IDEALS OF THE REPUBLIC.

I assent to the proposition urged by the Senator from "Wisconsin that tho
traditions of tho American people may safely be left to the guardianship of
the American people, but I assert that they can not be safely intrusted to the
guardianship of the party in power. There is not a single tradition of the
Republic, not a single ideal of the Republic, that has not been shattered by
the dominant party here. * * *
I believe, with the Senator from Wisconsin, in the sober second thought of
the American people.
I believe, with hirn, that when the excitement of the campaign has passed
away and tho American people think, they will think right.

SPEECH

HON. FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS,

OF NEVADA,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Thursday, February 4, 1904.

>  ^&-

WASHINGTON. 1904.

SPEECH OF
HON. FRANCIS GL NEWLANDS.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration
the hill (H. R. 10954) mating appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in
the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1B04, and for prior years,
and for other purposes —
Mr. NEWLANDS said:
Mr. President: When I entered the Senate a few months since
it was my intention to conduct myself with that unobtrusiveness
that is usually expected of novitiates elected to this honorable
body, and to adapt my course to the traditions of the Senate, which
seemed to require a gradual method amalgamating new members
with the debating force of this body.
Only a short time ago, however, I sought to introduce into the
Senate a resolution inviting Cuba to become a State in the Union.
I did this simply for the sake of consistency, carrying out the line
of conduct which I had marked out for myself regarding this
great question when the question of reciprocity was before the
House of Representatives, and intending to present my individual
view that if Cuba wanted commercial union with us it would be
better for her, as well as better for us, to admit her to political
union, which would involve the best kind of commercial union —
the freedom of trade of the Republic. I expected that that reso
lution would go to a committee and would there sleep.
To my great surprise, however, it was pounced upon by the " big
four" of the dominant party in the Senate; was seized, taken away
from the Committee on Foreign Relations, and put upon the table
here for debate, analyzed, criticised, attacked, as an evidence of
attempted bad faith upon the part of the Republic of the United
States toward a weak sister Republic recently admitted to the
family of nations. ,
I was told that it was an insult to make this invitation.. I was
told that t^e invitation invited Cuba to scuttle her ship;, that it
was an invitation to suicide, and all this regarding an invitation
to a small, weak, and dependent Republic to become a great
State, a sovereign State of an indestructible Union of States bound
together for the general welfare and common defense. I was
compelled to make a defense of that resolution.
I was compelled, Mr. President, to make a defense of that reso
lution, to insist that it did not violate the spirit of the Teller resolu
tion, that it maintained Cuba as a free State, simply admitting
her to the Union of States, and admitting her to the incomparable
advantages not only of political union but of free commercial
union with these States.
I was compelled to meet Senators upon this floor who, whilst
they claimed that it was an insult to invite Cuba into the Union,
,Sin,j#.su|fc to. Cuba h,erself,insisted,upon jjt 'thai it-was entirely con
sistent with our friendly relations with the Colombian Republic
to bring the armed forces of the United States into her territory,
to surround that territory with ships of war, to aid in the dis
memberment of that Republic and the segregation of her insular
¦-.rom her continental territory.
And so yesterday I was again brought into the debate by the
3 5188

3
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner], who, in the debate re
garding the St. Louis exposition, saw fit to allude to some utter
ances of mine at Omaha in the early part of January; utterances
wliich were addressed to party associates at a Jacksonian banquet.
The Senator from Wisconsin insisted upon it that there I repudi
ated one of the cardinal doctrines of the Democratic party in the
last campaign.
When I explained what I said at Omalia by stating that I had
there declared that the issue of imperialism had been presented
to the American people in the last campaign with rare and splen
did eloquence, but that the conscience of the American people
had been blunted by an intense commercialism and that the ap
peal fell upon their ears in vain, and that whilst I trusted that
the Democratic party would never fail to place in its platform
the repudiation of the doctrine of controlling subject i-eoples
against their will, I did not believe that that issue, from the
experience of the last campaign, would gain many votes, the
Senator arraigned me for my alleged indictment of the American
people; declared that he could not understand how a Senator
of the United States could impute to the people of tl e United
States that their eyes had been closed by dollars to the demands
of liberty or the traditions of the Republic; that it was a bold
thing to thus impeach a majority of the American people; and
then, proceeding, insisted that the ideals and traditions of the
American people are cherished by them and that they will not be
forsaken. The Senator seems to think that these ideals have been uni
formly maintained by this country. Mr. President. I admit that
the ancient ideals of the Republic were maintained throughout
the entire history of the Republic until recent years: and I claim
that it is only within the last six years, years of Republican domi
nation, that these ideals have been abandoned.
Now, what were those ideals of the Republic? The great and
prominent ideal of the Republic was voiced in the words of Jef
ferson in the Declaration of Independence that all men were
created free and equal ; that Government rested for its just powers
upon the consent of the governed; that taxation and representa
tion were inseparable. This was the new gospel of popular rights
voiced by onr country — the Messiah of the nations.
Would the Senator from Wisconsin, would the Senators of the
dominant party subscribe to that doctrine now? Are the rights
of men now equal when under this new theory of government we
have under our flag two classes of people, part citizens and part
subjects? Does our Government rest upon the consent of the
governed when it embraces subject peoples desirous of national
life, but governed by us without their consent and against their
will? Are taxation and representation inseparable when we have
under our flag two classes of people— those who through repre
sentation participate in taxation, and those who without represen
tation are taxed? What has become of this ideal, declared for
over a hundred years by every patriot and orator in the land as
the essential element of just government?
And then, later on, the great apostle of liberty, Lincoln, in the
memorable debate preceding our civil war, declared that this na
tion could not live half slave and half free, half citizen and half
subject. Would the Senator from Wisconsin subscribe to that
doctrine now?
5788

4
And so, later on, Mr. McKinley, unlike our present Execu
tive, in a memorable document, submitting the entire controvc rsy
of this country with Spain to the judgme'nt of the representatives
of the people whether for peace or war, declared, after months of
painful and arduous negotiation upon this subject, that forcible
annexation would be criminal aggression.
I ask whether the Senator from Wisconsin subscribed to that
ideal; and if so, how he reconciles the declaration of that ideal
with the policy of the Republican party within the past six years,
which in a war, declared for humanity and humanity alone, in
tended to free a people who had been oppressed from the cruelty
of Spain, sought whilst freeing that people to subject another
people, equally suffering from cruelty and aggression, equally
capable of self-government, equally desirous of national life, to
the unrestrained and uncontrolled will of our people and by crim
inal aggression forcibly annexed their country to ours as a colo
nial dependency?
I ask how he can reconcile the ideal of the lamented McKinley,
that forcible annexation is criminal aggression, with the long and
bloody war we had, in which an entire province was swept with
fire and sword, and in which the liberties of a people desirous of
freedom and of maintaining a national life were taken away?
And so it is with other ideals that had been declared by the
fathers of our country. In this body, on Washington's Birthday,
it is the custom to read the Farewell Address of that exalted
patriot. I believe the custom is still pursued here, though of late
years every word of it contains an indictment of the existing
policy of the Republican party.
Let me quote a few words from Washington regarding the
ideals of this country as declared by him. In that farewell ad
dress he urged that we should —
Avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which
under any form of government are unauspicious to liberty.
And enjoining upon those intrusted with the administration to
confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres,
he added:
Avoid encroachments upon other departments. The spirit of encroach
ment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus
to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.
How do these utterances apply to existing conditions? Why,
Mr. President, under the Constitution of the United States the
power to declare war is vested in the Congress of the United States.
Under other governments, despotic in form, monarchical in char
acter, that power belongs to the executive; but the fathers of this
country, realizing that an Executive of violent and unrestrained
temper might easily involve the country in war, determined to
submit this great question to the deliberation of the representa
tives of all the people in Congress assembled, to subject it to the
criticism and analysis of debate, and make the process of war
necessarily slow and deliberate.
Congress alone can declare war. Yet in the face of this consti
tutional enactment the President of the United States has recently
waged— not only declared, but waged— a successful war, ordered
the armed forces of the United States to the territory of a power
with which we were at peace, placed them on that territory, lined
her shores with war ships, and gave notice to the Government of
that power that it should not land its troops upon its own terri
tory for the purpose of suppressing disorder, and by this display
5788

of force so overawed a weak people that they suffered dismember
ment and spoliation of territory.
Yet when we witness these encroachments of power by the
Executive, so carefully guarded against by the Constitution, en
croachments against which Washington warned us so solemnly,
Senators of the United States, the Senators of the dominant party,
instead of jealously guarding the powers conferred upon them by
. the Constitution, stand here in abject servility and praise the
Executive, who has encroached upon one of the most important
functions conferred upon them by the Constitution, for his energy
in despoiling them of their constitutional power and Colombia of'
her territory.
And so Washington, forecasting the future, insisted that the
Constitution should not be changed by encroachment; that it was
better to employ the slow process of constitutional amendment if
a good sought for by the country but prohibited by the Consti
tution was desired, and added:
But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance
may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free
governments are destroyed.
And so in this case the defense is made that the ultimate pur
pose of this war, thus waged in violation of the Constitution, was
beneficial to this country and beneficial to collective humanity.
This is the justification for the encroachment of the Executive
upon the exclusive power of Congress; but Washington guards
us against the argument which would lead to such an usurpation
of power, and declares:
But this in one instance may be the instrument of good; it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
So these ideals of Washington, to which I have referred, have
been the traditional ideals of the Republic shattered by this Ad
ministration during the past six years. How is it with other
nations? Washington, regarding our relations with other nations,
said: Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and
harmony with all. It will he worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant
period, a igreat nation, to give to mankind that magnanimous and so novel
example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.
Where is that ideal to-day? Where was the justice and benevo
lence which controlled us in our relation to the people of the
Philippines? Where was the justice or the benevolence of our action toward
the Colombian Republic, where we, having attained certain rights
under a treaty of amity, mere privileges of free access and free
transit through a country, privileges terminable upon a notice of
one year, took advantage of them as so-called property rights and
made them the base of an offensive war, an aggressive war, against
Colombia, which deprived her of her most valuable territory?
Where was the justice, where was the benevolence of our ac
tion regarding that country?
Then Washington says, in speaking regarding a liberal inter
course with foreign nations:
But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand,
neither seeking nor granting exclusive preference; consulting the natural
course of things, but forcing nothing.
"Our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial
hand." Howhasthatideal, declared by Washington as the ideal of
the Republic, been vindicated by the action of the Republican
5788

6
party? Within the last two months a treaty has been made with the
Republic of Cuba under the stipulations of which she is to raise
her tariff wall against every other country from 25 to 35 per cent
higher than it exists against our country, the very purpose being
to drive out of that island the English, German, and French
trade, which belongs to them of right to-day, because they sell
their wares cheaper than do the producers of the United States.
We propose by this treaty, under an ideal which declared for
equal and impartial treatment, to drive friendly nations out of
the commerce of Cuba, to appropriate it for ourselves; and this
we call "impartial trade! " This the Senator calls "cherishing
the ancient ideals."
Why, Mr. President, the true policy of this Republic is that in
this great Union of forty-five States, which embraces over 70,-
000,000 people, free trade should exist everywhere and that there
should be no commercial restraint, no imposition of duties at the
boundary lines of the States in order to restrain domestic trade
and commerce; but the ideal of the Republic, as declared by
Washington, in regard to its relations with other countries was
that we should seek harmony with all the nations of the world
by impartial trade — free trade within the Republic, impartial
trade outside of the Republic. But we seek exclusive preferences,
though Washington urges as the ideal of the Republic —
Neither seeking nor granting exclusive preferences; consulting the natura
course of things, but forcing nothing.
That was the ideal of Washington. Simply because we can not
sell to the Cuban people as cheaply as England and Germany and
France, because as a result of the tariff, we have built up trusts
and monopolies here which have raised our domestic prices be
yond and above the international prices, therefore we are unwill
ing to sell abroad for less than the domestic price.
We seek by a favored and partial arrangement — by forcing
things, as Washington says — to drive friendly nations, whose
friendship it should be our effort to insure, not to destroy, out of
territory which they have won through all the honest and im
partial methods of trade.
Let us see what other ideals have been declared by the great
men of this country — great men belonging to the party which the
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner] represents. In a message
of Benjamin Harrison, received and read here December 3, 1889,
he said, speaking of the Pan-American conference:
It is believed that the crowning benefit will be found in the better securi
ties which may be devised for the maintenance of peace among all American
nations, and the settlement of all contentions by methods that a Christian
civilized country approves.
This was relating to the Pan-American Congress, which was
held for the purpose of promoting friendly intercourse and rela
tions between this country and our sister republics of Central and
South America. What principle was most discussed there? The
principle of peace and the principle of friendly arbitration as se
curing peace.
Benjamin Harrison properly voiced the ideal of the Republic
when he declared that the crowning benefit would be found in
the maintenance of peace among all American nations, and the
settlement of all contentions by methods that Christian civiliza
tion approves.
What has become of that ideal within the last six years of
Republican rule? We have within the last three months been em-
5788

broiled in a war with a sister republic over the construction of a
treaty, under which it was claimed that the spirit, not the letter,
of the treaty demanded of that country in a contract, which was
terminable with one year's notice— that the spirit of that contract
demanded that Colombia should make to us any concession in
tended for the advantage of the commerce of the world wliich
the United States might dictate, and that it must concede it in
the very terms laid down by the United States without modifica
tion, alteration, or amendment.
So, upon the construction of a treaty with a friendly American
republic, after the declaration of this ideal by Benjamin Harrison
regarding the maintenance of universal peace upon this continent
and the invocation of arbitration for that purpose, we have sum
moned our armed forces, under the order of the Executive, sent
our armed ships, with their men and their guns, aimed at the
forces of a friendly republic about to land upon their own terri
tory for the suppression of domestic disorder, and then we say, in
the language of the Senator from Wisconsin, " the American peo
ple are preserving and cherishing the ideals of the Republic."
The American ideals have been asserted by other prominent
Americans. The present Executive has declared himself upon
this subject. In a message of rare excellence addressed to Con
gress upon taking the seat of the lamented McKinley, he said re
garding the Monroe doctrine:
It is no wise Intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World. Still less
is it intended to give cover to any aggression by one New World power at
the expense of any other. It is simply a step, and a long step, toward assur
ing the universal peace of the world by securing the possibility of permanent
peace on this hemisphere. * * * We have not the slightest desire to secure
any territory at the expense of our neighbors.
And yet this very Executive has inaugurated the scheme of war
against and spoliation of a sister republic, which I have outlined.
Then, also, regarding The Hague tribunal, he says:
Peace can only be kep t with certainty when both sides wish to keep it; but
more and more the civilized peoples are realizing the wicked folly of war and
are attaining that condition of just and intelligent regard for the rights of
others which will, in the end, as we hope and believe, make world-wide peace
Eossible. . The peace conference at The Hague gave definite expression to this
ope ahd belief, and marked a stride toward their attainment.
Here, was another ideal of the American people voiced by an
American President — world-wide peace. The Hague Tribunal
had been organized as a tribunal of the nations for the peaceful
settlement of their contentions, just as in our domestic affairs tri
bunals decide the rights of man in his relations toward his fellow-
men. So, instead of permitting the nations of the world to march like
swashbucklers along the international highways with sword in
belt and pistol in hand, an effort was made to submit their con
tentions to the great international tribunal of peace organized by
the treaty-making powers of the various nations of the world.
And yet when it comes to a practical application of this ideal,
what does your present Executive say in response to the inquiry
of General Reyes, the-Tepresentative of 'the- Colombian Govern
ment — General Reyes, who in all matters has conducted himself
with rare discretion and moderation; who, mindful of the obliga
tions of the treaty of 1846, is seeking in an orderly way to present
under that treaty Colombia's complaint and grievance against
the United States for injuries done and a wrong accomplished,
and who asks that this treaty contention expressly provided for
5788

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08937 3485

8
in the convention regarding The Hague tribunal as one which a
country can honorably submit to arbitration?
Read the reply of the Secretary of State denying the appeal;
and I ask, then, what has become of this ideal of the American
people, this ideal which has been voiced by the present Executive,
for international peace, for peaceful adj ustment of contentions
between nations.
So the present Executive in that message adds another word for
peace. He says:
Possibly no other great nation in the world is so anxious for peace as we
are. There is not a single civilized power which has anything whatever to
fear from aggressiveness on our part. All we want is peace, and toward this
end we wi?h to be able to secure the same respect for our rights from others
which we are eager and anxious to extend to their rights in return.
Not a single nation has anything to fear from aggressiveness on
our part, the President says. Ask Colombia. The President
wants peace even if he has to fight for it. His way of securing
peace is to send the armed forces of the United States to attack
and despoil a friendly power whose sovereignty over the spoli
ated territory we had by solemn treaty acknowledged.
Now, Mr. President, so much regarding the ideals of which
the Senator from Wisconsin says:
I have liut an observation to make as to the reply of the Senator from Ne
vada, or rather his speech, as he states it. I can hardly understand how a
Senator of the United States can impute to the people of the United States
that their eyes have beeu closed by dollars to the demands of liberty or the
traditions of the Republic.
*******
It is a very bold thing, Mr. President, for anyone in this country to im
peach a majority of the American people in that way. The ideals of the
American people and the traditions of the American people belong to them,
are cherished by tliem, Mr. President, more keenly than by any of their
representatives, perhaps.
I believe in the American people. I believe the soloer second thought of
the American people comes as near to the perfection of human wisdom as any
standard among men can come; and I think no Senator may safely say to
them that they have forsaken their traditions and ideals in a blind, heedless
pursuit of the'dollar.
No, Mr. President— and I did not intend to refer to this when I rose — the
traditions of the American people may safely be left to the guardianship of
the American people. When the excitement of the campaign has passed
away, the American people think, and what they think is right.
Mr. President, I assent to the proposition urged by the Senator
from Wisconsin that the traditions of the American people may
safely be left to the guardianship of the American people, but I
assert that they can not be safely intrusted to the guardianship
of the party in power. There is not a single tradition of the Re
public, not a single ideal of the Republic, that has not been shat
tered by the dominant party here.
It is true that you appear to have the sanction of the American
people; it is true that the question of imperialism has been sub
mitted to the people at a popular election; it is true that their
verdict has been against us and for you, and so far as appearances
go your policies seem thus far to have been sanctioned by the
American people; but I believe, with the Senator from Wisconsin,
in the sober second thought of the American people.
I believe, with him, that when the excitement of the campaign
has passed away and the American people think, they will think
right. May Heaven grant that this second thought, the sober
thought of deliberation, may come to the American people before
the conclusion of the coming campaign.
5788 o