i86 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



THE PHILIPPINE ISLAKDS AND AMEKICAN CAPITAL. 



By J. KUSSELL SMITH. 



THAT the Philippine Islands are of value as a place for in- 

 vestment is an unexplained generalization that is now being 

 used to tempt business men. The object of this article is to discuss 

 this generalization. The idea that the Philippine Islands are of im- 

 portance to us, as a new field for our industrial developments, depends 

 upon two assumptions: First, that we need to go beyond the bounds 

 of the United States; second, that the Philippines offer the best 

 available field for the satisfaction of that need. 



As to the first assumption, the occasion and origin of the demand 

 for the retention of the Philippines furnish presumptive evidence 

 that it represents no real economic want of the American people. 

 No one ever thought of it until we heard the boom of Dewey's 

 guns at Manila. The demands that then arose for Eastern terri- 

 tory were the natural result of a just pride in the amazing triumph 

 of our navy. Before the battle of Manila a suggestion that we 

 should take the Philippines and receive $20,000,000 as a bonus we 

 would have deemed preposterous. Before that battle, one idea was 

 uppermost in the minds of the American people — namely, the de- 

 velopment of the American continent. And yet, along with the en- 

 thusiasm over the accomplishments of our army and navy, the idea 

 has crept into some minds that we are in need of more land to de- 

 velop, and that we must find it in the Eastern Hemisphere. 



Examination of the internal condition of the United States does 

 not seem to indicate such need. Our exports are an index to our 

 condition. In 1872 we exported merchandise to the value of 

 $522,000,000; in 1898 the amount had swelled to $1,230,000,000, 

 an increase of two hundred and thirty-five per cent. No European 

 nation has shown such progress. Despite their colonial empires, 

 their armies and navies, their chartered companies, their spheres of 

 influence, and all their elaborate paraphernalia, we are competing 

 wdth them in their own markets. Wc have pursued a policy the op- 

 posite of theirs and are outstripping them in the race for a share of 

 the world's trade. It is not compatible with industrial wisdom to 

 change and adopt the policy of our less successful rivals just as the 

 success of our own policy is being fully demonstrated. 



A nation's commercial supremacy rests upon the same principles 

 as a business man's leadership in his trade — namely, superiority of 

 production. It does not require a citation of evidence to say that the 

 producers of Europe are staggering under the burden of their armies 

 and navies. While they are thus handicapped, we have nothing to 



