and beautiful character. But I thought that address, which
was not only to utter the voice of public sorrow, but to give
a careful and discriminating sketch of the public life of
its subject, ought to be delivered by some person who agreed
with him in regard to the most important action of his life.
I could not well pass over the Philippine question. I could
not well speak of it without stating my own opinion. I could
not undertake to state President McKinley's opinion, conduct
or policy, without expressing my disapproval of it, and if
I did not do that, I could not state it without being thought
by those who heartily approved it, not to have stated it justly
and fairly.

I had repeatedly declared, during the preceding two years,
both before and since his death, my highest admiration for
the intellectual and moral qualities of my beloved friend,
and my belief that he would have a very high place in history
among the best and ablest men of the country.

But I thought the story of the important part of his life
should be told from his point of view, and not from mine;
that the reasons which governed him should be stated by a
person sure to appreciate them fully. If a great Catholic
Prelate were to die, his eulogy should not be pronounced
by a Protestant. When Dr. Channing died, we did not select
a Calvinist minister to pronounce his funeral sermon. When
Charles Sumner died Mr. Schurz and Mr. Curtis, not some old
Whig, and not some earnest supporter of General Grant, pronounced
the eulogy. I suppose nobody would have dreamed of asking
a Free Trader to pronounce the eulogy on President McKinley
if he had died soon after the beginning of his first term.
So I declined the office. The City did not ask anybody else
to fill my place, or perform the task.

I will not now renew the debate about our treatment of the
people of the Philippine Islands. My opinion has not at all
changed. I think that under the lead of Mabini and Aguinaldo
and their associates, but for our interference, a Republic
would have been established in Luzon, which would have compared
well with the best of the Republican Governments between the
United States and Cape Horn. For years and for generations,
and perhaps for centuries, there would have been turbulence,
disorder and revolution. But in her own way Destiny would
have evolved for them a force of civic rule best adapted to
their need. If we had treated them as we did Cuba, we should