The Commoner.
yr,
i
T'i
&
Vr
A
'
;
IS'
Jv.
H 1 1
&
V.'
i-fl 1
;'.r
u.',
2.
Chicago Tribune, credited with being "an out
Jspoken opponent of the Nicaraguan canal bill."
The Tribune saya that ''Mr. Hanna spolco without
reserve," and in explaining Mr. Hanna's position,
the Tribune says:
Senator Hanna is not so much an advocate
of the Panama Idea as ho is an opponent of
the Nicaraguan route, and that he opposes only
because he thinks it is not the best one geog
raphically or financially. Mr. Hanna, indeed,
1j inclined to believe that the old Darien route
is the one that offers the best advantage, all
things considered.
About a year ago he had his attention
called to the roports made upon this route at
various times and talked with one of the en
gineers, who found in an out of the way place
some maps and drawings which he brought to
the attention of President McKinley, and
through him to Senator Hanna. It Is probable
that the fact of the Darien route, which seems
to have been entirely lost upon the present
generation of congressmen, may be submitted
to the senate committee during its considera
tion of the canal question and to the senate
when the bill comes before that body.
This would seem to be a fairly accurate de
scription of the attitude of those who oppose the
Nicaraguan canal. For instance, according to the
Tribune, Senator Hanna Is "not so much an advo
cate of the Panama route as ho is an opponent of
the Nicaraguan route;" and, indeed, according to
the Tribune, "Mr. Hanna is inclined to believe that
the old Darien route is the one that offers the
best advantage, all things considered."
What is the fair interpretation of this posi
tion? It would seem to be that Mr. Hanna and
the men who stand with him in opposing the
Nicaraguan route are not so much agitated be
cause of geographical considerations, or because of
economical questions, as they are by the determina
tion that no canal shall be constructed across the
isthmus until their .individual, or political inter
eats in the canal becomes greater than' it now is.
As a matter of fact, the American people are very
"generally in favor of an isthmian canal. Had the
Panama route been agreed' upon by the commis
sion, undoubtedly that route would now be in high
popular favor. But the peop' seem to have set
tled upon the Nicaraguan route, not because of
any particular prejudice in favor of that route,
but because the Nicaraguan plan seems to give
the best promise of an early completion of the
much desired result.
Many powerful influences are at work,v not par
ticularly against the Nicaraguan route, but against
any Isthmian canal. One r-etext and another
will be resorted to in order to destroy the pri
mary object. In the prompt passage of the
Nicaraguan bill, the house of representatives has
set a good example for the senate. It ia also
gratifying that no partisanship entered into the
. battle for an isthmian canal in the house. Let us
hope that the senate will speedily dispose of this
question. The specious pleading of men who in
sist that they are not so much advocates of the
Panama route as they are opponents of the Nicar
aguan route, or that "indeed" they are inclined to
believe that the old Darien route is the one that
"off era the best advantage, all things considered"
let us hope that the specious pleading of these men
will be ignored in the very general demand that
the congress pave the way for a prompt beginning
of the enterprise in which the American people
have so deep an interest.
JJJ
Interpreting the Decision.
The New York World thinks it Is strange that
many usually careful persons and newspapers have
, missed the point of the supreme court's simple
and clear statement of the colonial problem. The
World points out that the administration's con
tention was that the constitution did not extend
to the colonies. The World insists that Justice
Brown was the only member of the court who as
sented to this view. It claims that the other eight
justices agree that the constitution does extent!
to the colonies, but they disagree as to the mannbr
in which It provides for them. TheWorld rests its
conclusions on the fact that Justices Gray, Mc
Kenna, Shiras and White based their opinion;
which, with the vote of Justice Brown, was made
the prevailing opinion, on the fact that the con
stitution provides "the congress shall have power
to dispose of and make all needful rules, and reg
ulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States."
The World disturbs its own position when it
admits that the supreme court finds that congress
has "a practically free hand in all the colonies."
The restraints upon the congress, according to the
World, "are the people, the spirit of our institu
tions and the broad guarantee of human rights
embodied in the constitution."
The fact is that it was necessary for the court
to ilnd something in the constitution upon which
to rest its opinion; but it will be difficult for the
World to show, by reference to the various opin
ions delivered by those justices who comprise the
majority, that in the court's opinion any part of
the constitution followed the flag other than that
section giving' to congress the power "to dispose
of and make all needful rules and regulations re
specting the territory or other property belonging
to the United States."
If the World's position that, under the decision
of the supreme court "the spirit of our institu
tions and the broad guarantee of human rights
embodied in the constitution," operate as a re-'
straint upon the congress, how does it happen that '
the court sustained a law levying a tariff upon
goods shipped from Porto Rico to the United
States? Howdoes it happen that the court sus
tained a law levying practically an export tax
upon goods going from the United States to Porto
Rico? How does it happen that the administration
has interpreted the many recent decisions as au
thority for the congress to enact a tariff law for
the Philippines similar to that which was en
acted for Porto Rico? Finally, how does it hap
pen that the administration has accepted every de
cision rendered by these five justices as an indorse
ment of the administration's policies, and as a
complete warrant for the administration to carry
Gut and extend its plan?
It may be fair to infer froin the various opin
ions delivered in the insular cases that the court
would place restrictions upon the executive au
thority in the colonies apart from the levying of
tariff taxes and with relation to the creation of
civil government. But the faot remains, exactly
as the World says, that the' supreme court finds
that congress has "a practically free hand in all
the colonies;" and there is nothing in the opinion
of the majority of the court to warrant the im-.
presslon that any of the spirit of our institutions,
any of our traditions, any of our well-established
sentiment, will necessarily operate as a restraint
upon the congress when It comes to make what
the congress shall regard as, "needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other prop
erty belonging to the United States."
JJJ
That Populist Influence.
The reorganizers are always complaining of
the influence which the populists have, exerted upon
the democratic party in recent years. Whenever,
a reorganizer wants to find fault with the demo
cratic platform or any part of it, he denounces it as
populistlc. The fact is, most of the things which
are complained of as populistlc were advocated
by the democrats before the populist party was
organized, and that which the democrats did bor
row from the populist party was indorsed by prac
tically all of the democratic party prior to the
Chicago convention. Take for instance the ques
tion of free silver. The democratic party in con
gress had for years been contending for the very
thing which -the Chicago platform indorsed. Time
and again before there was a populist party nearly
all of the democrats in both the house and senate
had voted for the financial system indorsed by
the platform. They had voted for free coinage
arid for unlimited coinage; they "had voted for a.
bill, opening the mints at the ratio of 16 to 1
without waiting for the aid or consent of any,
other nation, and no national democratic plat-!
form had ever announced a different, doctrine. The
Chicago convention opposed the national bank of
issue, but in so doing it was entirely consistent
with the party record.
The Chicago platform indorsed the incomo
tax. The principle of the income tax had been in
dorsed in previous populist platforms, but it had
also been embodied in the revenue measure passed
by congress in 1894. Comparatively few of the
democrats in the house and senate voted against
the income tax, Senator Hill of New York being
the most rabid of its opponents. While it was
known to the democrats in congress that Mr.
Cleveland did not favor an individual income tax,
he allowed the bill containing this tax to become
a law without his signature. The opposition to the
income tax plahk has not been directed so much to
the principle involved as to the wording of the
platform, and the wording of the platform was nbt
suggested by anything the populist party had ever
said or done. . '
Government by injunction was also denounced
in the Chicago platform, but it will be remembered
tha't the United States senate had already passed,
practically without opposition, the bill which the
democratic platform commended.
These are the propositions usually referred to
as populistlc,, and yet, while the populist and dem
ocratic party agree on these propositions, they are
thoroughly democratic, and no dejnocrat can con
sistently object to them merely because the pop
ulist party also, favors them..'
But why should men who voted the republi
can ticket find fault with populists who supported
the democratic picket? Should men. who supported
the Palmer and Buokner ticket fleet, aggrieved be
cause the populists were more anxious , than, they
to secure . the reforms for .which tho democratic
party had been working? If men are to be .judged'
by their actions rather than by their words, the
populists are much more in sympathy with demo
cratic principles than those who spend their time
criticising and carping at the populists.
JJJ
Manifest Destiny. ..,,.. -
One of the most interesting of the bdohs pub
lished by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., is Theodore
Roosevelt's book on Thomas Benton. It appeared
in the Statesman's Series and was copyrighted in
1S86. In this book the president of the United
States gave special attention to a phrase which
was much used just before the civil war, but not
much used afterwards until it was employed as an
excuse for the exploitation of the Philippines. On
page 40, Mr. Roosevelt said:
Among such people Benton's views and
habits of. thought became more markedly west
. era and ultra-American than ever, especially
in regard to our encroachments upon the ter
ritory of neighboring powers. The general
feeling 'in the west upon this last subject af
terwards crystallzed Into what became known
as the "Manifest Destiny" idea, which, re
duced to its simplest terms, was: that it was
our manifest destiny to swallow up the land
of all adjoining nations Who were too weak to
withstand us; a theory that forthwith obtained
immense popularity among all statesmen of
easy international morality.
At that time the author did not like the doc
trine of "manifest destiny;" his conscience would
not permit him to indorse a policy of swallowing
up even adjoining nations merely because they
were too, weak to withstand us. How could he
have condemned the doctrine more severely than
he did when he suggested that It became immense
ly popular among, "all statesmen of easy inter
national morality?"
It will be seen that It contained a moral ques
tion as Well as a political one. If It was'Jthen im
moral to swallow up the land of adjoining na
tions who were too weak to withstand us, is it
