William Jennings Bryan
英语课
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an early day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination 1 which you tender, and shall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democratic platform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations at this time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon the question which is declared to be of paramount 2 importance in this campaign.
When I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between Democracy on the one hand and plutocracy 3 on the other I do not mean to say that all our opponents have deliberately 4 chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that on the important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for the protection of the rights of man.
In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions today Republican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.
The maxim 5 of Jefferson, “equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine 6 of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” are being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the Government.
The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift 7. On the contrary, it gives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus 8 to honest toil 9 when it promises him protection in the enjoyment 10 of the proceeds of his labor 11. Property rights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy strives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits.
No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice 12 to him to prevent his doing injustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass 13 upon the rights of another the Democratic party says "Thou shalt not."
Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financially powerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them are associated a large number who, because of their attachment 15 to their party name, are giving their support to doctrines 16 antagonistic 17 to the former teachings of their own party.
Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselves that the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly 18 attached to the greenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of the nation's paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred 19 a trust now beguile 20 themselves with the delusion 21 that there are good trusts, and bad trusts, while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and more obscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon the small expense of our standing 22 army, are now making light of the objections which are urged against a large increase in the permanent military establishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nation was less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans who three years ago condemned 26 "forcible annexation 27" as immoral 28 and even criminal are now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That partisanship 31 has already blinded many to present dangers is certain; how large a portion of the Republican party can be drawn 32 over to the new policies remains 33 to be seen.
For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right to criticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation 34 they found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize a President during the progress of the Mexican war.
Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing 35 with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted a platform the larger part of which was devoted 36 to boasting and self-congratulation.
In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion 37 of those which involve the very structure of our government, the Republican leaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of their party and of their complete subserviency 38 to pecuniary 39 considerations.
But they shall not be permitted to evade 40 the stupendous and far-reaching issue which they have deliberately brought into the arena 41 of politics. When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots 42 of Cuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.
Although the Democrats 43 realized that the administration would necessarily gain a political advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of the case must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they gave to the president. When the war was over and the Republican leaders began to suggest the propriety 44 of a colonial policy opposition 45 at once manifested itself.
When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized the independence of Cuba, but provided for the cession 46 of the Philippine Islands to the United States, the menace of imperialism 47 became so apparent that many preferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of this country.
I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify 48 the treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures 50 and then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.
In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take this occasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment 51 of that purpose to diplomacy 52 with an unfriendly nation.
Lincoln embodied 53 an argument in the question when he asked, "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?" I believe that we are now in a better position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified 54 a clean-cut issue is presented between a government by consent and a government by force, and imperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question is settled.
If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have been held responsible for any international complications which might have arisen before the ratification 55 of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion may have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there never was any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is no difference now as to the course to be pursued.
The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinos according to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a month before hostilities 56 broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos on the same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption 57 prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would have ended hostilities.
If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsed before a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during that time the question would have been agitating 58 the public mind. If the Bacon resolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president, either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, it would have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the American people free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeated by the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this a republican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.
When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editors at once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification of the treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans have accused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion 60 of responsibility.
If it is right for the United States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently 61 and imitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican party ought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races to protest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.
The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared to censure 62 all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination, let them condemn 25 the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate 63 appeal, "Give me liberty or give me death," he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.
Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage 64. Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists 65 must choose between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute 66 of limitations has run again the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense 67 of popular government when the present advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.
Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it were possible to obliterate 69 every word written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth 71 in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy 72 of perpetual hatred 73, for it was God himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.
Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider, not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate 74 the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.
Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or its forts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.
Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism. Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to the Western Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. We have felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which our people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contest between human rights and arbitrary power.
Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles of Greece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent 75 expression to the universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested a lively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress in South Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical 76 idea, or in the triumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say a word in behalf of the Boers.
Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England; the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. This sympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in the principles of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers 77, the claims of monarchy 78. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestige and influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent 79 of popular government.
Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke 68 so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared: "If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." And again he said: "Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government."
The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs as much from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansion when expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land which can be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who are willing to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.
The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts 80 which have been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitution followed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distant territory already more densely 81 populated than our own country and to force upon the people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or our laws.
Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it and who have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked 82 to justify 83 the appropriation 84 of the Philippine Islands by the United States. If the islands were uninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil. The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried to colonize 85 in the same latitude 86. The Netherlands have controlled Java for three hundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people of European birth scattered 87 among the twenty-five million natives.
After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentieth of one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an army of seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain had asserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleet entered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in the Philippines.
A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a few traders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.
If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement 88. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation of the Philippine Islands will justify the seizure 89 of other islands and the domination of other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid, growth of our military establishment.
That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republican leaders is not a matter of conjecture 90, but a matter of fact. In his message of December 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standing army to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years the president asked for four times that many, and a Republican house of representatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had been signed, and when no country was at war with the United States.
If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated 91, but not openly avowed 92, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republican party by indorsing its policy at the polls?
A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory 93 service, a constant source of irritation 94, but it is ever a menace to a Republican form of government.
The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably 95 change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers.
A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia 96 are sufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the future as in the past place its dependence 23 upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their country's call and return to productive labor when their services are no longer required -- men who fight when the country needs fighters and work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the body politic 14 eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history that amalgamation 97 is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence 98 has been bold enough to advocate such a proposition.
The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratification of the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describes the situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipino cannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic can have no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force; he is unknown in a government derived 101 without consent and taxation 102 without representation.
The Republican platform says that "the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (the Filipinos) by law." This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes its very existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest against government without consent and taxation without representation. In what respect does the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by the English Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a good government to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to his people? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should have the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and English duties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanish duties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may be summed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what he believes to be a good government; in a republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to be a good government.
The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself upon the ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity of the people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.
The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is to be given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment 103 of congress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippine situation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islands wherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate 104 upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclose the radical 105 departure from history and precedent 106 contemplated by those who control the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the Puerto Rican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American people are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.
If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied the guarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resisted our authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain duty toward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this country where the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporations which are waiting to exploit the islands?
Is the sunlight of full citizenship 107 to be enjoyed by the people of the United States, and the twilight 108 of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage 109 covers the Philippines? The Puerto Rico tariff 110 law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution is confined to the forty-five states.
The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system of government for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treat millions of people as mere 111 "possessions" and deal with them unrestrained by the constitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have already departed from the ancient landmarks 112 and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a career of empire.
The territorial 113 form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizen of a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interests sacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied 114.
What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or by conquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people? If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Will the Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth is molded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness 115 of the Creator it becomes a fixture 116 and passes with the soil? If governments derive 100 their just powers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title to people, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spain's title by treaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with our ideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them to fight against Spain, we disputed Spain's title. If we buy Spain's title we are not innocent purchasers.
There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized 117 the services of the Filipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example of turpitude 118 baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke 119 for the Spanish yoke.
Let us consider briefly 120 the reasons which have been given in support of an imperialistic 121 policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain 122 what our duty is, in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avoid killing 123 a human being, no matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he belongs.
Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both the human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws to nations, it may not be out of place to quote the opinions of others. Jefferson, than whom there is no higher political authority, said:
"I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting 124 singly or collectively."
Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue 125 are a part of the priceless legacy bequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea in even stronger language when he said:
"Justice is strictly 126 due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders 127 in a gang as when single; and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."
Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined 128 by the number of those who join it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it was true, as declared in the resolutions of intervention 129, that the Cubans "are and of right ought to be free and independent" (language taken from the Declaration of Independence), it is equally true that the Filipinos "are and of right ought to be free and independent."
The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity 130 to the United States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race or races to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous vote declared that the principles enunciated 131 at Philadelphia in 1776 were still alive and applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to liberty and that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if the Filipinos "are and of right ought to be free and independent," what right have we to force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty can be ascertained 132 their rights must be determined, and when their rights are once determined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty of Spain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England to respect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties never clash. Can it be our duty to usurp 133 political rights which belong to others? Can it be our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it?
A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of the battle discovered that he had slain 134 his brother. It is written "All ye are brethren." Let us hope for the coming day when human life -- which when once destroyed cannot be restored -- will be so sacred that it will never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime already committed, or to prevent a crime about to be committed.
It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands. I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No obligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrines against which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in the Philippines or desire to trade there.
It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable 135 of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an official report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable of self-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relative advancement 136 of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people of South America to self-government said:
"It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Their partisans 30 assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannot command universal assent 137 to the proposition, it is then demanded to particular nations; and our pride and our presumption 138 too often make converts of us. I contend that it is to arraign 139 the disposition 140 of Providence 141 himself to suppose that he has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled 143 on by kings. Self-government is the natural government of man."
Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency 144 in the art of self-government, but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people the capacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right to seize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force -- brute 145 force -- the only foundation of government and invite the reign 24 of a despot. I am not willing to believe that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then left them thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention of European nations.
Republicans ask, "Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in the Philippines?" The same question might have been asked, when the American flag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery 146 owned by the United States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independence and self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bag government held in place by bayonets. The United States and Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as "benevolent 147 assimilation."
“Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend 148 the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate 149 results of it own conduct.
The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample 142 upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws of society and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul 150 the sentence, “The wages of sin is death.”
And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn 151 the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal 152 the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation 153 of human rights.
"Would we tread in the paths of tyranny,
Nor reckon the tyrant's cost?
Who taketh another's liberty
His freedom is also lost.
Would we win as the strong have ever won,
Make ready to pay the debt,
For the God who reigned 154 over Babylon
Is the God who is reigning 155 yet."
Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States and mock us for our inconsistency.
The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon a defense of imperialism are:
First- That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world power and enter into international politics.
Second- That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orient make it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.
Third- That the spread of the Christian 156 religion will be facilitated by a colonial policy.
Fourth- That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation has taken.
The first argument is addrest to the nation’s pride and the second to the nation’s pocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for the partisan 29.
It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potent 157 influence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated 158 others have been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty other have fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutions have been adopted.
The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made this nation conspicuous 159 among the nations and given it a place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onward 160 march of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the omnipotent 161 weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare 162. I would not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires that have risen and fallen since time began.
The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:
“We make no hypocritical pretense 163 of being interested in the Philippines solely 164 on account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean to stimulate 165 the expansion of our trade and open new markets.”
This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution were necessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels, Franklin replied:
"To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoever valuable, is an object for which men may justly spill each other's blood; that the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal to the expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider this war against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise."
I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid 166 doctrine of those who would put a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human blood.
But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity and such a concession 167 could have been secured at any time without difficulty.
It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on trade today with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.
When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.
Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors 168; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises 169, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed 170 here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring 171 man and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure 49 without return and risk without reward.
Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systems which place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of the expenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit from imperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.
In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboring man will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from the violence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are applied to our own government.
It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to note the approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism and imperialism.
The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religious argument. If what has been termed the “gunpowder gospel” were urged against the Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of the Filipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but the principle involved is one of much wider application and challenges serious consideration.
The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief that Providence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, to the exultation 172 of the minister who said that we ought to “thrash the natives (Filipinos) until they understand who we are,” and that “every bullet sent, every cannon 173 shot and every flag waved means righteousness.”
We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the American flag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon American soil.
If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize 174 with dynamite 175 and proselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ 70 or by evidence of a special dispensation.
Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” has no Gatling gun attachment. When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him, some of the disciples 176 suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven to avenge 177 the insult; but the Master rebuked 178 them and said: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Suppose he had said: “We will thrash them until they understand who we are,” how different would have been the history of Christianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying 179, brutal 180 doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary 181 recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.
Let it be known that our missionaries 182 are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation.
The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval 184 victory at Manila made the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound. We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.
The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make it imperative 185 that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shed at San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubans independence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flag floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down when the flag of the Cuban Republic is ready to rise in its place. Better a thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of an empire.
There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is set forth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to the American people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will convene 186 Congress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend an immediate 99 declaration of the nation’s purpose, first, to establish a stable form of government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos as we have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by the Monroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.
A European protectorate often results in the plundering 187 of the ward 59 by the guardian 188. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us in the war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitious designs of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part of us or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to give them independence and guard them against molestation 189 from without.
When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fall back upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, no matter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles of government. This is a complacent 190 philosophy. It obliterates 191 the distinction between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance.
Destiny is the subterfuge 192 of the invertebrate 193, who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible 194 excuse for supporting it. Washington said that the destiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked on the experiment entrusted 195 to the American people. How different Washington’s definition of destiny from the Republican definition!
The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washington believed that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of the republican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to American hands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the hands of its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope of humanity. No exterior 196 force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influence should be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for this nation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea of the nation’s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself to contribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully 183 discharge the debt of gratitude 197 which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they have so generously bestowed 198 upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy the high office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controlling purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.
I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past -- a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Behold 199 a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried 200 by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth -- a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor's injury -- a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in which no one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect 201 while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments -- a republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood 202 -- a republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic gradually but surely becoming the supreme 203 moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter 204 of the world's disputes -- a republic whose history, like the path of the just, "is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."
When I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between Democracy on the one hand and plutocracy 3 on the other I do not mean to say that all our opponents have deliberately 4 chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that on the important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for the protection of the rights of man.
In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions today Republican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.
The maxim 5 of Jefferson, “equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine 6 of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” are being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the Government.
The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift 7. On the contrary, it gives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus 8 to honest toil 9 when it promises him protection in the enjoyment 10 of the proceeds of his labor 11. Property rights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy strives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits.
No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice 12 to him to prevent his doing injustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass 13 upon the rights of another the Democratic party says "Thou shalt not."
Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financially powerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them are associated a large number who, because of their attachment 15 to their party name, are giving their support to doctrines 16 antagonistic 17 to the former teachings of their own party.
Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselves that the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly 18 attached to the greenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of the nation's paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred 19 a trust now beguile 20 themselves with the delusion 21 that there are good trusts, and bad trusts, while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and more obscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon the small expense of our standing 22 army, are now making light of the objections which are urged against a large increase in the permanent military establishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nation was less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans who three years ago condemned 26 "forcible annexation 27" as immoral 28 and even criminal are now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That partisanship 31 has already blinded many to present dangers is certain; how large a portion of the Republican party can be drawn 32 over to the new policies remains 33 to be seen.
For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right to criticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation 34 they found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize a President during the progress of the Mexican war.
Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing 35 with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted a platform the larger part of which was devoted 36 to boasting and self-congratulation.
In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion 37 of those which involve the very structure of our government, the Republican leaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of their party and of their complete subserviency 38 to pecuniary 39 considerations.
But they shall not be permitted to evade 40 the stupendous and far-reaching issue which they have deliberately brought into the arena 41 of politics. When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots 42 of Cuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.
Although the Democrats 43 realized that the administration would necessarily gain a political advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of the case must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they gave to the president. When the war was over and the Republican leaders began to suggest the propriety 44 of a colonial policy opposition 45 at once manifested itself.
When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized the independence of Cuba, but provided for the cession 46 of the Philippine Islands to the United States, the menace of imperialism 47 became so apparent that many preferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of this country.
I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify 48 the treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures 50 and then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.
In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take this occasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment 51 of that purpose to diplomacy 52 with an unfriendly nation.
Lincoln embodied 53 an argument in the question when he asked, "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?" I believe that we are now in a better position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified 54 a clean-cut issue is presented between a government by consent and a government by force, and imperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question is settled.
If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have been held responsible for any international complications which might have arisen before the ratification 55 of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion may have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there never was any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is no difference now as to the course to be pursued.
The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinos according to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a month before hostilities 56 broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos on the same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption 57 prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would have ended hostilities.
If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsed before a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during that time the question would have been agitating 58 the public mind. If the Bacon resolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president, either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, it would have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the American people free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeated by the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this a republican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.
When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editors at once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification of the treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans have accused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion 60 of responsibility.
If it is right for the United States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently 61 and imitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican party ought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races to protest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.
The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared to censure 62 all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination, let them condemn 25 the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate 63 appeal, "Give me liberty or give me death," he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.
Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage 64. Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists 65 must choose between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute 66 of limitations has run again the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense 67 of popular government when the present advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.
Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it were possible to obliterate 69 every word written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth 71 in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy 72 of perpetual hatred 73, for it was God himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.
Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider, not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate 74 the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.
Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or its forts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.
Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism. Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to the Western Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. We have felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which our people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contest between human rights and arbitrary power.
Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles of Greece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent 75 expression to the universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested a lively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress in South Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical 76 idea, or in the triumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say a word in behalf of the Boers.
Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England; the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. This sympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in the principles of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers 77, the claims of monarchy 78. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestige and influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent 79 of popular government.
Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke 68 so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared: "If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." And again he said: "Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government."
The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs as much from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansion when expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land which can be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who are willing to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.
The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts 80 which have been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitution followed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distant territory already more densely 81 populated than our own country and to force upon the people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or our laws.
Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it and who have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked 82 to justify 83 the appropriation 84 of the Philippine Islands by the United States. If the islands were uninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil. The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried to colonize 85 in the same latitude 86. The Netherlands have controlled Java for three hundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people of European birth scattered 87 among the twenty-five million natives.
After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentieth of one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an army of seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain had asserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleet entered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in the Philippines.
A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a few traders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.
If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement 88. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation of the Philippine Islands will justify the seizure 89 of other islands and the domination of other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid, growth of our military establishment.
That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republican leaders is not a matter of conjecture 90, but a matter of fact. In his message of December 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standing army to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years the president asked for four times that many, and a Republican house of representatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had been signed, and when no country was at war with the United States.
If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated 91, but not openly avowed 92, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republican party by indorsing its policy at the polls?
A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory 93 service, a constant source of irritation 94, but it is ever a menace to a Republican form of government.
The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably 95 change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers.
A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia 96 are sufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the future as in the past place its dependence 23 upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their country's call and return to productive labor when their services are no longer required -- men who fight when the country needs fighters and work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the body politic 14 eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history that amalgamation 97 is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence 98 has been bold enough to advocate such a proposition.
The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratification of the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describes the situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipino cannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic can have no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force; he is unknown in a government derived 101 without consent and taxation 102 without representation.
The Republican platform says that "the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (the Filipinos) by law." This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes its very existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest against government without consent and taxation without representation. In what respect does the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by the English Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a good government to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to his people? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should have the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and English duties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanish duties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may be summed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what he believes to be a good government; in a republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to be a good government.
The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself upon the ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity of the people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.
The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is to be given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment 103 of congress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippine situation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islands wherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate 104 upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclose the radical 105 departure from history and precedent 106 contemplated by those who control the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the Puerto Rican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American people are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.
If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied the guarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resisted our authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain duty toward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this country where the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporations which are waiting to exploit the islands?
Is the sunlight of full citizenship 107 to be enjoyed by the people of the United States, and the twilight 108 of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage 109 covers the Philippines? The Puerto Rico tariff 110 law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution is confined to the forty-five states.
The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system of government for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treat millions of people as mere 111 "possessions" and deal with them unrestrained by the constitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have already departed from the ancient landmarks 112 and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a career of empire.
The territorial 113 form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizen of a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interests sacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied 114.
What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or by conquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people? If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Will the Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth is molded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness 115 of the Creator it becomes a fixture 116 and passes with the soil? If governments derive 100 their just powers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title to people, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spain's title by treaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with our ideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them to fight against Spain, we disputed Spain's title. If we buy Spain's title we are not innocent purchasers.
There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized 117 the services of the Filipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example of turpitude 118 baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke 119 for the Spanish yoke.
Let us consider briefly 120 the reasons which have been given in support of an imperialistic 121 policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain 122 what our duty is, in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avoid killing 123 a human being, no matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he belongs.
Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both the human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws to nations, it may not be out of place to quote the opinions of others. Jefferson, than whom there is no higher political authority, said:
"I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting 124 singly or collectively."
Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue 125 are a part of the priceless legacy bequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea in even stronger language when he said:
"Justice is strictly 126 due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders 127 in a gang as when single; and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."
Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined 128 by the number of those who join it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it was true, as declared in the resolutions of intervention 129, that the Cubans "are and of right ought to be free and independent" (language taken from the Declaration of Independence), it is equally true that the Filipinos "are and of right ought to be free and independent."
The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity 130 to the United States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race or races to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous vote declared that the principles enunciated 131 at Philadelphia in 1776 were still alive and applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to liberty and that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if the Filipinos "are and of right ought to be free and independent," what right have we to force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty can be ascertained 132 their rights must be determined, and when their rights are once determined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty of Spain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England to respect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties never clash. Can it be our duty to usurp 133 political rights which belong to others? Can it be our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it?
A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of the battle discovered that he had slain 134 his brother. It is written "All ye are brethren." Let us hope for the coming day when human life -- which when once destroyed cannot be restored -- will be so sacred that it will never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime already committed, or to prevent a crime about to be committed.
It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands. I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No obligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrines against which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in the Philippines or desire to trade there.
It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable 135 of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an official report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable of self-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relative advancement 136 of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people of South America to self-government said:
"It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Their partisans 30 assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannot command universal assent 137 to the proposition, it is then demanded to particular nations; and our pride and our presumption 138 too often make converts of us. I contend that it is to arraign 139 the disposition 140 of Providence 141 himself to suppose that he has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled 143 on by kings. Self-government is the natural government of man."
Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency 144 in the art of self-government, but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people the capacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right to seize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force -- brute 145 force -- the only foundation of government and invite the reign 24 of a despot. I am not willing to believe that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then left them thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention of European nations.
Republicans ask, "Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in the Philippines?" The same question might have been asked, when the American flag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery 146 owned by the United States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independence and self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bag government held in place by bayonets. The United States and Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as "benevolent 147 assimilation."
“Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend 148 the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate 149 results of it own conduct.
The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample 142 upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws of society and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul 150 the sentence, “The wages of sin is death.”
And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn 151 the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal 152 the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation 153 of human rights.
"Would we tread in the paths of tyranny,
Nor reckon the tyrant's cost?
Who taketh another's liberty
His freedom is also lost.
Would we win as the strong have ever won,
Make ready to pay the debt,
For the God who reigned 154 over Babylon
Is the God who is reigning 155 yet."
Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States and mock us for our inconsistency.
The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon a defense of imperialism are:
First- That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world power and enter into international politics.
Second- That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orient make it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.
Third- That the spread of the Christian 156 religion will be facilitated by a colonial policy.
Fourth- That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation has taken.
The first argument is addrest to the nation’s pride and the second to the nation’s pocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for the partisan 29.
It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potent 157 influence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated 158 others have been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty other have fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutions have been adopted.
The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made this nation conspicuous 159 among the nations and given it a place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onward 160 march of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the omnipotent 161 weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare 162. I would not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires that have risen and fallen since time began.
The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:
“We make no hypocritical pretense 163 of being interested in the Philippines solely 164 on account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean to stimulate 165 the expansion of our trade and open new markets.”
This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution were necessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels, Franklin replied:
"To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoever valuable, is an object for which men may justly spill each other's blood; that the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal to the expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider this war against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise."
I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid 166 doctrine of those who would put a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human blood.
But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity and such a concession 167 could have been secured at any time without difficulty.
It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on trade today with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.
When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.
Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors 168; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises 169, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed 170 here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring 171 man and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure 49 without return and risk without reward.
Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systems which place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of the expenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit from imperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.
In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboring man will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from the violence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are applied to our own government.
It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to note the approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism and imperialism.
The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religious argument. If what has been termed the “gunpowder gospel” were urged against the Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of the Filipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but the principle involved is one of much wider application and challenges serious consideration.
The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief that Providence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, to the exultation 172 of the minister who said that we ought to “thrash the natives (Filipinos) until they understand who we are,” and that “every bullet sent, every cannon 173 shot and every flag waved means righteousness.”
We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the American flag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon American soil.
If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize 174 with dynamite 175 and proselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ 70 or by evidence of a special dispensation.
Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” has no Gatling gun attachment. When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him, some of the disciples 176 suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven to avenge 177 the insult; but the Master rebuked 178 them and said: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Suppose he had said: “We will thrash them until they understand who we are,” how different would have been the history of Christianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying 179, brutal 180 doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary 181 recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.
Let it be known that our missionaries 182 are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation.
The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval 184 victory at Manila made the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound. We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.
The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make it imperative 185 that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shed at San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubans independence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flag floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down when the flag of the Cuban Republic is ready to rise in its place. Better a thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of an empire.
There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is set forth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to the American people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will convene 186 Congress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend an immediate 99 declaration of the nation’s purpose, first, to establish a stable form of government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos as we have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by the Monroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.
A European protectorate often results in the plundering 187 of the ward 59 by the guardian 188. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us in the war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitious designs of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part of us or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to give them independence and guard them against molestation 189 from without.
When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fall back upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, no matter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles of government. This is a complacent 190 philosophy. It obliterates 191 the distinction between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance.
Destiny is the subterfuge 192 of the invertebrate 193, who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible 194 excuse for supporting it. Washington said that the destiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked on the experiment entrusted 195 to the American people. How different Washington’s definition of destiny from the Republican definition!
The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washington believed that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of the republican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to American hands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the hands of its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope of humanity. No exterior 196 force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influence should be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for this nation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea of the nation’s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself to contribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully 183 discharge the debt of gratitude 197 which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they have so generously bestowed 198 upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy the high office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controlling purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.
I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past -- a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Behold 199 a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried 200 by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth -- a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor's injury -- a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in which no one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect 201 while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments -- a republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood 202 -- a republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic gradually but surely becoming the supreme 203 moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter 204 of the world's disputes -- a republic whose history, like the path of the just, "is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."
1 nomination
n.提名，任命，提名权
- John is favourite to get the nomination for club president.约翰最有希望被提名为俱乐部主席。
- Few people pronounced for his nomination.很少人表示赞成他的提名。
2 paramount
a.最重要的，最高权力的
- My paramount object is to save the Union and destroy slavery.我的最高目标是拯救美国，摧毁奴隶制度。
- Nitrogen is of paramount importance to life on earth.氮对地球上的生命至关重要。
3 plutocracy
n.富豪统治
- Financial,not moral,considerations will prevail in a plutocracy.在富豪当政的国家里，人们见利忘义。
- The most prolific of the debunkers of the plutocracy was Gustavus Myers.揭发富豪统治集团的作家中，最多产的是古斯塔夫斯·迈尔斯。
4 deliberately
adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地
- The girl gave the show away deliberately.女孩故意泄露秘密。
- They deliberately shifted off the argument.他们故意回避这个论点。
5 maxim
n.格言，箴言
- Please lay the maxim to your heart.请把此格言记在心里。
- "Waste not,want not" is her favourite maxim.“不浪费则不匮乏”是她喜爱的格言。
6 doctrine
n.教义；主义；学说
- He was impelled to proclaim his doctrine.他不得不宣扬他的教义。
- The council met to consider changes to doctrine.宗教议会开会考虑更改教义。
7 thrift
adj.节约，节俭；n.节俭，节约
- He has the virtues of thrift and hard work.他具备节俭和勤奋的美德。
- His thrift and industry speak well for his future.他的节俭和勤勉预示着他美好的未来。
8 stimulus
n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物
- Regard each failure as a stimulus to further efforts.把每次失利看成对进一步努力的激励。
- Light is a stimulus to growth in plants.光是促进植物生长的一个因素。
9 toil
vi.辛劳工作，艰难地行动；n.苦工，难事
- The wealth comes from the toil of the masses.财富来自大众的辛勤劳动。
- Every single grain is the result of toil.每一粒粮食都来之不易。
10 enjoyment
n.乐趣；享有；享用
- Your company adds to the enjoyment of our visit. 有您的陪同，我们这次访问更加愉快了。
- After each joke the old man cackled his enjoyment.每逢讲完一个笑话，这老人就呵呵笑着表示他的高兴。
11 labor
n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦
- We are never late in satisfying him for his labor.我们从不延误付给他劳动报酬。
- He was completely spent after two weeks of hard labor.艰苦劳动两周后，他已经疲惫不堪了。
12 injustice
n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利
- They complained of injustice in the way they had been treated.他们抱怨受到不公平的对待。
- All his life he has been struggling against injustice.他一生都在与不公正现象作斗争。
13 trespass
n./v.侵犯，闯入私人领地
- The fishing boat was seized for its trespass into restricted waters.渔船因非法侵入受限制水域而被扣押。
- The court sentenced him to a fine for trespass.法庭以侵害罪对他判以罚款。
14 politic
adj.有智虑的；精明的；v.从政
- He was too politic to quarrel with so important a personage.他很聪明，不会与这么重要的人争吵。
- The politic man tried not to offend people.那个精明的人尽量不得罪人。
15 attachment
n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附
- She has a great attachment to her sister.她十分依恋她的姐姐。
- She's on attachment to the Ministry of Defense.她现在隶属于国防部。
16 doctrines
n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明
- To modern eyes, such doctrines appear harsh, even cruel. 从现代的角度看，这样的教义显得苛刻，甚至残酷。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- His doctrines have seduced many into error. 他的学说把许多人诱入歧途。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
17 antagonistic
adj.敌对的
- He is always antagonistic towards new ideas.他对新思想总是持反对态度。
- They merely stirred in a nervous and wholly antagonistic way.他们只是神经质地，带着完全敌对情绪地骚动了一下。
18 formerly
adv.从前，以前
- We now enjoy these comforts of which formerly we had only heard.我们现在享受到了过去只是听说过的那些舒适条件。
- This boat was formerly used on the rivers of China.这船从前航行在中国内河里。
19 abhorred
v.憎恶( abhor的过去式和过去分词 )；（厌恶地）回避；拒绝；淘汰
- He abhorred the thoughts of stripping me and making me miserable. 他憎恶把我掠夺干净，使我受苦的那个念头。 来自辞典例句
- Each of these oracles hated a particular phrase. Liu the Sage abhorred "Not right for sowing". 二诸葛忌讳“不宜栽种”，三仙姑忌讳“米烂了”。 来自汉英文学 - 中国现代小说
20 beguile
vt.欺骗，消遣
- They are playing cards to beguile the time.他们在打牌以消磨时间。
- He used his newspapers to beguile the readers into buying shares in his company.他利用他的报纸诱骗读者买他公司的股票。
21 delusion
n.谬见，欺骗，幻觉，迷惑
- He is under the delusion that he is Napoleon.他患了妄想症，认为自己是拿破仑。
- I was under the delusion that he intended to marry me.我误认为他要娶我。
22 standing
n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的
- After the earthquake only a few houses were left standing.地震过后只有几幢房屋还立着。
- They're standing out against any change in the law.他们坚决反对对法律做任何修改。
23 dependence
n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属
- Doctors keep trying to break her dependence of the drug.医生们尽力使她戒除毒瘾。
- He was freed from financial dependence on his parents.他在经济上摆脱了对父母的依赖。
24 reign
n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势
- The reign of Queen Elizabeth lapped over into the seventeenth century.伊丽莎白王朝延至17世纪。
- The reign of Zhu Yuanzhang lasted about 31 years.朱元璋统治了大约三十一年。
25 condemn
vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑
- Some praise him,whereas others condemn him.有些人赞扬他，而有些人谴责他。
- We mustn't condemn him on mere suppositions.我们不可全凭臆测来指责他。
26 condemned
n.吞并，合并
- He mentioned the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910 .他提及1910年日本对朝鲜的吞并。
- I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas.我认为合并的问题，完全属于德克萨斯和美国之间的事。
27 immoral
adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的
- She was questioned about his immoral conduct toward her.她被询问过有关他对她的不道德行为的情况。
- It is my belief that nuclear weapons are immoral.我相信使核武器是不邪恶的。
28 partisan
adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒
- In their anger they forget all the partisan quarrels.愤怒之中，他们忘掉一切党派之争。
- The numerous newly created partisan detachments began working slowly towards that region.许多新建的游击队都开始慢慢地向那里移动。
29 partisans
游击队员( partisan的名词复数 )； 党人； 党羽； 帮伙
- Every movement has its partisans. 每一运动都有热情的支持者。
- He was rescued by some Italian partisans. 他被几名意大利游击队员所救。
30 Partisanship
n. 党派性, 党派偏见
- Her violent partisanship was fighting Soames's battle. 她的激烈偏袒等于替索米斯卖气力。
- There was a link of understanding between them, more important than affection or partisanship. ' 比起人间的感情，比起相同的政见，这一点都来得格外重要。 来自英汉文学
31 drawn
v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的
- All the characters in the story are drawn from life.故事中的所有人物都取材于生活。
- Her gaze was drawn irresistibly to the scene outside.她的目光禁不住被外面的风景所吸引。
32 remains
n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹
- He ate the remains of food hungrily.他狼吞虎咽地吃剩余的食物。
- The remains of the meal were fed to the dog.残羹剩饭喂狗了。
33 investigation
n.调查，调查研究
- In an investigation,a new fact became known, which told against him.在调查中新发现了一件对他不利的事实。
- He drew the conclusion by building on his own investigation.他根据自己的调查研究作出结论。
34 dealing
n.经商方法，待人态度
- This store has an excellent reputation for fair dealing.该商店因买卖公道而享有极高的声誉。
- His fair dealing earned our confidence.他的诚实的行为获得我们的信任。
35 devoted
adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的
- He devoted his life to the educational cause of the motherland.他为祖国的教育事业贡献了一生。
- We devoted a lengthy and full discussion to this topic.我们对这个题目进行了长时间的充分讨论。
36 exclusion
n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行
- Don't revise a few topics to the exclusion of all others.不要修改少数论题以致排除所有其他的。
- He plays golf to the exclusion of all other sports.他专打高尔夫球，其他运动一概不参加。
38 pecuniary
adj.金钱的；金钱上的
- She denies obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.她否认通过欺骗手段获得经济利益。
- She is so independent that she refused all pecuniary aid.她很独立，所以拒绝一切金钱上的资助。
39 evade
vt.逃避，回避；避开，躲避
- He tried to evade the embarrassing question.他企图回避这令人难堪的问题。
- You are in charge of the job.How could you evade the issue?你是负责人，你怎么能对这个问题不置可否？
40 arena
n.竞技场，运动场所；竞争场所，舞台
- She entered the political arena at the age of 25. 她25岁进入政界。
- He had not an adequate arena for the exercise of his talents.他没有充分发挥其才能的场所。
41 patriots
爱国者，爱国主义者( patriot的名词复数 )
- Abraham Lincoln was a fine type of the American patriots. 亚伯拉罕·林肯是美国爱国者的优秀典型。
- These patriots would fight to death before they surrendered. 这些爱国者宁愿战斗到死，也不愿投降。
42 democrats
n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 )
- The Democrats held a pep rally on Capitol Hill yesterday. 民主党昨天在国会山召开了竞选誓师大会。
- The democrats organize a filibuster in the senate. 民主党党员组织了阻挠议事。 来自《简明英汉词典》
43 propriety
n.正当行为；正当；适当
- We hesitated at the propriety of the method.我们对这种办法是否适用拿不定主意。
- The sensitive matter was handled with great propriety.这件机密的事处理得极为适当。
44 opposition
n.反对，敌对
- The party leader is facing opposition in his own backyard.该党领袖在自己的党內遇到了反对。
- The police tried to break down the prisoner's opposition.警察设法制住了那个囚犯的反抗。
45 cession
n.割让，转让
- The cession of the territory could not be avoided because they lost the war.因为他们输了这场战争，割让领土是无法避免的。
- In 1814,Norwegians resisted the cession of their country to Sweden and adopted a new constitution.1814年挪威人反对向瑞典割让自己的国土，并且制定了新的宪法。
46 imperialism
n.帝国主义，帝国主义政策
- They held the imperialism in contempt.他们鄙视帝国主义。
- Imperialism has not been able to subjugate China.帝国主义不能征服中国。
47 ratify
v.批准，认可，追认
- The heads of two governments met to ratify the peace treaty.两国政府首脑会晤批准和平条约。
- The agreement have to be ratify by the board.该协议必须由董事会批准。
48 expenditure
n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗
- The entry of all expenditure is necessary.有必要把一切开支入账。
- The monthly expenditure of our family is four hundred dollars altogether.我们一家的开销每月共计四百元。
49 expenditures
n.花费( expenditure的名词复数 )；使用；（尤指金钱的）支出额；（精力、时间、材料等的）耗费
- We have overspent.We'll have to let up our expenditures next month. 我们已经超支了，下个月一定得节约开支。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The pension includes an allowance of fifty pounds for traffic expenditures. 年金中包括50镑交通费补贴。 来自《简明英汉词典》
50 accomplishment
n.完成，成就，（pl.）造诣，技能
- The series of paintings is quite an accomplishment.这一系列的绘画真是了不起的成就。
- Money will be crucial to the accomplishment of our objectives.要实现我们的目标，钱是至关重要的。
51 diplomacy
n.外交；外交手腕，交际手腕
- The talks have now gone into a stage of quiet diplomacy.会谈现在已经进入了“温和外交”阶段。
- This was done through the skill in diplomacy. 这是通过外交手腕才做到的。
52 embodied
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含
- a politician who embodied the hopes of black youth 代表黑人青年希望的政治家
- The heroic deeds of him embodied the glorious tradition of the troops. 他的英雄事迹体现了军队的光荣传统。 来自《简明英汉词典》
53 ratified
v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的过去式和过去分词 )
- The treaty was declared invalid because it had not been ratified. 条约没有得到批准，因此被宣布无效。
- The treaty was ratified by all the member states. 这个条约得到了所有成员国的批准。
54 ratification
n.批准，认可
- The treaty is awaiting ratification.条约正等待批准。
- The treaty is subject to ratification.此条约经批准后才能生效。
55 hostilities
n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事
- Mexico called for an immediate cessation of hostilities. 墨西哥要求立即停止敌对行动。
- All the old hostilities resurfaced when they met again. 他们再次碰面时，过去的种种敌意又都冒了出来。
56 adoption
n.采用，采纳，通过；收养
- An adoption agency had sent the boys to two different families.一个收养机构把他们送给两个不同的家庭。
- The adoption of this policy would relieve them of a tremendous burden.采取这一政策会给他们解除一个巨大的负担。
57 agitating
搅动( agitate的现在分词 )； 激怒； 使焦虑不安； （尤指为法律、社会状况的改变而）激烈争论
- political groups agitating for social change 鼓吹社会变革的政治团体
- They are agitating to assert autonomy. 他们正在鼓吹实行自治。
58 ward
n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开
- The hospital has a medical ward and a surgical ward.这家医院有内科病房和外科病房。
- During the evening picnic,I'll carry a torch to ward off the bugs.傍晚野餐时，我要点根火把，抵挡蚊虫。
59 evasion
n.逃避，偷漏(税)
- The movie star is in prison for tax evasion.那位影星因为逃税而坐牢。
- The act was passed as a safeguard against tax evasion.这项法案旨在防止逃税行为。
60 permanently
adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地
- The accident left him permanently scarred.那次事故给他留下了永久的伤疤。
- The ship is now permanently moored on the Thames in London.该船现在永久地停泊在伦敦泰晤士河边。
61 censure
v./n.责备；非难；责难
- You must not censure him until you know the whole story.在弄清全部事实真相前不要谴责他。
- His dishonest behaviour came under severe censure.他的不诚实行为受到了严厉指责。
62 passionate
adj.热情的，热烈的，激昂的，易动情的，易怒的，性情暴躁的
- He is said to be the most passionate man.据说他是最有激情的人。
- He is very passionate about the project.他对那个项目非常热心。
63 bondage
n.奴役，束缚
- Masters sometimes allowed their slaves to buy their way out of bondage.奴隶主们有时允许奴隶为自己赎身。
- They aim to deliver the people who are in bondage to superstitious belief.他们的目的在于解脱那些受迷信束缚的人。
64 colonists
n.殖民地开拓者，移民，殖民地居民( colonist的名词复数 )
- Colonists from Europe populated many parts of the Americas. 欧洲的殖民者移居到了美洲的许多地方。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- Some of the early colonists were cruel to the native population. 有些早期移居殖民地的人对当地居民很残忍。 来自《简明英汉词典》
65 statute
n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例
- Protection for the consumer is laid down by statute.保障消费者利益已在法令里作了规定。
- The next section will consider this environmental statute in detail.下一部分将详细论述环境法令的问题。
66 defense
n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩
- The accused has the right to defense.被告人有权获得辩护。
- The war has impacted the area with military and defense workers.战争使那个地区挤满了军队和防御工程人员。
67 spoke
n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说
- They sourced the spoke nuts from our company.他们的轮辐螺帽是从我们公司获得的。
- The spokes of a wheel are the bars that connect the outer ring to the centre.辐条是轮子上连接外圈与中心的条棒。
68 obliterate
v.擦去，涂抹，去掉...痕迹，消失，除去
- Whole villages were obliterated by fire.整座整座的村庄都被大火所吞噬。
- There was time enough to obliterate memories of how things once were for him.时间足以抹去他对过去经历的记忆。
69 writ
n.命令状，书面命令
- This is a copy of a writ I received this morning.这是今早我收到的书面命令副本。
- You shouldn't treat the newspapers as if they were Holy Writ. 你不应该把报上说的话奉若神明。
70 forth
adv.向前；向外，往外
- The wind moved the trees gently back and forth.风吹得树轻轻地来回摇晃。
- He gave forth a series of works in rapid succession.他很快连续发表了一系列的作品。
71 legacy
n.遗产，遗赠；先人(或过去)留下的东西
- They are the most precious cultural legacy our forefathers left.它们是我们祖先留下来的最宝贵的文化遗产。
- He thinks the legacy is a gift from the Gods.他认为这笔遗产是天赐之物。
72 hatred
n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨
- He looked at me with hatred in his eyes.他以憎恨的眼光望着我。
- The old man was seized with burning hatred for the fascists.老人对法西斯主义者充满了仇恨。
73 repudiate
v.拒绝，拒付，拒绝履行
- He will indignantly repudiate the suggestion.他会气愤地拒绝接受这一意见。
- He repudiate all debts incurred by his son.他拒绝偿还他儿子的一切债务。
74 eloquent
adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的
- He was so eloquent that he cut down the finest orator.他能言善辩，胜过最好的演说家。
- These ruins are an eloquent reminder of the horrors of war.这些废墟形象地提醒人们不要忘记战争的恐怖。
75 monarchical
n.祖先，先人；祖先，祖宗( forefather的名词复数 )；列祖列宗；前人
- They are the most precious cultural legacy our forefathers left. 它们是我们祖先留下来的最宝贵的文化遗产。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- All of us bristled at the lawyer's speech insulting our forefathers. 听到那个律师在讲演中污蔑我们的祖先，大家都气得怒发冲冠。 来自《简明英汉词典》
76 monarchy
n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国
- The monarchy in England plays an important role in British culture.英格兰的君主政体在英国文化中起重要作用。
- The power of the monarchy in Britain today is more symbolical than real.今日英国君主的权力多为象徵性的，无甚实际意义。
77 exponent
n.倡导者，拥护者；代表人物；指数，幂
- She is an exponent of vegetarianism.她是一个素食主义的倡导者。
- He had been the principal exponent of the Gallipoli campaign.他曾为加里波利战役的主要代表人物。
78 tracts
大片土地( tract的名词复数 )； 地带； （体内的）道； （尤指宣扬宗教、伦理或政治的）短文
- vast tracts of forest 大片大片的森林
- There are tracts of desert in Australia. 澳大利亚有大片沙漠。
79 densely
ad.密集地；浓厚地
- A grove of trees shadowed the house densely. 树丛把这幢房子遮蔽得很密实。
- We passed through miles of densely wooded country. 我们穿过好几英里茂密的林地。
80 invoked
v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求
- It is unlikely that libel laws will be invoked. 不大可能诉诸诽谤法。
- She had invoked the law in her own defence. 她援引法律为自己辩护。 来自《简明英汉词典》
81 justify
vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护
- He tried to justify his absence with lame excuses.他想用站不住脚的借口为自己的缺席辩解。
- Can you justify your rude behavior to me?你能向我证明你的粗野行为是有道理的吗？
82 appropriation
n.拨款，批准支出
- Our government made an appropriation for the project.我们的政府为那个工程拨出一笔款项。
- The council could note an annual appropriation for this service.议会可以为这项服务表决给他一笔常年经费。
83 colonize
v.建立殖民地，拓殖；定居，居于
- Around 700 Arabs began to colonize East Africa.公元700年阿拉伯人开始把东非变为殖民地。
- Japan used to colonize many countries in Asia.日本曾经殖民过许多亚洲国家。
84 latitude
n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区
- The latitude of the island is 20 degrees south.该岛的纬度是南纬20度。
- The two cities are at approximately the same latitude.这两个城市差不多位于同一纬度上。
85 scattered
adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的
- Gathering up his scattered papers,he pushed them into his case.他把散乱的文件收拾起来，塞进文件夹里。
86 complement
n.补足物，船上的定员；补语；vt.补充，补足
- The two suggestions complement each other.这两条建议相互补充。
- They oppose each other also complement each other.它们相辅相成。
87 seizure
n.没收；占有；抵押
- The seizure of contraband is made by customs.那些走私品是被海关没收的。
- The courts ordered the seizure of all her property.法院下令查封她所有的财产。
88 conjecture
n./v.推测，猜测
- She felt it no use to conjecture his motives.她觉得猜想他的动机是没有用的。
- This conjecture is not supported by any real evidence.这种推测未被任何确切的证据所证实。
89 contemplated
adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词)
- An aide avowed that the President had known nothing of the deals. 一位助理声明，总统对这些交易一无所知。
- The party's avowed aim was to struggle against capitalist exploitation. 该党公开宣称的宗旨是与资本主义剥削斗争。 来自《简明英汉词典》
90 compulsory
n.强制的，必修的；规定的，义务的
- Is English a compulsory subject?英语是必修课吗？
- Compulsory schooling ends at sixteen.义务教育至16岁为止。
91 irritation
n.激怒，恼怒，生气
- He could not hide his irritation that he had not been invited.他无法掩饰因未被邀请而生的气恼。
- Barbicane said nothing,but his silence covered serious irritation.巴比康什么也不说，但是他的沉默里潜伏着阴郁的怒火。
92 inevitably
adv.不可避免地；必然发生地
- In the way you go on,you are inevitably coming apart.照你们这样下去，毫无疑问是会散伙的。
- Technological changes will inevitably lead to unemployment.技术变革必然会导致失业。
93 militia
n.民兵，民兵组织
- First came the PLA men,then the people's militia.人民解放军走在前面，其次是民兵。
- There's a building guarded by the local militia at the corner of the street.街道拐角处有一幢由当地民兵团守卫的大楼。
94 amalgamation
n.合并，重组；；汞齐化
- We look towards the amalgamation of some of the neighborhood factories.我们指望合并一些里弄工厂。
- The proposed amalgamation of the two institutes has mow fallen through.这两个研究所打算合并的事现在已经落空了。
95 prominence
n.突出；显著；杰出；重要
- He came to prominence during the World Cup in Italy.他在意大利的世界杯赛中声名鹊起。
- This young fashion designer is rising to prominence.这位年轻的时装设计师的声望越来越高。
96 immediate
adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的
- His immediate neighbours felt it their duty to call.他的近邻认为他们有责任去拜访。
- We declared ourselves for the immediate convocation of the meeting.我们主张立即召开这个会议。
97 derive
v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自
- We derive our sustenance from the land.我们从土地获取食物。
- We shall derive much benefit from reading good novels.我们将从优秀小说中获得很大好处。
98 derived
vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取
- Many English words are derived from Latin and Greek. 英语很多词源出于拉丁文和希腊文。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- He derived his enthusiasm for literature from his father. 他对文学的爱好是受他父亲的影响。 来自《简明英汉词典》
99 taxation
n.征税，税收，税金
- He made a number of simplifications in the taxation system.他在税制上作了一些简化。
- The increase of taxation is an important fiscal policy.增税是一项重要的财政政策。
100 adjournment
休会； 延期； 休会期； 休庭期
- The adjournment of the case lasted for two weeks. 该案休庭期为两周。
- The solicitor moved for an adjournment of the case. 律师请求将这个案件的诉讼延期。
101 legislate
vt.制定法律；n.法规，律例；立法
- Therefore,it is very urgent to legislate for the right of privacy.因此，为隐私权立法刻不容缓。
- It's impossible to legislate for every contingency.为每一偶发事件都立法是不可能的。
102 radical
n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的
- The patient got a radical cure in the hospital.病人在医院得到了根治。
- She is radical in her demands.她的要求十分偏激。
103 precedent
n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的
- Is there a precedent for what you want me to do?你要我做的事有前例可援吗？
- This is a wonderful achievement without precedent in Chinese history.这是中国历史上亘古未有的奇绩。
104 citizenship
n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份)
- He was born in Sweden,but he doesn't have Swedish citizenship.他在瑞典出生，但没有瑞典公民身分。
- Ten years later,she chose to take Australian citizenship.十年后，她选择了澳大利亚国籍。
105 twilight
n.暮光，黄昏；暮年，晚期，衰落时期
- Twilight merged into darkness.夕阳的光辉融于黑暗中。
- Twilight was sweet with the smell of lilac and freshly turned earth.薄暮充满紫丁香和新翻耕的泥土的香味。
106 vassalage
n.家臣身份，隶属
- The exploration of the Chinese ancient civilization involves the analysis of the early vassalage. 对中国古代国家文明起源的探索，就包括在对早期分封的剖析观察中。 来自互联网
107 tariff
n.关税，税率；(旅馆、饭店等)价目表，收费表
- There is a very high tariff on jewelry.宝石类的关税率很高。
- The government is going to lower the tariff on importing cars.政府打算降低进口汽车的关税。
108 mere
adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过
- That is a mere repetition of what you said before.那不过是重复了你以前讲的话。
- It's a mere waste of time waiting any longer.再等下去纯粹是浪费时间。
109 landmarks
n.陆标( landmark的名词复数 )；目标；（标志重要阶段的）里程碑 ~ (in sth)；有历史意义的建筑物（或遗址）
- The book stands out as one of the notable landmarks in the progress of modern science. 这部著作是现代科学发展史上著名的里程碑之一。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
- The baby was one of the big landmarks in our relationship. 孩子的出世是我们俩关系中的一个重要转折点。 来自辞典例句
110 territorial
adj.领土的，领地的
- The country is fighting to preserve its territorial integrity.该国在为保持领土的完整而进行斗争。
- They were not allowed to fish in our territorial waters.不允许他们在我国领海捕鱼。
111 applied
adj.应用的；v.应用，适用
- She plans to take a course in applied linguistics.她打算学习应用语言学课程。
- This cream is best applied to the face at night.这种乳霜最好晚上擦脸用。
112 likeness
n.相像，相似（之处）
- I think the painter has produced a very true likeness.我认为这位画家画得非常逼真。
- She treasured the painted likeness of her son.她珍藏她儿子的画像。
113 fixture
n.固定设备；预定日期；比赛时间；定期存款
- Lighting fixture must be installed at once.必须立即安装照明设备。
- The cordless kettle may now be a fixture in most kitchens.无绳电热水壶现在可能是多数厨房的固定设备。
114 utilized
v.利用，使用( utilize的过去式和过去分词 )
- In the19th century waterpower was widely utilized to generate electricity. 在19世纪人们大规模使用水力来发电。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The empty building can be utilized for city storage. 可以利用那栋空建筑物作城市的仓库。 来自《简明英汉词典》
115 turpitude
n.可耻；邪恶
- He was considered unfit to hold office because of moral turpitude.因为道德上的可耻行为，他被认为不适担任公务员。
- Let every declamation turn upon the beauty of liberty and virtue,and the deformity,turpitude,and malignity of slavery and vice.让每一篇演讲都来谈自由和道德之美，都来谈奴役和邪恶之丑陋、卑鄙和恶毒。
116 yoke
n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶
- An ass and an ox,fastened to the same yoke,were drawing a wagon.驴子和公牛一起套在轭上拉车。
- The defeated army passed under the yoke.败军在轭门下通过。
117 briefly
adv.简单地，简短地
- I want to touch briefly on another aspect of the problem.我想简单地谈一下这个问题的另一方面。
- He was kidnapped and briefly detained by a terrorist group.他被一个恐怖组织绑架并短暂拘禁。
118 imperialistic
帝国主义的，帝制的
- An imperialistic country extends its power and influence into neighbouring countries. 一个帝国主义国家将其势力与影响伸展至邻国。
- EXTEND An imperialistic country extends its power and influence into neighboring countries. 帝国主义国家将它的势力和影响扩展至邻近国家。
119 ascertain
vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清
- It's difficult to ascertain the coal deposits.煤储量很难探明。
- We must ascertain the responsibility in light of different situtations.我们必须根据不同情况判定责任。
120 killing
n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财
- Investors are set to make a killing from the sell-off.投资者准备清仓以便大赚一笔。
- Last week my brother made a killing on Wall Street.上个周我兄弟在华尔街赚了一大笔。
121 acting
n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的
- Ignore her,she's just acting.别理她，她只是假装的。
- During the seventies,her acting career was in eclipse.在七十年代，她的表演生涯黯然失色。
122 virtue
n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力
- He was considered to be a paragon of virtue.他被认为是品德尽善尽美的典范。
- You need to decorate your mind with virtue.你应该用德行美化心灵。
123 strictly
adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地
- His doctor is dieting him strictly.他的医生严格规定他的饮食。
- The guests were seated strictly in order of precedence.客人严格按照地位高低就座。
124 plunders
掠夺，抢劫( plunder的第三人称单数 )
- It promiscuously plunders other languages and delights in neologisms. 它杂乱地掠夺其它语言，并以增加新词为乐。
- The most formidable trade union system attacks a city throughout history plunders in you grasp. 有史以来最强大的工会系统，攻城掠地尽在你掌握之中。
125 determined
adj.坚定的；有决心的
- I have determined on going to Tibet after graduation.我已决定毕业后去西藏。
- He determined to view the rooms behind the office.他决定查看一下办公室后面的房间。
126 intervention
n.介入，干涉，干预
- The government's intervention in this dispute will not help.政府对这场争论的干预不会起作用。
- Many people felt he would be hostile to the idea of foreign intervention.许多人觉得他会反对外来干预。
127 proximity
n.接近，邻近
- Marriages in proximity of blood are forbidden by the law.法律规定禁止近亲结婚。
- Their house is in close proximity to ours.他们的房子很接近我们的。
128 enunciated
v.（清晰地）发音( enunciate的过去式和过去分词 )；确切地说明
- She enunciated each word slowly and carefully. 她每个字都念得又慢又仔细。
- His voice, cold and perfectly enunciated, switched them like a birch branch. 他的话口气冰冷，一字一板，有如给了他们劈面一鞭。 来自辞典例句
129 ascertained
v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 )
- The previously unidentified objects have now been definitely ascertained as being satellites. 原来所说的不明飞行物现在已证实是卫星。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- I ascertained that she was dead. 我断定她已经死了。 来自《简明英汉词典》
130 usurp
vt.篡夺，霸占；vi.篡位
- Their position enabled them to usurp power.他们所处的地位使其得以篡权。
- You must not allow it to usurp a disproportionate share of your interest.你不应让它过多地占据你的兴趣。
131 slain
杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的过去分词 )； (slay的过去分词)
- The soldiers slain in the battle were burried that night. 在那天夜晚埋葬了在战斗中牺牲了的战士。
- His boy was dead, slain by the hand of the false Amulius. 他的儿子被奸诈的阿缪利乌斯杀死了。
132 incapable
adj.无能力的，不能做某事的
- He would be incapable of committing such a cruel deed.他不会做出这么残忍的事。
- Computers are incapable of creative thought.计算机不会创造性地思维。
133 advancement
n.前进，促进，提升
- His new contribution to the advancement of physiology was well appreciated.他对生理学发展的新贡献获得高度赞赏。
- The aim of a university should be the advancement of learning.大学的目标应是促进学术。
134 assent
v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可
- I cannot assent to what you ask.我不能应允你的要求。
- The new bill passed by Parliament has received Royal Assent.议会所通过的新方案已获国王批准。
135 presumption
n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定
- Please pardon my presumption in writing to you.请原谅我很冒昧地写信给你。
- I don't think that's a false presumption.我认为那并不是错误的推测。
136 arraign
v.提讯；控告
- She was arraigned today on charges of assault and kidnapping.她今天因被控人身侵犯和绑架而受到提审。
- He was arraigned for criminally abetting a traitor.他因怂恿他人叛国而受到传讯。
137 disposition
n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署
- He has made a good disposition of his property.他已对财产作了妥善处理。
- He has a cheerful disposition.他性情开朗。
138 providence
n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝
- It is tempting Providence to go in that old boat.乘那艘旧船前往是冒大险。
- To act as you have done is to fly in the face of Providence.照你的所作所为那样去行事，是违背上帝的意志的。
139 trample
vt.踩，践踏；无视，伤害，侵犯
- Don't trample on the grass. 勿踏草地。
- Don't trample on the flowers when you play in the garden. 在花园里玩耍时,不要踩坏花。
140 trampled
踩( trample的过去式和过去分词 )； 践踏； 无视； 侵犯
- He gripped his brother's arm lest he be trampled by the mob. 他紧抓着他兄弟的胳膊，怕他让暴民踩着。
- People were trampled underfoot in the rush for the exit. 有人在拼命涌向出口时被踩在脚下。
141 proficiency
n.精通，熟练，精练
- He plied his trade and gained proficiency in it.他勤习手艺，技术渐渐达到了十分娴熟的地步。
- How do you think of your proficiency in written and spoken English?你认为你的书面英语和口语熟练程度如何？
142 brute
n.野兽，兽性
- The aggressor troops are not many degrees removed from the brute.侵略军简直象一群野兽。
- That dog is a dangerous brute.It bites people.那条狗是危险的畜牲，它咬人。
143 cemetery
n.坟墓，墓地，坟场
- He was buried in the cemetery.他被葬在公墓。
- His remains were interred in the cemetery.他的遗体葬在墓地。
144 benevolent
adj.仁慈的，乐善好施的
- His benevolent nature prevented him from refusing any beggar who accosted him.他乐善好施的本性使他不会拒绝走上前向他行乞的任何一个乞丐。
- He was a benevolent old man and he wouldn't hurt a fly.他是一个仁慈的老人，连只苍蝇都不愿伤害。
145 amend
vt.修改，修订，改进；n.[pl.]赔罪，赔偿
- The teacher advised him to amend his way of living.老师劝他改变生活方式。
- You must amend your pronunciation.你必须改正你的发音。
146 legitimate
adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法
- Sickness is a legitimate reason for asking for leave.生病是请假的一个正当的理由。
- That's a perfectly legitimate fear.怀有这种恐惧完全在情理之中。
147 annul
v.宣告…无效，取消，废止
- They have the power to alter or annul inappropriate decisions of their own standing committees.他们有权改变或者撤销本级人民代表大会常务委员会不适当的决定。
- The courts later found grounds to annul the results,after the king urged them to sort out the "mess".在国王敦促法庭收拾烂摊子后，法庭随后宣布废除选举结果。
148 spurn
v.拒绝，摈弃；n.轻视的拒绝；踢开
- They spurn all our offers of help.他们拒绝接受我们提出的一切援助。
- As an armyman,I spurn fearlessly at all danger and the enemy.作为一个军人，一切危险和敌人丝毫不在我的眼。
149 repeal
n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消
- He plans to repeal a number of current policies.他计划废除一些当前的政策。
- He has made out a strong case for the repeal of the law.他提出强有力的理由，赞成废除该法令。
150 violation
n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯
- He roared that was a violation of the rules.他大声说，那是违反规则的。
- He was fined 200 dollars for violation of traffic regulation.他因违反交通规则被罚款200美元。
151 reigned
vi.当政，统治（reign的过去式形式）
- Silence reigned in the hall. 全场肃静。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
- Night was deep and dead silence reigned everywhere. 夜深人静，一片死寂。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
152 reigning
adj.统治的，起支配作用的
- The sky was dark, stars were twinkling high above, night was reigning, and everything was sunk in silken silence. 天很黑，星很繁，夜阑人静。
- Led by Huang Chao, they brought down the reigning house after 300 years' rule. 在黄巢的带领下，他们推翻了统治了三百年的王朝。
153 Christian
adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒
- They always addressed each other by their Christian name.他们总是以教名互相称呼。
- His mother is a sincere Christian.他母亲是个虔诚的基督教徒。
154 potent
adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的
- The medicine had a potent effect on your disease.这药物对你的病疗效很大。
- We must account of his potent influence.我们必须考虑他的强有力的影响。
155 promulgated
v.宣扬（某事物）( promulgate的过去式和过去分词 )；传播；公布；颁布（法令、新法律等）
- Hence China has promulgated more than 30 relevant laws, statutes and regulations. 中国为此颁布的法律、法规和规章多达３０余项。 来自汉英非文学 - 白皮书
- The shipping industry promulgated a voluntary code. 航运业对自律守则进行了宣传。 来自辞典例句
156 conspicuous
adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的
- It is conspicuous that smoking is harmful to health.很明显，抽烟对健康有害。
- Its colouring makes it highly conspicuous.它的色彩使它非常惹人注目。
157 onward
adj.向前的，前进的；adv.向前，前进，在先
- The Yellow River surges onward like ten thousand horses galloping.黄河以万马奔腾之势滚滚向前。
- He followed in the steps of forerunners and marched onward.他跟随着先辈的足迹前进。
158 omnipotent
adj.全能的，万能的
- When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science.我们达到万能以后就不需要科学了。
- Money is not omnipotent,but we can't survive without money.金钱不是万能的，但是没有金钱我们却无法生存。
159 warfare
n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突
- He addressed the audience on the subject of atomic warfare.他向听众演讲有关原子战争的问题。
- Their struggle consists mainly in peasant guerrilla warfare.他们的斗争主要是农民游击战。
160 pretense
n.矫饰，做作，借口
- You can't keep up the pretense any longer.你无法继续伪装下去了。
- Pretense invariably impresses only the pretender.弄虚作假欺骗不了真正的行家。
161 solely
adv.仅仅，唯一地
- Success should not be measured solely by educational achievement.成功与否不应只用学业成绩来衡量。
- The town depends almost solely on the tourist trade.这座城市几乎完全靠旅游业维持。
162 stimulate
vt.刺激，使兴奋；激励，使…振奋
- Your encouragement will stimulate me to further efforts.你的鼓励会激发我进一步努力。
- Success will stimulate the people for fresh efforts.成功能鼓舞人们去作新的努力。
163 sordid
adj.肮脏的，不干净的，卑鄙的，暗淡的
- He depicts the sordid and vulgar sides of life exclusively.他只描写人生肮脏和庸俗的一面。
- They lived in a sordid apartment.他们住在肮脏的公寓房子里。
164 concession
n.让步，妥协；特许(权)
- We can not make heavy concession to the matter.我们在这个问题上不能过于让步。
- That is a great concession.这是很大的让步。
165 contractors
n.（建筑、监造中的）承包人( contractor的名词复数 )
- We got estimates from three different contractors before accepting the lowest. 我们得到3个承包商的报价后，接受了最低的报价。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- Contractors winning construction jobs had to kick back 2 per cent of the contract price to the mafia. 赢得建筑工作的承包商得抽出合同价格的百分之二的回扣给黑手党。 来自《简明英汉词典》
166 franchises
n.（尤指选举议员的）选举权( franchise的名词复数 )；参政权；获特许权的商业机构（或服务）；（公司授予的）特许经销权v.给…以特许权，出售特许权( franchise的第三人称单数 )
- TV franchises will be auctioned to the highest bidder. 电视特许经营权将拍卖给出价最高的投标人。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- Ford dealerships operated as independent franchises. 福特汽车公司的代销商都是独立的联营商。 来自辞典例句
167 fixed
adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的
- Have you two fixed on a date for the wedding yet?你们俩选定婚期了吗？
- Once the aim is fixed,we should not change it arbitrarily.目标一旦确定，我们就不应该随意改变。
168 laboring
n.劳动，操劳v.努力争取(for)( labor的现在分词 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转
- The young man who said laboring was beneath his dignity finally put his pride in his pocket and got a job as a kitchen porter. 那个说过干活儿有失其身份的年轻人最终只能忍辱，做了厨房搬运工的工作。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- But this knowledge did not keep them from laboring to save him. 然而，这并不妨碍她们尽力挽救他。 来自飘（部分）
169 exultation
n.狂喜，得意
- It made him catch his breath, it lit his face with exultation. 听了这个名字，他屏住呼吸，乐得脸上放光。
- He could get up no exultation that was really worthy the name. 他一点都激动不起来。
170 cannon
n.大炮，火炮；飞机上的机关炮
- The soldiers fired the cannon.士兵们开炮。
- The cannon thundered in the hills.大炮在山间轰鸣。
171 civilize
vt.使文明，使开化 (=civilise)
- We must civilize away the boy's bad habit.我们必须教育这孩子使其改掉恶习。
- Those facilities are intended to civilize people.那些设施的目的在于教化民众。
172 dynamite
n./vt.(用)炸药(爆破)
- The workmen detonated the dynamite.工人们把炸药引爆了。
- The philosopher was still political dynamite.那位哲学家仍旧是政治上的爆炸性人物。
173 disciples
n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 )；门徒；耶稣的信徒；（尤指）耶稣十二门徒之一
- Judas was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. 犹大是耶稣十二门徒之一。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- "The names of the first two disciples were --" “最初的两个门徒的名字是——” 来自英汉文学 - 汤姆历险
174 avenge
v.为...复仇，为...报仇
- He swore to avenge himself on the mafia.他发誓说要向黑手党报仇。
- He will avenge the people on their oppressor.他将为人民向压迫者报仇。
175 rebuked
责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 )
- The company was publicly rebuked for having neglected safety procedures. 公司因忽略了安全规程而受到公开批评。
- The teacher rebuked the boy for throwing paper on the floor. 老师指责这个男孩将纸丢在地板上。
176 bullying
v.恐吓，威逼( bully的现在分词 )；豪；跋扈
- Many cases of bullying go unreported . 很多恐吓案件都没有人告发。
- All cases of bullying will be severely dealt with. 所有以大欺小的情况都将受到严肃处理。 来自《简明英汉词典》
177 brutal
adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的
- She has to face the brutal reality.她不得不去面对冷酷的现实。
- They're brutal people behind their civilised veneer.他们表面上温文有礼，骨子里却是野蛮残忍。
178 missionary
adj.教会的，传教(士)的；n.传教士
- She taught in a missionary school for a couple of years.她在一所教会学校教了两年书。
- I hope every member understands the value of missionary work. 我希望教友都了解传教工作的价值。
179 missionaries
n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 )
- Some missionaries came from England in the Qing Dynasty. 清朝时，从英国来了一些传教士。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The missionaries rebuked the natives for worshipping images. 传教士指责当地人崇拜偶像。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
180 fully
adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地
- The doctor asked me to breathe in,then to breathe out fully.医生让我先吸气，然后全部呼出。
- They soon became fully integrated into the local community.他们很快就完全融入了当地人的圈子。
181 naval
adj.海军的，军舰的，船的
- He took part in a great naval battle.他参加了一次大海战。
- The harbour is an important naval base.该港是一个重要的海军基地。
182 imperative
n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的
- He always speaks in an imperative tone of voice.他老是用命令的口吻讲话。
- The events of the past few days make it imperative for her to act.过去这几天发生的事迫使她不得不立即行动。
183 convene
v.集合，召集，召唤，聚集，集合
- The Diet will convene at 3p.m. tomorrow.国会将于明天下午三点钟开会。
- Senior officials convened in October 1991 in London.1991年10月，高级官员在伦敦会齐。
184 plundering
掠夺，抢劫( plunder的现在分词 )
- The troops crossed the country, plundering and looting as they went. 部队经过乡村，一路抢劫掳掠。
- They amassed huge wealth by plundering the colonies. 他们通过掠夺殖民地聚敛了大笔的财富。
185 guardian
n.监护人；守卫者，保护者
- The form must be signed by the child's parents or guardian. 这张表格须由孩子的家长或监护人签字。
- The press is a guardian of the public weal. 报刊是公共福利的卫护者。
186 molestation
n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨
- Michael Jackson is arrested by police on charges of child molestation. 2003年的今天，迈克尔·杰克逊因被警方指控有儿童性骚扰行为而被捕。 来自互联网
- Jackson pleads not guilty on the molestation charges. 2004年：杰克逊认罪不认罪的性骚扰指控。 来自互联网
187 complacent
adj.自满的；自鸣得意的
- We must not become complacent the moment we have some success.我们决不能一见成绩就自满起来。
- She was complacent about her achievements.她对自己的成绩沾沾自喜。
188 obliterates
v.除去( obliterate的第三人称单数 )；涂去；擦掉；彻底破坏或毁灭
- He obliterates her signature. 他擦掉了她的签名。 来自互联网
- A curtain is too heavy, too thick, and it obliterates every texture save its own. 但是帏幕太沉重，太厚密了，它抹去了一切纹理，只除了它自己的。 来自互联网
189 subterfuge
n.诡计；藉口
- European carping over the phraseology represented a mixture of hypocrisy and subterfuge.欧洲在措词上找岔子的做法既虚伪又狡诈。
- The Independents tried hard to swallow the wretched subterfuge.独立党的党员们硬着头皮想把这一拙劣的托词信以为真。
190 invertebrate
n.无脊椎动物
- Half of all invertebrate species live in tropical rain forests.一半的无脊椎动物物种生活在热带雨林中。
- Worms are an example of invertebrate animals.蠕虫是无脊椎动物的一个例子。
191 plausible
adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的
- His story sounded plausible.他说的那番话似乎是真实的。
- Her story sounded perfectly plausible.她的说辞听起来言之有理。
192 entrusted
v.委托，托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 )
- He entrusted the task to his nephew. 他把这任务托付给了他的侄儿。
- She was entrusted with the direction of the project. 她受委托负责这项计划。 来自《简明英汉词典》
193 exterior
adj.外部的，外在的；表面的
- The seed has a hard exterior covering.这种子外壳很硬。
- We are painting the exterior wall of the house.我们正在给房子的外墙涂漆。
194 gratitude
adj.感激，感谢
- I have expressed the depth of my gratitude to him.我向他表示了深切的谢意。
- She could not help her tears of gratitude rolling down her face.她感激的泪珠禁不住沿着面颊流了下来。
195 bestowed
赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 )
- It was a title bestowed upon him by the king. 那是国王赐给他的头衔。
- He considered himself unworthy of the honour they had bestowed on him. 他认为自己不配得到大家赋予他的荣誉。
196 behold
v.看，注视，看到
- The industry of these little ants is wonderful to behold.这些小蚂蚁辛勤劳动的样子看上去真令人惊叹。
- The sunrise at the seaside was quite a sight to behold.海滨日出真是个奇景。
197 quarried
v.从采石场采得( quarry的过去式和过去分词 )；从（书本等中）努力发掘（资料等）；在采石场采石
- The workmen quarried out a huge block of marble. 工人们从采石场采得一块很大的大理石。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The large limestone caves are also quarried for cement. 同时还在这些大石灰岩洞里开采水泥原料。 来自辞典例句
198 erect
n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的
- She held her head erect and her back straight.她昂着头，把背挺得笔直。
- Soldiers are trained to stand erect.士兵们训练站得笔直。
199 brotherhood
n.兄弟般的关系，手中情谊
- They broke up the brotherhood.他们断绝了兄弟关系。
- They live and work together in complete equality and brotherhood.他们完全平等和兄弟般地在一起生活和工作。