ºr-
_)
3
__C^
C
;-
<^D
Q&
№
<!--..te o ºu
----- … ...，= ~
--~ ~== ** * * * * * * * · · -}}
、::::::：→¿）: „ ， , ）：- ：ſaeſitluluiſſiſſiſſä* * · · · · ·
Įſtaiſtuſtuſ##：：• ：###########ºffiſieriſijäiſiſſaeſae.
：ſaiſiſsi，
ğ
º-º-º:-
**:', ! ,
ſiłą
* -º ºr *

..eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
• 2. G-ENERAL LIF3 RARY
OF
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
EPRESENTED BY


E.
, S47

* v. tº 2 ×
X º º sº tº ſº
L_ {} *…} {} 2 * *-ā-

BY
MORRISON I. SwiFT.
*stºs-
PRICE, Io CENTs.
LOS ANGELES
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REVIEW
1899.
CONTENTS.
I. Imperialism to Bless the Conquered, . . . I
II. Imperialism for the Sake of Mankind, . . 9
III. Our Crime in the Philippines, . . . . 34
I,os Angeles Printing Co.,
IIo S. Broadway.
CHAPTER I.
Itti perialist11 To Bless the Cotiquered.
The demand for absorbing the Philippines is so gross
a departure from American principles, a revolution of
our national purposes so singular and complete, that
it is well to probe down to its real cause. Three
motives are offered to sanction the change : Blessing
for the peoples absorbed, Duty to the World, and
Markets. It can be shown that the first two are but
forms of the third—avarice for markets. The commer-
cial market-seekers are adroitly using philanthropic
sentiments to win the philanthropic over to their side
in order to secure new fields to exploit.
Let us realize the reach of this. It is the culmin-
ating stroke of Plutocracy. Even so late as a few
years ago it could not have been safely proposed. But
Plutocracy is master now, and makes no pause, Im-
perialism cancels the Constitution and takes the life
of popular government: the very ends that plutocracy
aims at. The fact of plutocracy has worked enfeeble-
ment in the general mind. Expansion will create the
formerly dreaded standing army: Plutocracy fore-
sees and desires it, universal monopoly will need an
army against the people. Would this army have been
voted five years ago?
Let us consider the three grounds for expansion.
Blessing to the peoples annexed. The leading feature
of the blessing will be our capitalists. Do capital-
ists go out to bless? We have had some opportunities
l
2 TO BLESS THE CONQUERED.
to lift the lowly. Here are our southern blacks. Our
blessing there takes the form of denials of the ballot
and of ballot-box massacres. What degree of friendly
assimilation have we achieved 2 Is there not ground to
fear a general race war one of these days 2 Whites of
opposite political creeds are obliged to bury their di-
vergences and vote together to prevent negro domin-
ation. Current events in the South indicate that there
is to be no compromise:
“The North Carolina Democrats are trying to find a
way to constitutionally disfranchise the negro. A new
election law will be passed next year, and the Demo-
crats of the State are endeavoring to frame a constitu-
tional amendment restricting the suffrage as the result
of the race strife at the last election. These Democrats
are studying the bill for the annexation of the Hawa-
iian islands. That bill does not grant universal suf-
frage. By imposing property qualifications, it prac-
tically disfranchises the natives, and places the
government in the hands of the whites and a few
others. The North Carolina Democrats say if Congress
can constitutionally adopt this legislation in independ-
ent States, they can do the same.’’
This state of things does not suggest that we are
gifted to raise inferior peoples. It would be a delicate
question to ask if we shall prepare the Cubans and
Filipinos for self-government—the high purpose of
which our statesmen are ever speaking—by ballot
restrictions denying them a vote. But why not? We
do it with “childish’’ races nearer home. And if we
refuse them the practice of self-government how many
centuries will it take them to 1earn it?
Our Indians, too, are a second lesson. Our rule of
them has bloomed in robbery and progressive extermin-
ation, and behind the swindling officials have stood
the moral and military forces of the nation. We may
say that it is good for the world that the breath of civ-
ilization exterminates such races—some assert this—
but it shakes the argument of philanthropy. Is it good
for them to be exterminated? Does blessing them mean
exterminating them? Is this what we mean by saying
TO BLESS THE CONQUERED. 3
that we shall lift them up and confer free institutions
upon them P Why not be clear on this point before
we go out to reclaim the Filipinos? We should then
prove to them, in the altered words of William McKin-
ley, ‘that the mission of the United States is one of
benevolent extermination, substituting the mild sway
of civilizing extinction for arbitrary rule.’ They have
a very searching right to know what form our blessing
is to take, one would think, and to decide whether
they care to be blessed in our way.
There is another side—the effect of extermination
upon the exterminator. It may be well meant, but is
the consciousness of dealing civilizingly with lower
human beings in order to obliterate them without crime
morally healthy P Surely not. Slave owners were de-
graded by their relation to the slave; it made them
brutal in character and domineering in other relations
of life. Any form or degree of domination has a like
tendency. It fosters the degrading sense of superi-
ority, contempt, arrogance, aloofness, the domineering
spirit, all of which canker the superior man’s nature.
It prevents the growth of brotherliness—the highest
idea of civilization; of equality—the basis of demo-
cratic evolution; of the American spirit—the essence of
the American spirit being equal opportunity of develop-
ment for all.
The influence of an alien race upon the growth of
American liberty and the success of our weighty trial
in popular government is therefore grave. We ought
to see from experience that we have no fitness for gov-
erning, assimilating, or uplifting ‘derelict’ races, and
that contact with them in the alleged attempt to do so
depraves us.
Hawaii carries the demonstration another step.
Have we consulted the will of the native, the real
Hawaiian 2 No. We have listened to the voice of
American capitalists who grasped the Hawaiian govern-
ment and insolently claimed to represent the popula-
tion of the islands. The will and well-being of the
native have influenced our decisions no more than the
will of the beasts roaming the Hawaiian jungles,
4 TO BLESS THE CONQUERED.
With this record our solemn concern for the good of
the native Filipinos is hollow and fraudulent. There
will be grandiloquent vaporings from the pulpit, press
and platform, from Congress and President, already
their pious sound has encircled the globe—but the
shaping force below rhetoric and piety will be financial
desire. Nothing will have any real weight but that.
This argument of our duty to lower races has been
cunningly handled by those whose motive is commer-
cial gain. They first appeal to the conscience of the
nation, but when conscience and humane instincts
have been roused and the people have adopted their
counsels for the good of humanity, another side of the
case is brought out to congeal the public conscience
again and restore apathy, whereupon the commercial
class can go ahead and do what they please. They
have gained their point, the laws they wanted have
been passed, and the people forget to repeal them when
the commercialists correct themselves and announce
that humanity in that instance would be wasted. To
make the case concrete apply it to Cuba or the Philip-
pines. The first act dwells with ostentation upon the
inhumanity of 1eaving a meritorious race in galling
servitude: a passion of sympathy is stirred and the
oppressed are freed; the second act discovers and bruits
abroad the degradation of the liberated people, the
public retires into the shell of its disappointed virtue,
turning over the worthless savages to the wise men of
commerce to discipline and use according to their
deserts. The farce is now finished. A protectorate is
established, or annexation, and the unworthy race is
taken in tutelage for a nameless period. To nervous
objections the reply is that it is improper to consider
the preferences of semi-savages.
This pious buncoing is proceeding for the confisca-
tion of Porto Rico, the Philippines, and possibly Cuba
—for Hawaii the work is already done. The moral
and religious ‘gag’ of elevating the natives is being
worked in the usual way to obtain the vote of the
churches. When we have absorbed or established our
guardianship of the islands, the inciting commercial
TO BLESS THE CONQUERED. 5
class will lay religion and humanity aside and resume
its native shape of proprietor, speculator and capitalist.
The critical question is whether this will be opposed
by the moral and religious uplifters. If the aims of the
moral and religious were intelligent and serious, were
they people of character and force, the commercial ex-
ploiters would be sternly faced and held to their prom-
ises: but this will not happen. Adjustment will hap-
pen. The rapacious commercialists will pronounce the
doctrine of total savage depravity, the lifters-up will
appreciate that this is reasonable and will gracefully go
about saving the souls of the natives whose bodies the
capitalists will break.
The principles proceeded upon by the capitalists will
be those always applied to inferior labor by employers
—long hours, petty remuneration, and no consideration
of their well-being. What is left of the natives after
this will be turned over to the missionaries to be pre-
pared for death. And the religious party will accept
these fag ends of humanity and recite their formulas of
doing good, soul-saving and lifting up, showing that
the destroyers and the saviors understood each other
from the beginning of the annexation drama. The
Hawaiian planters have protested that our government
must not prevent the importation of alien labor there
because their prosperity depends upon an inflow of
cheap coolies. What about the well-being of our
American citizens, the Hawaiian natives, who must
compete with these coolie importations P Will they
develop into the kind of men that we like to imagine
our citizens are? And was not one of the strong pub-
lic motives for Hawaiian annexation—before the war
motive dispensed with subterfuge—our concern for the
good of the natives 2 Consider then the prospects of
the Philippine natives if our commercial exploiters ex-
haust them so rapidly as to require a new stream of
coolie Chinese !
Laying aside cant, let us admit that our commercial
classes are magnificently indifferent to the well-being
of any natives, and will resent and thwart the first move
to hinder them from consuming the natives as “labor’
6 TO BLESS THE CONQUERED.
and reducing their strength and life to ‘profits.” The
position of the moral and religious would be mord-
antly humiliating if they were serious and honest about
saving the natives.
Events relating to the Philippines have already trans-
pired to establish these facts. The National Christian
Citizenship Convention that was called to meet in
Washington, D. C., last December, issued the follow-
ing remarkable subjects for the convention’s work:
“Should suffrage be limited by educational tests or
otherwise in the new island territories?
Should civil-service reform be extended to the new
island offices P
Should the national laws forbidding prize-fights and
bull-fights, restricting divorce, and forbidding bigamy
and related evils, be extended to our new island
territories 2
Should the American civil Sabbath be also extended
to these islands P
Should the canteen be abolished P
Should the policy of prohibition be maintained in
Alaska and the Indian Territory and extended to our
new island territories P’’
Could anything be more delicately ludicrous than
this program for reaching the great industrial evil,
which we shall legally foster and protect in every island
that we grab | We shall set up a system for 1egally
robbing the natives of all their valuable possessions;
capitalists will secure every fertile spot and hire the
work done by native gangs at just savage subsistence
wages; they will plant factories and use the cheap labor
to undersell white labor in our own country and other
parts of the world. But this outlook does not affront
our Christian Citizens, for they are accustomed to see
white men in their own country dealt with on the same
principles, and to recognize it as a wise ordination of
providence. What troubles them is whether these sav-
ages will keep the Sabbath, whether they can be cut
off from the few brutal pleasures accessible to their
kind—prize-fights, bull-fights, etc., whether to pro-
hibit them from drinking (it would make them more
TO BLESS THE CONQUERED. 7
serviceable workmen and ought to be done), and
whether the pagans can be restrained by our purifying
law from the sin of wives and free divorces. Excellent
fun indeed Heroic work to do while the American
people through their army and navy are assisting the
capitalists to change the natives into that broken-down,
wrung-out, off-scouring of civilization, the wage-
worker. But while we are enforcing our sexual
hypocrisy upon them will not our Christian Citizens
prepare a convention against the palaces of prostitution
that will enter with the white man’s civilization, and
forestall them by forbidding prostitution in the Phil-
ippines by 1aw P
How much weight, then, should the plea of annex-
ing savages to bless them have P Simply none. The
altruists who are praying for a new chance to do good
are deferential supplicators of capitalists for funds to
paint over the deep wounds which capitalism will in-
flict. In timerous hope of contributions they have to
creep before these great men with anxious circum-
spection. They can champion no reform that is odious
to the lords of the purse. They may amuse themselves
debating questions of the canteen, prohibition, bull-
fights, divorce, educational and property tests of citi-
zenship that would disfranchise the natives and give
the capitalists legislative control, and even civil service
reform to which only the professional politician could
demur, but they will religiously let the great abuses
alone: they will never utter a sound against the capit-
alist methods of employment, the irresistible processes
of capitalism that sponge up wealth into a central hoard
and debauch the population to a servile dependence
equal to slavery. The religious gentlemen who should
speak of these outrages would lose their nice comfort.
For comfort's sake they hold their peace. But the
division of spoils is suitable. The capitalists take the
loaf and give the religionists the crumbs. There is a
much meaning lesson here: even the forces of tyrannical
Selfishness are leagued against religious sycophants.
Canting religion has grown too weak to longer exact
payment. .
8 TO BLESS THE CONQUERED.
But let others realize the fraud. Let them beware
of making themselves the equally degraded instruments
of capitalist usage and contempt. Let them close their
ears to the cry for expansion which these pious persons
are so starvingly paid to raise.
CHAPTER II.
Itti perialistii for the Sake of Mattkind
1. Anglo-Saxon Claitús.
The plea of duty to the world involves a wider out-
look. We are solicited to extend our proprietorship
and rule in order to disseminate our free institutions
over the earth. Wherever our liberal institutions go
they are presumed to convey enlightenment and ele-
vation. We are told that it is a critical moment for
mankind, that England has for some generations been
bucking against the entire world alone, that her strength
is failing, and that destiny calls us to the rescue. She
has nobly carried the Anglo-Saxon habits of freedom
to darkened peoples, and now, her generous task in-
complete, she falters under the strain, her envious
rivals block the path and nibble ferociously at the fair
slices of the world she has already benignly carved out.
The great prize at stake for mankind is Anglo-Saxon
lordship of the globe. Anglo-Saxonism is set forth
to be a higher form of civilization than any other race
can bring to the conquered continents, and it is plaint-
ively alleged that England’s struggle is ours and that
the spread of Anglo-Saxonism, its lofty realities and
loftier ideals, is the sacred affair of every English
speaking man. They reproach us with standing idly
apart from the great world’s affairs too long, shirking
our magnanimous responsibilities in the stupendous
drama of international evolution, and Senator Lodge
sadly discerns the ‘‘humiliation of the United States
in the eyes of civilized mankind” if we do not pluck
IO PROTESTS AGAINST IMPERIALISM.
the ripe fruit of imperialism, and the stain upon us of
being “incapable of great affairs or of taking rank
where we belong as one of the greatest of the great
world powers.” With all this pathos the trade-be-
dizened prize of China is mixed up. Let her not be-
come Russianized, they implore, to annihilate Anglo-
Saxon prestige. These are evidently high matters
needing subtle study.
2. E11glish Protests Against #111periałisitt.
In moments and destinies so critical nothing must be
taken for granted. What is this princely gift that
Englaud is seeking to bestow upon humanity ? Why
is it so necessary for Anglo-Saxons to rule mankind?
Much depends on the answer to this. The answer
given by English statesmen is certainly dim, doubting
and obscure. In fact we shall be greatly surprised by
the persistance with which the good and self-interest
of the Anglo-Saxons enters into the disinterested creed
of universal good to mankind. But in England there
is far from that contented and assured agreement that
we should expect in an unselfish nation devoted to the
great policy of ameliorating mankind. The Liberal
party is on the verge of wreck over this beautiful ideal
of an Anglo-Saxon world.
On the 15th of December a great conference of Lib-
erals was held at Birmingham to face the crisis occa-
sioned by Harcourt’s resignation. In the evening Mr.
Asquith made what the Liberal press called a “great
speech” in the course of which he said:
“Gentlemen, we are not Jingoes, we repudiate that
pinchbeck imperialism which regards the whole world
as its legitimate provinces, and which flaunts its flag
and challenge in the face of every power in turn.
We base the title of Great Britain in India, in Egypt,
and wherever we are exercising our supremacy, over
the populations of any country or race, not upon brute
force, not upon the authority of disciplined strength
over the scattered resources of the untrained intelli-
gence of the undeveloped races. (Hear, hear.) We
PROTESTS AGAINST IMPERIALISM. I I
base it upon the work which we do, upon the benefits
which we confer, and, above all, upon that which is,
or ought to be, the predominant purpose of our policy,
upon the slow, but in course of time the effective asso-
ciation with those to whom we came in the character of
strangers and conquerers—the task of helping them
work out for themselves a higher and a better political
and social ideal. (Hear, hear.)”
If Mr. Asquith does not know there are many
in England who do know that there is a wide distance
between “that which is,” and “that which ought to be,
the predominant purpose” of English policy. But on
the whole this sounds noble and good and is very dif-
ferent from the imperialism which is at present in the
saddle in England. Moderate as it is, what was the
general sentiment of the conference as compared with
it? That sentiment will possibly stagger the benevo-
lent people whose clarion voice is now calling us to
England's rescue.
At the afternoon session the Rev. Mr. Jowett—note
the “Reverend’’ and “a man of great note in Birming-
ham ”—“attacked “Imperialism '' in all moods and
tenses, in a strong speech.”
‘He said an infection was in the air which seemed
to have tainted the historic party which had hitherto
been the party of peace. It was a tendency which was
one of the most perilous of modern days. That word
imperialism had become so tainted with suspicion that
he was not sure that any self-respecting statesman
would aspire to be thought in favor of it. (Cheers.)
Imperialism was only a synonym for jingoism—(cheers)
—against which they fought and conquered twenty
years ago. (Cheers.) He announced the daringly
logical conclusion that England was at present playing
the part of Stiggins in Europe, “seizing slices of the
globe '' and glozing it over with “religious postur-
ings.” $ -
Sir Wilfrid Lawson said, the only people who liked
war were statesmen, 1music-llall singers, aldermen,
*London Daily Chronicle report, Dec. 17, 1898.
I 2 PROTESTS AGAINST IMPERIALISM.
bishops, and newspaper editors. (Laughter and
cheers.)
Mr. Hirst Hollowell declared that ‘it was not a battle
of persons or private jealousies that was going on inside
the Liberal party, but of principles. The party was
not going to be led into jingoism by anybody, and if
its leaders or those of any other party were to be dis-
paraged or shunted because they stood up against
jingoism, then the members of the party throughout
the country would have something to say on the mat-
ter. (Loud cheers.) . . . There were two things with
which the Liberal party would never make any terms,
and these were sectarianism in education and jingoism
in foreign politics. (Cheers.)”
“ The net result of the whole was summed up by the
observers as a demonstration of unexpected strength
against the Liberal Imperialists.” +
It seems then that many Englishmen have not the
slightest toleration for the talisman by which we are
being conjured to expansion—that Anglo-Saxon Im-
perialism is a blessing to the world.
But no British statesman can speak on this subject
with the weight of John Morley because of his known
probity, and Mr. Morley has broken with the new
Liberalism because of its “imperialistic jingo policy''
which he thus defines :
“First, that territory is territory, and a11 territory is
worth acquiring.
“Second, that all territory, especially if anybody
happens to want it, is worth paying any price for.
“Third, that the country possesses the purse of
Fortunatus, and is free to fling millions here and mil-
lions there, with the certainty that benignant fairies
will, by magic, make them good. .
“Fourth, do not show the slightest regard for the
opinions of other nations. You have no share what-
ever in the great collective responsibility of civilized
peoples as the winged guardians of peace and good or-
der in the state system of Europe.
*London Daily Chronicle report, Dec. 17, 1898.
BRITISH IMPERIAL BATHOS. I3
“Fifth, the interests of the people of this country,
and advancement in all the arts of civilized life and
well-being, are completely and utterly secondary and
subordinate questions.””
Mr. Labouchere had already spoken in notable lan-
guage on some of these points before the Manchester
Reform Club. He had said: “The great illusion of the
present day was to suppose that an increase of territory
meant an increase of trade. As a matter of fact, as
could easily be proved by figures, it did not mean any
such thing. All the annexations we had made of late
were a commercial fallacy, and even the doctrine of the
open door had been much exaggerated. The mania at
the present time was to spend money in any place ex-
cepting England. Instead of spending money in irri-
gation works in Bahr-el-Ghazal he, as a Londoner,
maintained that they ought to spend it rather in pro-
viding a good water supply for the inhabitants of the
metropolis. When he saw the proposal for the estab-
lishment of a school at Khartoum to teach little Arab
boys English he could not help thinking what a won-
derful people his countrymen were to spend money on
such an object as that instead of supplying food and
clothing and education to the thousands of poor little
English boys at home.” +
3. British Ituperia1 Bathos.
These unequivocal protests give the noble mission of
England a very different hue. Bathos dances behind
all the magnificently generous phrases. We find it in
Lord Rosebery’s eulogy of the awful Sirdar of the Sou-
dan. “Our task,” said the Lord, “is the task of our
empire all over the world, not merely to erect a stand-
ard of civil government for those who have not hitherto
had that standard, but to enable the people gradually, at
a long distance perhaps, but in time at any rate, to take
some part in their own administration, and to have a
*Speech at Montrose, Jan. 1899. See London corresponderice of New
York Post, Jan. 25.
fLondon Chronicle, Dec. 14, 1898.
T 4 BRI’ī‘ISH IMPERIAL BATHOS.
distinctive share in the moulding of their own future.”
(Cheers.) “Gradually,” “at a long distance,’’ ‘‘some
part,’’ ‘‘ a distinctive share,” these are not aims that
make it worth while for the freedom loving American
people to sustain England’s conquering arm.
The difficulty these Imperialist politicians have in
making selfishness seem noble makes one pinch one-
self to be sure that they are not on a stage acting for
the amusement of mankind. Mr. G. W. Balfour, M.
P., Chief Secretary for Ireland, a representative Con-
servative, wrestling to hide the secrets, gave them away
bravely. “Was the Imperial spirit a spirit to be en-
couraged, or a spirit to be repressed ? In a general
way, within reasonable limits and within the limits of
our strength, he thought the policy of what Lord Rose-
bery described as pegging out claims to posterity was
a wise and sound one. Had we moral justification for
pursuing this policy P Aſ these dependencies were not un-
der the control of this country, they would, for the most
part, undozabtedly fall under the control of some other
country, and we had at least this to say at the bar of
the world’s judgment, that wherever we occupied a
territory that territory was opened to the enterprise and
the trade of all the world. (Cheers.) Mo doubt we
sought our own advantage, but the peculiarity was that
our advantage did not exclude the advantage of other
people. The second justification which we could plead
for this policy was that it was in our power to show
that the countries over which our rule had extended
had gained by means of that rule the blessings of order,
of good government, and of a higher civilization than that
which they previously knew.” (Cheers.)*
If we don’t steal every country that is not already
stolen some other Power will steal it—our stealing is
therefore righteous. Disraeli established this for us by
stealing Cyprus. We seek our own advantage, but we
find it to our greater advantage to share our trade ad-
vantages with others—therefore we are unselfish. And
Surely you can’t say that we don’t bless and civilize
*Speech at Keighley, Dec. 20, 1898.
BRITISH IMPERIAL BATHOS. 15
and keep a splendid police system over the conquered
and govern them in a more orderly manner than they
governed themselves—therefore if we take their coun-
try away from them and rob them of independence it is
justified. Yes, but this is unmitigated bathos and rot,
and Englishmen who are not muzzled know it and say
so. The Saturday Review says this flatly in referring
to a paper by Dr. Bonar on the Empire, read before the
British Association :
“Dr. Bonar, at any rate, has a quaint notion of the
altruistic mission of the Empire. Wealth does not
always give power, as he truly says. But he asks us
to believe that we hold Egypt, and even India, ‘not
from avarice, but from love of governing.” “Our own
colonies,’ he adds, “are not bound to us by a nexus of
cash payments.” Does Dr. Bonar really imagine that
we hold India and Egypt primarily because we think
that we can govern them better than any one else can 2
The plain unvarnished truth is that the Empire was
built up as the result of the pursuit of gain, and if we do
not attempt to exact immediate cash payments or their
equivalent from the Colonies today, we abstain because
rude experience warns us of the certain consequences.”*
The canting utterances of Lord Salisbury confirm this.
S.ru he: “The Empire is advancing and must advance.
(Hear, hear.) The great strength you have must be
used unfailingly, unsparingly, but still prudently, for
the advancement of the interest of the Empire, and for
the benefit of mankind. (Cheers.) And happy will
be the Minister in future days who will be able to ren-
der you as good an account as I think we can render
you today—(loud and prolonged cheers)—that we have
used the force that is entrusted to us not violently, not
sentimentally, but with calm and courageous calcula-
tion for the advancement of the interests of the Empire
and the benefits of the civilization of mankind. (Loud
cheers.) ''
The words of Mr. Chamberlain confirm this.
Taunted by Mr. Asquith with ‘inconsistency in having
*Sept. 17, 1898.
#Speaking at a dinner of the Constitutional Club, London, Dec. 16, 1898.
I6 BRITISH IMPERIAL BATHOS.
at one moment boasted of Britain’s glorious isolation
and at another advocated an alliance, he replied that
England is “gloriously isolated '' in her ability to de-
fend her own exclusive interests ; but she needs an ally
when she is called upon to assist in the promotion of the
Žnterests of others.' *
The speech of the new Lord Curzon at the luncheon
given in his honor by the directors of the Peninsular
and Oriental Steamship Company on the eve of his de-
parture to rule India confirms it. i. The occasion was
significant, he was speaking to great commercia1 men-
“Among the chief advantages of the imperial con.
nection between England and India he included the
possibility of the improved development of India.
[The usual flourish of duty and disinterestedness.] . . .
The chairman had incidentally referred to India in the
interests of business men as a field for commercial en-
terprise. [Transition to the motive of avarice begins.]
He could not help thinking, although desirous to avoid
prophecy, that there would be great developments in
that respect. (Hear, hear.) [Warm commercial
response.] . . . If we could establish in India anything
like stability of exchange—a great problem to which
any outgoing Viceroy must turn his attention—he be-
1ieved that confidence would revive, and that British
capital would flow more freely to India. It might per-
haps be regarded as a counsel of perfection to look at
the case from any other point of view than that of ex-
pediency and self-interest, but in all matters connected
with India he believed the point of view of duty and of
obligation was paramount. (Hear, hear.) [Another
blast on the trumpet of pharisaism with fine commer-
cial appreciation.] . . . But here, as business men, they
might pardon and sympathize with him if he looked at
the matter also from the sordid point of view of the A. s. d.
[Now preliminaries are over and Curzon gets down to
business.] Let them look at the trade of India, and
compare it with the trade of our colonies. He found
that the total sea-borne trade of India for 1896-7, which
*Saturday Review, Dec. Io, 1898.
#See the London Chronicle, Dec. 3, 1898.
BRITISH IMPERIAL, BATHOS. 17
was an unprosperous year, almost equalled that of the
whole of our Australian colonies, and was much greater
than that of our South African and North American
colonies combined ; indeed, it constituted nearly one-
tenth of the trade of the whole British Empire, and was
more than one-third of the trade of the whole Empire
outside of the United Kingdom. (Hear, hear.) These
were astounding figures, and if any deduction was to
be drawn from them, it was certainly not the conclus-
ion that, even regarded from the point of view of self-
interest, India was a matter in which we had little or
no concern. On the contrary, India was of vital inter-
est. (Cheers.)” [The commercial skeleton of En-
gland’s civilizing philanthropy is at length completely
bared.]
The determination of England to monopolize educa-
tion in Africa confirms it. Conveying to Kitchener
the approval of “ Her Majesty's Government” of the
Khartoum College project Lord Salisbury said : “The
reconciliation of the races which inhabit the Nile Val-
ley to a government which, in its principles and its
methods, must be essentially Western, is a task of the
extremest difficulty. It will tax the resources of the
present generation, and of those who come after them,
for many years before the wall of prejudice can be
thrown down which separates the thoughts of the
European and the thoughts of the Egyptian and the
Soudanese races, and until it is to a considerable ex-
tent accomplished we cannot count securely upon their
co-operation, either in the duties of government or in
the promotion of industrial progress. The only method
by which this reconciliation can be attained is to give
to the races whom you have conquered access to the
literature and knowledge of Europe.
“Your scheme, therefore, for establishing a machin-
ery by which European knowledge can be brought to
the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile is not only in
itself most admirable, but it represents the only policy
by which the civilizing mission of this country can
effectively be accomplished.”
18 BRITISH IMPERIAL BATHOS,
The general attitude of the nation is mirrored in the
following editorial opinion :
“For this College at Khartoum would be a new de-
parture in Africa. There we have lavished millions in
attempts to teach Christianity, with and without ma-
terial improvements in the condition of the people. In
spite of widely circulated annual reports, the political
observer can see no great results—none at any rate
commensurate with the outlay. And here would be a
new line, the only line possible, as the Prime Minister,
whose Christianity no one will suspect, has very prop-
erly said, by which the civilizing mission of Great Brit-
ain can be thoroughly accomplished in the Nile basin.”
All this seems very innocent and disinterested. But
about this time France began to talk of assisting in the
arduous task of ‘reconciling ' African with European
civilization by founding two colleges in the Nile Val-
ley, one at Khartoum and one at Fashoda. M. Deloncle
in a letter to the “Temps' said : “Will you be so
kind as to inform your readers that, anxious not to be
left behind in this work of education, a French group
has in its turn taken the initiative for the foundation of
two establishments for native education and instruc-
tion—in the first place, ‘The French School' at Khar-
toum, and, later on, ‘The Marchand School' at Fash-
oda. The greater part of the funds required for this
double project is already assured by generous
donations.”
We may presume that England thankfully welcomed
this offer to share the burden of civilizing the Soudan-
ese races, a task in Salisbury’s words of “extremest
difficulty,” but she did nothing of the sort. English
papers scorned the offer and called it an “amusing
project.” Why amusing 2 If England’s purpose is
the good of the Nile people why will she not co-oper-
ate gladly with a highly civilized nation like France to
educate them 2 Educators and scientists of all nations
of the earth are loyally co-operating to advance science
and education irrespective of race and political rivalry.
But we can understand very well why England will
not co-operate or share if her ‘civilization' is domin-
BRITISH IMPERIAI, BATHOS. I9
ation and supremacy in the Nile region for commercial
ends, and the fact that she will not brook assistance in
educating and civilizing establishes our contention that
her ruling purpose is not civilization at all but com-
mercialism, that she would not be held in Africa or
India a day by the good she can do there, and that
what holds her is the gain she gets or expects to get.
The New York Tribune, referring to Lord Cromer's
announcement to the Soudanese of the civilization that
is ahead of them, expressed a great thought very
suavely. “Of course,” it remarked, “it may be ob-
jected that this action of the British is criminal aggres-
sion, rank imperialism, et cetera, and that it is a
shameful thing to set up a government at Omdurman
without a favorable plebiscitum in Dem Bekir. But
we doubt whether such considerations will undo or de-
feat the convention which has been made, or will turn
back the rising tide of civilization in the Dark Con-
tinent.” The rising of European commercial rule and
the falling tide of African independence, would be true.
Call “criminal aggression '' by the name of “civiliza-
tion ” and its sins are all forgiven ; it is redeemed,
purified and ready to enter heaven.
The curious reader will find in the British and Foreign
State Papers for the year 1854-5, * the following
words : ‘In 1854 a grand jury in the Williamsburg
district [South Carolina] declared,” “as our unanimous
opinion, that the Federal law abolishing the African
Slave Trade is a public grievance. We hold this trade
has been and would be, if re-established, a blessing to
the American people, and a benefit to the African him-
Self.” -
The idea that slavery was a benefit to the African
himself was made a corner stone of the institution of
slavery. It brought inward consolation to the good
man who held slaves or upheld slavery. Now, the
enslaving of 10wer nations is good for the nation that
enslaves and a benefit to the nation that is enslaved.
*Page 1156, quoted by W. E. B. Du Bois: “The Suppression of the Afri-
can Slave Trade in the United States,” p. 169.
2O ONLY CASH-PAYING PEIILANTHROPY.
The good of our time find peace and perfection in this
doctrine.
4. Oftly Casti-Paying Philanthropy Waitted.
But there are two final forms of proof with which we
clinch the foregoing argument. First, England shows
no inclination to go adventuring in those countries
where there is magnificent opportunity for unselfish
philanthropy and little or none for profit. Secondly,
English dealing with the subjugated races shows that
commerce and profit are primary, and that civilization
and upbuilding are desired and fostered just in so far
as they promote commerce and profit. Let us give
examples. Leonard Courtney in his recent presiden-
tial address before the Royal Statistical Society on
“An Experiment in Commercial Expansion,” gave a
study of the Congo Free State. Europe placed the
Congo State in the hands of the King of Belgium for
“commercial and philanthropic exploitation.” The
net commercial result was that “the Congo trade rep-
resented but little more than O.7 per cent. of the total
trade of Belgium.” This, said Mr. Courtney, “was
Sadly disproportionate to the anticipations of the
enterprise.”
He said that “if we wished to think accurately about
such enterprises as the Congo experiment, philanthropy
and commerce must be separated from one another in our
thoughts. As a philanthropic adventure the Congo
had certainly been a very mixed success. An ex-
tremely chequered record of war, enforced labor, and ex-
acted tribute might, after long years, effect a certain
transformation of the social condition of the inhabitants. . .
As for the commercial success of the Congo, . . . enough
had been said to show that it was disputable whether
the resources of the country were such as to sustain a
permanent trade, even with the help of the railway. . . .
The immense development of wealth and commerce, and
of civilized populations following the establishment of
some of the colonies of Æurope, had encouraged the belief
that all adventures to which the same name could be
ONLY CASH-PAYING PEIILANTHROPY. 21
given must be crowned with the same success. Yet
the conditions which had secured this success in the
past could be easily indicated, and it became a simple
Žnguiry whether like conditions were to be found in any
land offered for new enterprise. . . We were justified in
saying that nothing could be deduced from the history
of American colonization or Indian domination to jus-
tify hopes of a lucrative commercial expansion in Central
Africa. Missionary and philanthropic labor might be
spent there with approval, and with some measure of
slow success, but the foundation of healthful colonies
furnishing outlets for population and commerce was
not hopeful.
“Sir R. Giffen moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Court-
ney for his valuable paper, which was seconded by Sir
F. S. Powell, who thought this country ought to be congraſſ-
allated that the Congo State did not belong to us. (Cheers.)”
Here was an instance where a gathering of very in-
fluential and representative Englishmen put itself on
record as being highly gratified that England did not
own the Congo, because there was no money in it, al-
though the opportunities for civilization and philan-
thropy there were recognized as immense. If civilizing
were the actual as it is the feigned object of England
this is the very kind of country that she would choose
to own and to colonize, on account of its unbounded
needs. The 1aw of imperialistic colonizing is this :
No outlay shall be made for “civilizing purposes
which does not promise to return, sooner or later, the
usual rate of returns on invested capital. The corol-
lary of this law is that civilization is not an end in
itself but a means to an end—a means for increasing
and firmly establishing commerce. This simple prin-
ciple is a key to the entire mighty network of imperial-
ist dogmas concerning duty, religion, humanity, un-
selfishness and civilization. Lord Rosebery skilfully ad-
mitted and used this principle in his eulogy of the
Sirdar's college, when he said that “if our civilization
was to prevail against offer contending European civili-
2ations, etc., . . . he [Kitchener] saw that a beginning
must be made in the way of a center of education.’
22 Is INDIA HAPPY 2
5. is itidia Happy 2
The dealings of England with her lower subject
races are a sturdy proof that civilizing and uplifting
are not her ends excepting as they increase and
strengthen her sources of income. Of the recent ter-
rific slaughter of the Soudanese by machine guns, I
shall not speak here, but shall take the illustration
that is most favorable to England—the Indian Empire.
One word first, however, as to what civilization and
race upbuilding is. It is the boast of English Imperial-
ists that England “brings into the minds and into the
lives of the subject people, not as phantoms of the im-
agination, but as solid, vivid realities, the ideas of
order, justice, and humanity.’ (Mr. Asquith.) But
these ideas alone are very far from civilizing. The dog
in distinction to the wolf has these ideas, learned from
contact with civilized man. He is tender, kind, or-
derly, and true, he is even just, but he lacks that
which the concept of civilization demands. He lacks
independent development, self-development, the power
of standing alone and going forward without 1eaning
or being led. Order, justice, and humanity are de-
veloped in chattel slaves, but they lack a prime requis-
ite of civilization, without which civilization is not.
They are not free. Now the glib lords and lawyers,
bishops and parliamentarians and prophets of England
are fiery in praise of the order and security that
England establishes, but they do not explain to us just
what these are worth without freedom, self-government,
and self-development, a thing that we should very much
like to know.
To what extent is England developing the Indians,
strengthening their character, training them to be self-
sustained, independent, and free ? As to this none can
speak better than Indians themselves. The London
Indian Society held its annual conference for 1898 not
long ago” and the members gave very vigorous ex-
pression to their opinion of British treatment of India.
The chairman, Mr. D. Naoroji, moved a resolution :
*Dec. 28, 1898. Reported in the London Daily Chronicle.
Is INDIA HAPPY 7 - 23
“That in accordance with the oft-declared and
pledged policy of the British people, through Acts and
Resolutions of Parliament and Proclamations of Her
Majesty the Queen, to treat Indians exactly as the Brit-
ish subjects in this country; . . . this conference is of
opinion and urges upon the governmentin the name of
British justice and honor, that Indians should be al-
lowed commissions and command in the Indian army
in the same manner and through the same methods as
are open to Englishmen. . . .”
‘Mr. Naoroji referred to the bravery and heroism
shown by the native soldiers. . . They ought by rights
to be treated as British citizens, but the practice of the
authorities was the very reverse. The chairman
quoted opinions which showed that the ſtative soldiers
had remained true to their salt, even to the extent of
fighting bravely against their own Åith and kin. . . . He
claimed something more than justice from the British
people ; he claimed their gratitude. (Cheers.) It was
the money and blood of India which had built up the
British Empire there. (Cheers.) . . . The presentsystem
was not only an injustice ; it was a gross insult to the
whole Indian nation. (Cheers.) He had been in
communication with the War Office on the matter, and
had been told that the Queen's Warrant forbade Indian
subjects holding commissions in the Indian army.”
It would be unnecessary to read further to learn the
degradation of Indian character under British rule.
Although debarred of all promotion and compelled to
serve in the lowest rank against their own countrymen,
against their own flesh and blood, they obey. True to
their salt, less manly and chivalrous than common
mercenaries or bandits, they slaughter fathers, broth-
ers, sons at the command of foreigners. They are
proud of it. The fashion of their grievance is that they
want a share of the military offices. And on the other
hand the civilizing English cannot spare them—they
want all good things for themselves. And yet the
British people through acts of Parliament and other
means ‘had often pledged themselves to treat Indians
exactly as British subjects in England I’
24 Is INDIA HAPPY 2
Seconding the resolution, Mr. Mahtab Singh said
that ‘as loyal subjects they wanted to warn the British
Government of the danger of its present policy, which
if not altered would turn a nation of patriotic and loyal
subjects into rebels, whose aim would be to destroy the
British rule. (Cheers.)”
The resolution was carried unanimously.
Mr. Romesh Chunder Dutt moved a resolution “de-
ploring all legislation restricting self-government in
India.” Under Northbrook’s vice-royalty, he said,
‘representative government was first introduced into
India, which conferred upon the rate-payers of Cal-
cutta the right to select two-thirds of their municipal
councillors. Since then this measure has worked ex-
tremely well, and the new municipal council had trans-
formed Calcutta into one of the healthiest places in In-
dia. The time had now come for the extension of
municipal government to other municipalities, but the
present Government was no friend of municipal govern-
ment. It had been striving to curtail the powers of the
London County Council, and therefore there was no
wonder that it was trying to abrogate Lord North-
brook’s valuable measure. (Shame.) AWever within
his memory had there been such a state of alarm through-
out the whole of Bengal as had been caused by this meas-
wre. The impression zwas spreading that it was not pos-
sible to obtain any new rights by constitutional methods.
There had been forty years of peace and loyalty, and
now the Government by its action was teaching a very
dangerous lesson to the people of India. (Cheers.) '
Mr. R. C. Sen said ‘it was a mistake to trust too
much to the generosity of the English people.’
Mr. Bipin Chunder Pal moved : “That this meet-
ing condemns the new Sedition Law of India, (I)
which makes invidious distinctions between different
classes of her Majesty's subjects ; (2) which seeks to
restrict the free discussion of Indian measures by her
Majesty’s Indian subjects in England, by threats of
prosecution on their return to India ; (3) which takes
away the liberty of the press that has been enjoyed in
India for over half a century, and substitutes a method
IS INDIA HAPPYP 25
of repression, unworthy of the British government ; (4)
which empowers magistrates in India, who are heads
of the police, to demand security for good behavior
from editors of newspapers, to refuse such security when
offered, and to send the editors to jail with hard labor
without trial for any specific offence; . . .”
No people in the world have said more in censure of
the French methods of justice exposed by the case of
Dreyfus, or of the German gag laws and Imperial
prosecutions for the terrible crime of speaking as you
think, called lese majestat, than the English, yet here
is England jailing Indian editors without trial, through
her Dogberry police magistrates and depriving her In-
dian subjects of the right of free speech. This is the
England that, as Mr. Asquith says, makes the ideas of
order, justice and humanity, “solid, vivid realities' in
the minds and lives of the people dependent on her.
Mr. Pal enforced his resolution by declaring that
‘those who had drawn it up had committed sedition
under the new law over and over again. (Laughter
and cheers.) Further the people who had been speak-
ing that afternoon could be prosecuted in India for
their speeches—that is, if they were Indian natives.
If they were English-born, they could say what they
liked. The freedom of the Press had been the bulwark
of English rule in India for the past forty years. The
speech of the previous speaker was only an indication
of the spirit which was growing up amongst the young
men in India. There was a spirit of unrest and dis-
content which was spreading in quarters of which
Government knew little. Sedition was present in In-
dia, and if the government shut up the mouths of the
educated Indians, who alone could explain to their
fellow-countrymen what British rule meant to India,
and how necessary it was that it should continue, it
must be prepared for an outburst which would shake
the British Empire to its foundations. (Cheers.) '
It would plainly seem that England has brought her-
self to a grave dilemma. She is convinced that if she
does not enforce harsh sedition laws which shut the
mouths of the educated Indians and prevent them from
26 Is INDIA HAPPY 2
‘ explaining to their fellow-countrymen what British
rule means in India,” there will be a sedition, and here
is a body of highly intelligent Indians assuring her
that if she does not repeal those obnoxious laws and
give the educated a chance to smooth the situation over
to the masses of their countrymen there will be “an
outburst that will shake the British Empire to its foun-
dations.” In other words British rule is neither safe if
it is explained nor if it is not explained : it will not
bear investigation and it will not bear not being
investigated. -
Having this expression of opinion from the Hindus,
let us consider the words of a candid Englishman, Mr.
Goldwin Smith. He believes that India “has been
steadily administered in the interest of the Hindu.”
Granting for the moment only that this is so—we do
not grant it longer—the incapacity of England to civ-
ilize is even the more shown by the results, for her
efforts to help have ‘reduced the population to human
sheep, without aspirations, without spur to Self-im-
provement of any kind.” This climax of seventy-five
years of civilizing effort thoroughly discredits the prin-
ciple of Imperialism. “If,” Mr. Smith says, “empire
is to be regarded as a field for philanthropic effort and
the advancement of civilization, it may safely be said
that nothing in that way equals, or ever has equalled,
the British Empire in India. For the last three-quar-
ters of a century at all events, the Empire has been
steadily administered in the interest of the Hindu. Yet
what is the result P. Two hundred millions of human
sheep, without native leadership, without patriotism,
without aspirations, without spur to self-improvement
of any kind; multiplying, too many of them, in abject
poverty and in infantile dependence on a government
which their numbers and necessity will too probably
in the end overwhelm. Great Britain has deserved
and won the respect of the Hindu ; but she has never
won, and is perhaps now less likely than ever to win,
his love. The two races remain perfectly alien to each
other. Lord Elgin sorrowfully observes, that there is
more of a bond between man and dog than between
SPECIMIENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY. 27
Englishman and Hindu. The natives generally, hav-
ing been disarmed, cannot rise against the conqueror;
and their disaffection is shown only in occasional and
local outbreaks, chiefly of a religious character, or in
the impotent utterances of the native press.”
Of such periodic phenomena as Indian plagues
and famines, their conduciveness to Hindu happiness,
and British responsibility for them, I shall say but lit-
tle. Julian Hawthorn and Lee Merewether, after per-
Sonal investigations in India during the famine plague
of 1897, agreed that not less than “eight million per-
Sons had already died of famine and disease directly
caused thereby ‘’—“eight times the population of New
York ; nearly twice that of London,’’i and the famine
had not then run its course. Mr. Hawthorn tried
1amely to exculpate the English government and then
said : “It is true that at the moment when millions
of Indians were starving, there was paid in London for
seats to see the Jubilee money enough to avert all that
Žnconceivable suffering—yes, and much of it was paid
by Americans; and the rest was paid by other foreign-
ers and by the English themselves. It was a vain and
selfish expenditure no dozzół, but it was spent, not by the
Government, but by private persons. They were like
other persons all over the world.” As if the waste of
these resources at such a time by private persons in the
slightest degree mitigated the responsibility and crime
of the English nation | And that these vain and self-
ish spenders, ourselves included, ‘were like other per-
Sons all over the world,” is the very thing that shows
conclusively that these civilized people ‘all over the
world’ cannot rule a subject race unselfishly.
6. British Humanity in the Soudan.
The facts, we believe, warrant this statement : That
1ower races under Imperial rule are dealt with on a
code of principles specially framed for them, and differ-
ing widely from the principles that white races observe
*''The Moral of the Cuban War,” in the Forum, Nov. 1898.
#The Cosmopolitan Magazine, 1897, pp. 372-3, and 658.
28 SPECIMIENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY.
toward one another. The codes for the lesser races
vary. Take as instance the Belgian code toward the
Congo Free State. This Free State “is not,” says the
Saturday Review,” “free in any sense of the word.
The Belgians have replaced the slavery they found by
a system of servitude at least as objectionable. Of
what certain Belgians can do in the way of barbarity
Englishmen are painfully aware. Mr. Courtney [in
the address already quoted] mentions an instance of a
Captain Rom who ornamented his flower beds with the
heads of twenty-one natives killed in a punitive expe-
dition. This is the Belgian idea of the most effectual
method of promoting the civilization of the Congo.
Exports from the State fall seriously short of imports;
such as they are, they are maintained not by legiti-
mate commerce, but by raids made on the ivory stores
of 1uckless native chiefs where tribute is said to be in
arrears. The tax-gatherer, as we know from consular
reports, follows every step of life in the Congo State.
Yet expenditure is something like a quarter of a mil-
lion sterling beyond its income, and the King of the
Belgians has to bear the burden of £40,000 a year in
order that Belgium may increase her trade by O.7 per
cent.’’. England claims that her code is better than
this, and thencemakes the dizzy jump that it approaches
the stainless and perfect. In truth it is a code for lower
races, framed to keep them dependent for unknown
periods, and framed with the intent to give the English
trade benefits. Her code, as already, indicated, is
shrewder business policy.
But is the English page so clean and white P Was
Captain Rom an exceptional brute to the wretched
Africans ? It would not seem so if we contemplate the
British Soudan campaign. There seem to have been
atrocities there well nigh unheard of in ‘civilized
warring before. Mr. E. N. Bennett, an eye witness,
tells of these in the January Contemporary Review.i.
*December 17, 1898. -
#Of Mr. Bennett's title to a hearing the N. Y. Tribune says: “He is not
to be coughed down as a credulous schoolmaster, who ought to have con-
fined his energies to entomology and archaeology, and to have kept at a
safe distance from the battle-field.”
SPECIMIENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY. 29
“On our left along the lower slopes of Gebel Surg-
ham a large number of camp-followers and native
servants were already busy among the white-clad fig-
ures which lay stretched in little groups as our shell
fire or the long-range volleys of the Lee-Metfords had
struck them down. These looters had armed them-
selves somehow or other with rifles, spears, and even
clubs, and made short work of any wounded man they
came across. Poor wretches who in their agony had
crawled under the scanty shade of a rock or shrub were
clubbed to death or riddled with bullets by the irres-
ponsible brutality of these native servants, who were
in such wholesome dread of a Dervish, even when pros-
trate, that they frequently fired several shots into
bodies already dead before they advanced to strip the
corpse of its gibbeh of arms. . . . This wholesale
slaughter was not confined to Arab servants. It was
stated that orders had been given to kill the wounded.
Whether this was so or not I do not know, but cer-
tainly no protest was made when the Soudanese dis-
patched scores of wounded men who lay in their path.
The Dervishes who were stretched on the sand within
a few yards were bayoneted, or, in some instances,
stabbed with their own spears. . . Arabs who lay further
out in the desert at some little distance from the line
of march, and happened, unfortunately for themselves,
to move or turn over in their agony, were immediately
pierced by rifle bullets. On some occasions shots were
fired into the bodies of wounded men at such close
quarters that the smell of burning flesh was positively
sickening.”
Justification is pleaded because the wounded Arab
sometimes treacherously slaughters his enemy, but Mr.
Bennett replies that the instances of this “are, after all,
extremely few in number,’ and that ‘ the wounded
Dervish has become dangerous because he fully ex-
pects to be killed.” He continues:
“But no justification whatever exists for the butchery
of unarmed or manifestly helpless men lying wounded
on the ground. This certainly took place after the
battle of Omdurman. Dervishes who lay with shat-
3O SPECIMENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY.
tered legs or arms, absolutely without weapons, were
bayoneted and shot without mercy. This unsoldierly
work was not even left to the exclusive control of the
black troops ; our own British soldiers took part in it.
At one place, on the western slopes of Surgham, I
noticed a fine old Dervish with a gray beard, who, dis-
abled by a wound in his leg, lay prostrate beside a
small bush. He had apparently attempted to escape
toward Omdurman with the rest of the Khalifa's forces
who survived, but his wound had prevented this, and
the fugitive had sunk down on the ground about eight
yards behind his son, a boy of seventeen, whose right
leg had also been 1acerated by a bullet. Neither the
father nor the son had any weapons at all, yet a High-
lander stepped out of the ranks and drove his bayonet
through the old man's chest. The victim of this need-
less brutality begged in vain for mercy, and clutched
the soldier's bayonet, reddening his hands with his
own blood in a futile attempt to prevent a second
thrust. No effort was made by any comrade or officer
to prevent this gratuitous bit of butchery, nor, of
course, could any officer have interfered very well, if
the soldier—as was said to be the case—was only act-
ing in accordance with the wishes of the general in
command.”
The general in command was the Sirdar, that Lord
Kitchener who has been making the noble appeals to
the British purse to found a college near the site of
these slaughters, for the advancement of humanity.
Let us follow Mr. Bennett's description of British hu-
manity a little farther.
‘‘No attempt was made, either on the day of the
battle or next day, to do anything for the wounded
Dervishes. . . . To lie for two days without water in
the heat of a Soudan August is bad enough, but when
the natural thirst is augmented by the fever which in-
variably accompanies gunshot wounds the torture must
be terrible. . . . Hundreds of wounded Dervishes who
nad failed to escape from the field were left to perish
miserably within easy reach of our succour had it been
forthcoming.”
SPECIMIENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY. 31
The story of unspeakable British barbarism con-
tinues :
“There was another feature in our capture of Omdur-
man which was truly deplorable. By the time we had
repulsed the last Dervish attack and were rapidly ad-
vancing upon Omdurman, the streets leading to the
southern exits of the town were crowded with fugitives.
In addition to mounted Baggaras and Dervish infantry,
a chaotic mass of non-combatants, men, women and
children, dragging after them camels, horses, and
donkeys, laden with goods and chattels—all this con-
fused stream of human beings and animals was press-
ing madly forward in panic-stricken flight. Orders
were given to fire upon the fugitives, and, as the
artillerymen on the gunboats from their raised posi-
tions could see well over the walls, a deadly fire was
opened upon the crowded thoroughfares. One street
especially, which led down to the river, was swept by
a frightful hail of Maxim bullets, which mowed the
fugitives down in scores. . . . Next day some five
lmundred dead bodies lay scattered about the streets of
Omdurman, and among them were corpses of women
and little children. . . . Two women were bending
sorrowfully over the dead body of a Dervish, when a
non-commissioned officer went up and deliberately shot
one of the women with a revolver.
The attention of those who erroneously think that the
Anglo-Saxon is an humane and civilizing race is re-
spectfully called to Mr. Bennett's conclusions:
“I have written the above paragraphs with the ut-
most reluctance, but it is certainly high time that the
conscience of civilized nations realized that some consider-
ations are due even to a semi-civilized or òarðarous en-
emy. The conduct of the Belgians in the Congo Free
State, the French in Algeria, the Germans in the
Camaroons, the Russians in Central Asia, ourselves in
South Africa and the Soudan—the conduct of the various
nations who are sharing in the partition of Africa and
Asia, seems to be based on the assumption that the rights
of the native in a state of war are practically nil. . . .
“Christian England goes almost wild with indig-
32 SPECIMENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY.
nation if Moslems commit atrocities. . . . Azzá Aroſſ-
estant sympathies seem almost incapable of extension
beyond the limits of Christendom. AVo public sympathy
7s bestowed upon the wretched natives who, when they in-
cur inevitable defeat at the hands of the civilized invader,
are either butchered as they lie wounded on the field or are
left to die without an effort to save them.”
In the London Morning Post of September 29 Lieu-
tenant Winston Churchill wrote.*
“We had not gone far when individual Dervishes
began to walk toward the advancing Squadrons, throw-
ing down their weapons, holding up their hands, and
imploring mercy. The lazys of zwar do not admit the
night of a beaten enemy to quarter. The victor is not
obliged to accept his surrender. Of his charity he may
do so, but there is no obligation, provided, of course,
that he makes it clear to the suppliant that he must
continue to fight.”
The presumption is that these suppliants for mercy
were murdered by the world-civilizing and humane
English. -
If the general assumption of the civilized Powers of
Europe, including England, is that ‘the rights of the
native in a state of war are practically nil,’ what will
be their opinion of these rights when the natives are
not in a state of war P This question searches civili-
zation through and through. The answer to it is that
the treatment of the natives in peace will be as far be-
low the standard of treatment of equal whites, as the
treatment of the natives in a state of war is below the
treatment of the whites in a state of war.
The just conclusion from this review of English pur-
poses, achievement, and methods, is that we should
not be helping the world by going to the aid of
English Imperialism. The vaunted battle for civiliza-
tion that she has been fighting has been for herself.
By going to her rescue in the name of Anglo-Saxonism
we should be helping to enthrone English methods of
selfishness over mankind. Let England change before
*Quoted by Mr. Bennett,
SPECIMIENS OF BRITISH HUMANITY. 33
she asks this. Let us refuse to aid her until she does
change. Let us act on the truth that the Anglo-Sax-
onism represented by British Imperialism is not a good,
that it is coarse, grasping, domineering and cruel, and
if she will walk in that path let her walk alone. Let
us save our branch of the race for better things, and
restrain ourselves from being used as a tool of her
folly. Let us denounce her too flimsy hypocrisy and
do what we can, in conjunction with her real states-
men and her nobler citizens, to win her to a more hon-
est and honorable national life.
CHAPTER III.
Our Crittle it! the Philippitte Islatids.
1. The New Policy of Corruption.
We now propose to show that the new American
Imperialism is a strict reproduction of the British Im-
perialism that has been described. If that is lovely
and desirable, so is its American imitation. But let us
permit American Imperialists to speak for themselves
and to disclose their own character as we have allowed
the English to do. This will show whether the Anglo-
Saxonism that would be carried to the Philippines and
elsewhere is worth carrying, or should be watchfully
kept at home and extinguished. -
Charles Denby, our one time minister to China and
now a member of McKinley’s commission to study the
Philippines, has published a brief paper in answer to
the question “Shall We Keep the Philippines?” +
Being a man of prominence and authority among the
expansionists we give his words their due weight.
They express the change in American morality toward
the world which expansionists are inculcating and
practising. This man is the type of those who sur-
round and influence the president. He defines a hard
and selfish national policy toward the weak. Every
important thing that has happened, everything that is
happening, goes to establish this proposition:
That hard and selfish men, and hard and selfish poli-
cies, will control our imperialist relations, that the kind
and well-meaning will be overruled. There is no inten-
*The Forum, November, 1898.
NEW POLICY OF CORRUPTION. 35
tion of mildness, humanity and justice, in the forces that
are now gaining ascendency in American life.
Here is Mr. Denby, the type of the hard and selfish
imperialist politician of the new school, openly im-
pressing upon the country this crass and vulgar
European doctrine. Thus Mr. Denby:
“. . . We have become a great people. We have a
great commerce to take care of. We have to compete
with the commercial nations of the world in far-distant
markets. Commerce, not politics is king. The manu-
facturer and the merchant dictate to diplomacy, and con-
trol elections. The art of arts is the extension of
commercial relations,—in plain 1anguage, the selling
of native products and manufactured goods.
“I learned what I know of diplomacy in a severe
school. I found among my colleagues not the least hesi-
tation in proposing to their respective Governments to do
anything which was supposed to be conducive to their
interests. There can be no other rule for the government
of all persons who are changed with the conduct of affairs
than the promotion of the welfare of their respective
countries.”
This then is what expansion and that noble ‘world-
diplomacy’ with which our ears are being daily tickled,
bring us to! Here is Mr. Denby, corrupt and confes-
sedly corrupted by this high diplomacy which is to
make us a sainted and respected nation before man-
kind, glorying in the corruption and trying to corrupt
his countrymen. If there was ever needed proof that
we should keep ourselves unspotted from the filth and
foulness of those European and Asiatic complications
that territory stealing will assuredly bring, here is that
proof. For contact with European codes inflicts those
codes upon us. Denby continues his exposure of
Imperialism, and applies its Christlike morality to the
Philippines:
“We have the right as conquerors to hold the Phil-
ippines. We have the right to hold them as part pay-
ment of a war indemnity. This policy may be charac-
terized as unjust to Spain; but is the result of the for-
36 NEW POLICY OF CORRUPTION.
tunes of war. All nations recognize that the conqueror
may dictate the terms of peace.”
“I am in favor of holding the Philippines because I
cannot conceive of any alternative to our doing so,
except the seizure of territory in China, and I prefer to
hold them rather than to oppress further the helpless
Government and people of China. I want China to
preserve her autonomy, to become great and prosper-
ous; and I want these results not for the interests of
China, but for our interests. I am not the agent or
attorney of China, and, as an American, I do not look to
the promotion of China’s interests, or Spain's, or any
other country's—but simply of our own.
“The whole world sees in China a splendid market
for our native products, our timber, our locomotives,
our rails, our coal oil, our sheetings, our mining-plants
and numberless other articles.” -
“Dewey's victory is an epoch in the affairs of the Far
East. We hold our heads higher. We are coming to
our own. We are stretching out our hands for what
nature meant should be ours. We are taking our
proper rank among the nations of the world. We are
after markets, the greatest markets now existing in the
world. Along with these markets will go our beneficent
institutions; and humanity zºſill bless us.”
This is an exquisite example of the British cant and
bathos which is exhibiting itself serenely in
the new Imperial America. Wherever the basest of
international principles of pilfering and freebooting are
applied to gain markets, “along with these markets will
go our beneficent institutions.” The halo of our bless-
ed institutions will pervade and rectify rapacity and
wrong! But it will not. We shall not build beneficent
institutions on ruffianism and rapacity. “We are after
markets, the greatest markets in the world,' we do not
care what we do to get them: we will cheerfully rob
and kill, we will wrench their fatherland from the weak
and call it ours, we admit it in cold blood, but like
the praying professional murderer, we piously declare
that God and humanity will bless us in it. How did
our war of humanity to rescue Cuba establish the irrel-
NEW POLICY OF CORRUPTION. 37
evant and unheard-of conclusion that unless we take
the Philippines there is ‘no alternative except the seiz-
ure of territory in China?” There is no bridge between
these two irreconcilable opposites excepting the benefi-
cent institution of American rapacity. The Philippines
have done us no wrong, China has done us no wrong,
but because Spain wronged Cuba and we had compas-
sion, we do no wrong in wronging either the Philip-
pines or China. This is the Imperialists’ creed.
Now we do not expect to reach such men as Mr.
Denby or Mr. Denby's type—the president, the advis-
ers of the president, the whole tribe of commercial,
political, and newspaper Imperialists, who are hound-
ing the nation to crime. “Commerce, not politics, is
king. The manufacturer and the merchant dictate to .
diplomacy, and control elections.” We realize this.
But we turn away from these classes to the people. We
think that when they realize the brazen fraud being
practised on them, they will decide to control elections,
not only to put an end to the dishonest and ruffianly
policy of Imperialism, but to put an end to the suprem-
acy of commerce over man.
But Mr. Denby has not even yet conveyed to us all
the light he has in him. In a more recent article” he
presents Imperialist principles in their engaging naked-
ness without the usual shreds of moral clothing.
“If,” he says, “the argument made herein has any
force, the 1egal and constitutional difficulties which
were quoted against expansion have disappeared, and
the cold, hard, practical question alone remains. Will
the possession of these islands benefit us as a nation ?
If it will not, set them free fomorrow, and let their peo-
fle, if they please, cut each other's throats, or play what
pranks they please. To this complexion zwe must come at
last, that, unless it is beneficial for us to hold these islands,
zwe should turn them loose.”
We ask this question: Why, this being the mind
and purpose of our imperialist politicians and commer-
cialists, are they allowed to grimace and pose before
*The Forum, February, 1899.
38 McKINLEY PROCLAIMS WAR.
the nation as philanthropists and moralists? Why do
we not enforce upon them silence about the good they
intend to do the conquered savages, when it is an
acknowledged lie? ‘Let the Filipinos cut each other's
throats unless the appropriation of their country will
help our trade. Damn the good we might do them.
We are not in this expansion business for their good.’
It is true we are not, but we command you hereafter
to stop telling us that we are. We propose to hold
this argument on your basis, that of hard, brutal self-
ishness, and to decide whether it is best for us to put
ourselves and the peoples absorbed into your selfish
hands by adopting your Imperialist policy. And is it
too solemn a question to press upon the moral expan-
sionists, whether they think in their own unselfish
minds that they will be able to overcome and rule these
selfish commercial Imperialists and keep them in the
paths of righteousness after the deed is done? If they
are so moonstruck let them study the forces that now
rule this country, and compare them with the paths of
righteousness.
Mr. Denby, who is willing the Filipinos shall cut
each other's throats if preventing them will not fill our
pockets, has one more word which makes an easy
transition from Imperialist theory to Imperialist prac-
tice. He writes as an inspired commercial prophet
and a poet:
“In other lands and other wars the condition of the
conquered people has been hard and deplorable. In
our case we march bearing gifts, the choicest gifts—
liberty and hope and happiness. We carry with us all
that gives to the flower of life its perfume. The dusky
East rises at our coming; and the Filipino springs to
his feet and becomes a free man. This is not poetry,
but reality wrought out by a people to whom freedom
is the breath of life, and who would scorn to enslave a
country or a race.”
2. McKinley’s Proclaitiation of War.
When our Congress passed the resolutions which
involved us in war with Spain it pledged the following:
MěříMijºy fäóčí,Aſſis WAR. 39
Fourth: That the United States hereby disclaims any dispo-
sition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or con-
trol over said island [Cuba], except for the pacification thereof,
and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave
the government and control of the island to its people.
In his message to Congress of December, 1897,
McKinley recorded and pledged himself in now famous
and memorable language. Said he:
“I speak not of forcible annexation, because that is not to be
thought of, and under our code of morality that would be crime-
inal aggression.”
But one year later, on December 21, 1898, this man
on his own initiative, without the authority of Con-
gress or the people, more than a month before the
Treaty of Peace was ratified by the Senate, and when
there was no certainty that it would be ratified, issued
the following astounding proclamation to the Filipinos:
“With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries, at Paris,
on the Ioth inst., and as the result of the victories of American
arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the
Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In fulfil-
ment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired and the
responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the actual
occupation and administration of the entire group of the Phil-
ippine Islands becomes immediately necessary, and the mil-
itary government heretofore maintained by the United States
in the city, harbor, and bay of Manila is to be extended with -
all possible despatch to the whole of the ceded territory.
“In performing this duty the military commander of the
United States is enjoined to make known to the inhabitants of
the Philippine Islands, that in succeeding to the sovereignty of
Spain, in severing the former political relations of the inhabit-
ants and in establishing a new political power, the authority of
the United States is to be exerted for the security of the per-
sons and property of the people of the islands, and for the con-
firmation of all their private rights and relations. It will be the
duty of the commander of the forces of occupation to announce
and proclaim in the most public manner that we come, not as
invaders or conquerors, but as friends, to protect the natives in
their homes, in their employments, and in their personal and
religious rights.
“All persons who, either by active aid or by honest submis-
sion, co-operate with the government of the United States to
give effect to these beneficent purposes, will receive the reward
of its support and protection. All others will be brought within
the lawful rule we have assumed, with firmness if need be, but
without severity so far as may be possible.
4O McKINLEY PROCLAIMS WAR .
“Within the absolute domain of military authority, which
necessarily is and must remain supreme in the ceded territory
until the legislation of the United States shall otherwise pro-
vide, etc.”
This proclamation drove the Filipinos into war
against the United States. There was nothing left for
them to do unless they consented to national enslave-
ment. It was not only natural but right that they
should go to war against us. Our Chief Man had
notified them by arbitrary degree that if they did not
submit to the usurped authority of the United States
—“the absolute domain of military authority,” he
called it—they would be forced into submission by
shell and grapeshot. “Honest submission,” or death:
they had their choice. “Honest submission,” or
“forcible annexation.” A11 who did not honestly sub-
mit to the proclamation of the tyrant were to be
“brought within the lawful rule we have assumed,
with firmness if need be.” On the 5th of February
that firmness began to be applied and 4ooo heroic Fili-
pinos who could not honestly submit to the self-made
despot were killed. The man who killed them was
William McKinley. The death of each one of them
was groundless man-slaughter, McKinley was their
murderer. He was their self-condemned murderer,
convicted by his own words of one year before. “I
speak not of forcible annexation, because that is not to
be thought of, and under our code of morality that zwould
be criminal aggression.”
Under the light of this solemn promise and its bloody
repudiation McKinley reveals himself to be the crown-
ing fraud and hypocrite of the age, who has no right to
respect from any honest man in the United States. He
originally declared a true American principle, that we
cannot take any form of authority over a people that is
opposed to that authority without criminal aggression
and breaking our code of morality; this code holds of
Cuba, of the Philippines, and of every foot of ground
not our own under the sun that our cupidity might be
disposed to seize. The breaking of this code, con-
sciously held and publicly announced, was therefore
ALL RIGHTS FORFEITED. 41
an act of detestable piracy, bringing shame and dis-
lmonor upon the whole nation.
The administration and the imperialist press have
striven to convince our people that the Filipinos are
responsible for the war. This is one of the lies that we
must tell each other to save a last remnant of our self-
respect. But it is nevertheless a lie with no mitigation.
McKinley declared war in his Proclamation, and the
Filipinos began hostilities. The feeble McKinley
doubtless honestly hoped that they would honestly
submit to his declaration that they were to be as a con-
quered and subject people to the United States, with-
out the sad necessity of being obliged to forcibly con-
quer them. The subterfuge did not work. They had
never acknowledged the sovereignty of the United
States: for the United States to declare sovereignty was
therefore for the United States to declare war.
After the “criminal aggression” of McKinley’s proc-
1amation that a state of virtual war already existed,
that they must submit or be killed, there was nothing
for them to do but to fight, And every true American
who resents this dastardly aggression by the president
upon a harmless race of barbarians, should be deeply
thankful that they did fight, and must hope that our
arms will not be able to subdue them. No honorable
American can uphold the criminal attempt of American
potentates to deprive a weak race of its liberty in the
name of liberty. As liberty-loving American citizens
it is our duty to uphold the Filipinos in their righteous
and patriotic attempt to keep our yoke from falling on
them.
3. A11 0111 Rights Forfeited.
For those who hesitate at this let us examine the
president’s rights when he proclaimed honest submis-
sion or kind but firm death to the Filipinos. 1. There
was no technical, formal, legal, or constitutional sanc-
tion for his proclamation. 2. There would have been
no right or sanction for it if the peace treaty had been
ratified when he issued it.
Let us first consider what rights we had in the Phil-
42 ALL RIGHTS FORFEITED.
ippines before the treaty was approved, remembering
that its subsequent approval was not retroactive, and
could not lend legality to anything that was done
before. Now whether we had any after its ratification,
we certainly had no status of authority in the Philip-
pines before that act. We were there purely as oppon-
ents of Spain. We were not there as conquerors of the
Filipinos, but as conquerors of Spain; the Filipinos had
helped us drive Spain out. When hostilities ceased
the islands were not ours except by temporary occu-
pation. They were not ours either legally or morally.
Spain had not ceded them and we had not decided to
accept or even ask for them. The only power in
America that could make our request for them legal
and binding, or accept them if offered, was the Senate,
and that had not done so. The propositions drawn up
by the Peace Commissioners at Paris were merely an
arrangement by which the United States, acting through
the Senate as ordered in the Constitution, could request
or demand the islands of Spain if it saw fit. The Sen-
ate had not acted on the treaty and had consequently
not even decided to ask for the Philippines. Our rights
even technically were therefore mil.
A proclamation of sovereignty from the president
when the whole question whether we should take or
claim the islands was pending, was justified by noth-
ing but the arbitrary will of that ruler. It was no less
an outrage than if he should proclaim our sovereignty
over Canada, Ireland or the British Indies. The act
was an insult to Spain and a profligate attack upon the
Filipinos.
Having issued this unlawful proclamation and SO
declared war on the Philippine Islanders, we forfeited
all further claims over them excepting such as we might
win by force if our challenge to war were taken up.
After that proclamation the ratification of the treaty
was a dead letter, for by our unlawful action all possi-
bility of obtaining the Philippines legally or morally
was lost. The question was now between us and them
and was one of force. Of course if they chose to accept
the position of a people conquered by us without being
SPAIN's EMPTY SOVEREIGNTY. 43
conquered, that was their business; but legally and
morally they ought not to have accepted that humili-
ation, and they did not do so. The president’s impu-
dent aggression also deserved anything but success.
To recapitulate: as we now stand we have no rights
in the Philippines and can obtain none except by brute
force. We ruled ourselves out by McKinley’s act of
usurpation. Spain would have been justified in resent-
ing that act had she been able, and Spain being unable
the natives were justified. Until the acceptance of the
treaty by both nations our policy in the Islands could
be only provisional. If Spain finally approved the
treaty she transferred to us such rights of sovereignt
in the Philippines as she possessed. -
4. Could Spaint Sel1 Us Sovereignty 2
The two questions that next arise are, How much
sovereignty did Spain possess to cede? and, Whether,
even if she had any actual sovereignty, her cession of
it to us gave us any true or moral rights over the
Islands.
According to the theory of national rights established
by our revolution against England, Spain had no sov-
ereignty in the Philippine Islands. Her yoke was
arbitrarily imposed and maintained against their will.
When there was a gleam of hope of success they
resisted. There was certainly no moral sovereignty in
this—it was merely the sovereignty of an overpower-
ing brutality.
But now for the legal sovereignty. Spain was
unable to conquer Cuba, before the war with us had
destroyed her fleets and crippled all her resources.
After that disaster is there any cause to believe that
Spain could have quelled the insurgent Filipinos?
None whatever. The Filipinos had seized the oppor-
tunity of our Spanish war to strike another blow for
freedom. After the war the weakened Spaniards could
no more have conquered them than they previously
could conquer Cuba. Hence Spain had no lawful
sovereignty in the Philippines. We may grant her the
same supremacy there that she had in Cuba when we
44 SPAIN’S. EMPTY SOVEREIGNTY.
took up Cuba's cause, and we then denied that she
had any rightful supremacy there. We began war to
compel her to take her unrighteous hands away from
that property to which she had lost all right. For the
same reasons Spain had no sovereignty over the Phil-
ippines to sell or give away, wherefore we could buy
none of her.
We, then, have entered into the same relation to the
Philippines that Spain stood in to Cuba—the relation
that caused us to declare a war of liberation. Who
will declare war against us to liberate the Philippines?
What great philanthropic Power, in response to the
claims of humanity, will rise to this great moral crisis
and command us to evacuate the territory that we are
subduing to our new greed P. Either our war for Cuba was
unjust, or, on the principles which we invoked to jus-
tify it, we ought to be driven out of the Philippines.
If we continue our present Spanish policy there we
condemn our war against Spain as groundless and
iniquitous.
We have the answer to our first question. Spain
had no sovereignty in the Asiatic Group to cede. She
could grant a parchment claim—she could also have
given away as much of Cuba as that any time these
years back.
As to whether we could acquire a moral right to this
territory by Spanish cession, our historical actions set-
tled that question beyond a peradventure long ago.
When we declared our independence of England we
announced the principle that a people who were dis-
satisfied with the rule of a nation claiming them as a
colony might declare that rule null and void and ended,
and that if they so declared, it was at an end. This
principle declares that a nation cannot extend its
authority over a people that declines its authority.
We may now find it convenient to repudiate these
doctrines—we are repudiating them—but we cannot
do it without in the same act overthrowing the foun-
dations of our own national life, of our history, and of
our freedom.
We may be perfectly confident that whatever we now
OUR DEBT TO THE FILIPINOS. 45
do to these helpless Islands is making new precedent
for ourselves, and that if we pull down the bulwarks of
justice and freedom by which we have thus far pro-
tected our own liberties, those liberties at home will
next fall, and domestic tyranny will take the place of
the independence established by the blood and courage
and magnanimity of our forefathers. The time has
come to choose, and we must do so with clear knowl-
edge that the fate of all we have loved most in America
is in our choice. As we choose for the Filipinos we
choose for ourselves. If we disregard their rights and
liberties such is the stern retribution of nature's laws
that it is upon our own necks we shall be placing the
servile yoke.
5. Our Great Debt to the Filipinos.
There is no doubt of the direction we have taken
thus far. Our course toward the Filipinos has been
one of the utmost perfidy. We had faithfully
announced to the whole world that we harbored no
designs of conquest or aggrandizement in going to war
with Spain. The Filipinos took us at our word and
welcomed us as deliverers. By our own declaration—
addressed nominally to Cuba but universal in its terms
and promises—we were pledged to the Filipinos not to
violently subjugate them to ourselves. It was on this
pledge that they received us. If they had believed our
promise to be a lie, as it turned out to be, what would
their course have been It is most certain that they
would not have co-operated with us. They had no
knowledge whatever of us—most of them had never
heard that we exist—and they could have had no reason
to think that our tyranny would be preferable to
Spain’s. They were seeking freedom, freedom from all
alien rule. When they learned anything about us they
must have learned that we were a stronger nation than
Spain and they might have very rationally decided to
help the Spaniards against us, on the ground that it
would be easier for them to drive the Spaniards out
later than to drive a more powerful people out if it
gained a footing. If they had done this our “brilliant'
46 OUR DEBT TO THE FILIPINOS.
career in the Far East would have been sadly tarnished.
Could we have crushed Spain there if the Islanders had
opposed us? It would have taken much of our time
and blood and money, and the end is doubtful. For if
the prospects had been brighter in the Philippines,
Spain would have held out a little longer in Cuba, and
in a few more days our Cuban army would have been
helpless from disease and must have suffered a terrible
punishment. Spain would have annihilated our land
forces. To say that the Filipinos saved us from this
humiliation is not a wild statement. Since they are
fighting against us now for freedom there is no reason
to suppose that if they had known our real designs they
would have fought for us then to help us make them
our subjects. - -
If they had not joined the Spaniards to keep us out,
there were two other courses open: either to fight
both the Spaniards and us, or to help us to defeat the
Spanish and then to turn upon us. The result in either
case would have been disastrous to our arms and pres-
tige. The whole world would have looked upon our
Spanish war differently if we had been driven to fight
the natives before the war closed. The one justification
of the war having been knocked from under, the
restraints upon continental sympathy and interference
would have fallen off and Spain would undoubtedly
flave found active supporters. There was Germany
aching for a plausible excuse to order us out of that
region. This would have been a stunningly plausible
excuse—that on the pretense of liberating the Filipinos
from Spain we were killing them (which we have since
done). It would have been universally believed that
since we were lying with regard to the Philippines, we
were also lying with regard to Cuba. What support
could we have then found anywhere 2 England was
able to give us moral support on the ground that we
were waging an unselfish fight for humanity, but if
this ground had been withdrawn, that support must
not only have been much weaker but Continental Pow-
ers would have combined to disregard it and save Spain
from humiliation. What then? We must have backed
SUPERLATIVE TREACHERY. 47
down or been the cause of a world war. England
might or might not have helped then. If she had done
so the war must have been infinitely more terrible and
to no purpose but to gratify our desire to steal, and to
establish the right of the Anglo-Saxon race to steal
everywhere. If she had declined to back our hypocrisy
with warships we should have received an exceeding
great thrashing and would have exceedingly more than
deserved it.
To return to our destinies in the Philippines. With
the Filipinos hostile, or ready to attack us after the
routing of the Spanish, our conquest of the islands
would not have been the easy task that it was. The
Filipino leaders have not shown themselves lacking in
intelligence. Had they taken an attitude of enmity to
both combatants, the land battle at Manila would prob-
ably have been a draw, and both sides been consider-
ably weakened. Assuming, as we have seen that we
justly may, that the hostility of the natives to us would
have deferred (perhaps indefinitely) the surrender of
Santiago, the war would have continued in the Philip-
pines. We should have been forced to send thousands
more troops to carry on a recognized and admitted war
of conquest, in defiance of the moral judgment of man-
kind, and under difficulties rendered distressing by the
native opposition. Would the war have been ended
yet had this transpired? It is unlikely.
Moreover, if the real intentions of our political
masters had been known earlier the support of the
great majority of the American people would have been
withdrawn from the war. Americans would not at that
time have endured the thought of subduing the native
Filipinos to our benevolent sway by force. This would
have so embarrassed the Administration and Congress
as to oblige them to abandon the conquest of the Phil-
ippines or to declare as a finality that they should be
free and independent after the eviction of Spain.
6. S11perlative Treachery.
What is the whole truth? That we owe the great-
est gratitude to these heroic Islanders, that we have
3. A SUPERLATIVE TREACHERY.
A,” -
>'
shamelessly denied that debt. Their faith in us and
aid contributed much to the success and speedy close
of the war—we gained that faith and aid by deception.
No sooner was the war done and their usefulness to us
Over than we came out in our true colors and announced
our sovereignty, an act that, committed earlier, would
have prevented alliance and made them our deadly
foes. We have shown by this deed that honor does
not exist in us. It is one of those pieces of inconceiv-
able infamy which have sullied the records of mon-
archies and which we abominated for a hundred proud
years. We can only wipe this stain out by restoring
the usurped sovereignty of these territories to the peo-
ple who dwell in them.
Follow in further detail the course of American
hypocrisy toward this unhappy people. Our Imperial
and monarchical press may find that it serves the cause
of prejudice to defame Aguinaldo, but their tirades
lose force when we recall the opinions of the British
press of our own “Mr.” Washington a century and a
quarter ago. Moreover, considering the lie that we
have perpetrated upon the Filipinos, and sustained
with our Imperialist press, there is better ground to
believe him than his traducers. And here are declar-
ations by him after general Otis had transmitted
McKinley’s proclamation of sovereignty to the Archi-
pelago:
“General Otis calls himself in the proclamation referred to
‘military governor of the Philippine Islands,’ and I protest once
and a thousand times, and with all the energy of my soul,
against such authority. I solemnly proclaim that I have never
Biad, neither in Singapore or in Hongkong, nor here in the
Philippines, any understanding of agreement, neither by word
nor by writing, to recognize the sovereignty of America in this,
my loved country. On the contrary, I say that I returned to
these islands on board an American warship on the 19th of May
of last year with the decided and manifest proposition to carry
on the war with the Spaniards, to reconquer our liberty and our
independence. . . .
“I solemnly protest in the name of God, the root and fount-
aim of all justice and of all right, and who has given me the
power to direct my dear brothers in the difficult work of our
regeneration, against this intrusion of the Government of the
United States in the sovereignty of these islands. Equally I
SUPERLATIVE TREACHERY. 49
protest in the name of all the Filipino people against this
intrusion because when they gave me their vote of confidence,
electing me, though unworthy, as president of the nation, when
they did this they imposed on me the duty to sustain to the
death their liberty and independence.
“Lastly, I protest against this act, so little expected, of the
sovereignty of America in these islands, in the name of all that
has passed, of which I have proofs in my possession, referring
to my relations with the American authorities, which prove in
the most unequivocal manner that the United States did not
bring me from Hongkong to make war against the Spaniards
to benefit the Americans, but to help us to gain our liberty and
independence, for the attainment of which object the American
authorities promised me verbally their decided and efficacious
co-operation.” -
Fraud is here openly charged by the responsible
leader of the Philippine people upon the American
authorities, and why shall we not believe him 2 The
American authorities were then sailing briskly before
the full gust of Philanthropy. Everything they did
was from humanity to the down-trodden—they said.
Our deep and mighty ruler had not yet taken the peo-
ple into confidence regarding his plans of forcible occu-
pation or affectionate annihilation, so that nothing
restrained him from playing a confidence game on the
believing Aguinaldo to gain his support. True, if the
president and his friends did this they were unconsion-
able liars, and the nation ought to hasten to set itself right
by denouncing the lie and keeping the promise made or
implied. But they are likewise unconsionable liars if
they made the promise at the time in good faith and
have since concluded “for reasons of State’’ to break
it. Among great Powers this kind of change of mind
or lying would be sufficient cause for a destructive war,
and our criminal responsibility for the change is not
diminished by the fact that the Philippines are not a
great Power. As no cause is apparent why at that
time the pledges should not have been made, we must
believe that they were made; the more so as the natives
have since proved themselves willing to lay down their
lives for that promised independence. This is the
strongest proof that they would not have aided us with-
out satisfying assurances that the prize was to be their
own freedom,
50 SUPERIATIVE TREACHERY.
The Filipino junta at Hongkong has made the fol-
lowing incriminating statement:
“Information which has leaked through the Pinkertons sent
here by President McKinley to investigate the shipments of
arms to the Filipinos shows that the first shipment of arms to
Aguinaldo was made by order of the American Government
through Consul Wildman, hence the shipment per the Wing
Foi. The American Government subsequently telegraphed to
cease this, coincident with the change of policy to annexation.
Mr. Wildman and Rear Admiral Dewey promised to pay, but
have not yet paid, for a subsequent expedition by the Abbey,
authorized by Admiral Dewey, who afterward seized the steamer,
and she is still held. Papers respecting this are now in posses-
sion of the Secretary of the Navy. The protestations of Admiral
Dewey and other Americans that they have made no promises
are ridiculous. In view of these facts, let the American people
judge how the nation’s word of honor was pledged to the Fil-
ipinos and confided in by them and violated by the recent
treachery of General Otis.”
Consider this fairly. Our policy did change at a
certain time. At some point McKinley made up his
mind to aim at the retention of the Islands. Before
that there was no reason why we should not treat the
Filipinos with confidence and supply them with arms
to assist us. We probably did so. But after the
change of heart there was every reason why we should
not give them arms which they were likely to use later
against us.
We can get our minds to comprehend the stultifica-
tion of our Government by putting Ireland in the place
of the Asiatic archipelago. Fancy us engaged in a war
for humanity’s sake to rescue the Soudan from further
bloody British assizes. We have issued the sacred
manifesto to the world “that the United States hereby
disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise Sov-
ereignty, jurisdiction or control,” and our revered Chief
Magistrate has solemnly declared that forcible annex-
ation is not to be thought of because it would be crim-
inal aggression. Relying on these ought-to-be inviol-
able pledges, Ireland has risen to arms to strike for her
own freedom, and has welcomed our forces to her soil
to expel the English. We succeed, but instead of
keeping faith with Ireland we demand the cession of
her from England for a small price. We announce that
OUR I.I.F. OF LOVE. 5 I
our promises of freedom applied only to the Soudan,
and our president issues a proclamation of American
military sovereignty over Ireland. We can easily
imagine what would happen. The Irish in Ireland and
the Irish-Americans would stir up such an uproar
against the astounding Swindle, that we should be glad
to get out of Ireland on any terms, if need be paying a
price for our aggression and lie. And the whole of
Europe would justly and if need be forcibly sustain
Ireland’s demands. Remote barbarians are in a differ-
ent posture, and we can boldly bully them with
impunity. They have no powerful friends and we have
nothing to fear. But the deed is as rascally and abom-
inable as if we were to deal Ireland a similar treachery
in like circumstances.
7. The A111erica11 Lie of Love.
To those who believe that American honor is still
worth preserving, the language of the main author (or
nerveless tool, perhaps) of this perfidy, William McKin-
ley, is animating reading. He dilated upon the benev-
olence of the United States in his proclamation of sov-
ereignty or war, informing the natives how good it
would be for some of them to be killed if they could
not realize the blessing of becoming our property.
Tenderly eloquent words are the following, illumined
by the benevolent murder of thousands, which followed
then1;
“Finally, it should be the earnest and paramount aim of the
military administration to win the confidence, respect, and af.
fection of the inhabitants of the Philippines, by assuring to them
in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and
liberties which is the heritage of free peoples, and by proving
to them that the mission of the United States is one of benevo-
lent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and
right for arbitrary rule.
“In the fulfillment of this high mission, supporting the tem-
perate administration of affairs for the greatest good of the gov-
erned, there must be sedulously maintained the strong arm of
authority, to repress disturbance, and to overcome all obstacles
to the bestowal of the blessings of good and stable government
upon the people of the Philippine Islands under the free flag of
the United States.”
52 OUR LIE OF LOVE.
The terms in which general Otis transmitted the
president’s ultimatum will also raise the pride of free-
dom-preaching Americans. He says:
“In the war against Spain the United States forces came here
to destroy the power of that nation and to give the blessings of
peace and individual freedom to the Philippine people; that we
are here as friends of the Filipinos to protect them in their
homes, their employments, their individual and religious lib-
erty; that all persons who, either by active aid or honest
endeavor, co-operate with the Government of the United States
to give effect to the beneficent purposes, will receive the reward
of its support and protection. . . .
“I am fully of the opinion that it is the intention of the
United States Government, while directing affairs generally, to
appoint the representative men now forming the controlling
element of the Filipinos, to civil positions of trust and respon-
sibility, and it will be my aim to appoint thereto such Filipinos
as may be acceptable to the supreme authorities at Washington.
“It is also my belief that it is the intention of the United
States Government to draw from the Filipino people so much
of the military force of the islands as is possible, and consistent
with a free and well constituted government of the country and
it is my purpose to inaugurate a policy of that character.”
The ‘representative men of the Filipinos' were to be
bribed into acceptance of American authority by the
promise of tempting offices under the United States.
Poor, mean payment this to a people for resigning its
independence, and a contemptible method of gaining
possession of that independence. Another application
of the noble 'spoils of office’ system which our rulers
have for deluding and tyrannizing over their own coun-
trymen. And how conciliatory and inviting that
assurance of our Otis that the Philippine people would
some of them be graciously permitted to serve in the
ranks of the military to keep their country in subjection
to the United States! This must have been a flash of
Otis's own private humor to help his staggering presis
dent out of a ditch, for what does the mighty Secretary
of War soon after say on this subject P He speak-
thus:*
“The natives of Cuba, Porto Rico and the Philippines do not
understand our purposes and ways of government sufficiently
to admit of their being made part of our military establishment
*contained in a statement from the War Department on the needed
army 1egislation, issued Feb. 19, 1899.
OUR LIE OF LOVE. 53
to the extent of organizing them into companies, battalions and
regiments at once. Our officers of greatest experience with
thern are of this opinion. In time this could doubtless be done,
but it will require education. By degrees, a company could be
given to a regiment to be utilized as scouts and guides; further
on, a battalion could be added, and in time things working
well, regiments could be organized, but it will take time, so
much time, that for the uses of the immediate present and
some time in the future, they could not be wisely counted as
affording any considerable strength to the service, however
many might be provided for by a Congressional act. They are
a possible, even probable factor, of the future, but not for the
present.” -
What is to be done to reconcile this with general
Otis's volatile assurances? Here there is no chance
for mistake or double interpretation. The American
government promises something it has no intention of
erforming for a very long time, if ever, in order to get
firm military grasp on the Filipinos. The deception
stands in black and white. Otis says, “It is my pur-
pose to inaugurate a policy drawing from the Filipino
people so much of the military force of the islands as
is possible.” The War Department at Washington
says, ‘For use as native soldiers the Filipinos are a
possible, even a probable factor, of the future, but not for
the present.” We defy the European Powers to produce
a filore barefaced instance of fraud in their own deal-
ings with Savages than this masterpiece. w -
It is not unfair to take the president as the leader of
the Imperialist phrenzy, and in his utterances to esti-
mate the sense and unselfishness of all. We find him
in his Boston banquet speech repeating the bathos
which is the stock in trade of the British expansionists.
His language is their language, and we hear him bab-
bling the phrases of Chamberlain, Salisbury, Rose-
bery, Curzon and the rest. He speaks of our flag in
the Philippines, “where it now floats, the symbol and
assurance of liberty and justice.” It floats over the
graves of many dead Filipinos who died from accept-
ing our assurances of liberty and justice.
The immortal lie that we have not sought to confis-
cate the Philippine archipelago is reiterated—“It was
a trust we have not sought;” God thrust it upon us,
54 OUR LIE OF LOVE.
he says. God was the cause of our treachery to the
trusting natives, God compelled us to shoot them down
when our dastardly intentions were discovered, God
forces us against our virtuous wish to plant ourselves
in the Orient in order to bring our mailed fist within
arm’s length of China to smash holes in her if
necessary for our sacred trade. McKinley says: “Our
concern was not for territory or trade or empire, but
for people, whose interests and destiny, without our
willing, had been put in our hands.” “No imperial
designs lurk in the American mind. They are alien
to American sentiments, thought and purpose. Our
priceless principles undergo no change under a tropical
sun. . . . They go with the fiat: “Why read ye not
the changeless truth, the free can conquer but to save.’”
It is not pleasant, but the question must be asked:
Does this man think that he is talking to a nation of
fools? If his words are not mere re-election vapor, he
is the only man in the United States who is ignorant
that what is thrusting us into the Orient is not God
but Greed—greed for trade. Unless his mind has
been unsettled by greatness the pious McKinley knows
as every other American knows that if our priceless
principles had not undergone a change since we
started on our errand of mercy to Cuba, to stop the
Spaniards from shooting Cubans, we should not be
shooting Filipinos now because they wanted the same
mercy at our hands that we promised to Cuba. If we
must be villians let us not sneak and deny it and pub-
lish a guinea pig prospectus that we have taken God
into partnership. There is only one defense for
McKinley, if he is not a deceiver: he is dying of
majesty. This was the fate of president Faure. A
French statesman and physician, noting the signs of
premature decay, said: “If M. Faure is not soon
turned out of the Presidency he will die from general
paralysis, the effect of ‘folie de grandeur.’” M.
Faure was so great that no one could speak to him
first. For charity’s sake let us believe that McKinley
is so great that he can see nothing as it is but only as
his magnificence of mind shapes it.
FOOLING ALL THE PEOPLE. 55
More reading of his speech will not change our
opinion:
“We could not discharge the responsibilities upon us until
these islands became ours either by conquest or treaty. There
was but one alternative, and that was either Spain or the
United States in the Philippines. The other suggestion showed,
first, that they should be tossed into the arena for the strife of
nations; or, second, be lost to the anarchy and chaos of no pro-
tectorate at all, and were too shameful to be considered.”
This is in defence of our policy of making ourselves
masters of the Philippines and of exterminating the
portion of their inhabitants who will not consent. But
the truth is quite different.
8. Foolifíg A11 the People.
It is one of the recent novelties of free government
to be obliged to defend the right of the governed to be
consulted. Mr. McKinley has enunciated and acted
upon the doctrine that we may govern a people against
their will according to our own ideas of their good.
The application of this tyrannical principle was the
cause of our disgraceful war to prevent the independence
of the Filipinos. The McKinley statement of this
doctrine is the most remarkable and revolting expres-
sion of political bombast of the century, assuming that
its author is not insane. It is this: .
“Did we need their consent to perform a great act for human-
ity ? We had it in every aspiration of their minds, in every
hope of their hearts. Was it necessary to ask their consent to
capture Manila, the capital of their islands? Did we ask their
consent to liberate them from Spanish sovereignty or to enter
Manila Bay and destroy the Spanish sea power there? We did
not ask these; we were obeying a higher moral obligation,
which rested on us, and which did not require anybody’s con-
sent. We were doing our duty by them, as God gave us the
light to see our duty, with the consent of our own consciences,
and with the approval of civilization. Every present obligation
has been met and fulfilled in the expulsion of Spanish sov-
ereignty from their islands, and while the war that destroyed it
was in progress we could not ask their views. Nor can we now
ask their consent.”
Pardon must be asked for comment on fallacies so
bare as these. Our forcing Spain to take herself out
of the Philippines was the “great act of humanity”
alluded to. To have this done was the mighty 'aspi-
56 FOOLING ALL THE PEOPLE.
ration and hope of their hearts,’ and it was this aspi-
ration and hope that gave consent to what we did, the
capture of Manila, et cetera. McKinley justifies our
course by the fact that we had this tacit consent. But
then, by his own words, that consent extended no far-
ther than the expulsion of Spain. That consent
explicitly contradicted and forbade our taking Spain's
place as sovereign. Even the consent to force Spain
out did not exist if our entrance into her shoes was to
be coupled with it. This is so undeniable that for
McKinley to invoke God’s sanction on our “great act’
after we have gone forward and stultified that act by
taking the very place that Spain held, is raving blas-
phemy. “We were obeying a higher moral obligation”
—was there anything higher or moral in our ousting
Spain to seize her post of sovereignty P Neither our
consiences nor civilization ever approved this.
Mr. McKinley knows well enough the 10gical thim-
ble-rigging in which he is engaged, always supposing
that his mind has not failed. He seeks to make a fact
which justifies one course justify a course that is the
antithesis and overthrow of the first. The Filipinos
wanted freedom: that justified us in driving their
master out; they wanted freedom; that justified us in
becoming their master ourselves. Listen reverently to
the mind which can evolve such marvels. It says:
“Every present obligation has been met and fulfilled
in the expulsion of Spanish sovereignty from the
islands.’ This was true provided we ourselves had
then claimed no sovereignty there, otherwise it was
absolutely false. In fact McKinley had already, before
making this extravagant speech, declared his sov-
ereignty and a war had issued from it. We had broken
our obligation to the islands by replacing one sov-
ereignty with another, and by not withdrawing or
expelling our own sovereignty.
The most wonderful logical break of this demented
man remains to be told. “While the war that destroyed
Spanish sovereignty was in progress we could not ask
the Filipinos' views,’ he says. Very well, grant this,
“Nor can we ask it now,” he goes on.
FOOLING ALL THE PEOPLE. 57
“Indeed, can any one tell me in what form it could be mar-
shaled and ascertained until after peace and order, so necessary
to the reign of reason, shall be secured and established 2 A
reign of terror is not the kind of rule under which right action
and deliberate judgment are possible. It is not a good time for
the liberator to submit important questions concerning liberty
and government to the liberated while they are engaged in
shooting down their rescuers.”
By this, McKinley the Magnificent informs us that
immediately after the Spanish war ceased the Filipino
war began, that there was no time or space between
them for asking the views of the Filipinos on what they
would like to have us do. O McKinley, do you think
that we are all besotted with grandeur like yourself?
Do you think that we have forgotten that there was a
long period between those wars during which you might
have ‘marshaled and ascertained’ the views of the
islanders, and that you elected to cut the knot and set-
tle the whole matter according to your own views, by
proclaiming yourself their sovereign P. After your car-
nival of murder is ended how else will you learn their
views than by doing as you might and should have
done prior to your proclamation ? You did not wish
to give theim a chance to express their preferences, lest
they might oppose your ambitions for empire, and that
is the secret of your not inquiring. That is the secret
of your insolent manifesto calling on them to obey you.
And now, like a coward, you would run away to evade
even the memory of this interval and what happened
in it, pretending that the ‘misguided Filipinos,” as you
arrogantly call them, began to ‘shoot their rescuers
down’ as soon as Spain surrendered, and gave you no
time to discover their will. But no one will be deceived,
for all know that after your mind, under the dictation
of corporation kings, was resolved to hold the Philip-
pines as yours, there was no intention on your part of
consulting them in good faith. Some farce of consul-
tation may have gone through your mind for a later
day—with their representative citizens, the whites and
big property owners, in order to have them perform the
Imock-ceremony of voting authority for acts already
done.
58 HONORAf{L}; SOLU'ſföN.
And you Mr. McKinley, who out of a state of confidence
and repose had brought a reign of terror and destruction
in those islands, equalling and surpassing the terror and
destruction under Spain, could say to the American
people, “It is not a good time for the liberator to sub-
mit important questions concerning liberty and govern-
ment to the liberated while they are engaged in shoot-
ing down their rescuers.”! Who was shooting the res-
cued down? What did the “liberators’ deserve for
turning into masters and coercers but to be shot down P
You, McKinley, having by voluntary unlawful act
made the blood of two races flow, arouse unbounded
compassion for your suffering when in stately melan-
choly you close your comfortable Boston feast by allus-
ion to the blood-stained trenches around Manila, where
“every red drop, whether from the veins of an American
soldier or a misguided Filipino, is anguish to my heart.’
The effusive sophistries of the national executive,
whether the result of aberation or dishonesty, have a
public effect. They impose on many, for raw and
brutal though they are, the people have allowed this
executive to continue his course. It can only follow
that the people are themselves either dull or devoid of
conscience. Is a people that follows such lead, accepts
as guileless truth a shower of feathery fairy tales, takes
a man seriously who says twice two are five, because
he has political authority, is such a people any better
in mind or character than its deceiver ? The American
people have changed since the ring of Expansion was
put in their nose. The presence of this ring is public
advertisement that the Anglo-Saxon race has already
lost independence. To a people of independence and
nerve a president could not have poured out a speech
of bilge-water. The most hopeless sign for America is
that that speech was not repudiated instantly by the
whole continent.
9. The Hot10rable Solt1tion of the Problefti.
What ought we to have done, and what ought we to
do? We ought to have signified unequivocally to the
HONORABLE SOLUTION. 59
Filipinos that we had no intention of becoming their
sovereign in any form. As soon as Spain surrendered
we should have made this irrevocable disclaimer. It
cannot be said that this would have been impossible or
impolitic, for the American Peace Commissioners had
instructions from the Administration to require the
cession of the island of Luzon. “The instructions of
the President when we started out were to take
Luzon,” admitted Mr. Frye, one of the peace commis-
sioners, when cross-examined in the Senate by Mr.
Vest. This developed into a demand for the whole
Philippine group. Then was the time to have pledged
ourselves to make the entire archipelago free. Con-
gress ought to have taken this stand and compelled the
shilly-shallying president to make it. Congress ought
to have pledged itself and the country before the
departure of the peace commission that all territory
obtained from Spain by cession should be made free and
independent.
It was also politic. We have labored from the first
under the suspicion that the disinterestedness of our
demands from Spain did not ring true. We could have
removed the suspicion by Congressional declaration
that we should hold none of the territory as ours, and
much friction would have been saved. We were pre-
vented from this honorable course by the conspiracy of
the president to keep everything he could get, and by
the pitiful servility of Congress to the president's orders.
The president listened to corporate commands, trans-
mitted them to congress, and congress obeyed.
If congress had pledged that all acquired territory
should be free, our dastardly war to enslave the Phil-
ippines would have been averted. McKinley, being
properly muzzled by congressional act, could not have
issued his aggrandizing proclamation of peaceable Sov-
ereignty or forcible conquest. Our course would have
been plain from the beginning: we should have aided
the Cubans, Porto Ricans, and Filipinos to set up inde-
pendent governments of their own and should have
been spared the fatal complications which the aggres-
sion of the president has loaded upon us. The ques-
6o HONORABLE SOLUTION.
tions of Imperialism, Expansion and Militarism would
not have been raised at all.
What should our relation to the independent nations
have been after we had established them 2 If we could
have trusted ourselves not to be seized with the grab-
bing epilepsy, a simple guardianship to extend no far-
ther than keeping other Powers off and assisting the
native governments to police themselves as they learned
self-governing forms, would have answered. This was
one course. It was ruled out because we very
early showed that we could not trust ourselves in the
presence of property without itching to steal it, and
that whatever we assumed to protect in the mask of
philanthropy would soon be transformed into our pri-
vate property by circumvention or force.
But another, far wiser, course was open—one which
preserved us from the evils of Imperialism and secured
to those concerned a higher good than our single guar-
dianship. We should have formed, and should now
form, with Great Britian, Switzerland and perhaps
Germany, a Joint Protectorate over the Philippines,
upon a plan binding all to the two simple principles of
protecting the islands from predatory powers, and
assisting the free government constituted by the inhab-
itants to preserve internal order.
I name Switzerland because she represents advanced
ideas of freedom, justice and democracy. Having no
temptation to avaricious aggrandizement she would
bring into the counsels of the protectorate elevated
principles and impartial judgments.
There are decisive advantages in this method. A
single nation might veer over to selfishness—it nearly
always does—but several nations will act as checks on
one another and adhere to the purpose of advancing
the interests of their charge.
No private motives could be suspected and the joint
protectorate would enjoy the full confidence of the
natives; its suggestions would be honored and the
progress of the people be as rapid as it is in them to
make. ---
If there is any foundation for the belief of some that
HONORABLE SOLUTION. 6I
a reign of anarchy would follow if the natives were
left alone, the misfortune would be prevented by the
combined powers. If the Filipinos knew that internal
wars would not be allowed they would have little
inclination to attempt them and would learn to govern
themselves without the sword. The single nation
makes the internal disturbances of a dependency the
signal for taking more authority to itself, where a real
protector would stand in the firm and friendly relation.
of arbitrator, striving to make the combatants feel the
consequences of their folly, without robbing the nation
of liberty.
The system would be an experiment before the world
in the best methods of advancing backward races. All
the trials made by single nations are of small import-
ance because the commercial interests of the governing
people shoulder every other aim out. But the results
obtained by an honest experiment would be so con-
vincing that their adoption in all colonies would follow.
The United States would be saved from Imperialism.
No increase either of army or navy would be required,
the forces of the combined powers being equal to any
emergency. But the existence of the combination
would prevent an emergency from arising.
We should indicate to the world our continued and
strengthened adherence to the principles of peace, our
disgust at the orgies of selfishness of European Powers
in their colonial affairs, which threaten to set the whole
world in a blaze of war.
We should clear our skirts of deception. Duty is
being made to carry the burden of rascally selfishness,
and the way out of the dilemma for the nation is a plan
extricating duty from selfishness. Accepting as true
that the people mainly want to follow duty and that
the commercial promoters are, by sharp practice, mak-
ing them think that duty cannot be performed without
expansion and imperialism, the one necessary thing is
to drive these tricksters out of their cover and unmask
them. A policy that meets in full all the philanthropic
demands that they can urge, and yet without imperial-
ism, one that does all the good that can be done for the
62 HONORABLE SOLUTION.
Filipinos and yet without expansion, leaves their
deceptive selfishness without a veil; and joint protection
is such a policy. Having this to advocate we know
that any who oppose it, still demanding annexation or
sole American guardianship, have a private axe to
grind. We then have to face the proposition of com-
mercial greed, without religion or morality to hide its
sins, and the great mass of upright Americans will
give it the doom it deserves.
It will cease then to be incumbent upon any one, in
reality or imagination, to support a measure that con-
tains the seeds of national destruction. From no side
could suspicion of dishonor or failure to realize the
highest conception of duty be brought against the
United States, and the principles and institutions of
this country would remain firmly anchored to the rock
of freedom.
What now remains of the favorite defences of the
wrong we have been doing? Absolutely nothing. It
is said by those who have put us into the hole that we had
no honorable way but to go into the hole, by taking
the Philippines. They summon as the proof that
every other course was ‘not to be thought of,’ and they
enumerate the following possible courses: To turn the
islands back to Spain; To give them to some other
power or powers; or, To leave them to themselves, a
prey to domestic anarchy and seizure by the predatory
nations of Europe. Since we had to keep them, they
say, we had to conquer them, and that made conquer-
ing them honorable. But since there was another hon-
orable course we did not have to keep them, and there-
fore we did not have to conquer them, and the proof
that it was honorable to conquer them is destroyed.
But the disingenuousness of our imperialist govern-
ment will not bear scrutiny, even supposing that a joint
protectorate had been impossible; for a formal pro-
tectorate by us which gave the islands independent
government and freedom, warning other Powers off and
lending our aid to keep the internal peace and help the
internal development of a nation recognized by us as
free, would have borne no resemblance to the pro-
£ONORABLE SOLUTION. 63
tectorate of possession which presidential majesty with
the whipped consent of congress is going on to estab-
lish. This kind of protection is carefully ignored by
imperialists, as if it were unimaginable. Their studied
silence exposes the indecency of our position. They
want a protectorate that contains sovereignty and to
extenuate the usurpation and shame of it they call it a
state of quasi sovereignty.
It is an awkward position to be in, that of slaying
men to make them love us. What ought a great nation
to do in such circumstances? Go on slaying to prove
that we cannot be made to back down even when we
are wrong? That is about where our Filipino war
puts us. The theory of International Force is that
when a nation has begun a disgraceful row without
color of cause, it must keep on and whip its unoffend-
ing adversary or lose caste and respect. This is the
creed of the district bully. What does he know or
care about justice? Let us take another case. A
school master begins to thrash a pupil, and in the midst
of it discovers that the boy is not guilty. If he is a
brute and a fool he goes on with the whipping, saying
that if he should stop before the job was done the boy
wouldn’t respect or love him. We are performing
exactly that tomfoolery in the Philippines. Our rulers
think that they need a thrashing on general principles
to make them understand that we’re boss. It is all
false and ridiculous.
Being in the midst of a bad war which our chiefs
undertook for conquest and personal ambition, the right
and honorable way is to bring the business to a sudden
end by acknowledging that we are wrong, indemnifying
the Filipinos for the evil we have done them, and giv-
ing them self-government and freedom. And there is
no other honorable course. We can afford to do it
because we are strong. To say that it would be cow-
ardly is preposterous. What we are doing is the cow-
ardly thing: to think of such foulness as we are trans-
acting to those poor harmless savages makes a true
American bitterly ashamed of his country! It is mean-
ness incarnate. We can never hold up our heads as
64 HONORABLE solutron.
we have done. The vile spot will not wash out, it is
there indelibly, a red cruel stain of damnable infamy.
Every day that the war goes on deepens our crime and
shame. Talk of cowardice! A man who caught an
innocent boy and skinned him would be no worse than
we are in this sublimely wanton ruffianism. The peo-
ple ought to rise in retributive indignation and compel
the puppets at Washington to stop this thing. There
is no hope unless they do, the craven congress has
adjourned, and unless the people thunder their rage
and shame, and surge over the Administration pol-
troonery with an inflexible will that this brutality shall
cease, it will drag on to lower and lower depths of
moral damnation.
Better America ought to be heard now. The poli-
ticians have had their fling, selfishness has steered the
nation, they have guided us into the crater of a vol-
cano. Now let the voice of American citizens speak.
Now let those who believe that we have a higher des-
tiny than to rob and steal and kill in the name of God
and Love, come forward and take the helm out of the
Hands of these wreckers of American traditions, Ameri-
can honor, American justice, and American liberty.
Down with the leaders that have betrayed! It is the
great soul of the American people alone that can save
11S.
|
-- -
- - - -
. . . -- . -
*: - - - - , , º, . . .” -
: ai. re * . . .
{}M .. 3. } { § {}
Replaced with
JUL 8 2002
Digital Copy
Mulli
3
|


į
į
******
####
y j z
####
į
################¡#####~###ļ};į}
}###ț¢;#####№!#
* , , ， ， *
||||||||||||||}
*
&
###################į{{}}į
*: < （?）.įjį
į{ ; +- m.piiſae######-•
* ，, ， ， ， ， ，f ： ：» ™ ' ' ’ .№
:º） i 3
∞
§§
*tae