Show MR WESTERvELrS INQUIRY 2o the dior or r Te l 1 the issue of your valued paper dated fn sov10 you print an editoniai under time title of AmerIcan and Asiatic Deals the pprse ot which appears tp be to appr I point wherein our right to acquire and occupy the Philippine islands differs front Our rights already acquired to Cltor ala and the rt or the territory ceded by Mexico to the United States Having Ire quentb heard saleents made to the ef fet tat our p t1ndC title to these Isl ands Is baseet and that our acts or dominion do-minion therearc nothing hut usuratons and never having hear any reasonable arguments In support of thee Statements I therefore began time perusat of your ar tide with much pleasure in the hope of Obtaining from it some light on the sub jectThe The tIrt twt paragraphs in time itrst sentence in the third paragraph are rich in promise phich remains unfulfilled dad hod out to the reader high hopss thlch are rudely dispelled bythe remain dec of the article I take the liberty of qlioting the opening passages There are peopme who have said that our title to the Philippines Is precisely sucKs title as our title to Texas Arizona New Mexico California Nevada and Utah and there are others who declare that no man can explain the difference There are peopl who refuse to see the difference today although they saw it a yearago and there are those who can noc explain the difference because they wilt not 1i1stor explains it however and tt may be of interest to quote a fes passages pass-ages at this juncture Presidrnt Polk explained the reasons shich appeared to be necessities tom the annexation of New Mexico and California Califor-nia S I Infer from the foregoing and I think tm warranted in the inference that the object of the article was to explain the difference between our title to the Philippines Philip-pines and our title to California In other wards to explain wherein our right to ac qulre the one differs from our right to acquire the other and I also infer that the words quoted from President Polk were intended to exalain the difference tn the matter of righe and title between the two cases But as is too frequenty the casein case-in casuistic reasoning you appear to have completely lost sight of the distinc thIn bstwe3a right and expediency If youwill carefully and as dispassionately as potsibie go over the quotations you have made you wills I think observe two thlngs First that many of the argu mecu so quoted apply with the same foree to the question of time Philippines as to that of California And second that everir argument so quoted both Chain wh1ch would apply to the Philippines and those which refer to different conditions is directed solely and exclusively to the question of the advisability and expediency expe-diency of annexing the ternitor There is nottdng whatever said which even iv motely bears upon the question of the rIght of the United St5tes to annex the ternitor ceded by Mexico This it ap rears was taken for granted 1 Thetefore I sa the authorities Which iT you have invoked donoeprove your case nor even tend in the direetfon of proof Yu say that there is a difference between our right to he Philippines and our right to California That I understand to be the proposition you have started out with Now if you are ensroot in this propesition I shall be very pleased and in this I nra cunildent I represent a considerable con-siderable class among your readers to hean what your reasons are in support of It I am open to conviction but I want to hear some other reasons I shall esteem it a favor if you will iv ply to the foregoing through your pages at an early date Iq dctng so you are at libenty t print this letter if you so do sire ery truly yours GEORGE WESTERVELT Salt LakeClty Not 5 1599 |