another. Land is inanimate and makes no resistance to a transfer of title; the people are animate and sometimes desire a voice in their own affairs. But whether, measured by dollars and cents, the conquest of the Philippines would prove profitable or expensive, it will certainly prove embarrassing to those who still hold to the doctrines which underlie a republic. Military rule is antagonistic to our theory of government. The arguments which are used to defend it in the Philippines may be used to excuse it in the United States. Under military rule much must be left to the discretion of the military governor, and this can only be justified upon the theory that the governor knows more than the people whom he governs, is better acquainted with their needs than they are themselves, is entirely in sympathy with them and is thoroughly honest and unselfish in his desire to do them good. Such a combination of wisdom, integrity, and love is difficult to find, and the Republican party will enter upon a hard task when it starts out to select suitable military governors for our remote possessions.

If we enter upon a colonial policy we must expect to hear the command "Silence!" issuing with increasing emphasis from the imperialists. When the discussion of fundamental principles is attempted in the United States, if a member of Congress attempts to criticise any injustice perpetrated by a government official against a helpless people, he will be warned to keep silent, lest his criticism encourage resistance to American authority in the Orient. If an orator on the Fourth of July dares to speak of inalienable rights, or refers with commendation to the manner in which our forefathers resisted taxation without representation, he will be warned to keep silent, lest his utterances excite rebellion among distant subjects. If we adopt a colonial policy and pursue the course which excited the revolution of 1776, we must muffle the

tones of the old Liberty Bell, and commune in whispers when we praise the patriotism of our forefathers. We cannot afford to destroy the Declaration of Independence; we cannot afford to erase from our Constitutions, State and national, the bill of rights; we have not time to examine the libraries of the nation and purge them of the essays, the speeches, and the books that defend the doctrine that law is the crystallization of public opinion, rather than an emanation from physical power.

But, even if we could destroy every vestige of the laws which are the outgrowth of the immortal law penned by Jefferson; if we could obliterate every written word that has been inspired by the idea that this is a "government of the people, by the people and for the people," we could not tear from the heart of the human race the hope which the American Republic has planted there. The impassioned appeal, "Give me liberty or give me death," still echoes around the world. In the future, as in the past, the desire to be free will be stronger than the desire to enjoy a mere physical existence. The conflict between right and might will continue here and everywhere, until a day is reached when the love of money shall no longer sear the national conscience and hypocrisy no longer hide the hideous features of avarice behind the mask of philanthropy.

IMPERIALISM

[Delivered at Savannah, Ga., December 13, 1898.]

I MAY be in error, but I believe our nation is in greater danger just now thàn Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea-the colonial idea of European nations. The im

perialistic idea is directly antagonistic to the idea and ideals which have been cherished by the American people since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a colonial policy such as that pursued by European countries, or it must abandon the doctrine. that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We may believe that governments come up from the people or we may believe that governments come down to the people from those who possess the heaviest cannons and the largest ships, but we cannot advocate both doctrines. To borrow a Bible quotation, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Paraphrasing Lincoln's declaration, I may add that this nation cannot endure half-republic and half-colony-half-free and half-vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest.

Jefferson has been quoted in support of imperialism, but our opponents must distinguish between imperialism and expansion; they must also distinguish between expansion in the western hemisphere and an expansion that involves us in the quarrels of Europe and the Orient. They must still further distinguish between expansion which secures contiguous territory for future settlement, and expansion which secures us alien races for future subjugation. Jefferson favored the annexation of necessary contiguous territory on the North American continent, but he was opposed to wars of conquest, and expressly condemned the acquiring of remote territory.

The fight should not be made against the ratification of the treaty. I would prefer another plan. If the treaty is rejected negotiations must be renewed, and instead of settling the question according to our own ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with the possi

bility of international complications. It will be easier to end the war at once by ratifying the treaty, and then deal with the subject in our own way. The issue should be presented directly by a resolution of Congress declaring the policy of the nation upon this subject.

The President in his message says that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba is to establish a stable government and then turn that government over to the people of Cuba. Congress should reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba and assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines and Porto Rico. Such a resolution would make a clear-cut issue between the doctrine of self-government and the doctrine of imperialism. We should reserve a harbor and coaling-station in Porto Rico and in the Philippines in return for services rendered; and I think we would be justified in asking the same concession from Cuba. In Porto Rico, where the people have as yet expressed no desire for an independent government, we might with propriety declare our willingness to annex the island if the citizens desire annexation; but the Philippine Islands are too far away and their people too different from ours to be annexed to the United States, even if they desired it.

FUTURE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[From a speech before the Good Government Club, Ann Arbor, Mich., February 18, 1899.]

THE President in his Boston speech has declared that the future of the Philippines is in the hands of the American people. This is all that has been contended for by the opponents of the colonial policy outlined by those who have demanded the forcible and permanent annexation of the Philippine Islands. If the matter is in the hands of the American people, then it is a sub

ject for discussion by the American people, and the only question to be considered and decided is whether the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands is desirable. And in considering what is desirable, we must consider what is best for the people of the United States, and what is best for the Filipinos. Those who oppose the colonial policy deny that the adoption of such a policy by this nation would be beneficial either to the United States or to the alien race over which our sovereignty would be extended.

The sooner the question is settled the better. It is putting the cart before the horse to say that the nation cannot reveal its purpose until the Filipinos lay down their arms. If the nation would declare its intention to establish a stable and independent government in the Philippines and then leave that government in the hands of the people of the islands, hostilities would be suspended at once and further bloodshed would be avoided. What would our colonists have thought of a demand upon the part of England that we first lay down our arms and surrender to the king, and then trust to the decision he would make? Now, that the treaty has been ratified and Spain eliminated from the question, the American people are free to take such action as the circumstances require. Shall our nation enter upon a career of conquest and substitute the doctrine of force for the power of example and the influence of counsel? Our forefathers fought for independence under a banner upon which was inscribed the motto, "Millions for defence, but not one cent for tribute." And so those who to-day not only desire American independence, but are willing to encourage the idea of independence and self-government in other races, can fight under a banner upon which is inscribed a similar motto: "Millions for defence, but not one cent for conquest."

Some of the advocates of a colonial policy have