3. We are to have colonies and dependencies, coaling-stations and "keys." We are to acquire military and naval influence and a reputation for physical

prowess.

4. Imperialism means political tyranny and meddlesomeness; greedy scrambling for territory, offensive and defensive alliances, and a stultification of the principles upon which the republic was founded.

2

So far Imperialism. But, first of all, had America the right, under her constitution, to acquire and govern territory beyond her borders? There is certainly no constitutional provision such as Jefferson wished to create, but in its absence there is ample precedent. America obtained Louisiana and Alaska by purchase, occupied Florida by force, took California and New Mexico as spoils of war, and annexed Texas and Hawaii.

Yet this is to be noted; it has always been distinctly understood that a territorial government was preliminary to statehood, it was to be replaced by a state organization directly the size of the population warranted such a step. The idea of a permanent territory, with no prospect of ultimate recognition as a

1 The favourite theory of the American strategists is that the next great war in which America will be involved must be fought in the Caribbean Sea, and that Hayti and San Domingo will then be valuable naval bases, more important even than Porto Rico, Cuba, or the Danish West Indies, owing to their proximity to the Panama Canal.

The recent trouble in San Domingo and the revolution in Hayti have led to a renewed discussion at Washington of the question of annexation by America, but no movement has been initiated officially towards that end.

2 "Jefferson sought to quiet his strict constructionist conscience (after purchasing Louisiana) by empty talk about a suitable constitutional amendment; but nothing came of it, nor has the matter been at any time seriously considered."-Wm. MacDonald.

State, and subject indefinitely to the immediate control of Congress, is foreign both to American theory and practice. It therefore follows that the chief danger of the new Imperialism lay in the inevitable demand from the new acquisitions for admission to the union as States, which America will be obliged to grant if she is to obey her present constitution, and to continue her historic national policy. If she refuse, and she will refuse, a new era in that policy commences, and a new constitutional amendment is foreshadowed. For the objections to the admission of Hawaii, or the Philippines, or any other region, as a State, with senators and representatives in Congress, participation in presidential elections, and an equal voice in the conduct of national affairs, could not be tolerated. Not even the foremost advocates of an Imperial America have espoused such a doctrine. Therefore there were two courses to be followed, either the relinquishment of the new possessions, or the permanent government of outlying districts as colonies in fact, if not in name.

The Philippine Act of March 2nd, 1901, provided that-

"All military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippines acquired from Spain by the treaties concluded at Paris on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety eight, and at Washington on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, shall, until otherwise provided by Congress, be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct for the establishment of Civil government and for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of said islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion."

D

In other words, any and all laws deemed necessary by the President were to be set up and executed; Congress deposited all power in the agents of the President.

According to the old American formula the necessary foundation of government is the consent of the governed.' But of course this principle must be abandoned in the face of the Philippines which America has acquired by the sword, and which it may either retain, hand over to another power, or perhaps, barter for the West Indies at its pleasure without reference to the wishes of the people.

This, of course, implies that the old theories of equality and of universal suffrage are flung openly to the winds. The denial of suffrage to the blacks, previous to their manumission, was constitutionally explained. The Supreme Court had decided that they were not men, but chattels and real estate, they were not persons within the meaning of the constitution. When the emancipated slaves were given votes, this doctrine of universal suffrage was strained to the utmost, and now, as we shall see, shows signs of breaking down in practice throughout the Southern States. Its most ardent votaries are now aware of its weakness; it is in the last degree likely they would seek to extend the doctrine to the horde of dark-skinned Sandwich or Philippine islanders, or to the fanatical blacks of the Antilles.

This is common sense, yet even common sense some

1 "The Almighty," as Lincoln expressed it, "never made a people good enough to rule over another people."

"Any decent kind of government of Filipinos by Filipinos is better than possible government of Filipinos by Americans," declares Mr. Schurman, Chairman of the Philippine Commission.

times spells inconsistency. It means an abandonment of old principles and ancient ideals. The attempt to deal with the people of the new possessions on terms less liberal than America has hitherto accorded to the lowest elements of her own cosmopolitian population, must be construed by foreign nations as a withdrawal from its previous advanced position. Not merely this, but it must likewise operate as a powerful argument in favour of the restriction of the suffrage of negroes and illiterates at home.

This proposition the anti-Imperialists deride: universal suffrage, they say, for continental Americans, no matter however ignorant and degraded, and restricted suffrage for Hawaiian or Philippine Americans, is a combination whose reactionary effect is to be dreaded.

The way such an argument is met is this: Had the founders of the republic attempted to apply the doctrines of equality which they proclaimed, the whole social fabric would very quickly have gone to pieces. But they one and all shrank from applying them. The very men upon whose lips were oftenest those phrases about the inalienable rights of man, went carefully to work and established State government in which these precious rights were accorded scant respect, in which manhood suffrage was disregarded. The ballot was bestowed upon property-owners, office-holding being confined to those citizens who owned lands and houses and possessed a sectarian qualification.

When territorial government was first set up by Congress, the broad principle existed that there was one kind of government for the States and another for the territories; that the just powers of the latter need not

be derived from the consent of the governed; that only such men as own land were fit to vote, and that only the select class who owned a great deal of land were fit to legislate: that the constitution limited the power of the federal government over the States; but that the will of Congress was supreme over the territories.

According to this principle, Congress was free to govern the dependencies of the United States as it pleased. The form of government of the territories need not even be republican: the people thereof might be taxed without any representation in the taxing body. They might be, and were, stripped absolutely of the franchise, and ruled by officials not of their own choice.

It is a curious fact, but America has had all these arguments on the subject of Imperialism threshed out before in her history. A century ago, criticism of the administration took almost an exactly similar form to that which it has recently taken concerning the government of the Philippines. And whatever the form of rule the President and his advisers have in store for the Philippines, it will probably be freer and more liberal than Jefferson gave to the people of Louisiana, and Monroe to Florida.

"The President proposes," said the New York Herald, of March 7, 1804, "to erect a government about as despotic as that of Turkey in Asia." The same journal a week or two later, contained the following, which is extraordinarily like some of the recent indictments against the administration :

"The folly which supposes that the people of Louisiana are not so well qualified to enjoy political liberty as those hordes of