Che Conservative * 5 I
continuous obligation to be looking into
the nffnirs of other nations to EGO if
tlioro nro not wrongs that ought to be
righted , oppressed that should be de
livered and struggling people to bo set
free. The good Samaritan did not go
down on the road from Jerusalem to
Jericho hunting a job , but as he jour
neyed on his own business came where
the robbed and beaten sufferer lay. It
is not mere selfishness which declares
that the primary duty of a nation is to
its own people and that their interests
and well-being are not to be neglected
under the illusive notion that it has a
duty to pose as a great national rectifier
of wrongs done by other nations. It is
a wise man that successfully manages
his own household , that has primary re
gard for the well-being of its inmates ,
and , although ho may not selGshly ig
nore the condition of affairs of other
households , yet he ought always to re
member his primary duty and be cau
tious about interfering in the affairs of
others. Everyone knows that a man
who is a busybody in other people's
affairs , although animated by the best
of motives , is as apt to do harm as good.
He often fails to appreciate the real sit
uation , interferes in behalf of the wrong
party , or interferes when interference is
a curse ; and the same is true of na
tions.
Neither is there anything in the so-
called "Monroe doctrine" which makes
us sponsor for this continent. We have
no supervision or control over the in
ternal affairs of other states ; we are not
their guardians. Each of them has the
same right to interfere in the affairs of
the United States that we have to in
terfere in its. That doctrine finds its
expression in the message , of President
Monroe to congress on December 2,1823 ,
which , after referring to the difference
between the political system which ob
tains across the waters and that of this
country , states the right which we
claim iu these words :
"We owe it , therefore , to candor and
to the amicable relations existing be
tween the United States and those pow
ers to declare that we should consider
any attempt on their part to extend their
system to any portion of this hemisphere
as dangerous to our peace and safety.
With the existing colonies or dependen
cies of any European power we have not
interfered , and shall not interfere. But
with the governments who have de
clared their independence and main
tained it , and whose independence we
have , on great consideration and on just
principles , acknowledged , wo could not
view any interposition for the purpose
of oppressing them or controlling in any
other manner their destiny , by any
European power in any other light than
as the manifestation of an unfriendly
disposition towards the United States. "
This moans only that we are un
willing that the political system , of
Europe shall be extended in America.
Wo pledge non-interference with exist
ing colonies of European governments ;
wo simply state that their ideas of gov
ernment and colonial expansion must
not be worked out on this hemisphere.
Whether this doctrine has been so far
approved ai to become a rule of inter
national law is one thing ; it may simply
have been acquiesced in because of no
suitable occasion for challenge. At
best it is but an expression , not of au
thority over this continent , but simply of
protection and defense. It is a declara
tion of a purpose to stand by our weaker
neighbors in case of attack and in no
sense an assumption of a control over
their affairs. Neither have wo since
that message enlarged its scope. When
Great Britain demanded reparation
from Nicaragua and threatened force to
compel compliance , we did not in
terfere. In the controversy between
Venezuela and Great Britain we took
no now position. The former govern
ment claimed that the latter was trying
to enlarge its territory wrongfully and
forcibly by taking possession of that
which rightfully belonged to Venezuela.
We interfered only so far as to say
that Great Britain should not forcibly
extend its colonial possessions ; and the
outcome has been an arbitration between
the two nations for the purpose of set
tling the question of right.
American Humanity.
But the second question is of more
importance , for I think it may bo safely
assumed that there is in the American
people such a spirit of humanity and
sense of responsibility that whenever
there shall arise a real emergency for
interference in the name of humanity in
the affairs of another nation we shall
respond with alacrity , and there is also
such a general prudence and caution as
will keep us from unwarranted and
needless interference. And this second
question is one whose solution will ma
terially affect our destiny. Happily ,
the war with Spain is ended , and the re
sults of the war determined. Grini-
visaged war has smoothed its wrinkled
front. As there were some who doubted
in the beginning its wisdom or necessity ,
so there are some who doubt whether
the results will be beneficial , and
whether it was wise to take the terri
tory which the nation has taken. But
the thing is accomplished , and it is no
part of a patriot to stand aloof and sim
ply denounce. Rather let him accept
that which has been accomplished and
apply himself as best he may to make
the things accomplished fruitful of the
least injury and productive of the most
blessing. Yet , while so doing , it is
right and wise to consider what shall be
the future and whether that which has
been done shall become the fixed habit
and settled policy of the nation. What
has been done is one thing. What shall
be is another. We have taken islands
separated from us by the waters of the
ocean. Are we thus to continually ex
pand ? Is such a policy of expansion
wise ?
The Philippines.
In criticising this policy I shall con
sider only the Philippines. I take them
as illustrations , because the truth is
better seen by its connection with a con
crete fact than through any mere gen
eral statement. And if I refer only to
the arguments against the appropriation
of those islands , and fail to notice the
many reasons or the peculiar circum
stances which induced the action of our
government , it is not because I do not
appreciate the force of those reasons and
circumstances , but because , as I said , I
am not here to complain of that which
has been done. I despise a man who
simply sulks and swears. My thought
is : accepting that which has been done
as having been the best under the cir
cumstances , is that to become the fu
ture policy of the nation ? Is it a pro
phecy or an exception ?
One thing which seemed to attract
much attention , and was claimed to
justify the taking possession of distant
islands , is the need of coaling stations.
When the question of annexing Hawaii
was pending , distinguished officers of
both the army and navy appeared before
committees of congress , urging the ne
cessity of securing a coaling station on
those islands , and argued that we had
better take the entire territory , which
was small , and thus avoid the possibility
of any other nation securing a post and
base of operations contiguous to our
own. Now , I do not propose to .question
the wisdom from a military standpoint
of the advice given by those officers. I
am ready to accept their statement that
in case of war a coaling station there , or
at the Philippine islands , or elsewhere ,
is of value. I have had no military educa
tion ; I do not know how to conduct a
war ; I do not edit a "yellow" journal ;
and so I yield unquestioning assent to
the claims made by these army and
navy gentlemen that , in case of war ,
coaling stations in different parts of the
globe are desirable. And yet , with the
incredulity and questioning spirit of a
Yankee , I cannot but notice that we
have gotten along safely for an hundred
years without any coaling stations out
side of our own territory , and I want to
ask how much greater victory Dewey
would have won if wo had had a dozen
coaling stations in the far Pacific ? And ,
further , it is clear that for a coaling
station territory as large as Now Eng
land is not essential. I know of but
one place that needs such a large coal
ing station , and that is a place wo all
hope to eternally avoid. But , beyond
that , is there not such a thing as over
doing this getting ready for war ? I
have noticed that a man who goes about
with a chip on his shoulder is very apt
to have many quarrels , but the gentle
man who iniiids his own business is