Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs Volume II Part 28

The President is the creature of the Const.i.tution, and his jurisdiction is measured and limited by the jurisdiction of the Const.i.tution.

When the President a.s.serts that the Philippine Islands are not under the Const.i.tution, he admits that the Philippine Islands are not within his jurisdiction. If, on the other hand, the islands are within his jurisdiction, it follows that his right of jurisdiction over them must have come from the presence of the Const.i.tution itself.

Let there be no misunderstanding upon one point. I claim that the Philippine Islands are under the Const.i.tution and that the President may exercise in and over the islands whatever powers the Const.i.tution and the laws may have placed in his hands.

I claim further that as a right on the part of the Filipinos, and as a policy of justice and wisdom on our part, we should relinquish our t.i.tle, whatever it may be, and allow the Filipinos to enter upon the work of governing themselves.

The President sets up the doctrine that the islands are not under the Const.i.tution and that they may be governed by him outside of all const.i.tutional restraints. This is the usurpation that I have charged upon him, but not upon the Republican Party of former days. Upon the basis specified the charge remains. It is not an epithet. Let the charge be answered, or otherwise, let the President and the supporters of his policy abandon the doctrine that we can seize, hold and govern communities and peoples who are not within the jurisdiction of our Const.i.tution and, who, consequently, are not subject to our laws.

I have said that the President and his supporters are imperialists. If the word is descriptive of a policy then the word is not an epithet.

In the pa.s.sage that I have quoted from the speech of Mr. Moody he charges me in fact, if not in form of words, with a violation of my obligations to the Republican Party, and upon the ground that the party "has showered upon me every honor in its gift except the Presidency."

The consideration that I have received from the Republican Party merits acknowledgment, and that I accord without reserve, but it cannot exact subserviency from me.

On public grounds I ask this question: Are those who may hold office under the leadership of a party, to be held by party discipline to the support of measures and policies which they condemn? Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech are of more value than public office. The movement for the reform of the civil service is, in its best aspect, but an attempt to rescue the body of office holders from the tyranny and discipline of party and of party leaders. Thus much upon public grounds, but, for myself, I shall not seek protection under a general policy.

Never for a moment from my early years did I entertain the thought that I would enter public life, or that I would continue in public life, as a pursuit or as a profession. Hence, it has happened that I have never asked for personal support at the hands of any, and hence it has happened that I have never solicited a nomination or an appointment from or through the Republican Party or any member of it.

In 1860, a majority of the delegates to the Congressional Convention in my district, favored my nomination, but not through any effort by me.

I attended the Convention and placed in nomination Mr. Train, who had been in Congress one term.

Without any effort on my part I was nominated in 1862-'64-'66 and '68.

No aid in money or otherwise was given by the State Committee or the National Committee. Following my nomination in each case the District Committee asked me for a contribution of one hundred dollars. On one occasion the committee sent me a return check of forty-two dollars and some cents with a statement that the full amount had not been expended.

If contributions of money were made by others the fact was not communicated to me.

I became a candidate for the Senate upon a request signed by members of the Legislature. When the second contest was on, in 1877, I declined a call by a telegraphic message to visit Boston and confer with my friends who were anxious for my election. I was a member of the Peace Congress of 1861 and I received several other appointments from Governor Andrew, but without solicitation by me. At his request I went to Washington for a conference with Mr. Lincoln and General Scott. I reached the city by the first train that pa.s.sed over the road from Annapolis. Again, at his request, I went to Washington the Monday following the battle of Bull Run.

I received two appointments from President Lincoln, when, in each case, I had no knowledge that the place existed.

From General Grant I received the offer of the Interior Department and then of the Treasury Department, both of which I declined. When General Grant had taken the responsibility of sending my name to the Senate, I had no alternative as a member of the Republican Party and as a friend to General Grant.

Upon the death of Mr. Folger, President Arthur asked me to take the office of Secretary of the Treasury. I was then concerned with the affairs of another government and I declined the appointment.

When General Garfield had been nominated at Chicago in 1880 the nomination of a candidate for the Vice-Presidency was placed in the hands of the friends of General Grant. That nomination was offered to me.

In the forty years from 1856 to 1896, I made speeches in behalf of the Republican Party in Ma.s.sachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio and Indiana and in no instance did I receive compensation for my services. When I spoke in Ohio my expenses were paid on all occasions but one. That was a volunteer visit. My acquaintance with the politicians of Ohio was agreeable from first to last.

In my many trips through New York it was understood that my expenses were to be paid. When General Arthur was at the head of the committee his checks exceeded the expenses, perhaps by a hundred per cent.

On one occasion the State Committee asked me to make six or eight speeches upon their appointment. That service I performed; whether my expenses were paid I cannot say. If they were paid it is the exception in Ma.s.sachusetts, unless local expenses may have been met where addresses were made.

If a mercantile account current could be written, it might appear that my obligations to the Republican Party are not in excess of the obligations of the Republican Party to me.

From my experience as a member of the Republican Party I add an incident to what I have said already.

In the month of July, 1862, and at the request of President Lincoln and Secretary Chase, I entered upon the work of organizing the Internal Revenue Office. That work was continued without the interruption of Sabbaths or evenings, with a few exceptions only, till March, 1863, when, as was said by Mr. Chase, the office was larger than the entire Treasury had been at any time previous to 1861. It was the largest branch of government ever organized in historical times and set in motion in a single year. The system remains undisturbed. Such changes only have been made as were required by changes in the laws. In the thirty-eight years of its existence the Government has received through its agency the enormous sum of five thousand and five hundred million dollars being twice the amount of all the revenues of the Government previous to 1860.

I have thus devoted many minutes of your time to the questions raised by Mr. Moody.

The nature and the extent of my obligations to the Republican Party and the question of my consistency in the construction that I have given to the Const.i.tution of the United States, are not matters of grave concern for you. They have come into the field of discussion through the agency of Mr. Moody.

I come now to ask your attention to a view of your relations to pa.s.sing events which concerns the county of Ess.e.x.

Your county has a distinguished history--distinguished for its men and for its part in public affairs. Shall the history that you are now making be consistent with that which you have inherited and which you cherish? I mention one name only among your great names and I bring before your minds one event only.

In the order of time and in the order of events, the second most important paper in the annals of America is the "Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio."

The chief value of that ordinance is in the sixth article which is in these words: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

By repeated decisions the Supreme Court has held that the stipulations and terms of the ordinance remained in force after the adoption of the Const.i.tution, unless a conflict should appear, and in such a case the ordinance would yield to the Const.i.tution. As the article in regard to slavery was not controlled by the Const.i.tution, the exclusion of slavery became the supreme and continuing law of the Territories and States that were organized in the vast region covered by the Ordinance of 1787, and it may be a.s.sumed, fairly, that the character and power of those States made possible the extermination of the inst.i.tution of slavery in all parts of the country. The parties to the ordinance of 1787 may have builded better than they knew, but their work is one of the four great acts or events in the history of the Republic--The Declaration of Independence, the Ordinance of 1787, the Const.i.tution, and the amendment abolishing the inst.i.tution of slavery.

Nathan Dane of the county of Ess.e.x, was the author of the Ordinance of 1787; and he was a delegate in the Continental Congress from 1785 to 1788. Of all the eminent men that you have sent forth into the service of the State and the country, he must be accounted the chief, when we consider the value of his contribution, historically, and on the side of freedom and civilization. His fame is in your hands and I have come to ask you to consider whether the policy of President McKinley in the Philippines is in harmony with the Ordinance of 1787 and the amendment to the Const.i.tution of 1865.

By the Ordinance of 1787, freedom and full right to self-government were made secure to the coming millions who were to occupy the States northwest of the River Ohio. By the amendment of 1865 freedom and equality in government were guaranteed to all and especially to the negro race in America.

Shall the avoidance of the Amendment in States of this Union be tendered as a reason for a denial of equality and the right of self-government in the Philippine Islands? If the negroes in America are ent.i.tled to freedom from a state of subserviency, are not the colored races in the Philippines ent.i.tled to freedom, and that whether they are under the Const.i.tution or beyond its jurisdiction?

You are called to a choice between the doctrines of Nathan Dane and Abraham Lincoln on one side and the doctrines and policy of President McKinley and his supporters on the other side. The point I make is this: The three propositions cannot stand together. Dane and Lincoln are in harmony. They guaranteed equality and self-government to all.

President McKinley and his supporters demand subserviency of all who are not within the lines of the American seas.

They a.s.sert supreme authority over their fellow-men for an indefinite period of time, and they promise therewith good government. Here are the a.s.sertion of power and the promise of goodness that have attended the origin and movement of every despotism that has risen to curse mankind.

That you may see, as in one view, the doctrines of Dane, Lincoln and McKinley, I read again the records that they have made.

"There shall be neither slavery "The Philippines are ours and nor involuntary servitude in the American authority must be su- said territory otherwise than in the preme throughout the Archipelago.

punishment of crimes whereof the There will be amnesty, broad and party shall have been duly liberal, but no abatement of our convicted."--NATHAN DANE. rights, no abandonment of our duty. There must be no scuttle "Neither slavery nor involuntary policy."--WILLIAM McKINLEY.

servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall "The flag of the Republic now have been duly convicted, shall floats over these islands as an exist within the United States, or emblem of rightful sovereignty.

any place subject to their Will the Republic stay and jurisdiction."--ABRAHAM LINCOLN. dispense to their inhabitants the blessings of liberty, education and free inst.i.tutions, or steal away leaving them to anarchy or imperialism?"--WILLIAM McKINLEY.

"Any slave in the Archipelago of Jolo shall have the right to pur- chase freedom by paying to the master the usual market price.-- Article 10, of the McKinley treaty with the Sultan of the Sulu Isles.

I leave three questions with you.

Is a vote for President McKinley and his policy in the Philippine Islands a vote in harmony with the teachings and examples of Nathan Dane and Abraham Lincoln?

Is the policy of President McKinley consistent with the history of the county of Ess.e.x?

Shall your representative stand for Nathan Dane and Abraham Lincoln and Freedom, or for William McKinley and Despotism?

THE END