nation? And this is the thing which we are told by a member of our Government—a government of which free discussion is the very life—we must not discuss? By its fruits you shall know it. This is one of the fine fruits of our policy of imperialism—it is time to take heed.
And what response has the Republican platform made? That we have suppressed insurrection—that is, we have drowned in blood the efforts of the Filipinos for independence; that we have given the Philippines more security and better administration than they ever had—that is, that American absolutism is better than Spanish absolutism; and that the possession of the Philippines had made military operations in China easier for us—which implies that it may be of use for further military enterprises. But not a word for Philippine independence.
And what does the President say in his speech of acceptance? He simply repeats the promises often made of enlarged local self-government in the Philippines under American dominion, but he, too, cautions against the discussion of the subject of independence, as if it were the forbidden fruit, not to be touched.
What does all this mean? Does it mean that it is the settled purpose of the ruling influences in the Republican party to keep the Philippines in practically permanent subjection to this Republic? Probably it does. But if it means that the question of Philippine independence should be kept open indefinitely, the practical effect will be the same unwholesome, disquieting, dangerous uncertainty. The Republicans must know, and do know, that the treatment of the Philippines upon the principles applied to Cuba is the only solution of the problem in harmony with the fundamental principles of our government; the only one that is just and right; the only one fitting the true greatness of this Nation; the only one that will satisfy the Filipinos as well as our own people; the
