{"1": {"fulltext": "E 713\\n.C53\\nCopy 1", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "7\\\\^", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "^y.\\ny^^u^L^^^z^^L^\\n9,\\nAcquisition of icriitory\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Wc should t;il(c no Partnership in liic\\nSocial and I olitical Troubles of the Old World.\\nSPEECH\\n\u00c2\u00ab5f\\nHON. HORACE CHILTON,\\ny\\\\\\nOF TEXAS,\\nSHNATK OF THE UNITED STATES,\\nSATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1899.\\nW-A. SHINOTON.\\n1899.\\nmil", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": ",C53\\nCon::. d Off.", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "SPEECH\\nov\\nHON. H E A E C 1 1 1 L T X\\nOn the .Joint resolution (S. R. 211) declaring that the United States disclaim\\nany intention to exercise vjcrmanent sovereignty over the Philippine\\nIslands, and assert their deferniiuation, when a stable and independent\\ngovernment shall have been erected therein, to leave the government of\\nthe islands to their own people-\\nMr. CHILTON said:\\nMr. Prksi dent The pending treaty of peace between the United\\nStates and Spain, which has been made pnblic by order of the\\nSenate, contains three main articles. By Article I Spain relin-\\nqnishes all claim of title to Cuba. By Article II Spain cedes to\\nthe United States the island of Puerto Rico and other islands under\\nSpanish sovereignty in the West Indies and the island of Guam in\\nthe Ladrones. By Article III Spain makes cession of the archi-\\npelago known as the Philippine Islands and the United States\\nagree to pay Spain 0. 000,000.\\nThere are other dependent articles, the most important of which\\nis, probably. Article VII, by which the two Governments relinquish\\nall claim for indemnity on the part of either Government or its\\ncitizens against the other Government arising out of the troubles\\nin Cuba, and in which the United States agree to settle such claims\\non the part of our citizens against Spain. This may develop into\\nan obligation of many millions against our Government. The\\namount has not been estimated with any approximate accuracy.\\nMr. President, the first two articles of the treaty present nij\\ndilficulties. We are satisfied with a relinquishment of Cuba to\\nits own people. Few Senators object to taking a cession of Puerto\\nRico, which lies in the Western Hemisphere. The island of\\nGuam, in the Ladrones, is not more than two or three times as\\nlarge as the District of Columbia, and contains a population of\\nonly four or five thousand. It is a convenient size for a coaling\\nand naval station, and we would have no perplexities of govern-\\nment for future settlement.\\nThe article relating to the Philippines is the one upon which\\nour difterences of opinion turn.\\nMr. President, I am not an anti-expansionist. I believe that it is\\nthe duty and the interest of this country to widen its boundaries\\nas time goes on. But 1 would not do this indiscriminately. In\\ncase of doubt, I would adhere closely to the policy of the fore-\\nfathers.\\nIn my judgment the taking of the Philippines will bring peril\\nboth to the interests and the institutions of the American people.\\nIt is not an acquisition which will add to the comfort and glory\\nof the Republic, like that of Louisiana, or Florida, or Texas, or\\nNew Mexico and California.\\n4165 3", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "6\\nthe territory of the United States. That has been the common\\nconstruction of our Constitution for the last one hundred years.\\nBut suppose that danger could be safeguarded by legislation.\\nWhere under our Constitution would you find the authority to\\nkeep the productions of the Filipinos, manufactured in their own\\nhomes, from coming unimpeded to the ports of the United States?\\nIn Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheat., 317), Chief Justice Mar-\\nshall, speaking for the court, said:\\nThe eighth section of the first article [of the Constitution] gives to Consrresa\\nthe i^ower to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for the\\npurpo-es thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation\\nas to place. It consequently extends to all places over which the Government\\nextends.\\nThat is strong enough.\\nThe power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be\\nexorcised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this\\nterm designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire?\\nHe then goes on to answer the question:\\nIt [the United States] is the name given to oiir great Republic, which is\\ncomposed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia or the terri-\\ntory west of the Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland\\nor Pennsylvania: and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Consti-\\ntution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises\\nshould be observed in the one than in the other.\\nThe idea was advanced here a few days ago that Congress pos-\\nsessed a higher power over unorganized territory than that which\\nit had over organized Territories; but when this decision was ren-\\ndered the greater part of the territory west of the Missouri River,\\nto which Chief Justice Marshall referred, was unorganized terri-\\ntory. This language applies to all the territory, as he says, which\\nbelongs to the United States.\\nThe same principle is practically outlined in the case of Cross\\nvs. Harrison (16 Howard). From a consideration of these opin-\\nions and the nature of our Government and institutions, it would\\nseem clear that whenever any territory is brought within this\\nAmerican empire, so called, it becomes subject to the same\\nconstitutional principles which limit Congress in regard to that\\nwhich we now possess.\\nI can not believe that it will be within the power of Congress to\\nprescribe a rate of duty on foreign goods brought into the Philip-\\npine Islands differing from the duty on same goods when brought\\ninto Texas, Maine, or California, nor can national legislation fix a\\ntariff on importations which pass from the Philippine Islands to\\nother parts of this country higher than the tax on importations\\nwhich pass from the Territory of Arizona or the District of\\nColumbia into any existing State or Territory.\\nMr. President, the laboring people of this country have caught\\nthe alarm. They understand the nature of this gi-ave and radical\\ndeparture.\\nMr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Texas allow me to\\ninterrupt him and ask him a question?\\nMr. CHILTON. Certainly.\\nMr. FORAKER. Do I understand the Senator to contend that\\nthe constitutional provision requiring uniformity in the levying\\nof impost duties woiild apply to importations from the Philippines\\ninto other States and Territories of the United States?\\nMr. CHILTON. Undoubtedly, reasoning from the decisions of\\nthe Supreme Court.\\n4165", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "Mr. FORAKER. I call the Senator s attention to the fact that\\nthe term duties upon imports and exports. as used in the Con-\\nstitution of the United states, has been hold by the Supremi;\\nCourt to apply only to imports and exports from and to foreign\\ncountries, and not to imports and exports from one State to another\\nor from one Territory to another of tlie United States. Therefore\\nthat rule of the Constitution would have no application at all to\\nexports into thiscountry fromthoPhilippinelslandsif they should\\nbe made a part of the United States, and no application \\\\vhatever\\nto transactions between the United States and the Pliilippine\\nIslands; audit would bo competent for any State of the Union, if\\nit saw fit to do so, to protect itself in any way it might see fit by\\nthe levying of import duties upon importations from the Philip-\\npine Islands.\\nIf the Senator will allow me, I will call his attention to a case\\nreported in 8 Wallace. The Senator may have overlooked it. It\\nis the case of Woodiuft vs. Parham, where it was held by the\\nSupreme Court, reading only from the syllabus:\\nTho term import, as used in that clause of the Constitution wliieli says\\nthat no State shall levy any imposts or duties ou imports or exports, does\\nnot refer to articles imported from one State into another, but only to arti-\\ncles imported from foreign countries into the U nited States.\\nAnd the court, in this opinion, went on to say that wherever the\\nterm -imports or exports is used in the Constitution relation is\\nhad to foreign importations and exportations and not to transac-\\ntionsbetween theStates or Territories of the United States. There-\\nfore, imports from the Philippines that would be prejudicial to\\nlabor would not be beyond the reach of Congress to regulate.\\nMr. CHILTON. I differ with the Senator in regard to that\\nproposition.\\nMr. FORAKER. I am only stating what the Supreme Court\\nhas held.\\nMr. CHILTON. I can not concede that the case referred to de-\\ncided the question here involved. It arose under the clause of the\\nConstitution limiting the levying of duties by States. Even in\\nthat aspect it has been superseded by later decisions holding that\\ntaxes by one State on importations from another are void because\\nthey constitute a regulation of interstate commerce.\\nWe are now speaking of the powers of Congress. Is it within\\nthe power of the Congress of the United States to declare that\\ngoods which come from Arizona to the District of Columbia shall\\npay a certain rate of duty or a certain rate of tax\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I do not care\\nwhat you call it\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and that goods which come from Texas to the\\nDistrict of Columbia shall pay another rate? Certainly not.\\nI will quote part of section 8, Article I, of the Constitution:\\nbut all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout\\nthe United States.\\nNow, if a tax should be laid on goods brought from Manila to\\nSan Francisco or New York, even if not a duty or impost, it would\\nfall within the definition of the word excise, and would be\\ninvalid if higher than like excises on goods from other ports of\\nour country to New York or San Francisco.\\nBut I was about to show the views of our labor organizatitins in\\nregard to this question. I received lately a protest from one of\\nthese bodies, which I will read in part:\\nThe undersigned delegates desire to present briefly the reasons whvthe\\nCigar Makers International Union of America, an organization coraposl-d of\\nil65", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "8\\n31,500 members, located in 357 cities and towns, is opposed to the annexation\\nof the Philippine Islands by the United States.\\nI. Because the bulk of the cigars manufactured in the Philippine Islands\\nare sold at a price of ,*5 to $10 per thousand in United States currency. This\\nstatement is verified by Edward W. Harden, special commissioner, in his\\nreport on the financial and industrial conditions of said country (page 23).\\nII. Because the exportation of cigars m 1896 from Manila amounted to\\n191,130,OW), which, within a few years, under American energy and direction,\\nwould increase to the extent of endangering our home industry.\\nIII. Because the cheap labor of the islands, subsisting mostly on rice and\\nvegetables, would enable a few manufacturers to flood the United States\\nwith tliis product, thus tending to paralyze our home market.\\nIV. Because the development of the industry in the archipelago would\\nthrow thousands of Americans employed at making cigars out of work and\\nreduce the standard of wages to the Asiatic level, which averages from 15\\ncents to 25 cents per day.\\nV. Because all barriers that now limit competition between these produc-\\ning forces would be swept aside, and new conditions created most disastrous\\nto the moral, social, and material welfare of the American working people.\\nVI. Because the annexation of the Philippine Islands will not change the\\nAsiatic habits and customs of the laboring population, but will, in course of\\ntime, reduce the American standard of living to a level bordering on pau-\\nperism.\\nVII. Because the welfare of 150,000 employees and small manufacturers\\nand their families, depending upon this industry for a living in the United\\nStates, is of vastly more importance to the nation than the increase of com-\\nmerce expected by a few commercial centers.\\nVIII. Because it would nullify, in substance, the Chinese exclusion act, the\\nalien contract labor law, and immigration laws, for which organized labor\\nhas contended for the last twenty-flve years.\\nMr. PLA.TT of Connecticut. Mr. President, I do not want to\\ninterrupt the Senator or delay him, but I do wish just at this\\npoint to say that after a very careful study of the situation I am\\nfirmly of the belief that none of the natives can come from the\\nPhilippine Islands into the United States unless Congress gives\\npermission, nor can any free goods come from there into the United\\nStates unless Congress provides for it.\\nMr. CHILTON, Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut\\ncan not speak for the Supreme Court of the United States. The\\nlaboring people of this country will hardly have a sufficient guar-\\nanty in his emphatic contention on this subject. So long as the\\nPhilippine people are held in allegiance to the Government of the\\nUnited States you can not deny them the rights which belong to\\nother persons who owe allegiance to our Government. Congress\\nhas no power to make discriminations between the people who owe\\na common obligation to a common Federal sovereignty. This\\nGovernment was founded upon the proposition that all who served\\nthe Republic should have equality of right.\\nAnd why are we asked to take up these puzzles? Why are we\\nasked to run the risk of admitting large numbers of Chinese and\\ncrossbreeds of Chinese and INIestizos into this Republic, to say\\nnothing of the vast Malay millions which stand behind them? In\\nthe Philippine Islands to-day are more than 500,000 Chinese and\\ndescendants of Chinese. Tliey mainly inhabit the city of Manila\\nand other towns.\\nThose people are laborers, merchants, and traders, and when\\nwe open the doors by the annexation of these islands we will\\nbring into competition with our home people more alien pauper\\nlaborers than would come here in a hundred years under the or-\\ndinary operation of our immigration laws. And for what? For\\nislands which, in my judgment, have been vastly exaggerated in\\nfertility and value. The sensational journals of this country have\\nsaturated the public mind with the idea that if we give up the\\n41C5", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "9\\nPhilippine Islands we will -ive up a miue of wealth and an oppor-\\ntunity never to return aj^ain. ^auuppor\\nMy Investigations do not confirm these highly colored estimates\\n^t. ^.T^Tr Philippines would no doubt fmprove^nle;\\nmnalSlvif it would make hut I\\nsmall ft.^ ure in our national resources. The imports and exports\\nexports of the Philippines are in a year\\n^vnif f !f^- ;^f^ themselves by daydreams about securing a\\ng eat trade m China and Japan from the standpoint of the Philip\\npines. But I have seen town-lot booms before. I have seen sober\\nmen^ntoxicate themselves with visions of railroads whose char^\\nters alone tel the story of their existence and of great cities whffh\\nthe census taker never found.\\nA widening commerce with those far-off lands should ever be an\\nwnl ^f fi J S P^ in old Democratic da3s\\nwas the first man to unlock the doors of Japan to American trade!\\niJut to propel that commerce it is not necessary to assume the\\nresponsibility of governmental administration.\\nwh- f \u00e2\u0084\u00a2\u00c2\u00b0f* this Government surrender all the advantages\\nT\\\\ h.ch come from our glorious Eastern victory. I would ask one\\nor more coaling and navai stations in the Philipniues so ih^t\\nfr 7 had unwilling trouble upon tKa we m ght\\nhave a base of operations in that quarter of the world\\niiut 1 would rather have a treaty which gave free entry to Ameri-\\ncan productions-yes, ten thousand times rather have it-than a\\nSimlonTof ?^e pTlip^p^^^^\\nm/- ?.^1^^^^^Y. Will the Senator permit me?\\nnJp\u00c2\u00abH^^^^?^?^ OFFICER (Mr. Gallixger in the chair).\\nMr.^CmLTON ^TersI^\\n^rf r^^^^ contention of the Senator from Con-\\nnecticut [Mr. Platt] be correct, and the Philippines coS absS-\\n1 tely under the sovereignty of Congress, and are not citizens of\\nthiy any rilhS slJe\\ngiJ e h^itnL the tSf\\nhJ^r AJ^^^I^- ^s^ t^e Senator whether, if that\\nbe true m regard to the Philippines, it is not true with re-ard to\\nUnitTd sS Territory^f the\\n4.1 ^o P^-^TT of Connecticut. I do not w.\\\\^h to interfere witli\\nthe Senator from Texas [Mr. Chiltox]. but I will say with reSrd\\nto the inhabitants of the Territories of New Mexi( o and Arizoia\\nrni^erTqM^fr^^ ,?^^*l^ !i^^ Constitution and laws of the\\nMr Cmr Tn^P^ A?^^? f- A\u00c2\u00a5* distinction.\\nPnrAf;,^? P^ v 1^ looked ito that question\\nfi^Iw IF^- ^,\u00c2\u00abc?r*^in^ to tliat theory, all wo have to do to with-\\ndraw the protectwn of the Constitution from the ptoi)le -f Arizona\\nand New Mexico i.s to repeal that statute; and I do not believe fo?\\nTe?iSorie?of f h ^T\u00c2\u00b0T^ I^^^ P O inhabit the\\nlerutories of this country depend upon any such slender lounda-\\nJJr ?^TH^S? r ^l^y t^e Senator a question?\\nMr. CHILTON. Certainly.\\n4165", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "10\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators desiring to interrupt a\\nSenator on the tioor will please get consent from the Chair.\\nMr. NELSON. I desire to ask the Senator from Texas a prac-\\ntical question, not for the purpose of interrupting him. When\\nwe annexed Alaska did all the Indians and natives of that country\\nbecome citizens of the United States, or what was the condition\\nof the natives of that country after they were annexed?\\nMr. CHILTON. Mr. President, under our Constitution the\\nIndians occupy a peculiar situation, and no decision and no ar.uu-\\nment founded upon the relation of the American Indian to the\\npeople of this country and to our Constitution is worth any thing-\\nwhatever.\\nMr. President, I have spoken of the internal difficulties which\\nwill present themselves. In my judgment, they form but the\\nsmallest part of the gravity of this situation. Whenever we go\\nover into the Philippine Islands great external problems will loom\\nup. Wliat becomes of our Monroe doctrine? What is that Mon-\\nroe doctrine? It is a beautiful principle, which blends the inter-\\nests of all the people of the American republics to the south of\\nus with the interests of this great nation.\\nUnder that Monroe doctrine, to which this country has been\\npledged in every conceivable way, and which took its place in the\\ninternational law when President Cleveland issued his celebrated\\nwarning to England which brought that great Empire to agree to\\nan arbitration with the Venezuelan Republic upon the question\\nof boundary we say to the world that the Western Hemisphere\\nshall constitute a section of the earth with which the mighty pow-\\ners of Europe shall have no concern. In the interest of peace the\\nUnited States will not dislodge European colonies already estab-\\nlished, but their boundaries are fixed. Neither by war, purchase,\\nvoluntary cession, vote of the people, nor in any conceivable way\\nshall a single foot of new territory upon this hemisphere be added\\nto European dominion.\\nIn some respects this is a hard doctrine, but it is a doctrine of\\nvirtue and necessity. To say to all the great powers of Europe\\nthat they will never be permitted to take in territory anywhere\\nin North, South, or Central America is something to touch the\\npride of kings and emperors across the wafer.\\nSuppose that Germany should have a conflict with Brazil, and\\nher war ships should lay siege to and capture Rio Janeiro, as Ma-\\nnila was captured by us.\\nIf then, the Brazilian Government, in order to make a peace, were\\nto propose to cede Rio Janeiro to Germany as a part of the settle-\\nment, could she do it? No. At that moment the great, strong\\nvoice of the American Republic would speak to the German Gov-\\nernment, Stay thy hand, for we are sworn that no government\\nof the Old World shall ever hereafter acquire another foot of soil\\nupon the domain of the New.\\nMr. PETrUS. By force?\\nMr. CHILTON. No. sir; not by force alone. The Monroe doc-\\ntrine goes further. The principle is universal in its sweep and\\ninterdicts every species of acquisition by European powers.\\nIt would be hard to find a citizen of the Union who would give\\nup that Monroe doctrine.\\nWe will say to the powers of the Old World, We will not\\nallow you to acquire further possessions in the Western Hemi-\\nsphere. Yet Ave will take Porto Rico, and we reserve the right to\\n4165", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "11\\ntake Haiti or Brazil or Cuba or any other part of Xorth or South\\nAmerica when we tliink projjer to do so.\\nBut after saying this, after reserving? that liberty, will we po\\nacross into Asia and enter into a wolfish rivalry for land, and will\\nwe take and keep all that wo feel disposed to take and keep? Mr.\\nPresident, all the moral power of the Monroe doctrine will dis-\\nappear whenever we are brought to that extremity.\\nThere is a corollary from the xMonroe doctrine which is stated\\nby President Monroe himself and the other great statesmen of\\nAmerica. That deduction is that, while we will not allow the\\ngovernments of the Old World to add any further territory to\\ntheir present colonies on this side of the water, neither will we\\ntake a hand in the affairs of the Old World; and when we abandon\\nthat position and go over into the Eastern Hemisphere we will\\ndiscredit the Monroe doctrine during all time. The principle will\\nhave been extracted: its truth and loftiness will have been lost,\\nand it will become simply a doctrine of brute force on the part of\\nthe United States.\\nAgain, Mr. President, when we go over into the Philippines we\\nhave thrown ourselves upon the red-hot stove of international poli-\\ntics in the Eastern Hemisphere. When we go we find, in the first\\nplace, that goveniments over there do not settle matters, each for\\nitself. You find over there what is known as the Concert of\\nEurope. A short time ago Greece had a war with Turkey. Tur-\\nkey overran Greece; and had it in her power to force terms upon\\nthe Grecian monarchj-.\\nBut the powers of Europe took a hand. Russia, Germany, Eng-\\nland, France, Austria, and Italy, forming the concert of Europe,\\nintervened, and they said, We are going to have something to\\nsay about how this treaty of peace shall be made. They demanded\\nthat the treaty of peace be settled according to certain principles;\\nthe balance of power must be conserved and so Turkey, after she\\nhad won a conclusive victory over Greece, was obliged to submit\\nto a treaty which was dictated by the six great powers of Europe.\\nSo after the war between Russia and Turkey a few years ago,\\nRussia was victorious and began to outline the tenns of peace,\\nbut a dark figure loomed up\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the concert of Europe\u00e2\u0080\u0094 England,\\nGermany, France, Austria, and Italy. A congress was called at\\nBerlin, a famous congress in the diplomatic history of the world.\\nBeaconsfield and Bismarck and other great statesmen represent-\\ning the countries of Europe were there, and though Russia had\\noverpowered Turkey in actual battle, the treaty of peace was made\\nupon compromise terms acceptable to the other great powers.\\nNow, when we go into the Philippine Islands we become close\\nneighbors to Russia, Germany, England, and France, and we will\\nno more be satisfied with what we have than thev are. Some\\nAmerican statesman will rise up and say we are as much entitled\\nto a share of China as they are, and we will have the power to\\ntake what we want. Then we will be invited to a conference with\\nthe powers of Europe.\\nMr. President, do you suppose the people of this conntry would\\nsubmit to that? No. We never would agree to submit the result\\nof our victories in war to the arbitration of other nations, and our\\nposition would be certain to lead to hostile contests between the\\nUnited States and the powers of the Old World. We would be on\\nthe rim of difficulty all the time.\\nWhen we go to the Philippine Islands, we take our place on the\\n4165", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "12\\nSea of China. France is there. England is there, Russia is there,\\nGermany is there. Trouble will be certain to ensue, and it will\\nnot be long in coming. In my judgment twenty years will not\\nelapse until we will be driven into hostile conflict with one or all\\nthe great European nations.\\nWhat will be the main theater of the war? Where will the\\nfighting take place? Inevitably in Chinese waters or upon Chinese\\nterritory.\\nNow, I have great faith in the energy, in the ability, and in the\\nstrength of the American people. I know our resources are tre-\\nmendous. BiTt we must never lose sight of the important fact\\nthat one of the reasons why the other nations of the earth have\\nheretofore been unwilling and unable to measure arms with the\\nUnited States is because of the fact that we have stood here in a\\ngreat continental area and serenity, and the countries of the Old\\nWorld could not find a place to strike us. They dared not seek to\\ninvade us, and hence they shrank from encountering the dangers\\nof a war with this Republic.\\nBut whenever we take the Philippine Islands we have f urnislied\\nto the world a place to strike us. It will be our one weak point.\\nIf we enter into an alliance with England, as is proposed here by\\nsome, we will have to take part in the division of China or take\\nside against the partition of China. In either case we will be\\nobliged to go across the sea and fight our future battles with the\\npowers of the Old World at a place which they and not we will\\nselect.\\nIn such a contest we will be at great disadvantage. A Russian\\nGovernment railroad will soon be finished from St. Petersburg to\\nthe Pacific Ocean and Sea of China. It will be within the power\\nof the Russian Empire to send train load after train load of sol-\\ndiers from St. Petersburg\u00e2\u0080\u0094 its capital to its remotest limits and\\ndebark them close to the Philippines or upon the soil of China.\\nWe can not transport our soldiers by railroad. We will load\\nships at San Francisco or at some other American port and send\\noiTr soldiers across the Pacific Ocean, make a landing, and then\\nmeasure arms with the continental powers of the Eastern Hem-\\nisphere. The difference of facilities would be against us in pro-\\nportions so tremendous that I shrink from such an imdertaking.\\nMr. President, we should take some observations from experi-\\nence. I remember in reading history one very remarkable in-\\nstance of the utter folly of enabling your adversary to select the\\ntheater of war. After Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia and\\nleft his army bleeding lapon her plains of snow, no power in Europe\\ndared to undertake another Russian invasion. For a half century\\nRussia was deemed impregnable. But in an evil hour she set up\\ncertain rights upon the Black Sea. Then England and Franco\\nsaw their opportunity.\\nWhen Russia set up these rights upon the Black Sea, as a mat-\\nter of course she had to enforce them. England and France found\\nit in their power to select the place where the fighting should oc-\\ncur, and when the Crimean war ended Russia was forced to agree\\nto a peace that cost her more prestige than any other event in her\\nhistory.\\nIt has been boldly avowed upon this floor that we should go into\\nan alliance with England and fight Russia or Germany or any com-\\nbination of European powers which should seek to partition the\\nChinese Empire. What does all that mean? It means war. in-\\ndescribable, unending war. Why should we cast the American\\n41Q-}", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "13\\ndestiny upon a sea which is bound to brin;^ our people into bloody\\nconflict with the powers of the Old World? It is a dreadful re-\\nsponsibility to propose at this hour of our history.\\nThe last civil war has already cost the people of the United\\nStates over $10,000,000,000; the wars of Europe during the present\\ncentury have cost the people of Europe over $100,000,000,000, and\\nthe end is not yet. Shall we gather nothing from this exi^erience?\\nShall we go headlong into a policy which has brought the Euro-\\npean masses into a state almost equivalent to despair?\\nSo dreadful has this burden grown that not long ago the Czar\\nof Russia proposed a conference to consider plans for a general\\ndisarmament. We all know that no disarmament will take place.\\nThe powers of Europe must keep up great standing armies to\\nwatch each other. Why watch each other? Because they are in\\nclose neighborhood and every neighbor striving to gain advantage\\nin territorial acquisition. What brought on the war between the\\nUnited States and Spain? It was because of the neighborhood of\\nCuba to this country. If Cuba had been 7,000 miles away, we\\nwould never have had war with Spain, and no crisis such as that\\nwhich now faces its would exist.\\nNow, whenever we go to the Philippine Islands we become neigh-\\nbors to France, to Russia, and to Germany, and the very fact of\\nour neighborhood will keep us perpetually in danger of conflict.\\nBut it is said, If all this be true, why is it that England, France,\\nGermany, and other countries are engaged in a mad race for co-\\nlonial territory? The reasons are many; some of them partly\\nsound and others purely the result of imitation.\\nEngland and Germany have for a long time been vexed with\\nthe problem of a superabundant population. England has gone\\nso far, at different times, as to actually assist immigration to the\\nUnited States and other parts of the world.\\nFrance has been led into the same policy on the theory of finding\\nnew markets, but those who have studied the problem maturely\\nbelieve that France has not gained and will not gain anything of\\nsolid value from her exi^eriment.\\nBesides, these countries are not self-sustaining. They do not\\nhave, like the United States, such a variety of soil and climate that\\nwithin their own borders one industry can exchange its products\\nfor that of the other and a comfortable living be made practicable\\nfor all without calling into requisition foreign trade.\\nEngland and Germany could not live without the wheat which\\ncomes from other countries. They could not thrive without the\\ncotton which grows in other countries. The dependence of\\nEuropean nations upon the United States for these great staples\\nof agricultural production has long been the subject of discontent\\namong the thinkers who rule English and German affairs.\\nBut why should England, Germany, and France be held up to the\\nUnited States as objects of our imitation?\\nAre laborers paid better in England and Germany than they are\\nin the United States? Are the masses of Europe more comfortable\\nthan the masses of this Republic?\\nIf in the short period of our history we have reached a height\\nof power far above that held by other civilized nations, why should\\nwe now take up their policies?\\nWhere has the world ever witnessed such another record as that\\nmade by this Union under the fostering principles we are now\\nabout to abandon?\\nBut, Mr. President, the question is asked with an air of coufi-\\n4163", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "14\\ndence, as if it presented a difficulty which could not be overcome,\\nWhat are j ou going to do with the Philippines? It is even\\nclaimed in debate that we possess only a choice of alternatives;\\non the one hand, to take the Philippines as a part of our territory,\\nor, on the other, to leave them to the dominion of Spain. This is\\nmere assumption. We should do neither one thing nor the other.\\nIf we were under no specific obligations to the present insurgent\\nforces in the Philippines it would be our duty, in view of the prin-\\nciples so long and proudly held by the American Union, to provide\\nfor independent government by the peoi^le concerned and leave\\nthem to their just destiny.\\nBut the case is still stronger. The evidence published in con-\\nnection with the treaty shows conclusively that Aguinaldo and\\nhis forces were of steady, valuable support to the American com-\\nmanders. The same evidence shows that these people looked upon\\nthemselves as the allies of the United States and believed faith-\\nfully thai they Avere to be the beneficiaries of a joint success. I\\nknow not how it may impress others, but there seems to me some-\\nthing shameful in now turning to the Filipinos and saying to\\nthem, You were not our allies; j ou were our tools; you were the\\nvictims of our diplomacy. We were merely using you, and our\\nconsuls and commanders were instructed privately not to commit\\nthis Government in a way which would deny lis the privilege of\\nordering the fate of the Philippines without regard to your wishes.\\nMen talk about our moral duties to the world, about what we\\nowe to England and to China and the peace of mankind, but it\\nseems to me that a great nation of intelligence and power owes to\\na weak and trustful people like the Filipinos the duty of respect-\\ning our engagement with them in the same sense in which they\\nunderstood it. There is no danger either to the peace of the world\\nor the prestige of our Republic in taking this course.\\nIt has been said upon tins floor that if we aided the Philippine\\npeople to establish an independent government Germany, France,\\nRussia, or England would seize these islands. But the truth is\\nthat this difficulty is entirely unreal.\\nIt would be easy for us to treat the Philippine Islands as we\\ntreat Liberia. That Republic is not on the Western Hemisphere.\\nWe do not claim that it falls under the influence of the Monroe\\ndoctrine. It is located on the coast of Africa, where Germanj-,\\nEngland, and France are pushing forward for new territory.\\nWe never have undertaken to exercise the slightest sovereignty\\nover Liberia. Yet we have had occasion to define a policy in\\nregard to it. I read from Wharton s Digest of International Law,\\nsection 6G, from a letter dated April 21, 1W80, written by Mr. Evarts,\\nwhile Secretary of State, to Mr. Hoppin:\\nTho United States are not avorso to having the great powers know that\\nthey publicly recognize the peculiar relations between them and Liberia, and\\nthat they are prepared to talie every proper step to maintain them. To this\\nend it is not inexpedient that you, and Mr. Lowell also, on his return to his\\npost from his present leave, should evince a lively interest in tlie movements\\nof both Great Britain and P rance in the neighborhood of Liberia.\\nWhile Wharton does not publish the entire letter, I find, on\\nexamining the files of the State Department, a further expression\\nin the same letter which may be usefully quoted here:\\nThe attitude of the European powers which may have established them-\\nselves in tho vicinity of Liberia becomes of interest to tho United States\\nwhenever it may assume a tendency to disparage the asserted rights of\\nnative self-control.\\n41,;5", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "15\\nIn 1S84 a letter was wi-itten on the same genoral subject by Mr.\\nFrelinghuysen, Secretary of State, to Mr. Roustan, the French\\nminister. Wharton quotes a part of that letter also, as follows:\\nLiberia, although not a colony of tho United States\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nWe claimed no jurisdiction over it whatever\\nbe^an its independent career as an offshoot of this country, which bears to\\nit a quasi-parental relationship, which authorizes the United States to inter-\\npose its Kood offices in any contest between Liberia and a foreign state, and\\na refusal to give! the United Statos an opportunity to bo heard for this pur-\\npose would make an unfavorable impression in the minds of the Qovem-\\nmcnt and the people of tho United States.\\nIn the same letter it is said:\\nIt seems, however, proper that I should in the name of this Government\\nadvise you provisionally that the United States would consiiler a Frinich\\nclaim to territory in tho Mannali River as threatening the integrity and tran-\\nquillity of Liberia. I should, however, be most hai)py to learn that the report\\nof French occupation of Keuts Island is unfounded.\\nOn another occasion, in 1880, Mr. Evarts, while Secretary of\\nState, wrote a letter to Mr. Noyes, in which he called attention to\\nthe information which had been received here that the French\\nGovernment had designs of establishing a protectorate over the\\nLiberian Republic.\\nMr. Noyes, the American minister to France, replied that on\\nmaking inquiry lie had discovered that there was no intention\\non the part of the French Government to institute a protectorate\\nover Liberia. That letter was published in the volume of For-\\neign Relations of the United States for 1879, and Mr. Noyes,\\nhaving ascertained in advance that it would be published, sug-\\ngested that it was unnecessary to put the correspondence in print.\\nBut our Government declined to heed his suggestion, and it was\\nsaid:\\nIt is therefore quite suitable that the great powers should know that the\\nUnited States publicly recognize those relations which we bear to Liberia,\\nand is prepared to take every proper step to maintain them.\\nMr. President, our entire interest in Liberia has been put on\\nthe ground that it was settled by Africans who left this country,\\nand a hint from us has never failed to arrest all designs cherished\\nby European nations against this little Republic.\\nNow, if we go into the Philippine Islands and give those people\\ntheir just inheritance of independence, our Government can say\\nrightfully to the world that the people of the Philippine Islands\\nestablished their liberty by aid of our arms; they sustained us in\\nthe war against Spain, and we shall therefore always regard them\\nas objects of our parental care. Not one of the powers of Europe\\nwould dare to make the slightest aggression upon the independent\\ngovernment of the Philippines at the hazard of our displeasure.\\nThe claim that we must either take the treaty as it is or sub-\\nject ourselves to tremendous consequences of difficulty with Spain\\nis another unreal conception in connection with this situation.\\nSpain has no money, no navy, no hopes; and whenever the United\\nStates sav, You must make the same relinquishment in regard\\nto the Philippine Islands that you have made in regard to Cuba,\\nshe will instantly yield to our pleasure and close up a war which\\nhas advertised alike her folly and wealmess.\\nBut Senators say we can attend to all these questions after we\\nhave ratified the treaty.\\nMr. President, he is but a poor student of human nature who\\ndepends too much upon his own firmness of purpose in dealing\\n4165", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "16\\nwith gi-eat and constant questions in a great ami constant way.\\nThe people of the United States never have given up a foot of ter-\\nritory. The smallest acquisition becomes a matter of pride after\\nit once becomes a part of the Republic. When two or five years\\nfrom now it is proposed to give up the Philippines the Senator\\nfrom Colorado |Mr. Teller], or some other Senator, will rise to\\nsay that if you give them up Germany will take them, or England\\nwill take them, or Russia will take them, and you will always\\nhave this scarecrow of foreign interference in the affairs of the\\nPhilippine Islands to deter us from acting in the way our better\\njudgment might suggest.\\nBut if you will adopt a resolution or amendment to the treaty\\nwhich explicitly defines our relation to those people, then you will\\nhave a fulcrum upon which the moral sentiment of this country\\ncan work. Even the boldest adventurer of expansion will feel\\nabashed when reminded that we ought to give the Filipinos inde-\\npendent government because we solemnly promised to do so when\\nwe made the treaty with Spain.\\nMr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President\\nMr. CHILTON. I want to get through so as to give the Senator\\nfrom Colorado an opportunity to speak.\\nMr. SULLIVAN. I wish merely to ask a question. How can\\nyou do that thing when objection is made to the consideration of\\na resolution?\\nMr. CHILTON. That has all been explained. A resolution\\nwhich shall be effective is now out of the question. We can\\namend the treaty; and if we do amend it, ratification will be\\ncertain.\\nLet us make no pretexts. Let us not trample upon the aspira-\\ntions of the Philippine people to imitate the character of this\\nRepublic.\\nItls a stirring thing to read of great generals and heroic admi-\\nrals, of sieges, battles, and victories, but after the music and the\\nmarch have passed by, after the dance of delirium has worn us\\nout, there will come a time of reckoning and mourning. I can\\nbut think of what will fall to our people in future years. After\\nwe have vindicated, by great sacrifice of the treasure and blood of\\nAmerica, our ability toineasure arms with the powers of Europe\\nin their schemes of colonization upon the Eastern Hemisphere, I\\nfeel that the good folks at home are going to be the sufferers for\\nall time\u00e2\u0080\u0094 sufferers in purse, suffers in morals, sufferers in insti-\\ntutions.\\nI am one of those who believe in a Pro\\\\idence which cares for\\nthe destiny of collective millions. I feel that our toilers have out-\\nstripped all others and grown greater in a century than nations\\nthat have lived a thousand years, not alone because we have more\\nenergy and more brain than those who dwell in other lands, btit\\nbecause we have been the justest nation of all history. In this\\ngreat crisis let us show to all hearts and all time that the Ameri-\\ncan Republic still furnishes the world s best example of righteous\\nrulers and a free people.\\n4165\\no", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n013 744 632 7", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "LiUKHKY Ul- CUriUKt: i\\n013 744 632 7\\nHollinger Corp.\\npH8.5", "height": "3675", "width": "2297", "jp2-path": "acquisitionofter00chil_0022.jp2"}}