experts, and experts in the various industries. We should not get our money back, but we should save our honor.

The only sensible thing to do would be to pull out some dark night and escape from the great problem of the Orient as suddenly and as dramatically as we got into it.

To take a weak nation by the throat is not the righteous way to win its trade. It is not true that "trade follows the flag." Trade flies through the open door. To open the door of the Orient is to open our own doors to Asia. To do this hurries us on toward the final "manifest destiny," the leveling of the nations. Where the barriers are all broken down, and the world becomes one vast commercial republic, there will be leveling down of government, character, ideals, as well as leveling up.

It is the duty of nations with ideals to struggle against "manifest destiny." In the Norse Mythology the Fenris-Wolf in the Twilight of the Gods shall at last devour them all. So at last in the Twilight of the Nations shall all of them succumb to "Manifest Destiny." The huge armaments of Europe, its invincible armies, its mighty navies, are but piled up as fagots for the burning which shall destroy dynasties and nations. Lowering of national character, of national ideals, of national pride, follows the path of glory.

"We want," some say, our hands in oriental affairs when the great struggle follows the breaking up of China." Others would have "American freedom upheld as a torchlight amidst the darkness of oriental despotism." We cannot show American civilization where

American institutions cannot exist. But the spirit of freedom goes with its deeds.

I do not urge the money cost of holding the Philippines as an argument against annexation. No dependent colony, honestly administered, ever repaid its cost to the government, and this colony holds out not the slightest promise of such a result. In fact, the cost of conquest and maintenance in life and gold is in grotesque excess of any possible advantage to trade or to civilization.

Individuals grow rich, but no honest government gets its money back. But with all this, if annexation is a duty, it is such regardless of cost.

But America has governmental ideals of the development of the individual man. England has no care for the man, only for civic order. This unfits America for certain tasks for which England is prepared. In Zanzibar, when the king dies, the first of the royal family to reach the throne is made king. Once a king who hated England was thus chosen. A British man-of-war in the harbor promptly shelled the royal palace and killed so many followers of the new king that the mistake was quickly rectified and the Pax Britannica restored. Our ideals stand in the way of our doing such things as this.

To govern colonies it is necessary to have an automatic non-political civil service. That our navy is organized on such a basis makes its strength. That the volunteer army is not, is the reason why the air is full to-day of charges and counter charges. The colonial policy must be continuous, hence out of the people's hands. It must be flexible, hence not limited by constitutional checks and balances. An annexationist lately said to me, "I am just tired of hearing of the

Constitution."

A labor agitator says that all our troubles come from the fact "every reform needed by the people is prevented by the Constitution." But to prevent foolish acts, inside and outside the country, the Constitution was devised.

Government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed." This is the foundation of democracy. But where such consent is impossible, government may derive powers in another way. It may justify itself because it is good government. This is the maxim of Imperialism. This is the justification of Mexico. It is the justification of Great Britain. The function of British Imperialism is to carry law and order, the Pax Britannica, to all parts of the globe. This function has been worked out in three ways corresponding to England's three classes of tributary districts or colonies. The first class of these consists of regions settled by Englishmen imbued with the spirit of the law, and capable of taking care of themselves. Such colonies rule their own affairs absolutely. The bond of Imperialism is little more than a treaty of perpetual friendship. Over the local affairs of Canada, for example, England claims little authority and exercises none. When difficulties arise with Canada, we see British Imperialism cringing before provincial politicians as a weak mother before a spoiled child. Should Canada or Australia break from her nominal allegiance, the whole sham fabric of Imperialism would fall to pieces.

A second class of colonies consists of military posts, strategic points of war or commerce, wrested from some weaker nation in the militant past. In the control of these outposts "the consent of the governed" plays no

part. The inhabitants of Gibraltar, for example, count for no more than so many "camp-followers." They remain through military suffrance, and the forms of martial law suffice for all the government they need.

The third class of colonies is made up of conquered or bankrupt nations, people whose own governmental forms were so intolerable that England was forced to take them across her knee. These nations still govern themselves in one fashion, but each act of their rulers is subject to the firm veto of the British Colonial Office. "Said England unto Pharaoh, 'I will make a man of you,'" and with Pharaoh, as with other irresponsibles of the tropics, England has in some degree succeeded. But this success is attained only through the strictest discipline of military methods. It is not along the lines by which we have made a man of "Brother Jonathan." England has thus become the guardian of the weak nations of the earth, the police force of the unruly, the assignee of the bankrupt.

Good government is the justification for British imperialism. If victories at sea, the needs of humanity, "manifest destiny," and political dalliance with fate force foreign dominion on the United States, American imperialism must have the same justification. Whatever lands or people come under our flag are entitled to good government, the best that we can give them. This should be better than we give ourselves, for it is not accompanied by the inestimable advantages of selfgovernment. There are duties as well as glories inherent in dominion, and the duties are by far the more insistent. We have had our own set of problems as important as those of England and more difficult. It is easier to

govern others by force than to rule ourselves by intelligence.

Though one in blood with England, our course of political activities has not lain parallel with hers. While England has been making trade we have been making men. We have no machinery to govern colonies well. We want no such machinery if we can help it. The habit of our people and the tendency of our forms of government are to lead people to mind their own business. Only the business of individuals or groups of individuals receives attention. Our representatives in Congress are our attorneys, retained to look after our interests, the interest of the state or district, not of the nation. A colony has no attorney, and its demands, as matters now stand, must go by default. This is the reason why we fail in the government of colonies. This is the reason why our consular service is weak and inefficient. This is the reason why our forests are wasted year by year. Nothing is well done in a republic unless it touches the interest or catches the attention of the people. Unless a colony knows what good government is and insists loudly on having it, with some means to make itself heard, it will be neglected and abused. This is why every body of people under the American flag must have a share in the American government. When a colony knows what good government is, it ceases to be a colony and can take care of itself.

The question is not whether Great Britain or the United States has the better form of government or the nobler civic mission. There is room in the world for two types of Anglo-Saxon nations, and nothing has yet happened to show that civilization would gain if either