ARTICLES WRITTEN BY HON. W. J.

BRYAN ON IMPERIALISM.

JEFFERSON VERSUS IMPERIALISM.

The advocates of imperialism have sought to support their position by appealing to the authority of Jefferson. Of all the statesmen who have ever lived, Jefferson was the one most hostile to the doctrines embodied in the demand for a European colonial policy.

Imperialism, as it now presents itself, embraces four distinct propositions:

I. That the acquisition of territory by conquest is right.

2. That the acquisition of remote territory is desirable.

3. That the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed is unsound.

4. That people can be wisely governed by aliens. To all these propositions Jefferson was emphatically opposed. In a letter to William Short, written in 1791, he said:

"If there be one principle more deeply written than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."

Could he be more explicit? Here we have a clear and strong denunciation of the doctrine that territory should be acquired by force. If it is said that we have outgrown the ideas of the fathers, it may be ob

41

served that the doctrine laid down by Jefferson was reiterated only a few years ago by no less a Republican than James G. Blaine. All remember the enthusiasm with which he entered into the work of bringing the Republics of North and South America into close and cordial relations; some, however, may have forgotten the resolutions introduced by him at the conference held in 1890, and approved by the commissioners present. They are as follows:

"First. That the principle of conquest shall not, during the continuance of the treaty of arbitration, be recognized as admissible under American public law.

"Second. That all cessions of territory made during the continuance of the treaty of arbitration shall be void if made under threats of war or in the presence of an armed force.

"Third. Any nation from which such cessions shall be exacted may demand that the validity of the cessions so made shall be submitted to arbitration.

"Fourth. Any renunciation of the right to arbitration made under the conditions named in the second section shall be null and void."

If the principle of conquest is right, why should it be denied a place in American public law? So objectionable is the theory of acquisition of territory by conquest that the nation which suffers such injustice can, according to the resolutions, recover by arbitration the land ceded in the presence of an armed force. So abhorrent is it, that a waiver of arbitration, made under such circumstances, is null and void. While the resolutions were only for the consideration of the American Republics, the principle therein stated cannot be limited by latitude or longitude.

But this is a time of great and rapid changes and some may even look upon Blaine's official acts as an

cient history. If so, let it be remembered that President McKinley only a year ago (December 6, 1897), in a message to Congress discussing the Cuban situation, said:

"I speak not of forcible annexation, for that is not to be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression."

And yet some are now thinking of that which was then "not to be thought of." Policy may change, but does a "code of morality" change? In his recent. speech at Savannah Secretary Gage, in defending the new policy of the administration, suggested that "philanthropy and five per cent" may go hand in hand. Surely we know not what a day may bring forth, if in so short a time "criminal aggression" can be transformed into "philanthropy and five per cent." What beauty, what riches, the isles of the Pacific must possess if they can tempt our people to abandon not only the traditions of a century, but our standard of national morality! What visions of national greatness the Philippines must arouse if the very sight of them can lead our country to vie with the monarchies of the old world in the extension of sovereignty by force.

Jefferson has been called an expansionist, but our opponents will search in vain for a single instance. where he advocated the acquisition of remote territory. On the contrary, he expressly disclaimed any desire for land outside of the North American continent. That he looked forward to the annexation of Cuba is well known, but in a letter to President Monroe, dated June 23, 1823, he suggested that we should be in readiness to receive Cuba "when solicited by herself." To him Cuba was desirable only because of the island's close proximity to the United States. Thinking that someone might use the annexation of Cuba as a precedent for indefinite expansion, he said

in a letter to President Madison, dated April 27, 1809:

"It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit can then be drawn to our future acquisitions,' but, he added, “Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, and this develops the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it."

In the same letter, speaking of the possible acquisition of that island, he said:

"I would immediately erect a column on the southernmost limit of Cuba, and inscribe on it a ne plus ultra as to us in that direction.”

It may be argued that Jefferson was wrong in asserting that we should confine our possessions to the North American continent, but certainly no one can truthfully quote him as an authority for excursions into the eastern hemisphere. If he was unwilling to go farther south than Cuba, even in the western hemisphere, would he be likely to look with favor upon colonies in the Orient?

If the authority of Jefferson cannot be invoked to support the acquisition of remote territory, much less can his great name be used to excuse a colonial policy which denies to the people the right to govern themselves. When he suggested an inscription for his monument he did not enumerate the honors which he had received, though no American had been more highly honored; he only asked to be remembered for what he had done and he named the writing of the Declaration of Independence as the greatest of his deeds. In that memorable document he declared it a self-evident truth that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The defense and development of that doctrine was his special care. His writings abound with expressions showing his devotion to that doctrine and his solici

tude for it. He preached it in the enthusiasm of his youth; he reiterated it when he reached the age of maturity; he crowned it with benedictions in his old age. Who will say that, if living, he would jeopardize it to-day by engrafting upon it the doctrine of government by external force.

In

Upon the fourth proposition Jefferson is no less explicit. Now, when some are suggesting the wisdom of a military government for the Philippines, or a colonial system such as England administers in India, it will not be out of place to refer to the manner in which Jefferson viewed the inability of aliens to prescribe laws and administer government. 1817 a French society was formed for the purpose of settling upon a tract of land near the Tombigbee River. Jefferson was invited to formulate laws and regulations for the society. On the 16th of January of that year he wrote from Monticello expressing his high appreciation of the confidence expressed in him, but declining to undertake the task. The reasons he gave are well worth considering at this time. After wishing them great happiness in their undertaking he said:

"The laws, however, which must effect this must flow from their own habits, their own feelings, and the resources of their own minds. No stranger to these could possibly propose regulations adapted to them. Every people have their own particular habits, ways of thinking, manners, etc., which have grown up with them from their infancy, are become a part of their nature, and to which the regulations which are to make them happy must be accommodated. No member of a foreign country can have a sufficient sympathy with these. The institutions of Lycurgus, for example, would not have suited Athens, nor those of Solon, Lacedæmon. The organizations of Locke