CHAPTER XXV.

NECESSARY AND NATURAL TERRITORIAL

EXPANSION.

BY HON. WILLIAM V. ALLEN,

UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA.

No attempt will be made by me to discuss the question of national expansion at any length. I will confine myself to referring to that subject in general language, but before I conclude I shall attempt to distinguish between necessary and natural territorial expansion and what may be called Napoleonic imperialism.

I shall vote to ratify the treaty of peace with Spain, and in doing so I must not be regarded as representing the views of anyone but those of my constituents and myself. I have necessarily been absent from the Chamber for some days and I have not had the full benefit of all the speeches that have been made during that time, but I have read sufficiently on the subject to satisfy my mind as to what course I should pursue. I think, however, that I ought now to set at rest, as far as I am capable of doing so, a suggestion of the Sunday morning Washington Times, in which it is said:

If Senator Allen makes good his promise to enlighten the Senate and the country as to the motives that control Senator Gorman in committing his party in the Senate to a cause directly opposite to that recommended by William J. Bryan, and if all other things happen that it was said yesterday would happen, then the three hours of the Sehate's session preceding the vote on the peace treaty will indeed be dramatic and exciting.

If there is anything I dislike, it is to be patted on the back and coddled and nursed like an infant by a

newspaper. I have the greatest respect for that kind of journalism that is cast on a high plane and takes a lofty view of public questions, but I have not the slightest regard for that kind that would deal with the prejudices of men or that would appeal to any real or supposed vanity that I might possess to influence my conduct regarding a public question. The statement of that paper is gratuitous. It is wholly inexcusable, for I have at no time "promised to enlighten. the Senate and the country as to the motives that control the action of Senator Gorman." Nor do I know what his motives are or what he intends doing, nor am I concerned in knowing.

I am not the keeper of the conscience or of the opinions of Colonel Bryan. I know no more of his wishes or opinions than I gather from his public utterances, a means of information open to all. I do not presume to represent him here or elsewhere and assertions frequently made that I am doing so are utterly unfounded, sinister, and insincere. I am proud to admit that I at least regard myself, as the personal, as I trust I am also his political, friend, and I may be permitted to say, in this presence, without intending to reflect in the slightest degree on any other gentleman in public life, that I regard him as easily the superior in point of knowledge and capacity for public duty of any living American statesman, and I do this not because I am his debtor for political or other favors, as he is not my debtor. Whatever may betide him, I am clearly of the opinion that the impartial historian who may write in the calm of another age will rank him with Webster and Clay and that he will be regarded by future generations as one of the greatest statesmen our country has produced. I look upon him as a comet that has appeared in the political heavens, as those great statesmen appeared, that is

seen upon the political horizon of our country once in a generation only.

If there is a man in this world who is absolutely sincere in the doctrines he advocates, that man is Mr. Bryan. He is not a demagogue, as the groundlings and tumblebugs of politics would have the world believe. The sincerity of his political convictions no man who knows him can question. They partake more of religion to him than anything else. To him his duty and pathway are clear. He is not seeking personal advantage, and his convictions on public questions are dearer than the office of President of the United States. In another article in the Washington Sunday Times it is said:

The same gossips who have associated Senator Quay's name with a possible bolt on the treaty are also referring to Senator Allen, of Nebraska, as one desiring some favors of the Administration. It seems to be a fairly well-established fact that in the early part of the debate on the treaty Senator Allen announced himself in favor of its ratification, and before going to Nebraska, about three weeks ago, he was paired with a Senator who would vote in opposition. After Senator Allen returned from Nebraska he was quick to announce that he was going to vote against the treaty, and shortly after the Senate convened yesterday he offered a resolution more sweeping in its provisions than any of those now pending introduced by Senator Vest, Senator Bacon, and Senator Sullivan. Mr. Allen goes further than the others. He is not willing to accept Porto Rico as one of the spoils of war, but wants to give the people of that island, as well as the Filipinos, an independent government, the same as is promised for Cuba.

It has been intimated that Senator Allen would not object if the Administration would so exercise its influence on the Nebraska legislature as to have the Republicans join with the Populists and re-elect him for another term. It is not known that Senator Allen would change his position on the treaty if this were done, but it is argued in political circles that this might not be bad politics from an Administration point of view.

It is very difficult to meet and refute a gratuitous and unwarranted assertion of this kind. No man has ever had the slightest occasion to doubt where I stood in respect to the ratification of the treaty. I have never occupied doubtful ground. From the time the treaty came to this Chamber and was laid before us, aye, at a time when I knew through the press what its provisions were, important as they are and as di

vergent as they are from my own views, I announced my purpose to vote for its ratification.

I am not seeking favors at the hands of this Administration. There is no favor President McKinley could confer upon me that would change my opinion in the slightest degree. I am an American citizen, having all the convictions and intensity of purpose of an American citizen. I am not prepared to surrender my views for favors to be shown. I would rather take my station among the humblest of my kind than to surrender an honest conviction, that is always dear to a self-respecting man.

I have not seen nor talked with the correspondent of a newspaper since my return to this city from my home in Nebraska, and no man has a right to attribute, and if he was a self-respecting man he would not attribute, to me opinions and purposes and motives I have not entertained.

Because I shall vote for the treaty it does not follow that I am in favor of annexation. I do it for the simple reason that in my judgment the Government of the United States can not afford to open up negotiations with the Spanish dynasty again. We have the whole question within our jurisdiction and within our power, and here and by us alone it should be settled. If by amending the treaty we send it back for further consideration by the commissioners, or to new commissioners to be appointed; if we open up the subject-matter of the treaty, we will, in my judgment, especially in the light of very recent events, incur the danger of European interference and European complications.

It is because we will have the power, when the treaty is ratified, of determining the form of government to be set up in the Philippine Islands and in the other possessions that have come to us as a result

of the war, without incurring any danger from abroad, that I shall vote for the ratification of the treaty.

If I had been a member of the commission I would not have assented to many of its provisions. I would have insisted that the same provision which applies to Cuba should apply to the Philippines and to Porto Rico. Otherwise I would not have been brought to sign the treaty or the report favorably recommending it. The treaty is here, and it must be disposed of by the American Senate without further delay.

I am not in favor and I shall not vote for the joint resolution of the senior Senator from Georgia. If passed by Congress and signed by the President, it would simply become a statute that may be repealed by another Congress. It is not expressive of the conviction of this body, which is the constitutional tribunal that must pass upon the treaty and construe and give force. It would not, in my judgment,

and givorce of an ordinary Senate resolution

possess

expressing thes of the Senate.

There have been the entire history of our Government, from the fation of the Constitution and the distribution of its respective powers, two schools of constitutional thought; the one holding tenaciously to the doctrine that the Government possesses and can exercise authority, so far as its foreign. policy is concerned, consistent only with the primary purpose of maintaining a government for certain welldefined territories and well-defined inhabitants thereof and their posterity. This school is known as strict constructionists. They hold that the government is one of delegated powers alone, and that a power does not exist unless expressly granted or necessarily, or at least conveniently, implied to carry out a granted

power.

The other school is perhaps best known as the Ham