79-0 I  ) L'r)


1 —            n
I /                                I
': t,    k, I          Co C,


THE PHILIPPINE TARIFF.
S PE EC H
OF
HON. JHN C. SPOONER,
OF WISCONSIN,
IN THE


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Friday, February 2i, 1902.


WVASHIINGT1O r4.
I902.


I" A'


114
I., *
"g.
1,, -C-- - k',,   " -                            *




719t3~aL~Li r ~ )F THEE
I    WORCESTER
PHILIPPINE 1
C OLLE CTT O
) ~nl~rmlmmmmm~nn mlmm~rri~m............~n~m~m
R.. l 9,I1.  i,..L




SPEEC II
OF
HON. JOHN C. SPOONER.
The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5833) temporarily to
provide revenue for the Philippine Islands, and for other purposesMr. SPOONER said:
Mr. PRESIDENT: I have sincerely lamented this debate. The bill
reported by the majority of the Committee on the Philippines is a
bill entirely free from complication; it is simply a revenue bill;
and whatever difficulties Senators who are lawyers and other lawyers may have in understanding or reconciling the opinions of
the Supreme Justices of the United States in what are called the
" Island cases," I take it it may be considered settled by the decision upon the tariff feature of what is known as the Foraker
Act that this proposed tax bill is constitutional. I do not intend
to spend any time in analyzing those opinions. The decisions are
easily understood.
What is the distinction between territory appurtenant or belonging to the United States and territory incorporated into the
United States, I do not intend on this occasion to discuss.
Every dollar of tax which is proposed to be collected under this
bill is for the support of government in the Philippines, as every
dollar of tax proposed by the Foraker act to be collected upon
articles going from the United States into Porto Rico and coming
from Porto Rico into the United States was for the support of the
Porto Rican government.
I had hoped our friends in the minority here, because we are
over there and we are attempting to establish a government there,
which must be supported, would find it in harmony with their
purposes to discuss this bill and record themselves against it, if
they are opposed to it, and to allow us who have the responsibility
of the present situation in the Philippine Islands, so far as legislation is concerned, to pass it promptly.
But, Mr. President, that was expecting too much, and upon
this bill-but not germane to it at all-has gone on here for weeks
a debate involving every phase of what may be called the Philippine question. It has been a debate full of vituperation and taunt,
and sometimes, Mr. President, there has not been entirely absent
insult. That its purpose was ulterior, and that its effect will be
bad. I think no man can doubt.
I picked up this morning The Commoner-I can not now place
my hands upon the copy of it which I want-in which the distinguished candidate of the Democratic party in the last campaign, and the preceding campaign, comments upon this debate,
sets forth the substitute presented by the minority, and remarks
that the Democracy in the Senate by this debate and by this substitute are rendering great service to the "party "-to the party!
We have upon our hands, Mr. President-and that distinguished
4988                                          3
4W8~




4
gentleman helped efficiently to put it in our hands-a difficult
problem. Never have we had one more difficult, and I think the
people of the United States-I -may be wrong about it-will in the
exigency which confronts us demand of their public servants in    A
the legislative halls and in the Executive chamber a solution of
that problem and every phase of it, not with reference to the interest of party, but solely with reference to the interest of the
country.
Senators on the other side have been pleased to charge the
present situation in the Philippines to the greed and dishonor
of Republican leadership. Ugly words have fallen from their
lips to us across this Chamber because we chance upon this
question to differ with them; and the ugliest, Mr. President, have
fallen from the lips of those who but a little time ago were members of the Republican party. Do Senators think because we differ from them that we care less for liberty than they do? Do they
think because they do not agree with the policy of the Republican party that they have warrant for denouncing the members
of that party and its leadership as being insensible to honor, indifferent to perfidy, controlled by unworthy motives? Do those
Senators who a little time ago went out from the party think that
all the patriotism, all the love of liberty, all reverence for the
Declaration of Independence, all loyalty to the Constitution departed with them?
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. PATTERSON] entertained the
Senate yesterday with a speech which, rhetorically, was to be
admired. With a portion of his argument I do not disagree; but
that Senator saw fit to make an attack upon Governor Taft, who
has been testifying before the committee of which the Senator is
a member, and to charge him with willful misrepresentation of
facts before the committee and with slandering the Filipino
people.
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President —
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. PATTERSON. I think that statement of the honorable
Senator from Wisconsin is a little too broad. I did not charge
him with the willful misrepresentation of facts. I did call attention, Mr. President, to statements of facts made by the War Department, and then to his own, and I did say that there was a clash
between them, and that it was the War Department against
Governor Taft, and that in his statements to the committee he
had indicted the entire people of the Philippine Islands for everything that was ignominious and disgraceful.
Mr. SPOONER. Ah, Mr. President, the Senator has forgotten
what he said. He said the statements in the document from the
War Department conflicted with the statements of Governor Taft
before the committee, and that Governor Taft had a motive for
misrepresentation.
Mr. PATTERSON. I said there was a motive.
Mr. SPOONER. A motive for misrepresentation.
Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPOONER. Because he appeared as the advocate of the
imperialistic policy of the Government.
Mr. PATTERSON. That is a correct statement of what I said.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes; to Bay that that did not charge Governor
4988




5


Taft with willfully misrepresenting the facts and slandering the
Filipino people is evasive.
Governor Taft needs no defense from me. He misrepresented
nothing. I have known him many years, Mr. President. I have
the profoundest respect and admiration for him, for his great ability, for his patriotism, for his attractive personality. Governor
Taft went to the Philippine Islands not because he wished to, not
because he desired to rule a people. He went in a spirit of selfsacrifice. He resigned a position which was for life upon the
Federal bench in the line of his profession, to which he is devoted.
He went there at the request of President McKinley. He went
there reluctantly, and only because it was represented to him that
by going, by making the sacrifice-and it is in many respects a
sacrifice to him-he could do good in this exigency. There is no
man more entitled to confidence for ability, patriotism, integrity,
and accuracy of statement than Governor Taft.
But what made me particularly deplore the Senator's utterance was not his imputation upon Governor Taft. That takes
care of itself. It was the absolutely malign possibility which
it contained of doing harm over yonder. Governor Taft is to
return there. He is to resume his position as civil governor.
He is to take up the work which he laid down when he left
there. He is to meet again the Filipino people. He is to go
forward in the attempt to win their confidence. Did the Senator realize that his utterance would tend to create a prejudice
upon the part of the Filipino people against Governor Taft, to obstruct his efforts and the efforts of the Commission by sending
back word to the Philippines that in a public place here he had
traduced that people and vilified them?
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. PATTERSON. I hope the Senator does not claim because
Governor Taft is to return to the Philippines, and because he holds
the relations to the Philippine people which he does, that therefore criticisms of his statements and criticisms upon his attitude
toward the Philippine people, as that attitude is made clear by
his own statements and the reports of departments of this Government, should not be indulged in.
Mr. SPOONER. What a Senator will indulge in in this Chamber, Mr. President, is for him to decide. If he thinks it proper
to deliver utterances here which elsewhere can not fail to be
obstructive and harmful, it is for him to decide.
The Senator from Colorado went further and declared that
there are 6,000,000 Christians in the Philippines. "Christians -
"Christians," he said, and that it was his opinion that if those
6,000,000 Christians were Baptists, Methodists. and Presbyterians,
the people of the United States would have risen long ago in protest and suppression of the outrages and the cruelties which have
been perpetrated upon those 6,000.000 Christians over there.
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President, that is not a correct statement.
Mr. SPOONER. I am willing to be corrected.
Mr. PATTERSON. I said the Baptists and the Methodists and
the Presbyterians and other denominations, if the Filipinos were
Christians who had been taught their Christianity in the sanctu4988




6
aries of those churches, would have risen almost as one man and
one woman to protest against the shooting down of members of
their churches in order that they may be brought under subjugation to the people of this country. I did not say the people; I said
the members.
Mr. SPOONER. Did the Senator mean to send word to the
Filipinos-the 6,000,000 Christians-that the Christian people of
the United States, not of their particular sect, cared nothing for
outrage, oppression, cruelty, tyranny imposed in the Philippines
upon Catholic Christians?
Mr. PATTERSON. That is not what I said.
Mr. SPOONER. Did the Senator mean to give to them over
there that impression? If my voice could be heard there in answer to his observation, I should say to them, " That is a slander
of the Protestant Christian people of the United States. Do not
believe it." I would say to them, Mr. PresidentMr. PATTERSON. May I ask the Senator from Wisconsin a
question?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. PATTERSON. Is it your opinion that if the Filipinos
were Methodist and Presbyterian and Baptist Christians the
Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists of the United States
would permit, without protest, the subjugation of those people
by fire and sword and cannon and all of the other cruelties that
are connected with the war of subjugation?
Mr. SPOONER. If that were not my opinion, I would not have
begun the utterance of the sentence which the Senator interrupted. The Senator dealt with the Christian sects of the United
States. There is no religious division in our polity. In this
country every man and woman is at liberty to worship God as he
or she chooses. Church and state are separated, and in all this
land there has not been found success to any body of our people who sought to create divisions among us along lines of
religion. It has been attempted, but the public opinion of the
United States would not permit it. and every effort in a little time
has fallen under the ban of that public opinion. There has been not
much of protest from the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, or the Catholics of the United States against the policy
pursued in the Philippines; and all I cared to note was this-and
I did not for one moment think the Senator intended it-that it is
very harmful, as I think it entirely unfounded, to send forth
from this Chamber to the people of the Philippine Archipelago
the suggestion that the Christian sects of the United States care
less for their safety, care less for their liberty, care less for their
rights because they are Catholics. There is no such prejudice.
Mr. PATTERSON. Just one word, lest there may be some
misunderstanding. I am not myself a Catholic.
Mr. SPOONER. I do not care for that.
Mr. PATTERSON. I and mine, so far as they go back, have
been members of an orthodox Protestant church.
Mr. SPOONER. I do not care for that.
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. WELLINGTON] said the other
day, and that is true, that the Philippine problem is one of the
fruits of the war with Spain. He said that the war with Spain
was unnecessary; that we could have averted that war. I have
no doubt he thinks so. I do not think so. I spend but a moment
upon that topic. No man charged with public duty was ever in
4988




7
the world more reluctant to engage his country in a war than was
President McKinley. He waited and waited and waited and
waited, Mr. President, and negotiated, sometimes amid taunt and
insult and charges impeaching his motives, to exhaust the resources of diplomacy in order to avert a war with Spain. I
thought once that but-for the destruction of the Maine it might
have been averted. I do not now believe it. It came. That fact
never can be recalled. It is useless to discuss it. It was carried
forward, on land and sea, to successful issue, and out of it resulted the treaty of Paris.
Some Senators seem now to take a very different view of the
treaty of Paris from that which operated upon them when it was
pending in this Chamber. It was ratified, Mr. President. That
can not be recalled. The Senator from Maryland voted to ratify
it. That can not be recalled.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I agree with the Senator from Wisconsin, if he will permit me.
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I rarely ever interrupt, and I do not like
to interrupt him now. I agree with him that it can not be recalled. And I go further. I would give very much, I would today give ten years of my life to recall the vote that I gave upon
the ratification of that treaty. I want to go further and say
again, as I have said before, that the promises which were made
to me upon that occasion were broken by the Administration,
and if I could now recall my vote I would do so.
Mr. SPOONER. The Senator from Maryland was sent by his
great Commonwealth to represent her in part in this Chamber.
The function of a Senator in advising and consenting to the ratification of a treaty is independent, under the Constitution, of the
Executive who negotiates it. Whether the Senator from Maryland may properly resort to conversations with one who no longer
lives to give his version is for that Senator to decide.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Mr. President —
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Maryland?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I merely desire to state that I now say
nothing of the late President of the United States that I did not
say when he was living. I make no accusations against the dead
that I would not make if he were living and in the Presidential
office to-day.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland
must have known that when territory is acquired by the United
States, there is but one power under our Constitution which can
define the public policy in regard to it, which can dispose of it
either absolutely or qualifiedly, and that is the Congress of the
United States.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Mr. President, once more. I shall not
interrupt the Senator again. If he contends that that is the doctrine, that territory once acquired can not be given away or alienated by any other power than the Congress of the United States,
how does it come that a part of our northern possessions, without
any action of Congress, without any treaty, was alienated to England by the modus vivendi?
Mr. SPOONER. It was not. That isthe way it comes.
Mr. WELLINGTON. It was not?
4988




Mr. SPOONER. No; it was not.
Mr.. WELLINGTON. Does not England hold it to-day?
Mr. SPOONER. That is a temporary arrangement-a modus
vivendi.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Yes; but England holds it to-day.
Mr. SPOONER. But my proposition was this: That the Senator knew, or if he did not know he ought to have known, that the
Congress alone is authorized to dispose of territory of the United
States, or in an instance the President and the Senate, perhaps.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I knew, or thought I knew that, though
the events which have transpired since then have changed my
opinion. But the fact remains, nevertheless, that American territory has been alienated-that American citizens have been given
up to the tender mercies of the British constabulary up in that
part of territory which had never been claimed by England until
it came into the possession of the United States of America.
Mr. SPOONER. The Senator knows that it has not been alienated; that it was absolutely impossible by any such method to
alienate it; and he knows further that the President of the United
States has no power to alienate territory of the United States, and
that a promise that he would, or that he would control a policy as
to the alienation of territory, would be usurpatory and the outgrowth of mere ignorance.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Will the Senator allow me? Unquestionably that is the law, but the events which have occurred since
the beginning of the Spanish war have brought about an entire
reversal of the policy which existed previous to that time, and the
Executive to-day seems to rule not only the Executive Department, but whatever be the opinions of the House of Representatives, by some influence, when the time comes, they reverse themselves, and it has been done in the Senate also; so there remains
nothing in the United States of America concerning any question
of this kind, except the will of the Executive.
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Will the Senator from Wisconsin allow
me for a moment?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. FAIRBANKS. I wish to state that I am somewhat familiar
with the subject to which the Senator from Maryland refers, and
that the Senator from Wisconsin is absolutely correct in his statement. There was a zone of disputed territory in the district of
Alaska, and in order to avoid conflict between American miners
and British miners a temporary line between the two countries
was agreed upon. It was but temporary. There was no suggestion or thought that it should be permanent.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Mr. PresidentMr. SPOONER. I hope the Senator from Maryland will allow
me to proceed. That is a collateral matter anyway.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Mr. President-?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin
declines to yield.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Do I understand that the Senator from
Wisconsin declines to yield?
Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator wishes
Mr. WELLINGTON. I wish to ask the Senator from Indiana
a question.
Mr. SPOON-ER. Very well.
4988




9
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin
yields to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I do not wish to do anything that is discourteousMr. SPOONER. I know that.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Especially not so far as concerns the
Senator from Wisconsin. But I desire to ask the Senator from
Indiana whether or not it is true that the boundary line in dispute
came into dispute after the United States of America became possessed of Alaska by the purchase from Russia, and whether the
stones marking the line had not been set there and been there for
almost a century, and England had not made any claim of sovereignty whatever, but that by this modus vivendi, by this secret
transaction, we, the American people, by our Administration,
surrendered the right, gave up those lines of demarcation as they
were set by the stones for a century, and surrendered our people
to the British constabulary?
Mr. SPOONER. If this were a court, I should move to strike
that out as being irrelevant.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I desire to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that he would have to move to strike out half of the proceedings of the Senate if the rule as to irrelevancy prevailed here.
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Just a word. The Senator from Maryland
is utterly and absolutely mistaken as to the situation in Alaska.
There never have been any stone monuments erected, recently or
remotely. There has been a popular report to the effect that
stone monuments have been erected, but the boundary line never
has been surveyed and no monuments have ever been erected. If
the Senator from Maryland is as much in error as to the Philippines as he is with respect to the condition in Alaska, he is far
away from the truth.
Mr. SPOONER. I think he is.
Mr. WELLINGTON. Mr. PresidentMr. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me to proceed, I
want to get throughMr. WELLINGTON. I will allow the Senator to proceed in
one moment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin
declines to yield.
Mr. WELLINGTON. I will have an opportunity at some time
to vindicate my position.
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly. Now, Mr. PresidentMr. WELLINGTON. I can not be shut off in that way.
Mr. SPOONER. When this treaty was sent to the Senate the
question was presented whether we would accept a cession of the
Philippine Archipelago or reject it. It was entirely in the power
of the United States Senate to do either the one or the other. And
when we voted upon the treaty, let it be not forgotten, that our
troops were involved in battle with the troops of Aguinaldo, and
with the Senate put upon notice that war was involved possibly
out of this transaction, the Senate voted upon the treaty. It was
carried by a single vote; but, Mr. President, the truth of history
is that it could not have been carried without Democratic votes,
and that the distinguished leader of the Democracy of that day, if
not of this, came here and labored with those of his faith to vote
for the treaty, to vote to take that responsibility upon the country,
4988


1*




10
and I believe it will be admitted that but for his interposition that
treaty would not have been ratified in the form in which it was
ratified.
Upon the consideration of that treaty every phase of this question which has since been mooted, except possibly one, was presented to the Senate and voted upon. There were Senators in this
body who thought that we should amend the treaty so as to deal
with the Philippines as under the treaty we were to deal with Cuba.
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST], a veteran in the public
service, one of the most brilliant men I have ever known, offered
an amendment to the treaty to strike out in the article ceding
the Philippine Archipelago the words "cedes to the United
States " and insert in lieu thereof " relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to the Philippine Archipelago," and to
amend further as follows:
Add at the end of Article III the following:
"The United States, desiring that the people of the archipelago shall be
enabled to establish a form of free government suitable to their condition,
and securing the rights of life, liberty, and property, and the preservation
of order and equal rights therein, assumes for the time being and to the end
aforesaid the control of the archipelago so far as such control shall be needful for the purposes above stated, and will provide that the privileges accorded to Spain by Article IV and V of this treaty shall be enjoyed."
In line 2 of Article VIII, after the word "Cuba," insert the words "and
in the Philippine Archipelago."
In line 3 of the same article, after the word "Indies," insert "and."
In lines 3 and 4 of the same article strike out the words " and in the Philippine Archipelago."
In Article IX strike out lines 171, 172, 173.
In line 2 of Article XIII, after the word "Cuba," insert the words "the
Philippines."
In line 3 of the same article strike out the words "the Philippines."
How many times have we heard, Mr. President, from the Democratic rostrum since that day a demand that the Philippines should
be treated as we agreed to treat Cuba? A vote was taken upon
that precise question, upon the amendments offered by the Senator
from Missouri-yeas 30, nays 53, as follows:
The proposed amendments were considered together; and
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Messrs. Bacon Bate, Berry, Caffrey, Chilton, Clay, Cockrell, Daniel, Gorman, Hale, Heitield, Hoar, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, Kenney,
McLaurin, Martin, Mills, Mitchell, Money, Murphy, Pasco, Pettigrew, Rawlins, Roach, Smith, Tillman, Turley, Turner, and Vest.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Messrs. Aldrich, Allen, Allison, Baker, Burrows, Butler, Carter, Chandler,
Clark, Cullom, Davis, Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks, Faulkner, Foraker, Frye,
Gallinger, Gear, Gray, Hanna, Hansbrough, Harris, Hawley, Kyle, Lindsay,
Lodge, McBride, McEnery, McMillan, Mantle, Mason. Morgan, Nelson, Penrose, Perkins, Pettus, Platt of Connecticut, Platt of New York, Pritchard,
Quay, Ross, Sewell, Shoup, Simon, Spooner, Stewart, Sullivan, Teller, Thurston, Warren, Wellington, and Wolcott.
Mr. TELLER. Mr. President —
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. I did vote against it, Mr. President. I had
stated at least twice in open Senate and repeatedly in executive
session that I was for applying the same rule to the Philippine
Islands that we were to apply to Cuba. I did not then think it
was necessary to put any pledges in that treaty. I knew to do so
would continue technically the state of war for several months,
and I was assured by the Senator from Wisconsin and all of his
associates that we would certainly do the just and righteous
4988




11
thing by those people when the treaty was ratified. I am waiting, Mr. President, to see them  keep that pledge and make it
good.
Mr. SPOONER. Did the Senator vote against the Vest amend:
ment upon any promise of mine as to what the future policy of
the Government would be in the Philippines?
Mr. TELLER. Oh, no, Mr. President; I voted against the Vest
amendment on the ground that it was not good law, and I say now
it was not good law.
Mr. SPOONER. I think I have heard the Senator say since
that we ought to treat the Philippines as we treated Cuba.
Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me —
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. I still insist that both our interest and our duty
require us to do that.
Mr. SPOONER. The Senator had views upon this question
before the treaty was sent to the Senate. A gentleman has sent
me a copy of a speech made by the Senator before the Silver Republican State convention at Colorado Springs September 8,1898,
in which he took occasion to deal with this subject. Whether it
is accurate or not of course I do not know.
Mr. TELLER. The Senator can read it, and I can tell him.
Mr. SPOONER. Of course I do not undertake to say that it is
accurate, but it was in harmony with the views which I understood the Senator to entertain when we voted upon the treaty.
The Senator in that speech said:
The greater question is, What shall we do with the Asiatic Islands? We
did not contemplate that when the war began. I have found that there had
been a worse condition for two hundred years in the Philippine Islands than
there had been in Cuba; that there had been the wickedest government that
ever afflicted the human race.
Now, you can not return the islands to Spain. I said in the Senate that
any party that proposed that would go out of power and remain out for a
generation. It is too cowardly. It is too wicked. You can not do it.
Then, what are we going to do with them? Are we going to peddle them
out? Are we going to say to the countries of the world: " We are incapable
of maintaining colonies; we doubt our ability to maintain good government
there. Will you take them and see what you can do with them?" Do you
think we will ever say that? They are on our hands.
Mr. TELLER. Did the Senator say " peddle them out?"
Mr. SPOONER. "Peddle them out."         It appears here as I
read it.
Mr. TELLER. I have not any doubt but that it is accurate.
It is practically what I said in the Senate. The Senator can find
in my speeches in the Senate almost verbatim what I said there.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes.
There is an obligation upon us. That obligation is to see that those people
have a good government, and if they are capable of participating in it to take
them in and give them the rights that we enjoyed here when we were denied
some of the rights of American citizenship. Make Territories out of them.
We need not make States of them. If they should ever become affiliated
with us and so assimilated with us that we can make States of them, we will
make States of them.
You can depend upon the American people to do the right thing at the
right time. You need not be afraid that we will take them in before they are
ready or that we will keep them out after they are ready to come in.
I believe, myself, that we have reached the point in American history when
the American Union is to take its place among the great nations of the world
and I do not believe that, as a nation, we can escape the responsibility that
God puts upon us as a great nation any more than I can escape the responsibility that is put upon me as a man. We are to be as a great family of the
nations of the world.
These islands are in the line of the great commerce of the world. They
are worth millions to us.
4988




12
J never thought of that. In dealing with the Philippine question I never thought of trade. I was surprised when I read this
speech. remembering the speech which the Senator delivered here
a few days ago, that the value of those islands to us in dollars had
ever entered into his consideration, and that we could hold them
without any disadvantage to us.
Mr. TELLER. I will just enter a denial of that. I did not say
in my speech that that never had entered into my calculations.
Mr. SPOONER. No; I did not say that you did.
Mr. TELLER. You say that I said so there?
Mr. SPOONER. Oh, no. Do you say that this was not in your
speech?
Mr. TELLER. No. Did you say that I said the other -day in
my speech the idea of the commercial value of the islands had
never entered into my mind?
Mr. SPOONER. No; because you said they would never be of
commercial value.
Mr. TELLER. I said under the conditions now existing, with
their hostility, they never could be of any value.
Mr. SPOONER. Of course they could not be of any value if
they are to always be in insurrection.
Mr. TELLER. When the Senator finishes the reading, I will
tell him if there are any errors in there.
Mr. SPOONER. I would not (lo the Senator any injustice.
This is in harmony with what I thought was the Senator's position at the time.
Mr. TELLER. Go on with the reading.
Mr. SPOONER (reading)and we can hold them without any disadvantage to us. We can hold them
so they will he a glory to us and a glory to the people over whom we extend
our flag and our republican institutions. I am one of those who believe that
a republic is better than a monarchy. I believe the voice of 100,000,000 of men
is better than the voice of one, and I have faith in the American people, in
their intelligence, in their integrity, in their ability, and I am willing to trust
these great problems to themThe Senator has changed. He was willing then to trust these
great problems to the American people. To-day he seems not
to beand I say we shall make no mistake if we say to them, " We have put our
flag here, we have buried our dead, and by the Eternal the flag shall stay
while the Union lives."
That is all.
Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, if the Senator had taken the
pains to read the speech that I made on the 20th day of December,
1898, he would have found that I repeated practically that in the
Senate.
Now, the Senator says that I am not willing to trust the American people. I am willing to trust them. I am not willing to
trust them as represented by the present organization of political
parties. I have never changed my views on this question. I
voted for the treaty. In executive session and in open session I
declared that we could trust the American people to deal righteously with those people. They were then asking us to grant a
protectorate over them.
I said, and I repeated it, and I am not afraid now to say it,
there is no trouble, legally or otherwise, in my judgment, in the
American people maintaining a colony. The question is, How shall
you maintain it? What shall be the rights of the colonists? If
you had given to them, as I said there, what they had given us499S




13
a Territorial government-and, Mr. President, if you had done
that in 1898, we would not have had any war.
If the Senator desires to question my attitude now, he had better
turn to the RECORD, and he had better turn to his own record when
he encouraged us, who were told by his associates on the other
side of the Chamber that you could trust the Republican party
to do justice. We said you could. Mr. President, I thought you
could. I believe eventually you will yet. I believe the American
people will eventually see that justice is done to those people.
I do not say, Mr. President, that any injustice would have been
done to them by maintaining our flag there if they wanted it there,
which they did want and which they professed to want when I
made those speeches, and which they would want now if we would
give them such a government as we ought to give them.
Mr. SPOONER. It is a strange thing, but it is a fact almost
universally true, that the moment a man leaves a political party
with which he has long been associated he discovers that it is
utterly bad.
Mr. CARMACK. After he discovers it is utterly bad, then he
leaves it.
Mr. SPOONER. Well. if he remains in it until it is utterly
bad he is as bad as it, and would not save himself by leaving it.
I do not mean to apply this to the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
TELLER].
Mr. TELLER. I ask the Senator to allow me to interrupt him
long enough to say that I will not enter into any discussion of the
propriety of my leaving the Republican party. I left it because
I differed with its members on great economic questions. Up to
that time I had no reason to suppose that upon great questions
affecting the rights of mankind, and affecting the interests of all
the American people and 10,000,000 of other people, I should be
divergent from their views.
Mr. SPOONER. I understand that the Senator left the party
because of his difference in regard to the money question, and I
was very sorry to have him leave, for one, for I have always had
great admiration for his ability and great friendship for him personally, as I always expect to have.
Mr. President, I have shown that there was a vote in limine in
the Senate, participated in by my friend from Colorado, against
amending this treaty so that the United States should sustain the
same relation to the Philippines that we sustained by the treaty
to Cuba. The vote to ratify the treaty without amendment was
57 to 27, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Messrs. Aldrich, Allen, Allison, Baker, Burrows, Butler, Carter, Chandler,
Clark, Clay, Cullom, Davis, Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks, Faulkner, Foraker
Frye, Gallinger, Gear, Gray, Hanna, Hansbrough, Harris, Hawley, Jones of
Nevada, Kenney, Kyle, Lindsay, Lodge, McBride, McEnery, McLaurin, MoMillan, Mantle, Mason, Morgan, Nelson, Penrose, Perkins, Pettus, Platt of
Connecticut, Platt of New York, Pritchard, Quay, Ross, Sewell, Shoup, Simon,
Spooner, Stewart, Sullivan, Teller, Thurston, Warren, Wellington, and Wolcott.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Messrs. Bacon, Bate, Berry, Caffery, Chilton, Cockrell, Daniel, Gorman,
Hale, Heitfeld, Hoar, Jones of Arkansas, Mallory, Martin, Mills, Mitchell,
Money, Murphy, Pasco, Pettigrew, Bawlins, Roach, Smith, Tillman, Turley,
Turner, and Vest.
The pairs were as follows:
Mr. Cannon and Mr. Proctor with Mr. White.
Mr. Wetmore and Mr. Wilson with Mr. Turpie.
And at that time, Mr. President, those people, if they ever
have been, were protesting, not orally simply, but with guns in
4988




14
their hands and by attack upon our troops against American sovereignty in those islands.
Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator
again?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. It is true the telegraph had brought us a statement of some trouble. We did not know what that trouble was,
and naturally, I think, it aroused the American spirit. I do not
myself think that there was any inconsistency in a man who
wanted to apply the principles which I had declared I wanted to
apply to the Philippines in voting for the treaty. I wanted to
take them away from Spain. I wanted them where the American
nation could deal with them of right, which it could do; and I
had every right to suppose, not only from the past history of this
country, but from the pledges made here that there would be no
trouble at all such as we have since found.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, that is not all of the record.
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. MCENERY] introduced the following resolution:
That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain it is not intended
to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into citizenship of
the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as
an integral part of the territory of the United States; but it is the intention of the United States to establish on said islands a government suitable
to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants of said islands to prepare them
for local self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said
islands as will best promote the interests of the citizens of the United States
and the inhabitants of said islands.
To that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR], who has
been consistent, offered this amendment:
On motion by Mr. HOAR to amend the resolution by inserting after the
word "islands," where it appears the third time, the words "with the consent of the people thereof."
And that was voted upon; a proposition to declare then the
policy of the United States, the treaty having been ratified, as to
the future of the Philippine Archipelago.
Mr. ALDRICH moved to lay that amendment upon the table.
This was the 6th of February. The votes in favor of laying it
upon the table were 45; those against 34, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Baker, Burrows, Carter, Chandler, Clark, Cullom,
Davis, Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks, Foraker, Frye, Gallinger, Gear, Gray, Hanna,
Hansbrough, Hawley, Kenney, Lindsay, Lodge, McBride, McEnery, McMillan,
Mantle, Morgan, Nelson, Penrose, Pettus, PLatt of Connecticut, Platt of New
York, Pritchard, Quay, Ross, Sewell, Shoup, Simon, Spooner, Stewart, Teller,
Thurston, Warren Wolcott.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Messrs. Allen, Bacon, Bate, Berry Butler, Caffery Chilton, Clay Cockrell,
Daniel, Gorman, Hale, Harris, Heitfeld, Hoar, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, McLaurin, Martin, Mason, Mills, Mitchell, Money, Murphy, Perkins, Pettigrew, Rawlins, Roach, Smith, Tillman, Turley, Turner, Vest, Wellington.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
There was the precise proposition proposed by the Senator from
Massachusetts, whether we should say by declaration, hostilities
just having begun, that it was our purpose to establish in said
islands, "with the consent of the people thereof," a government,
and there is the vote. That amendment was laid on the table.
That is not all, either.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] offered another
amendment, which was to insert, after the words ' United States"
where they appear the second time, the words " or to force a gov4988




15
ernment on them against their will."    The country will see that
all this was presented to the Senate in that hour, and here is the
vote upon it. Although some of the Senators who voted upon it
have changed. the record has not changed, nor can it change, and
the responsibility for all that has occurred, Mr. President, as it
will appear, is easily located, and out of that, I think, grows a
duty.
Mr. ALDRICH moved to lay that amendment on the table, and
it was laid on the table-yeas 46, nays 30. The vote was as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Messrs. Aldrich, Allen, Allison, Baker, Burrows, Butler, Carter, Chandler,
Clark, Culloin, Davis, Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks, Foraker, Frve, Gallinger,
Gear, Gray. Hanna, Hansbrough, Hawley, Kenney, Lindsay, Lodge, McBride,
McEnery. McMillan, Mantle, Morgan, Nelson, Penrose, Pettus, Platt of Connecticut, Platt of New York, Pritchard, Quay, Ross, Sewell, Simon, Spooner,
Stcwart, Teller, Thurston, Warren, Wolcott.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Mossrs. Bacon, Bate, Berry, Caffery, Clay, Cockrell, Gorman, Hale, Harris,
Heitfeld, Hoar, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, McLaurin, Martin,
Mason, Mills, Mitchell, Money, Murphy, Perkins, Pettigrew, Rawlins, Roach,
Smith, Tillman, Turley, Turner, Vest, Wellington.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
If there ever was a time, Mr. President, when that declaration
would have brought peace and made peace in the Philippines, it
was then, before even an exchange of ratifications. But it could
not have done it, in my opinion.
That was not all, either. The Senator from       Georgia [Mr.
BACON], with whom     as to this matter I do not entirely agree,
but whose attitude from the beginning in this Chamber upon it
has been different, in my judgment, from   that of some members
of his party, offered this amendment to the McEnery resolution:
Resolved further, That the United States hereby disclaim any disposition
or intention to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over
said islands, and assert their determination, when a stable and independent
government shall have been erected therein entitled, in the judgment of the
Government of the United States, to recognition as such, to transfer to said
government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by Spain, and to thereupon leave the government
and control of the islands to their people.
The Senate upon that was evenly divided.
Mr. BACON. What was the vote?
Mr. SPOONER. The vote was 29 to 29, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Messrs. Bacon, Bate, Berry, Caffery, Chilton, Clay, Cockrell, Faulkner
Gorman, Gray, Hale, Harris, Heitfeld, Hoar, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of
Nevada, Lindsay, McLaurin, Martin, Money, Murphy, Perkins, Pettigrew,
Pettus, Quay, Rawlins, Smith, Tillman, Turner.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Messrs. Allison, Burrows, Carter, Chandler, Deboe, Fairbanks, Frye, Gear,
Hanna, Hawley, Kyle, Lodge, McBride, McEnQry, McMillan, Mantle, Morgan,
Nelson, Penrose, Platt of Connecticut, Platt of New York, Pritchard, Ross,
Shoup, Simon, Stewart, Teller, Warren, Wolcott.
The Senate being evenly divided,
The Vice-President voted in the negative.
So the amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. LODGE. It was lost.
Mr. SPOONER. It was lost, I mean, by the casting vote of the
Vice-President.
Mr. LODGE. It was lost any way.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes; it was lost.
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator pardon me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Massachusetts?
4988




16
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. HOAR. I do not want to interrupt the Senator on some
mere trifle. but nothing is ever lost in the Senate by the casting
vote of the Vice-President.
Mr. SPOONER. That is true.
Mr. HOAR. It was lost because it had not the majority.
Mr. SPOONER. It was lost without his vote, and a little more
lost with it.
The resolution proposed by Mr. McENERY then passed by a
vote of 26 to 22, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are,
Messrs. Allison, Burrows. Chandler, Deboe, Fairbanks, Faulkner. Frye,
Gear, Gray, Hale, Hanna. Harris, Kyle, Lodge, McEnery, McLanrin, McMillan, Mantle, Mason, Nelson, Perkins, Pettus, Platt of New York, Quay,
Sullivan, Teller.
Those who voted in the negative are,
Messrs. Bacon, Bate, Caffery, Carter, Clay. Cockrell, Hawley, Hoar, Lindsay, McBride, Martin, Money, Morgan, Murphy, Pettigrew, Platt of Connecticut, Rawlins, Ross, Simon, Smith, Stewart, Warren.
Mr. PATTERSON.        Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. I will yield, but I hope the Senator will not
interrupt me long, for I am anxious to get through.
Mr. PATTERSON. It is not with anything that I will say.
While the Senator from Wisconsin is arraying records, I want to
call his attention to a statement made by himself on the 2d day of
February, 1899, about four days before the ratification of the
treaty, if the Senator will permit me to call attention to it.
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. PATTERSON. The Senator from Wisconsin then said:
I am a commercial expansionist. I believe in building up the trade of the
United States. I am in favor of an interoceanic canal, not only for the purposes of national defense, but for its benefit to the trade of the future. I am
in favor of acquiring naval stations all over the world where the interests of this Government would be subserved thereby-resting places for
our commerce. I am in favor of lines of cable connection in every conceivable direction where they would promote the interests of the United States.
*        *         *        *        *        *        *
But, Mr. President, I shrink from the notion that the interests of this country will be subserved by making permanently a part of our land territory
thousands of miles away, inhabited by peoples alien to us, not of our blood
not of our way of thinking, foreign to all our associations, living in a tropical
climate, where the white man can not work under labor conditions of necessity which we would not permit to exist in the United States.
Mr. SPOONER. Is the Senator going to read the whole speech?
Mr. PATTERSON. It will not do justice to the Senator unless
I finish this important part of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin decline to yield further?
Mr. SPOONER. Oh. no; I like that.
Mr. PATTERSON. The Senator from Wisconsin continued:
Every argument which has been made in support of this doctrine of territorial expansion-and by "territorial expansion" I mean permanent territorial expansion-seems to me to be superficial, some of them sentimental,
and some of them fantastic.
The jingle of words which we read every day about "hauling down the
flag" does not in the least either thrill me or impress me. Our flag has been
hauled down before, Mr. President. It will be hauled down again. Where
we raise it we will permit no other power on earth to haul it down, but with
us it may be as honorable to haul it down as it was to raise it. It was hauled
down in Mexico when hostilities ended there. If we had sent our fleet
across the sea to the peninsula of Spain and captured Barcelona, raising our
flag above it, it would not have been there to stay; we would have hauled it
4988




17
down. To-day it floats in Cuba; the Spanish flag has gone forever, but our
flag is not there to stay. It floats there in sight of the poor, wrecked Maine
at Habana, but there will come a day, Mr. President-and I hope it will not
be long-when we will take down our flag, raised there in the cause of liberty,
and leave behind it liberty and an independent government, won and established under its folds. I hope that, too, about the Philippines, and that is
not at all inconsistent in my view with the ratification of the pending treaty.
It is insisted that we must have permanent territorial expansion in order
to extend our trade. Mr. President, I do not think so. I have been strongly
inclined to think that in the long run, with all the embarrassments and complications and dangers it will bring upon our people, it will retard rather
than develop the foreign trade of the United States. We have been growing
rapidly in our trade without territorial expansion. To acquire distant, nonassimilable peoples in order, through permanent dominion, to force our trade
upon them seems to me to be the poorest imaginable national policy. How
far will that be carried? We want the trade of the world.
Mr. SPOONER. I know the Senator likes that. and so do I.
Mr. PATTERSON. I will read further from the Senator's speech.
He continued as follows:
And we intend to have our share of it. Are we, therefore to obtain it by
carrying this doctrine of expansion to the uttermost parts of the earth? If
territorial expansion means national trade, if it be necessary to national
trade, where are we to stop?
I think, Mr. President, the trade of the world will go where its interest
leads it in the long run, and the best avant courier of civilization is a merchant ship, carrying the products of civilization and teaching the wants of
civilization.
Permanent domain over the Philippines by the United States as a part of
this country means to me an endless and vast burden upon the industries of
our people.
Mr. SPOONER. The Senator from ColoradoMr. PATTERSON. I just thought this might go into the
RECORD at this time.
Mr. SPOONER. Of course it will go into the RECORD. The
Senator from Colorado has not been here long, but he has been
here long enough to acquire the very worst habit we have here.
Mr. President, I uttered here what the Senator has read, and
more in the same line, which the Senator has not read.
Mr. PATTERSON. That is true.
Mr. SPOONER. And I have never changed in any way my
attitude upon that subject. I stated in that speech that I was
reluctant to vote for the ratification of the treaty for the reasons
read by the Senator from Colorado aid for other reasons; that if
the ratification of the treaty involved permanent dominion over
the Philippines by the United States, I should vote against it;
but I undertook to show-and it was in good faith, and I am of
the same opinion now-looking at the various alternatives which
presented themselves to the President, that, in honor and humanity, there was none other than to take the cession of the
Philippine Archipelago. I attempted to controvert the proposition that we could sustain the same relations to the Philippines in
which the treaty left us as to Cuba. I pointed out that the situation was so utterly different, that we were near to Cuba, that it
was a small island, with only about a million and a half inhabitants, that when Spain left Cuba she delivered to us the possession of Cuba; but that the Philippine Islands were 7,000 miles
away, that the possession of the Philippines by our troops was
limited to Manila, and that we could not contract with Spain to
occupy that territory without having the title and the sovereignty,
a proposition which, in my judgment, no man can successfully
challenge. From that day to this I have not changed.
I have united with Senators on the Democratic side here in
meeting every duty as the hour made it clear. When Dewey
4988 ---2




18
called for troops to occupy the city of Manila, no voice in this
Chamber was heard in protest against it, although every Senator
here knew Dewey needed no troops to defend his ships; that he
had Manila under his guns; but, Mr. President, they knew that
he wanted soldiers to occupy Manila.
Mr. TELLER. May I make a suggestion to the Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir.
Mr. TELLER. I wish to suggest to the Senator that we were
at flagrant war with Spain when we voted those supplies.
Mr. SPOONER. That is true. I agree with the Senator from
Washington [Mr. TURNER] that our occupation of Manila was in
violation of the protocol, although the officers were not aware of
its existence, and that in fact we held Manila in trust for Spain,
to abide the result of negotiations and to protect life, liberty, and
property in Manila; but, Mr. PresidentMr. TELLER. Mr. President —
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir.
Mr. TELLER. I do not want to break into the thread of the
Senator's argument.
Mr. SPOONER. I am breaking into it myself.
Mr. TELLER. The Senator from Wisconsin has read the votes
here, particularly the votes against the amendment offered by the
senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] and the vote on
the resolution in the form of an amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON]. That is done, Mr. President, to
make it appear that we are inconsistent; that we did not believe
in the principles of the BACON resolution.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President
Mr. TELLER. If the Senator will allow me for but a moment
longer; it is not of much consequence whether I have changed my
views or not, but at that time I took the explicit pains to say
that I was in favor of the principles of the resolution of the Senator from Georgia but was not willing to complicate things by
putting it on the treaty. I think the Senator ought to allow me
to make that statement at least. I can read it if there is any
question regarding it. At the same time and on the same day I
explicitly declared that under no conditions did I want to annex
those people or have any permanent dominion over them; that I
agreed with the Senator, that my judgment was the same as his,
that the way to get control of the matter, so that we might do
justice to ourselves and justice to the Philippine people, was to
ratify that treaty. I could not see how we could deal with them
unless we did ratify the treaty, and then, of course, the whole
subject would have been under our command.
I wish merely to read a few words from what I then said. I
shall read but a sentence. I had suggested that I should vote
against some other amendments that might be proposed, which I
understood were to be offered, but I was told that there were no
amendments to be made except those pending.
I was about to state that I should probably vote against some amendments
which might express my views.very largely. What I rose to say is that I
shall vote for the joint resolution. I do not mean by that to be committed
absolutely to any policy if conditions, when we come to act on this question,
as we must act in the course of.a year or so,:should be very different from
4988




19
what they are now or very different from what I hope they may be. I shall
be governed, as I have a right to be, by the conditions and circumstances
then presented. I shall regret very much if we can not carry out the principle of the joint resolutionThat is, the Cuban resolutionAnd I declare for that, as I hope we may be able to do, and yet I shall not
consider that I am inconsistent with that if conditions should require me to
vote for a different plan of government or a different condition.
Mr. President, I spoke at some length on that occasion, but I
have only read a few words of what I then said. I do not know
but that it may be, and I suppose it is, a fair argument for the
Senator to indulge in and charge us with inconsistency because
we voted for the treaty which he voted for, and now, simply because we do not approve of the policy the Government has instituted since then, when it had no such policy at that time, and no
man living had any reason to suppose that it would have.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, what policy does the Senator
refer to? What policy has been enforced except by the consent
of the Congress, and where has there been a party division in
Congress? The President of the United States repeatedly notified
Congress that, until Congress adopted some different policy as
to the Philippines, he should consider it his sworn duty to employ the troops there to enforce the sovereignty and obedience
to the authority of the United States, and to bring about peace.
Mr. President, twice we voted troops without party division.
What for? To enable the President to send additional forces to
the Philippines until, all in all, we had there at one time 71,000
nen. What for? Did Congress act upon those bills in ignorance
of the policy of the President as to the utilization of those troops?
There was fighting in the Philippines; there was an inadequacy
of the American military forces there, and the Congress of the
United States-not upon a party division either-furnished the
troops by one bill up to 100,000 men-65,000 regular troops and
35,000 volunteers-and they were furnished for use in the Philippines.
What did Senators who voted for the Army bill do it for? They
knew the troops were to be sent to the Philippines. Did they
suppose they were going upon a pleasure trip? Did they suppose
they were going for a sea voyage? Did they suppose they were
going simply to look over the beauty and the richness of the
Philippines? Every man who voted to place those soldiers at the
command of the President knew what they were for and knew
they were to be sent to the Philippines to fight. To fight whom?
The Spaniards? No. To fight the Filipinos; to fight the insurrectionists, and they were employed for that purpose. How can
any man who voted to give the President troops to be used in the
Philippines complain of their use in legitimate ways? If they have
committed outrages; if they have sullied the flag; if they have
been turned into a band of bashi bazouks, that is open to criticism; but no man who thus voted has a right to impeach the Republican party or to launch tirades upon the President for using
troops in the Philippines and carrying on the war in the Philippines to the bitter end, not to subjugate an independent people but to enforce the sovereignty and authority of the United
States in territory acquired by the United States by a treaty
negotiated by the President and ratified by the Senate and
completed by the payment of money-$20,000,000-voted by both
Houses of Congress.
4988




20
Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator permit me to say a word?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wiscon3in yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes. sir.
Mr. TELLER. I voted for that appropriation and I am going
to vote for the next appropriation, and I stated the other day why
I should vote for it. Thie party that is intrusted by the American
people with the administration of public affairs have asked that,
and in such a case I bow to the will of the American people so far
that I will vote for what the Administration asks.
Mr. SPOONER. Ah, Mr. President, I think when the Senator
voted to send troops to the Philippines to protect an inadequate
force there, and to enforce the sovereignty of the United States
in the Philippines, he did "bow to the will of the American
people; " but no Senator who votes to send troops there can with
any great consistency denounce the Government for using them.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR], who was opposed
to the treaty, who was opposed to this whole business, differing
from us, as he had a right to do, when that Army bill was before
the Senate stated briefly the reasons why he could not on his conscience support it; but I know if the Senator had voted to send
troops there to maintain our sovereignty, to enforce our authority
there, if the troops had been properly employed-and they were
sent there to fight-he would not have criticised either the Republican party or the Administration for using them for that
purpose.
Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator
a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Well, yes.
Mr. TELLER. Does the Senator think, entertaining the views
that we do, that we ought to have voted against the appropriation of money?
Mr. SPOONER. I do not say that.
Mr. TELLER. Then why does the Senator bring the accusation against us?
Mr. SPOONER. I do not say that, but I do say this, that if I
had voted as a matter of patriotism, or because I believed the
people demanded it, to give troops to the President to be sent to
fight in the Philippines I never would complain because they were
sent there, and I would not charge upon an Administration or
upon a party bloodthirstiness, cruelty, conquest, for doing with the
troops I had voted to raise what I knew would be done.
Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to
make a suggestion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLIR. We were in this condition: There was war;
our troops were there; they went there rightfully; they went
there when there was a state of war between the United States
and Spain. The Administration asked us for an appropriation to
maintain them. To have failed to have so voted-that is, if we
had had the power to refuse the appropriation-the Army would
have been left without food or supplies. I trust the Senator from
Wisconsin can see the difference between failing to vote and sim4988




21
ply reserving the right of criticism of the conduct of the Administration in a future time.
Mr. SPOONER. Oh, Mr. President, I admit the right of every
man here, whether he voted for the troops or not, to criticise the
conduct of the troops. All I say is this: I may be obtuse, but I
can not see how a man who votes to send troops over there can
complain because they fight after they reach there.
Mr. CARMACK. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. SPOONER. I have been interrupted a great deal, but I
do not want to deny the Senator.
Mr. CARMACK. I merely want to ask the Senator this question: If this country over his protest had entered into a war
which he believed was an unjust and an unrighteous war, having
entered into it. and the question came up of voting supplies for
that war, would or would not the Senator vote to supply the
troops who were in the field, although they were waging a war
he believed to be an unjust and an unrighteous war?
Mr. SPOONER. I would say what I had to say when war was
declared; but after the troops had taken the field, after a majority
of the Congress, disagreeing with me, had voted for war, I would
be for the war and for the Army to the end. I would not hover
around the flank to carp and criticise and find fault and make
false issues or aid in any way the men against whom the American soldiers were fighting.
Mr. CARMACK. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin
has the floor. Does he yield to the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. SPOONER. I yield.
Mr. CARMACK. One of my questions was this: If the Senator
believed and conceived such a condition existing, that the war
was unjust and unrighteous, and that it was to the interest and
to the honor of the United States that the war should be suspended, still, if the majority against him were for continuing
the war, would he vote for supplies for that war so long as it continued, still reserving to himself the right to demand, to urge,
and to insist that the United States ought to discontinue the war
as soon as it could?
Mr. SPOONER. Are you urging that the war should stop now?
Mr. CARMACK. I am.
Mr. SPOONER. That is, if troops were in the field fighting
our troops. that our troops should be withdrawn?
Mr. CARMACK. I think we should do the thing that would
put an end to the war instantly. That is what I think; and we
are criticising the Government because it does not do that thing.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes.
Mr. CARMACK. We do not ask that the troops be withdrawn.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator allow me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. SPOONER. I yield.
Mr. HOAR. As the Senator from Wisconsin has done me the
honor to allude to me, I wish he would allow me to state my position, which he has undertaken to state. It will take only a minute
or two.
4988




22


Mr. SPOONER. Very well.
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President. I do not believe and never did believe there was a war in the Philippines. You can not have a war
in this country that is not declared by an act of Congress. What
is being done, and has been done, is the use of the troops of the
United States by Executive authority to keep order in what is
claimed to be a part of our lawful territory.
When long after this treaty was ratified and had gone into effect, this Army bill came up for consideration, and there was a
proposition to give the President the power of making the Army
flexible, between sixty-five or seventy-five thousand men and a hundred thousand, to increase it or diminish it at his pleasure; thereupon the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON], representing, I
suppose, his party, in the hearing of a full Senate, without any
dissent from any quarter on his side, notified the Senate that they
would support any measure providing for troops for that emergency, however long it might last. He asked my colleague [Mr.
LODGE], who had in charge-or, at any rate, who was one of the
leading advocates of the bill-whether he thought it would take
one year, three years, or five years; and thereupon gave notice
that they would accept his answer and would give the President
troops for that length of time. The same question was put to the
Senator from Ohio [Mr. FORAKER], I think, though I am not
quite sure, or to some other Senator who had the floor on the Republican side, and to some Senator on the Appropriations Committee or the Military Committee. Three times that notice was
given.
When we undertook to use the troops to suppress tumults in
Louisiana and South Carolina, under the Chamberlain and Packard governments, the Democratic party refused to vote for the
Army bill, and we did not have one, but at the next sessionMr. TILLMAN. Mr. President
Mr. HOAR. I am going to make this statement before I yield
to anybody.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield to the Senator from South Carolina?
Mr. HOAR. No; I am in the time of the Senator from Wisconsin, and I wish to complete this statement.
But when the next Congress came they put into the Army bill
(and it was part of the condition) that the troops should not be
used for what they regarded as an improper putting down of certain risings of those people. I do not say whether they were right
or wrong.
They meant business then and they accomplished their business, and Packard and Chamberlain went out of power. I did
not think they meant business when they said they would give
troops to put down the resistance of the Philippine people under
precisely similar circumstances. It was not war. It was putting
down resistance, that is all, among a people subject, as they
claim, to our sovereignty, and it was in regard to that that I did
not mean to have my position misunderstood. I declared then, and
I stand by that declaration now, that I would not vote for troops
to put down the resistance of a people contending, and rightfully,
for a republic they had established, though I was perfectly willing, as a peace measure, to give the President of the United States
the power to make the Army flexible.
Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President4988




23
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from South Carolina?
Mr. TILLMAN. I do not want to disturb the Senator from
Wisconsin, because I have sedulously avoided interrupting him
to-day, and I expect to follow it. But I merely wish to correct
the usually infallible Senator from Massachusetts. I mean infallible as far as his recollection of facts goes. The troops were
used in South Carolina to uphold the Chamberlain government —
Mr. HOAR. That is what I say.
Mr. TILLMAN. There was a regiment of troops; but the
Senator was in error in declaring that the Democrats in Congress
prohibited that before they had been used. They were used
there, and the use of troops at elections was such a crying evil
that the Democratic majority, which came into the House with
Mr. Hayes, put an amendment on the Army bill declaring that
none of those troops should be used at elections.
Mr. HOAR. Yes; that they should not be used to sustain
those governments.
Mr. TILLMAN. Those governments had tumbled to the
ground and disappeared when that amendment was put on the
Army bill.
Mr. HOAR. One pointThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield the floor?
Mr. HOAR. I have but a sentence of four words. Before that
amendment was put on the Army bill the Democratic party in
the previous Congress, having the House, had refused to pass any
Army bill at all. That is my point.
Mr. SPOONER. I have been almost from the beginning diverted from the line of argument which I intended to pursue, and
I am anxious to be permitted to proceed with my speech, although
I am ready to answer questions.
I intend to speak later and in a more appropriate place upon
the responsibility of the minority for what has happened over
there in relation to the Army. I have been drawn into inopportune comment upon that by interruptions. One thing is certain,
if anything is certain, that we have a perfect title to the Philippine Archipelago. Spain ceded it to us, and, rightly or wrongly,
we have reduced it to possession, so that we have the sovereignty
and we have the title. There is, in my opinion, Mr. President, no
taint of perfidy or invalidity in that title. I know Senators on
the other side and, one or two perhaps upon this side, differ from
me about that.
It has been said-and I will spend only a moment upon itthat Aguinaldo had prior to that treaty established an independent
government over the Philippines. It has been said that we prom -
ised him, when he came to Manila to cooperate with Admiral
Dewey, independence. The Senator from Washington [Mr. TURNER] claimed the former. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
TILLMAN] and others claimed the latter. I do not intend to go
into the evidence, but I do proclaim, without fear of successful
contradiction, that there never were more baseless allegations.
It was charged that Consul Pratt promised him independence.
Consul Pratt denied it in a cablegram to the Department. Afterwards it was published in Mr. Foreman's book that he had promised independence, and he filed a bill in the court at Hongkong or
Singapore to restrain the publication of that book, swearing in his
4988




24
bill that it was false and a libel upon him as an official. The injunction was granted, and in every subsequent edition of the
book the correction was made by a fly-leaf at the beginning of
the book. It was charged that Wildman promised Aguinaldo independence. Wildman denied it. It was charged that Dewey
promised Aguinaldo independence. Dewey denied it.
On a former occasion I put before the Senate a captured document showing the proceedings of the junta at Hongkong, signed
by Aguinaldo and all of his compatriots-if they were suchwhich clearly established the fact not only that no such promise
was made, but that he did not go to Manila with the understanding that he was to have, or any government he might form there,
was to have independence. I will refer to the document for only
a moment. They had a meeting to determine whether Aguinaldo
should go. This was after he had seen the consul. He did not
want to, and these were the proceedings, and it never ought to
be forgotten by the American people.
Mr. TILLMAN. What is the date of it?
Mr. SPOONER. I can not give the date at this moment, but
it was before he went to Manila.
Notwithstanding the previous remarks, the president (Aguinaldo) insists
that he considers it dangerous for him to go to the Philippines without a previous written agreement with the Admiral, since it may happen that if he
places himself at his orders he may make him sign or seal a document containing proposals highly prejudicial to the interests of the fatherland, from
which may arise the following grave disadvantages:
First. * * *
Second. * * * These are the means, he thinks, which should be first
employed to find out certainly what are the intentions of the United States in
regard to that country. * * *
They were there talking among themselves. If he had received
any promise of independence from Admiral Dewey or from officials of the United States, I think he would have stated it to his
confreres on that occasion. After other speeches this was said
by Sandico:
The authority to treat, which the president thinks of giving to the other
chiefs, without reflecting at all upon their personal deserts, they do not believe can be as effective as his personal attention to the matter, to such serious
affairs as those which are the subject of discussion. There will be no better
occasion than the present for the expeditionary forces to land on those islands
and to arm themselves at the expense of the Americans and assure the attainment of our legitimate aspirations against those very people.
The Filipino people, unprovided with arms, will be the victim of the demands and exactions of the United States, but provided with arms will be
able to oppose themselves to them and struggle for their independence, in
which consists the true happiness of the Philippines.
After referring to the " prestige which he (Aguinaldo) acquired
in the last rebellion," it proceeds:
Once the president in the Philippines, with his prestige he will be able to
arouse those masses to combat the demands of the United States if they colonize that country, and will drive them, the Filipinos if circumstances render
it necessary, to a Titanic struggle for their independence, even if later they
should succumb to the weight of the yoke of a new oppressor.
The minutes of that meeting-and they were all printed long
ago by the Senate-are signed by Aguinaldo and every one of the
junta in Hongkong, including Sandico and others who accompanied Aguinaldo to Manila. It is perfectly apparent from this
statement that he went there without any pledge, at least he
communicated none to his associates, and that the scheme was
to obtain arms from Admiral Dewey, and then to use those arms
4988




25
against the United States if occasion required it. Under date
4th January, 1899, Mabini, president of the cabinet and chief adviser of Aguinaldo, wrote:
The chief of the Philippine people has not made any agreement with the
Government of the United States, but inspired by the same idea of destroying the sovereignty of Spain in these islands they have mutually assisted
each other.
That is not all, Mr. President. He reached Manila on the 20th of
May. I read in the Senate, at the time I made the speech from
which I read, a cipher letter from Aguinaldo-at least I contended
it was from Aguinaldo-which the Senator from Washington attempts to sneer out of the RECORD.
General Anderson has stated, and you will find it in the records,
that in July, shortly after he reached there, he suspected Aguinaldo of being in treaty with the Spaniards in Manila. I readand I stop to call attention to it only for the purpose of making a
single comment-a letter dated October 25, found among the captured records; and there are a great many papers among the captured records which throw a strong light on this and other phases
of the Philippine insurrection. It is addressed to General Rios,
in which Aguinaldo, if he wrote this letter, refers to a letter he
had written a few days after he reached Manila to General Augustin, in command of Manila, making a proposition to him to surrender Manila to him. I have no doubt it is the same proposition that was made in this letter to General Rios. in command
of Iloilo, in which he calls upon him to surrender his troops to
Aguinaldo instead of to us, in order that they might be combined
to be used against the forces of the United States. This letter was
signed " 1-1-9-6-1-M."  It is marked " private; " headed " Revolutional government of the Filipines, office of the president."
The army officers certify that it is written on the paper then in
use in that office, and that " M " is the cipher for " Miong," which
means Emilio.
The Senator from Washington discredits it. He asks why
should he have written it in cipher? They greatly employ cipher.
That is a characteristic of the Oriental. It is very patent among
the papers which have been captured from them. Moreover,
some one wrote it from his office, wrote it to an officer of the
Spaniards, from whom he, Aguinaldo, above all other things just
then, desired a surrender of Iloilo to him and not to us. The
paper itself expresses the obvious desire of Aguinaldo. It is impossible to suppose that some clerk in the office wrote it. It is
impossible to suppose that anyone other than Aguinaldo wrote it,
and there is at the end of it this language, which strongly indicates
that he wrote it; and all the army officers believe he wrote it:
This is all that I can say to you at present, and I hope that you will tell me
that you agree with me, and then I shall be able to present this to my government and obtain from it an agreement to what I have written as a private
individual.
This purports to have been written by a public official as an
unofficial act to be followed, if agreed to, by official action.
Mr. President, it is perfectly evident that for a longtime before
the ratification of the treaty Aguinaldo contemplated an attack
upon our Army. As far back as August 17, 1898, Mabini wrote a
letter to Buencamino, in which, referring to us, he said:
The conflict is coming sooner or later and we will gain nothing by asking
favors of them which in reality are our rights, but shall maintain them as
long as we are able to, confiding in justice and Providence.
4988




26


Moreover, I have among these papers a cablegram from London,
from the head of the junta there, dated the 3d of February, in
which he advises that probably the treaty will be ratified and suggests an attack upon the American troops "the moment the
treaty is ratified. " In addition to that, he suggests the purchase of
some effective torpedoes, "which would serve to repeat in the
Bay of Manila the scene in that of Habana, which would serve to
give a fortunate termination to our struggle." Not only that,
but 1 have here the order of Aguinaldo, signed on the 9th day of
January, issued to the people of Manila on the same day on which
he was writing to General Otis, sending commissioners to treat
for some arrangement to avert hostilitics, expressing himself
as deemingz peace a necessity.  He wrote this order. I will
not take the time to read it, because interruptions have caused
me to consume already too much time, but it will be very interesting reading to the American people, and it shows beyond
cavil that the hostilities which preceded immediately the ratification of the treaty were predetermined by Aguinaldo. For what
purpose it is easy to inmaine. But I can not go into all that.
(See Appendix A.)
The Senator from Washington [Mr. TURNER] says that an insurrection was in progress when Aguinaldo left Hongkong. He had
stated that he had surrendered all the rifles under the terms of
the treaty of Biaknabato. He wrote to General Anderson that
he came from Hongkong to prevent his people from joining the
Spaniards and attacking the Americans. He was very depressed
after he issued his proclamation declaring himself dictator, because so few of his people rallied around him. When they did in
larger degree he moved along through the country taking Tagalog
provinces. There is evidence, and abundance of it, that there was
a strong sentiment in certain portions of the island against Aguinaldo's attempt to form a government and in favor of recognizing the sovereignty of the United States. A private letter from
A. Sandico, found open in the papers of the insurgent government,
says:
When the Americans came I was actuated by the love of the country to
form clubs and committees to combat the annexation sen.timent in Malnila.
At the given moment, moved by the desire of independence of the country,
I do the same thing to stemi the current of desire for autonomy which comes
from.Manila.
It is certain, that in a proclamation issued by Aguinaldo August
6, 1898, to foreign governments, he said:
The said revolution now rules in the provinces of Cavite, Batangas, Mindoro, Tayabas, Laguna, Morong, Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija,
Tarlac. Pangasinan, Union, Infanta, Zambales, and it holds besieged the capital of Manila.
Professor Worcester says of this statement:
In other words, he claimed to control the Tagalog provinces, and practically
nothing more.
The consolidated cash book of the insurgent government, showing the sums received as contributions of war and as war taxes
from various districts and provinces for the period from May 31,
1898, to February 28, 1899, shows that his tax collections and contributions were limited to provinces containing about three million and a half people out of the eight or ten million who inhabit
the archipelago. His government evidently did not maintain
law and order even where he was in control. Moreover, it has a
double aspect. The external aspect was one thing, the internal
4988




27
another. He made a particular effort from the beginning to prevent outrages upon foreigners, and to give the inference from that
of a well-ordered domestic sway. Cooperating with him were
certainly some very able and skillful men, both at home and
abroad. Under date Paris, June 23,1899, Agoncillo cabled to the
Hongkong junta:
* * * Observe strictly international law as applying to public and to
private rights, including its precepts covering persons and property of neutral foreigners, avoiding the slightest cause for complaint on their part, in
order to avoid destroying the favorable aspect in which we are fortunately
now regarded by then. I think it important that our government should
constatly send to all our commanders circulars charging them to treat with
respect the persons and property of foreigners (not Yankees), and ordering
the most rigid observance of the laws of war, publishing such circulars in the
vicinity and sending them to all the consuls in Manila, and to use for publication in the press everywhere.
And this admonition was literally and liberally obeyed.
I have among these papers a report to him from an Army officer
as to three towns, in which he says " these towns must be reconquered. It can only be done by taking five lives in each town."
That meant by assassinating five prominent men in each town.
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Wisconsin pardon me?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. HOAR. I hold in my hand General Anderson's statement
on that precise subject, in which he says:
We held Manila and Cavito. The rest of the island was held not by the Spaniards, but by tie Filipinos. On the other island the Spaniards were confined
to two or three fortified towns.
That is General Anderson's statement, and he was the military
commander of our troops.
Mr. SPOONER. That was General Anderson's opinion.
Mr. HOAR. He was commander in chief.
Mr. SPOONER. Most of the Spanish troops were then drawn
into Manila.
Mr. HOAR. Yes.
Mr. SPOONER. And Aguinaldo, of course, with men who
were armed, could take control of Luzon. But there never was a
time, so far as I can ascertain, when the Ilocanos, some of the
people in North Luzon, the Moros, the Igorrotes, and a large
number of people of those islands, and part of the Visayans, ever
acknowledged the jurisdiction of Aguinaldo.
Mr. HOAR. If the Senator was speaking about the distribution of power, I suppose when General Anderson says "held by
the Filipinos" he means the inhabitants in general. He is not
speaking of any particular authority. I should not have interrupted the Senator if I had understood that to be his meaning.
Mr. SPOONER. The truth is, and this paper shows it, that
among the Ilocanos, in the north of Luzon, he collected $1.50 a
head. He did it by force. He did it against their protest, as is
evidenced by the fact that in Cavite Province, in those provinces
of Luzon where his retainers gathered around him, he collected
but 5 cents a head. He did not have a government which at any
time could preserve law and order or which did.
But the treatment by Aguinaldo's government of the people
over whom by force in large part he maintained sway was very
different, as I will show in a few moments. To say that there
was a government in fact, in the sense of law, established by
Aguinaldo in the few months intervening between our capture of
4988




28
Manila and the ratification of this treaty is absurd, in my judgment.
Yet on the 12th of June, 1898, he proclaimed the independence of
the inhabitants of the Philippine Archipelago. Aguinaldo ought
to know better than anyone else the extent of his alleged control
August 6, 1898. He never proclaimed the independence of Luzon,
nor did he ever assume to establish the Republic of Luzon. He
always embraced the full archipelago.
It has been said, and I want to refer to it for a moment, that
we had no power to acquire that sovereignty which we have
acquired, and which the Supreme Court, in the opinion of Chief
Justice Fuller, said we have acquired. He says:
We must decline to assume that the Government wishes thus to disparage
the title of the United States or to place itself in the position of waging a war
of conquest.
That was in answer to the contention that the situation in the
Philippines in its legal relation to us differed from that of Porto
Rico. The court say, and five judges concur in this opinion:
The sovereignty of Spain over the Phililppines and possession under claim
of title had existed for a long series of years prior to the war with the United
States. The fact that there were insurrections against her or that uncivilized tribes may have defied her will did not affect the validity of her title.
She granted the islands to the United States, and the grantee, in accepting
them, took nothing less than the whole grant.
If those in insurrection against Spain continued in insurrection against
the United States the legal title and possession of the latter remained unaffected.
From the time the protocol was signed there was peace, or the
suspension of hostilities, between us and the Government of Spain.
We were in honor bound to employ no military force against the
Spaniards or the subjects of Spain in the Philippines.
Aguinaldo was not our ally in the legal or moral sense of the
word, because there was no Philippine political entity which
could be an ally. He and his associates perhaps had been auxiliaries of ours. If he had been an ally of ours, he would have
been bound by the protocol to abstain during that interregnum
from operations against the Spanish Government.
After the treaty was entered into, the Spanish Government permitted the withdrawal of her troops from Iloilo, and Aguinaldo,
with no one to oppose him, neither Spaniard nor American, for
we were confined to Manila, sent armed men into the different
provinces, took possession of the various towns, and attempted to
bring them under his exactions. That that constituted the erection of an independent government which in law or in morals we
ought to have recognized is as empty a contention as anything to
which I have ever listened in my life.
Senators say that the Government of the United States, in accepting this sovereignty and this title, violated the Declaration of
Independence. I deny it. To say that we could not take as indemnity at the end of war inhabited territory is to impeach the
action of this Government hitherto when the Democratic party
had control of it. We took California from Mexico. We did not
consult the inhabitants. By purchase we took Louisiana. We
did not consult the inhabitants. We took Hawaii. We did not
consult the inhabitants. By a coup d'etat a government had
been formed there called a republic. It had adopted a constitution. That constitution prescribed the qualification and the oath.
No native Hawaiian was permitted under that constitution to
vote on its adoption unless he took the oath of allegiance to that
4988




29


Republic. That constitution contained a provision for ceding
Hawaii to the United States. When the time came, a protest of
native Hawaiians was filed here against that annexation, unless
coupled with statehood.
When the resolution under which we annexed Hawaii was
pending here, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON], going behind the mere technical status and dealing with what he claimed
to be the inalienable moral right, offered an amendment to provide a plebiscite which would give the natives there-the men
who were born there, the people who loved that island, whose
home it had been-a right to vote upon the question of annexation. That was voted down in the Senate and, without consultation with them, without any compliance with the condition
which they sought to ingraft upon the proposition, they were
annexed.
That is not all, Mr. President. I mentioned once before long
ago in the Senate, in connection with this contention that we violated the Declaration of Independence, which we all love and
venerate, that we by this same treaty took, without protest upon
the part of anybody here, then or now, a million people who inhabit Porto Rico. We did not ask their consent. It is true they
did not antagonize us with arms; but if there is anything at all in
this doctrine it involves that they should not be taken without
their consent being asked and obtained.
But, Mr. President, while it is true as an abstract proposition,
true as a basis for revolution, that government derives its just
powers from the consent of the governed, it has never been applied to the acquisition, so far as I remember, of inhabited territory at the end of a successful war. It has never found any place
in the international law of the world, and the moment it does that
moment (and for that reason it never has and never will, probably) the power of a government at the end of a successful war
to demand and accept inhabited territory is gone. At the time
the Declaration of Independence was adopted this was true, that
never since the dawn of civilization had independent governments engaged in war consulted the people of the territory
which they conquered or of territory which they demanded
as indemnity for the expense of the war, any more than we did in
the case of California. It is no answer to say that these populations were small. Fifty thousand people are entitled as much to
protection in the enjoyment of rights conferred by the Almighty
as 5,000,000.
Mr. President, it never was intended by the men who framed
the Declaration of Independence that the Government of the
United States should not possess all of the faculties which appertain to the independent governments of the earth. In their Declaration they said this:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America in
general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by authority of the
good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united
colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they
are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States they have full power
to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do
all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
That is, may lawfully do. They intended to create a government the equal in governmental powers, not only at home, but in
4988




30
international relation, of any government that ever existed. It
will be an unhappy day, I think, Mr. President, if this doctrine
that a government at the end of a successful war can take no inhabited territory without the consent of the inhabitants shall be
adopted.
One of the restraints which has operated upon governments
against engaging in war was the fear of losing portions of their
domain, and if it once be established in the world that no government can take territory as indemnity, if inhabited, unless the inhabitants consent to it, that moral restriction upon war will be
eliminated.
I do not believe, Mr. President, that the people of the United
States are willing to agree that this Government, when engaged
in war, shall be less vigorous in power than the other governments of the earth. I have never feared war with Great Britain.
It would be an unspeakable calamity for every reason. We want
war with no country. We are wedded to the arts of peace and
averse to war. But I have always thought, Mr. President, that
a hostage for all the future for peace between us and Great
Britain, whatever might come of disagreement, is the great domain
over which Great Britain has sovereignty, extending from ocean to
ocean. Do you think that the people of the United States would be
willing to enter into an agreement that, if by any unhappy chance
there should, some time in the distant future, come war between
Great Britain and the United States, the end of that war would
leave the British Possessions and Canada still the property of
Great Britain? Is it to be supposed that the people of the United
States would be willing to have it understood that in such an
untoward event she would hold herself and her Government disabled by the Declaration of Independence to occupy and to keep
the territory to the northward of us? I think not.
Now. Mr. President, Senators taunt us with the duration of
hostilities in the Philippine Archipelago and infer from it that we
can never bring pacification to those islands, and that the people
there will never accept the sovereignty of the United States and
enable us to establish a government there. The war, or I might
better say, the hostilities, have lasted in the Philippines very much
longer than any of us at the outset expected. All of us have regretted them. I never shall cease to regret that Aguinaldo did not
heed the letter of General Otis, informing him that he had instructions not to attack his army, and appealing to him to wait until the treaty was ratified and until the Congress, which has the
power under the Constitution, could define the policy which was
to be pursued toward the Philippine Archipelago. But he would
not wait, and the war-because it was war in the end, not in the
technical sense-came upon us.
It does not lie, I think, in the mouths of Democratic Senators
here to charge upon the Republican party responsibility for the
duration of hostilities in the Philippines. I stand here to say, Mr.
President-I say it regretfully, I say it with no spirit of unkindness in my heart-that in the main, in my judgment, the responsibility for the duration of this struggle in the Philippine Archipelago is upon the minority party in this country.
There never was, in my judgment, a wickeder thing than the
prostitution of that situation to party purposes. Right or wrong,
we had acquired the Philippine Archipelago. We had furnished
an Army to the President. He had informed us that he would
4988




31
employ that Army to enforce the sovereignty of the United
States and obedience to its authority in that archipelago. Then
there was projected for party purposes a false and malign political issue in the United States, which did not fail and could not
fail to prolong the insurrection at a great cost to the people of
the United States not only in dollars, but in lives.
Had there been any proposition made in Congress which rendered it a necessity to make that issue? Had there been any proposition made in Congress leading to what was called imperialism?
That matter had been held open, as it is open to-day. No action
had been proposed which was to tie the hands of the American
Congress and shackle the American people.
And yet Mr. Bryan, an extraordinarily brilliant man, of wonderful personal magnetism, the leader of his party, proceeded, with
his associates, to make the political issue of'' imperialism," assuming that the Republican party, its Administration, led by President
McKinley, would, unless prevented by this issue, commit this
Government to colonialism or imperialism.
I say it was a fictitious issue.
From that time out, Mr. President, we heard about the American Government buying people at so much a head; of purchasing
mere sovereignty. The United States acquired by that treaty
73,000,000 acres of land in the Philippine Archipelago, 5,000,000
acres only in private ownership, 68,000,000 acres the title to which
was in Spain, and passed to us by the cession.
We heard everywhere of our attempted enslavement of the
Filipinos, of our violation of the Declaration of Independence, of
our attempt to adopt the tyranny and oppression of monarchical
governments of the Old World. The changes were rung upon it
from one end of the country to the other, from the beginning to
the end.
There could be but one effect of it. It was the same, I have always thought, as the effect of the opposition to President Lincoln
in his effort to maintain the integrity of the Federal Union. It
tended to raise false hopes in those who struggled against the
Federal forces. It encouraged a prolongation of insurrection.
It made them think that a prolongation of their struggle, followed by the election of Mr. Bryan, meant independence. I can
not tell, no one can tell, how long ago but for that the Philippines might have been pacified. We can not know how many
millions of dollars and how many lives this unfortunate attitude
cost the country, but that it cost many millions and many lives
is certainly true.
That was not only the natural effect, Mr. President; it was the
actual effect, and there is abundant evidence of it. I have some
captured documents from there.
Here is a letter, dated Paris, June 23, 1899, from Agoncillo, the
Filipino who was at the Arlington Hotel in this city as the representative of Aguinaldo when hostilities broke out-that is, he
was there the day before-but when we learned of the hostilities
he had learned before they occurred and betaken himself to Canada. This gentleman says:
Foment the actions of the Democratic party in the United States, which
defends our independence. I am doing this in every way it seems fitting
to me.
Here is the translation of a cablegram, sent in cipher, received
from Paris on August 31, 1899. I read but a line of it:
Triumph of Bryan for the Presidency is triumph of our cause.
4988




32
Mr. ALLISON. Where was that sent?
Mr. SPOONER. That was sent out to the junta at Hongkong.
I have here an extract from a letter of Aguinaldo, on the 2d of August, 1900, to Isidoro Torres, an insurgent general:
Can you perchance tolerate the sale of our liberty and independence for
thirty cheap pieces of silver, which is what is offered by the famous and deceitful amnesty of General MacArthur. [Note.-This undoubtedly relates to
the money paid for arms, paid and turned over by the insurgents.] And do
you know, perchance, what is the true motive of that publication, when it is
nothing but the desire of McKinley's Government to stop this war until October next and to be able to show to the whole world, especially to the honorable people of the United States, that we are already pacified or subjugated,
and thus to insure the reelection of President McKinley? Understand it well
that the end of October is the time allowed the present government by those
honorable people of North America to finish this war, and if it does not accomplish it the said Government or imperialistic party will be defeated and
then will come the recognition of our independence.
Here is a copy of a letter or order from Aguinaldo to LieutenantColonel Bubb, June 27, 1900:
Filippine republic-Filipino army-General campaign-No. 202.
As I have in previous letters directed that all commanders of guerrillas are
free to attack any detachment or post of the enemy and continually molest
the same, I reiterate the oruer the more strongly because its fulfillment just
now is very necessaryJust nowfor the advantage of the cause of independence of the Philippines in the approaching Presidential election in the United States of America, which takes
place in the early part of the cerning month of September of the present year,
on account of which it is imperative that before that dlay comes-that is to say,
during the months of June, July, and August-we give such hard knocks to the
Americans that they will resound in our favor in all parts and set in motion the
fall of the imperialist party, which is trying to enslave us.
General Mascardo issued a proclamation to his comrades in
arms and fellow-patriots, in which, after referring to the war in
China, and to the refusal of Congress to appropriate money needed
to continue the war in the Philippines, and of the people to give
new volunteers, he said:
McKinley falls by the wayside. The people abandon him and incline to
the political party of Mr. Bryan, whose fundamental teachings is the recognition of our independence. In view of this critical situation of McKinley,
he has sent here a Commission with the infamous purpose of deceiving us
with false offerings, solely to get out of us the greatest possible advantages,
as a trader does to obtain the greatest returns. If we accept these offerings
and peace is declared in the archipelago, McKinley will triumph-will be reelected-and his reelection will be the hour of our undoing and terrible misfortune. If, then, we desire our independence, let us for a little while longer put
forth heroic deeds of arms, etc.
They had been told from so many rostrums that we were trying
to enslave them, to syndicate their islands, and to perpetrate
every conceivable outrage upon them that they were ready perhaps to believe it. At any rate, they were led to believe that
if they would only hold out until October Mr. Bryan could
be elected and they would receive their independence-the
strongest possible motive to induce them to continue. It is no
wonder that Aguinaldo told his men to redouble their hostilities.
to shoot down more American soldiers, to ambush more of our
boys over there.
That was not intended, of course, and I have never charged that
upon any of our friends here at home, although there were men
here who sent letters over there encouraging the Filipinos and denouncing our attempt to bring about peace as piracy; but it was
the blind greed for political power which made good men forget for
the nonce the safety of the Army and the interest of the people;
4988




33
for, Mr. President, this thing is true: That when our soldiers are
at the front facing a foe, no matter where or who, they are there
not because they choose, but they are there under orders, and
every patriotic impulse of good citizenship demands, I thi;ik
that people and parties shall withhold a course of action which
subjects them to added danger, and which brings distress to them
in proportion as it gives encouragement to the enemy. This
question of imperialism was not here then; it is not here now, and
it is not to be here, Mr. President, I think.
It has been said by the Senator from Colorado that 95 per cent
of the Filipinos are hostile to the United States.
Mr. TELLER. And I am afraid that is true.
Mr. SPOONER. I know the Senator was sincere in what he
said, but I am not afraid it is true, I do not believe it is true. I
know this to be a fact from the records which I have here: That
in the beginning there was a large element among the Tagalos in
favor of accepting the sovereignty of the United States, and the
congress of the first government of Aguinaldo-such as it was,
although they were appointed by him and not chosen by the people whom they claimed to represent-declared in favor of accepting the autonomy offered by the Schurman Commission. They
were overruled by what was called the war party; but I findand there is overwhelming evidence of it-that, as military operations proceeded there were in different parts of the islands strong
declarations in favor of accepting American sovereignty. Aguinaldo, when the Taft Commission went there, sent by the President, felt obliged to issue an appeal urging the people of the
archipelago not to accept the proffers of self-government made
by the Taft Commission, and that alone was not adequate to hold
his forces together. Other officials did the same. Why these appeals if there was no sentiment for peace and American sovereignty?
Appeals were not sufficient, and then came orders of the harshest
kind, involving deeds of cruelty and a system of terrorism.
Mr. CARMACK. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CARMACK. I should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin what he says to the statement of General MacArthur that
the opposition of the people of the Philippine Islands to the
United States was practically unanimous, and could not be accounted for on the ground of terrorism; and what does the Senator further say in reply to the statement of the three native
members of the Philippine Commission, that the whole people
were practically unanimous in their hostility to the American
Government, and that they continued to be so after their armies
were dispersed and when all hope of success in battle had been
abandoned?
Mr. SPOONER. Well, Mr. President, I find among my papers
a letter from Teodoro Sandico, saying that it was impossible for
him to hold certain military organizations together and to prevent
them from accepting the sovereignty of the United States. I have
here some papers from which I will read this order, which was
issued in September, 1900:
[Center of central Luzon, general order of September, 1900.]
In conformity with my general order of last July, in which all were declared to be traitors who should favor or accept positions from the pretended
4988 —8




34
Anlerican civil government, and taking into account the fact that to be a
voter or to be elected it is required that the oath of allegiance to the United
States be taken, by doing which everyone makes himself an American subject de facto; and considering that the laws of war allow the confiscation of
the property of traitors and that the precedent has been established by the
army of occupation to confiscate for its own use the goods of some Filipino
subjects, even thllough they may not have taken up arms against them,
Using the powers conferred upon me, I order and command:
First. Whosoever holding an official position or may have contributed materially to the establishment of the pretended American civil government in
the territory of my command upon being caught shall be punished either by
a fine of not less than $100 or by death, according to circumstances, after
summary trial, such crime being the more aggravated when committed by
the intelligent. * * *
Why was that order issued if there was not a sentiment there
among the people in favor of accepting the sovereignty and the
government proffered by the Taft Commission?
Mr. CARMACK. Mr. President
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes.
Mr. CARMACK. General MacArthur in his report says that,
to some extent, that sentiment might be accounted for by terrorism, but that it was perfectly evident-I give the substance of the
statement only-it was perfectly evident that the whole people,
or a large majority of them, were in sympathy with the insurrection.
He said, furthermore, that in towns which were absolutely in
possession of the American forces, absolutely controlled by the
American troops, towns which had been under the control of the
American authorities, the people continued to give aid to the insurrection just as much as they did in other towns that were not
in possession of the American forces.
Mr. SPOONER. When was that statement made?
Mr. CARMACK. It was made in General MacArthur's report.
Mr. TILLMAN. On the 4th of July last.
Mr. SPOONER. General MacArthur made that statement, but
that is not all the statement that General MacArthur made. There
is part of General MacArthur's statement which indicates a different opinion. The Senator calls attention to what he quoted
from the statement of the native commissioners. The Senator
read this:
In view of the greatly disturbed condition of the country after the 4th day
of February, 1899, it was not easy to foresee when a political party could be
formed, and it appeared impossible to arrange a peace proposition which
would induce the Filipinos to acknowledge American sovereignty. A policy
of government based principally upon the most absurd intolerance which
had obtained in the Philippines for more than three centuries, until the arrival of the Americans, has established in the minds of the Filipinos the deeprooted conviction that an alien sovereignty could come with no other object
in view than an iniquitous exploitation and that it could be maintained by
no other means than a selfish and absorbing government founded upon civil
intolerance, religious medisevalism, and inexorable military power-the triple
alliance which the previous government relied on.
The successes of the Union Army in the war convinced the Filipinos that
there was a superior force which would annihilate them; but these successes
could not prevent the people-bleeding and without strength-from tenaciously continuing a suicidal struggle to escape the new slavery which they
so greatly feared, even though it were at the cost of death.
That is what the Senator from Tennessee read from this Appendix A. That was a clear case, I think, with due deference to the
Senator, of the suppressio veri. It is a fair illustration, if it goes
4988




35
out by itself, of the old adage that there is no falsehood so dangerous as a truth half told. Here is what they say:
It was necessary, in order to secure peace, to patiently and confidently
await the time when facts would prove to the Filipinos the error of their
judgment. The lesson taught by experience was long and, unfortunately, at
the cost of the ruin of the country and the loss of a large number of human
lives.
Certain abuses committed by men representing authority among the Filipinos and the unsettled conditions and injustice that prevailed in their territory showed the impossibility of the organization of an independent government. The triumph of the American arms made them realize that the
accusation of cowardice brought against the Americans and generally disseminated throughout the country during Spanish rule was an absurd
slander, and, finally, the conduct of the Americans after their victories
showed them that their acts did not reveal cruel and wicked men, as had
been affirmed by the Spanish military, civil, and ecclesiastical authorities in
official documents.
Of the principal civil chieftains of the insurrection some voluntarily surrenderedThe Senator did not read thatwhile others were captured by the forces of the Union. Some of the generals
were already in Manila and had acknowledged the sovereignty of the United
States. This circumstance favored the work done with the purpose of convincing the people that peace was an absolute necessity and that it would be
the origin and beginning of a period of justice during which the cause of
liberty would attain those rights which it would be impossible ever to acquire
by the force of arms.
That is from the same document, but the Senator did not read
that.
The people in arms received the advice which was sent them by their
friends in the city with the most profound contempt, supposing it to have
been dictated and inspired by fear, under the threats of the authorities. The
civil and military commanders who surrendered or sought the protection of
American sovereignty had, upon their arrival in Manila, an opportunity of
communicating directly with the members of the Commission and of observing in person that the state of affairs was actually far different from what
they had supposed when in the field. They themselves wrote to those who
persisted in their hostile attitude, informing them of the true situation.
Little by little they so convinced their friends and comrades that they, too,
began to return to the towns, and there was spread throughout the country,
if not an absolute confidence in, at least a more favorable idea of, the Amerin
cans and less mistrust of their policy.
The first demonstration of material importance made by the party was
held when the Civil Commission made a trip through the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Pangasinan, where, due to the unity of purpose of the
party, a large group of parsons, representing the most distinguished elements of those provinces, for the first time made a public expression of their
sympathy, confidence, and adherence to the sovereignty of the United States.
Such demonstrations were of great value, for, besides revealing in the Philippines a new sentiment, they served to convince the rest of the Filipinos
that it was already possible, without endangering life, to express allegiance
to the new sovereignty. Terror had reigned in those very provinces until a
short time prior hereto, because natives who had shown they were partisans
of the Americans and who expressed their ideas in public were cruelly assassinated in their own homes or kidnapped with their families, to be sacrificed
in a manner as cruel as it was barbarous.
Mr. CARMACK. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. SPOONER. For a moment only.
Mr. CARMACK. Well, Mr. President, if I can not have time
enough to defend myself from the attack which the Senator has
made, I prefer not to interrupt him at all.
Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator thinks that I made an attack.
he can take the time.
4988




36
Mr. CARMACK. Mr. President, the Senator charged that I
made a very partial and incomplete statement, and coupled that
with the assertion that no falsehood was so dangerous —
Mr. SPOONER. I did not impute falsehood to the Senator
from Tennessee.
Mr. CARMACK. I do not understand what the Senator could
have meant, unless he did mean that.
Mr. SPOONER. What I meant was that reading a part of a
report and not the rest of it did not convey the truth to the people. I did not charge the Senator with falsehood, and could not
do so.
Mr. CARMACK. Very well; I accept the Senator's disclaimer.
But what I want to say is that in my remarks, in which I quoted
that particular point, I was first answering the argument which
had been made that we were not attempting from the beginning
to force upon the people of the Philippine Islands a government
without their consent; and I quoted that from the report of the
Philippine Commission as showing, from their own evidence,
that the whole people of the Philippine Islands were against the
establishment of American rule at the time we began to force
our Government upon them. I did not allude in my remarks to
what the Senator has subsequently read, but I alluded to something which he did not read, and that was as to the manner and
the method by which the people of the Philippine Islands, or a
certain portion of them, had been induced to accept American
rule; that was by holding out to them through the Federal party,
organized by three members of the Philippine Commission, with
the sanction and consent of the whole Commission, the hope of
admission to statehood in the American Union.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I will comment on that in a
few moments. I find before me the paper to which I referred a
little while ago, tending to show that in 1900 there were towns
there which Aguinaldo could not control. Here is that paper:
MY RESPECTED CHIEF AND DEAR BROTHER: I have received your respected order regarding the organization of the "comite"That means committeein the towns of Zaragosa, Aliaga, and Licab. From the movements and actions
of these towns I don't believe it possible to organize immediately. Before
we can it will be necessary that four or five lives be taken in each town. I
believe that what ought to be done to those towns is to make a new conquest
of them, especially the town of San Juan de Guimba. It is difficult there to
set straight the Tagalos and Ilocanos of importance, as they are badly inclined
and they care to do nothing but pervert our soldiers.
This is what I am able to inform you in fulfillment of the respected order
of the chief.
God guard you many years.
San Cristobal, August 3,1900.
COGONZALES.
Oh, Mr. President, it is a long story. There is no question at
all about the effect of the attitude of the Democracy in this
country upon this subject in the past and now in obstructing the
United States in the pacification of those islands and in bringing
to that people the benefits and blessings which you and we most
earnestly pray they shall be permitted to receive. I read here
an extract, sir, a year ago, of a letter from General Lawton,
which was challenged; the authenticity of it was denied. I had
no power then to establish its authenticity, but I have the orig4C88




37
inal letter now, Mr. President, in my hand. He sleeps over in
Arlington. Dead, he yet speaks to us in a solemn way this day:
[Personal.]
HEADQUARTERS FIRST DIVISION, EIGITII ARMY CORPS,
Manila, P. I., October 6, 1899.
Hon. JOHN BARRETT,
Exr-Minister to Siam, Review of Reviews, New York City.
MY DEAR SIR: Your letter, with proofs of your able article for the Review
of Reviews, duly reached me. I thank you for them. I handed them to some
of the officers to read, and they have not yet returned them, or I have mislaid
them, so that I am not quite sure of your address. Think your letter was
headed; The Waldorf," but will send this care of the Review of Reviews. AsI
may be leaving Manila any day and am very busy, will answer without further
delay. I appreciate the importance of your suggestions and questions and
regret I have not time to discuss them more fully.
This article is like your others-the best matter that is being published in
America on the Philippines and Asia. Your errors were a few minor ones of
dates, names, and places. Things were a little slow at first, but words were
put into my mouth which I never said. I agree with you that mistakes have
been made hereThat is undoubtedly true. That is incidental to all military
operations on a large scalebut I would to God that the whole truth of this whole Philippine situation
could be known by everyone in America. I wish our people could know it
as I know it and as you know it, for I regard you as the best informed and
most impartial authority on all these Asiatic questions, and I think the President made a mistake in not naming you a member of the Philippine Commission.
I agree that if the real facts in connection with the history, inspiration,
and conditions of this insurrection, and the hostile influences, local and external, such as the Catipunan and juntas, that now encourage the enemy, as
well as the actual possibilities of these Philippine Islands and peoples and
their relations to this great East-which you have set forth so ably-could be
understood at home in America, we would hear no more political talk of
unjust "shooting of government" into the Filipinos or unwise threats of
hauling down our flag in the Philippines.
You are right. Some of us have modified our views since we first came;
and if these so-called antiimperialists of Boston would honestly ascertain the
truth on the ground here and not in distant America, they, whom I dislike to
believe to b3 other than honest men misinformed, would be convinced of the
error of their exaggerated statements and conclusions and of the cruel and
unfortunate effect of their publications here.
It is kind of you to caution me about exposure under fire, but if I am shot
by a Filipino bullet it might as well come from one of my own men. These
are strong words; and yet I say them because I know from my own observations, confirmed by stories of captured Filipino prisoners, that the continuance of fighting is chiefly due to reports that are sent out from America and
circulated among these ignorant natives by the leaders, who know better.
This letter, which, of course, is strictly personal, does not answer all your
questions, but it is a long one for me, as I want to encourage you in your
labors to make the truth known. Hope I shall see you out here soon in some
high civil position. We soldiers need practical men like you to help us.
Thanking you again for your kind words in praise of my humble efforts,
I am,
Yours, very truly,                         H. W. LAWTON.
The complimentary words to Mr. Barrett contained in this letter made him very reluctant to publish the whole letter, so he
used the extract which contains the expression of General Lawton
upon the particular subject at a New England banquet, but it has
been challenged, and I want to set at rest the authenticity of this
letter, and therefore I produce it.
Mr. TILLMAN. Is that the original?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir. With it is this postscript:
P. S.-Will try to find and inclose copies of the orders and list you spoke of.
H. W. L.
49:8




38
Appended to it, Mr. President, is this indorsement:
LOUISVILLE, KY., February 17, 1902.
Having carefully read and examined the foregoing letter (comprising its
three original typewritten pages), signed and addressed by my husband, Gen.
H. W. Lawton, United States Army, at Manila, P. I., October 6, 1899, to Hon.
John Barrett, New York City, I unhesitatingly pronounce the sentiments and
signature thereof absolutely genuine and authentic in every respect.
MARY C. LAWTON.
Witness:
THEODORE Z. HARDEE.
It was acknowledged before a notary public.
General Lawton knew of what he wrote. He was at the front,
as he was always at the front when duty called. There never
was a finer leader of men than Henry W. Lawton.
I want it remembered that neither this bill. if passed, nor any
bill that has been proposed hitherto by the majority, if passed,
would tie the hands of the American people, morally or otherwise,
at all as to the policy ultimately to be pursued, in accordance
with their will, upon the subjects of the Philippines. In the
years to come the path is open. No retreat has been cut off by
legislation. None is proposed. And that intensified to my mind
the cruelty that for political purposes, while the soldiers were
fighting under the flag, under the orders of their officers, this
issue,,or alleged issue. should be made and debated for party
purposes, as it was before the American people. Lawton knew
whereof he spoke. I will show before I finish-and I ought to
be through-that the proposition of the minority is a continuation, in practical effect, of the obstruction which has wrought so
much harm and done absolutely no good hitherto.
I was speaking of the influences which have rendered it difficult
for the Taft Commission and the army of occupation to bring
about pacification and acceptance of American sovereignty, in
addition to the prolongation of the insurrection, by attitudes to
which I have referred. Here is an order issued by Tinio, March
26, 1900.
ORDERS FORBIDDING FILTPINOS TO SERVE UNDER UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT.
In accordance with the circular of the general commanding the center of
Luzon, which was referred to me by the colonel in charge of the civil government of this province, I utterly prohibit any Filipinos from receiving employment or filling any offices in the town governments for the Americans,
because he who accepts such voluntarily recognizes the sovereignty of the enemny
since he who fills such offices will be used as an example and others will use him
as an excuse for accepting them.
I inform you of this so that you can communicate it to your subordinates,
especially to your local presidents and principales (heads of barrios), for their
information.
God keep you many years.
Headquarters of the Second Zone, March 2G, 1900. The lieutenant-colonel.
CASIMIRO TINIO.
Here is a general order of the provisional government of the
Philippines.
Mr. TILLMAN. What is the date?
Mr. SPOONER. It is without date.
GENERAL ORDER OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Order the municipal captains in every town to move out and capture the
detachments of the enemy, each man as he thinks best.
Capture all the friars and Spaniards and their goods and property; see
that they do not escape me. The Filipinos who take the side of the enemy
and who do not aid us to defend the cause of the people, seize them and their
goods.
4988




39
They will preserve carefully, as agent, all orders and documents of the
towns.
If there is a town which does not comply with these orders, the others
which have complied with them must regard them as enemies, using all
means to capture such enemies and hold them prisoners. Capture the municipal captain, and if he resists shoot him.
Whoever struggles and works for the independence of the country will be
authorized to shoot whoever resists or refuses to recognize the holy cause or who
favors the enemy.
If the enemy attack a town all others must aid it without fear. If a town
does not aid another attacked by the enemy, the chiefs of such town will be
immediately deprived f their offices, and the laws of this government for
such a case will be imz!diately applied to them.
*        *        *         *        *        *        *
Here is one of August 1, 1900:
[Translation from letter found when General Cailles's headquarters were
destroyed by Colonel Cheatham, August 1,1900.]
As soon as you receive this communication you will inform all people of
your district that, by order of the commanding general of this province
(General Cailles), there will be captured and shot those regular soldiers,
policemen, and volunteers, or other citizens who present themselves to the
Americans and who surrender their rifles for money.
All the military chiefs and presidentes locales will be held responsible if
anyone of their jurisdiction present themselves to the Americans, and therefore it is ordered that if anyone has the intention of presenting himself to the
Americans, he will be captured immediately and sent to the headquarters in
accordance with the orders of our general.
Central camp, Lumban, July 15, 1900.
PEDRO CABALLES, Major.
I read from letter-sent book, secretary of war, No. 147, June 2,
1899, showing the fear of acceptance of full autonomy even:
Letter from office of the secretary of war to Arcadio Magsilong, military
commander of Cebu, this date. directing him to oppose to his utmost the full
autonomy offered by the Americans to that island, and in order to do so he
must impose severe punishments upon such persons as proclaim the advantages offered by those people, and this without any consideration for the office
occupied by such persons, civil or ecclesiastical, if they are of autonomist
tendency, and if the president and his council incline toward the Americans,
yielding to their desires, arrange at once and in proper fashion for hostilities
to break out with the enemy, because we can not permit any flag except the
Filipino one on that island.
Here is one dated March 4,1899:
[Circular from Polo, March 4,1899-9.31 a. m.]
Antonio Luna, general commanding military operations against Manila, to
military chiefs, officials of the provinces and towns:
In order to prevent any act opposed to the military plans of these headquarters and consequently to the ideals of the Filipino Republic, I order and
command (only one article): From this day any person or individual whatever who either directly or indirectly refuses to give aid to these headquarters in the prosecution of any military plan, or who in any manner whatever
interferes with the execution of orders dictated for that purpose by the general in chief commanding operations upon Manila, will be immediatelg shot
without trial. Communicate and publish this order.
Then they had over there the Katipunan Here is their oath.
There are two different oaths:
OATHS AND FORM OF INITIATION OF THE SOCIETY CALLED "KATIPUNAN"
OR "K. K. K."
Who is this who has never been initiated who wants to take part in the
works of the temple?
One who wants light and who wants to be a son of the people. Profane
man, think well whether you are able to fulfill all of these obligations.
If at this very hour the society demands your life and your body, are you
able to give them?
The sound of bells which you have just heard, what does it mean?
It means that you are quitting your former life as the man in the last
agony is quitting his, and your anguish is the sign of your separation from
your past life; at the same time it is the sign of your entrance into the society
where you will see the true light.
4988




40
Upon your entrance into this society it is necessary that a mark be placed
upon your body to prove that you are a true brother; at the proper time you
will be marked with red hot iron; can you stand it?
Consider welll Do you not wish to draw back?
Remember, my dear brother, that from this hour not you, but the society,
is master of your body; it is the sole master of your life and powers.
Now that you have received all the signs of this society which is called
" Katipunan " or complete union, you must place yourself upon your knees before the crucifix to swear to obey absolutely its commands, and to say nothing of them to anyone, neither to your mother, nor to your father, nor your
friends, for if you do it will take vengeance upon you by your death and that
of yourfamily.
Do you know, my brother, what these arms men? They are the arms
with which the society will punish your brothers who become traitors and
he who speaks of the secrets of the society.
Now receive our embrace as a mark of our eternal brotherhood.
OATH.
In the name of the one true God and on my honor I swear to be faithful to
the society called Katipunan or Complete Union, to defend it to the last drop
of my blood, to implicitly obey its orders, and to keep its secrets from any and
all persons not members of the society. And if I fail in its orders to execute
its.ustice may God punish my soul, and may my brothers trample upon my
body. In testimony of which I sign with my own blood.
I certify that I believe this translation to be correct.
CAPTAIN, FOURTEENTH INFANTRY,
In Charge of Insurgent Records.
MANILA, P. I., July 7, 1900.
Here is another. An order was issued putting all Filipinos into
the Katipunan and holding them bound by the oath and subject to
the penalty.
[Translation of document captured by Lieut. J. R. Thomas, Seventeenth Infantry, near Pita de Infanta, Zambales Province, August, 1900. Forwarded
through headquarters third district, department of Northern Luzon. Received October 24, 1900.]
INSTRUCTIONS.
First. From to-day you will be a brother of the Katipunan. You will understand your obligation to regard with esteem the true brother of the Katipunan, because we were born in one and the same country, of one and the
same people, and descendants of one and the same blood and color-that is to
say. sons of one common mother.
Ie who desires to become a brother will be asked the following questions:
First. Do you swear before our Lord Jesus that you will never do injury
to the Filipinos?
Second. Do you swear before our Lord Jesus that you will help the Filipino people in their aspirations?
Third. Do you swear before our Lord Jesus that you will always esteem
our brothers of the Katipunan?
Fourth. Do you swear before our Lord Jesus that you will be able to assassinate your parents, brothers, wife, sons, relatives, friends, fellow-townsmen, or
Katipunan brothers should they forsake or betray our cause?
Fifth. Do you swear before our Lord Jesus that you will shed your last
drop of blood in defense of our mother country?
Sixth. Do you swear before our Lord Jesus that you will sacrifice your life
and goods when there is the slightest possibility of our brothers being in
need of help?
For all of this that we, your brothers in the Katipunan, may have evidence
of all you have sworn you will allow us to extract a drop of your blood
with which to write your name, so that we, your brothers of the Katipunan,
may know that you will never betray our cause.
This being done and the blood being drawn, his name will be written in his
own blood, which although but a little drop, he will never, up to the last hour
of his life, cease to remember to be upon his guard as a true brother, for it is
blood drawn from his own body.
March 4,1900.
MOISES ABUEG.
They attempted to bind men to this, enlarged and extended its
scope by order, because it was apparent that the people had tired
of being harried, tired of tyranny, tired of exactions, tired of assassination, bloodshed, and devastation, and welcomed peace and
American sovereignty. It is an odd thing that the cabalistic sym4988




41
bol of this oath-bound association in the interests of human liberty
is "K K   K " (ku-klux-klan?). Which was the mother of the other
I can not say, but their purposes for liberty are very much the
same.
I hold in my hand a list, which I can not take the time to read,
signed by American officers, in answer to an inquiry dated December 3, 1900, which shows 314 natives assassinated, 419 natives
assaulted, 73 municipal officers assassinated, and 44 municipal officers assaulted, simply for sympathy with the Americans
and an acceptance of local office under the Taft Commission.
The findings of the military commissions show a vast number,
many having been buried alive. It is perfectly apparent that extreme measures were resorted to, in a systematic way, to prevent
the acceptance of American sovereignty. If there could be a
stronger recognition of the desire for it among the people, and
the fear of it by the Tagalog chieftains, I can not imagine what
it would be.
The reports show that in order to terrorize the people-and
I can not take the time to present them to the Senate-assassination was the order of the day; that men and children were
stoned to death, and that every conceivable act of violence which
could strike terror to the human heart was resorted to and systematically employed in order to prevent the acceptance of American sovereignty within those islands.
How could this have occurred if Senators are right in their assumption that all but 5 per cent of the people were heart and soul
supporters of Philippine independence as administered by the
Tagalogs and opposed to American sovereignty?
What has the army done over there?    It has pacified those
provinces. At this time all of the provinces are pacified, I think,
and Governor Taft thinks and General MacArthur thinks, except
three.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The Federal party say two.
Mr. SPOONER.     The Federal party say two. At one time
there were 71,000 men there.  In March, 1900, there were 293
stations of troops in the Philippine Islands, which was increased
up to December 1, 1901, to 472. Since December 1, 1901, 134 stations have been abandoned and 39 established, making a decrease
since December 1, 1901, of 95, leaving a total at this date of 377,
and 200 of those are simply there for the purpose of affording
shelter and covering for the troops, and if there were a fort with
adequate barracks they would be withdrawn.
I have here a letter from Secretary Root, which I will put in
the RECORD:
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, February 13, 1902.
MY DEAR SENATOR: I inclose herewith a memorandum showing the number of United States troops in the Philippines and the progressive reduction
of that force since the 1st of January, 1901.
Very truly, yours,
ELIHU ROOT.
Hon. JOHN C. SPOONER,
United States Senate.
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington,    -.
January 1, 1901, there were in the Philippines, according to the corrected
field returns received by mail for December 31, 66,758 enlisted men and 2,662
officers, making an aggregate of 69,420 American troops. The reduction of
the American force has proceeded continuously since that time.
The time required for communication between headquarters at Manila
and the outlying posts in the distant islands, and between Manila and the War
4988




42
Department, is so great that only approximate figures can ever be given showing the present numbers of the organizations. The last full return, which
reached the War Department on the 12th of February, 1902, was the return
showing conditions on the 31st of August, 1901. There were then included in
the organizations stationed in the island 1,469 officers and 45,715 enlisted men,
making an aggregate of 47,184 (present and absent).
'he last informal return by letter from headquarters at Manila, received
at the War Department from the Philippines February 3,1902, gives the numbers for November 30,1901, as 1.417 officers and 44,432 enlisted men, making an
aggregate of 45,849 (present and absent).
The present estimated strength of the organizations in the Philippines,
based on telegraphic reports of the movements of troops, is 40,870.
When the movement of troops now under specific orders for stations in
the United States has been accomplished, the numbers in the Philippines will
be reduced to 1,360 officers and 3,3,522 enlisted men.
When the general directions already given for the return of troops whose
stations in the United States have not yet been designated have been carried
out, the number of troops in the Philippines will be reduced to 1,125 officers
and 26,234 enlisted men.
None of the foregoing figures include Philippine scouts, who on the 1st of
January, 1901, numbered between two and three thousand, and now number
about 5,000.
That speaks a volume, and the other day General Chaffee cabled
the War Department that he did not need a battalion of the Tenth
Infantry which he had been advised had been ordered to report to
him in the Philippine Archipelago. Is there no pacification in the
opinion of the military officers in the Philippines? Have they accomplished nothing there by arms and with the aid of the Taft
Commission, when they can reduce the army in spite of obstruction from 71,000 men to 26,000 men? The army has done a great
work over there. It has not been waging a war of conquest; it has
been obeying the orders of the Commander in Chief, to enforce
the authority and sovereignty of the United States in the Philippine Archipelago. Of course there has been bloodshed; of course
there has been cruelty. All war is cruel. It is savage. General
Sherman defined it well when he remarked, " War is hell." But
there never has been an army-and I think the records will show
it-which has fought with greater bravery, which has endured
hardships of a novel kind with greater patience. or which has
treated an enemy with so much forbearance. Prisoners up to a
comparatively short time ago were discharged.
Of course there have been cases of individual cruelty. Sometimes a soldier, walking along the pathway, has found lying dead,
stabbed in the back, his bunk mate, horribly mutilated. More
than once it happened. Knit together by those strong ties which
bind men who face danger and endure hardships side by side, the
next Filipino he met with a knife or a gun he killed. I am sorry,
but that is the human nature of it, and in the last analysis it is
the anger which comes from outraged love and comradeship.
Mr. President, even in this country of civilization, war was
horrible. Who ever will forget the horrible memories of Libby
prison, Andersonville, and Salisbury and Belle Isle? We never
charged that on the Southern people. Those are incidents of war,
and you will find them everywhere.
I have here charges that have been placed in the RECORD against
our army in the Philippines by the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
TELLER], who disclaimed a purpose to make an attack upon the
army, but filled the RECORD with letters, some of them, as I remember, unsigned. I will not stop to read this letter, but I want
to read a part of General Funston's letter, in which he replies to
a charge incorporated in the RECORD by the Senator from Colorado.
4988




43
Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator from Wisconsin allow me to
correct him? I have seen General Funston's denial. What I read
was an extract from a newspaper.
Mr. SPOONER. I know. I did not say the Senator from Colorado made the charge. On the other hand, the Senator did not
understand me, but I did state that the Senator from Colorado at
the time he inserted these letters in the RECORD disclaimed himself making any attack upon the Army.
Mr. TELLER. I did not insert anything that had not been in
the public press.
Mr. SPOONER. I understand that. This is an answer to what
was in the public press.
Mr. TELLER. I have read the answer and was very glad to
see it.
Mr. SPOONER. This is an answer to what was in the public
press and is now in the RECORD. I want the country to get it.
Under date of February 2, 1902, General Funston says:
In this extract it is alleged that a soldier who claims to have been with me
in the Philippines made the statement that he had helped to administer the
" water cure " to 160 natives, all but 26 of whom died. This statement I wish
to brand as an atrocious lie, without the slightest foundation in fact. During my service of three years in the Philippines I never had personal knowledge of the so-called "water cure" being administered to a native or any
other form of torture being used to extract information from them.
Statements of this kind made by returned soldiers are simply braggadocio
and a desire to attract attention to themselves. It is my belief that the
" water cure" was very rarely, if ever, administered by American soldiers.
It was a matter of common knowledge that occasionally the Macabebe Scouts,
when not under the direct control of some officer, would resort to this means
of obtaining information as to the whereabouts of concealed arms and ammunition.
Some soldiers have resorted to the "water cure," and some have
been tried for it and convicted.
Mr. TELLER. May I say one word?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. At the time I presented these allegations I
stated that the people ought to know the charges and the Government ought to take steps to prove their untruth, if they were untrue. I was not aware that they had taken any steps, and this
report has come in since.
Mr. SPOONER. Every charge, and the letter of the Secretary
of War shows it, which has been made in the newspapers of outrages alleged to have been committed by our soldiers in the
Philippines, or which has been brought to the attention of the
Secretary of War by letter, has been promptly investigated or is
in process of investigation.
Mr. TELLER. That was not known to the public, I think,
when those allegations were presented.
Mr. SPOONER. That is true, so far as I know, but they were
presented. They have gone to. the country, and it is only fair
that alongside in the RECORD should be put the statement of the
Secretary of War. I did not believe these charges, because if
true they would constitute a violation of the standing instructions adopted in 1861, now in force, to govern the conduct of soldiers and armies in the field; not only that, but a violation of
general and special orders; and not only that. but are absolutely
inconsistent with the nature of American soldiers, who are brave,
but not cruel, and who are commanded by as gallant and chivalrous
officers as ever wore a uniform. Here is a letter from Matthew A.
4988




44
Batson, who commands the Macabebe Scouts. I can not stop to
read his letter, but in two sentences he says:
From time to time charges similar to that made by Mr. Kennan in the article referred to have been made against my scouts. These charges have invariably been thoroughly investigated, and have nearly always been found
to be without foundation.
And so on; a statement which I think will satisfy Senators
either that these charges have been investigated and exploded or
are being investigated. I print the communication of the Secretary of War and the letters of General Funston and Captain Batson in the appendix.
Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to read a brief extract from the proceedings of the committee of which he is a
member, and with which he is no doubt familiar?
Mr. SPOONER. What committee?
Mr. TELLER. The Committee on the Philippines.
Mr. SPOONER. I am not a member of the committee.
Mr. TELLER. I beg pardon; I thought the Senator was a
member of it.
Senator PATTERSON. I do not think the charge of inflictingthe water cure
has been made against American soldiers as much as against thf native troops
who have been enlisted in the American Army, or as an appurtenance to the
American Army. For instance, the Macabebes. Many letters have been published making statements of this kind-that Macabebes would be sent out for
the purpose of securing the surrender of guns, and the persons would deny
that they had any guns. Then the Macabebes would throw them upon the
ground, one soldier on one hand and another on the other, secure their feet,
pry open their mouths with a stick, and then pour buckets of water down
their throats till they swelled up to an abnormal size, and then jump upon
their stomachs. It has been stated that invariably under that treatment
guns were produced where there were no guns before; this with the knowledge of American officers, the Army getting the advantage of it in securing
arms from natives, which they were seeking, without any serious reproof.
This is what Governor Taft saysMr. SPOONER. Mr. President
Mr. TELLER. I want to read the Governor's answer. I could
not read one without the other, because otherwise the answer
would not be intelligent. Governor Taft says:
I have no doubt there were such instances-of course a great many more
than there ought to have been-but, if the Senator will excuse me, dependence upon private letters from private individuals as to what occurred is dependence on a very broken reed.
Then the governor goes on to say that he did not realize that
himself until this investigation was made.
Mr. SPOONER. That does not conflict at all with General
Funston's statement. He says there have been cases —
Mr. TELLER. That is what I understand.
Mr. SPOONER. And there undoubtedly would be. It would
be impossible that the Army could go among that peopleMr. TELLER. I stated a year ago, and I stated when I made
my speech the other day, that that was undoubtedly the work
mainly of the Macabebes.
Mr. SPOONER. Now, Mr. President, one thing can not fail
to attract the notice of the public. We have done a great deal in
the Philippines. The Army has done a great deal, not only in the
way of putting forth successfully military power, but it has done
a great deal in the way of amelioration. It did a great deal in
the way of forming civil governments, which it is true did not
prove to be successful because of the means employed by the insurrectionists to defeat them; but, after all, the Army did a great
4988




45
deal in the interest of education, in the interest of peace, and in
the interest of promoting good feeling among that people toward us.
In the one hand they carried the musket and in the other the
schoolbook. I do not know in all history a parallel, taken all in
all, to the operations which have been conducted in the Philippines in this respect; and I believe it to be true that if we could
all have been united, if we could all have moved forward to the
accomplishment of the great purpose of pacification-not subjugation, but pacification and upbuilding-vastly greater results
would have been obtained.
There was nothing of tyranny in our attitude; there was no
purpose of cruelty except as war is cruel. There could be none
in the heart, as there had been none in the life, of the Commander in Chief. There was not an order issued by him that did
not breathe the spirit not only of civilization, but of kindliness
and concern for that people which had been brought by the fortunes of war and the actions of all of us under the sovereignty and
into the responsibility of this people.
If he failed to do anything, Mr. President, which a libertyloving man should have done. I do not know what it was. He has
been, not now but once, sneered at because he thought Providence had some agency in all that has happened to us and because he now and then used the wcril " destiny." I indulge in
no casuistry. Every man will think for himself on these abstruse things. But believing that there is a God, omnipotent,
just, generous, all-wise and all-seeing, one can hardly escape the
belief that He has some superintending care over men and over
nations.
The Senator from Colorado, in the speech which I read from
this morning, recognized that. The man who has this belief in his
heart, Mr. President, whether it be well founded or ill founded,
can not be a tyrant. He will not run from any duty which arises
from any environment and which a manly and generous man
ought to discharge.
I remember in the early days how, more than once, touched by
an unfair fling and taunt, calm and patient as he was, I have
seen the pale face of President McKinley contract with pain. I
remember in the debate on Cuba, when many cruel things were
said, I had occasion to remark that he might take comfort to himself in the remembrance that the same things were uttered of
Abraham Lincoln; that the day would come when the world would
wonder and we would wonder how anyone ever could have
thought, much less uttered, such imputations.
Behind this Army was President McKinley. A tenderer heart,
Mr. President, never throbbed in a human breast-never; a kindlier or more considerate man, in my judgment, never lived; a man
who had a stronger, nobler love of country and of the flag, not as
an emblem of power alone or chiefly, but as an emblem of liberty
and justice and civilization, we have not known.
When the time came for him to die-aye, Mr. President, when,
as he stood in the presence of the people and shrank back with the
first shock of that dreadful assault upon him-the first word, almost, that leaped to his lips was a considerate word for the nameless stranger who, without personal malice, had shot him down.
And from that hour until the last, in the presence of all the world,
he bore himself with an intrepidity of soul, a thoughtfulness of
4988




46
others, a steadfastness of faith in the God whom he loved and
worshiped, a Christian resignation and patience which lifted him
to the highest possible standard of human conduct. And at the
last, when the world was fading away from him, when he was
bidding farewell to her who had been the chief object of his love
and tender care for all the years, he said, " It is God's way. His
will be done."
HE WAS BEHIND THE ARMY.
Is it not almost impossible to believe that that man ever could
have been referred to as " McKinley the First?" Can anybody
believe that administration in the Philippines in his hands was
intended for enslavement? No; he wanted to go forward, as it was
his duty to do, with firmness but with kindness, and he did.
There is no State paper written in any time finer or loftier than
the instructions which he issued to the Taft Commission when it
went to the Philippines, to cooperate with the Army on the civil
side in building up government and ameliorating the harshness of
war. And what has been done? They have established civil government in all the provinces, I believe, except two.
Mr. PATTERSON. Fourteen.
Mr. SPOONER. Fourteen? I thought in all except two. I remember; the Senator is right.
Mr. LODGE. War exists in four.
Mr. SPOONER. War, or what is called war, exists in only
four, but the Senator from Colorado is right.
Mr. PATTERSON. That is Governor Taft's statement.
Mr. SPOONER. They have established civil governments in
all provinces in the archipelago except fourteen. Now. nobody
with open mind could fail to be gratified by Governor Taft's testimony as to their progress among the people and through the
islands, the manner in which they were met, met by the more intelligent as well as the less intelligent; and there the intelligent have
a great influence, greater perhaps than generally, over those who
are less intelligent. It produced day after day, without the aid
of the army, surrenders. Over 28,000 arms have been surrendered;
the army of insurrection there has disappeared; and to-day, if Governor Taft is correct, and if his associates are correct, in those
provinces there is not only pacification, but there is an improved
feeling and a genuine feeling rapidly extending toward American
sovereignty and civil government under our auspices.
It is a plant of slow growth, I grant you. It is a difficult and
delicate problem. It can be worked out, Governor Taft says.
The Malay he finds like other men; he appreciates kindness and
is grateful for it.
There has been no real progress in the Philippines, Senators say!
"We have the testimony of the military and you have the testimony of the civil officers." Which knows the better? The last report of General Chaffee closes with this remark: " Nevertheless
they exhibit evident signs of educational possibilities and gradually an attainment to the higher plane of our civilization may be
hoped for." There was under the guerrilla system a period of
elaborate treachery. It was a method of warfare. The report
of General MacArthur is even very much stronger than that of
General Chaffee. But who naturally should know better? The
soldier who goes with his musket in his hand, who shoots on
sight, is not apt to see the best or the kindly characteristics of an
enemy. He is distrusted; he is feared. But when civil officers go
4988




47
there, and go there without military escort, take their wives with
them, mingle with the people, consult their prejudices, invite their
advice, I submit that they are more likely to be received with sincerity and would have a better view of the heart than the military
officers.
Nearly all the civil governors, as shown by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT], make glowing reports of the condition of the
provinces. We may be deceived about it. There may be, and
probably is, more or less insincerity; but after all that, thus far
they have done great things there. And who on the other side
of the Chamber, except the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER],
in all this debate has uttered one word of commendation of the
army or found one praiseworthy or beneficent act upon the part
of the United States in the Philippines? Not one. We have
organized courts there. We have changed the code of procedure.
We have done away with the Spanish mainana, manana, maiana
(to-morrow, to-morrow, to-morrow). Nothing is said about that.
We have established the habeas corpus-not a writ of favor, but
a writ of right. It was done in the first instance by the order of
President McKinley. Now it is a part of the law there. Not a
word has been said in commendation of that, although Governor
Taft testified that it was in constant operation, and that an old
man came to him whose son or a relative had been confined for
months, was it, or years —
Mr. LODGE. Six years.
Mr. SPOONER. For six years in a prison in Manila, without
knowing for what, and asked him to discharge him. Governor
Taft himself wrote the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and
he was discharged, and there followed by the same writs the discharge of a large number of men who had been held there under
the Spanish regime. Senators have found no commendation for
that. The American authority over there in those islands abolished the infamous Spanish incommunicado, which was so horrible in Cuba, which immured a man and shut him off from the
world before even arraignment, away from counsel and friends
and hope. It is gone, and gone forever. There is not a word of
commendation for that.
We have abolished the ecclesiastical courts which had jurisdiction of every offense committed by a friar. He was tried by his
own associates of the church, and out of it came appalling injustice. That has been abolished, and every man over there now, of
every tribe, of every religion, has an equal position before the law.
Senators have failed to commend that.
They passed many great civil acts, the central-government act,
the provincial-government act, the municipal code (local selfgovernment act), the educational act, the act creating courts of
justice, a code of civil procedure, the constabulary act, a civilservice act, the board of health act.
Let me refer for a moment to what has been done in the matter
of education. Senators find nothing in that to commend; nothing
except to criticise: Total number of pupils enrolled in the public
day schools, 177,325; average daily attendance, 108,000; enrollment
in night schools, 20,000; a grand total of 197,000; grand total average attendance of 114,000. Total expenditures for 1901, $800,000.
Pay roll for December, $100,000.
The insular government pays the salaries of the American
teachers and officers and provides school supplies and books free
4988




48
for all pupils. Senators in the opposition find nothing worthy of
commendation in that.
The municipalities provide school buildings and furniture and
pay the native teachers. There are 825 American teachers distributed over the archipelago-men and women.
Cruelty, tyranny! The Senator from Colorado [Mr. PATTERSON] yesterday afternoon condemned that.
Mr. PATTERSON. No.
Mr. SPOONER. Qualifiedly, as an evidence of tyranny, which
sent our teachers over there to destroy the Philippine language.
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President
Mr. SPOONER. Am I wrong?
Mr. PATTERSON. Yes.
Mr. SPOONER. In what respect?
Mr. PATTERSON. What I did condemn was laying claim to
great merit for establishing a common-school system which the
Filipinos were forced to pay for by the taxes taken from them,
and they were not even consulted as to what should be taught.
They are not even permitted under this system to be taught their
own language. Instead, they must be taught a language totally
foreign to them.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President
Mr. PATTERSON. They have a language with a literature —
Mr. SPOONER. I do not yield for an argument.
Mr. PATTERSON. And a language of 4.000.000 people.
Mr. SPOONER. I do not yield for an argument.
Mr. PATTERSON. Well, you asked me.
Mr. SPOONER. I want to be just to the Senator.
Mr. PATTERSON. Oh, no; I am not finding fault with the
Senator.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, they have no common language. There is no Filipino language. There are 8,000,000 or
10,000,000 people. The Commission think there are about
8,000,000. There are a great many different tribes and a great
many different dialects. The language of the law is Spanish.
Comparatively few speak Spanish. What is the number-6 per
cent?
Mr. LODGE. Between 5 and 10.
Mr. SPOONER. Between 5 and 10 per cent speak Spanish.
We go over there with our government. We go over there with
no purpose on earth except to subserve the interests of that people and to build them up and confer blessings upon them. We
have left the Spanish language, the language of the courts. That
was a necessity. The Filipinos of the various tribes do not have
to be taught their own language.
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President —
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes.
Mr. PATTERSON. I want to ask the Senator what he thinks
of either the wisdom or humanity of granting a suffrageMr. SPOONER. I am not discussing that.
Mr. PATTERSON. One moment; of granting a suffrage only
to those people who write the Spanish language, comprising in
the neighborhood of 5 per cent, with a few additions, and excluding from the suffrage, however intelligent the natives may
be, those who speak and write their own language, the language
of the nation?
4988




49


Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, there is no language of the
nation except the Spanish language. That is the law language.
It is the language of the courts. We want a language of the
people, a language of the nation. They never will be a nation
until they have a common language in one way or another, in
one degree or another. In Aguinaldo's first draft of a constitution, made by Mabini, they provided that English should be the
legal language of the country, and in his last one they did not
settle it, but left it for the law to prescribe. However, for years
to come they knew it would have to be the Spanish language.
Would we go there, Mr. President, and open schools with American
school-teachers to teach the Tagalos language, to teach the lan-guage of the Ilocano, the Igorrote, and Pangasinan, and all that —
Mr. PATTERSON. Let me ask the Senator a question.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. SPOONER. I prefer not.
Mr. PATTERSON. Just for a question.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator declines to yield.
Mr. PATTERSON. Just for a question?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator declines to yield.
Mr. SPOONER. I yield for a question.
Mr. PATTERSON. The question is whether or not those who
are compelled to pay for teachers should not be consulted as to
what will be taught.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, if the Filipino fathers and
mothers like to send their children to an American school to be
taught the English language, to be taught to read it and to write
it and to spell it, the Senator from Colorado ought to be content.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PATTERSON. If the people of the Philippines are content
I am content. but the people of the Philippines are given no choice.
It is simply crammed upon them and forced upon them. It is all
that they have.
Mr; SPOONER. Now, we have government without consent
and education without consent. [Laughter.] What next? Mr.
President, the people there or anywhere else know what they want,
but evidently they do not know what the Senator from Colorado
wants them to want. [Laughter.] They send their children to
school and they do it with the utmost avidity. The schools are
crowded with intelligent children, children eager to learn, and a
friend of mine told me that he attended one of the schools and the
aisles were filled with mature people, anxious to learn to read and
to understand the English language. The Senator, without any
complaint from them, of his own motion, proceeds to point out to
them what they evidently have not learned, and will not until
they read his speech-and I hope it will not get there [laughter]that they are being outraged and tyrannized over by being taught
the English language.
There are 3,300 Filipino public school teachers, the majority of
whom receive one hour's English instruction daily. Have they
complained to the Senator? There is no compulsory education
over there. Those come who want to come, and if there is anything in liberty, the child who wants to go to school and learn
English ought to have a chance.
There are 200 American soldiers detailed to teach in sections
where the army is operating.
What tyrannyl
4988 ---




50
Free public schools are established in every island of the archipelago.
During the Spanish regime there was one teacher for every
3,500 of the civilized population.
This year there is one teacher for every 1,551 of the civilized
population.
The natives generally welcome-they may not hereafter, but
they do now-welcome the teachers and seem anxious to learn
English.
The Normal School was opened September 1, in Manila. It has
an enrollment of 250.
The Nautical School was established in Manila August 7, 1900.
The constabulary force at present numbers about 2,500 men.
All of the enlisted men are natives. Twenty-five per cent of the
inspectors are natives. The records show only two desertions
prior to December 24, 1901. The cost of one constable is $250 per
year, as against $1,000 per year in the United States-the cost of
an American soldier. The constabulary supplies to its force
through its supply store the necessaries of life which can not be
bought in the provinces. The estimated appropriation for maintaining for one year a constabulary force of 183 chief officers, 543)
petty officers, and 4,480 privates is $1,250,000 as against 85,000.000,
the cost of maintaining a military force of equal size in the United
States.
During the four months since the organization of the constabulary its forces have taken part in 230 expeditions, killed 2() outlaws, wounded 20, and captured 374; captured 114 rifles, 17 shotguns, 44 revolvers, 79 bolos, and 1 cannon; recovered 125
carabaos and 13 ponies; received the surrender of 57 rifles, 5 revolvers, 1,052 rounds of rifle ammunition; executed 79 warrants,
made 179 arrests (exclusive of outlaws), furnished descriptive
lists of 4,500 agitators and turbulent characters.
The chief of constabulary, Maj. Henry T. Allen. estimates that
in one year from January 1, 1902, 15,000 American soldiers, with
the aid of native troops and constabulary. will suffice to garrison and maintain order in the Philippine Islands.
Yes, in spite of appeals and terrorism and obstructions, we have
made great progress in the Philippines.
Now, what is proposed here, Mr. President?  What is the substitute presented by the minority?
That, subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth, the United States of
America hereby relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to the
archipelago known as the Philippine Islands.
If this is passed, that is the end of it-no protectorate, no reserve power over foreign relations, no power reserved at all that
would be in the slightest degree efficient.
That from and after the passage of this act said archipelago shall be foreign territory, and all goods entering the United States therefrom shall be subject to the same duties, customs, and imposts as are now. or may hereafter
be, prescribed by law for goods entered from other foreign countries: Provided, That during the temporary occupation of said islands, as hereinafter
provided all trade between the same and the United States shall be free.
That the United States shall continue to occupy and govern said archipelago until the people thereof have established a stable government, and until
sufficient guaranties have been obtained for the performance of our treaty
obligations with Spain for the safety of those inhabitants who have adhered
to the United States and for the maintenance and protection of all rights
which have accrued under their authority.
Then we are to go away and "'leave the government control and
sovereignty thereof to the inhabitants of the same." I think that
4988




51
is the most mischievous project in the present situation that could
be devised by the wit of man. It is the discredited issue of imperialism projected again.
What would be the effect of this substitute? What is the
hypothesis, Senators, on which you propose to enact this proposition?
Either one of two-either that the American people can not safely
be trusted to settle this Philippine proposition in their own way
and in their own good time, or that it is necessary to the pacification of those islands. Is either true? The Senator from Colorado,
in the speech from which I read an extract a little while ago,
announced-and I knew he had-implicit faith in the American
people. By what warrant do you press legislation impeaching
the integrity and the loyalty of the American people to American
ideals?
The Senator from Tennessee seemed to think in his speech the
other day that if we do not scuttle the ship, if we do not retreat
at once, if we do not, like cowards, run from duty partially done
the American people will become blind with the passion of greed,
and that retreat will be cut off.
I estimate the American people in no such way. I have abiding faith. Mr. President, in their purposes, in their generosity, in
their justice. The ideals of the American people have been made
by them. they belong to them, they are dear to them, and they
will preserve and maintain them.
When has the American people voted to shunt this sovereignty,
this title, and this possession which they have acquired by treaty,
ratified by appropriations, consummated by military force, and
upon which they are now engaged in working out righteously and
splendidly the great problem upon which they entered? Why now?
Why just as the Taft Commission is winning the confidence of the
people there, overcoming the prejudices which in so many ways,
assiduously and by terrorism and otherwise, have been engendered against us? Why again project into this situation this doctrine of independence? What will be the result? You set the
cabal at work; you inaugurate intrigue; you project into the future
an issue of fact about which there must be and will be differences
of opinion.
It has been proclaimed on this floor that long ago they had a
republic devoted to liberty and fit for international recognition,
protecting life, liberty, and property. Who is to say when a
stable government has been formed over there-the Filipinos or
we? They will say " We have it." We may be compelled to say
" No; you have it not." Then comes the hot charge of bad faith;
then our own witnesses cited to sustain the charge of perfidy and
bad faith. We lose the vantage ground for doing good which the
title gave us, as contradistinguished from the mere relinquishment of sovereignty.
That is not all. You would stop at once adherence to American
authority and cooperation in American upbuilding. How? I
spoke at one time with a gentleman who was vice-president in
Aguinaldo's cabinet, and who is an able man. He told me that
a large majority of the Filipinos desired to acquiesce in American
sovereignty; that they believed we would do what was generous
and right, but they were afraid. I said, "Why afraid?" He said,
" Congress has not acted; the division in your country is such that
we are afraid some day the American flag will be taken down in
the Philippines, your troops will sail away, and then, if in the
4988




52
meantime we shall have manifested sympathy for the American
Government and a willingness to acquiesce in it, we shall be confiscated, assassinated, and destroyed."
Now, Mr. President, instead of leaving that people to meet the
advances of the Taft Commission, to cooperate with them in developing the industries and increasing the prosperity of the islands,
in extending the system of free education, in eliminating, as we
will, the title of the friars to lands there, what would these Senators
do? They would pass a bill giving away the sovereignty, leaving
us there as tenants at will or by sufferance. If this substitute were passed, not one man in the Philippine Archipelago would
dare to give his adhesion to American sovereignty or evidence his
sympathy with the work of this Government for their future betterment. They would remember the outlawries, the confiscations,
and the terrorism of the recent past.
It is a bill to raise hell in the Philippine Archipelago. It is a
bill that has no merit whatever in it. It is a proposition which
we are not ready for and which the Filipinos are not ready for. It
is an experiment that they dare not try. Our obligations over there
have grown day by day. Every Filipino who has accepted office,
every Filipino who has evidenced in the smallest degree sympathy
for the United States or a willingness to acquiesce in American
sovereignty, has taken a bond from us, if there is any honor in us,
to stay there long enough to safeguard his life when a change does
come.
You will go away when a stable government is formed, "exacting guaranties that those 'who have adhered to the United States
shall be protected! "  What guaranty? Who shall guarantee the
guarantor? How long will it take to erect a stable government in
the Philippine Islands? God only knows. You do not know. I
do not know. Had we not better move along with the sovereignty
and title, the strong, firm, safe foundation for upbuilding, and
leave to the future the questions of the future?
Who asks for this surrender of sovereignty? The memorial of
the Federal party, admittedly comprising about 150,000 of the
most intelligent and influential people of the islands. petitioning
for ultimate statehood, adjure us against colonialism and independence. They say:
To make of the Philippines a colony of the United States or to grant independence to the Philippines would be to hand the islands over to disorder and
o anarchy, to destruction and to chaos.
Their argument against colonialism is largely based, naturally,
on the abuses and injustices with which the "Philippines were
surfeited under the Spanish Government."  They add, as to independence:
Philippine independence, with or without a protectorate, means the holding of power by all the terrible elements of the sect which predominate, and
would predominate still for some years, until the anger of Filipinos toward
Filipinos shall have been completely calmed, education become more general,
and the fanaticism we have inherited from Spain exiled.
These men should know whether the people there are fit for
independence, or can soon be fitted for independence, better than
we can know it. Because we can not pledge to them what they
wish-statehood-must we give them what they do not wish and
say they can not sustain-independence?
I stand, Mr. President, where I have always stood from the first
upon this subject. I dreaded the assumption of the burden. I
did not believe, nor do I now, in permanent dominion of the
4988




53


United States in the Philippine Archipelago. At the same time,
I never expect the flag of the United States to depart from that
archipelago.
I feel a little differently as to the relation of the United States
to the Philippine Archipelago from what I once did. I have less
of fear and more of hope. I firmly believe, as we all fervently
hope that if we move forward, solving as best we can the problems
which appear from time to time, doing right, spreading education, promoting justice, ameliorating conditions in the Philippines, building roads, increasing facilities, bringing prosperity,
quieting the titles of the native inhabitants to land which they
and their ancestors have occupied, so that for the first time, standing in front of their houses, each could truthfully say, "This is
my home: I own it "-never before could they say that-that it
will inevitably attach that people to us and win their confidence. This would be a vain hope if the minority proposition
here were adopted.
It is our duty to find fault only where fault can fairly be
found. The problem is difficult and filled with complication. It
requires patience, tact, and united effort.
This debate has been, after all, a high tribute to the work of the
Commission. Senators have criticised the treason act, and I agree
with the criticism in part. They have found fault with the sedition act. There is much, I think, to be said in favor of that act, its
phraseology in one or two particulars being changed. They have
criticised the franchise, but it must be remembered that it is but
a beginning. Self-government is a faculty. It must be developed, and it can not be developed without use. We can not adopt
there at once the standards which are dear to us here. We require the Commission to report to us every act in order that we
may examine it, and if it does not meet our approval we may
change it.
I wish we might all move along together. Let us encourage
the Commission. Let us improve as rapidly as possible government over there, and enlarge the participation of the people
in it, and when the day comes that that people can maintain
an autonomous government let us give it to them. They might
be able to do that, and doubtless will be able to do that, long
before they could maintain independence, but, having the sovereignty, we could maintain a protectorate over them with safety,
thus giving them opportunity in safety to work out with our aid
their destiny. Leave there, and then what?
Mr. HOAR. May I ask my honorable friend a question?
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOAR. Is the Senator willing to put into a resolve of the
Senate such a declaration of the purposes of the American people
as he has just stated?
Mr. SPOONER. I am not willing to make any declaration in
this situation. I am willing to trust the American people, Mr.
President. Suppose you adopt this proposition, and suppose you
come away from the Philippines, they having erected a stable
government, in your opinion, and it turns out not to be a stable
government?
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, if I may interrupt the Senator
again, this is a proposition of immense importance, to my humble
apprehension. It is a proposition in which the very essence of
civil liberty and righteousness is involved; and if I am indiscreet
4988




54
in interrupting the Senator in his eloquent remarks I beg his pardon. But I want to ask him, as he claims we are the trustee of
10,000,000 people, whether, when many persons in the Senate and
out of it are declaring that we have the right to hold those people
for our advantage and that the American flag shall never go down
there under any circumstances or under any conditions-whether,
when he declares what he himself thinks righteousness and justice demand, he refuses to let the American Senate, to let the
trustee, tell those people that we have no purpose of turning them
to our own gain?
I do not ask the Senator to determine any political policy in
any sense by saying exactly what we are going to do, but I ask
him now, does he refuse to tell that people that in the future we
mean, if they are fit for it, to leave them to govern themselves in
freedom and in independence, or does he mean that they shall be
contented with the vague declarations of irresponsible individuals?
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I mean just this: If I have not
made the Senator from Massachusetts understand that I regard it as the height of unwisdom to project into the future any
promises upon that subject, I have failed utterly in making myself understood.
Mr. HOAR. But the Senator
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. SPOONER. I yield.
Mr. HOAR. I ask the Senator when it is debated here in the
Senate, and out of it, whether we are the rightful owners of that
people for all time, he thinks it is projecting into the future a
problem that is to be settled then to simply disclaim that intention?
Mr. SPOONER. I think we are the owner of the Philippine
ArchipelagoMr. HOAR. People and all?
Mr. SPOONER. People and all? I think if we own a countryMr. HOAR. You own the people.
Mr. SPOONER. I did not say that.
Mr. HOAR. I beg your pardon.
Mr. SPOONER. I did not say that.
Mr. HOAR. No; I understand you did not. I bog the Senator's pardon.
Mr. SPOONER. We bought the Territory of Louisiana, but
we did not own the people. We bought the Territory of Alaska,
but we did not own the people. But when we acquire territory
which is inhabited we certainly have the sovereignty and right
to govern it incidental to the ownership.
Mr. HOAR. But did we not assure Louisiana and Alaska both
that we intended ultimately to admit them into the Union as
equals?
Mr. GALLINGER. I think not as to Alaska.
Mr. SPOONER. Not Alaska.
Mr. HOAR. Mr. Sumner again and again in that great speech
made that affirmation and disclaimed the notion of governing
without the consent of the governed.
Mr. LODGE. It was never done by law or treaty.
4988




55
Mr. SPOONER. It is not what Mr. Sumner declared, but what
was in the treaty.
Mr. HOAR. I am speaking of what the great leader of the
Senate then read and commending it to the imitation of the leader
of the Senate now.
Mr. SPOONER. I was saying when interrupted, "leave there,
and then what? " Leave your stable government to a people who
never up to this time for an hour participated in government.
What would follow? Civil war and anarchy, and the Philippine
Archipelago would have passed beyond any relief from us. We
should have relinquished our sovereignty by act, if this substitute were adopted, and abandoned it in fact. It is a dangerous
experiment to try. Other nations would intervene, and seize and
occupy. We could not complain, for we should have abandoned
our sovereignty to a people which could not hold it.
Of course we can not penetrate the future.
When Congress adjourned not long ago none of us thought, except perhaps the Senator from Colorado, of any conflagration in
China. To me it came like a clap of thunder from a cloudless
sky. When our legations were attacked in China, and when the
missionaries over there-men and women laboring in His service, self-sacrificing, devoted-were suddenly confronted with death
and unspeakable outrage and implored our protection, it seemed
rather "providential" that we were in the Philippines and able to
send quickly two regiments of soldiers and a battery from the archipelago, only 600 miles away, to their relief. It had great moral
effect. Other governments had to send troops from far away.
They gave up their legations and their legationers as lost. President McKinley would not and did not.
And so in all the great strife for commerce in the Orient which
is to come in the future, which will grow more and more intense,
I think a foothold, naval and military, in that archipelago, not
incompatible even with ultimate independence to the Philippine
people, will be of infinite use to the people of the United States.
No, Mr. President, I am opposed, in this sensitive and difficult situation, to promises, indefinite as to time of redemption,
not now absolutely certain as to possibility of literal redemption.
The true policy is to proceed with the work of pacification and
construction, as President McKinley did, and as President Roosevelt announces his purpose to do. He is a man of high ideals. He
is a lover of liberty. He dared more for liberty in the SpanishAmerican war than any of us. He offered his life and all that is
dear to a man for the liberty of Cuba. The people trust him.
We will obey their will if we stand by him and uphold him. We
have traveled far and done good work since the outbreak of the
Spanish-American war.
By our aid the republic of Cuba is soon to enter the family of
nations, with a flag of her own. We have brought happiness and
prosperity to Porto Rico, and we have well begun the great task
which we assumed in the Pacific, to bring together the Philippine people into one people, and to educate them for self-government or independence, and to give it to them when the time
comes. That is a result well worth working for and well worth
waiting for. It can be wrought out by going forward, but not
by a retreat, and I venture to prophesy that it will not be long
before the Filipino people would look upon the departure of our
flag from their midst, with its guaranty of protection, of liberty,
of law, and of order, as an irreparable calamity.
4988




56
APPENDIXES.
APPENDIX A.
AGUINALDO'S ORDER OF JANUARY 9,1899..
MALOLOS, January 9, 1809.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRAVE SOLDIERS OF SANDATAHAN OF MANILA.
ARTICLE 1. All Filipinos should observe our fellow-countrymen in order
to see whether they are Anmerican sympathizers. They shall take care to work
with them in order to inspire them with confidence of the strength of the holy
cause of their country.
Whenever they are assured of the loyalty of the convert they shall instruct
them to continue in the character of an American sympathizer, in order that
they may receive good pay, but without prejudicing the cause of our country. In this way they can serve themselves and at the same time serve the
public by communicating to the committee of chiefs and officials of our army
whatever news of importance they may have.
ART. 2. All of the chiefs and Filipino brothers should be ready and courageous for the combat, and should take advantage of the opportunity to study
well the situation of the American outposts and headquarters, observing especially secret places where they can approach and surprise the enemy.
ART. 3. The chief and those who go to attack the barracks should send in
first four men with a good present for the American commander. Immediately after will follow four others, who will make a pretense of looking for
the same officer for some reason, and a larger group shall be concealed in the
corners of houses in order to aid the other groups at the first signal. This
wherever it is possible at the moment of attack.
ART. 4. They should not, prior to the attack, look at the Americans in a
threatening manner. To the contrary, the attack on the barracks by the Sandatahan should be a complete surprise and with decision and courage. One
should go alone in advance in order to kill the sentinel. In order to deceive the
sentinel the one should dress as a woman and must take great care that the sentinel is not able to discharge his piece, thus calling the attention of those in the
barracks. This will enable his companions who are approaching to assist in the
general attack.
ART. 5. At the moment of the attack the Sandatahan should not attempt
to secure rifles from their dead enemies, but shall pursue, slashing right and
left with bolos, until the Americans surrender, and after there remains no
enemy who can injure them they may take the rifles in one hand and the
ammunition in the other.
ART. 6. The officers shall take care that on the top of the houses along the
streets where the American forces shallpass there will be placed four to six men,
who shall be prepared with stones, timbers, red-hot iron, heavy furnitcure, as well
as boiling water, oil, and molasses, rags soaked in coal oil ready to be lighted
and thrown downi, and any other hard and heavy objects that they can throw
on the passing American troops. At the same time in the lower parts of the
houses will be concealed the Sandatahan, who will attack immediately.
Great care should be taken not to throw glass in the streets, as the greater
part of our soldiers go barefooted. On these houses there will, if possible,
be arranged, in addition to the objects to be thrown down, a number of the
Sandatahan, in order to cover a retreat or to follow up a route of the enemy's
column, so that we may be sure of the destruction of all the opposing forces.
ART. 7. All Filipinos, real defenders of their country, should live on the
alert to assist simultaneously the inside attack at the very moment that they
note the first movement in whatever barrio or suburb, having assurance that
all the troops that surround Manila will proceed without delay to force the
enemy's line and unite themselves with their brothers in the city. With such a
general movement, so firm and decided against the Americans, the combat
is sure to be a short one, and I charge and order that the persons and goods
of all foreigners shall be respected and that the American prisoners shall be
treated well.
ART. 8. All of our chiefs in the suburbs should prepare groups of the Sandatahan, who will attack with ferocity and decision the Americans within
their lines, attempting to surround each group of Americans or to break
through their lines. This must be done if the nature of the ground occupied
by the Americans will permit and if the Sandatahan have the proper amount
of courage and resolution, and the more courage and intelligence that they
show in the moment of the attack the surer will be the result and the fewer
will be their own losses.
ART. 9. In addition to the instructions given in paragraph 6, there shall be
in the houses vessels filled with boiling water, tallow, molasses, and other
liquids, which shall be thrown as bombs on the Americans who pass in front
of their houses, or they can make use of syringes or tubes of bamboo. In
these houses shall be the Sandatahan, who shall hurl the liquids that shall be
passed to them by the women and children.
4988




57
ART. 10. In place of bolos or daggers, if they do not possess the same. the
Sandatahan can provide themselves with lances and arrows with long, sharp
heads, and these should be shot with great force in order that they may penetrate well into the bodies of the enemy. And these should be so made that in
withdrawal fron the body the head icill remain in the flesh.
ART. 11. It can be taken for granted that if the above instructions are observed the enemy will not be able to use their firearms because of the confusion in his ranks, as they would shoot one another. For this reason I have
always thought the rifles useless in this kind of combat, for experience has
taught me, my dear brothers, that when the Sandatahan make their attack
with courage and decision, taking advantage of the confusion in the ranks of
the enemy, the victory is sure, and in that case the triumph is ours.
ART. 12. At last, if, as I expect, the result shall favor us in the taking of
Manila and the conquering of the enemy, the chiefs are charged with seeing
that the officers and soldiers respect the consulates, the banks and commercial houses, and even the Spanish banks and commercial houses, taking that
they be not seduced by the hope of plunder; as, if God sees this, He will reward us, and the foreign nations will note the order and justice of our conduct. I charge that in the moment of combat the officers, soldiers, and whatever patriots take part in the struggle will not forget our noble, sacred, and
holy ideals, liberty and independence. Neither will you forget your sacred
oath and immaculate banner; nor will you forget the promises made by me
to the civilized nations, whom I have assured that we Filipinos are not savages, nor thieves, nor assassins, nor are we cruel, but on the contrary that
we are men of culture and patriotism, honorable and very humane.
Above all I expect that you will respect the persons and goods of private
persons of all nationalities, including the Chinese; that you will treat well the
prisoners and grant life to those of the enemy who surrender. And that you
be on the sharp lookout for those traitors and enemies who, by robbery, will
seek to mar our victory.
ESIILIO AGUINALDO.
APPENDIX B.
[Senate Document No. 205, part 1, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.]
CHARGES OF CRUELTY, ETC., TO THE NATIVES OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Letter from the Secretary of War relative to the reports and charges in the
public press of cruelty and oppression exercised by our soldiers toward
natives of the Philippines. February 19, 1902.-Ordered to be printed as a
document.
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 17, 1902.
DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of Saturday, the 15ith instant, received
yesterday, asking information regarding the reports and charges in the public press of cruelty and oppression exercised by our soldiers toward natives
of the Philippines, I send you a number of documents which I think will furnish the information you wish. Every report or charge of this description
which has at any time been brought to the notice of the War Department
has been made the subject of prompt investigation; and among the inclosed
papers you will find the records of thirteen such inquiries in which the results have been reported. You will perceive that in substantially every case
the report has proved to be either unfounded or grossly exaggerated. The
particular report which was called to the attention of the Senate last week,
viz, that the "water cure " is the favorite torture of the American, and especially of tlie Macabebo scouts, to force the natives to give information, and
that a soldier who was with General Funston had stated that he had helped to
administer the "water cure" to 160 natives, all but 26 of whom died, was
already under investigation, which is still in progress.
I inclose a copy of a letter received from General Funston, dated February
2, 1902, in which he declares the statement to be an "atrocious lie without the
slightest foundation in fact;" and a letter from Lieutenant Batson, the commander of the Macabebe Scouts, to the same effect.
As to orders governing our soldiers in the Philippines, I send you a copy of
the instructions for the government of armies of the United States, promulgated under President Lincoln by General Orders, No. 100, of 1863. These
rules have been republished from time to time in separate form and furnished
to every commissioned officer of the Army, both Regulars and Volunteers
and are to-day, as they have been at all times since 1863, the practical and
effective guide and rule of conduct to which every officer understands that
he must conform. Among these rules you will find the following:
"RULE 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty-that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or
wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. * * *
"RULE 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded
country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized offi4988




58
cer, all robery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force;
all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants are prohibited
under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem
adequate for the gravity of the offense. * * *
"RULE 56. A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction
of any suffering or disgrace by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity.
"RULE 75. Prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment
such as may be deemed necesssry on account of safety, but they are to be
subjected to no other intentional suffering or indignity. * * *
'RUL 80. Honorable men, when captured, will abstain from giving to the
enemy information concerning their own army, and the modern law of war
permits no longer use of any violence against prisoners in order to extort
the desired information or to punish them for having given false information."
I send you also copies of eighteen orders, issued at different times and under
different commands in the Philippines, for the observance and enforcement of
these humane rules, calling particular attention to the order of the Department of Southern Luzon, dated June 5, 1900; in the Department of the Visayas, dated June 26, 1900, and in the Department of Northern Luzon, dated
July 14, 1900.
I send you a memorandum of 44 officers, soldiers, and camp followers who
have been tried, and 39 of them convicted, for violation of such orders as are
above described.
The war on the part of the Filipinos has been conducted with the barbarous cruelty common among uncivilized races, and with general disregard of
the rules of civilized warfare. They deliberately adopted the policy of killing all natives, however peaceful, who were friendly to our Government,
and in literally thousands of instances these poor creatures, dependent upon
our soldiers for protection, have been assassinated.
The Filipino troops have frequently fired upon our men from under protection of flags of truce, tortured to death American prisoners who have
fallen into their hands buried alive both Americans and friendly natives,
and horribly mutilated the bodies of the American dead. That the soldiers
fighting against such an enemy, and with their own eyes witnessing such
deeds, should occasionally be regardless of their orders and retaliate by unjustifiable severities is not incredible. Such things happen in every war,
even between two civilized nations, and they always will happen while war
lasts. That such occurrences have been sanctioned or permitted is not true.
A constant and effective pressure of prohibition, precept, and discipline has
been maintained against them. That there has been any such practice is not
true. The cases have been few and far between, scattered infrequently over
a great area of country along the course of three years of active conflict,
through thousands of engagements, and among many thousands of troops.
That these occasional cases have characterized our Army or its conduct is
not true, any more than the deeds of lawless violence which constantly occur
in every large city characterize the people of the city. The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American Army with scrupulous regard for
the rules of civilized warfare, with careful and genuine consideration for the
prisoner and the noncombatant, with self-restraint, and with humanity never
surpassed, if ever equaled, in any conflict, worthy only of praise, and reflecting credit upon the American people.
I send you a number of extracts from reports and court-martial proceedings, illustrating the character of insurrectionist warfare.
Very truly, yours,
ELIHU ROOT, Secretary of War.
Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE,
Chairman Committee on the Philippines,
United States Senate.
EXHIBIT A.
KANSAS CITY, Mo., February 2, 1902.
SIR: My attention having been called to an extract from an article published in the City and State, of Philadelphia, January 2, 1902, I wish to make
the following comment:
In this extract it is alleged that a soldier who claims to have been with me
in the Philippines made the statement that he had helped to administer the
"water cure" to 160 natives, all but 26 of whom died. This statement I wish
to brand as an atrocious lie, without the slightest fozundation in fact. During
my service of three years in the Philippines I never had personal knowledge
of the so-called "water cure" being administered to a native, or any other
form of torture being used to extract information from them.
Statements of this kind made by returned soldiers are simply braggadocio,
and a desire to attract attention to themselves. It is my belief that the
"water cure" was very rarely, if ever, administered by American soldiers.
4988




59
It was a matter of common knowledge that occasionally the Macabebe
Scouts, when not under the direct control of some officer, would resort to
this means of obtaining information as to the whereabouts of concealed arms
and ammunition. They did this, however, on their own responsibility and
without orders from their superiors. It was utterly impossible to prevent a
few offenses of this kind by the Macabebes, as they were merely repaying
the insurgents for worse treatment received by them in the past.
The so-called "water cure," as it has been described to me by Macabcbe
soldiers, was by no means so severe an ordeal as would be indicated in the
extract mentioned. The method was merely to throw a native on his back,
hold his nose with one hand, and pour water down his throat from a canteen
or other vessel. It occasioned nothing more than a few moments of strangling, and never resulted fatally.
I never heard of its lhaving been administered to a native by a white man.
Very respectfully,
FREDERICK FUNSTON,
Brigadier-General, United States Army.
The ADJUTANT-G-ENEIRAL,
VWashington, D. C.
EXHIBIT B.
WASIINGTON, D. C., JanuarJ 29, 1902.
SIn: Referring to an article published in the City and State, Philadelphia,
January 2, 1902, alleging the use of the "water torture " as a means of extorting information from the natives in the Philippines by our troops, and especially Macabebe Scouts, I desire to make the following comments:
The first company of Macabebe Scouts was organized by me in September
1899. This force was subsequently increased until I had under my command
five companies, numbering 640 men. I was in command of these scouts until
the latter part of November, 1893, being relieved on account of a wound received at Aringay. Tleso men were in May, 19()0, reorganized and officially
designated Squandron Philippine Cavalry, though they were generally known
as " Macabebe Scouts." Upon the reorganization I was again placed in command of them, and remained in command until these men were finally discharged from the service in July, 190)1.
At this time there were other bodies of scouts known as Macabebe Scouts,
about the discipline and conduct of which I know nothing, as I never came
in contact with them.
During the time that I was in command of these native troops the practice
of torturing natives to obtain information was neither sanctioned nor practiced. On the contrary, it was prohibited under pain of severe punishment.
I not only did not "knowingly allow it," but from the time I organized the
first company of natives until my command was discharged, in July, 1901,
my officers and men were strictly prohibited from mistreating prisoners or
"piasanos" in any way.
Fromi time to time charges similar to that made by Mr. Kennan in the article referred to have been made against my scouts. These charges have invariably been thoroughly investigated, and have nearly always been found
to be without foundation. As a rule, these charges have not been made to
me as commanding officer of the scouts, but have been sent direct to the division commander, and in a great many cases special inspectors have been
sent out to investigate. These inspectors have always been given every assistance by myself and officers to get at the trath, and the natives encouraged
in every way to make known any cruelty practiced against them. It has generally beexn found that th e natives have been scared into making these charges,
first, by insurgent officials, who sought that method of arousing the natives
by telling them of the barblarous treatment that they would have at the hands
of the Macablebes, and, second, by American officers, who tried to intimidate
the natives by threats of Macabebe vengeance.
I am glad to be able to say, however that those charges have almost invariably gone before my command, and not followed it. In proof of this I
would call attention to the petitions which have been in a number of casesbut notably at Abando and at Montalbon-submitted, in which the natives
have appealed to the department commander not to remove my command
from their towns, as we had always afforded them absolute protection
against "ladronism " and outrages of all sorts, and that my men, as they expressed it, treated them like brothers. I request that the Adjutant-General
also compare the records of courts-martial of men in my command with
those of the Army in general, both in the United States and in the Philippines.
I have heard a great deal about the "water torture," or "water cure," as
it is generally called, and I do not doubt that it has been applied in a few
cases. Outrages will be committed in any army in the world. They have
been committed against our own citzens in our own country by our own
soldiers. But I know that such methods were not sanctioned, as alleged in
4988




60
the article referred to, by the military authorities in the Philippines, and
that when proof could be obtained that such methods had been practiced the
offenders were promptly brought to justice.
Indeed, after nearly three years' service in the Philippines, I can conscientiously say that I believe the treatment which the natives received at the
hands of the military has been exceedingly humane and tolerant.
Very respectfully,
MATTHEW A. BATSON,
Captain, Fifteenth U. S. Cavalry.
The ADJUTANT-GENERAL U. S. ARMY,
Washington, D. C.
APPENDIX C.
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION, APRIL
7, 1900.
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 7, 1900.
SIR: I transmit to you herewith the instructions of the President for the
guidance of yourself and your associates as Commissioners to the Philippine
Islands.
Very respectfully,                       ELIHU ROOT,
Secretary of War.
Hon. WILLIAM H. TAFT,
President Board of Commissioners to the Philippine Islands.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 7, 1900.
The SECRETARY OF WAR,
Washington.
SIR: In the message transmitted to the Congress on the 5th of December,
1899, I said, speaking of the Philippine Islands: "As long as the insurrection
continues the military arm must necessarily be supreme. But there is no reason why steps should not be taken from time to time to inaugurate governments essentially popular in their form as fast as territory is held and controlled by our troops. To this end I am considering the advisability of the
return of the Commission, or such of the members thereof as can be secured,
to aid the existingauthoritiesand facilitate this work throughout the islands."
To give effect to the intention thus expressed I have appointed Hon. William H. Taft, of Ohio; Prof. Dean C. Worcester, of Michigan; Hon. Luke I.
Wright, of Tennessee; Hon. Henry C. Ide, of Vermont, and Prof. Bernard
Moses, of California, commissioners to the Philippine Islands to continue and
perfect the work of organizing and establishing civil government already
commenced by the military authorities, subject in all respects to any laws
which Congress may hereafter enact.
The commissioners named will meet and act as a board, and the Hon. William H. Taft is designated as president of the board. It is probable that the
transfer of authority from military commanders to civil officers will be
gradual and will occupy a considerable period. Its successful accomplishment
and the maintenance of peace and order in the meantime will require the
most perfect cooperation between the civil and military authorities in the
island, and both should be directed during the transition period by the same
executive department. The Commission will therefore report to the Secretary of War, and all their action will be subject to your approval and control.
You will instruct the Commission to proceed to the city of Manila, where
they will make their principal office, and to communicate with the military
governor of the Philippine Islands, whom you will at the same time direct
to render to them every assistance within his power in the performance of
their duties. Without hampering them by too specific instructions, they
should in general be enjoined, after making themselves familiar with the
conditions and needs of the country, to devote their attention in the first instance to the establishment of municipal governments, in which the natives
of the islands, both in the cities and in the rural communities, shall be afforded the opportunity to manage their own local affairs to the fullest extent
of which they are capable, and subject to the least degree of supervision and
control which a careful study of their capacities and observation of the workings of native control show to be consistent with the maintenance of law,
order, and loyalty.
The next subject in order of importance should be the organization of government in the larger administrative divisions corresponding to counties,
departments, or provinces, in which the common interests of many or several municipalities falling within the same tribal lines, or the same natural
geographical limits, may best be subserved by a common administration.
Whenever the Commission is of the opinion that the condition of affairs in
the islands is such that the central administration may safely be transferred
from military to civil control, they will report that conclusion to you, with
their recommendations as to the form of central government to be established for the purpose of taking over the control.
Beginning with the 1st day of September, 1900, the authority to exercise,
4988




61
subject to my approval, through the Secretary of War, that part of the
power of government in the Philippine Islands which is of a legislative nature
is to be transferred from the military governor of the islands to this Commission, to be thereafter exercised by them in the place and stead of the military
governor, under such rules and regulations as you shall prescribe, until the
establishment of the civil central government for the islands contemplated
in the last foregoing paragraph, or until Congress shall otherwise provide.
Exercise of this legislative authority will include the making of rules and
orders, having the effect of law, for the raising of revenue by taxes, customs
duties, and imposts; the appropriation and expenditure of public funds of
the islands; the establishment of aj educational system throughout the
islands; the establishment of a system to secure an efficient civil service
the organization and establishment of courts; the organization and establishment of municipal and departmental governments, and all other matters of
a civil nature for which the military governor is now competent to provide
by rules or orders of a legislative character.
The Commission will also have power during the same period to appoint
to office such officers under Vhe judicial, educational, and civil-service systems and in the municipal and departmental governments as shall be provided for. Until the complete transfer of control the military governor
will remain the chief executive head of the government of the islands,
and will exercise the executive authority now possessed by him and not
herein expressly assigned to the Commission, subject, however, to the
rules and orders enacted by the Commission in the exercise of the legislative powers conferred upon them. In the meantime the municipal and
departmental governments will continue to report to the military governor
and be subject to his administrative supervision and control under your direction, but that supervision and control will be confined within the narrowest limits consistent with the requirement that the powers of government in
the municipalities and departments shall be honestly and effectively exercised and that law and order and individual freedom shall be maintained
All legislative rules and orders, establishments of government, and appointments to office by the Commission will take effect immediately, or at
such times as they shall designate, subject to your approval and action upon
the coming in of the Commission's reports, which are to be made from time
to time as their action is taken. Wherever civil governments are constituted
under the direction of the Commission, such military posts, garrisons and
forces will be continued for the suppression of insurrection and brigandage
and the maintenance of law and order, as the military commander shall
deem requisite, and the military forces shall be at all times subject, under his
orders, to the call of the civil authorities for the maintenance of law and order and the enforcement of their authority.
In the establishment of municipal governments the Commission will take
as the basis of their work the governments established by the military governor under his order of August 8, 1899, and under the report of the board
constituted by the military governor by his order of January 29,1900, to
formulate and report a plan of municipal government, of which his honor
Cayetano Arellano2 president of the audiencia, was chairman, and they will
give to the conclusions of that board the weight and consideration which the
high character and distinguished abilities of its members justify.
In the constitution of departmental or provincial governments they will
give especial attention to the existing government of the island of Negros,
constituted, with the approval of the people of that island, under the order
of the military governor of July 22.1899, and after verifying, so far as may be
practicable, the reports of the successful working of that government, they
will be guided by the experience thus accquired, so far as it may be applicable
to the condition existing in other portions of the Philippines. They will
avail themselves, to the fullest degree practicable, of the conclusions reached
by the previous Commission to the Philippines.
In the distribution of powers among the governments organized by the
Commission the presumption is always to be in favor of the smaller subdivision, so that all the powers which can properly be exercised by the
municipal government shall be vested in that government, and all the
powers of a more general character which can be exercised by the departmental government shall be vested in that government, and so that in the
governmental system, which is the result of the process, the central government of the islands, following the example of the distribution of the powers between the States and the National Government of the United States,
shall have no direct administration except of matters of purely general concern, and shall have only such supervision and control)venlocal governments
as may be necessary to secure and enforce faithful and efficient administration by local officers.
The many different degrees of civilization and varieties of custom and
capacity among the people of the different islands preclude very definite
instruction as to the part which the people shall take in the selection of their
own officers; but these general rules are to be observed: That in all cases the
4988




62
municipal officers, who administer the local affairs of the people, are to be
selected by the people, and that wherever officers of more extended jurisdiction are to be selected in any way, natives of the islands are to be preferred, and if they can be found competent and willing to perform the duties
they are to receive the offices in preference to any others.
It will be necessary to fill some offices for the present with Americans
which after a time may well be filled by natives of the islands. As soon as
practicable a system for ascertaining the merit and fitness of candidates for
civil office should be put in force. An indispensable qualification for all offices
and positions of trust and authority in the islands must be absolute and unconditional loyalty to the United States, and absolute and unhampered authority and power to remove and punish any officer deviating from that
standard must at all times be retained in the hands of the central authority
of the islands.
In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which they
are authorized to prescribe the Commission should bear in mind that the government which they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction, or
for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and
prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the measures adopted
should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and oven their
prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of the
indispensable requisites of just and effective government.
At the same time the Commission should bear in mind, and the people of
the islands should be made plainly to understand, that there are certain
great principles of government which have been made the basis of our governmental system which we deem essential to the rule of law and the maintenance of individual freedom, and of which they have, unfortunately, been
denied the experience possessed by us; that there are also certain practical
rules of government which we have found to be essential to the preserlvation
of these great principles of liberty and law, and that these principles and
these rules of government must be established and maintained in their islands
for the sake of their liberty and happiness, however much they may conflict
with the customs or laws of procedure with which they are familiar.
It is evident that the most enlightened thought of the Philippine Islands
fully appreciates the importance of these principles and rules, and they will
inevitably within a short time command universal assent. Upon every division and branch of the government of the Philippines, therefore, must be
imposed these inviolable rules:
That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation; that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesse3 in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense; that excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
that no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; that the right to
be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated;
that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist except as a punishment for crime; that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed;
that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,
or the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances; that no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that
the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without
discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed.
It will be the duty of the Commission to make a thorough investigation
into the titles to the large tracts of land held or claimed by individuals or by
religious orders; into the justice of the claims and complaints made against
such landholders by the people of the island or any part of the people, and to
seek by wise and peaceable measures a just settlement of the controversies
and redress of wrongs which have caused strife and bloodshed in the past.
In the performance of this duty the Commission is enjoined to see that no injustice is done; to have regard for substantial rights and equity, disregarding
technicalities so far as substantial right permits, and to observe the following
rules:
That the provision of the treaty of Paris pledging the United States to the
protection of all rights of property in the islands, and as well the principle
of our own Government which prohibits the taking of private property
without due process of law, shall not be violated; that the welfare of the
people of the islands, which should be a paramount consideration, shall be
attained consistently with this rule of property right; that if it becomes necessary for the public interest of the people of the islands to dispose of
claims to property which the Commission finds to be not lawfully acquired
and held, disposition shall be made thereof by due legal procedure, in which
4988.




63
there shall be full opportunity for fair and impartial hearing and judgment; that if the same public interests require the extinguishment of property rights lawfully acquired and held, due compensation shall be made out
of the public treasury therefor; that no form of religion and no minister of
religion shall be forced upon any community or upon any citizen of the
islands; that upon the other hand no minister of religion shall be interfered
with or molested in following his calling, and that the separation between
state and church shall be real, entire, and absolute.
It will be the duty of the Commission to promote and extend, and, as they
find occasion, to improve, the system of education already inaugurated by
the military authorities. In doing this they should regard as of first importance the extension of a system of primary education which shall be free
to all and which shall tend to fit the people for the duties of citizenship and
for tile ordinary avocations of a civilized community. This instruction
should be given in the first instance in every part of the islands in the language of the people. In view of the great number of languages spoken by
the different tribes, it is especially important to the prosperity of the islands
that a common medium of communication may be established, and it is obviously desirable that this medium should be the English language. Especial
attention should be at once given to affording full opportunity to all the
people of the islands to acquire the use of the English language.
It may be well that the main changes which should be made in the system
of taxation and in the body of laws under which the people are governed, except such changes as have already been made by the military government
should be relegated to the civil government which is to be established
under the auspices of the Commission. It will, however, be the duty of the
Commission to inquire diligently as to whether there are any further changes
which ought not to be delayed; and, if so, they are authorized to make such
changes, subject to your approval. In doing so they are to bear in mind that
taxes which tend to penalize or repress industry and enterprise are to be
avoided; that provisions for taxation should be simple, so that they may be
understood by the people; that they should affect the fewest practicable subjects of taxation which will serve for the general distribution of the burden.
The main body of the laws which regulate the rights and obligations of the
people should bo maintained with as little interference as possible. Changes
made should be mainly in procedure, and in the criminal laws to secure
speedy and impartial trials, and at the same time effective administration
and respect for individual rights.
In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the islands the commission should
adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our
North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government, and under which many of those tribes are now living in peace and
contentment, surrounded by a civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. Such tribal governments should, however, be subjected
to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices
and introduce civilized customs.
Upon all officers and employees of the United States, both civil and military, should be impressed a sense of the duty to observe not merely the
material but the personal and social rights of the people of the islands, and
to treat them with the same courtesy and respect for their personal dignity
which the people of the United States are accustomed to require from each
other.
The articles of capitulation of the city of Manila on the 13th of August,
1898, concluded with these words:
"This city, its inhabitants, its churches and religious worship, its educational establishments, and its private property of all descriptions, are placed
under the special safeguard of the faith and honor of the American Army."
I believe that this pledge has been faithfully kept. As high and sacred an
obligation rests upon the Government of the United States to give protection for property and life, civil and religious freedom, and wise, firm, and
unselfish guidance in the paths of peace and prosperity to all the people of
the Philippine Islands. I charge this Commission to labor for the full performance of this obligation, which concerns the honor and conscience of
their country, in the firm hope that through their labors all the inhabitants
of the Philippino Islands may come to look back with gratitude to the day
when God gave victory to American arms at Manila and set their land under
the sovereignty and the protection of the people of the United States.
WILLIAM McKINLEY.
4988
0