sought to lay upon those who opposed the ratification of the treaty the responsibility for the recent bloodshed at Manila. While I believed, and still believe, that it was better to ratify the treaty and make the fight for Philippine independence before the American people rather than through diplomatic negotiations with Spain, I deny that the Senators who opposed ratification were in any way responsible for the commencement of hostilities.

"The responsibility rests, not upon those who opposed the treaty, but upon those who refused to disclose the nation's purpose, and left the Filipinos to believe that their fight against Spain, instead of bringing them independence, had only brought them a change of masters. It was the desire to be independent that led the Filipinos to resist American authority, and their desire for independence was not inspired by any American opposition to the terms of the treaty. It will be remembered that the Filipinos issued a declaration of independence last summer, before the treaty was negotiated. Opposition to the treaty could not have caused a desire for independence which was expressed before the treaty was made. If it was wrong for any one in this country to inspire in other races a desire for self-government, the imperialists cannot confine their reproaches to the living. They must lay the blame upon American statesmen long since dead. Patrick Henry was responsible to some extent, because the sentiments he expressed in his speech have found a lodgment in the hearts of all races.

"Washington must also be blamed, for when he drew his sword in defense of the rights of the colonists, he gave inspiration to all similarly situated. Jefferson was largely to blame, because the Declaration of Independence, the work of his pen, has been

an inspiration to the lovers of liberty in every clime.

“Abraham Lincoln cannot escape his share of blame if those are to be blamed who have aroused among the oppressed a desire for participation in the government under which they live. When the great emancipator delivered his speech at Gettysburg, and appealed to the people of the United States to so act that 'a government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the earth,' he did more to stimulate the desire for self-government than has been done by any other public man in half a century.

"The American people cannot apply the European and monarchical doctrine of force in the subjugation and government of alien races and at the same time stand forth as defenders of the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A man may live a double life when only one of his lives is known, but as soon as his duplicity becomes manifest to the world he can lead but one life, and that the worst. As soon as we establish two forms of government, one by consent in this country and the other by force in Asia, we shall cease to have the influence of a republic and shall join in the spoliation of helpless people under the pretense of conferring upon them unsought and undesired blessings.

"Independence for the Filipinos under a protector · ate which will guard them from outside interference while they work out their own destiny is consistent with American tradition, American history, and American interests. The sooner the declaration is made the better."

[Extract from speech delivered at State University, Ann Arbor, Mich., February 18, 1899.]

AMERICA'S MISSION.

When the advocates of imperialism find it impossible to reconcile a colonial policy with the principles of our government or with the canons of morality; when they are unable to defend it upon the ground of religious duty or pecuniary profit, they fall back in helpless despair upon the assertion that it is destiny. "Suppose it does violate the constitution," they say; ."suppose it does break all the commandments; suppose it does entail upon the nation an incalculable expenditure of blood and money; it is destiny and we must submit."

The people have not voted for imperialism; no national convention has declared for it; no Congress has passed upon it. To whom, then, has the future. been revealed? Whence this voice of authority? We can all prophesy, but our prophesies are merely guesses, colored by our hopes and our surroundings. Man's opinion of what is to be is half wish and half environment. Avarice paints destiny with a dollar mark before it, militarism equips it with a sword.

He is the best prophet who, recognizing the omnipotence of truth, comprehends most clearly the great forces which are working out the progress, not of one party, not of one nation, but of the human race.

History is replete with predictions which once wore the hue of destiny, but which failed of fulfillment because those who uttered them saw too small an arc of the circle of events. When Pharaoh pursued the fleeing Israelites to the edge of the Red Sea he was confident that their bondage would be renewed and that they would again make bricks without straw, but destiny was not revealed until Moses and his followers reached the farther shore dry shod and the waves

rolled over the horses and chariots of the Egyptians. When Belshazzar, on the last night of his reign, led his thousand lords into the Babylonian banquet hall and sat down to a table glittering with vessels of silver and gold he felt sure of his kingdom for many years. to come, but destiny was not revealed until the hand wrote upon the wall those awe-inspiring words, "Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin." When Abderrahman swept northward with his conquering hosts his imagination saw the Crescent triumphant throughout the world, but destiny was not revealed until Charles Martel raised the cross above the battlefield of Tours and saved Europe from the sword of Mohammedanism. When Napoleon emerged victorious from Marengo, from Ulm and from Austerlitz he thought himself the child of destiny, but destiny was not revealed until Blücher's forces joined the army of Wellington and the vanquished Corsican began his melancholy march toward St. Helena. When the redcoats of George the Third routed the New Englanders at Lexington and Bunker Hill there arose before the British sovereign visions of colonies taxed without representation and drained of their wealth by foreignmade laws, but destiny was not revealed until the surrender of Cornwallis completed the work begun at Independence Hall and ushered into existence. a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

We have reached another crisis. The ancient doctrine of imperialism, banished from our land more than a century ago, has recrossed the Atlantic and challenged democracy to mortal combat upon American soil.

Whether the Spanish war shall be known in history as a war for liberty or as a war of conquest; whether the principles of self-government shall be strength

ened or abandoned; whether this nation shall remain a homogeneous republic or become a heterogeneous empire-these questions must be answered by the American people-when they speak, and not until then, will destiny be revealed.

Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.

No one can see the end from the beginning, but every one can make his course an honorable one from beginning to end, by adhering to the right under all circumstances. Whether a man steals much or little may depend upon his opportunities, but whether he steals at all depends upon his own volition.

So with our nation. If we embark upon a career of conquest no one can tell how many islands we may be able to seize or how many races we may be able to subjugate; neither can any one estimate the cost, immediate and remote, to the nation's purse and to the nation's character, but whether we shall enter upon such a career is a question which the people have a right to decide for themselves.

Unexpected events may retard or advance the nation's growth, but the nation's purpose determines its destiny.

What is the nation's purpose?

The main purpose of the founders of our government was to secure for themselves and for posterity the blessings of liberty, and that purpose has been faithfully followed up to this time. Our statesmen have opposed each other upon economic questions, but they have agreed in defending self-government as the controlling national idea. They have quarreled among themselves over tariff and finance, but they have been united in their opposition to an entangling alliance with any European power.