8 Conservative.
lUtVAN IS DANGKKOUS.
Several prominent opponents of Mr.
Bryan's election have recently expressed
their confidence in his honesty. As his
personal honesty in private affairs is
assumed , they evidently mean his polit
ical honesty. This is a fit subject for
discussion , if discussed in a proper ppirit
and with the view to discover the fact
and the effect of political honesty. It
must bo berne in mind that it is quite
possible for a man to bo radically mis
taken , palpably and obviously wrong in
his opinions , and yet entertain them
honestly that is , sincerely. In that
case , wo have a clear right to ask about
his intelligence and even the quality of
his intellect , the more so as earnestness
is sometimes an additional clement of
danger.
Honesty in public life requires recti
tude and courage of a higher order than
tlie personal morality or the fear that
would restrain a man from slandering
his neighbor , or swearing falsely , or
stealing a horse , or keeping a lost bill or
coin , instead of returning it to the
owner. There is no punnishment for
political dishonesty except when it is so
flagrant , so offensive , or eo ridiculous
tlfat it defeats its aim by defeating the
candidate who resorts to it.
If If oncht , Then Blind.
If we concede Mr. Bryan's honesty in
politics , then his mental vision is singu
larly oblique , or hazy almost to blindness.
Four years ago ho discussed nothing but
10 to 1. In all the intermediate time he
has , both in writing and in speech , dis
tinctly adhered to it. Ho arrogantly
required the convention which nomi
nated him to repeat it by reaffirming
the Chicago platform , which distinctly
made it the dominating issue. For that
he was called firm , outspoken and cour
ageous. Only in obedience to what was
virtually his command , 1C to 1 was car
ried in committee by a petty majority ,
coming from a territory and from
islands in the Pacific that can cast no
vote either for or against Mr. Bryan or
IGtol. His conduct in that instance
was moro like wilfulucss and imperiousness -
ness of personal temper , the foundation
of all political imperialism. It sprang
from a personal quality , the temper of
personal domination , that is out of place
in a democracy. A far higher moral
courage would have kept him quiet , and
then , if the convention had refused to
repeat 10 to 1 as a cardinal doctrine , he
would have declined the nomination.
Instead of that , he dictated the reten
tion of the whole of the Chicago plat
form , embracing 16 to 1 , but consented
that the "paramount issue" of 1890
might bo sent to the rear , and that "im
perialism" bo placed in the front as the
paramount issue of 1000. This , in spite
of the fact that he had expressly de
clared that the American people would
never consent that any other question
should displace or supersede the money
question until that was Bottled , and set-
tied as ho wishes it to bo settled. The
relative position assigned to the two
"planks" would be perfectly honest , if
it was an actual expression of his belief
of their relative importance.
Favored the Treaty.
Who believes that such is his estimate ?
Mr. Bryan advised and advocated the
ratification of the Spanish treaty , by
which the Philippine islands were ceded
to the United States. The difference
between the alleged imperialism of Mo-
Kiuley and the perpetual protectorate of
Bryan is much to the disadvantage of
Mr. ' "Solution. "
Bryan's Simple polit
ical sovereignty would bo both safer and
cheaper , while the protectorate would
cause more danger offoreign complica
tions.
If imperialism deserved to be made
the dominant issue , then why have we
not a distinct statement in the platform
of what should bo done and what would
bo done if Mr. Bryan were elected ?
What kind of government will be estab
lished in the Philippine islands ? How
and by whom ? Would the military
force be instantly withdrawn ? If not ,
why not ? What shall it remain there
for ? If Mr. Bryan should leave a regi
ment or a single company there , he
would b9 " . "
an "imperialist-
A later deliverance by Mr. Bryan was
in his speech of acceptance at Indiana
polis : "If elected I shall convene con
gress in extraordinary session as soon as
I am inaugurated , and recommend an
immediate declaration of the nation's
purpose , first , to establish a stable form
of government in the Philippine islands ,
just as we are now establishing a stable
form of government in the island of
Cuba ; second , to give independence to
the Filipinos , just as we have promised
to give independence to the Cubans ;
third , to protect the Filipinos from out
side interference while they work out
their destiny , just as wo have protected
the republics of Central and South
America , and are , by the Monroe
doctrine , pledged to protect Cuba. "
Some Pertinent Questions.
This is the latest exposition ; what the
next will be no uninspired prophet can
tell. "To establish a stable form of
government. " That is , a government
to be "established" by the United
States. With or without the ' 'consent
of the governed ? " Next , it must be
"stable" . Evidently we are to judge of
its stability. How long are we to wait
to discover whether it be stable or un
stable ? "Second , to give independence
to the Filipinos. " To give them inde
pendence when ? Just when we think
the government has proved to be stable.
"Third , to protect the Filipinos from
outside interference. " Here is the
proclamation of a protectorate. How
long ? "While they work out their des
tiny. ' ' Destiny involves unlimited time.
The whole scheme involves this possible
result ; Mr. Bryan advised the ratifica
tion of the treaty with Spain , which
required the payment of $20,000,000 to
Spain. Some day a stable government ,
as we may think , has been established ,
and then we grant the Filipinos their
independence. While our protectorate
would bind us to protect them against
foreign interference , either with their
government or with their sovereignty ,
it could not bind or allow us to interfere
with their independence in working out
their own destiny. Therefore , they
might vote to annex themselves to any
of the great nations of the earth , and wo
could not interpose a word of objection.
The accomplished fact of expansion
raises two questions : Who is responsi
ble for the fact ? Mr. McKinley and Mr.
Bryan equally. What shall we do with
the islands ? Both say , Restore order
first. How ? It can bo done only by
suppressing disorder. Each says , Estab-
Wish a civil government. Each moans
that the United States must do that ,
each intends that the islanders shall
have local self-government. If each
would make it stable , so far they are
equally imperialistic. Mr. McKiuley
has proclaimed amnesty , and a com
mission , headed by Judge Taft , one of
the greatest jurists in America , is pre
paring a plan of civil government. The
democratic platform has described the
Filipinos as unfit for American citizen
ship. But Bryan says they are first to
be made stable by us and then inde
pendent under our perpetual protec
torate.
The meaning of independence cannot
bo restricted. No nation under a pro
tectorate is independent. Independent
Texas voted to annex itself to the United
State i. The independent Filipinos
could annex themselves to Japan or to
China or to England or even to Spain.
A condition or limitation to the contrary
in the grant would , in ordinary legal
matters , be void for repugnance. The
attempt to avoid the repugnance by a
protectorate destroys the independence.
Greatest Expansionist of All.
But Mr. Bryan is full of resources.
Without contending that the Monroe
doctrine , as originally formulated , cov
ers the Philippine islands , yet with a
facile stroke of the pen he expands it to
them. He is the greatest expansionist
in America. Those islands are on the
other side of the earth , not appurtenant
to this continent nor to the western
hemisphere , commonly understood to be
the geographical limits of the Monroe
doctrine ; islands which President Mon
roe himself could probably not have
very easily or quickly pointed out on the
map. Mr. Bryan could just as right
fully , logically and wisely extend the
principle of the Monroe doctrine to
Lapland as a shield against Russia ; to
the Dauubiau principalities as a shield