{"1": {"fulltext": "T\\ninn\\nami\\nill\\nIBS\\nIB\\nrami\\nmil\\nMil", "height": "3583", "width": "2257", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "-Y\\nV\\n*S\\np.\\n1* 3f\\no\\n5~\\nV\\nrt-\\nA\\n9 V.\\n-*1\\ncK\\nV\\no5\\nv\\n1", "height": "3390", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "o y\\nA O\\nG*\\nA\\no\\nr\\nV\\nv\\n,0o\\nV X-\\nV\\no x\\nx\\nX\\n-c^\\nJ- S u\\nX-\\nr y X\\nX*\\nk\\nN X X\\nS\\ns\\nK\\nA\\ns\\nf\\n**v\\nX\\nA", "height": "3390", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR\\nPESSIMIST?\\nIN\\nUNCLE SAM S STUDY\\nOF EXPANSION\\nBY\\nJAMES S. BARCUS\\nAUTHOR OF THE BOOMERANG\\nINDIANAPOLIS, U. S. A.\\nTHE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY\\nPUBLISHERS", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "NEWEST BOOKi\\nPUBLliHED BT THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY.\\nChe Redemption Of David Corson. Charles Fred-\\neric Goss. A novel notable for its strength and vivid\\nimagery; containing an unusual study of the secret springs of\\nlife. The author s wide reading, illumined by actual personal\\nexperiences, and his rare powers of description, have produced\\na singularly interesting and elevating story. i2mo, $i.jo.\\nSmiles \\\\ohzd With Sighs. Robert J. Burdette. a\\nbook of Burdette pathos and humor, in rollicking rhyme.\\nBurdette the laughing philosopher, the prince of pathos\\nwho jingles among the bells of his cap the key to every\\nhuman heart. Uniform with Riley Love-Lyrics, with many\\nillustrations by Will Vawter. i2mo y $1.23.\\nSweepers of the Sea. Claude H. Wetmore. Two young\\nmen, having come into possession of hidden treasures of untold\\nvalue, lease an island near Chile and there build the most\\npowerful navv that has ever sailed. War is declared on Peru,\\nand the story is launched on a career of excitement and holds\\nits interest strongly to the end. Illustrated. i2mo y $/.jo.\\nCbe Cragedy Of f amlet. The first volume of an entirely\\nnew edition of Shakespeare. Edited by Edward Dowden.\\nPrinted in England by Methuen Co. and published in Amer-\\nica exclusively by The Boiven-Mcrrill Co. An introduction of\\ntwenty pages is prefixed to the plav. In an appendix passages\\nare printed from the Quarto of 1603. Demy, S vo, $1.25.\\nHmeriCan -pundit Toadstools and Mushrooms, Edible and\\nPoisonous. Charles McIlvaine. Describing over 800\\nspecies, 750 being edible. Illustrated with thirty-eight page\\ncolor plates, twenty-five page engravings and over 300 etch\\nings, instructions for students, how to distinguish edible from\\npoisonous, treatment in case of poisoning, recipes for cook\\ning, complete glossary and indexes. Large quarto, $10. OO", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nIN\\nUNCLE SAM S STUDY\\nOF\\nEXPANSION\\nBY\\nJAMES S. BARCUS\\nAuthor of *The Boomerang\\nIndianapolis, U. S. A.\\nTHE BOWEN-MERRILL CO.\\nPublishers", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "\u00c2\u00a3f~7/3\\nCopyright\\n1900\\nBy JAMES S. BARCUS", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "DEDICATION.\\nTO WILLIAM Mc KIN LEY,\\nThe affectionate and tender husband, the brave and saga-\\ncious statesman, the ideal type of American manhood, the\\nlover of his nation and of the world, and therefore the\\ntrue, broad, patriot, this volume is most respectfully\\ndedicated.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "PREFACE.\\nFrankly, the one aim of this volume is to stimulate\\nthought to the end that the great truths now making for\\nthe gain and glory of our Republic, and for the progress\\nand prosperity of hitherto down-trodden peoples, may\\nbe searched out eagerly. The Author does not assume\\nto have spoken the first, nor yet the last word on the\\ngreat subject of expansion. Indeed, facts have not been\\nappealed to, so much as philosophy and reason, though\\nvolume upon volume would be required to relate all the\\nfacts, which crowd upon one another in justification of\\nthe enlightened policy of the United States in working\\nout her unprecedented destiny. Public print is already\\nladen down with scientific utterances in advocacy of our\\ngrowth and our corresponding usefulness, as well as\\nwith the vagaries of obstruction doctrinaires. And so\\nthe campaign of education goes on apace with no pros-\\npect or better, no danger of abatement till our great\\nand good people shall have reached the practical solution,\\nwhich, it is submitted, generally comports with duty\\ntoward the country and the world. May this volume\\nprove an inspiration to some the more the better to\\npress their inquiry toward truth, right, and duty, is the\\nearnest prayer of your affectionate well-wisher of the\\nmajesty, justice, and power of our peerless nation.\\nJames S. Barcus,\\nTerre Haute, Ind., February i, 1900.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS\\nPHILIPPINE QUESTION\\nPage\\nIntroduction\\nI\\nQUESTION OF LAW 30\\nConstitutional 34\\nAcquisition 3\\nOther Purchases\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Louisiana, Florida, Texas, etc... 40\\nRemoteness 40\\nState Expectancy\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Alaska and Philippines excep-\\ntions 4^\\nMust Retain Secession Intolerable 49\\nGovernment and Status 59\\nWith View to Statehood 01\\nPermanent Territory 07\\nInternational Law ?6\\nII\\nQUESTION OF FACT 81\\nWill it Pay? 83\\nLabor Competition 89\\nMarket 9\\nPhilippines 08\\nChina and Orient 102\\nInternational War and Neutrality 114\\nOwnership 1 1?\\nProtectorate 121\\nRegardless of the Philippines 126\\nMonroe Doctrine _. 130\\nStrong Army and Navy 140\\nAdequacy Discussed 144\\nMilitary Excess Impossible Under Our System 148", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "VI CONTENTS\\nIII\\nPage\\nQUESTION OF HUMANITY 154\\nRight and Duty 161\\nAs to Aguinaldo 161\\nWho Provoked the Philippine War? 164\\nStatus of Aguinaldo 170\\nAs to Filipinos as a Whole 174\\nHad They a Government? 1 SO\\nWhat is the Will of the Majority? 183\\nClimate, Race and Adaptability to Self-government 185\\nLocal Self-government Aided by the United States 194\\nAs to the World 198\\nSanction for International Law 200\\nUnited States as a Member of the World Govern-\\nment 204\\nAmerican Traditions and Precedents 206\\nFreedom, Equality and Liberty 210\\nConsent of Governed 219\\nTaxation and Representation 224\\nDeclaration of Independence and The Fathers 225\\nThe Fact and the Kind of Colonial Government 235\\nGovernment Expediency 237\\nPhilippine and Cuban Policy Distinguished 238\\nExigencies of War 243\\nTerritorial and Colonial Government Distinguished... 248\\nEffect on American Civilization 257\\nUNCLE SAM S BLESSING TO ORPHAN DON.. 263", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "PROLOGUE,\\nShall selfish splendor mark our type of man?\\nShall liberty ensconce itself at home?\\nThis mighty nation s lustrous light should shine\\nThe earth and sea her base, the sky her dome.\\nIf missionary work exalteth man,\\nIf Right and Might condition world-success,\\nWhat weakling midget-soul will duty shirk?\\nWho ll dare distort the words we speak to bless?\\nBorne on by duty toward our fellowmen,\\nWe must, though sacrifice attend our zeal,\\nWhile for our Master souls the time is ripe\\nPerform the Master zvork for public weal.\\nBut chance, or fortune, or the will of God\\nPrevails our arduous burden to relieve\\nSuch blessings promise forth our lot to be\\nTis better that we give than to receive.\\nWhat boot vile shafts by selfish critics hurled?\\nProsperity obtains and not distress.\\nThough scolds our liberty may sore beset,\\nNo harm results from freedom of the press.\\nAssaults against humanity and right\\nWill prove in vain, no matter who assails\\nAs force meets force and weaker force must yield,\\nSo error met by honest reason fails.\\nThough mean and grudging souls their sloth confess,\\nWhile sullen peoples, other powers enslave,\\nTn thundrous tones the voice of freemen cry\\nWhere waves our starrv banner, let it wave.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "Patriot or Pessimist?\\nINTRODUCTION,\\nScene Uncle Sam s Retreat, Washington, D. C.\\nPresent: Uncle Sam and Orphan Don.\\nOrphan Don: Uncle, I suppose I need not remind\\nyou that within a few days I shall be twenty-one years\\nof age. You have always told me that when I should\\nhave attained my majority, you would relate to me the\\nsecret of my life.\\nUncle Sam: Yes, my boy, even in the midst of un-\\nusual cares of state, I have been thinking of you, and it\\nis with not a little regret that I look forward to the time\\nwhen our relations as adopted son and foster father must\\ncease.\\nI have not kept you ignorant of the events referred to\\nwith any selfish motive. You well know that I should\\ncheerfully give you the benefit of any information which\\nwould seem to me, in my greater experience, of vital\\nimportance to you.\\nYou were but seven months old the night I found you\\non the doorsteps of my retreat; that was a long time\\nago, long in years, but particularly long in the events\\nand achievements of our country. As we seem to be\\nalone, and are not likely to be disturbed to-night, I shall\\ntell you the secret.\\nYour father\u00e2\u0080\u0094- Hark Some one is knocking.\\nOrphan Don I will see who it is, Uncle*\\n7", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "8 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nUncle Sam (soliloquizing) My position with refer-\\nence to this orphan was long misunderstood by a few\\npeople, and misrepresented by others. It was thought\\nmy purpose in adopting him was sinister and although\\nfew knew his lineage, some people were ready to believe\\nand suggest that I had, in some way, taken possession of\\nhim without the consent of his parents, and against what\\nwould be his will if he were of an accountable age. But,\\nhappily, time has proved that those who objected were\\nmerely self-constituted guardians, with selfish and un-\\nclean purpose, which I well knew then, and my care of\\nhim has been such though he has, indeed, been a care\\nat times that his condition is far better than any other\\nfate then possible to him, and to his credit, be it said,\\nhe has directly and indirectly inspired me to an extent\\nnot to be calculated by his tax upon my time and means.\\nOrphan Don Uncle, a gentleman without craves a\\nconference with you. I explained to him that your time\\nwas so much taken up with national and international\\naffairs, that, much as you enjoy conferring with men\\nwhether high or low, rich or poor, educated or ignorant\\nyou must deny yourself that pleasure in all cases during\\nthe pendency of such weighty responsibilities as rest upon\\nyou at this time, but he insisted that he had important\\ninformation for you directly pertaining to the business\\nof state.\\nUncle Sam Did you explain to him that I had been\\nforced to adopt the rule of confining my advice to those\\nin official position?\\nOrphan Don: Yes, I emphasized it, but, not daunted,\\nhe persisted that the business upon which he wished to\\nconfer affected most seriously the interests of the na-\\ntion, and that he could give you facts concerning the\\npresent government and its officials, which the officials", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 9\\nthemselves are studiously concealing from you. At\\nlength I consented to his waiting until I could carry his\\nmessage to you.\\nUncle Sam Well, as it so happens that we are not\\ndiscussing public matters to-night, although my mind has\\nbeen thoroughly engrossed for ten long hours to-day and\\nI would wish a respite and such diversion as the rem-\\niniscences of your life would afford, yet, let us postpone\\nthe matters touching you, and for this once hear what he\\nhas to say.\\nOrphan Don Very well, I will admit him.\\n(Enter Pessimist.)\\nPessimist: Most honored patron saint of this great\\nrepublic and friend of all, dear Uncle Sam, I salute you in\\ntender love, and bear you tidings which grieve me much,\\nand would that I could spare you the sadness of hearing\\nthem.\\nUncle Sam: You are welcome; speak on, but, pray\\nyou, speak to the point, as my time is occupied with mat-\\nters of grave importance. What has befallen our coun-\\ntry of which you would apprise me? But first of all,\\nby what name may I know you?\\nPessimist: Sir, my name is Pessimist, and I have\\ncome to tell you that the President of the United States\\nhas ignored the traditions of our republic. He has fallen\\nfrom the lofty purpose which once prompted him to lift\\nup and ennoble humanity, to the low and groveling plain\\nof a foreign potentate, conducting a war of aggression\\nwith most devastating and destructive results to the peo-\\nple of a foreign country, whom he is oppressing, and all\\nat the expense of untold millions of money, to be borne\\nby our people, and at the sacrifice of the flower of our\\nyouth, who must be forced into military life to sustain\\nhis recreant and ambitious schemes. He would, sir, es-\\ntablish in a distant land a colonial rule such as that con-\\nducted by Great Britain, Germany and France. He has", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "10 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ntrampled upon and scoffed at the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence he refuses to recognize the fact that all men\\nare created free and equal that governments derive their\\njust powers from the consent of the governed, and that\\nthere should be no taxation without representation.\\nSir, it has come to such a pass that the greatest states-\\nman of America the Honorable William J. Bryan has\\nrecently suggested in a public speech that it would be\\nnecessary for us to change the title of our executive and\\ncall him the President of the United States and the Em-\\nperor of the Philippines.\\nUncle Sam How came you by that name? Is it sig-\\nnificant\\nPessimist O sir, my enemies say that I act the part,\\nbut there are those unkind enough to take the same po-\\nsition with reference to many other people who chance\\nto have names suggestive of opprobrium. I can imagine\\nthat the enemies of ex-Governor Hogg of Texas would,\\nfor no other reason than that of his name, call him selfish\\nand beastly.\\nIt is true that I criticise existing conditions without\\nfear or favor, but only my enemies claim that I am a pessi-\\nmist in my disposition. I hope, therefore, that you will\\nbelieve me when I say that I am a pessimist only in name.\\nUncle Sam I should like to believe it, but what you\\nhave said so far casts some doubt upon your claim,\\nthough you may be honest. I am very loath to impugn\\nmotives. Pessimists are not all intentionally evil there\\nare two kinds of pessimists, one whose designs are un-\\nholy and dishonest from the beginning and who finds\\nfault with everything for some selfish purpose, or be-\\ncause of a morbid hatred of man and of the institutions of\\nman the other is the deluded individual whose mind is\\ntoo illogical or whose vision is too short to reach correct\\nconclusions on economic subjects; or, perhaps the hon-\\nest pessimist may have sufficient natural ability, but may", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST r 11\\nbelong to that unfortunate class who illustrate the truth\\nof Pope s rhythmic apothegm\\nA little learning is a dangerous thing\\nDrink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.\\nSuch people are as good as anybody else. I do not\\nrecognize any superior right of any class or individual,\\nbut they mistake their province when they put themselves\\nup as leaders to dictate the policy of government or of\\nsociety. This is not an especial hardship; only a small\\npercentage of this nation or any nation can hold positions\\nof leadership. There is plenty of work for all the rest to\\ndo.\\nWithout venturing a final opinion as to your status it\\nis safe to make the general observation that the honest\\npessimist should not seek influential positions, and the\\ndishonest pessimist should not be permitted to occupy\\nthem.\\nThere is a plenty, and to spare, of men who have\\nstudied the great problems of government and who look\\nsufficiently far into their intricacies to take a hopeful view\\nwhere such view contributes to the welfare of our people.\\nIn short, they take the correct view,* holding up the finger\\nof warning where necessary without chastening or re-\\nbuking those charged with the responsibilities of govern-\\nment upon a hasty or shallow investigation.\\nPessimist: I see that you are inclined to regard me\\nas a pessimist, though you are kind enough not to clas-\\nsify me. However, you leave me but small comfort in\\nthe alternatives, for I scarcely know which I would rather\\nbe, a designing knave or an ignorant pretender. I believe,\\nhowever, I could convince you of my sincerity, as well as\\nof my accuracy, in pronouncing upon important matters,\\nbut I see you are impatient now because of your limited\\ntime.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "12 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nIt has come to my notice that you intend to set out\\nupon a journey, to confer with men of distinction in the\\ninterior, and it so happens that a large mass meeting is\\nto be held in Fort Harrison, one of the historic spots in\\nIndiana, next Tuesday night. The purpose is to check,\\nif possible, what the great majority of people believe to\\nbe a course on the part of the President which is totally\\nopposed to the best interests of American citizens. We\\ncall it an Anti-Imperialist meeting, our adversaries call\\nit, in milder terms, a meeting of the Anti-Expansionists.\\nI have been called upon to deliver an address upon that\\noccasion, in which I hope to convince the hearers and\\nthose who read my speech, that the purpose of the Presi-\\ndent and his advisers is either grossly evil or destructively\\nerroneous.\\nIf you could find it convenient to attend this meeting\\nI know it would give us all great pleasure to see you\\nthere, and I believe I can convince you in that address,\\nas of course I cannot in such short conversation as your\\ntime now would allow, that I am a pessimist only in name,\\nbut a patriot in purpose and conduct.\\nUncle Sam: My program is so completely filled that\\nit would be difficult for me to find the time, and yet\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and\\nyet\\nIs the other side to be represented?\\nPessimist: No, not according to the program, but I\\nhave directed my associates to give it out that all ques-\\ntions would be answered, and that all in the audience\\ndesiring to make comments would be free to do so and\\nthere is a young man in our State whose interest in public\\naffairs has been such that his friends have dubbed him\\nPatriot. It is thought that he will have considerable\\nto say, and as he is friendly toward the President, both\\nsides are likely to be represented. At any rate, if you\\nwould consent to attend and act as chairman _ of the\\nmeeting, I have so much confidence in our position that\\nI should be willing to allow Patriot, as they call him, to\\nuse all the time he desires in his vain effort to refute\\nmy arguments.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 13\\nUncle Sam: Don, will you tell me where we are\\nscheduled to be on Tuesday\\nOrphan Don Yes, Uncle, at Indianapolis.\\nUncle Sam: Very well, I shall accept your invita-\\ntion and attend your meeting at Fort Harrison.\\nPessimist Then may I announce your decision, so as\\nto increase the crowd as much as possible?\\nUncle Sam Yes the more I think it over, the more\\nI am inclined to believe good will come, and I have heard\\nso much from what I have believed to be carping critics,\\nthat it will give me pleasure to hear from the people them-\\nselves. In fact, the purpose of my itinerary is to learn\\nwhat I can of the people s wish on the important ques-\\ntions confronting the American public to-day.\\nLet me warn you in advance that if I attend this meet-\\ning I shall take the responsibility myself of commenting\\nupon any criticism which degenerates into mere abuse, or\\nwhich is couched in such intemperate language as to ap-\\npeal to passion rather than to reason, or which may be\\noffered by irresponsible people.\\nCriticism of the government is to be desired always,\\nbut that criticism must have for its one and only aim\\nthe betterment of conditions, and not the destruction and\\ndisplacement of conditions that are without offering ade-\\nquate and superior substitutes.\\nI would call your attention to the fact that nothing\\nlends itself more readily to attack and slanderous abuse\\nthan the affairs of government. The reason for this is\\nnot far to seek. It lies in the fact that whafever is in\\nexistence in connection with government is of human\\norigin and is directed by human minds. It is therefore\\nsubject to the shortcomings and mistakes of finite man.\\nWho cannot put his ringer upon an error in the noblest\\nwork of man Andrea del Sarto could point to Raphael s", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "14 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\npainting and say That arm is wrongly put and I could\\nalter it but honest Andrea del Sarto could also say\\nThe soul is right. And so we find critics who can point\\nto the work of masters in statecraft, and, picking out\\nhere and there a little flaw, say, I could better it; but\\nif they will be honest, like the artist, they also will say\\nin many cases, I could not produce the complete result\\nI could not better the actual conditions. And when\\ncriticism is once unbridled and unrestrained by respect or\\nreason, in addition to pointing out the actual errors it is\\ntoo frequently willing to fabricate those which do not\\nexist to warp conduct which is the best under the cir-\\ncumstances, all things considered, into apparent error or\\nevil.\\nSuch a critic is found in the character of the blatant\\ndemagogue who denounces with the power of oratory\\nand always in the name of liberty. I will have none of\\nthat, and if your meeting should take that turn you must\\ncount upon me for such rebuke as the grave responsibili-\\nties of my position may seem to warrant.\\nMadame Roland gave voice to a sad but living truth\\nwhen she exclaimed, in the face of the awful fact to her,\\nO Liberty Liberty how many crimes are committed\\nin thy name!\\nI have observed that those who would accomplish the\\ndestruction of our most sacred beliefs, quote with un-\\nstinted praise in support of such destruction from the\\nmen who helped to make these beliefs. One of the in-\\nevitable functions of a patriot is to supply quotations\\nfor demagogues. William Henry Harrison took notice\\nof this class of people. He said\\nThis is the old trick of those who would usurp the\\ngovernment of their country. In the name of democracy\\nthey speak, warning the people against the influence of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 15\\nwealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient\\nand modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became\\nthe master of the Roman people, and the Senate, under\\nthe pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the\\nformer against the aristocracy of the latter; Cromwell,\\nin the character of protector of the liberties of the people,\\nbecame the dictator of England; and Bolivar possessed\\nhimself of unlimited oower with the title of his country s\\nliberator.\\nMy attention was called recently to an article written\\nby one Carl Schurz, in which he rolls the name of Lincoln\\nunder his tongue as a sweet morsel, quoting him to dis-\\ncredit the action and purpose of President McKinley\\nwith the evident view, if possible, of forcing from the\\nPresident a declaration of his intentions in the Philippine\\nquestion while the war was yet in progress.\\nThe situation, as it seems to me though I am open to\\nconviction at your meeting is very much the same as it\\nwas at the beginning of the War of the Rebellion, when\\nthe same Mr. Schurz nagged and abused President Lin-\\ncoln because he, in the exercise of his war prerogative,\\npostponed the announcement of civil purpose until the\\nneedful military administration should have come to an\\nend, or until such time as, in his executive discretion,\\nit would seem wise to him to divulge his purpose. Such a\\nman I am almost tempted to liken to a horse-fly he tor-\\nments one President until he is dead, then gives out the\\nimpression that they had always been agreed, but that\\nhis criticism, like the biting of the horse-fly, had merely\\nhelped the President along with his burden then he\\nlights upon another, and another, tormenting each of\\nthem in turn, while each plods on and honestly bears the\\nburden in spite of his annoyance.\\nOr I would liken him to a bad, idle boy, who stands\\noff and throws stones at a carpenter, while he, in spite", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "1G PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t\\nof the bad boy, erects a beautiful mansion, and then when\\nits beauty is forced upon his stupid and stubborn mind,\\nhe talks about it in a manner to imply that he helped to\\nbuild the house by keeping the carpenters stirred up and\\nmaking them active.\\nIf Mr. Schurz lives ten years more he will be quoting\\nPresident McKinley s policy in the Philippines to defame\\nand obstruct whatever President may then be trying to\\naccomplish some other patriotic work. It is difficult to\\nclassify Mr. Schurz, because he is a man of education, and\\nI dislike to call him dishonest but that he is a pessimist\\nI no longer have any doubt.\\nOf course, it does not follow from Pope s suggestion\\nthat much learning may not also be dangerous. I am\\ntempted to exclaim to him as did Festus to Paul, Much\\nlearning doth make thee mad.\\nThough Mr. Schurz comes of good German stock,\\nhe seems to have started wrong, for ever since he es-\\ncaped to America he has contributed his great ability more\\nto destruction than to construction.\\nJust as the twig is bent the tree s inclined. A sap-\\nling which if properly trained would grow into the most\\nsplendid oak may, by being trained improperly, while\\ngrowing to equal proportions, be ugly, snarly and of no\\nuse to man. And when a man of genius becomes chronic\\nin his opposition to progress and noble, brave, manly na-\\ntional conduct, he may be open to the comparison sug-\\ngested by the oak and it is in order to introduce the\\nhistory of such a man s life to impeach and discredit his\\ntestimony in a case where sound evidence is required.\\nSuch men pervert the use of language in order to mislead\\nthose who have not had the opportunity for full investi-\\ngation. They undertake to carry conviction by clever\\nphrase.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 11\\nMr. Schurz himself, in the very article in which he\\nattempts to cloud the issues, speaks of Those high-\\nsounding catchwords of which a free people, when about\\nto decide a great question, should be especially suspi-\\ncious. I would commend this utterance to the careful at-\\ntention of those who may have occasion to read the re-\\nmainder of the article by Mr. Schurz himself.\\nAs there is an admixture of evil in all good, thorns\\namong roses, stones in the soil, sorrow close upon the\\nheels of joy, so the English language, replete in rich-\\nness of expression and power, nevertheless also lends\\nitself to the use of artful designers whose unjust purpose\\ndetracts nothing from their ability to utilize it.\\nLet me quote you a sentence, the application of which\\nmight be used in an intellectual guessing contest:\\nBut after the music and the march have passed by,\\nafter the dance of delirium has worn us out, there will\\ncome a time of reckoning and mourning.\\nLincoln might have said this of the South when they\\nwere contending for secession General Grosvenor\\nmight have said it in reference to the mad vaporings of\\nEdward Atkinson and a few other Americans in their\\nattempt to give aid and comfort to Aguinaldo and the\\nPhilippine insurgents. But, as a matter of fact, Senator\\nChilton of Texas used the expression in an attack against\\nthe President s effort to restore peace and order in the\\nPhilippines.\\nOne distinguished divine objects to our control of the\\nPhilippines because it will make More places for place-\\nhunters. This sort of phrase has a tendency to preju-\\ndice people who would like to come to the right conclu-\\nsion. Of course a new responsibility makes more places\\nfor place-hunters; the question is whether the places", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "18 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nshould be made. Every step forward in government\\nmeans more places for place hunters. A factory-inspec-\\ntion law, such as many States have passed for sanitary\\nand humane purposes, necessitates the creation of a com-\\nmission or a bureau, and therefore more places for place-\\nhunters. Every new postoffice is open to the same\\nobjection. The establishment of our rural-delivery sys-\\ntem, which bids fair to have far-reaching results in edu-\\ncating and enlightening farmers, makes more places for\\nplace-hunters but who shall say that the American farm-\\ner does not deserve this service?\\nI merely refer to this matter in this way to show you\\nthat it is always possible to couch a phrase thus for the\\npurpose of appealing to the passion and prejudice of men,\\nand this fact must be taken into consideration in your\\nforthcoming discussion, else I shall not hesitate to re-\\nmind the audience of the unfair design.\\nMany critics are fond of the sensation produced by the\\npower of our language for antitheses. Rev. Henry Van\\nDyke of New York City says\\nThree and thirty years have rolled away since we\\ngave thanks for the ending of the Civil War never since\\nthat time has our national religious festival been observed\\nunder such brilliant sunlight of prosperity or such por-\\ntentous clouds of danger massed along the horizon.\\nThis sentence, read in connection with the rest of his\\nsermon on The American Birthright and the Philippine\\nPottage, reads very much as though it had been cast\\nand rounded out with a view to literary effect. He seems\\nequally fond of alliteration, and seemingly for that pur-\\npose he makes the irresponsible allusion to the President s\\npolicy as one of duty, destiny and desperation.\\nPessimist: I beg pardon, sir, but it is my purpose to\\nquote from Rev. Van Dyke s sermon in my discussion at", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 19\\nFort Harrison, and really, I think his arguments are\\nvery able.\\nUncle Sam That being the case, we will say no more\\nabout him just now, but I think you will find that his\\nforte is the pulpit, and not the governmental forum. I\\nwould not have the people understand that I discourage\\nthe co-operation of preachers in political affairs, but I\\ndo wish they would confine their teachings to questions\\nof morality, general expediency, and appeals to the com-\\nmon sense of the people, and not attempt to lay down\\nfundamental rules in political economy which tend to\\nupset healthy and well-established principles. For exam-\\nple, Rev. George C. Lorimer recently said Ideals are\\ngreat things, and parties are rubbish.\\nWithout going into a lengthy discussion, I may assume\\nthat you, and all the people in the main, understand that\\nparties are an inevitable, as well as an essential, concom-\\nitant of republican government.\\nThe checks and balances in the Constitution would be\\nof but little value were it not for the potential competi-\\ntion between parties which establishes a restraint by one\\nupon the other in all its conduct of affairs. Thus, I say,\\nDr. Lorimer made the mistake of stepping out of his\\npulpit into the political forum without first mastering the\\nsubject to which he addressed himself. I deprecate this\\ntrick of oratory to which some of the ablest preachers and\\nlawyers resort by clever phrase-making for misleading\\npurposes.\\nPessimist But, sir, how can one argue a case without\\nresorting to the artful figures of speech\\nUncle Sam Do not misunderstand me I discourage\\nno proper use of illustrations it is the abuse of them, the\\nseemingly premeditated purpose to mislead, to which I", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "20 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.\\nobject. For example, Mr. Bryan, in a speech delivered\\nat Washington Day banquet given by the Virginia Dem-\\nocratic Association here in Washington Feb. 22, 1899,\\nsaid:\\nThe hour of temptation is come, but temptations do\\nnot destroy, they merely test the strength of individuals\\nand nations. They are stumbling blocks or stepping\\nstones they lead to infamy or fame, according to the\\nuse made of them. Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen\\nserved together in the Continental Army, and both were\\noffered British gold. Arnold yielded to the temptation,\\nand made his name a synonym for treason Allen resisted,\\nand lives in the affection of his countrymen.\\nThus far this is a beautiful period of oratory, and thus\\nfar I congratulate Mr. Bryan, for it cannot be denied\\nthat he is a powerful orator but see the vile use to which\\nhe puts the figure. He goes on\\nOur nation is tempted to depart from its standard of\\nmorality and adopt a policy of criminal aggression/\\nbut will it yield?\\nIs it not Mr. Bryan s evident purpose in this to create\\nin the minds of the people a belief that the keeping of\\nthe Philippines by the United States, and by the advice of\\nthe President, would be equivalent to such an act of trea-\\nson as that committed by Benedict Arnold, who plotted to\\ndeliver an army of American patriots into the hands of\\nAmerica s enemy, and does any reasonable man believe\\nthat Mr. Bryan would have the temerity to say such a\\nthing outright?\\nIt is this misuse of figures or phrases to create an\\nimpression by indirection which the orator would not\\ndare express directly, which I deprecate and regret.\\nI cannot discontinue this conversation on the propriety\\nof speech and discussion without directing your atteii-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 21\\ntion to another fault, for, mind you, I desire to save you\\nembarrassment if possible, and I also desire, if possible,\\nto prevent your doing the administration an injustice\\nfor I believe it to be honest and capable, and shall continue\\nso to believe, unless you can convince me to the contrary.\\nSome orators on your side, and some newspapers as\\nwell, are attempting to cast odium upon the proposed con-\\nduct of the United States in the Philippines by the use of\\nopprobrious terms, and also by the opprobrious use of\\nproper terms. For instance, the word Imperialism.\\nNow this word might come under either class, i. e., for\\ncertain reasons it may be considered an opprobrious term\\nviewed in another way, it is a proper term, and the use\\nof it to express a condition contrary to American condi-\\ntions is a perversion. Our ancestors used the term freely\\nin connection with our country. Chief Justice Marshall,\\nfor instance, in the case of Loughborough vs. Blake, and\\nin other decisions frequently speaks of the American\\nEmpire.\\nPessimist But I propose to show, sir, that empire,\\nas used by our people, has reference to such dominion\\nover territory as that of Great Britain over India, for\\ninstance.\\nUncle Sam Then you will probably define your term,\\nand not use the word empire for a misleading purpose.\\nOf course, it will be in order for Patriot or whoever\\nspeaks on his side, to define his understanding of the\\nword. Other catch words and phrases used in this man-\\nner are criminal aggression, colonial rule, land-\\ngrabbing, subjugation, and the like. Then they take\\nup words applied properly by the President, and use them\\nderisively, as for example, benevolent assimilation.\\nThis sort of thing proves nothing, and is meant to mis-\\nlead.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "22 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nOne more point to which I would commend your cau-\\ntion that is the irreverent manner in which men of dis-\\ntinction, Mr. Bryan, and even dignified senators of the\\nUnited States, have sneered at the President s reference\\nto the God of our universe. Now, the effect of this kind\\nof reflection against due reference to the Deity in all\\npublic utterances is to discourage sincere Christian men\\nfrom indulging in it. I do not believe our country has\\never suffered, but on the contrary believe that it has\\nalways been strengthened by that sincere and oft-repeated\\nreverential deference paid by such men as Washington,\\nLincoln, and McKinley to the Maker of us all.\\nPessimist Will you let me explain at some length my\\nview upon these questions?\\nUncle Sam The hour is growing late, and I prefer\\nto postpone any further discussion until we meet at your\\ngathering at Fort Harrison.\\nPessimist: Very good, but remember, I shall con-\\nvince you. I bid you good night.\\n(Exit Pessimist.)\\nScene: Compartment in palace car en route from\\nWashington to Fort Harrison.\\nPresent: Uncle Sam and Orphan Don.\\nOrphan Don: Uncle, you were just about to relate\\nsome facts which interest me when Pessimist called the\\nother night and interrupted us. Since that time you have\\nbeen so busy that I have scarcely had a word with you.\\nI am curious to hear the story, and can scarcely control\\nmy patience, though I have had occasion to learn many\\nlessons of patience by observing your dealings with all\\nkinds and conditions of men, some of whom have insisted", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 23\\nupon misunderstanding your motives from time to time.\\nOn many occasions I could scarcely refrain from advising\\nyou to say things which, in your wisdom, you withheld,\\nmaybe for a long time.\\nUncle Sam I am not withholding the story of your\\nlife to try your patience, but the time is barely ripe for\\nyou to hear it, and the opportunity has not presented\\nitself, nor does it even to-day, for me to tell it. If I may\\ntax your patience a little further, I should like to conclude\\nthe work of the present trip before taking up your per-\\nsonal matter. Possibly before it is concluded some res-\\npite may come if so, I shall gladly avail myself of the\\nchance to relieve your anxiety.\\nYou will find enough diversion in our journey, as you\\nhave found in many other such journeys, to occupy your\\nmind, and I hope, to keep you happy; but the work in\\nhand is unusually onerous, and must have my undivided\\nattention for the present. I am not seeking the advice\\nof the people upon one question merely, as it was in\\n1896, when Sound Money was the all-prepondering issue,\\nbut this campaign it is Sound Money, Philippine Policy,\\nand the Trusts. I hope to obtain a concensus of popular\\nopinion, as well as a good analysis from the standpoint of\\nskill and learning upon all these issues before I return\\nto Washington. The order of investigation and the ar-\\nrangement of data is but partly completed, and I shall\\nbusy myself for the rest of the journey with this task.\\nOrphan Don I most cheerfully accede to your wishes,\\nUncle, and shall employ my time in reading and observa-\\ntion. The adversaries of the Administration policy have\\ndeclaimed so much about the traditions of the Fathers,\\nand have quoted so freely from former Presidents, that\\nI think I shall review The Federalist, and perhaps read\\na few of the messages of Monroe and other Presidents,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "2\\\\ PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthat I may learn for myself what they said, and under\\nwhat conditions their wise sayings were spoken.\\nUncle Sam: That is well.\\nScene: Prairie House, Fort Harrison, Indiana.\\nPresent: Uncle Sam and Orphan Don.\\nOrphan Don Uncle, the crowd at the meeting place\\nis something almost indescribable. It will be utterly im-\\npossible for any orator to make one-tenth of them hear.\\nIt has been advertised widely that you are to be present,\\nand the people have come in droves from far and near,\\nnot only citizens of Indiana, but from Illinois, Kentucky,\\nMichigan and Ohio, and the hotel clerk says that quite a\\nnumber have come from practically every State in the\\nUnion.\\nUncle Sam I am glad so much interest is shown let\\nus repair to the meeting place.\\nScene Fort Harrison, Indiana.\\nPresent: Uncle Sam, Pessimist, Patriot, Orphan\\nDon, and seemingly a countless multitude of citi-\\nzens, made up from every class, every profession,\\nevery trade.\\nA Citizen: The meeting will please come to order.\\nFellow citizens, I have the honor of presenting to this\\nmagnificent audience, as chairman of the meeting, the\\npatron saint of America Uncle Sam who will now take\\ncharge of the meeting. (Long and continued applause.)\\nUncle Sam: Friends, at the solicitation of Pessimist\\nI have joined you here for the purpose of listening, and\\nnot for the purpose of talking. I might dilate at length\\nupon many questions which concern the government and", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 25\\nthis great people. I might exhort you as to your duty\\nalong certain lines, but as I fancy the opportunity will\\ncome from time in the course of Pessimist s remarks and\\nthe discussion of them by you, for me to say what I like,\\nI shall for the present give way to the orator of the\\nevening, Pessimist, who needs no introduction to an\\nAmerican audience.\\nPessimist: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen It\\nis with great pleasure that I proceed with the endeavor to\\nplace before you the facts and reasons for my belief that\\nthe present crisis in the United States stands second in\\nimportance to no event which has commanded the atten-\\ntion of historians.\\nWe are standing to-day upon the brink of a mighty\\nprecipice; we are about to depart from the traditions\\nof the Fathers, who laid down as the foundation princi-\\nples of our governmental structure the equality of man,\\nthe freedom of all individuals, and that governments de-\\nrive their just powers from the consent of the governed,\\nand that there shall be no taxation without representa-\\ntion.\\nThe President of the United States, who, in his mes-\\nsage before the Spanish-American war voiced the most\\nlofty purpose conceivable to free institutions by disclaim-\\ning any purpose of criminal aggression, has degenerated\\ninto a land-grabbing, colonial-governing agent for the\\nmonopolistic rings and combinations of Wall Street.\\nI have been adjured by Uncle Sam to confine myself\\nto temperate language, but I submit that it is difficult\\nto find suitable language of mild degree to characterize\\nthe seditious and treasonable efforts so assiduously in-\\ndulged in by the President. Just think of the condition\\nwhich confronts us! That patriot and friend of the peo-\\nple William Jennings Bryan says\\nOur people defended Cuba against foreign arms, now\\nthey must defend themselves and their country against a\\nforeign idea the colonial idea of European nations.\\nHeretofore greed has perverted the government and used\\nits instrumentalities for private gain, but now the very", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "26 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nfoundation principles of our government are assaulted.\\nOur nation must give up any intention of entering upon a\\ncolonial policy, such as is now pursued by European\\ncountries, or it must abandon the doctrine that govern-\\nments derive their just powers from the consent of the\\ngoverned.\\nIn another speech he says\\nIf we adopt a colonial policy and pursue a course\\nwhich incited the revolution of 1776, we must muffle the\\ntones of old Liberty Bell, and commune in whispers when\\nwe praise the patriotism of our fathers. We cannot afford\\nto destroy the Declaration of Independence; we cannot\\nafford to erase from our constitutions, State and Na-\\ntional, the Bill of Rights; we have not time to examine\\nthe libraries of the nation and purge them of the essays,\\nthe speeches and the books that defend the doctrine that\\nlaw is the crystallization of public opinion rather than\\nthe emanation of physical power; but, even if we could\\ndestroy every vestige of the laws, which are the out-\\ngrowth of the immortal document penned by Jefferson,\\nif we could obliterate every written word that has been\\ninspired by the idea that this is a government of the\\npeople, by the people, and for the people, we could not\\ntear from the heart of the human race the hope that the\\nAmerican republic has planted there. The impassioned\\nappeal Give me liberty or give me death still echoes\\naround the world. In the future, as in the past, the desire\\nto be free will be stronger than the desire to enjoy a mere\\nphysical existence. The conflict between might and right\\nwill continue here and everywhere until a day is reached\\nwhen the love of money will no longer sear the national\\nconscience, and hypocrisy no longer hide the hideous\\nfeatures of avarice behind the mask of philanthropy.\\nPatriot: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed a sug-\\ngestion, it seems to me that the language quoted from\\nMr. Bryan is largely an attack upon conditions in\\nAmerica regardless of expansion, and is therefore largely\\nirrelevant in a discussion that purports to deal with the\\nPhilippine question. If Pessimist believes, as does Mr.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 27\\nBryan, that the love of money now sears the national\\nconscience/ and that hypocrisy now hides the hideous\\nfeatures of avarice behind the mask of philanthropy, we\\nmight easily arrange for a discussion as to the fact of that\\ncharge; but the allegations made against the American\\npolicy in the Philippines will contribute quite enough\\nmaterial for the discussion of one evening, and in addi-\\ntion to this fact, the minds of the hearers are not so liable\\nto be confused as if we confine ourselves strictly to the\\nquestion which we have met to hear elucidated.\\nUncle Sam: It would conduce to the better under-\\nstanding of the issues if only arguments germane to the\\nquestion are presented, and these arguments themselves\\nshould be presented in a systematic manner, and not at\\nhaphazard.\\nThe quotations from Mr. Bryan raise several points,\\nany one of which ought to be dwelt upon more or less\\nat length. Time will not permit us here to discuss all\\nthe charges possible to make justly and unjustly against\\nmankind. In the interest of fairness, I sincerely trust\\nthat nothing in the way of general charges of bad faith\\nand impure motive will be resorted to. If the conduct of\\nany individual or set of individuals be reprehensible, the\\nfact is easily come at by logical reason and presentation\\nof the truth. I should like to see an orderly method pur-\\nsued.\\nPessimist: If it may please the audience, I should like\\nto ask a suggestion of Uncle Sam as to the order in which\\nthe subject shall be discussed.\\nUncle Sam: Have you any particular outline?\\nPessimist: No, except that I propose to show that\\nthe conduct in connection with this war is against the\\ninterest of humanity.\\nPatriot: May I submit a suggestion?", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "28 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nPessimist Certainly.\\nPatriot You will agree that the conclusion to be ar-\\nrived at from a humanitarian point of view, must be the\\nresult of facts a correct theory based upon the facts.\\nAssuming that this is true, we have to deal with two great\\nquestions First, the question of fact and second, the\\nquestion of humanity. But it has been contended by\\nsome of the adversaries of the administration that the pro-\\nposed plan in the Philippines is in contravention of pub-\\nlic law. If that be true, and can be conclusively shown,\\nour time would be wasted in disputing over the questions\\nof fact and humanity, for in that event we have recourse\\nto the court. It also appears to me that unless the facts\\nrelied upon by the administration in support of its policy\\ncan be successfully controverted by its adversaries, no\\ntime need be spent upon the purely ethical or sociological\\nquestion of humanity. If, therefore, my suggestion will\\nnot inconvenience the orator in the arrangement of his\\nproposed address, the logical sequence, as it seems to me,\\nis to discuss, first, the question of law second, the ques-\\ntion of fact, and third, the question of humanity.\\nUncle Sam It would seem proper to defer to the wish\\nof the orator of the evening in the matter of topical\\narrangement.\\nI take this opportunity to interject that I have made\\nno suggestions to Pessimist save that he should be fair\\nand temperate in his discussion, and that he should freely\\nand cheerfully yield the floor to any member of the audi-\\nence desiring to ask questions or to comment upon his\\npropositions. I therefore refer the question of order to\\nhim.\\nPessimist: The order suggested by Patriot will not\\nconfuse me, but I fear the arrangement, though logical\\nto be sure, will prove somewhat uninteresting, because", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 29\\nthe question of law, however popularly discussed, is neces-\\nsarily a little tedious and insipid. The only apprehension\\nI have in the matter is that the audience will grow weary\\nof this portion of the discussion, and may partially dis-\\nperse before we conclude.\\nPatriot While it is true that all of us are now fully\\nemployed a condition which I cannot refrain from re-\\nminding you is different from that which prevailed during\\nthe campaign of 1896, yet the fact that to-morrow is a\\nholiday constrains me to the belief that we will all stay\\nthroughout the discussion, even though the first portion\\nmay not prove especially inspiring.\\nVoices That is right we will stay if it takes all\\nnight.\\nPessimist: Then I shall proceed in the order sug-\\ngested by Patriot:\\nFirst, the question of law.\\nSecond, the question of fact.\\nThird, the question of humanity.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "I.\\nQUESTION OF LAW.\\nPessimist: The Federal Government is a government\\nof delegated powers, and it must be plain to everyone that\\nunless there is found in its constitution some authority\\nfor acquiring territory beyond the seas, no such authority\\nexists. The implied power claimed by some of the\\napologists of the Administration has its existence only\\nin the imagination of those whose wish is father to the\\nthought.\\nConstitutional grants and limitations should be con-\\nstrued in the light of events and professional opinions\\ncontemporary with the adoption of the Constitution.\\nThus, courts have always looked with the utmost respect\\nto the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independ-\\nence as guides in the interpretation of difficult constitu-\\ntional problems.\\nThat it is against the spirit of the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence for us to acquire territory by conquest, and to\\nrule it like foreign princes rule colonies, can admit of no\\ndoubt. It would be useless to attempt to controvert this\\nproposition in the minds of the American people. What\\nbetter authority do we want on a question of public law\\nthan the great lawyer, statesman and Democratic leader,\\nthe Honorable William J. Bryan? And has he not said,\\nas quoted in my preliminary remarks, The very founda-\\ntion principles of our government are assaulted\\nIf it is not unlawful to assault the foundations of our\\ngovernment, what respect can we hope to command for\\nour Constitution and our laws? And if you will recall\\ncarefully his words throughout, you will observe that he\\nimplies in every sentence that there is a persistent deter-\\nmination on the part of the Republican Administration to\\n30", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 31\\nundermine the Constitution and to ignore entirely the\\nprinciples so ably laid down in the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence.\\nPatriot: May it please the Chairman, and fellow-citi-\\nzens, it seems to me that Pessimist is confusing the three\\nmain topics Law, Fact and Humanity. If he will con-\\nfine himself to the question of Law proper, it will be\\neasier for us to follow his arguments, and he will un-\\ndoubtedly be left free to discuss at any length the ques-\\ntion as to whether the action pursued by the United States\\nis right and honorable and patriotic, after we shall have\\nfirst determined that we have legal sanction for the course\\npursued.\\nPessimist It seems to me that we have a perfect right\\nto call into our council such opinions as that of Mr. Bryan.\\nOf course, we have no law on the statute books which\\nspecifically says we shall not acquire territory, but the\\nclaim I make is, that in the absence of a statute, or a con-\\nstitutional grant explicitly giving us the power, the au-\\nthority does not exist, because, as before stated, our gov-\\nernment is a government of delegated powers, and as I\\nunderstand it, where this is the case, the rule of construc-\\ntion is that what is not granted is denied. The individual\\nStates, in adopting the Constitution, reserved all that was\\nnot expressly granted to the Federal Government.\\nHon. Charles A. Towne, ex-Representative from Min-\\nnesota, in an address delivered at the University of Mich-\\nigan on Washington s Birthday, 1899, expressly denies\\nthe title of America to the Philippine Islands. He calls\\nattention to the Peace Protocol, signed Aug. 12, 1898, in\\nwhich it was provided that The United States will oc-\\ncupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila pending\\nthe conclusion of a treaty of peace which shall determine\\nthe control, disposition and government of the Philip-\\npines. He then adverts to the capture of Manila and the\\ncapitulation on August 15, and shows clearly that the\\ncapture, having occurred after the signing of the protocol,\\nshould give no title in law. He says", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "32 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nWhatever under other circumstances might have been\\nthe effect of the capture of the city of Manila upon the\\nsovereignty of the entire group of islands, and whether\\nor not it would have passed that sovereignty to the\\nUnited States, it is clear that after the execution of the\\nprotocol the capture could not possibly confer any rights\\nbeyond the provisional occupation of the city, bay and\\nthe harbor of Manila. When, therefore, the President\\nof the United States says, as he recently has said, that our\\npossession of the Philippines rests upon the right of con-\\nquest/ he is certainly in error. When he signed the pro-\\ntocol he expressly bound this country to determine the\\nultimate fate of those islands by negotiation.\\nPatriot: May I ask Pessimist to whom we were\\nobligated by the protocol\\nPessimist To everybody.\\nPatriot: I shall venture to show the error of Pessi-\\nmist s answer. The protocol was a contract between\\ntwo nations, namely, Spain and the United States; the\\nconsiderations moving from one to the other respectively,\\nwere recited, and among the mutual considerations was\\nthat the Treaty of Peace should determine the control, etc.\\nThe signatories alone could legally enforce these consid-\\nerations. I submit, as a matter of primary legal construc-\\ntion, that since we were bound by this promise only as\\nbetween Spain and the United States, our title as between\\nthe United States and the Philippines was made doubly\\nsecure by capture, in accordance with the well-known and\\nincontrovertible law of nations.\\nI perceive an advantage in the division of the question\\nof law under two heads, and suggest that it be treated in\\nthat order:\\ni The law as laid down by the Constitution of the\\nUnited States.\\n(2) International law.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 33\\nPessimist I am free to confess that my study of the\\nlegal details concerning this question has been limited. I\\ndo not believe it should be decided by technicalities of\\nthe law so much as by the law in the broader sense, such\\nas laid down in the quotations I gave from Mr. Bryan,\\nwhere he says\\nEven if we could destroy every vestige of the laws\\nwhich are the outgrowth of the immortal document\\npenned by Jefferson, and so on, we could not tear from\\nthe heart of the human race the hope which the American\\nrepublic has planted there.\\nOf course, he refers here to the laws in a popular sense,\\njust as I think they should be referred to in the discussion\\nof this question, which touches so closely the common\\nsense and vital interest of the unprofessional masses.\\nAll through Mr. Bryan s speeches you will find it\\nplainly suggested that as between the two, the Declara-\\ntion of Independence represents better law than the Con-\\nstitution of the United States. Why, then, should we not\\ntalk about the law in a common-sense way before these\\npeople and not attempt to lead them into a maze of legal\\nquips and professional technicalities, from which lawyers\\nthemselves can scarcely emerge?\\nUncle Sam I understand, Pessimist, that it is per-\\nfectly proper to give attention to the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence and to the popular understanding of what is\\nlawful and right, but I respectfully submit that the legal,\\ntechnicalities form a proper part of this discussion, and\\nhowever briefly treated, they should be disposed of at\\nthis juncture.\\nPessimist: Well, I will give way to Patriot, and let\\nhim take the lead on this topic. He seems to think that\\nthere is legal justification for the nation s. procedure thus\\nfar; let him show it if he can. I will take chances on", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "34 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nconvincing the audience under the other topics, that there\\nis nothing in the claims which he may now make.\\nUncle Sam: Will Patriot assume this responsibility?\\nIf so, let him proceed.\\nPatriot: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen If\\nyou will permit a preliminary remark, I shall endeavor to\\nassume the responsibility Pessimist has shifted to me.\\nThere is no reason why a fair, calm and unimpassioned\\ndiscussion of our legal status should blind even the un-\\nprofessional masses, as suggested by Pessimist.\\nThe right to acquire territory in the manner in which\\nwe have acquired the Philippines, if it exists at all in the\\nConstitution and the decisions of our courts, admits of\\nperfectly clear analysis and requires no professional skill,\\nand, indeed, no superior logic to understand, and I can\\nassure you all that no finger can point to any effort on my\\npart to confuse, but it shall rather be my aim to enlighten\\nevery hearer, even in the name of law.\\nCONSTITUTIONAL.\\nPatriot In the first place, I would combat the propo-\\nsition laid down by Pessimist that no specific grant exists\\nfor the acquisition of territory, and in the second place,\\nthe implied power would warrant it in the absence of\\nexpress grant. The Federal Constitution, though an in-\\nstrument intended to repose in the Federal Government\\nlimited powers, would be inadequate to the purposes of\\ngovernment if it had not intended that the government\\nshould exercise implied grants of power as well as those\\nexpressly given, and the United States Supreme Court\\nhas been unanimous and uniform from the beginning in\\nits holding to the effect that grants necessarily or con-\\nveniently implied, are as effectual and binding as if ex-\\npressly stated.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT Ok PESSIMIST t 3S\\nPessimist How do you make out an express grant\\nPatriot I contend that the power to acquire territory\\nis expressly granted in the treaty-making power vested\\nin and imposed upon the President of the United States.\\nIt says\\nHe shall have power, by and with the advice and con-\\nsent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds\\nof the senators present concur.\\nPessimist That says nothing about acquiring terri-\\ntory it merely gives power to make treaties.\\nPatriot: No argument is necessary to convince you\\nthat the framers of the Constitution could not anticipate\\nthe exigencies arising under which treaties would or\\nmight be made. They could not know with what nations\\nnor on what terms treaties should be made. A treaty is\\na contract between nations it calls for performance\\nusually on both sides it calls therefore for value. Ter-\\nritory being at the time of the adoption of the Constitu-\\ntion a recognized value, a commodity in which sovereign\\nnations might deal, it must be conclusively presumed\\nthat the framers of the Constitution intended that the\\nPresident should, in his discretion, contract for territory\\nas well as for other values.\\nPessimist But where is anything said about taking\\nterritory as a value?\\nPatriot I might retort by asking, Where is anything\\nsaid about taking money or anything else as a value? If\\nthe absence of words denoting value prohibits the ex-\\nchange of any values in making treaties, the authority\\nbecomes nugatory and absurd, and to admit that any\\nvalue whatever is contemplated is to admit territory the\\nsame as money. Had territory not been intended, we\\nare bound to conclude that the framers of the Consti-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "30 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ntution would have numbered it among the prohibitions of\\nthe Constitution, for they were not forgetful of the necesr\\nsary interdictions while creating permissions and grants.\\nA rule of construction, accepted universally, is that where\\nexceptions are recited in a statute or a Constitution, pro-\\nceedings not falling under the exceptions are presumed to\\nfall under the rule.\\nFurthermore, as before stated, we have the implied\\npower under two heads First, the Constitution provides\\nthat Congress shall have the power to provide for the\\ncommon defense and promote the general welfare. The\\nsecond is a provision for Congress to admit States and\\ngovern Territories, which I shall refer to more fully under\\nthe topic relating to our right to govern. On this head\\nChief Justice Taney said in the Dred ScOtt case\\nThe power to expand the territory of the United States\\nby the admission of new States is plainly given and in\\nthe construction of this power by all the departments of\\nthe government, it has been held to authorize the ac-\\nquisition of territory, not fit for admission at the time.,\\nbut to be admitted as soon as its population and situation\\nwould entitle it to admission.\\nThere is a certain kind of testimony which may be\\nadmitted even in a question of law in some such popular\\nform as suggested by Pessimist. Authority of law is\\nthreefold, or perhaps fourfold in this particular instance.\\nFirst, the law in a given case may be determined by the\\nConstitution or statute itself, i. e., the written law\\nsecond, by the judicial decisions in adjudicated cases\\nwhere the facts are parallel third, the opinions of recog-\\nnized authorities, such as text-book writers and lawyers.\\nThe fourth source applying in the present case though\\nmerging somewhat into the second and third, is inter-\\nnational law as it is found in treaties, decrees, ukases,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 37\\netc. Now the fault I would find with Pessimist s propo-\\nsition is that he proposed to confine himself wholly to the\\nthird source of law, namely, the opinions loosely ex-\\npressed in the speeches of lawyers. I think, therefore, we\\nmay with propriety introduce the legal opinions of those\\nwho have studied the question, and believe that the result\\nwill be to clarify the atmosphere, provided we do not rely\\nupon them to the exclusion of the written law and court\\ndecisions. I have selected as my authorities on this sub-\\nject men who, for the most part, hold with Pessimist on\\nthe question of fact and on the question of humanity.\\nSenator Teller said in a recent speech:\\nThe power to acquire territory has been repeatedly\\ndeclared by the Supreme Court to belong to us. We have\\nexercised it we have exercised it without special pro-\\nvisions in the Constitution. Jefferson doubted very much\\nwhether we had the power. Whatever doubts\\nthere might have been then as to that, they were put at\\nrest when we accepted the purchase of Louisiana.\\nAgain Mr. Teller says\\nWhen we conquered the Philippines and when we\\nmight have properly demanded of Spain indemnity, we\\nturned around and we gave to Spain twenty millions.\\nWhy? I do not know, but I assume that we gave it to\\nher as we gave fifteen millions to Mexico when we con-\\nquered her territory and when she lay bleeding at our\\nfeet. We held that territory first by conquest,\\nand then by purchase. We took it with clean\\nhands. So we have dealt with Spain in giving\\nher twenty millions a bagatelle a mere nothing. These\\npossessions are ours by conquest, by purchase, by right.\\nNeed I remind Pessimist and this audience that the\\ncases are parallel Even if he persists in the argument of\\nMr. Towne, that by the Peace Protocol we were restricted\\nto negotiation, he must admit that we hold the territory", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "38 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t\\nby purchase. Let him deny either title, and we still have\\none to secure our possession. If by any means he can\\nconvince us that we did not get our possession bv con-\\nquest, we point to the purchase if he claims that the pur-\\nchase did not extend to the whole, we point to the con-\\nquest. In either case we have the title by right.\\nPessimist Pardon me, but it is Imperialism that we\\noppose, and, as well said by David Starr Jordan, president\\nof Stanford University Annexation without Imperial-\\nism is sheer anarchy. Annexation with Imperialism is\\nstill worse, for so far as it goes, it means the abandon-\\nment of democracy.\\nPatriot Your suggestion does not apply strictly to\\nthe question of our right of purchase. Mr. Jordan s re-\\nmarks pertain rather to our right to govern under our\\npresent laws, i. e., he undertakes to lay down the proposi-\\ntion that we cannot govern the Philippines without de-\\nparting from our republican form of government, and I\\nadmit that we could not depart from our republican form\\nof government without an infraction of public law but\\nlet us continue the discussion as to our right of acquisi-\\ntion. Suppose we consider the constitutional question\\ndivided into two topics\\n1 Acquisition which we are now discussing.\\n(2) Government and statu.\\nWill Pessimist accept this suggestion\\nPessimist Certainly, if under the second head you\\nwill answer Mr. Jordan s charge.\\nPatriot I shall endeavor to do so. Proceeding, then,\\nwith the question of acquisition, Senator Allen of Neb-\\nraska recites briefly the evolution of thought produced\\nin his own mind by an investigation of our legal rights,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 39\\nand at the same time bears strong testimony in favor of\\nthe proposition for which we contend. He says\\nI must admit, although familiar in a general way with\\nthe history of the formation and great purpose of the\\nConstitution, that when I first began examining this ques-\\ntion and the policy and course of the government, I found\\nmyself, as I supposed, unalterably arrayed against it.\\n-Q U f i am now convinced that I was wrong in\\nso far as the exercise of constitutional power with foreign\\nnations, or in the acquisition of foreign territory, is con-\\ncerned. Whether the great lawyers, patriots and states-\\nmen who drafted and adopted the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence, and those who submitted the Constitution of\\nthe United States, as well as many of its amendments,\\nto the people, clearly understood the power that was being\\ngranted to the nation so far as its foreign relations are\\nconcerned. It must, I think, be admitted that express\\ngrants were made that gave the United States as full\\nand perfect sovereignty in our relations with foreign\\ncountries and foreign people as would or could be pos-\\nsessed or exercised by the most absolute kingdom or\\nmonarchy on earth.\\nSenator Money of Mississippi says\\nIn the first place, I want to say that I concede fully\\nthe right of the United States of America to acquire ter-\\nritory by conquest, by purchase, by peaceful and volun-\\ntary annexation, and in the other ways competent to the\\nsovereignties of the world.\\nSenator McLaurin of South Carolina, while denying\\nto the United States any sovereign right outside of con-\\nstitutional grants, does, in plain language, admit that the\\nright exists. He says\\nI do not, however, controvert the proposition that the\\nUnited States have the power to acquire territory by con-\\nquest, purchase or otherwise, and to govern same under\\nthe grant of power contained in the Constitution.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nOTHER PURCHASES LOUISIANA, FLORIDA, ETC.\\nPatriot If there lingers any doubt as to our right under\\nthe law to the acquisition of the Philippines, let me remind\\nthe audience of what you all well know, namely, that we\\nhave an abundance of legal precedent running back as\\nfar as Jefferson. We purchased Louisiana from France\\nin 1803 for the sum of fifteen million dollars we ac-\\nquired California by conquest we purchased Alaska for\\nseven million two hundred thousand dollars, and we an-\\nnexed Hawaii by a peaceful treaty. Let it be conceded\\nwithout further argument that we have a rightful title;\\nor not to beg the question, that we have a good title in\\nlaw.\\nremoteness/\\nPessimist: No; I concede nothing of the kind. The\\nprecedents cited all relate to territory contiguous to the\\nUnited States at the time of these acquisitions, and it\\nwas not in the minds of the United States authorities in\\nmaking these acquisitions that we would ever go across\\nthe sea to secure territory where the securing of such ter-\\nritory would involve us in European wars and jeopardize\\nour peace with the world. Mr. Bryan says\\nJefferson has been quoted in support of Imperialism,\\nbut our opponents must distinguish between Imperialism\\nand Expansion. They must also distinguish between\\nexpansion in the Western Hemisphere and expansion that\\ninvolves us in the quarrels of Europe -and the Orient.\\nThey must still further distinguish between expansion\\nwhich secures contiguous territory for future settlement,\\nand expansion which secures us alien races for future\\nsubjugation. Jefferson favored the annextion of neces-\\nsary contiguous territory on the North American conti-\\nnent, but he was opposed to wars of conquest, and ex-\\npressly condemned the acquiring of remote territory.\\nAgain Mr. Bryan says: J c fre rs \u00c2\u00b0n has been called an\\nExpansionist, but our opponents will search in vain for", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 41\\na single instance where he advocated the acquisition of\\nremote territory. On the contrary, he expressly dis-\\nclaimed any desire for land outside of the North Ameri-\\ncan continent. That he looked forward to the annexation\\nof Cuba is well known, but in a letter to President Mon-\\nroe, dated June 23, 1823, he suggested that we should be\\nin readiness to receive Cuba when solicited by herself.\\nTo him Cuba was desirable only because of the island s\\nclose proximity to the United States.\\nPatriot Will Pessimist contend that the acquisition of\\nHawaii and Alaska was in the contemplation of Jefferson\\nPessimist This could fairly be brought within the\\nmeaning of Jefferson s policy, because, as Mr. Bryan\\nsays\\nIn the opinion of those who favored the annexation\\nof Hawaii the advantages to be gained from a strategical\\nstandpoint outweighed the objection raised to the popula-\\ntion. No argument made in favor of the annexation of\\nthe Hawaiian Islands can be used in support of the im-\\nperialistic policy. The purchase of Alaska removed one\\nmore monarchy from American territory, and it gave to\\nthe United States a maximum of land with a minimum\\nof inhabitants.\\nPatriot: I am glad you quoted Mr. Bryan in this con-\\nnection, because it forcibly suggests the propriety of dis-\\ncussing what Jefferson may have thought rather under\\nthe head of expediency than under the head of law.\\nIt ought not to be presumed that the Fathers intended\\nto lay down specific rules by which we were to be governed\\nin detail, but rather we should interpret what they said in\\nthe light of the circumstances which then prevailed, and\\nendeavor ourselves to apply now the same kind of states-\\nmanlike common sense to the conditions which now pre-\\nvail.\\nWhen Mr. Bryan justifies the acquisition of Hawaii\\nunder his construction of Jefferson s idea on the ground", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "42 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthat Hawaii is a strategetical point, and of Alaska because\\nit removed one more monarchy from the Western Hemi-\\nsphere, I would retort that in the judgment of other men\\nwho are Mr. Bryan s equals, if not his superiors, in states-\\nmanship, the possession of the Philippines also affords a\\nstrategical advantage, and that by the acquisition of the\\nPhilippines we removed another monarchy not only from\\nthe Western Hemisphere, but so completely broke its\\npower in the Orient that it will be confined to its native\\npeninsula until, in the fullness of time, it crumbles under\\nthe competition of republican principles and surely\\nMaximum of territorv with a minimum of inhabitants\\ncannot argue anything either in law or morals. But I my-\\nself have caught your spirit of digression, for what I said\\nis more properly distributed between the questions of fact\\nand humanity, rather than coming under the question of\\nlaw. But, conceding that there is some force in the argu-\\nment that we should not acquire remote territory, let us\\ngive attention for a moment to the definition of remote-\\nness.\\nWhat was remote to Jefferson, and what is remote to\\nus?\\nI think much light may be shed upon this point of the\\ndiscussion if we will substitute the word inaccessibility\\nfor that of remoteness. Is it not likely that Jefferson s\\nonly purpose was to discourage the acquisition of inac-\\ncessible territory? The battle of Xew Orleans was fought\\nfourteen days after the Treaty of Ghent, which had de-\\nclared peace between the combatants in that battle, and yet\\nJefferson did not regard Xew Orleans as remote from the\\nseat of government. The news reached Jackson in due\\ni;me after the treaty had been signed. The delay was not\\nflue to some extraordinary accident or intervention of na-\\nture, but it was due to the fact that it took that long to", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 43\\ncarry the message by the facilities then available. We then\\ndid not dream of ordinary telegraph lines, much less\\noceanic cables.\\nThe battle of Manila was fought less than three days\\nafter the protocol had been signed which restored peace\\ntemporarily between Spain and the United States, and\\nthat delay was due to extraordinary conditions; the cables\\nhad been cut. But it is difficult to conceive of a set of con-\\nditions which would make possible a battle anywhere in\\nthe Philippine possessions fourteen days after a peace\\ntreaty should make such a battle unnecessary.\\nWhat does this mean? It means simply that by reason\\nof the increased facilities of communication the Philippine\\nIslands are nearer to the seat of the United States Gov-\\nernment to-day than was the Louisiana Territory nine\\nyears after it was purchased. How much more accessible\\nthe Philippines will be made in the next nine years under\\nthe impulse of American enterprise no one can say. But\\nthere is likely to be such a network of cables connecting\\nthese islands with the mainland, and such a system of rail-\\nroads and steamship lines connecting them with one an-\\nother, that every pulse-beat of our civilization, under\\nguidance of the Government at Washington, will almost\\ninstantly be felt throughout the length and breadth of the\\nPhillipine Archipelago.\\nPessimist But there is something more to be thought\\nof than the mere question of communication. Look at the\\nlength of time it takes to reach the Philippines with sol-\\ndiers and supplies?\\nPatriot: It takes less than a month to go from San\\nFrancisco to Manila. It took much longer to travel from\\nWashington to New Orleans with soldiers or supplies\\nin 1803, when we acquired that territory. When the\\ncapital of Indiana was removed from Corydon to Indian-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "44 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\napolis in 1824, the team which hauled the official para-\\nphernalia of the government for that short distance of 125\\nmiles spent ten days on the journey, and they were not\\ninterrupted by savages, as they might have been. Indeed,\\nthe danger of delay by accident in travel for that distance\\nin that time in the territory then possessed was far greater\\nthan the danger to-day in travel from the American con-\\ntinent to the Philippines.\\nPessimist But in our interpretation of the meaning\\nof the Fathers, we should take into consideration the\\nproximity in point of miles and natural communications,\\nbecause they undoubtedly intended that we should be se-\\ncure against attack by foreign powers, and to that end\\nhoped that we would confine our sovereignty to the West-\\nern Hemisphere. The ocean on each side forms a natural\\nbarrier, and we should avail ourselves of the bounty of\\nnature in locating us so advantageously.\\nSenator Daniel of Virginia says that if we keep the\\nPhilippines we can no longer hug our native shores and\\nbid the world defiance. Why should we not keep on our\\nown ground, where our advantage is so great\\nMr. Schurz, speaking of the Philippines, says\\nThey are not continental, not contiguous to our\\npresent dominion, but beyond seas, the Philippines, many\\nthousand miles distant from our coast. And he goes on\\nto recite many other reasons why we should not regard\\nthe purchase of Louisiana, Hawaii, Mexico, Alaska and\\nthe conquest of California as precedents in the Philippine\\nQuestion.\\nIn closing this particular topic I wish to add the opin-\\nion of Senator Turner of Washington. He says, speaking\\nof the attitude of George Washington\\nBut neither he nor any of his compeers, nor any of the\\ngreat statesmen who have since followed them in the ad-\\nministration of the Government, until very lately, ever\\nconceded it possible that we should voluntarily give up\\nour advantageous situation by extending our domain\\nbeyond this continent and into the very hotbed of Eur.\\npean interests and contentions,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 45\\nPatriot The gist of your argument seems to be in\\nthe assumption that from a strategical point of view we\\ncannot afford to acquire territory beyond the sea, and rea-\\nsoning backward, you conclude that for this reason the\\nFathers never intended that we should. This raises a\\nquestion which more properly belongs to the realm of\\npolitical science than to that of law but inasmuch as we\\nare endeavoring to ascertain the intent of our ancestors in\\norder that we may attach the proper importance to their\\ndeclarations as precedents by which to be guided now, we\\nmay linger a moment upon this point.\\nIt involves a question of national boundaries, which\\npublicists recognize as being of two kinds natural and\\nartificial. The early writers were all agreed in their\\ngreater approval of natural boundaries than of artificial\\nboundaries, as the political boundaries of States but the\\nchess game of politics among nations has played sad\\nhavoc with the theory that political boundaries should be\\nco-extensive with natural boundaries. Of all the civilized\\nnations to-day, Japan is about the only one which meets\\nthis theoretical requirement of geographical unity.\\nNatural boundary formations are defined to be large\\nbodies of water, mountains or large rivers, and these are\\npresented in the order of their importance according to\\nthe old idea. The reason for this w r as simply that by the\\nmeans then at hand it was more difficult for the enemy to\\ncross a large body of water to make an invasion than it\\nwas to cross mountains, and more difficult to cross moun-\\ntains than rivers.\\nIn the first place, the conditions have changed so that\\nthis argument would not now hold good. In the second\\nplace, we ignored it when we expanded beyond the Alle-\\ngheny Mountains, and again when we expanded beyond\\nthe Mississippi River, and still again when we expanded", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "46 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST\\nbeyond the Rockies, to say nothing of our extension to\\nHawaii and Alaska.\\nI have said that in the first place the conditions which\\nunderlie the theory of the ancient school no longer pre-\\nvail. The ocean to-day is a safer and more speedy high-\\nway than the trail over high mountains, while mountains,\\non the other hand, have been so mastered by the science of\\nengineering that they are scarcely more of an obstruction\\nthan an ordinary river. This theory is modified also by\\nthe improvement in naval equipment.\\nThe underlying principle which moved Jefferson and\\nhis compatriots to oppose the acquisition of territory other\\nthan in the Western Hemisphere has so changed that their\\nviews, however applicable at the time, should have very\\nlittle weight now.\\nWhen we come to the question of humanity and our\\nduty to the world, I shall pay my respects to Senator\\nDaniel, Mr. Bryan and some of the other gentlemen whom\\nyou have quoted in favor of the proposition that we should\\nbottle up our civilization in America.\\nSTATE EXPECTANCY: ALASKA AND HAWAII EXCEPTIONS.\\nPessimist It seems to me that even if you have shown\\nour right to purchase territory or to acquire it by con-\\nquest, in a general way, that it ought to be shown more\\nclearly that we have a right to acquire territory for any\\npurpose other than that of eventually admitting it into the\\nUnion as a State or States. It was expressly declared in\\nthe treaty by which we purchased the Louisiana Territory\\nthat it should, when fit, be admitted into the Union as a\\nState or States, and the same understanding has always\\nbeen had wherever we have acquired territory.\\nPatriot I beg leave to correct Pessimist in this state-\\nment. Generalizations of this character have a tendency\\nto mislead those who do not look specifically into the facts.\\nIn the treaty by which we purchased Alaska the pro-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 47\\nvision with reference to State expectancy was not inserted.\\nNeither was there any such provision in the compact by\\nwhich Hawaii was annexed but while I myself have con-\\nceded the value of precedents, I would call attention to the\\nfact that precedents, in the absence of analogous reason-\\ning, are never held to be binding on the judgment, either\\nof American legislatures or American courts.\\nLet us inquire why the provision for Statehood was in-\\ncluded in the Louisiana Purchase. Manifestly, this was\\ndone to satisfy some condition or other, and we may rea-\\ns nably presume that it was done to avoid the raising of a\\nquestion on the part of the inhabitants of the annexed\\nterritory as to their new status. There was extreme ne-\\ncessity for conciliating them lest they should form alli-\\nances with our enemies. The inhabitants of Louisiana\\nTerritory consisted very largely of people belonging to the\\nLatin races. They had been tossed about from one sov-\\nereignty to another like a football. They had been from\\nunder the sway of Spain but a short time, and Spain was\\nstill ready to dispute some of the ground with France, and\\nfinally with us. It would have been undiplomatic and im-\\npolitic in the extreme not to use this very reasonable\\nmeans of conciliation. The access to the Mississippi\\nRiver and the freedom of navigation thereon were in-\\nvolved, and in the absence of railroads this meant much to\\nthe people of our country and justified any reasonable con-\\ncession. The same may be said of Florida. Moreover,\\nit was obvious to the promulgators of these purchases that\\nthese people would fit themselves for Statehood, and that\\nwe should, naturally, in the course of time, desire to make\\nStates of that territory therefore, there could be no harm\\nin the provision, and the insertion of it might prevent\\ninternecine war at a time when we were ill prepared to\\nincur the danger of it.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "48 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nIn the case of Texas we admitted it as a State outright.\\nWhen the necessity for making a declaration committing\\nourselves so far in advance had been removed, we omitted\\nit in the case of Alaska. In the case of the Philippines,\\nwhen the treaty was made with Spain, we were already the\\npossessors by conquest of the Philippine Archipelago, and\\nit would have been a work of supererogation to declare\\nto Spain what our purpose was with reference to posses-\\nsions already our own.\\nFurthermore, it will not, I think, in the light of all the\\nfacts, be claimed even by Pessimist that the treaty itself\\nmade with Spain invaded the rights of public law.\\nPessimist I am not so sure that I can concede your\\nlast proposition, because it seems a simple truth to me that\\nwe owed it as a duty to the Filipinos to say in the Treaty\\nof Peace, since we were acquiring the territory, that we\\nproposed eventually to admit them into the sisterhood of\\nStates.\\nPatriot We will get to this a little later if you put it\\nmerely on the ground of duty. My inquiry now looks\\npurely to the question of legal right. Do you any longer\\ndeny our legal right to the acquisition of the Philippines\\nby purchase?\\nPessimist But you yourself stated a moment ago that\\nat the time this treaty was made we owned the Philippines\\nby conquest. I would therefore like to have your answer\\nto this proposition before I answer your question. I call\\nattention to the fact that we have no right to acquire this\\nterritory by conquest, and would again beg leave to cite\\nfor authority Mr. Bryan. He says that Jefferson was\\nunalterably opposed to the acquisition of territory by con-\\nquest, and Mr. Bryan quotes a letter written by Jefferson\\nin 1791 to William Short, in which Jefferson says: If\\nthere be one principle more deeply written than any other\\nin the mind of every American, it is that we should have\\nnothing to do with conquest. Mr. Bryan himself then", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 49\\ncomments upon Jefferson s text by saying, Could he be\\nmore explicit? Here we have a clear, strong denunciation\\nof the doctrine that territory should be acquired by force.\\nPatriot But if Pessimist insists upon ignoring the\\nlater precedent of our acquisition of California by con-\\nquest, and holds to the doctrine that we had no right to\\nacquire the Philippines in this manner, I shall compel him\\nto take hold of the other horn of the dilemma and leave\\nhim and his idol to settle the difficulty.\\nIn Mr. Bryan s book, Republic or Empire, he reprints\\nan article from the New York Journal, written by himself\\nduring the discussion of the treaty in the Senate, in which\\nhe says\\nThe rejection of the treaty would be unwise, because\\nthe opponents of the treaty would be compelled to assume\\nresponsibility for the continuance of war conditions, and\\nfor the risk which always attend negotiations with a hos-\\ntile nation.\\nWill Pessimist admit that Mr. Bryan would recommend\\nthe ratification of the treaty if the result of the treaty were\\nunlawful?\\nThe language of the treaty was, Spain cedes to the\\nUnited States the archipelago known as the Philippine\\nIslands.\\nMUST RETAIN SECESSION INTOLERABLE.\\nPessimist The law does seem to be on your side so far\\nas the acquisition of the territory is concerned, but since\\nwe have no legal right to govern colonies we should im-\\nmediately declare our purpose to hold the territories with\\na view to Statehood, or we should release them to the Fili-\\npinos themselves.\\nPatriot The answer to this argument in particular\\nrefers to our legal right to govern the Filipinos, and prop-\\nerly comes a little later in our discussion.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "50 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST\\nA preliminary question to be disposed of is, whether we\\nhave a legal right to retain the Philippines. I hold that we\\nhave a legal right, and, in addition thereto, that there is a\\nlegal duty incumbent upon us to hold that territory as a\\npart of the United States domain.\\nYou have admitted, and it must be conceded by all, that\\nwe are in possession of the Philippines by virtue of law,\\nThis being true, all our reasoning as to legal right and\\nlegal duty to retain the Philippines must be analogous to\\nthe reasoning which would permit us to retain any other\\nterritory of the United States. Suppose, therefore, the\\nquestion arose as to whether we have a right to retain the\\nTerritory of New Mexico or Arizona or Alaska, would\\nnot the answer be that it is ours, and that we have in law\\na right to hold fast to that which is our own\\nWhile I concede that we might also, by reason of our\\ndominion of ownership dispose of the Philippines, just as\\nwe might dispose of the other territory named, yet the\\npropriety, expediency and justice of disposing of any of\\nthese territories should be postponed to a later topic of our\\ndiscussion.\\nIt would certainly be an unusual proceeding for the\\nPresident of the United States to withdraw military pro-\\ntection from the territory belonging to the United States\\nwhen that protection is needed. This he would have no\\nright in law to do, because the Constitution imposes upon\\nhim the duty of preserving order. It would also be an un-\\nusual and unjustifiable proceeding for the Congress to\\nabandon territory belonging to the United States to the\\nimmediate inhabitants of that territory without an indica-\\ntion of a desire to that effect from the sovereign rulers of\\nthe United States the people themselves for such aban-\\ndonment on the part of the legislature would be yielding\\nto secession. The mere fact that the inhabitants of the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 51\\nterritory desire secession gives it no warrant in law. Our\\ncountry wrote this decision with the sword, and sealed it\\nwith the blood of patriots in both military and civil serv-\\nice.\\nIf it be an infraction of law to keep the islands, it was\\nequally illegal to purchase them or, conversely, since it\\nwas legally right to purchase the islands, it is legally right\\nto keep them for, I submit it as a proposition of primary\\nlaw, that purchase means the securing of all rights of con-\\ntrol over the object purchased.\\nPessimist: But it might be proper to purchase the\\nislands with a view to turning them over to the Filipinos\\nin the interest of humanity, and yet at the same time im-\\nproper to hold them with a view to the subjugation of the\\nFilipinos.\\nPatriot: I think the people will be convinced before\\nwe are finished that it was in the interest of humanity and\\nin keeping with the wish of the Filipinos themselves that\\nwe keep the islands. But to the legal point again Since\\nit is right to buy the islands for a good purpose, then it is\\nright to work out that good purpose before letting them\\ngo, even though the process should take a longer time than\\nwas contemplated. I should even go so far as to say that\\nit is proper to keep the islands until that purpose is\\nworked out, no matter how long it takes.\\nPessimist But, as Senator White of California says\\nIt is not the mission or place of the American people\\nto assume responsibility for such a population, or to teach\\notherwise than by example, and certainly not under the\\ninfluence of the sword, the protesting occupants of trop-\\nical climes.\\nPatriot But that is not what the Constitution says. It\\nsays, Congress shall have power to dispose of and make", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "5^ PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nall needful rules and regulations respecting the territory\\nor other property belonging to the United States.\\nThis does not say where such territory shall be located,\\nbut applies equally to all territory belonging to the United\\nStates. You have conceded that we have the legal right\\nto acquire the Philippines. We have acquired them\\ntherefore, under this grant of the Constitution, the re-\\nsponsibility for the Filipinos legally rests upon the Con-\\ngress.\\nChief Justice YYaite, in National Bank vs. The County,\\nof Yankton, said\\nAll territory within the jurisdiction of the United\\nStates not included in any State must necessarily be gov-\\nerned by or under the authority of Congress.\\nThe organic law of a territory takes the place of a consti-\\ntution, as the fundamental law of local government. It is\\nobligatory on and binds the territorial authorities, but\\nCongress is supreme.\\nHe goes on to say that it was not even necessary for the\\nConstitution to reserve to Congress the right of amending\\nand of vetoing acts of territorial legislatures for\\nSuch a power is an incident of sovereignty, and con-\\ntinues until granted away. Congress may not only abro-\\ngate laws of the territorial legislatures, but it may itself\\nlegislate directly for the local government. It may make a\\nvoid act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act\\nvoid. In other words, it has full and complete legislative\\nauthority over the people of the territories and all the de-\\npartments of the territorial governments. Tt may do for\\nthe territories what the people under the Constitution of\\nthe United States may do for the States.\\nPessimist But notwithstanding this power to govern\\nthe Filipinos in their interest, have not they, the bene-\\nficiaries, a right to waive this benefit and say to Congress,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 53\\nYou need not trouble yourself about governing us we\\nprefer to have things entirely in our own hands?\\nPatriot I have already answered this question by\\nstating, in substance, that secession is intolerable. Lin-\\ncoln claimed that the. Southern States had not the right to\\nwaive the benefits vouchsafed to them under the Consti-\\ntution, and if we once concede that the moment the people\\nof any territory desire to separate themselves from the\\nUnited States they should all be allowed to do so, that\\nmoment we have dissolved the most sacred bond which\\nunites us as a nation.\\nWebster said Liberty and union, now and forever,\\none and inseparable; and this doctrine has been sub-\\nscribed to for too long a time to be idly cast aside now.\\nSenator Daniel describes the acquisition of the Philip-\\npines as a marriage of nations. The Filipinos will have\\nto show some abuse as ground for divorce before that\\nsacred plight can be annulled. Again Senator Daniel\\nsays\\nOnce fix sovereignty there, and its roots go down to\\nthe center of the earth like a fee-simple deed, and its stars\\ngo upward until they mingle with those in space. It is\\nsovereignty, the most permanent act of human life, the\\nmost fixed and immovable that ever nation did or could\\ndo. The moment this treaty passes, if they\\nthe Filipinos) do not lay down their arms, it is the duty\\nof the American President to order it, and it is the duty of\\nthe American soldier to shoot them to death, to make\\nthem lay down their arms under the penalty of execution\\nin battle.\\nPessimist Is it not a sad commentary on the end of\\nthis enlightened century to speak of bloodshed in this\\nway\\nL T ncle Sam I hope Pessimist will not appeal to preju-\\ndice and passion, and especially on the points of law.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "54 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nPatriot has made plain by his own argument, and by\\nquotations, that sovereignty having been fixed in the\\nislands, the effort on the part of some of the inhabitants to\\nresist that sovereignty amounts to a breach of faith, and to\\nan effort to secede, the same as the similar act on the part\\nof the Southern States, and as much as war is to be\\ndreaded, history, civilization and morals have already jus-\\ntified President Lincoln in commanding the Rebels of the\\nSouth to lay down arms, and in shooting them to death\\nwhen they refused to do so. We cannot conceive of gov-\\nernment without law, nor of law without sanction, nor of\\nsanction without penalty, nor of penalty for such grave\\noffense without death and when the victim brings death\\nupon himself it is no part of a patriot to condemn the exe-\\ncutioner and to carry flowers to the treasonable victim.\\n(Applause.)\\nPatriot I thank Uncle Sam for coming to my rescue.\\nI felt the insult which I thought Pessimist hurled at the\\nPresident of the United States, but notwithstanding such\\nunseemly animadversion I dislike to bring it to the atten-\\ntion of this audience. I prefer to discuss the question dis-\\npassionately and candidly.\\nSenator Money of Mississippi, speaking of the Fili-\\npinos, says\\nThey will be citizens, however, in the sense that they\\nare under the aegis of the Constitution, and I defy Con-\\ngress or the executive to do one single act that would im-\\npair the rights of the citizens of Alaska, or of the Indian\\nTerritory, or of the territory we propose to take now by\\npurchase or by subjugation.\\nThe right of citizenship carries with it the responsibil-\\nity of citizenship, and that responsibility involves punish-\\nment, maybe even to death, for violating the supreme law\\nof the land,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 55\\nTh; theory indulged in by our adversaries that we\\nought not to govern so remote a nation peopled by such\\nraces as those making the Filipinos has nothing to do with\\nour legal right or duty to keep the islands.\\nThe same argument was made against extending suf-\\nfrage to the negro. At that time we did not know what\\nwould be the effect we did not inquire we believed that\\nthe genius of American government would be equal to\\nthe emergency when the time should come to meet it.\\nWe have the Philippines the same as we have New\\nMexico. How would we go about it to give up New Mex-\\nico Suppose she should demand freedom and independ-\\nence Ought we to retire our sovereignty from that ter-\\nritory\\nPessimist But we have had New Mexico a long time.\\nPatriot All the greater reason why we should declare\\nindependence for her if she asked it if she served a long\\nprobationary period. The same is true of Alaska. Is\\nanybody finding fault because Alaska is not declared free\\nAll the Southern States wanted was independence, and\\nthey proposed to set up a republic. Why force them, our\\nneighbors, to stay in the United States if we ought to per-\\nmit dictation to this Government by the inhabitants of the,\\nfar-away Philippines, to whom we owe no such neighborly\\nconsideration?\\nPessimist But, as Senator Bacon of Georgia says\\nWherever a people are required to render an obedience\\nwhich is involuntary, that requirement is an enslavement\\nof that people. If Ave allow them\\nfree institutions and at the same time prescribe to them\\nthat they shall owe allegiance to a government against\\ntheir will, it is none the less an enslavement, although less\\nin degree.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "5() PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nPatriot This is rather too nice a theory for practical\\npolitics, to say nothing of legal rights. In its last analysis\\nof control, one extreme is slavery, and the other is anarchy\\ni. e., absolute control is slavery no control at all is\\nanarchy. The United States, guided by just, as well as\\npractical, precepts, has hit upon the golden mean of gov-\\nerning, neither by absolute force nor, on the other hand,\\nby withholding force altogether. What Senator Bacon has\\nsaid would apply equally to the territories of New Mexico,\\nArizona, Alaska and Hawaii, and even to the Southern\\nStates. If, in other words, our control over the Filipinos\\nis that of the master over the slave, then the territories to\\nwhich I have referred, and the Southern States them-\\nselves, are in bondage, because of them we require an\\nobedience which is, or was, involuntary. This may not be\\nstrictly true of all the territories, and may not be strictly\\ntrue to-day of the Southern States but that they resisted\\nand resented our control at the time is too well known in\\nhistory to necessitate repetition. We forced them to ac-\\ncept our sovereignty; they rejoice in that fact to-day at\\nleast for the most part and I believe at no distant date,\\nall of the Filipinos, as do most of them now, will rejoice in\\nour sovereignty over them.\\nSenator Turner of Washington, though believing that\\nwe should give up the Philippines, admits that we are also\\nat entire liberty to keep such foreign territory as we have\\nconquered if we want to, and such of it as is suitable for\\nour purposes by reason of its situation, its soil, its climate\\nand its people, and their favoring disposition, we may\\nwant to keep.*\\nPessimist: But Senator Turner predicates his admis-\\nsion of our liberty to keep them upon their favoring dis-\\nposition. What do you say about our taking the Fili-\\npinos against their will", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 5?\\nPatiiot: This question merges into the question of\\nfact, and the evidence is conflicting. In such emergency\\nwe are bound to weigh the testimony and ourselves judge\\nof the credibility of the respective witnesses. While it is\\ntrue that a number of scattering letters have come to citi-\\nzens of the United States from soldiers to the effect that\\nthe Filipinos do not desire annexation to the United\\nStates, it is also true that such letters have come to the\\nopposite effect. This testimony, as nearly as it may be\\njudged, may be regarded as offset, one side by the other.\\nAnd it was because of this conflicting testimony that the\\nPresident of the United States, under authority of Con-\\ngress, sent a commission to the Philippines to inquire into\\nthe facts, and not to give an opinion from this or that iso-\\nlated spot, but to formulate their report from a consensus\\nof opinion throughout the archipelago. This was done,\\nand they are agreed that Aguinaldo and his supporters\\ncomprise but a small contingency of the Filipinos working\\nfor personal and selfish ends and that the great mass of\\nihe Philippine population welcome the benign intervention\\nof the United States, and are anxious to see peace\\nrestored. This commission was made up of Admiral\\nDewey, J. G. Schurman, Charles Denby and Dean C.\\nWorcester all men whose individual opinions, upon care-\\nful investigation, could not be questioned and when we\\nadd to this that they were acting under the grave responsi-\\nbility of official positions, owing a duty both to the Fili-\\npinos and to the United States, and to the majesty of law\\nand justice, can any court or any jury hesitate as to whose\\nopinion should be received, theirs, or that of irresponsible\\nindividuals, writing from narrow fields of observation\\nSenator Teller says: These possessions are ours by\\nconquest, by purchase, by right we could not give them\\nup if we would. Mind you, Senator Teller differs from", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "58 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthe Administration as to the policy which should be pur-\\nsued, and I shall address myself to his -views upon that\\nsubject later. But on the question of our keeping the ter-\\nritory he says\\nWe have put up our flag. There it is going to stay it\\nis going to stay there for their protection and our glory,\\nfor there can be no greater glory coming to any nation\\nin the world than that they should take eight or ten million\\nmen bound down by the power of a wicked government\\nand lift them up and put them on the plane of citizenship\\nin a great republic, and say to them, So far as is con-\\nsistent with safety to us, you shall be a part and parcel of\\nthis great people.\\nPessimist: All this is very well, provided we intend\\nto make States of them. While you have convinced me, I\\nconfess, that we had a right to purchase the territory,\\nwhether Statehood was intended or not, I do not believe\\nwe have any right to keep the territory except with a view\\nto Statehood, and I would call your attention to a state-\\nment made by Mr. Carlisle on this point\\nNo one has ever heretofore supposed that any territory\\nor community could be rightfully governed by the central\\nauthority except for such period as might be necessary to\\nprepare it for admission into the Union upon a footing of\\nperfect equality with each of the other States.\\nPatriot With the permission of Pessimist, I will post-\\npone the answer to this point until we come to the topic\\nunder which it would properly fall, namely, our right to\\ngovern the Philippines, and I promise that I shall take it\\nup then. Let us first establish the fact, if we can, or you\\ndeny it successfully if you can, that the United States has\\na right in law and a duty in law to keep the territory. It\\nlias been admitted that we had the right to purchase have\\nwe the right to keep? I believe we have shown already\\nthat such right exists in law, but the strongest argument\\nis yet to be made.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 59\\nIn the Treaty of Paris, by which peace was restored be-\\ntween the United States and Spain, we entered into a\\nsolemn covenant (and remember that treaties form a part\\nof the supreme law of the land) that we would, for the\\nterm of ten years admit Spanish ships and\\nmerchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands on the\\nsame terms as ships and merchandise of the United\\nStates. And we have, as Senator Turner said, made\\ndivers and sundry stipulations, having no limitation of\\ntime, for the security of property and individual rights in\\nall territories ceded or relinquished by Spain, including\\necclesiastical property, which necessarily pre-supposes\\ncontinued sovereignty. We therefore have not only a\\nlegal right and a duty, but we are, by the highest law\\nknown to our nation, or to any nation, charged with the\\nabsolute responsibility of maintaining our sovereignty\\nover these islands in order that we may have the right and\\nthe power to keep our pledges made in this treaty.\\nPessimist Well, I will give up that we have the legal\\nright to keep the territory under some conditions. This\\nonly shows what a ridiculous position we have put our-\\nselves in. Here we are the possessors of territory which\\nwe have no right to govern.\\nAs Patriot is leading this part of the discussion I will\\ngive way to him to show, if he can, any legal rights we\\nmay have to govern the territory which we find ourselves\\nthe possessors of.\\nGOVERNMENT AND STATUS.\\nPatriot Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen It\\nseems to me that little time need be consumed in discuss-\\ning the question of our legal right to govern territory\\nwhich we possess. A joint resolution offered in the Sen-\\nate, Jan. 9th, by Senator Beveridge of Indiana reads", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "GO PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nBe it resolved by the Senate and House of Representa-\\ntives of the United States of America in Congress As-\\nsembled That the Philippine Islands are territory be-\\nlonging to the United States, that it is the intention of the\\nUnited States to retain them as such and establish and\\nmaintain such governmental control throughout the archi-\\npelago as the situation may demand.\\nThis resolution declares that the territory is ours. We\\nhave proved here, even to the satisfaction of Pessimist,\\nthat we are the owners of the territory. Primary reason-\\ning leads to the inevitable conclusion that if the United\\nStates, which owns the territory, cannot control it, then\\nthere is no sovereign power on earth that can, and accord-\\ning to axiomatic truth, recognized as fundamental inter-\\nnational law that no territory can for a moment be without\\na sovereign power, we reach the necessary conclusion that\\nthe United States has rightful authority to govern the\\nPhilippines.\\nSenator Money of Mississippi, before the treaty was\\nratified, said: When we acquire territory by whatever\\nmanner, ipso facto over that acquisition exists the Consti-\\ntution.\\nEven in the absence of specific provisions for the gov-\\nernment of our territory we would be authorized, and in\\nfact bound by duty to take control by the implied authority\\nwhich authorizes its ownership, because ownership means\\ndominion over, and anything short of dominion over lacks\\nso much of being ownership.\\nAlexander Hamilton, in his opinion as to the constitu-\\ntionality of the Bank of the United States in 1791, said\\nIt is not denied that there are implied, as well as ex-\\npress, powers, and that the former are as effectually dele-\\ngated as the latter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall\\nbe mentioned that there is another class of powers which\\nmav be properly denominated as resulting pozvers. It \\\\yiil", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 61\\nnot l)c doubted that if the United States should make a\\nconquest of any of the territories of its neighbors they\\nwould possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered\\nterritory. This would be rather a result from the whole\\nmass of powers of the Government and from the nature of\\npolitical society than a consequence of either of the powers\\nespecially enumerated.\\nI have already referred to the constitutional grant of\\npower to the Congress of the United States to dispose of\\nand to control territory. Laws have been enacted upon\\nthis authority providing for legislatures to enact territorial\\nlegislation territorial courts and other necessary officials\\nand if that power exists with reference to one territory it\\nexists with reference to all.\\nWITH VIEW TO STATEHOOD.\\nPessimist: That is just what I deny. We have the\\nright to govern the territories we already possess, but the\\ncase is different with them, because they look forward to\\nStatehood, while the Filipinos are asked to submit to our\\nrule without the hope of ever becoming equal, because no\\npromise is given that their country shall ever be admitted\\nas a State or States.\\nPatriot: Very well, so much has been accomplished\\nthen if you admit that we have a right to govern the ter-\\nritory as we have throughout our history been governing\\nit. This being true, you do not deny our right to govern\\nthe Filipinos themselves, provided we do not refuse them\\nStatehood.\\nPessimist: That is right, I will admit that we have\\nlegal sanction for our rule in the Philippine Islands if we\\nonly promise them Statehood.\\nPatriot You evade my question. My point is that we\\nhave a right to govern them if we do not refuse Statehood.\\nYou put it we have a right to govern them if we promise", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "62 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nStatehood. I think it admits of full proof that the\\nUnited States is neither called upon by law nor justice to\\npromise Statehood in advance of their fitness. They are\\nnot ready for it yet. This will be admitted by all. That\\nquestion can be settled when the time comes meantime,\\nwe have a right to govern them because they are our ter-\\nritory.\\nPessimist That is just where I find fault with the Ad-\\nministration. President McKinley, in his eagerness to\\nmake capital for a second term, tries to win favor by cater-\\ning to the passing fancy of the masses. He is always\\nkeeping his ear to the ground to find out what the rabble\\nhave to say.\\nUncle Sam Pardon me, I tried to forestall the neces-\\nsity of public rebuke, but the language you have just in-\\ndulged in would not even be argument under a question of\\nfact or humanity unless you have facts to prove it. It\\ncertainly has no place in this legal discussion. Moreover,\\nyou lay yourself open to the charge of inconsistency in\\nmaking the statement that the President is catering to the\\nmass of people, for when you came to see me in my re-\\ntreat you told me that the great majority of the people\\nbelieved as you do, and were against the President. If\\nthat statement were true, then the statement you just made\\ncannot be true. Furthermore, if the President s only mo-\\ntive was to curry favor, and if the promise of Statehood\\nto the Filipinos were a ready means of obtaining that\\nfavor, and if the President were not honest in his purpose,\\nit would be perfectly easy for him to promise Statehood,\\nand keep the Filipinos expecting it whether it was in-\\ntended or not, because the promise of it carries with it no\\nobligation in law, for the reason that the question is left\\nto the unprejudiced discretion of Congress, as to whether\\na given territory may be admitted as a State when it ap-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 63\\nplies. Thus you see the Filipinos could be kept knocking\\nat the door for admission year in and year out, century in\\nand century out, and invariably and continually refused\\nthat admission by Congress, no matter what the President\\nmight have promised.\\nPessimist I shall try, sir, to restrain myself in the use\\nof language so as not to annoy you by characterizations\\nwhich you regard as improper, but Mr. Carlisle says\\nThe Philippine Islands, with a population of eight or\\nten millions, must, unless we are to violate the organic\\nlaw of the land, and hold and govern them perpetually as\\nconquered provinces, be erected within a reasonable time\\ninto several States, each with two Senators, and alto-\\ngether having thirty or forty representatives.\\nAccording to this reasoning and this opinion, we have\\nno right to hold the territory unless we expect to make\\nStates of it. Besides this, you yourself quoted Chief Jus-\\ntice Taney in the Dred Scott case as an authority for the\\nacquisition of territory, but I recall that his opinion states\\nthat we could acquire territory not fit for admission at\\nthe time, but to be admitted as soon as its population and\\nsituation would entitle it. You will note that he clearly\\nsays, while admitting, as I admit, that we can acquire the\\nterritory while it is unfit for admission, as in the case of\\nthe Philippines, that we can only acquire it with view to\\nadmission, that is, To be admitted as soon as its popula-\\ntion and situation would entitle it to admission.\\nPatriot: If the Chairman please, it seems to me that\\nthe argument quoted from Mr. Carlisle in itself gives us\\nauthority for holding the islands without now promising\\nStatehood. He implies that we should erect the territories\\ninto States within a reasonable time. I submit that even\\nunder this authority it is still an open question whether we\\nshould ever admit them as States or not.\\nThe citing, too, of the decision of Chief Justice Taney\\ngoes to the same purpose. In fact, his opinion, which is\\nlaw, makes it unnecessary for us to promise Statehood.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "64 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nIt raises the presumption that it is already promised, be-\\ncause that is the law. The only question is for them to\\ndemonstrate their fitness, and then get consent of Con-\\ngress to come in as States and I submit that this is not\\nthe proper time to discuss their title to admission. Sup-\\npose we grant that we must admit them in reasonable\\ntime when they shall become fit, is reasonable time a\\nmatter of years? If so, how many years should a terri-\\ntory wait before admission? Fifty-two years, as in the\\ncase of New Mexico, or thirty-five years, as in the case of\\nAlaska? And these are still out of the sisterhood of\\nStates. How long must they wait, and who shall say?\\nEven if it were a matter of -years, does not the patience\\nshown by the inhabitants of New Mexico, Arizona and\\nAlaska give the zeal of the Filipinos rather the appearance\\nof undue haste No, I submit reasonable time is not a\\nmatter of years. It is, as implied by Chief Justice Taney,\\na matter of fitness. And how can we determine now the\\nquestion of the fitness of the Filipinos for admission ten,\\ntwenty or fifty years hence? We have not denied them\\nadmission when they shall have become fit, therefore we\\nhave a right to govern them. That it is premature to dis-\\ncuss their future fitness now is shown by the fact that both\\nthose in favor of our sovereignty and those opposed to it\\nare divided among themselves as to the self-governing\\npower and the status in civilization of the Philippine peo-\\nple.\\nPessimist Cut we insist that this question should be\\nsettled now. We might as well know what our future\\npolicy is to be at this time, and give the poor Filipinos the\\nbenefit of State expectancy; such a hope will be an in-\\nspiration to them.\\nPatriot: Three replies might be made to the last sug-\\ngestion of Pessimist. First, the Filipinos know, because", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 65\\nthey have been assured by American orators and writers,\\nwho are working in their behalf, that the United States\\nholds territory only with a view to Statehood second, that\\nthe rights of the Filipinos to a specific declaration in their\\nparticular case, comes more properly under the topic of\\nhumanity; and, third, if we stop and settle every conceiv-\\nable question which is not, for the moment, a practical one,\\nour legislatures would soon be given up to mere academic\\ndiscussion at the expense or exclusion of the great prac-\\ntical problems pressing for solution.\\nRepresentatives charged with the duty of solving prac-\\ntical problems have before now made the mistake of frit-\\ntering away their time on theoretical discussion.\\nWe might fool away a great deal of time on this ques-\\ntion and in the end find that the Filipinos never would\\nbecame fit for Statehood! When they get ready for ad-\\nmission, then let them say so then it will become a prac-\\ntical problem, subject to the deliberations always indulged\\nin by the United States legislature in the case of practical\\nproblems.\\nUncle Sam I cannot refrain from expressing my ap-\\nproval of Patriot s remarks on the question of practicabil-\\nity. I know that there are those who claim to have such\\npure purpose that they despise the word practical as ap-\\nplied to political matters. They think of it as implying\\nboss rule and political tricks. W T hile it is true that a man\\nwho will resort to unjustifiable means to attain a political\\nend is called a practical politician, yet it is a sign of weak-\\nness for the pure-minded politician to allow such tricksters\\nto appropriate to themselves the word practical, because in\\na higher sense the distinction between practical and the-\\noretical becomes important.\\nCriticism and reform to be effectual must be timely, and\\nit is no positive proof that a man is bad or evilly disposed", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "66 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nbecause he remains silent while evil is going on around\\nhim. This depends on the circumstances. If he runs\\namuck, striking at this and that and every evil whenever\\nthey appear in sight, he makes himself ridiculous in the\\neyes of the community, loses his influence for good, and\\nthus accomplishes absolutely nothing. He is set down,\\nand justly so, as an eccentric, or in street parlance, as a\\ncrank. But the practical man, equally exalted in purpose,\\nwatches for the current of public opinion and spends his\\ntime in the missionary work of helping to reform that\\nwhich the people themselves are ready to reform. He\\nmakes himself a power. The one attempts with his indi-\\nvidual might to move every mountain which he may come\\nto in his travels, the other co-operates with his fellow man\\nin providing the necessary facilities to tunnel through the\\nmountain. The one is unscientific, untimely and therefore\\nineffectual reform the other is intelligent, broad-minded\\nand timely, and therefore, effectual, reform. I commend\\nthe study of the practical means toward desirable ends,\\nand in order that there may be time for practical ques-\\ntions I desire that our legislature and the people them-\\nselves shall first pay attention to the questions which can\\nbe settled now, leaving for the future questions the discus-\\nsion of which would for the present be premature.\\nPatriot Senator Bacon of Georgia expresses the be-\\nlief that It is not possible to safely incorporate as a State\\nany community lying on the opposite side of the globe,\\nand yet he is friendly to the Filipinos, so much so that he\\nintroduced a resolution in the Senate looking to their inde-\\npendence.\\nNow, if he is right in this theory, and since it is true\\nthat we must keep the islands, as conceded a while ago by\\nPessimist, then we are forced to the necessity of govern-\\ning 1 them whether we ever admit them as States or not.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 1\\nBut let us hope that Mr, Bacon may be incorrect in his\\nviews, and that they may eventually deserve admission.\\nSenator Foraker says\\nI do not understand anybody to be proposing to take\\nthe Philippine Islands with the idea and view to per-\\nmanently holding them and denying to the people there\\nthe right to have a government of their own, if they are\\ncapable of it and want to establish it. I do not under-\\nstand that anybody wants to do that. I have not heard\\nof anybody who wants to do that. The President of\\nthe United States does not, I know, and no Senator in\\nthis chamber has made any such statement.\\nI shall conclude this topic by saying that the fact that\\nall its possibility lies before the Filipinos in precisely the\\nsame way that it lies before the inhabitants of our other\\nTerritories, and if they deserve admission as States, it is\\ntheir privilege, as it is the privilege of the other Territories\\nto ask for it, to demand it; and it is the province of Con-\\ngress in the case of the petition of the Filipinos, precisely\\nas in the case of the petition of other Territories, to grant\\nadmission or to deny it, according to the discretion of\\nthat Congress.\\nPessimist: But will you not grant, for the sake of\\nargument, that we have no right to govern the Philip-\\npines as a territory?\\nPERMANENT TERRITORY.\\nPatriot: No, on the contrary, I assert that we have a\\nright to control this territory permanently as territory,\\nand I derive that conclusion from the facts already\\nstated. First, that there has been no declaration of\\npurpose not to admit them as States they therefore have\\nthe right of petition, and Congress may admit them if\\nit sees fit. Second, that while Congress may deny them", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "GS PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nadmission, it may also, in the same manner, deny the\\nadmission of Territories which we have for years been\\ngoverning. We must not get away from the Constitu-\\ntional fact that Congress shall have power to dispose of\\nand make all needful rules and regulations respecting the\\nterritory or other property belonging to the United\\nStates and that new States may be admitted by the\\nCongress into this Union.\\nAt the time of the adoption of the Constitution the\\nUnited States owned territory. If the framers had\\nmeant to make the admission of territory into the Union\\ncompulsory it would have read, States must be ad-\\nmitted into the Union, or at least some suitable lan-\\nguage would have been employed. The language which\\nwas employed merely clothes the legislature with power\\nto admit without imposing any duty.\\nSenator Teller says:\\nWe may give them just such a government as we\\nthink they deserve. We may give them a government\\nin which they are allowed to participate, or we may deny-\\nto them any participation in the affairs of the government\\nin which they live.\\nChief Justice Marshall, in the case of the Exchange,\\nsaid:\\nThe jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory\\nis necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible\\nto no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction\\nupon it deriving validity from an external force would\\nimply diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of its\\nrestriction.\\nJustice Field, speaking of territorial control, said (130\\nU. S., 603): Jurisdiction over its own territory to that\\nextent is an incident of every independent nation; it is a\\npart of its independence.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? G9\\nJustice Matthews, in Murphy vs. Ramsey (114 U. S.\\nReports), says: The people of the United States, as\\nsovereign owners of the national territories, have su-\\npreme power over them and their inhabitants.\\nAnd, as Justice Bradley, in the case of Mormon\\nChurch vs. U. S. (135 U. 42), speaking of the power\\nto acquire territory, says:\\nThe incidents of these powers are those of national\\nsovereignty, and belong to all independent governments.\\nThe Territory of Louisiana when acquired from France,\\nand the Territories west of the Rocky Mountains when\\nacquired of Mexico, became the absolute property and\\ndomain of the United States, subject to such conditions\\nas the government, in its diplomatic negotiations, had\\nseen fit to accept relating to the rights 6f the people then\\ninhabiting those Territories. Having acquired said Ter-\\nritories, the United States government was the only one\\nwhich could impose laws upon them, and its sovereignty\\nover them was complete.\\nIf we apply the same decisions to the Filipinos, and\\nif they fail to meet these requirements, the result will\\nnaturally be to keep them perpetually in our control as\\nterritory. This is unquestionably lawful, provided we\\napply the decisions, and to say that they shall fix their\\nown conditions is to abandon sovereisrntv to them to\\nthat extent.\\nThe test is one of population and intelligence, both\\npractical questions. If it is claimed that it is wrong to\\nkeep them out when they have sufficient population, re-\\ngardless of their intelligence, then we are abandoning one\\nof the tests, and the better one. If it is wrong to keep\\npeople out because of their small population when they\\nmeet the requirements of intelligence, then we are\\nabandoning one of the tests, and though not the better,\\nstill an essential one", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "70 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nBy submitting to the absence of either test, the United\\nStates would be acknowledging an egregious wrong to-\\nward Xew Mexico or Arizona, which have been out of\\nthe Union so long, and if put purely upon sentimental\\ngrounds, they would have a right to complain; but from\\nthe standpoint of practical, high-minded statesmanship,\\nwe conclude that the nation, and even the people, of\\nthese Territories are better off by being compelled to\\nserve an apprenticeship and live under the probation\\nrequisite to Statehood according to our present custom.\\nPessimist: But Rev. Van Dyke, in his Thanksgiving\\nsermon, which I believe Uncle Sam has read, cites Su-\\npreme Court authority, which seems to me conclusive\\nagainst you. The case cited is the Dred Scott decision,\\nin which the Court says:\\nThere is certainly no power given by the Constitution\\nto the Federal Government to establish or maintain col-\\nonies bordering on the United States, or at a distance,\\nto be ruled and governed at their own pleasure.\\nNo power is given to acquire a territory to be held and\\ngoverned permanently in that character.\\nI hope that I shall not be accused of resorting to loose\\nstatements. In this criticism I have read to you the\\nopinion of the Court itself.\\nPatriot: The law laid down by the Court is sound,\\nbut the application of it is misconceived. As before\\nstated, there is no evidence to show that the United\\nStates has acquired territory to be governed perma-\\nnently in that character, that is, in the character of\\ncolonies. It is not even shown that it is the intention\\nof the United States to hold the Philippines permanently\\nas a United States Territory. We contend merely that\\nunless we refuse Statehood when application shall have\\nbeen made for it, after proper preparation and fitness.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 71\\nwe are strictly within the letter and the spirit of the Con-\\nstitution in controlling that Territory as such.\\nPessimist: A friend of mine here has just handed me\\nan opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall in the case\\nof Loughborough vs. Blake (5 Wheaton). He says:\\nTerritories are in a state of infancy advancing to man-\\nhood, looking forward to complete equality as soon as\\nthat state of manhood shall be attained.\\nDoes this not show that the Territory is held with a\\npurpose of Statehood?\\nPatriot: This opinion, like that of Chief Justice Taney\\nand other honorable judges, contemplates the growth of\\nthe Territory into manhood, that is, into fitness, before\\nthere shall be admission. But our ancestors knew, and\\nwe know, that there is a possibility that some of our\\nTerritories will never be fit for admission. Monroe said:\\nThe condition of the aborigines within our limits\\nand especially those who are within the limits of any of\\nthe States, merits likewise particular attention. Experi-\\nence has shown that unless the tribes be civilized they\\ncan never be incorporated into our system in any form\\nwhatever. Their civilization is indispensable\\nto their safety, and this can be accomplished only by de-\\ngrees.\\nAgain I repeat, we do not deny, nor has the govern-\\nment in any word or suggestion, denied the right of\\nthe Philippine Islands to admission as States if that fit-\\nness shall be demonstrated, and if Congress shall be will-\\ning to admit them. And if they cannot be made fit under\\nour government, our faith in the genius of our govern-\\nment is such as to justify the belief that the Filipinos\\ncannot reach that degree of fitness any other way\\ni. e., we can lift them higher than they can lift them-\\nselves. If this is not true, then it is our duty to declare", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "n PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nall our present Territories free and independent, so that\\nthey may, by self-government, without our interference,\\nreach a higher degree of civilization.\\nPessimist: Your argument seems to me to leave very\\nlittle hope for the Filipinos. Senator Turner shows\\nthat we could not give them the kind of government ex-\\ntended to States i. e., in his opinion they will never be\\nfit, and if this is true, your theory is that they never will\\nbe admitted.\\nSenator Turner, in speaking of the privileges which\\nit would be impossible to extend to them, says:\\nThey would make it doubly impossible in case of the\\nwily, subtle, restless Oriental, unused to such liberty,\\ndevoid of reverence for law and authority, incapable of\\nacquiring it, and driven on by quick and resentful nature\\nto excesses which would be impossible to the Anglo-\\nSaxon or to any of the European races.\\nWhat is the use of talking about giving them State-\\nhood when they become fit for it, when we know in\\nadvance that they never will be fit for it?\\nPatriot: This is precisely the question we attempted\\nto dispose of awhile ago, when Uncle Sam had to step\\nin and remind you that it was untimely. Neither Sen-\\nator Turner, nor anybody else, can tell now whether they\\nwill eventually be fit for Statehood; and even if they\\ncould say so, then you would force the United States\\ninto a most anomalous position, because you say you\\nadmit that we took the territory by right, and that we\\nhave a right to govern them with Stale expectancy, and\\nnow you say that State expectancy is impossible even if\\nwe promised it, because they can never qualify. Let us\\nquit this gloomy view, and rather hope that under the\\ninspiring guidance of the United States they may be led\\nto a higher life, in which case they would be legally", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ U\\nentitled, with the sanction of Congress, to admission as\\nStates.\\nSome years ago it was generally believed that the\\nmoral condition of Utah Territory would never be such\\nas to entitle it to admission, but the desire of the inhab-\\nitants for admission, and the knowledge of the high\\nstandard of qualification required, put it on its good be-\\nhavior and inspired it to higher aims so that it might\\nbe pronounced worthy of admission. The transforma-\\ntion, while not instantaneous, and, indeed, not yet com-\\nplete, was nevertheless almost magic, and is yet going\\non toward the proper ideal. Much the same might be\\nsaid of other States, and there are many of us who be-\\nlieve that the Filipinos will catch the spirit of American\\npride, and will soon begin to point out to one another the\\nadvantages to be derived from such conduct as will bring\\nthem properly within the sisterhood of States.\\nPessimist: But though I shall not insist upon an an-\\nswer, I should like to know what you think would be our\\npredicament if we find that they cannot qualify. Have\\nwe any right to settle down to a permanent occupancy\\nof that territory after we come to a point where we may\\nfairly know that it cannot be brought into the Union as\\nStates?\\nPatriot: If Uncle Sam will indulge Pessimist in tak-\\ning just a moment of our time for this purely theoretical\\nquestion, which has no relevancy to the argument, I am\\nwilling to gratify him with an answer to his question.\\nUncle Sam: If you can answer it briefly, proceed.\\nPatriot: I can answer it in three words Amend the\\nConstitution. But I might elaborate very briefly on\\nthese three words. If so great a need should appear as\\nthat which is troubling the mind of Pessimist, we would\\nsurely be justified in meeting that need in the logical,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "74 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nnatural way in which we always meet needs which trans-\\ncend the bounds of the Constitution.\\nPessimist: That is just what we are complaining\\nabout the disposition on the part of the Administration\\nto ignore the Constitution.\\nPatriot: You admit that it has not so far ignored the\\nConstitution.\\nPessimist: Yes, but it seems in a fair way to do it.\\nPatriot: No, so far it has seen no need of it, and if\\nthere should appear need, I think you will admit there\\nis no harm in resorting to the power to amend at least\\nthe statesman whom you seem to have adopted as your\\nidol, Mr. Bryan, has suggested an amendment to the\\nConstitution to control the Trust Question, and I do not\\nspeak of this disparagingly, either, because I regard the\\npower to amend the Constitution as one of the most im-\\nportant powers connected with it but for that power we\\ncould not have had our first eight amendments which\\nform our bill of rights; we could not have had the thir-\\nteenth amendment, which abolishes slavery; we could\\nnot have had the fourteenth amendment, which protects\\nthe negro in his equal rights and throws a cloak of pro-\\ntection w r ith greater security than before about the pri-\\nvate property of individuals.\\nI do not, therefore, find fault with Mr. Bryan for\\nsuggesting an amendment to the Constitution, but merely\\nquote him as an authority from your own school to show\\nthat it would be proper if necessary in so great a prob-\\nlem as that of controlling the Filipinos. We have the\\nPhilippine territory by right of law; we must control it\\nsome way. We are therefore justified in finding the way,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 73\\nor in making the way. Madison said in the Federal-\\nist:\\nNo axiom is more clearly established in law or in\\nreason than that wherever the end is required, the means\\nare authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing\\nis given, every particular power necessary for doing it\\nis included.\\nI say, therefore, that since we have the territory by\\nright, since the Constitution gives Congress the right to\\ncontrol territory in a general way, that whatever means\\nare necessary to accomplish the end of control, are not\\nonly warranted by the necessity of control, but are im-\\nposed as a sacred obligation.\\nThe great practical common sense of the people of the\\nUnited States has more than once proved the truth of\\nthis proposition. Why, if worst comes to worst, we could\\non precedent, too, colonize the Filipinos and put the last\\none of them on the Island of Bohol and keep them there.\\nThe fathers so treated the Indians. Both law and civili-\\nzation justify it. So we could treat the Filipinos if they\\nare so savage and unreasoning as to resist the benign\\nteachings of republican government, or if they put upon\\nus such a tax of care and expense as to burden our\\narmy and navy and our civil budget. I simply assert\\nthat, having the right to control them, we are justified\\nin using whatever means are necessary to that end.\\nPessimist: Well, as I said to start out with,\\nI have not investigated the question of law very\\ncarefully. I prefer to rest the case on the\\nquestion of Fact and the question of Humanity.\\nGo on and say what you have to say about the\\nnext topic, International Law, and let us get through\\nwith this part of the discussion, so that we can take up\\nthe more important matters,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "76 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ni international law.\\nPatriot: Perhaps it would please Pessimist if I should\\ntake as my text for the few remarks on International Law\\nrights and obligations a statement made by Mr. Bryan\\nExistence cannot be separated from responsibility, and\\nresponsibility sometimes leads a nation, as well as an\\nindividual, into danger.\\nI have already spoken incidentally of the obligation\\nwe owe to Spain, by reason of our covenants in the\\nTreaty of Paris. This is one of the responsibilities which\\ncannot be separated from existence. We were bound\\nto make these covenants in order to close the war, to\\nsatisfy the contending parties, and to place ourselves\\nabove criticism in the eyes of the worid.\\nThe other nations of the world are interested also be-\\ncause the influence of American civilization, having once\\nbeen planted in the Orient, they are entitled to the bene-\\nfits thereof, and we could not recede from that advance\\nground without lowering our standard as a nation among\\nnations.\\nPessimist: You speak of our duty toward Spain and\\nthe other governments of the world. My interest is in the\\nFilipinos themselves. You have convinced me of the\\nright of the United States in American Law to purchase\\nthe Philippine Islands, but when we venture into the\\nrealm of International Law you should meet the Filipinos\\non common ground.\\nInternational Law, as I understand, has to do with\\nthe relation of one nation to all the others, and presumes\\nequality in this state citizenship i. e., each state or nation\\nis a citizen of the world of nations, and all stand on an\\nequality. I therefore challenge you to show the right of\\nthe United States to purchase and rule over the Philippine\\nIslands by sanction of International Law unless the con-\\nsent of the Filipinos is obtained,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? Ti\\nPatriot: Why, my dear sir, the doctrine you lay down\\nis not international law it is international anarchy. To\\nillustrate it, let us take the case of individuals. You have\\nrightly said that international law has to do with the rela-\\ntion between states or nations forming the world of\\nnations, just as private national law has to do with the\\nrelations between individuals making up the nation. Then\\nyou say that unless the consent of the Filipinos is ob-\\ntained nothing can be done in the name of international\\nlaw which relates to their interest.\\nLet us carry out your comparison a little further. By\\nthe same token, nothing can be done in a nation in the\\nname of law touching the interest of an individual without\\nhis consent. This would make law impossible, and\\nwould, I repeat, produce anarchy. The one is not liberty\\namong individuals, nor the other among nations. It is in\\neach case unrestrained license.\\nAside from this, you have fallen into the error which\\ninfluences our adversaries throughout of presuming that\\nthe Filipinos did not consent to our acquisition of their\\nterritory. A little later in the discussion evidence will\\nbe adduced to show that they did consent, but so far as\\ninternational law is concerned, their consent was not\\nnecessary.\\nWhile no vote is taken in questions of international\\nlaw, we do arrive at a consensus of opinion of the\\nmembers of the world of nations, and it must be plain to\\nall that the world is content with the move we have made.\\nThere has been no objection, no protest, no criticism.\\nIf we had violated any principle of international law the\\nprotest and criticism would have been forthcoming.\\nIf in the onward march of civilization the acquisition\\nof territory was necessary and admissible, the fact that\\nthe people incidentally come into the government of the", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "n PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nUnited States shoulo form no ground either for our\\ngrudging the liberty it affords them, nor for shirking\\nthe responsibility it places upon us. Every individual\\nliving in any Territory, whether there by choice or acci-\\ndent of birth or other circumstance, is subject to the fate\\nof that Territory, whether good or bad.\\nSome questions of international law are mooted ques-\\ntions, and, as we shall show a little later on, the deter-\\nmination of them is worthy the attention of the highest\\ncivilization; but the proposition laid down as to the fate\\nof inhabitants of territory is undisputed. No international\\nlawyer will claim to the contrary. The quoting of one is\\nthe quoting of all on this principle of law.\\nWilliam Edward Hall, in his text-book on Interna-\\ntional Law, says: The principle that the wishes of a\\npopulation are to be consulted when the territory which\\nthey inhabit is ceded, has not been adopted in interna-\\ntional law, and cannot be adopted into it until title by\\nconquest has disappeared.\\nSo much for the right of jurisdiction over the Filipinos.\\nLaw is always the result of compromise. There is no\\nsuch thing in practice as pure and unrestrained liberty of\\naction. The moment a man or a nation is permitted to\\nact out his own will, that moment the selfish purpose\\nleads that man or nation to cross the path of some other\\nman or nation, and rather than persist each in his course\\nof licensed destruction of the other s interests, they come\\ntogether and compromise their differences, agreeing what\\nshall be the rights and the limitations of each with refer-\\nence to the other; and this is law.\\nSome of the passions or appetites of the individual may\\ntempt him to violate the law, but if there is a preponder-\\nance of reason and judgment and honor, he keeps down\\nthose passions, disappoints them, punishes them, exe-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 79\\nelites them, if necessary, that he may serve the purpose of\\nlaw and order. So with the State. When the right has\\nbeen given to the sovereign State to rule, any act not\\nconformable to that sovereign authority is without avail;\\ntherefore, since we properly have jurisdiction over the\\nFilipinos, even though they did resent it, international\\nlaw recognizes our right to control them. Mr. Hall\\nsays again:\\nAnd it being a necessary result of independence that\\nthe will of the State shall be exclusive over its territory,\\nit also asserts authority as a general rule over all persons\\nand things, and decides what acts shall or shall not be\\ndone within its domain.\\nEven if we conceded that the majority of the Filipinos\\nwere opposed to our acquisition of our territory, never-\\ntheless we had the right to acquire it, and we have the\\nright to govern its inhabitants under the sanction of\\ninternational law. Does Pessimist doubt it?\\nPessimist: I am not prepared to dispute it, but I do\\nnot think there is much humanity in that kind of law.\\nIn fact, I think the less law we can have, whether inter-\\nnational or national, the better. I judge the Filipinos\\nlargely by myself. I should not like to have anyone\\ncompel me to do a thing, or to prevent me from doing a\\nthing according to my own will.\\nPatriot: That being the case, it is scarcely worth\\nwhile for us to continue the discussion of law; for, as\\nstated in the beginning of this topic, the result of such a\\ncondition as pictured by Pessimist, would be non-law\\nand disorder i. e., anarchy. Anarchy is the end of the\\nroad which starts in with a general fault-finding with\\nconditions that exist, and but few men can be turned\\ninto bypaths of virtue after starting on this road.\\nPessimist: I do not especially relish public rebuke,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "80 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nand if Patriot keeps that up I shall discontinue the dis-\\ncussion.\\nUncle Sam: It is due to the audience and just to\\nPatriot that I should admonish Pessimist to discuss the\\nquestion on merit and not allow his temper to lead him\\ninto abusive language. Patriot saved me the trouble of\\nmaking his criticism for him, for I was about to speak\\nalong the same line. What he said was scientific, though\\nof course anarchy is a harsh word. I will ask Patriot to\\nspare Pessimist embarrassment where it is possible, but\\non the other hand, I must insist that Pessimist bring him-\\nself within the conception of law and order, and base his\\ndiscussions thereon, otherwise I shall consider it proper\\nfor Patriot to call him to task, and in fact, should feel in\\nduty bound to this audience and to my great people to\\ndo so myself if Patriot did not.\\nThe fact that nations have not complained, but on the\\ncontrary have expressed satisfaction at our taking posses-\\nsion of the Philippines, raises a conclusive presumption,\\nI think, that the act was justified in the eyes of other\\nnations, and is therefore in accordance with international\\nlaw. I suggest that the discussion proceed on the ques-\\ntion of fact.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "II.\\nQUESTION OF FACT.\\nPatriot: As I was to lead in the discussion of the legal\\nquestion only, I yield the floor to Pessimist on the ques-\\ntion of fact.\\nPessimist: I suppose I shall not be bound down so\\nstrictly to scientific rules and regulations now.\\nUncle Sam: No, but you must be logical in your\\nreasoning or it will be impossible for us to follow you.\\nPessimist: That we have been guilty of infamous con-\\nduct, the facts will clearly show infamous to ourselves\\nbecause of the lowering of our standard of civilization;\\ninfamous to the Filipinos because, as I shall now attempt\\nto show by the facts, they have been robbed of their lib-\\nerty and reduced from the high state of a free and inde-\\npendent people to that of miserable slaves; for what is\\nslavery but subjugation to the will of others? Mr. Bryan\\nhas said:\\nThe purpose of Annexationists, so far as that purpose\\ncan be discovered, is to apply to the government of the\\nFilipinos methods familiar to the people of Europe and\\nAsia, but new to the people of the United States.\\nIf this is not the case, I should like to see a successful\\ncontradiction of it. Look at the letters from the boys at\\nthe front telling us that the war is wrong. Can Patriot\\nor anybody else justify it?\\nPatriot: The question of fact is somewhat lengthy\\nand admits of some logical order in the discussion. It\\ninvolves more or less of political theory, and I should like,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "82 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthat we discuss it in an orderly method. I cannot answer\\na general charge of meanness without analyzing the\\ncharge. In fact, in the language of the lawyer, I think\\nI might demur to the indictment set forth by Pessimist\\non the ground that he has charged nothing in particular.\\nYou cannot indict a man by saying that he is a mean man\\nor ought not to live, or is dangerous to the community.\\nYou must specify wherein his conduct is reprehensible,\\nnor is it proof for a witness, or a dozen witnesses for that\\nmatter, to get on the witness stand and swear that a man\\nis bad. Such testimony might go to the question of his\\ncredibility as a witness in the case, but he cannot be con-\\nvicted of anything on such tesimony.\\nIn the earlier times, in the development of our com-\\nmon law, either party to a suit might line up witnesses,\\nand the one who could command the most witnesses won\\nthe case. Such practice is not in keeping with modern\\nviews of justice, and so we must reject this method and\\nseek a higher quality of proof.\\nThere have been some letters of complaint from the\\nboys in the field, and there have been some letters of\\ncomplaint -from the boys at home to the boys in the field,\\nbut this does not prove anything. There have been an\\nabundance of letters on the other side. Neither does this\\nprove anything. I do not know which side has been\\ncomplimented with the best literary production or the\\nmost zealous advocacy by letter-writing. It would not\\nbear very heavily upon the question if we knew just which\\nside has been written about the most, but we do not know\\nand cannot know.\\nThere is a kind of evidence which admits of analysis\\nand estimate. Now in order to analyze the testimony\\nproperly, we should go about it in a cool-headed, delib-\\nerate, reasonable manner. Let us not fly in the face of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 1 88\\nfacts and tear our hair in madness like the hot-blooded\\nand irrational Latin races might do but let us do credit\\nto our Teutonic blood by reasoning the question out delib-\\nerately, and by taking plenty of time to reason it out.\\nPessimist: Well, what would you like to talk about\\nfirst?\\nPatriot: I have jotted down a little outline which it\\nseems to me would facilitate the discussion. Under the\\nquestion of fact suppose we first consider whether it will\\npay, which question involves the interest of labor and\\nthe value of the markets then let us take up the danger\\nof international war and our duties as to neutrality. This\\nwill probably be subdivided to advantage. Then will\\ncome the question of strengthening our army and navy.\\nNow if we take these up separately, follow the objections\\nmade by our adversaries, one by one, I believe they can\\nbe successfully met by such testimony and such reasoning\\nas reasonable men in the pursuit of their ordinary affairs\\nwould accept as proof. I would, therefore, suggest that\\nPessimist address himself to the question as to whether\\nit would pay.\\nWILL IT PAY?\\nPessimist: That is just what I thought. Patriot pro-\\nposes to decide this question from the standpoint of\\ndollars. Mr. Bryan has told us a good deal about the\\nRepublican Party s dollar argument, and it seems to me\\nthat America has fallen to a low state when we can un-\\nblushingly discuss the propriety of subjugating a nation\\nof people on the ground of financial and commercial suc-\\ncess. That is it! Will it pay? That is the way you\\npropose to decide the question as Mr. P ryan says, Put-\\nting the dollar above the man. How, sir, can you justify\\nsuch plutocratic principle? How can you see one man", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "84 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/\\nruling and trampling upon another merely because it\\npays because there is money in it? How can you whom\\nthey call Patriot place the dollar above the man?\\nPatriot: More or less latitude should be given for\\ntheoretic discussion under this head, and I shall reply\\nbriefly to the assault of which Pessimist has just relieved\\nhimself. The question, Will it pay? of course means,\\nwill it pay taking into consideration all rights of men.\\nThe simplest sort of illustration will prove the unfairness\\nof the charge that we are putting the dollar above the\\nman when we ask, Will it pay?\\nMay not a church corporation consider the value and\\nprobable appreciation of property when buying a site for\\nthe church, or look to profit when selling an old\\nsite, without being charged with putting the dollar above\\nthe man? Of course, if the trustees would say, no matter\\nwhat the effect upon individuals, no matter if it proves\\ncruel, we will take this and that financial course because\\nit pays, then they would be open to such rebuke as Pessi-\\nmist has attempted to administer to this government;\\nbut otherwise the wisdom of such success is to be ad-\\nmired. Putting the dollar above the man deserves no\\nbetter name than that of counterfeit coin. The phrase\\nwas coined, no matter whether by Mr. Bryan or whom-\\nsoever else, for the purpose of accomplishing a result\\nbeyond the worth of the phrase coined. Of course no\\nman, no nation, no party has a right to put the dollar\\nabove the man. All are agreed in that. The unfairness\\nof the use of the term in this connection is illustrated by\\nthe fact that Mr. Bryan himself, as every sensible man\\nmust, in discussing this question, talks about the financial\\nand trade advantages of the United States. He says, in\\na speech on Imperialism: The trade relations possible\\nunder a protectorate would be of more value to the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST! 85\\nUnited States than any which could come as the result\\nof forcible annexation.\\nMr. Bryan is in favor of a protectorate, and in order\\nto convince the people that a protectorate is better, he\\nsays it will pay better, that the trade relations will be of\\nmore value under a protectorate than under ownership.\\nDoes anybody charge him with putting the dollar above\\nthe man for using such an argument?\\nThe inconsistency of our adversaries is shown by an-\\nother important fact. They say on the one hand that our\\ntrade advantages will be enhanced by a protectorate\\nrather than by annexation, and then on the other hand\\nthey say that we are annexing at the behest of our trades-\\nmen who want to make fortunes of it. That is, they charge\\nin one breath that we are making a poor financial bar-\\ngain, and in the next that we are putting the dollar above\\nthe man in pursuing a course which is financially profit-\\nable. May we not discuss a question of politics, a ques-\\ntion of best benefit the greatest good to the greatest\\nnumber without having our motives impugned? We\\nhave said in the past By the gods, we will build up\\nhumanity in spite of business interests; should we not\\nnow thank God that business interest and the interest\\nof humanity go hand in hand? Wrong to point out to\\nthe people a commercial advantage? Wrong to wish a\\nnation prosperous? Why, what have we been living for\\nall these years? What did Jefferson mean when, in his\\nThird Annual Message, just after the Louisiana Purchase\\nhad been consummated, he rejoiced in the fact that the\\nfertility of the country, its climate and extent promise, in\\ndue season, important aids to our treasury, and ample\\nprovision for our posterity and a wide spread for the\\nblessings of freedom and equal laws?\\nIt frequently happens that a man s patriotic duty", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "SG PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nleads along the highway of both national and individual\\nsuccess, for all of which we are in the habit of being\\nglad.\\nHave not our Presidents, in their messages from the\\nbeginning, dwelt upon the material prosperity of the\\nUnited States and its citizens? Has not every -Thanks-\\ngiving Proclamation since the first recited to our Maker\\na nation s gratitude for past material favors, and a\\nnation s prayer for their continuance? What must the\\nlaborers think of Mr. Bryan s spurious claim that discus-\\nsion looking to their betterment in dollars is putting the\\ndollar above the man. The result of such a cult, if it be-\\ncame popular, would be to intimidate legislators until\\nthey would hesitate to enter into questions which affect\\nthe industrial success either of capital or of labor. Madi-\\nson says, in the tenth number of the Federalist:\\nA landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mer-\\ncantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser\\ninterests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations.\\nA regulation of these various and interfering\\ninterests forms the principal task of modern legislation,\\nand involves the spirit of party and faction in the neces-\\nsary and ordinary operations of the government.\\nWhen Mr. Bryan says, therefore, that Imperialism\\nfinds its inspiration in dollars and not in duty, he simply\\nbegs the question, and undertakes by indirection to create\\nthe impression that those charged with the responsibil-\\nities of this government are trying to sell it out.\\nAgain Mr. Bryan takes up the expression used by\\nSecretary Gage, Philanthropy and five per cent, and\\nsays, The one chloroforms the conscience of the con-\\nqueror, and the other picks the pocket of the conquered.\\nHere is a power of language worthy of a better cause.\\nPhilanthropy and five per cent simply means philan-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 87\\nthropy on a self-supporting basis. Is there any harm in\\nthat? He who charges harm, whether directly like a man,\\nor indirectly, insults every self-supporting church, every\\nself-supporting missionary society, every self-supporting\\ncharity organization. It is not a mark of inhumanity,\\nbut a mark of developed civilization if this great govern-\\nment of ours can go abroad and carry the message of\\nfree institutions, giving greater liberty and greater com-\\nfort and greater happiness in life to the inhabitants of a\\nforeign country, and at the same time make it profitable\\nto the people of the United States. As a matter of fact,\\nthis is the only way we could do it. We would not be\\njustified in taxing the American people for any great\\namount of charity abroad but to show the utter baseness\\nof the phrase putting the dollar above the man, let me\\nquote from another speech of Mr. Bryan s, delivered\\nafter he had forgotten he coined that phrase he says\\nThe opponents of Imperialism are fortunate in hav-\\ning upon their side the dollar argument, as well as the\\narguments based upon fundamental principles.\\nWhether this statement is true or not is a question\\nfor discussion a little later on, but I quote Mr. Bryan\\nhere to show that he knows it is proper to talk of the\\nfinancial advantages and disadvantages, that he wilfully\\nappeals to the prejudices and passions of his hearers by\\nusing words and phrases which indicate that the discus-\\nsion of such questions is sinful. Mr. Bryan again shows\\nthat he recognizes the validity of the dollar argument,\\nfor where he refers in one speech to Senator Wolcott s\\nreport on the closing of the India mines, he says:\\nIf Mr. Wolcott s statement contains the smallest frac-\\ntion of truth, the injury done by the East India Company\\nduring its entire existence was less than the injury done\\nby that one act of the governor and his council.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "gg PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nThe one act referred to was the adoption of the gold\\nstandard, and Mr. Bryan s argument on the silver ques-\\ntion is a dollar argument. If there is such a thing possi-\\nble as putting the dollar above the man, the campaign of\\n1896 was certainly conducted on that basis by Mr. Bryan\\nand his party; for regardless of the creditor s right he\\nconcerned himself with the debtor on the sole question\\nas to what would pay him. Xo, there is no harm in\\nsucceeding financially. You must show that the method\\nand the result of success are harmful, or else you must\\ncommend rather than condemn. Indeed, Air. Bryan once\\nsaid: I assure you that it is the money that is in the\\noffice, and not the honor, that attracts me. I should\\nnot refer to this little unpleasantness had not Air. Bryan\\nprovoked it by questioning every argument which looks\\nto financial success.\\nAmerica has usually been fortunate in her purchases.\\nShe paid fifteen millions for Louisiana Territory, which\\nwas in due time formed into fifteen States, some of which\\nnow contribute probably more than that amount an-\\nnually to the national treasury. She purchased Alaska\\nfor seven million two hundred thousand dollars. Our\\npeople have brought from there within the past two years\\ngold to the value of more than the entire cost to us.\\nThere were those who said it would not pay to purchase\\nLouisiana and condemned Jefferson and his compatriots\\nfor doing it. There were those who said it would not pay\\nto purchase Alaska. There are always those who are\\nready to clog the wheels of national and world progress.\\nXo less is that true of the people who now either say that\\nthe purchase of the Philippines will not be profitable, or\\nwho undertake to stop the mouths of those who are ready\\nto show that it will be profitable. The dollar argument\\nis legitimate. A dollar is a medium of exchange merely,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 89\\nwhich enables man to secure physical necessities and\\nluxuries upon which must rest the soul temple. Success\\nis Godly. It is the man who cares nothing about finan-\\ncial success whose mind is- not active enough to think\\nof or care about either man or God. Financial and indus-\\ntrial success is manly and honorable. The anvil stroke\\nof industry is the drum beat in the triumphal march of\\nChristian civilization. The whirr of spindles and the buzz\\nof machinery in our workshops form a grand symphony,\\nand the cheerful voices of the army of honest workmen\\nform a magnificent chorus, all lightening the burdens and\\ncheering the hearts of mortal man, and at the same time\\npouring their rich music of progress into the very throne\\nof heaven. If this is not true, then the life of the mound-\\nbuilders and the savage is the ideal life for man, and our\\nhigher civilization is a failure. If it is true, then it is\\nright to talk about material success.\\nPessimist: Very well, let us discuss the question from\\nthe dollar standpoint, for even on that ground you will\\nfind the laborers have nothing to gain by annexation.\\nPatriot: Proceed.\\nLABOR COMPETITION.\\nPessimist: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:\\nApropos of labor competition, let me quote again from\\nMr. Bryan. He says:\\nIt is not strange that the laboring man should look\\nwith undisguised alarm upon the prospect of Oriental\\ncompetition upon the farms and in the factories of the\\nUnited States. Our people have legislated against Chi-\\nnese immigration, but to exclude a few Chinese and\\nadmit many Filipinos is like straining at a gnat and\\nswallowing a camel. Farmers and laboring men consti-\\ntute a large majority of the American people. What\\nis there in annexation for them?", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "90 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST!\\nEx-Senator Gorman also savs:\\nI believe that it will open the door for the flow from\\nthe Chinese Empire and from the islands themselves of\\na host of men, untold in numbers, who will not assimilate\\nwith, but will tend to degrade the American people.\\nPatriot: One answer to Mr. Bryan s objection would\\nbe the arguments which he himself has been making\\nfor years in favor of free trade with all nations. If he is\\ncorrect in his claim for free trade, which he has persist-\\nently and eloquently made for the whole period of his\\npublic life, then he is wrong in his claim that the com-\\npetition with the Filipinos is injurious. The two propo-\\nsitions cannot stand together, one or the other must fall,\\nbecause they are repugnant. But a better argument still\\nwill show that Mr. Bryan is wrong in both propositions.\\nHe is wrong in his advocacy of universal free trade, be-\\ncause that would bring our American mechanics and\\nlaborers into direct competition with manufacturing na-\\ntions. This would stop, as it did stop during the adminis-\\ntration of President Cleveland under the Wilson Bill, the\\nprincipal factories of the United States, because Great\\nBritain is able, under such condition s, to undersell our\\nmanufacturers on account of the discrepancy in wages,\\nlie is wrong in claiming that the competition in the Phil-\\nippines would injure American laborers and mechanics,\\nbecause they are not a manufacturing nation. It is worth\\nwhile to have had this criticism from Mr. Bryan, however,\\nbecause so far as it goes, it is a confession that a protect-\\nive tariff is a benefit to laborers a principle for which the\\nRepublican Party has contended and fought since its\\nbirth.\\nPessimist: But what about the competition of the\\nChinese? You have heard my quotation from ex-Senator\\nGorman to the effect that untold numbers of Chinese", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 91\\nwould flow into our territory, and he goes on to speak of\\nthe concerted action of laborers in 1888 which com-\\npelled the abrogation of the treaty with China. Mr.\\nGorman refers here to the Geary Act, by which the\\nChinese were excluded from the United States. When\\nthe Chinese get to the Philippine Islands, they will be\\nable to cross the ocean and come to the United States\\nproper, because all people under the sovereignty of the\\nUnited States have a right to travel from one State or\\nTerritory to another without let or hindrance.\\nPatriot: This is another of those questions which can\\nbe attended to when we reach it. As stated by Senator\\nBeveridge, the experience of Germany has been that the\\nmigration of natives to the main country is a theory only,\\nbut in practice it does not occur.- He says:\\nBut the natives will not come here. Let all men\\ndismiss that fear. The Dutch have Java, and its popula-\\ntion, under Holland s rule, has increased from two mil-\\nlion to more than twenty million people; yet the Java\\nlaborer has never competed with the laborer of Holland.\\nAnd this is true of England and Germany, of every\\ncolonizing, administering power.\\nWe have discriminated against the Chinese so far as\\nthis country is concerned, and we can continue to dis-\\ncriminate against them if the interest of the American\\npeople and civilization warrant us in doing so. We can\\nprevent them from coming to the Philippines at all, or\\nwe can admit them to the Philippine Islands and stop\\nthem there. We can allow the Filipinos themselves to\\nemigrate to the United States or we can prevent it.\\nThe rule you have laid down with reference to the free\\npassage from one State or Territory to another is subject\\nto any necessary exception in the interest of humanity\\nand the American government. We have made an\\nexception to it in the case of the Indian. We have, from\\nthe beginning of the government reserved the right, and", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "92 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nbelieved it to be proper to control the inhabitants of the\\nUnited States in any way which the spirit of our institu-\\ntions require. We have the right and the power to give\\nabsolute liberty to all, or limited liberty to those who do\\nnot understand the use of full liberty. We can build a\\nstockade around the Indians of America and keep them\\nin it if the guarding of them should otherwise by reason\\nof their savagery prove too expensive and dangerous.\\nWe can place whatever restrictions the emergency may\\nrequire about the conduct of the Filipinos, and it will all\\nbe for their eventual good.\\nPessimist: But ex-Senator Edmunds, a Republican,\\nsays:\\nCongress, therefore, cannot lawfully prevent the mi-\\ngration of any citizens residing in the Philippines (and\\nevery Spanish subject therein becomes one by force of\\nthe treaty) to our States, any more than it can lawfully\\nprevent the migration of citizens of the States to the\\nPhilippines.\\nPatriot: Well, there is no evidence yet that we shall\\ndesire to prevent their migration. In the first place, as\\nbefore observed, it is not likely that they will want to\\nmigrate in any large numbers, and, in the second place,\\nif they should, and it should be undesirable for them to\\ndo so, a law can be passed, or, if need be, a Constitutional\\namendment be enacted prohibiting it.\\nNo one contends that we have finished the work of\\nlegislation, and no one holds that the Constitution is now\\nequal to all future emergencies. Congress will continue\\nto meet year by year and enact the necessary laws, and\\nthe people will continue to have the right to amend the\\nConstitution where the working out of some great pro-\\ngress, such as that of the emancipation of the slaves,\\nrequires it.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 93\\nAccording to the doctrine of some Anti-Expansionists\\nsuch a revision of our laws would be called for. Speak-\\ning before the Treaty had been ratified, Senator Allen\\nsaid\\nIf, unfortunately, we shall authoritatively express a\\nconclusion that would cause our country to be overrun\\nby a horde of alien people in a manner incapable of using\\nor enjoying the blessings of self-government, or by main-\\ntaining them when won by others, whose presence and\\ninfluence would deteriorate or injure the nation, ulti-\\nmately wrecking the Constitution and destroying our\\npolitical institutions, a horde of people unassimilable by\\nreason of turbid and passionate natures, the consequences\\nwould be fearful to the happiness and progress of the\\nworld, and we would be justly chargeable with an inex-\\ncusable incompetency to deal with the question.\\nNow I submit that the genius of this government\\nwould not be open to any charge of incompetency to\\ndeal with a question like this. Is there any one in this\\naudience who is un-American enough to doubt the abil-\\nity of the American people to keep in control or to keep\\nout a horde of people unassimilable by reason of turbid\\nand passionate natures? Is there any one here who has\\nso little faith in the courage and the manhood of young\\nAmerica as to believe that we would stand idly by and\\npermit consequences fearful to the happi-\\nness and progress of the world?\\nWhat man among us will stand up and confess his lack\\nof faith in the creative and preservative power of this\\nmighty people to meet an emergency like this? We are\\ngiving to the Filipinos a certain local autonomy, and it\\nwill be competent for them to make treaties with the\\nUnited States after the fashion of the treaties made by\\nthe United States with the Indians.\\nThere are three ways therefore by which the great", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "U PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ndifficulty of labor emigration from the Philippines can be\\nregulated, or prevented altogether, if their standard of\\ncivilization should not -entitle them, according to Amer-\\nican notions, to emigrate here freely. One is by treaty\\nrelations; another is by ordinary legislation; or if that\\nfail, a third is by amendment to the Constitution. LUit we\\nhave always boasted of the fact that America is the land\\nof the free and the home of the brave. We have been\\nlaughed at for admitting all kinds and sorts of foreigners,\\nand it is a fact that to-day our immigration laws are such\\nthat the people of Germany, Ireland or Italy, or any of\\nthe other nations of the world except China, can come\\nto compete with our labor as freely as can the Filipinos\\nsince annexation, so that the scarecrow which has been\\nflaunted in the face of laborers, by reason of our annexa-\\ntion of the Philippines, amounts to nothing more than\\nthe problem if immigration, which is being studied in\\nthe interest of American labor, and will, in the fullness\\nof time, be solved properly.\\nPessimist: Ex-Representative Towne, of Minnesota,\\npresents another danger to American laborers. He calls\\nattention to the fact that American workmen will be\\nfaced by the importation from thence of goods made\\nin American factories in the Philippines, to compete with\\nour market at home on the products and skill of Ameri-\\ncan freemen.\\nHow can you prevent that?\\nPatriot: If it should prove necessary to prevent it,\\nit can be done by the regulation of tariff. According\\nto credible reports, the Filipinos lack the energy to com-\\npete with American laborers, and whatever manufactur-\\ning may be done for several years to come on the\\nPhilippine Islands will undoubtedly be done by laborers\\nwho migrate to that country from America. An Ameri-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 95\\ncan skilled laborer, with his energy and push, can\\naccomplish more than half a dozen Filipinos with their\\nloose notions of system and their lassitude.\\nIt is vastly more likely, with the splendid attractions\\nof mineral resources and agricultural possibilities in the\\nPhilippines, that American labor will migrate there than\\nthat Philippine labor will emigrate to this country. It\\nwill thus appear that the labor, instead of being burdened\\nin America, will be relieved to that extent.\\nAccording to the most conservative estimates, we shall\\nnot be confronted with this question until at least an-\\nother Presidential campaign, because for several years,\\nunder the most favorable conditions, it will be necessary\\nto maintain a military government in the Philippines,\\nduring which time, under our present laws, as laid down\\nin Cross et al. vs. Harrison (116 Howard) the President\\nof the United States may prescribe such duties as he\\nsees fit. There is no occasion, therefore, for such undue\\nhaste, and certainly no occasion for undue alarm. A few\\nyears of occupation and research incident thereto will\\nbring to our service a vast fund of information, which can\\nbe substituted for the mere conjecture indulged in now\\nby those opposed to annexation. If it should then turn\\nout that the labor in this country is in danger, the party\\nwhich espouses the cause of labor will have a good case,\\nand no one can doubt the result. The danger for the\\npresent is remote. It cannot, from a manufacturing\\nstandpoint, affect American laborers until time shall have\\nelapsed in which to build up the factories in the Philip-\\npines, even though they should use Philippine labor as\\nagainst American labor.\\nThe solicitude shown by the Democrats for the pro-\\ntection of American labor against pauper labor of the\\nPhilippines, who do not manufacture, while they would", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0080\u00a290 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nforce upon us the competition of England, already\\nthoroughly equipped for competition in manufacture,\\nsimply shows the insincerity of their bluster.\\nPessimist: Do you not admit there is some danger,\\ndo you not admit that the question is debatable?\\nPatriot: For the sake of getting on to the next topic,\\nsuppose I admit that it is a debatable question. That\\ngives me the opportunity to conclude by saying that the\\nRepublican party has always shown more wisdom in\\nlegislation in the interest of laborers. It has been the\\nparty of protection, which the Democrats now endorse\\nby contending against free trade with the Filipinos.\\nI put the proposition in this form Have not the work-\\nmen of the United States, skilled and unskilled, the great\\narmy of wage-earners, of whatever degree, faith that, as\\nbetween the two parties, the Republican party can best\\nbe trusted with their interests in any new emergency?\\nWith the question thus put, I rest the case in the hands\\nof American workmen.\\nPessimist: Very well, let the discussion proceed on\\nthe next topic.\\nMARKET.\\nPessimist: As the burden is upon the Expansionists\\nto show the trade advantage of our ownership of the\\nPhilippines, I would ask Patriot to lead the discussion\\nunder this head.\\nPatriot: While I am willing to lead in the discussion,\\nI do not accept the theory of Pessimist on which he\\nplaces his request for me to lead. Comparatively few\\nAnti-Expansionists deny the advantages of the Philip-\\npines as a market and as a gateway to the Oriental\\nmarkets besides, if we can show further on that it is our\\nhumane duty to govern the Filipinos Mr. Bryan would", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 97\\nagree that we should ignore the question of financial\\nprofit, so as not to put the dollar above the man, but let\\nus call in the witnesses, and among the first I would men-\\ntion Senator Money, who is a zealous Anti-Expansionist.\\nHe says\\nI realize the advantage of the possession of an archi-\\npelago that for twelve hundred miles extends along the\\nfront of China. Perhaps Manila as a free port under\\nAmerican rule would become the greatest emporium in\\nthe whole Orient in the progress of time, probably in a\\nfew decades. I know that our commerce would have a\\nfoothold and coign of vantage there that would be to\\nour profit.\\nPessimist: Does Senator Money then recommend\\nthat we keep the Philippines?\\nPatriot: No, he says:\\nWhile these advantages would help, they are not\\nindispensable and our commerce advances apace lacking\\nthem.\\nPessimist: I thought you would find some modifica-\\ntion to his statement.\\nPatriot: Certainly I do not contend that Senator\\nMoney is in favor of keeping the Philippines. I specifi-\\ncally stated before quoting him that he was opposed to\\nit, but for that reason his admission is an admission\\nagainst interest, and according to rules and practice in\\nlaw is admissible and has great weight. We shall discuss\\nlater on his contention that we should not keep the Phil-\\nippines.\\nWhat I propose to prove now is that so far as the\\nmarket is concerned, it is to our advantage and the ad-\\nmission I have quoted from Senator Money goes to the\\npoint. It is, so far as his judgment is concerned, con-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "98 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nelusive that it would pay. I shall elaborate somewhat\\nthe argument of trade advantage in the Philippines\\nproper.\\nPHILIPPINES.\\nPatriot: The report of the Chief of the Bureau of Sta-\\ntistics for November, 1899, shows that the Philippines\\nhave been purchasing nearly sixteen times as much from\\nSpain as from the United States; another sixteen to one\\nproposition which Mr. Bryan is in favor of, but which\\nthe American producers would like to see reversed. I\\ndo not wish to treat this grave matter in a facetious man-\\nner, but there is a second analogy to the sound money\\nissue which may account for Mr. Bryan s opposition to\\nour possession of the Philippines. The report of the\\nBureau of Statistics, above referred to, also says that\\ninvestigations tend to establish, beyond any great ques-\\ntion, the presence in the Philippines of boundless quan-\\ntities of gold. This fact will have two important effects\\non American commerce. First, it will attract to that\\narchipelago a large number of Americans, just as Cal-\\nifornia attracted them, and to a very much greater extent\\nthan Alaska, because of the rigour of Alaska s climate\\nand the mildness of the Philippine climate. This pouring\\nin of American life will itself call for American products\\nand supplies; and in addition thereto it will develop the\\nFilipinos, appeal to their pride to wear better clothes, eat\\nbetter food, live in better houses, and build better rail-\\nroads, so that an endless amount of American products\\nwill be called for. The second advantage which I claim\\nis that the supply of gold which we may confidently ex-\\npect from the Philippines will increase the amount of\\nmoney in the United States, and I suppose I need not\\nargue with you, since you believe in Mr. Bryan s prin-\\n.V tu ..J", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 99\\nciples, that the more plentiful the money the more\\nprosperous the times. The only difference between us\\non that point is that you believe this proposition to be\\ntrue regardless of the intrinsic value of money, while I\\nbelieve it is true only provided the money is good. I\\ndigress, however, but this question might deserve our\\nattention at some other time.\\nWe are told authoritatively officially, in fact that\\nthe Filipinos use a great many carriages, and that the\\nwealthier classes have luxurious vehicles. We are told\\nthat they are proud and vain. All this tends to show\\nthat they can be transformed from a practically naked\\nstate, which needs no American products, into a well-\\ndressed, well-fed and well-housed people, which would\\nbuy enormous quantities of American products.\\nWe send to the Philippines now less than half the\\namount in dollars that w T e purchase from them. In the\\ninterest of our merchant marine, which should be encour-\\naged and built up, this should be more nearly balanced.\\nWe shall undoubtedly increase our purchases from there,\\nbut we should increase our sales more, so that vessels\\ncarrying goods to us from them will be fully laden on\\ntheir return trips.\\nPessimist: But will they consume the goods? Can\\nyou prove it? I do not believe they will ever be in\\nneed of American products to any extent worth naming.\\nPatriot: Well, no, I do not pretend that I can prove\\nit. I do not claim that political science is an exact sci-\\nence. We must take the evidence at hand, form our\\nconclusions from that, and trust to the future for the\\nresult. The Fathers did not wait until they were certain\\nof results before acting. When Louisiana was pur-\\nchased it was pointed to by the opponents of the Admin-\\nLofC.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "100 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nistration as a piece of gross extravagance. It was said\\nthe fifteen millions of money had as well be thrown into\\nthe sea better, too, because the territory involved ex-\\npense and endangered the peace of the United States.\\nJefferson could not prove that they were wrong. Cir-\\ncumstantial evidence was against them, and time proved\\nthe wisdom of accepting the circumstantial evidence.\\nIn Jefferson s message to Congress on March 10, 1808,\\nhe reports a purchase from the Cherokee Indians of a\\ntract of land at the mouth of the Chickamauga. Note the\\nreason he gives for this move\\nIt w r as represented that there was within that tract\\na great abundance of iron ore of excellent quality with\\na stream and fall of water suitable for iron works; that\\nthe Cherokees were anxious to have works established\\nthere in the hope of having a better supply of those in-\\nstruments of household and agriculture, of which they\\nhave learned the use and necessity, but on the condition\\nthat they should be under the authority and control of\\nthe United States. As such an establishment would occa-\\nsion a considerable and certain demand for corn and\\nother provisions and necessities, it seemed probable that\\nit would immediately draw around it a close settlement of\\nthe Cherokees, would encourage them to enter upon a\\nregular line of agriculture, familiarize them with the\\npractice and value of the arts, attach them to property,\\nlead them of necessity and without delay to the estab-\\nlishment of laws and government, and thus make a great\\nand important advance toward assimilating their condi-\\ntion to. ours.\\nYou will note that Jefferson does not state his hope\\nwith mathematical exactness.\\nPessimist: Yes, but that case did not look to the great\\ncrimes which are contemplated in the Philippines. In\\nthose good old days monopolists were not looking for\\nopportunities to rob people as they are now. Senator", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 101\\nButler describes the situation we may expect in the Phil-\\nippines very briefly. He says:\\nSo the policy upon which syndicates and monopolists\\nand franchise grabbers have forced this country to em-\\nbark, in open repudiation of every principle of the Declar-\\nation of Independence, and of every fundamental\\nprinciple underlying a free republic, is fatal to the govern-\\nment, unless the people themselves realize the enormity\\nof the crime committed, and drive from power their false\\nrepresentatives, and restore the government into the\\nhands of the followers of Jefferson and Lincoln.\\nPatriot: I would call your attention to another point\\nin Jefferson s message. He says:\\nIt is understood there are private individuals ready\\nto erect them (referring to the new works), subject to\\nsuch reasonable rent as may secure a reimbursement to\\nthe United States and to such other conditions as shall\\nsecure to the Indians their rights and tranquillity.\\nWhat does Mr. Bryan think of President Jefferson s\\nsuggestion of franchises for greedy capitalists in Jeffer-\\nson s time? The plain, simple truth is that individual\\nsuccess and good government, according to the Ameri-\\ncan plan, are inseparable, and Jefferson was too much of\\na statesman, too much of a lover of his country, too much\\nof a well-wisher of his fellow men, to deny the govern-\\nment the right to purchase territory on the ground that\\nsome individual would be benefited thereby.\\nThis thought marks the distinct line of cleavage be-\\ntween the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.\\nThe Democratic Party pretends to say, We will adopt\\nno policy whereby men in particular can grow wealthy,\\nno matter how much such policy might benefit men in\\ngeneral. The Republican Party says, We will adopt that\\npolicy which will bring prosperity, growth and happiness", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "102 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nto the greatest number, even though it should result inci-\\ndentally in the production of greater wealth for some than\\nothers, the difference being that the Republican Party\\nis candid and the Democratic Party is insincere, because\\nin its advocacy of the Free Silver Doctrine it was work-\\ning directly toward the end of special advantage to silver\\nmine syndicates.\\nPessimist: Is not the real object to get a hold on the\\nother people of Asia? Is it not true that the capitalists\\nof America are buying franchises in China now with no\\nother purpose than that of private gain?\\nPatriot: That brings us to the question of the mar-\\nkets in China and the Orient suppose you tell the audi-\\nence about that.\\nCHIXA AXD THE ORIENT.\\nPessimist: I have great fear for the safety of my coun-\\ntry when a condition exists such as is described by\\nex-Representative Henry U. Johnson, of Indiana. Speak-\\ning of the responsibility and results to follow, he says:\\nThe wrong was with the Chief Executive. He alone\\nis responsible. In my humble opinion, the reason for\\nthe change in the Presidential policy in the Orient is to\\nbe sought for and found in quite another direction from\\nany of those referred to. It was his concession to the\\nselfish capitalists of the country, his surrender to their\\ndemands. These are the gentlemen who furnished the\\nmoney for his nomination, and who, I doubt not, have\\npledged him a renomination and re-election. These are\\nthe gentlemen who are seizing upon valuable franchises\\nin China in connection with the English syndicate, with\\na Member of Parliament from Wales at its head. These\\nare the gentlemen whom Lord Beresford has in mind in\\nhis cordial but not wholly disinterested invitation to an\\nalliance in China with Great Britain, Germany and Japan\\nagainst Russia and France old time enemies of his\\ncountrv, but the old time friends of ours. These are the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 103\\ngentlemen who are grasping after special privileges in\\nthe Philippines, in Cuba and in Porto Rico.\\nAnd what do these gentlemen propose? To amass colos-\\nsal fortunes in the islands by virtue of their franchises\\nand upon the cheap labor of the native population, not\\none dollar of which will ever find its lodging place in\\nthe pockets of the American people. Where now is the\\nmasterful champion of Protection, the author of the\\nMcKinley Bill, the man who advocated protection in\\nseason and out of season, and earnestly contended that it\\nshed its blessings, as the gentle rain from heaven, upon\\nall classes of our people alike, upon the farmer, the\\nlaborer and the manufacturer?\\nWhat does Patriot say about a condition which justi-\\nfies such remarks as these?\\nPatriot: What do I say about a condition which\\njustifies such remarks as these? I say that such a condi-\\ntion would indeed be regrettable, but I also say that such\\na condition does not exist as to justify such remarks.\\nSome men do not wait for a justification before making\\nsuch remarks as these. A man who will resort to abuse\\nusually does not scrutinize the alleged facts upon which\\nhe bases his abuse. What does all Mr. Johnson said\\namount to in plain, business language? It is merely\\nthat the boundless natural resources of the Orient, which\\nby reason of the sluggish, unschooled mental habits of\\nthe people have so far not been developed enable men of\\nAmerican genius and American push and American thrift\\nto go there and make a success, provided this govern-\\nment throws the mantle of its encouragement and pro-\\ntection around them. So far this is not wrong, is it? That\\nis, is it wrong to succeed, wrong to make money, wrong,\\nindeed, to build up fortunes? Nobody claims that it is\\nexcept those who have neglected their own opportun-\\nities or who have not been blessed with the gift of suffi-\\ncient talents, or who have cultivated that morbid state of", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "104 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nmind which recognizes no such thing as merit, and joins\\nthe small socialistic procession in their clamor for a gen-\\neral levelling of things, and insists upon war by the have-\\nnots against the haves. Of course somebody will be\\nbenefited; that is just what we contend. Shall we re-\\nfrain from opening up the unlimited possibilities in the\\nPhilippines because not all can be directly benefited, or\\npostpone it until we can secure equal division? We\\nshould have to wait for socialism. We opened Oklahoma\\nand the Cherokee Strip, and in the mad rush some were\\ndisappointed, but it was a great benefit to the most fore-\\nhanded and energetic, and to the extent that the success\\nof any is the success of all,, all were indirectly benefited.\\nWhen California was opened up not every man was\\nbenefited, but some were, and so it will be, of course, in\\nthe Philippines. And so our sum-total is made up by\\nadvantage for some in this enterprise for others in that\\n7 until all are served.\\nLet us move forward one step further. What a crime\\nis charged against President McKinley for free trade in\\nthe Philippines. As before suggested, if this concession\\nin so small a way to non-manufacturing nations a con-\\ncession in the interest of humanity, a concession which\\nis to elevate the standard of labor is such a sad and evil\\ndeed, what language can we employ to characterize the\\neffort of the Democratic Party to extend free trade all\\nover the world? The difference is that the Democratic\\nParty insists upon working to a theory, and it is so\\nopinion proud that it would rather sacrifice any amount\\nof benefit to the people than to acknowledge that its the-\\nory will not work exactly as laid down. The Republican\\nParty has always treated the tariff question as a practical\\nquestion. President Harrison said it was a question\\nof markets rather than maxims. So the Republican", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 105\\nParty has always regarded it, and it does not hesitate to\\nmake reciprocity treaties, discriminating in favor of some\\nnations and against others. It has looked upon the tariff\\nquestion as a matter of business, making the best bar-\\ngains it could in the interest of the people of the United\\nStates.\\nTake the third proposition to which you have ad-\\ndressed yourself by your quotation from Mr. Johnson\\nthat cheap labor will be employed by these franchise-\\nholders in the Orient. I have already shown by the\\ndiscussion of the markets in the Philippines proper that\\nthis danger exists only in the minds of those who are\\nlooking for difficulties; that it is not real. The constant\\nrepetition of false charges does not add truth to them.\\nIn the quotation I gave awhile ago from Jefferson he\\nspeaks of the advantage in connection with the works to\\nbe built up in the territory purchased, and does not seem\\nto fear any danger of discrimination against American\\nlabor. In the first place, all lovers of their country have\\nfaith enough in America to believe that the American\\nlaborer will be properly protected, no matter what exi-\\ngencies arise in the far East.\\nIn the second place, few men who have studied the\\ngreat economic questions fail to understand that the\\ninterest of the American laborer is likely to take care of\\nitself in the evolution of Eastern civilization. If for a\\nfew years the bulk of the labor in the East should be\\nnatives poorly paid, enough American labor, American\\npride and ambition will impress themselves upon the\\nconditions to leaven their whole life and to thrill them\\nwith the American pride, ambition and hope. They will\\nbegin to spend more money on their living, buy more\\ngoods at home and abroad, and needing more money with\\nwhich to buy, they will not be slow in learning their", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "106 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nrights and demanding more. This has been the history of\\nJapan without the intervention of America except merely\\nthat of moral influence. What may we expect when\\nAmerica goes to the field of action and puts her strong\\nshoulder to the wheel? Does not every reasonable man\\nknow that from that moment the car of progress will\\nrapidly move up the hill of civilization? In a short time\\nthere will spring up great cities like Hong Kong, great\\nindustrial centers, great mining districts, and high and\\nexalted relations between the inhabitants. The export\\ntrade of America will move forward in leaps and bounds.\\nWe have already vastly increased the sales of American\\nproducts, within the last few years, to China, Hong Kong\\nand Turkish Asia, but greater than to any and all the oth-\\ners has been the increase to Japan, and we should not lose\\nsight of the significance of this fact. Those who believe\\nthat the trade of America will be cut off by the increased\\ndevelopment of the East, arguing on the theory that they\\nwill do their own manufacturing, should review their\\nhistory of Japan. A few years ago a commission from\\nJapan came over to America to investigate labor-saving\\nmachinery. They purchased from America, among other\\nthings, the machinery for several paper mills. Short-\\nsighted pessimists whose attention was brought to this\\nfact, said that it was a blunder to give these people the\\nbenefit of our inventions, that the machine manufacturers\\nshould withhold these advantages from them, because if\\nthey built their own paper mills our export of paper to\\ntheir country would cease. But there is something in the\\nevolution of the world s events which cannot be checked\\nby such narrow views. Some greater power is working\\nout the destiny of man, often in wondrous ways. And\\nso it proved in Japan. They built their paper mills.\\nStrange to say, so far from its resulting in cutting of the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 107\\nexports of paper from this country to Japan, the export\\ntrade grew and continued to grow, and to-day continues\\nto grow. Why? Simply because when even a Malay\\nrace had caught the vitalizing spirit of American enter-\\nprise they wanted to know more about America they\\nwanted to know more about the world. More books,\\nmore newspapers, more prospectuses and descriptions of\\nnew enterprises were needed; therefore, more paper, and\\nthe growth is phenomenal. What has been said about\\nthe paper is true of all the other supplies. Their wants\\nhave so greatly increased that their wages have neces-\\nsarily increased, for whatever may be the theoretical ob-\\njection by economists to the Irion Law of Wages, it has\\nproved a blessing to mankind; even in America that law\\nholds good. The laborer gets only what he needs be-\\ncause he is willing to work for what he needs. His sal-\\nvation and his hope lie in the fact that it is to the great\\ninterest of the great army of employers who have some-\\nthing to sell to develop the needs of the great army of\\nlaborers so that they in turn will buy what the employers\\nhave to sell; and when that need has been developed it\\nwill be satisfied by sufficient wages to meet it. Thus all\\nright-thinking men encourage insurance by which men\\nmay provide for their families after death, building and\\nloan associations, by which they may provide themselves\\nhomes while living; the development of aesthetic taste,\\nby which they come not merely to want but to need\\nin order to secure their greater happiness, the thousand\\nand one luxuries of life better clothes, more stylish\\nvehicles for transportation, more and better musical in-\\nstruments, more and better books, more and better of\\neverything which God has put within the reach of man\\nand given him the right to use. Inoculate the Eastern\\nlaborers with this ambition, and no being living to-day is", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "108 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nyoung enough to see at the end. of the most favored life\\nany year which will not call for vast supplies from the\\nUnited States to these millions upon millions of people\\nin the East.\\nGlance at the statistics in the Statesman s Year Book\\nand see the story of our growth, growing greater in those\\ncountries which have had more of our enlightenment,\\nand least of all in those which have not come in contact\\nwith it. Japan, in its small way, is what China will be\\nin its larger way when its people have once been quick-\\nened by this new life.\\nPessimist: But what assurance have we that America\\nwill have the opportunity of supplying goods to these\\npeoples? Will not England and the other European\\ncountries who will divide up China among themselves,\\nadopt protective tariff laws, discriminating against Amer-\\nica? What hope can we have of open ports?\\nPatriot: We are discussing the prospect in the East\\nin connection with our possession of the Philippines. I\\nwould therefore answer your question in two ways. First,\\nif there is any likelihood of their closing the ports to us,\\nour chances for bringing favorable influence to bear are\\ngreater if we have the political advantage of ownership\\nin the Philippines, which as a strategetic point is so im-\\nportant to all that region, both in matter of trade and in\\nmatter of international differences. As stated before, the\\nRepublican Party has always regarded the tariff as a\\npractical problem. It is based upon the give and take\\nidea. One nation says to another, You favor me and I\\nwill favor you. Being in the Philippines, we are able\\nto offer advantages to the people in control of China and\\nthe Orient, as well as to hold over them the potential\\nthreat of unfriendliness in case of trouble between them\\nand others. Thus it will be seen that our chances for the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? i09\\nEastern trade are bettered by being so near the scene\\nof action.\\nBut my second answer is that our power among the\\nnations of the world has grown to be such that a diplo-\\nmatic expression of our wish, within reason, becomes the\\nlaw of many other nations as to us. It is ^generally\\nbelieved that in case of war between Great Britain and\\nthe other powers, America could, without forming an\\nalliance against Great Britain, but merely by applying\\nsome extreme rules relating to contraband of war, actu-\\nally starve England out in a few months. English states-\\nmen have been frank enough to concede this and they\\nhave been frank enough to emphasize of late that our\\nfriendship is so important that they can afford to make\\nany reasonable concession to maintain it.\\nWe cannot know positively that all this field will be\\nopen to us, but let us improve our chances all we can.\\nBusiness men do not ask a certainty before making\\ninvestments. They go on the theory that nothing ven-\\ntured, nothing gained. If we do not make the venture\\nwe stand no show to gain the advantages, and that these\\nadvantages are marvelous provided we can get them,\\neven those opposed to the policy of the administration\\nadmit. They admit it when they say it is in the interest\\nof franchise grabbers. Mr. Johnson, in his tirade against\\nthe President, is giving testimony, for whatever it is\\nworth, to the effect that the trade advantages in the\\nOrient are great.\\nMr. Worthington C. Ford, who is opposed to the\\nretention of the Philippines, in an address at the annual\\nmeeting of the American Academy of Political and Social\\nScience, April, 1899, said:\\nNo one denies the possibilities of Asia, its gold fields,\\nits iron, its tin and its copper deposits; its wonderful", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "110 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nwaterways, and its population that always seems to offer\\na rich market beyond description.\\nHe also says, speaking of China:\\nNot raising sufficient food for its people, it is from\\nother countries that the necessary grains must be ob-\\ntained. Ihe ability to buy from foreign nations has\\nincreased from $29,700,000 in 1886 to $94,800,000 in 1896,\\nand the purchases have all been in needed and useful\\ncommodities.\\nPessimist: But does anybody believe that the Chinese\\nare capable of developing like the Japanese have de-\\nveloped?\\nPatriot: Scientists differ. It has been but compara-\\ntively few years since all were agreed that the Japanese\\nwere incapable of development. They tasted the draught\\nfrom American genius, which quickened them, and al-\\nmost instantly, like Alice in Wonderland, they grew\\nfrom a pigmy to a giant. Mr. Ford says:\\nWherever tested and an opportunity given, the China-\\nman has proved himself a good workman. The problem\\nthen to be settled is, how this hive of potential industry\\ncan be made to work on the natural resources of China\\nfor the benefit of the nations of the West.\\nAnd as to the character and ability of the Chinese, he\\nquotes from Blackburn s Reports as follows:\\nThe truth is that a man of good physical and intel-\\nlectual, qualities, regarded merely as an economical factor,\\nis turned out cheaper by the Chinese than by any other\\nrace. He is deficient in the higher moral qualities, indi-\\nvidual trustworthiness, public spirit, sense of duty and\\nactive courage, a group of qualities perhaps best repre-\\nsented in our language by the word manliness, but in\\nthe lower moral qualities of patience, mental and physical,\\nand perseverance in labor, he is unrivaled.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? Ill\\nEuropean superintendence is essential precisely because\\nof their moral shortcomings above stated.\\nWhile these vast numbers are being developed to the\\nhigher ideals, they will continue to purchase more and\\nmore of the cotton goods of our southern States and of\\nthe cereals of our farms of the Northwest and of the\\nmanufactured products of our central and eastern States,\\nbut when the great work of developing the natural re-\\nsources begins, and the network of railroads and steam-\\nship lines created to accommodate these vast enterprises,\\nand the cities spring up almost like magic in the night,\\nas Hong Kong did when gold was discovered in Aus-\\ntralia, the thrill of life and activity there will vibrate\\nthrough every nerve center of our home industry, and\\nbenefit our people as much as it benefits the benighted\\nOrient. Such is the dispensation of nature and na-\\nture s God, that when we give we receive, when we\\nbestow a blessing, we reap a joy.\\nNo one believes the dissemination of knowledge will\\nwork an injury to the teacher. Civilization like knowl-\\nedge is a concept which grows and enriches and sweetens\\nby the very act of shifting a part of itself upon its more\\nunfortunate neighbors.\\nAnother advantage to our markets which comes by\\nour possession of the Philippines is that it gives the\\npioneering spirit of America scope for exercise. That\\nsame adventurous spirit which prompted the people of\\nthe May Flower to hazard property and life to cross the\\nsea, which prompted them after landing to reach out into\\nthe forest beyond their immediate needs, which prompted\\nDaniel Boone to leave home and friends and prospect\\nthrough the wilderness, which prompted George Rogers\\nClark against tremendous odds and advice of his friends", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "112 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nto forge his way to the western wilderness and with a\\nhandful of faithful followers conquer the British at Kas-\\nkaskia and Vincennes, and wrench from them a vast\\nterritory in time to have it included by the treaty of\\npeace in the United States instead of being left a part of\\nthe province of Quebec, which prompted John C. Fre-\\nmont to find the paths through the wilderness of the\\ngreat West, which prompted our great naval heroes to\\nbreak up the band of pirates which had preyed upon our\\ncommerce for years, this same adventurous spirit, I say,\\nprompts the American merchant to seek opportunity\\nabroad.\\nProf. John Bassett Moore, in a lecture before the\\nAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science said:\\nFrom the foundation of our government the energy\\nand enterprise that distinguish the American character\\nhave impelled our merchants in sight of unrivaled oppor-\\ntunities at home to seek in the markets of the world an\\nexpansion of their commerce.\\nAnd is it not wrong to discourage these merchants?\\nIs it not wrong to withhold from Americans the oppor-\\ntunities of private gain Jefferson said\\nAgriculture, manufactories, commerce and naviga-\\ntion, the four pillars of our prosperity, are then most\\nthriving when left most free to individual enterprise.\\nHere then was a recognition of the right to prosecute\\nsuch enterprises. He further says: Protection from\\ncasual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be sea-\\nsonably interposed.\\nTo show again his proper solicitude for the financial\\nsuccess of individuals, in his fourth annual message, No-\\nvember 8, 1804, he said:\\nWhether the great interests of agriculture, manufac-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 113\\ntories, commerce or navigation can, within the pale of\\nyour constitutional powers, be aided in any of their rela-\\ntions, whether laws are provided in all cases where they\\nare wanting, whether those provided are exactly what\\nthey should be, whether any abuses take place in their\\nadministration or in that of the public revenues, whether\\nthe organizations of public agents or of public forces is\\nperfect in all its parts in fine, whether anything can be\\ndone to advance the general good, are questions within\\nthe limits of your functions which will certainly occupy\\nyour attention.\\nPresident Monroe, in his eighth annual message, ex-\\npressed the sensible view of our government toward our\\nmerchant class. He says:\\nExtending as our interests do to every part of the\\ninhabited globe and to every sea to which our citizens are\\ncarried by their industry and enterprise, to which they\\nare invited by the wants of others, and have a right to go,\\nwe must either protect them in the enjoyment of their\\nrights or abandon them in certain events to waste and\\ndesolation. Our attitude is highly interesting as relates\\nto other powers, and particularly to our southern neigh-\\nbors. We have duties to perform with respect to all to\\nwhich we must be faithful. To every kind of danger we\\nshould pay the most vigilant and unceasing attention,\\nremove the cause where it may be practicable, and be\\nprepared to meet it when inevitable.\\nThere is little doubt even by those opposed to the\\nPhilippine policy of the financial advantage to American\\nenterprise. Admitting this, they contend that it is not\\nright toward the Filipinos and that it will degrade Amer-\\nican citizenship, but they do admit the fact of its indus-\\ntrial advantage.\\nWe are constantly admonished by Jefferson, Monroe\\nand other of the Fathers to look carefully after the in-\\ndustrial enterprises of American citizens, and the proofs", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "114 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f\\nadduced I believe have been sufficient to convince all in\\nthe audience that the possibilities to our trade in the\\nPhilippines and in the balance of the East are boundless.\\nDoes Pessimist doubt it?\\nPessimist: I concede the question put that way. It\\nis to our financial advantage, but it is so much against\\nour principles and so contrary to American traditions\\nthat I am still opposed to it.\\nPatriot: Very well, since you concede the advantage\\nAve may pass to the next topic, because the question of\\nright and duty comes later.\\nThe next topic in the order agreed upon I believe is\\nInternational War and Neutrality. Will Pessimist pro-\\nceed?\\nINTERNATIONAL WAR AND NEUTRALITY.\\nPessimist: If for no other reason, we ought to. give\\nup the Philippines in order to avoid the disputes and wars\\nwhich embroil European nations. As has been pointed\\nout by anti-expansion writers, the Philippines will prove\\nthe golden apple of discord thrown among the rivals\\nof the world for the Asiatic commerce. We are bound to\\nbe dragged into all sorts of disputes and contentions, and\\nwill be compelled to resort to arms to defend our honor.\\nOur natural and logical attitude is that of neutrality to-\\nward the warring factions of Europe and Asia. Jefferson\\nsaid:\\nOur first and fundamental maxim should be never to\\nentangle ourselves in the broils of Europe.\\nAnd Washington said in his Farewell Address\\nThe great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign\\nnations is in extending our commercial relations, to have\\nwith them as little political connection as possible. Eu-\\nrope has a set of primary interests which to us have none\\nor very remote relations, hence she must be engaged in\\nfrequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 115\\nforeign to our concerns. Our detached and distant situ-\\nation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.\\nWhy forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation?\\nWhy quit our own to stand on foreign ground? Why\\nby interweaving our destiny with that of any part of\\nEurope entangle ourselves in the toils of European am-\\nbition, rivalship, interest or caprice?\\nWhat would Washington say to such a course as that\\npursued by President McKinley? Mr. Carl Schurz says:\\nOur country is large enough for several times our\\npresent population. Our home resources are enormous\\nand a great part not yet touched. We need not fear to\\nbe starved by the completest blockade of our coasts, for\\nwe have enough of everything and to spare. On the\\ncontrary, such a blockade might result in starving others\\nthat need our products. We are to-day one of the great-\\nest powers on earth without having the most powerful\\nfleet and without stepping beyond our continent.\\nIn discussing our future policy Mr. John G. Carlisle\\nsays\\nColonial alliance with France, had it not been for the\\nwisdom and courage of Washington, would have driven\\nus into the mighty conflicts which convulsed the nations\\nof Europe at the close of the eighteenth and beginning\\nof the nineteenth centuries, and we might then have\\nshared the fate of governments that perished by the\\nsword, or that were extinguished by treaties and Con-\\ngresses which they were powerless to prevent.\\nCan Patriot justify an act on the part of the President\\nof the United States which is so likely to hurl our nation\\ninto European war? Such an act is contrary to the\\nMonroe Doctrine, contrary to our uniform duty of neu-\\ntrality toward belligerent nations. No, he cannot justify\\nsuch a course. How much better it would be to declare\\nthe islands independent and to establish a Protectorate\\nover them, letting them work out their own government\\naccording to their own traditions and genius, and in or-\\nder that we may do so, let the young and powerful Re-\\npublic of America say to the world, as suggested by Mr.\\nBryan: Hands off. We stand ready to see that the\\nFilipinos shall not be imposed upon. Mr. Bryan says:", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "116 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nIndependence for the Filipinos under a Protectorate,\\nwhich will guard them from outside interference while\\nthey work out their own destiny, is consistent with Amer-\\nican traditions, American history and American inter-\\nests. Why should Patriot or anybody else insist upon\\nour taking a course different from this, the one so appar-\\nently proper and consistent with American ideals?\\nPatriot: With the permission of the audience, I shall\\nundertake to refute the arguments of Pessimist under\\nfour heads. As I have repeatedly said, it is impossible\\nto answer promiscuous charges without some logical\\nanalysis. There is no power on earth which can, and no\\npower in heaven which will insure any nation against in-\\nternational war. It is liable to be encountered by the\\nUnited States, no matter how fair or how judicious our\\nconduct may be. The unfairness or injustice of some other\\nnation is quite as liable to compel it as if we ourselves were\\nat fault, for what American would consent to our refrain-\\ning from war if unreasonable demands were made against\\nus and insisted upon under threats? The late war with\\nSpain is an example of impossible forbearance. All of\\nthe great battles of the world have been the result, for\\nthe most part, of unfairness on the one side and practic-\\nally a fair disposition on the other. It will thus be seen\\nthat the abandonment of the Philippines would not prove\\na panacea against the ills of international war. The\\nquestion is, to what extent the Philippine Islands are\\nlikely to cause international war as affecting us, and I\\npropose to show, first, that so far from being more, there\\nis less danger of international war on their account if we\\nown them. Second, that there is more danger on their\\naccount if we stand a protector over them. Third, that\\nthe development of our industries and our trade relations\\nwith the far v East are such, and are bound to become", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 117\\nsuch under the irresistible evolution of American genius,\\nthat intercourse with the European nations must and\\nought to be to such an extent that we shall be compelled\\nto assert our rights against other nations and resist en-\\ncroachments by them, regardless of the Philippines; and\\nfourth, I shall attempt to show that the Monroe Doctrine\\ndoes not apply to the present situation.\\nOWNERSHIP.\\nPatriot The right of sovereignty over property in\\nterritory is so sacredly recognized by European coun-\\ntries, that nothing will conduce to our safety in the pur-\\nsuit of commercial enterprises in the East so much as a\\nfee simple title to territory in that hemisphere. The mo-\\nment any act of ours is open to criticism, so long as that\\nact is not of such inhuman character as to call for inter-\\nvention on high moral ground, the powers of Europe will\\nsay to one another: That is an affair of the United\\nStates; it is their property. If anything of such repre-\\nhensible nature as that of the Spanish treatment of their\\nCuban subjects should occur in the vicinity of the Philip-\\npines as, for instance, in the comparatively recent case of\\nthe brutal and barbarous treatment of the Turkish Sultan\\ntoward missionaries and other inhabitants of his Empire,\\nthe very fact of our proximity to the scene of such action,\\nthe very fact of our ownership of property in the Eastern\\nHemisphere, would give us a right, not only according to\\nour own conscience, not only in the sight of God, but a\\nright according to the accepted theory of the world to\\nhold up the finger of warning against such brutal con-\\nduct, and if in the judgment of our own nation we\\nthought it wise to do so, to compel desistance at the\\npoint of the bayonet, as we did for the freedom of Cuba;\\n)but for our ownership of property there, such an inter-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "118 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nference in the name of humanity would be rebuked and\\nscoffed at by the Eastern world. In short, we are prac-\\ntically powerless to carry the doctrine of humanity into\\nthe East unless we have property interests there, because\\nwe cannot hope to succeed in such a vast arena except\\nwith the co-operation of some of the European powers,\\nand that co-operation could not be obtained at this stage\\nof civilization by the mere claim, no matter how lofty, on\\nthe part of the United States that our interest in human-\\nity alone justified such interference. It will be easier for\\nus to avoid war, because it will be easier for us to make\\ntreaties in the interest of peace.\\nThe fallacy of anti-expansion argument under this head\\ncan scarcely be shown better than by calling attention to\\nan extract from a speech of Senator Chilton, in which he\\nsays\\nWe will have to go across the sea and fight battles\\nwith the powers of the Old World at a place which they,\\nand not we, will select.\\nThis quotation suggests two thoughts-. First, that we\\nare likely to have to go across the sea to fight battles\\nwhether we have the Philippines or not, as Dewey s vic-\\ntory in Manila Bay demonstrates. Whenever we shall\\nchance to be at war with any nation, good military and\\nnaval tactics will compel us to strike our adversary wher-\\never she is vulnerable. If that be across the sea, then\\nacross the sea we must go. We could not have won the\\nvictory against Spain at so little expense of money and\\nlife, nor in so short a time had Admiral Dewey not dealt\\nthat stunning blow by sinking Spain s Asiatic fleet.\\nThe second thought suggested by Senator Chilton s\\nquotation is, that no matter whether we do or do not own\\nthe Philippines, if it should become necessary for us to", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 119\\ngo across the sea to fight battles, we may or may not\\nfight at a place which they select. It depends on the\\ncircumstances. Before we owned the Philippines we\\nfought at a place we selected. Now that we own them,\\nif there should be another war, we would fight at the\\nplace we select again if we were attacking a country that\\nhad interests in the East, and if, on the other hand, our\\nadversaries should select the place, it might be the Philip-\\npines, it might be Cuba or Hawaii or the Pacific or Atlan-\\ntic coast. Under any circumstances, however, instead of\\nhaving to go away from home to fight the battles of the\\nEast, we shall be able to fight them close to home, be-\\ncause we are now at home in the Philippines. Senator\\nClay of Georgia says:\\nIf we undertake to cross the ocean and to establish\\ncolonies, we will be driven to an alliance with Eng-\\nland, Russia, Japan and some other foreign power in\\norder to defend our newly acquired possessions.\\nIn the first place, we are not establishing colonies\\nacross the ocean, but are governing a territory in accord-\\nance with our Constitution and legislative enactments.\\nIn the second place, it is begging the question to say\\nthat we shall have to fight to defend the Philippines.\\nThe question is, whether we can afford to fight to de-\\nfend them if necessary, and the answer to that is involved\\nin the. entire discussion of this question. If we have a\\nright there, and ought to be there, then we have this right\\nand this duty, of course, in the face of the fact that if we\\nare attacked there we shall have to defend ourselves. But\\nit seems to me conclusive that with this ownership of\\nproperty we can exact justice from all nations in the\\nEast to a better advantage than if we did not own the\\nPhilippines, and certainly our possession of the Philip-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "120 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\npines will detract nothing from our power to exact jus-\\ntice from the nations of the Western Hemisphere.\\nPessimist has quoted Washington and has attempted\\nto apply it to the present situation. A shallow reading\\nof that portion of Washington s Farewell Address might\\ncarry the thought Pessimist intended to convey, but let\\nus analyze it briefly. In the first place, Washington clear-\\nly commends the extending of our commercial rela-\\ntions. True, he admonishes us to have as little political\\nconnection as possible, but he does not say we should\\nhave no political connection. On the contrary, he im-\\npliedly says that we should have all the political connec-\\ntion which may prove to be necessary; so this quotation\\nfrom Washington must be applied to the Eastern situa-\\ntion in conjunction with the answer to the further ques-\\ntion, how much political relation is needful now, not one\\nhundred years ago, but now at the end of a century of\\nindustrial evolution and marvelous skill and undreamed-\\nof growth and development of American possibilities as\\na world power. How much political connection, I say,\\nis necessary now with the Eastern countries in extend-\\ning our commercial relations? Note the next sentence\\nfrom Washington: Europe has a set of primary inter-\\nests which to us have none or very remote relation.\\nWhatever primary relations referred to by Washington\\nthen which to us have none or a very remote relation,\\nand which may still be found to exist and which may\\nstill be found to have no interest for us, we shall be able\\nto let alone now as then, with the Philippine Islands as\\nwithout them. Some of these concerns which at that time\\nwere essentially foreign may prove to be no longer so.\\nIf after the advice of Washington and a century of experi-\\nence added to it, we should find that it is to our com-\\nmercial and our political advantage to have concern with", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 121\\nthem, who shall say that we should follow the course\\nwhich seemed to be wise a hundred years ago, rather\\nthan the course which seems wise now? Another sen-\\ntence from the extract quoted from Washington: Why\\nquit our own to stand on foreign ground? In giving\\ndue and proper credit to the wise enunciations of states-\\nmen or leaders in any branch of thought, we should give\\nattention to the circumstances under which they spoke.\\nIt should be borne in mind that when Washington gave\\nthis advice England and France were at war. Lafayette,\\nunder the breath of the King of France, had lent succor\\nto America. The hatred of British institutions ran high\\nand the anti-federalists were so bitter in their hatred to-\\nward anything that seemed to smack of royalty that a\\nmost persistent effort was made by the people of the\\nUnited States to force the Administration into an alli-\\nance with France against Great Britain. The Fathers\\nknew, and Washington spoke for the Fathers, that such\\nan alliance would embroil us in a world war. It required\\nthe most cool-headed statesmanship and the highest type\\nof patriotism to so analyze the situation as to allay that\\nfeeling of hatred toward England and in its stead im-\\nplant the doctrine of neutrality toward belligerents, and\\nit was for this purpose that Washington admonished them\\nto attend to home affairs, and not for the purpose of lay-\\ning down specific rules for all future time.\\nSince the next topic presents the converse of the argu-\\nments which I have just made under the present head,\\nI shall, unless there is some further question, proceed\\nto discuss it.\\nPROTECTORATE.\\nPatriot: Having shown that ownership of the Philip-\\npines incurs no greater danger of war than an entire", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "122 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nabsence from them, I shall now attempt to demonstrate\\nthat the establishment by the United States Govern-\\nment of a protectorate over the Philippines would have\\na greater tendency to entangle us with foreign nations\\nthan would the complete sovereignty. The scheme of a\\nprotectorate must be one of two things: either it must\\nleave the nation free to conduct its own internal affairs\\nwithout molestation from the protector, the protector\\nstanding merely between the protected nation and the\\noutside world the true protectorate or, on the other\\nhand, the protected nation must defer to the protector\\nin matters of local concern, as well as in international\\naffairs; but this latter condition is merely a deception\\nbecause while pretending to give independence the pro-\\ntector stands in the attitude of absolute guardian and\\nmaster, able at all times to thwart every independent\\npurpose. This is colonial rule under another name. Since\\nthose who favor a protectorate vigorously declaim against\\na colonial policy, we are forced to presume that they\\nfavor the former of these two conditions i. e., the com-\\nplete local independence and the international subordina-\\ntion.\\nPessimist: It seems to me that you have pictured\\nexactly the kind of government we should establish in\\nthe Philippines. Mr. Bryan says:\\nThe United States can protect them from molesta-\\ntion from without. He also says: The Filipinos are\\nnot far enough advanced to shire in the government of\\nthe people of the United States, but they are competent to\\ngovern themselves.\\nPatriot: The proposition by Mr. Bryan seems rather\\nparadoxical. It seems to me that any people capable of\\ngoverning themselves without the advice and assistance\\nof the United States, would be all the more capable as a", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 123\\npart of the government of the United States, with the\\nright which that connection would give it to our immedi-\\nate counsel and aid. But, adopting for the moment the\\nsuggestion that they are not far enough advanced to\\nshare in our government, does it not follow that in the\\npursuit of their own affairs, without the experience and\\nintelligence of the United States Government, they would\\nmake mistakes because of their inexperience, would re-\\nsort to rash conduct because of their unduly inflated\\npride, and indulge in corruption because of their low\\nideals of honor, all in such manner as to bring them into\\ncontempt in the eyes of other nations, and resulting in\\naffronts, which we, as their protectors, would be bound\\nto resent, or defend them against?\\nPicture, if you can, the position of the United States if\\nwe adopted the policy advised by Senator Teller. He\\nsays\\nI would say to the inhabitants of these possessions:\\nIf you can maintain a government of order for your local\\naffairs, you shall be allowed to do it. I would say to\\nthem in addition: We will, for your good, stand between\\nyou and the European powers who would appropriate\\nyour country and would inaugurate a system of colonial\\ndependence such as England has in India and such as\\nSpain has maintained over you, and we will see that no\\nforeign power interferes with you. And to do that\\nwe must say to them: If you wish to speak to the world\\non foreign affairs, you must speak through us.\\nThis fledgling nation what kind we cannot say, and\\nas a mere protector we would have no right to dictate\\nwould get into all sorts of quarrels, leaving us to act the\\npart of indulgent uncle to degenerate nephew, ever and\\nanon paying off their debts with a little fatherly advice,\\nbut with no power to direct their future course,\\nMr. Jordan, previously referred to, says:", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "m PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nA protected republic is the acme of irresponsibility.\\nIts politicians may declare war against neutral nations\\nsolely to see the wheels go round.\\nPessimist I have a copy of Rev. Jordan s sermon and\\nfind that he endorses the recommendation of Prof. Jones,\\nwhich on this point is as follows Let them fit their\\ngovernment to their own needs with the guarantee of our\\nprotection from outside interference.\\nPatriot: That simply shows the inconsistency of the\\nanti-expansion argument, for the same man favors a pro-\\ntectorate, while admitting that nothing could be more\\nirresponsible.\\nPessimist Well, why not adopt the suggestion of Mr.\\nSchurz and cover the Philippines by a guarantee of neu-\\ntrality on the part of the Powers most interested? He\\nsays this would no*; be difficult to obtain by United States\\ndiplomacy, and that it would secure them against foreign\\naggression.\\nPatriot: Well, let us dissect this proposition. Our\\nGovernment has pride and an honor which it must sustain.\\nIf it makes treaties it must insist upon their fulfillment,\\neven at the cost of war. As before said, the European\\nnations would not recognize so much right on our part in\\nthe Philippines if we had merely entered into an agree-\\nment with them in reference thereto, as they would if we\\nowned them outright. In the second place, the Filipinos\\nthemselves would be more likely to provoke hostilities if in\\ncontrol of their local affairs than if directed by the United\\nStates as a territory. Thus the occasion for war would be\\nmore likely under a protectorate, and our position to de-\\nfend against attack would be less favorable. As a pro-\\ntected government they would have a right to admit into\\ntheir territory any person, or group of persons on any\\nterms. They would be subject to the flattery and bribery\\nof European adventurers who desired to get control of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 125\\ntheir franchises, and so long as this took place under the\\nsanction of their local law, and with the permission of the\\nlocal authorities, we would be powerless to prevent it,\\neven though the insinuation of such foreign influence\\nshould eventually result in the practical bondage of the\\nnatives. The rights of the protected nation, as I have just\\nset forth, can be disputed by no authority. Any curtail-\\nment of those rights would amount to subjugation instead\\nof protection.\\nThe well recognized authority on International Law,\\nW. E. Hall, says of protectorates which differ from colo-\\nnies:\\nThe protected community retains, as of right, all pow-\\ners of internal sovereignty which have not been expressly\\nsurrendered by treaty, or which are not needed for the due\\nfulfillment of the external obligations which the protecting\\nState has directly or implicitly undertaken by the act of\\nassuming the protectorate.\\nAll this responsibility must be upon the United States\\nas a protector of the Philippines. In government, as in\\nmost relations between man and man, there must be a\\nquid pro quo. This condition would leave us no control\\nover the tax budget, and if war was provoked, as it would\\nlikely be, we are handicapped by our limited control and\\nby the danger of foreign influence among the Filipinos\\nthemselves, which might result in a change of their pur-\\npose right while we are in the field fighting their battles\\nor if we should ourselves become engaged in war with any\\nEastern power, we, the protectors of the Philippines, who\\nmust fight at their suggestion, cannot call upon them to\\naid in our defense, for it is one of the rights and privileges\\nof a protected nation to remain neutral even when one of\\nthe belligerents is its protector.\\nDuring the Crimean War the Ionian Islands, protected", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "126 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nby Great Britain, stubbornly persisted in a neutral course,\\nand the right of their position was acknowledged in the\\nEnglish court.\\nPessimist Where is your authority for this\\nPatriot: Fourth Edition of Hall s International Law,\\npage 30. Those who would impose upon the United\\nStates the task of protecting the Philippines are engaged\\nin the anomalous effort to have the United States assume\\nall the burdens connected with whatever Eastern troubles\\nwe may ever have, while disclaiming and denying our-\\nselves of the right to any of the benefits. No, a protec-\\ntorate may be fraught with too much danger and accom-\\npanied by too little means of defense ever to find sanction\\nin the statescraft of America.\\nPessimist Well, what do you propose to say on inter-\\nnational war and neutrality regardless of the Philippines\\nREGARDLESS OF THE PHILIPPINES.\\nPatriot The only ground upon which we can keep out\\nof all danger of international war is that of selfish se-\\nclusion a condition which is so repugnant to American\\npush, enterprise and daring, that he who indulges in the\\nwish for it is a mere political dilletante, and he who ex-\\npresses the hope of it is engaged in idle day dreams.\\nAmerica, with a foreign trade already amounting to two\\nthousand millions of dollars, America, who almost a cen-\\ntury ago made the largest contribution toward the anni-\\nhilation of piracy in the Barbary States America, who\\nwaved her magic wand over benighted Japan and bid her\\narise to new light and life America, who has produced\\nthe inventive genius and the industrial faith and the me-\\nchanical skill to bind this nation with the other nations of\\nthe world by a score of oceanic cables America, who has\\nsaid to Spain You shall not degrade humanity by treat-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 127\\ning men like brutes America to be isolated No, banish\\nthe thought. We are going to stand up as a citizen of the\\nworld of nations that we are, on the one hand taking the\\nresponsibility of such a position and on the other insisting\\nupon our share of the benefits of such citizenship. When\\nthe young gladiator strips and steps into the arena, he\\ndoes it after making up his mind to take the consequences\\nand so when a nation puts up its flag, it does it knowing\\nthat the status of nationality brings with its blessings the\\nperils of war. America has kept in the front rank of\\ndiplomacy, as she has in other accomplishments. She has\\nattended strictly to her own business, though she has con-\\nstantly enlarged the field of her business. Whether we\\nown the Philippines or not, our future, as well as our\\npast, will bring with it the duty to ourselves of exact-\\ning justice from other nations and the duty to them of our-\\nselves rendering justice to all.\\nPessimist But there is more or less apprehension of a\\ngeneral world war in the no distant future. Why should\\nAmerica increase the danger of being drawn into that war\\nby holding on to the Philippines? Senator Bacon points^\\nout the prospect of such a war and says\\nIf mat war comes it will not be confined to the Orient\\nif that war comes it will involve every leading nation of\\nthe world if that war comes, not only will our young men\\nlay their bones upon the distant soil of Asia, but our own\\ncountry will have to stand its defense. When that war\\ncomes there is not a sea-coast city but that will be in\\ndanger of destruction from the allied navies of the world.\\nThis nay be a remote possibility, but if so, it is a possibil-\\nity so fraught with disaster to the United States that T will\\ndo nothing to tempt so dire a fate.\\nWhy will Patriot insist upon bringing such .l to\\nAmerica?\\nPatriot: My answer is three-fold. First, the danger", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "128 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nof this war exists regardless of the Philippines. Second,\\nAmerica will be in better positron to bring to tear her\\ngood offices in the field of diplomacy for preventing the\\nwar, if by ownership of the Philippines she is a recognized\\nmember of the European diplomatic fraternity and, third,\\nsince such a war is even a remote possibility, it is the\\nsacred duty of those charged with the peace and welfare\\nof this Government gradually, but with due facility, to in-\\ncrease our navy and our standing army sufficiently to meet\\nsuch emergencies without disaster to our institutions and\\nif the possession of the Philippines makes the increase of\\nthe army and navy a practical necessity now, and gives the\\nexcuse for such expense without which any increase is\\nalways unpopular then we have in the possession of the\\nPhilippines for this one reason alone an unmistakable\\nblessing, even if for the time being it is to our adversaries\\na blessing in disguise.\\nA further point should be observed: In the event of\\nthis world war it will be greatly to our interest to own\\nthe Philippines. Those islands would be legitimate fight-\\ning ground anyway, and the one on the ground will have\\nan unquestioned advantage.\\nAside from the aggressive nature of America as a force\\nwhich compels our constant intercourse with the world in\\na large way, we should not lose sight of the frequent and\\nalmost constant necessity for resenting the too great or\\nimpertinent aggressions on the part of other countries.\\nIn President Monroe s last annual message he recites the\\ndifficulties and losses incident to the unsettled state of\\nneutrality laws; and in alluding to the war then just\\nclosc v, i between France and Spain, he laments the fact\\nthat ^oth parties had mistreated us. He first calls atten-\\ntion w our resentment by war against Great Britain and\\nsays;", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 129\\nFrom the other by whose then reigning government\\nvessels were seized in port as well as at sea, and the car-\\ngoes confiscated, indemnity has been expected but has not\\nyet been rendered. It was under the influence of the\\nlatter that our vessels were likewise seized by the govern-\\nments of Spain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Naples,\\nand from whom indemnity has been claimed and is still\\nexpected with the exception of Spain, by whom it has\\nbeen rendered. With both parties we had abundant cause\\nof war, but we had no alternative but to resist that which\\nwas most powerful at sea and pressed us nearest at home.\\nIt will thus be seen that ownership of property in the\\nEastern Hemisphere is not essential to national quarrels.\\nThey are quite as likely to be forced upon us without such\\nownership and, indeed, the evidence so far goes to show\\nthat these quarrels are more likely to be forced upon us\\nwithout such ownership.\\nPessimist What evidence goes to show this fact\\nPatriot The history of our country shows that we\\nhave always been annoyed, and that redress for annoy-\\nance has been difficult and slow. Since we purchased the\\nPhilippines, however, all the nations have vied with one\\nanother to show us respect, and but one disturbance has\\noccurred to our commerce the single instance of the\\nBritish seizure of a cargo of American flour in Delagoa\\nBay, for which apology and restitution was made with\\nunprecedented promptness in answer to our first diplo-\\nmatic request. Have I not demonstrated the danger of\\ninternational war to be as great regardless of the Philip-\\npines as when they are taken into consideration and that\\nboth the danger of war and the difficulties of fighting it\\nare greater under a protectorate than with the sovereign\\nownership of the Philippines\\nPessimist: But how can you justify our ownership of", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "130 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthe .Philippines in the light of the Monroe Doctrine, which\\npromises on the one hand to allow no interference on the\\npart of European governments in the Western Hemi-\\nsphere, and on the other hand by implication promises to\\nleave European nations to their own fate and inclination\\nin all other parts of the world\\nMONROE DOCTRINE.\\nPatriot: The Monroe Doctrine, as represented by\\nDemocratic orators, affords another instance in which\\nthere is a studied effort to mislead those who do not take\\nthe pains to analyze the conditions. Application of this\\ndoctrine should be made, first, in the light of comparison\\nbetween the conditions existing at the time of its enun-\\nciation and the conditions existing now and second, the\\napplication should be made by reference to the full mean-\\ning of the language of that Doctrine, studied in all its\\nparts.\\nPessimist: I had no idea that you would hazard an\\nopinion that the Monroe Doctrine has not been violated\\nby our seizure of territory in the Eastern Hemisphere.\\nMr. Bryan says\\nThe Monroe Doctrine, too what will become of it?\\nHow can we expect European nations to respect our su-\\npremacy in the Western Hemisphere if we insist upon\\nentering Asia?\\nYour intimation that our policy in the Philippines does\\nnot contravene the international law, as represented by\\nthe Monroe Doctrine, is the first I have heard since the\\ncontroversy began. Senator Hoar of Massachusetts says\\nThe Monroe Doctrine is gone. Every European na-\\ntion, every European alliance, has the right to acquire\\ndominion in this hemisphere when we acquire it in the\\nother.\\nPatriot: When Pessimist spoke, I was about to take\\nup the question in its logical order. I shall now proceed\\nto make the following points:", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 131\\nFirst That the Monroe Doctrine is not and never has\\nbeen accepted as a tenet of international law.\\nHall on International Law ignores it. Wheaton, an\\nAmerican authority, says\\nThis political formula has been, to a great extent, acted\\nupon by the United States, especially with regard to their\\ntaking no part in European politics. Nevertheless, it\\nstill exists only as a doctrine/ and has not been incor-\\nporated into any legislative enactments or into any con-\\nvention.\\nIt follows from this that the condition described by\\nSenator Hoar as existing now has always existed. Eu-\\nropean nations have always claimed the right to do what\\nthey liked in the Western Hemisphere. They simply\\ndared not exercise that right. The Monroe Doctrine was\\ntherefore effective only by virtue of its sanction in Amer-\\nican virility and American arms.\\nSecond At the time the Monroe Doctrine was enun-\\nciated Spain was endeavoring to extend the Holy Alli-\\nance to the whole of South America, and her efforts\\nseemed in a fair way to succeed. This alliance offered\\na powerful menace both to America and to England, be-\\ncause it would put in the power of Spain all the Latin\\npeoples of the Western Hemisphere, and with her then\\npowerful navy she would have been in a position to make\\nsuch exactions and to offer such insults as her greed, or\\nher bigotry, might prompt her to, both against the inter-\\nests of America and of England. Realizing this danger,\\nGeorge Canning, the renowned English orator and states-\\nman, transmitted a confidential proposal to our Mr. Rush,\\nSecretary of State, and this proposal was, after careful\\ndeliberation and secret conference with the English\\nauthorities, in the language of Justin McCarthy, the his-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "132 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ntorian, Adopted in the interests of England, as well as in\\nthose of the American Republic.\\nPessimist: Do you mean to tell this audience that\\nPresident Monroe was not the author of the Monroe Doc-\\ntrine\\nPatriot: I have so stated, although that is not the im-\\nportant fact of my argument. It matters not who was the\\nauthor, the question is What was the doctrine and does\\nit apply to our present policy\\nPessimist: Does any reputable historian claim that\\nMonroe was not the author?\\nPatriot It is not put in the shape of a claim, but sim-\\nply related as a matter of course. You can verify this\\nstatement by looking in the History of Our Own Times,\\nby McCarthy, or in Mr. Koerner s article on the Monroe\\nDoctrine in Lalor s Cyclopedia of Political Science.\\nIn passing, it may not be amiss to remind the critics\\nof the Administration that President Monroe deemed it\\njustifiable to confer with England, even in a confidential\\nway, on grave matters of international concern.\\nIn the third place, our adversaries who appropriate to\\ntheir own side of the argument all the virtue of the Mon-\\nroe Doctrine, read it only in part and interpret that part\\nin the most narrow sort of way. Let us center our minds\\nfor a brief space upon the language of the doctrine itself.\\nAnd for convenience to this end let me recite that portion\\nof President Monroe s message of December 2, 1823,\\nwhich is generally accepted as embodying the principles\\nof the Monroe Doctrine. It says:\\nIn the wars of the European powers in matters relat-\\ning to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does\\nit comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our\\nrights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 133\\ninjuries or make preparation for our defense. With the\\nmovements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more\\nimmediately connected, and by causes which must be ob-\\nvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The\\npolitical system of the allied powers is essentially different\\nin this respect from that of America. This difference pro-\\nceeds from that which exists in their -respective govern-\\nments and to the defense of our own, which has been\\nachieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and\\nmatured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citi-\\nzens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felic-\\nity, this -whole nation is devoted. We owe it to candor\\nand to the amicable relation existing between the United\\nStates and the allied powers to declare that we should\\nconsider any attempt on their part to extend their sys-\\ntem to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to\\nour peace and safety. With existing colonies or de-\\npendencies of any European power we have not inter-\\nfered, and shall not interfere but with the governments\\nwhich have declared their independence and maintained\\nit, and whose independence we have, on great considera-\\ntion and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view\\nan interposition for oppressing them, or controlling in any\\nother manner their destiny by any European power, in\\nany other light than that as a manifestation of an un-\\nfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war\\nbetween these new governments and Spain we declared\\nour neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this\\nwe have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided\\nno change shall occur which in the judgment of the com-\\npetent authorities of this government shall make a cor-\\nresponding change on the part of the United States indis-\\npensable to their security.\\nPessimist Does this not show clearly that we cannot,\\nin keeping with the American policy, interfere with for-\\neign nations?\\nPatriot If immediately after hearing the Monroe\\nDoctrine recited Pessimist fails to understand, why, how\\ncan you blame people who have one side only pointed", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "134 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nout to them, and its purpose distorted by fervent oratory,\\nfor obtaining the wrong impression? I am determined,\\nhowever, that this audience shall not go away with such\\nmisconceptions.\\nIn the first portion of the doctrine the disaffirmance of\\nour policy to interfere with European powers is based up-\\non the express qualification that they attend to matters\\nrelating to themselves. The necessary inference is that we\\nshould take a hand if they were engaged in matters relat-\\ning to us. Any other interpretation would be an abandon-\\nment of our independence, and as a matter of fact we have\\nrecently taken a hand in European matters, as may be\\nattested by a glance at the humbled pride of that monar-\\nchy which, with its invincible Armada, once boasted its\\njurisdiction over all the waters of the world. Monroe\\nalso makes very plain the purpose of this whole nation\\nto defend our own. Does any one believe that he meant\\nto confine that defense to what was our own at that time,\\nto that which we had then achieved by the loss of so\\nmuch blood and treasure? No, a more reasonable sup-\\nposition is that he would apply it also to whatever we\\nshould in the future achieve or acquire. So we bring\\nthis doctrine to the defense of that world power which fell\\nto our lot by the matchless though almost bloodless victory\\nof Admiral Dewey in Manila Bay.\\nI have been frank to quote fully all that is claimed as\\npart of the Monroe Doctrine, for I believe that it is all\\nreconcilable to the policy of the Administration at this\\ntime when viewed in the light of changed conditions. I\\ndare say we have no adversary who is so abject a wor-\\nshiper of precedents, or so precise a stickler for strict\\nconstruction of precedent, as to lay any blame upon the\\nAdministration for the war so far as it affected Cuba;\\nand yet I make bold to assert, without fear of even an", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 135\\neffort at contradiction, that the declaration of war against\\nSpain in the interest of Cuba was the writing of an\\namendment to the Monroe Doctrine or more sensibly yet,\\nit was the application of modern common sense in the\\ninterpretation of that doctrine. Need I do more in eluci-\\ndation of this claim than to reiterate one sentence of that\\ndoctrine which I recited a moment ago With the exist-\\ning colonies or dependencies of any European power we\\nhave not interfered and shall not interfere.\\nLet those orators who have been so rampant in de-\\nclaiming the efficacy of the Monroe Doctrine reconcile\\nthis language to our recent conduct in interfering with\\na Spanish colony in the Western Hemisphere which ex-\\nisted at the time Monroe wrote.\\nPessimist But you asserted that all of our recent con-\\nduct would square with the Monroe Doctrine.\\nPatriot And so I assert now, for the simple reasons\\nthat the Monroe Doctrine was merely a recommendation\\nto Congress and a declaration to the people as to the policy\\nwhich should be pursued by the United States govern-\\nment as conditions existed then, and not otherwise. This\\nis proved by the further declaration of Monroe that we\\nwould adhere to the neutrality then practiced toward\\nSpain and her combatants provided no change shall oc-\\ncur which in the judgment of the competent authorities\\nof this government shall make a corresponding change\\non the part of the United States indispensable to their\\nsecurity. Monroe realized that questions of this nature\\nmust be left to the solution of men charged with the affairs\\nof government under the conditions prevailing when the\\nsolution might be called for. In the same message Mon-\\nroe said\\nA precise knowledge of our relations with foreign", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "136 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\npowers, as respects our negotiations and transactions with\\neach, is thought to be particularly necessary.\\nWill Pessimist tell this enlightened audience of what\\nconsequence such precise knowledge would be if we are\\nnot to base our international conduct upon it? Why\\nshould we be concerned about our relations with foreign\\npowers if, regardless of these relations, we are to remain\\nsupinely silent in all Eastern matters? I declare, there-\\nfore, that the war with Cuba was a violation of a strict\\nand slavish interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine; but\\nthat neither that war nor its Philippine sequel is a vio-\\nlation of an enlightened and liberal construction. Indeed,\\nin the whole doctrine, there is no specific promise to the\\npowers of Europe that we will not interfere with their\\naffairs. It is merely laid down as not comporting with\\nour policy to do so, but on the other hand we did prom-\\nise specifically there not to interfere with any European\\ncolonies already planted in America.\\nPessimist: But ex- Vice President Stevenson says:\\nThe essence of the doctrine, as understood by the\\nworld then, was, While we forbid the establishment of\\ndespotic governments upon the American continent, we\\nrecognized the corresponding obligation to refrain from\\nany attempt to force our political system upon any part of\\nthe old world.\\nThis, according to my understanding, establishes an\\nimplied promise on our part not to interfere in the East.\\nPatriot: This doctrine, like every other state enun-\\nciation by the founders of our government,- was carried\\nonly so far as the expediency of the times would warrant.\\nIts great ultimate purpose was in the interest of justice;\\nits immediate purpose was to baffle Spain in her effort to\\nbecome the dominant force of the Western Hemisphere.\\nIt went as far as it could toward the alleviation of man-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 137\\nkind then any larger claim of right by the United States\\nas a young country of limited means and a correspond-\\ningly limited naval power would have been nugatory for\\nthe want of the only sanction known to international law,\\nnamely, force. It did that little missionary work well,\\nthough that was all it was strong enough to do. But it\\nwould be no more daring on the part of the powerful\\nUnited States of to-day to declare that no more. monarch-\\nies should be established or fostered anywhere in the\\nworld than it was to make such declaration then with\\nreference to the Western Hemisphere. We have not gone\\nthat far, but we have strongly implied that in future wars\\nand in future colonial rule there shall be no more slaugh-\\ntering of innocent reconcentrados, nor maiming with poi-\\nsoned Mauser bullets, nor devastation of private resources\\nfor the sake of military official enrichment. If it was\\nnoble for the Fathers to take such a bold stand as that\\nannounced by the Monroe Doctrine, how much nobler a\\npart are we playing in the humanitarian evolution of the\\nworld by what will be known and honored in history as\\nthe McKinley Doctrine And yet we have done no more\\nthan duty. We would be unworthy the heritage of our\\nfathers if, with our additional century of enlightenment,\\nour vast revolutions in invention and our almost fabulous\\nwealth and power, we refrain from making correspond-\\ning improvements upon the condition of our fathers.\\nWashington looked forward to the time when we should\\nhave such power that we could defy material injury from\\nexternal annoyance, and again in his language, When\\nwe may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality\\nwe may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously re-\\nspected, and when we may choose peace or war as our\\ninterests, guided by justice, shall counsel. He was too\\nmuch of a statesman to attempt a prophecy as to precisely", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "138 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nwhat neutrality we should in the future resolve upon,\\nor when and under what conditions we would choose\\npeace or war but like the grand statesman that he was,\\nhe left it to the responsible parties in the government at\\nwhatever time they should be called upon to act to deter-\\nmine these great questions as our interests, guided by\\njustice, shall counsel.\\nPessimist: But Senator Daniel says, Our Monroe\\nDoctrine is as much a law as if it were in our\\nwritten constitution. If this be true, I hold that we have\\nno right to violate it even if such holding forces me to\\nregret our freeing of Cuba.\\nPatriot I cited both Hall and Wheaton, acknowledged\\nauthorities on international law, to show that the Mon-\\nroe Doctrine was never regarded as anything else than\\na mere political formula by other nations, and it needs\\nscarcely to be asserted that our own country did not\\nregard it as a law, for if we had we would have pursued\\nthe usual and orderly method of putting it either in the\\nConstitution or on the statute books. The only force\\nthe doctrine has had with European powers was that\\ngiven it by the sanction of American arms, and we can\\ngive the same proportionate force to-day to any enlarge-\\nment of that doctrine which the wisdom of the past, ap-\\nplied to present conditions, may warrant. And I should not\\nbe willing to indulge in the doleful speculation that with\\nall the advantages of the past before us, we are so weak\\nas to be incapable of formulating a new Monroe Doctrine\\na McKinley Doctrine, if you please suited to our\\nchanged conditions and justified by our added strength.\\nIndeed, President McKinley was not the first to make ex-\\nceptions to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1880 Mr. Evarts,\\nSecretary of State, said:\\nThe United States are not averse to having the great", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 139\\npowers know that they publicly recognize the peculiar\\nrelations between them and Liberia, and that they are pre-\\npared to take every proper step to maintain them.\\nAnd the powers heeded our warning.\\nPessimist But Liberia was practically colonized under\\nthe tutelage of our government.\\nPatriot In some sense, yes. But it is not in the Western\\nHemisphere, and you have insisted that the doctrine con-\\nfines us to it. What the Monroe Doctrine really amounts\\nto is an assertion that America will resist the interference\\non the part of any power with what America herself deems\\nto be America s business, and that she in turn will deal\\nout justice to all other powers according to her idea of\\njustice. No other view is rational, and no other view\\ncould stand. Even if the Monroe Doctrine had been en-\\ngrafted in our laws, it has been repealed in part. It is\\na well-settled principle that where two laws conflict the\\nlatter law annuls and repeals the preceding one. And\\nthis would be especially true where, as in the present case,\\nthe latter law is a treaty, because a treaty is the supreme\\nlaw of the land. Whatever may be said, then, of the pre-\\nvious force of the Alonroe Doctrine, our treaty provision\\nthat is, our supreme law enactment stipulating certain\\ncovenants to Spain as to the Philippine Islands compels\\nwhatever interference may prove necessary with foreign\\npowers to preserve the integrity of these covenants.\\nCitizen It seems to me that no further proof is needed\\nto justify our conduct as far as the Monroe Doctrine is\\nconcerned.\\nUncle Sam Is there any different opinion?\\nPessimist: I am not convinced.\\nUncle Sam Is there any one except Pessimist who still\\ndoubts this justification?", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "140 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nChorus of voices No. No.\\nUncle Sam If there is any further doubt, let it be\\nmade known now. Hearing none, I assume that all but\\nPessimist are convinced, and I recommend that we pro-\\nceed to the next topic.\\nSTRONG ARMY AND NAVY.\\nPessimist: One of the objections which we make\\nagainst the Philippine policy is that it necessitates a strong\\narmy and navy. Mr. Bryan says\\nIt is strange that this request for so large an increase\\nin the permanent army should be asked of a peace-loving\\npeople just at the time when the Czar of Russia is urging\\nthe nations of the world to join in the reduction of mili-\\ntary establishments, but strange as it may seem, the Presi-\\ndent not only requests it, but the Republican leaders in\\nCongress seem inclined to grant the request. Progress\\nin Europe, retrogression in the United States.\\nPatriot I would not cast any reflection upon the efforts\\nof nations to minimize the necessity of war; and\\nwhatever may have been Air. Bryan s view at the time he\\ndelivered himself of the opinion you have quoted from,\\nhe certainly would not contend now that either the Czar\\nof Russia or any of those who joined in co-operation with\\nhim had in view anything more than merely to reduce\\nsuch necessity to a minimum. The condition of the\\ncrown, as well as the character of recommendations made\\nby his representatives, proved the limitations of his pur-\\npose. Charity compels this construction rather than to\\ncharge him with insincerity. That recognized internation-\\nal statesman yet remains to be heard from who took seri-\\nously the proposition of disarmament, and the enterprise\\nwith which Russia continued to build her ships and to\\nexert her diplomatic genius in the prospective division of\\nniina to her selfish interest, all conspire to limit any", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 141\\nserious purpose she may have had to the realm of reason-\\nable additions to our international law in keeping with\\nthat human nature which from the dawn of history has\\nexisted, and which all save a few theorists still believe to\\nexist, whereby men and nations subscribe to the first law\\nof nature self-preservation.\\nThe founders of our government were all agreed that\\nwe should surround ourselves with sufficient warlike\\npower to insure peace. George Washington said: To\\nbe prepared for war is the most effectual means to pro-\\nmote peace. This maxim has been subscribed to from\\nthe day it was uttered a century ago until the present\\ntime; and it was ably elaborated by one of America s\\nproud warriors and able statesmen, Governor Roosevelt,\\nin an address before the Naval War College, June, 1897,\\nwhile he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Speaking\\nat that time, this distinguished political philosopher ut-\\ntered a prophetic truth, which he himself later helped to\\nverify, to the effect that modern warfare is decisive. He\\nsays: In most recent wars the operations of the first\\nninety days have decided the result of the conflict. Let\\nus not forget what disastrous fate might have befallen\\nthe United States if we had not happened to be warned of\\nthe plans of the Rebels for building the Merrimac in time\\nourselves to construct the Monitor for its rival and vic-\\ntor. And let us review that sad page in American history\\nwhich records the lack of foresight preceding the War of\\n181 2, freely acknowledged by our ancestors, by ignoring\\nthe admonition, In time of peace prepare for war, and\\nwhich neglect led to severe loss, the burning of our capi-\\ntol, almost civil war among ourselves, and a treaty of\\npeace which was scarcely short of American humility. A\\nnecessary conclusion upon which historians are agreed\\nis, that if we had been prepared for war Great Britain", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "142 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nwould never have provoked it. Governor Roosevelt, in\\nthe address before referred to, said:\\nIn public, as in private life, a bold front tends to insure\\npeace and not strife. In war the mere defensive\\nnever pays, and can never result in anything but disaster.\\nIt is not enough to parry a blow the surest way to pre-\\nvent its repetition is to return it.\\nIf any one doubts Governor Roosevelt s right to speak\\nas one in authority on this question, let me remind that\\none that when we took the aggressive and struck back-\\nby sending Dewey to capture or destroy the Spanish fleet\\nat Manila, this nation had the benefit of the combined\\nwisdom of McKinley as President and Roosevelt as\\nAssistant Secretary of the Navy. Again Governor Roose-\\nvelt says\\nPreparedness deters the foe, and maintains right by\\nthe show of ready might without the use of violence.\\nPeace, like freedom, is not a gift that tarries long in the\\nhands of cowards, or of those too feeble or too short-\\nsighted to deserve it.\\nIt would seem needless to present any argument in\\nfavor of an adequate army and navy, but so much irre-\\nsponsible criticism has been hurled at the Administration\\nfor encouraging the continued growth of these instru-\\nmentalities for peace that some attention to the subject\\nseems warranted. By the presence of adequate force we\\nnot only preserve peace where war may be threatened,\\nbut we are thus enabled to impress upon the world our\\nnotions of neutrality. So familiar is every one with the\\ntruth for which I am contending, that every utterance\\nseems a platitude. Scarcely a message delivered by any\\none of the Presidents from Washington to McKinley has\\nbeen closed without some express or implied approval of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 143\\nan adequate army and navy. Monroe says in his Annual\\nMessage, 1824:\\nIf a system of universal and permanent peace could be\\nestablished, or if in war the belligerent parties would\\nrespect the rights of neutral powers, we should have no\\noccasion for a navy or an army. The expense and dan-\\ngers of such establishment might be avoided. The his^\\ntory of all ages proves that this cannot be presumed, but\\non the contrary, that at least one-half of every century in\\nancient as well as modern times has been consumed in\\nwars, and often of the most general and desolating char-\\nacter. Nor is there any cause to infer, if we examine the\\ncondition of the nations with which we have the most\\nintercourse and strongest political relations, that we shall\\nin the future be exempt from that calamity within any\\nperiod to which a rational calculation may be extended;\\nand as to the rights of neutral powers, it is sufficient to\\nappeal to our own experience to demonstrate how little\\nregard will be paid to them whenever they come in conflict\\nwith the interests of the powers at war while we rely on\\nthe justice of our cause and on argument alone.\\nAgain in the same message President Monroe said\\nTwo great objects are therefore to be regarded in the\\nestablishment of an adequate naval force; the first to\\nprevent war so far as it may be practicable, the second to\\ndiminish its calamities when it may be inevitable. Hence\\nthe subject of defense becomes intimately connected in\\nall its parts in war and in peace for the land and at sea. No\\ngovernment will be disposed in its wars with other powers,\\nto violate our rights if it knows we have the means, are\\nprepared and resolved to defend them. The motive will\\nalso be diminished if it knows that our defenses by land\\nare so well planned and executed that an invasion of our\\ncoasts cannot be productive of the evils to which we have\\nheretofore been exposed.\\nIn another message Mr. Monroe voices the same senti-\\nment in very succinct language It is by our ability to", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "1U PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nresent injuries and redress wrongs that we may avoid\\nthem.\\nPresident Tyler said in his Inaugural Address in 1841\\nIn regard to foreign nations, the groundwork of my\\npolicy will be justice on our part to all, submitting to in-\\njustice from none. With a view to this, the con-\\ndition of our military defenses will become a matter of\\nanxious solicitude.\\nAnd he urges that these should be rendered replete\\nwith efficiency.\\nAnd so I might go on quoting from practically all the\\nPresidents to the same effect.\\nADEQUACY.\\nPessimist: I am ready to concede that we need some\\nsort of army and navy, but it is proposed to make it too\\nlarge. We are threatened with militarism. I saw it sug-\\ngested in an editorial not long ago that there is great\\ndanger of our becoming an army-ridden nation, and that\\nwhen the army is sufficiently increased and brought under\\nthe subjection and discipline of the President, who is its\\ncommander-in-chief, he will use the forces for the pur-\\npose of keeping himself in office that he might even\\ndispense with the formality of election; but if not so\\nbad as that, he would at least see that the vote was influ-\\nenced for him by military menace.\\nPatriot It may be well to divide the question immedi-\\nately in hand into two sub topics First, what kind of\\narmy and navy are adequate second, is there any danger\\nof military excess\\nAdequacy is a comparative term. What was adequate\\nin our army and navy a hundred years ago would not be\\ntermed adequate to-day. For a comparison of this\\nthought, let us take the ordinary walks of life. Look\\naround you and witness the development of necessities,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 145\\nand necessity in the matter of national war footing is\\nsynonymous with adequacy.\\nSmith and Jones are grocerymen in the same town,\\ncatering to the same class of trade, and have no competi-\\ntion outside of themselves. It may be said truthfully that\\nneither of them needs a telephone, but Jones puts one in.\\nTo him it is a luxury, but the moment he has it Smith\\nmust put one in not as a luxury, but as a necessity. In\\nthe country districts many of you remember when a top\\nk u ggy was a rare possession, and an organ or piano\\nscarcely seen at all in any of the country homes. To-day\\nthese are regarded as necessities. Some neighborhoods\\nwent on developing until the pride of others was quick-\\nened, and they purchased these actual necessities which\\nbut a short time ago were mere luxuries.\\nPessimist But if you apply this doctrine to war prep-\\naration where will we stop? Is not the United States\\ndoing wrong in advancing, and thus compelling, the emu-\\nlation and similar advance of foreign nations? Is not\\nthis just the thing objected to by the Czar of Russia when\\nhe declared that there was danger of all the nations arm-\\ning to the teeth, and draining their resources to sustain\\nthe soldiery?\\nPatriot I have already given my opinion of the extent\\nto which the Czar s peace conference might be thought of\\nto advantage, but this question should not be determined\\neither by light remarks about the Czar s intentions, nor on\\nthe other hand should it be left to the fate of mere senti-\\nmentalists, and peace at any price doctrinaires, of which\\nit must be confessed America, like the rest of the world,\\nhas a scattered few. Those few, however, make enough\\ntrouble to require a somewhat larger war footing than\\nwould be necessary without their disturbance. The ques-\\ntion should rather be considered calmly, and in the light of\\nall the facts and circumstances. It is a fact that the", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "146 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 7\\nUnited States, instead of taking the lead and setting the\\n1 example referred to by Pessimist, has not only resisted\\nthe too great increase of war preparation, but has lin-\\ngered a generation behind the other powers of the world\\nand she has paid dearly for it at times. I hold that that\\narmy and navy is adequate which will enforce our just\\nclaims and protect our rights at the minimum of cost in\\nlife and money. The question of expense, therefore, in-\\nfluences the question of adequacy in so far that false\\neconomy in the peace footing of war preparation results\\nin such abnormal expense in the actual clash of arms that\\nthe average expense distributed over both periods is\\ngreater than if sufficient preparation for emergencies had\\nbeen provided in the beginning. Certainly we cannot call\\nthat national economy which calls for such description\\nas is found in Monroe s message of January 50, 1824,\\nwhere he says\\nThe amount of the property of our fellow-citizens\\nwhich was seized and confiscated or destroyed by the\\nbelligerent parties in the wars of the French revolution\\nor of those which followed before we became a party to\\nthe war, is almost incalculable. Two great ob-\\njects are therefore to be regarded in the establishment of\\nan adequate force the first to prevent war so far as it\\nmay be practicable, the second to diminish its calamities\\nwhen it may be inevitable.\\nBut what is adequacy? that is the question. There may\\nbe several tests. One is a comparison with the other\\npowers as suggested before. A standing army of 100,000\\nmen would still be but one out of 800 of our population,\\nwhereas the standing army of Germany is about 1 out of\\nevery 200 of the population; that of England 1 out of\\nevery 180 cf the population, and that of Russia 1 out of\\nevery 150 of the population. In our navy we have a total\\nof 130 effective fighting vessels, or without any qualifica-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? U1\\ntion whatever, we shall have, after the completion of the\\neight fitst-class battleships, four monitors, thirty torpedo\\nboats and sixteen torpedo boat destroyers now under con-\\nstruction, and including all the yachts, steamers, colliers,\\netc., only a total of 242. Germany has, including torpedo\\nboats and torpedo boat destroyers, about 244 vessels in\\nher navy England has about 727, and Russia about 269.\\nBut. we have also our own experience as a criterion\\nand by which to compare our present and future needs.\\nIn 1867 the peace establishment of the regular army of\\nthe United States was put at 54,641 men. In 1893 it had\\nbeen reduced to 27,862 men in 1898 still further reduc-\\ntions had taken place until it numbered but 25,051. At\\nthe beginning of the Spanish-American War it was in-\\ncreased to 27,700 men, and later, for the emergency of\\nwar, to 65,000, and again by Act of Congress March 2,\\n1899, to 100,000 men.\\nPessimist: If it was not wrong and unnecessary to\\nhave a large standing army, why was the great reduc-\\ntion made in 1867 and 1898 a 60 per cent decrease?\\nPatriot: The reason for this reduction forms a part\\nof the answer to the doleful warnings of the peace-loving\\nclaimants to sanctification, and with the permission of the\\naudience I will postpone the statement of reasons for that\\nreduction to a little later period in the discussion. I shall\\nfirst attempt to show that the maintenance of 100,000 in\\nthe standing army is not without precedent in the United\\nStates. It is, indeed, a smaller army in time of war, in pro-\\nportion to our population, and a much smaller army in pro-\\nportion to our wealth than was maintained in 1867 in time\\nof peace. In 1867 our population was, in round numbers,\\n37,000,000, and the estimated aggregate wealth of the\\nnation was $28,000,000,000. It is thought that the census", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "148 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST*\\nwill show a population of 75,000,000 and that the aggre-\\ngate wealth of the country is $100,000,000,000. It will\\nthus be seen that the present army is but one man to 800\\nof population, whereas the army of 1S07 was one man to\\n677 of population, and the ratio of wealth in 1867 to the\\nwealth of 1900 is as I to 3 and yet we now have less than\\ntwo to one of aetual military members. Those who are\\ncriticising President McKinley for doing his plain, patri-\\notic duty are impliedly eritieising Lineoln for that for\\nwhich the world praised him. I have called your attention\\nto the strength of the navy at the present time, or as it\\nwill be in the near future. Our modesty in 1900 is shown\\nfurther by the comparison of the navy to-day with the\\nnavy as it was in 1S64. At that time the national govern-\\nment had more than coo vessels, or over twice the num-\\nber nearly three times the number now in the service.\\nMILITARY EXCESS IMPOSSIBLE IN REPUBLIC.\\nPatriot I shall now address myself to the proposition\\nthat military excess is impossible under a true republican\\nform of government.\\nThose who try to curry favor with the people by alleg-\\ning the danger of militarism when the increase of the\\narmy or navy is suggested, either wilfully magnify the\\ndanger, or else they fail to catch the spirit of representa-\\ntive government. Why has almost every President found\\nit necessary to cultivate a willingness on the part of the\\npeople to provide the necessary strength of army and\\nnavy, and why is it that notwithstanding their constant\\nadmonition, our army and navy have grown unevenly\\nand slowly? The reason is plainly found in the fact\\nthat representatives in a representative government are\\nloath to vote taxes upon the people, and will not do so\\nuntil they are justified by popular opinion. Whenever the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "PAT} UST?\\ntime comes, therefore, tte navy have\\nreached the proper strength, the party advocating a c\\nsation of appropriations for them will be able to ma\\nsuch an appeal to the American people that the ce\\nwill take place. The same calamity prophets busied them-\\nselves in warning the people in the same manner when\\nthey were ing the adoption of our national consti-\\ntution, and they were answered most effectively by Mad-\\nn in one of the Federalist papers m which he\\nsays\\nThat the people and the States shou! a sufficient\\nperiod of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men\\nready to betray both that the traitors should through\\nth: 1 uniformly and systems. pursue some\\nfixed plan for the extension of the military establishment\\nthat the governments and the people of the United Sta\\n[entiy and patiently behold the gathering storm\\nand continue to supply the materials until it should be\\nprepared to bur heir own heads, must appear to\\nevery one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious\\njealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counv\\nfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehension of genuine\\npatriotism\\nThat public servants study to place themselves on rec-\\n1 in fa judicious economy aye, too often in\\nfa^. excessive, and there false economy is\\nevider. the very fact of inevitable reduction in the\\nstrength of our war footing during uninterrupted periods\\npeace. This is the answer to Pessimist s question of a\\nfew moments ago. In f the constant warnings of\\nour patriotic Presidents, uniform growth of the navy and\\narmy has been in ave had to be developed\\nfits and start a sufficient incr:\\nalv anting in the people in til profound peace,\\niherent in Arr nt that repr", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "150 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\natives invariably echo the desire of the people. This\\ncondition, though an inconvenience, is nevertheless jus-\\ntified, because it forms one of the strongest pillars of\\nsafety in the governmental structure. Resort must there-\\nfore be had to the people s consent under extraordinary\\nconditions when their consent is obtainable. When war\\nclouds are gathering in the peaceful sky or amid the actual\\nclash of arms, or while the sad memories of disaster and\\nthe proud deeds of martial heroes linger vividly in the\\nmind, and the moral of needful preparation takes hold\\nupon the imagination all of which conditions prevail in\\na cluster about the immediate events of war at such\\ntimes, and at such times only, will the people sustain their\\nrepresentatives in their honest zeal for public defense.\\nSince opportunities present themselves at rare intervals,\\na President of the United States who neglected to make\\nearnest recommendations at these timely seasons would\\nbe derelict in his duty and open to the just charge of time-\\nserving. He would be indulging in the worst type of\\ncharlatanism imaginable who, for the sake of momentary\\npopularity by display of economy, would neglect the\\nonly opportunities which come in our form of govern-\\nment, of surrounding the people with the means and facil-\\nities by which a little later on they can defend their homes,\\ntheir honor, and the very government itself from the un-\\nforeseen attacks which history teaches us are likely to\\nbe made against a nation prepared for war, and abso-\\nlutely certain to be made against a nation which is un-\\nprepared and as the President would be culpable for\\nsuch neglect, so any man who, occupying a position of\\ninfluence in his community, for the sake of parading his\\nnotions of economy, exerts that influence to thwart the\\nPresident s dutiful effort, is wanting in genuine patriot-\\nism, for patriotism looks to the safety, comfort and hap-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 151\\npiness not alone of the people to-day living, but of all\\nfuture generations.\\nIn 1797-98 the fear of war with France so stimulated\\nthe confidence of the representatives that they authorized\\nthe construction and purchase of 27 vessels. These were\\nnot needed for the purpose designed, for war was averted\\nbut with what honor and glory this navy served the in-\\nterests of this government later on let the story of our\\nintrepid resistance to the Barbary States and of the ser-\\nvice of the few little giant vessels, such as Constitution,\\nPresident, and United States in the War of 1812 relate.\\nIf the fear of war with France had not afforded the oppor-\\ntunity for strengthening our navy, or if the President and\\nCongress had been so craven as to neglect that oppor-\\ntunity, the buccaneering triumphs of the Barbary States\\nmight have continued indefinitely to lay waste our com-\\nmerce at sea, and England s navy, 830 vessels strong,\\nwould have made a more pitiable spectacle of the United\\nStates than she did in the War of 18 12. Need I multiply\\nillustrations to prove the fact that in our government, so\\nfar from there being danger of military excess, exceptional\\nopportunities are essential to sufficient military growth.\\nPessimist But who shall say when we get over the\\nline? Suppose when our military has grown a little\\nstronger and thoroughly disciplined, the President should\\nissue such commands as to use this force to perpetuate his\\noffice? Patriot has not ventured to answer this part of\\nthe objection I made awhile ago.\\nPatriot: I lay it down as a fundamental principle in\\nour government that there can be no such automaton dis-\\ncipline among this free people as would cause a soldier\\nor an officer to commit an act of treason at the command\\nof anybody. The regular army itself would be divided on\\nsuch a proposition, and I should hate to believe that they", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "152 PATRIOT OR PESSIM.IS1\\nwould all be traitors. On the contrary, I would rather\\nbelieve both for the sake of accuracy and my faith in\\ntheir manhood that treason will be the exception. Does\\nanyone doubt that soldiers will refuse to follow the com-\\nmander-in-chief when they differ from him on a great\\nnational question? It has been demonstrated that they\\nwill break the ranks when they are wrong and the Execu-\\ntive right, as witness the division of our regular army in\\nour War of the Rebellion. The suggestion Pessimist\\nmakes contemplates nothing short of treason which would\\nconvulse the entire population, throw the country into\\nrevolution, and draw a distinct line of separation, on the\\none side of which would be those ready to abandon the\\nprinciple of our government and to violate not only the\\nspirit but the letter of the Constitution, which lays down\\nand surrounds with safeguards the methods of election.\\nOn this side of the line would be represented only those\\nwho, by some inconceivable, unimaginable and impossible\\nmagic of thought, would of a sudden conceive a prefer-\\nence for a king rather than for a President for a mon-\\narchy rather than a republic for a despotism rather than\\nliberty and freedom. If abject subservience on the part of\\nthe army to such a condition can by any stretch of the\\nmost lurid imagination be conceived, then on this side\\nof the line would be only the army of 100,000 men at\\nmost.\\nOn the other side of the line would be the patriots who\\nprize the heritage of liberty, freedom and equality, who\\nbelieve in the representative governments, who regard the\\nright of suffrage and the purity of the ballot as a sacred\\ntrust, as binding as an oath before high heaven, and in\\naddition to this there would be lifted against the puny\\nthreat of the 100,000 soldiers the mighty arm of the irre-\\nsistible host of militia made up from the 20,000,000 of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 153\\nfreemen, from each of whom would go forth the defiant\\nappeal made by Patrick Henry Give me liberty or give\\nme death. Does any sane person think that a man capa-\\nble of being selected for the high office of President,\\nwhich is regarded the world over (because it is selec-\\ntion and not by force) the most exalted and the most dis-\\ntinguished honor possible in civic life does anyone, I\\nsay, think that such a man would risk his reputation, his\\ngood name, and, indeed, his life, in such a game as that\\nInsane would be the President who could think of such a\\nventure and no less insane is the man who can picture\\nsuch a thing as remotely probable. No reasoning man\\nbelieves it possible. It is pointed out by our adversaries\\nas a part of that spurious political capital which in a pri-\\nvate corporation would be called watered stock. It repre-\\nsents no value. It is a means of obstruction to the on-\\nward movement of the Ship of State, with objects in view\\non the part of the obstructionist wholly selfish. He hopes\\nwhen the majestic vessel slows up, that he will be able to\\npull his little, old-fashioned craft up beside her and climb\\non and take charge of the pilot house.\\nEvery step forward proposed since the government\\nbegan has been antagonized by the ultra-conservatives,\\nand these adversaries always assure us that we are blindly\\nrushing over a destructive precipice which they, but not\\nwe, can discern, and which will land us in the abyss of\\nmonarchy or anarchy, or some other form of utter ruin.\\nUncle Sam I would like to ask if any one doubts the\\nwisdom and justice of the attitude of the Administration\\nin increasing the strength of the army and navy. Shall\\nI assume from your silence that the President is right?\\nVoices He is right.\\nUncle Sam Then let us proceed to the subdivision of\\nthe discussion which deals with the question of humanity.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "III.\\nQUESTION OF HUMANITY.\\nPessimist Though you seem to have convinced the\\naudience of our legal right to acquire and to govern the\\nPhilippines and though the audience seem also to believe\\nthat it will pay that both labor and capital will be bene-\\nfited, and that the danger of international war and the\\njeopardy of neutrality are less by our ownership than\\nunder a protectorate; and that neither of these dangers\\ncan be avoided regardless of the Philippines and though\\nI stand alone in my belief that the Monroe Doctrine has\\nbeen violated, and that our army and navy are being de-\\nveloped to an unnecessary and dangerous degree of\\nstrength, yet I defy you to convince any of us that the\\npolicy pursued is right in the name of humanity.\\nUncle Sam Patriot has made such suggestions in\\nregard to the order of treatment of the previous topics\\nas to indicate exhaustive reading and thought upon the en-\\ntire subject. Perhaps he has a plan of outline for the sub-\\nject of humanity, or will Pessimist offer an outline?\\nPessimist I see no reason why we should sub-divide\\nthe subject up. It is the trick of a lawyer to tear to\\npieces a single proposition and talk about the parts instead\\nof the whole, and the purpose is the confusion of the\\ncourt and jury. I can say what I have to say under the\\ngeneral subject without cutting it to pieces.\\nUncle Sam I confess my surprise that Pessimist\\nshould discourage analytic thought and discussion. It is\\na subject for regret that so much haphazard, unscientific\\nand therefore irresponsible criticism should be hurled at\\nall efforts in the direction of progress. How a logical\\n154", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 155\\ndivision of a main subject, with the dissection and study\\nof each step in its proper order, showing its connection\\nwith the next step, can result in confusion, I am unable\\nto understand. My own view is that it is precisely this\\nsort of reasoning which leads to the light, and that the\\ncause, however meritorious, which falls into the hands\\nof loose and careless thinkers or men who avoid logic\\nbecause of its unerring index to truth, is the cause which\\nsuffers even at the hands of just courts and juries for\\nthe want of lucid presentation. At least I think we should\\nlisten to Patriot s plan of outline.\\nPessimist Very well, let him spout.\\nPatriot: The question upon which we are about to\\nenter presents itself to my mind in five main divisions.\\nFirst, we can spend some time to advantage in discussing\\nright and duty, both as to Aguinaldo and his followers,\\nand as to the Filipinos in general, and as to the world\\nthen, second, some attention should be paid to humanity\\nas taught by the traditions and precedents of the Fathers.\\nWe should in the third place consider this main subject as\\naffected, so far as it may be properly affected, by gov-\\nernment expediency then, fourth, the specific question of\\nterritorial government in the light of humanity cannot be\\noverlooked and last of all, we should take into considera-\\ntion the effect on American civilization.\\nVoices Very good very good.\\nPessimist I do not see how I can make such a divi-\\nsion, as I have not thought of it before. I have read\\ncharges of unrighteous conduct against the Administra-\\ntion for such unwarranted conduct as the subjugation of\\nthe Filipinos, and I do not believe any one can hear what\\norators have said to this effect without being convinced\\nas I have been convinced and I prefer to take up these\\narguments as they come to my mind and not be annoyed in", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "15G PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthe discussion by rules and regulations, as Patriot has\\nbeen insisting upon from the beginning.\\nUncle Sam I am constrained to say in the interest of\\njustice and fair discussion that Patriot s outlines so far\\nhave been the means of a clearer understanding of the\\nsubject, with no tendency to trammel the thoughts of any\\nnor to baffle the course of proper argument. Truth is\\nthe object of our search, and we cannot discard the pro-\\ncesses of thought and analysis which have approved\\nthemselves to scholars and statesmen since Socrates began\\nto teach merely for the convenience of those who feel a\\ngrievance, but who for their own reasons have neglected\\nand failed to put their grievances in the shape of specific\\nand intelligible indictments. If Pessimist prefers to go on\\nin the rambling sort of way which seems to have been his\\nplan from the beginning, it is not within my province as\\nchairman of the meeting to hinder him but he can have\\nno reasonable objection if Patriot should pursue his order-\\nly and logical course in answering Pessimist s arguments.\\nPessimist may therefore proceed as suits him best.\\nPessimist: I don t care how Patriot answers, but I\\npropose to produce some burning truths that cannot be\\ndenied, no matter how systematic may be his effort. Mr.\\nBryan says\\nImperialism finds its inspiration in dollars, not in duty.\\nIt is not our duty to burden our people with increased\\ntaxes in order to give a few speculators an opportunity\\nfor exploitation it is not our duty to sacrifice the best\\nblood of our nation in tropical jungles in an attempt to\\nstifle the very sentiments which have given vitality to\\nAmerican institutions it is not our duty to deny to the\\npeople of the Philippines the rights for which our fathers\\nfought from Bunker Hill to Yorktown. Our nation has\\na mission, but it is to liberate those who are in bondage\\nnot to place shackles on those who are struggling to be\\nfree.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 157\\nAgain Mr. Bryan says\\nThe main purpose of the founders of our government\\nwas to secure for themselves and for posterity the bless-\\nings of liberty, and that purpose has been faithfully fol-\\nlowed up to this time. Our statesmen have opposed each\\nother upon economic questions, but they have agreed in\\ndefending self-government as the controlling national\\nidea. They have quarreled among themselves over tariff\\nand finance, but they have been united in their opposition\\nto an entangling alliance with any European power.\\nAgain Mr. Bryan says\\nThe Philippines are too far away and their people too\\ndifferent from ours to be annexed to the United States\\neven if they desired it.\\nHe says\\nIf an orator of the Fourth of July dares to speak of\\ninalienable rights, or refers with commendation to the\\nmanner in which our forefathers resisted taxation without\\nrepresentation, he will be warned to keep silent lest his\\nutterances excite rebellion among distant subjects.\\nMr. Bryan asks the painfully-suggestive question,\\nShall we change the title of our Executive and call him\\nthe President of the United States and the Emperor of\\nthe Philippines? Uncle Sam will recall my reference\\nto this sad prospect in our conference at his retreat.\\nAgain, Mr. Bryan asks\\nIf independence is more desirable to our people than\\na colonial policy, who is there or what is there to prevent\\nthe recognition of Philippine independence?\\nCitizen: Pessimist jumps around from one subject to\\nanother so rapidly that I fail to follow him. I am almost\\ndizzy with the effort. It reminds me of looking at a\\nkinetoscope when I was down to New York last summer.\\nI simply hear such a variety of statements following one\\nanother with lightning change that I cannot distinguish\\nbetween them nor grasp the meaning of any of them.\\nPessimist I do not see how any man can be so blind\\nto patriotism as to fail to see in these quotations a faith-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "iv PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST*\\nful warning against the most terrible evils of our time;\\nand what objection can there be to massing these evils\\nand destroying them all at once? Whal is the use of mak-\\ning peace with any of them? Although 1 am frank to say\\nthat I have not pointed out anything like all the wrongs of\\nthe Government, language fails me to depict the terrible\\nevils of our time. When the moneyed men f the coun-\\ntry can eorncr all the money in the United States and\\nlet the poor wage earners starve when gigantic hydra-\\nheaded eorporations hover over the entire country, fas-\\ntening their tentacles upon all the industries and sucking\\nthe life blood out of labor, and when on top of this the\\nPresident of the United States places a crown upon his\\nown head and seats himself upon a throne and conducts\\na devastating and cruel war for the purpose of subjugat-\\ning a foreign people and bringing them under the hated\\nrule of colonial empire, and when men will set themselves\\nup to justify all this infamy in the name of humanity, I\\nthink it is time to call a halt and 1 refuse to be hindered\\nin the missionary work of enlightening the people as to\\ntheir condition of slavery by any set of rules and regula-\\ntions of debate taught by professors in millionaire college.-\\nwhose very positions depend upon their training the\\nyouth of the land to betray our country.\\nUncle Sam I trust, sir, you will not make it necessarv\\nfor me to repeat in public the warnings I felt certain it\\nwas necessary for me to give to you in private about\\nthe degeneration of argument into mere abuse.\\nPessimist: I thought I had some rights at this meet-\\ning. I was to be the principal speaker, and did not sup-\\npose even you would attempt to hinder me in my speech.\\nThe people want to hear the truth, and I propose to give\\nit to them. I care not what Patriot or anybody else may\\nthink, so long as the people are with me I shall continue\\nto preach the gospel of liberty and freedom.\\nUncle Sam Even in the face of propriety of speech\\nI have such an abiding faith in the good judgment of my\\npeople that I shall interpose no objection to your pro-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST L59\\nceeding in the way you have set out, provided they shall\\ndesire to hear you. I appeal to the audience shall he\\ngo on?\\nMultitude- of Voices: No, No! Put him out! Hear\\nPatriot\\nUncle Sam: I trust I interpret the voice of the audi-\\nence rightly when I say that you are willing to hear\\nPessimist also if he will he orderly and respectful in his\\nremarks.\\nVoices Certainly, certainly.\\nUncle Sam You understand, then, Pessimist, that\\nyou are welcome to continue the debate in a fair way. Do\\nyou accept the conditions?\\nPessimist If Patriot will first answer the arguments I\\nhave reproduced from Mr. Bryan I shall then have some-\\nthing more to say, and shall try to say it with that degree\\nof refinement and culture which seems so much to suit the\\ntaste of imperialists, who would like to hobnob with kings\\nand princes.\\nCitizen I have no desire to hobnob with kings and\\nprinces. I want only what is fair and just and economical\\nin government, and I think the rest of the people here feel\\nthe same way. We approve the kind of discussion rec-\\nommended by Uncle Sam, and we do not want any reflec-\\ntions cast upon our taste.\\nPessimist Let Patriot talk awhile.\\nPatriot: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I\\ndeeply regret that anything has occurred to occasion the\\nslightest ill feeling on the part of Pessimist. It was my\\nsincere wish that the discussion might go on with an eye\\nsingle to truth. Neither anger nor passion nor, indeed,\\nimpatience constitutes a suitable vehicle for the convey-\\nance of truth. Reason is the mother of truth, and fairness", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "160 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/\\nits handmaid. I trust that Pessimist will conform to\\nthese views and give us the benefit of his ideas in the\\nresidue of this discussion. I, for one, believe that Ameri-\\ncan manhood has nothing- to fear, even from intemperate,\\nexaggerated and untruthful utterances of demagogues or\\nmisguided partisans, because we do not act until we\\nhave consulted the true oracle of wisdom and tested it\\nby the rule of fairness but it takes longer to accomplish\\nthis desired end against promiscuous and erratic\\ncharges than if these charges are brought intelligently and\\nsincerely.\\nThe arguments, such arguments as they were, set forth\\nby Pessimist, run the entire gamut of our discussion, and\\nindeed, reach out into other fields. For example, he has\\nraised the discussion of the dollar argument, which we\\ndisposed of in the early part of the discussion. He tells\\nus that the Philippines are too far away, after having\\nadmitted our claim with reference to remoteness. Still\\nother of his arguments distribute themselves over the\\nremaining portion of the discussion. He speaks of tax-\\nation without representation, which, it is submitted, can\\nbest be treated in connection with American Traditions\\nand Precedents. He charges us that we have entered\\nupon a colonial policy, which comes under the topic of\\nTerritorial Government he refers to the entangling alli-\\nances, which has already been treated in part as a question\\nof fact under the topic of International War and Neutral-\\nity, and, which may further properly be treated as a ques-\\ntion of humanity under the topic of Right and Duty as\\nto the world. And so I see no way to give this audience\\nthe benefit of my views except to take up these questions\\nin the order indicated by me awhile ago and since Pessi-\\nmist lias requested me to talk awhile, I invite your atten-\\ntion to the first topic under the question of Humanity.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 1(31\\nRIGHT AND DUTY.\\nPatriot In order to a still more clear understanding\\nof this topic, I suggest that we consider it under three\\nsub-topics. First, as to Aguinaldo and the Insurgents\\nand I would like to ask Pessimist if he has anything to\\noffer at this particular juncture.\\nAS TO AGUINALDO AND INSURGENTS.\\nPessimist I would like to read a passage from Rev.\\nVan Dyke s sermon. He says\\nNo party, no administration, could have received the\\nloyal support of the whole people unless it had written\\non its banner the splendid motto, Not for gain, not for\\nterritory, but for freedom and human brotherhood. That\\navowal alone made the war popular and successful for\\nthat cause alone Christians could pray with a sincere\\nheart, and the mothers give their sons to death by slaugh-\\nter and disease-, and lovers of liberty take up the unselfish\\nsword.\\nLet us see how much a true devotion of analysis will\\naid Patriot in replying to this.\\nPatriot No reply is necessary. I most heartily sub-\\nscribe to it, and if this discussion results in demonstrating\\nthat the war in the Philippines is for gain and for territory\\nonly, and is against freedom and human brotherhood, then\\nI shall vote success to Pessimist in all the claims he makes.\\nBut it is easily demonstrable that the war and the Ameri-\\ncan control of the Philippines make for freedom and\\nhuman progress, while incidentally it results in gain and\\nadded territory. We should not lose sight of our prop-\\nerty rights in the Philippines which the former part of\\nthis discussion has demonstrated, and we shall not fail to\\nsee that in asserting our property rights we are perform-\\ning the highest duty and recognizing the most salutary", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "162 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nright of Aguinaldo and all the other tenants of our prop-\\nerty there. The trouble with Pessimist is that he confuses\\nliberty with ownership of property. When did we adopt\\nthe leveling system of anarchy which contends that no\\nman is free who is bound to recognize a superior author-\\nity The moment we admit that Aguinaldo and the insur-\\ngents, who are in possession of a part of the Philippines,\\nshould be pronounced the owners of the islands when the\\ntitle changed hands, we must, to be consistent, say to\\nevery tenant of real estate Watch the records of trans-\\nfer, and if your landlord should ever sell this property\\ninstead of making attornment to the purchaser, assert\\nyour claim as owner. Such advice might have been ac-\\nceptable properly enough in the Place de la Concorde dur-\\ning the Reign of Terror, but in America, where the rights\\nof property are held sacred, no such advice will ever be\\ngiven by any. one in authority, and it would not be accept-\\ned by the tenant himself if it were given. Such advice is\\nof the same ilk as that which recommends that the prop-\\nerty of the industrious and frugal should be divided up\\nequally with the idle, shiftless and degenerate.\\nPessimist But Aguinaldo and the other Filipinos are\\nlaying claim to their own native soil, to which I contend\\nthey have the right as against the Americans.\\nPatriot: Once more I declare that our possession of\\nthe Philippines is by consent of the Filipinos, but, in addi-\\ntion to this fact, it is in keeping with the progress of\\ncivilization. History scarcely reaches back far enough to\\ndetermine the right of title to any territory anywhere on\\nthe question of priority. If we are to condemn ourselves\\nfor taking territory for the pupose of civilization, then we\\nmust place the blame futher back, because we have in-\\nherited that idea from our ancestors, and he who quarrels", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT UK PESSIMIST t 163\\nwith President McKiniey for his policy in the Philippines\\nwould quarrel with George Rogers Clark for invading the\\nterritory of which the State where we are holding this\\ncelebrated meeting is a part. He would, by implication,\\nsay that this great garden spot of the Central States ought\\nstill to be a part of the Province of Quebec. He would\\ncall Pontiac a patriot as he does Aguinaldo, he would\\ncondemn the French and Indian War of 1754 and call\\nMajor Washington a despised imperialist for trying to\\ncapture Fort Duquesne. But his sophistry would carry\\nhim further back, and condemn the Indians themselves\\nbecause they drove out and exterminated the Mound\\nBuilders. Indeed, he could not be sure that the Mound\\nBuilders themselves were the rightful occupants of the\\nsoil, for perhaps they in turn drove out some other peo-\\nples. Such is the folly of trying to square the conduct of\\nprogressive civilization with puristic, holier-than-thou\\ntheories in the hands of demagogues. There is a prac-\\ntical side to American nature which seems to mete out\\njustice, though it must sometimes ride over those who\\nrefuse to progress. Had Aguinaldo done nothing to de-\\nserve our animosity he would still have no right nor claim\\nupon our duty for any ownership in the Philippines out-\\nside of that ownership which belongs to the citizens of\\nother territories, legally and properly acquired and held\\nby the United States.\\nPessimist: Do you mean to say that Aguinaldo is\\nat fault?\\nPatriot I certainly do declare it. He plotted an as-\\nsault upon the American army.\\nPessimist I don t believe it. Our soldiers fired the\\nfirst shot.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "164 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nPatriot That proves nothing. We fired the first shot\\nin the war with Spain.\\nWHO PROVOKED THE PHILIPPINE WAR?\\nPatriot The real question is not who struck the first\\nblow, but who, according to the code of national honor,\\nmade the first blow necessary? I therefore admit with-\\nout discussion that we did fire the first shot, but it was\\ndone after the most wanton provocation on the part of\\nthe insurgents.\\nPessimist They were acting within their rights. They\\nwere insisting upon that recognition which had been\\npromised by our consul-general at Singapore through\\nAguinaldo, and when they saw they were going to be\\nsubjugated, and that the success of America meant not\\nthe riddance of a master but a change of masters, they\\navailed themselves of their right to protest. They had\\nno assurance from the President, such as the Cubans\\nhad, that our purpose was in the interest of humanity\\nand not territorial aggression. Why should the President\\nrefuse to speak? Why should Congress, when it had\\nthe opportunity, refuse to pass the Bacon Resolution,\\nwhich specifically outlined the future policy of the United\\nStates in the Philippines and who can blame Aguinaldo\\nand his compatriots for protesting against our conduct\\nwhen we thus refused to announce our purpose? The\\nprotest made by Aguinaldo and his soldiers was not such\\nas should cause our soldiers to fire upon them.\\nUncle Sam The charge Pessimist makes that our sol-\\ndiers fired without justification is a serious one. It is\\nperfectly admissible in this discussion, if true; but it\\nshould be accompanied by unquestionable proof or else\\nbe left unmade.\\nPessimist I can prove it by letters from the boys at\\nthe front, and by Senator Hoar, Senator Pettigrew, Mr.\\nBrvun and a number of other eminent authorities.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 165\\nPatriot In order to settle this question, permit me to\\nquote from the report of the Philippine Commission, offi-\\ncially made in Washington, Nov, 2, 1899, by the Com-\\nmissioners, J. G. Schurman, George Dewey, Charles\\nDenby and Dean C. Worcester. You can get a full copy\\nof this report if you will drop a postal card to the Secre-\\ntary of State, and it is well worth reading, because it is\\nnot hearsay, but official testimony and conclusive proof of\\nthe situation in the Philippines. That report says\\nAll manner of abuses were indulged in by the Insur-\\ngent troops, who committed assaults and robberies, and,\\nunder the order of Gen. Pio del Pilar, even kidnaped\\nnatives who were friendly to Americans and carried them\\noff into the mountains or killed them. In the interest of\\nlaw and order it became necessary to order the Filipino\\nforces back, and this order made them angry.\\nThe Report then relates the organization of the popu-\\nlar clubs in Manila and vicinity under military order\\nfrom Aguinaldo, the object of which clubs was to pro-\\nvoke bitterness toward the Americans, and to attack us\\nfrom within Manila while the regular Insurgent troops at-\\ntacked us from without. Again the Report says\\nIt is now known that elaborate plans had been per-\\nfected for a simultaneous attack by the forces within and\\nwithout Manila. A signal by means of rockets\\nhad been agreed upon, and it was universally understood\\nthat it would come upon the occurrence of the first act on\\nthe part of the American forces which would afford a pre-\\ntext and in the lack of such act, in the near future at all\\nevents.\\nThe Report then goes on to show a most per-\\nsistent and hateful effort on the part of the Insurgents to\\ndraw our fire, violating the orders of our officers and then\\nopenly calling our soldiers cowards for not firing. In\\norder to further facilitate their preparation for the secret", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "166 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nattack, they pretended a desire for peace by diplomacy,\\nand time after time sought conferences with our officers.\\nSix sessions were held, during all of which Aguinaldo\\nwas secretly advising those friendly to him to seek\\nrefuge outside the city. And now note how it came that\\nthe brave boys from Nebraska, acting as they believed in\\nthe interest of patriotism and in the interest of right, fired\\nupon these Filipino Rebels who were insulting our flag,\\nand who were at the same time being advised by Mr.\\nBryan, also of Nebraska, that they had a right to do so.\\nThe Report says\\nOn the evening of the 4th of February an Insurgent\\nofficer came to the front with a detail of men and at-\\ntempted to pass the guard on the San Juan bridge, our\\nguard being stationed at the west end of the bridge. The\\nNebraska sentinel drove them back without firing, but a\\nfew minutes before nine o clock that evening a large body\\nof Insurgent troops made an advance on the South Da-\\nkota outpost, which fell back rather than fire. About the\\nsame time the Insurgents came in force to the east end of\\nthe San Juan bridge in front of the Nebraska regiment.\\nFor several nights prior thereto an lieutenant in the In-\\nsurgent army had been coming regularly to our outpost\\nnumber two of the Nebraska regiment and attempting to\\nforce the outpost back and insisting upon posting his\\nguard within the Nebraska lines and at this time and in\\nthe darkness he again appeared with a detail of about\\nsix men and approached Private Grayson of Co. D, 1st\\nNebraska Volunteers, the sentinel on duty at Outpost No.\\n2. He, after halting them three times without effect,\\nfired, killing the lieutenant, whose men returned the fire\\nand retreated.\\nIf anyone doubts the conspiracy set on foot by Agui-\\nnaldo to kill indiscriminately men, women and children,\\ncombatants or non-combatants alike, who might happen\\nto be in Manila, let him pay attention to the next sen-\\ntence of the Report", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 167\\nImmediately rockets were sent up by the Filipinos and\\nthey commenced firing all along the line. And\\nabout four o clock on the morning of February 5 the\\nInsurgents again opened fire all around the city and kept\\nit up until the Americans charged them and drove them,\\nwith great slaughter, out of their trenches.\\nSo much for an authentic statement of the facts. Hav-\\ning heard the facts, you, ladies and gentlemen, have a\\nright to your own opinions but it may not be amiss if I\\nquote you the expert opinion of the Commissioners them-\\nselves. They say:\\nDeplorable as war is, the one in which we are now en-\\ngaged was unavoidable by us. We were attacked by a\\nbold, adventurous and enthusiastic army, and no alterna-\\ntive was left to us except ignominious retreat.\\nBear in mind that the evidence upon which this opinion\\nis based is of the highest order. The mails have been\\nloaded with letters from the boys to the same effect, and,\\nas stated in the earlier part of this discussion, if we were\\ncompelled to resort to this sort of testimony, both the\\nearnestness and the number of communications support-\\ning the Administration would equal, if they did not ex-\\nceed, those opposing them but I have chosen rather to\\nrest the case upon the kind of testimony which a court\\nwould receive and which appeals most strongly to genu-\\nine seekers after truth in all such cases.\\nUncle Sam: Will Pessimist now claim that our sol-\\ndiers were unjustifiable in firing?\\nPessimist: Perhaps as soldiers they could do noth-\\ning else, but the policy of the government which com-\\npelled them to fire was wrong, and therefore I contend\\nthat, going back further, it can be shown that the Amer-\\nicans, and not Aguinaldo, provoked the war. They had\\nbeen told that victory for us meant victory for them,\\nand when they began to doubt this and called upon", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "168 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST:\\nthe President to declare his policy lie refused to do so.\\nThey were, therefore, justified in resorting to force.\\nPatriot: Waiving the question of brutality and\\nAguinaldo s plan of butchering innocent and alleged\\nguilty alike, which was perpetrated, and as far as pos-\\nsible executed by the insurgents, I undertake to say that\\nall the assurances authoritatively made by the United\\nStates Government have been carried out in a way that\\nis satisfactory to the great majority of the Filipinos, as\\nI shall prove a little later on, though naturally it does\\nnot meet with the precise wish of Aguinaldo and his co-\\nadventurers who had in mind the establishment of a\\ndespotism under the name of republic; and I make bold\\nstill further to assert that even if our purpose had not\\nbeen carried out at that time, the demands of Aguinaldo\\nfor a declaration of purpose were premature and unrea-\\nsonable, because in the very nature of things we had no\\nopportunity, up to that time, to ascertain facts sufficient\\nupon which to build the administrative purpose,, and for\\nthe further reason that the declaration of civil purpose*\\nduring the continuance of war, or under the threat of war,\\nwould have been without precedent. Such a course be-\\nlongs to the nation suing for conditional peace rather\\nthan to the nation whose just cause and strength of\\narms both compel and enable it to exact unconditional\\nsurrender.\\nInsurgent sympathizers in the United States have acted\\nas if they would hold a stop-watch over the President,\\nconstituting themselves the judges, not only of what the\\nPresident, in his executive discretion, should do, but\\nwhen he should do it, and while mercilessly condemning\\nhim for not acting hastily and upon partial or imperfect\\ninformation, they themselves, in the very act of con-\\ndemning him, do so upon mere guess as to the situation.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 169\\nThe Bacon resolution was so great an interference with\\nexecutive authority in time of war as almost to entitle\\nit to be called impertinent. No one could doubt its ten-\\ndency to aggravate war conditions, just as the repeated\\nefforts to compel President Lincoln to outline his recon-\\nstruction plans before the War of the Rebellion was\\nover made the termination of that war more difficult and\\nmore expensive. In trying to ascertain who provoked\\nthe Philippine war these questions must be taken into\\nconsideration.\\nThose who insist upon doubting the loyal purpose of\\nthe President and who attempt to wring from him in ad-\\nvance an expression which he should be allowed to\\nwithhold until the restoration of peace, are no less\\nabsurd than the youth who, having suddenly reached\\nthe first stages of manhood in the opinion of others, but\\nhaving grown to full stature of body and mind in his own\\nopinion, conceived it to be the proper and smart thing\\nto discipline his father; and so he requested his father\\nto make a new declaration of duty toward his neighbors,\\nand threatened that unless he made it in public he would\\ninform the neighbors that they had a right to fall out\\nwith him and call him a traitor to the traditions of the\\nfamily and an ingrate in the fraternity of neighbors.\\nJust compare for one moment the quality of mind and\\nsoul in the man who will thus embarrass the govern-\\nment and question motives in such rank haste with the\\nquality of mind and soul in Admiral Decatur, who said:\\nMy country! May she always be right; but right or\\nwrong, my country!\\nPessimist. But, as Mr. Bryan has said:\\nOur nation owes it to the nations with which we have\\ndealings, as well as to the inhabitants of Cuba, Porto\\nRico and the Philippines, to announce immediately what", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "170 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nit intends to do respecting the territory surrendered by\\nSpain.\\nPatriot: Whatever may have been the supposition on\\nthe part of Anti-Expansionists a year ago, it is now cer-\\ntainly plain to everybody that the majority of the Fili-\\npinos were satisfied, and are to-day satisfied, with the\\ndeclaration of purpose which was made. The attitude\\nof the Administration all along has been clearly under-\\nstood by those who were not looking for little flaws, to\\nbe the same as that announced by the President in his\\nOcean Grove speech:\\nPeace first; then, with charity for all, establish a gov-\\nernment of law and order, protecting life and property,\\nand occupation for the wellbeing of the people who will\\nparticipate in it under the Stars and Stripes.\\nIt is no surprise that the people who insisted upon a\\npremature declaration of purpose immediately upon the\\nannouncement just quoted, began to question the Presi-\\ndent s sincerity in the utterance; but in the second place,\\nreplying to the quotation which Pessimist just made from\\nMr. Bryan, no nation owes anything to a hostile nation,\\na rebellwus faction nor to a seditious person. To estab-\\nlish such precedent would immediately give the right of\\nsecession not alone to territory owned by the United\\nStates, where all the people desire it, but where a self-\\nconstituted faction of pretended rulers make the demand.\\nPessimist: But Aguinaldo had been promised inde-\\npendence for the Filipinos.\\nSTATUS OF AGUINALDO.\\nPessimist: Mr. Bryan says, in one of his articles on\\nImperialism\\nIn the formal protest filed with the Peace Commis-\\nsioners in Paris, the representatives of Aguinaldo assert", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? m\\nthat they received friendly assurances from the United\\nStates officials, and acted upon those assurances in co-\\noperating against Spain.\\nPatriot: Over against the testimony which Mr. Bryan\\nhas seen fit to accept, namely, that of the emissaries of\\nthe rebels themselves, I should like to impose the testi-\\nmony of the Philippine Commission, which accepts and\\nendorses as a committee the following statement of Ad-\\nmiral Dewey: No alliance of any kind was entered into\\nwith Aguinaldo, nor was any promise made to him then\\nor any other time.\\nPessimist: But did not our consul-general, Mr. E.\\nSpencer Pratt, at Singapore, send Aguinaldo to Admiral\\nDewey to assist him in putting down the Spaniards, and\\ndid not General Anderson treat him as an ally? And\\nwould Aguinaldo have aided us with any other under-\\nstanding?\\nPatriot: Taking up Pessimist s questions one at a\\ntime, I should say in the first place that Aguinaldo would\\nnaturally act with the Americans to destroy the power of\\nSpain, since it could be destroyed in no other way, and\\nsince he had in mind, as subsequent events proved, the\\nsubtle purpose to seize the fruits of the victory from the\\nAmericans when it should have been achieved. I have\\nread you what ought to be accepted as sufficient evidence\\nand, indeed, sufficient authority upon which to base\\nour conclusions; but I may add in answer to your last\\nquestion, first, that if Mr. Pratt, in sending Aguinaldo\\nto Dewey made any promise of independence, he ex-\\nceeded his authority specifically given by the Secretary\\nof State, and such, promise, therefore, would not be bind-\\ning upon this government. It would not be bind-\\ning even if Mr. Pratt had not been instructed to refrain\\nfrom such promise. It would be binding only if made", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "172 PATRIOT GR PESSIMIST?\\nwith the President s affirmative sanction. But Dewey\\npromised Aguinaldo nothing he merely used him as a\\nvolunteer assistant without compromising the sov-\\nereignty at home.\\nPessimist: This does not agree with Aguinaldo s rep-\\nresentation as was shown by Senator Pettigrew s recent\\nstatements in the Senate.\\nPatriot: You seem to forget the reply to Senator Pet-\\ntigrew by Senator Lodge, which left Aguinaldo s sym-\\npathizers no ground to stand on; and in addition to the\\nargument, Senator Lodge read the following letter, writ-\\nten as late as Jan. 30, 1900, by Admiral Dewey himself:\\nWashington, Jan. 30, 1900.\\nDear Senator Lodge The statement of Emilio Agui-\\nnaldo, as recently published in the Springfield Repub-\\nlican, as far as it relates to me, is a tissue of falsehoods.\\nI never promised directly or indirectly independence for\\nthe Filipinos. I never treated him as an ally, except to\\nmake use of him and the soldiers to assist me in my\\noperations against the Spaniards. He never alluded to\\nthe word independence in any conversation with me or\\nmy officers.\\nThe statement that I received him with military hon-\\nors or saluted the so-called Filipino flag is absolutely\\nfalse. Sincerely yours,\\nGeorge Dewey/\\nWhom will the people believe Senator Lodge, cor-\\nroborated by Admiral Dewey, or Senator Pettigrew, cor-\\nroborated by Aguinaldo?\\nChorus of Voices: Lodge and Dewey, of course.\\nPessimist: But why did not General Otis yield to\\nAguinaldo s request for a cessation of hostilities and for\\nthe establishment of a neutral zone between our armies\\nand the Filipino insurgents. Aguinaldo explained that\\nthe firing had been a mistake,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 1?3\\nPatriot: Of course, after this treacherous effort to\\nlead our soldiers into ambush had met with a dismal fail-\\nure, the same treachery prompted him to try by other\\nmeans to accomplish his wanton purpose. In other\\nwords, if he could win by surprise and attack, all well,\\nbut if that fail, then he would resort to crafty diplomacy.\\nOf course, General Otis would not yield. No American\\ngeneral would submit to such trifling and such humility.\\nNot to demand unconditional surrender in such a case\\nwould be to cast an unjustifiable reflection upon the name\\nof America s most illustrious warrior General Grant\\nwho, in answer to Buckner s request for a parley at Ft.\\nDonelson, said: No terms except an unconditional and\\nimmediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move\\nimmediately upon your works. This process of obtain-\\ning peace was met by General Buckner in the same spirit\\nas was General Otis plan of securing peace by conquer-\\ning and not fooling with the enemy. General Buckner,\\nin yielding, said to General Grant that he had decided,\\nnotwithstanding the brilliant success of the Confeder-\\nate armies yesterday, to accept the ungenerous and un-\\nchivalrous terms which you propose. As Grant was\\njustified by the American people in demanding uncon-\\nditional surrender when he possessed the power to exact\\nit, so will the conduct of General Otis be commended\\nby all who admire American courage and believe in\\nAmerican justice.\\nIn the next place, the mere fact that Aguinaldo and\\nhis associates aided in putting down the Spanish war\\ngives him and his chiefs no right as against the great\\nbody of Filipinos. Indians and Indian chiefs have aided\\nus against the British, but that did not make allies of the\\nIndians. It did put upon us the duty of doing justice\\ntoward the Indians, and perhaps of rendering special", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "174 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f\\nfavors to the persons giving us aid, provided always that\\nthey do not forfeit their claims upon us by treachery or\\nsome other act of illegality which we could not look upon\\nwith favor. If the act of accepting aid gives the one ren-\\ndering aid the right to dictate the terms of a settlement,\\nthen let no nation accept the aid of an individual or a\\nnation unless it is ready to yield up its independence.\\nAguinaldo s position from the time the treaty was\\nsigned if not, indeed, from the time Manila was cap-\\ntured, was precisely that of any inhabitant of any other\\nterritory of the United States who puts himself in oppo-\\nsition either by protest or by force of arms, or by vote,\\nto the authority of the United States in that territory;\\nand no amount of bluster or sentimentalism can wreathe\\nfor him a garland to cover up the scar of treason which\\nhis own stubbornness has fixed upon his rebellious head.\\nAS TO FILIPINOS AS A WHOLE.\\nPatriot: It is the belief of the Administration that the\\nFilipinos, as a whole, desire the government which the\\nUnited States has arranged to administer over that coun-\\ntry as our territory. If this be true, then the consent\\nof the governed theory literally interpreted would make\\nit incumbent upon the United States to do what it is\\ndoing. Assuming for the moment that this is true, but\\npostponing proof to a later point in the discussion, we\\nare right.\\nPessimist: But suppose you cannot prove it.\\nPatriot: I can and shall by such evidence as would\\nbe acceptable to a reasonable man; but even if the proof\\nshould be considered imperfect, temperate judgment\\nwould be suspended until sufficient time shall have\\nelapsed for the full and satisfactory proof to be adduced,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t 175\\nif it can be adduced. Moreover, since the acquisition of\\nthe territory and our control over it have the sanction of\\nlegal right, the burden rests upon those who oppose our\\ncontrol to show that the majority of the people oppose\\nit, and not upon us to show that they favor it.\\nBut when we come to discuss a little later on the char-\\nacter of the people themselves, we will, I think, find justi-\\nfication for carrying out the policy which the law of our\\nown land and of all nations approves, even if the majority\\nof the Filipinos did not approve it.\\nIt is our duty to lift them up and put them on a higher\\nplane of civilization.\\nPessimist: If they are happy and contented without\\nour aid, what business have we to interfere with that\\nhappiness and contentment?\\nPatriot: Contentment is not necessarily an accom-\\npaniment of the highest life. Indeed, it is thought by\\nmany philosophers that it is detrimental to progress.\\nThe pleasure of achievement leaves no room for content-\\nment with the things already achieved. The moment one\\nterrace is reached in climbing the mountain of civiliza-\\ntion, the eye is cast upward to another, and still another,\\nand the mind is not content so long as there are higher\\npossibilities. This is true both of men and nations; and\\nwhere the cosmic life comes in conflict with the individual\\nlife, the individual must give way in order that society\\nmay move on. The small society in turn must give way\\nin order that the large may move on. When the Terri-\\ntorial government of Indiana was established in 1800 the\\npeople complained, saying that it imposed upon them\\ntaxes for officials which prior to that time they had been\\nable to avoid; but the larger society, that of the nation\\nitself, took the matter in hand, and as good reasons", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "176 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nmust perforce give way to better, this little society with\\nits narrow view was forced to yield, and the result was\\na forward step in cosmic life. Law and order soon pre-\\nvailed against irresponsible interference of one person\\nagainst another, or one neighborhood against another;\\norganized force was built up to oppose the savage upris-\\nings all around the neighborhood; schools were estab-\\nlished and paid for out of the taxes, which, though also\\nopposed by a large percentage of the people perhaps\\nthe majority who had not come to realize the value of\\neducation, nevertheless in the end proved a great bene-\\nfaction to the people of the territory, and finally the\\nState and Nation. Had Mr. Bryan been in the forum at\\nthat time, his voice, undoubtedly, would have led the\\nchorus against this practical, common-sense advance,\\non the sentimental ground that the people in the terri-\\ntory had a claim upon the United States Government\\nby right and duty which should allow them to govern\\nthemselves in their own imperfect way.\\nPessimist: But you forget that we had an alliance with\\nthe Filipinos. Mr. Bryan says:\\nMust we make subjects of the Filipinos now because\\nwe made allies of them in the war with Spain? France\\ndid not recognize any such obligation when she helped\\nus throw off British supremacy.\\nPatriot: I have already shown that there was no\\nalliance. But addressing myself to Mr. Bryan s refer-\\nence to France, I would say that if, on the conclusion of\\nour war with Great Britain, a band of Americans had\\nturned upon Lafayette and his French compatriots, and\\nwith insinuations of cowardice and other insults had\\ncompelled them to fire upon those Americans, such con-\\nduct would have been just cause of war against those", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 177\\nAmericans by France; and this is the precise situation\\nnow. If, in the illustration given, the United States had\\nsupported the band of Americans in their insult against\\nthe French, the cause of war would have been against\\nthe United States. I believe it will be shown to the\\nsatisfaction of the people here that the Filipinos have\\nnot supported Aguinaldo and the insurgents, and that\\nwe are pursuing our original policy in the government\\nof the Filipinos not against their will, but in conformity\\ntherewith. All admit that we have the legal right to take\\nthe territory and that we have the legal right to govern\\nit. But even those who on moral grounds oppose our\\ngoverning the inhabitants admit our moral right to take\\nthe territory for the ultimate good of the Filipinos. How\\nmuch time, I would ask, have we a right and duty to\\nconsume in working out their good? I answer that even\\non this ground, waiving for the moment our duty to our-\\nselves and to the rest of the world, and even waiving the\\nquestion of their consent, we have the right to keep them\\nuntil, in our judgment, that good has been worked out,\\nwhether the time required be a year, a decade, or a\\ncentury.\\nAnd right here I would like to quote a word from\\nBishop Spalding. He says:\\nAt the present moment America, if simple truth may\\nbe uttered without incurring a suspicion of conceit, repre-\\nsents the general tendency and sentiment of the modern\\nage more than any other country.\\nAgain he says:\\nDemocracy itself is not an end, but a means. The\\nend is a nobler, wiser, stronger, more beneficent kind\\nof man and woman,\\nNow in the first place the government we are giving\\nthe Filipinos is a representative government to the same", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "178 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.\\nextent as that we are giving to other of our territories.\\nAnd in the second place, if it is not a pure democracy of\\nand by themselves, it bears the test applied by Bishop\\nSpalding, because it works out a nobler purpose for the\\npeople themselves than could any means at their hands\\nif left alone.\\nThe Philippine Commission in their report corrobo-\\nrate the general opinion indulged in America when they\\nsay:\\nShould our power by any fatality be withdrawn the\\nCommission believe that the government of the Philippines\\nwould speedily lapse into anarchy, which would excuse,\\nif it did not necessitate, the intervention of other powers\\nand the eventual division of the islands among them.\\nI nly through American occupation, therefore, is the\\nidea of a free, self-governing and united Philippine com-\\nmonwealth at all conceivable. And the indispensable\\nneed from the Filipino point of view of maintaining\\nAmerican sovereignty over the archipelago is recognized\\nby all intelligent Filipinos and even by those insurgents\\nwho desire an American protectorate. The latter, it is\\ntrue, would take the revenues and leave us the responsi-\\nbilities. Nevertheless they recognize the indubitable\\nfact that the Filipinos cannot stand alone. Thus the\\nwelfare of the Filipinos coincides with the dictates of\\nnational honor in forbidding our abandonment of the\\narchipelago. We cannot, from any point of view, escape\\nthe responsibilities of government which our sovereignty\\nentails, and the Commission is strongly persuaded that\\nthe performance of our national duty will prove the great-\\nest blessing to the people of the Philippine Islands.\\nWhen we take into consideration the responsibility\\nplaced on the Commissioners a knowledge on their\\npart that their recommendations and their statement of\\nfact would go into the archives of our nation and become\\na part of its history, to be pointed to in after generations\\nto the end of time with pride or justifiable derision, ac-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 179\\ncording as they shall have told the truth and reached\\nwise conclusions or stated falsehoods and erroneous con-\\nclusions, the value of this expert judgment and this care-\\nful statement of facts cannot be overestimated. We are\\nforced to the conclusion, therefore, that they knew what\\nthey were talking about, that they told the truth and that\\ntheir deductions are wise.\\nIn addition to all this, let us call to witness Aguinaldo\\nhimself as to what is probably best for the Philippine\\npeople; for while we must require the strictest corrobo-\\nration of his testimony when it is given in his own inter-\\nest, yet, as I have intimated before in this discussion,\\nevidence given by him or anyone else against interest,\\nis admissible. In a letter addressed to Mr. Williams,\\nUnited States Consul at Manila, Aguinaldo says:\\nThese islands will be in effect one of the richest and\\npleasantest countries of the globe if the capital and\\nindustry of North Americans come to develop the soil.\\nYou say all this and yet more will result from annexing\\nourselves to your people, and I also believe the same,\\nand have said it. But why should we say it? Will my\\npeople believe it?\\nHere is an acknowledgment by Aguinaldo himself that\\nthe best interests of the Filipinos would be subserved by\\nannexation to the United States if they could only be\\nmade to believe it; and yet after his vain effort to create\\ndisbelief it is found that the large body of the Filipinos\\nhave faith that our government of the Philippines is to\\ntheir advantage.\\nPessimist: Aguinaldo never seriously thought what\\nhe said in this letter. He was advised by his American\\nlawyers, that this attitude would prove good diplomacy\\nand was persuaded to resort to these gentler methods to\\nsubserve his purpose.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "180 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nPatriot: I am willing to accept this view set forth by\\nPessimist, for the reason that we are not confined to\\nAguinaldo for proof that it is better for the Filipinos that\\nwe should govern them, and for the additional reason that\\na knowledge of the source of Aguinaldo s state papers\\nsheds important light upon very much of his conduct,\\nand tends to confirm the claim made by Senator Bever-\\nidge and others that the responsibility for the death of\\nour soldiers and the continuance of the war rests upon\\nthe opponents of the Administration in the United\\nStates.\\nI suggest that we divide the question of our right and\\nduty toward the Filipinos into sub-topics, the first of\\nwhich to be, Had they a Government?\\nHAD THEY A GOVERNMENT?\\nPatriot: I respectfully submit that where a people\\nwere so demoralized and broken up as they were, the\\nintervention of some stronger power which can maintain\\norder makes for the happiness and prosperity of the\\nweaker people.\\nPessimist: But they had a government, under a con-\\nstitution regularly adopted, which provided for a legis-\\nlature, a judiciary and an executive government. The\\nresult of the work of the Americans is simply to create\\ndisorder and divide the Filipinos among themselves.\\nPatriot: So little claim has been made to the existence\\nof a government of law and order among the Filipinos\\nfor the past several years, when they have been subjected\\nto the devastation of the Spanish and the Philippine army\\nalike, that it may be worth while to pay attention in detail\\nto the kind of government which really existed as a\\nfoundation for Pessimist s claim of an orderly govern-\\nment.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 181\\nOn June 19, 1898, Aguinaldo established by decree\\nwhat he himself called a dictatorial government. The\\narbitrary provisions of this constitution if the Amer-\\nican mind can grasp as a definition of constitution a\\nproclamation which leaves all the power in the hands of\\none man were so soon laid aside that its provisions may\\nbe passed over in charity, and we may confine our investi-\\ngation to his so-called later constitution, which was\\nintended to be enough milder to conciliate the Filipinos.\\nJune 23 he issued this other decree, or proclamation,\\nestablishing what he calls The Revolutionary Govern-\\nment. If there is anything in mere name, perhaps this\\nis an improvement, both in the constitution and the\\nexecution of it. In it he says: The dictator will be\\nentitled hereafter President of the Revolutionary Gov-\\nernment.\\nArticle 10 reads:\\nThe President of the Government is the personifica-\\ntion of the Philippine people, and in accordance with\\nthis idea it shall not be possible to hold him responsible\\nwhile he holds the office. His term of office shall last\\nuntil the revolution triumphs, unless under extraordinary\\ncircumstances he shall feel obliged to offer his resigna-\\ntion in Congress, in which case Congress shall elect who-\\nsoever it considers most fit.\\nPessimist: Is not that a fair proposition? He can\\nhold his office only so long as the revolution lasts, and\\nif he resigns it sooner, Congress is in power to elect h;s\\nsuccessor?\\nPatriot: An evidence of Aguinaldo s own confidence\\nin the intelligence of the Filipinos may be found in his\\neffort to deceive them just as he seems to have deceived\\nyou on this point.\\nArticle 24, separated from Article 10 by a recital of\\nvarious rights and duties in the Congress, the judiciary", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "182 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nand the people, contains the real joker which Aguinaldo\\nheld in his own hand. This Article says\\nThe acts of Congress shall not take effect until the\\nPresident of the government orders their fulfillment and\\nexecution.\\nIt is difficult to understand how the same person can\\nregard this paper constitution or declaration as a govern-\\nment of the Filipinos and at the same time declaim with\\nsuch an injured air on the bounteous blessings of free\\ngovernment of which we are alleged to be robbing the\\nFilipinos.\\nThe actual condition of the government which the\\nFilipinos had is better understood from the following\\npassage in the report of the Philippine Commission\\nTn general, such machinery of government as existed\\nserved only for plundering the people under the pretext\\nof levying war contributions while many of the insurgent\\nofficials were accumulating wealth. The administration\\nof justice was paralyzed and crime of all sorts was ram-\\npant. Might was the only law. Xever in the worst days\\nof Spanish misrule had the people been so overtaxed or\\nso badly governed. Futhermore, there was no organiza-\\ntion which international law would recognize as the\\nbeginning of a government.\\nHall says\\nThe commencement of a State dates, nevertheless,\\nfrom its recognition by other powers; that is to say, from\\nthe time at which they accredit ministers to it, or con-\\nclude treaties with it, or in some other way enter into\\nsuch relations with it as exists between states alone.\\nNo power had dreamed of any such recognition. Thus\\ndisappears the last vestige of claim to independent gov-\\nernment.\\nPessimist: Even if they had not a satisfactory gov-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 183\\nernment at the time, it does not follow that they could not\\norganize one if let alone, and I contend that the people\\nof the Philippine Islands were opposed to our organiz-\\ning the government for them.\\nPatriot This brings us to the next topic I intended to\\nsuggest.\\nWHAT IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY?\\nPatriot Much has already been said from time to time\\nin the course of our discussions as to the will of the ma-\\njority of the Filipinos, and I think the audience would\\nrather review in their own minds our preceding argu-\\nments than to hear them repeated in substance at this\\njuncture.\\nPessimist: Time would be wasted anyway in specu-\\nlating on this question which the government authori-\\nties seem bent upon concealing from us. They have\\ninstituted such censorship, in the name of military law,\\nthat the American press cannot learn the truth. If the\\ntruth could be known I venture to say that the large\\nmajority of the Filipinos are opposed to American annex-\\nation.\\nPatriot: I shall make no further reference to the\\neffect of censorship than merely to say that according\\nto Pessimist s previous statements very many letters\\nseem to have reached America criticising the Adminis-\\ntration, all of which goes to indicate that they are free to\\nwrite to their families and friends at home anything they\\nplease. If the government is open to criticism at all on\\naccount of censorship, it is because the freedom of\\nspeech and the freedom of the press have been extended\\nfurther during this war than usual, even in the United\\nStates, and further than was ever heard of in any other\\ncountry. It will be presumed by all reasonable men that", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "184 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nno information upon this subject has been concealed\\nfrom us by the government. And again, in this case as in\\nthe others, where Pessimist relies upon hearsay testi-\\nmony, as many and probably more letters have been\\npublished expressing the belief that the majority do\\nfavor our government than of those which believe the\\ncontrary. But in addition to this hearsay testimony we\\nhave also in this case the benefit of the expert opinion\\nof the Philippine Commission. Speaking of the condi-\\ntion of affairs at the time General McArthur became\\nactive in the Philippines, the Report says:\\nThe natives, at the order of General Luna, fired their\\ntowns before his advancing column. Those who were\\nunwilling to leave their homes were driven out by insur-\\ngent soldiers, who burned their houses. The object of\\nthis inhuman procedure was to compel the inhabitants to\\nflee before us, and thus prevent their learning from ex-\\nperience that the fearful tales concerning our soldiers,\\nwith which they had been deceived, were myths.\\nThe report further says of the Filipinos:\\nThey had been plundered by the insurgent troops,\\nwho had robbed them of their jewels, money, clothing\\nand even food, so that they were literally starving.\\nPeaceable citizens had been fired on. Women had been\\nmaltreated and there was general satisfaction that the\\nAmericans had. come at last.\\nAgain, after describing the local self-government estab-\\nlished by the Commission, to which I shall allude in par-\\nticular a little later on, the report says\\nIn every instance enthusiasm ran high before we took\\nour departure, and when we left, cheers were raised for\\nGeneral Lawton and for the country which he repre-\\nsents. Deputations came secretly from many\\nimportant towns, begging us to advance our lines and do\\nfor them what we had done for Bacoor and Imus.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 185\\nPessimist: Well, since we cannot tell certainly\\nwhether the majority favor the United States Govern-\\nment there or not, let us move on to the next topic,\\nwhatever it is.\\nPatriot: I am ready to rest this part of the case\\nwithout further argument, although I do not concede\\nthe impossibility stated. By the code of political science\\nproof positive has been adduced that we have their con-\\nsent i. e., we have proved it by the sort of evidence\\nthat would appeal to a reasonable man. Political science\\nis not an exact science. Conclusions as to what is best\\nin government are not arrived at by mathematical de-\\nduction, nor with mathematical exactness. Those\\ncharged with the responsible duty of government exam-\\nine all the data at hand, converse with representative\\npeople of all the varied views, weigh all the testimony\\nthus accumulated in the scale of political experience and\\nwisdom, and then render a decision. He who persists\\nin disputing the decision thus found falls in the same\\ncategory with him who declines to accept axiomatic\\ntruths, and with whom philosophers and scientists refuse\\nto reason further. But unless Pessimist has something\\nmore to say, let us take up the next topic.\\nCLIMATE, RACE AND ADAPTABILITY TO SELF GOVERNMENT.\\nPatriot: But little time need be spent on this topic,\\nbecause the adversaries of the Administration, while dis-\\nagreeing on some points, are, for the most part, of\\nopinion that on account of race, climate and lack of ex-\\nperience the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are\\nincapable of self-government; and this they allege as\\ntheir reason for claiming they are not fit to become a\\npart of the United States. They also claim the same\\nthing-, some of them directly and all of them indirectly,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "186 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nin advocating a United States protectorate over the\\nPhilippines, for a belief in their inability for self-govern-\\nment is a natural inference from the assertion that a\\nprotectorate is necessary. I, for one, believe that for the\\npresent they are incapable of self-government. I sub-\\nscribe to the opinion of Senator Beveridge that they are\\nmere children, that they are a barbarous race modified\\nby three centuries of contact with a decadent race.\\nSenator Beveridge further says:\\nThe Filipino is the South Sea Malay put through a\\nprocess of three hundred years of superstition in re-\\nligion, dishonesty in dealing, disorder in habits of\\nindustry and cruelty, caprice and corruption in govern-\\nment.\\nPessimist: If that be true, how can you recommend\\nthat this lot of vagabonds be taken in as citizens of the\\nUnited States?\\nPatriot: I put it on the ground of our duty to the\\nFilipinos themselves, and upon the further ground of our\\ndutv toward the world, to which I shall advert a little\\nlater. But there can remain nothing more of the argu-\\nment that the Filipinos should be left to govern them-\\nselves when it is once tested by the facts I have quoted\\nfrom Senator Beveridge, and by the concession which\\nall opponents have either directly or indirectly made.\\nAnd this simplifies the question, because it now resolves\\nitself to our duty toward a people whom some govern-\\nment must rule, or who in the alternative must be left\\nwith no government at all. I shall hazard the further\\nopinion that there is nothing either in the climate, the\\nrace nor of the training which forbids the hope that in\\nthe reasonably near future these people may be capable\\nof as much self-government as is to-day enjoyed by the\\ninhabitants of om ether territories, and that they will", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 187\\neventually be capable of entering into the high state of\\nour commonwealth sisterhood.\\nPessimist: How long do you think this will take?\\nPatriot: It will certainly take more than a few years.\\nThe republics of Central and South America have been\\nseveral hundred years working toward the light, though\\nit is true they have been handicapped by the lack of that\\nfriendly aid which the United States is prepared actively\\nto give to the Filipinos. It will probably take these\\nmixed races longer, much longer, probably centuries\\nlonger, to be weaned away from their childish and vicious\\nnotions a condition best described by Kipling: Half\\ndevil and half child 1 than it would Anglo-Saxon peo-\\nples; and yet we lived under colonial rule for nearly 300\\nyears before we assumed that we were capable of entire\\nself-government; and if the uplifting of nations less fortu-\\nnate than ourselves forms any part of our province, for\\nthe present and for the future, are we to select only those\\ntasks which can be performed in the present genera-\\ntion, or, is it not nobler to face the future with the de-\\ntermination to do missionary work as a leader among\\nnations, regardless of the time of harvest, having in view\\nonly the duty of making all possible speed to righteous\\nends in keeping with the most certain accomplishment\\nof those ends? Men do not build for themselves alone,\\nnor for their own time or generation. We both con-\\ntribute blessings to future generations and impose bur-\\ndens upon them; we build bridges and roads and public\\nbuildings the completion of which is likely to be so far\\nin the future that few of the projectors hope to reap any\\nbenefit from them. We pay for them out of our funds,\\nif at hand, and if not, we borrow the money and impose\\nthe duty of paying it back upon those who come after us.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "388 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nThe great length of time probably necessary for the\\nregeneration of the Filipinos will be no barrier to the\\npeople of the United States who take a broad and long\\nview when they consider the accomplishment of great\\nachievements. How selfish and ungrateful is the man\\nwho would withhold the beneficent offices of this govern-\\nment from the benighted Filipinos on the ground that\\nhe will not live to see them capable of self-government.\\nLet such a man look around him and witness how little\\nhe himself is responsible for the blessings he enjoys.\\nWith such a mind as his, Copernicus would not have\\nworked out the system of astronomy by which scientists\\nafter him have been able to determine the movements of\\nthe heavenly bodies and to dethrone the superstition of\\nastrology to the everlasting benefit of mankind. Watt\\ncould have had but little encouragement, reasoning from\\nthis narrow view, in his development of the discovery\\nof steam-power; and Gutenberg might well have re-\\nstrained his enthusiasm in contemplating the possibilities\\nof the printing press and its marvelous revolution of gov-\\nernments and religions if he had stopped to inquire\\nwhether he would live to see the end, which is not yet.\\nCyrus W. Field, if left merely to the contemplation of\\nhis own span of life, would not have persisted in laying\\nthe Atlantic cable after four failures, facing the scoffs\\nand derision of his fellowmen, who, from their stand-\\npoint, knew he was crazy.\\nPessimist: Oh, well, you might go on reciting ex-\\namples of this kind for the rest of the week without\\nconvincing me that this government is called upon to\\ncivilize such a degenerate nation as the Filipinos. In all\\nthe cases you cite the promoters expected pecuniary gain\\nfrom discoveries and inventions.\\nPatriot; That is precisely what yon accused us of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/ 189\\nexpecting, and you have inadvertently revealed another\\nanalogy in the two cases. The benefactors of whom L\\nspoke did expect pecuniary gain, but they were also\\ninspired by the prospect of contributing to the world s\\nprosperity and happiness. This is precisely the case of\\nthe United States in reference to the Philippines. It is\\nthe belief of far-sighted and unselfish statesmen that\\nwhile we are thus lifting up a down-trodden nation and\\nleading them to the light, we are at the same time adding\\nto the wealth and resources of the United States; and the\\nenterprise is so creative that while the Filipinos are pay-\\ning the expenses incident to their own improvement\\nthrough the instrumentality of the United States and\\ncontributing something toward the wealth of the United\\nStates besides, they are at the same time experiencing\\nand will continue to experience a genuine economy. And\\nall this for the reason that a just government, such as\\nthe United States administers in its territories, can cost\\nnothing like so much as the extravagant despotism of the\\nTagal leaders, or which some foreign nation less benevo-\\nlent than the United States would force upon them in our\\nabsence.\\nPessimist: But why not let them work out their own\\nsalvation? Is it not all the more to their credit when\\nthey have accomplished it?\\nPatriot: To withhold our aid from the Philippines\\nand throw them on their own responsibility in the face\\nof impending anarchy, or despotic rule, would be like the\\nprosperous man refusing to aid a degenerate neighbor,\\nassigning as a reason that anything in the nature of\\ncharity would tend still further to prevent his regenera-\\ntion and reflect discredit upon him when redeemed;\\nor it would be like the father withholding aid from his", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "190 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nson who desires education or a start in business, dilating\\nto him upon the great advantage the struggle would be,\\nand the glory of self-made men. To make the case\\nparallel, the father would have to drive the son penniless\\nfrom home while a mere child; to be sure, the boy, like\\nthe Philippine children, would get on some way or other,\\nand might possibly win success and renown, because\\nmany waifs do achieve success. The objection to this\\nmethod, and the reason why it should not be deliberately\\nresorted to, but confined to the exceptional cases made\\nnecessary by force of circumstances, is that while a\\nfew succeed, the large majority thus thrown adrift fail\\nand bring discredit to themselves and the community.\\nThe process is so severe that it does produce high types\\nof success, but too many boys and too many nations are\\nlikely to be spoiled in the operation. It is like the tem-\\npering of steel for rare qualities in cutlery, where one\\nblade comes out perfect and nine come out worthless.\\nThe humane father prefers to help his son in a reason-\\nable way to the extent of his ability. The charitable man\\nwill contribute of his wordly goods to the alleviation of\\nsuffering in his more unfortunate fellowmen, and the\\nnation of high ideals will not withhold its beneficent of-\\nfices to the nations of lower degree.\\nWe have assumed the responsibility of caring for the\\nFilipinos, and could not leave the cold, starving child\\nthus found upon our doorsteps and skulk away, even if its\\ncare should be a tax upon us happily, however, the\\ncare of the child proves the adage that virtue is its own\\nreward, and fulfills the Scriptural promise of return with\\nincrement of bread cast upon the waters. Strange\\nphilosophy which is taught by those who profess such\\nsolicitude for the character of our race lest contact with\\nthe Filipinos should contaminate it, who at the same", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 191\\ntime tell us that charity begins at home, and that if\\nthe Filipinos are unable to govern themselves we should\\nbe disdainful enough to leave them to their own evil\\nfate. Wonderful humanity, this. Here they are on\\nour hands, and your immaculate reformer says If they\\ndo not need our help, we should give it; but if they do\\nneed it we should withhold it i. e., if they are fit for self-\\ngovernment we should release them or take them in as\\nStates; if they are not fit for self-government we should\\nabandon them, regardless of the consequences. This\\ncertainly is the acme of cold aristocracy, and blind is the\\nman to our big-hearted American human nature who can\\nbelieve that such a course would be at all tolerable. As\\nwell say that we should build a prison wall around the\\npoor unfortunate Indians in America and authorize the\\nsentinels stationed thereon to keep them in until they\\nwould devour one another or starve.\\nSome say that the keeping of the Philippines is mon-\\nstrous because of the degraded character of the inhab-\\nitants, who are not fit for self-government, others say\\nit will be monstrous to keep them because they are fit\\nand therefore entitled to self-government. What further\\nproof need we produce of the utter inconsistency of their\\nargument? The better reasoning is that if they are fit\\nfor self-government, then the kind of self-government\\nthey get as Territories of the United States, and in the\\ncourse of times if properly developed, as commonwealths\\nof this nation, is, according to American belief, the best\\nin the world for them but if, on the other hand, they\\nare so degraded, so superstitious, so senile that they can\\nnot govern themselves and must be controlled by others,\\nthen the kind of government they would get as Territories\\nof the United States is still the best for them which\\nhuman genius has yet devised for such people, because", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "192 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nso long as they must continue to be ruled, they will be\\nruled by justice, tempered with mercy, and so soon as\\nthey graduate into a condition of self-governing qualities,\\nthe opportunity for exercising that developed ability will\\nbe afforded them. In other words, we are faced with\\nthe theory on the one hand that they are able to govern\\nthemselves, in which case their association with us can\\ndo us no harm, or on the other hand we are faced with\\nthe theory that they can not be trusted alone, in which\\ncase it is no more harmful that we should govern them\\nthan that some other nation should, but is less harmful\\nin so much as our government would be more humane,\\nmore economical and more conducive to their self-devel-\\nopment. If in the latter event we should be compelled\\nto part from the traditions of our ancestors who wrote\\nand spoke for a new, untried and weak government,\\nwhich had all it could do to take care of itself, then we\\nhave the consolation that in so departing we are acting\\nlike men worthy of our ancestors in that we are brave\\nenough and original enough to apply new methods to\\nnew conditions.\\nThe idea that we must not give the Filipinos any gov-\\nernment because we can not give them in undiluted form\\nall that we enjoy ourselves, is coldly selfish, and rather\\nthan to deny to them our benign supervision we had better,\\nif need be, modify the Constitution to meet the exigency,\\nas we did for the manumission of the slaves, and not, like\\nthe selfish rich man, take refuge behind the selfish argu-\\nment that if we can not invite the pauper into our own\\nhome as a member of our family, we think it better for\\nhim that he should be left to the kind of life which he\\nhimself can work out unaided by us.\\nOur adversaries are divided as to whether the Filipinos\\nare equal to self-government or not, but by reason of the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 193\\nforegoing conclusions, we move forward in our duty\\nregardless of this fact, though not indifferent to it, know-\\ning that time alone can solve this problem; and that\\nwhichever way the scale may turn, the United States\\ngovernment is equal to the emergency, and the future of\\nthese peoples is safe in our hands. Whosoever doubts it\\nconfesses to little faith in the vitality and constancy of\\nAmerican patriotism, and whosoever entertains such lack\\nof faith should be and will be an object of close scrutiny,\\nif not of suspicion by the people who select our public\\nservants. To doubt that these people will progress more\\nrapidly under the direction of the United States than\\notherwise is to render an unjustifiable apology for our\\npresent government of other territories, because if they\\nwould progress more rapidly, left to themselves, our obli-\\ngation to humanity would compel us to declare them all\\nindependent. If we owe this duty, therefore, to the Phil-\\nippines, we owe it likewise to the inhabitants of New\\nMexico, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii and Porto Rico. And\\nconversely if we do not owe it as a duty to release these\\nlatter Territories, neither do we owe it to the Filipinos.\\nBut the claim that such people would advance bettcr\\nwithout our aid than with it is against the traditions and\\nbelief of our people, and against the judgment of reason-\\ning men. Madison says in the Federalist:\\nThe reason of man, like man himself, is timid and\\ncautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and con-\\nfidence in proportion to the number with which it is asso-\\nciated.\\nThe fact that we can not now solve the problem and\\ndetermine precisely the kind of government suited to the\\nFilipinos, does not relieve us of duty, but instead\\nputs the additional duty upon us of ascertaining the pre-\\nliminary facts as well as of applying the remedy. We", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "19-1 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nhave the Philippines, and whatever may be their future\\nour duty is clear to learn the conditions as rapidly as\\npossible and to apply the remedy faithfully when we learn.\\nLet us then be up and doing,\\nWith a heart for any fate\\nStill achieving;, still pursuing,\\nLearn to labor and to wait.\\nUncle Sam: Does anyone wish to reply to Patriot s\\nargument on this topic? Hearing no one, let us pass on.\\nLOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.\\nPessimist: I can tell you very briefly what kind of\\nlocal self-government we are giving the Filipinos. It\\nis a chance to govern themselves at the command of Gen.\\nOtis and his subordinate officers at the point of a rifle,\\nIn short, there is no such thing as local self-government\\nin that slave Territory of ours. That is all I have to say.\\nPatriot: While it is true that at this time a military\\ngovernment is in existence in the Philippines, just as it\\nmust always be in a state of war, and during the organ-\\nization of civil government, which takes a longer or\\nshorter period owing to the extent of acquiescence to\\nlawful conditions, yet at the same time we are now giving\\nthem a measure of local self-government which people\\naccustomed to the military rule of European powers\\nwould regard as dangerously liberal.\\nThe courts have been opened up wherever the rebel-\\nlion is not active. The Supreme Court has been estab-\\nlished in the language of the Philippine Commission,\\nwith five Filipinos and three American justices, and\\ncourts of first instance and justice courts were estab-\\nlished later when the difficult problem of. securing suitable\\nFilipino officials had been satisfactorily solved. After\\ndescribing the preparation of a scheme of municipal gov-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? .195\\nernment under the counsel of Filipino lawyers, the report\\ngoes on to say:\\nIn each town the people were called together and an\\nelection was held. The officials chosen were fully in-\\nstructed as to their duties, and were advised that they\\nmust expend every cent raised by taxation in defraying\\nlocal- expenses.\\nI have under a previous topic referred to the enthusi-\\nasm with which these experimental efforts of the com-\\nmissioners were met. Patriotic Americans rest easy in\\nthe complaisant belief that the Filipinos will be given all\\nthe self-government they are capable of appreciating and\\nadministering.\\nPessimist This work of the commission was ,do ne\\nfor political effect. I admit that they have been given\\nself-government, but it is because they wanted to make\\na showing to the American people to catch votes for\\nMcKinley. Later on this liberty will be denied them.\\nPatriot: In the first place, the charge just made by\\nPessimist carries with it its own condemnation, because\\nthe fact that a true report of the situation existing there\\nwill influence votes in America will always be as potent\\nas now, and when the American government in the Phil-\\nippines shall cease to be just, and in accordance with the\\nnotions of our voters all the party opposing such conduct\\nneeds to do is to appeal to the voters for redress. This\\ncharacter of our government with the limited tenure of\\noffice, and the constantly-recurring opportunity for an\\nappeal to the people themselves, makes it reasonably cer-\\ntain that no great amount of wrong will take place.\\nIn the second place it ill becomes a man pretending\\nto have faith in our institutions to accuse a commission\\nof such reputable men of becoming hirelings to work\\nout a political scheme. Language fails me to describe the", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "196 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ninfamy of such a charge, which by implication involves\\nthe President in the contemptible work of employing\\nsuch servants\\nIf the object of life is happiness, then it requires but a\\nmoderate quality of third rate reasoning to know that\\nmen who have achieved such greatness, except in mor-\\nbidly rare cases, cannot depart from honest principles\\nin government. The working out of true ideals is their\\nlife pride. The accommodation of expedient and justi-\\nfiable means to desirable economic ends is the food of\\ntheir life existence, and to violate one of these principles\\nwould be as painful and as blighting to their consciences\\nand convictions as for a true mathematician who lives in\\nhis profession and loves it, to so stultify himself as de-\\nliberately to write a false formula in calculus or to state\\nan untruthful proposition in geometry. Laying aside\\nthe question of honesty for the sake of honesty, an all-\\nwise Creator has so constituted man that, for the most\\npart, a man who has devoted his life to a set of fixed\\nprinciples along the line of truth and accuracy finds so\\ninfinitely more pleasure in the conservation of those prin-\\nciples than in their destruction that even though he be\\ninherently dishonest he will, out of sheer selfishness, in\\nhis natural desire to avoid pain, keep close to the path\\nof public virtue. How much more must be the motive\\nof the man who, equally susceptible to this deterrent of\\npain and this inducement to happiness, has bred and\\ntrained within him the high ideals of lofty purpose and\\nright for the sake of right toward all his fellow men. I\\nsubmit that every healthy mind acquainted with the facts\\ndoes unhesitatingly admit the truth of this philosophy,\\nand at the same time ascribe these nobler principles to\\nPresident McKinley, in Admiral Dewey and to each and\\nevery member of the Philippine Commission; and that", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 197\\nevery mind incapable of taking this view, or which stub-\\nbornly refuses to take this view, is unhealthy and must be\\n.classed among the unfortunates or the evil-doers.\\nBut as a third argument in evidence of our good faith\\nin the matter of local self-government, let me quote from\\nthe Secretary of War in his report for 1899, in which\\nhe says\\nThe rule of administration of the civil government\\nof the island (Cuba) has been to employ the people of\\nCuba themselves to the fullest extent possible, and to\\nfurnish to the Cubans, during our occupation, an oppor-\\ntunity for training in the honest, official performance of\\nofficial duties which has never been afforded to them\\nbefore.\\nAnd speaking of the enormous task of taking the cen-\\nsus of Cuba, the Secretary goes on to say:\\nThe entire force through the census now being taken\\nis composed of Cubans, with one well-known citizen of\\neach of the six provinces as the supervisor of that pro-\\nvince and with enumerators nominated by him from resi-\\ndents of the province.\\nThe Secretary further states that the process of extend-\\ning civil government in the Philippines has gone on since\\nthe return of the Philippine Commission, and while there\\nis yet doubt as to the precise form of government suited\\nto the different islands and provinces, owing to the varied\\ndegrees of intelligence, because time is needed to learn\\nand apply the facts to the respective conditions, yet this\\nnoble work is going on and there is no faint-heartedness\\nin Washington as to the ultimate beneficent result.\\nAn additional evidence of the devotion of President\\nMcKinley and those about him to the great task and duty\\nin hand, and an evidence of their likeness to the con-\\nstructive statesmen of our early history, is the fact that", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "198 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nregardless of doubts and criticism and charges made by\\nthoughtless, ignorant or vicious men, they are not swerved\\nfrom their purpose of working out the magnificent and\\nthe majestic growth of American power and influence\\nrecently made possible by the brilliant achievements of our\\narms and of our diplomacy.\\nUncle Sam As I understand it, Pessimist does not deny\\nthat local self-government has been instituted in the Phil-\\nippines, but he simply expressed doubt as to whether it\\nwill be continued. Since the same kind of doubt may be\\nexpressed as to the continuance of our free institutions\\nin America, and indeed, is expressed by those whom but\\nfor the presence of Pessimist I would call pessimists, I\\nsee no advantage in extending the discussion on this\\npoint, as it can be nothing more than academic, with no\\npractical result. If all are satisfied with the present efforts\\nat local self-government, let us proceed to the next topic.\\nAS TO THE WORLD.\\nPessimist I do not understand why Patriot proposed\\nthe consideration of our right and duty as to the world\\nin this discussion I do not see how that can have any-\\nthing to do with the question. We should take care of our-\\nselves and let the rest of the world do the same. As\\nBishop Spalding says Patriotism, like charity, begins\\nat home. We should consider this question wholly from\\nour own -standpoint no matter what the consequences to\\nthe rest of the world.\\nPatriot I can not think that Bishop Spalding meant\\nto be understood as Pessimist has understood him. Has\\nanyone here a copy of his sermon?\\nCitizen Yes, here is a copy.\\nPatriot I notice in another part of the sermon the\\nBishop says\\nThe end of all worthy struggle is to establish morality", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 199\\nas the basis of individual and national life. to\\nmake justice reign, to spread beauty, gentleness, wis-\\ndom and peace to widen opportunity, to increase good\\nwill.\\nI scarcely think that any quotation is necessary to prove\\nthat Bishop Spalding would not withhold from the world\\nthe advantages of American civilization. If required\\nto answer whether any given man would make such de-\\nnial, I would first ask, Is that man a Christian? No, I\\nwould not even feel, it necessary to ask that. I would\\nonly ask, Is that man like Abou ben Adham, one who\\nloves his fellow men And if the answer be in the affirm-\\native, I should forthwith declare him to be in favor of\\nletting the light of our liberty shine in all the dark places\\nof the earth.\\nIt is a common fault of narrow souls who, while desir-\\ning the laurels of virtue, have not the virtue to merit them,\\nto hide behind quotations which ennoble if properly ap-\\nplied, but which otherwise degrade, and charity begins\\nat home is one of those adages with which stinginess\\nclothes itself when it stalks abroad as benevolence.\\nPatriotism and charity begin at home to be sure, but it is\\nneither patriotism nor charity, if when able, it does not\\nextend beyond home. Stripped of its disguise and\\nhypocrisy it is just selfishness. Will- this great, strong\\nnation shrink from a world duty on the pretext that we\\nare sufficient unto ourselves, and that if others are not\\nthey should be It is like the heartless man who happens\\nto be possessed of plenty and who thanks God for the\\nshelter over his own head and shows unfeeling contempt\\nand brutal indifference to his unfortunate neighbor whom\\nfate has left without shelter. His prayer would be Bless\\nme and my wife, my son John and his wife, us four and\\nno more. Amen.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": "200 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nOf course there is a limit to the possibilities of charity.\\nThe object of this discussion is to show that it is both the\\nduty and within the power of the United States Govern-\\nment, not only without sacrifice, but at an actual gain,\\nto bestow its blessings upon the world by elevating civili-\\nzation in the East and bringing the salutary example so\\nmuch nearer to those benighted countries a quantity\\nand quality of missionary work which the combined\\nchurches of Christendom, however creditable their efforts\\nhave been, could not, but for this political intervention,\\naccomplish in the century to come.\\nBy accident and incident of war we came into the\\nheritage of that golden archipelago, and at the same time\\nfell heir to a tremendous responsibility. These advan-\\ntages to ourselves an honest administration can not throw\\naway, and this responsibility to the world a virile, brave\\nand Christian nation can not shirk.\\nWe owe a duty to the world because we are capable of\\ngiving sanction to International law and because of our\\nmoral responsibility as a member of the world govern-\\nment, and I should like to consider a little further the\\nquestion of our right and duty to the world under these\\ntwo heads.\\nSANCTION FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW.\\nPessimist I have nothing to say on this subject.\\nPatriot: The sanction for International law is two-\\nfold. First, the moral influence of the world, and second,\\nthe political power of a nation contending for a given\\nprinciple in International law. The moral influence of\\nthat nation which has the greatest physical power will\\nnaturally be the more likely to prevail, but it is well\\nunderstood that physical power is the first and greatest", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "Jr AlKlUl UK rhSZlMlSl r 3U1\\nnecessity in the enforcement of an international principle.\\nHall says\\nGrave doubt is felt whether even old and established\\ndictates will be obeyed when the highest interests of\\nnations are in play.\\nAgain Hall says:\\nA state is only bound by rules to which it feels itself\\nobligated in conscience, after a reasonable examination,\\nto submit.\\nIt is well known that there is no judicial or adminis-\\ntrative machinery by which to obtain enforcement of a\\nprinciple desired by one nation which affects the interests\\nof another. It is therefore important that the United\\nStates should put itself in a position before the world\\nto be powerful and effective in choosing and maintain-\\ning international tenets.\\nPessimist: That is just what I complained of. The\\nUnited States has enough to do to attend to its own\\naffairs, and going to the Philippines forces it into quar-\\nrels with the rest of the world; so instead of performing\\nan obligation of right and duty toward other nations of\\nthe world, we are merely annoying and disturbing them.\\nPatriot It has been clearly demonstrated, I flatter\\nmyself, that these international disturbances will come\\nanyway, and while they would bring greater distress to\\nus in our isolated and undeveloped condition, at the same\\ntime we would be able to do less good to the world by\\nelevating their standard of international morality and\\nlaw.\\nMonroe warned the United States of the necessity of\\nstrengthening itself so that foreign belligerents might not\\nbe able to prey upon our commerce and insult our flag,\\nas was done in the wars of the French Revolution to an", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "202 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nextent described by him as almost incalculable. Such-in-\\njuries can be greatly minimized by the improvement of\\ninternational precepts, provided there is back of those pre-\\ncepts the potential threat of punishment for their violation.\\nPessimist: Rev. Van Dyke says that: The great\\nnations of Europe are encamped around the China sea in\\narms. Rather than plunge into that promiscuous quarrel\\nI should wait until we are injured, and then exact repar-\\nation from the nation injuring us and go to war with it\\nalone if necessary.\\nPatriot: The objection to such a position is, in the\\nfirst place, that our going into the Philippines has not\\nbrought us the trouble anticipated it has not precipitated\\nthe clash of arms predicted by Rev. Van Dyke or your-\\nself but it has, as a natural consequence of our enhanced\\nadvantage, made diplomacy and international understand-\\ning easier. This is shown by Secretary Hay s superb\\ndiplomatic achievement recently in the Chinese matter,\\nand in the profound respect which nations are vieing\\nwith one another to show the United States since she\\nwas brave enough to take her proper place at the head of\\nthe nations of the world.\\nAn additional objection to the plan suggested by Pessi-\\nmist is that it permits unnecessary war. It is the part of\\nthe bully to say nothing of his rights and claims until\\nthey are attacked and then jump in and whip tlje man who\\ndisturbs him. The lover of honorable peace is always\\nready to come to an understanding with his neighbors,\\nand if he feels justified in claiming rights which they do\\nnot recognize, he will take pains to warn them of his view\\nbefore the opportunity comes for them to cross his path\\nand before a nation has laid down an international law\\nprinciple, conduct on the part of some other nation con-\\ntrary to such principle is not a legitimate cause of war.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 203\\nEngland once claimed the right to impress American\\nseamen and to forcibly visit American vessels on the seas.\\nThis right was denied by the United States, but it was a\\ngrave question for a time what would be written in the\\nminds of nations as the final International law on this\\nsubject. If the United States had then held such vantage\\nground as she does now, the mere enunciation of such a\\nmanifestly fair rule between nations would have been ac-\\ncepted without a test of arms. It is this ability on the part\\nof the United States to preserve peace while at the same\\n-time she is elevating the world-standard of law, which\\nconstrains me to the belief that our duty to the world\\njustifies our course in the Philippines.\\nAmerica had force enough to take a long step in ad-\\nvance in the matter of the Cuban war, and by so doing\\nto transform a mere tenet of international morals to the\\nprinciple of international law. No more reconcentrados,\\nno more heartless butchery of innocent people, no more\\ncruel treatment of prisoners without the violation of this\\nnew American-made international statute. Hitherto such\\nviolation of international morality gave no ground for\\nformal complaint, no matter how odious it was. Hence-\\nforward the rights of nations, as the rights of individuals,\\nare circumscribed within the limitations thus newly set\\ndown. To make this good for the future in the Eastern\\nHemisphere as well as in the Western, and to make good\\nour advanced views as to contraband of war, prohibition\\nof poisoned bullets, limitations on the use of smokeless\\npowder, etc., etc., we must proportionately extend the\\nsphere of power to correspond with the sphere of moral\\ninfluence. With the permission of the audience I should\\nlike to elaborate slightly under the next topic suggested\\nby me awhile ago. Has Pessimist anything more to say?\\nPessimist Nothing more now.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "204 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 9\\nUNITED STATES AS A MEMBER OF THE WORLD GOVERNMENT.\\nPatriot Even if it were true, which it is not, that a\\nnecessary converse of the Monroe Doctrine would keep\\nus out of the East, our greater duty as a nation citizen\\nof the world of nations would justify, and indeed compel\\nus, in the larger duty of acting the part of that citizen-\\nship. For this secure and strong nation to stay out\\nof world politics because we are safe and comfortable\\nis like a certain type of wealthy and refined American\\ngentlemen remaining away from primaries and elections,\\ngiving as an excuse the plea that they are secure, that\\ntheir plans will not be interfered with, no matter what\\nmay happen to others, that the work is too dirty, that\\nthey will leave it to those who are willing to get down\\nand dabble in politics as they call it. They therefore\\nsanction the evil which they see around them in municipal,\\nState and national affairs, and let those less favorably\\nsituated go hang. Shame on such citizenship It is\\nthe duty of a man who enjoys the blessings of a govern-\\nment to have views on public affairs and to work and\\nvote in the interest of the kind of politics which he be-\\nlieves will best subserve the interests and conduce to\\nthe happiness of the greatest number of his fellow men.\\nThe vote is as sacred as testimony under oath, and more\\npotent, for upon the testimony depends the fate of an\\nindividual, whereas the vote decides the fate of a nation\\nand of a race. A man who refuses to vote is unworthy\\nof citizenship a m in who votes without a knowledge\\nof the issue is criminally careless, and a man who votes\\nagainst his intelligence and conscience is a political per-\\njurer.\\nAnd so, in equal degree is it the duty of a nation when\\nonce strong enough to take part in the government of the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST r 205\\nworld, to set a good example and then to vote for the\\nacceptance of that example by others i. e., to have its\\nsay in the affairs of international law to the end that the\\nevolution of mutual rights and duties between nations,\\nwhich have gone on from a state of barbarism and tribal\\nextermination, through the varied processes step by step\\nup to the present high plane, may continue on and on\\ntill peace in all the world shall be the almost universal\\nrule and war the rare and accidental exception.\\nThere is but one way in which a citizen can do his whole\\nduty, and that is to exercise his whole influence for the\\nbest government which in his judgment is available, and\\nthere is but one way in which a nation can carry out the\\nmotto of Andrew Jackson To do justice to all and to\\nsubmit to wrong from none, and that is for the nation\\nto extend its sphere of influence as far as possible, and\\nto back that influence by a corresponding power which\\ncan only be done by occupying every vantage ground\\nafforded by the combination of might and right; and\\nthis is precisely what the United States is doing by taking\\nand keeping the Philippines. To exercise might without\\nright is infamous in man or nation. To possess right\\nwithout might is nugatory in man, and in the eyes\\nof the world is both nugatory and contemptible in a\\nnation.\\nUncle Sam Are there any misgivings as to our duty\\nto the world?\\nPessimist We cannot carry out the policy of Patriot\\nwithout flying in the face of our own history.\\nUncle Sam: I believe according to Patriot s outline\\nthe next topic will deal with the question to which Pessi-\\nmist has just alluded.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "206 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nAMERICAN TRADITIONS AND PRECEDENTS.\\nPessimist I suppose I may at least be permitted to\\nhold up before this audience the warnings of the Fathers.\\nIf there is yet in us any respect for their wishes, and any\\nheed for their almost divinely-inspired prophecies, I shall\\nbe able to convince this audience that we ought not to\\nkeep the Philippines even if we have the legal right, and\\neven if it will aid the laboring man and the merchant and\\nreduce the probability of international war and subserve\\nthe development of international law, and even if it is\\nnot against the Monroe Doctrine, and still further, if it\\ndoes not invite militarism, and even though it is our duty\\ntoward the Filipinos, and toward the world, I consider\\nthat we owe a higher duty than any or all of these to the\\nsayings of the Fathers. You will recall what I said in\\nthe earlier part of this discussion and what I quoted from\\nMr. Bryan about the necessity of muffling the tones of\\nold Liberty Bell, and communing in whispers when we\\npraise the patriotism of our fathers, if we should go on\\nin our reckless course. I now emphasize all that, and\\ninsist again that we have no right to destroy the Declara-\\ntion of Independence and act contrary to the founders of\\nthis government. Such conduct would be as despicable\\nin us as for a boy, at the death of his father, to do any-\\nthing contrary to his father s wish while living. It is for\\nus to decide what we shall do. As Rev. Van Dyke says\\nAre we still loyal to the principles of our forefathers\\nas expressed in the Declaration of Independence? or are\\nwe now ready to sell the American birthright for a mess\\nof pottage in the Philippines?\\nIf we persist in our recreant course, we will, as declared\\nby Senator Turner, relegate the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence to the lumber room of useless and obsolete\\nfurniture.\\nPatriot: I believe it has already been demonstrated\\nto the satisfaction of this audience and repeatedly ad-\\nmitted by Pessimist, that the possession of the Philippines\\nis an advantage to labor and capital in the United States,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 207\\nand is not, therefore, a mere mess of pottage. I believe\\nI shall be able to demonstrate under a subsequent topic\\nthat insteacfof relegating the Declaration of Independence\\nto the lumber room, our present policy shows greater\\nrespect for it than the policy proposed by. Pessimist.\\nBefore passing on to the sub-topics under this head,\\nI desire to make a few general observations on the ques-\\ntion of* precedents and traditions, and I can think of no\\nbetter illustration from which to reason than the one sug-\\ngested by Pessimist himself. To what extent should a\\nrespectful and devoted son observe the precedents and\\ntraditions of his natural father? All admire the loyalty\\nof the boy who stood on the burning deck whence all\\nbut him had fled, but all pity his judgment and have a\\njust contempt for his lack of common sense for it does\\nnot appear that any good could be accomplished by his\\nself-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice without a great object is\\nbut a mockery of heroism. If the conditions had remained\\nunchanged, if the father had not been killed, and if all oth-\\ners had not left the ship if, in short, any conceivable good\\nend could have been worked out by the desperate means\\nrecommended to the son, then death at his post would\\nhave entitled him to the sincere gratitude and ungrudging\\nplaudits of men. But, circumstances alter cases, and\\nthe boy had probably heard his father say that. At least\\nthe boy would have done his father more credit if he\\nhad exercised judgment to that extent. The real moral\\nwhich the poet intended that we should draw from this\\nholocaust was that sometimes explicit orders cannot be\\nobeyed without useless and absurd consequences. I can\\nthink of no illustration which better indicates the folly\\nof the purist in politics who insists upon blindly follow-\\ning platitudes found in teachings of our forefathers.\\nThe father who wishes to develop a noble son studiously", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "208 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nrefrains from laying down specific rules by which his\\nlife shall be shaped. He indulges in but few commands,\\nand interposes but few prohibitions, and all ni these he\\nqualifies by reciting the circumstances upon which their\\nobservation must rest. He devotes his time and thought\\nrather to the cultivation in his son of honest and upright\\npurpose and an independent and original application of\\nthe knowledge which he may acquire of people and\\nthings to the conditions which he may find existing where\\naction or decision is required. The father who is so\\negotistical as to believe that he can do his son s thinking\\nfor all future time and can make the son obedient to his\\nparticular desires throughout the remainder of the son s\\nlife, succeeds in producing a pitiable reflection of him-\\nself, a miserable imitator of his conduct; or if the son\\nhas sense enough to resent such humility, but not power\\nenough to resist it, he bears up under the restraint as long\\nas possible, and finally breaks over only to become a\\ndegenerate in keeping with the law of nature, which re-\\nquires that men be developed in the free exercise of their\\njudgment.\\nUndue and enforced restraint is always followed by\\nintemperate and unreasonable exercise of liberty, for the\\nlaw of compensation requires that every spasm shall be\\nfollowed by a reaction.\\nI shall show that our respect for the forefathers is\\ngreater than that of Pessimist, because we give them\\ncredit for desiring to be succeeded, not by a race of imi-\\ntators but by a race of independent thinkers like them-\\nselves. Pessimist ascribes to them divine prescience, while\\nwe maintain that they were honest, and therefore laid\\nclaim to nothing more than human insight, and that they\\nrecognized the fallibility of all human beings them-\\nselves along with the rest. Indeed, they made mistakes,", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 209\\neven between the times of writing the Declaration of\\nIndependence and framing the Constitution of the United\\nStates, because practically the same men who performed\\nthese two magnificent pieces of work framed and adopted\\nthe Articles of Confederation, which they themselves ac-\\nknowledged to be a failure. Having made these mistakes\\nin matters where the circumstances were known to them,\\nwho can charge them with such audacity as to think them-\\nselves more capable of public direction without error after\\ntheir time, than the men who should come after them?\\nIf we are to follow in the footsteps of our ancestors, where\\nshall we draw the line? They themselves had ancestors.\\nTheirs were also ours. I submit that the only basis upon\\nwhich we can follow precedents and traditions is that\\nof the applicability and adaptability of the precedents and\\ntraditions to our present conditions and circumstances,\\napplied by the test of reason, and that those charged with\\nthe responsibilities of the government now and the people\\nfrom whom they get their authority must judge of this\\napplicability and adaptability. This elevates the traditions\\nand precedents to their proper and rational use, and this\\nmakes us, the sons, worthy of them, the fathers, because\\ninstead of being weak, dependent imitators, we thus become\\nrational, self-thinking, independent men like they were,\\nand like they desire us to be. We do imitate them to\\nthe extent that so much of their example and so much\\nof their admonition as can be applied to the present con-\\nditions we adopt, as they adopted the example and ad-\\nmonitions of their ancestors; but where changed condi-\\ntions and new circumstances necessitate additions to or\\nsubtractions from the principles laid down by them we\\ntake the responsibility of the revision, just as they took the\\nresponsibility of revising the principles of their ancestors\\nwhen changed conditions warranted that. If, on the other", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "210 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST F\\nhand, we must take traditions on faith,, and must regard\\nan application of reason to them as sacrilegious, then\\nwe must go further back than Revolutionary times, be-\\ncause for three hundred years prior to that our royal\\nworshipping ancestors were praising the crown of Eng-\\nland and were ready to strike down any man who dared\\ndefame the mother country. Which then shall we adopt,\\nblind imitation or the discretion of reason? Reasoning\\nmen must all agree to the latter of these alternatives,\\nand by this test let us proceed to inquire to what extent\\nwe should be bound by the theories of Revolutionary days.\\nI suggest that Pessimist tell us how, if at all, the policy\\nof the Administration in the Philippines invades freedom,\\nequality and liberty.\\nFREEDOM, EQUALITY AND LIBERTY.\\nPessimist I agree with M r. Bryan when he says\\nTake from our national hymns the three words, free,\\nfreedom and liberty, and they would be as meaningless\\nas would be our flag if robbed of its red, white and blue.\\nAnd again, where he says\\nThe main purpose -of the founders of our government\\nwas to secure for themselves and for posterity the bless-\\nings of liberty, and that purpose has been faithfully fol-\\nlowed up to this time.\\nLiberty, equality and freedom were the watchwords\\nof the Declaration of Independence. My prayer is with\\nRev. Van Dyke, who, in speaking of the Flag, says:\\nHitherto it has meant freedom and equality and self-\\ngovernment, and battle only for the sake of peace. Pray\\nGod its message may never be altered.\\nHow can Patriot justify his name when he holds to a\\ncontrary doctrine?\\nPatriot If the policy pursued in the Philippines\\nchanged the message of the Flag, if it struck from the\\nnational hymns the precious words of freedom and liberty,\\ni", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 211\\nif it altered our purpose to secure for ourselves and our\\nposterity the blessings of liberty, then I should be as\\nenthusiastic in my opposition to that policy as is Pessimist.\\nThe difference between us, therefore, is that he is proceed-\\ning upon the assumption that such a revolution as de-\\nscribed in his quotations will be the result of our policy,\\nwhile I deny it. The question we are discussing is pre-\\ncisely the question as I have put it, and to indulge merely\\nin patriotic utterances begs the question. The charge\\nthat such a revolution as described has taken place has\\nalready been met in many of its aspects, and I propose\\nbefore this discussion is concluded to show that it is\\nnot a justifiable charge. For this purpose let us analyze\\nwhat is meant by the words freedom, liberty and equality,\\nand what our Fathers meant by blessings for themselves\\nand their posterity. First of all, who are their posterity?\\nWill the strict constructionists tell me that it was meant\\nin its literal sense If so, every emigrant admitted to our\\nsoil after that word was spoken is usurping the blessings\\nintended by the Fathers for their own posterity; and\\nstrange as it may seem, this usurpation was by their own\\nconsent.\\nPessimist Oh, of course, it meant any person or num-\\nber of persons who might subsequently be admitted to\\nthose blessings by their consent.\\nPatriot: Would you say, then, that only the consent\\nof the founders of our government would justify a divis-\\nion of those blessings\\nPessimist: Now you are getting into technicalities\\nagain.\\nPatriot: You were never more mistaken in your life.\\nThe precise thing that I am doing is to avoid the tech-\\nnicalities you are resorting to. You admit, now, that", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "212 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.\\npeople other than their posterity might be admitted to\\nthese blessings by their consent. Very well, exceptions\\nto that rule, or better still, an enlargement of that rule,\\nare admissible when the judgment of those concerned\\nwarrants. Now the Fathers did admit others in two\\nways They allowed the immigration of people from\\nevery civilized and uncivilized country on the face of the\\nearth. They boasted of the fact that they had established\\nan asylum for the oppressed of every land. They also\\nadmitted others into these blessings by acquiring new\\nterritory even the Fathers themselves. So far the ex-\\nception to the rule must be commended in the very act\\nof commending the rule itself, because both rule and\\nexception emanate from the same source. Their succes-\\nsors followed their example and continued to admit emi-\\ngrants from other countries and to acquire other territory.\\nThis is the sum and substance of what we are doing in\\nacquiring Porto Rico and the Philippines, and by gov-\\nerning them as our Fathers governed the territory they\\nadmitted we are simply enlarging the scope of our\\nblessings by enlarging the definition of posterity, just as\\nour Fathers did. But let us not stop here let us press\\nthe inquiry sufficiently into history to ascertain the mean-\\ning of these words, because a popular conception of lib-\\nerty, for example, may possibly be erroneous. I have\\nalready endeavored to distinguish between liberty and\\nlicense and I believe I have shown that liberty must be\\naccompanied by some sort of restraint, and that being true\\nwe may well inquire, we must inquire what are the legiti-\\nmate limitations to put upon the actions of a man and\\nyet leave him unstripped of his liberty. The Mormons\\nclaim the right to-day of plural marriage, and have in-\\nveighed against this Government for striking down their\\nreligious liberty by pronouncing as immoral and illegal", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 213\\nwhat they call liberty. In the good old days it was re-\\ngarded as a part of the liberty of a husband to administer\\ncorporal punishment to his wife, and statutes are extant\\nin some States to this day, though unenforced, giving\\nthis right and placing upon it certain limitations as to the\\nsize of the rod which may be used, etc. Even there, their\\nliberty was restrained, because they might not go beyond\\ncertain extremes of severity but we of this age and gen-\\neration do not charge those who repealed such laws with\\ntaking away the liberty properly belonging to husbands,\\nnor do we believe that our national legislators robbed\\nanybody of any proper liberty by pronouncing polygamy\\na crime.\\nPessimist: How would you define liberty then?\\nPatriot Roughly speaking, individual liberty is that\\nright which a sovereign State sees fit to give to its inhab-\\nitants to do as they please so long as that pleasure does\\nnot conflict with the liberty of others.\\nProf. Burgess in Political Science and Comparative\\nConstitutional Law, says There never was and never\\ncan be any liberty upon this earth and among human\\nbeings outside of State organization.\\nThis is rational, because without the State organization\\nto restrain those who would abuse liberty, those who\\nwould use it properly would be robbed of that privilege.\\nNow in determining the liberty which we shall enjoy,\\nwe take into consideration the time honored maxim, the\\ngreatest good to the greatest number, and so we give\\nStatehood to some portions of our territory, Territorial\\ngovernment to other portions and military rule to still\\nothers, as the respective cases need and deserve.\\nWe are talking about precedents and traditions of our\\nhistory, and if we are violating the sacred meaning of", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "214 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nliberty in thus discriminating, we are only following in\\nthe footsteps of the founders of the Government, for they\\nhad their States and their Territories and they kept the\\nsentinel over some of their own people and over the un-\\nfortunate Indians. All this was justified, as they thought,\\nand is justified as we think by the needs of civilization\\nas planned by a higher power. In the judgment of finite\\nman this is right. If it is wrong, then it must be the\\njudgment of finite man that our Maker was wrong in\\nso constituting us. And as we do not administer the\\nsame degree of liberty to groups of inhabitants in differ-\\nent Territories, so we do not, nor did the Fathers, extend\\nthe same privileges to all individuals alike and this\\nbrings us to the consideration of the word equality.\\nWe subscribe reverently to the doctrine that all men\\nwere created free and equal, but we accept as an un-\\navoidable condition of that equality the limitations put\\nupon it by publicists, philosophers, lawyers and our high-\\nest courts of justice who have told us that it means\\nequality before the law and in the race for worldly goods\\nand happiness, and that it can not, in the nature of our\\nexistence, mean equality in any other sense. To say that\\nit means equality in natural ability is merely to indulge\\nin the statement of an absurdity too apparent to deserve\\na moment s consideration. It is to dispute the parable of\\nthe talents and the teachings of our literature, both sacred\\nand profane, from the commencement of time. To say\\nthat it means equality in privileges and immunities\\noutside of the law, is to accuse, not only ourselves,\\nbut our ancestors, of wrong, and to claim, on the other\\nhand, that the right to vote, the right to make con-\\ntracts, and an innumerable list of other law-given rights\\nare rights inherent in man. Whereas our forefathers be-\\nlieved, and we believe, that only those have a right to", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 215\\nvote to whom the right is given by law; and if the law\\ndoes not extend far enough, or is not universal enough in\\nits distribution of that right, then the Fathers recognized\\na more limited equality than we, because it is known that\\nthe universal manhood suffrage which we enjoy more\\nthan any other nation in the world, has been attained by\\nthe process of evolution. All of the States in the be-\\nginning had a very limited right of franchise. That right\\nwas extended by slow degrees. At first it was limited by\\nproperty qualifications, and also by a limit of age, in some\\nof the States higher and some lower. Now if equality\\nis to be interpreted in the same literal sense that one gold\\ndollar is on an equality with another, or that one two-\\ninch cube is on an equality with another two-inch cube\\ni. e., if it is to be taken in the sense of unqualified same-\\nness, then our forefathers were not justified in puttings\\nproperty qualification on the right of franchise. Their\\nreasoning should have been, all men being equal, since\\none has the right to vote, then all have the right to vote.\\nAnd in addition to this it would have been extremely\\ndifficult for them to fix the age limit, for who shall say\\nwhat constitutes manhood? Is it 21 years of age? We\\nsee imbeciles and idiots, criminals and degenerates, above\\nthat age, and we see a high type of moral and intellectual\\ndevelopment much under that age. Would anyone claim\\nthat Edward Atkinson, who writes commonplace\\nvituperations against economic conditions, is superior\\nbecause of his seventy-two years, to a William Cullen\\nBryant, who at eighteen could write Thanatopsis?\\nPessimist Well, they simply follow the general rule\\nthat for the most part men do reach the age of manhood\\nat 21.\\nPatriot: Precisely. In other words, they do what in\\ntheir wisdom as human beings is the best thing to do", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "216 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nunder the circumstances, which proves that they do not\\nstrive for absolute equality, but for equality surrounded\\nby such limitations and conditions as good government\\nrequires. Again, it is evident that our Fathers did not\\nmean equality in the literal sense, for they did not allow\\nwomen to vote they did not allow them to make contracts\\nnor to hold property, and they placed upon them, for the\\nbenefit of what they conceived to be for the interests of the\\nwomen along with the rest of humanity, a long list of\\ndisabilities, which in the further interest of humanity, by\\nadded experience and investigation, their successors have\\ngradually narrowed until to-day most of the disabilities\\nwhich our Fathers placed upon women have been removed\\nand I do not believe that people charge us with disre-\\nspect for the Fathers for thus exercising our improved\\njudgment on this question. Again, if our Fathers meant\\nto be literal in their interpretation of equality and liberty,\\nwhat shall we say of their denial of liberty and equality\\nto the colored race? They were deprived of both. As\\nSenator Mason says: We said this is the land of the\\nfree and the home of the brave, and sold women and chil-\\ndren to the highest and the best bidder for cash.\\nThis is what the Fathers did, and bless them, it was\\naccording to the best light and strength they had. Many\\nof them regretted this state of things, but most of them\\nbelieved in it most of them wrote their magnificent ap-\\npeals for liberty and freedom with pen and ink brought to\\ntheir desks by slaves. I shall advert to this subject again\\nunder the head of Government Expediency but before\\nleaving the present topic I would like to cite one more\\ninstance in which the Fathers denied equality in its literal\\nsense, namely, the Indians. We approve that judgment\\nand if, in working out the salvation of our country in its\\nextended form, we shall find in the way of that civiliza-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 21?\\ntion savage and brutal tribes, we shall exercise the same\\ncommon sense and perform the same sacred duty to our\\nposterity which the Fathers exercised and performed in\\nrestraining or punishing, as the case may require, until\\nchurches and school houses shall occupy the ground\\nnow used for war dances, and factories and commercial\\ninstitutions where now barbarous tribes hunt and destroy\\none another. This is civilization. This is government,\\naccording to the ideals of the Fathers and according to\\nthe ideals of the generations which came after them;\\nand as we have improved upon the quality and quantity\\nof liberty which they allowed to men, and particularly\\nto women, and to the colored race, so I confidently believe\\nthat we shall improve upon their treatment of savage\\ntribes, which was the best they could do under the cir-\\ncumstances, but which subsequent experience has shown\\nus was far from ideal.\\nWhat has been said about equality and liberty applies\\nequally to freedom. If freedom in a literal sense had\\nbeen meant, the Declaration of Independence would have\\nbeen an Emancipation Proclamation as well but it took\\nthree-quarters of a century of additional study, additional\\ngrowth of morality, and additional manhood to enable\\nLincoln to write that Emancipation Proclamation which\\nthe Fathers failed to write. No, they did not mean that\\nwe should use these words as inflexible rules contrary to\\ncommon sense. In this, as in all other matters, they ex-\\npected we would grow, and if their spirits hover over us,\\nwho can doubt that they are rejoicing in the magnificent\\nfact that we have grown, that we have developed, that\\nwe have used instead of hiding away the talents which\\nthey provided for us, that we not only have had the rev-\\nerence for their teachings to go as far as they led us\\nin the right direction, but that we have the stamina and", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "218 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthe manhood to go still further, even into untried fields\\nof human endeavor, according to our still better light and\\nadded strength and do they not rejoice in the fact that\\nwe recognize not only their teachings as a part of our\\nheritage, but that we recognize as an additional and\\neven more valuable consequence of the wise work done\\nby them, the added light, the increased knowledge, and\\ntherefore the superior ability which has thus been vouch-\\nsafed to us.\\nTo claim, even by implication, as Mr. Bryan does, that\\nwisdom became extinct at the death of Jefferson, is\\nthe saddest thing that can be charged against our ances-\\ntors, for it is only another way of accusing them of\\nbringing forth a race of weaklings, who merely reflect\\nthe greatness of their fathers, but can have no hope of\\ngreatness themselves. The fact that Jefferson and the\\nrest believed that they were founding a self-governing\\ngovernment is proof positive that they expected their\\nsons to the end of time to exercise the kind of discretion\\nand independent judgment by which alone a self-govern-\\nment can subsist.\\nPessimist What is the use to talk about self-govern-\\nment unless the people who are governed give their\\nconsent to that government?\\nPatriot Are you willing that we should now take up\\nthe discussion of the topic you indicate?\\nUncle Sam Unless someone still insists upon the\\nliteral interpretation of the words freedom, equality and\\nliberty, and has additional arguments to offer on that\\nside, I assume that all are satisfied with the arguments\\npresented by Patriot. Hearing no objection, we will pass\\nto the next topic.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 219\\nCONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.\\nPessimist: I accept Mr. Bryan s proposition that,\\ngovernment is either by force or by consent/ and if\\nwe are going to administer force in the government of\\nthe Philippines I should like to know how you make\\nthat out a government by consent?\\nPatriot I fear the audience has already grown weary\\nof our repetition of this argument, but as usual, you have\\nprovoked it after demonstration, and I ask the indulgence\\nof the people here while I once more remind them and\\nyou that no more force and no different kind of force is\\nused, or contemplated, in the government of the Filipinos\\nthan we are using or have used in other territory belong-\\ning to the United States. I have said repeatedly that\\nthe conditions are precisely the same, but you simply\\nrefuse to accept a demonstrated fact, and that is char-\\nacteristic of the Democratic Party. Gresham s Law\\nlaid down over three hundred years ago the proposition\\nthat cheap money drives good money out of the market.\\nThis has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of scientific\\nminds and to the satisfaction of civilized nations, and yet\\nthe Democratic Party insists upon trying it again. A\\nprotective tariff has been found by actual experience\\nto be a benefit to laborers in the United States, by en-\\nabling us to do our manufacturing at home and to employ\\nour labor and capital in industry. We have proved\\nthis by the abundant prosperity experienced under pro-\\ntective tariff laws, and by the miserable adversity forced\\nupon us by free trade and yet the Democratic Party\\nwants to try it again. And so after my repeated proof\\nthat the status of the Filipinos is the same as the status\\nof the inhabitants of our other territory, you return to\\nthe argument and claim that we are exercising a kind of\\ngovernment there which we do not exercise elsewhere.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "220 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nBut I shall now reply to Pessimist s point by analysis.\\nOur Government has always consisted partly of force\\nand partly of consent. In this matter Mr. Bryan has\\nagain proved himself a mere theorist. He lays down a\\nproposition in political science that government is either\\nby force or by consent, and then, with that fatuity which\\nmarks so much of his effort, he proceeds upon the assump-\\ntion that political science is an exact science, and that\\nthe conduct of those in charge of public affairs can be\\nprescribed by inflexible rules. He seems to look upon\\nour Government as a sort of perpetual motion machine,\\nwhich, having been set going by the Fathers, must be\\nleft to run without any further attention.\\nI lay it down as an incontrovertible proposition that\\nthere is no such government on earth, and that there\\ncan be no such government on earth, so long as it is\\ninhabited merely by human beings, as a government\\nwholly by consent i. e., a government by consent with-\\nout any force but the United States Government is a\\ngovernment by consent in the broad sense in which the\\nterm was used by the Fathers, and we must apply that\\nrule in our interpretation of it otherwise it is absolutely\\nmeaningless and impossible. The more than six millions\\nof people who voted for Mr. Bryan in 1896 are to-day,\\nby his strict rule, being governed without their consent,\\nbut most of them are glad of it.\\nPessimist: Mr. Bryan does not mean the consent of\\nevery individual, he means the consent of the majority.\\nPatriot: Very well, then, you admit that the word\\nis not to be used in its literal and strict interpretation.\\nThat takes us a long way on our journey toward a right\\nunderstanding. If we have not already ascertained that\\nour government in the Philippines is by the consent of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST: 221\\na majority, it is simply because the time and opportunity\\nhave not yet been afforded to ascertain the facts. You, at\\nleast, have not shown that any other kind of government\\nproposed there has the consent of the majority thus if\\nI am wrong in believing that we have the consent of the\\nmajority in the Philippines, it does not help your cause,\\nfor you cannot say that we have not the consent; nor\\ndoes it hurt my cause, for it justifies our holding the\\nislands until time enough shall have elapsed to ascertain\\nwhat that consent is and then if it should transpire that\\nwe have not the consent of the majority the question\\ncould be properly raised were it not for an additional fact\\nwhich must be taken into consideration in determining the\\nquestion of consent.\\nWe have never recognized that consent of majority\\nmeans the consent of the majority of each political divis-\\nion. The majority of the people in Louisiana voted for Mr.\\nBryan for President, but Mr. McKinley was seated as their\\nPresident, i. e., we ascertained the will of the majority\\nof the whole United States. In deciding what govern-\\nment is justifiable in the Philippines we must pursue the\\nsame plan as we would pursue in determining the kind\\nof government justifiable in the territory of New Mexico.\\nNow what would be our method there? Would we take\\na vote of the inhabitants of New Mexico and then give\\nthem the kind of government they decided upon? If so,\\nsuppose they said they would have a king, or suppose a\\ndictator would set himself up as Aguinaldo has done in\\nthe Philippines, and, to make the case even stronger than\\nAguinaldo s, they would vote a ratification of his act,\\nwould we allow a dictatorship to go on there? Suppose\\nthey committed any sort of act violating the sovereignty\\nof the United States, would we, because the consent of\\nthe majority had been obtained to that act, be compelled", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "222 PATRIOT OR P US SI MI ST t\\nto approve it Suppose the} decided by a vote that they\\nno longer wished to be a part of the United States at all,\\ndo you not see, Pessimist, and does not Mr. Bryan see,\\nto what an absurd end the logical analysis of this propo-\\nsition would lead us? We are bound to conclude that\\nsecession could not be allowed, and that our prevention\\nof secession would still be in keeping with the theory\\nthat this government is a government by consent, and if\\nsecession could not be allowed when voted by the people\\nof the territory belonging to the United States, then a\\ndictatorship could be prevented in keeping with that the-\\nory; and if all this is true of Mexico, is it not equally\\ntrue of the Philippines, where at least it is not certain\\nthat the majority favors separation?\\nIf Mr. Bryan thinks we are not in the habit of using\\nforce in connection with consent, let me remind him of\\nthe effort of the Southern States to secede, which was\\nresisted by all the force necessary, and if he still is\\nnot convinced, let him start an insurrection against the\\nUnited States Government in Nebraska, and let him get\\nthe consent of all the governed there, or let him start the\\ninsurrection in Alaska with the consent of the governed\\nthere, and see what will be the result.\\nPessimist: Now, I have you right where I want you.\\nI have read in the paper recently, and have heard Mr.\\nBryan quote a statement made by Abraham Lincoln.\\nThis quotation will compel you to admit that you are\\nwrong, or it will leave you but one alternative, and that\\nis to say that Lincoln did not know what he was talking\\nabout. He says\\nNo man is good enough to govern another without\\nthe other s consent. When the white man governs him-\\nself, that is self-government, but when he governs him-\\nself and also another man, that is more than self-govern-\\nment that is despotism. Our reliance is in the love of", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 223\\nliberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in\\nthe spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men\\nin all lands everywhere. Those who deny freedom to\\nothers, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just\\nGod cannot long retain it. I pause for reply.\\nPatriot The use of this quotation from Lincoln\\nagainst our policy in the Philippines illustrates better\\nthan anything I could produce the hypocrisy of our ad-\\nversaries. What Lincoln meant, as every reasoning man\\nknows, was that one individual should not govern an-\\nother individual by force, as slave holders were then\\ndoing. He did not mean that the sovereign power of a\\ngovernment should not use force in governing one of\\nits members if need be, nor does the language admit of\\nsuch construction, even if we were left to the language\\nitself for our understanding of it. But about the time Lin-\\ncoln said this he was using force against nearly half the\\npeople in the United States. He allowed men to be court-\\nmartialed and shot it was by his sanction that military\\nrule prevailed in many States which were not strictly a\\npart of the scene of the war. Officers of the law were\\nstill permitted to arrest, try and punish criminals against\\ntheir consent, and he was exercising his executive power\\nin the governing of territories in p r ecisely the same man-\\nner as President McKinley is exercising his powers in\\nthe government of Porto Rico and the Philippines, using\\nmilitary rule wherever necessary.\\nIf Mr. Bryan is in doubt as to what McKinley would\\ndo to him if he were leading an insurrection in some other\\nterritory like Aguinaldo is in the Philippines, let him\\nreview some of the proclamations which fell thick and\\nfast from the pen of Lincoln at about the same time he\\nexpressed himself in the language which Pessimist has\\nquoted. These proclamations called such conduct trea-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "224 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nson, and threatened sufficient force to put it down,\\nwhether he had the consent of the traitors or not, and I\\nhave looked in vain for any effort on the part of Lincoln\\nto ascertain the will of the majority in the seceding States\\nwhen they were struggling for secession. The plain,\\nsimple, unvarnished truth is, Mr. Bryan knows the gov-\\nernment in the Philippines to-day does not violate the\\nprinciple that governments derive their just powers from\\nthe consent of the governed.\\nUncle Sam: Is there anything further? Then let us\\ncontinue the discussion under the next topic.\\nTAXATION AND REPRESENTATION.\\nPessimist: This government is built upon the prin-\\nciple that there should be no taxation without representa-\\ntion, and I would remind the audience of Mr. Bryan s\\nprophecy that Fourth of July orators would be warned to\\nkeep silent about taxation without representation after\\nwe have finally decided to govern the Philippines without\\nthe consent of their inhabitants. It seems rather re-\\nmarkable to think of an orator being restrained from say-\\ning anything he pleases in America, but you have heard\\nwhat Mr. Bryan said about it.\\nPatriot Taxation without representation in its literal\\nand uncomprOmised significance is another one of those\\nmagnificent idealities toward which a republic should\\nwork, but which, in its perfection, no republic made up of\\nhuman beings can ever quite attain. We have set our-\\nselves up as a model, and we subscribe in full faith to a\\nsensible understanding of the principle that there should\\nbe no taxation without representation. Representation is,\\nof course, used in the sense of franchise, and yet we\\nproceed to tax women, infants and foreigners without\\ngiving them any representation. We have always done\\nthis and have escaped any successful charge of violating", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 235\\nrepublican principles. Before Mr. Bryan can convince\\nthe people that the Philippine policy is a blow at free\\ninstitutions on this ground, he will first have to convince\\nus that we and our ancestors have been wrong from the\\ntime Hawaii was annexed clear back to the purchase and\\ngovernment of Louisiana territory, because we are doing\\nidentically the same thing in the Philippines that we are\\ndoing in Alaska and have done in the other territories.\\nWe are giving them a military government, with the view\\nto extending it to a regular territorial government as\\nsoon as conditions in those islands will permit.\\nTo show that it is wrong, then, Pessimist will have\\nto show that we have been wrong in the other cases. Will\\nhe attempt this\\nPessimist Nothing more to say on this topic. I do\\nnot care much about this particular feature anyway.\\nPatriot: Will you then take up the next?\\nDECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE FATHERS.\\nPessimist: When we think of the blood which was\\nshed to secure the blessings demanded and declared to be\\nours in the Declaration of Independence, what must we\\nfeel toward that man or set of men who tries to rob us\\nof those blessings by inaugurating a system of colonial\\ngovernment contrary to the principles of that Immortal\\ndocument penned by Jefferson. It says that all men\\nare created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator\\nwith certain inalienable rights, and among these are life,\\nliberty and the pursuit of happiness.\\nIt also says that governments derive their just powers\\nfrom the consent of the governed, that whenever any form\\nof government becomes destructive of these ends, it is\\nthe right of the people to alter or to abolish it.\\nIt is upon these doctrines and in our effort to maintain\\nthem sacredly that we rely for votes to sustain our posi-\\ntion. If everything else in my argument has failed up to", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "226 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthis time the spectacle Patriot will make of himself in\\ntrying to answer me now, will more than balance our\\naccount in my favor. We have finally come to the parting\\nof the ways. No amount of logic and scientific discus-\\nsion can save him this time. He must either stick to the\\nDeclaration and abandon the Philippines, or he must\\ntake the other road, which is to stick to the Philippines\\nand abandon the Declaration. Now, what will Patriot,\\nthe apologist for the Administration, say?\\nPatriot: I do not wish to divert attention from our\\nserious inquiry, but I am tempted to express my personal\\nopinion of Pessimist s effort to save a lost cause by con-\\ntemptible insinuations and by the use of isolated words\\nand phrases from an instrument, which when read as a\\nwhole warrants and justifies our course in the Philippines.\\nThis wicked garbling of the writings and sayings of great\\nmen is always indulged in by political charlatans; but it\\nis indulged in to an unusual extent in the present cam-\\npaign a fact which may well cause concern among\\nthoughtful men. Such a disposition on the part of a\\nplausible orator makes him, whether he has good or bad\\nintentions, a positively dangerous man to a community.\\nLet us turn to the Declaration of Independence itself, and\\nsee if it bears such a mission as these few catchwords\\nand phrases interpreted literally would indicate. The\\nfirst paragraph of the Declaration itself lays it down as\\na duty that a people, who are forced by necessity to sep-\\narate themselves from another people, should declare the\\ncauses which impel them to the separation. Now this\\nproves that the framers of the Declaration of Independ-\\nence did not object to the fact of colonial government,\\nbut merely objected to the kind of colonial government\\nwhich had been forced upon them, and it also raises the\\nquestion in our minds as to what causes for separation\\nwould the Filipinos be able to recite which would, in the", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT UK PESSIMIST t 82?\\nlanguage of the Declaration, show a decent respect to the\\nopinions of mankind.\\nThe second paragraph, which states that all men are\\ncreated equal, etc., says Whenever any form of gov-\\nernment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right\\nof the people to alter or to abolish it.\\nThe language employed by the Fathers proves that\\nequality, liberty, freedom, etc., represent a condition which\\nmay be had under different forms of government. But\\nabove all, it inferentially denies the right of a people to\\nseparate from its government until that government be-\\ncomes destructive of these ends. If, therefore, the\\nDemocratic party should, agreeable to the suggestion of\\nMr. Bourke Cockran adopt the Declaration of Independ-\\nence as its platform, it would be compelled to show that\\nour government has become destructive of these ends,\\ni. e., destructive of life, liberty and the pursuit of happi-\\nness, etc., before it would recommend separation accord-\\ning to the Declaration and if it could show that of the\\nPhilippines, it would at the same time justify the secession\\nof all our other territories, because no discrimination has\\nbeen made, but so far from proving this, the campaign\\nof education would compel all right-minded men to admit\\nthat we are giving them a higher degree of self-govern-\\nment than they have ever had before.\\nFurther along in the Declaration it says\\nWhen a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursu-\\ning invariably the same object, evinces a design to re-\\nduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right,\\nit is their duty, to throw off such government and to pro-\\nvide new guards for their future security.\\nThis applied to the Philippine Question justifies their\\nseparation from the rule of Aguinaldo, because he has\\nindulged in that long train of abuses and usurpation.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "228 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nBut before the Declaration can be pleaded to justify theii\\nseparation from us, it must first be shown that the United\\nStates has burdened them with a long train of abuses\\nand usurpations for the purpose of reducing them under\\nabsolute despotism.\\nAccording to the Fathers, when all this has happened,\\nbut not until then can their separation be justified. But\\nso long as the same kind of government is provided to\\nthem as to the other territories, this cannot be shown, and\\nwe are in no danger of having to fight over again the war\\nof secession.\\nI would recommend, then, that each one in this audi-\\nence review in the Declaration the long train of abuses\\nand usurpations upon which was based our right of sep-\\naration and independence.\\nThe king forbade the governors to pass laws of imme-\\ndiate and pressing importance shifted the place\\nof holding the legislative sessions here and there distant\\nfrom the depository of their public records for the sole\\npurpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his\\nmeasures.\\nIf our government should be guilty of such abuses, the\\npolitical party which pointed them out would sweep the\\ncountry. British government refused to provide for the\\nadministration of justice. We compelled its adminis-\\ntration. They made the judges dependent upon the will\\nof the king. The limited tenure of our President s office\\nrenders this condition impossible in the government of\\ncur territories. They appointed English officers to rule\\nover us, while we employed natives to the fullest extent\\npossible. They transported our people beyond seas\\nto be tried for pretended offenses. We establish courts\\nof justice in our territories and make the native inhabi-\\ntants themselves judges of the courts. They suspended", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 220\\nour legislatures and arrogated to themselves the right to\\nlegislate for us in all cases whatsoever. We have estab-\\nlished local autonomy and are educating the people as\\nrapidly as possible to make their own laws in all cases\\nnot controverting the general policy of our Federal Gov-\\nernment. Their conduct among us was accompanied with\\ncircumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled\\nin the most barbarous ages, while our conduct in the\\nPhilippines has been characterized by patience even in\\nthe face of insult and by the most humane treatment, not\\nalone of the non-combatants, but even of the treasonable\\ninsurgents when taken prisoner. The Declaration says\\nA prince whose character is thus marked by every act\\nwhich may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a\\nfree people.\\nThis language shows that the framers of the Declara-\\ntion had no such narrow views of the word free as has\\nbeen ascribed to them by Pessimist and his friends. The\\nimplication here is that a prince who is not guilty of such\\ntyrannical acts may be fit to be the ruler of a free people,\\nand that if King George had been such a prince they\\nwould not have felt justified in declaring the separation.\\nAnd do we not hear it said, even to this day, that if such\\njustice as good governmental policy ought to have dictated\\nhad been indulged toward the American colonies, we\\nwould be a British province, the same as Canada, at this\\ntime In the light of increased knowledge we might have\\nfound other justifiable means for separation, but we have\\nbeen drawn into a discussion of the Philippine Question\\naccording to the teachings of the Declaration, and as far\\nas anything said in it is capable of guiding us, we are\\nforced to conclude that the Fathers themselves would\\nnot have counseled separation but for the long train of\\nabuses which they recited.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "230 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nThus, so far from justifying our abandonment of the\\nPhilippines, a right interpretation would justify our con-\\ntinued sovereignty over the islands, even if we were\\nexercising that sovereignty in a monarchical way, so long\\nas we did not resort to this long train of abuses. How\\nmuch more would the Declaration justify our sovereignty\\nwhen it is one of benign aid, and beneficent education\\nunaccompanied by the first suggestion of cruelty suffered\\nby our colonial fathers.\\nThere are some other distinctions which the thought\\nof the Declaration forces upon us. When we determined\\nto separate from the sovereign country, we had lived\\nunder it 150 years, and when we finally separated we\\nwere able to establish a just and intelligent government\\nof our own. If the Filipinos could separate, as Bryan\\nwishes to have them do, they would not be able to estab-\\nlish a just government of their own, but would fall im-\\nmediately under the blighting rule of despotism or anar-\\nchv. What then would become of the platitudes of the\\nDeclaration\\nIt should be borne in mind that we have now in our\\nvocabulary a larger word even that that of patriotism.\\nThat word is humanity. In the dark ages of feudalism\\nthe vassal swore fealty to his feudal lord, and was ready\\nto fight for the protection of his person. A little later,\\nby reason of the compact between the various lords and\\nthe king, all these feudal subjects took the oath of allegi-\\nance to the king, by which they were bound to protect him\\nin the possession of life and of his royal realm. No patri-\\notism in that, but a sort of enthusiastic devotion for the\\nking himself, tinctured with the self-interest subserved\\nby the maintenance of supremacy over the various kingly\\nfactions. But when the jealousies of kings caused them\\nto fight one another in wars of extermination, then was", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 231\\ncultivated in the minds of the people themselves a love of\\ncountry. That was patriotism. There was never an\\nexample of so pure a type of patriotism as was possible\\nunder a republican government until the example of\\nAmerican patriotism was presented to the world. There\\nwas love of country, not for the sake of a king, but for\\nthe sake of the people themselves who owned and were a\\npart of the country. This sentiment reached its highest\\npoint when the rebellion was resisted by the war for the\\npreservation of the Union, i. e., for the preservation of\\nthe united country. That war was fought on the prin-\\nciple of patriotism, i. e., to preserve and protect the coun-\\ntry for the first few months and then another step was\\ntaken in the evolution, and we found ourselves contend-\\ning and fighting for a principle higher than patriotism,\\nbut not the highest yet. It was a contention for human-\\nity in America. We were ready then to say, and felt\\nstrong enough to say, there shall be no slavery here no\\ncruelty, no abuse, no tyranny, no despotism within the\\nmagic line which marks the boundaries of these United\\nStates. This was a long step in advance, but it was not\\nthe end of the journey. We did not concern ourselves\\nwith the situation elsewhere. South America was still\\na slave continent. The pagan nations generally contin-\\nued in slavery. The Spaniards then, as in recent years,\\nwere indulging in barbaric cruelty in sight of our south-\\nern doorsteps. We said that is none of our business. We\\nhad reached that rung in the ladder of civilization which\\nmay be defined as humanity in America. The next step\\nwas not taken until the platform of the Republican party\\nwarned Spain that the time had come when we would\\nnot tolerate brutality so close to our possessions and,\\nfaithful to that pledge, William McKinley so directed\\nevents as to cultivate in the breast of every American", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "232 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f\\npatriot the feeling of humanity in the Western Hemi-\\nsphere. This marked another epoch.\\nStill another step remained. The accident of war had\\nplaced us in guardianship over the Filipinos. As soon as\\nthe cruel hold of the Spaniards was broken, Ave found\\nthat Aguinaldo and his insurgents were committing the\\nsame kind of cruel acts in the Eastern Hemisphere to\\nwhich we objected on the part of the Spaniards in the\\nWestern Hemisphere. We said Let us take the other\\nstep, we are blessed with the opportunity, we are charged\\nwith the duty, and we are clothed with the power. Let\\nus step to the top of the ladder and register on the highest\\ncrag of the mountain of civilization away up higher\\nthan any inscription ever written there our eternal pro-\\ntest against brutality and barbarity in the treatment of\\nany people anywhere. Thus we have reached the con-\\nception of world humanity.\\nBut even this high ideal can be carried into practice\\nonly so fast and so far as our influence and our warlike\\nforce will insure its success. To say that we must fight\\nfor these principles all at once all over the world would\\nbe to adopt the policy as narrow and one-sided, and as\\ntheoretical and impractical as that which our adversaries\\nwished to apply in their interpretation of the sayings of\\nthe Fathers. The fruits of this great victory cannot be\\nreached unless we push forward to more advanced ground\\nthan could be occupied by our ancestors, and this is in\\naccordance with their wish and example. That they\\nthemselves had no intention of being bound by the literal\\ninterpretation of the language used, is proved by their\\nown conduct. Upon what other theory can Pessimist\\njustify their going to royal courts in knickerbockers, their\\nuse of diplomatic language expressing the most heartfelt\\nsympathy and respect for his royal majesty this, and his", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 233\\nworshipful majesty that, trading and hobnobbing with\\nhated crowned heads of Europe. The example which\\nthe Fathers did set and which we should follow, is that\\nof applying good sense to existing conditions, and of not\\nspoiling the possibility of any blessing by making the\\nunreasonable demand for all the conceivable blessings at\\nonce.\\nIn the presence of novel conditions, shall we call to the\\nshades of wise men a century dead for specific direc-\\ntions, or shall we turn to the wise men living and have\\nthe courage to adopt their views, original though they\\nare? It cheapens the value of the Declaration of Inde-\\npendence to call it down as an authority against the Phil-\\nippine policy, for it gives those who do not look deeply\\ninto the question but who have an abiding faith in the\\njustice and fairness of our present government, an idea\\nthat the Declaration of Independence was a sort of ad-\\nmonition for sublimated purity and perfection on earth\\ntoward which men ought to aim, but which they could\\nnever, in the nature of human limitations, achieve.\\nWhereas, in truth the Declaration applies to and justifies\\nthe practical policy of the Fathers and of the present\\nAdministration. It was not an attenuated plea for gov-\\nernmental sanctification, but a strong, robust enunciation\\nof practical possibilities for a practical people.\\nThe founders of this government did not run amuck\\nand declare that the words all men are created\\nequal applies without exception. If they had, as I have\\nstated before, they would have been compelled to apply it\\nto the colored race, they w r ould have been compelled to\\navoid the appearance of evil and thus to refuse to send\\nambassadors and consuls abroad or to accept like repre-\\nsentatives from other countries whose governments dis-\\nputed this inherent right. What they did mean was that", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "234 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST t\\nall men are born free and equal and that the good offices\\nof American government should be used toward bringing\\nall men it does not say in America merely but all men\\nthroughout the world, into this rightful heritage as speed-\\nily as possible in keeping with actual progress and the\\ngreatest good to the greatest number. They recognized,\\nas we do, that we cannot at once demand a change of gov-\\nernment in all the world, because our rashness would only\\ndefeat our ultimate purpose nor can we make the rule\\ninflexible as to our own government because not all of our\\nown people are able to stand the light of freedom and\\nliberty and equality in its full and unlimited extent; and\\nif we insisted upon adjusting all conditions forthwith to\\nour exalted views instead of bending to suit our fastidious\\nand superhuman conceits, the undeveloped conditions\\nwould rather cause our rule to break, and we should slide\\nbackward in the scale of civilization in our too ardent\\neffort to move forward.\\nIf the Fathers had intended to be literal, how is it\\nthat Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independ-\\nence, neglected throughout his long term of public ser-\\nvice, eight years of which was spent in the executive\\nchair, to recommend and insist upon the abolition of\\nslavery? No, they meant to be practical, and in showing\\nthe non-application of the Declaration of Independence\\nto the claims of our adversaries, I do not seek to belittle\\nit, nor to reflect discredit upon those who adopted it but\\nwhen hypocrites dwell with such assumed reverence upon\\na scriptural text as to warp its language into a plea for\\ntheir unjust cause, it is needful that the limitations of\\nthat text be pointed out and that the circumstances of\\nits enunciation be explained in order the more surely to\\nconserve its true sacred meaning and its influence for\\nrighteous ends. It is to our great credit that we pay at-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 233\\ntention to precedents and traditions, but in the language\\nof Madison:\\nIs it not to the glory of the people of America that\\nwhilst they paid a decent regard to the opinions of former\\ntimes and other nations, they have not suffered a blind\\nveneration for antiquity, for custom or for names to over-\\nrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowl-\\nedge of their own situation and the lesson of their own\\nexperience? This is precisely what the doctrinaires of\\ndemocracy insist upon our doing in the present contest.\\nNone of this argument goes to the point of finding fault\\nwith freedom, liberty or any of the other tenets for which\\nour ancestors contended, but merely to show that they\\nset the example of practicability in research for these\\nprinciples.\\nTHE FACT AND THE KIND OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT.\\nPatriot As a matter of simple truth, there is not a\\nword in the Declaration of Independence itself, nor have\\nthe public speakers against our Philippine policy adduced\\nany remarks from any of the Fathers in protest against\\ncolonial government as a fact, i. e., as an existing condi-\\ntion. What they did protest against the sum and sub-\\nstance of it all was the kind of colonial government\\nunder which they were forced to live. While I do not\\noffer any apology for colonial government, but on the\\ncontrary have shown, and shall in a later topic show more\\nfully still, that we are not conducting a colonial govern-\\nment in the Philippines, yet to those who pin such faith\\nto the beliefs and doctrines of our colonial ancestors, I\\nwish to say emphatically that they believed a colonial\\ngovernment right, and that the Declaration of Independ-\\nence from beginning to end is but a protest against the\\nAbuse of colonies and not against the use and existence of", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "23G PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nthem. What must Mr. Bryan think of our ancestors for\\nliving under colonial rule for three hundred years if he\\nis of opinion that they objected to the fact of colonial\\nrule? He could only excuse such delay by pleading\\ncowardice on their part. If they were opposed to colonial\\ngovernment their cause of war arose, not in 1776, but in\\nthe latter part of the fifteenth century, and why did they\\nnot protest then Because in the first place they had no\\nobjection to just colonial government, and in the second\\nplace they recognized that they had not yet a sufficient\\namount of experience and training under an older sover-\\neign power to warrant their launching out into a govern-\\nment of their own. Success and liberty were dearer to\\nthem than any particular kind of government. The Dem-\\nocratic leaders want the Philippines to leap at one bound\\nto that self-governing ability to which our ancestors were\\nthree hundred years in growing.\\nTo hear some of the Democratic orators talk you would\\nthink that every government called a republic is good\\nand every government called by any other name is bad.\\nIf the people could be made to believe this, how easy it\\nwould be for tyrants to put at rest all protest and dis-\\nturbance. All that would be necessary would be to write\\nat the head of a decree or a constitution like that of Agui-\\nnaldo s, This is a republic.\\nIf as a matter of fact it is impossible for the Filipinos\\nto govern themselves according to republican ideas, which\\nis better for them, liberty, freedom and equal rights\\nbefore the law and in the pursuit of happiness\\nunder a territorial form of government in fact and in\\nname, or to have despotism and tyranny under an inde-\\npendent republican government in name only? I submit\\nthat rather than have the latter, they would be better off\\neven if governed as a colony by a monarchy. How much\\ni", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 237\\nbetter their condition if governed not by a monarchy, nor\\nyet as a colony, but by a republic in name and in fact, as\\none of its territories in keeping with its well-tested meth-\\nods of law, order and justice.\\nWill Pessimist contend that our Revolution was fought\\nbecause of colonial government, or will he not rather ad-\\nmit that it was fought because of the existence in our\\ncolonies of bad colonial government?\\nPessimist I suppose you are right about it, but any-\\nhow, they did not say anything in praise of colonial\\ngovernment, but I have not anything more to say on this\\npart of the subject.\\nPatriot It would have been quite irrelevant to the\\ncase for them to praise a foreign government which they\\nat the time were resisting, so that the last remark of Pes-\\nsimist adds nothing to the case. Let us take up the next\\ntopic.\\nGOVERNMENT EXPEDIENCY.\\nPessimist I would call the attention of the audience\\nto the fact that this topic was not suggested by me. I\\nbelieve that right should prevail, and that we have no\\nright to compromise with wrong; therefore, I haven t\\nanything more to say about government expediency.\\nPatriot There is nothing difficult about understand-\\ning the necessity for government expediency. It is like\\nthe expediency of justice. It is bound to adopt certain\\nlegal fictions in the interest of greater and of more certain\\njustice and convenience to the largest number of people.\\nRight of property is sacred, and yet, one who is not a\\ntrue owner may, by prescription, place himself in a su-\\nperior position. Our law, as well as our morals, requires\\nthat men shall pay their debts, and yet we have our stat-\\nutes of limitation which excuse the payment after the.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "238 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nlapse of a certain time, and our bankruptcy laws which\\nforce the creditor, under certain conditions, to accept\\nnothing, or less than the face of his claim. Crime\\nshould be punished, and yet our national and state ex-\\necutives are clothed with the plenary power of pardon.\\nIt is upon these principles that the government of the\\nUnited States paid tribute to pirates, bartered in slaves\\nand submitted to the slave traffic among its people, and\\nit is in keeping with these principles that the government\\nof the United States cannot be the same in all its priv-\\nileges and immunities to all sections of the country, nor\\nto all individuals in the same section. Those who have\\nclaimed that the precise methods proposed for Cuba and\\nPorto Rico should be followed out in the Philippines are\\nsimply undertaking to fasten upon the Administration a\\nprinciple in ethics rather than a rule of practical political\\nprogress and let us dwell for a moment upon this point.\\nPHILIPPINE AXD CUBAN POLICY DISTINGUISHED.\\nPessimist Yes, I should like to know how it comes\\nthat we can give one kind of encouragement to the Cubans\\nand another kind to the Filipinos without being inconsist-\\nent. We expressly declared in advance that it was not\\nour purpose to annex Cuba why should we not say\\nthe same thing about the Philippines This would have\\nsaved all the trouble, and if we must have the Philippines\\nwhy should we not declare our purpose eventually to\\nadmit them into the United States as commonwealths\\nequal to those already admitted\\nPatriot Much of this ground has already been cov-\\nered, but perhaps a recapitulation here may not be out of\\norder. The Philippines do not form the first instance in\\nwhich the United States has omitted to declare its pur-\\npose in advance with reference to territory. Hawaii and\\nAlaska are in the same category and antedate the Philip-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 239\\npine Question. The only reason such promise was in-\\ncluded in the earlier purchases was that of the youthful\\ncondition of our nation and the persistent desire on the\\npart of European nations to grasp territory in our neigh-\\nborhood, and the danger that the inhabitants within the\\nterritory acquired by us would be alienated and turned\\nagainst us before they could learn of our fixed purpose to\\ndo justice. All these reasons conspired to make it neces-\\nsary for us to proclaim in advance in those particular in-\\nstances what neither duty nor sovereign necessity outside\\nof political expediency required that we should proclaim.\\nWhen the necessity of such declaration of future pur-\\npose no longer existed, we omitted to make such dec-\\nlaration, and this was in keeping with our universal pol-\\nicy, which is to make the best bargain we can in keeping\\nwith justice, regarding each separate case in the light of\\nconditions surrounding it.\\nWe have pronounced in favor of confiscation of neutral\\ngoods in enemies vessels in treaties with some countries,\\nand in treaties with other countries we have agreed that\\ncontraband of war should not be confiscable. Govern-\\nment is a bundle of compromises, and the man who,\\neither too narrow or too inexperienced to see and apply\\nthis fundamental fact in government, is not practical\\nenough to do good among men in a political way. Such\\na man always grows backward until he reaches the midget\\nstage of political fanaticism. We must always apply the\\nsame common sense to a government proposition that we\\ndo to ordinary affairs. A half loaf is better than no\\nbread is a more sensible doctrine than to say I would\\nrather starve than have less than my share.\\nIf a family want to go to the top of the Washington\\nMonument in the elevator and there is not room enough\\nfor all at one time, and not time for two trips, they must", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "240 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ndo one of three things-: (a) All get in and break down the\\nelevator, thus injuring some and accomplishing nothing\\nfor any; (b) all stay out, or, (c) part go in and part stay\\nout, the latter taking chances on compensation in some\\nother way. Does not the compromise appeal to every one\\nas the only reasonable course? How often changed cir-\\ncumstances which seem disastrous, have proved bless-\\nings in disguise, let each answer for himself, as he has\\nseen it verified and exemplified in his own life. If we\\ncannot do precisely the same good toward two foreign\\npeoples shall we for that reason withhold all favor from\\none of them?\\nPessimist: But we adopted a resolution in Congress\\nin declaring war against Spain, a part of which was\\nThat the United States hereby disclaims any disposi-\\ntion or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or\\ncontrol over said island (Cuba) except for the pacification\\nthereof, and asserts its determination when that is ac-\\ncomplished to leave the government and control of the\\nisland to its people.\\nThat was noble. Let me read a brief paragraph from\\nthe speech of ex-Representative Towne\\nAh what a fall is here, my countrymen. Within the\\ncircuit of a single year to have declined from the moral\\nleadership of mankind into the common brigandage of\\nthe robber nations of the world l How can this be justi-\\nfied?\\nPatriot: It cannot be justified. It simply is not true.\\nThe very language of the resolution quoted by Pessimist\\nshows that our disclaimer as to sovereign jurisdiction re-\\nferred to Cuba only. It did not say that we should not\\nacquire territory or govern territory anywhere in the\\nfuture. Such a statement would have been absurd, and\\nwould have required a constitutional amendment to bind", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST 241\\nfuture administrations because the Constitution gives the\\nPresident, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen-\\nate, the right to acquire territory, and clothes Congress\\nwith the right to govern it. We have acted, therefore,\\nstrictly within our rights, whether considered from the\\nlegal or equitable standpoint, in acquiring Porto Rico and\\nthe Philippines, and in extending to them a sort of su-\\npervision different from that which we had extended to\\nCuba. If the exigencies of war had not brought the\\nPhilippines into our possession, practically at the same\\ntime that our declared purpose in Cuba was consum-\\nmated, nobody would have thought of criticising our\\ngovernment on the ground of inconsistency in its treat-\\nment of the two nations. Why should it be any more in-\\nconsistent if the one act follows immediately after the\\nother, than if there had been a lapse of many years be-\\ntween them? We have precedents for our conduct in\\nreference to both. We have, on the one hand, intervened\\nin favor of Venezuela, Mexico, and, in fact, all the gov-\\nernments of the Western Hemisphere and of Liberia in\\nthe Eastern Hemisphere, without acquiring their terri-\\ntory, and on the other, we have acquired territory from\\ntime to time and governed it. Since, therefore, we have\\nprecedents for our conduct in Cuba and also for our con-\\nduct in the Philippines, and since we have right and rea-\\nson in favor of both, by what stretch of imagination can\\nany form of logic commend one act and condemn the\\nother on the mere fact that they happened close together\\nand grew out of the same contest Even if it were true\\nthat the policy in the Philippines involved the Administra-\\ntion in a change of opinion, this would not be a ground\\nfor condemnation, as I shall show beyond question of\\ndoubt under the next head. But the critics themselves\\nrecommend one policy toward the Porto Ricans, and an-", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "242 PATRIOT GR PESSIMIST?\\nother for the Filipinos. They say: Govern Porto Rico\\nas a territory, but establish a protectorate over the Philip-\\npines.\\nFrom a practical standpoint, if one must have a pro-\\ntectorate and the other a territorial government, common\\nsense would dictate a reverse of this proposition. A pro-\\ntectorate would prove easier and more certain of success\\nin Porto Rico because European nations would recognize\\nour interference there without our being the owners, while\\nin the Philippines the only sure method of baffling the\\nnations of Europe in their purpose, if they have such\\npurpose, to entangle us on account of our relations in the\\nEast, is for us to maintain our ownership there, a kind\\nof claim which all the European governments are in the\\nhabit of respecting, when asserted by a nation of the first\\nclass.\\nWe should plant the sure foundation of peace away\\nfrom home and take the chances of embroilment close\\nat hand where it can more readily be attended to. We\\nset about to elevate civilization in Cuba by what seemed\\nthe most expeditious method for that case and when\\nin the course of human events the opportunity came to\\nelevate civilization in Porto Rico and the Philippines,\\nthere again we applied what, under the circumstances,\\nseemed the most expeditious. Though the course pur-\\nsued in one differs from that in the other, they are dis-\\ntinguishable only in kind, and not in propriety, nor in the\\napplication of finite justice. As we were right in the one.\\nso are we right in the other, and as we used the lamp\\nof experience to guide us in working out a system of\\njustice adapted to the peculiar circumstances in Cuba, so\\ndid we the same in Porto Rico and the Philippines.\\nNothing has been adduced so far to controvert this claim,\\nand I await Pessimist s effort to dispute it if he can.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f 243\\nPessimist I think I shall wait until you have finished\\nthe entire topic of government expediency.\\nPatriot Very well, then, I shall proceed under the\\nnext head.\\nEXIGENCIES OF WAR.\\nPatriot I quote from President McKinley s message\\nof Dec. 6, 1897:\\nI speak not of forcible annexation, for that is net\\nto be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be\\ncriminal aggression.\\nThis has been used as a text for so many anti-expan-\\nsion political sermons that a moment s attention to it may\\nnot be out of place. In the first place, it must be borne\\nin mind that the acquisition of the Philippines is in all\\nprobability in accordance with the wish of the majority of\\nthe inhabitants, and therefore, the presumption of crim-\\ninal aggression is not raised. On the contrary, so far as\\nhuman judgment can at this time pronounce, the pre-\\nsumption is strong that the acquisition of the Philippines\\nis by consent of the inhabitants. Furthermore it cannot\\nbe made out criminal b any contortion of language, be-\\ncause it is legal, and it is as impossible for an act to be\\nboth legal and criminal at the same time as it is for a\\nbody to be in two places at the same time, or for two\\nbodies to occupy the same place at one time. The ab-\\nsurdity of the charges made against the President must\\nherein appear plain to all. This declaration of the Presi-\\ndent related solely and only to Cuba, and it meant that\\nunder all the circumstances a forcible annexation of Cuba\\nwould amount to criminal aggression, and that criminal\\naggression could not be thought of. In view of the long\\nyears of intercourse between the United States and Cuba,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "244 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST/\\nher appeals for sympathy and our oft-repeated expres-\\nsion of hope in her behalf had, in a sense, bound us to\\nher territory differently from that of Louisiana, Alaska\\nand others, but we had no such intercourse with the\\nPhilippines, and we were bound by none of those ties.\\nBut even if the President had meant in the face of our\\npast practice that hereafter we should neither conquer, nor\\npurchase territory on the ground that we had enough, or\\nin the belief that it could no longer prove advantageous\\nto outside territory for us to conquer or acquire it, or for\\nany other reason, even then the President would have\\nbeen justified in altering his opinion, by reason of the\\nexigencies of war which no human foresight could fore-\\nsee at the time of his declaration.\\nPresident Lincoln in his first inaugural address quotes\\nfrom one of his own speeches, and reaffirms it as follows\\nI have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere\\nwith the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.\\nI believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no\\ninclination to do so.\\nBut the war came, the Union must be saved. Lincoln\\nexpressed it as his determination to save the Lnion with\\nslavery if he could, but without slavery if he must. Final-\\nly in the exercise of his war power Lincoln felt justified\\nin saying: As commander-in-chief of the army and\\nnavy in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any\\nmeasures which may best subdue the enemy. And with-\\nout the .shadow of constitutional sanction, he decreed the\\nend of slavery; and, so far from getting the consent of\\nthe governed, he even drafted free men to fight for a\\ncause which they opposed. What he did by reason of\\nthe exigencies of that war proves conclusively that it is\\nnot reprehensible nor hateful in the eyes of the people,\\nnor yet contrary to the advance of civilization, for even", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST. 215\\nthe Chief Executive to change his opinion upon a matter\\nof grave national importance. President McKinley like-\\nwise believed he had the right when the war was on to\\ndo whatever was necessary most effectually to subdue the\\nenemy. He sent a brief message to Commodore Dewey,\\ninstructing him either to capture or destroy Spain s\\nAsiatic fleet. The result of the victory which followed,\\nplaced the Philippines in our hands, brought to Commo-\\ndore Dewey the plaudits of an undivided nation, brought\\ntc this country marvelous advantages and put us in a\\nposition where we were morally bound to protect and\\ncare for the Filipinos in just precisely the same manner\\nthat Lincoln s great war measure of freeing the slaves\\ndone for no other purpose put us in position where we\\nwere morally bo\\\\md to protect and care for the negroes.\\nAs Lincoln deserves no less the plaudits of man for his\\nhumane act of emancipation because of its being a war\\nmeasure, neither should McKinley be praised any the less\\nbecause the uplifting of the Filipinos was eventuated like-\\nwise by a war measure. Each act took patriotic devotion\\nto country and manly courage of conviction. As Lincoln\\nwas equal to the occasion as he found it, so was McKinley\\nequal to his great work.\\nPessimist: Unless you are willing to say that evil\\nshould be done that good may come, how can you excuse\\nthe President for his secret course in dealing with matters\\npertaining to the Philippines, his censorship of news and\\nhis treaty with the Sultan of Sulu, by which he gave\\ncountenance to slavery and polygamy?\\nPatriot: In the exercise of Executive discretion in\\ntime of war, the President must of necessity resort to\\nsome measures which in time of peace would be intolera-\\nble to a free people, and here again I would refer you\\nto our previous history. Censorship need not be dwelt", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "210 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nupon, because it is a matter of common observation that\\nno foreign war has ever been conducted by any foreign\\ncountry which exercised so little espionage over the free\\nthought and expression and brought to bear so little re-\\nstraint upon the action either of the soldiers and peace-\\nable inhabitants or the enemy themselves, as our war\\nagainst the Philippine insurgents. State secrets are neces-\\nsary, to be sure. This has always been recognized. The\\nMonroe Doctrine, as I have already shown, was born and\\nreared almost to its full stature before it saw the light of\\npublic opinion. It was the result of secret conference, and\\nnecessarily so in order that the best good for the public\\nweal might be accomplished.\\nPessimist has referred to the compact with the Sultan\\nof Sulu. This treaty, made for the purpose of restoring\\npeace, was justifiable as a war expedient, precisely in the\\nsame manner as Lincoln was justified in denying the writ\\nof habeas corpus, and in the same manner that spies are\\nallowed to go under false pretenses and in disguise for\\nthe purpose of ascertaining the condition of the enemy,\\nand for the purpose of carrying a message to Garcia,\\nif need be, in all of which cases success is crowned with\\nthe victor s wreath. Lincoln was ready to tolerate slav-\\nery in all of the slave States in order to end the war\\nand save the Union. If that had been done, no future\\nopportunity would have afforded itself to rid our govern-\\nment of slavery. Lincoln was willing to purchase the\\nslaves, and wrote a long message urging that course. In\\nshort he, like McKinley, kept sight of the main purpose\\nthat of restoring peace with honor and of preventing the\\nloss of any of our territory. The compact entered into\\nby President McKinley looks to no such permanent ex-\\nistence of slavery as would either of Lincoln s plans, but\\non the contrary it looks to the establishment of our gov^", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? Wi\\nernment there, which is the surest guarantee possible that\\nslavery will not long continue.\\nWhat do the President s critics offer on this high moral\\npoint in the place of the President s work which they\\nwould undo? They want us to let the Filipinos govern\\nthemselves, not for a short time only, but forever, and\\naccording to their own polygamous and slavery notions.\\nAnd our course is not the doing of evil that good may\\ncome we simply postpone the doing of good a little\\nwhile because it is practical sense to do so, whereas the\\nDemocrats recommend the eternal postponement of doing\\ngood. If we had not made the treaty, slavery and poly-\\ngamy would have gone on until complete peace and order\\ncould be restored in the Philippines. With the treaty, the\\nextirpation of slavery and polygamy is made certain.\\nThus we bring them to account on this criticism, as we\\nhave on all others.\\nAs I have repeatedly said, there could be no progress\\nin government without compromise. Adversaries of the\\nAdministration, will, I believe, accept Jefferson as an\\nauthority on the question of Government Expediency.\\nJefferson was extremely anxious to have the capital\\nlocated in the District of Columbia. Hamilton and the\\nNorthern members of Congress preferred a more norther-\\nly site, but Hamilton, on the other hand, in working out\\nhis great financial system, was eager for the passage of a\\nlull by which the Federal Government would assume the\\nState debts. In that important crisis Jefferson and Ham-\\nilton simply made a swap, the one agreeing to use his\\ninfluence to secure the District of Columbia as the site of\\nthe capital, and the other to secure the national assump-\\ntion of State debts. And nobody regards this bit of log\\nrolling as criminal, because the ends justified the means,\\nand if Jefferson were alive to-day and were opposed to", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "248 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nslavery and polygamy he would approve the method by\\nwhich these crimes against morals and civilization are\\nas speedily as practicable to be exterminated. But it is\\nnot the first time the United States has sanctioned poly-\\ngamy in its territories. It did not attempt to prevent it\\nin Utah until Utah desired Statehood, and then made its\\ndiscontinuance one of the conditions of admission to\\nStatehood.\\n4.\\nTERRITORIAL AND COLONIAL GOVERNMENT DISTINGUISHED.\\nPessimist I do not know what Patriot means to say\\nunder this topic, but I suppose he will undertake to de-\\nfend colonial government.\\nPatriot Xo it is my purpose merely to allude to\\nthe fact, which I have already shown, that our govern-\\nment in the Philippines is territorial in the same sense as\\nis our government in Alaska.\\nIt must be distinguished from colonial government so\\nfar as colonial government has been exercised by other\\nnations, by the one fact at least that in territorial gov-\\nernment practically all of the revenue is turned to the\\nbuilding up and education of the people, and the devel-\\nopment of their natural resources, whereas for the most\\npart in a colonial government the mother country, if a\\nmonarclvy, taxes the colony as heavily as possible in keep-\\ning with any sort of peace for the purpose of keeping up\\nthe tinsel glitter and in some cases the unrestrained lust of\\nthrones. The territorial government is the application\\nof economic principles to the simple requirements of a\\nrepublic, and the constant changes of our Executive in-\\nsure an honest dispensation of justice, while the governor-\\ngeneral or the local prince in control of a monarch s col-\\nony is in no danger of being removed so long as he con-\\ntributes to the monarch. No change of administration", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 249\\nwill come to imperil his position, and no cry from his\\nsubjects for justice or pity can reach the throne. Our\\nidea of territorial government permits and invites inde-\\npendent self-control to a marked degree, as witness our\\ncontrol of Cuba. The Secretary of War, Mr. Root, tells\\nus that General Wood has invariably consulted the Cubans\\nbefore making any appointments. He goes among them\\nunarmed, he leaves the books of the administration open\\nto their inspection, and his private secretary is a Cuban\\nwho at one time was a member of Gomez staff. Cubans\\nare employed in all departments of the Cuban govern-\\nment they know just how much money is collected and\\nexpended, and for what it is expended. Has any monar-\\nchy, or any other republic, for that matter, ever tried this\\nsort of government? Even if it were called a colonial\\ngovernment, it has a larger degree of representation, lib-\\nerty and freedom than the Cubans ever knew, and the\\nsame thing is true, or will be made true, in the Philippines.\\nIf we are to teach civilization and the proper territorial\\ncontrol by example, then we have chosen a most admirable\\nmethod, i. e., by object lesson right in the midst of Euro-\\npean colonial government. What better method could we\\npursue to compel foreign countries to deal fairly with\\ntheir subject territory? When fairness and liberty and\\njustice is shown to be possible in the Philippines, Eng-\\nland, Germany, France, Holland and all the rest will be\\nforced by example to adopt more and more just measures,\\nuntil government, though by name colonial, will become\\npractically free, as is the case in the Dominion of Canada\\nto-day, and no better example of the effect of our benign\\nrule upon the conduct of our neighbors can be suggested\\nthan that of our control of the great territories which\\nwe have governed from time to time, and its influence\\nupon England in her control of Canada.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "250 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nThose who express fear that our jurisdiction over ter-\\nritory in the far East will cause us to adopt cruel meth-\\nods of governing, confess to but little faith in the creative\\nand vitalizing force of our institutions. I would pay a\\nhigher tribute to American manhood and ideals. I would\\nsay that we will by example compel England and all the\\nother territory holding governments to deal fairly and\\nhonestly and humanely with their subjects in the Eastern\\nHemisphere, as we have by example compelled them to\\ndeal with their subjects in the Western Hemisphere. It is\\nby this example that we can elevate the plane of civiliza-\\ntion, not alone in our own territory, but wherever organ-\\nized society exists.\\nPessimist All experience has shown that nations\\nwhich govern colonies do so selfishly and without refer-\\nence to the good of the people whom they govern. The\\nEast India Company, as related by Mr. Bryan, had An\\neye single to gain. They trampled upon the rights of\\nthe rulers. It is even said that the English governor-\\ngeneral and an English consul changed the financial sys-\\ntem of India arbitrarily in a single day. And Senator\\nBacon tells a most frightful story which he read in\\nAround the World with General Grant, by Mr. John\\nRussell Young, about a lot of Sepoys that were blown\\nto pieces from the mouths of cannon. I should think the\\nAmerican Government would want better business than\\ntreating people in this sort of way.\\nPatriot What Pessimist has related proves first of all\\nthe necessity for missionary work on the part of the\\nUnited States in the manner of governing territory. He\\nmight as well cite English history to prove that a republi-\\ncan form of government is impossible, because they have\\nnot adopted it, as to cite the English treatment of their\\ncolonies to prove that just treatment is impossible be-\\ncause they have not administered it. As a matter of fact", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 251\\nthey have for more than a hundred years been fair and\\ngenerous with their English speaking subjects. I have\\nalready referred to Canada in this connection; but even\\nif this were not so, it does not follow that our course would\\nbe unjust. Our political conditions are different here.\\nAny injustice or cruelty on the part of the United States\\nofficials in our territories would be the signal for party\\nopposition. If the story related by Mr. John Russell\\nYoung depicts unnecessary cruelty by the English, then\\nall the more reason the United States should take a hand\\nin governing those Eastern peoples and reduce such\\ncruelty to a minimum by her just example for the worse\\nyou picture English rule of colonies, the louder you appeal\\nfor an American example to teach the world what fair\\nplay is. But as I have read Mr. Young s story, it was\\nsimply a case of the mutiny of an entire regiment, a court-\\nmartial and military execution, and that in the judgment\\nof the English officers the kind of execution resorted to\\nwas needed for an example, just as in some of our States\\nit is still regarded as a salutary warning to the people to\\nexecute criminals by hanging in public.\\nPessimist You say that we would be more kind and\\njust to our subjects. Mr. Bryan, referring to colonial\\nrule, pertinently asks\\nIf we make subjects of them against their will and\\nfor our own benefit, are we likely to govern them with any\\nmore benevolence?\\nPatriot I answer first that we do not hold them as\\nsubjects, nor have we brought them under our jurisdic-\\ntion against their will. The kind of treatment we have\\nalready administered in urging education and participa-\\ntion in public affairs is proof that our treatment will be\\nsuch an improvement as to reflect itself in the conduct of\\nall the nations of Europe which are governing colonies.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "252 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nPessimist There is right where you get yourself into\\ntrouble. As Mr. Carnegie says: If you teach sup-\\npressed people at all you make them rebels. And Mr.\\nCarnegie calls our attention to the fact that in India, Eng-\\nland does not trust one gun in the hands of the native\\ntroops. How can we hope to civilize people of this kind\\nPatriot: The trouble with these quotations, as with\\nmost of yours, is that they are based upon a false premise,\\nand you seem unwilling to detect the fallacy in them.\\nCertainly if you teach a suppressed people they rebel, but\\nthis presumes that we have suppressed the Filipino^\\nwhich is not true, except as to the comparatively few who\\nhave rebelled and the fact that England does not train\\nthe Indians in the use and responsibility of guns and does\\nnot try to cultivate their confidence by trusting them, may\\nbe the explanation of the terrible mutiny and its fatal\\nconsequences related by Mr. Young. Ours is a dif-\\nferent course, as witness the fact that we are employing\\nthe native troops and training them rapidly to take the\\nplace of those from home as sentinels over the rights and\\nproperty of our territorial inhabitants.\\nPessimist But Mr. Bryan says, English rule in India\\nis not bad because it is English, but because no race has\\nyet appeared sufficiently strong in character to resist the\\ntemptations which come with irresponsible power.\\nPatriot This is another example of the false premise\\nand therefore the erroneous conclusion of which I com-\\nplained a moment ago. Mr. Bryan proceeds upon the\\ntheory that our power in the Philippines is irresponsible.\\nAs repeatedly stated and shown in this argument, our\\nresponsibility in the Philippines is the same as in our\\nother territories, so we must reconstruct both the argu-\\nment and the conclusion found in your quotation from\\nMr. Bryan. Our race is .sufficiently strong, first to make", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 253\\nitself a responsible power in the governing of territories,\\nand second, to resist the temptations which come with\\nthat responsible power.\\nThe conduct of our officials is guarded by a double\\nresponsibility. First, they are amenable to our just and\\neven-handed laws, and second, to the party restraint in-\\nherent in our system of government, which compels the\\nrepresentatives of one political party to pursue a wise and\\njust course, or to stand aside for the representatives of\\nanother political party. But there is an additional re-\\nsponsibility which has affected even the conduct of Eng-\\nland toward her colonies, and that is the standard of\\nworld morality, which by the grace and the power of the\\nUnited States has been elevated somewhat everywhere\\nand very much in the immediate neighborhood of its\\nexample; so that even if we may call England an irre-\\nsponsible power in the government of her colonies, her\\nleniency and justice toward the Canadians justifies the\\nhope that even irresponsible powers may eventually adopt\\nthe rule of justice toward their subject colonies. How\\nmuch more likely, how almost certain, indeed, is a re-\\nsponsible power like ours to deal justly in the governing\\nof all her territories in the future just as she has done in\\nthe past. To this kind of conduct we are committed by\\nthe highest and strongest obligation. It is written in\\nour Declaration of Independence, and in our Constitution\\nit is woven into the framework of our republican institu-\\ntions it is the motif in all our national songs, the in-\\nspiration in all our political platforms and the central\\nthought in all the wise historic utterances of all our Presi-\\ndents. Nothing has happened to change the meaning\\nof the declaration of President McKinley in his letter to\\nthe Secretary of War, December 21, 1898, in speaking of\\nthe Philippines, where he says", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "\u00c2\u00a354 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nThe mission of the United States is one of benevolent\\nassimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and\\nright for arbitrary rule.\\nPessimist But why can we not, as Mr. Schurz recom-\\nmends, be content with the moral influence we can bring\\nto bear upon the world?\\nPatriot: This is precisely the doctrine I have been\\npreaching. I have pointed out the benefit of our example\\non Canada, and I have shown that in order to make our\\nexample more effective we must bring the object lesson to\\nthe attention of those we would teach. Thus if we would\\nhave influence in the far East by reason of our\\nnoble example, the best place to hold the school is where\\nthe Eastern people can attend. Those who are disposed\\nto deal unfairly with nations will not go far to seek us\\nout for the purpose of learning fair methods. We must\\nbring it near them, and then the effect of example must\\nbe indirect; it must act through the subject people them-\\nselves. The people of India and China must themselves\\nfirst hear of our fair treatment toward the inhabitants\\nof our territory, they must come in contact with them\\ntheir subjects and our citizens must exchange experience\\nin the markets of the world in the ordinary walks of life.\\nThen the downtrodden nations will lift their heads and ask\\nand demand more consideration. The governing nations\\nwill find it in the interest of peace and their own prosperity\\nto grant concessions little by little. This must be the effect\\nof our example if it is to have any salutary effect at all\\nand such result can only be obtained by our ownership of\\nterritorv in the midst of those countries which we would\\nuplift.\\nPessimist But Rev. Van Dyke tells us that\\nWe cannot compete with monarchies and empires in", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 255\\nth,e game of land grabbing and vassal ruling.\\nRepublics have not been successful as rulers of colonies.\\nWhy should we venture upon this road which has led\\nother republics astray?\\nPatriot: Must I once more remind Pessimist that we\\nare not attempting to rule a colony neither is our effort a\\nland grabbing or vassal ruling enterprise If our object\\nhad been to get land instead of to benefit people, we could\\nhave taken from Spain the last foot of ground she had,\\neven the peninsula itself so Rev. Van Dyke has proved\\nnothing, nor, indeed, has he really stated anything which\\npertains to our case. If it were relevant to our discussion\\nAve might easily show by numerous examples that this\\nrepublic has accomplished many things which other re-\\npublics have failed in, but since we do not propose a col-\\nony it is needless to dwell upon it.\\nThe whole sum and substance of what we propose is\\nto govern our own territories in our own way for the\\nbenefit of the people who inhabit them, and for whatever\\nincidental benefit may come to this government thereby,\\nand for the additional benefit of the rest of the world so\\nfar as our example may go. This we can do for the love\\nof country and for the love of humanity.\\nPessimist But I do not believe it is our duty to seek\\nout wild people and expend our energy in trying to civilize\\nthem. Why, as asked by Bishop Spalding, should we\\ngo to the end of the earth to take forcible possession of\\nislands lying in remote oceans under tropical skies, in-\\nhabited by barbarous and savage tribes, where both race\\nand climate preclude the hope of ever attaining to any\\nhigher degree of culture?\\nPatriot If we accept the suggestion of Bishop Spalding\\nthat nothing can improve the condition of these barbar-\\nous and savage tribes, then certainly we have taken the", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "256 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST.\\ncurse off of any plan which might look to the forcible\\ngoverning of such people, because if they cannot be\\nbrought out of a savage state, some power has got to\\ngovern them, and if so, do we not owe it to humanity\\nto step in when expedient, and especially when the duty\\nis already on our shoulders, and give good government\\nrather than leave it to monarchies to give bad? If there\\nis a certain amount of governing to do in the world with-\\nout the consent of the particular individuals governed,\\nought not we to do our share, and especially when ours\\nwould be a government of mercy and uplifting, whereas\\nthat by monarchies is a government of suppression and\\ndestruction of hope This duty is accentuated in the face\\nof the fact that there may be a possibility of reform which\\nour sort of government would encourage, and which their\\nsort would make impossible. If, in other words, this\\nworld, like every nation and every state, has a number of\\ninhabitants, or has communities of inhabitants whose un-\\nfortunate mental condition makes it necessary that they\\nshould be restrained, or incarcerated, is it the part of\\nhumanity that we should permit those of brutal and un-\\nfeeling disposition to be the wardens over such unfor-\\ntunates, or should we not rather say that their keepers\\nand their nurses should be from among the most kind-\\nhearted, the most benevolent, the most hopeful of those\\nwho are willing to devote themselves to the betterment\\nof humanity, to the uplifting of the unfortunate, and to\\nthe restoration of hope in those from whom hope has fled\\nAs the latter course has approved itself to citizens of the\\nUnited States in the care of the insane and the unfor-\\ntunate from any cause, so, must that course approve itself\\nto this nation as a citizen of the world of nations in its\\ndealings with unfortunate peoples and tribes over whom\\nit has become the guardian, whether by choice or by force", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 257\\nof circumstances. I submit that we are not to lose any-\\nthing by such a course, and the world is to be greatly the\\nrainer.\\nPessimist I do not see how we can avoid contamina-\\ntion by contact with such people.\\nPatriot Let us discuss for a moment, then, the effect\\nof our governmental missionary work abroad on our peo-\\nple at home.\\nEFFECT ON AMERICAN CIVILIZATION.\\nPessimist: If we do not stop short on our Philippine\\npolicy we will become a vassal nation ourselves. Sen-\\nator Money is undoubtedly a true prophet when he says\\nIn my humble opinion there will not be many decades\\nbefore the policy that is now applied to the Philippines\\nwill be brought upon the American citizen himself. His\\nonly hope of escape is the fact, as he says, That the\\nAmerican people will pass such judgment upon this action\\nas will deter anything similar in the future.\\nPatriot: The fact that the Philippines are in a dif-\\nferent section, peopled by a different race and influenced\\nby a different climate, is, in this age of rapid communica-\\ntion and close international relations, positively to the\\nmutual advantage of the races thus commingling, and\\ncan have no deleterious effect upon us. Even in the days\\nof our colonial ancestors the advantage from such rela-\\ntions was foreshadowed. President Monroe, in his eighth\\nannual message, after describing the advantages of diver-\\nsified peoples in different climates living under the one\\nrepublican form of government, says:\\nWhat one portion wants the other may supply and\\nthis will be most sensibly felt by the parts most distant\\nfrom each other, forming thereby a domestic market and\\nan active intercourse between the extremes and through-\\nout every portion of our Union.", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "258 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nIt seems strange that our adversaries should in one\\nbreath express such unbounded faith in the good sense\\nof the American people and in the next breath tell them\\nthey are so stupid that the least contact with inferior peo-\\nple will contaminate these same sensible Americans and\\nreduce them to the level of their unfortunate European\\nfriends. It would be easier to understand our oppo-\\nnents if they would accept and stick to one or the other\\nof these arguments. Have they faith in the American\\npeople, or have they not The two quotations from Sen-\\nator Money cannot be written in the same creed. If he\\nmeans what he says in the first, he cannot hope for that\\ncurative judgment and action of which he speaks in the\\nsecond, and if in reality he has that hope in the self-\\ngoverning power of American citizens as expressed in\\nthe second quotation, then it is impossible for him to fear\\nthe calamitous results so dolefully depicted in the first.\\nThose who claim that the American contact with these\\nnative Orientals will lower the standard of American\\ncivilization simply show their little faith in the virtue\\nof American manhood. It has never suffered by contact\\nwith poorer civilization, but has always lifted up the\\nmen of poorer station who have touched the hem of its\\ngarment. This lack of hope, if sufficiently widespread,\\nwould play sad havoc with any government, no matter if\\nit be confined to narrow compass or extended beyond the\\nseas. My observation has been that if you scratch an anti-\\nexpansionist you discover under the surface a discontented\\nfault-finder who is dissatisfied with conditions in the\\nUnited States aside from the Philippine Question. The\\nsame microbes which breed the disease of irresponsible\\ncomplaint against the patriotic work of the Administration\\nin the Philippines also breed the disease of promiscuous\\nand indiscriminate scolding against the successful opera-", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 259\\ntion of the Government as well as all private enterprise at\\nhome. As an example, ex-Representative Towne, who\\nhas been quoted in this discussion, devotes a part of his\\nspeech to the Philippine question and then shows his gen-\\neral doubt of American sense and manhood by reciting\\nan imaginary list of imaginary dangers in our local con-\\ncern, and speaking of these burdens, he says The\\npeople of this country are already staggering, doubtful\\nof solving them to the credit and glory of domestic insti-\\ntutions. Then he goes on with a picture which did\\nexist under Democratic rule, but which McKinley s Ad-\\nministration has happily removed. He declaims to us\\nabout men freezing at the mouth of coal mines and starv-\\ning in front of bakeshops, and about millions of our citi-\\nzens lacking food and raiment. And so I could show you\\nin practically every speech made against expansion this\\nsort of quarreling with everything else the Government\\nis doing.\\nRev. Van Dyke warns us against undertaking to rule\\neight millons more of black and yellow people in the\\nislands of the Pacific Ocean, and asks if, the rifle shots\\nthat ring from Illinois and the Carolinas announcing the\\nbloody skirmish of races in the very heart of our re-\\npublic are to be the joyous salutes that herald our\\nadvance\\nAnd so I repeat, the average anti-expansionist would\\nbe finding fault anyhow, so that he is no more active and\\nis doing no more harm talking about the Philippines than\\nhe would do for some other reason if we had not ex-\\npanded.\\nWith some people reform seems to be a mania. They\\nagitate not for the benefit of the object, but for the delec-\\ntation of the subject. This zeal leads them to mistake\\nmere change for progress having observed that progress", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "2 0 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\ninvolves change, they jump to the converse conclusion that\\nall change involves progress. They read a tirade written\\nby a Carlyle under a dyspeptic impulse or a mournful\\nprophecy of impossible evils by a Malthus or a social dirge\\nby a Schopenhauer, and your professional reformer at\\nonce conceives a passionate longing to make the real\\nconditions appear as bad as the conditions imagined by\\nthe gloomy, pessimistic sophist of the past. We have\\nthus cornered the anti-expansionists and are forced to\\nconclude that they are the same people who make up that\\never present element in our society whose members con-\\nstantly inveigh against orderly progress because it is not\\nall that could be pictured as ideal, whose members if con-\\nsistent would quarrel with the sun and refuse to let its\\nbeneficent rays shine on them because it has spots on it\\nwho, in short, would produce nothing rather than an im-\\nperfect something. There are those among us and they\\nare of this same class who would denounce the com-\\nmercial world because ninety per cent fail in business.\\nThe same temperament impels many of them to rail at the\\nsacred institution of matrimony because of the sadness\\nand the disappointment it affords to see the hopes shat-\\ntered, the ideals destroyed by failure and inconstancy of\\naffection, and the intervention of untimely death even\\nwhere love is mutual and divine. Well balanced men,\\nwhile feeling no less sympathy for the distressed, never-\\ntheless press on in the race of life, cultivating hope in-\\nstead of, despair. They make the best of human condi-\\ntions while recognizing their imperfections. Witness the\\nwidow s weeds, the orphan s tears and the long, weary\\nyears filled with nothing but sad memory and unrequited\\nhope. Very much of life is like the sentiment of Thomas\\nMoore s sad but beautiful lines in Lallah Rookh", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 261\\nOh, ever thus, from childhood s hour,\\nI ve seen my fondest hopes decay\\nI never loved a tree or flower\\nBut twas the first to fade away.\\nI never nurs d a dear gazelle,\\nTo glad me with its soft, hlack eye,\\nBut when it came to know me well\\nAnd love me it was sure to die.\\nThe melancholiac sees nothing better in existence than\\nthis doleful condition. But sensible people realize that\\nthese disappointments and griefs train our souls and sym-\\npathies and make us better men and women. Besides,\\nbetter things come unexpectedly, and we are so consti-\\ntuted that Hope springs eternal in the human breast.\\nThe chronic fault finder who is usually himself the incar-\\nnation of self-imposed disappointment becomes a bear on\\nthe market of hope and tries to induce the world to part\\nwith this treasure for a trifling or no consideration.\\nOur great poets have not failed to appreciate the bit-\\nterness of disappointment, but on the whole they have\\ntried to teach us that it is more human to hope on not-\\nwithstanding disappointment, than to turn bitter toward\\nhuman institutions. Is it not better to reason with Long-\\nfellow that although\\nInto each life some rain must fall,\\nSome days be dark and dreary\\nwe should nevertheless admonish our souls according to\\nhis further lines\\nBe still, sad heart, and cease repining,\\nFor behind the cloud is the sun still shining.\\nThe world has always been, and always will be, filled\\nwith joy and sadness side by side. In Lincoln s favorite\\npoem, Mortality, by William Knox, we read\u00e2\u0080\u0094", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "262 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nYea! hope and despondency, pleasure and pain,\\nAre mingled together in sunshine and rain\\nAnd the smile and the tear, the song and the dirge,\\nStill follow each other like surge upon surge.\\nI have dwelt at some length upon the disposition of\\nthose who would take a morbid view of life, because I am\\nconvinced that the criticisms against the Administration\\npractically all emanate from these people, and that is par-\\nticularly true of the. criticisms which entertain, or which\\nclaim to entertain, a fear that our orderly course in the\\nPhilippines, after the fashion of our course in other terri-\\ntories now and hereafter, will produce an evil effect upon\\nAmerican civilization. In the language of Hamilton:\\nWere the pictures which have been drawn by the polit-\\nical jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the\\nhuman character, the inference would be that there is not\\nsufficient virtue among men for self-government, and that\\nnothing less than a change to despotism can restrain them\\nfrom destroying and devouring one another.\\nIf anyone in all this audience still refuses to take the\\nhopeful view, to him no further address will avail. And\\nto those who, on the other hand, recognize the progress\\nmade by our Government as the greatest in the civilized\\nworld, and who believe in the fitness of our republic to\\nwork out the greatest blessings possible for man, and who\\nhave faith in living men, as well as men who have gone\\nbefore, and who believe that in our magnificent system of\\nself-government there is no need and no room for mere\\nmorbid criticism, fault-finding and scolding to all such\\nany further address in vindication of our policy in the\\nPhilippines is, I submit, unnecessary and if I mistake not,\\nnearly all, if not, indeed, all of this audience, will take their\\nplaces in the latter class.\\nUncle Sam Has Pessimist anything more to say", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 263\\nCitizen: Pessimist left the audience just as Patriot\\nwas reciting the lines from Lallah Rookh, muttering as\\nhe went out I am afraid my trees and flowers are fad-\\ning away. (Cheers, laughter and applause.)\\nUncle Sam: Is there anyone in the audience who is\\nnot yet convinced of the wisdom, honesty, patriotism and\\nhumanity of the President in his Philippine Policy? If\\nso, let him hold up his hand Seeing none, I assume they\\nare all convinced.\\nBefore taking my departure from among you I desire to\\nexpress my gratitude for your kind attention and eager-\\nness for truth. I am prouder than ever of the good sense\\nof my people. I commend you all for the respectful atti-\\ntude you have shown toward Pessimist, even though you\\nfound it impossible to agree with him. You have shown\\nremarkable endurance and patience in listening so long.\\nThe session has reminded me of some of the continuous\\nall-night and all-day sessions we have at the close of Con-\\ngressional terms. I assume that the same good sense\\nwhich you have all exhibited in reaching a sound con-\\nclusion will characterize the entire American people when\\nthe facts are brought home to them as they have been to\\nyou.\\nAnd now I bid you a fond and affectionate good-bye.\\n(Long and stormy applause.)\\nScene: Compartment in Palace Car en route to\\nWashington. Present, Uncle Sam and Orphan\\nDon.\\nUncle Sam Having decided to return to Washington\\nbefore continuing my investigations in the West, I shall\\nnow have time to give you the brief story for which you", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "2M PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST f\\nhave been waiting. I am sure you must have enjoyed the\\nmeeting we have attended; and before I begin, will you\\nnot tell me what were your impressions\\nOrphan Don My mind was agitated by mingled sur-\\nprise, joy and pity. I was surprised at the prepondering\\nsentiment in that great audience for the righteous cause\\nof the Administration because Pessimist assured you that\\nnight at your Retreat that the great majority of the people\\ngemerally favored his views, and of course if any did favor\\nhim they were present to hear him speak and were con-\\nvinced by Patriot. I rejoiced in the patient, respectful\\nand manly attitude of Patriot while he laid bare the fallacy\\nand hypocrisy of Pessimist. But, on the other hand, I\\ncould find in my heart nothing but pity for the sad spec-\\ntacle Pessimist made of himself as Patriot drove him from\\none illogical position to another, until, in utter rout, Pes-\\nsimist finally left the field, after fully demonstrating that\\nthe name by which he goes precisely describes his char-\\nacter.\\nUncle Sam My son, you have spoken nobly. Little\\nwould it have been thought twenty years ago that you\\nwould, by this time, have come to such right understand-\\ning.\\nYour father was almost, if not quite, a degenerate. He\\nhad brought up other sons, most of whom are long since\\ndead, but some of whom in their lifetime gave him cause,\\nas he thought, for intemperate boastings. He claimed to\\nbe the superior of all other fathers, and as pride goeth\\nbefore a fall, his course was soon run his substance was\\nspent in riotous living. You were abused and mis-\\ntreated almost to the limit of your childish endurance.\\nWhen you were but six months old your father s inebriety\\nand brutality sent your mother to an untimely grave. You\\nwere cuffed and kicked for another month, until sore and", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 265\\nbleeding you were brought and laid upon the doorsteps of\\nmy Retreat. Nobody else wanted you I did not especially\\nwant you, although I foresaw some possibilities which\\nothers did not see. I saw the opportunity to set an\\nexample in kind treatment of unfortunates and I believed\\nthat in some way, though I was not quite clear how, I\\nwould be repaid for my trouble, aside from the satisfaction\\nit always gives to do a kindly act. Though others did not\\nwant you, they found fault with me for taking you. They\\nsaid that when your father relinquished you, you should\\nbe left to follow out your own sweet will.\\nOrphan Don Why, Uncle, you do not mean to say\\nthat anybody believed I was capable of taking care of my-\\nself at the age of seven months Why I was a mere in-\\nfant. I would have died of starvation.\\nUncle Sam My boy, you have seen enough of the\\nworld in your twenty-one years, indeed, I venture to say\\nyou have seen enough within the last twenty-four hours\\nto convince you that some people contend for things\\nequally as absurd as that. Of course, you would have\\nstarved. But they said, while he may not attain to an\\nideal life if left to himself, he will be free in such life as\\nhe is able to live, and he had better die than be subjugated\\nto the will of another. Well, let it pass, only a few in-\\ndulged in such philosophy, albeit those few claimed that\\nthe rest of the world were on their side. Some of them\\nwere honest but merely deluded. Others felt that there\\nwere certain rewards to which they would fall heir if they\\nsucceeded in demonstrating their new theory. But the\\ngreat rank and file of people have taken pains to indicate\\nto me, in one way or another, from time to time, that the\\npractical course which I pursued had their approval and\\nI have been commiserated on the one hand on account of\\nthe long-suffering care necessarily bestowed upon you,", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "2GG PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nand felicitated on the other hand on account of the credit\\nyour conduct has proved to me.\\nYou are now to go out into the world for yourself. I\\ndid not know at first whether you would be able to assume\\nsuch responsibilities at the ordinary age of manhood. I\\nconfess I had some misgivings about it for a time, and I\\ncongratulate myself to the extent of saying that your\\nrapid progress has been due in no small degree to the\\nkindness which I have ever studied to mingle with my\\nfirmness in governing you. You have responded to these\\nnew conditions in a manner which reflects great credit\\nupon you and your Latin blood. Your progress has aston-\\nished your friends and confounded your enemies. Those\\nwho meddled in the beginning insisted, after I had re-\\nsolved to take care of you, that I should at that time prom-\\nise you your freedom at your majority. I saw no advan-\\ntage in promising something which you might never de-\\nserve, and all who knew me were well aware of the fact,\\nthough for selfish reasons they denied it, that if you should\\never deserve your freedom I would be only too glad to\\ngrant it. You have richly deserved it, and I now pro-\\nnounce you your own man, free to go forth in the world\\nand act whatever part you see fit. And now that you have\\nwith such credit to yourself reached the time and the con-\\ndition of accountability, I feel that it is scarcely necessary\\nthat I should admonish you to do good rather than ill.\\nOrphan Don Uncle, I can scarcely express my grati-\\ntude for what you have said, and I know I shall never be\\nable to put into words the gratefulness which is in my\\nheart for what you have done for me. Then I must leave\\nyou when we get back to Washington?\\nUncle Sam: Not exactly leave me, Don. You will\\nstill be a member of my great family as all these other peo-\\nple are whom you see around us; but you will now take", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 267\\nyour place among them on an equality, whereas, I have, in\\na sense, been governing you more than I have the others,\\nwhich I am happy to say you now recognize was for your\\ngood.\\nOrphan Don I never doubted it, Uncle. I know some\\npeople said I resented your authority over me, but they\\nsimply did not know the facts. In many cases, they did\\nnot take the pains to ascertain the facts. Alas in some\\ncases I fear they did not want to know the facts.\\nUncle Sam Well, never mind, they all know now,\\nfor the fullness of time has proved the purity of my pur-\\npose.\\nOrphan Don Yes, it is better to let it pass. I am\\nglad, however, that I am Still to be a member of your\\nlarger family, where I may continue to have your advice\\nand, indeed, your restraining hand should I go too far\\nastray. And now before our journey is ended, the better\\nto shield myself against the danger of error, will you not\\nbestow upon me your blessing, and give me, I pray you,\\ndear Uncle, any advice which the richness of your ex-\\nperience and the justice in your heart may suggest to you\\nas fitting?\\nUncle Sam Well, Don, my boy, I would set up for\\nyou a model, though it may not be perfect in my poor de-\\nscription, which nevertheless if copied faithfully will make\\nyour life a beautiful picture to behold. If I had but one\\nparting admonition to give you, I should say to you, Be\\na patriot. You have seen what an unhappy condition\\npervades the mind of a pessimist. You have observed\\nhow he will shift from one position to another to escape\\nthe punishment of logic, like some miserable dumb animal,\\ndriven hither and thither by a force of which he knows\\nnot. You have seen that once started on such a course\\nalmost every avenue of deceit and baseness immediately", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "268 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nopens itself up, and that the pessimist must ever and anon\\nretreat into these to keep up the appearance of con-\\nsistency. You have seen that a pessimist is opinion-proud\\nhaving made a statement he seems to feel that he must\\nstick to it, no matter how far it may carry him away from\\nthe path of truth and duty. You have seen how this leads\\nto ill temper, to impatience and finally to self-disgust.\\nAvoid this unhappy course, my boy, avoid it. Such a man\\ncarries the same disposition into every day life. He is\\nsour and crabbed to members of his own family, to his\\nfriends and all around him. He is contentious and can-\\ntankerous about little things, and for fear his authority\\nwill be questioned he works himself into an unhappy\\nframe of mind when anyone in the ordinary walks of life,\\nand in his home circle, dares to differ from him in mat-\\nters of the smallest importance. The net result of such a\\nlife is that he is unkind, ungenerous and unhelpful to any\\nand all. On the contrary, he is a positive hindrance and\\na stumbling-block in the way of those who would make\\nprogress, were it not for the fact that they are cowered by\\nhis stubborn and unreasoning will. He is simply what is\\nordinarily known as a common scold. With your ideas of\\njustice I am sure this course would not suit you.\\nLook upon the other picture. I said I would advise you\\nto be a patriot, if that were my only words. If you ask\\nwhy I would not say, Be an honest man, or be truthful,\\nor industrious, or sympathetic and respectful and obliging,\\nor vigilant for opportunity to do good to individuals, to\\nsociety, to the world, or patient, just and conciliatory\\ntowards members of your own family and your neighbors,\\nor generous and magnanimous toward those whom you\\nmust in the struggle of life meet and vanquish, or char-\\nitable toward those who are unfortunate and toward the\\nstranger within your door. If asked, I say, why I have", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST? 269\\nnot commended any or all of these rather than patriotism,\\nI answer forthwith that patriotism includes all of these,\\nand still more.\\nThe patriot would exercise all this kindliness, this gen-\\nerosity, this justice, patience and benevolence toward all\\nhis fellow men. He loves his family and cultivates that\\nlove by applying to it the life-giving cordial of reason. It\\nis not stayed or hindered by accident of fortune or phys-\\nical condition. He will nurse it more closely in the face of\\nworldly adversity. He will cling to it the more fondly if\\nmisfortune should befall and there should come the truss\\ninstead of the corsage, the crutch instead of the dainty,\\ntripping dance. The patriot because he must have all\\nthese manly qualities to be a patriot having fixed\\nhis devotion upon an object, keeps it there\\nthough the winds of adversity blow, though the\\nwaves of calamity lash, though the storm of\\nmisfortune envelop him. Honest man? Yea, the\\npatriot is all- of that. Though laden down with obliga-\\ntions forced upon him by others burdens which would\\ncrush the midget soul of a pessimist and though released\\nfrom them, both by law and voluntary renunciation of\\ncreditors, the patriot will have none of this. He will\\nthrow into the scale of justice as he, the big-hearted, hon-\\nest man sees it, the last dollar even to his homestead, in\\norder that none shall suffer, even indirectly, by his fault.\\nAnd when good fortune overtakes him, as it frequently\\ndoes such devotion to right, the balance of the bond is\\nmet. The patriot is all of this. The patriot is everything\\nthat anybody else can be for the good of himself, his fam-\\nily, his friends, his neighborhood, his country and his fel-\\nlow-man, and in addition to this he is ready to die for\\nthese convictions. As a young man he will shoulder the\\nmusket in defense of his country. He will take his place", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "270 PATRIOT OR PESSIMIST?\\nin the thick of the fight. He will dare shot and shell to\\nminister unto the wants of his wounded and famished\\ncomrades. He will brave dangers which threaten almost\\ncertain death to himself to carry a message which will pre-\\nvent the death of others. He will take his place in civil\\nlife when the struggle of war is over. He will devote him-\\nself to the industry and upbuilding of his country, not\\nalone for personal aggrandizement, not alone that he may\\ngather wealth, but having in view as his main object the\\ndistribution of opportunities to those who labor and to\\nthose who employ labor throughout the length and\\nbreadth of his country. He will, when called upon, serve\\nhis State and his nation with that signal devotion and that\\nevenhanded justice which emanate only from a true and\\ntried patriot. And when the larger opportunities come to\\nstretch out his hand to other nations and beckon them on\\nto higher life, having the courage of his convictions, and\\nknowing that his unsullied purpose of human helpfulness\\nwill meet with the approbation of his fellow-citizens,\\nwhose wish he is bound to respect, he lifts that pure strong\\nhand and bids the peoples of down-trodden nations take\\nnew hope. This, Don, is a patriot. Imitate him.", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "X~ JUST PUBLISHED a\\nLIFE OF\\nOLIVER P. MORTON\\nTHE GREAT\\nWAR GOVERNOR\\nIncluding his Important Speeches\\nBy WILLIAM DUDLEY FOULKE\\nzA notable contribution to the\\nhistorical literature of the State\\nand that of the Civil War.\\nIn two volumes containing more than\\none thousand pages.\\nprice:\\nBound in Cloth, $6.00 Half Calf, $9.00\\nSheep, $8.00 Full Morocco, $12 00\\nTkBOWEN-MERRILLCO.\\nPUBLISHERS\\nINDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "%1\\nA historical romance handled with much delicacy and skill\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n0(eiv York World\\nOne of the best novels that has appeared in the last ten years\\nChicago tvening Posl\\nNever was there written a prettier love story of the Middle Ages-\\nSan Francisco Gill\\nUmo, Cloth. Illustrated, SI. 50\\nPUBLISHED BY\\nTHE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY\\nINDIANAPOLIS, IND., U. S. A.\\n\u00c2\u00a31403", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "v*\\n,0o\\nff I A\\nf\\n*L v^\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2f\\np\\nx\\nI\\nA\\nr\\nOCT\\n^V\\ns\\n,0 o\\nr", "height": "3359", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "4-\\nV\\n,J\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2c- V\\nP c\\nO\\np\\nw\\nA\\nV\\nA X\\nn*\\nV*\\nl*\\nV\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2N v\\n^o\\nv^\\nco\\n.ttf\\nv\\ns\u00c2\u00a3\\nV\\nOo\\nV\\nc o X\\nv", "height": "3354", "width": "2013", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "III!\\n1\\nr\\nL BRARY OF CONGRESS\\n013 744 714 9", "height": "3598", "width": "2242", "jp2-path": "patriotorpessimi00barc_0292.jp2"}}