584123. ' THE WATER CURE FROM A MISSION-. ARY POINT OF VIEW. / "THE 'WATER. CURE.' "BY -REV. HOMER C. ST4/TZ, D.D., Presiding Elder in the Philippines." [From the 'Central Christian Advocate,' Kansas City, Mo., June 4, 1902.] "Soon after arriving in the Philippines, I heard of the 'water cure.' A young volunteer lieutenant mentioned it one day in a joking fashion, and my curiosity was aroused. In answer to my questions he told me what it is, why it was administered, andall about it. It is the means used by the Spaniards there for many years, and adopted by our forces, to compel spies to tell what they know. Instead of hanging them hy-the thumbs, shutting them up in dark dungeons, pouring water for hours in a tiny stream on their wrists, or putting them into a modem 'sweatbox,' they gave them the 'water cure,' so called. "The manner of giving it has been fully described in the secular press. The spy was held flat on his back on the ground, a bamboo or other 'strong and at the same time hollow tube was forced ( between his teeth, and he was slowly poured uncomfortatbly and sometimes dangerously full of water. He had it in his own power to stop the process or prevent it altogether. If he'would tell what he knew of the strength, location, and plans of the enemy, he was let go without any semblance of violence, and fed, on the best rations the camp or column afforded. If he preferred to keep his own secrets, he had a very uncomfortable time of it. Usually he would tell his story before the operation had gone,far enough: to seriously hurt him. I could only learn of one man who had died under the operation, and was told that he died from fright rather than from the amount of water taken. As a rule the 'victim fealt no lasting effects from his rough treatment. Within a day or two he was quite himself again. "What about the charge that the administration of the socalled 'water cure' was 'proof of the horrible diabolism of the army, as one writer calls it, 'infernally cruel,' 'inexcusably defiant of the laws of civilized warfare,' etc.? Let us look at the facts "i. This treatment was never given wantonly; or, if so, it was entirely without sanction and contrary to the most vigilant efforts of officers commanding. "2. It was given only to spies and such captured Filipinos as could give important information as to military movements. "3. In all countries and in all times the life of the spy is forfeit to his captors. In the Revolution Andre paid that forfeit like a man, and no one accused the American soldiers of violating the laws of war. In the Civil War shooting of spies was not at all uncommon. Every spy understood that he took his life in his hands when he donned his disguise and crossed the enemy's lines. "4. In the administration of the water cure the life of the spy was spared. He was given a severe time of it for an hour or so, told what he knew, often enabled the commanding officer of the squad that caught him to save valuable American lives and accomplish those ends for which he had been sent out with the greatest economy of blood and expense. "5. If the violent critics of this method of gaining information/ from men whose lives were forfeited according to the rules of warfare the world over would put themselves in the places of soldiers in lonely and remote bamboo jungles, I fancy,fey would feel differently. If they were placed where, by rough handling, a' man whom they had a right to shoot, and compelling him to tell what he knew, they could have saved scores of lives, including the life of the man who suffered at their hands, the matter would not look as it does here, divorced from the stern conditions of warfare with a treacherous enemy. "I am not apologizing for cruelty. Where cruelty is wanton, let it be punished to the fullest extent. But war itself is horribly cruel, and in the war there is such a thing as an economy of cruelty and an economy of blood-letting. From all the information I could gather from Americans and Filipinos, the so-called 'water cure' in the majority of instances was administered in the honest belief that it was the lesser of two evils. "On the other hand, it is true that European and American soldiers are, as a rule, overbearing and insolent. among Eastern people, and are often guilty of a kind of rough and unforgivable barbarism in their treatment of them. If it shall be proved that an order was given to make the island of ar o 'a howling wilderness,' and to put to death 'every male Filip i lin that island ten years old and older,' the man who gave it sha-d4 be made to feel the heavy hand of discipline. That is not war;hat is exter 3 mination. And though the foe did poison its spears and its bolo points, though they were guilty of all possible treachery, and were, in fact, the robbers and brigands which it is charged they were, still the American army cannot afford to wage war in this Moslem fashion." The following comm r/ication regarding Dr. Stuntz's article was sent to the edito/of the "Central Christian Advocate," but he did not see fit to publish it: I"305 ARCH ST., PHILADELPHIA, / y"une II, I902. "TO THEWEDITOR OF THE 'CENTRAL CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE,' Kansas ' City. " My dear Sir: Through the kindness of a friend, an honored member.of the Methodist Church, I have received a copy of your issue of June 4th, in which appears first my letter on the 'water cure,' second that of Rev. Homer C. Stuntz, D.D., Presiding Elder in the Philippines. "This second letter of Dr. Stuntz is one of definite and positive value, for it establishes beyond a doubt the fact which I have been laboring for the past two years to demonstrate, that torture -as it happens a torture of the Spanish Inquisition-has been used under our flag for the purpose of extorting confessions and gaining information to a military end. This fact was long denied by the authorities at Washington, and even now distinguished representatives of the Administration-Governor Taft, Mr. Root, and the President himself-have explained the matter in a way which was calculated to confuse and mislead the publicmind as to the truth in regard to it. They have sought to convey the impression that whatever atrocities had beeh committed, or tortures used, had been done in hot blood, or as acts of retaliation, or by 'weak or bad men'-I use the exact words of Governor Taft in his New Haven speech-who were acting contrary to the orders of their superiors. Now Dr. Stustz has clearly, by the facts that he presents in his letter, refuted these implications and has shown precisely what the torture was used for. It is a great advance, to have this one point established. If the tortures and atrocities complained of were, as the apologists for the Administration seek to make the people believe, occasional acts without authorization, we could forgive them; at any rate, we should have to regard them in a very different light from what we are obliged to do if they are acts performed under a general policy and practically 4 commanded by the authorities. We must, therefore, ask the American people whether they approve this policy of torture for extorting confessions, which Dr. Stuntz has admitted is practised, and the very existence of which as a policy the Administration apologists generally deny. "To approve such a policy, I maintain, is to go back to the middle ages and- to estop ourselves from condemning the methods of the Spanish Inquisition. Are Christians of to-,day ready to take that position? The water cure is an old Spanish torture. Dr. Stuntz in his letter defends the water cure; he therefore defends Spanish torture. In fact, he seems to think its use in the treatment of so-called spies was preferable to the infliction of the death penalty-a very dangerous admission, it seems to me. It is one thing to take a man's life under a prescribed law which admits the infliction of that penalty; it is another thing to torture a man to make him confess and to use his testimony, derived by torture, as valid evidence. Dr. Stuntz has forgotten or is ignorant of the fact that in Order Number One Hundred-which foyred the existing rules regulating our military movements during the Civil War, and which Secretary Root declared governed our operations in the Philippines and which was; adopted by our great President, Abraham Lincoln-the use of torture to extort confession was absolutely forbidden; the hanging of spies was not forbidden. Does Dr. Stuntz, and do the American people, think that prohibition of torture was unwise? Why was torture forbidden?. Why up to this moment has the general sentiment of the most enlightened portion of mankind rejected it with horror as a meanas either for obtaining evidence or compelling opinions? It seems sad that in the year I902 I should be obliged to ask and to answer that question; but since Dr. Stuntz forces me, I will endeavor to do this. "i. To torture a human being is revolting in the highest degree to the instincts of a highly developed humanity. It is a treatment of the body of a fellow-being which our ethical and intellectual progress causes us to revolt from. It is an intolerable.act of disrespect to the temple of man's body, that temple which the Divine spirit of God himself condescends to enter. We may be justified in killing a man for crime, we are never justified in torturing him. I assert this, I shall not attempt to prove it. I shall leave my bold assertion to be accepted or rejected by the conscience -of civilization. "2. It is a highly unsatisfactory way of getting evidence. That is one strong reason why men in Civilized communities have 5 abandoned its use in jurisprudence. I am inclined to think that Dr. Stuntz himself, if he had been subjected to some of the tortures which I know some of our officers have inflicted on Filipinos, would have admitted things that he does not really assent tothe infallibility of the Pope, for example, in order to escape the sufferings which these entail. Or, supposing that he or any of us were called upon to witness inflicted on: some near and dear relatiye, or friend of ours, a torture which I have reason to know one of our officers inflicted on a Filipino woman; he or we might be induced to say almost anything was true which we knew to be false, in 'order to free one we loved from suc. shameful treatment. This poor woman was completely stripped of her clothing, her feet were tied together, and she was lowered by ropes, head downward, into a well, until through suffering and fear she gave so-called testimony which secured the death of four men. That testimony was actually used to take these men's lives. It was a horrible crime on the part of that officer..Suppose a sister, or a mother, or a daughter, or a wife of ours was so treated, what would be our emotions? The question is not idly asked. "3. Torture, even though it be a quick and easy means for gaining a desired end, as Dr. Stuntz has shown that it is, has been abandoned by civilized men generally,' even for use on their enemies, for another reason: It is demoralizing in its effect upon the torturer. He may have been made in the image of God, and may have had many noble and admirable qualities, but once set him free, as the orders of General Bell and General Smith and others in the Philippines have done, to wage a campaign the key of which'is torture, and what will be the result upon him? He will become brutal, hard, a demoralized creature, though he-may have been a highly civilized man, and even have published books revealing much ability and erudition. 'This torturing business,' one officer said to my certain knowledge, 'is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.' It cannot be denied there is pleasure i this work to those who have killed the high instincts of their nature, and who have drunk of that deadly wine which flows from the bottomless pit. Those who have been encouraged to engage in this business, and who have engaged in it, have done deeds of cruelty and horror which I do not wonder much large numbers of our people, who have not had opportunity to examine the evidence, refuse to credit. "Dr. Stuntz says toward the close of his letter, 'I am not apologizing for cruelty.' But what else is he doing if not apologiz 6 ing for it? What is the object of his letter-? He has brought forward arguments to show that this method is excusable. He only makes the distinction between a 'wanton' use of this means and a restrained and judicious use of it. He says: 'Where cruelty is wanton let it be punished to the fullest extent.' The implication is, where it is restrained and not wanton it is justified. If I misstate his real conclusion, I should like to know from him what his real conclusion is. "The Spanish Inquisition had nothing wanton about it; it did not punish for the sake of inflicting pain. It recognized pain as an instrument of salvation, first, to check and to crush out heretical opinions; second, to save the individual who would not otherwise recant these heretical opinions. " Dr. Stuntz says that this torture was administered in the honest. belief that it was 'the lesser of two evils.' But the question of the honesty of the belief which employed and justified this practice is not really the. one with which we are concerned. It is the question whether the practice itself was just and right. The Spanish Inquisition rested on an absolutely honest belief, otherwise it could not have existed so long or have done such'infinite harm. "Unwittingly, perhaps, Dr. Stuntz, through the statements contained in his letter, has rendered the highest service in this present crisis and discussion. He has completely broken the weapon by which the President, and Governor Taft, and others, have sought to protect those in authority against the charge that they were using torture for military purposes under the stars and stripes. Dr. Stuntz has shown with great lucidity and conclusive force that this charge was true. ' He has therefore shown that the apologists for the Administration were making a defense which did not rest on truth; that they were defending themselves by implication that tortures or atrocities which had actually taken place were retaliatory in their nature, or the acts of men goaded to madness by the sufferings which the enemy had inflicted upon them. Dr. Stuntz shows that there was nothing wanton about this thing; and his whole letter is a defense of it on the ground of its usefulness and limited brutality. He, therefore, is my able support in establishing the charge that the military authorities in the Philippines have used a Spanish torture,-viz., the torture of water,-under the American flag, for a military purpose. "I think that I have indicated, and I stand ready to prove to any one who will consider the proof, that the use of torture necessarily breeds terrible cruelties beyond what is at first intended, 7 and that its demoralizing effects on those who employ, are so great that it ought to. be rigidly and actually forbidden? I think I have shown that when President Lincoln issued a positive order that it should not be used to extort confessions, he knew very well what he was about, and I regret that Dr. Stuntz does not fully agree with him. "It is only in the full belief that this subject is one of vital import to the good name and the welfare of our people, as well as to the Filipinos, that I have undertaken to discuss it at such great length. I hope that you will agree with me that it is an important question and that you may feel justified in publishing my lengthy letter. "Very respectfully, "HERBERT WELSH." N. B.-It should be noted that there is no evidence that thewater cure was only used in the case of spies, as Dr. Stuntz states. It was practised indiscriminately, as all the evidence tends to show, to get information from anybody at all. H. W.