Chapter XXV: Slavery and Peonage (2)

"The Speaker. Is there any objection?

"The House. None.

"The Speaker. On the table."

In my report as secretary of the interior for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1911, I again took up this subject. After this report had been submitted to the commission I myself cut out all mention of slavery at the request of Governor-General Forbes, who urged that we make a last effort to get the assembly to act before appealing to Congress.

In spite of the desirability of having uniform legislation on such a matter as this in adjacent provinces, the commission felt that it could no longer with propriety delay action for the territory under its exclusive jurisdiction, and on August 7, 1911, passed the bill for Agusan, Nueva Vizcaya and the Mountain Province.

The same act was again passed by the commission for the territory under the jurisdiction of the legislature, when that body reconvened. The assembly referred it to committee on October 27, 1911, and tabled it without discussion on February 1, 1912.

In my annual report for 1912 I included the following recommendation:--

"That for the adequate protection of the non-Christian tribes a
final and earnest effort be made to secure the concurrence of the
Philippine Assembly in the passage for the territory under the
jurisdiction of the Philippine Legislature of an Act identical
with, or similar to, Act No. 2071, entitled 'An Act prohibiting
slavery, involuntary servitude, peonage, and the sale or purchase
of human beings in the Mountain Province and the Provinces of
Nueva Vizcaya and Agusan, and providing punishment therefor,' and
that in the event of failure, the attention of Congress be called
to this important matter to the end that it may pass adequate
legislation if it deems such a course in the public interest."

This time I sent the copy for the report to the printer without awaiting further possible requests or orders to remain silent, for I was thoroughly convinced that it was useless to expect action from the assembly and that nothing remained but to appeal to congress to pass suppletory legislation making effective the provision of the Act of July 1, 1902, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude in the Philippine Islands.

At the next session of the legislature the commission again passed the bill. The assembly referred it to committee on October 26, and tabled it without discussion on January 8, 1913.

From the above record it will be plain that, beginning in 1909, the commission passed laws prohibiting and penalizing slavery and peonage annually during four successive years, and that the assembly tabled each of the four measures without deigning to give any of them one moment's discussion. Much less have they ever asked for any information as to the necessity for such legislation.

While no member of the assembly had ever made any official statement on the subject, the Filipino press had on various occasions denounced me as a liar or an ignoramus, and an enemy of "the Filipino people," for saying that slavery existed.

In preparation for what I deemed to be a probable request from Congress for a detailed statement of facts, I now proceeded to get together the information on file in government offices and courts, called upon various officers of the government for data in their possession which had never been made of record, and initiated new investigations, using for this purpose the police of Manila, the Philippine constabulary and various other agencies. Drawing on the abundant material thus obtained, I began the preparation of a report to the commission, recommending that the necessity for legislation be called to the attention of Congress, and supplying abundant data relative to the existence of slavery and peonage in the Philippines.

Before this report was completed there occurred a most unexpected event.

Dr. W. O. Stillman, President of the American Humane Association, had written me months before asking about the power of the Philippine Legislature to enact humane legislation, and further inquiring what laws of this sort, if any, had been enacted. In my reply I had called his attention to the act of the commission prohibiting slavery and peonage in certain provinces, and to the fact that the attitude of the assembly had prevented the enactment of similar prohibitive legislation for the remaining territory. My letter, which furnished no supporting data, was eventually published by this gentleman and was read in the United States Senate by Senator Borah. On May 1, 1913, the senate passed the following resolution:--

"Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby,
directed to send to the Senate any and all facts bearing directly
or indirectly upon the truth of the charge publicly made that
human slavery exists at this time in the Philippine Islands and
that human beings are bought and sold in such Islands as chattels."

The reply addressed by the secretary of war to the president of the Senate on May 6, 1913, contains the following statement:--

"There is not in this Department, to the knowledge of the Secretary
thereof or of the head of the Bureau having charge of insular
affairs, a record of any facts bearing directly or indirectly upon
the truth of the charge, publicly made, that human slavery exists
at this time in the Philippine Islands and that human beings are
bought and sold in such Islands as chattels."

This was a most peculiar statement. The passage cut out of my 1909 report was certainly on file there, and it explicitly stated that slavery existed in the Islands.

The similar passage from my 1910 report should have been on file there, and last but not least, when finally, after the lapse of years, I saw the so-called "Edwards" memorandum, in reality written by General McIntyre, on which the Secretary of War had based his action in ordering all reference to slavery cut out of my 1910 report, I had made a full reply to it, containing a specific statement that slavery and the sale of human beings were common in certain parts of the islands and citing certain specific cases. I had specially requested that this communication be filed in the bureau of insular affairs, and General McIntyre, the chief of that bureau, who acknowledged its receipt, could hardly have forgotten its existence.

The war department reported on this matter without seeking any information from Manila. I can only conclude that Secretary Garrison was deceived by some irresponsible subordinate.

As promptly as practicable I completed my report and sent it to the commission, which read and considered it on May 17, 1913, immediately passing the following resolution:--

"Whereas the Act of Congress passed July 1, 1902, 'temporarily
providing for civil government of the Philippine Islands and for
other purposes' provides that 'neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties
have been duly convicted shall exist in said Islands,' and

"Whereas the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in the
case of the U. S. vs. Cabanag (Vol. VIII, p. 64, Phil. Repts.),
decided on March 16, 1907, decided that 'there is no law applicable
here either of the United States or of the Archipelago punishing
slavery as a crime;' and

"Whereas, in order to remedy this condition in accordance with
the above-mentioned provisions of the said Act of Congress, the
Philippine Commission in its exclusive legislative jurisdiction
over all that part of the Philippine Islands inhabited by Moros or
other non-Christian tribes passed Act No. 2071, and as a branch of
the Philippine Legislature has in four successive sessions passed
an act prohibiting and penalizing slavery, involuntary servitude,
peonage, or the sale of human beings, and

"Whereas during each of said sessions the Assembly has failed to
concur in the passage of such Act; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Honourable the Governor-General be requested to
send to the Honourable the Secretary of War a copy of the proposed
law entitled 'An Act prohibiting slavery, involuntary servitude,
peonage, or the sale of human beings in the Philippine Islands'
as passed by the Commission in the last session of the last
Legislature, but which failed of passage in the Assembly, with
the recommendation that a copy of the law be sent to Congress
with the request that the necessary legislation be enacted to
render fully effective the above-mentioned provisions of the Act
of Congress of July 1, 1902."

I was subsequently requested by the governor-general to address the report to him rather than to the commission, to the end that the Filipino members of that body might be spared the embarrassment which would otherwise result from the necessity of voting either for its acceptance or for its rejection, and I very willingly made the requested change.

The printing of the report was delayed until July 19, 1913, and I brought it up to that date, as evidence continued to pour in.

In this document I gave specific cases of chattel slavery in the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela, Tarlac, Zambales, Pampanga, Batangas, Palawan, Agusan, Ambos Camarines, the Moro province, the Mountain province and Manila itself, describing quite fully the conditions under which Ilongots, Ifugaos, Negritos, Tagbanuas, Manobos, Mandayas, Moros and Filipinos are bought, sold and held as chattel slaves.

I will here only briefly summarize them.

The Negritos are savages of low mentality, and most of them lead a nomadic or semi-nomadic life. They constantly get the worst of it in the struggle for existence and to-day are found only on the islands of Mindanao, Palawan, Tablas, Negros, Panay and Luzón, where for the most part they inhabit very remote and inaccessible mountain regions. Owing to their stupidity and their extreme timidity it is comparatively easy to hold them in slavery, and they are probably thus victimized more than are the people of any other tribe. They are constantly warring with each other in the more remote of the mountain regions which they inhabit. It would be going too far to say that their moral sense has been blunted. It is probably nearer the truth to say that they never had any. It is therefore a simple matter for Filipino slave dealers to arrange with Negritos for the purchase of their fellow-tribesmen. The latter then proceed to obtain captives by raiding some hostile group of their own people, killing ruthlessly if occasion arises.

They are more ready than are the people of any other Philippine tribe to sell their children or other dependent relatives, and do this not infrequently when pressed by hunger, a condition apt to arise because of their utter improvidence. Unfortunately, the matter does not end here. It is by no means unknown for Filipinos to join in their slave-hunting raids, or even to organize raids of their own, killing Negrito parents in order to get possession of their children. I submit the following case to illustrate this latter procedure:--

"Camp Stotsenburg, Pampanga, P. I.,
"September 26, 1910.

"The Adjutant,
"Camp Stotsenburg, Pampanga, P. I.

"Sir: I have the honour to inform you that a report has this
day been made to me that a party of hostile Filipinos, about
15 in number, armed with 1 rifle, 1 revolver and the remainder
with bolos, presumably ladrones, entered a small Negrito barrio
situated about one and one half miles directly southeast from
the Post during the forenoon of Tuesday, September 20, 1910,
and killed three men and carried away two small children. I have
visited the barrio and the body of one man showing frightful
mutilation, both head, feet and hands completely severed from the
body, was found. This settlement is situated in a dense jungle
and the other bodies were presumably carried away or hidden,
so that they could not be found.

"But one person can be found who witnessed the affair, an aged
Negrito woman, who can scarcely walk from the treatment she
received at the hands of these outlaws. She states that she
would be able to recognize and identify some of the party. I am
informed by Negritos living in the vicinity that this party of
outlaws has a rendezvous a short distance east of Solbac where
they might be apprehended.

"The killing took place without the reservation, but the matter
is of sufficient importance, since all the Negritos living in
the vicinity of the post are greatly excited and disturbed,
to warrant the recommendation that it be referred to the Senior
Inspector of Constabulary, San Fernando, Pampanga, P. I., for
such action as he may desire to take.

"Very respectfully,

(Signed) "Kyle Rucker,
"1st Lieut. and Squadron Adjutant, 14th Cav. Intelligence Officer."

The subsequent fate of these Negrito children is made plain by the following letter:--

"Philippine Constabulary,
"San Fernando, Pampanga, P. I.,

"October 4, 1910.

"My Dear Holmes: We have a case up here of murder committed near
the town of Angeles in which several Negritos are mixed up.

"We managed to locate two Negrito children who had been sold by
the man who killed their father. They were in the possession of
a man named Ambrocio David who says he paid sixty pesos for them
and says they are his property.

"I think that we can convict the murderer of the children's father,
if we can catch him, but this sale of Negritos has gone such a
pace that almost every family in Pampanga has at least one as a
'Companion' of their children, they say, but really as a slave.

"The Fiscal says there is no law against the sale or purchase of
Negritos and I cannot find it, although I seem to remember a law,
but whether it alludes to Negritos or only Moros I am unable
to say.

"If there is a law, what number is it, and if not, can you get
me an opinion of the Attorney-General or some ruling so as to
show us how to act in this and future cases of this kind.

"Yrs.
"W. S. North,
"S. I."

In this case one of the kidnappers was convicted of murder, but nothing could be done to him for selling the Negrito children nor could anything be done to Señor Ambrocio David for buying the children or for claiming that they were his property.

Like many primitive peoples, the Negritos are inordinately fond of strong alcoholic drinks. It is strictly against the law to give or sell any of the white man's liquors to them, but this naturally does not restrain slave hunters, who frequently get adults deeply intoxicated and then trade with them for their children or kidnap the drunken persons themselves and drag them away. Negritos are held to-day in bondage, in considerable numbers, in provinces like Zambales, Pampanga, Tarlac, Pangasinan and Cagayan. While they are not displayed for sale in any market in Pampanga, they can be readily negotiated for in several different public markets of that province; and if none happen to be available at the moment, the would-be purchaser is assured that the supply in the mountains is inexhaustible and that his needs can soon be met.

The publication of my report has caused consternation among slave owners in many provinces. Some slaves have since escaped and little effort has been made to recapture them. Others have been voluntarily set free by their masters, but in Pampanga the trade still goes merrily on. Until recently Negritos have been peddled around the country adjacent to Manila like carabaos or horses, and it is but a short time since their purchasers have in some instances refused to give them up, stoutly asseverating that they were their property. Now, however, warned by experience, owners make no such claim, but advance various more or less ingenious explanations of the fact that they have Negritos in their possession and deny that they are slaves. Some of them insist that it is a Negrito custom to kill orphan children, and that they have taken orphans out of kindness in order to save their lives. Patient investigation has failed to show the existence of any such custom among the Negritos.

Perhaps the commonest procedure of all is to claim that Negrito slaves are "adopted children" or "members of the family." The presumption against a Filipino's taking into his family one of these little woolly-headed, black, dwarf savages is strong. In no single case have I been able to obtain evidence of real, legal adoption. The following document illustrates the procedure which seems invariably to have been followed:--

"On the 25th of December, 1912, I, the authorized curate of this
district, Lubao, Province of Pampanga, baptized solemnly, and put
on the blessed Oleos in this church in my charge on one Negrita
ten and eight years of age (18), and have given the name of Juana,
daughter of a father poor and unknown. The foster mother, Doña
Pia Vitug, married in this town received the charge as a parent
to care for the spiritual welfare and other obligations.

"I for the truth sign,

"Friar Pedro Diez."

(Girl given the name of Juana de Jesus Vitug.)

A document of this sort imposes no legal obligation whatever on the owner of a slave, and makes no change in the status of the slave, but merely serves as a basis for the claim that he or she "is treated as a member of the family."

This is a cheap and easy method of securing a slave, and the child thus "adopted" may be compelled to labour for a lifetime without compensation, or turned over for a consideration to be similarly "adopted" by some one else.

Other Filipinos who do not claim that their Negrito slaves are members of their families find complete justification for purchasing them in the allegation that they have taken them to Christianize, thus preventing their going to hell!

In the provinces of Agusan and Surigao the slave-taking raids of the Mandayas and Manobos are historic. In the more remote parts of these provinces they continue from time to time up to the present day. While one of them lies within the territory for which the commission has been able to legislate, what shall we say of those who contend that slavery does not exist in the Philippine Islands in the face of such occurrences as have taken place there? The same query holds for the sub-province of Ifugao in the Mountain Province and for Nueva Vizcaya. The Ifugaos have been especially victimized. The following kinds of servitude are recognized by them:--

Jim-bút. This is the name applied to real slaves. The Jim-bút becomes an article of commerce and often changes owners several times before reaching the country of the Ba-li-uon (Christians).

Nij-cóp. This is the name applied to children who have been really adopted under a formal contract made with their parents or nearest relatives in case the parents are dead. The Nij-cóp acquire certain property rights from their new parents-by-adoption.

Baj-ál. This is the name given to orphan children who have been formally taken in charge by some well-to-do Ifugao and who are unable to support themselves. The Baj-ál is a tentative Nij-cóp, for if he turns out to be bright and industrious, he may become a member of the family and acquire property rights.

Ta-gá-la. This is the name applied to servants who receive regular compensation.

It is a matter of common knowledge throughout the sub-province that there are living to-day in Isabela hundreds of Ifugaos who have been sold to Filipinos as slaves.

In Nueva Vizcaya it has been possible to deal with the more flagrant cases since the passage by the commission of the law above referred to, but the commission is powerless to pass a law effective in Isabela.

The holders of slaves now seek to evade the law by nominally hiring them at a monthly salary which is not paid. The promulgation of Act No. 2071 prohibiting and penalizing slavery enabled Lieutenant-Governor Jeff D. Gallman of Ifugao to liberate some forty boys and girls held by Filipinos in Nueva Vizcaya. In no single case, however, could it be proved that the child had been sold. The persons who held them testified in each instance that they were "hired servants."

When they learned of the provisions of the above-mentioned act they were easily prevailed upon to pay "salaries" long overdue to their "servants" and the latter were allowed to return to their homes.

It was found that some of the persons originally sold into slavery in Nueva Vizcaya had run away from their masters and become vagabonds. Few really wanted to return to their parents, whose language in many cases they had almost forgotten.

I wish this were the worst, but the worst is yet to come. Not only do the Filipinos buy, sell and hold the wild people as slaves, but Filipino children have been kidnapped, or enticed from their homes, by other Filipinos, and sold as slaves to their own kind. Young girls have been sold outright to Chinese who purchased and kept them for immoral purposes. They have been sold to panderers and keepers of houses of prostitution and compelled to enter upon lives of shame. Filipino children and young women have been sold to Chinese who have taken them to China. God only knows what fate may have befallen them there. In such cases the victims disappear from these islands, never to return.

Some slaves are well treated. Others are half starved, brutally beaten, injured or even killed. The Manobos and Manadayas of Agusan and Surigao, and the Bagobos of the Moro Province, have been accustomed to sacrifice slaves to appease their heathen deities. The Manobos on occasion even have their boys take lances and try the effect of different thrusts on slaves tied to trees or posts.

Those who desire long lists of specific cases of slavery will find them in my report. I think that I have here abundantly demonstrated the fact that genuine slavery exists in the Philippine Islands. It can never be successfully checked until there is a law of general application throughout the archipelago penalizing the sale, barter, or purchase of human beings. What reason has the Philippine Assembly for refusing to pass the necessary act?

Without hesitation I assert that, apart from false and foolish pride which makes the persons concerned unwilling to admit the fact of the existence of slavery, their chief reason for objecting to this law is that it would not only prohibit and penalize slavery, but would prohibit and penalize peonage, which is so common and widespread that it may properly be called general. Indeed, I have no hesitation in asserting that it prevails in every municipality in the Philippine Islands.

Slavery is a serious matter, but peonage is far more serious because of the very much larger number of persons involved. It lies at the root of the industrial system of the Philippines.

Much has been said relative to the probable attitude of large American landowners toward Filipino labourers. Thus far their attitude, and that of all other classes of Americans, has been infinitely better than has that of the wealthy Filipinos themselves. The truth is that peonage is repugnant to the average American. One of the complaints persistently made against us by the Filipinos is that we have raised the daily wage throughout the islands, and this is true. When I was there in the Spanish days, it was possible, in many regions, to obtain abundant labour at five cents per day with food, and ten cents with food was the general rule. Now the same class of labour costs at least twenty-five cents per day with food, and in some provinces it costs fifty cents or more. It must be frankly admitted that Americans are responsible for this sad condition of affairs! American landowners who desire to pay their employees regularly a living daily wage encounter difficulty in doing so, for the reason that the labourers have become accustomed to the old system, the evils of which they know, and are afraid of a new one, fearing that it may involve worse evils of which they know nothing.

Incidentally, Americans have learned that their labourers are worth more if well fed, and this is another grievance held against us in certain quarters.

With many of the Filipinos it is a different story.

The rich and powerful man, commonly known as a cacique, encourages the poor man to borrow money from him under such conditions that the debt can never be repaid, and holds the debtor, and frequently the members of his family as well, in debt servitude for life. One might fill a score of volumes with records of cases and I can here do no more than to select a few typical illustrations of the workings of this vicious system.

The Filipinos are born gamblers. Gambling is their besetting sin. The poor are usually glad to get the opportunity to borrow money, and will do this on almost any terms, if necessary, in order to continue to indulge in their pet vice. They are thoughtless about their ability to repay loans, and thus readily fall into the power of the cacique money-lenders, who thereafter use them as house servants or labourers, under conditions such as to render their escape from debt-servitude practically impossible.

Indeed, if they seek to escape, the caciques often threaten them with the law, or actually invoke it against them, while if they endeavour to homestead public land and thus better their condition, the caciques only too often cause opposition to be made to their claims and keep it up until they become discouraged.

The following facts have been furnished me by Hon. James A. Ostrand, judge of the court of land registration.

"In 1907 a woman, whose surname, I think, is Quintos, asked me to
lend her twenty-five pesos with which to 'redeem' her daughter who
had been mortgaged for that amount to a Chinese merchant, whose
name at present I do not recall, but who had his establishment
on the ground floor of the house of Ubaldo Diaz in Lingayen. The
woman stated that the Chinaman was corrupting the morals of the
girl, and that this was the reason why she wanted to make the
redemption. I told her that under the circumstances no redemption
was necessary, but that I would see that the girl was allowed to
leave the Chinaman, who, on proper representations, was induced to
let the girl go home. She stayed with her mother for a couple of
weeks but, by adding P75 to the mortgage debt, the Chinaman got her
back and shortly before I left Lingayen I learned that the girl,
though scarcely fifteen years old, had given birth to a child."

"In 1907 a woman from the town of Balincaguin in Pangasinán
came to my office and stated that she, about six years before had
'mortgaged' [the terms 'salda' in Ilocano and 'sanla' in Pangasinán
are usually translated mortgage, but also imply pledge, as the
creditor generally takes possession of the mortgaged property] her
twelve-year old son for some twenty pesos to Don Cirilio Braganza,
the member of the second Philippine legislature for the district
in which I was then living; that her son had been working for
Braganza ever since, and that, according to her reckoning, the
debt had already been paid, but that Braganza had unjustly charged
the loss of a carabao to her son's account, thus adding P120,
if I remember correctly, to the debt. She further stated that
she had asked Braganza to release the boy, but that he refused
to do so. I informed her of the provisions of the Philippine Bill
in regard to involuntary servitude, and advised her that her son
was free to leave Mr. Braganza's services if he so desired. She
said that if the boy should leave, she was afraid something might
happen to him as Braganza was very influential in that locality. I
then gave her a note for Braganza requesting him to let the boy
go. Shortly afterwards Braganza came to me and gave me his version
of the case, stating that he had always treated the boy well,
and that the loss of the carabao was entirely due to the boy's
negligence, and that he, Braganza, would not consent to the boy's
leaving him before the carabao was paid for. At last reports the
boy was still with Braganza and may be there yet. I may add that
I believe Braganza told the truth, and that the boy was guilty
of negligence in connection with the loss of the carabao."

The net result in this case was that a boy was "mortgaged" for a P20 debt and after six years the debt had very largely increased, probably in part as a result of the carelessness of the boy.

In a letter to Judge Ostrand I had defined peonage as "the condition of a debtor held by his creditor in a form of qualified servitude to work out a debt." Of its prevalence the judge says:--

"While practising law in the Province of Pangasinán, during
the years 1905 to 1909, hardly a week passed but what cases of
involuntary servitude, as defined in the within communication,
came under my observation."

He also calls attention to the fact that interference with the system does not increase one's popularity:--

"Interference by third parties in cases of involuntary servitude
is not looked upon with favour, and is generally considered highly
reprehensible. I remember, for instance, a case where Mr. Pedro
Sison [not the member of the Legislature], then a prominent
resident of Lingayen, was, as he himself regarded it, made the
victim of unwarranted interference. A woman bought a small parcel
of land from Mr. Sison, agreeing to work out the purchase price,
forty pesos. She worked with Mr. Sison for six years, at the
end of which period the debt had increased to over sixty pesos,
according to Mr. Sison's accounts. In the meantime the woman became
a Protestant, and Rev. E. S. Lyons, the Methodist missionary
in Pangasinán, advised her to leave Mr. Sison's service. Upon
her doing so Mr. Sison became very indignant not only at her,
but also at Mr. Lyons, and for some time thought seriously of
having the latter criminally prosecuted. He appeared to be very
much surprised when he found that there was no penal provision
covering Mr. Lyons's action. Mr. Sison was otherwise a very
estimable and good-natured man, but he never until his dying day,
which occurred a couple of years afterwards, got over his bitter
resentment toward Mr. Lyons."

Judge Ostrand summarizes the results of his observations as follows:--

"Nearly all the involuntary servitude cases of which I have any
knowledge have arisen from the practice of mortgaging half-grown
children. The sum advanced is usually some twenty or thirty
pesos. As the money seldom draws interest at a lower rate than
ten per cent a month, and the creditor furnishes the child food
and such clothing as it may need, its services are ordinarily
not considered worth more than the amount of the interest, and
the debt instead of being reduced usually increases as the years
pass. I venture to say that among the Filipinos in some sections
of the Islands the majority of house servants are obtained and
employed in this manner."

It would indeed seem that with interest at the rate of 120 per cent per year and the creditor in a position to fix his own price for food, clothing and other necessaries furnished his debtors while they were trying to work out their debts, they would not be likely to succeed in doing so!

In this connection I call attention to the fact that in the course of the discussion recently caused by requests for the resignation of certain public officials who had been loaning money at usurious rates of interests, several of the native papers took the attitude that 18 per cent per year was a very moderate rate of interest.

If the unfortunate peon finally rebels, the rich cacique often invokes the law against him by having him prosecuted on some false criminal charge.

In this connection the following letter is of interest:--

"Philippine Constabulary,
"Office of the Senior Inspector,
"Pampanga, San Fernando, September 26, 1912.

"The Superintendent, Information Division, P. C.,
"Manila, P. I.

"(Thru' Adjutant, District of Central Luzón.)

"Sir: Reference to the prosecution of Maria Guzman before the
Justice of the Peace of Apalit for 'Infraction of Law 2098'
(your file No. 8634-75) I have the honour to attach copy of
decision in the case, and remarks:--

"About three (3) years ago Simeon de los Reyes, by and with the
consent of his wife Maria Guzman, borrowed and signed receipt
for fifty pesos (P50) to Maria Santos of Apalit, contracting that
his wife work out the debt moulding earthen jars--that for every
hundred jars made Maria Guzman received P1, 25 centavos of which
was to go on the debt. The woman states she could make about fifty
jars per week, so that her actual wages were 50 centavos per week,
or $.005 per jar. This without board, as the woman states that
any money she got for food was charged on original debt.

"By the first part of this year the debt had 'decreased' to P70,
when another receipt for that amount was signed by the husband,
de los Reyes, and the old receipt for P50 destroyed. In the month
of August ultimo the Santos woman refused to advance Maria Guzman
more money, so Maria Guzman left and joined her husband, who was
working in Manila. The debt at time of trial amounted to P79 and
a fraction.

"Warrants of this nature are being continually sent from Pampanga,
either by messenger or mail, direct to the Superintendent
Information Division, without passing through my hands. The reason
is evident.

"It is respectfully requested that in the future all warrants
reaching your office in this way be referred back to me before
execution.

"Very respectfully,

(Signed) "L. T. Rohrer,
"Senior Inspector."

This woman, if she succeeded in making fifty earthen jars per week, received wages amounting to twenty-five cents against which her creditor charged her food and doubtless also her clothing. In other words, she was in effect charged for the privilege of making fifty jars per week for her master. The interest on her debt was meanwhile piling up while the principal steadily increased, and when she grew weary of her hopeless task and ran away, her taskmaster prosecuted her.

The following letter presents a typical case of peonage:

"Rosales,
"March 26, 1912.

"Chief of the Secret Service Dept., Manila:

"Dear Sir: On behalf of Garegorio Almario a young girl residing
at my house I write to ask you if you cannot have this matter
attended to.

"Six years ago a man named Tomas Almario, living at present
in Rosales, borrowed some money (twenty pesos only). This
man was unable to repay this money so he sold this girl named
Inocencia Almario to a Mr. Galban. I think he is the President of
Bautista. Her sister has been to Bautista to take this girl away
but she has been rebuked by these people in my presence. They state
she owes P60 the extra P40 being interest on the P20 borrowed 6
years ago. They have got this girl and another girl working as
slaves and to-day I heard that the girl escaped in a carromatta
but they sent an automobile after her and took her into Bautista
beating her all the way. In the interest of justice I hope you
will have this girl released and hand her over to her sister in
my house here out of the hands of those wretches. I also found
out that this girl is being sent from place to place amongst
men who take girls to cover debts. If you send a man here to
Rosales I have the proof and will show you where this girl is
and will get the evidence against these people. I understand that
the President of Bautista is the man who is at the bottom of the
whole affair. I hope you will put a stop to this slavery. I have
the man here who owes the money and sold the two girls to this
man. I have the sister here; also the other relatives to prove
that this girl has worked as a slave for 6 years to cover a debt
of twenty pesos and now they want 60 before they will release
her. Please release my sister and oblige

"Yours truly,

"+ Garegorio Almario.
Witness: (Signed) "W. A. Cole.

"Address Garegorio Almario,
"c/o W. A. Cole, Rosales, Pang."

I have not made the slightest effort to get the peonage records of Philippine assemblymen, but have taken cases as they came, yet three of the limited number here discussed concern members or ex-members of the assembly. Is it any wonder that that body refuses to consider a law prohibiting and penalizing peonage?

My investigation of this matter has developed some interesting phases of human nature. Knowing the certain unpopularity which would result from telling the truth, not a few persons who might have given valuable testimony refused to tell what they knew, or even denied that they knew anything. Others made written statements which I was unable to use, as they insisted that their names be withheld, and I wanted testimony only from witnesses who had the courage of their convictions. Fortunately there was no lack of people unafraid to tell the truth. Among witnesses to the existence of chattel slavery were army officers, constabulary officers, the Manila chief of police and many men of the police force of that city, judges, Catholic priests, the mother superior of a convent, the insular auditor and a number of his deputies, provincial governors, both Filipino and American, provincial treasurers, the director of education, school teachers, an ethnologist, newspaper men, business men and women both English and American. I accepted only written and signed statements. The long list of cases in my official report was a sample list, not an exhaustive one. I stand ready to furnish specific instances of chattel slavery, ad nauseam, giving names of slaves, their vendors and purchasers, prices paid and dates of transactions. I hold more than a thousand typewritten pages of evidence, and it continued to come in up to the day of my departure from Manila.

The attitude of the Filipino politicians toward this great mass of data and the witnesses who furnished it is a most interesting study, from which may be deduced logical conclusions of far-reaching importance. Let us examine it.

In the issue of the Boston Herald for June 24, 1912, Sr. Quezon, resident delegate from the Philippines to Congress, published an article entitled "The Filipinos as Legislators," [74] attacking Governor-General Forbes for referring in a public speech to the attitude of the assembly on the slavery question. I will quote and comment on its essential statements:--

"The fact that the Assembly has refused to approve of the bill
referred to by Governor Forbes, bespeaks the legislative ability
of our Assemblymen, while, on the other hand, the passage by the
Commission of said bill indicates either the incompetency or the
negligence of the Commissioners. Do we have slavery and compulsory
service in the Philippines or not? If we do not, the bill to
abolish it is unnecessary. If we do, it is also unnecessary,
because the Act passed by Congress, creating the present Philippine
Government, which serves as our constitution, already prohibits
slavery and compulsory service, and, therefore, no act of the
Philippine Legislature is needed to declare it illegal."

This is a puerile quibble. The act referred to prohibits slavery, but does not penalize it.

"If there is slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines,
the Governor-General as the Chief Executive, and the members of
the Philippine Commission, who, with the Governor-General, compose
the executive department of the Islands, are all of them guilty in
not enforcing and executing the constitution of the Archipelago."

False. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has held that the "constitution" here referred to is non-enforceable without exactly such suppletory legislation as the commission passed and the assembly tabled.

"If there is anything in the Philippines akin to slavery or
compulsory service, it can not be found in the provinces to which
the legislative jurisdiction of the Assembly extends."

Utterly false.

"Should there be such a thing in the territories inhabited by
the few non-Christian Filipinos, which are under the exclusive
control of the Philippine Commission, I am sure the slaveholders
can only be the Government officials, who are appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior, the Honourable Dean C. Worcester, the
head of the executive department in charge of said territories."

False and absurd. The larger majority of existing slaves are held by Christian Filipinos. Not a single official in the territory in question was subject to appointment or removal by me. Not one has ever owned a slave, to my knowledge. This statement illustrates Quezon's disregard for the truth.

"It will not be out of place to indicate here the reason wherefor
the Philippine Commission has passed the bill alluded to by
Governor Forbes. The members of the Philippine Commission are
sternly opposed to Philippine independence. Moreover, they are
opposed to allowing the Filipino people to have a legislature
wholly constituted of natives for reasons too apparent to be
mentioned. One of their everyday arguments is 'that the premature
withdrawal of the United States would result in the establishment
of an oligarchy composed of small and favoured ruling classes
who would oppress the masses.'

"The passage by the Philippine Commission of the anti-slavery
bill placed the Philippine Assembly in a very awkward position
(as it was perhaps intended to do); to concur in the passage of
the bill was to admit that there is such a thing as slavery and
compulsory service in the Philippines, which is not a fact. To
reject the bill would be construed as indicating that the members
of the Assembly were advocates of slavery. The moral courage of
our Assemblymen was shown when they took the former course, that
of truth. The members of the Commission denounce the attitude of
their colegislators as proof of lack of sympathy for the masses
of the people."

False, interesting, and important. There were four Filipino members of the commission at this time, all of whom were in favour of ultimate independence, and one of whom was a leading advocate of immediate independence. All voted for the anti-slavery laws which the assembly refused to pass.

The Filipinos were not wholly to blame for the existence of slavery at the time of the American occupation, but the politicians are unable to grasp the fact that the way to deal with a cancer is to cut it out, not to deny its existence, and by their refusal to legislate have now made themselves fully responsible for the continued existence of slavery and peonage in the regularly organized provinces of the Philippines. The Filipino newspapers have even gone so far as to claim that there could be no slavery until a law defined it, hence to enact such a law would create slavery.

Resident Commissioners Earnshaw and Quezon were prompt and emphatic in their denials of the existence of slavery when Senator Borah read in the Senate Chamber my letter to Dr. Stillman. Sr. Earnshaw did not know any better. Sr. Quezon claims to know the facts. He himself has said:--

"As a Filipino familiar with the facts in the case, I do not
hesitate to qualify the letter of Secretary Worcester as being
at once false and slanderous. It is false, because there does not
exist slavery in the Philippines, or, at least, in that part of the
country subject to the authority of the Philippine Assembly. It
is slanderous because it presents the Philippine Assembly, by
innuendo, if not openly, as a body which countenances slavery."

He was unquestionably familiar with the facts, or many of them. Did he know of the report of the Filipino Governor Dichoso, describing slavery in Isabela; of that of the Filipino Governor Corrales, describing slavery in Misamis; of that of the Filipino Governor Pimentel, describing the sale of Filipino children into slavery to Chinese; [75] of that of the American Governor George Curry, describing slavery in Isabela; [76] of that of the American Governor Knight, describing slavery in Nueva Vizcaya; [77] of that of the Filipino Governor Sanz, [78] describing the enticing from their homes of numerous Filipino children of Romblón and the disposal of them as peons or slaves; of the reports of army, constabulary and police officers; and of the records of courts on slavery and peonage? Under the circumstances explanation or retraction would seem to be in order, but we have had from him only two more puerile quibbles. In a published statement he has said that slavery does not exist as an institution in the Philippines. Who ever said it did? It exists there as a demonstrated fact, and it ought to be made a crime. In another published statement, [79] Quezon says:--

"The allegation is a most serious one and we think it desirable
to meet the charge directly without hesitation by asserting that
it is unqualifiedly false and that the accusations made in the
report are not only not sustained, but cannot be sustained by
any evidence tending to show that such a 'system' exists."

The placing in quotation marks of a word not used by me fairly illustrates one of the typical methods of the Filipino politician, and for this reason alone I refer to it and to the following statements from the same editorial, which will serve a similar purpose:--

"There is a very serious aspect of this report of Commissioner
Worcester's. If the system he speaks of exists and is known to
him--indeed has been known to him for a long time--why did he
never correct it? He says that the Philippine Assembly has blocked
action. The truth is that he and his fellows had absolute power
long before the Philippine Assembly ever came into existence.

"... Mr. Worcester now practically admits that he knew of similar
conditions elsewhere than among the Moros, but that he never had
anything to say about them and allowed them to go on until, it
would seem, he thought that he could make some political capital
out of a controversy with the Philippine Assembly regarding
anti-slavery legislation."

It did not lie in my power to correct it. On the Philippine Commission rests the full responsibility for failure to enact anti-slavery legislation from the time when it first learned of the existence of this crime among the Filipinos until it passed its first act prohibiting and penalizing it on April 29, 1909. As I have already shown, the matter was dealt with, in 1903, by directing the inclusion of proper legislation in a proposed new Penal Code never completed. Valuable years were then lost in testing the adequacy of existing law, and when it proved inadequate further time was, in my opinion, needlessly wasted in drafting the necessary act. To this extent, and to this extent only, the commission shares responsibility for existing conditions. Since April 29, 1909, that responsibility has rested on the assembly alone.

I have given two of the reasons for its refusal to act. There is another, but I should have hesitated to give it, as it would have been hard to prove, had not Speaker Osmeña furnished the necessary evidence. He is commonly considered to be the leading Filipino statesman of the day, so special importance attaches to his utterances and he, if any one, can speak with authority concerning the attitude of the assembly. The ominous rumble from the United States which reached these distant shores led him to give out a newspaper interview explaining the inactivity of that body. He said:--

"Never has Mr. Worcester attempted to furnish us with the facts
which he has placed before Congress. The bill itself was sent to
the Assembly for action but on account of the unfriendliness of the
members for the secretary of the interior and the lack of sympathy
between the Assembly and him, it was not given the consideration
that it would have received if Mr. Worcester had at the same time
sent us the facts which he has sent on to the United States.

"Mr. Worcester as the secretary of the interior, and not as
commissioner was in duty bound to furnish the Assembly with the
facts that he claims to have found. It is the duty of all of
the administrative officers of the government to enlighten the
legislature and to furnish it with information gained officially
by them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Worcester showed that he was
not anxious for the Assembly to consider the matter by never once
even mentioning the subject to me, as is customary with other
matters for legislation which the secretaries have wished taken
up by the Assembly."

If this were not so pathetic it would be very, very funny. The assembly is now made up of 81 Filipino delegates representing 34 provinces. An unfeeling American secretary of the interior, residing at Manila, is charged with having failed to inform them of what was going on under their very noses. All information deemed by the commission necessary to justify legislation was transmitted by me to that body when we lost our slavery case in the Supreme Court.

Never during all the years that this matter has been pending has there been the slightest suggestion that the assembly desired to receive information concerning it. If its members were to tell the half of what they themselves know about slavery and peonage the facts which I have been able to gather would fade into insignificance, but this is not the important thing in this interview.

The important thing is that dislike of the person who happened to introduce in the commission a bill prohibiting slavery and peonage in the Philippines is considered a valid reason for the refusal of the assembly to consider it during four successive years.

Shall thousands of suffering human beings be allowed to go on sweating blood for such a reason?

It is my earnest hope that as a result of the publicity which has now been given this matter there will be speedy action, either by the Philippine Legislature or by the Congress of the United States.

I hope that every right-minded person who reads these lines will insist that we have done with concealment of the truth and suppression of the facts; have done with boggling over hurting the feelings of the Filipino people; and will demand that those who have power to end the disgraceful conditions which now exist in the islands shall promptly and effectively exercise it.

The native press has naturally bitterly opposed any investigation of the truth or falsity of my statements. The following extract from a recent editorial is typical of its attitude:--

"Slavery is not slavery unless it has the characteristics
of frequency and notoriousness. Is there here, or has there
ever been, at least since Christian civilization has reigned,
anything that resembles it? Where is, or who has seen previous to
now, such characteristic slavery? Mr. Worcester? Let him point
it out, let him give a detailed account of it, let him define
it. What will you bet that he will not do so? How is he going
to do it if it does not exist! It was enough for him to say:
"There is slavery in the Philippines" for men, press, government
officials and every stripe of public elements in America to admit
the possibility of the affirmation and even an investigation of
its likelihood to be ordered.

"That is simply absurd. The mere investigation is an offense. The
proof must come solely from, and must be demanded solely of, him
who imputes the charge. If he does not demonstrate it, if he does
not make it patent, further investigation is not needed. All that
there was to investigate is investigated: it is that he has lied."

Nevertheless aroused public sentiment in the United States has forced action here. Governor-General Harrison called the matter to the attention of the assembly in his first speech, and that body is now [80] investigating it. Unfortunately there is grave reason to doubt its good faith.

It allowed me to leave Manila without the faintest suggestion that it desired to hear me, and then had the governor-general cable me an invitation to testify and to assist in the investigation when I was halfway home and could not possibly return.

Assemblyman Sandoval, defending in the public press a friend charged with buying a Tagbanua slave who had been thrice sold, says that the several purchasers did not buy the unfortunate man but bought his debt. A debt is not ordinarily purchased for itself and it is admitted that in this instance the man went with it.

The Filipino politicians have hardly approached this matter in a judicial spirit, and the timid and the politic, who refused to give me the information they might have furnished, had some reason for their fears.

The removal of Judge Ostrand and Director of Education Crone, who gave valuable testimony, was loudly demanded on the ground that they were "traducers of the Filipino people."

The people were urged to "get together" and disprove my statements.

I have been denounced as an enemy of "the Filipino people."

It has been claimed:--

That my charges were false, and without foundation.

That, if they were true, I myself was to blame for the continued existence of slavery.

That I published my report when I did in order to hold my position.

That I published it when I did in anger because I had lost my position.