See alsoLa Juventud(Barcelona),El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.—Eds.↑87Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal’s purpose in bringing out theSucesoswas primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.↑88Filipinas dextro de cien años, inLa Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana’sArchivo, v.↑89Library of CongressList, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).↑90As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372–376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of CongressList, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 ofDocumentos políticosin theArchivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv.Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphletLos frailes de Filipinasbrings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.↑91In hisMemoria al Senado(Madrid, 1897), pp. 158–163.↑92SeeBiblioteca, no. 2,665.↑93Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana’sVida y escritos de José Rizalby E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translationpost, pp. 217–226).↑94Notes, etc., inEl Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.↑95This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), pp. 114–117, 118–123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana’sArchivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.↑96See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy,Japan and the Philippine Islands, inAtlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in hisMemoria(1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896–97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.↑97This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana’sArchivo, iii,Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).↑98Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896–97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but seeEl Renacimiento, April 23, 1903;ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy inAmerican Historical Review, xi, pp. 843–861. A pamphlet,The Katipunan(Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.↑99Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334–325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. “We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces.”↑100Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphletLos frailes y los filipinos(Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27–28) that Governor-General Polavieja’s demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (SeeLa Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326–328).↑101Notably the “removal” of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.↑102Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón(Madrid, 1897).↑103Ibid., pp. 64–68, 163–169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: “For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it.”↑104See alsoSenate Document no. 62for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the “reign of terror,” tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.↑105It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. SeeLa Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish);ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in “reprisal” for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes’s pamphletLa religión del Katipunan(Madrid, 1900), as also other writings inFilipinas ante EuropaandEl defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899–1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.↑106A few are in theListof the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898–1903. Some may be found under the authors’ names in Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca.↑107So alsoLa soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as “stupid.” In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.—El sitio de Manila(Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).—El bloqueo y sitio de Manila.V. M. Concas y Palau.—Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas(Madrid, 1899). Isern.—Del desastre nacional y sus causas(Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.—Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos(Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).—El desastre filipino(Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).—Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna(Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).—Historia negra(Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).—Episodios de la revolución filipina(Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).—Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos(Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).—Memoria del cautiverio(Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).—Ante la opinión y ante la historia(Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).—Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas(Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895–96,in reKatipunan, etc.↑108First published under the titleLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.↑109Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas.Agosto de 1898(Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121–158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.↑110E.g., In hisReseña verídica(only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears inCongressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440–445.↑111SeeCongressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092–94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See alsoSenate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of thejuntaof Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.↑112The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of theLa Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera “promised” these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year “armistice,” as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.↑113The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546–547; 3rd ed., pp. 397–398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in theCongressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo’s possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.↑114Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.↑115A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140–141), and inSenate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.↑116Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone “forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket.”↑117Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter’s 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no “treaty” about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen theDiario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera’s detailed account of the affair.↑118It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.↑119The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were “doctored” in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno’s letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.↑120See theMemoria, pp. 159–176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881–83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.↑121See theMemoria, pp. 144–154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.↑122See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora,La situación del país(Manila, 1897), series inLa Oceanía Española; andEl gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila(Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.↑123See especiallyEl Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898,Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.↑124See J. Pellicena y Lopez,Los frailes y los filipinos(Manila, 1901).↑125An earlier indication of the friars’ fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet,Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad(Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates “reform” by means of “a step backward.”↑126As,e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, inLos frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar’sSoberanía monacal(paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.↑127The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): “This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable.” “Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo’s camp].”↑128A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman’s statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo asMagdaloat Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan, pp. 298–302): “The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons.” And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: “Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights.” Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (seeLa Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: “A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase ‘All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.’ ” (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).—Eds.↑129See Sastrón’s account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of hisInsurrección en Filipinasfor some fragments of documents on this subject.↑
See alsoLa Juventud(Barcelona),El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.—Eds.↑87Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal’s purpose in bringing out theSucesoswas primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.↑88Filipinas dextro de cien años, inLa Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana’sArchivo, v.↑89Library of CongressList, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).↑90As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372–376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of CongressList, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 ofDocumentos políticosin theArchivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv.Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphletLos frailes de Filipinasbrings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.↑91In hisMemoria al Senado(Madrid, 1897), pp. 158–163.↑92SeeBiblioteca, no. 2,665.↑93Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana’sVida y escritos de José Rizalby E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translationpost, pp. 217–226).↑94Notes, etc., inEl Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.↑95This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), pp. 114–117, 118–123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana’sArchivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.↑96See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy,Japan and the Philippine Islands, inAtlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in hisMemoria(1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896–97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.↑97This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana’sArchivo, iii,Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).↑98Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896–97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but seeEl Renacimiento, April 23, 1903;ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy inAmerican Historical Review, xi, pp. 843–861. A pamphlet,The Katipunan(Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.↑99Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334–325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. “We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces.”↑100Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphletLos frailes y los filipinos(Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27–28) that Governor-General Polavieja’s demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (SeeLa Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326–328).↑101Notably the “removal” of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.↑102Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón(Madrid, 1897).↑103Ibid., pp. 64–68, 163–169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: “For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it.”↑104See alsoSenate Document no. 62for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the “reign of terror,” tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.↑105It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. SeeLa Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish);ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in “reprisal” for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes’s pamphletLa religión del Katipunan(Madrid, 1900), as also other writings inFilipinas ante EuropaandEl defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899–1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.↑106A few are in theListof the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898–1903. Some may be found under the authors’ names in Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca.↑107So alsoLa soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as “stupid.” In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.—El sitio de Manila(Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).—El bloqueo y sitio de Manila.V. M. Concas y Palau.—Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas(Madrid, 1899). Isern.—Del desastre nacional y sus causas(Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.—Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos(Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).—El desastre filipino(Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).—Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna(Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).—Historia negra(Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).—Episodios de la revolución filipina(Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).—Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos(Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).—Memoria del cautiverio(Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).—Ante la opinión y ante la historia(Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).—Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas(Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895–96,in reKatipunan, etc.↑108First published under the titleLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.↑109Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas.Agosto de 1898(Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121–158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.↑110E.g., In hisReseña verídica(only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears inCongressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440–445.↑111SeeCongressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092–94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See alsoSenate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of thejuntaof Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.↑112The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of theLa Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera “promised” these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year “armistice,” as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.↑113The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546–547; 3rd ed., pp. 397–398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in theCongressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo’s possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.↑114Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.↑115A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140–141), and inSenate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.↑116Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone “forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket.”↑117Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter’s 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no “treaty” about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen theDiario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera’s detailed account of the affair.↑118It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.↑119The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were “doctored” in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno’s letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.↑120See theMemoria, pp. 159–176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881–83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.↑121See theMemoria, pp. 144–154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.↑122See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora,La situación del país(Manila, 1897), series inLa Oceanía Española; andEl gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila(Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.↑123See especiallyEl Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898,Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.↑124See J. Pellicena y Lopez,Los frailes y los filipinos(Manila, 1901).↑125An earlier indication of the friars’ fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet,Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad(Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates “reform” by means of “a step backward.”↑126As,e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, inLos frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar’sSoberanía monacal(paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.↑127The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): “This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable.” “Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo’s camp].”↑128A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman’s statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo asMagdaloat Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan, pp. 298–302): “The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons.” And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: “Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights.” Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (seeLa Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: “A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase ‘All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.’ ” (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).—Eds.↑129See Sastrón’s account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of hisInsurrección en Filipinasfor some fragments of documents on this subject.↑
See alsoLa Juventud(Barcelona),El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.—Eds.↑87Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal’s purpose in bringing out theSucesoswas primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.↑88Filipinas dextro de cien años, inLa Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana’sArchivo, v.↑89Library of CongressList, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).↑90As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372–376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of CongressList, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 ofDocumentos políticosin theArchivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv.Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphletLos frailes de Filipinasbrings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.↑91In hisMemoria al Senado(Madrid, 1897), pp. 158–163.↑92SeeBiblioteca, no. 2,665.↑93Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana’sVida y escritos de José Rizalby E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translationpost, pp. 217–226).↑94Notes, etc., inEl Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.↑95This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), pp. 114–117, 118–123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana’sArchivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.↑96See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy,Japan and the Philippine Islands, inAtlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in hisMemoria(1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896–97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.↑97This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana’sArchivo, iii,Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).↑98Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896–97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but seeEl Renacimiento, April 23, 1903;ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy inAmerican Historical Review, xi, pp. 843–861. A pamphlet,The Katipunan(Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.↑99Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334–325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. “We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces.”↑100Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphletLos frailes y los filipinos(Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27–28) that Governor-General Polavieja’s demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (SeeLa Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326–328).↑101Notably the “removal” of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.↑102Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón(Madrid, 1897).↑103Ibid., pp. 64–68, 163–169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: “For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it.”↑104See alsoSenate Document no. 62for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the “reign of terror,” tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.↑105It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. SeeLa Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish);ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in “reprisal” for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes’s pamphletLa religión del Katipunan(Madrid, 1900), as also other writings inFilipinas ante EuropaandEl defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899–1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.↑106A few are in theListof the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898–1903. Some may be found under the authors’ names in Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca.↑107So alsoLa soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as “stupid.” In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.—El sitio de Manila(Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).—El bloqueo y sitio de Manila.V. M. Concas y Palau.—Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas(Madrid, 1899). Isern.—Del desastre nacional y sus causas(Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.—Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos(Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).—El desastre filipino(Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).—Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna(Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).—Historia negra(Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).—Episodios de la revolución filipina(Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).—Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos(Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).—Memoria del cautiverio(Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).—Ante la opinión y ante la historia(Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).—Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas(Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895–96,in reKatipunan, etc.↑108First published under the titleLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.↑109Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas.Agosto de 1898(Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121–158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.↑110E.g., In hisReseña verídica(only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears inCongressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440–445.↑111SeeCongressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092–94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See alsoSenate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of thejuntaof Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.↑112The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of theLa Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera “promised” these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year “armistice,” as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.↑113The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546–547; 3rd ed., pp. 397–398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in theCongressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo’s possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.↑114Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.↑115A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140–141), and inSenate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.↑116Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone “forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket.”↑117Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter’s 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no “treaty” about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen theDiario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera’s detailed account of the affair.↑118It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.↑119The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were “doctored” in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno’s letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.↑120See theMemoria, pp. 159–176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881–83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.↑121See theMemoria, pp. 144–154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.↑122See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora,La situación del país(Manila, 1897), series inLa Oceanía Española; andEl gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila(Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.↑123See especiallyEl Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898,Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.↑124See J. Pellicena y Lopez,Los frailes y los filipinos(Manila, 1901).↑125An earlier indication of the friars’ fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet,Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad(Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates “reform” by means of “a step backward.”↑126As,e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, inLos frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar’sSoberanía monacal(paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.↑127The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): “This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable.” “Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo’s camp].”↑128A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman’s statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo asMagdaloat Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan, pp. 298–302): “The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons.” And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: “Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights.” Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (seeLa Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: “A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase ‘All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.’ ” (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).—Eds.↑129See Sastrón’s account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of hisInsurrección en Filipinasfor some fragments of documents on this subject.↑
See alsoLa Juventud(Barcelona),El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.—Eds.↑87Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal’s purpose in bringing out theSucesoswas primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.↑88Filipinas dextro de cien años, inLa Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana’sArchivo, v.↑89Library of CongressList, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).↑90As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372–376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of CongressList, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 ofDocumentos políticosin theArchivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv.Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphletLos frailes de Filipinasbrings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.↑91In hisMemoria al Senado(Madrid, 1897), pp. 158–163.↑92SeeBiblioteca, no. 2,665.↑93Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana’sVida y escritos de José Rizalby E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translationpost, pp. 217–226).↑94Notes, etc., inEl Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.↑95This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), pp. 114–117, 118–123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana’sArchivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.↑96See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy,Japan and the Philippine Islands, inAtlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in hisMemoria(1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896–97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.↑97This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana’sArchivo, iii,Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).↑98Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896–97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but seeEl Renacimiento, April 23, 1903;ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy inAmerican Historical Review, xi, pp. 843–861. A pamphlet,The Katipunan(Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.↑99Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334–325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. “We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces.”↑100Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphletLos frailes y los filipinos(Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27–28) that Governor-General Polavieja’s demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (SeeLa Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326–328).↑101Notably the “removal” of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.↑102Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón(Madrid, 1897).↑103Ibid., pp. 64–68, 163–169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: “For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it.”↑104See alsoSenate Document no. 62for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the “reign of terror,” tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.↑105It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. SeeLa Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish);ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in “reprisal” for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes’s pamphletLa religión del Katipunan(Madrid, 1900), as also other writings inFilipinas ante EuropaandEl defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899–1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.↑106A few are in theListof the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898–1903. Some may be found under the authors’ names in Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca.↑107So alsoLa soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as “stupid.” In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.—El sitio de Manila(Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).—El bloqueo y sitio de Manila.V. M. Concas y Palau.—Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas(Madrid, 1899). Isern.—Del desastre nacional y sus causas(Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.—Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos(Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).—El desastre filipino(Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).—Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna(Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).—Historia negra(Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).—Episodios de la revolución filipina(Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).—Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos(Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).—Memoria del cautiverio(Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).—Ante la opinión y ante la historia(Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).—Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas(Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895–96,in reKatipunan, etc.↑108First published under the titleLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.↑109Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas.Agosto de 1898(Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121–158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.↑110E.g., In hisReseña verídica(only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears inCongressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440–445.↑111SeeCongressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092–94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See alsoSenate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of thejuntaof Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.↑112The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of theLa Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera “promised” these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year “armistice,” as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.↑113The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546–547; 3rd ed., pp. 397–398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in theCongressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo’s possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.↑114Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.↑115A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140–141), and inSenate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.↑116Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone “forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket.”↑117Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter’s 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no “treaty” about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen theDiario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera’s detailed account of the affair.↑118It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.↑119The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were “doctored” in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno’s letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.↑120See theMemoria, pp. 159–176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881–83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.↑121See theMemoria, pp. 144–154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.↑122See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora,La situación del país(Manila, 1897), series inLa Oceanía Española; andEl gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila(Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.↑123See especiallyEl Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898,Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.↑124See J. Pellicena y Lopez,Los frailes y los filipinos(Manila, 1901).↑125An earlier indication of the friars’ fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet,Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad(Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates “reform” by means of “a step backward.”↑126As,e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, inLos frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar’sSoberanía monacal(paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.↑127The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): “This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable.” “Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo’s camp].”↑128A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman’s statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo asMagdaloat Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan, pp. 298–302): “The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons.” And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: “Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights.” Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (seeLa Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: “A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase ‘All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.’ ” (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).—Eds.↑129See Sastrón’s account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of hisInsurrección en Filipinasfor some fragments of documents on this subject.↑
See alsoLa Juventud(Barcelona),El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.—Eds.↑87Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal’s purpose in bringing out theSucesoswas primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.↑88Filipinas dextro de cien años, inLa Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana’sArchivo, v.↑89Library of CongressList, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).↑90As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372–376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of CongressList, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 ofDocumentos políticosin theArchivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv.Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphletLos frailes de Filipinasbrings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.↑91In hisMemoria al Senado(Madrid, 1897), pp. 158–163.↑92SeeBiblioteca, no. 2,665.↑93Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana’sVida y escritos de José Rizalby E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translationpost, pp. 217–226).↑94Notes, etc., inEl Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.↑95This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), pp. 114–117, 118–123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana’sArchivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.↑96See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy,Japan and the Philippine Islands, inAtlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in hisMemoria(1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896–97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.↑97This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana’sArchivo, iii,Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).↑98Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896–97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but seeEl Renacimiento, April 23, 1903;ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy inAmerican Historical Review, xi, pp. 843–861. A pamphlet,The Katipunan(Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.↑99Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334–325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. “We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces.”↑100Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphletLos frailes y los filipinos(Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27–28) that Governor-General Polavieja’s demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (SeeLa Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326–328).↑101Notably the “removal” of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.↑102Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón(Madrid, 1897).↑103Ibid., pp. 64–68, 163–169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: “For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it.”↑104See alsoSenate Document no. 62for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the “reign of terror,” tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.↑105It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. SeeLa Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish);ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in “reprisal” for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes’s pamphletLa religión del Katipunan(Madrid, 1900), as also other writings inFilipinas ante EuropaandEl defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899–1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.↑106A few are in theListof the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898–1903. Some may be found under the authors’ names in Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca.↑107So alsoLa soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as “stupid.” In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.—El sitio de Manila(Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).—El bloqueo y sitio de Manila.V. M. Concas y Palau.—Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas(Madrid, 1899). Isern.—Del desastre nacional y sus causas(Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.—Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos(Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).—El desastre filipino(Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).—Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna(Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).—Historia negra(Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).—Episodios de la revolución filipina(Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).—Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos(Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).—Memoria del cautiverio(Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).—Ante la opinión y ante la historia(Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).—Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas(Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895–96,in reKatipunan, etc.↑108First published under the titleLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.↑109Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas.Agosto de 1898(Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121–158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.↑110E.g., In hisReseña verídica(only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears inCongressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440–445.↑111SeeCongressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092–94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See alsoSenate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of thejuntaof Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.↑112The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of theLa Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera “promised” these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year “armistice,” as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.↑113The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546–547; 3rd ed., pp. 397–398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in theCongressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo’s possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.↑114Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.↑115A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140–141), and inSenate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.↑116Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone “forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket.”↑117Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter’s 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no “treaty” about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen theDiario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera’s detailed account of the affair.↑118It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.↑119The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were “doctored” in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno’s letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.↑120See theMemoria, pp. 159–176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881–83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.↑121See theMemoria, pp. 144–154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.↑122See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora,La situación del país(Manila, 1897), series inLa Oceanía Española; andEl gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila(Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.↑123See especiallyEl Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898,Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.↑124See J. Pellicena y Lopez,Los frailes y los filipinos(Manila, 1901).↑125An earlier indication of the friars’ fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet,Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad(Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates “reform” by means of “a step backward.”↑126As,e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, inLos frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar’sSoberanía monacal(paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.↑127The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): “This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable.” “Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo’s camp].”↑128A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman’s statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo asMagdaloat Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan, pp. 298–302): “The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons.” And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: “Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights.” Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (seeLa Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: “A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase ‘All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.’ ” (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).—Eds.↑129See Sastrón’s account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of hisInsurrección en Filipinasfor some fragments of documents on this subject.↑
See alsoLa Juventud(Barcelona),El Doctor Rizal y su obra, published in 1897.—Eds.↑
87Morga, who gave a more truly scientific and in many respects more favorable view of the Filipinos at the time of the conquest than the later friar-chroniclers, had been neglected by Spanish writers and students, and Rizal’s purpose in bringing out theSucesoswas primarily to correct many recent exaggerations in the literature about the Filipinos. The bitterness with which his work (and even Morga himself) was assailed revealed the political spirit of the times.↑
88Filipinas dextro de cien años, inLa Solidaridad, reprinted in Retana’sArchivo, v.↑
89Library of CongressList, pp. 99, 100; and Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca, nos. 307, 308, 339 and 341 (also 1087).↑
90As also their tendency to assume that every Spanish official who favored a more liberal political régime in the Philippines did so because he was a Mason. The books of Sastrón and Castillo y Jimenez (especially pp. 372–376, 382), also the friar pamphlets of García-Barzanallana (Library of CongressList, p. 103) and Navarro (Biblioteca, no. 1,811), are especially in point. See, for accounts from the same point of view, the report of the Spanish officer of the civil guard, Olegario Diaz, no. 77 ofDocumentos políticosin theArchivo, iii, and other documents in that series in vols. iii, and iv.Masones y ultramontanes, by Juan Utor y Fernandez (Manila, 1899), is a defense of Masonry by a Spaniard who founded lodges in the Philippines. V. Diaz Perez in the pamphletLos frailes de Filipinasbrings out from the same point of view some figures and other data on Masonry in the Philippines.↑
91In hisMemoria al Senado(Madrid, 1897), pp. 158–163.↑
92SeeBiblioteca, no. 2,665.↑
93Cited in their original draft, somewhat skeletonized, in the notes furnished for Retana’sVida y escritos de José Rizalby E. de los Santos, and by the latter also furnished in a manuscript copy to the writer (of which see the translationpost, pp. 217–226).↑
94Notes, etc., inEl Renacimiento, Manila, Aug. 11 and 18, Sept. 1 and 18, Oct. 13, 1906.↑
95This is especially true of the documents given by José M. del Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan ó el Filibusterismo en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), pp. 114–117, 118–123, whence they have been quoted by various other writers. It is to be noted, first, that the source of these documents has never been given; they are not among the extracts from the official records of the courts-martial reproduced in Retana’sArchivo, iii, and iv; and, finally, certain passages in them read suspiciously as if prepared for the purpose of proving the most exaggerated statements about the Katipunan and of magnifying the scope and aims of the whole movement.↑
96See on this subject an article by J. A. LeRoy,Japan and the Philippine Islands, inAtlantic Monthly, January, 1906. Primo de Rivera, in hisMemoria(1898), several times declares that the Cavite insurgents of 1896–97 never had more than 1,500 firearms, including rifles of all sorts, shotguns, and revolvers.↑
97This was allowed to appear even in the testimony as written down by the Spanish military court (Retana’sArchivo, iii,Documentos políticos, nos. 35, 46, and 55).↑
98Besides Castillo y Jimenez, the Katipunan will be found discussed in nearly all the sources to be cited on the 1896–97 insurrection. Data on Bonifacio are scanty, but seeEl Renacimiento, April 23, 1903;ibid., for the notes of Calderón, above cited, and of Aug. 30, 1906, for a letter by Pio Valenzuela; also comments by A. Mabini and notes by J. A. LeRoy inAmerican Historical Review, xi, pp. 843–861. A pamphlet,The Katipunan(Manila, 1902), by Francis St. Clair (?), published in order to put before Americans the friar view of the Filipino revolutionists, contains an English version of the report of Olegario Diaz, cited above; its notes, drawn indiscriminately from Retana, Castillo y Jimenez, and others, are full of errors.↑
99Friar Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, pp. 334–325) says the forces of the Civil Guard sent to the Bisayas were recruited not from the best men in the Filipino infantry regiments, as the Governor-General ordered, but from the worst, because these were the men whom the infantry colonels would let go. “We parish-priests knew this, because the Civil Guard officers themselves so told us; we saw, a few days after the posts were established in the towns, that the majority of the Guards ought to be serving, not in that corps of prestige, but in some disciplinary corps or in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, from our pulpits we recommended and eulogized what caused us disgust and displeasure, because it was so ordered by the Governor-General to the provincial of the monastic orders, and directly to the parish-priests themselves through the medium of the governors of provinces.”↑
100Joaquin Pellicena y Lopez, a Spanish journalist of Manila, an admirer of the Jesuits (in some degree, perhaps, an exponent of Jesuit views on recent years in the Philippines), in the pamphletLos frailes y los filipinos(Manila, Jan., 1901), defends the work of the friars as a historical whole, but condemns their unwillingness to progress with the times. As one proof that the rebellion of 1896 was against the friars, not against Spain, he says (pp. 27–28) that Governor-General Polavieja’s demand for 25,000 fresh troops in April, 1897, was, only a pretext to cover his resignation. Polavieja, who came out to succeed Blanco and under whom Rizal was almost immediately executed, had suddenly become convinced, says this journalist, by reading correspondence of Aguinaldo with the Jesuit superior, that the real cause of the trouble was the friars. As virtually emissary and appointee of the friars, the inference is, Polavieja concluded it would be impossible for him to settle the difficulties successfully. The letters of Aguinaldo to Pio Pí are most interesting, at least (SeeLa Politica de España en Filipinas, vii, pp. 326–328).↑
101Notably the “removal” of Andrés Bonifacio in 1897 (regarding which the Bonifacio note above cites incomplete data), and the Biak-na-bató negotiation, treated below.↑
102Memoria que al Senado dirige el General Blanco acerca de los últimos sucesos ocurridos en la isla de Luzón(Madrid, 1897).↑
103Ibid., pp. 64–68, 163–169. The real Blanco expresses himself in these sentences: “For some people, proof of character and energy is given by ordering executions right and left, at the pleasure of the public, which is wont to be excited by passion; but, on the contrary, energy is shown by resisting all kinds of abuses, and this one most of all. To shoot men is very easy; the difficult thing is not to do it.”↑
104See alsoSenate Document no. 62for hearsay testimony by foreigners at Paris regarding the “reign of terror,” tortures, etc.; and the books of Foreman and Sawyer for similar testimony.↑
105It is to be noted that some of the worst stories of Filipino outrages upon Spanish captives, especially friars, later proved to be rumors, or were exaggerated, though some brutalities were committed. SeeLa Democracia, Manila, July 12, 1906, for an alleged confession by Friar Piernavieja (extorted from him, and dictated to him in bad Spanish);ibid., July 14, 1906, for data regarding the execution of him and two other friars in Cavite, in “reprisal” for the execution of Rizal. Isabelo de los Reyes’s pamphletLa religión del Katipunan(Madrid, 1900), as also other writings inFilipinas ante EuropaandEl defensor de Filipinas, a periodical edited at Madrid, 1899–1901 by Reyes, may be mentioned here, as to Aguinaldo and the revolutionary movement in general; statements therein are commonly unreliable.↑
106A few are in theListof the Library of Congress, under Political and Social Economy, and American Occupation, 1898–1903. Some may be found under the authors’ names in Pardo de Tavera’sBiblioteca.↑
107So alsoLa soberanía nacional, by D. Paradada, a Jesuit (Barcelona, 1897), cited by Pardo de Tavera, as “stupid.” In this connection may be cited the following titles of Spanish writings on the events following May, 1898, which contain some backward glances upon the earlier phases of the Filipino revolution, also some Spanish imprevision; Juan y José Toral.—El sitio de Manila(Manila, 1898). José Roca de Togores y Saravia (secretary of Council of Administration of Philippines).—El bloqueo y sitio de Manila.V. M. Concas y Palau.—Causa instruida por la destrucción de la escuadra de Filipinas y entrega del arsenal de Cavite. Notas taquigráficas(Madrid, 1899). Isern.—Del desastre nacional y sus causas(Madrid, 1899). Luis Morero Jerez.—Los prisioneros españoles en poder de los tagalos(Manila, Dec., 1899). Carlos Ria-Baja (a prisoner of the Filipinos).—El desastre filipino(Barcelona, 1899). Antonio del Rio (a prisoner, Spanish governor of Laguna Province).—Sitio y rendición de Santa Cruz de la Laguna(Manila, 1899). El Capitan Verdades (Juan de Urquía).—Historia negra(Barcelona, 1899). Joaquín D. Duran (a friar prisoner).—Episodios de la revolución filipina(Manila, 1900). Ulpiano Herrero y Sampedro (a prisoner).—Nuestra prisión en poder de los revolucionarios filipinos(Manila, 1900). Graciano Martinez (a friar prisoner).—Memoria del cautiverio(Manila, 1900). C. P. (Carlos Peñaranda).—Ante la opinión y ante la historia(Madrid, 1900); a defense of Admiral Montojo. Bernardino Nozaleda (Archbishop of Manila).—Defensa obligada contra acusaciones gratuitas(Madrid, 1904); especially for communications to Blanco, 1895–96,in reKatipunan, etc.↑
108First published under the titleLa insurrección en Filipinas(Madrid, 1897), but the later volume, covering also the events of late 1897 and 1898 and the war with the United States, is more complete.↑
109Memoria dirigida al Senado por el Capitán General D. Fernando Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte acerca de sa gestión en Filipinas.Agosto de 1898(Madrid, 1898). Pp. 121–158 cover the Biak-na-bató negotiation.↑
110E.g., In hisReseña verídica(only signed, not written by him), an English translation of which appears inCongressional Record, xxxv, appendix, pp. 440–445.↑
111SeeCongressional Record, xxxv, part 6, pp. 6092–94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See alsoSenate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session, part 2, for the documents showing the discussion of thejuntaof Filipinos at Hongkong in February and May, 1898, relative to the Biak-na-bató money payments and the obligations thereby contracted toward the Spanish government. When the Philippine Insurgent Records now in manuscript in the War Department, edited by Captain J. R. M. Taylor, are published, all the captured documents on this and later matters will be brought together.↑
112The same as has frequently been cited as the program of reforms promised by Primo de Rivera, or even as being contained in an actual treaty. Such statements have usually been reproduced from Foreman or directly from insurgent proclamations. It is notable that in these (e.g., that of theLa Junta Patriótica, Hongkong, April, 1898) it is only declared that Primo de Rivera “promised” these reforms, and that he himself would remain in the Philippines during a three-year “armistice,” as a guarantee that the reforms would be carried out.↑
113The document cited by Foreman (2nd ed., pp. 546–547; 3rd ed., pp. 397–398), read in the Cortes in 1898, was not the final agreement and the terms of payment are incorrect. It is either spurious, or was superseded by the document, number 5 (of the same date) published in theCongressional Record, ut supra. This appears to have been the only document in Aguinaldo’s possession bearing the signature of Primo de Rivera, and it is merely a program prescribing the movements of the rebel chiefs from December 14 on, terms of payments, surrender of arms, amnesty, etc.↑
114Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.↑
115A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140–141), and inSenate Document no. 208, pt. 2, pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.↑
116Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396) that someone “forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket.”↑
117Paterno has apparently given to Foreman a partial version of the transaction for the latter’s 1906 edition. Therein Foreman comes around to imply that there was, after all, no “treaty” about reforms, but he is still very much confused as to the money payments, etc., and almost every sentence contains an inaccuracy. He appears to have seen theDiario de las Sesiones de Cortes, at least for one or two speeches on this subject in 1898, when there were heated debates on Philippine matters in the Cortes, but it is strange he never consulted Primo de Rivera’s detailed account of the affair.↑
118It was declared, however, in the press of Spain that Aguinaldo projected a residence in Europe and had started for Paris when Consul-General Pratt found him at Singapore in April, 1898.↑
119The change of Spanish administration in October, 1897, bringing the Liberals again into power, with Moret, who had proposed secularization of education in 1870, as Colonial Minister, was another reason for expecting liberal measures in the Philippines as well as in Cuba. It was this new ministry which urged Primo de Rivera to conclude the Biak-na-bató negotiation speedily. One of the indications that the Biak-na-bató documents in the War Department, above cited, were “doctored” in some particulars is the insertion in Paterno’s letter to Aguinaldo of Aug. 9, 1897, of a reference to Moret being Minister; the change of cabinet in Madrid occurred two months later.↑
120See theMemoria, pp. 159–176, on Reforms. In a temperate, judicial way his discussion of the friars, from experience as Governor-General from 1881–83 and during the insurrection, is perhaps the severest arraignment they could receive, above all since it came from a man appointed by a Conservative administration.↑
121See theMemoria, pp. 144–154. The incident is related in various tones by other writers.↑
122See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora,La situación del país(Manila, 1897), series inLa Oceanía Española; andEl gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas planteado por El Español, periódico diario de Manila(Manila, 1897). These articles appeared while the Biak-na-bató negotiation was pending, and with full official sanction; but they touched the religious question only very cautiously, and mostly to defend the friars. The articles of Caro y Mora especially merit consideration in connection with the study of Spanish administration in its last stage.↑
123See especiallyEl Liberal, of Madrid. The writer has a copy of a broadside dated at Madrid Jan. 26, 1898,Exposición elevada á sa Majestad la Reina Regente sobre la insurrección en Filipinas, by Vital Fité, a Spanish journalist, once provincial governor in the Philippines. It represents friar-rule as the chief grievance, but recites also abuses and defects of administration.↑
124See J. Pellicena y Lopez,Los frailes y los filipinos(Manila, 1901).↑
125An earlier indication of the friars’ fear of coming reforms is the pamphlet,Filipinas. Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad(Madrid, 1897), by Eduardo Navarro, procurator of Augustinians, who advocates “reform” by means of “a step backward.”↑
126As,e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, inLos frailes y los filipinos, to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The citation from Del Pilar’sSoberanía monacal(paragraph v), is almost identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen, quoted already.↑
127The author of the preliminary report of the Schurman Commission, Nov. 2, 1899, must simply have blindly followed Foreman and must have somewhat misunderstood his Filipino informants, in order to make these remarkable statements (Report, i, pp. 169, 172): “This movement [rebellion of 1896] was in no sense an attempt to win independence, but was merely an attempt to obtain relief from abuses which were rapidly growing intolerable.” “Now [June, 1898] for the first time arose the idea of independence [in Aguinaldo’s camp].”↑
128A quite sufficient answer, if there were not plenty of others, to Dr. Schurman’s statements quoted above is afforded by this passage in a proclamation of Aguinaldo asMagdaloat Old Cavite (Kawit), Oct. 31, 1896 (Castillo y Jimenez,El Katipunan, pp. 298–302): “The revolutionary committee addresses to all Filipino citizens who love their country a general call to arms for the proclamation of Filipino liberty and independence as [a matter of] right and justice, and the recognition of the new revolutionary government established by the blood of its sons.” And, on the same date, in a proclamation outlining a rough revolutionary organization of Cavite province and each of its towns, he says: “Filipinas witnesses today a fact unprecedented in its history: the conquest of its liberty and of its independence, the most noble and lofty of its rights.” Yet, in March, 1897, Aguinaldo discussed in the correspondence with the Jesuit superior, as already mentioned, the reforms he thought the country asked, and expressly disclaimed for the revolutionists the aim for independence. So also his proclamations and interviews on leaving for Hongkong after the pact of Biak-na-bató (seeLa Política de España en Filipinas, viii, pp. 46, 47).
However, in a letter to Fray Tomas Espejo (undated, but written probably in January, 1898), Aguinaldo says: “A great work is this, which demands great sacrifices, followed by the shedding of quantities of blood. But what matters that, for it is very little compared to the sublime and holy end which we hold before ourselves in attempting to take arms against España. For this we have resolved to sacrifice our lives until we shall hear issue from the mouths of our compatriots, the blessed phrase ‘All hail, Filipinas! forever separated from España and conquered through the heroism of their inhabitants.’ ” (La Política de España, viii, p. 44).—Eds.↑
129See Sastrón’s account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi of hisInsurrección en Filipinasfor some fragments of documents on this subject.↑