This statement, which is amply borne out by statistics, shows that we have made wonderful progress in selling goods abroad, not only without possessing colonies and without owning the respective markets, but competing with nations which do possess colonies and do own the markets we invaded. It seems, therefore, that the possession of colonies on our part is not necessary to open markets for our goods, and that, on the other hand, the possession of colonies by other nations does not altogether protect their markets from the invasion of our goods. I take it we owe our remarkable success to the fact that in various branches of industry we produce better goods at a proportionately lower price than others do. Evidently, if we adhere to that practice, there is hope that it alone will save us from the suffocation so much dreaded.
However, the report I have quoted also advocates the opening of further markets for our commerce. I fully agree. We cannot have too many. But can such markets be opened only by annexing to the United States the countries in which they are situated? Must we govern, and even permit to help govern us, the populations with which we wish to trade? Is there, even aside from our producing better goods at a proportionately lower price, no other means to give increased facilities to our commerce?
Suppose that, true to our plighted faith, we abstain from annexing any of the conquered islands. What will there be in the way of our opening those islands to the fullest freedom of commerce and of industrial enterprise? Suppose Cuba and Porto Rico are made independent republics, made so virtually by our action in their behalf, will it not be perfectly feasible to bring about such arrangements with them as will give our commercial and industrial enterprise all possible freedom for trading in their ports, for building up mercantile establishments and
