am delegated by him to state that he fully approves of the same in all respects; that the commands of our Government compel us to act as herein indicated, and that between our respective forces there will be unanimity and complete concert of action.

Now, this is Otis's report, from which I read:

On September 13 a commission sent by Aguinaldo and consisting of three members, one of whom was the treasurer and another the attorney-general of the insurgent government, called for the purpose of discussing the subject of my letter of the 8th. They asked me to withdraw it and simply request in writing that the insurgent troops retire to the line designated by General Merritt, which I refused to do, stating that unless they withdrew as directed we would be obliged to resort to force.

Pretty talk, is it not, toward an ally who was fighting with us? If this Administration had a spark of honor when they sent General Merritt there they would have told the whole truth in his instructions to the insurgents, would have told them that they had nothing to expect but slavery at their hands, instead of still parading as their friends.

They then asked that I withdraw the letter and issue a request unaccompanied by any threat to use force, as Aguinaldo was fearful that he would be unable to remove his troops upon a demand, to which I replied that the letter of the 8th instant would stand. They then said that as the demands of that letter must remain unchanged, the insurgents would withdraw as directed therein, but that if I would express in writing a simple request to Aguinaldo to withdraw to the lines which I designated-something which he could show to the troops and induce them to think that he was simply acting upon a request from these headquarters-he would probably be able to retire his men without much difficulty; that, of course, they themselves understood the direction to withdraw, which he obeyed, and thereupon repeated their desire to obtain a note of request, whereupon I furnished them with the following.

Then comes a request simply to withdraw, designating the line, and this request was complied with.

Now we complain and the Administration justifies its commencement of the war upon these people because they were uneasy during this time; that threats were heard; that assertions were made that they had a right to independence. Aguinaldo issued a proclamation in answer to the President's

proclamation, declaring that he sought independence for his people.

Now, Mr. President, who did begin the war? Here is Otis's letter of the 8th of September, saying that he would resort to war if they did not surrender to him some of the territory which they had conquered from Spain. Here is the President's proclamation, saying, "If you do not surrender the islands on the 21st of December, I will wage war against you to the death."

What is more, it is well to inquire who fired the first shot. It appears that there was a town between the lines of the two armies, occupied by the forces of Aguinaldo—a town 150 yards in advance of the line of the American troops-and that Otis wished to obtain possession of it. He therefore entered into an agreement to have Aguinaldo withdraw his pickets. therefrom and retire to a greater distance.

This was done. On the night after this had been accomplished a patrol of the insurgents entered the abandoned town. A patrol is not a war party; a patrol is simply to pick up stragglers. They had occupied the place the night before, and they sent a patrol in the evening to see if any of their men had remained behind-if there were any stragglers in this village. We had occupied the place as a picket station, and when these Malays, who do not speak our language, came along, a Nebraska boy ordered them to halt, and they did not halt.

It is very strange, is it not, that the insurgents did not understand the Spanish or the Malay tongue of the Nebraska boy? He fired upon them and killed a lieutenant, and within a few minutes two or three more Filipinos were killed; and thus the war was begun. And who started it? We commenced it by the declaration of war on the part of our President, by every act of ours which indicated that we did not propose to give them their freedom. We inaugurated the conflict by killing the first man. But what does General Otis say about this? On page 92 of this report you will find the following statement:

It is not believed that the chief insurgent leaders wish to open hostilities at this time

It is not believed they wished to open hostilities. Let us see. On the same page he describes the battle of Manila:

The battle of Manila commenced at half past 8 o'clock on the evening of February 4 and continued until 5 o'clock the next evening.

The engagement was one strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents and of vigorous attack by our forces.

Here, then, Mr. President, is the killing of two or three or four Filipino soldiers who composed the patrol, which was not a war party, by a picket of ours; and then what? "The engagement was one strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents and of vigorous attack by our forces." Then we rushed upon their works, and the killing and destruction were well under way. We took their trenches and drove them back. And yet it is claimed by the President, in his proclamation, that the Filipinos struck a foul blow. Who really struck the foul blow? Who was guilty of duplicity? Who was guilty of deception through the whole of this miserable transaction?

General Otis conceals the rest of the facts. The report of General MacArthur is not here, but I have read the reports of various soldiers, for the South Dakota troops were along this line. I have talked with many of them, and there is no possible question but that we were first guilty of shedding blood; that we began the attack, and that we followed it up.

What occurred, Mr. President? General Rives, of Minnesota, who was in charge of the city of Manila at the time fighting commenced, in an interview said:

But I can tell you one piece of news that is not generally known in the United States. On Sunday, February 5, the day after the fighting began, General Torres, of the insurgents, came through our lines under a flag of truce and had a personal interview with General Otis, in which, speaking for Aguinaldo, he declared that the fighting had been begun accidentally and was not authorized by Aguinaldo; that Aguinaldo wished to have it stopped, and that to bring about a conclusion of hostilities he proposed the establishment of a neutral zone between the two armies of any width that would be agreeable to General Otis, so that during the peace negotiations there might be no further danger of conflicts between the two armies. To these representations of General Torres General Otis sternly replied that the fighting, having once begun, must go on to the grim end.

Now, Mr. President, under all these circumstances, I would like to know what more Aguinaldo could have done. What more could he have done than to continue to fight as long as resistance was possible? If I were a Filipino, I would fight until I was gray, if I were not killed before, against this unholy and infamous aggression.

I do not indorse the sentiment, Mr. President, of the Senator from Nevada, that having once commenced we must go on. That would compel him to join his brother if he found him stealing. That would compel him, if he found his comrades committing any crime, to join in the crime until it was consummated. If we are wrong, this Government can take no higher or grander position before the nations of the world than to acknowledge it.

My country, right or wrong, is a sentiment I indorse with this qualification: When right, to keep it right, and when wrong, to make it right. Neither do I confound the President with the Government. He is but our servant, and if he pursues a wrong course, if he precipitates us into a war unjustly and wrongfully and undertakes to override the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, then I am against him, and it is my privilege to attack his position.

I believe my country

I believe he is wrong in this contest. can only be great and grand by pursuing that honorable course which has marked our career in the past, and by exercising that powerful influence which we can exercise and have exercised all over the world since we became a nation, because of the honor and dignity of our course and the respect we have always maintained for the rights of others. We have reached the turning point.

Are we to abandon this grand history; are we to pursue a course of aggression and wrong, plunder and robbery, on the English principle that having once commenced we must continue to the end? What would we think of the greatest athlete of the world to-day in insisting that, having begun the

beating of a boy of 12, he should beat the boy to death in order to convince the world that he was strong.

Mr. President, if it takes more courage to do right than to do wrong, then the American people and the American nation should commence at once. Empire has been acquired before only to ruin the nation that started upon a career of conquest. Rome with her legions robbed the world. When the Roman Empire was founded most of the people owned 12 acres apiece-12 acres per family-indicating a dense rural population. But during the first century of the Christian era centralization had done its work; the lands had been absorbed by the usurer and gathered into vast estates, cultivated by tenants and often by slaves.

Spain once had an empire which covered almost the world. -greater than Rome or any other people ever acquired. Where is Spain to-day? No nation can pursue a course of wrong toward others and long preserve its own liberties. No nation can long give to its people happiness and prosperity, equality, necessary to the preservation of its institutions, when it proceeds to disregard the rights of other nations or plunder other men, no matter what the color of their skin.