Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (July 26, 1901)
ET The Commoner To the American People. The Anti-Imperialist leagues of the United States have been silent since the presidential elec tion, but cot because they have less faith in their cause or believe the battle lost. They had hoped that those who voted for MY. McKiiey, while dis approving his policy in the West Indies and the Philippines, would see that their votes were mis interpreted, and would make their disapproval known and felt. They had hoped that congress would claim, its place in our government, and would insist that the principles of freedom must be recognized and applied wherever our country holds sway. They had hoped that the supreme court would with no uncertain voice declare that no human being under our control could be with out the rights secured by our constitution, and that neither president nor congress, nor both together, could exercise absolute power over men entitled to the protection of our flag. These hopes have not been realized. Where Benjamin Harrison nobly led, too few have fol lowed. The war in the Philippines has been prose cuted with unrelenting cruelty until the resistance of unhappy islands seems to have been crushed; Many thousands of their bravest men have been killed, or have died of disease, during the con test, and today the president exercises a power as despotic as the czar's over the whole Filipino nation. Congress has abdicated its function, has given these people Into the president's hands, and has adjourned without attempting to deal with the questions presented by the islands. Already It has learned that free government is hard and absolutism easy a dangerous lesson in a republic. Liberty and absolutism cannot exist together. Three years ago congress by joint resolution declared "that the people of the island of Cuba are and of right ought to be free and independent" that they were then independent, and were justly entitled to be independent. This country inter vened to establish their independence, and by the same resolution promised not to exercise 'sover eignty, jurisdiction or control over said island, ex cept for the pacification thereof." Today the president ic the absolute ruler of Cuba. He spends the revenues of the island as he pleases. No" con stitution, no law, fetters his power. At his In stance congress has violated the nation's pledge. The "independent" Cuban people have been told thatthew will not be allowed to establish any gov ernment in their own land, unless they surrender lb part the control of their finances and foreign affairs; unless they give to this country the pos session of strategic points on their 'territory; and unless in addition they give to it the right to in tervene in their domestic affairs whenever in the judgment of our authorities the occasion shall de mand such intervention. They are offered no op t on to refuse these dc ands, which are backed by the presence of American troops on their soil. Thus to the whole world our course has become an example of national perfidy. The enforced sub mission of the Cubans to these unjust requirements has made the stain on our national record indelible. The supreme court has spoken, but has left the law in doubt. Some of its members have given their countenance to views urged by the admin istration, of which their associate, Mr. Justice Harlan, says: "If the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will In that event pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written consti tution, into an era of legislative absolutism." Where such a revolution is threatened, and when congress and the supreme court both fail, there Is no help save in the people. If they would avert the impending calamity they must help themselves. Let us not be misled by names. Im perialism is not a question of crowns and sceptres, of names and titles. It is a system of government. Wharo a man or body of men, an emperor, a presi dent, a congress, or a nation, claims the absolute right to rule a people, to compel the submission of that people by brute force, to docide what rights they shall have, what taxes they shall pay, what judges shall administer their laws, what men shall govern them all without responsibility to the peo ple thus governed this is imperialism, the anti thesis of free government. As Mr. Justice Harlan says: "The Idea that this country may acquire ter ritories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or pro vinces, and the peoplo Inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as congress chooses to accord tbem, 13 wholly Inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the constitu tion." In organized society there is no liberty that is not constitutional liberty. Even in America, where wc have only to fear the abuse of power by our own fellow-citizens, wo all rely on constitutions, national and state, to protect our rights. We can not conceive an American community without these safeguards. Do not the Inhabitants of Luzon need against us the protection that we need against ourselves? It has ever been the American method to Incorporate acquired territory with representa tion; it is now proposed to revert to the Roman method and hold conquered territory by force with out representation. This policy which we oppose gives to the Filipinos and Porto Ricans no con stitutional rights, Ho American citizenship, no hope of statehood, no voice In the congress which rules them;, it leaves them without a country, the subjects of a republic. To believers in free gov ernment this policy is monstrous. "Let it be remembered," said the Continental congress, "that it has ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she con tended were the rights of human nature.' When this country denies to millions of men the rights which we have ever claimed, not only for our selves, but for all men, its policy Is suicidal. As Lincoln said: "Those who deny liberty to others deserve it not themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain It." Indifference to liberty any where breeds indifference to liberty everywhere. No man can defend despotic methods abroad and long retain his loyalty to democracy at home. The common speech of those who support our new pol icy gives us daily examples of this truth. We can not have citizens and subjects under the same flag. "A . house divided against itself cannot stand." For "Laws of changeless justice bind oppressor with oppressed, And close as sin and suffering joined we march to fate abreast." We insist that constitutional liberty shall bo the inalienable right of every man who owes al legiance 10 our flag; -that freedom shall belong to man and cot to place; that our constitution shall be no. respector of persons, colors, or races; that it shall recognize the equal rights of all. Ours is the policy of liberty. Ours is the cause for which the Am lean revolution was fought and .which tri umphed again In the civil war. It is the cause of human freedom now threatened In the house of its friends. It makes little difference under what name we rally to its support. Daniel Webster said: "Arbitrary governments may have territories and distant possessions because arbitrary govern ments may rule them by different laws and differ ent systems. . . . Wa can do no such thing; They must be- of us, part of us, or else strangers." With Benjamin Harrison, we are "unable to re joice in the acquisition of lands and mines and fc. :ts and commerce, at tho cost of the abandon ment of the old American idea that a government of absolute powers Is an Intolerable thing, and, under tne constitution of the United States, an im possible tiling." We agree with him that this view "will not limit the power of territorial expansion; but it will lead us to limit the use of that power to regions that may safely be'eomo part of tht United States, and to peoples whoso American citi zenship may bo allowed." Wo urge all Jovors of frcodora to organizo in defense of human rights now threatened by th greatest free government in history. Even if our government may exerciso arbitrary power over mil lions of men in disregard of tho constitution which wo deny It can never bo right for it to exer ciso such power. Right is higher than might Let every citizen study tho facts and make his conclusion known, combining with his neighbor to influence congress to stand truo to tho principles ot the Declaration by which this government was founded and undor which it has grown so great. Tho gravest danger our country has known till now has come from a denial of those principles. Tho incomnig congress is not yet committed to the policy of incorporating the island peoples into our system without rights. Let it resume its place In the government in defense of the inalienable right of man. We appeal from those who for tho moment ex erciso the power of the nation to the people who are tho nation that nation which, on July 4, 1770, was "conceived in liberty and dedicated to th proposition that all men are created equal." AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE, By Georgo S. Boutwell, President, and W. J. MJzs Secretary. NEW ENGLAND ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE, By Albert S. Parsons, Chairman Executive Com mittee, and Erving Winslow, Secretary. . ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE OF NEW YORK, By Ernest H. Crosby, President, and E. W. Ord way, Secretary. AMERICAN LEAGUE OF PHILADELPHIA, By George G. Mercer, President, and Samuel Mll- Hken, Secretary. WASHINGTON ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE,. By W. A. Croffut, President. CINCINNATI ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE, By Charles B. Wilby, Chairman Executive Com mittee. MINNEAPOLIS ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE, By Henry J. Fletcher, President. We concur in tho above address: Carl Schura, New York; Charles H. Aldrich, Chicago, ex-sollc-Itor-general, U. S.;- Leonard Woolsey Bacon, Conn.; John Beatty, Columbus, p.; James L. Blair, St. Louis; Horace Boles, Iowa; Donelson Caffery, Lou isiana; D. H. Chamberlain, Massachusetts; Samuel L. Clemens, New York; C. R. Codman, Massachus etts; Louis R. Ehrich, Colorado; William H. Flem ing, Georgia; Frederick W. Gookin, Chicago; Ar thur C. A. Hall, P. E bishop of Vermont; Moses Hallett, Denver; Edward Holton James, Seattle, Wash.; William D. Howells, New York; Henry U. Johnson, Indiana; Henry W. Lamb, Boston; Daniel S. Lord, Chicago; J. Laurence Laughlln, Chicago; Kenry B. Metcalf, Rhode Island; J. Sterling Mor ton, Nebraska; Charles Eliot Norton, Cambridge, Mass.; Warren Olney, San Francisco; George L. Paddock, Chicago; Robert Treat Paine, jr., Bos ton; Wheeler H. Peckham, New York; Henry Wade Rogers, New Haven; James Rran, bishop of Alton; Edwin Burrltt Smith, Chicago; Rufus B. Smith, Cincinnati; Charles B. Spahr, New York; J. L. Spalding, bishop of Peoria; Moorfield Storey, Boston; Charles M. Sturges, Chicago; William G. Sumner, Now Haven; John J. Valentine, San Fran cisco; Herbert Welsh, Philadelphia; Horace White, New York; C. E. S. Wood, Portland, Ore.; Sigmund Zeisler, Chicago. Washington Times: The total number of ves sels passing through the Suez canal In 1900 was 3, 441, of which 1,935 were British, 402 German, 285 French, 232 Dutch, 162 Austrian, 100 Russian, 82 Italian, G3 Japanese, 34 Spanish, 28 Turkish, 3d Norwegian, 27 Danish, 22 American, 7 Belgian, 3 Portuguese, 2 Swedish, 2 Greece and 1 Argentine. Thi passengers numbered 282,000, this being tht highest number on record except that of 1896. 1 I I