Hi3 
 
 Author 
 
 Title 
 
 Class 
 
 Book 
 
 Imprint 
 
 16—27179-1 OPO 
 
f 
 
 11 
 
 EXPANSION AND IMPERIALISM, 
 
 A^DOFiKSS 
 
 — Delivered by — 
 
 JUDGE H, C, McDOUGAL, 
 
 -Before the — 
 
 Union Veteran Patriotic League, 
 
 -AT- 
 
 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 
 September 1st, 1900. 
 

^^^ ADDRESS 
 
 ' —OF— 
 
 JUDGE H, C, McDOUGAL, 
 
 —BEFORE THE— 
 
 UNION VETERAN PATRIOTIC LEAGUE, 
 
 — AT— 
 
 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 
 September 1st, 1900. 
 
 {Mr. President and Gentlemen: 
 
 As a plain, plodding lawyer, a Republican who takes little active 
 interest in practical politics, an old soldier of the Republic who still loves 
 his country, I am here to-night in the hope that I may be able to throw 
 some light upon the questions of expansion and imperialism now claim- 
 ing public attention. 
 
 From the dawn of time, one of the highest desires of man has been 
 to own, possess and hold lands, and from the day that Abram's name 
 was changed to Abraham, and the Lord granted him the land wherein 
 he was a stranger — " all the land of Canaan for an everlasting posses- 
 sion "—the chosen people of the Lord have been natural born land 
 owners and expansionists. 
 
 hi looking backward through the centuries, history demonstrates 
 that those nations having the highest and best types of civilization, 
 which do most to uplift, upbuild and better the conditions of humanity, 
 as England, Germany, France, Russia and later the United States, 
 wherever public interest demanded and the power was possessed, have 
 subserved that interest and exercised that power by the extension of 
 their public domain. This is but the onward march of civilization. 
 Sluggish, slow, dull, non-progressive nations, as China, and the like, 
 are never expansionists. 
 
 The plain truth, however, is that the question of expansion has 
 not been so much a question of abstract right, as of power and interest. 
 Will it pay.-* Will the material interests of the country be advanced 
 and bettered by the acquisition of new territory? Have we the power 
 and the right, under the laws of war and of nations, to take it? If so, 
 the might has made the right, and the coveted territory was absorbed. 
 This was notably true as respects the territory we acquired from 
 Mexico in 1848. 
 
 Once taken in, such territory is to be retained or disposed of, at 
 the pleasure of the sovereignty taking it. One foreign nation may 
 prey upon the commerce of another, may plunder, imprison and even 
 murder its citizens, and insult its flag, and but little attention is paid to 
 jt — dollars pay the bill. But let that foreign country go to the shores 
 of the other and establish its sovereignty, raise its flag over and pos- 
 sess itself of but one acre of land, and at once war is on. Nations do 
 not give up their lands without a fight any more than do individual 
 owners. 
 
 The government of the United States, from its formation to date, 
 and the Democratic party, from its formation until its golden patriotism 
 
became amalgamated with and was swallowed up and lost in the pessim- 
 istic dross of Populism, alike steadily pursued the policy of expansion. 
 Every American schoolboy who has studied the history of his country 
 knows that such has always been the policy of our government, and 
 that for nearly a century it was also the policy of the Democratic party. 
 But as this year of grace, 1900, has raised up men who seem to have 
 forgotten the history, traditions and policies hitherto pursued by the 
 government, as well as by the old Democratic party, it will not be 
 amiss to now recall and briefly restate some of the controlling historic 
 facts relating to this question: 
 
 The fathers of the republic laid wide and deep the foundation for 
 expansion in the Articles of Confederation of 1778, in this provision: 
 
 " Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in tiie meas- 
 ures of the United States, siiall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages 
 of this Union." 
 
 And ten years later, whilst still under the Articles of Confedera- 
 tion, the State of Virginia ceded, and the next year deeded, to the 
 United States the great Northwest Territory: 
 
 " Upon the condition that the territory so ceded sball be laid out ViXM^ formed into 
 States." 
 
 The Congress at once accepted cession and deed and provided for 
 a temporary civil government of that territory. Article 6 of that ordi- 
 nance providing that: 
 
 " There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, 
 otherwise than in the punishment of crimes," &c. 
 
 Under the administration of three distinguished Democratic Presi- 
 dents and the policy of Democratic Congresses, respectively, the 
 United States next expanded by the acquisition of territories belonging 
 to foreign powers, as follows: 
 
 In 1803, under President Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase; 
 
 hi 1819, under President Monroe, the Floridas, and 
 
 hi 1848, under President Polk, California, New Mexico and 
 Arizona." 
 
 Then came on that long-continued, persistent Democratic " mani- 
 fest destiny" effort to expand over and take in the Island of Cuba. 
 The immense proportions of this Island, its wondrous resources, strong 
 position in the tropical seas, together with its "fatal gift of beauty," 
 had for years enchanted American statesmen, who longed in some way 
 to annex it to the United States. It was reserved for a Democratic 
 administration, however, to take decisive measures to secure this prize. 
 President Pierce, in 1854, offered Spain $ 100,000,000 for Cuba, which 
 v/as peremptorily refused. At his direction, our Ministers to England 
 (James Buchanan), France (J. Y. Mason) and Spain (Pierre Soule) 
 met and held a conference at Ostend, in Belgium, with a view to the 
 acquisition of Cuba. These Ministers, at the conclusion of their labors, 
 submitted to Marcy, Secretary of State, their report, which is down in 
 history as "THE OSTEND MANIFESTO," which contains the clearest, 
 strongest and most forceful reasons for expansion over Cuba anywhere 
 found. The "manifest destiny" of the United States meant the 
 extension of the federal sovereignty over that fair and favored Island. 
 (For the full text of " The Ostend ^Manifesto," see Halstead's "Story 
 of Cuba," 172-178). 
 
 The Democratic platform of 1856 declared for "the perpetuity 
 
 2 
 
and expansion of the Union," and further, "That the Democratic 
 party will expect of the next administration that every proper effort 
 will be made to insure our ascendency in the Guif of Mexico," both of 
 which meant Cuba. But as they were disappointed in the Buchanan 
 administration in that behalf, in their platforms of i860 both the Doug- 
 las and Breckenridge wings of the Democratic party came out squarely 
 in favor of expansion over Cuba, the latter wing declaring: 
 
 "4. That //'^ T>emocrafic parU> are in favor of llpe acqidsHion of the Island of 
 Cuba, on sucli terms as siiall be iionorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the 
 earliest practicable moment." (Cooper's American Politics, B'k 2, p. 4:}). 
 
 Later on, in 1867, our territorial limits were expanded by the pur- 
 chase and cession of Alaska, and again, in 1898, by taking in the 
 Spanish Isles. 
 
 Yet a political alliance, masquerading under a name honored by 
 its great leaders, Jefferson, Jackson and Douglas, now contends that 
 it is a crime for a Republican administration to pursue that policy 
 which they conceived, moulded into shape and advocated. 
 
 Jefferson was an ardent expansionist, often expressed his earnest 
 desire to extend our government over Canada, and in speaking of his 
 great purchase, in his second inaugural address (i "Messages and 
 Papers of the Presidents," p. 379), said: 
 
 " I know that the acquisition of Louisiana has been disapproved by some from 
 a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its 
 union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle way operate effect- 
 ivelv? The larger our association the less tvill if be shaken bi< local passions." 
 
 Andrew Jackson, in 1843, wrote a letter urging the proposition to 
 acquire Texas, and saying, that: 
 
 " On this subject I have thought, with the ancient Romans, that it was ri^ht 
 never to cede any land or boundary of the Republic, but always to add to it by honorable 
 treaty, thus extending the area of freedom, and it was in accordance with this feel- 
 ing that I gave our Minister to Mexico instructions to enter upon a negotiation for 
 the cession of Texas to the United States." 
 
 Stephen A. Douglass, that apostle of Democracy, its candidate 
 for the Presidency, and the acknowledged leader and statesman of its 
 conservative element, in speaking of the acquisition of Cuba, said: 
 
 " / am in favor of expansion as fast as consistent with our interests and the in- 
 crease and development of our pt)pulation and resources. * * * i believe the 
 interests of commerce, of civilization, every interest which civilized nations hold 
 dear, would be benefited hp expansion." 
 
 And again, in the Lincoln-Douglas debate at Freeport, Illinois, in 
 1858, Douglas said: 
 
 " It is idle to tell you or me that we have territory enough. ♦ * * j ^^,]| 
 you, increase and multiply and expand is the law of this nation's existence. * * * 
 Just so far as our interests require additional territory, in the north, in the south, or 
 on the islands of the sea, I am for it. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAI^ PROVISIONS. 
 
 Under the Articles of Confederation (1778) each State retained 
 its sovereignty and independence. The government was weak, the 
 Articles formed simply a league between the States. No powers were 
 implied. Hence the Fathers determined upon, formulated and finally 
 adopted the Constitution, which merged the sovereignty of former 
 States into the United States. It was neither made nor adopted for or 
 by the States, but by the people; firmly established " a government of 
 the people, by the people and for the people." (Lincoln; 4 Wheat., 
 316). 
 
 In the careful and candid consideration of the questions now 
 
before us, it is well to bear in mind that when " we, the people of the 
 United States," adopted the Constitution and the amendments thereto, 
 we therein and thereby, of our own free will, imposed certain duties 
 and conferred certain rights, privileges and powers upon: i, the people; 
 2, the Congress; 3, the President and 4, the Supreme and other Federal 
 courts, and by the tenth amendment provided that: 
 
 " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro- 
 hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 
 
 For convenient reference, the following provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion granting express powers to the Congress, the President and the 
 Federal Courts are here grouped: 
 
 1. The CONGRESS: "We, the people," granted to Congress, 
 the following powers: 
 
 "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United 
 States." (Art. IV, Sec. 3;. 
 
 " The Congress shall have power * * * to make all laws which shall be 
 necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other 
 powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any 
 department or office thereof." (Art. I, Sec. 8). 
 
 2. THE PRESIDENT: "We, the people," first said that "The 
 President shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the 
 United States," and then declared that: 
 
 " He shall have pozver, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to 
 make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur." (Art. II, Sec. 2). 
 
 And lastly we gave him this command: 
 
 •' He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Id., Sec. 3). 
 
 3 The Federal Courts: " We, the people," first said: 
 
 " The judicial power of the United States shall be vested inone Supreme Court, 
 and in such other inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and 
 establish." (Art. Ill, Sec 1). 
 
 And then "We, the people," vested in the federal judiciary this 
 vast and far reaching power: 
 
 " The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and in equity, arising under 
 this constitution, the lazvs of the United States and treaties made or which shall be 
 made under their authority." (Id., Sec. 2). 
 
 Supreme Law of the Land: And " We, the people," finally 
 solemnly covenant that: 
 
 " This Constitution and the lazes of the United States which shall be made in 
 pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of 
 the United States SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND." (Art. VI). 
 
 When " we, the people," vested the judicial power of our country 
 in the "one Supreme Court" and declared that this "judicial power 
 shall extend to all cases * * * arising under this Constitution, 
 the laws of the United States, and treaties made," we made that Court 
 the final arbiter of all these questions and bound ourselves to abide by 
 its decisions, obey its mandates and follow its construction of the Con- 
 stitution, laws and treaties. 
 
 If it be found upon examination that questions now before the 
 public have been settled by that high tribunal, then it is submitted 
 that such questions are no longer open. 
 
 TREATIES. 
 
 Upon the power to make treaties, there are no Constitutional 
 limitations or restrictions. The simple language is that the President 
 ''shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
 
to make treaties." When so made, a treaty becomes, by express 
 Constitutional ^^rant, "tiie supreme law of the land," and binds the 
 nation in tiie ag^;re^ate, as well as all its otifkers and citizens, to tiie 
 observance of its terms. 
 
 This question was first presented to and decided by the " Fatiier 
 of His Country" in 1796. In refusin,i4 compliance with a resoluti(jn 
 of the House to lay before it "a copy of the instructions to the Mni- 
 ister of the United States," together with correspondence and other 
 documents relating to a treaty with Great Britain, President Wash- 
 ington said: 
 
 " Havinji lieen a member of the General Convention, and knowing the princi- 
 ples on whicli t!ie Coiistitution was formed, I have entertained but one opinion on 
 this subject; and from the tirst establishment of the Government to this moment my 
 conduct has exemplified that opinion— that the power of makinj^ treaties is exclu- 
 sively \ested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
 provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty so made 
 and promulgated thence forward became the law of the land. It is thus that the 
 treaty-makins:; power has been understood by foreij^n nations, and in all the treaties 
 made with them ■u.'e have declared and Ihev have believed that, when ratified by the 
 President, with the ad\ice and consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In 
 this construction of the Constitution e\ery House of Representatives has heretofore 
 acquiesced, and until the present time not a doubt or suspicion has appeared, to my 
 knowledge, that this construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than 
 acquiesced, for, till now, without controverting the obligation of such treaties, they 
 have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect." (1 "Messages 
 and Papers of the President," 195). 
 
 For this refusal, Washington was assailed by the opposition with 
 even more bitterness and venom than his great successors, Jefferson, 
 Jackson, Lincohi, Grant, Cleveland and McKinley, were ever assailed 
 by their opponents when they dared to do right in disregard of public 
 clamor. But lawyers, statesmen and courts have for more than a 
 century followed Washington's construction of this Constitutional pro- 
 vision, and no one now questions it. 
 
 POWER TO ACQUIRE TERRITORY. 
 
 The riglit and the power of the Federal government to acquire 
 additional territory by conquest, cession, annexation or purchase, and 
 to own, hold and govern the same, has been so firmly established by 
 the policy and practice of the Nation for more than a century, as well 
 as by the repeated acts and doings of each of the three great depart- 
 ments of our government, that the man who now questions such rigiit 
 or power is not to be taken seriourly by any — save, perhaps, himself. 
 
 Jefferson's State rights theories led him to doubt this right, and 
 soon after the Purchase he wrote to his friend Brecl<enridge, saying: 
 
 "The Constitution has made no provision for our /'nW/^/o foreign territory, 
 still less for our incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The executive, in 
 seizing the fugitive occurrence, which so much advances the good of this country, 
 has done an aet bejond the Constitution.'^ 
 
 But Jefferson was evidently a politician who sometimes winked 
 the other eye, as they do to-day, for whilst discussing the question of 
 the right and duty of the Congress under the Constitution, with Lin- 
 coln-like humor, he said: 
 
 " The less that is said about any Constitutional difficulty, the better; and it 
 will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary in silence. In September 
 writing from Monticello to Colonel Nicholas, the president says: ' Whate\'er Con- 
 gress shall think it necessary to do, should be done with as little debate as possible, 
 and particularly as far as respects the constitutional difficulty.' " (3 Spencer's Hist. 
 U.S., 11-2). 
 
Notwithstanding his fears and talks, the Congress took the broad, 
 national view that the right to acquire territory by conquest or pur- 
 chase was inherent in every sovereign nation, that ours was a sovereign 
 nation, and that under the Constitution that power and right belonged 
 to the Federal government. Hence, by an overwhelming majority, 
 the Senate ratified the treaty, and Congress at once passed laws for 
 the government of the Purchase, all of which was sanctioned by every 
 branch of the government, and by the American people. 
 
 Lest some doubting Thomas still fear our government does not 
 possess this power, the following quotations are made from a few of 
 the many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upon 
 this question: 
 
 "The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the 
 power of making war and of making treaties; consequently that government pos- 
 sesses the power of acquiring territory eitlier by conquest or treaty." — Insurance Co. 
 v. Canter, 1 Pet., 543. 
 
 " The power to acquire territory is derived from tlie treaty making power and 
 the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of tliese powers are those of 
 national sovereignty and belongto all independent governments." — Mormon Church 
 Case, 13G U. S., 43. 
 
 " The power of governing and legislating for a territory is the inevitable con- 
 sequence of the right to acquire and hold territory." — Sere v.' Petot, 6 Crancii, 336. 
 
 " It would be absurd to hold that the United States has the power to acquire 
 territory and no power to govern it when acquired."— Mormon Church Case, 136 
 U. S., 44. 
 
 " The United States, having rightfully acquired the territories, have the entire 
 dominion and sovereignty, national, municipal, federal and state, over all the territo- 
 ries."— Shively V. Bowlby, 152 U. S , 48. 
 
 STATUS OF INHABITANTS ON CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNS. 
 
 As to the personal and political status of the inhabitants of con- 
 quered or ceded territory, the law of nations is: That those laws 
 which affect the relation of the individual continue to exist, notwith- 
 standing the change of sovereignty; whilst those laws which affect the 
 relation of the people to the former sovereign cease at once. 
 
 That our treaty making power has, and has exercised the right to 
 change both of these, will be shov/n by the course and policy of our 
 government in making different provisions for the inhabitants under our 
 four principal treaties with foreign nations, as follows; 
 
 The Louisiana Treaty (1803) provides as follows: 
 " Art. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the 
 union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the princi- 
 ples of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and 
 immunities of the citizens of the United States." 
 
 The Florida Treaty of 1819 provides: 
 
 " Art. 6. The inhabitants of the territory which his Catholic Majesty cedes 
 to the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the union of the United 
 States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, 
 and admitted to the enjoyment of all tlie privileges, rights and immunities of the 
 citizens of the United States." 
 
 Articles 8 and 9 of the treaty with Mexico of 1848 provide, first, 
 that Mexicans "who shall prefer to remain in the said territories, may 
 either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those 
 of citizens of the United States." And it is next provided that Mexi- 
 cans who shall not preserve the character of Mexican citizens, 
 
 " shall be incorporated into the union of the United States, and be admitted at 
 the proper time (to be judged by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoy- 
 
 6 
 
ment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according!; to the principles of 
 the Constitution." 
 
 Article 111 of the Alaska treaty (with Russia, 1867), provides as 
 follows: 
 
 " The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according; to their choice, reserving 
 their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should 
 prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, wilh ll.w e'xa'plioit of uncivilised native Irihes, 
 shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of 
 citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free 
 enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion. The uncivilised tribes will he sub- 
 ject to such laws and regulations as the United States may from time to time adopt 
 in regard to aboriginal tribes of tbat coiintri'.'' 
 
 The 9th article of the treaty of Paris (1898) relating to the Span- 
 ish Isles, simply provides that: 
 
 " The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territo- 
 ries ceded to the United States shall be determiiied by Congress.'''' 
 
 This treaty was ratified in February, 1899, the Senate at the same 
 time declaring: 
 
 " That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain it is not intended to 
 incorporate the inbabilanls of the Philippines into citizenship of the United States, 
 nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as an integral part of the terri- 
 tory of the United States; but // is the intention of the United States to establish on 
 said islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants of 
 said islands, to prepare them for local self-government, and in due time to make 
 such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests of the citizens of 
 the United States and the inhabitants of the said islands." 
 
 ACQUlliEO TKKKITOKY— BY WHAT LAW GOVERNED. 
 
 Unless otherwise provided by the treaty of cession, the laws and 
 customs in force at the date of the cession continue in force until 
 changed by the new sovereign. 
 
 As will be apparent from Congressional action and treaty in the 
 following instances, the policy of our government, sanctionecl by the 
 people and upheld by the courts, has been to make such regulations 
 respecting the laws for the government of the conquered or ceded ter- 
 ritory as to our government seemed best, viz: 
 
 The Louisiana treaty (1803) did not, but the Act of Congress 
 authorizing the President "to take possession of and occupy the terri- 
 tory ceded by France" did recognize existing (Spanish) laws, section 
 2 of which provided that: 
 
 "All military, civil and judicial powers exercised by existing government of the 
 same, shall be vested in such person or persons * * * as the the President 
 * * * shall direct." 
 
 And the Act of 1804, dividing the territory, expressly provided 
 for the continuance of such laws, as follows: 
 
 "Sec 11. The laws in force in the said Territory at the commencement of 
 this act, and not inconsistent with the provisions thereof, sbal! continue in force until 
 altered, modified or repealed by legislature." 
 
 The Florida treaty (1819) did not, but the Act authorizing the 
 President to take possession, did continue in force the despotic laws of 
 Spain (6 Benton's Abridg., 711 and note), whilst the Act of 1822, 
 establishing territorial government, contained this provision: 
 
 "Sec. l.'5. That the laws in force in the said territory, at the commencement 
 of this act, and not inconsistent with the provisions thereof, shall continue in force 
 until altered, modified or repealed by the legislature." 
 
 Neither the Mexican treaty of 1848, nor the Russian treaty 
 (Alaska) of 1867, provide what laws shall govern the territory ceded; 
 
nor do the first acts of Congress respecting said territories. But in 
 1849 the Congress did extend our revenue laws over the former, and 
 in 1868 our laws "relating to customs, commerce and navigation" over 
 the latter. Indeed, as to California and New Mexico, the only govern- 
 ments there from 1846 to 1850 were the quasi military governments 
 set up under the direction of President Polk. 
 
 And in this connection it is well to note that in providing for the 
 government of territories, the Congress may ordain that all civil ofifi- 
 cers shall be appointed by the President, as in Alaska, or they may 
 authorize a local territorial council or legislature, whose every act is 
 subject to Congressional control, as m New Mexico and Arizona. 
 That the Congress has the unquestioned power "to withhold from 
 the inhabitants of Alaska the power to make laws" has been ex- 
 pressly decided (29 Fed. Rep., 205); and that it has absolute control 
 of all territorial legislative acts and "may make a void act of the ter- 
 ritorial legislature valid and a valid act void," has also been decided 
 (loi U. S., 129). 
 
 Under the powers so conferred, Alaska has been governed first by 
 the military and then by Congress, without a local legislature, for 33 
 years; whilst New Mexico and Arizona, with local legislatures, have been 
 governed first by the military and then by the Congress for more than 
 50 years. During all these years neither of these territories has ever 
 had the benefit of a single vote in either HouSe of the Congress, for 
 the reason that under the Constitution, States, and States only, can be 
 there represented. Fifty years is a long time to subject the inhabit- 
 ants of a territory to "taxation without representation." Yet that very 
 thing has always been done, in all our territories and older possessions, 
 just as it is now being and will be done in our new possessions. The 
 dogma that such territorial government is in violation of the Constitu- 
 tion and is "imperialism," did not have its origin in the old Democratic 
 party, but seems to be one of the many unique products evolved from 
 the rather vivid imagination of a citizen of Nebraska. 
 
 It is a little curious to note, in passing, that, following the prece- 
 dent established by Jefferson 18 years before, one of the first acts of 
 President Monroe, after his second inauguration, in March, 1821, was 
 the appointment of General Andrew Jackson as Governor of the ceded 
 territory of Florida. And that democratic president then and there 
 vested in that great democratic general and (later) president: 
 
 "All tiie powers and authorities hitlierto exercised by the governor and captain- 
 general and intendant of Cuba, and by tlie governors of East and West Florida." 
 (3 Spencer's Hist. U. S., 334). 
 
 And it is still more curious to note that many of the existing laws, 
 so "continued in force" In both the Louisiana Purchase . and Florida 
 were highly repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and 
 the institutions of our government. Among these were the Spanish 
 cabildo, the laws of Spain for the government of the territories, and the 
 use of the Spanish tongue in all courts and by all officers. Then again: 
 
 "Tliere was a religious establishment. Two canons and twenty-five curates 
 received salaries from the public treasury. (Pub. Doc, 8th Cong., Appendix 38). 
 All travelers previous to circulating any news of importance were bound to relate it 
 to the syndic of the district who was authorized to forbid its further circulatiou if he 
 thought such prohibition would be for the public good. (Ibid., Appendix 71). A 
 son, whose father was living, could not sue without his consent, nor persons belong- 
 ing to a religions order without that of their superior. (Ibid-, Appendix 28). A 
 married woman convicted of adultery and her paramour were to be delivered up to 
 the will of the husband, with the reserve, however, that if he killed one he must 
 
kill both. (Ibid., Appendix OJ). He who reviled the Savior or the Virgin Mary 
 was to be punisiied by havinj; his tongue cut out and Ims property confiscated. (Ibid., 
 Appendix 45)." (Doc. 2;ii, oOth Cong., pp. 8-'J). 
 
 These lire only a. few of the obnoxious Spanisii laws to be enforced 
 in Louisiana by oiie or more persons at the wilt of tlie president, and in 
 Florida by General Jackson as the military governor. The criticism 
 and conclusion of Senator Benton of and on the act of 1803 respecting 
 Louisiana apply with full force to the Florida situation. He said: 
 
 "From the terms of this act, and especially of the second section, it is seen that 
 the Spanish system of government was continued in the ceded territory after it be- 
 came the property of the United States, and that tlie military, the civil and judical 
 power of the Spanish Intendants (for France never took possession of the country 
 except to deliver it to the United States), were transferred by law to such persons 
 as the President should appoint. The powers of the Spanish Intertdants, as al! 
 know, were an emanation of the despotic ftouer of Ihe kiiiifs of Spain, and wholly in- 
 compatible with our constitution— a very clear declaration of Congress that the 
 constitution did not extend to the territory, and that its inhabitants could claim no 
 rights under it; aiiu this declaration was in consonance with all the previous acts for 
 the government of territories, all of which were inconsistent with the constitution." 
 (3 Abridg. Debates of Cong., 9). 
 
 Lastly comes the treaty of Paris (1898, ratified 1899), by which 
 Spain relinquished "all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba" 
 (Sec. i); ceded to the United States Porto Rico and other islands 
 (Sec. 2) and the Philippine Islands (Sec. 3). 
 
 Section 4 provides for Spanish free trade with the Philippine 
 Islands "for ten years," and Sections 11 and 12 continue existing 
 laws, civil and criminal, in the several Islands named, respectively. 
 Whilst Sec. 7 of the Act of Congress of April 12, 1900, establishing a 
 temporary government for Porto Rico, provides that all inhabitants 
 who were Spanish subjects and resided in Porto Rico on April 11, 1899, 
 and their children born subsequent thereto, 
 
 "shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto Rico, and as such entitled to 
 Xht protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their 
 allegiance to the crown of Spain." 
 
 Section 8 continues in full force and effect all laws and ordinances 
 of Porto Rico, 
 
 "except as altered, amended, or modified hereinafter, or as altered or modified 
 by military orders and decrees in force when this act shall take effect, and so far as 
 the same are not inconsistent or in conflict with the statutory laws of the United 
 States," etc. 
 
 Beyond continuing in force existing laws by the Paris treaty, no 
 action has been taken by the legislative branch of our government 
 to establish local civil government either in Cuba or the Philippines. 
 The civil government of these Islands, how and when each shall be 
 dealt with, present questions of policy which cannot be answered by 
 the executive or judicial, and which must, therefore, be solved, sooner 
 or later, by the legislative branch of our government at such time and 
 in such manner as to the Congress shall seem best. 
 
 In the meantime, and until the Congress in its own time and man- 
 ner, shall solve all problems of policy by its appropriate action, the 
 president has but a single duty to perform. That duty is to continue 
 the policy and practice of our government and of the old Democratic 
 party, which prevailed for a century, as the Commander in Chief of 
 the Army and Navy, govern and control these Islands and their inhab- 
 itants through the military under the same constitution and laws, and 
 ir^i precisely the same* manner, as our earlier acquired territories have 
 been governed and controlled under every political party that ever held 
 the reins of national government. The Bryan party is now pleased to 
 
 mat 
 
term this "imperialism," but with the high precedents, policies and 
 practices of the past to silstain him, the President ignores their "bogy 
 man," and with dignity, courage and patriotism continues the perform- 
 ance of his high duty. 
 
 HOW MAY TEKKITORIES BK LAWFULLY GOAEUNED? 
 
 This question must be divided into two periods: i. How gov- 
 erned between the date of conquest, purchase or cession and the date 
 when the Congress provides a local territorial government? and, 2. 
 How governed whilst under territorial government and until it is erect- 
 ed into a State? 
 
 The first may be answered under either the laws of nations and of 
 war, or, if Congress shall have taken action, then under that clause 
 of the federal constitution which gives to the Congress the absolute 
 power to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting" territo- 
 ries, whilst the second is answered only under this constitutional pro- 
 vision: 
 
 I. BEFORE Congressional action such territories have 
 always been and are to-day lawfully goverened by the President as 
 constitutional commander of the army and navy of the United States. 
 This position is fully sustained by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States in Cross v. Harrison (1853), 16 Howard, 164-202. The facts 
 stated in that case were, that during the Democratic administration of 
 ['resident Polk, the Mexican war was declared, fought out and peace 
 concluded by treaty proclaimed on July 4th, 1848. Our arms con- 
 quered California in 1846. The President soon established a gov ern- 
 ment over that territory with Col. Mason of the ist Dragoons of the 
 Army as military governor. On March 3, 1849, the revenue laws of 
 the United States were extended to California, but the Congress hav- 
 ing failed to establish a temporary civil government, that territory was 
 governed and controlled by military government, under the orders of 
 the President, until California became a State in 1850. 
 
 From the time of occupation, up to notification of the treaty of 
 peace on August 7, 1848, war tariff duties were collected, and, there- 
 after the regular government tariffs. 
 
 in 1851, one Cross, an importer, sued a former collector at San 
 Francisco to recover the amount of tariff duties which had been paid 
 under protest in 1848-9. 
 
 A careful study of that and kindred cases decided by the Supreme 
 Court, in connection with the messages and directions of President 
 Polk and his cabinet officers, especially the instructions of James Buch- 
 anan, who was then Secretary of State, develops a mine of fact and 
 law of rare value and interest in this campaign. 
 
 In the Cross case, the Supreme Court held that he was not entitled 
 to recover moneys paid as tariff duties prior to the ratification of the 
 treaty, for the reason that California was a "conquered territory, 
 within which the United States were exercising belligerent rights" 
 (p. 191)- As to the continuation of the military government, the 
 Court quotes, and later approves, the language of Secretary of State 
 Buchanan, that 
 
 "The termination of the war left an existing govenmienf, a government de facto, 
 in full operation, and this will continue, with the presumed consent of the people, until 
 Congress shall provide for them a territorial government. The great law of neces- 
 sity justifies this conclusion" (p. 185). 
 
 10 
 
On page 190 the Court says: 
 
 "E.irly ill 1847, the President, as constitutional commander-in-ciiief of the 
 army and navy, authorized the military and naval commander of our forces in Cal- 
 ifornia to exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form a civil govern- 
 ment for the conquered country, and to impose diitu-s on imports and tonnage as mili- 
 tary contributions for the support of the governmrnt, and of the army which had 
 thecontjuest in possessinn. * * * No one can doubt that these orders of the 
 President, and the action of our army and navy commander in California, in conform- 
 ity with them, was according to the law of arms and the right of conquest, or that 
 they were operative until the ratification and exchange of a treaty of peace." 
 
 In stating the views and acts of Colonel Mason as military gov- 
 ernor, the Court says, at pp. 193-4: 
 
 "He determined, in the absence of all instruction, to maintain the existing 
 government. The territory had been ceded as a couqncst, and was to be preserved 
 and s.oi'cn!cd js siicb until 'the sovercigntj' to -a'hicb it bad passed bad kirislatcd for it. 
 That sovereignty was the United States, under the constitution, by which power 
 had been given to Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula- 
 tions respecting the territorv or other property belonging to the United States, with 
 the power also to admit new States into this Union, with only such limitations as 
 are expressed iii this section in which this power is given. The go\ernment, of 
 which (Colonel Mason was the executive, had its origin in the lawful exercise of a 
 belligiient rig^bt over a conquered territorv- It had been instituted during the war hy 
 tbe command of tbe President of tbe United States. It was ihe government when the 
 territory was ceded as a conquest, and it did not cease, as a matter of course, or as 
 a necessary consequence of the restoration of peace. 
 
 "Colonel Mason was fortunate in having his determination to continue the ex- 
 isting government sustained by the President of the United States and these creta- 
 ries of his cabinet." 
 
 Cross contended that the President "had no legal authority to 
 order the collection of duties;" that Congress alone could authorize 
 their collection, and that he was therefore entitled to recover the sums 
 paid on duties after the ratification of the treaty, but the Court held 
 otherwise, and said, at page 19?: 
 
 "Our conclusion, from what has been said, is, that the civil government of 
 California, organized as it was from a right of conquest, did not cease or become 
 defunct in consequence of the signature of the treaty or from ijs ratification. We 
 think it was continued over a ceded conquest, without any violation of the consti- 
 tution or laws of the United States, and that, until Congress legislated for it, the 
 duties upon foreign goods, imported into San Francisco, were legally demanded and 
 lawfully received by Mr. Harrison, the collector of the port, who received his appoint- 
 ment, according to instructions from Washington, from Governor Mason." 
 
 In his messages, executive orders and other official documents 
 relating to the prosecution of the .Mexican war, President Polk protest- 
 ed repeatedly that that \\"ax ivas not beitig prosecuted for conquest, but as 
 early as March 23rd, 1847, in his executive order to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, is found the following statement, which justifies the con- 
 clusion that from \hv beginning it was the intention of his administra- 
 tion to conquer and hold as much of Mexican territory as possible. He 
 there says: 
 
 "The conqueror possesses the rigiit also to establish a temporary military form 
 of govenimeui over such seaports, towns or provinces and to prescribe the conditions 
 and restrictions upon which commerce with such places may be permitted. He 
 may, in his discretion, exclude all trade, or admit it with limitation or restriction, or 
 impose terms the observance of which wiM be the condition of carrying it on." (4 
 Messages and Papers of the President, p- 52.1). 
 
 This same language in substance is found in his third annual mes- 
 age, as well as in his message to the Senate on February 10, 1848, as 
 will be seen by reference to pages 548 and 570 of the same volume. 
 
 However, in this same third annual message, he comes out square- 
 ly in favor of retaining the conquered territory, for in speaking of the 
 Californias as conquered territory, he says: "I am satisfied that they 
 should never be surrendered to Mexico." 
 
 11 
 
After the treaty of peace with Mexico, in his fourth annual mes- 
 sage, of December 5, 1848, as will be seen by reference to page 638 of 
 the volume referred to, in speaking of the government of the new 
 territory, Presidemt Polk says: 
 
 "The only government which remained was that established by the military 
 aittboritf during the war. Regarding this to be a de facto goveriiment, and tiiat by 
 the /)/v5'/H/trf coz/^t-w/ of the inhabitants it might be continued temporarily, they were 
 advised to conform and submit to it for the short intervening period before Con- 
 gress would again assemble and could legislate on the subject." 
 
 In the exercise of this power, upon his occupation of Santa Fe, 
 General Kearny detailed two distinguished Missouri soldiers in his 
 command, Colonel A. W. Doniphan and Willard P. Hall, to draft 
 "The Kearny Code" for the governmenl of New Mexico. With rare 
 skill and ability they performed that duty, and General Kearny pro- 
 claimed this code on September 22, 1846, "by virtue of the authority 
 conferred upon him by the government of the United States." This 
 code, so made by a commanding General, remained the law until a 
 territorial civil government was established four years later. 
 
 2. AFTER Congressional action our territories have always 
 been and are to-day lawfully governed and controlled by the Congress 
 under the constitutional clause quoted. Jefferson himself recognized 
 this, for in his message of October 17, 1803 (i Messages and Papers 
 of the Presidents," p. 358), transmitting the treaty of purchase, he 
 said: 
 
 "With the wisdom of Congress it will rest to take those ulterior measures 
 which may be necessary for the immediate occupation and tempora/y goveniment of 
 the country." 
 
 This constitutional clause was drafted by Governor Morris, and 
 fifteen years after the adoption of the Constitution, in answer to a 
 question as to its precise meaning, he wrote: 
 
 ''I always thought, when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana, it would be 
 proper to govern them as provinces and allow them no voice in our councils. In wording 
 the third section of the fourth article I went as far as circumstances would permit 
 to establish the exclusion." (3 Morr. Wr., p. 192). 
 
 This clause, too, has often been construed by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. In one case that court said: 
 
 "The term territory, as here used, is merely descriptive of one kind of property, 
 and is equivalent to the word lands. And Congress has the same power over it as 
 over any other property belonging to the United States; and this power is vested in 
 Congress without limitation; and has been considered the foundation upon which the 
 Territorial governments rest." (United States v. Cratiot et al., 14 Pet., 524, 537). 
 
 In passing upon the rights and powers of Congress over Alaska 
 (and the same is true of every other territory until the Congress 
 establishes a local territorial government), Judge Lafayette Dawson, 
 once a distinguished member of the Missouri bar, and a stalwart Dem- 
 ocrat, said: 
 
 "Possessing the power to erect a Territorial government for Alaska, they could 
 confer upon it such powers, judicial and executive, as they deem most suitable to 
 the necessities of the inhabitants. // was unquestionahh within the constitutional 
 power of Congress to zvithhold from the inhabitants of Alaska the power to legislate and 
 make laws. In the absence, then, of any law-making power in the ierritorv, to what 
 source must the people look for the laws by which they are to be governed? This 
 question can admit of but one answer. Congress is the only law-making power 
 for Alaska." (United States v. Nelson, 29 Fed. Rep., 202, 205, 206). 
 
 In speaking of the powers of Congress in legislating for territory 
 subject to jurisdiction of the Unitrd States, but outside of the jurisdic- 
 tion of any one of the States of the Union, the Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, ninth circuit, say: 
 
 "It may legislate in accordance with the special needs of each locality, and 
 
 12 
 
vary its regulations to meet the conditions and circumstances of the people." (En- 
 dlemnn v. United States, 8G Fed. Rep., 4.'56, 459). 
 
 In Snow V. United States (i8 Wall., 319), the Supreme court say: 
 "The government of the Territories of the United States belongs, primarily, 
 to Congress; and, secondarily, to such agencies as Congress may establish for that 
 purpose. During the term of their pupilage as Territories tiiey are mere dependen- 
 cies of the United States- Their people do not coiistilitte a sovereiii^n power. All politi- 
 cal authority exercised therein is derived from the General Government." 
 
 Territories are not organized under the constitution, but are creations exclu- 
 sively of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision and control." 
 Benner V. Porter, 9 How., 242. 
 
 "Congress has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the 
 territories and all the departments of the territorial government." Bank V. Yank- 
 ton, 101 U. S.,132. 
 
 As to the power of government of ceded territory and people 
 tiierein. Chief Justice Marshall, in 1828, in his opmion in American 
 Insurance Company v. Chanter (i Peters, 511), which case involved 
 the relation of Florida to the United States, said that the 
 
 "Government possesses tiie power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or 
 treaty * * * the ceded territory becomes a part of the United States to which 
 it is annexed, either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession or on such as the 
 new master shall impose. * * ♦ The same act which transfers their country, 
 transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law, which may be de- 
 nominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the inter- 
 course and general conduct of individuals, remains in force until altered by the 
 newly created power." 
 
 Then after quoting Article 6 of the Florida Treaty, he says: 
 "This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the 
 enjoyment of the privileges, rights and immunities of the citizens of the United 
 States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent 
 of stipulation. They do not, howtvev, participate in politieal power; they do not 
 share in the government until Florida shall become a State. In the mean time, 
 Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that 
 clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress "to make all needful rules 
 and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United 
 States." 
 
 In 1879, the case of the National Bank v. County of Yankton (loi 
 U. S., 129) came before the Supreme Court on the question as to the 
 government of the territory of Dakota after a local territorial govern- 
 ment had been established by Congress. Chief Justice Waite, in de- 
 Livering the opinion, said: 
 
 "The territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominions of the 
 United States." 
 
 After holding that the authority of Congress, within constitutional 
 limitations, to legislate for territories, is supreme, he says: 
 
 "Congress may not only abrogate the laws of the territorial legislatures, but 
 it may itself legislate directly for the local government. It may make a void act of 
 the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it has/"// and 
 complete legislative authority over the people of the territories and all the departments 
 of the territorial government" (p. 131). 
 
 Later on, the case of Murphy v. Ramsey (114 U. S., 15-47), 
 came before the Supreme Court of the United States on the questions 
 involving the rights of the people of the territory of Utah. Mr. Justice 
 Mathews, among other thmgs, says, at pages 44 and 45: 
 
 "But in ordaining government for territories, and the people who inhabit them, 
 all the discretion which belongs to legislative power is vested in Compress; and tliat ex- 
 tends, beyond all controversy, to determining by law, from time to time, the form 
 of local government in a particular Territory, and the qualifications of those who 
 shall administer it. It rests with Congress to say whether, in a given case, any of the 
 people resident in the Territory, shall participate in the election of its officers, or the 
 making of its laws; and if may, therefore, take from them any right of suffrage it may 
 previously have conferred, or at any time modify or abridge it, as it may deem ex- 
 
 13 
 
pedient. The right of local self-government, as known to our system as a constitu- 
 tional franchise, belongs, under the Constitution, to the Siiifcs, and to the people 
 thereof, by whom that Constitution was ordained, and to whom by its terms all 
 power not conferred by it upon the government of the United States was expressly 
 reserved. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants ot the Territories are 
 secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutioiial liberty which 
 restrain all the agencies of government. State and National; their political rights are 
 franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discrelion of the Congress 
 of the United States. 
 
 FREE TKADE OR TARIFF IN TERRITORIES. 
 
 Article 7 of the treaty with France (1803) provided that the -ships 
 of both France and Spain, coming directly from either cotmtry, and 
 "loaded only with the produce of manufactures" of France or Spain 
 
 *'shall be admitted during the space of hiwlve rears in the ports of New Orleans, and 
 in all other legal ports of entry within the ceded territory, in the same manner as 
 ships of the United States * * * without being subject to any other or greater 
 duties * * * than those paid by the citizens of the United States." (Charters 
 and Constitutions of U. S., p. 688). 
 
 Article 15 of the treaty with Spain (Florida, 1819) gave to Spain 
 the same privilege in trading with the Flondas for a like period of 
 twelve years (Id., p. 312). 
 
 Section 4 of the treaty of Paris (1898) provides for the extension 
 of like privileges to Spain in its trade with the Philippines "for ten 
 years." 
 
 The first gave to France and Spain free trade with the Louisiana 
 Purchase for twelve years, the second gave to Spain free trade with 
 Florida for a like period, while the third and last provides for Spanish 
 free trade with the Philippines for ten years. 
 
 PORTO RICAN TARIFF. 
 
 Following the treaty of Paris, came the Act of Congress of April 
 12, 1900, providing for a temporary civil government of Porto Rico. 
 
 Section 3 of this act provides that " all merchandise, coming into the United 
 States from Porto Rico and coming into Porto Rico from the United States shall be 
 entered at the several ports of entry upon payment of fiflccn per caitnni of the duties 
 ivlncl) are required to he levied, collected and paid upon like articles of merchandise 
 imported from foreign countries." 
 
 And it is further provided in this section as follows: 
 
 " And whenever the legislative assemblv of Porto Rico shall have enacted and 
 ptit into operation a svstem of local taxation to meet the necessities of the govern- 
 ment of Porto Rico, by this Act estab'ished, and shall by resolution duly passed 
 so notify the President, he shall make proclamation thereof, and thereupon all tariff 
 duties on merchandise imd articles going into Porto Rico from the United States or 
 coming into the United States from Porto Rico shall cease and from and after such 
 date all such merchandise and articles shall be entered at the several ports of entry 
 free of duty; and in no event shall any duties be collected after the first day of 
 March, nineteen hundred and tivo, on merchandise and articles going into Porto 
 Rico from the United States or coming into the United States from Porto Rico." 
 
 Under Section 4, all duties and taxes collected in Porto Rico under 
 this act are to be held as a separate fund, at the disposal of the Presi- 
 dent, "to be used for the government and benefit of Porto 1{ico until the 
 government of Porto Rico shall have been organized;" and it is there 
 provided further that as soon as the civil government of Porto Rico 
 shall have been organized and proclamation thereof made, then all 
 such duties and taxes "shall be paid into the treasury of Porto %ico * 
 * * instead of being paid into the treasury of the United States." 
 
 The opposition lashes itself into a fury in discussing this Act, and 
 as proof positive that the imposition of this tariff is in direct violation of 
 the federal constitution, quotes the following from its provisions: 
 
 14 
 
" All duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United 
 States." (Art. 1, Sec.'S). 
 
 Also: 
 
 " No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to 
 the ports of one StaU- over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from one 
 Sla/i' be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." (Id., Sec. 9). 
 
 It will be observed, however, that the former says "States" and 
 the latter "State," and that nothing is there said about "territories" 
 or "territory." The Constitution was made for "States." Had its 
 tramers intended to include "territories," organized or not, they would 
 have said so. Morris, who drafted the clause relating to the govern- 
 ment of territories, no doubt voiced the intentions of the constitutional 
 convention when he said he thought it would "be proper to govern 
 them as provinces and allow them 7io voice in our councils." 
 
 In a long line of decisions the Supreme Court of the United 
 States has recognized the wide difference between "States" and "ter- 
 ritories." Attention is now directed to the two most directly in point: 
 
 In Bennet v. Porter, (9 Howard, 235, 242), that court, in speak- 
 ing of territories, said: 
 
 " They are not organized under the constitution nor subject to its complex dis- 
 tribution of the powers of gox'ernment, as the organic law, but are the creations of 
 the legislatixe department, and subject to its supervision and control." 
 
 And in the later case of Talbott v. Silver Bow County, (139 U. 
 S., 44C), the same court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brewer, with 
 reference to a territory, says: 
 
 " It is not a distinct sovereignty. It has no independent powers. It is a 
 political community organized by Congress, and all zchose acts are subject to Congres- 
 sional supervision. Its attitude to the general government is no more independent 
 than that of a city to the State in which it is situated, and which has given to it its 
 municipal organization." 
 
 But apart from all this, and as a mixed question of law and morals, 
 it is respectfully suggested that if the Democratic administration of 
 Jefferson and Monroe could grant to France and Spain and next to 
 Spain absolute free trade with the Louisiana Purchase and with Florida 
 for twelve years each, without a violation of these provisions of the 
 Constitution (and no lawyer ever questioned it), then it must follow, 
 in logic and in law, that the Republican Administration of McKinley 
 had the same right and power under the Constitution to impose a tariff 
 of 15 per cent, of the established rate, on Porto Rico, as well as today 
 the foundation for Spanish free trade with the Philippines for ten 
 years. Andthis is especially true in view of the fact that under this 
 Porto Rican law not a single penny of this tariff can belong to or be 
 used by the United States, but must be held and used exclusively 
 "for the government and benefit of Porto Rico until the government 
 of Porto Rico shall have been organized," and must cease not later 
 than March i, 1902. 
 
 The precise question here involved was presented for adjudication 
 in the very recent case of Goetze v. United States, decided by Judge 
 Townsend in the United States Circuit Court in New York City. 
 There Goetze imported Tobacco from Porto Rico, but claimed that 
 the imposition of the tariff duties thereon was unlawful, for the reason 
 that Porto Rico was not a foreign country. But Judge Townsend, in a 
 most exhaustive opinion, held otherwise, held that the duties; were 
 lawfully assessed, and that this act of Congress was constitutional. 
 (51 Cent. Law Jour., 41). 
 
 In this connection there is another historic fact worth remember- 
 
 15 
 
ing: Soon after our forces occupied California in 1846, President Polk, 
 without Congressionalauthority , directed the imposition of war tariff duWes 
 "as military contributions/or the support of the government and of the 
 army;" that thereafter, and until California became a State, tariffs 
 were imposed and collected for the support of the quasi military govern- 
 ment there set up by Polk; but the unspent residue thereof, instead of 
 going to Californians, was covered and '^received into the treasury 
 of the United States,'' and further, that thereafter the Democratic Con- 
 gress, by two Acts approved by Democratic Presidents, ratified and 
 confirmed all this. The curious will find the history of these transac- 
 tions given by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cross v. 
 Harrison (1853), 16 Howard, 85. 
 
 Since the publication of that opinion, nearly fifty years ago, no 
 lawyer has questioned the right of President Polk to impose that tariff, 
 nor the right of the general government to the balance after defraying 
 the expenses of the military government of California; and in view of 
 this decision it is clear that the criticisms of the opposition on the Porto 
 Rico tariff may be traced to one of three sources: lack of information, 
 misinformation or the sheer rant of the reckless demagogue. 
 
 DOES THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOW THE FLAG? 
 
 The dogma of the transmigration of the Constitution — that "the 
 Constitution follows the flag" — was invented by that able defender of 
 slavery and John the Baptist of disunion and secession, John C. Cal- 
 houn, in the discussion of the Wilmot Proviso in 1847, solely with the 
 view of carrying the slavery part of the Constitution into the territor- 
 ies. But Calhoun was an able lawyer, and did not claim that the 
 Constitution followed the flag in its entirety, saying, "wherever our 
 authority goes the Constitution in part goes, not all its provisions cer- 
 tainly." He knew that the Constitution contained no guaranty that 
 any organized territory should even have a republican form of govern- 
 ment; knew that there was no constitutional authority for senators and 
 representatives, with the right to vote and represent the people of any 
 territory in the Congress, for such rights were given alone to "States," 
 not to territories; knew that as to many of its provisions, the Congress 
 had no power to extend the Constitution over territories, but his con- 
 tention was that the Congress did have the power to extend slavery 
 into the territories. That was the sole object of the amendment "to 
 extend the Constitution by law to the territories," so ably discussed 
 by the giants in the Senate in 1849. 
 
 in Volume 16 of Benton's Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, 
 these splendid arguments are given at length. 
 
 Whilst contending that "wherever our flag waves — wherever our 
 authority goes, the Constitution in part goes, not all its provisions cer- 
 tainly, but all its suitable provisions," Senator- Calhoun says: 
 
 " The territories belong to us; they are ours; that is to say, they are the prop- 
 erty of the thirty States of the Union; and we, as the representatives of those thirty 
 States, have the right to exercise all that authority and jurisdiction which ownership 
 carries with it." (p. 309). 
 
 Daniel Webster, the great expounder and defender of the Consti- 
 tution, during that debate laid down the following propositions: 
 
 " What is meant bvthe proposition, in a law, to 'extend the Constitution of 
 the United States to the Territories.' Why, sir, the thing is utterly impossible. All 
 the legislation in the world, in this general form, could not accomplish it. There is 
 no cause for the operation of the legislative power in such a manner as that. The 
 
Constitution— wli.it is it. We extend the Constitution of the United State? by law 
 to a territory! What is the Constitution of tiie United States? Is not its very 
 first principle tiiat all within its influence and comprehension shall be represented in 
 the Legislature which it establishes, with not only a right of debate and a right to 
 vote in both Houses of Congress, but a right to partake in the choice of the President 
 and Vice President? And can we by 1 iw entend these rights, or any of them, to a 
 territory of the United States? Everybody will see that it is altogether impractica- 
 ble. * * * 
 
 " Let me say that in this general sense there is no such thing as extending the 
 Constitution. The Constilution is extended over the United States and over noth- 
 ing else, and can extend over nothing else. It cannot be extended over anything 
 except over the old Stales and the new States that shall come in hereafter, when 
 they do come in. There is a want of accuracy of ideas in this respect that is quite 
 remarkable among eminent gentlemen, and especially professional and judicial gen- 
 tlemen. It seems to be taken for granted that the right of trial by jury, the habeas 
 corpus, and every principle designed to protect personal liberty is extended by force 
 of the Constitution itself over every new Territory. That proposition cannot be 
 maintained at all. How do you arrive at it by any reasoning or deduction? It can 
 only be arrived at by the loosest of all possible constructions. It is said this must 
 be S(n else the right of the Ihibeas corpus would be lost. Undoubtedly these rights 
 must be conferred by law before they crui be enjoyed in a Territory." (p. ;30(!). 
 
 "But they do not exist in Territories till introduced by the authority of Con- 
 gress. These principles do not, proprio vigorc, apply to any one of the Territories of 
 the United States, because that Territory, while a rerritory,^does not become a part, 
 and is no part of the United States" (p. 309). 
 
 "The Crown of England often makes conquest^ of territory. Who ever heard 
 it contended that the constitution of England, or the supreme power of Parliament, 
 because it is the law of the land, extended over the territory thus acquired, until made 
 to do so by a special act of Parliament? The whole history of colonial conquests 
 shows entirely the reverse. Until provision is made by act of Parliament for a civil 
 government, the territory is held as a military acquisition. It is subject to the con- 
 trol of Parliament, and Parliament may make all laws that they deem proper and 
 necessary to be made for its government; but until such provision is made, the ter- 
 ritory is not under the dominion of English law. And it is exactly upon the same 
 principle that territories coming to belong to the United States by acquisition or by 
 cession, as we have no Jus co/oiiiac, remain to be made subject to the operation of 
 our supreme law by an enactment of Congress. * ♦ * 
 
 "The precise question is. whether a Territory, while it remains in a territorial 
 state, is a part of the United States. 1 maintain it is not." (p. 311). 
 
 Senator Berrien, who had been President Jackson's Attorney- 
 General, and one of the most accomplished lawyers that ever held 
 that iiigh office, was of opinion that the theories of Webster and Cal- 
 houn were alike good in part and bad in part. After saying tiiat he 
 found constitutional power for acquiring and governing territories, he 
 added that whether that power 
 
 "results from the clause which has been referred to, or whether it is deduced 
 as an incident from the war or treaty-making power, it is still a power deiived from 
 the constitution and is to be exercised in conformity to it" (Id., p. 318). 
 
 \n 1848, after the adoption of the amendment excluding slaves 
 from theTerritory of Oregon, Calhoun for the first time laid bare the 
 real object and purposes of his wild theory, in this language: 
 
 "The great strife between the North and the South is ended. The North is 
 determined to exclude the property of the slave-holder, and, of course, the slave- 
 holder himself, from its territory. On this point there seems to be no division in 
 the North. In the South, he regretted to say, there was some division of sentiment. 
 The effect of this determination of the North was to convert all the Southern popu- 
 lation into slaves; and he would never consent to entail that disgrace on his pos- 
 terity. He denounced any Southern man who would not take the same course. 
 Gentlemen weregreatlv mistaken if they supposed the Presidential question in the 
 South would override this more important one. The separation of the North and the 
 South is completed. The South has now a most solemn obligation to perform — to 
 herself, to the constitution, to the Union. She is bound to come to a decision not 
 to permit this to go on any further, but to show that, dearly as she pri7;es the 
 Union, there are questions which she regards as of greater importance than tlie Union. 
 This is not a question of territorial government, but a question involving the con- 
 tinuance of the Union." (1 Cooper's American Politics, p. 49; 16 Benton's Abridg- 
 ment, p. 250). 
 
 17 
 
Calhoun's dogma was in effect followed eight years later by 
 Chief Justice Taney in his opinion in the Died Scott case; but has 
 been repudiated and denounced as unsound by every great statesman, 
 great lawyer and high court called upon to express an opinion upon 
 the subject, hi his "Thirty Years View" (Vol. 2, p. 713), Benton re- 
 views this question, and adds: 
 
 "History cannot class higher than as the vagary of a diseased imaginaiion 
 this imputed self-acting and self-extension of the constitution. The constitution 
 does nothing of itself— not even in the states, for which it was made. Every part of 
 it requires a law to put it into operation. No part of it can reach a territory unless 
 imported to it by an act of Congress." 
 
 That Benton was right, will not be doubted by any lawyer famil- 
 iar with constitution, laws, decisions, policy and history of our gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The alarmist of today may predict all sorts of calamities, as did 
 his prototype of the past; but it is safe to trust to the good sense of 
 the people. They remember that the constitution was not violated, 
 nor did the government of the States of the Union "go to the demni- 
 tion bow-wows" because of the military government of our territories 
 under several Democratic Administrations, and they do not believe 
 that the days of the' Republic are numbered because Cuba and the 
 Philippines are to-day temporarily governed in the same way under a 
 Republican Administration. With great Garfield they to-day say: 
 "God reigns and the government at Washington still lives," and add, 
 "shall live so long as the waters of mountain and plain shall flow out 
 through our rivers to oceans eternal." 
 
 Those who have read and studied the question will recollect that 
 in the discussion of the bill authorizing the President to take posses- 
 sion of the -Louisiana Purchase, as well as on the bill providing for its 
 civil government, the same arguments against "expansion" and "im- 
 perialism" were used as are now employed, but that the former was 
 adopted in the Senate by a vote of 26 to 5, and the latter by over- 
 whelming majorities in both houses. Thus fully, at that early day, 
 comm\iUng this government to {hd.t policy of expansion and territorial 
 government which has ever since prevailed. 
 
 In that day, however, there was some excuse for such opposition; 
 now there is none. Then the Constitution had been in force but for 
 fourteen years, and the Supreme Court had not passed upon these 
 questions. Hence in the pessimistic mind of that day there was some 
 room for a doubt; now there is none. The Constitution has been in 
 force for one hundred and eleven years, and a multitude of decisions of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, together with acts of the leg- 
 islative and executive branches of our government without number, 
 have authoritatively, finally and forever settled all these questions 
 against the wild contention of the Bryan party. Among the many 
 questions settled was this: That the Constitution as a whole was 
 made for and applies only to "States;" that necessarily it has not, 
 does not and cannot "follow the flag" into territories, and that Con- 
 gress alone has the power to send such parts of it there as may be ap- 
 plicable to territorial governments. 
 
 It is true that the sovereignty of our government "follows the flag" 
 wherever the flag is raised by its authority, but not so with either our 
 territorial boundaries or the Constitution, for the reason that their ex- 
 tension presents a purely political question which must be answered 
 by the Congress alone. (See U. S. v. The James G. Swan, 50 Fed. 
 Reporter, and Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S., p. 212). In the last case the 
 Supreme Court of the United States said: 
 
 18 
 
"Who is the sovereign, de jitn- or dc facto, of a territory, is not a judicial but a 
 /)«//7/cj/ question, tiie determination of which, by the liii^islativc and exccutiVi' depart- 
 ments of any government, <(''/<-///.st;'<7;' /v//c/.s- tlie. judge as well as ail otiier otticers, 
 citi{eiis and siibjiiis of tlnit irovcninu-iit. This principle has always been uplield by 
 this court and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances." (See 
 authorities cited). 
 
 In the Senate and House, participating in the discussions on the 
 Louisiana and Florida treaties, respectively, were illustrious and 
 patriotic lawyers and statesmen of the days of the Revolution, who as 
 members of the General Convention had assisted in the formation and 
 adoption of, and knew, the Constitution. Scarcely less illustrious and 
 brilliant were the second generation of statesmen who later debated 
 the Mexican treaty. The contention of those who opposed the first 
 two treaties in the main was that the government had no constitutional 
 right to acquire territory; whilst the contention of those who opposed 
 the latter treaty rested wholly upon the question of slavery in the ter- 
 ritories. The course of the government in the acquisition of territories 
 has closed the former contention, and the latter was ended when the 
 institution to which it was directed faded away in the fierce light of 
 the immortal emancipation proclamation. 
 
 These malcontents and doubters, like the poor, are with us 
 always. They not only object to the course of the administration in 
 the late Spanish Isles, but object to the wise, prudent and just meas- 
 ures that are being taken to protect our ministers, consuls and other 
 American citizens now lawfully in China by treaty right. 
 
 They forget that their patron saint, Jefferson, justified a raid on 
 Spanish soil to protect our citizens, and in his message of December 6, 
 1805, said he awaited Congressional "authority for using force in any 
 degree that could he avoided," and further that our forces should not 
 go beyond our own lines except "when necessary to repel an invasion 
 or to rescue a citizen or his property." (i Mess, and Papers of the Pres- 
 idents, p. 389). 
 
 They forget that another saint, Jackson, under the order of Presi- 
 dent Monroe, led our forces into Spanish territory (Florida), where, 
 in 1818, he caused to be executed tv/o British subjects and some Indian 
 Chiefs, in his royal Jacksonian way, and then justified himself "0;/ 
 t/ie immutable principles of se/f defense;" and forget, too, that under 
 the orders of President Polk, our forces invaded the soil of Old Mex- 
 ico before the Congress had declared war, and further, that as a matter 
 of fact there was no formal declaration of war against Mexico, the act 
 of Congress only recognized "a state of war ^5 existing by the act of 
 the Republic of Mexico." (34 Am. Law Rev., 584-5). 
 
 They likewise forget that down about Taos, in New Mexico, in 
 January, 1847, there were a lot of Mexicans whose "consent" was 
 not asked as to the new government which our people imposed upon 
 them, and who for some reason would not, or at least did not, volun- 
 teer such "consent," and that in three separate engagements which 
 our troops under the command of Colonel (afterward General) Sterlino- 
 Price then had with these Mexican Filipinos so failing to "consent " 
 282 Mexicans were killed and a larger number wounded ("Doniphan's 
 Expedition" by Hughes, p. 392 et. seq.). These non-consenting Mex- 
 icans ware then killed by our troops in the same way and for the same 
 reasons that our boys are to-day killing Filipinos, hi his official report 
 of February 15, 1847, Colonel Price duly advised the government at 
 Washington of all this, yet if the then Democratic President, Con- 
 gress, party, or any of its statesmen or politicians, ever denounced or 
 
 19 
 
characterized the acts of our soldiers as unconstitutional or imperial- 
 istic, no record thereof was ever made. 
 
 There is this important difference between the then slaughter of 
 Mexicans and the present punishment of Filipinos. The Mexicans 
 were killed months after General Kearny had set up and proclaimed 
 military government for New Mexico, and more than a year before the 
 United States acquired that territory by cession, whilst both the mili- 
 tary government and the cession and purchase of the Philippines have 
 now for a year and a half been fixed facts. Yet the truth remains that 
 the offense of the Mexicans was as rank as that of the Filipinos, and 
 they then as richly deserved their punishment as do the marauding, 
 murderous, lawless Filipinos of to-day — no more, no less. 
 
 "CONSENT OF THE GOA EKNED." 
 
 The Kansas City platform gravely and reverently refers to the 
 Declaration of Independence and the flag; declares "that any govern- 
 ment not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyrrany;" further, 
 "that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute 
 the methods of imperialism for those of a republic," and still further, 
 that "the Constitution follows the flag." 
 
 It is easy to understand how and why a zealous, enthusiast— a 
 self-constituted "man of destiny"— like Col. Bryan, may read, and 
 //z/«/^ he believes, that platform; but it must strain the philosophy of 
 level headed statesmen, like former Governor Willian J. Stone, to read 
 without smiling, either the Kansas City platform or that other glitter- 
 ing structure without a foundation— Bryan's Indianapolis notification 
 speech. 
 
 \n drafting that platform and cramming it down the throat of that 
 Convention, however. Colonel Bryan overlooked the lazv: That from 
 the formation of our government, the people of all our territories have 
 been legally governed by F'resident and Congress without their "con- 
 sent;" also the law: That Virginia ceded and the government accepted 
 the Northwest territory upon the condition that it should be formed 
 into States "and admitted into the Federal Union" with the same 
 rights as other States; that under the Louisiana, Florida and Mexico 
 treaties, "tlie inhabitants" of these ceded territories were to be "incor- 
 porated in the Union," and were guaranteed all the rights, privileges 
 and immunities of "citizens" of the United States; that no such rights 
 were guaranteed to "the inhabitants" of the territories ceded by 
 Russia (1867), nor Spain (1898), but on the contrary, by the express 
 terms of the latter, "The civil rights and political status of the native 
 inhabitants * * * s//a// be determined by Congress." 
 
 Not only is the law so overlooked, but the distinguished orator 
 who made that platform ignored the following well known historical 
 
 That the government of the United States bas never either asked or 
 received the "consent" of the inhabitants of any single territory, to the 
 new o-overnment which we imposed upon them; 
 
 That from the day of Washington to that of McKinley, all con- 
 quered or ceded territory has always been lawfully governed first by 
 the military, under the orders of the President as Commander in 
 Chief, until a local civil territorial government was established by the 
 Congress; and second, by the Congress from the date of such civil ter- 
 ritorial government until a State government was established. 
 
 The examples of these propositions are, first: That the Louisiana 
 Purchase, under Jefferson; the Florida cession, under Monroe; and the 
 
 20 
 
Mexican conquest and cession under Polk — all good Democrats in 
 their day — were controlled and governed by the military until civil 
 territorial governments were established in Louisiana and Florida, and 
 in California until it was made a State; and that in the first two, es- 
 pecially, the despotism of Spanish laws and customs was enforced by 
 our own officers. 
 
 But it is most curious in this connection to note that although from 
 1804 to 1818 civil laws were provided for the entire Louisiana Pur- 
 chase, yet as a matter of historcal fact, all that part of the Purchase 
 lying north of the now south line of Kansas, northward to the British 
 possessions, and west of Missouri to the crest of the Rocky mountains, 
 was wholly without local civil government of any kind from the date 
 of the Purchase up to the time that vast stretch of country was carved 
 up into territories, beginning with Kansas and Nebraska in 1854. The 
 result was that all this part of the Purchase, now cut up into many 
 States, was governed and controlled b\' the military for more than 
 fifty years. 
 
 Now, it it be "imperialism" and "militarism" for President Mc- 
 Kinley to govern the Philippines under a treaty ceding these Islands 
 and making them the property of the United States, and which expressly 
 provides that the "civil and political status" of the inhabitants ''shall 
 be determined by Congress," then what colossal crimes must have 
 been perpetrated by the Democratic Presidents, Jefferson, Monroe 
 and Polk, in governing, in precisely the same way, the Louisiana Pur- 
 chase, Florida and California, respectively, under treaties which ex- 
 pressly guaranteed to the inhabitants of those territories "all the 
 rights, privileges and immunities oi citiiens of the United States." 
 
 Again, at the dates of the Louisiana, Florida and Mexican treaties, 
 at least 90 per cent of the "inhabitants" of those territories, so guar- 
 anteed, the rights of citizenship, were copper-colored Indians, and the 
 same was true of the inhabitants of Alaska. Yet our Indians have 
 never been, and to-day are not citizens (3 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law., 
 245-6). Thousands of them, of both full and mixed bloods, are edu- 
 cated, intelligent and well disposed; yet the American tribal Indian to- 
 day cannot even make a valad contract of any kind without the con- 
 sent of the government. As to our Indians, the government has never 
 been, nor is it now, "based upon the consent of the governed," and as 
 to them it is, according to this platform, "a tyranny," "imperialism," 
 "militarism!" Yet our government has pursued this same Indian 
 policy for more than a century and still lives! 
 
 Our soldier boys are to-day fighting the Filipinos just as our / 
 
 soldier boys in the past fought the Indians, Mexicans and outlaws of 
 earlier purchased and ceded territories, and for the same purpose — to 
 restore peace and establish law and order. They will do it. No one 
 who knows both races will assert that the Filipino masses are'higher in 
 the scale of civilization, or better fitted for self-government or citizen- 
 ship than are our American Indians or Southern negroes. In discuss- 
 ing, with tears in eyes and voice, the wrongs of "the dear, little, 
 brown-faced Filipinos," this suggestion is respectfully made to the 
 Bryan spell-binder: 
 
 "Absent thee from felicity awhile 
 And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain 
 
 And tell" the story of the copper-colored American Indian and then the story 
 of the black-skinned American r/7/,vw of North Carolina. 
 
 21 
 
PAKIS TKEATY BEYOND ATTACK. 
 
 The Paris treaty (1898) is now not only an established fact, the 
 solemn, lawful act and deed of two great nations, but upon its ratifica- 
 tion became, and still is, a part of the "supreme law of the land." As 
 such, it binds people and President alike, and ?nust be obeyed and 
 executed by the President, for the Constitution makes it his sworn 
 duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The time 
 to have attacked that treaty was before its ratification. Once ratified, 
 however, it is as far beyond and above attack as the Constitution itself, 
 and the Constitution makes it so. 
 
 TWO PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW. 
 
 No two presumptions are more firmly established in our juris- 
 prudence than that "every one is presumed to know the law," and "to 
 intend the natural and probable consequence of his acts." 
 
 Whilst the Paris treaty was pending before the Senate, and still 
 the subject of attack, Colonel Bryan felt called upon to, and did, go on 
 to Washington, and there urged Senators, both Populist and Demo- 
 cratic, to vote for its ratification. He then knew, or is presumed to 
 have known, that if and when ratified that treaty would become "the 
 supreme law of the land," and that every law-abiding American citizen 
 was bound to observe and obey its terms equally with the Constitu- 
 tion; and that after its ratification, it would be the duty of the Presi- 
 dent to exercise his constitutional authority and govern and control the 
 territory and people in question until the Congress should otherwise 
 provide, just as his Democratic predecessors had always governed and 
 controlled other ceded territories and the people therein. 
 
 Under and in consequence of Bryan's fervid and eloquent appeals, 
 certain Populist and Democratic Senators voted for ratification, as did 
 also certain Republican Senators, whilst Senators of each of the three 
 political parties voted against it. So that for the ratification of that 
 treaty the people are alike indebted to the three political parties; but 
 to no one American citizen, aside from President McKinley, are they so 
 greatly indebted as to William Jennings Bryan. 
 
 in his attacks upon this treaty and upon the usual, proper and 
 lawful methods employed by the President in carrying it into effect, 
 Colonel Bryan's present position is not only diametrically opposed to 
 his former position, but he places himself in the attitude of direct an- 
 tagonism to, and in open violation of, "the supreme law of the land." 
 
 To Colonel Bryan's two inconsistent positions, the citizen may 
 well apply the two presumptions of law which 1 have quoted, and ask: 
 Why this change of front? Was he dealing fairly and honestly in so 
 urging ratification? Was he mistaken then, or is he now mistaken? 
 Which? The people will answer at the polls. 
 
 "HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF." 
 
 The Bryan party, unmindful of the lessons of history, forgetful of 
 the logic of events, blind to the signs of the times, would haul down 
 and furl the flag, recall our troops, desert territories vast and rich ceded 
 to and now the absolute property of our government, leaving their in- 
 habitants the prey of enemies at home and abroad, and thus disgrace the 
 fair name of American citizen, all on the insane, coyote howl of "Impe- 
 rialism." 
 
 But the world loves, honors and dips its colors to patriotic courage, 
 to progress, success, valor, achievement; cheers on the soldier in the 
 
 29 
 
field of battle, and with profound respect sustains the policy of the- 
 man at the helm, who upholds the honor, bears aloft the flag, guides 
 and controls the destiny of country in time of war. 
 
 It is true that in every crisis through which our country has 
 passed, and from each of which it has emerged with increased national 
 honor and renown, there have always been malcontents, birds of evil 
 omen, who predicted calamities dire unless captain and crew of the 
 ship of state were changed in the battle's heat, and feared to breathe, 
 lest some provision of the Constitution might possibly be violated and 
 the whole fabric of Republican government fall to the ground; yet to 
 the glory and hnnor of American patriotism, it is well to recollect: 
 
 That throughout the Revolution the people sustained Washington 
 and the party back of him; that in the War of 1812 it was the same; 
 that in the Mexican war — "one of the most unjust ever waged by a 
 stronger against a weaker nation" — the people loyally stood by the 
 war party; that in the throes of our great civil war, the Democratic 
 National Convention, in 1864, explicitly declared "that after four 
 years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war," the 
 public good, justice and liberty demanded that "immediate efforts be 
 made for a cessation of hostilities." But again the people were loyal 
 to country and war party; the triumphant re-election of Lincoln fol- 
 lowed; there was no "cessation of hostilities" until the old flag again 
 floated free from sea to sea, and then came, as a blessing and a bene- 
 diction even to those who sought to destroy it, the redeemed and 
 restored Union. 
 
 As it has been in other wars, so it will be in this. A great soldier 
 and statesman, summing up a like situation, said: 
 
 " Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is 
 engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or 
 history."— U. S. Grant. 
 
 YOUNG MEN FOR EXPANSION. 
 
 Expansion is progress, development, life; contraction is stagnation, 
 decay, death. No one more keenly realizes this than the ambitious 
 young man who has the courage to do and dare. 
 
 Love of adventure and hope of gain and fame led the young men 
 of America, over an hundred years ago, into the wilds of the North-west 
 Territory, where now stand the great States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 
 Michigan and Wisconsin, with their teeming millions of happy and 
 proseprous people. The same high incentive, during the century upon 
 which the sun eternal will soon go down, called the young men of 
 courage, faith and hope from the more densely populated parts of our 
 country, first to wildernesses of the Louisiana Purchase and later into 
 trackless forests and vast mountains and plains of every territory since 
 acquired, and behold the results: The tremendous energy, sterling 
 worth and rare courage of our young men have made all our past ac- 
 quisitions what they are to-day. The young men have subdued the 
 savage and the lawless, have also subdued the soil and made it blos- 
 som as a rose; have given liberty and freedom to peoples and great- 
 ness and glory to our country. In view of the past, who can doubt 
 that the young men of to-day — God bless th^in, for upon their shoul- 
 ders must soon rest the future of the Republic — will prove themselves 
 worthy sons of courageous and patriotic sires, and, actuated by the 
 same high resolves, will in the years to come conquer a peace, restore 
 law and order, cultivate the soil, rule and govern in all these new pos- 
 sessions as their ancestors have done in the others. Who, at the 
 
 23 
 
dates of their acquisition, could have foreseen the possibilities 'of the 
 North-west Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, California, Alaska? 
 No one then on earth. Yet take all these possessions from the United 
 States to-day and what Nation of earth would honor the flag, or fear 
 the prowess of the remainder? None, worth mentioning. Who can 
 now lift the veil and see and comprehend the possibilities vast of Porto 
 Rico, Cuba, the Philippines and our other late accessions, in the years 
 that yet shall be? No one now on earth. 
 
 The hopeful, ambitious, patriotic young American citizen of to- 
 day, with rich red blood in his veins, stands for progress and development, 
 is a born expansionist, and only asks that the same opportunities be 
 afforded him in our new possessions that his ancestors had in the old. 
 That this ambition will be gratified now seems certain. 
 
 hi every crisis of the past, with characteristic American wisdom, 
 courage and patriotism, the people have performed every duty and will 
 again do so in this. They know that these Islands are ours in fact 
 and in law; know that the question is not what should have been done 
 before the ratificatian of the Paris treaty, but what should be done 
 now and hereafter with Islands and people; know that we must either, 
 like a nation of cowards, surrender our property in these Islands and 
 relinquish our rights over the inhabitants, leaving them to their fate; 
 or, as a nation of honorable owners of the soil and lawful rulers of the 
 inhabitants, govern and control both as best we may until the Con- 
 gress — the only authority — shall say what shall be done and how. 
 
 However you may feel about it, to me it seems that, honoring and 
 revering the Constitution which they made, loving the flag as the sym- 
 bol of the honor, the dignity and the power of their common country, 
 the people — the source of power and justice; the people, the only sov- 
 ereign in this fair land of ours — are little concerned whether techni- 
 cally, the flag follows the Constitution or the Constitution follows the 
 flag, but standing, as they have always stood, in their majesty and 
 might, for both Constitution and flag, they will insist upon holding 
 and governing Islands and peoples. 
 
 In the course of an address delivered out at Fairmount Park on 
 July 2, 1898, I said: 
 
 "Mourning for our brave boys already dead, with an endless pity for others 
 for whom the fate of war will soon sound the last tattoo, including the dear boys 
 who fell on yesterday and those who are falling to-day on the bloody field of San- 
 tiago, yet from the Isles of ancient Leon and Castile, from the Canaries to the 
 Philippines, 
 
 ' * * * Fortunate Isles 
 
 Where falls no winter's snow, 
 
 Where palm trees wave in endless spring, 
 
 And birds sing, and balmy west winds blow' — 
 
 there is coming to us on the soft summer air the first faint notes of a song of hope 
 that will yet swell to a grand chorus of praise and triumph and soften our grief for our 
 nation's dead, it may be still far away, this dream of peace for the opprJ'Ssed and 
 power and glory and dominion for the United States, but it will yet be realized and 
 the heritage will belong to all the people of Greater America. 
 
 That this war will result in planting the stars and stripes upon all these 
 Spanish Isles no one doubts, and once there, 'Old Glory' is there to stay." 
 
 Study and reflection have alike tended to strengthen the senti- 
 ments then expressed. I believed then, and still believe, that as 
 brains, courage and patriotism, linked with a faith sublime in the future 
 of the Repubhc, had won in other troublous times, so they would win 
 in this. 1 believed then, and still do, in the rugged, stalwart loyalty 
 of the people to flag and country, as well as in the strong, courageous 
 
 24 
 
and sagacious administration of that American of Americans — William 
 McKlnley. 
 
 The cry of "imperialism" may affright weakly, timorous souls, 
 but these have never either made or controlled the destinies of any 
 nation of freemen, nor will they. Knowing that under our form of 
 government nothing short of a majority of all the people can ever 
 become imperialist, the wail of "imperialism" has no terrors for the 
 descendants of the heroes of Bunker Hill, Valley Forge and Yorktown, 
 nor for the survivors of the mighty armies that fought under Grant 
 and Lee in the Wilderness, under Sherman and Johnston in the south- 
 west, nor for our brave boys who from amid the thunders of Santiago 
 and Manila Bay wrested victories so splendid and far-reaching in effect 
 as to place at the head of the column of the Nations of earth our 
 beloved United States of America. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 814 2