 |
| Garret A. Hobart. |
Cortland Evening Standard, Wednesday, November 22, 1899.
PAGE TWO—EDITORIALS.
Garret A. Hobart.
The death of Garrett A. Hobart, vice-president of the United States, occurred yesterday morning. He had been dangerously ill for weeks and it was known that there was little probability that he could resume his official duties at Washington.
Mr. Hobart was born at Long Branch in 1844, was graduated at Rutgers in 1863, and was admitted to the bar in New Jersey in 1866. Five years later he was chosen city counsel of Paterson. In 1872 he was elected to the state legislature after a re-election, he was chosen speaker. In 1877 and again in 1879, he was elected to the state senate. In 1881 and 1882 he was president of that body, and when he retired from the legislature he had the complete confidence of the people of New Jersey and the reputation of being an honorable and faithful representative. But he did not abandon politics. Becoming a member of the Republican state committee he began to devote his energies to an exposure of the corrupt ring that was in control of the state administration; later on he was elected chairman of the committee, and after three years of hard work he had so aroused the people and so skillfully organized the Republican party, that a Republican victory was won.
He was successful at the bar and successful in politics, but it was, perhaps, as a business man that he was most distinguished. He became identified with enterprises that required great industry, great diplomacy, and great executive ability. He served as receiver of broken down railroad companies and brought them up to solvency; he organized manufacturing companies, and furnished employment to thousands of people, and he was actively identified with the management of several of the strongest banks of the state.
At the national Republican convention of 1896 the rival candidates for nomination for vice-president were Mr. Hobart of New Jersey whose name was presented by Franklin Fort of that state; ex-Governor Buckeley of Connecticut, Charles W. Lippitt of Rhode Island, Henry Clay Evans of Tennessee and James A. Walker of Virginia. Mr. Hobart was nominated on the first ballot, the vote standing as follows: Hobart 533 1/2; Evans, 277 1/2; Bulkeley, 39; Walker, 24 and Lippitt, 8. Mr. Hobart's nomination was received with great enthusiasm and he added dignity and strength to the ticket.
As the presiding officer of the senate he was courteous, impartial, and faithful, sustaining all the traditions of the past. His personal popularity was boundless. Every senator was his friend. His relations with the president were extremely cordial, affording in this respect a great contrast with some of the vice-presidents who had preceded him.
President McKinley and Vice President Hobart were warm personal friends, and the president consulted with him frequently on questions of importance, instead of slighting the vice-president and regarding him as a man of no consequence in our scheme of government. The death of Mr. Hobart will be greatly lamented.
THE PHILIPPINES.
Mr. Palmer on Their Status and Independence.
Mr. Irving H. Palmer contributes to The STANDARD to-day a forcible and thoughtful article on the statements of the Declaration of Independence, considering especially their soundness and applicability to the Philippine situation, as well as the status of the insurgents and our duties as a nation towards these new possessions. The article, though lengthy, is interesting throughout, and no one who reads it will regret the time thus spent. It is marked by the writer's well-known vigor, pungency and positive convictions, and presents views which, while they may be new to some, are ably maintained.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
A Disquisition on it and its Applicability to the Philippines.
To the Editor of The STANDARD:
SIR—Heretofore it has seemed scarcely worthwhile to combat the fatuous and disloyal heresies of the craven and decadent crew who have so persistently and obtrusively assailed be government, the army and the navy of the United States, engaged in subduing the unprovoked, unjustifiable and ungrateful rebellion of the Tagals in the island of Luzon under the leadership of the preposterous Aguinaldo and his mentors. Silent contempt, however, now no longer suffices to adequately reprehend them for so dishonoring the American name and reputation.
Among the most atrocious of their efforts is the sacrilegious attempt to pervert the language of the Declaration of Independence into support of this unholy insurrection of these half savage, half civilized, "half devil and half child"-like Tagals, led and incited by that monster of cruelty and rapacity, the bribe taker and assassin Aguinaldo and his flagitious associates, by odious and unseemly comparisons with whose infamous character they have even attempted to degrade the name of Washington.
To comprehend and elucidate the Declaration of Independence, it should be analyzed in the light of the events, the causes and the circumstances which evoked and produced it.
It was debated and approved in the colonial congress, composed of delegates from the English colonies in America which, in the course of events, became the original thirteen states which constituted the beginning of the United States of America. It was subscribed by these delegates respectively, probably because of the questionable legality and authority of the congress which had adopted it, and because of which it was authenticated and promulgated over the individual signatures of the respective members of this historic congress, on the memorable 4th day of July, 1776.
Since that time, it has served as the antetype and precedent for the national platforms of the political parties into which the American people have been divided, as announced by the national conventions of these parties from time to time.
It was made to serve as the political platform of those who determined to fight the British and Tories of the American revolution, until freedom and independence were achieved.
It was never intended to be a declaration of the principles of organic, civil or international law. It was not designed to be a code of political ethics or philosophy, but simply a rallying point, a common ground, upon which American colonists could stand together in their battle for independence.
Law, ethics and philosophy deal with facts in detail, with divers conditions and limitations, with differences and distinctions of many shades and with powers of varying degrees of potency and of more or less direct or remote applicability, far too complex and intricate for incorporation into a declaration which had for its object the sole purposes of uniting Americans in their efforts to achieve their independence and of commending their objects and motives to the civilized world.
It never had, and was never intended to have, the force of law or a rule of action. It placed no binding obligation of obedience upon any one. It neither defines the obligations, the rights nor the duties of the citizen or the alien, but it does assume to do this for governments and states, by glittering generalizations more brilliant than exact.
The grievances which caused the historical facts which developed and the experiences which culminated in the Declaration of Independence were separated from all that now exists by a century and a quarter. There is scarcely a trace of similarity or analogy between the conditions then and now existing. The facts which served to uphold the Declaration of Independence differ so widely from those in support of which it is now invoked as to render it inapplicable as an authority to sustain the conclusions of the anti-expansionists, who advocate Independence for the Philippines; these men are perverting the language and meaning of the Declaration of Independence into support of their contention..
It is safe to assume that a declaration made by a party engaged in such a struggle as was the American revolution will not require to be enlarged or extended by implication or construction.
Mindful of these observation respecting the Declaration of Independence as a whole, we will proceed to determine what meaning may be legitimately drawn from the express language thereof, so frequently cited and quoted by the anti-expansionists in support of their theories and contentions.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." This is an obvious exaggeration. Men are not created equal in mental, moral or physical endowments. The slightest observation and experience will serve to disprove this proposition.
"That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is another obvious exaggeration. The proposition is untrue, unless it is greatly limited. It is not true that men possess any inalienable rights. To alienate, is to estrange, to withdraw, to forfeit, to transfer to another. No man has any right which he may not lose by crime or disobedience, or by releasing, renouncing or waiving the same or suffering it to lapse by some act or omission of his own. His right to life may be forfeited by conviction for murder or treason. His lands may be confiscated for treason, or lost by adverse possession, or he may part with his right thereto by conveyance or alienation. His pursuit of happiness may be interrupted by conviction and imprisonment for felony, and even by improvidence or want of discernment or understanding or by the contraction of indebtedness beyond his ability to pay without distress. Hence his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not "inalienable," for it may be alienated or lost.
Again we quote, "That to secure these rights (alleged 'inalienable' rights) governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This language does not expressly state or necessarily imply that no just powers may be exercised by government, except such as are derived from the consent of the governed—although that is the inference which the pro-Tagals and anti-expansionists seek to draw from it. This proposition merely asserts, in effect, that some just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, which is true enough. The pavement or improvement of a public street, based upon the petition of those owning the abutting land, is an example of such a right. But government limited in essential particulars by the consent of the governed, is nihilism. It is not government, for it does not govern. Such a thing is impossible and absurd. It has no actual existence and can have none, because inconsistent with the indispensable prerequisites of its own existence.
"Government" means control, restraint, management, the exercise of authority over some person, body or thing governed, which excludes the idea of consent entirely from the term or expression embodied in the word "government."
Governments are mainly instituted among men to control and discipline those who are required to be coerced into doing that which is right, but to which they refuse to give their consent and are therefore required to be compelled to do against their will. No prison, no school, no people can be successfully governed by consent alone. These who put themselves in conflict with the law are always governed, if at all, without their consent. Government is invariably coercion or the means of coercion, depending upon whether the act of governing or the means whereby the act is accomplished is meant.
The seceded states were governed by the United States without their consent, and without according them any representation in the legislative or governing body for a time. The same is true of all the territory acquired by the United States at divers times, by which there have been a series of expansions, beginning at an early period in its history and continuing to the present.
The elective franchise is not a natural right; it is a right conferred by law, and may be withheld or taken away, and should be, whenever the public welfare demands it.
The contention that any principle of organic law or natural justice has been violated by the annexation of the Philippines, the suppression of the insurrection therein, the withholding of independence or the denial of the elective franchise, is illogical and preposterous, not to say treasonable, to which it has, very nearly approached in some instances. When Spain ceded the sovereignty, i.e., the right to govern the Philippines, to the United States, she had been in the undisputed possession thereof for more than three centuries and a half. The Tagals who are now in rebellion had no capital and no army, but had been in a state of chronic insurrection produced by Spanish misrule for a long period. They held no place of strategic or commercial importance, and had no means of arming any formidable force. Aguinaldo and his lieutenant were in Hong Kong until some time after the Spanish fleet under Montigo had been captured or destroyed, Cavite had been captured. Manila was at our mercy and its capture only awaited the arrival of soldiers from the United States sufficient to garrison and police it. At this juncture, Aguinaldo and his associates arrived from Hong Kong, they collected a force of Tagals whom they furnished with arms taken from the Spanish arsenal at Cavite, and began operations about Cavite and Manila, which made a larger force of American soldiers necessary to protect the persons and property of the inhabitants at Manila than would have been required but for the presence of this armed force of Tagals. They delayed the capture of Manila by the American forces for weeks, as it was feared these Tagals would loot the city, which the Americans had not only to capture from the Spaniards but to protect from pillage by the Tagals, thus doubling their burdens and their duties.
Aguinaldo soon proclaimed himself dictator and procured himself to be declared president of an alleged republic which never had any actual existence. His rule is based mainly upon the terror and cupidity inspired by his cruelty and rapacity, his power of taking life and property and the means of bribery acquired by the unlawful exercise of this power. Having been checked and hindered in its exercise by American troops, he had the temerity to attack them while they were engaged in protecting life and property from the depredations committed by his bands of assassins.
We have no right to withdraw our forces from the Philippines and abandon their inhabitants, composed of Europeans and white Americans, as well as yellow and brown Asiatics, civilized, half-civilized, barbarous and savage as they are, to such a fate as Aguinaldo's government would inevitably have in store for them. Besides, we cannot sacrifice our national honor and reputation by such craven abasement.
The president, and all the combined executive branch of the government have no power to cede to any other power or nation the sovereignty of these islands, and thus relieve himself or itself of the duty imposed upon him by the constitution, to suppress the rebellion therein, restore order, execute the law, and protect life and property, however, much he might desire to be relieved of this burden by transferring it to others, with the sovereignty over the territory embraced in the archipelago.
Expansion became an accomplished fact with the ratification of the treaty of Paris. The executive has no power to cede or alienate the sovereignty of these islands to another power or nation, and has no right to abandon them except by yielding to a conquest thereof by a superior military force. The executive has no right either to enact any laws for their government or to establish any other than a military government thereto, which he may do by virtue of being commander in chief of the military and naval forces of the United States.
What government shall be created for these islands, with what civil and political status the inhabitants thereof may be endowed, whether or not they shall share any part, and if so what part, in their own government, and when and under what circumstances, lies with congress alone. The inhabitants of these islands acquired none of the rights of citizens of the United States as a result of the treaty of Paris, and have none by the constitution of the United States except such as congress may confer. They must be subject to such government and to such laws as congress shall provide for them. They are extremely fortunate in being freed from the despotism of Spain and ought to be grateful to America and thankful to the Almighty that they have achieved so much with so little pains and effort. They ought to be very grateful, cease to be rebels and prove their gratitude by their loyalty, and zealously apply themselves to acquire those qualifications which are essential and even indispensable to fit a people for self government before demanding autonomy and independence. In their present condition, independence would be sure to be perverted into a license for brigandage and pillage, which is precisely what some of their foremost leaders evidently desire, and to secure which they are in arms against their American benefactors while their ignorant followers are the dupes and victims of the piratical and rapacious schemes of these mercenary leaders. They must be made pupils in the school of government and taught not only what freedom and liberty are, but how to use them; and the first lesson is required to be one of obedience to law and the ruling power, to be promptly followed by lessons in patriotism and loyalty as duties which the citizen owes the state. They must be convinced of our worthiness as well as our power and ability to rule them by our impartial justice, by our altruism, by our liberality, generosity and kindness, by our efficiency and ability, by our energy, economy, intelligence and skill in the administration of their affairs, and the rigor, courage and impartiality with which law is enforced and justice administered among them, without cruelty, vindictiveness or cupidity on our part. To enable this to be successfully done, they must be first subdued, made to yield to our efforts in their behalf, as the pupils of a school are subjected to vaccination. This implies a vigorous and an relenting prosecution of the war for their subjugation, as the most merciful, because most expeditious and economical, solution of the questions which must determine their future.
When they begin to manifest a capacity and disposition qualifying them for the exercise of citizenship under a free government, they should be given probationary opportunities in the exercise of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, including official authority and positions on their merits.
The Anglo-Saxon races have had centuries of experience to fit and qualify them for free government. Savages, barbarians and half civilized people must not expect to compete with them in the administration of government, much less turn teacher and master with an experience in which rapacity, cruelty, perfidy and treachery have been the most prominent elements and characteristics in all the governments of which they have had any knowledge.
While greater benefits will undoubtedly accrue to them than to Americans from these relations and conditions which will constitute the latter, their rulers, there is no basis for the pessimistic suggestion that the exercise of this function will render us weaker or more corrupt that we should otherwise be. Strength and virtue increase and grow by exercise and use, not by indolence and inaction. The servants in the parable, who used their talents, were commended and rewarded and made prosperous and happy, while he who buried his single talent for fear of risking its loss was reprimanded and punished for refraining from its use.
It has long been the fault of Americans that they have taken too much interest in their own private affairs and too little in those of the world at large. Their diplomacy and their national policies have been limited, with few unimportant exceptions, to the affairs of the Western continent, slavery, secession, reconstruction, state rights, protective and revenue tariffs, currency, monopolies, and municipal affairs have occupied our statesmen and the people to the entire exclusion of the greater questions and wider interests hitherto determined exclusively in Europe. Broader policies will produce broader and more comprehensive politics and statesmanship, in which the ward heeler will be outclassed by the statesman and the scholar, instead of their being eclipsed by him. Localisms and provincialisms will be swallowed, digested and dissolved in the greater laboratory of world-wide politics. The "open door," free and unfettered commerce, will eliminate legislation for classes and cliques, which will be adjusted to the wider wants and broader conditions resulting from the change. These are some of the welcome developments certain to result from expansion.
Those who fear that expansion will work the injury or destruction of free American institutions take counsel of their timidity, their indolence and their selfishness. Having themselves swallowed the oyster and given mankind the shells, they are in favor of the status quo and opposed to all innovations. English politics have improved with the increase of her colonies and dependencies. Is it logical to reverse the conclusion to be drawn from like conditions, when applied to America?
Shall we then give up the game before the dice are thrown and yield to mythical and unreal apprehensions of evil, invoked to threaten and intimidate us? We can no more relinquish the Philippines under such circumstances, and have them a prey to the blood-thirsty dissensions of the sixty tribes into which their inhabitants are divided, and the anarchy sure to result therefrom, than a robust and prosperous father can abandon his helpless and dependent family, without ignominy, turpitude and dishonor.
IRVING H. PALMER, Cortland, N. Y., Nov. 17, 1899.
[Irving Palmer was a Cortland attorney and was twice elected president of the village of Cortland. He was an officer and investor in the Erie & Central New York R. R. which served Cincinnatus and Cortland--C. C. editor.]
BREVITIES.
—The residences of R. H. Beard and N. J. Peck have been connected with the telephone exchange.
—Miss Maude Summers of Chicago has been at the Normal to-day and has been engaged in explaining the Speer method of teaching number. She addressed the entire school this afternoon, and spoke to the methods class and to some other classes during the day.
—New display advertisements to-day are—F. P. Smith, Carving knives, page 7; W. W. Bennett, Hot air furnaces page 7; Model Clothing Co., Suits and overcoats, page 6; Opera House, "King of the Opium Ring," page 5; Mrs. J. T. Davern & Co., Slaughter sale of furnishings, page 6.
—There was a quiet wedding at the home of the officiating clergyman, 29 1/2 Lincoln-ave., last evening, the happy couple being Mr. John H. Lyon and Miss Ella Mills, both of East Homer. Rev. W. H. Robertson performed the ceremony in the presence of a few personal friends of the bride and groom.
No comments:
Post a Comment