684888
The Abridged Debaters' Handbook Series
SELECTED ARTICLES
ON                       '/


INDEPENDENCE FOR THE
PHILIPPINES


COMPILED BY
EMMA L. TECTH
MINNEAPOLIS
THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY
~.'  -'    1913.  %wd              -   * —


01




EXPLANATORY NOTE
Ever since the Battle of Manila, which left us in possession of the Philippines, after paying Spain $20,000,000,
the question has been "What shall we do with them?"
Several ways out of the difficulty present themselves: To
sell the Islands to some foreign power; To establish a
protectorate, over them; To grant them independence; To
retain permanent possession. The only phase of the question we shall consider here is that of independence. The
amount of material on a subject that has been a plank in
the platform of our two great political parties in three
presidential campaigns is necessarily great, but only those
articles have been chosen which concern themselves most
closely with the question as stated, and will be of most use
to the debater.


2




BRIEF
Resolved, That the United States should grant the Philippine Islands their independence.
INTRODUCTION
I. It is declared
A. That under our Constitution there can be no dependencies.
B. That retention of the Philippines would mark
the beginning of a new era in our national history.
II. Our future policy in regard to the Philippines has
been the source of much discussion both at home
and abroad.
A. Various methods have been suggested for disposing of them.
III. The question at issue, is Shall the Philippines be
granted independence.
AFFIRMATIVE
The Philippine Islands should be granted their independence
I. For political reasons:A. To told them is contrary to the principles of
the wonroe Doctrine.
B. Every nation has a right to self-government.
C. The Constitution of the United States does not
provide a government for colonies.
D. The Philippines do not offer a satisfactory field of
activity for young Americans wishing to enter
upon administrative work.
11. For economic reasons:A. The cost of government is very great.
B. The resources of the Islands are overestimated.+
C. Distance from our shores is a great drawback.
3
A.'




D. Trade cannot be secured by issuing orders to dependencies.
E. They will not prove an advantage in developing trade with China and the East.
III. For military reasons:A. Cost of keeping a large military and naval force.
B. Cost of_-Jat-fications.
C. They will weaken us in time of war by separating
our forces.
D. They will be the first point of attack in case of
war.
I \. For moral reasons:A. We have no right there.
B. The Filipinos desire and deserve independence.
C. They were led to believe the United States would
grant them independence.
D. They are capable of self government.
NEGATIVE
The Philippine Islands should not be granted their independence
I. For political reasons:-                X
A. To hold them is consistent with our past policy
of territorial expansion.
B. The tropics must be governed from the temperate
regions.
C. We are experienced in colonization.
D. The Philippines, will open a broader field for administrative ability.
II. For economic reasons:A. The government of the. Philippines is self-supporting.
B. The resources of the Islands are valuable. '
C. Telegraph and improved facilities for travel have
eliminated the question; of distance.
D. They will greatly increase our foreign commerce.
E. They furnish a commercial center in developing
trade with China and the East.
4
',
*E         *;.




III. For military reasons: —
A. The United States must keep a large military
and naval force.
i. Does not cost more to keep them in the Philippines than in the United States.
B. They furnish us a stronghold in the Orient.
C. We shall have an army near in case of trouble in
the East.
IV. For moral reasons:A. United States is morally responsible for the welfare of the Philippines.
B. The majority of the Filipinos do not desire independence.
C. Their progress would be retarded if United States
should withdraw.
-.- D. They are not capable of self government.




BIBLIOGRAPHY
A star (*) preceding a reference indicates that a part of the
article has been reprinted in this pamphlet.  >
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Josephson, A. G. Bibliographies of the Philippine Islands.
Boston Book Co.
Library of Congress. Division 'of Bibliography. List of
Works Relating to American Occupation of the Philippine Islands, I898-I903. A. P. C. Griffin. Supt. of Doc.
1905.
Library of Congress. Division of Bibliography. Select List
of References on the Independence of the Philippines.
H. H. B. Meyer. Lib. -of Congress, W\ashington. I913.
RingN<alt, Ralph C. Briefs on Public Questions. pp. 75-83.
Longmans. I908.
Robbins, E. C. High School Debate Book. pp. I46-57. McClurg. I9I.
Wisconsin. University. Annexation of Cuba; and Independence of Philippines. Univ. of Wisconsin. i9II.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Chamberlin, Frederick. Philippine Problem. Little. I9I3.
Foreman, John. Philippine Islands. Scribner. I906.
Hart, Albert B. Obvious Orient. pp. 245-8i. Appleton. I9iI.
Jernegan, Prescott F. Philippine Citizen. 4th ed. Philippine. Education Co., Manila. 1912.
Willcox, Cornelis D. Head-Hunters of Northern Luzon;
with -Appendix on the Independence of the Philippines.
'Franklin Hudson Co. -912.
Willoughby, William F. Territories and Dependencies. Century. 1905.
6




Wright, Hamilton MI. Handbook of the Philippines. 3d ed.
McClurg. 1907.
Magazine Articles
Atlantic. 89:360-5. Mr. '02. Educational Problem  in the
Philippines. Fred W. Atkinson.
Atlantic. 89:366-71. Mr. 'o2. Economic Future of the Philippines.. Charles A. Conant.
Atlantic. 94: 577-94. N. '04. United States in the Philippines. A. Ireland.
Bureau of Statistics. Ja. '07. Commercial and Industrial
Conditions and Opportunities from a Philippine Standpoint.
Contemporary. 86:392-404. S. '04. Americans in the Philippines. John Foreman.
Cosmopolitan. 23:587-600. 0. '97. Spanish Rule in the Philippines. D. C. Worcester and F. S. Bourns.
Everybody's. 24:587-92. My. 'II. Gods and Brothers. H:
K. Webster.
Literary Digest. 45: I045-7. D. 7, 'I2. Will the Democrats
Free the Philippines?
Nation. 96: 120-I. F. I6, '13. Governing Aliens.
New England Magazine, n. s. 32: 567-74. Jl. '05. Outlook in
the Philippines. Henry L. Shumway.
North American. 170: 295-304. F. 'oo. Eastern Commerce:
What Is It Worth? Edward Atkinson.
Outlook. 67: 196-9. Ja. 26, 'oI. Philippine Petition.
Outlook. 90: 45I-6. 0. 24, 'o8. American Achievements in
the Philippines. N. W.: Gilbert.
Outlook. 9I: 75-82. Ja. 9, '09. What Shall We Do with the
Philippines? Edward A. Filene.
World Today.    5: 847-52. Ag. 'o8. Philippine Assembly.
James A. Leroy.
World's Work. 4:2344-50. Jl. '02. Philippine Problem.
AFFIRMATIVE REFERENCES
Anti-Imperialist League, 20 Central St., Boston. Reports
and Literature.
7




Blount, James H. American Occupation of the Philippines,
1898-1912. Putnam. I912.
Congressional  Record. 33: 4278-307. Philippine  Islands:
Speech of George F. Hoar in Senate, April 17, 1900.
Congressional Record. 33: 936-40. Purpose of the Government
of the United States with Reference to Philippine Islands: Speech of G: L.. Wellington in Senate, Jan. I8,
1900.
Congressional Record. 35: 5788-98. Civil Government for the
Philippine Islands: Speech of George F. Hoar in Senate, May 22, 1902.
Congressional Record. 35:6178-86. Civil Government for the
Philippines: Senate Document, June 2, 1902.
Congressional Record. 42: Appendix 210-2. Philippine Independence; Speech of George K. Favrot in House of Representatives, May 26, I908.
*Congressional Record. 46: 3949-58. Philippine Independence:
House Report, March 2, 1911.
Smith, Goldwin. Commonwealth or Empire. Macmillan. I902.
*United States. 62d Congress. 2d Session. House Report
606. Independent Government for the Philippines. April
26, 1912.
/   Willis, Henry P. Our Philippine Problem. Holt. 1905.
Magazine Articles
Arena. 25:465-7. My. 'oI. Will the Philippines Pay? F.
Doster.
Arena. 34: I73-4. Ag. '05. Is God Responsible for the American Occupation of the Philippines. Samuel Brazier.
*Arena. 41: 23I-3. F. 'og. Democracy of Anti-Imperialism.
R. E. Bisbee.
Everybody's. I9:64od-64of. N. 'o8. Why the Philippines
Should Be Independent. William J. Bryan.
Forum. 32: 594-7. Ja. '02. Philippines and Our Military Power.
*Independent. 51: 2995-3000. N. 9, '99. Our Duty to the
Philippines. G: F. Hoar.
Independent. 60: 560-4. Mr. 8, 'o6. Right Way to Help the
Filipinos. F. G. Newlands.
8




*Leslie's Monthly. 48: 75-85. My. '99. Are the Filipinos Civilized? F. Agoncillo.
Nation. 70: 50. Ja. 'I8, '00. Our Title to the Philippines.
Nation. 95: 474-5. N. 2I, 'I2. Philippine Outlook.
*North American. 174: 606-12. My. '02. Opportunity of the
United States. Andrew Carnegie.
North American. I79: 860-7. D. '04. Philippine Problem from
a Filipino Standpoint. Juan Sumalong.
North American. I84: I35-49. Ja; '07. Philippine Independence,
When? J. H. Blount.
North American. I84: 383-8. F.. I5, '07. Plea for the Filipinos.
William H. Carter.
North American. I85: 365-77. Je. 21, '07. Philippine Independence, Why? J. H. Blount.
North American. I89:708-18. My. 'o09. Conditions and Future of the Philippines. E. Winslow.
World Today. 11: II47-5I. N.' 'o6. Playing at Governing the
Philippines. Hamilton Wright.
World Today. I4: 315-9. Mr. '07. Can the United States AdministerColonies? Henry P. Willis.
Wrorld Today. I5: 950-3., S. 'o8. Can the United States Americanize Her Colonies. P. S. Reinsch.
NEGATIVE REFERENCES
ANtkinson, Fred W. Philippine Islands. Ginn. I905.
Congressional Record. 35: 704-I2. Policy Regarding the
Philippines: Speech of Albert J. Beveridge in Senate,
January 9, I900.
*Congressional Record. 48: 9348-9. Cost of Occupation of
Philippines, by William H. Taft. July I9, 1912.        '
Millard, Thomas F. F. America and the Far Eastern Question. Moffat. I909.
*United States. 62d Congress. 2d Session. House Report
6o6, pt. 2. Philippine Independence. ML. E. Olmsted.
Magazine Articles
Annals of American Academy. 30: I30-4. Jl. '07. Problem
of the Philippines. Louis L. Seaman.
9




*Arena. 33:486-93. My. 'o5. America in the Philippines.
George F.. Pentecost.
Atlantic. 103:200-9. F. '09. Decade of American Rule in
the Philippines. W. C. Forbes.
Atlantic. II: 649-52. N. '02. Question of Philippine Neutrality.
*Baltimore News. 82: I-3. F. I9, '13. Retention of Philippines.
Cardinal James Gibbons.
Everybody's. I9:*640a-64od. N. 'o8. What the United States
Has Done for the Philippines. William 'H. Taft.
Everybody's. I9: 64of-640h. N. 'o8& America's Record in the
Philippines. E. F. Egan.
Forum. 29: 40I-8. Je. 'oo. Do We Owe Independence to the
Filipinos? Charles Denby.
*Independent. 53: 649-51. Mr. 21, '01. Criticism of Our Philippine Policy. Charles Denby.
Living Age. 268: 304-7. F, 4, 'II. Problem  Reviewed.
North American. 17: 246-58. Ag. 'oo. Imperialism  America's Historic Policy. W. A. Peffer.
North American. 179:282-300. Ag. '04. Can Congress Conf stitutionally Grant Independence to the Filipinos.
(utlook. 64: 709-I2. Mr. 31, 'oo. Bishop Potter on the Philippine Question.
Outlook. 96: 921-31. D. 24, 'io. Turning Savages into Citizens.! A. Brownell.
Outlook. 99: 559-6I. N. 4, 'ii. Flag in the Philippines.
*Overland, n. s. 34:23-32.,Ja. 'oo. The Philippines-the
Oriental Problem. N. P. Chipman.
*Overland, n. s. 52: I75-80. Ag. 'o8. Ten years After; Have
We Failed in the Philippines. George A. Miller.
Overland, n. s. 59: 63-9. Ja. '12. Problem of the United States
in the Philippines. W. F. Norris.
Review of Reviews. 32:99-IOO. Jl. 'o5. Philippines for the
Americans.


10




REPRINTS
Independent. 51: 2995-3000. November 9, i899.
Our Duty to the Philippines. George F. Hoar.
In the winter of 1898-9 there was presented to the Senate of the United States by the President what I think
the most important question ever submitted by the Executive from the beginning of our whole history. It was a
question which went down to the very roots of the Republic. It was to be decided by an application, not of
the principles and policies which determine the ordinary
administration of States, but of the principles which lie
at the foundation of the moral law, upon which human societies are established, and which determine not merely the
conduct of States but forms of government and the rights
of States to exist.'
We had in the interest of humanity undertaken a war
with Spain to put an end to the cruelties committed close
to our doors, which outraged the moral sense of mankind.
The result of the war left the United States a great liberator in both hemispheres. We had set Cuba free. We
had overthrown the power of Spain in the Philippine Islands. The question came, What to do next?    Our action in regard to, Cuba was decided upon when war was
declared. It was decided not as a matter of mere policy,
not as a matter to be settled by consideration of gain or
advantage to ourselves, but as settled by the eternal principles of righteousness and liberty, upon which the Republic itself is founded, and which determined forever
the righteous law of the dealing of one people with another. If there be anything to which the American peoII




pile was committed; if there be anything to which President McKinley was committed; if there be anything to
which the Republican party in House and Senate was committed down to the first day of January, I899, it was
the doctrine that just governments rest upon the consent of the governed; that every people 'has the right to
determine its own institutions and form of government
for itself, the right to dissolve at will the political connection that binds it to another people, and to seek by its
own paths its safety and happiness.
In dealing with Cuba we acted upon these principles
according to our pledge made in the beginning. When the
treaty of peace was made we exacted from   Spain the
renunciation of sovereignty over Cuba.  We proceeded
thereupon to restore order in Cuba; to protect her inhabitants from all foreign intervention and to aid them in
establishing their Government according to their own desire. We shall carry out that policy to the end, unless
our pledges are broken.
But the treaty unfortunately disclosed a different purpose as to the Philippine Islands. The inhabitants of that
group of twelve hundred islands in number were much
nearer actual independence when the treaty was signed
than ever had been the people of Cuba. They were certainly entitled to be called a people. They had a population of from eight to twelve or fifteen millions-nobody knows
how many. They had hemmed in Spain at Manila on the land'
side, and controlled, more than ninety-nine per cent. of
their own territory. Their leader had been brought over
to the islands in a United States ship by the 'United States
authorities, and was in arms at the head of his forces,
with our full concurrence and co-operation. They had
framed a provisional constitution, a model of its kind,
establishing a dictatorship like those established by Bolivar
in South America, to give place to a Republic. as soon as
the military condition should make it possible.
I. Sovereignty over an unwilling people cannot, according to American ideas, rightfully be gained either by conquest or by purchase.
12




That was the doctrine of Thomas Jefferson.   It was
the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln. It was the doctrine of
Andrew Jackson. It was the doctrine of George Washington. It was the doctrine of Charles Sumner.
Our friends talk about Alaska. They talk about Florida. They talk about Louisiana.  There was in neither
of those territories when we acquired it a people capable
of governing them.   The few  scattered settlements did
not constitute a people capable of 'acting together in any
political capacity. In the cases of Louisiana and Alaska
and the territory obtained from  MIexico, the few dwellers
in those sparsely settled and generally uninhabited regions were entirely content to come to us. They were
acquired with the expectation that they would be parts of
the Republic, and would become in time equal, self-governing and powerful States. How idle to cite those cases
as indicating our right to conquer a reluctant people, to
be held forever, as the advocates of that conquest now
arc proclaiming, as subjects and not as equals.
When the President said that forcible annexation, according to our American code of morals, would be criminal aggression, was he a copperhead? Was he disloyal to
the flag? Was not he Republican? Was there ever an utterance so calculated to give courage to Aguinaldo and
his people as that? When he said:
"Human rights and constitutional privileges must not
be forgotten in the race for wealth and commercial supremacy. The Government of the people must be by the
people and not by a few of the people. It must rest upon
the free consent of the governed- and all of the governed.
Power, it must be remembered, which is secured by oppression or usurpation or by any form of injustice is soon
dethroned. We have no right in law or morals to usurp
that which belongs to another, whether it is property or
power," was he indulging in invective? Was he disloyal?
W as he a square man?  Was he a Little American?
President McKinley. said at Pittsburg that until the
treaty were ratified we had no authority beyond Manila
city, bay and harbor.  If we had not, who had?    Had
13




Spain? There was not a square mile of that whole territory that was not then the undisputed and lawful and peacefi! possession of the Philippine people.
2. Spain had no right to sell, and no actual title could
we wrest from her.
3. The people of the Philippine Islands had control of
their own territory when Spain was asked to capitulate
at TManila, except one town;-which they were investing on
one side and we on the other.
4. They had restored order and peace throughout the
islands.
5. They had already planned a Republican form of Government and framed a constitution, to take effect as soon
as the war was over.
6. The dictatorship established by 'Aguinaldo was only
temporary and provisional. It was just such a dictatorship as was established by Bolivar in the South American
republics when they revolted from  Spain, and as existed
in Massachusetts under the Committee of Safety, in the
five years preceding-the Constitution of I780.
7. They are not savages.   One high authority saysI think the statement is- an exaggeration-there is less
illiteracy there than in Massachusetts. But there is doubtless less illiteracy than there was, quite likely, in some
American States.
8. The charges against Aguinaldo have been refuted
again and again on the authority of the advocates of Imperialism themselves. Did the American commander carry
back in his ship a traitor, corrupt and venal, to take-again
the leadership of his people?
9. It can be of no advantage to our trade to conquer
these people. The most earnest advocates of this policy
of acquisition declare that we are to get hereafter our
full share, even of the trade of Europe; that we are to
maintain the open door policy in the Philippines, where
all nations are to be on terms of legal equality. Their
whole trade will never be worth what it will have cost
us, and we are to contend for it hereafter, according to
these people, on equal terms, weighted down 'as 'we shall
I4




be by this ineradicable hatred which our conduct has engendered.
United States. 62d Congress, 2d Session. House Report, 606.
Independent Government for the Philippines.
' When. the existing law was being considered by the
Committee on 'Insular 'Affairs 10io 'years ago some of its
advocates testified that a majority of the educated 'and
substantial people 'of the Philippine Islands, whose opinions the. Federal Party was said to represent, favored the
perma-nent annexation of the islands to- the United States.
A prominent Filipino who at one time occupied the position of secretary of state under the Malolos government,
of which Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo was the president, but
who subsequently, and at that very time, was an officeholder under the Taft Commission, claiming to be the authorized spokesman of the Federal Party, testified at the
committee hearings that a majority of all the Filipino people favored American annexation. rather than independent
self-government.
Whatever influence this testimony may have had in
shaping the Philippine legislation of io years ago, it should
certainly have none in this day and generation, for the
Federal Party itself, the only political organization in the
Philippine Islands ever favoring permanent annexation, has
long since ceased to exist, and its succcessor, the Progresista Party, is quite as outspoken in its advocacy of independence as is the Nacionalista, which has always stood for
an independent self-government. There is, therefore, today practically, if not absolutely, no division of sentiment
among the civilized, Christian inhabitants of the Philippine
Archipelago in respect to this question, whatever may have
been the case a decade ago. The highest aspiration, the
one great, overmastering desire of the Philippine people is
to see their country free and independent. The blood shed
and the untold privations for years endured for freedom's
sake by this, the only Christian people in the vast Orient,
'5




abundantly testified in the past to their longing for independence. The unparalleled and phenomenal spread of education throughout the archipelago in recent years, a larger
participation in public affairs, a wider and more intimate
knowledge of the problems of government, and the valuable experience gained through actual practice in a popular legislative assembly have not only contributed immensely toward preparing the Filipinos for the exercise of
self-government, but have at the same time quickened and
intensified their desire to become a free and independent
people.
It is doubtful if there is to-day any considerable or yven
appreciable public sentiment in the United States favorable to the permanent retention of the Philippines. When
these islands were first acquired, and for a few years
thereafter, there was a more or less prevalent belief that
their permanent retention would prove of great commercial
advantage to the United States.  It is true that during
the past two years, those in which Philippine products
have had free access to the markets of the United States,
the value of the trade between the two countries was materially.increased, and yet if every dollar in value of the
merchandise imported into the Philippine Islands from the
United Stats during the fiscal year 1911 had been clear
profit to the American manufacfurer, the sum total would
not have equaled the cost to the people of the United
States of the maintenance for a single year of our military establishment in the Philippines.
The total value of the importations, exclusive of those
for the use of the Army, Navy, and the Government of
the Philippine Islands, and for government-aided railroads,
all of which were free of duty, was $15,052,808, while the
v-!ue of the Philippine products exported to the United
States during the fiscal year was $I6,813,864. Thus it is.apparent that the combined values of the exports and imports for the year I9rI do not equal in. amount the total
annual cost of the Philippine Islands. to the American people. So the commercial argument which at one time was
vigorously advanced in favor of the permanent retention
16


)




of the Philippine Islands has now been practically abandoned.
Those who oppose fixing a definite time at which the
Philippine Islands shall acquire their independence, although professing to favor their ultimate independence,.base their opposition upon'the assumption that the Filipinos are not as yet capable of governing themselves.
The facts, or alleged facts, relied upon to establish
their incapacity for self-government are (a) that the Philippine population is made up of many different tribes, inhabiting different islands, or different parts oqthe. same
islands, and speaking different dialects or languages; (b)
that because of this isolation and difference of language
they possess no common means of intercommunication;(c)
that a number of these tribes- are uncivilized and unchristianized and will always remain so and that the Moros,
the most savage and adventurous, as well as the. most
numerous, of the wild tribes, can never be brought to
live peaceably under any government which may 'be established by Christian Filipinos; and, lastly (d), that the
percentage of illiteracy, even among the Christian inhabitants, is too great to permit of any intelligent administration of government.. In fine, it is contended that, wanting
in education and civilization and lacking a common religion
and a common language, it follows that the Philippine
people have not that community of thought, of feeling, and
of interest, that national unity and spirit, or that intelligence and educational capacity, essential to the successful establishment and permanent maintenance of a free,
autonomous, and stable government.
According 'to the census of I903, the population of the
Philippine Islands was 7,635,426. Of. these, 6,987,686 are
classified as' civilized. Only 647,740 are described as wild
or uncivilized. Of the so-called uncivilized tribes, 277,547
are Moros;, who inhabit the southeastern and western portions of the island of Mindanao, which is the southern-most
and next to the largest of all the islands, and the islands
of the Suhl group; 211,52o are Igorocs dwelling in northern
Luzon; 56, 89 are Bukidnon, of the ^Province- of Agusan, in
s    I7




eastern Mindanao and the remainder are scattered in small
groups throughout the islands. These official figures indisputably prove that the vast majority of the Philippine
people are civilized, and many of the most beautiful cathedrals to be found anywhere in the world, as well as
other substantial and costly church edifices scattered throughout the civilized portions of the islands, attest most strongly to the deep religious character of the Filipinos.
But even were it admitted that the Moros are intractable and incapable of civilization, the census /figures show
that they constitute less than 4 per cent-or, to be exact,
just 3.7 per cent-of the whole population of the islands.
Indeed, these figures show that they are actually outnumbered by the civilized Filipinos of Mindanao, notwithstanding that 226,158 of the 277,547 Moros (2,323 of whom are
themselves civilized) dwell in that island. It is a fact not
generally appreciated, if known, that 296,845 Christian Filipinos also inhabit the island of Mindanao. In Zamboanga,
in the Moro Province, one of the most delightful of the
cities of tlre Philippine Archipelago and the fourth in
commercial importance, there were 44,322 inhabitants in the
year 1903, almost equally divided between Christians and
non-Christians. These facts conclusively prove that the
Moros may well be regarded as a negligible quantity in
considering the question of the capacity of the Philippine
people for self-government.  But the work of education
and civilization is progressing even among the Moros, with
far better results than any of the historians, and writers
up'on this subject of a decade ago believed to be possible.
-\It is true, of course, that the Philippine Archipelago
is composed of many islands, and that there is no native
language which is universally spoken. A large majority of
the whole people, however, speak either Tagalog. Visayan,.
or Ilocano, which are the three principal languages of the
islands. Nearly half of the Christian population or 3,219,030,
are Visayans, and there are 1,460,695 Tagalogs in the island
of Luzon, to say nothing of the members of o:her tribes
who to the number of 2,000,000 speak Tagalog    For 300
years the official language of the Philippines has been Span



ish, and whilst the percentage of the rural population speaking it was never very large, it was, nevertheless, spoken
throughout the archipelago by the educated and office-holding classes and is quite universally spoken in Manila and
other cities and large towns.
There has been a noticeable disposition in some quarters to create the impression that the Filipinos are an ignorant and illiterate people. This was very far from the
truth, even prior to American advent.
The late James A. Le JRoy, who, for two years was connected with the Philippine Commission, and who, therefore,
possessed exceptional opportunities for securing information upon the subject, *ays in his admirable book on the
Philippines, published in I905, that "approximately one-half
the Christian population over io years of age is literate,"
and that this included "the people of the most backward
and outlying Christian settlements in the mountains of
north central Luzon, in unsettled islands like Mindoro and
Palawan, and on the -outskirts of M'indanao." In the Tagalog Provinces, W.here the percentage of literacy is highest, it is stated by this author that the number able to
read "is something over 70 per cent of the population above
io years of age."  This was seven years ago, and before
the American system of education was fairly underway.
Among other arguments advanced against granting the
Filipinos independence is their alleged lack of homogeneity.
The truth is they are more homogeneous than the people
of the United States. The Director of the Philippine Census, Gen. J. P. Sanger, United States Army, says in his
chapter on Population:
As compared with the schedules of the Twelfth Census of the
United States, those of the Philippine Census are somewhat
simpler, the difference being due mainly to the more homogeneous
character of the population of the Philippine Islands.
The Filipinos are not so lacking in administrative ability
and in actual experience in government as has been frequently represented. There were Philippine deputies in the
Spanish Cortes during portions of the first half of the
nineteenth century, and in the year I820 seventeen Filipinos sat in the Spanish Parliament. The Philippine conI9




stitution, written by Apolinario Mabini, and proclaimed by
the Malolos Government in I899, is justly regarded as a
notable intellectual achievement. Among those who represented the Philippine Republic, established by Gen. Aguinaldo in I908, in the Malolos Congress were many Filipinos
of learning, great ability, and unquestioned patriotism. A
number of these have held, and others are still holding,
positions of trust and responsibility under the present Government. Two of its nmembers have since been commissioned to represent the Philippine Islands in the capacity
of Resident Commissioners to the United States, and one
of them is to day occupying a seat on the floor of the House
of Representatives.
Dr. Schurman, the distinguished president of Cornell
University;- who was-a member of the first Philippine. Commission, and therefore qualified to speak upon the subject,
wrote of the Filipinos IO years ago:
But whatever be done with them (the Mohammedans) the civilized and Christianized democracy of Luzon and the Visayans
desire independence. They are fairly entitled to it, and united
as they now are, I think they might very soon be intrusted
with it. In their educated men, as thorough gentlemen 'as one
meets in Europe or America, this democracy of 6,500,000. Christians has its foreordained leaders.
That there are many highly educated and thoroughly
cultured Filipinos has not been, and will not be, seriously
questioned.
The free principles upon which the American Government is founded are wholly incompatible with the; idea
of holding and governing against their consent any people who aspire to independence and are capable of governing themselves. M~oreover, the policy of the United States
has always been against expansion beyond the seas. Such
expansion as has marked the marvelous growth and progress of the United States has until very recently been over
land and confined to this continent. It has embraced contiguous territory inhabited by a homogeneous people, and
never land in' another hemisphere, separated from us by
thousands of miles of water and inhabited by an alien people
differing from. us in manners, customs, civilization, and
race. The incidents which led up to the War with Spain
20




had not the remotest connection with the Philippines. It
was not a war of conquest. It was a war waged to free
from intolerable oppression a people- almost within sight
of our shores and not one to bring under the dominion
of the iUnited States a people struggling for their liberties and residing upon the opposite side of the globe. The
Spanish-American War was fought to free Cuba and not
to enslave the Philippines; to erect a republic in the Occident, not to establish a subject colony in the Orient.
From  the very beginning the Filipinos never welcomed
American sovereignty. They accepted it only when unable longer to resist the superior strength of the United
States. The late President McKinley declared in a speech
delivered in the city of Chicago that "the War with Spain
was undertaken, not. that the. United States should increase
its territory, but that opptession at our very doors should
be stopped."
Secondary only in importance to the high moral questions of principle and right involved in the indefinite retention of the Philippine Islands is that of their constant
menace to the peace and well-being of the American people. Instead of constituting a source of strength to the
United States in tihe event of war with a first-class naval
power, they would, by reason of their geographical position, become one of great weakness. To fortify and defend all the principal ports of the Philippine Islands would
require more money, ships, armies, munitions of war, and
supplies than even a country possessing the enormous resources of the United States could command, and if, therefore, the purpose in holding the Philippines is merely to
maintain in the Orient a base for military and naval operations, then that purpose can much more readily, and more
effectively, be accomplished' by retaining only the naval
bases, harborage waters, and coaling stations provided fore
in the measure under consideration.   '
As to whether or not the United States could successfully defend the ',Philippine Islands against a first-class
naval power, that:s a question about which there may be
honest differences of opinion. That their defense, whether
21




ultimately successful or not, would involve the sacrifice
of tens of thousands of American lives and the expenditure of vast sums, of money does not admit of two opinions. That it would mean the destruction of American
commerce on the high seas and the prostration of all
legitimate American enterprise and business during the
continuance of the war; will hardly be denied.   It. has
recently developed, however, that it is the opinion of our
military experts that it would not he expedient, in the
event of war with any strong naval power, for the United
States to attempt to defend the Philippines.
The policy of the United States in such an event will
be. we are' told, to abandon the islands, and, for the
time being at least, to leave them  to their fate. If this
is to be accepted as the policy and purpose of the United
States, then it is difficult to understand of what advantage
the fortification of the islands, or any one of them, can
possibly be to this country in case of a foreign war. On
the contrary, it would seem to be the part of wisdom to
discontinue at once the expenditure of the vast sums which
Congress is annually asked to appropriate for the fortification of the islands, and the maintenance there of a large
body of troops. \'Vhether in the event of war our troops
are voluntarily withdrawn as a wise strategic or precautionary measure, or they are driven out or captured by
a superior hostile force, the result will be the same. The
fortifications which have been constructed, and those now
in course of construction, will fall into the hands of the
enemy, and will render more difficult the ultimate recovery of the islands should any attempt be made in that
direction. If, therefore, the opinion'expressed by the Chief
of the Bureau of Insular Affairs is shared by other military authorities, and there is little room  for doubt as to
'this, then a decent regard for national pride,- if no higher
consideration, would seem to dictate that the sooner we
withdraw from  the Philippine Islands, and relinquish sovereignty over them, the better it will be for the people
of the United States.


22




Estimates vary widely as to the cost. to the. United
States of maintaining American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands. It will never be possible to compute with
any degree of accuracy what the total cost has been from
the date of American advent up to the present time. The
late Senator Hoar declared more than I0 years ago that
the United States had expended up to that time the enormous sum of $600,ooo,ooo, and his figures have never been
successfully challenged.  Within' the past io years the
United States have expended <many millions in the islands
for strictly military purposes. M-ore than $io,ooo,ooo have
been expended within that period in the construction and
equipment of fortifications alone.
The mean number of troops maintained by the United
States in the Philippines during- the fiscal year I9II was
17,370, of whom I2,277 were Americans and 5,093 natives.
It is estimated that it costs the Government $i,5oo annually to maintain each soldier in the foreign service. Computed upon this basis the cost alone of maintaining the
military forces in the Philippine Islands last year was over
$26,000,0o00. It would be difficult to even estimate what
part of the naval expenses of the United States. should
properly be chargeable to this account.  It is probably
safe to affirm, that the sum which would be annually
saved, under the conditions of peace and tranquillity which
now prevail, were the United States to relinquish sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, would not fall much
short, if any, of $50,000,000.
Arena. 4I: 231-3. February, 9log.
Democracy of Anti-imperialism. R. E. Bisbee.
A  stirring address made by Thomas Mott Osborne
[before the Chautauquan convention] in which he said:
"To keep the islands for the mere sake of increasing
our territory is silly; to keep them for the purpose of
robbing them of their wealth is wicked. There remains
one other consideration along this line, for there is wealth
23




also to be secured without robbing-this wealth comes
from  honest legitimate trade.  If there were time this
point is worthy of development at length; but I must simply point out that the wealth of commerce-the honest
wealth that comes to both sides through the natural exchange of commodities-can be just as well carried on and
better with a friend as with a master. When Massachusetts was an, unwilling dependency of England she refused to trade with the mother country; when the United
States was at war with England in I814 Massachusetts
almost severed the Union rather than give up her trade
with her old enemy. You cannot gain or secure the blessings of trade by issuing orders to dependencies, or even
by treaties; for trade is done between individuals for the
benefit of both parties and you cannot force individuals
to trade where they do not wish to. Trade will be far
better between the United States and the Philippines if
the latter are set free, than if they are unwillingly held.
"Next we come to the arguments based upon nobler
grounds-the welfare of the Filipinos'; and the point is
urged that we must maintain our rule over the islands
because they are unable to uphold a government of their
own. If we should withdraw, anarchy would ensue. The
first answer is that ie have no right to assume anything
of the kind; the second is that anarchy is to be preferred
to tyranny. So the anarchy argument fails whether looked
at from the historical or the ethical point-of-view. As an
historical fact, what we mean by anarchy in this caseserious social confusion-has been again and again the
outward evidence of deep-seated movements which result
in the formulation of some system of government best fitted for the time and circumstances. Never yet in the world's
history has one nation been ultimately successful in forcing
upon another its own civilization and ideals. The Philippines are. entitled to their own form of development be
it what we call anarchy or progress.
"Next we are told that we must hold the islands to
prevent them being seized upon by some other power24




Great Britain, Germany or Japan. This argument is no
less flimsy than the others. One might begin by hazarding
the suggestion that if it's a question of the Filipinos $ieing
held in subjection by some one, perhaps the inhabitants
might prefer to choose their guardian, possibly they would
gain by the rule of Japan or Great Britain rather than
'benevolent assimilation' by the United States. Why should
wve assume -that our particular rule is so necfssary to the
Philippines? Has it spared war and bloodshed? Does it
satisfy the people of the Islands? Have we \een so successful in perfecting the details of our own form\of government' that we are justified in deciding upon those for other
people,?  And if these are answered satisfactorily, there
still remains the fact that nothing could be simpler than
to take the Philippines under our protection and say to
every nation in the world, 'Hands off!'
"Next comes the argument that it is our duty to civilize and educate the inhabitants of the islands; with or
without the implied admission that they are to be set
free some time or other. If the true education of a people consists in material things-in good roads, fine bridges,
uniformed police-all those wonderful evidences of administrative efficiency such as are to be seen in India, for
example, then I grjnt that it can probably be produced
in the Philippines uinder our rule much quicker than by
home rule; a 'veneer of civilization under. imperialism is
comparatively easy to producee-there were no sights more
impressive than the relics of, Roman government of old
or of British imperialism of to-day-but was not that the
very kind of civilization which our ancestors spurned when
they threw away.the comforts and refinements of English
sovereignty. Education of a sort can be force  wherever
you have the power-there are no places in the world so
offensively and tragically clean as your prisons; but is that
the education we demand for our children, or would accept even at 'the point of the bayonet?  What business
have we to go to the other side of the globe, to a land'
where by accident we have the power, and say, 'These
are our ideas of what is good for you; and we propose to
25




civilize and educate you according to these ideas.  You
must submit-because we are stronger than you, and can
beat you and, if necessary, will beat you into submission.'
England has been trying.this sort of thing in India for
over a hundred years; and doing it much better than we
can ever hope to do it. Is it a success? India is seething
with discontent."
North American. I74: 606-12. May, I902.
J    Opportunity of the United States. Andrew  Carnegie.
The American people need only to be satisfied upon one
point: Is it not our duty to continue forcing our rule upon
these si:x a::d a half millions of Christian people, for their
good?
If all our people really knew the Tropics, and had seen the
result of foreign rule there, or had read its history, the question would be answvered as soon as stated. All history
teaches that the influence upon the inferior race of such
members of a superior race as go to the Tropics, is injurious
to both. WVhere a superior race can go freely, and settle a
land hitherto inhabited by an inferior race, as our race settled
here among the Indians, genuine good is done-but even,hen not to the Indians, but to the cause of civilization as a
whole. It- is a step in advance. To a superior race no portion of the earth is closed which it can populate, and which
it can make its dwelling-place.  If Americans could and
would go, in great numbers and of all classes, and make
their permanent homes in the Philippines, their doing so
would undoubtedly result in progress there.
As a matter of fact, there will go to the Philippines a few
male adventurers, who, not being able to succeed here, will
try abroad. There will have to go 40,000 soldiers; but let
any one who has travelled the Tropics tell you of the malign
influence an army has upon the natives, and of the not less
serious influence exerted upon an army by its situation there.
Contact is ruinous to both races. I have travelled round the
world and talked to many people in the Tropics. India is
26




a good illustration of the rule of our race over alien races.
The British are the best governors of dependencies, and
they have been in India for more than. two hundred years,
time enough, one should think, to educate a people sufficiently to give them a trial of self-government. Yet, if Britain
left India to-day she would leave behind scarcely a trace
of her influence..Railroads, telegraphs, and canals would
remain, which might not have been so extensively built but
for the British occupation-though even this may be doubted,
for the Independance of a people stimulates action and ensures progress.
There is another important point. After two hundred
and more years of occupation, it is still necessary for Britain
to keep seventy thousand British troops in India, besides
many Indian troops which are sent to regions far from their
native homes, so as to be among strangers, and therefore
trustworthy as oppressors.. And, pray, let my readers mark
this: Not one piece of artillery is given to any native regiment. That would never do. Why? Because no invader can
ever trust the oppressed not to strike, when opportunity
offers.
The aspirations of-a people for self-government may be
surpressed for a time, but seldom if ever eradicated/ We
all remember the fearful Mutiny. Britain sits to-day upon
a volcano.  Many of the educated Indians have learned
English in the schools. Those to whom I talked, knowing
I was an American and not a Briton, quoted American ideas,
and referred to Washingt-n' and the War for Independence,
and always ended by sating: "Some day we shall be free
like you." It was a crime to teach the slave to read-a mistake to teach the people of India English. We prohibited
the reading of the Declaration of Independence in the Philippines last fourth of July. To the incredulous reader let me
repeat this fact. It is on record and acknowledged by our
* officials. We are engaged in work which requires suppression
of American ideas hitherto held sacred.
All communities, however low they may be in the scale,
have the germ of self-government. W\ithout this they could
not exist; there could not be communities. No tribe, not
-27




even the Afridis, the most warlike of all; lAti has its governors, orders and degrees. Whether a:.-ii.- are fit for selfgovernment according to our sta: '..ri is unimportant.
They are fit to improve if they are pc ^nitt-'. and in no other way has man improved in this dormain than by experience.
Our own race had many centuries of 'Ti',l success and failure before it reached its present po. iti,,.'. As well try to
teach a boy how to swim without hi-::'trkiug out for himself, as expect a people to learn the art of governing themselves by your doing the governing for them. There is nothing so enervating to a people as to relieve them of the task
of looking after themselves. They deteriorate with every
year of foreign control.
Leslie's Monthly. 48: 75-85. May, i899.
Are the Filipinos Civilized? Felipe Agoncillo.
I venture to summarize as follows the arguments I have
presented in detail elsewhere, in favor of the independence
of the Philippine Republic:
I. The United States not having received from'the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands authority to pass laws
affecting them, its legislation as to their welfare possesses no
binding force as against my people.
2. American authorities elsewhere cited demonstrate
that the Philippine revolution was never more threatening
than immediately before the breaking out of the SpanishAmerican war, five thousand revolutionists, being encamped
near Manila three weeks before the American declaration
of war, this army acting (though he was personally absent)
under the direction of General Aguinaldo, in whom the consular representatives of the United States reposed the highest confidence.
3. The purpose of the revolution was independence, and,
understanding this, the United States encouraged the revolutionists to believe their desires would attain fruition. This
has been shown by citations from the archives of the State
Department.




4. The Philiprine Republic was entitled to receive from
the United States recognition as an independent natialn before
the signing of the protocol with Spain, that government
knowing that Philippine independence had been proclaimed
in June, a government de facto and de jure established,
laws promulgated, and Spain's further domination impossible, being acquainted with all these acts immediately upon
their transpiring, through documents and written reports
submitted to it by its officers.
5. The American Government has had in its possession
for months evidence of the actual independence of the Filipinos.
6. Spain. could not deliver possession of the Philippines'
to the United States, being herself ousted by their people.
7. Spain having no possession (except minor garrison
posts), and no right of possession in the Philippines, could
confer no right to control them.
8. American purchase of public buildings, etc., in the
Philippine Islands was ineffective, because the islands, having been lost by Spain to the Philippine Republic, the last
named government had already by conquest acquired public
property..,
9. Secretaries of State of the United States of America (including Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Pinckney) have denied the
right of an ally of America to acquire by con-quest from
Great Britain any American territory while Ameri'ca was
struggling for independence. The United States Supreme
Court has sustained this view. We deny similarly the right
'f the United States to acquire Philippine territory by cession from Spain while the Filipinos were yet at war with
that power.
io. From the foregoing, it would seem to follow that
the recognition of the first Republic of Asia by the greatest
Republic of America would be consonant with right, justice
and precedent.
29


09




Congressional Record. 46: 3949-58. March 2, 1911.
Philippine Independence. Sergio Osmefia.
In September, I898, the revolutionary congress opened
its sessions.  All the provinces of the archipelago were
represented therein. After the work of organization, congress devoted all its time to drawing up a constitution.
On the 20th of January, I899, the Filipino constitution was
approved and placed in force immediately thereafter.
If the spirit and letter of this constitution be considered,
it will be seen that its provisions contain all the principles
of law, order, and liberty contained in the modern constitutions of the world..In the conditions of order, tranquillity, and progress
which prevailed under the authority of the revolutionary
government there was clearly displayed the good dispositions of these people for the direction of their own affairs.
A decree of Aguinaldo abolishing all gambling privileges
and cockfighting taxes, "because they tend only to ruin the
people, with slight advantage to the public treasury," was
sufficient that the people should give up completely their
ancient favorite practices.  Crimes and ordinary misdemeanors diminished notably in number.   There were enjoyed as in no time entire security, well-being, and content. The parties of bandits which from the most remote
periods were accustomed to disturb the order voluntarily
disappeared. The spirit of cooperation of the people in the
measures of the government for good order and prqgress
was evidenced by the liberal treatment of the Spanish
prisoners, the respect to foreigners, the attendance at
school, and the return to customary field work in those
places in which the revolutionary condition had ceased.
Nothing can indicate better the capacity of the people
for independent government than' the spontaneous adhesion that the same people is giving to the essential democratic principles which inspire the present government and
its cooperation in the many steps that have been taken for
the betterment of the intellectual, moral, social, and material
conditions of the people.
30


&e




If this people should be lacking in those conditions
necessary for progress, doubtless any effort in that direction undertaken by the American Government would have
been fruitless. It would not be true to' affirm that all the
progress realized in the Philippine Islands has been due
to the energy and talent of the Government, since without
the cooperation of the people, without the practical sense
indispensable to appreciate good, no beneficent work would
have been carried successfully to a termination.
The satisfactory state of public order in the islands has
been brought about with the aid and efforts of the Philippine people. The work of the Amr'erican Army doubtless
has been a factor in finishing the war and establishing peace,
but the maintenance of order and tranquillity after the
period of the war is due to the determined attitude and
to the decided interest of the people to pursue in peace
the struggle for, their political ideals and to consecrate
themselves to the cause of progress and prosperity destroyed
by six years of disturbance. This attitude reveals nothing
but good practical sense-the. good disposition which this
people. has of considering existing conditions in the determination of its national convenience.
There has been observed on many occasions a tendency to suppress or postpone the payment of land tax'by
the municipal or provincial governments, while at the same
time they have tried to continue in force that part of said
tax destined to the schools, and when this has not been
successful the consideration of closing the schools in case
of failure to pay said tax has exercised such influence in
the provincial and municipal governi:.ciits that there have
continued in full effect the provisions of the law.
In view of the foregoing demonstration, there can be
no fear that the Filipino people will maintain itself in ignorance. A people that shows the live interest in being
instructed, such as the Filipino has shown before and now,
can not constitute a danger for a regular and 'orderly
maintenance of a popular government.
One. of the fears of those who considered the Filipinos
-31




incapable of popular self-government is that they would not
have sufficient discretion to elect to those offices which
must be filled by election the best people in the community.
The exercise of suffrage by the Filipinos has shown, nevertheless, that they know how to make good use of this
privilege. Up to the present the electors have been able
to confide public offices to persons who could duly perform their duties as officials. In the majority of cases they
are persons of intelligence and responsibility who have
known how to justify their election and bring about during
their official terms the betterment of their respective towns.
An excellent proof of this fact is that with rare exceptions
there has not been suspended or deprived of his office
any provincial elective Filipino official since American domination.
There is a very general belief against the methods of
administration of justice by oriental people, especially when
the parties in litigation are not natives, but of other races.
The organization of tribunals of justice in the Philippine
Islands, and the participation which has been given to the
Filipinos in it, have shown the inconsistency of such belief. The Filipino magistrates and judges, whether they
have sat together with Americans or alone, can not be
accused of partiality or bad faith.
In the declarations made authoritatively of the American
policy in the Philippine Islands there has been frequently
stated the belief that the islands would be delivered to a
bloody and horrible chaos if they should be left to their
fate; that the United States has the duty of educating the
ignorant masses of the people until they can know their
civil rights and sustain them against the abuses of the
superior classes and exercise with certainty their political.
-rights; that if the islands should now be left to the Filipinos the probable result would be the organization of
an oppressive and cacique oligarchy, which would exploit
the inferior masses; and that the educated as well as the
ignorant masses of the Filipino people must be, educated
in the practice of political power, of which they have not
32




had experience, until the Filipino people shows itself reasonably fit to control a popular government, maintaining
law and preserving order and offering to the rich and poor
the same protection of the laws and of civil rights.
The first point we must study, because it is the most
important condition in the life of an independent government, is the question of order and the method of preserving it. The causes which are indicated as likely togenerate a condition of anarchy, the government being in
the hands.of the Filipinos, are: (a) That in all periods, and
from the earliest days of Philippine civilization, there have
existed in the islands bands of ladrones, who infest the
Provinces and control pacific residents and the forces of
the Government; (b) That the profound ignorance of the
masses constitutes a constant danger to public tranquillity;. (c)
that the irresponsible power of the caciques over their ignorant fellow citizens would always be used in cases of
discontent for purposes of vengeance and to destroy the
peace. Before beginning to consider these characteristics,
which are believed peculiar to the present state Of the
country, we take note of what many impartial observers
have written concerning the character of the Filipino people. The Filipino people, according to these observers, who
have associated familiarly with them, is pacific by temperament, is inclined to peace, is patient, and at times even
indolent in seeking reparation for offenses ommitted against
them when they may be borne. This opinion is proven by
history.  In the long period, of Spanish domination history scarcely records a few local disturbances; not one had
a general character, except the revolution of 1896, which
reappeared in 1898 and which, as known, was based on
political motives.
During the period of the revolutionary government no
grave disturbances occurred affecting the interior order of
the Provinces comprehended within the jurisdiction of
Aguinaldo's government. Nothing, then, may be feared with
respect to the public order and public tranquillity which
may come from a natural propensity in the inhabitants of


33




the islands for disorder and revolution, as occurs in many
countries of Latin origin.
There is pointed out as another of the grave menaces
which might constitute a constant danger to order the igiorance of the Philippine masses who speak only one of
the 15 or I6 Malay dialects, each one of which contains
a very limited vocabulary, which offers no means of communication- ith modern thought and civilization.
We do not' desire in any way to deny that there really
exists among the Filipino people persons not educated inschools. No one laments this situation -like the Filipinos
themselves-a situation due to causes altogether foreign
to their will. Nevertheless, while it may be said that there
are some illiterate people not prepared in the schools,
it can not be said that the people:~profoundly ignorant,
From the fact that there are people who do not know
how to read and write does not necessarily indicate that
the community in which they live does not know the rights
and duties appropriate to a civilized community.
In the official reports there is noted with true satisfaction the natural inclination displayed by the Filipinos for
education, the poorest families sending their children to
school. There has been a constant increase in the number
of children attending the public and private schools, so
that in this year it may be reckoned that nearly 700,000
children and youths are receiving an education in the different public and private schools established throughout
the archipelago.
There is likewise pointed out as another obstacle to
good order and the establishment of democratic institutions
and principles the so-called "caciquism" dominant in the
country. There is mentioned the fact that in the rural
municipalities of the Philippines the whole people is completely subject to the will of some educated' person of
alert intelligence living in the community, who knows the
local dialect and who desires or knows how to excite the
fears or the cupidity of his neighbors to organize a party
to resist imaginary wrongs or oppression, in order to satisfy vengeance or to obtain a livelihood without labor.
34


1f




There is mentioned likewise that with great frequency the
presidente and other officials of the town make use of their
offices to subject the ignorant residents of their respective
towns to their control in the sale of agricultural products.
The official acts as an intermediary in the sale and takes
the greater part of the products of the person he represents.
It is likewise alleged that caciquism is revealed in the most
flagrant form when the Philippine municipal officials, and
even provincial officials, are invested witho governmental
power over non-Christian tribes or over others that are
not of theirf-own race distributed through the Christian
Philippine Provinces.
The series of acts mentioned which show the existence
of the so-called "caciquism" in the Philippine Islands is
not truly the result solely of the state of education of the
masses, but a natural product of the perversity of man of
whatever time and whatever race. The instinct of profiting at the expense of one's neighbor or of satisfying certain passions and taking advantages of other men who may
be convinced or seduced is not only a quality peculiar to
Filipinos, but a universal human sentiment.
The facts mentioned are not, however, very general nor
are they of such gravity as those that occur in more civilized countries. The examples of caciques who have ordered the assassination or the torture of hostile persons
are exceptionally rare, or so little known that there has
not reached our knowledge specific cases registered in the
tribunals of justice. The abuses by officials who take advantage of their official influence to serve as middlemen for
some ignorant persons in the sale of their products, aside
from  being few, are assuredly less scandalous than those
which are told of officials of independent countries who
enter into illicit combinations to permit gambling houses
or houses of prostitution, in the profits of which they participate.
In relation to the existence of caciquism, which thrives,
as is believed, because the mass of the people is profoundly ignorant, there is likewise expressed the idea that in
case of constituting an independent government the educated
35
/.


\




mass which would form the government would make of
this an oligarchy which would tend to oppress and exploit
the ignorant mass. In other words, it would be a governwent of caciquism. It would not be possible to ignore
this fact, that by the force of circumstances and in virtue of our sociological conditions, the government must be
in a certain manner in the ha'nds of the most capable
and intelligent group having knowledge of the science of
government and of society. But far from  this being an
evil, if this group is to be the element favoring modern
ideas always -inspired in good and in the interest of the
community, if it is to guide the others to conduct them
to the object of their aspirations for progress. and wellbeing through the means most appropriate and suitable to
it and in the final analysis, it will be but the most faithful and suitable instrument of the will of the majority;
there would be no mistake in placing on its shoulders
the responsibility of a sovereign people.
The fact that there have occurred examples of abuse
and oppression by Filipinos in office of persons belonging
to the non-Christian tribes does not indicate a general policy, 'nor is it the general treatment extended by Christian
people to the non-Christian tribes. The reference to these
abuses seems to indicate the belief that the Christian people in their relation with the non-Christian people would
not be disposed to give to the latter a just and liberal
treatment, which would tend io lift them to the grade of
civilization acquired by the Christian people. Nothing, however, can present with less accuracy the point of view
and the intention which animates the Christian people with
respect to those who are not so. The inhabitants of the
Christian Provinces understand that the non-Christian tribes
v:re a very important and valuable factor, not only for
the population, but likewise for the defense of the -common country. The variety of people which inhabits the
islands and speaks different dialects, with distinct religious
creeds and customs, are susceptible of forming a true
homogeneous unit, which they now have, through ethical,reasons, assisted by the chains of common interests and
36




ideals for the objects of progress and civilization. The
belief that there is a true rivalry and hatred between the
Christian and non-Christian people has been almost always
exaggerated; nothing, however, is falser than this opinion. The simple knowledge of the non-Christian tribes of
the establishment of the Filipino government in Malolos produced a distinct approximation in'the ideas and relations
of the Christian and non-Christian people, the latter having presented themselves spontaneously to the authorities
of said government, giving it loyal support and recognition. There is, too, the fact that some Christians of Luzon and Visayas have established themselves in Moro territory or in various "rancherias" that live in the mountains from which the most skillful have succeeded in acquiring greater or less fortune.
The true reason for the- dissatisfaction and differences
existing between the non-Christian people and the Christian people is based rather on the fact that the non-Christian people believe the Christians allied with the foreign..
government, anxious to pervert them  with a change of
their religious beliefs.  But religious intolerance having
disappeared, the principal factor which caused the existing differences between the two, it will not be difficult
to convince the non-Christian people of the islands of the
benefits of living under a common regime with the inhabitants of the Christian provinces. We are convinced
that a Filipino government is the only one that could reach
in a permanent manner and without violence a definite understanding with the non-Christian commurnities of the islands, because the latter in spite of the differences of religion and customs, would not oppose, nor could they op-  --
pose, the influence of the ethical unity and relationship.
The Philippine Islands were acquired by the United
States by virtue of the cession made by Spain through an
indemnization of $20,000,000 in accordance with the treaty
of Paris. On the date that this treaty was signed a great
part of the Philippine territory was in power of a government organized by the Filipinos, The organization of
this governmentS was made with the knowledge, consent,
37




and moral support of the Americans. On the opening of
the Spanish-American War, Aguinaldo, who was considered
the leader of the insurrection against Spain in I896, came
from Hongkong in an American transport of war, with
the object of reopening the revolution agaiinst Spain, having
been induced to believe that he might reckon on the aid
of the American forces.
Although he made no use of the offers that were made
to him, practically the attitude of the Americans and the
relations that Aguinaldo maintained with them, created the
impression that he might consider them as allies. For some
time the launches and steamers that were at the service
of Aguinaldo displayed the. Filipino flag and were not prevented from circulating in the Bay of alanila and some
provinces to carry forces and orders to Aguinaldo.
The I3th day of August, 1898, the city of Manila surrendered, and.Gen. Merritt, as commander of the American forces of occupation, published a proclamation,.in one
of whose paragraphs he said that he had not come to the
islands to take a piece of territory. From the date men'tioned before and until the 4th of February, I899, the
Filipino government maintained cordial relations with the
military troops of North America, and all of the differences
were regulated through official communications of the representatives of the two governments.
These facts are mentioned with the object of showing
that the persistency of the Filipinos in being independent
is bound up in the recollections of that short period of their
past. in which, associated with the Americans, they threw.
down the secular power of a sovereignty and experienced
the satisfaction and happiness of governing by themselves
their interests and their future.
Congressional Record. 48: 9348-9. July 19, 1912.
J Cost of Occupation of Philippines. Wm. H. Taft.
The cost to the Government of the United States resulting from the occupation of the Philippine Islands, through
direct appropriations by Congress, is as follows:
38




(a) By the act of March 3, 9O01, to carry out the obligations of the treaty of November 7, I900, covering the
cession by Spain to the United States of certain small
islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago lying outside the lines described in the treaty of Paris, $Ioo,ooo.
(b) By the act of March 3, 1903, for the relief of distress in the Philippine Islands, $3,000,000.
(c) By the act of March 3, I903, for completing the
census of the Philippine Islands, $351,925.50.
The total cost accruing to tihe Government of the United
States for the purposes defined by the three acts cited was
therefore $3,451,925.50. There has been no other direct expenditure from public funds of the United States solely
for and on account of the Philippine Islands not subsequently repaid from Philippine revenues. On the other hand,
there was expended from the revenues of the Philippine
Islands from I898 to 1900, in the execution of the direct
military purposes of the United States, a total of $4,975,747.52,
for which no reimbursement to the Philippines has been
made. There is consequently a difference in direct expenditures in favor of the Philippine Islands of $1,523,822.02.
Whatever cost has accrued to the United States, in addition to the direct expenditures above cited as a result of
the occupation of the Philippine Islands, has resulted from
the military and naval operations in and about the archipelago and from   the construction of fortifications and
naval stations therein.
The cost of the military and naval operations in the
Philippines resulting from the occupation of those islands
is and must always remain a matter of argument. These
operations- resulted in part from the War with Spain and
in part from the insurrection in the Philippines incident
thereto; but the Philippines were not a cause of the War
with Spain, nor is it possible to separate the cost of the
war in the Philippines from the cost of the war elsewhere,
nor the cost of the War with Spain from the cost of the
Philippine insurrection. Again, it is impossible to state-what
part of the cost of the support of the Army and Navy
since the conclusion of the Philippine insurrection can be
39




regarded as resulting from the occupation of the archipelago. We maintained a fleet in the Orient for many years.
It can not be said definitely that our occupation of the
Philippine Islands increased this fleet. The military forces
now in the islands would have to be supported at home
were they not in the Philippines. On at least two occasions their presence there has resulted in saving to the
United States in the cost of sending troops to China for
the protection of American interests. It is impossible, in
other words, to determine clearly what part of the naval
and military expenditures in the Philippines is chargeable
to the cost of the islands and what part to the cost of national defense.  The cost of fortifications in the Philippines can be more readily computed, but this is an item
chargeable clearly to national defense rather than to the
occupation of the Philippine Islands. If we tad a naval
station in those islands, as all persons of whatever view
propose, such fortifications are necessary.
Aside from thedirect appropriations of Congress cited
above, the expenditures incident to military and naval operations, and the support of the United States forces in
the archipelago, the Philippine Islands have been in no way
a charge against the Treasury of the United States.. In
other words, with the exceptions named, the Philippine Government has been entirely self-supporting. Moreover, it has
been throughout self-supporting in a larger sense than any
other territorial possession of the United States. All expenses attached to the collection of revenues, to the administration of the Post Office Department and of the
courts, to the survey of the islands, to the consePvation of their resources, and to the improvement of their
rivers and harbors, and to all similar public works, which
elsewhere, as 'in Porto Rico, Alaska, and the Hawaiian
Islands, are a charge against the National Treasury, are
and have been paid from   the revenues of the Philippine
I slands.


40




United States. 62d Congress, 2d Session. House Report, 606,
pt. 2.
Philippine Independence. M. E. Olmsted.
The inhabitants of the Philippine Islands do not constitute a homogeneous people. They are composed of many
different tribes, some styled as civilized and some admittedly wholly wild. There are some 15 or 20 different languages or dialects spoken in the islands.  In many instances those who speak one dialect can not speak or understand any other. Only about Io per cent of all the
people can read and write in any language or dialect, and
less than 3 per cent possess what we call a fair commonschool education. Of the entire 8,ooo,ooo, less than 2/2
per cent, or about 200,000, have been found qualified to
vote under existing laws. A few of these, chiefly- among
the Tagalogs, are very well educated.  A smaller number are ambitious to govern, and they have no difficulty
in stirring up a very considerable popular sentiment in
favor of entire independence. There are, on the other hand,
many who-privately, if not publicly, look with fear and
disfavor upon such a prospect. Spain was not able, with
all her power, to mtaintain dece t government, and turned
the islands over to is in a very disordered condition. It
required some time, no small expenditure of money, and,
unhappily, some sacrifice of human life, to restore order;
but it was finally. restored.
Under American rule order has been brought out of
chaos; the people of the islands have enjoyed better government and more of self-government than ever before. Life,
liberty, and property have never been so fully protected
as at the present time.
The first governor of the Philippines was William Howard Taft.  His administration was eminently successful
and he became very popular with the inhabitants. In a
special message, which, as Secretary of War, he made to
President Roosevelt in I908, he said:


4I




Any attempt to fix the time in which complete self-government
may be conferred upon the Filipinos in their own interest is, I
think, most unwise. The key to the whole policy, outlined by
President McKinley and adopted by Congress, was that of the
education of the masses of the people and the leading them out
of the dense ignorance in which they are now, with a view to
enabling them intelligently to exercise the force of public opinion
without which a popular self-government is impossible.
It seems to me reasonable to say that a condition can not be
reached until at least one generation shall have been subjected
to the process of primary and industrial education, and that when
it is considered that the people are divided into groups speaking
from 10 to 15 different dialects, and that they must acquire a common medium of communication, and that one of the civilized
languages, it is not unreasonable to extend the necessary period
beyond a generation. By that time English will be the language
of the islands, and we can be reasonably certain that a great
majority of those living there will not only speak and read and
write English, but will be affected by the knowledge of free institutions, and will be able to understand their rights as members
of the community and to seek to enforce them against the pernicious system of caciquism and local bossism, which I have
attempted in this report to describe.
But it is said that a great majority of the people desire immediate independence. I am not prepared to say that if the real
wish of the majority of all the people, men,.women, and children,
educated and uneducated, were to be obtained, there would not be
a very large majority in favor of immediate independence. It
would not, however, be an intelligent judgment based on a knowledge of what independence means, of what its responsibilities are,
or of what popular government in its essence is. But the mere'
fact that a majority of all the people are in favor of immediate
independence is not a reason why that should be granted, if we
assume at all the correctness of the statement, which impartial
observers can not but fail to acquiesce in, to wit, that the Filipinos
are not now fit for self-government.
The policy of the United States is not to establish an oligarchy,
but a popular self-government in the Philippines. * * * The
presence of the Americans in the islands is essential to the due
development of the lower. classes and the preservation of their
rights.
At a still later period Hon. J. AM. Dickinson, Secretary
of War, having made an extended visit to the Philippines,
in a special report to the President dated November 23,
I90o, spoke of the attempt by politicians, through the
press and in other ways, to stimulate a general demand for
immediate independence. He said:
While, as stated, these are the only views publicly expressed, I
became convinced from.reliable evidence that many of the most
substantial men, while not openly opposing the demands publicly
voiced, would regard such a consummation with consternation.
They realize that the Government would fall into the hands of a
few who would dominate the masses; that the administration, even
without outside interference, could not be successfully carried on;
that there would be internal dissensions and probably civil war;
and that if the United States did not interfere they would fall an
easy prey to some foreign power.
42




The Moro Province is non-Christian and uncivilized, although it has a few intelligent people., They do not conSider themselves as Filipinos; and were, when we took the
Islands, in a state of war. They are now well satisfied
to be governed by the United States, but wholly unwilling
to be governed from Manila' When Secretary Dickinson
was in that Province in ipio, he visited Zamboanga, where
thouszinds of. Moros came in to -greet him. The following
are the speeches of a few of the M\oro spokesmen, as interpreted into both English and Spanish and stenographically reported:
Datu Mandi spoke as follows, his remarks being interpreted in English by Mr. Edward Schuck:
If the American- Government does not want the M.1oro Province
any more. they should give it back to us. It is a Moro Province.
It belongs to us.Datu Sacaluran spoke as follows:
I am an old man. I do not want any Moro trouble. But If it
should come to that, that we shall be given over to the Filipinos,
I still would fight.
Ulankaya Ujaton said:
I am not a civilized man, but I have'learned that slavery, killing, and stealing is a bad thing. We do it no more. But, if that it
should be that we shall be given over to another race, we had
better all be hanged.
N'ad~ji 'Nungnui spoke as follows:
The Secretary of War must look the matter in the face. We
are a different race; we have a different religion; we are Mohammedans. And if we should be given over to the Filipinos, how
much more would they treat us badly, when they treated even the
Spanish badly, who were their own mothers and their own fathers
in generation? How did they treat them? Think about it! Think
twice! We far prefer to be in the hands of the Americans, who
are father and mother to us now, than to be turned over to another people.
Secretary Dickinson was also presented wtfth a set of
resolutions, setting forth that "The Moro Province is inhabited hy many races and different tribes, wvith differences
in religidn, customs, and habits, wiTh 'a varying degree of
civilization," and that "~We have the best form of government possible uinder our existing conditions, and we
want no changes at the present 'tim~e."
The expense to the United States of preserving peace
and order under an attempted government by the Filipinoi thmsehv VPwould be greater than under our ~present
control. -
43






Arena. 33: 486-93. May, go05.
-J    America in the Philippines. G: F. Pentecost.
If I have rightly read the matter, the Philippine Islands with all their actual and potential material wealth and
political possibilities have been given over to us that we
might carry to seven or eight million Asiatic people American civilization, including universal education, political
freedom, (which is something quite different from political
independence), the modern mechanical arts and sciences,
for the development of their vast material resources; better social ideals and conditions, better commercial methods,. and especially better and larger knowledge of the love
of God and His great salvation; and that in so doing we
might place an object lesson in higher Christian civilization at the front door of Asia and in the face of seven
hundred millions of Asiatic people just now being awakened out of centuries of slumber and stirred into new life
by the impact on the one hand of Western commercial
and political oppression and on the other hand by the active aggressive work of Western missionary enterprise.
To fall back on the old cry, that it is the fixed policy
of the American people to keep out of and.avoid all entanglements with foreign powers, European and Asiatic, is
both inconsistent with our whole past history and certainly incongruous with our present position as a leading if
iot the dominant factor in the commercial and diplomatic
affairs of the world. Even if our fathers sought to fix
and bind us to such a policy, the progressive march of the
world would render such a policy untenable  Besides it is
essentially un-American to suffer the political dead hand to
control the policy of a living nation. But moreover, we
have always been more or less mixed up with'foreign powers. We began our political history with a war with England and a treaty of alliance with France. We asserted our
rights to interfere in the.affairs of foreign nations by
our little war with Tripoli. We have interfered with Mexico and secured from her a large and most important share
44




of our home territory. We today claim a practical protectorate over all the South American continent. We were
present with our ships, and with England took part in
opening the port of Canton in China to the commerce of
the world. Alone we opened up the hermit kingdom of
Corea and created the open door in Japan and have done
more than any other nation to bring about the wonderful
awakening of that wonderful people. We took part with other Western powers And with Japan in suppressing the Boxer rebellion and -compelling China to observe the sanctity
of diplomatic relations. It may safely be said that if it
had not been for the- fact that we had an army in the
Philippines and, at that crisis, 5000 soldiers to spare, the
disaster impending over the white race in Asia could scarcely have been averted. In the face of these facts, not to
mention our recent victorious war for the deliverance of
Cuba from the oppressions of Spain, how shall anyone say
that we are stultifying ourselves and- trampling under foot
our. most cherished traditions of non-interference in the
foreign policies of the world. We never have had such a
policy except in an academic sense. As a matter of fact
we have from the beginning been foremost among the
nations in far Eastern questions and always up to our very
necks in Eastern affairs.
Independent. 53: 649-51. March 21, I90I.
Criticism  of our Philippine Policy. Charles Denby.
Our legal right to acquire the islands "has never been
disputed, except on the lawyers' quibble that an individual cannot buy land held in adverse possession to the
grantor. This is an inoperative principle in private law, be- -
cause the grantee could always have maintained an action
for possession in the name of the grantor, and in some
States in his own name, As to the city, and bay and
harbor of Manila, the argument has no force whatever,
because Aguinaldo was never in possession of these, but the
Spanish always were until we took possession and they
directly delivered all this property over to us.
45




The third article of the protocol made August 12, I898
provided that: "The United States will occupy and hold
the city, bay and harbor of Manila pending the conclusion
of peace, which shall determine the control, disposition and
government of the Philippines."
So that after August 13, when we captured Manila we
were in the undoubted lawful possession of all this property.
As to the territory outside of Manila it is claimed that
Aguinaldo had title by possession. Aguinaldo was at the
head of an insurrection against Spain.. The independence
of the government established by him had never been recognized by any nation. He was simply a rebel without
any status under the law of nations. He could not have
made title to a foot of ground anywhere in the Philippines.
Suppose he [Dewey] had gone, what would have happened to the Philippines? 'No one can tell. Aguinaldo
might have held his own, might have conquered Manila,
as he conquered the most of Luzon, or he might have been
defeated by the Spanish troops. The best opinion in Manila leads to the conclusion that Spain would have overcome the rebellion if we had left her to herself.' No man
in Manila doubts that if Spain had sent to the Islands the
troops which had been in Cuba, the rebel would have
had short shrift.
Overland, nr s. 34: 23-32. January, I9oo.
The Philippines-the Oriental Problem. N. P. Chipman.
When so patriotic a citizen and so profound a statesman
as Judge Edmunds puts forward the additional cost to our government in holding these island possessions as a reason for
withdrawing our claims to them the objection cannot be ignored; and yet we rested the acquisition of the Northwest
Territory and California on no such considerations. Governments do not annex territory as a man adds farm to farm.
Motives much higher control the minds of statesmen in determining policies looking towards territorial aggrandizement. But let us consider this point for a moment. It is a
46




part of the history of the Netherlands in India that a reasonable tax upon industries not only pays the expense of the
army and navy, but there remains a surplus after expending
eight million dollars in constructing public works and four
million dollars in public instruction. The cost of administration is set down at $24,000,000, which includes the salary of
$Ioo,ooo to the Governor-General and $Ioo,ooo for entertaining; and, numerous salaried officials, native and Dutch, who
receive from $800 to $32,000 per annum. I can conceive no
necessity for such extravagance in controlling the Philippines. Mrs. Scidmore informs us in her book of travel in
Java that the army consists of 30,000 men, two thirds of
whom are natives, and it is only because of the outbreak in
Sumatra that makes even this number necessary. There is
no large force required in Java, where there are 23,000,000
people. We have a right to assume, I think, that under such
government as we shall establish no large and costly army
will be required, and no richly endowed list of civil functionaries.
Whether we hold the Philippines or not, it is certain we
are to have a large navy. A large part of this navy will find
its natural theater of action on the Asiatic coast. The cost
will be the same whether our ships have waters and commerce of our own to patrol and protect or whether they are
to observe merely the march of progress of other nations.
But whatever the cost it can never reach the material benefits which must flow from our occupation of the Philippines.
One word as to the danger of being embroiled in European
wars by the ownership of the Philippines. Again I invite attention to the example of the Netherlahds in India. I believe
it was in I8i6 when the English finally ceded the islands to
Holland. I can point to no page in the history of this century which records that Holland has been involved in any
European war by reason of her possessions in the East
Indies. I do not recall at this moment that the powers of
Europe have engaged in war with each other over any of
their possessions in the Orient within' the last half-century.
I can see no European complications which our presence in
the East Indies is at all likely to create.
47




The assertion that we are not a colonizing people because
of a lack of experience, is a statement disputed by every line
written in nearly three hundred years of American history.
Nothing is truer than that experience is an indispensable
requisite in the successful colonization and settlement of any
new country. With the American people this experience
began, and the education has been continued, from Jamestown and Plymouth Rock down to the present day. In the
beginning of that education and experience the Anglo-Saxon
served ah apprenticeship on the Atlantic seaboard of one
hundred and fifty years before he dared penetrate the country
three hundred miles beyond the point of his first landing. It
took the Puritan one hundred and twenty-five years to venture as far into the wilderness as the present State of Vermont; while Daniel Boone did not cross the Alleghanies until
one hundred and sixty years after the first settlement had
been made at the tide waters of the Chesapeake. But in these
years of apprenticeship, these generations of education, there
was bred a race of self-reliant men, trained and equipped
with a pioneer experience, a confidence, and a courage, who
were to colonize and settle the continent from the Alleghanies
to the Pacific. Assuming "the son still equal to the sire,"
does it not rather suggest that this trained experience in
conquest of new lands has equipped and qualified the
American of today, above all others, to successfully colonize
regardless of latitude, and to settle regardless of longitude,
any new country that may tempt his enterprise with an
honest reward for his industry?
It is true that the migrations of men have, ordinarily, been
confined to climatic lines of latitude. But in America we
find the Anglo-Saxon making permanent and successful settlement from the Saskatchawan, in latitude fifty-five degrees,
down to as low as latitude twenty-four degrees, at Key West
in Florida. In this wide range of changing climate this virile
man has proved himself competent to endure and thrive under temperatures ranging from sixty degrees below zero, in
Manitoba, to that of one hundred and twenty degrees above,
in Arizona. No region of the earth of equal latitude shows
greater varying temperature than does that-found within the
48:




boundary lines of the United States. A people so competent
to settle thirty degrees of latitude and more than three thousand miles of longitude may well ask what natural law prohibits their further expansion?
In proof that the Anglo-Saxon is incapable of settling the
tropical countries, we are pointed to England's long years of
supremacy in India, and her failure to successfully colonize
any part of that country.
At the time of her conquest in the Orient, Great Britain
find her mainland possessions already swarmin  with the
densest population on the globe, a population where surplus
of teeming millions prohibited further settlement, nor did she
ever seriously attempt it. But England is now and has been
for several decades engaged in the successful settlement of
her island and other tropical possessions. She has already
successfully colonized and settled Australia up to a point
within ten degrees of the equator, and is now rapidly extending her settlements in Africa straight north toward the
tropical heart of that continent.
Holland of late years has been rapidly increasing her settlements in Sumatra, until that island now contains a white
population of not less than fifty thousand. Sumatra lies directly under the equator, and is universally conceded to be
the most unhealthy of the islands in the eastern hemisphere.
Java is a neighbor of the Philippines. Her native population of 23,000,000 is not unlike that of the Philippines and
possesses, as do the Filipinos, many characteristics of the
Japanese. There are 48,000 Europeans residing on the island,
who are helping to work out the problem of a better civilization for the people and to develop the natural resources of
the country. The Netherlands in the East India islands furnish a striking example of what may be done by a paternalism not altogether wise, under the direction of a superior
race, in the control of these island people. The population
of Java increased after 1831 from 6,ooo,ooo to 23,000,000 and
the revenue from $I,250,000 to $50,000,000. In I889 the imports of Java were $70,000,000 and the exports $78,000,0o0,
I would not ignore the New England opposition to the annexation of the Philippines, of which Senator Hoar and ex49




Governor Boutwell are perhaps the most sincere and among
the ablest representatives. This opposition assumes to plant
itself chiefly upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence, wherein our forefathers proclaimed that all men
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
and declared that: "To secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the government."
As civilization has advanced in the world and in its onward march has displaced barbarism, it has never halted to
obtain previous consent. They who would dispute the fact
or condemn the means because violative of the principle of
consent would relegate the inhabitants of the globe to a-condition of irletrievable moral and material chaos. There has
ever been, and there will ever continue to be, an irreconcilable
conflict between civilization and barbarism, between Christianity and heathenism, between enlightenment and ignorance, between material progress and material sloth and inertia. The world is to be finally conquered and subdued by a higher civilization; and barbarism, heathenism,
ignorance and sloth must stand aside in its onward march'
or be extirpated by it.
But let us find out the true meaning of the protest of our
fathers as stated in the great Declaration of Freedom. They
were then a part of the British Government; they had settled
in America under its protection and subject to its guaranties. Their rights had been grossly trampled upon or denied them by the government whose sovereignty they cheer-,fully acknowledged; they protested as citizens and subjects
against usurpations and burdens which the government had
no right to impose without their consent as intelligent and
loyal subjects of that government. In accordance with the
precedeits of history, however, their ancestors had taken
possession of the eastern portion of the continent without
the consent of the native occupants and rightful owners of
the soil; they had erected local governments in disregard
of the native population, and they laid the foundation of this
Republic in flagrant disregard of the principle of consent to
which they appealed in the Declaration; they and their de50




scendants have, in violation of that principle, practically
exterminated an entire continent of native tribes and races;
and to-day, after five hundred years, there exists alone in the
Indian Territory any recognition of the primitive rights of
the original occupants to be consulted as to their form of
government, or of the truth that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Let
us come a little more closely to the point. For several centuries the inhabitants- f the Philippines have been recognized by all nations as subjects of. the Government of Spain.
They had grievances against Spain, not against us, similar
to those so eloquently recounted in our Declaration. Had
these people possessed in themselves the elements of selfgovernment and the seeds of an enlightened nation, and had
addressed a protest to Spain, as the fathers of our Republic
did to England, their petition would have found sympathetic
response throughout the world. But this was not the situation presented upon our occupation. as the result of a war
unsought by us. The yoke of oppression was suddenly removed, but there was no organized government and no intelligent source of power for us to consult, or which was
capable of giving consent to our exercise of governmental
control had we sought consent. It is idle to talk about the
just powers of government being deriveiTom  the consent
of the governed under the conditions existing in the Philippines upon their cession to the United States by Spain. Before it was possible even to make provision for the common
safety, and before anything could be known concerning the
form of government that was to be instituted for these untutored and unenlightened people, they broke into rebellion
against their liberators and turned the day of their deliverance into hideous night of rapine and war. The maxim of
the.Declaration presupposes a people capable of giving consent; it presupposes a government seeking to oppress its
subjects by a system of unjust laws, in the framing of which
the subjects have had no part and which have been enacted
against their repeated protests. The time has not yet arrived when the principle of consent can find application in
the Philippines. It will come when, as the rightful succes5I




sor of Spain, we shall have instituted and put in force some
form of government for these unfortunate people. If, when
this time comes, they can truthfully present such an indictt9ment against us and our laws, as our fathers did against England in I776, I have no doubt their independence will as
surely follow as did ours after the memorable struggle of the
Revolution; and it.ought to follow. We began the annexation of territory in I8o3, without the consent of the people
annexed, and the annals of our expansion thus far contain.
no protest, and in every instance the government we have
offered our adopted citizens has met with their approval. In
every instance we have had a subsequent ratification, and
this is the equivalent of previous consent. I cannot doubt
that when the people of the Philippines have reached a
point in their intellectual development sufficiently advanced
to discern what are the "just powers of government," they
will have no hesitancy in expressing their "consent" to the
system we shall have established for them.
Mr. Benjamin Kidd has portrayed the importance of the
tropics to commerce in the graphic pages of his book "The
Control of the Tropics," and his statistics will not be disputed.
He calls attention to the salient fact that the northern or
temperate-zone countries have found  the products of the
tropics indispensable to their life, and that they are mostly
non-competing articles; and conversely the products of the
temperate-zone are indispensable to and generally impossible of production in the tropics.  We have here then
a most advantageous field for commercial union and interchange. In the article of raw cotton, of which the British
formerly obtained their chief supply from the East and West
Indies, the tropics have been forced to yield the market to
the United States, the greatest cotton-producer on the globe.
The principal articles consumed but not produced in the
temperate zone are coffee, tea, india-rubber, cocoa, and its
products, drugs and dye-stuffs, gum, palm oils, and many
ornamental hardwoods. I omit tobacco and sugar, of which
we must for a long time be importers from the tropics, notwithstanding the cahe and beet sugar and tobacco we produce. I cannot stop to give the imports in 'detail.
52




Mr. Kidd states that the combined trade of the Englishspeaking countries with the tropics amounts to forty-four;per cent. of their total trade with all the rest of the world.
iThe United States buys from the region embraced between
latitude thirty degrees north and south of the equator,
$250,000,000 in value or over one third of our entire imports.
Our export trade of over a billion dollars is with the topics
but $96,000,000. While the balance of trade is elsewhere
largely in our favor, we have overlooked the fact that this
balance is cut down over $50o,ooo,ooo by neglect of a region
where the British have an export trade of $360,ooo,ooo. We
are sending large sums of money to the tropics in excess of
our exports to those regions, and this money goes back to
England to purchase the articles which we ourselves -should
supply. This is the practical business situation which I am
persuaded will rapidly improve, now that our flag, as representing our sovereignty, is permanently raised in the tropics.
Baltimore News. 82: 1-3. February ig, Ig93.
Retention of Philippines. Cardinal James Gibbons.
Cardinal Gibbons, in an interview with James T. Williams, Jr., editor-in-chief of the Boston Evening Transcript,
which appears in that paper today, expresses his firm opposition to any declaration regarding the independence of the
Philippines Islands in the near future.
He'says: "Those islands were taken as a war measure.
Some may think it would have been better for us never to
have exercised our jurisdiction over them, but once American
sovereignty was established in that archipelago, the responsibility for the welfare and development of the Filipinos devolved upon the American people, and upon their shoulders
it rests today. I am irrevocably opposed to any proposal
that would commit this nation to a scuttle policy in the Philippine Islands-today, tomorrow or at any fixed time in the
future —and I say this wholly in the interest of the social,
material and moral advancement of the people of the United
States, of whom I am proud to be a fellow-citizen, no less
than of the Filipinos themselves.
53




"In the first place, I maintain that the Filipinos-the
vast majority of them at any rate-have never been consulted regarding their independence. The islands composing the archipelago number more than 3000 and are widely
scattered. The people of one island have little or no relation with the inhabitants of another. No attempt has been
made to ascertain the views of these segregated groups upon
the question so vital to them as to whether'they shall be
turned adrift to shift for themselves. There has been no
plebescite, and it would require days and weeks for them to
gather and register their opinions on the subject.
"Up to the present moment the Filipinos have no conception of the honor and responsibility which it is now proposed to thrust upon them. I hold it to be unreasonable in the extreme to impose both upon men who have no
even been consulted as to their wishes -and have no adequate conception of the duties and responsibilities involvedA
in giving them their independence.
"But even could it be demonstrated that a large number of Filipinos desired that independence, in my judgment the inhabitants of those islands, as a whole, are ut- /
terly unprepared to shoulder the responsibility which independence will place upon them. Some authorities give/
the number of those capable of reading and writing as
not more than 5 per cent. Nor have more than 3 per
cent. an adequate idea of the duties required of those
charged with self-government.
"It took 300 years to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos. The entire population is estimated at 8,ooo,ooo, of
whom 7,ooo,ooo are Christians and I,ooo,ooo are Moros and,
Mohammedans. If we were to withdraw now, it is much
to be feared that these people would lapse into a state of
barbarous infidelity, and: thus undo the work of 30o years.
It must be remembered that there are constant uprisings in
the islands; that the fierce and warlike Moros continue; to
invade the different islands and keep their inhabitants in a
state of constant turmoil and bloodshed. The missionaries
there now, while willing to sacrifice their lives in the discharge of their sacred duty, are powerless unless they be
54




tsustained by the strong arm of the United States Governiment to enforce law and order.
|  "To withdraw from the Philippines at a fixed time in the
{uture, regardless of conditions in those islands, would work!a serious injustice to the many Americans and far-seeing
citizens of other countries who have in-ested their money,in developing the resources of those islands. These investments have been made on the assumption that the Philippines would continue under our protection indefinitely.
"For the United States to reverse its repeatedly declared
policy with respect to these islands would, in my earnest
belief, be a dishonorable act. It would work great harm
to those investors, as well as to the Filipinos themselves,
for this country to withdraw and witness a resultant reign
of anarchy. It should be borne in mind that the development of those islands is essential to the development of the
Filipinos. Many capitalists are disposed by an enlightened
self-interest to invest their capital in the building of railroads and in the development of the mines and other resources of the archipelago, a development that, I repeat,
would contribute vastly to the interest and welfare of the
Filipinos, but these investors are not willing to enter upon
such enterprises unless given the guarantee of permanent
law and order in those islands which can alone come under
the benevolent protection and'guidance that has characterized the American occupation.
"I have no patience with the argument that the Philippine Islands: are the source of an annual deficit to this
country. Even were that true, the fact would not warrant
a cowardly abandonment of the clear and accepted duty of
the American people toward the Filipinos. Surely as a nation we owe that much to the world and to ourselves; we
owe it to the cause of peace and good order the world over.
But I am credibly informed that those Islands are self-supporting and that the only item in which the expenditures exceed the receipts is in the difference of cost between maintaining an army there and at home. Certainly that difference is not worthy of consideration by a nation of our
resources and of our large responsibilities to the world.
55




Objection is raised against our continuing to rule a people 8ooo miles away. In answer I would say that when we
acquired California in I847 President Polk is said to have
remarked that a territory so far removed from what was
then the United States would be a doubtful possession. We
know now how fallacious was his reasoning. Although the
Philippine-Islands are so far removed from us geographically, it is easier for us today to reach Manila than it was 60
years ago to go from New York to San Francisco, and, in
fact, it might be said.that we are in hourly communication
with the islands by cable."
Overland, n.s. 52: 175-180. August, 90o8.
Ten Years After: Have we Failed in the Philippines?
George Amos Miller.
A decade is a short period in a nation's life, but it is
long enough to inaugurate a policy, and its close may be a
good time to take a trial balance of the most remarkable
colonial experiment in all history. We began in the Philippine Islands by breaking the Spanish yoke, and we have
continued by trying to compress into a single generation
the whole age-long evolution of humanity.
I. We have established peace.
2. We have administered justice.
3. We have improved the public health.
4. We have provided popular education.
5. We have instituted religious liberty.
6. We have inaugurated an era of industrial development.7. We have protected the- Filipino from  exploitation.
8. We have begun to develop a middle class.
9. We have promised these people — their independence
and we have already granted them progressive self-government.
Io. We have elevated labor.
These ten things we have done, or are in process of doing. None of them are finished, the final form of no one of
them may be now predicted, but they indicate the direction
of our path.
56