1898] The question of the cession of the Philippines. 685 proposal for the cession of the group. The American commissioners did not controvert the general principle that acts of war, committed after a general suspension of hostilities, afford no basis for a claim of title by conquest, even though such acts be committed prior to the receipt of notice of the suspension ; but they pointed out that by the third article of the protocol the United States was to " occupy and hold the city, bay, and harbour of Manila pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace"; and they maintained that this meant a military occupation, with all the rights and powers of government legally incident to such occupation. The great subject of controversy, however, was the effect to be given to the words " control, disposition, and government." Did the stipulation that the treaty of peace should " determine the control, disposition, and government of the Philippines" warrant a demand for the cession of territory? Did it authorise a demand for the transfer of sovereignty over the group or any part of it ? We have seen that the words in question were first used in the note of July 30, which defined the terms on which the United States would enter upon negotiations for peace; and that the reply of the Spanish government with regard to the third condition, relating to the Philippines, was unsatisfactory. The purport of that reply was that, as Manila, though blockaded, had not been captured by the American forces, the proposed occupation of the city should be considered not as an act of conquest, but as a "guarantee"; and that, since the intentions of the United States were not disclosed in the stipulation that the treaty of peace should determine the control, disposition, and government of the Philippines, "the Spanish government must declare that, while accepting the third condition, they do not a priori renounce the sovereignty of Spain over the archipelago, leaving it to the negotiators to agree as to such reforms as the condition of these possessions and the level of culture of their natives may render desirable." It may fairly be argued that the statement that the Spanish government did not "a priori" renounce "the sovereignty of Spain over the archipelago" clearly implied that the renunciation of sovereignty might become the subject of nego- tiation, and constituted an acceptance of the condition that the question of the Philippines should be left in its entirety for future determina- tion by the treaty of peace. Nevertheless, the President declined so to treat it ; and this decision was made known to the French ambassador, first in oral conference, and afterwards by a formal note, with which there was enclosed a draft of the protocol in the exact words in which it was signed two days later. The attempt to reach an agreement by correspondence was abandoned, and the terms on which the negotiations were to be undertaken were embodied in a single iocument. On November 21 the American commissioners, in order to bring the liscussions to a close, presented a final proposition, on the acceptance or CH. XXI.
