fantastic and wicked attempt to revolutionize our Government and substitute the principles of our hereditary enemies for the teachings of Washington and his associates.

[Extract of speech delivered December 12, 1898.]

CHAPTER XIX.

THE PASSING OF CONSTITUTIONAL

RESTRAINTS.

BY HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE,

UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.

The extracts which I present are announcements of the Supreme Court of the United States and include declarations from the President of the United States and from the distinguished naval commander whose victory at Manila has made him an historical character.

This grant (the power to lay and collect taxes, etc.) is general without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all places over which the Government extends.-(Loughborough vs. Blake, per Marshall, C. J., 5 Wheat., 323.)

There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure. It (the new acquisition) is required to become a State and not to be held as a colony by Congress with absolute authority.-(Dred Scott vs. Sandford, per Taney, C. J., 19 How., 393.)

This decision has never been reconsidered in the Supreme Court of the United States.-(Justice Miller's Lectures, page 406.)

Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they passed, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise as may be provided. (Boyd vs. Nebraska, per Fuller, C. J., 143 U. S., 186.)

That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States relating to the right of trial by jury in suits at common law apply to the Territories of the United States is no longer an open question.(Thompson vs. Utah, per Harlan, J., 170 U. S., 346; Callan vs. Wilson, 127 U. S., 551.)

I speak not of forcible annexation, for that can not be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression.-(President McKinley, messages, December, 1897, and April 11, 1898.)

The United States disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island (Cuba) except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.-(Joint resolution, Congressional Record, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, volume 31, part 4, page 3393.)

In a telegram sent to the Department on June 23, I expressed the opinion that "these people (the Filipinos) are far superior in their intelligence and more capable of self-government than the natives of Cuba, and I am familiar with both races." Further intercourse with them has confirmed me in this opinion.-(Admiral Dewey to Secretary of Navy, August 29, 1898; Senate Document No. 62, part 1, Fifty-fifth Congress, third session.)

That flag has been planted in two hemispheres, and there it remains, the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and progress. Who will withdraw from the people over whom it floats its protecting folds? Will the people of the South help to haul it down?-(President McKinley, address at Atlanta, Ga., December 16, 1898.)

The mission of the United States (to the Philippine Islands) is one of benevolent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule.-(President McKinley to the Secretary of War, December 21, 1898.)

I do not intend to elaborately discuss the question of law heretofore debated. I do not believe that it will serve any useful purpose to enter into an attempted differentiation between the authority of the United States in its relation to foreign powers and its authority as regards domestic affairs. I dispute the contention which seeks to give jurisdiction in the one case and to deny it in the other, and which limits the operation of the Constitution as to the rights of Territories and new acquisitions to Congressional discretion, denying to those within such area "the equal protection" of our laws and reducing their constitutional rights to the insignificant and problematical protection of colonial dependencies.

It appears to me that when our Constitution was made it was supposed that the United States would never extend its domain save over those who were not only within the equal protection of its laws, but who were competent to participate in the efforts of an aspiring people to conserve for themselves and humanity the benefits of representative civilization. Whatever may be the truth as to the issue of power, I design to discuss this subject more largely from the standpoint of policy.

It is conceded by all that the latter proposition is open for debate. Those who are regardless of organic restraints so admit. I do not desire to detain the Senate with any elaboration regarding the opinions of our courts or the views of eminent lawyers with reference. to the subject of the construction of the Constitution

on expansion problems. It is certain that we can never agree as to that proposition. The sentiments of Senators of uncommon ability, the carefully expressed ideas of men of profound learning in this country and elsewhere, as expressed in the public prints, demonstrate the futility of any endeavor to procure accord upon this topic.

We are to-day confronted by a situation which all must admit does not agree in all respects, if it does not differ in principle with that which has heretofore been presented.

It will be conceded, I take it, that while we may have the authority to annex territory, as contended by the most advanced advocates of annexation, and to the ultimate extent for which they plead. Notwithstanding all this, the propriety of the exercise of such power must depend upon circumstances; and the fact of the possession of the authority furnishes no reason for any assertion not warranted by right.

Hence, finally, speaking from the standpoint of policy, we must ask ourselves this question: Shall we bring the Philippine Islands within our confines? Shall we introduce them to this home of intelligence and manly effort? Shall we acquire these islands under the conditions now confronting us? Is it better for us that we should do so? This is the issue. I shall endeavor to impress upon the Senate the fact that "charity begins at home," that while we may owe much without, there never has been a time when the mission of this Republic based upon solid principles, involved the necessity of embarking in the instantaneous civilization of foreign peoples or in converting into its own confines the seeds of dissolution. If we or the Filipinos must suffer I vote for our own benefit.

We know but little of the true inwardness of the Philippine Islands. No one seems to be thoroughly advised as to the exact character of all of the inhabitants of that territory. We are unable even to say how many islands there are which come within this attempted cession. We can not define the area so far as it is fit for cultivation, civilization, or for any other legitimate end. But in the midst of this ambiguity we at least know that the Philippines are tenanted by a very peculiar mass, a heterogeneous compound of inefficient oriental humanity. I care not, for the purposes of my argument, whether these islanders are fit for free government as you and as I understand it. If they are so fitted, they should be permitted to establish a free government; if they are not so fitted, they should not be brought into an alliance with us; we do not in that event want them. Those who are incompetent to control themselves should not be of us. We do not seek the irresponsible.

I have examined with some care the record which was made before the Peace Commission of which you were an honored and efficient member, and I fail there to find anything altering or affecting my view as regards the treaty.

In the first place, it is evident that the Philippine people suffered under the dominion of the parent country. I do not doubt that. It is clear that gross exactions in the way of taxation and illegitimate imposts. were levied upon them; that personal indignities and cruelties were inflicted. I am ready to concede that the same record contains recitations of some abominable transactions on the part of the insurgents. I might refer to the statement of a witness before the Paris arbitration tribunal, who deposed as follows:

This witness said that a certain priest of bad char