Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (May 10, 1901)
3 r1 crushing condemnation "but for tho fact that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin also come in for their share of tho censure. Their principles are swept aside as "generalities" when 'they attempt to hold nations to tho same code of ethics which they apply to individuals. Mr. Wattcrson says that ho will not stop "to gainsay or dispute" these generalities. lie apparently admits tho correctness of tho principles laid down "by tho opponents of im perialism, but argues that the nation is at lib erty to disregard them. Tho difference be tween tho honest man and the dishonest one is not generally a difference in principles for nearly all men admit the truth when it is stated in the abstract but the difference is that tho former applies his principles to every day life, while tho latter, in tho hour of temptation, waives them aside as generalities and then tries to lay upon his environment tho responsibility for his sins. Mr. Wattcrson's definition of statesman ship is that it is the art of detaching one's pol icies from his visions or, to speak more plainly, the art of ignoring moral principles whenever it is popular or profitable to do so. Fortun ately this definition has never been and let lis hope never will be generally accepted. The statesman must have- ideals, for without them ho cannot appeal to tho hearts of men; arid ho must follow his ideals, for unless he does he cannot long retain tho confidence of the.peo- pie. Tho politician may "run with tho haro and hunt with the hounds,?' -but in tho former caso ho is apt to be caught and in the latter, v caso ho earns a dog's reputation. Mr. Wattcrson's illustrations are as unfor tunate as his logic, as the following will show: "Mr. Jefferson allowed no theory to stand be tween him and the purchase of Louisiana, though in making tho purchase he had to cross his own tracks." Mr. Lincoln allowed no constitutional scruple to stand between him and emancipation, though, being a conscience Whig, to save his con-' science, he issued the proclamation as a- war measure." There was no moral principle involved in the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. Jefferson doubted whether tho letter of the constitution permitted it, but having an op portunity to purchase it, not for the exploita tion of a colony but as an integral part of a re public, ho did so expecting to ask for a consti tutional amendment approving of it. The act, however, was so universally com mended and the opinion that the act was consti tutional was so general that no effort was made to amend the constitution. Lincoln was always opposed to slavery. While he believed that slavery should be pro tected where it existed under the constitution, he never attempted to conceal his opinion as to the moral question involved, and he justified his emancipation proclamation as the taking of property is always justified in time of war; Neither Jefferson nor Lincoln "detached his policies from his visions" or justified what ho regarded as morally wrong on tho ground that he was swept along by an irresistbile force. Imperialism is not a transient question; it is an organic disease and attacks the vital prin ciples of tho republic. Tho permanent reten- The Commoner tion of the Philippine islands necessitates ono of two coui ses. First, wo can admit the Fil ipinos to citizenship and allow them to. sharo with us in shaping the destiny of "Tho United .States of America and Asia," but no consider able portion of our people favors this plan. Second, wo can treat tho Filipinos as subjects and give them, not such a government as wo have but such a government as we think they ought to have, shooting such as interpose an objection. This is the plan which the republi can party is now developing. Buckle said that the English could not de fend the war against the colonies without as serting principles which, if carried out, would havo destroyed English liberty. So today, tho democratic party cannot defend the adminis tration's policy in the Philippines without as serting principles which, if carried out, will de stroy liberty in the United States. The commandment thou shalt not steal, cannot be qualified so as to admit of the stealing of islands or so moderated as to excuse larceny when committed by a large nation against a small one; neither can the principles which underlie our government be so construed as to sanction a government founded on force or "taxation without representation." For more than a century our nation has been travelling upward and toward the light. Its history, its traditions and its songs have breathed the spirit of liberty and have been an inspiration to the oppressed in every quarter of the globe. The democratic party has 'raised its voice in behalf of human rights and blood bought bles sings. It will not abandon its ideas; it will not detach -its policies from its visions; it will not adopt an "anything to win" policy; it will not begin bellowing at the scent of blood. W A Defender of Perfidy. In discussing the Teller resolution some of the papers describe it as an embarrassment and express regret that congress adopt it. Some, however, think that it was then wise to adopt the resolution, but that the na tion is at liberty to disregard it now. The St. Paul Globe says: "There are times when it is neither prudent nor sensible ta ' e consistent. Circumstances may so change that a consistent policy would mean ruin to an individual or disaster to a nation. It is then that men and nations must do that which ap pears the thing to' do, irrespective of consistency. "The Teller resolution may have been the proper thing at the time it was passed. Any other expression of policy toward Cuba migh: have brought on serious foreign complications. As it was, France and Germany were openly hostile, while the whole group of Latin-American repub lics were suspicious." It would be difficult to find a bolder state ment of the position assumed by those who de fend perfidy. It is bad enough to argue that now conditions have arisen which show the resolution to have been unwise, but to say that the resolution was necessary at the time to pacify other nations and that having served its purpose it should be cast aside, discloses a moral obliquity which is rare even in these days of commeicialism. To make tho matter still worse, tho Teller resolution was merely the verbal acknowledge ment of a truth which wonldhavc existed even had no resolution been adopted. Quoting from tho Declaration of Independence, it declared that the Cubans were and of right ought to bo free. The right of the Cubans to their indepen dence did not, however, depend upon our reso- -lution, and it is humiliating to think that a na tion like the United States has to be held to a righteous course by the letter of a promise humiliating to know that but for. that resolu tion those in control of the administration would insist upon this nation assuming tho authority exercised by Spain when the war -began. A man is more than half a thief when he stops to consider a proposition to steal, and so a nation has already suffered degradation when it admits that it is only restrained from wrong dbing by a pledge which it regrets. The Pass in Court. During the recent session of the Nebraska Legislature two bills relating to railroad passes were introduced in the House of represented tives and favorably reported, but were not con-. sidcred. The following extracts present tho parts germane to the present discussion. II. R. No. 430: "A judge or justice is disqualified, from acting as such except by mutual consent.. of parties, in any case wherein he is a party, or interested or when ho shall have received or usedfrea. transportation, or transportation at less than ,j the established or usual rate or price, or had the promise of the same in any form for his person or property, from any railroad company or over or upon any railroad or any such trans portation within thq time aforesaid, shall havo " been, directly or indirectly requested by him for himself or for any other person or prop erty, and such mutual consent must be in writ ing and made a part of the record." H. R. No 428: "It shall be sufficient cause of challenge of a petit juror that he lacks any one of the qualifications mentioned in sec tion two (2) of this acfr or that he has served as a juror on the trial of a cause in any court of record in the county within one year previous to the time of his: -being offered as a juror; or that within such time he shall have received or used free trans portation, or transportation at less than the es tablished or usual rate or price, or had tho promise of tho same in any form for his per son or property, from any railroad company, or over or upon any railroad, or any such transportation within the time aforesaid shall "have been directly or indirectly lequested by " him for himself or. for any other person or property." Judge Muugor of tho United States Court for the District.of Nebraska has recently held it cause for challenge in a suit to which a rail road was a party that a juror after ho was drawn and summoned asked and received from such railroad a pass. The principles embodied in the bills quoted from and the rule laid down by Judge Hunger are undoubtedly sound. That a pass has a f i ' ) ua ij J is . !I3 i i