Officers. Enlisted Men. Grand total of casualties in killed and wounded
Killed. 21 222
Wounded 101 1,344
At battle of Las Guasimas, June 24, 1898.
Officers. Enlisted Men.
Killed. 1 15
Wounded 6 43
At battle of El Caney, July 1, 1898.
Officers. Enlisted Men.
Killed. 4 77
Wounded 25 335
At Aguadores, July 1-2, 1898.
Officers. Enlisted Men.
Killed. 2
Wounded 10
At battle of San Juan, July 1-3, 1898.
Officers. Enlisted Men.
Killed. 15 127
Wounded 69 945
Casualties around Santiago, July 10-12, 1898.
Officers. Enlisted Men.
Killed. 1 1
Wounded 1 11
during the war with Spain. WHERE. KILLED. WOUNDED. The deaths from all causes (including casualties in action) in
Officers. Enlisted Men. Officers. Enlisted Men.
Cuba 23 237 99 1,332
Porto Rico. 3 4 36
Manila 17 10 96
Total 23 257 113 1,464
the whole Army, regulars and volunteers, for the fourteen
months from May, 1898, to June, 1899, inclusive, were 6,619.
This is equivalent to an annual rate of 33.03 per thousand of
strength. The deaths from disease during the whole period were
at an annual rate of hut 25.68 per thousand. These were as
follows: STATIONS. Number of Deaths Rate per 1,000.{629}
United States 3,577 23.81
Cuba 928 45.14
Porto Rico 238 38.15
Philippines 402 17.20
Deaths in the armies of the United States, by countries,
between May 1, 1898, and June 30, 1899.[Off. = Officer; Enl. = Enlisted Men.]{630}
COUNTRY KILLED. DIED OF DISEASE. ACCIDENT.
WOUNDS
Off. Enl. Off. Enl. Off. Enl. Off. Enl.
REGULARS.
United States 1 5 10 32 874 1 51
Cuba 19 184 5 60 8 381 7
Porto Rico 3 73 3
Hawaiian Islands 10 1
Philippine Islands 4 81 1 33 4 109 10
At sea 1 11 4 77
Total 24 270 7 114 51 1,524 1 72
VOLUNTEERS.
United States 1 87 2,836 3 111
Cuba 3 39 10 16 457 2 12
Porto Rico 3 1 157 5
Hawaiian Islands 33 1
Philippine Islands 14 146 3 67 5 215 6
At sea 5 122 2
Total 17 188 3 78 114 3,820 5 137
Aggregate 38 458 10 192 165 5,344 6 209
COUNTRY. DROWNED. SUICIDE. MURDER TOTAL.
HOMICIDE
Off. Enl. Off. Enl. Off. Enl. Off. Enl.
REGULARS.
United States 1 16 19 18 35 993
Cuba 7 5 6 32 650
Porto Rico 1 3 1 3 81
Hawaiian Islands 1 12
Philippine Islands 19 1 3 1 10 256
At sea 1 4 2 6 94
Total 2 48 1 32 26 86 2,086
VOLUNTEERS.
United States 23 1 15 22 91 3,008
Cuba 4 3 21 525
Porto Rico 2 1 1 1 169
Hawaiian Islands 34
Philippine Islands 1 9 3 23 446
At sea 2 1 5 127
Total 1 40 1 20 26 141 4,309
Aggregate 3 88 2 52 52 224 6,395
Recapitulation of casualties in action in the armies of the
United States between May 1, 1898, and June 30, 1899.[Off. = Officer; Enl. = Enlisted Men.]
COUNTRY. KILLED. WOUNDED. TOTAL. AGGREGATE
Off. Enl. Off. Enl. Off. Enl.
REGULARS.
Cuba 18 183 86 1,126 104 1,309 1,413
Porto Rico 1 2 15 2 16 18
United States 1 5 10 1 15 16
Philippines, to
August 13, 1898 7 1 25 1 32 33
Philippines since
February 4, 1899 2 74 20 410 22 484 506
Total 21 270 109 1,586 130 1,856 1,986
VOLUNTEERS.
Cuba 3 39 15 218 18 257 275
Porto Rico 3 2 21 2 24 26
Philippines,
to Aug. 13, 1898 11 9 74 9 85 94
Philippines, since
February 4, 1899 14 135 62 865 76 1,000 1,076
Total 17 188 88 1,178 105 1,366 1,471
Grand total 38 458 197 2,764 235 3,222 3,457
HOSPITALS.
From the declaration of war with Spain to September 20, 1899,
there have been established: Beds. In addition to these over 5,000 cases were treated in civil
20 field division hospitals, averaging 250 beds each 5,000
31 general hospitals with a total capacity of about 13,800
Railroad ambulance train 270
4 hospital ships 1,000
Total 20,070
hospitals. It is difficult even to approximate the number of
men treated in these hospitals. During that period somewhat
over 100,000 cases were admitted on sick report, a number
equal to 2,147 per 1,000 of strength during the year, or to
179 per 1,000 per month—the ratio of admissions to hospital
cases being 13 to 8. Using these data as a basis, and assuming
the mean strength of the Army (Regulars and Volunteers) to have
been 154,000, it would appear that from May 1, 1898, to
September 20, 1899, about 275,000 cases have been treated in
these hospitals.
TRANSPORTATION OF SPANISH PRISONERS OF WAR TO SPAIN.
The following is a statement showing the dates of embarkation,
names of vessels, and number of officers, enlisted men, and
others who took passage: [Date = Date of Embarkation,{631}
Off. = Officers
Men = Enlisted men,
Women = Women and children over 5 years of age,
Priests = Priests and Sisters of Charity.]
Date Name of Vessel. Off. Men Women Priests Total
August 9 Alicante 38 1,069 6 11 1,124
August 14 Isla de Luzon 137 2,056 40 4 2,237
August 16 Covadonga 109 2,148 79 2,336
August 19 Villaverde 52 565 34 651
August 19 Isla de Panay 99 1,599 26 5 1,729
August 22 P. de Satrustegui 128 2,359 68 2,555
August 25 Montevideo 136 2,108 122 2 2,368
August 27 Cherihon 18 905 37 960
August 28 Colón 100 1,316 59 1,475
August 30 do 23 726 5 754
September 1 Leon XIII 113 2,209 108 2,430
September 3 San Ignacio 59 1,408 20 12 1,499
September 6 Leonora 15 1,118 1,333
September 12 Cindad de Cadiz 53 19 14 86
September 17 San Augustin 65 800 45 910
September 17 San Francisco 18 588 11 617
Total 1,163 20,974 679 48 22,864
ARMS AND AMMUNITION CAPTURED AT SANTIAGO.
Mauser carbines, Spanish, 7 mm 16,902
Mauser rifles, Argentine, 7½ mm 872
Remington rifles, 7 mm 6,118
Total rifles 23,892
Mauser carbines, Spanish 833
Mauser carbines, Argentine 7½ mm 84
Remington carbines, 7½ mm 330
Total carbines 1,247
Revolvers 75 Mauser-Spanish—cartridges, 7 mm. 1,500,000
Mauser-Argentine—cartridges, 7½ mm. 1,471,200
Remington cartridges, 7½ mm 1,680,000
Total. 4,651,200
Nine hundred and seventy-three thousand Remington
cartridges, 7½ mm., worthless.
STRENGTH OF THE NAVY, REGULAR AND AUXILIARY.
The number of enlisted men allowed by law prior to the
outbreak of hostilities was 12,500. On August 15, when the
enlisted force reached its maximum, there were 24,123 men in
the service. This great increase was made necessary by the
addition of 128 ships to the Navy. The maximum fighting force
of the Navy, separated into classes, was as follows: Battle ships (first class). 4 Congressional Record,
Battle ships (second class). 1
Armored cruisers. 2
Coast defense monitors. 6
Armored ram. 1
Protected cruisers. 12
Unprotected cruisers. 3
Gunboats. 18
Dynamite cruiser. 1
Torpedo boats. 11
Vessels of old Navy,
Including monitors. 14
Auxiliary Navy:
Auxiliary cruisers. 11
Converted yachts. 28
Revenue cutters. 15
Light-house tenders. 4
Converted tugs. 27
Converted colliers. 19
Miscellaneous. 19
NAVAL, PRISONERS OF WAR CAPTURED OFF SANTIAGO, JULY 3, 1898.
Officers. 99
Enlisted men. 1,675
CASUALTIES IN ACTION.
ENGAGEMENT. Casualties Killed Wounded Died later
from wounds
Action at Manila Bay,
May 1 9 9
Action off Cienfuegos,
May 11 12 1 11 1
Action off Cardenas,
May 11. 8 5 3
Action off San Juan,
Porto Rico, May 12 8 1 7
Engagements at Guantanamo,
Cuba, June 11 to 20 22 *6 16
Engagement off Santiago:
June 22 10 1 9
July 3 11 1 10
Miscellaneous:
Yankee, June 13. 1 1
Eagle, July 12 1 1
Bancroft, August 2 1 1
Amphitrite, August 7 1 1 †l
Total 84 16 68 2
* One accidentally killed.
† Accidentally shot.
February 1, 1901, pages 1941-1962.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.
Investigation of the conduct of the War Department
in the war with Spain.
Severe criticism of the conduct of the War Department during
the war with Spain, including many charges of inefficiency in
its service, produced by improper appointments made for
political reasons, and other charges of misdoing in the
purchase of supplies, under influences either political or
otherwise corrupt, led to the appointment by the President, in
September, 1898, of an investigating commission, composed of
nine soldier and civilian members, as follows:
General Grenville M. Dodge, President.
Colonel James A. Sexton.
Colonel Charles Denby,
Captain Evan P. Howell,
Honorable Urban A. Woodbury,
Brigadier-General John M. Wilson, U. S. A.,
General James A. Beaver,
Major-General Alexander McD. Cook, U. S. A.,
Dr. Phineas S. Conner.
The report of the Commission, made in the following February,
cannot be said to have been a convincing and satisfactory one
to the country at large. It was indignantly described as a
"whitewashing report," even by many journals and writers of
the party in power. Its inquiries did not appear to have been
keenly and impartially searching; its conclusions were not
thought to be drawn with a rigorous and fearless hand.
The charges against the War Department which excited most
feeling and drew most public attention related to the quality
of the fresh beef supplied to the army, which was in two
forms, refrigerated and canned. Major-General Miles,
commanding the Army, had declared that much of the
refrigerated beef furnished to the soldiers should be called
"embalmed beef," maintaining that it had been "apparently
preserved with secret chemicals, which destroy its natural
flavor" and which were believed to be "detrimental to the
health of the troops." He intimated that hundreds of tons of
such beef had been contracted for by the Commissary-General
"under pretense of experiment." In repelling this serious
accusation, Commissary-General Charles P. Eagan read a
statement before the Commission, so violent and unmeasured in
its vituperation of the commanding general that it was
returned to him for correction; many newspapers declined to
publish it, and he was subsequently tried by court-martial in
consequence—as related below. The conclusion of the
Commission on the subject of the charges relating to
refrigerated beef was stated in its report as follows:
"The Commission is of the opinion that no refrigerated beef
furnished by contractors and issued to the troops during the
war with Spain was subjected to or treated with any chemicals
by the contractors or those in their employ."
Concerning the canned beef, which had caused much disgust in
the army, the Commission reported:
"The result of our own testing and of all the analyses made at
our instance … is that the canned meat which has been brought
to our attention is pure, sound, and nutritive. It has not
been found to contain any acids or any deleterious substance,
but to be unadulterated meat. The testimony before us is that
the canned meat is not, in general, intended to be issued to
troops except as an emergency ration. The preponderance of the
proof is that meat on the hoof and the refrigerated beef are
more acceptable. A number of officers and others have
testified that the meat is unpalatable. Its palatability
greatly depends upon the mode in which it is cooked. In a
tropical climate, carried on the march, exposed to heat, the
meat so changes in appearance as to become repulsive. In the
Navy, where the meat is properly cared for, there has been no
complaint, so far as has appeared in evidence before us. After
careful consideration we find that canned meat, as issued to
the troops, was generally of good quality, was properly
prepared, and contained no deleterious substance.
{632}
At times probably material of poor quality is issued; in one
of the cans sent to us and examined by the chemist a large
amount of gristle was found. That it was not issued 'under
pretense of an experiment' is indicated by the fact that it
has been in use in the Army for more than 20 years."
On the general management of the Quarter-master's Department,
with which much fault had been found, the Commission reported:
"The conclusions drawn … are as follows:
"1. The Quartermaster's Department, a month before war was
declared, was neither physically nor financially prepared for
the tremendous labor of suddenly equipping and transporting an
army over ten times the size of the Regular Army of the United
States.
"2. That the department devoted the ability, zeal, and
industry of its officers to accomplish the herculean task
before it so soon as funds were made available and war was
declared.
"3. That it deserves credit for the great work accomplished,
for the immense quantity of materials obtained and issued
within so short a period, and for its earnest efforts in
reference to railroad transportation and in protecting the
great interests of the General Government committed to its
charge. Its officers, especially those at the head-quarters of
the department and at its depots, worked earnestly and
laboriously day and night, sparing themselves in no possible
way.
"4. There appears to have been a lack of system, whereby, even
as late as October, troops in camps and in the field were
lacking in some articles of clothing, camp and garrison
equipage; and hospitals, at least at two important localities
in the South—Fort Monroe, Virginia, and Huntsville,
Alabama—lacked stoves, while at Huntsville fuel was wanting.
"5. There appears to have been lack of executive or
administrative ability, either on the part of the
Quartermaster's Department or the railroad officials, in
preventing the great congestion of cars at Tampa and
Chickamauga when these camps were first established, which
congestion caused delay, annoyance, and discomfort to the
large bodies of troops concentrating at those places.
"6. There appears to have been a lack of foresight in
preparing and promptly having available at some central
locality on the seacoast the necessary fleet of transports
which it seemed evident would be required for the movement of
troops to a foreign shore, and, finally, when the call came
suddenly and the emergency was supreme, the department appears
not to have fully comprehended the capacity of the fleet under
its command; not to have supplied it with a complete outfit of
lighters for the immediate disembarkation of troops and
supplies; to have accepted without full investigation the
statement that the vessels were capable of transporting 25,000
men, while really they could not and did not transport more
than 17,000 with their artillery, equipments, ammunition, and
supplies, and lacked sufficient storage room for the necessary
amount of wagon transportation—that very important element
in the movement of an army in the face of an enemy.
"7. The Quartermaster's Department should maintain on hand at
all times a complete supply for at least four months for an
army of 100,000 men of all articles of clothing, camp and
garrison equipage, and other quartermaster's supplies which
will not deteriorate by storage or which cannot at once be
obtained in open market.
"Finally. In the opinion of this commission, there should be a
division of the labor now devolving upon the Quartermaster's
Department."
In another part of its report, dealing especially with the
Santiago campaign, the Commission makes a statement which
seems to reflect some additional light on the sixth paragraph
of the finding quoted above, relative to the unpreparedness of
the quartermaster's department for the landing of the Santiago
expedition. It says:
"The Navy Department, on the 31st of May, 1898, sent the
following communication to the honorable the Secretary of War:
'This Department begs leave to inquire what means are to be
employed by the War Department for landing the troops,
artillery, horses, siege guns, mortars, and other heavy
objects when the pending military expedition arrives on the
Cuban coast near Santiago. While the Navy will be prepared to
furnish all the assistance that may be in its power, it is
obvious that the crews of the armored ships and of such others
as will be called upon to remove the Spanish mines and to meet
the Spanish fleet in action can not be spared for other purposes,
and ought not to be fatigued by the work incident to landing
of the troops and stores, etc.' This information, so far as
can be ascertained, was never communicated to either General
Miles or General Shafter; the expedition therefore left Tampa
with no facilities for landing other than were afforded by the
boats of the several transports conveying the expedition, with
the exception of several lighters and steam tugs of light draft,
such as could be hastily secured."
On the conduct of the Medical Department, which was another
matter of investigation, the Commission reported: "To sum up,
in brief, the evidence submitted shows:
" 1. That at the outbreak of the war the Medical Department
was, in men and materials, altogether unprepared to meet the
necessities of the army called out.
"2. That as a result of the action through a generation of
contracted and contracting methods of administration, it was
impossible for the Department to operate largely, freely, and
without undue regard to cost.
"3. That in the absence of a special corps of inspectors, and
the apparent infrequency of inspections by chief surgeons, and
of official reports of the state of things in camps and
hospitals, there was not such investigation of the sanitary
conditions of the army as is the first duty imposed upon the
Department by the regulations.
"4. That the nursing force during the months of My, June, and
July was neither ample nor efficient, reasons for which may be
found in the lack of a proper volunteer hospital corps, due to
the failure of Congress to authorize its establishment, and to
the nonrecognition in the beginning of the value of women
nurses and the extent to which their services could be
secured.
"5. That the demand made upon the resources of the Department
in the care of sick and wounded was very much greater than had
been anticipated, and consequently, in like proportion, these
demands were imperfectly met.
{633}
"6. That powerless as the Department was to have supplies
transferred from point to point, except through the
intermediation of the Quartermaster's Department, it was
seriously crippled in its efforts to fulfil the regulation
duty of 'furnishing all medical and hospital supplies.'
"7. That the shortcomings in administration and operation may
justly be attributed, in large measure, to the hurry and
confusion incident to the assembling of an army of untrained
officers and men, ten times larger than before, for which no
preparations in advance had been or could be made because of
existing rules and regulations.
"8. That notwithstanding all the manifest errors, of omission
rather than of commission, a vast deal of good work was done
by medical officers, high and low, regular and volunteer, and
there were unusually few deaths among the wounded and the
sick.
"What is needed by the medical department in the future is—
"1. A larger force of commissioned medical officers.
"2. Authority to establish in time of war a proper volunteer
hospital corps.
"3. A reserve corps of selected trained women nurses, ready to
serve when necessity shall arise, but under ordinary
circumstances, owing no duty to the War Department, except to
report residence at determined intervals.
"4. A year's supply for an army of at least four times the
actual strength, of all such medicines, hospital furniture,
and stores as are not materially damaged by keeping, to be
held constantly on hand in the medical supply depots.
"5. The charge of transportation to such extent as will secure
prompt shipment and ready delivery of all medical supplies.
"6. The simplification of administrative 'paper work,' so that
medical officers may be able to more thoroughly discharge
their sanitary and strictly medical duties.
"7. The securing of such legislation as will authorize all
surgeons in medical charge of troops, hospitals, transports,
trains, and independent commands to draw from the Subsistence
Department funds for the purchase of such articles of diet as
may be necessary to the proper treatment of soldiers too sick
to use the army ration. This to take the place of all
commutation of rations of the sick now authorized.
"Convalescent soldiers traveling on furlough should be
furnished transportation, sleeping berths or staterooms, and
$1.50 per diem for subsistence in lieu of rations, the soldier
not to be held accountable or chargeable for this amount."
Report of the Commission, volume 1.
Public opinion of the report, when divested of partisan
prejudice, was probably expressed very fairly in the following
comments of "The Nation," of New York:
"The two leading conclusions of the court of inquiry as to the
quality of the beef supplied to our troops during the war with
Spain, are in accordance with the evidence and will be
accepted as fairly just by the country. The court finds that
so far as the canned roast beef was concerned, the charges
which General Miles made against it as an unsuitable ration
are sustained, but that as regards the use of chemicals in the
treatment of refrigerated beef his charges were not
established. If instead of saying 'not established,' the court
had said 'not fully sustained,' its verdict would have been
above criticism on these two points. There was evidence of the
use of chemicals, but it was not conclusive and was flatly
contradicted. There is no doubt whatever that the use of the
refrigerated beef was a blunder, but there was very little
evidence to sustain a more serious charge than that against
it.
"But while the court has found justly on these points, it is
difficult to read its report without feeling that its members
did so reluctantly, and that, if left to follow their
inclinations, they would have censured General Miles and
allowed everybody else concerned to go free. General Miles is
the one person involved whom they allow no extenuating
circumstances to benefit in their report. At every opportunity
they take the worst possible view of his conduct, while almost
invariably taking the most lenient view possible of nearly
everybody else. … So far as the findings of the court apply to
Eagan's conduct, they are condemnatory in general terms, but
they do not seek to go behind him for the reasons for his
conduct. … No attention whatever is paid to the evidence of
several reputable witnesses that Eagan had told them that he
had to buy of certain contractors; none is paid, either, to
the evidence of Eagan's subordinates that he himself so
altered the refrigerated beef contracts that no one could say
whether they called for preservation for seventy-two hours or
twenty-four. Leniency of this kind is never shown toward
General Miles."
The Nation,
May 11, 1899.
Perhaps a weightier criticism is represented by the following,
which we quote from an article contributed to "The
Independent" by General Wingate, President of the National
Guard Association of the United States: "So far as the
refrigerated beef was concerned, the truth probably is that
there was little, if any, 'embalming' about it. Soldiers
generally agree that the beef itself was almost universally
good. … General Miles, on the other hand, was clearly right in
asking that the troops might be furnished with beef cattle on the
hoof, which could follow the army over any road and which
would keep in good condition on the luxuriant grasses of Cuba
and Porto Rico. This was the system pursued in our Civil War.
No one has yet explained why it was abandoned for the
experiment of furnishing this kind of beef to places in the
tropics where it had to be hauled in wagons for many hours
over muddy roads, and when most of the wagons required to move
it promptly had to be left behind for want of water
transportation.
"The matter of the refrigerated or so-called 'embalmed' beef
is, however, of very slight consequence compared with that of
the canned roast beef. The use of that beef as an army ration
in this country, at least, was new. Officer after officer has
testified before the court of inquiry that they never saw it
so issued before the Cuban campaign. It is true that the navy
uses it, but the facilities on shipboard for caring for and
cooking food are so different and so superior to those of an
army in the field that no comparison can justly be made
between them. Moreover, as was recently stated in the 'Army
and Navy Journal,' the belief is general in the navy that the
canned beef it had rejected on inspection was afterward sold
to the army and accepted by it without inspection.
{634}
Be this as it may, the evidence is overwhelming that the
canned roast beef which was issued to the army was repulsive
in appearance and disagreeable in smell. … Governor Roosevelt
says in his testimony that 'from generals to privates he never
heard any one who did not condemn it as an army ration.' Its
defects appeared on the voyage to Santiago, if not before. It
was then so bad that the men would not touch it, and as
Governor Roosevelt says in his article in 'Scribner's,' his
Rough Riders, who certainly were not particular, could not eat
it, and as it constituted one-third of the rations, his men
had to go hungry. And yet, in spite of these facts, a million
pounds of that beef was purchased from Armour & Co. alone, and
its issue was continued not only in Cuba but in Porto Rico.
What is worse than all, after its defects were fully known it
was issued as a traveling ration to the fever-racked men on
their homeward voyage to this country; men who needed and were
entitled to receive the most nourishing food and to whom this
indigestible stuff was poison. This should never be forgotten
or forgiven by the plain people of the country. …
"No one in authority has been willing to admit that there was
the slightest thing wrong, or the least need for improvement
in his department. … This is another of the hundreds of
examples which have occurred in our past war, and which will
continue to take place in the future until the whole staff
system of the army has been rectified, of the reign of that
hide bound bureaucratic spirit which induces the head of a
department in Washington to decide in his office what should
be used by the troops in the field without practical
experience on the subject, and to stubbornly close his eyes
and ears to everything which will tend to show that it is
possible that his department has made a mistake. …
"It is noticeable that so far not an official in any of the
supply or medical departments is known to have been court
martialed or even censured. Yet I do not hesitate to say that
the summary dismissal from the service, in the beginning, of
two or three quartermasters and commissaries, including the
gentlemen who were the cause of sending thousands of cars to
Tampa without invoices or anything on the outside of them to
indicate their contents, would have saved the lives of
hundreds of our soldiers. Under these circumstances it is most
lamentable to find that the awful experiences which have made
so many homes desolate, and so many of our best young men
invalids, have borne no practical fruit. Both the army
officials and Congress are like the Bourbons, they 'have
learned nothing and forgotten nothing.'"
G. W. Wingate,
What the Beef Scandal Teaches
(Independent, April 6, 1899).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.
Joint High Commission for settlement of
pending questions with Canada.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1898-1899.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899 (October-October).
Military government of Porto Rico.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (OCTOBER-OCTOBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899 (December-January).
Instructions by the President to General Otis,
Military Governor of the Philippines.
Their proclamation by the latter in a modified form.
The effect.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January).
The case of Commissary-General Eagan.
A court-martial, sitting in January, 1899, for the trial of
Commissary-General Eagan, on the charge that he had been
guilty of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and
conduct to the prejudice of good order and military
discipline," in the abusive language that he had applied to
the commanding general of the army, in the course of his
testimony before the Commission to investigate the conduct of
the War Department found the accused officer guilty, and
imposed the inevitable penalty of dismissal from the service,
but recommended executive clemency in his case.
See:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.
The sentence was commuted by the President to suspension from
rank and duty for six years. This involved no loss of pay,
and, at the end of six years, General Eagan will go on the
retired list.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January).
Appointment of the First Commission to the Philippines.
The President's instructions to the Commissioners.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January-February).
The Treaty of Peace in the Senate.
Its ratification.
The Treaty of Peace with Spain, signed at Paris December 10,
1898, was sent by the President to the Senate on the 4th of
January, 1899, and held under debate in that body until the
6th of February following. The opposition to it was very
strong, being especially directed against the acquisition of
the Philippine Islands, involving, as that acquisition did,
the embarkation of the Republic in a colonial or imperial
policy, of conquest and of government without the consent of
the governed, which seemed to a great number of thoughtful
people, not only incongruous with its constitution, but a
dangerous violation of the principles on which its republican
polity is founded. But even those most opposed to the
acquisition of the Philippine Islands were reluctant to reopen
the state of war by rejection of the treaty, and directed
their efforts mainly towards the securing of a definite
declaration from Congress of the intention of the government
of the United States to establish independence in the islands.
"Even before the signing of the treaty at Paris, on the 6th of
December, when the demand of the American commissioners for
cession of the Philippines was known, the opposition expressed
itself in the following resolution, introduced by Senator
Vest, of Missouri:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled. That under the
Constitution of the United States no power is given to the
Federal Government to acquire territory to be held and
governed permanently as colonies. The colonial system of
European nations can not be established under our present
Constitution, but all territory acquired by the Government,
except such small amount as may be necessary for coaling
stations, correction of boundaries, and similar governmental
purposes, must be acquired and governed with the purpose of
ultimately organizing such territory into States suitable for
admission into the Union."
This resolution became the ground of much senatorial debate
during the following weeks. The arguments opposed to it, and
supporting the policy of the administration, are represented
fairly by the following passage from a speech made by Senator
Platt, of Connecticut, on December 16:
{635}
"I propose to maintain that the United States is a nation;
that as a nation it possesses every sovereign power not
reserved in its Constitution to the States or the people; that
the right to acquire territory was not reserved, and is
therefore an inherent sovereign right; that is a right upon
which there is no limitation, and with regard to which there
is no qualification; that in certain instances the right may
be inferred from specific clauses in the Constitution, but
that it exists independent of these clauses; that in the right
to acquire territory is found the right to govern it; and as
the right to acquire is a sovereign and inherent right, the
right to govern is a sovereign right not limited in the
Constitution, and that these propositions are in accordance
with the views of the framers of the Constitution, the
decisions of the Supreme Court, and the legislation of
Congress.
"Mr. President, this is a nation. It has been called by
various names. It has been called a Confederated Republic, a
Federal Union, the Union of States, a league of States, a rope
of sand; but during all the time these names have been applied
to it it has been a nation. It was so understood by the
framers of the Constitution. It was so decided by the great
judges of the Supreme Court in the early days of the
Constitution. It is too late to deny it, and, Mr. President,
it is also too late to admit it, and not have faith in it.
Intellectual assent to the doctrines of Christianity does not
make a man a Christian. It is saving faith that makes the
Christian. And a mere intellectual assent to the doctrine that
we are a nation does not make the true patriot. It is high
time that we come to believe without qualification, to believe
in our hearts, in the exercise of patriotic faith, that the
United States is a nation. When we come to believe that, Mr.
President, many of the doubts and uncertainties which have
troubled men will disappear.
"It is time to be heroic in our faith and to assert all the
power that belongs to the nation as a nation. … The attempt to
shear the United States of a portion of its sovereign power is
an attempt which may well be thoroughly and fully discussed.
In the right to acquire territory is found the right to
govern, and as the right to acquire is sovereign and
unlimited, the right to govern is a sovereign right, and I
maintain is not limited in the Constitution. If I am right in
holding that the power to acquire is the sovereign power
without limitation, I think it must be admitted that the right
to govern is also sovereign and unlimited. But if it is sought
to rest the right to govern upon that clause of the
Constitution which gives Congress the power to dispose of or
make 'all needful rules and regulations' for the government of
the territory of the United States, I submit there is no
limitation there. There is no qualification there."
On the 4th of January the Senate received the treaty from the
President. On the 7th, Senator Mason, of Illinois, introduced
the following resolution, and, subsequently, spoke with
earnestness in its support:
"Whereas all just powers of government are derived from the
consent of the governed: Therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That the
Government of the United States of America will not attempt to
govern the people of any other country in the world without
the consent of the people themselves, or subject them by force
to our dominion against their will."
On the 9th an impressive speech was made by Senator Hoar, of
Massachusetts, mainly in reply to Senator Platt. He spoke
partly as follows:
"Mr. President, I am quite sure that no man who will hear or
who will read what I say today will doubt that nothing could
induce me to say it but a commanding sense of public duty. I
think I dislike more than most men to differ from men with
whom I have so long and so constantly agreed. I dislike to
differ from the President, whose election I hailed with such
personal satisfaction and such exulting anticipations for the
Republic. I dislike to differ from so many of my party
associates in this Chamber, with whom I have for so many years
trod the same path and sought the same goal. I am one of those
men who believe that little that is great or good or permanent
for a free people can be accomplished without the
instrumentality of party. And I have believed religiously, and
from my soul, for half a century, in the great doctrines and
principles of the Republican party. I stood in a humble
capacity by its cradle. I do not mean, if I can help it, to
follow its hearse. I am sure I render it a service; I am sure
I help to protect and to prolong the life of that great
organization, if I can say or can do anything to keep it from
forsaking the great principles and doctrines in which alone it
must live or bear no life. I must, in this great crisis,
discharge the trust my beloved Commonwealth has committed to
me according to my sense of duty as I see it. However
unpleasant may be that duty, as Martin Luther said, 'God help
me. I can do no otherwise.'
"I am to speak for my country, for its whole past and for its
whole future. I am to speak to a people whose fate is bound up
in the preservation of our great doctrine of constitutional
liberty. I am to speak for the dead soldier who gave his life
for liberty that his death might set a seal upon his country's
historic glory. I am to speak for the Republican party, all of
whose great traditions are at stake, and all of whose great
achievements are in peril. …
"The question with which we now have to deal is whether
Congress may conquer and may govern, without their consent and
against their will, a foreign nation, a separate, distinct,
and numerous people, a territory not hereafter to be populated
by Americans, to be formed into American States and to take its
part in fulfilling and executing the purposes for which the
Constitution was framed, whether it may conquer, control, and
govern this people, not for the general welfare, common
defense, more perfect union, more blessed liberty of the
people of the United States, but for some real or fancied
benefit to be conferred against their desire upon the people
so governed or in discharge of some fancied obligation to
them, and not to the people of the United States.
"Now, Mr. President, the question is whether the men who
framed the Constitution, or the people who adopted it, meant
to confer that power among the limited and restrained powers
of the sovereign nation that they were creating. Upon that
question I take issue with my honorable friend from
Connecticut.
{636}
I declare not only that this is not among the express powers
conferred upon the sovereignty they created, that it is not
among the powers necessarily or reasonably or conveniently
implied for the sake of carrying into effect the purposes of
that instrument, but that it is a power which it can be
demonstrated by the whole contemporaneous history and by our
whole history since until within six months they did not mean
should exist—a power that our fathers and their descendants
have ever loathed and abhorred—and that they believed that no
sovereign on earth could rightfully exercise it, and that no
people on earth could rightfully confer it. They not only did
not mean to confer it, but they would have cut off their right
hands, everyone of them, sooner than set them to an instrument
which should confer it. …
"The great contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution is
to be found in the Declaration of Independence. Over every
clause, syllable, and letter of the Constitution the
Declaration of Independence pours its blazing torch-light. The
same men framed it. The same States confirmed it. The same
people pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor to support it. The great characters in the
Constitutional Convention were the great characters of the
Continental Congress. There are undoubtedly, among its burning
and shining truths, one or two which the convention that
adopted it were not prepared themselves at once to put into
practice. But they placed them before their countrymen as an
ideal moral law to which the liberty of the people was to
aspire and to ascend as soon as the nature of existing
conditions would admit. Doubtless slavery was inconsistent
with it, as Jefferson, its great author, has in more than one
place left on record. But at last in the strife of a great
civil war the truth of the Declaration prevailed and the
falsehood of slavery went down, and at last the Constitution
of the United States conformed to the Declaration and it has
become the law of the land, and its great doctrines of liberty
are written upon the American flag wherever the American flag
floats. Who shall haul them down?"
Two days later (January 11) the following resolutions were
introduced by Senator Bacon, of Georgia:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
First, That the Government and people of the United States
have not waged the recent war with Spain for conquest and for
the acquisition of foreign territory, but solely for the
purposes set forth in the resolution of Congress making the
declaration of said war, the acquisition of such small tracts
of land or harbors as may be necessary for governmental
purposes being not deemed inconsistent with the same.
"Second. That in demanding and in receiving the cession of the
Philippine Islands it is not the purpose of the Government of
the United States to secure and maintain dominion over the
same as a part of the territory of the United States, or to
incorporate the inhabitants thereof as citizens of the United
States, or to hold said inhabitants as vassals or subjects of
this Government.
"Third. That whereas at the time of the declaration of war by
the United States against Spain, and prior thereto, the
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands were actively engaged in
a war with Spain to achieve their independence, and whereas
said purpose and the military operations thereunder have not
been abandoned, but are still being actively prosecuted
thereunder, therefore, in recognition of and in obedience to
the vital principle announced in the great declaration that
governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the
governed,' the Government of the United States recognizes that
the people of the Philippine Islands of a right ought to be
free and independent; that, with this view and to give effect
to the same, the Government of the United States has required
the Government of Spain to relinquish its authority and
government in the Philippine Islands and to withdraw its land
and naval forces from the Philippine Islands and from the
waters thereof.
"Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaim any
disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or control over said islands, and assert their
determination when an independent government shall have been
duly erected therein entitled to recognition as such, to
transfer to said government, upon terms which shall be
reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by
Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and control of
the islands to their people."
On the 13th, Senator McLaurin, of South Carolina, returned to
the question of constitutional power in the government of the
United States to hold territory in a permanently subject
state, and spoke against the view maintained by Senator Platt,
of Connecticut: "To hold," he said, "that there is an inherent
power of sovereignty in the nation, outside of the
Constitution, to do something not authorized by that
instrument is to place this 'inherent sovereignty' above the
Constitution and thus destroy the very foundation upon which
constitutional government rests. Judge Gray in the
Chinese-exclusion case, said: 'The United States are a
sovereign and independent nation, and are invested by the
Constitution with the entire control of international
relations and with all the powers of government necessary to
maintain that control and make it effective.' While holding
that the United States are a sovereign and independent nation,
it will be seen that he also holds that the sovereignty of the
nation is vested by the Constitution; and if so, it can only
be exercised in the mode pointed out in the Constitution and
is controlled by the words of the grant of this sovereignty.
There was no nation of the United States until the adoption of
the Federal Constitution; hence before that time there could
be no sovereignty of the nation. What conferred this
sovereignty? Clearly the States, by and through the Federal
Constitution. If so, then there can be no inherent right of
sovereignty except that conferred by the Constitution.
"The Senator further contends that we are a sovereign nation,
and as such have the same inherent right to acquire territory
as England, France, Germany, and Mexico. I controvert that
proposition. The sovereignty of the nation of Great Britain
and the others is vested in the people, and has never been
delegated and limited as in our country. These Governments
enjoy sovereignty in its elementary form.
{637}
What the government wills it may do without considering the
act or its consequences in the light of an organic law of
binding obligation. Our Government is in a very different
position. The Federal Constitution is the embodiment of the
sovereignty of the United States as a nation, and this
sovereignty can only be exercised in accordance with the
powers contained in its provisions. Great Britain can do
anything as a nation in the way of the exercise of
governmental functions. There is nothing to prohibit or
restrict the fullest exercise of her sovereignty as a nation.
Hence there is no analogy, and the sovereignty of the United
States as a nation differs widely from that of Great Britain.
"It is further contended that a sovereign right can not be
limited and that all our Constitution can do is to prescribe
the manner in which it can be exercised. If, as already shown,
the sovereignty of the United States was conferred by the
States through the Federal Constitution, it is clear that, in
conferring the power and prescribing the manner of its
exercise, they did set a limit in the very terms of the
instrument itself. I deny, therefore, that the United States
as a nation has a sovereign, inherent right and control
outside of the grant of such power in the Constitution. This
is not an essential element of nationality so far as our
nation is concerned, although it may be in England or Russia,
where the nationality and sovereignty incident to it are not
created and limited by a written constitution."
On the 14th of January, Mr. Hoar submitted the following:
"Resolved, That the people of the Philippine islands of right
ought to be free and independent; that they are absolved from
all allegiance to the Spanish Crown, and that all political
connection between them and Spain is and ought to be totally
dissolved, and that they have, therefore, full power to do all
acts and things which independent states may of right do; that
it is their right to institute a new government for
themselves, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness; and that with
these rights the people of the United States do not propose to
interfere."
On the 18th, Mr. Bacon amended his resolutions, given above,
by changing the phrase "an independent government" to "a
stable and independent government," and then spoke upon them
with force, saying, among other things: "The simple fact that
we went to war with Spain did not devolve upon us any
obligation with reference to the Philippine Islands. We went
to war with Spain not for the purpose of correcting all the
evils with which her people were afflicted; we went to war
with Spain not to break the chains of tyranny with which she
might be binding her different colonies: we did not undertake
to be the great universal benefactor and to right all the
wrongs of all the world, or even all the wrongs that Spain
might be inflicting upon any of her people. "We went to war
because a particular colony which she was afflicting lay at
our doors; we went to war because the disorders of that
Government affected the peace of our community and were
injurious to our material interest. We said there was a
condition of affairs which was unbearable and that we would
put an end to it.
"To that extent and to that alone we claimed and avowed the
reason for the declaration of war. So it follows that the mere
declaration of war did not affect in any manner our relations
with the Philippine Islands except to put us in a state of war
with them as a part of the Spanish domain, and in no manner
laid any obligations upon us as to those islands. We were not
charged with the duty of preserving order in Asia. We were not
charged with the obligations of seeing that they had a stable
and orderly government in any part of that hemisphere. No such
duty rested upon us. None such was assumed by us. Therefore
the simple declaration of war did not lay any obligation upon
us as to the Philippine Islands, and I desire that any Senator
will put his finger upon the act which laid us under any
obligations to the Philippine Islands outside of the fact that
in the war which ensued we took those who were the insurgents
in those islands to be our allies and made a common cause with
them.
"Now, Mr. President, all that grows out of that—all that grows
out of the fact of that cooperation and that alliance—is to
impose upon us a single obligation which we must not ignore.
How far does that obligation go? Does it require that we shall
for all time undertake to be the guardians of the Philippine
Islands? Does that particular obligation lay upon us the duty
hereafter, not only now but for years to come, to maintain an
expensive military establishment, to burden our people with
debt, to run the risk of becoming involved in wars in order
that we may keep our hands upon the Philippine Islands and
keep them in proper condition hereafter? I am unable to see
how the obligation growing out of the fact that they were our
allies can possibly be extended to that degree. No Senator has
yet shown any reason why such an obligation rests upon us, and
I venture to say that none which is logical will or can be
shown."
The practical considerations, of circumstance and expediency,
which probably had more influence than those of law or
principle, were strongly urged by Senator Lodge, of
Massachusetts, who said, on the 24th:
"Suppose we ratify the treaty. The islands pass from the
possession of Spain into our possession without committing us
to any policy. I believe we can be trusted as a people to deal
honestly and justly with the islands and their inhabitants
thus given to our care. What our precise policy shall be I do
not know, because I for one am not sufficiently informed as to
the conditions there to be able to say what it will be best to
do, nor, I may add, do I think anyone is. But I believe that
we shall have the wisdom not to attempt to incorporate those
islands with our body politic, or make their inhabitants part
of our citizenship, or set their labor alongside of ours and
within our tariff to compete in any industry with American
workmen. I believe that we shall have the courage not to
depart from those islands fearfully, timidly, and unworthily
and leave them to anarchy among themselves, to the brief and
bloody domination of some self-constituted dictator, and to
the quick conquest of other powers, who will have no such
hesitation as we should feel in crushing them into subjection
by harsh and repressive methods. It is for us to decide the
destiny of the Philippines, not for Europe, and we can do it
alone and without assistance. …
{638}
"During the campaign of last autumn I said in many speeches to
the people of my State that I could never assent to hand those
islands back to Spain; that I wanted no subject races and no
vassal States; but that we had by the fortunes of war assumed
a great responsibility in the Philippines; that we ought to
meet it, and that we ought to give to those people an
opportunity for freedom, for peace, and for self-government;
that we ought to protect them from the rapacity of other
nations and seek to uplift those whom we had freed. From those
views I have never swerved, and I believed then, as I believe
now, that they met with the approbation of an overwhelming
majority of the people of Massachusetts. …
"Take now the other alternative. Suppose we reject the treaty
or strike out the clause relating to the Philippines. That
will hand the islands back to Spain; and I cannot conceive
that any American should be willing to do that. Suppose we
reject the treaty: what follows? Let us look at it
practically. We continue the state of war, and every sensible
man in the country, every business interest, desires the
re-establishment of peace in law as well as in fact. At the
same time we repudiate the President and his action before the
whole world, and the repudiation of the President in such a
matter as this is, to my mind, the humiliation of the United
States in the eyes of civilized mankind and brands us a people
incapable of great affairs or of taking rank where we belong,
as one of the greatest of the great world powers.
"The President cannot be sent back across the Atlantic in the
person of his commissioners, hat in hand, to say to Spain,
with bated breath, 'I am here in obedience to the mandate of a
minority of one-third of the Senate to tell you that we have
been too victorious, and that you have yielded us too much,
and that I am very sorry that I took the Philippines from
you.' I do not think that any American President would do
that, or that any American would wish him to."
Senator Harris, of Kansas, submitted the following on the 3d
of February:
"Resolved by the Senate of the United States of America, That
the United States hereby disclaim any disposition or intention
to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control
over the Philippine Islands, and assert their determination,
when a stable and independent government shall have been
erected therein entitled to recognition as such, to transfer
to said government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and
just, all rights secured under the cession by Spain, and to
thereupon leave the government and control of the islands to
their people."
The following was offered on the 27th of January by Senator
Sullivan, of Mississippi:
"Resolved, That the ratification of the pending treaty of
peace with Spain shall in no wise determine the policy to be
pursued by the United States in regard to the Philippines, nor
shall it commit this Government to a colonial policy; nor is
it intended to embarrass the establishment of a stable,
independent government by the people of those islands whenever
conditions make such a proceeding hopeful of successful and
desirable results."
On the same day a joint resolution was proposed by Senator
Lindsay, of Kentucky:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
acquisition by the United States, through conquest, treaty, or
otherwise, of territory, carries with it no constitutional
obligation to admit said territory, or any portion thereof,
into the Federal Union as a State or States.
"Section 2.
That it is against the policy, traditions, and interests of
the American people to admit states erected out of other than
North American territory into our union of American States.
"Section 3.
That the United States accept from Spain the cession of the
Philippine Islands with the hope that the people of those
islands will demonstrate their capacity to establish and
maintain a stable government, capable of enforcing law and
order at home and of discharging the international obligations
resting on separate and independent States, and with no
expectation of permanently holding those islands as colonies
or provinces after they shall demonstrate their capacity for
self-government, the United States to be the judge of such
capacity."
None of the resolutions given above obtained favorable
consideration in the Senate. On the 6th of February the treaty
was ratified, by one vote in excess of the two-thirds which
the constitution requires. It received 57 votes against 27, or
61 against 29 if account be taken of senators absent and
paired. Of the supporters of the treaty, 42 were Republicans;
of its opponents, 24 were Democrats. It was signed by
President McKinley on the 10th of February, and by the Queen
of Spain on the 17th of March.
After the ratification of the treaty, the Senate, by 26 votes
against 22, adopted the following resolution, offered by Mr.
McEnery of Louisiana:
"Resolved, That by the ratification of the treaty of peace
with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants
of the Philippine islands into citizenship of the United
States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands
as an integral part of the territory of the United States. But
it is the intention of the United States to establish on said
islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of
the inhabitants of said islands, to prepare them for local
self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of
said islands as will best promote the interests of the
citizens of the United States and the inhabitants of said
islands."
Congressional Record,
December 6, 1898—February 6, 1899.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (January-November).
Attack on Americans at Manila by Aguinaldo's forces.
Continued hostilities.
Progress of American conquest.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (March).
Appointment of the Isthmian Canal Commission.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1889-1899.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (May).
Modification of Civil Service Rules by President McKinley.
See (in this volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1899.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (June-October).
Arbitration and settlement of the Venezuela boundary question.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
{639}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (July).
Cabinet change.
General Russel A. Alger resigned his place in the President's
Cabinet as Secretary of War, in July, and was succeeded by the
Honorable Elihu Root, of New York.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (July).
Provisional government established in the island of Negros.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (MARCH-JULY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (October).
Report of conditions in Cuba by the Military Governor.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (October).
Modus Vivendi fixing provisional boundary line between Alaska
and Canada.
See (in this volume)
ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (November).
Death of Vice-President Hobart.
Honorable Garret A. Hobart, Vice-President of the United
States, died November 21. Under the Act provided for this
contingency, the Secretary of State then became the successor
to the President, in the event of the death of the latter
before the expiration of his term.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (November).
Re-arrangement of affairs in the Samoan Islands.
Acquisition of the eastern group, with Pago Pago harbor.
See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1900 (September-February).
Arrangement with European Powers of the commercial policy
of the "open-door" in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1900 (November-November).
Continued military operations in the Philippines.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899-1900.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.
Reciprocity arrangements under the Dingley Tariff Act,
not ratified by the Senate.
The Dingley Tariff Act, which became law on the 24th of July,
1897, authorized the making of tariff concessions to other
countries on terms of reciprocity, if negotiated within two
years from the above date. At the expiration of two years,
such conventions of reciprocity had been arranged with France
and Portugal, and with Great Britain for her West Indian
colonies of Jamaica, Barbadoes, Trinidad, Bermuda, and British
Guiana. With France, a preliminary treaty signed in May, 1898,
was superseded in July, 1899, by one of broader scope, which
opens the French markets to an extensive list of American
commodities at the minimum rates of the French tariff, and
cuts the American tariff from 5 to 20 per cent. on many French
products, not inclusive of sparkling wines. In the treaty with
Portugal, the reduction of American duties on wines is more
general. The reciprocal reduction on American products extends
to many agricultural and mineral products. The reciprocal
agreement with the British West Indies covers sugar, fruits,
garden products, coffee and asphalt, on one side, and flour,
meat, cotton goods, agricultural machinery, oils, etc., on the
other.
None of these treaties was acted upon by the United States
Senate during the session of 1899-1900, and it became
necessary to extend the time for their ratification, which was
done. Some additional reciprocity agreements were then
negotiated, of which the following statement was made by the
President in his Message to Congress, December 3, 1900:
"Since my last communication to the Congress on this subject
special commercial agreements under the third section of the
tariff act have been proclaimed with Portugal, with Italy and
with Germany. Commercial conventions under the general
limitations of the fourth section of the same act have been
concluded with Nicaragua, with Ecuador, with the Dominican
Republic, with Great Britain on behalf of the island of
Trinidad and with Denmark on behalf of the island of St.
Croix. These will be early communicated to the Senate.
Negotiations with other governments are in progress for the
improvement and security of our commercial relations."
The question of the ratification of all these treaties was
pending in the Senate when the term of the 56th Congress
expired, March 4, 1901. Opposing interests in the United
States seemed likely then to defeat their ratification. On the
last day of the special session of the Senate, March 5-9, an
agreement extending the time for the ratification of the
French reciprocity treaty was received and referred to the
committee on foreign relations. On the 15th of March,
Secretary Hay and Lord Pauncefote signed protocols extending
for one year the time of ratification for four of the British
West Indian reciprocity treaties, namely, Jamaica, Bermuda,
Guiana and Turks and Caicos islands.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Naval strength.
See (in this volume)
NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
State of Indian schools.
Recent Indian policy.
Indian population.
See (in this volume)
INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1899-1900.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (January).
Report of the First Philippine Commission.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (January-March).
The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (February).
Negotiation of the Hay-Pauncefote Convention relative
to the Nicaragua Canal.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (March-December).
Passage of the Financial Bill.
Settlement of the question of the monetary standard.
The working of the act.
Legislation in the direction sought by the advocates of the
gold standard and of a reformed monetary system for the
country, whose agitations are referred to above, was attained
in the spring of 1900, by the passage of an important
"Financial Bill" which became law on the 14th of March.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896-1898
The provisions and the effect of the Act were summarized at
the time by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Gage, in a
published statement, as follows:
"The financial bill has for its first object what its title
indicates, the fixing of the standard of value and the
maintaining at a parity with that standard of all forms of
money issued or coined by the United States. It reaffirms that
the unit of value is the dollar, consisting of 25.8 grains of
gold, nine tenths fine, but from that point it goes on to make
it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain all
forms of money issued or coined at a parity with this
standard. It puts into the hands of the Secretary ample power
to do that.
{640}
For that purpose, the bill provides in the Treasury bureaus of
issue and redemption and transfers from the general fund of
the Treasury's cash $150,000,000 in gold coin and bullion to
redemption fund, that gold to be used for the redemption of
United States notes and Treasury notes. That fund is
henceforth absolutely cut out of and separated from the cash
balance in the Treasury and the available cash balance will
hereafter show a reduction of $150,000,000 from the figures
that have heretofore prevailed. This $150,000,000 redemption
fund is to be used for no other purpose than the redemption of
United States notes and Treasury notes and those notes so
redeemed may be exchanged for the gold in the general fund or
with the public, so that the reserve fund is kept full with
gold to the $150,000,000 limit. If redemptions go on so that
the gold in this reserve fund is reduced below $100,000,000,
and the Secretary is unable to build it up to the $150,000,000
mark by exchange for gold in the general fund or otherwise, he
is given power to sell bonds and it is made his duty to
replenish the gold to the $150,000,000 mark by such means.
"The 'endless chain' is broken by a provision which prohibits
the use of notes so redeemed to meet deficiencies in the
current revenues. The act provides for the ultimate retirement
of all the Treasury notes issued in payment for silver bullion
under the Sherman act. As fast as that bullion is coined into
silver dollars Treasury notes are to be retired and replaced
with an equal amount of silver certificates. The measure
authorizes the issue of gold certificates in exchange for
deposits of gold coin, the same as at present, but suspends
that authority whenever and so long as the gold in the
redemption fund is below $100,000,000 and gives to the
Secretary the option to suspend the issue of such certificates
whenever the silver certificates and United States notes in
the general fund of the Treasury exceed $40,000,000. The bill
provides for a larger issue of silver certificates, by
declaring that hereafter silver certificates shall be issued
only in denominations of $10 and under except as to 10 per
cent. of the total volume. Room is made for this larger use of
silver certificates in the way of small bills by another
provision which makes it necessary as fast as the present
silver certificates of high denominations are broken up into
small bills to cancel a similar volume of United States notes
of small denominations and replace them with notes of
denominations of $10 and upward. Further room is made for the
circulation of small silver certificates by a clause which
permits national banks to have only one third of their capital
in denomination under $10.
"One clause of the bill which the public will greatly
appreciate is the right it gives to the Secretary to coin any
of the 1890 bullion into subsidiary silver coins up to a limit
of $100,000,000. There has for years been a scarcity of
subsidiary silver during periods of active retail trade, but
this provision will give the Treasury ample opportunity to
supply all the subsidiary silver that is needed. Another
provision that the public will greatly appreciate is the
authority given to the Secretary to recoin worn and uncurrent
subsidiary silver now in the Treasury or hereafter received.
"A distinct feature of the bill is in reference to refunding
the 3 per cent. Spanish war loan, the 2 per cent. bonds
maturing in 1907 and the 5 per cent. bonds maturing in 1904, a
total of $839,000,000, into new 2 per cent. bonds. These new 2
per cent. bonds will not be offered for sale, but will only be
issued in exchange for an equal amount, face value, of old
bonds. This exchange will save the Government, after deducting
the premium paid, nearly $23,000,000, if all the holders of the
old bonds exchange them for the new ones. National banks that
take out circulation based on the new bonds are to be taxed
only one half of 1 per cent. on the average amount of
circulation outstanding, while those who have circulation
based on a deposit of old bonds will be taxed, as at present,
1 per cent. There are some other changes in the national
banking act. The law permits national banks with $25,000
capital to be organized in places of 3,000 inhabitants or
less, whereas heretofore the minimum capital has been $50,000.
It also permits banks to issue circulation on all classes of
bonds deposited up to the par value of the bonds, instead of
90 per cent. of their face, as heretofore. This ought to make
an immediate increase in national bank circulation of
something like $24,000,000, as the amount of bonds now
deposited to secure circulation is about $242,000,000. If the
price of the new 2s is not forced so high in the market that
there is no profit left to national banks in taking out
circulation, we may also look for a material increase in
national bank circulation based on additional deposits of
bonds. National banks are permitted under the law to issue
circulation up to an amount equal to their capital. The total
capital of all national banks is $616,000,000. The total
circulation outstanding is $253,000,000. There is, therefore,
a possibility of an increase in circulation of $363,000,000,
although the price of the 2 per cent. bonds, as already
foreshadowed by market quotations in advance of their issue,
promises to be so high that the profit to the banks in taking
out circulation will not be enough to make the increase
anything like such a possible total."
Upon the working of the Act, during the first nine months of
its operation, Secretary Gage remarked as follows, in his
annual report dated December 14, 1900:
"The operation of the act of March 14 last with respect to
these two important matters of our finances has well
exemplified its wisdom. Confidence in the purpose and power of
the Government to maintain the gold standard has been greatly
strengthened. The result is that gold flows toward the
Treasury instead of away from it. At the date of this report
the free gold in the Treasury is larger in amount than at any
former period in our history. Including the $150,000,000
reserve, the gold in the Treasury belonging to the Government
amounts to over $242,000,000, while the Treasury holds,
besides, more than $230,000,000, against which certificates
have been issued. That provision of the act which liberalized
the conditions of bank-note issue was also wise and timely.
Under it, … there has been an increase of some $77,000,000 in
bank-note issues. To this fact may be chiefly attributed the
freedom from stress for currency to handle the large harvests
of cotton, wheat, and corn. In this respect the year has been
an exception to the general rule of stringency which for
several years has so plainly marked the autumn season.
{641}
"Nevertheless, the measures referred to, prolific as they have
been in good results, will yet need re-enforcement in some
important particulars. Thus, as to the redemption fund
provided for in said act, while the powers conferred upon the
Secretary are probably ample to enable a zealous and watchful
officer to protect fully the gold reserve, there appears to be
lacking sufficient mandatory requirement to furnish complete
confidence in the continued parity, under all conditions,
between our two forms of metallic money, silver and gold. Upon
this point further legislation may become desirable. As to the
currency, while the liberalizing of conditions has, as previously
noted, found response in a necessary increase of bank-note
issues, there is under our present system no assurance
whatever that the volume of bank currency will be continuously
responsive to the country's needs, either by expanding as such
needs require or by contracting when superfluous in amount.
The truth is that safe and desirable as is our currency system
in many respects, it is not properly related. The supply of
currency is but remotely, if at all, influenced by the ever
changing requirements of trade and industry. It is related
most largely, if not entirely, to the price of Government
bonds in the market."
Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1900,
pages 72-73.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (April).
Speech of Senator Hoar in denial of the right of the
government of the United States, under the Constitution, to
hold the Philippine Islands as a subject state.
On the 17th of April, the following joint resolution was under
consideration in the Senate: "Be it resolved by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, that the Philippine Islands are territory
belonging to the United States; that it is the intention of
the United States to retain them as such and to establish and
maintain such governmental control throughout the archipelago
as the situation may demand." Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts,
spoke in opposition to the resolution, and some passages from
his speech are quoted here, because they are notably
representative of the ground and spirit of an opposition which
existed within the party controlling the government to the war
of subjugation in the Philippine Islands, to which the party
and the government were finally committed by the adoption of
this Congressional declaration. The attitude and argument of
parties on the question are set forth below, in the platforms
and manifestos of the presidential election. This speech
exhibits a feeling on that question which was overridden in
the winning party, and it has an importance both forensic and
historical:
"The American people, so far as I know, were all agreed that
their victory [in the Spanish American war] brought with it
the responsibility of protecting the liberated peoples from
the cupidity of any other power until they could establish
their own independence in freedom and in honor. I stand here
to-day to plead with you not to abandon the principles that
have brought these things to pass. I implore you to keep to
the policy that has made the country great, that has made the
Republican party great, that has made the President great. I
have nothing new to say. But I ask you to keep in the old
channels, and to keep off the old rocks laid down in the old
charts, and to follow the old sailing orders that all the old
captains of other days have obeyed, to take your bearings, as
of old, from the north star,
Of whose true fixed and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament,
and not from this meteoric light of empire.
"Especially, if I could, would I persuade the great Republican
party to come back again to its old faith, to its old
religion, before it is too late. There is yet time. The
President has said again and again that his is only an ad
interim policy until Congress shall act. It is not yet too
late. Congress has rejected, unwisely, as I think, some
declarations for freedom. But the two Houses have not as yet
committed themselves to despotism. The old, safe path, the
path alike of justice and of freedom, is still easy. It is a
path familiar, of old, to the Republican party. If we have
diverged from it for the first time, everything in our
history, everything in our own nature calls us back. The great
preacher of the English church tells you how easy is the
return of a great and noble nature from the first departure
from rectitude:—
'For so a taper, when its crown of flame is newly blown off,
retains a nature so symbolical to light,
that it will with greediness reenkindle and snatch a ray
from the neighbor fire.'
"I, for one, believed, and still believe that the pathway to
prosperity and glory for the country was also the pathway to
success and glory for the Republican party. I thought the two
things inseparable. If, when we made the treaty of peace, we
had adhered to the purpose we declared when we declared war;
if we had dealt with the Philippine Islands as we promised to
deal, have dealt, and expect to deal with Cuba, the country
would have escaped the loss of 6,000 brave soldiers, other
thousands of wrecked and shattered lives, the sickness of many
more, the expenditure of hundreds of millions, and, what is
far worse than all, the trampling under foot of its cherished
ideals. There would have been to-day a noble republic in the
East, sitting docile at our feet, receiving from us
civilization, laws, manners, and giving in turn everything the
gratitude of a free people could give-love, obedience, trade.
The Philippine youth would throng our universities; our
Constitution, our Declaration, the lives of Washington and
Lincoln, the sayings of Jefferson and Franklin would have been
the textbooks of their schools. How our orators and poets
would have delighted to contrast America liberating and
raising up the republic of Asia, with England subduing and
trampling under foot the republic of Africa. Nothing at home
could have withstood the great party and the great President
who had done these things. We should have come from the next
election with a solid North and have carried half the South.
You would at least have been spared the spectacle of great
Republican States rising in revolt against Republican
policies. I do not expect to accomplish anything for liberty
in the Philippine Islands but through the Republican party.
Upon it the fate of these Islands for years to come is to
depend. If that party can not be persuaded, the case is in my
judgment for the present hopeless. …
{642}
"The practical question which divided the American people last
year, and which divides them to-day, is this: Whether in
protecting the people of the Philippine Islands from the
ambition and cupidity of other nations we are bound to protect
them from our own. … In dealing with this question, Mr.
President, I do not mean to enter upon any doubtful ground. I
shall advance no proposition ever seriously disputed in this
country till within twelve months. … If to think as I do in
regard to the interpretation of the Constitution; in regard to
the mandates of the moral law or the law of nations, to which
all men and all nations must render obedience; in regard to
the policies which are wisest for the conduct of the State, or
in regard to those facts of recent history in the light of
which we have acted or are to act hereafter, be treason, then
Washington was a traitor; then Jefferson was a traitor; then
Jackson was a traitor; then Franklin was a traitor; then
Sumner was a traitor; then Lincoln was a traitor; then Webster
was a traitor; then Clay was a traitor; then Corwin was a
traitor; then Kent was a traitor; then Seward was a traitor;
then McKinley, within two years, was a traitor; then the
Supreme Court of the United States has been in the past a nest
and hotbed of treason; then the people of the United States,
for more than a century, have been traitors to their own flag
and their own Constitution.
"'We are presented with an issue that can be clearly and
sharply stated as a question of constitutional power, a
question of international law, a question of justice and
righteousness, or a question of public expediency. This can be
stated clearly and sharply in the abstract, and it can be put
clearly and sharply by an illustration growing out of existing
facts.
"The constitutional question is: Has Congress the power, under
our Constitution, to hold in subjection unwilling vassal
States?
"The question of international law is: Can any nation
rightfully convey to another sovereignty over an unwilling
people who have thrown off its dominion, asserted their
independence, established a government of their own, over whom
it has at the time no practical control, from whose territory
it has been disseized, and which it is beyond its power to
deliver?
"The question of justice and righteousness is: Have we the
right to crush and hold under our feet an unwilling and
subject people whom we had treated as allies, whose
independence we are bound in good faith to respect, who had
established their own free government, and who had trusted us?
"The question of public expediency is: Is it for our advantage
to promote our trade at the cannon's mouth and at the point of
the bayonet?
"All these questions can be put in a way of practical
illustration by inquiring whether we ought to do what we have
done, are doing, and mean to do in the case of Cuba; or what
we have done, are doing, and some of you mean to do in the
case of the Philippine Islands.
"It does not seem to me to be worth while to state again at
length the constitutional argument which I have addressed to
the Senate heretofore. It has been encountered with eloquence,
with clearness and beauty of statement, and, I have no doubt,
with absolute sincerity by Senators who have spoken upon the
other side. But the issue between them and me can be summed up
in a sentence or two, and if, so stated, it can not be made
clear to any man's apprehension, I despair of making it clear
by any elaboration or amplification. I admit that the United
States may acquire and hold property, and may make rules and
regulations for its disposition. I admit that, like other
property, the United States may acquire and hold land. It may
acquire it by purchase. It may acquire it by treaty. It may
acquire it by conquest. And it may make rules and regulations
for its disposition and government, however it be acquired.
When there are inhabitants upon the land so acquired it may
make laws for their government. But the question between me
and the gentlemen on the other side is this: Is this
acquisition of territory, of land or other property, whether
gained by purchase, conquest, or treaty, a constitutional end
or only a means to a constitutional end? May you acquire,
hold, and govern territory or other property as an end for
which our Constitution was framed, or is it only a means
toward some other and further end? May you acquire, hold, and
govern property by conquest, treaty, or purchase for the sole
object of so holding and governing it, without the
consideration of any further constitutional purpose? Or must
you hold it for a constitutional purpose only, such as the
making of new States, the national defense and security, the
establishment of a seat of government, or the construction of
forts, harbors, and like works, which, of course, are
themselves for the national defense and security?
"I hold that this acquisition, holding and governing, can be
only a means for a constitutional end—the creation of new
States or some other of the constitutional purposes to which I
have adverted. And I maintain that you can no more hold and
govern territory than you can hold and manage cannon or fleets
for any other than a constitutional end; and I maintain that
the holding in subjection an alien people, governing them
against their will for any fancied advantage to them, is not
only not an end provided for by the Constitution, but is an
end prohibited therein. … It is an end which the generation
which framed the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence declared was unrighteous and abhorrent. So, in my
opinion, we have no constitutional power to acquire territory
for the purpose of holding it in subjugation, in a state of
vassalage or serfdom, against the will of its people.
"It is to be noted just here that we have acquired no
territory or other property in the Philippine Islands, save at
few public buildings. By every other acquisition of territory
the United States became a great land owner. She owned the
public lands as she had owned the public lands in the
Northwest ceded to her by the old States. But you own nothing
in the Philippines. The people own their farms and dwellings
and cities. The religious orders own the rest. The Filipinos
desire to do what our English ancestors did in the old days
when England was Catholic. The laity feared that the Church
would engross all the land. So they passed their statute of
mortmain. You have either got to let the people of the
Philippine Islands settle this matter for themselves, or you
must take upon you the delicate duty of settling it for them.
{643}
Your purchase or conquest is a purchase or conquest of nothing
but sovereignty. It is a sovereignty over a people who are
never to be admitted to exercise it or to share it. In the
present case we have not, I repeat, bought any property. We
have undertaken to buy mere sovereignty. There were no public
lands in the Philippine Islands, the property of Spain, which
we have bought and paid for. The mountains of iron and the
nuggets of gold and the hemp-bearing fields—do you purpose to
strip the owners of their rightful title? We have undertaken
to buy allegiance, pure and simple. And allegiance is just
what the law of nations declares you can not buy. …
"I have been unable to find a single reputable authority more
than twelve months old for the power now claimed for Congress
to govern dependent nations or territories not expected to
become States. The contrary, until this war broke out, has
been taken as too clear for reasonable question. I content
myself with a few authorities. Among them are Daniel Webster,
William H. Seward, the Supreme Court of the United States,
James Madison.
"Daniel Webster said in the Senate, March 23, 1848: 'Arbitrary
governments may have territories and distant possessions,
because arbitrary governments may rule them by different laws
and different systems. We can do no such thing. They must be
of us, part of us, or else strangers. I think I see a course
adopted which is likely to turn the Constitution of the land
into a deformed monster, into a curse rather than a blessing;
in fact, a frame of an unequal government, not founded on
popular representation, not founded on equality, but on the
grossest inequality; and I think that this process will go on,
or that there is danger that it will go on, until this Union
shall fall to pieces. I resist it to-day and always! Whoever
falters or whoever flies, I continue the contest!'
"James Madison said in the Federalist: 'The object of the
Federal Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen
primitive States, which we know to be practicable; and to add
to them such other States as may arise in their own bosoms, or
in their neighborhood, which we can not doubt will be
practicable.'
James Madison,
Federalist, Number 14.
"William H. Seward said: 'It is a remarkable feature of the
Constitution of the United States that its framers never
contemplated colonies, or provinces, or territories at all. On
the other hand, they contemplated States only, nothing less
than States, perfect States, equal States, as they are called
here, sovereign States. … There is reason—there is sound
political wisdom in this provision of the Constitution
excluding colonies, which are always subject to oppression,
and excluding provinces, which always tend to corrupt and
ultimately to break down the parent State.'
Seward's Works
Volume 1, page 122.
'By the Constitution of the United States, there are no
subjects, Every citizen of any one State is a free and equal
citizen of the United States. Again, by the Constitution of
the United States there are no permanent provinces or
dependencies.'
Seward's Works
Volume 4, page 167.
"The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of
Fleming vs. Page, said: 'The genius and character of our
institutions are peaceful; and the power to declare war was
not conferred upon Congress for the purposes of aggression or
aggrandizement, but to enable the Government to vindicate by
arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and the
rights of its citizens. A war, therefore, declared by
Congress, can never be presumed to be waged for the purpose of
conquest or the acquisition of territory; nor does the law
declaring the war imply an authority to the President to
enlarge the limits of the United States by subjugating the
enemy's country.'
"Our territories, so far, have all been places where Americans
would go to dwell as citizens, to establish American homes, to
obtain honorable employment, and to build a State. Will any
man go to the Philippine Islands to dwell, except to help
govern the people, or to make money by a temporary residence?
…
"When hostilities broke out, February 5, 1899, we had no
occupancy of and no title of any kind to any portion of the
Philippine territory, except the town and bay of Manila.
Everything else was in the peaceful possession of the
inhabitants. In such a condition of things, Mr. President,
international law speaks to us with its awful mandate. It
pronounces your proposed action sheer usurpation and robbery.
You have no better title, according to the law of nations, to
reduce this people to subjection than you have to subjugate
Mexico or Haiti or Belgium or Switzerland. This is the settled
doctrine, as declared by our own great masters of
jurisprudence. You have no right, according to tho law of
nations, to obtain by purchase or acquisition sovereignty over
a people which is not actually exercised by the country which
undertakes to convey it or yield it. We have not yet completed
the acquisition. But at the time we entered upon it, and at
the time of this alleged purchase, the people of the
Philippine Islands, as appears by General Otis's report, by
Admiral Dewey's report, and the reports of officers for whom
they vouched, held their entire territory, with the exception
of the single town of Manila. They had, as appears from these
reports, a full organized government. They had an army
fighting for independence, admirably disciplined, according to
the statement of zealous advocates of expansion.
"Why, Mr. President, is it credible that any American
statesman, that any American Senator, that any intelligent
American citizen anywhere, two years ago could have been found
to affirm that a proceeding like that of the Paris treaty
could give a just and valid title to sovereignty over a people
situated as were the people of those islands? A title of
Spain, originally by conquest, never submitted to nor admitted
by the people of the islands, with frequent insurrections at
different times for centuries, and then the yoke all thrown
off, a constitutional government, schools, colleges, churches,
universities, hospitals, town governments, a legislature, a
cabinet, courts, a code of laws, and the whole island occupied
and controlled by its people, with the single exception of one
city; with taxes lawfully levied and collected, with an army
and the beginning of a navy.
{644}
"And yet the Senate, the Congress enacted less than two years
ago that the people of Cuba—controlling peaceably no part of
their island, levying no taxes in any orderly or peaceable
way, with no administration of justice, no cabinet—not only of
right ought to be, but were, in fact, a free and independent
State. I did not give my assent to that declaration of fact. I
assented to the doctrine that they of right ought to be. But I
thought the statement of fact much calculated to embarrass the
Government of the United States, if it were bound by that
declaration; and it has been practically disregarded by the
Administration ever since. But the question now is a very
different one. You not only deny that the Filipinos are, but
you deny that they of right ought to be free and independent;
and you recognize Spain as entitled to sell to you the
sovereignty of an island where she was not at the time
occupying a foot of territory, where her soldiers were held
captives by the government of the island, a government to
which you had delivered over a large number of Spanish
prisoners to be held as captives. And yet you come here to-day
and say that they not only are not, but they of right ought
not to be free and independent; and when you are pressed you
answer us by talking about mountains of iron and nuggets of
gold, and trade with China.
"I affirm that you can not get by conquest, and you can not
get by purchase, according to the modern law of nations,
according to the law of nations as accepted and expounded by
the United States, sovereignty over a people, or title to a
territory, of which the power that undertakes to sell it or
the power from whom you undertake to wrest it has not the
actual possession and dominion. … You cannot buy a war. More
than this, you cannot buy a tyrant's claim to subject again an
oppressed people who have achieved their freedom. …
"Gentlemen tell us that the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin
is copied from that introduced in Jefferson's time for the
purchase of Louisiana. Do you claim that you propose to deal
with these people as Jefferson meant to deal with Louisiana?
You talk of Alaska, of Florida, of California; do you mean to
deal with the Philippines as we mean to deal with Alaska and
dealt with Florida or California?
"I have spoken of the Declaration of Independence as a solemn
affirmation of public law, but it is far more than that. It is
a solemn pledge of national faith and honor. It is a baptismal
vow. It is the bedrock of our republican institutions. It is,
as the Supreme Court declared, the soul and spirit of which
the Constitution is but the body and letter. It is the light
by which the Constitution must be read. … There is expansion
enough in it, but it is the expansion of freedom and not of
despotism; of life, not of death. Never was such growth in all
human history as that from the seed Thomas Jefferson planted.
The parable of the mustard seed, than which, as Edward Everett
said, 'the burning pen of inspiration, ranging heaven and
earth for a similitude, can find nothing more appropriate or
expressive to which to liken the Kingdom of God,' is repeated
again. 'Whereunto shall we liken it, or with what comparison
shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed,
which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the
seeds that be in the earth. But when it is sown, it groweth
up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out
great branches, so that the fowls of the air may lodge under
the shadow of it.' This is the expansion of Thomas Jefferson.
It has covered the continent. It is on both the seas. It has
saved South America. It is revolutionizing Europe. It is the
expansion of freedom. It differs from your tinsel, pinchbeck,
pewter expansion as the growth of a healthy youth into a
strong man differs from the expansion of an anaconda when he
swallows his victim. Ours is the expansion of Thomas
Jefferson. Yours is the expansion of Aaron Burr. It is
destined to as short a life and to a like fate. …
"There are 1,200 islands in the Philippine group. They extend
as far as from Maine to Florida. They have a population
variously estimated at from 8,000,000 to 12,000,000. There are
wild tribes who never heard of Christ, and islands that never
heard of Spain. But among them are the people of the island of
Luzon, numbering 3,500,000, and the people of the Visayan
Islands, numbering 2,500,000 more. They are a Christian and
civilized people. They wrested their independence from Spain
and established a republic. Their rights are no more to be
affected by the few wild tribes in their own mountains or by
the dwellers in the other islands than the rights of our old
thirteen States were affected by the French in Canada, or the
Six Nations of New York, or the Cherokees of Georgia, or the
Indians west of the Mississippi. Twice our commanding
generals, by their own confession, assured these people of
their independence. Clearly and beyond all cavil we formed an
alliance with them. We expressly asked them to co-operate with
us. We handed over our prisoners to their keeping; we sought
their help in caring for our sick and wounded. We were told by
them again and again and again that they were fighting for
independence. Their purpose was as well known to our generals,
to the War Department, and to the President, as the fact that
they were in arms. We never undeceived them until the time
when hostilities were declared in 1899. The President declared
again and again that we had no title and claimed no right to
anything beyond the town of Manila. Hostilities were begun by
us at a place where we had no right to be, and were continued
by us in spite of Aguinaldo's disavowal and regret and offer
to withdraw to a line we should prescribe. If we crush that
republic, despoil that people of their freedom and
independence, and subject them to our rule, it will be a story
of shame and dishonor. …
"But we are told if we oppose the policy of our imperialistic
and expanding friends we are bound to suggest some policy of
our own as a substitute for theirs. We are asked what we would
do in this difficult emergency. It is a question not difficult
to answer. I for one am ready to answer it.
"1. I would declare now that we will not take these islands to
govern them against their will.
"2. I would reject a cession of sovereignty which implies that
sovereignty may be bought and sold and delivered without the
consent of the people. Spain had no rightful sovereignty over
the Philippine Islands. She could not rightfully sell it to
us. We could not rightfully buy it from her.
"3. I would require all foreign governments to keep out of
these islands.
"4. I would offer to the people of the Philippines our help in
maintaining order until they have a reasonable opportunity to
establish a government of their own.
{645}
"5. I would aid them by advice, if they desire it, to set up a
free and independent government.
"6. I would invite all the great powers of Europe to unite in
an agreement that that independence shall not be interfered
with by us, by themselves, or by any one of them with the
consent of the others. As to this I am not so sure. I should
like quite as well to tell them it is not to be done whether
they consent or not.
"7. I would declare that the United States will enforce the
same doctrine as applicable to the Philippines that we
declared as to Mexico and Haiti and the South American
Republics. It is true that the Monroe Doctrine, a doctrine
based largely on our regard for our own interests, is not
applicable either in terms or in principle to a distant
Asiatic territory. But, undoubtedly, having driven out Spain,
we are bound, and have the right, to secure to the people we
have liberated an opportunity, undisturbed and in peace, to
establish a new government for themselves.
"8. I would then, in a not distant future, leave them to work
out their own salvation, as every nation on earth, from the
beginning of time, has wrought out its own salvation. Let them
work out their own salvation, as our own ancestors slowly and
in long centuries wrought out theirs; as Germany, as
Switzerland, as France, in briefer periods, wrought out
theirs; as Mexico and the South American Republics have
accomplished theirs, all of them within a century, some of
them within the life of a generation. To attempt to confer the
gift of freedom from without, or to impose freedom from
without, on any people, is to disregard all the lessons of
history. It is to attempt
'A gift of that which is not to be given
By all the blended powers of earth and heaven.'
"9. I would strike out of your legislation the oath of
allegiance to us and substitute an oath of allegiance to their
own country."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (April).
Act temporarily to provide revenues and a civil
government for Porto Rico.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900; and 1900 (APRIL).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (April).
Appointment of Second Commission to the Philippines.
The President's instructions.
Steps toward the establishment of civil government and
the principles to be observed.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (APRIL).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (May-October).
The Twelfth Census of the Republic.
The Twelfth Census of the United States was taken between May
1 and November 1, 1900, with general results reported on the
latter date by the Director, William R. Merriam, as
follows:—The following statement … gives the population of the
United States in detail for each State and organized Territory
and for Alaska and Hawaii as finally revised. The figures
purporting to give the number of "persons in the service of
the United States stationed abroad" include an estimated
population of 14,400 for certain military organizations and
naval vessels stationed abroad, principally in the
Philippines, for which the returns have not yet been received.
The total population of the United States in 1900, as shown by
the accompanying statement, is 76,304,799, of which 74,610,523
persons are contained in the 45 States, representing the
population to be used for apportionment purposes. This
statement also shows a total of 134,158 Indians not taxed, of
which 44,617 are found in certain of the States and which are
to be deducted from the population of such States for the
purpose of determining the apportionment of Representatives.
The total population in 1890, with which the aggregate
population at the present census should be compared, is
63,069,756, comprising 62,622,250 persons enumerated in the
States and organized Territories at that census, 32,052
persons in Alaska, 180,182 Indians and other persons in the
Indian Territory, 145,282 Indians and other persons on Indian
reservations, etc., and 89,990 persons in Hawaii, this
last-named figure being derived from the census of the
Hawaiian Islands taken as of December 28, 1890. Taking this
population for 1890 as a basis, there has been a gain in
population of 13,235,043 during the ten years from 1890 to
1900, representing an increase of very nearly 21 per cent. No
provision was made by the census act for the enumeration of
the inhabitants of Porto Rico, but a census for that island,
taken as of October 16, 1899, under the direction of the War
Department, showed a population of 953,243.
STATES AND Indians not{646}
TERRITORIES 1900 1890 taxed 1900
The United States. 76,304,799 63,009,756 134,158
STATES.
Alabama 1,828,697 1,513,017
Arkansas 1,311,564 1,128,179
California 1,485,053 1,208,130 1549
Colorado 539,700 412,198 597
Connecticut 908,355 746,258
Delaware 184,735 168,493
Florida 528,542 391,422
Georgia 2,216,331 1,837,353
Idaho 161,772 84,385 2,297
Illinois 4,821,550 3,826,351
Indiana 2,516,462 2,192,404
Iowa 2,231,853 1,911,896
Kansas 1,470,495 1,427,096
Kentucky 2,147,174 1,858,635
Louisiana l,381,625 1,118,587
Maine 694,466 661,086
Maryland 1,190,050 1,042,390
Massachusetts 2,805,346 2,238,943
Michigan 2,420,982 2,093,889
Minnesota 1,751,394 1,301,826 1,768
Mississippi 1,551,270 1,289,600
Missouri 3,106,665 2,679,184
Montana 243,329 132,159 10,746
Nebraska 1,068,539 1,058,910
Nevada 42,335 45,761 1,665
New Hampshire 411,588 376,530
New Jersey 1,883,669 1,444,933
New York 7,268,012 5,991,353 4,711
North Carolina 1,893,810 1,617,947
North Dakota 319,146 182,719 4,692
Ohio 4,157,145 3,672,316
Oregon 413,536 313,767
Pennsylvania 6,302,115 5,258,014
Rhode Island 428,556 345,506
South Carolina 1,340,316 1,151,149
South Dakota 401,570 328,808 10,932
Tennessee 2,020,616 1,767,518
Texas 3,048,710 2,235,523
Utah 276,749 207,905 1,472
Vermont 343,641 332,422
Virginia 1,854,184 1,655,980
Washington 518,103 349,390 2,531
West Virginia 958,800 762,704
Wisconsin 2,069,042 1,686,880 1,657
Wyoming 92,531 60,705
Total for
45 States 74,610,523 62,116,811 44,617 STATES AND TERRITORIES 1900 1890 Indians
not taxed 1900
TERRITORIES
Alaska 63,441 32,052
Arizona 122,931 59,620 24,644
District of Columbia 278,718 230,392
Hawaii 154,001 89,900
Indian Territory 391,960 180,182 56,033
New Mexico 195,310 153,593 2,937
Oklahoma 398,245 61,834 5,921
Total 1,604,606 807,663 89,541
Persons in the service
of the United States
stationed abroad 89,670
Indians, etc.,on
Indian reservations,
except Indian Territory 145,282
Report of the Director of the Census,
November 1, 1900.
"By the twelfth census the center of population
in 1900 was in the following position:
Latitude 39° 9' 36"; longitude 85° 48' 54".
In ten years the center of population has moved westward 16'
1", or about fourteen miles, and southward 2' 20", or about
two and one half miles. It rests now in Southern Indiana, at a
point about six miles southeast of Columbus, the county seat
of Bartholomew county, Indiana. The center of population is
the center of gravity of the country, each individual being
assumed to have the same weight. … The center of area of the
United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii and other recent
accessions, is in northern Kansas, in approximate latitude 39°
55', and approximate longitude 98° 50'. The center of
population is therefore about three-fourths of a degree south
and more than 13 degrees east of the center of area."
United States, Twelfth Census,
Bulletin Number 62.
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1900 (May-November).
The Presidential election.
Party platforms and nominations.
The issues on which the presidential election of 1900 would
naturally and logically have turned were those growing out of
the Spanish-American War, relative to principles and policy in
dealing with the colonial possessions that were taken from
Spain. But circumstances forced those most important political
questions into the background of consideration, so far as
concerned the opinion of a large part of the American people.
The monetary question, which might have been supposed to be
settled by the election of 1896 and by the Congressional
legislation of March, 1900, was brought forward again with a
persistency that caused uneasy feeling in the commercial and
industrial world. The party which had fought the battle for a
silver monetary standard in 1896, and been beaten, seemed
willing to abandon that "lost cause," but the candidate to
whose fortunes the party had become committed would not
consent. His will prevailed, and the old issue came into the
canvass again, with such confusing effects that the real
meaning of the votes that were cast, as an expression of the
judgment and will of the American people, can by no
possibility be known. Men dreaded a disturbance of the
conditions under which the business of the country was active
and prosperous. How far their wish to preserve those
conditions coincided, as a motive in voting, with their
judgment on other issues, and how far it overcame dispositions
that urged them contrariwise, are puzzling questions which the
election of 1900 has left behind.
UNITED STATES:
United Christian Party Platform and Nominations.
The first candidates to be set in the field of the
presidential campaign were put forward by a convention held at
Rock Island, Illinois, May 1, representing a small combination of
voters styled the United Christian Party. It named, in the
first instance, the Reverend S. C. Swallow, of Pennsylvania,
for President, and John G. Woolley, of Illinois, for Vice
President, both of whom declined the nomination. Jonah F. R.
Leonard, of Iowa, and David H. Martin, of Pennsylvania, were
subsequently made the candidates of the party, and received a
few hundred votes at the ensuing election, mostly, it would
seem, in Illinois. The "Declarations" of the United Christian
Party were as follows:
"We, the United Christian party, in National Convention
assembled in the city of Rock Island, Illinois, May 1 and 2,
1900, acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all power
and authority, the Lord Jesus Christ as the sovereign ruler of
nations, and the Bible as the standard by which to decide moral
issues in our political life, do make the following
declaration:
"We believe the time to have arrived when the eternal
principles of justice, mercy, and love, as exemplified in the
life and teachings of Jesus Christ should be embodied in the
Constitution of our nation, and applied in concrete form to
every function of our Government.
"We maintain that this statement is in harmony with the
fundamental principles of our National common law; our
Christian usages and customs; the declaration of the Supreme
Court of the United States that 'This is a Christian nation,'
and the accepted principle in judicial decisions that no law
should contravene the Divine law.
"We deprecate certain immoral laws which have grown out of the
failure of our nation to recognize these principles, notably
such as require the desecration of the Christian Sabbath,
authorize unscriptural marriage and divorce, and license the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage.
"The execution of these immoral laws above mentioned we hold
to be neither loyalty to our country nor honoring to God;
therefore it shall be our purpose to administer the
Government, so far as it shall be intrusted to us by the
suffrages of the people, in accordance with the principles
herein set forth, and, until amended, our oath of office shall
be to the Constitution and laws as herein explained, and to no
other, and we will look to Him who has all power in Heaven and
in earth to vindicate our purpose in seeking His glory and the
welfare of our beloved land.
"As an expression of consent or allegiance on the part of the
governed, in harmony with the above statements, we declare for
the adoption and use of the system of legislation known as the
'initiative and referendum,' together with 'proportionate
representation' and the 'imperative mandate.'
"We hold that an men and women are created free and with equal
rights, and declare for the establishment of such political,
industrial, and social conditions as shall guarantee to every
person civic equality, the full fruits of his or her honest
toil, and opportunity for the righteous enjoyment of the same;
and we especially condemn mob violence and outrages against
any individual or class of individuals in our country.
{647}
"We declare against war, and for the arbitration of all
National and international disputes.
"We hold that the legalized liquor traffic is the crowning
infamy of civilization, and we declare for the immediate
abolition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors
as a beverage.
"We are gratified to note the widespread agitation of the
cigarette question, and declare ourselves in favor of the
enactment of laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes or
tobacco in any form to minors.
"We declare for the daily reading of the Bible in the public
schools and institutions of learning under control of the
State.
"We declare for the Government ownership of public utilities.
"We declare for the election of the President and
Vice-President and United States Senators by the direct vote
of the people.
"We declare for such amendment of the United States
Constitution as shall be necessary to give the principles
herein set forth an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental
law of our land.
"We invite into the United Christian party every honest man
and woman who believes in Christ and His golden rule and
standard of righteousness. We say especially to the sons of
toil: Jesus, the carpenter's son, is your true friend. In His
name and through the practice of His principles you may obtain
your rights long withheld and long outraged. You have the
votes necessary to enthrone Him. His love and principles,
politically applied, will lift you up and give you true civic
liberty forever."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
People's or Populist Party Platforms and Nominations.
The second of the political parties to appear in the field of
the national contest was the People's, known more commonly as
the Populist Party, the division in which, shown in 1896, had
become separation, complete. The two wings of the party held
distinct conventions, in different places, but on the same
day, May 10. Those known as the Middle-of-the-Road Populists
assembled at Cincinnati and named Wharton Barker, of
Pennsylvania, for President, with Ignatius Donnelly, of
Minnesota for Vice President. The convention representing
those who wished to act in co-operation with the Democratic
Party, and known as the Fusion wing, met at Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, and anticipated the action of the Democracy by
nominating William J. Bryan for President, with Charles A.
Towne, of Minnesota, for Vice President.
See, also, (in this volume)
FARMERS' ALLIANCE.
The platform declarations of the two wings were substantially
the same on main questions; but those of the Fusionists
covered several subjects which the Cincinnati convention
passed by. They were as follows:
"The People's party of the United States, in convention
assembled, congratulating its supporters on the wide extension
of its principles in all directions, does hereby reaffirm its
adherence to the fundamental principles proclaimed in its two
prior platforms and calls upon all who desire to avert the
subversion of free institutions by corporate and imperialistic
power to unite with it in bringing the Government back to the
ideals of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. It
extends to its allies in the struggle for financial and
economic freedom, assurances of its loyalty to the principles
which animate the allied forces and the promise of honest and
hearty cooperation in every effort for their success. To the
people of the United States we offer the following platform as
the expression of our unalterable convictions:
"Resolved, That we denounce the act of March 14, 1900, as the
culmination of a long series of conspiracies to deprive the
people of their constitutional rights over the money of the
nation and relegate to a gigantic money trust the control of
the purse and hence of the people. We denounce this act,
First, for making all money obligations, domestic and foreign,
payable in gold coin or its equivalent, thus enormously
increasing the burdens of the debtors and enriching the
creditors.
Second—For refunding 'coin bonds' not to mature for years into
long-time gold bonds so as to make their payment improbable
and our debt perpetual.
Third—For taking from the Treasury over $50,000,000 in a time
of war and presenting it, as a premium, to bondholders to
accomplish the refunding of bonds not due.
Fourth—For doubling the capital of bankers by returning to
them the face value of their bonds in current money notes so
that they may draw one interest from the Government and
another from the people.
Fifth—For allowing banks to expand and contract their
circulation at pleasure, thus controlling prices of all
products.
Sixth—For authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue
new gold bonds to an unlimited amount whenever he deems it
necessary to replenish the gold hoard, thus enabling usurers
to secure more bonds and more bank currency by drawing gold
from the Treasury, thereby creating an 'endless chain' for
perpetually adding to a perpetual debt.
Seventh—For striking down the green back in order to force the
people to borrow $346,000,000 more from the banks at an annual
cost of over $20,000,000. While barring out the money of the
Constitution this law opens the printing mints of the Treasury
to the free coinage of bank paper money, to enrich the few and
impoverish the many.
"We pledge anew the People's party never to cease the
agitation until this great financial conspiracy is blotted
from the statute books, the Lincoln greenback restored, the
bonds all paid, and all corporation money forever retired. We
affirm the demand for the reopening of the mints of the United
States for the free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold
at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, the immediate increase
in the volume of silver coins and certificates thus created to
be substituted, dollar for dollar, for the banknotes issued by
private corporations under special privilege granted by law of
March 14, 1900, and prior National banking laws, the remaining
portion of the banknotes to be replaced with full legal-tender
Government paper money, and its volume so controlled as to
maintain at all times a stable money market and a stable price
level.
"We demand a graduated income and inheritance tax, to the end
that aggregated wealth shall bear its just proportion of
taxation.
"We demand that postal savings banks be established by the
Government for the safe deposit of the savings of the people
and to facilitate exchange.
{648}
"With Thomas Jefferson we declare the land, including all
natural sources of wealth, the inalienable heritage of the
people. Government should so act as to secure homes for the
people and prevent land monopoly. The original homestead
policy should be enforced, and future settlers upon the public
domain should be entitled to a free homestead, while all who
have paid an acreage price to the Government under existing
laws should have their homestead rights restored.
"Transportation being a means of exchange and a public
necessity, the Government should own and operate the railroads
in the interests of the people and on a non-partisan basis, to
the end that all may be accorded the same treatment in
transportation, and that the extortion, tyranny, and political
power now exercised by the great railroad corporations, which
result in the impairment, if not the destruction, of the
political rights and personal liberties of the citizen, may be
destroyed. Such ownership is to be accomplished in a manner
consistent with sound public policy.
"Trusts, the overshadowing evil of the age, are the result and
culmination of the private ownership and control of the three
great instruments of commerce—money, transportation, and the
means of transmission of information—which instruments of
commerce are public functions, and which our forefathers
declared in the Constitution should be controlled by the
people through their Congress for the public welfare. The one
remedy for the trusts is that the ownership and control be
assumed and exercised by the people. We further demand that
all tariffs on goods controlled by a trust shall be abolished.
To cope with the trust evil, the people must act directly
without the intervention of representatives who may be
controlled or influenced. We therefore demand direct
legislation, giving the people the lawmaking and veto power
under the initiative and referendum. A majority of the people
can never be corruptly influenced.
"Applauding the valor of our army and navy in the Spanish War,
we denounce the conduct of the Administration in changing a
war for humanity into a war of conquest. The action of the
Administration in the Philippines is in conflict with all the
precedents of our National life; at war with the Declaration
of Independence, the Constitution, and the plain precepts of
humanity. Murder and arson have been our response to the
appeals of the people who asked only to establish a free
government in their own land. We demand a stoppage of this war
of extermination by the assurance to the Philippines of
independence and protection under a stable government of their
own creation.
"The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the
American flag are one and inseparable. The island of Porto
Rico is a part of the territory of the United States, and by
levying special and extraordinary customs duties on the
commerce of that island the Administration has violated the
Constitution, abandoned the fundamental principles of American
liberty, and has striven to give the lie to the contention of
our forefathers that there should be no taxation without
representation.
"Out of the imperialism which would force an undesired
domination on the people of the Philippines springs the
un-American cry for a large standing army. Nothing in the
character or purposes of our people justifies us in ignoring
the plain lesson of history and putting our liberties in
jeopardy by assuming the burden of militarism, which is
crushing the people of the Old World. We denounce the
Administration for its sinister efforts to substitute a
standing army for the citizen soldiery, which is the best
safeguard of the Republic.
"We extend to the brave Boers of South Africa our sympathy and
moral support in their patriotic struggle for the right of
self-government, and we are unalterably opposed to any
alliance, open or covert, between the United States and any
other nation that will tend to the destruction of liberty.
"And a further manifestation of imperialism is to be found in
the mining districts of Idaho. In the Cœur d'Alene soldiers
have been used to overawe miners striving for a greater
measure of industrial independence. And we denounce the State
Government of Idaho and the Federal Government for employing
the military arm of the Government to abridge the civil rights
of the people, and to enforce an infamous permit system which
denies to laborers their inherent liberty and compels them to
forswear their manhood and their right before being permitted
to seek employment.
"The importation of Japanese and other laborers under contract
to serve monopolistic corporations is a notorious and flagrant
violation of the immigration laws. We demand that the Federal
Government shall take cognizance of this menacing evil and
repress it under existing laws. We further pledge ourselves to
strive for the enactment of more stringent laws for the
exclusion of Mongolian and Malayan immigration.
"We indorse municipal ownership of public utilities, and
declare that the advantages which have accrued to the public
under that system would be multiplied a hundredfold by its
extension to natural interstate monopolies.
"We denounce the practice of issuing injunctions in the cases
of dispute between employers and employés, making criminal
acts by organizations which are not criminal when performed by
individuals, and demand legislation to restrain the evil.
"We demand that United States Senators and all other officials
as far as practicable be elected by direct vote of the people,
believing that the elective franchise and untrammelled ballot
are essential to a government for and by the people.
"The People's party condemns the wholesale system of
disfranchisement by coercion and intimidation, adopted in some
States, as un-republican and un-democratic. And we declare it
to be the duty of the several State Legislatures to take such
action as will secure a full, free, and fair ballot, and an
honest count.
"We favor home rule in the Territories and the District of
Columbia, and the early admission of the Territories as
States.
"We denounce the expensive red-tape system, political
favoritism, cruel and unnecessary delay and criminal evasion
of the statutes in the management of the Pension Office, and
demand the simple and honest execution of the law, and the
fulfilment by the nation of its pledges of service pension to
all its honorably discharged veterans."
{649}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Socialist Labor Party Platform and Nominations.
The convention of the Populists was followed next by that of
the Socialist Labor Party, which met in New York City, on the
2d of June, and put in nomination Joseph P. Maloney, of
Massachusetts, and Valentine Remmel, of Pennsylvania. Its
Platform was as follows:
"The Socialist Labor party of the United States, in convention
assembled, reasserts the inalienable right of all men to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"With the founders of the American Republic we hold that the
purpose of government is to secure every citizen in the
enjoyment of this right; but in the light of our social
conditions we hold, furthermore, that no such right can be
exercised under a system of economic inequality, essentially
destructive of life, of liberty, and of happiness.
"With the founders of this Republic we hold that the true
theory of politics is that the machinery of government must be
owned and controlled by the whole people; but in the light of
our industrial development we hold, furthermore, that the true
theory of economics is that the machinery of production must
likewise belong to the people in common.
"To the obvious fact that our despotic system of economics is
the direct opposite of our democratic system of politics can
plainly be traced the existence of a privileged class, the
corruption of government by that class, the alienation of
public property, public franchises, and public functions to
that class, and the abject dependence of the mightiest of
nations upon that class.
"Again, through the perversion of democracy to the ends of
plutocracy, labor is robbed of the wealth which it alone
produces, is denied the means of self-employment, and, by
compulsory idleness in wage slavery, is even deprived of the
necessaries of life. Human power and natural forces are thus
wasted, that the plutocracy may rule. Ignorance and misery,
with all their concomitant evils, are perpetuated, that the
people may be kept in bondage. Science and invention are
diverted from their humane purpose to the enslavement of women
and children.
"Against such a system the Socialist Labor party once more
enters its protest. Once more it reiterates its fundamental
declaration that private property in the natural sources of
production and in the instruments of labor is the obvious
cause of all economic servitude and political dependence.
"The time is fast coming when, in the natural course of social
evolution, this system, through the destructive action of its
failures and crises on the one hand, and the constructive
tendencies of its trusts and other capitalistic combinations
on the other hand, shall have worked out its own downfall.
"We, therefore, call upon the wage workers of the United
States, and upon all other honest citizens, to organize under
the banner of the Socialist Labor party into a class-conscious
body, aware of its rights and determined to conquer them by
taking possession of the public powers; so that, held together
by an indomitable spirit of solidarity under the most trying
conditions of the present class struggle, we may put a summary
end to that barbarous struggle by the abolition of classes, the
restoration of the land and of all the means of production,
transportation, and distribution to the people as a collective
body, and the substitution of the Cooperative Commonwealth for
the present state of planless production, industrial war, and
social disorder—a commonwealth in which every worker shall
have the free exercise and full benefit of his faculties,
multiplied by all the modern factors of civilization."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Republican Party Platform and Nominations.
On the 19th of June the national convention of the Republican
Party began its session at Philadelphia; adopted its platform
on the following day, and nominated President William McKinley
for re-election ou the 21st, naming Theodore Roosevelt, then
Governor of New York, for Vice President, in opposition to his
earnestly expressed wish. The adopted platform of principles
was as follows:
"The Republicans of the United States, through their chosen
representatives, met in National Convention, looking back upon
an unsurpassed record of achievement and looking forward to a
great field of duty and opportunity, and appealing to the
judgment of their countrymen, make these declarations:
"The expectation in which the American people, turning from
the Democratic party, intrusted power four years ago to a
Republican Chief Magistrate and a Republican Congress, has
been met and satisfied. When the people then assembled at the
polls, after a term of Democratic legislation and
administration, business was dead, industry paralyzed, and the
National credit disastrously impaired. The country's capital
was hidden away and its labor distressed and unemployed. The
Democrats had no other plan with which to improve the ruinous
conditions which they had themselves produced than to coin
silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. The Republican Party,
denouncing this plan as sure to produce conditions even worse
than those from which relief was sought, promised to restore
prosperity by means of two legislative measures—a protective
tariff and a law making gold the standard of value.
"The people, by great majorities, issued to the Republican
party a commission to enact these laws. This commission has
been executed, and the Republican promise is redeemed.
Prosperity more general and more abundant than we have ever
known has followed these enactments. There is no longer
controversy as to the value of any government obligations.
Every American dollar is a gold dollar, or its assured
equivalent, and American credit stands higher than that of any
nation. Capital is fully employed, and labor everywhere is
profitably occupied. No single fact can more strikingly tell
the story of what Republican government means to the country
than this—that while during the whole period of 107 years from
1790 to 1897 there was an excess of exports over imports of
only $383,028,497, there has been in the short three years of
the present Republican Administration an excess of exports
over imports in the enormous sum of $1,483,537,094.
{650}
"And while the American people, sustained by this Republican
legislation, have been achieving these splendid triumphs in
their business and commerce, they have conducted and in
victory concluded a war for liberty and human rights. No
thought of National aggrandizement tarnished the high purpose
with which American standards were unfurled. It was a war
unsought and patiently resisted, but when it came the American
Government was ready. Its fleets were cleared for action, its
armies were in the field, and the quick and signal triumph of
its forces on land and sea bore equal tribute to the courage
of American soldiers and sailors and to the skill and
foresight of Republican statesmanship. To ten millions of the
human race there was given 'a new birth of freedom,' and to
the American people a new and noble responsibility.
"'We indorse the Administration of William McKinley. Its acts
have been established in wisdom and in patriotism, and at home
and abroad it has distinctly elevated and extended the
influence of the American nation. Walking untried paths and
facing unforeseen responsibilities, President McKinley has
been in every situation the true American patriot and the
upright statesman, clear in vision, strong in judgment, firm
in action, always inspiring and deserving the confidence of
his countrymen. In asking the American people to indorse this
Republican record and to renew their commission to the
Republican party, we remind them of the fact that the menace
to their prosperity has always resided in Democratic
principles, and no less in the general incapacity of the
Democratic party to conduct public affairs. The prime
essential of business prosperity is public confidence in the
good sense of the Government, and in its ability to deal
intelligently with each new problem of administration and
legislation. That confidence the Democratic party has never
earned. It is hopelessly inadequate, and the country's
prosperity when Democratic success at the polls is announced
halts and ceases in mere anticipation of Democratic blunders
and failures.
"We renew our allegiance to the principle of the gold
standard, and declare our confidence in the wisdom of the
legislation of the Fifty-sixth Congress by which the parity of
all our money and the stability of our currency upon a gold
basis has been secured.
"We recognize that interest rates are potent factors in
production and business activity, and for the purpose of
further equalizing and of further lowering the rates of
interest, we favor such monetary legislation as will enable
the varying needs of the seasons and of all sections to be
promptly met in order that trade may be evenly sustained,
labor steadily employed, and commerce enlarged. The volume of
money in circulation was never so great per capita as it is
to-day.
"We declare our steadfast opposition to the free and unlimited
coinage of silver. No measure to that end could be considered
which was without the support of the leading commercial
countries of the world. However firmly Republican legislation
may seem to have secured the country against the peril of base
and discredited currency, the election of a Democratic
President could not fail to impair the country's credit and to
bring once more into question the intention of the American
people to maintain upon the gold standard the parity of their
money circulation. The Democratic party must be convinced that
the American people will never tolerate the Chicago platform.
"We recognize the necessity and propriety of the honest
cooperation of capital to meet new business conditions, and
especially to extend our rapidly increasing foreign trade, but
we condemn all conspiracies and combinations intended to
restrict business, to create monopolies, to limit production,
or to control prices, and favor such legislation as will
effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and
promote competition, and secure the rights of producers,
laborers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce.
"We renew our faith in the policy of protection to American
labor. In that policy our industries have been established,
diversified, and maintained. By protecting the home market
competition has been stimulated and production cheapened.
Opportunity to the inventive genius of our people has been
secured and wages in every department of labor maintained at
high rates, higher now than ever before, and always
distinguishing our working people in their better conditions
of life from those of any competing country. Enjoying the
blessings of the American common school, secure in the right
of self-government, and protected in the occupancy of their
own markets, their constantly increasing knowledge and skill
have enabled them finally to enter the markets of the world.
"We favor the associated policy of reciprocity so directed as
to open our markets on favorable terms for what we do not
ourselves produce in return for free foreign markets.
"In the further interest of American workmen we favor a more
effective restriction of the immigration of cheap labor from
foreign lands, the extension of opportunities of education for
working children, the raising of the age limit for child
labor, the protection of free labor as against contract
convict labor, and an effective system of labor insurance.
"Our present dependence upon foreign shipping for nine-tenths
of our foreign carrying is a great loss to the industry of
this country. It is also a serious danger to our trade, for
its sudden withdrawal in the event of European war would
seriously cripple our expanding foreign commerce. The National
defence and naval efficiency of this country, moreover, supply
a compelling reason for legislation which will enable us to
recover our former place among the trade carrying fleets of
the world.
"The nation owes a debt of profound gratitude to the soldiers
and sailors who have fought its battles, and it is the
Government's duty to provide for the survivors and for the
widows and orphans of those who have fallen in the country's
wars. The pension laws, founded in this just sentiment, should
be liberal, and should be liberally administered, and
preference should be given wherever practicable with respect
to employment in the public service to soldiers and sailors
and to their widows and orphans.
"We commend the policy of the Republican party in maintaining
the efficiency of the Civil Service. The Administration has
acted wisely in its effort to secure for public service in
Cuba, Porto Rico, Hawaii and the Philippine Islands only those
whose fitness has been determined by training and experience.
We believe that employment in the public service in these
territories should be confined as far as practicable to their
inhabitants.
"It was the plain purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution to prevent discrimination on account of race or
color in regulating the elective franchise. Devices of State
governments, whether by statutory or constitutional enactment
to avoid the purpose of this amendment are revolutionary and
should be condemned.
{651}
"Public movements looking to a permanent improvement of the
roads and highways of the country meet with our cordial
approval and we recommend this subject to the earnest
consideration of the people and of the Legislatures of the
several States. We favor the extension of the rural free
delivery service wherever its extension may be justified.
"In further pursuance of the constant policy of the Republican
party to provide free homes on the public domain, we recommend
adequate National legislation to reclaim the arid lands of the
United States, reserving control of the distribution of water for
irrigation to the respective States and Territories.
"We favor home rule for and the early admission to Statehood
of the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma.
"The Dingley act, amended to provide sufficient revenue for
the conduct of the war, has so well performed its work that it
has been possible to reduce the war debt in the sum of
$40,000,000. So ample are the Government's revenues and so
great is the public confidence in the integrity of its
obligations that its newly funded 2 per cent bonds sell at a
premium. The country is now justified in expecting, and it
will be the policy of the Republican party to bring about, a
reduction of the war taxes.
"We favor the construction, ownership, control and protection
of an isthmian canal by the Government of the United States.
"New markets are necessary for the increasing surplus of our
farm products. Every effort should be made to open and obtain
new markets, especially in the Orient, and the Administration
is warmly to be commended for its successful effort to commit
all trading and colonizing nations to the policy of the open
door in China.
"In the interest of our expanding commerce we recommend that
Congress create a department of commerce and industries in the
charge of a secretary with a seat in the Cabinet. The United
States consular system should be reorganized under the
supervision of this new department, upon such a basis of
appointment and tenure as will render it still more
serviceable to the Nation's increasing trade. The American
Government must protect the person and property of every
citizen wherever they are wrongfully violated or placed in
peril.
"We congratulate the women of America upon their splendid
record of public service in the volunteer aid association, and
as nurses in camp and hospital during the recent campaigns of
our armies in the Eastern and Western Indies, and we
appreciate their faithful co-operation in all works of
education and industry.
"President McKinley has conducted the foreign affairs of the
United States with distinguished credit to the American
people. In releasing us from the vexatious conditions of a
European alliance for the government of Samoa his course is
especially to be commended. By securing to our undivided
control the most important island of the Samoan group and the
best harbor in the Southern Pacific, every American interest
has been safeguarded. We approve the annexation of the
Hawaiian Islands to the United States. We commend the part
taken by our Government in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
We assert our steadfast adherence to the policy announced in
the Monroe Doctrine. The provisions of The Hague Convention
were wisely regarded when President McKinley tendered his
friendly offices in the interest of peace between Great
Britain and the South African republics. While the American
Government must continue the policy prescribed by Washington,
affirmed by every succeeding President and imposed upon us by
The Hague Treaty, of non-intervention in European
controversies, the American people earnestly hope that a way
may soon be found, honorable alike to both contending parties,
to terminate the strife between them.
"In accepting by the Treaty of Paris the just responsibility
of our victories in the Spanish war the President and the
Senate won the undoubted approval of the American people. No
other course was possible than to destroy Spain's sovereignty
throughout the West Indies and in the Philippine Islands. That
course created our responsibility before the world, and with
the unorganized population whom our intervention had freed
from Spain, to provide for the maintenance of law and order,
and for the establishment of good government and for the
performance of international obligations. Our authority could
not be less than our responsibility, and wherever sovereign
rights were extended it became the high duty of the Government
to maintain its authority, to put down armed insurrection and
to confer the blessings of liberty and civilization upon all
the rescued peoples. 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.
"The Republican party upon its history, and upon this
declaration of its principles and policies, confidently
invokes the considerate and approving judgment of the American
people."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900
Prohibition Party Platform and Nominations.
In the next week after the meeting of the Republican national
convention, that of the Prohibition Party was held at Chicago,
opening on the 27th of June. It chose Mr. John G. Woolley, of
Chicago (already named by the United Christian Party for Vice
President—see above) to be its candidate for President, with
Mr. Henry B. Metcalfe, of Rhode Island, for Vice President.
Setting aside all political issues save those connected with
the liquor traffic, its declarations were confined to that
subject alone, and were as follows:
"The National Prohibition party, in convention represented at
Chicago, June 27 and 28, 1900, acknowledged Almighty God as
the supreme source of all just government. Realizing that this
Republic was founded upon Christian principles, and can endure
only as it embodies justice and righteousness, and asserting
that all authority should seek the best good of all the
governed, to this end wisely prohibiting what is wrong and
permitting only what is right, hereby records and proclaims:
{652}
"First.—We accept and assert the definition given by Edward
Burke, that a party is 'a body of men joined together for the
purpose of protecting by their joint endeavor the National
interest upon some particular principle upon which they are
all agreed.'
"We declare that there is no principle now advocated, by any
other party, which could be made a fact in government with
such beneficent moral and material results as the principle of
prohibition applied to the beverage liquor traffic; that the
National interest could be promoted in no other way so surely
and widely as by its adoption and assertion through a National
policy and a cooperation therein by every State, forbidding
the manufacture, sale, exportation, importation, and
transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes;
that we stand for this as the only principle proposed by any
party anywhere for the settlement of a question greater and
graver than any other before the American people, and
involving more profoundly than any other their moral future
and financial welfare; and that all the patriotic citizenship
of this country agreed upon this principle, however much
disagreement there may be as to minor considerations and
issues, should stand together at the ballot-box from this time
forward until prohibition is the established policy of the
United States, with a party in power to enforce it and to
insure its moral and material benefits.
"We insist that such a party agreed upon this principle and
policy, having sober leadership, without any obligation for
success to the saloon vote and to those demoralizing political
combinations, can successfully cope with all other and lesser
problems of government, in legislative halls and in the
executive chair, and that it is useless for any party to make
declarations in its platform as to any questions concerning
which there may be serious differences of opinion in its own
membership and as to which, because of such differences, the
party could legislate only on a basis of mutual concessions
when coming into power.
"We submit that the Democratic and Republican parties are
alike insincere in their assumed hostility to trusts and
monopolies. They dare not and do not attack the most dangerous
of them all, the liquor power. So long as the saloon debauches
the citizen and breeds the purchasable voter, money will
continue to buy its way to power. Break down this traffic,
elevate manhood, and a sober citizenship will find a way to
control dangerous combinations of capital. We purpose, as a
first step in the financial problem of the nation, to save
more than a billion of dollars every year, now annually
expended to support the liquor traffic and to demoralize our
people. When that is accomplished, conditions will have so
improved that with a clearer atmosphere the country can
address itself to the questions as to the kind and quantity of
currency needed.
"Second.—We reaffirm as true indisputably the declaration of
William Windom, when Secretary of the Treasury in the Cabinet
of President Arthur, that 'considered socially, financially,
politically, or morally, the licensed liquor traffic is or
ought to be the overwhelming issue in American politics, and
that the destruction of this iniquity stands next on the
calendar of the world's progress.' We hold that the existence
of our party presents this issue squarely to the American
people, and lays upon them the responsibility of choice
between liquor parties, dominated by distillers and brewers,
with their policy of saloon perpetuation breeding waste,
wickedness, woe, pauperism, taxation, corruption, and crime,
and our one party of patriotic and moral principle, with a
policy which defends it from domination by corrupt bosses, and
which insures it forever against the blighting control of
saloon politics.
"We face with sorrow, shame, and fear the awful fact that this
liquor traffic has a grip on our Government, municipal, State,
and National, through the revenue system and a saloon
sovereignty, which no other party dare to dispute; a grip
which dominates the party now in power, from caucus to
Congress, from policemen to President, from the rum shop to
the White House; a grip which compels the Executive to consent
that law shall be nullified in behalf of the brewer, that the
canteen shall curse our army and spread intemperance across
the seas, and that our flag shall wave as the symbol of
partnership, at home and abroad, between this Government and
the men who defy and defile it for their unholy gain.
"Third.—We charge upon President McKinley, who was elected to
his high office by appeal to Christian sentiment and
patriotism almost unprecedented and by a combination of moral
influences never before seen in this country, that by his
conspicuous example as a wine-drinker at public banquets and
as a wine-serving host in the White House, he has done more to
encourage the liquor business, to demoralize the temperance
habits of young men, and to bring Christian practices and
requirements into disrepute than any other President this
Republic has had. "We further charge upon President McKinley
responsibility for the Army canteen, with all its dire brood
of disease, immorality, sin and death, in this country, in
Cuba, in Porto Rico and the Philippines; and we insist that by
his attitude concerning the canteen, and his apparent contempt
for the vast number of petitions and petitioners protesting
against it, he has outraged and insulted the moral sentiment
of this country in such a manner and to such a degree as calls
for its righteous uprising and his indignant and effective
rebuke. We challenge denial of the fact that our Chief
Executive, as commander in chief of the military forces of the
United States, at any time prior to or since March 2, 1899,
could have closed every Army saloon, called a canteen, by
executive order, as President Hayes in effect did before him,
and should have closed them, for the same reason that actuated
President Hayes; we assert that the act of Congress passed
March 2, 1899, forbidding the sale of liquor, 'in any post
exchange or canteen,' by any 'officer or private soldier' or
by 'any other person on any premises used for military
purposes in the United States,' was and is as explicit an act
of prohibition as the English language can frame; we declare
our solemn belief that the Attorney-General of the United
States in his interpretation of that law, and the Secretary of
War in his acceptance of that interpretation and his refusal
to enforce the law, were and are guilty of treasonable
nullification thereof, and that President McKinley, through
his assent to and indorsement of such interpretation and
refusal on the part of officials appointed by and responsible
to him, shares responsibility in their guilt; and we record
our conviction that a new and serious peril confronts our
country, in the fact that its President, at the behest of the
beer power, dare and does abrogate a law of Congress, through
subordinates removable at will by him and whose acts become
his, and thus virtually confesses that laws are to be
administered or to be nullified in the interest of a
law-defying business, by an Administration under mortgage to
such business for support.
{653}
"Fourth.-We deplore the fact that an Administration of this
Republic claiming the right and power to carry our flag across
seas, and to conquer and annex new territory, should admit its
lack of power to prohibit the American saloon on subjugated
soil, or should openly confess itself subject to liquor
sovereignty under that flag. We are humiliated, exasperated
and grieved by the evidence painfully abundant that this
Administration's policy of expansion is bearing so rapidly its
first fruits of drunkenness, insanity and crime under the
hothouse sun of the tropics; and when the president of the
first Philippine Commission says 'It was unfortunate that we
introduced and established the saloon there, to corrupt the
natives and to exhibit the vices of our race,' we charge the
inhumanity and un-Christianity of this act upon the
Administration of William McKinley and upon the party which
elected and would perpetuate the same.
"Fifth.—We declare that the only policy which the Government
of the United States can of right uphold as to the liquor
traffic under the National Constitution upon any territory
under the military or civil control of that Government is the
policy of prohibition; that 'to establish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote
the general welfare, and insure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity,' as the Constitution provides,
the liquor traffic must neither be sanctioned nor tolerated,
and that the revenue policy, which makes our Government a
partner with distillers and brewers and barkeepers, is a
disgrace to our civilization, an outrage upon humanity, and a
crime against God.
"We condemn the present Administration at Washington because
it has repealed the prohibitory law in Alaska, and has given
over the partly civilized tribes there to be the prey of the
American grogshop, and because it has entered upon a license
policy in our new possessions by incorporating the same in the
revenue act of Congress in the code of laws for the government
of the Hawaiian Islands.
"We call general attention to the fearful fact that
exportation of liquors from the United States to the
Philippine Islands increased from $337 in 1898 to $167,198 in
the first ten months of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900;
and that while our exportations of liquor to Cuba never
reached $30,000 a year previous to American occupation of that
island, our exports of such liquors to Cuba during the fiscal
year of 1899 reached the sum of $629,655.
"Sixth.—One great religious body (the Baptist) having truly
declared of the liquor traffic 'that it has no defensible
right to exist, that it can never be reformed, that it stands
condemned by its unrighteous fruits as a thing unchristian,
un-American, and perilous utterly to every interest in life';
another great religious body (the Methodist) having as truly
asserted and reiterated that 'no political party has the right
to expect, nor should it receive, the votes of Christian men
so long as it stands committed to the license system or
refuses to put itself on record in an attitude of open
hostility to the saloons'; other great religious bodies having
made similar deliverances, in language plain and unequivocal,
as to the liquor traffic and the duty of Christian citizenship
in opposition thereto, and the fact being plain and undeniable
that the Democratic party stands for license, the saloon, and
the canteen, while the Republican party, in policy and
administration, stands for the canteen, the saloon, and
revenue therefrom, we declare ourselves justified in expecting
that Christian voters everywhere shall cease their complicity
with the liquor curse by refusing to uphold a liquor party,
and shall unite themselves with the only party which upholds
the prohibition policy, and which for nearly thirty years has
been the faithful defender of the church, the State, the home,
and the school against the saloon, its expanders and
perpetuators, their actual and persistent foes.
"We insist that no differences of belief, as to any other
question or concern of government, should stand in the way of
such a union of moral and Christian citizenship as we hereby
invite for the speedy settlement of this paramount moral,
industrial, financial, and political issue which our party
presents; and we refrain from declaring ourselves upon all
minor matters as to which differences of opinion may exist
that hereby we may offer to the American people a platform so
broad that all can stand upon it who desire to see sober
citizenship actually sovereign over the allied hosts of evil,
sin, and crime in a government of the people, by the people,
and for the people.
"We declare that there are but two real parties to-day
concerning the liquor traffic—Perpetuationists and
Prohibitionists—and that patriotism, Christianity, and every
interest of genuine republicanism and of pure democracy,
besides the loyal demands of our common humanity, require the
speedy union, in one solid phalanx at the ballot-box, of all
who oppose the liquor traffic's perpetuation, and who covet
endurance for this Republic."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Democratic Party Platform and Nominations.
The delegates of the Democratic Party met in national
convention at Kansas City, on the Fourth of July. By unanimous
vote, on the following day, they again nominated William J.
Bryan, of Nebraska, for President, and subsequently associated
with him ex-Vice President Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois,
for Vice President. The platform, adopted on the same day,
reiterating the demand of 1896 for a free and unlimited
coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1, but emphasizing the
question of colonial expansion as the "paramount issue of the
campaign," was as follows: "'We, the representatives of the
Democratic party of the United States, assembled in national
convention on the anniversary of the adoption of the
Declaration of Independence, do reaffirm our faith in that
immortal proclamation of the inalienable rights of man, and
our allegiance to the constitution framed in harmony therewith
by the fathers of the Republic. We hold with the United States
Supreme Court that the Declaration of Independence is the spirit
of our government, of which the constitution is the form and
letter.
{654}
We declare again that all governments instituted among men
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that any government not based upon the consent of the governed
is a tyranny; and that to impose upon any people a government
of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those
of a republic. We hold that the constitution follows the flag
and denounce the doctrine that an executive or congress,
deriving their existence and their powers from the
constitution, can exercise lawful authority beyond it, or in
violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half
republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that
imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to
despotism at home.
"Believing in these fundamental principles, we denounce the
Porto Rico law, enacted by a Republican Congress against the
protest and opposition of the Democratic minority, as a bold
and open violation of the Nation's organic law and a flagrant
breach of National good faith. It imposes upon the people of
Porto Rico a government without their consent, and taxation
without representation. It dishonors the American people by
repudiating a solemn pledge made in their behalf by the
commanding general of our Army, which the Porto Ricans
welcomed to a peaceful and unresisted occupation of their
land. It dooms to poverty and distress a people whose
helplessness appeals with peculiar force to our justice and
magnanimity. In this, the first act of its imperialistic
programme, the Republican party seeks to commit the United
States to a colonial policy inconsistent with republican
institutions and condemned by the Supreme Court in numerous
decisions.
"We demand the prompt and honest fulfilment of our pledge to
the Cuban people and the world, that the United States has no
disposition nor intention to exercise sovereignty,
jurisdiction, or control over the island of Cuba, except for
its pacification. The war ended nearly two years ago, profound
peace reigns over all the island, and still the Administration
keeps the government of the island from its people, while
Republican carpetbag officials plunder its revenue and exploit
the colonial theory to the disgrace of the American people.
"We condemn and denounce the Philippine policy of the present
Administration. It has embroiled the Republic in an
unnecessary war, sacrificed the lives of many of its noblest
sons, and placed the United States, previously known and
applauded throughout the world as the champion of freedom, in
the false and un-American position of crushing with military
force the efforts of our former allies to achieve liberty and
self-government. The Filipinos cannot be citizens without
endangering our civilization; they cannot be subjects without
imperilling our form of government; and as we are not willing
to surrender our civilization, or to convert the Republic into
an empire, we favor an immediate declaration of the Nation's
purpose to give to the Filipinos, first, a stable form of
government; second, independence; and third, protection from
outside interference such as has been given for nearly a
century to the republics of Central and South America. The
greedy commercialism which dictated the Philippine policy of
the Republican Administration attempts to justify it with the
plea that it will pay, but even this sordid and unworthy plea
fails when brought to the test of facts. The war of 'criminal
aggression' against the Filipinos, entailing an annual expense
of many millions, has already cost more than any possible
profit that could accrue from the entire Philippine trade for
years to come. Furthermore, when trade is extended at the
expense of liberty the price is always too high.
"We are not opposed to territorial expansion, when it takes in
desirable territory which can be erected into States in the
Union, and whose people are willing and fit to become American
citizens. We favor trade expansion by every peaceful and
legitimate means. But we are unalterably opposed to the
seizing or purchasing of distant islands 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 influence should
be extended not by force and violence, but through the
persuasive power of a high and honorable example.
"The importance of other questions now pending before the
American people is in nowise diminished and the Democratic
party takes no backward step from its position on them; but
the burning issue of imperialism, growing out of the Spanish
war, involving the very existence of the Republic and the
destruction of our free institutions, we regard as the
paramount issue of the campaign.
"The declaration of the Republican platform adopted at the
Philadelphia Convention, held in June, 1900, that the
Republican party 'steadfastly adheres to the policy announced
in the Monroe Doctrine,' is manifestly insincere and
deceptive. This profession is contradicted by the avowed
policy of that party, in opposition to the spirit of the
Monroe Doctrine, to acquire and hold sovereignty over large
areas of territory and large numbers of people in the Eastern
Hemisphere. We insist on the strict maintenance of the Monroe
Doctrine in all its integrity, both in letter and in spirit,
as necessary to prevent the extension of European authority on
these continents and as essential to our supremacy in American
affairs. At the same time we declare that no American people
shall ever be held by force in unwilling subjection to
European authority.
"We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and
intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm
which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what
millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will
impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army, an
unnecessary burden of taxation, and would be a constant menace
to their liberties. A small standing army and a well
disciplined State militia are amply sufficient in time of
peace. This Republic has no place for a vast military
establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military
service and conscription. When the Nation is in danger the
volunteer soldier is his country's best defender. The National
Guard of the United States should ever be cherished in the
patriotic hearts of a free people. Such organizations are ever
an element of strength and safety. For the first time in our
history and coeval with the Philippine conquest has there been
a wholesale departure from our time honored and approved
system of volunteer organization. We denounce it as
un-American, undemocratic and unrepublican and as a subversion
of the ancient and fixed principles of a free people.
{655}
"Private monopolies are indefensible and intolerable. They
destroy competition, control the price of raw material and of
the finished product, thus robbing both producer and consumer.
They lessen the employment of labor and arbitrarily fix the terms
and conditions thereof; and deprive individual energy and
small capital of their opportunity for betterment. They are
the most efficient means yet devised for appropriating the
fruits of industry to the benefit of the few at the expense of
the many, and, unless their insatiate greed is checked, all
wealth will be aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
destroyed. The dishonest paltering with the trust evil by the
Republican party in its State and National platforms is
conclusive proof of the truth of the charge that trusts are
the legitimate product of Republican policies, that they are
fostered by Republican laws, and that they are protected by
the Republican Administration in return for campaign
subscriptions and political support. We pledge the Democratic
party to an unceasing warfare in Nation, State and city
against private monopoly in every form. Existing laws against
trusts must be enforced and more stringent ones must be
enacted providing for publicity as to the affairs of
corporations engaged in interstate commerce and requiring all
corporations to show, before doing business outside of the
State of their origin, that they have no water in their stock,
and that they have not attempted and are not attempting to
monopolize any branch of business or the production of any
articles of merchandise; and the whole constitutional power of
Congress over interstate commerce, the mails and all modes of
interstate communication shall be exercised by the enactment
of comprehensive laws upon the subject of trusts.
"Tariff laws should be amended by putting the products of
trusts upon the free list, to prevent monopoly under the plea
of protection. The failure of the present Republican
Administration, with an absolute control over all the branches
of the National Government, to enact any legislation designed
to prevent or even curtail the absorbing power of trusts and
illegal combinations, or to enforce the anti-trust laws
already on the statute books, proves the insincerity of the
high sounding phrases of the Republican platform. Corporations
should be protected in all their rights and their legitimate
interests should be respected, but any attempt by corporations
to interfere with the public affairs of the people or to
control the sovereignty which creates them should be forbidden
under such penalties as will make such attempts impossible. We
condemn the Dingley tariff law as a trust breeding measure
skilfully devised to give to the few favors which they do not
deserve, and to place upon the many burdens which they should
not bear. We favor such an enlargement of the scope of the
Interstate Commerce law as will enable the Commission to
protect individuals and communities from discrimination and
the public from unjust and unfair transportation rates.
"We reaffirm and indorse the principles of the National
Democratic platform adopted at Chicago in 1896 and we
reiterate the demand of that platform for an American
financial system made by the American people for themselves,
which shall restore and maintain a bimetallic price level, and
as part of such system the immediate restoration of the free
and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the present legal
ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of
any other nation.
"We denounce the currency bill enacted at the last session of
Congress as a step forward in the Republican policy which aims
to discredit the sovereign right of the National Government to
issue all money, whether coin or paper, and to bestow upon
National banks the power to issue and control the volume of
paper money for their own benefit. A permanent National bank
currency, secured by Government bonds, must have a permanent
debt to rest upon, and, if the bank currency is to increase
with population and business, the debt must also increase. The
Republican currency scheme is, therefore, a scheme for
fastening upon the taxpayers a perpetual and growing debt for
the benefit of the banks. We are opposed to this private
corporation paper circulated as money, but without legal
tender qualities, and demand the retirement of National bank
notes as fast as Government paper or silver certificates can
be substituted for them. We favor an amendment to the Federal
Constitution providing for the election of United States
Senators by direct vote of the people, and we favor direct
legislation wherever practicable. We are opposed to government
by injunction; we denounce the blacklist, and favor
arbitration as a means of settling disputes between
corporations and their employés.
"In the interest of American labor and the upbuilding of the
workingman as the cornerstone of the prosperity of our
country, we recommend that Congress create a Department of
Labor, in charge of a Secretary, with a seat in the Cabinet,
believing that the elevation of the American laborer will
bring with it increased production and increased prosperity to
our country at home and to our commerce abroad. We are proud
of the courage and fidelity of the American soldiers and
sailors in all our wars; we favor liberal pensions to them and
their dependents; and we reiterate the position taken in the
Chicago platform in 1896, that the fact of enlistment and
service shall be deemed conclusive evidence against disease
and disability before enlistment.
"We favor the immediate construction, ownership and control of
the Nicaraguan canal by the United States, and we denounce the
insincerity of the plank in the Republican national platform
for an Isthmian canal, in the face of the failure of the
Republican majority to pass the bill pending in Congress.
"We condemn the Hay-Pauncefote treaty as a surrender of
American rights and interests, not to be tolerated by the
American people.
"We denounce the failure of the Republican party to carry out
its pledges to grant statehood to the territories of Arizona,
New Mexico and Oklahoma, and we promise the people of those
territories immediate statehood, and home rule during their
condition as territories; and we favor home rule and a
territorial form of government for Alaska and Porto Rico.
"We favor an intelligent system of improving the arid lands of
the West, storing the waters for the purposes of irrigation,
and the holding of such lands for actual settlers.
{656}
"We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the
Chinese exclusion law and its application to the same classes
of all Asiatic races.
"Jefferson said: 'Peace, commerce and honest friendship with
all nations, entangling alliances with none.' We approve this
wholesome doctrine and earnestly protest against the
Republican departure which has involved us in so-called world
politics, including the diplomacy of Europe and the intrigue
and land-grabbing in Asia, and we especially condemn the
ill-concealed Republican alliance with England, which must
mean discrimination against other friendly nations, and which
has already stifled the nation's voice while liberty is being
strangled in Africa.
"Believing in the principles of self-government and rejecting,
as did our forefathers, the claims of monarchy, we view with
indignation the purpose of England to overwhelm with force the
South African Republics. Speaking, as we believe, for the
entire American nation, except its Republican officeholders,
and for all free men everywhere, we extend our sympathy to the
heroic Burghers in their unequal struggle to maintain their
liberty and independence.
"We denounce the lavish appropriations of recent Republican
congresses, which have kept taxes high and which threaten the
perpetuation of the oppressive war levies. We oppose the
accumulation of a surplus to be squandered in such barefaced
frauds upon the taxpayers as the shipping subsidy bill, which,
under the false pretense of fostering American ship-building,
would put unearned millions into the pockets of favorite
contributors to the Republican campaign fund.
"We favor the reduction and speedy repeal of the war taxes,
and a return to the time-honored Democratic policy of strict
economy in governmental expenditures.
"Believing that our most cherished institutions are in great
peril, that the very existence of our constitutional Republic
is at stake, and that the decision now to be rendered will
determine whether or not our children are to enjoy those
blessed privileges of free government which have made the
United States great, prosperous and honored, we earnestly ask
for the foregoing declaration of principles the hearty support
of the liberty-loving American people, regardless of previous
party affiliations."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Silver Republican Platform and Nominations.
The Republicans who broke from their party in 1896 on the
silver question, and supported Mr. Bryan for the presidency,
were still in affiliation with him and his party, but
preserving a distinct organization, assuming the name of
Lincoln Republicans. Simultaneously with that of the Democrats
(July 6), they held a convention at Kansas City, and named Mr.
Bryan as their candidate for President. The nomination for
Vice President was referred to the national committee, which
ultimately placed Mr. Stevenson's name on the Silver
Republican ticket. The platform adopted differed little in
leading principles from that of the Democratic party, except
in the greater emphasis put on the monetary doctrines that
were common to both. It was as follows:
"We, the Silver Republican party, in National Convention
assembled, declare these as our principles and invite the
cooperation of all who agree therewith:
"We recognize that the principles set forth in the Declaration
of Independence are fundamental and everlastingly true in
their applications of governments among men. We believe the
patriotic words of Washington's farewell to be the words of
soberness and wisdom, inspired by the spirit of right and
truth. We treasure the words of Jefferson as priceless gems of
American statesmanship.
"We hold in sacred remembrance the broad philanthropy and
patriotism of Lincoln, who was the great interpreter of
American history and the great apostle of human rights and of
industrial freedom, and we declare, as was declared by the
convention that nominated the great emancipator, that the
maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration
of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution,
'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to
secure these rights governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,'
is essential to the preservation of our republican
institutions.
"We declare our adherence to the principle of bimetallism as
the right basis of a monetary system under our National
Constitution, a principle that found place repeatedly in
Republican platforms from the demonetization of silver in 1873
to the St. Louis Republican Convention of 1896. Since that
convention a Republican Congress and a Republican President,
at the dictation of the trusts and money power, have passed
and approved a currency bill which in itself is a repudiation
of the doctrine of bimetallism advocated theretofore by the
President and every great leader of his party.
"This currency law destroys the full money power of the silver
dollar, provides for the payment of all government obligations
and the redemption of all forms of paper money in gold alone;
retires the time-honored and patriotic greenbacks,
constituting one-sixth of the money in circulation, and
surrenders to banking corporations a sovereign function of
issuing all paper money, thus enabling these corporations to
control the prices of labor and property by increasing or
diminishing the volume of money in circulation, thus giving
the banks power to create panics and bring disaster upon
business enterprises. The provisions of this currency law
making the bonded debt of the Republic payable in gold alone
change the contract between the Government and the bondholders
to the advantage of the latter, and is in direct opposition to
the declaration of the Matthews resolution passed by Congress
in 1878, for which resolution the present Republican
President, then a member of Congress, voted, as did also all
leading Republicans, both in the House and Senate. We declare
it to be our intention to lend our efforts to the repeal of
this currency law, which not only repudiates the ancient and
time-honored principles of the American people before the
Constitution was adopted, but is violative of the principles
of the Constitution itself, and we shall not cease our efforts
until there has been established in its place a monetary
system based upon the free and unlimited coinage of silver and
gold into money at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1 by the
independent action of the United States, under which system
all paper money shall be issued by the Government and all such
money coined or issued shall be a full legal tender in payment
of all debts, public and private, without exception.
{657}
"We are in favor of a graduated tax upon incomes, and if
necessary to accomplish this we favor an amendment to the
Constitution.
"We believe that United States Senators ought to be elected by
direct vote of the people, and we favor such amendment of the
Constitution and such legislation as may be necessary to that
end.
"We favor the maintenance and the extension wherever
practicable of the merit system in the public service,
appointments to be made according to fitness, competitively
ascertained, and public servants to be retained in office only
so long as shall be compatible with the efficiency of the
service.
"Combinations, trusts, and monopolies contrived and arranged
for the purpose of controlling the prices and quantity of
articles supplied to the public are unjust, unlawful, and
oppressive. Not only do these unlawful conspiracies fix the
prices of commodities in many cases, but they invade every
branch of the State and National Government with their
polluting influence and control the actions of their employés
and dependents in private life until their influence actually
imperils society and the liberty of the citizen. We declare
against them. We demand the most stringent laws for their
destruction and the most severe punishment of their promoters
and maintainers and the energetic enforcement of such laws by
the courts.
"We believe the Monroe doctrine to be sound in principle and a
wise National policy, and we demand a firm adherence thereto.
We condemn acts inconsistent with it and that tend to make us
parties to the interests and to involve us in the
controversies of European nations and to recognition by
pending treaty of the right of England to be considered in the
construction of an interoceanic canal. We declare that such
canal, when constructed, ought to be controlled by the United
States in the interests of American nations.
"We observe with anxiety and regard with disapproval the
increasing ownership of American lands by aliens and their
growing control over our international transportation, natural
resources, and public utilities. We demand legislation to
protect our public domain, our natural resources, our
franchises, and our internal commerce and to keep them free
and maintain their independence of all foreign monopolies,
institutions, and influences, and we declare our opposition to
the leasing of the public lands of the United States whereby
corporations and syndicates will be able to secure control
thereof and thus monopolize the public domain, the heritage of
the people.
"We are in favor of the principles of direct legislation. In
view of the great sacrifice made and patriotic services
rendered we are in favor of liberal pensions to deserving
soldiers, their widows, orphans, and other dependents. We
believe that enlistment and service should be accepted as
conclusive proof that the soldier was free from disease and
disability at the time of his enlistment. We condemn the
present administration of the pension laws.
"We tender to the patriotic people of the South African
Republics our sympathy and express our admiration for them in
their heroic attempts to preserve their political freedom and
maintain their national independence. We declare the
destruction of these republics and the subjugation of their
people to be a crime against civilization. We believe this
sympathy should have been voiced by the American Congress, as
was done in the case of the French, the Greeks, the
Hungarians, the Poles, the Armenians, and the Cubans, and as
the traditions of this country would have dictated. We declare
the Porto Rican Tariff law to be not only a serious but a
dangerous departure from the principles of our form of
government. We believe in a republican form of government and
are opposed to monarchy and to the whole theory of
imperialistic control.
"We believe in self-government—a government by the consent of
the governed—and are unalterably opposed to a government based
upon force. It is clear and certain that the inhabitants of
the Philippine Archipelago cannot be made citizens of the
United States without endangering our civilization. We are,
therefore, in favor of applying to the Philippine Archipelago
the principle we are solemnly and publicly pledged to observe
in the case of Cuba.
"There no longer being any necessity for collecting war taxes,
we demand the repeal of the war taxes levied to carry on the
war with Spain.
"We favor the immediate admission into the union of States the
Territories of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
"We demand that our nation's promises to Cuba shall be
fulfilled in every particular.
"We believe the National Government should lend every aid,
encouragement, and assistance toward the reclamation of the
arid lands of the United States, and to that end we are in
favor of a comprehensive survey thereof and an immediate
ascertainment of the water supply available for such
reclamation, and we believe it to be the duty of the General
Government to provide for the construction of storage
reservoirs and irrigation works so that the water supply of
the arid region may be utilized to the greatest possible
extent in the interests of the people, while preserving all
rights of the State.
"Transportation is a public necessity and the means and
methods of it are matters of public concern. Railway companies
exercise a power over industries, business, and commerce which
they ought not to do, and should be made to serve the public
interests without making unreasonable charges or unjust
discriminations.
"We observe with satisfaction the growing sentiment among the
people in favor of the public ownership and operation of
public utilities.
"We are in favor of expanding our commerce in the interests of
American labor and for the benefit of all our people by every
honest and peaceful means. Our creed and our history justify
the nations of the earth in expecting that wherever the
American flag is unfurled in authority human liberty and
political liberty will be found. We protest against the
adoption of any policy that will change in the thought of the
world the meaning of our flag.
"We are opposed to the importation of Asiatic laborers in
competition with American labor, and favor a more rigid
enforcement of the laws relating thereto.
"The Silver Republican party of the United States, in the
foregoing principles, seeks to perpetuate the spirit and to
adhere to the teachings of Abraham Lincoln."
{658}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Platform of the American League of Anti-Imperialists.
Republicans and others opposed to a policy of conquest, and to
the government of people, not as citizens, but as subjects of
the Republic of the United States, and who wished to make that
opposition distinct and emphatic in the presidential canvass,
met in convention at Indianapolis, on the 16th of August, as
the "Liberty Congress of the American League of
Anti-Imperialists." One party among them thought the best
demonstration of public opinion on this issue could be
obtained by the nomination of a third ticket; while another
and larger party deemed it expedient to indorse the candidacy
of William J. Bryan, as a pronounced opponent of the imperial
policy. The views of the latter prevailed, and the indorsement
of Mr. Bryan was carried in the convention; but many of the
former refused submission to the vote of the majority, and
subsequently held a Third Party convention at New York (see
below). The Indianapolis Declaration was as follows:
"This Liberty Congress of Anti-Imperialists recognizes a great
National crisis, which menaces the Republic, upon whose future
depends in such large measure the hope of freedom throughout
the world. For the first time in our country's history the
President has undertaken to subjugate a foreign people and to
rule them by despotic power. He has thrown the protection of
the flag over slavery and polygamy in the Sulu Islands. He has
arrogated to himself the power to impose upon the inhabitants
of the Philippines government without their consent and
taxation without representation. He is waging war upon them
for asserting the very principles for the maintenance of which
our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their
sacred honor. He claims for himself and Congress authority to
govern the territories of the United States without
constitutional restraint.
"We believe in the Declaration of Independence. Its truths,
not less self-evident to-day than when first announced by our
fathers, are of universal application and cannot be abandoned
while government by the people endures.
"We believe in the Constitution of the United States. It gives
the President and Congress certain limited powers and secures
to every man within the jurisdiction of our Government certain
essential rights. We deny that either the President or
Congress can govern any person anywhere outside the
Constitution.
"We are absolutely opposed to the policy of President
McKinley, which proposes to govern millions of men without
their consent, which in Porto Rico establishes taxation
without representation, and government by the arbitrary will
of a legislature unfettered by constitutional restraint, and
in the Philippines prosecutes a war of conquest and demands
unconditional surrender from a people who are of right free
and independent. The struggle of men for freedom has ever been
a struggle for constitutional liberty. There is no liberty if
the citizen has no right which the Legislature may not invade,
if he may be taxed by the Legislature in which he is not
represented, or if he is not protected by fundamental law
against the arbitrary action of executive power. The policy of
the President offers the inhabitants of Porto Rico, Hawaii and
the Philippines no hope of independence, no prospect of
American citizenship, no constitutional protection, no
representation in the Congress which taxes them. This is the
government of men by arbitrary power without their consent.
This is imperialism. There is no room under the free flag of
America for subjects. The President and Congress, who derive
all their powers from the Constitution, can govern no man
without regard to its limitations.
"We believe the greatest safeguard of liberty is a free press,
and we demand that the censorship in the Philippines, which
keeps from the American people the knowledge of what is done
in their name, be abolished. We are entitled to know the
truth, and we insist that the powers which the President holds
in trust for us shall not be used to suppress it.
"Because we thus believe, we oppose the reelection of Mr.
McKinley. The supreme purpose of the people in this momentous
campaign should be to stamp with their final disapproval his
attempt to grasp imperial power. A self-governing people can
have no more imperative duty than to drive from public life a
Chief Magistrate who, whether in weakness or of wicked
purpose, has used his temporary authority to subvert the
character of their government and to destroy their National
ideals.
"We, therefore, in the belief that it is essential at this
crisis for the American people again to declare their faith in
the universal application of the Declaration of Independence
and to reassert their will that their servants shall not have
or exercise any powers whatever other than those conferred by
the Constitution, earnestly make the following recommendations
to our countrymen:
"First, that, without regard to their views on minor questions
of domestic policy, they withhold their votes from Mr.
McKinley, in order to stamp with their disapproval what he has
done.
"Second, that they vote for those candidates for Congress in
their respective districts who will oppose the policy of
imperialism.
"Third, while we welcome any other method of opposing the
re-election of Mr. McKinley we advise direct support of Mr.
Bryan as the most effective means of crushing imperialism. We
are convinced of Mr. Bryan's sincerity and of his earnest
purpose to secure to the Filipinos their independence. His
position and the declarations contained in the platform of his
party on the vital issue of the campaign meet our unqualified
approval.
"We recommend that the Executive committees of the American
Anti-Imperialist League and its allied leagues continue and
extend their organizations, preserving the independence of the
movement; and that they take the most active part possible in
the pending political campaign.
"Until now the policy which has turned the Filipinos from warm
friends to bitter enemies, which has slaughtered thousands of
them and laid waste their country, has been the policy of the
President. After the next election it becomes the policy of
every man who votes to re-elect him and who thus becomes with
him responsible for every drop of blood thereafter shed.
"In declaring that the principles of the Declaration of
Independence apply to all men, this Congress means to include
the negro race in America as well as the Filipinos. We
deprecate all efforts, whether in the South or in the North,
to deprive the negro of his rights as a citizen under the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States."
{659}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
The "Third Party" Anti-Imperialist Platform and Nominations.
The Anti-Imperialists who desired a Third Party ticket in the
field, called a convention which met in the city of New York,
September 5, and put in nomination for President and Vice
President Senator Donelson Caffery, of Louisiana, and
Archibald Murray Howe, of Massachusetts. The name "National
Party" was assumed, and its "aims and purposes" were thus
declared:
"We find our country threatened with alternative perils. On
the one hand is a public opinion misled by organized forces of
commercialism, that have perverted a war intended by the
people to be a war of humanity into a war of conquest. On the
other is a public opinion swayed by demagogic appeals to
factional and class passions, the most fatal of diseases to a
republic. We believe that either of these influences, if
unchecked, would ultimately compass the downfall of our
country, but we also believe that neither represents the sober
conviction of our countrymen. Convinced that the extension of
the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of
holding foreign people as colonial dependents is an innovation
dangerous to our liberties and repugnant to the principles
upon which our Government is founded, we pledge our earnest
efforts through all constitutional means:
"First, to procure the renunciation of all imperial or
colonial pretensions with regard to foreign countries claimed
to have been acquired through or in consequence of military or
naval operations of the last two years.
"Second, we further pledge our efforts to secure a single gold
standard and a sound banking system.
"Third, to secure a public service based on merit only.
"Fourth, to secure the abolition of all corrupting special
privileges, whether under the guise of subsidies, bounties,
undeserved pensions or trust breeding tariffs."
Within a few weeks after the holding of this convention,
Senator Caffery and Mr. Howe withdrew their names from the
canvass, and it was decided to appoint electors-at-large in as
many states as possible, to receive the votes of those
supporting the movement.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
Social Democratic Party Platform and Nominations.
The last distinct movement of organization for the
presidential election was that of a "Social Democratic Party,"
whose convention, at Chicago, September 29, placed Eugene V.
Debs, of Illinois, in nomination for President, and Job
Harriman, of California, for Vice President, on principles
declared as follows:
"The Social Democratic party of America declares that life,
liberty, and happiness depend upon equal political and
economic rights.
"In our economic development an industrial revolution has
taken place, the individual tool of former years having become
the social tool of the present. The individual tool was owned
by the worker, who employed himself and was master of his
product. The social tool, the machine, is owned by the
capitalist, and the worker is dependent upon him for
employment. The capitalist thus becomes the master of the
worker, and is able to appropriate to himself a large share of
the product of his labor.
"Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production,
is responsible for the insecurity of subsistence, the poverty,
misery, and degradation of the ever-growing majority of our
people; but the same economic forces which have produced and
now intensify the capitalist system will necessitate the
adoption of Socialism, the collective ownership of the means
of production for the common good and welfare.
"The present system of social production and private ownership
is rapidly converting society into two antagonistic classes—i.
e., the capitalist class and the propertyless class. The
middle class, once the most powerful of this great nation, is
disappearing in the mill of competition. The issue is now
between the two classes first named. Our political liberty is
now of little value to the masses unless used to acquire
economic liberty. Independent political action and the
trade-union movement are the chief emancipating factors of the
working class, the one representing its political, the other
its economic wing, and both must cooperate to abolish the
capitalist system.
"Therefore, the Social Democratic party of America declares
its object to be:
"First—The organization of the working class into a political
party to conquer the public powers now controlled by
capitalists.
"Second—The abolition of wage-slavery by the establishment of
a National system of cooperative industry, based upon the
social or common ownership of the means of production and
distribution, to be administered by society in the common
interest of all its members, and the complete emancipation of
the socially useful classes from the domination of capitalism.
"The working class and all those in sympathy with their
historic mission to realize a higher civilization should sever
connection with all capitalist and reform parties and unite
with the Social Democratic party of America. The control of
political power by the Social Democratic party will be
tantamount to the abolition of all class rule. The solidarity
of labor connecting the millions of class-conscious
fellow-workers throughout the civilized world will lead to
international Socialism, the brotherhood of man.
"As steps in that direction, we make the following demands:
"First-Revision of our Federal Constitution, in order to
remove the obstacles to complete control of government by the
people irrespective of sex.
"Second—The public ownership of all industries controlled by
monopolies, trusts, and combines.
"Third—The public ownership of all railroads, telegraphs, and
telephones; all means of transportation and communication; all
water-works, gas and electric plants, and other public
utilities.
"Fourth—The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper,
lead, iron, coal, and other mines, and all oil and gas wells.
"Fifth—The reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to
the increasing facilities of production.
{660}
"Sixth—The inauguration of a system of public works and
improvements for the employment of the unemployed, the public
credit to be utilized for that purpose.
"Seventh—Useful inventions to be free, the inventor to be
remunerated by the public.
"Eighth—Labor legislation to be National instead of local, and
international when possible.
"Ninth—National insurance of working people against
accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age.
"Tenth—Equal civil and political rights for men and women, and
the abolition of all laws discriminating against women.
"Eleventh—The adoption of the initiative and referendum,
proportional representation, and the right of recall of
representatives by the voters.
"Twelfth—Abolition of war and the introduction of
international arbitration."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
The Canvass and Election.
The canvass preceding the election was much less excited than
that of 1896. The confusion of issues greatly lessened the
intensity with which they were discussed. Mr. Bryan again took
the field in person, travelling widely through all parts of
the country, making great numbers of speeches to immense
audiences everywhere; and Governor Roosevelt did the same on
the Republican side, to a somewhat less extent.
The election, which occurred on the 6th of November, was
conducted with the quiet order that is rarely broken at such
times in America. About fourteen millions of votes were cast,
of which, according to the returns compiled for the Tribune
Almanac,
President McKinley received 7,214,027,
and Bryan, 6,342,514.
For the Prohibition ticket, 197,112 votes were cast;
for the Socialist Labor ticket, 32,433;
for the Social Democratic ticket, 82,904;
and 78,444 votes were scuttered among other candidates.
The States carried for McKinley were:
California, giving 9 electoral votes;
Connecticut, 6;
Delaware, 3;
Illinois, 24;
Indiana, 15;
Iowa, 13;
Kansas, 10;
Maine, 6;
Maryland, 8;
Massachusetts, 15;
Michigan, 14;
Minnesota, 9;
Nebraska, 8;
New Hampshire, 4;
New Jersey, 10;
New York, 36;
North Dakota, 3;
Ohio, 23;
Oregon, 4;
Pennsylvania, 32;
Rhode Island, 4;
South Dakota, 4;
Utah, 3;
Vermont, 4;
Washington, 4;
West Virginia, 6;
Wisconsin, 12;
Wyoming, 3;
Total, 292.
For Bryan, the electoral votes of the following States
were given:
Alabama, 11;
Arkansas, 8;
Colorado, 4;
Florida, 4;
Georgia, 13;
Idaho, 3;
Kentucky, 13;
Louisiana, 8;
Mississippi, 9;
Missouri, 17;
Montana, 3;
Nevada, 3;
North Carolina, 11;
South Carolina, 9;
Tennessee, 12;
Texas, 15;
Virginia, 12;
Total, 155.
President McKinley was re-elected by a majority of 137 votes
in the Electoral College, and by a majority of nearly half a
million of the popular vote.
" The popular vote for President shows three interesting
things:
"(1) Many men of each party abstained from voting, for the
total was only 45,132 greater than in 1896, whereas the
increase in population adds about a million to the electorate
every four years. The total vote last year was 13,970,234. Mr.
McKinley received only about 100,000 more than in 1896, and
Mr. Bryan 130,000 less. Many men in each party, then, were
dissatisfied with their candidate and platform.
"(2) Mr. Bryan's largest gains were in New England, because of
the anti-Imperialistic feeling, and in New York and New Jersey
and Illinois, because of a milder fear of financial
disturbance; and his losses were greatest in Utah, in
Colorado, and in the Pacific States, an indication of better
times and of less faith in free silver.
"(3) Twelve Southern States cast a smaller vote than in 1896,
partly because of the elimination of the Negroes, and partly
because many Gold Democrats abstained from voting."
The World's Work, February, 1901.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
The Democratic candidate on "Imperialism."
The issue which ought to have been supreme in the Presidential
election, because fundamental principles of government and
lasting consequences of policy were bound up in it, but which
was unhappily confused by prevailing anxieties in the
sensitive region of commercial and industrial affairs, is more
broadly and adequately defined in the declarations of the two
leading candidates, on their formal acceptance of nominations
by the Democratic and Republican parties, than it is in the
party platforms quoted above. The first to speak was Mr.
Bryan. Responding to the committee which notified him of his
nomination, at Indianapolis, ou the 8th of August, he devoted
the greater part of his remarks to the policy of colonial
acquisition on which the government had been embarked. The
following passages are fairly representative of the view taken
by those who condemned what they termed "imperialism," in the
undertaking of the government of the American Republic to
impose its sovereignty upon the people of the Philippine
Islands, and to hold their country as a "possession:"
"When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote
of the House and Senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the
purpose of aiding the struggling patriots of Cuba, the
country, without regard to party, applauded. Although the
Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily
gain a political advantage from the conduct of a war which in
the very nature of the case must soon end in a complete
victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which
they gave to the President. When the war was over and the
Republican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a
colonial policy, opposition at once manifested itself.
"When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty
which recognized the independence of Cuba, but provided for
the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States,
the menace of imperialism became so apparent that many
preferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might
follow rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of
the treaty by the independent action of this country. I was
among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the
treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the
excuse for war expenditures, and then give the Filipinos the
independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.
… The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to
deal with the Filipinos according to American principles. The
Bacon resolution, introduced a mouth before hostilities broke
out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos on the
same terms that it was promised to the Cubans.
{661}
I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption
prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented
bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would
have ended hostilities. … If the Bacon resolution had been
adopted by the Senate and carried out by the President, either
at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time
afterwards, it would have taken the question of imperialism
out of politics and left the American people free to deal with
their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeated by
the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time
to this a Republican Congress has refused to take any action
whatever in the matter.
"When hostilities broke out at Manila, Republican speakers and
Republican editors at once sought to lay the blame upon those
who had delayed the ratification of the treaty, and, during
the progress of the war, the same Republicans have accused the
opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the
Filipinos. …
"The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans
now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement, not
only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a voice in
their own government. If the Republicans are prepared to
censure all who have used language calculated to make the
Filipinos hate foreign domination, let them condemn the speech
of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate appeal,
'Give me liberty or give me death,' he expressed a sentiment
which still echoes in the hearts of men. Let them censure
Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used
words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in
political bondage. Let them censure Washington, who declared
that the colonists must choose between liberty and slavery.
Or, if the statute of limitations has run against the sins of
Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln,
whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense of popular
government when the present advocates of force and conquest
are forgotten. … If it were possible to obliterate every word
written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth in
the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still
leave its legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself
who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never
made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or
intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.
"Those who would have this nation enter upon a career of
empire must, consider not only the effect of imperialism on
the Filipinos, but they must also calculate its effects upon
our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of
self-government in the Philippines without weakening that
principle here. …
"Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek
to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to
claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson
spoke so freely and used language with such precision that no
one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:
'If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other
in the mind of every American, it is that we should have
nothing to do with conquest.' And again he said: 'Conquest is
not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our
government.' The forcible annexation of territory to be
governed by arbitrary power differs as much from the
acquisition of territory to be built up into states as a
monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does
not oppose expansion when expansion enlarges the area of the
Republic and incorporates land which can be settled by
American citizens, or adds to our population people who are
willing to become citizens and are capable of discharging
their duties as such. …
"A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine
Islands a few traders, a few taskmasters and a few
officeholders and an army large enough to support the
authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule
the natives. If we have an imperial policy we must have a
great standing army as its natural and necessary complement.
The spirit which will justify the forcible annexation of the
Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands
and the domination of other people, and with wars of conquest
we can expect a certain, if not rapid, growth of our military
establishment. …
"The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine Islands
will be retained under American sovereignty, and we have a
right to demand of the Republican leaders a discussion of the
future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a
subject? Are we to bring into the body politic eight or ten
million Asiatics, so different from us in race and history
that amalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in
making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No
Republican of prominence has been bold enough to advocate such
a proposition. The McEnery resolution, adopted by the Senate
immediately after the ratification of the treaty, expressly
negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describes the
situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens
without endangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And
what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to be a
citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the
Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares
that the Filipino cannot be a subject without endangering our
form of government. A Republic can have no subjects. A subject
is possible only in a government resting upon force; he is
unknown in a government deriving its just powers from the
consent of the governed. "The Republican platform says that
'the largest measure of self-government consistent with their
welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (the
Filipinos) by law.' This is a strange doctrine for a
government which owes its very existence to the men who
offered their lives as a protest against government without
consent and taxation without representation. In what respect
does the position of the Republican party differ from the
position taken by the English government in 1776? Did not the
English government promise a good government to the colonists?
What king ever promised a bad government to his people? Did
not the English government promise that the colonists should
have the largest measure of self-government consistent with
their welfare and English duties? Did not the Spanish
government promise to give to the Cubans the largest measure
of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanish
duties? The whole difference between a Monarchy and a Republic
may be summed up in one sentence. In a Monarchy the King gives
to the people what he believes to be a good government; in a
Republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to
be a good government. …
{662}
"The Republican platform promises that some measure of
self-government is to be given the Filipinos by law; but even
this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen months elapsed
after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment of
Congress last June, and yet no law was passed dealing with the
Philippine situation. The will of the President has been the
only law in the Philippine Islands wherever the American
authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to
legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would
disclose the radical departure from history and precedent
contemplated by those who control the Republican party. The
storm of protest which greeted the Porto Rican bill was an
indication of what may be expected when the American people
are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.
If the Porto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied
the guarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of
the Filipinos, who resisted our authority? If secret
influences could compel a disregard of our plain duty toward
friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will
those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000
miles away? …
"Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the
people of the United States, and the twilight of
semi-citizenship endured by the people of Porto Rico, while
the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the
Philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine
that the operation of the Constitution is confined to the
forty-five States. The Democratic party disputes this doctrine
and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of
our organic law. There is no place in our system of government
for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the
leaders of a great party should claim for any President or
Congress the right to treat millions of people as mere
'possessions' and deal with them unrestrained by the
Constitution or the bill of rights, shows how far we have
already departed from the ancient landmarks and indicates what
may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a
career of empire.
"The territorial form of government is temporary and
preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory
has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same
constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general
laws as the citizen of a state. Take away this security and
his rights will be violated and his interests sacrificed at
the demand of those who have political influence. This is the
evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is
applied. …
"Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in
support of an imperialistic policy. Some say that it is our
duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But duty is not an
argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is,
in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally
accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no
matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little
value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no
matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he
belongs. …
"It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations
which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a
government in the Philippine Islands. I reply, first, that the
highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No
obligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations
combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of
government, and the substitution of doctrines against which
our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that
our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is
greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreigners who
have a temporary residence in the Philippines or desire to
trade there. It is argued by some that the Filipinos are
incapable of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to
the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an
official report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos
more capable of self-government than the Cubans, and said that
he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. …
"Republicans ask, 'Shall we haul down the flag that floats
over our dead in the Philippines?' The same question might
have been asked when the American flag floated over
Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the
tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national
cemetery owned by the United States and cared for by an
American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but
when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority
withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that
during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made
more progress under the stimulus of independence and
self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bag
government held in place by bayonets. The United States and
Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than
they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter
crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as 'benevolent
assimilation.'
"'Can we not govern colonies?', we are asked. The question is
not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can
do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept
responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in
the way, the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the
nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid
the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct. …
"Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will
result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not
deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, we shall
not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The
educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most
ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our
domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and
give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must
pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to read the
Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United
States and mock us for our inconsistency. The principal
arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon a defense
of imperialism are:
"First—That we must improve the present opportunity to become
a world power and enter into international politics.
{663}
"Second—That our commercial interests in the Philippine
Islands and in the Orient make it necessary for us to hold the
islands permanently.
"Third—That the spread of the Christian religion will be
facilitated by a colonial policy.
"Fourth—That there is no honorable retreat from the position
which the nation has taken.
"The first argument is addressed to the nation's pride and the
second to the nation's pocket-book. The third is intended for
the church member and the fourth for the partisan. It is
sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more
than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten
decades it has been the most potent influence in the world.
Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to
affect the politics of the human race than all the other
nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of
Independence was promulgated others have been promulgated.
Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty, others have
fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted, other
constitutions have been adopted. The growth of the principle
of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the
overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has
made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a
place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed.
Nothing has been able to check the onward march of this idea.
I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the
omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of
physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this
Republic for the glory of all the empires that have risen and
fallen since time began.
"The permanent chairman of the last Republican National
Convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its
baldness when he said: 'We make no hypocritical pretense of
being interested in the Philippines solely on account of
others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a
sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people
first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We
believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within
the province of government and constitution we mean to
stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.'
This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory
that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and
that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence.
… The Democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade.
It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful
means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human
blood. But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is
unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines
would answer every trade and military necessity, and such a
concession could have been secured at any time without
difficulty.
"It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with
them. We carry on trade to-day with every part of the world,
and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce
of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we
trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of
Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not
been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or
the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade
cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary. …
"Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it
would be profitable to the ship-owners, who would carry live
soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it
would be profitable to those who would seize upon the
franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose
salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the
farmer, to the laboring man and to the vast majority of those
engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure
without return and risk without reward.
"The pecuniary argument, though more effective with certain
classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with
so much enthusiasm as the religious argument. If what has been
termed the 'gunpowder gospel' were urged against the Filipinos
only, it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority
of the Filipinos are now members of one branch of the
Christian church; but the principle involved is one of much
wider application and challenges serious consideration. The
religious argument varies in positiveness, from a passive
belief that Providence delivered the Filipinos into our hands
for their good and our glory, to the exultation of the
minister who said that we ought to 'thrash the natives
(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,' and that 'every
bullet sent, every cannon shot and every flag waved, means
righteousness.' … If true Christianity consists in carrying
out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say
that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte
with the sword? …
"Love, not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice
for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of
reaching the human heart. A missionary recently told me that
the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his
assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon
it. Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls
instead of sovereignty; let it be known that instead of being
the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth
to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with truth
and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of
peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying
the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are
citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens
of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its
own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will
be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries
of any other nation.
"The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the
nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine Islands,
but that the naval victory at Manila made the permanent
acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound. We
won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to
hold Cuba. The shedding of American blood in the Philippine
Islands does not make it imperative that we should retain
possession forever. American blood was shed at San Juan Hill
and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubans
independence. The fact that the American flag floats over
Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty
over the islands; the American flag waves over Havana to-day,
but the President has promised to haul it down when the flag
of the Cuban Republic is ready to rise in its place. Better a
thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag
representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of
this Republic should become the flag of an empire.
{664}
"There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the
Philippine question. It is set forth in the Democratic
platform, and it is submitted with confidence to the American
people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will
convene congress in extraordinary session as soon as
inaugurated and recommend an immediate declaration of the
nation's purpose, first, to establish a stable form of
government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now
establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to
give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the
Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their
destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central
and South America, and are, by the Monroe doctrine, pledged to
protect Cuba."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
The Republican candidate on the same subject.
The answer of the party controlling the government to the
impeachment of its policy of colonial acquisition, and
especially of its conduct in the Philippine Islands, was given
by Mr. McKinley, in a letter of acceptance, addressed,
September 8, to the committee which gave him formal notice of
his renomination by the Republican convention. After
rehearsing at considerable length the events which preceded,
attended and followed the capture of Manila, he continued:
"Would not our adversaries have sent Dewey's fleet to Manila
to capture and destroy the Spanish sea power there, or,
dispatching it there, would they have withdrawn it after the
destruction of the Spanish fleet; and, if the latter, whither
would they have directed it to sail? Where could it have gone?
What port in the Orient was opened to it? Do our adversaries
condemn the expedition under the command of General Merritt to
strengthen Dewey in the distant ocean and assist in our
triumph over Spain, with which nation we were at war? Was it
not our highest duty to strike Spain at every vulnerable
point, that the war might be successfully concluded at the
earliest practicable moment? And was it not our duty to
protect the lives and property of those who came within our
control by the fortunes of war? Could we have come away at any
time between May 1, 1898, and the conclusion of peace without a
stain upon our good name? Could we have come away without
dishonor at any time after the ratification of the peace
treaty by the Senate of the United States? There has been no
time since the destruction of the enemy's fleet when we could
or should have left the Philippine Archipelago. After the
treaty of peace was ratified, no power but Congress could
surrender our sovereignty or alienate a foot of the territory
thus acquired. The Congress has not seen fit to do the one or
the other, and the President had no authority to do either, if
he had been so inclined, which he was not. So long as the
sovereignty remains in us it is the duty of the Executive,
whoever he may be, to uphold that sovereignty, and if it be
attacked to suppress its assailants. Would our political
adversaries do less?
"It has been asserted that there would have been no fighting
in the Philippines if Congress had declared its purpose to
give independence to the Tagal insurgents. The insurgents did
not wait for the action of Congress. They assumed the
offensive; they opened fire on our Army. Those who assert our
responsibility for the beginning of the conflict have
forgotten that, before the treaty was ratified in the Senate,
and while it was being debated in that body and while the
Bacon resolution was under discussion, on February 4, 1899,
the insurgents attacked the American Army, after being
previously advised that the American forces were under orders
not to fire upon them except in defense. The papers found in
the recently captured archives of the insurgents demonstrate
that this attack had been carefully planned for weeks before
it occurred. This unprovoked assault upon our soldiers at a
time when the Senate was deliberating upon the treaty shows
that no action on our part, except surrender and abandonment,
would have prevented the fighting, and leaves no doubt in any
fair mind of where the responsibility rests for the shedding
of American blood.
"With all the exaggerated phrase-making of this electoral
contest, we are in danger of being diverted from the real
contention. We are in agreement with all of those who
supported the war with Spain and also with those who counseled
the ratification of the treaty of peace. Upon these two great
essential steps there can be no issue and out of these came
all of our responsibilities. If others would shirk the
obligations imposed by the war and the treaty, we must decline
to act further with them, and here the issue was made. It is our
purpose to establish in the Philippines a government suitable
to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants and to prepare
them for self-government when they are ready for it and as
rapidly as they are ready for it. That I am aiming to do under
my Constitutional authority, and will continue to do until
Congress shall determine the political status of the
inhabitants of the archipelago.
"Are our opponents against the treaty? If so, they must be
reminded that it could not have been ratified in the Senate
but for their assistance. The Senate which ratified the treaty
and the Congress which added its sanction by a large
approbation comprised Senators and Representatives of the
people of all parties. Would our opponents surrender to the
insurgents, abandon our sovereignty or cede it to them? If
that be not their purpose, then it should be promptly
disclaimed, for only evil can result from the hopes raised by
our opponents in the minds of the Filipinos, that with their
success at the polls in November there will be a withdrawal of
our Army and of American sovereignty over the archipelago; the
complete independence of the Tagalog people recognized and the
powers of government over all the other people of the
archipelago conferred upon the Tagalog leaders. The effect of
a belief in the minds of the insurgents that this will be done
has already prolonged the rebellion and increases the
necessity for the continuance of a large army. It is now
delaying full peace in the archipelago and the establishment
of civil governments and has influenced many of the insurgents
against accepting the liberal terms of amnesty offered by
General MacArthur under my direction. But for these false
hopes, a considerable reduction could have been had in our
military establishment in the Philippines, and the realization
of a stable government would be already at hand.
{665}
"The American people are asked by our opponents to yield the
sovereignty of the United States in the Philippines to a small
fraction of the population, a single tribe out of 80 or more
inhabiting the archipelago, a faction which wantonly attacked
the American troops in Manila while in rightful possession
under the protocol with Spain, awaiting the ratification of
the treaty of peace by the Senate, and which has since been in
active, open rebellion against the United States. We are asked
to transfer our sovereignty to a small minority in the
islands, without consulting the majority, and to abandon the
largest portion of the population, which has been loyal to us,
to the cruelties of the guerrilla insurgent bands. More, than
this, we are asked to protect this minority in establishing a
government, and to this end repress all opposition of the
majority. We are required to set up a stable government in the
interest of those who have assailed our sovereignty and fired
upon our soldiers, and then maintain it at any cost or
sacrifice against its enemies within and against those having
ambitious designs from without. This would require an army and
navy far larger than is now maintained in the Philippines and
still more in excess of what will be necessary with the full
recognition of our sovereignty. A military support of
authority not our own, as thus proposed, is the very essence
of militarism, which our opponents in their platform oppose,
but which by their policy would of necessity be established in
its most offensive form.
"The American people will not make the murderers of our
soldiers the agents of the Republic to convey the blessings of
liberty and order to the Philippines. They will not make them
the builders of the new commonwealth. Such a course would be a
betrayal of our sacred obligations to the peaceful Filipinos
and would place at the mercy of dangerous adventurers the
lives and property of the natives and foreigners. It would
make possible and easy the commission of such atrocities as
were secretly planned to be executed on the 22d of February,
1899, in the city of Manila, when only the vigilance of our
Army prevented the attempt to assassinate our soldiers and all
foreigners and pillage and destroy the city and its
surroundings. In short, the proposition of those opposed to us
is to continue all the obligations in the Philippines which
now rest upon the Government, only changing the relation from
principal, which now exists, to that of surety. Our
responsibility is to remain, but our power is to be
diminished. Our obligation is to be no less, but our title is
to be surrendered to another power, which is without
experience or training or the ability to maintain a stable
government at home and absolutely helpless to perform its
international obligations with the rest of the world. To this
we are opposed. We should not yield our title while our
obligations last. In the language of our platform, 'Our
authority should not be less than our responsibility,' and our
present responsibility is to establish our authority in every
part of the islands.
"No government can so certainly preserve the peace, restore
public order, establish law, justice and stable conditions as
ours. Neither Congress nor the Executive can establish a
stable government in these islands except under our right of
sovereignty, our authority and our flag. And this we are
doing. We could not do it as a protectorate power so
completely or so successfully as we are doing it now. As the
sovereign power, we can initiate action and shape means to
ends and guide the Filipinos to self-development and
self-government. As a protectorate power we could not initiate
action, but would be compelled to follow and uphold a people
with no capacity yet to go alone. In the one case we can
protect both ourselves and the Filipinos from being involved
in dangerous complications; in the other we could not protect
even the Filipinos until after their trouble had come. Beside,
if we cannot establish any government of our own without the
consent of the governed, as our opponents contend, then we
could not establish a stable government for them or make ours
a protectorate without the like consent, and neither the
majority of the people or a minority of the people have
invited us to assume it. We could not maintain a protectorate
even with the consent of the governed without giving
provocation for conflicts and possibly costly wars. Our rights
in the Philippines are now free from outside interference and
will continue so in our present relation. They would not be
thus free in any other relation. We will not give up our own
to guarantee another sovereignty.
"Our title is good. Our peace commissioners believed they were
receiving a good title when they concluded the treaty. The
Executive believed it was a good title when he submitted it to
the Senate of the United States for its ratification. The Senate
believed it was a good title when they gave it their
Constitutional assent, and the Congress seems not to have
doubted its completeness when they appropriated $20,000,000
provided by the treaty. If any who favored its ratification
believed it gave us a bad title, they were not sincere. Our
title is practically identical with that under which we hold
our territory acquired since the beginning of the government,
and under which we have exercised full sovereignty and
established government for the inhabitants. It is worthy of
note that no one outside of the United States disputes the
fulness and integrity of the cession. What then is the real
issue on this subject? Whether it is paramount to any other or
not, it is whether we shall be responsible for the government
of the Philippines with the sovereignty and authority which
enable us to guide them to regulated liberty, law, safety and
progress, or whether we shall be responsible for the forcible
and arbitrary government of a minority without sovereignty and
authority on our part and with only the embarrassment of a
protectorate which draws us into their troubles without the
power of preventing them. There were those who two years ago
were rushing us on to war with Spain who are unwilling now to
accept its clear consequence, as there are those among us who
advocated the ratification of the treaty of pence, but now
protest against its obligations. Nations which go to war must
be prepared to accept its resultant obligations, and when they
make treaties must keep them.
{666}
"Those who profess to distrust the liberal and honorable
purposes of the Administration in its treatment of the
Philippines are not justified. Imperialism has no place in its
creed or conduct. Freedom is a rock upon which the Republican
party was builded and now rests. Liberty is the great
Republican doctrine for which the people went to war and for
which 1,000,000 lives were offered and billions of dollars
expended to make it a lawful legacy of all without the consent
of master or slave. There is a strain of ill-conceived
hypocrisy in the anxiety to extend the Constitutional
guarantees to the people of the Philippines while their
nullification is openly advocated at home. Our opponents may
distrust themselves, but they have no right to discredit the
good faith and patriotism of the majority of the people, who
are opposing them; they may fear the worst form of imperialism
with the helpless Filipinos in their hands, but if they do, it
is because they have parted with the spirit and faith of the
fathers and have lost the virility of the founders of the
party which they profess to represent.
"The Republican party does not have to assert its devotion to
the Declaration of Independence. That immortal instrument of
the fathers remained unexecuted until the people under the
lead of the Republican party in the awful clash of battle
turned its promises into fulfillment. It wrote into the
Constitution the amendments guaranteeing political equality to
American citizenship and it has never broken them or counseled
others in breaking them. It will not be guided in its conduct by
one set of principles at home and another set in the new
territory belonging to the United States. If our opponents
would only practice as well as preach the doctrines of Abraham
Lincoln there would be no fear for the safety of our
institutions at home or their rightful influence in any
territory over which our flag floats.
"Empire has been expelled from Porto Rico and the Philippines
by American freemen. The flag of the Republic now floats over
these islands as an emblem of rightful sovereignty. Will the
Republic stay and dispense to their inhabitants the blessings
of liberty, education and free institutions, or steal away,
leaving them to anarchy or imperialism? The American question
is between duty and desertion—the American verdict will be for
duty and against desertion, for the Republic against both
anarchy and imperialism."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Revenues and expenditures of the government for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 1900.
The revenues of the Government from all sources (by
warrants) for the fiscal year ended June 30. 1900, were:From internal revenue. $295,327,926.76
From customs. 233,164,871.16
From profits on coinage, bullion deposits, etc. 9,992,374.09
From District of Columbia. 4,008,722.77
From fees-consular, letters patents, and land. 3,291.716.68
From sales of public lands. 2,836.882.98
From tax on national banks. 1.998.554.00
From navy pension, navy hospital, clothing,
and deposit funds. 1,621.558.52
From sales of Indian lands. 1,384,663.49
From payment of interest by Pacific railways. 1,173,466.43
From miscellaneous. 997,375.68
From sales of Government property. 779,522.78
From customs fees, fines, penalties, etc. 675,706.95
From immigrant fund. 537,404.81
From deposits for surveying public lands. 273,247.19
From sales of ordnance material. 257,265.56
From Soldiers' Home, permanent fund. 247,926.62
From tax on seal skins, and rent of seal islands. 225,676.47
From license fees, Territory of Alaska. 157,234.94
From trust funds, Department of State. 152,794.56
From depredations on public lands. 76,307.58
From Spanish indemnity. 57,000.00
From sales of lands and buildings 3,842,737.68
From part payment Central Pacific
Railroad indebtedness. 3,338,016.49
From dividend received for account of
Kansas Pacific Railway. 821,891.70
From Postal Service. 102,354,579.29
Total receipts 669,595,431.18
The expenditures for the same period were:
For the civil establishment, including foreign
intercourse, public buildings, collecting
the revenues, District of Columbia,
and other miscellaneous expenses $98,542,411.37
For the military establishment, including
rivers and harbors, forts, arsenals, sea
coast defenses, and expenses of the war
with Spain and in the Philippines 134,174,761.18
For the naval establishment, including
construction of new vessels, machinery,
armament, equipment, improvement at
navy-yards, and expenses of the war
with Spain and in the Philippines 55,953,077.72
For Indian Service. 10,175,100.76
For pensions. 140,877,316.02
For interest on the public debt. 40,160,333.27
For deficiency in postal revenues. 7,230,778.79
For Postal Service. 102,354,579.29
Total expenditures. 590,068,371.00
Showing a surplus of 79,527,060.18
"As compared with the fiscal year 1899, the receipts for 1900
increased $58,613,426.83. … There was a decrease of
$117,358,388.14 in expenditures."
United States Secretary of the Treasury,
Annual Report on the State of the Finances,
1900, pages 7-9.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Return of losses from all causes in the armies of the
United States since May 1, 1898.
In response to a resolution of the Senate, the following
return (56th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 426) was
made by the Secretary of War, June 1, 1900, showing the losses
from all causes in the armies of the United States between May
1, 1898, and June 30, 1899; casualties in the Philippines
during the war with Spain, and after the close of the war with
Spain down to May 20, 1900; and other interesting details:
Statement showing losses, from all causes, in the armies of
the United States between May 1, 1898, and June 30, 1899. Average strength.{667}
1898:
Regular Army, 55,853:
Volunteers, 163,103.
1899:
Regular Army, 63,370;
Volunteers, 45,457.
REGULAR ARMY.
CAUSES. Officers. Enlisted Men. Total.
Deaths:
Killed in action. 24 270 294
By Wounds. 7 114 121
Disease. 51 1,524 1,575
Accident. 1 72 73
Drowning. 2 48 50
Suicide. 1 32 33
Murder or homicide. 26 26
Total 86 2,086 2,172
Wounded. 109 1,586 1,695 VOLUNTEERS.
CAUSES.
Officers. Enlisted Men Total.
Deaths:
Killed in action. 17 188 205
By wounds. 3 78 81
Disease. 114 3,820 3,934
Accident. 5 137 142
Drowning. 1 40 41
Suicide. 1 20 21
Murder or homicide. 26 26
Total. 141 4,309 4,450
Wounded. 88 1,178 1,266
GRAND TOTAL.
CAUSES.
Officers. Enlisted Men
Deaths:
Killed In action 38 458
By wounds 10 192
Disease 165 5,344
Accident 6 209
Drowning 3 88
Suicide. 2 52
Murder or homicide. 52
Total 224 6,395
Wounded 197 2,764
Casualties in the Philippines during the war
with Spain, June 30, 1898, to August 13, 1898.
Average strength, 10,900.
Officers. Enlisted Men. Total.
Killed
(no deaths from wounds) 18 18
Wounded 10 99 109
Total 10 117 127
In the Philippines, from February 4, 1899, to May 20, 1900,
Average strength, 43,232.
Officers. Enlisted Men. Total.
Killed or died of wounds. 43 579 622
Deaths:
By disease 19 1,054 1,073
Accident 1 43 44
Drowning 2 94 96
Suicide 6 23 29
Murder or homicide 11 11
Total 71 1,804 1,875
Wounded. 132 1,897 2,029
Grand total 203 3,701 3,904
Casualties in the Fifth Corps in the operations against
Santiago, June 22 to July 17, 1898:
KILLED. WOUNDED.
ACTIONS.
Officers. Men. Officers. Men.
Las Guasimas, June 24 1 15 6 43
El Caney, July 1 4 77 25 335
San Juan, July 1-3 15 127 69 945
Aguadores, July l-2 2 10
Around Santiago,
July 10-12 1 1 1 11
Total. 21 222 101 1,344
Died of wounds received in the five battles named:
Officers, 5; men, 70.
Total killed and died of wounds:
Officers, 26; men, 292.
Statement of the number of insane soldiers admitted to the
Government Hospital for the Insane, Washington, D. C., from
the Philippine Islands, May 24, 1900, and the disposition made
of them:
Regulars. Volunteers.
Admitted 47 15
Discharged recovered 16 3
Discharged unimproved 1
On visit from hospital 1
Remaining in hospital 29 12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Immigration for the year ended June 30.
"The Commissioner-General of Immigration, in the annual report
of the operations of his Bureau for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1900, submits tabulated statements showing the arrival in
this country during that period of 448,572 alien immigrants,
425,372 through ports of the United States and 23,200 through
Canada. Of these, 304,148 were males and 144,424 females;
54,624 were under 14 years of age, 370,382 were from 14 to 45
years old, and 23,566 were 45 and over. As to the literacy of
persons 14 years of age and over, there were 93,576 who could
neither read nor write, and 2,097 who could read but were
unable to write; 54,288 brought each $30 or over, and 271,821
showed sums less than $30, the total amounts displayed to
inspectors aggregating $6,657,530. There were returned to
their own countries within one year after landing 356, and
hospital relief was rendered during the year to 2,417. The
total debarred, or refused a landing at the ports, were 4,246,
as compared with 3,798 last year. Of these, 1 was excluded for
idiocy, 32 for insanity, 2,974 as paupers or persons likely to
become public charges, 393 on account of disease, 4 as
convicts, 2 as assisted immigrants, 833 as contract laborers,
and 7 women upon the ground that they had been imported for
immoral purposes. In addition to the foregoing, there were
excluded at the Mexican and Canadian borders a total of 1,616
aliens.
"It appears that the Croatian and Slovenian races sent an
increase of 99 per cent over those of the same races who came
last year; the Hebrew, an increase of 62 per cent; the South
Italian (including Sicilian), 28 per cent; the Japanese, 271
per cent; the Finnish, 106 per cent; the Magyar, 181 per cent;
the Polish, 64 per cent; the Scandinavian, 41 per cent.; the
Slovak, 84 per cent. These nine races, of the total of
forty-one races represented by immigration, furnished nearly
as many immigrants as the total arrivals for the last year, or
310,444, and their aggregate increase represented 85 per cent of
the total increase shown for the year.
{668}
The total immigration reported, 448,572, is in excess of that
for the preceding year, 311,715, by 136,857, or 43.9 per cent.
As to countries of origin, 424,700 came from European, 17,946
from Asiatic, 30 from African, and 5,896 from all other
sources. The Commissioner-General points out that in addition
to the 448,572 immigrants there arrived 65,635 other alien
passengers, who, he contends, should be included in conformity
to law with those classified as immigrants."
United States, Secretary of the Treasury,
Annual Report, 1900, page 37.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Shipping, compared with that of other countries.
See (in this volume)
SHIPPING OF THE WORLD.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Alaska Act.
See (in this volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1900.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Returns of Filipinos killed, wounded and captured from the
beginning of hostilities with them.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (MAY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Co-operation with the Powers in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (July).
Appeal of citizens of Manila to the
Congress of the United States.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (JULY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (July).
Forces sent to China under General Chaffee.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JULY).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (August).
Agreement with Russian proposal to withdraw troops
from Peking.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (September).
Opposition to German proposal for dealing with China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (September-November).
Legislative measures of the Philippine Commission.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (October).
Military forces in the Philippine Islands.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (December).
Amendment and ratification of the Hay-Pauncefote Convention.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (December).
Celebration of the 100th anniversary of the removal of
the capital to Washington.
See (in this volume)
WASHINGTON.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (December).
Exports for the calendar year exceeding those
of any other nation.
A Press despatch from Washington, dated February 21, 1901,
announced the fact that the "complete figures for the calendar
year 1900, when compared with those of other nations, show
that American exports of domestic products are greater than
those of any other country. The total exports of domestic
merchandise from the United States in the calendar year 1900
were $1,453,013,659; those from the United Kingdom, which has
heretofore led in the race for this distinction were
$1,418,348,000, and those from Germany $1,050,611,000.
Additional interest is given to the first rank which the
United States now holds as an exporting nation by the fact
that a quarter of a century ago she stood fourth in that list.
In 1875 the domestic exports of the United States were
$497,263,737; those of Germany, $607,096,000; those of France,
$747,489,000, and those of the United Kingdom, $1,087,497,000.
To-day the United States stands at the head of the list, the
United Kingdom second, Germany third and France fourth, with
the figures as follows: United States, $1,453,013,659; United
Kingdom, $1,418,348,000; Germany, $1,050,611,000; France,
$787,060,000. All of these figures, it should be remembered,
relate to the exports of domestic products. Thus in the
quarter century the United States has increased her exports
from $497,263,737 to $1,453,013,659, or 192 per cent; Germany,
from $607,096,000 to $1,050,611,000, or 73 per cent; the
United Kingdom, from $1,087,497,000 to $1,418,348,000, or 34
per cent, and France, from $747,489,000 to $787,060,000, or 5
per cent.
"The following table, compiled from official reports, shows
the exports of domestic merchandise from the United States,
the United Kingdom and Germany in each calendar year from 1875
to 1900: Year United States United Kingdom Germany
1875 $497,263,737 $1,087,497,000 $607,096,000
1876 575,735,804 976,410,000 619,919,000
1877 607,666,495 967,913,000 672,151,000
1878 723,286,821 938,500,000 702,513,000
1879 754,656,755 932,090,000 675,397,000
1880 875,564,075 1,085,521,000 741,202,000
1881 814,162,951 1,138,873,000 724,379,000
1882 749,911,309 1,175,099,000 776,228,000
18&1 777,523,718 1,166,982,000 796,208,000
1884 733,768,764 1,134,016,000 779,832,000
1885 673,593,506 1,037,124,000 695,892,000
1886 699,519,430 1,035,226,000 726,471,000
1887 703,319,692 1,079,944,000 762,897,000
1888 679,597,477 1,141,365,000 780,076,000
1889 814,154,864 1,211,442,000 770,537,000
1890 845,999,603 1,282,474,000 809,810,000
1891 907,333,551 1,203,169,000 772,679,000
1892 923,237,315 1,105,747,000 718,806,000
1893 854,729,454 1,062,162,000 753,301,000
1894 807,312,116 1,051,193,000 720,607,000
1895 807,742,415 1,100,452,000 807,328,000
1896 986,830,080 1,168,671,000 857,745,000
1897 1,079,834,296 1,139,882,000 884,486,000
1898 1,233,564,828 1,135,642,000 894,063,000
1899 1,203,460,000 1,287,971,039 1,001,278,000
1900 1,453,013,659 1,418,348,000 1,050,611,000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900-1901.
Questions relating to the political status of the new
possessions of the nation submitted to the Supreme Court.
Questions of surpassing importance, touching the political
status of the new possessions which the nation had acquired
from Spain, the relations of their inhabitants to the
government and laws of the United States, the source and
nature of the authority to be exercised over them by the
Congress of the United States, whether exercised under the
constitution of the United States or independently of it, were
taken, in December and January (1900-1901), into the Supreme
Court for authoritative decision, by appeals to that tribunal
made in several suits which had arisen from disputed exactions
of duty on importations from Porto Rico and the Philippine
Islands. The questions had been burning ones in American
politics, from the moment that the treaty of peace with Spain
was signed, and the whole cast, character and consequence of
the new policy of over-sea expansion on which the American
Republic was then launched depended on the decision of the
Court.
{669}
Soon after the January argument and submission of these cases
to the Supreme Court, their extraordinary importance was
touched upon with impressive eloquence by the Honorable W.
Bourke Cockran, in an address upon "John Marshall," in which
he said:
"At this moment the [Supreme Court] is considering the gravest
question ever submitted to a judicial tribunal in the history
of mankind. Within a few days it must decide whether the
government of the United States, or rather whether two of its
departments can govern territory anywhere by the sword, or
whether authority exercised by officers of the United States
must be controlled and limited everywhere by the Constitution
of the United States.
"I do not mention this momentous question to express the
slightest opinion upon its merits, but merely that this
assemblage of judges and of lawyers may realize the part which
the judiciary is now required to play in determining the
influence which this country must exercise forevermore in the
family of nations. The power of Congress to acquire territory
is of course unquestioned, but the disposition to exercise
that power will always be controlled by the conditions under
which newly acquired territory must be held, and these
conditions the court must now prescribe. On the one hand it
may hold that wherever power is exercised under the
constitution there the limitations of the constitution must be
obeyed—that wherever the executive undertakes to administer, or
Congress to legislate, there the judiciary must enforce upon
both respect for the organic law to which they owe their
existence. If this doctrine be established it is clear that no
scheme of forcible conquest will ever be undertaken by this
government, for the simple reason that there can be no profit
in such an enterprise. On the other hand the Court may decide
that Congress can hold newly annexed territories on any terms
that it chooses—that it may govern them according to the
constitution or independently of it—that they may be
administered to establish justice among the governed or for
the glory and profit of the governors. If it be held that
government for profit can be maintained under the authority of
the United States, conceive the extent to which it may be
carried and the consequences which it may portend. If it be
possible to maintain two forms of government under our
constitution, it is possible to establish twenty in as many
different places. Territory may be annexed to the North, to
the South, to the East and to the West. The President of the
United States may be vested with imperial powers in one place,
with royal prerogatives in another and perhaps remain a
constitutional magistrate at home. He may be made a military
autocrat in some South American State, an anointed emperor in
some Northern clime, a turbaned sultan in some Eastern island.
Nay, more, Congress can move itself and the seat of government
from Washington to some newly annexed territory governed by
officers of its own creation, subject to its own unlimited
power, and thus take both outside the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.
"Has the world ever before seen—could the framers of this
constitution have conceived—a bench of judges exercising such
a power amid the universal submission and approval of the
whole people. And more extraordinary than all, this submission
remains unanimous though the decision of the court may
seriously affect its own position in the structure of our
government. For if it be held that the constitution does not
extend of itself over newly annexed territory, then clearly
the authority of the court cannot extend to it except by the
action of Congress and the executive. If the authority, that
is to say, the existence of the court in any part of the
territory of the United States, depends upon the other
departments, then it is idle to contend that it is an
independent and coordinate branch of the government. To decide
that the executive and legislative departments have the right
to govern territory outside the constitution the court must
deliberately renounce the importance which it has heretofore
enjoyed and accept for itself an inferior place in our
political system.
"To me this is the most sublime spectacle ever presented in
the history of the world. Think of it! A war has been waged
with signal success, vast territory has been exacted from a
conquered foe; a great political campaign has been fought and
won upon the policy of taking this territory and governing it
at the pleasure of Congress and the executive, yet if the
court should hold that what the executive has attempted, what
Congress has sanctioned, and what the people appear to have
approved at the polls is in contravention of the constitution,
not one voice would be raised to question the judgment or to
resist its enforcement. I have said the spectacle is sublime;
my friends, even a few weeks ago it was inconceivable. Before
the late election I confess I believed and said that the
success of the present administration would be interpreted as
a popular endorsement of its foreign policy and that the
popular verdict would very probably be made to exercise a
strong if not decisive influence on the court. I admit now
that I was mistaken. It is evident that this question will be
decided on its merits without the slightest attempt to coerce,
intimidate or influence the judges, and I say now with all
frankness that whatever may be the judgment it will be the
very best outcome for the people of this country, for the
peace of the world, for the welfare of the human race. I
cannot tell what this outcome may be, but I know that whenever
a crisis has arisen in the pathway of the republic, the
statesmanship of the common people has always met it with
justice and solved it with wisdom."
W. Bourke Cockran,
John Marshall: an address before the Erie County Bar
Association, February 4, 1901, at Buffalo.
Argument before the Supreme Court was begun on the 17th of
December, 1900, on two cases thus stated in the brief
submitted for the government: "On June 6, 1899, Goetze
imported from Porto Rico into the port of New York a quantity
of leaf or filler tobacco, upon which duty was assessed at 35
cents per pound as filler tobacco not specially provided for,
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 213 of the
tariff act of 1897, commonly known as the 'Dingley Act.' The
importer protested, claiming that the merchandise was not
subject to duty, because Porto Rico at the time of the
importation was not a foreign country and because, therefore,
the imposition of duties on goods brought from a place within
the territory of the United States into a port of the United
States is not lawful and valid under the Constitution.
{670}
The Board of General Appraisers sustained the assessment of
duty imposed by the collector upon the merchandise in
question, and thereupon the importer appealed to the United
States circuit court for the southern district of New York, by
which court the decision of the Board of General Appraisers
was affirmed in an opinion rendered by District Judge
Townsend. From the judgment of the circuit court this appeal
was taken.
"Porto Rico was partially occupied by the war forces of the
United States during the months of July and August, 1898. By
the protocol of August 12, 1898, between the United States and
Spain, Spain agreed to cede Porto Rico to the United States
and immediately evacuate. The evacuation was effected and full
possession of the island assumed by the United States prior to
January 1, 1899. From that date until the 1st of May, 1900,
Porto Rico was occupied and governed by the military forces of
the United States, under the command of the President, as
conquered territory, under the law of belligerent right. The
treaty of Paris, made in pursuance of the protocol, was signed
December 10, 1898, ratified by the Senate February 6, 1899,
and ratifications exchanged April 11, 1899. So that the
importation in this case was subsequent to the ratification of
the treaty, but prior to the establishment of a civil
government in the island under act of Congress. It does not
appear that the importers are citizens of the United States or
of Porto Rico, nor whether or not the imported tobacco was the
product of Porto Rico.
"In the case of Fourteen Diamond Rings, it appears that the
claimant, Pepke, is a citizen of the United States and served
as a United States soldier in the Island of Luzon; that while
there he purchased or acquired the rings in question and
brought them into the United States without paying duty
thereon some time in the year 1899, between July 31 and
September 25. The rings were seized, on May 18, 1900, at
Chicago, by a United States customs officer as merchandise
liable to duty which should have been invoiced, and was
fraudulently imported and brought into the United States
contrary to law. An information for the forfeiture of the
rings was filed on behalf of the Government, June 1, 1900, to
which the claimant pleaded. Setting up that at the time he
acquired said property Luzon was a part of the territory of
the United States and that the seizure of said goods was
contrary to the claimant's right as a citizen of the United
States under the Constitution, and particularly under section
2, Article IV, thereof, and he insisted that under Article I,
section 8, Congress is required in laying and collecting taxes
to see to it that all taxes and duties shall be uniform
throughout the United States. To this plea the United States
demurred, and upon hearing of the demurrer, the district court
gave judgment of forfeiture for the Government. This judgment
the claimant has removed into this court by a writ of error."
The contention of the government as set forth in the same
brief, and the main contention of the appellants in the case,
against which the argument for the government was directed,
were partly as follows:
"The Tariff Act of 1897 declares that 'there shall be levied,
collected and paid upon all articles imported from foreign
countries and mentioned in the schedules herein contained, the
rates of duty which are by the schedules and paragraphs
respectively prescribed.' (30 Stat., 151.)
"The Government contends, and the circuit court so held, that
this act applied to merchandise imported from Porto Rico and
the Philippine Islands after their cession to the United
States exactly as it did before; that within the meaning of
the act these countries are to be regarded as foreign,
belonging to but not forming in a domestic sense a part of the
United States.
"That it is within the constitutional province of the
treaty-making power to accept the cession of foreign territory
upon such terms, conditions, and limitations as to its
internal status as may best subserve the interests of the
United States, and it is not necessary to invest such
territory with the full status of an integral part of the
Union.
"That this is one of the ordinary and necessary sovereign
powers of an independent nation, and nothing in the Federal
Constitution or in the fundamental principles that underlie
our Republic denies to the nation a right to the full exercise
of this usual and common sovereign right.
"That the treaty-making power—the President and the Senate—as
evidenced by the language of the treaty of Paris, did not
intend to make Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands integral
parts of the United States, but intended, in several
particulars, to reserve their final status for adjustment by
Congress, at the same time making peculiar and special
differential provisions for variations and exceptions in
customs and port regulations as to Spain and Spanish goods and
subjects, which are inconsistent with the intention that the
ceded countries became upon the ratification of the treaty a
part of the United States in all respects and in the fullest
sense.
"The Government contends that the term 'foreign countries' in
the act of 1897 is to be regarded as having been understood by
Congress to be subject to the rule of interpretation of the
phrase given by the Supreme Court in the case of Fleming v.
Page, where it was held that under our revenue laws every port
is regarded as a foreign one until expressly established as
domestic under the authority and control of the statutes of
the United States.
"That the clause of the Constitution which declares that
duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States does not apply to nor govern these cases,
because the term 'United States,' as there used, means only
the territory comprised within the several States of the
Union, and was intended only for their benefit and protection,
and not for the benefit or protection of outside territory
belonging to the nation; that in the latter sense duties on
imports from these islands are uniform throughout the United
States, because they are uniformly imposed at every port in
the United States, so that there is no preference given to the
ports of one State over those of another, nor is any
inequality between the several States created.
{671}
"That the right to bring merchandise into the United States is
a right entirely within the regulation of Congress; such right
in no wise differs as to either citizens or aliens.
Citizenship carries with it no special or peculiar privileges
at the custom-house. The American, the Spaniard, the Porto
Rican, are treated alike. The basis of the customs laws is not
ownership, but (1) the geographical origin of the shipment,
and (2) the nature of the goods. The duty is imposed against
merchandise, not upon the importer. "The Government contends,
therefore, that in view of the fact that tariff laws are 'in
rem,' there is no principle of justice, much less of
constitutional restriction, which forbids Congress from taxing
in this way the merchandise of outlying possessions of the
United States when brought into the ports of the Union. That
the limitations of the Constitution as to customs, etc., were
intended to secure equality between the States in the
geographical sense, and not to forbid Congress from exercising
the ordinary sovereign power of taxation as to the products of
other sections of country not included within the geographical
boundaries of the States; for which we rely upon the opinion
of this court in Knowlton v. Moore as decisive and conclusive.
"If the foregoing propositions are sound, then it is
established (1) that the tariff act of 1897 was intended by
Congress to classify as foreign all countries not a part of or
belonging to the United States at the time of its passage, and
the subsequent cession of the Spanish islands to the United
States did not operate to admit imports from those islands
free of duty, under that law; (2) that the tariff act so
construed and enforced violates no constitutional rule of
uniformity.
"And the case of the plaintiffs in error would seem on these
grounds to have no legal foundation.
"The Government might well be content to rest its argument
upon these propositions. But counsel for the plaintiffs in
error, in the court below as well us in this court, have gone
far beyond these limits, and have challenged and denied the
constitutionality of certain provisions of the treaty of
Paris, contending that the cession of Porto Rico and the
Philippine Archipelago effected a complete incorporation of
those countries with the United States, so that they have
become a part of the United States in the fullest and largest
sense, not only internationally, but organically, so
completely, indeed, that no difference or distinction can be
made by law between imports from those countries and imports
from one of the States of the Union.
"They insist that there can be no limited or qualified
acquisition of territory by this nation; that when Porto Rico
was ceded to the United States it came at once under the
obligations of the Constitution and became entitled to the
privileges of the Constitution, its inhabitants citizens of
the United States, and its territory a part of the United
States. They argue, therefore, that the clause of the treaty
which says that 'the civil rights and political status of the
inhabitants shall be determined by the Congress,' in so far as
it is intended to defer the full enjoyment of the rights and
privileges of citizenship under the Constitution until
Congress shall bestow them hereafter upon the inhabitants, is
'ultra vires' and void, or at least superfluous and
ineffective, because the Constitution 'ex proprio vigore'
extends at once, as an automatic operation, to all territory
ceded to this Government, and no treaty or treaty-making power
can hinder or even suspend it. …
"Counsel have been at great pains to prove that the Government
of the United States is one of delegated powers, and that its
powers are not absolute and untrammeled, but subject to
certain limits never and nowhere to be transcended; that the
vague political entity known as The People stands behind the
constituted agencies of government, holding in reserve the
sources of supreme power, capable and ready to alter or
destroy at its pleasure the machinery heretofore set up in its
behalf. They call these doctrines truisms, and so they are.
They do not help us in this case.
"The Government of the United States has been vested not with
all powers but only with certain particular powers. These
particular delegated powers are in some respects limited and
confined in scope and operation, but in other respects they
are entirely unlimited. So that the real and practical
question is whether there is any limitation preventing the
particular thing here complained of.
"It is worth while, in passing, to allude to the undeniable
fact that 'The People' referred to are not the people of the
Territories or of the outlying possessions of the United
States, but the people of the several States, who ordained and
established for themselves and their posterity the Federal
Constitution.
"Counsel confuse ideas when they argue that the contention of
the Government in these cases implies the possession by
Congress of all unlimited and despotic powers in the
government of territory. We mean no more than this court meant
when it said:
"'The power of Congress over the Territories is general and
plenary.
"'Its sovereignty over them is complete.
"'It has full and complete legislative authority over the
people of the Territories and all departments of the
Territorial governments.
"'The people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the
National Territories, have supreme power over them and their
inhabitants.
"'In legislating for the Territories Congress would doubtless
be subject to those fundamental limitations in favor of
personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and
its amendments, but these limitations would exist rather by
inference and the general spirit of the Constitution than by
any express and direct application of its provisions.'"
In the Supreme Court of the United States,
October Term, 1900, John H. Goetze, Appellant, &c.;
Brief for the United States.
On the 8th of January, 1901, four other causes, involving
substantially the same questions, came before the Supreme
Court, and, by order of the Court, were consolidated, to be
dealt with virtually as one case. The titles of the cases were
respectively as follows:
Elias S. A. Dc Lima et al., plaintiffs in error,
agt. George R. Bidwell;
Samuel B. Downes et al., plaintiffs in error,
agt. George R. Bidwell;
Henry W. Dooley et al., plaintiffs in error,
agt. the United States;
Carlos Armstrong, appellant,
agt. the United States, and George W. Crossmon et al.,
appellants, agt. the United States.
{672}
For the plaintiffs, in the case of Henry W. Dooley et al., the
Honorable John G. Carlisle made an oral argument, in which he
said: "What is the Constitution? In the first place it is not
only the supreme law of the States composing the union, but
the supreme law of the land; supreme over every branch and
department of the Government; supreme over every one
exercising authority under the Government; supreme over every
other law or order or regulation, and supreme over all the
people, wherever they may be, within its jurisdiction, and
what we claim is, that so long as this Constitution exists
absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberties, or
property of the people can be exercised nowhere in this
Republic. It is now argued that it is supreme only within the
boundaries of the several States, unless Congress extends it
to the Territories; that it limits the powers of Congress only
when legislating for the geographical area embraced in the
States; that the inhabitants of the States are the only people
who can, as a matter of right, claim the benefit of its
guarantees and prohibitions for the protection even of those
personal and property rights which have for ages been secured
by the common law of England, and that all other people within
the jurisdiction of the United States are dependent for the
protection of their civil rights substantially upon the will
of Congress. The question whether the Constitution should be
declared to be the supreme law of the whole land, or only the
supreme law of the respective States and their inhabitants or
citizens, was presented in the Federal Convention of 1787, and
was finally disposed of by the adoption of the clause as it
now stands in the Constitution, which declares it to be "the
supreme law of the land.
"In the plan proposed by Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South
Carolina, it was provided that 'all acts made by the
legislature of the United States pursuant to this
Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land,' etc. (1
Elliot, page 46). Mr. Patterson's plan proposed 'that all acts
of the United States in Congress assembled made by virtue and
in pursuance of the powers hereby vested in them, and by the
Articles of Confederation and all treaties made and ratified
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the respective States, so far as those acts or treaties
shall relate to such States or their citizens,' etc. (pages
71, 72). These plans and others were referred to the Committee
of the Whole House and were reported back without any
provision upon this subject. Afterwards the Convention
unanimously agreed to the following resolution:
'That the Legislative acts made by virtue and in pursuance of
the Articles of Union and all treaties made and ratified under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the respective States, so far as those acts or treaties
shall relate to the said States or their citizens or
inhabitants' (page 100). Thus it stood when referred to the
committee of five, of which Mr. Rutledge was chairman, and on
the 6th of August, 1787, that committee reported back to the
Convention a draft of the proposed Constitution, the eighth
article of which was the same as the resolution last quoted,
except that in the place of the words 'Articles of Union' it
contained the words 'this Constitution' (page 120). This
report was considered in the Committee of the Whole, and on
the 23d of August the eighth article was unanimously amended
so as to read: 'This Constitution and all laws of the United
States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under
the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of
the several States and of their citizens and inhabitants,'
etc. (page 151).
"This was the form in which the article stood when the whole
draft was referred to the committee of eleven, but when
reported back September 12, it constituted the second clause
of the sixth article and declared that the Constitution and
laws and the treaties made and to be made should be 'the
supreme law of the land,' and so it now stands as part of the
Constitution. If the clause had been adopted in the form
agreed to in the committee and inserted in the first draft,
there would have been at least a certain degree of
plausibility in the argument made here for the Government, but
even in that case we think the powers of Congress would have
been limited whenever and wherever it might attempt to
exercise them. But it is argued here that the history of the
Constitution and the language employed in the preamble, and in
some other places, show that it was intended to establish a
government only for such of the States then existing as might
ratify it, and such other States as might thereafter be
admitted into the Union, and that, therefore, while it confers
power upon Congress to govern Territories, it does not require
that body to govern them in accordance with the supreme law of
the land; that is, in accordance with the instrument from
which the power to govern is derived. Even if the premises
were true, the conclusion would not follow; but is it true
that the Constitution was ordained and established for the
government of the States only? If so, how did it happen that
the great men who framed that instrument made it confer the
power to govern Territories as well as States? It is true that
the Constitution was ordained and established by the people of
the States, but it created a National Government for national
purposes, not a mere league or compact between the States, and
jurisdiction was conferred upon that Government over the whole
national domain, whatever its boundaries might be. It is not
true that the Government was established only for the States,
their inhabitants or citizens, but if it were true, then it
could exercise no power outside of the States, and this court
would have to put a new construction upon that provision which
authorizes Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory, or other property,
belonging to the United States. The necessary construction of
that clause would be that it conferred power only to dispose
of land or other property, and to make necessary rules and
regulations respecting land or other property belonging to the
United States; that is, belonging to the several States
composing the Union. It would confer no power whatever to
govern the people outside of the States."
Supreme Court of the United States,
October Term, 1900,
Henry W. Dooley [et al.] vs. the United States:
Argument of J. G. Carlisle.
{673}
On one point the argument of Mr. Charles H. Aldrich, attorney
for the plaintiff in the case of the "Fourteen Diamond Rings,"
was as follows: In "the relations of the United States to other
nations, our government is a sovereign state, and has the
right, and as such 'free and independent State has full power,
to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish
commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
independent States may of right do.' In this relation it is
correct, as I conceive, to speak of the United States of
America as a unit and use a singular verb. It is such unit and
has this power because there was created a government upon
which the people conferred these powers. If war is declared it
must be under the constitution; if peace is concluded it is in
the exercise of a constitutional power; if commerce is
established it is because Congress under the constitution was
given power to regulate commerce; if alliances are contracted
it can only be done under the constitution. In short, the
sovereign nation exists through the adoption of the
constitution, and its powers are derived from that instrument
and must be found, as this court has often declared, in the
language thereof or by necessary implication therefrom. We are
in the Philippines and Porto Rico and can be rightfully there
only in the exercise of some of these enumerated powers, as in
the language of the tenth amendment, 'the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.' This amendment designates the constitution as the
source of the power of the United States and excludes the idea
of power free from constitutional restraint derived by
implication from powers delegated by the constitution.
"Nor is it true that at the time this declaration was made all
independent states or nations claimed and exercised the right
to acquire, hold and govern foreign dependencies, and no state
or nation then recognized its obligation to confer on the
people of such acquired territory the privileges and
immunities enjoyed by the people of the home government,
except at its own will and discretion. It is true that all
independent states claimed and exercised the right to acquire
territory, but if it were important in this case I think the
arguments of Pitt, Camden and Barre could be used to establish
the proposition that under the British Constitution as it
then was, that nation had, from the time of King John and the
Great Charter until King George, recognized that its subjects
had essential rights not dependent upon the 'will and
discretion' of the home government. It is unnecessary to
follow that subject here. It is sufficient that the
Declaration of Independence was brought about by the assertion
on the part of King George and his ministers of precisely the
present doctrine of this administration and its
representatives in this court. If value is to be attached to
contemporary history that fact cannot be lost sight of. The
speeches of Grenville and Townshend in favor of unlimited
power on the part of Parliament over the American colonists
and their affairs have been substantially parodied in Congress
by the advocates of unrestrained power over our 'colonies,' as
it is now unfortunately fashionable to denominate them. The
signers of the Declaration of Independence held that as
subjects of the British Constitution there was no right to
impose taxes upon them without their consent, to deprive them
of trial by jury, to deprive them of their legislatures, and
to declare Parliament in vested with power to legislate for
them 'in all cases whatsoever.' These and other grievances
were held denials of rights belonging to every British subject
as such and to justify rebellion and war. It seems impossible
that a people who rebelled for such reasons established a
State invested with the very power which they had denied to
the British government and the assertions of which made
rebellion necessary.
"This argument that the power to declare war and conclude
peace carries with it, as an auxiliary, power to do whatever
other nations are accustomed to do with the people and
territory acquired through the exercise of these powers, has a
remarkable likeness to the arguments put forward at the
beginning of the century with reference to the Alien and
Sedition Acts. The supporters of the constitutionality of
these acts claimed that the common law had been introduced and
become a part of the constitution of the United States, and
therefore the powers usually exercisable under the common law
could be exercised by the Congress of the United States in the
respects involved in those acts. Mr. Madison's letter
discussing this contention was answered, so far as it asserted
the right of a state to nullify an act of Congress, but was
never answered, so far as it denied the existence of the
common law as a part of the constitution of the United States.
His objections to that contention, succinctly stated, were,
that if the common law was a part of the constitution, then
there were no constitutional limitations. Congress, like
Parliament, could legislate in all cases whatsoever; that the
President would be possessed of the royal prerogatives (as is
now claimed in this case by the Attorney-General); that the
judiciary would have a discretion little short of legislative
power; that these powers in the different branches of the
government would not be alterable, because, being in the
constitution, they could only be repealed by amendment of that
instrument; and, lastly, that the constitution would have a
different meaning in different States, inasmuch as the common
law was different in such States, and that it would lack the
certainty which a constitution should have, as the common law
was an ever-growing or varying body of law, and, therefore,
with reference to the proper action of the government in each
instance, the question would be important as to what portion
of the common law was in the constitution and what not so
embodied.
"Nearly every sentence of Mr. Madison's able argument with
reference to the common law as a part of the constitution is
applicable to the contention that sovereign powers, so-called,
as derived from or defined by international law, became a part
of the constitution of the United States through the
delegation of the powers to make war, conclude peace, and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and
other property belonging to the United States. This court has
adopted the view of Mr. Madison. It is hoped that the child of
the old error by which again the executive and legislative
power is sought to be enlarged through the incorporation into
the constitution of 'the sovereign power of other nations'
will receive the same answer.
"In fact, we submit that this court has already held that
sovereign power in the sense that the words are used in the
law of nations as prerogative rights of the King or Emperor,
not only is not vested in the United States or in any branch
of its government, but cannot be so vested. The sovereign
power is with the people. In leaving it with the people our
government marked a departure from all that had previously
existed."
Supreme Court of the United States,
October Term, 1900, Number 419:
C. H. Aldrich, Argument in reply.
{674}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901.
Military and naval expenditure,
compared with that of other Powers.
See (in this volume)
WAR BUDGETS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (January).
Apportionment of Representatives under the Twelfth Census.
The question of obedience to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Restrictions of the elective franchise in the States.
Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution requires that
"Representatives … shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union according to
their respective numbers. … The actual enumeration shall be
made within three years after the first meeting of the
Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent
term of ten years. … The number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every 30,000; but each State shall have at
least one." The first meeting of Congress was in 1789; the
required first census of the United States was taken in 1790,
and, in obedience to the constitutional requirement, the
enumeration has been repeated within the closing year of every
decade since, to supply the basis for a new apportionment of
representatives among the States. The twelfth census, taken in
1900, called for such new distribution, and action upon it was
taken in Congress in January, 1901.
As the section quoted above stood in the Constitution until
1868, it contained a further clause, inserted as one of the
original compromises made between the slaveholding and the
free States, requiring that the determination of numbers to be
represented in the several States should be made "by adding to
the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three-fifths of all other persons." This original clause of
the Constitution was superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment,
adopted in 1868, which introduced this new provision, in its
second section: "Representatives shall be apportioned among
the several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State, except
Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election
for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of
the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive
and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such
State." To many persons it seemed to be very clear that this
provision of the amended Constitution required account to be
taken of the qualifications by which a number of States have
abridged the suffrage, especially where done for the
understood purpose of disfranchising colored citizens and that
Congress was left with no discretion to do otherwise.
See, (in this volume),
LOUISIANA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA,
MISSISSIPPI, and MARYLAND.
Those holding this view in the House of Representatives gave
support to the following resolution, introduced by Mr.
Olmsted, of Pennsylvania:
"Whereas the continued enjoyment of full representation in
this House by any State which has, for reasons other than
participation in rebellion or other crime, denied to any of
the male inhabitants thereof, being 21 years of age and
citizens of the United States, the right to vote for
Representatives in Congress, Presidential electors, and other
specified officers, is in direct violation of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
declares that in such case 'the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens 21 years of age in such State,' and is an invasion of
the rights and dignity of this House and of its members, and
an infringement upon the rights and privileges in this House
of other States and their representatives; and
"Whereas the States of Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut,
Delaware, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Wyoming, Oregon, and other States do, by the
provisions of the constitutions and statutes of said States,
and for reasons other than participation in rebellion or other
crime, deny the right to vote for members of Congress and
Presidential electors, as well as the executive and judicial
officers of such States and members of the legislatures
thereof, to male inhabitants 21 years of age and over and
citizens of the United States; and such denial in certain of
the said States extends to more than one-half of those who
prior to the last apportionment of representation were
entitled to vote in such States; and
"Whereas in order that the apportionment of membership of the
House of Representatives may be determined in a constitutional
manner: Therefore, be it
"Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Director
of the Census is hereby directed to furnish this House, at the
earliest possible moment, the following information;
"First. The total number of male citizens of the United States
over 21 years of age in each of the several States of the
Union.
"Second. The total number of male citizens of the United
States over 21 years of age who, by reason of State
constitutional limitations or State legislation, are denied
the right of suffrage, whether such denial exists on account
of illiteracy, on account of pauperism, on account of
polygamy, or on account of property qualifications, or for any
other reason.
"Resolved further, That the Speaker of the House of
Representatives is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a
select committee of five members from the membership of the
Census Committee of the House of Representatives, who shall
investigate the question of the alleged abridgment of the
elective franchise for any of the causes mentioned in all the
States of the Union in which constitutional or legislative
restrictions on the right of suffrage are claimed to exist,
and that such committee report its findings within twenty days
from the date of the adoption of this resolution to the said
Census Committee, and that within one week after the said
report shall have been received by the Census Committee the
Census Committee shall return a bill to the House of
Representatives providing for the apportionment of the
membership of the House of Representatives based on the
provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of
the United States."
{675}
Republicans, hardly less than Democrats, in Congress and
outside, were averse to raising what could not fail to be a
burning sectional issue, and grounds for ignoring the
constitutional mandate were sought with considerable eagerness
on both sides. Strict obedience to the requirement of the
Constitutional provision was claimed to be impracticable, at
least within the time available for proceedings connected with
the present apportionment of representatives. Said one
speaker, opposing the resolutions in the House: "There is not
a State in this Union that has not added to or subtracted from
the Federal constitutional requirements—not one. … If there is
any addition, whether as a matter of police regulation or
otherwise, to the constitutional amendments regulating the
franchise and the resultant representation in this House—if
there is addition or subtraction of one iota—then those who
desire to live up to this Constitution, no matter whether they
ruin their neighbors, no matter whether they again kindle the
fires of sectional strife, those who in their love for the
Constitution are so mentally rigid that they would demand its
enforcement though they set the Union aflame, must include
every State in this Union."
Said another: "How would anybody find out how many people in
the State of Mississippi were disfranchised for the reasons
stated in this resolution? There is there an educational
qualification. How are you to determine how many of the men in
the State of Mississippi who did not vote, did not vote
because they were disfranchised under the educational
qualification? Then there is a qualification in extension and
not in limitation of the suffrage, saying that even those who
can not read and write may still vote, provided they can give
an understanding interpretation of the Constitution or any
part of it. How are you going to determine how many are
disqualified by that? And then there is a qualification which
says that those can not vote who shall not by a certain time
have paid their poll tax. Out of the number of people who did
not vote, how are you going to determine which of them have
not voted because of the educational qualification? Which
because of the understanding qualification? Which because of
the poll-tax qualification? Which because of the registration
qualification? How many because of the pure Australian ballot
which exists in the State of Mississippi? … There is not a
State in the Union which has the Australian ballot which by
the very fact and the necessity of voting according to that
Australian ballot does not prevent the citizen who can not
read and write from voting if he votes a split ticket of any
sort."
A third speaker remarked: "To live up to that amendment, 'that
no male inhabitant shall be deprived of suffrage except for
participation in the rebellion or other crimes,' the male
inhabitant, I take it, is he who has acquired domicile in that
State, and the moment that he acquires domicile, and is a
male, he is a 'male inhabitant' of that State, and entitled
at once to suffrage; and yet every State in the Union, I
believe without exception, has requirements as to residence
not only in the State, but in the city, in the county, in the
precinct and ward and the voting place; and everyone of those
requirements, as every gentleman on that side must admit, are
in direct conflict with and contravention of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States literally
construed."
But the advocates of obedience to the Constitution, supporting
the resolutions of Mr. Olmsted, planted their argument on the
very facts brought against it, as demonstrating the need of
measures to check a growing tendency in the country to
restrict the elective franchise. Said Mr. Shattuck, of Ohio:
"We find that in 1870 there were three States that had
abridged their electorates—California, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts. In these three States there was a
constitutional provision for an educational qualification,
which disfranchised a certain percentage of the
electorate—namely, the illiterates. But, in those States, the
percentage of illiteracy is very light, averaging about 6 per
cent. The basis of representation would hardly have been
affected in those States had the fourteenth amendment been
conformed with.
"An examination into the election laws of the various States
reveals an astonishing tendency at this time to abridge their
electorates. When the Congress which adopted the existing
apportionment discussed the matter ten years ago but three
States had abridged their electorate by action of the State,
and in these the percentage of disfranchised males was but 6
per cent. But since that time similar policies have been
adopted by other States, and to-day we face the fact that ten
of the forty-five States of this Union have abridged their
electorates, and that in these the percentage of males 21
years of age and over, disfranchised, averages over 20 per
cent. The constitutions of several other States permit such an
abridgment. Besides, there are other States preparing to adopt
these policies and to disfranchise thousands of men who to-day
hold the right of franchise. In view of this remarkable
tendency it is inconceivable that Congress can longer permit
the fourteenth amendment to remain a dead letter, and to pass
a bill making an apportionment based solely upon the
population and neglecting the proviso which applies to all
States which have abridged their electorate.
"We will not review the past by any discussion of the question
as to whether the provisions of the fourteenth amendment
should have been made effective when the last apportionment
was made ten years ago. We find to-day conditions existing
which make its enforcement imperative. I do not propose to
discuss at this time whether the reasons given for these
abridgments by the people of the various States are valid or
not. … I am simply pointing out the conditions as they exist;
I am simply pointing out that the time has come when the
tendency of the States to abridge their electorates has grown
to such proportions as to demand that this Congress shall
proceed in a constitutional manner in making the new
apportionment. I do not say that States have not the right to
establish educational qualifications for their electors, but I
do maintain that when they have done so they must pay the penalty
prescribed in the Constitution, and have their representation
abridged proportionately.
{676}
I do not say that we shall punish only Louisiana;
I do not say that we shall punish only Massachusetts;
I do not say that we shall punish only California;
but I do say and insist, as the representative of a State in
which every male member 21 years of age and over is guaranteed
the sacred right of franchise, that there is a constitutional
remedy prescribed for their acts, and I do demand that that
remedy be applied."
The following interesting table, showing the restrictions of
the electorate in the various States of the Union, was
appended to the remarks of Mr. Shattuck:
STATES.
REQUIREMENTS AS TO CITIZENSHIP. [First paragraph]
PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM SUFFRAGE. [Second paragraph]
ALABAMA.
Citizen of United States, or alien who has declared intention.
Convicted of treason or other crime punishable by
imprisonment, idiots, or insane.
ARKANSAS.
Citizen of United States, or alien who has declared intention.
Idiots, insane, convicted of felony until pardoned, failure
to pay poll tax, United States soldiers on duty in State.
CALIFORNIA.
Citizen by nativity, naturalization, or treaty of Queretaro.
Chinese, insane, embezzlers of public moneys, convicted
of infamous crime, person unable to read Constitution
in English, and to write his name.
COLORADO.
Citizen or alien, male or female, who has declared intention 4
months prior to election.
Under guardianship, insane, idiots, or imprisoned.
CONNECTICUT.
Citizen of United States.
Convicted of felony or theft, unless pardoned.
Person unable to read Constitution or statutes.
DELAWARE.
Citizen who has paid registration fee of $1.
Idiots, insane, paupers, felons. Person who can not
read the English language and write his name.
FLORIDA.
Citizen of United States.
Insane, under guardianship, convicted of felony or any
infamous crime.
GEORGIA.
Citizen of the United States who has paid all
his taxes since 1877.
Idiots, insane, convicted of crime punishable by imprisonment
until pardoned, failure to pay taxes.
IDAHO.
Citizen of the United States, male or female.
Under guardianship, idiots, insane, convicted of felony,
treason, or embezzlement of public funds, polygamist or
bigamist.
ILLINOIS.
Citizen of the United States.
Convicted of felony.
INDIANA.
Citizen of United States, or alien who has declared intention
and resided 1 year in United States and 6 months in State.
Convicted of crime and disfranchised by judgment of the court,
United States soldiers, sailors, and marines.
IOWA.
Citizen of the United States.
Idiots, insane, convicted of infamous crime.
KANSAS.
Citizen of United States, alien who has declared intention, or
[under] treaties with Mexico.
Felons, insane, duelists, rebels, not restored to
citizenship, under guardianship, public embezzlers,
offering or accepting a bribe.
KENTUCKY.
Citizen of the United States.
Treason, felony, bribery at election.
LOUISIANA.
Citizen of United States or alien who has declared intention.
Idiots, insane, convicted of treason, embezzlement of public
funds, all crime punishable by imprisonment in penitentiary,
persons unable to read and write, and not owning property in
the State assessed at $300, or not the son or grandson of a
citizen of the United States prior to January 1, 1867, person
who has not paid pool tax.
MAINE.
Citizen of the United States.
Paupers, persons under guardianship, Indians not taxed, and in
1893 all new voters who can not read the Constitution or write
their own names in English.
MARYLAND.
Citizen of the United States.
Convicted of larceny or other infamous crime, unless pardoned,
persons convicted of bribery.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Citizen of the United States.
Paupers and persons under guardianship, person who can not
read Constitution in English and write his name.
MICHIGAN.
Citizen or inhabitant who has declared intention under United
States laws 6 months before election and lived in State
2½ years.
Indians, duelists, and accessories.
MINNESOTA.
Citizen of United States or alien who has declared intention,
and civilized Indians.
Convicted of treason or felony, unless pardoned, persons
under guardianship or insane.
MISSISSIPPI.
Citizen of the United States.
Insane, idiots, Indians not taxed, felons, persons who have
not paid taxes, persons who can not read or understand
Constitution.
Missouri.
Citizen of United States or alien who has declared intention
not less than 1 year or more than 5 before offering to vote.
United States soldiers and marines, paupers, criminals
convicted once until pardoned, felons and violators of
suffrage laws convicted a second time.
MONTANA.
Citizen of the United States.
Felons, unless pardoned, idiots, insane, United States
soldiers, seamen, and marines, Indians.
NEBRASKA.
Citizen of United States or alien who has declared intention.
Convicts.
NEVADA.
Citizen of the United States.
Idiots, insane, unpardoned convicts, Indians, Chinese.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Citizen of United States.
Paupers (except honorably discharged United States soldiers
and sailors), persons excused from paying taxes at their own
request,
NEW JERSEY.
Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared
intention 30 days prior to election.
Idiots, insane paupers, persons convicted of crimes (unless
pardoned) which exclude them from being witnesses.
NEW YORK.
Citizen who shall have been a citizen for 90 days.
Convicted of bribery or any infamous crime, Indians under
tribal relations.
NORTH CAROLINA.
Citizen of the United States.
Convicted of felony or other infamous crime, idiots,
lunatics, persons unable to read or write, unless lineal
descendant of citizen of United States prior to January 1,
1867, nonpayment of poll tax.
NORTH DAKOTA.
Citizen of the United States, alien who has declared
intention 1 year, and civilized Indian.
Under guardianship, persons non compos mentis, or convicted
of felony and treason, unless restored to civil rights.
OHIO.
Citizen of the United States.
Felony until pardoned, idiots, insane, United States
soldiers and sailors.
{677}
OREGON.
Citizen of Unite States or alien who
has declared intention 1 year preceding election.
Idiots, insane, convicted of felony, United States soldiers
and sailors, Chinese.
PENNSYLVANIA.
Citizen of the United States at least 1 month, and if 22 years
old or more, must have paid tax within 2 years.
Convicted of some offense whereby right of suffrage is
forfeited, non taxpayers.
RHODE ISLAND.
Citizen of the United States.
Paupers, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, convicted
of bribery or infamous crime until restored to right to
vote under guardianship.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Citizen of the United States.
Convicted of treason, murder, or other infamous crime,
dueling, paupers, insane, idiots, person who has not
paid poll tax, who can not read an write any section of
the State constitution, or can show that he has paid all
taxes on property within the State assessed at $300.
SOUTH DAKOTA.
Citizen of the United States or alien
who has declared intention.
Under guardianship, idiots, insane, convicted of treason
or felony, unless pardoned.
TENNESSEE.
Citizen of the United States who has paid poll tax of
preceding year.
Convicted of bribery or other infamous offense.
TEXAS.
Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared
intention.
Idiots, lunatics, paupers, convicted of felony, United
States soldiers and seamen.
UTAH.
Citizen, male and female.
Idiots, insane, convicted of treason or violation of
election laws.
VERMONT.
Citizen of the United States.
Those who have not obtained the approbation of the board of
civil authority of the town in which they reside.
VIRGINIA.
Citizen of the United States.
Idiots, lunatics, convicted of bribery at election,
embezzlement of public funds, treason, felony and petty
larceny, duelists and abettors unless pardoned by legislature.
WASHINGTON.
Citizen of the United States.
Indians not taxed, idiots, insane, persons convicted of
infamous crimes.
WEST VIRGINIA.
Citizen of the State.
Paupers, idiots, lunatics, convicted of treason, felony, or
bribery at elections.
WISCONSIN.
Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared
intention.
Insane, under guardianship, convicted of treason or felony,
unless pardoned, Indians having tribal relations.
WYOMING.
Citizen of the United States, male and female.
Idiots, insane, persons convicted of infamous crimes unless
restored to civil rights, unable to read State constitution.
Congressional Record, January 4-5, 1901,
pages 618-20, and 662-5.
The resolutions of Mr. Olmsted were not adopted. The
reapportionment was made on the basis of the totals of the
census returns, with no reckoning of any denials of the right
to vote. The following is the text of the Act, as passed and
approved January 16:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That after
the third day of March, nineteen hundred and three, the House
of Representatives shall be composed of three hundred and
eighty-six members [the existing number being 357] to be
apportioned among the several States as follows:
Alabama, nine;
Arkansas, seven;
California, eight;
Colorado, three;
Connecticut, five;
Delaware, one;
Florida, three;
Georgia, eleven;
Idaho, one;
Illinois, twenty-five;
Indiana, thirteen;
Iowa, eleven;
Kansas, eight;
Kentucky, eleven;
Louisiana, seven;
Maine, four;
Maryland, six;
Massachusetts, fourteen;
Michigan, twelve;
Minnesota, nine;
Mississippi, eight;
Missouri, sixteen:
Montana, one;
Nebraska, six;
Nevada, one;
New Hampshire, two;
New Jersey, ten;
New York, thirty-seven;
North Carolina, ten;
North Dakota, two;
Ohio, twenty-one:
Oregon, two;
Pennsylvania, thirty-two;
Rhode Island, two;
South Carolina, seven;
South Dakota, two;
Tennessee, ten:
Texas, sixteen:
Utah, one;
Vermont, two;
Virginia, ten;
Washington, three;
West Virginia, five;
Wisconsin, eleven; and
Wyoming, one.
"SECTION 2.
That whenever a new State is admitted to the Union the
Representative or Representatives assigned to it shall be in
addition to the number three hundred and eighty-six.
"SECTION 3.
That in each State entitled under this apportionment, the
number to which such State may be entitled in the Fifty-eighth
and each subsequent Congress shall be elected by districts
composed of contiguous and compact territory and containing as
nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants. The said
districts shall be equal to the number of the Representatives
to which such State may be entitled in Congress, no one
district electing more than one Representative.
"SECTION 4.
That in case of an increase in the number of Representatives
which may be given to any State under this apportionment such
additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected
by the State at large, and the other Representatives by the
districts now prescribed by law until the legislature of such
State in the manner herein prescribed, shall redistrict such
State; and if there be no increase in the number of
Representatives from a State the Representatives thereof shall
be elected from the districts now prescribed by law until such
State be redistricted as herein prescribed by the legislature
of said State; and if the number hereby provided for shall in
any State be less than it was before the change hereby made,
then the whole number to such State hereby provided for shall
be elected at large, unless the legislatures of said States
have provided or shall otherwise provide before the time fixed
by law for the next election of Representatives therein.
"SECTION 5.
That all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with this Act are
hereby repealed."
No existing State quota was reduced by the new apportionment,
and the gains were as follows:
Illinois, New York and Texas, 3;
Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 2;
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Washington, West Virginia and
Wisconsin, 1.
{678}
That clause of the third section which requires districts to
be "composed of contiguous and compact territory" is intended
to be a bar to the partisan trick called "gerrymandering." The
vote on the bill in the House (165 against 102) was singularly
non-partisan. The minority was said to be composed of exactly
the same number of Republicans and Democrats, 51 of each, and
in the majority vote there were included 84 Republicans and 81
Democrats. The vote was also non-sectional, except that New
England voted almost solidly for the measure. East, South and
West the State delegations were almost equally divided.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (February).
Act to increase the standing army of the nation to 100,000 men.
In his annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1900, the
President set forth the military needs of the country, created
by its new policy of imperial expansion, and recommended that
the permanent army be raised to 100,000 in number, from 45,000
to 60,000 of which would be required in the Philippine Islands
until their people were made submissive to the authority of
the United States. In accord with the executive
recommendation, Congress passed "an Act to increase the
efficiency of the permanent military establishment of the
United States," which became law by the President's signature
on the 2d of February, 1901. Its first section provides that
"from and after the approval of this Act the Army of the
United States, including the existing organizations, shall
consist of fifteen regiments of cavalry, a corps of artillery,
thirty regiments of infantry, one Lieutenant-General, six
major-generals, fifteen brigadier-generals, an
Adjutant-General's Department, an Inspector-General's
Department, a Judge-Advocate-General's Department, a
Quartermaster's Department, a Subsistence Department, a
Medical Department, a Pay Department, a Corps of Engineers, an
Ordnance Department, a Signal Corps, the officers of the
Record and Pension Office, the chaplains, the officers and
enlisted men of the Army on the retired list, the professors,
corps of cadets, the army detachments and band at the United
States Military Academy, Indian scouts as now authorized by
law, and such other officers and enlisted men as may
hereinafter be provided for." A subsequent section enacts that
the total enlisted force of the line of the army shall not exceed
at any one time 100,000.
Section 2 provides that "each regiment of cavalry shall
consist of one colonel, one lieutenant-colonel, three majors,
fifteen captains, fifteen first lieutenants, and fifteen
second lieutenants; two veterinarians, one sergeant-major, one
quartermaster-sergeant, one commissary-sergeant, three
squadron sergeants-major, two color-sergeants with rank, pay,
and allowances of squadron sergeant-major, one band, and
twelve troops organized into three squadrons of four troops
each. … Each troop of cavalry shall consist of one captain,
one first lieutenant, one second lieutenant, one first
sergeant, one quartermaster-sergeant, six sergeants, six
corporals, two cooks, two farriers and blacksmiths, one
saddler, one wagoner, two trumpeters, and forty-three
privates; the commissioned officers to be assigned from among
those hereinbefore authorized."
Sections 3-9, relating to the Artillery, are, in part, as
follows:
"That the regimental organization of the artillery arm of the
United States Army is hereby discontinued, and that arm is
constituted and designated as the Artillery Corps. It shall be
organized as hereinafter specified and shall belong to the
line of the Army. That the Artillery Corps shall comprise two
branches—the coast artillery and the field artillery. The
coast artillery is defined as that portion charged with the
care and use of the fixed and movable elements of land and
coast fortifications, including the submarine mine and torpedo
defenses; and the field artillery as that portion accompanying
an army in the field, and including field and light artillery
proper, horse artillery, siege artillery, mountain artillery,
and also machine-gun batteries: Provided, That this shall not
be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of War to
order coast artillery to any duty which the public service
demands or to prevent the use of machine or other field guns
by any other arm of the service under the direction of the
Secretary of War. … That the Artillery Corps shall consist of
a Chief of Artillery, who shall be selected and detailed by
the President from the colonels of artillery, to serve on the
staff of the general officer commanding the Army, and whose
duties shall be prescribed by the Secretary of War: fourteen
colonels, one of whom shall be the Chief of Artillery;
thirteen lieutenant-colonels, thirty-nine majors, one hundred
and ninety-five captains, one hundred and ninety-five first
lieutenants, one hundred and ninety-five second lieutenants;
and the captains and lieutenants provided for in this section
not required for duty with batteries or companies shall be
available for duty as staff officers of the various artillery
garrisons and such other details as may be authorized by law
and regulations; twenty-one sergeants-major, with the rank,
pay, and allowances of regimental sergeants-major of infantry;
twenty-seven sergeants-major, with the rank, pay, and
allowances of battalion sergeants-major of infantry; one
electrician sergeant to each coast artillery post having
electrical appliances; thirty batteries of field artillery,
one hundred and twenty-six batteries of coast artillery, and
ten bands organized as now authorized by law for artillery
regiments: Provided, That the aggregate number of enlisted men
for the artillery, as provided under this Act, shall not
exceed eighteen thousand nine hundred and twenty, exclusive of
electrician sergeants." Concerning the Infantry it is
provided, in Section 10, that "each regiment of infantry shall
consist of one colonel, one lieutenant colonel, three majors,
fifteen captains, fifteen first lieutenants, and fifteen
second lieutenants; one sergeant-major, one
quartermaster-sergeant, one commissary-sergeant, three
battalion sergeants-major, two color sergeants, with rank,
pay, and allowances of battalion sergeants-major, one band,
and twelve companies, organized into three battalions of four
companies each. Of the officers herein provided, the captains
and lieutenants not required for duty with the companies shall
be available for detail as regimental and battalion staff
officers and such other details as may be authorized by law or
regulations. … Each infantry company shall consist of one
captain, one first lieutenant, one second lieutenant, one
first sergeant, one quartermaster-sergeant, four sergeants,
six corporals, two cooks, two musicians, one artificer, and
forty-eight privates, the commissioned officers to be assigned
from those hereinbefore authorized."
{679}
Section 11 provides that "the enlisted force of the Corps of
Engineers shall consist of one band and three battalions of
engineers. … Each battalion of engineers shall consist of one
sergeant-major, one quartermaster-sergeant, and four
companies. Each company of engineers shall consist of one
first sergeant, one quartermaster-sergeant, with the rank,
pay, and allowances of sergeant, eight sergeants, ten
corporals, two musicians, two cooks, thirty-eight first-class
and thirty-eight second-class privates."
Section 12 relates to the appointment of army chaplains—one
for each regiment of cavalry and infantry, and twelve for the
corps of artillery—no person to be appointed who has passed
the age of forty years. The office of post chaplain is
abolished. Sections 13 to 27 relate mainly to the organization
of the several Departments, of the Adjutant-General,
Inspector-General, Judge-Advocate-General,
Quartermaster-General, Commissary-General, Surgeon-General,
Paymaster-General, Chief of Engineers, Chief of Ordnance, etc.
Section 28, prescribing the rules of promotion and
appointment, is as follows: "That vacancies in the grade of
field officers and captain, created by this Act, in the
cavalry, artillery, and infantry shall be filled by promotion
according to seniority in each branch, respectively. Vacancies
existing after the promotions have been made shall be provided
for as follows: A sufficient number shall be reserved in the
grade of second lieutenant for the next graduating class at
the United States Military Academy. Persons not over forty
years of age who shall have at any time served as volunteers
subsequent to April twenty-first, eighteen hundred and
ninety-eight, may be ordered before boards of officers for
such examination as may be prescribed by the Secretary of War,
and those who establish their fitness before these examining
boards may be appointed to the grades of first or second
lieutenant in the Regular Army, taking rank in the respective
grades according to seniority as determined by length of prior
commissioned service; but no person appointed under the
provisions of this section shall be placed above another in
the same grade with longer commissioned service, and nothing
herein contained shall change the relative rank of officers
heretofore commissioned in the Regular Army. Enlisted men of
the Regular Army or volunteers may be appointed second
lieutenants in the Regular Army to vacancies created by this
Act, provided that they shall have served one year, under the
same conditions now authorized by law for enlisted men of the
Regular Army."
Important provisions are embodied in Sections 35 and 36, as
follows:
"SECTION 35. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby,
authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and
surveys to be made for the purpose of selecting four sites
with a view to the establishment of permanent camp grounds for
instruction of troops of the Regular Army and National Guard,
with estimates of the cost of the sites and their equipment
with all modern appliances, and for this purpose is authorized
to detail such officers of the Army as may be necessary to
carry on the preliminary work; and the sum of ten thousand
dollars is hereby appropriated for the necessary expense of
such work, to be disbursed under the direction of the
Secretary of War: Provided, That the Secretary of War shall
report to Congress the result of such examination and surveys,
and no contract for said sites shall be made nor any
obligation incurred until Congress shall approve such
selections and appropriate the money therefor.
"SECTION 36. That when in his opinion the conditions in the
Philippine Islands justify such action the President is
authorized to enlist natives of those islands for service in
the Army, to be organized as scouts, with such officers as he
shall deem necessary for their proper control, or as troops or
companies, as authorized by this Act, for the Regular Army.
The President is further authorized, in his discretion, to
form companies, organized as are companies of the Regular
Army, in squadron's or battalions, with officers and
non-commissioned officers corresponding to similar
organizations in the cavalry and infantry arms. The total
number of enlisted men in said native organizations shall not
exceed twelve thousand, and the total enlisted force of the
line of the Army, together with such native force, shall not
exceed at any one time one hundred thousand. … When, in the
opinion of the President, natives of the Philippine Islands
shall, by their services and character, show fitness for
command, the President is authorized to make provisional
appointments to the grades of second and first lieutenants
from such natives, who, when so appointed, shall have the pay
and allowances to be fixed by the Secretary of War, not
exceeding those of corresponding grades of the Regular Army."
Section 38 abolishes the so-called "Army Canteen," in
compliance with strenuous demands from temperance
organizations in the country, notwithstanding much testimony
favorable to the canteen system from well-informed and
conscientious witnesses. The language of the section is as
follows: "The sale of or dealing in beer, wine, or any
intoxicating liquors, by any person in any post exchange or
canteen or army transport, or upon any premises used for
military purposes by the United States, is hereby prohibited.
The Secretary of War is hereby directed to carry the
provisions of this section into full force and effect." Prompt
obedience to this command of law was given by the War
Department, which issued the required general order February
4th.
The following amendment, proposed by Senator Hoar for addition
to the Act, was voted down: "Provided, That no further
military force shall be used in the Philippine Islands, except
such as may be necessary to keep order in places there now
actually under the peaceable control of the United States and
to protect persons or property to whom, in the judgment of the
President, protection may be due from the United States, until
the President shall have first proclaimed an amnesty for all
political offenses committed against the United States in the
Philippine Islands, and shall have, if in his power, agreed
upon an armistice with persons now in hostility to the United
States, and shall have invited such number, not less than 10,
as he shall think desirable of the leaders or representatives
of the persons now hostile to the United States there to come
to the United States and state their wishes and the condition,
character, and wishes of the people of the Philippine Islands
to the Executive and Congress, and shall have offered to
secure to them safe conduct to come, abide, and return, and
shall have provided at the public charge for the expenses of
their transportation both ways and their stay in this country
for a reasonable and sufficient time for such purpose."
{680}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1910 (February).
The Russian sugar question.
United States countervailing duty and Russian retaliation.
See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (February-March).
Adoption of the so-called "Spooner Amendment" to
the Army Appropriation Bill empowering the President to
establish a civil government in the Philippines.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (February-March).
Adoption of the "Platt Amendment," prescribing conditions on
which the President is authorized to "leave the government and
control of the island of Cuba to its people."
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).
Reinauguration of President McKinley for a second term in the
executive office. His inaugural address.
The reinauguration of President McKinley, for the second term
of office to which he had been elected, was performed with the
customary ceremonies, at the capitol, in Washington, on the
4th of March, 1001. His inaugural address upon the occasion is
especially interesting, for the reason that it indicates the
understanding with which the President received his
re-election, and the interpretation which he has put upon it
as an expression of the national will on questions of
extraordinary moment. He spoke as follows:
"My Fellow Citizens: When we assembled here on March 4, 1897,
there was great anxiety with regard to our currency and
credit. None exists now. Then our treasury receipts were
inadequate to meet the current obligations of the government.
Now they are sufficient for all public needs, and we have a
surplus instead of a deficit. Then I felt constrained to
convene the Congress in extraordinary session to devise
revenues to pay the ordinary expenses of the government. Now I
have the satisfaction to announce that the Congress just
closed has reduced taxation in the sum of $41,000,000. Then
there was deep solicitude because of the long depression in
our manufacturing, mining, agricultural and mercantile
industries, and the consequent distress of our laboring
population. Now every avenue of production is crowded with
activity, labor is well employed and American products find
good markets at home and abroad. Our diversified productions,
however, are increasing in such unprecedented volume as to
admonish us of the necessity of still further enlarging our
foreign markets by broader commercial relations. For this
purpose reciprocal trade arrangements with other nations
should in liberal spirit be carefully cultivated and promoted.
"The national verdict of 1896 has for the most part been
executed. Whatever remains unfulfilled is a continuing
obligation resting with undiminished force upon the Executive
and the Congress. But fortunate as our condition is, its
permanence can only be assured by sound business methods and
strict economy in national administration and legislation. We
should not permit our great prosperity to lead us to reckless
ventures in business or profligacy in public expenditures.
While the Congress determines the objects and the sum of
appropriations, the officials of the executive departments are
responsible for honest and faithful disbursement, and it
should be their constant care to avoid waste and extravagance.
Honesty, capacity and industry are nowhere more indispensable
than in public employment. These should be fundamental
requisites to original appointment and the surest guarantees
against removal.
"Four years ago we stood on the brink of war without the
people knowing it and without any preparation or effort at
preparation for the impending peril. I did all that in honor
could be done to avert the war, but without avail. It became
inevitable, and the Congress at its first regular session,
without party division, provided money in anticipation of the
crisis and in preparation to meet it. It came. The result was
signally favorable to American arms and in the highest degree
honorable to the government. It imposed upon us obligations
from which we cannot escape, and from which it would be
dishonorable to seek to escape. We are now at peace with the
world, and it is my fervent prayer that if differences arise
between us and other powers they may be settled by peaceful
arbitration, and that hereafter we may be spared the horrors
of war.
"Intrusted by the people for a second time with the office of
President, I enter upon its administration appreciating the
great responsibilities which attach to this renewed honor and
commission, promising unreserved devotion on my part to their
faithful discharge and reverently invoking for my guidance the
direction and favor of Almighty God. I should shrink from the
duties this day assumed if I did not feel that in their
performance I should have the cooperation of the wise and
patriotic men of all parties. It encourages me for the great
task which I now undertake to believe that those who
voluntarily committed to me the trust imposed upon the chief
executive of the republic will give to me generous support in
my duties to 'preserve, protect and defend the constitution of
the United States,' and to 'care that the laws be faithfully
executed.' The national purpose is indicated through a
national election. It is the constitutional method of
ascertaining the public will. When once it is registered it is
a law to us all, and faithful observance should follow its
decrees.
"Strong hearts and helpful hands are needed, and fortunately
we have them in every part of our beloved country. We are
reunited. Sectionalism has disappeared. Division on public
questions can no longer be traced by the war maps of 1861.
These old differences less and less disturb the judgment.
Existing problems demand the thought and quicken the
conscience of the country, and the responsibility for their
presence as well as for their righteous settlement rests upon
us all, no more upon me than upon you. There are some national
questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude
partisanship. Magnifying their difficulties will not take them
off our hands nor facilitate their adjustment. Distrust of the
capacity, integrity and high purpose of the American people
will not be an inspiring theme for future political contests.
Dark pictures and gloomy forebodings are worse than useless.
These only becloud, they do not help to point the way of
safety and honor. 'Hope maketh not ashamed.'
{681}
"The prophets of evil were not the builders of the republic,
nor in its crises have they saved or served it. The faith of
the fathers was a mighty force in its creation, and the faith
of their descendants has wrought its progress and furnished
its defenders. They are obstructionists who despair and who
would destroy confidence in the ability of our people to solve
wisely and for civilization the mighty problems resting upon
them. The American people, intrenched in freedom at home, take
their love for it with them wherever they go, and they reject
as mistaken and unworthy the doctrine that we lose our own
liberties by securing the enduring foundations of liberty to
others. Our institutions will not deteriorate by extension,
and our sense of justice will not abate under tropic suns in
distant seas.
"As heretofore so hereafter will the nation demonstrate its
fitness to administer any new estate which events devolve upon
it, and in the fear of God will 'take occasion by the hand and
make the bounds of freedom wider yet.' If there are those
among us who would make our way more difficult we must not be
disheartened, but the more earnestly dedicate ourselves to the
task upon which we have rightly entered. The path of progress
is seldom smooth. New things are often found hard to do. Our
fathers found them so. We find them so. They are inconvenient.
They cost us something. But are we not made better for the
effort and sacrifice, and are not those we serve lifted up and
blessed?
"We will be consoled, too, with the fact that opposition has
confronted every onward movement of the republic from its
opening hour until now, but without success. The republic has
marched on and on, and its every step has exalted freedom and
humanity. We are undergoing the same ordeal as did our
predecessors nearly a century ago. We are following the course
they blazed. They triumphed. Will their successors falter and
plead organic impotency in the nation? Surely after one
hundred and twenty-five years of achievement for mankind we
will not now surrender our equality with other Powers on
matters fundamental and essential to nationality. With no such
purpose was the nation created. In no such spirit has it
developed its full and independent sovereignty. We adhere to
the principle of equality among ourselves, and by no act of
ours will we assign to ourselves a subordinate rank in the
family of nations.
"My fellow citizens, the public events of the last four years
have gone into history. They are too near to justify recital.
Some of them were unforeseen; many of them momentous and far
reaching in their consequences to ourselves and our relations
with the rest of the world. The part which the United States
bore so honorably in the thrilling scenes in China, while new
to American life, has been in harmony with its true spirit and
best traditions, and in dealing with the results its policy
will be that of moderation and fairness.
"We face at this moment a most important question—that of the
future relations of the United States and Cuba. With our near
neighbors we must remain close friends. The declaration of the
purposes of this government in the resolution of April 20,
1898, must be made good. Ever since the evacuation of the
island by the army of Spain the Executive with all practicable
speed has been assisting its people in the successive steps
necessary to the establishment of a free and independent
government prepared to assume and perform the obligations of
international law, which now rest upon the United States under
the Treaty of Paris. The convention elected by the people to
frame a constitution is approaching the completion of its
labors. The transfer of American control to the new government
is of such great importance, involving an obligation resulting
from our intervention and the treaty of peace, that I am glad
to be advised by the recent act of Congress of the policy
which the legislative branch of the government deems essential
to the best interests of Cuba and the United States. The
principles which led to our intervention require that the
fundamental law upon which the new government rests should be
adapted to secure a government capable of performing the
duties and discharging the functions of a separate nation, of
observing its international obligations, of protecting life
and property, insuring order, safety and liberty, and
conforming to the established and historical policy of the
United States in its relation to Cuba.
"The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people
must carry with it the guarantees of permanence. We became
sponsors for the pacification of the island, and we remain
accountable to the Cubans no less than to our own country and
people for the reconstruction of Cuba as a free commonwealth,
on abiding foundations of right, justice, liberty and assured
order. Our enfranchisement of the people will not be completed
until free Cuba shall 'be a reality, not a name—a perfect
entity, not a hasty experiment, bearing within itself the
elements of failure.'
"While the treaty of peace with Spain was ratified on February
6, 1899, and ratifications were exchanged nearly two years
ago, the Congress has indicated no form of government for the
Philippine Islands. It has, however, provided an army to
enable the Executive to suppress insurrection, restore peace,
give security to the inhabitants and establish the authority
of the United States throughout the archipelago. It has
authorized the organization of native troops as auxiliary to
the regular force. It has been advised from time to time of
the acts of the military and naval officers in the islands, of
my action in appointing civil commissions, of the instructions
with which they were charged, of their duties and powers, of
their recommendations and of their several acts under
Executive commission, together with the very complete general
information they have submitted.
"These reports fully set forth the conditions, past and
present, in the islands, and the instructions clearly show the
principles which will guide the Executive until the Congress
shall, as it is required to do by the treaty, determine 'the
civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants.'
The Congress having added the sanction of its authority to the
powers already possessed and exercised by the Executive under
the constitution, thereby leaving with the Executive the
responsibility for the government of the Philippines, I shall
continue the efforts already begun until order shall be
restored throughout the islands, and as fast as conditions
permit will establish local governments, in the formation of
which the full co-operation of the people has been already
invited, and when established will encourage the people to
administer them.
{682}
"The settled purpose, long ago proclaimed, to afford the
inhabitants of the islands self-government as fast as they
were ready for it will be pursued with earnestness and
fidelity. Already something has been accomplished in this
direction. The government's representatives, civil and
military, are doing faithful and noble work in their mission
of emancipation, and merit the approval and support of their
countrymen. The most liberal terms of amnesty have already
been communicated to the insurgents, and the way is still open
for those who have raised their arms against the government
for honorable submission to its authority.
"Our countrymen should not be deceived. We are not waging war
against the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. A portion
of them are making war against the United States. By far the
greater part of the inhabitants recognize American
sovereignty, and welcome it as n guarantee of order and
security for life, property, liberty, freedom of conscience
and the pursuit of happiness. To them full protection will be
given. They shall not be abandoned. We will not leave the
destiny of the loyal millions in the islands to the disloyal
thousands who are in rebellion against the United States.
Order under civil institutions will come as soon as those who
now break the peace shall keep it. Force will not be needed or
used when those who make war against us shall make it no more.
May it end without further bloodshed, and there be ushered in
the reign of peace, to be made permanent by a government of
liberty under law."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).
Rejection by the British government of the Interoceanic Canal
Treaty as amended by the Senate.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).
Death of Ex-President Harrison.
Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States 1889-1893,
died at his home in Indianapolis, on the afternoon of March
13, 1901, after an illness of a few days.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March-April).
Capture of Aguinaldo, the Filipino leader.
His oath of allegiance to the United States.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (MARCH-APRIL).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).
Organization of the enlarged regular army.
Its strength, 76,000 men.
A Press despatch from Washington, April 24, announced that the
Secretary of War had approved recommendations of
Lieutenant-General Miles for the organization of the army, not
raising it to the full strength of 100,000 men authorized by
Congress, but providing for a force of 76,787 enlisted men,
distributed as follows:
"Line of the army, 74,504;
ordnance department, 700;
signal corps, 760;
post quartermaster sergeants, 150;
post commissary sergeants, 200;
electrician sergeants, 100;
Military Academy detachment and band, 298;
Indian scouts, 75.
The cavalry is to be organized into fifteen regiments,
consisting of 12 troops of 85 enlisted men, which, with the
bands, will make a cavalry force of 15,840 men. The infantry
is to consist of 38,520 men, divided into 30 regiments of 12
companies each. The artillery corps will have a total of
18,862 men, of which the coast artillery will have 13, 734,
organized into 126 companies of 109 men each; and the field
artillery, 4,800 men, organized into 30 batteries of 150 men
each. The engineer battalions will consist of 12 companies
amounting to 1,282 men. This plan makes no provision for the
employment of Filipino natives, but this is explained by the
fact that the 12,000 authorized for the native military force
was made a distinctive feature of the Army bill by Congress
and separated from the Regular Army."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).
Petition from the workingmen of Porto Rico.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1901 (APRIL).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (May).
Decision of the Supreme Court in the cases involving
questions touching the status of the new territorial
possessions of the nation.
The opinions of the Supreme Court in the cases before it known
as "the insular cases," involving questions touching the
relations of the government of the United States to the
insular possessions lately acquired (see above: A. D.
1900-1901), were announced on the 27th of May, as these sheets
of the present volume were about to go to press.
In the case of Elias S. A. De Lima et al. the opinion of the
majority of the Court, delivered by Justice Brown, was against
the claim of the government to duties on goods imported into
the United States from Porto Rico after the ratification of
the treaty of peace with Spain and before the passage of the
Porto Rican act of April 12, 1900.
See, (in this volume),
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900; and 1900, APRIL).
It was held in this decisive opinion that Porto Rico, at the
time the duties in question were collected, was not a foreign
country, but a territory of the United States. Said Justice
Brown: "If an Act of Congress be necessary to convert a
foreign country into domestic territory, the question at once
suggests itself, What is the character of the legislation
demanded for this purpose? Will an act appropriating money for
its purchase be sufficient? Apparently not. Will an act
appropriating the duties collected upon imports to and from
such country for the benefit of its government be sufficient?
Apparently not. Will acts making appropriations for its postal
service, for the establishment of lighthouses, for the
maintenance of quarantine stations, for erecting public
buildings, have that effect? Will an act establishing a
complete local government, but with the reservation of a right
to collect duties upon commerce, be adequate for that purpose?
None of these, nor all together, will be sufficient, if the
contention of the government be sound, since acts embracing
all these provisions have been passed in connection with Porto
Rico, and it is insisted that it is still a foreign country
within the meaning of the tariff laws. We are unable to
acquiesce in this assumption that a territory may be at the
same time both foreign and domestic. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that at the time these duties were levied Porto Rico
was not a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff
laws, but a territory of the United States; that the duties
were illegally exacted, and that the plaintiffs are entitled
to recover them back."
But in the case of Samuel B. Downes et al. a different set of
circumstances was dealt with, since the duties in question
were on goods imported from Porto Rico after the passage of
the Act of April 12 (called "the Foraker Act"). On the
question thus presented the majority of the Court sustained
the contention of the government, saying, in an opinion
delivered by Justice Brown:
{683}
"We are of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a
territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but
not a part of the United States within the revenue clause of
the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional so
far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island and
that the plaintiff cannot recover the duties exacted in this
case." The following general conclusions were held by Justice
Brown to be established:
"First—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are
not States, within the judicial clause of the Constitution
giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different
States.
"Second—That Territories are not States, within the meaning of
revised statutes, section 709, permitting writs of error from
this court in cases where the validity of a State's statute is
drawn in question.
"Third—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are
States as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers,
with respect to the ownership, disposition and inheritance of
property.
"Fourth—That the Territories are not within the clause of the
Constitution providing for the creation of a Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.
"Fifth—That the Constitution does not apply to foreign
countries or trials therein conducted, and that Congress may
lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals,
without the intervention of a grand or petit jury.
"Sixth—That where the Constitution has been once formally
extended by Congress to Territories, neither Congress nor the
Territorial Legislature can enact laws inconsistent
therewith."
Five of the nine justices of the Court concurred in the decree
announced by Justice Brown; but three of them, viz., Justices
White, Shims and McKenna, placed their concurrence on
different and quite opposed grounds, in an opinion prepared by
Justice White. In their view of the case before the court,
"the sole and only issue is, had Porto Rico, at the time of
the passage of the Act in question, been incorporated into and
become an integral part of the United States?" and their
conclusion is reported to have been, that "the question when
Porto Rico was to be incorporated was a political question, to
be determined by the American people, speaking through
Congress, and was not for the courts to determine."
The minority of the Court, consisting of Chief Justice Fuller,
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham dissented from the decree
rendered by the majority, and from the varying grounds on
which the two sections of that majority had rested it. As
summarized in press despatches of the day, their opinion,
delivered by the Chief Justice, "absolutely rejected the
contention that the rule of uniformity [that is, the
constitutional provision that 'all duties, imposts and excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States'] was not
applicable to Porto Rico because it had not been incorporated
into and become an integral part of the United States; the
word incorporation had no occult meaning, and whatever its
situation before, the Foraker act made Porto Rico an organized
Territory of the United States." "The concurring opinion of
the majority," said the Chief Justice, "recognized that
Congress, in dealing with the people of new territories or
possessions, is bound to respect the fundamental guarantees of
life, liberty and property, but assumes that Congress is not
bound in those territories or possessions to follow the rules
of taxation prescribed by the Constitution. And yet the power
to tax involves the power to destroy and the levy of duty
touches all our people in all places under the jurisdiction of
the Government. The logical result is that Congress may
prohibit commerce altogether between the States and
Territories, and may prescribe one rule of taxation in one
Territory, and a different rule in another. That theory
assumes that the Constitution created a government empowered
to acquire countries throughout the world, to be governed by
different rules than those obtaining in the original States
and Territories, and substitutes for the present system of
republican government, a system of domination over distant
provinces in the exercise of unrestricted power. In our
judgment, so much of the Porto Rican act as authorized the
imposition of these duties is invalid and plaintiffs were
entitled to recover."
Justice Harlan announced his concurrence with the dissenting
opinion delivered by the Chief Justice. He regarded the
Foraker act as unconstitutional in its revenue provisions, and
believed that Porto Rico, after the ratification of the treaty
with Spain, became a part of the United States. In conclusion,
Justice Harlan said: "The addition of Porto Rico to the
territory of the United States has been recognized by direct
action upon the part of Congress. It has legislated in
recognition of the treaty with Spain. If Porto Rico did not by
such action become a part of the United States it did become
such, at least, when Congress passed the Foraker act. I can
not believe that Congress may impose any duty, impost or
excise with respect to that territory and its people which is
not consistent with the constitutional requirement that all
duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States."
No decision was rendered in the case of the Fourteen Diamond
Rings, which involved questions relative to the status of the
Philippine Islands in their relations to the government of the
United States.
----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------
UNITED STATES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.
Its formation and dissolution.
See (in this volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1898.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES: THE CLIMAX, &c.
UNIVERSITIES.
See (in this volume)
EDUCATION.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Expeditions to explore the ruins of Nippur.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL, RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
UNYORO:
British regulation of the kingdom.
See (in this volume)
UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.
UR.
See (in volume 1)
BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;
See (in volume 4)
SEMITES;
and (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.
{684}
URUGUAY: A. D. 1896-1899.
Revolutionary movement.
Assassination of President Borda.
Blancos and Colorados.
Restoration of tranquil government by the
Vice President, Cuestas.
In November, 1896, a movement for the overthrow of President
Borda was begun, with strong assistance from the neighboring
Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul. Months of civil war
followed, with varying fortunes, but the summer of 1897 found
the President parleying with the insurgents, endeavoring to
make terms. His original opponents had been the party called
that of the Blancos, or Whites; the Colorados, or Reds, had
supported him; but he seemed to be making enemies among them.
By an assassin of his own party he was shot, on the 25th of
August, as he came from a service in the cathedral at
Montevideo which commemorated the anniversary of Uruguayan
independence. Senor Juan Luis Cuestas, the President of the
Senate and ex-officio Vice President of the Republic, assumed
the administration of the government, made peace with the
insurgents, and prepared to deal with a faction in the
Chambers which is said to have made good government
impossible. "The Representatives had made themselves hated by
violence, corruption, and attacks on property. Senor Cuestas
accordingly removed all officials devoted to the Chambers,
called out a thousand National Guards, and being thus master
of the situation, on February 10th dissolved the Chambers and
declared himself provisional President. He then appointed a
'Council' of eighty prominent citizens of all parties,
invested them with the legislative power, and directed them to
elect a new President, and to settle the method and time of
the next elections. … According to the 'Times',
correspondent, the citizens of Monte Video of all parties
approved his action, not a stroke was struck for the Chambers,
and public securities rose at once by from eight to fourteen
points. Senor Cuestas, in fact, is trusted and competent."
The Spectator (London),
March 26, 1898.
In due time, the Provisional President had to deal with a
military revolt, which he effectually suppressed. Then, on the
1st of March, 1899, he was constitutionally elected President,
after resigning his dictatorial powers for a fortnight, in
order that the election might be freely held.
UTAH: A. D. 1895-1896.
Prohibition of polygamous marriages.
Proclamation of admission to the Union.
On the 4th of January, 1896, a proclamation by the President
of the United States, after reciting the provisions of the Act
of Congress approved July 16, 1894, and the action taken by a
convention of the people of Utah, held in accordance with the
said act, in March, 1895, which convention "did, by ordinance
irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the
people of said State, as required by said act, provide that
perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and
that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person
or property on account of his or her mode of religious
worship, but that polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited," thereupon declared and proclaimed the creation of
the State of Utah and its admission into the Union to be
accomplished. The constitution of the new State has some
radical features, providing for an eight-hours labor-day, and
giving to women equal rights with men in suffrage and in
eligibility to public office.
V.
VASSOS, Colonel, in Crete.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
"VEGETARIANS," The.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895.
Revolt suppressed.
An attempted rising, in the interest of Dr. Rojas Paul,
against the government of President Crespo, in the autumn of
1895, was quickly suppressed.
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (July).
The question of the boundary of British Guiana taken up by the
government of the United States.
Despatch of Secretary Olney to Ambassador Bayard.
For a number of years the government of the United States had
been exerting itself to bring about the settlement of a long
standing dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela
concerning the line of boundary between the territory of
Venezuela and that of British Guiana. In 1895 the effort
became more resolute, as appeared in a lengthy despatch
addressed, on the 20th of July, by the American Secretary of
State, Mr. Olney, to the American Ambassador in London, Mr.
Bayard. In this despatch Mr. Olney reviewed the long
controversy which had been in progress, and recalled the
communications on the subject which had passed between the
governments of the United States and Great Britain since 1886.
He then summarised "the important features of the existing
situation" as represented in his recital, by the following
statement:
"1. The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very
large extent is in dispute between Great Britain on the one
hand, and the South American Republic of Venezuela on the
other.
2. The disparity in the strength of the claimants is such that
Venezuela can hope to establish her claim only through
peaceful methods—through an agreement with her adversary
either upon the subject itself or upon an arbitration.
3. The controversy with varying claims on the part of Great
Britain has existed for more than half-a-century, during which
period many earnest and persistent efforts of Venezuela to
establish a boundary by agreement have proved unsuccessful.
4. The futility of the endeavour to obtain a conventional line
being recognized, Venezuela, for a quarter of a century, has
asked and striven for arbitration.
5. Great Britain, however, has always and continuously
refused, and still refuses, to arbitrate except upon the
condition of a renunciation of a large part of the Venezuelan
claim, and of a concession to herself of a large share of the
territory in controversy.
{685}
6. By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the
instance of Venezuela, by constantly urging and promoting the
restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries,
by pressing for arbitration of the disputed boundary, by offering
to act as Arbitrator, by expressing its grave concern whenever
new alleged instances of British aggression upon Venezuelan
territory have been brought to its notice, the Government of
the United States has made it clear to Great Britain and to
the world that the controversy is one in which both its honour
and its interests are involved, and the continuance of which
it cannot regard with indifference."
Mr. Olney proceeds next to consider the rights, the interests
and the duty of the United States in the matter, and to what
extent, if any, it "may and should intervene in a controversy
between and primarily concerning only Great Britain and
Venezuela," and his conclusions on these points are founded on
the doctrine set forth by President Monroe, of resistance to
European intervention in American affairs. Quoting President
Monroe's celebrated Message on the subject, in 1823, Mr. Olney
remarks:
"The Message just quoted declared that the American continents
were fully occupied, and were not the subjects for future
colonization by European Powers. To this spirit and this
purpose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same
Message which treat any infringement of the rule against
interference in American affairs on the part of the Powers of
Europe as an act of unfriendliness to the United States. It
was realized that it was futile to lay down such a rule unless
its observance could be enforced. It was manifest that the
United States was the only Power in this hemisphere capable of
enforcing it. It was therefore courageously declared, not
merely that Europe ought not to interfere in American affairs,
but that any European Power doing so would be regarded as
antagonizing the interests and inviting the opposition of the
United States.
"That America is in no part open to colonization, though the
proposition was not universally admitted at the time of its
first enunciation, has long been universally conceded. We are
now concerned, therefore, only with that other practical
application of the Monroe doctrine the disregard of which by
an European Power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness
towards the United States. The precise scope and limitations
of this rule cannot be too clearly apprehended. It does not
establish any general Protectorate by the United States over
other American States. It does not relieve any American State
from its obligations as fixed by international law, nor
prevent any European Power directly interested from enforcing
such obligations or from inflicting merited punishment for the
breach of them. It does not contemplate any interference in
the internal affairs of any American State, or in the
relations between it and other American States. It does not
justify any attempt on our part to change the established form
of Government of any American State, or to prevent the people
of such State from altering that form according to their own
will and pleasure. The rule in question has but a single
purpose and object. It is that no European Power or
combination of European Powers shall forcibly deprive an
American State of the right and power of self-government, and
of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and
destinies. That the rule thus defined has been the accepted
public law of this country ever since its promulgation cannot
fairly be denied. …
"It is manifest that, if a rule has been openly and uniformly
declared and acted upon by the Executive Branch of the
Government for more than seventy years without express
repudiation by Congress, it must be conclusively presumed to
have its sanction. Yet it is certainly no more than the exact
truth to say that every Administration since President
Monroe's has had occasion, and sometimes more occasions than
one, to examine and consider the Monroe doctrine, and has in
each instance given it emphatic indorsement. … A doctrine of
American public law thus long and firmly established and
supported could not easily be ignored in a proper case for its
application, even were the considerations upon which it is
founded obscure or questionable. No such objection can be
made, however, to the Monroe doctrine understood and defined
in the manner already stated. It rests, on the contrary, upon
facts and principles that are both intelligible and
incontrovertible. That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening
ocean make any permanent political union between an European
and an American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be
denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the
least of the objections to such a union. Europe, as Washington
observed, has a set of primary interests which are peculiar to
herself. America is not interested in them, and ought not to
be vexed or complicated with them. …
"If, … for the reasons stated, the forcible intrusion of
European Powers into American politics is to be deprecated—if,
as it is to be deprecated, it should be resisted and
prevented—such resistance and prevention must come from the
United States. They would come from it, of course, were it
made the point of attack. But, if they come at all, they must
also come from it when any other American State is attacked,
since only the United States has the strength adequate to the
exigency. Is it true, then, that the safety and welfare of the
United States are so concerned with the maintenance of the
independence of every American State as against any European
Power as to justify and require the interposition of the
United States whenever that independence is endangered? The
question can be candidly answered in but one way. The States
of America, South as well as North, by geographical proximity,
by natural sympathy, by similarity of Governmental
Constitutions, are friends and allies, commercially and
politically, of the United States. To allow the subjugation of
any of them by an European Power is, of course, to completely
reverse that situation, and signifies the loss of all the
advantages incident to their natural relations to us. But that
is not all. The people of the United States have a vital
interest in the cause of popular self-government. … To-day the
United States is practically Sovereign on this continent, and
its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its
interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship
or good-will felt for it. It is not simply by reason of its
high character as a civilised State, nor because wisdom and
justice and equity are the invariable characteristics of the
dealings of the United States. It is because, in addition to
all other grounds, its infinite resources, combined with its
isolated position, render it master of the situation, and
practically invulnerable as against any or all other Powers.
{686}
All the advantages of this superiority are at once imperilled
if the principle be admitted that European Powers may convert
American States into Colonies or provinces of their own. The
principle would be eagerly availed of, and every Power doing
so would immediately acquire a base of military operations
against us. What one Power was permitted to do could not be
denied to another, and it is not inconceivable that the
struggle now going on for the acquisition of Africa might be
transferred to South America. If it were, the weaker countries
would unquestionably be soon absorbed, while the ultimate result
might be the partition of all South America between the
various European Powers. …
"The people of the United States have learned in the school of
experience to what extent the relations of States to each
other depend not upon sentiment nor principle, but upon
selfish interest. They will not soon forget that, in their
hour of distress, all their anxieties and burdens were
aggravated by the possibility of demonstrations against their
national life on the part of Powers with whom they had long
maintained the most harmonious relations. They have yet in
mind that France seized upon the apparent opportunity of our
Civil War to set up a Monarchy in the adjoining State of
Mexico. They realize that, had France and Great Britain held
important South American possessions to work from and to
benefit, the temptation to destroy the predominance of the
Great Republic in this hemisphere by furthering its
dismemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave
peril they have been saved in the past, and may be saved again
in the future, through the operation of the sure but silent
force of the doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. …
"There is, then, a doctrine of American public law, well
founded in principle and abundantly sanctioned by precedent,
which entitles and requires the United States to treat as an
injury to itself the forcible assumption by an European Power
of political control over an American State. The application
of the doctrine to the boundary dispute between Great Britain
and Venezuela remains to be made, and presents no real
difficulty. Though the dispute relates to a boundary-line,
yet, as it is between States, it necessarily imports political
control to be lost by one party and gained by the other. The
political control at stake, too, is of no mean importance, but
concerns a domain of great extent—the British claim, it will
be remembered, apparently expanding in two years some 33,000
square miles—and, if it also directly involves the command of
the mouth of the Orinoco, is of immense consequence in
connection with the whole river navigation of the interior of
South America. It has been intimated, indeed, that in respect
of these South American possessions, Great Britain is herself
an American State like any other, so that a controversy
between her and Venezuela is to be settled between themselves
as if it were between Venezuela and Brazil, or between
Venezuela and Colombia, and does not call for or justify
United States intervention. If this view be tenable at all,
the logical sequence is plain. Great Britain as a South
American State is to be entirely differentiated from Great
Britain generally; and if the boundary question cannot be
settled otherwise than by force, British Guiana with her own
independent resources, and not those of the British Empire,
should be left to settle the matter with Venezuela—an
arrangement which very possibly Venezuela might not object to.
But the proposition that an European Power with an American
dependency is for the purposes of the Monroe doctrine to be
classed not as an European but as an American State will not
admit of serious discussion. If it were to be adopted, the
Monroe doctrine would be too valueless to be worth asserting.
…
"The declaration of the Monroe Message—that existing Colonies
or dependencies of an European Power would not be interfered
with by the United States—means Colonies or dependencies then
existing with their limits as then existing. So it has been
invariably construed, and so it must continue to be construed,
unless it is to be deprived of all vital force. Great Britain
cannot be deemed a South American State within the purview of
the Monroe doctrine, nor, if she is appropriating Venezuelan
territory, is it material that she does so by advancing the
frontier of an old Colony instead of by the planting of a new
Colony. The difference is matter of form, and not of
substance, and the doctrine if pertinent in the one case must
be in the other also. It is not admitted, however, and
therefore cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is in fact
usurping dominion over Venezuelan territory. While Venezuela
charges such usurpation Great Britain denies it, and the
United States, until the merits are authoritatively
ascertained, can take sides with neither. But while this is
so—while the United States may not, under existing
circumstances at least, take upon itself to say which of the
two parties is right and which wrong—it is certainly within
its right to demand that the truth shall be ascertained. …
"It being clear, therefore, that the United States may
legitimately insist upon the merits of the boundary question
being determined, it is equally clear that there is but one
feasible mode of determining them, viz., peaceful arbitration.
The impracticability of any conventional adjustment has been
often and thoroughly demonstrated. Even more impossible of
consideration is an appeal to arms—a mode of settling national
pretensions unhappily not yet wholly obsolete. If, however, it
were not condemnable as a relic of barbarism and a crime in
itself, so one-sided a contest could not be invited nor even
accepted by Great Britain without distinct disparagement to
her character as a civilized State. Great Britain, however,
assumes no such attitude. On the contrary, she both admits
that there is a controversy, and that arbitration should be
resorted to for its adjustment. But, while up to that point
her attitude leaves nothing to be desired, its practical
effect is completely nullified by her insistence that the
submission shall cover but a part of the controversy—that, as
a condition of arbitrating her right to a part of the disputed
territory, the remainder shall be turned over to her. If it
were possible to point to a boundary which both parties had
ever agreed or assumed to be such either expressly or tacitly,
the demand that territory conceded by such line to British Guiana
should be held not to be in dispute might rest upon a
reasonable basis. But there is no such line. The territory
which Great Britain insists shall be ceded to her as a
condition of arbitrating her claim to other territory has
never been admitted to belong to her.
{687}
It has always and consistently been claimed by Venezuela. Upon
what principle—except her feebleness as a nation—is she to be
denied the right of having the claim heard and passed upon by
an impartial Tribunal? No reason or shadow of reason appears
in all the voluminous literature of the subject. …
"In these circumstances, the duty of the President appears to
him unmistakable and imperative. Great Britain's assertion of
title to the disputed territory, combined with her refusal to
have that title investigated, being a substantial
appropriation of the territory to her own use, not to protest
and give warning that the transaction will be regarded as
injurious to the interests of the people of the United States,
as well as oppressive in itself, would be to ignore an
established policy with which the honour and welfare of this
country are closely identified. While the measures necessary
or proper for the vindication of that policy are to be
determined by another branch of the Government, it is clearly
for the Executive to leave nothing undone which may tend to
render such determination unnecessary. You are instructed,
therefore, to present the foregoing views to Lord Salisbury by
reading to him this communication (leaving with him a copy
should he so desire), and to reinforce them by such pertinent
considerations as will doubtless occur to you. They call for a
definite decision upon the point whether Great Britain will
consent or will decline to submit the Venezuelan boundary
question in its entirety to impartial arbitration. It is the
earnest hope of the President that the conclusion will be on
the side of arbitration, and that Great Britain will add one
more to the conspicuous precedents she has already furnished
in favour of that wise and just mode of adjusting
international disputes. If he is to be disappointed in that
hope, however—a result not to be anticipated, and in his
judgment calculated to greatly embarrass the future relations
between this country and Great Britain—it is his wish to be
made acquainted with the fact at such early date as will
enable him to lay the whole subject before Congress in his
next Annual Message."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command:
United States Number 1, 1896, pages 13-21).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (November).
The British Guiana boundary question.
Replies of Lord Salisbury to Secretary Olney.
The reply of Lord Salisbury was not written until the 26th of
November. It was then given in two despatches, bearing the
same date,—one devoted entirely to a discussion of "the Monroe
doctrine" and of the argument founded on it by Mr. Olney; the
other to a rehearsal of the Venezuela controversy from the
standpoint of the British government. In the communication
first mentioned he wrote:
"The contentions set forth by Mr. Olney in this part of his
despatch are represented by him as being an application of the
political maxims which are well known in American discussion
under the name of the Monroe doctrine. As far as I am aware,
this doctrine has never been before advanced on behalf of the
United States in any written communication addressed to the
Government of another nation; but it has been generally
adopted and assumed as true by many eminent writers and
politicians in the United States. It is said to have largely
influenced the Government of that country in the conduct of
its foreign affairs; though Mr. Clayton, who was Secretary of
State under President Taylor, expressly stated that that
Administration had in no way adopted it. But during the period
that has elapsed since the Message of President Monroe was
delivered in 1823, the doctrine has undergone a very notable
development, and the aspect which it now presents in the hands
of Mr. Olney differs widely from its character when it first
issued from the pen of its author. The two propositions which
in effect President Monroe laid down were, first, that America
was no longer to be looked upon as a field for European
colonization; and, secondly, that Europe must not attempt to
extend its political system to America, or to control the
political condition of any of the American communities who had
recently declared their independence. The dangers against
which President Monroe thought it right to guard were not as
imaginary as they would seem at the present day. … The system
of which he speaks, and of which he so resolutely deprecates
the application to the American Continent, was the system then
adopted by certain powerful States upon the Continent of
Europe of combining to prevent by force of arms the adoption
in other countries of political institutions which they
disliked, and to uphold by external pressure those which they
approved. … The dangers which were apprehended by President
Monroe have no relation to the state of things in which we
live at the present day. … It is intelligible that Mr. Olney
should invoke, in defence of the views on which he is now
insisting, an authority which enjoys so high a popularity with
his own fellow-countrymen. But the circumstances with which
President Monroe was dealing, and those to which the present
American Government is addressing itself, have very few
features in common. Great Britain is imposing no 'system' upon
Venezuela, and is not concerning herself in any way with the
nature of the political institutions under which the
Venezuelans may prefer to live. But the British Empire and the
Republic of Venezuela are neighbours, and they have differed
for some time past, and continue to differ, as to the line by
which their dominions are separated. It is a controversy with
which the United States have no apparent practical concern. It
is difficult, indeed, to see how it can materially affect any
State or community outside those primarily interested, except
perhaps other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, such as
Trinidad. The disputed frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do
with any of the questions dealt with by President Monroe. It is
not a question of the colonization by a European Power of any
portion of America. It is not a question of the imposition
upon the communities of South America of any system of
government devised in Europe. It is simply the determination
of the frontier of a British possession which belonged to the
Throne of England long before the Republic of Venezuela came
into existence.
{688}
"But even if the interests of Venezuela were so far linked to
those of the United States as to give to the latter a 'locus
standi' in this controversy, their Government apparently have
not formed, and certainly do not express, any opinion upon the
actual merits of the dispute. The Government of the United States
do not say that Great Britain, or that Venezuela, is in the
right in the matters that are in issue. But they lay down that
the doctrine of President Monroe, when he opposed the
imposition of European systems, or the renewal of European
colonization, confers upon them the right of demanding that
when a European Power has a frontier difference with a South
American community, the European Power shall consent to refer
that controversy to arbitration; and Mr. Olney states that
unless Her Majesty's Government accede to this demand, it will
'greatly embarrass the future relations between Great Britain
and the United States.' Whatever may be the authority of the
doctrine laid down by President Monroe, there is nothing in
his language to show that he ever thought of claiming this
novel prerogative for the United States. … I will not now
enter into a discussion of the merits of this method of
terminating international differences. It has proved itself
valuable in many cases; but it is not free from defects, which
often operate as a serious drawback on its value. It is not
always easy to find an Arbitrator who is competent, and who,
at the same time, is wholly free from bias; and the task of
insuring compliance with the Award when it is made is not
exempt from difficulty. …
"In the remarks which I have made, I have argued on the theory
that the Monroe doctrine in itself is sound. I must not,
however, be understood as expressing any acceptance of it on
the part of Her Majesty's Government. It must always be
mentioned with respect, on account of the distinguished
statesman to whom it is due, and the great nation who have
generally adopted it. But international law is founded on the
general consent of nations; and no statesman, however eminent,
and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into
the code of international law a novel principle which was
never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted
by the Government of any other country. … Though the language
of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of objects
which most Englishmen would agree to be salutary, it is
impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any
adequate authority in the code of international law; and the
danger which such admission would involve is sufficiently
exhibited both by the strange development which the doctrine
has received at Mr. Olney's hands, and the arguments by which
it is supported, in the despatch under reply. In defence of it
he says: 'That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean
make any permanent political union between a European and an
American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be
denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the
least of the objections to such a union. Europe has a set of
primary interests which are peculiar to herself; America is
not interested in them, and ought not to be vexed or
complicated with them.' … The necessary meaning of these words
is that the union between Great Britain and Canada; between
Great Britain and Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great Britain
and British Honduras or British Guiana are 'inexpedient and
unnatural.' President Monroe disclaims any such inference from
his doctrine; but in this, as in other respects, Mr. Olney
develops it. He lays down that the inexpedient and unnatural
character of the union between a European and American State
is so obvious that it 'will hardly be denied.' Her Majesty's
Government are prepared emphatically to deny it on behalf of
both the British and American people who are subject to her
Crown."
In his second despatch, Lord Salisbury drew the conclusions of
his government from the facts as seen on the English side, and
announced its decision, in the following terms: "It will be
seen … that the Government of Great Britain have from the
first held the same view as to the extent of territory which
they are entitled to claim as a matter of right. It comprised
the coast-line up to the River Amacura, and the whole basin of
the Essequibo River and its tributaries. A portion of that
claim, however, they have always been willing to waive
altogether; in regard to another portion, they have been and
continue to be perfectly ready to submit the question of their
title to arbitration. As regards the rest, that which lies
within the so-called Schomburgk line, they do not consider
that the rights of Great Britain are open to question. Even
within that line they have, on various occasions, offered to
Venezuela considerable concessions as a matter of friendship
and conciliation, and for the purpose of securing an amicable
settlement of the dispute. If as time has gone on the
concessions thus offered diminished in extent, and have now
been withdrawn, this has been the necessary consequence of the
gradual spread over the country of British settlements, which
Her Majesty's Government cannot in justice to the inhabitants
offer to surrender to foreign rule, and the justice of such
withdrawal is amply borne out by the researches in the
national archives of Holland and Spain, which have furnished
further and more convincing evidence in support of the British
claims.
"Her Majesty's Government are sincerely desirous of being in
friendly relations with Venezuela, and certainly have no
design to seize territory that properly belongs to her, or
forcibly to extend sovereignty over any portion of her
population. They have, on the contrary, repeatedly expressed
their readiness to submit to arbitration the conflicting
claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large tracts of
territory which from their auriferous nature are known to be
of almost untold value. But they cannot consent to entertain,
or to submit to the arbitration of another Power or of foreign
jurists, however eminent, claims based on the extravagant
pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century, and
involving the transfer of large numbers of British subjects,
who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of a British
Colony, to a nation of different race and language, whose
political system is subject to frequent disturbance, and whose
institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate
protection to life and property. No issue of this description
has ever been involved in the questions which Great Britain
and the United States have consented to submit to arbitration,
and Her Majesty's Government are convinced that in similar
circumstances the Government of the United States would be
equally firm in declining to entertain proposals of such a
nature."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
United States Number 1, 1896, pages 23-31.
{689}
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (December).
Message of President Cleveland to the United States Congress
on the Guiana boundary dispute.
As the replies given by Lord Salisbury showed no disposition
on the part of the British government to submit its dispute
with Venezuela to arbitration, President Cleveland took the
subject in hand, and addressed to Congress, on the 17th of
December, 1895, a special Message which startled the world by
the peremptoriness of its tone.
"In my annual message addressed to the Congress on the 3d
instant," he said, "I called attention to the pending boundary
controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of
Venezuela and recited the substance of a representation made
by this Government to Her Britannic Majesty's Government
suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to
arbitration for settlement and inquiring whether it would be
so submitted. The answer of the British Government, which was
then awaited, has since been received, and, together with the
dispatch to which it is a reply, is hereto appended. Such
reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the
British prime minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British
ambassador at this capital. It will be seen that one of these
communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the
Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new
and strange extension and development of this doctrine is
insisted on by the United States; that the reasons justifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are
generally inapplicable 'to the state of things in which we
live at the present day,' and especially inapplicable to a
controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain
and Venezuela.
"Without attempting extended argument in reply to these
positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand is strong and sound, because its
enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation
and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and
the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of
government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our
national life and can not become obsolete while our Republic
endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous
anxiety among the Governments of the Old World and a subject
for our absolute non-interference, none the less is an
observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our
people and their Government. Assuming, therefore, that we may
properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to 'the
state of things in which we live' or any changed conditions
here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may
not be invoked in the present controversy. If a European power
by an extension of its boundaries takes possession of the
territory of one of our neighboring Republics against its will
and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to
that extent such European power does not thereby attempt to
extend its system of government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action
which President Monroe declared to be 'dangerous to our peace
and safety,' and it can make no difference whether the
European system is extended by an advance of frontier or
otherwise.
"It is also suggested in the British reply that we should not
seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute
because it does not embody any principle of international law
which 'is founded on the general consent of nations,' and that
'no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however
powerful, are competent to insert into the code of
international law a novel principle which was never recognized
before and which has not since been accepted by the government
of any other country.' Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, relation to the United
States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the
code of international law, but since in international councils
every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to it, if the
enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly
claim, it has its place in the code of international law as
certainly and as securely as if it were specifically
mentioned; and when the United States is a suitor before the
high tribunal that administers international law the question
to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the
justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.
"The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles
of international law which are based upon the theory that
every nation shall have its rights protected and its just
claims enforced. Of course this government is entirely
confident that under the sanction of this doctrine we have
clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the
British reply. The prime minister, while not admitting that
the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present conditions,
states: 'In declaring that the United States would resist any
such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe
adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the
English Government of that date.'
"He further declares: 'Though the language of President Monroe
is directed to the attainment of objects which most Englishmen
would agree to be salutary, it is impossible to admit that
they have been inscribed by any adequate authority in the code
of international law.'
"Again he says: 'They [Her Majesty's Government] fully concur
with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained,
that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution
in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of
any European State would be a highly inexpedient change.'
"In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was
clear and definite, that it was founded upon substantial
considerations, and involved our safety and welfare, that it
was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the
state of the world's progress, and that it was directly
related to the pending controversy, and without any conviction
as to the final merits of the dispute, 'but anxious to learn
in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain
sought under a claim of boundary to extend her possessions on
this continent without right, or whether she merely sought
possession of territory fairly included within her lines of
ownership, this Government proposed to the Government of Great
Britain a resort to arbitration as the proper means of
settling the question, to the end that a vexatious boundary
dispute between the two contestants might be determined and
our exact standing and relation in respect to the controversy
might be made clear.
{690}
It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted
that this proposition has been declined by the British
Government upon grounds which in the circumstances seem to me
to be far from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that
such an appeal, actuated by the most friendly feelings toward
both nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of
justice and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of
the world, and touching its relations to one comparatively
weak and small, should have produced no better results.
"The course to be pursued by this Government in view of the
present condition does not appear to admit of serious doubt.
Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great
Britain to submit this dispute to impartial arbitration, and
having been now finally apprised of her refusal to do so,
nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its
plain requirements, and deal with it accordingly. Great
Britain's present proposition has never thus far been regarded
as admissible by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the
boundary which that country may deem for her advantage and may
enter into of her own free will can not of course be objected
to by the United States. Assuming, however, that the attitude
of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached
such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United
States to take measures to determine with sufficient certainty
for its justification what is the true divisional line between
the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to
that end should of course be conducted carefully and
judicially, and due weight should be given to all available
evidence, records, and facts in support of the claims of both
parties. In order that such an examination should be
prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest
that the Congress make an adequate appropriation for the
expenses of a commission, to be appointed by the Executive,
who shall make the necessary investigation and report upon the
matter with the least possible delay. When such report is made
and accepted it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the United
States to resist by every means in its power, as a willful
aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by
Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental
jurisdiction over any territory which after investigation we
have determined of right belongs to Venezuela.
"In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the
responsibility incurred and keenly realize all the
consequences that May follow. I am, nevertheless, firm in my
conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate
the two great English-speaking peoples of the world as being
otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward march of
civilization and strenuous and worthy rivals in all the arts
of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite
which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and
injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and
honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a people's
safety and greatness."
United States, Message and Documents
(Abridgment, 1895-1896).
The recommendations of the President were acted upon with
remarkable unanimity and promptitude in Congress, a bill
authorizing the appointment of the proposed commission, and
appropriating $100,000 for the necessary expenditure, being
passed by the House on the day following the Message (December
17), and by the Senate on the 20th.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (DECEMBER).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895-1896 (December-January).
Feeling in England and the United States
over the boundary dispute.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
Appointment of the United States Commission to investigate
the boundary question.
Reopening of negotiations between the United States
and Great Britain.
The solution of the main difficulty found.
Arbitration and its result.
The Commission authorized by the Congress of the United States
to investigate and report on the true divisional line between
British Guiana and Venezuela was named by the President of the
United States, on the 1st of January, as follows:
David J. Brewer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States;
Richard H. Alvey, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals in
the District of Columbia;
Andrew D. White, ex-President of Cornell University,
and ex-Minister to Germany and Russia;
Daniel C. Gilman, President of Johns Hopkins University;
Frederick H. Coudert, of New York.
The Commission was organized on the 4th by the election of
Justice Brewer to be its President. Mr. S. Mallet Prevost was
subsequently appointed Secretary. One of the first proceedings
of the Commission was to address a letter to the Secretary of
State, suggesting a friendly intimation to the governments of
Great Britain and Venezuela that their assistance to it, in
procuring unpublished archives and the like evidence, would be
highly acceptable, and that "if either should deem it
appropriate to designate an agent or attorney, whose duty it
would be to see that no such proofs were omitted or
overlooked, the Commission would be grateful for such evidence
of good will." This overture was well received in England, and
had an excellent effect. It was responded to by Lord
Salisbury, with an assurance that Her Majesty's government
would readily place at the disposal of the President of the
United States any information at their command, and would
communicate advance copies of documents soon to be published
on the subject of the boundary line. Before the close of
January the Commission had organized its work, with several
experts engaged to assist on special lines. Professor Justin
Winsor, Librarian of Harvard University, had undertaken to
report on the early maps of the Guiana-Venezuela country.
Professor George L. Burr, of Cornell University, was making
ready to examine the Dutch archives in Holland, and Professor
J. Franklin Jameson, of Brown University, was enlisted for
other investigations.
Before these labors had gone far, however, the two
governments, of Great Britain and the United States, were
induced to reopen a discussion of the possibility of an
arbitration of the dispute. On the 27th of February, Mr.
Bayard, the Ambassador of the United States at London,
conveyed to Lord Salisbury a proposal from his government
"that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington should be
empowered to discuss the question at that capital with the
Secretary of State," and that "a clear definition of the
'settlements' by individuals in the territory in dispute,
which it is understood Her Majesty's Government desire should
be excluded from the proposed submission to arbitration,
should be propounded."
{691}
Lord Salisbury assented so far as to telegraph, on the same
day, to Sir Julian Pauncefote: "I have agreed with the United
States' Ambassador that, in principle, the matter may be
discussed between the United States Government (acting as the
friend of Venezuela) and your Excellency." But, a few days
later (March 5), the British Premier and Foreign Secretary
gave a broader range to the discussion, by recalling a
correspondence that had taken place in the spring of 1895
between the then American Secretary of State, Mr. Gresham, and
the British Ambassador, in contemplation of a general system
of international arbitration for the adjustment of disputes
between the two governments. Reviving that project, Lord
Salisbury submitted the heads of a general arbitration treaty
between the United States and Great Britain, which became a
subject of discussion for some weeks, without offering much
promise of providing for the settlement of the Venezuela
dispute. In May, the correspondence returned to the latter
subject more definitely, Lord Salisbury writing (May 22):
"From the first our objection has been to subject to the
decision of an Arbiter, who, in the last resort, must, of
necessity, be a foreigner, the rights of British colonists who
have settled in territory which they had every ground for
believing to be British, and whose careers would be broken,
and their fortunes possibly ruined, by a decision that the
territory on which they have settled was subject to the
Venezuelan Republic. At the same time, we are very conscious
that the dispute between ourselves and the Republic of
Venezuela affects a large portion of land which is not under
settlement, and which could be disposed of without any
injustice to any portion of the colonial population. We are
very willing that the territory which is comprised within this
definition should be subjected to the results of an
arbitration, even though some portion of it should be found to
fall within the Schomburgk line." He proposed, accordingly,
the creation of a commission of four persons, for the
determination of the questions of fact involved, on whose
report the two governments of Great Britain and Venezuela
should endeavor to agree on a boundary line; failing which
agreement, a tribunal of arbitration should fix the line, on
the basis of facts reported by the Commission. "Provided
always that in fixing such line the Tribunal shall not have
power to include as the territory of Venezuela any territory
which was bona fide occupied by subjects of Great Britain on
the 1st January, 1887, or as the territory of Great Britain
any territory bona fide occupied by Venezuelans at the same
date."
Objections to this proposal, especially to its final
stipulation, were raised by the government of the United
States, and the negotiation looked unpromising again for a
time; but at length, on the 13th of July, Mr. Olney made a
suggestion which happily solved the one difficulty that had
been, from the beginning, a bar to agreement between the two
governments. "Can it be assumed," he asked, in a letter of
that date, "that Her Majesty's Government would submit to
unrestricted arbitration the whole of the territory in
dispute, provided it be a rule of the arbitration, embodied in
the arbitral agreement, that territory which has been in the
exclusive, notorious, and actual use and occupation of either
party for even two generations, or say for sixty years, shall
be held by the arbitrators to be the territory of such party?
In other words, will Her Majesty's Government assent to
unrestricted arbitration of all the territory in controversy,
with the period for the acquisition of title by prescription
fixed by agreement of the parties in advance at sixty years?"
Lord Salisbury assented to the principle thus suggested, but
proposed a shorter term of occupation than sixty years.
Finally the term of fifty years was accepted on both sides,
and from that point the arrangement of a Treaty of Arbitration
between Great Britain and Venezuela went smoothly on. The good
news that England and America were practically at the end of
their dispute was proclaimed by Lord Salisbury, on the 9th of
November, in a speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet, in London,
when he said: "You are aware that in the discussion had with
the United States on behalf of their friends in Venezuela, our
question has not been whether there should be arbitration, but
whether arbitration should have unrestricted application; and
we have always claimed that those who, apart from historic
right, had the right which attaches to established
settlements, should be excluded from arbitration. Our
difficulty for months has been to define the settled
districts; and the solution has, I think, come from the
suggestion of the government of the United States, that we
should treat our colonial empire as we treat individuals; that
the same lapse of time which protects the latter in civic life
from having their title questioned, should similarly protect
an English colony; but, beyond that, when a lapse could not be
claimed, there should be an examination of title, and all the
equity demanded in regard thereto should be granted. I do not
believe I am using unduly sanguine words when I declare my
belief that this has brought the controversy to an end."
On the 10th of November, the Secretary of the United States
Commission appointed to investigate the disputed boundary
published the following: "The statements of Lord Salisbury, as
reported in the morning papers, make it probable that the
boundary dispute now pending between Great Britain and Venezuela
will be sewed by arbitration at an early day. Under the
circumstances the Commission, while continuing its deliberations
in the preparation and orderly arrangement of many valuable maps,
reports, and documents, which have been procured and used in the
course of its labors, does not propose to formulate any decision
for the present of the matters subject to its examination. It
will continue its sessions from time to time, but with the hope
and expectation that a friendly and just settlement of all
pending differences between the nations interested will make
any final decision on its part unnecessary." This hope was
substantially realized a few days later, when a convention
embodying the agreement of the United States and Great Britain
was signed by Secretary Olney and the British Ambassador, Sir
Julian Pauncefote. The agreement was carried to its next stage on
the 2d of February, 1897, when a treaty between Great Britain and
the United States of Venezuela was signed at Washington, which
provided as follows:
{692}
"Article I.
An Arbitral Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to
determine the boundary-line between the Colony of British
Guiana and the United States of Venezuela.
"Article II.
The Tribunal shall consist of five Jurists: two on the part of
Great Britain, nominated by the Members of the Judicial
Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, namely, the Right
Honourable Baron Herschell, Knight Grand Cross of the Most
Honourable Order of the Bath, and the Honourable Sir Richard
Henn Collins, Knight, one of the Justices of Her Britannic
Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature; two on the part of
Venezuela, nominated, one by the President of the United
States of Venezuela, namely, the Honourable Melville Weston
Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States of America, and one
nominated by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States of America, namely, the Honourable David Josiah Brewer,
a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America; and of a fifth Jurist to be selected by the four
persons so nominated, or in the event of their failure to
agree within three months from the date of the exchange of
ratifications of the present Treaty, to be selected by His
Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway. The Jurist so selected
shall be President of the Tribunal. In case of the death,
absence, or incapacity to serve of any of the four Arbitrators
above named, or in the event of any such Arbitrator omitting
or declining or ceasing to act as such, another Jurist of
repute shall be forthwith substituted in his place. If such
vacancy shall occur among those nominated on the part of Great
Britain, the substitute shall be appointed by the members for
the time being of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's
Privy Council, acting by a majority, and if among those
nominated on the part of Venezuela, he shall be appointed by
the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, acting
by a majority. If such vacancy shall occur in the case of the
fifth Arbitrator, a substitute shall be selected in the manner
herein provided for with regard to the original appointment.
"Article III.
The Tribunal shall investigate and ascertain the extent of the
territories belonging to, or that might lawfully be claimed
by, the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain
respectively at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain
of the Colony of British Guiana, and shall determine the
boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the
United States of Venezuela.
"Article IV.
In deciding the matters submitted, the Arbitrators shall
ascertain all facts which they deem necessary to a decision of
the controversy, and shall be governed by the following Rules,
which are agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules
to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles
of international law not inconsistent therewith as the
Arbitrators shall determine to be applicable to the
case:—
Rules.
(a.) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty
years shall make a good title. The Arbitrators may deem
exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual
settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding
or to make title by prescription.
(b.) The Arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights
and claims resting on any other ground whatever valid
according to international law, and on any principles of
international law which the Arbitrators may deem to be
applicable to the case, and which are not in contravention of
the foregoing rule.
(c.) In determining the boundary-line, if territory of one
Party be found by the Tribunal to have been at the date of
this Treaty in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of
the other Party, such effect shall be given to such occupation
as reason, justice, the principles of international law, and
the equities of the case shall, in the opinion of the
Tribunal, require. …
Article XIII.
The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of
the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full,
perfect, and final settlement of all the questions referred to
the Arbitrators:"
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Treaty Series Number 5, 1897.
Before the Arbitrators named in the treaty had entered on
their duties, a vacancy in the tribunal was created by the
death of Baron Herschell, and the Lord Chief Justice of
England, Lord Russell of Killowen, was appointed in his place.
His Excellency, Frederic de Martens, Privy Councillor and
Permanent Member of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in Russia, was selected to be the fifth Arbitrator. As
thus constituted, the Arbitral Tribunal met in Paris on the
15th of June, 1899. In the hearings before it, Venezuela was
represented by Benjamin Harrison, ex-President of the United
States, and other counsel; the British government by Sir
Richard Webster, Attorney-General of Great Britain, and
others. The decision of the Tribunal, which is said to have
been rendered with unanimity, was announced on the 3d of
October, 1899, as follows:
"We the undersigned Arbitrators do hereby make and publish our
decision, determination, and Award of, upon, and concerning
the questions submitted to us by the said Treaty of
Arbitration, and do hereby, conformably to the said Treaty of
Arbitration, finally decide, award, and determine that the
boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the
United States of Venezuela is as follows:
Starting from the coast at Point Playa, the line of boundary
shall run in a straight line to the River Barima at its
junction with the River Mururuma, and thence along the
mid-stream of the latter river to its source, and from that
point to the junction of the River Haiowa with the Amakuru,
and thence along the mid-stream of the Amakuru to its source
in the Imataka Ridge, and thence in a south-westerly direction
along the highest ridge of the spur of the Imataka Mountains
to the highest point of the main range of such Imataka
Mountains opposite to the source of the Barima, and thence
along the summit of the main ridge in a south-easterly
direction of the Imataka Mountains to the source of the
Acarabisi, and thence along the mid-stream of the Acarabisi to
the Cuyuni, and thence along the northern bank of the River
Cuyuni westward to its junction with the Wenamu, and thence
following the mid-stream of the Wenamu to its westernmost
source, and thence in a direct line to the summit of Mount
Roraima, and from Mount Roraima to the source of the Cotinga,
and along the mid-stream of that river to its junction with
the Takutu, and thence along the mid-stream of the Takutu to
its source, thence in a straight line to the westernmost point
of the Akarai Mountains, and thence along the ridge of the
Akarai Mountains to the source of the Corentin called the
Cutari River.
{693}
Provided always that the line of delimitation fixed by this
Award shall be subject and without prejudice to any questions
now existing, or which may arise, to be determined between the
Government of her Britannic Majesty and the Republic of
Brazil, or between the latter Republic and the United States
of Venezuela.
"In fixing the above delimitation the Arbitrators consider and
decide that in times of peace the Rivers Amakuru and Barima
shall be open to navigation by the merchant-ships of all
nations, subject to all just regulations and to the payment of
light or other like dues: Provided that the dues charged by
the Republic of Venezuela and the Government of the Colony of
British Guiana in respect of the passage of vessels along the
portions of such rivers respectively owned by them shall be
charged at the same rates upon the vessels of Venezuela and
Great Britain, such rates being no higher than those charged
to any other nation: Provided also that no customs duties
shall be chargeable either by the Republic of Venezuela or by
the Colony of British Guiana in respect of goods carried on
board ships, vessels, or boats passing along the said rivers,
but customs duties shall only be chargeable in respect of
goods landed in the territory of Venezuela or Great Britain
respectively."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Venezuela Number 7, 1899, pages 6-7.
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1898-1900.
Change in the Presidency.
Death of ex-President Crespo.
Revolution.
Rebellion.
General Joaquin Crespo retired from the presidency and was
succeeded by General Ignacio Andrade on the 1st of March,
1898. A revolutionary movement was soon started, with General
Hernandez at its head, and ex-President Crespo, who led the
forces of the government against it, was killed in a charge,
on the 16th of April. Hernandez was surprised and captured a
few weeks later, and the rebellion then subsided for a time.
In the spring of 1899 Hernandez was set at liberty by Andrade,
who, meantime, had crushed a minor revolt, undertaken by one
General Guerra. August found the harassed President assailed
by a fresh rising, started by General Cipriano Castro, and the
restless revolutionist, Hernandez, was soon in league with it.
This proved to be a revolution in earnest, and, after hard
fighting, President Andrade fled from the capital and the
country in October; Puerto Cabello, the last town to hold out
for him, was bombarded and stormed the following month, and a
new government was established, nominally under the Vice
President, Rodriguez, but with Castro for its actual head.
Before this had been fully accomplished, however, Hernandez
was in arms against Castro, with his accustomed ill-success.
Before the year closed he had fled the country; but early in
1900 he was once more in the field, maintaining a troublesome
war until May, when he was defeated, and again a prisoner in
his opponents' hands.
VICTORIA, Queen:
The Diamond Jubilee celebration of her accession to the throne.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE).
VICTORIA, Queen:
Her death and funeral.
Tributes to her character.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).
VICTORIA.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
VICTORIAN ORDER, The.
A new order of knighthood, to be known as the Victorian Order,
and to be conferred as a mark of high distinction, was
instituted by Queen Victoria on the 21st of April, 1896.
VIENNA: A. D. 1895-1896.
Anti-Semitic agitation.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1895-1896.
VIENNA: A. D. 1897.
Scenes in the Reichsrath.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
VIENNA: A. D. 1900.
Census.
According to a report from the United States Consul at Vienna,
the census taken December 31, 1900, shows a population of
1,635,647, or nearly 63,000 less than that of Chicago, when
the recent census of that city was taken. These figures show
Vienna to rank next after London, Paris and Berlin among the
European capitals, while in this country only New York and
Chicago are larger. In the last ten years Vienna has increased
21.9 per cent, or slightly faster than the average for the
whole United States. Of the two American cities larger than
Vienna New York increased in ten years 37.8 per cent. and
Chicago 54.4 per cent.
VIEQUEZ.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: AREA AND POPULATION.
VILLIERS, Sir J. H. de:
Advice to President Kruger.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-AUGUST).
VIRDEN, Conflict with striking miners at.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1898.
VIRGINIUS AFFAIR, The.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.
VISAYAN ISLANDS, American occupation of the.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).
VISAYANS, The.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.
VOLKSRAAD, South African.
See (in this volume)
CONSTITUTION (GRONDWET) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS, English.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896-1897.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, The.
See (in this volume)
SALVATION ARMY.
VOTING, Plural or Cumulative, and Compulsory.
See (in this volume)
BELGIUM: A. D. 1894-1895.
{694}
WADAI.
See (in this volume)
NIGERIA, A. D. 1882-1899.
WALDECK-ROUSSEAU, M.:
The Ministry of.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (FEBRUARY-JUNE), and after.
WALES, The Prince or.
It has been announced that Prince George, Duke of Cornwall and
York, the only living son of King Edward VII., of England, and
heir to the British throne, will be created Prince of Wales,
by royal patent, after his return from Australia.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1901 (MAY).
WANA:
Inclusion in a new British Indian province.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
WAR:
Measures to prevent its occurrence and to mitigate its
barbarities.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
WAR BUDGETS:
Military and naval expenditures of the great Powers.
The following compilation of statistics of the military and
naval expenditure of the leading Powers (Great Britain
excepted) was submitted to the House of Representatives at
Washington by the Honorable George B. McClellan of New York,
in a speech, February 12, 1901, on the bill then pending in
Congress, to make appropriations for the support of the Army
of the United States. The tabulated statements were introduced
with explanations and comments as follows:
"For purposes of comparison, I have taken the armies and
navies of Austria-Hungary, France, the German Empire, Italy,
and Russia. I have not included Great Britain, for its
conditions have been abnormal for nearly two years. I have
based my estimates on the enlisted strength of the armies
referred to, excluding commissioned officers. The figures are
the most recent obtainable without direct communication with
foreign authorities and are for the most part for the last
fiscal year of the several countries, although in some cases
they are for 1898-99. The German naval budget does not include
the extraordinary expenditures for the new navy authorized by
the recent enactment of the Reichstag. This does not begin to
be effective until the next fiscal year. In estimating the
equivalent in dollars of the Italian budget I have allowed 6
per cent for the depreciation of the present paper currency—a
very moderate estimate. The Russian budget will appear
abnormally low, for I have recently seen it stated at
$159,000,000. This is because the ruble has been assumed to be
the gold ruble, worth 52 cents, but the budget is expressed in
paper rubles, and is now, under a recent order of M. Witte,
uniformly reckoned at two-thirds of the gold ruble. I have
therefore called it 34.6 cents."
As to the military expenditure of the United States, "the
House has during the present session appropriated, or is about
to appropriate, for the support of what may be called the
active Army, $152,068,100.84. The appropriations growing out
of past wars amount to a total of $154,694,292. I have charged
to this account every item that could by any possible
construction be assumed to refer to past wars and not to the
maintenance of the present Army. The pension appropriation
bill carried $145,245,230. The cost of administering the
Pension Bureau will amount to $3,352,790. The Record and
Pension Office costs $585,170. I have further included
appropriations for National and State Homes, back pay, etc.,
cemeteries, and $712,580 for extra clerks due to the Spanish
war. Adding the appropriations due to past wars to the
appropriation for the active Army, we find a total of
$306,762,392.84, which represents the total of our Army
budget. Taking the total cost of our active Army, and assuming
the enlisted strength of the Army to be 100,000, we find the
cost per annum of each enlisted man to be $l,520. Taking the
total Army budget, including appropriations arising from past
wars, we find the cost per annum of each enlisted man $3,067.
"Without including appropriations arising from past wars, we
find the cost of the Army per capita of population to be
$1.99. Including appropriations arising from past wars, we
find the cost of the Army per capita of population to be
$4.02. The army budget of Austria-Hungary is $67,564,446, the
cost of maintaining 1 enlisted man for one year being $183.86,
and the cost of the army per capita of population $1.50. The
army budget of France is $128,959,064, the cost of maintaining
1 enlisted man is $218.74, and the cost per capita of
population is $3.34. The army budget of the German Empire is
$156,127,743, the cost per annum of 1 enlisted man is $277.85,
the cost per capita of population is $2.98. The army budget of
Italy is $43,920,132, the cost of maintaining 1 enlisted man
per annum is $202.65, the cost per capita of population is
$1.39. The army budget of Russia is $99,927,997, the cost of
maintaining 1 enlisted man is $119.65, the cost per capita of
population is 77 cents.
"The appropriations for the support of the naval establishment
are by no means so widely distributed as are those for the
Army. The naval bill carries $77,016,635.60. In the
legislative, executive, and judicial bill there are carried
appropriations directly chargeable to the support of the Navy,
including pay of the clerical force in the Auditor's office,
the office of the Secretary, the office of the heads of the
bureaus, maintenance of building, and contingent expenses,
amounting to $399,150. In the sundry civil bill there are
carried, for printing and binding, appropriations amounting to
$127,000. Up to the present time the Secretary of the Treasury
has submitted to the House a statement of deficiencies for the
support of the naval establishment amounting to $2,491,549.64,
making a total of $80,034,335.24 that the House has
appropriated or is about to appropriate during the present
session for the support of the naval establishment. In
addition to this the legislative, executive, and judicial bill
carries an appropriation of $21,800 for the payment of extra
clerks whose employment is necessitated by the Spanish war,
making a total naval budget of $80,056,135.24.
"The naval budget of Austria-Hungary is $7,028,167, a cost per
capita of population of 15 cents. The naval budget of France
is $61,238,478, a cost per capita of population of $1.58. The
naval budget of the German Empire is $32,419,602, a cost per
capita of population of 62 cents. The naval budget of Italy is
$18,455,111, a cost per capita of population of 58 cents. The
naval budget of Russia is $48,132,220, a cost per capita of
population of 37 cents.
{695}
"The combined appropriations for the Army and Navy represent
the total war budget, or, as some European countries prefer to
call it, the 'defense budget.' The total war budget of the
United States, excluding appropriations due to past wars,
amounts to $233,102,435, or a cost per capita of population of
$3.03. Our total war budget, including appropriations due to
past wars, amounts to $386,818,527, a cost per capita of
population of $5.06. The total war budget of Austria-Hungary
is $74,592,613, a cost per capita of population of $1.66. The
total war budget of France is $190,197,542, a cost per capita
of population of $4.92. The total war budget of the German
Empire is $188,547,345, a cost per capita of population of
$3.60. The total war budget of Italy is $62,375,243, a cost
per capita of population of $1.97. The total war budget of
Russia is $148,060,017, a cost per capita of population of
$1.14. The combined total war budgets of France and of the
German Empire amount to $378,744,887, or $8,073,640 less than
that of the United States.
"The criticism has been made that there can be no comparison
between the cost of maintaining our Army and the cost of
maintaining those of Europe, for the reason that the European
private receives 'no pay' and ours receives $156 a year. As a
matter of fact, while service is compulsory on the Continent,
the continental private is paid a small sum, amounting on the
average to about $56 a year. In other words, our private
receives about $100 more than his comrade of Europe. This
criticism does not affect comparisons, as will be seen on the
consideration of a few figures. The war budget of the German
Empire is the largest in Europe. Were the Prussian private to
receive the same pay as our private the Prussian army budget
would be swelled to $212,354,343. Were the Russian private to
receive the same pay as our private the Russian budget would
be swelled to about $190,000,000 per annum. The difference in
pay does not account for the proportionate difference in the
size of the budgets, for were our Army to be increased to the
size of that of the German Empire our budget would be
increased by $702,644,320, making a total of $854,712,420,
without including expenses due to past wars, or, including
such expenses, making an Army budget of $1,009,406,712. Were
our Army to be increased to the size of Russia's, our budget
would be increased by $1,132,120,220, making a total Army
budget, without including appropriations due to past wars, of
81,284,188,320, or, including appropriations due to past wars,
making a total budget of $1,438,882,612.
"I submit these figures to the consideration of the House
without any comment whatsoever. Comment is unnecessary.
"TABLE A.
Analysis of the war budget of the United States as agreed to,
or about to be agreed to, by the House of Representatives,
first session Fifty-sixth Congress.
1. ARMY.Appropriations for the active Army.{696}
Army bill $117,994,649.10
Military Academy bill 700,151.88
Fortification bill 7,227,461.00
Legislative, executive, and judicial bill:
Office of the Secretary of War $104,150
Office of the Auditor for the War Department 318,300
Offices of heads of so-called "staff" departments 653,826
Maintenance of three-eighths of Department building 45,990
Rent 13,500
Stationery 32,500
Postage 1,000
Contingent expenses 58,000
Total 1,227,266.00
Sundry civil bill:
Arsenals and armories 281,550
Military posts 1,008,960
Bringing home dead 150,000
Maps, etc. 5,100
Printing and binding 241,000
Repairs, three-eighths Department building 31,500
Total 1,721,110.00
Deficiencies submitted:
December 11, 1900 12,062,223.36
January 21, 1901 5,835,239.50
January 26, 1001 5,300,000.00
Total 23,197,462.36
Total, active Army 152,068,100.84
Appropriations growing out of past wars.
Pensions $145,245,230.00
Salaries, Pension Bureau, etc. 3,352,700.00
Record and Pension Office 585,170.00
National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers 3,074,142.00
State Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers 950,000.00
Back pay and bounty (civil war) 325,000.00
Arrears of pay (Spanish war) 200,000.00
National cemeteries 191,880.00
Artificial limbs and appliances 27,000.00
Headstones and burials 28,000.00
Apache prisoners 2,500.00
Secretary of War, extra clerks (Spanish war) 600,000.00
Auditor for War Department,
extra clerks(Spanish war) 112,580.00
Total. 154,694,292.00
Appropriations for the active Army 152,068,100.84
Total Army budget. 300,762,392.81
2. NAVY.
Naval bill $77,016,635.60
Legislative, executive, and judicial bill:
Office of the Secretary of the Navy $47,900.00
Office of the Auditor for the Navy Department 68,080.00
Offices of heads of bureaus, etc. 224,430.00
Maintenance of three-eighths
of Department building 45,990.00
Contingent expenses 12,750.00
Total $399,150.00
Sundry civil bill:
Printing and binding 127,000.00
Deficiencies submitted:
December 11, 1900 74,481.09
December 17, 1900 20,000.00
January 21, 1901 2,267,068.55
January 25, 1901 130,000.00
Total 2,491,549.64
Total, active Navy 80,034,335.24
Auditor for Navy Department,
extra clerks (Spanish war) 21,800.00
Total Navy budget 80,056,135.24
3. RECAPITULATION.
Active Army $152,068,100.84
Active Navy 80,034,335.24
Total $232,102,436.08
Army (past wars) 154,694,292.00
Navy (past wars) 21,800.00
Total War Budget 154,716,092.00
Total war budget 386,818,528.08
TABLE B. Analysis of war budgets of various armies.Country Population Latest Total Cost of Cost of Latest Cost of Total war Congressional Record,
by last Obtainable enlisted maintaining army per obtainable navy per budget Cost of army and
census Army Budget strength, one enlisted capita of naval capita of combined
peace man for population budget population per capita of
footing one year. population.
Austria-Hungary 44,901,036 $67,564,446 368,002 $183.86 $1.50 $7,028,167 $0.15 $74,502,613 $1.66
France 38,517,975 128,959,064 589,541 218.74 3.34 61,238,478 1.58 190,197,542 4.92
German Empire 52,246,589 156,127,743 562,266 277.85 2.98 32,419,602 .62 188,547,345 3.60
Italy 31,479,217 43,020,132 216,720 202.65 1.39 18,455,111 .58 62,375,243 1.97
Russia 129,211,113 99,927,797 835,143 119.85 .77 48,132,220 .37 148,060,017 1.14
United States,
not including
cost of past
wars 76,295,220 152,068,100 100,000 1,520.00 1.99 80,034,335 1.04 233,102,435 3.03
United States,
including cost
of past wars 76,295,220 306,762,392 100,000 3,067.00 4.02 80,056,135 1.04 380,818,527 5.06
February 15, 1901, pages 2707-2709.
The following is an abstract of the British Army estimates for
1901-1902, submitted to Parliament in March, 1901, compared
with those of the previous year. They cover, of course, the
extraordinary expenditure incident to the South African war: NET ESTIMATES.
1901-1002. 1900-1901.
I. NUMBERS.
Total Total
Numbers. Numbers.
Number of men on the Home
and Colonial Establishments
of the Army, exclusive of
those serving 111 India. 450,000 430,000
II. EFFECTIVE SERVICES. £ £
Pay, &c., of Army (General
Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and
Departments). 21,657,500 18,450,000
Medical Establishment: Pay,&c. 1,083,600 908,000
Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c. 2,662,000 2,288,000
Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and
Allowances. 375,000 141,000
Volunteer Corps: Pay and
Allowances. 1,230,000 1,730,000
Transport and Remounts. 15,977,000 19,800,000
Provisions, Forage and other
Supplies. 18,782,000 18,200,000
Clothing Establishments and
Services. 4,825,000 5,530,000
Warlike and other Stores:
Supply and Repair. 13,450,000 13,200,000
Works, Buildings, and Repairs:
Engineer Services. 3,281,000 4,730,700
Establishments for Military
Education. 119,200 113,800
Miscellaneous Effective Services 218,200 200,900
War Office: Salaries and
Miscellaneous Charges. 305,000 275,000
Total Effective Services. 83,970,500 85,573,400
III. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES.
Non-Effective Charges for
Officers, &c. 2,271,000 1,861,000
Non-Effective Charges for Men, &c. 1,485,000 l,379,000
Superannuation, Compensation,
and Compassionate Allowances. 188,500 186,000
Total Non-Effective Services. 3,944,500 3,426,000
Total Effective and
Non-Effective Services. 87,915,000 88,999,400
NOTE. The provision for Ordinary and War
Services is as follows:
1901-02. 1900-01.
£ £
For War Services:
South Africa 56,070,000 61,286,700
China 2,160,000 3,450,000
Total 58,230,000 64,736,700
For Ordinary Services 29,685,000 24,262,700
Total 87,915,000 88,999,400
The British navy estimates for 1901-1902 amount to a net total
of £30,875,500, being an increase of £2,083,600 beyond the
amount of £28,791,900 voted for the year 1900-1901. The total
number of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal
Marines, proposed for the year 1901-1902 is 118,635, being an
increase of 3,745.
The following statistics of the numerical strength and ratio
to population of the armies of twenty-two nations, compiled in
the War Department of the United States, were cited in the
debate in the United States Senate on the bill to increase the
strength of the United States Army, January 15, 1901. They
differ in some particulars, but not greatly, from the
corresponding figures given by Mr. McClellan:
"War Department, Adjutant-General's office, Washington, August
28, 1900. According to the latest available sources, which are
considered fairly reliable, the peace and war strength of the
armies of the nations mentioned below is stated to be as
follows:NATION. PEACE STRENGTH. WAR STRENGTH.{697}
Officers. Men.
Austria-Hungary, 1899. 26,454 335,239 1,872,178
Belgium, 1899 3,472 48,030 163,000
Brazil, 1897 2,300 25,860
China 300,000 1,000,000 (a)
France, 1900 29,740 586,735 2,500,000 (b)
(a) Estimated.
(b) Available men liable to military service.NATION. PEACE STRENGTH. WAR STRENGTH. "War Department, Adjutant General's office, Washington,
Officers. Men.
Germany, 1899 23,230 562,266 3,000,000 (c)
Great Britain, 1900 11,904 241,237 (d) 503,484
Italy, 1898 14,084 310,602 1,304,854
Japan, 1898 6,356 115,673 407,963
Mexico, 1898 2,068 30,075 151,500
Persia 24,500 105,500
Portugal, 1899 1,804 30,000 157,126 (e)
Roumania 3,280 60,000 171,948
Russia, 1900 36,000 860,000 3,500,000 (f)
Servia, 1897 160,751 353,366
Spain, 1899 98,140 183,972
Sweden, 1899 2,513 37,639 327,000
Switzerland, 1899 (g) 509,707
Turkey, 1898 700,620 900,000
United States, 1900. 2,587 65,000 100,000
(c) Estimated on present organization to have over 3,000,000
trained men. War strength not given.
(d) Of this number 74,288 are Indian troops.
(e) In addition there are maintained in the colonies 9,478
officers and men.
(f) Approximately.
(g) No standing army.
December 8, 1900. Peace strength of the armies, population, and
percentage of former to latter of the principal countries of the
world. This table is not strictly accurate at the present
time, because the dates of censuses vary. In preparing this
table the latest published census has been taken for
population, and the countries are arranged in order of their
percentages:NATION. Peace Strength. Population. Percentage. (h) Switzerland has no standing army, but every citizen has to
France 616,475 38,517,975 1.6
Norway 30,900 2,000,917 1.54
Germany 585,896 52,279,901 1.1
Roumania 63,280 5,800,000 1.1
Italy 324,686 31,856,675 1
Greece 25,338 2,433,806 1
Servia 22,448 2,312,484 .97
Austria-Hungary 361,693 41,351,184 0.87
Sweden 40,152 5,062,918 .79
Belgium 51,502 6,669,732 .77
Russia. 896,000 128,932,113 .69
Great Britain
and Ireland. 259,141 38,104,975 .68
Turkey. 244,000 38,791,000 .63
Portugal 31,804 5,049,729 .62
Spain 98,140 17,565,632 .56
Netherlands 21,696 5,074,632 .54
Denmark 9,769 2,185,335 .45
Japan 122,029 43,745,353 .30
Mexico 32,143 12,630,863 .25
Brazil 28,160 14,338,915 .19
United States 67,587 76,295,220 .089
Switzerland (h) 3,119,635
bear arms. The first Class (élite), composed of men between
the ages of 20 and 32, has from forty to eighty days' training
the first year, and every second year thereafter sixteen days.
About 18,000 men join the elite annually.
In December, 1900, the British Board of Trade issued a return,
for the year 1899 (except as stated otherwise), of the "Naval
expenditure and Mercantile Marine" of leading nations, from
which the following table is taken:COUNTRIES. Aggregate Aggregate AggregateWAR DEPARTMENT, The United States:
Naval Revenue Tonnage of
Expenditure Mercantile
on Seagoing Marine.
Force.
£ £ Tons.
Great Britain
(United Kingdom) 26,145,599 119,839,905 9,164,342
(1898-99) (Year ended
31st March, 1900)
Russian Empire 8,306,500 165,905,000 554,141
Germany 6,672,788 76,309,000 1,639,552
(1899-1900) (1898)
Netherlands 1,133,664 10,416,000 302,224
(1899-1900) (1898)
France 13,796,033 142,021,000 957,756
Portugal 749,226 11,474,000 129,522
(Year ended (1898)
30th June, 1900)
Spain 1,133,664 34,633,000 637,924
(Year ended (1898-99) (1897)
30th June, 1900)
Italy. 4,617,034 70,181,000 815,162
(Year ended (Year ended (1898)
30th June, 1900) 30th June, 1899)
Austria-Hungary 1,403,441
Austria. 66,171,000 164,506
(1898) (1898)
Hungary. 42,903,000 66,072
United States
(year ended
30th June) 9,840,912 127,288,000 848,246 (b).
(1900)
Japan 5,076,294 22,017,000 (a) 648,324
(1899-1900) (1898)
NOTE.
(a) Includes the Chinese indemnity.
(b) Registered for foreign trade only.
Investigation of its conduct in the war with Spain.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.
WASHINGTON, D. C.: A. D. 1897.
Completion of the building for the Library of Congress.
See (in this volume)
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.
{698}
WASHINGTON, D. C.: A. D. 1900 (December).
Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary.
The 100th anniversary of the removal of the national capital
from Philadelphia to Washington was fittingly celebrated on
the 12th of December, 1900, by an imposing military parade and
by a notable assemblage in the House of Representatives, where
addresses were delivered and the principal exercises took
place. The President and the Vice President elect, members of
all branches of the public service, the Governors and
delegates from all the States and Territories, and various
other dignitaries, were present. The day of celebration was
not precisely that of the anniversary, but one chosen for
convenience to represent it. Under the law in 1800 the two
houses of Congress began their regular winter session about
two weeks earlier than they do now, and November 17 was set as
the date on which the VIth Congress should reassemble at the
new seat of Federal power. As neither house could have taken
part this year in anniversary ceremonies held on November 17,
a day was naturally chosen which should allow the legislative
branch its proper share in the centennial celebration. The
Executive Departments had, in fact, been partially installed
in the new District some time before the members of the VIth
Congress found their way to the unfinished Capitol. President
Adams, leaving Philadelphia on May 27, and travelling by a
circuitous route through Lancaster and Frederick, reached
Georgetown on June 3, 1800. He inspected the single wing of
the original Capitol, then far from finished, visited
Alexandria, at the southern extreme of the District, and after
a ten days stay in Georgetown departed for Massachusetts. The
President and Mrs. Adams returned to occupy the White House
early in November of the same year.
WAZIRIS, British-Indian wars with the.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1894, and 1897-1898.
WEI-HAI-WEI, Lease of the harbor of, by Great Britain.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-JULY).
WELLMAN, Walter:
Second Arctic Expedition.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1898-1899.
WELSH CHURCH:
Failure of Disestablishment Bill.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.
WEST AFRICA: A. D. 1895.
Appointment of a Governor-General of the French possessions.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (FRENCH WEST AFRICA).
WEST AFRICA: A. D. 1899.
Definition of British and German boundaries.
See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.
WEST INDIES, The British: A. D. 1897.
Report of a Royal Commission on the condition and prospects
of the sugar-growing colonies.
A state of increasing distress in most of the British West
India colonies, caused by the depression of the sugar-growing
industry, led to the appointment, in December, 1896, of a
Royal Commission "to make an inquiry into the condition and
prospects of the colonies of Jamaica, British Guiana, Trinidad
and Tobago, Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, and the
Leeward Islands, and to suggest such measures as appeared
calculated to restore and maintain the prosperity of these
colonies and their inhabitants." In the August following the
Commission made its report, with the following summary of
conclusions:
"a. The sugar industry in the West Indies is in danger of
great reduction, which in some colonies may be equivalent or
almost equivalent to extinction.
"b. The depression of the industry is due to the competition
of other sugar-producing countries and in a special degree to
the competition of beet sugar produced under a system of
bounties. It is also affected by high protective tariffs, and
by the competition of cane sugar, the production of which is
specially encouraged by the Governments concerned. The causes
of the depression may be described as permanent, inasmuch as
they are largely due to the policy of foreign countries, and
there is no indication that that policy is likely to be
abandoned in the immediate future.
"c. It is not due in any considerable degree to extravagance
in management, to imperfection in the process of manufacture,
or to inadequate supervision consequent on absentee
ownership, and the removal of these causes, wherever they
exist, would not enable it, generally, to be profitably
carried on under present conditions of competition. …
"d. The depression in the industry is causing sugar estates to
be abandoned, and will cause more estates to be abandoned, and
such abandonment is causing and will cause distress among the
labouring population, including a large number of East Indian
immigrants, and will seriously affect, for a considerable
time, the general prosperity of the sugar-producing Colonies,
and will render it impossible for some, and perhaps the
greater number of them, to provide, without external aid, for
their own government and administration.
"e. If the production of sugar is discontinued or very largely
reduced, there is no industry or industries that could
completely replace it in such islands as Barbados, Antigua,
and St. Kitts, and be profitably carried on and supply
employment for the labouring population. In Jamaica, in
Trinidad, in British Guiana, in St. Lucia, in St. Vincent, and
to some extent in Montserrat and Nevis, the sugar industry may
in time be replaced by other industries, but only after the
lapse of a considerable period and at the cost of much
displacement of labour and consequent suffering. In Dominica
the sugar industry is not at the present day of great
importance. We think it right to add that in all Colonies
where sugar can be completely, or very largely, replaced by
other industries, the Colonies in question will be in a much
sounder position, both politically and economically, when they
have ceased to depend wholly, or to a very great extent, upon
the continued prosperity of a single industry.
"f. The total or partial extinction of the sugar industry
would, in most places, very seriously affect the condition of
the labouring classes for the worse, and would largely reduce
the revenue of the Colonies. In some places the loss of
revenue could be met to a limited extent by economies, but
this could not be done universally nor in a material degree in
most of the Colonies. Some of the Colonies could not provide
the necessary cost of administration, including the relief of
distressed and necessitous persons, or of the support and
repatriation (when necessary) of the East Indian immigrants,
without subventions from the mother country. Jamaica,
Trinidad, and Grenada may be expected to meet from their own
resources the whole of the expenditure that is likely to fall
on them.
{699}
"g. The best immediate remedy for the state of things which we
have shown to exist would be the abandonment of the bounty
system by continental nations. This change would in all
probability enable a large portion of the sugar-cane
cultivation to be carried on successfully, and would certainly
reduce the rate at which it will diminish. Looking, however,
to what appears to be the policy of the United States of
America, to the great cheapening of the cost of production of
beet sugar, and the fact that many countries appear to have
singled out the sugar industry as one which ought to be
artificially stimulated in various ways, it is not clear that,
even if the bounties were abolished, another crisis of a similar
character might not arise in the West Indies at a future day.
"11. A remedy which was strongly supported by witnesses
interested in the West Indian sugar estates was the imposition
of countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar when imported
into the United Kingdom. …
"i. The special remedies or measures of relief which we
unanimously recommend are—
(1.) The settlement of the labouring population on small
plots of land as peasant proprietors.
(2.) The establishment of minor agricultural industries,
and the improvement of the system of cultivation,
especially in the case of small proprietors.
(3.) The improvement of the means of communication between
the different islands.
(4.) The encouragement of a trade in fruit with New York,
and, possibly, at a future time, with London.
(5.) The grant of a loan from the Imperial Exchequer for
the establishment of Central Factories in Barbados.
The subject of emigration from the distressed tracts also
requires the careful attention of the various Governments,
though we do not find ourselves at the present time in a
position to make recommendations in detail.
"j. We estimate the cost of the special remedies recommended
in (2) (3) and (4) of i, at £27,000 a year for ten years, the
expenditure to be borne by the mother country. We estimate the
amount of the loan to Barbados for the erection of central
factories at £120,000. This measure no doubt involves the risk
of loss. Grants will be required in Dominica and St. Vincent
for roads, and to enable the settlement of the labouring
population on the land to be carried out, and their amount may
be taken at £30,000. A further grant of about £60,000 is
required to clear off the floating debt in some of the smaller
islands. In addition, the smaller islands should receive grants
to enable them to meet their ordinary expenditure of an
obligatory nature. The amount may be placed at £20,000 a year
for five years, and possibly a reduced amount for a further
period of five years. The expenditure which we are able to
estimate may be summarized as follows:—
(1.) A grant of £27,000 a year for ten years.
(2.) A grant of £20,000 a year for five years.
(3.) Immediate grants of £60,000 and £30,000, or £90,000 in
all.
(4.) A loan of £120,000 to Barbados for the establishment
of central factories."
On a proposal for the federation of the West India colonies
the Commission reported unfavorably, for the reason that the
colonies are too widely scattered and differ too greatly in
conditions for an efficient or economical common government.
"Nor does it seem to us," says the report, "that the very
important Island of Jamaica, which is separated by many
hundreds of miles of sea from all the other West Indian
Colonies, could dispense with a separate Governor, even if
there should be a Governor-General; whilst the circumstances
of British Guiana and Trinidad almost equally demand the
constant presence and attention of an Administrator of
Governor's rank. It might be possible, without disadvantage,
to make some reduction in the number of higher officials in
the smaller islands, and we are disposed to think that it
would be conducive to efficiency and economy if the islands of
the Windward Group, that is, Grenada and the Grenadines, St.
Vincent and St. Lucia, were again placed under the Governor of
Barbados, as they were for many years previous to 1885. We are
also disposed to think that the Island of Dominica, which is
not much further than Grenada from Barbados, and which, in its
physical, social and industrial conditions partakes more of
the character of the Windward Islands than of that of the
other Leeward Islands, might be placed under this Government
instead of being considered one of the Leeward Group. It
might, indeed, be found possible to bring the whole of the
Leeward Islands under the same Government as Barbados and the
Windward Islands, and thus effect a further economy."
Great Britain,
Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command;
C.-8655, 1897, pages 69-70, and 23).
With the sanction of Parliament, most of the recommendations
of the Commission were promptly carried out. Provision was
made for the construction of roads in the islands; for
subsidising steamer lines between the several islands and
between Jamaica, Canada and London; for developing the
cultivation of fruits and other crops by a botanical
department; for establishing model factories for the better
and cheaper working of sugar cane; and for wiping off certain
debts which were a cause of distress to some of the poorer
islands. In these measures the imperial government undertook
obligations which might, it was said, involve the payment of
£200,000.
WEST INDIES: A. D. 1899-1901.
Reciprocity arrangement with the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
WEYLER y NICOLAU, General:
At Barcelona.
See (in this volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1895-1896.
WEYLER y NICOLAU, General:
Administration in Cuba.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.
WEYLER y NICOLAU, General:
Appointed Captain-General of Madrid.
See (in this volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
WHEATON, General:
Military operations in the Philippine Islands.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).
WHITE, Andrew D.:
American Commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
WILDMAN, Rounseville:
Report of proposals from Philippine insurgents in 1897.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER).
{700}
WILHELMINA, Queen of the Netherlands:
Enthronement and marriage.
See (in this volume)
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1808, and 1901.
WILLIAM II., German Emperor.
Some of his autocratic speeches against the Social Democrats.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895.
WILLIAM II., German Emperor.
His claim to kingship by Divine Right.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D.1894-1899.
WILLIAM II., German Emperor.
His message to President Kruger relative to the Jameson Raid.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896 (JANUARY).
WILLIAM II., German Emperor.
His speech to his brother, Prince Henry, at Kiel.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
WILLIAM II., German Emperor.
His speech to soldiers departing to China.
Punishment of its critics.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER 9).
WILLIAM II., German Emperor.
His system of personal government.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA:
Race war.
See (in this volume)
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1898.
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
WITU. The State of.
See (in this volume)
BRITISH EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE: A. D. 1895-1897.
WITWATERSRAND, The.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1885-1890.
WOLCOTT, Senator Edward O.:
Bimetallic mission to Europe.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
Four States have given to women unlimited political freedom,
these States being Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho. The
women of all these States, except Idaho, had the privilege of
voting in the Presidential election of 1896. The women of
Idaho voted in the State election of 1898, but their first
chance to vote for a Presidential ticket was in 1900. To some
extent, in the election of school boards and officers, or on
questions of taxation, woman suffrage exists in a limited way
in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
WOMAN'S CENTURY, The.
See (in this volume)
NINETEENTH CENTURY. THE WOMAN'S CENTURY.
WOOD, Leonard, Colonel
of the Regiment of Rough Riders.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-MAY).
WOOD, Leonard, Colonel
Commanding at Santiago.
Report.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER)
WOOD, Leonard, Colonel.
Military Governor of Cuba.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1809 (DECEMBER).
WORKINGMEN'S INSURANCE, Compulsory, in Germany.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1897-1900.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, English.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JULY).
WORLD POWERS, The four great.
See (in this volume)
NINETEENTH CENTURY: EXPANSION.
X.
X RAYS. The discovery of.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, REGENT: CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.
Y.
YAMAGATA, Marquis: Ministry.
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1898-1899.
YANG-TSUN, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST 4-16).
YANG-TSZE REGION, Chinese agreement not to alienate.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY).
YAQUIS, Revolts of the.
See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1896-1899.
YAUCO, Engagement at.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).
YELLOW FEVER, Detection of the mosquito as a carrier of.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: MEDICAL AND SURGICAL.
YERKES OBSERVATORY, The.
The Yerkes Observatory, built and equipped for the University
of Chicago, by Mr. Charles T. Yerkes, of Chicago, at the
village of Williams Bay, near Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, was
opened and dedicated on the 21st of October, 1897. A
remarkable gathering of eminent astronomers gave distinction
to the occasion. The Observatory was pronounced to be the most
perfectly equipped in the world. The lens of its great
telescope—40 inch objective—the last great work of the late
Alvan G. Clark, of Cambridge, Massachusetts was then the
largest ever made. Its cost was $66,000; the cost of the
equatorial mounting was $55,000.
YOUNG PEOPLE'S SOCIETY OF CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR.
See (in this volume)
CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR, YOUNG PEOPLE'S SOCIETY OF.
YUKON, The district of.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1895.
{701}
Z.
ZAMBESIA, Northern.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY):
A. D. 1894-1895.
ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1895.
Mainland divisions of the Sultanate included
in British East Africa Protectorate.
See (in this volume)
BRITISH EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE: A. D. 1895-1897.
ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1896.
British suppression of an usurper.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1896 (ZANZIBAR).
ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1897.
Abolition of the legal status of slavery.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (ZANZIBAR).
ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1899.
Renunciation of rights of extra-territoriality by Germany.
See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.
ZIONIST MOVEMENT, The.
See (in this volume)
JEWS: A. D. 1897-1901.
ZULULAND:
Extension of boundary.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (ZULULAND).
ZULULAND:
Annexation to Natal Colony.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (ZULULAND).
ZOLA, Emile, and the Dreyfus case.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899, and 1900 (DECEMBER).
ZONA LIBRE.
See (in this volume)
MEXICAN FREE ZONE.
{702}
CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF EVENTS.
1895-1901.
1895.
January 1, 1895.
Murder of the reigning prince of Chitral,
on the northwestern Indian border.
January 7, 1895.
Independence of Korea proclaimed at Seoul.
January 13, 1895.
Death of Sir John Seeley (Professor John Robert Seeley).
January 17, 1895.
Election of M. Felix Faure President of the French Republic.
January 21, 1895.
Agreement between Great Britain and France defining the
boundaries of the hinterland of Sierra Leone.
January 22-23, 1895.
Resignation of President Saenz Peña of the Argentine
Republic, and election of President Uriburu.
January 24, 1895.
Death of Lord Randolph Churchill.
January 26, 1895.
Death of Arthur Cayley, English mathematician.
Death of Nikolai Karlovich de Giers, Russian statesman.
January 28, 1895.
Death of François Canrobert, Marshal of France.
February 7, 1895.
Rejection by the United States House of Representatives of
the measure asked for by President Cleveland for the relief
of the national treasury.
February 8, 1895.
Contract by the United States Secretary of the Treasury with
New York and London banking houses for supply of gold to
the treasury.
Death of Reginald Stuart Poole, English archæologist.
February 12, 1895.
Death of Charles Etienne Gayarré, historian of Louisiana.
February 16, 1895.
Death of Lady Stanley of Alderley.
February 18, 1895.
Death of Archduke Albrecht of Austria.
February 20, 1895.
Death of Frederick Douglass, the most eminent colored man
of his day.
February 24, 1895.
Renewal of insurrection in Cuba against Spanish rule.
March 1, 1895.
Beginning of the siege of a small force of British-Indian
troops in the fort at Chitral by surrounding tribes.
March 2, 1895.
Death of the Grand Duke Alexis,
brother of the Tzar Alexander III.
Death of Professor John Stuart Blackie.
Death of Ismail Pasha, ex-Khedive of Egypt.
March 5, 1895.
Death of Sir Henry Rawlinson, English archæologist.
March 9, 1895.
Death of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, German novelist.
March 11, 1895.
Agreement between Great Britain and Russia for fixing the
northern frontier of Afghanistan from Zulfikar on the
Heri-Rud to the Pamirs.
March 17, 1895.
Bloody battle in the streets of Lima, Peru, ending in the
overthrow of the usurping government of Caceres.
March 18, 1895.
Death of Captain Adam Badeau, military
biographer of General Grant.
March 31, 1895.
Death of Sir George Chesney, military writer.
April 20, 1895.
Relief of the beleaguered British garrison at Chitral.
April 30, 1895.
Death of Gustav Freytag, German novelist.
May 1, 1895.
Proclamation by the British South Africa Company giving
the name "Rhodesia" to its territories.
May 4, 1895.
Death of Roundell Pulmer, 1st Earl of Selborne.
May 5, 1895.
Death of Karl Vogt, German biologist.
May 6, 1895.
Re-hearing granted by the Supreme Court of the United States
on cases testing constitutionality of the income tax.
May 10, 1895.
Relinquishment by Japan of the Fêng-tien peninsula in China.
Census of the Argentine Republic.
May 20, 1895.
Final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
against the constitutionality of the income tax.
May 23, 1895.
Consolidation of the Astor and Lenox libraries with the
"Tilden Trust," to form the New York Public Library.
May 24, 1895.
Death of Hugh McCulloch, American statesman and financier.
May 28, 1895.
Death of Walter Quinton Gresham,
United States Secretary of State.
May 30, 1895.
Death of Frederick Locker-Lampson, English poet.
May 31, 1895.
Death of Emily Faithfull, philanthropist and author.
June 14, 1895.
Census of the German Empire.
June 17, 1895.
Celebration of the opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal
between the Baltic and North seas.
June 21-22, 1895.
Defeat in the British Parliament and resignation of the
Ministry of Lord Rosebery;
Lord Salisbury called to form a new government.
June 29, 1895.
Death of Professor Thomas Henry Huxley,
English biologist and scientific man of letters.
{703}
July 1, 1895.
Final transfer of the territories of the British East Africa
Company to the British government;
completed organization of the East Africa Protectorate.
July 8, 1895.
Opening of the railway from Delagoa Bay to Pretoria,
in the Transvaal.
July 13, 1895.
Parliamentary elections begun in Great Britain, resulting in a
large majority for the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists.
July 15, 1895.
Assassination of Mr. Stambouloff, late chief Minister in the
Bulgarian government, who died of his wounds on the 19th.
July 20, 1895.
Pressing despatch of Mr. Olney, United States Secretary of
State, to the American Ambassador to Great Britain, on the
question of the Venezuela boundary, asserting the Monroe
Doctrine.
July 21, 1895.
Death of Professor Rudolph von Gneist, German jurist and
historian.
July 24, 1895.
Defeat of Protectionist policy in the Parliamentary election,
New South Wales.
July 31, 1895.
Death of Heinrich von Sybel, historian, and Director of the
Prussian State Archives.
Death of Richard M. Hunt, American architect.
August 1, 1895.
Massacre of English and American missionaries at Hua Sang
in China.
August 2, 1895.
Death of Joseph Thomson, African explorer.
August 12, 1895.
Opening of the first session of the new Parliament in
Great Britain.
August 13, 1895.
Death of Christian Bernhard Tauchnitz, Leipzig publisher.
September 2, 1895.
Government of a young native prince, under British tutelage
and protection established at Chitral.
September 16-18, 1895.
Adoption of a constitution and organization of a republican
government by the Cuban insurgents.
September 18, 1895.
Opening of the Cotton States and International Exposition
at Atlanta.
September 20, 1895.
Executive order by President Cleveland for the improvement
of the consular service of the United States.
September 28, 1895.
Death of Louis Pasteur, the father of bacteriology.
September 30, 1895.
Attack by Turkish police in Constantinople on Armenians who
had gathered to present their grievances to the Sultan.
October 3, 1895.
Death of Professor Hjalmar Hjorth Boyesen, Norwegian-American
novelist and poet.
October 7, 1895.
Death of William Wetmore Story, American sculptor and author.
October 8-9, 1895.
Massacre of Armenians at Trebizond by a Turkish mob.
October 17, 1895.
Turkish imperial irade directing reforms in Armenia which
were not carried out.
October 21, 1895.
Death of Henry Reeve, English author and editor.
November 4, 1895.
Revolutionary installation of Aloy Alfaro as executive chief
of the Republic of Ecuador.
Death of Eugene Field, American poet and journalist.
November 8, 1895.
Discovery of the X rays by Professor Rontgen.
November 9, 1895.
Death of Colonel Benjamin Wait, a leader of the Canadian
rebellion of 1837.
November 20, 1895.
Death of Chimelli de Marini, known as Rustem Pasha.
November 25, 1895.
More rigorous anti-slavery law instituted in Egypt.
Death of Jules Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, French statesman
and orientalist.
November 26, 1895.
Reply of Lord Salisbury, for the British government,
to the despatch of Mr. Olney, on the Venezuela question.
Death of Henry Seebohm, English naturalist.
November 27, 1895.
Death of Alexandre Dumas, the younger.
November 29, 1895.
Death of Count Edward Taaffe, Austrian statesman.
December 8, 1895.
Death of George Augustus Sala, English journalist.
December 12, 1895.
Death of Allen G. Thurman,
American political leader and statesman.
December 17, 1895.
Message of President Cleveland to the Congress of the
United States on the boundary dispute between
Great Britain and Venezuela.
Death of Antonio Gallenga (Luigi Mariotti),
Italian revolutionist, journalist, and author.
December 18-20, 1895.
Passage by the two branches of the Congress of the United
States of an act authorizing the President to appoint a
commission to ascertain the true boundary of Venezuela.
December 20, 1895.
Special Message of President Cleveland to the Congress of
the United States on the financial situation of the country.
December 23, 1895.
Death of "Stepniak," Russian revolutionist and author.
Death of John Russell Hind, English astronomer.
December 27-28, 1895.
Passage of temporary tariff bill and bill to maintain the
coin redemption fund, by the United States House of
Representatives.
December 29, 1895.
Raid by Dr. Jameson, Administrator of the British South Africa
Company, into the Transvaal, with an armed force of 500 men.
1896.
January 1, 1896.
Appointment of an United States Commission to investigate the
divisional line between Venezuela and British Guiana.
Surrender of Dr. Jameson and his raiders to the Boers.
New constitution for South Carolina brought into effect.
January 3, 1896.
Congratulatory telegram from the German Emperor, William II.,
to President Kruger, of the South African Republic,
on the defeat of the Jameson Raid.
January 8, 1896.
Destructive earthquake shock in Persia.
Death of Paul Verlaine, French poet.
January 10, 1896.
Proclamation of President Kruger to the inhabitants of
Johannesburg, promising them a municipal government.
January 11, 1896.
Death of João de Deus, Portuguese poet.
{704}
January 15, 1896.
Declaration of agreement between Great Britain and France
concerning Siam.
January 17, 1896.
Occupation of Kumassi, the capital of Ashanti, by British
forces, and submission of King Prempeh.
January 18, 1896.
Submission by the Queen of Madagascar to a
French protectorate of the island.
January 20, 1896.
Death of Prince Henry of Battenberg.
January 24, 1896.
Death of Lord Leighton, English painter.
January 29, 1896.
Death of the Right Honourable Hugh Culling Eardley Childcrs,
ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Great Britain.
February 1, 1896.
Substitution, by the United States Senate, of a free silver
coinage bill for the House bill to maintain the coin
redemption fund.
February 6, 1896.
Death of Jean Auguste Barre, French sculptor.
February 8, 1896.
Signing of treaty between United States and Great Britain for
the arbitration of British claims for seizure of sealing vessels.
February 10, 1896.
Arrival of General Weyler at Havana as Governor and
Captain-General of Cuba.
February 11, 1896.
Notification by the French government to the Powers that it
had taken final possession of Madagascar.
February 14, 1896.
Rejection by the United States House of Representatives of
the Senate substitute for its bill to maintain the coin
redemption fund.
February 16, 1896.
Promulgation of Weyler's concentration order in Cuba.
February 25, 1896.
Defeat of the House tariff bill in the United States Senate.
February 26, 1896.
Death of Arsène Houssaye, French author.
February 27, 1896.
Reopening of a discussion of the Venezuela boundary question
between the governments of the united States and Great Britain.
March 1, 1896.
Defeat of the Italians by the Abyssinians at Adowa.
March 5, 1896.
Suggestion by Lord Salisbury of a general treaty of
arbitration between the United States and Great Britain.
March 10-12, 1896.
Passage of the Raines Liquor Law by the two branches of the
New York Legislature.
March 21, 1896.
Beginning of the Anglo-Egyptian movement for the recovery of
the Sudan from the Dervishes.
March 22, 1896.
Death of Thomas Hughes, author of "Tom Brown's School Days."
March 24, 1896.
Death of President Hippolyte of the Haytien Republic.
March 28, 1896.
Death of Mrs. Elizabeth Charles, English author.
March 30, 1896.
Resumption of the authority of the Pope over the Coptic Church,
and re-establishment of the Catholic patriarchate of
Alexandria.
March 31, 1896.
Reopening of the military and naval service of the United
States to persons who had held commissions in the Confederate
army or navy during the civil war.
April 6, 1896.
Revival of Olympic games at Athens.
April 8.
Highest latitude reached by Dr. Nansen, within 261 statute
miles of the north pole.
April 11, 1896.
Death of Charilaos Trikoupis, Greek statesman.
April 21, 1896.
Death of Jean Baptiste Léon Say, French statesman.
Death of Baron Hirsch, financier
and millionaire-philanthropist.
April 24, 1896.
Promulgation of amendments to the constitution of the
Republic of Mexico.
April 26, 1896.
Death of Sir Henry Parkes, Australian statesman.
May 1, 1896.
Opening of German industrial exposition at Berlin.
Assassination of the Shah of Persia.
Promulgation of additional amendments to the Mexican
constitution.
May 2, 1896.
Opening of the great national exposition and festival at
Buda-Pesth to celebrate the millennium of the
kingdom of Hungary.
May 3, 1896.
Death of Alfred William Hunt, English artist.
May 4, 1896.
Opening of the National Electrical Exposition in New York.
May 6, 1896.
Promulgation of civil service rules by President Cleveland,
adding 29,000 places to the classified service under the
government of the United States.
May 11, 1896.
The bill to consolidate New York, Brooklyn, and neighboring
cities, in the "Greater New York," made law by the
Governor's signature.
May 19, 1896.
Promulgation of the law of public education in Mexico,
establishing a national system.
Publication in England of the manifesto of a New Radical Party,
led by Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Labouchere.
Death of the Archduke Karl Ludwig of Austria.
May 20, 1896.
Death of Madame Clara Schumann, pianist.
May 24, 1896.
Outbreak of Turks against the Christians in Canea, Crete.
Death of Edward Armitage, English artist.
May 26, 1896.
Coronation of the Russian Tzar, Nicholas II.;
suffocation of nearly 3,000 people at the feasting.
May 27, 1896.
The city of St. Louis struck by a cyclone.
May 27-28, 1896.
Meeting of the national convention of the Prohibition Party,
at Pittsburgh, to nominate candidates for President and
Vice President of the United States.
June 2, 1896.
Death of Friedrich Gerhard Rohlfs, African explorer.
June 4, 1896.
Death of Ernesto Rossi, Italian actor and author.
June 7, 1896.
Battle of the British and Egyptian army with the Dervishes
at Ferket.
June 8, 1896.
Death of Jules Simon, French statesmen and philosopher.
June 9, 1896.
Appointment of Commission to draft the "Greater New York"
charter.
June 16-18, 1896.
Meeting, at St. Louis, of the Republican national convention,
and nomination of William McKinley and Garret A. Hobart for
President and Vice President of the United States.
{705}
June 23, 1896.
Parliamentary elections in Canada, and substantial victory
of the Liberal Party.
Death of Sir Joseph Prestwich, English geologist.
June 26, 1896.
Resignation of Cecil J. Rhodes from the board of directors
of the British South Africa Company.
June 28, 1896.
Re-election of President Diaz, of Mexico, for a fifth term.
July 1, 1896.
Abolition of inter-state taxes in Mexico.
Death of Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe.
July 4-10, 1896.
Meeting, in New York, of the national convention of the
Socialist Labor Party, to nominate candidates for President
and Vice President of the United States.
July 7-11, 1896.
Meeting, at Chicago, of the Democratic national convention,
and nomination of William J. Bryan and Arthur Sewall for
President and Vice President of the United States.
July 8, 1896.
Retirement of Sir Charles Tupper from and succession of Sir
Wilfrid Laurier to the Prime Ministry of the Canadian government.
July 11, 1896.
Death of Right Honourable Sir Augustus Berkeley Paget,
diplomatist.
July 12, 1896.
Death of Professor Ernst Curtius, German historian.
July 14, 1896.
First international conference in London to plan co-operative
work in the preparation of a catalogue of scientific
literature.
July 16, 1896.
Death of Edmond Huot Goncourt, French novelist.
July 17, 1896.
Report of an investigating committee of the Cape Colony House
of Assembly declaring Mr. Rhodes to be responsible for the
Jameson Raid.
July 20, 1896.
Opening of the trial, in England, of Dr. Jameson and other
leaders of the raid into the Transvaal.
Death of Charles Dickens, eldest son of the novelist.
July 22, 1896.
Meeting of the convention of the National Silver Party,
at St. Louis, to endorse the nominations of Bryan and Sewall,
for President and Vice President of the United States.
July 22-25, 1896.
Meeting of the People's, or Populist Party in national
convention at St. Louis;
nomination of William J. Bryan and Thomas E. Watson for
President and Vice President of the United States.
July 23, 1896.
Death of Mary Dickens, eldest daughter of Charles Dickens.
July 26, 1896.
Tidal wave on the coast of Kiangsu, China, destroying
several thousand people.
July 28, 1896.
Conviction of Dr. Jameson and four of his subordinates.
July 30, 1896.
Resolution of the British House of Commons to investigate
the administration of the British South Africa Company.
August, 1896.
Discovery of the Klondike gold fields.
August 1, 1896.
Death of Right Honourable Sir William R. Grove,
jurist and man of science.
August 19, 1896.
Death of Professor Josiah Dwight Whitney, American geologist.
August 25, 1896.
Revolution in the sultanate of Zanzibar suppressed by British
forces.
Arrangement of Turkey with the Powers for reforms in Crete.
August 26-28, 1896.
Attack of Armenians on the Ottoman Bank at Constantinople;
horrible massacre of Armenians by the Turks.
August 27, 1896.
Appointment of Monsignor Martinelli to succeed Cardinal
Satolli as Papal Delegate to the United States.
August 30, 1896.
Death of Prince Alexis Borisovich Lobanof-Rostofski,
Russian statesman and diplomatist.
August 31, 1896.
Proclamation establishing a British protectorate over the
hinterland of Sierra Leone.
September 2-3, 1896.
Meeting of a convention of the National Democratic Party at
Indianapolis;
nomination of General John M. Palmer and General Simon B.
Buckner for President and Vice President of the United States.
September 15, 1896.
Publication in the Paris "Eclair" of the fact that Captain
Alfred Dreyfus (degraded and imprisoned in 1894 for alleged
betrayal of military secrets to a foreign power) was
convicted on the evidence of a document shown secretly to
the court martial, and unknown to the prisoner and his counsel.
September 23, 1896.
The Dervishes driven from Dongola by the Anglo-Egyptian army.
September 27, 1896.
Abolition of slavery in Madagascar by decree of the
French Resident-General.
September 29, 1896.
Official announcement of bubonic plague at Bombay.
October 3, 1896.
Death of William Morris, English poet.
October 8, 1896.
Death of George Du Maurier, English artist and novelist.
October 11, 1896.
Death of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury.
October 20-22, 1896.
Celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of
the founding of The College of New Jersey, which then
formally assumed the name of Princeton University.
October 26, 1896.
Peace made between the government of Italy and King Menelek,
of Abyssinia.
Death of Paul Amand Challemel Lacour, French publicist.
November 3, 1896.
Presidential election in the United States.
November 9, 1896.
Announcement by Lord Salisbury of the settlement of the
Venezuela question between Great Britain and the United States.
November 11, 1896.
Death of Mrs. Mary Frances Scott-Siddons, actress.
November 16, 1896.
First transmission of electric power from Niagara Falls to
Buffalo.
November 21, 1896.
Death of Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, physician,
scientific investigator, and author.
November 26, 1896.
Death of Coventry Patmore, English poet.
Death of Mathilde Blind, author.
Death of Benjamin Apthorp Gould, American astronomer.
December 1, 1896.
Death of Heinrich Gätke, painter and naturalist.
December 7, 1896.
Death of Antonio Maceo, leader of Cuban insurgents,
killed in a skirmish with the Spaniards.
December 10, 1896.
Death of Alfred Noble, Swedish engineer and founder of a
great fund for annually rewarding benefactors of humanity.
{706}
December 11, 1896.
Political suffrage extended to women in Idaho by an amendment
of the constitution.
December 15, 1896.
Death of Emile François Chatrousse, French sculptor.
1897.
January 3, 1897
Death of Vivien St. Martin, French geographer.
January 3-4, 1897.
Outbreak of conflict between Christians
and Moslems at Canea in Crete.
January 5, 1897.
Death of George Whiting Flagg, American painter.
January 11, 1897.
Signing, at Washington, of a general treaty between the
United States and Great Britain for the arbitration of all
matters of difference.
January 12, 1897.
Meeting, at Indianapolis, of a national convention of
delegates from commercial organizations to take measures
for promoting monetary reform in the United States.
January 15, 1897.
Death of Sir Travers Twiss, English jurist.
January 16, 1897.
Death of Joel Tyler Headley, American man of letters.
January 27, 1897.
Overthrow of the slave-raiding Emir of Nupé by forces of
the Royal Niger Company.
February 2, 1897.
Signing, at Washington, of the treaty of arbitration
between Great Britain and Venezuela.
February 7, 1897.
Union of Crete with Greece proclaimed by insurgent Christians
at Halepa.
February 9, 1897.
The taking of the first general census of the Russian Empire.
Death of Eliza Greatorex, American painter.
February 11, 1897.
Announcement by the government of Greece to the Powers that
it had determined to intervene by force in behalf of the
Christians of Crete.
February 12, 1897.
Death of Homer Dodge Martin, American artist.
February 14, 1897.
Landing of a Greek expedition of 2,000 men in Crete,
under Colonel Vassos.
February 15, 1897.
Landing of a mixed force at Canea, Crete, by the Powers of
the "European Concert," to protect the town;
proclamation by the Greek commander, Colonel Vassos, that he
had occupied the island in the name of the King of the Greeks.
February 16, 1897.
Beginning of the British parliamentary investigation of the
Jameson Raid.
Presentation by the South African Republic of its claim for
indemnity on account of the Jameson Raid.
February 17, 1897.
Attack by the Greeks on the Turkish forces at Canea.
February 18, 1897.
Capture of Benin by British forces.
February 22, 1897.
Death of Jean François Gravelet Blondin, French acrobat.
March 2, 1897.
Veto of Immigration Bill by President Cleveland.
Joint note by the powers of the "Concert" to Greece and
Turkey, declaring that Crete cannot be annexed to Greece, but
that the island will be endowed by the Powers with an
autonomous administration.
March 4, 1897.
Inauguration of William McKinley in the office of President
of the United States.
March 6, 1897.
Death of Reverend Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, English author.
March 11, 1897.
Death of Professor Henry Drummond, Scottish religious writer.
March 15, 1897.
Meeting of Congress in extra session called by the President.
March 21, 1897.
"Pacific blockade" of the coast of Crete established by the
Powers of the European Concert.
March 25, 1897.
Passage of the Elementary Education Act by the British
House of Commons.
March 27, 1897.
Death of William Taylor Adams (Oliver Optic), American writer
of fiction for young readers.
March 30, 1897.
Opening of debate in the British Parliament on the report of
a Royal Commission on the financial relations between
Great Britain and Ireland.
March 31, 1897.
Passage of the Dingley tariff bill by the United States
House of Representatives.
April.
Unprecedented floods along the Mississippi river.
April 3, 1897.
Death of Johannes Brahms, German composer.
April 5, 1897.
Publication in Austria of the language decrees for Bohemia.
April 6, 1897.
Edict of the Sultan of Zanzibar terminating the legal
status of slavery.
April 9, 1897.
Incursion of irregular Greek troops into Turkish territory.
April 10, 1897.
Death of Daniel Wolsey Voorhees, United States Senator.
April 12, 1897.
Appointment of commissioners from the United States to
negotiate in Europe for an international bi-metallic agreement.
Formal delivery to the Governor of Massachusetts of the
manuscript of Bradford's History of Plymouth Colony
(called "the Log of the Mayflower ") as a gift from England.
Death of Edward Drinker Cope, American naturalist.
April 17, 1897.
Turkish declaration of a state of war with Greece; beginning
of hostilities between regular troops, at Milouna Pass.
April 22-24, 1897.
Retreat of the Greek army in panic rout from Tyrnavo.
April 27, 1897.
Resignation of the Greek Ministry of M. Delyannis.
April 30, 1897.
Repulse by the Greeks of a Turkish attack on positions
near Velestino.
Formation of a new Ministry in Greece, under Demetrius Ralli.
May 1, 1897.
Opening of the Centennial Exposition at Nashville, Tennessee.
May 2-7, 1897.
Continued attacks by the Turks on the line held by the Greeks
between Pharsala and Volo; withdrawal of the Greeks to Domoko.
May 14, 1897.
Fire in a charity bazaar at Paris which was horribly
destructive of life.
The "Greater New York" charter becomes law.
May 15, 1897.
Rejection by the United States Senate of the arbitration
treaty negotiated between the United States and Great Britain.
May 16, 1897.
Death of Henri Eugene Philippe Louis, Duc d' Aumale, French
prince of the Bourbon-Orleans family, soldier and author.
Death of James Theodore Bent, English traveler and writer.
{707}
May 8, 1897.
Announcement by the Greek government to the Powers that
Colonel Vassos and his forces would be withdrawn from Crete.
May 11, 1897.
Proffer by the Powers of the European Concert of mediation
between Turkey and Greece.
May 17, 1897.
Defeat of the Greeks by the Turks at Domoko.
May 20, 1897.
Arrangement of an armistice between the Turks and the Greeks.
May 23, 1897.
Withdrawal of the last of the Greek troops from Crete.
June 1, 1897.
Census taken in Egypt.
June 2, 1897.
Opening of the Commercial Museum in Philadelphia.
June 3, 1897.
Opening of negotiations for peace between
Turkey and Greece at Constantinople.
June 10, 1897.
Effect given to a new constitution for the State of Delaware,
establishing an educational qualification of the suffrage.
Rising of tribes on the Afghan frontier of India against the
British.
June 14, 1897.
Convention between France and Great Britain, establishing the
boundaries of their respective claims in the Niger region of
West Africa.
June 16, 1897.
Transmission to Congress of a new treaty for the annexation
of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.
June 20-22, 1897.
Celebration in London of the sixtieth anniversary—the
"Diamond Jubilee"—of the accession of Queen Victoria to the
throne of the United Kingdom.
June 24, 1897.
Conference at London of the Premiers of British colonies with
the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
June 25, 1897.
Death of Mrs. Margaret Oliphant (Wilson) Oliphant, Scottish
novelist and writer in many fields.
July 2, 1897.
Death of Adjutant-General Francis Amasa Walker,
American economist.
July 7, 1897.
Passage of the Dingley tariff bill by the United States
Senate, with many amendments.
July 8, 1897.
Death of Isham Green Harris, United States Senator.
July 10, 1897.
Death of Daniel Greenleaf Thompson, American author.
July 11, 1897.
Adoption of constitutional amendments in Switzerland by
popular vote.
The starting of Andrée from Spitzbergen on his attempted
balloon voyage to the north pole.
July 12-15, 1897.
Conference of American commissioners with Lord Salisbury and
other British ministers, on the subject of an international
bi-metallic agreement.
July 13, 1897.
Report of the British parliamentary committee which
investigated the Jameson Raid.
Death of Alfred Marshall Mayer, American physicist.
July 14, 1897.
Death of Anthony John Mundella, English statesman.
July 15, 1897.
Death of Brigadier-General Philippe Regis de Trobriand,
French officer in the American civil war, and writer.
July 20, 1897.
Death of Sir John Skelton, Scottish historian.
Death of Sir John Charles Bucknill, English alienist.
July 24, 1897.
Final passage of the Dingley tariff bill by both branches
of the United States Congress.
July 26, 1897.
Attack on British garrisons in the Swat Valley
(Afghan frontier of India), excited by "the mad mullah."
July 30, 1897.
Death of Étienne Vacherot, French philosopher.
August 2, 1897.
Death of Adam Asnyk, Polish poet.
August 5, 1897.
Death of James Hammond Trumbull. American philologist.
August 8, 1897.
Assassination of Señor Canovas del Castillo,
Prime Minister of Spain.
August 25, 1897.
Assassination of President Borda, of Uruguay.
August 29-31, 1897.
Meeting of the first congress of the Zionists at Basle.
August 31, 1897.
Speech by the German Emperor at Coblenz, asserting
"kingship by the grace of God," with "responsibility to the
Creator alone."
Death of Mrs. Louisa Lane Drew, actress.
September 10, 1897.
Death of Theodore Lyman, American naturalist.
September 11, 1897.
Death of Reverend Abel Stevens,
American historian of the Methodist church.
September 12, 1897.
Ending of a great strike of coal miners in the United States,
which began in July.
September 16, 1897.
Death of Edward Austin Sheldon, American educator.
September 17, 1897.
Death of Henry Williams Sage, American philanthropist.
September 18, 1897.
Signing of a preliminary treaty of peace
between Turkey and Greece.
September 20, 1897.
Death of Wilhelm Wattenbach, German historian.
September 22, 1897.
Meeting at Washington of a commission on monetary reform,
appointed by the Indianapolis Convention of January 12.
Death of Charles Denis Sauter Bourbaki, French general.
September 28, 1897.
Vote on proposed constitutional amendments in New Jersey.
October 1, 1897.
Introduction of the gold monetary standard in Japan.
October 2, 1897.
Death of Neal Dow, American temperance reformer.
October 4, 1897.
Death of Professor Francis William Newman,
English scholar and philosopher.
October 6, 1897.
The Philippine Islands swept by a typhoon,
destroying over 6,000 lives.
Death of Sir John Gilbert, English artist.
October 18, 1897.
Death of Rear-Admiral John Lorimer Worden, U. S. N.
October 19, 1897.
Death of George Mortimer Pullman, American inventor.
October 21, 1897.
Opening and dedication of the Yerkes Observatory,
at Williams Bay, Wisconsin.
October 22, 1897.
Death of Justin Winsor, American historian and bibliographer.
October 24, 1897.
Death of Francis Turner Palgrave, English poet.
October 25, 1897.
Death of John Sartain, American artist.
Death of John Stoughton, English church historian.
October 27, 1897.
Death of Mary, Duchess of Teck.
Death of Alexander Milton Ross, Canadian naturalist.
{708}
October 28, 1897.
Stormy session of the Austrian Reichsrath; twelve-hours'
speech of Dr. Lecher.
Death of Hercules George Robinson, Baron Rosmead,
British colonial administrator.
October 29, 1897.
Death of Henry George, American economist.
November 2, 1897.
Election of the first Mayor of "Greater New York."
Death of Sir Rutherford Alcock, British diplomatist.
November 4, 1897.
Seizure by Germany of the port of Kiao-chau on the
northeastern coast of China.
November 6, 1897.
Signing of treaty between Russia, Japan and the United States,
providing for a suspension of pelagic sealing.
November 10, 1897.
Adoption of plans for a building for the
New York Public Library.
November 14, 1897.
Death of Thomas Williams Evans, American dentist in Paris,
founder of the Red Cross Society in the Franco-Prussian war.
November 15, 1897.
Commandant Esterhazy denounced to the French Minister of War,
by M. Matthieu Dreyfus, as the author of the "bordereau" on
which Captain Alfred Dreyfus was secretly convicted.
November 16, 1897.
The Dreyfus case brought into the French Chamber of Deputies
by a question to the Minister of War.
November 19, 1897.
Great fire in London, beginning in Aldersgate and spreading
over six acres, destroying property estimated at £2,000,000
in value.
Death of Henry Calderwood, Scottish philosopher.
November 21, 1897.
Death of Sir Charles Edward Pollock, English jurist.
November 23, 1897.
Death of A. Bardoux, French statesman.
November 25, 1897.
Promulgation by royal decree at Madrid of a constitution
establishing self-government in Cuba and Porto Rico.
November 29, 1897.
Death of James Legge, Scotch oriental scholar.
December, 1897.
Annexation of Zululand to Natal Colony.
December 5, 1897.
Death of Mrs. Alice Wellington Rollins, American author.
December 14.
Signing of the treaty of Biac-na-bato, between the Spaniards
and the insurgent Filipinos.
December 29, 1897.
Approval of Act of Congress forbidding the killing of seals
by citizens of the United States, in the Pacific Ocean north
of 35° North latitude.
Death of William James Linton, American artist and author.
December 31, 1897.
Imperial proclamation, closing the sittings of the Austrian
Reichsrath, and continuing the Austro-Hungarian "Ausgleich"
provisionally for six months.
1898.
January 2, 1898.
Death of Sir Edward Augustus Bond, formerly principal
librarian of the British museum.
January 12, 1898.
Acquittal of Commandant Esterhazy, after a farcical pretense
of trial by a military tribunal, on the charge of being the
author of the "bordereau" ascribed to Dreyfus.
January 13, 1898.
Publication in Paris of a letter by M. Zola, denouncing the
conduct of the courts martial in the cases of Dreyfus and
Esterhazy.
Death of Mrs. Mary Victoria Cowden Clarke.
January 16, 1898.
Death of Charles Pelham Villiers, English statesman.
January 18, 1898.
Death of Henry George Liddell, English historian and
classical scholar.
January 20, 1898.
Second meeting of monetary convention at Indianapolis, to
consider the report of its commission.
January 24, 1898.
Declaration by Count von Bülow, in the German Reichstag, that
no relations or connections of any kind had ever existed
between Captain Dreyfus and any German agents.
January 25, 1898.
Friendly visit of the United States battle ship "Maine" to
Havana, Cuba.
January 28, 1898.
End of a great strike and lockout in the British engineering
trades, which began in the previous July.
January 31, 1898.
Disastrous blizzard in New England.
February 4, 1898.
Re-election (by voting which began January 3) of
President Kruger for a fourth term of five years,
in the South African Republic.
February 7-15, 1898.
Prosecution of M. Zola for defamation of certain military
officers; his scandalous trial and conviction.
February 14, 1898.
Destruction of the United States battle ship "Maine,"
by an explosion, in the harbor of Havana, Cuba.
February 16, 1898.
Removal of Chief-Justice Kotze, of the High Court of the
South African Republic, by President Kruger.
February 18.
Death of Frances Elizabeth Willard, American social reformer.
February 19, 1898.
Death of Dr. Edward Constant Seguin, neurologist, New York.
February 26, 1898.
Death of Frederick Tennyson, English poet.
Death of Michael Gregorovich Tchernaieff, Russian soldier
and popular hero of the Panslavists.
February 27, 1898.
Death of Major-General William Booth Taliaferro,
Confederate army.
March 1, 1898.
Retirement of General Crespo from the Presidency of Venezuela;
succession of General Andrade to the office.
March 6, 1898.
Death of Felice Cavalotti, Italian statesman and dramatist.
March 11, 1898.
Death of Major-General William Starke Rosecrans.
March 15, 1898.
Death of Sir Henry Bessemer, English inventor.
March 16, 1898.
Death of Aubrey Beardsley, English artist.
March 17, 1898.
Speech of Senator Proctor, of Vermont, in the United States
Senate, describing the condition of the reconcentrados in Cuba,
as he saw them during a recent visit to the island.
Death of Blanche K. Bruce, register of the United States
Treasury, born a slave.
March 21, 1898.
Report of the United States naval court of inquiry on the
destruction of the battle ship "Maine."
Death of Brigadier-General George Washington Rains,
Confederate army.
{709}
March 22, 1898.
Report of Spanish naval board of inquiry on the destruction
of the United States battle ship "Maine."
March 23, 1898.
Primary election law in New York signed by the Governor.
March 25, 1898.
Death of James Payn, English novelist.
March 27, 1898.
Proposal by the government of the United States to that of
Spain of an armistice and negotiation of peace with the
insurgents in Cuba.
Cession by China to Russia of Port Arthur and Talienwan.
March 28, 1898.
Message of the President of the United States to Congress on
the destruction of the battle ship "Maine."
Death of Anton Seidl, composer and musical conductor.
March 31, 1898.
Reply of the Spanish government to the proposals of the
United States, for an armistice and negotiation with the
Cuban insurgents.
Death of Edward Noyes Westcott, American novelist.
April 2, 1898.
Quashing of the sentence pronounced on M. Zola, upon his
appeal to the Court of Cassation.
Lease by China to Great Britain of the port of Wei-hai Wei
with adjacent territory.
April 7, 1898.
Death of Margaret Mather, American actress.
April 8, 1898.
Great victory of the Anglo-Egyptian army, under the Sirdar,
General Kitchener, over the Dervishes, on the Atbara.
April 10, 1898.
Passage of bill through the German Reichstag to greatly
increase the German navy.
April 11, 1898.
Special Message of the President of the United States to
Congress on the relations of the country to Spain, consequent
on affairs in Cuba.
Lease by China to France of Kwang-chow Wan
on the southern coast.
April 13, 1898.
Adoption by the United States House of Representatives of a
joint resolution authorizing and directing the President to
"intervene at once to stop the war in Cuba."
April 16, 1898.
Adoption by the United States Senate of a joint resolution
not only directing intervention to stop the war in Cuba,
but recognizing the insurgent government of "the Republic of
Cuba."
Death of ex-President Crespo, of Venezuela, killed in battle.
April 17, 1898.
Death of Jules Marcou, French geologist.
April 18, 1898.
Arrangement of the disagreement between the two branches of
the United States Congress respecting the recognition of
"the Republic of Cuba," and passage of a joint resolution
to intervene for the stopping of the war in the island.
April 19, 1898.
Death of George Parsons Lathrop, American author.
Death of Gustave Moreau, French painter.
April 20, 1898.
Passports asked for and received by the
Spanish Minister at Washington.
April 21, 1898.
Appointment of Rear-Admiral Sampson to the command of the
United States naval force on the Atlantic station.
April 22, 1898.
Proclamation by the President of the United States declaring
a blockade of certain Cuban ports.
April 23, 1898.
Proclamation by the President of the United States calling
for 125,000 volunteers.
April 24, 1898.
Commodore Dewey, commanding the Asiatic squadron of the
United States, ordered to proceed from Hong Kong to the
Philippine Islands, to destroy or capture the Spanish fleet
in those waters.
Interview, at Singapore, between the leader of the Philippine
insurgents, Aguinaldo, and the United States Consul-General,
Mr. Spencer Pratt;
communication from Mr. Pratt to Commodore Dewey, at Hong Kong;
request from Commodore Dewey that Aguinaldo come to Hong Kong.
April 25, 1898.
Formal declaration of war with Spain by the Congress of the
United States, with authority given to the President to call
out the land and naval forces of the nation.
Removal of the American squadron under Commodore Dewey from
Hong Kong to Mirs Bay, China.
Signing of protocol between Russia and Japan relative to Korea.
April 27, 1898.
Sailing of the American squadron from Mirs Bay to Manila.
April 29, 1898.
Proclamation of neutrality by the Portuguese government,
which required the Spanish fleet under Admiral Cervera to
depart from the Cape Verde islands.
May 1, 1898.
Destruction of the Spanish squadron in Manila Bay by the
American squadron under Commodore Dewey.
May 2, 1898.
Arrival of Aguinaldo at Hong Kong.
May 3, 1898.
Occupation of Cavite arsenal by American naval forces.
May 8, 1898.
General elections for a new Chamber of Deputies in France;
first balloting.
May 9, 1898.
Serious fighting in Milan, ending bread riots in that city
and elsewhere in northern Italy.
May 12, 1898.
Attack on the Spanish forts at San Juan, Porto Rico, by
Admiral Sampson, then searching for Cervera's fleet.
May 13, 1898.
Death of Reverend William Stevens Perry,
American church historian.
May 16, 1898.
Major-General Wesley Merritt, U. S. A., assigned to the
command of the Department of the Pacific.
Conveyance of Aguinaldo from Hong Kong to Cavite by the
United States ship "McCulloch."
May 19, 1898.
Death of Mr. Gladstone.
Death of Maria Louise Pool, American novelist.
May 22, 1898.
Second balloting in French elections, where the first had
resulted in no choice.
Death of Spencer Walpole, English historian.
Death of Edward Bellamy, American novelist and social theorist.
May 25, 1898.
Proclamation by the President of the United States calling
for 75,000 additional volunteers.
Departure from San Francisco of the first military expedition
from the United States to the Philippine Islands, under
General T. M. Anderson.
May 28, 1898.
Public funeral of Mr. Gladstone;
burial in Westminster Abbey.
Death of Mrs. Madeleine Vinton Dahlgren, American author.
{710}
May 29, 1898.
Blockade of the Spanish squadron under Rear-Admiral Cervera,
in the harbor of Santiago de Cuba, by the American flying
squadron under Commodore Schley.
May 30, 1898.
Agreement between Great Britain, Canada and the United States,
creating a Joint High Commission for the adjustment of all
existing subjects of controversy between the United States
and Canada.
June 1, 1898.
Arrival of Admiral Sampson and his fleet off the entrance to
the harbor of Santiago de Cuba, to perfect the blockade of
the Spanish squadron.
Opening of the Trans-Mississippi Exposition at Omaha, Nebraska.
Enactment of law to provide for the arbitration of disputes
between employés and companies engaged in interstate commerce
in the United States.
June 2, 1898.
Death of George Eric Mackay, English poet.
June 3, 1898.