Part 4

Ever since this Continent was discovered the need of an Isthmian Canal to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic has been recognized; and ever since the birth of our Nation such a canal has been planned. At last the dream has become a reality. The Isthmian Canal is now being built by the Government of the United States. We conducted the negotiation for its construction with the nicest and most scrupulous honor, and in a spirit of the largest generosity toward those through whose territory it was to run. Every sinister effort which could be devised by the spirit of faction or the spirit of self-interest was made in order to defeat the treaty with Panama and thereby prevent the consummation of this work. The construction of the canal is now an assured fact; but most certainly it is unwise to intrust the carrying out of so momentous a policy to those who have endeavored to defeat the whole undertaking.

Our foreign policy has been so conducted that, while not one of our just claims has been sacrificed, our relations with all foreign nations are now of the most peaceful kind; there is not a cloud on the horizon. The last cause of irritation between us and any other nation was removed by the settlement of the Alaskan boundary.

In the Caribbean Sea we have made good our promises of independence to Cuba, and have proved our assertion that our mission in the island was one of justice and not of self-aggrandizement; and thereby no less than by our action in Venezuela and Panama we have shown that the Monroe Doctrine is a living reality, designed for the hurt of no nation, but for the protection of civilization on the Western Continent, and for the peace of the world. Our steady growth in power has gone hand in hand with a strengthening disposition to use this power with strict regard for the rights of others, and for the cause of international justice and goodwill.

We earnestly desire friendship with all the nations of the New and Old Worlds; and we endeavor to place our relations with them upon a basis of reciprocal advantage instead of hostility. We hold that the prosperity of each nation is an aid and not a hindrance to the prosperity of other nations. We seek international amity for the same reasons that make us believe in peace within our own borders; and we seek this peace not because we are afraid or unready, but because we think that peace is right as well as advantageous.

American interests in the Pacific have rapidly grown. American enterprise has laid a cable across this, the greatest of oceans. We have proved in effective fashion that we wish the Chinese Empire well and desire its integrity and independence.

Our foothold in the Philippines greatly strengthens our position in the competition for the trade of the East; but we are governing the Philippines in the interest of the Philippine people themselves. We have already given them a large share in their government, and our purpose is to increase this share as rapidly as they give evidence of increasing fitness for the task. The great majority of the officials of the islands, whether elective or appointive, are already native Filipinos. We are now providing for a legislative assembly. This is the first step to be taken in the future; and it would be eminently unwise to declare what our next step will be until this first step has been taken and the results are manifest. To have gone faster than we have already gone in giving the islanders a constantly increasing measure of self-government would have been disastrous. At the present moment to give political independence to the islands would result in the immediate loss of civil rights, personal liberty, and public order, as regards the mass of the Filipinos, for the majority of the islanders have been given these great boons by us, and only keep them because we vigilantly safeguard and guarantee them. To withdraw our Government from the islands at this time would mean to the average native the loss of his barely won civil freedom. We have established in the islands a Government by Americans assisted by Filipinos. We are steadily striving to transform this into self-government by the Filipinos assisted by Americans.

The principles which we uphold should appeal to all our countrymen, in all portions of our country. Above all they should give us strength with the men and women who are the spiritual heirs of those who upheld the hands of Abraham Lincoln; for we are striving to do our work in the spirit with which Lincoln approached his. During the seven years that have just passed there is no duty, domestic or foreign, which we have shirked; no necessary task which we have feared to undertake, or which we have not performed with reasonable efficiency. We have never pleaded impotence. We have never sought refuge in criticism and complaint instead of action. We face the future with our past and our present as guarantors of our promises; and we are content to stand or to fall by the record which we have made and are making.

LETTER ACCEPTING THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

OYSTER BAY, N. Y., _Sept. 12, 1904_

HON. J. G. CANNON, _Chairman of the Notification Committee_,

MY DEAR SIR:

I accept the nomination for the Presidency tendered me by the Republican National Convention, and cordially approve the platform adopted by it. In writing this letter there are certain points upon which I desire to lay especial stress.

It is difficult to find out from the utterances of our opponents what are the real issues upon which they propose to wage this campaign. It is not unfair to say that, having abandoned most of the principles upon which they have insisted during the last eight years, they now seem at a loss, both as to what it is that they really believe, and as to how firmly they shall assert their belief in anything. In fact, it is doubtful if they venture resolutely to press a single issue; as soon as they raise one they shrink from it and seek to explain it away. Such an attitude is the probably inevitable result of the effort to improvise convictions; for when thus improvised, it is natural that they should be held in a tentative manner.

The party now in control of the Government is troubled by no such difficulties. We do not have to guess at our own convictions, and then correct the guess if it seems unpopular. The principles which we profess are those in which we believe with heart and soul and strength. Men may differ from us; but they can not accuse us of shiftiness or insincerity. The policies we have pursued are those which we earnestly hold as essential to the national welfare and repute. Our actions speak even louder than our words for the faith that is in us. We base our appeal upon what we have done and are doing, upon our record of administration and legislation during the last seven years, in which we have had complete control of the Government. We intend in the future to carry on the Government in the same way that we have carried it on in the past.

* * * * *

A party whose members are radically at variance on most vital issues, and if united at all, are only united on issues where their attitude threatens widespread disaster to the whole country, can not be trusted to govern in any matter. A party which, with facile ease, changes all its convictions before election can not be trusted to adhere with tenacity to any principle after election. A party fit to govern must have convictions. In 1896 the Republican party came into power, and in 1900 it retained power on certain definite pledges, each of which was scrupulously fulfilled. But in addition to meeting and solving the problems which were issues in these campaigns, it also became necessary to meet other problems which arose after election; and it is no small part of our claim to public confidence that these were solved with the same success that had attended the solution of those concerning which the battles at the polls were fought. In other words, our governmental efficiency proved equal not only to the tasks that were anticipated, but to doing each unanticipated task as it arose.

When the contest of 1896 was decided, the question of the war with Spain was not an issue. When the contest of 1900 was decided, the shape which the Isthmian Canal question ultimately took could not have been foreseen. But the same qualities which enabled those responsible for making and administering the laws at Washington to deal successfully with the tariff and the currency, enabled them also to deal with the Spanish War; and the same qualities which enabled them to act wisely in the Philippines, and in Cuba, also enabled them to do their duty as regards the problems connected with the trusts, and to secure the building of the Isthmian Canal. We are content to rest our case before the American people upon the fact that to adherence to a lofty ideal we have added proved governmental efficiency. Therefore, our promises may surely be trusted as regards any issue that is now before the people; and we may equally be trusted to deal with any problem which may hereafter arise.

So well has the work been done that our opponents do not venture to recite the facts about our policies or acts and then oppose them. They attack them only when they have first misrepresented them; for a truthful recital would leave no room for adverse comment.

* * * * *

Panama offers an instance in point. Our opponents can criticise what we did in Panama only on condition of misstating what was done. The Administration behaved throughout not only with good faith, but with extraordinary patience and large generosity toward those with whom it dealt. It was also mindful of American interests. It acted in strict compliance with the law passed by Congress. Had not Panama been promptly recognized, and the transit across the Isthmus kept open, in accordance with our treaty rights and obligations, there would have ensued endless guerilla warfare and possibly foreign complications; while all chance of building the canal would have been deferred, certainly for years, perhaps for a generation or more. Criticism of the action in this matter is simply criticism of the only possible action which could have secured the building of the canal; as well as the peace and quiet which we were, by treaty, bound to preserve along the line of transit across the Isthmus. The service rendered this country in securing the perpetual right to construct, maintain, operate, and defend the canal was so great that our opponents do not venture to raise the issue in straightforward fashion; for if so raised there would be no issue. The decisive action which brought about this beneficent result was the exercise by the President of the powers vested in him, and in him alone, by the Constitution; the power to recognize foreign Governments by entering into diplomatic relations with them, and the power to make treaties which, when ratified by the Senate, become under the Constitution part of the supreme law of the land. Neither in this nor in any other matter has there been the slightest failure to live up to the Constitution in letter and in spirit. But the Constitution must be observed positively as well as negatively. The President’s duty is to serve the country in accordance with the Constitution; and I should be derelict in my duty if I used a false construction of the Constitution as a shield for weakness and timidity, or as an excuse for governmental impotence.

* * * * *

Similar misrepresentation is the one weapon of our opponents in regard to our foreign policy, and the way the Navy has been made useful in carrying out this policy. Here again all that we ask is that they truthfully state what has been done, and then say whether or not they object to it; for if continued in power we shall continue our foreign policy and our handling of the Navy on exactly the same lines in the future as in the past. To what phase of our foreign policy, and to what use of the Navy, do our opponents object? Do they object to the way in which the Monroe Doctrine has been strengthened and upheld? Never before has this doctrine been acquiesced in abroad as it is now; and yet, while upholding the rights of the weaker American republics against foreign aggression, the Administration has lost no opportunity to point out to these republics that those who seek equity should come with clean hands, and that whoever claims liberty as a right must accept the responsibilities that go with the exercise of the right. Do our opponents object to what was done in reference to the petition of American citizens against the Kishineff massacre? or to the protest against the treatment of the Jews in Roumania? or to the efforts that have been made in behalf of the Armenians in Turkey? No other Administration in our history, no other Government in the world, has more consistently stood for the broadest spirit of brotherhood in our common humanity, or has held a more resolute attitude of protest against every wrong that outraged the civilization of the age at home or abroad. Do our opponents object to the fact that the international tribunal at The Hague was rescued from impotence, and turned into a potent instrument for peace among the nations? This Government has used that tribunal, and advocated its use by others, in pursuance of its policy to promote the cause of international peace and goodwill by all honorable methods. In carrying out this policy, it has settled dispute after dispute by arbitration or by friendly agreement. It has behaved toward all nations, strong or weak, with courtesy, dignity, and justice; and it is now on excellent terms with all.

Do our opponents object to the settlement of the Alaska boundary line? Do they object to the fact that after freeing Cuba we gave her reciprocal trade advantages with the United States, while at the same time keeping naval stations in the island and providing against its sinking into chaos, or being conquered by any foreign Power? Do they object to the fact that our flag now flies over Porto Rico? Do they object to the acquisition of Hawaii? Once they “hauled down” our flag there; we have hoisted it again; do they intend once more to haul it down? Do they object to the part we played in China? Do they not know that the voice of the United States would now count for nothing in the Far East if we had abandoned the Philippines and refused to do what was done in China? Do they object to the fact that this Government secured a peaceful settlement of the troubles in Venezuela two years ago? Do they object to the presence of the ship-of-war off Colon when the revolution broke out in Panama, and when only the presence of this ship saved the lives of American citizens, and prevented insult to the flag? Do they object to the fact that American warships appeared promptly at the port of Beirut when an effort had been made to assassinate an American official, and in the port of Tangier when an American citizen had been abducted? and that in each case the wrong complained of was righted and expiated? and that within the last few days the visit of an American squadron to Smyrna was followed by the long-delayed concession of their just rights to those Americans concerned in educational work in Turkey? Do they object to the trade treaty with China, so full of advantage for the American people in the future? Do they object to the fact that the ships carrying the national flag now have a higher standard than ever before in marksmanship and in seamanship, as individual units and as component parts of squadrons and fleets? If they object to any or all of these things, we join issue with them. Our foreign policy has been not only highly advantageous to the United States, but hardly less advantageous to the world as a whole. Peace and goodwill have followed in its footsteps. The Government has shown itself no less anxious to respect the rights of others than insistent that the rights of Americans be respected in return. As for the Navy, it has been and is now the most potent guarantee of peace; and it is such chiefly because it is formidable, and ready for use.

* * * * *

When our opponents speak of “encroachments” by the Executive upon the authority of Congress or the Judiciary, apparently the act they ordinarily have in view is Pension Order No. 78, issued under the authority of existing law. This order directed that hereafter any veteran of the Civil War who had reached the age of sixty-two should be presumptively entitled to the pension of six dollars a month, given under the dependent pension law to those whose capacity to earn their livelihood by manual labor has been decreased fifty per cent, and that by the time the age of seventy was reached the presumption should be that the physical disability was complete; the age being treated as an evidential fact in each case. This order was made in the performance of a duty imposed upon the President by an act of Congress, which requires the Executive to make regulations to govern the subordinates of the Pension Office in determining who are entitled to pensions. President Cleveland had already exercised this power by a regulation which declared that seventy-five should be set as the age at which total disability should be conclusively presumed. Similarly, President McKinley established sixty-five as the age at which half disability should be conclusively presumed. The regulation now in question, in the exercise of the same power, supplemented these regulations made under Presidents Cleveland and McKinley.

The men who fought for union and for liberty in the years from 1861 to 1865 not only saved this Nation from ruin, but rendered an inestimable service to all mankind. We of the United States owe the fact that to-day we have a country to what they did; and the Nation has decreed by law that no one of them, if disabled from earning his own living, shall lack the pension to which he is entitled, not only as a matter of gratitude, but as a matter of justice. It is the policy of the Republican party, steadily continued through many years, to treat the veterans of the Civil War in a spirit of broad liberality. The order in question carried out this policy, and is justified not merely on legal grounds, but also on grounds of public morality. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the average man who depends for his wages upon bodily labor has reached the age of sixty-two his earning ability is in all probability less by half than it was when he was in his prime; and that by the time he has reached the age of seventy he has probably lost all earning ability. If there is doubt upon this point let the doubter examine the employees doing manual labor in any great manufactory or any great railroad, and find out how large is the proportion of men between the ages of sixty-two and seventy, and whether these men are still employed at the highly paid tasks which they did in their prime. As a matter of fact, many railroads pension their employees when they have reached these ages, and in nations where old-age pensions prevail they always begin somewhere between the two limits thus set. It is easy to test our opponents’ sincerity in this matter. The order in question is revocable at the pleasure of the Executive. If our opponents come into power they can revoke this order and announce that they will treat the veterans of sixty-two to seventy as presumably in full bodily vigor and not entitled to pensions. Will they now authoritatively state that they intend to do this? If so, we accept the issue. If not, then we have the right to ask why they raise an issue which, when raised, they do not venture to meet.

* * * * *

In addition to those acts of the Administration which they venture to assail only after misrepresenting them, there are others which they dare not overtly or officially attack, and yet which they covertly bring forward as reasons for the overthrow of the party. In certain great centres and with certain great interests our opponents make every effort to show that the settlement of the Anthracite Coal Strike by the individual act of the President, and the successful suit against the Northern Securities Company—the Merger suit—undertaken by the Department of Justice, were acts because of which the present Administration should be thrown from power. Yet they dare not openly condemn either act. They dare not in any authoritative or formal manner say that in either case wrong was done or error committed in the method of action, or in the choice of instruments for putting that action into effect. But what they dare not manfully assert in open day, they seek to use furtively and through special agents. It is perhaps natural that an attack so conducted should be made sometimes on the ground that too much, sometimes on the ground that too little, has been done. Some of our opponents complain because under the anti-trust and interstate commerce laws suits were undertaken which have been successful; others, because suits were not undertaken which would have been unsuccessful.

The Democratic State Convention in New York dealt with the Anthracite Coal Strike by demanding in deliberate and formal fashion that the National Government should take possession of the coal fields; yet champions of that convention’s cause now condemn the fact that there was any action by the President at all—though they must know that it was only this action by the President which prevented the movement for national ownership of the coal fields from gaining what might well have been an irresistible impetus. Such mutually destructive criticisms furnish an adequate measure of the chance for coherent action or constructive legislation if our opponents should be given power.

* * * * *