Part 9 (2/2)

In the memorandum of their views telegraphed to Was.h.i.+ngton on October 25th, Messrs. Davis, Frye, and Reid also say:

Public opinion in Europe, including that of Rome, expects us to retain whole of Philippine Islands.

Archbishop Chapelle was in Paris at the time of these negotiations. He afterwards told the writer in Manila that he got that $20,000,000 put in the Treaty of Paris. The Church preferred that our t.i.tle should be a t.i.tle by purchase rather than a t.i.tle by conquest, and Mr. McKinley was vigorously urging the latter. Between the legal effects of the two, there is a world of difference. The Church outgeneralled the President--checkmated him with a bishop. Look at that part of the treaty which affects church property:

Article VIII. The * * * cession * * * cannot in any respect impair the property or rights * * * of * * * ecclesiastical * * * bodies.

The Church of Rome, or at least some of the ecclesiastical bodies pertaining to it in the Philippines, owned the cream of the agricultural estates. By the treaty they have not lost a dollar. It might have been otherwise, had not Mr. McKinley's original claim of t.i.tle by conquest been overcome at Paris.

Judge Day's memorandum of his own views, telegraphed on October 25th along with those of his colleagues, stated that he was unable to agree that we should peremptorily demand the entire Philippine group; that

In the spirit of our instructions, and bearing in mind the often declared disinterestedness of purpose and freedom from designs of conquest with which the war was undertaken, we should be consistent in demands in making peace * * * with due regard to our responsibility because of the conduct of our military and naval authorities in dealing with the insurgents.

Again, he says:

We cannot leave the insurgents either to form a government [he of course did not know what a complete government they had already formed] or to battle against a foe which * * * might readily overcome them.

He also was of course unaware how thoroughly anxious the Spaniards then in the Philippines were to get away, and how completely they were at the mercy of the new Philippine Republic and its forces. ”On all hands”

says Judge Day, ”it is agreed that the inhabitants of the islands are unfit for self-government.” Of course we knew absolutely nothing worth mentioning about the Filipinos at that time. Judge Day then proposes, for the reasons indicated, to accept Luzon and some adjacent islands, as being of ”strategic advantage,” and to leave Spain the rest, with a ”treaty stipulation for non-alienation without the consent of the United States.” It seems to me that Judge Day's scheme was the least desirable of all.

Senator Gray's memorandum of the same date is a red-hot argument against taking over any part of the archipelago. He begins thus:

The undersigned cannot agree that it is wise to take Philippine Islands in whole or in part. To do so would be to reverse accepted continental policy of the country, declared and acted upon through our history. * * * It will make necessary * * *

immense sums for fortifications and harbors * * * Climate and social conditions demoralizing to character of American youth * * *.

On whole, instead of indemnity, injury * * *. Cannot agree that any obligation incurred to insurgents * * *. If we had captured Cadiz and Carlists had helped us, would not be our duty to stay by them at the conclusion of war * * *. No place for * * * government of subject people in American system * * *. Even conceding all benefits claimed for annexation, we thereby abandon * * * the moral grandeur and strength to be gained by keeping our word to nations of the world * * * for doubtful material advantages and shameful stepping down from high moral position boastfully a.s.sumed. * * *

Now that we have achieved all and more than our object, let us simply keep our word * * *. Above all let us not make a mockery of the [President's] instructions, where, after stating that we took up arms only in obedience to the dictates of humanity * * *

and that we had no designs of aggrandizement and no ambition for conquest, the President * * * eloquently says: ”It is my earnest wish that the United States in making peace should follow the same high rule of conduct which guided it in facing war.”

The next day, October 26th, came this laconic answer:

The cession must be of the whole archipelago or none. The latter is wholly inadmissible and the former must be required.

<script>