Col. Bryan's Speech

COL. BRYAN'S SPEECH

A Strong and Logical One on "Imperialism"

LEFT GOOD IMPRESSION

Was Enthusiastically Greeted by the Students.

His Speech Much the Strongest Delivered Here on the Subject.-He Wants the Philippines Given Their Independence as soon as Fit for It.

University hall was well filled Saturday evening, when the hour of eight arrived, by those who had come to hear Hon. W. J. Bryan on "Imperialism." The good feeling of the day was still present and the students were as enthusiastic as usual. It was a quarter past eight before President Mulholland, of the Good Government club, made his appearance upon the rostrum with Mr. Bryan. The appearance of Mr. Bryan was the signal for a outburst of applause which continued some minutes. As Mr. Mulholland advanced to the footlights to introduce the speaker he took occasion to read a letter to President Angell, signed by Mr. Bryan as follows:

"In order to stimulate study on subjects in connection with good government, I hereby give $250 to the university on condition that the money be invested and the annual income be given as a prize for the best essay on good government topics." 

This announcement was received with tumultuous applause, the university yell and "What's the matter with Bryan."

In beginning his lecture, Mr. Bryan alluded to his visit of seven years ago and said his anticipation of this return had been most pleasant to him. He said he always enjoyed talking to students and was pleased with the opportunity to discuss the subject of the evening before them. He thought the great universities of the nation were the proper places for the discussion of questions relating to good government. He liked to talk to students, he said, because their minds were not fully made up on political questions. Being seekers after truth they were in a teachable condition and gladly listened to the opinions of others. Those farther advanced in life have their minds made up. If they agree with a speaker,then they do not need to hear him. If they do not agree with him, they are not disposed to give the consideration to his points which the investigator readily yields. Speaking to students was, therefore, a hundredfold more productive in results.

At the present time, he said, people were giving serious thought to the subject under discussion. Some regard the policy of our nation as fixed. But such was not the case. The president in his recent Boston speech had said that the policy to be pursued by this nation relative to the Philippines was now in the hands of the American people for determination. The president had refrained from suggesting what the people should do. Mr. Bryan said he had been opposed to many of the leaders of his party on the question of ratifying the treaty. He favored ratification for the reason that our policy would then be wholly domestic. Ratification had taken the question from the domain of diplomacy and placed it in congress. No other nation is now concerned in the matter. The determination of our future policy is made much easier by that fact. The issue being now in the hands of the American people, it is a proper subject for discussion by the people and the question to be determined is whether the permanent retention of the Philippines is desirable. The factors of this question are two, what is best for the United States, and what is best for the Filipinos. Will any one claim we must keep them whether we want them or not? If we have the right to acquire territory, we certainly have an equal right to dispose of it. Those who think the Philippines should not be permanently held, to believe, such a policy would not be beneficial to our people or the alien race over whom we would establish our authority. It is certainly catchy to say that destiny requires us to keep them. But who is to interpret destiny? My experience with prophets, said the speaker, is too recent and unsatisfactory, to permit my accepting their interpretation of destiny without first knowing from what source they are inspired.

Mr. Bryan said we should pursue the same policy with the Philippines we have bound ourselves to follow in Cuba. We should assist their people to establish a stable government and then leave them independent. We should not force a control upon them which is hateful to the people. They should be told what our policy is to be and made to understand the distinction between temporary occupation for the purpose of assisting them in establishing law and order and permanent annexation. If our policy should be thus declared, hostilities would be stopped at once and bloodshed avoided. The speaker reviewed the reasons usually advanced for permanently annexing the Philippines, including destiny, difficulty of getting rid of them, duty to spread the gospel of love, and profit. The most potent of these he declared to be the expected profit. Ho went into an elaborate argument as to the cost of maintaining them and from these premises showed that the cost would be greater than the income. He said the president had asked for 100,000 men. Why was such an army needed? The occupation of Cuba was expected to be only temporary. Porto Rico was satisfied with our rule and an army was not needed there. The large part of the increase was for the Philippines. It was evident that twice as many soldiers were considered necessary there as we have maintained for the whole of the United States. Such a force would be necessary because we should have rebellion there. The people would not peacefully submit to foreign domination. The money for the support of this army would be raised as other taxes are raised. The money would not be raised in proportion to income, but by a method under which the poor bear vastly more than their share. He reviewed the cost of maintaining the colonies of Germany, mentioning especially Kaiser Wilhelm's land and the Bismark archipeligo and declared that every German resident could be cared for at the best hotel in Germany for less money than the cost there. He also gave statistics relative to the Dutch colony of Java which is held up as an example to be followed by us in the Philippines and showed corresponding results. After 150 years of English rule in India he declared there was not to exceed 100,000 English people among the 300,000,000 natives. There are more people in the jails than there are Europeans in the whole country. The white race will not go to the tropics to live. Even Spain, which is a southern country, sent but few residents to the Philippines. There is already a much denser population in these islands than in some of the most fertile regions of our own country. Could it be expected under such circumstances that our people would go there to live? It is claimed that the superior race carries education and the Christian religion into its colonial possessions. What is the showing in India after 150 years of English control? Less than 5 per cent of the people can read and write. Less than 1 percent of the women can. There is also less than 1 percent who have taken on even the veneer of Christianity. It is sometimes said that the people of India like English rule. But it is not true. They are constantly demanding those rights which are sacred to every Briton but which the Briton denies to the Indians. How can one race have faith in the sincerity of another so-called superior race which comes teaching the precepts of the golden rule and violating its principles in every relation sustained to the inferior race.  No outside race can give satisfactory government to another.  It can only be done by wiping out race animosity by intermarrying.  The experience of England is rich in this line.  When William the conqueror and his Norman followers subdued the Anglo-Saxons, seven generations passed away before this amalgamation had made much progress. Without this assimilation race animosity will not disappear. Japan under the direction of her own forces has made more progress in 30 years than has India under the domination of England in 150 years. Mexico is another example of like progress, directed by forces from within. She was not progressive, however, while ruled from without by Spain. It is said the United States has arrived at a period in her history when she must become a world power. I assert, said the speaker, that the United States is a world power in the highest and best sense of the term. She has exerted more influence for good than all the other nations combined. But she has not depended upon a single soldier to carry the light of her civilization. The influence of the Declaration of Independence and principles of our constitution have extended around the globe and other nations have been inspired by our example. Shall we now descend from our proud eminence to the plan of the monarchical nations, throw away our teachings and traditions of a century and more of national existence and enter upon a career of conquest and substitute the doctrine of force for the power of example and the influence of counsel? Are we to maintain a government of consent at home and a government by force in the Philippines? If so we shall not escape the verdict of history. The imperialist have undertaken to throw upon those who opposed the ratification of the treaty, the responsibility for the recent bloodshed at Manila. While I advocated the ratification of the treaty and still believe it was wiser to ratify the treaty and make the fight for Philippine independence before our own people alone rather than through diplomatic channels. I deny that the opponents of ratification were in any sense responsible for the bloodshed at Manila. The responsibility rests upon those who refused to give independence to the Filipinos or to disclose the nation's policy toward them, leaving them to suppose they had simply exchanged their Spanish masters for American masters. It was their desire for independence. inspired by our own history and example which led them to this step. If to inspire other people to desire self-government is a wrong, then the imperialists cannot confine the responsibility for the Manila outbreak to the opponents of ratification. The blame must be laid at the door of the greatest statesmen in our history. Patrick Henry is responsible in giving utterance to the sentiment "Give me liberty or give me death." Washington must bear a share of the responsibility for having drawn his sword in defense of the colonies and thus inspiring others to like conduct. Jefferson is likewise responsible for having penned the Declaration of Independence, which has been an inspiration to the patriot of every clime. Lincoln must also bear his share for having admonished the people to so act that "government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish from the earth."

We cannot apply the monarchical doctrine to the subjugation and government of an alien race without doing violence to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and our constitution. A man may live a double life and have the respect and confidence of society when only one of his lives is known, but when his duplicity becomes known to the world he can lead but one and that the worst. The same thing is true of nations. We can not have a government of consent at home and one of force in Asia without losing our influence of example and counsel and becoming a vulgar spoilsman of a helpless people under the pretense of giving them unsought and unwelcome blessings. Are we going to so act that we must repudiate the past? Are we to set up in our colonies a government such that we dare not there mention the great principles of our home institutions? We have never believed in wars of conquest. Such wars are hateful to our people. For what are we to change our code of morality? What are to be the profits which induce to this? Colonies are not a benefit to Great Britain. The great historian Mcauanlay declared they had cost gold as dust and blood as water. It should not be overlooked that if we enter upon imperialism, those who toil must bare their backs a little more to the burden of taxation. We can not enter the quarries of the old world and escape the burden of treasure and lives. We owe a duty to the Filipinos, of course, which we are obligated to meet to the full measure. Our duty is to put them in the way of maintaining a good government for themselves. They are entitled to our aid and protection while this is being done. This much is consistent with American traditions and ideals. But our policy should be declared and the quicker the better. The sooner we let the world know that we propose to do only what is right and consistent with our past, the sooner we will have the enjoyment which is the reward of right doing.