Part 3

Note 2. In that period of time in which the evil effects of freemasonry began to tell upon the public and private life of the government officials and upon the morals of the people in general, the Civil Governor of Manila, D. Justo Martin Lunas (1886), gave a ball to which the cream of Manila society was invited. Among the selections for the evening was an extravagant item, nothing more or less than ... a can-can! This in itself was enough; but what made the matter so much the worse was that the governor had invited the venerable Archbishop of Manila to the ball. The news of the innovation spread far and wide, and very soon the whole city was in a state of wild excitement. In the defense of public morals the Archbishop deemed it necessary to issue a pastoral letter condemning such spectacles.

Although not directed at that particular "school of scandal", this pastoral was interpreted by all those concerned, as well as by the public in general, as a severe lesson for Sr. Lunas and those who had gathered in the government house to dance the can-can or to take pleasure therein. Hence Sr. Luna and his party considered themselves offended, and did not hesitate to take revenge when an opportunity occurred, upon the aged and infirm Archbishop who did all he had done, in defense of the morals of his flock.

From this event sprung the seed which gave rise, later on, to the famous, or rather infamous manifestation of '88: an insensate campaign inspired against the Religious Orders by these offended ones and their followers (See note 30).

The Civil Governor at that time was D. Jose Centeno y Garcia an active propagator of freemasonry, holding the 33rd degree. He, together with Sr. Quiroja, fostered and godfathered the "manifestation". In this semi-official insult to Archbishop Payo, an insult so ably analysed by Sr. Retana [15], we have one of the best examples that could be furnished of the methods adopted by the masonic enemies of the Catholic faith in this archipelago. This manifestation, fostered by a governor who drew down upon himself the righteous ire of all honorable men and women by reason of his protection of the houses of ill-fame in and about the city, was a truly masonic invention by which many, in fact some 98% of those who signed it, were grossly deceived. The following notes taken from the analysis of Sr. Retana, will give an idea of the real value of the "manifestation" and the part the people had therein. In the Suburb of Sta. Cruz there were 144 people who signed the document, that is to say there were 144 names. Of these no less than 56 were unknown, 3 were minors and 3 did not recognize their signatures; 52 were natives and 8 were Chinese half-castes. In Sampaloc: 61 signatures, all of which were of indians none of whom followed trades or professions which necessitated the use of brain power. In Malate: 38 signatures, 31 of indians, only 15 of whom understood Spanish. In Binondo: 41, 31 of whom were indians; five minors. In Sta. Ana, out of 104, the number of minors was 14, and 50 did not understand Spanish; 66 were indians. In Caloocan: 80 signatures of which 55 were indians who did not understand Spanish; 38 were laborers, 7 were minors. In Navotas: 140 signatures; 49 laborers, and 49 fishermen; 127 did not understand Spanish. In Mariquina: 68, 38 of whom were laborers, 51 did not understand Spanish. In San Fernando de Dilao (Paco): 35; 6 minors and all indians. In San Mateo, 50 signatures; 39 laborers, 45 indians, 41 of whom did not understand Spanish. In San Miguel 49; and here comes the crowning piece of the magnificent work, for of these 49 no fewer than 16 had died! yes died previous to the drawing up of the document and therefore could not possibly have signed it; moreover 7 did not recognize their signatures, and all were indians.

In recapitulation; there were 810 signatures; of these 85 did not declare on examination, 56 were unknown, 39 were minors, 22 did not recognize their signatures and 16 had died previous to the drawing up of the document (Feb. 20th 1888). This brings the 810 down to 592. Of these 592 signatures 208 were of laborers, 50 of fishermen, 31 of carpenters, 7 washermen and 5 barbers: a total of 301 persons whose occupations called for no particular amount of education, and whose interest and concern in such a movement as this may be judged from their social standing. Deducting these 301 from the remaining 592 we have 291 left for further analysis. Of these 25 were of tailors, 4 singers (!) and 3 school masters; 58 escribientes whose occupation it is to make clean copies of documents and other manuscript, the most that can be said of the majority of them being that they can write well, not an uncommon thing anyhow for a filipino; 11 of musicians, men who lead the life of crickets, enjoying hunger by day and noise by night; 9 type-setters, men who after having set a dozen columns of material could not tell you anything of the subject they were composing, in other words, men who like the escribientes reproduce mechanically without knowing what they are reproducing; this gives us 107 of another grade leaving 184 to be divided among the many odds and ends of occupations followed by the native to earn his "fish and rice". No less than 384 of the number did not understand Spanish and 13 could not write. In the matter of races: ONE was a Spaniard, Enrique Rodriguez de los Palacios who called himself a merchant and was domiciled in Binondo. Upon investigation it turned out that he also had been fooled and that he had signed the protest because he had been told that other Spaniards had also signed it; as to its contents he affirmed that he knew nothing. One was a Spanish mestizo, 66 were Chinese half-castes and 524 were indians. So much for the famous manifestation which resulted in giving a most decisive blow to the moral and social standing of those who prepared and those who signed it. Those concerned therein learned the bitter lesson that "they who dig pits for their neighbors are apt to fall therein themselves."

The common opinion has always been that the document in question was drawn up by Doroteo Cortes (see note 11) who had on several occasions been under police vigilance; had been expelled from Navotas and compelled to reside within the walled city, later on pardoned, but still kept under police surveillance. But however that may be, the document was infamous in the extreme, and was the precursor of the modern campaign against the Religious Orders. From that time to this present, this campaign has continued to spread, and is still being fostered by the Federal Party.

Another of the advanced ideas which saw the light of day during the interim governorship of D. Jose Centeno y Garcia, a 33rd degree freemason and a stout republican, was the toleration, for the first time in the history of the Archipelago, of houses of prostitution. Centeno was a governor who, having erred considerably during his governorship, attempted some years later to regain public confidence by the publication of an insulting pamphlet against the Religious Orders. This novelty of semi-official houses of ill-fame was, for Manila, a most genuine expression of modern democracy. Scandals until then unheard of or undreamed of in Manila, became the order of the day. White girls imported or inveigled, were hired out by their mistresses to pander to the sensual appetites of blacks, merely because the said black-skinned sensualists were wealthy enough to pay the price demanded. What edification! Fundicion street became a centre in which the scandals daily increased in number and importance. The native weaned after many long years of careful training at the hands of the Religious Orders, from the vices in which he was found submerged at the time of the Spanish Conquest, was brought face to face with the same scandalous surroundings, introduced by people of the same white race which had removed his forefathers therefrom. Gradually but surely this leaven of corruption has eaten its way into the customs of the people, and to-day we are witnesses of its terrible effects. A comparison of the public morals of to-day with those of 20 years or so ago, would reveal facts which would astound many of those who are at a loss to account for the reason of the existence of the "querida" evil among so many of the Filipinos of modern Manila. A quarter of a century ago Manila was a paradise to what it is to-day, crimes so common in these days that they are scarcely worth recording, were unheard of; and even drunkenness was almost entirely confined to foreign sailors. What Manila is to-day it owes to the advanced and anti religious ideas introduced by freemasonry and modern democracy.

Note 3. Separatism, vulgarly called filibusterism, has always, in the Philippines, been marked by essential characteristics. It was always, under the circumstances by which it was surrounded, necessarily anti-patriotic. One thing which helped to give it the robust life it enjoyed among the middle class of people, was the supposition of the existence of a Tagalog civilization anterior to the discovery of the archipelago by the famous Magallanes. This fantastic doctrine was preached and propagated principally by two of the more prominent Filipinos, Pedro Paterno and Jose Rizal. The former, much less cultured than Rizal, was the one to whom the most insensate ideas on this subject were owing, and this because although Rizal upheld the idea, he was led to do so by his perverse character rather than by his belief; whilst Paterno really believes in this pre-Spanish civilization, and that to such a degree that many of his own country-men call him a fool and ridicule him. Another essential mark was the enmity demonstrated against the Religious Orders. But few, if any at all of the propagators of the doctrines of separatism labored outside of the four walls of the masonic lodge room. In other words they were freemasons. Masonry was to them a medium through which they might carry on their conspiracies; it was an excuse for the creation of the spirit of association, till then unknown in the Philippines.

The aims of separatism may be classed as direct and indirect. The indirect aim was the independence of the country from the yoke of Spain. At the best this idea of independence was but second hand, a lesson learned by heart by a scholar whose power of thought was insufficient to enable him to grasp the true meaning of the words of the lesson. The average Filipino lacks the sentiment of nationality; hence in the minds of the majority of the people independence is but the enjoyment of the unbridled liberty to do as they please, in fact to revert to the times of their ancestors when everyone who could exert an authority was a king, a prince or a ruler of some description. To the Filipino it is of little importance whether his sovereign or his supreme ruler be the King of Spain or the President of the U. S. of America, as long as he is protected from his "friends" and from his own country-men and may enjoy his cock-fighting and have the necessary supply of rice and fish for his daily sustenance.

The direct aims of the separatists were those they sought in public, viz: representation in the Spanish Cortes, the expulsion of the Religious Orders, etc., etc. The result of representation in the Cortes would have been a veritable comedy; that of the expulsion of the Friars a decided tragedy for Spain, in as much as the Religious was ever the backbone of the administration of the colony. The consequences of the independence of the country would have been equally disastrous. There would have been the tremendous preponderance of the black over the white and eventually inter-tribal disputes and even armed struggles for the mastery. This would entail the complete stagnation of the moral and material progress of the people, who would gradually but surely drift back into the savage ways of their ancestors. And at last, who knows but that Japan or perhaps China would have to step in to save the inhabitants from becoming cannibals.

This doctrine of separatism was the doctrine disseminated by Filipino masonry, a daughter of Spanish freemasonry. Filipino freemasonry however, was to a great extent addicted to views not held or sustained by the Gr. Or. Espanol, and hence did not make common cause with Universal Freemasonry, although it used its ritual, its signs and its name, to shield from public view those of its labors which could not be allowed to see the light of day. Hence the diving into the subject of Universal Freemasonry is somewhat irrelevant to our present study, suffice it to say that the brotherhood, universal as it is, suffers no other division than that into families. Its aim is one; its methods one; its doctrine one [16]; it is the worldly imitation of the unparalleled Catholic unity of divine foundation.

The Spanish family was founded in 1811 by the Count de Grasse-Tilley. On the 21st of February 1804 the Supreme Council of Charleston issued a circular to the Count in which it said among other things which demonstrate the aim of the foundation: "Above the idea of country is the idea of humanity"; "frontiers are capricious demarcations imposed by the use of force." And others of the same nature.

When the Count set forth to found the Spanish Supreme Council he was armed with a letters patent issued by the Supreme Council of Charleston containing this sentence: "the masonic solidity will never be effective whilst the brethren do not recognize one only power, as is one only the earth we inhabit, and one also the horizon we contemplate.... To unify, therefore, the masonic labors we all journey to the one end to which the work of this Supreme Council is directed, and hence what we have pointed out to Spain as one of the points in which is more necessary than elsewhere the one direction to which we refer."

In 1882 Spanish freemasons were divided into different Orientes each of which claimed continuity with the institution of Grasse-Tilley; the matter was finally settled by the Supreme Council of Charleston.

Opinion is divided on the question of the responsibility of the Spanish freemason lodges or rather the ruling "Oriente" for the beliefs and practices of their filipino brethren. That they were indirectly responsible is more than certain; and oft-times they were so indirectly. D. Manuel Sastron ex-Deputy to the Spanish Cortes, ex-Civil Governor of the Philippines, speaking on this subject says: "It is not possible for us on any account to fall in line with these suspicious reasonings: never have we had a disposition to form a part of such a sect, because we are old time Christians; but we repeat that we cannot believe nor do we imagine that any masonic centre composed of peninsular Spaniards could tolerate, and much less foment consciously, the propagation of doctrines which, whatever masonry brought about in the Philippines, could have given origin to the congregation of separatist elements."

"Nevertheless side by side with this firm conviction we repeat what we tersely maintained, viz: that freemasonry has been the medium which marshalled the element which generalled the Filipino insurrection. Filibusterism knew how to exploit it to a fine point."

"We do not find it inconvenient to affirm, but just the opposite, we repeat with pleasure and absolute belief that Spanish freemasonry was ignorant of the true ends of the Filipino masons. But it is proved to our way of thinking, to the point of evidence, that Filipino masonry pursued no other ends than the independence of those islands (the Philippines.)" [17]

It must be noted that this is the opinion of a Spanish patriot, for a patriot Sastron certainly was, and what is more natural than that a true patriot should doubt the possibility of his own countrymen mixing themselves up in anti-patriotic movements: Yet while Sastron and other writers would redeem their fellow countrymen from such a stain as that of treason, I am inclined to believe that the asserted ignorance of the Spanish freemason was too often official, that is to say it was not genuine, but limited to the members of the society who enjoyed the privileges of the lower degrees.

There are two sides to every question, however, and that the "other side" may be given a fair hearing, I will quote a declaration of Antonio Luna on this subject. Luna, among the many statements made before the Lieut. Col. in command of the Cuartel de Caballeria, on the 8th of October 1896, confessed that "in the year 1890 or 91, of his own free-will, he formed a masonic project based on Spanish masonry: a project which might, at its proper time be applied to filibuster conspiracy. This project was discussed and approved by the Oriente Espanol in Madrid; but that center did not know the secondary ends to which it would be applied.... Of his own free-will he manifested that his ideas were, when he formed the project, anti-Spanish...."

With rare exceptions the Filipinos who left their native soil to finish their education in the Spanish peninsula, were those to whom the real work of separatism is owing. The Filipino at home who has fallen into line with his foreign educated brother is but a blind worker. And the Filipino who went to Spain was as a rule, a very general rule, taken under the sheltering care of Miguel Morayta (see note 13). The responsibility therefore for the ideas inculcated into the minds of those "students" lies, and that heavily, upon Morayta, the chief of that family of freemasonry which claims ignorance of the aims of its filipino membership. The only logical excuse that can be brought forwards is that filipino freemasonry degenerated. When once it took root in the Archipelago it spread with wonderful rapidity. The adepts were for the most part Chinese half-castes; and little by little that strange train of thought of the native, whether he be full blooded or mixed, a train of thought which, like the filipino pony is accustomed to walk backwards when it should go forwards, or like the patient carabao which too often lies down just at the moment when its services are the most needed to drag a load over a mud hole, carried the would-be citizens of an independent country to the verge of political insanity. Certain it is that as the idea of separation became more and more developed the Spanish masons who were member of the Filipino lodges severed their connection therewith. But yet it does not appear within the limits of common sense to believe that the Spanish masons were ignorant; the greater probability is that they were too indulgent, too confiding. To hold too fast to the excuse of ignorance is to profess oneself very ignorant. But whether it was ignorance or the wanting of even that species of patriotism which one expects to find in beasts of burden (for every horse knows his own stables) the black fact still remains that Spanish masonry gave birth to, and fostered, Filipino freemasonry or in other words, the katipunan.

However, be the degree of ignorance what it may, we cannot overlook the fact that the actions of the Tagalog freemasons, the katipunan if you will, for the one and the other are the same thing under different names, were the cause of no little surprise to the Grand Oriente Espanol. The filipino mason was a traitor to the mother which gave him being and nourished him into activity: a traitor who used the cover of the freemason lodge only that he might the easier and safer hatch out his plot to gain, by the most brutal means imaginable, the independence of his country.

In his declaration made in the presence of Colonel Francisco Olive y Garcia and others on the 23rd of September 1896, Moises Salvador Francisco, of Quiapo (Manila) stated that "in April 1891 he came to Manila bringing with him a copy of the agreements arrived at by the Junta of Madrid, and these he handed over to Timoteo Paez to see if masonic lodges could be established as a commencement of the work. In the following year of 1892 Pedro Serrano arrived from Spain and then Masonry (native) was introduced into the Philippines, the first lodge instituted being the Nilad."

To give some idea of the separatist aims which gave life and nourishment to the Tagalog revolt, I will quote a few extracts taken from masonic documents, and from the declarations, made by persons complicated in the conspiracy. These declarations were made in the presence of the appointed judge, Col. D. Francisco Olive y Garcia, and others, and are of capital interest in the study of the rise and fall of the filipino "commune".

The citations are as follows:

I. In an act of Session of the Katipunan Sur at the commencement of the year 1896, the session being opened, the president don Agustin Tantoko, a native priest [18], invited the membership present to express its opinion concerning the questions proposed, viz: how ought we to act towards society; towards ourselves; and how ought we to act in case of surprise. Mariano Kalisan considered, dealing with the first question, that "as their principal object was not to leave alive any Spaniard in all the future Filipino republic" they should procure to make friends with them as much as possible in order to be able to carry out their plans with more surety when the time should arrive to give the cry of independence. D. Gabino Tantoko, brother of the president, considered that the said principle should be carried out especially in dealing with the members of the Religious Orders. Both propositions were accepted.

As regards the second question, Epifanio Ramos proposed that meetings should be held as seldom as possible "in order to avoid scandals".

In case of surprise, Hermenegildo Garcia considered that "the strongest fort lay in denial." The brothers Tantoko remarked that such surprise was almost impossible seeing that they had determined "not to leave alive any of those who might surprise them." The president moreover remarked that, from that time forward, in case of danger, "they should destroy all the papers they held in their power, such as acts, receipts, letters, plans and especially the arms they held, in case the blow they were to deal in Manila should not succeed." This was accepted unanimously.

In reply to a question, the president affirmed that "all the sections of Katipunan existing in the future Filipino republic pursued the same end: viz: the independence of the Filipino people, the release from the yoke of the step-mother [19] Spain."

II. In a document dated the 12th of June 1896 and giving instructions to those who should carry out the proposed slaughter of all the Spaniards in Manila, we read:

"2nd. Once the signal is given every bro. shall fulfill the duty imposed upon him by this Gr. Reg. Log. without considerations of any kind, neither of parentage, friendship nor of gratitude, etc."

"4th. The blow having been struck at the Captain General and the other Spanish Authorities, the loyals shall attack the convents and shall behead their infamous inhabitants, respecting the wealth contained in the said convents; this shall be gathered ... etc."