The Columbia Documentary History of Race and Ethnicity in America

3. We do not ask for any more class legislation. We have had enough of this. But we do believe that many of the laws intended to secure to us our rights as citizens are nothing more than dead letters. In the southern states, almost without exception, colored people are denied justice in the courts, denied the fruit of their honest labor, defrauded of their political rights at the ballot box, shut out from learning the trades, cheated out of their civil rights by innkeepers and common carrier companies and left by the state to an inadequate opportunity for education and general improvement.

4. We regard the labor question, education and sound moral training, paramount to all other questions, We believe that these questions, especialy in the south, need recasting, and that the plantation, credit and mortgage system should be abolished, so that honest labor should be remunerated, so that the landholders of the south should recognize that this question is to be solved by encouraging the negroes to industry, to frugality, and to business habits, by assisting them to acquire an interest in the soil by paying them honest wages for honest work, and by making them content and happy in the land of their nativity. The white men and owners of the soil in the south can settle the question of labor and capital between white and black.

5. We believe in a broad comprehensive system, looking towards the education of young colored girls, so that they may become intelligent and faithful women, and of young colored boys that they may learn trades and become useful men and good citizens. The religious and moral training of the youth of our race should not be neglected. The hope of every people is in an adherance to sound social logical and ethical principles. The moral element in character is of greater value than wealth or education, and this must be fostered by the family and encouraged by the pulpit.

6. The failure of the freedmans Saving Bank and Trust company, is the marvel of our time. It was established to receive the earnings of persons heretofore held in bondage and the descendents of such persons. It was established by the government, and thought to be solvent. In changing its charter the trustees transcended their authority, and thereby made themselves liable. The government, in appointing the machinery to close the insolvent institution violated the United States statutes in bankruptcy, and should therefore reimburse the creditors of the bank.

7. The distinction made between white and black troops in the regular army is unAmerican, unjust and ungrateful. White men can enter any branch of the service, while colored men are confined to the cavalary and infantry service, and in the appointment of civilians to the regular army all believe it the duty of the president to consider the claims of colored men. This distinction is carried into the navy as well.

8. It is not our province to dictate the policy of the government, or the action of our fellow citizens in the several states. It is a matter that their services, patriotism and needs should shape.

9. As a race struggling and contending for our political and civil rights, we are not unmindful of the efforts of Ireland to gain her rights, and we extend to our Irish friends our profound sympathy and best wishes.

10. We earnestly desire the abolition of the chaingang system, and the admission to trade unions of men of our own race, and to their employment in commercial pursuits.

11. In nearly every state of the union both north and south, our race are not allowed to enter freely into the trades of gain or employment in the higher walks of life. This is unworthy of our institutions and hurtful to the reputation of our country at home and abroad.

Booker T. Washington was the preeminent black spokesperson in the South in the last decades of the nineteenth century. He was founder and director of the Tuskegee (Alabama) Institute, a vocational and agricultural school for black southerners. While some African Americans despaired at the racism in the South and advocated leaving for the North or elsewhere, Washington believed fervently that the Negro’s home was in the South. He counseled accepting and working within the segregated structure of southern society, emphasizing agricultural and vocational education and self-help as strategies for economic advancement. This speech, delivered at the Atlanta Exposition on September 18, 1895, expresses his philosophy.

One-third of the population of the South is of the Negro race. No enterprise seeking the material, civil, or moral welfare of this section can disregard this element of our population and reach the highest success. I but convey to you, Mr. President and Directors, the sentiment of the masses of my race when I say that in no way have the value and manhood of the American Negro been more fittingly and generously recognized than by the managers of this magnificent Exposition at every stage of its progress. It is a recognition that will do more to cement the friendship of the two races than any occurrence since the dawn of our freedom.

Not only this, but the opportunity here afforded will awaken among us a new era of industrial progress. Ignorant and inexperienced, it is not strange that in the first years of our new life we began at the top instead of at the bottom; that a seat in Congress or the State Legislature was more sought than real estate or industrial skill; that the political convention or stump speaking had more attractions than starting a dairy farm or truck garden.

A ship lost at sea for many days suddenly sighted a friendly vessel. From the mast of the unfortunate vessel was seen a signal: “Water, water; we die of thirst!” The answer from the friendly vessel at once came back: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” A second time the signal, “Water, water; send us water!” ran up from the distressed vessel, and was answered: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” And a third and fourth signal for water was answered: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon River. To those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land, or who underestimate the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the Southern white man, who is their next door neighbor, I would say: “Cast down your bucket where you are”—cast it down in making friends in every manly way of the people of all races by whom we are surrounded.

Cast it down in agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service, and in the professions. And in this connection it is well to bear in mind that whatever other sins the South may be called to bear, when it comes to business, pure and simple, it is in the South that the Negro is given a man’s chance in the commercial world, and in nothing is this Exposition more eloquent than in emphasizing this chance. Our greatest danger is, that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labor, and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life; shall prosper in proportion as we learn to draw the line between the superficial and the substantial, the ornamental gewgaws of life and the useful. No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.

To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted, I would repeat what I say to my own race, “Cast down your bucket where you are.” Cast it down among the 8,000,000 Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides. Cast down your bucket among these people who have, without strikes and labor wars, tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your railroads and cities, and brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth, and helped make possible this magnificent representation of the progress of the South. Casting down your bucket among my people, helping and encouraging them as you are doing on these grounds, and, with education of head, hand and heart, you will find that they will buy your surplus land, make blossom the waste place in your fields, and run your factories. While doing this, you can be sure in the future, as in the past, that you and your families will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has seen. As we have proved our loyalty to you in the past, in nursing your children, watching by the sick bed of your mothers and fathers, and often following them with tear-dimmed eyes to their graves, so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours, interlacing our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours in a way that shall make the interests of both races one. In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.

There is no defense or security for any of us except in the highest intelligence and development of all. If anywhere there are efforts tending to curtail the fullest growth of the Negro, let these efforts be turned into stimulating, encouraging, and making him the most useful and intelligent citizen. Effort or means so invested will pay a thousand percent interest. These efforts will be twice blessed—“blessing him that gives and him that takes.”

There is no escape through law of man or God from the inevitable:

Gentlemen of the Exposition, as we present to you our humble effort at an exhibition of our progress, you must not expect over much. Starting thirty years ago with ownership here and there in a few quilts and pumpkins and chickens (gathered from miscellaneous sources), remember the path that has led from these to the invention and production of agricultural implements, buggies, steam engines, newspapers, books, statuary, carving, paintings, the management of drug stores and banks, has not been trodden without contact with thorns and thistles. While we take pride in what we exhibit as a result of our independent efforts, we do not for a moment forget that our part in this exhibition would fall far short of your expectations but for the constant help that has come to our educational life, not only from the Southern States, but especially from Northern philanthropists, who have made their gifts a constant stream of blessing and encouragement.

The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing. No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized. It is important and right that all privileges of the law be ours, but it is vastly more important that we be prepared for the exercise of those privileges. The opportunity to earn a dollar in a factory just now is worth infinitely more than the opportunity to spend a dollar in an opera house.

In conclusion, may I repeat that nothing in thirty years has given us more hope and encouragement, and drawn us so near to you of the white race, as this opportunity offered by the Exposition; and here bending, as it were, over the altar that represents the results of the struggles of your race and mine, both starting practically empty-handed three decades ago. I pledge that, in your effort to work out the great and intricate problem which God has laid at the doors of the South, you shall have at all time the patient, sympathetic help of my race; only let this be constantly in mind that, while from representations in these buildings of the product of field, of forest, of mine, of factory, letters, and art, much good will come, yet far above and beyond material benefits will be that higher good, that let us pray God will come, in a blotting out of sectional differences and racial animosities and suspicions, in a determination to administer absolute justice, in a willing obedience among all classes to the mandates of law. This, coupled with our material prosperity, will bring into our beloved South a new heaven and a new earth.

W. E. B. Du Bois was a sociologist at Atlanta University when he wrote this essay. Du Bois challenged Washington’s accommodationist outlook. He believed Washington’s abandonment of African Americans’ political and civil rights shifted the burden of the “Negro problem” onto black people. He argued that the degraded condition of black people was caused by slavery and racial subordination, not by the failings of black people. Du Bois supported economic self-help and black uplift but believed these were not possible without the vote, civil rights, or higher education. Du Bois also appealed to other African American leaders who were reluctant to challenge Washington publicly.

Easily the most striking thing in the history of the American Negro since 1876 is the ascendancy of Mr. Booker T. Washington. It began at the time when war memories and ideals were rapidly passing; a day of astonishing commercial development was dawning; a sense of doubt and hesitation overtook the freedmen’s sons—then it was that his leading began. Mr. Washington came, with a single definite programme, at the psychological moment when the nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes, and was concentrating its energies on Dollars. His programme of industrial education, conciliation of the South, and submission and silence as to civil and political rights, was not wholly original; the Free Negroes from 1830 up to wartime had striven to build industrial schools, and the American Missionary Association had from the first taught various trades; and Price and others had sought a way of honorable alliance with the best of the Southerners. But Mr. Washington first indissolubly linked these things; he put enthusiasm, unlimited energy, and perfect faith into this programme, and changed it from a by-path into a veritable Way of Life. And the tale of the methods by which he did this is a fascinating study of human life.

It startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a programme after many decades of bitter complaint; it startled and won the applause of the South, it interested and won the admiration of the North; and after a confused murmur of protest, it silenced if it did not convert the Negroes themselves.

To gain the sympathy and coöperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington’s first task; and this, at the time Tuskegee was founded, seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And yet ten years later it was done in the word spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet

one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted it in different ways: the radicals received it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding. So both approved it, and to-day its author is certainly the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis, and the one with the largest personal following.

Next to this achievement comes Mr. Washington’s work in gaining place and consideration in the North. Others less shrewd and tactful had formerly essayed to sit on these two stools and had fallen between them; but as Mr. Washington knew the heart of the South from birth and training, so by singular insight he intuitively grasped the spirit of the age which was dominating the North. And so thoroughly did he learn the speech and thought of triumphant commercialism, and the ideals of material prosperity, that the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities. One wonders what Socrates and St. Francis of Assisi would say to this.

And yet this very singleness of vision and thorough oneness with his age is a mark of the successful man. It is as though Nature must needs make men narrow in order to give them force. So Mr. Washington’s cult has gained unquestioning followers, his work has wonderfully prospered, his friends are legion, and his enemies are confounded. To-day he stands as the one recognized spokesman of his ten million fellows, and one of the most notable figures in a nation of seventy millions. One hesitates, therefore, to criticise a life which, beginning with so little, has done so much. And yet the time is come when one may speak in all sincerity and utter courtesy of the mistakes and shortcomings of Mr. Washington’s career, as well as of his triumphs, without being thought captious or envious, and without forgetting that it is easier to do ill than well in the world.

The criticism that has hitherto met Mr. Washington has not always been of this broad character. In the South especially has he had to walk warily to avoid the harsh judgments—and naturally so, for he is dealing with the one subject of deepest sensitiveness to that section. Twice—once when at the Chicago celebration of the Spanish-American War he alluded to the color-prejudice that is “eating away the vitals of the South,” and once when he dined with President Roosevelt—has the resulting Southern criticism been violent enough to threaten seriously his popularity. In the North the feeling has several times forced itself into words, that Mr. Washington’s counsels of submission overlooked certain elements of true manhood, and that his educational programme was unnecessarily narrow. Usually, however, such criticism has not found open expression, although, too, the spiritual sons of the Abolitionists have not been prepared to acknowledge that the schools founded before Tuskegee, by men of broad ideals and sell-sacrificing spirit, were wholly failures or worthy of ridicule. While, then, criticism has not failed to follow Mr. Washington, yet the prevailing public opinion of the land has been but too willing to deliver the solution of a wearisome problem into his hands, and say, “If that is all you and your race ask, take it.”

Among his own people, however, Mr. Washington has encountered the strongest and most lasting opposition, amounting at times to bitterness, and even today continuing strong and insistent even though largely silenced in outward expression by the public opinion of the nation. Some of this opposition is, of course, mere envy; the disappointment of displaced demagogues and the spite of narrow minds. But aside from this, there is among educated and thoughtful colored men in all parts of the land a feeling of deep regret, sorrow, and apprehension at the wide currency and ascendancy which some of Mr. Washington’s theories have gained. These same men admire his sincerity of purpose, and are willing to forgive much to honest endeavor which is doing something worth the doing. They coöperate with Mr. Washington as far as they conscientiously can; and, indeed, it is no ordinary tribute to this man’s tact and power that, steering as he must between so many diverse interests and opinions, he so largely retains the respect of all.

But the hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing. It leads some of the best of the critics to unfortunate silence and paralysis of effort, and others to burst into speech so passionately and intemperately as to lose listeners. Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched—criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders, by those led—this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss—a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders. The way in which this is done is at once the most elementary and the nicest problem of social growth. History is but the record of such group-leadership; and yet how infinitely changeful is its type and character! And of all types and kinds, what can be more instructive than the leadership of a group within a group?—that curious double movement where real progress may be negative and actual advance be relative retrogression. All this is the social student’s inspiration and despair.

Now in the past the American Negro has had instructive experience in the choosing of group leaders, founding thus a peculiar dynasty which in the light of present conditions is worth while studying. When sticks and stones and beasts form the sole environment of a people, their attitude is largely one of determined opposition to and conquest of natural forces. But when to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms—a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion. The influence of all of these attitudes at various times can be traced in the history of the American Negro, and in the evolution of his successive leaders.

Before 1750, while the fire of African freedom still burned in the veins of the slaves, there was in all leadership or attempted leadership but the one motive of revolt and revenge—typified in the terrible Maroons, the Danish blacks, and Cato of Stono, and veiling all the Americas in fear of insurrection. The liberalizing tendencies of the latter half of the eighteenth century brought, along with kindlier relations between black and white, thoughts of ultimate adjustment and assimilation. Such aspiration was especially voiced in the earnest songs of Phyllis, in the martyrdom of Attucks, the fighting of Salem and Poor, the intellectual accomplishments of Banneker and Derham, and the political demands of the Cuffes.

Stern financial and social stress after the war cooled much of the previous humanitarian ardor. The disappointment and impatience of the Negroes at the persistence of slavery and serfdom voiced itself in two movements. The slaves in the South, aroused undoubtedly by vague rumors of the Haitian revolt, made three fierce attempts at insurrection—in 1800 under Gabriel in Virginia, in 1822 under Vesey in Carolina, and in 1831 again in Virginia under the terrible Nat Turner. In the Free States, on the other hand, a new and curious attempt at self-development was made. In Philadelphia and New York color-prescription led to a withdrawal of Negro communicants from white churches and the formation of a peculiar socio-religious institution among the Negroes known as the African Church—an organization still living and controlling in its various branches over a million of men.

Walker’s wild appeal against the trend of the times showed how the world was changing after the coming of the cottongin. By 1830 slavery seemed hopelessly fastened on the South, and the slaves thoroughly cowed into submission. The free Negroes of the North, inspired by the mulatto immigrants from the West Indies, began to change the basis of their demands; they recognized the slavery of slaves, but insisted that they themselves were freemen, and sought assimilation and amalgamation with the nation on the same terms with other men. Thus, Forten and Purvis of Philadelphia, Shad of Wilmington, DuBois of New Haven, Barbadoes of Boston, and others, strove strongly and together as men, they said, not as slaves; as “people of color,” not as “Negroes.” The trend of the times, however, refused them recognition save in individual and exceptional cases, considered them as one with all the despised blacks, and they soon found themselves striving to keep even the rights they formerly had of voting and working and moving as freemen. Schemers of migration and colonization arose among them; but these they refused to entertain, and they eventually turned to the Abolition movement as a final refuge.

Here, led by Remond, Nell, Wells-Brown, and Douglass, a new period of self-assertion and self-development dawned. To be sure, ultimate freedom and assimilation was the ideal before the leaders, but the assertion of the manhood rights of the Negro by himself was the main reliance, and John Brown’s raid was the extreme of its logic. After the war and emancipation, the great form of Frederick Douglass, the greatest of American Negro leaders, still led the host. Self-assertion, especially in political lines, was the main programme, and behind Douglass came Elliot, Bruce, and Langston, and the Reconstruction politicians, and, less conspicuous but of greater social significance, Alexander Crummell and Bishop Daniel Payne.

Then came the Revolution of 1876, the suppression of the Negro votes, the changing and shifting of ideals, and the seeking of new lights in the great night. Douglass, in his old age, still bravely stood for the ideals of his early manhood—ultimate assimilation through self-assertion, and on no other terms. For a time Price arose as a new leader, destined, it seemed, not to give up, but to re-state the old ideals in a form less repugnant to the white South. But he passed away in his prime. Then came the new leader. Nearly all the former ones had become leaders by the silent suffrage of their fellows, had sought to lead their own people alone, and were usually, save Douglass, little known outside their race. But Booker T. Washington arose as essentially the leader not of one race but of two—a compromiser between the South, the North, and the Negro. Naturally the Negroes resented, at first bitterly, signs of compromise which surrendered their civil and political rights, even though this was to be exchanged for larger chances of economic development. The rich and dominating North, however, was not only weary of the race problem, but was investing largely in Southern enterprises, and welcomed any method of peaceful coöperation. Thus, by national opinion, the Negroes began to recognize Mr. Washington’s leadership; and the voice of criticism was hushed.

Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. Moreover, this is an age when the more advanced races are coming in closer contact with the less developed races, and the race-feeling is therefore intensified; and Mr. Washington’s programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. In other periods of intensified prejudice all the Negro’s tendency to self-assertion has been called forth; at this period a policy of submission is advocated. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples the doctrine preached at such crises has been that manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing.

In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things—

These movements are not, to be sure, direct results of Mr. Washington’s teachings; but his propaganda has, without a shadow of doubt, helped their speedier accomplishment. The question then comes: Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and allowed only the most meagre chance for developing their exceptional men? If history and reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No. And Mr. Washington thus faces the triple paradox of his career:

This triple paradox in Mr. Washington’s position is the object of criticism by two classes of colored Americans. One class is spiritually descended from Toussaint the Savior, through Gabriel, Vesey, and Turner, and they represent the attitude of revolt and revenge; they hate the white South blindly and distrust the white race generally, and so far as they agree on definite action, think that the Negro’s only hope lies in emigration beyond the borders of the United States. And yet, by the irony of fate, nothing has more effectually made this programme seem hopeless than the recent course of the United States toward weaker and darker peoples in the West Indies, Hawaii, and the Philippines—for where in the world may we go and be safe from lying and brute force?

The other class of Negroes who cannot agree with Mr. Washington has hitherto said little aloud. They deprecate the sight of scattered counsels, of internal disagreement; and especially they dislike making their just criticism of a useful and earnest man an excuse for a general discharge of venom from small-minded opponents. Nevertheless, the questions involved are so fundamental and serious that it is difficult to see how men like the Grimkes, Kelly Miller, J. W. E. Bowen, and other representatives of this group, can much longer be silent. Such men feel in conscience bound to ask of this nation three things:

They acknowledge Mr. Washington’s invaluable service in counselling patience and courtesy in such demands; they do not ask that ignorant black men vote when ignorant whites are debarred, or that any reasonable restrictions in the suffrage should not be applied; they know that the low social level of the mass of the race is responsible for much discrimination against it, but they also know, and the nation knows, that relentless color-prejudice is more often a cause than a result of the Negro’s degradation; they seek the abatement of this relic of barbarism, and not its systematic encouragement and pampering by all agencies of social power from the Associated Press to the Church of Christ. They advocate, with Mr. Washington, a broad system of Negro common schools supplemented by thorough industrial training; but they are surprised that a man of Mr. Washington’s insight cannot see that no such educational system ever has rested or can rest on any other basis than that of the well-equipped college and university, and they insist that there is a demand for a few such institutions throughout the South to train the best of the Negro youth as teachers, professional men, and leaders.

This group of men honor Mr. Washington for his attitude of conciliation toward the white South; they accept the “Atlanta Compromise” in its broadest interpretation; they recognize, with him, many signs of promise, many men of high purpose and fair judgment, in this section; they know that no easy task has been laid upon a region already tottering under heavy burdens. But, nevertheless, they insist that the way to truth and right lies in straightforward honesty, not in indiscriminate flattery; in praising those of the South who do well and criticising uncompromisingly those who do ill; in taking advantage of the opportunities at hand and urging their fellows to do the same, but at the same time in remembering that only a firm adherence to their higher ideals and aspirations will ever keep those ideals within the realm of possibility. They do not expect that the free right to vote, to enjoy civic rights, and to be educated, will come in a moment; they do not expect to see the bias and prejudices of years disappear at the blast of a trumpet; but they are absolutely certain that the way for a people to gain their reasonable rights is not by voluntarily throwing them away and insisting that they do not want them; that the way for a people to gain respect is not by continually belittling and ridiculing themselves; that, on the contrary, Negroes must insist continually, in season and out of season, that voting is necessary to modern manhood, that color discrimination is barbarism, and that black boys need education as well as white boys.

In failing thus to state plainly and unequivocally the legitimate demands of their people, even at the cost of opposing an honored leader, the thinking classes of American Negroes would shirk a heavy responsibility—a responsibility to themselves, a responsibility to the struggling masses, a responsibility to the darker races of men whose future depends so largely on this American experiment, but especially a responsibility to this nation—this common Fatherland. It is wrong to encourage a man or a people in evil-doing; it is wrong to aid and abet a national crime simply because it is unpopular not to do so. The growing spirit of kindliness and reconciliation between the North and South after the frightful difference of a generation ago ought to be a source of deep congratulation to all, and especially to those whose mistreatment caused the war; but if that reconciliation is to be marked by the industrial slavery and civic death of those same black men, with permanent legislation into a position of inferiority, then those black men, if they are really men, are called upon by every consideration of patriotism and loyalty to oppose such a course by all civilized methods, even though such opposition involves disagreement with Mr. Booker T. Washington. We have no right to sit silently by while the inevitable seeds are sown for a harvest of disaster to our children, black and white.

First, it is the duty of black men to judge the South discriminatingly. The present generation of Southerners are not responsible for the past, and they should not be blindly hated or blamed for it. Furthermore, to no class is the indiscriminate endorsement of the recent course of the South toward Negroes more nauseating than to the best thought of the South. The South is not “solid”; it is a land in the ferment of social change, wherein forces of all kinds are fighting for supremacy; and to praise the ill the South is to-day perpetrating is just as wrong as to condemn the good. Discriminating and broad-minded criticism is what the South needs—needs it for the sake of her own white sons and daughters, and for the insurance of robust, healthy mental and moral development.

To-day even the attitude of the Southern whites toward the blacks is not, as so many assume, in all cases the same; the ignorant Southerner hates the Negro, the workingmen fear his competition, the money-makers wish to use him as a laborer, some of the educated see a menace in his upward development, while others—usually the sons of the masters—wish to help him to rise. National opinion has enabled this last class to maintain the Negro common schools, and to protect the Negro partially in property, life, and limb. Through the pressure of the moneymakers, the Negro is in danger of being reduced to semi-slavery, especially in the country districts; the workingmen, and those of the educated who fear the Negro, have united to disfranchise him, and some have urged his deportation; while the passions of the ignorant are easily aroused to lynch and abuse any black man. To praise this intricate whirl of thought and prejudice is nonsense; to inveigh indiscriminately against “the South” is unjust; but to use the same breath in praising Governor Aycock, exposing Senator Morgan, arguing with Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, and denouncing Senator Ben Tillman, is not only sane, but the imperative duty of thinking black men.

It would be unjust to Mr. Washington not to acknowledge that in several instances he has opposed movements in the South which were unjust to the Negro; he sent memorials to the Louisiana and Alabama constitutional conventions, he has spoken against lynching, and in other ways has openly or silently set his influence against sinister schemes and unfortunate happenings. Notwithstanding this, it is equally true to assert that on the whole the distinct impression left by Mr. Washington’s propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro’s degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro’s failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth. The supplementary truths must never be lost sight of: first, slavery and race-prejudice are potent if not sufficient causes of the Negro’s position; second, industrial and common-school training were necessarily slow in planting because they had to await the black teachers trained by higher institutions—it being extremely doubtful if any essentially different development was possible, and certainly a Tuskegee was unthinkable before 1880; and, third, while it is a great truth to say that the Negro must strive and strive mightily to help himself, it is equally true that unless his striving be not simply seconded, but rather aroused and encouraged, by the initiative of the richer and wiser environing group, he cannot hope for great success.

In his failure to realize and impress this last point, Mr. Washington is especially to be criticised. His doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs.

The South ought to be led, by candid and honest criticism, to assert her better self and do her full duty to the race she has cruelly wronged and is still wronging. The North—her co-partner in guilt—cannot salve her conscience by plastering it with gold. We cannot settle this problem by diplomacy and suaveness, by “policy” alone. If worse comes to worst, can the moral fibre of this country survive the slow throttling and murder of nine millions of men?

The black men of America have a duty to perform, a duty stern and delicate—a forward movement to oppose a part of the work of their greatest leader. So far as Mr. Washington preaches Thrift, Patience, and Industrial Training for the masses, we must hold up his hands and strive with him, rejoicing in his honors and glorying in the strength of this Joshua called of God and of man to lead the headless host. But so far as Mr. Washington apologizes for injustice, North or South, does not rightly value the privilege and duty of voting, belittles the emasculating effects of caste distinctions, and opposes the higher training and ambition of our brighter minds—so far as he, the South, or the Nation, does this—we must unceasingly and firmly oppose them. By every civilized and peaceful method we must strive for the right which the world accords to men, clinging unwaveringly to those great words which the sons of the Fathers would fain forget: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

After the Civil War, white settlement to the Great Plains and the West grew rapidly, encouraged by railroad construction and the consolidation of a national market, and putting pressure on Indian lands. In 1877 the United States forced the Ponca to leave their lands in Nebraska and to relocate in Indian Territority (Oklahoma). Along the five-hundred-mile long journey, one-third of the Ponca perished. Standing Bear was one of the first Indians to bring the treatment of American Indians to the attention of the American public. The following account is his story as told to the Omaha World-Herald. Letters to Congress led to a Senate investigation of Standing Bear’s charges. In a rare move, the government allowed the Ponca to return to Nebraska and compensated them for the property that they lost.

They said the President told us to pack up—that we must move to the Indian Territory.

The inspector said to us: “The President says you must sell this land. He will buy it and pay you the money, and give you new land in the Indian Territory.”

We said to him: “We do not know your authority. You have no right to move us till we have had council with the President.”

We said to him: “When two persons wish to make a bargain, they can talk together and find out what each wants, and then make their agreement.”

We said to him: “We do not wish to go. When a man owns anything, he does not let it go till he has received payment for it.”

We said to him: “We will see the President first.”

He said to us: “I will take you to see the new land. If you like it, then you can see the President, and tell him so. If not, then you can see him and tell him so.” And he took all ten of our chiefs down. I went, and Bright Eyes’ uncle went. He took us to look at three different pieces of land. He said we must take one of the three pieces, so the President said. After he took us down there, he said: “No pay for the land you left.”

We said to him: “You have forgotten what you said before we started. You said we should have pay for our land. Now you say not. You told us then you were speaking truth.”

All these three men took us down there. The man got very angry. He tried to compel us to take one of the three pieces of land. He told us to be brave. He said to us: “If you do not accept these, I will leave you here alone. You are one thousand miles from home. You have no money. You have no interpreter, and you cannot speak the language.” And he went out and slammed the door. The man talked to us from long before sundown till it was nine o’clock at night.

We said to him: “We do not like this land. We could not support ourselves. The water is bad. Now send us to Washington, to tell the President, as you promised.”

He said to us: “The President did not tell me to take you to Washington; neither did he tell me to take you home.”

We said to him: “You have the Indian money you took to bring us down here. That money belongs to us. We would like to have some of it. People do not give away food for nothing. We must have money to buy food on the road.”

He said to us: “I will not give you a cent.”

We said to him: “We are in a strange country. We cannot find our way home. Give us a pass, that people may show us our way.”

He said: “I will not give you any.”

We said to him: “This interpreter is ours. We pay him. Let him go with us.”

He said: “You shall not have the interpreter. He is mine, and not yours.”

We said to him: “Take us at least to the railroad; show us the way to that.”

And he would not. He left us right there. It was winter. We started for home on foot. At night we slept in haystacks. We barely lived till morning, it was so cold. We had nothing but our blankets. We took the ears of corn that had dried in the fields; we ate it raw. The soles of our moccasins wore out. We went barefoot in the snow. We were nearly dead when we reached the Otoe Reserve. It had been fifty days. We stayed there ten days to strengthen up, and the Otoes gave each of us a pony. The agent of the Otoes told us he had received a telegram from the inspector, saying that the Indian chiefs had run away; not to give us food or shelter, or help in any way. The agent said: “I would like to understand. Tell me all that has happened. Tell me the truth. …”

Then we told our story to the agent and to the Otoe chiefs—how we had been left down there to find our way.

The agent said: “I can hardly believe it possible that anyone could have treated you so. The inspector was a poor man to have done this. If I had taken chiefs in this way, I would have brought them home: I could not have left them there.”

In seven days we reached the Omaha Reservation. Then we sent a telegram to the President; asked him if he had authorized this thing. We waited three days for the answer. No answer came.

In four days we reached our own home. We found the inspector there. While we were gone, he had come to our people and told them to move.

Our people said: “Where are our chiefs? What have you done with them? Why have you not brought them back? We will not move till our chiefs come back.”

Then the inspector told them: “Tomorrow you must be ready to move. If you are not ready you will be shot.” Then the soldiers came to the doors with their bayonets, and ten families were frightened. The soldiers brought wagons, they put their things in and were carried away. The rest of the tribe would not move. …

Then, when he found that we would not go, he wrote for more soldiers to come.

Then the soldiers came, and we locked our doors, and the women and children hid in the woods. Then the soldiers drove all the people [to] the other side of the river, all but my brother Big snake and I. We did not go; and the soldiers took us and carried us away to a fort and put us in jail. There were eight officers who held council with us after we got there. The commanding officer said: “I have received four messages telling me to send my soldiers after you. Now, what have you done?”

Then we told him the whole story. Then the officer said: “You have done no wrong. The land is yours; they had no right to take it from you. Your title is good. I am here to protect the weak, and I have no right to take you; but I am a soldier, and I have to obey orders.”

He said: “I will telegraph to the President, and ask him what I shall do. We do not think these three men had any authority to treat you as they have done. When we own a piece of land, it belongs to us till we sell it and pocket the money.”

Then he brought a telegram, and said he had received answer from the President. The President said he knew nothing about it.

They kept us in jail ten days. Then they carried us back to our home. The soldiers collected all the women and children together; then they called all the chiefs together in council; and then they took wagons and went round and broke open the houses. When we came back from the council, we found the women and children surrounded by a guard of soldiers.

They took our reapers, mowers. Hay rakes; spades, ploughs, bedsteads, stoves, cupboards, everything we had on our farms, and put them in one large building. Then they put into the wagons such things as they could carry. We told them that we would rather die than leave our lands; but we could not help ourselves. They took us down. Many died on the road. Two of my children died. After we reached the new land, all my horses died. The water was very bad. All our cattle died; not one was left. I stayed till one hundred and fifty-eight of my people had died. Then I ran away with thirty of my people, men and women and children. Some of the children were orphans. We were three months on the road. We were weak and sick and starved. When we reached the Omaha Reserve the Omahas gave us a piece of land, and we were in a hurry to plough it and put in wheat. While we were working, the soldiers came and arrested us. Half of us were sick. We would rather have died than have been carried back; but we could not help ourselves.

The duties of a field matron, therefore, are to visit Indian women in their homes and to give them counsel, encouragement, and help in the following lines;

Young girls, particularly those who have left school, should find in her a friend and adviser, and her influence should be to them a safeguard against the sore temptations which beset them. She should impress upon families the importance of education and urge upon them to put and keep their children in school.

Besides faithfully visiting Indian homes, the matron should have stated days or parts of days each week when Indian women may come to her home for counsel or for instruction in sewing or other domestic arts which can advantageously be taught to several persons at one time.

The time actually devoted to the above outlined work by the field matron should be not less than eight hours per day for five days in the week, and half a day on Saturday.

The matron shall make reports of her work monthly to the agent and quarterly, through him, to this office upon blank herewith. On August 15th of each year, she shall make an annual report, to be forwarded by the agent to this office for publication.

In the 1880s the federal government began a strategy called “allotment by severalty,” by which Indians’ tribal lands were divided into individual family-sized plots. Allotment provided Indians a fraction of their land and gave the rest to the government and to private interests. The strategy was meant to civilize Indians by making them into private-property holders and family farmers. The Omaha tribe was divided by the issue; a group called “make believe white men” desired allotment and citizenship, whereas a group known as “those who live in earth lodges” opposed changing their traditional way of life.

XITHA GAXE: I have worked hard on my land so that I should not go round begging. I thought the land was my own, so I went to work and cultivated it. Now I have found out it is not my own, and this makes me stop. I am afraid if I should build a house and spend money on it I would lose it if the Government should move the Indians from this land. Three times I have cut wood to build a house. Each time the agent told me the Government wished to build me a house. Each time my wood has lain and rotted, and now I feel ashamed when I hear an agent telling me such things. … I want a title to my land; I want a house that is my own.

WA THISHNADE: Before I began to farm I was just a wild Indian doing as I pleased, going round the country looking for death. … We have no government on the reserve. We have trouble which we would not have if we had government and law. We want these. We are right among the white people, and as we have no law we can’t get along very well. There are persons living on the reserve who have certificates of allotment; they believe that the land is theirs and that they can always keep it. I know differently. … I went on my farm with a certificate. I believed the land was mine. I have found out the land is not mine; that the Government can take it away. We are going to ask for our titles. As long as the Government does not give them, we will ask until the Government gets tired. We won’t stop asking until we get our titles.

DU BAMO THI: … The road our fathers walked is gone, the game is gone, the white people are all about us. There is no use any Indian thinking of the old ways; he must now go to work as the white man does. We want titles to our lands that the land may be secure to our children. When we die we shall feel easy in our minds if we know the land will belong to our children and that they will have the benefit of our work. There are some Omahas who do not yet care for titles. We desire the Government to give titles to those who ask for them. … We are willing the others should do as they please but we are not willing that they should keep us from getting titles to our lands. Our children would suffer even a greater wrong than would befall us. Give us who ask titles to our lands … do not let us be held back and our children be sufferers because of the inaction of those who do not seem to care for our future.

JOSEPH LA FLESCHE : … I was born in this country, in Nebraska, and I have always lived among the Indians. There was a time when I used to look only at the Indians and think they were the only people. The Indians must have been long in this country before the white man came. … In the spring they would take their seed and farm their 1 or 2 acres. There were no idlers, all worked in the spring. Those who had no hoes worked with pieces of sticks. When they had their seed in, they went on the hunt. They had nothing to worry them; all they thought of was their little garden they had left behind. …

Then it was I used to see white men, those who were going around buying furs. Sometimes for two or three years I would not see any white men. At that time the country was empty, only animals to be seen. Then after a while the white men came, just as the blackbirds do, and spread over the country. Some settled down, others scattered on the land, The Indians never thought that any such thing could be, but it matters not where one looks now one sees white people. These things I have been speaking about are in the past and are all gone. We Indians see you now and want to take our steps your way. …

It seems as though the Government pushes us back. It makes us think that the Government regards us as unfit to be as white men. The white man looks into the future and sees what is good. That is what the Indian is doing. He looks into the future and sees his only chance is to become as the white man. When a person lives in a place a long time he loves the place. We love our lands and want titles for them. When one has anything he likes to feel it is his own, and belongs to no one else, so we want titles; then we can leave our land to our children. You know, and so do we, that some of us will not live very long; we will soon be gone into the other world. We ask for titles for our children’s sakes. For some years we have been trying to get titles but we have never heard from the Government. …

We are not strong enough to help ourselves in this matter, so we ask you to help us. In the past we only lived on the animals. We see that it is from the ground that you get all that you possess. The reason you do not look upon us as men is because we have not law, because we are not citizens. We are strangers in the land where we were born. … We know that in asking for titles we are asking for that which will bring responsibility. We are ready to accept it and to strive to fulfill its requirements. It seems as though in the past the Government had not listened to the words of the Indians. We know our own needs, and now we speak to you directly.

The drive by Americans to dispossess Indians of their land during the late nineteenth century collided with the rights that the government had accorded Indians by treaty and by legislation. In Lone Wolf, the Supreme Court upheld that the U.S. had no obligation to uphold the treaties it made with American Indians. It declared Indians individual wards of the state and rendered moot the provisions of the Dawes Act, which declared that tribal land was American Indian private property and required Indian approval of the sale of their unallotted lands. Justice Edward Douglas White’s opinion suggested that Congress had always exercised plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians. He also argued that this power was a political power and was not subject to judiciary control.

By the sixth article of the first of the two treaties referred to in the preceding statement, proclaimed on August 25, 1868, 15 Stat. 581, it was provided that heads of families of the tribes affected by the treaty might select, within the reservation, a tract of land of not exceeding 320 acres in extent, which should thereafter cease to be held in common, and should be for the exclusive possession of the Indian making the selection, so long as he or his family might continue to cultivate the land. The twelfth article reads as follows:

“Article 12. No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the reservation herein described, which may be held in common, shall be of any validity or force as against the said Indians, unless executed and signed by at least three fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the same, and no cession by the tribe shall be understood or construed in such manner as to deprive, without his consent, any individual member of the tribe of his rights to any tract of land selected by him as provided in article III (VI) of this treaty.”

The appellants base their right to relief on the proposition that by the effect of the article just quoted the confederated tribes of Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches were vested with an interest in the lands held in common within the reservation, which interest could not be divested by Congress in any other mode than that specified in the said twelfth article, and that as a result of the said stipulation the interest of the Indians in the common lands fell within the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and such interest—indirectly at least—came under the control of the judicial branch of the government. We are unable to yield our assent to this view.

The contention in effect ignores the status of the contracting Indians and the relation of dependency they bore and continue to bear towards the government of the United States. To uphold the claim would be to adjudge that the indirect operation of the treaty was to materially limit and qualify the controlling authority of Congress in respect to the care and protection of the Indians, and to deprive Congress, in a possible emergency, when the necessity might be urgent for a partition and disposal of the tribal lands, of the power to act, if the assent of the Indians could not be obtained.

Now, it is true that in decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred, or as sometimes expressed, as sacred as the fee of the United States in the same lands. Johnson v. McIntosh, (1823) 8 Wheat. 543, 574; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) 5 Pet. 1,48; Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 581; United States v. Cook, (1873) 19 Wall. 591, 592; Leavenworth &c. R. R. Co. v. United States, (1875) 92 U.S. 733, 755; Beecher v. Wetherby, (1877) 95 U.S. 517, 525. But in none of these cases was there involved a controversy between Indians and the government respecting the power of Congress to administer the property of the Indians. The questions considered in the cases referred to, which either directly or indirectly had relation to the nature of the property rights of the Indians, concerned the character and extent of such rights as respected States or individuals. In one of the cited cases it was clearly pointed out that Congress possessed a paramount power over the property of the Indians, by reason of its exercise of guardianship over their interests, and that such authority might be implied, even though opposed to the strict letter of a treaty with the Indians. Thus, in Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517, discussing the claim that there had been a prior reservation of land by treaty to the use of a certain tribe of Indians, the court said (p. 525):

“But the right which the Indians held was only that of occupancy. The fee was in the United States, subject to that right, and could be transferred by them whenever they chose. The grantee, it is true, would take only the naked fee, and could not disturb the occupancy of the Indians; that occupancy could only be interfered with or determined by the United States. It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people in their treatment of an ignorant and dependent race. Be that as it may, the propriety or justice of their action towards the Indians with respect to their lands is a question of governmental policy, and is not a matter open to discussion in a controversy between third parties, neither of whom derives title from the Indians.”

Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government. Until the year 1871 the policy was pursued of dealing with the Indian tribes by means of treaties, and, of course, a moral obligation rested upon Congress to act in good faith in performing the stipulations entered into on its behalf. But, as with treaties made with foreign nations, Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 600, the legislative power might pass laws in conflict with treaties made with the Indians. Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264, 270; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 511; Spalding v. Chandler, 160 U.S. 394, 405; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114, 117; The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616.

The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised only when circumstances arise which will not only justify the government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so. When, therefore, treaties were entered into between the United States and a tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in Congress, and that in a contingency such power might be availed of from considerations of governmental policy, particularly if consistent with perfect good faith towards the Indians. In United States v. Kagama, (1885) 118 U.S. 375, speaking of the Indians, the court said (p. 382):

“After an experience of a hundred years of the treaty-making system of government, Congress has determined upon a new departure—to govern them by acts of Congress. This is seen in the act of March 3, 1871, embodied in § 2079 of the Revised Statutes: ‘No Indian nation or tribe, within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power, with whom the United States may contract by treaty; but no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior to March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, shall be hereby invalidated or impaired.’”

In upholding the validity of an act of Congress which conferred jurisdiction upon the courts of the United States for certain crimes committed on an Indian reservation within a State, the court said (p. 383):

“It seems to us that this is within the competency of Congress. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. They owe no allegiance to the States, and receive from them no protection. Because of the local ill feeling, the people of the States where they are found are often their deadliest enemies. From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. This has always been recognized by the Executive and by Congress, and by this court, whenever the question has arisen.

That Indians who had not been fully emancipated from the control and protection of the United States are subject, at least so far as the tribal lands were concerned, to be controlled by direct legislation of Congress, is also declared in Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U.S. 1, 27, and Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 483.

In view of the legislative power possessed by Congress over treaties with the Indians and Indian tribal property, we may not specially consider the contentions pressed upon our notice that the signing by the Indians of the agreement of October 6, 1892, was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment, that the requisite three fourths of adult male Indians had not signed, as required by the twelfth article of the treaty of 1867, and that the treaty as signed had been amended by Congress without submitting such amendments to the action of the Indians, since all these matters, in any event, were solely within the domain of the legislative authority and its action is conclusive upon the courts.

The act of June 6, 1900, which is complained of in the bill, was enacted at a time when the tribal relations between the confederated tribes of Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches still existed, and that statute and the statutes supplementary thereto dealt with the disposition of tribal property and purported to give an adequate consideration for the surplus lands not allotted among the Indians or reserved for their benefit. Indeed, the controversy which this case presents is concluded by the decision in Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294, decided at this term, where it was held that full administrative power was possessed by Congress over Indian tribal property. In effect, the action of Congress now complained of was but an exercise of such power, a mere change in the form of investment of Indian tribal property, the property of those who, as we have held, were in substantial effect the wards of the government. We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint is made, and that the legislative branch of the government exercised its best judgment in the premises. In any event, as Congress possessed full power in the matter, the judiciary cannot question or inquire into the motives which prompted the enactment of this legislation. If injury was occasioned, which we do not wish to be understood as implying, by the use made by Congress of its power, relief must be sought by an appeal to that body for redress and not to the courts. The legislation in question was constitutional, and the demurrer to the bill was therefore rightly sustained.

The motion to dismiss does not challenge jurisdiction over the subject matter. Without expressly referring to the propositions of fact upon which it proceeds, suffice it to say that we think it need not be further adverted to, since, for the reasons previously given and the nature of the controversy, we think the decree below should be

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result.

Recognizing the delicacy and gravity of the question which the present application involves, it was thought advisable to obtain the views of several members of the bar as to the proper construction of that clause of the naturalization statute which the court is called upon to consider and construe. With that object in view, the court addressed letters to Mr. T. M. Paschal and Mr. Floyd McGown, inclosing therewith copies of the papers and testimony on file. Generously responding to the wish of the court, these gentlemen have submitted able and interesting briefs, which have received, together with those of Mr. Evans and Mr. McMinn, the attentive consideration which the nature of the case and importance of the question demand. And the court now desires to express its acknowledgments to all counsel appearing in the case for the valuable aid thus rendered.

The applicant, a citizen by birth of the republic of Mexico, desires to avail himself of the inherent right of expatriation, and to invest himself with the rights and privileges pertaining to citizenship of our country. Although 49 years have elapsed since the negotiation of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which greatly increased our territorial area, and incorporated many thousands of Mexicans into our common citizenship, as wilt be hereinafter shown, the question of the individual naturalization of a Mexican citizen is now for the first time, so far as the court is advised, submitted for judicial determination. To the question, why may not he be naturalized under the laws of congress? it is replied that by section 2169 of the Revised Statutes it is provided: “The provisions of this tide shall apply to aliens (being free white persons, and to aliens) of African nativity, and to persons of African descent.” The contention is that, by the letter of the statute, a Mexican citizen, answering to the description of the applicant, is, because of his color, denied the right to become a citizen of the United States by naturalization; and, in support of this view, the following authorities are relied upon: In re Ah Yup (decided by Judge Sawyer in 1878)5 Sawy. 155, 1 Fed. Cas. 223; In re Camille (decided by Judge Deady in 1880) 6 Fed. 256; In re Kanaka Nian (decided by the supreme court of Utah in 1889) 21 Pac. 993; In re Saito (decided by Judge Colt in 1894) 62 Fed. 126; and 2 Kent, Comm. 73, whee the learned chancellor expresses a doubt in these words:

“Perhaps there might be difficulties also as to the copper-colored natives of American, or the yellow or tawny races of Asiatics, and it may well be doubted whether any of them are white persons, within the purview of the law.”

Of the four cases above cited, In re Ah Yup is the first in point of time, and the leading one. The four applications were denied, Ah Yup being a native of China, Camille a native of British Columbia, and of half Indian and half white blood, Nian a native of the Hawaiian Islands, whose ancestors were Kanakas, and Saito a native of Japan. When the Case of Ah Yup was decided, the Chinese question was flagrant on the Pacific slope, and Judge Sawyer seemed to think, predicating his conclusion upon the debates in congress, that the purpose of the amendment extending the right of naturalization to Africans and persons of African descent was to exclude Chinese from the benefits of naturalization. To quote his own language:

“Many other senators spoke pro and con on the question, this being the point of the contest, and these extracts being fair examples of the opposing opinions. It was finally defeated [the amendment to strike the word “white” from the naturalization laws]; and the amendment cited, extending the right of naturalization to the African only, was adopted. It is clear from these proceedings that congress retained the word ‘white’ in the naturalization laws for the sole purpose of excluding the Chinese from the right of naturalization. Thus, whatever latitudinarian construction might otherwise have been given to the term ‘white person,’ it is entirely clear that congress intended by this legislation to exclude Mongolians from the right of naturalization. I am therefore of the opinion that a native of China, of the Mongolian race, is not a white person, within the meaning of the act of congress. The second question is answered in the discussion of the first. The amendment is intended to limit the operation of the provision as it then stood in the Revised Statutes. It would have been more appropriately inserted in section 2165 than where it is found, in section 2169. But the purpose is clear. It was certainly intended to have some operation, or it would not have been adopted. The purpose undoubtedly was to restore the law to the condition in which it stood before the revision, and to exclude the Chinese. It was intended to exclude some classes, and, as all white aliens and those of the African race are entitled to naturalization under other words, it is difficult to perceive whom it could exclude, unless it be the Chinese.”

The opinion of Judge Sawyer is by no means decisive of the present question, as his language may well convey the meaning that the amendment of the naturalization statutes referred to by him was intended solely as a prohibition against the naturalization of members of the Mongolian race. The naturalization of Chinese is, however, no longer an open question, as section 14 of the act of May 6, 1882, expressly provides “that hereafter no state court or court of the United states shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.” 22 Stat. 61.

If Chinese were denied the right to become naturalized citizens under laws existing when In re Ah Yup was decided, why did congress subsequently enact the prohibitory statute above quoted? Indeed, it is a debatable question whether the term “free white person,” as used in the original act of 1790, was not employed for the sole purpose of withholding the right of citizenship from the black or African race and the Indians then inhabiting this country. But it is not necessary to enter upon a discussion of that question; nor is it deemed material to inquire to what race ethnological writers would assign the present applicant. If the strict scientific classification of the anthropologist should be adopted, he would probably not be classed as white. It is certain he is not an African, nor a person of African descent. According to his own statement, he is a “pure-blooded Mexican,” bearing no relation to the Aztecs or original races of Mexico. Being, then, a citizen of Mexico, may he be naturalized pursuant to the laws of congress? If debarred by the strict letter of the law from receiving letters of citizenship, is he embraced within the intent and meaning of the statute? If he falls within the meaning and intent of the law, his application should be granted, notwithstanding the letter of the statute may be against him. …

A reference to the constitution of the republic of Texas and the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States will disclose that both that republic and the United States have freely, during the past 60 years, conferred upon Mexicans the rights and privileges of American citizenship, not individually, it is true, but by various collective acts of naturalization. The first of such acts will be found in the language of section 10 of the general provisions of the constitution of the republic of Texas, adopted in 1836. By that section it is provided:

“All persons (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and the Indians excepted) who were residing in Texas on the day of the declaration of independence [March 2, 1836] shall be considered citizens of the republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

Under this provision, Mexicans who resided in Texas on March 2, 1836, become citizens of the republic (Kilpatrick v. Sisneros, 23 Tex. 113; Hardy v. De Leon, 5 Tex. 212; 13 Ops. Attys. Gen. 397, 398); and by the resolutions of March 1, 1845, and December 29, 1845, passed by the national congress, all such citizens, without express authorization, became incorporated into the citizenship of the Union. Thus, it is said by the supreme court, in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 169, 12 Sup. Ct. 385:

“By the annexation of Texas, under a joint resolution of congress of March 1, 1845, and its admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, December 29, 1845, all the citizens of the former republic became, without any express declaration, citizens of the United States. 5 Stat. 798; 9 Stat. 108; McKinney v. Saviego, 18 How. 235; Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170; Barrett v. Kelly, 31 Tex. 476; Carter v. New Mexico, I N.M. 317.”

See, also, Lawr. Wheat. (Append.) 897; Morse, Citizenship, § 94.

The next collective act in chronological order, providing for the naturalization of Mexicans, is the treaty concluded between the United States and Mexico, February 2, 1848, commonly known as the “Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.” The eighth article of that treaty is as follows:

“Art. 8. Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever. Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States. In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guaranties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.”

That Mexicans who remained in the territory ceded by the treaty of 1848, and who failed to declare their intention within the time limited to remain citizens of Mexico, became citizens of the United States, is a fact scarcely open to serious controversy. …

It is said by Mr. Justice McLean, in his dissenting opinion in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 533, that:

“On the question of citizenship it must be admitted that we have not been very fastidious. Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colors. The same was done in the admission of Louisiana and Florida. No one over doubted, and no court ever held, that the people of these territories did not become citizens under the treaty. They have exercised all the rights of citizens, without being naturalized under the acts of congress.”…

The next act affecting the question of citizenship to which attention will be directed is the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, declared to be part of the organic law, by resolution of congress, July 21, 1868 (15 Stat. 709, 711). By this amendment, which completely overthrew the last remaining vestige of the doctrine announced in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, touching the question of citizenship of the African, and invested the native-born negro with the rights of an American citizen (Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101, 5 Sup. Ct. 41; Strauder v. West virginia, 100 U.S. 306–308; In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 909), it is provided:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

See, also, Rev. St. § 1992.

While this amendment, as held in the authorities last cited, was intended primarily for the benefit of the negro race, it also confers the right of citizenship upon persons of all other races, white, yellow, or red, born or naturalized in the United States, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The language has been held to embrace even Chinese, to whom the laws of naturalization do not extend. In re Look Tin Sing, supra; Gee Fook Sing v. U.S., 1 C.C.A. 211, 49 Fed. 146; Ex parte Chin King, 35 Fed. 354; In re Yung Sing Hee, 36 Fed. 347; In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382. Mexicans, therefore, born in the United States, and who, at the date of birth, were subject to the jurisdiction of our government—as all were, except children of diplomatic officers, and a few others, not necessary in this connection to notice (In re Look Tin Sing, supra)—are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The intimation in some of the briefs of counsel that Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, excludes Mexicans from citizenship, is not maintainable. That case refers exclusively to tribal Indians born and residing within the territory forming apart of the United States. …

When all the foregoing laws, treaties, and constitutional provisions are considered, which either affirmatively confer the rights of citizenship upon Mexicans, or tacitly recognize in them the right of individual naturalization, the conclusion forces itself upon the mind that citizens of Mexico are eligible to American citizenship, and may be individually naturalized by complying with the provisions of our laws. And this conviction is further strengthened by a consideration of the first section of the act of July 27, 1868, re-enacted as section 1999 of the Revised Statutes. Its language is as follows:

“Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the republic.”

It will be observed the preamble declares that we have freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizens; and the enacting clause denounces, as inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the republic, any opinion, decision, or order of any United States officer which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation. It may appropriately be said that naturalization is the final step in the process of expatriation, and, literally construed, any order, opinion, or decision of a United States officer denying, restricting, or questioning the right to become a naturalized citizen, save as to Chinese, would come within the denunciation of the statute. It is probable that the statute was not intended to have an effect so far reaching in its consequences, and that the primary purpose was, as the title of the original act asserts, to protect the rights of American citizens in foreign states. But the language of the act is significant as illustrating the policy of the government “to bestow,” using the words of vice Chancellor Sandford, “the right of citizenship freely, and with a liberality unknown in the old world.” Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 661.

After a careful and patient investigation of the question discussed, the court is of opinion that, whatever may be the status of the applicant viewed solely from the standpoint of the ethnologist, he is embraced within the spirit and intent of our laws upon naturalization, and his application should be granted if he is shown by the testimony to be a man attached to the principles of the constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. It is suggested that the proof fails in this respect; and the objection appears to be based upon the ground, intimated in the briefs, of his inability to understand or explain those principles. That the applicant is lamentably ignorant is conceded, and that he is unable to read and write the testimony clearly discloses. Naturally enough, his untrained mind is found deficient in the power to elucidate or define the principles of the constitution. But the testimony also discloses that he is a very good man, peaceable and industrions, of good moral character, and law abiding “to a remarkable degree.” And hence it may be said of him, notwithstanding his inability to undergo an examination on questions of constitutional law, that by his daily walk, during a residence of 10 years in the city of San Antonio, he has practically illustrated and emphasized his attachment to the principles of the constitution. Congress has not seen fit to require of applicants for naturalization an educational qualification, and courts should be careful to avoid judicial legislation. In the judgment of the court, the applicant possesses the requisite qualifications for citizenship, and his application will therefore be granted.

I was married in San Francisco on Dec. 15, 1885 to Chong [Chin] Lung of the firm of Sang Kee wholesale dealers in tea & rice #808 Sac. St. San Francisco. When I first came to this country I came with my father Leong Hoong Wum and my mother Lee Shee and lived at #613 Dupont St. My father was formerly connected with the firm of Sang Kee #808 Sac. St. My father died in this city Nov. 25, 1887. My mother died in this city 1883 so long ago I have forgotten the date. I went home to China with my brother-in-law Chun Gwun Dai and my daughter Ah Kum who was 4 years of age the time of departure. After I was married I lived on the 2nd floor over the store of Sang Kee #808 Sac. St where my daughter Ah Kum was born on the 28 day of December 1886. My daughter is 8 years old now. My brother-in-law Chun Gwun Dai returned to S.F. in the later part of year 1891. Lee Moon’s wife went home in the same steamer with me. I do not know her name. There was also a woman named Sam Moy and a child Ah Yuck on board. I do not speak English and do not know the city excepting the names of a few streets as I have small feet and never went out.

If Yut Kum should be sick fifteen days she shall make up one month. If she conceives, she shall serve one year more. If during the time any man wishes to redeem her body, she shall make satisfactory arrangements with the mistress, Mee Yung. If Yut Kum should herself escape and be recovered, then her time shall never expire. Should the mistress become very wealthy and return to China with glory, then Yut Kum shall fulfill her time, serving another person.

This is a distinct agreement made face to face, both parties willingly consenting. But lest the words of the mouth should be without proof, the agreement-paper is executed and placed in her hands for proof. There are four great sicknesses against which Mee Yung is secured for one hundred days, namely, leprosy, epilepsy, conception, and “stone-woman,” i.e., inability to have carnal intercourse with men. For any of these four diseases she may be returned within one hundred days.

Truly with her own hands Mee Yung hands over $470.

Tung Chee 12th year [1874], 8th month, 14th day. The agreement is executed by Mee Yung.

It is believed that this matter should be handled with considerable care and that your office should go slowly in connection with any proposal to institute numerous proceedings against Chinese who have become insane but who have been in the United States more than three years and therefore are not subject to deportation under the provisions of the general immigration law. It would be difficult for an insane Chinese to make any defense if brought into court on a charge of unlawful residence, and there is danger that Chinese lawfully here might be deported unwittingly as the result of this difficulty. The Bureau suggests that as soon as the state of the current work of your office will permit, a thorough inquiry be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining as completely as possible the facts of each case, those facts to be laid before the Bureau before suing out judicial warrants for the arrest of the Chinese.

Inspector, D. J. Griffiths.

Inspector, W. H. Clendenin.

Reporter, Albert Betz.

My father was born in 1846, twenty-four years before the Unification of Italy, and he had gotten the impress of the Risorgimento, which had fostered a revival of national spirit, of courage to resist foreign opposition, and of hope of a great future for Italy. He had been a follower of Mazzini and Garibaldi, the two champions of Italian liberty and, with Cavour, the fathers of the united Italy. But he had been greatly disappointed when the House of Savoy had come into power after the unification in 1870, for he, with all the Republicans of the country, had hoped for a republic. There was no hope for one now.

That was the political picture. Nor was there any future economically for an ambitious young man in this small mountain village. He did not want to spend the rest of his life tending sheep, wresting vegetables from a small plot of rocky soil, and rearing his family to do precisely the same, as his fathers had done for generations. Conditions in Italy had been unsettled for decades. The time was ripe on all counts for emigration to the Argentine, a new country just opened up and welcoming all comers. Many young men had already gone, spurred on, no doubt, by the knowledge that Garibaldi had lived in South America and for a time had made a name for himself there. The Argentine held promise for the ambitious, and so my parents made the difficult decision to leave Italy for a new world. The father would go first, and send for his family as soon as he was able.

The first problem was, of course, how to get enough money to pay for the very expensive trip. The young couple had been married four years and had one child. They owned their comfortable stone house in Rocca Nova, and my father had gotten along as well as any young man was able to do with the opportunities at hand. They lived in comfort, but there was little money. It would take every lira that they had been able to save to buy one ticket for the long voyage. …

It was a long chance for the husband and father to leave the family for so uncertain a future, but perhaps not so long according to the stories that were coming back from those who had already gone to the Argentine. In any case, he took it.

The journey from Rocco Nova to Naples was long and difficult. Everything to be taken was packed in saddle bags on the tiny donkeys, and my father and a companion rode and walked over the mountain roads that led northwest across the Apennines to Naples. When the two hundred miles had been covered and my father arrived at the home of relatives in the city, he learned that the vessel on which he had expected to sail for Buenos Aires was not to go at once. There was, however, a “ship” soon to leave for the United States. Why not New York instead of Buenos Aires? America, too, was a republic and a land of promise where, according to the glamorous advertisements of the steamship companies, there was work and money for all. Garibaldi had been there, too! Now that the final break had been made with Italy, my father was eager to get away, and every day’s delay pushed farther into the future his reunion with the wife he had left behind. So without too much disappointment at the change in his destination, he boarded the vessel bound for New York. He had never been in Naples before and the scene from the deck of the vessel as it sailed out of the harbor he was never to forget. Nor was he to see anything as beautiful again. Mt. Vesuvius pushed its summit into an incredibly blue sky. The city itself rose on a series of terraces up high volcanic hills, Down close to the bay, the windows of the imposing thirteenth century Castel Nuovo caught the rays of the bright sun. Ascending a long hill, the winding driveway that led from the old city to the new, farther up the heights, divided Naples into two perfect crescents. Could the cities of the New World be as beautiful as this?

The voyage to America on the slow sailing vessel was uneventful, and it was tedious for the impatient and apprehensive group of passengers, who could not hazard a guess as to what might lie ahead of them. They were pitting all they had, physical strength and moral and spiritual courage, against a world completely alien to them.

At the end of three weeks the vessel made its way into New York Harbor, heading for Castle Garden, where the passengers would disembark. The eager group at the rail saw for the first time the modest skyline of the Manhattan of the 1870’s. The beautiful spire of a church, which they could not know was historic Trinity, completely dwarfed the smaller buildings around it. No Statue of Liberty greeted them, for this was twelve years before the corner-stone was laid for that structure which later was to welcome to the Western World millions of their countrymen.

New York had no Italian colony of any size at this time. There were only about 2500 Italians in the city, many of them professional musicians and artists. Emigration to America from Italy had not really begun. In the 1880’s it was to start in earnest, to increase in the 90’s, and become a virtual flood at the turn of the century and the few years following. Many of the villages and small towns of southern Italy were almost depopulated by this later migration. But in 1872 the Italian in New York was very much an alien.

Economically, this country was in bad shape. Grant was President, and the difficult Reconstruction Era to which my father and others of his countrymen were to make their important contribution had just begun. There was corruption in high places of government and business, prices were rocketing, and industrial failures were widespread.

The six years that intervened before my father was able to save enough money to send for his family were marred by pitifully frugal living, stinting, and work of the hardest kind. He was one of thousands of Italians who opened up the West and enriched the East with the work of their hands. Immediately upon their arrival in America, most of these men of Italy secured employment with the railroads and went out to dig tunnels, build roadbeds, and lay tracks across almost every state of the Union. My father eventually became a foreman of a crew of men who went to Sault Saint Marie to work on the locks of the Soo Canal, but worked for several railroads during these early years. Only a few months after he secured his first railroad job, however, the panic of 1873 occurred, and those companies which did not abandon their building projects altogether, radically reduced wages. But he kept on because he must, going from one railroad to another to obtain work. There was too much at stake to give up.

To this man whose plot of ground back home in Italy had been so small, the American West, through which the railroads were slowly pushing their way, was an almost incredible miracle of nature. So much land waiting to be cultivated, so many wide rivers to be bridged and navigated, such high timber to be cut. His back ached until he could not sleep in his rough bunk at night; his hands blistered and bled and then became as tough as leather; the prairie sun burned his bare shoulders; the dust storms blinded his eyes; Indians and buffaloes made trouble. But this was America. He was helping to build it. And thousands of miles and a many weeks’ journey away, his wife was waiting for the word to join him in this land of promise. So, day after day he squared his aching shoulders and dug his pick and shovel with dogged determination into the rock and soil of his adopted country.

Many of this earliest generation of Italians, and thousands who came later, sacrificed their health and even their lives in the building of America, a sacrifice for which most of them received little material reward or appreciation either from the writers of history or from succeeding generations who benefited from their labors. Many of this first generation returned to Italy as poor as they had left it, or remained here to live in the fast-growing slums. The death rate among them, chiefly from tuberculosis, was high.

And much more than physical strength was involved in the early Italians’ contribution to America. Everything dear to them was far away, and they were exploited economically, as well as physically. Only their indomitable courage, their high hopes for the future, and their faith in this new country, now their country, kept them going.

After six years of such work, coupled with very frugal living, the day came when he walked to a neighboring post office in downtown Manhattan as casually, to those who passed him on the streets, as if his entire world were not about to change, a fact which he himself could hardly believe. The wait for his family had been so much longer than he had anticipated on the day that he had bade them good-by in Rocca Nova. But now it was here, and in his pocket was all the money he had, a small fortune according to his standards, earned with his pick and shovel. It was the price of his wife’s passage to America. And although this left him with nothing in reserve, there were other forms of security for the future of his family. In six years he had travelled thousands of miles across America, most of the time by handcar on newly laid railroad tracks. He knew his country much more intimately now than many more prominent New Yorkers, who lived in beautiful homes around Madison Square, far from the foreign quarters of downtown Manhattan. He had physical strength and the will to work, and the confidence that comes from knowing one’s way around and where the jobs are to be found. The nation-wide railroad strikes of the previous year, 1877, were over, and conditions looked brighter to an optimistic youth planning for the future. He was ready, now, to establish his family in America.

Meantime, my mother had waited in Rocca Nova, busy at her loom and with a growing son, but hoping with each letter from America that her husband was sending for her to join him. Of his life there she knew little. Her husband’s fingers were less skillful with the pen than with his tools, and the brief notes that accompanied the small sums of money that he sent from time to time were confined to the bare facts of his health and his work. But when the long-awaited message finally came, she was ready. In the small village, where room for expansion was very limited, there was a ready market for her sturdy home, and she sold it immediately. A sister’s husband had also gone to America, and now the two young women made plans to go to their husbands together. There was little to pack, for not much could be carried on small donkeys over mountain roads.

On the beautiful summer day of their departure, everybody in the village came to say good-by. Their leaving was an event, for these were the first women to go from Rocca Nova to America. They were, in fact, among the first women to migrate from Italy to other countries.

When once I asked the agent of a notorious Fourth Ward alley how many people might be living in it I was told: One hundred and forty families, one hundred Irish, thirty-eight Italian, and two that spoke the German tongue. Barring the agent herself, there was not a native-born individual in the court. The answer was characteristic of the cosmopolitan character of lower New York, very nearly so of the whole of it, wherever it runs to alleys and courts. One may find for the asking an Italian, a German, a French, African, Spanish, Bohemian, Russian, Scandinavian, Jewish, and Chinese colony. Even the Arab, who peddles “holy earth” from the Battery as a direct importation from Jerusalem, has his exclusive preserves at the lower end of Washington Street. The one thing you shall vainly ask for in the chief city of America is a distinctively American community. There is none; certainly not among the tenements. Where have they gone to, the old inhabitants? I put the question to one who might fairly be presumed to be of the number, since I had found him sighing for the “good old days” when the legend “no Irish need apply” was familiar in the advertising columns of the newspapers. He looked at me with a puzzled air. “I don’t know,” he said. “I wish I did. Some went to California in ’49, some to the war and never came back. The rest, I expect, have gone to heaven, or somewhere. I don’t see them ’round here.”

Whatever the merit of the good man’s conjectures, his eyes did not deceive him. They are not here. In their place has come this queer conglomerate mass of heterogeneous elements, ever striving and working like whiskey and water in one glass, and with the like result: final union and a prevailing taint of whiskey. The once unwelcome Irishman has been followed in his turn by the Italian, the Russian Jew, and the Chinaman, and has himself taken a hand at opposition, quite as bitter and quite as ineffectual, against these later hordes. Wherever these have gone they have crowded him out, possessing the block, the street, the ward with their denser swarms. But the Irishman’s revenge is complete. Victorious in defeat over his recent as over his more ancient foe, the one who opposed his coming no less than the one who drove him out, he dictates to both their politics, and, secure in possession of the offices, returns the native his greeting with interest, while collecting the rents of the Italian whose house he has bought with the profits of his saloon. As a landlord he is picturesquely autocratic. An amusing instance of his methods came under my notice while writing these lines. An inspector of the Health Department found an Italian family paying a man with a Celtic name twenty-five dollars a month for three small rooms in a ramshackle rear tenement—more than twice what they were worth—and expressed his astonishment to the tenant, an ignorant Sicilian laborer. He replied that he had once asked the landlord to reduce the rent, but he would not do it.

“Well! What did he say?” asked the inspector.

“‘Damma, man!’ he said; ‘if you speaka thata way to me, I fira you and your things in the streeta.’” And the frightened Italian paid the rent.

In justice to the Irish landlord it must be said that like an apt pupil he was merely showing forth the result of the schooling he had received, re-enacting, in his own way, the scheme of the tenements. It is only his frankness that shocks. The Irishman does not naturally take kindly to tenement life, though with characteristic versatility he adapts himself to its conditions at once. It does violence, nevertheless, to the best that is in him, and for that very reason of all who come within its sphere soonest corrupts him. The result is a sediment, the product of more than a generation in the city’s slums, that, as distinguished from the larger body of his class, justly ranks at the foot of tenement dwellers, the so-called “low Irish.”

It is not to be assumed, of course, that the whole body of the population living in the tenements, of which New Yorkers are in the habit of speaking vaguely as “the poor,” or even the larger part of it, is to be classed as vicious or as poor in the sense of verging on beggary.

New York’s wage-earners have no other place to live, more is the pity. They are truly poor for having no better homes; waxing poorer in purse as the exorbitant rents to which they are tied, as ever was serf to soil, keep rising. The wonder is that they are not all corrupted, and speedily, by their surroundings. If, on the contrary, there be a steady working up, if not out of the slough, the fact is a powerful argument for the optimist’s belief that the world is, after all, growing better, not worse, and would go far toward disarming apprehension, were it not for the steadier growth of the sediment of the slums and its constant menace. Such an impulse toward better things there certainly is. The German rag-picker of thirty years ago, quite as low in the scale as his Italian successor, is the thrifty tradesman or prosperous farmer of to-day.

The Italian scavenger of our time is fast graduating into exclusive control of the corner fruit-stands, while his blackeyed boy monopolizes the boot-blacking industry in which a few years ago he was an intruder. The Irish hod-carrier in the second generation has become a bricklayer, if not the Alderman of his ward, while the Chinese coolie is in almost exclusive possession of the laundry business. The reason is obvious. The poorest immigrant comes here with the purpose and ambition to better himself and, given half a chance, might be reasonably expected to make the most of it. To the false plea that he prefers the squalid houses in which his kind are housed there could be no better answer. The truth is, his half chance has too long been wanting, and for the bad result he has been unjustly blamed.

As emigration from east to west follows the latitude, so does the foreign influx in New York distribute itself along certain well-defined lines that waver and break only under the stronger pressure of a more gregarious race or the encroachments of inexorable business. A feeling of dependence upon mutual effort, natural to strangers in a strange land, unacquainted with its language and customs, sufficiently accounts for this.

The Irishman is the true cosmopolitan immigrant. All-pervading, he shares his lodging with perfect impartiality with the Italian, the Greek, and the “Dutchman,” yielding only to sheer force of numbers, and objects equally to them all. A map of the city, colored to designate nationalities, would show more stripes than on the skin of a zebra, and more colors than any rainbow. The city on such a map would fall into two great halves, green for the Irish prevailing in the West Side tenement districts, and blue for the Germans on the East Side. But intermingled with these ground colors would be an odd variety of tints that would give the whole the appearance of an extraordinary crazy-quilt. From down in the Sixth Ward, upon the site of the old Collect Pond that in the days of the fathers drained the hills which are no more, the red of the Italian would be seen forcing its way northward along the line of Mulberry Street to the quarter of the French purple on Bleecker Street and

South Fifth Avenue, to lose itself and reappear, after a lapse of miles, in the “Little Italy” of Harlem, east of Second Avenue. Dashes of red, sharply defined, would be seen strung through the Annexed District, northward to the city line. On the West Side the red would be seen overrunning the old Africa of Thompson Street, pushing the black of the negro rapidly uptown, against querulous but unavailing protests, occupying his home, his church, his trade and all, with merciless impartiality. There is a church in Mulberry Street that has stood for two generations as a sort of milestone of these migrations. Built originally for the worship of staid New Yorkers of the “old stock,” it was engulfed by the colored tide, when the draft-riots drove the negroes out of reach of Cherry Street and the Five Points. Within the past decade the advance wave of the Italian onset reached it, and to-day the arms of United Italy adorn its front. The negroes have made a stand at several points along Seventh and Eighth Avenues; but their main body, still pursued by the Italian foe, is on the march yet, and the black mark will be found overshadowing to-day many blocks on the East Side, with One Hundredth Street as the centre, where colonies of them have settled recently.

Hardly less aggressive than the Italian, the Russian and Polish Jew, having over run the district between Rivington and Division Streets, east of the Bowery, to the point of suffocation, is filling the tenements of the old Seventh Ward to the river front, and disputing with the Italian every foot of available space in the back alleys of Mulberry Street. The two races, differing hopelessly in much, have this in common: they carry their slums with them wherever they go, if allowed to do it. Little Italy already rivals its parent, the “Bend,” in foulness. Other nationalities that begin at the bottom make a fresh start when crowded up the ladder. Happily both are manageable, the one by rabbinical, the other by the civil law. Between the dull gray of the Jew, his favorite color, and the Italian red, would be seen squeezed in on the map a sharp streak of yellow, marking the narrow boundaries of Chinatown. Dovetailed in with the German population, the poor but thrifty Bohemian might be picked out by the sombre hue of his life as of his philosophy, struggling against heavy odds in the big human bee-hives of the East Side. Colonies of his people extend northward, with long lapses of space, from below the Cooper Institute more than three miles. The Bohemian is the only foreigner with any considerable representation in the city who counts no wealthy man of his race, none who has not to work hard for a living, or has got beyond the reach of the tenement.

Down near the Battery the West Side emerald would be soiled by a dirty stain, spreading rapidly like a splash of ink on a sheet of blotting paper, headquarters of the Arab tribe, that in a single year has swelled from the original dozen to twelve hundred, intent, every mother’s son, on trade and barter. Dots and dashes of color here and there would show where the Finnish sailors worship their djumala (God), the Greek pedlars the ancient name of their race, and the Swiss the goddess of thrift. And so on to the end of the long register, all toiling together in the galling fetters of the tenement. Were the question raised who makes the most of life thus mortgaged, who resists most stubbornly its levelling tendency—knows how to drag even the barracks upward a part of the way at least toward the ideal plane of the home—the palm must be unhesitatingly awarded the Teuton. The Italian and the poor Jew rise only by compulsion. The Chinaman does not rise at all; here, as at home, he simply remains stationary. The Irishman’s genius runs to public affairs rather than domestic life; wherever he is mustered in force the saloon is the gorgeous centre of political activity. The German struggles vainly to learn his trick; his Teutonic wit is too heavy, and the political ladder he raises from his saloon usually too short or too clumsy to reach the desired goal. The best part of his life is lived at home, and he makes himself a home independent of the surroundings, giving the lie to the saying, unhappily become a maxim of social truth, that pauperism and drunkenness naturally grow in the tenements. He makes the most of his tenement, and it should be added that whenever and as soon as he can save up money enough, he gets out and never crosses the threshold of one again.

Evil as the part is which the tenement plays in Jewtown as the pretext for circumventing the law that was made to benefit and relieve the tenant, we have not far to go to find it in even a worse role. If the tenement is here continually dragged into the eye of public condemnation and scorn, it is because in one way or another it is found directly responsible for, or intimately associated with, three-fourths of the miseries of the poor. In the Bohemian quarter it is made the vehicle for enforcing upon-a proud race a slavery as real as any that ever disgraced the South. Not content with simply robbing the tenant, the owner, in the dual capacity of landlord and employer, reduces him to virtual serfdom by marking his becoming his tenant, on such terms as he sees fit to make, the condition of employment at wages likewise of his own making. It does not help the case that this landlord employer, almost always a Jew, is frequently of the thrifty Polish race just described. …

Probably more than half of all the Bohemians in this city are cigarmakers, and it is the herding of these in great numbers in the so-called tenement factories, where the cheapest grade of work is done at the lowest wages, that constitutes at once their greatest hardship and the chief grudge of other workmen against them. The manufacturer who owns, say, from three or four, to a dozen or more tenements contiguous to his shop, fills them up with these people, charging them outrageous rents, and demanding often even a preliminary deposit of five dollars “key money;” deals them out tobacco by the week, and devotes the rest of his energies to the paring down of wages to within a peg or two of the point where the tenant rebels in desperation. … When he does rebel, he is given the alternative of submission, or eviction with entire loss of employment. His needs determine the issue. Usually he is not in a position to hesitate long. Unlike the Polish Jew, whose example of untiring industry he emulates, he has seldom much laid up against a rainy day. He is fond of a glass of beer, and likes to live as well as his means will permit. The shop triumphs, and fetters more galling than ever are forged for the tenant. In the opposite case, the newspapers have to record the throwing upon the street of a small army of people, with pitiful cases of destitution and family misery.

Men, women and children work together seven days in the week in these cheerless tenements to make a living for the family, from the break of day till far into the night. Often the wife is the original cigarmaker from the old home, the husband having adopted her trade here as a matter of necessity, because, knowing no word of English, he could get no other work. As they state the cause of the bitter hostility of the trades unions, she was the primary bone of contention in the day of the early Bohemian immigration. The unions refused to admit the women, and, as the support of the family depended upon her to a large extent, such terms as were offered had to be accepted. The manufacturer has ever since industriously fanned the antagonism between the unions and his hands, for his own advantage. The victory rests with him, since the Court of Appeals decided that the law, passed a few years ago, to prohibit cigarmaking in tenements was unconstitutional, and thus put an end to the struggle. While it lasted, all sorts of frightful stories were told of the shocking conditions under which people lived and worked in these tenements, from a sanitary point of view especially, and a general impression survives to this day that they are particularly desperate. The Board of Health, after a careful canvass, did not find them so then. I am satisfied from personal inspection, at a much later day, guided in a number of instances by the union cigarmakers themselves to the tenements which they considered the worst, that the accounts were greatly exaggerated. Doubtless the people are poor, in many cases very poor; but they are not uncleanly, rather the reverse; they live much better than the clothing-makers in the Tenth Ward, and in spite of their sallow look, that may be due to the all-pervading smell of tobacco, they do not appear to be less healthy than other indoor workers. I found on my tours of investigation several cases of consumption, of which one at least was said by the doctor to be due to the constant inhalation of tobacco fumes. But an examination of the death records in the Health Department does not support the claim that the Bohemian cigarmakers are peculiarly prone to that disease. On the contrary, the Bohemian percentage of deaths from consumption appears quite low. This, however, is a line of scientific inquiry which I leave others to pursue, along with the more involved problem whether the falling off in the number of children, sometimes quite noticeable in the Bohemian settlements, is, as has been suggested, dependent upon the character of the parents’ work. The sore grievances I found were the miserable wages and the enormous rents exacted for the minimum of accommodation. And surely these stand for enough of suffering.

Fifty, even thirty years ago, there was a rightful presumption regarding the average immigrant that he was among the most enterprising, thrifty, alert, adventurous, and courageous of the community from which he came. It required no small energy, prudence, forethought, and pains to conduct the inquiries relating to his migration, to accumulate the necessary means, and to find his way across the Atlantic. To-day the presumption is completely reversed. So thoroughly has the continent of Europe been crossed by railways, so effectively has the business of emigration there been exploited, so much have the rates of railroad fares and ocean passage been reduced, that it is now among the least thrifty and prosperous members of any European community that the emigration agent finds his best recruiting-ground. The care and pains required have been reduced to a minimum; while the agent of the Red Star Line or the White Star Line is everywhere at hand, to suggest migration to those who are not getting on well at home. The intending emigrants are looked after from the moment they are locked into the cars in their native villages until they stretch themselves upon the floors of the buildings on Ellis Island, in New York. Illustrations of the ease and facility with which this Pipe Line Immigration is now carried on might be given in profusion. So broad and smooth is the channel, there is no reason why every foul and stagnant pool of population in Europe, which no breath of intellectual or industrial life has stirred for ages, should not be decanted upon our soil. Hard times here may momentarily check the flow; but it will not be permanently stopped so long as any difference of economic level exists between our population and that of the most degraded communities abroad.

But it is not alone that the presumption regarding the immigrant of to-day is so widely different from that which existed regarding the immigrant of thirty or fifty years ago. The immigrant of the former time came almost exclusively from western and northern Europe. We have now tapped great reservoirs of population then almost unknown to the passenger lists of our arriving vessels. Only a short time ago, the immigrants from southern Italy, Hungary, Austria, and Russia together made up hardly more than one per cent of our immigration. To-day the proportion has risen to something like forty per cent, and threatens soon to become fifty or sixty per cent, or even more. The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains.

Their habits of life, again, are of the most revolting kind. Read the description given by Mr. Riis of the police driving from the garbage dumps the miserable beings who try to burrow in those depths of unutterable filth and slime in order that they may eat and sleep there! Was it in cement like this that the foundations of our republic were laid? What effects must be produced upon our social standards, and upon the ambitions and aspirations of our people, by a content so foul and loathsome? The influence upon the American rate of wages of a competition like this cannot fail to be injurious and even disastrous. Already it has been seriously felt in the tobacco manufacture, in the clothing-trade, and in many forms of mining industry; and unless this access of vast numbers of unskilled workmen of the lowest type, in a market already fully supplied with labor, shall be checked, it cannot fail to go on from bad to worse, in breaking down the standard which has been maintained with so much care and at so much cost. The competition of paupers is far more telling and more killing than the competition of pauper-made goods. Degraded labor in the slums of foreign cities may be prejudicial to intelligent, ambitious, self-respecting labor here; but it does not threaten half so much evil as does degraded labor in the garrets of our native cities. …

For it is never to be forgotten that self-defense is the first law of nature and of nations. If that man who careth not for his own household is worse than an infidel, the nation which permits its institutions to be endangered by any cause which can fairly be removed is guilty not less in Christian than in natural law. Charity begins at home; and while the people of the United States have gladly offered an asylum to millions upon millions of the distressed and unfortunate of other lands and climes, they have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril. All the good the United States could do by offering indiscriminate hospitality to a few millions more of European peasants, whose places at home will, within another generation, be filled by others as miserable as themselves, would not compensate for any permanent injury done to our republic. Our highest duty to charity and to humanity is to make this great experiment, here, of free laws and educated labor, the most triumphant success that can possibly be attained. In this way we shall do far more for Europe than by allowing its city slums and its vast stagnant reservoirs of degraded peasantry to be drained off upon our soil. Within the decade between 1880 and 1890 five and a quarter millions of foreigners entered our ports! No nation in human history ever undertook to deal with such masses of alien population. That man must be a sentimentalist and an optimist beyond all bounds of reason who believes that we can take such a load upon the national stomach without a failure of assimilation, and without great danger to the health and life of the nation. For one, I believe it is time that we should take a rest, and give our social, political, and industrial system some chance to recuperate. The problems which so sternly confront us to-day are serious enough without being complicated and aggravated by the addition of some millions of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, south Italians, and Russian Jews.

The following two statements by Queen Liliuokalani to American minister James H. Blount protested the “revolution” of Hawaii by haole (white) sugar interests that desired annexation to the United States. Arriving in Hawaii in 1893, Blount listened to both annexationists and restorationists and concluded that the Hawaiian people sided with the queen. He also concluded that the overthrow of Liliuokalani was illegal and advised President Cleveland to restore the queen. The crown was offered back to the queen on the condition that she pardon those who had dethroned her. Initially refusing to do so, she soon changed her mind and offered clemency, but the delay compromised her political position. In the meantime Congress debated the Hawaiian revolution. On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii with Sanford B. Dole as president was proclaimed and recognized immediately by the United States government.

That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu, and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.

Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo (?) the action of its representative, and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.

Done at Honolulu this seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893.

Happily Providence ordered otherwise than as was expected by the revolutionists. Man proposes and God disposes. My commissioners arrived in time to stay the progress of the treaty. The members of the Senate became doubtful as to the correctness of the actions of the commissioners of the Provisional Government.

President Harrison’s term expired. President Cleveland’s first act has been to withdraw that annexation treaty; the second, to send a commissioner to investigate the situation in Hawaii Nei.

Your arrival in this country has brought relief to our people and your presence safety. There is no doubt but that the Provisional Government would have carried out extreme measures toward myself and my people, as you may have already seen ere this, by their unjust actions. If the President had been indifferent to my petitions, I am certain it would have brought serious results to myself and tyranny to my subjects. In this I recognize the high sense of justice and honor in the person who is ruler of the American nation.

In making out this lengthy statement I will present the main points:

(1) That it has been a project of many years on the part of the missionary element that their children might some day be rulers over these Islands, and have the control and power in their own hands, as was the case after the revolution of 1887. Mr. W. W. Hall openly stated that they had planned for this for twelve years. It was a long-thought-of project, a dream of many years. So also said Mr. F. S. Lyman of Hilo, in his speech to the people in the month of January. He said, “Fifteen long years we have prayed for this, and now our prayers are heard.”

The disposition of those appointed to positions of authority, to act with the missionary element, tends to make the government unstable; and because they found I could not easily be led by them, they do not like me.

(2) The interference of the American minister, J. L. Stevens, in our local affairs, and conspiring with a few foreign people to overthrow me and annex these Islands to the United States, and by his actions, has placed me and my people in this unhappy position.

(3) My attempt to promulgate a new constitution. It was in answer to the prayers and petitions of my people. They had sent petitions to the late king, and to the legislature ever since 1887.

The legislature is the proper course by which a new constitution or any amendments to the constitution could be made; that is the law. But when members are bribed and the legislature corrupted, how can one depend on any good measure being carried by the House? It is simply impossible. That method was tried and failed. There was only one recourse; and that was, that with the signature of one of the cabinet I could make a new constitution.

There is no clause in the constitution of 1887, to which I took my oath to maintain, stating “that there should be no other constitution but this”; and article 78 reads that

“Wheresoever by this constitution any act is to be done or performed by the king or sovereign it shall, unless otherwise expressed, mean that such act shall be done and performed by the sovereign by and with the advice and consent of the cabinet.”

The last clause of the forty-first article of the constitution reads:

“No acts of the king shall have any effect unless it be countersigned by a member of the cabinet, who by that signature makes himself responsible.”

My cabinet encouraged me, then afterwards advised me to the contrary. In yielding to their protest I claim I have not committed any unconstitutional or revolutionary act; and having withdrawn, why should the reform party have gone on making preparations for war, as they did?

(4) That on the afternoon of the 16th of January, at five p.m., the United States troops were landed to support the conspirators, by orders of the United States minister, J. L. Stevens.

That on Tuesday, the 17th of January, 1893, at about two thirty o’clock p.m., the Provisional Government was proclaimed, and Minister Stevens assured my cabinet that he recognized that Government; and that at six p.m. of the same day I yielded my authority to the superior force of the United States.

We have been waiting patiently, and will still wait, until such time as the Government of the United States, on the facts presented to it, shall undo the act of its representative.

I hope and pray that the United States and her President will see that justice is done to my people and to myself; that they will not recognize the treaty of annexation, and that it may forever be laid aside; that they will restore to me and my nation all the rights that have been taken away by the action of her minister; that we may be permitted to continue to maintain our independent stand amongst the civilized nations of the world as in years gone by; that your great nation will continue those kind and friendly relations that have always existed for many years past between the two countries. I can assure you that Hawaii and her people have no other sentiment toward America and her President than one of the kindest regard.

The Provisional Government, instead of being under the guidance of the president and cabinet, as the responsible heads of the nation, are virtually led by irresponsible people, who compose the advisory councils and “provisional army,” and who set the laws of the land at defiance. A continuation of this state of things I consider dangerous to life and to the community.

I pray, therefore, that this unsatisfactory state of things may not continue, and that we may not suffer further waste, that justice may be speedily granted, and that peace and quiet may once more reign over our land, Hawaii Nei.

The immensity of this area of the earth’s surface is comprehended by but few.

The width and size of North Pacific is so great that no naval vessel in existence can carry coal enough to cross the Pacific from any of the existing or possible foreign naval stations, to the Pacific coast of the United States, operate there and return, without recoaling. A modern battleship without coal is like a caged lion—magnificent but harmless.

One of the first principles in naval warfare is, that an operating fleet must have a base of supply and repair.

Any country in possession of Hawaii would possess a base of operations within four or five days steaming distance of any part of the Pacific Coast.

Without the possession of Hawaii, all of the principal countries possessing interest in the Pacific, are so far away that the distance is practically prohibitory of hostile operations against the Pacific Coast.

The United States, in possession and control of Hawaii, will thereby, by simply keeping other nations out, afford almost absolute protection to her Pacific Coast and commerce from hostile naval attack. On the other hand, Hawaii, in possession of any foreign country, will be a standing menace against, not only the Pacific Coast, but against all of the Ocean-bound commerce to and from that Coast, and, all American commerce on or across the North Pacific.

The Importance of the relation of Hawaii to the commerce of the Pacific is demonstrated by the fact that of the seven trans-Pacific steamship lines plying between the North American Continent and Japan, China and Australia, all but one make Honolulu a way station.

Through causes unnecessary to discuss, the native race has decreased until there are now only thirty odd thousand of them remaining, constituting less than a third of the population of the country, and the decrease is continuing. The day when the aboriginal Hawaiian alone should own and control Hawaii has gone and gone forever. It is no longer a question of whether Hawaii shall be controlled by the native Hawaiian, or by some foreign people; but the question is, “What foreign people shall control Hawaii.” …

The awakening of Japan has introduced a new element into the politics of the world, and more especially of the Pacific. Until within a few years, emigration from Japan was prohibited. Japan has now reversed this policy, and emigration, particularly to Hawaii, is encouraged. So rapidly have the Japanese come to Hawaii that in 1896 they numbered twenty-five thousand; the adult Japanese males outnumbering those of any other nationality.

During the latter part of 1896 and the early part of 1897 they came in at the rate of 2000 a month. If this rate of immigration had continued for a year, they would have numbered one-half of the population of the entire country, and before the end of five years would have outnumbered all of the other inhabitants put together, two to one. The rate at which they were entering Hawaii, is, as compared with the population of the United States, as though a million Japanese a month were entering San Francisco. It has been well said that “this was not immigration but invasion.”

Hawaii has attempted to stay this invasion by adopting legislation against contract laborers and paupers, identical with that of the United States, and has thereby become involved in its present controversy with Japan, the latter country refusing to recognize the validity of such legislation and practically claiming the absolute right of emigration, by her people, to Hawaii.

Even though the Hawaiian legislation referred to is sustained, still immigrants who do not come within the terms of the restrictive legislation are free to enter Hawaii, to such an extent as will soon give Japan an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the country.

Under the existing constitution of Hawaii, the Japanese are not citizens and are ineligible to citizenship; but it goes without saying, that an energetic, ambitious, warlike, and progressive people like the Japanese can not indefinitely be prevented from participating in the government of a country in which they become dominant in numbers, and the ownership of property.

Already the Japanese in Hawaii are restless under the restrictions imposed upon them, and it needs no gift of prophecy to demonstrate that, with their growing wealth, commerce and numbers, it will be impossible for any local independent government in Hawaii to much longer withhold from them the full privileges which they demand.

Even though political privileges may for some time be with held from them, their commercial men are active and progressive and are rapidly establishing themselves in Hawaii.

Long experience has shown that in Hawaii, as elsewhere blood is thicker than water. …

The issue in Hawaii today, is the preliminary skirmish in the great coming struggle between the civilization and the awakening forces of the East and the civilization of the West. The issue is whether, in that inevitable struggle, Asia or America shall have the vantage ground of the control of the naval “Key of the Pacific,” the commercial “Crossroads of the Pacific.”

All that has held, and that is now holding, Hawaii for the United States, is the indomitable will and pluck of the men in Hawaii, of not only American, but of Hawaiian and European blood, who against heavy odds, are doing and will continue to do all that is within the bounds of possibility to prevent Hawaii from retrograding into an Asiatic outpost, and to hold the country to that destiny which American statesmen have for fifty years, regardless of party, outlined for it. But there is a limit to their strength, and if help from the great Republic is to come in time it must come soon. While the tendency of events in Hawaii is against American interests they have not progressed so far that they can not be arrested, if the United States will take radical action for its own protection. Annexation will accomplish such a result and nothing else will. A protectorate is suggested by some. The reasons why a protectorate will not meet the requirements of the case are given in full elsewhere herein. It is sufficient to say here that the alternative of “annexation or protectorate” has successively been presented to Presidents Pierce, Harrison, and McKinley, and Secretaries of State Marcy, Foster, and Sherman, in 1854, 1893 and 1897, and has each time been decided in favor of annexation; for the reason that a Protectorate imposes upon the United States responsibility without power to control; while Annexation imposes practically no more responsibility but is accompanied with the full powers of ownership. Under annexetion the United States prohibition of Chinese immigration will apply to Hawaii, and the new treaty with Japan gives the United States full power to control the emigration of laborers.

Published in McClure’s Magazine in February of 1899, Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” appeared at a critical juncture in the imperialism debate after the Spanish American War. Kipling argued that the United States had a moral duty to civilize and protect others from European colonizers. Critics quickly responded to the imperialists’ claims of noble duty with parodies of the poem, such as Bruce Grit’s “Why Talk of the White Man’s Burden?” While Grit’s poem focused on racial inequality at home, other responses also examined gender inequality, the “burden” of imperialism on the working people of the United States, and new warfare in the Philippines.

I may be in error, but in my judgment our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea—the colonial idea of European nations. Heretofore greed has perverted the government and used its instrumentalities for private gains, but now the very foundation principles of our government are assaulted. Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a colonial policy, such as is now pursued by European countries, or it must abandon the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

To borrow a Bible quotation, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Paraphrasing Lincoln’s declaration, I may add that this nation cannot endure half republic and half colony—half free and half vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest.

Jefferson has been quoted in support of imperialism, but our opponents must distinguish between imperialism and expansion; they must also distinguish between expansion in the western hemisphere and an expansion that involves us in the quarrels of Europe and the Orient. They must still further distinguish between expansion which secures contiguous territory for future settlement, and expansion which secures us alien races for future subjugation.

Jefferson favored the annexation of necessary contiguous territory on the North American continent, but he was opposed to wars of conquest and expressly condemned the acquiring of remote territory.

Some think that the fight should be made against ratification of the treaty, but I would prefer another plan. If the treaty is rejected, negotiations must be renewed and instead of settling the question according to our ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with the possibility of international complications. It will be easier, I think, to end the war at once by ratifying the treaty and then deal with the subject in our own way. The issue can be presented directly by a resolution of Congress declaring the policy of the nation upon this subject. The President in his message says that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba is to establish a stable government and then turn that government over to the people of Cuba. Congress could reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba and assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Such a resolution would make a clear-cut issue between the doctrine of self-government and the doctrine of imperialism. We should reserve a harbor and coaling station in Puerto Rico and the Philippines in return for services rendered and I think we would be justified in asking the same concession from Cuba.

In the case of Puerto Rico, where the people have as yet expressed no desire for an independent government, we might with propriety declare our willingness to annex the island if the citizens desire annexation, but the Philippines are too far away and their people too different from ours to be annexed to the United States, even if they desired it.

When the United States declared war on Spain in 1898, Philippine nationalists led by Emilio Aguinaldo had already militarily defeated the Spanish in the Philippines and planned their independence. On January 1, 1899, a constitutional convention proclaimed an independent Philippine Republic with Emilio Aguinaldo its president. But the United States refused to recognize Aguinaldo’s authority, and on February 4, 1899, Aguinaldo declared war on U.S. forces in the islands, thus beginning the Philippine American War. After his capture on March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo swore allegiance to the United States and left public life. In the following proclamation of February 5, 1899, Aguinaldo hoped to rally the Philippine people to support fighting a war for independence.

In my manifest of January 8 last I published the grievances suffered by the Philippine forces at the hands of the army of occupation. The constant outrages and taunts, which have caused the misery of the people of Manila, and, finally the useless conferences and the contempt shown the Philippine government prove the premeditated transgression of justice and liberty.

I know that war has always produced great losses; I know that the Philippine people have not yet recovered from past losses and are not in the condition to endure others. But I also know by experience how bitter is slavery, and by experience I know that we should sacrifice all on the altar of our honor and of the national integrity so unjustly attacked.

I have tried to avoid, as far as it has been possible for me to do so, armed conflict, in my endeavors to assure our independence by pacific means and to avoid more costly sacrifices. But all my efforts have been useless against the measureless pride of the American Government and of its representatives in these islands, who have treated me as a rebel because I defend the sacred interests of my country and do not make myself an instrument of their dastardly intentions.

Past campaigns will have convinced you that the people are strong when they wish to be so. Without arms we have driven from our beloved country our ancient masters, and without arms we can repulse the foreign invasion as long as we wish to do so. Providence always has means in reserve and prompt help for the weak in order that they may not be annihilated by the strong; that justice may be done and humanity progress.

Be not discouraged. Our independence has been watered by the generous blood of our martyrs. Blood which may be shed in the future will strengthen it. Nature has never despised generous sacrifices.

But remember that in order that our efforts may not be wasted, that our vows may be listened to, that our ends may be gained, it is indispensable that we adjust our actions to the rules of law and of right, learning to triumph over our enemies and to conquer our own evil passions.

A writer in Education for January asks several pertinent questions relative to the application of the phrase “consent of the governed” in American history. It is now charged by the “anti-imperialists” that the present administration at Washington is subverting our form of government in so far as it attempts to administer the Philippines without first obtaining the consent of the inhabitants. This leads the writer in Education to ask what was the actual meaning of the fathers when they laid down this famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence.

“In the year 1776 there were probably not exceeding 3,000,000 people inhabiting the thirteen British colonies, now the seaboard Atlantic States. Of these nearly 500,000 were negro slaves; 1,500,000 were of the female sex. Nearly one-third were minors, from the cradle to twenty-one; and several hundred thousand Indians inhabited the Western wilds, afterward brought under the new Government of the United States. How many of these people were referred to in this formula that ‘government derives its authority from the consent of the governed’? Were the negro slaves canvassed and their consent obtained to their condition of slavery? Were the Indians, who afterward by relentless war were swept in a body from the Atlantic slope to the unsettled wilderness beyond the Mississippi? Has there been, until today, any real opportunity given the 1,500,000, at present 35,000,000, of the female sex to ascertain their opinion concerning the laws under which they live? Has Young America from the age of fifteen to twenty-one, beyond question more intelligent in all matters pertaining to government than half the people now living in the world, including the vast majority of the Oriental peoples, been thus canvassed and its consent obtained? There can be no doubt that at the time of the Declaration of Independence a large body—perhaps a fourth, a third, possibly a half—of the men in these colonies were opposed to the revolt against the mother country. Was their ‘consent’ obtained, either during the war or at the formation of the national Government? What proportion of the mature white men in these colonies, at the time they one by one accepted the Constitution of the United States, were legal voters, and in how many of these new States was there a property or other discriminating qualification for suffrage? The reply to questions like these brings us down to the hard fact that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Monroe, all ‘fathers’ and participants in the great Declaration, were elected to the Presidency by what would to-day be regarded an insignificant minority of the white men of mature age.

“Our Government originally made no pretense of obtaining the legal consent of any save a majority of the legal white voters, and that majority to-day is expanded to a plurality. Indeed, no attempt was ever made at national life to carry into practical application this formula of the Declaration, either in regard to races of people adjudged incompetent for self-government or classes like women or minors. The body of people, always the minority, which has decided the vital question of incompetency in our country, like every other, has always been a working majority of the more intelligent, forceful, and generally competent men of the ruling race. The only attempt at a republic founded practically on the consent of the masses was seen during a few months in the French Revolution, when an infuriated populace attempted to secure unanimity and ‘consent’ by destroying all opponents to ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’; the result being a reaction to the military despotism of Napoleon I.

“There is doubtless a sense in which this Jeffersonian formula has a profound meaning; that it is the moral obligation of every nation to educate the lower orders of mankind in the direction of self-government, and extend full citizenship as fast and as far as the safety of society will permit. In our own country, at home, that limit even as far as the male sex is concerned would seem to be already reached, both in regard to great multitudes of European immigrants in the North and of the freedmen of the South. The proposition that the holding of a colony of people in the condition of millions of the Oriental races, with the ultimate object of their uplift through all the opportunities of modern Christian civilization, is a departure from the American republican order of society and government or from the American ideal in any way it can he applied in the present condition of mankind, so marked and violent as to threaten a radical change in the national life, when analyzed is so absolutely visionary that it can be only accounted for by the loose habit of thought and indifference to the facts of human nature and life which are in themselves to-day the greatest peril of the republic.”