such allegiance.53 In default of such declaration, they should be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they resided. The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories ceded by the United States were to be determined by the Congress of the United States.54

It was subsequently discovered that Spain owned certain islands which were not within the boundary lines drawn in the treaty which were thus left derelict and useless to Spain. Under a treaty signed at Washington, November 7, 1900, and ratified January 23, 1901, it was agreed that in consideration of the payment of one hundred thousand dollars all islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago lying outside of such lines, particularly the islands of Cagayan Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies, should be included in the cession.55

Such was the Treaty of Paris, which was supposed to mark the close of an era of the world's history. As the result of a war into which the fatuous Madrid government allowed itself to drift, the old Spain ceased to exist. Thereafter what remained was a different Spain. As said by an European critic, it was Spain's misfortune and fault "that her extraordinary mismanagement of Cuba brought her into conflict with the United States, whose politicians had little regard for the conventions of European diplomacy and no particular reverence for the status quo. For whatever mistakes she may have made at this crisis, Spain has paid the penalty to the full.”56

53 By a subsequent protocol signed at Washington on March 29, 1900, the time was extended for six months from April 11, 1900.

54 It was the intention of the framers of the treaty to leave Congress a free hand to deal with the islands. Dorr v. U. S. (1904), 195 U. S. 138.

The Filipinos did not become citizens of the United States. Congress, by Act of July 1, 1902, as amended by Act March 23, 1912, authorized the Philippine Legislature to provide for the acquisition of citizenship by certain natives who did not come within the terms of the treaty. The act makes all inhabitants of the islands on April 11, 1899, including Spanish subjects who did not elect to retain their Spanish allegiance, citizens of the Philippines. Roga v. Col. of Customs, 22 Ph. Rep. 332. Fed. Stat. Ann. Sup. 1914, p. 310. 55 Fed. Stat., Ann., VII, p. 818; For. Rel., 1900, p. 887.

56 The London Times, Dec. 12, 1898.

CHAPTER XIV

The Policy of Expansion and the Anti-Imperialists

Some Generalities-First Impressions-McKinley's Original Views-Publicists and Literary Men-Their Arguments Ineffective-A Question of National Policy-Instincts of the People-Natural Desire for Growth-Decision Rested With McKinley-The Anti-Imperialists-Nature of Their Opposition-Sentiment in Continental Europe-British Feeling-Kipling's Appeal-Opposition at First Negative-The Policy of "Walk Alone"-Senator Hoar's Suggestion for a Convention of Nations-The World Power Idea, Altruism and Commercialism-Not Originally a Party Issue-Mr. Bryan's Responsibility-Ratification of the Treaty-Future Policy Left Undetermined.

It is difficult to ascertain the causes of a war. It is impossible to anticipate its consequences. Some simple or dramatic incident serves as a spark and lights a magazine in which the troubles of an era have accumulated. A battleship, while in a friendly port, is blown up; an ancient colonial empire crumbles and a modern republic is deflected into new courses. An irritated Bey strikes a French ambassador with a fan, Algiers is occupied, and in the course of a few years France finds herself charged with the cares of a colonial empire. A company of traders on the far side of the world bring about conditions which force England, against her will, to assume the burden of governing the millions of India. Certain bondholders so involve her in the entangling meshes of Egyptian affairs that thereafter all the struggles and writhings of her statesmen serve only to draw tighter her bonds. Even the Romans were not intentionally the conquerors of the world.1 Verily, as McKinley said, the march of events rules and overrules

1 "Events have generally evolved themselves so that a contest has arisen out of comparatively insignificant causes, such as a border line or a commercial right of way, and the conqueror by his mere victory has been obliged to enlarge the boundaries of his country. Even the Romans were not intentionally the conquerors of the world." Delbrück, Contemporary Review, Oct., 1909.

human actions. The incidental becomes the principle, the temporary the permanent, and the world bows its head in acquiescence before au fait accompli. More than twenty centuries ago Thucydides remarked that war was the last thing in the world to go according to program. We speak of the purposes of a war and propose to confine and limit its results. But when the floodgates of war are once opened man seems able to do but little more than run for a time along the shore and watch the torrent as it breaks new channels and spreads into the most unexpected places. "I claim not to have controlled events," said Lincoln, "but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now at the end of three years' struggle the nation's condition is not what either party or any man desired or expected." The world is never the same after as before a war. "A stricken field," says Lord Salisbury, "is one of the stages upon the road of history, and the state of things that existed before that stricken field can not be the same as that which exists afterward." It is not surprising that the Spanish-American War created unexpected conditions and new problems for solution.

The great question whether the United States should take the Philippines from Spain and assume the burden of governing and developing an alien people was seriously and even acrimoniously discussed almost from the day of Dewey's victory. It is probably true that in the beginning a majority of the thoughtful men in the country instinctively shrank from the adoption of a national policy which seemed so remote from anything in the past history of the country.

Doctor Schurman relates that when he was offered the presidency of the first Philippine Commission by President McKinley, he replied, “To be plain, Mr. President, I am opposed to your Philippine policy. I never wanted the Philippines." "Oh," replied the president, "that need not trouble you; I did not want the Philippines either, and in the protocol to the treaty I kept myself free not to take them, but in the end there was no alternative."

2 The Times, Nov. 11, 1898.

To the suggestion that, after reserving suitable naval stations, the islands should be left in the possession of Spain, the president replied that the American people who had gone to war for the emancipation of Cuba would not after Dewey's victory in Manila Bay consent to leave the Filipinos any longer under the dominion of Spain, and that if Spain were driven out and American sovereignty not set up, the peace of the world would be endangered.3

When a few months later the president asked Judge Taft to become the president of the second Philippine Commission, it is said that he was met with substantially the same reply that he had received from Doctor Schurman.

Many distinguished scholars, educators, statesmen, publicists, literary men, poets and philosophers, were saddened by what seemed to them the proposed abandonment of the primary principles upon which the nation had been founded. Some of the arguments which these men advanced against the policy of expansion seemed unanswerable, and yet they were not effective. The speeches delivered by Senator Hoar in the Senate won the respect and admiration of the entire country, but convinced no one who was not already of the same way of thinking. The powerful addresses of Carl Schurz, Moorfield Storey and others were equally admirable and equally unconclusive. It is possible that they were pitched on too high a key and that the speakers neglected the appeal to certain very human traits. The wise man who tells the people of their incapacity generally has a silent audience, while he who flatters is certain of applause.

The extremists predicted that the new policy would lead to glory ineffable or disaster dire and dreadful. The optimists found in it inspiration and encouragement. But the pessimists questioned the source of the inspiration and drew an inference from the incident recorded in the fourth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew: "The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of

3 Schurman, Philipping Affairs, p. 2. See Olcott's Life of William McKinley, I, Chap. IX, p. 175.

the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

The arguments on both sides were often carried to such extremes as to seem absurd and hysterical. An emotional patriot sobbing over what he thought was the grave of the Declaration of Independence irresistibly reminded the common man of Mark Twain weeping at the grave of Adam. And the harrowing pictures painted by the expansionists of the confusion and the awful results generally which would follow the withdrawal of American troops, were also overdrawn. "What do you suppose the Filipinos would do," dramatically asked Mr. Choate, "if we should withdraw the American troops?" "Well," drawled Speaker Reed, "I don't suppose they would pursue us farther than San Francisco." Unemotional people were reasonably certain that the United States would continue to prosper under either policy.

It was, after all, merely a question of national policy. Neither national life nor liberty was involved. The people were untrammeled by any precedent or principle which forbade them to acquire and hold dependencies, and they took no stock in the assertion that they, the descendants of successful colonists, were incompetent to develop colonies or govern dependencies, or in the theory that the reaction from the attempt would ruin the home country. They knew instinctively the meaning of their political maxims and realized the implied limitation upon the general statements that all men are created free and equal and that government should rest on the consent of the governed. Every reasonably well-informed person knew that the natives of California, Louisiana, Florida, New Mexico and Alaska had not been asked whether they desired to become citizens or subjects of the United States, and that the people of the southern states had, against their will and by force of arms, been compelled to remain within the Union and continue to hear the Declaration of Independence read on each recurring Fourth of July. They realized, also, that in the United States, as elsewhere, there had always been a wide divergence between the precepts of political