"The obstructionists are here, not ersewhere."— President McKinteyt

JEFFERSON AND IMPERIALISM.

Democratic Expansion.
From Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana the Demo
cratic Administrations have favored Expansion.

[By Hon. David K. Watson, Columbus, Ohio.]
The Democratic Party asks by what authority the national administration
transferred the allegiance of the Filipinos from Spain to the United States, and
by what law it governs them without their consent.
I answer by authority of American history and American law — history made
by the Democratic party, and law passed by a Democratic Congress.
A more unfortunate question for' the Democrats could not have been asked .
Its answer exposes their ignorance of political history, shows the hypocrisy of
their pretensions, and their present position on the subject of expansion to be
contradicted by the most venerated examples of their party.
Jefferson an Expansionist.
Their first and greatest President made his administration famous and glor
ious by acquiring foreign territory and holding and governing it without asking
the consent of the inhabitants thereof. By a treaty made on the 30th of April,
1803, between the United States and France, Mr. Jefferson purchased the territory
of Louisiana from Napoleon, who had negotiated for its purchase from Spain.
Spain Entered a Protest.
On learning that Napoleon had sold the territory to the United States, Spain
protested against its occupancy, by our government, on the grounds that France
had not complied with the conditions of sale, had never taken possession of the
territory, and had agreed to always retain the title in herself, and therefore
could not sell to us, and formally notified cur government not to attempt to take
possession thereof. This attitude on the part of Spain, caused Jefferson to con
vene Congress in extra session on the 17th of October, 1803, on which day he
transmitted to that bddy his message, stating that ".the property and sovereignty
of all Louisiana have on certain conditions been transferred to the United States,
by instruments bearing date the 30th of April last." The message also set forth
the terms and conditions of the purchase. \
The price paid was $11,250,000,1 and the assumption" by the United States of
n claims due American citizens from France amounting to $3,750,000, making the
total purchase price paid by the United States $15,000,000.
Senate Ratified the Treaty.
Under the provisions of the treaty the vessels of Spain and France were to
have access to the ports of Louisiana for a period of twelve years on the same
terms as American ships, but this right was not to be given the ships of any
pther nation. The territory was to be admitted as a state into the Federal
Union according to the provisions of the Constitution. Three days after receiving
1 the message of the President the Senate ratified ,the treaty by a vote of twenty-
four to seven. In the House the vote on ratifying the treaty was ninety to
twenty-five.
Q&35 ' "

150

i
Doubtless it was the defiant spirit of Spain, as manifested in her protest and
notice, which influenced Congress to act so quickly and emphatically, tor on tne
31st day of October— fourteen days after receiving the, President s message—an
act was passed declaring "that the President of the United States is authorized
to take possession of and occupy the territory ceded by France to the United
States by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, last, between the
two nations; that he may for that purpose, and in order to maintain in the said
territory the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army and
navy of the United States which he may deem necessary."
Raised the Stars and Stripes.
In pursuance of the power conferred by this statute, the American authorities
on the 20th of December following— eight months after the signing of the treaty
and less than sixty days after the passage of the act aforesaid— by raising the
stars and stripes at New Orleans, formally took possession of the entire territory, •
which embraced an area of more than six hundred and seventy millions of
acres, and more than a million square miles, and from which twelve great States,
reaching from the Gulf of Mexico to British America, have been taken and are
now members of the Federal Union.
Without Consent of the Governed.
As the emblem of American liberty and progress floated for the first time over
new and acquired territory as the result of the policy of American expansion,
thus early established, who stopped to ask for the consent of the governed ?
Who consulted the inhabitants of this hitherto foreign domain to ascertain
their willingness to have their allegiance transferred to the United States?
Not Mr. Jefferson. Not a Democratic Congress.
The author of the famous expression in the Declaration of Independence,
that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
was the first American President to acquire and govern territory without asking
the consent of the governed, and, as the inhabitants of such acquired territory
said, "without permitting them any agency in the events which annexed their
country to the United States."
The Democratic party must abandon Jefferson or they must abandon their
present position on the subject of expansion. History is against them; precedent
is against them; Jefferson is against them.
There Were "Anti-Imperialists" Then.
Soon after Jefferson took possession of the territory of Louisiana, duly ap
pointed and authorized representatives of its inhabitants presented to the Senate
of the United States an able and formal remonstrance against the political system
adopted by Congress for their government.
Protesting against the form of government which had been provided for
them , the remonstrance said :
"A single magistrate, vested with civil and military, with executive and
judiciary powers, upon whose laws we have had no check, over whose acts we
had no control, and from whose decrees there is no appeal ; the sudden sus
pension of all those forms to which we had been accustomed ; the total want of
any permanent system to replace them; the introduction of a new language into
the administration of justice ; the perplexing necessity of using an interpreter
for every communication with the officers placed over us; the involuntary errors
of necessity committed by jud'ges uncertain by what code they are to decide'
wavering between the civil and the common law, between the forms of the
French Spanish, and American jurisprudence, and with the best intentions
unable to expound laws of which they are ignorant, or to acquire them in a
language they do not understand. These were not slight inconveniences nor
was this state of things calculated to give favorable impression or realize the
hopes we entertained; but we submitted with resignation, because we thought
it the effect of necessity ; we submitted with patience, though its duration was
longer than we had been taught to expect ; we submitted even with cheer Kss
while we supposed your honorable body was employed in reducing this chaos to
order; and calling a system of harmony from the depth of this confused, discord
ant mass. But we cannot conceal, we ought not to dissemble, that the first
project presented for the Government of this country tended to le^n 7s» I
thusiasm which until that period had been universal "t fi ourtttendo, on
present evils, while it rendered us less sanguine as to the future."

Remonstrance Against Our Occupation.
After quoting some of the laws passed by Congress for tiieir government
which were obnoxious to their people, the remonstrance continues, " This is the
summary of our constitution; this is so far the accomplishment of a treaty en
gagement to 'incorporate us into the Union and admit us to all the rights, ad
vantages, and immunities of American citizens.' And this is the promise per
formed, which was made by our first magistrate In your name, 'that you would
receive us as brothers, and hasten to extend to us a participation in those in
valuable rights which had formed the basis of your unexampled prosperity."
"Ignorant as we have been represented of our natural rights, shalHwebc
called on to show that this Government is inconsistent with every nrinciple of
civil liberty ? " *
' ' Uninformed as we are supposed to be of our acquired rights, is it neces
sary for us to demonstrate that this act does not 'incorporate us into the Union,'
that it vests us with none of the 'rights,' gives us no advantages, and deprives
us of all the 'immunities' of American citizens?" * * *
"A governor is to be placed over us whom we have not chosen, whom we
do not even know, who may be ignorant of our language, uninformed of our
institutions, and who may have no connection with our country, or interest
in its welfare." * * *
"Taxation without representation, an obligation to obey laws without any
voice in their formation, the undue influence of the executive upon, legislative
proceedings, and a dependent judiciary, formed, we believe, very prominent
articles in the list of grievances complained of by the United States, at the
commencement of their glorious contest for freedom. The opposition to them,
uven by force, was deemed meritorious and patriotic, and the rights on which
that opposition was founded were termed fundamental, indefeasible, self-evident,
and eternal. * * * * These were the sentiments of your predecessors. Were they
wrong ? Were the patriots who composed your councils mistaken in their
political principles? No, they were not wrong ! "
"Are truths, then, so well founded, so universally acknowledged, inappli
cable only to us. Do political axioms on the Atlantic become problems when
transferred to the shores of the Mississippi? Or are the unfortunate inhabitants
of these regions the only people who are excluded from those equal rights ac
knowledged in your Declaration of Independence, repeated in the different State
constitutions, and ratified by that of which we claim to be a member? "
Protested Against Jefferson.
After enumerating additional reasons for protesting against the conduct of
Mr. Jefferson's administration, the remonstrance continues, "We may then again
become the victims of false information, of hasty remark, of prejudiced opinion ;
we may then again be told that we are incapable of managingour own poncerns,
that the period of emancipation is not yet arrived, and that when, in the school
of slavery, we have learned how to be frqe, our rights shall be restored." * * *
"Without any vote in the election of our Legislature, without any check upon
our executive, without any x>ne incident of self-government, what valuable
'privilege' of citizenship is allowed us, what 'right' do we enjoy, of what 'im
munity' can we boast, except, indeed, the degrading exemption from the cares
of legislation, and the burden of public affairs."
This able and dignified remonstrance was followed on the 4th of January,
1805, by "a remonstrance and petition of the representatives elected by tlie free
men of their respective districts in the District of Louisiana," and addressed to
the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, protesting against
the act of March 25, 1804, erecting Louisiana into two territories and providing
for the government thereof. The remonstrance and petition say :
"While we were indulging fond expectations, unmixed with distrust or fear,
the act of the last session of your honorable Houses came to our knowledge, and
snatched from our eager grasp the anticipated good. The dictates of a foreign
government ! An incalculable accession of savage hordes to be vomited on our
borders ! An entire privation of some of the dearest rights enjoyed by freemen!
These are the leading features of that political system which you have devised
for us; for those very men who in a solemn treaty you had stipulated to call and
treat as fellow-citizens; yet the American colors are hoisted in our garrisons,
this far-famed signal of liberty to all, to us alone exhibits a gloomy appearance,

and make us more sensible of the immeasurable interval between us and political
happiness. May we not long be doomed, like the prisoners of Venice, to read
the word liberty on the walls of prisons. ' '
Protection By Indians.
Referring to the protection which the act provided for the lives and property
of the inhabitants of the territory, the remonstrance says: "Had the United
States bound themselves to exterminate from the face of the earth every inhabi
tant of Louisiana, your petitioners do not conceive, that they could have taken
a more effectual step towards the fulfillment of the engagement, than the meas
ures contemplated by the Fifteenth Section of the law, respecting the District
of Louisiana. But by the treaty with the French Republic, the United States
have engaged to maintain and protect us in the free enjoyment of our liberty
and property. Great God ! A colony of Indians to maintain and protect us in
our liberties and properties. * * * In the meantime, depredations and assassi
nations by the Indians have already begun. * ,* *, What a time have your
honorable Houses chosen for the exchange in contemplation ! A plan, wearing
the most threatening aspect to our lives and properties — apian not only alarm
ing in its immediate effects, but pregnant with evils of a most dangerous nature in
its remote consequences.
The remonstrance concludes : "Your petitioners have thus gone through the
painful, yet they conceive indispensable task of remonstrating against griev
ances, in compliance with the duty they owed to their country, to themselves
and to posterity. * * But let your honorable Houses remember that your
petitioners feel themselves injured, deeply injured. Could they tamely submit,
could they even represent with more moderation in such a case, you yourselves
would not consider them worthy to be admitted into a portion of the inheritance
of the heroes who fought and bled for the independence of America."
Jefferson Disregarded Cry of "Imperialism."
Notwithstanding these protests, as dignified and eloquent as were ever written ,
from a people who believed their natural and political liberties were disregarded
and trampled upon, Jefferson and Congress passed them by unheeded, and gov
erned the territory of Louisiana by laws more harsh and severe than any that
have since been enacted by the American Congress.
Less than thirty years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence, which
glowed with the warmth and fire of personal and national liberty, Jefferson
was pressing to the verge of civil and political desperation more than ninety
thousand people (including slaves) who had been separated from their original
sovereignty and annexed to the United States without being consulted and who
were governed by men unfamiliar with their language, customs and laws.
Use of the Soldiers.
There can be no doubt that if there had been armed resistance to the occu
pancy of the territory by the United States on the part of the inhabitants or of
Spain, Jefferson would have met and overcome it by military force, for in addition
to the troops which were at New Orleans when the flag was raised he had con
centrated large bodies of soldiers at other points ready for action in case of neces
sity , in pursuance of the authority conferred upon him by the act of October 31 1803
Our First Foreign Territory.
This was the first time our government acquired foreign territory and the
acquisition constituted an epoch in our political history. The situation reouired
wisdom and statesmanship, but Jefferson met the emergency of the hour hv
adopting and executing a policy which he thought the welfare of his countrv
demanded and which he hoped the future of his country would justify
His judgment was wise and his predictions and hopes correct
The acquisition of this territory was not the result of war. ' It did not
come by right of conquest or international conflict as a reward to the conqueror
It was a purchase, a bargain and sale entered into between two sovereign
nations. Jefferson saw that foreign ownership of the territory in Question a fS
the consequent control of the Mississippi by' a foreign powIrwouW stand as
barriers m the pathway of our national progress anrl tw tha «,„„,-•?¦ *
this territory by the United States would b'e ofKtu^bKSt'^XI
republic. In such a moment he did not hesitate to act. , "«r young

5
No Constitutional Authority Argument.
It was argued by the few who opposed the policy of annexation that there
was no constitutional authority for such a course, but in the face of all objections
— the same then as now — Jefferson paid the price and took the title without
consulting any other nation or the inhabitants of the territory. Nothing in all
his administration reflects so much to his credit and resulted so beneficially to
the future prosperity of his country as securing the vast area of territory known
as the Louisiana purchase.
Every generation since the annexation has seen the wisdom of his course
and rejoices in its success. Not to have acquired Louisiana then might have
been fatal to our national growth, and instead of an empire stretching to the
Pacific Ocean, we might have been limited in our western boundary by the line
of the Mississippi. When he acquired the Louisiana territory Jefferson touched
the world as he never had before, and paved the way for American progress,
civilization and supremacy in a domain yaster in area than most of the nations
of the world. Why should his example in the acquisition of national territory
now be ignored for the first time ? And why should those who worship Jefferson
as the god of- Democracy, denounce in 1900 what they approved of his doing
in 1803 ? Other Democratic "Imperialists."
The Floridas. — The example of Jefferson in annexing Louisiana was
followed by many of his successors in the Presidential office. In 1819 President
Monroe secured the Floridas by a treaty with Spain, and thereby added nearly
seventy thousand square miles to our domain at a cost of $5,000,000. He did
not ask the consent of the inhabitants of the Floridas that the treaty might be
concluded or that their allegiance might be transferred to the United States.
Speaking of the bill which passed Congress authorizing President Monroe
to take possession of East and West Florida, Mr. Benton says: "It was the
same which had been passed seventeen years before, at the time of the acquisi
tion of Louisiana, and was a continuation of the despotic government of Spain."
After quoting the law which conferred upon the President the power to
govern the territory, Mr. Benton continues: "A brief enactment, ,but very com
prehensive, and under which General Jackson, first American Governor of the
Floridas, was commissioned with 'all the powers and authorities heretofore
exercised by the Governor and Captain General and Intendant of Cuba, and by the
Governors of East and West Florida, within the said Provinces, respectively.'
And upon this amp.le power two limitations alone were placed by the Commis
sion — First, that no new tax should be imposed by the Governor; second, that
no grant for land should be made or confirmed. And with this commission
corresponded the heading to the proclamation, drawn at the Department of
State, and furnished to the General, and to be promulgated on taking possession
of the Territories. Thus: 'By Major General Andrew Jackson, Governor of
the Provinces of the Floridas, exercising the powers of the Captain General land
of the Intendant of the Island of Cuba over the said provinces, and of the governors
of said provinces , respectively .'
"And, according to this heading furnished by the Government, all the public
acts promulgated by General Jackson — ordinances, decrees, judgments, pro
clamations, etc., were headed with tbe same words;, so that he constantly
appeared, in his official character, as Captain General and Intendant of Cuba,
and as the Spanish Governor of the two Floridas, a character quite inconsistent
with the idea of any existence of the Constitution of the United States within
the territorial limits of Jiis dominion. He .constantly repulsed the idea of "the
presence of the constitution in the territory committed to his charge; and in that
repulsion he was sustained by the Federal Executive Government at Washington,
and by each House of Congress; each of these authorities refusing to entertain,
as breaches of the Constitution, the complaints forwarded against him by those
who had been militarily dealt with under his government."
General Andrew Jackson, afterward President of the United States and the
ideal saint of Democracy — the pure, simple, plain and close-to-the-people kind
( f a Democrat — appointed Governor of the Floridas, with all the powers exercised
b v the Governor and Captain General and Intendant of Cuba, proclaimed as such
to the world with all the pomp and pride and title of a Spanish tyrant! No
wonder Mr. Benton spoke of the government of the Floridas as the ' ' continua-

tion of the despbtic government of Spain." What will Mr. Bryan say to us
about the "despotic government" of General Jackson and President Monroe?
What would he say if the present administration had clothed the Governor Gen
eral of Porto Rico and the authorities in the Philippines with similar titles and
proclaimed them to the world as its representives, who were to ' ' continue the
despotism of Spain " in the name of the United States? Would he not say, this
was Imperialism? Was it less so under Monroe and Jackson? And Mr. Ben
ton says that, neither Monroe or Jackson would payanyheedto the Constitution.
More trouble for Mr. Bryan and the Democrats. Imitating the tyranny of Spain^
and disregarding the Constitution are charges which must be explained, when
made by Thomas H. Benton.
Texas.— The Republic of Texas secured its independence from Mexico in
1836 and in the following year made an effort to be annexed to the United States,
but the attempt failed. Another effort was made in 1844, which was also unsuc
cessful, but the movement for annexation met with popular favor and formed a
leading issue in the Presidential campaign of 1844, the democratic candidate,
Mr. Polk, being strongly in favor of it and his election was regarded as evidence
that the public mind approved of the plan. In 1845 a joint resolution providing
for the admission of Texas as a state in the Federal Uniori passed both
Houses of Congress and the annexation was secured. The controlling spirit in
the plan for annexation was John C. Calhoun, who was Secretary of State in
President Tyler's cabinet. When speaking on the subject as a member of the
Senate in 1847, two years after the annexation, he said, "I selected the resolu
tion of the House * * * because I clearly saw that it was the only certain
mode by which annexation could be effected."
Congress Added 370,000 Square Miles.
It was the first time that foreign territory had been annexed to the United
States except by international treaty. But by the passage of a simple resolution
Congress added an area of more than three hundred and seventy thousand
square miles to the United States. A foreign republic had been admitted into
membership into the Union as a State without passing through the experience
of a territory or sustaining any former relationship to our government.
Such an act had never occurred before and has never occurred since. It was
the most extreme position on the subject of annexation ever taken by any Ameri
can statesman or any political party, but it was planned and carried out by the
leaders of Democracy and was a policy in direct conflict with their recent
party declaration.
The Democrats must abandon their party history or their party platform.
As the resolution admitting a foreign government as a member of our
Federal Union passed Congress, who stopped to ask about the constitutionality
of such an act? Not President Tyler, not President Monroe, not John C. Cal
houn, not a Democratic Congress. Where then was the doctrine of the strict
construction of the constitution Calhoun had contended for in the Senate with
such masterful ability? It had been abandoned by that crafty statesman and his
followers, and under his dictation a foreign government has been made a State in
the American Union by a simple resolution of a Democratic American Congress.
Other Territories Acquired.
California and other States. — By the treaty of Guadaloupe- Hidalgo be
tween the United States and Mexico, in 1848, at the close of the Mexican war
the United States acquired an area of territory of more than five hundred thous
and square miles, from which the States of California, Colorado and Utah and
parts of the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona have been formed '
Gadsden Purchase— -The treaty of 1848 between Mexico and the United
States, so far as it concerned a portion of the boundary line having been differ
ently construed by the two countries, threatened to result in international com
plications, but through the efforts of General James Gadsden, the American
Minister to Mexico in 1853, was amicably settled by treaty between the two eov-
ernments, which resulted in the United States purchasing from Mexico an area
of territory embracing about forty-five thousand square miles and which now
constitutes the southern portion of Arizona and New Mexico.

"Consent of the Governed" not Considered by Democrats.
These five annexations, beginning with that of Louisiana Territory in 1803
and ending with the Gadsden annexation in 1853, all occured while every
branch1 of the Federal Government was in control of the Democratic party.
Louisiana was acquired under Jefferson; the Floridas under Monroe; Texas under
Tyler, through the machinations of Calhoun; California, Colorado, Nevada,
Utah, part of New Mexico and Arizona under Polk, and the territory covered by
the Gadsden purchase under Pierce. In a period of just fifty years that' party
added to our national domain by annexation more than two million one hundred
and ninety-eight thousand square miles of territory, embracing an area of more
than one billion four hundred and thirty-seven million acres.
AT NO TIME DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
WHICH RESULTED IN THESE ANNEXATIONS, WITH THE EXCEP
TION OF TEXAS, WAS IT SUGGESTED BY ANY ONE ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES THAT THE CONSENT OF THE INHABITANTS
OF THE CEDED TERRITORY SHOULD BE SECURED IN BEHALF OF
THE ANNEXATION. EXCEPT AS ABOVE STATED, IN EACH IN
STANCE ANNEXATION WAS THE RESULT OF INTERNATIONAL
TREATY, AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES DO NOT STOP TO ASK1
THE CONSENT OF THE INHABITANTS WHO MAY RESIDE IN THE
CEDED TERRITORY, THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS MAY BE CONSUM-
11 ' ' WE HOLD THE PHILIPPINES BY TREATY.
In his speech at Indianapolis, when replying to the address of the committee
which notified him of his nomination, Mr. Bryan said : "What is our title to the
Philippine Island's ? Do we hold them by treaty or conquest ? "
These are strange questions to come from Mr. Bryan. They force upon one
the conclusion that he is either ignorant of the history of the annexation of terri
tory by the United States, or purposely avoids reference to it. Mr. Bryan ought to
know, and doubtless does know, that the United States came into possession of
the Philippine Islands, owns, holds and controls them by the right of treaty, that
our right to them rests upon the terms and provisions of that treaty, and that
title by treaty is the highest and best title one nation can give another. This is
the source of title to all the territory ever acquired by the United States from a
foreign government," except in the case of the Republic of Texas. At the close
of the Mexican War the United States paid Mexico $15,000,000, according to the
terms of the treaty between the two governments. What was our title to the land
we got from Mexico under that treaty ? Has not the whole world acquiesced in
it ? Is1 it not good and satisfactory ? Yet it is a title by treaty.
The Allegiance of the Filipinos.
In the same address Mr. Bryan asks, " Did we purchase the people ? If not,
how did we Secure title to them ? Were they thrown in with the land?" Does
Mr. Bryan wish the American people to believe that he is ignorant of the pro
visions of the Paris treaty relative . to the transfer of the allegiance ,of the
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands to the United States ? Does he not know
that the ninth article of that treaty provides : " Spanish subjects, natives of the
Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present, treaty
relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may
remove therefrom , retaining in either event all their rights of property, including
the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds ; and they shall
also have the right to carryon their industry, commerce and professions, being
subjects in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In
case, they remain in the territorythey may preserve their allegiance to the crown
of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of
the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to
preserve such allegiance ; in default of which declaration they shall be held to
have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which
they may reside." * . ' . _
Under this provision one full year.was given the inhabitants of the Islands in
which to determine for themselves what course they would take. They could
remain in the territory or they could move out of it as they pleased, but in
either event by the express terms of the' treaty, they could retain their property,
including' the right to sell or dispose of- it, without interference from any

YALE UNIVERSHTTIBFIAHY

3 9002 08937 3592

authority whatever. In addition to these provisions the treaty most generously
provides that if the inhabitants of the Islands remain in the territory they could
preserve their allegiance to Spain by declaring their intention to do so within
one year, but if they Remained in the ceded territory after its transfer to the
United States, without preserving their allegiance to Spain, they are presumed
to have voluntarily transferred their allegiance to this country. When a nation
cedes , territory to another nation the allegiance of the inhabitants is changed
in contemplation of law to the new sovereign, and if the inhabitants remain
under the new sovereign, they are presumed to have voluntarily acquiesced in
the transfer of their allegiance.
Contrast in Acquisition of Territory.
Let us contrast the manner of acquiring the allegiance of the Filipinos to
the United States with the manner employed by Jefferson in acquiring the alle
giance of the inhabitants of the territory of Louisiana, and of Monroe in acquir
ing the allegiance of the inhabitants of the Floridas. In the treaty which Jef
ferson negotiated for the purchase of Louisiana territory there was no provision
permitting the inhabitants thereof to retain their allegiance to France, or allow
ing them to retain ownership of property in the territory while they rrioved
from it.
The only provision of the treaty on this subject says: " The inhabitants of
the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States."
There was no discretion about it. NO CHANCE WAS GIVEN THE INHABI
TANTS TO RETAIN THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE OLD SOVEREIGNTY;
NO YEAR ALLOWED THEM IN WHICH TO DETERMINE FOR THEM
SELVES WHAT THEIR FUTURE SOVEREIGNTY WOULD BE. THE
TRANSFER OF THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE INHABITANTS FROM'ONE
SOVEREIGNTY TO THE OTHER WAS ABSOLUTE, WHETHER THEY
DESIRED IT OR NOT. THEY HAD NO DISCRETION IN THE MATTER.
Would not Mr. Bryan call this " FORCIBLE ANNEXATION ? " In the lan
guage of Mr. Bryan, did Mr. Jefferson " purchase the people of Louisiana?"
If not, how did he secure title to them ? Were they thrown in with the land ?
Why does Mr. Bryan condemn one man for committing what he calls an offense
against human rights, and acquit another who commits the same offence in a
..greater degree ? Figuratively speaking, if the present administration is guilty
of assault upon the rights of the Filipinos under the provisions of the Paris treaty,
was riot, Jefferson guilty of homicide against the people of Louisiana under
the terms of his treaty with Napoleon? What does Mr. Bryan propose to do
about this treaty of Mr. Jefferson ? Will he be silent about it, yet continue to
denounce the Paris treaty? Will he be silent also about the treaty President
Monroe made with Spain for the Floridas in 1819 ? That treaty contains the
Same language relative to the inhabitants of the Floridas being incorporated
into the Union of the United States as the treaty of 1803 did about the inhabi
tants' of Louisana. ,DID MR. MONROE PURCHASE THE INHABITANTS
, OF THE FLORIDAS? IF NOT, HOW DID HE GET TITLE TO THEM?
WERE THEY ALSO THROWN IN WITH THE LAND?
The American people will not fail to contrast the method of proceeding in
ea£h of these annexations. They will not fail to discover which was most humane,
the most generous to the inhabitants of the ceded territory and most in accord
ance with the principles of international law.'
Mr. Bryan will make no reference in this campaign to the annexation of
Louisiana or the Floridas. He wpuld conceal from the public those chapters of
American history so they could not be opened and read. 'He would keep from
the public the acts, the teachings and the examples of the fathers of Democracy
on the subject of annexation of territory, so they would not be known to the
nation, for he is aware that all that has recently been done in the matter of
annexing territory has been justified by precedents established by Democratic
Presidents. Mr. Bryan's question; " What is our title to the Philippines?" is readily an
swered. It is a title by treaty, the same as our title to Louisiana under Jeffer-
son. The same as our title to the, Floridas under Monroe. The same as our
title to California and other Western States under Polk, and the same as our title
to parts of Arizona and New Mexico under Pierce. All Democratic titles. Will
Mr. Bryan or his party dare assail them?