Read two passages in the debate over the United States’ Open Door policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States” . . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China’s illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. . . .

. . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . The Pacific is the ocean of the commerce of the future. Most future wars will be conflicts for commerce. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world.

–Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 1900

The question is: Shall we attempt to establish ourselves as a power in the Far East and possess the Philippines for glory? . . . . If we take the Philippines . . . they will yield us nothing, and probably be a source of annual expense. Certainly they will be a grievous drain upon revenue if we consider the enormous army and navy which we shall be forced to maintain upon their account. . . .

Whether the United States maintain its present unique position of safety, or forfeit it through acquiring foreign possessions, is to be decided by its action in regard to the Philippines.

–Andrew Carnegie, 1898



Which statement best contrasts these two points of view?

Beveridge supports the Open Door policy because of potential economic benefits, while Carnegie opposes it because of possible economic costs.
Beveridge opposes the Open Door policy because of potential economic costs, while Carnegie supports it because of possible economic benefits.
Beveridge supports the Open Door policy because of potential military benefits, while Carnegie opposes it because of possible military costs.
Beveridge opposes the Open Door policy because of potential military costs, while Carnegie supports it because of possible military benefits.