,~~~_.. _,....'L:.,~-    -: ~      ~ ~'  '~.~B;,        ~., ~
~-......~.*.       _..
~,,~...-,:  -.;. -~...  ~..... ~~ -   ~..~.......... ~.,:.   -
r:
~:  ~  ~   ~ ~~ `.-' ~   1 ' ~
c'.                           -.;~ ~   '  ' ~ ~....
~I~.:':'E
~~~~.~ ~...-.... ~...':.:, ~'
"r.:,   "':.,.








THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
AND
PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE
BY


MOORFIELD STOREY
MAY, 1913
"' When I am asked if such and such a nation is fit to be free, I
ask in return, Is any man fit to be a despot? "-Lord John Russell.
BOSTON
PRESS OF GEO. H. ELTTIr CO,
1913
-  lt - A i










THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND PHILIPPINE
INDEPENDENCE.
What will the Democratic party do for the Philippine Islands?
This is one.of the questions which presses for immediate consideration, and which should be dealt with now while the party is
in power and before new issues arise to divert public attention
and divide its councils.
THE PARTY'S PROMISES.
The promises of the party have been clear and explicit. When
the treaty with Spain was ratified by which the United States
acquired the islands, the votes of the Democratic senators, without which the treaty would have been rejected, were given-upon
the theory that the treaty would end the rights of Spain in the
islands, and that we should give them their independence.
The first Democratic National Convention after the treaty
met on July 4, 1900, and its declarations were positive. These
were its words:
"'-We declare again that all governments instituted among men
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; that
any government not based upon the consent of the governed is
a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government
of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of
a republic.
"We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and
half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism
abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.
"We condemn and denounce the Philippine policy of the present Administration.
"The Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our
civilization; they cannot be subjects without imperiling.our




2


form of government; and as we are not willing to surrender our
civilization nor to convert the Republic into an empire we favor
an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to give the
Filipinos, first, a stable form of government; second, independence, and third, protection from outside interference, such as has
been given for nearly a century to the republics of Central and
South America."
The next National Convention, which met on July 6th, 1904,
used these words:
"We oppose, as fervently as did George Washington himself,
an indefinite, irresponsible, discretionary, and vague absolutism
and a policy of colonial exploitation, no matter where or by whom
invoked or exercised. We believe, with Thomas Jefferson and
John Adams, that no government has a right to make one set of
laws for those 'at home' and another and a different set of laws,
absolute in their character, for those 'in the colonies.' All men
under the American flag are entitled to the protection of the institutions whose emblem the flag is. If they are inherently unfit
for those institutions, then they are inherently unfit to be members of the American body politic. Wherever there may exist
a people incapable of being governed under American laws, in
consonance with the American Constitution, the territory of that
people ought not to be part of the American domain.
"We insist that we ought to do for the Filipinos what we have
done already for the Cubans, and it is our duty to make that
promise now and upon suitable guarantees of protection to citizens of our own and other countries resident there at the time of
our withdrawal, set the Filipino people upon their feet, free and
independent to work out their own destiny."
In 1908 the National Convention repeated its declaration in
the following form:
"We condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable
blunder which has involved us in enormous expenses, brought
us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the
charge of abandoning a fundamental doctrine of self-government.
We favor' an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to
recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as soon as
a stable government can be established, such independence to be
guaranteed by us as we guarantee the independence of Cuba,
until the neutralization of the islands can be secured by treaty
with other powers. In recognizing the independence of the
Philippines our Government should retain such land as may be
necessary for coaling stations and naval bases."




3


Finally, in 1912, the platform on which President Wilson was
nominated and elected contained this language:
"We reaffirm the position thrice announced by the Democracy
in national convention assembled against a policy of imperialism
and colonial exploitation in the Philippines or elsewhere. We
condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder,
which has involved us in enormous expenses, brought us weakness
instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of
abandonment of the fundamental doctrine of self-government.
We favor an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to
recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as soon
as a stable government can be established, such independence to
be guaranteed by us until the neutralization of the islands can be
secured by treaty with other powers.
"In recognizing the independence of the Philippines our Government should retain such land as may be necessary for coaling
stations and naval bases."
Long antecedent to these declarations is the immortal Declaration drawn by Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic
party,-the Declaration of which Americans have always been
proud, and which has been read annually to the people on the
Fourth of every July as the best statement of the fundamental
principles upon which our political structure rests, those "selfevident truths" that "all men are created equal" and that "governments derive'their just powers from the consent of the governed." In its successive platforms the Democratic party has
planted itself firmly upon these great principles, and it could not
have done otherwise without being false to its traditions.
Upon these statements of policy and these promises the Democratic party has sought the support of the voters, and it has
now received that support and is in full control of the government. If words mean anything, it has promised to give the
Filipinos their independence, and no man can trust it if this
promise is broken. Why should any Democrat suggest that the
policy which his party has so uniformly and so repeatedly
pledged itself to adopt be now abandoned, and the Republican
policy which it has "condemned and denounced," which it has
characterized as "an indefinite, irresponsible, discretionary
and vague absolutism," which it has called "an inexcusable blunder," be now adopted, or by delay continued in operation!




4


THE DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATION.
Just as the friends of protection, defeated at the polls, fill the
newspapers with lamentations and prophecies of disaster, repeating
with tireless iteration the familiar arguments in favor of their
unjust privileges and urging that an investigation by a tariff
commission, never deemed necessary when the tariff was to be
raised, should now be had before it is lowered,-so all the opponents of Philippine independence with like prophecies of calamity
ask that the President and his Cabinet institute an inquiry into
the condition of the slands before taking any. step to carry into
effect the policy to which the party stands pledged.
In each case the motive is the same. It is the old policy of
delay by which Fabius conquered Hannibal. It is the attempt
to postpone action on any ground in the hope that meanwhile
something may occur to divert attention or to discredit and
divide the party in power, and so enable our opponents to recover the control of the government.- Delays are dangerous, and
therefore they urge delay and are fertile in suggesting reasons
for it.
But what a confession is this demand for an investigation of
Philippine conditions! What is there to learn?  Has not the
Commission made regular reports?- Have not the War Department and its Insular Bureau told us all that there was to know
about the islands and their people? If they have, investigation
is a useless waste of time. If they have not, what facts have they
concealed? What -truth have they kept back? If indeed the
American people are ignorant of what has been going on in the
islands, that fact is the strongest possible argument for Philippine
independence. It is hard enough for people to govern themselves with personal knowledge of their own affairs. It is far
more difficult for one people to govern another, even if it has the
fullest knowledge of all that concerns the subject people. It is
absolutely impossible for one people to govern another if the
governing people has not this knowledge, and, if after governing
the Philippine Islands for fifteen years we have now to make an
investigation in order to learn what has been done there and
what are the present conditions, we have never had the in



5


formation without which we could not direct the affairs of the
islanders.
As long ago as April 21, 1904, Mr. Taft said to the Chamber
of Commerce in New York:
"The people of the United States have under their guidance
and control in the Philippines an archipelago of 3,000 islands,
the population of which is about 7,600,000 souls. Of these
7,000,000 are Christians, and 600,000 are Moros or other pagan
tribes."
In the same speech, referring to a petition for Philippine independence signed. by Cardinal Farley, more than fifty bishops,
more than sixty judges, Grover Cleveland, Charles W. Eliot,
President Schurman, ex-Senator Edmunds, Andrew Carnegie,
Wayne MacVeagh, Charles Francis Adams, and thousands of
others among our leading men, Mr. Taft said:
"Why should the good people who signed the petition intermeddle with something the effect of which they are very little able
to understand?"
He did not seem to realize that, if the very best Americans could
not understand what we were doing in the Philippine Islands,
it was idle to say that the American people were guiding and
controlling them, and that his two statements meant that the
guidance of the Filipinos by the American people was the merest
farce.
Now nine years later we are told that Congress does not know
enough about Philippine conditions to legislate, and as they need
a tariff commission to teach them how to reduce the tariff, so
they need, not the present Philippine Commission, but a new
commission to tell them the facts and give them advice as to
what they should do for the islands. I say again, What a confession!
This at least is true: we have heard all that can be said in favor
of retaining the islands. Those who have been responsible for
their administration have made the best case possible: President
McKinley, President Roosevelt, and President Taft, the Commissioners and other American officials in the islands, the War Department and its Insular Bureau, the Republican leaders in




-A


6
Congress and out who have favored the retention of the islands,
have presented year after year all the arguments which they
urge now, and these arguments have been perfectly familiar to
the men who framed and the conventions which adopted the
Democratic platforms that have been quoted, and notwithstanding these arguments the party year after year has denounced
the policy of the Republicans and pledged itself to Philippine
independence.
Now that the case is won, the Democratic party cannot afford
to stultify itself by admitting that its language did not mean
what it said, that its oft-repeated declarations have been made
ignorantly or recklessly, and now adopt as its own the policy
which it has always condemned. This is to break faith with the
voters who have believed its promises and placed it in power
because they believed. We have a right to say that the case has
been decided after full argument and to ask for execution. Delay
and hesitation now would be an admission of failure by the Democratic party, an admission of reckless and ignorant speech,. like
the admission of concealment implied in the Republican suggestion of investigation, and in this would be found a fresh argument
for Philippine independence, since after fifteen years both parties
would admit that the American people have never understood the
situation in the islands, which all these years they have in theory
been governing. I say again, What a confession!
THE SOURCES OF OPPOSITION.
We cannot expect that the defeated party will cease to argue,
to protest, and to prophesy all manner of evil, but we have no
right on that account to falter. Those men who like President
Taft are responsible in large measure for the retention of the
islands, and who like him have been especially prominent in their
administration, naturally will not admit that they have been
wrong. They are committed too strongly to recede now, but we
must remember that they are not impartial. They are pleading
their own case, they are insisting that they have succeeded, and
their own reputations are at stake. All their arguments must be
taken with that allowance.




7


The opposition to the policy of the Democratic party is largely
inspired by them, as is susceptible of proof, and they are able to
rally the officials who are concerned in the present government
of the islands and those who profit by it: important elements
in the Catholic Church, but in the islands themselves only the
foreign elements of the church, not the native priesthood; some of
the Americans in the islands, but by no means all; many excellent people who believe that missionary enterprise in the islands
will be set back; many who think that our government is conferring great benefits on the Filipino people which will be lost if we
withdraw, and many men who have never given the question any
serious thought, but go with their party.
When we find in the columns of certain newspapers day after
day articles opposing Philippine independence and repeating in
various forms the arguments which have been answered so often,
-the statements about illiteracy, diversity of language, savage
tribes, which have so often been proved untrue; when we find a
society formed to advocate not the ultimate freedom -of the
islands, but their "retention," officered by former and present
members of the insular government, and apparently supplied
with abundant funds,-we cannot help seeing that a combination
exists to obstruct and defeat the policy of the Democratic party.
When in addition we find the National City Bank of New York,
the very citadel of the "interests" which have so long sought to
influence the government of the United States for their private
gain, issuing a long circular against Philippine independence, in
which it presents the familiar arguments, financial and humanitarian, and urges the Administration to make it clear that "there
is no serious difference of opinion in the United, States" as to the
continuance of the existing relationship, we can entertain no
doubt as to the source whence comes the money that supports
this combination. The National City Bank is not a philanthropic institution, nor was it organized for the discussion of abstract political questions, nor yet to promote any theories of government. It is severely practical, and exists solely to make
money for those who own it. Its appearance in this field betrays
the body of practical men who hope to mak]e money for themselves by persuading this government to retain the islands at the
expense of the great body of tax-payers, against the will of the




8


Filipino people and in disregard of every principle that we have
prized.
But in what a position would the National City Bank place the
Democratic party if after fifteen years of indignantly denouncing its opponents and asserting its own high purpose it were
now to admit that "there is no serious difference of opinion in
the United States" as to the Republican policy in the Philippine Islands!
The following paragraph from the New York Journal of Commerce, alluding to the banquet which the new Philippine Society
proposes to have in New York on June 12th, exposes the naked
truth and the real source of opposition:
"The banquet will be under the auspices of the Philippine
Society, of which both Mr. Taft and Mr. Wright are officers.
The society has lately been organized with an avowed non-partisan purpose for the object of promoting Philippine welfare. The
most influential of those now in control of it are men who have
been connected with the Philippine Government in one way or
another.
"The discussion of the relation between the United States
and the Philippines is considered specially important now, because of the fact that the so-called 'Fallows Syndicate,' which
is understood to be backed by Standard Oil capital, is preparing
to begin the development of the islands. Announcements lately
made place the sum available for the operations of theQ concern
at about $10,000,000. The plan appears to be that of building
sugar 'centrals' in order to increase the production of sugar, and
in various ways to apply American capital to insular industries.
There has been a statement that this concern would take over
the work of exploiting Standard Oil products in the Philippines,
but this remains to be verified.
"American business men are taking the position that' they
cannot invest largely in the Philippines unless they are assured
that the Government will continue upon practically the same
basis as at present, and will assure them undisturbed possession
of such investments as they may make. It could not be learned
yesterday whether the syndicate will refuse to go into business
and to place its funds in the islands unless such assurance is given,
but the assumption in well-informed quarters is that it will so
refuse. It is believed that the present Administration cannot
give that assurance in set terms consistently with its platform
pledges, and this seems to be recognized, but there is a prevalent opinion that it might be forced to assume an attitude which




9


would make practically certain its abstention from any Executive interference tending to change the basis of Government in
the islands during the coming four years."
It is not surprising that Bishop Fallows, who visited the islands
with his son, the head of the Fallows Syndicate, and others to
consider the chances for investment, and whose travels with the
party and a representative of the Philippine Commission are
chronicled in the New York Times, returns home ready to testify that the Filipinos are unfit for independence. It is an inauspicious combination of religion and dollars.
An opposition made up of so many elements, backed by the
capitalists who have investments in the islands, having full access
to the newspaper press, can and naturally will talk a great deal,
and make many assumptions and allegations of fact which accord
with its views, but which are none the less unfounded. It is
well to consider the character of these witnesses before we deal
with their positions.
THE   OPPOSITION     FROM    OFFICIALS.
Let us take first the officials and their dependents, all of whom
have been in a greater or less degree responsible for or connected
with our government of the islands. If it has been good, they
are entitled to the credit. If it has been in any respect bad, they
are liable to be blamed. When the question is considered whether
our administration has been good or bad, they are on trial. With
some it is purely a question of reputation. With others it is
also a question of money, since their salaries are at stake. They
are not different from other men, and are influenced by the same
motives that affect our officials at home. We have been governing ourselves for nearly a century and a quarter, and during that
time parties and candidates have come and gone, and at election
after election they have been tried by the people. During that
whole period has there ever been a candidate who has not praised
his own past and who has not condemned the acts and the
policy of his opponent? Has there been a party once trusted
with power that did not "point with pride" to its record? If




10


the people believed this self-praise, no man would ever be defeated
for re-election, no party would ever be driven from power. Lorimer, Becker, Quay, Cox, and others like them would rank with
Washington and Lincoln, and no suspicion of corruption would
attach to any official in the United States. That the Democratic
party is now in power with its great majority is proof that the
people do not believe these self-serving statements at home.
Why should they assume that they are not equally fallacious
when made in the Philippine Islands? Add to this natural and
human reason for resisting a change of policy the material considerations; salaries, power, and the other benefits which the
retention of the islands secures to those who share in or hold
office under the present Philippine Commission, or who profit
by the advertisements and other business which it can distribute,
and it is not surprising that there is a body of Americans, including the editors of American papers in the islands who cannot be
persuaded that the Filipinos should ever be given their-independence.
The capitalists who have bought sugar lands, or made other
investments in the islands, would naturally always prefer a government by their own fellow-countrymen to any other. The
foreign investors, English and others, do not share their fear that
the Filipinos will treat the foreign capitalist unjustly, but, whatever the danger, the investors have no right to insist that we
shall depart from our settled policy and abandon our principles
for them. They went there with their eyes openj Even Mr.
Taft has always until now asserted that our purpose was embodied in the phrase, "The Philippines for the Filipinos."  His
Secretary of War, echoing very clearly his chief's views, said only
last December in his annual report that our
"policy may be expressed as having for its sole object the preparation of the Filipinos for popular self-government in their own interest and not in the interest of the United States."




11


THE AMERICAN INVESTORS.
But Cardinal Gibbons in his letter says:
"To withdraw from the Philippines at a fixed time in the future,
regardless of conditions in those islands, would work a serious
injustice to the many Americans, and far-seeing citizens of other
countries who have invested their money in developing the resources of those islands.... It would work great harm to those
investors as well as to the Filipinos themselves for this country
to withdraw and witness a resultant reign of anarchy."
Yet, as has been said, Cardinal Farley, and many other eminent
Catholic prelates a few years ago, signed a petition urging Congress to grant the Philippine Islands their independence; and
Cardinal Gibbons wrote:
"It appears to me that we cannot retain them [the Philippines]
indefinitely, since such retention is so opposed to our traditional
policy;"
Has the investment of American capital caused a change of view,
or have the years of American rule rendered the Filipinos less fit
to govern themselves? In either case we cannot afford to delay
action. Every dollar of American capital will strengthen the
Cardinal's argument in favor of investors. Every year of continued American rule will enhance the unfitness.
The opponents of independence have long foreseen the effect
of this argument, and have done their best to stimulate investment, all the while veiling their purpose with hypocritical talk of
ultimate independence. Their real feeling finds private expression, however, and it is clearly expressed in a letter written by a
government employee in the Philippines, a college man who won
distinction in his undergraduate days as an able student, and
who has earned promotion in the Insular service by his executive
ability. The letter appeared in the Nation, and in it he said,
after referring to the visit of Secretary Dickinson and the disappointment of the Filipinos that a magnificent petition for independence "with thousands of signers from every proice" was
not cordially received by the Secretary:




12
"You will infer that the political horizon is pretty dark, but
it must not be imagined that we Americans oppress our minds
very much with the doleful situation. We go on about our work
and think about it as little as possible. It really doesn't matter
what the natives think or do about politics. American capital
is being invested here to such an extent that independence is not in
the slightest degree a present menace, and the more capital comes,
the farther off is independence."
This states the case in a nutshell. Every month that the
Democratic Administration allows the officials now in power to
remain and pursue their avowed policy increases the difficulty of
granting the islands independence and furnishes the enemy with
fresh arguments. The time to act is now.
Well does Seflor Quezon meet the argument when he says:
"Supposing that 250 business men of Manila, of whom 225 are
Americans and other foreigners and twenty-five are Filipinos,
were against Philippine independence; is that a good reason
for withholding from us our inherent right? Should 225 outsiders
and twenty-five natives have more right than 7,000,000 Filipinos
in the affairs of the latter's land? Supposing that there may be
business unrest because of change of government, is this enough
reason for not establishing an independent Philippine government?
"To establish the Republic of the United States cost almost
the total destruction of business in this country for several years,
and yet this was not considered a serious objection to American
independence."
The statement of Cardinal Gibbons that a reign of anarchy
-will result if independence is granted is the purest assumption.
It is like the gloomy prophecies of ruin with which the friends of
protection greet the new tariff, and to be as little regarded. Let
Sefor Earnshaw, the new delegate from the Philippines, himself
a business man with large interests, answer it:
"All this fuss about insurrection, revolution, and destruction
of property is pure talk. The Filipinos are not fools and it takes
a great deal more than a change of government to make us change
our prosperity. When we are ready to elect our officers-that is,
the officers for the Philippine Republic-we expect no racial
troubles or efforts to prevail one over another. We are now ready
to govern our own affairs, and eight years more, as is planned by




13


the Jones bill, with the present system of education and all other
forces which are bringing up the Filipinos to a well-advanced
people, will entirely fit us to assume our r61e among the
nations."
"We believe that solid business conditions will endure under
a Filipino government, and we base our belief upon our knowledge
of the Filipino character."
Seflor Earnshaw stated that the people of the islands were
unanimous in favor of independence; the feeling was not confined to the irresponsible, but men of property are among those
most eager for the change. He said:
I"The main thing, the essential thing in the whole matter is
this: that something definite be given us. We want something
specific in the way of time, not 'when we are fit for self-government,' or 'when it shall seem best' in the eyes of somebody. We
want the year, month, and day, and until that date is set there
will be unrest and disquiet in the Philippines-nothing at all like
revolution or rebellion, but an unhealthful unrest.
"The Philippines are in an ideal condition at preesent to inaugurate the beginning of this change, and I am going to devote
my time to bringing it about."'
To the suggestion that our tutelage is needed to prepare the
Filipinos for independence, reply may be made in the words of
President Roosevelt to the Negro Business Men's Association:
"It is as true of a race as of an individual that while-outsiders
can help to a certain degree, yet the real help must come in the
shape of self-help."
Men learn to be independent by being independent,-by their
own mistakes. Centuries of English rule in India have carried
the Indians farther from self-government. Mr. Roosevelt's statement is sound. No one can read history and doubt it. Why are
we not wise enough to recognize the truth and act upon it?




14


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
But the change of opinion by certain representatives of the
Catholic Church and their opposition as Catholics to Philippine independence may bring that church into an attitude dangerous alike to the church and to the people of the United States.
Men of other churches, who oppose independence, and the missionaries of other denominations as the writer knows by personal
experience, urge as a reason for believing that the islanders are
unfit for independence that they have been under Catholic influence for centuries. It is a fact that an enormous majority of
the Filipinos, some seven or eight millions against 'six hundred
thousand, are Catholics. Can that church afford to admit the
argument of its religious opponents and agree that centuries of
Catholic teaching leave a people so ignorant, so uncivilized, so
destitute of self-control, that they are unfit to govern themselves?
It is a dangerous admission.
Again; it is well known that the Filipinos were driven into their
last'rebellion against the Spaniards by the course of the Friars
in dealing with the tenants on their large estates, and that the
United States saw no way out of the difficulties caused thereby
except the purchase of these estates at the expense of the Filipino people. If the Filipinos now find the Catholic Church
arrayed among the opponents of their independence, is it likely
to increase their love for that church or strengthen the hold of
its representatives upon them? This is a question which the
Catholics of the United States will do well to consider.  i
Yet, again, it is perhaps the first time in the history of the
United States when the Catholic Church has undertaken to throw
its influence into the scale when a great question of national
policy was under discussion. Can it afford to insist that the
great principles of American liberty shall be set aside and despotic government be maintained over millions of people?
If it is dangerous to the church, is it not also dangerous to the
country? Is not the attempt of a church to influence the State
one of the very things which drove' our fathers to America? Is
not the separation of Church and State a corner-stone of our institutions?  Is the attempt to establish ecclesiastical influence




15


over our political action one effect of the imperialism which the
Democratic party has denounced? Every true American is willing that every other man may choose his own faith and worship
God in his own way, but when any religious belief controls a man's
action as a citizen and destroys his independence, it becomes a
danger not to be disregarded.
Whatever our individual faith may be, we are all American
citizens, bound to maintain the principles which have made our
government great and powerful. It will be a sad day for both
Church and State when Catholics as such are arrayed against
Protestants, or when the members of any church vote as their
clergymen direct.
The attitude of the Americans who have had experience in the
islands, and the argument that we are conferring benefits on the
Filipinos, which will be lost if independence is granted, will be
dealt with later in this paper.
THE QUESTION STATED.
Now what is the Philippine question? We are holding against
their will some eight millions of people thousands of miles from
our shores, having overcome their resistance by force of arms.
We do not propose ever to make them American citizens, for it
is inconceivable that the result of a contested Presidential election
should ever depend on the returns from Manila or the vote of
Iloilo. The choice is between giving them the right to govern
themselves, or holding them in subjection governed by officers
of our selection as such officers see fit.
The present experiment costs us some $40,000,000 a year according to the figures given by Hon. W. A. Jones, Chairman of the
Insular Committee, in his speech to the House of Representatives
on January 28th last, and it is to be observed that every dollar
of this is spent for military and naval purposes, including the
transportation and care of our troops in the islands, some 12,000
American soldiers and 6,000 scouts.
"This sum exceeds the total annual value of the commerce
between the Philippines and the United States,"




16


and not one cent of it is spent for any benefit to the Filipinos.
It is what we pay to hold the islands in subjection, and to this may
fairly be added no slight portion of the enormous sums which we
spend on our navy, often justified on the ground that we need more
ships because of our Philippine possessions. Truly the total
amount that we pay for the purpose of holding our new colony
against its will is a very considerable addition to the expenditure
of the United States.
The Filipinos unanimously desire their independence. Upon
this proposition there can be no reasonable doubt. The Filipino
Assembly by unanimous vote has insisted upon. it. Sefior Quezon,
their commissioner, at Boston on January 9th,'1912, said:
"I am just back from a visit to the islands. I have talked with
men in all walks of life, and let me tell you how, calling as witness
to my words the Heavenly Father, that they all have the one
most urgent desire to see their Motherland free."
On January 27th, 1913, Seinor Quezon said:
"Aguinaldo attended the monster meeting held at Manila to
celebrate Democratic victory in the United States, but so did
thousands of other prominent Filipinos and some Americans.
Of this meeting Justice Moreland, of the Supreme Court, said to
me: 'If the American people could have witnessed this great
demonstration they would give you your independence to-morrow.
It was a most impressive sight to witness such a great gathering
so orderly that not even one policeman was necessary to preserve
order.' Justices Carson and Trent both indorsed this view."
These are Americans of experience in the islands.
Sefior Earnshaw, the newly elected Commissioner from the
islands, supported by the Commission and by the Filipino Assembly, has spoken thus:
"The Filipino people have arrived at a point where they believe
that, for many reasons, there should be some definite statement
of the policy of the United States in regard to the Philippines.
Independence has been promised to us, but we are growing, year
after year, hampered in our natural development because no one
knows what is to come. No great business concern could expect
to be prosperous or successful under such circumstances.
"The independence of the Philippines is essential to the real
future of the islands. A temporary Government was established




17


there since American occupation, but for fifteen years we have
had no definite statement of what is to become of us. In such
condition we cannot remain, as it is detrimental to business and
unfair to the well-being of the Filipinos. Without a stable
government business and capital cannot be established."
Sefior Osmena, the speaker of the Philippine Assembly, said
to a correspondent of the New York Times in an interview published on May 11, 1913:
"I can say definitely that the people are all united for independence and the Filipinos as a people really desire it."
If American testimony is needed, it is not lacking. The last
investigating committee, the so-called "Taft party," because it
was collected by him and saw the islands under his guidance,
supplies this testimony in abundance.
Let me quote only two witnesses, both members of the party.
James A. Leroy, formerly secretary of a Philippine Commissioner,
said in a letter to the Boston Transcript:
"It need not be said here again as it is now admitted by all
who know the situation in the Islands that independence is the
ideal of nearly all Filipinos."
Representative Parsons of New York, a strong Republican, in
a letter to the Tribune said:
"There is no question that all the Filipino parties are now in
favor of independence."
In 1910 an impartial English observer wrote thus to the London
Times:
"So far as there are any political parties in the Philippines,
their creeds differ only in the degree of their professed animosity
to American domination, and the urgency with which they demand independence."
Another, writing of Secretary Dickinson's visit, says this:
"Three weeks later, on July 25, Manila was again en fete in honor
of Mr. John M. Dickinson, United States Secretary of War, who
had arrived in the islands on the preceding day. As one part




18


of the festivities, a body of 5,000 Filipino school children sang
American patriotic songs, massed in a huge open-air grand stand.... The 5,000 children were dressed some in red, some in white,
and some in blue; and they were so seated that the whole grand
stand made one great American flag.... It was very pretty; and
afterwards I spoke to one of the leading Filipino public men and
asked him what those children, down in their little hearts, really
thought of the flag which they patterned so charmingly and waved
with so much enthusiasm, and there was no hesitation in his
reply:"'They hate it-every one of them! The Americans will tell
you that that is not so; but I tell you that every child is taught
at home to hate the Stars and Stripes. The Americans know
nothing of our nature; they never will know anything. We are
Orientals, and we do not show our feelings; and, therefore, you
will hear that the mass of the people is indifferent and has no
real yearning for independence. It is not true. We wave the
flag because, for the present, we must; and we hate it more and
more."'
Is not this inevitable?  We undertake to teach the Filipinos
American ideals; to make them over on the American pattern,
to turn Asiatics into New Englanders. We tell them "that all
men are created equal" and that "governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed" and they learn the
lesson readily. They had learned it before we landed. They
knew our history and our national principles. Yet-when they
say, "Why are not we in our own land equal to you?" and "Why
should our government not derive its powers from our consent?"
we swallow the very ideals that we undertake to teach and reply
"We are a superior people and therefore must govern you without your consent." Is not this fatuous? Well may the Filipino
answer in the words of Emerson:
"United States! the ages plead,Present and Past in under-song,Go put your creed into your deed,
Nor speak with double tongue.
For sea and land don't understand,
Nor skies without a frown
See rights for which the one hand fights
By the other cloven down."




19


We are teaching the' Filipinos English. We enable them to
read our history and the words of our great statesmen. As a
result, Senor Quezon, in his address to the House of Representatives last May, is able to say:
"In the language of that great apostle of human freedom
Daniel Webster"'No matter how easy may be the yoke of a foreign power, no
matter how lightly it sits upon the shoulders, if it is not imposed
by the voice of his own nation, and of his own country, he will
not, he cannot, and he means not to be happy under its burden.'
"These words to us, Mr. Chairman, are freedom's text and rallying cry. We feel their truth, deep in our souls, for it is the vital
spot of our national hope."
We may rest assured that they want their independence. We
do not need an investigating commission to establish that fact.
Upon what ground can we deny their request?
The position of those who woulf deny independence rests in the
last resort uipon three propositions:
First: The Filipinos are an inferior people, and not fit to govern themselves.
Second: We are doing them great good.
Third: All or most of this good will be lost if they become independent,
and perhaps under this head comes the suggestion that interests
to which we owe protection will suffer.
THE CAPACITY OF THE FILIPINOS.
Let us first consider the testimony as to the ability of the Filipinos.
That they organized a government which commanded the
admiration of Senator Hoar, than whom-no better judge could
easily be found, and that this government with inferior arms and
no warlike experience defended itself against our armies for some
three or more years, are facts which cannot be denied.
To this fact there is much testimony from various sources to be
added:




20


Admiral Dewey on June 27, 1898, cabled:
"In my opinion, these people are far superior in their intelligence and more capable of self-government than the natives of
Cuba; and I am familiar with both races."
General Merritt, on his arrival in Paris in October, 1898, was
reported as saying:
"The Filipinos impress me very favorably. I think great
injustice has been done the native population.... They are
more capable of self-government than, I think, the Cubans are.
They are considered to be good Catholics. They have lawyers,
doctors, and men of kindred profession, who stand well in the
community, and bear favorable comparison with those of other
countries. They are dignified, courteous, and reserved."
John Barrett saw the government organized by the Filipinos
in operation, and described it as
"a government which has practically been administering the
affairs of that great island [Luzon] since the American possession
of Manila, and which is certainly better than the former administration. It has a properly formed cabinet and congress, the
members of which in appearance and manner would compare
favorably with Japanese statesmen.... The congressmen whose
sessions I repeatedly attended, conducted themselves with great
decorum, and showed a knowledge of debate and parliamentary
law that would not compare unfavorably with the Japanese parliament. The executive portion of the government was made
up of a ministry of bright men, who seemed to understand their
respective positions," while among Aguinaldo's advisers were
"men of acknowledged ability as international lawyers."
Captain Hatch, of the Eighteenth Infantry, after serving for
more than a year in the islands and being brought in contact with
thousands of the people, said:
"The Filipinos are Malays softened by contact with the
Spaniards.... The Filipino is essentially honest.... The Filipinos are a deeply religious people.... They are a temperate,
sober people. During a year's residence among them I never
saw a drunken Filipino. They are a cleanly people. They are
hospitable, and they are generous in their hospitality. They
are not an ignorant people. Their intelligence and educational
progress are apt to be underestimated because of failure to under



21
stand them. Nearly every adult can read and write in the
Tagalo or Viscayan dialect; while the natives of the cities and
villages, in addition, can read and write the Spanish language.
Moreover, most adults know something of arithmetic, geography,
and history. I was surprised one day, in questioning the driver
of my quily, an ordinary poor boy of eighteen, to find that he had
studied geometry, and had made very material progress.
"The Filipinos are not so much different from other people.
Their customs, habits, hopes, and aspirations are deep-seated.
Their leaders are shrewd, bright men of much ability; the masses
are earnest in their loyalty."
An American Congressman, Senator Shafroth, who visited the
islands, said:
"The general impression exists among many Americans that
the Philippine people are savages. A visit to the islands will certainly dispel any such delusion....
"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
labelled in Latin; when I see behind the counters of banks having
large capital natives acting as book-keepers and as 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
in attendance at the Manila university; 'when I find the better
class living in good, substantial, and sometimes elegant houses,
and many of them pursuing professional occupations,-I cannot
but conclude that it is a vile slander to compare these people to
the Apaches or the American Indians....
"'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 recognizedthis ability by recently adding three native members
to that governing body; by appointing three Filipino judges of
the supreme court; by selecting about half of the judges of the
first instance and nearly all 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




22


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
interest of their own people instead of that of a nation 7,000
miles away."
The Filipinos were finally allowed to choose an Assembly, the
lower house of the Island legislature. The general feeling of Americans in Manila was that the Assembly would prove the incapacity of the Filipinos for self-government, but Secretary Taft, after
observing its'sessions for three weeks, said on leaving in 1906:
"From the first I had full confidence in the Legislative Assembly
-a confidence which has been justified by its actions. So far it
has taken a conservative form, and I have no doubt it will continue
its useful' patriotic and diligent course; I have yet to see or hear
a single member who does not apparently feel a full sense of the
responsibility of his duties toward his constituents and country,
and I am sure that conservatism rather than radicalism will
continue to mark the official conduct of this body. I leave the
Philippine Islands with renewed confidence in the future of the
Islands."
Of what American legislature, municipal, state, or national, could
any American speak in terms of equally strong praise?
The session was opened in the presence of thirty-nine governors
of provinces, of whom all but some six were Filipinos, and of the
Philippine Commission, three of whose members were Filipinos.
These men were regarded by us as fit to govern their countrymen, and the Assembly added its record of "useful, patriotic,
and diligent" conduct.
Some seven years have passed since, and the Filipinos have
done nothing to disappoint the anticipations of Mr. Taft. In
one of his messages to Congress he made a statement which was
confirmed by the Secretary of War in his annual report from which
the following passage is quoted:
"In no way has 'the progress of the Filipino people been better
shown than by their increasing participation in their own Government. Under Spanish control the native Filipinos were practically excluded from all share in public affairs. Within ten
years they have been given, and now exercise, the right of electing all of their municipal officers. Native Filipinos also now




23


compose ninety per cent. of the officials and employees of the
provincial governments and nearly sixty per cent. of the officials
and employees of the central Government. They have been
given their own Assembly-the lower house of the Philippine
Legislature, which is composed wholly of native members, chosen
at popular election. They have representation on the Philippine Commission, which forms the upper house. They divide
with Americans the direction of the various executive departments. The chief justice and two of the associate justices of
the Supreme Court, about half of the judges of the higher courts
and all of the justices of the peace are Filipinos. There is no
branch of the Government, executive, legislative or judicial
where Filipinos are not represented in increasing numbers and
where their influence is not important."
Let me add the testimony of Americans who have lived in the
islands and known the people.
Dr. J. N. McDill, of Milwaukee, on April 9, 1913, said in an
address to the Milwaukee Press Club:
"The census of 1903 shows the population of the islands to consist of 7,600,000 people. Of these, 7,000,000 are Christians and
600,000 are non-Christians. Of these non-Christians half are
Moros or Mohammedans living in Mindanao and the Jolo group,
and the other half are uncivilized people of the mountains, in
tribes living in widely separated districts. These 600,000 people
are really a negligible quantity in the general political equation,
but, unfortunately, these are the people who, for political reasons,
have been the most widely advertised feature of the Philippine
Islands.
"Their repulsive pictures and habits have been persistently and
officially portrayed in the leading magazines of this country and
by lecturers until the majority of Americans regard them as typical of the Filipino people. The lecturer in vogue just now in
America flashes on the screen a life-size rear view of a geestringclad Bontoc Igorot at the bat, to show how the Filipinos have
taken to baseball. This picture furnished to the dignified
Woman's Club of Milwaukee last week their most vivid memory
of a lecture on the Philippines. Contrasted with this are pictures depicting the wonderful possibilities of the islands n he p,
copra, sugar, and tobacco cultivation, with suggestions as tThat
has been and can be done under American management. The
entire issue of last' September's National Geographic Magazine
was devoted to the Head Hunters of Northern Luzon, and evidently has made a great impression all over the country. This
article of a hundred pages and one hundred and six wonderful




24


illustrations, portraying the most horrid habits possible to human
kind, was written by a prominent government official, an American member of the Philippine Upper House, the man mentioned in
Judge Blount's recent book as 'the official digger-up of nonChristian tribes' and as 'the direct calamity that has befallen
the Filipinos since the American occupation.' This writer's
official reputation for honesty is protected in the inconspicuous
closing sentence, which states that 'the sometimes highly objectionable customs which have prevailed or still prevail among the
million non-Christian inhabitants must not be credited to the
Filipinos, the civilized and Christianized inhabitants of the Philippines, of whom there are some 7,000,000.' But this obscure
note fails to remove the false impression conveyed. The expense
of the collection of this and similar damaging propaganda is paid
for out of the pockets of the helpless Filipino people.
"An exuberant magazine article of last year, referring to Brigadier-General Clarence B. Edwards's achievements in Philippine
affairs, spoke of 'the strides we have made in the development
of the 8,000,000 naked savages, gory head hunters, grinning
Moros, and what not that Dewey pulled out of the wet under our
Star-spangled umbrella.' This is the sort of popular trash with
which Americans are blinded to the importance of this great
national problem. The Filipino people are not the collection of
ethnological curiosities they have been represented to the popular
mind. This is a cruel calumny.
"My personal experience with the Filipinos extended over a
period of 13 years, the first 3 years of which I spent in the Army;
during the last 5 years I was connected with the civil government
as professor of surgery on a semi-official basis in the University
of the Philippines. In the Provinces and in Manila I met men and
women of all classes, and I doubt if many Americans came to
know them better.
" What impresses one on first meeting a Filipino is his self-possession, dignity, and courtesy; he has an exalted idea of good
breeding and an intense appreciation of elegance of manner and
of dress. Even the ordinary,Tao of the lowest class is quick to
perceive the difference between the person of breeding and the
boor. Their judgments in this regard are unerring. You have
frequently heard of their universal love of music as a racial characteristic; among the educated this reaches a high degree of de,
velopment. An appreciation of and familiarity with the best
things in not only music, but art, is much commoner than in the
corresponding social class in America.
"The women of the upper and middle classes are notably characterized by an exquisite manner, and in graciousness and poise
are unexcelled by the women of any country. If, as John Adams
has said, 'the manners of women are the surest criterion by


6




25
which to determine whether a' republican government is practicable in a nation or not,' the Filipino people are pre-eminently
fitted to govern themselves....
" It is nonsense to say that the Filipinos are inscrutable or mysterious; they are nothing of the sort; they are quite understandable and will talk freely and frankly if allowed to be on such
terms as permit of freedom and frankness.... As laborers and
artisans, they are capable of high efficiency, if properly handled,
and will take a personal pride in their work. Although the lower
classes are subject to impulses of a violent nature, often resulting
in personal injuries, it is doubtful if they are more so than the
same class in this country.
"As a race, the Filipinos are conservative; their decisions are
arrived at only after a careful consideration of every phase of a
question. They are clever lawyers, and their jurists are notably
impartial, upright, and profound; their decisions reviewed by
superior courts compare most favorably with those of the American members of the bench.
"In conclusion let us look at this question fairly. It seems
evident that our Philippine policy has been a mistake. We
subjugated these people in what we thought were the interests
of trade expansion and the strengthening of our influence in the
Orient; we justified our doing so by a hypocritical assumption
which the Filipinos resent, namely, that of their inability to govern
themselves. We have lost the opportunity of earning a nation's
gratitude and love and of assisting them in the proper development of their wonderful country. Our failure to avow authoritatively our intentions has instilled in tleir minds suspicion and
distrust. The great American Republic is holding 7,000,000
people against their will and governing them by a theoretically
benevolent but essentially despotic oligarchy of five royally
salaried American officials, who firmly insist on our retention of the
islands for the betterment of their people. The successors of these
officials one hundred years from now will sing the same song.
"With the radical change in the Administration, which the
people so emphatically decreed, there is hope that the question
will be treated honestly, without hypocrisy, without a stultification of American ideals, and that the Filipinos will be given a
square deal."
L. M. Southworth writes from  Jacksonville, Fla., as follows,
under date of December 9, 1912:
"My dear Sir,-I am an American citizen, but have been living
in the Philippine Islands for eight years, going there in September,
1904, and returning to the United States in September of the
present year.




26


"During my entire residence in the Philippines I have been
engaged in the private practice of law, with the exception of two
years spent in the office of the prosecuting attorney of the judicial
district of Manila. While engaged in the practice of my profession, my business carried me to every section of the islands and
brought me in contact with the people of all classes.
"During my service as prosecuting attorney of the judicial district of Manila, containing approximately 500,000 inhabitants,
the duties of my position brought me into intimate relations with
many of the people of the district, including all of the native
lawyers, all of the native j udges, and most of the native employees
of the Government.
-" In the course of my private practice and in the discharge of
my official duties I have come in contact with native lawyers of
the highest talent and legal attainments; physicians and surgeons, learned and skilful in their profession; merchants who
employ the latest commercial methods and observe the strictest
business integrity; and people in the private walks of life of the
highest intellectual attainments, educated in the best universities
and colleges of Europe peaking, in many instances, as many as
five foreign languages.
"From my intimate knowledge of the Filipino people, gained in
the manner above stated, and from my social intercourse with
them, I do not hesitate to say they are capable of self-government.'"
" If granted their independence, I believe that they will main-`
tain a government which will be not only more satisfactory to
them, but one which will more nearly meet their needs and demands than the government under which they have lived for the
past fourteen years or any government which could be given
them in the future by the United States or any other foreign
power. In saying this, I am not unmindful of the great improvements which have been made in these islands since American
occupation, nor do I intend to underestimate the able and faithful services rendered these people by many American officials.
However, I do mean to say that the United States has maintained
a government in these islands too expensive and far beyond the
needs and resources of these people and, at times, extravagant
and wasteful.
"But, regardless of all these considerations, the people of these
islands never have been and never will be satisfied to be governed
by the United States or any other foreign power.
"They want independence. It is the one dream and aspiration
of their lives.- It is the only gleam of sunshine that cheers their
dark fate, the-result of war, pestilence, and famine.
" With a strong religious sentiment underlying the lives of these
people, a virtuous womanhood from whom must spring their
future citizens, a high regard for law and official authority, a fair




27


amount of general education now, and a wonderful aptness for
learning, and a patriotism which is so lofty and pathetic that it
should touch the heart of every unselfish American in the islands,
there is no reason on earth why these people should not be granted
independence.
"I do not believe that any American who does not like the
Filipino people is qualified to speak with any degree of impartiality regarding their capacity for self-government, and I believe
the fundamental mistake into which the Republican party has led
the American people during the last fourteen years has been due
to the circumstances that the reports of its agents have always
been tinctured with the residuum of the early hostility and a
strongly acquired taste for official life in the Philippine Islands."
Upon this testimony can any one say that the Filipinos cannot
govern themselves? Isn't it at least worth while to give them
a' further trial such as Mr. Jones proposes in his bill?
WHAT, WE HAVE DONE FOR THE ISLANDS.
The next proposition is that we have governed them well.
Our position is described by Mr. Taft and Mr. Stimson in identical language when they speak of "the heavy and difficult burden
which thus far we have been bravely and consistently sustaining."
It may be worth while to ask what this burden is. It is not
a burden on the thought or time of the- American people, since
in the words which I have quoted he bids the best of them not
"intermeddle" with the Philippine question. There is no honest
'American who does not know that he has given little or no time
or thought to Philippine affairs. Our burden is not intellectual.
Is it financial? Mr. Taft says, "No," since in his speech at
New York last winter he said:
"The Philippines have cost the United States to date [January, 1913] $3,000,000 for civil expenses, and this money was
appropriated to keep them from starving. The expense of maintaining troops in the islands is practically nil."
Mr. Taft doubtless greatly underestimated the expense, but
his own statement answers any claim from him or his friends
that the burden to which he referred is financial.




28


It is not the expense of schools, roads, sanitation, and the other
like benefits which we claim to have given the islanders. These
are all paid for by Filipino money raised by taxation. Secretary
Stimson in his report on the subject last winter recapitulated
these benefits, and added "and the cost of all this and of the
much more that has been similarly done has been borne by the
Filipino people themselves." The Filipinos pay the salaries of
the Commissioners and all the other American officials, they pay
the teachers, and, in a word, all the expenses of our government.
For all the benefits which we claim to have given the Filipinos,
they owe us not a dollar.
What, then, is "the heavy and difficult burden which thus far
we have been bravely and consistently sustaining?" Is it the
labor imposed upon the few Americans who hold office in the
islands? They do not seem anxious to lay it down, and, if they
do, there are many anxious to take their places and their emoluments. This burden is like the "white man's burden" of the
poet, which differs from every other burden in that the white
man never wishes to throw it off, and is always anxious to increase it: it is a pure poetic fiction. So much for the burden
which they impose on us. Before proceeding to show what sort
of government we have in fact been giving them, let me first
indicate what a burden we have been imposing on them.
I will pass 6ver all the slaughter and destruction of property
which we inflicted on the islands during the war of conquest. That can never be pleasant to recall. Let me begin
with the restoration of peace, and ask what was the class of
Americans whom we left in the islands. Let Mr. Taft describe
them.
In his speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce already
referred to he said:
"The American merchants" there "easily caught the feeling
of hostility and contempt felt by many of the soldiers for the
Filipinos, and were most emphatic in condemning the policy of
the government in attempting to attract the Filipinos and make
them so far as might be a part of the new civil order.
"The American newspapers which were established readily
took the tone of their advertisers and their subscribers, and
hence it is that the American community in the Philippines to-day
is largely an anti-Filipino community," prone apparently in




29


dealing with the natives "to call them names, to make fun of
them, and to deride every effort toward their advancement and
development." He added with reason, "This is unfortunate
and there must come into the islands a new set of merchants who
shall view the situation from an entirely different standpoint."
He said also:
"Were I assured that the present attitude of the majority of
American merchants and the American press would be permanent,
and if I did not confidently hope that there must be a great change
in the future, I should be very much discouraged in respect to
the result of the experiment which the United States is making
in these islands."
It is perhaps permissible to add in confirmation of Secretary
Taft's statement a few passages from the letters of Denzil H.
Taylor. This young man, brought up in New Hampshire, and
graduating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
1899, went to the Philippines in 1901, and was made one of the
provincial board which governed the province of Ilocos Norte
in Luzon, where he held the place of provincial supervisor with
high praise from his associates until he died at his post. On
May 12, 1902, he wrote:
"I have a few words to say about teachers. Of course, there
are many good and faithful ones to whom nothing but praise
should be given, but of the majority, at least as far as this province is concerned, this must be said: Never before have such
a number of incapables and cranks been deported from any
country as were sent here as teachers. They are here simply
for what they can get out of it-have neither principles nor
morals. They domineer over and oppress the natives. Three
in the province-two of them   Harvard graduates-we have
been obliged to take arms from, as being unfit to use firearms.
They would enter towns in the dead of night and fire right and
left to frighten the natives."
In another letter he said:
"As to morals and right living, what sort of an example are
many of our soldiers, our officers, and even our school-teachers
setting to the to-be-uplifted brother? Many a man when he
leaves America seems to leave behind all ideas of right livinganything and everything is allowable."




30


Later Mr. Leupp, a strong friend of Mr. Roosevelt, in the
New York Evening Post of June 11, 1904, quoted from a wellknown travelling newspaper correspondent, who writes from
anything but an anti-imperialistic point of view, the following
words in reference to American residents:
"These men are the loudest and most bitter in their criticisms
of the conduct of affairs. They disapprove most vigorously the
friendly attitude of our government toward the natives, and denounce the policy of 'benevolent assimilation' as preposterous and
visionary. They complain because Judge Taft and his associates
have shown so much solicitude for the welfare of the natives
and so little for the American residents. They object to the appointment of so many Filipinos to office, and instead of cultivating the good will of the native population, and creating a
demand for American goods, they spend their time and energy
finding fault and making gloomy predictions.
"The people here described have sent some emissaries to
Washington to convince the authorities that things are all wrong
in the Philippines, that the iron hand of white supremacy should
replace the Taft policy of the 'Philippines for the Filipinos.'
What they call a chamber of commerce in Manila is really an
organization for bringing about conditions more favorable to
the exploitation of the islands, without reference to the welfare
of the natives. The admission of Chinese labor is the first thing
the chamber of commerce wants in this program.
"The relations between the 'American element' there and the
Filipinos are mostly seriously strained; the newspapers which
cater to it never say a word for the Filipinos, nor, for that matter,
of the civil government. The despicable 'little brown brother'
poem has been widely circulated. It is about as true a picture
of the Filipinos as 'The Leopard's Spots' is of the negro in America. No one can read its fierce arraignment of the natives and
learn that it is almost a national hymn with our soldiers here,
and then imagine that relations between the two races are very
cordial."
Six years after Mr. Taft spoke, one of his successors, Governor
General Smith, pointed out with regret "the growing gulf between
the two peoples," saying that "an era of ill-feeling has started between Americans and Filipinos, and, I hesitate to say it, 'race
hatred."'
How is it to-day? Let me quote from an article written by
a United States official, who is bitterly opposed to Philippine




31


Independence, Herbert N. Witt, of the United States Coast and
Geodetic Survey, who in a letter to the Boston Transcript published within a month says:
"But the thing which the Philippines need most is a better
class of Americans interested in the welfare of the Islands. When
the best class of Americans can be induced to give two or three
years to a residence in the Islands, a residence which is not without
its charm, they may dispel the erroneous impression of Americans
which the present American population has given to the Far East.
"The greater part of our population in the Islands is made up
of social outcasts from our big cities, a host of political parasites,
a small army of camp followers who came out with the army of
occupation, and a great number of ex-enlisted men who thrive
on saloons and dance halls and the slimy affairs that cluster around
these institutions in Manila. These make up a huge percentage
of the Americans in the Philippines, and affect the moral tone not
only of Manila, but the whole archipelago.
"When the small colony of the right kind of Americans-in Manila
becomes large enough to color and tone Manila society, then that
society may cease to be the lamentable farce that it is now, and may
offer inducements to a longer residence in Manila than is now
comfortable for those who hold the best ideals of civilized society."
When we are told that the Americans in the islands oppose
independence, we can judge by this description how much importance to give their testimony.
But, if you want further testimony, let the American residents
themselves speak. I quote from speeches made at a mass meeting
of Americans held in Manila after the Filipinos had celebrated
the result of an election for the Assembly by a procession in which
Filipino flags as well as American were carried.
One speaker expressed his belief that "our government has been
weak and vacillating in its policy as -to these Islands," adding:
"Now I believe in 'benevolent assimilation' [which quotation
was received with laughter]. t believe in it so strongly that I
would, if necessary, pin it to these Islands with the bayonet."From another speech I quote these extracts:
"We may cover it up, put it out as smoothly and nicely as we
can and make it as easy as possible, but the fact remains we
came as an armed force and remained as conquerors."




32


"A little independence-a very little-is sometimes good for
a people, and too much is very bad."
Strange words from an Am'erican. Then comes this ambitious
claim:
"They did not realize that we, who are here to-night, are the
Government, and that that Government could not have, been
here without us, and cannot stay here without us.... I believe
in peace and harmony. I always did, and when I had a battalion of volunteers behind me I felt awful peaceful.... I believe
that if we could put about one hundred thousand American
troops over here it would be very peaceful [laughter], exceedingly so; and you would not see any more Katipunan banners,
eight or ten feet long, with their designs emblazoned in silk,
going along the streets with a little six-cent American flag carried
underneath it. It would be too peaceful for that."
Some ten years ago Mr. Taft said in words which have been quoted
that, unless the character and attitude of the Americans in the
islands changed for the better, he "should be very much discouraged" about the success of our experiment in the islands. It evidently has not and will not change, and the reasons are suggested
by an ardent supporter of Mr. Taft's policy, Professor Hart,
of Harvard College, writing from the islands, who said in the summer of 1909:
"If the hope of making big money in the Western Pacific was
the thing that turned the scale in favor of ratifying the treaty
in 1899, the United States was indeed buncoed, for the islands,
though reasonably rich by nature, are no foundation of wealth
either for the natives or the newcomers.... The really fertile
area of level land in the islands is probably not larger than the
State of Alabama and not so valuable.... Whatever wealth
there is in the Philippines can be had only by working for it, or
by working still harder in the effort to get the yellow man to work
for the white man.... It is hopeless to look for immigration
into the Philippines by any considerable number of American
farmers or mechanics," and "we must expect that for many
years to come few Americans will go out to settle in the Philippins except government officials, including the army and navy,
missionaries, and people of the missionary spirit, foremen and
superintendents and business men who have something to invest.... The race feeling seems due to the inexorable fact that the few
foreigners are in power, and the many and the native must obey.




33... It has been hoped that the Philippine Assembly, by exercising part of the governmentalauthority through elected representatives, would heal the breach; that a sizable majority would
be found in that body which would accept the American government as a fixture, but hardly a member stands for the things that
are.... There is a fundamental difficulty here upon which time
has little effect; the possession of some power seems to the Filipino-as it did to our ancestors in 1776-a reason for claiming
more."
Mr. Hart, moreover, tells us that
"the Negro problem here is on the whole an easier one than
the Philippine," and adds: "Here is the final fallacy of the whole
situation. Americans are trying with the best will in the world to
prove to the Filipinos that the political morals which fit America
do not- fit those parts of the outlying world which have become
incorporated with America. There is no logic, and no benefit to
those governed which makes self-government the only conceivable thing on the continent of America, and a dangerous thing
in the islands of the Pacific."
This certainly betrays no enthusiasm for the Philippine adventure.
Let me cite another very recent witness, Dr. George A. Dorsey,
who writes from the islands thus:
"What a farce we are over here, anyway! Our government
of the islands is worthy of, we will say, Nevada. We do not
know what we are trying to do, and we do not know how to do
it; especially is our government here not a government of experts. There are some good men, but they are in a minority,
and they owe their appointment not to eternal fitness but to fortuitous circumstances. Our improvements are not commensurate with the neglect, decay, and indifference which are to
be seen on every hand, and the Filipinos despise us and have
no respect for us.
"The wild tribes are interesting, and the mountains and valleys
of the interior are glorious, but Manila and the whole fringe of
so-called Christian coast is enough to make one sick. The old
flag gains no added lustre in flying aloft over the Philippine
Islands. We have introduced slovenliness and decay, and we
neither foster native industries nor encourage foreign capital.
And each day increases the bitterness between the white and
the brown; and the newspapers in Manila, instead of devoting
themselves to the legitimate sphere of a newspaper, carry on a




34


perpetual cat and dog fight, adding to the bitterness of the racial
hatred....
"Why cannot we let the natives alone? They are the best
agriculturists in the world; they build far better houses than
the Christians, and live a much saner, cleaner, more wholesome
life. What in the name of Abraham Lincoln do they want with
a few stale crumbs of our educational system?
"But what is the use? On this boat is one, just only one, other
white passenger. He has been in the civil service in Manila for
four years; he is leaving a $2,200 job to take one in Canton for
$1,500. He says 'Manila is no place for a white man."'
WHAT SORT OF GOVERNMENT HAVE WE REALLY
GIVEN THE FILIPINOS?
A feviquotations from reliable sources may throw some light on
the subject. On July 4, 1902, peace was declared officially to
have been restored and civil government was established. Let
us go on chronologically. During the Christmas season of 1901,
six months before the restoration of peace, General Bell reported
as to his operations thus:
"I am now assembling in the neighborhood of 2,500 men who
will be used in columns of about fifty men each. I take so large
a command for the purpose of thoroughly searching each ravine,
valley, and mountain peak for insurgents and for food, expecting
to destroy everything I find outside of towns. All able-bodied
men will be killed or captured. Old men, women, and children
will be sent to towns. This movement begins January 1, by which
time I hope to have nearly all the food supply in the towns. These
people need a thrashing, to teach them some good common sense;
and they should have it for the good of all concerned."
This was war; but what followed?  In the year 1902 reconcentration was used to suppress insurrection in Laguna and
Batangas.  It then affected not less than 100,000 people in
camps holding from  8,000 to 14,000 people each, according
to the official report of Colonel Wagner. In 1903, when every
Filipino is said to have had all the civil rights secured to an
American citizen by the Bill of Rights save the right to bear
arms and to trial by jury, 300,000 persons were driven from their
homes into reconcentration camps in Albay, where very large




35
areas were entirely denuded of population. 15,000 people in
Tayabas suffered a like fate. In 1904 some 20,000 people in
Samar and 16,000 in Cavite, close to the walls of Manila, were
dealt with in like manner. In 1905 we heard from Bakoor that
"its unfortunate reconcentrated people, the inhabitants of the districts of Ligas and St. Nicholas, a pleasant land situated by the
seaside, are subjected to vigorous surveillance, not allowed to
walk abroad with impunity, obliged to snatch their sleep in
motley heaps of men, women and children, exposed by night and
day to the elements" and every hardship which the terrible word
"reconcentration" implies. Like reports came from Batangas,
but these found no place in the despatches from the Philippine
Islands. The facts were given in the Manila press.
The following order was issued May 24, 1906, by Captain
Walter A. Smith, senior inspector of the constabulary of Negros,
to the commanding officer of a squad consisting of fifteen or
twenty men detailed to capture an putlaw named Isio:
"All country around Masasoh, Manjuija, Magtacay and other
sitios in that locality must be covered and everything destroyed
by cutting down or by fire.... All people caught in these places
should be turned over to Lieutenant Mohler for work.... Have
your men take lots of ammunition and kill everything that runs
from the Constabulary except women and children."
Yet Mr. Taft about that time said at Grand Rapids that the
Filipinos
"are now enjoying the right to life, liberty and property and the
pursuit of happiness and freedom from deprivation of any of
those rights, except by due process of law."
Does Mr. Taft, as an eminent lawyer, assert that the men
whose property is destroyed and whose lives are taken under
such an order as this lose them by "due process of law"?
This last order was issued in time of peace, and is an illustration of our tenderness in dealing with a weaker people. This
order was printed in the Manila Opinion, an American newspaper,
on December 7, 1907. Has the officer who gave that order been
punished? Could Aguinaldo's government have been more
arbitrary?




36


The massacre of Mt: Dajo in March, 1906, where admittedly
600 men, women, and children, and, as I am informed, many more
were slaughtered, was military, but hardly "due process of law."
My figures are unofficial because no official figures are furnished. When the British in time of war applied reconcentration in South Africa, a blue book issued every month informed
the British people how many camps were established, where they
were, how many men, women, and children were in each, and
what the mortality had been in each camp and in each class
during the month. No similar record exists, as I am credibly
informed by the Insular Bureau, of what we have done in the
Philippines, but, if it exists anywhere, it has never been disclosed
to the American people. Our leaders did not dare to tell us the
truth.
And they had good reason to fear. The truth was fatal, to
their cause. What is reconcentration?  When Spain in the
midst of war resorted to it, President McKinley said, "It was
not civilized warfare," but "a new and inhuman phase happily
unprecedented in the modern history of civilized Christian
people." By a curious coincidence he was speaking of its application to 300,000 people, just the number who suffered by it in
Albay, and he concluded: "It was extermination. The only
peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave,"a "wilderness" such as General Smith sought to make of Samar.
The people of the United States were roused to interfere, and
made war upon Spain, and, while President McKinley hesitated
to adopt this remedy for cruelties perpetrated by a Spanish
commander, Theodore Roosevelt said, as we are told:
"The steps of the White House are slippery with the blood of
the reconcentrados."
If the blood of those whom Spain killed was on our doorsteps, on
whom rests the guilt for the innocent lives that were lost by the
same methods in the Philippines?
After his visit to the islands Mr. Leroy, already quoted, wrote
as follows:
"Of all the departments of government wherein race prejudice
is exhibited toward the Filipinos and the Americans employed




37


are of the least cultured and most intolerant sort, the constabulary is by far the worst. Many non-commissioned officers
of the regular Army, of scant education, poor manners and a
contempt for the natives imbibed during their service in the army,
have been made officers of the Philippine constabulary. Too often
the so-called Filipino officials of the corps are men of so large a
share of Spanish blood, former non-commissioned officers in
the Spanish insular army or civil guard, that they are decidedly
hostile to the Filipinos and are hated by the people, being identified with the Spanish side of internal strife in the past. The
secret police, again, is largely recruited from men who turned
informers in behalf first of Spain and then of the United States,
spies upon their own people; this fact is in itself enough to disqualify them for service under a new civil government, but they
are in addition, in a very considerable proportion of cases, disreputable characters of the worst sort, who keep out of jail only
by serving the government. Many of the soldiers of the constabulary rank and file are of the same class of informers, spies
and other former servants of the American military government
who have frequently their private vengeances to pay, and do
not scruple to do so under the cover of the terror which their
uniform inspires. Worse yet, the hands of certain of the Filipino
constabulary subordinates do not seem to be clean of torture in
getting and arraying witnesses for the government in this case.
The charges, indeed, go to the extreme of instancing one case
of murder committed by a file of soldiers after seizing a humble
Filipino who refused to testify to what he was ordered to say, as
is so often the case with witnesses on both sides of a trial in the
Philippines."
Mr. Taft spoke thus of executive interference with the courts,
in a speech at Manila:
"It is said that the trials in the courts of first instance are too
much a matter of executive regulation, and that the defendants
do not receive justice,"... and proceeds, "Speaking of my
personal and intimate acquaintance derived from close investigation, I am able to say that I think no case can be successfully
established in which there was an undue interference on the part
to the executive."
This is a careful statement in a careful speech.    No case
can be proved of "undue interference." Who shall decide what
is "undue interference"? Here is no denial that there was
interference, only that no interference "undue" in Mr. Taft's




38


opinion can "be established."  Is this merely from  lack of
evidence?
He proceeded,
"that there is under the present system an opportunity for such
interference cannot, I think, be denied," and so great is the danger
that he declared himself "strongly in favor" of giving the President alone the power to remove judges and then only for cause,
and of giving to the court itself the power of assigning judges to
particular districts.
The visiting Congressmen of the Taft party heard statements
like these about the conditions then existing. A sugar planter
of Iloilo said:
"Our situation at the present time is, therefore, a very deplorable one. Seven years of calamities, with a war and plagues,
failures of crops, etc., have reduced us to a state of misery to such
an extent that in many plantations of Negros and Panay the cultivation of sugar has been entirely abandoned. Owing to the
low price secured by the farmer for his product during the past
few years, a great many planters have been unable to meet their
obligations and to-day are on the eve of losing their property.
They are unable to get credit any longer. There are planters,
both in the Island of Panay and in that of Negros, who, having
the deeds of their property in their hands, apply to the money
lenders and to the bankers for a loan, offering to secure the
loan by mortgaging their entire property, and are unable to secure
even sufficient money to attend to their most pressing personal
wants."
A tobacco planter said:
"There has never been as severe a crisis in the industry in the
Philippine Islands as that which at present prevails. The Philippine tobacco industry in cigars has lost the markets of England,
India and Australia on account of the duties imposed upon that
article, and I wish to give these figures to prove my assertion.
These figures refer to the exportation of manufactured tobacco.
In the year 1901 it was 1,559,780 kilograms; in 1902, 1,063,069;
in 1903, 1,235,257; in 1904, 705,827; and for the first six months
of the year 1905, 149,828; and the proof of the decadence of the
industry is that at the present day we have but ten per cent. of
the number of women formerly employed in our factories and
but fifty per cent. of the number of men."




39


Mr. Macleod, in behalf of the Manila Chamber of Commerce
and the Ship Owners Association, read the report of a committee,
of which he was one. Its character is indicated by the following
passages:
"The country, generally speaking, is in a state of financial
collapse. The agriculturists and merchants are passing through
the worst crisis ever known in the annals of Philippine history.' A
series of calamities had contributed to bring the country to this
deplorable state."
"Consequent on this ruined state, the farmers have had to
borrow money to live on, money to plant their crops and cultivate their lands, and money to bring their harvests to market,
so that almost the entire agricultural land throughout the Islands
is mortgaged for more than its full value. Where the money has
been advanced by the merchant or middleman who buys the produce the rate of interest has been eight per cent., which is considered moderate for this country, but where the farmer has had to
have recourse to other sources, the usurer has taken advantage
to charge anything from one to three per cent. per month, and
the farmer has year by year sunk deeper into the mire.
"As a natural sequence to the ruined state of the farmers, the
merchants and middlemen who acted as bankers have lost many
millions by bad debts, and have still many millions outstanding
of doubtful recovery. This has naturally turned all their paper
profits into real and actual losses, so that, generally speaking, the
commercial firms are a great deal worse off to-day than they were
five years ago.
"Second. Following on conditions such as above described, the
country was by no means prepared to meet a tax on land already
burdened by debt. The people, therefore, naturally felt very
sore when the territorial tax was imposed, to pay which they had
in most cases to raise money at usurious rates of interest. There
is a provision in the law governing this tax whereby the Government may order the sale of the land for overdue taxes, and we
are under the belief that this has happened in several cases where
the owners were unable to raise the money. We are strongly
of the opinion that the imposition of this tax and mode of procedure has caused and is causing much of the distress now prevalent
throughout the Islands."
"We beg to draw attention to the necessity of revising the present internal revenue law. The tax of one third of one per cent.
on sales falls unequally, and in the case of sales of native produce
there is a clear discrimination against the middleman, who is one
of the most useful and necessary members of the mercantile community in his capacity of banker and agent for the producer.




40


" We consider the present taxation to be excessive for the producing power of the Islands. The amount raised for insular purposes alone is estimated at 23,000,000 pesos for the present fiscal
year. This does not include municipal and other taxes which we
have not been able to estimate.
"Mr. MACLEOD (interrupting the reading of the report). While
we all appreciate the great improvements that are going to be
brought about and have been brought about by the American
government, and the policy they have been carrying out, the
increase in the budget from what it was in Spanish times-from
13,000,000 pesos to approximately 30,000,000 pesos-has been
too high; the country is not able to support it.
"Senator FOSTER. Do you mean to say that the aggregate of
taxation has raised from 13,000,000 pesos to approximately
30,000,000 pesos?
"Mr. MACLEOD. Yes; the Spanish budget of 1894-95, which
was the highest ever known in normal times, was 13,579,900 pesos.
" Representative HEPBURN. Did that include all of the exactions
levied by the Spanish Government upon the people?
"Mr. MACLEOD. Yes; I "will give you a list of them."
Of the internal revenue tax Professor Paul S. Reinsch said:
"Outside of Italy it would be hard to find a system of taxation
that so efficiently scours the whole field of business. The merchants and professional men of a country like the United States
would look upon it as a most unbearable burden."
The practical effect of our policy may be judged from these
statistics which are taken from a letter addressed by representatives of Batangas to Secretary Taft, on August 26, 1905. They
show what had been going on in the municipality of Balayan, in
the province of Batangas.
In 1896 the number of inhabitants in that municipality was
41,308. In 1905 it was 13,924. The area of cultivated land,
in hectares, was 19,500 in 1896, and 1,700 in 1905,-not ten per
cent. Products: rice, 39,020 cavanes in 1896 and 12,500 ca~.-~;  vanes in 1900; sugar, 520,000 picos in 1896, now 12,300 picos;
maize, 110,000 cavanes in 1896, now 10,000 cavanes; the oxen
then were 10,000, now 427; the cows then were 3,650, now 80;
carabaos, oxen, 4,110 in 1896, now 433; carabaos, cows, 1,350
in 1896, now 92; there were 11,000 hogs then, there are now
2,800; there were 96,000 hens, there are now 5,000. Consider
what a story these figures tell.




41


Yet Mr. Taft in a speech at Manila on August 8, as reported in a
despatch published in the Boston Transcript, alluding to the taxes,
said that "people refusing just taxation were unfitted for selfgovernment." Had Mr. Taft forgotten the causes of the American Revolution, or did he think that the question whether a tax
is just is settled by the opinion of the men who impose it?
It may be said that this was some nine years ago. How is it
now? That we have strayed very far from the principles on
which our government rests may be gathered from Governor
Forbes's words in describing the manner in which some Filipinos
are governed. I quote from an article written for the Harvard
Graduates' Magazine for December, 1911, in which he points out
to what careers Harvard men may aspire, and describes " Gallman,
who rules with a rod of iron 120,000 savages, whom nobody before
has ever been able to deal with or bring under control, whose
least word is now their law," and Governor Pack, who rules
350,000 people, described as "industrious, honest, faithful and
extremely dirty," as "gradually persuading by reason and by
force, if necessary, the savages to desist from their warfare and
reprisals and to engage in the arts of peace."
Despotic power, "rods of iron," the government by one man
of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of his fellow-men,
have no place under our flag. No man in the United States
would intrust another with absolute power over him. By what
right do we give that power to one man over thousands of others!
I might allude to the manner in which the Friar Lands were
sold to American exploiters and to fraudulent corporations in
evident disregard of law.
There is, however, another question of very great importance,
to state which I shall borrow freely from the speech of Mr. Jones
already referred to:
"The legislature since 1907 has consisted of two houses, this
appointive commission, which is known as the upper house, and
an elective assembly. This body legislates for the civilized,,Christianized people, but the commission, under the organic. act, is the sole legislative body for the non-Christian and uncivilized
tribes, and exercises supreme and exclusive legislative authority
over all their territory, their lives, their property, and their public
revenues. Let us see what has been the practical operationsome of the actual, tangible results-of this anomalous condition




42


of affairs. In the first place, no measure originating in the assembly can become a law unless it meets the approval of the commission, and, of course, the reverse of this proposition is also true.
Realizing that disagreements would inevitably arise between the
commission and the assembly, and that the annual appropriation bills for the support of the government might thus fail of
passage, the organic act provides that in such event 'an amount
equal to the sums appropriated in the last appropriation bills
for such purposes shall be deemed to be appropriated, and until
the legislature shall act in such behalf the treasurer may, with
the advice of the governor, make the payments necessary for the
purposes aforesaid.' The purpose of this law is, as has been said
by another, to provide for the contingency of an honest difference
of opinion between these two houses as well as for unreasonable
or factious attempts on the part of either house to embarrass
the government by withholding the supplies necessary for its
existence.
THE SUPPLY BILLS.
"Twice has the legislature failed to pass these supply bills.
One of the causes for the disagreement which led to the deadlock
between the two branches of the legislature and which resulted
in these failures to pass appropriation bills was that the assembly insisted that the salaries of the members of the commission
who were also heads of executive departments should be so reduced as to make them more nearly correspond to those received
by members of the American Cabinet. But the chief cause of disagreement was the insistence of the commission upon the right
which it claimed to appropriate large sums of money out of the
public revenues of the insular treasury, to be expended upon what
is known as the Benguet Road, without the concurrence and despite the earnest opposition of the other co-ordinate branch of
the legislature.
BENGUET ROAD.
"The Benguet Road is a highway less than 20 miles in length,
built at a cost of several millions of dollars in gold through a
mountain gorge to a health resort or residential park, called
Baguio, to which place, at great expense, the seat of government
is transferred from Manila for several months each year, and where
American officials have handsome homes, clubhouses, polo grounds,
and other sources of recreation and amusement. The Filipinos
have from the beginning been violently opposed to these vast
and absolutely inexcusable expenditures. Not only has it cost
millions to build this automobile road through rugged mountains,
a highway that is used solely for purposes of recreation and pleasure, but the cost of its upkeep is perhaps not less than $100,000




43


a year, and in times of great freshets it has been necessary to rebuild entire sections at an enormous cost. Nothing that our
Government has done in the Philippine Islands has aroused more
feeling and created more resentment on the part of the helpless
Filipinos of every station in life than this wanton and indefensible
disregard of their wishes and interests. [Applause.] This one
act of the Philippine Commission has greatly shaken, if not destroyed, the confidence of the Filipino people in the American
sense of justice and fair dealing. It has removed every vestige
of any sentiment which may have existed in favor of American
annexation.
"The pretext for the commission's action was that the Benguet Road traversed a part of a non-Christian Province, and that
inasmuch as the commission exercised exclusive legislative functions over non-Christian territory it was empowered to expend
any amount of the public funds it might desire in the construction
and maintenance of that road, and that without either the concurrence or approval of the assembly. The members of the assembly claimed, on the other hand, and with reason, that the commission was only empowered to expend the public money in nonChristian Provinces for the use and benefit of the non-Christian
and uncivilized tribes residing therein, and that it was a flagrant
violation of law and a perversion of public funds to use them in
the construction of an enormously expensive automobile road
leading to a mountain summer resort maintained exclusively for
the benefit of themselves and other rich residents of Manila.
"Acting under the authority of the provision of law which I have
just quoted the Governor General has ordered the appropriation
of a sum equal to the total appropriations made in the previous
year for the support of the Government. Having thus gotten
into his hands more than $12,000,000 in 1911 and a little less
than $14,000,000 in 1912 of the public revenues of the Filipino
people the Governor General proceeded to expend these large sums
according to his own will, and as in his sole judgment seemed desirable, and with an utter disregard for the pturposes for which the
prior legislative appropriations had been made."
The Commission may have been wrong or right in differing
with the Assembly, and the Governor may have been wrong or
right in his claim of power, though I think him wrong, but it
is obvious that, if he is right, it is always in the power of the
Commission, by refusing to concur with the Assembly, to obtain
the absolute control of the Philippine treasury and to spend the
money raised by taxation from the Filipinos without consulting
their representatives. It is strange that such doctrines should




44


prevail under the American flag, and it is not strange that men
thus subjected to taxation without representation should desire
their independence. This claim of right and the approval of
arbitrary government by Gallman show how the views of even
the best Americans are distorted by the possession of power,
and confirm Lincoln's-statement that "No man is good enough
to govern another without that other's consent."
Mr. Jones states:
"It is asserted by a former member of the commission that there
were as many as 123 new offices thus created, among them a
secretary to the Governor General at an annual salary of $4,500,
and it is a most amazing and stupendous fact that the expenditures on account of bureaus and offices for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1912, were $9,638,369.80, as against $8,318,051.56 for
the next preceding year, the excess being a mere bagatelle of
$1,320,318.24 in gold."
The facts touching the new offices and the expenditure should
be matters of record in the War Department, and, if these figures
are not accurate, they can be corrected. It is impossible to doubt,
however, that our government of the islands is altogether more
expensive than the wealth of the people warrants, and it is certainly an anomaly that the heads of Philippine departments should
be paid higher salaries than the Cabinet Ministers of the United
States receive. Under the present system these abuses cannot
be corrected, since the Commission which spends the money controls the legislature.
But it is said that we have given the Filipinos good schools,
good roads, good water, better sanitary regulations, and the like.
Let us admit that we have spent their money in providing these
things. What we have contributed is advice and direction:
the Filipinos have contributed the money and the labor. Our
officials have given time and thought to their problems, and have
been paid for both by the Filipinos. Is it necessary to make
them pay the enormous expenses of our administration and in
addition to pay out of our own treasury forty million dollars more
or less for maintaining our armed force in the islands, in order
that the Filipinos may have somewhat better schools, roads, and
other things than they would provide themselves?  We could
give advice and they could take it for far less money.




45


It must be borne in mind, when we measure what we have done,
that Mr. Taft and his supporters compare present conditions
with what existed in 1902, when the Philippines had been subjected
to nearly four years of desolating warfare, in the course of which
roads, bridges, towns, villages, and crops of every kind had been
laid waste and the flower of the Filipino youth had perished in
great numbers. WTe have been replacing what we destroyed. If
they go further back, they compare with conditions existing under
Spanish rule, which had driven the islanders to revolt. It would
be strange indeed if there had not been a marked improvement
since those days.
The Japanese, who were to our thinking just as backward in
1850 as were the Filipinos in 1898, have made themselves the equals
of the great civilized nations by their own exertions. They have
had advice and instruction, but they have done their own thinking
and have improved themselves without foreign masters.
If our government was withdrawn, the money which it costs
would provide schools for Filipino children who now have
none, and would pay for more roads and wells. Do either they
or we under the present system get an equivalent for the money
that we spend, if we consider money alone? How much-more do
we pay when we consider the surrender of our principles and the
loss of our ideals?
The expense of our present policy has been enormous in blood
and in money. It is enormous still. Is it worth while to pay so
much for the assumption that the Filipino of all men on earth cannot be trusted to do for himself what is clearly beneficial?
Even if we admit that every dollar of Filipino money which has
been spent has been used for good ends, is it not possible that
there were other uses equally desirable for which the tax-payers
would have preferred to spend it? -Can we be sure that there
are not, and should not those who pay have the right to decide?
It was for this right that we fought the Revolution. Were we
wrong? It would be an excellent thing if every child in America
were taught to speak French, German, and Spanish. He who
forced them to learn it might justly say he had done a good work;
but should-we welcome a combination of foreign powers who took
our taxes and spent them for this beneficent end, leaving other
things which we had more at heart to suffer? If we were not hold



46


ing the Philippines, the money spent in teaching them English
might have been put into something which they need more.
They only need English in order to communicate with us; and,
when we go, the need fe;too.
GOOD GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE ASSURED.
Mr. Taft's policy is founded on the assumption that the
American people are, and will continue to be, unselfish in their
attitude toward the Filipinos, and that they can be trusted to
keep men in office anxious to carry out this unselfish policy.
Does he not see that the existing situation is typical, and,
such as it is, it always will be?
There will always be a body of resident Americans, anxious to
make money quick and looking down upon the natives, despising them, misinterpreting them, and trying to profit at their expense, just as the resident Americans are doing now. There will
always be governors naturally solicitous for the success of their
administration, and never willing to disclose the facts which
might lead to criticism or condemnation. They will always tell
the American people, as Mr. Taft tells us now, that they are
"very little able to understand" the situation. There will always
be the busy, good-natured American people, knowing little and
caring less about their distant subjects, taking, as the Hartford
Courant says, less "interest in these people" than "in the fading
American Indians," believing what Americans say because they
are of their own flesh and blood, and content to let the government manage the islands.
The American people will no more resist the selfish demands
of American adventurers or protect -the Filipino against them
than they have protected the Indians against spoliation, or than
they protected the Southern States from Northern "carpetbaggers." We shall deal with the Filipinos as the English have
dealt with the people of India, who, after centuries of English
rule, are not so near independence as they were at the beginning.
Let us assume, however, for the sake of the argument that we
have sent out exceptionally able and wise men, that they have




47


devoted themselves to the work of helping the Filipinos up, and
that they have made no mistakes. Surely, I cannot concede
more.
s Who will assure us that those conditions shall continue? At
a time when in our own country we are insisting that our own
officials, judges, mayors, governors, our own fellow-citizens
elected by us, directly exposed to public opinion, criticised in
the newspapers and magazines and on the stump, cannot be
trusted to do their duty well during the brief periods for which
they are elected, but that our safety requires that we must
have the power to recall them at pleasure,-when we cannot
trust our legislators even for a single year, but must have
the initiative and referendum,-when the representatives of the
defeated party are prophesying all sorts of evil because their
opponents, men of the same blood, education, and ability as themselves, are placed in power by a large vote,-when Americans will
not trust Americans at home, how can we confidently assert that
they can safely be trusted with absolute power over millions of
aliens, whom they consider inferior, ten thousand miles away,
though the men whom they govern cannot displace them by their
votes, though there is no public opinion which they respect to control them, no press which they fear, no initiative; no referendum,
no recall? Does the "graft" which disgraces every city at home
disappear in the Philippines? Is this the only one of our practices that changes "under a tropic sun"? Does human experience show that the possession of absolute power over others makes
man better, more honest, and more considerate?
It is to such questions as this that our forefathers made answer
in the Declaration of Independence, when they announced as a
self-evident truth that no government should derive power from
any source but the consent of the governed.
Our presence there is not even a protection to the islanders
against foreign aggression, for we have been assured by the head
of the Insular Bureau that incase of a war with any foreign power
our troops and ships would at once be withdrawn and no attempt
would be made to. defend the islands. Our troops are there, and
an expense of some $40,000,000 a year is incurred, to keep the
Filipinos down, and yet our opponents assert that only a very few
among them desire their independence. Is this expense incurred




48


for their benefit? Is this altruism? If so, we must revise our views,
and rank Russia in Poland, Austria in Italy, Spain in Mexico and
Peru, high among human altruists. Were they not all striving
to introduce the blessings of civilization, or a knowledge of the
true faith, or some other inestimable good among their victims?
THE PROPHECIES OF DISASTER.
In dealing with the last proposition of our opponents, we enter
the realm of pure prophecy, and they see the downfall of all that is
good in the Philippine Islands in case of our withdrawal as clearly
as they see the ruin of American industry in case the tariff is reduced. They have as little ground for their gloomy views in the
first case as in the last.
The testimony of Secretary Stimson as to Filipino ability has
been quoted. It will bear repetition:
"Within ten years they have been given, and now exercise, the
right of electing all of their municipal officers. Native Filipinos
also now compose ninety per cent. of the officials and employees
of the provincial governments and nearly sixty per cent. of the
officials and employees of the central Government. They have
been given their own Assembly-the lower house of the Philippine Legislature, which is composed wholly of native members,
chosen at popular election. They have representation on the
Philippine Commission, which forms the upper house. They
divide with Americans the direction of the various executive departments. The chief justice and two of the associate justices
of the Supreme Court, about half of the judges of the higher
courts and all of the justices of the peace are Filipinos. There
is no branch of the Government, executive, legislative or judicial,
where Filipinos are not represented in increasing numbers and
where their influence is not important."
Mr. Taft thinks this progress is due to "constant support
and supervision at every step by Americans." This again is
assumption. This is what every leader is apt to thina of his
pupil's achievement, but the pupil does not always think so.
Men who can govern all their towns and cities, who can show
such capacity for legislation as the Philippine Assembly has shown,
who fill such high judicial offices, and furnish all the inferior




49
judges, "who divide with Americans the direction of the various
executive departments," have not shown incapacity, for selfgovernment, but marked capacity. They have been trusted not
over few, but over many things, and ao one charges that they
have been found wanting. On the contrary, they are trusted more
every year. The proof of their capacity might be amplified very
greatly, but for present purposes the evidence of our opponents
is enough. We want no better testimony than that of Mr. Stimson
when he says,
"There is no parallel to the material, mental and moral progress shown in these ten years of civil government by so many
millions of people, held for centuries in ignorance and in effect
in political and economic bondage."
This is strong testimony to Filipino capacity.
But Mr. Taft says that to confer independence upon "the
Filipinos now  is to subject the great mass of their people
to the dominance of an oligarchical and probably exploiting
minority."  Where are they now? Under the domination of
five oligarchs, the American Commissioners, who control the
legislation and the administration of the islands. This oligarchy
is a stubborn fact, the Filipino "oligarchical minority" a fancy.
We know the first. We imagine the second. That there will
be leaders among the Filipinos is undoubtedly true, as there
are leaders and "bosses" here, and the leaders, like all leaders,
will be a minority of the people, hut they will be men of the same
blood, the same aspirations, the same traditions as their followers. The leaders and the followers will understand each
other, and have common sympathies and mutual respect. This
is a very different thing from the government of millions of people
by five foreigners who look down upon the governed as members
of an inferior race, and upon that assumption rest their right
to govern. Such a relation between governor and governed cannot fail to end in disaster. As Mr. Curry, of New Mexico, who
served eight years in the Philippines as governor of three provinces, chief of the Manila police, and in other capacities, has well
said,
"The government which the Filipinos will establish may not
be approved by the ordinary American citizen, but it will suit
the Filipinos themselves."




50


And that is the final test. The best government for any
people is the government which they like.
Bishop Brent sneers at all the great statesmen of the country,
from those who framed the Declaration of Independence through
Lincoln and his associates to Edmunds, Reed, Harrison, Hoar,
and all the leaders of the Democratic party, when he speaks of
the "tone of infallibility which characterizes the utterances of those
doughty champions of the Filipinos, who clothed in the soft raiment of homespun theories, -view the battle from afar," adding,
"I have no solution of the Philippine problem to offer." Yet
with a tone of greater infallibility he does not hesitate to assert
dogmatically:
"If our rule were removed at this juncture, at any rate the
Philippines would at once become a prey to the strongest of
the sectional aggregations, and they in turn would ultimately
be devoured by intruders from outside the borders of the Philippines." *
One hardly knows which to marvel at most, the lofty conceit
with which the bishop describes the fundamental principles of free
government as "homespun theories," the modesty with which
he admits that he has no solution of our problem to offer, or the
serene confidence with which he foretells the fate of the Filipino.
His language confirms our belief in the necessity of separating
Church and State, and the unwisdom of preachers when they
undertake to deal with politics.
The danger from foreign interlopers can be guarded against by
a treaty between the great powers which shall assure the neutralization of the islands, as Switzerland and other countries are neutralized. This is the tendency of modern international statesmanship, arid it is for a Democratic Administration to make the
proposition on behalf of the United States, which without doubt
the other powers will accept. This is surely better in every way
than the present plan of holding them down by force in peace and
abandoning them in war.
-What is meant by the statement that they "would fall a prey
to the strongest of the sectional aggregations" is perhaps a question. It may mean only that the strongest party will carry the
elections, and it can hardly mean anything else than a majority
* Statement in Boston Transcript, April 21, 1913.




51


rule described in the language of the pulpit. The defeated
Republicans feel in the same way that the country has "become
a prey" to the Democrats.
Whatever, however, the bishop means, he knows no more of
the future than do his fellow-citizens, and, as his prophecies do not
frighten the people most interested, they need not frighten us.
When we read them, we remember that for years the Republicans have described the Democratic party as unfit to be trusted
with power, and have foretold every sort of disaster as sure to
follow its success at the polls. Only the other day Mr. Taft was
bidding his party associates "have patience," confident that the
Democrats would soon demonstrate their folly and so far injure
the country as to insure their expulsion from power. An old
Massachusetts member of Congress left home last autumn,
expressing his deep sense of the approaching calamities which
the Democrats were sure to inflict on us all. There is no statement of belief in Philippine incapacity, no matter how positive,
that cannot be paralleled with an equally positive statement of
belief in Democratic incapacity, both taken from Republican
speeches, and often the speeches of the same men. Least of all
people in the world should Democrats attach any importance to
such statements, or deny independence to the Philippines because
of gloomy prophecies from men who would, if they could, for the
same reasons deny the Democrats themselves any hope of controlling the government of their own country.
The theory that the Filipinos will give up all that is good and
take to mutual slaughter is intrinsically improbable. They have
learned that good water is healthy, that good roads are useful,
and they have no more desire to die of disease or to be killed in
battle than we have. The instinct of self-preservation is as strong
in them as in ourselves. Our schools have been pronounced a
great success. Why? Because the Filipinos have sent their
children to be taught. Why did they do this? No law compelled
it. The children went and studied because they wanted to learn.
We did not implant that desire in their breasts, and it will not
perish when we withdraw. All over the world men are governing themselves, not always as we would have them, but as they
prefer. Our own eyes are not free from beams. We have only
to read the morning paper to see things proposed and too often




52


done by our own governors, legislators, and statemen, municipal,
state, and national, that we dplore. The remedy is not to invite
some other nation in to govern us, but to correct the abuses
ourselves.
To whatever is said as to the probability of mistakes, quarrels,
corruption, or even bloodshed among the Filipinos if independent,
we may reply in the strong words of President Eliot:
"Political freedom means freedom to be feeble, foolish and
sinful in public affairs as well as freedom to be strong, wise and
good."
Let the nation now free, whose way to freedom has not been
made through dissension, folly, bloodshed, and civil war, cast the
first stone at Filipino quarrels.
Let me quote the words of Judge Norris, of Washington, for a
number of years a judge of the United States Court in the Philippines, who in a speech at Springfield in Massachusetts on March
9 last, after expressing his opinion that the Filipinos were not
prepared for republican government in 1898, continued as follows:
"I feel equally justifiable in the assertion that they possess the
inherent capacity for free government and will be capable of exercising it at the present or at some future day. I feel justified
in making this assertion because their American associates in
the insular government bear abundant testimony to their ability.
With almost unanimous voice they enthusiastically commend
the ability manifested by the Filipinos in official positions in the
performance of their public duties. All the governors-general,
with perhaps one exception, all the members of the Filipino Commission, with perhaps one exception, have been loud in their praises
of their native associates. The Filipinos have, from the beginning
been admitted to a liberal participation in the government. They
have been tried and not found wanting. 'Not only have they been
heartily commended by their American associates, but they have
received the more substantial recognition of not only being retained in office, but their number has been constantly augmented
until to-day the insular government is largely in their hands.
" The Filipinos are natural republicans. They possess the democratic instinct. Whenever or wherever the opportunity has been
presented since the Aguinaldo insurrection, they have availed
themselves of it to attempt the establishment of a republic or a
non-monarchical government. When we first became acquainted
with them, they were fighting Spain for national independence with




/   53
the intention, if succ ssful, of establishing a representative government. For t    urpose they dared the power of Spain, and,
when disappointed at the non-recognition of the Aguinaldo government by the United States, rose in rebellion against and defied
the nation that conquered Spain. The Filipinos have fought for
national independence. The cause has had its heroes and martyrs, like other patriotic causes. The earnest desire of the Filipino
for national independence is not that he may establish a monarchical form of government, but a republic. His strenuous attempts
to achieve his independence and create a republic are presumptive evidence that he possesses, if not a genius for self-government,
an innate capacity therefor which when properly trained will enable him to administer his own government with credit to himself
and to his American instructors and sponsors."...
"Now when China, Turkey, Persia, and other Asiatic powers are
striving to emerge into a higher and better life; when the Orient
is looking for a sign of hope from the Occident and especially from
the United States, is it not well for the American people to consider when the appointed day shall arrive to cheer the Oriental
world with the object lesson of an Asiatic republic administered
by an Asiatic people by launching the Republica Filipina among
the nations of the civilized world?"
Judge Elliott, late a member of the Philippine Commission
appointed by Mr. Taft, adds his testimony:
"I never had any sympathy with the party which opposed
the retention 'of the Philippines. But the Filipinos have been
promised independence and have been led to believe that American occupation was temporary and'only for the purpose of training them for self-government. They are competent to-day to
conduct a fairly good government, such a one as they desire to
live under. They can maintain law and order and can protect
the lives and property of foreigners, and that is about all that we
can expect or rightly demand. I am therefore in favor of keeping
the faith with these people and passing a law somewhat similar
to the Jones Bill."
And, as to probabilities, let me conclude with the words of Mr.
Taft himself in his message vetoing the New Mexico and Arizona
Statehood bill:
"In the long run each class of individuals is apt to secure
better provision for themselves through their own voice in government than through the altruism of others, however intelligent
and philanthropic."




54


- WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
The Jones bill fixes a time when, if all goes well, the United
States will withdraw from the islands. If all does not go well,
further legislation may be had. If the bill is so drawn as to
make further legislation necessary before this withdrawal takes
place, the battle will have to be fought over again. Let us cut
the knot now as far as possible. Let no one invest money or
change his position on the theory that independence is doubtful.
Let every one have full notice that the decision has been made,
and let the burden to show cause be on those who wish postponement for any reason. It is time that this question was settled
in accordance with the oft-repeated promise of the Democratic
party by the passage of the Jones bill.
To insure the success of the Democratic policy, the government of
the islands should at once be intrusted to men who believe in
it. Officers who like the present Governor-General are bitterly opposed. to independence can do much to obstruct, but are not likely
to forward the policy. They will see what happens through the
spectacles of their prepossessions. Those things that make for
independence will not seem; to them important and will not be
mentioned. Whatever.helps their cause will be emphasized.
They have made themselves the leaders in the movement against
independence. They are engaged in an active propaganda against
the Jones bill, or any like measure. They are not judges but
parties, and, without impugning their honesty, their presentation
of the facts is not to be trusted. Is proof desired?
Let me first give a newspaper statement of the Commission's
-report for the year 1911:
"Unprecedented prosperity is being enjoyed by the Philippine
islands, principally as a result of free trade between them and the
United States, and the cry of 'hard times' there no longer can
be raised, say the members of the Philippine commission in their
report for 1911. The United States has shared in this prosperity
by increasing its exports to the archipelago to $49,800,000, or more
than $12,500,000 during the year. Free trade has resulted in
increased revenues to the Filipinos in sugar and tobacco and an
improvement in the market for copra.
"The opening of new railway lines in various parts of the islands




55


has resulted in stimulating industry and fostering production,
the territory through which they pass having awakened to the
development of agricultural industries. A steady and healthy
growth of the postal savings!bank; Filipino depositors having
increased 171 per cent. overt'he number of the previous year.
Health conditions of the entire islands never have been better than
during the past year."
But now let us read the statement of El Ideal, a Manila newspaper, about the year 1911:
"Great fires, hurricanes, floods, shipwrecks, epidemics among
work animals, and other calamities have sown desolation, weeping and ruin in fields and cities.; The history of the year is like
a Sibylline chapter of Madame de Thebus."
It is to be noted that in this report among exports from the
United States were for the first time included government supplies and free railroad supplies, so that the increase pointed out
with such pride was not a real increase.
In like manner a great increase of imports has been claimed
the present year. The fact that this was in part due to the
importation of "millions of dollars' worth" of rice from China,
owing to the failure of the crop in the islands, was not given equal
prominence.
A much more glaring case of both suppressio veri and suggestio
falsi is the statement that slavery exists in the Philippine Islands,
given out by Dean C. Worcester, one of the Philippine Commissioners, in a letter published in the National Humane Review,
and his assertion that this is because the Filipino Assembly
refuses to pass laws which will end it.
This charge is in large part founded on a decision of the Supreme
Court of the Philippine Islands, from the syllabus of which he
quotes.
Fortunately for the truth, Judge Tracey, the judge who wrote
the opinion in this case, saw the statement, and in a letter published on May 3 last contradicts the charge. I quote his words:
"It happens that to me, as one of the Justices of the Supreme
Court for the Philippine Islands at the time, was assigned the
writing of the opinion of the court in the case, which is reported
at Page 64 of the Eighth Volume of the Philippine Reports, now




56


before me. Without desiring a controversy with Mr. Worcester
or Gen. McIntyre, also mentioned in your Washington dispatch,
I feel it incumbent on me to promptly call attention to the substance of this decision. The record before the court shows not
that slavery existed in any form throughout the Philippine Islands,
but only a custom of child servitude or apprenticeship in certain
mountain regions. The opinion says:
"'It is proved in the case that it is an Igorot custom to dispose
of children to pay the debts of their fathers, the transaction in the
native language being termed a sale, and the defendant appears
to have engaged in the business of buying in Nueva Vizcaya
children to sell in the lowlands of Isabela....
"'The name applied to it by the custom of the Igorots is not
enough to establish that in truth and in effect it was a sale, or anything more than a contract for services....
"'The employment or custody of a minor with the consent or
sufferance of the parents or guardian, although against the child's
own will, cannot be considered involuntary servitude.'
"It is likened to an indenturing of children, in accordance with
custom, unprotected by statutory safeguards. After calling attention both to the American constitutional declarations against
servitude and the humane provisions of the Spanish codes prohibiting the abuse of minors, as well as the declaration of the Spanish
law of the thirteenth century that 'slavery is a thing that all men
naturally abhor,' the court suggests that any remedy is for the
consideration of the Legislature farther than action by the criminal courts.
"The further inference is to be drawn from Mr. Worcester's
letter that anti-slavery laws were thereafter passed applicable
to the mountain provinces and the Morro Province, and the
offence which he finds is that the legislature refuses to apply a
similar law to the civilized parts of the islands. The reason for
the refusal is plain. The Assembly does not consider that slavery
exists in the civilized parts of the islands. It is stated in the
letter that 'there are Negrito slaves held to-day in the City of
Manila.' If this is so, their liberation can be enforced any day
through a writ of habeas corpus. I am too well aware of Mr.
Worcester's skill as a seasoned controversialist to believe that
he has ventured upon a' specific assertion without holding some
proof of it in reserve. I can only say that having been some years
a resident of Manila in official position, such a condition of things
is unknown to me, as it was unknown to my colleagues, some of
whom have resided in the Philippine Islands all their lives. The
condition must be exceptional and abnormal, as it is illegal, existing in the islands, as phrased by General McIntyre: 'Just as
crime exists everywhere.'
"It may also be observed that for years before the organization




57


of the Philippine Assembly the legislation of the Philippine Islands
was in the hands of a commission, dominated by Americans, having in its power the passage of an anti-slavery law on any day at
any hour. The reproach, if it be genuine, lies with far greater
force against the American Commission than the Philippine
Assembly, in view of the existence of this species of servitude in
the mountain provinces which are immediately under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.
"It has passed into an adage that 'you cannot indict a whole
people.' All history proves that by innuendo you may calumniate
a whole people. I may be permitted to say that, while not one
of those who think Philippine independence a timely or tenable
thing to-day, I deplore the creation of a public opinion in this
country based on misconception of a subject that truly needs all
\the light that can be shed on it by men holding official places."
In view of these facts, it is clear that a man capable of making so
false a statement as this of Dean C. Worcester is unfit longer to
be trusted with office. How many like statements have passed
unchallenged, how many more will follow, can only be conjectured.
The present officials must go. It is not safe to leave this great
cause at the mercy of their prejudices or to leave them in charge
of a people whom they look down upon as incapable of self-government. In this as in everything else the opponents urge delay
in the hope that thereby they may compass our defeat.
The American people in their hearts know that they have no
right to hold the Philippines. Their consciences have always
been uneasy, and they have therefore been willing to catch at
every excuse or justification for the abandonment of their principles. They will hail with delight and a profound sense of relief
the passage of any measure which restores their self-respect by
setting the islanders free. A volume would not contain the expressions of this feeling that might be quoted. Their most respected leaders, Edmunds, Hoar, Harrison, Thomas B. Reed,
McCall, and many another, have joined with every great Democrat in condemning the retention of the islands, and the longer
we postpone their liberation the greater the cost to everybody.
Our true course is to give the Filipinos their independence.
Self-government is the right of every nation because no other
surely regards the interests of the governed. Men are essentially
selfish, and power is always used to benefit him who wields it.




58


The king aims to preserve and strengthen his dynasty. The
oligarchy clings to its privileges at the expense of the people. The
"boss" governs in his own interest. It is only when the power is
in the hands of the people that the rights and interests of the
people are secure, and this is the truth which the founders of this
nation declared.
I think it is Professor Jenks who, in a report, said that the
Filipinos were unfit to govern themselves because "they are
readily bribed." How should we Anglo-Saxons stand this test?
Shall we disfranchise St. Louis, many of whose elected governors were lately in prison or on the way to it for bribery?
Shall we deal likewise with Minneapolis, whose mayor and chief
of police administered a whole system of corruption? Shall every
State ever represented in the Senate by a man who bought his
seat be driven from the family of States? Is bribery unknown in
Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York? What was the
story of Adams County, and how did the contribution of Mr.
Harriman affect the vote of New York in 1904? What municipal
legislature, what State legislature, indeed, is to-day above suspicion, if great corporations are seeking legislation?  Let New
York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cincinnati, Boston, tell us whether
bribery is unknown to them, and, when these questions are answered, we may decide how great is the mote in our brother's eye.
But it is said they would kill each other, and that anarchy
would ensue if we left the islands. When our troops reached
the islands, there was no anarchy-and the Filipinos were governing themselves. The only anarchy that has been known there
is the anarchy which we introduced. It is pure assumption that
the Filipinos would have engaged in internecine war. The
Japanese, also Malays, and far less civilized than the Filipinos
when we first knew them, have grown in fifty years into the
greatest Eastern power. We did not feel bound to annex them,
lest they should kill each other, nor to stop such wars as they
have known since. We have aided them by teaching them here
and in Japan, and we have let them develop on their own lines.
Why should not their fellow Malays be as successful?
It may be doubted whether Asiatics are more prone to civil
war than Europeans, or whether in proportion to their numbers
more men have been killed in any Asiatic country than fell in the




59


wars of the Roses, in the Revolution, in the subjugation of Ireland,
and in the wars with Scotland, while the British nation was in
making. When we reflect that the Crimean War, the wars between France and Austria, Prussia and Austria, Germany and
France, Russia and Turkey, and our own Civil War, to say nothing
of many minor wars, have occurred within fifty years, can we
justly claim that we are more peaceful than the Asiatics, or deny
to them for this reason the independence which we claim for
ourselves? Sebastopol, Gettysburg, Solferino, Sadowa, Sedan,
Plevna,-what are our associations with these names? Asiatic
nations have endured as long as man's memory extends, undestroyed by civil war. Why should we assume that the Filipinos
would develop a passion for slaughtering each other which would
exceed the measure allowed to civilized nations?
"Those who deny freedom to otihers deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
Are these words of Lincoln true?  They have the support of much
human experience. A republic finds its only secure foundation
in the belief of the people that men have equal rights. Once
shatter that belief, once teach them that the stronger or the
wiser or the better men have the right to rule others against their
will, and the stronger are easily persuaded that they are also the
wiser and the better. Let them once see the easy methods of
despotism applied to one part of the people under their flag, and
they ask themselves why they should not apply the same methods
to others whom they dislike or distrust.
There comes a time in the history of most governments when
internal differences make men feel insecure. Let me illustrate
my meaning by an extract from a letter written by Guizot to
Henry Reeve after Napoleon III. had overthrown the French
Republic. He wrote:
"The great bulk of the people, those to whom their private
interest is the sole consideration, are satisfied. The expectation of the crisis of 1852 weighed upon these interests like a nightmare. The president delivered them  from it: he is fighting
against socialism and demagogism. By his triumph, manufacturers, merchants, honest artisans and peasants, may look for
some security in their work and business for some time to come.
'They ask nothing more of him."




60


Is there nothing in this line of thought which seems familiar?
When Guizot asked Lowell how long our republic would last,
he replied, "As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue dominant." They are the foundation of our government,
and whatever weakens them endangers it. We have learned how
the republics of the ancient world successively fell, and we have
seen the overthrow of a republic in France. To meet our problems here, to restrain the power of capital and the excesses of labor,
we need a deeply rooted faith in our own institutions, a passionate
love of justice. We cannot destroy the ideals of the nation: We
cannot insist that the Declaration of Independence is wrong: we
cannot govern millions of men outside the Constitution,-and
hope to preserve in full strength that faith in the equal rights of
men which is the soul of this nation. Every man who defends
these things has begun to lose his belief; and, while years may
elapse without a chant in the external form of government, no
one can tell when some crisis will find our people as glad to welcome a strong man as the French were to receive a new Napoleon.
Let us cling fast to our faith, and regard him who would weaken
it as an enemy to his country.
D    The time will come, if this republic is to endure, when an over/whelming public sentiment will make itself felt, and we shall do
what every true American in his heart would like to have his
country do,-give the Filipinos their freedom, and thus regain
that proud position among the nations of the world which we have
lost,-the moral leadership of mankind,-becoming again, in the
words of Aguinaldo, "the great nation, North America, Cradle
of Liberty," beneath whose flag,, wherever it floats in this wide
world, there is no room for a subject, but a sure refuge for every
man who desires that freedom which is the birthright of every
human being.
Has not that time come now? The Democratic party has
given its promise, and the people have placed it in power. Can
it now turn back?  If it does, upon its head will rest all the disastrous consequences which have ever followed the attempt of
one people to hold another in subjection.