BRYAN'S ATTITUDE
TOWARDS THE PHILIPPINES.
BY THE HON. CHARLES DENBY, OF INDIANA,
Ex-United States Minister to China, and Member of the First Com
mission to the Philippines— a Llfe=long Democrat.

In his speech of April 17th, 1900, in the Senate, Mr.
Hoar said that he could not forget that Mr. Bryan, "un
less he is much misrepresented, used all his power and
influence with those of his friends who are ready to lis
ten to his counsels to secure the ratification of the
treaty," meaning the Paris treaty.
There were seventeen Democratic Senators who
voted for the ratification. A two-thirds majority was
necessary. The treaty was ratified by one vote.
Mr. Bryan has squarely assumed the responsibility
of the ratification.
In his speech of acceptance Mr. Bryan meets this
question in the only way that he could have met it.
His language is: "I was among the number of those
who believed it better to ratify the treaty * * ." Thus
Mr. Bryan endorses the doctrine that a politician has the
right to do evil in order that good may come. The end
justifies the means. In morals this position is unsound.
We had taken Manila on August 13th, 1898. In De
cember, 1898, Spain had made a treaty ceding the
islands to us. We had occupied .them until February
5th, 1899. On that day Aguinaldo made war on us.
Our soldiers had to fight for their lives. The treaty was
ratified on February 7th, 1899. Mr. Bryan advised his
friends in the Senate to vote to ratify the treaty after
the battle of February 5th had been fought. He knew
that war had begun. He might readily^have foreseen
what complications might possibly occur out of the ex
isting conditions. Then was the time to have talked
about the "consent of the governed," and not now,
when every speech he makes adds ten names to the roll
of our dead, and one hundred to the Filipino dead.
If Mr. Bryan's plea were filed in the courts, the
judges would hold it bad, on the doctrine of estoppel.
If a man fails to tell the truth when he ought to have
told it, and the position of another person would be in-

juriously affected by permitting him to, tell thereafter
what he alleges to be true, his mouth is sealed by the
law. For instance, if you stand by at an auction sale,
and see another person buy your horse, and pay for it
without disclosing your title, you are estopped to claim
the torse, though your title to it might have been good if
you had asserted it at the proper time.
Mr. Bryan having the undoubted power to prevent
the ratification of the treaty, actually, by his own con
fession, advised its ratification. Neither in law, nor in
morals, can he be permitted now to secure political
advantage from denouncing a course of conduct which
he himself advised.
Surely, if a great political leader goes before the
country and counsels that a certain law be passed, or a
solemn treaty be ratified, an indignant public will not
listen to him patiently when he afterwards denounces
the adoption of the line of policy which he himself
urged. All may be fair in love and war, but no public
man has openly avowed that all is fair in politics. How
ever violent the presumption may be, it is still presumed,
prima facie, that political battles are waged on principle,
and not on fraud and trickery.
I do not accuse Mr. Bryan of favoring the adoption
of the treaty of Paris for the sake of securing a political
advantage, but if he really believed the treaty was bad
because it conveyed to us the title to the Philippines,
surely the plainer and more honorable course would
have been to have opposed its ratification. What he
says as to his reasons for his conduct is: "I thought it
safer to trust the American people to give independence
to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of
that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation."
This sounds very well indeed, and puts Mr. Bryan
in the attitude of desiring independence for the Fili-
Einos very ardently. What were the Filipinos to him, or
e to them ? Why should he so ardently desire that they
should be spared the disgrace of becoming citizens of
our great Republic? Why become so suddenly imbued
with antagonism to the Democratic principle of expan
sion as exemplified by all Democratic statesmen from
Jefferson to voorhees? If he could stand the annexa
tion of Hawaii, why balk at the acquisition of the
Philippines? Mr. Bryan is not slow in giving us in his own words
the reason for his conduct. He does not wait long to
show the cloven foot. His own explanation is as follows :

" I believe that we are now in a better position to
wage a successful contest against imperialism than we
would have been had the treaty been rejected."
Here, then, we have the real reason for this strange
parody of Jekyll and Hyde ! He wanted to create the
bogy of " imperialism," in order that he might fight and
overcome the monster! If the treaty had not been
ratified there would have been no " imperialism," and
Mr. Bryan would have failed to secure an antagonist
worthy of his splendid oratory. How simple it all seems,
now that he has explained it ! If Mr. Bryan had op
posed the ratification of the treaty the Filipinos would
have gone their way, either into the arms of Spain, or of
Germany, or into discordant and warring petty states.
At all events we would have been done with them.
This would not have suited at all, because Mr. Bryan
wanted to wage "a successful contest against imperial
ism." As Hawaii had already come peacefully under our
rule no imperialism cquld be predicated on her accession.
It was necessary that the two-headed giant should be
created before " Jack the Giant-Killer " could overcome
him ; and so imperialism was born, and its actual father
was William Jennings Bryan! He is now endeavoring
to destroy his own child.
Mr. Bryan favors " the right kind of expansion," but
he does not favor the acquisition of the Philippines.
Why, in the name of common honesty, did he not say so
when the Senate was discussing the ratification of the
treaty? ' Then was the time for him to speak, or to for
ever after hold his peace. - Let it be remembered that
this extraordinary dread of " imperialistic rule " comes
from a gentleman who has accepted the nomination of
the fusion Populists' or People's party. It ispresumed
that he is bound in honor to carry out the principles of
each one of the three parties of which he is the nominee.
The Populist platform demands that "The country
should own and operate the railroads in the interest of
the people." Is not that imperialism?
If imperialism means that our own liberties are in*
danger, the allegation that William McKinley stands for
it should be laughed to scorn in every audience where it
is advanced. It is an insult to the intelligence of the
American people that a party orator should occupy him
self in endeavoring to show that the citizens of this
Republic are in danger of being enslaved. This is ammu
nition that has already been fired. -

During General Grant's incumbency of the Presi
dency we heard all this fiery eloquence. It was prophe
sied time and again that he would never leave the White
House except feet foremost; yet he quietly walked out,
as all his predecessors had done.
As long as the Union exists no danger of despotism
will ever come to this people.
When, if ever, we are divided up into petty provinces,
a strong ruler may seize the helm of state in some of them,
but as long as forty-five united sovereign states exist, our
liberties are secure. Webster said long ago, " Liberty
and union, one and inseparable." McKinley fought to
save that Union, and he will fight, if need be, to save our.
liberties. All the contest now, apparently, is to show not that
the Filipinos will be injured by annexation to our
country, but that we ourselves will thereby lose our
liberties. Even if we intended to hold the Philippines in
subjection would.it follow that we would be slaves? In
olden times did the Southerner who held slaves cease to
be a freeman ? Today, while he announces that he will
kill the negroes, and bulldoze them, and drive them from
the polls, and while he is endeavoring by ingenious ap
plication of constitutional law to disfranchise them,
is his own liberty for these reasons in danger? We all
know that it is not.
In the course of President McKinley towards the
Philippines not an act can be found which indicates that
he has ever intended to treat them otherwise than to
secure for them the greatest measure of liberty until
Congress should decide what their status was to be — as
the treaty provides it shall do. He did not vacate the
islands on the order of Aguinaldo. As the executive he
he was bound to hold them, "although the land was
sowed with dragons' teeth which were destined to spring
up armed men." He had no more right to give up the
the territory, which had been bought at the instance and
request of Mr. Bryan, than Bryan has at this moment.
The land is red now with the blood of Lawton, Egbert,
Stotzenberg, Logan and many of their comrades. It has
become sacred soil for us— but sentiment apart, potent
as it is with patriotic people — let some one indicate
what the President has done that he ought not to have
done, or what he he has failed to do that he ought to
have done.
In January, 1899, he appointed a commission -to go
to the Philippines with instructions "to. secure, with the

least possible delay, the benefits of a wise and generous
protection of life and property to the inhabitants." The
commission was instructed to make every effort "to alle
viate the burden of taxation, to establish industrial and
commercial prosperity, and to provide for the safety of
persons, and of property, by such means as may be found
conducive to these ends."
The commissioners were instructed "to ascertain what
amelioration in the condition of the inhabitants and what
improvements in public order may be practicable," and
for this purpose they were directed to study attentively
the existing social and political status of the various
populations. In the instructions to the commission the
President expressed the desire " that in all their relations
with the inhabitants of the islands the commissioners
exercise due respect for all the ideals, customs and insti
tutions of the tribes which compose the population,
emphasizing upon all occasions the just and beneficent
intentions of the government of the United States."
Upon , arriving at Manila the commission issued a
proclamation, which was signed by the three civil mem
bers and by Admiral Dewey and General Otis, in which
every guarantee of .civil and religious freedom was offered.
The proclamation stated that " the most ample liberty of
self-government willbe granted to the Philippine people,
which is reconcilable to the maintenance of a. wise, just,
stable, effective and economical administration of public
affairs, and compatible with the sovereign and inter
national rights and obligations of the United States."
It is stated that the civil rights of the Philippine people
will be guaranteed and protected to the fullest extent,
religious freedom was assured, and all persons shall have
an equal standing before the law. It denounced any
exploitation of the islands, and guaranteed to the people
an honest and effective civil service in which to the full
est extent practicable natives should be employed. It
promised reforms of education and the effective admin
istration of justice, and it announced that "the purpose
of the American government is the welfare and advance
ment ©f the Philippine people."
In issuing this proclamation the commission was
acting under orders and instructions of the President.
There was not a hint of "imperialism," but, on the con
trary, local self-government in all respects as complete
as we enjoy was offered. All these good offers fell idly
on the ear of Aguinaldo. He insisted on independence.
The commission could not promise that, because the

6
President, for whom it acted, had no power to give away
¦ the territory of the United States.
Another commission was sent to establish a civil
government for the Philippines. It is now at Manila,
and the government it has framed will be put in opera
tion the-lst of September, 1900. It cannot be treated
of here, because this article had to be prepared before
the text of the new government could reach the writer.
Is it not fair and right to ask that it be tested in prac
tice before it is condemned ?
I suppose it is idle, in the present excited state of
public feeling, to argue with the Democrats that their
avowed policy is enhancing ten-fold the difficulties which
confront us in pacifying the islands. One cannot, how
ever, avoid regretting that so many of our people are
encouraging and inflaming the Tagalos to resistance.
Resistance means death to many of our soldiers, and
to many Tagalos as well.
It is believed by the insurgents that Bryan's election
will insure their independence, and they are encouraged
to hold out. The success of the Democratic party means
success for them. If the Tagalos quit fighting and take
the oath of allegiance, on that moment the "paramount
issue" is dead, and so is Democracy. In this contest the
Democrats stake their all on the continuance of fighting.
It strikes one as odd that a great party should base
its hopes of success on the killing and wounding of our
troops. Will not a flame of patriotism rise up over the
land, which will testify that, at all hazards, we will standby
the flag, that come what may, we will not turn our backs
on the Philippines, a disgraced and dishonored nation ?
What we may do with the Philippines ultimately is
not the question now. If a man believes that they should
be independent, "this is not the time to urge that solu
tion. As well might the dissolution of the ties between
India and England have been advanced as a remedy,
when the massacre of Cawnpore took place. As well
might our troops have been withdrawn from China while
our Minister was imprisoned. The Democratic platform
on this subject reads as follows: «
" We favor an immediate declaration of the nation's
purpose to give to the Filipinos first, a stable form of gov
ernment; second, independence; and, third, protection
from outside interference, such as has been given for
nearly a century to the republics of Central and South
America." In the list of things to Be done first comes " a stable

form of Government." We are trying to give them
that now. If we retain them, the third clause, "pro
tection" will necessarily follow. Why, if we do not
retain them, we should burden ourselves with protect
ing them, is not clearly perceptible. The modern
doctrine seems to be that we may not take any foreign
territory for our own, but that whenever a republic is
born we must stand as its protector. We must run
amuck for the mere love of running it. We must pay
taxes to support warships and armies, in order that
some obscure nation may play at government. It is
understood why we have an interest in the South Amer
ican Republics — the Monroe Doctrine explains that — but
why we should become the Don Quixote of the world
cannot be satisfactorily explained. Let us at least be
honest, and when we say that the Philippines shall be
independent, let us say so, meaning what the word
implies. Let them go their way and we ours — enemies
in war, and in peace, friends. Let us have no entangling
alliances, nor stand sponsor for people who are aliens,
and whose abiding place is remote from our continent.
The Democratic platform does not say how long it
will be before the " stable government " it favors will be
established. It may be a hundred years, or even longer.
The difference between holding the Philippines until a
"stable government" is established and holding them
forever, is, as far as political right goes, the difference
between tweedle dum and tweedle dee. We have no
more right to hold them for a term of years than we
have to hold them forever. The people would become
confused in considering this question. It shows how
uncertain the Democrats were of their ground when
they adopted this uncertain, halting policy.
Disguise it as you may, the real question before the
people is whether the armies of the United Staes should
be withdrawn at once, now and forever, and the islands
turned over to the Tagalos. Mr. Bryan would, as com
mander-in-chief, have the power to recall the armies, and
if he did, he would let loose the horrors of a terrible revo
lution. As nobody advocates that course openly, it is*
hardly necessary to attack it — still Mr. Bryan in some
other speech may even reach that altitude of recklessness
We should not grant the Philippines immediate in
dependence, because we have assumed by the treaty ob
ligations to the world which we must comply with. We
have also assumed obligations to the friendly Filipi
nos, and we should not abandon them to a dreadful

fate. We have promised these people a stable govern
ment, and we ought to give it to them. We have prop
erty interests in the islands which should be protected.
It is. desirable for us to have a foot-hold in the east, so
as to foster and increase our commerce. We believe
that association with us will elevate the Filipino, and
improve his condition.
Should this "prognostic prove true — and the Philip
pines take rank hereafter with Australia — would any
man doubt the wisdom of our policy in holding them?
If another Canada shall be born in the tropics, may not
its union with us be mutually beneficial ? Who can
tell what the future may have in reserve for us? We
should not. promise independence to the Philippines, be
cause such a promise would nullify every effort that we
might make fpr the establishment of a government. The
Filipino would demand independence tomorrow, or the
next day, and possibly another bloody revolution would
ensue. I do not find in the Republican platform any decla
ration of the policy to be pursued touching the granting
of independence to the Philippines. That party is not
pledged either to grant or to refuse independence, and
according to the terms of its platform, it may take any
action on the subject that wisdom and prudence would
dictate. In the platform the party agrees "to provide
for the maintenance of law and order, and for the es
tablishment of good government, and for the perform
ance of international obligations." It promises also
that "the largest measure of self-government consistent
with our welfare, and our duties, shall be secured to
them by law." It cannot be doubted that, if those
promises are carried out in their spirit and intent, the
results would be of the highest benefit to the Filipinos.
I am not defending the Republican party in this
article, but I am defending William McKinley- He has
been subjected to more abuse than any president ever
was, and he has deserved it as little as any one ever did.
In the most difficult period of our history he has proved
himself equal to all the demands upon him. He has
acted with an eye single to the good of the country.
The war with Spain was not of the President's seeking,
but he met the issue with exalted courage. In diplo
macy he displayed qualities of the highest order, and in
military affairs he was remarkably successful. He em
inently deserves re-election. CHARLES DENBY.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08937 3725