Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

66

floor of the House of Commons of Canada on the question of Alaska, and I enunciated the very obvious truism that international problems can be settled in one or two ways only, either by arbitration or by war. And although I proceeded to say immediately that war between Great Britain and the United States would be criminal and would not be thought of for a moment, still the very word war "created quite an excitement in this country. For that causeless excitement, though I was indirectly the cause of it, I do not at this moment find any fault, because it convinced me to an absolute certainty that between your country and my country the relations have reached that degree of dignity and respect and affection that even the word "war" is never to be mentioned in a British assembly or in an American assembly. The word is not to be pronounced, not even to be predicated. It is not to be pronounced at all. The very idea is abhorrent to us.

I repeat what I then stated, that war between Great Britain and the United States would be criminal-in my estimation and judgment, just as criminal as the Civil War, which desolated your country some thirty years ago. Whatever may have been the mistaken views of the civilized world at the time, the civilized world has come to the unanimous conclusion that the War of the Rebellion was a crime. The civilized world has come to the conclusion that it was a benefit to mankind that this rebellion did not succeed and that the government of the people, by the people and for the people did not perish from the earth.

Your country was desolated for four long years by the awful scourge of civil war. If there is anything of the many things which are to be admired in this great country of yours, the one thing for my part which I most admire is the absolute success with which you have re-established the Union and erased all traces of the Civil War. What is the reason?

You had it in the war with Spain, when the men of the blue and the men of the gray, the men who had fought for the Confederacy, and the men that fought for the Union, at the call of their country, came back to fight the battles of their own country under a united flag. That was the reason.

Senator Cullom, said a moment ago that he might believe me almost an American. I am a British subject, but I may say that, as a lover of liberty, a believer in democratic institutions, I rejoiced as you did at the spectacle which was presented at Santiago, El Caney, and elsewhere during that war.

Sirs, there was another civil war. There was a civil war in the last century. There was a civil war between England, then, and her colonies. The union which then existed between England and her colonies was severed. If it was severed, American citizens, as you know it was, through no fault of your fathers, the fault was altogether the fault of the British Government of that day. If the British Government had treated the American colonies as the British Government for the last twenty or fifty years has treated its colonies; if Great Britain had given you then the same degree of liberty which it gives to Canada, if it had given you, as it has given us, legislative independence, the result would have been different; the course of victory, the course of history, would have been different.

But what has been done cannot be undone. You cannot expect that the union which was then severed shall ever be restored; but may we not hope that, if the union cannot be restored under the law, at least there can be a union of hearts? May we not hope that the banners of England and the banners of the United States shall never again meet in conflict, except those conflicts provided by the arts of peace, such as we see to-day in the contest between the "Shamrock" and the

"Columbia" for the supremacy of naval architecture and naval prowess? May we not hope that if ever the banners of England and the banners of the United States are again to meet on the battle-field they shall meet entwined together in the defence of some holy cause, in the defence of holy justice, for the defence of the oppressed, for the enfranchisement of the downtrodden, and for the advancement of liberty, progress, and civilization?

WILLIAM LINDSAY

[Extracts from a speech delivered before the American Bar Association at Buffalo, August 28, 1899].

I.

LAW IS WITH DUTY

THE authority of the Government to prosecute the war against Spain, to destroy the Spanish fleets, to capture the Spanish armies, and to hold and occupy Spanish territory, is not open to question. The right to make peace includes the right to fix the terms and conditions upon which peace shall be made; and those terms may lawfully include the cession of territory won by American valor. The war with Mexico, fifty years ago, and the treaty through which peace was then restored, are prototypes of the recent war with Spain and the treaty of peace with that country. A victorious conflict, followed by the cession of the vast region embraced by New Mexico and Upper California, with the payment to Mexico of fifteen million dollars, and a victorious war followed by the cession of Porto Rico and the Philippine Archipelago and the Island of Guam, with the payment to Spain of twenty million dollars, complete the analogy. These treaty stipulations impose no obligations on the United States to organize the ceded territories into States preparatory to their admission into the Union.

It is said to be inconsistent with the fundamental

idea of free institutions for this Government to retain territory under its imperial rule and deny the people the customary local institutions. But it is not contrary to that idea to retain such territory, securing to the people all the customary local institutions they may prove themselves competent to administer, and all the civil rights that free institutions are intended to protect. If the erection of States out of the territory of Louisiana was in the mind of Mr. Jefferson at all, it was not the controlling consideration with him, or with either of his commissioners when the treaty of cession was negotiated. The possession of Louisiana by France would have been an obstruction to the safety and prosperity of the United States. To prevent that obstruction, and not for the creation or admission of new States into the Union, the purchase was made.

The power to admit new States, except those erected within the original boundaries of the Union, was then an undecided and disputed proposition. It was denied by statesmen and lawyers of distinction and ability. When the territory of Louisiana applied for admission as a State, the application met with determined opposition. It was insisted that the admission would impair the dignity and reduce the relative importance of the original States, and would be in derogation of their constitutional rights. In all past controversies, no one contended that the validity of the acquisition of foreign territory depended on the ultimate organization of any portion of it into a State for admission into the Union. The admission of new States is essentially a discretionary power. New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union. The grant implies power, not duty. Congress has the "discretion to refuse as well as to admit." It may be doubted, whether the discretion to refuse can be taken away or abridged by treaty.

To substitute the control of the United States for

« AnteriorContinuar »