"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside."
We have no subject classes in America excepting only such as have been
created, temporarily, as I trust, in Porto Rico and the Philippine
Islands, by the policy of President McKinley, and all in violation of
the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads thus:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
President McKinley claimed jurisdiction over the Philippine Islands and
consequently the inhabitants are entitled to the benign protection of
this provision of the Constitution. There cannot be any form of
involuntary servitude imposed upon any American citizen without a
violation of this fundamental law. Hence it is that the administration
is forced to deny citizenship to the inhabitants of the Island and to
assert the claim that the President and Congress may govern the
inhabitants of territories acquired by purchase, as in the case of the
Philippine Islands, or by conquest, as in the case of Porto Rico, as
they might be governed if the Constitution did not exist. And this,
we are told by the President and his supporters, is not imperialism, but
a process of extending the blessings of liberty and civilization to
the inferior races of the earth.
The claim of the President is the assertion of a right in Congress to
establish a system of peonage or even of slavery in Alaska, Hawaii,
and the rest. Your representative finds himself called to the defence
of this doctrine. Thus is the amendment to the Constitution made of
no effect in the Territories.
The character of President McKinley's policy is set forth in his own
words and they justify the charge of imperialism.
In his speech of acceptance he said:--"The Philippines are ours, and
American authority must be supreme throughout the Archipelago. There
will be amnesty, broad and liberal, but no abatement of our rights, no
abandonment of our duty; there must be no scuttle policy." What is
the meaning of this language? Is it not an assertion of absolute,
unconditional, permanent supremacy over the millions of the islands?
Imperialism is not a word merely. It is a public policy.
The President denounces imperialism, and with emphasis he declares that
we are all republicans in America. None of us are imperialists.
Our answer is this: In the language that I have quoted the President
describes himself as an imperialist. The test of Republicanism is
the Thirteenth Amendment. The President is subjecting ten million
people to involuntary subserviency under his rule. This, by whatever
name called, is the imperialism that we denounce.
We denounce it as a violation of a provision of our Constitution that
was gained at the cost of the lives of four hundred thousand men.
We denounce it as a violation of the rights of ten million human beings
who owe no allegiance to us. Our title! you exclaim. I answer, What
is it? A title to rule an unwilling, revolutionary people, who, at the
time our title was acquired, were demanding of Spain the enjoyment of
the right of self-government. That right was well-nigh gained when we
accepted the place of substitute for Spain. Through twenty months of
war we have been engaged in a fruitless attempt to subjugate our
purchased victims, and we have been cajoled, continually, by the
declaration that the war was ended.
If we accept the theory of the President that our title to Porto Rico
and the Philippines is a good title, then that title can be exercised
and enjoyed only in one of two ways under our Constitution and the
example that has been set in the case of Cuba. They should be held as
Territories, on the way to Statehood, or as possessions entitled to
self-government without delay by us. Mr. McKinley, Senator Lodge and
Mr. Moody say neither way is acceptable--the lands and the people are
ours. They have no rights under the Constitution. We will hold them
subject to our will until they accept our authority and recognize our
right to rule over them, and beyond that we will hold them until, in
our opinion, they are qualified to govern themselves.
The doctrine of imperialism is again set forth in the President's
letter of acceptance of September 8. "The flag of the Republic now
floats over these islands as an emblem of rightful sovereignty. Will
the Republic stay and dispense to their inhabitants the blessings of
liberty, education and free institutions, or steal away, leaving them
to anarchy or imperialism?"
Thus the President is engaged in dispensing liberty to conquered peoples
instead of allowing them to enjoy liberty as a birthright. He is
dispensing to them such education as he thinks they ought to have,
instead of allowing them to decide for themselves as to the education
which may be agreeable or useful for them. He dictates for them the
"free institutions" which in his opinion are best adapted to their
condition, instead of allowing them the freedom to choose their own
institutions. Thus the President assumes authority to furnish systems
of education and institutions of government by force, denying to the
people all freedom of action for themselves, and thereupon he declares
that "empire has been expelled from Porto Rico and the Philippines."
Can the President show wherein his policy, in principle, differs from
the policy of Spain?
Spain was engaged in war to compel the Filipinos to accept Spanish
institutions of education and liberty. We are attempting through war
to compel the Filipinos to accept American institutions of education and
liberty. It is not an answer to say, what may be true, that American
ideas and systems of education are superior to Spanish ideas and
systems. In each case there is compulsion. In each case there is a
denial of freedom. In each case, there is the same exercise of power.
In each case there is the same demand for a subservient class. In each
case there is gross undisguised imperialism. The difference is to the
advantage of Spain. Spain was consistent. Her policy was a policy of
imperialism;--a policy of centuries.
America was a republic. Self-government was at the basis of all her
institutions. It was a prominent feature of her history. Our
accusation against President McKinley is this: He turned away from the
history of America, he disdained our traditions, and he reversed the
policy of a century.
Mark the consequences of the change. In other days we sympathized with
Greece in its struggle for self-government; we denounced the suppression
of liberty in Hungary, and in the opening years of this century we
welcomed the provinces of Central and South America as they emerged,
one by one, from a condition of imperial vassalage, and took their
places in the galaxy of Republican States.
If in this year 1900, America had sent forth one word of official cheer
to the States of South Africa, the act would have been an act of self-
abasement that would have invited the contempt of all mankind.
When we charge imperialism upon the administration this question is put
exultingly: "Where is the crown?" I answer from history. England
waited a century, after the conquests by Clive and Hastings, for a
Beaconsfield to crown Britain's Queen "Empress of the Indies." The
crown is but a bauble. Empire means vast armies employed in ignominious
service, burdensome taxation at home, and ruthless maladministration of
affairs abroad.
In two short years of imperialism, these evils have ceased to be
imaginative merely, and they have taken a place among the unwelcome
realities of our national life.
Before I close this discourse I shall return to the subject that I have
now introduced to your attention, and for the purpose of asking you to
foster and preserve the quality of consistency in the history of the
county of Essex.
Mr. Moody introduced two topics to the Essex Club of which I am to take
notice. They concern me personally, but there is an aspect of one of
them that may merit public attention.
With a kindliness of spirit, that I could not have anticipated, Mr.
Moody attributes my failure to continue in the opinions that he claims
were entertained by me in 1859, to the infirmities incident to advancing
years. He thus raises a question that I am not competent to discuss.
I pass it by.
I trust that Mr. Moody may live to the age of two and eighty years; that
his experience may be more fortunate than the fate that he attributes
to me, and that at that advanced period of his life his ability to
interpret the Constitution of his country will not be less than it now
is.
The speech of Mr. Moody, as it appears in the _Transcript_ of August
30, closes with this sentence: "He at least might spare the epithets
to the party that has showered upon him every honor within its gift,
except the presidency." If I have applied any disparaging epithet to
the Republican Party, my error is due to my ignorance of the meaning of
the word. The quotations which Mr. Moody has made from my speech at the
Cooper Institute contain a declaration in two forms of expression, which
may have led Mr. Moody to charge me with the use of epithets. I find
nothing else on which this allegation can be founded. I reproduce the
quotations:
"President McKinley and his imperialistic supporters through two steps
in an argument have deduced an erroneous conclusion from admitted
truths.
"(1) Our government in common with other sovereignties has a right to
acquire territory.
"(2) That right carries with it the right to govern territory so
acquired.
"From these propositions they deduce the false conclusion that Congress
may indulge a full and free discretion in the government of the
territories so acquired. Herein is the error, and herein is the
usurpation."
Again, "We have the right to acquire territory and we have the right to
govern all territory acquired, but we must govern it under the
Constitution, and in the exercise of those powers, and those only, which
have been conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Any attempt
further is a criminal usurpation."
In the first quotation I make the charge that President McKinley, in his
attempt to govern the Philippine Islands as though the Constitution did
not apply to them, was exercising powers not granted to him by virtue
of his office.
The President is the creature of the Constitution, and his jurisdiction
is measured and limited by the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
When the President asserts that the Philippine Islands are not under the
Constitution, he admits that the Philippine Islands are not within his
jurisdiction. If, on the other hand, the islands are within his
jurisdiction, it follows that his right of jurisdiction over them must
have come from the presence of the Constitution itself.
Let there be no misunderstanding upon one point. I claim that the
Philippine Islands are under the Constitution and that the President
may exercise in and over the islands whatever powers the Constitution
and the laws may have placed in his hands.
I claim further that as a right on the part of the Filipinos, and as a
policy of justice and wisdom on our part, we should relinquish our
title, whatever it may be, and allow the Filipinos to enter upon the
work of governing themselves.
The President sets up the doctrine that the islands are not under the
Constitution and that they may be governed by him outside of all
constitutional restraints. This is the usurpation that I have charged
upon him, but not upon the Republican Party of former days. Upon the
basis specified the charge remains. It is not an epithet. Let the
charge be answered, or otherwise, let the President and the supporters
of his policy abandon the doctrine that we can seize, hold and govern
communities and peoples who are not within the jurisdiction of our
Constitution and, who, consequently, are not subject to our laws.
I have said that the President and his supporters are imperialists. If
the word is descriptive of a policy then the word is not an epithet.
In the passage that I have quoted from the speech of Mr. Moody he
charges me in fact, if not in form of words, with a violation of my
obligations to the Republican Party, and upon the ground that the party
"has showered upon me every honor in its gift except the Presidency."
The consideration that I have received from the Republican Party merits
acknowledgment, and that I accord without reserve, but it cannot exact
subserviency from me.
On public grounds I ask this question: Are those who may hold office
under the leadership of a party, to be held by party discipline to the
support of measures and policies which they condemn? Freedom of opinion
and freedom of speech are of more value than public office. The
movement for the reform of the civil service is, in its best aspect,
but an attempt to rescue the body of office holders from the tyranny
and discipline of party and of party leaders. Thus much upon public
grounds, but, for myself, I shall not seek protection under a general
policy.
Never for a moment from my early years did I entertain the thought that
I would enter public life, or that I would continue in public life, as
a pursuit or as a profession. Hence, it has happened that I have never
asked for personal support at the hands of any, and hence it has
happened that I have never solicited a nomination or an appointment from
or through the Republican Party or any member of it.
In 1860, a majority of the delegates to the Congressional Convention in
my district, favored my nomination, but not through any effort by me.
I attended the Convention and placed in nomination Mr. Train, who had
been in Congress one term.
Without any effort on my part I was nominated in 1862-'64-'66 and '68.
No aid in money or otherwise was given by the State Committee or the
National Committee. Following my nomination in each case the District
Committee asked me for a contribution of one hundred dollars. On one
occasion the committee sent me a return check of forty-two dollars and
some cents with a statement that the full amount had not been expended.
If contributions of money were made by others the fact was not
communicated to me.
I became a candidate for the Senate upon a request signed by members of
the Legislature. When the second contest was on, in 1877, I declined
a call by a telegraphic message to visit Boston and confer with my
friends who were anxious for my election. I was a member of the Peace
Congress of 1861 and I received several other appointments from Governor
Andrew, but without solicitation by me. At his request I went to
Washington for a conference with Mr. Lincoln and General Scott. I
reached the city by the first train that passed over the road from
Annapolis. Again, at his request, I went to Washington the Monday
following the battle of Bull Run.
I received two appointments from President Lincoln, when, in each case,
I had no knowledge that the place existed.
From General Grant I received the offer of the Interior Department and
then of the Treasury Department, both of which I declined. When
General Grant had taken the responsibility of sending my name to the
Senate, I had no alternative as a member of the Republican Party and
as a friend to General Grant.
Upon the death of Mr. Folger, President Arthur asked me to take the
office of Secretary of the Treasury. I was then concerned with the
affairs of another government and I declined the appointment.
When General Garfield had been nominated at Chicago in 1880 the
nomination of a candidate for the Vice-Presidency was placed in the
hands of the friends of General Grant. That nomination was offered to
me.
In the forty years from 1856 to 1896, I made speeches in behalf of the
Republican Party in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois,
Ohio and Indiana and in no instance did I receive compensation for my
services. When I spoke in Ohio my expenses were paid on all occasions
but one. That was a volunteer visit. My acquaintance with the
politicians of Ohio was agreeable from first to last.
In my many trips through New York it was understood that my expenses
were to be paid. When General Arthur was at the head of the committee
his checks exceeded the expenses, perhaps by a hundred per cent.
On one occasion the State Committee asked me to make six or eight
speeches upon their appointment. That service I performed; whether my
expenses were paid I cannot say. If they were paid it is the exception
in Massachusetts, unless local expenses may have been met where
addresses were made.
If a mercantile account current could be written, it might appear that
my obligations to the Republican Party are not in excess of the
obligations of the Republican Party to me.
From my experience as a member of the Republican Party I add an incident
to what I have said already.
In the month of July, 1862, and at the request of President Lincoln and
Secretary Chase, I entered upon the work of organizing the Internal
Revenue Office. That work was continued without the interruption of
Sabbaths or evenings, with a few exceptions only, till March, 1863,
when, as was said by Mr. Chase, the office was larger than the entire
Treasury had been at any time previous to 1861. It was the largest
branch of government ever organized in historical times and set in
motion in a single year. The system remains undisturbed. Such changes
only have been made as were required by changes in the laws. In the
thirty-eight years of its existence the Government has received through
its agency the enormous sum of five thousand and five hundred million
dollars being twice the amount of all the revenues of the Government
previous to 1860.
I have thus devoted many minutes of your time to the questions raised by
Mr. Moody.
The nature and the extent of my obligations to the Republican Party
and the question of my consistency in the construction that I have
given to the Constitution of the United States, are not matters of
grave concern for you. They have come into the field of discussion
through the agency of Mr. Moody.
I come now to ask your attention to a view of your relations to passing
events which concerns the county of Essex.
Your county has a distinguished history--distinguished for its men and
for its part in public affairs. Shall the history that you are now
making be consistent with that which you have inherited and which you
cherish? I mention one name only among your great names and I bring
before your minds one event only.
In the order of time and in the order of events, the second most
important paper in the annals of America is the "Ordinance for the
Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the
River Ohio."
The chief value of that ordinance is in the sixth article which is in
these words: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude
in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime,
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
By repeated decisions the Supreme Court has held that the stipulations
and terms of the ordinance remained in force after the adoption of the
Constitution, unless a conflict should appear, and in such a case the
ordinance would yield to the Constitution. As the article in regard
to slavery was not controlled by the Constitution, the exclusion of
slavery became the supreme and continuing law of the Territories and
States that were organized in the vast region covered by the Ordinance
of 1787, and it may be assumed, fairly, that the character and power of
those States made possible the extermination of the institution of
slavery in all parts of the country. The parties to the ordinance of
1787 may have builded better than they knew, but their work is one of
the four great acts or events in the history of the Republic--The
Declaration of Independence, the Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution,
and the amendment abolishing the institution of slavery.
Nathan Dane of the county of Essex, was the author of the Ordinance of
1787; and he was a delegate in the Continental Congress from 1785 to
1788. Of all the eminent men that you have sent forth into the service
of the State and the country, he must be accounted the chief, when we
consider the value of his contribution, historically, and on the side of
freedom and civilization. His fame is in your hands and I have come to
ask you to consider whether the policy of President McKinley in the
Philippines is in harmony with the Ordinance of 1787 and the amendment
to the Constitution of 1865.
By the Ordinance of 1787, freedom and full right to self-government
were made secure to the coming millions who were to occupy the States
northwest of the River Ohio. By the amendment of 1865 freedom and
equality in government were guaranteed to all and especially to the
negro race in America.
Shall the avoidance of the Amendment in States of this Union be tendered
as a reason for a denial of equality and the right of self-government in
the Philippine Islands? If the negroes in America are entitled to
freedom from a state of subserviency, are not the colored races in the
Philippines entitled to freedom, and that whether they are under the
Constitution or beyond its jurisdiction?
You are called to a choice between the doctrines of Nathan Dane and
Abraham Lincoln on one side and the doctrines and policy of President
McKinley and his supporters on the other side. The point I make is
this: The three propositions cannot stand together. Dane and Lincoln
are in harmony. They guaranteed equality and self-government to all.
President McKinley and his supporters demand subserviency of all who
are not within the lines of the American seas.
They assert supreme authority over their fellow-men for an indefinite
period of time, and they promise therewith good government. Here are
the assertion of power and the promise of goodness that have attended
the origin and movement of every despotism that has risen to curse
mankind.
That you may see, as in one view, the doctrines of Dane, Lincoln and
McKinley, I read again the records that they have made.
"There shall be neither slavery "The Philippines are ours and
nor involuntary servitude in the American authority must be su-
said territory otherwise than in the preme throughout the Archipelago.
punishment of crimes whereof the There will be amnesty, broad and
party shall have been duly liberal, but no abatement of our
convicted."--NATHAN DANE. rights, no abandonment of our
duty. There must be no scuttle
"Neither slavery nor involuntary policy."--WILLIAM McKINLEY.
servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall "The flag of the Republic now
have been duly convicted, shall floats over these islands as an
exist within the United States, or emblem of rightful sovereignty.
any place subject to their Will the Republic stay and
jurisdiction."--ABRAHAM LINCOLN. dispense to their inhabitants the
blessings of liberty, education
and free institutions, or steal
away leaving them to anarchy or
imperialism?"--WILLIAM McKINLEY.
"Any slave in the Archipelago of
Jolo shall have the right to pur-
chase freedom by paying to the
master the usual market price.--
Article 10, of the McKinley treaty
with the Sultan of the Sulu Isles.