THe New York Nation, and we do not refer to it now as a representative of American opinion, but as representing a section of that opinion, was an opponent of the war with Spain to begin with, and is now a vigorous opponent of expansion, or, as its enemies sometimes call it, imperialism. It did not wish the war, and it now does not wish that the United States should gather the fruits of the war. It therefore received with scarcely-veiled satisfaction the news of the outbreak at Manila on the 4th of February which, though the Filipinos were undoubtedly the aggressors, it is believed under telegraphic instructions from Agoncillo, their representative in the ited States, was the actual cause—as most of us surmised at the time—of a two-thirds majority being got together in the U. S. Senate for the ratification of the treaty with Spain. "Had the Filipinos known better," says the Nation in a leading article headed "The End of the Beinning," "they would not have inlulged in an armed outbreak on or about the very day on which the vote was to be taken on the treaty in the Senate. By calm discussion, by apcals to the reason and sense of justice of the American people, they were making considerable headway by takingarms, they have undoubtedly injured their cause, even if they have not helped ours. It reminds us of Cervera's coming out of Santiago to be destroyed just as Shafter was thinking of retreating."
The Nation goes on to remark sarcastically enough that the Philippines might be worth the £4,000,000 sterling that the United States are paying for them, if Spain could have livered them, but to pay that sum "for the right to try to do what Spain has been vainly trying to do for many years, makes it seem as if we had bought 's Pig in a poke." The conclusion of the Nation's article is:—
But, however the thing now goes, there are certain reflections which no enlightened and civilised man can escape. Wo have apparently rushed into this business with as little preparation or forethought as into the Cuban war. We got hold of the notion that it would be good thing to annex 1,200 islands at the other end of the world, simply because we won a naval victory over feeble Power in the harbour of one of them, and because people like Griggs of New Jersey wanted some "glory." We then went to work to buy 1,200 islands without any knowledge of their extent, population, climate, productions, or of the feelings, wishes, or capacity of the inhabitants. We did not even know their number. While.in this state of ignorance, far from trying to conciliate them, assure them of our good intentions, disarm their suspicions of us—men of a different race, religion, and language, of whom they had only recently heard—we issued one of the most contemptuous and insulting proclamations a conqueror has ever issued, announcing to them that their most hated and secular enemy had sold them to us, and that if they did not submit quietly to the cole we should kill them freely. This was bad enough, but what made it worse was that it was all, as a matter of fact, untrue. Is there in any history but Spanish history a record of statesmanship like this The mere tone of this, apart from the statements it contains most of which can be readily controverted, is enough to show that it is entirely' ex parte pleading, and the pleading of an advocate who knows he is on the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.