This peaceful ceremony in peaceful times, of which we now speak, will not produce orators like Patrick Henry and James Otis at the opening of our Revolutionary struggle, like Mirabeau in France, or Cicero in Rome, pleading for a dying republic, or Demosthenes in Athens contending hopelessly against the domination of one supreme will.
An orator for this occasion was not to have been waited for, he was to have been sought out and found if possible.
If Webster were living and in the fullness of his powers, the country might have looked to him for an oration that would have so linked itself with the anniversary that it would have been recognized in every succeeding centennial observance.
Turning from this thought, which at best, can only serve as a standard to which our hopes aspire, I venture the remark, that there is not one of our countrymen who, by the studies of his life, by the philosophical qualities of his mind, by the possession in some large measure of that Miltonian power of imagination which Webster exhibited, is qualified for the supreme task which I have thus imperfectly outlined.
For one day the rumor was voiced that Castelar of Spain had been invited to deliver the oration at the more formal opening of the exhibition in May next. That rumor has not been affirmed nor denied, but from the delay, we cannot hope that its verification is now possible.
Historical knowledge, due to long and laborious studies, and the spirit of historical inquiry, are not often found in the same person, combined with argumentative power and the quality of imagination stimulated by an emotional nature. From what we know of Emilio Castelar of Spain, it may be said that he possesses this rare combination in a degree beyond any other living man.
In the year 1856 when he was only twenty-four years of age, he was appointed, after a compet.i.tive contest, to the chair of philosophy and history in the University of Madrid. During his professorship, in addition to other work, he delivered lectures on the history of civilization.
The political disturbances, in which as a republican, he had taken an active part, led to his exile for four years, but upon his return to Spain he resumed his place in the University. In 1873 he was prime minister during the brief existence of the republic. Of his published works, the best known in this country is the volume ent.i.tled "Old Rome and New Italy." At present he is a member of the Cortes, where he gives support to the Government in its measures of administration without yielding his political principles or indorsing the monarchical system. If this country were to pa.s.s beyond its own limits in the selection of an orator, then, without question Spain has the first, and indeed, the only claim to consideration. Spain furnished the means for the expedition and the world is indebted to her enlightened patronage for the discovery. It may be a.s.sumed, reasonably, that Castelar would have brought from the archives of Spain fresh information in regard to the motives of Ferdinand and Isabella, trustworthy statements as to the character and conduct of Pinzon, the ally of Columbus, and at the end he might have been able to prove or disprove the theory that Columbus had knowledge of the existence of this continent, or that he had or had not reasons for believing that land in the west had been visited by Scandinavian voyagers in the tenth century.
As I pa.s.s to some more direct observations upon Columbus and the voyage of 1492, and to the expression of some thoughts as to the future of the country, I wish to say that I limit my criticism to our representative men, whose estimate of the importance of the anniversary was quite inadequate. They failed to see its connection with the past, its relations to what now is, and more important than all else they failed to realize that this celebration is the first of a long line of centennial celebrations, each one of which will mark the close of one epoch, and the beginning of another.
I cannot imagine that in a hundred years this anniversary, in its organization and conduct, will be thought worthy of imitation. Let us imagine, or rather indulge the hope that then all the States of the south and the north, from the Arctic Seas to Patagonia, will be united in a national and international celebration in recognition of an event that has increased twofold the possibilities, comfort and happiness of the human race.
Pa.s.sing from these criticisms, at once and finally, it is yet true that in this centennial celebration the two Americas, Southern Europe and the Catholic churches throughout the world are united as one people, and for the moment differences in religion and diversities of race are forgotten. Italy was the birth-place of Columbus; Spain, after long years of doubt and vexatious delays lent its patronage to the scheme of the "adventurer" as he was called; and the church, of which Columbus was a devoted, and perhaps a devout disciple, bestowed its blessing upon those who staked their lives or their fortunes in the undertaking.
It is not probable that Columbus looked to that posthumous fame of which he is now the subject. His vision and his hopes extended not beyond the possession of new lands where he might rule as a potentate and enjoy power; where Spain might found an empire, and where the church might establish its authority over millions of new converts. Spain gained new empires, and maintained her rule over them for three centuries and more; the church enlarged its power by the acquisition of half a continent, in which its ecclesiastical authority remains, even to the close of the nineteenth century. For a moment, and but for a moment in the annals of time, Columbus was permitted to realize the dream of his life. After a brief period, however, instead of place, power, grat.i.tude, wealth, he was subjected to chains, and consigned to prison.
Of the three great parties to the undertaking, Columbus alone, seemed to have been unsuccessful, but at the end of four centuries he reappears as the one personage to whom the grat.i.tude of mankind is due for the discovery of the new world. Nor do we enter into any inquiry as to the manner of man that Columbus was on the moral side of his character. We know that he was an enthusiast, that he was richly endowed with the practical virtues of patience, of perseverance, of continuing fort.i.tude under difficulties, and we know that neither Spain, nor the Church, nor Pinzon the ship-builder and capitalist, nor all of them together would have made the discovery when it was made. To Columbus they were essential, but without Columbus they were nothing.
To the wide domain of history may be left the inquiry as to the truth of his visit to Iceland in the preceding decade, his knowledge of the expeditions of the Scandinavian voyagers to Greenland and the coasts of New England in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and his theories or beliefs concerning the spherical figure of the earth.
Whatever might have happened previous to the voyage from Palos, and whatever might have been the extent of Columbus" knowledge, the discovery of America for the purposes of settlement and civilization, was made by Columbus himself at eight o"clock in the evening of October 11, O. S., when he saw the shimmer of fire on the Island of San Salvador. That fact being established, the fact of the existence of land near by was established also. The sight of land at three o"clock next morning was not the discovery; it was evidence only of the reality of the discovery made by Columbus the evening before.
In these four hundred years the empires that Spain founded in the New World have slipped from her grasp; the church has lost its temporal power, but the fame of Columbus has spread more and more widely and his claims to the grat.i.tude of mankind have been recognized more generally.
At the end of each coming century, and for many centuries, no one can foresay how many, millions on millions in the Americas and in Europe will unite in rendering tribute of praise to the enthusiast and adventurer whose limited ambitions for himself were never realized, but who opened to mankind the opportunity to found states freed from the domination of the church and churches freed from the domination of the state.
We do not deceive ourselves, when we claim for the United States the first place among the states on this continent. We are the first of American states in population, in wealth, in our system of public instruction, in our means of professional and technical education, in the application of science to the practical purposes of life, and finally, in experience and success in the business of government.
It should not be forgotten by any of us, nor should the fact be overlooked or neglected by the young that these results have been gained by the labors and sacrifices of our ancestors, and we should realize that the task of preserving what has been won, is the task that is imposed upon the generations as they succeed each other in the great drama of national life. Vain and useless are all conjectures as to the future. The coming century must bring great changes--equal, possibly, to those that have occurred since 1792. At that time our territory did not extend beyond the Mississippi River, our population was hardly four million, our national revenues were less than four million dollars annually, manufacturing industries had not gained a footing, for agricultural products there was no market, the trade in slaves from Africa was guaranteed in the Const.i.tution, the thirteen States had not outgrown the disintegrating influence of the Confederation, the Post-Office Department was not organized, and the National Government was not respected for its power, justice or beneficence, of which the ma.s.s of people knew nothing.
In this century our territory has been enlarged fourfold, our population is eighteen times as great as it was in 1792, our revenues have been multiplied by a hundred, and the convertible wealth of the people has been increased in a greater ratio even. The railway, the telegraphic, the telephonic systems have been created. The dream of Shakespeare has been realized--we have put a girdle round about the Earth in forty minutes.
More than all else, and as the culmination of all else, we have demonstrated the practicability of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. All this has been made possible by and through a system of universal public education--a system which taxes the whole people, and educates the whole people in good learning, and in the cardinal virtues which adorn, dignify and elevate the individual man and furnish the only security for progressive, successful, ill.u.s.trious national life.
This is the inheritance to which the generations before us are born.
A great inheritance--a great inheritance of opportunity, a great inheritance of power, a great inheritance of responsibility, from which the coming generations are not to shrink.
XLV IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY
This paper is introduced upon two grounds mainly. It sets forth with a reasonable degree of fulness the views that I have entertained for three years in regard to President McKinley"s policy in the acquisition and control of the islands in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific Ocean, and it presents a history of my relations to political movements through a long half century.
SPEECH DELIVERED AT SALEM, Ma.s.s., OCTOBER 18, 1900, IN REPLY TO A SPEECH MADE BY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. MOODY, M. C.
A truthful statement that I have been inconsistent in the opinions that I have held and advocated upon questions of public concern, would not disturb me by day, nor consign me to sleepless nights.
It is now sixty years since I first held public office by the votes of my fellow-citizens. In that long period of time my opinions have undergone many changes. When I have had occasion to address my fellow- citizens upon public questions I have not reviewed my previous sayings through fear that some critic might arraign me for inconsistency.
I have considered only my present duty in relation to the questions immediately before me.
In the first ten or fifteen years of my manhood I accepted political economy as a cosmopolitan science and free trade as a wise policy for every country. My views in favor of free trade for the United States are set forth in printed articles, which are now accessible. They are at the service of the critics and of the advocates of free trade.
Consistency is not always a virtue, and inconsistency is not always a vice. Even courts of justice change their rulings and holdings when they find themselves in error.
The Supreme Court of the United States has reversed its first decision in the cases that have arisen under the confiscation acts of 1862, and in other cases the court has qualified its opinions from time to time.
This authority is valuable as proving or as tending to prove, that inconsistencies in opinion may be consistent with integrity of purpose.
An attempt to change the issue while the trial is going on is not infrequently the weak device of misguided advocates who happen to be charged with the care of weak cases.
It is now twenty years of more since I appeared before Judge Endicott of your city in a cause between a trustee and the _cestui que_ trust.
The counsel for the trustee in an argument of considerable length, proceeded to demonstrate the unwisdom, the incapacity, indeed, of my administration of the Treasury Department. I made no attempt to meet the new issue, and the Judge gave no opinion upon it. I made an effort to satisfy the Judge that the trustee was withholding money that belonged to my clients, and Judge Endicott so held. My opponent had an opportunity to argue an issue that was not before the court, and his client was doomed to lose his case.
A cause is now pending before the American people. The issue is this: Is it wise and just for us, as a nation, to make war for the seizure and government of distant lands, occupied by millions of inhabitants, who are alien to us in every aspect of life, except that we are together members of the same human family? The seriousness of this issue cannot be magnified by the art and skill of writers and speakers, nor can it be dwarfed to the proportions of a personal controversy.
Nor does it follow from any possible construction of the Const.i.tution that it is wise and just for the American people to seize, through war, and to govern by force, the hostile tribes and peoples of the earth whether near to or remote.
The advocates of weak causes have two methods of defence to which they most frequently resort: epithets and a change of issues.
It was in this city that Mr. Webster made a remark that is applicable to the use of epithets and the avoidance of issues. Mr. Webster had come to this city to aid the Attorney-General in the trial of Frank and Joseph Knapp. His presence was disagreeable to the counsel for the accused, and they more than intimated that he had been brought to Salem to carry the court against the law, and to hurry the jury beyond the evidence. In reply, Mr. Webster referred to the Goodridge trial, in which he had appeared for the accused, and he said: "I remember that the learned head of the Suffolk Bar, Mr. Prescott, came down in aid of the officers of the government. This was regarded as neither strange nor improper. The counsel for the prisoners, in that case, contented themselves with answering his arguments, as far as they were able, instead of carping at his presence." This is, in substance, the demand that we make upon the supporters of the war in the Philippines.
Let them cease to denounce us as traitors; let them explain the facts on which they are arraigned; and let them answer the arguments that we offer in defence of the Republic.
Causes may be lost by misinterpreting or misrepresenting the issues, or by undervaluing the character and ability of opponents, but causes are not often won by such expedients. The political issues in popular governments are the outcome of measures and policies, and the issues can be changed only by a change of policies and measures. President McKinley"s administration has been an administration of new policies and new measures, and, consequently, it is an administration of new issues --issues that will remain until the measures and policies, to which they owe their origin, have been abandoned. Therefore, the struggle to change the issues, however made, or by whomsoever made, is a vain struggle.
If, in this year 1900, it could be proved beyond controversy that in the year 1859, I had maintained the doctrine that the Const.i.tution of the United States did not apply to the Territories, and that in the year 1899 I had expressed the opposite opinion, would these facts, including the change of opinion, and whether considered together or considered separately, possess any value argumentative, or otherwise, as a justification of President McKinley in seizing the Philippine Islands through war, and in attempting to govern the inhabitants by force? Is it of any consequence when this country is dealing with a public policy of which war is the incident, and the continuing inevitable incident, whether the opinions that one man may have entertained one and forty years ago are acceptable opinions now that the one and forty years have pa.s.sed away? Yet, my fellow-citizens, this is the argument which the representative of the ancient and honored county of Ess.e.x offers to you and to the country in justification of a policy of war degenerating at times into brutal ma.s.sacres, carried on against ten million people, inhabitants of a thousand islands, ten thousand miles from our sh.o.r.es, and at a cost of four million dollars a week, and at the sacrifice each year of thousands of the youth of America, and the destruction of the health and happiness of tens of thousands more.
Such is the history of President McKinley"s administration, and such is the defence offered by the representative of the county of Ess.e.x.
There may have been no sinister design in the attempt to demonstrate my inconsistency upon a question of const.i.tutional law. I do not a.s.sume the existence of personal hostility. An end would be answered if you and others could be induced to believe that in 1859 I had so construed the Const.i.tution as to justify President McKinley in governing the Philippine Islands as though the Const.i.tution of the United States did not exist. Thus do my opinions receive more consideration from an opponent than they could command at the hands of a friend.
I am now to speak more directly in explanation of the opinion that I gave in 1859, with something of the history of the circ.u.mstances which led to the preparation of the paper of that year. It is an error to a.s.sume that the question whether or not the Const.i.tution extends to the Territories, was a prominent question, in the period of the anti- slavery controversy. That question was not publicly and seriously discussed on either side.
The controversy was conducted upon the theory that the Territories were under the Const.i.tution. The question was this: Can a slaveholder move from a slave State to a Territory and be protected under the Const.i.tution in holding his slaves as property?
It was the theory of the Missouri Compromise Measure of 1820 and it was the theory of the compromise measures of 1850, that the Const.i.tution neither authorized slavery anywhere nor prohibited it anywhere. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 recognized, as an admitted fact, the doctrine that the Const.i.tution extended to the Territories, and it a.s.serted as a conclusion of law and as a public policy, the doctrine that the Const.i.tution "should have the same force and effect within the Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States." Thus it was maintained by the friends of the compromise measures that the Const.i.tution neither authorized slavery in the Territories nor prohibited it. This view of the Const.i.tution was accepted by the opponents of slavery.
The Const.i.tution did not authorize slavery in the States nor did it prohibit slavery in the States. Until the Dred Scott Decision, the controversy proceeded upon the idea that States and Territories were alike under the Const.i.tution, and that by the Const.i.tution slavery was neither authorized nor prohibited in any State, nor in any Territory of the Union.
Inasmuch as at that time slavery was not prohibited under the Const.i.tution, there was a general agreement in the proposition that Congress might authorize slavery in the Territories and that Congress might prohibit slavery in the Territories. One party contended for its authorization, the other party demanded its prohibition. On this issue the contest was made up. From first to last the contest proceeded upon the theory, on all sides admitted to be a true theory, that the Const.i.tution of the United States, by its own force, applied to all the Territories of the United States. In that opinion I concurred.
When Mr. Douglas concluded to become a Presidential candidate, he broached a theory of const.i.tutional interpretation for which he may have found some support in the Dred Scott Decision.
His theory was this: The Const.i.tution so applies to the Territories that they must take places as States in the American Union, and the Const.i.tution also requires Congress to accept the Territories as States, and with such inst.i.tutions as the Territories, when on their way to Statehood, might choose to establish.
Hence it was, that in the article in reply to Mr. Douglas, I made this statement: "But now under the new political dispensation, these thirty million can have no opinion concerning the admission of States which may have established Catholicism, Mohammadanism, Polygamy or even Slavery."
I interrupt the course of my remarks to say that already in the Philippines we are tolerating and supporting slavery and polygamy, and preparing the way for the organization of Catholic and Mohammedan States, and their admission into the American Union.