« PreviousContinue »
autocrat and bow him out of this hemisphere, they are of deep political import. They mark the first significant refusal to contemplate statehood as the destiny of annexed territory. This refusal is enough of itself to discredit the attempt to connect our acquisitions from Louisiana to the Philippines by a chain of common purpose. In annexing the Philippines we have broken with tradition.
Our Title under the Treaty of Paris
However the Treaty of Paris should be considered in the light of justice and policy, it expressed the lawful intentions of the signatory powers, and brought the islands under the sovereignty of the United States. And it must be understood that our title to all the land acquired as a result of the war with Spain is derived from Spain exclusively. The President says in his annual message of 1899: “The authorities of the “Sulu Islands have accepted the succession of the “United States to the rights of Spain, and our flag “floats over that territory.”1 This statement may convey the wrong impression that our interest in the Sulus differs in derivation and quality from our interest in the rest of the Philippines — in derivation because it is strengthened by the consent of the sultan ; in quality, because the statement may imply, what has, indeed, been asserted, that “the rights of
Spain” in the Sulus were those of a protector rather than of a sovereign proprietor.
Now it is true that in 1878 Spain made an agreement with the sultan which perhaps recognizes him
1 Page 43.
as the head of a vassal state, and, some months after the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, General Bates was instructed to take this agreement into account in dealing with him. Then in 1885 Great Britain, Germany, and Spain signed a protocol in which Spanish sovereignty over Sulu was recognized, and Spain agreed to relinquish any claim to territory in Borneo based on the pretensions of the sultan. But any suggestions of a debased sovereignty in the sultan, perhaps not unlike that attributed to the Indian chiefs, with whom the United States have made treaties, do not qualify the cessionary clauses of the Treaty of Paris; and this is fortunate, because it would be most embarrassing for the United States to claim Sulu by consent of the sultan, when that consent was given in an agreement which Congress has been compelled to treat with contempt because of its qualified recognition of slavery.
The article of cession in the Treaty of Paris was submitted by the American Commission in what proved to be its accepted form, and its precise delimitation of the “ Philippine Archipelago” embraced the unmentioned Sulu group.
The assertion of the Spanish Commissioners that the “Philippines” did not include the Sulus and the great island of Mindanao was a play for better terms. They said in effect: “You are willing to pay $20,000,000 for the - Philippines.' Here are the Philippines'; if you
" " want Mindanao and the Sulus as well you must pay o “ more.” The American Commissioners replied in
1 See General Otis's Report for 1899, pp. 153-156. 2 See Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law,
effect: “The Philippines' we demand, and which “ you will cede without change in terms, include Min“danao and the Sulus.” Of course the victors proved to be better geographers than the vanquished. Throughout the negotiations Spain's ability to transfer the complete sovereignty of all the land demanded by the United States was never questioned, and in the treaty she assumed to cede, and the United States, accepted sovereignty over all. We cannot afford to esteem that sovereignty as less than perfect and all-embracing. We will not go behind the Treaty of Paris for confirmation of our title to any part of the Philippines. As we have not sought “the con“sent of the governed” from the people of Luzon, we cannot even appear to recognize its necessity in dealing with slaveholding and polygamous barbarians who are only restrained from piracy by gunboats and blackmail.
This certificate of title sufficiently demonstrates our legal right to possess the Philippines, and with legal rights only are we at present concerned.
THE EFFECT OF ACQUISITION
The first question suggested by the cession of the Philippines is whether it has incorporated the islands into the United States.
In some international sense “the United States" defines all the territory in which the Federal Government is responsible before foreign nations. An executive occupation of new-found, or abandoned, or hostile territory will bring it within the international boundaries of the United States, because among the nations the state in visible control of a country is accounted its sovereign for important purposes. But land occupied through enterprise or conquest, unconfirmed by the legislature, does not become part of the United States in a domestic sense, though the act be prompted or approved by the President. The power to enlarge the republic is vested in the treatymaking body and also in Congress, but not in the executive alone.2
English law is different. The Crown, having the powers of making war and treaties, is competent to gain territory through their employment, but the land acquired does not become the exclusive dominion of the Crown. In the words of Lord Mansfield, “A “country conquered by the British arms becomes a “dominion of the King in right of his Crown, and “therefore necessarily subject to the legislature, the " Parliament of Great Britain." 3
Whether the new dominion be actually subjected to laws imposed by the Crown, by a local government, or, rarely, by Parliament itself, depends on the will of the latter.
Unquestionably the Philippines are part of the United States in an international sense.
As the seat of a governing community “the " United States
are the States of the Union only. 1 See Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. U.S., 9 Cranch 191, 195; U.'s. v. Rice, 4 Wheaton 246; Fleming v. Page, 9 Howard 603, 615.
2 See Fleming v. Page, 9 Howard 603, 614.
3 Hall v. Campbell, Cowper 204, 218. See also The Foltina, 1 Dodson's Admiralty 450.
The whole political power of the republic is vested in these forty-five States and their people. The Philippines are no part of this “United States,” so there is no reason for the cry of alarm that their incorporation into the territorial body of the republic would mean the admission of millions of Asiatics to the body politic.
There is a third definition of “the United States." As the dominion of a sovereign nation “the United “States” describes a territory larger than the area of the States, but, at present, smaller by the area of Cuba than our “international” territory. This “United States” comprises all the land within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress, and makes one national territory. This definition is repudiated by the Administration, whose attitude toward our new possessions is based on the theory that while the treaty-making body intended to bring, and did bring the islands under the complete sovereignty of the United States, it intended to hold, and did hold them aloof from the United States, except in that international sense which conveys no idea whatever of domestic unity. This theory has been lately approved in one of the circuit courts of the United States. In the court's opinion we read: “The different States “are usually held to be foreign to each other except “as concerns international relations. Sister State “judgments are, for most purposes, foreign judg"ments, and generally for all purposes other than “those specifically mentioned in the Constitution “our States are foreign to each other. On the same “principle Porto Rico remains foreign to the United