THE REALITIES OF THE EXPANSION QUESTION

(December 13, 1898)

In bringing forward, at the very opening of the session, his emphatic opposition to the " imperialist programme, Senator Vest has set a good example to fellow Senators and other public men opposed to the expansion policy. Whether the treaty is to be ratified or not, the time for discussing most effectively the fundamental issues raised by the Philippines question is while the treaty is pending, not after it has become an accomplished fact. The sentiment of the nation, if it is to be tested at all, must be appealed to most strongly at this incipient stage of the new policy.

Whether the line adopted by Senator Vest-which is also, judging by his past utterances, that which will be taken by Senator Hoar-is the one best calculated to accomplish results, is open to serious question. That the Constitution could be invoked with irresistible power to prevent the annexation if annexation could be shown to be in clear conflict with the Constitution, we entertain no doubt. The American people are not so bent upon taking in those islands that they would sanction, for a moment, an overriding of the fundamental law of the land for the sake of getting them. It is doubtful whether the majority, or even any large fraction of the people, want them at all. We feel pretty well assured, for our own part, that the great bulk of the people are simply in a state of suspense on the subject. The

belief that the Constitution was to be violated for the purpose of acquiring the Philippines would convert this great mass of doubters into ardent opponents of annexation.

The trouble is that the strictly Constitutional objection has not enough definiteness or solidity to operate as an effective force. You cannot rouse public sentiment to the point of action by declaring that in your judgment the Constitution would be violated by a certain course of action, unless you are able to make it plain to the way-faring man wherein the violation consists. The Constitution does not forbid the acquisition of territory; nobody pretends that it does. It is only contended that the Constitution does not empower the United States to acquire territory except for the purpose of ultimately adding it to the group of States of the Union. Unfortunately, it is impossible to rest this contention upon any words of the Constitution itself. High judicial authority may be cited in support of it; strong public men of today may declare it to be their own view; but after all, it must remain a mere matter of personal opinion, and cannot be laid down with that impressiveness which would be necessary to produce a real and vital effect on public opinion. It is interesting to recall how completely the alleged unconstitutionality of a protective tariff was relegated to the rear when the real fight on that issue came on in President Cleveland's time.

A real leader in the anti-expansion fight must take it up from the point of view of the actual effect that the carrying out of the "imperialist" programme may be expected to have upon the institutions and

the traditions of the country. His cause would be strengthened, not weakened, by throwing away the clumsy shield which the Constitution is supposed to furnish in the shape of an inferential limitation of power. Let the objection be based, not upon what it may be argued that the fathers intended, but upon what it may be expected that the sons will feel to be a real danger to the inheritance which those fathers handed down. It is true that Senator Vest essays to do this also, to some extent, in his speech. But he is encumbered by the weight of a Constitutional argument which is more marked by heaviness than by strength. Let the next Senator who speaks against expansion take it on its merits, pure and simple. Let him show how the government of such a dependency as the Philippines would tend to destroy the simplicity of our political principles, to burden us with tasks to which we are unsuited, to impose on us vast expenses for which the returns are extremely doubtful, to complicate our domestic problems and to invite foreign difficulties, to weaken our position in American affairs as embodied in the Monroe Doctrine. Let these and other objections to annexation be put forward on their merits, with all the logic and all the eloquence that can be commanded, and let the expansionists be challenged to meet them if they can. If you tell them that their policy is not permitted by the Constitution, all the reply practically necessary is a denial of your assertion; if you waive your right to a Constitutional challenge, and attack their policy on its merits, they are bound to meet you on your own ground and make real answer to your arguments.

A STATESMANLIKE POSITION

(January 19, 1899)

Of all the opponents of the policy of territorial aggrandizement, it is Senator Bacon of Georgia who has struck the truest note. Both in the resolution which he offered a week ago and in the speech which he made yesterday in support of it he addressed himself, in the spirit of a statesman, to the realities of the case. Not by a mere appeal to abstractions, nor by the proposing of a short cut which disposes of difficulties by ignoring them, does Mr. Bacon attempt to effect real work in a real crisis. The resolution which he offered would, we are convinced, be strengthened strategically, and not weakened in its moral effect, by the omission of the third declaration; but it is in the first, second and fourth that its gravamen lies, and these are admirably to the point. The first declares that the war with Spain was not waged for conquest, but "solely for the purposes set forth in the resolution of Congress making the declaration of said war, the acquisition of such small tracts of land or harbors as may be necessary for governmental purposes being not deemed inconsistent with the same." The second declares that "in demanding and in receiving the cession of the Philippine Islands it is not the purpose of the Government of the United States to secure and maintain dominion over the same incorporate their inhabitants as citizens of the

or to

1 rights secured under the cession by Spain, and reupon leave the government and control of the to their people.

ator Bacon's speech was conceived in the spirit as his resolution. It was the speech of whose primary purpose was not to protest, accomplish something. He laid stress not limitations of power which may be inferrible the letter of the Constitution, but upon the which the actual undertaking to impose our ignty upon the Philippines would have upon ole spirit of our national polity. He appealed deep-rooted feelings of the American people, embodied in allegiance to a formula, however but as they would be excited by contemplation use of force against a foreign people aspiring Free. He pointed out further that a policy of ion for the sake of dominion-not, as in forstances of acquisition, for the sake of settleand natural growth-could not end with its ep. “The logic of the situation," said Senacon, "will be to acquire more Asiatic terriand after that to reach out for still more. is no reason for the acquisition of the Philipwhich will not apply to the acquisition of other of Asia, each acquisition furnishing a reason