"Cbe Conservative *
Page G20 of the
UISE AND SING. _ ,
, ,
gospel of St. Bryan
known as "The First Battle" contains
this and the glee dab of 16 to 1 will rise
and sing :
"The year 1900 is not far away.
Before that year arrives the evil effects
of a gold standard will bo oven more
evident than they are now , and the
people , then ready to demand an Ameri
can financial policy for the American
people , will join with us in the im
mediate restoration of the free and un
limited coinage of gold and silver at the
present legal ratio of 16 to 1 , without
waiting for the aid or consent of any
other nation. "
Glory ! Glory 1 Was ever prophecy
so perfectly verified ? Money five per
cent on farm lands , and bogging for
takers 1 Nobody starving , smiles plenty ,
tears scarce 1
It will be extremely
GOVERNMENT
BY CONSENT. tremely difficult
for the Bryanarch-
ists to harmonize the anti-imperialist
declaration of their platform with the
imperialist record of their nominee. The
platform says :
"We declare again that all govern
ments instituted among men derive their
just powers from the consent of the
governed ; that any government not
based upon the consent of the governed
is tyranny ; and that to impose upon any
people a government of force is to sub
stitute the methods of imperialism for
those of a republic. "
The treaty of peace with. Spain stip
ulated that upon the payment of $20-
000,000 by our government , sovereignty
over the Philippines should pass from
Spain to the United States. Many able
and conscientious senators , defenders of
the theory of the consent of the gov
erned , opposed the acquisition by pur
chase of sovereignty over the people of
the Philippines and for this reason made
a determined fight against the treaty.
Mr. Bryan , whose regiment was about
to be ordered to Cuba , suddenly changed
from an ardent war man to a peace-at-
any-price man even to the extent of
paying $20,000,000 to obtain it. He very
patriotically resigned his commission as
colonel of the Third Nebraska , and
rushed to Washington to carry on the
fight for ratification. At that time con
sent did not enter into his inventory of
the essentials for a just government. He
did not bother to find out whether the
Filipinos consented to the proposed ar
rangement or not but used his influence ,
as leader of the party opposed to the
republicans , in favor of the treaty , in
favor of buying from Spain the right to
govern the Filipinos. Not only did he
do this without the consent of the Filipinos
pines but he did it in spite of their pro
test. At the time the vote was taken on
the treaty , the people of the Philippines
were in open revolt against the au
thority of the United States. It was
well known that if the treaty was rati
fied and our sovereignty extended to the
Philippines , force would be required to
maintain it there.
If "any government not based upon
the consent of the governed is a tyr-
anny , " by bring-
m ' * .
Tyranny. .
ing about the ex
tension of our sovereignty to the Filipi
nos , Bryan is responsible for whatever
of tyranny there may be in it. If "to im
pose upon any people a government of
force is to substitute the methods of
imperialism for those of a republic , " by
advocating the purchase from Spain of
sovereignty over the Filipinos , in
spite of the protest of the people , Bryan
did favor the "substitution of the meth
ods of imperialism for those'of a repub
lic. " If Bryan is so conscientiously
opposed to government without the con-
pent of the governed , why did he not
join in the effort of those senators who
were making a fight in the senate of the
United States to uphold this principle ?
If he did not believe in the purchase of
sovereignty and maintaining it by
force , why did he advocate paying $20-
000,000 to Spain for her rights in the
Philippines , in the face of the armed
resistance on the part of the Filipinos to
even our military occupation of the
islands ? If the paying of $20,000,000 to
Spain was buying people , as Bryan has
on several occasions declared , why did
he become a party to such infamy by
advocating the purchase ?
The policy outlined in the Kansas
Oity platform , relative to the government -
_ . ment that shall be
, ,
. . . . .
The Bryan Policy. , . , . ,
established in the
Philippines , is also inconsistent with the
declaration about the consent of the
governed. Bryan thus expresses his
purpose :
"We favor an immediate declaration
of the nation's purpose "to give the Filipinos
pines , first , a stable form of govern
ment ; second , independence ; and third ,
protection from outside interference ,
such as has been given for nearly a cen
tury to the republics of Central and
South America. "
Bryan favors "an immediate decla
ration of the nation's purpose to
give the Filipinos a stable government. "
A government by consent means a gov
ernment established by the people for
themselves instead of somebody else
establishing it for them. Who is to
establish this stable government referred
to in the Bryanocratio platform ? This
platform distinctly states that it is the
"nation's purpose to give the Filipinos a
stable form of government. " It will
not be a government by the Filipinos , but
a government donated by the United
States to the Filipinos. What if the Fil
ipinos object to Bryan fixing up a
government for them instead of letting
them do it themselves , as the theory of
consent implies ? Would Bryan recede
from the purpose , so distinctly and em-
phatically stated in his platform , or
would he insist , by the use of force ,
upon giving them a government ? The
purpose to do a thing means the inten
tion of doing it , the determination to
overcome all obstacles. The purpose to
give the Filipinos a stable government
is the dominant idea in Bryan's plat
form , and the consent of the governed
only incidental. Bryan's government
would be a government by consent if
the consent of the Filipinos should hap
pen to coincide with his purpose and not
otherwise.
Bryan's platform next declares the
nation's purpose to grant the Filipinos
, , , independence.
Independence. _ _ , _
When ? Immedi
ately ? No , not until we have given
them a stable government. The query
naturally arises who is to be the judge
of its stability , the Filipinos or our
selves ? This , of course , is the preroga
tive of the power establishing the gov
ernment. It will bo for the United
States to determine when a stable gov
ernment is established and when it
would be safe to give the Filipinos in
dependence. It may require 1 year or
1,000 years to establish such a govern
ment in the Philippines and , until it is
established , the Bryanocratic platform
does not contemplate the granting of
independence.
While Bryan now declares himself so
ardently in favor of the principle of the
consent of the gov-
Inconsistent. , .
erued , as enunci
ated in the declaration of independence ,
it should not be forgotten that he did
advocate the acquisition by purchase of
sovereignty over the Filipinos , regard
less of their consent. Neither should it
be forgotten that he is now a oand idate
upon a platfrom that announces the
purpose of giving the Filipinos a gov
ernment instead of letting them estab
lish it for themselves. While Bryan
has denounced the withholding of inde
pendence from the Filipinos , his plat
form declares that it is the purpose of
the nation to continue to withhold it
and not give it to them until we have giv
en them a stable government , or until wo
get ready , a promise so indefinite as to
be absolutely worthless. Wherein does
Mr. Bryan's policy differ from that of
the administration ? In what particular
does it give promise of terminating the
insurrection in the Philippines ?
The Filipinos insist upon establishing
a government for themselves and resist
, , , , the attempt of
. . .
Militarism. , , ,
anybody else to do
it for them. They would not welcome
Bryan as a maker of their government
any more kindly than they have received
McKinley. It is the principle of the
government and not the personality of
the individual they oppose. If it be im
perialism to give a people a government
instead of letting them establish it for
themselves , we would have imperialism
