from its guerilla nature mean the loss of hundreds of good lives, the expenditure of large sums of money, and, saddest and worst of all, the development of a feeling of hatred and revenge toward Americans among 8,000,000 of subject natives, which the kind treatment of a hundred years cannot remove"?

This was the advice of Barrett in January, 1899, before a shot was fired. He saw that the President's policy could lead to but one result; and he saw also no loyal majority, but 8,000,000 of hostile Filipinos. His prophecy has been realized to the letter. It is because the President has done these things, and because he promises to pursue this stupid and bloody policy to the bitter end, that we condemn him and oppose his continuance in power. Let him meet the real issue, and not evade it by such a mass of misleading statements as I have quoted and exposed. He owes us at least the truth.

66

Understanding from what has been said how the President uses language, we can appreciate better the meaning of this sentence: "It is our purpose to establish in the Philippines a government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants, and to prepare them for self-government, and to give them self-government when they are ready for it, and as rapidly as they are ready for it." Self-government means independence. The Republican party proposes nothing of the kind. Their platform promises only that "the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them by law." "That one phrase," says Senator Hoar, conveys to a free man and a free people the most stinging of insults." This offers no independence, no statehood, no American citizenship, no constitutional rights, only such privileges as we think "consistent with their welfare and our duties." This is just what the Czar of Russia allows his subjects, as much liberty as he thinks fit. Every tyrant grants this, but it is not self-government. It is government by a foreign power without the consent of the governed, a government which may be changed at pleasure by the governors against the will of the governed. Is this self-government as we understand it in Massachusetts? Read the Declaration of Independence, and ask yourselves what the President really, means by saying "our priceless principles undergo no change under a tropical sun."

To these words of the men who call themselves Republicans let us oppose the words of Abraham Lincoln, who was a Republican :

"These arguments that are made that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying, that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow, what are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for the enslaving of the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments of king-craft were always of this class they always bestrode the necks of the people,—not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. . . . Turn it every way you will, — whether it come from the mouth of a king as an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent."

Power thus to determine the rights of others is never voluntarily abandoned. Two hundred years of British rule in India have brought the people no voice in their government. Says Creasy: "There has never been a republic yet in history that acquired dominion over another nation that did not rule it selfishly and oppressively. There is no single exception to this rule either in ancient or modern times." We may add that in every case this oppression has proved fatal to the liberty of the oppressors.

The Republicans seek to divert discussion by telling us of our "full dinner-pails." What an insult is this! What does it mean? These would-be leaders of their country say to us: "Do not discuss or consider questions of national policy, human freedom, moral right. Are not your stomachs full? What else concerns you?" So might the farmer address the swine which he was fattening for future slaughter. Are we sunk so low that such arguments are believed to outweigh considerations of right and wrong? What these men really mean is, "Let us pursue a policy which will fill our pockets, and we will give you enough to fill your stomachs." This is, indeed, imperialism.

Let me conclude by stating the situation briefly. When we declared war against Spain in 1898, we resolved that Cuba was free and independent. Why? Spain held it by an undisputed title, controlled its cities, its ports, its coast, and maintained in it the only organized government. Some of the people had been for years in unsuccessful insurrection, but they had no organized government which had any claim to be recognized as such. Why, then, did we declare Cuba free? Only because, in our judgment, Spain's title had been forfeited by her cruel method of dealing

with the insurgents. If Cuba was "free and independent," Spain had no sovereignty which she could sell. An independent people is its own sovereign.

If cruelty in dealing with an unsuccessful rebellion forfeited Spain's title in Cuba, why did not the same cause produce the same effect in the Philippine Islands? There was rebellion, there were cruel methods; and, when we began to negotiate peace with Spain, there was successful rebellion in full control of the Philippines, with an organized government recognized throughout the islands save in the Sulus, and in Manila which we occupied. Why was Cuba free and independent, and the Philippines not so? No distinction can be stated that will justify our course. The evidence is abundant that the Filipinos were vastly better fitted for self-government than the Cubans. We have only to remember what aid the Cubans gave us at Santiago, and what Aguinaldo's forces accomplished in Luzon to recognize the difference. By the rule which we laid down at the very outbreak of the war, and by all the principles of our government, the Philippines were, "and of right ought to be, free and independent."

The President of the United States in an evil moment determined to acquire them, and from that time till now he has pursued his object relentlessly. The perfidy which masked his purpose of conquest from the unhappy Filipinos, while their aid was needed in expelling Spain, has been exposed by others. I will not repeat the work. The evidence is contained in the magnificent speech of Senator Hoar, whose statements directly contradict the assertions of the President as to almost every essential fact. Looking through the dust of evasion and misrepresentation, of concealment and false suggestion, by which his course has been excused, certain facts are clearly apparent. The United States of America, the friend of every nation struggling for freedom, is engaged in the work of conquering an Asiatic people whose only offence is their love of liberty. In the words of Mr. Robinson, "An unAmerican policy and a blundering diplomacy have turned the Philippine islands into a chaos and a graveyard." We have visited them with all the horrors of war, we have killed their best and bravest citizens, we have made a desert of their fertile plains, we have laid their towns in ashes; and the President tells us that it is our duty to do this,—that thus we advance the cause of liberty and humanity. Disguise it as he will by these professions, which

Mr. Lodge thinks "hypocritical," the real motive of this crime is apparent. It is avowed by Commissioner Denby, by Senator Beveridge, by Senator Lodge. It is recognized by the American people. It is not what we can do for the Filipinos that we consider, but what we can win of power, money, consideration for ourselves, that really has tempted the administration. As Commissioner Denby put it, "The cold, hard practical question alone remains, — Will the possession of these islands benefit us as a nation? If it will not, set them free to-morrow, and let their peoples, if they please, cut each other's throats." There is nothing of duty, destiny, or hypocrisy about this statement.

The manifesto of the Filipinos sent to Luzon before the American squadron showed with what expectations they acted: "Compatriots, Divine Providence is about to place independence within our reach. . ... There where you see the American flag flying assemble in numbers. They are our deliverers." Aguinaldo's proclamation on May 24 confirmed their confidence: "Filipinos, the great nation, North America, cradle of liberty and friendly on that account to the liberty of our people, . . . has come to manifest a protection... which is disinterested toward us, considering us with sufficient civilization to govern by ourselves this our unhappy land." When these words were uttered, was there a man or woman in America who did not believe that they were true? When and where again in this wide world will any man or any people struggling for freedom see in the American flag any hope of deliverance. Who has thus degraded us in the eyes of mankind?

The canting talk that God approves this policy, that it is our duty to conquer this people, belongs to a darker age than ours. If God wills that we should govern them, why does he inspire them to resist so desperately? The God of the Ten Commandments, the God of Christianity, the God of our fathers, has not changed his law.

"For He that worketh high and wise,

Nor pauses in his plan,

Will take the sun out of the skies

Ere freedom out of man."

I can imagine no greater blow to the cause of human liberty, to the cause of Christianity, to the cause of right everywhere, than a deliberate decision of the American people to pursue this policy of

conquest and sordid greed,— to set the seal of their approval upon the man and the methods by which they have been brought to their present pass. I care little who is elected, so that the people set themselves right. To have them turn their backs upon the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule, to have them abandon all their ideals as a nation and adopt the pagan dogma, "might makes right," would be as great a disaster to the world as I can imagine. As Emerson said, "All our political disasters grow as logically out of our attempts in the past to do without justice as the sinking of some part of your house comes of defect in the foundation." We have tried injustice to four millions of slaves at home till " every drop of blood drawn by the lash" was " paid by another drawn by the sword." Are our memories so short that we think it wise to repeat the experiment on a larger scale, and try to make ten millions of men our vassals? Before we harden our hearts like Pharaoh, and persist in our career of conquest, let us remember the words of Froude: "If there be one lesson which history clearly teaches, it is this, that free nations cannot govern subject provinces. If they are unable or unwilling to admit their dependencies to share their own constitution, the constitution itself will fall in pieces through. mere incompetence for its duties." It is this lesson which Lincoln taught more briefly: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."

I would have my country spared the sure consequences of injustice, the inevitable penalty of national degradation which must follow the sacrifice of all our principles. I would have her still. remain the hope and the leader of mankind, and not the imitator of the sordid empires which have successively risen to dazzle with material splendor and then to sink into decay. May it not be said that through our unworthiness the trust bequeathed to us by our fathers failed, and "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" perished from the earth!