomplished it, it certainly would have been a great thing, and would have commended this party to the public confidence and support. But, unfortunately, it was not true. It is true that the American people had assumed a new responsibility. It may be a noble responsibility. That would depend exactly upon howwe execute that responsibility. If we execute it in righteousness and justice, it will be all right. If we do not, it will be disastrous to us. I now turn to another prophecy: Now for the Philippines. The insurrection still goes on because the allies in this country of the bloody insurrectionary oligarchy in Luzon have taught their foolish dupes to believe that Democratic success at the polls next November means the abandonment of the islands to the savages, who would scramble for the bloody plunder until some other strong civilized nation came in to do the work that we would have shown ourselves unfit to perform. Our success in November means peace in the islands. The success of our opponents means an indefinite prolongation of the present bloody struggle. That is from the speech of Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, who seconded the nomination of McKinley in the Philadelphia convention. Now let me read what the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORAKER] said in his address in that gathering. Remember at that time we were being told that the war was practically over, as we are now told that it is over. He said: In one hundred days we drove Spain from the Western Hemisphere, girdled the earth with our acquisitions, and filled the world with the splendor of our power. Mr. President, that is oratory. The Senator continues: In consequence the American name has a greater significance now. Our flag has a new golry. It not only symbolizes human liberty and political equality at home, but it means freedom and independence for the long-suffering patriots of Cuba, and complete protection, education, enlightenment, uplifting, and ultimate local self-government and the enjoyment of all the blessings of liberty to the millions of Porto Rico and the Philippines. What we have so gloriously done for ourselves we propose most,generously to do for them. 4980 There are some other things in the address of the, Seimator from Ohio that might be read. because they were xcry good. but the trouble with the, whole of it was that the preilaises were fiillse and the conclusions therefore erroneouss. 1There \\was no codition there that justified the stakmnent. in the first p1lae~e made ini lie platform that we had lifti d 10,000,000 people fromt SIavery to freedom. TYIF Pill! 1iPINIiS PEOPlX. The Phihippineinhlibitailts are coinposed ot Chris-titans, heithens, anti Mohiamiedains: of 1 civlAize In hifly eduicited. mind cultiiired, and those wxitlil pracin.alxy no tuesanlyboesavagery miid barbarism. And yect 6 000 000 of th ia sttid Deai \Vtorcester. are iiot only Christians but hie saud You ina fix nly s iy th it theoy are 11 homnogeneous. Therie is the foundathii on foa-govermneit. It there are 6,000,000 w~oishiphig ait the sanme altar, behievuvr the s-allegreat moral truths 1)1aictically speakiiig the s-iiae Ian'-no' e, though ]lot all of thmbut niot more diversified th in in mniy of thie Ehiropean countries, there is, I say, a hoiiogci-ieitx that tail be imade the basis of a goveirnient, I know that it is in some p1-ates commion to chiarg~e thit these people are all s-imply savages. I reail a speech, Ilade niot longk ago in another place, wheie tien - were proniomiced to Ibe the lowest possible of all humanity. Tli t there are some such onl the islands there is -not any tdoubt. but that, there are atny conside'rable number is deiiied by everiybodiy who has becn thtre, ptirticnlarly by Professor Worcester andl by Mr. Formain -,in obse rxiiig Englishnian who splent eighteen years there. it is dlso contradicted by our knowledge acquired since February x ( 1898. The other day we had quite a discussion here, is to thet 1ecture which Professor Schutrman had tdeliveredl at Boston. Since that time lie has done me tle lhonor to send me the full ttxt of his address. which I have found very interesting and vtry instrucitive. I wish to reati portioiis of the lecture. composed largely of extracts which he quoted from the report which hie, assisted in making as one of the Philippine Commissioners. lie says: The first reform-that onl which all others deptnid —s the admission of the Filipinos themselves to a partic-ip)ation in the f unctions atld control of government. Now, Mr. Schurman is not an anti-iiupenrialst- He is not a Democrat; nor is lie a dema-gogue. I b)elieve that sentence commends itself to every intelligent, thinking iman. Every man who has studied history miust knowv that you can not deny to those lpeopie participation iii the government antd maintainl it except by absolute force. I coiitinue to quote from Mr. Schurmian: They have reached a state of progress and civilization, at least in Luzon and the VisayasAnd that will take more than half of themwhich entitles them to representative institutions; and the constitution of the Philippine republic was responsive to popular demand in providing for a representative legislature, which was designated an assembly. Had Spain graned he eitratd demand of Philippine reformers for reprosentative instiutins itishiglypr~obahl-)e that her flag would to-day be wa ving over the arcipeago An inthis connection I must reitetrate, what I have elsewhere sai ofem'ownoblgatonto understand, appreciate, and sympathize with the ideas and sentimns fthe Filipinos: "The United State scan succeed in governing the Philippines only by understanding the character and circumstances of the people and realizing sympathetically their aspirations and ideals. A government to stand must be firmly rooted in the needs, interests, judgment, and devotion of the pee4980 44 pie, and this support is secured by the adaptation of government to the character and possibilities of the governed-what they are, what they have in them to become, what they want, and, not least, what they think they are entitled to have and enjoy." Mr. President, I think that is excellently well put, and if it should subject him, if he had been in the Philippine Islands, to the penitentiary, or some other place, he certainly would have my sympathy. There are so many good things here that I should like to read them all, but I will not attempt it; it would make my remarks too long. This is what he stated to the audience: I conceived an'exceedingly high opinion of the educated Filipinos, who, however, form a small minority, possibly 10 per cent at most, of the people. And I recognize that the popular tendency to admire and almost worship their educated men rendered these favored individuals the natural leaders of the people. When the masses of a community look up to the men of educasion, does it not indicate an aspiration to secure an education themselves? To meet them in a sympathetic and appreciative spirit, to satisfy their natural aspirations and ambitions, and to enlist them actively in the support of American sovereignty seemed to me the most important object for American authorities in the Philippines. I approve of that. For myself, I can say with all sincerity that to have met and known these educated Filipinos, to have had social intercourse and official relations with them, I count one of the pleasantest and most interesting recollections in my life. I described to them and indicated the service they might render us in the establishment of civil government in the Philippines in the following terms: Now, this comes from his report: The educated Filipinos, though constituting a minority, are ar more numerous than is generally supposed, and are scattered all over the archipelago; and the Commission desires to bear the strongest testimony to the high range of their intelligence, and not only to their intellectual training, but also to their social refinement, as well as to the grace and charm of thenr personal character. These educated Filipinos, in a word, are the equals of the men one meets in similar vocations-law, medicine, business, etc.-in Europe or America. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that these picked Filipinos will be of infinite value to the United States in the work of establishing and maintaining civil government throughout the archipelago. As leaders of the people, they must be the chief agents in securing their people's loyal obedience to the new government, to which, therefore, the dictates of policy, as well as plain common sense and justice, require us to secure their own cordial attachment. And it has been a leading motive with the Commission in devising a form of government for the Philippines to frame one which, to the utmost extent possible, shall satisfy the views and aspirations of educated Filipinos. They believe that the Territorial system herein set forth will accomplish that object. Here is another extract: In the Malay States Great Britain set up a protectorate because they had sultans and she had no sovereignty. I do not know what Professor Schurman means by that statement, because Great Britain had asserted sovereignty over the Malays for many years. She had not actual control; she had been wise enough not to attempt to inaugurate a government there until Sir Andrew Clarke, I think about eighteen years ago, disregarding absolutely the instructions given him when he went there, organized a government of the Malay people themselves, and for eighteen years there has been none of the disturbance in the Malay Peninsula which occurred yearly before Sir Andrew went there. Great Britain holds merely a nominal control over the Malays, and she holds it without an army. 4980 45 In Luzon and the Visavas there are no sultans, and the United States has sovereignty. The conclusion in favor of an American protec'torate over the Christianized Philippines is certainly not derived by parity of reasoning. I must, however, acknowledge that the policy of an Akmericanu protectorato was very dear to the hearts of the insurgents. When they talked about independence they lmeant local independence. and the principal men repeatedly declared that they had expected the United States to maintain a general protecting care over them. They realized that if we had withdrawn our army before the treaty was ratified it was likely that Gernmany, or Russia, or Japan, or some other power would have entered there. and their condition would probably have been but little, if any, better than it was under Spain. But in citing the example of the federated Malay States they were playing with a two-edged weapon. For each of the 1Malalyan States las become ia veiled crowned colony in which, though everything is done in the name of the Sultan (who flies his omw flag and enjoys inclreasd income) — That is precisely what we have done in the Sulu Archipelagothe British authorities have exclusive control of taxation and oxpenditures, give "advice" which the Sultan must adopt, and even push their dominion to the extent of deposing the Sultan and settling the succession, or ordaining a general manumission of slaves. Mr. President, I want to say that that is notan a ccurate statement. I took some pains some time ago to look into tlat matter. While Great Britain does reserve to herself the right of intervention and interference, she has not intervened, and it has not been necessary for her to (lo so. The right of taxation is exercised by the Malays themselves, as well as the maintenance of order throughout the peninsula. This I will read, because it is expqlanatory of what Professor Schurmlan said to the Commission: The idea of a protectorate entertained by the insurgent leaders, under which they should enjoy all the 1owers of an independent sovereign government, and the Americans should assume all obligations to foreign nations for their good use of those powers, would create an impossible situation for the United States. Internal dominion and external responsibility must go hand in hand. Under the chimerical scheme of protection cherish(e by Aguinaldo, if a foreigner lost his life or property through a miscarriage of justice in a Philippine court, or in consequence of a governor's failure to suppress a riot, then the United States would be responsible for indenillity to the foreignetr's government, though without possessing the power of punishing the offenders, of preventing such maladministration, or of protecting itself against similar occurrences in the future. That is not a correct statement of international law. We can create a government there that will be practically a State to all intents and purposes, except that it would not be entitled to representation in Congress. We are not responsible when foreigners are injured in a State. It is true that we have paid some bills in such cases in order to maintain good-fellowship, but international law never requires us to pay, as we did pay for the killing of Chinamen in Wyoming before it became a State and in Washington after it became a State. I read a statement here last year that I can not turn to now without taking more time than I care to occupy. I read at length the statement of an Englishman, a consul in the Philippines for many years, in which he paid the very highest tribute to the Filipinos; and the Commission themselves pay a high tribute to those people. You are not dealing with savages; you are dealing with a people who have some idea of their rights and some idea of the character of our Government. I want to read just a little from this 4980 46 report of the Federal party signed by three native members of the Commission: The successes of the Union Army in the war convinced the Filipinos that there was a superior force which would annihilate them; but these successes could not prevent the people-bleeding and without strength-from tenaciously continuing a suicidal struggle to escape the new slavery which they so greatly feared, even though it were at the cost of death. That extract does not indicate that they are savages, Mr. President. That is a tribute to those people, who are acting, of course, under a false impression and who are misinformed as to our purposes, for I do not charge that we intend to do the wicked things we are apparently doing over there. WHAT WE SIOULDI DO. Somebody will tell me, when I express sympathy with those people and anxiety that they should have all the blessings of a free government, that I would give them the American Constitution and American law. Mr. President. I would proclaim to them in tones that the world would understand that they were to suffer nothing at our hands, that if for a time it did appear that we were not looking to their interests, yet the great American heart is with them, and that there is no purpose of subjugation or destruction. Why not do it, Mr. President? Why not say it? Are we afraid? Do we distrust ourselves? If we mean to give those people a government of their own, in God's name let us say so 1now and stop this cruel war. And you can stop it, in my judgment. I believe we can send a commission there and arrange termls easily. I would not send melmbers of the Senate or of the House, but I would call private citizens into the public service and send them over there. I believe I can name, and you can name, a half dozen men who would go over there, who, in my judgment, would bring peace out of disorder and do away with the confusion that reigns. Is it not worth the effort, Mr. President, or are we to do what Spain attempted to do in Cuba-subjugate the people, and, if you can not do that, klll them off? Let me read a little more of what is said about the Federal party in the petition of that party to Congress: The Federal party is constantly laboring to show to the Filipino people that nothing will benefit them as much as an unconditional adoption of American civilization, in order that they may at the proper time constitute a State similar to others of the Union. This is the final purpose of its platform. which clearly explains the aspirations of the party, which are, briefly, as follows: A steadily increasing autonomy, the separation of church and state, representation of the Philippines in the Federal Congress, and the adoption of the American Constitution, culminating at last in the admission of fhe islands as one of the States of the Union. I think their aspirations are impossible of realization. I know that there has been at least here very little, if any, encouragement of that idea. I myself have no desire to see those people incorporated into the Union as a State. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] a year ago declared in the most unequivocal terms that he did not so desire, and I presume he still does not. We do not want 10,000,000 people, or 8,000,000 people, or whatever the number may be, who are not homogenous, and who can not be harmonious with us. It would be infinitely better to say to them, "Form your own government; create your own establislment; take care of yourselves locally; maintain order, and we will see that the world does not disturb you." If anything is to be gained by holding them, we should gain it in that 4980 47 way. If colmmerce is our purpose. we can not gain it with a hostile people. Our imports from the islands have fallen off in the last year $1,000,000, while Great Britain has increased hers. The most desirable article of Philippine export, which is hellmp has gone largely to Great Britain. anld w re re getting very much less of it than we got last year. rWhile our whole trade with the islands is $4.500.000. that of Great Britain is very nearly four times as great as that sun. amounting to seventeen millions and1 some hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let me conclude what these people say: The Filipino people is ardently desirouls of 1education; it thirsts for justice, and it was only through the fear of ta plerpetua1tion of tlhe era of albse and oppression which characterized the old sovere'ignt that it was illllpelled to teinacious resistance against the sovereignty of tlhe United States. When the Government of the United States shall have organized public educaLtion, and when the organization of justice shall give compliete satisfaction to all who demand the defense of their rights, then will it b1oe ossible to s(ee thel true sentiments that our peoplle hlarbor to the new sovereignty. Then they go on and say that they hope substantially to establish the English language as the language of the people. Mr. President, I have not any idea that the three native members of that Commission ever supposed that it was possi)lde to establish in the Philippipe Islands the English language as the general hlanguage of those people. Such an effort would be futile. That is the Asiatic method of pleasing us. froml whol 1they hold their positions and from whom they get their pay. It means nothing. You can not force upon those people an education. They may be anxious to acquire an education, and some of them may be anxious to adopt the tongue of their invaders and conqluerors, lbut it is not in the nature of things that a whole people should adopt our language nor even our civilization, and any attempt to malke theml do so will be a failure. We have 835 teachers now there teaching English. One-half of their time is devoted to instructing the Filipino teachers, so the superintendent says. I do not know how many Filipino teachers are there, but without being definite in the report. it is said there are several thousand. They have schools all over the islands land have had for some years. They have not been well supported nor well attended because the system of financial affairs has been such that there was not pay for the teachers under Spanish lile. I always want to pay a tribute. Mr. President, where I think it is deserved, and I want to say I think it is one of the best things that this Administration has done. save one, which I meant to speak of when I was dealing with China a while ago, and I will speak of it now. I think the policy of furnishing the Filipinos with English teachers was most excellent. in that it must be a purely voluntary movement on their part, for no nation in the world has ever been willing to have forced on them the tongue of another nation. You can see that going on now in Finland and in Poland; you can see where the Germans are attempting to force the German language upon people, and they are being resisted very vigorously. DIPLOMACY IN CHINA. When I spoke of Manila and the fact that we did have some advantage by sendi:lg our ships there, I meant, had not my attention been distracted, to say one thing with reference to our foreign diplomacy with China. I do not know who is entitled to the credit; I do not know whether it is the late President of the United 4980 48 States or whether the policy emanated from the present Secretary of State, but I want to say for myself, as I said before, somewhat connected with this great problem, that the action of the Government of the United States in that connection is the most beneficial and the most statesmanlike that has occurred in our history for many years, and the world owes us an obligation because of our position on the Chinese question that it will be most difficult to discharge. I do not know, I repeat, whether our course was due to the late President or Mr. Hay, or to both; but they, or one of them, is entitled to the greatest possible credit for the great good which was accomplished. If there could be as much statesmanship and as much mercy and justice applied to this Philippine question, we would get out of it, and there would not be much trouble with it. A PARALLEL CASE TO THAT OF THE PHILIPPINES. General Chaffee in his report declares that there is no instance in history in which a whole people had been in opposition to a government, to the powers existing, as was the case in that country. He told us that those people would take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and the next day they would be found fighting with the Philippine forces. Mr. President, that was exactly what happened during the Revolutionary war in this country. It was stated in Parliament that four-fifths of all the Americans were in favor of British control and were likely to give up the contest. In connection with that debate, Mr. Wilkes, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons in November. 1777, said: I am aware, sir, that it will be said the Americans will, in case of general success on your part, give up the contest and submit to the terms prescribed. The late experience of General Burgoyne is the fullest answer to this objection. He tells us that the very provincials who were most forward to profess themselves loyalists and take the oath of allegiance, submit to LieutenantColonel Baumn, were the first to fire on him. Baum was defeated and surrendered to these so-called loyalists. If anyone has the curiosity to examine that speech he will find it in the Parliamentary History, volume 19, pages 420 and 421. Wilkes then proceeds to defend the conduct of the provincials on the ground that their oaths were not given voluntarily, but were given under force. He then says: Nor is it to be considered treachery. It was a compact not originating from free will or mutual consent, but founded mainly on force and dissolved in the same manner. (P. H., vol. 19, p. 421.) So when General Chaffee complains of the people of Manila he but repeats history. I have a letter here from Mr. Schurmnan, which he wrote a day or two after the controversy here in the Senate, which I desire to read: BOSTON, MASS., January 21, 1902. Editor of the Tribune: The report that I have joined the anti-imperialists, and that at a dinner last night I said, "The Filipinos must have their independence," and that " McKinley so intended," is not correct. Ihave not joined the anti-impelrialists. Iwas a guest of the Boston Reform Club last night, and after dinner spoke on the Philippine question. IMy speech was a part of a long address recently given before Cornell University, which is now in the press of Charles Scribner's Sons. I have the book here now. I must refer for details to that publication, which will appear in a few days. In the meantime I would say this to the Tribune: When President McKinley invited me to accept the presidency of the first Philippine Commission he said the sole object of taking the Philippines was the humanitarian one of 4980 49 calrrying them the blessings of liberty. Our Commi.sion reopi'tedt thatt the intellignllt Filipinlos. though recognizIIng the need of telnlporary Anlerictni intervletion alnd tultelat1e all desired anld hople feor ultiialt inlIependelnce. I said last night that tlese two objects coincided. The Filipinos want ullimate independence, and our progr'essive grants of lilberty anld holille rlle must eventuate i in independence, and it is American sentimlent iand Philippine sentiment that must finally settle tihe question. JACOB GOULD SCHIURMAN. He also said in his Boston speech: Both Americ ans and Filipinos desire the political enfranchisement of tho Filipinos; there can be nIo issue betwelen theml except in regard to the tilme 1when an independent and sovereign Philippine relbl)ic should be established. In the course of his speech he made this commnilent upon the American ladministration in thle Philippines: Those Americans, patriotic, blut unversed in history, who desire to recrealte the Filipinos in their own similitude will always,e ia)le to deillnstrate that Oriental clay is still wjit1hout shale and seemnlifiiss in tle Amler1icanll ptter's hand, and that. for a perfect prouc( t, a t, vessel of honor and glory, the American wheel must be Ikept,going for years. o(r pl)erhalp) for gnllerti}ons, or p)ossibly even for centuries. Heaven save the Filipinos fromi- such anl1 inl)rt.i11ient and meddlesome earthly (reator. The Fili)pinos are to develop along their own racial lines. not along ours. and it is colossal conceit anll illpudelice to disparalge them becatuse tlheS are differtlent fromu ourselves. Any idecent kind of govemrnment of the Filipinos. by the Filipinos, is better than thle best possible governmenlt of Filipinos by Anllerictans. He says further: If the Filipinos are to learn to g-overn themselves in the manner of the really free nations, the soolier they gel at it tlhe better. Mr. SPOONER. From whom is the Senator reading? Mr. TELLER. I have been reading from Professor SchI1nrIlan in his Boston address. I have here and am going to read a dispatch in relation to General Chaffee, dated Manila. Januaryz 28: MAN ILA, Jtt.iocrrli 2.s. General Chafflee curtailed his trip lanld returned hlere this mliorning. lie says he found tle conlditions satisfactor y ve'ywlo\re c'xcept at atSamar. wherel continuous rain during the lpast two mlonths its retAr ded tlhe camtpaign, especially against s1uch tin elusive enemy. The condition of (aplt. David D. Porter's Lmrines, wIho took part in the expedition into the interior of Sanmrt. is ilmuch worse than proeviously doscribed. They suffered fearful hardslips, and were without food for sevlertl days. The natives who accompanied tie iarinels clailed the]y were unable to distinguish the edible roots, which thl( marnes diid n(ot believe. The anger of the marines against the natives is intense. None of thle latter returned with the marines. The marines suffered so acutely from starvation that they ate raw the flesh of two dogs. When Captain Porter and tlle first three of his men staggered into camp they were delirious, and difficulty was experienced in ascertaining the whereabouts of their comllnions. Mr. President, there is also a report regarding some captures, which I do not care to insert in the REcoR). Some of those men never returned. I want also to read another dispatch from Manila of the same date, January 28: MAN ILA, January 28. The criticism of the Senate minority report on the Philippine tariff bill has been general, both in public and private, here, though many people admit the statements made in the report are correct. General Wheaton's vigorous criticism refelrred entirely to Professor Schurman's speech at Boston. though he holds the professor in high personal esteem. The statement that a person who made such remarks here as those credited to the professor during his Boston speech would be sent to jail referred merely to the recent sedition law. COMPLAINTS OF THE FILIPINOS. Mr. President. I have several matters here which I propose to put in the RECORD without reading. The Filipinos recently ad4980-4 50 dressed a petition to the President of the United States, in which they said: The coniimittee, having authority to act froml the general in command of the Filipino forces, beg to submit for your earntst attentionl an appeal-. the objects of which atre t:o secure lp)erlaneint peace in our country and t ihe establislllent of su('ch relations between the two c(ountries as shall meet the approval of the American Government andl satisfy the legitimate aspirations of our people. I shall insert the remainder of the appeal in my remarks without reading. The matter referred to is as follows: Owing to lack of knowledge of the real cause of opposition to American authority any a onc(lusions have been reached whic(h havsine sine proved to he erroneous. Any one of these prophlecies might have )beel fulfilled if the grounds upon which they were made had been true. But all these proplhecies have failed because they did not take into account the intense and universal desire of our people for independent national life. A review of the present situation also will show that tllis aspiration has lost none of its force. All the reverses which our people have met, and all the rig'ors of a war in which, in many respects, me(rcy lhas not been conspicuius, have not lessened their determination to continue the defense, at whatever sacrifice. The hope that the American rule would find favor with our people. owing to the establishmlent of civil governiment, lias not been realized. We have evidence that during the last three monthls discontent has been growing more intense.. In supp)ort of these statements we point to the pronounced recrudescence of the tarmed lresistance to Amlerican control; to the fact that three provinces have been returned to military rule, and to the equally significant fact that of the three Filipino politicil p)arties in tile Philippines two are working, by peaceful imeans, tor ultimate independence, and the third for admission as tattes of tlhe Union, all rejecting the colonil idea. But we wish to state distinctly that our war is waged in tle spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Our obj1ects are the same as those whlich animated the founders of the country with which we are now in conflict, and frolm whom we received moral "aiid and comfort." And we are fortunate in finding our justification writteo upon the brightest pages of American history. It is natural that there should be mutual distrust, but this distrust has been increased by t.he continued refusal of the United States to give assurance that the rights of the Filipino, as they understand them, will receive ultimate recognition. It is true that we have been promised many good things, but acco(mpanying these promises there has been a demand for unconditional surrender, without any assurancle that the one thing which we value most will ever be granted to us. When the bread of national life is asked for, it will not suffice to offer a stone, even though the stone be a diamond. In view, therefore, of the remoteness of a settlement of the conflict, and in view of the impending serious loss of life and property to both parties, we appeal for a reconsideration of the situation in the hope that a way may be found, mutually satisfactory, of ending this conflict, by giving such intimation to our countrymen as will assure them of the ultimate recognition of their legitimate rights. Apart from contending claims, the chief difficulty to a settlement lies in the contention that negotiation with those who offer armed resistance to the authority of the United States would result in loss of prestige to Amnerica. The popular form of this contention is: " We must first teach these Filipinos to respect us and to submit to our authority." The "respect" of a people who have been battered into submission is a respect which ought to be regarded by every free American with pity, contempt, and scorn. Our real respect can be obtained by other and more dignified means. We do not require any further lesson to teach us the immeasurable superiority in power of a nation free for more than one hundred years, tell times as great in population, and incalculably greater in wealth. In our present condition our forces are limited in monetary resources, very inadequately armed, and imperfectly organized. We therefore consider it no discredit to acknowledge, and we hereby authoritatively acknowledge, that American power is supreme and that the prestige of American arms has been vindicated throughout this conflict. A second difficulty is the assumption that, if internal control were given to the Filipinos, those who had supported American authority would be liable to maltreatment. Such an assumption is hardly in harmony with the belief, held by mlany Americans, that a majority of our people are in favor of American rule. A majority ought surely to be able to defend itself. But we contend that the supposition is groundless. A large proportion of those who openly support American authority do so only to avoid suspicion, and their heart is with their countrymen in arms. At the proper time satisfac4980 51 tory undertakings could be given of prlot'cti n, and of amnestv to those who have taken uip tarlns against our )people fir all acts donie untel'r Alllrl'iclan authority, Americall to have the tight, as slhe has I lite a11lllis, to ellforce sulch contracts. A technical difficulty arises out of the fact that the Philippine government has never received reiognitiont. and tile consequent conlitellion thati there is no Philippine authority with which te Amich th Aeriani (o()verim it c( neglofimat,-, even if it lhad lthedesire. We cltili to have aut hority otn behalf ~of tIhe Philippine pteopl)e —authoritv which, ]lavillg beent prolierlv conlferred, is ackniowledged and would bt, obeyed. But if there is tecliiiical v.tlidity itn the above contention, our petople would accept iindireit assurance of the lit-imate recogniitiotn of their rights, either by thin p)roclallation t oi outr p0e1ple, by annunciiation of 1olicy to the Almericaitl peliole. or bv such (tiler iletllod as may be deemed proper. The object of this aptieal would thluis be achieved, without giving recognition to any real of so-called Philippilne authority. As soon its peace has been established a constitutional coivention could be conveined similar to the one ill Cuba, with which fiuture relationls could be held, and by which all differentces could be adjusted. Finally, with the earniest prayer that this aptpeal imay tleet ai favortable respolIse, we respectfully represeilt that that no way can fotund of puitt i ntlg an end to this utdnappy conflict whiclh does not iuclhu ii adetlituate tssurtaineo httol.l people of some form of ultitmatte nationall life. We ask in aill sincerity: Is not tlls aspiration both legiti.iate atnd lauldal lei? And if so. what oilither c(turse would you have a self-respectin.g peo)ple adopi: Wh11it greater ' prooif o)f trillr sincerity and devotion could there be thtn the prolin'gatitni of resistance evenl after the complete supremacy of Amieri-an arms has been estailisheid. Tho armites of Atmerica can miarch unresisted from end to ell of oulr ct)llltry, but wherever they are not Ipresent our peoptle unitel, drawn togethllr by a common desire. The American amies can defeat. our troops, lut tlheyv can tlot defeat or destroy this desire, unless by the destructionl of those who o11(,d itand such an act as this we (-can never believe the Amteric'antI pieolIe wontild kinowingly authorize. And if it prove that yours should b1e tl Im hnd to libellrate our peoplle, a name, honored in your country, will be beloved and ever itmemorable in ours. Mr. BACON. Will the Senator give the date of that? Mr. TELLER. There is to, date to it. but it is recent. It was promulgated this fall, probably two months ago; perliltps less than that. THE WATERIt CURE. I am going to read sotme part of this, although it is not pleasant reading. This is an extract fromn City amnd State, publlishe in Philadelphia, by Herbert WVelsh: If anyone had said just previous to the Splmish-Americaan war that torture was about to become an accepted umeans of proIducing a military or ipolitical result under our flag, he would have hbeen laughed at as a fool or a madminla; but it now looks very much as though what we state is a literal tirutl, without exaggeration, so far as our Philippine io)ssessions are concterelld. And we may say, imoreover, that in these tropictal islands torture of it very horrible description has been used under the authority of the United States htag as a means to produce a military or political result. Either this is actually the case or else a large number of persons liave enteared into a conspiracy, through a period of two years, to defame the honor of the United States fliag by trying to make it applear that torture lias been so used. If we adopt this theotry, we must also conclude that Mr. George Kennon, the distinguished Siberian investigator, a man of high charateter and standing, has been a party to this conspiracy or a victim of it, and that the New York "Outlook," one of the most influential and respectable of imlperialist or expansion papers, has been an instrument for spreading the libel. Let us look at the facts. A year from last June the editor of City and State, while attending the arbitration conference at Lake Mohonk, had some conversation with Mr. Howard M. Jenkins, the editor of the Friends' Initelligencer, relative to a quotation that had appeared in that journal friom an Onaha paper-a letter of a soldier in the Philippines-giving an account of what was called the water-curet torture. This, the writer said, was inflicted on Filipinos in order to make them reveal hidden guns. The account, republished in our issue of June 21, 19EX), is as follows. I presented perhaps not the same facts, but I have heretofore made a statement on this subject, and now. if there is any member of the Committee on the Philippines here he can say whether I am correct or not. But I understand that Commissioner Taft has stated before the committee that that torture has been inflicted. 4980 52 I do not know how much he said had been done, but that there have been instances of it he admitted. Mr. CARMACK. I do not know that Governor Taft exactly admitted it. I am not quite sure that he exactly admitted that it had been done. But he did not deny it. Mr. TELLER. I was told by a member of the committee that he had admitted it. Mr. CARMACK. I do not know whether or not he admitted it in so many words. Mr. TELLER. The account I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate is as follows: A. F. Miller, a member of the Thirty-second United States Volunteers, writing from the Philippine Islands to the Omaha World, under date of March 5, describes the means used by the United States soldiers to compel captured Filipinos to give up their concealed arms. He says: "We go out on a hike, catch a negro, and ask him if he has a gun. He will give us a polite bow and say, 'No sabe ' and then we take hold of him and give him the 'water cure,' after which he can get us two or three guns. Now, this is the way we give them the water cure: Lay them on their backs, a man standing on each hand and each foot, then put a round stick in the mouth and pour a pail of water in the mouth and nose, and if they don't give up pour in another pail. They swell up like toads. I'll tell you it'is a terrible torture. "We went up the bay the other day to get some robbers, and secured three. They would not tell where they had their guns. So we gave them the water cure (salt water), and two of them gave us their guns. We gave the other one so much water we nearly killed him, yet he would not tell. Guess he was an old head; they have lots of grit. Tihey will stand and see you half kill one of their friends, and won't tell a thing. When it comes to their time to take the cure, they will take their clothes off, lie down, and take two or three pails of water before they will say a word. One of them said, 'You can kill me, but you can not make me tell."' The editor of the paper, who is a Republican, not a Democrat, says: This seems to us incredible. Upon our return to Philadelphia, a few days later, a gentleman known to us stepped into our office and placed in our hands a long letter from another soldier in the Regular Army in the Philippines addlessed to relatives in this city. It had every evidence of being sinlcere and genuine. This letter described events as they appeared to the writer, and was wholly without any tone of exaggeration or sensationalism. It described the "water-cure" torture just as did the letter quoted above. We give the following extract:, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Ap1ril 5, 1900. MY DlEAR --: As this is the last day for some time that I will have a chalce to write, I thought this would be a good time to begin one. We are still at it, and making preparations for the rainy season, which is expected about the middle or latter part of June. Any of the natives who have a gun can turn it in to us and get 830 Mexican (Mexican money) for it, so a good many are bought in that way. We have a company of Macabebe scouts here who go out with white troops, and if they can not get any guns voluntarily they proceed to give the fellow the water cure-i. e., they throw them on their backs, stick a gag in their mouths to keep it open and proceed to fill them with water until they can hold no more, then they get on them and by sudden pressure on t stomach and chest force the water out again. I guess it must cause excruciating agony, as they nearly always disclose where guns are hidden. Of course there is no pay for guns got in that manner. It is rather a harsh way for us to use them. I wonder how we would feel were we used in such a manner? The soldiers who look on think it is a huge joke. These Macabebes are a people who have always been held in contempt and subjection by the Tagals. They are not very numerous and not the equal of the latter in anything except ferocity. Had the former known a year ago that they would take arms for us, I think they would have exterminated them. That is. if the Filipinos had known it, they would have exterminated tell Macabebes. Mr. BATE. Who inflicted that punishment, and for what? I did not quite catch the statement. 4980 53 Mr. TELLER. It is inflicte(I because they do not give up, gnus. The soldiers ask if thiey know where there tare any guns hiidden. They say no. and without w\aitfing to know- whether they dlo or not. they inflict the torture. Mr. BATE. Who? Mr. TELLER. The, Anmerican soldiers. Mr. BATE. Onl the Filipinos? Mr. TELLER. Onl the, Filip~inoS. I have a statement soilew~here, althouigh I dlo not know whethier I hiav'e it here, that nearly one-hai-lf of all onl whom this torture is inflicted dlie). Between tile two there is little to choose, excep~t thoat tle Macs. aure more cowardly, and indulge their craven ferocity under thle protection of Americalns. I will put in the reinainider of that columin, and then I -wish to call attention to what Mr. Kennon says: I saw two Amieric.an prisoners who cament in here at few dlays since; one( is. a Fourth CavalryNi man, the other f rom the Twelfth Infantry. "jIli ev e w%~roith Geerl a aolas' commiandl. Thiey say they got used `pretlwll n h whole.Thysoeaaintengta(arieheeatrledystrv. Tl\y looked pretty tough. They s-ay that Macahbolas hafs 4(t ealamd withl lllenty of anunlunition, awld tllat, they canl get aill the f?,ood and( clothingabley waitin fror th leoj)le through1 whose districts they as i i ieun abl?,therainyseasonl to start inl. It looks'like at contce-rtei plan on his part~ moiake it warm for us. If there is funl, we wvill not he Surprised]. I am sorry to say thmt we will hiave to c-all for more t roolps. Without 4varing thek name1(: of thle writer, which we we\,re not autlerizedl to do, w publishced iii City -:and S-'tate thle part of this letter givenl abov-e. We also sent it to the Spring~field Repuhilican, and it. was publdishied in thattl huler. The nuitter seemed to attract but little attentoion. Onle of our suhecriher-s, however, -wrote to us a letter, which we published, expressing"' finc'redulity. Later, dnring thme same snummer. theo qunestion was, revived hy tf lpie api'tuiii of another letter from iL soldlier in t~ePiipns-onE. Whiite,a se-rgeanlt in the Ninth United States Iufantry —in the piage-s of the Atlantia C(11oustit IItion. inl which time vat er-cure torture-, wats descrihbed much inl the same wa%~y. Tliis letter was ats follomvs: "These Macabebes heave a novel treatmnent to make at prisoner 'hiudda.' They catch aI Tagalo-theirt sworn enemiies.-and lay hims flat oin his hack, hptt a cliih about 4 feet long in his mlouth, and at miit stand(s oni eachi enad of this club, -which forces his mouth wid.e opeui. They thieii huoceed] to enc his thirist uiitil his stomachl looks like a hill of potatoes. and then t lie tap) himf gcntly P) on the aforem aid stomiach with the hutt end~ of a gn It' ilbwater does miot spurt out of his mouth high e,,nouhtion suit thenil they.will playfully jumlp Onl him, which usually has the desired eff et. and wwIno they r-et through-41 with him if there are mny gunis ioC0eale(ilI oi hurIie.d around( thlere ihe will very promiptly produce~ them. This, may souinil very, shock -Iing to you at home, bu1t if you were here you would-1 realize fully that ext reime cases require extremie measures. \1 We had heen going on scouting imarties nearly three month s hiere~ dafy anie night before, a. company of these Macabehes were seiit hiere. anld wve never found a sing-le gun. As soon as they c.-ame they went to every barrio whlere we hiad beeii and got from flve to a dozen from evey (1 of themi hy imians of the hydraulic treatmlent. They had the Tagalos anid Ptanipamigos so stirred up thnt a great miany of them brought, in their gunls witlmoit. wa-itinig to he told. We were surprised conipletely mvNlien the Macabeebes found four gunls in a house less than itKI yards from our outpost right home in the town.' Here is what Mr. Kennon says: Later on Mr. George Keunon, the special investigator of the Outlook, wrote in the issue of that journal, March ii, 11)01 -About a year agoon this subject as follows: " For the Practice of torture in the Philippines, there is no excuse whatever, and yet that we have sanctioned, if nDot directly employed, thme I'water torture,'I as a means of extorting information from the nativenes seems, certain. "An officer of the Regular Army now serving in Luzoim, from whose letters, I have already made quotation, describes the water torture,' as practiced by Macabehe scouts in our service, as follows: "'A company of Macabebes 'enter a town or barrio, catch some man-it matters not whom-ask him if he knows where there are any guns, aned upon receiving a negative answer, five or six of them throw him down, one holds his 4980 54 head, while others have hold of an arml or a leg. They then procee-d to give him the " water torture," whifch is the distension of the internal organs withl water. After they are distended a cord is sometimes placed around the body and the watr' expelled. From wlat I have heard, it al)pears to be generally applied, and its use is not confined to one section. Altiough it results in the finding of a number of guns, it does us an infinite tamlount of harm. Nor are the Macabebes the only ones who use this Imethod of obtaining information. "' Personally, I have never seen this torture inflictedl. nor have I ever knowingly allowed it; but I lhave seen a viactim a few minutes afte rwards, with his mouth bleeding where it: had been cut by a bayonet used to hold the mouth open, and his face bruised( where he l had been stru(ck by thle M'acabebes. Add to this the (expression of his face and his evidcent weakness from the torture, and you have a p)icture which, once seen, will not be forgotten. I am not chicken-hearted, but tlis policy hurts us. Sulmmary executions are and will be necessary in a troul)led country, and I lha-ve no objection to seeing that they are carried out, but I am not used to torture. The Spaniards used the torture of water th roughout the islands as a means of obtaining information, but they used it sparingly and only when it appleared evident that the victim was culipable. Americans seldom do things by halves. We come here and announce our intenition of freeing the people from three or four hundred years of oppression, and say 'We are strong, and powerful, and grand.' Then to resort to inquisitorial methods and use them without discrimination is unworthy of us, and will recoil on us as a nation.' " It is painful and humiliating to have to confess that in some of our dealings with the Filipinos we seem to be following more or less closely the example of Spain. We have established a penal colony; we burn native villages near which there has been an ambush or an attack by insurgent guerrillas; we kill thle wounded; we resort to torture as a means of obtaining information; and in private letters from two officers of the Regular Army in thle Philippines I find the prediction that in certain provinces we shall probably have to resort to the method of reconcentration practiced by General Weyler in Cuba." Coming down almost to date, we find the following testimony on the same subjec(t iin a letter from a correspondent of the Columbia (S. C.) State, written from Binan, P. I. This was quoted by the Springfield Republican December 24, 1901. I need not say that the Springfield Republican is not a Democratic paper. Mr. ALDRICH. What is it? Mr. TELLER. I do not know that it is a Republican paper, but for at least forty years that I have been familiar with it it has been one of the leading journals of the United States. This is the letter: The Americans are using the severest methods to put down the rebellion in Samar. General Smith has ordered everyone to come into the towns by a certain day, and all who are found iii the country after then will be killed without question. In Mindoro, Samar, and Leyte the Americans are using fire and sword as the Spaniards used them in Cuba. Mind you that is December 24, 1901. This is part of a report from Mindoro: " Captain Bent applied the torch to the rebel quarter, went back to 3Monsolia, rounded up the horses and carabas and shot them, set fire to the town, watched it until it got well under way, marched back to the Monsol, did the same there, and then got on the Custer and sailed back. Like reports come every day from SamarThat is where General Chaffee, in the letter read by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROCTOR], said the rebellion would be stamped out in a short tile. But no Americans over here blame the army for such measures, as these natives have no respect for anything short of torture. They are exceedingly cruel themselves, and they conlsider leniency a sign of weakness and fear. The "water cure" is the favorite torture of the Americans to force the natives to give information concerning the insurrectos. The native is bound and gagged, and one soldier pours water and sand down his throat while another beats him on the stomach, which soon swells out like a drum. This torture is said to be horrible, and it generally makes the Filipino betray everything, but many of them are game to the last and carry their secret to the grave. A soldier who was with General Funston told me that he helped administer the " water cure" to 160 natives, all but 26 of whome died. 4980 55 That statement is worse than I made it: A soldier who was with General Funston told nm that he t helped adminlister the water cure to 1t;U natives, all but 2' of whom died. Mr. President, if these horrible narrations are not true. the American Government owes it to itself to prove that they are not; and if they are not true the Administration can provet their inaccuracy. We are spendtling on those islands and oln oulr Ar1my not less than $250,000,000 a yea.r, and while it mlay cost soniethbing to prove or disprove the accusation. we should be given the truth, even at the risk of adding somewhat more to the expense. I should be glad to know that it is a shllder against the Army. But I am compelled to believe that after the attention of the country has been called to it for more than a year and no effort made to disprove it. that it is true. Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me in this connection? Mir. TELLER. Certainly. Mir. BACON. I do not think the Senator properly guardIs his language in saying it is the work of the Army. I desire to say, from some little personal knowledge, that I do not tlink that is a proper charge, as the Senator unintentionally expresses it. Mr. TELLER. I read the charge that a soldier under General Funston said Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon me for a moment. He does not understand me. Conceding that everything that is charged is true, and that the occurrences are correctly narrated in the several articles and letters, I am quite sure that while an investigation may prove them to be true-and I do not wish to be understood as suggesting anything to the contrary-I ami equally sure that it will be found that while the presence of the Army lias given the opportunity to the vicious part of the Army for the perpetration of these atrocities, it is not the work of authorized persons. Mr. TELLER. Oh, I do not suppose any order has been issued to that effect. Mr. BACON. The Senator will not misunderstand me. As he knows, I am very much in sympathy with the colntention which he makes, and I took the liberty of interrupting him for the purpose of making a statement with which I was quite sure he would agree; and the last statement he has made indicates that lie does agree with the suggestion which I wished to make. SAVAGES FOR SOLDIEtS. Mr. TELLER. I read the statement that a soldier accompanying one of our generals said he had assisted in applying the torture to 160 men, all but 26 of whom had died. I doubt whetlher General Funston himself would agree to that; but they send out a little corporal's guard somewhere, and they pick up what they call a negro, and they inflict the water torture on hiim. They do not, perhaps, go back and tell the officers that they did it, but what we are responsible for is the fact; otherwise we would have stopped it. And we are responsible for the Macabebes, who are our soldiers. They are under our pay. They have been enlisted under an act of Congress against which I voted, because I knew that we ought not to enlist that class of people. Mlr. CULBERSON. Bearing upon the question as to the truth or falsity of these charges. I will ask the Senator from Colorado to allow me to read a paragraph or so from the testimony of Governor Taft. 4980 56 Mr. TELLER. Read it. Mr. CULBERSON. On page 75 of the hearing Governor Taft said: Governor TAT:. What I am trying to do is to state what seemed to us to be the explanation of these cruelties-that cruelties have been inflicted; that people have been shot when they ought not to have been; that there have been individual instances of water cure, that torture which, I believe, involves pouring water down the throat so that the man swells and gets the impression that he is going to be suffocated and then tells what he knows which was a frequent treatment under the Spaniards, I am told-all these things are true. At the bottom of page 75 we find this question asked by Senator PATTERSON and the answer of Governor Taft: Senator PATTraSON. I do not think the charge of inflicting the water cure has been made against American soldiers as much as against the native troops who have been enlisted in the American Army, or as an appurtenance to the American Army. For instance, the Macabebes. Many letters have been published making statements of this kind, that Macabebes would be sent out for the purpose of securing the surrender of guns, and the persons would deny that they had any guns. Then the Macabebes would throw them upon the ground, one soldier on one hand and another on the other, secure their feet, pry open their mouths with a stick, and then pour buckets of water down their throats till they swelled up to an abnormal size amnd then jumped upon their stomachs. It has been stated that invariably undler that treatment guns were nproduced where there were no guns before; this with the knowledge of American officers, the Army getting the advantage of it in securing arms from natives, which they were seeking, without any serious reproof. Governor TAFT. I have no doubt there were such instances-of course, a great many more than there ought to have been-but if the Senator will excuse me, dependence on private letters from private individuals as to what occurred is dependence on a very broken reed. Mr. BACON. If the Senator from Colorado will pardon me for just mne moment. I do not wish to be understood, by anything I may have said, as casting any doubt on the fact of the practice of these tortures. I have not a doubt of them. But I simply wished to say something which I was satisfied the Senator from Colorado himself would say: That while these acts were done by those who were under the general command of American officers, they were not, technically speaking, the acts of the Army. Mr. TELLER. They are tolerated. I thought when the country's attention was called to the practice a year ago (it was about a year ago that I made some remarks and presented an array of evidence on that point) that it would be stopped. But I am satisfied from what I have read and what I have found since that it has been carried on ever since to some considerable extent, largely, doubtless, by the Macabebes, who never ought to have been taken into our service. The enlistment of these people is as bad as the taking of Indians into their service by the British during the. Revolutionary war, and that was condemned by nearly everybody in England in public life. They compelled every officer who had been in the service to give some excuse, and under the pretense that the colonists were about to do the same thing they said they had taken them in. Yet it was shown in the debates that we had never proposed to employ the savages, and that the British had taken them in and armed them and equipped them and allowed them to kill our wounded and scalp our dead. I could read, if I wanted to take the time, denunciations from at least a dozen public men of England, including the Earl of Chatham, on that very point-denouncing the wickedness of employing savages of that character in the English army. He declared it to be a disgrace to the English Government. 4980 Mr. DUBOIS. W ill the Senator from Colorado pardon mne for a iouomeiit' Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. DUBOIS. The whole testimiony. icnclding the testimiony of Judge Taft, is that the Macabebes have never beeii frienidly with their own-i people. They\ were the allies of amii d~urinall" 11 those, wars. and they- tire utterly detested by the othier Fihipmno people. They are renegade s fromt their own peop~le. MILiTARY PROcLAMATiONS. Mir. TELLER. I amn now going to reaid what Mr. Iherbert Welsh calls an uniiparalleled proc'lama,,tion. I thlink thiere is aniothet-r proclamation as bad, but I can not put mny hiand on it.. I refer to the order of General Bell. I shall read a ref erence to it. I have, seen it, but I amn not prepared to present it, because I do niot know where I put it. The following extract, f romn General. Smith'. proclamiation to t-he people of the island of Sama~r is taken troni the Manila. Freedlon of Novwembe r 10, 15)1: That is a paper in accord with the administration of public affairs by the civil Commission. He desires to announce to all the influential natives of the district, and1( espeiall to hosein the island of Sainar, that upl to andiju hindingiq the 10th day ofi~ovem EritI1, those who desire to est-bihsh the ftact thatf t hey are frienly tothe Aerican Government can do so inl any one of the follo~ ~Aing ways: I call the attention of the Senate to this: 1.By giving information as to the location of ainy guns used. for pin -poses ef insurrectioni. 2. By '4in information as to the whereabouits of per1sons in hinsureetion. 3. Byinduigprosn ismrrection to present themselves wii th tlti rifles or other armis, to the nearest Amlerican olhicial. They can not establish the fact of thenir fiendslnp hy protestations- of any kind. Those who fail to avail themiselves of the opportuniity preseiinted will be r - ga~rded as disictyuntiiendly to the American Goverinmnti.ii andl will be trated accordigy in explanatio othe last par igraph, Generid Smith says thmt till influential citizens of Samnar who haive not presented evidence of tle 1 iid meontioned of their loyalty to the Ameri ani G4overnment by N ovember lit will be t1ehported from Sainar to Guamn oi some other island, their wives mtid children seiit into the mouiitiiis and tueiu towns destroyed. There will he no lpost-; ponemlent or delay iul tiilfillhng this proi'one Comnienting on this, the Springfield Republican says: The proclamation of Gen. Tacob1 H. Smith to the population of Samiar iid Leyte, which w%.as dated November 1, and is printed el-sewhere onl this page, seems tohave hadI no salutary etfect in liooii miotnNo onle, however-, caii well afford to say that. General Smith's lirochtiniation was lackcing insvrt. Inded, it mady easily be ciriticised is unwarruanted by the pricelpts of civilized warfare, aind as c-a-lculated to in flame resistanice rath le~r i1. han hreak it. A well-known American state sinanl writes to say that "'of all the events of war that have come under my notice"1 Geoneral Sinith's proclaination "Ihas no parallel. " I do not know what American that is. This is the Republican's editorial w-hich I am now quoting. It continues: A hittle study of the proclamation ireveals its character. The general assumned that every inhabitant of Leye aind Sam-ar was an active enemny of Ameirican rule, thlus revei-,sing the pi inciple that an individual maty be presumed to he living in obedience to authoi ity so long as there is no ev'idence to show that he is hostile. And, acting on that assumption, General Smlith canled upon the inhabitants to prove their loyaltyV. and, remarkable to siay' he restricted the proofs they could offer by artit~ra rily setting up three tests. and then placed a limit of tenl days upon the time in which such pi-oof could be presented. These conditions really applied to the entire population, for although General Smith referired particularly to"influential."1 uatlives, he was the sole judge as to who might be or might not be "1influential." Now, it might easily be the fact that many well-disposed iatives, living in tetwsand occupied in peaceful p ursuits, would be unable to fu-ihthe special proof of their loyalty wvhic-h the Geineral called for. Any person, 4980 58 therefore whatever the real facts in his case, who could not tell General Smith within ten days where a gun was located, or where an insurrecto could be captured, or who could not persuade some insurrecto to surrender, was liable to be exiled and to have his home and lproperty destroyed. It is clearly the duty of the opposition in the Senate to bring up for discussion the whole question of the methods now being employed in the conquest of the middle islands. Secretary Root has officially declared that a state of war exists in the archipelago, and it is at least desirable, under such conditions, that the conquest be conducted on the part of the United States with scrupulous fidelity to the rules of civilized warfare. Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Texas? Mr. TELLER. I do. Mr. CULBERSON. I will state to the Senator that I have a full copy of the proclamation of General Bell with reference to reconcentration, and also his order to subordinate commanders. I. think it is important in connection with the order just read from General Smith, and if it will not interrupt the course of the Senator's remarks I will be glad to have it read at this time. Mr. TELLER. I think I will withhold it and read it a little later on. The Evening News, of Plattsburg, N. Y., of January 20, 1902, published a letter from a soldier by the name of Joseph Woodville. Introducing the letter, the News says: Charles Robinson, formerly a member of Company G, Twenty-first Infantry, now retired and living in this village, Monday received a letter from Joseph Woodville, who is still with the company in the Philippines. Mr. Robinson allows us to make the following extracts from the letter, which is dated December 15: I will read only a part of the letter. It is from Batangas Province, and the following is an extract from it: General Bell is in command here. He has surely got the niggers bluffed. He has issued an order that all must be in by December 25, and if not they will be killed and their houses burned. There are but a few houses left on the hills all having been burned. We have had no pay in four months and it is harld telling when we will get any. Wishing you and all the people in Plattsburg well, I remain, your friend, JOSEPH WOODVILLE. TESTIMONY OF ATROCITIES. I have another letter. All that I know about it is that it appeared in the Portland Oregonian of January 29, 1902, and is as follows: SEATTLE, Januaryi 2S. Clarence Clowe, of Seattle, who recently arrived home from the Philippines, where he served as a private in Company H, Twenty-fifth Infantry, United States Volunteers, has authorized the publication of a letter written by him to Senator HOAR from the islands June 10, 1900. Clowe asks in the letter honorable discharge from a service that is outraging his conscience. In alleging inhuman treatment by American soldiers toward Filipinos he says in part: "At any time I am liable to be called upon to go out and bind and gag helpless prisoners, to strike them in the face, to knock them down when so bound, to bear them away from wife and children, at their very door, who are shrieking pitifully the while or kneeling and kissing the hands of our officers, imploring mercy from those who seem not to know what it is, and then, with a crowd of soldiers, hold our helpless victim head downward in a tub of water in his own yard, or bind him hand and foot. attaching ropes to head and feet, and then lowering him into the depths of a well of water till life is well-nigh choked out and the bitterness of death has been tasted, and our poor. gasping victims ask us for the poor boon of being finished off, in mercy to themselves. "All these things have been done at one time or another by our men, generally in cases of trying to obtain information as to the location of arms and ammunition. "Nor can it be said that there is any general repulsion on the part of the 4980 51 enlist*ed men to takiiing part ill ties doings. I regret to have to say that. on the contrary. the nlajl 'rity sf s Idiers lake a ttlen detlight ill tlltem and ru'sh with joy to the malking tf this lttcst developmllent of a Rllan lholiday." The Evansville Journal-Ntews of Januiary 31, 1902, contained the following: 3Irs. E. J. Felts. who resides at '2., East Illinois street, has received it lettier from her son, H. H-. elts. He is at Laguan. P. I., oil a United States lattllh ship. It was dated De.ember 9, 1li01. and it reads -is follows: "D.EARI MOTIHt: We ar-t ha7viing a hot tile here, lhut do't worrvy. I will take care of mlself. We are l. fightllinl 1ore or less every. Wi al'e constantly cruising around these islands. The inlalnd tro q s are drivingll I h insurge/its to the coast and we have the1 jo ot killtilgr tihel. W\te hlavet strict orders to kill every itnsur'ent we catch between the towns and the coast. and it keepsts us costailltly ltovillg' alllo-std dait alld night. "A short time ago we lan(lted 1t} soldiers and they wenlt about half a mile out to an old trench where they lfound Sit insurgents hlidtig. IThey o(}peed fire on them and the negroes fought thelm with rocks, clubs, arrows. and bat11a)oo gulls. and one of tll It 1itenl camne baick for rleinl(forceeiltts, which only left 9) to fight the SO. When ree-ftorceitnilts got there there wats onlys I ablh to stand on his feet to shoot, and the others were lying oin the g'round wounded, butt still firing. Tle t w(vre hloling the treatclI agaillst the negroes. "This looks alnost impossible, but it is the actual l truth. Wlhen tle r eenforcemlents got there they soon wiped themn out, so inone of the nlegroes got away to tell the story." These were not negroes; they were. natives. "A few days later we ianded i25 soldiers to go to anl inltand town, where they attacked 40t or 5t) insurgents and fought themn for twelve hours, whenl tlhe dispatlch messenger camie for help to bring theim 1mck to the ship. 'Thelrt had been but two lives lost anId mllost of thel wetlre wonded. Their liieutenant was killed and one pr'ivate soldier, and they brought their dtead bodies bac-k to the ship. The men showed h that they lad had a terribleliittthl. Sonime of thenm were carrying the wounittled atind were Iot hardly able tio walk themselves. Some of tlihem had lnearly all their cloths tor off. and stlle had even lost their shoes. These poor boys were a pitifull sight to slte. "H. I. FELTS, "Cavite, 1(/7aittl, U. S. S. Pattltp(tmtq/t, att'al.ti/f ttn." Mir. President, I do not vouch for these statements. I (1do not now that they are absolutely true: but I do know that charges tmade of this kind in the public press ought to be investigated. If false, it ought to be shown that they are false. I have some clippings here that I have saved to indicate what has been said by the public. I am not going to read anything from a Democratic newspaper. because I know wlhat would be said of it. I am going to read from Republican or independent newspapers. [Detroit Free Press (Independent), January 21.] Weylerism is Weylerism, whether it manifests itself in Cuba, or in the Philippines. If it was a brutal, cowardly policy for Spain to adopt, it is a brutal, cowardly policy for the United States to adopt. That is an independent paper. [Boston Herald (Independent), January 21.] This new order is * * * a new confession of the fact that a Large part of the natives who have professed to be re(onciled to our Government are not reconciled. * - * It puts an end to all statements that the peop)le desire our sovereignty. [Milwaukee Sentinel (Republican), January 22.] The "zones" will not be "canips" in the Weyler or Kitchener sense. and there will be no privations and hardships of the kind connected by the hateful word "reconcentration." * * Since the people of Batangas are not amenable to reason and good treatment, a measure of military severity will be resorted to which will doubtless prove effective. But General Chaffee's character is a warrant that there will be no Weylerism. I have never charged that Weylerism to the extent of starving these people was to be connected with the reconcentration. 4980 60 [Baltimore American (Republican), January 21.] With what astonishment do we read that a general of our Army in the faroff Philippines has actually aped Weyler and Kitchener. * * * We have actually come to do the thing we went to war to banish. Our good name is dearer than all the islands of the sea. In tile name of all that is best in our humanity, civilization, and patriotism, let the Government at Washington erase this stain before it becomes fixed and inerasable. [Chicago Evening Post (Republican), January 22.] After reading that General Bell had been forced to the extreme of adopting reconcentrado methods to suppl ess the insurgent Filipinos in the province of Batangas and then to-day perlusing Governor Taft's optimistic "no wal r" report, the American people can not be blamed for feeling a trifle puzzled. Nor is it surprizing that they should say in their perplexity: "Let us have the truth about conditions in the Philippines; let Congress undertake a thorough investigation." [Buffalo Enquirer (Independent), January 17.] There has been altogether too much star-chamber business connected with the management of our affairs in the Philippine Islands, and the time has come when publicity should be given to Philippine matters. [Springfield (Mass.) Republican, independent, January 17.] The Maine explodes, and our Government has an investigation going in no time. Tils Philippine war, which began about three years ago, has been a great national calamity, having now cost the United States some $300(),000,(X and thousands of American lives, while it has swept with fire and sword the land of the Fililino people, destroying their towns and villages and sending to their graves uncounted numbers of the native population. Why shoula not that, too, be investigated, in order that the full truth concerning the origin and the conduct of it may be known? The City and State, of Philadelphia, Ind., is independent, but is published by a Republican. [City and State (Philadelphia, Ind.), January 16.] If Senator HOAR's resolution shall be favorably acted upon, and if the Senators appointed in accordance with its provisions shall perform their duties faithfully and impartially, we shall have an official statement of the utmost importance. That is the resolution which did not pass. [Chicago Record-Herald (Republican), January 18.] To claim the Philippine s s property of the United States and treat them as we treat foreign countries in the matter of the tariff is to advertise the forcible character of the ownership and to offend the national sense of what is right and fitting. The rest of it is a reference to General Bell's order, and as the order is here I will not put it in. I have several extracts that I do not care to fill up the RECORD with. I will, however, read the following: MANILA, January 1, 1902. Lieut. Charles D. Rhodes, of the Sixth Cavaly, accompanied by two orderlies, when within 6 miles of Manila to-day, came across 20 armed insurgents in a cuartel or barracks. The insurgents shouted "Americanos," and Lieutenant Rhodes feigned a retreat. But in reality he took the cuartel in flank and drove out the insurgents, capturing two rifles, three revolvers, and some ammunition. Rhodes then burned the barracks down and proceeded to Manila. General Wheaton's report from the island of Samar indicates that little has been accomlllished there. The attitude of the natives is even more unfriendly than ever before. General Chaffee will probably visit the island in order to investigate the state of affairs prevailing there. On the other hand, in Batangas Province the organized campaign against the insurgents is progressing favorably, and speedy results are expected. MANILA, December 1S, 1901. There were six skirmishes in various parts of Batangas Province yesterday. The insurgents did not make a single stand. Several Filipinos were killed. The Americans had only a few men wounded. Additional troops have been sent to General Bell, who is carrying on an aggressive campaign in Batangas, Tayabas, and Laguna provinces. 4980 G1 There are some other thlings ill the article that are hardly worth putting ill. MANI LA, I)cem1iber 3, Ii01. Colonel Wints's column has had a sharp brush with 40 insurgents in the Sipa Mountains, killing several of them and burning 14 ciartels. Advices from Catbalogan, capittl of the islaid of Saillar, report that the insurgent general, Lukban. has offered to negotiate terms o() stirrender with (General Smith. To this offer the Amiericanl conmmander replied that tihe time for negotiations had passed. Lieut. Coimmilander James 5M. Helm. commaniiding the U. S. gunboat 'relic, destroyed duriing Novtember' 147 boats engaged in smuggling supplies to the insurgellts. G(eneral Smlith as ordered all male Filipinos to leave the coast towns for the interior. In order to be allowed to return, they must bring guns, prisoners, or information of the whereabouts of insurrectionists. VICTORIA. B.13C., )ceiiber Ii, '1oi. The Manila Times, referring to the plan of calipaign in Slanar, says: "The Cavite marines to the miu tnber of 330 are stationed at Bahangiga. These marines, in conjunction uwith the soldiers of the E1leventh Infantryi will operate from the south, scoutrinl and burning the country n'orthward until they meet and join hand, with the Twenty-sixth, the Twelfth, the Seventh, and the Ninth regiments. This is the first part in the plan of callipaign. When the southern part of the ishland is thoroughly cleaned up, operatlios will then begin from Luzon down to the southern line of troops, tlhus rounding up Lukban's ariml for final ext erminlation. " Samar Ishand will be made a desert where birds can not live. There is a bare possibility that. awed by the terrible punishment about to be inflicted Lukban and his followers will decide to throw t hemselves ont the mtercy o the Americans, trusting to any terms which may111 be given theml. 1u1ik 's friends have become so terrified that they have tbeseeched General Hughes to postpone his measures of retaliation until the rebel clhief can be adlvised of the situation and be given a chance to present himself to the American forces. These supplicants have received but slight encouragemnent from General Hughes, but they will be allowed to comimunicate with Lukban. He may possibly receive the treatment accorded prisoners of war, and the present measures of retaliation be thus avoided." The English Fortnightly, in the last number, lhas a statement that the order hatd gone out that Lukban should be sho -t onil sight if taken prisoner. MANILA, D(ecei)mber, li.01. General Chaffee has issued orders for the closing of all ports in th (e Laguna and Batangas provinces. The quartermasters there will cease paying rents to the Filipinos for buildings used for military pur)oses, as it is kinown that a large proportion of the money so paid finds its s way to the insurgnlts in the shape of contributions, n(td General Chaffee intends tlhait no more Government funds shall find their way into the hands of the enemy. Trlhe reason for closing the ports is that too many supplies are found to be getting into the possession of the insurgents. General Chaffee intends giving General Bell, commanding the troops in the Batangas province, every assistance he may require to subdue the insurrectos. That is all that I need read. I do not care about putting it all in. There is some personal reference to Governor Taft which is unimportant here: MANILA, December 10, 1901. Thousands of people are leaving Batangas Province for places of safety. Gen. James MI. Bell reports an important engagement between a force of insurgents at Labo, province of Camarines, and a detachmient of the Twentieth Infantry. Three Americans were killed. The loss of the enemy is not known, but it is believed to have been heavy. General Bell anticipates a speedy extermination of the irreconcilables. A large force of insurgents recently attacked the town of Lipa, province of Batangas, killing 1 soldier and several Americanistas. Troop H. First Cavalry, killed 10 of the enemy before the remainder of the insurgent force escaped. The Filipinos evidently expected a victory, for they had cut the wires and carried off a hundred yards of the line. The natives are stirred by the closing of the ports, and bitterly object to reconcentration. A Filipino force consisting of 200 riflemen and 400 bolomnen recently attacked Nagpartian, province of North Ilocos. Company M, Eighth Infantry, acting on the defensive, drove off the enemy, killing 11 of them with no loss to themselves. 4980 62 Mr. President, I read these extracts to show that war is still rife in that island. I have here an article that appeared in all the public press of this country on the 20th of last December. It begins with the following from General Chaffee: History affords no parallel of a whole people thus practically turning war traitors, and in the genius of no other people was ever found such masterful powers of secrecy and dissimulation; but it is needless to say that no powerful state was ever erected or ever can be erected upon such immoral and unenlightened foundations. Then the article proceeds: This statement is made by General Chaffee, military governor of the Philil)pines, in a review of one of a number of court-martial cases in the islands, the records of which have been received at the War Departmenit. The case whiclh brought forth this comment from General Chaffee was one wherein seven natives were tried jointly on a charge of murder. The accused were soldiers in the insurgent army, and after defeat by the American army in the field abandoned even the show of open opposition of the half-uniformed guerrilla bands and took up their residence at Taytay, in Morong Province, Luzon, a place protected by an American garrison. Then, following the proclaimed policy of the insurgent chiefs, they proceeded to organize secretly a bolo band. After the native population within the lines of the army of occupation had been authorized to establish civil government the band came forward under the leadership of a resident padre, dictated and secured their election as municipal officers of Taytay, and entered upon their duties under American authority. Then ensued a remarkable attempt to serve two masters. In all lawful matters they served with due appearance of loyalty the American Governmenlt, while at the same time they labored secretly and diligently in the interests of the insurrection. This dual form of government, says General Chaffee, existed everywhere, in strongly garrisoned cities like Manila, as well as the smallest barrio. The municipal officers of Taytay next entered upon a series of murders and continued their deadly work until the growing number of mysterious disappearances from the communlity led to the discovery of the l)epetrators by the American authorities. Mr. President, when you think that this is being done by the men who are placed over these Filipinos, you can see what the condition is there. I have a letter here from an officer in the Philippines. received by a member of his family in this city. It is dated October 29, 1901, and is as follows: CATBALOGAN, SAMAR, October 29, 1901. * * * I don't want to alarm you about the conditions here, but they are very serious at present. You have probably read about the massacre of Conlpany C, of the Ninth-48 men killed, including 3 officers; 12 wounded. I'll writo you all the details later. It was an awful thing. A naval officer and four sailors were killed at a little place a few miles from here the day before yesterday. They have at least one fight on the island every day. The fact is that the niggers have our troops pretty well bluffed at present, and we are just about holding our own and waiting for reenforcements. There have been about 5,000 more troops ordered here. All the women have been ordered away, and things are very lively. In the face of all this, of course, I would not leave here on a leave of absence, or in any other way, if I can help it. I do not know what you will think of me when I say I hope you have not done anything toward getting a leave for me. You must think I am very changeable, but, of course, when I wrote you that I would like to get a leave I did not know I was going to get into a hot box like this with my regiment. If you have moved in the matter and I do get a leave I shall certainly give it up, for, of course, I will stay right here with my regiment until it is all over. The little town is right in a pocket, with hills all around it. It is fired into almost daily. Day before yesterday they opened up and wounded several men before they were driven out by the gunboat in the harbor. This came from Manila December 29, 1901, and states what Governor Wright said: Governor Wright said he was satisfied that the majority of the Filipinos recognize and appreciate what had been done, and that their leaders were doing all in their power to bring the remaining insurgents to a peaceful view of the situation. 4980 0 t Concluding, Governor Wrigiht said the natives iinliaitingi tile iland of Samar had, during all tlheir history, been an unmanalgable race, and lie was not surprised at their present hostility. Maj. Henry Allen, for'merly g)ve'rnor of the island 1o Leytoe and w1ho was chosen chief of the insullllr costabulalr. has left Manila foro a tour of inspettion through the isldtls of Leyte and Mindoro. lie will rl't)(I't th te Collmission of the conditionls existing therel and particularly of thelt sitluatio i l the province of M isinis, Mindor'io where the llilitlary autiorities ajive asked to have affairs returnetd from tlhe civil back to their own control, I think that llas been done. Five insurgent officers and 1 75 en, with 6 cannon. 51 rifles. Illad 17 slotguns surrenldered yvesterdayll tot the Alnerican authorities on tihe ishtild l f Ceu. It is now believed tllsd island is pacified. I have a dispatch here dated Atlanta, G., December 27, which reads: ATLANTA. ( A., 1c'cmber 7', 1)1. Joseph Ohl, special commissioner of the Constitutionl t the Philippines, has made a careful istud( of thle military conditiolls existing there lunder American rule. Mr. Oh1 is the Washiingtoi corres(podent of the (cast itution, and was sent East with the Congressional p)arlt which siled for the Orient during thle lpast slummerl on the United States t ransl ' t. lis alrrri ment of the military occupation ill the Philippines is regarded here as a forerunner of what will be heard in Congress before the session is over. A portion of his letter follows: " CEUU, P. I.-The highly civilized and lnlLamne lmethods thlat characterized the rule of Wey-ler in CuIl)a are being resorted to by thle Aiericant Ari'my ill its efforts to sublject tllh Visctayt s of this islandl o f (eu, of Bohol, and would be put into effect in SIamar if the conditio s were fav'orable. 'TWhole villages have been burned by the orders of tle genieral commantiiding tils district, and the co(ncetrado;policy of whlich we heard so much inl Cuba is about to b.e ult into operation here, if, inidt;ed, it caln not be said to have already been instituted. "General Hughes believes that^t war is hell,' as Shert'l anl said, and he is giving the people of Cebnu a taste of the brimst)one. ()nly a few nights ago all Alerican officer boasted that lie was klnown as the WeyN1le of the district where lie is in command. He also said, although it it ma se incredible, that he was lproud of being so cailled. "Tlle people of the United States have no conception of tlhe conditions prevailing down there. If they had, a howl would go ull) froilm o)ne end of the country to the other. Army;ofliers tell of these thilngs in c1onfidence,-but nothing is said with the idea that it shall get to tlhe outside world. "The people are to be brolught in froni thle country and cooped lp in the towns. Those who e refuse to com e are t be lhunted down. The only difference I can see between this and Wyler'li's mietlhods, whichb brought down the wrath of the world upon the head of Spain, is tl tthe Filipino recolncentrados will in all probahility be fed better thaln the Spanish fed those in Cuba. "A detachment of soldiers went the other day to a town where there had been prepared a feast. the occasion being a fiesta of a religious character. The soldiers ate all there was to eat, then burned the town. "A man living inl the country was surprised one day by a lot of Signal Corps men, under escort, stringing a telegraph wire neir liis little home in the country. He was gratified, because he believed this to bet an evidell e of advancement of his part of the country. He was not so happy when hie was informed that he was expected to guard that wire religiously and that if anything happened to it-if it should be cut-his house would be burned down. Some nights later the wire was cut, and investigation showed it had been cut near his house. When the wire was repaired, the soldiers made good their instructions and burned his house." [At this point Mr. TELLER yielded to M. TILLMAN.] THE QUESTION ABOVE PARTISAN'SHIP. Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, I have not concluded all I desire to say on this subject, but I think I have talked as long as I ought to be required to do to-day, and I shall ask the Senate to allow me to proceed for a very short time to-morrow morning. Before I sit down I want to say to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPooNELR] that if he thought I seemed to exhibit more irritation than was necessary about what he said, I have not the slightest feeling regarding it, and I know he did not intend any disrespect or discourtesy to me. 4980 disrespect or discourt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~y to xne,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 64 Mr. President, I have tried to approach this question simply from the standpoint of justice. I feel that the honor and reputation of my country are at stake. I can not but feel that we are entering upon a course that must, if persisted in, be absolutely disastrous to us, not simply in the point of money, but in point of morals. I have myself never been so active a partisan that I would allow my country to suffer in the interest of any party whatever. I hold that country is above party and that duty is above party, Mr. President. In my service in this body, when in accord with the party now in power, I found myself not infrequently compelled to differ from it and to vote practically alone. That I have sometimes done when sitting on the Republican side of the Chamber because I did not approve of the policies that party adopted. If I thought, Mr. President, that I was here as a partisan, if I thought I would present to the Senate one scrap of evidence or one attempted argument which I would not present if I were sitting on that side of the Chamber, I should feel that I was unfit for this public place. Hence, I could but feel it when the Senator from Wisconsin thoughtlessly put a question to me, which seemed to me at least, though I do not suppose he so intended it, to indicate that he thought I had forgotten that I occupied the highest possible position in American public life as a member of this body, and that I had a duty to my country that was greater than any possible obligation I could have to any political association. I am not of that temperament, Mr. President, that I am so anxious to exploit my own ideas and to force them upon other people that I can not see what is just and right. If I exhibited more warmth, as I probably did, than the circumstances demanded or required or justified, I simply want to say that I felt I was doing a great public duty and a public service, and I was trying to perform that duty in the best possible manner; knowing full well that, however I might try, it would be weakly and improperly done, but that it would be done according to the best of my ability before my country and before my God. Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from Colorado that I had asked leave to interrupt him. I did not intend to put any question which would be offensive. Mr. TELLER. I know that. Mr. SPOONER. And I think the Senator, on reflection, will not find anything in tlhe question which I put to him which involved that. The Senator had made a long speech, to which I had listened attentively, as I always listen to his speeches, and nothing escaped him which manifested in any way an approval of what the Administration had done over there, and I thought it was a fair question to put to him whether his impeachment was an absolute and universal one. I did not mean to imply at all that the Senator was unpatriotic. I never imputed such a thing to him in any debate, and I had no intention of doing so when I interrupted him. Mr. TELLER. I acquit the Senator of any such intention. I am willing to accept his suggestion that I was perhaps a little too sensitive, but I had intended as part of my remarks to say, if the Senator had not interrupted me., what I did about the Chinese affair. I had had it in mind for a long time that, when an opportunity presented, I should like to pay a merited tribute to the Administration for its management of affairs in China. I mean also before I get through, unless I forget it-and such 4980 65 was certainly my purpose when I commenced this speech-to pay a tribute also to the attempt of our Government to institute and create an educational system in the islands of the Philippines. That I approve; that is probably one of the things, that if we should withdraw from the islands to-morrow, would still be left. When anybody tells me that the teachers in the Philipplies 1are safe, I will say that I should expect them to be safe when I read in almost every document I take up of the thirst, the anxiety, and the earnestness of those people for educational facilities. If they were savages I should expect them to kill the teachers; but I do not believe they will do so. I do not believe the teachers will be disturbed even in regions where it would not be safe for a soldier to travel. I believe a teacher may safely travel anywhere in the Philippines. Thursday, Februaiy 13, 1902. Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, when I concluded yesterday I said I had presented perhaps as much as it was necessary for me to present to attract the attention of the Senate to the complaint which is universal, that we are not carrying on the war in the Philippine Islands as we ought to carry it on. I might have presented to the Senate a still larger array of evidence of the same character if I had desired, but I did not care to encumber the RECORD with anything more in that line. I do not intend by the presentation of these various newspaper articles and telegraphic dispatches from Manila to make myself at all responsible for the charges which are made in them. I think it belongs to the Senate when a prima facie case is made to investigate it. The Senate is now investigating those subjects through its committee, and I think the committee should talke up that phase of the subject. Whether the charges be true or not, the American people should know; whether or not they are true, the American people should have some information on this subject. This morning I have received a recent number of the Army and Navy Journal, which repeats this charge of maltreatment of Filipinos. I do not care to read it, for it is practically what has already been read. I do not mean to bring against the American Army a charge of cruelty, except as the facts are convincing that such a condition exists. I do not wish to attack the Army; I do not wish to complain of it. I know very well the duty of a soldier is to obey his orders, and if soldiers of the United States have inflicted cruelties upon the prisoners they have taken or upon people whom they suspect of having information which they desire to secure, the responsibility for that rests with the Government itself; it rests with the commanding officers of the Army, and not with the common soldiers. I confess that such things are not pleasant to repeat in the Senate and to the country. The debate itself is not pleasant. It is never agreeable to be compelled to criticise men in public life, and yet without such criticism it would be utterly impossible to maintain a republican form of govermnent. I especially wish to disclaim any undue criticism of the Army, for I must say that when men of education and learning, men occupying high positions, men who have had all the benefits of the culture of the schools and have been under the refining influences of church and home in a land of liberty like ours enact a law concerning sedition such as has been presented here and then defend 4980-5 66 it, and when it finds numerous defenders on the floor of this Senate under the plea that it is war, you can not and must not be hard upon the common soldier, who perhaps is less fortunate and has not had the training and opportunities of his superiors and who sees in every Filipino an enemy of the country, and who justifies himself in practicing unusual cruelties on the Filipino because " it is war."' THE FEDERAL PARTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Since I concluded yesterday discussing to some extent the controversy which arose between the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] and myself upon a question of fact there has come here to the Senate of the United States a memorial from the Federal party in the Philippines, which has been read in our hearing and is now found in the RECORD, which I think confirms the position I took, and seems to me to be an absolute refutation of the position taken by the Senator from Connecticut. This matter, after its presentation, was very pointedly discussed for a few moments by my colleague [Mr. PATTERSON], and I shall merely say that it seems to me to present to us, coming as it does and in the way it has come, the question fairly whether or not we are to have any legislation now on this subject. I can not for myself understand how the party in power is going to escape the responsibility of replying in some way to this memorial by an affirmative act giving those people to understand what is to be our policy. To some this may seem to be an encouraging epistle, but to me it is exceedingly discouraging. One very positive idea is to be found in it, and that is, that the people over there who are connected with the Federal party, which we are led to believe by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] have a large part of the population there in actual or in sympathetic relation with them, want some definitive and established form of government. They are willing to accept, first, a territorial government, and then they wish ultimately to become a State in the Union. They have gone to the people of those islands with the assertion that if they would submit to the Government of the United States and yield obedience to it, first as a Territory and ultimately as a State, their rights would be recognized. They tell us that under no circumstances will it do to have what is evidently proposed by the present legislation or even what is proposed by the offered legislation, which has not reached us in a shape to be taken up definitely and determined, that there must be absolute independence on the one side, or there must be annexation and incorporation in the Government of the United States, first, as a Territory and then as a State. Mr. President, I believe we owe it to those people to say to them either one thing or the other-that we are either going to do that or that we are not. If the Federal party is really an important agent for the pacification of the islands, as Governor Taft tells us it is, and upon which pacification over there so far as it has gone now rests, then we should no longer allow the people to be deceived. If we do not intend to make a State of the Philippine Islands, we should promptly tell them that they are going to the people on a false basis, on a false premise, and that we can not carry out their wishes and aspirations. They tell us substantially if that is denied to them there will be confusion and anarchy and revolution as bad as, or probably even 4980 67 worse, than exists now. The entire memorial is in the RECORD. I do not care to read a single extract from it. Senators have heard it read; and it is for the party ill power to respond, or, if they do not they will be in the attitude of allowing those people of the Federal party to deceive the people of the Philippine Islands, and when their eyes shall be opened to the fact of the deception practiced upon them everybody must know what the result will be. If we shall have withdrawn our army, then there will be need of another army. DIVERlGENT VIEW'S. I have very positive views on this subject. I had very positive views, even before the treaty reached us. as to our duty in the premises. I have not hesitated to declare those views on this floor repeatedly. and I want to repeat them. While the Administration alpplears to have no settled policy whatever, a few Senators here have enunciated their individual policies. So far as they have been stated, they seem so far to be discordant with the views of the Administration. On the 20th of Decemlber, 1898, before we had received the Spanish treaty, but when we knew its contents in a general way by cablegrams from Europe, I said: I believe in the princeil)le which was enunciated in the fourth clause of the joint resolution approNved Alpril 2., 189!: "That the United St-ates hereby disclaims any disposition ol' inlt(ention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over. said isliand, except, for thle pacification thereof, and asserts its determination. when that is accoml)plished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people. That was a quotation from the resolution. Then I said: That is a declaration solemnly made by the people of the United States when it was aplparent to us all that we were going to war. Later I said: That in terms only a.pplied to Cuba, but in principle it appli:ed to euery possession of ours acquired during this war. If any Senato:)r ltad suggested that in addition to Cuba there should be added the wor(lds "or any othelr possession we may acquire during this war," it would have mett, as this joint resolution met, I believe, the unanimous sul)l)ort of this body and,f the other, and also of the President of the United States, as is suggested to i:me by the Senator from Massaclhusetts [Mrl. HoArit. These words would have been added to the joint resolution with the approbation of all. I continued at some length, urging that that was an obligation upon us; that our duty and our interests were alike united in securing to the Filipinos such a governmlent as we had indicated we were going to secure for Cuba. I said I thought that was justice to them, and I also announced that we would make a mistake if we denied it to them. I suggested that if we did not do them justice, we might have war, and if we did, 50,000 soldiers would not be enough for that archipelago. I have before me also a letter written by Hon. George Frisbie Hoar, dated January 11, 1900, in which he enunciated what he regarded the duty of the United States in those matters. He said: I would send General Wood or General Miles or Admiral Dewey to Luzon. I would have him gather about him a cabinet of the best men among the Filipinos, who have the confidence of the people and desire nothing but their welfare. In all provinces and municipalities where civil government is now established possessing the confidence of the people, I would consult with their rulers and representatives. I would lend the aid of the Army of the United States only to keep order. I would permit the people to make laws and to administer laws, subject to some supervision or inspection, till the disturbed times are over and peace has settled down again upon that country, insuring the security of the people against avarice, ambition, or peculation. So soon as it seems that government can maintain itself peacefully and in order I would, by degrees, withdraw the authority of the United States, mak4980 68 ing a treaty with them that we would protect them against the cupidity of any other nation and would lend our aid for a reasonable time to maintain order and law. I would not hesitate, if it were needful, although I have not the slightest belief that it would be needful, to vote to make them a loan of a moderate sum to replenish their wasted treasury. Mr. President, I will not stop to read what I further said on the subject, except to remark that after the 20th of December I was in full accord with the view expressed in that letter, and declared before the Senate that I thought it was our duty to call upon our representatives in the Philippines to say to the leading men of the provinces in a general way what we thought they ought to do, and to advise them to go to work and bring order out of the then unsettled condition by establishing a government of their own. But we did not do that. We have carried on a war for three years; we have carried it on against the people in those islands in a vigorous manner. I am not one of those who are willing to 'say that the United States Government can not subdue the people of the Philippine Archipelago. I know a population of 80,000,000, with the great resources of the United States, can ultimately do what General Chaffee says they are determined to do, and that is to stamp out opposition to the United States. INCREASE OF TrlE ARMY. I was asked the other day if I did not vote for the increase of the Army. I suppose it was intended by that question to intimate that, having voted for the increase of the Army for the purpose for which the Government has since used it, I was bound not to criticise present conditions. I voted for the Army without any knowledge that it would be used to subjugate or to distress the Filipinos. but I presume I should have voted for the increase, because at that time we were technically at war with Spain. even if I had known that Army might have been used for some improper purposes. I suppose, perhaps, on the highest plane of morality it may be demanded of me, and of every other Senator here, that when the administration of public affairs asks us for an appropriation for the Army, we should go into the question and see whether it is an absolutely righteous purpose for which they use it, but yet such have not been American precedents or American history. I admit that perhaps I have not reached that plane where I can looh out and see the whole world on an absolute equality with my own country. I sympathize with struggling people everywhere. When I see a people attempting to exercise the rights of freemen, protesting against what they regard as oppression, my heart goes out to them, as I believe the heart of every Senator here does. And yet when the Army of the United States is executing orders for which it is not responsible I can not bring myself to see with pleasure the destruction of that Army. While I deplore the loss of life that such a conflict must bring, yet I shall reserve the right on all occasions to hope and trust, if I possibly can, that my sidethe American side-has been in the right. In other words, much as I sympathize with the people in the Philippine Islands, I can not wish misfortune to the American arms, and I presume that I shall again vote for an appropriation in the Army bill, which may be used for purposes which, if I had the control of it, it would not be used for. The people in 1900 continued in power the political organization which for four years had been in the control of the Government. They had a right to do so. I did not believe it was wise, and I do not believe it now; but the people so believed. I do not believe the voters intended to say that they approved of this war and the 4980( 69 condition as it now is. but they authorized and empowered the present Administration to carry on the war as it saw fit. I yield obedience to the Americaln mandate at the polls, but I enter my protest here. When I have done that. in my judgment. I have discharged the duty incumllnt upon ie. I aml nolt relquired to stand here and attempt to defeat an appropriation bill because I think the Administration is not carrying on the war as 1 belietve the American people want it carried on. for the great mass of the people of the United States intrusted that duty to the judglment of that political organization. and to that they must look. If they do not like it, they must wait until an opportunity comes to change it. THE WAY OUT OF IT. Mr. President, I have not made this speech. I will say, with the hope that I would convince anybody who has not already been convinced that the methods now employed are not calculated to bring about what we all desire, and that is peace in those islands. I have felt ever since this difficulty began that properly our policy as a nation and the disposition of this question belongs to the l)party in power. Theirs is the primary obligation; but I can 1not disconnect myself from it to the extent that it is not necessary for mIe, I believe, as a member of this body, to enter my protest against that which I think is wrong, and to give my support to thatt which is right. I believe there is a way out of this difficulty: I tllinl I can see it. I have not the power to colmmrand. My judgment is simply that of one individual. The adminlistration of public affairs is in the hands of those who are supposed to represent the majority of the American people. Mr. ALDRICH. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. ALDRICH. I presume the Senator has already stated what that "way " is; but if he has not, I should be very glad to hear him state it now. Mr. TELLEI.. Mr. President, I will state that I believe there are more ways than one. I believe if you will accept the proposition made in the petition of the Federal party that you can settle things in the Philippine Islands. I believe if you will give those people to understand that they shall be a State in the Union you can compose your differences. I, however, do not want to settle it in that way, nor do I believe Senators who sit on the other side of the Chamber want to do it in that way. The expression that we had during the debate on the treaty and almost every utterance from the other side of the Chamber since were and have been in antagonism to that suggestion. Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator will pardon me, do I understand him to state that as his plan? Mr. TELLER. I am coming to that. I believe that is one plan. I would rather do what some people speak of with scorn and derision; I would rather withdraw the Army from those islands and turn the islands over to the people and let them work out their own destiny as best they may than to make them a part and parcel of the United States. I do not want to incorporate into the United States a population equal to one-tenth of our number which is so discordant with ours. I believe the strength of any nation is the homogeneity of its people and their harmonious relation one with another. I do not believe you can put our people and any large number of Asiatics together without ulti4980 70 mate friction and ultimate disagreement. If you establish a whole community of that character, you will have trouble with that community; they will not be in harmony with our views on general subjects, and there ought not to be that relation. Is there any other way? The Federal party, strong and influential as they declare themselves to be in the paper read yesterday, say a colony will not do. They say independence under a protectorate will not do, and yet Mr. Schurman Me. ALLISON. With or without a protectorate? Mr. TELLER. They said independence would not do with protection. Mr. ALDRICH and Mr. SPOONER. Or without. Mr. TELLER. Oh, Mr. President, they do not say the people would not be satisfied. They say the people would not maintain a proper government. They say-I am speaking now of the people-that the people there want a State government; that the people want independence. Some of them say, at least, that independence would not do and that anarchy and confusion would arise out of that. Now, I take it for granted we are not going to give them a State government. If anybody on the other side of the Chamber thinks that is the solution of the problem, let him say so. I confess that, much as I should dislike to see those islands made into a State and admitted into the Union. I would infinitely prefer that plan, disastrous as I believe it would be, to the present condition, which I believe is one that will continue practically indefinitely, for while we have the power. as I said before, to stamp out this opposition you can not change the public sentiment of eight or ten million people by the use of the sword. Mr. ALDRICH. I should like to state that the Federal party in their memorial protest against having independence with or without a protectorate. Mr. TELLER. Yes; that is what I understand. Mr. ALDRICH. As I understand the Senator from Coloradoand I am not trying to put any words in his mouth — Mr. TELLER. I think not. Mr. ALDRICH. I know he has occupied a very patriotic position in regard to this whole matter. I understand that at the present moment, in view of all the difficulties, the Senator sees no way of dealing with the Philippine Islands except to send them out into the world to take care of themselves. Mr. TELLER. No; I did not say that. Mr. ALDRICH. That is what I understood the Senator to say. Mr. TELLER. No. I said, rather than to make them into a State I would send them out and let the consequences follow. If the Federal party are right and anarchy would prevail, let it go. Anarchy prevails there now, and it will prevail there under the present system. Mr. ALDRICH. As I understand the memorial of the Federal party, they suggest a Territorial form of government. Mr. TELLER. First. Mr. ALDRICH. With the hope that ultimately it may result in statehood. Mr. TELLER. Very good. Mr. ALDRICH. Now, does the Senator carry his opposition to the balance of it so far that he would not vote for a Territorial form of government there? Mr. TELLER. I should vote for a Territorial form of govern4980 71 ment, but that is not the question. They do not say a Territorial form of government will answer their purpose and maintain peace. They do not stop at that, as I can show you if you have any question about it. They want a Territorial government under the Constitution of the United States. They want to be put in the same relation that the Territory of Colorado was in for fifteen or sixteen years and that other Territories were and are in. A government of that kind is not so very objectionable. The only difficulty we of Colorado had during the fifteen or sixteen years was that we were deprived of the privilege of voting for President of the United States; we were deprived of the privilege of electing our own governor; we were deprived of the privilege of electing certain judges, but we elected the great body of the judges of the Territory. We elected county judges andl cou)lty treasurers and county commissioners Iand an auditor of state. We elected various officers. We were a people who were able pretty well to take care of ourselves, and when judges did not behave themselves we made it " warm" for them, so that t hey got out and we got somebody else. We never had muchl tiiroI(mtle witlh the governors. We had some exceedingly good men as Territoriial governors. When we organized the State, we took the man lwho had been Territorial governor, appointed by the President of the United States, and put him on our ticket and electedi hi governor of the State. My recollection is we elected him twiceonce afterwards-but I do not just at this moment recall with certainty that that is true. But that is not sufficient for these people. They must hliave also a promise of statehood. But if Senators believe they can compose this difficulty by giving them simply a territorial form of governmenlt and not commit the GoCvernment of the United States to their ultimate admlission into the Union, tlhat is another question. I think if you will read carefully this statemlent and the statement made by these people to Genleral MacArthulr. published I thinkl in this docimnent, and also in the Comlmission's report, you will find they want more than that and they are going beyond that. They do not stop with tlhe statement ' we are going to be a Territory of the United States." But they add " we are going to be a State of the United States." THE QUESTION OF TERRITORY. Mr. SPOONER. While perhaps it is not pertinent to what the Senator has been saying, yet we hear a good deal in these latter days as to a distinction between territory belonging to the United States, or appurtenant, or whatever you choose to call it, and incorporated Territories. What, according to the Senator's notion, constitutes the distinction? Mr. TELLER. The distinction may not be very markedin law, while quite so in fact. Mr. SPOONER. I do not know, and that is why I asked the Senator. Mr. TELLER. I think it is a leading question, and since within the last few years the Supreme Court has got to deciding certain questions, as it seems to me, with some political bias, I am almost afraid to state what that court would decide where a political question is involved. I understand the fact to be, not the lawMr. SPOONER. If we organize a Territory, no matter how we organize it. I suppose we could repeal the law organizing it? Mr. TELLER. Undoubtedly. 4980 72 Mr. SPOONER. What is the test-that is what I want to get at-between a territory appurtenant and an incorporated Territory. Mr. TELLER. We have not had any experience with that question. With every acquisition of territory we have taken a pledge as to the citizenship, including the last, and that we took with the declaration that Congress should fix the citizenship of these people, which we have not done, but we have the power to do it. Mr. PATTERSON. In response to the question of the Senator from Wisconsin, though not propounded to me, I will state that I understand the Federal party to mean — Mr. SPOONER. I am not talking about the Federal party. Mr. PATTERSON. By a Territorial form of government under the Constitution-that is what you are talking about? Mr. SPOONER. No. Mr. PATTERSON. Then I misunderstand you altogether. Mr. SPOONER. What I am talking about is this: The distinction has been drawn between territory appurtenant and therefore in a sense not a part of the United States, and territory incorporated into the United States. I was trying to get from the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] his notion as to what is the foundation for the distinction, how they differ, in what respect they differ. I am not speaking of this petition at all. Mr. PATTERSON. May I make a suggestion in connection with it? Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. PATTERSON. A Territory incorporated into the United States, such as New Mexico and Arizona and the Indian Territory and Oklahoma, so far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, in the matter of tariff laws and revenue laws and all other laws of a general nature made to carry into effect the will of Congress with reference to the States and Territories of the United States, is on an absolute equality with the States. In other words, you could not apply, in principle or in fact, the proposed law, which it is the purpose of Congress to apply to the Philippine Islands, to a Territory incorporated into the United States. You could not draw a customs line around New Mexico or around Arizona and say that different revenues shall be collected at that custom line on goods going into those Territories or goods coming out of those Territories, but the custom laws must be applicable to all alike, States and Territories. The writ of habeas corpus is there. The entire Bill of Rights ingrafted into the Constitution is there, not by the grace of an officer, a so-called governor, or by the grace of a United States commission, but by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. But the Philippine Islands are not in that category at all. The present bill keeps them as a colony, with the right of Congress to legislate for that colony entirely independent of and outside of the Constitution of the United States. Mr. SPOONER. I am obliged to the Senator from Colorado [Mr. PATTERSON] for giving me a great deal of information, much of which I am not at all certain is true. He says that the Philippines are not incorporated, and New Mexico and the Indian Territory and Arizona are incorporated, into the United States, and that the Constitution ex proprio via'ore, I suppose he means, extends over those Territories. I do not know by what warrant the Senator says that. I do know that Congress has adopted as a law 4980 73 in each of those Territories the applicable provisions of the Constitution. The Senator says that the customs laws of the United States, the Constitution being over those Territories, and the excise laws, etc.. must be uniform. Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. SPOONER. I recollect one case, the Cherokee tobacco case, in which the Supreme Court held that the Indian Territory was the territory of the United States, and sustained the validity of a law which exempted that Territory from certain taxes which were in force in all the United States or the States united and in the other Territories. Mr. PATTERSON. It should be perfectly apparent — Mr. SPOONER. I beg the Senator's pardon. I did not mean to become involved in a discussion in his time. and I dild not ask the question which I put to the senior Senator from Colorado except as one lawyer asks another in whose ability he thas confidence. Mr. TELLER. I will state to the Senator what I think is the distinction between unorganized and orglanized territory, and will give an instance to illustrate my meaning. After we had admitted Missouri there was in the extreme West a region which had no relation to the General Government, because there was no population there. There was no attemptllt to make a Territory. When Kansas was organized into a Territory, Kansas included a portion of what is now Colorado. In 1859-(0 there was a large population in the area afterwards included in Colorado which was claimed by people living in eastern Kansas. The whole community disputed this claim. They said: ' We are not in Kansas." There were probably 50.000 people. Some Katsals officials went up there. and I believe they attempted to organize tlhat country into a county, but they did not succeed, because whatever might have been the statutes, the people repudiated them, and the whole community proceeded to govern themselves just as if there were not any question where the line was, asserting they were not within the boundaries of Kansas as originally established. The controversy continued in that way from 1859 until the fall of 1861, when the statute creating Colorado as a Territory took effect. It was passed in February, but there was no government organized there for somue time. The miners' courts. which we had established in the mountains, and what they called the provincial courts, in the valleys among the farmers, continued to exercise their jurisdiction till October of that year, althoughl the Territory was established in the February precedilng. We maintained that the Territorial law did not take effect until our judges and the governor arrived. The governor and the judges came out late in the summer, and in October they organized courts. There was an attempt to organize in one section before that, but the people repudiated the whole proceeding, because they did not think that it was organized. There we were without any national control whatever, and yet subject to the general allegiance to the Government. The civil war was then in progress. We enlisted men, and it turned out afterwards that we enlisted them without authority from anybody; but the Government accepted them, and we maintained all the conditions of an orderly and well-regulated society everywhere. 4980 *i 74 Now, I call that an unorganized Territory. We evaded the question whether we were really in Kansas, but. as we did not recognize Kansas, we stood on a line where we might retreat. Then came the organized Territory. Our legislature met in the month of October, and from that time on, of course, all our proceedings conformed to the demands of the Territorial law. Now, at that time there were sections of the country still west of us, I think southwest, which were not included in any Territory; at least if they were so included, society was absolutely without any government except as the people themselves created it. I do not know whether or not the civil Commission established in the Philippines has made an organized Territory of those islands. I do not know what would be the decision on that point, but I believe the enactment for Porto Rico did make it an organized Territory, and I think, although we did not say so, that it is an organized Territory. I have not any doubt myself that the inhabitants of Porto Rico are citizens of the United States, although ex industria we did not say so. A provision in the bill that they should be citizens was stricken out, but I have not any doubt that if they should come here and attempt to exercise the rights of citizenship in the United States it would be held that they were citizens. I do not see how such a holding could be avoided. I should have some difficulty in satisfying my own mind that the Philippines are organized properly into a Territory, because a Territorial organization means. or it has heretofore meant, participation by the people under such provisions as Congress may make. WOULD GIVEl THE PHILIPPINES A GOVERNMENT. I know this is a very ugly question. I said I had a method. If I had control of this matter-that is, if I were in charge of the Executive duties-I would send a commission with all the authority I could give it, to say to those people of the Philippines just what I have said in my amendment to the bill. on which I mean to say a few words before I quit. I would say to them, "Now, we do not intend to do what you have been insisting we are doing. We want you to get together and determine what kind of a government you want," as the Federal party there has done. I do not know whether the government suggested by the Federal party would be the best government for them to have, speaking about their local affairs; but if they want a legislature and all that, I should give it to them. and then I should say to them: "We do not want to make you citizens of the United States. We want to give you absolute independence, so far as your local affairs are concerned. You shall do everything you could do as citizens of a State. We will not interfere with you. If nobody interferes with you, if foreign powers will let you alone, you shall govern yourselves entirely. If foreign powers will not let you alone we will see that you are not disturbed. You need not create an army or a navy." I would do for them just what Cuba expects us to do for her. The Senator from Rhode Island knows what Cuba expects us to do. They do not expect in Cuba to have an army or a navy under this new government. ' They expect to make some arrangements with us by which our Army and our Navy will be available for their assistance whenever there is a necessity for it. I will ask the Senator if I have misstated what he thinks on the subject. 4980 75 Mr. ALDRICH. Will the Senator please restate it? Mr. TELLER. I say I would do what the people of Cuba expect us to do and what we expect to do for Cuba. I said the Cuban people, from what they said to our subcommittee, of which the Senator and myself are members, do not intend to create either an army or a navy. The representative men said in very explicit terms that if there was foreign trouble they would look to us; and when I asked one of the committee, " How are you going to collect your revenue and prevent smuggling?" he said they expected some arrangement with the United States, lwhich they would be glad to make, because they did not feel rich enough to have either an army or a navy. I should say to the Filipinos, " If anybody attempts to? smuggle, we will send out a ship or ships and see that they are not permitted to do so," all of which is subject to some arrangenent to be made with them. I do not believe there would 1e tany difficulty at all in doing that with those people, for that is local independence. Except as concerns their foreign relations they would be as independent as they could be under absolute indepelndence; and Mr. Schurman says they were (evoted to the idea that the United States was to have a protectorate over them. Every leading Filipino, so far as I know, who at the time of the ra;tifcation of the treaty, or just previous to it. expressed an opinion, said that whatever relation they had to the world was to be sublject to our general supervision. ' Protectorate is the usual terli to be applied fi such cases; with that I believe they would be satisfied. That would be my position, and I would send out there, as I have said two or three times in this speech-I believe it is iilortant to do it, and we were told a year ago it would be dlon( —a commission, not of Senators and 1Memlbers, but a comilission of clear-headed men; not a commission of three or five. but au commission of fifteen or twelnty. if necessary. It should be comllposed of men who, when they went over there, would tiake in (evry phase of the difficulty; who would consider every lproposition that ought to be considered. but primarily would con.sider how to satisfy those people and make them trust us. That is the great problem now that we are to deal with. I want to deal with this matter in a practical way. I am not a theorist. I believe those people are capable of self-government. They are not capable of maintaining a State, like the inhabitants of Colorado or the people of Wisconsin or of Indiana. They can not maintain, and they will not in a hundred years, with all our help and all our assistance. be able to maintain, such communities as we maintain. Our Commission say they hope they may be able to do so in a generation, but more likely, say the Commission, it will be two generations. It will be a thousand years before the Asiatic mind will stand before the world representing those great fundamental truths of free government for which the Teutonic branches of the human race stand. It is not in them. They do not think like we do. Their minds do not run in the same way. Their ideas of justice and right are as distinct from ours as day is from night. It has always been so, and it always will be so, because there will be no such amalgamation of the race with the great liberty-loving race of the world as will change them. THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY. Mr. McCOMAS. If the Senator will permit me, I did not hear the first part of his statement. What does the Senator propose to 4980 76 do with the sovereignty over the islands, which has been ceded to us? Mr. TELLER. The sovereignty is simply the right we have to exercise power. Now, we can exercise full sovereignty if we want to do so and if we think it is worth while to do so. We can execute a moiety of it if we so desire. We can submit to the people, so far as sovereignty there is concerned, control of their own affairs absolutely without interference on our part; always. of course, reserving the right to intervene if society should be disrupted or broken up there, as we would in Cuba, without the Platt resolution and without any contract with those people. Mr. McCOMAS. Then, if the Senator will permit me, if the sovereignty should be ceded to some entities or some one in the islands, what would become of our obligation to Spain for ten years, under article 4 of the treaty, with respect to the ships and merchandise of Spain? Mr. TELLER. Oh, that is a matter about which there would be no trouble. Does the Senator from Maryland believe that if we should make an arrangement with those people they would object to that provision being included in their constitution or the charter upon which they acted? Mr. McCOMAS. The Senator will allow me. I did not mean to divert him. If the Filipinos should object, would we not then have all the responsibility resulting from our obligations under that treaty? Mr. TELLER. We are not likely to make any a'rangement satisfactory to those people wherein they would stand upon any question of that kind. We would say to them, " Here is an obligation we have assumed. You must carry that out." They would be glad to do so; and if they did not do it we would have the power, I suppose, to make them do it. That is borrowing trouble when there is none in sight. It is a suggestion of a difficulty which, in my judgment, does not exist. There are difficulties ahead of us, I want to say to the Senator from Maryland, and it is not worth while to imagine some things that probably never will arise to plague us or trouble us. If there was any trouble of that kind, it would not take long to ask Spain what she would take in the way of indemnity to let us off from that provision, and if she said she wanted a hundred million dollars for it, and it is not worth a million, I would infinitely rather give her a hundred million dollars than to continue the present condition. If that were the only obstacle, it would not stand in the way in the slightest, in my opinion. I think it is in our interest and our duty to compose affairs in the Philippine Islands, if it is within the realm of possibility. It is not the Deity or destiny that has put upon us an obligation of that kind. I am courageous enough myself in the interest of the American people to resist the pretense that it is both, because I do not believe either the Deity or destiny has had anything to do with this matter at all. IN TH We are expending a lard ting no return, and we n( with the expense. There people that will ever beco is less than that of any sec J-i +14, -.1 0T\n1, o 4CH1t-. -4 4 - WIVU1 UllOU 1JDliJll 13Oin orcbvz u% You can not go into any 4980 E MATTER OF TRADE. ge sum of money, for which we are getever will get any return commensurate is not any hope of it. These are not a me valuable to us. Their trade with us cond-rate town west of the Alleghenies )-day. town of 25.000 people west of the Alle 77 ghenies whose trade is not worth more to the States east of the Allegheny Mountains than the entire trade we get from the Philippines or are likely to get. When we cease to export whisky. wine, and beer there, which is one-half of the trade now, the amount of our exports, I think, will be immensely small. It is a million less, I want to say, than it was last year, while that of England is very much greater. If we secure any trade at all with the Philippine Islands, we must secure it because it is to the interest of the inhabitants to trade with us. If there is any better market in the world than we furnish, they will go to that market. I do not know how much the war in the Philippine Islands hlas cost us. I do not know that anyone is aware of the amtount. I have seen it stated at all the way from $300,000.000 to )$500,000,000. I do not know how much it is going to cost us in the future. One hopeful, optimistic commissioner tells us tha t in a, few years 15,000 soldiers will be sufficient in the Philippines. Another, not a commissioner, but another person with equal and better opportunities, tells us that it will take 50,000 men for lmany years to maintain peace and order. Mr. President, if three-quarters of those people want our d omination, there should be no necessity for 15,000 or any other mlumber of troops over there. But 15.000 will be a great burdel. and more likely the number will be 50,000. Now, what do you get for that outlay? What could you do with that money if you had it? What could we have done with the $350,000,000 or $400,000.000 that we have expended over there in the last three years? You could have practically lade( all the great rivers in this country highways for the coilmmerce of the country beyond any further necessity of expenditure for many years. You might have opened a ship canal from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes which the biggest ship in the world could traverse with the amount of money that we have expended there with no benefit whatever. With what we are to expend, even according to the optimistic views of the chairman of the Commission, you could in a few years build a waterway up around through to the Great Lakes from the city of New York, where you could run ships of large capacity. You could open, as I said. all the great rivers of the country. There are a thousand things that you could do with so much money. We are going on here year after year with an expense for which there is no recompense and no reward. Why? Because, some say, our commercial interests require it. Some say our obligation to the Divine Master demands it. The interest of the American people does not require it, our duty to the Filipino does not require it, nor do I believe that our duty to God requires it. I therefore think we ought to compose this difficulty in some way. Now, I know there is a proposition here to give the Philippine people a new government. If that is all that is offered to them, and when that is enacted into a law and carried over there the Federal party will disband, and the difficulties will again arise which have existed and which they in some part probably have composed, for, if the Federal party tell the truth, they will not accept that kind of a government, either as a territorial or as an independent government. Mr. President, why can we not compose those difficulties there? Are we afraid that the world looking on will say that the United States. great as it is, is not big enough to tramp out the resisting 4980 78 brown men of the archipelago? Are we afraid of sneers from abroad? I hear every little while that our duty demands that we should do this and that we should do that, and that if we do not do it we will be the derision of mankind. Sir, I would do what is right before God, and let the criticisms of men.come. If I could feel that the legislation comported with justice and right, I would not care what the world said about it. All the acclaim and all the eulogies and the praise of the world for our conduct can not compensate for the feeling that we must have in our hearts that we are not legislating upon the high plane of American liberty and American law. I would a thousand times rather have the commendation of American judgment than the commendation of all mankind aside from that. I believe, as I said yesterday, that if we will show as much statesmanship in connection with this matter as we did show in connection with the Chinese question, we will get out of this difficulty with honor to ourselves and with profit and blessing to the people of those islands. A SOURCE OF WEAKNESS TO THE UNITED STATES. I believe that a wise administration of affairs may be beneficial to those people, but I do not think that you can force upon them a government contrary to what their notions may be of right, and have peace there. I believe that probably we can with our Army prevent any considerable resistance to American control, but there will be in the hearts of those people (and it will last, as we know, not this generation, but the next and the next and the next) a feeling that they have been improperly treated. and when the opportunity is presented they will resent it and vindicate their manhood, if they are men, by declaring themselves independent of our control. Our great strength has been that we have been a compact and solid nation. There has been no place for foreign lodgment on our shores. Since we composed the difficulty of 1861-1865 there has been no place where a foreign foe could land that would not have found an absolutely united people against them. It would not have been the invasion of tle United States; it would have been the invasion of the neighborhood where the foreign foe stepped, and every man would have been there ready to defend his home. Will it be so in the Philippine Islands? If they are hostile to us and we are holding them simply by the strong arm of the great Army of ours, when difficulties shall arise (and nobody can say when in the course of human events there will be controversies in the great Asiatic Sea where we may be in contest, as I have not any doubt we will be, with foreign powers, either Asiatic or European) we will find these islands a source of absolute weakness and of absolute danger, while if the people were in heart with us they would be a genuine benefit to us under these conditions. Mr. President, it is worth while, if we are to hold those people, to attach them to us not by the strong arm of the law, but by the tender and strong cords of affection and respect. We are great and strong and we can afford to be merciful and charitable. There are many things that we could do there. I should like to see the Government of the United States now take such steps as shall convince the Filipinos that we are their friends. I am willing to open the Treasury door. I am willing to say to those people: "You have an ugly question of title to your soil here. It will cost something to get rid of the religious body which holds a great portion of the good land, and we are under obligation to 4980 79 Spain to protect them in it by our treaty. We will buy that property of the friars and we will not sell it to you. but we will give it to you in such quantities as is consistent with your needs and your wants." Suppose it did cost us a good deal of money; I would give it to them. I would say to them, i Your revenues are small; if we can compose this diffilculty by giving you money to be expended in opening up your roads, rehabilitating the waste places that war has devastated, we will do it." But, Mr. President, I am very much afraid that this devastatting war will go on, and it will go on until undoubtedly those people will submit; and when we have devastated the land, as one of those officers says. to the extent that a bird can not live in it, and the people are cowed and weighed down with the burden of our power, somebody will say, I suppose, as was said by the old Briton when lhe spoke of the plundering Romans, " They maletl a desert and call it peace." We do not want peace in that way. We want peace withll onesty and justice. We want a peace that will be beneficial to the Filipinos and beneficial to us. We can get it; and it is now for the party in power to determine whether that course will be pursued. TO AMENDI TIE PENDING BILL. I have offered an amendmient to this bill. I do not know that it will meet the approval of anybody in the Senate, but it seemed to me to be a basis upon which we mignht stalrt. I am not attached to the form of it, but I believe that it becomes now rour duty and our interest to say to those people whalt we mean to do, although the chairman of the committee said we should not do so. If we mean to hold them with the strong hand of the law and make colonies of them, let us be honest and say so. Let us increase the army there and compel obedieie ( to our unfair and unwise demands if that is to be the policy of the Governmnent. I have proposed to provide by my amendment-and I want it to go into the RECORDThat it is not intended by the Government of the United States to permnanently annex the Philippine Islands as an integral part of the United StatesThat this Senate has declared heretoforebut it is the determination of the United States to establish, with the consent and assistance of the inhabitants thereof, a government or governments suitable to their wants and conditionThat every man who has spoken on the other side of the Chamber has declared to be the purpose of the Government of the United States. But his word does not go there. I want the American people through the Congress of the United States to make that declarationsuitable to their wants and condition, and that shall give to the inhabitants the control and administration of their local affairs, such as the raising of revenue and the disposition thereofThat we are bound by every law of right to give them. the maintenance of peace and order in the several communities of said islands that have been or that may be organized by the people thereof. SEc. -. That there is no intention on the part of the Government of the United States to deprive the people of said islands of their liberties or to subjugate or oppress them, but on the contrary to secure to them the blessings of a free government of their own choice that shall recognize and protect the rights and interests of all the people of said islands. SEC. -. That it is necessary to the establishment of such government that peace and order shall prevail on said islands in order that the people thereof may be enabledto exercise the rights of freemen and to have free expression of their wishes in the form and character of the government under which they desire to live. 4980 80 SEC. -. That to this end the Government of the United States will at all times cooperate with the peaceably disposed inhabitants in the formation of such governments, and will defend and protect such government or governments so organized from any foreign interference or attempted control by foreign powers until such government or governments shall be able to defend themselves. Mr. President, there is not any time fixed in the amendment when that is to be done. I did not see how I could fix a time, and I do not know that anybody can do so. I doubt very much whether the sensible and intelligent people over there will demand that we shall fix a time. It might properly have been added, I think, that the principles enunciated here should be carried out as rapidly as possible. I believe the public declaration in a law of that kind would meet very well the demand that they are making for local government. It is possible that it is not strong enough, but I am afraid it is too strong to satisfy those who have the control and management of this question. I have on my table a good many things that I had intended, when I commenced this speech, to present. I have gone over with care the debate which occurred during the time the treaty was before the Senate, and the debates which have since taken place. I find that the Senate, and I may say also the other branch of Congress, if it is proper for me to refer to it, have been in accord with the proposition all the time that those people were to have a government of their own ultimately, so that the only question which seemed in dispute is as to how we are to attain that point where we can safely give them a government. I want to conclude on this question as I began. Observers, students of history, will bear me out in the statement that there is no example whatever in the history of mankind where a great body of people numerous as these or half as numerous as these, have ever been elevated beyond their condition by the invasion of a superior race. If you could send over there a million American citizens or two million of them with our American ideas you could expedite and hasten this movement toward their elevation. That you can not do. There will not be in all those islands 10,000 Europeans and Americans; and if there are more than that number they will not be the men who go there to uplift and elevate those people; they will be the men who go there to exploit them. Men will go there to make wealth; they will not be the missionaries of good government. No, Mr. President, if there is to be an elevation, our standard is entirely too high for the Asiatic mind; it must be an Asiatic evolution and not an American one. I agree that this problem is a difficult one, and I think we should take into consideration what we are trying to do. We are trying to do what the President declares never has been done, and what I declare never can be done. The President said it never was done with an Asiatic race. I declare that it never has been donealthough the effort has been frequently tried-with any race whatever. The most promising race of the world has made its progress by its own ambition and ideals, and not from those of others, and so it will be with those people. 4980 0 A, Ai~~~~~~~~~~ 4 / N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At U,. Vvr THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GRADUATE LIBRARY DATE DUE t * lv --- -- 'Iw C I Ii AUG-1 ebf c ~ z Hj II __? )'1989 CIT A-#S' I I i,9 r. 1, UIVERST1 Y OF MIICHIGA 3 9015 01420 0979.. - c.... I..... act........_$w... * - DO NOT REMOVE OR MUTILATE CARD w PRMNr IN V.A. 23-520-002 7 C,- -I w —^. 1.1 ---..._ ^;li2..~ ".; ^;' ^ ^,?^ g ~:~-:- — 3-::71,3 -