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, part 2, for the documents showing the
discussion of the junta of 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.
[159] The 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 the La 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.
[160] The 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 the Congressional 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.
[161] Memoria, p. 125, cablegram of October 7, 1896.
[162] A slightly modified copy of this appeal is quoted by Primo de
Rivera (Memoria, pp. 140-141), and in Senate Document no. 208, pt. 2,
pp. 2, 3. The writer has a copy taken from one of the originals.
[163] Pardo de Tavera remarks (Rept. Phil. Comm., 1900, ii, p. 396)
that someone "forgot he had this sum of money in his pocket."
[164] Paterno 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 the Diario 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.
[165] It 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.
[166] The 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.
[167] See the Memoria, 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.
[168] See the Memoria, pp. 144-154. The incident is related in various
tones by other writers.
[169] See the pamphlets, reprinting articles from two of these
periodicals: Juan Caro y Mora, La situación del país (Manila, 1897),
series in La Oceanía Española; and El 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.
[170] See especially El 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.
[171] See J. Pellicena y Lopez, Los frailes y los filipinos (Manila,
1901).
[172] An 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."
[173] As, e.g., does Pellicena y Lopez, in Los frailes y los filipinos,
to prove that separation was not the aim of the propagandists. The
citation from Del Pilar's Soberanía monacal (paragraph v), is almost
identical with the paragraph of the 1888 petition to the Queen,
quoted already.
[174] The 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]."
[175] A 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 as Magdalo at 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 (see La 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.
[176] See Sastrón's account of Biak-na-bató in chapters v and vi
of his Insurrección en Filipinas for some fragments of documents on
this subject.
[177] A royal decree of Jan. 22, 1784, by Carlos III, declared the
ex-Jesuits competent to acquire and hold property; and, in the case of
those secular coadjutors who had married, to bequeath their property
to their heirs. That monarch died in 1788; and was succeeded by his
eldest son, as Carlos IV. In Oct. 1797, the government learned that
the Spanish ex-Jesuits were determined to return to Spain, on account
of the persecutions and even death which menaced them in the Genoese
territories, owing to a change in the government there, and that some
of them had already reached the Spanish ports; it therefore decided
that they should be allowed to remain in the country, but must live in
certain abandoned convents. The Jesuits objected to this, and finally
the government permitted them (1798) to retire freely to the homes
of their families or into any convents they might choose, save that
they were not allowed to reside in Madrid or other royal seats. "Many
ex-Jesuits returned to their fatherland, and others decided to remain
in Italia; but this situation did not last long, for in the year 1801
another decree was issued condemning them anew to proscription." Orders
were given that within one week all Jesuits should leave their homes
and present themselves at Alicante or Barcelona, where new orders
would be given them. Some fathers advanced in years were allowed to
remain in Spain; but all the rest were for the second time shipped
to Italy, where they suffered great hardship. In 1808 the Spanish
government felt more leniently toward these unfortunate exiles,
considering, moreover, the difficulty of furnishing their pensions,
and the fact that all those moneys were thus taken out of Spain to
foreign countries, to find their way ultimately into the hands of
her enemies; and a royal decree by Fernando VII, dated Nov. 15, 1808,
granted permission to those Jesuits who desired to return to Spain,
with the same pension which they had been receiving. After the war
between Spain and France was ended, urgent requests were made to
Fernando VII by various personages prominent in ecclesiastical,
educational, and municipal affairs that he would reëstablish in
his dominions the Society of Jesus; and permission was given by a
royal decree dated May 9, 1815, for the Jesuits to have houses in
the towns and cities which had asked for them. A year later, after
various preparations for this change had been made by the government,
another decree extended the reëstablishment to all the towns where
the Jesuits had formerly had their institutions. "In virtue of this,
all the Spanish Jesuits who were residing in Italy returned to España,
at the expense of the court. All these decisions were adopted in
España in fulfilment of the bull of Pius VII dated Aug. 7, 1814,
Solicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, by which the Jesuits were reëstablished
in all the Catholic countries--that of Clement XIV, which decreed
the extinction of the order, being thereby annulled. [177A] Not five
years had passed after the reëstablishment of the Society of Jesus in
España when, the revolution of 1820 having been successful, the Cortes
assembled; and the Spanish monarch, by decree of September 6 in that
same year, again suppressed the [Jesuit] institute, together with the
other monastic orders, allowing the Jesuits, however, liberty to
reside in España. Fernando communicated to his Holiness the above
decision, and Pius VII replied in a letter of September 15, expressing
the displeasure with which he had received the tidings; but in 1823,
the constitutional government having been destroyed, the regency
issued a decree on June 11, reëstablishing the Society and the rest
of the regular orders in the same condition in which they were before
March 7, 1820. Fernando VII died on Sept. 29, 1833, and the civil war
began; and on July 17, 1834, occurred the lamentable massacre [177B]
of the Jesuits and other religious. By royal decree of July 4, 1835,
the Society of Jesus was anew declared extinguished; and its property
was ordered to be sold, in order to apply the product thereof to the
extinction of the public debt. In spite of this decision, the Jesuits
remained established in España; and it was necessary, in the last
revolutionary period, to issue the decree of Oct. 12, 1868,
suppressing the Society of Jesus in the Peninsula and the adjacent
islands; and commanding that within the space of three days all their
colleges and institutions should be closed, and possession be taken
of their temporalities in the form provided on this point by the royal
decree of July 4, 1835. To these provisions were added this, that the
individuals of the suppressed Society might not again reunite in a
body or a community, nor wear the garb of the order, nor be in any way
subordinate to the superiors of the order who existed either within or
without España, those who were not ordained in sacris remaining subject
in all matters to the ordinary civil jurisdiction. But the realization
of this measure was ephemeral; for when the constitution of June 5,
1869, was published, the right of every person was declared--and
repeated in the constitution of June 30, 1876--to associate with others
for all the purposes in human life which are not opposed to public
morals; and, by favor of this liberty, the individuals of the Society
of Jesus considered themselves authorized to form an association and
found anew colleges and houses in the Spanish dominions."
A brief of Pope Leo XIII, dated July 13, 1886, finally reëstablished
the Society of Jesus throughout the world, and abrogated that of
Clement XIV which in 1773 suppressed the order. The pope took occasion
to express this permission in the warmest and most forcible terms; and
"the rehabilitation of the Society of Jesus could not have been more
complete or more satisfactory." "It is pleasant to observe that,
after three centuries of strife, the principle of authority has
triumphed." (Danvila, Reinado de Carlos III, iii, pp. 613-625.)
[177A] A letter from Mariano Fernandez Folgueras, dated Manila, Aug.
18, 1819, mentions the decrees of Fernando VII by which the Society
of Jesus is to be established throughout Spanish dominions, and
promises obedience to the royal orders.
[177B] An epidemic of cholera was raging in Madrid, and some malicious
persons persuaded the common people that it was caused by the friars
having poisoned the water. A mob broke into the Jesuit convents and
murdered many of the inmates; and over a hundred friars were killed
for the same reason.