Some notice is due to the objection that these outlying possessions render us more vulnerable in case of war; that because of their wide separation and the enormous increase of coast line the task of defense will be greatly augmented. This is evidently true; and it is no less true and no less evident that in the same ratio will our means of defense be augmented; for the fighting of the future will be naval more and more as the years go by; and naval warfare demands, first, a navy, and, second, bases of operation.
But a navy is expensive both to create and to maintain, and our new policy will demand a largely increased navy and an enormous outlay of money. Yes, but this has long been needed by our foreign commerce, and the lack of it for this purpose has been disastrous. A nation whose merchants pay out half a million dollars every day for transportation in foreign vessels (I quote the words of the chief engineer of the navy), certainly ought to do all in its power to encourage its own merchant marine, at least by furnishing adequate protection. Think of it! a half a million saved every day would build a $3,000,000 battleship in one week. Why, we paid out enough in pensions in one year to build twenty-five such vessels. This ought to suggest to every one that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Hence, though a navy is expensive, it is still more so to do without one.
But, you say, we are incurring a vast expense in subduing and controlling the country, and apparently there is no income to balance it. Add to all this the $20,000,000 conceded by the Treaty of Paris, and don’t you think it a rather poor investment?
Here again let us seek our answer from the experience of England in Egypt and in India. In both of these countries her outlay of money originally was enormous, and from neither of them does she now receive a penny of revenue. She taxes them to be sure, but the taxes are spent for the local administration—none for England. It is from trade with these countries—the greater because of her greater prestige—trade which is of mutual benefit, that England derives any revenue whatsoever, but that is enormous. Yet she does not forbid other nations to trade with them nor place any obstacle in their way. She has had simply the advantage of greater prestige and commercial ability.
Finally one other objection must be noticed and that is the constitutional objection. As to the merits of this question, let constitutional lawyers decide; but if the country has been expanding ever since it began, and all the arguments of statesmen, big and little, have not prevented it from expanding, it would seem to be not so much a constitutional question as it is one of national policy and international law. At any rate the constitution was made for America and not America for the constitution; and while it is one of the ablest of documents, nobody considers it faultless or supposes it ever could be. James Bryce in a burst of enthusiasm says of us: “Such a people could work any constitution”.
It is impossible to speak in so short a time of all the points involved in expansion, or even of the one case we have been considering, the details of which we can well afford to omit, if it is justified by political, international, commercial and especially ethical considerations.
We will now listen to questions.
As soon as the opportunity was given there were several ready to take advantage of it, and the questions came fast and furious—almost.
“Professor”, said one, “it seems to me that I see several inconsistencies in your position. You will not mind my saying so?”