this country has many important duties to fulfil in the family of nations, but annexation of other lands is not one of them.

the contrary opinion is sometimes expressed, but the sooner we sit down upon it the less likely we are to neglect our own business.

annexation is an old business, and sometimes it has been profitable; but the nations who best understood it have but few of their old possessions left, and they would get rid of some of these, if they could without being laughed at.

what nations could we stand any fair chance of annexing? perhaps mexico, canada and some of the west india islands. what could be done with them? nothing that, in the long run, would benefit us. what would they do with us? they would merely introduce discordant elements that would not help us a particle in making our own national position secure. our country is so large already that there are jarring interests making themselves felt and known in congress, in the press, in public opinion, and{369}

image not available: administration building.

administration building.

with all the efforts that have been made they are approaching solution at so slow a rate that a number of the advocates of one side or the other are discouraged and indignant. there are a great many brilliant theories of what might be done by the annexation of this or that country by the united states. but an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and fortunately we have enough facts to keep us for a long time in examination if we will take the pains.

the ancient nation called rome was the champion annexer of the world. she annexed every territory that it was possible for her soldiers to reach, and at one time the entire world owed allegiance to rome. it was practical allegiance, too, because we read in the gospel according to st. matthew that in the days of augustus c?sar there went out a decree that all the world should be taxed. to collect taxes from annexed countries is more than some modern nations have ever been able to do. the military and political prestige of rome was afterward strengthened by religion. rome ruled the souls as well as the bodies and estates of men, but even the holy roman empire went to pieces.

greece did a great deal of annexing in the days of alexander, who penetrated farther into the civilizations of the east than the legions of the c?sars ever did, but greece to-day is a mere spot upon the map.{370}

but it is not necessary to go so far back. the great colonizing and annexing schemes of the world, when nation after nation became numerous and free enough to compete with each other, began soon after the discovery of america. nearly every european power planted colonies in some portions of the new world. most of these powers exist and are strong to-day. but where are their colonies? england has canada to be sure, simply because she does not know how to get rid of it. but spain has not a foot of ground upon the mainland of america, and holds her island possessions by very uncertain tenure. look at cuba, “the ever-faithful island,” as she is called, with the greatest extremity of sarcasm. the majority of the inhabitants detest the mother country and all the officials she sends out there, her taxes are paid grudgingly, again and again a large minority of the inhabitants have struggled to free themselves from the spanish yoke, and the struggle will probably continue in view of the illustrious examples set by mexico and all the south american republics. perhaps you will say that spain is a bankrupt old brute. well, that is not overstating the matter at all. but look from spain to holland. the dutch have not been cruel taskmasters. they have planted a number of colonies, and their paternal government, if characterized by thrift, has also been unstained by any of the cruelties and brutalities{371} which have made the name of spain a synonym for savagery. how many of holland’s colonies remain in the possession of the mother country? none of any consequence except the island of java, and java is no longer a treasury for holland.

france at one time had large colonial possessions. she owned nearly one-half of the territory now embraced by the boundaries of the united states and all of canada beside. france has now a few insignificant islands and some undesirable swamp-land in africa, which is valuable chiefly as a place to send military officers who are so ambitious at home as to be somewhat troublesome. sweden has no colonies at all. denmark has two or three little islands near the equator, and has an elephant on her hands in the shape of iceland.

but, you say that england is an exception to all these relations. well; is she? do facts and figures justify the assertion? the most peaceable portion of the british empire at the present time is the dominion of canada. canada gives england absolutely no trouble on her own part. australia is about as good. but of what use is either country to england except as a resort for dissatisfied englishmen who wish to begin life anew somewhere else?—an opportunity which they could have equally well if england didn’t own a particle of soil outside the british islands.{372}

but england has a large empire in the east. she holds nearly all of india. yes; but how does she hold it? some of it by absolute possession, and a great deal through protectorates and treaties, through intrigues with native princes and by other means which the people of the united states would think beneath the dignity of our own country to exercise anywhere else. we know what happened in india a few years ago when great masses of people rose against english rule, and gave us the most horrible details of war that this century has ever heard of. england’s unrest and uneasiness about her possessions in india can be seen by any one who reads the english newspapers or magazines or reviews. some phase or other of the indian question is continually popping up, and there never is anything in it to pacify the national unrest as to the future of the two countries. the possibility of assimilation of the population of india and england is laughed at by englishmen of all degrees. britons will not live in india unless they are compelled to do so, and also coaxed by compensation such as englishmen never expect to receive at home. even in the days of “john company” it was impossible to keep an army there without double pay. i am not certain about the private soldiers, but the officers received their pay from the home government and{373} an equal amount from the company, and even then the majority of them were discontented.

as for the natives liking england or english habits or english customs, it would be unreasonable to expect it, even did not facts prove that it is impossible. native indians of wealth and intelligence frequently visit england but very few remain. what is called the superior civilization of the west has no charms for them. and they don’t take english customs and principles home with them to disseminate among their own class and the orders beneath it. many intelligent natives will admit that portions of the country are better ruled than they were under the native princes a hundred or more years ago. but at heart the feeling is that the old ways, if not the best, are certainly the most desirable and the most fitted to the nature of the people. england is in chronic fear of uprisings and disturbances. her most statesmanlike public officials and her ablest soldiers are sent to india; not enough of them can be spared even to cross the channel to ireland.

and, speaking of ireland, which is another of great britain’s annexations, is there a more prominent and damning disgrace existing in the name of any civilized government of the world? it is not necessary to go over the irish question at all. every man knows enough about it to know that england’s rule of ireland has been an{374} entire and disgraceful failure, and that with ample opportunities for colonization, for maintaining military establishments, for pacifying the people, england has persistently and continuously failed to make ireland anything but a hot-bed of hatred.

where england is at peace with her colonies, what price does she pay? why, she simply makes them almost absolutely independent of the home government. except nominal allegiance to the mother country and the acceptance of a viceroy, governor-general, or representative of the throne by some title or other, these countries are almost as free of england as the united states. they have their own parliaments, elect their own officials, make their own laws, assess their own taxes, and even perpetrate huge tariff lists, under which the products of the mother country are obliged to pay handsomely for being admitted at all. the only bond between canada or australia and england is one of affection to the mother country. this sometimes endures to the second generation, but there is precious little of it in the third. you can easily enough find that out for yourself by going up to canada and becoming acquainted in almost any town in the dominion. it seems farcical, but it is nevertheless a fact, that the best english citizens in canada are frenchmen, descendants of the original settlers who fought england furiously and often{375} successfully for more than a hundred years. and the only ground for the loyalty of these people is apparently that there is no other place for them to go, and no way to take with them what little they possess.

australia is just as independent as canada. if she should attempt to secede and declare herself as independent as she really is, england would probably send down fleets and armies, and there would be war for a long time, with the same result in the end that followed the attempt to change the opinions of the thirteen colonies who organized this nation of ours. england’s rule of the united states certainly was not severe. now that the spirit of the revolution has been watered out through two or three generations, it is perfectly safe to admit that england never took as much money out of this country as she put into it. so, regarded as a business enterprise, annexation or colonization did not pay here. as soon as she began to demand taxes from the colonies the revolt began. the question of her moral right is one that is not discussed now. discussion would not do any good. but if taxes cannot be levied upon a colony or an annexed country, of what possible service is the new land to the old?

well, what is our lesson from all this? what would be the result of our annexing either mexico, canada, or cuba, for instance, to say nothing{376} of the small republics in the caribbean sea and in central america, toward which some of our demagogues have occasionally pretended to cast longing eyes, and found a few fools to encourage them in doing so? it would be utterly impossible under the spirit of our institutions for us to treat any such land as a conquered country. the declaration of independence would have to be completely overturned before we could consistently enter upon any such custom. the most that we could do would be to admit these countries as portions of the union. we would scarcely pretend to obtain them by force for this purpose, but if we were to want to get them peaceably, what would be the only method? why, by granting them equal rights with our own citizens. successful annexation would depend upon the acquiescence of the majority of the inhabitants of the countries alluded to. these people, like people everywhere else, have leaders of their own. all leaders have aspirations and personal ambitions, and personal pockets which never are sufficiently full. we would have to provide for them first before we could be certain of the people. we would be obliged to divide each country into states bearing some proportion of population to those which we already have. we would be obliged to give them representation in both houses of congress, provide judicial systems for them, and in every way recognize them as our equals.{377}

now, the truth is, no sane american believes the people of any of those countries to be equal to those of our own. there are intelligent mexicans and cubans and canadians, but we as a body have very little respect for the general run of people in those countries; no more respect than their own rulers have, and that is very little. some exception must be made in the case of canada, which is inhabited, so far as the whites are concerned, mainly by intelligent people. but mexico, according to its own statesmen and according to all travellers who have been in it, is practically a semi-civilized country. the most of the inhabitants are deplorably ignorant. freedom of ballot is an utter farce. law is a matter of barter, and life and property, while nominally secure, are frequently threatened by uprisings which no local government has yet been able to promptly suppress, and which certainly could not be suppressed by a central government three thousand miles away with an army of the conventional size of that of the united states.

cuba is worse than mexico rather than better. cuba has been in a condition of discontent and disturbance for so long that there are but few portions of the island on which life and property are safe. the majority of the voters can be purchased at any election time for a very small outlay of money or rum, and the same purchased voters could be persuaded by similar means to{378} rise within a week against the newly elected authorities, even if all happened to be their own candidates for office. the class of representatives which cuba would be obliged to send to washington could not possibly be expected to have any interest in national legislation except such as pertained to their own portion of the land. they have no sympathies of any sort with any portion of the people or industries or aspirations of the united states. it would be unfair to expect it of them. by birth and tradition they are radically different from us. their isolation from us would be none the less even were they part of our country, and the consequence would be an alien class, demanding everything and yielding nothing, exactly what would be the case were we to annex mexico.

canada may drift to us in time. some statesmen on both sides of the line regard this as inevitable. well, what must be will be. but before any such marriage of nations there ought to be a long courtship between the parties. at present there is no love whatever between them, and until there is a marked change in this respect the union would be too utterly selfish on each side to be safe for either. we want some things from canada, it is true. we have used up most of our visible supply of standing timber, and we could find enough in canada for a century to come to make up for all deficiencies. but what{379} else would we get? very little. we assume that canada will buy a great deal from us. but it does not seem to occur to the majority of our people that canada is not a large purchasing country. canada has not only no rich class, as we regard the expression, but her well-to-do class is poor, and the majority of her people are not only very poor, but have very few needs and demands to be supplied even had they unlimited means. the french canadians, who are probably the most industrious of the population, live more plainly than any american would believe until he had travelled in the country largely. they are so poor that they regard themselves in paradise financially when they can find occupation upon american fishing vessels and in american factories. the pay of factory hands in the eastern states is very small, as the trades’ unions have informed us frequently and without any exaggeration, but it is infinitely better than anything that the young men and young women of lower canada could find at home. the home of the french canadian, who seems to be entirely contented, contains so little furniture that to the poor mechanic of a northern city it would seem very bare and empty. the farming population of english birth is better off, lives better and has broader and more expensive tastes. but it is one thing to have tastes and quite a different thing to have the means to gratify them. the means{380} would not be any greater if those people were citizens of the united states than they are now.

one thing we would receive in bountiful measure from canada were we to annex her, and that is debt. she is loaded with debt in proportion to the assessed value of everything within her borders about five times as heavily as the united states, and let no one imagine that the canadian is going to be fool enough to become part of our country and pay a proportion of our debts without having her own debts paid by us. the canadian debt and ours would have to be amalgamated, with the result that each individual taxpayer of the united states would have to take a share in paying, literally paying, for canada.

i know that a great deal is said about the vexatious questions that would be entirely disposed of were canada to become part of this union. but would we really get rid of them? all of the territory to the north of us is not strictly canadian. some of it still belongs to england, and even if england were quite willing to be entirely rid of the dominion, she would keep a foothold here if only for the purpose of having a source of food supply from the fisheries. nearly two hundred years ago, when the british islands were nowhere near as populous as at present, and the sea yielded a bountiful harvest all along the british coast, england fought france savagely{381} on the fisheries question, and america so fully sympathized with her as to assist her to the best of her ability. so, as long as england is anywhere on our border, it would be useless to imagine ourselves rid of her as a possible enemy. she could concentrate troops and munitions of war quite as easily upon any large island or point of the upper half of north america as she can in canada. she might not be quite so near our border or have so many opportunities for crossing, but she would be far enough away for us not to be able to watch her so closely.

the only purposes of annexation, now that men are no longer stolen and killed for the nominal reason that we wish to make christians of them, are to get something worth having for its own sake or to find a place of overflow for surplus population. none of our neighbors are rich except in debt. they have nothing we want which we cannot get cheaper by purchase than at the expense of time, money and patience that even peaceable annexation would require.

as for receptacles of overflow, we already have enough to last us a century or two. do not take any stock in the story that there is no more government land worth having, and that there are no more chances for the poor man in the united states. i know that such stories are told frequently by those who are supposed to know most about it. the younger men of the farming communities{382} of the west, some thousands of them, have been howling for years to be allowed to enter the so-called territory of oklahoma. but if to each of the majority of these men were given a quarter section of land in the garden of paradise as it existed before the fall of adam, they would still be looking out for some new location. there is a great floating, discontented mass of people in the new countries. the proportion is quite as great as it is in the large cities. there are many farmers in the west who have occupied half a dozen different homesteads on pre-emption claims in succession, turned up a little ground, built some sort of house which never was finished, become discouraged or disheartened or restless, sold out at a loss or abandoned their claims, put their portable property in a wagon or boat and started in search of some new country. their impulse seems to be exactly that of the small boy who is out fishing. he always seems to think the fish will bite better a little further on, either up or down the stream, it does not matter which, and he rambles from one to the other because rambling is a great deal easier work than fishing. the unsurveyed territory of the united states is still enormous. between the city of new york and the ohio river there are still hundreds of thousands of acres of good land which never echoed the sound of the lumberman’s axe nor heard the ploughman’s whistle or oath.{383}

several years ago the president of a prominent railway corporation, a trunk line, said to me that there were hundreds of miles of his company’s land which never contributed in any way to the support of the road. it produced nothing, and scarcely anything was carried over the road to it. and he wanted to know if i could give him any possible reason why immigrants by hundreds went over the line to points a thousand miles away when so much good land was awaiting tillage, and was several hundred miles nearer markets than the country to which they were going. i could not, except to suggest that it was human nature to imagine that the places which were furtherest away offered the greatest advantages.

why, even in the state of new york, with its five or six million inhabitants, there are large counties, and not in the adirondack region either, of which not more than half the good land is under cultivation to-day. the land is not bad, the distance from rail communication and from markets is not great. everything is more favorable to the settler than in some portions of the western states that are filling up rapidly, and yet the immigrant passes all these localities and goes further away, and he who already is there is often dissatisfied and anxious to sell out and go somewhere apparently for no other purpose except to get a new start. the hill countries of all the older states still contain immense quantities{384} of valuable ground which might be made to yield more profitable crops per acre than anybody’s wheat-land in the most favored sections of the united states. the ground that the state of tennessee some years ago placed upon the market at six cents an acre so as to have it in personal instead of public possession, and with the hope of getting a little something out of it in the way of taxes, is as good as many of the more valuable portions of the eastern states. the entire table-land of the mountain range that separates the eastern states from the west is but sparsely inhabited. not much of it can be utilized for large planting of staple crops, but all of it is valuable for something that might be turned to profit. it is better ground than the switzers live well on in their native country and far better naturally than that of some of the more prosperous provinces of france. on the basis of the population of the state of new york, which state certainly is not overcrowded in its agricultural districts, this nation has room for all people who will be born in it or who by any possibility can immigrate to it for two or three centuries to come.

we need no place of overflow for any of our population that is not criminal, and this class can be trusted to find its own outlets and places of refuge without any assistance from the government or the people.