NABOTH'S VINEYARD. "The Bible tells us that Ahab, the king, wanted the vineyard of Naboth and was sorely grieved because the owner thereof refused to part with the inheritance of his fathers. Then followed a plot, and false charges were preferred against Naboth to furnish an excuse for getting rid of him. 66 "Thou shalt not covet!' 'Thou shalt not bear false witness!' 'Thou shalt not kill'-three commandments broken, and still a fourth, 'Thou shalt not steal,' to be broken in order to get a little piece of ground! And what was the result? When the king went forth to take possession Elijah, that brave old prophet of the early days, met him and pronounced against him the sentence of the Almighty: 'In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall the dogs lick thy blood, even thine.' "Neither his own exalted position nor the lowly station of his victim could save him from the avenging hand of outraged justice. His case was tried in a court where neither wealth, nor rank, nor power can shield the transgressor. "Wars of conquest have their origin in covetousness, and the history of the human race has been written in characters of blood because rulers have looked with longing eyes upon the lands of others. "Covetousness is prone to seek the aid of false pretence to carry out its plans, but what it cannot secure by persuasion it takes by the sword. "Senator Teller's amendment to the intervention resolution saved the Cubans from the covetousness of those who are so anxious to secure possession of the island, that they are willing to deny the truth of the declaration of our own Congress, that 'the people of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free."" "Imperialism might expand the nation's territory, but it would contract the nation's purpose. It is not a step forward toward a broader destiny; it is a step backward, toward the narrow views of kings and emperors. "Dr. Taylor has aptly expressed it in his 'Creed of the Flag,' when he asks: 'Shall we turn to the old world again "I answer, never. This republic is not a prodigal son; it has not spent its substance in riotous living. It is not ready to retrace its steps and, with shamed face and trembling voice, solicit an humble place among the servants of royalty. It has not sinned against Heaven, and God grant that the crowned heads of Europe may never have occasion to kill the fatted calf to commemorate its return from reliance upon the will of the people to dependence upon the authority which flows from regal birth or superior force! "We cannot afford to enter upon a colonial policy. The theory upon which a government is built is a matter of vital importance. The national idea has a controlling influence upon the thought and character of the people. Our national idea is self-government, and unless we are ready to abandon that idea forever we cannot ignore it in dealing with the Filipinos. "That idea is entwined with our traditions; it permeates our history; it is a part of our literature. "That idea has given eloquence to the orator and inspiration to the poet. Take from our national hymns the three words, free, freedom and liberty, and they would be as meaningless as would be our flag if robbed of its red, white and blue. "Other nations may dream of wars of conquest and of distant dependencies governed by external force; not so with the United States. "The fruits of imperialism, be they bitter or sweet, must be left to the subjects of monarchy. This is the one tree of which the citizens of a republic may not partake. It is the voice of the serpent, not the voice of God, that bids us eat." [Extract from speech delivered in Denver, Colo., January 17, 1899, at the joint invitation of the Chairmen of the Democratic, Populist and Silver Republican State Committees.] LIBERTY, NOT CONQUEST. The ratification of the treaty, instead of committing the United States to a colonial policy, really clears the way for the recognition of a Philippine republic. Lincoln, in his first inaugural message, condensed an unanswerable argument into a brief question when he asked, "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?" The same argument is presented in the question, Could the independence of the Filipinos be secured more easily by diplomacy from a foreign and hostile nation than it can through laws passed by Congress and voicing the sentiments of the American people alone? If independence is more desirable to our people than a colonial policy who is there or what is there to prevent the recognition of Philippine independence? It is absurd to say that the United States can be transformed from a republic into an empire without consulting the voters. The imperialists may be willing to deny to the Filipinos the right to govern themselves, but they cannot deny to the American people the right to determine the policy to be pursued by the United States in the settlement of the Philippine question. Until the people express themselves we can only guess at their views, but is it not safer to suppose that they will adhere to the ideas and policies of a century than to assume that they will go back to the creed of kings and to the gospel of force? In commemoration of the fact that France was our ally in securing independence the citizens of that nation joined with the citizens of the United States in placing in New York Harbor an heroic statue representing Liberty enlightening the world. What course shall our nation pursue? Send the statue of Liberty back to France and borrow from England a statue. of William the Conqueror? Or shall our nation so act as to enable the American people to join with the Filipinos in placing in the harbor of Manila a statue of Liberty enlightening the Orient? [Extract from speech delivered at Democratic banquet, St. Paul, Minn., February 14, 1899.] IT RESTS WITH THE PEOPLE. "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 forcible and permanent annexation of the Philippine Islands. If the matter is in the hands of the American people, then it is a subject 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. 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 that 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 defense, 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 defense, but not one cent for conquest.' "Some of the advocates of a colonial policy have |