Chapter CXI: Section 29 (31)

"Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the
people of the United States, and the twilight of
semi-citizenship endured by the people of Porto Rico, while
the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the
Philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine
that the operation of the Constitution is confined to the
forty-five States. The Democratic party disputes this doctrine
and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of
our organic law. There is no place in our system of government
for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the
leaders of a great party should claim for any President or
Congress the right to treat millions of people as mere
'possessions' and deal with them unrestrained by the
Constitution or the bill of rights, shows how far we have
already departed from the ancient landmarks and indicates what
may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a
career of empire.

"The territorial form of government is temporary and
preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory
has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same
constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general
laws as the citizen of a state. Take away this security and
his rights will be violated and his interests sacrificed at
the demand of those who have political influence. This is the
evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is
applied. …

"Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in
support of an imperialistic policy. Some say that it is our
duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But duty is not an
argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is,
in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally
accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no
matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little
value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no
matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he
belongs. …

"It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations
which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a
government in the Philippine Islands. I reply, first, that the
highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No
obligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations
combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of
government, and the substitution of doctrines against which
our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that
our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is
greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreigners who
have a temporary residence in the Philippines or desire to
trade there. It is argued by some that the Filipinos are
incapable of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to
the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an
official report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos
more capable of self-government than the Cubans, and said that
he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. …

"Republicans ask, 'Shall we haul down the flag that floats
over our dead in the Philippines?' The same question might
have been asked when the American flag floated over
Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the
tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national
cemetery owned by the United States and cared for by an
American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but
when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority
withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that
during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made
more progress under the stimulus of independence and
self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bag
government held in place by bayonets. The United States and
Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than
they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter
crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as 'benevolent
assimilation.'

"'Can we not govern colonies?', we are asked. The question is
not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can
do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept
responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in
the way, the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the
nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid
the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct. …

"Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will
result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not
deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, we shall
not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The
educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most
ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our
domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and
give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must
pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to read the
Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United
States and mock us for our inconsistency. The principal
arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon a defense
of imperialism are:

"First—That we must improve the present opportunity to become
a world power and enter into international politics.

{663}

"Second—That our commercial interests in the Philippine
Islands and in the Orient make it necessary for us to hold the
islands permanently.

"Third—That the spread of the Christian religion will be
facilitated by a colonial policy.

"Fourth—That there is no honorable retreat from the position
which the nation has taken.

"The first argument is addressed to the nation's pride and the
second to the nation's pocket-book. The third is intended for
the church member and the fourth for the partisan. It is
sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more
than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten
decades it has been the most potent influence in the world.
Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to
affect the politics of the human race than all the other
nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of
Independence was promulgated others have been promulgated.
Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty, others have
fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted, other
constitutions have been adopted. The growth of the principle
of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the
overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has
made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a
place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed.
Nothing has been able to check the onward march of this idea.
I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the
omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of
physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this
Republic for the glory of all the empires that have risen and
fallen since time began.

"The permanent chairman of the last Republican National
Convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its
baldness when he said: 'We make no hypocritical pretense of
being interested in the Philippines solely on account of
others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a
sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people
first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We
believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within
the province of government and constitution we mean to
stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.'
This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory
that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and
that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence.
… The Democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade.
It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful
means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human
blood. But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is
unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines
would answer every trade and military necessity, and such a
concession could have been secured at any time without
difficulty.

"It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with
them. We carry on trade to-day with every part of the world,
and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce
of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we
trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of
Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not
been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or
the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade
cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary. …

"Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it
would be profitable to the ship-owners, who would carry live
soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it
would be profitable to those who would seize upon the
franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose
salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the
farmer, to the laboring man and to the vast majority of those
engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure
without return and risk without reward.

"The pecuniary argument, though more effective with certain
classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with
so much enthusiasm as the religious argument. If what has been
termed the 'gunpowder gospel' were urged against the Filipinos
only, it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority
of the Filipinos are now members of one branch of the
Christian church; but the principle involved is one of much
wider application and challenges serious consideration. The
religious argument varies in positiveness, from a passive
belief that Providence delivered the Filipinos into our hands
for their good and our glory, to the exultation of the
minister who said that we ought to 'thrash the natives
(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,' and that 'every
bullet sent, every cannon shot and every flag waved, means
righteousness.' … If true Christianity consists in carrying
out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say
that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte
with the sword? …

"Love, not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice
for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of
reaching the human heart. A missionary recently told me that
the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his
assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon
it. Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls
instead of sovereignty; let it be known that instead of being
the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth
to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with truth
and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of
peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying
the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are
citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens
of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its
own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will
be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries
of any other nation.

"The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the
nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine Islands,
but that the naval victory at Manila made the permanent
acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound. We
won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to
hold Cuba. The shedding of American blood in the Philippine
Islands does not make it imperative that we should retain
possession forever. American blood was shed at San Juan Hill
and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubans
independence. The fact that the American flag floats over
Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty
over the islands; the American flag waves over Havana to-day,
but the President has promised to haul it down when the flag
of the Cuban Republic is ready to rise in its place. Better a
thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag
representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of
this Republic should become the flag of an empire.

{664}

"There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the
Philippine question. It is set forth in the Democratic
platform, and it is submitted with confidence to the American
people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will
convene congress in extraordinary session as soon as
inaugurated and recommend an immediate declaration of the
nation's purpose, first, to establish a stable form of
government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now
establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to
give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the
Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their
destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central
and South America, and are, by the Monroe doctrine, pledged to
protect Cuba."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900.
The Republican candidate on the same subject.

The answer of the party controlling the government to the
impeachment of its policy of colonial acquisition, and
especially of its conduct in the Philippine Islands, was given
by Mr. McKinley, in a letter of acceptance, addressed,
September 8, to the committee which gave him formal notice of
his renomination by the Republican convention. After
rehearsing at considerable length the events which preceded,
attended and followed the capture of Manila, he continued:

"Would not our adversaries have sent Dewey's fleet to Manila
to capture and destroy the Spanish sea power there, or,
dispatching it there, would they have withdrawn it after the
destruction of the Spanish fleet; and, if the latter, whither
would they have directed it to sail? Where could it have gone?
What port in the Orient was opened to it? Do our adversaries
condemn the expedition under the command of General Merritt to
strengthen Dewey in the distant ocean and assist in our
triumph over Spain, with which nation we were at war? Was it
not our highest duty to strike Spain at every vulnerable
point, that the war might be successfully concluded at the
earliest practicable moment? And was it not our duty to
protect the lives and property of those who came within our
control by the fortunes of war? Could we have come away at any
time between May 1, 1898, and the conclusion of peace without a
stain upon our good name? Could we have come away without
dishonor at any time after the ratification of the peace
treaty by the Senate of the United States? There has been no
time since the destruction of the enemy's fleet when we could
or should have left the Philippine Archipelago. After the
treaty of peace was ratified, no power but Congress could
surrender our sovereignty or alienate a foot of the territory
thus acquired. The Congress has not seen fit to do the one or
the other, and the President had no authority to do either, if
he had been so inclined, which he was not. So long as the
sovereignty remains in us it is the duty of the Executive,
whoever he may be, to uphold that sovereignty, and if it be
attacked to suppress its assailants. Would our political
adversaries do less?

"It has been asserted that there would have been no fighting
in the Philippines if Congress had declared its purpose to
give independence to the Tagal insurgents. The insurgents did
not wait for the action of Congress. They assumed the
offensive; they opened fire on our Army. Those who assert our
responsibility for the beginning of the conflict have
forgotten that, before the treaty was ratified in the Senate,
and while it was being debated in that body and while the
Bacon resolution was under discussion, on February 4, 1899,
the insurgents attacked the American Army, after being
previously advised that the American forces were under orders
not to fire upon them except in defense. The papers found in
the recently captured archives of the insurgents demonstrate
that this attack had been carefully planned for weeks before
it occurred. This unprovoked assault upon our soldiers at a
time when the Senate was deliberating upon the treaty shows
that no action on our part, except surrender and abandonment,
would have prevented the fighting, and leaves no doubt in any
fair mind of where the responsibility rests for the shedding
of American blood.

"With all the exaggerated phrase-making of this electoral
contest, we are in danger of being diverted from the real
contention. We are in agreement with all of those who
supported the war with Spain and also with those who counseled
the ratification of the treaty of peace. Upon these two great
essential steps there can be no issue and out of these came
all of our responsibilities. If others would shirk the
obligations imposed by the war and the treaty, we must decline
to act further with them, and here the issue was made. It is our
purpose to establish in the Philippines a government suitable
to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants and to prepare
them for self-government when they are ready for it and as
rapidly as they are ready for it. That I am aiming to do under
my Constitutional authority, and will continue to do until
Congress shall determine the political status of the
inhabitants of the archipelago.

"Are our opponents against the treaty? If so, they must be
reminded that it could not have been ratified in the Senate
but for their assistance. The Senate which ratified the treaty
and the Congress which added its sanction by a large
approbation comprised Senators and Representatives of the
people of all parties. Would our opponents surrender to the
insurgents, abandon our sovereignty or cede it to them? If
that be not their purpose, then it should be promptly
disclaimed, for only evil can result from the hopes raised by
our opponents in the minds of the Filipinos, that with their
success at the polls in November there will be a withdrawal of
our Army and of American sovereignty over the archipelago; the
complete independence of the Tagalog people recognized and the
powers of government over all the other people of the
archipelago conferred upon the Tagalog leaders. The effect of
a belief in the minds of the insurgents that this will be done
has already prolonged the rebellion and increases the
necessity for the continuance of a large army. It is now
delaying full peace in the archipelago and the establishment
of civil governments and has influenced many of the insurgents
against accepting the liberal terms of amnesty offered by
General MacArthur under my direction. But for these false
hopes, a considerable reduction could have been had in our
military establishment in the Philippines, and the realization
of a stable government would be already at hand.

{665}

"The American people are asked by our opponents to yield the
sovereignty of the United States in the Philippines to a small
fraction of the population, a single tribe out of 80 or more
inhabiting the archipelago, a faction which wantonly attacked
the American troops in Manila while in rightful possession
under the protocol with Spain, awaiting the ratification of
the treaty of peace by the Senate, and which has since been in
active, open rebellion against the United States. We are asked
to transfer our sovereignty to a small minority in the
islands, without consulting the majority, and to abandon the
largest portion of the population, which has been loyal to us,
to the cruelties of the guerrilla insurgent bands. More, than
this, we are asked to protect this minority in establishing a
government, and to this end repress all opposition of the
majority. We are required to set up a stable government in the
interest of those who have assailed our sovereignty and fired
upon our soldiers, and then maintain it at any cost or
sacrifice against its enemies within and against those having
ambitious designs from without. This would require an army and
navy far larger than is now maintained in the Philippines and
still more in excess of what will be necessary with the full
recognition of our sovereignty. A military support of
authority not our own, as thus proposed, is the very essence
of militarism, which our opponents in their platform oppose,
but which by their policy would of necessity be established in
its most offensive form.

"The American people will not make the murderers of our
soldiers the agents of the Republic to convey the blessings of
liberty and order to the Philippines. They will not make them
the builders of the new commonwealth. Such a course would be a
betrayal of our sacred obligations to the peaceful Filipinos
and would place at the mercy of dangerous adventurers the
lives and property of the natives and foreigners. It would
make possible and easy the commission of such atrocities as
were secretly planned to be executed on the 22d of February,
1899, in the city of Manila, when only the vigilance of our
Army prevented the attempt to assassinate our soldiers and all
foreigners and pillage and destroy the city and its
surroundings. In short, the proposition of those opposed to us
is to continue all the obligations in the Philippines which
now rest upon the Government, only changing the relation from
principal, which now exists, to that of surety. Our
responsibility is to remain, but our power is to be
diminished. Our obligation is to be no less, but our title is
to be surrendered to another power, which is without
experience or training or the ability to maintain a stable
government at home and absolutely helpless to perform its
international obligations with the rest of the world. To this
we are opposed. We should not yield our title while our
obligations last. In the language of our platform, 'Our
authority should not be less than our responsibility,' and our
present responsibility is to establish our authority in every
part of the islands.

"No government can so certainly preserve the peace, restore
public order, establish law, justice and stable conditions as
ours. Neither Congress nor the Executive can establish a
stable government in these islands except under our right of
sovereignty, our authority and our flag. And this we are
doing. We could not do it as a protectorate power so
completely or so successfully as we are doing it now. As the
sovereign power, we can initiate action and shape means to
ends and guide the Filipinos to self-development and
self-government. As a protectorate power we could not initiate
action, but would be compelled to follow and uphold a people
with no capacity yet to go alone. In the one case we can
protect both ourselves and the Filipinos from being involved
in dangerous complications; in the other we could not protect
even the Filipinos until after their trouble had come. Beside,
if we cannot establish any government of our own without the
consent of the governed, as our opponents contend, then we
could not establish a stable government for them or make ours
a protectorate without the like consent, and neither the
majority of the people or a minority of the people have
invited us to assume it. We could not maintain a protectorate
even with the consent of the governed without giving
provocation for conflicts and possibly costly wars. Our rights
in the Philippines are now free from outside interference and
will continue so in our present relation. They would not be
thus free in any other relation. We will not give up our own
to guarantee another sovereignty.

"Our title is good. Our peace commissioners believed they were
receiving a good title when they concluded the treaty. The
Executive believed it was a good title when he submitted it to
the Senate of the United States for its ratification. The Senate
believed it was a good title when they gave it their
Constitutional assent, and the Congress seems not to have
doubted its completeness when they appropriated $20,000,000
provided by the treaty. If any who favored its ratification
believed it gave us a bad title, they were not sincere. Our
title is practically identical with that under which we hold
our territory acquired since the beginning of the government,
and under which we have exercised full sovereignty and
established government for the inhabitants. It is worthy of
note that no one outside of the United States disputes the
fulness and integrity of the cession. What then is the real
issue on this subject? Whether it is paramount to any other or
not, it is whether we shall be responsible for the government
of the Philippines with the sovereignty and authority which
enable us to guide them to regulated liberty, law, safety and
progress, or whether we shall be responsible for the forcible
and arbitrary government of a minority without sovereignty and
authority on our part and with only the embarrassment of a
protectorate which draws us into their troubles without the
power of preventing them. There were those who two years ago
were rushing us on to war with Spain who are unwilling now to
accept its clear consequence, as there are those among us who
advocated the ratification of the treaty of pence, but now
protest against its obligations. Nations which go to war must
be prepared to accept its resultant obligations, and when they
make treaties must keep them.

{666}

"Those who profess to distrust the liberal and honorable
purposes of the Administration in its treatment of the
Philippines are not justified. Imperialism has no place in its
creed or conduct. Freedom is a rock upon which the Republican
party was builded and now rests. Liberty is the great
Republican doctrine for which the people went to war and for
which 1,000,000 lives were offered and billions of dollars
expended to make it a lawful legacy of all without the consent
of master or slave. There is a strain of ill-conceived
hypocrisy in the anxiety to extend the Constitutional
guarantees to the people of the Philippines while their
nullification is openly advocated at home. Our opponents may
distrust themselves, but they have no right to discredit the
good faith and patriotism of the majority of the people, who
are opposing them; they may fear the worst form of imperialism
with the helpless Filipinos in their hands, but if they do, it
is because they have parted with the spirit and faith of the
fathers and have lost the virility of the founders of the
party which they profess to represent.

"The Republican party does not have to assert its devotion to
the Declaration of Independence. That immortal instrument of
the fathers remained unexecuted until the people under the
lead of the Republican party in the awful clash of battle
turned its promises into fulfillment. It wrote into the
Constitution the amendments guaranteeing political equality to
American citizenship and it has never broken them or counseled
others in breaking them. It will not be guided in its conduct by
one set of principles at home and another set in the new
territory belonging to the United States. If our opponents
would only practice as well as preach the doctrines of Abraham
Lincoln there would be no fear for the safety of our
institutions at home or their rightful influence in any
territory over which our flag floats.

"Empire has been expelled from Porto Rico and the Philippines
by American freemen. The flag of the Republic now floats over
these islands as an emblem of rightful sovereignty. Will the
Republic stay and dispense to their inhabitants the blessings
of liberty, education and free institutions, or steal away,
leaving them to anarchy or imperialism? The American question
is between duty and desertion—the American verdict will be for
duty and against desertion, for the Republic against both
anarchy and imperialism."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Revenues and expenditures of the government for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 1900.

The revenues of the Government from all sources (by
warrants) for the fiscal year ended June 30. 1900, were:

From internal revenue. $295.327,926.76 From customs. 233,164,871.16 From profits on coinage, bullion deposits, etc. 9,992,374.09 From District of Columbia. 4,008,722.77 From fees-consular, letters patents, and land. 3,291.716.68 From sales of public lands. 2,836.882.98 From tax on national banks. 1.998.554.00 From navy pension, navy hospital, clothing, and deposit funds. 1,621.558.52 From sales of Indian lands. 1,384,663.49 From payment of interest by Pacific railways. 1,173,466.43 From miscellaneous. 997,375.68 From sales of Government property. 779,522.78 From customs fees, fines, penalties, etc. 675,706.95 From immigrant fund. 537,404.81 From deposits for surveying public lands. 273,247.19 From sales of ordnance material. 257,265.56 From Soldiers' Home, permanent fund. 247,926.62 From tax on seal skins, and rent of seal islands. 225,676.47 From license fees, Territory of Alaska. 157,234.94 From trust funds, Department of State. 152,794.56 From depredations on public lands. 76,307.58 From Spanish indemnity. 57,000.00 From sales of lands and buildings 3,842,737.68 From part payment Central Pacific Railroad indebtedness. 3,338,016.49 From dividend received for account of Kansas Pacific Railway. 821,891.70 From Postal Service. 102,354,579.29

Total receipts 669,595,431.18

The expenditures for the same period were:

For the civil establishment, including foreign intercourse, public buildings, collecting the revenues, District of Columbia, and other miscellaneous expenses $98,542,411.37

For the military establishment, including rivers and harbors, forts, arsenals, sea coast defenses, and expenses of the war with Spain and in the Philippines 134,174,761.18

For the naval establishment, including construction of new vessels, machinery, armament, equipment, improvement at navy-yards, and expenses of the war with Spain and in the Philippines 55,953,077.72

For Indian Service. 10,175,100.76 For pensions. 140,877,316.02 For interest on the public debt. 40,160,333.27 For deficiency in postal revenues. 7,230,778.79 For Postal Service. 102,354,579.29

Total expenditures. 590,068,371.00

Showing a surplus of 79,527,060.18

"As compared with the fiscal year 1899, the receipts for 1900
increased $58,613,426.83. … There was a decrease of
$117,358,388.14 in expenditures."

_United States Secretary of the Treasury,
Annual Report on the State of the Finances,
1900, pages 7-9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Return of losses from all causes in the armies of the
United States since May 1, 1898.

In response to a resolution of the Senate, the following
return (56th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 426) was
made by the Secretary of War, June 1, 1900, showing the losses
from all causes in the armies of the United States between May
1, 1898, and June 30, 1899; casualties in the Philippines
during the war with Spain, and after the close of the war with
Spain down to May 20, 1900; and other interesting details:

Statement showing losses, from all causes, in the armies of
the United States between May 1, 1898, and June 30, 1899.

Average strength.

1898:
Regular Army, 55,853:
Volunteers, 163,103.

1899:
Regular Army, 63,370;
Volunteers, 45,457.

REGULAR ARMY.
CAUSES. Officers. Enlisted Men. Total.

Deaths:
Killed in action. 24 270 294
By Wounds. 7 114 121
Disease. 51 1,524 1,575
Accident. 1 72 73
Drowning. 2 48 50
Suicide. 1 32 33
Murder or homicide. 26 26
Total 86 2,086 2,172

Wounded. 109 1,586 1,695

{667}
VOLUNTEERS.
CAUSES.
Officers. Enlisted Men Total.

Deaths:
Killed in action. 17 188 205
By wounds. 3 78 81
Disease. 114 3,820 3,934
Accident. 5 137 142
Drowning. 1 40 41
Suicide. 1 20 21
Murder or homicide. 26 26

Total. 141 4,309 4,450

Wounded. 88 1,178 1,266

667

GRAND TOTAL.
CAUSES.
Officers. Enlisted Men

Deaths:
Killed In action 38 458
By wounds 10 192
Disease 165 5,344
Accident 6 209
Drowning 3 88
Suicide. 2 52
Murder or homicide. 52

Total 224 6,395

Wounded 197 2,764

Casualties in the Philippines during the war
with Spain, June 30, 1898, to August 13, 1898.

Average strength, 10,900.

Officers. Enlisted Men. Total.

Killed
(no deaths from wounds) 18 18

Wounded 10 99 109

Total 10 117 127

In the Philippines, from February 4, 1899, to May 20, 1900,

Average strength, 43,232.

Officers. Enlisted Men. Total.

Killed or died of wounds. 43 579 622

Deaths:
By disease 19 1,054 1,073
Accident 1 43 44
Drowning 2 94 96
Suicide 6 23 29
Murder or homicide 11 11

Total 71 1,804 1,875
Wounded. 132 1,897 2,029

Grand total 203 3,701 3,904

Casualties in the Fifth Corps in the operations against
Santiago, June 22 to July 17, 1898:

KILLED. WOUNDED.
ACTIONS.
Officers. Men. Officers. Men.

Las Guasimas, June 24 1 15 6 43
El Caney, July 1 4 77 25 335
San Juan, July 1-3 15 127 69 945
Aguadores, July l-2 2 10
Around Santiago,
July 10-12 1 1 1 11

Total. 21 222 101 1,344

Died of wounds received in the five battles named:
Officers, 5; men, 70.
Total killed and died of wounds:
Officers, 26; men, 292.

Statement of the number of insane soldiers admitted to the
Government Hospital for the Insane, Washington, D. C., from
the Philippine Islands, May 24, 1900, and the disposition made
of them:

Regulars. Volunteers.
Admitted 47 15
Discharged recovered 16 3
Discharged unimproved 1
On visit from hospital 1
Remaining in hospital 29 12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Immigration for the year ended June 30.

"The Commissioner-General of Immigration, in the annual report
of the operations of his Bureau for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1900, submits tabulated statements showing the arrival in
this country during that period of 448,572 alien immigrants,
425,372 through ports of the United States and 23,200 through
Canada. Of these, 304,148 were males and 144,424 females;
54,624 were under 14 years of age, 370,382 were from 14 to 45
years old, and 23,566 were 45 and over. As to the literacy of
persons 14 years of age and over, there were 93,576 who could
neither read nor write, and 2,097 who could read but were
unable to write; 54,288 brought each $30 or over, and 271,821
showed sums less than $30, the total amounts displayed to
inspectors aggregating $6,657,530. There were returned to
their own countries within one year after landing 356, and
hospital relief was rendered during the year to 2,417. The
total debarred, or refused a landing at the ports, were 4,246,
as compared with 3,798 last year. Of these, 1 was excluded for
idiocy, 32 for insanity, 2,974 as paupers or persons likely to
become public charges, 393 on account of disease, 4 as
convicts, 2 as assisted immigrants, 833 as contract laborers,
and 7 women upon the ground that they had been imported for
immoral purposes. In addition to the foregoing, there were
excluded at the Mexican and Canadian borders a total of 1,616
aliens.

"It appears that the Croatian and Slovenian races sent an
increase of 99 per cent over those of the same races who came
last year; the Hebrew, an increase of 62 per cent; the South
Italian (including Sicilian), 28 per cent; the Japanese, 271
per cent; the Finnish, 106 per cent; the Magyar, 181 per cent;
the Polish, 64 per cent; the Scandinavian, 41 per cent.; the
Slovak, 84 per cent. These nine races, of the total of
forty-one races represented by immigration, furnished nearly
as many immigrants as the total arrivals for the last year, or
310,444, and their aggregate increase represented 85 per cent of
the total increase shown for the year.
{668}
The total immigration reported, 448,572, is in excess of that
for the preceding year, 311,715, by 136,857, or 43.9 per cent.
As to countries of origin, 424,700 came from European, 17,946
from Asiatic, 30 from African, and 5,896 from all other
sources. The Commissioner-General points out that in addition
to the 448,572 immigrants there arrived 65,635 other alien
passengers, who, he contends, should be included in conformity
to law with those classified as immigrants."

_United States, Secretary of the Treasury,
Annual Report, 1900, page 37._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Shipping, compared with that of other countries.

See (in this volume)
SHIPPING OF THE WORLD.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Alaska Act.

See (in this volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1900.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June).
Returns of Filipinos killed, wounded and captured from the
beginning of hostilities with them.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Co-operation with the Powers in China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (July).
Appeal of citizens of Manila to the
Congress of the United States.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (JULY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (July).
Forces sent to China under General Chaffee.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JULY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (August).
Agreement with Russian proposal to withdraw troops
from Peking.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (September).
Opposition to German proposal for dealing with China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (September-November).
Legislative measures of the Philippine Commission.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (October).
Military forces in the Philippine Islands.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (December).
Amendment and ratification of the Hay-Pauncefote Convention.

See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (December).
Celebration of the 100th anniversary of the removal of
the capital to Washington.

See (in this volume)
WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (December).
Exports for the calendar year exceeding those
of any other nation.

A Press despatch from Washington, dated February 21, 1901,
announced the fact that the "complete figures for the calendar
year 1900, when compared with those of other nations, show
that American exports of domestic products are greater than
those of any other country. The total exports of domestic
merchandise from the United States in the calendar year 1900
were $1,453,013,659; those from the United Kingdom, which has
heretofore led in the race for this distinction were
$1,418,348,000, and those from Germany $1,050,611,000.
Additional interest is given to the first rank which the
United States now holds as an exporting nation by the fact
that a quarter of a century ago she stood fourth in that list.
In 1875 the domestic exports of the United States were
$497,263,737; those of Germany, $607,096,000; those of France,
$747,489,000, and those of the United Kingdom, $1,087,497,000.
To-day the United States stands at the head of the list, the
United Kingdom second, Germany third and France fourth, with
the figures as follows: United States, $1,453,013,659; United
Kingdom, $1,418,348,000; Germany, $1,050,611,000; France,
$787,060,000. All of these figures, it should be remembered,
relate to the exports of domestic products. Thus in the
quarter century the United States has increased her exports
from $497,263,737 to $1,453,013,659, or 192 per cent; Germany,
from $607,096,000 to $1,050,611,000, or 73 per cent; the
United Kingdom, from $1,087,497,000 to $1,418,348,000, or 34
per cent, and France, from $747,489,000 to $787,060,000, or 5
per cent.

"The following table, compiled from official reports, shows
the exports of domestic merchandise from the United States,
the United Kingdom and Germany in each calendar year from 1875
to 1900:

Year United States United Kingdom Germany

1875 $497,263,737 $1,087,497,000 $607,096,000
1876 575,735,804 976,410,000 619,919,000
1877 607,666,495 967,913,000 672,151,000
1878 723,286,821 938,500,000 702,513,000
1879 754,656,755 932,090,000 675,397,000
1880 875,564,075 1,085,521,000 741,202,000
1881 814,162,951 1,138,873,000 724,379,000
1882 749,911,309 1,175,099,000 776,228,000
18&1 777,523,718 1,166,982,000 796,208,000
1884 733,768,764 1,134,016,000 779,832,000
1885 673,593,506 1,037,124,000 695,892,000
1886 699,519,430 1,035,226,000 726,471,000
1887 703,319,692 1,079,944,000 762,897,000
1888 679,597,477 1,141,365,000 780,076,000
1889 814,154,864 1,211,442,000 770,537,000
1890 845,999,603 1,282,474,000 809,810,000
1891 907,333,551 1,203,169,000 772,679,000
1892 923,237,315 1,105,747,000 718,806,000
1893 854,729,454 1,062,162,000 753,301,000
1894 807,312,116 1,051,193,000 720,607,000
1895 807,742,415 1,100,452,000 807,328,000
1896 986,830,080 1,168,671,000 857,745,000
1897 1,079,834,296 1,139,882,000 884,486,000
1898 1,233,564,828 1,135,642,000 894,063,000
1899 1,203,460,000 1,287,971,039 1,001,278,000
1900 1,453,013,659 1,418,348,000 1,050,611,000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900-1901.
Questions relating to the political status of the new
possessions of the nation submitted to the Supreme Court.

Questions of surpassing importance, touching the political
status of the new possessions which the nation had acquired
from Spain, the relations of their inhabitants to the
government and laws of the United States, the source and
nature of the authority to be exercised over them by the
Congress of the United States, whether exercised under the
constitution of the United States or independently of it, were
taken, in December and January (1900-1901), into the Supreme
Court for authoritative decision, by appeals to that tribunal
made in several suits which had arisen from disputed exactions
of duty on importations from Porto Rico and the Philippine
Islands. The questions had been burning ones in American
politics, from the moment that the treaty of peace with Spain
was signed, and the whole cast, character and consequence of
the new policy of over-sea expansion on which the American
Republic was then launched depended on the decision of the
Court.
{669}
Soon after the January argument and submission of these cases
to the Supreme Court, their extraordinary importance was
touched upon with impressive eloquence by the Honorable W.
Bourke Cockran, in an address upon "John Marshall," in which
he said:

"At this moment the [Supreme Court] is considering the gravest
question ever submitted to a judicial tribunal in the history
of mankind. Within a few days it must decide whether the
government of the United States, or rather whether two of its
departments can govern territory anywhere by the sword, or
whether authority exercised by officers of the United States
must be controlled and limited everywhere by the Constitution
of the United States.

"I do not mention this momentous question to express the
slightest opinion upon its merits, but merely that this
assemblage of judges and of lawyers may realize the part which
the judiciary is now required to play in determining the
influence which this country must exercise forevermore in the
family of nations. The power of Congress to acquire territory
is of course unquestioned, but the disposition to exercise
that power will always be controlled by the conditions under
which newly acquired territory must be held, and these
conditions the court must now prescribe. On the one hand it
may hold that wherever power is exercised under the
constitution there the limitations of the constitution must be
obeyed—that wherever the executive undertakes to administer, or
Congress to legislate, there the judiciary must enforce upon
both respect for the organic law to which they owe their
existence. If this doctrine be established it is clear that no
scheme of forcible conquest will ever be undertaken by this
government, for the simple reason that there can be no profit
in such an enterprise. On the other hand the Court may decide
that Congress can hold newly annexed territories on any terms
that it chooses—that it may govern them according to the
constitution or independently of it—that they may be
administered to establish justice among the governed or for
the glory and profit of the governors. If it be held that
government for profit can be maintained under the authority of
the United States, conceive the extent to which it may be
carried and the consequences which it may portend. If it be
possible to maintain two forms of government under our
constitution, it is possible to establish twenty in as many
different places. Territory may be annexed to the North, to
the South, to the East and to the West. The President of the
United States may be vested with imperial powers in one place,
with royal prerogatives in another and perhaps remain a
constitutional magistrate at home. He may be made a military
autocrat in some South American State, an anointed emperor in
some Northern clime, a turbaned sultan in some Eastern island.
Nay, more, Congress can move itself and the seat of government
from Washington to some newly annexed territory governed by
officers of its own creation, subject to its own unlimited
power, and thus take both outside the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.

"Has the world ever before seen—could the framers of this
constitution have conceived—a bench of judges exercising such
a power amid the universal submission and approval of the
whole people. And more extraordinary than all, this submission
remains unanimous though the decision of the court may
seriously affect its own position in the structure of our
government. For if it be held that the constitution does not
extend of itself over newly annexed territory, then clearly
the authority of the court cannot extend to it except by the
action of Congress and the executive. If the authority, that
is to say, the existence of the court in any part of the
territory of the United States, depends upon the other
departments, then it is idle to contend that it is an
independent and coordinate branch of the government. To decide
that the executive and legislative departments have the right
to govern territory outside the constitution the court must
deliberately renounce the importance which it has heretofore
enjoyed and accept for itself an inferior place in our
political system.

"To me this is the most sublime spectacle ever presented in
the history of the world. Think of it! A war has been waged
with signal success, vast territory has been exacted from a
conquered foe; a great political campaign has been fought and
won upon the policy of taking this territory and governing it
at the pleasure of Congress and the executive, yet if the
court should hold that what the executive has attempted, what
Congress has sanctioned, and what the people appear to have
approved at the polls is in contravention of the constitution,
not one voice would be raised to question the judgment or to
resist its enforcement. I have said the spectacle is sublime;
my friends, even a few weeks ago it was inconceivable. Before
the late election I confess I believed and said that the
success of the present administration would be interpreted as
a popular endorsement of its foreign policy and that the
popular verdict would very probably be made to exercise a
strong if not decisive influence on the court. I admit now
that I was mistaken. It is evident that this question will be
decided on its merits without the slightest attempt to coerce,
intimidate or influence the judges, and I say now with all
frankness that whatever may be the judgment it will be the
very best outcome for the people of this country, for the
peace of the world, for the welfare of the human race. I
cannot tell what this outcome may be, but I know that whenever
a crisis has arisen in the pathway of the republic, the
statesmanship of the common people has always met it with
justice and solved it with wisdom."

_W. Bourke Cockran,
John Marshall: an address before the Erie County Bar
Association, February 4, 1901, at Buffalo._

Argument before the Supreme Court was begun on the 17th of
December, 1900, on two cases thus stated in the brief
submitted for the government: "On June 6, 1899, Goetze
imported from Porto Rico into the port of New York a quantity
of leaf or filler tobacco, upon which duty was assessed at 35
cents per pound as filler tobacco not specially provided for,
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 213 of the
tariff act of 1897, commonly known as the 'Dingley Act.' The
importer protested, claiming that the merchandise was not
subject to duty, because Porto Rico at the time of the
importation was not a foreign country and because, therefore,
the imposition of duties on goods brought from a place within
the territory of the United States into a port of the United
States is not lawful and valid under the Constitution.
{670}
The Board of General Appraisers sustained the assessment of
duty imposed by the collector upon the merchandise in
question, and thereupon the importer appealed to the United
States circuit court for the southern district of New York, by
which court the decision of the Board of General Appraisers
was affirmed in an opinion rendered by District Judge
Townsend. From the judgment of the circuit court this appeal
was taken.

"Porto Rico was partially occupied by the war forces of the
United States during the months of July and August, 1898. By
the protocol of August 12, 1898, between the United States and
Spain, Spain agreed to cede Porto Rico to the United States
and immediately evacuate. The evacuation was effected and full
possession of the island assumed by the United States prior to
January 1, 1899. From that date until the 1st of May, 1900,
Porto Rico was occupied and governed by the military forces of
the United States, under the command of the President, as
conquered territory, under the law of belligerent right. The
treaty of Paris, made in pursuance of the protocol, was signed
December 10, 1898, ratified by the Senate February 6, 1899,
and ratifications exchanged April 11, 1899. So that the
importation in this case was subsequent to the ratification of
the treaty, but prior to the establishment of a civil
government in the island under act of Congress. It does not
appear that the importers are citizens of the United States or
of Porto Rico, nor whether or not the imported tobacco was the
product of Porto Rico.

"In the case of Fourteen Diamond Rings, it appears that the
claimant, Pepke, is a citizen of the United States and served
as a United States soldier in the Island of Luzon; that while
there he purchased or acquired the rings in question and
brought them into the United States without paying duty
thereon some time in the year 1899, between July 31 and
September 25. The rings were seized, on May 18, 1900, at
Chicago, by a United States customs officer as merchandise
liable to duty which should have been invoiced, and was
fraudulently imported and brought into the United States
contrary to law. An information for the forfeiture of the
rings was filed on behalf of the Government, June 1, 1900, to
which the claimant pleaded. Setting up that at the time he
acquired said property Luzon was a part of the territory of
the United States and that the seizure of said goods was
contrary to the claimant's right as a citizen of the United
States under the Constitution, and particularly under section
2, Article IV, thereof, and he insisted that under Article I,
section 8, Congress is required in laying and collecting taxes
to see to it that all taxes and duties shall be uniform
throughout the United States. To this plea the United States
demurred, and upon hearing of the demurrer, the district court
gave judgment of forfeiture for the Government. This judgment
the claimant has removed into this court by a writ of error."

The contention of the government as set forth in the same
brief, and the main contention of the appellants in the case,
against which the argument for the government was directed,
were partly as follows:

"The Tariff Act of 1897 declares that 'there shall be levied,
collected and paid upon all articles imported from foreign
countries and mentioned in the schedules herein contained, the
rates of duty which are by the schedules and paragraphs
respectively prescribed.' (30 Stat., 151.)

"The Government contends, and the circuit court so held, that
this act applied to merchandise imported from Porto Rico and
the Philippine Islands after their cession to the United
States exactly as it did before; that within the meaning of
the act these countries are to be regarded as foreign,
belonging to but not forming in a domestic sense a part of the
United States.

"That it is within the constitutional province of the
treaty-making power to accept the cession of foreign territory
upon such terms, conditions, and limitations as to its
internal status as may best subserve the interests of the
United States, and it is not necessary to invest such
territory with the full status of an integral part of the
Union.

"That this is one of the ordinary and necessary sovereign
powers of an independent nation, and nothing in the Federal
Constitution or in the fundamental principles that underlie
our Republic denies to the nation a right to the full exercise
of this usual and common sovereign right.

"That the treaty-making power—the President and the Senate—as
evidenced by the language of the treaty of Paris, did not
intend to make Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands integral
parts of the United States, but intended, in several
particulars, to reserve their final status for adjustment by
Congress, at the same time making peculiar and special
differential provisions for variations and exceptions in
customs and port regulations as to Spain and Spanish goods and
subjects, which are inconsistent with the intention that the
ceded countries became upon the ratification of the treaty a
part of the United States in all respects and in the fullest
sense.