be generous, because it has no rights of its own of which it can make sacrifice. Moral obligations belong to its people as individuals. Legal obligations, financial obligations, the pledges of treaties, only these can bind nation to nation. A nation cannot be virtuous, for that is a matter of individual conduct. It must be just. So far as it fails to be this, it is simply corrupt.

It is said that if we do not annex the Philippines we shall prove false to our obligations. Obviously there are two primary pledges which must precede all others; first the obligation of our whole history that we shall never conquer and annex an unwilling people; second, our pledge at the beginning of the war, that the United States has no disposition to seize territory or to dictate its government.

"The United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people."

The plea that these words were intended for Cuba only and do not pledge us to like action elsewhere is too cowardly to permit of discussion.

What are those

Several questions arise at once. obligations? To whom are they held? By what responsibility have they been incurred?

We

To the first question we may get this answer: are under obligations to see that the Philippines are no longer subject to Spanish tyranny and misrule. In the words of General Miles, "Twelve millions of people that a year ago were suffering under oppression, tyranny, and

cruelty are to-day under our protection. It would be the crime of the nineteenth century to turn them back again." Very well, then, we shall not turn them back, nor could we do it if we would. Spain is helpless and harmless. She has ceased to be a factor in the world's affairs. What next? Let us quote further from General Miles : "If you cannot give them government in their own country, if you cannot establish government for them, you can, at least, protect them until such time as they shall be prepared for self-government. And if they do not care to come and be part of this country you can see to it that they have a liberal and free government such as you enjoy yourselves."

This is, perhaps, an average statement of our supposed obligations. If we had adopted this view we should. have had no war at Manila and our honor would be untarnished. Some would put it more strongly. Our obligations demand that we take the islands by force, lest they fall back into the hands of Spain, or, still worse, lest they become victims of the cruel schemes of the German Emperor, ever anxious to try his hand on matters of which he knows nothing. For the House of Hohenzollern, as well as ourselves, is afflicted with a "manifest destiny."

But this German bugaboo is set up merely as an excuse. No nation on earth would dare set the heel of oppression on any land our flag has made free. The idea that every little nation must be subject to some great one is one of the most contemptible products of military commercialism. No nation, little or big, is "derelict" that minds its own business, maintains law and order, and respects the development of its own

people. If we behave honorably towards the people we have freed, we shall set a fashion which the powers will never dare to disregard.

We can be under no obligations under our Constitution and theory of government, to do what cannot be done, what will not be done, or ought not to be done.

Still others put the case in this way! "We have destroyed the only stable government in the Philippines. It is our duty to establish another."

the case we have done very wrong.

But if this is really

We were told that

the rule of Spain was not stable, that it was not just, and that it was far worse than no rule at all. Our sympathies were with those who would destroy this government of Spain, and our armies went out with our sympathies. Either we were on the wrong side in the whole business, or else we should now respect the rights of the people we set forth to help. If, by ill chance, we have overturned the only stable government, we must help the people to make another. "A government of the people, for the people, and by the people," would be a good kind to help them to establish; one made in their own interest not in ours, even though we think them a sorry sort of folk. We should not talk in the same breath of our duty to humanity and of the demands of American commerce, not even though both speeches be canting falsehoods. As a matter of fact, of all the people of the tropics the inhabitants of Luzon have shown most promise of fairly wise self-rule. All competent judges speak in the highest terms of the cabinet and parliament at Malolos and of their wisdom and self-restraint. At the same time under whatever rule, these people will not cease to be orientals.

To better define these obligations let us find out to

whom they were incurred. Nobody in particular lays claim to them. Surely we are not bound to Spain, for she feels outraged and humiliated by the whole transaction. The Filipinos ask for nothing more of us. Doubtless their rulers would return our twenty millions and give us half a dozen coaling stations if that would hasten our departure. It is their firm resolve, so their spokesmen in Hong Kong have declared, that they will not consent "to be experimented upon by amateur colonial administrators." Even our "benevolent assimilation" is intolerable on the terms which we demand.

It was for freedom, not for law and order, that the Filipinos and the Cubans took up arms against Spain. Good order we are trying to bring to the Filipinos, but that does not satisfy. The grave is quiet, but it is not freedom. Perhaps it is wrong for these people to care for freedom, but we once set them the example, as we have to many poor people, to strive for a liberty they have never yet enjoyed.

More likely we owe obligations to the city of Manila. Her business men look with doubt on Aguinaldo and his cabinet, with gold bands and whistles and peacock quills to indicate their rank and titles. Doubtless they fear the native rabble and the native methods of collection of customs. But, again, we have as to this only prejudiced testimony. According to Lieutenant Calkins, an honored officer in Dewey's fleet, the life and property of foreigners has been as safe in Malolos as in San Francisco. Moreover, these peddlers from all the world have no claims on us. They have long fished in troubled waters and they have learned the art. The pound of flesh they have exacted from the Filipinos, in times of

peace serves as an insurance against all losses in war. It was not to accommodate a few petty tradesmen, for the most part Chinese, a few English, and a dozen Germans and Japanese, that we entered into this war. If we owe them protection, they owe something to us. The shelter of the American flag is the birthright of Americans. Maybe it is to Germany and France that we owe obligations. To keep their rulers from falling out over the rich spoils of the Philippines, we are under bonds to take them all ourselves. But these nations are not in the slightest danger of fighting each other or fighting us over the Philippines. The Philippines would be as safe as an independent republic, with our good will, as they would be in another planet. The huge bloodless commercial trusts are afraid of a nation with a conscience. Maybe we are under bonds to England alone. Her advice is "take it," "take it," and those of her politicians hitherto most prone to snub and humiliate us are now most loud in their encouragements. No doubt these clever schemers want to see us entangled in the troubles of the Orient. No doubt England is sincere in thinking that a few years' experience in the hardest of schools will teach us something to our advantage as well as to hers. In our compactness lies a strength which alarms even England. It means our future financial and commercial supremacy. It is England's way to play nation against nation, so that the strong ones will keep the peace, while the weaker ones are helpless in her hands.

The essential spirit of British diplomacy is to recognize neither morality nor justice in relation to an opponent. This has been explained and defended by