"Columbia " for the supremacy of naval architecture and naval prowess? May we not hope that if ever the banners of England and the banners of the United States are again to meet on the battle-field they shall meet entwined together in the defence of some holy cause, in the defence of holy justice, for the defence of the oppressed, for the enfranchisement of the downtrodden, and for the advancement of liberty, progress, and civilization?

WILLIAM LINDSAY

[Extracts from a speech delivered before the American Bar Association at Buffalo, August 28, 1899].

I.

LAW IS WITH DUTY

THE authority of the Government to prosecute the war against Spain, to destroy the Spanish fleets, to capture the Spanish armies, and to hold and occupy Spanish territory, is not open to question. The right to make peace includes the right to fix the terms and conditions upon which peace shall be made; and those terms may lawfully include the cession of territory won by American valor. The war with Mexico, fifty years ago, and the treaty through which peace was then restored, are prototypes of the recent war with Spain and the treaty of peace with that country. A victorious conflict, followed by the cession of the vast region embraced by New Mexico and Upper California, with the payment to Mexico of fifteen million dollars, and a victorious war followed by the cession of Porto Rico and the Philippine Archipelago and the Island of Guam, with the payment to Spain of twenty million dollars, complete the analogy. These treaty stipulations impose no obligations on the United States to organize the ceded territories into States preparatory to their admission into the Union.

It is said to be inconsistent with the fundamental

idea of free institutions for this Government to retain territory under its imperial rule and deny the people the customary local institutions. But it is not contrary to that idea to retain such territory, securing to the people all the customary local institutions they may prove themselves competent to administer, and all the civil rights that free institutions are intended to protect. If the erection of States out of the territory of Louisiana was in the mind of Mr. Jefferson at all, it was not the controlling consideration with him, or with either of his commissioners when the treaty of cession was negotiated. The possession of Louisiana by France would have been an obstruction to the safety and prosperity of the United States. To prevent that obstruction, and not for the creation or admission of new States into the Union, the purchase was made.

The power to admit new States, except those erected within the original boundaries of the Union, was then an undecided and disputed proposition. It was denied by statesmen and lawyers of distinction and ability. When the territory of Louisiana applied for admission as a State, the application met with determined opposition. It was insisted that the admission would impair the dignity and reduce the relative importance of the original States, and would be in derogation of their constitutional rights. In all past controversies, no one contended that the validity of the acquisition of foreign territory depended on the ultimate organization of any portion of it into a State for admission into the Union. The admission of new States is essentially a discretionary power. New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union. The grant implies power, not duty. Congress has the "discretion to refuse as well as to admit." It may be doubted, whether the discretion to refuse can be taken away or abridged by treaty.

To substitute the control of the United States for

the control of Spain in the Philippines; to introduce American institutions in the room and stead of Spanish methods; to replace absolute and unlimited power with the restraining principles of constitutional liberty, will not be to contravene this great fundamental principle. It will be the first step in securing to the inhabitants of those distant countries the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It will be to the people of these islands the dawn of a morning which in God's providence will ripen into a day of deliverance from tyranny and oppression at the hands of either a foreign master or a home-bred despot.

To secure the inalienable rights of man, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever the form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. American dominion in the Philippines will destroy none of the ends of government; will disregard no one of the inalienable rights of man; will sanctify no abuse or usurpation, but will terminate the despotism under which their people have lived for more than three hundred years.

The United States did not ask the consent of the inhabitants of Louisiana, or Florida, or New Mexico, or Upper California, to the cessions made by France and Spain and the Republic of Mexico, nor was it understood when we assumed sovereign jurisdiction over those peoples, that we were violating the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Orderly government faithfully administered in the interests of the governed superinduces consent. The Filipinos have never been free. In submitting to the authority of the United States

they surrender no privilege or immunity. The Treaty of Paris makes no provision for the incorporation of the people of the Philippines into the Union, or for their enjoyment of the privileges, rights, or immunities of citizens of the United States. The native inhabitants of those countries are to have their civil rights and political status determined by Congress, and the power of Congress is unlimited so far as the treaty of cession is concerned, except that the inhabitants are to be secured in the free exercise of their religion.

It does not follow because the civil rights and political status of the Philippine people are to be determined by Congress, that the power of Congress over them is omnipotent. Congress will exercise legislative power practically free from restraint by the treaty, but subject to the restraints of constitutional institutions. I do not claim that the Government of the United States is specially adapted to a colonial policy, or that its methods of administration qualify it, in any marked degree, to hold and govern dependencies in any portion of the world, proximate or remote. On the contrary, it is of doubtful expediency to hold colonies or dependencies at all, and such holding can only be justified by necessity. When, however, duty admits of no escape without the sacrifice of national honor or dignity, the necessity exists.

If this be an imperial power, it is not the imperialism of the autocrat, but that which pertains to the empire of which Jefferson spoke, when he said, "I am persuaded no constitution was ever so well calculated for extensive empire and self-government" as that of the United States. It is open to abuse, as is every great power of government; but faith in the virtue, magnanimity, and justice of the American people, encourages the belief that it will always be exerted to exemplify the fact that the imperialism of the American Republic is its capacity and disposition to defend