684

The Philippines demanded by America

[1898

A peaceful occupation of the city, under the provisions of the protocol, would have excited little feeling. The report of its capture by force of arms, with some casualties, was received in the United States eight days after the signing of the protocol. The effect was visible and pronounced. It gave a decided impulse to annexationist sentiment. The question began to be popularly discussed as one, not of taking the islands, but of abandoning them; and the tendency to retain them was powerfully reinforced by the growth of a missionary spirit, which discerned in the course of events a providential opportunity to promote the welfare of the natives, an opportunity the neglect of which, because of preconceived notions of national interest, would constitute a selfish and censurable violation of duty. Nevertheless, President McKinley, in his instructions to the American Peace Commission, of September 16, 1898, went no further than to say that the United States could not accept "less than" the island of Luzon. During the following weeks, however, much consideration was given to the subject both at Washington and at Paris ; and on October 28 the American commissioners were instructed that the President could see "but one plain path of duty- the acceptance of the archipelago."

The American commissioners therefore presented, on October 31, a proposal for the cession of the whole group, but stated that they were prepared to insert in the treaty a stipulation for the assumption by the United States of any existing debt incurred by Spain for public works and improvements of a pacific character in the islands. At the next conference the Spanish commissioners submitted a counter-proposal, in the form of an argumentative memorandum. In this document they contended that the protocol of August 12 did not justify a demand for the cession of the whole group; and that the capture of Manila by the American forces, after the signature of that instrument, though in fact before news of its signature was received in the islands, was, in view of the agreement for a suspension of hostilities, unlawful. On this ground they maintained that the treaty of peace ought to provide for the immediate delivery of Manila to the Spanish government, the immediate release of the Spanish garrison, the return to the Spanish government of all funds and public property taken by the American army since the occupation of the place, as well as of all taxes collected prior to its restoration; and they even demanded an indemnity for the damage occasioned by the detention of the Spanish troops as prisoners, to which they ascribed the spread of the Tagal insurrection in Luzon and its extension to the Visayas, and the illtreatment of Spanish prisoners, civil and military, by the natives. They concluded by inviting the American commissioners to present a proposition concerning "the control, disposition, and government" of the Philippines which should conform to "the stipulations of Article III" of the protocol. To this counter-proposal the American commissioners made a detailed reply. Obviously the principal point at issue was the

1898]

685

The question of the cession of the Philippines proposal for the cession of the group. The American commissioners did not controvert the general principle that acts of war, committed after a general suspension of hostilities, afford no basis for a claim of title by conquest, even though such acts be committed prior to the receipt of notice of the suspension; but they pointed out that by the third article of the protocol the United States was to "occupy and hold the city, bay, and harbour of Manila pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace"; and they maintained that this meant a military occupation, with all the rights and powers of government legally incident to such occupation. The great subject of controversy, however, was the effect to be given to the words "control, disposition, and government." Did the stipulation that the treaty of peace should "determine the control, disposition, and government of the Philippines" warrant a demand for the cession of territory? Did it authorise a demand for the transfer of sovereignty over the group or any part of it?

We have seen that the words in question were first used in the note of July 30, which defined the terms on which the United States would enter upon negotiations for peace; and that the reply of the Spanish government with regard to the third condition, relating to the Philippines, was unsatisfactory. The purport of that reply was that, as Manila, though blockaded, had not been captured by the American forces, the proposed occupation of the city should be considered not as an act of conquest, but as a "guarantee"; and that, since the intentions. of the United States were not disclosed in the stipulation that the treaty of peace should determine the control, disposition, and government of the Philippines, "the Spanish government must declare that, while accepting the third condition, they do not à priori renounce the sovereignty of Spain over the archipelago, leaving it to the negotiators to agree as to such reforms as the condition of these possessions and the level of culture of their natives may render desirable." It may fairly be argued that the statement that the Spanish government did not "à priori" renounce "the sovereignty of Spain over the archipelago clearly implied that the renunciation of sovereignty might become the subject of negotiation, and constituted an acceptance of the condition that the question of the Philippines should be left in its entirety for future determination by the treaty of peace. Nevertheless, the President declined so to treat it; and this decision was made known to the French ambassador, first in oral conference, and afterwards by a formal note, with which there was enclosed a draft of the protocol in the exact words in which it was signed two days later. The attempt to reach an agreement by correspondence was abandoned, and the terms on which the negotiations were to be undertaken were embodied in a single document.

On November 21 the American commissioners, in order to bring the discussions to a close, presented a final proposition, on the acceptance or

686

The Treaty of Peace

[1898-1902 rejection of which the continuance of the negotiations was to depend. This proposition embraced the cession of the entire archipelago of the Philippines and the payment by the United States of the sum of $20,000,000; and, in connexion with this offer, the American commissioners stated that, "it being the policy of the United States to maintain in the Philippines an open door to the world's commerce," they were prepared to insert in the treaty a stipulation to the effect that, for a term of years, Spanish ships and merchandise should be admitted into the ports of the islands on the same terms as American ships and merchandise. The proposition also embraced a mutual relinquishment of claims that had arisen since the beginning of the insurrection in Cuba in 1895.

The Spanish commissioners made by letter various alternative proposals, as possible substitutes for the American demands. These proposals were, however, declined; and on November 28 the Spanish commissioners presented in conference a formal written acceptance of the ultimatum. The treaty of peace was signed on December 10, 1898.

The publication of the terms of the treaty was followed in the United States by an active discussion as to whether the article for the cession of the Philippines should not be amended by a declaration in favour of ultimate independence, somewhat after the example of Cuba. The contest was carried into the Senate, and the prospects of unqualified ratification seemed to become more and more doubtful. The vote was to be taken on Monday, February 6, 1899. On Sunday, the 5th, came the unexpected and startling news of a collision between the American and Filipino" forces. Next day, by a vote of 57 to 27-one more than the requisite two-thirds-the treaty was ratified, without amendment. The Philippine Islands became unconditionally a colony of the United States. In May, 1902, the American occupation ceasing, the Republic of Cuba, under an independent government, became a reality.

66

CHAPTER XXII

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

THE economic history of the United States differs from that of any European country, in the fact that it begins with the transplantation of a civilised race to a vast territory endowed with extraordinary resources. It can hardly be said that a new nation begins its development at the point that has been reached by the older nation from which it springs; for there is an inevitable return to a more primitive economic life in the adjustment to a primitive environment. Furthermore, the process of transplanting removes many of the shackles of custom and tradition which retard the progress of older countries. In a new country things cannot be done in the old way, and therefore they are probably done in the best way. There is no force to oppose the quick adoption of the methods which make most directly for the end in view. It is true that this progress of economic adjustment may have important effects on national character and on legal and political conceptions; but the period of transition is temporary, and the social changes are conditioned by the racial inheritance. The nation begins its new life with the period of apprenticeship already past; and the century-long process of accumulating knowledge, of building character, of shaping economic and political institutions, in short, of rearing stone by stone the structure of civilisation, does not require to be repeated. For these reasons, an account of the economic growth of the United States is rather a chronicle of material achievement than a history of economic institutions.

It should be remembered, however, that an intelligent race and natural resources are not in themselves sufficient to bring about with speed a condition of economic stability. To secure this result, the new nation must not only draw its inherited ability from the old stock, but also the successive supplies of capital which it needs for the exploitation of its resources; while the channel of commerce must be kept open if the energy of the country is to follow the lines of its greatest economic advantage. The new country must be able to

688

Contrast between North and South

[1783discount its future wealth before production takes place. And for this purpose, if it be a country of great extent, it must first grow up to its task of exploitation. For many years the chief economic characteristic of the United States was the possession of an excess of natural resources with an inadequate supply of labour and capital. It resembled a great ship undermanned and poorly equipped. Consequently economic progress, instead of being rapid in the early years, was, viewed from our present knowledge of the possibilities of the country, surprisingly slow. The very immensity of the undertaking required a period of preparation before that strong and complex economic organisation could be developed which was necessary to the successful utilisation of American resources.

The economic conditions prevalent in the first half of the nineteenth century have already been described, and may be very briefly summarised here. At the beginning of that century nine-tenths of the population of the country lived along the narrow strip of territory between the sea-coast and the Alleghanies. As yet the dominant section, politically and socially, was the group of Southern States with Virginia at their head. Here the economic system was patriarchal in form. Slavery was firmly established, and the land was held in large estates. The plantation system had been the natural outcome of the characters of the ruling class and the enslaved negroes, and of the nature of the soil, which was especially adapted to the production of tobacco, indigo, and cotton. Little attempt was made at diversity of agriculture; and, even at this period, the South was largely dependent on other districts for its food supplies as well as its manufactures. Tobacco had been the chief crop in the colonial period, and was just beginning to give way before that extension of cotton culture which was destined to play so great a part in the social and political as well as the economic history of the country. The invention of the cottongin by Eli Whitney had occurred a few years before; and this remarkable improvement, coming at a time when the new processes of manufacture were just making themselves felt in England, determined the course of Southern development for sixty years to come, and gave a firm economic foundation to the slave system a remarkable instance of a beneficent invention of the human mind affording the chief reason for the maintenance of an inhuman institution.

The Northern States were agricultural and commercial. Here the conditions of agriculture were exactly the reverse of those in the South. Small holdings, with considerable diversity of products, were the rule. Food-products were grown, both for the home market and for export. The flourishing condition of West Indian commerce at this time furnished the chief foreign market for American provisions, and also for the products of the New England fisheries. The greatest commercial activity was found in the shipping business, which had been greatly