Q ~' r t J d . ‘- -' . 3M" 4 ‘ ‘- 0 I I ”Tit; » "Ely. H73" Haj-Bil}! :5“ 1' 1 J.» 'J ' I0. - J k, 'I A I I'J' J‘J‘ I ‘ . . h 0‘ V ‘F‘ o I .‘fi’ .1‘ . O .9" . t“ - . " v : ‘ o ‘ °, 1-1. #4 v'\r;:‘u;f: .m' 1 - M‘- '1". 1 I I” 1.1“ :Q a “ILIJA‘J‘J: 5&5.- mfi‘b I ”3:.E‘J'JOCLJ 3 . 1 m . -- w .fo ; I 1'11 *‘ V‘JW“ - I “(In . I . I13"? 1, , _~f,.JM 4‘: 53‘ . ‘f” am».- . I .- ‘ ‘ ‘11; 137"”? ‘4’?" .. ' cg' . ‘ ' . ’23; .‘i': .J‘Dtu J1'Q ‘ . _ ' . . ‘ "l p ‘ ' U . ‘ . P “tiff?“ CI..II J“Q . . : . ‘ fl’r. .b‘V“ .1 .- . , . - :7. . " ' ' . o L l . ' 'J . o ‘ '_ c .. . I J. . ‘ 0 v]: . . , v“. s {M ' .1 Q 'n ’.-'-' “ Q ‘ ~ 5 -. . I. ”.- - u A J - ‘Q C J l1.“-- Km... \ I, «173“ .C ' ' ‘ . “kxil if; ‘I‘\'§\:."q \(.\LL~‘!‘."\‘"J~::2J 0.. .,- | - : . 3" I351" H" ; ‘35.. \v -'\. fio}"' ‘a ‘1 11" . V - . |' .L rJ-"filk‘fi‘r'h‘m \d.‘ .‘u‘fi .2; o \ ¢ I- _ . J3: I . '}".‘“-‘~ . ‘2‘..‘ 9.“ n5 '1klt'k.“ Q 5‘ V . , 0".” 0,“: .I... T N .i‘? J”: '7’. ': "J‘r“‘fl. “if" 1"." :L.‘ . -‘ _ . . ' \\ . T 1 1- . ' ‘ .mim_‘°u‘::7‘p.'_- H.“ -1‘~ "(“1 Q ff. ' . J ' ‘ n ‘ 1". 1 _ , .‘ 13“". :1 ‘ 5 ' ' "" "‘- “ ~ .‘¢:..‘,I's..:--,:.‘_,;r1~,‘~;.-;-..;; "fig“.é'fi‘: . . ‘ ‘ . _. . . . g I. . ”W J! K' ‘,.. . < »- 1.. . - Kr- ;’ v - qr. , -1 0 ' . Ql J J Jfiil“ - " ‘ ' " b J' J. . ' :I‘I~:' .‘ ’1 ' l' ‘o. 90“ SCI-1 .“ ¢ ' - I 1 _ ‘ '4 ‘~ '5 H. '. .' :‘H_Ho- 0. .0 No '56“; . . - o . ‘ . . o . 4;] . 011-“. ‘I-NI b . , Pr" IIWIH :5 :.T¢'JJ‘MJ'3:'YQJ'JJ- m t ' ‘ ‘ . ' ""1 - Q 'Q " ‘ - h J : ‘ . “- ' REAL-'3‘“... \ ‘w‘d‘ho ' v N 'f ‘ N » ' -e r - ' ~ 5 ’0 ‘Q. .*~ _ h J - .1 .- . " ' Wu}, “1%«Ix. 05.1. 1 ‘ ° - - ‘ 1 11;?“ ' ' - 1'.“ «u ‘-:"1.,.:~“‘~ 49¢- ’Q‘R“. . . . . ¢ - . I_‘..a I -. . I ~' v. . . I l ‘ d J “ " ..1J“’r‘- “gr-.3” ..'_\_A. .‘t",_ “-45. er3511; J ‘ . ‘ ' '4 'stzwqfiiyfi'5-ZY“ ‘H‘J-l't‘t “[30:74 I ‘ . . . 1.' 9-1" \'- -- ' Vs“_~wu °' «1 u - . . . . ‘33 “'1 31-73 ‘h.."§..'2.3‘.'.¢_. I...) 233173215? . 1 - .. ‘ AJ - ’9 'figg. 2:7. 31.5“.2'32.“ "3‘" -.."-' ‘3§m§1~"‘3;:':1‘37-‘4‘r..6 . , . ‘ ‘n' ‘ q J : g. f "“ ”3 ' ~‘~ 'i.“"\“‘1"kv '\“<:J‘v.;' 4‘ '\?Q""r’:;41"“"; J‘Q '.'I«"‘J ’ ~ ' ~ u.‘ k?“ 1 - ‘-.. A ~_u' rigmu“ ..~~.‘:~ ‘xy _:.-1-.u:'1, "-15"! q“. .Q‘Q’.1"H‘ . ' VJ?“ . \H J‘ ‘ . 'Q .W[' #1.. .JJ :1: ”'04.”: “new: " ”Vi“ ~ ".-:.J.s"h' J‘ ~43“ ‘3‘" 3.3”?“ 1 “my." bin; ‘ :"I: :33 ‘ 0'.‘ ' n . I . I ‘ .c‘ . ‘ ‘ 'J~ 'u \ J Q'...‘.. . *‘._.~ "‘I " ' . ' qt." "'r d R. ‘ J QI ~ “- of .. o N .1 -- . \ “N V- “ ' I} ‘ ‘1 5.. N‘fiofi- A s ¢HVH I, M1” MK' [ho-x \.S:, ‘M '1‘. .. H. MN "- . JI'L'.‘ 4 ~§ 'J3‘ . b J' .“ - ”a. l ”‘1' 4 '0.‘ g,‘ I; ' ' ' 'I ::":I‘1:,.fl‘n\ '1.:‘ \.~“' '9 ‘.. ' ' ‘ ‘ , 1 ‘_ '7 3"“ "731%" .,~=-;'-) \ «3 "~04.“ -. “al.1‘“ Q." 1 ~ . . ‘ .J ‘P a... J ‘1'. ‘IUQQWQIu ~1f~tvb§‘7tf}p‘\ J" 15‘ ' .- 1".me ..:IQ 3‘}; . 'J‘d. c x 1 ... . ‘ 1 1,1 'I'I - Q . ‘5 - ., . \N,“ v' M". . ‘ a J; ‘.. ,..‘ 'q. m, s. ‘o— S ”:1” ‘I 953'" fi 0 pl ‘ - ‘V .\r._"" ~1. 'vI n éQ’E M5}- '17. ' q‘: - ‘ 11%|. , . g 3' .J I. ‘ . a . ”with; Mu ‘ JI 'Jfi' "‘Q I'll .va " ‘5.“ "O “ ”7" ‘.'-‘U0-‘ 'J ' .' 2‘ h ' “”53 . ‘ Q1 . "Lu ‘rb‘ -' ‘ J‘“ J ' -.' d “J ’ < " u"' if.“ 3 0 ' J " a V» ' f‘. u-“ 7'" ".‘u ' ' C ‘ - g . . {,9q 5. ‘I'I L31}. '..' w) * . A . . ~ «L. -- ~. ' ‘1: "1'9: -~... ‘0 t‘ tn Q “ “b 5‘“ I... 4 I ~. V . ‘ 1' \ Dv,‘ ”'*u“'" — . ‘ 'f‘~.""""'.1‘1,,'1‘“ v . m... f' 1‘ Q Q.» 1' ‘1‘. A. muv - ' T '1: 3:. 24K - y? 3‘»: "mt; :1- If“ W7“; 5‘17: m '~ » s 3415 a? J: "a 65-17 ' 1‘; ".m’lmn“ "in ‘v. +2.?Otflflr "'9'. "k‘:“:. m N‘ "z .2‘ JTJ“. 2’5. 3 v. Q‘ 1, Q‘.‘ .' b IL“::‘V «\1;..\‘\‘ . ‘ ‘4 ” .N:\r't~" - ' 0" u' 1" 'Q ., ‘ ‘ ."‘ ' . "1 ‘59 A , J 1 F":;:‘§f‘-:’£‘:V~‘ :5; 5‘ Q: f:f"“““ 1 -¢ 1‘ “a. I ‘5. ‘1‘“ I‘Efif‘I‘It.‘ _‘ H -:"‘- V‘kfl'k . ‘I‘I «(9&5 :L‘h’v' . _ 7“." ,"'y.'-: 19;:— 4. 't_ ’1'; y" 14:; IQJ‘W'.‘ ' $13”)- N ‘J “‘1‘“ ’J";{"~:" "NuLfl‘? 1... ‘fit‘ ":3 ’3 ""2 “1‘ J ‘ ' N 'H 5 ti.‘ .Ju‘ ' 1 <1. " k - Q" ~ -'~ .‘ . ' ‘ "Q9 *5 ' ‘£.° Q .1 \ 95‘ lvl ' ~ $‘ . ,v ‘ ‘4', \‘fi. .. I, “.\. . t. \ - - . *‘uz,~1"'¥‘.:y "%."'»‘5"~I~1‘~c?‘~1:v:- ‘r:. @3121 ~. v.«.'--‘:~?;;;- \w-zmfi ‘;”.ft:.f"§t7¢‘n~' 1. ~31 . q l . . 'QI “‘ . l . ‘ 1.. ‘ . n ’1 '-. I .0 ‘._ I . v f! ' 4‘. ~j:.h ' r7 .mfi‘skfi Q . : I“' J \ ”2“. i" ‘3: o 1.“ . ‘y.I ‘1 ' .5. .‘:u “J. h” 9 . ‘0. he, ~.‘\‘QH "v I . . q“, ‘:.ql‘\.'J“::"‘J"‘~’L~o‘::z\fd 1.7%". v- '1 g; V. .1 . a: 41" “NM?" “ .3 I o . a- :‘nf‘ .t‘.‘:' 9’" ‘ ~ ~,. [-4 ~ I . . I a. . ' .‘ ~ 9- .4 .“ ‘~ . _‘ 1 " . . c.- . . . I . . .I .‘ II I . . (1,. T‘NW‘J§:‘;.‘\:;¢:SJ;J.‘W'! WJJ'J‘h‘f'J ‘41:. ‘ ‘ Q.\ 1" xfikm fiv'?‘ u 1.5- 1“? X' wo‘a‘t,‘ “if.“ “‘11 ~ .1. - 1 - ~ . .-.. .2-1,..-.1.» ' ' . ' ' 5‘71sz "'33 ’ '3wa “‘7 J‘ "‘59 "1‘". ' JJ k? . J' J.) “1'3“ “3)" . .'1'~- '05-: 1‘" 1"". J,“ .‘~ ' H: - - ' JV 91.” "JL'1\JXJ,;'"‘.’.:‘.. "N?“ a” "My. 'g :N, “ v I . ‘3'...” 32' ‘2.“ 1;}: .1_ ”Qt-.1? 4.. “W3 ‘ :2; '.'-.{Y._I“so.-‘\O«'f‘ugu 13"" 1 . . I.. , . " .‘v- .. 1w '1“-- h ’ - ° o ‘9'..~I~.:II' " ' 1 W." 5‘4'1"“~W"~\ “ W ‘— " ' “ 1-. ‘1"- '- , ._Q°4 , ‘b J". ’ a .' . .‘N- > “M Q! 5 ‘4' “‘N‘n‘ . " O‘J". ' - ‘ :~. ‘1 “8.. 5‘ 1 ‘.~‘ ~“_’ ‘ “h~ '< Q. ‘5 '. ‘\w . . r-. . .- ‘I . r. v 21.“.“'~ v “v, 1- ‘ -'." ‘0. ‘0 ,.:l “‘5". . 4.,“ ”‘3- h‘fi. \Q“. 't N'.‘ \‘ w ‘- - ’. v . . :‘fi- ‘ . <-’." 1N0 ,“1 ‘ '“s‘.. '0‘ '“n f‘. ‘0. ‘0. 2‘ K :V .- “I- ‘0 'Q-" ' -HQ. ‘4‘. ‘gzk "5. a '1 ‘ ' ..|l ’- ‘ ‘\‘7 ‘x Q Q ’0 ' “1. E. ‘. “‘1 y , I'l‘ Aw. I‘. . , . '9. - N- ' 5." ' H . "O Q {Cl , 9“. I . w. 'H - . . fit f ' ‘ a ' 4‘ \ ’ . Jé.“ Wu“: 1:; again-53m. 3:; ""~ if“. J'J? 1 1 . ‘7 1123.; :35)” 1’32}: 1......2: “:5 :3"- 1 «y v~~.V,“-1 ..-- .3-,...-1.',‘I;fl- 1131.: :1. "v T .%u ‘Oufi. u.-. ’- .. n"! ' U: 31'} .. ‘ ‘ A ~.‘.fi\'-"' '91:” a... - 'T ‘hu - o ~1-"°.'-3.'w.‘..'~'~, 5 H- ‘h— ‘ ‘ ' 53¢. «1‘1": v’»~+~t'-;’~’7V* "t: 1N -. -; 'éméh' ‘ 1’?" :1".~“-~'.-«." ~1'J 3: mm‘x-N" . '1‘: :'-.41:.1 ~ 't‘k‘u'w ' Karin-«i 24 a . ' a-.,.1.. «.11.; 12-11113-- 1;» 11. W ' 1? ‘ wama‘r -~ 1% ‘1‘r‘-"~~ =- 1-11. ~ ~..~~1:1.4-r~=:w 1‘! ' .‘ .J c ‘ H‘ . 4.. I IN ‘4‘..\‘ . 4' p .|. '>.‘ "g .-Q‘ ,N n II‘ . \ p . 5..- . 1... I . I'Fb -‘ ..9 tn Ta ‘ : ~fi‘:\.;}'017§§3;“n‘ C" '1‘ ; l L‘0 ."D f‘ .=~L~§‘:J’“J“““~‘ ‘ VI‘J11;LH"JQ‘ T'JEmil‘x :33? ‘1 ‘1-31. - ~‘:§ '—:{;‘3§§n\.‘ ‘ka Lfid on ‘ Q o. 3 v _, _ - MD- I,’ r 5 I' N, . ~. ‘ . - I . q " ,.'_"'- - '.. '_ f. -,"'6 \- j. " '4 . O‘ ' ' ,'\ q I . " H‘ J J ‘ S J‘ ‘ Jim ' 0v . "‘5'“ l '5 u “‘ Jo ‘ .Tff’-‘ ‘1 r '4 J‘ J. ‘9 J‘ ' ‘ .‘11 - '\\' " J J" ' Ir. :1. ' (is ‘4; 23-1 ‘é'r‘kcf'f‘ufi. M \JJ'JE" ' [LI-tn: .3; 5. 1'.” :1: "fat?! ‘1 33.31 _:- “19:.1‘:”"-T.§;t-_;o.;~vt‘u . ' 'Q-,1,I.I'Q ' 1- _I t 1 1“. Q ' . g ,.. u‘ '~ 1 I'I ML ‘ ‘I |_- ‘ - . g ' I ' .1 ' 91‘» -.‘.;~~1..'.*:~.¢ 3.151 {14:13: 1.:°.;3~., :59 ,. --» .'~1,::‘-,1-‘.~" a». 5111' if P— m ..«.‘1z‘“‘-~-=‘¢ --.~,..~'*->1'~f 1-1ch . .“'J“J-Ju.;"".1‘lz:t': I“ .{H—.,‘fuL‘I-, §:‘\R‘.‘I,~";~: ‘.';~:-“‘II ‘ . 1" .\‘;- 151:, ;P.' ‘4\‘ ‘Iw; 33:5", "‘;\"-v .1}, 1 fi'fif'l q; -‘ u: "‘ ' at fl" 1qu --.'J-;‘_-1:,,'. Jflgv‘fiffit‘ j“. ' ' N *1 M " "4- " 1 ' ‘ "' 1. n l": .H .- “‘u 7‘. - '~ 3- a "<:- m '1 . - . x-» ‘|-‘ "s L~- . q 51"!” \,~ t 1): n \. ‘fl I‘ {fii‘J‘NJJ V. I 'c \_ I. _I 1. ~.’ . - . s» . o ‘3‘ , I.I. o L, ”qt. ‘s. ““m . 1: n- *2 . ~.,~1:.1~ a.- . .s 11. ' .,. t: - 54.31.; .21. 1 a; 1:». """is"" v m 1' . . . tsrhw _:I ‘1'. J"".v‘1‘ ‘73:.“ ‘2, “.913: III'I . w 9.. v. ”Jars; “J’s“ , '1’ "“5 ,,.. I.“ "a: t;:.._"!v‘" if. flaws? .sfl‘1 Egvfiw‘w I Ii” ."t‘ 5!;Q‘J-«th 1.1.7:. .. ‘H K H. n'~ ".1. I V "J _. r U "V'.' JJ.. ' ‘- 'J ‘1 " " ,V J J- J- " 3 J “ . -1 ' ec'w .‘ QIJ. J‘v ' fl: ’ “11‘3; J '4‘.”° ‘ “\ IM“\."-1 ' I J‘K :¥‘V\J.§"‘H’AJ v 1%.” J‘” ';\..J ‘_\q‘ 1-,»! ,_ fif‘.” . I 0-1;...14..J':3I1; - wnwu' “‘1. I ‘ 4:.» ”LN...” “‘v 1" I 3 I“). 1 . Qt‘I Q- t.a ' ”I "Itq'. | Q 9’; _ ‘21.... b: 001%. >v1.d\,'-\Jord:h. 1".“ 6%.;\., .L. .J‘Oiut .‘ .‘:.‘..-' ..‘ .9 “9‘ng I “M‘fi‘L‘. '1 47..“‘fi.’ L‘ .‘ . ”‘539‘4 v 1: 1" “.- 5"...J‘” ‘ O I I ‘0‘“. ,1. I -. 1 1 . ‘ I . _ -. , a ,, I ' . ‘ . I .- . . . - I . . . 41.1: .-:|-:\.?'£\:;11“.‘.;: 11.3-t'5yefitzml $5.115; "i-V a!» .533?" .g~.\‘.‘.f~‘I;I¢-.. all . 3?; '- fit“ "53133“ 3.5;;131.‘ 11.‘L.1‘:.,f~4\“3:? :xa. ,~‘?’~13J‘1ag_ 3;. 1:35.11 $5511”er ;,§~I;34['1:..3.pr '7‘“ C. ‘ ' .- "1 ' ‘ N’ ”1‘ Vick: "~14. J“ ‘ "- ' ‘Q ' 1 A ‘J. 1 ‘ It 1."... wits {'Pv ‘ '6']. ~ 9. " Ms ' m\ w - ‘* ...: - ' "13“! J ' .“’Q'~"J‘ 0-. --."1 't‘h ‘ “firm-45 5‘" ' JQJ 1 I)“. ' ‘ L‘Ic 3‘12: . "\s- “a J‘ “p s ‘1«. “"‘-‘-~' 'I' J ‘0‘. H ~ I « I ‘ a ‘ J ‘ ' “"- 4“ “‘1 J‘ J“ M” H 111"; J f“~ 1. ‘J 'J Q JV“ " ' ‘Wfi‘ ’- " Q ' J ‘6 35'1“" 17'" ' V . “fiw ‘0 ' ‘ "' 9" “ W?“ "1- ”‘5 d‘,“""~ ‘05 5F - 1 S 1 . v. ‘v- Q» “' "~ ”" '1 “ :3 "”‘v.- " "1 1:13,- mwfi; a}: k"".~*..,:§.::j..‘ ;- ‘1§:I.3st;.2~..u “4&3. $115223? 4117;; 3T.- h ”,3 .afi-Jmfztéi r.‘ 2*.2: -531?» “W ‘ ‘ v‘\ '0‘“ 3" "- " . ‘u 1."- "*’ {JJCIF‘V'N' "" ‘f‘a Q. \. \ J.“ 3‘3"» "'~I- ' - ‘0 'm. " '\— -w",“‘<' “~&'~‘ . ‘4‘; \.‘*n' . I"~“".'S‘JJ‘““ ‘v,.‘l 4hz¢1...~o.,~. 1~1| , ‘0'5: ‘Ian‘vI'? : than. "123“,” , “a. ... x“ t- ‘ .- .“"J 0‘ «3‘. J5!” UN...“ 1, , - Q. - 3‘” -. ‘, 'l. . " 9 £31.11?" 4“" . \d. .H "~'. 0‘ . "M t" "-LJJ' 22'" '4 ' 'V’M".""' 33'“.|~. -‘ "L "o‘a'"' ."" on" ~‘J..' " ' ."" ‘1 3J‘ I") v.11 J u‘ .53" i‘~§:4J-'",’~’-”::wauz N’E-I‘n»:~‘3:11i,71=";jq,.~ -.Q'itg'f.z'~§1£“.1l‘"g".257494915}??? Muir'éy- 11.3““.“1‘ .; iii-315%.. .‘~- ‘Qf - ‘ L ' 5 “4' f v“. . '5 . ‘g c." .. r N. . "... ;,. 'I' 1 g ‘9‘ l I‘. i. 5: \- Q.i-_‘I"loa ' J .T;\*:~"\:\~-'J?L‘J'- J‘ pk" Q :y 1"!“J‘ {'1 '.‘, ,‘ i Vck "- ri‘uf‘: (3:12...” 1% :rh-I it! :1“? 'tfl’Jt". fisJ . It “II. 1 .' 9 ~' .. Q” ”'4“. “.5 .3: “ "a” ;‘ w .V‘o“. ‘:‘~ ”5" ‘ ‘.r;,. “‘3‘. ~J'.lk ”‘1 4 n“ '1‘ U... Wr’k‘fl .‘f' ;: +J1.-_1 D ‘8' .‘P:-.'P."J J . J ' JO... N .~ In 0 Q ‘ ~”’ 4.“ ' 'Th“ . “""oI ’1 ‘3. ‘ "A H" ’ Y ”J'J .2 ‘ V ‘ "' "‘i '5 "N ‘~I .1515! -‘ >"'l .110. I K LIL"; “ ,1; ‘ ‘J 1 ' r' 0 I“J :1 J " , J ‘ ' ‘7". '° "'1' . ‘k V] ‘f ‘ " a V‘ I7) Y'II'I'L‘”. Q '“J‘S' wI. 1.‘ '21.“ Yn‘. .. :‘b II-U‘N‘, . Q;\a - "I “#4:;3f. .. 31;": 17‘1“”.2: "54'? at. ., -; W':1-'?1 9J,::‘-,J:L :JN.‘ ‘ , “Rafi Pr--..‘;".o'}..1"1'; 1h .“W n iIHx$u “1‘13”“; ‘31:??? ‘15 'JW::"“-J;J“L n: 0' '5 '1'", o I“ 173 1..” """r. '13,. :.o,\- ' 1 - 1 d . . ' 1‘ o ‘- ‘1 I. " '..-' r . ‘ ‘1“ A Q‘ .I' 5;:zgil’. 4";3 ”uni?" 3m?“ ghuz gr‘t\:rJ '5‘ng “AI”: 1;!» 2!.:19.I‘I,1';¥*;'~.:‘u|\ "4L’ffij‘fl .J.‘.b~f.1' :1.“ .J'. ‘J’; 1. (I? "If-.1: , gt 4 . 1 "In ‘ ' Q‘ o. ‘ "‘ul‘a ‘, 1 n .. . . ‘ Q. I 'h - . ‘ l ' ‘1‘ --" we»??? "-“fi u‘ 'I‘JJJ ~ ”:mfig,‘141\.;:;,,1~1¢ 141‘“ :3" "1‘ 4- ‘ 7'... :~;.~;‘1H ‘ 1 ' "'Qk-v ’ J' I "J." I.‘ Q. " JJ'Jc . i J !.'l““ ’£'. J ‘ H J;‘!~ ‘.‘\ L . ‘t C ' . W. ‘I ' J ‘ 1,"?‘55 n . . , ' :1“! . it‘lfit 'J 5 ‘, ‘u‘\$”‘ Q . 1": H J u “H.“ .‘- 0‘ ‘32:: J .9.“ ~22 : ." II. ”waft. I “NJ” 1’. ‘4 “‘3'“! ‘55“[I'1N 'Q ;o,‘ \‘h‘, 1 i3” . . 5 . 5,. J n. ? ~:‘ ~‘ ‘1‘. ‘ ~ “- "Qt. '- . ’I\. “OI ' 9 50". I“ I N ‘_ .. 1'1 ‘r F‘s ? L 04 h ‘ n ’0 ’2‘ ‘ ~ 11:25_',;..:,~f4-3:‘.;~.. *u- t .9 433,; 11t~3751£w y; 3|h‘..-u- "H1: 1': v. 5‘ 3' 15,“: h: Q.’“.' 3.. ‘9 :\-1.§~1 ; . ““ 2‘“; ‘1>.‘Q;‘.I "J Etta!) . :3) 7' t .J 0"”! I' J J: ’ "r :45. .,’ ' a. “‘4; .' ,4 .n. 1: . ”fin.“ .7 13' ;.fl‘~‘1-'.‘;!I' 'i {1‘ u.‘:"L'\.. Jib :5 ’J'JIJ’fi1fr,}J $3114" ‘[ IJ QI‘“ ’ J;." J 1. ‘ “.1: :c.‘ t? 3:;JIk‘". o M .“ ' “99 55.11;}? ~ 3 NJ“ "Wt "-v . ’ - 1 "~— ~- «.1 a "‘ .Q .n‘ i ‘0‘ '. 'K ‘I ‘.I‘,,“ U! W -‘ fi.‘-' ‘ . ' .4 I a. . 1. H . 9h. 'h. v . .III. In. "‘0' , " ’:.,._o .0. . ‘1‘: In “”4 . a.‘ P 1. a. . , “le 9'6". iaifg"2;.fif-“11QVJJE"Jl-J-Z'Jig-lJ '.Q:".,!;;.‘ }Q.‘ 7‘ L ' .- J ‘1 ‘1 . l, >‘ 1 I I. . \'- . . ." C J ', . ' fl. ' ‘Jtoc .“ ..‘:‘.:c 'J k" ‘?' l“ .'r: . I"' .1; A". 3:“ ‘. 4 ‘J lltj'. Q- 12» k . u :- ..I..I.'”_ ‘~"'¥n:" T‘ .«-1.- ~ ‘4} (fi L 'H" a _ .2». .‘x,’ Iu,'f_\- 4L4" .' .s.‘,',__ ‘ ' We". .. ' I b? .0 UN -3 ' ‘- ' ~ ' f.o“-'.“ " ‘ t- . “ Nth!" ’rv-m,1~.;1...o 1- 1 Q OD . ' W '. ' I '- n‘nu U1 ~..h "1 L ' ‘ J .M . V U , .,_ .7 m.” J" 4 ‘ .t . Q v v' - . "~,'.'".'J. ~1- ‘ J J )‘I'JJQ: 5-1314? :Jp‘ “fax "‘13:: ' I I ~ I ..-. I II _ I .iff'J‘ Y a 1 .‘J‘ I LC'JJJGIJJLJAJJJt‘)" 3‘59“", J‘Jrztfsh‘ ‘3' .L‘ . . J’YQ “;:;1N'X ". I .' . ‘ I J .'- J 'J‘ , J .J J .. ’ ' t .'.':'.' f‘ j": I... ‘1, JNQ’ " s. " ..' 5'1“? ~" ‘1‘h‘ Rd, ‘ J a) J a .l ‘— V - Q . Hf::.‘:ru.kfl:’~'h:r' p. '3)” g3:1!38’€k§:q {it h. ' i “ . ‘Q .‘ \»’;\ ' 3‘“ ~- $171..» '07 ‘8" "*‘N' ' ' ‘t J" U é?‘ “ii-nu L: Mg“ "z 93:: “*1.“ "$1”: 53%;}; "’4 1.;pv 1‘. W‘M'JJ ,.I . I 12 2%; v»- w J “e If.“ J‘ . r13!“ ‘ I ‘ c \g-nAF-M If ‘14'1111‘!’ " “flair. A p glIC‘PS w _ -——— ‘.—___‘ ‘ _ - ‘— -- v ——...___ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. a- . 4. In In: t .9..in “3...an .3. .1. ANT I - I31 PERIA LI ET I C SEE?" IIIEZTT 12' THE UNITED STATES, 1898-—1902 Nick J. Rajkovich m —1934- Submitted in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applie' Science. THFQI? Approved for the Department of History and Political Science déLcaazuéflZL324/“331‘ Acknowledgement The author wishes to eXpress his gratitude to Professor E. B. Lyon for his helpful sugg stions and guidance in writing this essay. Outline I. Introduction A. Imperialism 1. Definition of Imperialism’/ a. The Old Imperialism b. The New Imperialism 2. Economic background of Imperialism a. Causes for American Imperialism b. Economic position of the United States at the time of the Spanish-American War B. Historical sources and expressions of Anti- Imperialistic Sentiment, 1789—1898 1. Declaration of Independence 2. Republicanism 3. Washington's Farewell Address 4. Lincoln's ideas 5. Cleveland's ideas C. The meaning of Anti-Imperialism in the United States 1898-1902 1. Effects of the Spanish-American War on Imperialistic and Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment II. Development of Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment following the Spanish-American War, 1899-1902 A. The Imperialistic program following the Peace of Paris, 1899 1. Factors or influences at work 2. Strength of the movement a. Leaders b. Interested groups c. Public Opinion 3. Main arguments .J B. Reaction to the program of Imperialism /i 1. Sources of Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment, 1898-1902 6’ 2. Strength of the Anti-Imperialistic Influence I a. Leaders and their influence i.b. Anti-Imperialistic Leagues a (1) Origin and purpose 5 (2) Nature of the organization (Y)(a) Number and membership if" ;(b) Methods (1(3) Their activities I3(4) Importance g} c. Anti-Imperialism as expressed by press and pulpit I, U d. The literature of Anti-Imperialism III“. The Argument: of the Anti-Imperialists 7.A. Arguments fl} 1. Constitutional I a. Constitutionality of territorial expansion a. (1) Earlier precedents 1 -{ (2) Supreme Court Decisions 2. b. Does the Constitution follow the flag? 11(1) Occasion for the question 5 (2) Supreme Court Decisions 0 2. Economic / a. Cost of maintaining the Dependencies 4/ (1) Increase in army and navy apprOpriations “6 (2) War dangers 2_b. Effect on our labor and industry “a (1) The question of tariff 6 (2) Immigration 3. Political I a. Attack on the jMcKinley autocracy 1 4.‘ Humanitarian ’ a. Loss of life by coercive means of keeping order 1 b. Disease ” 5. Social f a. Environment and the standards of the Filipinos $.11) Filipino inferiority ; b. People of Cuba and Porto Rico 2" B. Comparative strength of the arguments .u—\‘_ R” IV. Anti-Imperialism as an issue in the Election of 1900 A. The Democratic Party Platform of l900 l. The Anti-Imperialist plank a. Authorship b. Purpose c. Content B. Attitude of the Republican Party 1. Imperialism and the Republican ‘arty 2. Republican Platform of 1900 C. Efforts of the Democrats to make Anti-Imperialism the major issue of the Election 1. Iampaign speeches of Bryan and other Democrats 2. Ineffectiveness of Democratic efforts as reflected in the election V. Decline of Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment after 1900 A. Reasons B. Evidence of waning interest VI. Conclusions 'Imperialism does not have the same connotation for all peeple and sundry interpretations have been given to it. The Anti-Imperialists in the United States gave it a meaning all of their own between the years of loud-lsos. To some of these imperialism meant merely the subyugation of millions of peeple throughout tne vast provinces under one despotic ruler;l to others it meant territorial expansion along with wide contacts and control;‘ to others it meant tyranny, scrambling for land, and stultification of the principles of the repuolic.° while these definitions were acceptacle to the anti-imperialists, a more comprehensive meaning of imperialism may as stated as, "that national policy wnicn tends toward the extension of political, economic, and intellectual dominion, over regions geographically situated beyond the national oounuaries>"* Historically there have been two types of imper- ialism- the Old Imperialism and the New Tmperialism. ~-‘m-“' fi ‘ -mo- 1. J.C.Fernald, "Imperial Republic", p. o. a. B. Wilson, "New America", p. cl. 6. Toio., p. 5s. a. H. U. FdUluneP, "American Economic History", p. 618. .,. .I.. . .. .1. it; In mouern history the Old Imperialism began in EurOpe with the discovery of the new routes to the Far East during the latter part of the Fifteenth Century and lasted approainately until the conclusion of the Nap— oleonic Era in 1s15. Mercantilism played a large part in promoting imperialism because the colonies served as sources of raw materials and as markets for home products. The desire for raw materials and new and larger maraets were the great factors in promoting colonization in both of tne Americas.5 The technique of the Old Imperialism involved the acquisition of land and its colonization by the nation wnicn acquired it. This technique was consistently carried out by the United States from 1785 to laws by large acquisitions of territory brought about by the Louisiana Purchase (1606), tne purchase Of FlOrida (1519), the annexation of Texas (1645), Oregon Territory (1846), Cessions of the Mexican Aar (1646), the Gadsoen Purchase (1853), and the purChase of Alaska (18-57).6 It was in short an "Agrarian Imperialism". After 1670 the New Imperialism supplanted the ng Imperialism. ‘he Egg Im e ialism was largely the result of the Industrial Revolution. Mouern Capitalism called for not only new sources of raw materials and 5. Ibid., p. 610. 6. 1mm, p. 62.0. “d‘ - 'J i'li ‘11.. e } -.I. afil. .I. markets out also new opportunities for the profitable investment of its capital surpluses. Capitalistic influences tended to control and guide the foreign policies of all mouern states which had undergone the . 7 Industrial Revolution. The Chief cause of American imperialism was economic. Surplus Locus, as well as accumulated funds and capital, had to find in the course of time an out- side outlet. The Industrial Revolution had caused a Ureater production of economic C,oods and as a result, there was a seeking of new sources of raw material as well as foreign marsets. Other stimulating motives were the desire for oreater national prestige and power coupled with the Christian missionary zeal. In fact the Christian missionaries frequently blazed the trail for economic and iinanc1a1 penetration. At the time of the Spanish-American War, America was enJOying an era of prosperity. Population, prOduction, and capital «ere increasing immensely. In the period from lddO to 1698, the value of exports of manufactured ., ., ,. , p ._ v goons increased from *VJ,QQO,UOO to asso,000,000. From 1670 to 1900, the pOpulation of the United States increased 97p. In this same period numerous other 0 ‘ * increases inuprquqtron were made. * wheat s36,000,000 bushels to 522,000,000 bushels; corn 1,194,000,000 bushels to z,105,000,000 bushels; cotton 4,65s,000 bales to 10,000,000 bales; petroleum 521,000,000 gallons to 2,672,000,000 gallons; coal za,000,000 tons to 641,000,000 tons; pigeiron 1,6654000 tons to 15,780,000 tonsg-g~-, 7. Ibid., p. 630. 6. Ibid., p. 651. H. W. E. Weyl, "American World Politics", p. 47. .[t‘ft‘ ”I." D’hv.fih’. Iflvllu: C“.I’" , .0 .0 . Statistics show . that the United States had plenty of natural resources and was ready to exploit them.1Q The United States was second only to Russia in the amount of preductive land, while she was first in the amount of land actually under cultivation. The United States possessed thirty per cent of the world's iron; one-half of the wOplQ'S coal; and had unrealized supplies of water power, COpper, and petro- leum.ll Nine-tenths of the American products, however, were consumed at home while only one-tenth Has exported. In 1898, the one-tenth exported amounted to @1,310,291,913. This fact presented a strong argument for the cultivation of foreign markets which shortly became so important to the Americans.136 But the acquisition of markets did not mean territorial anneaation necessarily and it was the actual annexation policy that the Anti-Imperialists so strongly opposed. The Anti-Imperialists reached back into American history for precedents to Justify their attitude. The Declaratio; of Independence was seized upon as a buttress in initiating their attack. That document reCOgnized no superiority of peOples nor superiority of rule. Tt ap- proved no government whose power was not in pOpular “ fv'O‘I-N-‘ A ~~'~-.._-—'~—- 10. H. U. Faulkner, op. cit., p. 621. 11. Ibid., p. 652. 12. Toid., p. has. Ibol....vlvh. I. p51. .H ..u...\-.hu1fy.|f ,. . .Ivl.l E‘s» O"... Washington's policy of isolation gave the Anti- Imperialists another precedent upon which to launch their program of opposition. In his addresses they found several statements which matched their ideas and on these they hoped to build up a strong case. Drawing from one of his addresses they concluded that washington was not in favor of any political connections with foreign nations or any artificial ties.l4 Wash- ington had stated: "I have always given it as my decided Opinion that no nation has a right to inter- meddle in the internal concerns of another; that every- one has a right to form and adOpt whatever government they line best to live under themselves."15 The question of republicanism also gave the Anti- Tmperialists an argument on which to defend their stand. If America was to remain a republic it could not be an empire for the following reasons: first, if territory is acquired, the peOple or their lawful authorities must have freely consented to it; second, when a territory and people are transferred, it snould be with the understanding that it became a part of the United States with equality and rights of citizensnip with the rest r“ of the states. The imperialists, however, did not intend to Uive these rights to the new territories and 150 Arena, V01. ZS, p. 3550 Iforei'atklers’" p. 14 14. C.F.Adams, "Imperialism and the Tracts of our 15. Senate Executive Documents, 56 Cong, Sees. 1, No.453 "'1‘1 '45-: .Efl“. .i v Nil. Eugvt.‘ll[lllul I. .1?! if...“ .V. . I m. their peOple, therefore, this procram was not in harmony with American Republican ideas and instit- utions.l° 'hhenever anyone's liberty has been at stake Lincoln's ideas and policies have usually been brought forth in the defense of the Oppressed group. The Anti-Imperialists used LinCOin's ideas to build up their offense relative to the newly acquired territories. They based their arbuments on the fOllOWiné Lincoln's statements: (1) ."No man is good enoubh to L,overn another without that man's consent." This according to Lincoln was the "sheet anchor of American Republicanism." (a) "When a white nan governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs 17 (:5) "That inferior people are given as many rights and himself and another man, that is despotism." privilebes as they can enjoy, and as much as their condition will allow." Lincoln stated that kings always made these arguments; "they always bestrOde the necks or the people- not that they wanted to do it, but because people were better off for being ridden."18 At the time of Grant's election in 1868, there began to be some mention of "Empire" in the United States. However, it was questioned Whether the 4‘...‘ -v—-O-"‘.'- 16. S. G. Boutwell, "The Crisis of the Republic", p. 124 17. ngth American Bevieg, vol. 168, p. 1372. 13. Senate Executive Documents, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., No. 453, vol. 56. ,nfllinnwilhlw..-'rrr‘.iljl, . ‘4 “NJ...” the Bepublig could be overthrown to give way to an Empire. Most of the peOple were indifferent to the idea of empire.19 A considerable group of peOple maintained that concentratin; too mucn power in the central Uovernment would make it imperialistic. As early as April 3, 1670, there appeared a paper called "Imperialist" published in New York. This paper advocated Caesarism, personified in a military dictatorship responsible to the public Opinion only. It spohe or the United States as the "Empire of the West." This paper appeared for twenty successive weeas and then disappeared as suddenly as it had appeared.ao The next precedent for Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment was expressed by Grover Cleveland in his withdrawal of the annexation of Hawaii treaty from the Senate, March 9, 1695.‘ In his message to Congress he stated his reason for withdrawal to be that the pro- posed treaty "contemplated a departure from unbroken seaside- in QLEiQ - v -‘ in providing for the addition to our territory of islands of the sea more than two thousand miles removed from our nearest coast."21 Cleveland based his opinion upon those two old ‘w‘. ~_fi - *— #-—.-.-_~ 19. Galax , vol. 6, p. 657. 20. Ibid., p. 656. s1. A. Nevins, "Grover Cleveland", p. 560. pullers: (1) traditional isolation espoused ever since the time of hashincton, and (2) the necessity of Edacinb ational honor above motives of greed. Cleveland acted from a moral viewpoint with both courage and wiscom. He showed nigh aims and honorable motives.gb Grover Cleveland was not the only statesman who was Opposed to the annexation of Hawaii. Senator Hoar, of Massacnusetts, was not so much op_osed to the annexation of Hawaii as to the spirit in which it was to be annexed. He explained his grounds of Opposition in the following excerpt: "Tf this is to be the first step in acquiring dominion in the distant seas; if we are to take part in plundering China and dividing Africa; if we are to force our commerce on unwilling peoples; if we are to Cavern subyects and vassal states. . . . . then let us resist this thing in the beginning, and let us resist it to death."‘5 Hoar was not only in cpfcsiticn then but became inost active When the Philippine question arose later. His influence at this later period will be considered later. After the Spanisn-American War, both the Imperial- jdatic and the Anti-Imperialistic sentiments began to brow. The war aroused a feeling of strength in the 'MH - —u__.q.- fin.»_, 62. Ibid., p. 561. 23. G. F. Hoar, "Autociobraphy of Seventy Years", vol. II, p. ice. .. “1.5V. . lifirlulylllwu min, ”n 9 ‘1'. ...a I! b“... q .~ United States which until now had been latent. The warcxmned American eyes to new horizons and suggested alum outlet for the excess energy of the still youth- Iul nation. It made Americans confident in dealing with new proclems. It made the people willing to give up their idea of isolation and plunge into the fray of internationalism. The people Ielt as though they had been fOrCed to enter world affairs even if they contin- ued to cherisn some of their ideals of isolaticnsa4 The country was united until the question arose as to what was to be done with the victory of the war. As a result of this question Imperialists and Anti- Imperialists came to the front to answer the question.“‘)'5 The Anti-Imperialists condemned the annexation of the Hawaiian Tslands for the same reasons that Cleveland advanced at the time when he withdrew the treaty of annexation from the Senate on March 9, 1693.56 Their argument emphasized the fact that the United States .had enough to do at home without squandering its energy with colonies; but the Imperialists retorted that a state never has too many outlets for its energy and the [Hlited States was not fettered by previous mistakes in colonizin5.z7 Perhaps the greatest point of argument in the perdxxi from 1699 to 1902 was the question of the Philli- —“‘—v"— i 24” .A. C. Coolidoe, "United States as the World Power", p. 162. s5. Tbid., p. 154. 26. Ibid., p. 155. Zr 0 Ibiuo, p0 1360 C. 10 ppines. The Anti-Imperialists, ho.~.ever, insisted tiiat. the Filipinos should be given their independ- ence immediately and also presented reasons for such action wnich will he discussed later. The Imperial- ists firmly held that the Filipinos were not ready for independence oecause they were not able to meet the political and economic ooliuations which char- acterize a sovereign state. Still another reason, far more important, was the economic value of the Philippines to the United States.“ 1.8. Ibid, p. 159. 11 II I The growth of American Imperialism was due to the similar factors which caused imperialism in Europe. These were as follows: 1(1) new inventions created a surplus, (2) new sources of raw material were needed,29 (3) there was a. congestion of wealth and capital which needed an eutiet.3°' American wealth increased rapidly* and due to the congestion the capitalist was forced to invest abroad.ti By 1900, the value of manufactured goods increased to eighteen and four-tenths billions of dollars. All these goods could not be used at home so they had to be sold abroad.53 Fourth, British diplomatic attitude was favorable to American Imperialism because they feared that Germany might get new possessions in the Pacific which would prove a serious rival to England. It was safer to have the Philippines in the possession of the D United States than in German possession.)4 ‘The total wealth of the United States in 1870 was $53¢xm,ooo,ooo and in 1890 it was 388.000.000.000-31 uIn1890 the United States had invested $500,000,000 in foreign securities. At the same time there were $500,000,000 of foreign securities in the United States, chiefly in railroads. 129.3.U. Faulkner, op. cit., p. 650. 30. W.E.Weyl, "American World Policies ," pp. 47-49. :51. Nearing and Freeman, "Dollar Diplomacy," p. 5. -.,32. Ibid., p. 11. 33.1b1d., 'p. 2. 34. F.H.Giddings, op. cit., p. 285. Ii!» 1 12 Imperialism was not a popular issue with the majority of the American people but it had the hearty support of the McKinley Administration. McKinley was an ardent supporter of imperialism in spite of the fact that he first was opposed to forcible annexation. In 1897 he said: “I speak not of forcible annexation, for that cannot be thought of. That by our code of morality would be criminal aggression."35Q When the time came to make a final decision it was difficult for McKinley to make up his mind. At one time he was almost ready to let the Philippines go. On one occasion McKinley told a group of clergymen that night after night he would walk the floors and then get on his knees and pray “Almighty God" for light and guidance. Then all at once it came to him to keep the Islands and educate, uplift, civilize, and Christianize them to the best of the American ability}6 7Now that he had made up his mind he became a devout annexationist and struggled for its cause. In one of his speeches he remarked that the war had brought these new duties upon the United States, and that we must meet and discharge them as a great nation.37h Further; he commented that the Philippines, like Cuba and Porto Rico, were entrusted to the United States by war, and that "We could not discharge the L35. E. Atkinson, "Anti-Imperialist," p. 2. «g36. J. Carter, "Conquest: America's Painless Imperialism," p. 93. “,37. J.F.Rhodes, "McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations," p. 108. responsibilities upon us until these colonies became ours, either by conquest or treaty."38!j When McKinley sent the Eeace Commission to Paris, he instructed them to keep only Luzon but later he sent them a cable to the effect that the whole Archepelago should be acquired.39fl In 1898, McKinley, by making a tour of the West, won over a large part of its population to the idea of permanent dominion of the United States over the Philippines. The enthusiasm received on this tour made McKinley feel that the peOple wanted the Philippines and he became more willing to resort to forcible annexation;4o“ Theodore Roosevelt, likewise, was a staunch imperialist; but his imperialism was that of an opportunist. he was devoted to national defense and national strength was his motto. He held that neither friendliness with other nations nor their good will can take the place of national self—reliance. He at one time stated that: "Diplomacy is utterly useless where there is no force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master, of the soldier."41 Roosevelt differed from.McKinley in that he was not in favor of annexation but of extending greater influence in the Caribbean. He stated: "We have not the slightest desire to secure any territory at the expense of any of '3 our neighbors."42 In another address he stressed the 38. H.U.Faulkner, op. cit., p. 625. ' 39. J.F.Rhodes, op. cit., p. 102. 40. G.F.Hoar, op. cit., p. 312. ,x41. H.C.Hill, "Roosevelt and the Caribbean," p. 201. ,'420 I id... P. 209. I]II|I|II1|IIIIIIIIIIIIII la pdnttettme United States had no intention of annexing hiurmhher by neCOtiations nor by force. Even if the Inqueofthis island should desire to be annexed to the IhhccSWies the National Government would not be inclined - a5 1': to accept this prOposition. " fwmmvelt's imperialistic attitude is further ex- pramedin his correspondence with Senator Henry Cabot hmgeoftmssachusetts. In one of his letters Roosevelt cmmmnum on the letter he had receiVed from Carl Schurz, 0.1% Ammm, and Welsch, relative to the Philippines. Tn commenting he remarked: If I had to write a L,eneral answer to their letter, Iaumld either send them a copy Of my Arlington speech cu'else take their individual hides. The latter would cw what I should like to do, but I hardly think it is worth while dignifying them. There is one consolation, newever: I should line to keep this anti-imperialistic issue to the fore in the Congressional campaign, for if it is made the main issue we can certainly beat the Lcmocrats out of their boots.*‘.“i This indicated clearly that the only reason why Roosevelt wanted imperialism for an issue was for a pol- itdxxrl purpose. With imperialism as an issue, he knew tduat tdue Repuolicans could carry the election. Sexnitor A. J. Beveridge of Indiana was one of the Great test supporters of imperialism. He made a special trxip> tC) tale Philippines to study conditions first Land, anu to C,8. titer proof why the Philippines should be retained at}. 121310. , p. le. 1%. H. C. Ledge, "Selections from Correspondence of 'I'neoeiore Roosevelt," p. 52.1. I. l- o fl'wlllqv - It: I'Ilnllnillhlsl'lhtlllnaé. 15 by the United States. He also made a trip to Pussia to study the technique of imperialism there and the value of it. He empressed himself very explicitly in his speech in the Senate given after his return from the Philippines: Mr. President, the time calls for candor. The Philippines are ours fOrever: 'territory belonging to the United States' as the Constitution calls them. And just oeyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. he will not retard from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the Archipelago. We will not acandon our Opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustees ung r God, of the civilization of tne world. And we willamove forward to our work, not howling out rebrets like slaves whipped to their burdens, but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength and thanksgiving to Almighty God that he has marked us as his chosen peOple, henceforth to lead in tne rebeneration of tne world.*“,, In further advocating imperialism, Beveridte held that the United States produced a surplus which made necessary foreign markets. A colonial pregram would make new markets.&b};8everidbe's one ambition for the United States was the adeption of an imperialistic policy. ACCOrané to nis belief, no obstacle should prevent the Administration from accepting this policy. Imperialism was a fetish with Beveridbe. The Anti-Imperialists, however, thoubht differently. They oroubht forth numerous arguments against such a pregram among which was the constitutionality of Imperialism. Beveridbe assumed the defensive immed- iately and with his "Speecn on Constitutionality" aroused the pepular feeling wnich carried forth the Imperialistic probram to its fruition. Drawing from this speech on the 45. C. G. Bowers, "Beveridbe and the Pregressive Era," p. 119. (26. Ibido, p. 15%. I. .‘ .nl. c s .. 1|'.\wh.[i|b|0.?.b.liu taint.“ . _ Constitutionality he remarked in part: Give posterity a clean future. Stretch no treaty yrdniuitions across our tide of time. Clear the way for the cominb race. Give the children of today and the Children yet unhorn the liberty to solve their questions of their Own day in their own way. How awful is the egotism that would fasten about the brow of the \" future venerations the steel hand of our little thought! He further continued to state that the present Leneration could not foresee all the problems that would arise and sacely remarked that our forefathers had solved the prowlems of their contemporary circumstances, and in QOins so "they discovered new powers in tne Constitution undreamed of by men who "POLe that immortal document."47ale Senator OliVer H. Platt of Connecticut was another enthusiastic Imperialist. He thoubht the Anti-Imperialistic arguments preposterous and almost lacking in patriotism. In his letter of August 5, less, to McKinley, he wrote that nine-tenths of the peOple of Connecticut favored retention of the Philippines. He was sure that the best people had a favoradle attitude toward retention.%5 { Platt presented plainly his reasons for keepinfi the Phil- ippines. They were: (1) Spain had lost her sovereignty in the Philippines and tie United States only remained there-— the Lnited States was forced to take them; (a) the United States could not Live up all it had L,aine“. It could not Live up the authority, 1QDOP8 duty and sense of Q. ”wfi‘M-“r- .4. — _ - ~ ~ ~_ é']. Ibiao, p0 1‘10. ‘3730 Inigo, p. 1‘15. so. A. C. COOline, "Oliver Platt: An Old Fashioned Senator" p. ‘36:). l7 obligation, and allow chaotic conditions to continue in the Philippines; (3) "Trade follows the flag" and civiliza- If‘ 1 tion follows trade.4** Upon presenting tnese arguments, [0 Senator Hoar of Kassachusett asked if the government did not derive its power from the consent of the governed. Platt answered him affirmatively: that government did derive its power from the consent of some people but not the consent of all the people. He illustrated his point by citing the District of Columbia as an example.50\‘4 Senator Lodge was an advocate of Imperialism and strugaled persistently for its promotion. He desired the United States to retain its newly acquired possessions for several reasons: (1) for economic reasons, and (2) he felt that it was a moral duty.51. Davis, Reed, Frye and numerous other leaders advocated the same policy.52 Z The army and the navy were interested because the national defense was involved. Both Admiral George Dewey and Captain Mahan were proponents of a program of expansion. Mahan pointed out that the United States could not safely remain aloof forever. He shrewdly saw the value of sea power and the possession of strategic naval bases.53 1 Another interested element in the furtherance of imperialism was the concentrated capital and consolidated business groups of the nation. The National City Bank of 49. Ibid. p. 290. 50. Ibid., p. 298. El. Fulton and Trueblood, "Patriotic Eloquence," p. 199. 52. J. F. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 103. 53. C. 3. Fish, "American Diplomacy,” p. 243. \l, 18 vNew York and the Standard Oil Company were splendid examples of a faction who primarily saw economic advantages,54 The religious groups were considerably divided on the issue of imperialism. Even the bishops in the same church could not always agree. W.C.Doane, Bishop of the American Protestant Episcopal Church, stated that it was "Cod's will" that the United States replace the Spanish rule; while Bishop H.C.Potter, of the same Church saw "Cod's will" differently, and questioned the right of the United States to oust Spain.55 “d" In 1898, McKinley made a tour of the West and found that the peeple were enthusiastic over imperialism; but up to this time the Conservatives had not voiced their opinion.56 The general public was indifferent to the idealism of the Declaration of Independence and the ethical principles involved in the Philippines. They were more interested in the higher prices of wheat and hogs, higher wages, and better living conditions.57x Any policy which kept their dinner pails filled was the policy they wished to pursue. The imperialistic arguments as presented by the foregoing interested parties were almost self-evident. They were as follows: (1) commercial expansion—-America produced a great surplus and foreign markets were necessary 54. H.U. Faulkner, op. cit., p. 635. 55. Earth Ame:ican.Bszisn, vol. 168, p. 1366. 56. G.F. Hoar, op. cit., p. 312. 57. C.G. Bowers, op. cit., p. 135. 19 to dispose of the excess production. Colonies made markets and Opened other markets;58 (2) seizure of the Philippine Archipelago gave the United States a splendid opportunity to keep an "open door" in the Far East. It also gave the United States an opportunity to carry on economic development in the tropics; 59 (3) it was urged that it was the American duty to take over these Islands for the benefit of the oppressed people who were under the tyrannical Spanish rule.60 The imperialists based their arguments on tradition. They stated that Washington had been the first nationalist and while he had advised the citizens of the United States to keep clear of foreign entanglements, he had not advised the United States citizens to reject helpful alliances. Imperialism, however, had received no mention in any of Washington' 3 addresses.63 The imperialists held that the United States had always been a colonizing power and proved their argument by citing the American territorial acquisitions.623 They claimed that the Constitution had never been strictly adhered to literally, and that the American tndian had never been given serious consideration in the acquisition of national domain.63 Since these were the established precedents, imperialists did not feel that they were violating the Constitution. \/3 Finally, the imperialists argued that the expansion would increase American power and prestige abroad especially 58.1bid., p. 134 9159. F. A. Giddings,8 op. cit. p. 283- 6o. .natipn, vol. 6, p. 616. 61. Egznm, vol. 28, p. 20. 62. C.Goolid e, op. cit., p. 136 63. d ' , vol. 51, p. 348. 20 in case of war. Extending American power and prestige was a patriotic policy. The United States could not lead an isolation policy any longer.63 But the Imperialistic program was met by a stubborn opposition on the part of the Anti-Imperialists. The groups who were strict adherents of the Declaration of Independence and the strict constructionists of the Constitution constitu- ted the main supporters of the anti-imperialistic sentiment. The Democratic Party carried the banner of this group. The church became a source of opposition as well as support to Imperialism. Another Opponent of over-seas expansion was the American Federation of Labor, which was ably represented by President Samuel Gompers. Likewise economic interests representing tobacco, sugar, and agricultural interests arrayed themselves against such a program by circulating petitions.65 The Anti-Imperialist movement first took definite form on June 15, 1898 at Faneuil Hall in Boston. It was organized "To protest against the adoption of the so- called Imperial Policy of the United States." This group felt that a war of liberation might end with a war of conquest and therefore was beginning to take necessary precautions.6633The organization became active.for the first time in the Congressional Election of 1898. The people were urged to vote for.‘nti-1mperialist candidates. 64. Her h Amaziaan Belles. volo 168. p. 1363. 65. Independent. vol. 51. p. 348. A 66. Ibid., p. 347. ?— ,—2 1‘ 2.. .- wu: ~11...-.g: e x:- 21 The results of this election were to serve as a measuring stick of the comparative strength of the two factions. The election proved to be a complete victory for the Republicans --the McKinley Administration.57fl¢l- The Anti-Imperialists had numerous outstanding political leaders. First of these was Senator Hoar of Massachusetts who had furnished the greatest opposition to the annexation of Hawaii. It was through him that the anti-imperialist petitions were presented in the United States Senate. He was not, however, the mouth piece of the League but merely in sympathy with it.68 When Senator Beveridge of Indiana delivered his Speech on Imperialism in the Senate on January 9, 1900, Senator Hoar made the following reply: . . . . Yet Mr. President, as I heard his eloquent description of wealth and glory and commerce and trade, I listened in vain for those words which the American people have been wont to take upon their lips in every solemn crisis of their history. I heard much calculated to excite the imagination of the youth charmed by the dream of Empire. But the words Right, Freedom, Duty, were absent, my friend must permit me to say, from that eloquent speech. I could think of this brave young Republic of ours listening to what he had to say, of but one occurance: "The devil taketh him up to an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them: and saith unto him, all these things will I give to thee, if thou will fall down and worship me, T2en saith Jesus unto him, Get thee behind me; Satan." 9 In his opposition to the annexation of Hawaii, Hoar had previously emphasized this fact:--that annexation of 67. T.F.Paxson, "Recent History of the United States," p.260. 68. W11. V01- 51. p.348. 69. C.Bowers, op. cit., p. 122. Hamil would only add thirteen-hundredths of one per cent totle pOpulation of the United States and eighty—four hun— dredes cf one percent to its territory; and for this gain theicountry would have to mix in with foreign powers.70 William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, the Democratic Party leader, was also an active member of the anti- imperialist organization. In his numerous speeches he attacked imperialism from every possible angle. Bryan argued that: "Imperialism might expand the nation's territory, but it would contract the nation's purpose. It is not a step forward toward a broader destiny; it is a step backward, toward.a nanow View of kings and emperors."71 He also added that the fruits of imperialism should be left to monarchies but that citizens of a republic should not partake.72 In further building up his case he noted the groups opposed to imperialism which were referred to in.a brief quotation from his speech: "The flag sentiment was against it, the evangelical church was against it on foreign missionary grounds, and "business" was against it because business was entirely content with'the present situation.and fearful of any change."73 But in spite of hard work and speeches he was referred to as "the evdfil genius of theiAnti-Imperialistic Cause.”74 Bryan‘s Carl Schurz deserves mention as a leader of Anti- 70. G. F. Hoar, "Hawaii," p. 5. 7lu.‘W. J. Bryan, "Republic or Empire," p. 27. 72. Ibid., p. 28. '73. {The Annals of American Academy of Pol. and Social Sci., vol. 18., p. ll. 71+. C. M. Fuess, Carl Schurz: Reformer, p. 366. 23 imperialistic forces. .His greatest point of attack was the American attitude toward the Philippines. He proposed that the Philippines should be made neutral territory. He believed that the American.trade could be increased with the islands without actually possessing them in the political sense.75 In his speech, "The Policy of Imperial- ism," he pled for the cause of American honor and self respect, American interests, American democracy, and the cause of American people against imperialistic administration of our public affairs. He summed up "true patriotism" as "Our country-owhen right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."76 0n Washington's Birthday Anniversary of 1900, Schurz accused “cKinley of a "breach of faith" with the Filipinos. He remarked: "If we permit the great wrong attempted by the Administration to be consumhted, our moral credit with the world will be gone forever.“77 Schurz did not confine himself to speeches alone but he published numerous articles in the Independent and W W.” He wrote editorials for W .flgekly through which.he tried to appeal to reason. He argued strongly against the Spanish American War; and after it was consummated he warned the rresident in allowing the policy of the United States to degenerate 75.. C.Schurz, PQJiQI 9f Imperialism, p. 21. '76. Ibid., p. 27. 77. C.M;Fhess, op. cit., p. 361. 78. Ibid., p. 354- 24 into "greedy ambition, conquest, self-aggrandizement."79 W.B.Cockran, a lawyer, politician, and a Republican Congressman from iiew York, was a firm Anti-Imperialist, although in 1896 he had campaigned for McKinley. In one of his anti-imperialistic speeches he remarked in speaking of imperialism: "It wonfrt pay politically, it won't pay financially, it won't pay in glory, and it won;t pay in profit." He further continued by saying: "I would rather be a traitor with Edmunds and Bontwell, and Reed, and Sherman, and Hoar, than a patriot with Hanna or Lodge or McKinley . " 8 O 37 [Ex—President Harrison was not in favor of imperialism, but he remained silent on the issue. However, after Senator Beveridge's speech on the "Constitutionality of Imperialism" Harrison made the following reply: "I have no argument to make against territorial expansion, but I do not, as some do, look to expansion as the safest and most attractive avenue of national development." He maintained (1) that through American advantage in natural resources, food products, transportation facilities, and economy in production, America would replace England and would take the trade away from her colonies; (2) "the Central and South American States, assured of our purpose not only to respect, but to defend, their autonomy, and (1., p. 251. ’79. hi 80. .B.Cockran, "In the Name of Liberty," p. 18. I W , 'r-m . 25 fhnung that peace and social order which a closer and larger cmmmrcial intercourse with the world will bring over to our commune a field, the full development of which will realize the El Dorado. hail to Colombia, the home of the free, from which only freedom can go out."83 Moorfield Storey undoubtedly was one of the most devout and active of the Anti-Imperialists. He stood for equal rights for the Filipinos and in order to make his case appear stronger he always quoted Lincoln. He felt that the war with Spain could have been averted if McKinley had resisted the pressure of "the yellow journals and the Jingoes" of his time?2 In 1905, Storey was elected President of the Anti-Imperialist League and in 1920 he still held that office.83 / There were others who should be mentioned as prominent in the Opposition camp, namely: Andrew Carnegie, steel magnate; John Carlisle, ex-secretary of the Treasury; W. Edincott, Ex-Secretary of War; H.S.Pingree, former Mayor of Detroit, and later Governor of Michigan; John Sherman Congressman from Ohio, ex-Secretary of Treasury and ex- Secretary of State; Benjamin Tillman, Senator from South Carolina; S. Bowles, editor and publisher of the Springfield jgzgnpliggn, (Massachusetts); David Starr Jordan, President of Leland Stanford Jr. University; E.B.Smith, Professor at Northwestern University—~lecturer and reformer; and T.L.Cuyler 81. C. Bowers, op. cit., p.144. 82. Mark A.D. Howe, Portrait of an Independent: Moorfield Storey, p. 195. 83. Ibid., p. 197. squat... 1|... \IT.IIII1:IOI lull.‘.|'|.1.lllfiVrilii th 26 Presbyterian minister of Brooklyn.84 The first step toward the organization of the ‘nti- immnualists was taken on June 2, 1898, by Gamaliel Bradford, of Boston, a descendent of William Bradford, the earliest governor of Plymouth Colony. 0n this date a letter written by G. Bradford and entitled "A Cry for Help" appeared in the Benton 31mins Winn. The letter called for a meeting in the Faneuil Hall for the purpose of protesting against the war. There had been calls for a meeting ofthis type previously, but there had been no response 085 t In response to this letter a meeting was held on Wednesday, June 15, 1898 at Faneuil Hall, Boston, in order to oppose the imperialistic attitude of the United States. At the meeting G. Bradford presided while Moorfield Storey and Rev. Charles Ames, Unitarian clergyman of Dorchester, “assachusett's, were the speakers. Bradford wanted the war executed to the fullest strength as long as the United States was in the fray but he did not desire it to become either a war for empire or a war to extend sway over another people, or a war to seize Spanish colonies against the will of the people.86 On this occasion the Anti-imperialists adopted several 3 For full contents of the letter see appendix A. 84. WW. Vol. 3. 110- 1. 9-19. 85. Ibid., p. 7. 86. Ibid., p 8. 27 resolutions among which were the following: (1) not to allow a war of humanity to be perverted into a war of conquest; (2) the annexation of territory as a result of the war would be a violation of national faith; (3) the United Sta3es must cure the evils in their own country first before intervening its destinies into foreign affairs. It was the expression of many that there were enough evils in New York, Chicago, and among the Indians of the plains which needed attention from the American Government.87 The meeting did not attract much attention outside of Boston, but its importance rested in the views expressed rather than.to any publicity it received. It was the first organized effort to enlist public support against McKin- ley‘s colonial policy. At this gathering a statement of policy was agreed upon and adopted, namely: (1) the prin— ciples adopted for Cuba should also apply to the rest of the Spanish peoples who had been taken away from Spain; (2) it was against the American policy to govern people against their consent; (5) the United States could not incorporate the Philippines into the United States because of different race, traditions, and civilization; (4) there were enough problems at home to be solved and it was not necessary to go abroad for additional problems; (5) colonization would increase the army and navy and thus taxes would be increased; (6) it was against the Monroe 87. Ibid., p. 10. i 1’. n’n .el;l.|u..|li'.0.inln ‘11.! ~ . 28 Doctrine to take the Philippines; (7) colonization would make people selfish, and egotistic, and would breed an en- mity of hatred.88 On this occasion.the Anti-imperialists appointed a "Committee of Correspondence" which was to direct the publicity and business of the League and communicate with similar organizations throughout the United States. The personnel of the committee consisted of G. Bradford, D.G. Haskins, E.Winslow, and A.S.Parsons.89 The committee worked in conjunction with the "Massachusetts Reform Club." The chief purpose of this club was to collect, print, and distribute literature in Opposition to imperialism. The committee had a budget Of one hundred dollars to carry out its initial program--it was far from being heavily subsidized organization. The Joint Commission, composed Of the Correspondence Committee and the members of the Reform Club, made most elaborate plans to oppose imperialism.9O In the campaign program letters were written to prominent men in each state asking for names of influential men in each Congression- al District who were in sympathy with the Inti-Imperialist cause. Correspondence was carried on with all persons made known thereby and.Anti-1mperialistic literature was mailed to them. In some states all the county workers were sent 88. Ibid., p. i1. 89. Ibid., p. 12. 90. Ibid.. pp. 13-14. 29 the literature. stacks of this literature were sent to churches, schools, colleges, and the country press. The Committee mailed letters to the various party leaders in order to discover the party which was most sympathetic. Besides the Committee tried to secure cO-workers in every phase of industry in order that their pleas might reach all of the people.91 1 On November 19, 1898, the Committee of Correspondence met in Edward Atkinson's office at NO. 31 Milk St., Boston, Massachusetts, and there gave birth to the Anti-Imperialist League. A.S.Parsons, G.Bradford, and D.G.Haskins submitted a draft Of a Constitution which was adopted thereby becoming the rules of the League. As adOpted there were seven articles in the Constitution. They consisted as follows: (1) the name of the Organization, (2) the purpose of the organization, (3) the membership, (4) the Officers, (5) the duties of the Executive Committee, (6) annual meetings, and (7) Amendments‘ptt Among the officers of the League were to be found some nationally known men in politics, industry, education, and Journalism. G.S.Bontwell, ex-Governor of Massachusetts, ex-Secretary of Treasury, and ex-Senator, was the first president of the League.93 There were forty-one vice- presidents--leaders in education, religion and public life. t For their full campaign program see Appendix B. . 11 For complete contents of the Constitution see Appendix C. A —-— 9'9 Ibido’ pp. 13-14 92. Ibid., p. 16. - 93. independent. vol. 51. p. 347. :11 .8. it 8 e'. 3.1.‘11 n III 11 30 There were included such men as Carl Schurz, J.C.Bourke, W.B.Cockran, F.G.Carlisle, W.Edincott, H.S.Pingree, Benjamin Tillman, G.F.Edmunds, Emil Preeterius, editor of St. Louis Westlighe Post, D.S.Jordan, C.F.Adams, E.B.Smith, Ed Atkinson, T.L.Cuyler, Presbyterian minister of Brooklyn, and J.C.Carter, leader Of the New York Bar.94 The treasurer was F.Osborne while E.Winslow was the secretary.95 In 1899 Chicago was chosen as the head-quarters of the new organization.96 Leagues were formed in various cities of the United States--Chicagc, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Detroit, San Francisco, St. Louis, Iortland, Oregon, New York, Washington and numerous other cities.97 When the Central League was created local Leagues were forced to change their constitutions in order to give additional power to the Central League. The American Anti- Imperialist teague lasted only four years and after that all the work was assumed by the local Leagues. The Boston League remained intact the longest and was most active during the entire period of agitation.98 The membership of the League was not definite because no accurate roster was kept. The treasurer's first annual report showed over one-half of a million contributors. Their contributions ranged from twenty-five cents to several thousand dollars.99 94. Philippine Social Sci. R. vol. 3, no. 1, pp.19-20. 95. Independent, vol. 51, p. 347. 96. Philippine Social Sci. R. vol. 3, no. 1, p. 22. 97. G.S.Bantwell, "Crisis of the Republic," p. 181. 98. Philippine Social Sci. R., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 36. 99. Ibid., p. 21. 51 The purpose of the League was to oppose McKinley's imperialistic colonial policy. Its creed was the philOSOphy of the Declaration of Independence and its object was the preservation of what the Declaration stated as applied to American affairs.100 The Anti-Imperialist beague's platform as adopted on October 17, 1899, brought out in detail the aims and the purposes of the League. The following planks were provided in the platform: (1) a condemnation of the national admin- istration policy in the Philippines; (2) the immediate cessation of the war; (3) governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed; (4) all citizens did not have to support the government in this war because it was brought about by the administration itself; (5) a proposal to contribute to the defeat of all the imperialists in.the coming election.101 t- 3 The League had various methods of propaganda, among which.were: circulating petitions, correspondences with influential men throughout the United States, lectures, distribution of literature through mail, organization of Leagues in various cities, and organization of Anti-imperi- alist workers in counties and townships.‘02 it #— t For full content of the platform see Appendix D. ti: For fuller details of their methods of prOpaganda see Appendix B. 100. G.S.Bantwell, Op. cit., p. 181. 101. F.Bancroft, "Speeches, Correspondences, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz" p.77. 102. Philippine Social Sci. R., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 13-14. 82 Senator Hoar introouced petitions into the Senate by the hundreds and thousands but with little success. Petitions were circulated also by the tobacco, sugar, and agricultural industries because these islands raised these preducts and 108 increased imperts of them would affect the American producer. The petitions wnich the League circulated were much alike. The following is a typical example: To the Praeisepilspsnpe-greasing- lime United Stateg: tne undersigned citizens of.......Protest an... e 1 cat... Am ii: slaps .i..9p,.,_99f_.t_p_e-§9y.ere.i spay- entrails; tile e Stategmpypggpp§_Pnilippinp_l§lp§p§_in any event, and over any other foreign territory without the free consent of the people thereof, believing such action would be dangerous to the Republic, wasteful of its resources, in violation of the Constitutional principles, and fraught with moral and physical evils to our peeple. 8* The League had numerous speakers presenting anti- imperialistic arguments at various meetings. Practically all the speecnes were publisned and distributed to the public. It also published numerous anti-imperialist books in order to mane the arguments available to more peeple. Atkinson published a weekly bulletin called the "Anti- Imperialist."3033 The Anti-imperialists were determined to carry out their program and they attempted to do it through various means. In 1898 they tried to influence the Congressional elections. They campaigned against W. S. Knox, a candidate 108. Indepenpent, vol. 5a, p. 8&7. 10a. Ibid., p. 5&8. 104a. Philippine Social Sci. R., vol. 3, No. l, p. 13. 33 for the House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District of massachusetts but their efforts in this election brought little success.105 .The anti-imperialists put up a greater fight when it came to the ratification of the Treaty of faris which was signed on December 10, 1898. The treaty was submitted to the i3‘enate on January 4, 1899 and there remained the main subject of debate until February 6, 1899. The treaty could not have been ratified without the assistance of Democrats. The Senate was composed of forty- six Republicans, thirty-four Democrats, five Populists, two Silverites, and three Independents.106 According to this composition the necessary two-thirds vote could not be obtained without Democratic assistance. While the discussion was at white heat Bryan came to Washington and advised his followers to vote for the ratification for two reasons: (1) it would end the war; (2) the status of the Philippines would be determined in the Presidential Election of 1900.107 When the final vote was taken it stood fifty-seven for the treaty and twenty-seven against. Those who voted for the treaty were: forty Republicans, ten Democrats, three Populists, two Silverites, and two Independents. Those who voted against it were: twenty- two Democrats, three Republicans, and two Populists. The treaty was ratified on February sixth, 1899.108 105. Ibid., p. 13. 106. J.H.Latane’, "America As A World Power," pp. 74-76. 107. .F.Hoar, "Autobiography of Seventy Years," p. 322. 108-. J.H.Latano!, op. cit., p.77. 3¢~ After this defeat at the hands of their own leader, the Anti-Imperialists began to prepare for the Election of 1900. This was to be the deciding factor as to the status of the Philippines. This phase of their opposition will be discussed later in the paper. Anti-Imperialists were accused of communicating with the army of the Philippines and distributing propaganda as to conditions and autrocities in the Philippines but they denied this. Further in defending themselves, they quoted the United States Constitution which reads, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," and this included soldiers.109 Later they were accused of giving aid and comfort to the Filipinos and thereby prolonging the war. The Anti-Imperialists met this by stating that they only promoted free government in the honor of the United States.110 The Anti-Imperialist Leagues were the important factors in the Opposition camp. They were responsible for: (1) Collecting and distributing anti-imperialist propaganda; (2) unifying the anti—imperialistic thought throughout the United States; (3) making possible the opposition group‘s carrying on their work more effectively; (4) providing for the financing of the greater projects; and (5) launch- ing an effective effort in the campaign of 1900 which almost created a new party in the United States. 109. 'G.S.Boutwell, op. cit., pp. 157-158. 110. Ibid., P- ‘59. 35 The press provided another means for expressing the Anti-imperialistic sentiment, although at times some papers would not publish articles or news from the League. This was true in Washington, when the Associated Press refused to publish any of its reports on the Philippines.H1 The Chicago "Times Herald" was a friendly paper and at times it published anti-imperialist propaganda. The following is a fair sample of one of the editorials which appeared in its columns: The conscience of the American people/will not tolerate the slaughter of Filipinos in a war of conquest. We do not seek their land, we do not wish to replace the yoke of Spain with one bearing the more merciful and just label of the United States. Let the President announce that we have no intention to annex Asiatic territory, and that the pledge of the Congress as to Cuban independence will be the pledge of the American nation to the Philippines.112 The Chicago "Tribune" was most interested in imperi- alism. It conducted a survey among the intellectuals to find out their positions on the Philippine question. The "Tribune" staff canvassed the prominent college and university faculties in the middle west and published its results. It canvassed one hundred and sixty-two faculty members and out of this number one hundred and twenty-seven were with the Administration; while nineteen were opposed; and sixteen would not commit themselves.113 t i To see how different colleges and universities want see Appendix E. 111. Independent. v01. 51. P. 349- 112. WWW. vol. 168. p. 1371. 113. Philippine Sggial Sgi, R., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 32. .ll.»(hf 1 36 The pulpit also gave considerable support to the Anti-Imperialists, although the churches were split on the issue. On May 7, 1899, the First Methodist Church of Chicago sponsored a "Loyalist meeting" at the Central music Hall. This and the later "Loyalist Meetings" were the first organized opposition of the Imperialists against the Anti-Imperialistic propaganda.“4 Ax/Pishop Spalding of the American frotestant Episcopal Church was one of the leading Opponents of imperialism. He delivered numerous addresses against imperialism. In one of his addresses he made the following conclusions: (1) that patriotism was narrow and intolerant and the people of the country were not led by the best minds; (2) that money and greed were growing too strong and they tended to undermine American honesty; (3) that conquest and forcible annexation were against the principles of the American government; (4) that Spain deserved to be driven out but "we shall not be unwise or unpatriotic enough to jeopardize the fortune and future of our own country by annexing the conquered islands and so becoming an imperial power."‘:§ Another devout Anti-Imperialist was Rev. G.C.Lorimer of the American Baptist Church. In his Thanksgiving sermon at the Teremont Temple in Boston he stated that the "accession of territory does not make a great power . . . 114. Ibid., p. 35.- 115. I.G.Bryan, op. cit., pp. 678-690. 37 Doubling American territory would not add to itsstrength or greatness because strength and greatness do not lie in territory and coffers but in men and women of the nation and in their acts and ideals.""6 He continued to state further that the nation was as high as its ideals and American ideals were worth more than all the Philippines and Cubes combined.117 While imperialism was still an issue, there appeared an editorial in the Boston "Herald" which stated that the missionaries were the strongest advocates of extension of the United States influence over what formerly had been foreign territory. Rev. J.L.Barton, Secretary of the American Board of Foreign Missions, denied the truth of this editorial in a letter which he wrote to the editor. In this letter he stated that he did not know a single missionary board in favor of imperialism. 1Many of these boards had expressed regret that an imperialistic policy was likely to prevail. He argued that missionaries were not forerunners of colonies to be planted which might later lead to a protectorate or actual annexation. He stated while European missionariashad been so accused as to purpose that such a charge was not warranted to American missionaries. He felt that imperialism injured missionaries because it was so difficult to separate missionary enterprises from governmental interference. He concluded with the following 116. Ibid., p. 700. 117. Ibid., p. 701. 38 remark: We do not believe in this, and want to avoid any such appearance, both before the people to whom we are attempting to carry our best American Christian civilization, and before the world, which is quick to criticize missionary efforts and sgmetimes eager to misinterpret missionary motives.n When the Episcopal Diocese held its convention their main speaker, Rev. H.C.Potter, of New York, attacked imperialism in his address. The following quotation taken from the address summed up his position: There could not be a more complete or a more perilous inversion of the whole moral, social, political situation} The nation has had much, during the past few months, to blind and to intoxicate it. It has won an easy victory over an effete and decrepit adversary, in which no splendors of individual heroism, no triumphs of naval skill--and in these we may indulge a just pride--ought to blind our eyes to the fact that we have had a very easy task against a very feeble foe. And now, with unexpected fruit of victory in our hands, what, men are asking, are we going to do with them? . . . . . At such a time, as never before, the Church of God is called upon, in the pulpit and by every agency at her command, to speak the words of truth and sober- ness, and to reason of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come--a judgment for nations as well as individuals--till impetuosity is sobered and chastened; and until a people in peril of being wrecked upon an untried sea be made to pause and think. Rev. T.J.Conaty, Rector of the Catholic University in Washington, D.C~ advocated that America should not recognize the policy of imperialism for territorial gain, but merely imperialism for ideals of self-government and that imperialism which may come with trade.120 ‘18. Ibid., pp. 702‘703. 1139. Ibid., p. 704. 120. Ibid., p. 708. .1“. 1'1“] ..1 41, .H v u." . w...v...1. 1.... blwum: «B‘ An article published in the Arena declared that imperialism was contrary to Christianity. It further stated that Christian principles and the Declaration or Independence were closely allied and if one was impractical they both were. Imperialism instead of teacuing, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", it continued, taught "Tnou ehalt exploit thy neighbor . . l l for thine own good." ‘ 1' 9 The Catholic Church did not come out Openly either for one side or another, but it did stress the consent of the governed entered into the question. It held that the principles of the Declaration of Independ- . . . . 1 1&2 once were applicable wherever c1v1lization SKIStGQ. / Edward Atkinson's "Anti-Imperialist" bulletin came out weekly and was widely distributed. All the leading addresses given by the Anti-Imperialists were publiShed and distributed among the peOple. Some of the addresses published were given by Schurz, Brooks, Hoar, Storey, and C. F. Adams. Then there were numerous books published with a decided Anti-Imperialistic purpose. Among this type of book were: W. J. hryan, Bepgplig gr Empire; G. S. Bontwell, The Crisis o“ .he Depub lo; and D. 8. Jordan, Im,e ial ;em pragy.” * For a more complete list of anti-imperialist books and publishings see the bibliOgraphy. The Anti-Tmperial- __i 5;...___.t bests. Brs...Pr§.9ssss_£J__‘ 8~D-s§.§sn_i.Sd_-- -fiu-- — “ 121. Areng, vol. ed, pp. poo-o7. 152. Catholig World, vol. 70, p. s55. 1.- -11-’u1 111.1% 1 lllll 1: 1" 40 III Immediately after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the question arose whether territorial eXpansion was Constitutional in the United States. On December 10, 1898, Senator Vest of Missouri introduced a resolution in the Senate which made the following pronouncement: Under the Constitution of the United States no power is given to the Federal Government to acquire territory to be held and governed per- manently as colonies. The colonial system of European nations cannot be established under our present Consti- tution, but all territory acquired by the Govern- ment, except such small amount as may be neces- sary for coaling stations, corrections of bound- aries and similar governmental purposes, must be acquired and governed with the purpose of ulti— mately organizing such territory into States suitable for admission into the Union.12 Senator Vest further held that the fundamental principle of the American Republic was citizenship to all people under American jurisdiction except the Indians. The Indian's position, decided in the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia? was that Indian tribes wer "independent de- pendencies" (nations). With this single exception, Vest argued, all the people within the jurisdiction of * 5 Peter's Reports, p. l. 123. M. M. Miller, "Great Debates in American History", Vol. 3, p. 248. fill. [1.111 1 41 the United States should be American citizens. He quoted the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which stated the "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States in which they reside, and the Citizens of each State shill be entitled to all privileges and immuni- ties of citizens in the several States."124 In 1820, Chief Justice Marshall in the Loughbor- ough vs. Blake Case,* construed the term "United States" in the Constitution meant the States and the territories and every foot of soil over which the flag of our coun- try floated.125 Senator Vest gathered evidence from the Scott- Sanford Case,** of December 1856, to argue the unconsti- tutionality of imperialism. He cited the United States Supreme Court Decision in this case which read as follows: There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or at any distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasures, nor to enlarge its territorial limits in.any way except by admission of new States. The power is plainly given; and if a new State is * 5 Wheaton's Reports, p. 317. ** 19 Howard 5 Reports, p. 393. 124. Ibid., p. 249. 125. Ibid., p. 252. LI.& L ‘ 42 admitted it needs no further legislation by Congress, because the Constitution itself defines the relative rights and powers, and duties of the States and the citizens of the State and the Federal Government. But no power is given to acquire a territory to be held and governed permanently in that char- acter. Again, the Pollard vs. Hagan Case,* of January 1845, supported the argument of unconstitutionality of the acquisitions of the Spanish American War. The Supreme Court Decision in this case read that: "Every nation acquiring territory by treaty or otherwise must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government." Judge Cooley of Michigan in his "Princi- ples of the Constitutional Law" stated that: When territory is acquired, the right to suffer States to be formed therefrom and to re— ceive them into the Union must follow of course, . . . . because it would be inconsistent with institutions founded on the fundamental idea of self-government, that the Federal Government should retain territory under its own imperial rule and deny the peOple the customary local institutions.12 These decisions tended to deny the power to Congress by treaty to determine the "Civil rights and political status" of the inhabitants of these new territories. In order to avoid a Constitutional pitfall the Peace Com- mission engrafted the following clause into the treaty: * 3 Howard's Reports, p. 212. 126. W. J. Bryan, op. cit., p. 152. 127. F. A. Brooks, "An Examination of the Scheme for Engrafting the.Colonial system of Government upon the United States Constitution", p. 25. 43 "The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territory thereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress." That clause was referred to as "engrafting the colonial sys- tem onto the Constitution of the United States."128 Anti-Imperialists quoted Sections eight and nine of Article One of the United States Constitution to further strengthen their Constitutional arguments. Section eight states, "all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States." Section nine states, "No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any State." There was to be no discrim- ination in matters of trade regulation.129 In 1828, Chief Justice Marshall in the American Insurance Company et al. vs. Canter Case,* wrote in the Supreme Court Decision that: "The Constitution of the United States confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the power of making wars and making treaties; consequently that Government possesses the power of ac- quiring territory either by conquest or by treaty."130 Chief Justice Marshall's decision was later amplified in a decision delivered by Justice Katthews * 1 Peter's Reports, p. 511 128. Ibid., p. 26. 129. Nation, Vol. 68, p. 26. 130. l "Peter's Reports", p. 511. Ploy. It I1 b I Ill-(II: . s 44 in the Mormon Church vs. the United States Case* in 1899. Justice matthews stated that: The power to acquire territory other than the territory northwest of the Ohio River (which belonged to the United States at the adoption of the Constitution) is derived from the treaty - making power and the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty and belong to all inde- pendent governments.13 The Insular Cases finally settled the question of Constitutionality and the relationship between the United States and the new territories. In those deci- sions the Supreme Court of the United States distin- guished between the three periods in the status of Porto Rico. (1) The first period lasted from the date of military occupation until the Treaty of Peace was signed. During that period Porto Rico was considered a foreign territory as far as the revenue laws were concerned and under the war power duties could be imposed. (2) The second period lasted from the time of the ratification of the treaty to the passage of the Foraker Act in.April, 1900. That Act made Porto Rico a domestic territory and took it out of the class of foreign countzies within the meaning of the Dingley Revenue Act of 1897 so that collec- tion of duties was illegal during that period. (3) The third period began with the establishment of the civil * 136 U.S.R., p. 42. 131. W. H. Fleming, "The Tariff, Civil Service, Income Tax, Imperialism, etc." p. 57. 45 government in May, 1900. During that period, "the court made a distinction between 'those prohibitions of the Constitution such as go to the very root of the power of Congress, to act at all, irrespective of time or place, and such as are operative only' throughout the United States or among the several States." In that meaning of the Constitution, Porto Rico was not considered a part of the United States.132 The first Insular Case upon which the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision was Dooley vs. United States,* May 27, 1901. The firm of Dooley, Smith and Company was engaged in trade and commerce between New York and Porto Rico. The Company started action in the Circuit Court to collect certain duties amounting to $5374.68 exacted and paid under protest at San Juan, Porto Rico. The goods upon which the duty was placed were imported into Porto fiico between July 26, 1898, and May 1, 1900. A demurrer was placed on the petition on the grounds fir want of jurisdiction and insufficiency of complaint. The Federal Circuit Court sustained the demurrer because of insufficiency of complaint.133 The plaintiff then sued for writ of error and the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a decision which * 182 UoSoRo, p0 6222. 132. Annals of American Academy, Vol. 18, p. 227. 133. 182 United States Reports, p. 222. 46 made the collection of duties legal during that period. The decision in part stated: Upon the occupation of the country by the military forces of the United States the author- ity of the Spanish Government was superseded, but the need for revenue did not cease. The government must be carried on, and there was no one left to administer its functions but the military forces of the United States. Money is requisite for that purpose, and money could only be raised by order of military commander. The most natural method wag by the continuation of the existing duties.1 The second "Insular Case" upon which the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision was the De Lima vs. Eidwell Case.* De Lima and Company brought action against the collector of the port of New York to recover duties alleged to have been illegally exact- ed and paid under protest on importations of sugar from San Juan, Porto Rico. The duties were collected in September, 1899, and amounted to $5452.61 on the cargo which left San Juan in June, 1899, and $2450.58 on the cargo Which left San Juan in July, 1899. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of New York but was re- moved by a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of v the United States. The defendant demurred the case because there were no grounds for action and the court had no jurisdiction on the case. The demurrer was 7 sustained and the plaintiff sued out:a writ of error.lJ5 134. Ibid., p. 228. *135. "182 U.S.R." pp. 1-2. The duties were collected subsequent to the treaty of ratification and prior to the establishment of Civil Gover ment. There were two different opinions rendered in this case. The minority opinion contained a broad treatment whereby it was determined to give the Pre i— (Q dent and the Congress a free hand in dealing with the new possessions. The majority opinion questioned whether Porto Rico remained a foreign territory within the meaning of the tariff laws. In an earlier period of American history Chief Justice Harshall had remark— ed: "A foreign country is one exclusively within a sovereignty of a foreign nation and without the sov- ereignty of the United States."136 The majority opinion was based on a much earlier decision of the Cross vs. Harrison Case,* of December 1853. That case involved the validity of duties paid in the San Francisco port on merchandise imported from foreign countries between February 2, 1849, the date of the Treaty of Peace be- tween the United States and M xico, and November 13, 1849, when the collector was appointed by the President under Act of Congress on March 3, 1849, and began his 7 ‘ ‘I duties.197 In that case the Supreme Court held that: —-——-—_-—_—..... w 16 Heward's Reports, p. 164. 136. Annals of American Academy, Vol. 18, p. 230. 137. Ibid., p. 230. o :7 48 After the ratification of the treaty, alifornia became a part of'the U ited States, a ceded conjuered territory . . . . as there nothing differently stipulated in the treaty with respect to commerce, it became instantly bound and privileged by the laws which Congress had passed to raise a revenue from duties on imports and tonnage.13‘ C (I) who m w Upon these precedents the Supreme Court rendered the following decision on the De Lima vs. Bidwell Case: With ratification of the Treaty of Paris the Island became a territory of the United States . . . . but not an organized territory in sense of a word. Theory that . . . . a country remains for— eign to the tariff laws until Congress has acted by embracing it within the customs union presup- poses tha a country may be domestic for one purpose and foreign for another. . . . at the time those duties were levied, Porto Rico was not a foreign country wflthin the meaning of the tariff laws but a territory of the United States, that the duties were illegally exacted and hat plain- tiffs are entitled to recover them back. 3 The third "Insular Case”, Downes s. Bidwell,* was concerned with the duties collected after the passing of the Foraker Act of April, 1900. S. B. Downes and Company brought action against the port collector in New York in order that certain duties amounting to $659.35 might be refunded. Those duties were exacted and paid under protest on oranges shipped from San Juan, Porto Rico, to New York. The Federal District Attorney demurred the case for lack ofrjurisdiction and insuf- * 182 U.S.R., p. 244. 138. Ibki., p. 23 . 139. Ibid., p. 231. 49 ficiency of the avertments. The demurrer was sustain- ed and the complaint dismissed but the plaintiff sued out a writ of error.lZ‘L'O The question which the Supreme Court had to settle in this case was whether Porto Rico became a part of (D D: the Unit States within provision of the Constitution which declared: "that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The judges had diverse opinions in that cas . Justice lnite held that: "every provision of the Constitution which is applicable to the territories is also control- ling therein." But the question still existed did the passage of the Foraker Act in April, 1900, make Porto Rico a part of the United States.l41 Justice Brown held.that in a domestic sense the Island was foreign because it was not incorporated into the United States. It was within the power of the Con- gress to levy duties and the clause requiring uniform imposts did not apply. He further argued that the territories 1ad never been considered a part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.142 At length the following decision was rendered in part: Choice in some cases, the natural gravita- tion of small bodies to large ones in others, 140. "182 U.S.R." pp, 1-2, 141. Annals of American Academy, p. 235. 142. Ibid., p. 238. 50 the result of successful war in still others, may bring.about conditions which would render the annexation of distant lands desirable. If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, custom, laws, methods of taxation and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the question at once arises whether the large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that, ultimately, our own theories may be carried out, and the bless- ings of free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to for- bid such action. 143 Another Constitutional question which still re- mained to be settled was: "Does the Constitution follow the Flag?" This was settled in the Hawaii vs. Mankichi Case.* Mankichi was tried for manslaughter and convicted by a verdict rendered by nine of the twelve members of the jury instead of by a unanimous decision. Mankichi petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus saying that his rights under the Federal Con— stitution were violated. The Supreme Court held that the right of trial by jury was "formal" rather than fundamental.144 The Supreme Court decisions in the "Insular Cases" as well as in the last mentioned case decided the Con- stitutionality of territorial expansion. Those decisions definitely concluded that: * 190 U.S.R., p. 197. 143. Ibid., p. 240. 144. R. E. Cushman, "Leading Constitutional Decisions", P. 279. 51 l. The Constitution does not follow the flag till it is planted on new territory by special.act of Congress. 2. The extension of sovereignty of the United States to new territorial guarantees the enjoy- ment of liberty, the right of property, and the protection of the United States to the people thus affected in securing justice and public order and promoting peaceful progress. 3. The Islands acquired from Spain by the Treaty of Paris are 'property of the United States', and Congress can dispose of these is- lands in any way conducive to the interests of the people of the United States and of these islands. ' Those decisions placed the territory of the United States under three classifications, namely: the states, the incorporated territories, and the unincorporated territories belonging to the United States. The decisions also made for three types of people under American jurisdiction: (1) citizens, residents of the States; (2) citizens of incorporated territories; (3) people of the "territory belonging to the United States". The last mentioned cannot become citizens of the United States without a special act of Congress.146 At the same time that the constitutionality of the Imperialistic policy was being decided in the courts, the Anti-Imperialists argued against imperial- ism on economic considerations. The increasing appro- priations for'the army and navy were the chief points 145. "Encyclopedia Americana", Vol. 14, p. 725. 146. Ibid., p. 725. 52 of attack. The Government expenditures increased greatly in the years from 1897 to 1900.* In 189 the expenditures of the Government were $265,774,159.57, or a per capita cost of $5.01. In 1898 these went up to $443,368,582.00, or a per capita cost of $5.96. In 1899 the total amount spent was $650,072,179.85 and the per capita expense was $7.95. By 1900 the expenses had decreased to $487,713,792.00 or a per capita cost of $6.27. 147 The total cost of the Spanish-American War was about $250,000,000 and the cost of bringing the Phil- i;pines under the American control was approximately $350,000,000. The average per capita cost of govern- mental operation for twenty years prior to McKinley's Administration had been $4.90. The per capita cost of the period from 1898 to 1902 inclusive was $6.84. This increased cost was largely due to the Spanish- American War and the Filipino Insurrection which fol- 148 lowed the War. The army and navy expenses increased * The following figures are not very reliable; they are placed too high. H. E. Howes states that the cost of Filipino Insurrection was $185,000,000 while Atkinson states it to have been $350,000,000. 147. Ed. Atkinson, "Anti—Imperialist", June 30, 1901, p. 11. 148. Ibid., p. 17. J- viii I l I1)»|‘l|l|. 91" I I 1‘ I .|(II’.,I .WII .1 53 from $85,787,101 in 1897 to $136,827,208 in 1907. The Anti-Imperialists held that it was the labor— ing man who paid for the increased expenditures. He paid for them in higher prices for food and clothing.149 By increasing its army and navy in order to extend its possessions, the United States was more likely to pro— voke a war with some foreign power. Not only the burden of paying for a war but also the fighting of a war rest- ed upon the laboring man. It was the workingmen who went to the front, fought the battles, manned the ships, and at the conclusion of the war probably received least for his services.150 Many reasoned that it was at the expense of the laboring class by which financial groups reaped the profits of war and of imperialism because they were "identified with dollars." Gage, Secretary of Treasur‘, stated that "Philanthropy and five percent go hand in hand with the neW'venture. One chloroforms the con- science of the conqueror and the other picks the poo- kets of the conquered."151 Anti—Imperialists insisted that Imperialism would enlarge the foreign trade but only for the benefit of a few. It would swell the fortunes of a comparatively few persons at the expense of the masses.152 f 149. Nation, Vol. 86, p. 415. 150. Annals of American ACademy, Vol. 66, p. 251. 151. W. J. Bryan, op. cit., p. 24. 152. American Catholic Quarterly, Vol. 24, p. 158. Andrew Carnegie summed up in one of his articles the improvements which could be made in the United States with the money necessary for maintaining the Philippines. In his article this statement appeared: A tithe of the cost of maintaining our sway over the Philippines would improve our internal waterways; deepen our harbors; build the Nicara- gua Canal; construct a waterway to the ocean from the Great Lak ° build an inland canal a- long the Atlantic seaboard; - a cana across Florida, saving ei": t hundred miles distance be- tween New York and few Orleans; connect Lak Kichigan with the H ss'ssiapi River; deepen all the harbors upon the lak (es; build a anel from 13k rie to the Alle egreny River; slackwater thro‘"h on““le dams the entire length of the Ohio River to Cairo; and thoroughly improve the lower and upper TlSSlSSiDpl and all our sea- hoard haroors. All these ent rprises would be as nothing in cost in compnr son with the sum required for th e experiment of ;essessihg the Pniii2oine Islands, seven thou sand miles from our shores. 153 57-4 }_lo +0 UL.) rx“ ,_J C l ( *- cf , 3.: (D E I F" *‘J K\ W '3 h—J .. , J. eared t Pb The Anti-Imperialis plied t O (f- H d O p O (0 {'1 0 ( 0 O 5 taxation law would be a ’0 The Constitution provided for uniforn duties, excises, and impos 3 throughout the United States. From that provision they drew the following co.nclusi ens: ~ence all the duties now collected from sugar, tobacco, rice, ani fruit - from seventy- five to or e hunlred million do lla.rs - will be lost if we annex these islands fr eel from Spain, a d the deficit aust be met by ne": tion to the new taxes w ich our increa xoenses will require. 15 fi‘ff-(fi 0 94431353 , ln 89 n order to clinch their arguments the Anti—Im— I fierialists showed that the Philippines purchased from a , Vol. 26, o. 55'. h, op. cit., U. 15. the United States about 1100,030 worth of goods while the United States in turn bought $7,000,000 worth of goods annually from the Islands. The goods consisted largely of hemp and sugar. Due to the Cons tutio a1 provision, the United States could not levy an export ax a d if these i lands were annexed, America would '1 1L1 be a hefvy loser.'U his group also feared that the United States might be forced to inaugurate an open door" policy in the Islands. f that tere true all the powers would have equal privilegges in the new American possessions.156 Anti—Imperialists also Moi ted out that through larger investments of capital for the development of these islands, the territorials would eventually come to compete with Ame erican minuiacturero and laborers. American workmen would be forced to compete with the che eaper coolie laoor. Anti-Imperialists thought that tr -e Inieratlists did not look far enough into the future to see wIEt wouLi happen when these markets were ex- hausted. It seer ed to them th at tT: o.e Imoer alists were following the principle: "sufficient unto the day is the squeezed lemon thereof "15 The attaem of the Anti-Imperialists on the HcKinley fdmi n1 stration was most critical. They claimed a war 155. Ibid., p. 16. 156. ‘5‘... Ho 3113111111572, Op. Cit. , I). 63. 157. Annals of American Academy, Vol. 18, p. 15. 56 against the Filipino had been made without the consent of Congress and that after two years of this war McKin- ley had obtained an act from Congress which gave him 5; 1’8 It seemed the right to control the inhabitants. entirely too autocratic a procedure for a democratic state to follow and quite contrary to American princi- ples. It was the President's war, and the people had he privilege and right of disapproving of such a policy.159 Then too, he Anti—Imperialists insisted that the President exercised despotic control over the Philippines, as well as Cuba and Porto Rico. Had Con- gress surrendered its constitutional authority and given the people into the hands of the President?160 Anti-Imperialists stated that McKinley was worse than Jefferson Davis for he tried to establish an Empire and destroy a Republic. The following verse appeared , i n and was apropos of the regard held of McKinleyAregard to the Philippine situation: "Stay thy clutching hands From pleading throats in distant lands, Wherefrom there comes, though faint the cry, A stiffled wail for liberty. Oh stretch thy helping arms to free The prostrate forus that kneel to thee, nd give the men, unjustly blamed, The sacred rights thy land proclaimed!"161 158. F. A. Brooks, "Unlawful and Unjustifiabl Conquest of the Philippines", pp. 5-7. 159. C. Schurz, "Policy of Imperialism", p. 17. 160. Outlook, Vol. 68, p. 615. 161. G. S. Boutwell, op. cit., p. 160. 57 Senator Hoar voiced the opinion that the Admin- istration's policy in the Philippines repealed the Declaration of Independence and converted the Monroe Doctrine into a Doctrine of mere selfishness. He continued by stating that from Cuba the United States received honor'and glory but certainly not from the Philippines. The United States had spent large sums of money in the Philippines and had lost many lives but the greatest loss which the United States had suf- fered was that: "We have sold out the right, the old American right, to speak out the sympathy whiCh is in our hearts for the people who are desolate and oppressed everywhere on the face of the earth."162 The Anti-Imperialists also stressed the humanitar- ian side of Imperialism. They cited the great loss of life in the Philippines as well as the numerous diseases which were prevalent in the tropical regions. The total loss for the American army,including the killed, wounded, and missing, amounted to 1,782 during the period from August 6, 1898, to May 10, 1899. On May 10, 1899, an editorial appeared in the Boston "Herald" which informed the public that there had been 2,000 deaths among the American soldiers in he Philippines and hat of this toll seventy-five percent were volunteers. Moreover, it added that there were only three hundred and seventy-five men left in the Nebraska regiment which had asked for —— 162. "Modern Eloquence", Vol. 10, p. 376. 58 temporary relief from duty. This made an.approximate loss of seventy per cent to the Nebraska regiment.165 The War Department continued to antagonize the Anti-Imperialists by giving out a dispatch from Manila which stated: "Volunteers willing to remain." But upon further investigation they found that the original dis- patch read: "Volunteers unwilling to reenlist, but will- ing to remain until transports arive."164 The Anti-Imperialists cited incidents of the bru— tality of the American army in the Philippines. They based their opinions on letters received from the soldiers in the Philippine service. A typical letter stated that when the Americans occupied Titatia an American soldier had been killed by the natives with the result that: “Immediately orders were received from General Wheaten to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which.was done to a finish. About 1000 men, women, and children were reported killed."165 At Caloocan orders were issued not to take any prisoners but kill all, because a dead man would not rise up and fight.166 Senator Hoar remarked, in speaking about the Amer- ican army: "I believe - nay, I know - that in general our officers and soldiers are humane. But in some cases 163. Ed. Atkinson, "Anti-Imperialist", May 10, 1899, p. 62. 164. C. Schurz, "Policy of Imperialism", p. 17. - 165. Ed. Atkinson, "Anti—Imperialist", p. 67. 166. Ibid., p. 67. 59 they have carried on your warfare with a mixture of American ingenuity and Castilian cruelty."167 The losses in the American army during the period from May 1, 1898, to June, 1899, as reported by Adjutant- _ General Corbin were as follows: Officers Enlisted men Cuba , Killed 21 223 Died of wounds 10 64 Died of diseas 34 888 Porto Rico Killed -- 4 Died of wounds -- 8 Died of Disease 4 421 Philippines Killed 20 235 Died of wounds 10 ' 82 Died of disease 11 3682 The fact borne out was that more men died from various diseases than were killed in action.168 The Anti-Imperialists developed another argument from a study of the British army in India as well as of the French forces in Madagascar. They found that twenty- eight per cent of the British soldiers in India were in- fected with venereal diseases. Anti—Imperialists held that similar conditions existed in the Philippines, Porto Rico, and Cuba and that soldiers returning home brought the disease withjthem.169 On may 3, 1901, the "New York Times" carried an article which informed its readers that: "One sixth of 167. "Modern Eloquence", Vol. 10, p. 375. 168. Ed. Atkinson, "Anti-Imperialist", Aug. 20, 1899, p. 19. 169. Ibid., p. 20. 60 the natives of Luzon have either been killed or died of dengue fever in the last two years.” The population of Luzon was approximately 5,700,000 at that time. The fever which claimed so many lives was due to the ravages of the war and the famine which came at tkat time.170 The Philippine Insurrection lasted approximately three and one-half years. It cost the United States 4,165 soldiers and $185,000,000. In Cuba the war last- ed one hundred and eleven days costing the United States three hundred and fifty-three lives in action and 1,284 who died from disease.171 The great social difference which existed between the American and the inhabitants of the newly acquired territories, espectllly the Filipinos, gave the Anti— Imperialists an additional argument. Many Filipinos were Mohammedans and practiced polygamy; since polygamy was illegal in the United States the question arose as to the disposition the United States could make of it.172 It was most difficult for the United States to govern the Philippines for several reasons. In the first place, the Islands were located in the tropics where white men could not settle in large numbers; sec- ond, the Islands were thickly populated with people who spoke many dialects of a foreign tongue; and third, the 170. Literary_Digest, Vol. 29, p. 553. 171. H. B. Howes, "Philippine Uncertainty", p. 136. 172. W. H. Fleming, Op. cit., p. 63. ..’.‘ 61 United States was determined to replace the established institutions by those of American type which in itself. was a difficult problem.173 Anti-Imperialists pointed out the clerical influence in the Islands. The priests were supreme in all the pub- lic affairs besides the religion being argely Catholic. Soain maintained her power in the Philippines through the Church and it was argued that "if we enter upon the work of governing the Philippines the time will come when we shall be compelled to cooperate with the Catholic church or to make war upon it. And is the country pre- pared to accept the alternative?"174 0n.August 20, 1899, Mr. Bradbury stated in the Berkley Temple, Boston, in one of the "Patriotic Lectures" that the last war in its "last and deepest analysis is nothing but a war between Protestantism and Romanism."175 Relative to the annexation of the Philippines Thomas Reed said, "we have purchased the 10,000,000 in- habitants of the Islands —- ”yellow bellies' at $2 a head."176 Imperialists held that the Filipinos were backward and unable to govern themselves but Schurman, chairman of the first Philippine Commission, made the s atement that "Any decent government of the Filipinos by the 173. W. F. Willoughby, "Territories and the Dependencies Of the United States", p. 79. 174. G. S. Boutwell, op. cit., pp. 99-100. 175. Ed. Atkinson, "Anti-Imperialist," Aug. 20, 1399, p. 25. 176. M. M. Killer, Op. cit., p. 247. 62 Filipinos is better than the best possible government of Filipinos byAmericans."177 The Imperialists and the Anti—Imperialists vied with each other in presenting arguments. The Imperialists stressed moral duty, commercial and trade expansion, national prestige, as well as patriotism. The Anti-Im- perialists on the other hand based their arguments on the constitutionality of the territorial expansion; on the economic cost of imperialism - the larger army and navy appropriations, competition with foreign labor, and the decrease in revenue due to the annexation of new territory. Anti-Imperialists attacked what they charact- erized as the autocratic rule of McKinley and even ac- cused him of attempting to sacrifice the Republic to an Empire. They argued on the great loss of life which resulted from the American agression in the Philippines Cl and other posse ions. And lastly they attacked the (0 great soc'al difference between the Americans and the people in the new territories. This struggle was carried on into the election of 1900 when imperialism became the paramount issue. 177. M. Storey, "What Shall We do with Our Dependencies" p. 10. I v H.‘..r .11-. ‘ \ 63 IV With the Election of 1900 at hand the question arose as to v.he ther the ficl {inley Adm inistrat ion was to carry on its policy or whether a new administration would succeed and completely reverse the imperialistic pros ram. If the Democrats should win there could be no doubt but that the IcKinley policy would be abandon— ed. Early in 1900, a leading Republican Anti-Imperial- ist told the Democrats that if they would Iield their MtP01?th they could put an end to American Imperialism. It was Senator Hoar who remar11ed: There is one way in which you can put an end to this whole business. If you can elect the J. Dew ocratic House it will have po..er under t} e Constitution to determine the use to which the army shall oe put. In that way you compelled Pr .ssident Ha ayes to refrain from furthe er support by milita ary force of the Republican State Govern- ment. 170 Scarcely a month before the Democratic National Con- vention met at Kansas City, William Jennings Bryan pro- posed tr e three question upon which.the DeHIOCP tic plat- form of 1900 w uld be built. He remarked: "Three ques- tions contest for primacy - the money question, the trust question, and imperialism. The issue . . . . is the issue between plutocracy and democracy. All the questions _——— g 178. G. F. Hoar, ”Autooi03‘ grapiy of Seventy Years , Vol. 2, p.522 64 under discussion will, in th eir last analysis, disclose a .f‘ 1 1 . -. O tne conilict between the dollar and the man. ’ When the Democratic Convention met on July 4, 1900, Bryan was sure of the presidential nomine ion but there t . n O was so: e co: troversy over tne pla tiorm.l Some dele— CD ates wanted silver in the platform while others opposed (“I it because they desired Imperialism as a paramount issue. Bryan, of course, could not see a platform without free silver as a plank. Senator Hill of New York made a spe- cial trip to Lincoln, Nebraska, to discuss the issue with 181 He Bryan, but Bryan remained adaziant on his stand. was informed by the Democratic party leaders that the production of gold had greatly increased and the value of silver as an issue for camm. ign purposes had diminish- ed. Imperialism and trusts had become more vital ques- tions and of greater interest to he people. Furthermore, Bryan was urged to ignore the silver issue in order to get the gold- standard Democrats back in line. Bryan in- dependently answered these pleas of his party's leaders in a letter which was sent to the Convention. The follow— ing is an excerpt from this communication: I insisted upon the restatement of the silver plank because I thought the refusal to state it would, under the circumstances, be considered a repudiation of that plank and, while I recognize the force of arguments made 179. P. Hibben, "Peerless Leader W. J. Bryan", p. 223. 180. E. Stanwood, "A History of Presidency from 18 97- 1916”, p. 56. 181. Ibid., 0. 57. IL I Alefl‘bll‘ ul'nl] ‘ 65 by some of our friends, I was not willing to run upon a platform which either ignored he question or put me in the attitude of pretending to endorse it when-the endorse- ment was not genuine. I considered the matter very fully and nothing ever distressed me more than being compelled to differ from so many of my trusted friends. I told them hat I could afford to lose the nomination, thatit was not necessary for my happiness, but that I could not afford to lose the con- fidence that all voters had in my honesty and that I would decline to be a candidate if the convention saw fit to write the plat- form as then proposed. 102 The contest was carried into the Committee of Resolutions of the Convention among whose membership were: Senator Jones of Arkansas, Metcalf of Nebraska, Van Wyck of New York, and Girard of Georgia. Three probable platforms were presented to the Committee. They were presented by Metcalf, Van Wyck, and Girard. The three platforms submitted were similar in content but for one clause - the financial issue. Metcalf's platform reaffirmed the platform of 1896 while the other two did not. Van Wyck's platform emphasized militarism, imperialism, and trusts, while the free silver issue was tactfully avoided. Immediately it was proposed to settle the financial question by taking the vote of the Committee and it decided the free silver phank by one vote.183 All the advocates of free silver, however, could not deliver a single Q electoral vote to BryanlldJr 182. F. R. Kent, ”The Democratic Party", p. 356. 183. Detroit Free Press, July 5, 1900. 184. E. Standwood, op. cit., p. 57. 66 The purpose of the platform was to make Imperialism a paramount issue and with this issue attempt to defeat the reelection of McKinley. The Democratic platform concerned itself with Im- perialism, trusts and free silver. It was based on the following fundamentals: (1) government derived its powers from the consent oft;he governed; (2) government not based on the consent of the governed is tyranny; (3) imposing government upon the people by force is substituting imperialistic methods for those of a repub- lic; (4) the Constitution follows the flag; and (5) Im- perialism abroad may lead to despotism at home.185 Relying on these principles the Democrats hurled denunciations at the Foraker Act of April, 1900, for Porto Rico as a "violation of nation's organic law and a flagrant breach of national good faith." They in- sisted that the United States must carry out its pledge to Cuba, namely: "that the United States has no disposi- tion nor intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over the island of Cuba, except for its paci- fication."186 The Democratic Platform strongly criticized the Philippine policy as being too costly both in life and money. The Filipinos could not become citizens without endangering American civilization. They were anxious k 185. Ibid., p. 58. 86. Ibid., p. 58- , LaluflJ‘J I.L y4‘vliirlllr'l ln'nIaI’uu ll (JAIII‘KI : (‘1‘! :ll.’ XIX 1‘ , 67 to give to the Filipinos: "first, a stable form of government; second, independence; and third, protec- 1 tion from outside interference sucn as has been given for nearly a century to the republics of Central and South America."187 The Democrats, however, were not opposed to terri- torial expansion. Their attitude was expressed in the following citation from their platform: We are not opposed to territorhal expansion, when it takes in desirable territory which can be erected into States in the Union, and whose peo- ple are willing and fit to become American citi- zens. We favor trade expansion by very peaceful and legitimate means. But we are inalterably opposed to the seizing or purchasing of distant is- lands to be_governed outside the Constitution and whose people can never become citizens. We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but believe that in- fluence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persgasive power of a high.and honorable example. 10 The most disl ked part of the Democratic Platform of 1900 from a political standpoint was its money plank. It played an important part in Bryan's defeat for the Presidency. It drew criticism from the gold-Democrats. and drove away many votes from the Democratic party. It reaffirmed and endorsed the Platform of 1896 which asked for free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at a ratio of 16 to 1, without agreem-nts with other nations. As a result of this issue Eastern business men and news- 187. Ibid., p. 59. 188. Ibid., p. 59. 68 papers froze solidly against Bryan.189 The money plank drew criticism not only from business and press but also from staunch Anti-Imperi- alists. Carl Schurz felt that the acceptance of the money plank greatly injured the chance of success for the party's program of imperialism. If he could have had his way he would have started a new party. He com- mented as follows relative to this matter: "There is a very wide spread feeling that the peOple have permitted themselves long enough, and too long, to be forced by two rotten old party carcasses to choose between two evils."190 The Anti-Imperialists planned for a third party on the assumption that a third ticket would defeat Mc- Kinley in the 1900 campaign just as the Palmer ticket had defeated Bryan in 1896. It also would make it easier for the Republican Anti-Imperialists to join the crusade. They contended that: "It would also open to the Anti-Imperialists many ears which otherwise would be closed to them."191 On August 16, 1900, the Liberty Congress was sche- duled to discuss the possibility and wisdom of a third party. When the meeting convened there were only eight- een persons present.192 Their probable candidates for 139. F. R. Kent, op. cit., p. 363. 190. C. M. Fuess, op. cit=, p- 363. 191. F. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 191. 192. Mark. A. D. Howe, op. cit., p. 200. [Ill-I : Inl'lil a 69 the presidency were T. B. Reed, Congressman from Maine, and J. E. Henderson, Senator from Missouri, and for vice presidency Senator Chaffee.193 hoorfield Storey was offered the presidential nomination by some of the delegates but he refused to accept although he favored the third party movement as he was opposed to Bryan.194 Most of the delegates favored Bryan, and as no other agreement couLi be reached on a candidate the Congress endorsed Bryan. The group framed its own plat- form which denounced McKinley's policy and proclaimed belief in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitu- tion, liberty, and the freedom of the press. On July 18th the Gold Democrats and a few Anti-Im— perialists met to discuss a third party. They disliked both.McKin1ey and Bryan. They wished to return to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutidn; to recognize Cuba, the Philippines, Porto Rico, and Hawaii as independent communities. They too advocated monetary reform. However, as the weeks slipped by nothing mater- ialized from this agitation for a new party.195 The Republican party in 1900 was not confronted with much difficulty either in the choice of their candidates or in the building of its platform. The period of pros- perity following 1897 made McKinley very popular by 1900 193. F. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 191. 194. Mark A. D. Howe, op. cit., p. 201. 195. E. Stanwood, op. cit., p. 68. 70 "and the majority of the American people considered his Administration highly successful. The election hinged largely on which party would lose su;port on the issues before the nation. Some of the most ener- getic Anti-Imperialists were life-long Republicans - such influential men as Hoar, Hale, and Reed had op— posed the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. There were many others in the party who held similar views. The anti-imperialistic sentiment was strongest in the New England and Middle States, yet none of these pro— posed to support Bryan. Bryan's free-silver position made him an impossible candidate for these Republican communities. The Anti-Imperialist Republicans hoped that the Republican party would adopt their views and treat the Filipinos accordingly. The Republicans also were hopeful of carrying some of the silver states; because of the prosperity of the preceding two years silver was in reality no longer an important economic issue.196 Under the circumstances just described the Repub- lican.Convention was called in June at Philadelphia. . Here William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt were nom- inated. The platform endorsed McKinley‘s previous policy besides reaffirming the greatness of Republican- ism.197 It was an asinine platform of partizan exalta- 196. E. Stanwood, op. cit., pp. 31-32. 197. Ibid., p. 45. 71 tions and platitudes. The Republican attitude toward the new possessions was well brought out in the follsw- ing citation from the platform: In accepting by the Treaty of Paris the st resaonsibility of our victories in the anish war the President and the Senate won e undoubted apprO'al of the American people. No other course was possible than to destroy in s sovereignty thrcuyhout the Vest Indies in the Phili pine Islands. That course ed our responsibilities before the world, tith.the unorganized population whom our intervention had freed from Spain, to provide for maintenance of law and order, and for the establishment of good government and for the performance of international obligations. Our authority couLl not be less than our res— ponsibility and whenever sovereign rights were extended it became the high duty of the govern- ment to maintain its authority, to put down armed inSurrection and to confer the blessings of liberty and civilization upon all the res- cued peOple. ‘ The largest measure of self—government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them by law. To Cuba independence and self-government were assured in the same voice by which war was declared, and to the letter this pledge will be performed. 19 Before the campaign really began, many of the Anti-Imperialists had been pessimistic as to the outcome of the eleétion. On July 8, 1900, Carl Schurz wrote to rofessor E. B. Smith of Northwestern University stating that if the election were to take place at that moment I----‘ \O \O EcKinley would have an overwhelming success. The major cam aign speeches were made by Bryan and Roosevelt. Roosevelt made six hundred and seventy—three speeches in 198. Ibid., p. 51. 199. F. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 199. 72 J twenty-four States,v:hile Bryan delivered approximate- q ly the same number of addresses. On numerous occasions Bryan spoke to very small audiences but he continued in spite of that discouragement.200 In theory imper- ialism .as the paramount issue but in reality it was the minor issue. Republicans wisely ignored it while Bryan spoke on trusts and silver.201 Durinr the campaign period the Republicans argued that the election of Bryan would endanger the gold standard and destroy the prosperity of the country. The Republicans had adequate financial support to carry on their campaign, whereas the Democrats had little - money and little presc support. Business in general and financial institutions in particular were ”tooth and nail" against them.202 In spite of the handicap Bryan continued to make his Speeches on Anti-Imperialism. A few excerpts from some of his campaign speeches are herewith quoted as samples of Anti-Imperialistic eloquence: Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by revolution- ary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth - a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident pro- positions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inalien- able rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights and that gov- ernments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. 200. E. Stanwood, 0p. cit., p. 73. 201. Philippine Social Science Review, No. 1, Vol. 3, p. 3 202. F. R. Kent, op. cit., p. 359. \O I Behold a republic in Which civil and religious liberty stimulate all the earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbors inury — a republic in which every citizen is a sov— ereign, but in.Which.no one cares or dares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments - a republic whose‘flag is loved while other flags are feared. In one of his many addresses he used the teachings of Christ as an argument against imperialism. He re- marked that the teachings of Christ did not propose to "civilize with dynamite and proselyte witht.he sword." Christ did not teach to destroy life but to save life. He continued to argue that: Love, and not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was his method of reach— ing the human heart. A missionary recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized ouZ flag as a flag that had no blood upon it. 20 In another speech, he'answered the argument of "destiny" as was presented by the Imperialists. He remarked that: "History is replete with predictions Which once were lines of destiny, but which failed of fulfillment because those who uttered them saw too small an area of the circle of events." He drew illustrations, to make his point, from the careers of Napoleon and oth— ers o 205 203. M. B. Bryan, "Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan", p. 500. p. 501-502. . 503. 204. Ibid., p 205. bid., p I11 1.1.?! I\‘]urFKAIII.Hu/i [11" 74 The Boston Anti-Imperialist League became extreme- ly active during the Campaign of 1900. The League distributed more than 400,000 pamphlets, documents and leaflets during the period. The League also gave a campaign fund contribution of $6,719.11. 206 As the election day drew nearer, it was apparent that the Democrats were loosing votes. Carl Schurz premarked sagely that if Bryan had retired after his Indianapolis speech he would have had a far better chance of being elected. During the last few weeks preceding the election many of the doubtful votes went to the McKinley camp. In fact every speech that Bryan made henceforth lost him votes.207 Senator Hoar announced later that he would have supported Bryan, but that he had no confidence that Bryan would settle the imperialistic issue if elected. Hoar concluded that if Bryan had been elected, he would have merely placed the blame on the preceding administration and allowed things to go on much as they had before.208 The Republicans were practically assured of the election throughout the campaign period but Roosevelt feared that, "all the lunatics, all the idiots, all the knaves, all the cowards, and all the honest people who were slow—witted" would gather over to Bryan's side. In Roosevelt's "complimentary" opinions this group 206. Philippine Social Science Review, No. 1, Vol. 3, p. 39. 207. F. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 266.- 208. G. F. Hoar, "Autobiography of Seventy Years", Vol. 2, I). 323. apparently constituted a majority of the citizens of the United States and its vote would give victory to Bryan.209 In a letter written by Roosevelt to Senator Lodge, it was stated that Bryan was stronger than he had been in 1896. Many of the working men who had been Republi- can voters in 1896 were casting their ballots for Bryan in 1900. He continued to assert that the prevalent opinion was th:t trusts were crushing the small man, and that Bryan apparently was the only candidate offering to control trusts.210 The Election of 1900,in spite of all political fore— casting, was a sweeping victory for XcKinley and Roose- velt. McKinley received 7,220,000 popular votes while 6,359,000 went to Bryan. The electoral vote was two» hundred and ninety-two for McKinley and one hundred and fifty-five for Bryan. This victory indicated the in- effectiveness of the Democrats in making imperialism a paramount issue.211 After the election Carl Schurz, in commenting on his ballot for Bryan, remarked: To vote for him was the most distasteful thing I ever did; and I did it, not as if I had believed in the possibility of his election, but because I wanted to make on my part the strongest imaginable protest against the policy of the (McKinley) Administration. 212 209. F. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 266. 210. P. Hibben, op. cit., p. 224. 211. Hacker and Kendrick, ”The United States Since 1865”, p. 358. 212. F. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 275. 76 V The re-election of McKinley in 1900 caused the Anti-Imperialists to become more active than ever be- fore. After the election some of the Anti-Imperialists who had voted for McKinley planned to make a public demonstration aga nst the imperialistic policy of the President by signing papers to that effect. Their plan was not carried through because as long as the Anti- Imperialists within the Republican party were critical of the McKinley program, the League thought it was better for that element to make the attack rather than divert public attention from the issue to the League.213 At the annual meeting in 1900 of the New England Anti—Imperialist League the following resolutions were adopted: (1) immediate liberation of the Philippines, (2) restoration of the Philippine Republic, (3) repar- ations to the Philippines, and (4) form a new party 214 to defend a Republic against an Empire. They also decided to make imperialism an issue in the Congressional election of 1902. Several other Leagues favored imperi- 215 alism as an issue for the election of 1902. By 1902 they had planned to distribute three million documents 213. Ibid., p. 266. 214. Philippine Social Science Review, Vol. 4, p. 118. 215. Ibid., 0. 119. ~ .. 5v.‘ « : OD«'~. ‘ 77 and pamphlets in the United States. The Congressional elections of 1902 sounded defeat to imperialism as an issue.216 In that election the League spent $4,087.08 as compared with $7,503.35 in 1899; $6,719.00 in 1900, and $2,822.34 in 1901. Host of the money was spent for postal service.217 In 1903 the Anti-Imperialists resumed the same activities against imperialism as before but the Dem— ocratic Party was by this time leaning toward the status guo. This position of the Democrats was well expressed in the following quotation: "the conviction growing even among such as had doubted this long and seriously; that the Administration, painfully faulty as were230me of its measures in the new lands, was pursuing these absolutely as the only honorable or benevolent course open to it under theiwholly novel and very peculiar circumstances."218 In the Presidential Election of 1904, the Anti- Imperialists made their last stand. On April 28, 1904, they allied themselves officially with the Democratic party for the first time. They held their convention on July 9, 1904, in St. Louis where the Anti-Imperialists had representatives. In the Committee of Resolutions they were represented by three members. Some of their 216. Ibid., 119. 217. Ibid., 125. 218. E. B. Andrews, "History of the United States”, V01. 5) p .270. p. p. proposals for the tlatform were adopted. In the campaign they distributed one hundred thousand docu- ments and leaflets, many of which attacked the poli- cies of Roosevelt and the Secretary of War, Root. The Leagues expenditures for the campaign amounted to $3,803.13. 219 The election of 1904 made it difficult for the United States to retreat from its policy of sovereignty which had already been established. Imperialism in politics was a ”dead issue" for the simple reason that the two parties had reached a compromise in regard to the Philippine program. The Democrats, however, wanted an assurance of independence in the future while the Republicans‘ ultimate goal was self-government. The Philippines were a conquered country from the standpoint of international law.v After the Civil Government was established in the Islands the American colonial expzri- ment seemed to be successful. At the same time the merican interests grew in China and the Far East so that a change of policy would alter our Far Eastern Foreign position.220 However, the Anti-Imperialist League did not die in 1904 bit it lingered on ior several years. In a humorous ein E. Winslow, Secretary of the League, wrote to Moorfield Storey, President of the League, as 219. Philippine Social Science Review, Vol. 4, pp. 126-128. 220. Ibid., p. 132. rytiaw lbw... ! ’|I.|.I V 79 late as 1913, stating that Storey and himself were the only Anti-Imperialists left in the League. The Vice Presidents of the League showed little or no interest in the Organization nor did they commit themselves in r speech or writing. Although the issue of the League 1 H- all .0 . .3 ”wk. .4. ~, (4,... had been dear ior a nimter of years, the League con— A... tinued with its program until 1923. ?ith the death of .r i H passed 0 E. fiinslow in 1923, the League literally als out of existence.“21 221. A. D. hark Howe, op. cit., p. 250. l I-ilil' {11" 80 In considering the arguments of the Anti-Imperialists in the light of their historical precedents as well as to the actual conditions and problems of their period, several observations and conclusions can be drawn. These are herewith briefly presented. During the latter part of the nineteenth century there were certain factors helpful in building up a back- ground for the Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment in the United States. The Granger and the Farm Alliance movements had attacked the economic and social ills during the late decades of the nineteenth century. Members of these two groups were oppressed by corporate interests, especially the railroads. In time it became necessary for them to seek governmental action to correct the economic evils of their day. They ultimately crystalized into the Populist Party in 1892 with the purpose of carrying through some of their demands by remedial legislation. The Anti—Imperialistic movement began under somewhat similar circumstances. At first it consisted of a local organization but within a comparatively short time it spread throughout the United States as a more or less disjointed movement. The Anti-Imperialist group was exceedingly compli- 81 cated as to membership. It was not composed only of "under-dogs” as one might be led to surmise. Strange as it may seem the movement enrolled industrialists, churchmen, politicians, educators, and economists. Andrew Carnegie was one of the leading industrialists identified with Anti—Imperialists. It is difficult to state what his motives were in tying up with such a group but it may have been that in the light of national econ- omy he thought imperialistic adventures were too costly for Americans to undertake. In all of his addresses he stressed the cost of maintaining the newly acquired Dependencies. The several religious denominations were divided on the question of imperialism. Some fervently believed that it was'God's will" that the United States should annex the Philippines, while others saw "God's will" quite differently and questioned the right of the United States to eject Spain. David Starr Jordan and E. B. Smith were the repre- sentatives of Anti-Imperialism from the field of educa- tion. Samuel Gompers represented the antagonistic view- point of the American Federation of Labor. The hetero- geneity of the group was further involved by the presence of both Republicans and Democrats who favored the Anti— Imperialistic program. Both Senator Hoar of Massachusetts and T. B. Reed of Maine, devout Republicans, were avowed 82 Anti-Imperialists, while Grover Cleveland of New York and William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska were the leading Democratic proponents of the Anti-Imperialists. The Anti-Imperialistic group as a movement of propaganda was not well organized to play an important part in determining the solution of national issues. While many Anti-Imperialist Leagues were organized yet they were usually only local in character. The Anti- Imperialists organized a Central League but it endured for less than four years. The Anti-Imperialistic Leagues lacked the necessary centralization of authority and direction so that the work of the local Leagues was not very effective because of poor coordination. Had their organization been centralized and their fiscal and in- tellectual resources pooled they would have been more potent in creating and directing a public opinion favor- able to their purposes. In reality when one speaks of the Anti-Imperialist League he usually thinks of the Boston League because it was the most active and the best organized of all the units. In spite of decentral- ization, however, the Anti-Imperialist League played an important part in carrying on the issue. Had it not been for the League the Anti-Imperialists could have neither published nor distributed the enormous quantities of printed material during the period from 1898-1904. The Leagues pooled their local resources to carry on the- 83 Opposition to imperialism. The Anti-Imperialistic movement was not strictly nation-wide but was mostly restricted to the New England and Middle States. The Western people seemed indifferent towards the issue because they either saw it as no immediate concern to them or else because of their provincial outlook. The Anti—Imperialists presented many sound and logical arguments against imperialism as viewed from their immediate situation. Their Constitutional argu— ments were carefully based on the previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court and as arguments were reasonable and logically stated. In 1820, Chief Justice Marshall in the Loughborough Case stated "that the term 'United States' in the Constitution meant the States and the territories and every foot of the soil over which the flag of our country floats.”222 In the Pollard vs. Hagan Case the United States Supreme Court Decision stated that, "Every nation acquiring territory by treaty or otherwise must hold it subject to the Con- stitution and laws of its own government.”223 The Anti- Imperialists based their arguments and conclusions on these and other decisions already mentioned. The Supreme Court Decisions in the "Insular Cases” gave a broa 222. M. M. Miller, op. cit., p. 252. 223. F. A. Brooks, op. cit., p. 25. interpretation of the Constitution which the Anti— Imperialistic arguments were unable to meet. The Anti-Imperialistic economic arguments have come true. The United States spent huge sums of money in the Philippines for administration of government, education, and internal improvements for which the American public received very little in return. The United States today imports more from the Philippines than it eprrts to them. The greatest beneficiary from the American con- trol there has been an American capitalistic group whose interests have been safeguarded with the assets of the rest of the American citizenry. Further, the economic expansion had brought the United States into conflicts with foreign powers. The United States has been forced from time to time to inter— vene in Cuba, Nicaragua, San Domingo, Haiti, and Hexico in order to protect the American capitalist there. During President Wilson's Administration, he United States bare- ly averted a war with Mexico over the so-called American interests in Mexico. The economic interests played an important part in drawing the United States into the World War which cost the American people billions of dollars. As a result of this economic expansion the Konroe Doctrine was given a new interpretation. Up to that time it was cancerned strictly with the political questi ns but with new imperialistic policy it became CO U”! C’) well. gs concerned with the economic questions The Anti—Imperialistic humanitar an arguments were sound and logical out in order to make any gains and advanc ments one must make some sacrifices. It was E from various (D H.) k L) h J r v H- 1‘“, H (D ,o. C 1 is {.1 H. C0 $.24 true thm;.fiim'mon T diseases in the cause of imperialism but it must not be concluded that those conditiOLs were to remain in that order permanen.ly. Aiter the Americans had established a government on the Islands many of the disease problems were solved. It is a true historical observation that -ains t3 society are frequently accompanied by certain (”2 sacrifices but it m‘st always be pondered whether or not the sacrifices are greater than the gains. In respect to the Philippines the conclusion reached here is that the sacrifices were far greater than the gains of the government of the United States and its people. Human life is too precious an asset to be expended on forcing any other nation to accept unwillingly American principles or the principles of any 0 her nation for that matter. The Anti—Imperialistic social arguments were not as well founded as the others. The Anti-Imperialists believed that the United States would be forced to make war on Catholicism in the Philippines - a fear that was never met. The Friars' Lands Adjustment - an economic issue alone - involved Catholicism. he inhabitants of the Philippines spoke a foreign language and possessed o; G\ alien customs but that constituted no strong argument for keeping the United States out of the Philippines. Politically the annexation was contrary to the American principles of the Republic. Up to 1898 the Americans did not believe in governing subject peoples and vassal states. The principles of the Declaration of Independence had been most strictly adhered to until the time of the Spanish-American War. Most of the Anti~ Imperialistic arguments were based on precedents which were not effective under the new circumstances. It was not only the conditions in the United States but also the foreign attitude which worked against the Anti—Imperialists. Imperialism by 1898 was a virile world-wide movement and there was no practical argument why the United States should not become a participant. British diplomacy in particular favored American Imperi— alism because it would be more satisfying to Great Britain in having the United States in the pose ssion of the Phil- ippines than it would be to have them, for instance, in German possession. During this period the European powers had entered upon a wild scramble for new colonies and possessions - "spheres of influence".and naturally the United States rapidly becoming industrialized grew interested. Was not the future of American enterprise and welfare to be considered? The domestic conditions also were unfavorable to the Anti-Imperialistic Sentiment. After the Spanish American War the United States went through an era of great prosperity. The American people, having held rather consistently to the ”isolationist idea" from 1793-1898 were not interested in political or economic affairs outside of the circle of their immediate inter- ests. They were naturally self-a sorbed and indifferent toward the new possessions because their potential econ- omic value and political attachment had not as yet been experienced. In an era of prosperity the American peo- ple in the mass are not especially interested in national affairs.or national policies but being given a depression period they suddenly become extremely interested and are more likely to accept radical changes with comparatively little opposition. . There were several personalities who played an important part in promoting the Anti—Imperialistic move- ment. Men such as Grover Cleveland, Moorfield Storey, Thomas B. Reed, and G. F. Hoar were extremely influential in the movement. They were outstanding men of their time and their alliance with the Anti-Imperialists strengthened the movement immensely. Neither all of the R publicans favored imperialism nor were all of the Demo- e crats Anti-Imperialists. Some members within both part- ies disagreed with the principles of their parties. This was especially true with the Republican party in which such men as G. F. Hoar, Carl Schurz and T. B. Reed .‘I'Ttv v- were strong Anti—Imperialists. The Democratic Party was concerned with the domestic affairs and therefore imperialism did not attract it as readily as the Republicans who were ex- pansionists and usually allied with the big business. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party leader, was the "standard bearer" of the Anti-Imperialists, However, his presence in the Anti-Imperialistic group helped to cause its defeat. His first misdeed was in convincing his followers to vote for the ratifica- tion of the Treaty of Paris. Had he not come to Washing- ton at that time the Treaty would not have been ratified. He made his second mistake by insisting on the silver plank in the Platform of 1900. Had he omitted the silver issue, he perhaps would have been elected President be— cause the Gold Democrats would have stayed in the Demo- cratic ranks, while many of the Republican Anti-Imperialists would have voted for him. Eastern business and banks would not have frozen against him if he had stood for sound money. If the Anti-Imperialists had had a leader of Roosevelt‘s type they would have won the election and carried through their objectives. After 1900 the Anti-Imperialistic movement gradually died out. There were several factors which caused its decline: first, American policy in the Far East had been established by 1902 and the change advocated by the Anti- , x 3. . . I. ntli‘. r’t I- IV“ 89 Imperialists would have been unwise from the point of View of good statesmanship. Second, the two major parties had compromised on the issue and rivalry was no longer existent between them. Their ultimate aim was practically the same. Third, the new colonial policy of the United States proved successful shortly and, therefore, it was difficult to retreat from a successful venture. Thus the United States had entered the fray along with the rest of the nations. Recent development under present Democratic Ad- ministration, 1934, have added another chapter to th perennial question of the Philippines: The historian may raise the question of the feasibility of having settled the issue negatively back in 1900. Appendix A "Cry for Help" "Tn the name of all past Glories of Massachu- setts I call for help in response to this appeal. Some months ago I tried to bet up a Faneuil Hall meetinb to protest aoainst the war, out was met with the excuse that the war reeling mibht bet the upper hand. Other persons tried the same thing later, but bave it up, apparently for the same reasons. If that is the danger, in God's name let us stand for the ribnt thoubh the war feeling thus prevail! Is free speecn to oe suppressed in Massachusetts, is Faneuil Hall to be converted into a silent tomb? The spirit of Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison is sorely needed to avert a slavery worse for Massachu- setts at least than that of the negro. Tr any other men will Join me to secure the hall, I, for one, will stand up and have my say avainst the insane and wicked amoition whicn is drivinb this country to ruin." -v-OCO -- Phil. So. Sci. R., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 7. Appendix B. Campaign pursued by the Executive Committee in carryin0 out their anti-imperialist propaganda. "We first wrote to a number of prominent men in each state, asking names of three or four strong men, in sympathy with the cause in each Congressional District.' “We next wrote to all whose names were received, sending them literature and asking for the names of three or four workers in each county. "In some of the states we have written to all the county workers, sending literature and asking for names of influential workers in each voting district. It is intended to carry the organization to township workers in all the states, and in school districts in all doubtful states, and in all doubtful Congressional Districts.” "More or less literature has been sent to all the states, so that every Congressional District has been reached in a breater or less degree. "Very many of the German Turnverein societies passed resolutions against imperialism as also have many labor organizations. The schools and colleges and debating societies are discussing the question, and we have furnished literature to a very large number of them, as well as to many public libraries. "The number of clergymen and school teacners ,.,0. n in 3? irl r Hi ‘u,i..6b I ' ill...“ writing for literature is astonisninbly great. Tn the States of Ohio, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Kansas, and parts of Towa, California, and Oregon, the workers of the cause are as active as if they were in the midst of a heated campaign. "The country press, to a c nsiderablc extent, has been supplied with literature, and from tLe marked COpies of papers we receive, it is obvious “' .1 " KL J... v. ’4. .13- that Uood work may be expected from that source. But brief articles should be prepared for the press, 9 in order to secure their best cooperation. "Never in the history of the country have so many excellent pamphlets and newspapers been written on any subdect as are now UBind written in Opposition to Imperialism. But most of the pamphlets are too voluminous for pOpular circulation. Tt is also remarkable now few pamphlets or poems have been written on the other side. "Several hundred test letters have been sent - throughout the Union to Republicans, Democrats, Silver Republicans, Gold Democrats, Populists, Middle-of-the- Road Populists, PrOhioitionists, and Liberty Party, with the hope of finding the most fertile field in whicn to work! This was done before the meeting of Concress*, and although responses favorable to our fl--- *fi * 55th Conb., 6rd 5885., Dec. 5, lewd-March 5, 1899. cause "ere larbely in the mayority, yet failure to reply on the part of many left the result somewhat in doubt. Since the meeting of Concress there is a disposition on the part of the peOple to respond more promptly to inquiries and there is a greater demand for literature. Amonb the best workers outside the Democratic oraan- ization are the Liberty party, where it exists, Silver Republicans, Prohibitionists, Populists, Gold Democrats, Middle-of-the-Road Populists, and straight Republicans, in order named. An occasional straight Republican proves to be an enthusiastic worker. We have found energetic and enthusiastic men in all the states ready and willing to lend every reasonable assistance in the work, but our E,rcatest need is funds to push the orban- ization into every sonool district, and classify the workers and voters, so that correspondence may be intel- lioently opened with influential citizens in every element and line of business and employment. Every element should be approaChed from its own standpoint, hence classification is essential. This office desired to reach out and secure lists of co-workers among: The country school teachers. The ministers of various denominations. The lawyers. The physicians. The L,rain dealers. The abricultural implement dealers. ‘1 L . ‘f'al'lthw' _‘ ,___,, v.,I»V “I'll: Ifllllfilcl.‘ r The lumber dealers. The live stock dealers. The general merchants. The public speakers, and others active and influential in their various localities and who come in contact mith.the people. To each of these a special personal letter should be written making him a part of the general organization, placing a responsibility upon him and giving him some- thing to do, and especially asking his advice about some- thing in his neighborhood. Every man should be made a personally interested worker, with a responsibility. He should among other things furnish names of doubtful voters. "Hany other things should be done, and, with means, an overwhelming force can be built up. In localities where the Anti—Imperialists are in the majority as well as in sections where the contest is about even, it is unquestionably best to secure the organization of active Leagues and make the fight as publicly and as aggressively as possible. But in localities where the imperialists are in the majority, it should be wise to conduct a hidden and persistent campaign through the "Space forbids mention of all the details to affect a successful organization, but the foregoing is suggestive of the plans we hope to be able to pursue. "Should we have ample means, then there are certain church organizations whose members can be reached by their ministers, their publication manabers, and prom- inent members of societies. A number of lecturers could be emplOyed to spread the gospel of liberty among their own people. 1 "Tears are leaders also in some of the various , n.tionalities who for a consideration are alnays willing to take the platiorm and who can be induced to be of service in a o00d cause. In short, with money, the avenues tetard success are manifold. "Public meetings should be held throughout the land on Washinoton's birthday, his farewell address read, and the work of his life recited by able speakers. "On tne Fourth of July the Declaration of Tndepend- i ence snould be read in every town, village, and hamlet, and patriotism should be stirred as it was never stirred before." q Phil. So. Sci. R., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 13-14. Appendix C. Constitution. NAME: This orbanization shall be called THE ANTI-IMPEPTALIST LEAGUE. OBJECTS: The obdect is to Oppose, by every .3' lecitimate means, the acquisition of tne Philip- pine Islands, or of any colonies away from our shores, by the United States. ~ ‘4 'v '. "tT‘fi MEMDLPSHTP: Any citizen of the United States, irrespective of party, may become a member, if in sympathy with the ooJects of the League. OFFICERS: The officers shall consist of a President, Vice Presidents, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of six, in addition to the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, who shall be members ex-officio. These officers shall be elected by ballot at the annual meeting and shall hold Office for one year, or until their successor shall have been elected. DUTTES OF THE EKLCUTTVE COMMTTTEE: The Eiecutive Committee shall have charge of tne busi ass of the Leabue; shall see to tne distribution of literature; shall promote public meetinbs; shall f receive subscriptions and act benerally for the promotion of the ooyects of the League. hey shall have power to fill vacancies in any office Ui .IIJI’V 'IIU‘ I’L— of the Leabue. Four shall constitute a quorum at meetings of the committee. 6. ANNUAL MEETTNGS: The Annual Meeting of the League snall be held in Boston on the last Saturday of November. 7. AMENDMENTS: Amendments to the Constitution may be made by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting at any meeting of the League. pilil. SO. 8010 R0, V0].- 5’ no. 1, p. 160 l-"y ‘2‘ ”153‘: W . Appendix D. Anti-Imperialist Platform as Adopted on October 17, lave. "he held that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends tohard militarism, an evil from uhicn it has been our glory to be free. We rebret that it has become necessary in the land of Wash- ington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and pur- suit of happiness. We maint in that the governments derive their pOwePS by the consent of the governed. me insist that the subyuoation of any people is "criminal abbression" and Open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our bovernment. We earnestly condemn the policy of the present National AdminiSLration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguisn the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror. We protest apainst the extension of American sovereibnty by SpaniSh methods. We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by Spain and continued by us. We urge that Conbress be promptly convened to announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independbrce for which they so lonb fought and Which of ribht is their..... '- n: Y; roam-m1 . {aw he deny that the Obligation of all citizens to support their Government in time of brave National peril applies to the present situation. Tf an administration may with impunity ignore the issue upon whiCh it was chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere upon the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truth-suppressing censorship and demand of all citizens a suSpensiOn of judoment and their unan- imous support while it chooses to continue the fighti g, representative bovernment itself is imperilled. he prOpose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible subjugation of any peOple. he shall Oppose for reelection all wno in the White House or in Congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American ends. We still hope that bOth of our breat political parties will support and defend tne Declaration of Independence in the closing campaipn of the century. I.- F. Bancroft, ”Speeches, Correspondences, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz", p. 77. Appendix E. Result of the "Chicago Trioune" Survey as to the Stand of Intellectuals on the Philippine Controversy: lgstitgqtq_ With A_giuistggti_g Noncommittal Opposed Cnicabo 1., l 5 Northwestern 5 l 5 Micniban 6 2 z Tllinois 9 1 - Wisconsin 2 e - Minnesota 9 l - De Pauw 7 l l Albion 8 l l Monmouth 6 - 1 Nebraska 7 - 1 Knox 8 1 2 Iowa U. 9 - 1 Iowa College 9 l - Wabasn. 10 + - Illinois Wesleyan a l 2 Cornell, Iowa __2 _ __l _l_ Total is? 16 19 A wan-g- —“ Phil. Soc. Sci. R., vol. 3, no. 1, p. as. - i-fi 4‘ '«AQ-L‘ .—u“_ --.~— —.~— . - . \ J ‘. ‘..-III-_.|. 0‘ Ail ' IV-LII' Di‘ Bibliograohy A I. Primary Sources A. Official Senate Executive Documents h Cong., 3rd. Sess., Vol. 11, no. 161. h Con:., lst. Sess., Vol. 3, p. 52. h Conj., 1st. Soss., Vol. 3’ o, no. 453. The United totes Supreme Court Reports 1 Peter's Reports 182 U. S. :U B. Unofficial * Adams, C. F., ”Imperialism and the Tracks of Our Forefathers.” Dana Estes Co., Boston, 1899. * Brooks, F. A., "Unlawful and Unjustifiable Con- quest of the Philippines." H. H. Ellis, Boston, 1901. * Cochran, W. B., "In the Name of Liberty.” Anti- Imoerialist League, N.E. Boston, 1900. (3 1'1 H r ,. a 1, J- ,. H C“ , . A. . C; 9'; LA ‘ CI. .4 , Ho r G . , sutobio_rco y of Seventy Ye r0 2 volum s, C. Scribner and Sons, New York, 1903. * "Hawaii," July 5, 1898. * "No Constitutional Power to Conquer Foreign States and H011 Their People in Subjection against Their Will." Speech in Senate Jan. 9, C‘ !'\ f\ 999, Washington, 1899. (Q * Schurz, 0., "American Imperiali m.” Chicago, 0AA 1059. a "Policy of Imperialism," 27 P. D., Chicago, 1829. II. \3* 4(- Storey, "oorfieli, "W'hat Shall We Do With Cur Dependencies?" G. H. Ellis Co., Boston, 1903. Secondary Sources Books Andrews, E. B., "His tory of ti e United States vol. 5, Chas. Scri oner and Sons, New York, 1929. A kinson, Ed., "Anti-Impe rialist." v. 1—6.0. Brookline, ”ass., June, 1899. Bancroft, F., "Speeches, Correspondence, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz." New York, 1913. Boutwell, G. S., "The Cris is of the Rep uolic. D. Estes and Co., BOM‘tO 1900. Bowers, C. G., "Beveridge and the Proawre sive Era. " Houghton I.iifflin Co., River- side Press, Cambridge, Kass., 1932. Brooks, F. A., "An Examination of the Scheme for Engrafting the Colonial System of Government upon the United States Constitution." G. H. Ellis, Boston, 1900. Bryan, M. B., ""emoirs of Wm. Jennings Bryan.” J. C. Winston and Co., Philadelphia and Chicago, 1900. Bryan, W. J., Stevenson, A. E., Carnegie, A., "Republic or Empire." W. B. Conkey Co., Chicago, 1900. Carnegie, A., ”The Gospel of Wealth and other Timely Essays." The Century Co., N w York, 1900. Carter, J., ”Conquest: America's Painless Imper- ialism." Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1928. .. . ’Vtv‘I .F~-‘IO ti, .W .s‘ w \ Coolidge, A. C., "Oliver Platt: An Old Fashioned Senator." G. P. Putnams Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, New York and London, 1910. "United States as a World Power." Macmillan Co., New York, 1909. Cushman, R. E., "Leading Constitutional Decisions." F. S. Crofts and Co., New York, 1929. Dennett, T., ”John Hay." Dodd)Mead and Co., New York, 1933. "Encyclopedia Americana." vol. 14, pp- 724“725- -Fau kner, H. U., "American Economic History." Harper Brothers, New York, 1924. Fernald, J. C., "The Imperial Republic." New York, 1899. \Edskn C. R., "American Diplomacy." Holt and Co., New York, 1915. Fleming, W. H., "The Tariff, Civil SerVice, Income Tax, Imperialism, the Race Problem and other Speeches." Caldwell, Atlanta, Ga., 1908. Fuess, C. H., "Carl Schurz: Reformer." Dodd, Mead and Co., New York, 1952. ‘\ Fulton, R. I., Tnueblood, T. C., "Patriotic Elo- quence Relating to the Spanish- American War and Its Issues.” C. Scribner and Sons, New York, 1900. \Giddings, F. H., "Democracy and Empire." The Macmillan Co., New York, 1912. * Gookin, F. W., "A Liberty Catechism." Central Anti-Imperialist League, Chicago, Oct. 1899. Hacker, L. H., and Kendick, B. E., "The United States Since 1865." F. S. Crofts and Co., New York, 1932. Hibben, P., "The Peerless Leader; William Jennings Bryan." Farrar and Rinehart, New York, 1929. § Hill, H. C., ”Roosevelt and the Caribbean." Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1927. Howe, Mark, A. D., "Portrait of an Independent — Moorfield Storey." Houghton Nif- flin Co., Boston and New York, 1932. Howes, H. B., "Philippine Uncertainty." Century Co., London and New York, 1932. * Jordan, D. 8., "Imperial Democracy." D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1899. Kent, F. R., ”The Democratic Party. (History)." The Century Co., London and New York, 1928. Latané, J. H., "America as a World Power." Harper Brothers, London and New York, 1907. ‘Ipdge, H. C., "Selections from Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt." American Nation Series, Scribners and Sons, New York, 1925. Miller, M. H., "Great Debates in American History," vol. 3, Current Literature Publish- ing Co., New York, 1913. ~\Nearing, S. and Freeman, W., "Dollar Diplomacy." B. W. Huebusch and the Viking Press, New York, 1927. Nevins, A., "Grover Cleveland." Dodd, Mead and Co., New York, 1933. ‘\Paxson, L. F., "Recent History of the United States." Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, 1921. Pringle, H. F., "Theodore Roosevelt." Harcourt Brace and Co., New York, 1931. * Randolph, C. F., "Law and Policy of Annexation." Submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, March 16, 1900; The De Vinne Press, New York, 1900. \-Rhodes, T. F., "McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations? Macmillan Co., New York, 1922. Shibley, G. H., ”Honentous Issues." Rural Press Co., Chicago, 1900. Stanwood, Ed., "A History of Presidency from 1897- 1916." Houghton Hifflin Co., Boston and New York, 1916. Strong, J., "EXpansion Under New World Conditions." Baker and Taylor Co., New York, 1900. Thorndike, A. H., "Modern Eloquence." VdL 10. p. 373. Modern Eloquence Corporation, New York, 1933. Werner, H. R., "Bryan." Harcourt Brace and Company, New York, 1929. s.Wey1, W. E., "American World Policies." Macmillan Co., New York, 1917. ?illoughby, W., "Territories and Dependencies of the United States.” Century Co., New York, 1905. Wilson, B., "The New America." Chapman and Hall, London, 1903. * These volumes contain onlymAnti-Imperialistic literature. -. .mi‘la. In! TTI Cu-.- £§g__9§3 “athclig Quartgrly Vol. 24, p. 150, ‘ a a Policy for America", Vol. 18, p. 169, "Present Political Tendencies", W. L. Cook. Vol. 66, pp. 250-58, "Democracy cr Imperialism", F. C. Hewe. Arena, Vol. 52, p. eeS, "Is the Republic Overthrown?" c. H. Snibley. Vol. b3, p. 561, "Giant Tssue of 1960", F. Parsons. Vol. be, pp. 537-57, "Menace of Imper- ialism", E. V. Lang. Vol. 5%, p. 5&5, "Imperialism: Tts Strength and Weakness", A. H. Cobgins. V01. a4, p._532a "Tue Antitheeis of True Expan31on , E. V. Lonb. Vol. 25, p. 555, "The Passing of the Declaration", L. C. Prince. Vol. as, pp. 1-11, "Why I Am Opposed to Imperialism", G. M. Miller. Atlggt q Egytkly, Vol. 155, hp. 249-62, "Tndepenoence Or Civilization', H. H. Powers. Vol. 141, hp. 587-95, "Imperialism cf the Dollar', A. C. Fitchie. Cath_1}9,flgglg, V01. 70, p. 253, "Consent of the Governed." Contemqgrany Beviefi, Vol. 75, p. 63C,”Tmpepislism ”*L ‘5‘ in the United States", Goldwin Smith. 9-—-5P~1-C’I‘L9.1.i£afl: V01. 26. p. 651, "Philippines- Shall They Be Annexed?" A. H. Vuiitfielu. E? I ept Qp'nipp, V01. 29, pp. 45—44 4, "Tmpepialism and Liplcna cy", P. S. Mowrer. Fenug, Vol. 25, p. 177, "Lanbers cf Tmperialism." W. MacDonald. Vol. 56, p. 14, "Isolation or Imperialism.” well Aduress and Tts Applicatiors R. E. Jones. galaxy, Vol. 5, p. 555, "Imperialism in America". Indepggowwg, Vol. 51, p. 1547, "Anti-Tmperialist League", E. Winslow. Vol. 57, np.H5c1- "American Tmpcrialism , G. ?.asn0upn. Ir ”- L1 L30 es t, Vol. 29, p. 553, "Cost of the Pnilip1ines in Blood and Gold." Livinb Ate, Vol. 525, pp. 5C7-510, "Destiny of a Continent" M. Up apte. Nation, V01. 58, p. :5, "Imperialism vs. the Constitution", w. MacDonald. V01. 70, p. 158, "The Issue of Imperialism", E. P. Clark. :01. 5?, pp. 415-16, "Anethep Weary ‘itan. F7 IinetpepLh angpny, Vol. 44, p. 457, "New American Impepi alism" E. Dicey. ’2' n- .,.,., 1 "I, ‘octn I nexgce.n Review, Vol. 155, p. 1555, 'Impep- ialism VSu Americanism", A. Carneoie. Vol. 155, p. 1, "Americanism vs. Tmperialism", A. Carnegie. IV Vol. 155, p. llz, "OLdections to Pniiip1incs", G. G. Vest. Vol. 171, p. z46, "Imperialistic America's Historic Policy", W. A. Reffer. Vol. 175, pp. 511-15, "Anti-Imperialist Faith", E. Winslow. O r 'd -H o < 0 l. 51, p. 257, "An Official Disclaimer or Imperialism." V01. 51, p. 598, ”Anti-TmpCpialist Position.” Vol: 55, p. 557, ”Langep cf Imper- ialism , E. L. meau. Vol. 65, pp. 515-18, "Anti-Imperialist I ,. ‘ .. I Ovenlgpg, Vol. 54, p. 510, "Philippine Annexation as Justified by our History, Constit- ution, anc Laws", T. M. Scott. Philiprin§.§29141 Egiengg Eézi§w. No. 1. Vol. 3, pp. 7-41, "The Anti-Tmpepialist r ' C. Lanzap. B§1;;y 9f Deyiews, Vol. 56, pp. 570-72, "Bryan- ‘u'fi. 5...- II..— Bevepiabe Deoate." Newspapers 0 ~ , , “ " F. H ‘v"\ r ' Letrgig_flr§§ Er§§§, Ju1y 5, 1505, Democratic PlaLiOrm. s I.,; .l.|».|nv . 1.4.4.4” _. .1..l mmufo Rub-3.1 A» 2 a; ‘3 b / 2’18““ M8379? Z? Apr 13 '48 AU! 1 1980120? APR 11 1950 W M” ‘ “$39 o I." . . - II. .‘ ":'I."»"f"‘".lI".I . ' . -,IIA.I.‘ , I‘I‘II’~I:.._'II>.III. 0. ‘ . ' ‘ ' ’ - ‘ - K!“ "'J- . ". -._I; H‘fifikfu xf- ‘. -",‘ ,' l #. o ~ 1": ‘..‘\ _ II. . ' "w ., .. 4"“ ' $2 1" 1' . ' . I .V'\ 'N “-9)“ q ‘ J 51".“ a .‘V ‘ ' l b ‘1'... 2 - I . _ 4 - y I " ‘a J No"! . 3“th 3;:‘fua'¥.?€xwfl"¥ 53.; air .wr 1' a '«q' '.-o' . g! u-m ~ *- {.12.fl&“'rle7”-‘“a.~ ' . -" ‘ \ I' n ' . \r , . ‘ ."' “. ' .. . ' , _ ‘ l '.- ‘|\.D" ~‘ ~‘I‘ - ‘ -“.*'\‘.‘$}14.$-'L..‘ 1'»; 1" .I I 'l. I . . .1) If I_III:;,III. ~ - 9’1 .11“. I y . l'. n. ‘0' L . . ; " i9. HAWK?! “WW. ”if Olll’fQ'chdg A .' "I v ' .A I' . . -'-u"\: :51? ‘E 1' m»! I": . II I I .JI‘ I~I - ‘ s. . II.I III ‘ , -‘II "0'. w‘ I .‘I. II .I I, «hit. ,. .. . . Ht -- I _ w . . I, ".. ’. . .--.' .‘ It, "; -. .I ‘1 x; in 4“ u); , \r , - II #4; 'f , I . I _ . .#._' . _' . I I 1“UI%2) : g- - IQ. $3‘ de 'I .II’A v. I I’g‘é ryg . . I- , , ». I I .3 'l ‘ It ‘ ' E1; < ‘ r fir?“ . a . . W}. sé-«yéefiuk . . r, M; ~ —. M": 1‘ «5:, . .r.€..+.: Mia... 22 a ‘V wfig“‘*¥~‘#«:"4vré:.f 9929.“; a? .rz ‘ f. H . n“! .I IJI‘ \Ii‘IIm up? ,1. _ {I I", yogi} , . 3" ‘~w‘.;».~.£~}é~' ”glgir'fiéwfi-J-‘Ei 3R," ”.5 11- ' “I: f %. f"’§§2q.“€.tz fl“ -' -. "l'nw- I... . L W." ‘q A. I - f > < ' 4" 33‘7”. .I _ Ivy $33 “5‘21; Im-I‘" . '. fr, ' 4 .v p ‘u _‘.¢, - ' ‘ t v I' 4* A 24’} 1,. in. g. t. "-“d; . ~- .5131. . + , C I sva’ "' | r)' I. on 7 . ,‘ “.19’.’ l, ‘ .‘Ié. * ‘ .‘ .- r 'J ’o' a: . a I z.) Io, C-J—’l - If f‘.‘ '. -u v‘;(.;«fI..\ ~‘: .. A ‘ ' , o I “éi‘ffi'fi” W . 52.505 :3 ‘ b ' ""'"‘~"‘"?.Rr . ,- “\ , 1 ' ‘ x. 1 u ’0‘ '. 5"...“ noel ' h I: '. . . ‘ $ " '. . -. I g ,. 41 ‘thc \I, RK‘Q . '5.- “‘o'duI-"‘ . '."‘ if ‘ ‘ It? I ' v V . n 4 ':.' - "‘_ ' - ‘5 .- ‘ I‘m? - a.‘, ’5 5 ‘ . . - « . MMMMMM MM MM M M\ 31293 01754