Fort Malate, Cavite.
To the Philippines, though Spain’s de facto sovereignty there was hardly more than nominal, our title, whether or not good as based on conquest, was unimpeachable considered as a cession by way of war indemnity or sale. Nor, according to the weight of authority, could the right of the federal power to acquire these islands be denied. But did “the Constitution follow the flag” wherever American jurisdiction went? If not, what were the relations of those outlands and their peoples to the United States proper? Could inhabitants of the new possessions emigrate to the United States proper? Did our domestic tariff laws apply there as well as here? Must free trade exist between the nation and its dependencies? Were rights such as that of peaceable assemblage and that to jury trial guaranteed to Filipinos, or could only Americans to the manner born plead them?
On the fundamental question whether the dependencies formed part of the United States the Supreme Court passed in certain so-called “insular cases” which were early brought before it. Four of the justices held that at all times after the Paris Treaty the islands were part and parcel of United States soil. Four held that they at no time became such, but were rather “territories appurtenant” to the country.
The Pasig River, Manila.
Mr. Justice Brown gave the “casting” opinion. Though reasoning in a fashion wholly his own, he sided, on the main issue, with the latter four of his colleagues, making it the decision of the court that Porto Rico and the Philippines did not belong to the United States proper, yet, on the other hand, were not foreign. The revenue clauses of the Constitution did not, therefore, forbid tariffing goods from or going to the islands. In the absence of express legislation, the general tariff did not obtain as against imports from the dependencies. This reasoning, it was observed, was equally applicable to mainland territories and to Alaska. The court intimated that, so far as applicable, the Constitution’s provisions in favor of personal rights and human liberty accompanied the Stars and Stripes beyond sea as well as between our old shores.
Unsatisfactory to nearly all as was this utterance of a badly divided court, it sanctioned the Administration policy and opened the way for necessary legislation. It did nothing, however, to hush the anti-imperialist’s appeal, based more upon the Declaration of Independence and the spirit of our national ideals.
It was said that having delivered the Filipinos from Spain “we were bound in all honor to protect their newly acquired liberty against the ambition and greed of any other nation on earth, and we were equally bound to protect them against our own. We were bound to stand by them, a defender and protector, until their new government was established in freedom and in honor; until they had made treaties with the powers of the earth and were as secure in their national independence as Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Santo Domingo, or Venezuela.” But we ought to bind ourselves and promise the world that so soon as these ends could be realized or assured we would leave the Filipinos to themselves, Such was the view of eminent and respected Americans like George F. Hoar, George S. Boutwell, Carl Schurz, and William J. Bryan.
These and others urged that the Filipinos had inalienable right to life and to liberty; that our policy in the Philippines was in derogation of those rights; that Japan, left to herself, had stridden farther in a generation than England’s crown colony of India in a century; that the Filipinos could be trusted to do likewise; that our increments of territory hitherto had been adapted to complete incorporation in the American empire while the new were not; and that growth of any other character would mean weakness, not strength. The mistakes, expense, and difficulties incident to expansion, and the misbehavior and crimes of some of our soldiers were exhibited in their worst light.