- Svesy one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both
the human and the moral law, but, as some deny the application of those laws
to nations, it may not be out of piace to quote the « opimons of others. Jeffer-
son. than whom there is no higher political authority, said:
“I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or
collectively
Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue, are a part of the priceless
legacy bequeathed to us from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea
in even stronger language when he said :
“JUSTICE 18 AS STRICTLY DUE BETWEEN NEIGHBOR NATIONS AS BE-
TWEEN NEIGHBOR CITIZENS. A HIGHWAYMAN IS AS MUCH A ROBBER WHEN
HE PLUNDERS IN A GANG AS WHEN SINGLE; AND THE NATION THAT MAKES
AN UNJUST WAR IS ONLY A GREAT GANG.
Men may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as indi-
viduals. but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of
those who ioin in it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet cre-
ated a right. If it was true, as declared in the resolutions of intervention ,that
the Cubans “are and of right ought to be ire od independ lent” (language
3
i
. “rg
+1 ’ 4
taken from the declaration of independence), it is equally true that the Fil-
pinos “are and of right ought to be free and independent.
The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proxim-
itv to the United States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor vet upon
the race or races to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unani-
—r
] 1] oy ~ I 1 =
1ladelphia in 1776 were
mous vote declared that the principles enunciated at |
still alive and app icable to the Cubans.
Who + draw a line between the natural right of the Cuban and the
Filipino? Who will say that the former has a right to liberty and that the lat-
ter has no rights which we are bound to respect’ And, he Filipinos “are
and of right ought to be free and indepen lent,” what righ 1
government upon them without their consent?
Before our duty can be ascertained their rights must be determined, and
when their rights are once determined it 1s as much our duty tor
rights as it was the duty of Spain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba,
or the duty « f England to respects the rights of the American colonists,
Rights never Oy duties never clash. Can it be our duty to usurp politi-
cal rights which belong to others? C an it be our duty to kill those who ad
lowing the example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it:
Some poet has described the jevror which overcame a soldier who in the
midst of battle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is wntten: “All
ye are brethren.” Let us hope for the coming of the day when human life—
which when once destroyed cannot be restored—will be so sacred that it will
never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime already committed, or
to prevent a crime about to be committed.
If it is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which
make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philip-
pine 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 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, sec-
ond, that our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, 1s greater
than any obligation which we owe to foreigners who have a temporary resi-
dence 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
were more capable of self-government than the Cubans, and said that he based
vt
Y