"-;_
~'; ib8""s"""B"
I -n*i
a4
~"
ia,-~- pi:
 ~~


I




fi -
j








i




f                  I
|      1 v           -: 
I J; I


A


Year's


Progress


Annual Address
BY


MOORFIELD


STOREY


President of the Anti-Imperialist League
AT THE


ELEVENTH


ANNUAL


MEETING


NOVEMBER 30,


1909


PUBLISHED BY
THE   ANTI-IMPERIALIST


LEAGUE


20 CENTRAL STREET, BOSTON




I3 I
r      And 1  I
a uli*
/~ ntA




/<,.f  b*  } *  *  22; '  r  -.  -
A YEAR'S PROGRESS
Ladies and Gentlemen, Members, of the Anti-Imperialist
League:
Again we meet to pledge our unwavering support to the cause
of human freedom: to insist that Lincoln was right when he
said, "No man is good enough to govern another without that
other's consent. I say that this is the leading principle, the sheet
anchor of American Republicanism"; and to declare that any
policy inconsistent with this principle is absolutely and always
wrong; to consider how our cause has fared during the year that
has passed, and what are its prospects in: the future-these are
the questions which we naturally ask ai each annual meeting,
and to these I will address myself today.
Before we pass to consider the political situation, it is proper
that I should remind you of the gaps which the year has made
in our ranks. General Palmer, Dean Currier of the University
of Iowa, Dana Estes, Mrs. Pickering, David Ferris, Dr. Huntington, have been with us from the beginning, and have contributed most generously in time, thought and money to our
cause, aad in losing them we have lost friends whose places it
will not be easy to fill. General Palmer and Mr. Estes have
been most active in the contest, and with Mrs. Pickering have
been most liberal contributors to our treasury. Their help will
be sorely missed. Dr. Iuntington has represented us bravely
and well in a community where his example and his voice were
very potent, and where we have needed his aid. Dlean Currier's
active work in the West and his cheerful confidence were of the
greatest importance, and Mr. Ferris's abiding faith in the triumph of justice was a constant inspiration. It is no disparagement of the others to say that the death of William Lloyd
Garrison takes from our side a friend upon whom we had all
learned to lean in every emergency, and for whom we felt a
peculiar affection. Hle was fortunate in his birth, for he inherited the keenest moral instinct, the most perfect courage, the


8




most implicit faith in the right. No man ever had a whiter
soul, no one saw more clearly, no man devoted himself with
more absolute unselfishness to patriotic service than he. We
find it hard to realize that his voice is stilled forever, and we
must always regret that, less happy than his father, he did not
live to see the triumph of the cause which he had so much at
heart, and for which he labored so long and so well.
In warfare, however, whether physical or moral, we pause
to commemorate the dead, but must turn to the battle again.
The year that has passed has been a year of great advance. We
stand for the right of every people to rule itself, and to have no
government imposed upon it without its consent. All over the
world this principle is gaining ground. The Sultan of Turkey
and the Shah of Persia, the most conspicuous relics of imperialism, have been driven from their thrones, and both Turkey and
Persia now have a constitution, as yet of course imperfect, but
a long step towards freedom.  China is fermenting and the
trend of events is clear, though we are not fully informed as
to processes. In Russia the legislature of Finland has asserted
against the Tsar the right of the people to tax themselves, and
the outcome of the struggle is not yet. In Germany the Reichstag has refused to vote the taxes which the Emperor desired,
and he is afraid to dissolve it lest a new election should give
him  a more intractable legislature.  England faces a crisis
greater than she has known since 1832 because the House of
Lords questions the absolute right of the Commons to determine how taxes shall be imposed, and every impartial observer
feels that the struggle cannot end till the' right of the Commons
is secured, and the hereditary privileges of the nobility are
largely curtailed if not entirely destroyed. In Spain and France
the power of the people grows every day stronger, and privilege,
religious or political, is losing ground.
Wherever we look, whether in Europe or Asia, the tide of
freedom is rising. In 1901, Meredith Townsend could say in
the introduction to "Asia and Europe," "it is evident to me
that the white races under the pressure of an entirely new impulse are about to renew their periodic attempt to conquer or
at least to dominate" Asia. That impulse died when the Russian fleet sank under the guns of Togo, and Port Arthur
surrendered to Japan. The conquest of Asia is abandoned
forever.
There is one country in the, world whose progress we must


4




watch with peculiar interest, and that is India. Our opponents
constantly cite the results of English rule over the Indian
people as a proof that one people can govern another with advantage to the subject nation. President Roosevelt, with his
strong but misguided taste for superlatives, spoke of it in substance as the most conspicuous instance in history of successful
colonial administration. lie and those who share his views are
either ignorant themselves or presume on the ignorance of their
hearers. Let me quote a few words from English witnesses who
certainly were not prejudiced against their country.
In 1757, when Plassy made the East India Company masters
of Bengal, Clive described it as a country of "inexhaustible
riches" that could not fail to make the East India Company
"the richest corporation in the world." About one hundred and
fifty years later, in 1905, Sir Frederick Treves, the surgeon to
the King, thus described what he saw:
"Possibly the first impression of India which succeeds the
realization of the strangeness of all things, is an impression of
teeming life!-of the unwonted number of living beings, human
and animal, who crowd the land. The country would seem to
be overrun by a multitude of men, women and children, all of
about the same degree, a little below the most meagre comfort.
and a little above the nearest reach of starvation. They crowd
everywhere over the length and breadth of the Peninsular, for
they number two hundred and ninety millions."
"These are some of the great hordes who provide in their lean
bodies victims for the yearly sacrifices to cholera, famine and
plague. Plague will slay 20,000 in a week. Cholera will destroy ten times that number in a year, and the famine of one
well-remembered time accounted for five and a quarter millions
of dead people."
"A further impression which soon possesses the traveller in
India is that of the melancholy which hangs over both the land
and its people... Sadder than the country are the common people of it. They are lean and weary looking, their
clothing is scanty, they all seem poor, and 'toiling for leave to
live!' They talk little and laugh less. Indeed a smile, except
on the face of a child, is uncommon. They tramp along in the
dust with little apparent object other than to tramp.
vivacious they are not, energetic they are not, nor are they
either hearty or brisk. They appear feeble and depressed."
To this pass had a country of "inexhaustible riches" been


5




reduced.
These people are melancholy because they are almost starving.
When Sir Frederick wrote he said "no less than 17,000 men and
women are dying of plague in India every week" and plague is
a concomitant of famine which attacks those whose vitality is
reduced. Lord George Hamilton, late Secretary for India, said
that these famines are famines of money, not of food. The
people starve not because their country fails to produce food,
but because they are too poor to buy it.
Sir William Wedderburn, an Englishman familiar with India
since 1859 in many capacities, said in 1905:
"Thus the admnistration year by year becomes more out of
touch with the people, and the natural consequences follow,
ruinous public expenditure with crushing taxation, the educated classes disheartened and alienated, and chronic and increasing destitution among the masses of the people. With a
fertile soil, a fine climate, and labor cheap, skilful and abundant
India might be and ought to be a garden of plenty. Instead of
that the vast rural population are constantly on the verge of
starvation. So destitute are they of any reserve, whether of
food, money or credit, that the failure of one harvest causes
countless deaths by famine with the consequent fevers, cholera
and plague among the exhausted survivors. The great majority
of the peasantry not only possess nothing, but much less than
nothing, being hopelessly in debt to the village money lender.
These facts are patent: But they are denied by the official
authorities who persist in saying that the peasantry are lightly
taxed, that they are increasing in prosperity, and that to use
the phrase of Sir Henry Fowler, late Secretary of State for
India, 'they are enjoying the unspeakable blessings of English
mrle.' "
I will close my English testimony with the words of John
Bright:: "I must say that it is my belief that if a country be
found possessing a most fertile soil, and capable of bearing
every variety of production, and that notwithstanding the people are in a state of extreme destitution and suffering, the
chances are that there is some fundamental error in the government of the country."
Is it wvonderful that the patient people of India have tired
of their "unspeakable blessings" and have shown a deep sense
of rinding oppression, which has driven the English government to admit more representatives of the Indian people to a


6




voice in the councils of the government though not to any real
control over their destinies.  This final step is delayed, for
privilege dies hard, but the thin end of the wedge has been inserted, and its further progress cannot long be stayed.
I have cited this testimony as to India because it is said that
the success of English rule in that country has justified our
experiment.  What a success!   290,000,000 of people who
never smile, a large majority of whom are always on the verge
of starvation, poor, sick and hopeless, while the rulers talk of
the "unspeakable blessings" which they have conferred upon
their subjects. This is always the attitude of the ruler, be he
Mayor Fitzgerald, Speaker Cannon, the Tsar of Russia, or
the colonial governor,-his administration is always successful,
his power always wisely used for the good of the people. Their
statements share the weakness of all self-praise. The governed
are better judges, and their testimony is very different.
While the principles upon which the government of this
country was founded are steadily making their way wherever
absolute power exists abroad, it; is strange to find them questioned and denied at home, in the land which first announced
and applied them, in the country which has been proud of them
for four generations. It is strange, indeed, that the United
States, which has so long led men to freedom, should now
abandon her leadership and lag behind. It is stranger yet that
a Republican, who sits in Lincoln's seat, should repudiate the
principles for which Lincoln stood, and which the Republican
party was founded to maintain.      President Taft asserts
that it is right for us to hold the Philippine Islands, and govern
the Filipinos as our subjects until such time as we choose to
give them their independence, which time he hopes will never
come, because he hopes that before it does they will become contented with our rule.  In brief he believes that one man is
"good enough to govern another without that other's consent."
It is interesting to observe how unerring was Lincoln's
prophetic instinct. Let mle recall his words:  "The assertion
that 'all men are created equal' was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain, and it was placed in the
Declaration not for that but for future use. Its authors meant
it to be-as, thank God, it is now proving itself-a stumbling
block to all those who in after times might seek to turn a free
people back into the hateful paths of despotism."  Mr. Taft
finds this stumbling block in his path. At one time he says:


T




"To make the terms of the Declaration of Independence apply
equally to the Filipinos as to the American colonists is to be
blind to the plainest facts and to sacrifice truth to an impossible
dogma and a rhetorical phrase." Last July, almost on the anniversary of our independence, he said that the Declaration is so
construed by some as to make it mean "that any body of men
olr children or women are born with the instinct of self-government so that they can frame a government as soon as they
begin to talk."  Even Douglas, in his great debate with
Lincoln, did not stumble as badly as this, or misrepresent so
absurdly the position of his opponent. Professor Burke,
who is one of the President's disciples and a strong advocate
of American rule in the Philippines, also stumbled when he
said, at Lake Mohonk a month or so ago, that the Declaration
of Independence was a campaign document which effected its
purpose in the liberation of the colonies and ceased thereafter
to have any practical bearing upon the development of American history. Has this professor never heard of Lincoln, nor
read his speeches? Lincoln says that the words on which we
rely were of no use "in effecting our separation from Great
Britain, and were placed in the Declaration 'for future use.'"
Burke calls that immortal declaration "a campaign document,"
while Mr. Taft terms its statement of political principle
"an impossible dogma and a rhetorical phrase."  What a reflection on our people who for more than a century have revered
this "campaign document," have had its "impossible dogmas"
read with solemn reverence on,each anniversary of its publication. What an insult to the intelligence of Lincoln, who, at
Independence ETall, said: "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring with the sentiments embodied in the
Declaration of Independence".... "that sentiment"
"which gave liberty not alone to the people of this
country, but hope to all the world for all future time." When
we read the replies of Douglas to Lincoln we find him expressing the same views of the Declaration that Mr. Taft now adopts.
The reason in both cases is bad. The stumbling block was the
same. "Self-evident truths," like the ten commandments, "will
not budge."  They are awkward enemies, not to be overcome
by misrepresentation or abuse. We can well afford to take our
stand upon these truths with Washington, Adams, Jefferson,
Lincoln and those who thought with them, in perfect faith
that as surely as these truths destroyed slavery, supported


8




though it was by every strong material interest in the country,
so surely will they in the fulness of time prove fatal to any
government of a people against its consent. They will emerge
triumphant from  their eclipse, and will be maiintained and
revered when those who now belittle or despise them   have
shared the fate of Douglas.
It is not surprising,that, with his views, President Taft has
not shown himself favorable to popular liberty. We could wish
that he would spare the time from his warfare against the great
combinations of capital, which threaten the industrial and
political freedom of the people, to instruct the able lawyers
whom he has called into the service of the United States to
attack and undo the work of the great combination which has
disfranchised the colored people of the South in avowed violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, and we may hope that their
wrongs will yet be redressed.  We realize, however, that he
who denies to brown people the right to govern themselves in
their own country may find it difficult to assert the right of
black people to govern or help to govern us in the United
Sltates, and again we recognize the wisdom of Lincoln as we
recall his words:  'rThose who deny freedom to others deserve
it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain
it."
In Porto Rico the power of the people has been curtailed,
because in President Taft's judgment they did not use it
wisely. The Porto Ricans are not what the Anglo Saxon likes
to call an inferior race. The men from whom the power has
been taken are Caucasians, Spaniards and the descendants of
Spaniards, the race that once conquered and ruled a large part
of the world, a race of great statesmen, soldiers and sailors.
The words of an American newspaper states the case accurately.
"Mr. Taft thinks that the Porto Eicans are not worthy of
self-government because the lower house of the Porto Rican
legislature-the only body representing the Porto     Rican
people-has refused to vote appropriations as a protest against
the course of the upper house, an appointive and unrepresentative body, in refusing to sanction legislation demanded by the
people. It may be that the Porto Ricans are incapable of selfgovernment, but their refusal to vote supplies for the representatives of the Washington crown does not necessarily establish
their unfitness-indeed, it suggests that they may be eminently
fit to exercise the power. For it is the power that the lower


9




house is expected to use in an emergency to force obedience to
the people,'s will. That is the only value that attaches to the
control of the purse. It is a power that has made the. House
of Commons the dominating factor in the British government
If our own House of Representatives had exercised
the power that has been conferred upon it by the Constitution,
if it had acted as the traditions of Anglo-Saxon government
demanded that it should act, it would not now find itself reduced to the impotent, characterless and contemptible place that
it occupies in our scheme of government."
Years ago; when    the government of Porto     Rico was
established, President McKinley thus described it:
"Congress has given to this island a government in which
the inhabitants participate-elect their own legislature, enact
their own laws, provide their own system of taxation, and in
tthese respects have the same power and privileges enjoyed by
other territories belonging to the United States. The generous
treatment of the Porto Ricans accords with the most liberal
thought of our own country, and encourages the best aspirations of the people of the island."
I took occasion at the time to point out how misleading this
statement was in every essential particular, and that the Porto
Ricans were left wxith no constitutional rights and at the mercy
of Congress. The criticism is now justified. A. power which
is taken away, lwhen it is exercised to secure the objects for
which the power is created, is of little value.
Mr. Taft acts upon the assumption that tile Porto Ricans
cannot be trusted to govern themselves, that the unanimous
IHc,use of Delegates was of necessity wrong if it differed from
the representatives of the United States as to questions affecting
the people, whom the Delegates represented and the American
officials did not. It is interesting to quote in this connection the
testimony of an American who has given nmch study to Porto
Rican questions and who began as a warm advocate of our rule.
In a letter published in the Transcript cn July 3, Mr. George
Marvin says:
"Today, after ten years of American rule, it (Porto Rico) is
neither a contented nor a prosperous communnity."
"Since the beginning of American rule just as there has
never been any attempt to restore sound economic conditions
to the island, so also has there never been any sustained
or general attempt on the part of American officials or residents


10




to understand and meet the Porto Rican people... Fiew
Americans in Porto Rico have taken the pains to master the
Spanish language, and have therefore barred themselves from
communication with the native people and from that degree of
mutual understanding which the use of a common tongue may
bring. In a majority of instances, it must be said, the manner
and bearing of resident and visiting Americans have been at
least indifferent, often overbearing or contemptuous.  From
the days when the soldiers kicked them literally out of the way
on the side walks to the present time of executive kick, the
Plorto Rican people have always cherished a grievance and
nursed a blighted hope, which are not due to racial differences
merely."
HIe points out the economical mistakes that have been made
and suggests remedies, but. says that today "a feeling of hatred
and hostility to constituted authority is growing," that "the
feeling of the people who have fared less well under American
than under Spanish rule is the ember of what might, under
other conditions, glare up into open violence," and falls back
upon the ultimate reason of the conditions in these words:
"Back of all other reasons for the partial failure of this first
experiment in dependent administration lies the popular indifference and ignorance in this country regarding the island
and its interests."
In a word, having proved that we are unable to govern the
island well for the reason that our people neither know nor
care what its interests require, we conclude with entire complacency that the people cannot govern themselves. We are
conferring "the inestimablel blessings" of our rule, and they
are such fools as not to know when they are well off. India
and Porto Rico, Hindoo and Spaniard alike are blind to their
interests, alike are incapable of understanding their own needs.
Wrapped up in our own conceit, we think that without
knowledge or interest in their fate we can govern a people
better than they govern themselves.  Does this seem like a
truth when weighed against the truths of the Declaration?
Are we likely to grow more competent to govern, to become
less ignorant or indifferent? Certainly not till we realize that
we are not governing well. We shall not cure our troubles till
we see that they exist, and indeed what hope is there that a
people will govern others wisely who cannot govern themselves, who do not care enough for their own interests to make


11




a Tammany Hall in New York, a Quay and a Penrose in
Pennsylvania, a Fitzgerald in Boston, or a Cox in Cincinnati
impossible; who are content to be plundered by dishonest men
in every city and state, who submit to the organized robbery of
an Aldrich tariff, and who maintain for years in their own commercial metropolis a machine for collecting the tariff taxes
which is not only honeycombed with dishonesty, but which has
debauched the conscience of that great mercantile community.
The people of Alaska also find in Mr. Taft's utterances a
note of discouragement, though their territory stands as did
the rest of our territory on this continent, except that it is not
contiguous. The American residents, however, may safely be
trusted to assert their rights when their numbers justify a
change in their form of government, and we note Mr. Taft's
attitude only as an indication of his opinions, not because we
need concern ourselves with the future of Alaska.
In the Philippines the situation has not changed. The voters
of the island at the recent election have expressed again even
more decidedly their desire for immediate independence, and
the late Governor General has pointed out with regret "the
growing gulf between the two peoples," saying that "an era
of ill feeling has started between Americans and Filipinos, and,
I hesitate to say it, 'race hatred.' " This is no new thing. Six
years ago his predecessor, Mr. Taft, spoke of it on leaving the
islands, pointed out the causes of it. and said: "Were I assured
that the present attitude of the majority of American merchants
and the American press would be permanent, and if I did not
confidently hope that there must be a great change in the
future, I should be very much discouraged in respect to the result of the experiment which the United States is making in
these islands."
Our Secretary, Mr. Winslow, in his admirable article in the
North American IReview, published earlier in the year, has
stated the argunent on this point very clearly, and I will not
repeat it. Mr. Taft is not discouraged now by what disturbed
him then, thlouh conditions are going from bad to worse; but
whby should he expect improvement?   No student of human
nature should be blind to the "self-evident truth" that, since the
only ground on which we justify holding the islands is the fact
that we are a superior and they an inferior people, the Americans will assert that superiority and make it felt in a thousand
ways that are inexpressibly galling. They will bear themselves


12




in the Philippines as they have in Porto Rico, and with the
same results. A people which has robbed and nearly exterminated the Indians, which is disfranchising, lynching, and
abusing its colored fellow-citizens at home, is from its very
experience with colored races incapable of treating colored
men as equals.  MIr. Taft's hope is Utopian.  The gulf between the races has never been bridged in India, and never will
be in the Philippines.
For the fifth time in ten years the Filipinos have a new
Governor, Cameron Forbes. I have known him from his infancy, and I am glad to bear my cordial testimony in his favor.
He is able, conscientious, unselfish, thoroughly convinced that
our government of the Filipinos is justified, determined to make
it a blessing to them, and willing to spend himself in every
way to accomplish this purpose. IHe is an untiring worker and
an admirable man. If the policy of our government is right,
no better man to administer it could be found in our country.
I-e is as sincere in his belief as we are in ours, and if we oppose
and criticize him, it is not on personal grounds but because: he
represents a policy which we believe to be wrong; because he
is engaged in a hopeless undertaking.
From the report of his inaugural address, telegraphed from
Manila on November 24, it appears that "improvement in the
material conditions of the islands and the people was the keynote"' of his speech. "He dedicated his administration to the
advancement of the people and country, and declared that the
country's greatest need was capital." He is quoted as speaking
thus:
"Capital demands a stable government.     Capital is not
particularly interested in the color or design of the flag; it
wants just and equitable laws, sound and uniform policy on the
part of the Government, just and fair treatment in the courts.
lThe faith of the United States is pledged that all of these benefits shall be permanently assured to the Filipinos. No capitalist
need feel alarmed as to the security of his investment, provided
it has been made in such a way as to fulfill the conditions imposed by law. The United States stands pledged to the establishment and maintenance of a stable government in the Philippine Islands; not for the sake of capital which may be invested
there, but for the sake of the welfare of the Philippine people
and the faith of the United States before the world.  The
security of foreign capital is merely an incident in the general


1.




security of property rights to the Filipino, but both are now
permanently assured.
"There is not on the horizon discernible any cloud which
indicates the possibility of any kind of disturbance in the
present status of these islands, either from within or without,
by war or insurrection.  The United States is strong, determined, fixed in her policy and not to be dissuaded or coerced.
The development of the Philippines will proceed along the lines
originally set forth, strictly adhered to by each successive administration and by the gradual process in line of declared
policy-not by spasms or jerks. I am opposed to the admission
of Chinese labors Filipinos can do all the necessary work here.i properly paid and properly treated. The Government should
oilfer every reasonable inducement to capital and should make
more liberal the Jand and mining laws and lessen the restrictions which are at present discouraging investors."
In a word, he speaks as if this country proposed to hold the
islands indefinitely, and his desire is to introduce capital from
sources foreign to the Philippines, and so crelate material
prosperity. His ideal is that of many in his generation, but it
is absolutely opposed to the principles for which we stand. lie
would induce Americans and others to invest in the islands, and
to assure them that their investments will be protected by the
continuance of American control. No human being can give
them that assurance. The millions of dollars invested in slaves
and slave property, the millions which slave-holders owed to
northern merchants, the business and social ties which bound
North as well as South to the maintenance of slavery, the
political hopes and interests which were founded upon it were
but as dust in the balance against the irresistible demands of
human freedom. We who are today resisting the policy which
Mr. Forbes advocates are apparently an insignificant minority.
He represents the administration backed by the whole power of
the United States. We are nothing in this contest; but were
we all to die today our cause would not he lost. Upon our side
are the moral and economical forces which destroyed slavery,
the forces which will overthrow Einglish domination in India,
the forces which enabled France to conquer Europe, the love of
justice, the love of freedom, the "self-evident truths" of the
Declaration, the conscience of the American people, and no
barrier that capital can erect will withstand these.
Yet we are opposed to his policy because every American


14




dollar which is planted in the Philippines is a rivet in the chain
whichl binds themn to us; it creates an interest hostile to their
independence; it makes the jlustice which we shall ultimately
render them, the separation Vwhich will surely take place, more
difticult and mlore costly.  it is capital which brought on the
Boer War, it is capital which- led to the conquest of India, it is
capital which pushed Russia into the war with Japan, it is
capital which promotes the aggression of stronger upon weaker
peoples, a-nd to the policy of improving the Philippine Islands
by capital from without we are absolutely opposed.
Mri. Forbes,enters his office with high hopes, and we would
gladly see his aspirations realized. We would gladly be proved
wrong in our fears, but we have read history to very little purpose if he is not doomed to inevitable disappointment. It was
a wiser man than any of us, John Stuart Mill, who said that
"such a thing as a government of one people by another does
not and cannot exist.   One people may keep another as a
warren or preserve for its own use, a place to make money in,
a human cattle farm, to be worked for the profits of its own inhabitants, but if the good of the governed is the proper business of a covernment, it is utterly impossible that a people
should directly attend to it."  And, said Froude, "if there be
one lesson which history clearly teaches, it is this, that free
nations cannot govern subject provinces."  Rome, Spain, even
England in India have failed. ITow can we upon the widening
gulf of 'race hatred" in the Philippines hope to rear an endurinf edifice?  -Tow can wee, who cannot protect our own fellowcitizens from lynchling and mob violence even in the northern
states, \who cannot secure to them in half our country the rights
which are o'iven to them bv the Constitution because of race
prejuidice, lhow can we 1hope to deal with race prejudice in
distant islands?
Our people in the Philippines will never be Filipino patriots.
Their love will always be for what th-ev call "GCd's country,"
and for their own race.   The patriotism  of the Filipinos is
fettered and suppressed by foreign rule, and what country can
hope to prosper where there is no room for patriotism.  Mr.
HTobson, the well known English student, describes the policy
\which Mr. Forbes advocates, and though AMr. Forbes will not
now admit that the description is true, in my judgment there
is no escaping it.
Says IIobson:   'Evervwhere in the white administration


15




of these lower races considerations of present order are paramount, and industrial exploitation of the land and labor under
private management for private immediate gain is the chief
operative force in the community, unchecked or inadequately
checked, by imperial or other governmental control." We may
ask in passing, is not the same force deminant at home? If not,
what was the excuse for the so-called Roosevelt. policies?
Mlr. Hobson continues:  "Nowhere under such conditions is
the theory of white government as a trust for civilization made
valid.  Nowhere is there any provision to secure the predominance of the interests either of the world at large, or of the
governed people, over those of the encroaching nation, or more
commonly a section of that nation.  The relations subsisting
between the superior and the inferior nations, commonly
established by pure force and resting on that basis, are such as
preclude the genuine sympathy essential to the operation of
the best civilizing influences, and usually resolve themselves
into the maintenance of external good order, so as to forward
the profitable development of certain national resources of the
land under 'forced' native labor, primarily for the benefit of
white traders and investors, and secondarily for the benefit of
the world of white western customers."
That the policy has not succeeded in our colonies is shown by
the increasing hatred of us felt by Porto Ricans and Filipinos
alike.
Mr. Forbes has a great opportunity. If he uses it to cover
the islands with railroads, high roads, hospitals, and like
material improvements, he will leave behind him a nation only
more embittered against American rule, and in the largest sense
his time will have been worse than wasted. Let us hope that
he will realize how little material benefits like these weigh in
the scale against human liberty,
"For what avail the plough or sail
Or land or life, if freedom fail."
There is that in his blood which must sooner or later tell him
that these words are true.
Let him teach the Filipinos to help themselves with their
own resources, and not with the money of others. Set before
them, as was set before our fathers, "the glorious prospect of
entire independence, and it will breathe into them anew the
breath of life." as it did then. Let them be protected against


16




other invaders by such treaties as preserve the independence of
Holland and Norway from their stronger neighbors. Let him
trust the Filipinos, and by trusting educate them to bear responsibility, and let his be the hands from which they receive
that national independence for which they so earnestly long,
and for which they have suffered so much. Let him do for
them what Governor 2MIagcon has done for the Cubans, who are
no better fitted for self-government than the Filipinos, and he
will win the enduring gratitude not only of the people whose
liberty he secures, but also of his own people, who have
long wearied of the Philippine enterprise, and whose consciences would be much easier if this burden were removed.
In the hall of fame the emancipator must always stand
higher than the conqueror or the administrator, and the
chance to win this supreme title is his.    As his friends,
we urge him to seize this great opportunity, and we but express
the wish of this whole nation, who are praying to be delivered
from "the body of this death."  If Filipinos are fit to be members of the Commrissien, to govern provinces, to fill the highest
judicial offices, they cannot be incapable of self-government.
The signs of progress are everywhere. Thus the New York
Sun, which has never favored our cause, said a few days ago:
"The situation seems to be this:  The Filipinos are ruled
against their will 'for their own good.' The Americans rule
thefi against the will of Americans for the good of the
Filipinos, and to keep rival nations from breaking in. To this
extent American occupation is 'for the good of the Americans.'
Both the subjects and subjectors-who are also objectors-to
the arrangement should contemplate the relation in a philosophic spirit. Each is a discipline to the other for the other's
good."
And statements indicating disgust with the country's position
could be quoted from newspapers of every political faith in all
parts of the country.
An ardent supporter of Mr. Taft's policy, Professor Hart,
writing from the islands, said last sunmmcer:
"If the hope of making big money in the Western Pacific was
the thing that turned the scale in favor of ratifying the treaty
in 1899. the United States was indeed buncoed, for the islands,
though reasonably rich by nature, are no foundation of wealth
either for the natives or the newcomers,"..  "the really
fertile area of level land in the islands is probably not larger than


17




the State of Alabama and not so valuable,".. "whatever wealth there is in' ithe Philippines can be had only by
working for it, or by working still harder in the effort to get
the yellow man to work for the white man,"... "it is
hopeless to look for immigration into the Philippines by any
considerable number of American farmers or mechanics," and
"we must expect that for many years to come few Americans
will go out to settle in the Philippines except government
officials, including the army and navy, missionaries, and
people of the missionary spirit, foremen and superintendents
and business men who have something to invest,"
"the race feeling seems due to the inexorable fact that the
few foreigners are in power, and the many and the native
must obey,"... "it has been hoped that the Philippine
Assembly, by exercising part of the governmental authority
through elected representatives, would heal the breach; that a
sizable majority would be found in that body which would
accept the American government as a fixture, but hardly a member stands for the things that are,"... "there is a
fundamental difficulty here upon which time has little effect;
the possession of some power seems to the Filipino-as it did
to our ancestors in 1776-a reason for claiming more."  Mr.
Hart, moreover, tells us that "the Negro problem here is on the
whole an easier one than the Philippine," and adds: "Here is
the final fallacy of the whole situation. Americans are trying
with the best will in the world to prove to the Filipinos that the
political morals which fit America do not fit those parts of the
outlying world which have become incorporated with America.
There is no logic, and no benefit to those governed which makes
self-government the only conceivable thing on the continent of
America, and a dangerous thing in the islands of the Pacific."
This comes very near the doctrine that we are preaching, and
certainly betrays no enthusiasm for the Philippine adventure.
Let me cite another very recent witness, Dr. George A.
Doirssey, who writes from the islands thus:
"What a farce we are over here, anyway. Our government
of the islands is worthy of, we will say, Nevada. We do not
know what we are trying to do, and we do nolt know how to do
it; especially is our government here not a government of experts. There are somiel good men, but they are in a minority,
and they owe their appointment not to eternal fitness but to fortuitous circumstances.  Our improvements are not com

18




mensurate with the neglect, decay, and indifference which are
to be seen on every hand, and the Filipinos despise us and have
no respect for us.
"The wild tribes are interesting, and the mountains and
valleys of the interior are glorious, but Manila and the whole
fringe of so-called Christian coast is enough to make one sick.
The old flag gains no added luster in flying aloft over the Philippine Islands. We have introduced slovenliness and decay, and
we neither foster native industries nor encourage foreign capital. And each day increases the bitterness between the white
and the brown; and the newspapers in Manila, instead of devoting themselves to the legitimate sphere of a newspaper, carry
on a perpetual cat and dog fight, adding to the bitterness of the
racial hatred.
"Why cannot we let the natives alone? They are the best
agriculturists in the world; they build far better houses than
the Christians, and live a much saner, cleaner, more wholesome
life. What in the name of Abraham Lincoln do they want with
a few stale crumbs of our educational system?
"But what is the use? On this boat is one, just only one,
other white passenger. Hle has been in the civil service in
Manila for four years; he is leaving a $2,200 job to take one
in Canton for $1,500. Hie says '1Manila is no place for a white
man. "
When Senator Lodge can oppose an amendment to the tariff
bill which declared that the bill was not to be construed "as
furthering an intention to incorporate the inhabitants of the
Philippine Islands into citizenship of the United States, nor to
permanently annex said islands as an integral part" of our territory, on the ground that such a declaration had already been
made in 1899, and he did not think it "necessary for the United
States to keep repeating that it is going to keep faith, and thus
exhibit suspicions of its own integrity," we have from him in
effect a promise of independence, since he cannot now say that
no promise was made, nor can he mean to uphold a breach of the
nation's faith.
When the joint army and navy board decide to have no permanent naval station in the Philippines, one strong reason
urged for acquiring and holding the islands disappears. No
longer a coign of vantage, the highest authorities recognize that
they are a weak point in our line.
When Dr. Lyman Abbott, at Lake Mohonk, presents a plat

19




form and Vice President Sherman moves its adoption which
lays down the proposition that "The ultimate end of all just
government is self-government," and concludes with these
words:
"Whatever relationship may be established between America
and her insular possessions in the future, just government must
mean for all peoples under her protection and subject to her
sovereignty, governmlent for the, benefit of the governed now,
that is justice, and eventual self-government which is the consummation of liberty."  We see light in a dark place. Let
Congress adopt these words, proposed by    one of those
who have been foremost in defending the conquest of the
Philippines, and adopted by the Vice President of the
United States; let them  be incorporated in a joint resolution as a declaration of our purpose, and the Philippine
problen is almost solved. Tell the islanders that some day they
shall govern themselves, and it only remains to fix the day, a
day which we, may all cordially unite to hasten. With both
peoples laboring in co-operation for the same end it could not
be delayed.  This resolution alone would help the Filipinos
more than all the railways, roads, or like public improvements
that we could make in a century. Thus close has time brought
the Anti-Imperial League and Dr. Abbott.
The imperial bubble has broken. The country has awakened
from  the bright dreams of wealth, power and philanthropy
which attended the annexation of the Philippines. It looks
back upon a dark chapter of war against a c  people struggling for
freedom, with its concomitants of blood and torture. It finds
that Porto Rico, after ten years, is unplrosperous and hostile,
while the Filipinos have not abated one jot of their desire for independence, and race hatred between them and the Americans
is growing.  It contemplates without satisfaction what imperialism has cost and what it has brought in return. Worthless except as a moral discipline, which neither Americans nor
Filipinos desire; offering no homes to our people and little prospect to investors; of no value as a naval station, why should
we continue to incur the enormous expense of holding these
islands against their will and fostering the bitter and growing
hatred which our continued possession engenders among their
people. "The man who has a thousand friends has not a friend
to spare. But he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere." The lion may need the friendship of even the mouse.


20




Why not at least try to secure their freedom from foreign
invasion by a neutralization treaty, and then help them  to
govern themselves as we have helped Japan and Cuba, rather
than persist in trampling upon the principles of self-government
by continuing a connection which is odious to both peoples. As
helpers and advisers they may learn to like and trust as, as
rulers never.
The forces upon which we rely are working inexorably
towards the result. There is no room for despair or doubt. Let
the Filipinos steadily persist in demanding the independence
which is their right; let them, by preserving order and using
wisely such power as is granted to them, prove their fitness for
more, and the promise which Mr. Lodge says the nation has
already made will be repeated in terms that cannot be misinterpreted. But whether promised or not, their independence
will come. For ourselves we can only press on till the "selfevident" truths are again recognized by every American, and
our flag wherever it floats is again, in spirit and in truth, "the
flag of the free."


21




I




I




I




BOUND
MA"IR"9  1946
UNJiV OF M CHI.
LIBIARY
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
11II  II 111 1111   III I1111111111 111  III I1
3 9015 04878 4428




-i;
i,.::;. '" —"~'?i::S:-- i.^:-i- -:-:-:i:--i::c:.- '.li:.r:;:laf'-l'~;;`""~~i j:::::-I:I."". —i:C:i:~-,:~ -----. '~. —~.-~'I:: 'yr; -;;-;.';-.; -r;:'';":; —` -:'I: - 'i'l. -i~; ---
r- al~:-: ::::"14igf. lil~l~._.l_;i:~id_ ~ I
I: —;'- - I-~:-:j:_-_::. -.:.-;ir:,-:I:si: :::: -r:~l:_ ---,::: 1:,,:;;:~~i:; —~;~-;;~;~;~~-:--:-:.;-:::::-:;-;;;; —,e
a  ~-
9~'i                                                                                 Ed; ""li4 s~ ,h -C .911
r_J: t:iv5 i ini:;I_BpW"BB.BBs" """aR
"ea'
;1PBi$j8,*aaiag sfssa*"""18lwWal1BB " la""c-;;"RJbl"%SIapa~ i, "
flit~:
1
:d
":liWPsnu41""~"~IlrlillsP*Dar~p ''116Lk~s"ssreaUII~PI`ZPelY~s  PBlsBPlenr~ W_ ip
aui
 ~
g

t-is8aa
-~
i  a88ak
i,;
~:1.3:-"L ~ P
~i
I;
 alffi8g 9feorraaEsspIaF ~
IBBm~:1 $;I B~
r~il
sa
c B;  -~s8ia*raaaEpl8gdlIllBr iElb~i pu
~6-::: -:' ~;:i-:?.~1, f~:-;:L41.::sg
1: 4''~,
i~ 
'-:::: 5: i~' ~~,-1~4
"' : -.':' 'R~:CI;;;;;. —.i:
:L:~_::l:i;,I,,;,,
~;'i' Z:2:i:, ,-_~~~ V' "'-~:..:..,1*i.  ii dUr V:~ *I
rBBYU""1"P"B"g Ill/%llllisiPIIlsrs"$llUIC