6 Conservative *
N-M [ New York Evening Post , August 81. ]
9' What is the
A PHILIPPINE
CATECHISM. chief argument for
the retention by
the United States of the Philippines ?
A. The value of the trade to bo devel
oped with these Islands.
Q. Is there any way of calculating the
comparative cost and profit of holding
them as a colony ? A. The cost can be
got at by an estimate of the expenses of
a military occupation.
Q. How ? A. Every soldier"rqeahros
about § 200 a year in pay. His sih/ais-
teiice cannot be provided for less than
$300 ; consequently , every soldier sent
out to police the PI ilippines will cost at
least $500 , and every thousand men will
cost $500,000 a year.
Q. Supposing , then , that the Philip
pines could bo held by a thousand men ,
how much must there bo in the way of
trade , commerce , and industry to make
the account balance ? A. $5,000,000.
Q. "Why do you say $5,000,000 ? A.
Because $500,000 is ten per cent of that
sum , and 10 per cent is a very high rate
of profit in any business. If a trade of
$5,000,000 actually produced $500,000
every year , every trader would grow
rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Q. With a trade , then , of $5,000,000 ,
wo could afford to support a thousand
troops in the Philippines ? A. Hardly ;
because this leaves out of view the pay
of the officers and all expenses for rent ,
wages of servants , transportation and
communication , to say nothing of the
ordinary expenses of civil government.
Q. But for every 1,000 men you must
have at least $5,000,000 of trade ? A.
Yes , and on that basis the profit is all
consumed in the expense.
Q. What is the actual trade of the
United States with the Philippines ? A.
Exports for the year ending June 80 ,
1897 , $94,597 ; imports into the United
States , $4,388,740.
Q. What is the population of the is
lands ? A. About 8,000,000 , mostly
savages , given to crimes of violence
and piracy.
Q. What estimate is made of the
number of troops necessary to hold
them ? A. From 10,000 to 20,000 is
the smallest number suggested by any
good military authority.
Q. How much would it cost to keep
that number of troops there ? A. Ten
thousand would cost $5,000,000. Twenty
thousand would cost $10,000,000.
Q. Why do you call these low esti
mates ? A. Because they make no
account of the pay of the officers , rent ,
wages of servants , transportation , com
munication , and the expenses of civil
government.
Q. Would there bo any other ex
penses ? A. There would bo a large
annual expense for a naval establish
ment.
Q. How largo must this establish
ment bo ? A. The usual estimate is
that it must bo largo enough to com
pare respectably with those of other
nations in Asiatic waters.
Q. How largo would that be ? A.It
is altogether impossible to say , because
the partition of China is going on , and
war may break out at any moment.
Q. Would $10,000,000 bo a low esti
mate for the whole expense ? A. A
very low estimate.
Q. Show this. A. The regular
army of the United States in 1897 con
sisted of 27,582 officers and men , and
; ho appropriation for the support of
: his army for the year ending June 80 ,
1898 , was $23,129,844.80. This had
been about the amount of the animal
appropriation for several years. This
would show an expense of nearly $1,000
per annum for every man and officer ,
and on this basis a force of 20,000 for
ilie Philippines would cost about $20-
000,000 a year.
Q. Assuming the expense to be
limited to $10,000,000 , how much trade
must there be to make it economically
possible for the United States to hold
bhe islands ? A. $100,000,000.
Q. How much profit would there be
to the people as a whole if such an ex
pansion of trade could be effected ? A.
Not one cent.
Q. To whom would the profit go ?
A. The profit would go to those en
gaged in the trade , while the expense
would fall upon the whole people in
taxes.
Q. Upon whom has the expense
hitherto fallen ? A. Upon Spain.
Q. What prospect is there that our
share of the trade of the Philippines
will increase from $5,000,000 to § 100-
000,000 ? A. None whatever.
Q. Will not our military occupation
and the substitution of our government
for that of Spain give such a stimulus
to trade and industry that there will bo
a phenomenal expansion ? A. There is
no reason to think so. The English
government has been substituted for
bad government throughout India ,
which has 250,000,000 inhabitants , and
there has been no phenomenal expan
sion. The country is still a burden to
England.
Q. What would you call a man
who undertook to manage a property
producing $500,000 a year profit , and to
pay $10,000,000 a year for the chance of
its turning out a good bargain ? A. A
born fool.
Q. What would you call a people
who did the same thing , and taxed
themselves to do it , in order that a few
speculators should see what they could
make out of it ? A. They must befools
fools , too.
Q. Are the American people fools ?
A. Far from it.
Q. Then why do they countenance
such projects ? A. No one knows that
they do. They have never had an op
portunity to express themselves about
it. They have not been consulted.
Q. Who have any interest in further
ing the scheme ? A. The speculators ,
who hope to make money out of it , and
saddle the expense on us.
Q. When it is said that a great "pres
sure" in favor of the project is brought
to bear on the administration , who
bring it to bear ? A. The speculators.
Q. Is there any other reason for hold
ing the Philippines ? A. The jingoes
want them held , becaiise as long as we
liold them we must keep up a larger
military and naval establishment.
Q. Of what use is that ? A. It pro
motes war , and the jingoes want as
much war as possible.
Q. What makes more noise than a
hundred sensible men ? A. One jingo.
Q. Would any other class profit ? A.
Congressmen , senators , and other poli
ticians would , through having more
places at their disposal.
Q. If all that you say is true , why is
it that expansion within the limits of
the United States has always proved
profitable ? A. Because it has gone on
without increased military expenditure.
Q. Under what circumstances will
colonial expansion , accompanied by a
military establishment , be profitable to
the community as a whole ? A. Only
if the profits of the increased trade are
greater than the expenditure. Other
wise the countries which have the trade
without the burden will get all the
profit there is in it.
Luck never serves any man with any
degree of certainty. But pluck is a ser
vitor who never fails brains and industry.
The philosophers of discontent depend
largely upon the mistakes of those who
earn a living , for material out of which
to weave the theories for a redistribu
tion of the wealth of the country. There
is no critic of labor so cruelly critical as
the fellow who never works at all. He
is always mad at the small compensa
tion of those who do work. Ho would
have them paid twice as much and take
half of the increase for himself as a roy
alty for having suggested it. He is the
walking delegate , the "friend of the
poor man. "
When a man deliberately drinks in
toxicating beverages knowing that they
will continue rambling down his throat
until he becomes drunk , what claims
hns ho upon sober people for money to
take the place of that which ho might
have earned if he had kept sober ? But
wo ore told that the man is not to blame
for being a drunkard and that the or
ganization of society is to blame. And
yet on this question society is divided
into only two classes those who do get
drunk and those who do not get drunk.
Certain lands of reformers and false
pliilanthropists would have us believe
that the non-drunken are the cause of
the drunken class.
