M i _
Conservative *
in the ordeal of fire and blood to an ex
cellence not attained by their kindred in
any other part of the world. A hundred
years throngh paiufal steps they have
moved along a road which they have
macadamized with their bones and
cemented with their blood. The noblest
aspirations that can fire the human heart
have actuated these men resistence to
tyranny. This great republic has
reached its arm across the waste of
water and helped these people to their
feet , given them the opportunity
to organize a government and to run
the race for freedom according to their
capacity.
"Are we to be the great exemplars of
of human liberty , or are we to join the
ranlcs of the monarchs of the world in
the lust for territory , the greed for con
quest , for aggrandizement , and depart
from that simplicity of liberty , of free
dom , of the rights of man as set forth in
our declaration of independence , as
guaranteed by our constitution ? The
fate of millions of people in the Philip
pines , of untold millions in America ,
rests upon the decision of the senate. "
The remarks of Senator Daniel are
equally pointed :
"Mr. President , it is the first step that
costs. Today we are the United States
of America , To-
Senator Daniel. . .
morrow if a treaty
now pending in the senate is ratified ,
we will be the United States of America
and Asia.
"I do not balieve that the great body
of the American people understand the
significance of this treaty. I do not
believe , at least if I may judge from
their utterances , that many senators
who are saying , 'Vote for the treaty now
and fix j'our policy tomorrow , ' under
stand what that treaty does irretriev
ably. That treaty fixes our policy. The
rest of our policy is a mere matter of
clerky detail. The treaty is the
thoroughfare , and throngh and over
that thoroughfare a million of Filipinos
march into the open doorway of the
American republic. More than that ,
70,000,000 Americans march into the
Philippine islands as the Filipinos march
here.
"It is a marriage of nations. This
twain become one flesh. They become
bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.
Henceforth and forever , according to
the terminology of this treaty , the Fili-
ipinos and Americans are one. I trust
yet , Mr. President , that before this mar
riage is consummated the spirit of Amer
ican constitutional liberty will arise and
forbid the bans.
"Let us stay in military occupation of
the Philippine islands until such time as
we know more about them than we do ,
until we have assisted them with our
kind offices and with our national pres
tige and with our force of arms into
such destiny as may fitly and justly
await them , into such destiny as they
have projected for themselves.
"What is the difference between do
ing that , Mr. President , and ratifying
this treaty ? It is the difference between
planting an empire there and maintain
ing the temporary ascendency of Amer
ican power there.
"Naturally enough , Mr. President ,
birds of a feather flock together. ' The
Philippine treaty
SI and I ncr Army. , . . ,
and a great stand
ing army walk into the halls of congress
hand in hand , one behind and close
upon the heels of the other. In a
military strategic point of view ,
no nation ever challenged fate by
so unwise and unnecessary a step
as to fling out the American salient
upon the Asiatic coast and say , 'Here is
the place where we are willing to estab
lish our sovereignty , and , if need be , to
defend it against the world in arms. ' It
means militarism to follow its essential
corollary , its necessary and its inevita
ble consequence.
"The men who favor the standing
army today have read in the lines of
that treaty the bugle call 'To arms 1 To
arms ! ' They have seen with that
treaty you can no more rely perma
nently and fixedly upon the American
volunteer , the pride of the nation , the
citizen soldier , ever ready to take his
gnu and go down to the shore to defend
his native land ; that you must have , if
you are going there to maintain your
sovereignty , a regular army ; you must
introduce the regular soldier into Amer
ican life , and when he comes he will
come with all the necessary cense
quence.
"Aye , Mr. President , through many
of the speeches of those who say 'ratify
, . . , . the treaty' there
Policy Afterward.
runs a sense of
distrust of what they are doing ; there
runs a sense of preference for what we
propose to do. They say , 'ratify the
treaty now ; come and we will talk
about policy tomorrow. '
"The policy is wrapped up in the
treaty. The policy is determined by
the treaty. The policy that will follow
is a mere minor detail. If you have
military occupancy there , as you have
in Ouba , you may fold your tents like
the Arab and quietly steal away , or sail
away , or march away , or get away any
night or morning that yon please.
"It is not a question of hauling down
the flag. The flag now is a mere casual-
visitor there. It is no more fixed there
than it is fixed in Pennsylvania avenue
when it sweeps down at the head of a
regiment. It merely waves there over a
ship and where it is carried by an Amer
ican soldier. But once fix sovereignty
there and its roots go down to the center
of the earth like a fee-simple deed , and
its stars go upward until they mingle
with those in space. It is sovereignty ,
the most permanent act of human life ,
the most fixed and immovable thing
that ever nation did or could do.
"Peace , it is said , is in this treaty ;
peace a pleasing name to conjure with.
'Blessed are the
Peace.
peacemakers. ' Are
our friends upon the other side sure
this treaty means peace ? Are they
sure that the spoken word will be sub
stantiated by subsequent facts ? Un
doubtedly it means peace with Spain.
There is nothing else in the future but
peace with Spain. There is no contin
gency that can revive war with Spain.
There is nothing that wo would do with
this treaty that can affect Spain.
"Ah , but amend it , they say , and you
delay. We are acting for all time , Mr.
President. We are acting for immor
tality , not for a few days or a few weeks
or a few mouths. Aye , would a few
years bs a long vestibule to that infinite
stretch of time that goes with sovereignty
eignty ?
"But this treaty is easily amended.
You have only to substitute in respect
to the Philippine islands what yon have
done as to Ouba , and it is done. If there
are votes here to do that , it can be done
next Monday. Do you think Spain will
not consent ? Why do you think so ?
There is nothing in the nature of things
from which any man can fancy that
Spain would not readily assent. She
has done so in one case with respect to
Ouba , and she did it there simply be
cause we asked it. Aye , Mr. President ,
she did it in Cuba against her wishes.
She wanted us to annex Cuba on ac
count of her Spanish citizens there , for
she thought that the Spaniards there
and the Spanish soldiers there and the
Spanish property there would all be
safer and better under the permanent
sovereignty of the United States than in
the chance medley of military occupa
tion with Ouban independence hovering
over it. But against the wishes of
Spain we said , 'No ; we prefer only a
military occupation here. ' "
Bryan is late in portraying the dangers
of imperialism. The arguments he is now
using were thoroughly
A Year Behind.
oughly gone over
in the senate over a year ago. They were
advanced as strong reasons why this gov
ernment should not start out in a policy
of imperialism and the acquisition of
remote territory. Senator Money voiced
the opinion of all honest and conscien
tious anti-imperialists when he said :
"We will have peace with Spain but
war with the Filipinos. " A vote for the
ratification of the treaty was a vote for
peace with Spain and at the same time
a vote for war with the Filipinos.
It was in February 1899 , the die was
cast. Wo then decided between peace
and war. With this explicit under
standing as to the meaning of the treaty
and its far-reaching consequences ,
strangely as it may seem , the influence
of the "peerless leader" was exerted in
I
