Under the above heading, a well-known Pittsburgh paper published in December last the following letter from the Rev. George W. Chalfant, who came out to China last year to visit his two sons, who are Missionaries in Shantung 'To the Editor of the Pittsburgh (U.S. Times.—Sit: When the news of Dewey' first great victory and the certain fall of Manila, the capital of the Philippines, reached us in China, Americans and Britons joined hands in' mutual congratulations. They had long been sadly familiar with the horror of Spanish rule in those beautiful islands in the Far East, as we had been with the same conditions in Cuba. Other powers, not much more friendly to human freedom, were known to be casting an envious eye towards this island empire and waiting for Spain's exhaustion to give them the prize on easy terms.
Now the war had been waged on the broad ground of freedom for the oppressed and it seemed no less than a special Providence that the objective of military attack and the decisive victory should he in the far Pacific ocean. Americans, all said, will never permit these millions of oppressed people to go back to their wid bondage nor even to exchange their masters for others that might be no better. It is a surprise to find considerable public sentiment in that direction and some even denouncing President McKinley, as if he) were disposed to grasp an unlawful possession in the name of the American people, when he was only executing the spirit of his own great proclamation endorsed by our National Congress, of the almost unanimous voice of our countrymen, and the applause of nearly the whole civilised world. i Tt is claimed that Dewey's fleet, having gained the grest victory, should have sailed away and left the Spaniards and the Filipinos to slaughter one another to their hearts' content; that we might have avoided troublesome constitutional and administrative questions and possible complications with other nations, and that, after all, it in only sentiment that leads any to plead for the surrender of Spain's sovereignty over the Philippines. Suppose it wore like woman's love, sometimes the highest wisdom? Constitutional lay as interpreted by Chief Justice Taney, the highest authority at that time in the land, said the negro should always be a slave. Sentiment said not, and now there are no negro slaves in America. Which was wisdom? And has our Nation never assumed sovereignty by war or purchase over people and tribes without first asking their consent? What about Florida and the Louisiana purchase and New Mexico and California and Alaska? Spanish, French, Mexicans, Russians and whole tribes of Indians came under our flag without any formal expression of choice.
But there are two great questions involved that must not be confounded. Shall Spain surrender the sovereignty of the Philippines? That will be settled by the adoption of the treaty now being formulated, and that is the only question now fitly before the people. The President is entitled to be heard from on that point and we can well wait a few days on him, He had even the approval of the country almost without distinction of party hitherto. Perhaps he will be able to commend his policy to further Shall wer ass eroignty eneral approval when we know what it is, over the Philippin another question and Its discussion while the negotintions were pending in Paris seemed to be premature and calculated to hinder a satisfactory adjustment of the terms of the treaty. When that comes up there will be a time and opportunity for full and a wise criticism. One thing will be settled by the issue. The Filipinos are, by American skill and courage, and the blessing of Almighty God, free, and far us America can guarantee the result, ever shall be free.
Gronor W. Caatraxr, Pastor Park Avenue Presbyterian Church, Pittsburg, Pa., 3rd December, 1898,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.