Chapter XI: Part 11

[61] Bibliography of the Philippine Islands (Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress: A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and the Biblioteca Filipina of Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, see VOL. LIII of this series.

[62] Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found in Bibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.

[63] Particularly his Las colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1880).

[64] It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.

[65] El Diario de Manila was established in 1848, a name which was changed to El Boletin oficial de Filipinas in 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers called El Comercio were founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869; La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeeded El Porvenir Filipino); La Voz Española was founded in 1888 under the name of La Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana's El periodismo.--Eds.

[66] See also Griffin's List for a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)--Eds.

[67] Retana reproduced this Reglamento de Asuntos de Imprenta of 1857 in volume i of the Archivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.

[68] The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when "Reform and Revolution" are discussed.

[69] Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17-22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.

[70] Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 ... (Manila, 1889).

[71] For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson's El progreso de Filipinas (Madrid, 1881), pp. 175-186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census in Report of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.

[72] If possible, Pardo de Tavera's bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.--Eds.

[73] See Library of Congress List, etc., pp. 9-11.

[74] Cited in Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca as nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of Congress List, pp. 178-180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888-90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.

[75] Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin's Report on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines (Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.

[76] A 36-page pamphlet, Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands (London, 1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.

[77] Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898 (Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams in Official Handbook of the Philippines (Manila, 1903); in other respects the Handbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.

[78] According to Retana, who cites this Informe emitido ... sobre bancos hipotecarios (Madrid, 1889) in the Estadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.

[79] Following are special citations from his El progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28-34, 48-53, 56, 65-80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81-89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48-53, 54-56, 57-66, 222-223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873-74, pp. 187-204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212-223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223-237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253-254; land measures in use, pp. 257-258.

[80] The intemperate and fantastic writings of "Quioquiap" (Pablo Feced) in El Diario de Manila and La Política de España en Filipinas are in point.

[81] See also ibid., i, pp. 150-159.

[82] These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in the Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States for November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented in Bulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture (Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.

[83] El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238-244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245-249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253-255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255-258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).

[84] Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.

[85] It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.

[86] In Report of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487-503; and ibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71-87.

[87] See M. Sastrón, La insurrección en Filipinas (Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the '80's and 1893.

[88] It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.

[89] List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin's Colonial administration, 1800-1900 (from Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States for March, 1903).

[90] The Statesman's Yearbook and such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo's Legislación militar (Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo's Memoria sobre la Marina (Manila, 1887), both cited in the Bibliography.

[91] Published in La España Oriental, Manila, 1893, and La Política de España en Filipinas, 1893-94. See Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.

[92] It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only the framework of that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.

[93] Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law's plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching of religion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards--an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)--Eds.

[94] Pedro A. Paterno's Regimen municipal de las islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura's decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author's writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.

[95] Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.

[96] Notes from his Progreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26-34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134-136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205-211, 253-254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212-237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy's Philippine Life in Town and Country (New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in the Atlantic Monthly for March, 1905.

[97] Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer's reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the "pickings" of officials in the provinces.

[98] Note especially Military Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs (Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8-13, 79 et seq. See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36-37, 125-131.

[99] Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. See La Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularly El Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to the obras pías in 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888-89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from the obras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin--almost a half-century later, and under another government!

[100] The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See his Progreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81-87, 93-94, on this subject; pp. 5-15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in the Biblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28-34, 48-53, 56, 65-80, 81-89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6-10, 100-124, 142-143, the tribute; pp. 133-143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142-143, local taxes proper.

[101] Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894-95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79-81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896-97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in the Estadismo, apéndice H, under Rentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893-94 (likewise net totals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881-82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the title Presupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume of Presupuestos published at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail the expected items of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only the estimate of the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, these Presupuestos bear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They are not budgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get total net collections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.

[102] The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to the Political Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309-311, and xxii, pp. 124-125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar's La soberanía monacal en Filipinas (Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).

The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis's Our Philippine Problem (New York, 1905), and his Rejoinder to Mr. Willis's Reply to that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis's remarks on this matter in his Reply (pp. 116-119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy's Rejoinder.--Eds.

[103] In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, see Senate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16; ibid., p. 412 (Greene's memorandum); Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón's La insurrección en Filipinas (Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.

[104] Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton's The Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines (Washington, 1900).

[105] Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca, no. 1770.

[106] Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.

[107] See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.

[108] It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.

[109] Especially in the appendix of VOL. XLI.--Eds.

[110] Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379-398).

[111] La Política de España en Filipinas reproduces Retana's eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco's letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake. Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.

[112] The reports are in the annual Report of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks's The Bontoc Igorot (Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.

[113] Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a "right-about-face," as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of the Archivo (1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a "Liberal" at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced from El Grito del Pueblo of Manila in El Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a "saint," etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in the Springfield Republican for July 7, 1906.

In this connection see Retana's opening paragraphs in his Vida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, in Nuestro Tiempo for 1904-06.--EDS.

[114] This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in the North American Review of Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483-498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in the Political Science Quarterly for December, 1903 (also in the same author's Philippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also, in re extreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson, El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212-223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.

[115] The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars' titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.

[116] The political phase of the attack on the friars' privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars' side in the pamphlet Apuntes interesantes (1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave, Los frailes en Filipinas (Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced in El progreso, Manila, August 8-11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).

[117] See the Biblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author's judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author's Mi último grito de alarma (Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer to Constitución apostólica Quae mare sinico (Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope's Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part in Impugnación de la censura impuesta ... al Presbítero Adriano García (Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle's time. Here and in Defensa del clero filipino are references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.

[118] Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.

[119] For the latter, consult especially La Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphlet Documentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente (Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under the Malolos government and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay's part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).

[120] See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal, Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements to El Renacimiento for Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.

[121] Note especially Rizal's introduction to his novel El Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an "Appeal for Intervention" presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.

Rizal dedicated his novel El filibusterismo to the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: "The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!" See J. A. LeRoy's Philippine Life, pp. 149, 150.--Eds.

[122] No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal, Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca under these names, and see his version in Census of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575-579. His Reseña histórica de Filipinas suffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of the Census, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodical Libertas (by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una "Reseña histórica de Filipinas," Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.

[123] As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and "patriotic" Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on "Mi patria" ("My fatherland").

[124] Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.

[125] Marcelo del Pilar's pamphlet La soberanía monacal en Filipinas (Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphlet Avisos y profecías (Madrid, 1892), pp. 286-308. See also Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca, nos. 1597-1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar's pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:

"The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future."

[126] Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for "assimilation," religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the "Maura law."

[127] Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler's action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una "Reseña histórica de Filipinas," pp. 194-195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious "holding companies") before 1898.

[128] One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal's private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.

[129] Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda, España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentioned Ang Kalayaan ("Liberty") organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana's Archivo, iv, Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphlet Discursos y artículos varios (Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.

[130] Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters in Plaridel (pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. Besides La Solidaridad and La soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphlets La frailocracía filipina (Barcelona, 1889), and Los frailes en Filipinas (Barcelona, 1889), by "Padpiuh."

[131] The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an "adaptation" from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the "story" and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.

[132] The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana's recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.

[133] There must also be seen the collections Documentos políticos de actualidad in Retana's Archivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal's trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced--the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)--use has been made in Retana's latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal's execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially: La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal's letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman); La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899; La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced from La Solidaridad; La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901-06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos); El Renacimiento, same dates; ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana); ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce); ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late); La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal's correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).

See also La Juventud (Barcelona), El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.--Eds.

[134] Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal's purpose in bringing out the Sucesos was primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.

[135] Filipinas dextro de cien años, in La Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana's Archivo, v.

[136] Library of Congress List, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).

[137] As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372-376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of Congress List, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 of Documentos políticos in the Archivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv. Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphlet Los frailes de Filipinas brings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.

[138] In his Memoria al Senado (Madrid, 1897), pp. 158-163.

[139] See Biblioteca, no. 2,665.

[140] Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana's Vida y escritos de José Rizal by E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translation post, pp. 217-226).

[141] Notes, etc., in El Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.

[142] This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez, El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas (Madrid, 1897), pp. 114-117, 118-123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana's Archivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.

[143] See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy, Japan and the Philippine Islands, in Atlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in his Memoria (1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896-97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.

[144] This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana's Archivo, iii, Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).

[145] Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896-97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but see El Renacimiento, April 23, 1903; ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy in American Historical Review, xi, pp. 843-861. A pamphlet, The Katipunan (Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.

[146] Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334-325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. "We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces."

[147] Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphlet Los frailes y los filipinos (Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27-28) that Governor-General Polavieja's demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (See La Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326-328).

[148] Notably the "removal" of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.

[149] Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón (Madrid, 1897).

[150] Ibid., pp. 64-68, 163-169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: "For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it."

[151] See also Senate Document no. 62 for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the "reign of terror," tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.

[152] It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. See La Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish); ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in "reprisal" for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes's pamphlet La religión del Katipunan (Madrid, 1900), as also other writings in Filipinas ante Europa and El defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899-1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.

[153] A few are in the List of the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898-1903. Some may be found under the authors' names in Pardo de Tavera's Biblioteca.

[154] So also La soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as "stupid." In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.--El sitio de Manila (Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).--El bloqueo y sitio de Manila. V. M. Concas y Palau.--Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas (Madrid, 1899). Isern.--Del desastre nacional y sus causas (Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.--Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos (Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).--El desastre filipino (Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).--Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna (Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).--Historia negra (Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).--Episodios de la revolución filipina (Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).--Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos (Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).--Memoria del cautiverio (Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).--Ante la opinión y ante la historia (Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).--Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas (Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895-96, in re Katipunan, etc.

[155] First published under the title La insurrección en Filipinas (Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.

[156] Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas. Agosto de 1898 (Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121-158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.

[157] E.g., In his Reseña verídica (only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears in Congressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440-445.

[158] See Congressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092-94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See also Senate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of the junta of Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.

[159] The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of the La Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera "promised" these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year "armistice," as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.

[160] The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546-547; 3rd ed., pp. 397-398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in the Congressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo's possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.

[161] Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.

[162] A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140-141), and in Senate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.

[163] Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone "forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket."

[164] Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter's 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no "treaty" about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen the Diario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera's detailed account of the affair.

[165] It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.

[166] The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were "doctored" in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno's letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.

[167] See the Memoria, pp. 159-176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881-83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.

[168] See the Memoria, pp. 144-154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.

[169] See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora, La situación del país (Manila, 1897), series in La Oceanía Española; and El gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila (Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.

[170] See especially El Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898, Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.

[171] See J. Pellicena y Lopez, Los frailes y los filipinos (Manila, 1901).

[172] An earlier indication of the friars' fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet, Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad (Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates "reform" by means of "a step backward."

[173] As, e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, in Los frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar's Soberanía monacal (paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.

[174] The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): "This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable." "Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo's camp]."

[175] A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman's statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo as Magdalo at Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez, El Katipunan, pp. 298-302): "The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons." And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: "Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights." Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (see La Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).

However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: "A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase 'All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.'" (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).--Eds.

[176] See Sastrón's account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of his Insurrección en Filipinas for some fragments of documents on this subject.