1Some credit should also be given to the Royal Philippine Company (Real Compañía de Filipinas), which, though unsuccessful financially, stimulated considerably the development of Philippine agriculture between 1790 and 1820, after which year it did little until its dissolution.↑2Comyn’sEstadosays that in 1810 the number of Spaniards, born in the Peninsula or elsewhere, and of Spanishmestizos, of both sexes and all ages, classes, and occupations, did not exceed 3,500 to 4,000. Diaz Arenas (Memorías históricas y estadísticas de Filipinas; Manila, 1850) quotes official figures showing 293 Spaniards settled in the provinces, outside of Manila and Tondo, in 1848; and he records 7,544 as the number of Spanish mestizos in the islands, including Tondo, as Manila province was then called. Cavada (Historia geográfica, geológica y estadística de Filipinas; Manila, 1876), taking his figures apparently from the governmental statistics as to houses and their occupants for 1870, gives for that year 3,823 Spaniards (all but 516 of them males) from the Peninsula, and 9,710 “Filipino-Spaniards,” the latter classification apparently including Spanish mestizos with such pure-blooded Spaniards as had been born in the Philippines. Among his Peninsular Spaniards would be included over 1,000 members of religious orders, an approximately equal number of soldiers, and the civil officials of Spanish blood (except a relatively small number born in the islands themselves, mostly in the minor categories of officials). J. F. del Pan (La poblacion de Filipinas; Manila, 1883), and F. Cañamaque (Las íslas Filipinas; Madrid, 1880) both report the parochial statistics of 1876 as showing the total of Spaniards, apart from members of the religious orders, the civil service, and the army and navy, to be 13,265; Cañamaque speaks of this latter class as “Spaniards without official character (Peninsulars and Filipinos),” and Del Pan calls them “persons not subject to the capitation-tax on account of being of the Spanish race.” At least some of the Spanish mestizos in the islands would appear to have been included in this total. A statistical résumé for 1898 (La Política de España en Filipinas, 1898, pp. 87–92) gives the number of Spaniards in the Philippines at the end of Spanish rule as 34,000 (of whom 5,800 are credited as officers and employees of governments, 3,800 as the normal number of Spaniards in army and navy, and 1,700 as of the clerical estate). These figures, like various other estimates in pamphlets of recent years, are considerably exaggerated; they are reconcilable only on the supposition that they include not only Spaniards of Philippine birth, but also Spanish mestizos. In 1903, only 3,888 Peninsular Spaniards were found in the archipelago. The census of 1896 would have shown separately Spaniards and Spanish mestizos; but it was not completed for all provinces, and has never been published. The foregoing estimates and figures do, however, show the great relative increase of Spaniards and Spanish influence in the Philippines in the latter part of the nineteenth century.Apropos of Mr. LeRoy’s note the following is of interest as regards the population of the eighteenth century. “The number of Spaniards who are in the part of Manila not occupied by the friars is very inconsiderable; in 1767, they did not exceed eight hundred persons. It can be said that the friars are masters of the city, for all the houses, except perhaps five or six, belong to them. This makes a fine revenue for them, since the houses are very dear—from two hundred to four hundred piasters (one thousand to two thousand livres). They are still dearer in the suburb of Santa Cruz, where they are worth at least five hundred piasters, for it is there that all the foreign merchants from India or China lodge. Manila is still peopled by the Tagálogs, who are the natives at once of this city and of its bishopric; the Tagálogs serve the Spaniards as domestics, or live by some petty trade or occupation.” (Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 104.)—Eds.↑3“The Spanish-Filipino Bank, the oldest bank in the islands, was founded (1852) by an order of the Spanish government uniting theobras píasfunds of the four orders of friars in the Philippines.” (Census of Philippine Islands, iv, p. 541).—Eds.↑4In the tariff revision of 1891, Spanish goods in Spanish ships were made free of customs duties in Philippine ports; prior to that time they had, as a rule, paid one-half the duties assessed on foreign goods.↑5In 1898, for instance, when the war with the United States began, the governor-general of the Philippines who had recently negotiated a peace with the insurgent chiefs, had just turned over his place to a new man, a stranger in the islands, and sailed for home. The new Liberal administration, which came into power in Spain in October, 1897, had also sent to the Philippines a new set of provincial governors, to take the place of men who had served, in many cases, less than two years. Some of these new governors had not gone to their posts when Commodore Dewey’s squadron arrived, and they were consequently blockaded in Manila.↑6This was accomplished on December 31, 1882—(but seepost, p. 141).—Eds.↑7F. Jagor,Reisen in den Philippinen(Berlin, 1873), p. 287.Also of interest in this connection are Jagor’s remarks in the following two citations from the same book (pp. 288 and 289, respectively). “Government monopolies mercilessly administered, grievous disregard of the creoles and the rich mestizos, and the example of the United States, these were the principal causes of the loss of the American possessions [of Spain]; and the same causes are menacing the Philippines also. Of the monopolies sufficient account has been given in the text. Mestizos and creoles are not, it is true, shut out, as formerly in America, from all offices; but they feel that they are deeply injured and despoiled by the crowds of office seekers whom the frequent changes of ministersat Madrid bring to Manila. Also the influence of the American elements is at least discernible on the horizon, and will come more to the front as the relations of the two countries grow closer. At present these are still of little importance; in the meantime commerce follows its old routes, which lead to England and the Atlantic ports of the Union. Nevertheless, he who attempts to form a judgment as to the future destiny of the Philippines cannot fix his gaze only on their relations to Spain; he must also consider the mighty changes which within a few decades are being effected on that side of our planet. For the first time in the world’s history, the gigantic nations on both sides of a gigantic ocean are beginning to come into direct intercourse: Russia, which alone is greater than two divisions of the world together; China, which within her narrow bounds contains a third of the human race; America, with cultivable soil enough to support almost three times the entire population of the earth. Russia’s future rôle in the Pacific Ocean at present baffles all calculations. The intercourse of the two other powers will probably have all the more important consequences when the adjustment between the immeasurable necessity for human labor-power on the one hand, and a correspondingly great surplus of that power on the other, shall fall on it as a problem.” “But in proportion as the commerce of the western coast of America extends the influence of the American elements over the South Sea, the ensnaring spell which the great republic exercises over the Spanish colonies will not fail to assert itself in the Philippines also. The Americans appear to be called upon to bring the germ planted by the Spaniards to its full development. As conquerors of the New World, representatives of the body of free citizens in contradistinction to the nobility, they follow with the axe and plow of the pioneer where the Spaniards had opened the way with cross and sword. A considerable part of Spanish America already belongs to the United States, and has, since that occurred, attained an importance which could not have been anticipated either during Spanish rule or during the anarchy which ensued after and from it. In the long run, the Spanish system cannot prevail over the American. While the former exhausts the colonies through direct appropriation of them to the privileged classes, and the metropolis through the drain of its best forces (with, besides, a feeble population), America draws to itself the most energetic elements from all lands; and these on her soil, free from all trammels, and restlessly pushing forward, are continually extending further her power and influence.The Philippines will so much the less escape the influence of the two great neighboring empires, since neither the islands nor their metropolis are in a condition of stable equilibrium. It seems desirable for the natives that the opinions here expressed shall not too soon be realized as facts, for their training thus far has not sufficiently prepared them for success in the contest with those restless, active, most inconsiderate peoples; they have dreamed away their youth.” Some writers have carried the evolution one step farther, as for instance, the following: See Count Edward Wilczek’s interesting study on “The historical importance of the Pacific Ocean,” in H. F. Helmolt’sHistory of the World(N. Y., 1902), i, pp. 566–599; he predicts a future contest which “will have to decide whether, by the permanent occupation of the northern Pacific, the white race shall accomplish its world-embracing destiny, or whether, with the goal already in sight, and for the first time in its history, it will have to make way for a stronger”—that is, for the yellow race, in the form of Japan and China.—Eds.↑8See the most important of these decrees in our educational appendix,VOL. XLVI.—Eds.↑9In 1899 and 1900, the American government continued the subsidies to the Jesuits to sustain the normal school and Manila Ateneo. With the establishment, however, of an educational system under the Taft Commission, the subsidy to the Ateneo was withdrawn and a Manila public high school established. The normal school was established in the old buildings of the exposition of 1887, and was the first special school organized under Dr. Atkinson. The vacation normal school is due to Dr. Barrows, who established it in the spring vacation of 1901, in order that the teachers from the provinces might be gathered together for brief instruction in new methods, exchange of ideas, and general inspiration. The regular normal school has been a very notable feature since 1901, and in some ways the most striking thing in the new school system. Its woman’s dormitory has been a center of Filipino gatherings and a constant theme of praise by the Filipino press. (From a previous communication to the Editors by J. A. LeRoy.) SeeVOL. XLVI, p. 95, note.—Eds.↑10This exchange of Mindanao missions by the Recollects for parishes in and around Manila and in Mindoro was closely connected with the pro-seculars’ campaign made in Manila and Madrid at that time—Father Burgos of the Cathedral standing out preëminently on behalf of his fellows the native priests, a direct step in the way toward his execution in connection with the Cavite mutiny of 1872. (James A. LeRoy, in a personal letter dated January 6, 1906.) SeeXXVIII, pp. 342, 343.—Eds.↑11Seepost, pp. 170, 171, note 119. With the three priests was also executed one Francisco Saldúa. Máximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraíso, and Crisanto de los Reyes were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Others were also condemned to death, some of whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The following persons were deported to Marianas: Antonio María Regidor, 8 years; Máximo Paterno; Agustín Mendoza, parish priest of the district of Santa Cruz de Manila; Joaquín Pardo de Tavera, a regidor of Manila and university professor, 6 years. Some of the latter and others lost their qualification as advocates of the Audiencia.—Eds.↑12In a pamphlet by Manrique A. Lallave (Madrid, 1872), an ex-Dominican missionary from Filipinas, he declares that “the friars at that time possessed property to the value of eleven millions of pesos fuertes.” (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, no. 1846.)—Eds.↑13Seepost, p. 182.—Eds.↑14Bibliography of the Philippine Islands(Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress:A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and theBiblioteca Filipinaof Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, seeVOL. LIIIof this series.↑15Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found inBibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.↑16Particularly hisLas colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1880).↑17It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.↑18El Diario de Manilawas established in 1848, a name which was changed toEl Boletin oficial de Filipinasin 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers calledEl Comerciowere founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869;La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeededEl Porvenir Filipino);La Voz Españolawas founded in 1888 under the name ofLa Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana’sEl periodismo.—Eds.↑19See also Griffin’sListfor a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)—Eds.↑20Retana reproduced thisReglamento de Asuntos de Imprentaof 1857 in volume i of theArchivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.↑21The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when “Reform and Revolution” are discussed.↑22Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17–22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.↑23Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 …(Manila, 1889).↑24For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson’sEl progreso de Filipinas(Madrid, 1881), pp. 175–186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census inReport of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.↑25If possible, Pardo de Tavera’s bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.—Eds.↑26See Library of CongressList, etc., pp. 9–11.↑27Cited in Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaas nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of CongressList, pp. 178–180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888–90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.↑28Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin’sReport on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines(Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.↑29A 36-page pamphlet,Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands(London,1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.↑30Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898(Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams inOfficial Handbook of the Philippines(Manila, 1903); in other respects theHandbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.↑31According to Retana, who cites thisInforme emitido … sobre bancos hipotecarios(Madrid, 1889) in theEstadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.↑32Following are special citations from hisEl progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81–89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48–53, 54–56, 57–66, 222–223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873–74, pp. 187–204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212–223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223–237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253–254; land measures in use, pp. 257–258.↑33The intemperate and fantastic writings of “Quioquiap” (Pablo Feced) inEl Diario de ManilaandLa Política de España en Filipinasare in point.↑34See alsoibid., i, pp. 150–159.↑35These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in theMonthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented inBulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture(Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.↑36El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238–244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245–249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253–255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255–258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).↑37Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.↑38It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.↑39InReport of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487–503; andibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71–87.↑40See M. Sastrón,La insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the ’80’s and 1893.↑41It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.↑42List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin’sColonial administration, 1800–1900(fromSummary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor March, 1903).↑43TheStatesman’s Yearbookand such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’sLegislación militar(Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’sMemoria sobre la Marina(Manila, 1887), both cited in theBibliography.↑44Published inLa España Oriental, Manila, 1893, andLa Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.↑45It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only theframeworkof that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.↑46Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching ofreligion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds.↑47Pedro A. Paterno’sRegimen municipal de las islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.↑48Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.↑49Notes from hisProgreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life in Town and Country(New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in theAtlantic Monthlyfor March, 1905.↑50Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces.↑51Note especiallyMilitary Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs(Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79et seq.See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131.↑52Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. SeeLa Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularlyEl Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to theobras píasin 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from theobras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government!↑53The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See hisProgreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in theBiblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper.↑54Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in theEstadismo, apéndice H, underRentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewisenettotals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the titlePresupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume ofPresupuestospublished at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail theexpecteditems of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only theestimateof the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, thesePresupuestosbear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They arenotbudgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get totalnetcollections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.↑55The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to thePolitical Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’sLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’sOur Philippine Problem(New York, 1905), and hisRejoinderto Mr. Willis’sReplyto that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in hisReply(pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’sRejoinder.—Eds.↑56In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, seeSenate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16;ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum);Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’sLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.↑57Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’sThe Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines(Washington, 1900).↑58Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1770.↑59Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.↑60See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.↑61It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.↑62Especially in the appendix ofVOL. XLI.—Eds.↑63Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379–398).↑64La Política de España en Filipinasreproduces Retana’s eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco’s letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake.Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.↑65The reports are in the annualReport of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks’sThe Bontoc Igorot(Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.↑66Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a “right-about-face,” as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of theArchivo(1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a “Liberal” at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced fromEl Grito del Puebloof Manila inEl Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a “saint,” etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in theSpringfield Republicanfor July 7, 1906.In this connection see Retana’s opening paragraphs in hisVida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, inNuestro Tiempofor 1904–06.—EDS.↑67This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in theNorth American Reviewof Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483–498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in thePolitical Science Quarterlyfor December, 1903 (also in the same author’sPhilippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also,in reextreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson,El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212–223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.↑68The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars’ titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.↑69The political phase of the attack on the friars’ privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars’ side in the pamphletApuntes interesantes(1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave,Los frailes en Filipinas(Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced inEl progreso, Manila, August 8–11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).↑70See theBiblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author’s judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author’sMi último grito de alarma(Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer toConstitución apostólica Quae mare sinico(Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope’s Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part inImpugnación de la censura impuesta … al Presbítero Adriano García(Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle’s time. Here and inDefensa del clero filipinoare references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.↑71Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.↑72For the latter, consult especiallyLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphletDocumentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente(Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under theMalolosgovernment and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay’s part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).↑73See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements toEl Renacimientofor Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.↑74Note especially Rizal’s introduction to his novelEl Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an “Appeal for Intervention” presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.Rizal dedicated his novelEl filibusterismoto the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: “The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!” See J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life, pp. 149, 150.—Eds.↑75No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaunder these names, and see his version inCensus of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575–579. HisReseña histórica de Filipinassuffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of theCensus, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodicalLibertas(by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.↑76As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and “patriotic” Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on “Mi patria” (“My fatherland”).↑77Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.↑78Marcelo del Pilar’s pamphletLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphletAvisos y profecías(Madrid, 1892), pp. 286–308. See also Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1597–1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar’s pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:“The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future.”↑79Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for “assimilation,” religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the “Maura law.”↑80Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler’s action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” pp. 194–195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious “holding companies”) before 1898.↑81One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal’s private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.↑82Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda,España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentionedAng Kalayaan(“Liberty”) organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana’sArchivo, iv,Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphletDiscursos y artículos varios(Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.↑83Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters inPlaridel(pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. BesidesLa SolidaridadandLa soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphletsLa frailocracía filipina(Barcelona, 1889), andLos frailes en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1889), by “Padpiuh.”↑84The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an “adaptation” from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the “story” and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.↑85The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana’s recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.↑86There must also be seen the collectionsDocumentos políticos de actualidadin Retana’sArchivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal’s trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced—the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)—use has been made in Retana’s latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal’s execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially:La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal’s letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman);La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899;La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced fromLa Solidaridad;La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901–06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos);El Renacimiento, same dates;ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana);ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce);ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late);La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal’s correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).
1Some credit should also be given to the Royal Philippine Company (Real Compañía de Filipinas), which, though unsuccessful financially, stimulated considerably the development of Philippine agriculture between 1790 and 1820, after which year it did little until its dissolution.↑2Comyn’sEstadosays that in 1810 the number of Spaniards, born in the Peninsula or elsewhere, and of Spanishmestizos, of both sexes and all ages, classes, and occupations, did not exceed 3,500 to 4,000. Diaz Arenas (Memorías históricas y estadísticas de Filipinas; Manila, 1850) quotes official figures showing 293 Spaniards settled in the provinces, outside of Manila and Tondo, in 1848; and he records 7,544 as the number of Spanish mestizos in the islands, including Tondo, as Manila province was then called. Cavada (Historia geográfica, geológica y estadística de Filipinas; Manila, 1876), taking his figures apparently from the governmental statistics as to houses and their occupants for 1870, gives for that year 3,823 Spaniards (all but 516 of them males) from the Peninsula, and 9,710 “Filipino-Spaniards,” the latter classification apparently including Spanish mestizos with such pure-blooded Spaniards as had been born in the Philippines. Among his Peninsular Spaniards would be included over 1,000 members of religious orders, an approximately equal number of soldiers, and the civil officials of Spanish blood (except a relatively small number born in the islands themselves, mostly in the minor categories of officials). J. F. del Pan (La poblacion de Filipinas; Manila, 1883), and F. Cañamaque (Las íslas Filipinas; Madrid, 1880) both report the parochial statistics of 1876 as showing the total of Spaniards, apart from members of the religious orders, the civil service, and the army and navy, to be 13,265; Cañamaque speaks of this latter class as “Spaniards without official character (Peninsulars and Filipinos),” and Del Pan calls them “persons not subject to the capitation-tax on account of being of the Spanish race.” At least some of the Spanish mestizos in the islands would appear to have been included in this total. A statistical résumé for 1898 (La Política de España en Filipinas, 1898, pp. 87–92) gives the number of Spaniards in the Philippines at the end of Spanish rule as 34,000 (of whom 5,800 are credited as officers and employees of governments, 3,800 as the normal number of Spaniards in army and navy, and 1,700 as of the clerical estate). These figures, like various other estimates in pamphlets of recent years, are considerably exaggerated; they are reconcilable only on the supposition that they include not only Spaniards of Philippine birth, but also Spanish mestizos. In 1903, only 3,888 Peninsular Spaniards were found in the archipelago. The census of 1896 would have shown separately Spaniards and Spanish mestizos; but it was not completed for all provinces, and has never been published. The foregoing estimates and figures do, however, show the great relative increase of Spaniards and Spanish influence in the Philippines in the latter part of the nineteenth century.Apropos of Mr. LeRoy’s note the following is of interest as regards the population of the eighteenth century. “The number of Spaniards who are in the part of Manila not occupied by the friars is very inconsiderable; in 1767, they did not exceed eight hundred persons. It can be said that the friars are masters of the city, for all the houses, except perhaps five or six, belong to them. This makes a fine revenue for them, since the houses are very dear—from two hundred to four hundred piasters (one thousand to two thousand livres). They are still dearer in the suburb of Santa Cruz, where they are worth at least five hundred piasters, for it is there that all the foreign merchants from India or China lodge. Manila is still peopled by the Tagálogs, who are the natives at once of this city and of its bishopric; the Tagálogs serve the Spaniards as domestics, or live by some petty trade or occupation.” (Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 104.)—Eds.↑3“The Spanish-Filipino Bank, the oldest bank in the islands, was founded (1852) by an order of the Spanish government uniting theobras píasfunds of the four orders of friars in the Philippines.” (Census of Philippine Islands, iv, p. 541).—Eds.↑4In the tariff revision of 1891, Spanish goods in Spanish ships were made free of customs duties in Philippine ports; prior to that time they had, as a rule, paid one-half the duties assessed on foreign goods.↑5In 1898, for instance, when the war with the United States began, the governor-general of the Philippines who had recently negotiated a peace with the insurgent chiefs, had just turned over his place to a new man, a stranger in the islands, and sailed for home. The new Liberal administration, which came into power in Spain in October, 1897, had also sent to the Philippines a new set of provincial governors, to take the place of men who had served, in many cases, less than two years. Some of these new governors had not gone to their posts when Commodore Dewey’s squadron arrived, and they were consequently blockaded in Manila.↑6This was accomplished on December 31, 1882—(but seepost, p. 141).—Eds.↑7F. Jagor,Reisen in den Philippinen(Berlin, 1873), p. 287.Also of interest in this connection are Jagor’s remarks in the following two citations from the same book (pp. 288 and 289, respectively). “Government monopolies mercilessly administered, grievous disregard of the creoles and the rich mestizos, and the example of the United States, these were the principal causes of the loss of the American possessions [of Spain]; and the same causes are menacing the Philippines also. Of the monopolies sufficient account has been given in the text. Mestizos and creoles are not, it is true, shut out, as formerly in America, from all offices; but they feel that they are deeply injured and despoiled by the crowds of office seekers whom the frequent changes of ministersat Madrid bring to Manila. Also the influence of the American elements is at least discernible on the horizon, and will come more to the front as the relations of the two countries grow closer. At present these are still of little importance; in the meantime commerce follows its old routes, which lead to England and the Atlantic ports of the Union. Nevertheless, he who attempts to form a judgment as to the future destiny of the Philippines cannot fix his gaze only on their relations to Spain; he must also consider the mighty changes which within a few decades are being effected on that side of our planet. For the first time in the world’s history, the gigantic nations on both sides of a gigantic ocean are beginning to come into direct intercourse: Russia, which alone is greater than two divisions of the world together; China, which within her narrow bounds contains a third of the human race; America, with cultivable soil enough to support almost three times the entire population of the earth. Russia’s future rôle in the Pacific Ocean at present baffles all calculations. The intercourse of the two other powers will probably have all the more important consequences when the adjustment between the immeasurable necessity for human labor-power on the one hand, and a correspondingly great surplus of that power on the other, shall fall on it as a problem.” “But in proportion as the commerce of the western coast of America extends the influence of the American elements over the South Sea, the ensnaring spell which the great republic exercises over the Spanish colonies will not fail to assert itself in the Philippines also. The Americans appear to be called upon to bring the germ planted by the Spaniards to its full development. As conquerors of the New World, representatives of the body of free citizens in contradistinction to the nobility, they follow with the axe and plow of the pioneer where the Spaniards had opened the way with cross and sword. A considerable part of Spanish America already belongs to the United States, and has, since that occurred, attained an importance which could not have been anticipated either during Spanish rule or during the anarchy which ensued after and from it. In the long run, the Spanish system cannot prevail over the American. While the former exhausts the colonies through direct appropriation of them to the privileged classes, and the metropolis through the drain of its best forces (with, besides, a feeble population), America draws to itself the most energetic elements from all lands; and these on her soil, free from all trammels, and restlessly pushing forward, are continually extending further her power and influence.The Philippines will so much the less escape the influence of the two great neighboring empires, since neither the islands nor their metropolis are in a condition of stable equilibrium. It seems desirable for the natives that the opinions here expressed shall not too soon be realized as facts, for their training thus far has not sufficiently prepared them for success in the contest with those restless, active, most inconsiderate peoples; they have dreamed away their youth.” Some writers have carried the evolution one step farther, as for instance, the following: See Count Edward Wilczek’s interesting study on “The historical importance of the Pacific Ocean,” in H. F. Helmolt’sHistory of the World(N. Y., 1902), i, pp. 566–599; he predicts a future contest which “will have to decide whether, by the permanent occupation of the northern Pacific, the white race shall accomplish its world-embracing destiny, or whether, with the goal already in sight, and for the first time in its history, it will have to make way for a stronger”—that is, for the yellow race, in the form of Japan and China.—Eds.↑8See the most important of these decrees in our educational appendix,VOL. XLVI.—Eds.↑9In 1899 and 1900, the American government continued the subsidies to the Jesuits to sustain the normal school and Manila Ateneo. With the establishment, however, of an educational system under the Taft Commission, the subsidy to the Ateneo was withdrawn and a Manila public high school established. The normal school was established in the old buildings of the exposition of 1887, and was the first special school organized under Dr. Atkinson. The vacation normal school is due to Dr. Barrows, who established it in the spring vacation of 1901, in order that the teachers from the provinces might be gathered together for brief instruction in new methods, exchange of ideas, and general inspiration. The regular normal school has been a very notable feature since 1901, and in some ways the most striking thing in the new school system. Its woman’s dormitory has been a center of Filipino gatherings and a constant theme of praise by the Filipino press. (From a previous communication to the Editors by J. A. LeRoy.) SeeVOL. XLVI, p. 95, note.—Eds.↑10This exchange of Mindanao missions by the Recollects for parishes in and around Manila and in Mindoro was closely connected with the pro-seculars’ campaign made in Manila and Madrid at that time—Father Burgos of the Cathedral standing out preëminently on behalf of his fellows the native priests, a direct step in the way toward his execution in connection with the Cavite mutiny of 1872. (James A. LeRoy, in a personal letter dated January 6, 1906.) SeeXXVIII, pp. 342, 343.—Eds.↑11Seepost, pp. 170, 171, note 119. With the three priests was also executed one Francisco Saldúa. Máximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraíso, and Crisanto de los Reyes were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Others were also condemned to death, some of whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The following persons were deported to Marianas: Antonio María Regidor, 8 years; Máximo Paterno; Agustín Mendoza, parish priest of the district of Santa Cruz de Manila; Joaquín Pardo de Tavera, a regidor of Manila and university professor, 6 years. Some of the latter and others lost their qualification as advocates of the Audiencia.—Eds.↑12In a pamphlet by Manrique A. Lallave (Madrid, 1872), an ex-Dominican missionary from Filipinas, he declares that “the friars at that time possessed property to the value of eleven millions of pesos fuertes.” (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, no. 1846.)—Eds.↑13Seepost, p. 182.—Eds.↑14Bibliography of the Philippine Islands(Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress:A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and theBiblioteca Filipinaof Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, seeVOL. LIIIof this series.↑15Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found inBibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.↑16Particularly hisLas colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1880).↑17It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.↑18El Diario de Manilawas established in 1848, a name which was changed toEl Boletin oficial de Filipinasin 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers calledEl Comerciowere founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869;La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeededEl Porvenir Filipino);La Voz Españolawas founded in 1888 under the name ofLa Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana’sEl periodismo.—Eds.↑19See also Griffin’sListfor a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)—Eds.↑20Retana reproduced thisReglamento de Asuntos de Imprentaof 1857 in volume i of theArchivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.↑21The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when “Reform and Revolution” are discussed.↑22Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17–22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.↑23Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 …(Manila, 1889).↑24For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson’sEl progreso de Filipinas(Madrid, 1881), pp. 175–186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census inReport of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.↑25If possible, Pardo de Tavera’s bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.—Eds.↑26See Library of CongressList, etc., pp. 9–11.↑27Cited in Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaas nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of CongressList, pp. 178–180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888–90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.↑28Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin’sReport on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines(Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.↑29A 36-page pamphlet,Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands(London,1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.↑30Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898(Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams inOfficial Handbook of the Philippines(Manila, 1903); in other respects theHandbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.↑31According to Retana, who cites thisInforme emitido … sobre bancos hipotecarios(Madrid, 1889) in theEstadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.↑32Following are special citations from hisEl progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81–89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48–53, 54–56, 57–66, 222–223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873–74, pp. 187–204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212–223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223–237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253–254; land measures in use, pp. 257–258.↑33The intemperate and fantastic writings of “Quioquiap” (Pablo Feced) inEl Diario de ManilaandLa Política de España en Filipinasare in point.↑34See alsoibid., i, pp. 150–159.↑35These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in theMonthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented inBulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture(Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.↑36El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238–244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245–249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253–255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255–258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).↑37Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.↑38It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.↑39InReport of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487–503; andibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71–87.↑40See M. Sastrón,La insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the ’80’s and 1893.↑41It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.↑42List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin’sColonial administration, 1800–1900(fromSummary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor March, 1903).↑43TheStatesman’s Yearbookand such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’sLegislación militar(Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’sMemoria sobre la Marina(Manila, 1887), both cited in theBibliography.↑44Published inLa España Oriental, Manila, 1893, andLa Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.↑45It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only theframeworkof that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.↑46Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching ofreligion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds.↑47Pedro A. Paterno’sRegimen municipal de las islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.↑48Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.↑49Notes from hisProgreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life in Town and Country(New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in theAtlantic Monthlyfor March, 1905.↑50Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces.↑51Note especiallyMilitary Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs(Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79et seq.See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131.↑52Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. SeeLa Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularlyEl Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to theobras píasin 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from theobras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government!↑53The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See hisProgreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in theBiblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper.↑54Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in theEstadismo, apéndice H, underRentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewisenettotals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the titlePresupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume ofPresupuestospublished at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail theexpecteditems of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only theestimateof the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, thesePresupuestosbear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They arenotbudgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get totalnetcollections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.↑55The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to thePolitical Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’sLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’sOur Philippine Problem(New York, 1905), and hisRejoinderto Mr. Willis’sReplyto that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in hisReply(pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’sRejoinder.—Eds.↑56In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, seeSenate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16;ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum);Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’sLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.↑57Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’sThe Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines(Washington, 1900).↑58Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1770.↑59Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.↑60See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.↑61It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.↑62Especially in the appendix ofVOL. XLI.—Eds.↑63Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379–398).↑64La Política de España en Filipinasreproduces Retana’s eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco’s letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake.Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.↑65The reports are in the annualReport of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks’sThe Bontoc Igorot(Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.↑66Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a “right-about-face,” as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of theArchivo(1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a “Liberal” at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced fromEl Grito del Puebloof Manila inEl Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a “saint,” etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in theSpringfield Republicanfor July 7, 1906.In this connection see Retana’s opening paragraphs in hisVida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, inNuestro Tiempofor 1904–06.—EDS.↑67This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in theNorth American Reviewof Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483–498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in thePolitical Science Quarterlyfor December, 1903 (also in the same author’sPhilippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also,in reextreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson,El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212–223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.↑68The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars’ titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.↑69The political phase of the attack on the friars’ privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars’ side in the pamphletApuntes interesantes(1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave,Los frailes en Filipinas(Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced inEl progreso, Manila, August 8–11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).↑70See theBiblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author’s judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author’sMi último grito de alarma(Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer toConstitución apostólica Quae mare sinico(Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope’s Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part inImpugnación de la censura impuesta … al Presbítero Adriano García(Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle’s time. Here and inDefensa del clero filipinoare references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.↑71Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.↑72For the latter, consult especiallyLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphletDocumentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente(Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under theMalolosgovernment and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay’s part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).↑73See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements toEl Renacimientofor Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.↑74Note especially Rizal’s introduction to his novelEl Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an “Appeal for Intervention” presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.Rizal dedicated his novelEl filibusterismoto the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: “The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!” See J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life, pp. 149, 150.—Eds.↑75No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaunder these names, and see his version inCensus of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575–579. HisReseña histórica de Filipinassuffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of theCensus, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodicalLibertas(by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.↑76As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and “patriotic” Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on “Mi patria” (“My fatherland”).↑77Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.↑78Marcelo del Pilar’s pamphletLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphletAvisos y profecías(Madrid, 1892), pp. 286–308. See also Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1597–1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar’s pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:“The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future.”↑79Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for “assimilation,” religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the “Maura law.”↑80Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler’s action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” pp. 194–195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious “holding companies”) before 1898.↑81One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal’s private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.↑82Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda,España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentionedAng Kalayaan(“Liberty”) organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana’sArchivo, iv,Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphletDiscursos y artículos varios(Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.↑83Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters inPlaridel(pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. BesidesLa SolidaridadandLa soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphletsLa frailocracía filipina(Barcelona, 1889), andLos frailes en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1889), by “Padpiuh.”↑84The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an “adaptation” from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the “story” and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.↑85The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana’s recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.↑86There must also be seen the collectionsDocumentos políticos de actualidadin Retana’sArchivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal’s trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced—the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)—use has been made in Retana’s latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal’s execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially:La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal’s letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman);La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899;La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced fromLa Solidaridad;La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901–06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos);El Renacimiento, same dates;ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana);ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce);ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late);La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal’s correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).
1Some credit should also be given to the Royal Philippine Company (Real Compañía de Filipinas), which, though unsuccessful financially, stimulated considerably the development of Philippine agriculture between 1790 and 1820, after which year it did little until its dissolution.↑2Comyn’sEstadosays that in 1810 the number of Spaniards, born in the Peninsula or elsewhere, and of Spanishmestizos, of both sexes and all ages, classes, and occupations, did not exceed 3,500 to 4,000. Diaz Arenas (Memorías históricas y estadísticas de Filipinas; Manila, 1850) quotes official figures showing 293 Spaniards settled in the provinces, outside of Manila and Tondo, in 1848; and he records 7,544 as the number of Spanish mestizos in the islands, including Tondo, as Manila province was then called. Cavada (Historia geográfica, geológica y estadística de Filipinas; Manila, 1876), taking his figures apparently from the governmental statistics as to houses and their occupants for 1870, gives for that year 3,823 Spaniards (all but 516 of them males) from the Peninsula, and 9,710 “Filipino-Spaniards,” the latter classification apparently including Spanish mestizos with such pure-blooded Spaniards as had been born in the Philippines. Among his Peninsular Spaniards would be included over 1,000 members of religious orders, an approximately equal number of soldiers, and the civil officials of Spanish blood (except a relatively small number born in the islands themselves, mostly in the minor categories of officials). J. F. del Pan (La poblacion de Filipinas; Manila, 1883), and F. Cañamaque (Las íslas Filipinas; Madrid, 1880) both report the parochial statistics of 1876 as showing the total of Spaniards, apart from members of the religious orders, the civil service, and the army and navy, to be 13,265; Cañamaque speaks of this latter class as “Spaniards without official character (Peninsulars and Filipinos),” and Del Pan calls them “persons not subject to the capitation-tax on account of being of the Spanish race.” At least some of the Spanish mestizos in the islands would appear to have been included in this total. A statistical résumé for 1898 (La Política de España en Filipinas, 1898, pp. 87–92) gives the number of Spaniards in the Philippines at the end of Spanish rule as 34,000 (of whom 5,800 are credited as officers and employees of governments, 3,800 as the normal number of Spaniards in army and navy, and 1,700 as of the clerical estate). These figures, like various other estimates in pamphlets of recent years, are considerably exaggerated; they are reconcilable only on the supposition that they include not only Spaniards of Philippine birth, but also Spanish mestizos. In 1903, only 3,888 Peninsular Spaniards were found in the archipelago. The census of 1896 would have shown separately Spaniards and Spanish mestizos; but it was not completed for all provinces, and has never been published. The foregoing estimates and figures do, however, show the great relative increase of Spaniards and Spanish influence in the Philippines in the latter part of the nineteenth century.Apropos of Mr. LeRoy’s note the following is of interest as regards the population of the eighteenth century. “The number of Spaniards who are in the part of Manila not occupied by the friars is very inconsiderable; in 1767, they did not exceed eight hundred persons. It can be said that the friars are masters of the city, for all the houses, except perhaps five or six, belong to them. This makes a fine revenue for them, since the houses are very dear—from two hundred to four hundred piasters (one thousand to two thousand livres). They are still dearer in the suburb of Santa Cruz, where they are worth at least five hundred piasters, for it is there that all the foreign merchants from India or China lodge. Manila is still peopled by the Tagálogs, who are the natives at once of this city and of its bishopric; the Tagálogs serve the Spaniards as domestics, or live by some petty trade or occupation.” (Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 104.)—Eds.↑3“The Spanish-Filipino Bank, the oldest bank in the islands, was founded (1852) by an order of the Spanish government uniting theobras píasfunds of the four orders of friars in the Philippines.” (Census of Philippine Islands, iv, p. 541).—Eds.↑4In the tariff revision of 1891, Spanish goods in Spanish ships were made free of customs duties in Philippine ports; prior to that time they had, as a rule, paid one-half the duties assessed on foreign goods.↑5In 1898, for instance, when the war with the United States began, the governor-general of the Philippines who had recently negotiated a peace with the insurgent chiefs, had just turned over his place to a new man, a stranger in the islands, and sailed for home. The new Liberal administration, which came into power in Spain in October, 1897, had also sent to the Philippines a new set of provincial governors, to take the place of men who had served, in many cases, less than two years. Some of these new governors had not gone to their posts when Commodore Dewey’s squadron arrived, and they were consequently blockaded in Manila.↑6This was accomplished on December 31, 1882—(but seepost, p. 141).—Eds.↑7F. Jagor,Reisen in den Philippinen(Berlin, 1873), p. 287.Also of interest in this connection are Jagor’s remarks in the following two citations from the same book (pp. 288 and 289, respectively). “Government monopolies mercilessly administered, grievous disregard of the creoles and the rich mestizos, and the example of the United States, these were the principal causes of the loss of the American possessions [of Spain]; and the same causes are menacing the Philippines also. Of the monopolies sufficient account has been given in the text. Mestizos and creoles are not, it is true, shut out, as formerly in America, from all offices; but they feel that they are deeply injured and despoiled by the crowds of office seekers whom the frequent changes of ministersat Madrid bring to Manila. Also the influence of the American elements is at least discernible on the horizon, and will come more to the front as the relations of the two countries grow closer. At present these are still of little importance; in the meantime commerce follows its old routes, which lead to England and the Atlantic ports of the Union. Nevertheless, he who attempts to form a judgment as to the future destiny of the Philippines cannot fix his gaze only on their relations to Spain; he must also consider the mighty changes which within a few decades are being effected on that side of our planet. For the first time in the world’s history, the gigantic nations on both sides of a gigantic ocean are beginning to come into direct intercourse: Russia, which alone is greater than two divisions of the world together; China, which within her narrow bounds contains a third of the human race; America, with cultivable soil enough to support almost three times the entire population of the earth. Russia’s future rôle in the Pacific Ocean at present baffles all calculations. The intercourse of the two other powers will probably have all the more important consequences when the adjustment between the immeasurable necessity for human labor-power on the one hand, and a correspondingly great surplus of that power on the other, shall fall on it as a problem.” “But in proportion as the commerce of the western coast of America extends the influence of the American elements over the South Sea, the ensnaring spell which the great republic exercises over the Spanish colonies will not fail to assert itself in the Philippines also. The Americans appear to be called upon to bring the germ planted by the Spaniards to its full development. As conquerors of the New World, representatives of the body of free citizens in contradistinction to the nobility, they follow with the axe and plow of the pioneer where the Spaniards had opened the way with cross and sword. A considerable part of Spanish America already belongs to the United States, and has, since that occurred, attained an importance which could not have been anticipated either during Spanish rule or during the anarchy which ensued after and from it. In the long run, the Spanish system cannot prevail over the American. While the former exhausts the colonies through direct appropriation of them to the privileged classes, and the metropolis through the drain of its best forces (with, besides, a feeble population), America draws to itself the most energetic elements from all lands; and these on her soil, free from all trammels, and restlessly pushing forward, are continually extending further her power and influence.The Philippines will so much the less escape the influence of the two great neighboring empires, since neither the islands nor their metropolis are in a condition of stable equilibrium. It seems desirable for the natives that the opinions here expressed shall not too soon be realized as facts, for their training thus far has not sufficiently prepared them for success in the contest with those restless, active, most inconsiderate peoples; they have dreamed away their youth.” Some writers have carried the evolution one step farther, as for instance, the following: See Count Edward Wilczek’s interesting study on “The historical importance of the Pacific Ocean,” in H. F. Helmolt’sHistory of the World(N. Y., 1902), i, pp. 566–599; he predicts a future contest which “will have to decide whether, by the permanent occupation of the northern Pacific, the white race shall accomplish its world-embracing destiny, or whether, with the goal already in sight, and for the first time in its history, it will have to make way for a stronger”—that is, for the yellow race, in the form of Japan and China.—Eds.↑8See the most important of these decrees in our educational appendix,VOL. XLVI.—Eds.↑9In 1899 and 1900, the American government continued the subsidies to the Jesuits to sustain the normal school and Manila Ateneo. With the establishment, however, of an educational system under the Taft Commission, the subsidy to the Ateneo was withdrawn and a Manila public high school established. The normal school was established in the old buildings of the exposition of 1887, and was the first special school organized under Dr. Atkinson. The vacation normal school is due to Dr. Barrows, who established it in the spring vacation of 1901, in order that the teachers from the provinces might be gathered together for brief instruction in new methods, exchange of ideas, and general inspiration. The regular normal school has been a very notable feature since 1901, and in some ways the most striking thing in the new school system. Its woman’s dormitory has been a center of Filipino gatherings and a constant theme of praise by the Filipino press. (From a previous communication to the Editors by J. A. LeRoy.) SeeVOL. XLVI, p. 95, note.—Eds.↑10This exchange of Mindanao missions by the Recollects for parishes in and around Manila and in Mindoro was closely connected with the pro-seculars’ campaign made in Manila and Madrid at that time—Father Burgos of the Cathedral standing out preëminently on behalf of his fellows the native priests, a direct step in the way toward his execution in connection with the Cavite mutiny of 1872. (James A. LeRoy, in a personal letter dated January 6, 1906.) SeeXXVIII, pp. 342, 343.—Eds.↑11Seepost, pp. 170, 171, note 119. With the three priests was also executed one Francisco Saldúa. Máximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraíso, and Crisanto de los Reyes were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Others were also condemned to death, some of whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The following persons were deported to Marianas: Antonio María Regidor, 8 years; Máximo Paterno; Agustín Mendoza, parish priest of the district of Santa Cruz de Manila; Joaquín Pardo de Tavera, a regidor of Manila and university professor, 6 years. Some of the latter and others lost their qualification as advocates of the Audiencia.—Eds.↑12In a pamphlet by Manrique A. Lallave (Madrid, 1872), an ex-Dominican missionary from Filipinas, he declares that “the friars at that time possessed property to the value of eleven millions of pesos fuertes.” (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, no. 1846.)—Eds.↑13Seepost, p. 182.—Eds.↑14Bibliography of the Philippine Islands(Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress:A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and theBiblioteca Filipinaof Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, seeVOL. LIIIof this series.↑15Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found inBibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.↑16Particularly hisLas colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1880).↑17It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.↑18El Diario de Manilawas established in 1848, a name which was changed toEl Boletin oficial de Filipinasin 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers calledEl Comerciowere founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869;La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeededEl Porvenir Filipino);La Voz Españolawas founded in 1888 under the name ofLa Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana’sEl periodismo.—Eds.↑19See also Griffin’sListfor a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)—Eds.↑20Retana reproduced thisReglamento de Asuntos de Imprentaof 1857 in volume i of theArchivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.↑21The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when “Reform and Revolution” are discussed.↑22Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17–22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.↑23Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 …(Manila, 1889).↑24For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson’sEl progreso de Filipinas(Madrid, 1881), pp. 175–186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census inReport of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.↑25If possible, Pardo de Tavera’s bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.—Eds.↑26See Library of CongressList, etc., pp. 9–11.↑27Cited in Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaas nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of CongressList, pp. 178–180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888–90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.↑28Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin’sReport on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines(Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.↑29A 36-page pamphlet,Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands(London,1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.↑30Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898(Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams inOfficial Handbook of the Philippines(Manila, 1903); in other respects theHandbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.↑31According to Retana, who cites thisInforme emitido … sobre bancos hipotecarios(Madrid, 1889) in theEstadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.↑32Following are special citations from hisEl progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81–89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48–53, 54–56, 57–66, 222–223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873–74, pp. 187–204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212–223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223–237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253–254; land measures in use, pp. 257–258.↑33The intemperate and fantastic writings of “Quioquiap” (Pablo Feced) inEl Diario de ManilaandLa Política de España en Filipinasare in point.↑34See alsoibid., i, pp. 150–159.↑35These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in theMonthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented inBulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture(Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.↑36El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238–244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245–249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253–255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255–258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).↑37Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.↑38It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.↑39InReport of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487–503; andibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71–87.↑40See M. Sastrón,La insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the ’80’s and 1893.↑41It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.↑42List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin’sColonial administration, 1800–1900(fromSummary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor March, 1903).↑43TheStatesman’s Yearbookand such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’sLegislación militar(Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’sMemoria sobre la Marina(Manila, 1887), both cited in theBibliography.↑44Published inLa España Oriental, Manila, 1893, andLa Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.↑45It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only theframeworkof that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.↑46Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching ofreligion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds.↑47Pedro A. Paterno’sRegimen municipal de las islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.↑48Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.↑49Notes from hisProgreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life in Town and Country(New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in theAtlantic Monthlyfor March, 1905.↑50Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces.↑51Note especiallyMilitary Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs(Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79et seq.See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131.↑52Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. SeeLa Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularlyEl Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to theobras píasin 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from theobras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government!↑53The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See hisProgreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in theBiblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper.↑54Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in theEstadismo, apéndice H, underRentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewisenettotals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the titlePresupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume ofPresupuestospublished at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail theexpecteditems of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only theestimateof the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, thesePresupuestosbear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They arenotbudgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get totalnetcollections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.↑55The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to thePolitical Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’sLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’sOur Philippine Problem(New York, 1905), and hisRejoinderto Mr. Willis’sReplyto that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in hisReply(pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’sRejoinder.—Eds.↑56In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, seeSenate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16;ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum);Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’sLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.↑57Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’sThe Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines(Washington, 1900).↑58Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1770.↑59Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.↑60See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.↑61It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.↑62Especially in the appendix ofVOL. XLI.—Eds.↑63Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379–398).↑64La Política de España en Filipinasreproduces Retana’s eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco’s letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake.Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.↑65The reports are in the annualReport of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks’sThe Bontoc Igorot(Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.↑66Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a “right-about-face,” as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of theArchivo(1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a “Liberal” at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced fromEl Grito del Puebloof Manila inEl Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a “saint,” etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in theSpringfield Republicanfor July 7, 1906.In this connection see Retana’s opening paragraphs in hisVida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, inNuestro Tiempofor 1904–06.—EDS.↑67This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in theNorth American Reviewof Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483–498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in thePolitical Science Quarterlyfor December, 1903 (also in the same author’sPhilippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also,in reextreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson,El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212–223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.↑68The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars’ titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.↑69The political phase of the attack on the friars’ privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars’ side in the pamphletApuntes interesantes(1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave,Los frailes en Filipinas(Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced inEl progreso, Manila, August 8–11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).↑70See theBiblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author’s judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author’sMi último grito de alarma(Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer toConstitución apostólica Quae mare sinico(Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope’s Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part inImpugnación de la censura impuesta … al Presbítero Adriano García(Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle’s time. Here and inDefensa del clero filipinoare references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.↑71Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.↑72For the latter, consult especiallyLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphletDocumentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente(Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under theMalolosgovernment and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay’s part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).↑73See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements toEl Renacimientofor Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.↑74Note especially Rizal’s introduction to his novelEl Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an “Appeal for Intervention” presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.Rizal dedicated his novelEl filibusterismoto the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: “The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!” See J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life, pp. 149, 150.—Eds.↑75No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaunder these names, and see his version inCensus of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575–579. HisReseña histórica de Filipinassuffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of theCensus, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodicalLibertas(by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.↑76As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and “patriotic” Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on “Mi patria” (“My fatherland”).↑77Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.↑78Marcelo del Pilar’s pamphletLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphletAvisos y profecías(Madrid, 1892), pp. 286–308. See also Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1597–1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar’s pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:“The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future.”↑79Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for “assimilation,” religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the “Maura law.”↑80Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler’s action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” pp. 194–195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious “holding companies”) before 1898.↑81One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal’s private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.↑82Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda,España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentionedAng Kalayaan(“Liberty”) organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana’sArchivo, iv,Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphletDiscursos y artículos varios(Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.↑83Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters inPlaridel(pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. BesidesLa SolidaridadandLa soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphletsLa frailocracía filipina(Barcelona, 1889), andLos frailes en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1889), by “Padpiuh.”↑84The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an “adaptation” from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the “story” and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.↑85The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana’s recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.↑86There must also be seen the collectionsDocumentos políticos de actualidadin Retana’sArchivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal’s trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced—the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)—use has been made in Retana’s latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal’s execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially:La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal’s letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman);La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899;La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced fromLa Solidaridad;La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901–06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos);El Renacimiento, same dates;ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana);ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce);ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late);La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal’s correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).
1Some credit should also be given to the Royal Philippine Company (Real Compañía de Filipinas), which, though unsuccessful financially, stimulated considerably the development of Philippine agriculture between 1790 and 1820, after which year it did little until its dissolution.↑2Comyn’sEstadosays that in 1810 the number of Spaniards, born in the Peninsula or elsewhere, and of Spanishmestizos, of both sexes and all ages, classes, and occupations, did not exceed 3,500 to 4,000. Diaz Arenas (Memorías históricas y estadísticas de Filipinas; Manila, 1850) quotes official figures showing 293 Spaniards settled in the provinces, outside of Manila and Tondo, in 1848; and he records 7,544 as the number of Spanish mestizos in the islands, including Tondo, as Manila province was then called. Cavada (Historia geográfica, geológica y estadística de Filipinas; Manila, 1876), taking his figures apparently from the governmental statistics as to houses and their occupants for 1870, gives for that year 3,823 Spaniards (all but 516 of them males) from the Peninsula, and 9,710 “Filipino-Spaniards,” the latter classification apparently including Spanish mestizos with such pure-blooded Spaniards as had been born in the Philippines. Among his Peninsular Spaniards would be included over 1,000 members of religious orders, an approximately equal number of soldiers, and the civil officials of Spanish blood (except a relatively small number born in the islands themselves, mostly in the minor categories of officials). J. F. del Pan (La poblacion de Filipinas; Manila, 1883), and F. Cañamaque (Las íslas Filipinas; Madrid, 1880) both report the parochial statistics of 1876 as showing the total of Spaniards, apart from members of the religious orders, the civil service, and the army and navy, to be 13,265; Cañamaque speaks of this latter class as “Spaniards without official character (Peninsulars and Filipinos),” and Del Pan calls them “persons not subject to the capitation-tax on account of being of the Spanish race.” At least some of the Spanish mestizos in the islands would appear to have been included in this total. A statistical résumé for 1898 (La Política de España en Filipinas, 1898, pp. 87–92) gives the number of Spaniards in the Philippines at the end of Spanish rule as 34,000 (of whom 5,800 are credited as officers and employees of governments, 3,800 as the normal number of Spaniards in army and navy, and 1,700 as of the clerical estate). These figures, like various other estimates in pamphlets of recent years, are considerably exaggerated; they are reconcilable only on the supposition that they include not only Spaniards of Philippine birth, but also Spanish mestizos. In 1903, only 3,888 Peninsular Spaniards were found in the archipelago. The census of 1896 would have shown separately Spaniards and Spanish mestizos; but it was not completed for all provinces, and has never been published. The foregoing estimates and figures do, however, show the great relative increase of Spaniards and Spanish influence in the Philippines in the latter part of the nineteenth century.Apropos of Mr. LeRoy’s note the following is of interest as regards the population of the eighteenth century. “The number of Spaniards who are in the part of Manila not occupied by the friars is very inconsiderable; in 1767, they did not exceed eight hundred persons. It can be said that the friars are masters of the city, for all the houses, except perhaps five or six, belong to them. This makes a fine revenue for them, since the houses are very dear—from two hundred to four hundred piasters (one thousand to two thousand livres). They are still dearer in the suburb of Santa Cruz, where they are worth at least five hundred piasters, for it is there that all the foreign merchants from India or China lodge. Manila is still peopled by the Tagálogs, who are the natives at once of this city and of its bishopric; the Tagálogs serve the Spaniards as domestics, or live by some petty trade or occupation.” (Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 104.)—Eds.↑3“The Spanish-Filipino Bank, the oldest bank in the islands, was founded (1852) by an order of the Spanish government uniting theobras píasfunds of the four orders of friars in the Philippines.” (Census of Philippine Islands, iv, p. 541).—Eds.↑4In the tariff revision of 1891, Spanish goods in Spanish ships were made free of customs duties in Philippine ports; prior to that time they had, as a rule, paid one-half the duties assessed on foreign goods.↑5In 1898, for instance, when the war with the United States began, the governor-general of the Philippines who had recently negotiated a peace with the insurgent chiefs, had just turned over his place to a new man, a stranger in the islands, and sailed for home. The new Liberal administration, which came into power in Spain in October, 1897, had also sent to the Philippines a new set of provincial governors, to take the place of men who had served, in many cases, less than two years. Some of these new governors had not gone to their posts when Commodore Dewey’s squadron arrived, and they were consequently blockaded in Manila.↑6This was accomplished on December 31, 1882—(but seepost, p. 141).—Eds.↑7F. Jagor,Reisen in den Philippinen(Berlin, 1873), p. 287.Also of interest in this connection are Jagor’s remarks in the following two citations from the same book (pp. 288 and 289, respectively). “Government monopolies mercilessly administered, grievous disregard of the creoles and the rich mestizos, and the example of the United States, these were the principal causes of the loss of the American possessions [of Spain]; and the same causes are menacing the Philippines also. Of the monopolies sufficient account has been given in the text. Mestizos and creoles are not, it is true, shut out, as formerly in America, from all offices; but they feel that they are deeply injured and despoiled by the crowds of office seekers whom the frequent changes of ministersat Madrid bring to Manila. Also the influence of the American elements is at least discernible on the horizon, and will come more to the front as the relations of the two countries grow closer. At present these are still of little importance; in the meantime commerce follows its old routes, which lead to England and the Atlantic ports of the Union. Nevertheless, he who attempts to form a judgment as to the future destiny of the Philippines cannot fix his gaze only on their relations to Spain; he must also consider the mighty changes which within a few decades are being effected on that side of our planet. For the first time in the world’s history, the gigantic nations on both sides of a gigantic ocean are beginning to come into direct intercourse: Russia, which alone is greater than two divisions of the world together; China, which within her narrow bounds contains a third of the human race; America, with cultivable soil enough to support almost three times the entire population of the earth. Russia’s future rôle in the Pacific Ocean at present baffles all calculations. The intercourse of the two other powers will probably have all the more important consequences when the adjustment between the immeasurable necessity for human labor-power on the one hand, and a correspondingly great surplus of that power on the other, shall fall on it as a problem.” “But in proportion as the commerce of the western coast of America extends the influence of the American elements over the South Sea, the ensnaring spell which the great republic exercises over the Spanish colonies will not fail to assert itself in the Philippines also. The Americans appear to be called upon to bring the germ planted by the Spaniards to its full development. As conquerors of the New World, representatives of the body of free citizens in contradistinction to the nobility, they follow with the axe and plow of the pioneer where the Spaniards had opened the way with cross and sword. A considerable part of Spanish America already belongs to the United States, and has, since that occurred, attained an importance which could not have been anticipated either during Spanish rule or during the anarchy which ensued after and from it. In the long run, the Spanish system cannot prevail over the American. While the former exhausts the colonies through direct appropriation of them to the privileged classes, and the metropolis through the drain of its best forces (with, besides, a feeble population), America draws to itself the most energetic elements from all lands; and these on her soil, free from all trammels, and restlessly pushing forward, are continually extending further her power and influence.The Philippines will so much the less escape the influence of the two great neighboring empires, since neither the islands nor their metropolis are in a condition of stable equilibrium. It seems desirable for the natives that the opinions here expressed shall not too soon be realized as facts, for their training thus far has not sufficiently prepared them for success in the contest with those restless, active, most inconsiderate peoples; they have dreamed away their youth.” Some writers have carried the evolution one step farther, as for instance, the following: See Count Edward Wilczek’s interesting study on “The historical importance of the Pacific Ocean,” in H. F. Helmolt’sHistory of the World(N. Y., 1902), i, pp. 566–599; he predicts a future contest which “will have to decide whether, by the permanent occupation of the northern Pacific, the white race shall accomplish its world-embracing destiny, or whether, with the goal already in sight, and for the first time in its history, it will have to make way for a stronger”—that is, for the yellow race, in the form of Japan and China.—Eds.↑8See the most important of these decrees in our educational appendix,VOL. XLVI.—Eds.↑9In 1899 and 1900, the American government continued the subsidies to the Jesuits to sustain the normal school and Manila Ateneo. With the establishment, however, of an educational system under the Taft Commission, the subsidy to the Ateneo was withdrawn and a Manila public high school established. The normal school was established in the old buildings of the exposition of 1887, and was the first special school organized under Dr. Atkinson. The vacation normal school is due to Dr. Barrows, who established it in the spring vacation of 1901, in order that the teachers from the provinces might be gathered together for brief instruction in new methods, exchange of ideas, and general inspiration. The regular normal school has been a very notable feature since 1901, and in some ways the most striking thing in the new school system. Its woman’s dormitory has been a center of Filipino gatherings and a constant theme of praise by the Filipino press. (From a previous communication to the Editors by J. A. LeRoy.) SeeVOL. XLVI, p. 95, note.—Eds.↑10This exchange of Mindanao missions by the Recollects for parishes in and around Manila and in Mindoro was closely connected with the pro-seculars’ campaign made in Manila and Madrid at that time—Father Burgos of the Cathedral standing out preëminently on behalf of his fellows the native priests, a direct step in the way toward his execution in connection with the Cavite mutiny of 1872. (James A. LeRoy, in a personal letter dated January 6, 1906.) SeeXXVIII, pp. 342, 343.—Eds.↑11Seepost, pp. 170, 171, note 119. With the three priests was also executed one Francisco Saldúa. Máximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraíso, and Crisanto de los Reyes were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Others were also condemned to death, some of whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The following persons were deported to Marianas: Antonio María Regidor, 8 years; Máximo Paterno; Agustín Mendoza, parish priest of the district of Santa Cruz de Manila; Joaquín Pardo de Tavera, a regidor of Manila and university professor, 6 years. Some of the latter and others lost their qualification as advocates of the Audiencia.—Eds.↑12In a pamphlet by Manrique A. Lallave (Madrid, 1872), an ex-Dominican missionary from Filipinas, he declares that “the friars at that time possessed property to the value of eleven millions of pesos fuertes.” (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, no. 1846.)—Eds.↑13Seepost, p. 182.—Eds.↑14Bibliography of the Philippine Islands(Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress:A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and theBiblioteca Filipinaof Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, seeVOL. LIIIof this series.↑15Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found inBibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.↑16Particularly hisLas colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1880).↑17It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.↑18El Diario de Manilawas established in 1848, a name which was changed toEl Boletin oficial de Filipinasin 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers calledEl Comerciowere founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869;La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeededEl Porvenir Filipino);La Voz Españolawas founded in 1888 under the name ofLa Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana’sEl periodismo.—Eds.↑19See also Griffin’sListfor a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)—Eds.↑20Retana reproduced thisReglamento de Asuntos de Imprentaof 1857 in volume i of theArchivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.↑21The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when “Reform and Revolution” are discussed.↑22Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17–22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.↑23Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 …(Manila, 1889).↑24For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson’sEl progreso de Filipinas(Madrid, 1881), pp. 175–186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census inReport of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.↑25If possible, Pardo de Tavera’s bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.—Eds.↑26See Library of CongressList, etc., pp. 9–11.↑27Cited in Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaas nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of CongressList, pp. 178–180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888–90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.↑28Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin’sReport on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines(Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.↑29A 36-page pamphlet,Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands(London,1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.↑30Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898(Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams inOfficial Handbook of the Philippines(Manila, 1903); in other respects theHandbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.↑31According to Retana, who cites thisInforme emitido … sobre bancos hipotecarios(Madrid, 1889) in theEstadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.↑32Following are special citations from hisEl progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81–89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48–53, 54–56, 57–66, 222–223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873–74, pp. 187–204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212–223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223–237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253–254; land measures in use, pp. 257–258.↑33The intemperate and fantastic writings of “Quioquiap” (Pablo Feced) inEl Diario de ManilaandLa Política de España en Filipinasare in point.↑34See alsoibid., i, pp. 150–159.↑35These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in theMonthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented inBulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture(Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.↑36El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238–244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245–249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253–255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255–258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).↑37Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.↑38It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.↑39InReport of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487–503; andibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71–87.↑40See M. Sastrón,La insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the ’80’s and 1893.↑41It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.↑42List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin’sColonial administration, 1800–1900(fromSummary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor March, 1903).↑43TheStatesman’s Yearbookand such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’sLegislación militar(Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’sMemoria sobre la Marina(Manila, 1887), both cited in theBibliography.↑44Published inLa España Oriental, Manila, 1893, andLa Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.↑45It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only theframeworkof that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.↑46Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching ofreligion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds.↑47Pedro A. Paterno’sRegimen municipal de las islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.↑48Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.↑49Notes from hisProgreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life in Town and Country(New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in theAtlantic Monthlyfor March, 1905.↑50Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces.↑51Note especiallyMilitary Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs(Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79et seq.See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131.↑52Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. SeeLa Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularlyEl Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to theobras píasin 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from theobras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government!↑53The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See hisProgreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in theBiblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper.↑54Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in theEstadismo, apéndice H, underRentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewisenettotals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the titlePresupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume ofPresupuestospublished at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail theexpecteditems of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only theestimateof the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, thesePresupuestosbear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They arenotbudgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get totalnetcollections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.↑55The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to thePolitical Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’sLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’sOur Philippine Problem(New York, 1905), and hisRejoinderto Mr. Willis’sReplyto that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in hisReply(pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’sRejoinder.—Eds.↑56In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, seeSenate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16;ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum);Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’sLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.↑57Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’sThe Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines(Washington, 1900).↑58Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1770.↑59Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.↑60See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.↑61It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.↑62Especially in the appendix ofVOL. XLI.—Eds.↑63Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379–398).↑64La Política de España en Filipinasreproduces Retana’s eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco’s letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake.Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.↑65The reports are in the annualReport of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks’sThe Bontoc Igorot(Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.↑66Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a “right-about-face,” as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of theArchivo(1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a “Liberal” at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced fromEl Grito del Puebloof Manila inEl Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a “saint,” etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in theSpringfield Republicanfor July 7, 1906.In this connection see Retana’s opening paragraphs in hisVida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, inNuestro Tiempofor 1904–06.—EDS.↑67This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in theNorth American Reviewof Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483–498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in thePolitical Science Quarterlyfor December, 1903 (also in the same author’sPhilippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also,in reextreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson,El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212–223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.↑68The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars’ titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.↑69The political phase of the attack on the friars’ privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars’ side in the pamphletApuntes interesantes(1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave,Los frailes en Filipinas(Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced inEl progreso, Manila, August 8–11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).↑70See theBiblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author’s judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author’sMi último grito de alarma(Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer toConstitución apostólica Quae mare sinico(Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope’s Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part inImpugnación de la censura impuesta … al Presbítero Adriano García(Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle’s time. Here and inDefensa del clero filipinoare references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.↑71Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.↑72For the latter, consult especiallyLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphletDocumentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente(Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under theMalolosgovernment and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay’s part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).↑73See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements toEl Renacimientofor Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.↑74Note especially Rizal’s introduction to his novelEl Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an “Appeal for Intervention” presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.Rizal dedicated his novelEl filibusterismoto the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: “The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!” See J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life, pp. 149, 150.—Eds.↑75No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaunder these names, and see his version inCensus of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575–579. HisReseña histórica de Filipinassuffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of theCensus, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodicalLibertas(by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.↑76As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and “patriotic” Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on “Mi patria” (“My fatherland”).↑77Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.↑78Marcelo del Pilar’s pamphletLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphletAvisos y profecías(Madrid, 1892), pp. 286–308. See also Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1597–1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar’s pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:“The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future.”↑79Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for “assimilation,” religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the “Maura law.”↑80Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler’s action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” pp. 194–195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious “holding companies”) before 1898.↑81One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal’s private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.↑82Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda,España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentionedAng Kalayaan(“Liberty”) organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana’sArchivo, iv,Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphletDiscursos y artículos varios(Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.↑83Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters inPlaridel(pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. BesidesLa SolidaridadandLa soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphletsLa frailocracía filipina(Barcelona, 1889), andLos frailes en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1889), by “Padpiuh.”↑84The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an “adaptation” from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the “story” and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.↑85The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana’s recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.↑86There must also be seen the collectionsDocumentos políticos de actualidadin Retana’sArchivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal’s trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced—the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)—use has been made in Retana’s latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal’s execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially:La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal’s letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman);La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899;La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced fromLa Solidaridad;La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901–06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos);El Renacimiento, same dates;ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana);ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce);ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late);La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal’s correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).
1Some credit should also be given to the Royal Philippine Company (Real Compañía de Filipinas), which, though unsuccessful financially, stimulated considerably the development of Philippine agriculture between 1790 and 1820, after which year it did little until its dissolution.↑2Comyn’sEstadosays that in 1810 the number of Spaniards, born in the Peninsula or elsewhere, and of Spanishmestizos, of both sexes and all ages, classes, and occupations, did not exceed 3,500 to 4,000. Diaz Arenas (Memorías históricas y estadísticas de Filipinas; Manila, 1850) quotes official figures showing 293 Spaniards settled in the provinces, outside of Manila and Tondo, in 1848; and he records 7,544 as the number of Spanish mestizos in the islands, including Tondo, as Manila province was then called. Cavada (Historia geográfica, geológica y estadística de Filipinas; Manila, 1876), taking his figures apparently from the governmental statistics as to houses and their occupants for 1870, gives for that year 3,823 Spaniards (all but 516 of them males) from the Peninsula, and 9,710 “Filipino-Spaniards,” the latter classification apparently including Spanish mestizos with such pure-blooded Spaniards as had been born in the Philippines. Among his Peninsular Spaniards would be included over 1,000 members of religious orders, an approximately equal number of soldiers, and the civil officials of Spanish blood (except a relatively small number born in the islands themselves, mostly in the minor categories of officials). J. F. del Pan (La poblacion de Filipinas; Manila, 1883), and F. Cañamaque (Las íslas Filipinas; Madrid, 1880) both report the parochial statistics of 1876 as showing the total of Spaniards, apart from members of the religious orders, the civil service, and the army and navy, to be 13,265; Cañamaque speaks of this latter class as “Spaniards without official character (Peninsulars and Filipinos),” and Del Pan calls them “persons not subject to the capitation-tax on account of being of the Spanish race.” At least some of the Spanish mestizos in the islands would appear to have been included in this total. A statistical résumé for 1898 (La Política de España en Filipinas, 1898, pp. 87–92) gives the number of Spaniards in the Philippines at the end of Spanish rule as 34,000 (of whom 5,800 are credited as officers and employees of governments, 3,800 as the normal number of Spaniards in army and navy, and 1,700 as of the clerical estate). These figures, like various other estimates in pamphlets of recent years, are considerably exaggerated; they are reconcilable only on the supposition that they include not only Spaniards of Philippine birth, but also Spanish mestizos. In 1903, only 3,888 Peninsular Spaniards were found in the archipelago. The census of 1896 would have shown separately Spaniards and Spanish mestizos; but it was not completed for all provinces, and has never been published. The foregoing estimates and figures do, however, show the great relative increase of Spaniards and Spanish influence in the Philippines in the latter part of the nineteenth century.Apropos of Mr. LeRoy’s note the following is of interest as regards the population of the eighteenth century. “The number of Spaniards who are in the part of Manila not occupied by the friars is very inconsiderable; in 1767, they did not exceed eight hundred persons. It can be said that the friars are masters of the city, for all the houses, except perhaps five or six, belong to them. This makes a fine revenue for them, since the houses are very dear—from two hundred to four hundred piasters (one thousand to two thousand livres). They are still dearer in the suburb of Santa Cruz, where they are worth at least five hundred piasters, for it is there that all the foreign merchants from India or China lodge. Manila is still peopled by the Tagálogs, who are the natives at once of this city and of its bishopric; the Tagálogs serve the Spaniards as domestics, or live by some petty trade or occupation.” (Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 104.)—Eds.↑3“The Spanish-Filipino Bank, the oldest bank in the islands, was founded (1852) by an order of the Spanish government uniting theobras píasfunds of the four orders of friars in the Philippines.” (Census of Philippine Islands, iv, p. 541).—Eds.↑4In the tariff revision of 1891, Spanish goods in Spanish ships were made free of customs duties in Philippine ports; prior to that time they had, as a rule, paid one-half the duties assessed on foreign goods.↑5In 1898, for instance, when the war with the United States began, the governor-general of the Philippines who had recently negotiated a peace with the insurgent chiefs, had just turned over his place to a new man, a stranger in the islands, and sailed for home. The new Liberal administration, which came into power in Spain in October, 1897, had also sent to the Philippines a new set of provincial governors, to take the place of men who had served, in many cases, less than two years. Some of these new governors had not gone to their posts when Commodore Dewey’s squadron arrived, and they were consequently blockaded in Manila.↑6This was accomplished on December 31, 1882—(but seepost, p. 141).—Eds.↑7F. Jagor,Reisen in den Philippinen(Berlin, 1873), p. 287.Also of interest in this connection are Jagor’s remarks in the following two citations from the same book (pp. 288 and 289, respectively). “Government monopolies mercilessly administered, grievous disregard of the creoles and the rich mestizos, and the example of the United States, these were the principal causes of the loss of the American possessions [of Spain]; and the same causes are menacing the Philippines also. Of the monopolies sufficient account has been given in the text. Mestizos and creoles are not, it is true, shut out, as formerly in America, from all offices; but they feel that they are deeply injured and despoiled by the crowds of office seekers whom the frequent changes of ministersat Madrid bring to Manila. Also the influence of the American elements is at least discernible on the horizon, and will come more to the front as the relations of the two countries grow closer. At present these are still of little importance; in the meantime commerce follows its old routes, which lead to England and the Atlantic ports of the Union. Nevertheless, he who attempts to form a judgment as to the future destiny of the Philippines cannot fix his gaze only on their relations to Spain; he must also consider the mighty changes which within a few decades are being effected on that side of our planet. For the first time in the world’s history, the gigantic nations on both sides of a gigantic ocean are beginning to come into direct intercourse: Russia, which alone is greater than two divisions of the world together; China, which within her narrow bounds contains a third of the human race; America, with cultivable soil enough to support almost three times the entire population of the earth. Russia’s future rôle in the Pacific Ocean at present baffles all calculations. The intercourse of the two other powers will probably have all the more important consequences when the adjustment between the immeasurable necessity for human labor-power on the one hand, and a correspondingly great surplus of that power on the other, shall fall on it as a problem.” “But in proportion as the commerce of the western coast of America extends the influence of the American elements over the South Sea, the ensnaring spell which the great republic exercises over the Spanish colonies will not fail to assert itself in the Philippines also. The Americans appear to be called upon to bring the germ planted by the Spaniards to its full development. As conquerors of the New World, representatives of the body of free citizens in contradistinction to the nobility, they follow with the axe and plow of the pioneer where the Spaniards had opened the way with cross and sword. A considerable part of Spanish America already belongs to the United States, and has, since that occurred, attained an importance which could not have been anticipated either during Spanish rule or during the anarchy which ensued after and from it. In the long run, the Spanish system cannot prevail over the American. While the former exhausts the colonies through direct appropriation of them to the privileged classes, and the metropolis through the drain of its best forces (with, besides, a feeble population), America draws to itself the most energetic elements from all lands; and these on her soil, free from all trammels, and restlessly pushing forward, are continually extending further her power and influence.The Philippines will so much the less escape the influence of the two great neighboring empires, since neither the islands nor their metropolis are in a condition of stable equilibrium. It seems desirable for the natives that the opinions here expressed shall not too soon be realized as facts, for their training thus far has not sufficiently prepared them for success in the contest with those restless, active, most inconsiderate peoples; they have dreamed away their youth.” Some writers have carried the evolution one step farther, as for instance, the following: See Count Edward Wilczek’s interesting study on “The historical importance of the Pacific Ocean,” in H. F. Helmolt’sHistory of the World(N. Y., 1902), i, pp. 566–599; he predicts a future contest which “will have to decide whether, by the permanent occupation of the northern Pacific, the white race shall accomplish its world-embracing destiny, or whether, with the goal already in sight, and for the first time in its history, it will have to make way for a stronger”—that is, for the yellow race, in the form of Japan and China.—Eds.↑8See the most important of these decrees in our educational appendix,VOL. XLVI.—Eds.↑9In 1899 and 1900, the American government continued the subsidies to the Jesuits to sustain the normal school and Manila Ateneo. With the establishment, however, of an educational system under the Taft Commission, the subsidy to the Ateneo was withdrawn and a Manila public high school established. The normal school was established in the old buildings of the exposition of 1887, and was the first special school organized under Dr. Atkinson. The vacation normal school is due to Dr. Barrows, who established it in the spring vacation of 1901, in order that the teachers from the provinces might be gathered together for brief instruction in new methods, exchange of ideas, and general inspiration. The regular normal school has been a very notable feature since 1901, and in some ways the most striking thing in the new school system. Its woman’s dormitory has been a center of Filipino gatherings and a constant theme of praise by the Filipino press. (From a previous communication to the Editors by J. A. LeRoy.) SeeVOL. XLVI, p. 95, note.—Eds.↑10This exchange of Mindanao missions by the Recollects for parishes in and around Manila and in Mindoro was closely connected with the pro-seculars’ campaign made in Manila and Madrid at that time—Father Burgos of the Cathedral standing out preëminently on behalf of his fellows the native priests, a direct step in the way toward his execution in connection with the Cavite mutiny of 1872. (James A. LeRoy, in a personal letter dated January 6, 1906.) SeeXXVIII, pp. 342, 343.—Eds.↑11Seepost, pp. 170, 171, note 119. With the three priests was also executed one Francisco Saldúa. Máximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraíso, and Crisanto de los Reyes were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Others were also condemned to death, some of whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The following persons were deported to Marianas: Antonio María Regidor, 8 years; Máximo Paterno; Agustín Mendoza, parish priest of the district of Santa Cruz de Manila; Joaquín Pardo de Tavera, a regidor of Manila and university professor, 6 years. Some of the latter and others lost their qualification as advocates of the Audiencia.—Eds.↑12In a pamphlet by Manrique A. Lallave (Madrid, 1872), an ex-Dominican missionary from Filipinas, he declares that “the friars at that time possessed property to the value of eleven millions of pesos fuertes.” (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, no. 1846.)—Eds.↑13Seepost, p. 182.—Eds.↑14Bibliography of the Philippine Islands(Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress:A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and theBiblioteca Filipinaof Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, seeVOL. LIIIof this series.↑15Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found inBibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.↑16Particularly hisLas colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1880).↑17It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.↑18El Diario de Manilawas established in 1848, a name which was changed toEl Boletin oficial de Filipinasin 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers calledEl Comerciowere founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869;La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeededEl Porvenir Filipino);La Voz Españolawas founded in 1888 under the name ofLa Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana’sEl periodismo.—Eds.↑19See also Griffin’sListfor a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)—Eds.↑20Retana reproduced thisReglamento de Asuntos de Imprentaof 1857 in volume i of theArchivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.↑21The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when “Reform and Revolution” are discussed.↑22Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17–22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.↑23Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 …(Manila, 1889).↑24For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson’sEl progreso de Filipinas(Madrid, 1881), pp. 175–186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census inReport of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.↑25If possible, Pardo de Tavera’s bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.—Eds.↑26See Library of CongressList, etc., pp. 9–11.↑27Cited in Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaas nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of CongressList, pp. 178–180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888–90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.↑28Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin’sReport on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines(Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.↑29A 36-page pamphlet,Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands(London,1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.↑30Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898(Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams inOfficial Handbook of the Philippines(Manila, 1903); in other respects theHandbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.↑31According to Retana, who cites thisInforme emitido … sobre bancos hipotecarios(Madrid, 1889) in theEstadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.↑32Following are special citations from hisEl progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81–89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48–53, 54–56, 57–66, 222–223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873–74, pp. 187–204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212–223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223–237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253–254; land measures in use, pp. 257–258.↑33The intemperate and fantastic writings of “Quioquiap” (Pablo Feced) inEl Diario de ManilaandLa Política de España en Filipinasare in point.↑34See alsoibid., i, pp. 150–159.↑35These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in theMonthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented inBulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture(Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.↑36El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238–244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245–249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253–255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255–258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).↑37Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.↑38It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.↑39InReport of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487–503; andibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71–87.↑40See M. Sastrón,La insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the ’80’s and 1893.↑41It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.↑42List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin’sColonial administration, 1800–1900(fromSummary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor March, 1903).↑43TheStatesman’s Yearbookand such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’sLegislación militar(Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’sMemoria sobre la Marina(Manila, 1887), both cited in theBibliography.↑44Published inLa España Oriental, Manila, 1893, andLa Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.↑45It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only theframeworkof that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.↑46Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching ofreligion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds.↑47Pedro A. Paterno’sRegimen municipal de las islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.↑48Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.↑49Notes from hisProgreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life in Town and Country(New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in theAtlantic Monthlyfor March, 1905.↑50Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces.↑51Note especiallyMilitary Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs(Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79et seq.See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131.↑52Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. SeeLa Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularlyEl Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to theobras píasin 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from theobras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government!↑53The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See hisProgreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in theBiblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper.↑54Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in theEstadismo, apéndice H, underRentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewisenettotals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the titlePresupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume ofPresupuestospublished at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail theexpecteditems of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only theestimateof the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, thesePresupuestosbear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They arenotbudgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get totalnetcollections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.↑55The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to thePolitical Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’sLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’sOur Philippine Problem(New York, 1905), and hisRejoinderto Mr. Willis’sReplyto that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in hisReply(pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’sRejoinder.—Eds.↑56In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, seeSenate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16;ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum);Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’sLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.↑57Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’sThe Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines(Washington, 1900).↑58Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1770.↑59Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.↑60See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.↑61It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.↑62Especially in the appendix ofVOL. XLI.—Eds.↑63Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379–398).↑64La Política de España en Filipinasreproduces Retana’s eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco’s letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake.Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.↑65The reports are in the annualReport of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks’sThe Bontoc Igorot(Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.↑66Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a “right-about-face,” as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of theArchivo(1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a “Liberal” at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced fromEl Grito del Puebloof Manila inEl Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a “saint,” etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in theSpringfield Republicanfor July 7, 1906.In this connection see Retana’s opening paragraphs in hisVida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, inNuestro Tiempofor 1904–06.—EDS.↑67This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in theNorth American Reviewof Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483–498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in thePolitical Science Quarterlyfor December, 1903 (also in the same author’sPhilippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also,in reextreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson,El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212–223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.↑68The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars’ titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.↑69The political phase of the attack on the friars’ privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars’ side in the pamphletApuntes interesantes(1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave,Los frailes en Filipinas(Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced inEl progreso, Manila, August 8–11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).↑70See theBiblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author’s judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author’sMi último grito de alarma(Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer toConstitución apostólica Quae mare sinico(Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope’s Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part inImpugnación de la censura impuesta … al Presbítero Adriano García(Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle’s time. Here and inDefensa del clero filipinoare references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.↑71Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.↑72For the latter, consult especiallyLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphletDocumentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente(Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under theMalolosgovernment and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay’s part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).↑73See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements toEl Renacimientofor Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.↑74Note especially Rizal’s introduction to his novelEl Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an “Appeal for Intervention” presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.Rizal dedicated his novelEl filibusterismoto the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: “The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!” See J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life, pp. 149, 150.—Eds.↑75No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaunder these names, and see his version inCensus of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575–579. HisReseña histórica de Filipinassuffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of theCensus, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodicalLibertas(by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.↑76As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and “patriotic” Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on “Mi patria” (“My fatherland”).↑77Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.↑78Marcelo del Pilar’s pamphletLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphletAvisos y profecías(Madrid, 1892), pp. 286–308. See also Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1597–1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar’s pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:“The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future.”↑79Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for “assimilation,” religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the “Maura law.”↑80Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler’s action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” pp. 194–195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious “holding companies”) before 1898.↑81One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal’s private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.↑82Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda,España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentionedAng Kalayaan(“Liberty”) organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana’sArchivo, iv,Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphletDiscursos y artículos varios(Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.↑83Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters inPlaridel(pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. BesidesLa SolidaridadandLa soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphletsLa frailocracía filipina(Barcelona, 1889), andLos frailes en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1889), by “Padpiuh.”↑84The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an “adaptation” from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the “story” and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.↑85The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana’s recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.↑86There must also be seen the collectionsDocumentos políticos de actualidadin Retana’sArchivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal’s trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced—the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)—use has been made in Retana’s latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal’s execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially:La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal’s letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman);La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899;La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced fromLa Solidaridad;La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901–06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos);El Renacimiento, same dates;ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana);ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce);ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late);La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal’s correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).
1Some credit should also be given to the Royal Philippine Company (Real Compañía de Filipinas), which, though unsuccessful financially, stimulated considerably the development of Philippine agriculture between 1790 and 1820, after which year it did little until its dissolution.↑
2Comyn’sEstadosays that in 1810 the number of Spaniards, born in the Peninsula or elsewhere, and of Spanishmestizos, of both sexes and all ages, classes, and occupations, did not exceed 3,500 to 4,000. Diaz Arenas (Memorías históricas y estadísticas de Filipinas; Manila, 1850) quotes official figures showing 293 Spaniards settled in the provinces, outside of Manila and Tondo, in 1848; and he records 7,544 as the number of Spanish mestizos in the islands, including Tondo, as Manila province was then called. Cavada (Historia geográfica, geológica y estadística de Filipinas; Manila, 1876), taking his figures apparently from the governmental statistics as to houses and their occupants for 1870, gives for that year 3,823 Spaniards (all but 516 of them males) from the Peninsula, and 9,710 “Filipino-Spaniards,” the latter classification apparently including Spanish mestizos with such pure-blooded Spaniards as had been born in the Philippines. Among his Peninsular Spaniards would be included over 1,000 members of religious orders, an approximately equal number of soldiers, and the civil officials of Spanish blood (except a relatively small number born in the islands themselves, mostly in the minor categories of officials). J. F. del Pan (La poblacion de Filipinas; Manila, 1883), and F. Cañamaque (Las íslas Filipinas; Madrid, 1880) both report the parochial statistics of 1876 as showing the total of Spaniards, apart from members of the religious orders, the civil service, and the army and navy, to be 13,265; Cañamaque speaks of this latter class as “Spaniards without official character (Peninsulars and Filipinos),” and Del Pan calls them “persons not subject to the capitation-tax on account of being of the Spanish race.” At least some of the Spanish mestizos in the islands would appear to have been included in this total. A statistical résumé for 1898 (La Política de España en Filipinas, 1898, pp. 87–92) gives the number of Spaniards in the Philippines at the end of Spanish rule as 34,000 (of whom 5,800 are credited as officers and employees of governments, 3,800 as the normal number of Spaniards in army and navy, and 1,700 as of the clerical estate). These figures, like various other estimates in pamphlets of recent years, are considerably exaggerated; they are reconcilable only on the supposition that they include not only Spaniards of Philippine birth, but also Spanish mestizos. In 1903, only 3,888 Peninsular Spaniards were found in the archipelago. The census of 1896 would have shown separately Spaniards and Spanish mestizos; but it was not completed for all provinces, and has never been published. The foregoing estimates and figures do, however, show the great relative increase of Spaniards and Spanish influence in the Philippines in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Apropos of Mr. LeRoy’s note the following is of interest as regards the population of the eighteenth century. “The number of Spaniards who are in the part of Manila not occupied by the friars is very inconsiderable; in 1767, they did not exceed eight hundred persons. It can be said that the friars are masters of the city, for all the houses, except perhaps five or six, belong to them. This makes a fine revenue for them, since the houses are very dear—from two hundred to four hundred piasters (one thousand to two thousand livres). They are still dearer in the suburb of Santa Cruz, where they are worth at least five hundred piasters, for it is there that all the foreign merchants from India or China lodge. Manila is still peopled by the Tagálogs, who are the natives at once of this city and of its bishopric; the Tagálogs serve the Spaniards as domestics, or live by some petty trade or occupation.” (Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 104.)—Eds.↑
3“The Spanish-Filipino Bank, the oldest bank in the islands, was founded (1852) by an order of the Spanish government uniting theobras píasfunds of the four orders of friars in the Philippines.” (Census of Philippine Islands, iv, p. 541).—Eds.↑
4In the tariff revision of 1891, Spanish goods in Spanish ships were made free of customs duties in Philippine ports; prior to that time they had, as a rule, paid one-half the duties assessed on foreign goods.↑
5In 1898, for instance, when the war with the United States began, the governor-general of the Philippines who had recently negotiated a peace with the insurgent chiefs, had just turned over his place to a new man, a stranger in the islands, and sailed for home. The new Liberal administration, which came into power in Spain in October, 1897, had also sent to the Philippines a new set of provincial governors, to take the place of men who had served, in many cases, less than two years. Some of these new governors had not gone to their posts when Commodore Dewey’s squadron arrived, and they were consequently blockaded in Manila.↑
6This was accomplished on December 31, 1882—(but seepost, p. 141).—Eds.↑
7F. Jagor,Reisen in den Philippinen(Berlin, 1873), p. 287.
Also of interest in this connection are Jagor’s remarks in the following two citations from the same book (pp. 288 and 289, respectively). “Government monopolies mercilessly administered, grievous disregard of the creoles and the rich mestizos, and the example of the United States, these were the principal causes of the loss of the American possessions [of Spain]; and the same causes are menacing the Philippines also. Of the monopolies sufficient account has been given in the text. Mestizos and creoles are not, it is true, shut out, as formerly in America, from all offices; but they feel that they are deeply injured and despoiled by the crowds of office seekers whom the frequent changes of ministersat Madrid bring to Manila. Also the influence of the American elements is at least discernible on the horizon, and will come more to the front as the relations of the two countries grow closer. At present these are still of little importance; in the meantime commerce follows its old routes, which lead to England and the Atlantic ports of the Union. Nevertheless, he who attempts to form a judgment as to the future destiny of the Philippines cannot fix his gaze only on their relations to Spain; he must also consider the mighty changes which within a few decades are being effected on that side of our planet. For the first time in the world’s history, the gigantic nations on both sides of a gigantic ocean are beginning to come into direct intercourse: Russia, which alone is greater than two divisions of the world together; China, which within her narrow bounds contains a third of the human race; America, with cultivable soil enough to support almost three times the entire population of the earth. Russia’s future rôle in the Pacific Ocean at present baffles all calculations. The intercourse of the two other powers will probably have all the more important consequences when the adjustment between the immeasurable necessity for human labor-power on the one hand, and a correspondingly great surplus of that power on the other, shall fall on it as a problem.” “But in proportion as the commerce of the western coast of America extends the influence of the American elements over the South Sea, the ensnaring spell which the great republic exercises over the Spanish colonies will not fail to assert itself in the Philippines also. The Americans appear to be called upon to bring the germ planted by the Spaniards to its full development. As conquerors of the New World, representatives of the body of free citizens in contradistinction to the nobility, they follow with the axe and plow of the pioneer where the Spaniards had opened the way with cross and sword. A considerable part of Spanish America already belongs to the United States, and has, since that occurred, attained an importance which could not have been anticipated either during Spanish rule or during the anarchy which ensued after and from it. In the long run, the Spanish system cannot prevail over the American. While the former exhausts the colonies through direct appropriation of them to the privileged classes, and the metropolis through the drain of its best forces (with, besides, a feeble population), America draws to itself the most energetic elements from all lands; and these on her soil, free from all trammels, and restlessly pushing forward, are continually extending further her power and influence.The Philippines will so much the less escape the influence of the two great neighboring empires, since neither the islands nor their metropolis are in a condition of stable equilibrium. It seems desirable for the natives that the opinions here expressed shall not too soon be realized as facts, for their training thus far has not sufficiently prepared them for success in the contest with those restless, active, most inconsiderate peoples; they have dreamed away their youth.” Some writers have carried the evolution one step farther, as for instance, the following: See Count Edward Wilczek’s interesting study on “The historical importance of the Pacific Ocean,” in H. F. Helmolt’sHistory of the World(N. Y., 1902), i, pp. 566–599; he predicts a future contest which “will have to decide whether, by the permanent occupation of the northern Pacific, the white race shall accomplish its world-embracing destiny, or whether, with the goal already in sight, and for the first time in its history, it will have to make way for a stronger”—that is, for the yellow race, in the form of Japan and China.—Eds.↑
8See the most important of these decrees in our educational appendix,VOL. XLVI.—Eds.↑
9In 1899 and 1900, the American government continued the subsidies to the Jesuits to sustain the normal school and Manila Ateneo. With the establishment, however, of an educational system under the Taft Commission, the subsidy to the Ateneo was withdrawn and a Manila public high school established. The normal school was established in the old buildings of the exposition of 1887, and was the first special school organized under Dr. Atkinson. The vacation normal school is due to Dr. Barrows, who established it in the spring vacation of 1901, in order that the teachers from the provinces might be gathered together for brief instruction in new methods, exchange of ideas, and general inspiration. The regular normal school has been a very notable feature since 1901, and in some ways the most striking thing in the new school system. Its woman’s dormitory has been a center of Filipino gatherings and a constant theme of praise by the Filipino press. (From a previous communication to the Editors by J. A. LeRoy.) SeeVOL. XLVI, p. 95, note.—Eds.↑
10This exchange of Mindanao missions by the Recollects for parishes in and around Manila and in Mindoro was closely connected with the pro-seculars’ campaign made in Manila and Madrid at that time—Father Burgos of the Cathedral standing out preëminently on behalf of his fellows the native priests, a direct step in the way toward his execution in connection with the Cavite mutiny of 1872. (James A. LeRoy, in a personal letter dated January 6, 1906.) SeeXXVIII, pp. 342, 343.—Eds.↑
11Seepost, pp. 170, 171, note 119. With the three priests was also executed one Francisco Saldúa. Máximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraíso, and Crisanto de los Reyes were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Others were also condemned to death, some of whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The following persons were deported to Marianas: Antonio María Regidor, 8 years; Máximo Paterno; Agustín Mendoza, parish priest of the district of Santa Cruz de Manila; Joaquín Pardo de Tavera, a regidor of Manila and university professor, 6 years. Some of the latter and others lost their qualification as advocates of the Audiencia.—Eds.↑
12In a pamphlet by Manrique A. Lallave (Madrid, 1872), an ex-Dominican missionary from Filipinas, he declares that “the friars at that time possessed property to the value of eleven millions of pesos fuertes.” (Vindel,Catálogo biblioteca filipina, no. 1846.)—Eds.↑
13Seepost, p. 182.—Eds.↑
14Bibliography of the Philippine Islands(Bureau of Insular Affairs, Washington, 1903), comprising under one cover these two volumes which were also published separately by the Library of Congress:A List of Books (with references to periodicals) on the Philippine Islands in the Library of Congress, compiled by A. P. C. Griffin; and theBiblioteca Filipinaof Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera. For information regarding general bibliographies and bibliographical lists of Philippina, seeVOL. LIIIof this series.↑
15Reference has already been made in another footnote to the German original; English and Spanish translations of this work, both defective, were also published. It has not been deemed necessary in this brief sketch to append the bibliographical details, except when they may not be found inBibliography of the Philippine Islands, under the names of the authors herein cited.↑
16Particularly hisLas colonias españolas de Asia. Islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1880).↑
17It is closely related also with the political questions of this period, with the friar controversy, and with matters of administration as such.↑
18El Diario de Manilawas established in 1848, a name which was changed toEl Boletin oficial de Filipinasin 1852, and again to the former name in 1860; papers calledEl Comerciowere founded in 1858 (probably), and in 1869;La Oceanía Española, in 1877 (which succeededEl Porvenir Filipino);La Voz Españolawas founded in 1888 under the name ofLa Voz de España, the issue of March 5, 1892, marking the change of name. See Retana’sEl periodismo.—Eds.↑
19See also Griffin’sListfor a list of periodical articles (mainly from American magazines, although some foreign titles are also noted.)—Eds.↑
20Retana reproduced thisReglamento de Asuntos de Imprentaof 1857 in volume i of theArchivo. Retana, who was for a time a newspaper man in Manila, says it was not known by the newspaper editors or by the political censor; in other words, the censor did about as he pleased.↑
21The Filipino press of propaganda, published abroad, will merit attention further on, when “Reform and Revolution” are discussed.↑
22Census of the Philippine Islands, 4 vols. (Washington, 1903). In vol. ii, pp. 17–22, are tables comparing Spanish estimates and censuses, with references to such.↑
23Archipiélagos filipinos en la Oceanía, Censo de población veríficado el 31 de Diciembre de 1887 …(Manila, 1889).↑
24For population alone, there may also be mentioned the table of various civil and ecclesiastical estimates, based mainly on the returns of the tributes, in Sancianco y Goson’sEl progreso de Filipinas(Madrid, 1881), pp. 175–186; and the summaries of five Spanish censuses and tables of the 1896 census inReport of the Philippine Commission, 1901, ii, appendices HH and II.↑
25If possible, Pardo de Tavera’s bibliographical comments should be checked up by those made by Retana to some of these works in his various bibliographies.—Eds.↑
26See Library of CongressList, etc., pp. 9–11.↑
27Cited in Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaas nos. 269 and 2,003. The American consular reports are given in a separate table in the Library of CongressList, pp. 178–180. Only those of Consul Webb, 1888–90, need be mentioned as containing some data of interest.↑
28Both the papers cited have subsequently been reproduced in several other government bulletins, which will be cited in their places. E. W. Hardin’sReport on the Financial and Industrial Condition of the Philippines(Senate Document no. 169, 55th Congress, 3rd session) was similarly reproduced. All three of these documents, which were useful to American inquirers immediately following the events of 1898, may be disregarded by the student who resorts to the Spanish and other sources herein given.↑
29A 36-page pamphlet,Commercial Progress in the Philippine Islands(London,1905), by A. M. Regidor y Jurado and J. W. T. Mason, is quite inaccurate and in part gossipy, but may be noted as containing some nineteenth-century data on foreign traders and bankers not elsewhere in print.↑
30Spanish Public Land Laws in the Philippine Islands and their History to August 13, 1898(Washington, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1901). These laws and conditions of land tenure under Spanish rule are also succinctly summarized by D. R. Williams inOfficial Handbook of the Philippines(Manila, 1903); in other respects theHandbook, a Washington library compilation prepared for the St. Louis Exposition of 1904, has no independent value and is often inaccurate.↑
31According to Retana, who cites thisInforme emitido … sobre bancos hipotecarios(Madrid, 1889) in theEstadismo, ii, p. 151*. Pardo de Tavera (Biblioteca, p. 76) says that this report led to the official decision that, in view of the general lack of titles, the establishment of land banks would be premature.↑
32Following are special citations from hisEl progreso de Filipinas: Land tax, and arguments therefor, pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80; tax on real estate in towns, pp. 81–89; deficiency of provisions for obtaining title to unoccupied lands, pp. 48–53, 54–56, 57–66, 222–223; data (mostly from Jordana y Morera) regarding development of forest and agricultural resources and amount of cultivated land, province by province, to 1873–74, pp. 187–204; value assigned to land, province by province, result of official inquiry of 1862, pp. 212–223; Filipino laborer and his share in development of agricultural resources, pp. 223–237; rates of interest on real-estate loans, pp. 253–254; land measures in use, pp. 257–258.↑
33The intemperate and fantastic writings of “Quioquiap” (Pablo Feced) inEl Diario de ManilaandLa Política de España en Filipinasare in point.↑
34See alsoibid., i, pp. 150–159.↑
35These tables entirely supersede those presented, earlier in the period of American occupation, in theMonthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor November, 1899, and July, 1901 (which also reproduced the memoranda of Greene, Tornow, and others, already cited). Some of the tables presented inBulletin No. 14, Section of Foreign Markets, Department of Agriculture(Washington, 1898) give in convenient form Philippine trade statistics by countries, both for imports and exports.↑
36El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 238–244, foreign commerce, entry of Spanish and foreign vessels, etc., for 1868; p. 244, table of exports for 1871, in quantities (66 per cent of the hemp and over 50 per cent of the sugar going to the United States in that year); pp. 245–249, internal trade and inter-island shipping; pp. 253–255, rates of interest and kinds of money in circulation; pp. 255–258, weights and measures in use (about 1880).↑
37Questions of customs administration belong with the subject of Spanish administration, further on.↑
38It is another instance of the old tendency to emphasize political evils and remedies, and neglect economic considerations, in the Philippines. The labor monograph of V. S. Clark, above cited, brings out the fact that higher wages for Filipinos since 1898 are in part only a compensation for the previous penalization of the Filipino laborer through a declining medium of exchange.↑
39InReport of Philippine Commission, 1904, iii, pp. 487–503; andibid., 1905, iv, pp. 71–87.↑
40See M. Sastrón,La insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897 and 1901), chap. i, for a summary of the reforms of the ’80’s and 1893.↑
41It is thus that, from their point of view, the Philippine friars and their Spanish clerical-conservative defenders have branded the Filipino campaign, eventually for separation, as entirely produced and fostered by Spanish Liberalism.↑
42List of Books (with references to periodicals) relating to the theory of colonization, government of dependencies, protectorates, and related topics, by A. P. C. Griffin (Washington, 1900). It is inserted also in O. P. Austin’sColonial administration, 1800–1900(fromSummary of Commerce and Finance of the United Statesfor March, 1903).↑
43TheStatesman’s Yearbookand such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’sLegislación militar(Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’sMemoria sobre la Marina(Manila, 1887), both cited in theBibliography.↑
44Published inLa España Oriental, Manila, 1893, andLa Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar.↑
45It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only theframeworkof that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice.↑
46Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching ofreligion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds.↑
47Pedro A. Paterno’sRegimen municipal de las islas Filipinas(Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín.↑
48Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference.↑
49Notes from hisProgreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life in Town and Country(New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in theAtlantic Monthlyfor March, 1905.↑
50Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces.↑
51Note especiallyMilitary Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs(Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79et seq.See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131.↑
52Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. SeeLa Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularlyEl Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to theobras píasin 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from theobras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government!↑
53The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See hisProgreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in theBiblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper.↑
54Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in theEstadismo, apéndice H, underRentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewisenettotals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the titlePresupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume ofPresupuestospublished at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail theexpecteditems of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only theestimateof the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, thesePresupuestosbear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They arenotbudgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get totalnetcollections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc.↑
55The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to thePolitical Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’sLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).
The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’sOur Philippine Problem(New York, 1905), and hisRejoinderto Mr. Willis’sReplyto that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in hisReply(pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’sRejoinder.—Eds.↑
56In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, seeSenate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16;ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum);Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’sLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285.↑
57Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’sThe Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines(Washington, 1900).↑
58Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, no. 1770.↑
59Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies.↑
60See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila.↑
61It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy.↑
62Especially in the appendix ofVOL. XLI.—Eds.↑
63Appendix vii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines (Rept. War Dept., 1903, iii, pp. 379–398).↑
64La Política de España en Filipinasreproduces Retana’s eulogy of Weyler (Retana was made a deputy for Cuba in the Cortes during the Weyler régime in Cuba) and occasional articles on the Blanco campaign in the Lake Lanao region, among which note (vi, p. 18) Blanco’s letter of Oct. 19, 1895, describing the beginning of a railroad and other work around the lake.Ibid., vii, p. 170, has the protocol of April 1, 1907, whereby Germany and Great Britain accept a modification of the Sulu archipelago protocol of 1885, permitting the prohibition by Spain of traffic with Joló in arms or alcoholic liquors. The projects to colonize Mindanao put forward in connection with the Lanao campaign have been mentioned.↑
65The reports are in the annualReport of the Philippine Commission. Among the special publications, note Jenks’sThe Bontoc Igorot(Manila, 1905), chap. ii, for some notes on Spanish relations with the Igorots.↑
66Its columns could also be used to further personal interests, as already shown in the case of Weyler. Retana has since 1898 executed a “right-about-face,” as has been best shown in his recent biographical study of Rizal. Herein, in various editorial notes in vol. v of theArchivo(1905), and in various letters to the Filipino press of Manila, he has many times virtually apologized for his political writings up to 1898, has declared that he was always a “Liberal” at heart, and has thus written an impugnation of his own writings in behalf of friar-rule. In a letter to I. de los Reyes (reproduced fromEl Grito del Puebloof Manila inEl Renacimiento, Manila, July 24, 1906), Retana carries this note to the point of practically abject retraction, saying he never has been really a Catholic, never confessed since his marriage, etc., and referring to Rizal (whom he bitterly reviled from 1892 to 1898) as a “saint,” etc. Regarding Retana and Blumentritt, see also a letter by J. A. LeRoy in theSpringfield Republicanfor July 7, 1906.
In this connection see Retana’s opening paragraphs in hisVida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal, inNuestro Tiempofor 1904–06.—EDS.↑
67This work furnished almost the sole basis for the discussion of the work of the friars by Stephen Bonsal in theNorth American Reviewof Oct., 1902; but Mr. Bonsal, whose article is thus entirely one-sided, did not state the source of his information. More than this, Mr. Bonsal has, in translating, made even stronger some of the extreme claims of Friar Zamora. The latter (pp. 483–498) cites praise for the friars from various governors-general: Gándara (1866), De la Torre (1871), Moriones (1877), Weyler (1891), and Primo de Rivera (1898). It is to be hoped he has not garbled them all as he did the statement of Primo de Rivera, omitting its most significant expressions of opinion and exactly reversing its import. Moreover, Mr. Bonsal, in translating these passages from Zamora, thought it best to leave out, for his American readers, the statement by Weyler. Much the same ground as covered by the claims of Zamora is traversed, with citations, by J. A. LeRoy in thePolitical Science Quarterlyfor December, 1903 (also in the same author’sPhilippine Life, chaps. v and vii). See also,in reextreme claims for the friars that they brought about all the internal development, settlement of towns, development of agriculture, etc., Sancianco y Goson,El progreso de Filipinas, pp. 212–223, official data as to agriculture and lands by provinces in 1862, at the beginning of the modern era of trade and industry.↑
68The official correspondence in the negotiations of Governor Taft with the Vatican, above cited, may also be mentioned here as discussing the question of recognition of the native clergy in the Philippines, and, in general, the status which the friars came to have there. Many loose assertions made with regard to the friars’ titles to the Philippines will be corrected by a perusal of the legal report on their titles cited above.↑
69The political phase of the attack on the friars’ privileges which rapidly developed, especially in view of the events of 1868, are discussed from the friars’ side in the pamphletApuntes interesantes(1870), condemned by Pardo de Tavera (no. 91) and ascribed to Barrantes. Retana (Estadismo, ii, p. 135*) praises the work and ascribes it to Friar Casimiro Herrero. A general argument against the friars in those times is that of Manrique Alonso Lallave,Los frailes en Filipinas(Madrid, 1872), parts of which were reproduced inEl progreso, Manila, August 8–11, 1901. His figures on friar revenues, etc., are grossly exaggerated. He was an excloistered Dominican, later turned Protestant in Spain, and went to the Philippines as a Protestant missionary in 1890, being poisoned in Manila, according to V. Diaz Perez (Los frailes de Filipinas, Madrid, 1904, p. 10).↑
70See theBiblioteca, nos. 2,000 and 2,001. Both put forward the claims of the Filipinos on grounds of ecclesiastical rule and practice (the Council of Trent particularly), but it is to be feared that the author’s judgment on matters of authority purely ecclesiastical is sometimes warped by political or personal feeling. The same author’sMi último grito de alarma(Bigan [Luzon], 1903) is an answer toConstitución apostólica Quae mare sinico(Manila, 1903), which is a defense of the Pope’s Philippine bull of 1903 by Presbyter Manuel E. Roxas, a Filipino priest. Father Pons also had a part inImpugnación de la censura impuesta … al Presbítero Adriano García(Manila, 1900), a notable case which much aroused the Filipino clergy in Chapelle’s time. Here and inDefensa del clero filipinoare references to the torturing of native priests by the friars at Bigan in 1896, to make them confess complicity in a supposed plot for revolt in Ilokos.↑
71Biblioteca, no. 1689. Note also no. 1675.↑
72For the latter, consult especiallyLa Iglesia Filipina Independiente, organ of the schism, which was published in some sixty numbers between October 11, 1903, and early in 1905; also the recent pamphletDocumentos interesantes de la Iglesia Filipina Independiente(Manila, 1906). The history of the religious question under theMalolosgovernment and guerrilla warfare, and especially of Aglipay’s part in it, has yet to be written from the documents (at least, unless those who participated are more frank in future than in past statements).↑
73See for citations and statements (in part conflicting), about the deportees of 1872, Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, p. 591 and footnote; Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1462 and 1463; and notes by Felipe G. Calderón in supplements toEl Renacimientofor Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, 1906. Several Filipino priests were also deported with these civilians, who were, as has been noted in our introduction, for the most part of Spanish, not of Malay, blood, though of Philippine birth.↑
74Note especially Rizal’s introduction to his novelEl Filibusterismo, as showing Filipino opinion on the matter. A story circulated among the people to the effect that the friars brought from Sambales province a native who looked like Father Gomez and who impersonated the latter in order to implicate him in the mutiny at the Cavite arsenal, with similar details, is related in an “Appeal for Intervention” presented by certain Filipinos in Hongkong to the Consul-General of the United States at that place in Jan., 1897. This document, by the way, has never received notice in the United States so far as known to the writer, who has a manuscript copy of it.
Rizal dedicated his novelEl filibusterismoto the three priests executed in consequence of the Cavite uprising of 1872. That dedication is as follows: “The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you; the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that there was some error, committed in fatal moments; and all the Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recognize your culpability. In so far, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to combat. And while we wait expectantly upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your memory stains his hands in your blood!” See J. A. LeRoy’sPhilippine Life, pp. 149, 150.—Eds.↑
75No real attempt to sift the evidence in the case is known to the writer. Montero y Vidal,Historia, iii, chap. xxvii (also read the three preceding chapters), gives the version of one side, with principal citations. Cf. Pardo de Tavera’sBibliotecaunder these names, and see his version inCensus of the Philippine Islands, i, pp. 575–579. HisReseña histórica de Filipinassuffered some alterations as published in the Spanish edition of theCensus, and was separately printed at Manila in 1906, drawing forth a series of articles in the Dominican periodicalLibertas(by Friar Tamayo), which also appeared in pamphlet form (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” Manila, 1906). As regards the 1872 affair, Friar Tamayo has drawn almost entirely from Montero y Vidal.↑
76As, for example, when José Rizal, yet a mere youth, scandalized the friar and “patriotic” Spaniards in Manila by presenting verses for a school celebration in Manila on “Mi patria” (“My fatherland”).↑
77Rizal himself returned from Europe to the Orient in 1887, and visited his home, but was persuaded by parents and friends to go abroad again. He is said to have edited various circulars which were sent from Hongkong and distributed in the Philippines.↑
78Marcelo del Pilar’s pamphletLa soberanía monacal en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1888; reprinted at Manila, 1898) was written with especial reference to these incidents, documents regarding which are given as appendices. Retana analyzed the 1888 petition against the friars, and discussed its signers, in his pamphletAvisos y profecías(Madrid, 1892), pp. 286–308. See also Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 1597–1599 and 2807, the latter being a separate print of the petition to the Queen, which appears in Del Pilar’s pamphlet, appendix ix. The reply of the petitioners to the accusation that they really covered separatist aims under their attacks on friar-rule is worth quoting:
“The aspiration for separation is contrary, Señora, to the interests of the Filipinos. The topographical situation of the country, divided into numerous islands, and the diversity of its regional dialects demand the fortifying aid of a bond of union such as the ensign of Spain accords; without such a bond, it would be daily exposed to a breaking-up process hostile to its repose, and the very conditions of exuberant fertility that its fields, mines, and virgin forests afford would offer a powerful incentive to draw upon it international strife to the injury of its own future.”↑
79Becerra, as minister for the colonies, met in social reunions with the Filipino circle of Madrid, and presented in the Cortes projects for “assimilation,” religious liberty, and the secularization of education in the colonies and partial municipal reforms for the Philippines which were the forerunners of the “Maura law.”↑
80Friar Tamayo, in his reply to statements by Pardo de Tavera, points out that Weyler’s action was in consequence of decrees of the courts (Sobre una “Reseña histórica de Filipinas,” pp. 194–195). This Kalamba episode seems to have had a connection with the royal order of December 4, 1890 (under the new Conservative ministry) empowering the religious orders to dispose of their estates without intervention of the Crown, as had been provided by royal orders of 1834 and 1849. The friars had begun to make transfers to private corporations (really only fictitious “holding companies”) before 1898.↑
81One finds guarded references to his enemies among the Filipinos themselves in some of Rizal’s private letters. The part played during the propaganda by hints of treachery in camp, also of dishonesty in the use of the funds raised by subscription in the Philippines, is alluded to in various of the writings to be cited further on.↑
82Mariano Ponce (El Renacimiento, Manila, Dec. 29, 1906) tells of an earlier periodical of propaganda,España en Filipinas, started at Barcelona in 1887, Lopez Jaena being one of its board of editors. In this connection may be mentionedAng Kalayaan(“Liberty”) organ of the Katipunan, which published one number (perhaps two) in Tagálog at the beginning of 1896, ostensibly in Yokohama, but really on a secret press at Manila. Data about it, and a translation of some of its contents into Spanish may be found in Retana’sArchivo, iv,Documentos políticos de actualidad, no. 15. Of Gracíano Lopez Jaena may also be noted the pamphletDiscursos y artículos varios(Barcelona, 1891). He died in Spain in 1895.↑
83Epifanio de los Santos (one of the propagandists, now an official under the Philippine government) is publishing a biography and bibliography of M. H. del Pilar, reproducing documents and letters inPlaridel(pseudonym of Del Pilar), a weekly started at Bulakan, Luzon, Jan. 1, 1907. BesidesLa SolidaridadandLa soberanía monacal, the writings of Del Pilar most deserving mention are the pamphletsLa frailocracía filipina(Barcelona, 1889), andLos frailes en Filipinas(Barcelona, 1889), by “Padpiuh.”↑
84The two alleged translations published in the United States under altered titles, do not merit even a mention; one is a garbled and partial translation from the Spanish, the other an “adaptation” from a French version of the original, boiled down to give the “story” and thus shorn of the very descriptive passages and delicious bits of satire which make the work notable, not as a novel, but as an exposition.↑
85The various Spanish reprints (also a French one) of these novels may be found cited in Retana’s recent work, mentioned below. The best to date, but no longer easily attainable, are editions of both novels printed at Manila in 1900 by Chofre & Cia.↑
86There must also be seen the collectionsDocumentos políticos de actualidadin Retana’sArchivo, iii and iv, especially those in the latter volume connected with Rizal’s trial and execution. Besides the documents there reproduced—the diary of Rizal as a student in Madrid (now in the library of Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago), notes and documents furnished to Retana by various friends and coworkers of Rizal (especially by Epifanio de los Santos)—use has been made in Retana’s latest work of data published in the Filipino press from 1898 to date, particularly in the special numbers which appear annually in connection with the anniversaries of Rizal’s execution (December 30). Among these may be named especially:La Independencia, Sept. 25, 1898, and Jan. 2, 1899 (Rizal’s letters to Blumentritt regarding his relations with Blanco and recall to Manila for trial; also quoted by Foreman);La Patria, Dec. 30, 1899;La Democracia, Homenaje á Rizal, separately printed at Manila, 1899, with seventeen Rizal articles, sixteen reproduced fromLa Solidaridad;La Democracia, Dec. 29, 30 or 31, 1901–06, especially Dec. 29, 1905 (notes by Santos);El Renacimiento, same dates;ibid., April 28, 1906 (notes by Retana);ibid., May 26, June 2, and Dec. 29, 1906 (notes by Mariano Ponce);ibid., Sept. 22, 1906 (notes by Edouardo Late);La Independencia, Sept. 12, 14, 17, and 18, 1906 (Rizal’s correspondence from his place of exile at Dapitan with Father Pastells, the Jesuit superior, regarding his religious belief, and incidentally his loyalty to Spain).