THE exposure of the provisions of the treaty made by the United States with the Sultan of the Sulus, by which polygamy and slavery both exist in places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, has called forth replies from responsible sources.
That there is considerable sensitiveness on the subject is evident from these replies. That the compromising situation into which the nation has been thrown by this arrangement, is plainly enough discerned is certain; and that it is felt to be indefensible is also plain from the limping and even self-contradictory defenses that are offered.
For a cabinet officers reported as having stated that—
“It is absolutely false that this Government has recognized slavery or contemplates giving such recognition. Slavery is distinctly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and cannot be permitted in any place under American jurisdiction. In the Southern Pine Islands and among the Sulus there is slavery; but as soon as peace is restored in Luzon, arrangements will be made for freeing the slaves and preventing such bondage in the future.”
That is an interesting statement, under all the circumstances. First, it is declared to be “absolutely false” that the United States has recognized slavery in the Sulus. Yet, about the same time that this statement was made, President Schurman, of the Philippine Commission, not only admitted that slavery is [707] recognized by the United States under the bargain with the Sultan of the Sulus, but proceeded to give explanations as to what must be so. President Schurman being one of the agents through whom the arrangement was made, his words are conclusive that it is not “absolutely false,” nor false at all.
Next the Constitution is quoted as proof that there is no slavery in the Sulus. That is, because the Constitution says that slavery shall not exist in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the Sulus are subject to this jurisdiction, therefore there is no slavery in the Sulus! It is so merely because the Constitution says so.
Yet that it is not so is confessed in the very next sentence, saying, “In the Southern Pine Islands, and in the Sulus, there is slavery.” Whether it is recognized or not, it is confessedly there. Therefore, confessedly, slavery does exist in places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: and this, confessedly, in spite of the Constitution which declares that it shall not so exist. And all this by a bargain made, and under the Administration, of men who take an oath to support the Constitution.
Another defense is that provision is made in the treaty by which the slaves can buy their freedom. But no one has offered any explanation of how a slave is to buy his freedom when he possesses nothing and never received anything of his own, when himself with all that he ever can have is absolutely his masters. If that is to be the surety against slavery under the jurisdiction of the United States, then it is quite certain that slavery will always exist there.
Another defense, this one put forth by the Chicago Times-Herald, proceeds upon President Schurman’s explanation and confesses not only that there is slavery there, but that it must continue unmolested except by “the leaven of civilization.” This may seem surprising, and it is; but that it is true, all may read for themselves. Here is the editorial from the Times-Herald, of November 2:—
“OUR POLICY TOWARD THE SULUS
“The possible continuance of slavery and polygamy in the Sulu Islands under our arrangement with the Sultan has provoked a storm of hostile criticism. Moreover, … a large part of it proceeds from non-political sources.
“It is undoubtedly abhorrent to the general sentiment of the country that either slavery or polygamy should be tolerated beneath the American flag. The great war which liberated the negro is held to have been a culminating sacrifice which should make human bondage inadmissible wherever our sovereignty is established, and the present vigorous campaign against the seating of Roberts, of Utah, in Congress, demonstrates the intense feeling against the custom of plural marriages, which is equally repugnant whether it is observed by Mohammedan or Mormon. No religious guise can change its essential immorality.
“The outcry over the Sulu agreement is, therefore, perfectly intelligible. But President Schurman, of the Philippines commission, meets it with a conclusive answer. First, he considers our actual legal rights, and says truly that we have none except such as were bequeathed to us by Spain. But Spain was bound by promises not to interfere with the religion or customs of the islands, and if we ignore those promises we shall have to acquire a new title by conquest. This, we may add, would be a ‘war of aggression’ with a vengeance. It would create an entirely new situation and class us unequivocally among land-grabbing nations.
“The dilemma forces us to review once more the proper scope of the colonial policy which can never be successful unless the most scrupulous regard is had for local beliefs, prejudices, traditions, and customs. If we are not disposed to acknowledge that such perplexities as they give rise to are inevitable and not to be overcome by an autocratic fiat, then we are not prepared for the mission that is plainly implied in the scheme of expansion. We might as well own to failure now.
“But are the circumstances of the case such as to drive us to this confession? Can we not adapt ourselves to new obligations as other countries have done? Surely that is impossible, if we have the practical genius and the common sense which we boast and with which we are generally credited.
“The error of the critics consists in their overlooking the responsibilities which are ours legitimately, and in their insisting upon a moral responsibility which does not of right belong to us. We have to accept the Sulu Islands as we find them. Their are bad customs are our inheritance, but not our fault. No other nation can charge us with them, and when we come to take up the problem of reform we should attempt its solution after the most promising methods. We must work slowly, and, as President Schurman says, through “the leaven of civilization.”
“Gradually we may bring about the desired change, and the gain will be the island’s gain, our own, and the world’s. But arbitrary measures would lead to a long and fierce religious and race war, and the abandonment of the group would consign it to eternal anarchy and barbarism. Can there be any doubt as to which is the best of the three policies that are suggested?”
From this it is manifest also that it is understood and intended that a colonial policy can be followed by the United States, only by following the example of other countries. But in a double sense this cannot be done without abandoning the Constitution.
First, because other colonizing countries have not written constitutions. Precedent, that which they have done, being the only obligation upon them, they can easily enough and consistently adapt themselves to “local believes, prejudices, traditions and customs” in their colonies. And to say that the United States should or can follow their example, is at once to argue that this nation must abandon its written Constitution and proceed only on precedent, and that the precedent of other countries!
Secondly: It cannot be done without abandoning the Constitution; because a colonial policy after the [708] example of other countries can be followed only by the recognition of local customs and institutions which the Constitution expressly prohibits. And since the Constitution prohibits such local customs and institutions as slavery, which the colonial policy must recognize or else plunge the nation into a religious and race war of conquest, it is certain that if the colonial policy is followed the Constitution must go. And since it is settled by those who are the responsible ones, that the colonial policy must be followed, it is by them just as certainly settled that in all the colonial region the Constitution does not apply.
And all this is being steadily carried on before the eyes of all the people, and is really expected to be popular!
It is no wonder that the most of the “hostile criticism” of this polygamy and slavery embroglio comes from “non-political sources.” Because these non-political sources of which the SENTINEL is one, not being cumbered with the demands of policy, treat the matter from the standpoint of principle only—the fundamental principle of free and enlightened government before the world.
A. T. J.