WILLIAM J. BRYAN

ANNEXATION

[Delivered before the Duckworth Club, Cincinnati, O., January 6, 1899.]

THE sentiment of the people upon any great question must be measured during the days of deliberation and not during the hours of excitement. A good man will sometimes be engaged in a fight, but it is not reasonable to expect a judicial opinion from him until he has had time to wash the blood off his face. I have seen a herd of mild-eyed, gentle kine transformed into infuriated beasts by the sight and scent of blood, and I have seen the same animals quiet and peaceful again in a few hours. We have much of the animal in us still, in spite of our civilizing processes. It is not unnatural that our people should be more sanguinary immediately after a battle than they were before, but it is only a question of time when reflection will restore the conditions which existed before this nation became engaged in the war with Spain. When men are excited they talk about what they can do; when they are calm they talk about what they ought to do. If the President rightly interpreted the feelings of the people when they were intoxicated by a military triumph, we shall appeal from "Philip drunk to Philip sober."

The forcible annexation of the Philippine Islands would violate a principle of American public law so deeply embedded in the American mind that, until a year ago, no public man would have suggested it. It is

difficult to overestimate the influence which such a change in our national policy would produce on the character of our people. Our opponents ask: Is our nation not great enough to do what England, Germany, and Holland are doing? They inquire: Can we not govern colonies as well as they? Whether we can govern colonies as well as other countries can is not material; the real question is whether we can, in one hemisphere, develop the theory that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and at the same time inaugurate, support, and defend, in the other hemisphere, a government which derives its authority entirely from superior force.

And if these two ideas of government cannot live together, which one shall we choose? To defend forcible annexation on the ground that we are carrying out a religious duty is worse than absurd. The Bible teaches us that it is more blessed to give than to receive, while the colonial policy is based upon the doctrine that it is more blessed to take than to leave. Annexation cannot be defended upon the ground that we shall find a pecuniary profit in the policy. The advantage which may come to a few individuals who hold the offices or who secure valuable franchises cannot properly be weighed against the money expended in governing the Philippines, because the money expended will be paid by those who pay the taxes.

We are not yet in position to determine whether the people of the United States, as a whole, will bring back from the Philippines as much as they send there. There is an old saying that it is not profitable to buy a lawsuit. Our nation may learn by experience that it is not wise to purchase the right to conquer a people. Spain under compulsion gives us a quitclaim to the Philippines in return for $20,000,000, but she does not agree to warrant and defend our title as against the Filipinos. To buy land is one thing, to buy people is

another. Land is inanimate and makes no resistance to a transfer of title; the people are animate and sometimes desire a voice in their own affairs. But whether, measured by dollars and cents, the conquest of the Philippines would prove profitable or expensive, it will certainly prove embarrassing to those who still hold to the doctrines which underlie a republic. Military rule is antagonistic to our theory of government. The arguments which are used to defend it in the Philippines may be used to excuse it in the United States. Under military rule much must be left to the discretion of the military governor, and this can only be justified upon the theory that the governor knows more than the people whom he governs, is better acquainted with their needs than they are themselves, is entirely in sympathy with them and is thoroughly honest and unselfish in his desire to do them good. Such a combination of wisdom, integrity, and love is difficult to find, and the Republican party will enter upon a hard task when it starts out to select suitable military governors for our remote possessions.

If we enter upon a colonial policy we must expect to hear the command "Silence!" issuing with increasing emphasis from the imperialists. When the discussion of fundamental principles is attempted in the United States, if a member of Congress attempts to criticise any injustice perpetrated by a government official against a helpless people, he will be warned to keep silent, lest his criticism encourage resistance to American authority in the Orient. If an orator on the Fourth of July dares to speak of inalienable rights, or refers with commendation to the manner in which our forefathers resisted taxation without representation, he will be warned to keep silent, lest his utterances excite rebellion among distant subjects. If we adopt a colonial policy and pursue the course which excited the revolution of 1776, we must muffle the

tones of the old Liberty Bell, and commune in whispers when we praise the patriotism of our forefathers. We cannot afford to destroy the Declaration of Independence; we cannot afford to erase from our Constitutions, State and national, the bill of rights; we have not time to examine the libraries of the nation and purge them of the essays, the speeches, and the books that defend the doctrine that law is the crystallization of public opinion, rather than an emanation from physical power.

But, even if we could destroy every vestige of the laws which are the outgrowth of the immortal law penned by Jefferson; if we could obliterate every written word that has been inspired by the idea that this is a "government of the people, by the people and for the people," we could not tear from the heart of the human race the hope which the American Republic has planted there. The impassioned appeal, “ Give me liberty or give me death," still echoes around the world. In the future, as in the past, the desire to be free will be stronger than the desire to enjoy a mere physical existence. The conflict between right and might will continue here and everywhere, until a day is reached when the love of money shall no longer sear the national conscience and hypocrisy no longer hide the hideous features of avarice behind the mask of philanthropy.

IMPERIALISM

[Delivered at Savannah, Ga., December 13, 1898.]

I MAY be in error, but I believe our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea-the colonial idea of European nations. The im

perialistic idea is directly antagonistic to the idea and ideals which have been cherished by the American people since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a colonial policy such as that pursued by European countries, or it must abandon the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We may believe that governments come up from the people or we may believe that governments come down to the people from those who possess the heaviest cannons and the largest ships, but we cannot advocate both doctrines. To borrow a Bible quotation, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Paraphrasing Lincoln's declaration, I may add that this nation cannot endure half-republic and half-colony-half-free and half-vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest.

Jefferson has been quoted in support of imperialism, but our opponents must distinguish between imperialism and expansion; they must also distinguish between expansion in the western hemisphere and an expansion that involves us in the quarrels of Europe and the Orient. They must still further distinguish between expansion which secures contiguous territory for future settlement, and expansion which secures us alien races for future subjugation. Jefferson favored the annexation of necessary contiguous territory on the North American continent, but he was opposed to wars of conquest, and expressly condemned the acquiring of remote territory.

The fight should not be made against the ratification of the treaty. I would prefer another plan. If the treaty is rejected negotiations must be renewed, and instead of settling the question according to our own ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with the possi