_ e  7 e   iW  #
9  9 Ef.   i 
E, C'  "...
I i;
m.i  '   ll  l,  j
|'i~tuiSt llla




GENERAL LIRE ARY
OF
1XXI    _    Z it
Uiiiversity ot f Mchigan
r a,IV        IC








if


4^,
h An,


' v


e


i;. i
P" l_-CF~
r:~
i i~,;&~~r $
r- ~B —I,w;,
i I


r: :I;
'i~ ii ~i:ql-41"i-l 9~ P -Piil


N, ~~~~~~~~~~~'.;i~~~~~~~~~~~'
N          NN-N 'N  N  N  N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~N9 ~~~~  N  ~~~~~- -~:
NNNCY  NN~ N  N
Ai.-"~ —g




N


It'


^'~




A         S
VA
A
'A
4
-i
4'4
-Th
i
S
V.,t-, -


{  I;'   /       i' s ' 
0, I  I      "f
i   o                I 


Ai


/:'  '1  Si..  * '!  i*:  i; '.^  1  *,^.',i -j1',;
"'::;^ 1 ';:/.:./:':1:1 '1;i
i. "I i
I 


-1
t
'~
A,
A
r
4~',
A           -'


*/


'fl,.:


X.. &,..


Az


7 V
A
'I






GENERAL LIBRAiY,
UNIV. OF MC19.
FEB 11 1902
EPAIRT I_
Philippine Tariff-Imperial Policy.
SPEECH           /: ~.. 
OF 
HON. JOHN F' SHAFROTH,
OF COLORADO,
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, December 17, 1901.
The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and
having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5833) temporarily to provide revenue for the Philippine Islands, and for other purposesMr. SHAFROTH said:
Mr. CHAIRMAN: It is with a feeling of sadness that I behold
men whom I know to be honest, intelligent, and patriotic who can
not see in this measure anything more than a matter of revenue
or of tariff rates and schedules. To my mind, there underlies
this proposition a violation of the very cardinal principles of our
Declaration of Independence and of the moral law itself.
Sir, it is a peculiar coincidence that in the establishment of the
colonial empire of our country the first revenue tax to be imposed
by an American Congress upon the Philippine people is identical
in principle and more burdensome in terms than that which was
imposed by Great Britain upon her thirteen colonies.
It was Burke, Chatham, and other great statesmen of the British Empire who then denounced that tax as unjust and oppressive. It was a united people upon this side of the waters who saw
in the measure a death blow to liberty itself and who preferred
to die rather than submit to such tyranny.
The pending measure is still more reprehensible than that of
England in view of the fact that Great Britain was a monarchy,
which of itself indorses the right of some people to govern others,
while we are a republic, founded upon the broad doctrine that the
just powers of government are derived from the consent of the
governed.
PROVISIONS OF PHILIPPINE TARIFF BILL.
Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes the Philippine Islands as
American territory, and then proposes to impose the same duties
upon products and goods shipped therefrom to our shores as if
they were a foreign country. The object of a protective tariff is
4843




4
without representation was tyranny, and I believe it is as much
tyranny to-day as it was in 1776. This is but one of the many results from the policy of the Administration in the acquisition and
retention of the Philippine Islands. This bill naturally brings
before us the question of the justice and wisdom of that entire
policy. Whether we had not better now recognize the wrong
and inexpediency of that policy, instead of legislating upon lines
which are diametrically opposed to our form of government.
Whether, instead of this measure, we had not better now promise
to the people of the Philippine Islands their independence, and
substitute legislation which will help them establish a government
of their own, based upon the principles of a republic.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to examine that policy,
First, as to the moral aspect.
Second, as to the practical aspect.
Moral Aspect.
Mr. Chairman, at the time of the Revolutionary war there was
practically but one form of government in existence. It recognized that all powers of government were vested in one man-the
monarch-and that he would grant such rights and privileges to
his subjects as he deemed proper. In order to fasten such a doctrine upon the people, an appeal had been made to their religious
zeal in the claim that God himself had vested the power in the
ruler. That doctrine was called "the divine right of kings."
When tyranny and oppression were exercised to such an extent
as to make conditions intolerable, the people had at times risen
in their might and forced from the crown some privileges and
rights. Such governments were then known as limited monarchies, but the source of power, as shown from the grant itself,
was always recognized as existing in the monarch.
It was in the colonial days that a people inured to the hardships and privations of frontier life and far removed from the
influences of the crown, breathing the air of freedom and selfreliance which isolation always produces, began to reason why
one man on account of birth should have power to govern another.
Their reasoning after years produced a firm conviction in the
principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. The
war to enforce those principles was truly called the Revolutionary
war, because it completely revolutionized the theory of government then exercised by man. That declaration was not a mere
war document, but promulgated a doctrine for all time, founded
upon the right of every person to prevent tyranny and oppressionfounded upon the moral law itself.
That declaration enunciated that "all men are created equal,"
not in intellect, not in color, not in size, but equally entitled to
the inalienable rights of man.
1843




5
It further declared that "man is entitled to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness," not by the grace of a President or the American Congress, but as an inalienable right by the grace of God
Almighty himself. It further declared that "to attain these ends
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers " not from kings, presidents, or congresses, but" from the consent of the governed."
These principles are declared to be self-evident truths. They
form the ethics of the establishment of order in society called
government. They are principles of right as binding on the conscience as the commandment "Thou shalt not steal." They
should be more binding, because they relate to a human right,
while the commandment relates to a property right.
A violation of this moral law brings a punishment as certain and
as severe as a violation of the commandment itself. It was Abraham Lincoln who said:
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not themselves, and under a
just God can not long retain it.
We can not justify the government of another people without
their consent unless we justify the doctrine that might is right,
and that is anarchy. When we sanction that doctrine in affairs
of government we are teaching each inhabitant to apply it in individual affairs. A nation is but an aggregation of individuals, and
a violation of the principles of justice is even more reprehensible
in it than in the individual. When as a nation we trample under
foot the rights of men, how can we expect different action among
those who compose that nation?
The lynchings and other acts of violence which lately seem to
be increasing at an alarming rate, both in numbers and atrocity,
are but the logical results of the nations violation of the law of
its own being.
COLONIAL GOVERNMENT WILL PRODUCE EMPIRE AT HOME.
Sir, continued violation by the nation of the fundamental principles of a republic can not result otherwise than in a change in
our form of government. We can not have a republican government for ourselves and imperial government for our colonies.
Sooner or later republican government must extend over the
colonies or imperial government over the States.
Why? Because such a condition produces two schools of politics-one proclaiming the right of some men to govern, the other
advocating the equality and rights of man. They will be unequally matched. The imperial school will contain nearly all the
people of wealth and their dependents. The other will contain the
humble citizens. These schools of politics will battle not only
for the supremacy of their respective doctrines, but also for the
4843




6
extension of the same. This contest will be as was that for the
extension or suppression of slavery, which spread not only to
the States both slave and free, but to all the territory acquired by
the United States, and which dominated every question in American politics for half a century, even as to the acquisition of territory itself.
Republics are formed only after revolution. The change to the
empire is slow and gradual. One of the saddest lessons of history
is that whenever these schools of politics have met in the republics
of old the imperial school, with its dazzling influence of wealth
and power, has always won. Let us hope that our love for the
principles of the Declaration of Independence will prevent any
such calamity to our beloved country.
It was Lincoln who said:
What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is
not our frowning battlements and our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our
war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These
are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All
of them may be turned against our liberties without making us stronger or
weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God
has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit
which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere.
Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your
own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are
preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the
rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among
you.
James Russell Lowell was once asked by the historian Guizot
how long the Republic would endure. He replied, " So long as the
ideas of its founders continue dominant."
Buckle, in his History of Civilization in England, has in these
words shown why it was best for Great Britain herself that she
lost the Revolutionary war:
Such were the fruits of the policy of George III, but the mischief did not
stop there. The opinions which it was necessary to advocate in order to
justify this barbarous war recoiled upon ourselves. In order to defend the
attempt to destroy the liberties of America, principles were laid down
which, if carried into effect, would have subverted the liberties of England.
The historian Froude has said:
If there be one lesson which history clearly teaches, it is this-that free
nations can not govern subject provinces. If they are unable or unwilling
to admit their dependencies to share their own constitution, the constitution
itself will fall in pieces from mere incompetence for its duties.
GOVERNMENT OFr THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
It used to be denied in this Hall that Congress would ever exercise imperial power over the Philippines, but I do not hear any
such denials now. Ever since the enactment of the Spooner
amendment, which vested ",all military, civil, and judicial powers
4843




7
necessary to govern the Philippine Islands in such person or persons as the President shall direct," there has been an abandonment
of that position, and the contention made that it is no worse than
some other law that has been enacted by Congress.
The plea that is now urged is that the Spooner amendment is
similar to the act vesting in President Jefferson the authority to
govern the territory embraced in the Louisiana purchase. Of
course, when territory is bought a provisional government must
be authorized to take possession. The distinction between the two
acts is that one was limited to a few months and was a step in carrying out the intention to give citizenship and statehood, while the
other was unlimited in time and was a step in carrying out the intention never to give citizenship or statehood. Mr. Jefferson, in
the treaty ceding the territory of Louisiana, had inserted a clause
which provided that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall
be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted
as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal
Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and
immunities of citizens of the United States." He and all other
Americans intended to give to the people of Louisiana not only
the benefits of the Constitution, which they did as soon as possible, but also statehood, which they did within five years after the
purchase. Whereas no one of the majority even pretends that
they will give to the people of the Philippines either the benefits
of the Constitution or statehood, now or at any time in the future.
The Spooner amendment, enacted by the Congress of a nation
7,000 miles from the Philippine Islands, vested in one man for an
unlimited period of time unlimited power to govern another people without their consent.
Sir, it is impossible to conceive of a more arbitrary or despotic
power vested in a monarch than that granted to the President of
the United States.
Under that authority five men of the Anglo-Saxon race, all citizens of the United States of America, were appointed to govern a
people of another race, to pass all the laws, impose all the taxes,
appropriate all the moneys collected, and appoint all the officers
in the archipelago.
Great Britain prides herself on the fact that she is an empire
and exercises imperial power, but she has never yet imposed upon
a single one of her colonies such an arbitrary form of government.
George III never imposed such government upon the American
colonies even in the period of a hundred and twenty-five years
ago, but always permitted each colony to have a legislative body,
elected by the people, who imposed the taxes to be collected and
made the appropriations of the same.
843




8
Paradoxical as it may appear, it took the United States, a Government of the people, to impose the most arbitrary form of government known to man upon the people of a poor and alien race.
Sir, it is useless to say that satisfactory government will be
given by such power. No government would be satisfactory to
us which prevented our people from having a voice in the same,
even if the men who governed us were the best on earth and of
our own nationality, and how can we expect satisfaction from the
people of an alien race as to government imposed by us?
Daniel Webster expressed this sentiment most forcibly when
he said:
We may talk of it as we please, but there is nothing that satisfies mankind
in an enligtened age, unless man is governed by his own country and the
institutions of his own government. No matter how easy may be the yoke
of a foreign power, no matter how lightly it sits upon the shoulders, if it be. not imposed by the voice of his own nation and his own country he will not,
he can not, and he means not to be happy under its burdens.
It is said you will give them the blessings of our civilization.
You can not do it, no matter how benevolent your intentions
might be. The foundation of civilization is justice, and you can
not instill a sense of justice while you govern men without their
consent. It was Dr. Jose Risal, the Filipino patriot, who said
that in his visits to the countries of the world he had noticed that
civilization prevailed in each nation in the exact proportion that
liberty prevailed.
Unless we give them a government of their own, unless we
give them independence, there can be no administration that will
be satisfactory to them or would be satisfactory to you if you
were in their place. The spirit of freedom, of liberty, and of independence lived not alone in the hearts of our forefathers, but
lives in the little brown men as well. [Loud applause on the
Democratic side.]
WOULD ANARCHY PREVAIL UNDER PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE?
As an excuse for the imposition of such arbitrary government
upon the Philippine people it is said that they are not capable of
self-government, that anarchy would result from their control of
affairs, and that we will give to them "the largest measure of
self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties."
Ah, Mr. Chairman, that is the same excuse which every tyrant
has made for enslaving his subjects since the world began. Such
statements, predictions, and promises have always been made to
conceal the infamy of oppressive measures, and the strenuousness with which they have been urged has been in the exact proportion to their infamy. No monarch thinks his people capable
of self-government.
It was General Gage who wrote, after the battle of Bunker
4843




9
Hill, that the Americans had exchanged liberty for anarchy. It
was George III who said:
I am desirous of restoring to them [the American colonists] the blessings
of law, which they have fatally and desperately exchanged for calamities of
war and the arbitrary tyranny of their chiefs.
The contention that if the Filipinos were given self-government anarchy would ensue-that they would proceed to cut each
others throats-is the boldest and most unfounded assumption.
But, even if true, it would not have wrought such destruction as
we have inflicted upon them.
During the existence of their government the Philippine forces
captured the city of Iloilo, the second largest city in the islands.
Although that city had a large percentage of Spaniards and foreign residents, yet no massacre occurred, no looting took place.
Life and property were protected, and both foreign and native
inhabitants admitted that the city had never been better governed.
Mr. Leonard R. Sargent, who, with Paymaster Wilcox, traveled
over 600 miles through the interior of Luzon during October and
November, 1898, in his report says:
At that time the military forces of the United States held control only
in Manila, with its environs, and in Cavite, and had no authority to proceed
farther. In the meantime the native population, taking matters into their
own hands, had declared their independence from all foreign jurisdiction and
had set up a provisional government with Aguinaldo at its head. Although
this government had never been recognized, * * * it can not be denied
that, in a region occupied by many millions of inhabitants, for nearly six
months it stood alone between anarchy and order. It was the opinion at Manila during this period, and possibly in the United States, that their condition was something akin to anarchy.
We found the conditions to be much at variance with this opinion.
As a tribute to the efficiency of Aguinaldo's government and to the lawabiding character of his subjects, I offer the fact that Mr. Wilcox and I pursued our journey throughout in perfect security and returned to Manila with
only the most pleasing recollections of the quiet and orderly life which we
found the natives to be leading under their new r6gime. * * * We traveled first across the province of Nueva Ecija, by far the poorest and least interesting of all the provinces we visited. And yet even here we were greatly
surprised by the intelligence and refinement of the inhabitants.
The maintenance of law and order by the Philippine government during the trying times following the battle of Manila was
truly wonderful. As we can only judge the future by the past,
it seems to me as conclusive as can be that anarchy would not
prevail under Philippine independence.
ARE THE FILIPINOS CAPABLE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT?
Mr. Chairman, let us see whether the Philippine people are not
capable of establishing and maintaining a government of their
own, not as perfect as ours, but far better and more satisfactory
than any we can impose upon them.
If the intelligence of the Americans be taken as the standard
4843




10
by which the capacity for self-government is to be determined,
then it is very doubtful whether any other people are capable of
establishing and maintaining a republican form of government.
Every country has peoples of high and low order of intelligence,
and if we are to assume that the men of lowest order of civilization are to rule we might exclude from self-government every
nation on earth. It is the experience of mankind, however, that
the intelligent classes in all countries rule. Capacity to perform
public duties is one of the highest qualifications for office in the
mind even of the most ignorant. That being true, there are very
few peoples who are not capable of self-government. It was
Henry Clay who said that it was impossible for him to conceive
of a people who were incapable of self-government.
It was Secretary Hay, in his preface to Castilian Days, who said:
There are those who think the Spaniards are not fit for freedom. I believe
that no people are fit for anything else.
Of the republics of Central and South America it is safe to say
that, although they may not be as perfect in the administration
of affairs as the United States, yet they have given to the people
governments far better and freer from acts of tyranny and oppression than the governments which preceded them.
The general impression exists among many Americans that the
Philippine people are savages. A visit to the islands will certainly dispel any such illusion. The members of the uncivilized
tribes of the archipelago are few in number, compared to the
total population; they are fewer in proportion than were the
Indians in America at the time of the establishment of our Republic. They rove in bands and are as hostile to the Filipinos
as were the red men to our forefathers. When I find behind the
prescription desks of the numerous drug stores of the islands,
even when kept by Americans and Englishmen, Filipinos compounding medicines taken from bottles labeled in Latin; when I
see behind the counters of banks, having large capital, natives
acting as bookkeepers and receiving and paying tellers; when
I find them as merchants and clerks in almost all lines of business, as telegraph operators and ticket agents, conductors and
engineers upon railroads, and as musicians rendering upon almost
all instruments high-class music; when I am told that they alone
make the observations and intricate calculations at the Manila
observatory, and that prior to the insurrection there were 2,100
schools in the islands and 5,000 students at the university at Manila; when I find the better class living in good, substantial,
and sometimes elegant houses, and many of them pursuing professional occupations, I can not but conclude that it is a base
slander to compare these people to the Apaches or other American
4843




11
Indians. Even the civilizing test of Christianity is in their favor,
as a greater proportion are members of the church than among
our own people. Of the 8,000,000 of inhabitants Mr. Sawyer, in
his work on the Philippine Islands, asserts that 5,869,000 are
Christian natives.
But, sir, even as to the Indians, as uncivilized as they may be,
our Government recognizes that it produces a better condition of
affairs to let them govern themselves, and thereby we even recognize in them a capacity of self-government. We do not rule them.
We make treaties with them as we do with nations. We do not
appoint a governor or commission to govern them, nor judges to
administer laws among them, nor a police force to maintain order.
We let them select their own chiefs, punish their own criminals,
and in every way govern themselves so long as they remain on
their reservations.
The instinct of self-interest implanted in man makes him ordinarily a better agent in managing his own family and affairs than
would be one of greater ability or higher attainments without that
interest. And as with man so with nations, that same principle
of self-betterment ordinarily makes each nation most capable of
managing its affairs to the advancement of its own people.
No better illustration of this can be found than in the action of
the representatives of our Government in fixing salaries of officials in the Philippine Islands to be paid out of funds collected
from the people of that poor and alien race.
I hold in my hand the Washington Post of December 6, 1901,
which gives a list of the salaries paid to these officials.
The chief executive receives an annual salary of $15,000 as
governor and of $5,000 as member of the Philippine Commission,
and is allowed the use of a fine residence in Manila. Each of the
American members of the Commission receives $5,000 per annum
for acting in his legislative capacity and $10,000 per annum in
addition for acting as head of a bureau. The salary of the chief
justice of the supreme court is $7,500, and of each of the six associate justices (an exceedingly large number for a Territorial court)
is $7,000. The salaryof the secretary of the Commission is $7,500;,
of the treasurer,. $6,000; of the auditor, $6,000; of the collector
of customs, $6,000; of the director of posts, $6,000; of the chief of
education, $6,000, and of the chief of the health bureau, $6,000,
all payable in gold..
Let each citizen of this Republic contrast with these amounts
the salaries paid to similar officials in his own State and he will
be appalled at the great difference between the same.
I do not wish to impugn the honesty of the men who fixed these
salaries-they no doubt think the salaries are fair-but to call at843




cro
0
c'
r  -




cro
0
c'
r  -




14
Prof. Ferdinand Blumentritt, of Bohemia, who spent a long
time in the Philippine Islands, has said:
The excuse that they, the Philippine people, are not ripe for independence
is not founded on facts. The Filipinos number more educated people than
the Kingdom of Servia and the principalities of Bulgaria and Montenegro.
They have fewer illiterates than the States of the Balkan Peninsula, Russia,
many provinces of Spain and Portugal, and the Latin republics of America.
There are provinces in which few people can be found who do not at least
read. They pay more attention to education than Spain or the Balkan States
do. There is no lack of trained men fit to govern their own country, and
indeed in every branch, because under the Spanish rule the official business
was entirely transacted by native subalterns. The whole history of the
Katipunan revolt and of the war against Spain and America serves to place
in the best light the capability of the Filipinos for self-government; for,
even in Polavieja's time, excesses occurred only exceptionally, and they were
always punished. The history of the Philippine revolution is not stained
with a long series of cruelties like those of the revolutions of the great civilized nations of Europe. That their tendency is toward European standards
is evident from the respect which they showed to the lives and property of
foreigners as well during the Katipunan revolt as since. The existence of
a spirit of discipline and subordination and of respect for authority is shown
by the morale of the Philippine army and its obedience to Aguinaldo's orders. Whoever is familiar with the history of the revolt of the SpanishAmerican colonies will remember how much discord there was among the
rebels, and how they betrayed, deserted, and even in the presence of the
enemy fought one another; but in the Filipino army all was harmonious,
just as in a loyal and well-disciplined European army.
Therefore, no one can deny that the Filipinos have more right to form an
independent government than many European and American countries.
It was Gen. Henry W. Lawton who is reported to have said:
Among the Filipinos there are many cultured people who would ornament
society anywhere in the world, ladies who have studied and traveled, men
who have had a good education and a fine brain. Take them as a class, there
can as many of them read and write as the inhabitants in many places in
America. As for their treachery, you would not have to come so far as this
to find that. There is plenty of it in North America. All nations are treacherous, more or less. Some men and nations have treachery trained out of
them more than others. What we want is to stop this accursed war. It is
time for diplomacy, time for mutual understandings. These men are indomitable. At Bacoor bridge they waited till the Americans brought their cannon to within 35 yards of their trenches. Such men have the right to be
heard. All they want is a little justice. I established a civil government
at Belinag, with the government entirely in the hands of the natives. It
worked to perfection. All these people need for self-government is the protection of our troops till affairs have quieted, and then they will, I have no
doubt, advance as rapidly as the Japanese, perhaps more rapidly.
But if the Filipinos were incapable of self-government we could
not prepare them for that condition by legislation such as this
or any other legislation we would impose upon them. Because as
long as we rule them we are endorsing that might is right, the
very principle that is opposed to self-government. History records
no instance of a people being prepared for self-government by
4843




15
the rule of another. You might as well expect a person to learn
how to swim without going into the water.
The best evidence of the ability of the Philippine people to govern themselves is that they possess a large intelligent class, thoroughly identified in interest with the islands, and capable of
administering good government. The Civil Commission has recognized this ability by recently adding three native members to
that governing body; by appointing three Filipinos judges of the
supreme court; by selecting about half of the judges of the first
instance and nearly all of the governors of the provinces from
that race, and by appointing a solicitor-general and many other
officers from the natives. Are these officials not in the governing business, and do they not perform their work as well as the
Americans? Is it possible that they are capable of governing because they were appointed by the representatives of a distant
nation? Would they lose that ability if elected or chosen by
properly constituted authority of their own? In the latter event
they would make far better officers, because they would consult
only the interests of their own people instead of that of a nation
7,000 miles away.
It was Abraham Lincoln who said:
Let us discard all this quibbling about this man or the other man, this
race, and that race, and the other race being inferior and therefore they
must be placed in an inferior position, discarding the standard which has
been left to us. Let us discard all these things and unite as one people
throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that all
men are created equal. * * * I leave you hoping that the lamp of liberty
will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men
are created equal.
I therefore contend that the Philippine people are far more capable of governing themselves than we are capable of governing
them, and that when we impose upon them a government by
force we transgress the moral law itself.
In my judgment there is but one solution of this problem, and
that is to treat them exactly as we promised to treat the Qubans.
4843




l~~~~~~~~~
I




APA-RT IJI
Philippine Tariff-Imperial Policy.
SPEECH
OF
ION. JOHN F. SHAFROTH,
OF COLORADO,
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, December 17, 1901.
Practical Aspect.
Mr. CHAIRMAN: Having examined the question of the acquisition and retention of the Philippine Islands from the moral aspect,
I now wish to examine it as to the practical aspect. Is it best for
our own country?
In treating of this phase of the question I wish to look at it, first,
from the political standpoint; second, from the commercial standpoint, and third, from the military standpoint.
I. From the Political Standpoint.
Mr. Chairman, from the political standpoint I mean as it will
affect the great political policies of our Government.
We are compelled to treat the Filipinos either as subjects or
citizens. There is no halfway ground on which to stand. The
denial to them of any rights of citizenship makes them subjects.
If we treat them as subjects, they will read in our Declaration
of Independence that "all men are created equal."   They will
ask the questions: Are we not men? Was this statement intended
to apply only to the Anglo-Saxon race? Was the principle intended to be limited to the confines of the thirteen colonies?
Then they will read from the speech of Abraham Lincoln this
immortal statement:
Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to
breed tyrants; and so they established these great self-evident truths, that,
when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set
up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, or none but
Anglo-Saxon white men were entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence
and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began, * * * so
that no man should thereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the principles
on which the temple of liberty was being built.
Then they will say, as we would say under similar circumstances, that there are no such limitations in the instrument.
48S4




2
They will further read in the Declaration of Independence that
to secure the inalienable rights of man, " governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed."   They will ask, Why is not our consent asked in
the government of our own islands and of our own people? And
they will further ask, Why is it that a distant nation that we never
heard of prior to four years ago now declares that It Will Give to
our people the largest measure of self-government consistent with
our welfare, but to be determined by them and not by us? Then
they will read from Lincoln the following terrible arraignment of
such a position:
These arguments that are made that the inferior races are to be treated
with as much allow-ance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to
be done as their condition will allow-what are these arguments? They are
the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the
world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingeraft were of this
class; that they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted
to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. Turn it
whatever way you will, whether it comre from the mouth of a king, an excuse
for enslaving the people of the country, or from the mouth of men of one race
for enslaving the men of another, it is all the same old serpent.
Then they will read from the Declaration of Independence"' That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these
ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness."
And then they will ask, Why does not this Declaration give us
the right to have a government of our own to attain these ends?
Sir, there can be no answer to these questions, from the standpoint of the Administration, that will be satisfactory to them or
would be satisfactory to us if we were in their place. Therefore
to treat them as subjects is to give them cause for discontent and
for violence.
Our government of the islands under these conditions will be a
miserable failure. It will require thousands and thousands of
soldiers, which will make the cost of holding the islands far out
of proportion to the benefits we will receive. It will require an
increase of the soldiers in the exact proportion that we educate
them to understand the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
What political difficulties do we get into if we treat them as
citizens? We say that the products of the cheap labor of the
Philippine Islands can be brought to this country to compete
freely with the products of the labor of the American citizens,
and that the Filipino can come to the country to vhich he owes
allegiance and can himself here compete with the labor of our
4844




3
own people. We know that the American laborer will never
stand the competition of the cheap labor of the Orient, and they
should not be compelled to compete with men who live on 3
cents a day and whose daily wage is between 20 and 30 cents.
We have had an exhibition of the spirit of the American workman upon this question. The permission of this Government to
let Chinese immigrate to our shores produced among our own
workmen discontent and violence,and if restrictive legislation had
not speedily followed it would have resulted in revolution itself.
So that when we treat the Filipinos as citizens and let them
compete with our own workmen we do our own laborers a wrong
and give them cause for discontent and for violence. Thereby we
simply transfer the storm center of discontent from the Philippine Islands, where it will exist if we treat them as subjects to
our own country, where it will exist if we treat them as citizens.
Nor can we ever solve this problem during annexation, because
we invoke principles which are against human nature. The only
solution is in treating them as we do the Cubans-help them establish a government of their own and give them their independence.
MONROE DOCTRINE.
Mr. Chairman, another great political objection to holding the
Philippine Islands is that it violates a doctrine which has been
maintained and held sacred by the people of this country ever
since 1823.
It was in 1815, after the downfall of Napoleon, that an alliance
was formed among some of the continental powers of Europe, by
which they sought to perpetuate the principles of absolute monarchy as against the growing tendency for republican forms of
government. In recognition of the idea of " the divine right of
kings" this combination was termed the " Holy Alliance."
Spain was a party to that combination, and at a meeting of their
diplomatic representatives held at Verona, Italy, in October, 1822,
it was proposed that there be restored to Spain, as her colonies,
the Spanish-American republics of South and Central America,
which had asserted and established their independence. It was
an alignment of powers in behalf of monarchies against republics, in behalf of oppression against liberty. As part compensation to France, one of the nations to the alliance for this proposed
interference in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, it was suggested that the princes of the restored Bourbons of France be
placed over some of the Spanish-American empires.
When President Monroe announced that we would consider
any attempt on the part of European monarchies to extend their
system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our
peace and safety, there was unquestionably an implied promise
4844




4
that we would not interfere with the affairs of the Eastern Hemisphere.
The announcement of this policy elicited the greatest excitement in Europe, and received a most enthusiastic indorsement
from the people of the United States.
Sir, it was an ultimatum to the monarchs of Europe in behalf
of liberty and independence.
Mr. Chairman, no Preside-ntial message in the history of this
Government has produced such far-reaching and beneficial results to the Republic as that of December 2, 1823. Truly it has
been said that it was the second Declaration of Independence.
Although the doctrine enunciated therein has not been recognized
by the powers of Europe as a principle of international law in
express terms, yet it is nothing more than the same principle
they all acknowledge in the doctrine of the balance of power, and
it has in numerous instances been acknowledged by their conduct. France, in withdrawing its support to the claims of Maximilian to the crown of Mexico, and Great Britain, in consenting
to arbitration of the Venezuelan boundary dispute, in answer to
the demands of the United States, acquiesced in the clearest
manner to this American doctrine.
OUR OWN SAFETY INVOLVED.
First, the principle of the Monroe doctrine is based on the
safety of our Government. There is no power in North or South
America that can endanger our national existence, even if it
so desired. The rival powers are all located across the Atlantic
Ocean. There is no danger from those powers as long as they
have no footing on the Western Hemisphere. Hence our safety
and self-protection dictate a policy which prevents them from
obtaining paramountcy in any part of the New World.
The blessings which have flowed and must continue to flow
from such a policy are inestimable. Instead of the constant
disputes and wars which must arise between rival nations possessing contiguous or threatening territory, we are bound to have
the blessings of almost universal peace.
Sir, the difference between the development of a country which
has peace and one which has wars at frequent intervals is the
difference between wealth and poverty, prosperity and depression.
To deplete the productive forces of a country at frequent intervals, in order to supply soldiers for war and for large standing
armies, must, in a long series of years, affect most seriously the
development of that country.
By adhering to this doctrine and confining our acquisitions of
territory to this hemisphere, and to those only with the consent
of the governed, we will not only have peace, but we will remove
4844




5
the necessity of a large standing army, which contiguous rival
nations are compelled to maintain in order to insure peace.
The progress of a nation is, in the long run, determined by the
amount that is levied upon its industries. Its development is
inversely in proportion to the amount of the taxes imposed.
In the nineteenth century there was expended by the nations
of Europe in maintaining wars and standing armies more than
$100,000,000,000. On account of the large military and naval
establishments made necessary to preserve peace the taxes of
Great Britain are 10 per cent, of France 13 per cent, and of Germany 10-i per cent of the earnings of their peoples. In the United
States the taxes were, previous to the engagement in Manila Bay,
only 5 per cent of the earnings of our people.
At the beginning of the century we possessed none of the accumulated wealth which made the European nations at that time
powerful, and yet, by adhering to the policy enunciated by President Monroe, which insures peace and low taxation, we have built
a nation which in wealth surpasses any one of our rivals, and in
productive power is equal to Great Britain, France, and Germany
combined.
For our own safety and prosperity we can not be too careful
in further scrupulously guarding the principles of the Monroe
doctrine.
THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS INVOLVED.
The second great result of the Monroe doctrine was its benefit
to mankind. At the time it was announced, republics other than
the United States had not firm footing among the nations of the
world.
They were scorned and ridiculed by all the monarchies. The
Holy Alliance expected to extinguish all the republics of the
Western World except the United States, and at one time it even
intimated that it might assist Great Britain in restoring to her
dominion the States of this Union.
Sir, that message called a halt to the movement of the European monarchies and assured the protection of our Government
to the liberties of the people of North and South America.
It was an important step in the forward march of civilization
and a great movement in behalf of human rights. It made the
New World a refuge for the oppressed of every nation and the
home of freedom and liberty.
The European nations have no use for republican institutions;
and if the Monroe doctrine is modified or compromised it will not
be long until they get such a footing upon the Western World as
will endanger the republics of this hemisphere. When we hold
territory in the Orient we are in justice bound to give to the
4844




6
European nations the privilege of acquiring territory on this continent. I for one am not willing to abandon or jeopardize the
wholesome effect of the Monroe doctrine.
RACE PROBLEMS.
The history of the world shows that race problems have been
the most difficult of ll to solve. While people have been willing
to acknovwledge the equality of men of their own race, they have
generally in practice denied it as to other races. While man will
suffer the bitterest enemy of his own race to exercise authority
over him, he will not quietly perrit men of other races to do the
same.
Race wars will surely ensue, and they are the most cruel and
unrelenting of all conflicts. Why jeopardize the peace and quiet
of our contented people, and invite the violation of the laws of our
Government by adding to our country a people of a tropical
clime, who are not homogeneous with us in either manners, customs, or character?
From the political standpoint, therefore, it seems to me foolish
for the United States to attempt to hold the Philippine Islands.
II. From the Commercial Standipoint.
Mr. Chairman, I wish now to examine this question from the
commercial standpoint. That the Philippine Islands can never
become a source of profit, either to the United States Government or to the American people, seems susceptible of demonstration. Peace exists in nearly all the islands, but it is a pacification resulting from fear, and the smoldering fire of insurrection
still burns in the hearts of the people. The losses of the Philippine forces in the late war were exceedingly large, and it is but
natural, where death has visited so many homes, that animosity
to American rule should exist for at least a generation. While
that feeling continues it will be unsafe to withdraw our soldiers
from the islands. Organized resistance is over, yet 43,000 of our
troops still remain in the archipelago, and we are sending more.
In my judgment, the time will never come when a less force than
30,000 men will be required to preserve order in the 1,000islands,
divided from each other by waterways, wide and dangerous, and
inhabited by 8,000,000 people of an alien race.
Gen. Wesley M1erritt, in a recent interview, said:
Doubtless the American people will be sorry to be assured that a perma.
nent army of 40,000 soldiers will be required to hold the Philippines; but conservative officers on the spot are convinced that this view of the situation is
correct.
The following extract is from   a recent letter from General
Chaffee to Mlajor Heath:
You ask me when, in my opinion, the greater part of the troops will be
withdrawn. I wish I could but answer you with any degree of definiteness.
4844




7
The same query was propounded by General Corbin when he was here. In
reply he was told that the force should not be reduced below the 30,000 level
for at least five years. I am of the opinion that at least that number of men
will be required for a much longer time-perhaps for a quarter of a century.
The revenues collected from the Philippine people are not more
than sufficient to meet the expenditures of the civil government,
nor are they likely to exceed that amount if the improvements so
greatly needed are to be made. Except in the vicinity of the
larger cities there are no public roads or bridges, and in cities
and towns outside of Manila water and sewer systems, schoolhouses, and proper public buildings, electric light and gas plants
are unknown. Nearly every harbor in the islands requires large
improvements. The Civil Commission, in their last report, used
the following language:
In view of the very great burdens which will be placed upon the public
civil funds, the moment a satisfactory school system is inaugurated and the
needs for internal improvements are supplied, the revenue, unless materially
increased, will be insufficient.
The people are poor and unable to pay higher taxes than those
required to meet the expenses and urgently needed expenditures
of the civil government.
Mr. Chairman, for a quarter of a century the War Department
has estimated the average cost of a soldier in times of peace, including his food, clothing, equipment, ammunition, and transportation,
at $1,000 per annum, and the appropriations of Congress have accorded therewith. The cost of the army in the Philippines, however, is fully 50 per cent higher, on account of the additional pay to
officers and men, the greater prices of supplies, and the increased
cost of transportation. As it is dangerous to keep our troops in a
tropical climate for a period longer than three years, the long
distance must be traversed often. The maintaining of 30,000 soldiers in the Philippines in times of peace therefore means an expenditure on the part of the National Government of $45,000,000
per annum.
OUR COMMERCE IN THE PHILIPPINES.
Such expenditure can not be justified on the ground that the
islands will largely increase our commerce. I hold in my hand
the annual report of the Secretary of War, dated November 27,
1901. According to that report the imports to the Philippine
Islands for the fiscal year 1901 came from the following countries:
United States. --- —-$ -—. --- —---------—..-.. --- —-------- $2,855,685
United Kingdom ----—.... --- ——.. — -—. —. 6, 956,145
Germany ---------------------- ---------------—. --- —.... --- -------..  2,135,252
France --- —--- ------  ----—. --- —--------------- ---—. ----   1, 683,929
Spain — —.. --- —-—. --- —----—..... ---.. 2,161,352
4844




0
China ----     --------------------- ---- ------—..-   $4,339,941
Hongkong -------—. --- —-----------—.. --- —----------—. 2,340, 585
British E ast Inrdies                                 2, --- —-------—... --- —- ----------------   2,182,892
All other countries.-...-.. ------------ -------- 5,623, 625
Total --------------------------—. --- —----------- 30,279,406
The exports of the islands went to the following countries:
United States -$.. —2 2 --- —--------- ---— 1 --- —------------   $,52,5   021
United -ingdom. --- —----—.. --- —-----—.. --- —------—. — 10,704, 741
Gerzriany ---------------------------------------------------------------  81,526
France. --- —-- ---------------------------------------   934,256
Spain ---------------- -—. --- —--------— 1 --- —------------   655,255
China --.. --- —-----------.... — ------ - -----  73,701
Iong'kol ng ------------------------------------------------------   2, 697, 276
British ELast Indies  -----------------------------------------   7.59,286
AlI other countries ----. --- 7 -2 --- -- -------- -------------—. 2,736, 886
Total ---------------- -------------------- --. ---- --- 23,214,948
Sir, I regard that statement as the most powerful and potent
arguament, from the cormmnercial standpoint, against the retention
of the Philippine Islands that has ever been made. It truly tells
a wonderful tale.
Although the fag of our country has been floating over the
ports of the archipelago for nearly three years, yet it will be seen
fromsn that statement that the United States has acquired not
one-tenth of the imports to the islands. It will be noted that the
total iinports from the United States was only $2,855,685, and a
large part of that consisted of goods demanded and purchased by
our own soldiers. It is asserted that the average exporter, after
paying transportation charges and insurance, does not make a
profit of more than 10 per cent upon his goods. Ten per cent of
the imports to the islands from our country was simply $285,568.
That is the total profit in an entire year which was made to our
commnerce by the holding of the Philippine Islands.
What an absurd proposition that the National Government
should make an annual expenditure of $45,000,000 in order for
commerce to make a profit of $285,568. Who gets the profit-the
United States Government? Oh, no. The profit is to the exporter.
Who pays the $45,000,000 a year? The Government. And who
pays the Government? The people of the United States.
It must be borne in mind that these figures are predicated upon
a peace basis, the expenses now being fully 50 per cent greater.
How long will the American people stand the expenditure of
$45,000,000 a year out of moneys collected from the people for the
purpose of putting into the pockets of a few of the exporters of
goods a profit of $285,568 a year?
Divide the $45,000,000 by the three hundred and sixty-five days
of the year and you will find that the Government, on a peace basis,
must spend $123,287 each day. An expense every sixty hours of
4844




9


more than the total profit in an entire year to the exporter of goods.
An expense of $157 for each dollar of profit to commerce.
It is said, however, that our commerce with the Philippines will
increase, and so it may, but it will require years to make this increase substantial. The United States with its phenomenal record
only doubled its exports in twenty-odd years. Our exports for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, were $835,638,658, and for 1901
were $1,487,656,544. Suppose our exports to the islands double,
treble, or even increase tenfold (surely that is a sufficiently optimistic estimate), still we would have the expenditure on the part
of the Government of more than $15 for every dollar of profit
made by our exporters.
Mr. Chairman, these figures state much more favorably to the
Government the situation than in reality exists. They do not
take into consideration the payment of pensions to soldiers and
widows for disease and death accelerated by a tropical climate,
nor the cost of fortifying the seaboard cities of the islands, nor
the large appropriations needed for an additional navy to defend
distant possessions, so vulnerable to attack. The cost of imperialism is far greater than I have stated. It is shown in the appropriations of Congress for each of the last two years as contrasted
with those for the year immediately preceding the Spanish war.
The appropriations were:
For the fiscal year ending June 30 -1897 -...- -. ---—. —. --- —-------—...- ----- -  $469,499,010
1901. --- —-..  --------------—.. --------—. --  710,150,862
1.902 --- —----—. --- —, --- —--—.. --- —.. --- —----— __  730,338,575
Official estimates for the year ending June 30, 1903 —... --- —, --- 743,374,804
After allowing the average percentage for increased service
required by growth of population, these appropriations demonstrate that the cost of imperialism has been more than $200,000,000
each year.
If we could take the hundreds of millions of dollars which are
worse than thrown away in the Philippines and apply them to the
reclamation of the 73,000,000 acres of public arid lands of the West
capable of being irrigated, more lands would be opened for settlement for our people than in all the islands and countries of the
tropical zone.
But greater than all cost is the loss in life of many of the flower
and youth of our land. The deadly effects of a tropical climate,
even in times of peace, will continue to deplete the ranks of our
soldiers as long as we hold the islands.
TRADE DOES NOT FOLLOW TIE 3LAG.
The report of the Secretary of War tells another mighty truth
with relation to the imports to the Philippine Islands. It says:
The imports from the United Kingdom, from Germany, from France, and
from the British East Indies have increased in a greater proportion than the
mports from the United States.
4844




10
We have heard of the claim that trade follows the flag, yet this
statement shows that the Philippine people are increasing their
trade with other countries more than they are with the country
whose flag floats over the archipelago. It will be observed that
the imports from Spain were $2,161,352. What does it mean? It
means that the people of the island bought from hated Spain, the
country with whom they had been at war for many years, almost
as many goods as they purchased from the United States. It
demonstrates that trade does not follow the flag, but does follow
the price list; that the Filipinos, like the Americans, will buy
where they can buy cheapest and sell where they can sell dearest.
In the past ten years England, with all her colonies, has lost
in trade, while the United States, with no colonies, has, within
the same period, increased her trade by more than 50 per cent.
Yea, more, while England has lost trade with her own colonies,
the United States has gained trade in the same colonies.
Mr. Courtney, president of the Royal Statistical Society of
Great Britain, says that nine out of every ten Europeans going to
tropical colonies are either buried or return home invalided within
three years; that the largest of the 120 Belgian trading companies
maintain a service of only seven months out of every twenty-four.
Against such a death rate no commercial profit can be shown.
No one who has visited the Philippine Islands has ever claimed
that it is a white man's country; that our farmers or laborers
could do manual labor there. Although we have been occupying
the islands for nearly three years, not a single white man can be
found engaged in raising agricultural products. The only chance
is for the rich white man, who can utilize the cheap labor of the
islands, and even as to that, it is doubtful whether money can be
made thereby. They can never become colonies in the true sense
of the word, but only military settlements and places of residence
for officeholders of the islands.
WE CAN NEVER CONTROL CHINESE TRADE THROUGH MANILA.
The idea that we can obtain the trade of China through Manila
is most chimerical. That port is not on the way from our Pacific
coast cities to China. The line of travel of steamships is and
always will be by Yokohama, Nagasaki, and Hongkong to Manila.
It must be remembered that the earth rounds to the north, and
the shortest route is the one which goes within 200 miles of the
Aleution Islands. Manila is 630 miles from the nearest Chinese
port, with a freight rate on general merchandise of $4 per ton
against her. There must also be added the cost of unloading and
reloading the ship at Manila by lighters, as ocean steamers, on
account of the shallow water, can not anchor within a mile of
4844




11


that city. With what ridicule would the New Yorker receive
the intelligence that English merchants proposed to capture the
trade of the United States by establishing large wholesale and
jobbing houses at Halifax! Yet it is not so absurd as that we can
control the trade of China through Manila. If we want the trade
of China, we must seek it at the great seaboard cities of that
Empire. China is anxious to sell us small concessions for trade
purposes.
I was told at Canton by the American consul that for $250,000
our Government could obtain a concession, across the river from
that city, large enough for all our trade and manufacturing purposes. For years we have had a concession at Shanghai extending
along the water front for 2 miles. For local governmental purposes it has been included in what is termed the international
concession, which is governed by the joint powers having interests there. Although more than 200,000 Chinese live within the
international concession they have a voice neither in the government thereof nor as to the imposition of taxes therein. Such a
concession, situated near the mouth of the Yangtze, the greatest
river in China, running through one of the richest and most
extended valleys of the world, is worth more to us for Chinese
trade than a hundred Manilas. We have recently acquired rights
in international concessions at Arnoy and Tientsin, and I hope
the good work will continue; Manila, however, is worth nothing
to us for controlling Chinese trade.
From whatever view we examine the question, it seems clear
that the Philippine Islands can never become of great commercial advantage to us, and will continue to be a source of large
expenditure on the part of the National Government.
III. From the Military Standpoint.
Mr. Chairman, from the military standpoint I mean, does the
annexation of the Philippine Islands strengthen or weaken our
nation?
It is related that after the signing of the treaty which ceded the
Philippine Islands to the United States, Seiior Sagasta, the Spanish
prime minister, said: "Now is Spain avenged." HIow true has
this prediction proved. The Philippine Islands have already cost
our Government more than $300,000,000, and many of the best of
the youth of our land. Their acquisition may transform us from
a peaceful into a warlike nation. Victor Cousin was not without
reason when he said: " Tell me the geography of a country, and
I will tell you its future."
Continuous territory is the least vulnerable form of possessions.
It is a rule of warfare, as unerring as the instinct of self-interest,
4844




12
that the enemy should always be attacked at its weakest point.
We followed that rule in the late war with Spain. We did not
engage her upon her home territory because we knew it would
require ten times the men and ships to enforce submission. We
made our assaults upon her most vulnerable possessions, namely,
Cuba and the Philippines, 3,000 and 13,000 miles, respectively,
from her base of operations. We attacked her in the two colonies where the people were in open revolt against Spanish tyranny
and oppression, and where we knew we should receive cooperation and assistance.
Foreign powers have hitherto hesitated to make war upon us
because of the knowledge that. even if successful, they could not
permanently hold any of our territory. The rulers of foreign
nations knew with certainty that even if they could accomplish
the difficult feat of occupying and annexing a portion of our continuous territory the succeeding years would undoubtedly be
spent by our nation, as well as by the inhabitants of the annexed
territory, in preparing to overthrow the rule of the foreign power.
The fear of such a result and the knowledge of the enormous advantage possessed by those who fight in defense of home and country have prevented even the dream of a war of conquest against
us. The continuity of our territory not only prevents attack, but
also enables us to determine at our will when we shall go to war.
If we are not ready when the cause arises, we can wait in our impregnable country until we are prepared, as we did just before the
late Spanish war. It also gives us the choice of the place of battle. As Mr. Gladstone once said:
The distinction between a continuous empire and one severed and dispersed
over the seas is vital.
Sir, with the acquisition of islands 7,000 miles from our shores,
how changed becomes the situation! In our first conflict with
a European nation the scene of action will be shifted to the
Philippines. Our foe will see the importance of attacking our
weakest point, and will take advantage of the fact that the people
of those islands have recently been in arms against us, knowing
full well that where death in such a conflict has embittered so
many families the spirit of insurrection will continue for at least
a generation. On account of these disadvantages some difficulties
with foreign powers are likely to develop into wars, which would
probably never have occurred had not the vulnerability of these
far-away islands been an allurement to the aggressive spirit of
warlike nations.
If we are to retain the Philippines, what must be done to overcome the disadvantage of their situation? We want no such surprises as Spain received from us. It becomes necessary to fortify
4844




13
the seaboard cities and towns and to retain in the islands a force
sufficient not only to prevent insurrection but to repel foreign
attack. It will be further necessary to nearly double the proper
strength of our Navy, so that in case of war we may be able to
retain on our own coast the ships essential to our defense, and also
to have in the archipelago fleets sufficiently large to meet and
successfully engage the enemy. Although the total area of the
Philippines is about the same as that of Arizona, it is divided into
so many islands that the seacoast to be defended must nearly
equal that of all the States bordering upon the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans.
But what will be the cost of all this? The numierous seaboard
cities can not be fortified for less than tens of millions of dollars.
The army of occupation scattered among these many islands to
prevent foreign aggression and domestic insurrection can not be
safely reduced below 30,000 men. The cost of such an army can
not be less than $45,000,000 per annum.
The Government expends about $3,,000,000 for the building of
each battle ship, and a large amount each year to repair it, although
after fifteen or twenty years it will become antiquated and useless.
Sir, the great wealth and development of our country have
arisen from the fact that we have had peace, and that we have not
been compelled to impose a constant tax on our industries and
people to maintain large armies and navies. With our sovereignty removed from the Philippines, and with our sources of
income practically unlimited, we should still be able to pursue our
policy of peace and good will without fear of foreign aggression.
THEI ARCHIPELAGO OF NO STRATEGIC VALUE TO US.
In view of the situation in China, the Philippine Islands are supposed by some to be of great strategic value to us. It is very improbable that we shall ever have any difficulty with the Chinese,
because our interest is identical with theirs, namely, the preservation of the integrity of the Chinese Empire. But -even if it were
otherwise, why keep soldiers 600 to 1,500 miles from the possible
scene of action, with a very limited transport service-and it is
suggested, by the way, that this should be sold-when we could
place them on our own concession at Shanghai, as the French,
Germans, and English have done?
It vwas in these words that Lord Macatlay so eloquently denied
the military advantage of colonies:
There are some who assert that from a military and political point of view
the West Indies are of great importance to this country. This is a common
but a monstrous misrepresentation. We venture to say that colonial empiro
has been one of the greatest curses of modern Europe. What nation has it
ever strengthened? What nation has it ever enriched? What have been its
4844




14
fruits? Wars of frequent occurrence and immense cost, fettered trade, lavish
expenditure, clashing jurisdiction, corruption in governments, and indigence
among the people.
Mr. Frederic Harrison, an eminent English writer, has in the
following vigorous language showed the weakness of the British
Crown colonies:
But an aggregate of dependencies which is forever disturbed and menaced
and forever awaiting or forestalling attack, which contributes nothing to the
home government in money or men or resources of any kind, is not a strength
but an increasing weakness. It must pull down the strongest race that ever
trod the earth; and as it pulls them down it will hurry them from one crime
to another.
Mr. Chairman, the decision as to whether we are to hold the
Philippine Islands involves, therefore, the question whether we
are willing to relinquish concentration for diffusion; to exchange
land power, our natural strength, as to which we have enormous
advantages, for sea power, as to which we have no peculiar advantage; and to give to the enemy in each conflict the choice of
weapons, as well as of time and place of battle. With our military power upon land we need neither a large army nor a large
navy, and require only light taxation upon the industries and
people of the nation, which means prosperity. Exchanging this
for sea power, we shall need a navy equal or superior to that of
any warlike nation, and also a large army to sustain the results of
our naval engagements, involving taxation which will so cripple
many of our industries that they will be unable to compete for
trade in the markets of the world, which means adversity.
Why pursue a course which will weaken the military strength
of our nation? Why give up the advantages of a peaceful people
for the disadvantages of a warlike people? " They that take the
sword shall perish with the sword." That judgment threatens
not man alone, but also every nation that indulges the dream of
universal empire.
It seems to me, therefore, that from a military standpoint the
acquisition of the Philippines is weakening instead of strengthening to our nation.
CONCLUSIONS.
Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to show that the policy of
forcibly annexing and holding the Philippine Islands is a violation of the moral law itself-wrong to the Philippine people, because it deprives them of God-given rights; wrong to our own
people, because it makes us inequitable in crushing inalienable
rights; wrong to any government we will impose upon them,
because it is bound to produce a rule in our interest instead of
theirs, and wrong to our own Government, because it destroys
the foundation upon which it is built.
4844




15
I have endeavored to show from the practical aspectFirst. That the political difficulties produced by annexation can
never be solved with satisfaction either to them or to us.
Second. That commercially the islands can never reimburse us
for the enormous expenditures required to hold them.
Third. That their retention is weakenling instead of strengthening to our military power.
In lny judgment the annexation of the Philippine Islands was
the most stupendous blunder ever committed in American politics.
We have taken hold of a red-hot poker and the longer we retain
it the severer burn we will receive.
It seems to me that each of these positions is well taken. Then
why not avoid the terrible consequences to our people and Government of the permanent retention of these islands? Why not
recommit this bill to the committee from which it came, with instructions to report a measure promising to the Philippine people
their independence and providing means for helping them establish a government of their own, based upon republican principles?
The Spanish war was started for the freedom, liberty, and independence of the Cubans. Let not its final result be the subjugation, tyranny, and oppression of the Philippine people.
It is said by some that the Filipinos do not want independence.
I do not believe it, but if it were true it should make no difference.
It is not for the Filipinos we plead, but for the people of our own
country. This question should be determined by what is best for
our own Government. We can not give them citizenship without imperiling our civilization. We can not permanently deprive
them of citizenship without destroying our republican institutions.
Mr. Chairman, it is said that the people of the United States in
the election last year settled the policy of the Government for the
future with respect to the Philippines, and that we ought to submit to that verdict; that the sentiment in behalf of the same is so
strong that he who puts himself in its way will surely go down
to defeat.
The election of 1900 did not settle the question. Other principles were involved in that contest. But even if the Philippine
policy had been the only question, the result would not have reflected the matured judgment of the American people. The war
fever engendered by the Spanish and Philippine wars was then at
its height; such a time is never propitious for conservative action.
Peace must rule before reason rules the mind.
But, sir, there are sonme principles for which a man should be
willing to go down to defeat, and the policy of holding the Philippine Islands, in my judgment, involves such a principle. What
would the world have thought of Abraham Lincoln if, after the
4844




16
defeat of the Republican party in 1856, he had acquiesced in the
result and concluded that the question of slavery had been settled
forever? Great moral questions are never settled in one election,
nor are they ever definitely determined until they are settled
right.
Mr. Chairman, the departure from tile fundamental principles
of our Government is far-reaching in its consequences. We can
not deny to men the right of self-government without in time it
affecting not only the morals of our people, but the very form of
government under which we live. It was truly said the Republic could not endure half slave and half free, and I believe it can
not endure half republic and half empire.
That is the lesson taught us by the history of the republics of
old. That was the judgment of all the grand characters of our
country from Washington to Lincoln, from Jefferson to Sumner.
That was the decision of the Republican party itself in 1860, when
it resolvedThat the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of
Independence, that governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, is essential to the preservation
of our republican institutions.
Our forefathers founded the most benign government ever
established by man. The progress and advancement of its people
under its administration have been unequaled in the history of the
world. Its example has done more for downtrodden humanity
than all the acts of charity since the beginning of time. Its principles of liberty have produced a civilization more splendid than
could have been fancied or dreamed.
To jeopardize those principles, in my judgment, would be the
most fatal error ever committed by the American people. Others
may vote for measures which tend to change the Republic into
an empire, but, as for me, I am for the Republic forever and for
the empire never. [Great applause.]
4844
0




 ~ —" r.i~;~- a: "?I:\ ti;~ `li;'81~ o
"".. ':R.,.         ~r                                                                                          ~1;;;-I I,~. ~I? v i;. I
'~ ~ " ii ~~:~ i O; rii: i ~ i r z
"I,?~!~::a.
~~i u i ii
r
C ".' -t 2-F i
i~i.r ~ 1
i
fr~ Tlr. -:~ ~ \i I: ''~,I i " Ir:;~: i; i
I:~i,.;.1, r
I r
".. i, :
~.
t
".                                                                                                              i        i
t::::~*': i;
ii. '( ~ ii
i. i


i


I 
1'0s  #



~~
~~:r
i'~ s bi
L
i, v~,
I
j - 1
r;::
i: -
I


I4:,^  ','t 


i


1i


1i
q


a ~ r iZ-.rl
~~
I jr.
iZ
r
i I? '
t?
s
11"i.
i
a
Z
i
i` _
";,L~ I
t x ~n;:~I
i
r:. i
'
4;1,


I
~i: - '~?: i
r; r;s,,


i~r- I i r
I
r
i u.
~,
i


-a-:~~_ f, 11
I'
''t
'a,~r
" ":-i
i i
";
~I:: ci
":
ir-;
1
i i~ ~;
C::e~:~..i;,-i" I I:-~ -i:
i
i
t'.. i ~1 I.*h)... I:_"
":':~-*.;-t Ir.*e *-.;;,,- ai"pi
i' ii- i w~~
* ~*
i ''"
" 
i~
Fai*
"' 'i ';~:"' i
$;,q:i S;


I:.   I   t I




,.,"; 4 
I III~~


J
r,i


A,* '  '. \.   I
-.;., I.I 
'' ' ' i


4


- i T* Af           Ins, o*  C;,V
i. 2 **  *'  es,- 'S  4.' A  '  ':  it 


S? '. A>




I


~




THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GRADUATE LIBRARY
DATE DUE
FB ~
AUG 1 0 1989
A^PR i 5 t99|


$......




uNIV~RSIT~' OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01341 4159
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD.
I
~




i 
e;
H
E.   a   i
<.X. 
i0444
Wy