dustries of the United States, against the industries of Porto Rico and the Philippine Archipelago. That means what? That we are going to develop those territories? That we are going to give them an opportunity to blossom like the rose? It means this, and you may as well meet it here as meet it hereafter: It means that when they can raise sugar in Porto Rico, that does not interfere with us, they can raise it and send it here.

It means that when they raise it, so that it does interfere with us, we will put our foot upon their necks, with a tariff, and stop it from coming here in competition with our sugar.

It means that anywhere and everywhere, in Porto Rico or the Philippine Archipelago, any industry or any occupation, however much it may be developed under the flag, with our energy, and our enterprise, and our industry, the moment it comes into competition with anything raised or manufactured in the Republic, meaning the forty-five States, according to the new theory of sublimated selfishness, just that moment the Republic will put its hand upon it and keep it down, so that it will not compete. How much will you develop Porto Rico and the Philippine Archipelago on that policy?

I say here frankly, I say here coolly, and I am not excited about this, that I do not believe that proposition will appeal to the good sense, the fair mind, honest judgment, of the people who have been in the habit of voting loyally the Republican ticket. I care nothing about the other side. So far as we are concerned, I do not believe it will appeal to them. That is the proposition-that Porto Rico and the Philippine Archipelago are an orange for us to squeeze. The twelve millions subject people in these islands are simply, under this proposition, "hewers of wood and drawers of

water" for seventy-five millions free people. How much American capital will go into Porto Rico or into the Philippine Archipelago, if this proposition is to be sustained, when they know that any development they may make there is subject to the repressing hand of an American Congress? They are our own people in more senses than one, according to the theory of those who propose this bill-peculiarly our own, because they are a good deal more our own, if they have no constitutional rights, than they would be if they came in as a part of this body politic, with the political rights of American citizens, so that they could protect their own in

terests.

This is from the standpoint of policy and fair dealing.

The breach of good faith is another reason why I am opposed to this measure.

In 1898 the army of the United States, in a war declared in the interest of humanity, and upon the proposition that the old flag would carry with it liberty and freedom and equal opportunity and all the blessings of a Christian civilization, went where? It went to the island of Porto Rico, and MajorGeneral Miles held the standard. I will read to the House, the proclamation with which General Miles signalized his advent upon Porto Rican soil. It is dated Ponce, Porto Rico, July 28, 1898.

In it he said, among other things, referring to the soldiers of the Union:

"They come bearing the banner of freedom, inspired by a noble purpose, to seek the enemies of our country and yours, and to destroy or capture all who are in armed resistance. They bring you the fostering arm of a nation of free people, whose greatest power is in its justice and humanity to all those living within its folds."

This is not the conversation of any Secretary of War itinerating over this magnificent island. He said further:

"We have not come to make war upon the people of a country that for centuries has been oppressed, but, on the contrary, to bring you protection, not only to yourselves but to your property, to promote your prosperity "

And now mark the language

-" and to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our government."

Now, if the gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee,, instead of spending so much time in trying to ascertain that the United States meant the United States, and that a State meant a State, and that forty-five States constitute the United States, and that the United States, meaning forty-five States, is described by the boundary line of the forty-five Statesif they had taken their dictionaries and looked just for a moment at Webster, for his definition of immunity, they would have ascertained what the promise was that General Miles made to this devoted people. What does "immunity" mean?

"Freedom or exemption from any charge -and it did not take me a day to hunt this up

"Freedom or exemption from any charge, duty, obligation, office, tax, imposition, penalty, or service."

Was there any tax, in the nature of a tariff, in any part of the Republic, between the States and the Territories, when General Miles made that promise to these people? The word "immunity" in his proclamation could have referred to nothing by any decent construction of the English language except what? Immunity from charges, taxes, and service. The same immunity that the citizens of the United States en

joyed, and in no State or Territory was there then, nor will there ever be, any duty or tax upon exports and imports between States or Territories, or States and Territories. That is one of "the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our government." Relying upon this proclamation these people did what?

They prostrated themselves before him; they covered him with wreaths and garlands of flowers; they kissed the flag that was carried there under that promise, and the delegates from Porto Rico stand here, asking the Republican party to make good the promise made by General Miles for the Republic, when they eagerly delivered "The Ever-Faithful Isle " into his all-conquering hands. Miles, the magnificent representative of our institutions, the typical American citizen, who won his way by sheer force of merit, ability, and valor, from the position of a common soldier, step by step, to the position of leader of the Armies of the Republic.

I never will vote to violate the promise he made or to repudiate the pledge. The Republican party can not afford, in this or any other campaign, to violate that sacred promise. It is written in the blood of our heroes that fought at El Caney, San Juan, and Santiago. It was made in the presence of all Christendom, and it is sealed by the God of battles. The Republic can not violate that promise made to this weak and helpless people without sullying its honor and tarnishing its fame. It is not written in the history of the Republican party that at any time, or anywhere, from the hour of its birth agony, when it sprang into existence, full panoplied as the unconquerable champion of liberty and freedom, under the valiant leadership of the great Pathfinder, it ever violated its plighted faith, or swerved from the path of rectitude and honor. .

It is suggested by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Long], and well suggested, in a speech which it was not my pleasure to hear, but which undoubtedly has increased his reputation and demonstrates his ability, that the treaty contains a provision that Spain can have the same tariff with these possessions that we give to them, and if we give the open door to Porto Rico we give the open door to Spain. We do it unlesswhat? Unless we violate the agreement we made with Spain; and it is entirely competent, if the Republic sees fit to do so, to violate that agreement.

But here stand two agreements—one made with Spain, and one made with the prostrate, helpless, long-suffering, starving Porto Rico. Which shall be violated? If I had my choice, and were I compelled to determine between them, I would violate our faith with a power which, until we brushed it off the earth as a military and naval power during the last two years, had some ability to protect and defend itself. I would not go before the civilized world upon the proposition. that we would break faith with the downtrodden and the oppressed.

I would go further than that. I would not break faith with either. I stand behind the eminent gentlemen who negotiated that treaty. I believe they acted in the interest. of the Republic, and as faithful representatives of the American people. We cannot repudiate the promise made by General Miles on the shores of Porto Rico. I believe the Republic can afford to keep all of its promises, no matter what the consequences be. It should not violate or repudiate either.

I read now a speech made by General Henry to the alcalde and citizens of Porto Rico at the close of hostilities and the celebration of peace in Porto Rico: