people would for ever remain content with political and commercial isolation.1

As to the war with Spain, it was, beyond all question, sprung on the nation at large with dramatic suddenness. In the first instance, the Senate, according to Senator Platt, was evidently bent on bringing about a war; that body was backed up by the politicians who anticipated the usual effect on the coming elections; then there was the Yellow Press, and lastly, and perhaps the most important factor, the destruction of the Maine.' This lamentable episode fired the popular heart and precipitated a conflict. The cry: "To hell with Spain ! Remember the Maine!" swept through the land. The rest was inevitable.

It has been said that when the Revolutionary War broke out men did not dream of independence; that at

1 Mere expansionism, however, is hardly a new policy with America. She has been acquiring new territory ever since the first Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, when we renounced all jurisdiction over what afterwards became the North-West Territory. In 1803, Napoleon ceded, for twelve million dollars, the Territory of Louisiana. Spain ceded Florida in 1819. Oregon was claimed by discovery, and Spain acknowledged the claim in the lastmentioned year. Texas was annexed in 1845, and three years later, California, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of Arizona were forcibly acquired from Mexico. Horse-shoe Reef in Lake Erie was weakly ceded by Great Britain in 1850. The Navassas and other Guano islands in the Pacific were occupied by discovery. Alaska was acquired by purchase from Russia in 1867, and Hawaii was annexed in 1898.

2 Mr. Goldwin Smith, who enumerates these causes, thinks the De Lome letter may also have played a part.

Yet one cannot justify America's conduct in the long struggle before the war. Spain failed to put down the rebellion in Cuba, because the insurgents were liberally supplied with money and armaments from America. That distinguished diplomat, Mr. E. J. Phelps, said: "The rebellion in Cuba would long ago have perished from exhaustion had it not been supported and supplied by continual expeditions from this country in violation of our own neutrality laws and treaty obligations."

the beginning of the Civil War no man thought of abolishing slavery. Wars rarely keep within projected bounds. Personal ambition, national self-seeking, are the factors which control the issue of events.

Dewey's victory at Manilla changed the attitude of America before the world. The Americans had, as we have seen, entered into the war blindly; they had worked themselves up into a furious anger against Spain, or certain of their newspapers' had done it for them, and they resolved to put an end to the Cuban "atrocities." But they had no apprehension of whither their declaration of war would lead them. In the chaste language of one of their backwoods philosophers, they had "bitten off more than they could chew." For a moment, when the realization of their achievement came, the nation was embarrassed. But he who knows the American character will hardly need to be told that the embarrassment was of brief duration. The mastication was begun, but, alas ! mastication is followed by another and more difficult process: digestion.

It is said that after the signing of the Treaty which ceded the Philippine Islands to America, Senor Sagasta, the Spanish Premier, exclaimed, "Now is Spain avenged. The remark was significant.

The Philippines have already cost America nearly 500,000,000 dollars.2

1 Mr. C. F. Adams, a leading American publicist, admits that the discussion of vital, national questions has been left almost wholly to "the professional journalist and the professional politician." He adds that in the Congressional debates for nearly fifty years, which he remembers, it is impossible to recall "a single utterance which has stood the test of time, as marking a distinct addition to mankind's intellectual belongings." This is a severe indictment: but is it not true?-See "Lee at Appomatox," 1902.

2 The expansions and dominations, now almost encircling the globe,

The numerous seaboard cities cannot be fortified under 30,000,000 dollars. The army of occupation distributed throughout the island cannot safely be reduced to less than 30,000 men, costing 45,000,000 dollars per annum.1

All this was costly, both in money and men, but it was nothing to the moral shock given to the country by the adoption of "Imperialism."

Let us have a few home definitions of Imperialism at random from both sides of public opinion:

1. A theory of national policy in accordance with which the United States is to add to its territorial possessions for the purpose of extending American trade and American political influence.

2. We are to change our traditional policy of independence and non-participation in the general politics of the world, and to adopt a policy of territorial expansion, of wide contact and control.

entered upon by Congress have cost the people of America a very great expenditure of blood and treasure, and a severe shock to the ideas of liberty, self-government, and equality, which used to be thought fundamental, and which we professed (sincerely, it is to be hoped) when we declared war against Spain."-Senator Edmunds.

1 "There is but slight encouragement to believe that the actual force of about 45,000 men now there can be soon materially reduced, and none to hope that the resources of the country, so greatly impoverished by many years of war, will ever be adequate to do more than support its own Civil list and constabulary. Therefore, there is entailed on the United States the heavy burden of about 67,500,000 dollars per year, merely for police purposes in a country which evidently cannot become more than self-supporting."-Major J. H. Parker, Civil Administrator in the Philippines.

"Doubtless the American people will be sorry to be assured that a permanent army of 40,000 soldiers will be required to hold the Philippines; but conservative officers on the spot are convinced that this view of the situation is correct."-General Wesley Merritt.

The Governor-General, Judge Taft, told the Senate that it "would have been better had we never gone there."

1

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.

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

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