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.