{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4630", "width": "3003", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "r\\nO^\\n5S 681\\n5\\n^Z^C^^^-i^^-^^^^^ c^^^^-2^\\nRELATIONS WITH THE PHILIPPINES.\\nSPEEC\\nOF\\nHON. JOSEPH L. RAWLINS,\\nOF UTAH,\\nIN THE\\nSENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,\\nMonday, March 12, 1900.\\nI 900.\\nI\u00c2\u00ab\u00c2\u00ab\u00c2\u00bb\u00c2\u00bb\u00c2\u00bb9S", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "^s\\nL\\nSPEECH\\nOF\\nHON. JOSEPH L. EAWLINS,\\nOF UTAH,\\nIn tpie Senate of the United States^\\nMonday, March IS, 1900,\\nOn the relations of the Government with the Philippines.\\nMr. RAWLINS said:\\nMr. President: I ask for the reading of the bill introduced by\\nthe Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner] and favorably re-\\nported to the Senate by the Republican majority of the Commit-\\ntee on the Philippines.\\nThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Sen-\\nate the bill (S. 2355) in relation to the suppression of insurrection\\nin, and to the government of, the Philippine Islands, ceded by\\nSpain to the United States by the treaty concluded at Paris on the\\n10th day of December, 1898. The bill will be read.\\nThe Secretary read the bill, as follows:\\nBe it enacted, etc.. That when all insurrection against the sovereignty and\\nauthority of the United States in the Philippine Islands, acquired from Spain\\nby the treaty concluded at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, shall have\\nbeen completely suppressed by the military and naval forces of the United\\nStates, all military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the said\\nislands shall, until otherwise provided by Congress, be vested in such person\\nand persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the\\nUnited States shall direct for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of\\nsaid islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.\\nMr. RAWLINS. Mr. President, that is but the prologue to\\nthe swelling act of the imperial theme. I next ask for the read-\\ning of the joint resolution introduced by the Senator from In-\\ndiana [Mr. Beveridge].\\nThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Sen-\\nate the joint resolution (S, R. 53) defining the policy of the United\\nStates relative to the Philippine Islands. The joint resolution\\nwill be read.\\nThe Secretary read the joint resolution, as follows:\\nResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United. States of\\nAmerica in Congress assembled. That the Philippine Islands are territory be-\\nlonging to the United States; that it is the intention of the United States to\\nretain them as such and to establish and maintain such governmental con-\\ntrol throughout the archipelago as the situation may demand.\\nMr. RA\u00c2\u00a5/ LINS. Mr. President, as a further basis of what I\\nmay say, I v/ill read two paragraphs from an English author. Sir\\nSherston Baker, on international law. He saj^s, on page 60, para-\\ngraph 9:\\nNevertheless, in order to make such transfer-\\nReferring to the transfer of territory from one nation to an-\\nother\\nvalid, the authority, whether de facto or de jure, must be competent to bind\\nthe state; hence the necessity of examining into and ascertaining the powers\\nof the rulers, as the municipal constitutions of different states throw many\\ndifficulties in the way of alienations of their public property, and particu-\\n2 4225\\nCong. Reco-d Off.^\\nh", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "r^\\nlarly of tlaeir territory. Especially in modern times the consent of the gov-\\nerned, express or implied, is necessary before the transfer of their allegiance\\ncan regularly take place.\\nI next read paragraph 12, on page 61. Speaking further upon\\nthe same subject, this author says:\\nBut in modern times sales and transfers of national territory to another\\npower can only he made by treaty or some solemn act of the sovereign au-\\nthority of the state. And such transfers of teri-itory do not include the\\nallegiance of its inhabitants without their consent, express or implied, and a\\nchange of sovereignty does not involve any change in the ownership of iiri-\\nvate property. The new sovereignty, however, acquires the same right of\\neminent domain as that held by the former.\\nThe same right only as that held by the former.\\nMr. President, I next read a iDaragraph from 1 Kent s Com-\\nmentaries, on page 178. This great authority uses the following\\nlanguage under the heading of Territories ceded or acquired:\\nWith respect to the cession of places or teri itories by a treaty of peace,\\nthough the treaty operates from the making of it, it is a principle of public\\nlaw that the national character of the place agreed to be surrendered by\\ntreaty continues as it was under the character of the ceding coiintry until it\\nbe actually transferred.\\nMr. President, it has been claimed that the bill introduced by\\nthe distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, who is an acute and\\nable lawyer, finds its warrant, at least in its operative parts, as a\\ncopy from the act of Congress of 1803, under which what is known\\nas the Louisiana Territory was taken possession of by the United\\nStates. In order that w^e may see precisely to what extent that is\\ntrue, I ask the Secretary to read in this connection the act of Octo-\\nber 31, 1803.\\nThe Secretary read as follows:\\nChapter T.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 An act to enable the President of the United States to take pos-\\nsession of the territories ceded by Fi-ance to the United States by the treaty\\nconcluded at Paris on the 3Uth of April last, and for the temporary govern-\\nment thereof.\\nBe it enacted, etc., That the President of the United States be, and he is\\nhereby, authorized to take possession of and occupy the territory ceded by\\nFrance to the United States by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th day\\nof April last between the two nations; and that he may for that purpose, and\\nin order to maintain in the said Territories the authority of the United States,\\nemploy any par b of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the force\\nauthorized by an act passed the 3d day of March last, entitled An act direct-\\ning a detachment from the militia of the United States, and for erecting cer-\\ntain arsenals, which he may deem necessary; and so much of the sum appro-\\npriated by the said act as may be necessary is hereby appropriated for the\\npurpose of carrying this act into effect, to be applied under the direction of\\nthe President of the United States.\\nSec. 3. And be it further enacted. That until the expiration of the present\\nsession of Congress, unless provision for the temporary government of the\\nsaid territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, civil, and ,]udi-\\ncial powers exercised by the oflScers of the existing government of the same\\nshall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such\\nmanner, as the President of the United States shall direct for maintaining\\nand protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their\\nliberty, property, and religion.\\nApproved October 31, 18L)3.\\nMr. RAWLINS. Mr. President, it will be perceived that that\\nact, passed in 1803, was to enable the President of the United\\nStates to effect the transfer and receive the possession of the ter-\\nritory included within the treaty of cession between France and\\nthe United States; that it was to enable him to act pending the\\nperiod of transition from the time of the making of the treaty\\nuntil there should be a change in the national character of the\\nterritory ceded within the principle laid down in the authcriiies\\nfrom Kent which I have cited.\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "That act was to remain in force by its terms only until the expi-\\nration of the session of Congress at which it was passed, if not\\nsooner superseded. It was designed to operate only pending the\\ntransfer of possession. It was to cease to operate the moment\\nthe authority of the United States became established and its juris-\\ndiction completed by the actual transfer of possession. As a matter\\nof fact, that required only from the 31st day of October, 1803, the\\ndate of the passage of the act, until the 1st day of October, 1804, a\\nperiod of eleven months, when that act ceased to operate.\\nAn act similar in purpose, almost identical in terms, was passed\\nin 1819 by Congress to subserve precisely the same purpose and to\\nenable the President to consummate the change of national char-\\nacter in respect to territory obtained by the cession fj-om Spain of\\nFlorida. That act by its terms was also limited in its operation\\nuntil the expiration of the session of Congress at which it was\\npassed. But it took longer In that case to complete the transfer of\\npossession. Spain, in accordance with her usual dilatory habit,\\nwas reluctant to give up possession, and it required four years to\\ncomplete the transfer. In the end it was only accomplished by\\nthe forcible action of a portion of our Army under the command\\nof General Jackson, who was appointed as one of the persons to\\ncarry out the authority thus vested in the President to enter the\\nterritory and to take possession of it. Thereupon that act ended\\nas soon as the authority and jurisdiction of the United States over\\nthe Territory of Florida was established.\\nThe Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] affirmed that\\nthere had been a similar act in regard to the territory ceded by\\nMexico to the United States by the treaty of July 4, 1848, the\\ntreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; but I am satisfied that the Senator,\\nupon farther examination, will find that no such act was passed\\nin respect to that territory.\\nNow, Mr. President, the act to which I have made reference,\\nthe act of 1 803 ,_ differed wholly in its purpose from that which has\\nbeen introduced, the proposed act which is now under considera-\\ntion. The bill introduced by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.\\nSpooner] provides that when all insurrection against the sov-\\nereignty and authority of the United States in the Philippine\\nIslands, acquired, etc., shall have been completely suppressed\\nby the military and naval forces of the United States that is,\\nv*^hen the jurisdiction and authority of the United States have been\\ncompletely established everywhere in those islands, when there\\nhas been accomplished the actual delivery of the possession of that\\nterritory, when the national character of those islands has been\\nfixed under the unqualified sovereignty of the United States then,\\nand then only, is this proposed act to begin to operate.\\nIt will thus be seen that this act is only to take effect at that\\npoint when the act of 1803 and the act of 1819 were to cease to\\noperate. This begins in its operation where their operation ended.\\nTheir operation was to continue only during the transitory period;\\nthis is to begin after that period is end^d and is to operate after\\nthe full authority of the United States has been established.\\nMr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin, I think, in framing\\nthis bill perceived the anomalous situation of our Government in\\nrespect to the Philippine Islands. As a matter of fact, those peo-\\nple in those islands have never rendered or acknowledged alle-\\ngiance to us. They therefore are not in rebellion in the technical\\nsense of that word. To-day and during all the time past, at least\\nsince February 4 of last year, they have been a belligerent people,\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "fighting in self-defense against a war of subjugation waged upon\\ntliem by the authority of the President of the United States, such\\nwar never having been directly and expressly declared by Congress.\\nI take it that the main purpose of this measure is to relieve the\\nsituation of that anomaly. I believe its main purpose is to make\\na declaration or recognition of the existence of a state of war be-\\ntween the United States and the people of the Philippine Islands,\\nbecause this bill says:\\nThat when all insurrection against the sovereignty and authority of the\\nUnited States in the Philippine Islands, acquired from Spain by the treaty\\nconcluded at Paris on the lObli day of December, 1898, shall have been com-\\npletely suppressed by the military and naval forces of the United States, etc.\\nThat is a recognition by Congress of Ihe existence of a state of\\nwar. It comes to us, it seems to me, in disguise, to subserve that\\npurpose to relieve the Administration from that anomalous posi-\\ntion in which it is now found.\\nMr. President, the bill introduced by the Senator from Wiscon-\\nsin [Mr. SpoonerJ and the resolution offered by the Senator from\\nIndiana [Mr. Beveridge] constitute, as I understand it, the pro-\\ngramme of the Republican party and of the Administration.\\nThere have been two notable speeches delivered in the Senate in\\nsupport of the policy thus outlined. One of those speeches was\\ndelivered by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Beveridge] and the\\nother was delivered last week by the junior Senator from Massa-\\nchusetts [Mr. Lodge] Those two speeches were elaborate and\\ncarefully prepared, and in elegance of diction and manner of\\npresentation tiiey were all that could be desired. They were her-\\nalded to the country with the plaudits of the Administration and\\nits friends. We have a right, I believe, to presume that in those\\ntwo speeches are found all and the best that can be said in sup-\\nport of carrying out the X)rogramme outlined in the bill and in the\\nresolution.\\nMr. President, I am opposed to carrying out that programme.\\nNo vote of m.ine will aid in the execution, or rather in the perma-\\nnent establishment, of this policy. I am opposed to that pro-\\ngramme because, as I conceive it, without any disres^Dect to the\\nopinions of others, I conceive it to be in violation, if carried out,\\nof the fundamental principles on which our free institutions rest.\\nI am opposed to it because it proposes to cut loose from the Con-\\nstitution of our country. It seems to me not only to be extra-\\nconstitutional, but also unconstitutional. It proposes the assump-\\ntion and exercise of authority and a rule b} despotic sway an\\nauthority not conferred by the Constitution or in any grant of\\npower conveyed in the Constitution by the people of the United\\nStates.\\nIf this policy is to be carried out, it seems to me it must be by\\nan authority self- assumed and usurped. I am opposed to this pro-\\ngramme, because to carry it out, in my judgment, would be un-\\njust, immoral, and a breach of the plighted faith of this nation.\\nI am opposed to it, because, in my judgment, it would be destruc-\\ntive of all the best interests, material, moral, social, and political,\\nboth of the people of the United States and of the people of the\\nPhilippine Islands. I am opposed to it because it is not growth;\\nit is not progress; it is not expansion; it is reaction and retrogres-\\nsion; it is death to all the highest and best ideals of those who\\ncreated this Republic.\\nMr. President, I am opposed to it because it doe? not look for-\\nward, but carries us back to the old regimes of despotism, to the\\n4235", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "6\\nprinciples of the Holy Alliance; to the divine right of kings to\\nrule without the consent of the governed; to overthrow republics;\\nto enslave peoples, and do that against which Monroe fulminated\\nthe proclamation of 1822. Those who are opposed to the pro-\\ngramme which has been outlined for us can console themselves\\nwith the reflection that they have behind them and in aid of them\\nmorally all the best thought of the great men whose careers have\\nadorned and made illustrious the history of our country.\\nMr. President, I always feel more comfortable\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and 1 am en-\\ntirely sincere in this statement when 1 can find a fulcrum for my\\nargument in the great historic State of Massachusetts. Reference\\nhas been made to the illustrious names of men who have had the\\nhonor of representing that State in the councils of this nation\\nJohn Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, and others. I desire to\\ninvite the attention of the Senate to some remarks made by John\\nQuincy Adams on the Fourth of July, 1821, in this city. Speak-\\ning upon the mission of America, he said:\\nShe has seen that probably for centuries to come all the contests of that\\naceldama, the European world, will be contests between inveterate power\\nand emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence\\nhas been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her\\nprayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She\\nis the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the cham-\\npion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause\\nby the countenance of her voice and thebenignant sympathy of her example.\\nShe well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own,\\nwere they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve her-\\nself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue,\\nof individiial avarice, envy, and ambition which assume the colors and usurp\\nthe standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would\\ninsensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would\\nno longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence;\\nbut in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in\\nfalse and tarnished luster the murky radiance of dominion and power. She\\nmight become the dictatress of the world; she would no longer be the ruler\\nof her own spirit.\\nMr. BATE. From whom is the Senator reading?\\nMr. RAWLINS. From John Quincy Adams.\\nI may, without impropriety, refer to some words of Daniel Web-\\nster, to whom the junior Senator from Massachusetts last w^eek\\nmade reference. Speaking in the Senate in 1846, he used this lan-\\nguage:\\nAn arbitrary government may have territorial governments in distant\\npossessions, because an arbitrary government may rule its distant territories\\nby different laws and different systems. Russia may govern the Ukraine\\nand the Caucasus and Kamchatka by different codes or ukases. We can do\\nno such thing. They must be of us, part of us, or else estranged. I think I\\nsee, then, in progress what is to disfigvire and deform the Constitution.\\nI think I see a course adopted that is likely to turn the Constitutioa\\nunder which we live into a deformed monster, into a curse rather than a\\nl3lessing, into a great frame of unequal government, not founded on popular\\nrepresentation, but founded in the grossest inequalities; and I think if it go\\non\u00e2\u0080\u0094 for there is a great danger that it will go on\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that this Government will\\nbe broken up.\\nMr. President, it has been insisted that that prophecy has been\\nfalsified by experience. But it may not be true. It seems to me\\nthat to-day we are standing upon the brink of a precipice, beyond\\nwhich those words contemplated that disaster would come upon\\nus and upon our free institutions and upon our Republic.\\nAlaska was ceded to us. Another distinguished Senator from\\nMassachusetts spoke in behalf of the ratification of the treaty by\\nwhich that transfer was to be effected. Charles Sumner used this\\nlanguage in the Senate, speaking with reference to Alaska:\\nBut there is one other point on which I file my caveat. This treaty must\\nnot be a precedent for a system of indiscriminate and costly annexation.\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "Sincerely believing that republican institutions under the primacy of the\\nUnited States must embrace this whole continent, I can not adopt the sen ti-\\nment of Jefferson, who, while confessing satisfaction in settlements on the\\nPacific coast, saw there in the future nothing but free and independent\\nAmericans, bound to the United States only by by ties of blood and inter-\\nest, without political unity. Nor am I williug to I estrain myself to the prin-\\nciple so tersely expressed by Andrew Jackson in his letter to President Mon-\\nroe: Concentrate our population, confine our frontier to proper limits,\\nuntil our country, to those limits, is filled with a dense population.\\nBut I can not disguise my anxiety that every stage in our predestined fu-\\nture shall be by natural processes, without war, and I would add even without\\npurchase. There is no territorial aggrandizement which is worth the price\\nof blood. Ouly under peculiar circumstances can it become the sul)ject of\\npeculiar contract. Our triumph should be by growth and organic expansion\\nin obedience to preestablished harmony, recognizing always the will of\\nthose who are to become our fellow- citizens. All this must be easy if we are\\nonly true to ourselves. Our motto may be that of Groethe, Without haste,\\nwithout rest. Let the Republic be assured in tranquil liberty, Avith all equal\\nbefore the law, and it will conquer by its sublime example. More happy than\\nAustria, who acquired possessions by marriage, we shall acquire them by the\\nattraction of republican institutions.\\nBella gerant alii; tu, felix Austria, nube;\\nNam quae Mars aliis, dat tibi regna Venus.\\nThe famous epigram will be just as applicable to us, inasmuch as our acqui-\\nsitions will be under the sanction of wedlock to the Republic. There may be\\nwedlock of a people as well as of a prince. Meanwhile, our first care should\\nbe to improve and elevate the Republic, whose sway will be so comprehen-\\nsive. Plant it with schools; cover it with churches; fill it with libraries; make\\nit abundant with comfort, so that poverty shall disappear; keep it constant\\nin the assertion of human rights. And here we may fitly recall those words\\nof antiquity, which Cicero quoted from the Greek, and which Webster in our\\nday quoted from Cicero, You have a Sparta; adorn it.\\nMr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge],\\nwho spoke last week, entertained the Senate by a masterly piece\\nof eloquence, but he did not take as his text the principle which\\nis found enunciated in the quotations which I have read to the\\nSenate.\\nI have a right to refer to another distinguished statesman from\\nMassachusetts, who, by long and meritorious and patriotic and\\nhonorable service to his country, is entitled to a x)lace in history\\nalong with the names of the men to whom I have made reference.\\nThat Senator is here; he has spoken for himself, and will no doubt,\\nwhenever occasion requires, speak for himself; but the utterances\\nwhich I have read to the Senate there is no doubt find a full in-\\ndorsement in his judgment as they have found in his utterances\\nin the Senate.\\nThe junior Senator from Massachusetts last week said that he\\npreferred to err with Pope than to shine with Pye. He meant\\nto classify himself with Pope and to classify the men who took\\nthe view which has been expressed in the utterances of Adams\\nand Webster and Sumner and Hoar in the category of Pye\u00e2\u0080\u0094 he.\\nPope; they, Pye; he, historian, poet, sage, philosopher; he to be a\\ngigantic figure in future history; they to dwindle down, to use\\nhis own language, beyond the point of detection of the ken of the\\nantiquarian s microscope.\\nMr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts and other Sena-\\ntors have affected to believe that they find warrant for the pro-\\ngramme which they have outlined regarding the Philippine\\nIslands and it now develops that the same programme is to pertain\\nto Puerto Rico in Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of In-\\ndependence, the great founder of the Democratic party. The\\njufiior Senator from Massachusetts in substance said that the\\nprinciple or declaration that all just governments derive their\\npowers from the consent of the governed was but an aphorism, a\\n4235", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "8\\nloose, impractical generalization taken from Rousseau by Jeffer-\\nson and inserted in a revolutionary proclamation to bolster a\\nrickety rebellion against the mother country; which, when it had\\nserved that purpose as a makeshift, was in practice here discarded\\nby the very man who had made use of it.\\nThe Senator devoted more than a third of his three hours speech\\nto what he conceived to be a pulverization of this keystone in the\\narch of liberty, the consent of the governed. He said that when\\nJefferson obtained the cession of Louisiana, it was without any re-\\ngard to the 30,000 people who inhabited it; that that cession utterly\\nignored and disposed of, without their consent, the Indians who\\nroamed over or had their habitation upon that vast territory. I\\ndesire, rather than to let the Senator from Massachusetts speak\\nfor Jefferson, to resent this slander upon this great man by read-\\ning what he himself said upon that subject.\\nIn his message which referred to this, his message of October\\n17, 1803, found in Messages and Papers, Volume I, page 357, he\\nreferred to the fact that the right of deposit at the port of New\\nOrleans had been suspended as to citizens of the United States.\\nHe further referred to the fact as to troubles which would con-\\nstantly arise there by reason of foreign control of the mouth of\\nthat great channel of commerce, the Mississippi River. He then\\nuses this language:\\nWhilst the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its waters se-\\ncure an independent outlet for the produce of the Western States and an\\nuncontrolled navigation through their whole course, free from collision with\\nother powers and the dangers to oar peace from that source, the fertility of\\nthe country, its climate, and extent promise in due season important aids to\\nour Treasury, an ample provision for our posterity, and a wide spread for\\nthe blessings of freedom and equal laws.\\nMr. President, what were to be the rights of the inhabitants\\nunder the arrangement which Jefferson made? They were to be\\ngiven free choice as to the country to which they should render\\nallegiance; they were to be protected in their homes and in all\\ntheir rights and property. If they continued to reside in the ceded\\nterritory, they were to have all the rights, privileges, and immu-\\nnities accruing to citizens of the United States under the Consti-\\ntution of our country. Thus there Vv^as no possibility of wrong\\nto accrue to any one of those people. They were not made citi-\\nzens unless they elected to become so by their free consent.\\nHow did Jefferson regard the Indians and how did he propose to\\ndeal with them? Let us read his own words upon the subject. On\\npage 358 he says:\\nWith the wisdom of Congress it will rest to take those ulterior measures\\nwhich may be necessary for the immediate occupation and temporary gov-\\nernment of the country\\nThe original act was to continue in force until the expiration of\\nthe session of Congress which passed it\\nfor its incorporation into our Union, for rendering the change of government\\na blessing to our newly adopted brethren.\\nThat was the great end for which this territory was acquired.\\nAs to the Indians, he says:\\nFor securing to them the rights of conscience and of property; for con-\\nfirming to the Indian inhabitants their occupancy and self-government, estab-\\nlishing friendly and commercial relations witli them, and for ascertaining\\nthe geography of the country acquired, etc.\\nPermit me, Mr. President, to allude to the Indians. The prop-\\nosition of the Senator from Massachusetts was that they were\\ngoverned without their consent and disposed of without any re-\\ngard to their wishes. No Indian tribe ever had any tax imposed\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "9\\nupon them. They have never been amenable to the law, civil or\\ncriminal, of the United States. They have been left in that regard\\nas free and independent communities, to be subject alone to the\\nlaws and customs of the tribe. They had no fixed habitation in\\nthat vast territory. They roamed over it; they camped, and hunted\\nthe wild beasts that infested it.\\nJefferson and those who followed after him and who acted upon\\nhis theory and upon his principle never took from them one foot\\nof that land, one iota of that right, vague and uncertain as it was,\\nwithout their consent obtained by treaties regularly made and\\nratified. This Government only has interposed to prevent them\\nfrom committing depredation upon the lives and property of\\nAmerican citizens, acting only as to them in self-defense of its\\npeople and its property.\\nThere is, therefore, absolutely no warrant in any contention\\nas to the Indians for the statement that Jefferson abandoned the\\nprinciple that governments derive their just powers from the con-\\nsent of the governed. But in this same message Mr. Jefferson,\\nat that time further interpreting his purpose in that regard, said\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nand I read from page 361:\\nSeparated by a wide ocean from the nations of Europe and from the polit-\\nical interests which entangle them together, with productions and wants\\nwhich render our commerce and friendship useful to them and theirs to us,\\nit can not be the interest of any to assail us, nor ours to disturb them. We\\nshould be most unwise, indeed, were we to cast away the singular blessings\\nof the position in which nature has placed us, the opportunity she has en-\\ndowed us with of pursuing, at a distance from foreign contentions, the paths\\nof industry, peace, and happiness, of cultivating general friendship, and of\\nbringing collisions of interest to the umpirage of reason rather than of force.\\nMr. President, I have already alluded to the fact that Mr. Jef-\\nferson s doubt and fear was not that the Constitution did extend\\nto this territory, but that it did not, and that if it did not it could\\nnot be held. That was a plain, natural, and logical conclusion,\\nbecause if the Constitution did not extend by its authority there,\\nCongress could not in virtue of the Constitution extend its arm of\\ncontrol there. To hold that it was outside of the Constitution\\nwould be to emasculate the power with respect to it of every gov-\\nernmental agency and department created and owing its existence\\nunder and by virtue of the Constitution.\\nBut that was settled at a very early date. By no act of Con-\\ngress was the Constitution expressly extended to the Louisiana\\nTerritory. I refer now to a noted historical incident in the career\\nof our country after the duel between Hamilton and Aaron Burr,\\nin which the former lost his life. Aaron Burr went West and\\nentered into consultation and conference with Blennerhasset, and\\nfinally with Clark, who had his home in New Orleans. In a little\\ntime he was charged with having waged war against the United\\nStates. The act charged in the indictment was laid in the Terrl\u00c2\u00b0\\ntory of New Orleans, a part of the Louisiana purchase. The trea-\\nson consisted, according to the charge, in levying war against\\nNew Orleans for the purpose of setting up at that point an empire\\nto include Mexico. He w^as arrested and made application for\\ndischarge by a writ of habeas corpus, which came before the\\nSupreme Court of the United States.\\nThe unanimous opinion of that court was delivered by our first\\ngreat Chief Justice. In the course of that opinion Chief Ju,stice\\nMarshall quoted from the Constitution of the United States:\\nTreason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against\\nthem or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,\\ni335", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "10\\nDid that provision apply only to the States? It says distinctly:\\nTreason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against\\nthem.\\nThey did not seek to try Burr under the civil law or under the\\nCode Napoleon for treason defined in that law, which operated in\\nLouisiana, except as it was inconsistent with the Constitution of\\nthe United States, but, according to this modern theory, without\\nany i-regard to consistency with the Constitution of the United\\nStates. They proceeded upon the idea that this provision consti-\\ntuted the definition of the crime. It was in virtue of that that\\nBurr was to be prosecuted for the act committed in the Territory\\nof New Orleans, and that the limitations upon this power to pros-\\necute him\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the offense as here defined\u00e2\u0080\u0094 also pertained to that case\\nand he was entitled to the benefits of those limitations. What are\\nthe limitations? I read them:\\nTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against\\nthem, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them a,id and comfort. No per-\\nson shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to\\nthe same overt act, or on confession in open court.\\nBurr claimed the benefit of that limitation. What did Marshall\\nsay? On page 41 of this volume he says:\\nTo complete the crime of levying war against the United States there must\\nbe an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable\\ndesign. In the case now before the court, a design to overturn the Govern-\\nment of the United States in New Orleans by force, wovild have been unques-\\ntionably a design which, if f;arried into execution, would have been treason,\\nand the assemblage of a body of inen for the purpose of carrying it into exe-\\ncution would amount to levying of Avar against the United States.\\nThe Senator from Ohio [Mr. Fora.ker] challenged any author-\\nity anywhere prior to about 1850 for the contention that the Consti-\\ntution operated within outlying territories of the United States.\\nThe Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Lindsay] who made, as he\\nalways does, in harmony with his great and well-merited reputa-\\ntion as a lawyer, a very able presentation of the questions involved\\nand their legal phases, if I understood him correctly, took the\\nposition that the rights, privileges, and immunities in these terri-\\ntories ceded from France and from Spain and from Mexico to the\\nUnited States, which had been successfully claimed before the\\ncourts by their inhabitants, had all been derived from and were\\ndependent upon the stipulations of the treaties between the gov-\\nernments in those cases. I do not think that contention does credit\\nto the great reputation of the distinguished Senator, with all due\\nrespect.\\nLet us see what follows from that. When these respective gov-\\nernments ceded the territories in question to the United States,\\nthey thereby retained no residuary sovereignty or dominion over\\nthose territories or their future inhabitants. The inhabitants, or\\nthose who might thereafter go into those territories, or be born in\\nthose territories within the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the\\nUnited States, could not be told that their rights, privileges, and\\nimmunities were dependent upon the grace of any foreign prince\\nor potentate. That contention is utterly absurd. A citizen of\\nArizona can not by any treaty stipulation between this country\\nand any foreign prince or potentate have his rights stipulated\\naway. It is not the subject-matter of treaty stipulation.\\nWhat did these treaties undertake to deal with? And first as\\nto the treaty with Spain ceding Florida, the territory which had\\nbelonged to Spain. It was a legitimate subject of treaty stipula-\\ntion. Spain ceded her sovereignty and control over it to the\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "11\\nUnited States. That ended that phase of it. What njore? There\\nwere inhabitants, subjects of the Kingdom of Spain then occupy-\\ning that land. Their interests and their rights were in a measure\\ninvolved in. that transfer.\\nMr. BACON. To which Spanish transfer does the Senator from\\nUtah refer?\\nMr. R A.WLINS. The treaty in regard to Florida. What should\\nbe done with those people; as to those precise inhabitants living\\nupon the territory at the time of cession who were then and had\\nbeen citizens and subjects of Spain and entitled to her protection?\\nWhen the territory was ceded, their rights, being a matter of in-\\nternational concern, it was agreed they should be protected by\\ncertain guaranties applying personally to them and not to the ter^\\nritories; preserving their rights, securing to them the free exercise\\nof religion, the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship,\\ngiving them the free choice as to what government they would\\nrender allegiance. Beyond that the treaty did not undertake to\\ngo. Next as to the treaty with Mexico. What did it provide?\\nI will read the clause. It is found on page 495 of the Public\\nTreaties of the United States:\\nMexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico,\\nand which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as\\ndefined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now re-\\nside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the prop-\\nerty which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and re-\\nmoving the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on\\nthis account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.\\nThose who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain\\nthe title and rights of Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of the\\nUnited States.\\nThus giving them their free choice as to what government they\\nwould render their allegiance.\\nBut they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one\\nyear from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those\\nwJio shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year,\\nwithout having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans,\\nshall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.\\nIn the said territories property of every kind now belonging to Mexicans\\nnot established there shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the\\nheirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by\\ncontract, shall enjoy with respect to guaranties equally ample as if the same\\nbelonged to citizens of the United States.\\nNow, article 9. Let me read that:\\nThe Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the\\ncharacter of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipu-\\nlated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the\\nUnited States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the\\nCongress of the United Statesj to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens\\nof the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and. in\\nthe meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of\\ntheir liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion\\nwithout restriction.\\nTliat I may do no injustice to the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.\\nLindsay] I v/ill quote exactly what he said upon this subject. I\\nhad the honor a week or two ago to ask the Senator from Ken-\\ntucky a question referring to cases arising in the territory ceded\\nby Mexico to the United States, which I had digested in a speech\\nI delivered something more than a year ago. The Senator from\\nKentucky undoubtedly refers to that question in this language:\\nI was asked the other day how I explained the decisions of the Supreme\\nCourt in cases arising in Territories acquired by the treaty with Mexico, to\\nthe effect that Congress could not provide for twice punishing a man for the\\nsame offense and could not make applicable to that territory a bill of at-\\ntainder, and could not dispense with the trial by jury in cases at comrnon law\\n4325", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "12\\ninvolving more than $20, and could not take away from tlie accused the right\\nto confront the witnesses who may testify against him, and could not put a\\nman on trial without previous information of the nature of the accusation.\\nMy explanation is that the Constitution of the United States protects the\\ncitizens of the United States against any one of those abuses of power, and\\nthat the inhabitants of the territory acquired from Mexico were made citi-\\nzens of the United States by the ratification of a treaty which clothed them\\nwith American citizenship, and in express and unqualified terms secured to\\nthem the enjoyment of the rights of citizens of the United States according\\nto the principles of the Constitution.\\nThose wlio represent what they term the anti-imperial sentiment of the\\ncountry will not, of course, accept the explanation as satisfactory. They pro-\\npose to look beyond and behind the stipulations contained in the treaties\\nwith France, Spain, Mexico, and Etissia, and, doing so, to commit the Su-\\npreme Court to a rule of decision that will preclude the judiciary department\\nof the Government from recognizing the power of Congress to exercise sound\\nlegislative discretion in carrying out so much of the treaty of Paris as pro-\\nvides that\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThe civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories\\nceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.\\nIn the numerous cases to which I have made reference arising\\nin the territory ceded by Mexico in 1848 cases which held that the\\ndefendant could not be denied the free exercise of religion; cases\\nwhich held that a defendant in the territory could not be tried\\nexcept by an impartial jury of twelve men; cases which held that\\nthe defendant must be informed of the cause and nature of the\\naccusation; cases which held that in respect of the people in that\\nterritory Congress could pass no ex post facto law or bill of attain-\\nder; cases maintaining the right of the defendant in an action at\\ncommon law to a jury trial, etc. unfortunately for the position\\nand contention of the Senator from Kentucky, in not one of those\\ncases w^as the defendant in a position to claim any right, privi-\\nlege, or immunity under the treaty with Mexico. Not one of them\\nwas a Mexican or ever had been a ]Mexican. Every one of them\\nhad gone to that territory after it had been acquired from Mexico\\nand while it was under the absolute dominion and control of the\\nUnited States.\\nIn not one of those cases was any such privilege or immunity\\nset up or claimed by the defendant. In no one of those cases did\\nthe Supreme Court allude to the treaty or any treaty as the basis\\nof the privilege set up and claimed by the defendant. Nor did any\\njudge of the Supreme Court of the United States nor the court it-\\nself, in any of the cases which have been cited, ever base the decision\\nupon the ground that the Constitution secured the rights claimed\\nby virtue of being extended by an act of Congress, evidently real-\\nizing that an act of Congress is an inadequate basis upon which\\nto rest the Constitution. In every case the Supreme Court of the\\nUnited States said the power of this Government was restrained\\nin its legislation and in the exercise of power in the Territory by\\nthose great principles of constitutional liberty which constitute\\nrestriction upon the powers both of the State and the Federal Gov-\\nernment; that the citizens, each and every one of them, arraigned\\nand charged, was entitled to the protection of that instrument\\nwherever he might be, whether in a State or Territory, anywhere\\nwithin the political jurisdiction of the United States. That is the\\nground upon which all these cases rest.\\nMr. President, the cases go back to the very inception. For in-\\nstance, in 3 Howard there is the case of Pollard tis. Hagan, page 212,\\nand the part of the syllabus bearing upon this question is as follows:\\nUnder the Florida treaty the United States did not succeed to those rights\\nwhich the King of Spain had held by virtue of his royal prerogative, but\\npossessed the territory stibject to the institutions and laws of its own gov-\\nernment.\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "13\\nFurther in the opinion of the court and it was a very distin-\\nguished and able court, among its members being Mr. Justice\\nStory page 224, this language is employed:\\nAnd all constitutional laws are binding on the people in the new States\\nand the old ones whether they consent to he bound by them or not. Every\\nconstitutional act of Congress is passed by the will of the people of the United\\nStates, expressed through their representatives, on the subject-matter of the\\nenactment; and when so passed it becomes the supreme law of the land and\\noperates by its own force on the subject-matter in whatever State or Terri-\\ntory it may happen to be. The proposition, therefore, that such a law can\\nnot operate upon the subject-matter of its enactment without the express\\nconsent of the people of the new State where it may happen to be contains\\nits own refutation and requires no further examination.\\nFurther on, page 225, this language is used:\\nIt can not be admitted\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThis is very pertinent to the proposition of the Senator from\\nKentucky:\\nIt can not be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or other-\\nwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives, and much\\nless can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exer-\\ncise them. Every nation acqxiiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must\\nhold it subject to tbe constitution and laws of Its own government and not\\naccording to those of the government ceding it.\\nThese are very early cases, long before 1850. In practice the\\nmen who framed the Constitution and those who immediately\\nfollowed them in control of the Government of the United States\\nnever had a doubt that Congress only had authority by virtue of\\nthe Constitution to legislate at all for the Territories; that when it\\ndid legislate it must find its source of power in the people s grant\\nof power\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the Constitution; that it must be exercised in the mode\\nwhich that instrument prescribes; that the act of Congress must\\nhave the concurrence of the President; that it must be circum-\\nscribed within the limitations which that instrument prescribes\\nfor the exercise of Congressional power.\\nIt is a plain and inevitable proposition that you can not go in\\nvirtue of the Constitution and leave the Constitution behind you.\\nIf you cut loose from it, you have nothing to support your author-\\nity. Such was the idea of those who founded this (jrovernment,\\nand in all of the early statutes they did not say the Constitution is\\nhereby extended to the Territories, but they said all legislation,\\nnational and local, must not bs inconsistent with the Constitu-\\ntion of the United States, thus presupposing it to be already\\nthere.\\nBut after 1850 there was a question raised whether the Consti-\\ntution extended, and but for one reason it never v^ould have found\\nlodgment in any human brain within the confines of our country.\\nWhat was that? The Constitution contained in one of its clauses\\na recognition of slavery. A party grew up in this country opposed\\nto the further extension of slavery. If the Constitution v*^ent by\\nits own inherent force into new territory, it would carry with it\\nthe recognition of the right to hold slaves. Benton revolted at the\\nidea. He limited his contention, to use his own words, as quoted\\nby the Senator from Ohio, to that one provision in the Constitution.\\nBut he was overruled. The cases to which I have alluded, the\\nDred Scott case, the decision in regard to the scope of the revenue\\nlaws of the United States, and numerous cases to v/hich I referred\\nat the last session of Congress and which have been frequently\\nreferred to since, all disposed of that idea.\\nBut, Mr. President, by the thirteenth amendment the reason of\\nthe objection to the extension of the Constitution which was made\\n4235", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "14\\nby Benton and those who agreed with him was eliminated, and\\nthe reason ceasing to their minds, undoubtedly the principle fell\\nwith it, that that provision of the Constitution did not so extend.\\nWhy should anyone, against this overwhelming practice, against\\nall the numerous decisions from the foundation of our Government\\ndown to tiie present time, at this time seek to curtail and circum-\\nscribe the principles of the Constitution?\\nMr. President, the Senator from Kentucky in his speech, great\\nand masterly in statement, but utterly unwarranted in its prem-\\nises, virtually appeals to the Supreme Court to override all the\\nprecedents in order that we may say that people of our own flesh\\nand blood, citizens of this our common country, who may see fit\\nto take up their abodes in some of the distant possessions which it\\nis claimed have come to us, shall not there have their rights con-\\nserved by this Constitution of ours. I understand well enough\\nthat a court, when it finds that a former decision was erroneous\\nand mistaken, will not hesitate, upon sufficient reason, to overrule\\nit; but when it involves a question of constitutional construction\\nor even statutory construction, the court will not overrule it ex-\\ncept when it feels constrained to do so in order to carry into effect\\nthe great end and purposes for which the Constitution was or-\\ndained or the statute enacted.\\nBut now the Senator from Kentucky invites the Supreme Court\\nto ignore the great purpose for which the Constitution was framed,\\nnamely, to secure to the people of the United States, the entire\\nbody of citizenship, native born or naturalized, to secure to all of\\nthem and to their posterity, wherever they might be (and they\\nknew they were a migrating, a progressive, an expanding idco-\\nple, they were State builders), wherever tbe}^ might go, within\\nthe political jurisdiction of this Government, not limiting it to the\\nparticular number of square feet of the original thirteen States,\\nthe rights and blessings of constitutional liberty.-\\nAnd in 10 Howard, a very early case, that idea is expressed so\\npotently and so tersely that it seems to me that high authority\\nought not to be gainsaid. I read from page 98 of 10 Howard:\\nThe Constitution was, in tlie language of the ordinance\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat is the ordinance of 1787\\nadopted by common conseiat, and the people of the Territories must neces-\\nsarily be regarded as parties to it\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThe people of the Territories must necessarily be regarded as\\nparties to it\\nand bound by it, and entitled to its benefits, as well as the people of the then\\nexisting States. It became the supreme law throughout the United States.\\nAnd so far as any obligations of good faith had been previously incurred by\\nthe ordinance, they were faithfully carried into execution by the power and\\nauthority of the new Government.\\nThus, Mr. President, you can not find warrant in our Constitu-\\ntion or structure of government to rale with despotic sway ac-\\ncording to an unrestrained, arbitrary will anywhere.\\nThis was one of the things which the f ramers of the Constitution\\nintended to overthrow for all time and as to all territory.\\nNow we turn to this last treaty, the treaty with Spain. I have,\\nbefore me Senate Document No. 62, Part 1, and I turn to page 8.\\nThis question is dealt with in Articles IX and X of the treaty.\\nMr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Utah allow me to ask\\nhim a question?\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "15\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kean in the chair). Does\\nthe Senator from Utah yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?\\nMr. RAWLINS. I j ield to the Senator.\\nMr. SPOONER. IsittheSenator stheory thatimmediatelyupon\\nthe acquisition by the United States of the territorj the Consti-\\ntution proprio vigore extends over it?\\nMr. RAWLINS. I will answer that question. I will answer it\\nnow if the Senator desires.\\nMr. SPOONER. At your leisure. I do not want to inte\u00c2\u00abrupt\\nthe Senator.\\nMr. RAWLINS. I will answer it in more detail as I progress.\\nMr. SPOONER. 1 beg pardon for interrupting the Senator. I\\ndo not want to interfere with the line of his argument at all.\\nMr. RAWLINS. I will proceed with my argument, if it is the\\nsame to the Senator, on the right acquired by treaty.\\nThis Article X first deals with the Spanish subjects, natives of\\nthe Peninsula residing in the territory over which Spain, by the\\npresent treaty, relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty. It deals with\\nthose who were born upon the Peninsula of Spain. It gives them\\nthe right of choice as to which Government they shall render\\ntheir allegiance, protects them in their property and in their\\nhomes, and conserves their rights in the same language as in the\\ncase of the Florida treaty. Now, that is all; nothing more. That\\nonly applies, of course, to those who come within that descrip-\\ntion. It does not operate to protect and subserve the rights or\\nprivileges or immunities of anybody else. Next it deals with\\nanother class of cases in the following language:\\nThe civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the Terri-\\n:tories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Con-\\ngress.\\nNow, that covers only those who come within that description.\\nThe native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are to be dealt\\nwith in the language of this treaty. Their civil and political\\nstatus are to be dealt with by Congress. That does not include\\nEnglishmen, Germans, or Frenchmen, or any other of the great\\nvariety of nationalities who may be there. They do not come\\nwithin its terms. It includes no American, of course, for he is\\nnot a native of those islands. It does not include any Chinamen,\\nand there are more than 100,000 of them there, as I understand,\\nnor any Japanese. You find, therefore, nothing in this. The Sena-\\ntor from Kentucky [Mr. Lindsay] bases the entire superstructure\\nof our authority upon this first clause.\\nNow, that brings me to the question the Senator from Wiscon-\\nsin [Mr. SpoonerJ asked me a while ago. Here are large classes\\nof people who do not come within any of the provisions of any of\\nthese treaties. What is to become of their rights? We can not\\nget any power, arbitrary, despotic, to dispose of the native inhab-\\nitants. That is left to Congress in the treaty. By this treaty the\\nKing of Spain does not undertake to grant any of his royal pre-\\nrogatives, any of his autocratic power, if he possess any, to the\\nUnited States or to Congress or to anybody else to deal with these\\npeople. The Supreme Court has said, and it is a very plain propo-\\nsition (I can not see how anyone v/ould question it), that this Gov-\\nernment of ours is incapable of receiving any such grant if the\\nKing of Spain or any foreign potentate should undertake to make\\nit; but he does not undertake to make it in this case.\\nBut there are other people who do not come within any of the\\nprovisions, to whom it makes no possible reference. What are w\u00c2\u00a9\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "16\\nto do with, them? Well, with respect to any territory ceded, the\\ncession does not change the national character of the territory\\nso says Chancellor Kent\u00e2\u0080\u0094 pending the transitory period from the\\ntime of the cession until delivery of possession has actually taken\\nplace. What will become of the territory if no disposition of it is\\nmade? Of course it must be determined by the authority which\\nis entitled to speak for the United States so far as it concerns the\\nUnited States. To speak how? To speak by virtue of the author-\\nity which it possesses. Derived from what source? From the\\npeople of the United States. How? By the Constitution, which\\nconstitutes the people s grant of power. What is that authority\\nunder the Constitution? When you have ansv/ered that, then you\\nhave answered the entire inquiry.\\nIt is tlie Congress which is to speak, with the concurrence of the\\nPresident, legislating in the method which the Constitution pre-\\nscribes after the possession of any ceded territory has been actu-\\nally transferred, has been accepted, and the authority of the consti-\\ntutional power of this Government is established there. It is es-\\ntablished under the Constitution, by virtue of the Constitution,\\nwith all the limitations which the Constitution prescribes, and\\nthe Constitution is there just as much as it is in the District of\\nColumbia or as it is in any other of the Territories over which the\\njurisdiction of the United States has become finally and perma-\\nnently established.\\nMr. President, in a sense, of course, the Constitution is in the\\nterritory by virtue of an act of Congress. It is in virtue of it, just\\nas the control of a piece of property comes within the dominion of\\nthe person to whom it is transferred. He holds it, and certain in-\\ncidental rights go with it, subject to certain conditions and cer-\\ntain laws. So it is for the proper constitittional authority of the\\nUnited States to accept territory by formal, solemn act and to as-\\nsert final dominion. The dominion of other powers over it having\\ncome to an end finally, then authority is established there by vir-\\ntue of the Constitution, and all the inhabitants who live there,\\ncitizens of the United States or otherwise, have secured to them\\nall the rights, privileges, and immunities which that instrument\\naccords to citizens anywhere.\\nPolitical power, the power to govern and the right to vote, is\\none thing. The Constitution does not confer that right upon any-\\none. The right to a trial by jury it does secure to everybody. It\\nmakes no reference to the right to go and cast a ballot to hold a\\nparticular office. The Constitution confers no such right. Sup-\\npose the Constitution is there; no right to anyone is derived in\\nthose respects, because that instrument does not purport to confer\\nsuch rights anj -where. But it is otherwise as to those iirovisions\\ndesigned to secure the blessings of liberty, individual liberty, the\\nright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the free exercise of\\nreligion, to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures,\\nnot to have passed any ex post facto law to operate upon him, or\\nany bill of attainder working corruption of his blood, not to be\\nsubject to punishment for treason except within the limitation\\nprescribed by the Constitution, that Congress may not grant any\\ntitle of nobility anywhere.\\nThese outlying territories, when our authority is once estab-\\nlished there, are a part of the land, and they and all the people\\nwithin them are subject to the supreme law of the land. _ That is\\nthe answer which I make to the Senator from Wisconsin. We\\ndo not get any right over the native inhabitants of the Philippine\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "17\\nIslands by that treaty. It confers none. May Congress dispose\\nof tliem? How? What is Congress? Cut loose from the Con-\\nstitution and ignore it, and tell me, what is Congress? Obliterate\\nit and cast it out of your mind, and answer the question, What is\\nCongress?\\nHow is Congress to exercise its power if you are to ignore the\\nConstitution, if it is so much waste, blank paper? Are we to or-\\nganize into a mob? Are we to be like the forty tyrants? Are we\\nto become marauders and freebooters, cut loose from the Constitu-\\ntion, which is the only source of authority to act? No; we are the\\nCongress as defined in the Constitution. How are we to act? All\\nrevenue bills must originate in the other House. We are to pro-\\nceed according to the constitutional methods, with the concur-\\nrence of the President. In legislating we must not undertake by\\nedict of legislation to take property from one and give it to another\\nwithout due process of law. That is not legislation.\\nAfter our authority is established there, when the laws of war\\nend or the conditions upon which the writ of habeas corpus may\\nbe suspended, you can not hang a Filipino without trial. You\\ncan not punish him twice for the same offense; you can not cast\\nhim down into a dungeon to await the incoming tide to takeaway\\nhis life. Can you? If so, how? Even in war the Supreme Court\\nof the United States has said in the Milliken case (4 Wallace)\\nThis Constitution of ours operates in war, as well as in peace, in all places,\\nand under all circumstances. It is a law for the rulers as well as for the\\npeople; each and every one everywhere within our political jurisdiction is\\nhound by it.\\n[At this point the Presiding OfScer announced that the hour of\\n2 o clock had arrived, when the unfinished business was laid be-\\nfore the Senate. Unanimous consent was given, on the request\\nof Mr. FoRAKER, that Mr. Rawlins might conclude his speech.]\\nMr. RAWLINS. Mr. President, without further reference to\\nthe constitutional question, I next invite the attention of the\\nSenate to some moral phases of the question which pertains to the\\nPhilippines.\\nThe Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] complained that\\nwhile the Republican party or tjie Administration had a simple,\\nclear and^well-defined, positive policy in regard to the Philippines,\\nthose who were in opposition to that had not presented anything\\nexcept that which was vague, uncertain, and elusive.\\nWe find in the resolution of the Senator from Indiana [Mr.\\nBeveridge] what seems to be a clear and positive declaration.\\nIt is easily understood. So far as I am concerned, and I speak, of\\ncourse, only for myself, it would be useless for me to outline what\\nI would do under any hypothesis which does not exist. If we\\npropound a policy to-day, we in the opposition are utterly power-\\nless to carry it into execution.\\nBut, Mr. President, the policy is to defeat the purpose of the\\ndominant power so far as it is expressed, if I understand it, in\\nthese two measures. That is an affirmative policy of itself. I\\nthink I see in your hand a bludgeon, which, if let loose, which, if\\nnot stricken from your hand, will work detriment not only to\\nthe intended victim, but to yourselves and to ourselves, and I will,\\nif I can, strike it from your hands and prevent you from doing\\nthat harm which must be the consequence if you are permitted to\\ngo on. Hence, you shall receive no vote of mine in aid of carry-\\ning out this programme. But if we defeat the programme, what,\\nthen, should you do?\\n4225-2", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "18\\nMr. President, if I should be permitted to speak upon this ques-\\ntion, I think it would resolve itself largely into a detail of trans-\\nportation and an ocean voyage. If those who are in the majority\\nin the Senate ask me what I would advise them to do, I would point\\nthem to Spion Kopje, to do what Buller did when he found him-\\nself there in an untenable position to execute a masterly and or-\\nderly retreat. I am trying to conform to the dictates of the Con-\\nstitution, to our moral obligations, and to fulfill the pledges which\\nhave been put forth by our people.\\nThe Senator from Massachusetts said that we invite the Re-\\npublican party to make promises. He says promises and hesi-\\ntations to the Asiatic or Malay mind simply excite, exasperate\\nthose people to a breach of the peace and disturbance, and make\\nthem want to kill somebody. When I read that it struck me as a\\nmost peculiar proposition. That can not be true of all promises.\\nI think the distinguished Senator must have had in his mind the\\npromises of the Republican party. The thing has gone to that ex-\\ntent where those promises almost have that effect sometimes upon\\nthe Anglo-Saxon mind.\\nMr. President, it can not be that the gallant young Malay, when\\nhe has succeeded in extracting a promise from his sweetheart,\\nstraightway goes off and kills somebody. The expectation of ful-\\nfillment of tiie promise presupposes confidence. Without this,\\nhuman society could not exist, mankind could not be. On these\\nthings perhaps more than all else men depend for present and\\neternal happiness. If there is anything that sweetens life; that\\nelevates the soul from the groveling to the sublime and the God-\\nlike; that touches the seolian chords of sympathy, causing them\\nto vibrate in unison with tones of healing to misery, awakening\\nto ecstacy the wretched downcast spirit, it emanates from the\\npurest word distilled into the ear the sweet promise of an eter-\\nnity of joy as the reward of a life of virtue.\\nMr. President, the Senator proposes to strike promise and hope\\naway from the vocabulary of the Filipino. There is to be for him\\nno rule prescribed in advance to which he may conform his future\\nconduct. Pie is not to be permitted to know to-day what his fate\\nwill be to-morrow. That proposition, to my mind, is for malev-\\nolence, the most diabolical which ever emanated from human lips.\\nThe Senator from Massachusetts could not have meant that. He\\nmust have meant the promise which turned to perfidy, the per-\\nfidious violation of plighted faith, the promise made to the ear and\\nbroken to the hope, the bitterness of soul which arises from con-\\nfidence betrayed and expectations thwarted.\\nMr. President, these things tend to excite the human mind and\\nexasperate the human soul and lead to bloodshed and disturbance\\nnot only in the Asiatic territory but in the territory inhabited\\nany v/here with people having the motives and aspirations and the\\ncharacteristics of humanity.\\nMr. President, our troubles in the Philippine Islands are not\\ndue to the fact that promises were made. Those people were led\\nto believe by the proclamation of the President, issued through\\nOtis, by the proclamation of the President, issued through General\\nMiller, that this great white Republic of ours had spoken to them\\nwith a deceptive and a forked tongue. That drove them to exas-\\nperation, and to that must be ascribed the waste and the blood-\\nshed and the deaths of our brave soldiers.\\nMr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts says that no\\npledges or promises were made under the authority of the United\\n422o", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "19\\nStates to the Filipino people. The Senator says, in the first place\\nand I invite attention to that proposition that there were no sol-\\ndiers in the Philippine Islands in antagonism to the authority of\\nSpain at the time of the declaration of war by the United States\\nagainst Spain. He says the report that there were 5,000 Filipinos\\nin arms in Luzon turned out to be untrue; that no such thing ex-\\nisted.\\nOur consul-general at Manila officially reported to the Presi-\\ndent of the United States that there were 5,000 Filipinos in arms;\\nthat the insurrection was going on, and that Spaniards were be-\\ning killed and were being brought into Manila daily before that\\ndeclaration of war. That document was sent to us by the sanc-\\ntion and approval of the President, and it is embodied in Senate\\nDocument No. 62. Our consul-general at Singapore, Mr. Pratt,\\nofficially reported to the President prior to the 1st day of May,\\nabout the 28th day of April, just after the declaration of war\\nwith Spain, that Aguinaldo was then at Singapore and was direct-\\ning the operations of the armed insurgents, 5,000 in number, in\\nthe island of Luzon, waging war against Spain,\\nGeneral Anderson was the first to arrive in Luzon. He went\\nthere with the expeditionary forces and arrived there about the\\n2d or 3d day of July. General Anderson refers to this statement\\nand says that it is true. He says this in an article on Our rule\\nin the Philippines, printed recently in the North American Re-\\nview. I quote his language:\\nOn the 1st of July, 1898, I called on Aguinaldo with Admiral Dawey. He\\nasked me at once whethei the United States of the ISToi tli either had\\nI ecognized or would recognize his government 1 am not quite sure as to the\\nform of his question, whether it was had or would. In either form it\\nwas embarrassing. My orders were, in substance, to effect a landing, es-\\ntablish a base, not to go beyond the zone of naval cooperation, to consult\\nAdmiral Dewey, and to wait for Merritt. Aguinaldo had proclaimed his\\ngovernment only a few days before (June 28) and Admiral Dewey had no\\ninstructions as to that assumption. The facts as to the situation at that\\ntime I believe to be these: Consul Williams states in one of his letters to\\nthe State Depai tment that several thousand Tagals were in open insurrec-\\ntion before our declaration of war with Spain. I do not know as to the\\nnumber, yet I believe the statement has foundation in fact.\\nSo we have the concurrent testimony of Williams and Pratt and\\nGeneral Anderson that this fact is true; and yet against this con-\\nsensus of authority the Senator from Massachusetts says that it\\nfalse. He does not give us the benefit of the authority upon which\\nhe bases that assertion.\\nAs soon as our war was declared, our consul-general at Singa-\\npore had an interview, as he reported to the Administration here,\\nwith Aguinaldo in the presence of certain other persons. He says\\nin that report that Aguinaldo was then carrying on the war\\nagainst Spain independently. He first urged upon him the im-\\nportance of ceasing such independent warfare against Spain and\\nof cooperating with the United States.\\nHe reports that Aguinaldo said that he was willing to cooperate\\nto subserve the purpose which he then declared to our consul-\\ngeneral, namely, that he would be satisfied with the same treat-\\nment which the United States proposed to accord to Cuba. There-\\nupon our consul-general, our sole representative at that port at\\nthat time, said that would be satisfactory, and he telegraphed to\\nAdmiral Dewey that Aguinaldo would go at his instance to\\nHongkong to join the forces of the United States, and that Ad-\\nmiral Dewey telegraphed back: Tell Aguinaldo to come as soon\\nas possible; that on the first vessel outgoing from Singapore\\n4335", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "20\\nAguinaldo took his departure, but arrived in Hongkong too late\\nto go with Dewey s fleet to Manila. Then Mr, Wildman, consul-\\ngeneral of the United States at Hongkong, tells us that a procla-\\nmation summoning the Filipino people to arms had been prepared\\nat Hongkong and was carried to Luzon by the American Navy.\\nWhat was that proclamation? It summoned the people to arms;\\ndeclared that the United States and its forces were going there as\\ntheir liberators, to bring to them that for which they struggled.\\nAt the very first conference between Aguinaldo and Pratt at Singa-\\npore, on the 26th day of April, Aguinaldo declared the purpose of\\nhis cooperation in the war of the Filipino people against Spain\\nwas to achieve independence and self-government. These facts\\nwere at once communicated, as will appear by an examination of\\nthe documents, laid by the sanction of the President before the\\nSenate, to the Administration.\\nAbout the 6th of June, after Aguinaldo arrived Aguinaldo\\narrived in Luzon on the 19th day of May the Filipino people\\nflocked to his standard. He began his operations, and in an in-\\ncredibly short time he had 9,000 Spanish prisoners in his custody.\\nHe was in possession before the arrival of the first expeditionary\\nforces of the United States of all of Luzon outside of the city of\\nManila, and the Spanish army there were his prisoners.\\nWhen Anderson arrived, did he carry any message from the\\nAdministration repudiating the pledges which had been made by\\nPratt and by Wildman? General Anderson has told us to the con-\\ntrary. You must remember now, Mr. President, that the Admin-\\nistration was fully advised prior to the arrival of Anderson, prior\\nto the 1st day of June; that the Secretary of State, and presumably\\nthe President, was fully advised of the expectations of the Filipino\\npeople and what the nature of their cooperation with the United\\nStates was to be. If a man asks the service of another, and that\\nother says to him, You may have it for a certain price, and the\\nfirst tells the latter to go to work, and he does so, it is a contract\\nrecognized as obligatory in every forum of justice.\\nThis Government, from the President down to the consul-gen-\\neral, knew before Anderson arrived with the first expeditionary\\nforce in the Philippine Islands that the object of the services which\\nAguinaldo and his forces were rendering to the United States was\\nto compass and bring about their independence and self-govern-\\nment.\\nLet us see what General Anderson says upon that subject. I\\nread from the North American Review. He says:\\nWhether Admiral Dewey and Consuls Pratt, Wildman, and Williams did\\nor did not give Aguinaldo assurances that a Filipino government would be\\nrecognized, the Filipinos certainly thought so, probably inferring this from\\ntheir acts rather than from their statements.\\nThe Secretary of State, Mr. Day, knew that they thought so, and\\nhe writes to Consul-General Pratt and summarizes the promises\\nwhich had been made by our sole representative there to those\\npeople and to the leaders of those people. Secretary Day says, in\\nsubstance, Your reports to us disclose an understanding on the\\npart of Aguinaldo and the Filipino people that our object there,\\nthe object of the cooperation between them and us, is to achieve\\ntheir independence.\\nA delegation of Filipino people called on Consul-General Pratt,\\nat Singapore, and delivered an address on the 9th of June. In\\nresponse the consul-general, among other things, presented a flag\\nto those people. In the address which the Filipino spokesman\\n4325", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "21\\nmade to our consul-general he said he hoped that this great na-\\ntion, the American nation, would persevere in its policy of human-\\nity and in confirmation of the arrangement made between Pratt\\nand Ag uinaldo on the 26th day of April. Pratt responded, and,\\namong other things, presenting an American Hag, he said:\\nThe red stripes are the emblem of the blood shed by our ancestors for\\nfreedom and independence, as you Filipino people are shedding yo-ar blood.\\nThe white signifies the purity of motive, the blue the azure sky, the stars\\nthe equality of the independent States constituting the Republic. Take it\\nand keep it as a souvenir of this occasion.\\nThat was promptly communicated to the Administration, and\\nhas been sent to Congress w^ith the sanction of the President of\\nthe United States.\\nGeneral Anderson refers to an incident which is of peculiar\\nsignificance. I read what he says:\\nAbout the middle of July the insurgent leaders in Cavite invited a num-\\nber of our Army and ISFavy ofi cers to a banquet. There was some postpran-\\ndial speech making, the substance of the Filipino talk being that they wished\\nto be annexed, but not conquered. One of our officers in reply assured them\\nthat we had come not to make them slaves, but to make them free men. A\\nsingular scene followed. All the Filipinos rose to their feet, and Buencomeno,\\ntaking his wineglass in his hand, said: We wish to be baptized in that sen-\\ntiment. Then he, and the rest poured the Avine from their glasses over\\ntheir heads.\\nPrior to July 1 these people had made a formal declaration of\\ntheir independence; they had organized a provisional government;\\nAguinaldo had issued a proclamation, which Wildman says he\\nhelped him to prepare to this end in Hongkong before his depar-\\nture.\\nMr. President, such were the circumstances which General\\nAnderson says gave those people the riglit to believe, and they did\\nbelieve, that the end of all this was to be their freedom and inde-\\npendence. It would be unfair to say that the Administration was\\nproceeding in matters of such serious consequence as this v/ithout\\nconsideration of the facts. It is fair to presume that the Admin-\\nistration knew these things which the consular officers reported\\nofficially to the authorities at Washington.\\nSecretary Day telegraphed both to Pratt and to Wildman not\\nto make unauthorized representations to the Filipinos. That was\\nwell enough; but the Filipino people had been relying upon these\\npromises, and it was the duty of the Administration, if it wished\\nto repudiate them, to bring notice to those who were concerned of\\nthe repudiation. There was no one more naturally to whom such\\na notice might be given than the commander of our first expedi-\\ntionary forces that landed there; and yet Anderson tells us that\\nhe bad no instructions; that he had no authority to speak one way\\nor the other upon the question. The first question propounded to\\nhim by Aguinaldo, he says, was: Had the United States recog-\\nnized or would the United States recognize his government? In\\neither form, he says, it was embarrassing, because he had been\\ngiven no authority to speak.\\nGeneral Merritt was invited by Aguinaldo by letter to speak as\\nto what the purposes and intentions of the Government of the\\nUnited States were. General Merritt, when he arrived in the latter\\npart of July, took control. Why was it that he was not given defi-\\nnite instructions to repudiate the pledges and promises w^hich our\\nconsular representatives had made to those people, and which had\\nbeen officially communicated to the President? But when Agui-\\nnaldo and the Filipino people asked Merritt what our purpose\\nwas, he says, I have no authority to speak; but he went one", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "22\\nstep farther, and he said, think you can rely upon the good\\nfaith of the United States.\\nLet us proceed in this line a little further. We have seen that\\npledges were made, that their repudiation was never brought home\\nto the Filipino people, or to their leaders. They were permitted\\nto go on sacrificing their lives in a struggle which this nation of\\nours knew was for the purpose of achieving their own independ-\\nence and self-government. Manila was captured. Aguinaldo and\\nthose acting with him, his associates, obtained possession not only\\nof Luzon, but of all or almost all the other islands of the archi-\\npelago.- I read what General Anderson says on that subject. He\\nsays:\\nWe\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat is, the American forces\\nWe held Manila and Cavite. The rest of the island was held, not by the\\nSpaniards, but by the Filipinos. On the other islands the Spaniards were\\nconfined to two or three fortified towns. At the time referred to we could\\nnot claim to hold by purchase, for we had not then received Spain s quit\\nclaim deed to the archipelago. Making allowance for difference of time, we-\\ntook Manila almost to the hour when the peace preliminaries were signed in\\nWashington.\\nThe same thing is corroborated by G-eneral Merritt. I next re-\\nfer to a statement by General Otis. On page 76 of General Otis s\\nreport he uses this language:\\nAnd thus, in December, 1898, we find in northern and southeastern Luzon,\\nin Mindoro, Simar, Leyte, Panay, and even on the coast of Mindanao and in\\nsome of the smaller islands, the aggressive Tagalo, present in person, and,\\nwhether civilian or soldier, supreme in authority. The success which at-\\ntended the political efforts of Aguinaldo and his close associates and gave them\\nsuch sudden and unexpected power was not calculated to induce them to\\naccept subordinate positions in a reestablished government, and the original\\npremeditated intention to control supremely at least a portion of the Filipino\\npeople had become firmly fixed. The cry for liberty and independence was\\neverywhere being raised.\\nI next refer to page 94 of the same report, where General Otis\\nsays:\\nGeneral Aguinaldo was now at the zenith of his power. He had recently\\nsuppressed rebellion which had raised its head in central Luzon. He had as-\\nsembled a pliant congress, many members of which had been appointed by\\nhim to represent far-distant congressional districts, and which had voted him\\nthe dictator of the lives and fortunes of all the inhabitants of the Philippines.\\nHe dominated Manila, and when he ordered that the birthday of the mar-\\ntyred Sizal should be appropriately observed there, business was paralyzed\\nand not a native dared to pursue his accustomed daily labors. Not a prov-\\nince had the courage to oppose his appointed governors, backed by their\\nTagalo guards, although a few of those governors had previously sufi;ered\\nmartyrdom for the zeal exhibited in collecting money and sequestering pri-\\nvate property. The southern islands were obedient.\\nThus in this last statement not only Aguinaldo and his govern-\\nment were everywhere, even dominated the city of Manila.\\nWhat further occurred? The authority of Spain had been com-\\npletely destroyed in those islands beyond all possibility of restora-\\ntion. General Greene said in a report made August 27, 1898\u00e2\u0080\u00941\\nread from page 374, Senate Document 62\\nThe Spanish Government is completely demoralized, and Spanish power\\ni? dead beyond possibility of resurrection. Spain would be unable to govern\\nthese islands if we surrendered them.\\nGeneral Merritt says in his testimony given before the Peace\\nCommission at Paris, found on page 369, in answer to a question\\npropounded by Mr. Gray. I will first read the question. It is as\\nfollows:\\nMr. Gray. Suppose by final treaty with Spain we should abandon Luzon\\nand all the Philippines, exacting such terms and conditions and guaranties\\n4235\\n1", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "23\\nas we sliould think aecessary, and abandon them entirely, reserving only a\\ncoaling station, perhaps; what do yon think they would do about it?\\nGeneral Merrttt. I think in the island of Luzon they would fight to the\\nbitter end. 1 have talked with a number of them, intelligent men, who said\\ntheir lives were nothing to them as compared with the freedom of the coun-\\ntry, getting rid of Spanish government.\\nMr. Davis. Do you think Spain would be able to reduce them?\\nGeneral Merritt. No, sir.\\nI read further from General Merritt. This question was pro-\\npounded by Mr. Davis and is to be found on page ^68:\\nMr. Davis. Suppose the United States, by virtue of a treaty with Spain,\\nshould take Luzon, all the Philippines, or a part, by virtue of a treaty, pay-\\ning no attention to the insurgents, how would that be taken by Aguinaldo?\\nGeneral Merritt. I think Aguinaldo and his immediate following woiild\\nresist it, but whether he could resist to any extent I do not know, because\\nhis forces are divided.\\nThus, Mr. President, General Merritt informed our peace com-\\nmissioners at Paris that to do what they afterwards did would\\nnecessarily bring war in those islands.\\nMr. Frye, the distinguished presiding officer of the Senate,\\nwhen he was in Paris, evidently had in mind that there had been\\nan alliance between the United States and the Filipino people in\\nthe struggle against Spain. I read from page 488 the following:\\nMr. Frye. I would like to ask just one question in that line. Suppose\\nthe United States in the progress of that war found the leader of the present\\nPhilippine rebellion an exile from his country in Hongkong and seiit for him\\nand brought him to the islands in an American ship, and then furnished him\\n4,000 or 5,000 stands of arms, and allowed him to purchase as many more stands\\nof arms in Hongkong, and accepted his aid in conquering Luzon, what kind\\nof a nation, in the eyes of the world, would we appear to be to sui i ender\\nAguinaldo and his insurgents to Spain to be dealt with as they please?\\nA. We become responsible for everything he has done; he is our ally, and\\nwe are bound to protect him.\\nMr. President, I next read from a report made by Major Bell,\\nwho is most highly commended by General Merritt, who has ren-\\ndered very distinguished service in the United States Army in the\\nPhilippine Islands, and whose veracity will scarcely be doubted,\\nwho made, by official direction, a special investigation of the con-\\nditions of the Filipino people immediately after the arrival of the\\nfirst expeditionary forces, about the 1st of July. He says:\\nThere is not a particle of doubt but what Aguinaldo and his leaders will\\nresist any attempt of any govern naent to reorganize a colonial government\\nhere. They are especially bitter toward the Spaniards, but equally deter-\\nmined not to submit any longer to being a colony of any other government.\\nMr. President, these are some of the witnesses whom I call, wit-\\nnesses whose standing and authority can not be questioned, wit-\\nnesses who were entitled to speak upon this subject, most of them\\nwitnesses of the transactions of which they give account. They\\nhave official sanction, and they inform us that these things existed,\\nand they can not be disputed.\\nI desire to render every presumption in favor of right conduct\\nof this Government and all those who may represent it. I do not\\ndesire to infer anything which is notreasonable not inevitable. I\\nwould draw no conclusion which does not seem to me to be im-\\nperative; but now, in all candor I ask, Mr. President, whether, in\\nlooking back over the past transactions for the last two years, we\\nhave dealt openly, frankly, honorably, and justly with those\\npeople?\\nI am willing to make all necessary allowances to the President\\nand to any particular officer; the multitude of duties which they\\nhave to perform distract their attention. I am willing to concede,\\nfor the purposes of what I have to say, that the President of the\\nUnited States did not become fully conscious of the actual state\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "24\\nof affairs across the ocean in that far-distant land. That is not\\nthe question which I desire to raise; but I do take an account of\\nthose past things although Senators say we ought not to do so\\nbecause it is only by taking into account the things which have\\npassed that we may accurately be able to determine the things of\\nthe present and be able to judge what is best to do for the future.\\nThese facts, first, the aspiration and expectation of independent\\ngovernment on the part of the Filipino people, under the leader-\\nship of Aguinaldo; second, knowledge of this Government that\\nsuch was their expectation; third, inducements held out to them,\\nby our representatives, whether directly authorized or not, that\\nthat expectation would not be disappointed; fourth, the infor-\\nmation which our own officers, after investigation, gave to us\\nofi cially that to undertake to disappoint that expectation would\\nlead to bloodshed and war, by Bell and Anderson, and reiterated\\nby Otis while we understood these facts and that such would be\\nthe result, we demanded of Spain the cession of absolute sover-\\neignty over a territory of which she had irretrievably lost posses-\\nsion, not a foot of which was under her control.\\nWe demanded the cession of her so-called sovereignty to the\\nUnited States, for which we paid to her $20,000,000. That fatal\\nstep was taken (because it was a fatal step, and no man can dis-\\npute it) with the full knowledge of the facts communicated to\\nthose who were responsible for it that it meant inevitably a con-\\nflict of arms with the Filipinos, who had been led by our repre-\\nsentatives across the water to cooperate and aid us in our war\\nagainst Spain with the expected compensation of being able there-\\nby to achieve their own freedom and establish their own self-\\ngovernment and rule their own destinies.\\nThose who support the policy of the Administration say we\\nmust deal with the present. The proposition of the Senator from\\nMassachusetts is that all-sufficient is the evil of the day. He does\\nnot want to gTope forward and find more evils by probing into\\nthe future. He wants us to take no account of the past, and I\\nagree with him in a measure that the situation of man as ex-\\npressed by Burke is the preceptor of his duty, but he can not per-\\nform his duty unless he looks around him, behind him, and into\\nthe future so far as his limited vision may extend.\\nWhence did this war come? Where will it end? Whither will\\nit lead, Mr. President? Anderson and Otis tell us why it came.\\nMerritt and Bell told our peace commissioners what would bring\\nit about. Knowing that, we did that which they said would and\\nwhich did bring it about. Mr. President, it was not a freak of\\nchance, a child of destiny. It was not an act of Providence.\\nWhen the message was sent across the water to Dewey wanting\\nto know which would be the most valuable of those islands for us\\nto take, the answer came back; and the distinguished Senator from\\nMinnesota [Mr. Davis] a member of the commission, asked Gen-\\neral Merritt whether, if we would take this and ignore those\\npeople, the native inhabitants would fight. Merritt said They\\nwill fight.\\nMr. President, every nation is endowed with the power of ra-\\ntional volition, and it must suffer the penalty of the failure to ex-\\nercise it. I am not preiDared to concede the contention, discredit-\\nable as it is to the Administration, that the events in the past\\nhave been mere freaks of chance, the Executive Mansion of my\\ncountry, like the kingly palace of George the Third, an irresponsi-\\nble madhouse. The President is an able man, courteous in all his\\n4325", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "25\\ndealings, and I will do him no injustice. He is able to comprehend\\nfacts when they are laid before him. He can trace consequences\\nundoubtedly from causes. He was advised of the situation. He\\nacted deliberately, whether of his own motion or by the power\\nwhich controlled him. For what he did he is responsible. It is\\nin the essence of our institutions that those elected and placed in\\nimportant positions in our Government must be responsible. If\\nthey do not want to take the responsibility of their official conduct,\\nthey should not aspire to positions of responsibility.\\nThis war, Mr, President, came because of our promise, in what-\\never way it was made, which led those people to have the firni\\nconviction that all their fighting and all their sacrifice of life were\\nto end, through our aid to them, in their independence, and which\\nwas turned to ashes upon their lips. That disappointment, which\\ncame from the proposition embodied in the proclamation framed\\nby the President and issued on the 9th day of January, was the\\ninception of this war. They responded to it virtually by a declara-\\ntion of war, as General Otis has told us in his report.\\nMr. President, what is the nature of our title? What is the\\npresent status of the Philippine Archipelago? I should like some\\nSenators who have viewed this case from the standpoint of the\\npermanent retention of the islands and the theory maintained by\\nthe Administration, as I understand it, what they think our status\\nis. Kent says a treaty alone does not operate to transfer sover-\\neignty without actual delivery of possession. An authority upon\\ninternational law says that sovereignty over a people can not be\\ntransferred without the consent of the governed. The same au-\\nthority says that a treaty of cession and that, of course, is a self-\\nevident proposition\u00e2\u0080\u0094 only operates to transfer just such dominion,\\nand no more, as the ceding power possesses. All official reports\\nsay that Spain had nothing; the Filipino people had declared their\\nindependence and fought for it and had achieved it. It was a fact\\naccomplished before the lOth day of December, the date of the\\ntreaty.\\nAguinaldo and his government, whatever it was and I am not\\ntalking about whether it was a government like that of Germany\\nor Russia, or that of the Sultan of Turkey, or of some South Ameri-\\ncan republic that government, whatever it was, and however in-\\nadequate and unjust in our view of things we may say it was, had\\ncontrol of all the islands and dominated even Manila. Spain had\\nlost everything beyond all power of recovery if we had not taken\\nthe cession from her, if we are to believe Merritt and Greene and\\nOtis and people who are competent to speak by reason of their\\nknowledge of the situation. On the 10th of December, when the\\ntreaty was made, the President himself, in a proclamation which\\nhe issued, I believe dated the 23d of December, gave direction to\\nextend the military authority to every part of the islands which\\nwe did not have. If possession, actual delivery of cession, is essen-\\ntial to sovereignty over a people, then we have not yet dominion.\\nSpain delivered to us what she had, which would be properly\\nrepresented by zero. Our sovereignty to that attached, whatever\\nit was.\\nNations in their international relations, according to a low stand-\\nard, expressed by some writers upon international law, are in a\\nstate of lawlessness. Then nothing is right which can not be en-\\nforced; nothing is wrong which can not be punished. If a nation\\nis strong enough, it can wage war and subjugate and assert its\\nauthority over any land and any people, according to its own sweet\\n4235", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "26\\nwill. Of course in that sense the United States had the right, ac-\\ncording to that debased and sordid standard, although it acquired\\nnothing by purchase and transfer of Spain, because she had noth-\\ning to transfer, because we were powerful and those people feeble,\\nto send our Army there in sufficient force to coerce obedience or\\ncause extermination. But when we inaugurated that campaign,\\nnot of peace but of war, we inaugurated it upon a basis which in\\njustice and morality can not be defended by any right-thinking\\nman.\\n1 state, in the first place, Mr. President, that these people are\\nnot rebels. They have never acknowledged allegiance to the\\nUnited States, and that is a prerequisite to rebellion. Breach of\\nthe solemn pledge made to uphold the laws of a country is in-\\nvolved in the charge of rebellion. They are but a belligerent peo-\\nple, fighting in self-defense against a war of subjugation waged\\nby us against them. When will that war end? I do not know\\nwhether the Senator from Wisconsin intends that his bill shall\\ntake effect next year or whether he expects it to take effect during\\nour lifetime or three hundred years hence, when all insurrection\\nin those islands is com^pletely destroyed. Then, and then only, is\\nthis bill to take effect.\\nIn the argument made by our peace commissioners in Paris to\\nthe representatives of Spain in trying to negotiate this treaty it\\nwas said that these people had been in continuous rebellion against\\nSpanish authority for more than three hundred years. Spain s\\ncommissioners answered by saying, That is true, and here are the\\nsacrifices which we have made against our own welfare. Men\\nwho have been there, distinguished officers whose letters I have\\nread, say that the war is not ended, and that in their opinion it\\nwill never end. So, perhaps the Senator from Wisconsin really\\nintends to content himself with recognition that a state of hostili-\\nties does exist there, and never expects the bill otherwise to go\\ninto operation\\nMr. SPOONER. Vf ill the Senator from Utah permit me?\\nMr. RAWLINS. Certainly.\\nMr. SPOONER. I think the Senator expressly consented to a\\nstate of hostilities over there long, long ago, when he voted, with\\nfull knowledge of the purpose, to increase the Army at the last\\nsession of Congress, knowing that that increase was for the pur-\\npose of enabling the President to send troops to be employed as\\nthey have been employed. Am I wrong about that?\\nMr. RAWLINS. I stated in the beginning that there had been\\nno direct and express recognition of a state of hostilities. A\\nproposition to relieve temporarily the men whose terms of enlist-\\nment had expired was before Congress. They were to be retained\\nthere unless their places could be supplied by enlistments made\\nby increase of the Regular Army. We voted for that increase.\\nThat, in my judgment, was not any more a declaration of war\\nagainst the people of the Philippine Islands than it was a declara-\\ntion of war against the people of Cuba, because a large share of\\nthat Army, it was then known, would go to Cuba to aid in the\\npreservation of order. It was no more a war against the Filipino\\npeople than it was against any other nation with whom we might\\nbe at peace.\\nMr. SPOONER. Will the Senator permit me?\\nMr. RAWLINS. Certainly.\\nMr. SPOONER. The Senator apprehended, did he not, when\\nthe Army bill was before Congress and he voted for it, that a large\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "27\\nportion of those troops provided for were to be sent to the Philip-\\npines? Did he suppose they were to be sent there for a picnic or a\\nfight? They were, of course, to relieve troops whose terms had\\nexpired, but the supply of men provided by that bill was vastly in\\nexcess of that requirement. Will the Senator say that he did not\\nexpect those troops to be employed in military operations in the\\nPhilippines? And if it was a vile and outrageous crime against\\nliberty, I do not know how the Senator finds justification for his\\nvote in favor of that bill.\\nThe Senator from Massachusetts, stating here upon the floor in\\nopen Senate that those troops were to be employed against the\\nFilipinos and his unwillingness that they should be employed,\\nregistered his vote against it. The Senator will permit me, and\\nI only take advantage of this occasion inasmuch as he mentioned\\nme, because I sat before him, but I am unable to discover upon\\nwhat theory of justice it is that the Senate and House of Repre-\\nsentatives can raise an army by solemn vote and then criticise\\nthe President for using it as they intended that he should and as\\nthey expected he would.\\nMr. RAWLINS. The Senator asks me whether I expected the\\nArmy would be used for a fight or for a frolic. I do not know\\nwhat may have operated in my mind in that particular respect;\\nwhether I expected the Army would be used for a frolic or a fight\\nor a foot race; but I do remember distinctly the circumstances\\nunder which that measure came before Congress. I do remember\\nthat the venerable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs\\nmade a statement of the situation, and in that statement I\\nbelieve it was in the month of February, just prior to the adjourn-\\nment he pointed out the fact that the terms of enlistment of the\\nregulars and of the volunteers proper would expire the moment\\nthe ratifications of the treaty with Spain were exchanged, and that\\nthe President of the United States, after that event had been pro-\\nclaimed, would not think for one moment of ordering those vol-\\nunteers into the trenches; that that army was then in that far-\\ndistant land and hostilities had been provoked; that the lives of\\nthose volunteers and others in that island, by reason of the acts\\nwhich had already taken place, unless sufficient force was main-\\ntained there, would be in peril.\\nWe were informed that it was necessary as a matter of self^\\ndefense, to save the lives of our volunteers, that men should be sent\\nover there; and I do not know whether I voted for that measure\\nor not, but if I did vote for it I voted for it for that reason. Since\\nI cast that vote I have gone more in detail and have been able to\\nascertain more fully the facts bearing upon the situation, and I\\nam free to say that 1 do not regret that 1 did cast that vote, because\\nin spite of the measure which we then passed, the authority which\\nwe gave to the President to raise additional troops, those volun-\\nteers were ordered into the trenches after the terms of their\\nenlistment had expired.\\nThe Senator insinuates that I say that those acts over there by\\nthe soldiers were unholy and cruel and wicked. I said no such\\nthing.\\nMr. SPOONER. I did not say that. I spoke of what you called\\nthe war upon that people. I beg the Senator to be just. I did not\\nimpute to the Senator any observation or criticism of any act of\\nthe soldiers over there. Pie must know that. My observation was\\nelicited entirely by ttie question which the Senator put to me as\\nto whether there was not a subtle purpose in a line of this bill to\\n4325", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "28\\nrecognize the existence of iiostilities over there; and I rose simply\\nto call the attention of the Senator to the fact that the existence\\nof hostilities over there was recognized long ago, not only by Con-\\ngress but by the Senator when the Army bill was passed. That\\nis all.\\nMr. RAWLINS. Whatever implication there might be as to\\nthe votes which were cast for that Army bill I have already suffi-\\nciently answered it. The Senator did say and wanted to know\\nhow I could cast my vote for that bill if I then believed that those\\nsoldiers who were thus to be raised were to be employed in a cruel,\\nruthless, unholy war. I say that I had no right to believe, had\\nno right to expect, from the information which we then jpossessed,\\nthat the President of the United States would employ any part of\\nthis army in a cruel, unwarranted, and remorseless war. I have\\nnever yet charged that the President intended to do that But\\nwhat I did say is that we demanded the cession of those islands\\nfrom Spain to the United States\u00e2\u0080\u0094 we did not do it; but the Presi-\\ndent and his commissioners were informed by Merritt, by Bell,\\nand others that the result of that transaction would inevitably\\nmean war, and that as a consequence of that, our troops being-\\nover there, war was precipitated.\\nWhose fault it was I do not care now to inquire. Who fired\\nthe first gun I do not care to inquire about. The situation was at\\nthe time that bill was before Congress that there was armed con-\\nflict between forces over there, and that to save the lives of our\\nmen they undoubtedly had to act at that time in self-defense. I\\ndid not imply by my action then that this army should be affirma-\\ntively and aggressively used for the extermination of that people\\nor to wage a remorseless, unholy, and cruel war. I do not make\\nthat charge now, but 1 did vote, and I would perhaps vote again\\nunder similar circumstances, for sending soldiers to any place\\nwhere American citizens or American soldiers might be, to be\\nemployed in defense of their lives.\\nMr. President, whatever may come of this war, certain it is that\\nit has made plain to the world the sterling stuff of the American\\nvolunteer. No propitious climate invited him to the contest.\\nThe jungles did not open to make for him a pathway, nor did the\\nwater divide in order that he might pass over dry-shod. He was\\nnot faced by a foeman worthy of his steel. He could not have\\nbeen inspired by the enthusiasm or actuated by the spirit which\\nprompted him to enter the service of his country for the sake of\\nhumanity. Never did conditions, moral or physical more adverse\\nconfront human soldiery; and yet these men never faltered. Day\\nafter day, hour after hour, both night and day, they added glory\\nto glory, triumph to triumph. The maxim of the soldier is, My\\ncountry; may she ever be right; but right or wrong, my country.\\nThe maxim which ought to animate statesmen and lawmakers is,\\nMy country; to continue her in the right; but if in the wrong, to\\nhelp set her right. That is the answer which I make to the state-\\nment of the Senator.\\nNow, Mr. President, this proposition involves another consider-\\ntion of far-reaching importance. I have said that I am opposed\\nto this programme because, in my opinion, it does not look for-\\nward, but carries us backwai d to the scenes of despotism. When\\nI speak I speak without impugning the motive of anyone. I am\\nan expansionist. I believe in it by natural and peaceful processes.\\nThe progress of our people is natural and inevitable. An artificial\\nbarrier can not be set to that progress. I make no question of\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "29\\nthat kind. But here is a question involved which is of very\\ndeep and very great importance the question involved in the sale\\nand transfer of vast numbers of people.\\nMr. President, the density of population of the Philippine Archi-\\npelago is twice as great as that in Illinois or in Indiana. It is\\ntwenty or thirty times ?.s great as the territory west of the Missis-\\nsippi, between the Mississippi and the Pacific Ocean. It is teem-\\ning with people. There is no vacant territory there. There is\\nnothing there upon which Americans can build homes.\\nOn the other hand, upon this side of the shores of the Pacific\\nthere are undeveloped resources. There are riches beyond all\\ncomprehension which need only the application of capital and the\\ntouch of industry to develop. We can well afford to open more\\ntunnels and sink more shafts to touch the inestimable treasures of\\nmineral which lie everywhere throughout that vast section of\\ncountry. We have but to husband its waters and reclaim the\\narid wastes and build sugar factories. Those things-^ will give\\nemployment to labor and build homes for the American people.\\nMr. President, there is no such resource in the Philippine Archi-\\npelago. On the contrary, for three hundred years scarcely enough\\npeople from other nations have been going there to be worth men-\\ntioning. A few thousand and you have told the whole story; 100,-\\n000 Chinamen, and the mixture and combination of races which\\nwas depicted by the junior Senator from Massachusetts.\\nBut we are repeating history, Mr. President. More than one\\nhundred years ago, just prior to the time when this G-overnment\\nof ours was established, Great Britain set out on a programme some-\\nwhat similar to that, and I want to read briefly a description of\\nthat policy which is not dissimilar to that which is now iDresented\\nfor our consideration. I read a description of it as given on page\\n449 of the Works of Edmund Burke, Volame II. Speaking with\\nreference to Great Britain in its relation to India, he said:\\nThe next sale was that of the whole nation of the Rohillas, which the grand\\nsalesman, without a pretense of quarrel, and contrary to his own declared\\nsense of duty and rectitude, sold to the same Sujahlul Dowlah. He sold the\\npeople to utter extirpation for the sum of \u00c2\u00a3400,000. Faithfully was the bai*-\\ngain performed on our side. Hafiz Rhamet, the most eminent of their chiefs,\\none of the bravest men of his time, and as famous throughout the East for\\nthe elegance of his literature and the spirit of his poetical compositions (by\\nwhich he supported the name of Hafiz) as for his courage, was invaded with\\nan army of an hundred thousand men and an English brigade.\\nThis man, at the head of inferior forces, was slain valiantly fighting for\\nhis country. His head was cut off and delivered for money to a barbarian.\\nHis wife and children, persons of that rank, were seen begging a handful of\\nrice through the English camp. The whole nation,, with inconsiderable ex-\\nceptions, was slaughtered or banished. The country was laid waste with\\nfire and sword; and that land, distinguished above most others by the cheer-\\nful face of paternal government and protected labor, the chosen seat of culti-\\nvation and plenty, is now almost throixghout a dreary desert, covered with\\nrushes, and briers, and jungles full of wild beasts.\\nThe Bi itish officer who commanded in the delivery of the people thus sold\\nfelt some compunction at his employment. He represented these enormous\\nexcesses to the president of Bengal, for which ho received a sevei o repri-\\nmand from the civil governor.\\nFurther, other transactions in which people were sold are here\\ngiven:\\nIn Bengal, Sura.iah Dowlah was sold to Mir Jaffier, Mir Jaffier was sold to\\nMir Cossim, and Mir Cossim was sold to Mir Jaffier again.\\nAnd so on, giving a large number.\\nAll these bargains and sales were regularly attended with the waste a,ndl\\nhavoc of the country\u00e2\u0080\u0094 always by the buyer, and sometimes by the object c\u00c2\u00a3\\nthe sale.\\n43.35", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "30\\nMr, President, by reason of these examples, these frightful con-\\nsequences of undertaking to make the destinies of millions of peo-\\nple depend upon transactions of barter and sale\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the frightful\\nconsequences flowing over that have, according to the author on\\ninternational law that I have cited, led in modern times to the\\nwell- settled principle founded upon intrinsic justice and, sound\\nmorality that such things can not lawfully and morally be done\\nin accordance with the principles of international law except with\\nthe consent of the governed. We are having repeated now at this,\\nthe end of the nineteenth century, the experience which came to\\nGreat Britain at the end of the last century, and which has made\\nher rule in India a blight and curse to all its people.\\nMr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts claims that, con-\\nceding everything else, these islands would be of great benefit to\\nus commercially. He said, as P^understood him, that by reason\\nof our possession of those islands our diplomatic officers were\\nenabled to obtain the open door to China, and the Senator paid a\\nglowing eulogy to the present Secretary of State, pointing to that\\nas being a grand consummation of his diplomatic skill.\\nMr. President, I can not regard it as does the Senator from\\nMassachusetts. It seems to me to be a triumph of English and\\nnot of American diplomacy. The policy of free trade at home\\nand free trade everywhere has been the policy of Great Britain.\\nIn the open door in China, Great Britain and Germany and Russia\\nhave no sympathy with the myriads of people in that vast Empire.\\nThat sovereignty, if it pleases, in accordance with every principle\\nof justice and international law, is entitled to have a tariff barrier\\naround her shores, or she is entitled to tear it down, as in accord-\\nance with her own interest she may think proper and best. But\\nwhat right has Russia, what right has a great trust of nations\\nlike Russia, Great Britain, and Germany, to say we will form a\\nconspiracy and say to the Emperor of China and those people:\\nObey our behests and tear down your tariff wall?\\nIt is a precedent to which I can not give my sanction, worthless\\nthough that may be. I can not give my sanction that this coun-\\ntry shall enter into a combination and conspiracy to dictate to\\nother and feebler nations, as the result of the gigantic power of a\\ncombination or a trust of nations, that their right to control their\\nown affairs and levy their own taxes to subserve their own inter-\\nests they shall not possess.\\nMr. President, this is not the triumph of American policy. This\\nis the triumph of British policj^ England and Germany have\\ngiven us nothing and can give us nothing morally in China. They\\ncan not give us freer access to any parts of the markets of tliat\\nvast number of people. They give us nothing; but if we recog-\\nnize the Philippine Archipelago as a part of our territory, they\\nhave by their combination, their spheres of influence over the\\ndiplomatic representatives of the United States, laid down the\\nposition that we are to take down our tarifl barrier tear it down\\nto the ocean level.\\nMr. President, if we keep the Philippines we are to add the ex-\\npense of a vast army which for an untold length of time in the\\nfuture must be kept there on police duty at least. If we are to be-\\nlieve the statements made by the proponents of the iDolicy, which\\nis now under consideration, they are to exercise police patrol,\\nprotecting Aguinaldo from Artacho or Artacho from Aguinaldo.\\nThe burden of the expense of all this to fall upon the taxpayers of\\nthe United States.\\n4225", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "31\\nOur merchants and our traders and onr proa\\npete in those, islands, and for that market wii.\\nmerchants a nd producers of Great Britain, of Ruo^\\nand of all ot her countries. They get the benefit ana\\nThat is the sum. of that transaction, if it is to he carrieu\\nIt is similar to that other matchless achievement of\\nmatic skill of our Secretary of State, the Hay-Pauncei\\nIn that cafse we are graciously accorded by Great Brita\\nEuropean^ nations the right to construct and maintain ti\\nat our own expense and principally for the benefit of Grea\\nMr. Pi esident, these are all departures from the grf\\nprinciples and policy and traditions of our Governm\\nsee nothing, so far as commerce or money making is c.__^c-\\ninvite us to go on with this policy which is outlined for us.\\nthink i t is detrimental and destructive of ail our best interet\\nmaterirJ; I think it is destructh e of all our beat interests sociai\\nand political.\\nThe distinguished Senator from Massachusetts likened himself,\\nas did Sir Isaac Newton, another distinguished philosopher whom\\nhe did not name, to a little child playing upon the seashore, now\\nand then diverting himself by finding a brighter pebble than ordi-\\nnary, w nile the great ocean of truth lay unexplored before him.\\nMr. I^resideut, when I read over that speech, three hours long,\\nI could not conceive how the Senator thought he was not perfectly\\nfamiliar with all that is in the air, and all that is upon the land,\\nand all that is in the sea. I believe actually if the Senator should\\nstand up(Dn the seashore and think about the situation, he would\\ncome to the conclusion that he could make an improvement upon\\nthe handiwork of the Almighty. I think he would conclude that\\nhe could dictate and prescribe better laws to control the life of the\\nfinny shoals of the mighty deep, and I think he might come to the\\nconclusion that if in prescribing those regulations there should be\\nany disturbance, the explosion of a stick of giant powder in the\\nmidst of the finny tribes would calm their fretful, finny souls.\\nMr. President, as I read that speech and as I heard part of it,\\nthe Senator seemed to me like a man standing upon the housetop\\nready to hurl a deadly missile into a crowded thoroughfare, reck-\\nless of all consequence. He says that certain races have an in-\\neradicable tendency to favor despotism. I believe the Senator\\ntakes pride in the fact that a few years ago he was the author of\\nthe force bill. More than a third of his speech was devoted to\\nthe pulverization of the keystone in the arch of liberty. He\\nwants to cut loose from the Constitution, if I understood him\\nrightly, and govern many millions of people without their consent.\\nHe wants to know where the principle of the consent of the\\ngoverned begins to operate. He says if it is sacred to all, it must\\nbe sacred to one; and he wants to know at what point in the cen-\\nsus the principle begins to operate. If it does not operate with\\none, it can not operate with 30,000. If it can not operate with\\n30,000, it can not operate as to 10,000,000; and if not as to 10,000,000,\\nthen it can not operate as to 100,000,000. Thus he strikes away\\nthe foundation upon which our free institutions rest. He goes\\nback to the principle of the Holy Alliance, and by his logic lands\\ndangerously near the divine right of kings to rule people without\\ntheir consent.\\nAh, Mr. President, the Senator says that all born east of Con-\\nstantinople have an ineradicable, a racial tendency to despotism.\\nIf we are to believe what he says, he must have had his birth east\\n4235", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "llSllllilllll^ CONGRESS\\n027 531 528 A\\n32\\nlivirig example of the incorrectness of\\nic. /ou catch a Hottentot you.ng enough to\\na process of education you may malie out of him\\nlit, I can not see how the Anglo-Saxon or the Cau-\\ns any right to obtrude a despotic sway over the Asiatic\\nay. No more could I see how some great mogul of Asia\\nnd, as they attempted to do in the middle ages, a des-\\ny over the Caucasian. i\\nfsr.s Emerson, has its scale of degrees, but it is clifficult to\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0^_^v degree that is positive. It is beyond th purview\\n^c of mortals to say that any particular degrt^e or con-\\n9iS the proper one, and that all men must coiaform to\\nJ liie may become like the surface of a tranquil ocean. The\\n.s^ ideal of j.appiness of one man may, on the contrary, differ\\nrom that of another equally intelligent, and how much more is\\n:hat true of races.\\nThe peasant is pleased to follow the plow; the sailor, to j/low the\\nmain with his bark; the soldier, to yield obedience to 3.iis com-\\nmander and 3 ush unconsciously upon the pointed steel; the shep-\\nherd, to recline upon some eminence and cast his sluggish eyes\\nupoT his QTaziig herds; the smith delights to forge the metal and\\nsee hecume p astic in his hands; the heathen thinks he can read\\nin puny relics o. wood and stone the divine essence of the gods,\\nand delights to supplicate that he may participate in the joys of\\nsome blissful realm delineated by the pencil of his own imagina-\\ntion.\\nEvery Christian has his own peculiar ideas concerning present\\nanc. e^^^nal harpiness. The fact is that no two men, no two\\nr\u00c2\u00abces nk alike, reason alike, or hope alike. The thoughts and\\nhoppp: of men are suggested by the scenes they view, the air they\\nbreathe, the land they dwell upon.\\nMr. President, we can not rule Asiatic peoples to their advaii-\\nd it iout detriment to ourselves. Nature revolts at the\\niaea. Hence I say that to carry out this policy is destructive of\\nthe best interests, material, moral, social, and political, of both\\ntne people of the United States and the people of the Philippine\\nIslands.\\nThese words may fall on deaf ears. A fatal fascination for\\npower may prevail.\\nThe time flies of imperialism flutter their dilletante wings in\\nin wild delight at every panegyric of power, at every fulsome adu-\\nlation of those who have gifts to bestow and patronage to dis-\\npense. And so it has ever been.\\n4225\\no", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n027 531 528 P", "height": "4556", "width": "2662", "jp2-path": "relationswithphi00rawl_0036.jp2"}}