he said territory could be acquired by treaty and by cession. There are but two ways to acquire territory under the Constitution-one as an incident of the war-making power and the other by virtue of the treaty-making power. What is a cession but a treaty? It is, as the law books say, a treaty of cession, just as we speak of a treaty of commerce or a treaty of amity and peace. There is no way known among men, under a government like ours, of acquiring territory except as an incident of the power to make war and by virtue of the power to make treaties with foreign nations.

The Senator said the difference between a treaty and a cession was this: That a treaty carried with it certain inter-dependent obligations binding upon both parties, while a cession was no more than a deed of quittance or a release to the party receiving it. That is like the impossible distinction made by some law writers between a bilateral and a unilateral contract. You can scarcely open a law book that treats on the subject of contracts that you I will not find refinements and distinctions between a bilateral and a unilateral contract; and yet, in my judgment, there is not the slightest distinction between such contracts, for every contract, whether it be signed, every contract, whether it be partly in writing or rests partly in parole, is a contract that carries with it obligations and duties on the part of the respective parties. So, I assert again that the sole power possessed by this Government to acquire territory is by virtue of the war-making power and the treaty-making power.

I have no doubt, as declared by the resolutions under consideration, that in permanently acquiring territory we would do so with the view of incorporating its inhabitants into our population as citizens. All through

the history of our acquisition of territory, beginning with Louisiana in 1803 and ending with the Hawaiian Islands, our ancestors have understood, and we, too, that we hold the acquired territory in trust for statehood. So our law writers and so our jurists have declared from time to time. We have no power, in my judgment, to hold the Filipinos as vassals. We have no right to deprive them, whatever they may be, of the right of self-government if they desire it. It would be ruinous, in my judgment, if we sought to do so.

We are confronted to-day in our own country with a great race problem, that must be solved soon if it is not to bring us trouble. We have conditions existing in certain sections of the Union that can not always continue. It will be the part of wise and conservative statesmanship for the American statesmen to deal with this problem in a few years. Are we now prepared, under these circumstances, to take within our population 12,000,000 people alien in race, alien in language and in purposes to a great popular government like ours? I challenge any gentleman on this floor on either side of the Chamber, I care not who he may be, to point out the authority this Government would have, when the Philippines are annexed to the United States, to restrict the expatriation of those people and their immigration here. There is no power to prevent it. The moment we permanently annex those islands to this country and they become a district or a Territory of the United States, that moment we extend our jurisdiction over them and over the people, and those people will have as much right to come into the District of Columbia or to settle in any State of this Union as I have to pass from Nebraska to Iowa or any other part of our common country.

It may be that there is a sinister motive in this; it may be that there are those who contemplate the rapid approach of the time when this debased population can be brought here and thrown in deadly contact with the laboring men of our country. I ask the Republicans of this Chamber what will become of your tariff laws under such circumstances? You have said to the laboring man of this country for more than a quarter of a century that a protective tariff is a blessing to him. You have made many of them believe it. Of course it was never intended to benefit the manufacturer, according to your argument. The manufacturer, the man who reaps the benefit from a protective tariff, has been sedulously excluded from the argument; but the tariff was to reach its strong arms around the laboring men and protect them and their families.

You said to them in 1896 that you wanted this country protected from the pauper laborer of Europe. and the manufactured articles of pauper labor, and yet by annexation you will open wide the door to an endless horde of nondescript population that can come to your very doors in spite of all you can do, in deadly contact with the laborer of this country, debasing the civilization of himself and his family. You will simply move the factory from the United States to Manila. and the Hawaiian Islands. come of the Chinese-exclusion acts? They will be swept away and a resistless tide of cheap labor admitted.

And what, too, will be

I may disagree with the distinguished gentleman who is at the head of this Government at the present time, as I do. But, I do it honestly, because I believe many of his policies are wrong. I am not to be driven from my position because some portion of my constituency may not approve of my views.

I would rather take my station in the obscurest community of my State and devote the remainder of my life to eking out an existence by the most onerous manual labor than to surrender to any man, high or low, or to any organization or party, an honest, conscientious conviction of duty.

We must not shut our eyes to the dangers that confront us. Let it be once understood that we are to abandon the domestic policy that has been ours throughout the years of our national existence and embark on the uncertain sea of imperialism, to become "a power," whatever that may be, of the world, and our institutions that have been held dear for more than a century and a quarter, our flag that has floated in triumph over every foot of our common country and that has ridden the storms of the sea in triumph. and in glory will be hauled down not only in Manila, but in this country as well. Can we afford to take. the risk? Can we afford to incur the danger?

I hold that the foreign policy to be pursued by this Government must inevitably be a policy incident to and in aid of a strong domestic government. Such was the declaration of Hamilton himself. It was said in one of his articles in the Federalist that in the very nature of things a republic can never have an aggressive foreign policy. He said its safety was to be found in its isolation and in its compactness, for, said that great man further, in a republic like the United States, where the administration is changing every four years, a policy that is aggressive, that believes in the foreible colonization of other lands, may, by the election of a Chief Magistrate holding different views, be overturned and changed.

The news has come to us within the last few hours of a conflict between the American Army and Navy and the Filipinos. To my own State has fallen much

of the loss of life and limb. Ten out of twenty of the young men who lost their lives in the battle that has been fought in the last forty-eight hours were members of the First Nebraska Infantry. There is mourning in Nebraska to-day; there will be weeping at the hearthstone of many a Nebraska home to-night. This ought to be a warning to us.

We are in the Philippine Islands as a conquering military power. We hold them to-day by virtue of the power to make war, and in no other sense, and there those islands and those people must remain respecting the law, respecting the dignity and the sovereignty and the flag of this nation until their status among the nations of the earth shall be defined. But if we are to hold them, if in time they are to come completely within our jurisdiction, we must not refuse them the ordinary privileges and immunities of an American. citizen.

If prayer be a sincere desire of the human heart, I fervently pray that this great danger may be averted and this complex question may be solved in justice. and in honor to our nation and in justice and in honor to the conquered. Those islands and those people must not be surrendered to Spain. Spain has lost her jurisdiction over them and over the islands of the Western Hemisphere forever. God grant the day, may speedily come when Spain, unless she changes her civilization, shall be blotted from the map of nations. God grant the day when the Filipinos and the inhabitants of Porto Rico and Cuba may rise to a true conception of the duties and obligations of citizenship; when they, too, with the encouragement of this great and powerful Republic, shall take their station among the civilized republics and peoples of the earth.