6

at least a part of the commission. His was the wisdom of Polonius: "Beware of entrance into quarrel; but being in, bear it, that the opposer may beware of thee." George W. Smalley gives Whitelaw Reid the credit for determining McKinley's Philippine policy for him. Mr. Reid, while a member of the Peace Commission, was certainly very influential, and his intimate knowledge of diplomatic affairs enabled him, at a critical stage of the negotiations, to plant a fertile suggestion in the mind of the Spanish ambassador at Paris. But Smalley's account of events is quite inaccurate and his assertions are not sustained by the correspondence that passed between Washington and the Peace Commission. President McKinley, on vital matters, such as the Cuban and Philippine debts and the claim of conquest, showed a persistence and determination which are quite inconsistent with the popular but erroneous idea of his character."

After availing himself of every means of information he reached the conclusion that a large majority of the people favored retaining the Philippines, and subsequent events proved that he was correct. They were not averse to acquiring additional territory, whether contiguous or non-contiguous, if it seemed the proper thing to do and for the probable political and commercial advantage of the United States. They had not, indeed, contemplated the invasion of the Far East. The idea of absorbing an archipelago, of which the greater number possibly had never even heard, required consideration. The proposal that they should become responsible for the government of another alien race induced a perceptible hesitancy. After a tour through the Western States the president returned to Washington, convinced that he would be supported in demanding the cession of the entire group of islands. At this stage of the controversy

6 Smalley, Anglo-American Memories, 2nd Series, p. 191.

7 See Olcott's Life of William McKinley, II, Chap. XXVIII.

8 Senator Hoar wrote: "I dare say that he was influenced as any other man who was not more than human would have been influenced by the apparently earnest desire of the American people, as he understood it, as it was conveyed to him on his Western journey. But I believe every step he took he thought necessary at the time. The feeling of the country

was deeply excited. President McKinley made his famous Western journey. He was greeted by enthusiastic throngs. The feeling in that part of the

the situation was within his control. The people were willing to accept his judgment. The peace commissioners at Paris were divided. Had President McKinley directed the commission not to demand the cession of the Philippines, the American people would have acquiesced, probably with a sigh of relief. He had the power to choose, and his choice was subsequently ratified by the people.

Mr. Taft in a public address once said that the United States blundered into colonization. It is a common view, but entirely erroneous. What was done was done deliberately. If it was a blunder, it was a deliberate blunder adopted after the fullest consideration. Those who opposed the policy of expansion or-. ganized under the name of Anti-Imperialists and characterized their opponents as Imperialists. As a term of reproach, the word imperialist was not a very disparaging one. The great majority of the nation which successfully governs more than a fifth of the population of the world bear it proudly as a term of honor. Whether intended as a term of honor or reproach depends, of course, upon what it connotes to the person who uses it. It pertains to empire, something which may be very noble, or very much otherwise. Chief Justice Marshall referred to "the empire of the United States." Thomas Jefferson, from his retirement, wrote to Madison that "no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government.' W. H. Stead wrote of the "ministry of empire," and declared its "essence to be not lordship, but service." It is true, as said by a recent English writer," that there is a debased and mock imperialism which walks in jackboots and works to the sound of kettledrums, but there is also another and finer imperialism country in favor of permanent dominion over the Philippine Islands was uttered by excited crowds, whom he addressed from the platform and the railroad cars as he passed through the country. But the sober, conservative feeling which seldom finds utterance in such assembly did not make itself heard." Autobiography, II, p. 311.

9 Geographical Magazine, Aug., 1905.

10 Reid, One Welchman, p. 43.

9910

11 Fraser, Lord Curzon in India and After, p. 456. For a statement of the faith of a "sound but reasonable Imperialist," see Lord Cromer's paper on the "Government of Subject Races," in The Edinburgh Review, June, 1908; Cromer's Pol. and Lit. Essays, p. 3.

which has for its object the creation of great nations upon firm foundations, the uplifting of myriads to a happier and nobler level, the spread of justice and liberty, and the evolution of a higher manhood. And such, regardless of the errors and mistakes which are incident to all great undertakings, America's "imperial" work in the Orient, if such it be called, has proved to be.

Empire and democracy are not necessarily antagonistic. The most advanced democracies in the world, such as New Zealand, nestle within the protecting arms of the greatest of empires.

"The world," says Professor Giddings,12 "has been accustomed to think of democracy and empire as antagonistic phenomena. It has assumed that democracy could be established only on the ruins of empire, and that the establishment of empire necessarily means the overthrow of liberty by a triumphant reign of absolutism. Yet in our day, we are witnessing the simultaneous development of both democracy and empire. The two most powerful nations of the world are becoming, year by year, more democratic in their local life, in their general legislation, and in their social institutions. Nevertheless, for a generation, both have been continually extending their territorial boundaries, absorbing outlying states or colonial possessions, and developing a complicated system of general or imperial administrations. Not only so, but, under that government which has carried this policy to its highest perfection, the coexistence of democracy and empire has become an approximately perfect blend."

The work of the Anti-Imperialist League during the early part of the controversy was commendable. It supplied the organized opposition essential for the proper discussion and consideration of an important question of national policy. It fought great battles in the Senate, through the press and on the platform. No more patriotic body of citizens were ever banded together in the support of a cause. But after the insurrection in the islands began, the impartial historian will find but little to commend in the course pursued by the organization, or at least by

12 Giddings, Democracy and Empire, p. 1; and see Frank's Roman Imperialism, Chap. 6 (Rome as an Imperial Democracy), pp. 88-110.

some of its most active members. The warfare which was carried on after the political battle had been lost much resembled that which prevailed in the Philippines after Aguinaldo had been driven into the mountains-it was of the guerrilla variety, designed merely to annoy.

The acquisition by the United States of territory in the Far East was regarded with much disfavor by the nations of continental Europe. Russia and Germany in particular resented what was assumed to be the entry of a new and aggressive western power into world affairs. Officially the conduct of these governments may have been strictly correct and friendly to us, but the weight of public sentiment was thrown in favor of Spain and against the policy of American expansion.

The continental press was loud in its protests against the acquisition of territory by America in the Orient. To the editors of the anti-republican journals it seemed exceedingly sad that the great republic should fall away from its ideals. Incidentally they surmised that events might strengthen a power which would stand in the way of their advances in Manchuria and China. Writing on the assumed decay of Anglo-Saxondom, M. de Pressence noted that "in the United States we see the intoxications of the strong wine of warlike glory carrying a great democracy off its feet and raising the threatened specter of militarism."

In England the extremists, of whom Wilfred Blunt and Kier Hardie were leading exemplars, the men who have always opposed their own country's policy in India and Egypt, naturally sympathized with the Anti-Imperialists. The erratic Mr. Labouchere wrote pungently and interestingly in Truth of what he called the affiliation of English and American jingoes.13

13 Truth, July 7, 1898. Truth, Jan. 5, 1899, sent the following New Year's greeting to Uncle Sam. While not much as poetry, it is worth something as a prophecy:

"We wish you much joy of the islands

Which you have so easily won.

But the troublesome part of the business
Has only, we fear, just begun.

You will prove how extremely ungrateful

Your new fellow subjects can be,

Compelling you even to shoot them
Before they consent to be free.

But the Times and its constituency and responsible English statesmen generally were friendly to the expansion policy upon which the United States was entering. The work ahead of America appealed to the instinct of those Englishmen who generally assume that the lower races have been provided by Providence as material upon which to exercise their special talents for government. If they were not themselves to govern the Philippines, they preferred that the duty should fall upon Americans. Mr. Smalley tells of a conversation with Lord Kitchener, who, like many Americans, thought that the Filipinos were causing an unreasonable amount of trouble. He attempted to explain the situation by stating that America was inexperienced in colonial work. Lord Kitchener replied, "I should like to govern them for you," and it was evident, adds Mr. Smalley, that while the remark was not serious, he would like "to have taken on a job of that kind, had it been possible." Later in Egypt he dealt successfully with similar problems.

The controversy inspired one poem which made a strong appeal to the conscience and sense of obligation of the American people. A great English poet, idealizing the imperial vocation, stripped it of the tinsel and glitter by which its enemies and some of its friends are accustomed to ornament it, and revealed it as

You will certainly find yourself bothered

At first in your much enlarged sphere,
But nations that go on the warpath

Can not hope for a Happy New Year."

14 Thus in an address delivered April 30, 1914, Sir George Reid said: "Let us consider what being a Britisher means. It means belonging to the only race capable of managing the affairs of every other race and creed." United Empire, V (N. S.), p. 481. This assumption by the British of omnipotence in colonial matters, however well justified by history, is sometimes a little trying to the people who have been less favored by Providence.

A blockade-running English skipper, who was in Philippine waters during the war, published a book in which he suggested, that, in view of America's experience with negroes and England's natural qualifications for governing Eastern people, the Philippines should be exchanged for Jamaica. Ross, Sixty Years' Life and Adventure in the Far East (1911). A more practical plan was that suggested by Congressman Bede, that America should relieve herself from the Philippine troubles and at the same time preserve the protective principle by exchanging the Philippines for Ireland and then raise her own policemen.