'Che Conservative *
naval engagement , and that the ships of
Spain would bo swept from the sea. I
am not a prophet , but I believed what I
then said , and it has been justified by
events. Now I say , standing here , that ,
in my opinion , if we ratify the treaty
with no declaration in it that we dis
claim any right to enslave these people ,
or to hold them in subjection , or use
language which does not mean giving
them their liberty , we have already em
barked in a war that will not release the
volunteers , and thousands of the best
American youth will lay their bones
upon the plains and in the jungle of
Luzon and iu other parts of the Philip
pines. "
Senator Daniel thus indicated the
probable result of defeating the treaty
as it was written :
"Peace , it is said , is in this treaty ;
peace a pleasing name to conjure with.
'Blessed are the
Result of Defeating , , .
Treaty. peacemakers. Are
our friends upon
the other side sure this treaty means
peace ? Are they sure that the spoken
word will be substantiated by subse
quent facts ? Undoubtedly it means
peace with Spain. Thsre is nothing else
in the future but peace with Spain.
There is no contingency that can revive
' V war with Spain. There is nothing that
we would do with this treaty that can
affect Spain. "
These were the arguments used by
senators in Mr. Bryan's own party. The
arguments Bryan employs are those ol
Lodge and other imperialistic senators.
Hence Mr. Bryan acted upon the side of
the imperialists and took their interpre
tation of the meaning of the treaty and
opposed that of his friends in his own
party and other senators who were
avowed anti-imperialists.
In answering Bryan's plea about the
Bacon resolution , THE CONSERVATIVE
quotes again from the speech of Senator
Money :
"Mr. President , there are severa
resolutions for the consideration of the
senate supposed to
Bacon Resolution. , , , , .
bear on the treaty
These resolutions are simply declarations
of opinion. They have no effect upon
the decition of the controversy which
we are about to engage in with tha
Filipinos , and that is the matter we are
to consider now.
"If we pass any of these resolutions ,
of what avail is it ? Does that deter
mine our relations with the Filipinos ?
Does that induce them to come in and
make terms with ns ? Does that disband
the army ? These resolutions are simply
the text for discussion in open sessions
of the senate , and they are worth that
and little more. "
A treaty is to nations what a private
contract is to individuals. Only that
which is written in the contract is bind-
iug upon either party. Mr. Bryan was
once admitted to the practice of law and
should know this. If he honestly fa
vored independence for the Filipinos
why did he oppose Senator Daniels ,
Money and Hoar , who were trying to
put such a provision in the contract or
treaty , the only way it could be made
binding ? Why did he make their ef
forts futile by urging a simple declara
tion of the opinion of congress that
would have no more effect in establish-
ng our relations with the Filipinos than
xii oral statement of one of the parties
, vould have upon a written contract ?
The peerless explainer continues to
explain : "I believe that we are now in
a better position to
A Scries of ,
Explanations.WaBe a Successful
contest against im
perialism than we would have been had
the treaty been rejected. "
Of course we are. If the treaty had
been rejected there would be no possi
bility of imperialism and it would in
deed be a difficult proposition for even
Mr. Bryan to "wage a successful con
test" against nothing.
He further states : "With the treaty
ratified , a clean cut issue is presented
between a government by consent and a
government by force , and imperialism
must bear the responsibility for all that
happens until the question is settled. "
He might have added , if the treaty
had not been ratified there would be no
"clear issue" and there would not be
any anti-imperialist candidate for the
presidency. THE CONSERVATIVE has
often hinted that Mr. Bryan favored the
ratification of the treaty that he might
have an issue in 1900 to replace the dis
credited tantamount of 1896. This con
fession confirms as truth what before
had only been suspected.
We have some more artful explaining
"If the treaty had been rejected , con
siderable time would have necessarily
elapsed before a new treaty could have
been agreed upon and ratified , and dur
ing that time the question would have
been agitating the public mind. "
Senator Daniel effectually answered
this plea when he said :
"Ah , but amend it , they say , and you
delay. We are acting for all time , Mr
President. We are acting or immor
tality , not for a few days for a few weeki
or a few months. Aye , would a few
years be a long vestibule to that infinit
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 you have
done as to Cuba , and it is done. "
Mr. Bryan's speech of acceptance is
lame. His explanations do not explain.
He talks well.
Sham Hypocrisy. _ _ , .
No one questions
his ability to do this. But the
American people are concerned not so
much in what men say they are going
to do as in what they do. THE CONSER
VATIVE admits that Mr. Bryan did de
nounce the acquisition of territory by
conquest , but when the crucial moment
came , he turned about and worked to
thus acquire territory. We admit that
ho also denounced government without
consent , but when the time came to
choose between a government with con
sent and a government without consent
he deliberately chose the government
without consent and used his influence
to buy the Filipinos not only without
their consent , but in spite of their
armed protest. By doing so he proved
his former expressions to have been
nothing more than sham hypocrisy. It
conies with poor grace for Mr. Bryan to
denounce Mr. McKinley as an imper
ialist for favoring the treaty and at the
lame time seek to claim for himself the
distinction of being an anti-imperialist
for doing exactly the same thing Mr.
McKiuley did. It will not check im
perialistic tendencies to elect as presi
dent a man who advised taking the first
imperialistic step , which was "so appar-
mt" , that he might have a "clear out
ssue" upon which to bid for votes.
SMYTH. BlarneytineJaw
Smyth , Attorney-
general of Nebraska , has been upon the
war path and smitten the warriors of
the Standard Oil Tribe hip and thigh.
He now returneth to the wigwams of
he populists with the gory scalps of
Rockefeller , Flagler , and their uno-
nous savages dangling from his belt.
Other corporations in Nebraska may
look out for an ambuscade by the Jaw
Smyth barbarians at an early day. Any
combine for making money , paying
wages and providing prosperity in Ne
braska , is antagonized by Smyth.
TOWNE TAIK. .
tack of Charles A.
Towne upon the character and public
services of Grover Cleveland reminds
THE CONSERVATIVE that Themistocles
said : "Great men are like oaks , under
the branches of which men are happy
in finding a refuge in time of storm and
rain ; but when they have to pass a
sunny day under them , they take pleas
ure in cutting the bark and breaking
the branches. "
When mushrooms are praferred over
oaks for strength and durability Towne's
talk will take the place of history. An
attempt to batter down the great wall
of China with mush and milk would be
as fruitful of results as the assaults of
Charles A. Towue will be upon the
record and good name of Cleveland.
A RATIO "WhatisBryan-
archy ? " asks a
constant reader of THE CONSERVATIVE.
Bryanarchy is a proposed government
for the United States. It is to be made
up of sixteen parts of vagaries , social
istic and agrarian , to one part of com
mon sense. It is sixteen parts of danger
to one of safety. It is inspired by an
archy and Bryan. All anarchists support
him and hence the term Bryanarchy.
