SOME EFFECTS OF OUTLYING DEPENDENCIES UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

BY HENRY C. MORRIS,

OF CHICAGO.

A nation, in its immaturity, is prone to look only at the more apparent features of its existence; as it grows in power it views with complacency the respect paid to its prowess, the authority which it is able to enforce and the volume of commerce it maintains. By its conduct and attitude the policies of foreign states are fixed; its navy controls the seas; its army threatens its neighbors; its merchants roam through the more remote quarters of the earth; its legislators establish laws for multitudes without its borders; its ambassadors are consulted at every Court; its rulers gain the regard and affection of rival potentates and princes. How to achieve these results, so patent to the observer, forms the theme of many arguments; but how few of the people realize what obligations and effects are reciprocally imposed upon them themselves; how their development, temperament and institutions may be varied, favored or thwarted by their relations with foreign

states.

In a somewhat different degree and in directions which, in various instances, have been diametrically opposite, the administration of colonial possessions has in due time affected the legislation, the morals, the tendencies and the character of every nation owning them. Can the United States, lately undertaking similar enterprises, however disguised in name, claim to be exempt from the rule? Such a question might be fairly answered in the negative. Assuming, therefore, that there will not be any exception from the usual consequences in this respect, what are some of the more general effects which the Philippines, Cuba, Porto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and Panama will exert upon the home country irrespective of their legal or constitutional relationship, as determined by the Supreme

Court, and consequently without regard to the nature of the tie by which they are bound?

Although the results respectively arising from the control of dependencies, differing in geographical situation, may in detail be widely divergent, they are in the general sense strikingly along similar lines; in each individual case emphasis may perhaps be laid on some particular feature, but the same tendency persists. Possession or authority presupposes a certain relationship and beyond the mere reasons for acquisition,which may have been momentary, although durable in results -some cause for prevailing conditions. Heretofore there has always existed between mother country and colony some bond of sympathy; a feeling of deep interest on the part of the paramount state or its people. In every age the desire for commercial supremacy, military renown, national prestige, religious freedom and political liberty, or, conversely, escape from intellectual or physical servitude has been a moving force to colonizing effort; as one or the other has predominated, the effects have varied. Can it yet be said what motives lie at the root of American energy in distant lands? Are our people purely philanthropic? Are they mainly ambitious of extending the national domain, or are they attracted by the more sordid calculations of financial gain? To what extent are these aims fixed or changing and how far are they conscious or voluntary? In time of war and physical conflict the impulses of rulers and people are sharply defined and clearly enunciated, but after the stress and storm they inevitably become more complex and less apparent. The masses, in a large measure, lose their volition and leaving the direction of affairs more and more to those charged with their administration, they unconsciously drift as circumstances of domestic and foreign policy necessitate. A people, apparently moved in the first instance solely by aspirations for religious or political liberty, may soon fall a victim to commercial ambition or to the race for wealth; witness the example of Spain in the sixteenth century and England two hundred years later; indeed, the original economic causes for colonization have too often been disguised under the

enthusiasm of the fervent churchman or political philosopher. The mainsprings of many such movements of the past have only in recent years been properly recognized and credited with their due importance. Let us not now deceive ourselves in our own contemporaneous history, but let us rather remember that sufficient time has not yet elapsed properly to observe conditions with impartiality and completely to judge of the results. In colonial enterprises the modification of ideals is in itself one of the most characteristic effects. The United States is now apparently in a stage of transition; ten years ago few persons would have admitted that a war would be fought with a foreign power for the extension of markets for our products and manufactures; and even to-day the fact that such was the underlying cause for the conflict with Spain would be reluctantly conceded; while indeed the national consciousness of such a motive at that time can be truthfully denied, nevertheless, among the manifest results, next to the increase in area and population, the expansion of our trade relations is the most apparent.

The statistics of trade between the United States and foreign countries as given by "Commercial America in 1905," a publication prepared under the direction of O. P. Austin, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor, show a very material growth in the volume of business transacted during the preceding ten years. When the figures for certain special localities are examined, the effects of our recent development are peculiarly evident. Considering in the first place, the trade with our newly acquired dependencies and Cuba, it appears that the imports into the United States were as follows:

On the other hand, the exports from the United States were:

Pursuing the inquiry still further and investigating this time the status of our trade with the two principal independent powers of the Orient, it appears that their imports into the United States have been:

It is apparent that our trade has not only been growing with the flag but far beyond it; nor has foreign soil formed a serious barrier to its development in other portions of the far East. Let us cite some further statistics, as for example for British and Dutch possessions; first for imports into the United States:

The exports for the same period from the United States:

It would therefore appear that the extension of our influence in the Pacific has not merely opened up markets under the protection of our own flag and laws, but has done infinitely more in developing the demand for our products, both on the part of independent peoples and colonists of other powers. Incidentally, it may here be noticed that the tonnage of American owned vessels on the Pacific Coast increased from 433,502 tons in 1895 to 821,710 tons in 1905. While this growth is relatively larger than that for Atlantic and Gulf ports, it is regrettable that the greater portion of this trade should still be carried in foreign bottoms.

Aside, however, from the slow growth of the merchant marine, the commercial achievements of Americans in the Orient during the last ten years may, comparatively speaking, be termed stupendous, although even yet we control only a very small share of the total trade and considerably less than under all the circumstances we should have. While of course without the consequences of the war with Spain there would have been some natural progress; while the forward movement of China and Japan would to a certain extent have drawn our attention in their direction, while perhaps, certain modifications in the tariff may have contributed somewhat to the results; while the Boer war may have crippled for a time our greatest competitor; while possibly Germany might be cited as a country the trade of which has developed without the impulse of war and prosperous colonial possessions, and while Americans might have participated in Chinese trade without sending their troops to assist in the rescue of the foreign legations at Pekin, still it is extremely doubtful if, without the stimulus inspired by the broader view of the world, gained by our military and naval experience, coupled with the acquisition of new territories, we should have accomplished any results in eastern trade comparable to those actually achieved.