"lirw "Kr jPWr irflHr&wy1r, "
3
Are We True to First Doctrines?
Tliero aro today many who sneer at tho
preamble of tlio Declaration of Independence.
The idea that all men aro created equal, which
our forefathers asserted to ho a self-evident
'truth, has como to ho regarded in somo
quarters as a self-evident lie. An English
writer has given us a brief yet complete' ex
planation of one feature of the preamble.
"Much ridicule, x little of it not unde
served," said this English writer, "has been
thrown upon tho opening clause of the Decla
ration of Independence, which asserts the in
herent natural right of man to enjoy life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and pos
sessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety. Yet there is an implied
corollary in this, which enjoins the highest
morality that in our present state wc arc able
to think of aB possible. If happiness is tho
right of our neighbor, then not to hinder him
but to help him in its pursuit must plainly bo
our duty. If all men have a claim, then each
man is under an obligation. The corollary
thus involved is the corncr-stono of morality.
It was an act of good augury thus to in
scribe happiness, as entering at once into the
right of all and into the duty of all, in the
very head and front of the new charter, as the
base of a national existence, and the first prin
ciple of a national governments The omen
has not been falsified. The Americans luivo
been true to their first doctrine. They have
never swerved aside to set up caste and'pfivi
lege, to lay down the doctrine tLnvt omi man's
happiness ought to be an object of greater so
licitude to society than any other man's, or
that one order should be encouraged to seek its
prosperity through the depression of any other
order. Their example proved infectious. The
assertion in the New W orld that men have a
right to happiness, and an obligation to pro
mote the happiness of one another, struck a
Bpark in the Old World. Political' construction
in America immediately preceded the last vio
lent state of demolition in Europe."
Can it bo said today that "the Americans
have been true to their first doctrine?"
A Question of Expediency.
The Boston Transcript gays that there can
be "neither escape from nor evaaian of the con
clusion that under authority of tho Porto Rican
decision congress can maintain a colonial sys
tem." Then tho Transcript says:
"Today there may be a disposition In some
quarters to say that the people will not acquiesce
in the supremo court's decision any more than it
accepted the Dred Scott judgment as final, but that
disposition will pass away. It is hut tho ebulli
tion of a heated moment. Tho people will accept,
if for no other reason than it will see the vast
moral distinction between the case of Dred Scott
and that of Porto Rico. The former was in its
essence a case of morals ; the Porto Rico tariff
is in its essence simply a question 0f expediency."
It is strange that such a statement as this
should be made by a newspaper printed in the
shadow of Bunker Hill monument, and within
the sound of tho waves that dash against tho
harbor made famous by tho Boston Tea Party.
There is no "vast moral distinction between
thxease of. Dred Scott and that of Porto Rico."
The Commoner
At tho time of tho Dred Scott decision slav
ery was an institution recognized by our con
stitution. Dred Scott was a slave who sued
in the federal courts for freedom. He was put
out of court on the ground that although ho
had been taken into territory covered by tho
Missouri compromise, he was yet a slave and
.therefore not a citizen and having no standing
in the federal court.
At tho very time that the Supreme Court
denied to Dred Scott tho right to sue for his
freedom there were then in the southern states,
at least 3,000,000 human beings in slavery and
not one of these would have had the legal right
to sue for his freedom. If the Dred Scott
matter was purely a moral one then how did it
happen that no proceeding, was taken in behalf
of iha 3,000,000 slaves? The reason was that
however immoral tho institution might have
been, slavery in certain states had a recognized
legal standing. In the Dred Scott case, then,
a purely legal question was presented to the
court. In' giving its sanction to the slavery of
this human being the Supreme Court had at
least the excuse that slavery was recognized by
our constitution and our laws, however incon
sistent it may have been with our declaration
of independence.
In the Porto flican case was involved the
right of taxation explicitly forbidden by the
'cons'titution. If a case were presented involv
ing the proposition that a tariff duty be levied
.on goods going to and coming from the state
of Massachusetts, the Boston Transci in t would
very readily recognize that a great moral as
well as legal question was involved in the prop
osition. Such a tariff Avould be illegal because
expressly prohibited by the constitution. Such
a tariff would be immoral because every section
of our union is entitled to equal opportunities
and equal privileges with every other section.
As the Boston Transcript says of the Porto
Rican tariff, so the slave owners of the Dred
Scott period said of that case it was "a ques
tion of expediency." Every public wrong
sought to bo perpetrated under conditions
where fundamental law must bo violated has
been excused on the ground that it was simply
"a question of expediency."
Both the Dred Scott and the Porto Rican
cases wero cases of law. Tho element of im
morality enters in both, it is true. But the
Porto Rican case has the advantage that tho
immorality sought to be accomplished under
the guise of a statute is forbidden by the letter
of the fundamental law and repugnant to the
spirit of American institutions. The Dred
Scott case involved an institution likewise 're
pugnant and inconsistent with our declaration
of independence, but an institution nevertheless
formally sanctioned by our constitution and
laws of that period.
If there are no morals in the Porto Rican
case there wore no morals in the Boston Tea
Party.
If there is no morality in the contention of
the Porto Ricahs that they be given equal ad
vantages and opportunities with other sections
of tho country of which they arc a part, then
there was no morality in tho contention of tho
men of tho revolutionary period.
The Hal of Fame. r
The Ha)l of Fame, established in' iNcw
York by Miss Helen Gould, was dedicated
May 20. Among tho great Americans to whom
tablets in this Hall of Fame were dedicated aro
Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, Jefferson,
Wcbter, Clay, Channing, John Marshall, John
Adams, Emerson and Henry Ward Beecher.
It is interesting to observe that while we
dedicate tablets to tho memory of these men,
the nation they served so well has lost sight of
their teachings and repudiated their counsels.
In an address delivered on this occasion, Sena
tor Dcpew, perhaps unwittingly, described tho
spirit of the times when he said:
"We have now no Tennysons, nor Longfellows,
nor Hawthornes, nor Emersons. Perhaps it Is he
cause our M'ichael Angelos are planning tunnels
under rivers and through mountains for tho con
nection of vast systems of railways, and our
Raphaels arc devising: some novel method for the
utilization of electrical power; our Shakespeares
are forming gigantic combinations of corporato
bodies; our Tennysons are giving rein to fancy and
imagination in wild speculations in stocks, and our
Hawthornes and Emersons have abandoned tho
communings with the revelations of the spirit and
soul which lift their readers to a vision of tho
higher life and the joy of its inspiration, to ex
ploit mines and factories."
Of what value is it that wo enshrine the
' memory of these great men while we are re
pudiating their teachings ? If these men right
fully have a place in the Hall of Fame, it must
be because of the service they rendered .their
country and the lessons they left for their
countrymen.
Washington warned us against entangling
alliances with foreign nations. He urged us
to be true to the principles upon which our
government was founded. But to-day we aro
violating those principles and our foreign alli
ances are becoming more and more entangling.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Inde
pendence, in which men who loved liberty
enough to fight for it, and if need be to die for
it, declared as a self-evident truth that all men
are created equal, and that governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the gov
erned. And yet to-day we have repudiated
these great principles.
Lincoln told us that liberty was the heritage
of all men and of all people everywhere; that
no man had the right to govern another man
without that other's consent; and that no people
were ordained of God to subjugate another
people; that no race was empowered to tyran
nize over another race. And yet to-day we
have boldly assumed the right to give
to a people that degree of liberty which we be
lieve them capable of enjoying a proposition
which Lincoln characterized as the argument of
kings.
Franklin protested eloquently and logically
against taxation without representation and
while wc are erecting tablets to the memory of
Franklin we arc assuming to tax the people of
Porto Rico and the Philippines denying them
that representation which Franklin maintained
to be tho right of the taxpayer.
It was John Marshall who said that "the
United States" meane all territory subject to
United States jurisdiction and that all sections
. of tho United States wore entitled to equal
privileges, the one with the other, and that all
