Lodge Committee testimony from the New York Times

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Lodge Committee testimony from the New York Times  (1902) 
The Lodge Committee was the informal name given to a investigation by the Senate Committee on the Philippines into war crimes of the Philippine-American War. The investigation commenced on January 31, 1902 and completed its work on June 28, 1902. The final report came to three thousand pages. The following are articles published in the New York Times


Contents

January 1902[edit]

Philippine Problem before the Senate[edit]

Senator Hoar Talks for an Investigating Committee.

New York Times; January 15, 1902, p. 3

Senior Massachusetts Senator Wants to Question Gov. Taft About the Administration of the Islands.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 14.—For the first time this session the Philippine question was touched on in the Senate. The interest taken indicates that it will occupy the attention of the upper branch of Congress for some time when the tariff bill is reported. The Philippines were the subject of an address by Mr. Hoar. (Rep.. Mass.,) who spoke on his resolution, introduced yesterday, providing for the appointment of a Senate committee to investigate the administration of those islands.

Mr. Hoar spoke at some length regarding the unreliability of statements which have been made from time to time regarding the situation in the Philippines and the causes which led to the outbreak, lie urged that there should be a place where any Senator in his official capacity could go and ask for two witnesses to prove the correctness or incorrectness of any question upon which light is desired. Continuing. Senator Hoar said.

"I do not know of any cue able to give a statement of the truth as to the differences between Gov. Taft and Gen. Chaffee. I get some dreadful stories from brave soldiers and officers of high rang about the manner in which the war is conducted. 1 have heard of an investigation now going on in regard to one transaction which, if true, has covered with a foul blot the flag which we all love and honor. I think there should be a place where any Senator who makes such a suggestion in his official responsibility can go and say, "I want two witnesses on that subject brought here, and then we shall know.'"

He said he had boon taunted by newspapers for three or four years with a statement attributed to Gen. Lawton to the effect that if certain people at home would hold their tongues there would not be any difficulty with the islands. But what the General is understood to have said was that we should "stop this accursed war: it is time for diplomacy, time for mutual understanding."

There is no one. Mr. Hoar declared, who can tell whether Gen. Lawton said that or whether he said the other, or it is a forgery.

Gen. Otis had shocked the country by saying we should keep 40,000 troops in the Philippines for a considerable time, but instead of that number we have 70,000, and Mr. Hoar asked how long were we going to keep them there. "Lt Gen. Chafee is right." he said. "there is not a man in these islands who is not conspiring against the Government and eager for his liberty. Now give us a little light. Take the most zealous men in this body and give us a committee that will hear the evidence, put questions, hear both sides, and let us know what is the truth. We are engaged in the unholy office of crushing out a republic, the first great republic ever established in the Eastern Hemisphere. If we had dealt with this people as we dealt with Cuba we should have had today a civilized, happy peaceful republic sending their youths to our schools studying our laws, imitating our examples, animated by a love and affection and a gratitude such as no one people on earth ever yet felt for another."

One of the great events of history, he said, was the civilization of Japan. Another was the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Japan has just celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of taking her place among free nations, at which the declaration had been made that everything that Japan was she owed to the United States and yet in half a century she had encountered China as a superior and Russia as an equal.

That came. Mr. Hoar said, from the application of a world power that he should like to have his country exercise: that came from the application to the affairs of modern life of the great doctrine of the immoral declaration.

Mr. Lodge (Rep., Mass.,) urged that the resolution be referred to the Philippine Committee, of which he is Chairman, and said that if the Senate saw fit to charge that committee with the investigation of any question, past or present, the committee was competent to deal with it and would deal with it honestly and effectively. If however, the committee contemplated by the resolution was appointed, he said the reason for the existence of the Philippine Committee would cease.

Mr. Hoar replied that all he wanted was that there should be somewhere a tribunal to take evidence on these questions as far as practicable.

Was it worth while for us he continued to be considering these great questions which involve the propriety and good faith and integrity of our dealings with these unfortunate "people in the matter of their liberty when we were in the dark? He said he wanted to know something about the character of the Filipinos. He wanted Gov. Taft to come before a Senate committee, where he could be asked questions. He said he had received some terrible stories from brave soldiers and officers of high rank about the way the war in the Philippines is conducted.

Mr. Carmack, (Dem., Tenn.,) while in entire accord with the resolution said that these matters should be handled by the Philippine Committee. The necessity for an investigation was apparent, he said because there had been a constant joint debate between the civil and military authorities in the Philippines ever since we came into possession.

It being evident that a number of Senators were desirous of being heard on the subject, it was agreed that the resolution should be on the table for a day.

February 1902[edit]

Gov. Taft Talks before Philippine Committee[edit]

Civil Rule in All Filipino and Christian Provinces. Moros Still Under Martial Law — The Hospitality of the Islanders—Dispute with Jolo Sultan.

New York Times; February 1, 1902 p. 3


WASHINGTON. Jan. 31.-The investigation into conditions in the Philippine archipelago was begun by the Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day. Gov. W. H. Taft was the first witness. There was a full attendance, and Senator Lodge, (Rep., Mass.,) Chairman, explained that the committee desired not only the fullest information concerning the islands, but any advice that the Governor might offer.

Gov. Taft began by saying that he had gone to the Philippines in the Spring of 1900, and had visited almost all the provinces during the past year. He said that in all the thirty-four Filipino and Christian provinces there were forms of civil government, and that the Moros were friendly, except a few who had always been hostile to the Spaniards. Even these were now being brought over by the prospect of trade. Going back to the beginning of the commission's tour of the islands, the Governor said that it had only been undertaken after the re-election of President McKinley, when the time seemed ripe for the establishment of local government in the islands.

Describing this tour, he said that the object was to present to the dignitaries of the various places visited an explanation of the provincial and municipal acts. " We had some oratory," he said, " from the rear platform of the train, but generally from the windows of the ear." At each of the seventeen capitals the delegates of the people were met, the prescribed special act was passed, and a Governor was appointed and authorized to organize municipalities. These provincial Governments consisted, besides the Governor, of a Secretary, Superintendent, Treasurer, and Fiscal or Prosecuting Attorney.

In all cases where the selection could be made without arousing jealousies, natives had been chosen. All these appointments were temporary, and next month the successors would be elected. When the factions were too strong, Americans were placed at the head of each province. In all cases the Treasurer and Superintendent were Americans.

"The Spaniard." said the witness," will always tell you that his house is yours, but he doesn't always mean that you should take him at his word. The Filipino will tell you the same thing, and he always means what he says. He will turn his family out and install you in his habitation.”

Gov. Taft said that the commission had had an interesting experience in trying to reorganize the Province of Antique, but that the people resisted vigorously. He mentioned that at San Jose, the capital, they displayed a model of Liberty enlightening the world, twenty feet high. It had been dragged seven miles over a very rough road, and on it were statues of Washington and McKinley.

It had been found impossible to put Filipinos over the Moros, said the Governor. They were subject to their datos, or chiefs and refused to recognize the authority of a Filipino. There were in the islands two Sultans, one in Mindanao and the other in the Jolo group, but the Sultans did not always control their datos. The Sultan of Mindanao, he said, was very poor, but the sovereign of the Jolos' was a thrifty man who was constantly trying to increase his income and constantly getting into a row about it. This Jolo ruler had refused to recognize Spain's claims to any property, except the Custom House, and there was considerable question as to the ownership in many instances. This complication existed not only between the Sultan and the United States, but between the Sultan and his subjects.

In reply to Senator Hale (Rep., Me.,) Gov. Taft said that no effort had been made to extend the Civil Government of the United States to the Moro Provinces, beyond making a few suggestions bearing upon the revenue laws.

"Nothing has been done in that direction," he said. " Everything is going on just as it was, and the islands are under the control of the War Department so far as the United States is concerned."

Asked if the Moros were generally peaceful the witness replied that they were so except in individual instances.

"There is," he said. "no war, nor even insurrection, in the Moro provinces, but there are occasional reports of the murder of American soldiers.

He had no knowledge of the reported fights in Mindanao. On its tour the commission had been attended only by a Corporal's guard on the steamboat, but there had been a garrison of United States troops at every capital visited.

The witness referred to the Federal Party in the islands, and said that he had received from it a petition to be presented to the American Congress, but had not yet decided how to present it.

The committee adjourned to meet at 11 o'clock to-morrow. Gov. Taft said, as he left the committee room, that he desired to return to Manila by May 1.

More Talk of Filipinos[edit]

Senators Lodge and Patterson Contradict Each Other.

The Latter Wants More Reporters to Attend Commission's Hearings—Mr. Teller Continues Monday's Speech.

New York Times February 13, 1902, p. 3

WASHINGTON. Feb. 12.—With the exception of a sharp clash between Mr. Lodge (Rep., Mass.,) and Mr. Patterson (Dem., Col.,) over the admission of representatives of the press to the investigation before the Philippines Committee, the discussion of the Philippine Tariff bill in the Senate to-day was quiet.

The Colorado Senator desired that "all newspaper men be admitted to the committee hearings, declaring that as now conducted they were of a star chamber character. He said his recollection was that Mr. Lodge had suggested that the hearings be entirely secret. This drew the fire of the Massachusetts Senator, who indignantly denied that he had suggested anything of the kind. He insisted that the reports made of the hearings by the three press associations were accurate and fair to both sides of the controversy.

A communication from the Secretary of "War, transmitting a memorial of the Philippine Federal Party in support of American rule in the islands, called from Mr. Patterson the statement that the Federal Party had obtained its control in the Philippines by promising the Filipinos that they would be admitted ultimately to Statehood in the United States.

Mr. Teller (S. Rep., Col.) occupied the attention of the Senate during the greater part of the session. He continued the speech he had begun on Monday, and it is not finished yet.

In the judgment of Mr. Teller, the United States is not morally in possession of the Philippine Islands. When the Government of this country entered the islands, he said, the Filipinos were on the point of achieving their independence from Spain. In view of that fact, they could not be considered now as technically guilty of treason against the United States. He asserted that the prominent commanders of the American Army, among them Gen. Chaffee, did not agree with the conclusions reached by the members of the Philippine Commission as to the reconciliation of the people of the Philippines.

Mr. Procter (Rep., Vt.,) interrupted to say that he had just received a letter from Gen. Chaffee, who had said:

"I may say to you that we are progressing very well in stamping out the insurrection, and in the course of two or three months we will have the situation well in hand."

The General said further that in a short time the Filipinos would probably become tired of the struggle, and that they certainly would get tired before the American Army did. He regarded the present conditions as indicating that prominent Filipinos who heretofore had been neutral, were now actively endeavoring to induce the insurgents to lay down their arms.

Mr. Hoar (Rep., Mass.,) suggested there was a difference between the " stamping out" of the insurrection and reconciling of the Filipinos to American control.

Mr. Teller quoted newspaper and magazine articles to show that cruelties and tortures were applied to Filipino insurgents with a view to forcing them to reveal the hiding places of their rifles. The particular torture upon which he dwelt was the "water cure." Mr. Bacon (Dem., Ga.,) suggested that it might not be proper to charge the American Army with these cruelties. The tortures were practiced, he thought, principally by the Macabebe scouts, and perhaps by some of the more vicious elements of the army.

It was at this point that Mr. Tillman (Dem., S. C.) inquired of Mr. Lodge, Chairman of the Philippines Committee, whether it was true that the committee's present inquiry was a star chamber affair, from which special representatives of newspapers were excluded. Mr. Lodge replied that representatives of three press associations were admitted to the investigation. and that fair reports were being sent out to all the newspapers of the country. It had been decided not to admit all newspaper men because the committee room was totally inadequate for their accommodation.

Mr. Patterson said that when the Philippine Committee had the matter of the hearings under consideration it was his recollection that the Chairman had suggested that no members of the press be admitted to the hearings.

"I never made such a suggestion—never," interjected Mr. Lodge warmly, "and I object to such statements as that made by the Senator."

"Notwithstanding," continued Mr. Patterson, "I reiterate my statement."

"I ask the Senator," interrupted Mr. Lodge. "if he reiterates the statement that I suggested that the press be excluded."

"That is my recollection," replied Mr. Patterson.

"Well." protested Mr. Lodge. " I have denied that statement most emphatically."

After a discussion over the Philippine Federal Party's memorial, the Senate adjourned at 5 o'clock.

March 1902[edit]

Gen. Hughes's Retort[edit]

Resents the Line of Questioning Adopted by Senator Patterson at Philippine Hearing.

New York Times; March 6, 1902 p. 9

WASHINGTON. March 5.—Gen. Hughes to-day told the Senate Committee on the Philippines that the Filipino forces would have been of but little assistance if it had been necessary to capture Manila from the Spaniards by assault.

"The capture of that city was by pre-arrangement between Gen. Merritt and Admiral Dewey', and the Spanish Commander, was it not?" Mr. Patterson asked.

"I know nothing about that," responded Gen. Hughes.

Senator Patterson, after reading from the report of Gen. Otis, in which he had stated that with the navy on one side and the insurgents on the other the Spaniards had been bottled up in Manila, remarked that this statement did not coincide with that of Gen. Hughes.

"Why not?" sharply asked the General.

Senator Beveridge objected to this line of testimony, and Senator Lodge, addressing Senator Patterson with some degree of irritability, said:

"You must not ask Gen. Hughes to criticize his superior officer, his reports, or anything else."

Gen. Hughes: "Gen. Otis is strong enough to stand criticism."

Mr. Patterson disclaimed that he was criticizing Gen. Otis, to which Gen. Hughes retorted: "Then you are trying to criticize me."

"I am only trying to reconcile the differences between you and Gen. Otis," answered Senator Patterson.

"If there are any differences between Gen. Otis and myself, and you will point them out, I will try to set them right," replied Gen. Hughes with some warmth of feeling.

Sharp Responses Made In Philippine Inquiry[edit]

Gen. Hughes Objected to Mr. Patterson's Method of Questioning Him Before Senate Commission.

New York Times March 7, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON. March 6.—Gen. Hughes to-day gave further testimony before the Senate Philippine Commission. Senator Patterson resumed the questioning which yesterday led to a sharp colloquy in the committee room between the witness and himself. He again inquired as to the motive of Gen. Otis in requiring the withdrawal of Aguinaldo's troops from Manila to the line designated by Gen. Merritt. Senator Beveridge objected, saying it was not fair to ask Gen. Hughes what Gen. Otis meant. Senator Culberson dissented from the proposition mat a committee of Congress is precluded from asking a question the answer to which might be construed as criticism of a superior officer. Senator Lodge, the Chairman, objected to one officer criticizing another.

In answer to a further question by Senator Patterson as to whether the Filipinos would accept independence if it should be accomplished by means other than a protectorate by the United States. Gen. Hughes said that at a conference in Manila, representatives of the Filipino forces would not commit themselves to a proposition of a protectorate by the United States. They first wanted independence, he said, and alter that they would arrange for the protectorate. America being considered along with other powers. Continuing Gen. Hughes said he was unable to get Aguinaldo's representatives to define to him what concessions they desired short of absolute independence, although they insisted that they must have some definite pledge to take back to the 30,000 men who virtually were investing the city, because, unless they did have some promise, they would be unable to hold in check the insurgent forces.

"Did you not know at that time," inquired Senator Patterson. “that you could not grant what they were asking? "

"I was unable to get them to decide what they wished except absolute independence, which, of course, we were not authorized to give," responded Gen. Hughes.

Senator Patterson asked: "Do you want this committee to understand that these Commissioners representing the Philippine Army did not want independence if it was accompanied by the withdrawal of the American fleet?" Gen. Hughes answered: "I want you to understand that they wished protection."

"I will ask you to answer my question 'Yes ' or 'No.'" persisted Senator Patterson. This somewhat nettled Gen. Hughes who turned to the Chairman. Senator Lodge, and asked if he was "bound to answer according to the gentleman's dictation." Senator Lodge, with much emphasis, replied: "No; you can answer the question in your own way." Senator Lodge added that the committee had no right to dictate to the witness how he shall answer.

Senator Patterson retorted: "Do I understand that however evasive a witness may be. I cannot ask for a more direct answer? '" To this Senator Lodge replied: "You are attempting to compel his answer. I think his answer was direct."

"I do not think it was," declared Senator Patterson. He then repeated his question. Gen. Hughes explained that at the time of the conference the Filipinos appreciated their inability to stand alone, but insisted that first they must have absolute independence.

"That is as definite an answer, as you can give, is it?" asked Senator Patterson. Gen. Hughes, manifesting unmistakable evidence of irritation, replied: "If it does not answer your question, will you show me in what way it fails? “Senator Beveridge then asked Gen. Hughes if he felt that he had answered the question. "I have answered it three times," was the response: Senator Patterson remarked that there were "answers and answers."

The colloquy was ended abruptly by Senator Lodge, who announced that it was 12 o'clock, the hour of adjournment, and further, that, beginning tomorrow, the committee, in executive session, would take up and consider the Philippine Government bill, although further hearings would be held later.

Cruelty in Philippines[edit]

Judge Advocate General Davis Censures Capt. Brownell.

New York Times March 7, 1903 p. 2

Says He Deserves Punishment for Causing Father Augustin's Death—Records of the Ryan and Sinclair Cases.

Special to The New York Times. WASHINGTON, March 6—Interest in the Brownell and Sinclair court-martial cases, involving charges of cruelty by American officers in the Philippines, is revived by the appearance of the printed record of the proceedings in these and other similar trials.

Judge Advocate General George B. Davis in his review of the facts of the Brownell case says:

Having regard to the circumstances attending Capt. Brownell's act in extorting information from the native priest at Banate, I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that it was not justified by military necessity, and that there did not exist at the time of its commission a condition of emergency so instant, imperious, and overwhelming in its character as to justify Capt, Brownell in the specific violation of the requirements of the General Orders No. 100, which has been made the subject of this investigation.

"Capt Brownell had no duties to perform in connection with Father Augustine, save to safely hold him as a prisoner of war. Capt. Brownell had no orders to execute. no operations to carry on, which he could not safely undertake with the force un-der his immediate command, no duty to perform save to maintain order in the vicinity of the town of which his company constituted the garrison.

"Having an important individual of the enemy in his power, he yielded to a prurient curiosity, and, in an attempt to extort Information, caused the death of the prisoner upon whose person the torture had been inflicted. For the offense which is shown to have been committed, it is my opinion that Capt. Brownell deserves to be brought to trial.

"A resort to torture in order to obtain either confessions or information from a prisoner of war is, in view of what has been said, a violation of the laws of war, and as such is triable by military commission. The taking of human life under the circumstances above disclosed constitutes one form of felonious homicide which is triable by military commission, by a general court-martial, and in certain cases by a civil court having criminal jurisdiction."

The Judge Advocate General, however, sees no legal way by which Capt. Brownell can be tried now either by a military court or by the civil courts of the United States or of Panay, where the crime was committed. By his advice the legal question was referred to the Attorney General, who held that there was no means by which Brownell could be tried and punished for causing the death of Father Augustine.

The testimony printed in the record in this case probably exhausts all the witnesses available. Cross and Branch, the men who administered the water cure, tell their story, and the men who were with the priest and who buried him complete the narrative. The record goes beyond the statements drawn out by the investigation conducted by Senator Lodge and the Senate Committee on the Philippines.

Capt. Brownell is, however, according to many of the witnesses, acquitted of any intention to be cruel to Father Augustine. One witness states that the Captain picked out men to give the water cure who had good judgment and were kindly disposed. He says the Captain" did not want to hurt any man whatever," and only resorted to the water cure to get information that could be gained in no other way.

In reviewing the case of Capt. James A. Ryan of the Fifteenth Cavalry for inflicting the water cure on two natives, a case where the court acquitted and the President approved the findings, Gen. Davis says:

"Capt. Evan's command had no orders to do more than protect itself. He had no -orders to execute, no policy to carry into effect, no operations to carry on, which he could not safely undertake with the force under his command. He was surrounded by natives who professed allegiance to the "United States, but whose sympathies were with the insurrection. By the application of: the water cure he was able to verify the accuracy of knowledge already in his possession. but which he did not need to put him on his guard, and which did not materially imperil the safety of his command. In dealing with a treacherous enemy he found it convenient to extort a confession by the use of illicit force, but this does not justify his resort to torture in the specific case set forth which was the issue referred to court for trial.

"The case was not vigorously prosecuted and the court allowed the accused a very-wide latitude in the presentation of his defense going so far as to permit the introduction of clearly irrelevant matter relating to transactions which were foreign to the Issue as set forth in the charges referred for trial. Its action in acquitting the accused amounts, in substance, to a decision that the use of force in the form and under the circumstances set forth in the record is lawful.

"In this conclusion the department cannot, in my opinion, safely concur. No modern State, which is a party to International law, can sanction either expressly or by a silence, which imports consent, a resort to torture with a view of obtaining confessions as an incident to its military operations. If it does where is the line to be drawn? If the 'water cure' is Ineffective, what shall be the next step? Shall the victim be suspended, head down, over the smoke of a smoldering fire; shall he be tightly bound and dropped from a distance of several feet? Shall he be beaten with rods? Shall his shins be rubbed with a broomstick until they bleed? For all these and more, have been done during the Spanish domination in the Philippine Islands, and the temptation to revive them, under circumstances of sufficient provocation, may prove too strong to be resisted.

"Again, suppose a native to die under an unusually vigorous administration of the "water cure." how is the incident to be explained to the satisfaction of the American people? But It seems hardly necessary to pursue the subject further. The United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture to the several forms of force which may be legitimately employed in war and it is therefore, recommended that the proceedings, findings, and acquittal be disapproved."

The record in the so-called Richter case which Involves the trial and acquittal of Lieut. Sinclair, is given at length. This is the record which the mother of the unfortunate young soldier, who was gagged given the water cure, and finally suffocated to death, has been in Washington of late appealing to the President and the Secretary of War to secure, as well as the punishment of Lieut. Sinclair for having caused the death of her son.

The testimony of Richter's associates in the ranks gives him a bad name. He drank to excess, used the vilest possible language, and was repeatedly insolent and defiant to his officers. The plain story of Richter's death is that while the Twenty-eighth Infantry was at Dasmarinas in Cavite Province, in February 1902 and Richter was a prisoner in the guardhouse in a drunken condition. Sinclair to discipline him had his hands and feet tied. water thrown in his face at intervals, and finally caused him to be gagged with a towel and a stick. Richter had applied an epithet to Sinclair which is too vile to be repeated in print. One witness says the gag was a towel and that he put it right across Richter's mouth so that it shut off his breath. The gag stayed on for over a quarter of an hour, and the prisoner then being quiet he was placed in his bunk where he was later found dead. The surgeon's examination showed that the man died of suffocation.

There was abundant testimony that the company had a good many bad men and Richter was about the worst. One witness said that Richter would drink anything he could get hold of and as long as he was conscious. There were port holes in the church where the prisoners were and whisky had been handed in to the prisoners.

Gen. Davis's endorsement on the findings is as follows:

"The proceedings having been regularly acted upon by the lawful convening authority his power in that regard has been exhausted, as his jurisdiction as reviewing officer is exclusive, no right of appeal exist to higher military authority. As Lieut. Sinclair has once been tried, he is not liable to a second trial for the same offense."

Gen. Hughes in Tilt With Senator Patterson[edit]

Witness Insists Upon Answering Questions His Own Way—The Labor Problem in the Philippines.

New York Times March 9, 1902 p. 4

WASHINGTON. March 8.—Senator Patterson continued his questioning of Gen-Hughes in the Senate Committee on the Philippines today, taking, up the beginning of hostilities in February, 1890. The witness repeated his previous statement that the first shot had been fired by an American. Senator Patterson asked Gen. Hughes what he had meant when he said upon hearing the firing at first, "The thing is on." There was some sparring between the two as on previous occasions, the Senator insisting upon a direct answer and the witness upon replying in his own way.

" I intend," said the latter, "to answer in the best way I can to cover the whole conditions. I wish to answer in my own way, as I am informed I have a right to do. I felt that they had made an attack upon us, and that we must defend ourselves."

" Did you mean simply that you should defend yourselves or that you should make an attack also?"

"I had no intention beyond what I have stated."

Mr. Patterson then sought to bring out the fact that the attack was made before the Filipinos were ready, and Gen. Hughes admitted that the Filipino military leaders were absent in a conference at Malolos. He said that hostilities were so active the next day that there was no opportunity to attempt to heal the breach.

Senator Patterson questioned Gen. Hughes concerning the effect of President McKinley s proclamation of Jan. 9, 1899, for the extension of the military occupation of the United States to the entire archipelago, asking the witness if there was anything to do but to attack the Filipino forces.

Gen. Hughes replied that the policy was to use only peaceful means so long as they were effectual, but that when these were exhausted, to resort to war.

Gen. Hughes said the Filipinos made their best fight on the 5th of February, 1899. He denied that in subsequent battles they were slaughtered, but many were killed when cornered and continued to fight when they should have surrendered.

Gen. Hughes said he thought that white labor would be a total failure in the Philippines. and that other labor would be necessary there. The natives are, he said. Physically weak and lazy, and the witness thought the only resort would be to continue to import Chinese and Japanese labor. He also expressed the opinion that it would be well to encourage negro emigration to the Philippines from the United States. He added that the colored troops taken to Samar mixed readily with the natives, and that many of the latter shed tears when the colored soldiers were removed. The Chinese labor was the most available, but

there was a prejudice against them on the part of the Filipinos.

Speaking of the American Chamber of Commerce of Manila, he said it is composed largely of Englishmen and other Europeans, "who did not care a snap for American interests."

Gen. Hughes's Testimony[edit]

New York Times Mar 12, 1902 p. 2

Felt as If He Were Fighting Children When Battling with Filipinos.

WASHINGTON, March 11.—During the examination of Gen. Hughes by the Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day Senator Patterson called attention to the "water cure" as used in the "way of torture. Gen. Hughes said it never was practiced in his command. It was tried in one case, he had learned, by the Macabebe scouts, who had promised not to repeat it.

Gen. Hughes said that a ward in the general hospital had been set aside for wounded or sick Filipinos. He described the policy of concentration of the Filipinos pursued by Gen. Bell, and said it is not intended as a matter of punishment. "It is to put them out of harm's way, in part," said he, " and to keep them out of mischief."

Gen. Hughes said that whenever he went into action against the Filipinos he- felt as if he were fighting children, and that he never made an attack that he did not regret it. He said he never knew of but one case of a wounded Filipino being left on the field.


Testimony of Gen. Otis[edit]

Circumstances Attending Occupation of Manila—Aguinaldo Has Few Equals in Duplicity, He Thinks.

New York Times March 20, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, March 19.—Gen. Otis continued his testimony before the Senate Philippine Committee today. Referring to his order of Sept. 8, 1898. directing the withdrawal of the insurgent troops outside the defenses of Manila, Gen. Otis said he did not give the insurgents actual permission to occupy the blockhouses which Aguinaldo claimed had been given. What he had said was: "I don't care anything about the blockhouses; we are not going to take possession of them."

Gen. Otis said that Aguinaldo had demanded of Gen. Merritt the right to occupy the palace and to make appointments in the civil Government. Gen. Merritt cabled Washington for instructions, and the reply was that there must be no dual occupation of Manila. Gen. Otis said he had cabled Washington, saying that the taking of lloilo meant war and had received the response to defer action, which he did until tile insurgents made war on the United Suites forces in Manila. He had. he said, issued his proclamation extending military authority to all parts of the archipelago under instructions from the President.

Gen. Otis said he expressly omitted from his proclamation the word "sovereignty" because the Filipinos attached to it the meaning which the word conveyed to them while under the domination of Spain. Senator Carmack called his attention to the difference between the language used by the President in his instructions and that contained in his (Otis's.) proclamation, and asked why he had also omitted the words "control." "Government," "lawful rule," "authority must remain supreme."

Gen. Otis explained that he was afraid these instructions would assist the Aguinaldo Government to excite the people of Luzon.

Senator Patterson asked Gen. Otis whether the idea of the Filipino people regarding independence was a mistaken one.

“No," said Gen. Otis, " Aguinaldo had his ambitions." Speaking very deliberately he added. " and he was sent over from Hong Kong for the purpose of driving the Spaniards out and then attacking the Americans, I suppose." He thought Aguinaldo was performing a double part at that time.

“No man ever worked harder in the interests of peace than I." said the General. "But if the United States troops had attacked the Filipinos and driven them out of the city (Manila) when they first got there it would have been much better."

"Until the time of the ratification of the treaty, was not the Filipino army there for the purpose of maintaining the independence of that island by armed force, if necessary?" asked Senator Patterson.

Gen. Otis—"They asserted that they wanted to drive the Spaniards out. They never intended to secure independence, but to set up a government under Aguinaldo."

"Well then, independence of some kind?" inquired-Senator Patterson.

"Not according to their own protestations." responded Gen. Otis.

"Was the Filipino army there for the purpose of plunder?"

"Yes, and I think they were going to try to drive the Americans into the sea."

"When you were communicating with Aguinaldo." inquired Senator Patterson. "Did you at heart believe him to be a robber and a looter?”

Gen. Otis declared he did not say Aguinaldo was a robber and a looter. In money matters he believed Aguinaldo strictly honest and then added:

"In duplicity he has few equals."

Regarding the assassination of Gen. Luna Gen. Otis said there was no doubt this was Aguinaldo’s act.

"My opinion of justice." remarked Senator Patterson, "is that you should bring here the man who is accused of assassination."

Questions for Gen. Otis[edit]

Senator Patterson Wanted His Letter to Aguinaldo Explained—-Effect of Speeches in the Senate.

New York Times Mar 21, 1902

WASHINGTON, March 20.—Gen. Otis today resumed his testimony before the Senate Philippine Committee. Senator Patterson continued his questioning and referred to a letter dated Sept. 8, 1898, addressed by Gen. Otis to Aguinaldo as "the commanding General of the Philippine forces," in which he spoke of the sacrifices made by the revolutionary forces "in the interest of civil liberty."

Gen. Otis declared that this related to their dealings with the Spaniards. He denied that he led Aguinaldo to believe that the United States would not assume absolute sovereignty. Asked what he meant by the statement in his letter that "rather than see the ships of the United States Navy control the navigable waters of these islands and its army devastating their territory, I greatly prefer to advise ray Government not to send any more troops here," Gen. Otis answered that that was his opinion because he did not want to see any war. He thought his letter should be taken as a whole.

Gen. Otis declared that the Filipinos have no correct idea of liberty.

“But what is your standard of qualification for self-government?" asked Senator Patterson.

"What kind of a Government?" answered Gen. Otis. “Do you mean despotic government?”

“No, self-government," was Senator Patterson's response.

Gen. Otis replied that they were perfectly qualified for a despotic, military Government.

Senator Patterson asked whether he considered the people of Mexico qualified for self-government, but Gen. Otis said he declined to answer. Senator Patterson remarked that he had no means of forcing a reply "at present."

A question by Senator Beveridge regarding the effect on the Filipinos of literature sent from the United States precipitated a lively discussion. Gen. Otis said that when Mabini was brought in he had a pile of New York papers with him which had antagonized the sovereignty of the United States in the Philippines.

“Did he have any of Senator Hoar's speeches?” inquired Senator Patterson.

“Oh, yes, those speeches were all over the islands," replied the witness.

Senator Allison, who was in the chair, said he would exclude any allusion to Senators' speeches. Senator Patterson interjected the remark that Senators should not be attacked from masked batteries.

“I asked the extent to which it gave aid to the insurrection," explained Senator Beveridge.

"When the Senator from Indiana," retorted Senator Patterson, " propounded that question it involved every Senator who is standing by what he believes to be simple justice to the Filipinos."

Senator Carmack, with much earnestness, said he wanted to take his part of the responsibility for saying the war in the Philippines is "utterly and absolutely infamous and criminal. If any proof can be made that I am inciting Filipinos by such speeches," said he, "I want it done."

Senator Beveridge disclaimed any intention to reflect on any Senator and withdrew his question.

April 1902[edit]

Friction in Philippines[edit]

Gov. Gardener Charges Army with Using Harsh Methods.

Natives Being Turned Against This Country, He Declares—His Withheld Report Given Out.

New York Times Apr 11, 1902

WASHINGTON, April 10.—When the Senate committee on the Philippines met today Senator Lodge laid before the committee the report of Major Cornelius Gardener, civil Governor of the Philippine Province of Trabayas, to which reference was made by Gen. Miles in his correspondence with Secretary Root. This report had been withheld, and this caused the adoption of a resolution by the committee requesting the Secretary of War to send it the report.

The report is dated Dec. 10, 1901, and is largely a review of conditions in the province. In the report Gov. Gardener refers to the fact that loyal sentiment toward the United States at one time prevailed in the province. He continues:

"Of late by reason of the conduct of the troops, such as the extensive burning of the barrios in trying to lay waste the country so that the insurgents cannot occupy it, the torturing of natives by so-called water cure and other methods, in order to obtain information, the harsh treatment of natives generally, and the failure of inexperienced, lately appointed Lieutenants commanding posts, to distinguish between those who are friendly and those unfriendly and to treat every native as if he were, whether or no, an insurrecto at heart, this favorable sentiment above referred to is being fast destroyed and a deep hatred toward us engendered."

"The course now being pursued in this province and in the Provinces of Batangas, Laguna, and Samar is in my opinion sowing the seeds for a perpetual revolution against us hereafter whenever a good opportunity offers. Under present conditions the political situation in this province is slowly retrograding, and the American sentiment is decreasing and we are daily making permanent enemies."

"The work of the Philippine commission and the laws that have been enacted by it are everywhere favorably commented upon by the natives. The attitude of the army, thereby meaning most of its officers and soldiers, is, however, decidedly hostile to the provincial and municipal government in this province, and to civil government in these islands in general. In Manila especially it is intensely so, even among the higher officers. The work of the commission in the establishment of provincial governments is ridiculed even in presence of the natives."

With the report is a copy of a letter by Gen. Corbin to Gen. Chaffee, dated Feb. 10. saying that there should be a complete investigation. There also is a cable message, dated April 2 in which Gen. Chaffee is directed to make a thorough investigation.

Secretary Root also forwarded to the committee a telegram from Gov. Taft, in which he said Major Gardener was successful as military commander at Tabayas and was a good Governor, and that he (Taft) would believe implicitly anything stated of Gardener's knowledge, but he feared the great friction between Gardener and those officers succeeding him so influenced his judgment that charges necessarily based on evidence of others ought not to be acted on without giving those accused an opportunity to be heard.

Gen. Macarthur's Story[edit]

It Was of American and Filipino Troops at Manila.

His Testimony Before the Senate Philippines Committee Related to Alleged Co-operation Against Spaniards.

New York Times Apr 13, 1902

WASHINGTON, April 12.—The Senate Committee on the Philippines began its proceedings today by adopting a resolution offered by Senator Carmack calling upon the Secretary of War for all the orders, circulars, and official reports received from commanders and their subordinates in the Provinces of Tayabas, Batangas, Samar, and Laguna.

Gen. MacArthur was again today the only witness before the committee, and his examination was begun by Senator Culberson. His questions related to the relationship between the native forces and the American troops when the latter first landed at Manila. Senator Culberson called attention to the fact that there is testimony on file to the effect that Gen. Anderson had written to Aguinaldo inviting his cooperation at Manila, and that the latter had accepted, and that it also is stated that Gen. Merritt had himself sent an aide to Gen. Greene suggesting that arrangements be made with the Filipinos for a common understanding in the occupation of the trenches. He then asked if in view of these facts the inference was not authorized that friendly cooperation was desired by the American commanders with the Filipinos in the attack upon the Spaniards. "Assuming the facts to be as stated," the witness replied, "if that were all there is in the premises it might be admitted that inference was to be drawn as indicated. But there are other facts which form a part of the case and which show the cooperation in the attack on Manila was not a voluntary one on our part."

Gen. MacArthur then related that on the evening previous to the attack upon Manila, after Gen. Merritt had issued his order of battle, he (MarArthur) was in consultation with Gen. Anderson when the latter received a communication from Gen. Merritt directing the latter to inform Aguinaldo that the battle which was to take place the next day was to be between the Americans and the Spaniards, and that he must not participate under any circumstances. Aguinaldo was at that time, Gen. MacArthur said, five miles away, and the message was sent to him by wire. He knew, however, that the Filipino leader had received it, because he had declined to accept the suggestion, and he and his native forces had participated in the engagement the next day. What had become of that communication Gen. MacArthur said he did not know. He also said that if there had been cooperation between Aguinaldo and Gen. Anderson while the latter was in command of the American forces he did not know it.

Senator Patterson then asked a series of questions intended to bring out the fact that there had been an understanding between the American commander, Gen. Merritt, and Admiral Dewey and the Spanish commanders that the attack upon Manila should be a mere feint with the view of securing a surrender with an appearance of a battle, but without any real fight. Gen. MacArthur said that if there had been such an understanding he knew nothing of it.

“Have you any question now as a soldier and an officer of the army that there was an understanding that the resistance of the Spaniards was to be purely nominal?” Senator Patterson asked.

“Yes, I have a good deal of question on that point," replied the witness. “I have never seen anything to justify such an opinion outside of what I have seen in print."

Senator Culberson reiterated the statements concerning Gen. Merritt's first dealing with the Filipinos as to the use of the trenches and also the order to Gen. Anderson cited by Gen. MacArthur regarding the notification to Aguinaldo and asked if that was not "a change of policy on Merritt's part after he had reaped the benefit of cooperation with the native troops."

This question practically brought to a close Gen. MacArthur's statement for the day, the remainder of the time being given up to a discussion among the members of the committee as to its propriety. Before this controversy arose, however, the witness indicated that he preferred not to make direct reply.

Senator Lodge, as Chairman of the committee, held that it was competent to ask the witness his opinion on a given subject, but when the question involved a criticism upon a superior officer he did not believe the committee had a right to ask it or that the witness could be compelled to answer it.

The ruling was commented upon by the Democratic members as calculated to rob the inquiry of much of its usefulness, and they appealed from it. No vote was recorded.

Mr. Patterson was, at the instance of a representative of the Boer cause, asked whether Gen. MacArthur had any knowledge of the enlistment of Americans in the Philippines for service in the British Army in South Africa.

Gen. MacArthur replied that he had not.

Told Of "Water Cure" Given To Filipinos[edit]

Witnesses Went Into Details Before Senate Committee on the Philippines.

New York Times Apr 15, 1902

WASHINGTON, April 14.—The Senate Committee on the Philippines began the week with the intention of making an investigation of the charges to the effect that the " water cure," so-called, is practiced on the insurgents, and Charles S. Riley of Northampton, Mass., formerly a Sergeant in Company M, Twenty-sixth Volunteer Infantry, was the first witness Called with that end in view.

Mr. Riley said that he had been in the Philippines from Oct. 25, 1899, to March 4, 1901. In reply to questions by Senator Rawlins, he said he had witnessed the " water cure " at Igbaras, in the Province of Iloilo, on Nov. 27, 1900. It was administered to the Presidente or chief Filipino official of the town. He said that upon the arrival of his command at Igbaras the Presidente was asked whether runners had been sent out notifying the insurgents of their presence, and that upon his refusal to give the information he was taken to the convent where the witness was stationed and the water cure was administered to him.

This official was, he said, a man about forty years of age. When he (the witness) first saw him he was standing in the corridor of the convent, stripped to the waist and his hands tied behind him, with officers and soldiers about. The man, he said, was then thrown under a water tank which held about 100 gallons of water, and his mouth placed directly under the faucet and held open so as to compel him to swallow the water which was allowed to escape from the tank. Over him stood an interpreter repeating one word, which the witness said he did not understand, but which he believed to be the native equivalent of "confess." The Presidente agreed to tell what he knew, was released, and allowed to start away. He was not, however; permitted to escape. Water was brought in a five-gallon can, one end of a syringe was placed in it and the other in the man's mouth. As he still refused a second syringe was brought and one end of it placed in the prostrate man's nose. He still refused, and a handful of salt was thrown into the water. This had the desired effect, and the Presidente agreed to answer questions.

The next day when he saw the man he observed no ill-effects of the "dose" he had received. The Filipino was in reality a Captain of insurgents, professing friendliness.

Senator Burrows, referring to the Surgeon in charge, asked: "Did any one shoot him?" The witness replied in the negative. Mr. Riley also said he had known of many cruelties and indignities practiced upon American soldiers by natives.

Another witness, William L. Smith of Athol, Mass., who was a private In Company M, Twenty-sixth Volunteer Infantry, corroborated Mr. Riley's testimony. He also said that he had assisted in the burning of the town of Igbaras, and that the natives generally escaped from their houses only with the clothes they wore.

Mr. Smith expressed the opinion that Igbaras had a population of 10,000. So far as he knew, no lives were lost.

Saw The "Water Cure" Given[edit]

New York Times Apr 18, 1902 pg. 3

Edward J. Davis, a Volunteer from Massachusetts, Testifies Before a Senate Committee.

WASHINGTON, April 17.—Edward J. Davis of Greenfield, Mass., who was a Sergeant in Company M, Twenty-sixth Volunteer Infantry, was before the Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day. He was present in the convent at Igbaras Nov. 27, 1900, when the " water cure " was administered to the Presidente or the town of Igbaras, as testified to by Sergt. Riley and Private Smith.

The man was, he said, about forty years of age. "When he was taken into the convent he was asked to. give information as to whether runners had been sent out to notify the insurgents of the arrival of the scouts in the town. When he refused to do this the water detail, consisting of two privates of the Eighteenth Infantry, was ordered by Capt. Glenn to strip him. The man's clothing was removed above the waist and his hands tied behind him when the cure was administered.

Mr. Davis said in reply to questions as to to physical effect of the process that the man "squealed" terribly and that his eyes were bloodshot, but that the next day he was able to mount his horse and lead the scouts to the mountain.

The witness also repeated the statement that two police officers of the town of Igbaras had been subjected to the water cure. A native schoolteacher, he said, was taken into one of the back rooms of the convent by Dr. Lyons, who secured the information he wanted from him by placing two Colt revolvers to his head.

Mr. Davis also gave the details of the burning, by order of Capt. Glenn, of the town of Igbaras, which he said contained about 10,000 people but no business places. All except about fifteen houses were destroyed, and men, women, and children were forced out indiscriminately. The witness also said that a neighboring town containing about 12,000 people had been burned, but that he did not know who had given the order for its destruction.

After Mr. Davis was excused the committee went into executive session to consider the advisability of summoning witnesses from the Orient to testify. Senator Rawlins submitted the following names as those of men whom he thought it necessary to call: Aguinaldo, Mabini, who was one of Aguinaldo's principal advisers; Sixto Lopez, who has been for several years in the United States in the interest of Philippine Independence; Judge Pio del Pilar, Gen. Torres, Howard W. Bray, an Englishman, who has spent many years in the Philippines, and Robert M. Collins and Harold Martin, press correspondents.

The committee postponed action.

Testified on "Water Cure”[edit]

New York Times Apr 22, 1902 p. 2

Grover Flint of Cambridge, Mass., Was a Witness Before the Senate Philippines Committee.

WASHINGTON, April 21.—The Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day resumed the examination of witnesses in connection with the investigation of affairs in the Philippine Islands. Grover Flint of Cambridge, Mass., who served as First Lieutenant in the Thirty-fifth Volunteer Infantry, testified that early in May, 1000, he had been a witness to the water cure, as administered to the natives by the Macabebe scouts. The following day some men of his own regiment applied the cure. Flint had been, he said, a witness to at least twenty cases of water cure. He never had seen any one die as a result of the cure, but had seen a hospital corps man working on a native who had been rendered unconscious. It also had been reported to him that one Filipino died from the effects of the water cure. The witness then described the method of administering the cure, and said that in some cases where it was given to old men he had seen their teeth fall out.

Answering a question by Senator Burrows, the witness declared that the effect of the cure was immediate. The "cure," he said, never got to the point of great brutality.

Replying to a question by Senator Lodge, the witness said that he had been refused a commission in the regular army because his Colonel had reported him as using intoxicating liquors to excess.

After considerable questioning he finally admitted that he approved of the water cure, and said that it was not an American invention. The witness described the burning of small villages, the idea being, he said, to drive the people to the woods or to the towns and concentrate them.

The committee in executive session refused to call Edward Atkinson of Boston as a witness. The matter of calling Sixto Lopez, Ilabini, and Aguinaldo was left for future determination.

Senator Lodge laid before the committee a report by A. Hazlett, who was sent to the Philippines by the Women's Christian Temperance Union of Columbus, Wis. It shows that the moral condition of the islands is better than ever since American occupation and that there were ho violations of the anti-canteen laws.

Gen. Macarthur Testifies[edit]

He Disclaims Responsibility for Gen. Smith's Samar Order. Deception Practiced to Capture Aguinaldo—"I Am Responsible, Not Gen. Funston," Declares Gen. MacArthur to Senators.

New York Times April 30, 1902 p. 8

WASHINGTON, April 29.—Gen. MacArthur today continued his testimony before the Senate Committee on the Philippines, which resumed the examination of witnesses in connection with the Investigation of affairs in the Philippines. In the course of his remarks Gen. MacArthur disclaimed any responsibility for the orders of Gen. Jacob H. Smith to make Samar a howling wilderness.

Gen. Arthur MacArthur explained the statement in his annual report of June 30, 1900, that "the United States had acquired sovereignty by treaty, and in a way owned the Philippine Islands, but did not own the Philippine people," by saying that these conclusions were reached after conversation with a large number of people and observation, and that they represented the bulk of the views of the nationalist party.

He then, in response to questions by Senator Patterson, described the different towns embraced within the American lines on the night of Feb. 5, 1899, when the outbreak occurred[1], and identified what purported to be a copy of the order of Gen. Luna for the massacre of the foreign residents of Manila.

Senator Patterson sought to show that it was not difficult to deceive Aguinaldo by forgery, and referred to his capture by Gen. Funston, through a forged letter signed "Lacuna."

Gen. MacArthur, with considerable emphasis, declared that Gen. Funston was not responsible in any way for any of the methods which obtained in the capture of Aguinaldo. "I am responsible in that matter in every way and particular," said Gen. MacArthur. " It was one of the deceptions frequently practiced in war, and whatever deception attached thereto, I take."

"With regard to the order for the Manila massacre. Gen. MacArthur, answering further questions by Senator Patterson, said the order he saw was signed by Sandico and not by Luna. Gen. MacArthur detailed the efforts made by him to ferret out Luna's connection with it. The witness could not recall a letter of Gen. Reeves, who was the Chief of Police of Manila, in which he stated that he did not believe a massacre was intended because it was entirely contrary to the manner in which the Filipinos had waged war in the past.

Reverting to the Sandico order, Senator Patterson quoted from a report of Dr. F. C. Bourns, a Surgeon in the United States Army, as to how he came in possession of it through a Filipino who made a copy of the original. The Senator referred to a later statement by Dr. Bourns to the effect that the Filipino might have "stretched things a little."

Gen. MacArthur claimed there might have been two orders.

"Would you hang a yellow dog on the testimony that is paraded here as to the genuineness of these orders?" asked Senator Patterson.

The witness said it would depend on what kind of a yellow dog it was.

Gen. MacArthur disclaimed any responsibility for the orders of Gen. Jacob H. Smith to make Samar a howling wilderness.

Replying to a question by Senator Beveridge, Gen. MacArthur said that absolute chaos would result should the Filipinos be given complete independence and the United States entirely withdraw from the islands, but he said he would like to explain this statement at another session of the committee. He was thereupon excused until tomorrow, the committee going into executive session to further consider the advisability of summoning witnesses asked for by the minority.

After some discussion it was decided to postpone the taking of a vote on the proposition until to-morrow morning, at which time the committee also will pass upon the question of the advisability of sending a sub-committee to the Philippines to continue the investigation.

May 1902[edit]

Will Not Call Maj. Gardener[edit]

Senate Committee on the Philippines Decides by a Party Vote—Gen. MacArthur's Testimony.

New York Times May 1, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON. April 30.-The Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day, by a strict party vote, refused to subpoena Major Cornelius Gardener, Aguinaldo, Sixto Lopez, and Mabini. The question of sending a sub-committee to the Philippines to continue the investigation was passed over.

Major Gen. MacArthur gave further testimony before the committee. He explained his statement made yesterday that absolute chaos would-result should independence be given the Filipinos and the United States forces be withdrawn by saying that the people of the Philippines, being less prepared for self-government than any of the Latin-American republics at the time of their emancipation from Spain, their own unaided efforts to accomplish self-re-generation would in all probability prove abortive.

American withdrawal would result in the permanent failure of republican institutions in the East, and a fratricidal war which would continue until suppressed by some exterior force. The broad generalization, he said, is reached that the United States must retain the archipelago as a tuitionary annex; that we must plant our institutions there; that we must contend for commercial supremacy, and perhaps combat for political supremacy to overcome the inherent difficulties of the situation, which will require the most profound efforts of constructive statesmanship. He thought American rule was a benefit to Filipinos.

"Do you mean the Filipino people that are left alive after they have been subjugated?" inquired Senator Patterson.

Gen. MacArthur declared that he did not mean that there has been any unusual destruction of life in the islands. "The destruction," said He, " is simply incident to war, and of course embraces a very small percentage of the total population, which is dense."

"Thirty-three and a third percent, in one province," remarked Senator Patterson.

Replying to this statement Gen. Mac-Arthur informed Senator Patterson that if he preferred to believe that, he (MacArthur) could not help it.

"We have as much right to believe that from an American officer who is the civil Governor, and who is there in the province, as we have to believe you," replied Senator Patterson, which brought the retort from Gen. MacArthur:

"You can believe what you wish, and I will believe what I wish."

Senator Patterson wanted to know whether as a matter of fact the contacts between our troops and the Filipinos were not simply assaults and pursuits.

Gen. MacArthur denied that this was so, saying that since the affair has reached the guerrilla state the United States troops have had the greatest difficulty in finding the Filipinos, so that whenever the Filipinos attacked it was in the nature of a surprise, the Filipino posting himself in thick mountain gorges and firing first.

Responding to a question by Senator Carmack, Gen. MacArthur said that when he assumed responsibility for the methods adopted in capturing Aguinaldo he did so without conferring with the authorities at Washington. The plan was Gen. Funston's he said, and he (MacArthur) assumed the responsibility of approving it. At no time, said Gen. MacArthur did he violate the rules of civilized warfare.


The Philippine Inquiry Senate Minority[edit]

Want Major Gardener Summoned from Manila

Resolution Presented After the Investigating Committee Declined to Call Him--Charges that Information Is "Smothered."

New York Times May 1, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON April 30.—When consideration of the Philippine Government bill was resumed by the Senate today, Mr. Patterson (Col.) offered a resolution for (?) asked immediate consideration, directing the Secretary of War to cable Major Gardener, formerly Civil Governor of the Province of Tayabas, to return to the United States to appear as a witness before the Philippine Committee. In the preamble to the resolution Mr. Patterson' declared that the Philippine committe had decided, by a "partisan" vote to refuse to ask that Major Gardener be cabled to appear as soon as he could come to the United States.

Mr. McComas raised the question that it was not proper to say that the committee had divided upon "partisan" lines. Mr. Allison, a member of the Philippine Committee, also objected to the use of the word "partisan." Mr. Allison said he was satisfied that Major Gardener would reach Washington long before Congress adjourned, and there would be ample time to get his testimony.

Mr. Tillman indicated his belief that information was being "smothered," and he demanded to know from Mr. Lodge whether the proposed "to dragoon the Senate into a vote upon this measure."

Mr. Lodge replied, laughingly, that he wished he could dragoon the Senate into a vote on the measure, but Mr. Tillman knew he could do nothing of the kind. He believed it would be preposterous for the Senate to wait on a single witness. Mr. Carmack (Tenn.) declared that the report made by Major Gardener was so startling and important that the Secretary of War had endeavored to keep it from the Senate and from the American people. He insisted that unless the proposed resolution were adopted Major Gardener surely would not get to Washington before Congress adjourned.

Mr. Lodge, the Chairman, said that Major Gardener ought to appear before the committee. Personally he desired to hear his testimony before Congress adjourned. He suggested, sarcastically, that Major Gardener was a particularly important witness, because he seemed to agree in some respects with the minority. If the testimony of one provincial Governor was desirable that of the thirty odd other provincial Governors probably would be.

Continuing, Mr. Lodge said that the minority of the committee had suggested that Aguinaldo, Sixto Lopez, Mabini, and some prisoners of war on the Island of Guam; H.M. Bray, an agent of the Filipino junta at Hong kong, and two Associated Press correspondents, Mr Collins at Peking and Mr. Martin in Venezuela, be called as witnesses. The committee had decided not to call them for various reasons. The committee thought that the testimony of Filipino prisoners was not desirable; Bray was a British subjects and the two correspondents were inaccessible Admiral Dewey and Gen. Anderson, he said would appear as witnesses, and the list of witnesses was of sufficient length to" occupy the committee until the adjournment of Congress The resolution went over until tomorrow.

Full Disclosure of The Facts[edit]

New York Times May 1, 1902; pg. 8

We reject as unworthy of belief the report that the gentlemen who assembled at the Plaza Hotel on Tuesday to take measures for the ascertainment of the truth about our military operations in the Philippines intended or attempted to keep their proceedings secret. The story is incredible, in the first place, because Mr. CARL SCHURZ, Mr. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Mr. ANDREW CARNEGIE, Mr. WAYNE MACVEAGH, Mr. HERBERT WELSH, and President J. G. SCHURMAN are not workers in the dark. They are used to the sunlight of publicity, and love it. In the second place, they had no occasion to be ashamed of the work in hand. When men secretly set themselves against their Government and by stealth oppose the further prosecution of a war in which it is engaged they expose themselves to the suspicion of disloyalty. Our anti-imperialists have nothing in common, either in character or purpose, with the Knights of the Golden Circle.

At the Plaza Hotel conference this resolution, offered by Mr. ADAMS, was adopted:

Resolved. That a committee of seven persons be appointed by the presiding officer. whose duty it shall be to take all necessary steps to effect the full disclosure of the facts connected with the processes and executions in the course of military operations in the Philippine Islands, and to appear in person and by counsel before the present Senate Investigating Committee and take such steps there and elsewhere as may be calculated to secure complete publicity and further to initiate such other action as may tend to vindicate the National character.

These are purposes with which all right-thinking Americans are in sympathy. Reports of cruelty, torture, and inhuman procedures in the Philippines have come to their ears. They have been shocked by Gen. JACOB H. SMITH'S admission that he issued the order to burn and kill. When so much is known the rest cannot remain concealed. The gentlemen of the Plaza Hotel meeting are not alone in their solicitude for a vindication of the National character.

To be sure, the great body of patriotic Americans would deny that the central facts or the circumstances warrant a call for volunteer investigators. Secretary ROOT'S report of the measures taken by the War Department to run down all stories of violation of the laws of war by our forces, the prompt action taken In the cases of Major WALLER and Gen. SMITH, and the stern tone of the President's order leave no doubt in most minds that the National character is safe in the keeping of those who are officially accountable. Moreover, a committee of the United States Senate is already engaged in a Philippine investigation. The machinery of "complete publicity " is in motion.

Nevertheless, the Anti-Imperialist Investigating Committee appointed at the Plaza Hotel meeting should receive cordial welcome and every encouragement. Its members have no confidence in the President, no confidence in Secretary ROOT, no confidence in the Senate Committee. Their appointment and existence as a committee are perfectly inexplicable on any other hypothesis. It would be foolish for them to dissemble their distrust. We do not think they care to dissemble it. Accordingly, they must begin the work of investigation de novo and carry it to completion. They can accept nothing from the War Department, nothing from the Senate committee, nothing from the courts-martial. Mr. ADAMS in Boston. Mr. Scutrz in New York, Mr. MACVEAGH in Philadelphia, Mr. CARNEGIE, now on the ocean, and Mr. EDWIN BURRITT SMITH in Chicago will have to get at the facts and tell the American people what they are.

It was a mistake and a sign of weakness to instruct the committee to appear in person or by counsel before the Senate Investigating Committee. That committee has just slammed its doors in the face of Mr. EDWARD ATKINSON on the ground that as he has not been in the Philippines he could give nothing but testimony on hearsay. Such a precedent would very likely be controlling in the case of the Anti-Imperialist Committee. They ought to consider themselves a coordinate branch of the investigation and have nothing to do with Mr. LODGE and his associates. Under the terms of the resolution of appointment it is the duty of this committee "to take all necessary steps to effect the full disclosure of the facts connected with the processes and executions in the course of military operations in the Philippine Islands." "We beg to remind the committee that it will be disobedient to its instructions if it investigates and reports upon nothing but the stories of water-cure torture and "wanton killing. The American people denounce as cruel and monstrous Gen. SMITH'S orders to kill male natives of Samar above the age of ten. But all candid and fair-minded Americans not only want to know but insist upon knowing the truth about the condition of the war in the Philippines. The com ittee will be unwise and false to it; duty and its instructions if it exclude; from consideration such testimony a: this from WILLIAM H. TAFT, Civil Governor of the Philippines:

That there has been cruelty in the Philippines and that the "water cure" has in some cases been administered to natives is no doubt, true; that it typifies the conduct of the army in the islands I do not believe.

To consider how such outrages could have occurred and yet not make the army as a whole, or its commanders, responsible, one must remember that it was a guerrilla warfare. It became necessary to establish 500 different posts, with small detachments, sometimes in charge of Second Lieutenants and even Sergeants.

The army, of course, has its weak and brutal men. and in such guerrilla fighting, with detachments shot down from ambush and bodies of soldiers mutilated, it is not strange that young officers, desiring to prevent loss of further men and the death of themselves amid such treachery, should resort to every legitimate means to endeavor to find where guns were hid by the treacherous foe, and if they found in vogue a system Of torture among the Filipinos, which the Spaniards, too, had used, is it strange that human nature weakened, and that they took steps which have startled the American people.

There are in the United States 110,000 men who have been through the Philippine war. It is manifestly impossible to call that great army to testify in the negative, but you can call fifty or one hundred men who testify to having seen the torture applied.

The danger is that the American people will accept only the statements of these fifty or one hundred men. You are bound in fairness to accept the statements of officers who tell you, as did Gen. MACARTHUR, that the war is conducted humanely and that they use every means to suppress abuses.

The committee will make a mistake, too, if it acts upon the assumption that on testimony to sporadic cases of wrongdoing it can carry with it the sentiment of the people against the statements of officers of the high standing of Gen. MACARTHUR and Gen. CHAFFEE that the war operations in the Philippines have been conducted with few exceptions in full obedience to the dictates of humanity and the laws of war.

It is well that this committee has come into being. It is desirable that it should push its inquiries to the stage of complete knowledge. Full disclosure is demanded. These gentlemen may be very sure that if they catch the Administration trying to cover up the facts, if they do actually disclose bloody wrongs not revealed by persons in authority or concealed by them, their report will instantly arrest the attention of the American people, who will promptly take the necessary steps to vindicate the National character. But they must understand that this is a very broad-minded people, whose judgments are little apt to be influenced by a presentation of facts arranged for partisan effect or colored and discredited by narrow and prejudiced opinions.

Gen. Macarthur's Testimony[edit]

Aguinaldo, He Says, Admitted that His People Are Not Capable of Self-Government Now.

New York Times May 2, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON. May 1.—Major Gen. Mac-Arthur to-day continued his testimony before the Senate Committee on the Philippines. Answering a question by Senator Culberson, the General stated that Aguinaldo and the Filipino people were justified in concluding that the actions of the United States Army were sympathetic. But there was a distinct purpose through the intercourse between Americans and Filipinos to repudiate the idea of direct cooperation which in any way committed the United States to a policy.

He described the assistance rendered by the Filipinos to the United States Army when it first landed at Manila, and said that on account of their diverting the fire of the Spaniards the resistance to the United States forces was somewhat lessened.

Gen. MacArthur spoke of the capture of papers from high Filipino officials in which the information was contained that if President McKinley should be re-elected the insurgents would surrender to the authority of the United States.

Before leaving Manila Gen. MacArthur said, he had a conversation with Aguinaldo who told him that he had been misinformed as to the character of the American people and the purposes of the American Government. Aguinaldo also had told him it would be impossible at this stage of their evolution for his own people to establish a stable independent Government. The statement was voluntary, he said, and caused him to revise his views about Aguinaldo. Responding to a question by Senator Rawlins, he said Aguinaldo was at the time of the conversation a "qualified prisoner," but that there was no coercion or duress resorted to to extract the statement.

The committee in secret session considered the question whether steps should be taken to secure the attendance of Major Gardener in advance of the arrival of that officer's regiment. The committee decided to ask the Secretary of War to have Major Gardener come on in advance of his regiment if not inconsistent with the good of the service.

Topics of the Times[edit]

New York Times May 2, 1902 p. 8

We commend, as a particularly sane view of the situation in the Philippines, some remarks on the conduct of hostilities there which are made this week by one of the regular contributors to Harper's Weekly. After noting that the seizure of hidden rifles, even by help of the "water cure," means to save life, to stop fighting, and to give the civil arm a chance, he adds: "A choice of cruelties is the best that has been offered in the Philippines. It is not so certain that we at home can afford to shudder at the water cure unless we disown the whole job, and if we do disown the whole job we cannot put the responsibility for it on the army. The army has obeyed orders. It was sent to the Philippines to subdue the Filipinos, and it seems to have made remarkable progress. Having the devil to fight, it has sometimes used fire; having liars to fight, it has sometimes used lies; having semi-civilized men to fight, it has in some instances used semi-civilized methods. That was inevitable, and will be inevitable as long as soldiers are men. If these water-cure cases are brought to trial they should be tried in the Philippines, before men who are familiar with the circumstances of their occurrence and the general conditions and standards of conduct that obtained where they happened. None of us believes that cruelty runs in the American blood, or that wanton cruelty has been done in the Philippines, except in isolated cases, but the American soldier is an earnest man, and wants results. Major GARDENER says, 'Use native troops.' By all means use native troops as soon as they can be trusted. By all means, meanwhile, curb the zeal of our troops when it verges toward ferocity. But don't condemn them unheard, and don't blame them for faults that are part of the job. It is our job, not theirs." There is much in that long quotation to horrify the anti-everythings who call themselves anti-imperialists, and a little to pain the thorough-going patriot who glories in being for his country whether it is right or wrong, but the recognition of facts as they are is apparent all through it, and such recognition is common sense.

The Philippine Inquiry[edit]

Senator Culberson (Texas) Interrogates Gen. MacArthur Regarding the Advantage of Implanting Republican Institutions.

New York Times May 3, 1902

WASHINGTON, May 2.—Gen. MacArthur was interrogated to-day by Senator Culberson of Texas at the hearing before the Philippine Committee. The General had referred to the advantage of implanting republican institutions in the islands.

Mr. Culberson, took up each of the principles of republican institutions and asked how far these had been implanted in the Philippines. As to free speech Gen. Mac-Arthur said he had told the Filipinos that if they would give him their guns they could have a. mass meeting on every corner. He said soldiers were quartered in private houses as an incident to war. Gen. Mac-Arthur insisted that some of the incidents of war continued even after the pacification of a locality.

Gen. MacArthur maintained that all of the fundamental rights, except trial by jury and the right to bear arms were in operation as far as the conditions would permit. The committee, in executive session, agreed, at the request of Mr. Rawlins, to summon Corp. Gibbs, now at Springfield, Mass., an eye witness of the massacre of Balangiga, the Senator said; also, Dr. A. L. Parker of New Hampshire, who is said to have been a witness of much '" water curing." The committee also reconsidered its action of yesterday in deciding to ask the War Department to have Major Cornelius Gardener brought in from the Philippines to Washington in order to testify before the committee.

The Water Cure Described[edit]

Discharged Soldier Tells Senate Committee How and Why the Torture Was Inflicted.

New York Times May 4, 1902

WASHINGTON, May 3.—L. E. Hallock of Boston, Mass., formerly a Sergeant and later a private in Company I, Twenty-sixth Volunteer Infantry, testified to-day before the Senate Committee on the Philippines concerning the practice of the water cure in the Philippine archipelago.

He told of the infliction of the cure upon a dozen natives at the town of Leon, Province of Panay. He said they were captured and tortured in order to secure information of the murder of Private O'Herne of Company I, who had been not only killed, but roasted and otherwise tortured before death ensued. Capt. Glenn, in charge of a scouting party, had first secured a confession of participation in this crime by one native who had implicated twelve others. These were, the witness said, taken to Leon, where his company, under command of Capt. Gregg, was stationed, and there on the 21st and again on the 23d of August, 1000, the cure was administered by members of Company I under the orders of First Sergeant Januarius Manning.

Hallock added that he had witnessed the that while it was in progress Capt. Gregg was at company headquarters, less than 100 yards distant.

"Did Capt. Gregg known of the torture?" Senator Rawlins asked.

"All the command knew it, and I don't see how he could have helped knowing it."

"What was the effect of the punishment?"

"The stomach would swell up, and in some cases I witnessed blood come from the mouth."

Asked what became of the Philippine prisoners to whom the cure was administered, he replied that they were placed in a guardhouse 20 by 25 feet in size, in which there was one window, and in which there were at times eighteen men confined. The twelve prisoners were kept for four or five months, and then they tried to escape. That effort had been successful on the part of some of them, but five or six fleeing prisoners were shot and killed. One of them had been killed while trying to get away when the squad was taken to the river for a bath, and the others when out at work, in a general rush for liberty.

"Were all the prisoners who did not escape killed?"

"I think so, with one exception; I think one was given his freedom."

Senator Lodge brought out the details of the murder of Private O'Herne. The witness said that in June, 1900, O'Herne, with two other members of the company, had been sent to Iloilo for mail, and that on their return on June 30 they were ambushed by 100 natives, and O'Herne's companions captured. O'Herne had made a dash to get away, and after escaping from the attacking party, had fallen in with other natives supposed to be friendly, but that instead of proving to be so they had devoted the entire next day to his torture and death, beginning at daylight by cutting him with bolos and then roasting him all day by a slow fire, not finishing up until night. All these details had, the witness said, been gathered from the confessions of the men to whom they had given the cure.

Replying to other questions, he said he had not known any one to die under the water cure. The prisoners were generally-fed on rice and coffee, with an occasional meal of hard tack. He said they were all "fat." He also said he understood the orders to be to treat the natives well.

In reply to a question from Senator Burrows, Mr. Hallock said he had seen the bodies of four of the native prisoners who had been shot by the soldiers while trying to make their escape, but that he had not seen the actual shooting.

The committee then went into executive session, and Senator Lodge laid before it the cablegram from Gen. Chaffee concerning Major Gardener, which was later read in the Senate. The committee decided not to request the appearance of Major Gardener pending the investigation in the Philippines.

Philippine Bill Discussion[edit]

In the Senate it Revolved Around the Resolution Calling for Major Gardener.

New York Times May 4, 1902 p. 13

WASHINGTON. May 3.—At the conclusion of routine business in the Senate today, the resolution previously offered by Mr. Patterson, (Col.,) requesting the President to cause the Secretary of War to cable Major Gardener, in the Philippines to come to "Washington to appear as a witness before the Philippine committee, was laid before the Senate.

Mr. Lodge, (Mass.,) Chairman of the Philippine committee, explained that when it had been learned that Major Gardener's regiment would not leave the Philippines until about June 15 the committee on Phil-ippines had decided to secure if possible, Major Gardener's presence as soon as possible. Later it was found that Major Gardener had filed no specifications of the charges he had made to the Philippine Commission. The committee then had rescinded its action calling for Major Gardener.

Yesterday, he said, the War Department was notified that Major Gardener had filed a few specifications, indefinite in character, mentioning the name of only one officer. When an investigation was ordered, Major Gardener complained that the investigation had developed into an attack upon him, and he asked for counsel. A board was appointed to investigate Gardener's charges, and some time probably would elapse before the board could make its report.

In the circumstances the Philippine committee had thought it well to permit Major Gardener an opportunity to prove before the Philippine authorities the truthfulness of his charges—an opportunity which he would have, full and fair.

Mr. Rawlins (Utah) said it was evident that Major Gardener thought the investigation to be made of his charges was in unfriendly hands. He said the bias of Gen. Chaffee, as shown in his cablegram, indicated that Major Gardener was reluctant to submit himself to an investigation by officers who had been the subject of his criticisms.

Now, Mr. Rawlins said, it is proposed to go through the farce of awaiting the specifications filed by Major Gardener and the result of an inquiry made by the board. He sympathized with the motives of the Washington officials that the charges should be fully investigated, but he held that some tribunal ought to be selected to make the investigation without possibility of the charge of partiality. He believed the committee ought not to refuse to send for Major Gardener, as his testimony was extremely important.

Mr. Spooner (Wis.) said the observations of Mr. Rawlins were quite characteristic of the action of the Democrats in the course of this debate. He had read carefully the telegram from Gen. Chaffee, and had discovered nothing indicating a bias on his part.

"The Senator from Utah." continued Mr. Spooner," seems to be blinded with suspicion of the army and of almost everybody charged with any responsibility in the Philippines."

It seemed to him that there was a too great willingness on the part of the minority to impeach the whole American Army. Mr. Rawlins seemed to think no army board could be constituted which would investigate searchingly the case of Major Gardener. He denied emphatically that the officers constituting the board of inquiry were those who had served in the Province of which Major Gardener was Governor.

The charge of Mr. Rawlins, he said, was that as Major Gardener had made a general impeachment of military officers in the Philippines no board could be constituted which would give him an impartial trial. "The American people," he declared. " will not believe that charge because they will know that it is not true of the army in the Philippines or any other American army."

Referring to Gen. Funston. Mr. Spooner said he may have talked too much, but, if he had, he had done no more than some others who are not in military life had done about this war in the Philippines. The charge had been made, said he. that Funston had fought his way to fame with the jawbone of an ass. That was unjust and unworthy of those who made it. Gen. Funston had won fame as a soldier by leading the bravest of men in battle, and had won at the same time the commendation of President McKinley, one of the most beautiful characters in the life of the Nation. Gen. Funston had not won his fame with the jawbone of an ass but with his sword. In the Senate of the United States, of all places, said he, the effort ought not to be made to besmirch the reputation and the honor of the army. Outrages probably had been committed in isolated instances in the Philippines. He condoned no outrages of any kind. All charges officially made of such outrages would be investigated thoroughly and undoubtedly the guilty would be punished.

"But," said he, "the American people will convict no man without a hearing, and will convict no man on statements made in The Congressional Record. They will demand condign punishment of the guilty. but the investigation must by the same demand be conducted with fairness and justice."

Mr. Spooner declared that he was not willing to vote for the resolution because the Secretary of War, as soon as the matter had been brought to his attention, had ordered an investigation to be made of the charges of Major Gardener. The complaint of the minority seemed to be, said he, that the Secretary of War had not given the charges immediately upon their reception to The Associated Press for wide dissemination.

He was interrupted by Mr. Carmack, (Tenn.,) who said the complaint was that the charges had not been furnished to the Philippine Committee.

"That is," said Mr. Spooner, "that they had not been made public."

"We had heard nothing from the minority," declared Mr. Spooner, "except suppression, suppression, suppression, and yet every possible effort is being made by the department to ascertain the facts and to punish the guilty."

The minority, he insisted, urged that Major Gardener be brought here to "Washington to repeat his charges before the Philippine Committee against his comrades who were 8,000 miles away. The sense of decency of the world, he declared, would be shocked by such action. Major Gardener, he said, had asked to come here and give his testimony. Why he had asked he did not know. Personally he was not given to insinuation, as the minority seemed to be. If he were, he, too, might say some caustic things about Major Gardener's report. He declared that Major Gardener ought to make good his charges where they were made—among his comrades.

Mr. Foraker defended Gov. Taft against the charge that he had withheld Major Gardener's report. "The record," he said, "shows conclusively that such a statement is not warranted."

Mr. Lodge here took the floor to withdraw his request that the resolution lie upon the table, adding that he preferred to have the question passed upon now. "It is," he said, "perfectly monstrous to bring Major Gardener here and allow him to make his accusations in a committee room of the Senate when the officers' against whom he makes them are thousands of miles away in the Philippines."

Replying to the Republican Senators, Mr. Rawlins said that his only intention in bringing the Gardene'r matter to the attention of the Senate had been to develop the status of the case.

He did not want to besmirch the army, but he did want a full inquiry to develop the guilty and have them punished while the innocent may be exonerated. He said the minority were "met everywhere with objections and obstruction."

"I call the Senator from Utah to order," said Mr. Lodge. "No Senator has a right to charge any other Senator with obstruction."

Mr. Rawlins referred to the case of Private Riley, and quoted the Secretary of War as saying in connection with it that private soldiers are inclined to "draw the long how" in writing home of occurrences in the Philippines, which he said was itself a severe reflection on the army. Contrary to the Secretary's statement, he said, the charges of the privates had been sustained.

Mr. Lodge—The Riley case is the only one that has been sustained.

Mr. Rawlins—The Riley case is the only one that has been fully investigated.

"Without replying, Mr. Lodge gave notice of a speech next Monday.

Mr. Culberson replied to Mr. Foraker's reference to Gov. Taft, saying he had intimated a lack of candor in connection with the withholding of the report of Major Gardener. He said that the report had been suppressed, and added that the Secretary of War was now attempting to take the inquiry out of the hands of the Senate committee.

At the conclusion of Mr. Culberson's comments Mr. Pettus (Ala.) said: "I rise merely to ask the Senator from Utah (Mr. Rawlins) to withdraw the resolution. We are in a situation where the witness cannot be had. And why press it? And why press this discussion, which can only lead to bitterness?"

Mr. Foraker took sharp exception to the criticism of Gov. Taft made by Mr. Culberson. He paid a high tribute to Gov. Taft and declared that it had remained for the minority to question his honesty of purpose and his veracity.

Mr. Patterson (Col.) declared that the record, in his opinion, fully justified the criticism of the lack of frankness of Gov. Taft made by Mr. Culberson. Without concluding his remarks, Mr. Patterson yielded the floor, as he said he understood that a report of the death of Representative Amos J. Cummings of New York was on the President's desk.

Republicans Change Tactics In Senate[edit]

Special to The New York Times.

They Abandon Plan of Letting Democrats Only Debate.

The Change is Directly Attributed to President Roosevelt's Conference with the Party Leaders.

New York Times May 4, 1902 p. 13

WASHINGTON, May 3.—This afternoon a sudden change came over the spirit of the Senate debate, directly attributed to President Roosevelt's recent conference with some of the party leaders. Instead of the farce-comedy, which has been going on so long, of a debate conducted wholly by one side, with the other side absent from the Chamber, there was a spirited discussion in which the biggest guns of the Republican side were brought forward and fired.

On some occasions during the debate there has not been a single Republican in the Senate Chamber. The Democrats have done all the talking, and the Republican attitude has been one of pointed contempt. Now all that is changed, and from this time forward the debate will be a battle. There "were more Republicans than Democrats in their seats today, although the Democrats were there in force.

The Republicans also indicated that they had abandoned their policy of letting the Democrats pass all the resolutions they wanted. Hitherto the Republicans have made little objection to the passage of resolutions calling for all sorts of things. Today they began a new policy by fighting the Patterson resolution calling upon the Secretary of War to summon Major Gardener, Governor of the Province of Tayabas, to come to "Washington and testify before the Philippine Committee.

The debate was also characterized by a personality and acrimony hitherto unknown in the discussion. The moment Mr. Rawlins accused the Republicans of obstructing the minority in their efforts to get at the truth Mr. Lodge jumped to his feet and heatedly declared that Mr. Rawlins was out of order in making such a charge against the majority, "especially when they are not doing it," he added angrily, as he sat down.

Again, when Mr. Patterson declined to yield to Mr. Foraker for a Question, the Ohio Senator jumped up and started to bolt out of the Chamber, saying: "In that case I don't care to hear what the Senator has to say." Mr. Patterson induced him to stay by agreeing to yield.

So far from carrying out their usual policy of silence, the Republicans sent their best debaters into the fray. They were principally represented by Mr. Spooner, who is always primed and ready and is far and away the best debater they have. He was ably supported by Mr. Lodge and Mr. Foraker. During the debate Mr. Morgan again gave evidence of his dissent from the attitude of his party on the Philippine question by backing up Mr. Lodge and Mr. Spooner in their claim that it was impossible to summon Major Gardener.

This Week In Washington[edit]

New York Times May 5, 1902p. 2

Republican Senators Will Join in the Philippine Debate.

Mr. Lodge Will Lead Off To-day—Omnibus Statehood Bill Coming Up in the House.

WASHINGTON, May 4.—Republican Senators this week will relieve the Democrats of the necessity of supplying all the speakers in the Senate on the Philippine Government bill. The events of last week caused them to decide to take part in the debate, and they will lead off when the bill is laid before the Senate at 2 o'clock tomorrow. Senator Lodge, Chairman of the Committee on the Philippines, will open for them with a set speech in support of the Administration's Philippine policy, with incidental reference to Major Gardner's report and other special phases of the Philippine question. Other Republican Senators who have indicated a purpose to address the Senate on the pending question are:

Messrs. Foraker, Spooner, Burton, Mc-Comas, and Piatt of Connecticut. There probably also will be other Republican speakers. The Democratic members of the Committee on the Philippines have no fixed plans except to have the debate on the bill continue for the present. They decline to estimate the time necessary to conclude consideration of the bill.

Maj. Gardener's Charges[edit]

Cablegram from Gen. Chaffee Laid Before a Senate Committee.

Burning of Villages and Torturing Alleged—Lieut. Catlin, Who Is Named, Said to be Deranged.

New York Times May 7, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, May 6.—When the Philippine Committee met today Senator Lodge presented a cablegram from Gen. Chaffee giving the charges and specifications of Major Gardener relative to Tayabas Province. The cablegram was received at the War Department May 4, and is as follows:

Reference to Cable 3d.—Secretary of War—To send the following: Major Cornelius Gardener's first letter contained no specifications on which I could act. From his second letter, however, in order to comply with the present instructions, I submit in the form of charges the following: data, which are as complete as possible under the conditions in which I am at present situated:

Charge—The troops that succeeded the volunteers did not keep up the scouting and patrolling system.

Specification—That the troops stationed in the central towns on Tayabas, to wit: In Lucban, Tayabas, Lucena, and Saviayo, did in the Spring of 1901. for about three months, fall to scout or patrol the country except as escort to wagon trains on the main roads.

Charge—Burning of barrios or villages.

Specification—That troops during the fall of 1901, burned a number of barrios belonging to Dolores and adjacent towns.

TORTURING NATIVES.

Specification 1.—That certain United States troops coming from San Pablo, in or near the town of Dolores, tortured a native by the water cure. This was during the Summer of 1901.

Specification 2.—That the commanding officer of Lagulmanoc, during the Summer of 1901, tortured or maltreated a native boy.

Specification 3.—That the troops coming from Lucena or Tayabas on several occasions tortured natives belonging to the Pueblo of Pag-bilao. This during the Summer and Fall of 1901

Charge—Harsh treatment of natives.

Specification 1.—That men belonging to a detachment of soldiers stationed at Candelaria looted a store in that town about the month of November, 1901.

Specification 2.—That a detachment of troops took away from a peaceful citizen of Dolores a pony. This about the month of September, 1901

Specification 3.—That the house of a native of Candelaria was forcibly taken for a smallpox hospital and afterward burned by order of the Surgeon at Sarlaya; that the said native was not remunerated. This in Candelaria in July 1901.

Specification 4—That First Lieut. George De G. Catlin did strike with his fist natives of Lucena for failing to take off their hats to him. and did forcibly with threats compel a native to deal cards for him. This about September 1901

Specification 5—That First Lieut. George De G Catlin at Calanauan did keep In the guardhouse for three days a native, without food or water. This about September, 1901.

Specification 6—That First Lieut. George De G Catlin did strike natives in the face for failing to remove their hats. This while he was in command at the post.

Specification 7—That a party of soldiers attacked with pistols three natives working on the roads near Lucena. This about November 1901

Specification 8—That certain soldiers belonging to a troop of cavalry stationed in Tavabas. Pueblo, did attack five women of that town. This in the month of January or February 1901.

The dates are approximate, and the facts from complaints made to me, stated to the best of my recollection. CHAFFEE.

Senator Lodge explained to the committee that Lieut. Catlin has been under treatment for a deranged mind. Senator Lodge also laid before the committee a list of over 300 officers and enlisted, men in the United States Army who have been tried by court-martial for offenses against natives; also a list of natives tried by military commissions for cruelties to United States soldiers and violation of the laws of war.

The witness before the committee today was R. V. Hughes of Philadelphia, formerly private in Company H, Eighth Infantry. He testified to seeing the water cure administered once to a native when the troops were searching for information. He also saw one native knocked down twice by order of Lieut. Merchant and another beaten on the chest with a stick to make them give information. He said the insurgents engaged in similar work, and gave an instance of an American soldier being cut to pieces with bolos. He testified that the native prisoners were well treated, the sick cared for, and the food furnished very nearly the same as that furnished the American troops.

The witness admitted that in only one instance had he witnessed the water cure, and said that he had not seen Filipinos subjected to harsh treatment aside from the water cure. He qualified this statement by saying that Filipino prisoners were on one occasion utilized to carry officers' wives in bamboo chairs seven miles, from Santa Cruz to Magdalena.

He told of the burning of native bouses, in one of which was a crippled native woman. The order to burn was issued by Lieut. Merchant. The women, he said, were ejected from the house and left to sleep on the ground. He described other instances of burning, and. answering an inquiry by Senator Lodge, said that the insurgents engaged in similar work.

Philippine Question Up In The Senate[edit]

Mr. Beveridge Criticises the Minority's Attacks on the Army.

Senator Turner Characterizes Gen. Jacob H. Smith as a " Monster in Human Form "—Placing the Responsibility.

New York Times May 7, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, May 6.—For almost four hours today a fiery discussion of the Philippine situation raged in the Senate. It was started by Mr. Beveridge of Indiana, who made some sharp strictures on the members of the opposition because, as he said, they persisted in telling in their speeches only one side of the story. Mr. Beveridge began by correcting, as he said,

an unintentional statement made by Mr. Rawlins (Utah) concerning the application of the water cure to Filipinos who had burned Sergt. O'Herne to death. He read from the testimony to show that Mr. Rawlins's statement was not accurate.

"Was this murder proved by any other testimony than that given in the testimony of the tortured Filipinos?" Inquired Mr. Hoar.

"Not that I know of," replied Mr. Beveridge, "but that evidence was conclusive."

Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Patterson became involved in a spirited colloquy, which was interrupted by Mr. Carmack (Tenn.) saying: " The conduct of American soldiers in the Philippines was uniformly kind wherever it was permitted to be so. In cases where It was otherwise they were driven to the cruelties by their superior officers."

Mr. Beveridge inquired whether Mr. Car-mack could mention more than a single instance where an officer had ordered the administration of torture to a Filipino.

Mr. Carmack replied that he had not referred to any special order, but that the general orders of Gens. Bell and Chaffee indicated that in the opinion of those officers the American troops were treating the Filipinos too kindly.

Mr. Beveridge ridiculed this answer of Mr. Carrnack. The minority Senators, he said, should confine themselves to the record as made, and in connection with the instances of cruelty, which all bitterly regretted, they should in justice show that the Filipino prisoners had received the same food, the same medicines, and had been attended in the same hospitals by the same nurses as the American soldiers.

Mr. Rawlins (Utah) contended that every statement he had made in his discussion of this question was essentially accurate. He said outrages in the Philippines were due, not to the soldiers themselves, but to the highest military authorities in the islands. The responsibility for them indeed was to be placed properly at the door of the Administration officials here in Washington.

"Until recently," said he, "I had thought that these things were sporadic and isolated, but I have been forced to the belief that they are but a part of the general plan of campaign."

Mr. Turner (Washington) criticized the refusal of the Senate Committee on the Philippines to summon Aguinaldo, Mabini, Major Gardener, and others. He referred to the order of Gen. Jacob H. Smith, and said that it remained for the American soldier, the highest type of civilization, in a quarrel not having the single element of religious difference, prosecuted upon professedly humanitarian grounds, to raise his name to the height of bloody infamy. He characterized Gen. Smith as "a monster in human form," who had devoted an entire province to a merciless extermination.

In response to an inquiry by Mr. Dolliver, as to whether any women or children had been put to death under the order, Mr. Turner replied that evidence showed that twenty men had been taken out and shot. Mr. Dolliver declared that the men had been shot not under the order of Gen. Smith, but upon other grounds.

Mr. Turner referred to a special dispatch which appeared in The Washington Post of today under date line of Lynn, Mass., and which on the authority of the Rev. W. E. Walker told of the execution of 1,000 Filipino prisoners by a battalion of American troops because there was not sufficient food for them. The Rev. Dr. Walker told the story on the authority of his son, J. B. Walker, a private in Company I, Sixteenth United States Infantry.

Mr. Lodge replied that he would Investigate the matter, although he felt it was utterly without foundation.

Mr. Hoar, (Mass.,) who introduced the resolution providing for the investigation which the Philippine committee is now making, defended the committee in the conduct of its investigation. He said that a vast amount of valuable information already had been furnished by the committee and he doubted not that other information still would be furnished. He urged that in fairness and justice some Filipinos ought to be called to give their testimony before the committee in defense of the charges which had been made against them.

To Send A Committee To The Philippines[edit]

New Move in the Situation Planned by Democrats.

Resolution Will Be Introduced In the Senate—Republicans May Not Seriously Oppose It.

Special to The New York Times.

New York Times May 8, 1902 pg. 1

WASHINGTON, May 7.—A new move in the Philippine situation is contemplated by the Democrats, and will soon be brought up in open Senate. The Democrats will refrain from attempting to prevent the bringing of the bill to a vote, but they will insist that the Philippine Committee shall go to the archipelago this Fall and shall continue there the investigation which is now going on here.

The Republicans have not yet been advised of this intention on the part of the Democrats, and are not, therefore, able to say what their policy will be when the proposition is brought up. The Democrats, however, are confident that the Republicans will not seriously oppose it, and are quite sure that they can put it through. One of them will introduce a resolution in open Senate directing the continuance of the investigation in the Philippine Islands, and this resolution, they say, will be passed.

It is intended that the committee shall begin its inquiry in the Philippines about the month of September. Practically the only difficulty in the way of preparing the resolution is the making of arrangements which will suit the convenience of the Senators composing the committee. The Democrats would like to have the investigation begin immediately upon the adjournment of Congress, but it is realized that this will be a bad season of the year and that September is probably the earliest practicable date. They think that the committee can easily conclude its work in the Philippines in time to get back here for the beginning of the next session.

The Democrats consider that this will not only be a good tactical move, but that it will be one which the Republicans will hardly dare to oppose. The Democrats have been making strong efforts to get the testimony of men on the ground, but the Republicans have prevented them, giving as a reason that men cannot be summoned from their posts in the Philippines and taken away from their duties.

This objection was raised when the Democrats tried to have Major Gardener, Governor of the Province of Tayabas, summoned. It was said that the Major's charges are now being investigated by a court of inquiry in the Philippines, and that the work of this court should not be broken into by summoning the principal witness to Washington. It was also argued that it would be an injustice to summon Gardener without also summoning the men whom he accused, which was obviously impracticable. The Democrats admit the force of these objections, but say that they can all be obviated by having the committee so to Gardener and that if the Republicans are sincere, they, will not oppose this. The same is true with regard to a number of other officers who, the Democrats think, could properly give information if they could be summoned before the committee, but who are too far away.

When Mr. Lodge was speaking in the Senate Monday he called attention to the fact that all the alleged outrages were at least a year old, and asked why the Democrats did not produce evidence of some recent outrages. Mr. Carmack. interrupting, said that the reason was that under the rules of Mr. Lodge's committee nobody could be summoned from the Philippines to tell about what is going on now. The Democrats argue that if the Republicans want proof of recent outrages or proof that no recent outrages have occurred, they should not object to the committee's going to the Philippines and finding out.

Aside from this, the Democrats have been trying to secure the testimony of Emilio Aguinaldo. They have argued that in order to conduct a full investigation Mr. Lodge ought to get the Filipino side of the case. The answer to that has been that it is impossible to take a prisoner of war from the custody of Gen. Chaffee and bring him 8,000 miles merely to hear what he has to say. The Democrats say that nobody has yet denied that Aguinaldo's testimony would be of some importance, and that the objections raised to summoning him would not hold if the committee went over to Manila and held a sitting within a few minutes walk of the place where Aguinaldo is confined.

The same argument applies to other Filipinos whom the Democrats are anxious to hear. It does not apply to the Filipinos confined on the Island of Guam, and there has as yet been no proposition to send the committee there, although the Democrats are desirous of hearing what Mabini and others have to say for themselves. It is possible that when the resolution is brought in it will include Guam.

One "Water Cure" Victim[edit]

Witness Tells of the Case Before Senate Committee.

New York Times May 11, 1902 p. 5

He Did Not See the Man Die, but Says Cause of Death Was Understood.

WASHINGTON, May. 10. Private William J. Gibbs of the Ninth Infantry today continued his testimony before the Senate Committee on the Philippines. He was questioned by Senator Patterson concerning the cleaning of the town of Balangiga previous to the massacre there. He said that seventy-five natives brought from the mountains for that purpose were ordered into the tents in which they were confined.

The witness said he had never seen the water cure administered, but had seen preparations made for it and had heard groans coming from the victim. He also had known of one instance in which a man had died under its infliction.

"I did not see him die," said the witness, " but I saw his funeral, and it was the general understanding among the soldiers that death was the result of the administration of the cure."

"Was it understood that the administration of the water cure was usual or common?"

"It was."

"Who usually administered the cure?

"Generally the interpreters or scouts."

"What kind of water was generally used?"

"Usually dirty water was preferred to clean water. The men would go out from the shore and get a mixture of salt water and sand and administer it."

"Why was that done?"

"In order to make the punishment more severe."

Replying to Senator Beveridge. Mr. Gibbs said the victims of the water cure whom he had seen after its administration generally looked as though sick, but he had never known of tout one death. Senator Beveridge also asked a number of questions concerning the treatment of Philippine prisoners by the American soldiers, and the witness said they were generally given the same food that the soldiers received themselves, when it was accessible. They were made to carry the soldiers' loads and also made to work, but not excessively. "Philippine patients were well treated.

"How were peaceable natives engaged in their usual avocations treated?"

"They were treated well by some of the officers while the treatment by others was Just the opposite."

"What were the general orders on this point?"

"To treat the natives with kindness.”

"Did you observe this order?"

"I did."

"Did your comrades?"

"Some of them did and some of them did not."

Mr. Gibbs was excused and George G. Boardman, formerly of the Twentieth Infantry, regulars, was called. He said he had never witnessed but one administration of the water cure, and that in that instance the victim had told nothing himself, but had given the name of another man who had told where there were seventeen guns hidden. He related the particulars of the murder of a native boy by the natives who accused him of having deserted their cause and of joining the Americans.

The witness also told of the conduct of natives with guns, saying they would fire at the soldiers, and that, when the latter approached they would conceal their weapons and greet them pleasantly. In one instance of this kind a Philippine party had been taken into custody and the information as to the place of concealment of their guns was secured by taking the men one at a time to the rear of the building and firing off a gun after threatening them with death within the hearing of the entire party. None of them was hurt, but a confession was secured.

The Committee on the Philippines will hold an executive session on Monday to decide upon a policy to be pursued with reference to the calling of witnesses. Some of the members of the committee are strongly pressing to have Miss Clemencia Lopez, sister of Sixto Lopez, called. This question will be decided at Monday's meeting.

"Water Cure" and Wine[edit]

Witness Before the Senate Philippine Committee Says One Is No Worse than the Other.

New York Times May 16, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, May 15.—Capt. Lee Hall, formerly of the Thirty-third "Volunteer Infantry, was the witness before the Senate Philippine Committee to-day. He was in command of a company of Macabebe scouts. He said these were deadly enemies of the Tagalogs. He had heard of instances of the water cure, but saw none. The water cure, he thought, was no worse in its effect than the native vino. The Filipino prisoners were treated as well as American soldiers, except that they were made to work. He said the Filipino was not ready for self-government.

The witness said that one Macabebe Sergeant whom he had sent out in search of guns had told him that he procured them by the use of the "water cure." His method was to use a buffalo horn as a funnel through which to administer water. When this incident was reported to Col. Wilder, in charge of the scouts, the Colonel had said that he did not want to hear any more about it. As for himself, he gave no orders to cease the water-cure practice. The witness was quite sure that this was a native, and not an American, invention for securing confessions. The witness told of a conversation he had had with Gen. Lawton in which the General had said that the natives should be treated considerately because "by and by they would be our people."

Capt. Hall said he had known of cases of cruelty on the part of the Filipinos toward American prisoners, but that this practice had been largely discontinued by the natives toward the latter part of his stay in the Philippines. Speaking of the relative mortality in the American and Philippine forces in battle he said that generally about three natives to one American were killed," The Filipino is a better shot at a distance of a mile and a half," he said, "than at thirty steps."

He proceeded, however, to say that there is much good in the native Filipinos, and that in time they would come to be good people.

Senator Culberson presented a copy of a petition from Miss Clemencia Lopez concerning the interests of the Lopez family in the Province of Batangas, which had, he said, been presented to the President.

Cruelty in Philippines[edit]

Corp. O'Brien Makes Accusation Against Army Officers.

New York Times May 20, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, May 19.—Ex-Corp. Richard O'Brien of North Adams, Mass., of Company M, Twenty-sixth Volunteers; who served in the Philippines for eighteen months was before the Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day.

Before O'Brien took the witness stand Chairman Lodge laid before the committee a letter from Gen. R..P. Hushes including a letter from Senator Culberson of the committee to Capt. V. H. Bridgman of Baltimore, Md., and a reply to that letter. In his letter Senator Culberson said he had been informed that Capt. Bridgman could give testimony of having heard Gen. Hughes and other officers give orders for the administration of the water cure. Capt. Bridgman in reply denied the report. Gen. Hughes said that if there was to be an investigation it should be thorough, and he included a roster of officers in his command whom, he said, he would like to have summoned if his conduct was to be inquired into.

Gen. Hughes in his letter said: " I presume there were about 25,000 troops in my command, first and last, and I am certain that no one of them can truthfully assert that I ever consciously, verbally or in writing, directly or indirectly, by sign or signal, authorized, instructed, or ordered any of them to use the so-called water cure in any form or of any character whatever."

Senator Patterson read a letter from W. S. Sniffen of Boston concerning the letter of a son of the Rev. Mr. Walker, serving in the Philippines, in which it was stated he had given the details or the killing of 1,000 Filipinos. Mr. Sniffen said that notwithstanding Mr. Walker's denial there was in his conduct and statements justification of the- newspaper report.

Witness O'Brien said that he had been present at Igbaras when the water cure was administered to the Presidente of that town.

He then made a charge of a serious nature against the American officers there. " There was," he said, " a Spanish woman In the town—a woman of education—who was attacked by the American officers."

This statement was made without any questioning, and as soon as the witness had made it Senator Lodge asked for the names of the officers. These the witness said he could not give, adding that he had not witnessed the incident, but that the woman's husband was his authority for the statement.

Senators Rawlins and Patterson objected to the testimony as mere hearsay, and urged that it should not go into the record. The witness then was asked if he could not give further proof of the correctness of his charge. In response he related another instance of disorderly conduct, which, he said, had come under his own observation. This occurred at San Joaquin, the Presidente of which place gave a reception to which a number of native women were , invited from Hollo. "They were," he said, '" above the average—not peasant women."

The witness said three officers, whose I names he gave, became intoxicated, and while in that condition threw off all their clothes except their undershirts and their trousers, and catching the women about the waists Insisted on their waltzing with them, much to the disgust of the women.

Further questioning brought out the fact that O'Brien had not been on good terms with one of the officers whose conduct on this occasion he found blameworthy.

O'Brien said there was a price put on the head of Capt. McDonald of Company ' M by the insurgents because of the officer's cruelties. Witness claimed that he had seen Capt. McDonald strike a Filipino prisoner over the head with a revolver, and said the water cure was administered to the same prisoner after he had taken the oath of allegiance.

O'Brien then related the particulars of the capture of the town Lo Nag, In the province of Panay, by a detachment from a company of which he was a member, AS the troops approached the town they saw at a distance a native boy on a caribou and one of the men fired a shot at him, but as his bullet failed to hit its object others also fired, himself included. At first the witness said he had fired in obedience to orders and then said that there had been no orders to fire. " I can't tell why I fired." he added, when pressed: *' all fired."

"This shooting," he proceeded, " brought the people to their doors, and among those who came out was an old man, who was shot in the abdomen and afterward died. Later, while the firing was in progress, two other old men between the ages of fifty and seventy, I should say, came out toward us' hand in hand and bearing a white flag. Both were shot down and the - Sergeant reported to Capt. McDonald that he had killed two more ' niggers." Another case was that of a woman and two children, one in her arms, who were killed and then burned up in their house."

O'Brien said that When the company was out marching single file at night in the mountains the order came back along the line to take no prisoners, but he did not know who issued the order. In case there was fighting the natives either fled or were killed.

The witness also told of the execution of the bandit Pedro Gagamo at the town of Guimal, for which, he said, McDonald was tried by court-martial. He said it was common talk that before Gargamo was killed he was struck on the back of the

head with a bolo, The witness said it was an " unwritten law out there to take no prisoners."

He said " dum dum " bullets were issued in the regular way with other ammunition, he had seen them strike, a man and take the top of his head off.

He spoke of some articles that he had written for the papers, but said he wanted it understood that he was not under oath when he wrote them. In answer to Senator McComas, he said that his company occasionally took prisoners that were not killed. He had seen many prisoners held by other commands and they were all being treated kindly and were not being shot or killed. He admitted that the killing of prisoners was not general. The killing of prisoners was a matter "that lay with the officers."

Answering Senator Deitrich, he said that his command usually treated the Filipinos kindly.

The Philippine Inquiry[edit]

Senators in a Warm Controversy Provoked by the Testimony of Corp. O'Brien.

New York Times May 22, 1902 p. 8

WASHINGTON, May 21.—Corporal O'Brien, formerly of the Twenty-sixth Volunteer Infantry, was before the Senate Philippine Committee to-day and produced the alleged " dum-dum " or explosive bullets. He said they were not like the ordinary cartridges, because they did not have the letters "U. S." on them.

Gen. Crozier, Chief of Ordnance, was examined. He said that the cartridges produced by Mr. O'Brien were not different from the ordinary regulation cartridges. Asked whether they were " dum-dum " or explosive bullets, the witness replied in the negative. " They are perfectly normal bullets," he said.

The regulation Krag-Jorgensen bullet, he continued, often has practically the same effect as a " dum-dum " or explosive bullet. He said that no explosive bullets had been issued since the St. Petersburg Convention of 1868.

O'Brien was closely questioned by Senator Beveridge, who required the witness to go into very minute details respecting his charge that American officers had maltreated a Spanish woman. He could not remember whether he had been informed what officers were accused, but gave the names of two privates who, he thought, had told him the story.

Senator Patterson protested against having these men dragged in as an injustice to them. Mr. Lodge retorted that justice, and not injustice, was being done.

This caused Senator Patterson to say, with evident appearance of warmth, that the attitude of Senator Lodge had been that of menace toward the witness ever since he had taken the stand.

"My attitude," responded Senator Lodge, "has not been any more of a menace of the witness than your attitude has been that of defense of him."

Mr. Patterson—I deny the imputation.

Mr. Lodge—And I deny that I have in any way attempted to menace the witness.

Senator Dietrich charged Senator Patter-son with having done all that he could to injure the army and with having done nothing to protect and preserve its good name.

Mr. Patterson resented this statement sharply and angrily.

"The Senator from Nebraska," he said, "should be ashamed of himself. He knows that the truth is exactly contrary to what he has stated and that what he has said is absolutely and positively untrue."

Senator Dietrich—I know that what I have said is true, and I repeat that the Senator's effort has been to bring out everything he could against the army.

Senator Patterson—The Senator should be ashamed to make such a statement. No man is more anxious than I am to present the army In a true light and develop whatever good many be said of it. I have not hesitated in my course in that respect.

Replying, Senator Dietrich said he defied the Colorado Senator to prove the truth of his remark, to which Mr. Patterson replied that the minority had made an honest and faithful effort to get at the facts and that he was convinced the present intention was to divert it from that course. In this connection he declared that no gentleman would make such a. statement as had been

Senator Beveridge' asked the witness whether he had made any report relative to his charges. The witness replied that he had not made such a report. "because," he said " I knew that if I should report the affair I would be dogged, and that my life thereafter would be a hell."

“Why, then, did you volunteer a statement in regard to the matter?"

"I wanted the committee to know the facts as they had come to me," he replied," and as I am now out of the army and a citizen of the United States, 1 felt that I would be safe in reporting the matter."

He added that in the mountains of Luzon he and his men had been almost starved, while the officers of his company were disposing of the rations which should have been issued to them.

Bishop on the Philippines[edit]

Mr. Thoburn Says the American Occupation Was an Act of God—His Testimony.

New York Times May 23, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, May 22.—Bishop Thoburn of the Methodist Episcopal Church of India and Malaysia, was before the Senate Committee on Philippines today. He said the American occupation of the Philippines should be continued. In the course of his examination he said that the American occupation was an act of God. This led to quite a long; line of questions by Senator Patterson, in which the Bishop was asked whether the occupation of Cuba was an act of God, and when he replied in the affirmative, Senator Patterson asked whether the withdrawal was also the act of God.

"It is too soon to answer that," he replied. "The United States may have to go back there."

The line of the Bishop's testimony in part is indicated by the following questions by Senator Patterson and Bishop Thoburn's responses.

"If a Philippine government should be established, and you should be asked whether you thought such establishment was the act of God, would you ask to defer your opinion?"

"I would not say it was the act of God."

"You would say it was the act of the devil?"

"No; I would not. 1 would say it was the act of American politicians."

He added that he believed that with an independent Philippine Government the Macabebes would be exterminated within twelve months.

Mr. Patterson asked the witness whether he believed the subjugation of barbarous or semi-civilized people by the great powers to be the act of God. "I would not put it that way," he replied. "The most enterprising Governments are pushing out as individuals, and Governments generally find that they have to follow their citizens. God rules and overrules."

"If," went on Senator Patterson, "a nation has gone to the help of a semi-civilized people and finds itself in control of their country, has that nation a right to overrun It against the will of its people and to kill and burn in order to accomplish its purposes?"

"Do you mean that question seriously?" the Bishop responded. He said it was very difficult to answer it seriously for the reason that what is right in one case may be wrong in another.

"Does man determine what is right and what is wrong?" asked Senator Patterson, and again this question was met by another from the Bishop. "Is this." he asked, " an examination in metaphysics or in theology? "

“You volunteered to say that God had put us in the Philippines," said Senator Patterson, and he insisted on a reply.

Bishop Thoburn—"I cannot very well discuss theological questions here, but if I can give you any information I shall be glad to do so".

Bishop Thoburn said that he visited Manila for two weeks in March, 1899, and again in March, 1900, for one week.

Senator Dubois asked for a statement as to the moral and intellectual capacity of the Filipinos.

"In many respects." replied the witness, "they are like the American Indians. There is not coherence among them. They are divided into tribes, and the biggest man among them is generally recognized as a Sultan. They are bright and quick, but not profound, and I am afraid they are treacherous."

Senator Beveridge brought out the fact that the witness had resided for forty-three years in the Straits Settlement, and asked him for his opinion of the capacity of the Malay for self-government. "I think they are very defective," he replied. " It would be a crime, in my opinion, to remove the present American restraints in the Philippines."

The Bishop said he did not believe that originally the American Government had, when Admiral Dewey went to Manila, any intention of taking control of the Philippines. President McKinley, he said, had told him that he had tried in every possible way to avoid the annexation of the Philippines.

Bishop Thoburn Testifies[edit]

He Expresses the Opinion that Aguinaldo Could Not Have Subjugated the Philippines.

New York Times May 24, 1902 p. 8

WASHINGTON. May 23.—Bishop Thoburn continued his testimony before the Philippine Committee of the Senate today. He was examined about various phases of the situation, and especially as to the rights of the United States to dominate the Philippine Islands. He said in reply to one question that chaos would result if England were to withdraw from India. England had advanced civilization in the Far East. Hong Kong and other places were, made great points of commerce. Hong Kong was, he said, better governed than Chicago and human life was safer there than in Chicago.

Bishop Thoburn expressed the opinion that the greater protection to personal rights in Hong Kong than in Chicago is due to the fact that the Government has a stronger arm in Hong Kong than in Chicago.

"As a matter of fact," he said, "we all know that in Chicago a man is not safe in walking the streets at night, while he is so in Hong Kong."

The Bishop expressed the opinion that Aguinaldo could not have subjugated the islands if left alone in his rebellion against Spain.

Senator Culberson asked: "Don't you know that at the time of the war with Spain the Filipino people were in revolt against the Spanish Government?"

"That was true at Manila, but not elsewhere."

"Well, then, don't you think that the consent of the people themselves should have been secured before we assumed the responsibility of their government?"

"I don't think it safe to make any effort to get their consent until affairs are better established than at present. The average Filipino would not know what to say if approached on the subject. If he should speak out for American rule he is liable to have his throat cut."

Senator Carmack—"And if he speaks against American rule he will be put in jail."

"Oh, no."

Senator Carmack asked a number of questions concerning the comparative success of American missionaries in Asia. The Bishop replied that he did not consider their success due entirely to the fact that heretofore the United States has not been a Nation of conquest and declared it was due largely to the popular manners of the Americans.

Denies Any Misconduct[edit]

Ex-Capt. McDonald Testifies Concerning Actions in Philippines.

New York Times May 27, 1902 p. 3

He Is the Officer Who Was Accused with Others by Corporal O'Brien—His Statements.

WASHINGTON, May 26. Ex-Capt. McDonald of the Twenty-sixth Volunteer Infantry, one of the officers accused in Corp. O'Brien's testimony, was before the Philippine Committee of the Senate today. He denied all of the allegations made by O'Brien, and said O'Brien was on duty elsewhere at the times he claimed to have been present. McDonald said that American officers had not maltreated a Spanish woman nor other women, to his knowledge. He also denied the statement made by O'Brien that he (McDonald) and a number of other officers misbehaved themselves at a native dance. He showed that at the time alleged Major Cook, one of the officers named, and himself were on duty elsewhere. The shooting of bearers of flags of truce and the burning of a woman and child by his command was another story by O'Brien that he denied.

Capt. McDonald said O'Brien was a troublesome soldier from the first.

Capt. McDonald, who is from Charlestown, Mass., said he had no doubt that he was the Capt. Frederick McDonald referred to in Corp. O'Brien's testimony. He admitted having seen the "water cure" administered at Igbaras, but asserted that O'Brien was at San Joaquin, thirty miles away, at the time. "Witness said he went to the Philippines in 1899, and had been there eighteen or twenty months. The one case named was the only time he ever saw the water cure administered.

Senator Dodge—"Do you know anything of the maltreatment of a Spanish woman by American officers, as testified to by O'Brien?"

Capt. McDonald—"No such circumstance as that ever occurred at that time or any other from the beginning to the end of my stay in the Philippines."

The witness went on to say that he supposed the woman that O'Brien had in mind in this connection was the wife of a son of the Mayor of Igbaras. A brother of the woman's husband, he said, had been made a cripple for life by Montour's band of ladrones, and the body of the husband's father, when he died, had been dragged about the streets by Montour himself. This woman, he said, had given valuable information to Sergt. Davis of his company concerning the movement of the insurgents. But the witness added that this woman never had been maltreated by the Americans.

Regarding O'Brien's statement that McDonald and other officers had demeaned themselves disgracefully at a native dance at San Joaquin. Capt. McDonald said:

"That statement is a deliberate lie from beginning to end."

The dance was said to have occurred at the home of the Presidente of the town of' San Joaquin, and the mention of that individual brought to the mind of Capt. McDonald an incident which, he said, had occurred the he first visited the town. The Presidente had Invited him to breakfast, and after he had partaken of that meal ha became violently ill. A physician pronounced the symptoms to be due to poisoning, but as some of the members of the Presidente's family were also similarly sick it was supposed at the time that the poisoning was accidental and the matter was dropped. " I state that as a reason why I could not have been at the dance," he said.

Capt. McDonald also flatly contradicted O'Brien's statement to the effect that he or any other officer of the company had withheld from the troops the rations to which they were entitled.

As to the statement that the insurgents had put a price on his head because of his cruelty, Capt. McDonald said he never had heard of that fact.

He also denied that he ever had struck a prisoner over the head with a revolver, as O'Brien had charged.

Speaking of the treatment of peaceable natives by the Americans in the Philippines, Capt. McDonald said it was like the treatment of a child by his father.

The witness also testified concerning the capture of Barrio of Da Nog, in connection with which O'Brien had said that an unarmed boy had been fired on by the entire command; that three old men, two of them bearing a flag of truce, had been shot down and that a woman and two children had been burned to death. He denied all statements detailing these supposed circumstances.

The Philippine Inquiry[edit]

Capt. McDonald Produces Documents to Refute the Testimony of Corporal O'Brien.

New York Times May 28, 1902 pg. 8

WASHINGTON, May 27.—Capt. McDonald continued his statement before the Philippine Committee to-day and presented official statements to refute the testimony of Corporal O'Brien. Capt. McDonald said he gave orders to burn several towns which were in hostile country and sheltered la-drones and insurgents. He stated that he intended to ask that O'Brien be prosecuted by the Federal authorities for perjury.

Capt. McDonald offered a document procured from the War Department showing that O'Brien had been on duty at San Joaquin from July 12, 1900, to Feb. 20, 1901, whereas he had testified that he was present at Igbaras, thirty miles away, when that town was burned Nov. 2, 1900 This was the occasion upon which, according to O'Brien's testimony, a Spanish woman was maltreated by American officers and enlisted men.

The witness also presented a complete set of accounts of company M to show that he was not a "thief," as O'Brien had charged he was.

The witness related the details of the execution of the Filipino bandit Pedro Gardenero. who, O'Brien had said, was mistreated by Capt. McDonald to the extent that he had been subjected to a court-martial. Gardenero had been guilty of many heinous offenses against the natives, and having been captured by them, was about to be executed, when he was rescued by American soldiers. The witness had placed Gardenero in the hands of Capt. Boardman, who turned him over to the civil authorities, and by them he was executed. McDonald and Boardman were tried by court-martial for placing the man in the hands of the civil authorities, and had been found guilty of that fact. Gen. Hughes, however, had disapproved the finding.

To Prosecute Witness O'Brien.[edit]

New York Times May 29, 1902 pg. 2

WASHINGTON, May 28.—Senator Lodge, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Philippines, stated today that the witness O'Brien, whose testimony before that committee reflected severely upon Capt. McDonald and other army officers, will be prosecuted by the proper officers on the charge of perjury. The Atttorney General will be requested to take the necessary steps to secure a legal inquiry into the matter, in accordance with the request of Capt. McDonald.

The Concentration Camps[edit]

Assistant Adjutant General Wagner Describes One—Filipinos Were Surprisingly Contented, He Says.

New York Times May 30, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, May 29.—The Senate Committee on the Philippines today heard the testimony of Col. A. L. Wagner, Assistant Adjutant General of the Army, who spent two and one-half years in the Philippines. He was questioned about the concentration camps, and described the system by explaining the details of one particular camp. In that camp the people were assembled according to villages, so that the people in all cases would have their old neighbors near them. So far as he had been able to observe, there was no evidence of want among the people there congregated. Moreover, they were surprisingly contented.

They were at liberty to go outside the line from 300 to 800 yards. Beyond that distance was what was called the dead line, beyond which the people were not permitted to go. The natives were given to understand that if they crossed this line they would be shot, but in reality the orders were not to shoot any helpless persons, or any others if the shooting could be avoided.

Col. Wagner said that one of the principal purposes of concentrating the native people in the Philippines was to protect them against the Ladrones, which had been admirably accomplished. Another object of the camps had been that of facilitating the collection of the rice supplies in order to starve out the Ladrones and guerrillas. The result had been that hostile parties had practically disappeared and their leader, Malvar, had been captured. The policy had been necessary to "protect life and property, and he did not see how any other policy could have been successful.

The witness said the people were fed and given medical supplies, and the sanitation of the camps was looked after. The American camps in the Philippines no more could be compared to Weyler's reconcentrado camps in Cuba than mercy could be compared to cruelty.

All the people congregated had now returned to their homes, and on the Fourth of July the provinces of Batangas and Laguna were to be restored to civil rule.

Col. Wagner said he had no personal knowledge of the tortures of the natives in the Philippines, but he gave several instances in which he had heard reports of torture. In most of these it was found on examination that the reports either were untrue or exaggerated.

June 1902[edit]

Says A Village Was Burned[edit]

Assistant Adjt. Gen. Wagner, U. S. A., Continues His Testimony Before the Senate Philippines Committee.

New York Times Jun 1, 1902 p. 5

WASHINGTON. May 31.—Col. Wagner, Assistant Adjutant General U. S. A., and formerly Adjutant General of the Army in the Philippines, today continued his testimony before the Senate Philippines Committee. He said that he knew that one village had been burned because the citizens would not give information of the murderers of a native friendly to the United States. He gave a fine character to Gen. Bell as a humane officer. He said the conduct of Americans in the Philippines had been uniformly kind to the native prisoners.

Col. Wagner did not agree with Gen. Hughes that the war in the Philippines was not civilized war. He said that in the provinces commanded by Gen. Bell about 100,000 people were gathered in the concentration camps. Their property left outside the camps was confiscated and the wealthy people lost heavily.

Asked by Senator Beveridge for his estimate of the character of Gen. Bell, the witness replied: "I have known Gen. Bell intimately for twenty-eight years, and I have never known a braver or more humane man."

Senator Culberson conducted the cross-examination and began with a series of questions intended to secure an opinion of Gen. J. H. Smith's conduct at Cakpas, in 1899, when, according to the General's report, 200 or 300 natives marching up the railroad track were fired upon, notwithstanding they bore a flag of truce. Col. Wagner said that in this case there was some doubt as to whether the troops which fired had observed the flag of truce, but if they had done so, their course was, in his opinion, contrary to the laws of war.

Senator Culberson read a letter from an anonymous officer, said to be a graduate of West Point, which had been quoted in the Senate by Mr. Bacon, in which the officer described a concentration camp as a "suburb of hell."

"Did you ever visit that camp?" the Senator inquired.

"No, I did not," replied the witness, "nor do I believe that any such camp ever existed."

Replying to a question from Senator Lodge, Col. Wagner said he had never visited the Province of Tayabas, of which province Major Cornelius Gardener was Civil Governor, but that as Adjutant General he was familiar with conditions there and knew of nothing improper.

Senator Deitrich related to the witness the statement made by Capt. McDonald that he would shoot rather than strike an unruly prisoner, and then asked Col. Wagner's opinion as to whether such a statement was justified. Col. Wagner said that "all would depend upon the nature of the order given to the prisoner and the degree of his disobedience." Shooting should not be resorted to unless necessary to keep a prisoner in custody.

Tell of "Water Cure" Cases[edit]

Witnesses Give Further Testimony Before the Senate Committee on the Philippines Regarding Filipinos' Treatment.

New York Times June 13, 1902 p. 3

WASHINGTON, June 12.—Mark H. Evans of Des Moines, Iowa, formerly a Sergeant of Company F, Thirty-second Volunteer Infantry, today testified before the Senate Committee on the Philippines concerning the administration of the "water cure" to Filipinos on four different occasions during his service in the islands. He also related the particulars of the burning of native villages. All these events occurred, the witness said, during the year 1900, in the province of Batan, Island of Luzon, and in or near the town of Crano, where his headquarters were.

In one case the "cure" was administered by native scouts and in the others by an American soldier. During an expedition to neighboring islands the witness said that he had seen an American soldier take two suspected natives into the water and duck them. He secured a confession as to the hiding of guns in one case, but none in the other.

After the first case of ducking the victim seemed, the witness said, to have been quite disabled, being apparently so weak that he was unable to rise.

In another instance of the administration of the water cure in Crano a tooth of the victim was knocked out. Mr. Evans said he had been present at the burning of four or five native villages, and that the destruction of those places had been due to the presence of insurgents.

The witness said the orders to the troops were to treat the natives humanely, and that with the exceptions noted their treatment had been in accord with these instructions. The natives had not shown any appreciation of this consideration.

Edward J. Norton of Los Angeles, late private in Company L, Eighteenth United States Infantry, was the witness at the afternoon session. He served two years in the Island of Panay. Answering questions by Senator Culberson, Mr. Norton stated that except in isolated cases the treatment accorded the natives by United States soldiers "was humane and all that could be expected, or desired."

He related from hearsay the story of the Administration of the "water cure" to the Vice Presidente of San Miguel and a native policeman, and described one occasion where he had assisted in " water-curing " a native. The man's mouth, he said, was forced open with a stick and the water poured down his throat. The effect of the treatment was temporary strangulation. In this particular case, he said, the native after receiving the cure delivered up a number of rifles and pistols.

Admiral Dewey Testifies[edit]

The Real History of the Surrender of Manila.

Resistance All A Sham

Governor General Gave Up the City When the Spanish Fleet Was Sunk—Dealings with Aguinaldo.

New York Times June 27, 1902 p. 8

WASHINGTON, June 26.—Admiral Dewey made a statement before the Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day concerning the early operations at Manila, when he was in command of the American naval forces in Philippine waters. The Admiral's statement contributed an important addition to the history of the surrender of the City of Manila. This consisted of a positive statement by the Admiral to the effect that the city had been surrendered to him a-t the time that the Spanish fleet was sunk, and that when the city did surrender it was in pursuance of a definite understanding between himself and the Spanish Governor General.

The Admiral said he had first heard from Aguinaldo and his friends about April 1, 1898, a month before the battle in Manila Bay, when it became certain that there was to be war.

"I then heard that there were a number of Filipinos who desired to accompany the fleet to Manila," he continued. "All of them were young and earnest. I did not attach much importance to them or to what they said. The day before we left Hong Kong I received a telegram from Consul General Pratt, located at Singapore, saying Aguinaldo was at Singapore and would join me at Hong Kong. I replied, All right, tell him to come aboard, but I attached so little importance to the message that I sailed without Aguinaldo and before he arrived. There were then many promises as to what the Filipinos would do, but I did not depend upon them. Consul Williams assured me that upon our arrival and the firing of the first gun 30,000 Filipinos would rise. None did arise, and I frequently joked him on this point."

Admiral Dewey said the Spanish Governor wanted to surrender the city to him after the destruction of the fleet, and that he (Dewey) would have accepted the formal surrender if he had had 5,000 troops to garrison the city. He told about Aguinaldo's arrival, saying that he put him ashore and told him to organize his people. Aguinaldo came back discouraged and wanted to go to Japan, but the Admiral told him to continue his efforts. The Admiral said he paid no attention to Aguinaldo's first proclamation of independence of the Filipinos. Speaking of Aguinaldo's military operations, he said he did wonderfully in whipping the Spanish.

Admiral Dewey said emphatically that he never had recognized Aguinaldo's government, nor did he salute Aguinaldo's flag; he never called Aguinaldo " General," but addressed him as " Don Emilio."

REPUBLIC NOT RECOGNIZED.

The Admiral said he had never given the Philippine republic the slightest recognition; that he had no authority to do so, and did not consider It an organized Government. He said the Spaniards were fearful of the Filipinos entering Manila, and therefore surrendered to him in advance. He said there was no need for the loss of a man in the capture of the city. No gun would have been fired but for the desire of the Governor, who said his honor demanded that a few shots be fired, so " I had to fire and kill a few people," said the Admiral, but' the Spaniards did not fire because he (Dewey) had warned them not to do so.

He did not believe the Filipinos could have taken the city unaided, but the Spaniards were greatly demoralized.

The Admiral said he never received a letter from Consul Pratt telling him he must co-operate with Aguinaldo. He added that Pratt wrote a number of foolish letters about that time.

Admiral Dewey said he had written the Navy Department that the Filipinos were more capable of self-government than the Cubans, because he saw that Congress contemplated giving Independence to Cuba, and he knew that the American people had little information concerning the Filipinos.

In explanation of his statement that the City of Manila had surrendered on the day of the destruction of the Spanish fleet. Admiral Dewey said that during the naval engagement several guns had been fired at him from the shore batteries, and that as soon as the Spanish squadron was destroyed he steamed toward the city, sending word to the Governor that if another shot was fired from the shore he would fire on the city.

"The Governor replied," the Admiral went on, "that if I did not fire upon the city the shore batteries would remain silent. The Spanish flag was not taken down, but white flags were raised. It was a surrender, and If I had had with me 5,000 troops with which to occupy the city I could have taken it and held it. I anchored my ships under his guns at 2,000 yards, and lay there twenty-four hours. During that time the Governor General sent word to me several times that he wanted to surrender to me—to the navy. I could not entertain his proposition of a formal surrender because of the lack of troops to take possession of the city."

The Admiral said that after Aguinaldo got his forces organized he occupied Cavite, but when he (Dewey) learned that American troops were expected to arrive soon, he asked the Filipinos to retire. They at first demurred, but ultimately consented.

It was after this time, on July 15, that Aguinaldo sent to him from Bacoor his first proclamation of the independence of the Philippines.

"That proclamation," said the Admiral, " was the first intimation I had ever received of the aspiration of the Philippine people for an independent Government. Aguinaldo had never told me that the independence of his people was his aim. But when the proclamation came I thought nothing of it. Indeed, I attached so little importance to it that I did not cable it to Washington, but left its transmittal to the mails."

When Senator Lodge asked the Admiral: "Did you recognize the Philippine Republic?" he replied, "I did not. I never gave it the slightest recognition. I had no authority to do so and besides, did not consider it an organized Government. There was a reign of terror, and the Philippine forces were riding rough-shod over the community, committing many acts of cruelty. I sent word to Aguinaldo that he must treat his prisoners kindly, and he replied that he would."

MAY WRITE THE STORY.

Admiral Dewey added that he was pleased to supply the committee with this history. It had, he said, never been printed, and he had been reserving it with the view of writing the story himself. He had copies of some of the communications received by him, made because of this purpose but none of those from Pratt, as he regarded him as a busybody, devoting much time to interfering with the business of other people.

Returning to his department from Hong Kong. Admiral Dewey repeated that he had left for Manila without Aguinaldo, saying he had left as early as he did largelv because he wanted to get rid of him and the other " little brown " men, many of whom were constantly coming aboard the flagship. ' " I was very busy," he said, "getting ready for battle, and they were after me constantly, taking up much of my time None of them went with me to Mirz Bay. for various reasons. One of them failed to do so because he did not have his toothbrush with him."

The Hong Kong Filipinos had not, he added, told him of any insurrection in the Philippines, and he said he had consented to see them on the same principle that one gives money to a man often to get rid of him. Indeed, he had himself given Aguinaldo the first Information the latter had received that the Filipinos were assembling hear Manila.

When asked In cross-examination whether he had not repeated his original statement to the Navy Department that the Filipinos were more capable of independent government that the Cubans. Admiral Dewey replied in the affirmative, saying:

"I did and I still think so."

Senator Carmack called Admiral Dewey's attention to the fact that he had given arms to Aguinaldo notwithstanding the Governor General had told him he would surrender the city at any time, and asked why he had done so in the face of that understanding. The reply was to the effect that he considered it a proper military act.

"Still," he added, "I think we could have gotten on as well without them. It was their own idea. We all know that hindsight is better than foresight. Looking back, I wouldn't have had the Filipinos join me. But I thought they would be friendly, and I think it very ungrateful in them to have turned against us. When I permitted Aguinaldo to go ashore I did not know that any United States troops would be sent to the Philippines. I was a long way from home; there were no cables, and I was meeting emergencies as they arose. Whatever I did, I did according to my best judgment at the time. Later I said to Aguinaldo, ' There is the enemy; you pursue your course and we will pursue ours.' I think that is the wisest thing I ever said. They were assisting us and at the same time fighting their own battle. I had in mind in dealing with the Filipinos the assistance that the negroes had given the Federal forces during the civil war. We availed ourselves of that assistance, and I thought we could accept the aid of the Filipinos in the same way. Their one idea was to get rid of the Spaniards, and I believe that if on May 1, before the Insurrection was organized, we had had there a few American troops the Filipinos would have accepted us, and that they would have remained loyal."

His reason for taking possession of Subig Bay was because he didn't want any other power to interfere."

Aguinaldo All For Gain[edit]

Admiral Dewey's Estimate of the Filipino Chief's Character.

New York Times June 28, 1902 p. 5

NO THOUGHT OF INDEPENDENCE

Continuation of Testimony Before the Senate Philippines Committee—Further Details Regarding the Surrender of Manila.

WASHINGTON, June 27.—Admiral Dewey continued his testimony before the Senate Committee on the Philippines to-day. Replying to questions put by Senator Patterson, he said that he had begun negotiations with the Governor General of the Philippines, Gen. Jaudenes, for the surrender of the city and the negotiations were conducted through the Belgian Consul, who, after the death of the British Consul, had been very courteous in acting as a go-between.

It was a diplomatic negotiation, no letters being written. The Admiral said he had Informed Gen. Merritt of the proffer of Gen. Jaudenes, but that he did not believe that Merritt had taken "much stock in it. I assured him that such was the case," said the Admiral, "but told him of the arrangement that before the surrender should take place I was to engage an outlying fort and make the signal according to the international code, ' Do you surrender?’ after which the Spaniards were to hoist the white flag on the southern bastion.

"I may say that I was the first to discover the flag, notwithstanding I had stationed fifty men to look out for it. It was a thick day, and I chanced to be the first to discover it."

He also said he had read the testimony of Gen. MacArthur, saying that he knew of no agreement of the kind mentioned, but that it had not been his (Dewey's) business to communicate with any one except the commanding officer.

Asked by Mr. Patterson to explain his statement that Gen. Merritt had not accepted the report that the Spaniards had agreed to capitulate. Admiral Dewey said that was only his belief.

" I don't believe," he said, " that the General entirely trusted the Spanish authorities. Still he did not say so in so many words. I may add that I have since learned that some of the Spanish officers were tempted to fire at us, though they did not do so. Even my own Flag Lieutenant did not accept their proffer as in the best faith. I knew, however, that they would surrender, for 1 understood the straits they were in."

SURRENDER AGREEMENT SECRET.

Replying to a question as to whether the agreement to surrender had been made public at the time of the attack upon Manila, Admiral Dewey said he thought not. "There are," he said, "lots of things which are not communicated to the public."

Mr. Patterson sought to secure from Admiral Dewey an admission that Aguinaldo had issued a proclamation of independence to the Filipinos about the time of the sinking of the Spanish squadron, but the Admiral said he did not remember it, although it was possible that he might have done so.

Mr. Patterson then read the paper forwarded by Consul General Pratt, May 20, 1898, in which the Filipino leader said that Providence had opened the way for independence to the Filipinos and spoke of the Americans as their liberators. The Admiral said, however, that he did not remember to have seen the paper. He had, he said, given Aguinaldo a printing press, and probably he used this press for getting out his proclamations.

In reply to a question the Admiral said that Consul Williams, who had been stationed at Manila, was an honest man, although perhaps quite enthusiastic. The Admiral did not, however, remember to have promised to Aguinaldo his "cordial co-operation." as the Consul had reported. For the purpose of making inquiry concerning some of the representations of Consul General Wildman, located at Hong-Kong. Mr. Patterson asked concerning that gentleman's character. The Admiral apparently hesitated to reply, but then said, "He's dead I'd rather not say. He was the United States Consul General." He added that he would prefer not to reply to further questions, but when Mr. Patterson persisted he added: "He was a very able man—an able Consul."

Mr. Patterson then read Mr. Wildman's letter of July 18, 1898, saying that Aguinaldo had conducted himself in a dignified manner, &c. and the Admiral assented to the truth of this statement.

Speaking of Aguinaldo's loyalty, the witness said that he had become suspicious of that leader before the receipt of his proclamation of July 15. He said: "I began to suspect that he was not loyal to us when he demurred to moving out of Cavite when our troops arrived."

"You mean that they were thinking more of their own independence than of us?"

"Yes."

Admiral Dewey also testified concerning the arms sent to Manila by Aguinaldo, and Senator Dietrich asked the Admiral if " he did not believe that the arms were purchased with money previously paid by Spain to secure peace, and that it was his intention to use the money to foment another insurrection, for the purpose of gain."

The Admiral's reply was. "Exactly so."

Mr. Patterson next called attention to a number of proclamations forwarded by him to Washington in May, but Admiral Dewey said he did not remember having read them, and in explanation of his failure in this respect he said:

ADMIRAL DEWEY'S BUSY TIME.

'The days and nights were not long enough for me to get through with my work at that time. Evidently I didn't consider the proclamations as of importance if I read them, for I made no comment on them."

"Knowing of Aguinaldo's expectation and purpose to secure independence," said Mr. Patterson, in beginning a question, but before he concluded he was interrupted by the witness, who said: "No, I did not know that."

"Then you believed such to be his purpose?"

"I didn't believe it; and since you have asked my opinion, I will say that I believe he was there for gain—for loot—for money and I further believe that independence never entered his head."

Replying to another question by Senator Patterson, the Admiral said that while Aguinaldo was located at Cavite and was under his observation he was always humane, but that he did not see him much after the army came.

Senator Carmack then put a number of questions to the witness. Replying to these the Admiral said it was true he had assisted Aguinaldo in organizing his army by supplying him with arms, &c. that at that time there were no American soldiers in the Philippines, and that Aguinaldo had complete control of his own forces and that he was under no restraint.

Mr. Carmack asked the witness why he had done so much to aid a man whom he regarded as "a common robber and plunderer.”

The Admiral did not reply immediately his face reddened and he laughed. He then said the Senator had not quoted him accurately, but he, admitted that he had said Aguinaldo had gone to Manila for pillage and plunder. He added: "You know the old saying that “All is fair in war." "

"Do you consider it fair in war to assist a known plunderer and robber in an enemy's territory to pillage without restraint?"

"I believe it is as I read history."

ASSISTED AGUINALDO.

"Then you admit that you assisted this robber and plunderer to organize, &c?"

"I didn't then can him a robber and plunderer; I called him the ' insurgent leader. "I have said here that he was there for money and loot I think- those we're my words, and I think that is what he was there for. Do you," he said, turning interlocutor himself, "think he was there for anything else?"

"I do," responded the Senator.

"Well, I don't," said the Admiral, and as if to express his opinion still more emphatically, he repeated: "I don't," and added: "I swear I don't."

"Do you think you know Aguinaldo better than Gen. Otis?" asked Senator Carmack.

"In some things I think I do," the Admiral replied. "I think my judgment is better in some matters than the General's. I don't believe he ever say Aguinaldo, and I saw him fifty times. Moreover, I know his history."

"Do you think you know him better than Gen. Bell?"

"I think I know him better than any of our officers."

"Did Aguinaldo tell you that be was there for money and loot?"

"I saw in his actions that he was. He hadn't been there forty-eight hours before he was taking everything in sight—provisions munitions, &c."

"From the Spaniards?"

"From everybody."

"For himself?"

"I expect he got the lion's share."

"If Gen. Otis and Gen. Bell should say they regard Aguinaldo as personally honest in money matters, would their statement influence your opinion in regard to him?"

"Not in the slightest degree."

"You don't know of a single dishonest act on the part of the man, and yet you regard him as a thief?"

Just before this question was asked. Senator Lodge, as Chairman of the committee, had announced that 12 o'clock, the hour for adjournment, had arrived. The Admiral took advantage of this announcement to cut short a line of inquiry that was plainly annoying him. He rose as the last question was being propounded, and when it was concluded said: "I think I shan't answer that question."

He then took his hat and left the room with a polite word of adieu, but without being formally dismissed.

The examination of the Admiral will be continued.

Admiral Dewey Continues His Testimony[edit]

He Gives Further Details Before Senate Philippines Committee of Proffer of Governor General of the Islands to Surrender—Aguinaldo Lived "Like a Prince" He Declares—Refuses to Answer Some Questions.

New York Times June 29, 1902 p. 13

WASHINGTON, June 28.—The third day's testimony given before the Senate Committee on the Philippines began with a reference to the statement made by the Admiral at the first day's proceeding concerning the proffer made by the Spanish Governor General to surrender to him.

Senator Carmack called attention to the fact that the press reports made it appear that he had said that during the next twenty-four hours after the destruction of the Spanish fleet on May 1 there had been several proffers of surrender on the part of the Governor.

The Admiral replied that he had said that between May 1 and Aug. 13 the Governor General had sent word to him more than once that he would be pleased to surrender to the navy. The first proffer, he said, was made in May through the English Consul, and subsequent proffers were made through the Belgian Consul. At the time, the Admiral admitted, Aguinaldo had begun operations around Manila and was working toward the city.

Taking up the thread of the investigation where it was dropped yesterday, Senator Carmack asked the witness if all the trouble in the Philippines had been due to Aguinaldo.

"I won't say that," the Admiral replied, "but," he continued, "I will repeat that if we had had 5,000 troops at Manila on May 1 the city could have been taken possession of and we would have had, at least for the time, no trouble with the natives. They were our friends then."

In reply to other questions put by Senator Carmack concerning Aguinaldo, the Admiral said:

"I think you are making too much of Aguinaldo. He was a mere figurehead, and was surrounded by stronger men than himself. Mabini was one of these, and Gen. Luna, whom he had killed, was another."

Replying to another question the Admiral said it was the general report throughout the East that in 1897 Aguinaldo had betrayed his people to the Spaniards for money. Nor did he remember that this report had been denied by American officers in the Philippines. Among other officers quoted in this connection was Gen. Greene, and the" Admiral called attention to the fact that Gen. Greene had not given his authority.

"If" he said, "Aguinaldo told him, I don't think the authority was good."

"Why do you say that Aguinaldo took the lion's share of the property gathered by the insurgents?"

AGUINALDO LIVED LIKE A PRINCE.

"Because he was living at Malolos like a Prince. He had nothing when he landed at Manila, and he could have procured the means for this ostentation in no other way. He began immediately after arrival to take every dollar in sight. It may be ungrateful in me to state that fact, but it is true that he sent cattle to me—herds of them— for the ships. The stock were taken from the Philippine people."

"Was any statement made of this circumstance at the time?"

"No: that is war, as you know."

Continuing his reply to this question, the Admiral said the Philippine Army was then only a mob and without organization, and had to be fed and clothed. " He did as many have done—he made the country support him."

"Did you regard that proceeding as pillage and loot? "

"Well, we didn't do that way. For instance, I took all the coal in sight, but I paid for it."

Senator Patterson: "Do you refer to Aguinaldo taking property for the support of the army as loot and pillage?"

Admiral Dewey: "That is one part of it."

Senator Carmack: "You didn't object at that time?"

Admiral Dewey: "No, but he soon got beyond me."

A number of questions were asked in regard to statements made by Gens. Greene, Bell, and others, but the witness asked to be excused from criticizing officers of the army, and the Chair (Senator Beveridge) said that he was not required to answer any questions the replies to which would involve such criticism. Thereupon the Admiral said he was "very glad," and Senator Carmack said he knew of no such rule, but he supposed he would have to submit. The Admiral added that no opinions by others would change his own opinions of Aguinaldo.

Senator Carmack: "Then it is a fact that you took a man to Manila to be a leader of the native people who had but recently betrayed these people for a bribe?"

PHILIPPINES UNDER REIGN OF TERROR.

Admiral Dewey: "I think that would have made no difference; the country was under a reign of terror."

"Then you wanted a man who could organize the natives?"

"No; I didn't want any one. Aguinaldo and his people were forced upon me by Consul Pratt and others."

"Did the Consul and others have any power to force these people upon you?"

"Yes, by constant pressure. I didn't want the Filipino refugees because I didn't believe that a half-dozen of them would do any good in view of the report that thousands would rise up in insurrection upon our arrival at Manila. I thought they would play a very small part."

"Then you placed the country at the mercy of a man who would plunder and rob, notwithstanding you had no need of his services?"

This question the Admiral declined to answer, and Senator Patterson took the witness, asking' if Aguinaldo had ever talked to him on the basis of selling out to the Americans. The Admiral replied in the negative, and Mr. Patterson then asked if the Philippine leader had ever asked him for money. The reply was that Aguinaldo had asked him to exchange gold for Mexican dollars.

AGUINALDOS FINANCES.

"I was pretty sure as to where he had gotten the dollars, as he hadn't brought them with him." said the Admiral. "and I thought that the fact that he wanted gold was pretty good indication that he was getting ready to leave. That was one thing which made me think that the man was feathering his own nest, but it was only a suspicion."

Here the Admiral again referred to Aguinaldo’s style at Malolos and Senator Patterson asked if that style had not served the purpose of inspiring the admiration of his followers and holding their allegiance. To this inquiry the witness replied that the style was "probably more inspiring to them than to those from whom the property had been taken."

"Do you think that is proper testimony?" asked Mr. Patterson, and Chairman Beveridge interfered with a strong protest against innuendos against Admiral Dewey. He considered the question as discourteous. Mr. Patterson, however, disclaimed any intention to be otherwise than respectful, and he continued his questions.

"Do you know," he asked, "whether Aguinaldo has a dollar to-day?"

"I don't know." was the reply. "I haven't been In the Philippines for three years; how should I know?"

"Do you not know from your experience that there was never a Gay while he was in arms that he could not have made himself rich at the expense of the American Government if he had given up?"

The witness hesitated, and said he could not answer the question. He then was told by the Chair that he need not do so.

"You do know," Mr. Patterson went on, “that there were several with him who got good fat offices?"

The reply was in the negative. The witness also said he knew nothing of the payment of money to the Cuban General Gomez and he added the suggestion to Senator Patterson that he should not put such questions to him.

Senator Patterson also asked a number of questions concerning Admiral Dewey's association with Gen. Anderson after his arrival, and his visit to Aguinaldo in company with the General.

He said he had suggested to Gen. Anderson on the occasion of that visit that he need not wear his uniform or put on his sword, but that his blouse would be sufficient. and that the suggestion had been adopted.

Referring to a report of that interview made by Gen. Anderson, and to copies of letters written by the General in which Aguinaldo was assured of a desire for amicable relations. Admiral Dewey said that he did not remember that any such assurance had been given. Speaking of Gen. Anderson's letters to the Philippine chieftain, the witness said:

"When I heard that he was writing letters to Aguinaldo I advised him against doing so."

He added that he was not conversant with all of Gen. Anderson's acts before the arrival of Gen. Merritt. as the General had gone his own way, while he (Dewey) had gone his. He also said Gen, Anderson had offended Aguinaldo on the occasion of their visit by his questions.

ADMIRAL DEWEY DECLINES TO REPLY.

When Senator Patterson pressed other questions calling for reference to statements made by army officers and others the Admiral declined to answer, saying. "I am here to testify to what I know, and I will give all the Information I can in that way, but I am not responsible for what others have said. I don't like your questions, and I don't think I ought to be required to reply to them."

The Chair assured the witness that he need not answer. The Admiral said, however, in reply to further pressing that his views did not coincide with those expressed by Gen. Anderson in a magazine article.

Senators Beveridge and Dietrich then asked a few questions. The former reminded the Admiral of a visit that he (Senator Beveridge) had paid the Admiral on the flagship Olympia when she lay in the harbor at Manila, and asked him if he remembered a conversation that had occurred between them when, while they were looking out from the deck, the Admiral had said, referring to the success of the American arms that " he couldn't help thinking that it was all due to a higher power than ours."

"I do," responded the Admiral. "I remember that I said that and it is my opinion now."

Senator Beveridge read extracts from the reports of the first Philippine Commission, of which Admiral Dewey was a member, in which the statement was made that the Filipinos were incapable of standing alone, and that if the American support was withdrawn they would lapse into anarchy, and asked him if that had been his opinion. He replied in the affirmative, adding that he still entertained that view.

Senator Carmack: "Was that always your opinion?"

Admiral Dewey: "Yes. True, I made a comparison once with the Cubans, saying the Filipinos were more capable of self-government than the Cubans, I think that neither the Filipinos nor the Cubans are capable of self-government."

Senator Dietrich's questions were intended to show the state of Admiral Dewey's mind concerning the Filipinos at the time of the engagement with the Spanish squadron. He asked the Admiral if it was not true that if he had recognized the Filipinos as allies trusted them as such, and considered them capable of taking charge of Manila, he would have accepted the proffer for the surrender of Manila before the arrival of the American troops.

"Yes," replied the witness; "that is true and it is a good idea. I had not thought of it. and I am glad you suggested it. It makes my testimony stronger. It is true, and the fact that I didn't accept the surrender and put them in charge shows that I didn't trust them; it never entered my head to do that."

With this Admiral Dewey was discharged as a witness, and he expressed himself as much gratified to secure his release.

Admiral Dewey on the Filipinos[edit]

New York Times Jun 29, 1902 p. 8

There could not be any human testimony luckier at this particular juncture than that of Admiral DEWEY before the Senate Committee on the Philippines. The most gratifying fact about the testimony to the Admiral's grateful and admiring countrymen is the evidence it affords that he has completely recovered from that unfortunate indisposition which detained him in Florida through-out the whole period of the sojourn of Prince HENRY OF PRUSSIA on these shores. Certainly nobody who reads the testimony can doubt that the Admiral has regained full possession of his faculties.

What ought to Interest every American, and ought particularly to Interest every American of "anti-imperialistic" tendencies, is the graphic presentation

"Which the Admiral makes, apparently without expressly meaning to make it of the Filipino, including "the Filipino George Washington." A Malaysian George Washington is, indeed, a contradiction in terms, an unthinkable concept, which nevertheless Senator HOAR has not scrupled to adopt. We hesitate to say that the venerable Senator, for whom everybody has so kind regards, lacks a sense of humor. To be sure, it would not be his fault, even if he did.

But some apprehension of his own deficiency in this respect must dawn on Senator HOAR himself when he reads the Admiral's characterizing phrases. "These little men," says the Admiral, in effect, "were always coming aboard and bothering me while. I was very busy getting my squadron into shape for a fight." And throughout his testimony there Is this same belittlement of these small heroes, these manikins, the more impressive by dint of its very unconsciousness. It is like what CARLYLE recalls of WORDSWORTH'S conversations, the subjects of which were always regarded through the big end of the telescope. And this diminishing view of the Filipino, as of a vicious child, and not by any means of an adult and an equal, is that of everybody who has encountered him. When one says "The Rights of Man" we are within our rights if we inquire "What Man?"

We commend these reflections to Senator HOAR. But what shall we commend to such smaller creatures as those who assume, when a man like Admiral DEWEY comes before them, a man who has rendered more service to his country in one historic hour than they have either the disposition or the capacity to render in a lifetime, who has become, by fate and by his own deserving," in 'proportions which it would take a very small creature indeed to analyze, one of the glories of his country, who assume that it is a vote-getting process to treat him as if he were some kind of public malefactor. Read the examination of GEORGE DEWEY by Blank PATTERSON, Senator from Utah or Colorado or somewhere, an examination to which Jacks-in-Office CARMACK and RAWLINS and the others lent the valuable weight of their moral support. And then consider whether these men can possibly play a winning game, in politics or in anything else, and whether a people which was not composed, by a large majority, of sneaks could possibly regard them as its leaders.

August 1902[edit]

Perjury In Senate Hearing[edit]

Corporal Who Testified on Affairs in Philippines Arrested on U. S. Supreme Court Warrant.

New York Times August 7, 1902 p. 2

NORTH ADAMS, Mass., Aug. 7.—Shortly after midnight a special officer from Washington, D. C. awoke Corporal Richard O'Brien at his home in this town to place him under arrest on the charge of perjury in his testimony before the Senate committee last May regarding affairs in the Philippines. The arrest was made on a bench warrant from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Case of Corp. O'Brien[edit]

The Soldier Charged with Perjury Will Probably Be Tried in Washington This Fall.

New York Times August 8, 1902 p. 3

NORTH ADAMS, Mass., Aug. 7.—Following the arrest of Corp. Richard O'Brien at his home here after midnight last night, on the charge of perjury in his testimony before the Senate Committee on the Philippines, it was decided by the United States authorities to take the soldier to Pittsfield for a hearing before United States Commissioner Wood.

Corporal O'Brien Held[edit]

The Soldier Charged with Perjury Before the Senate Philippines Committee Committed to Jail.

New York Times August 10, 1902 p. 5

PITTSFIELD, Mass., Aug. 9.—At a continued hearing here to-day before United States Commissioner "Wood, Corp. Richard T. O'Brien of the Twenty-sixth Regiment, United States Infantry, charged with perjury before the Senate Committee on the Philippines, was held for the United States Grand Jury, and bonds were placed at $5,000.

In default of bail the defendant was committed to jail at Boston. There was a partial understanding that the Corporal's bonds were to be made $2,000, but Assistant United States District Attorney John H. Casey pointed out that in cases of alleged perjury the bail should never be fixed at less than $5,000.

It is expected that the prisoner will be transferred from Massachusetts to the District of Columbia.

After the hearing a warrant charging Corp. O'Brien with being a fugitive from justice was served. The action was taken because of the alleged invalidity of the bench warrant on which the Corporal was first arrested, outside of the District of Columbia, where it was issued.

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^  Referring to the beginning of the Philippine-American War.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain).