part 10

), pp. 8-13, 79 et seq. See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36-37, 125-131.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[158] See Congressional Record, xxxv, part 6 , pp. 6092-94, for English translations with explanatory notes. See also Senate Document no. 208, 56th Congress, 1st session,