s^^-.

./?"^"^

rW

<^

X

ic**" 5«*

I'iSifS

S, -an*

¦ ^

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

NiW HAVEN, CONN.

, TTjpp^v TO Ar-T^c From estate of Wm. G. Sun .e
LIBERTY TRACTS ¦ ¦ « .. w NUMBER FIVE

MR. McKINLEY'S
DECLARATION OF WAR

ALBERT H. TOLMAN

^

CHICAGO:
AMERICAN ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE
JANUARY, I goo

PLATFORM OF THE
AMERICAN ANTI -IMPERIALIST LEAGUE
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends
toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret
that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm
that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is " criminal
aggression " and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in
the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We
deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration
even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a
needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by
Spanish methods.
We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by
Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convened to
announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence for
which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs.
The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international
law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing
state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States
cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.
Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the
Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a
grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of "criminal aggression" in the
Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American
hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home.
The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own
household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to
destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals.
Whether the ruthless slaughter of the Filipinos shall end next month or next
year is but an incident in a contest that must go on until the declaration of
independence and the constitution of the United States are rescued from the hands
of their betrayers. Those who dispute about standards of value while the
foundation of the republic is undermined will be listened to as little as those who
would wrangle about the small economies of the household while the house is on
fire. The training of a great people for a century, the aspiration for liberty of a vast
immigration are forces that will hurl aside those who in the delirium of conquest
seek to destroy the character of our institutions.
We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their government in times
of grave national peril applies to the present situation. If an administration may
with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a
condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for
spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truth-suppressing censorship, and
demand of all citizens a suspension of judgment and their unanimous support while
it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled.
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for
the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for re-election all who in
the white house or in congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American
ends. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend
the declaration of independence in the closing campaign of the century.
We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that " no man is good enough to govern
another man without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself,
that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs another man,
that is more than self-government — that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the
love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which
prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands. Those who deny freedom to
others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
We cordially invite the co-operation of all men and women who remain loyal
to the declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States,
[Adopted by the Chicago-Conference, Oct. 18, 1899.]

MR. McKINLEY'S
DECLARATION OF WAR.*
When an important lawsuit is pending we often hear the phrase
used, " the documents in the case." It happens to be true that just
one important official message was sent to the Filipinos by this gov
ernment previous to the outbreak of hostilities at Manila. This was
theproclamation of President McKinley dated December 21, 1898, and
made public inthis country on January 5, 1899. In form this document
is a letter addressed to the Secretary of War. In transmitting this
letter to General Otis, Adjutant-General Corbin described it as
" instructions of the President relative to the administration of affairs
in the Philippine Islands."
Since this letter, or proclamation, was the sole statement of our
intentions that the Filipinos received before the war broke out, let us
examine it with care as the one important document in the case. I
will print in full the two opening paragraphs :
" Executive Mansion,
"Washington, D. C, December 21, 1898.
"Zb the Secretary of War:
" Sir : The destruction of the Spanish fleet in the harbor of
Manila by the United States naval squadron, commanded by Rear-
Admiral Dewey, followed by the reduction of the city and the sur
render of the Spanish forces, practically effected the conquest of the
Philippine Islands and the suspension of Spanish sovereignty therein.
With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States
and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris on the loth
instant, and as the result of the victories of American arms, the future
control, disposition and government of the Philippine Islands are
ceded to the United States. In fulfilment of the rights of sovereignty
thus acquired, and the responsible obligations of government thus
assumed, the actual occupation and administration of the entire group
of the Philippine Islands becomes immediately necessary, and the
military government heretofore maintained by the United States in
the city, harbor and bay of Manila, is to be extended with all possible
dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory.
" In performing this duty the military commander of the United
States is enjoined to make known to the inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands that in succeeding to the sovereignty of Spain, in severing
the former political relations of the inhabitants and in establishing a
new political power, the authority of the United States is to be exerted
* Paper read at the Chicago Conference, Oct. 17, 1899, revised.
3

for the security of the persons and property of the people of the
islands, and for the confirmation of all their private rights and
relations. It will be the duty of the commander of the forces of
occupation to announce and proclaim in the most public manner that
we come not as invaders or conquerors, but as friends, to protect the
natives in their homes, in their employments and in their personal and
religious rights. All persons who, either by active aid or by
honest submission, co-operate with the government of the United
States to give effect to these beneficent purposes,_will receive the
reward of its support and protection. All others will be brought
within the lawful rule we have assumed, with firmness if need be, but
without severity so far as may be possible."
These words squarely contradict both the Constitution of the
United States and the Declaration of Independence. When Presi
dent McKinley tells us : " With the signature of the treaty of peace
.... at Paris .... the future control, disposition and govemment of
the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States " — he squarely
contradicts the Constitution, which does not recognize this way of
making treaties. When he takes for granted that the desires of the
Filipinos themselves concerning their own form of government are of
no consequence whatever, he contradicts the Declaration of Inde
pendence. He seems to think that the proposed government of the
Philippine Islands is to derive its just powers from the consent of the
United States, and especially from the consent of the President him
self. Every despot that the world ever saw has believed that the
proper government for all those with whom he had to do was
determined by his own consent.
If it be said that "the victories of American arms" had at this
time given us the sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, the answer
is plain. The third article of the so-called peace protocol signed at
Washington on August 12, 1898, runs thus: "The United States
will occupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila, pending the
conclusion of a treaty of peace which shall determine the control,
disposition and government of the Philippines." This protocol
determined the legal status of these islands until the treaty between
Spain and the United States should be ratified. The capture of
Manila on August 13, 1898, in no way extended the lawful authority
of the United States beyond "the city, bay and harbor of Manila."
The third paragraph of the proclamation is short. The central
point is that " the municipal laws of the territory, in respect to private
rights and property and the repression of crime, are to be considered
as continuing in force." 4

The fourth paragraph I will give in full :
"While the control of all the public property and the revenues of
the state passes with the cession, and while the use and management
of all pulilic means of transportation are necessarily reserved to the
authority of the United States, private property, whether belonging to
individuals or corporations, is to be respected, except for cause duly
established. The taxes and duties heretofore payable by the inhabi
tants to the late government become payable to the authorities of the
United States, unless it be seen fit to substitute for them other reason
able rates or modes of contribution to the expenses of government,
whether general or local. If private property be taken for military
use, it shall be paid for when possible in cash at a fair valuation, and
when payment in cash is not practicable receipts are to be given."
Government without the consent of the governed having been
established by the previous portion of the proclamation, this para
graph simply promises to the Filipinos the ancient and glorious bless
ing of taxation without representation.
The fifth paragraph is short. Its main declaration is that " all
ports and places in the Philippine Islands in the actual possession of
the land and naval forces of the United States will be opened to the
commerce of all friendly nations."
The closing paragraph runs as follows :
" Finally, it should be the earnest and paramount aim of the mili
tary administration to win the confidence, respect and affection of the
inhabitants of the Philippines by assuring to them in every possible
way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the
heritage of free peoples, and by proving to them that the mission of
the United States is one of benevolent assimilation, substituting the
mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule. In the fulfilment
of this high mission, supporting the temperate administration of
affairs for the greatest good of the governed, there must be sedulously
maintained the strong arm of authority, to repress disturbance, and
to overcome all obstacles to the bestowal of blessings of good and
stable government upon the people of the Philippine Islands under
the free flag of the United States. William McKinley."
There is one adjective that will describe this document very fully
and fairly. It is a Spanish proclamation, just such an one as the
Filipinos had many times listened to. There is the same parade of
benevolent purposes, and the same tyrannical substance. The natives
recognized the document as one of the kind to which they were
accustomed. Said a correspondent of the Boston Transcript : " The
5

insurgents laughed at President McKinley's proclamatioa It was
with the utmost difficulty that anyone could be found who would
translate it, and no printing press would print it. At last copies were
made on the typewriters of the Newport. The proclamation read to
the natives like many Spanish proclamations. It was full of declara
tions of fine sentiments, but the only solid statement was that the
islands had become American property, that American troops were to
occupy them at once, and that anyone who resisted was to be brought
into subjection at once."
Not only are the most un-American things present in this procla
mation, but all the most important things that should have been
stated are omitted. It has been well said that this document takes
not the slightest notice of any rights on the part of the people of
these islands except what we are graciously pleased to grant them ; it
contains no recognition of their long struggle against Spain, their
arduous struggle for liberty, no recognition of their long sufferings
under her rule, no acknowledgment of their fitness for self-govern
ment, no expression of our desire or even of our willingness that they
should govern themselves. Mr. McKinley simply promises to the
Filipinos protection " in their personal and religious rights " and a
" full measure of individual rights and liberties." Nothing is said
about those political rights for which our ancestors fought as these
people are now fighting. There is not one word in this document,
not one, which says or suggests that the Filipinos will be permitted
to have self-government at any time, either soon or late, either as a
right or as a privilege. The indifference and even contempt which
President McKinley here displayed toward American ideas and toward
the proper aspirations of a brave people, I for one cannot forget, and
politically speaking, cannot forgive. He has done his best to turn
the great statue in New York harbor of Liberty enlightening the
world, into a colossal joke. He has made us and our boasted ideals
the derision of the peoples of Europe. He has caused the nations
of our own continent to drill armies and stand guard against the
United States as a great freebooter, watching to rob them of their
birthright. He and his counsellors have largely thrown away our
finest national possession — our moral influence. They have put into
our history a black page which will shame us forever. There are
some Americans whose votes Mr. McKinley cannot have again, and
I believe that the number is growing. To me, for one, the gold of
our coinage is not so precious as the fine gold of our history.
6

But we have not yet characterized the primary quality of this
public letter. It seems to be primarily a false statement of fact intended
to deceive the supposedly ignorant Filipinos. When President McKin
ley wrote : " With the signature of the treaty .... at Paris .... the
future control, disposition and government of the Philippine Islands
are ceded to the United States " — he stated what it does not seem
possible that he can either have believed himself or have expected
anyone acquainted with our institutions to believe. Every American
schoolboy knows better. Is it not fair to call this statement the first
fabricated article manufactured exclusively for that export trade to
Manila of which we hear so much ?
Naturally President McKinley has not been able himself to keep
from exposing and emphasizing the essential character of this whole
document. In his address before the returned volunteers at Pittsburg, ^
on August 28, 1899, he declared : " Until the treaty was ratified we had
no authority beyond Manila city, bay, and harbor. We then had no
other title to defend, no authority beyond that to maintain." But
what is the entire public letter about that we have just been examin
ing, a letter written six weeks before the ratification of the treaty ?
This proclamation was in reality a declaration of war, made not
by Congress as the Constitution requires, but by the arbitrary act of
the executive. It is Mr. McKinley's declaration of war. Because of
this declaration many brave American soldiers and brave Filipino
patriots have died and are dying. And when shall we see the end of
William McKinley's war ?
Some may say that only Congress could make promises to the
Filipinos concerning the form of government that would be allowed
them. I reply that President McKinley has since made them prom-^
ises concerning their form of government without consulting Congress.
In any case, if he could make them un-American threats and promises,
he could make American promises. He certainly had as much right
to make promises in accordance with the Declaration of Independ
ence as he had to make promises contrary to it.
A number of things become plain if we keep this proclamation
clearly in mind. For example, the question is often discussed. Who
fired the first gun ? The answer is : This proclamation was the first
gun. About eight weeks after issuing this proclamation and about two -
weeks after the outbreak of hostilities President McKinley spoke in
Boston as if he had no definite policy concerning the Philippines. He
declared : " No one can tell today what is best for the Filipinos or for

us  The whole subject is now with Congress, and Congress is the
voice, the conscience and the judgment of the American people. Upon
their judgment can we not rely?" In view of the whole hi.story of
the war this tone of complete reliance upon Congress is really comical.
But this public letter that we have examined announces a policy, a
most clear and unmistakable policy — as clear and unmistakable as it
is un-American. All our actions in the Philippines have been abso
lutely determined by this document. Congress was compelled either
to repudiate it entirely, or to remain quiet and allow the President to
carry on the policy herein laid down.
The third point which I wish to make concerning this proclamation
is that the name signed to it is William McKinley. It is not God, or
Duty, or Destiny. This may seem a very simple point to make, but
there has been a most persistent attempt to muddle the public mind
on this very question. God never required Mr. McKinley to issue
this proclamation. Who can think that the Deity would have been
displeased if this document had congratulated the Filipinos on the
successful outcome of their long struggle for liberty, had promised
them the self-government for which they had prayed and fought and
suffered, and had assured theni of our help and protection ?
Senator Davis, Hon. Whitelaw Reid, and Senator Frye, three of the
five commissioners who made the treaty with Spain, have defended it
heartily on the ground of the pecuniary and commercial advantages
likely to result to the United States from our possession of the Phil-
^ippines. This has been the burden of their utterances. The welfare
of the Filipinos, to say nothing of their self-government, has not occu
pied a prominent place in their thoughts. Not Destiny and Duty,
but Dollars put us into the Philippines. And who will get the dol
lars ? Millionaires and syndicates will secure any small gains which
could not just as easily be obtained without enforcing our sovereignty.
Millionaires and syndicates are virtually saying to our common soldiers :
" You stop the bullets and we'll do the rest."
It has recently come to light that General Otis did not publish
the proclamation of President McKinley at Manila, but issued one of
his own manufacture instead. However, a copy of the original letter
had been sent to General Miller, at Iloilo, and was made public
by him. It is this publishing, as I understand it, to which the
extract already cited from the Boston Transcript refers. In this way
the document became known throughout the islands.
In his official report, dated August 31, 1899, General Otis
explains in a naive way why he did not consider the proclamation a
8

fit one to be made public in the Philippines. He also makes it clear,
though not intentionally, that the document was not a fit one to be
written by an American president. Evidently General Otis believes
that this public letter led directly to the outbreak of hostilities ; and
he naturally desires to relieve himself of blame which has been
unjustly put upon him. In spite of the seriousness of the questions
involved, one cannot deny himself a hearty laugh at the spectacle of
General Otis issuing an expurgated edition of the President's own
proclamation. The Springfield Republican speaks as follows concerning the
proclamation actually issued by General Otis :
"Perusal of the Otis proclamation shows that the President's
proclamation was not only amended, but virtually suppressed. Gen
eral Otis, in opening, pretended to have had 'instructions' from the
President of the United States relative to Philippine affairs, the tenor
of which he proceeded to present to the Filipinos in his own language.
At one point only did he actually quote from the President's procla
mation, and that was the concluding paragraph. Now, the charac
teristic feature of the McKinley proclamation was its unlawful claim
that the United States was already sovereign, through cession from
Spain, cfver the entire archipelago, although the Paris treaty had not
yet been sent to the Senate for that body's action ; and its direct order
to General Otis to extend ' with all possible dispatch to the whole of
the ceded territory ' the ' military government heretofore maintained
by the United States over the city, harbor and bay of Manila,' with
out awaiting the ratification of the treaty by which alone the islands
could come under the authority of the United States.
" The Otis version of the McKinley proclamation completely sup)-
presses the premature and unlawful claim of sovereignty, and also the
order to extend ' with all possible dispatch ' the military rule of the
United States over the territory then under the jurisdiction of the
native government. Otis did this deliberately, because, as he after
wards said in his official report, of 'certain words and expressions'
'such as '-sovereignty," "right of cession," and those which directed
immediate occupation, etc' You may read the Otis version in vain
for those incendiary claims and orders."
The following extract is one of the things which General Otis
did say: " I am also convinced that it is the intention of the United States
governinent to seek the establishment of a most liberal go^•ernment for
the islands, in which the people themselves shall have as full repre
sentation as the maintenance of order and law will permit, and which
shall be susceptible of development on lines of increased representation
and the bestowal of increased powers into a government as free and
independent as is enjoyed by the most favored provinces of the world."
9

These words were in substance a pledge to the Filipinos. When
shall this pledge be renewed ?
General Otis tells us that " the ignorant classes had been taught
to believe that certain words, such as 'sovereignty,' 'protection,' etc.,
had peculiar meaning, disastrous to their welfare and significant of
future political domination." As Senator Hoar pointedly says:
" The ignorant people of America have been taught to believe just
such things.''
The proclamation issued at the beginning of April by the Amer
ican commissioners to the Philippines declared that hostilities had
broken out because the "pure aims and purposes of the American
government and people'' had been "misinterpreted." If this means
that the Filipinos misunderstood the President's previous public letter,
I deny it. They understood it ; that was the trouble ; and I challenge
anybody to understand it differently. It seems to be true, however,
that in the meantime the President had himself come to understand bet
ter the meaning of his own document, and the commissioners were
allowed to promise the Filipinos " the most ample liberty and self-
government reconcilable " with good government " and compatfble with
the sovereign and international rights and the obligations of the United
States." Since this promise was expressed in somewhat vague terms,
and since it came two months after the war began — so that it had to
be shot over to the enemy in the form of gun-wadding— it is not
strange, perhaps, that it did not have much effect in pacifying the
natives. The terms of the President's original proclamation make it plain
that we are really carrying on in the Philippines a war against lib
erty ; we are not simply restoring order. There was no disorder in
Luzon and had been none for months until our President deliberately
demanded that the Filipinos accept taxation without representation
and government without consent.* Soon after that there was disor
der in the form of armed resistance, and thank God that there was !
It was time for it.
Our treatment of the Filipinos constitutes a case of tyranny if
there is any such thing as tyranny. Our peace commissioners at Paris
paid no attention whatever to the desires and protests of the Filipinos

cox.

„ l^9'*°^^I ^""^ November of 1898 Naval Cadet L. R. Sargent and Paymaster W. B Wil-
Ti !?• N,. made an extensive tour throughout northern Luzon, '^ with the permission of Admiral
Dewey," They "returned to Manila with only the most pleasing recollections of the quiet and
orderly life which [they] found the natives to be leading under the new regime," Their report
l^y?^^^'^^^^'"^^}\^'^"^\P^'^^?' 5""* '''" ''"¦' published by the Unite^d States government
(See "The Backwoods Fihpino," by Mr, Sargent, in The Outlookfor September 2, 1899.) ™"°'"-
10

themselves. The terms of the treaty absolutely ignored the natives.
President McKinley's official interpretation of the treaty, issued in
advance of its ratification, we have just examined. During the Senate
debate upon the treaty we refused to pay any regard to the represent
atives of the Filipinos. We called them "adventurers" because they
opposed our projected adventure, and faithfully represented the sen
timents of their own people. If this course of treatmeiit and our sub
sequent war of conquest do not constitute a case of tyranny, then
there is no such thing as tyranny. Perhaps there is no such thing.
Perhaps the idea of tyranny is only one more of those old-fashioned
notions that we must give up. Perhaps the first clause in the Anglo-
Saxon alliance for the suppression of young republics will declare that
the word tyranny must not be used any more. But if there is such a
thing as tyranny we have displayed it toward the Filipinos. George
III. demanded of a distant people that they accept taxation without
representation and government without consent, and sent armies to
enforce the demand. What else than this has William McKinley
done? The same conduct cannot be rightly called tyranny in George
III. and then be called "benevolent assimilation" and "destiny and
duty" and "priceless principles'' in William McKinley.
But some may say, " Why discuss these old matters? Our pres
ent position and its demands upon us are the only important things to
be considered." To this I answer that the rights and duties of our
present position are to be determined largely by a careful considera
tion of the course of action which brought us into this position. As
soon as the American people understand how thoroughly our leaders
have put us in the wrong, how unjustly and tyranically we have treated
the Filipinos, I believe that enough Americans are really civilized and
Christian, as civilization and Christianity were understood before the
Philippine war, to demand that our policy be changed and to enforce
that demand. Of course, all those who think that Christian missionr-
of the peaceful type are practically a failure, those who have little faith
in the power of ideas except when supported by guns, and those who
believe that the weapons of the Christian warfare are primarily not
spiritual but carnal, together with some others, will still oppose us and
wUl call loudly for more bloodshed.
It is not clear that there were any great difficulties in the Philip
pine problem until we made them. It is not clear that there exists
now any important obstacle to a speedy settlement except pride of
consistency on the part of our leaders. First, the wanton blundering,
and then the foolish and wicked pride which stands by the blunder.

Many competent observers tell us that the capacity of the Fili
pinos for self-government "cannot be doubted." But you tell me that
some competent witnesses have doubted their capacity for this. Yes;
But hpvf long is it in this country since the presumption has been
against self-government? Since William McKinley became president.
A man cannot be fairly said to believe in self-government at all
who believes in it only for his own nation. The way in which impe
rialists believe in self-government — for themselves — makes me think
of the prayer of a certain selfish man, which John B. Gough used to
recite : " Lord, bless me and my wife ;
My son John and his wife ;
Us four, and no more. Amen."
r Many say that we must go on with this war even though we
ought not to have begun it. Well, there are some men and some
nations so weak morally that when they have once begun upon a
wrong course, they are unable to turn back. But are you willing to
be one of those men ? And are you willing that the United States
shall be one of those nations ? France after doing injustice to Drey
fus turned squarely about and set her face toward justice. Is there
, any better way ?
Fellow-citizens : I warn you against the constant talk about
"good government." President McKinley promises " good and stable
government " to the Filipinos ; we talk about giving " good govern
ment " to the discontented Cubans. The great principle for which
this country stands is not good government for the people, but
self-government by the people. The American idea is not that self-
government is necessarily the best government ; the true American
idea is that, wherever it is at all possible, self-government is a better
^'thing than the best government. Good government means that the
governmental machine runs well ; but self-government produces the
best men. Self-government is the best man-factory. Self-government
is the American idea. Let us remember this. And let Lincoln's
noble words once more ring through our minds . " Those who deny
freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God
cannot long retain it."

NOTE. — Additional copies of this tract may be had upon application to
W. J. MIZE, Secretary, 517 First National Bank Building, Chicago.

noOERS i. WELLS, EN0RAVER8 AND PRINTERS, CHICAGO

Date Due
All books are subject to recall after two weeks.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02401 4046

^