[17] Over a month after the above was delivered came the first

recent judicial expression of a contrary view. It was by Judge

William Lochren of the United States Circuit Court at St. Paul,

in the case of habeas corpus proceedings against Reeve, warden of

the Minnesota State Prison at Stillwater, for the release of a

Porto Rican named Ortiz. He was held for the murder of a private

soldier of the United States, sentenced to death by a Military

Commission at San Juan, and, on commutation of the sentence by

the President of the United States, sent to this State Prison for

life. Judge Lochren denied the writ on the ground that the

conviction took place before the Treaty of Paris, by which Spain

ceded sovereignty in Porto Rico to the United States, had been

ratified by the Senate. The Judge went on, however, to argue that

Ortiz could not have been lawfully tried before the Military

Commission after the ratification of the treaty, because the

island of Porto Rico thereby became an integral part of the

United States, subject to the Constitution and privileged and

bound by its provisions. As this point was not involved in the

case he was deciding, this is, of course, merely a dictum--the

expression of opinion on an outside matter by a Democratic judge

who was recently transferred by Mr. Cleveland from a Washington

bureau to the bench. It clearly shows, however, what would be his

decision whenever the case might come before him. His argument

followed closely the lines taken by Mr. Calhoun in the Senate and

Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision.

On these points I make bold to repeat what I felt warranted in saying a

fortnight ago within sight of Bunker Hill--that there is every evidence

that the American people have distinctly and definitely made up their

minds. They have not been persuaded and they cannot be persuaded that

this is an inferior government, incapable of any duty Providence may

send its way--duties which other nations could discharge, but we

cannot. So I venture to affirm the impossibility that any party in

power, whether the present one or its opponent, could soon, if ever,

abandon one foot of the territory gained in the late war.

We are gathered on another old Spanish territory taken by our country

in war. It shows what Americans do with such acquisitions. Before you

expect to see Porto Rico given back to Spain or the Philippines

abandoned to Aguinaldo, wait till we are ready to declare, as Daniel

Webster did in the Senate, that this California of your pride and glory

is "not worth a dollar," and throw back the worthless thing on the

hands of unoffending Mexico. Till then, let us as practical and

sensible men recognize that what is past is settled.

[Sidenote: Duty First; but then Interest also.]

Thus far have we come in these strange courses and to these unexpected

and unwelcome tasks by following, at each succeeding emergency, the

path of clear, absolute, and unavoidable duty. The only point in the

whole national line of conduct, from the spring of 1898 on to this

March morning of 1900, at which our Government could have stopped with

honor, was at the outset. I, for one, would gladly have stopped there.

How was it then with some at the West who are discontented now? Shake

not your gory locks at me or at my fellow-citizens in the East. You

cannot say we did it. In 1898, just as a few years earlier in the

debate about Venezuela, the loudest calls for a belligerent policy came

not from the East, "the cowardly, commercial East," as we were

sometimes described, but from the patriotic and warlike West. The

farther West you came, the louder the cry for war, till it reached its

very climax on what we used to call the frontier, and was sent

thundering Eastward upon the National Capital in rolling reverberations

from the Sierras and the Rockies which few public men cared to defy. At

that moment, perhaps, if this popular and congressional demand had not

pushed us forward, we might have stopped with honor--certainly not

later. From the day war was flagrant down to this hour there has been

no forward step which a peremptory national or international obligation

did not require. To the mandate alone of Duty, stern daughter of the

voice of God, the American people have bowed, as, let us hope, they

always will. It is not true that, in the final decision as to any one

step in the great movement hitherto, our interests have been first or

chiefly considered.

But in all these constitutional discussions to which we have referred,

one clause in the Constitution has been curiously thrust aside. The

framers placed it on the very forefront of the edifice they were

rearing, and there declared for our instruction and guidance that "the

people do ordain and establish this Constitution ... to promote the

general welfare." By what right do statesmen now venture to think that

they can leave our national interests out of the account? Who and where

is the sentimentalist who arraigns us for descending to too sordid a

level when we recognize our interest to hold what the discharge of duty

has placed in our hand? Since when has it been statesmanship to shut

our eyes to the interests of our own country, and patriotism to

consider only the interests or the wishes of others? For my own part, I

confess to a belief in standing up first for my own, and find it

difficult to cherish much respect for the man who won't: first for my

own family rather than some other man's; first for my own city and

State rather than for somebody else's; first for my own country--first,

please God! for the United States of America. And so, having in the

past, too fully, perhaps, and more than once, considered the question

of our new possessions in the light of our duty, I propose now to look

at them further, and unblushingly, in the light of our interests.

[Sidenote: The Old Faith of Californians.]

Which way do your interests lie? Which way do the interests of

California and the city of San Francisco lie?

Three or four days ago, when your President honored me with the summons

I am now obeying, there came back to me a vague memory of the visions

cherished by the men you rate the highest in California, your

"Pioneers" and "Forty-Niners," as to the future of the empire they were

founding on this coast. There lingered in my mind the flavor at least

of an old response by a California public man to the compliment a

"tenderfoot" New-Yorker, in the innocence of his heart, had intended to

pay, when he said that with this splendid State, this glorious harbor,

and the Pacific Ocean, you have all the elements to build up here the

New York of the West. The substance of the Californian's reply was

that, through mere lack of knowledge of the country to which he

belonged, the well-meaning New-Yorker had greatly underrated the future

that awaited San Francisco--that long before Macaulay's New-Zealander

had transferred himself from the broken arches of London Bridge to

those of Brooklyn, it would be the pride and boast of the denizens of

those parts that New York had held its own so finely as still to be

fairly called the San Francisco of the East!

While the human memory is the most tenacious and nearest immortal of

all things known to us, it is also at times the most elusive. Even with

the suggestions of Mr. Hittell and the friendly files of the Mechanics'

Library, I did not succeed in finding that splendid example of San

Francisco faith which my memory had treasured. Yet I found some things

not very unlike it to show what manner of men they were that laid the

foundations of this commonwealth on the Pacific, what high hopes

sustained them, and what radiant future they confidently anticipated.

Here, for example, was Mr. William A. Howard, whom I found declaring,

not quite a third of a century ago, that San Francisco would yet be the

largest American city on the largest ocean in the world. At least, so

he is reported in "The Bulletin" and "The Call," though "The Alta" puts

it with an "if," its report reading: "If the development of commerce

require that the largest ocean shall have the largest city, then it

would follow that as the Atlantic is smaller than the Pacific, so in

the course of years New York will be smaller than San Francisco."

And here, again, was Mr. Delos Lake, maintaining that the "United

States is now on a level with the most favored nations; that its

geographical position, its line of palatial steamers established on the

Pacific Ocean by American enterprise, and soon to be followed by ocean

telegraphs, must before long render this continent the proper avenue of

commerce between Europe and Asia, and raise this metropolis of the

Pacific to the loftiest height of monetary power."

There was a reason, too, widely held by the great men of the day, whose

names have passed into history, for some such faith. Thus an old

Californian of high and happy fame, Major-General Henry W. Halleck,

speaking of San Francisco, said: "Standing here on the extreme Western

verge of the Republic, overlooking the coast of Asia and occupying the

future center of trade and commerce of the two worlds,... if that

civilization which so long has moved westward with the Star of Empire

is now, purified by the principles of true Christianity, to go on

around the world until it reaches the place of its origin and makes the

Orient blossom again with its benign influences, San Francisco must be

made the abutment, and International Law the bridge, by which it will

cross the Pacific Ocean. The enterprise of the merchants of California

has already laid the foundation of the abutments; diplomacy and steam

and telegraph companies are rapidly accumulating material for the

construction of the bridge." Thus far Halleck. But have the

Californians of this generation abandoned the bridge? Are we to believe

those men of to-day who tell us it is not worth crossing?

Here, again, was Eugene Casserly, speaking of right for the California

Democracy of that date. Writing with deliberation more than a quarter

of a century ago, he said: "We expect to stand on equal grounds with

the most favored of nations. We ask no more in the contest for that

Eastern trade which has always heretofore been thought to carry with it

the commercial supremacy of the globe. America asks only a fair field,

even as against her oldest and most formidable rivals. Nature, and our

position as the nearest neighbors to eastern Asia, separated from her

only by the great highways of the ocean, have placed in our hands all

the advantages that we need.... Favored by vicinity, by soil and

climate on our own territory, with a people inferior to none in

enterprise and vigor, without any serious rivals anywhere, all this

Pacific coast is ours or is our tributary.... We hold as ours the great

ocean that so lately rolled in solitary grandeur from the equator to

the pole. In the changes certain to be effected in the currents of

finance, of exchange, and of trade, by the telegraph and the railroads,

bringing the financial centers of Europe and of the United States by

way of San Francisco within a few weeks of the ports of China and of

the East, San Francisco must become at no distant day the banker, the

factor, and the carrier of the trade of eastern Asia and the Pacific,

to an extent to which it is difficult to assign limits." Are the people

now lacking in the enterprise and vigor which Mr. Casserly claimed for

them? Have the limits he scorned been since assigned, and do the

Californians of to-day assent to the restriction?

Take yet another name, treasured, I know, on the roll of California's

most worthy servants, another Democrat. Governor Haight, only a third

of a century ago, said: "I see in the near future a vast commerce

springing up between the Chinese Empire and the nations of the West; an

interchange of products and manufactures mutually beneficial; the

watchword of progress and the precepts of a pure religion uttered to

the ears of a third of the human race." And addressing some

representatives of that vast region, he added, with a burst of fine

confidence in the supremacy of San Francisco's position: "As Chief

Magistrate of this Western State of the Nation, I welcome you to the

territory of the Republic,... in no selfish or narrow spirit, either of

personal advantage or seeking exclusive privileges for our own over the

other nations; and so, in the name of commerce, of civilization, of

progress, of humanity, and of religion, on behalf not merely of

California or America, but of Europe and of mankind, I bid you and your

associates welcome and God-speed."

Perhaps this may be thought merely an exuberant hospitality. Let me

quote, then, from the same man, speaking again as the Governor of the

State, at the Capitol of the State, in the most careful oration of his

life: "What shall be said of the future of California? Lift your eyes

and expand your conceptions to take in the magnitude of her destiny. An

empire in area, presenting advantages and attractions to the people of

the Eastern States and Europe far beyond those presented by any other

State or Territory--who shall set limits to her progress, or paint in

fitting colors the splendor of her future?... Mismanagement may at

times retard her progress, but if the people of California are true to

themselves, this State is destined to a high position, not only among

her sister States, but among the commonwealths of the world,... when

her ships visit every shore, and her merchant princes control the

commerce of the great ocean and the populous countries upon its

borders."

Was Governor Haight alone, or was he in advance of his time? Go yet

farther back, to the day when Judge Nathaniel Bennett was assigned by

the people of San Francisco to the task of delivering the oration when

they celebrated the admission of California into the Union, on October

29, 1850: "Judging from the past, what have we not a right to expect in

the future? The world has never witnessed anything equal or similar to

our career hitherto.... Our State is a marvel to ourselves, and a

miracle to the rest of the world. Nor is the influence of California

confined within her own borders.... The islands nestled in the embrace

of the Pacific have felt the quickening breath of her enterprise....

She has caused the hum of busy life to be heard in the wilderness where

rolls the Oregon, and where until recently was heard no sound save his

own dashings. Even the wall of Chinese exclusiveness has been broken

down, and the children of the Sun have come forth to view the splendors

of her achievements.... It is all but a foretaste of the future.... The

world's trade is destined soon to be changed.... The commerce of Asia

and the islands of the Pacific, instead of pursuing the ocean track by

the way of Cape Horn or the Cape of Good Hope, or even taking the

shorter route of the Isthmus of Darien or the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,

will enter the Golden Gate of California and deposit its riches in the

lap of our city.... New York will then become what London now is--the

great central point of exchange, the heart of trade, the force of whose

contraction and expansion will be felt throughout every artery of the

commercial world; and San Francisco will then stand the second city of

America.... The responsibility rests upon us whether this first

American State of the Pacific shall in youth and ripe manhood realize

the promise of infancy. We may cramp her energies and distort her form,

or we may make her a rival even of the Empire State of the Atlantic.

The best wishes of Americans are with us. They expect that the

Herculean youth will grow to a Titan in his manhood."

Nor was even Judge Bennett the pioneer of such ideas. Long before he

spoke, or before the Stars and Stripes had been raised over Yerbabuena,

as far back as in 1835, the English people and the British Government

had been advised by Alexander Forbes that "The situation of California

for intercourse with other countries and its capacity for

commerce--should it ever be possessed by a numerous and industrious

population--are most favorable. The port of San Francisco for size and

safety is hardly surpassed by any in the world; it is so situated as to

be made the center of the commercial relations which may take place

between Asia and the western coast of America.... The vessels of the

Spanish Philippines Company on their passage from Manila to San Blas

and Acapulco generally called at Monterey for refreshments and

orders.... Thus it appears as if California was designed by nature to

be the medium of connecting commercially Asia with America, and as the

depot of the trade between these two vast continents, which possess the

elements of unbounded commercial interchange; the one overflowing with

all the rich and luxurious commodities always characteristic of the

East, the other possessing a superabundance of the precious metals and

other valuable products to give in exchange.... If ever a route across

the Isthmus shall be opened, California will then be one of the most

interesting commercial situations in the world; it would in that case

be the rendezvous for all vessels engaged in the trade between Europe

and Asia by that route. It is nearly mid-voyage between these two

countries, and would furnish provisions and all naval supplies in the

most ample abundance, and most probably would become a mart for the

interchange of the commodities of the three continents."

[Sidenote: Has the State Lost Heart and Shriveled?]

Let no man fancy that these sometimes exuberant expressions of a noble

and far-seeing faith by your own predecessors and by a prescient

foreigner have been revived in derision or even in doubt. Those were

the days when, if some were for a party, at any rate all were for the

State. These were great men, far-seeing, courageous, patriotic, the men

of Forty-nine, who in such lofty spirit and with such high hope laid

the foundation of this empire on the Pacific. Distance did not disturb

them, nor difficulties discourage. There sits on your platform to-day a

man who started from New York to California by what he thought the

quickest route in December, 1848; went south from the Isthmus as the

only means of catching a ship for the north, and finally entered this

harbor, by the way of Chile, in June, 1849. He could go now to Manila

thrice over and back in less time. And yet there are Californians of

this day who profess to shrink in alarm from the remoteness and

inaccessibility of our new possessions! Has the race shriveled under

these summer skies? Has it grown old before its time; is its natural

strength abated? Are the old energy and the old courage gone? Has the

soul of this people shrunk within them? Or is it only that there are

strident voices from California, sounding across the Sierras and the

Rockies, that misrepresent and shame a State whose sons are not

unworthy of their fathers?

The arm of the Californian has not been shortened, that he cannot reach

out. The salt has not left him, that he cannot occupy and possess the

great ocean that the Lord has given him. Nor has he forgotten the

lesson taught by the history of his own race (and of the greatest

nations of the world), that oceans no longer separate--they unite.

There are no protracted and painful struggles to build a Pacific

railroad for your next great step. The right of way is assured, the

grading is done, the rails are laid. You have but to buy your

rolling-stock at the Union Iron Works, draw up your time-table, and

begin business. Or do you think it better that your Pacific railroad

should end in the air? Is a six-thousand-mile extension to a through

line worthless? Can your Scott shipyards only turn out men-of-war? Can

your Senator Perkins only run ships that creep along the coast? Is the

broad ocean too deep for him or too wide?

[Sidenote: New Fields and the Need for them.]

Contiguous land gives a nation cohesion; but it is the water that

brings other nations near. The continent divides you from customers

beyond the mountains; but the ocean unites you with the whole

boundless, mysterious Orient. There you find a population of over six

hundred millions of souls, between one fourth and one third of the

inhabitants of the globe. You are not at a disadvantage in trading with

them because they have the start of you in manufactures or skill or

capital, as you would be in the countries to which the Atlantic leads.

They offer you the best of all commerce--that with people less

advanced, exchanging the products of different zones, a people

awakening to the complex wants of a civilization that is just stirring

them to a new life.

Have you considered what urgent need there will be for those new

fields? It is no paltry question of an outlet for the surplus products

of a mere nation of seventy-five millions that confronts you. Your

mathematical professors will tell you that, at the ratio of increase

established in this Nation by the census returns for the century just

closing, its population would amount during the next century to the

bewildering and incomprehensible figure of twelve hundred millions. The

ratio, of course, will not be maintained, since the exceptional

circumstances that caused it cannot continue. But no one gives reasons

why it should not be half as great. Suppose it to turn out only one

fourth as great. Is it the part of statesmanship--is it even the part

of every-day, matter-of-fact common sense--to reject or despise these

Oriental openings for the products of this people of three hundred

million souls the Twentieth Century would need to nourish within our

borders? Our total annual trade with China now--with this customer whom

the friendly ocean is ready to bring to your very doors--is barely

twenty millions. That would be a commerce of the gross amount of six

and two third cents for each inhabitant of our country in the next

century, with that whole vast region adjoining you, wherein dwell one

fourth of the human race!

Even the Spanish trade with the Philippines was thirty millions. They

are merely our stepping-stone. But would a wise man kick the

stepping-stone away?

[Sidenote: The New Blood Felt.]

San Francisco is exceptionally prosperous now. So is the State of

California. Why? Partly, no doubt, because you are sharing the

prosperity which blesses the whole country. But is that all? What is

this increase in the shipping at your wharves? What was the meaning of

those crowded columns of business statistics your newspapers proudly

printed last New Year's?--what the significance of the increase in

exports and imports, far beyond mere army requirements? Why is every

room taken in your big buildings? What has crowded your docks, filled

your streets, quickened your markets, rented your stores and dwellings,

sent all this new blood pulsing through your veins--made you like the

worn Richelieu when, in that moment, there entered his spent veins the

might of France?

Was it the rage you have witnessed among some of your own leaders

against everything that has been done during the past two years--the

warning against everything that is about to be done? Was it the proof

of our unworthiness and misdeeds, to which we all penitentially

listened, as so eloquently set forth from the high places of light and

leading--the long lamentation over how on almost every field we had

shown our incapacity; how unfit we were to govern cities, unfit to

govern territories, unfit to govern Indians, unfit to govern

ourselves--how, in good old theological phrase, we were from head to

foot a mass of national wounds and bruises and putrefying sores, and

there was no health in us? Was it the demonstration that what we needed

was to sit under the live-oaks and "develop the individual man," nor

dare to look beyond? Was it the forgetfulness that muscles grow strong

only with exercise; that it is the duties of manhood that take the

acrid humors out of a youth's blood; that it is great responsibility,

manfully met, not cowardly evaded, that sobers and steadies and

ennobles?

Some one has lately been quoting Lincoln's phrase, "We cannot escape

history." It is a noble and inspiring thought. Most of us dare not look

for a separate appearance at that greatest of human bars--may hope only

to be reckoned in bulk with the multitude. But even so, however it may

be with others on this coast, I, for one, want to be counted with those

who had faith in my countrymen; who did not think them incapable of

tasks which duty imposed and to which other nations had been equal; who

did not disparage their powers or distrust their honest intentions or

urge them to refuse their opportunities; to be counted with those who

at least had open eyes when they stood in the Golden Gate!

[Sidenote: Wards or Full Partners.]

I do not doubt--you do not doubt--they are the majority. They will

prevail. What Duty requires us to take, an enlightened regard for our

own interests will require us to hold. The islands will not be thrown

away. The American people have made up their minds on that point, if on

nothing else.

Problems of Expansion As Considered in Papers and Addresses · 第 11 / 14 段